Does light have a temperature?

[natski]

Does light have a temperature? Is it measureable? Often in photography they talk about color temperature...

DOES LIGHT ITSELF HAVE A TEMPERATURE?

 

[SpaceTiger]

Does light have a temperature?

Sure does. In pure thermodynamic equilibrium, a body will emit a blackbody spectrum, a distribution of light that has a temperature associated with it. For example, we talk about the cosmic microwave background radiation having a temperature of 2.7 K because it has a blackbody spectrum consistent with a body emitting at that temperature.

The color temperature that you're referring to is the temperature one would have to heat a theoretical blackbody to in order produce that color that you're seeing. Google seems to have several matches on the subject, so I suggest you take a look.

 

[samalkhaiat]

Temperature is a statistical concept. it does not apply to elementary particles like electrons or photons(particles of light) or even single atom. temperature of an extended object is directly related to the kinetic energies of its molecules.
However if "God" presented you with a tea cup filled with light, you can insert a thermometer into that cup and measure the temperature of the light soup. because the thermometer will absorp some light (i.e some energy) its pointer will rise to indicate that gain of energy.

 

[SpaceTiger]

However if "God" presented you with a tea cup filled with light, you can insert a thermometer into that cup and measure the temperature of the light soup.

This brings to mind another point I forgot to mention. Since photons don't exchange energy with each other in most everyday circumstances, they are seldom in thermodynamic equilibrium with their immediate surroundings, so most light you see in your everyday life is not at a single, well-defined temperature. For example, the light in your room might have contributions from the sun, a light bulb, your body, and the other contents of the room. Each of these things may be an approximate blackbody with a single temperature, but the resulting photon field is nothing close.

So it's probably better to say that light can have a temperature.

 

[Nenad]

I think that elecromagnetic radiation and thermal radiation are being mixed up here. A photon can induce a temperature change as you stated in the first post SpaceTiger, but I don't think that it can have an intristic temperature.

Regards,

Nenad

 

[SpaceTiger]

A photon can induce a temperature change as you stated in the first post SpaceTiger, but I don't think that it can have an intristic temperature.

As samalkhaiat already said, temperature is a statistical quantity, so a single photon, electron, or atom cannot be said to have a temperature. However, a blackbody radiation field (consisting of many photons) does have a well-defined temperature. The distribution of light with frequency follows the usual blackbody formula:

B_{\nu}=\frac{2h\nu^3/c^2}{e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}-1}

where T is the temperature of the photon field (or emitting blackbody).

 

[Nenad]

As samalkhaiat already said, temperature is a statistical quantity, so a single photon, electron, or atom cannot be said to have a temperature. However, a blackbody radiation field (consisting of many photons) does have a well-defined temperature. The distribution of light with frequency follows the usual blackbody formula:

B_{\nu}=\frac{2h\nu^3/c^2}{e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}-1}

where T is the temperature of the photon field (or emitting blackbody).

Very True.

 

[Andrew Mason]

As samalkhaiat already said, temperature is a statistical quantity, so a single photon, electron, or atom cannot be said to have a temperature. However, a blackbody radiation field (consisting of many photons) does have a well-defined temperature. The distribution of light with frequency follows the usual blackbody formula:

B_{\nu}=\frac{2h\nu^3/c^2}{e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}-1}

where T is the temperature of the photon field (or emitting blackbody).

But the question asked whether LIGHT ITSELF had a temperature. We often say that light has a certain temperature, but what we really mean is that a black body would have to have that temperature in order to emit that wavelength of light. But this does not mean that the LIGHT ITSELF has that temperature.

AM

 

[SpaceTiger]

But the question asked whether LIGHT ITSELF had a temperature. We often say that light has a certain temperature, but what we really mean is that a black body would have to have that temperature in order to emit that wavelength of light. But this does not mean that the LIGHT ITSELF has that temperature.

I feel silly discussing semantics, but in case it wasn't clear what was meant by my above posts:

- Does a single photon have a temperature?

No.

- Can a collection of photons have a temperature?

Yes.

- Do all collections of photons have a well-defined temperature?

No.

- Does the light we usually see have a well-defined temperature?

No.


From the above, you can interpret the question however you like and get the associated answer.

 

[Andrew Mason]

I feel silly discussing semantics, but in case it wasn't clear what was meant by my above posts:

- Does a single photon have a temperature?

No.

- Can a collection of photons have a temperature?

Yes.

Hmmm. Although one can associate a temperature with a certain color of light, I think it would require a fundamental change in the definition of temperature for photons to actually have a temperature. Temperature is fundamentally a measure of kinetic energy. Light does not have kinetic energy.

AM

 

[Tide]

Light does have energy and one can most certainly talk about and define a spread in photon energy about a mean value. In the case of particles, the root mean square of the particle velocity is a measure of the spread in kinetic energy and is related to the temperature.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Hmmm. Although one can associate a temperature with a certain color of light, I think it would require a fundamental change in the definition of temperature for photons to actually have a temperature. Temperature is fundamentally a measure of kinetic energy. Light does not have kinetic energy.

