- #1
FeDeX_LaTeX
Gold Member
- 437
- 13
Hello;
Does this exist? We have absolute zero, so is this possible?
Thanks.
Does this exist? We have absolute zero, so is this possible?
Thanks.
Hello;
Does this exist? We have absolute zero, so is this possible?
Thanks.
I would expect that lightspeed would impose an asymptotic limit on the speed of particles in a plasma, but I don't know if this places a strict limit on temperature.
i assume that plank temperature existed before inflation. is that correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_hot
I thought it was referred to the state of reaching "absolute hot" ...
Am I wrong?
I'd never heard of Planck temperature before this thread. Neat.
Planck temperature is about 1.4×10^{32} K. Wow.
According to Brief History of the Universe at Ned Wright's cosmology pages, this is the temperature at the Planck time, which is indeed pre-inflation.
So, yes, it looks like this temperature would have to be pre-inflation. The other thing, however, is that we don't have a good quantum theory of gravity which would be required to give meaningful physical consideration of these conditions. Notions of time and temperature and so on break down as well.
Cheers -- sylas
I guess when the four forces separated from each other after the disruption of the singularity, you read how it got really really hot. I still do not understand how that disruption would cause an "inflation" in temperature from "nothingness" to 10e32 so quickly (10e-44 seconds). I mean between T=0 and T=10e-44, the temperature went from 0 to 10e32. Is this type of "temperature inflation" just as impressive as "space inflation" that happened after the rise in temperature?
Apparently, the hottest temperature is approaching zero from below.
For example, a bunch of two state systems (spins, for instance) would be infinitely hot when half were in the lower energy configuration and half were in the higher energy configuration.
If you got more than half in the high-energy configuration, the temperature would actually be negative. The highest possible temperature would be if every degree of freedom was in the highest possible energy state. Such a system couldn't absorb energy any more - energy would flow out to anything it came into contact with, so it's the hottest possible temperature. Apparently, the hottest temperature is approaching zero from below.
Just curious, when you say approaching "zero from below" in the last sentence, are you talking about a matrix difference calculation involving an equal number of energy states ? or possibly a zeroth degree of freedom in the calculation ? I am betting that if you used a slightly different choice of words the confusion would have been avoided.
Rhody...
Hi Rhody,
I'll just stick to the ensemble of 2-state systems.
From this, in the limit as [itex]T \to 0_+[/itex] they all go to the low energy state. As [itex] T \to \infty[/itex] they get split 50-50. This is also true as [itex] T \to -\infty[/itex]. But, as [itex] T \to 0_-[/itex] the exponential in the denominator grows very large, and the probability to be in the low-energy state goes to zero. That's what I meant when I said that the hottest possible state has temperature approaching zero from below.
The Planck time: 10^{-43} seconds. After this time gravity can be considered to be a classical background in which particles and fields evolve following quantum mechanics. A region about 10^{-33} cm across is homogeneous and isotropic, The temperature is 10^{32}K.
If you got more than half in the high-energy configuration, the temperature would actually be negative. The highest possible temperature would be if every degree of freedom was in the highest possible energy state. Such a system couldn't absorb energy any more - energy would flow out to anything it came into contact with, so it's the hottest possible temperature. Apparently, the hottest temperature is approaching zero from below.
yeah that's right. 0k is also known as ABSOLUTE ZERO. Kelvin was made based on absolute zero.0 K is Absolute Zero, correct?
If 0K is absolute zero, and nothing is lower than absolute zero, then does that not suggest that there areSo -1 K would transmit energy to 5000 K? Or is there something I'm missing out on?
With a lot of energy.
Nah actually ... I don't think we've ever artificially heated any substance to such high levels...
But it did they actually reach Planck?
It's not JUST a number... and plus, it would be a nice achievement. :D
No, the scale from cold to hot in Kelvin should be...
0 K,...500 K,... Inf. K,... - Inf. K,... - 500 K,... - 0 K
Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature
But I was just asking for clarification...