How Is Temperature Defined in Kelvin Using Fundamental Units?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around defining temperature in Kelvin using fundamental units of mass, length, and time, particularly in the context of theoretical physics and units of measurement. Participants explore how to relate temperature to fundamental constants and oscillation frequencies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests using the equation kT=hf, where f represents the frequency of oscillation of Cs-133 radiation, to define temperature in Kelvin.
  • Another participant notes that the "fundamental units of mass, length, and time" likely refer to Planck units rather than specific isotopes.
  • A participant inquires about constructing the Kelvin using Planck units and fixed values for k and h.
  • There is a concern raised about the definition of "f" and the appropriateness of referring to specific isotopes in this context.
  • Another participant mentions that Planck units provide a suitable alternative for defining frequency without specific isotopic references.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of using specific isotopes versus Planck units for defining temperature, indicating that multiple competing views remain in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully resolved how to define frequency in a way that aligns with the use of fundamental units without referencing specific isotopes. There is also uncertainty regarding the arbitrary nature of the value of k in this context.

"pi"mp
Messages
129
Reaction score
1
Hi all,
I'm reading through Zwiebach's String Theory text on my own and am thinking about one of his very elementary exercises on "units." We are asked to define temperature in Kelvin with reference to the fundamental units of mass, length, and time. My thought is the following:

We take kT=hf where here f is the frequency of oscillation of Cs-133 radiation at that temperature since that is how the "second" is defined. Then we will have defined the temperature T (in Kelvin) in terms of only numerical quantities whose value we know (k and h) and f.

I'm not very confident about this at all but I'm not sure how else to do it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is the usual way to make units less dependent on specific setups, indeed. I think "fundamental units of mass, length and time" are the Planck units here, not specific transition in some specific isotope.
 
Ah okay, so how would I go about constructing the Kelvin that way?
 
You can just use kT=hf as definition, with fixed values for k and h (in Planck units, h has a known value anyway). The value of k is arbitrary.
 
hmm okay. But then what would "f" be? I thought you said we ought not refer to a specific isotope or anything like that.
 
The Planck units have something you can use there.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K