Are you saying that the photon isn't a boson or that the "temperature" in the bose-einstein distribution function isn't a real temperature?

 

[partha_26786794123]

reply to Andrew Mason

yup , light have temp. , i believe this quote .
it can be proved two ways.
1.from the principal of law of conservation of energy , we can say every energy is transformed lastly as a heat energy . we know heat is a reason & temp. is its
effect. from this theory we can say this.
2. if we focus through a lense in a paper we wil see the paper will burn. it is proved light have temp.

 

[Edgardo]

It should be pointed out that temperature in general is not defined as some sort of kinetic energy of particles. There's even negative temperature if you use a certain definition.

http://www.maxwellian.demon.co.uk/art/esa/negkelvin/negkelvin.html

The temperature of a photon gas is treated in "statistical physics".
(Bose gas).

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/351/Lecture 25.pdf

 

[Antiphon]

It should be pointed out that temperature in general is not defined as some sort of kinetic energy of particles. There's even negative temperature if you use a certain definition.

http://www.maxwellian.demon.co.uk/art/esa/negkelvin/negkelvin.html

The temperature of a photon gas is treated in "statistical physics".
(Bose gas).

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/351/Lecture 25.pdf

The second link there states that presence of a small a mount of matter is
essential for a photon gas to reach equilibrium because photons don't
interact with one another.

If you only have light, the gas can't have a temperature any more
than a single photon can..

 

[Andrew Mason]

Light does have energy and one can most certainly talk about and define a spread in photon energy about a mean value. In the case of particles, the root mean square of the particle velocity is a measure of the spread in kinetic energy and is related to the temperature.

In the case of freely moving particles, the spread in kinetic energy of the particles is given by the Boltzmann distribution. In the case of thermal radiation, the energies or wavelengths of photons will follow a different distribution curve (Bose-Einstein). One can relate the light wavelength distribution to the Boltzman distribution of the thermal source. But does that give light 'temperature'?

AM

 

[Andrew Mason]

Are you saying that the photon isn't a boson or that the "temperature" in the bose-einstein distribution function isn't a real temperature?

Neither. The 'temperature' in the Bose-Einstein distribution of blackbody thermal radiation is the temperature of the radiation source. It is not the temperature of the radiation itself. The radiation energy distribution is fundamentally different than the kinetic energy distribution of the molecules in the thermal source.

AM

 

[SpaceTiger]

Neither. The 'temperature' in the Bose-Einstein distribution of blackbody thermal radiation is the temperature of the radiation source. It is not the temperature of the radiation itself. The radiation energy distribution is fundamentally different than the kinetic energy distribution of the molecules in the thermal source.

Sorry bro, but I think you're really reaching here. It is just an issue of terminology, but I find your definition unsettling. You're claiming that the fact that photons don't usually interact with one another makes them fundamentally different from other particles to the extent that they can't be given a temperature. To be sure, this prevents them from reaching equilibrium while in isolation, but when put in a system with things with which they can interact, they follow the same statistical distribution as any other boson. Furthermore, a region of space (say, within a star or the interstellar medium), is not said to be in complete thermodynamic equilibrium unless the radiation follows a blackbody distribution with the same temperature as the matter. In fact, if the matter is embedded in a blackbody radiation field much larger than itself (like the CMB), then it will eventually reach the temperature of that field, regardless of whether the matter that "created" the field is still around.

There are other reasons I find your definition unsatisfying:

1) It "binds" the radiation field to the matter that created it. Does it really seem reasonable to paramaterize the CMB in terms of a hot gas that no longer exists?
2) As far as I can tell, radiation fields obey the zeroth law of thermodynamics, the basis for the definition of temperature.
3) Virtually every expert and textbook on the subject that I know of has described radiation fields as having a temperature.

We may have to agree to disagree.

 

[Tide]

Andrew

In the case of freely moving particles, the spread in kinetic energy of the particles is given by the Boltzmann distribution. In the case of thermal radiation, the energies or wavelengths of photons will follow a different distribution curve (Bose-Einstein). One can relate the light wavelength distribution to the Boltzman distribution of the thermal source. But does that give light 'temperature'?

AM

I said nothing about the details of the distribution except that the temperature is related to the "width" of the distribution.

 

[Andrew Mason]

3) Virtually every expert and textbook on the subject that I know of has described radiation fields as having a temperature.

Well, they may ascribe a temperature to a certain spectrum or a certain discrete wavelength of radiation - but that is just the temperature of the blackbody source that would produce a spectrum that peaked at that wavelength. It is a matter of semantics whether you want to say that the radiation has that temperature. I would say that unless you can define temperature in terms of the radiation itself that is independent of the temperature of the matter to which it is associated, then you can't really say that the radiation itself has temperature.

To illustrate the problem, would you say that monochromatic radiation from a laser has the same temperature as a blackbody spectrum of radiation that is peaked at the same wavelength?

