KHinfcube22 Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri It's a science book. Really?...I thought it was a fairy tale.....I need more info..... Otherwise I'll get my sources from David Eddings...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 He's given you the name of the author and the field. Google. Amazon. BOL. Clearly you have internet access, use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHinfcube22 Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ He's given you the name of the author and the field. Google. Amazon. BOL. Clearly you have internet access, use it. Oh my god, Oh my god, OH MY GOD!!!!...How did you know I had internet access????....Oh ya, I'll check..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 This is what I like to see. Someone admitting that there main source of wisdom is a set of fictional books. I use Batman myself. Or McGyver. Actually, mostly McGyver to be quite honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skartag Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 1. We are observing the temp. 2. Temp is determined by the speed of the molecule. 3. Absolute zero is a moleule stationary. 4. Absolute heat is a molecule at its max observable speed. Using Einstiens theroy of relativity then there must be a point when the molecule reduces in size to the point it is no longer observable therefore wouldn't that be the point to determine absolute heat? if the above statement is true the im sure someone far more intelligent than me could determine that temp by calculating the increase of speed at different temps of say hydrogen then apply relativity to determin when we can no longer observe it . just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorlax Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 I don't think we can determine the absolute high temperature because as the temperature goes higher, the faster the particles go, but the faster it goes, the heavier it gets, and it needs more energy to make it go faster. And once that temperature is reached, it became heavier again and slows down. So we can't determine the absolute high temperature because relative effects keeps it from ever going to the speed of light. Just a thought though, nothing more...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Do you assume that a group of particles are reaching the max temp when they go at light speed? Then calculate the temp at 0.999 times c. Does the absolute high temperature has a meaning or is it just a play with temp. definitions? Edit: I just see that this thread is already very long so I probably didn't say something usefull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 wouldn`t a "Photon" qualify as such a particle? or does it HAVE TO BE an electron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorlax Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Any particle would do, I think.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Well then the limit would be the temperature when the particles are moving at C. The limit could never be reached, but it could be infinitely close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 that begs the question then; How hot is a Photon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorlax Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Can anyone calculate what that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorlax Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 The temperature of the photon is proportional to its energy, I think. So we just need to figure its energy to know its temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 hold on a bit, i'll see what I can come up with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorlax Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 I want to calculate it too, what's the equation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 I was browsing some thermodynamics sites and I found the equation for calculating the most probably velocity of ideal gas particles given temperature and molar mass. vp = sqrt (2RT / M) where R=8.3145 M for dry air is around .029 kg/mol substitute the speed of light for vp and solve for T. tell me what you get. A quick google search informed me that this is probably not correct, but meh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorlax Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 But does the speed of light equals to the velocity times momentum? Does vp from above means velocity times momentum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Nah, its v subscript p; most probable velocity. see here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorlax Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Is there an Absolute Highest Temperature opposite to Absolute Zero?This depends on what one thinks the 'Theory of Everything' looks like. If there is a steadily increasing ladder of more and more massive particles ad infinitum, then as Physicist Hagedorn showed in the late 1960's, the maximum achievable physical temperature in the universe may be as low as a few trillion degrees. What happens is that as the particle thermal energy increases, the energy goes into creating progressively more massive particles with low kinetic energy. Eventually, no matter how much energy you 'feed' into such a system, all that happens is that you generate more massive particles with a lower kinetic ( thermal) energy. In essence, this pair production of massive particles acts like a 'coolant' which regulates the physical temperature at a finite, and perhaps surprisingly low temperature. If the so-called Standard Model is correct, then quarks are fundamental and do not sub-divide into still more massive particles. The thermal energy is then free to increase practically without limit until you eventually end up creating 'quantum black holes'. This happens at a temperature of 10^32 Kelvin; that's 1 followed by 32 zeros! Once you produce quantum black holes, you have reached what many theoreticians believe is the end of the road for physics as we know it. Here, spacetime itself dissolves into a witches brew of quantum worm holes, black holes, multi-dimensional super strings and twistors. Most theories of the early universe give this temperature as a true limiting temperature for physics in the universe. This is what I find about the absolute highest temperature. I don't know if it's true or not though....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Absolute zero has been deifined. Is there an established "Absolute Highest Temperature" in the universe? I imagine this was at the Big Bang' date=' but is there a constant limit to matter and energy now? [/quote'] big bang temperature is commonly equated to Planck temperature 1.4 x 1032 kelvin a good source is the NIST website (Nat'l Inst. Stds and Technology) http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ they give 1.41679(11) for all practical purposes it is the highest possible temperature because above that photons of light have wavelengths less than planck length and are so energetic they would turn into black holes----physics as we know it does not work above planck temperature plus the models of the big bang or bounce at start of expanding universe have at most planck temperature and the temp has been declining since, so it is the hottest temp in anyone's scenario thing is, physicists are often vague about "factors of order unity". so they could suddenly change their mind and redefine planck temperature so it is only ONE FIFTH AS BIG and that would be just a "order unity" change, so caveat emptor and dont take any of it too precisely. (so what are you squawking about?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 2.82609 x 1031 kelvin there, I divided the NIST value by sqrt 8 pi (which is about 5) there seems to be a move afoot to change some of the Planck units by the square root of 8pi. that will make the new "Absolute High Temperature" 2.8 x 1031 kelvin or words to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 i havent read the whole thread. but cant u just take the speed of light to be the limit. and since heat is just KE of the atoms etc. just convert that max KE in MAX HEAT TEMP by some RANDOM FORMULA. sorry if this has been mentioned before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 i havent read the whole thread. but cant u just take the speed of light to be the limit. and since heat is just KE of the atoms etc. just convert that max KE in MAX HEAT TEMP by some RANDOM FORMULA. sorry if this has been mentioned before blike had a similar idea, using the mass of an air molecule I think and it is a very good idea but one has to remember that the KE formula one is used to is not valid at high speeds. the 1/2 mv2 formula is not relativistic the planck temperature corresponds to a cloud of quarks and stuff all going very near the speed of light and the energy E = kT at that temp is the planck energy, so the particles all have planck energy as their kinetic energy (calculated by the relativistic formula not the usual KE formula) theres more to say about this, it is an interesting temperature (the thermal glow of light at that temperature is very short wavelength high energy photons, should be a website about conditions at that temp but I dont offhand know of one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Absolute zero has been deifined. Is there an established "Absolute Highest Temperature" in the universe? I imagine this was at the Big Bang' date=' but is there a constant limit to matter and energy now? [/quote'] I have read that the temperature at the "big bang" was nearly infinite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Lets say you did stop time. You would even be able to move. The molecules around you would be stopped, thus making it impossible for you to move them. Even if you were able to move them, you would be creating gamma rays, thus killing you. Thats one of the problems with going near light speed, everyone dies. Some scientists seem to have evidence that there are particles escaping from black holes, implying that they travel faster than the speed of light. Does this mean that time goes backwards (reverses) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now