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."
Integer overflows (Score:5, Funny)
No, it was writting in Java (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Integer overflows (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Integer overflows (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
[][][][][]
No, it's Fortran. (Score:2)
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:Integer overflows (Score:5, Funny)
The downside is he's a first year CS student.
It would certainly explain a lot. The universe's expansion is just a memory leak and the big bang was simply POST. Black holes? Core dumps. I just worry what happens when he wedges the machine and has to reboot.
Burn, troll. (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Integer overflows (Score:5, Funny)
and I just want read/write access to
Could be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Which should not be confused with Einstien's "special" theory of relativity, which states that no matter who you are, all your relatives seem like retards.
-mcgrew
(Einstien would never be confused with Einstein, would he? Except maybe by one of your relatives...)
Correction...General Relativity and QM (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry but Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are very well integrated: it was first done by Dirac in ~1932 and led to the prediction of anti-matter which was discovered a few years later with the positron (anti-electron). The Dirac (along with the Klein-Gordon and Proca) equations form the underpinnings of Quantum Field Theory which is what we use in particle physics to describe all the fundamental particles of nature (that we know of) and how they interact (except via gravity). This has Lorentz invariance built into it and is a complete union of QM and SR.
What is harder is to unify QM and GR. This has not been successfully done yet. You can create a quantized gravitational field relatively easily but the problem is that you have to specify a maximum energy scale in order to normalize it (in 3+1D at least). This is bad because there is no justification for a maximum energy scale once you include gravity where the physics will change. Hence either the theory is wrong or there is something else at some really high energy. In either case you cannot use it to make meaningful predictions and so we say we have no valid way, yet, to unify QM nd GR.
Re:Correction...General Relativity and QM (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ea
Sorry, gotta call BS on ya. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure (Score:4, Funny)
Or maybe the universe is a snake eating its own tail!
Or maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.
Re:Sure (Score:5, Funny)
Anyway, it's a little-known fact that 'absolute hot' is 39.6 degrees celsius (about 103.3 degrees fahrenheit). Any observation indicating a higher temperature is simply due to malfunctioning apparatus or experimental error.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, it's turtles all the way down.
=Smidge=
Is There Such a Thing As Absolute Hot? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is There Such a Thing As Absolute Hot? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is There Such a Thing As Absolute Hot? (Score:5, Funny)
Not necessarily. No one said his wife had to be involved in the threesome
Your question is simple.. (Score:2, Funny)
42.
Yes, there is. (Score:5, Funny)
Absolute hot? (Score:5, Funny)
Your sig (Score:3, Funny)
The developers aren't the only ones you've made cry today. How do I get that horrible picture out of my tortured barin? You fiend! Did you learn that awful technique in your CIA "special rendition" class?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Temperature definition (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... wouldn't temperature still be defined as the average of atomic vibration, in this case the very large atomic vibrations.
My guess would be that absolute hot is when the vibrations reach a point where either the vibrations shake the atoms and protons/neutrons/electrons and maybe even quarks apart (inertial forces greater than the internal forces of the particles/quarks/whatever), or they stop vibrating because the vibrations turned into pure linear motion in the same vector by all particles simultaneously at a velocity of c resulting in infinite volume, much like absolute zero is the lack of vibration, and thus lack of volu
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Temperature definition (Score:4, Informative)
So the question of maximum temperature is not so silly. There are a number of ways to approach it from various definitions. If we have a few atoms in a large space, then perhaps we can drive those atoms to the speed of light, but no further. If we think of it thermodynamically, as Dr. Lienhard suggests, then we can ask is there an limit to the heat that can be driven between two systems. Such a limit would suggest a maximum temperature if we assume newtons law of cooling, which is itself is approximate, can be applied a large temperature differences, which it probably cannot.
In any case, nature, at least we way that science approaches it, appears to abhor vacuums [marinelayer.com] and black holes, both of which seem to exist, but don't seem to make sense. The question is apt as we have seem that assuming infinities do us little good.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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?
If you're referring to exp(-B/kT), then the high temperature will swamp the B (activation energy), meaning that all states will be effectively uniformly populated. So at infinity, I believe a Botzmann distribution ends up as pretty much a unif
Yeah, her name is Jessica Alba! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yeah, her name is Jessica Alba! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Different beast methinks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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 ta
Re: (Score:2)
I have nothing to back that up but heat is basically a form of energy, given the atomic makeup of everything, could heat turn something into pure energy or more aptly, break down the atomic structure to a point that we see it as pure energy. therefore, at an absolute
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Self correction (Score:2)
Speed (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is that super mega crazy talk?
Re:Speed (Score:5, Informative)
Temperature depends on particles _energy_. At low temperature particle energy is calculated as E=m*v^2/2, but if you start to get closer to the light speed then the _MASS_ of a particle will grow. So you can get arbitrarily large energy as you approach the "c" limit.
