B I have a question regarding temperature and the kinetic energy of molecules

Click For Summary
High temperature correlates with increased kinetic energy of molecules, but they are not the same; temperature measures internal energy related to random particle motion. The kinetic energy of particles contributes to temperature, but external factors like velocity can complicate this relationship. For example, a fast-moving drop of liquid helium can have high kinetic energy yet low temperature. Understanding this interplay is crucial in thermodynamics, particularly in applications like heat engines. The original question about the relationship between temperature and kinetic energy requires refinement to fully address these concepts.
seonjunyoo
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Does the high temperature increase the kinetic energy of molecules or atoms, or does the high kinetic energy of atoms or molecules increase the temperature ?

I'm so curious about this. Which concept is more accurate between the two
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A drop of liquid helium flying through intergalactic space at 0.6 c has a lot of KE, but has low temperature.
 
seonjunyoo said:
Does the high temperature increase the kinetic energy of molecules or atoms, or does the high kinetic energy of atoms or molecules increase the temperature ?

I'm so curious about this. Which concept is more accurate between the two
Temperature and kinetic energy are not actually the same thing. The thermal energy of an object relates to the random, internal motions in the object. The particles will have a range of velocities about a mean velocity (which is the velocity of the Centre of Mass of the object) it's the relative velocities of the particles which tells you that proportion of the kinetic energy corresponding to temperature. The velocity of the CM of the object accounts for the (translational) kinetic energy of the whole thing.

In the case of moving hot gases, it may not be obvious where one begins and the other ends - which is what the thermodynamics of steam engines and turbines is about: where microscoic and macroscopic ideas come together. Heat engines start with molecular motion and deliver macroscopic motion. Your original question needs modification to take this into account.
 
Quick question that I haven't been able to find the answer to. Greenhouse gasses both warm and cool the atmosphere by slowing heat loss to space. But what would happen without GHGs? I read that the earth would be colder (though still relatively warm), but why? Without GHGs the atmosphere would still be a similar mass and still warmed by conduction from the surface, yet without a means to radiate that heat to space. Why wouldn't the atmosphere accumulate heat over time, becoming warmer? How...

Similar threads