Is There Such a Thing As Absolute Hot? 388
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."
Different beast methinks (Score:5, Interesting)
Speed (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is that super mega crazy talk?
Re:Different beast methinks (Score:2, Interesting)
If the question was to ask for the opposite of "cessation of motion", you may be right
However, asking for the opposite of absolute zero is not asking for the opposite of the results of absolute zero. The defining attribute is that absolute zero is the lowest amount of heat possible, therefore to reverse this we are looking for the "opposite of lowest" amount of heat possible, or the lowest amount of "opposite of heat" possible, both are the same thing, and that's what this article is talking about.
Of course, if you instead define absolute zero as -273.15 C then you might define the opposite of absolute zero as +273.15 C, but if you decide to do that, you're stupid.
Re:Caution: I am not a physicist. (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens when we add energy to the speed of a particle? When the speed gets closer and closer to the speed of light, the mass starts increasing.
Here's the important part that you probably already know. When an object nears the speed of light, the mass starts increasing. We can't cross the speed of light because more and more energy is required to accelerate the object.
Note that we can keep putting (unlimited amounts of) energy into the object and it will never go faster than light.
My theory? When so much energy is put into such a small space, it hits a form where the energy resonates and becomes primarily matter without any energy left over for movement. (Sound familiar? Absolute Hot and Absolute Cold are the same thing?) Matter, acceleration, velocity, temperature, energy... it's all the same thing just in different forms. =)
Re:Speed (Score:5, Interesting)
No, relativity requires the application of infinite energy to reach the infinite temperature, just like classic mechanics. For this very reason it's impossible to reach it - you don't have the source of infinite energy in our Universe (probably).
However, quantum mechanics has _another_ theoretical limit. I don't really know its precise reason, but this 'handwaving' argument holds: imagine that you have a particle with VERY large speed. The mass of this particle can be large enough to create a black hole. And it will immediately start to lose mass due to Hawking radiation, which will be directed along the path of the black hole (due to relativistic focusing) in the opposite direction (it'll look like black hole with retrorockets).
So it's not possible to reach the infinite speed because our Universe seems to have the _maximum_ allowed finite speed.
Re:Could be... (Score:1, Interesting)
And really I wouldn't be surprised if in 25-50 years physicists determined that the universe didn't have a speed limit at all.
Re:Burn, troll. (Score:2, Interesting)
I've seen the MyMiniCity thing but I hadn't realized it was a game though.
Anyway this is just a funny comic about programming.
Re:Spoiled It (Score:4, Interesting)
If it were [wikipedia.org] that simple.... [ucr.edu]
And here is more... [demon.co.uk]
So there is negative temperature. It is just not what you think it is.
There could be a limit (Score:1, Interesting)
You have two components: degree and flux. If we consider radiant heat and we make the assumption that a pure vaccuum can have any amount of radiant flux per unit volume (or area, depending on how you measure it), then there is no limit on the amount of flux. (Yes, I realize that is a circular argument.) There is no guarantee that you can have infinite flux in a vaccuum though. Who says the universe is linear in that respect? For instance, radiant energy at any frequency has wave/particle duality. There is a limit to how many particles we can have in a given volume. Therefore there may well be a limit to how much flux you can have in a certain volume of empty space if we limit frequency/wavelength.
The degree of heat is usually expressed in terms of frequency/wavelength. The question then becomes: Is there a minimum wavelength? If space is quantified then there may well be a minimum wavelength. That would set a limit on the maximum energy that any particle can have.
Re:Different beast methinks (Score:2, Interesting)
No, absolute zero represents the minimum energy state possible for the system being considered. For an ideal gas that would be a complete cessation of motion but not so for a real system.
Presumably, the highest temperature possible would represent the maximum energy state possible for the system being considered. What that might be is unknown, especially unknown to me, but presumably would not have to be infinite.
A nitpick, heat is not measured by temperature, the definition of heat implies movement from on body to another, and temperature measures the potential for that movement. If it's not moving, it's not heat. Temperature measures thermal energy, i.e. the energy of the kinetic energies of the particles plus the latent energy of phase changes.
God Wrote in Lisp (Score:4, Interesting)
I was taught assembler
in my second year of school.
It's kinda like construction work --
with a toothpick for a tool.
So when I made my senior year,
I threw my code away,
And learned the way to program
that I still prefer today.
Now, some folks on the Internet
put their faith in C++.
They swear that it's so powerful,
it's what God used for us.
And maybe it lets mortals dredge
their objects from the C.
But I think that explains
why only God can make a tree.
For God wrote in Lisp code
When he filled the leaves with green.
The fractal flowers and recursive roots:
The most lovely hack I've seen.
And when I ponder snowflakes,
never finding two the same,
I know God likes a language
with its own four-letter name.
Now, I've used a SUN under Unix,
so I've seen what C can hold.
I've surfed for Perls, found what Fortran's for,
Got that Java stuff down cold.
Though the chance that I'd write COBOL code
is a SNOBOL's chance in Hell.
And I basically hate hieroglyphs,
so I won't use APL.
Now, God must know all these languages,
and a few I haven't named.
But the Lord made sure, when each sparrow falls,
that its flesh will be reclaimed.
And the Lord could not count grains of sand
with a 32-bit word.
Who knows where we would go to
if Lisp weren't what he preferred?
And God wrote in Lisp code
Every creature great and small.
Don't search the disk drive for man.c,
When the listing's on the wall.
And when I watch the lightning burn
Unbelievers to a crisp,
I know God had six days to work,
So he wrote it all in Lisp.
Yes, God had a deadline.
So he wrote it all in Lisp.
Re:Could be... (Score:1, Interesting)
Then you get called "unscientific".
Go figure...
Re:Correction...Kinetic Energy (Score:3, Interesting)
That is a very popular misconception that Einstein himself warned against falling into. Particles do not gain mass as they more faster anymore than the electron's charge changes when it is moving faster. What is actually happening is that space-time are distorted relative to a non-moving object. The problem comes because, while the mass is not changing, you can use your old, familiar classical physics equations by pretending that it is.
and propelling them to the speed of light requires infinite amount of energy so...there must be a point where an atom/ion cannot go any faster thus raise the temperature of some space
If you think about it you have answered your own question here! You say it takes an infinite amount of energy to get a mass moving at the speed of light which is correct. Conservation of energy says that this energy has to go some where...and it does: it goes into the kinetic energy of the gas/plasma particles. Hence you already understand that there is no limit to the kinetic energy of the gas particles - they have a finite velocity but not a finite energy, this is not classical physics with the familiar 0.5mv^2 KE formula. Hence there is no theoretical limit to temperature in standard SR.