AM

 

[LeonhardEuler]

Well, they may ascribe a temperature to a certain spectrum or a certain discrete wavelength of radiation - but that is just the temperature of the blackbody source that would produce a spectrum that peaked at that wavelength. It is a matter of semantics whether you want to say that the radiation has that temperature. I would say that unless you can define temperature in terms of the radiation itself that is independent of the temperature of the matter to which it is associated, then you can't really say that the radiation itself has temperature.

To illustrate the problem, would you say that monochromatic radiation from a laser has the same temperature as a blackbody spectrum of radiation that is peaked at the same wavelength?

AM

In accordance with the zeroth law of thermodynamics the temperature of light should be defined as the reading that a thermometer would give if it was placed in a vacuum with the light. Inside the cavity of a blackbody this would obviously give the temperature of the body, since if it were less or greater you would have a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and a potential perpetual motion machine by exploiting the work you could get by bringing the material in the thermometer in contact with the blackbody and then removing it over and over again. As for a laser, if you shined it on a thermometer I am not aware of any argument which would indicate that the temperature it would read must be the same as the temperature of a blackbody with a spectrum peaking there. The temperature would just be whatever the thermometer says. You ascribe the temperature to a collection of photons, not to a particular part of the spectrum.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Well, they may ascribe a temperature to a certain spectrum or a certain discrete wavelength of radiation - but that is just the temperature of the blackbody source that would produce a spectrum that peaked at that wavelength.

One could just as easily say that the temperature of a gas is the same as that it would obtain in a certain blackbody radiation field. The argument is completely symmetric.

To illustrate the problem, would you say that monochromatic radiation from a laser has the same temperature as a blackbody spectrum of radiation that is peaked at the same wavelength?

For any system, temperature is only well-defined in equilibrium. A laser would not be said to be in thermodynamic equilibrium, so it wouldn't have a temperature. The same would be said of a bunch of non-relativistic particles that have a distribution much different from Maxwell-Boltzmann. However, since the relaxation times of gases on Earth are generally very short, we almost never see them deviate from equilibrium.

The problem is not qualitative, as I think one would require in order to exclude light from the definition of temperature. Rather, it is purely a quantitative issue concerning how often light interacts.

 

[samalkhaiat]

If we think of temperature as a measure of energy, then any physical system has temperature. If it is suitable for my calculations, I can even talk about the temperature of a single electron as T=mc^2/K, and that of "green" photon as T=wh/K.
If you are a theoretical physicist, you can get away with it! otherwise you have to look at your thermometer.
Now,hit a thermometer with a laser, the reading will certainly change. So what do you call that reading?

 

[LeonhardEuler]

Temperature is certainly not an energy. If you have a 1kg metal block and a 100 kg metal block both at 20C, and then you raise the T of both of them to 100C, clearly you must add more energy to the heavier block, but both are at the same T. Either they have different energies at 20C or 100C or both because it takes different amounts of energy to change their T. Also think about a block of ice at 0C and 1atm and liquid waer at 0C and 1atm. Energy must be added to the ice to melt it, but the temperature does not change. You can not have a T of one particle, it just isn't defined.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Now,hit a thermometer with a laser, the reading will certainly change. So what do you call that reading?

That reading is the temperature that the mercury (or whatever other device you're using) reaches after gaining the energy it absorbed from the laser. Can you then say that the laser has that temperature? No! If you shine that same laser (for the same amount of time) on another object, it will reach a different temperature. This is because what you're really measuring is the amount of energy transferred to the object you're shining it on. Another way of saying this is that your definition of temperature doesn't satisfy the zeroth law of thermodynamics. It's true that the photons in the laser could come into thermodynamic equilibrium with the target, but they would have to be placed in a closed system in which there was no communication with the outside world and they could freely exchange energy until settling into equilibrium.

As you said in your first post in this thread, temperature is a statistical concept. True enough, in astrophysics as well, we often speak of "equivalent temperatures" or "effective temperatures" in which we equate some measure of energy to one of temperature. This is good for back-of-the-envelope arguments, but it does not mean that they are true temperatures in the thermodynamic sense.

 

[Chronos]

Temperature, in the classical sense, is a property of matter. Hence it is not meaningful to talk about properties like the temperature or mass of a photon [since it is not composed of matter]. To paraphrase Einstein - temperature is what thermometers measure.

But physicists often convert the frequency of photons into their energy equivalent in units of electron volts using Planck's Law. And the temperature equivalent of 1 eV is 11,605 K. Most physicists would routinely respond to a question about the temperature of a photon in this fashion, even though they are well aware a photon has an equivalent mass and temperature, but does not intrisically possesses either property in the classical sense. You can't put a photon on a scale, or stick a thermometer in its mouth. A photon, like it's fellow bosons, is only observable through it's interactions with matter.

