[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 98 KB, 540x353, heat_index.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
944831 No.944831 [Reply] [Original]

The absolute zero is defined at 0 K, −273.15°C or −459.67°F
Is there also a maximum temperature, where the particles move at the speed of light?

pic not that related

>> No.944845

I like where this one could go. I think I'll stick around.

Oh, and OP, I have no idea about your question.

>> No.944847

well no and yes,
no particle moves at the speed of light.

as you approach the speed of light your mass increases to compensate for your thrust, so essentially not even an infinite amount of fuel would over come the weight that's constantly growing

>> No.944854
File: 128 KB, 499x800, 1267601890646.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
944854

>>944831
At the Hagedorn Temperature all "normal" matter changes to exotic "Quark" matter. This is 10^30 K.

10^32 K, is called the Plank temp or "Absolute Hot". Everything fucks up at this temp. It is the highest tempeture matter can reach.

>> No.944851

No, there is no maximum -- at least not in principle. Even with a macroscopic system of particles you can keep on pumping energy into the system.

Even nicer: you can never reach zero absolute temperature. However, you do have systems with temperaturs lower than zero.

>> No.944865
File: 15 KB, 269x312, 1267393766262.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
944865

>>944847
>>944851

No, sorry, you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_hot

>> No.944871

The simple answer is that we aren't sure.

I don't think relativity comes into it either, certainly practically (I don't believe anything in the universe would be hot enough that you'd have to consider it). I've certainly never heard it mentioned when discussing temperature.

PROTIP: Temperature is a measure for the average kinetic energy of a number of 'particles. For a solid this is vibrational, for a gas this is vibration, translation, rotation.

TL;DR - maybe, but your question doesn't really make sense anyway.

>> No.944874

>>944851
you are saying I have temperture lower then 0K?
LMAO....you must be trolling

>> No.944875

>>944865
That only applies to the conventional degrees of freedom of matter.

An isolated spin system can reach positive, infinite and negative absolute temperature -- just not zero. Standard textbook example.

>> No.944879

>>944874
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

>> No.944887

There's a finite amount of energy in this universe, so after you heat just a particle with all those energy, i don't think there's much you can do,

>> No.944889

>>944871
That's not how temperature is defined. It is defined in terms of entropy maximazation through exchange of energy between systems.

For the degrees of freedom associated to the kinetic energy of particles you can come up with a relation between the temperature and the average kinetic energy of the particles (equipartition theorem). It is not a defining property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition_theorem

>> No.944901

>>944887
SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE REVERSING ENTROPY THERE, JIM

>> No.944902

>>944875
>>944879

Nope, if you even read the article it says there no "real", negative temperature. We still dont get less the 0K.

>a system with a truly negative temperature is not colder than absolute zero; in fact, temperatures colder than absolute zero are impossible by definition. Rather, a system with a negative temperature is hotter than any system with a positive temperature (in the sense that if a negative-temperature system and a positive-temperature system come in contact, heat will flow from the negative- to the positive-temperature system).

>> No.944912

>>944902
Yes there _is_ a negative temperature. It simple means that in order to _increase_ the entropy of the system you have to _extract_ energy. That's how it is defined. Period. The fact that such systems are hotter than systems with positive energy, has everything to do with maximazing the entropy of the entire system.

However, for these systems you cannot relate the average energy per particle to the temperature, as the equipartition theorem does not apply.

>> No.944917
File: 26 KB, 395x600, Hermione_Epic_Win.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
944917

>>944831

This is the answer OP
>>944854
>>944854
>>944854
>>944854
>>944854

Most of the other posts are just engineers trying to act like they know shit about physics

>> No.944926

>>944854
>>944917
samefag

>> No.944938

>>944917
Those are theoretical limits and the fact that there are 2 different limits depending on what theory you go by >implies that it is highly unlikely that either are correct.

>> No.944946
File: 44 KB, 446x400, 1268866432181.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
944946

>>944912
Its still not less the 0K though, its still not actually negavtive, its just a mathematical convention you are doing. Read the goddam article, its spelled out for you! You arent actaully getting a negative Temp.

