Is There Such a Thing As Absolute Hot?

AlpineR writes "Is there an opposite to absolute zero? An article from PBS's NOVA online explains several theories of the maximum possible temperature. Maybe it's the Planck temperature, 10^32 K, beyond which the known laws of physics break down. Or maybe just 10^30 K, the limit of some versions of string theory. If space is actually 11-dimensional then the maximum temperature could even be as low as 10^17 K, attainable by the Large Hadron Collider. Or maybe infinite temperature wraps around to negative temperature and absolute hot is the same as absolute cold."

Could be...

[Meshach]

I would have never thought there was a speed limit for the universe before I read Einstein's special theory of relativity. Anything is possible.

Temperature definition

[BlueParrot]

I have to wonder about the definition of temperature at such high energies. I would think it would be difficult to envisage a situation where you have anything resembling a Maxwell-Boltsman distribution at 10^33 K, so just what is meant with temperature in this case?

Temperaturee and velocity

[0b1knob]

Temperature is directly related to the velocity of the atoms in a gas or plasma. Since the speed of light cannot be exceeded then there must be a maximum temperature.

Caution: I am not a physicist.

[foxtrot]

Seems to me there would have to be an absolute hot. Absolute zero, ferinstance, is the temperature at which all molecular motion stops. Nothing moves at absolute zero. Heat would, then, be a function of how fast the molecules are moving in a given substance, right?

Given that the universe has an effective speed limit ( C: it's not just a good idea, it's the law), it seems to me that for a given substance, there has to be an upper limit of how hot it can get solely because the molecules within it aren't allowed to vibrate any faster. (I'm not certain that the function of vibration speed to heat isn't substance dependent-- it may be.)

However, given that the idea of an absolute hot is apparently not agreed upon by physicists, I am probably missing something important in my layman's analysis of the situation.

-F

Spoiled It

[RAMMS+EIN]

I found the line of thought intriguing, until it said "negative temperature". The whole point of "absolute zero" is that there _are_ no negative temperatures.

Re:Speed

[tulcod]

So there is a maximum speed of any object at c. Though, when approaching c, your mass increases and theoretically, your mass will eventually become infinite, which also means the amount of energy goes to infinite. Infinite energy means infinite temperature.

All this, of course, is purely theoretical and can never be accomplished because it's hard to accelerate any particle infinitely. But according to relativistic physics, an infinite temperature can exist.

Now, I'm not proficient with QED or M-theories, but I have read a little bit about it. According to the M-theory, there are points at which the world formed like we know it, but this was, afaik, purely the chemical world and not physics itself. Physics are always true, according to laws of physics. So if physics are coherent and complete, the laws of physics can't be stopped by simply a high temperature. Please recall that temperature consists of moving and bouncing particles, nothing more. I don't see how a moving particle would demolish physical laws.

The only reason for an absolute temperature as far as I know is the practical limit.

Re:-460 degrees what?

[KokorHekkus]

You do know that NOVA is a popular science program? Popular as in intended for the the general public. It's not a science article just meant for people with a decent scientific background. In this case I think it's perfectly ok to include temperature in F and they even started with Kelvin first. Yeah, it might have ruined it for you (seriously, you might want to tune down your sensitivity a bit) but it also made it a lot more accessible to the general public.

Re:Burn, troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

no, it wasnt. The parents post is referring to a comment that is now buried ( and does link to a myminicity after a redirect here and there )

Re:Could be...

[Meshach]

Special relativity will not ever be proved "wrong".

Newton's Laws were developed they formed the foundation for the way the universe works. Einstein's work did not prove Newton's work wrong but showed certain cases where Newton's laws did not apply and explained them. Maybe someone will at some point find a situation where special relativity does not apply and will develop a new theory. Special relativity will still apply though, just not in certain circumstances.

It not about "right" or "wrong" but each situation has its own parameters.

Sorry, gotta call BS on ya.

[Gordo_1]

Turns out Newton's laws *are* wrong. They just aren't wrong *enough* for it to make much of a difference to us when you're talking about for example, day-to-day human activities, most of which involve speeds much lower than the speed of light. For calculating speeds of airplanes and automobiles, Newton's laws are reasonable approximations -- but they are indeed wrong according to the world of relativity.

Re:Burn, troll.

[geekboy642]

Wrong.
dwarfurl is used as nothing more than a spam-link hiding service, and xkcd doesn't block referrers from Slashdot.