 

[LeonhardEuler]

I don't think anyone is talking about the temperature of a photon, but the temperature of a group of photons, just like one does not speak of the temperature of an atom, but of a gas. Please help me understand what you mean by 1eV being equivalent to 11605K. Equivalent in what sense? The units don't match up, so they can't be equal.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Temperature, in the classical sense, is a property of matter. Hence it is not meaningful to talk about properties like the temperature or mass of a photon [since it is not composed of matter].

Nor is it meaningful to talk about the "temperature" of an electron, so I'm not really seeing the where you're going with this line of reasoning. Where is your definition coming from? I've searched the web and my textbooks and found a variety of definitions. Clearly, the concept of temperature would only have applied to matter when it was first devised because physicists were not even aware of the particle aspects of light, but we live in a world of modern physics and it's not clear to me why you think the concept of temperature does not extend to bosons. Boson-boson scattering does occur, so they can reach equilibrium just as fermions do.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Please help me understand what you mean by 1eV being equivalent to 11605K. Equivalent in what sense?

He's just dividing the energy by Boltzmann's constant. Classically, a gas in equilibrium has an average energy per degree of freedom of

E=\frac{1}{2}kT

 

[Chronos]

Nor is it meaningful to talk about the "temperature" of an electron, so I'm not really seeing the where you're going with this line of reasoning. Where is your definition coming from? I've searched the web and my textbooks and found a variety of definitions. Clearly, the concept of temperature would only have applied to matter when it was first devised because physicists were not even aware of the particle aspects of light, but we live in a world of modern physics and it's not clear to me why you think the concept of temperature does not extend to bosons. Boson-boson scattering does occur, so they can reach equilibrium just as fermions do.

I was hoping to clarify the difference between temperature in the thermodynamic vs quantum sense. It appears I was not entirely successful. This pretty much sums up the definition I had in mind:
http://www.temperatures.com/wit.html
I really didn't give boson scattering much thought. I think it's fair to say it's only detectable by virtue of its effect on fermions. This is true of all bosons, so far as I know - we can only measure their properties in terms of their effect on fermions. In that sense, there is no need to extend the concept of temperature to bosons since we can only talk about it in terms of fermionic reactions. Anyways, since only fermions make useful thermometers, I thought 'temperature is what thermometers measure' is a simple, but effective definition.

 

[Andrew Mason]

One could just as easily say that the temperature of a gas is the same as that it would obtain in a certain blackbody radiation field. The argument is completely symmetric.

Two gases with different specific heats will have two different temperatures when placed in the same blackbody radiation field.

For any system, temperature is only well-defined in equilibrium. A laser would not be said to be in thermodynamic equilibrium, so it wouldn't have a temperature.

What is your definition of thermodynamic equilibrium as it applies to pure radiation?

The laser source will reach a stable temperature and emit a blackbody spectrum typical of that temperature. It will also emit a swack of identical photons whose frequency depends on the energy level of the excited electrons in the laser material. If blackbody radiation has a temperature, why don't the laser photons?

As Chronos points out, the definition of temperature is somewhat elusive.

AM

 

[SpaceTiger]

What is your definition of thermodynamic equilibrium as it applies to pure radiation?

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo0.html]The[/PLAIN] zeroth law of thermodynamics begins with a simple definition of thermodynamic equilibrium . It is observed that some property of an object, like the pressure in a volume of gas, the length of a metal rod, or the electrical conductivity of a wire, can change when the object is heated or cooled. If two of these objects are brought into physical contact there is initially a change in the property of both objects. But, eventually, the change in property stops and the objects are said to be in thermal, or thermodynamic, equilibrium. Thermodynamic equilibrium leads to the large scale definition of temperature.

The above definition I think applies equally well to radiation as to matter. The only possible difference is that if you took two fields of radiation, say the CMB and the thermal radiation from a neutron star, and put them in a region of space, they might never interact at the level that they can acquire the same "property" (temperature). The reason I say it's only a possible difference is that I don't think it's known whether photons can interact at the level required to reach equilibrium. If so, it would take a finite (though admittedly enormous) amount of time for them achieve the same "property" and they would satisfy the definition entirely. Even if this is not the case, then one could still make the argument that the photons are not in "physical contact", and are therefore not violating the definition.

However, there is no question that when put into thermal contact with matter in a closed system, the photons will reach equilibrium with the matter. To me, it makes the most sense to think of temperature in terms of statistical equilibrium and, regardless of whether or not the photons do interact with one another, I would say they can have a temperature.

Two gases with different specific heats will have two different temperatures when placed in the same blackbody radiation field.

Not once they've reached equilibrium. The specific heat tells you how much energy is required to change the temperature of an object (per unit mass), it does not tell you about the final equilibrium temperature in such a situation. In the example of shining a laser on an object for a certain amount of time, the final result would depend on the specific heat because you're giving it a set amount of energy. In the case of embedding a body in a blackbody radiation field, if given enough time, it can take any amount of energy it needs to reach equilibrium with the radiation. When the input energy per unit time is equal to the output energy per unit time, the body is in eqilibrium and will no longer change its temperature. The time it takes for this to occur will depend on the specific heat, but the final temperature will not.