Stop defining temp in terms of stats and thermo, that inst the real defintion. Temp is fundmentally defined from motion. That is the most fundemental defintion. From that you can derive all your stat and theromdynamic bullshit. But its still not fundemental.

Are you an engineer? You sure sound like you dont know much about real physics.

>> No.944979
File: 110 KB, 532x800, preach.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
944979

>>944938
Damm sure is alot of enginners in here.
No, I just mentioned the hagedorn for background. No one thinks the Hagedorn temp is the "most hot", thats an old out dated theory.

The Absolute hot is the plank temperature. That is pretty much the "modern" established theory.

Theoretical? You do know that everything humans know is theoretical right? Do you understand how science works?

>> No.944987
File: 45 KB, 347x346, 1267697098295.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
944987

>>944831

Hoped that answered your question OP
>>944854

/Thread

>> No.944991

>>944946
Are you goddamn serious? Temperature defined from motion? Seriously? That's some serious trolling.

And I'm doing a phd in theoretical physics by the way. My sources include books by Landau Lifshitz, Kubo/Toda/Hashitsume and Feynman, and _none_ of them define temperature in terms of motion of particles.

With your logic you wouldn't be able to assign a temperature to black holes either. But I'm guessing you think Hawking is an engineer as well huh. You cannot say anything about temperature in harmonic trap either using simple kinetic equations. Or for spin degrees of freedom. You need _states_ for that. Degrees of freedom that are _not_ always associated with kinetic energy.

>> No.945015

>>944979
Do you understand that theories are proved wrong everyday? Do you understand that quantum physics and relativity haven't been reconciled yet? Do you understand that string theory, which has the best chance of reconciling them, has the hagedorn as the limit?

>> No.945022 [DELETED] 

>It's negative but not actually negative!
>Implying a mathematical convention is not a mathematical convention

You're starting to play word games. If you want to get down to it, nothing is positive, negative, or zero, because anything we attribute to being such is only such because we have created a logical system of classification.

>> No.945021

>>944991
>Temperature is a thermodynamic quantity that is related to the average energy of motion, or kinetic energy, of particles in matter.
via Wikipedia
>Temperature is how hot or cold a thing is.
via Simple Wikipedia

That would prove something except it's from... you know, wikipedia.

But really. You're being a bit serious considering where you are. And I can say so because I'm doing a (mumble) in physics myself.

>> No.945025
File: 103 KB, 568x437, 1230664852701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
945025

>>945015
>he's using string theory to back up his point

>> No.945029

But the Hagedorn-temp relies on the hamiltionian of the system .. and with all the concurring theories around, I can bend and shape my Hamiltionian as I like - so no conclusive answer here, brah.

>> No.945030
File: 14 KB, 221x232, 1269005106108.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
945030

>>945025
>Can't find a flaw

>> No.945039

>>945030
string theory is not a theory
there's your flaw

>> No.945043

>>944854
>we don't know what happens at temperatures higher than that
>therefore it must be impossible to reach them

Great logic, bro.

>> No.945045

>>945021
he must be trolling, as temperature is defined by pressure.

>> No.945042

>>945039
bullshit

you don't know squat about strings.

>> No.945048

>>944979
"Absolute Hot" is a misnomer. Just because the unification of forces occurs in a system doesn't mean you can't still increase the temperature in that system. There is no physical law preventing temperatures from going beyond Planck temp. We just call it absolute hot because classical physics breaks down at that energy.

>> No.945049
File: 281 KB, 1101x618, 1267492597726.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
945049

>>944991
I'm not disagreeing with you. We are talking about two different things though. You are using the thermodynamic defintion, which yeah is realted to degrees of freedom. And yeah they don't all have to be related to "physical motion".

But not all of these degrees of freedom lead to an observable that we could physically interpret as "temperture", to our senses. The "abstract higher form of temperature" you talk about, isn't what the OP thinks of as temperture, or what the common many percieves as temperture. It is also not want the articles I posted were refering to.

You are talking about "real" physics, the underylying shit. I am dumbing it down with respect to the human senses and OP "idea" of temperature.