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: (Score:2)
As particles increase in speed, they increase in mass as well. If kept within a constant volume, that mass will eventually be dense enough to form an event horizon around itself. Now as the energy of the particles continues to increase you will get a proportional increase in the radius of the event horizon, and therefore the effective volume of the sy
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's a paradox, but it's an interesting point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Speed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember that you can increase the temperature of a gas by increasing the pressure on it. It's sort of like if you take one of those super bouncy balls and drop it straight down and let it bounce up and down a while. If you slowly lower your hand on top of the ball so that it bounces off of your hand to the floor, the ball will bounce faster and faster as your hand goes down. Even though
Re:energy at absolute zero (Score:2)
Temperature is a measure (the logarithm of, in fact) of the number of available energy states that the particles in question can populate. Absolute zero simply means the ensemble has only one available energy state. This in no way means there is zero energy or zero motion. Atoms will still exist at absolute zero -- unless there's some newfangle theory I missed that claims cold electrons will just fall from their P-zero orbitals.
A simple scientific experiment (Score:4, Funny)
1. Turn on a burner on the stove. Turn it up as high as it will go.
2. Wait 5 minutes for the burner to warm up.
3. Place the palm of your hand on the burner.
4. You tell me.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you have to turn it to 11?
That'll be a yes, then. (Score:2)
Re:A simple scientific experiment (Score:5, Funny)
Very efficient: you test for absolute hot and absolute stupid all at the same time.
Caution: I am not a physicist. (Score:4, Insightful)
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
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolute zero is the minimum energy state allowable, there may be some motion required by quantum mechanics even at the minimum energy state of absolute zero.
-460 degrees what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of a popular science programme is surely to educate - and thus they should be encouraging Americans to us the same (sensible) units the rest of the world does. Clinging onto ancient and arbitrary units (yes, I know Celsius is arbitrary too, but its less arbitrary because the degree increments fit in with all the other SI units) makes it harder to collaborate with the rest of the civilised world. It just seems like juvenile bloody mindedness.
In any case, your right to call British people and th
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, right after you people stop measuring weight in "stone". And why does the BBC Weather give temperature measurement in both C and F? And don't you people still use "miles" for a distance measure?
Pot, meet kettle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just for comparison, in the U.S.:
1. Soda (coke, pepsi, etc.), when sold in bottles, is usually 2 liters. Wine and hard liquor is almost always sold in ml (750 ml being the most common). Beer and canned soda is usually in fluid ounces, but ml is printed on the label.
2. All cars have had speedometers in both Mph and Kph for 30 or so years now. We once had a push to have road signs in both, but now only a few States do that. Most have given up.
3. Most things that are purchased by weight have both po
Re: (Score:2)
Soda is sold by the 2 liter bottles, yet milk is sold by the gallon. However, 3,8 l is also on there....
And where I work at (starbucks) 3.8 measures out to 4 l from most of our milk producers. Our cream based frappucinos require milk for preparation, we make 4 liters at a time. One gallon should be
And btw, all of our ingredients and preparatory instructions are in metric.
Re: (Score:2)
The "slashdottization" of science (Score:4, Funny)
Spoiled It (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Or maybe (Score:5, Funny)
I must add that Chuck Norris can kick Carmen Electra's ass even at the hotness limit.
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Relativity DOESN'T impose cosmic temperature limit (Score:5, Informative)
This has lead some people to suggest that the cosmic speed limit (the speed of light) imposes a cosmic temperature limit - but that's NOT the case.
As things start to move closer and closer to the speed of light, relativity says that their mass increases (as seen from the perspective of an outside observer). Whilst there is a cosmic speed limit - as you approach it, your mass increases without limit. Since unlimited mass and finite velocity means unlimited kinetic energy, relativity does not impose a cosmic temperature limit.
If there is a cosmic temperature limit, it's caused by something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Thermal Smith Chart? (Score:2)
Of course! (Score:2)
Answer: Yes (Score:2)
Umm... Heidi Klum?
Hagedorn temperature; physical reason (Score:2)
I think calculation of the Hagedorn temperature at 10^30 K should be taken with a massive grain of salt. String theory has an adjustable parameter, which is the length scale on which the extra dimensions are curled up. Since string theory is supposed to be a model of quantum gravity, and there is only one fundamental length scale in quantum gravity -- the Planck scale -- the general assumption is that if string theory is right, that length scale should be the Planck scale. Converting that length to a tempe
Christ, taggers. INFINITY. (Score:2)
Taggers (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
a) a female driver
b) a cell phone
Big Bang. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
reference frame of absulte zero? (Score:2)
If absolute zero is when particles stop their brownian motion, what is the reference-frame of that measurement? If 'd measure the motion and energy of an atom in a lab here on earth, and get it to 'stop' relative to my instruments, i'd be measureing absolute zero, right? But couldn;t earth's motion through the universe be interpreted as a 'unilateral brownian motion', which would mean that the atom actually does have at
Zero != Negative Infinity (Score:2)
Ah, Middle School... (Score:2)
So... is there an absolute... toasty?
Ah, the sound of 30 7th graders sputtering with laughter.
Mmm... toasty.
Temperaturee and velocity (Score:3, Insightful)
Correction...Kinetic Energy (Score:5, Informative)
No - it is directly related to the kinetic energy of the atoms in a gas and the electrons and ions/nuclei in a plasma (there are no atoms in a plasma). In classical physics this is 0.5mv^2 but this is just the low energy approximation of the true KE which is "ymc^2-mc^2" where y=gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). As you can see this has no upper bound.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"absolute zero only applies to our planet... try pluto for example... the temperatures there are a lot cooler than 0K..."
This does not bode well for you.