The laser source will reach a stable temperature and emit a blackbody spectrum typical of that temperature. It will also emit a swack of identical photons whose frequency depends on the energy level of the excited electrons in the laser material. If blackbody radiation has a temperature, why don't the laser photons?

Lasers require non-equilibrium conditions to be created. In an atomic gas, the atoms are not in complete equilibrium unless the distribution of their energy levels is given by the ratios of the Boltzmann factors (see http://www.chemsoc.org/exemplarchem/entries/pkirby/exemchem/Boltzmann/Boltzmann.html , for example). If the energy levels of the source atoms satisfied this criterion, stimulated emission could not occur and there could be no population inversion. Thus, if you put the laser and its target in a closed system (this is crucial for equilbrium to occur), the source of the laser emission would eventually reach an equilibrium population of energy levels and, at this point, would begin to emit a blackbody spectrum rather than a monochromatic beam.

As Chronos points out, the definition of temperature is somewhat elusive.

Yes, I will certainly concede that point. Like I said earlier, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, since the physics community doesn't seem to be in agreement about the definition either.

 

[Chronos]

Two gases with different specific heats will have two different temperatures when placed in the same blackbody radiation field.

What is your definition of thermodynamic equilibrium as it applies to pure radiation?

The laser source will reach a stable temperature and emit a blackbody spectrum typical of that temperature. It will also emit a swack of identical photons whose frequency depends on the energy level of the excited electrons in the laser material. If blackbody radiation has a temperature, why don't the laser photons?

As Chronos points out, the definition of temperature is somewhat elusive.

AM

I think temperature is simply the sum of kinetic energy exchanges between fermions in a coordinate system.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I think temperature is simply the sum of kinetic energy exchanges between fermions in a coordinate system.

I haven't seen that definition anywhere, including on the site you linked. Care to elaborate? Did you perhaps mean the average value of the translational kinetic energy of the particles? The latter could certainly follow from kinetic theory.

 

[Chronos]

ST is entirely correct. It is the average, not sum. as I erroneously stated. That illustrates how easy it is to tell the difference between a post doc and a neophyte drowning in his own ignorance.

 

[Juan R.]

Does light have a temperature? Is it measureable? Often in photography they talk about color temperature...

DOES LIGHT ITSELF HAVE A TEMPERATURE?

Everything on Universe has a temperature.

 

[Chronos]

I disagree, Juan. Temperature can only be measured by thermometers. And only fermions make useful thermometers.

 

[Renge Ishyo]

It is my understanding that temperature is a measurement of energy as it is transferred by collisions between *molecules*. Light energy is transferred by interactions with electrons. By definition it seems that measuring an energy transfer via a heat exchange (temperature) is a very different process then energy transfers via electromagnetic interactions. The light energizes the electrons which leads to the movement of the molecules, but the idea of temperature starts with the molecules already moving.

At least that's how I understand it. I am pretty sure when temperature was originally defined, people didn't consider how it related to interactions below the molecular level because the knowledge that there even was something below the molecular level came about at a considerably later time.

 

[FunkHaus]

What about PHONONS?

OK so here's a little question that all this discussion has brought to mind. Do phonons, that is, modes of vibration of a lattice of particles (approximated as a continuous fluid), have a temperature?

Reif (in Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics) has a great section on quantum stat mech that uses a partition function with Bose statistics to determine the distribution of photon (quantized EM radiation) energies in equilibrium (that is, the distribution of wave frequencies nu).

I haven't taken QFT yet so I don't understand field quantization at any formal level--I only understand it up to using bose statistics on a gas of "particles" that obey the dispersion relation:
E = pc

But I've been very interested to know just how similar modes of quantized fields are to modes of lattice vibrations. That is, how similar is fluid mechanics to field dynamics?

Could one talk about an equalibrium distribution of phonon modes (fluid vibrational modes)? Would this distribution be a Maxwell-Boltzman distribution or would it be B-E or F-D? Could one construct a temperature using the usual relation (see Reif Ch. 3)

\frac{1}{kT} = \frac{\partial \ln \Omega}{\partial E}

Where \Omega is the number of accessible states?
Could one then construct a phonon partition function

Z = \Sigma e^{E/kT}

where T is the phonon temperature ?

Some of my thinking may be a bit misguided, but hopefully I'm not too far off. If anyone has any insight or comments, it would be most appreicated. Thanks!

 

[SpaceTiger]

It is my understanding that temperature is a measurement of energy as it is transferred by collisions between *molecules*. Light energy is transferred by interactions with electrons.

Light interacts with free electrons, molecules, atoms, and many other things. It is certainly incorrect to say that temperature applies only to molecules, since atoms and electrons obey exactly the same laws of thermodynamics.

By definition it seems that measuring an energy transfer via a heat exchange (temperature) is a very different process then energy transfers via electromagnetic interactions.