Happy? now the OP will be even more confused. LMAO

>> No.945054

>>945045

No. Temperature is explicitly defined via the entropy.

<span class="math"> \frac{\partial S}{\partial E} = \frac{1}{T}[\math]

or something like that ..[/spoiler]

>> No.945055

>>944831
max temperature, the temperature inside the singularity that caused the big bang, or the very first temperature level during the big bang. Only because I doubt we can reach those levels again.

>> No.945057

>>945054
fuck, i meant

<span class="math"> \frac{\partial S}{\partial E} = \frac{1}{T}[/spoiler]

>> No.945060

>>945048
classical physics? classcial physics broke down along time ago. You do know QM isnt classical physics right?

>> No.945071

>>945054
>>945057
How is entropy measured?

>> No.945086

>>945071
something to do with probability
see? no circular logic

>> No.945087

>>945071
you can measure changes in entropy (Gay-Lussac), but measuring "absolute" entropy isn't really needed anyway. You can easily calculate these things using thermal field theory and path integral evaulation through Matsubara-sums, though..

>> No.945099

FUCK YEAH! ENGINEERS VS PHYSCISTS!

>> No.945095

>>945048
At one plank time, the universe was at Plank temperture, and one plank length. In order to get somthing to the plank tempture we have to pretty much undo the big bang. He need all the energy of the universe. Hence this is why they say its a theortical limit. It is absurd to think we could get that much energy.

>> No.945104

>>944831

sounds about right
>>944854

>> No.945112
File: 34 KB, 333x500, 6a00d834527dd469e200e5538bc5548834-800wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
945112

>>945099
engineering? GAY TIEM!

>> No.945115

>>945095
>At one plank time, the universe was at Plank temperature
I don't think that's right. And at any rate, wouldn't it take far less energy to get a small system to Planck temperature than to get the entire universe to Planck temperature?

>> No.945118
File: 28 KB, 390x292, 11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
945118

>>944831
THIS IS NOW AN ENGINEERING THREAD!

>> No.945120

0 entropy is defined as a perfect crystal at 0K

>> No.945124

>>945115
maybe, I dont know. I'm not sure, I'm only an engineer. Go ask a particle physicist.

>> No.945125
File: 882 KB, 1360x2048, 12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
945125

>>944831
Gay time! Engineering in dat ass!

>> No.945181
File: 110 KB, 328x400, 1267557785311.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
945181

>>944831

Your question is badly stated.
There could be a maximum temperture, but it may or may not have anything to do with the an particle attaining the speed of light.

>Is there a temperature, where the particles move at the speed of light? (excluding light)

Makes more sense


So,
The answer is possibly. If there is it will likely be at some temperature above the plank temperture. This is because using standard physics we cannot every reach "c" no matter how much energy we cram into an object (how fast we make it). But all our physics breaks down at the plank temperature. So maybe at this temperture or higher it would be possible to get an object to move with the speed of light.

>>944991
is a an obvious engineer (faggot). OP, you asked about temperture related to motion. And this asshole spout degrees of freedom bullshit.

>>944854
was right, but didnt clarify too well


Hope that helps OP

>> No.945254

>>945181
OP clearly asks if there is a maximum temperature, and he suggests in such systems particles move at the speed of light.

My reply is: look at a spin system, where you can have both positive, infinite and negative temperature. The bound is given by zero temperature in both directions on the energy scale -- infinite temperature corresponds to the case where either extracting energy or pouring energy into the system lowers the temperature. I never claimed this was a maximum temperature.

If you are too retarded to understand that, and want to call me an engineer because of your own shortcomings, be my guest. You would simple be making a fool out of yourself, you just don't realise it.

>> No.946559

Maximum hot temperature is two hot chicks making out.

>> No.946581

there is no maximum temperature

there is a limit to what humans can create though.
just imagine how hot it was when the big bang happened. I suppose that could be the maximum, but what if other, larger big bangs happened.

>> No.946624
File: 21 KB, 155x202, 1272322156519.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
946624

>>946559