Temperature is not a measure of heat exchange, it is a statistical measure of energy content.

The light energizes the electrons which leads to the movement of the molecules, but the idea of temperature starts with the molecules already moving.

I think you're missing the point. My argument has nothing to do with how light influences matter, it has to do with the statistical distribution of component particles, whether they be atoms, electrons, or photons. It doesn't matter where the energy comes from, only how it's distributed in equilibrium.

 

[Renge Ishyo]

It's a circular argument. Temperature really is just another way to measure an energy transfer. Light is an energy transfer. They are both energy transfers. So yes, if you go beyond the words, you can directly relate one form on energy to the other since from the submolecular level up all energy transfers basically link into one another.

However, "temperature" is a man made term used to describe a specific phenomenon (measuring thermal equilibrium between two or more different sets of molecules in contact with one another). The scales and instruments we use to measure temperature for example cannot be used (as far as I know) to measure the energy in light directly. When we bring out a thermometer out on a "hot" day, we get a reading because the movement in the molecules in our atmosphere interacts with the molecules in our thermometer until they both reach equilibrium with one another. Then the temperature (or average movement of atmospheric molecules in the air and our thermometer) can be reported. On places like the moon on the other hand, the same light might be reaching there not too far off from here, but the temperature measured is vastly different due to the difference between having an atmosphere with jiggling molecules in it to measure and not having one (or at least my understanding is that the moon's lack of an atmosphere is the reason why it can't keep in it's heat and ends up so damn cold; if I am wrong about any of this, please correct me).

I guess the argument is whether or not "temperature" is an all encompassing term or a term used to refer to a specific and small part of energy transfer at a specific level of interaction. If it's all encompassing than sure, as someone said just a few posts ago "everything on [sic] universe has a temperature." However, the very nature of a "word" is to isolate one idea from another. That's why I am inclined to agree with an earlier poster who stated that what we call "temperature" simply is not defined in terms of light.

In general, I think if you invade classical physics with the ideas of quantum physics and start arguing over terminology you are bound to drive yourself and everyone else insane. Maybe it is best to separate them to make the distinction easier to understand

 

[SpaceTiger]

It's a circular argument. Temperature really is just another way to measure an energy transfer. Light is an energy transfer. They are both energy transfers.

Unless you're reinventing English, that's not right. Light is a form of energy and it can be transferred from place to another, but it is not itself an energy transfer.

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just not entirely familiar with the use of those words, the above is still incorrect. Not all light has a temperature; in fact, not all matter has a temperature. Temperature is only used to refer to an object in equilibrium. It is not just a measure of energy.

So yes, if you go beyond the words, you can directly relate one form on energy to the other since from the submolecular level up all energy transfers basically link into one another.

That sounds like nonsense to me. What do you mean by "link into one another"?

The scales and instruments we use to measure temperature for example cannot be used (as far as I know) to measure the energy in light directly.

If you put a thermometer in a blackbody radiation field and give it sufficient time to settle, it will give the correct temperature reading. The light will transfer energy to the mercury just as molecules do. I can't speak for every method of temperature-measurement, but then we don't define quantities by the tools we construct to measure them.

On places like the moon on the other hand, the same light might be reaching there not too far off from here, but the temperature measured is vastly different due to the difference between having an atmosphere with jiggling molecules in it to measure and not having one (or at least my understanding is that the moon's lack of an atmosphere is the reason why it can't keep in it's heat and ends up so damn cold; if I am wrong about any of this, please correct me).

The above is correct, but it doesn't refute the possibility of light having a temperature. It's true that the same light shines on the moon as the earth, yet they have different temperatures. All this means, however, is that the light is not in equilibrium with either of the atmospheres.

I guess the argument is whether or not "temperature" is an all encompassing term or a term used to refer to a specific and small part of energy transfer at a specific level of interaction. If it's all encompassing than sure, as someone said just a few posts ago "everything on [sic] universe has a temperature."

No, I wish you'd read the rest of the thread before replying because most of this ground has already been covered. Depending on what we're willing to call a "thing", one might say that everything in the universe can have a temperature, but it is certainly not true to say that everything does. The laser beam was one such example.

However, the very nature of a "word" is to isolate one idea from another. That's why I am inclined to agree with an earlier poster who stated that what we call "temperature" simply is not defined in terms of light.

Now this is just absurd. Should we abolish the word "human" because it doesn't isolate you from me?

In general, I think if you invade classical physics with the ideas of quantum physics and start arguing over terminology you are bound to drive yourself and everyone else insane. Maybe it is best to separate them to make the distinction easier to understand

As best we can measure so far, quantum physics is correct. Classical physics is not. Our terminology should take that into account. Are you mad at Einstein for extending the definition of energy to mass? Should he have called it something else, like maybe "shmenergy"? In physics, they tend to define quantities such that they have maximal value in understanding/simplifying the workings of the universe. If we were to go around creating new terms for every new object we saw -- "I've discovered the pion! Let's say it has pinergy and pimperature!" -- then we would be driven insane.

 

[Renge Ishyo]

Now this is just absurd. Should we abolish the word "human" because it doesn't isolate you from me?

No. The word "human" serves it's purpose in that it isolates "us" both from chimpanzees, alligators, or any other kind of animal. The word "animal" does not isolate "us" from chimpanzees, but it does differentiate "us" (a term now including the chimpanzee) from say, rocks. "Matter" does away with this differentiation and so on. But the point of my bothering to chime in here is not to lecture everybody on what I think a word is, but more so to try and draw attention to the idea that what is really being argued about here is what the word "temperature" means (what is inside the scope of the term's meaning and what is outside of it). Once a concrete definition has been established then you can answer the original question at the start of the thread.

From my vantage point, your frustration Space seems to be more so that the definitions that go along with ideas in classical physics are limited in their scope compared to what you study later on in quantum physics. From what I can gather, you don't see much of a point of bringing such limited ideas along. This can't be helped. You are left with either two choices, do away with the study of classical ideas entirely like "Newton's laws" and "temperature" (which both have narrow definitions in classical physics that don't encompass everything) and redefine them to include the sort of ideas that Einstein brought forth, OR continue to bring these ideas along out of tradition and separate the "classical study" from the newer studies of the Physics that go much further than these ideas do.

It's the reason they still teach the Bohr model of the atom for example, not because it's right, but because it is a part of Physics history and it still helps identify a few basic ideas about the Hydrogen atom (it doesn't have to be a complete picture of what an atom "really" is to still be useful, and the same goes for the concept of temperature).

 

[SpaceTiger]

No. The word "human" serves it's purpose in that it isolates "us" both from chimpanzees, alligators, or any other kind of animal.

That's right. So given what I said above, how does my definition of "temperature" distinguish itself from other concepts, like energy and momentum?

But the point of my bothering to chime in here is not to lecture everybody on what I think a word is, but more so to try and draw attention to the idea that what is really being argued about here is what the word "temperature" means (what is inside the scope of the term's meaning and what is outside of it). Once a concrete definition has been established then you can answer the original question at the start of the thread.

This has been stated several times in the thread and, honestly, I think it's self-evident.

From my vantage point, your frustration Space seems to be more so that the definitions that go along with ideas in classical physics are limited in their scope compared to what you study later on in quantum physics. From what I can gather, you don't see much of a point of bringing such limited ideas along. This can't be helped. You are left with either two choices, do away with the study of classical ideas entirely like "Newton's laws" and "temperature" (which both have narrow definitions in classical physics that don't encompass everything) and redefine them to include the sort of ideas that Einstein brought forth, OR continue to bring these ideas along out of tradition and separate the "classical study" from the newer studies of the Physics that go much further than these ideas do.

Let me make sure I'm understanding you. You've reduced everything to two options, so if I'm correct in assuming that you've chosen the second, the following would be true:

Since energy was a classical concept, we should not be polluting it with the ideas of modern physics and, in answer to the question:

Does stationary matter in empty space have energy?

...you would answer "No".

It's the reason they still teach the Bohr model of the atom for example, not because it's right, but because it is a part of Physics history and it still helps identify a few basic ideas about the Hydrogen atom (it doesn't have to be a complete picture of what an atom "really" is to still be useful, and the same goes for the concept of temperature).

I'm not sure how this turned into an argument about whether or not classical concepts are still useful. I don't disagree with the use of the Bohr model as a teaching tool, but if someone asked me, "What is the structure of the atom?", I would not tell them that the Bohr model is the correct physical description. Furthermore, the analogy isn't even appropriate because the classical definition of temperature is included in the one I use -- meaning that kids can learn all of the classical concepts of thermodynamics in school and not be carrying over anything erroneous to their study of quantum physics. In other words, it would still be correct that the temperature represented the average kinetic energy of molecules in a gas, but it would also represent other things, like the energies of photons in a blackbody radiation field.

 

[Chronos]

Would it be redundant to say 'temperature' is what thermometers measure? ... Probably. ST is attempting to give a working definition [i.e., measurable] that makes sense. It is not useful to extend that definition beyond his excellent example of a perfect gas in equilibrium.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Would it be redundant to say 'temperature' is what thermometers measure?

Come on Chronos, I addressed this issue in the post above, as well as several other places in the thread. Thermometers can measure the temperature of blackbody radiation.

... Probably. ST is attempting to give a working definition [i.e., measurable] that makes sense. It is not useful to extend that definition beyond his excellent example of a perfect gas in equilibrium.

It would not be correct either. If the photons or particles were out of equilibrium, then they would not have a temperature. Most of the light we see is out of equilibrium with its environment and therefore does not have a temperature, even if you accept the definition I support. I've also said this several times.

 

[Renge Ishyo]

Just to clarify a few things:

Since energy was a classical concept, we should not be polluting it with the ideas of modern physics and, in answer to the question:

Does stationary matter in empty space have energy?

...you would answer "No".

Einstein did not redefine what energy was. He found a way to express matter as another form of energy. That hadn't been done before. Energy was not redefined in the process, matter was. You are incorrect in assuming that people that study classical physics are automatically going to answer questions about quantum physics incorrectly. Quantum Physics doesn't render classical physics useless, it just takes the ideas further to the subatomic level or shows special cases where the calculations you make in classical physics are only estimates because they don't take things like super high velocities into account. The basic principles behind "what's going on", haven't really changed much. In another 50 years, maybe technology will be able to get to the point where the ideas we have now in Quantum Physics will be limited in scope and there will be something new around to extend (not replace, unless something is proven to be out and out wrong) that level of knowledge? This practically isn't even speculation, if we don't annihilate ourselves before then you can almost count on it.

Second, there is nothing wrong with the way classical physics defines temperature. It has not been proven to be wrong like the concept of caloric. It just doesn't encompass all vibrating particles in nature or go into the subatomic level at all. It shouldn't. If the scientific community broadened the term to include subatomic energy transfers they would run into a problem trying to tell the kid standing on the moon and on the Earth on a hot day why his "readings" are so vastly different when the light hitting him is essentially the same in both places. They would have to invent a "new term" to describe something that only measures molecular movement and neglects energy transfers on the atomic level and that is stupid because we already have a perfectly acceptable term that does that.

 

[Juan R.]

I disagree, Juan. Temperature can only be measured by thermometers. And only fermions make useful thermometers.

That you say is rather incorrect. The concept of temperature is not restricted to fermionic matter. In fact nuclear matter, or even the proper spacetime, has a temperature.

Any thing described by QM has a temperature since has a entropy. And do not forget that T = 0 Kelvin is also a temperature.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Einstein did not redefine what energy was. He found a way to express matter as another form of energy. That hadn't been done before. Energy was not redefined in the process, matter was.

Apparently you're either not reading or not understanding my posts. Temperature was not redefined either, it was only extended to light, just as "energy" was extended to matter.

You are incorrect in assuming that people that study classical physics are automatically going to answer questions about quantum physics incorrectly.

Don't put words into my mouth.

Quantum Physics doesn't render classical physics useless, it just takes the ideas further to the subatomic level or shows special cases where the calculations you make in classical physics are only estimates because they don't take things like super high velocities into account.

Your posts are like a massive red herring. I never suggested that quantum physics rendered classical physics useless, in fact I stated the exact opposite at one point.

Second, there is nothing wrong with the way classical physics defines temperature. It has not been proven to be wrong like the concept of caloric.

You can't prove a definition wrong. You can prove theories and predictions wrong, but not definitions.

It just doesn't encompass all vibrating particles in nature or go into the subatomic level at all. It shouldn't. If the scientific community broadened the term to include subatomic energy transfers they would run into a problem trying to tell the kid standing on the moon and on the Earth on a hot day why his "readings" are so vastly different when the light hitting him is essentially the same in both places.

Not if they knew what they were talking about. As I already said, that light is not in equilibrium with its surroundings. It's a very simple concept and I suspect that you aren't giving children enough credit. Nonetheless, this discussion was about physics, not education. Why don't you go into the quantum physics forum and try to teach people about the Bohr model of the atom? I'm sure you'll get a great response.

They would have to invent a "new term" to describe something that only measures molecular movement and neglects energy transfers on the atomic level and that is stupid because we already have a perfectly acceptable term that does that.

You're free to use any definition you like, but your reasons as stated so far are nonsensical. The analogy with matter and energy still applies and I think you should think seriously about that before continuing your objection. If you wish to refute the analogy, you need to come up with a way in which extending the definition of temperature will cause problems for classical thermodynamics. Saying that it will "confuse kids" is not sufficient.

 

[Renge Ishyo]

You can't prove a definition wrong. You can prove theories and predictions wrong, but not definitions.

I am so happy you agree. Then it's settled. From wikipedia.com:

On Temperature:
"Formally, temperature is that property which governs the transfer of thermal energy, or heat, between one system and another. When two systems are at the same temperature, they are in thermal equilibrium and no heat transfer will occur."

Temperature is related to heat transfer.

On Heat:
"Heat flows between regions that are not in thermal equilibrium; in particular, it flows from areas of high temperature to areas of low temperature. All objects (matter) have a certain amount of internal energy that is related to the random motion of their atoms or molecules."

Heat is related to internal energy.

On Internal Energy:
"The internal energy of a system (abbreviated E or U) is the total kinetic energy due to the motion of molecules (translational, rotational, vibrational) and the total potential energy associated with the vibrational and electric energy of atoms within molecules or crystal."

Internal energy is defined to be the SUM of all the energy within the molecules of a system.

On Blackbody Radiation:
"How much electromagnetic radiation they give off just depends on their temperature."

A distinction is formally made between the temperature of a body and the light it produces. Since we are only talking about definitions here there is nothing to debate. Case closed.