Less than 0 kelvin? Meaning of temperature

[.ultimate]

If tempertaure means the movement of particles, Can tempertaure be below 0 Kelvin? I mean no movement, vacumm

 

[Kanse]

I don't understand the last part. 0 Kelvin is absolute zero. Particles don't move in 0 Kelvin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin

 

[.ultimate]

If absolute 0 means no movement of particles

Can Absense of any particle (vacuum) be regarded as 0k

what is heat energy in vacuum?

 

[haiha]

I think there's no concept of vacuum's temperature at least for classical physics. Because temperature measures the movement and/or oscillation of particles, so no particles mean no temperature. It is like you say of the speed of a car, but if there's no car, the speed of nothing is meaningless.
I am not sure if in modern physics when they say the vacuum is not nothing, but somethingl, the temperature concept can be applied.

 

[JPRitchie]

Quantum mechanics predicts that the lowest energy state of a vibrator has finite energy - the zero point energy. So atoms are predicted to continue to vibrate about their equilibrium position even at 0k. This is separate from the electronic energy - the total interaction energy of the electrons and nuclei at a fixed equilibrium geometry.
-Jim

 

[ZapperZ]

There is a well-described answer to this FAQ that everyone might want to check out.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/negativeTemperature.html

Zz.

 

[Crosson]

Temperature does not measure motion or kinetic energy of particles, although in almost all cases it coincides with a measure of these things.

A difference in temperature measures the potential for thermal energy exchange/heat.

A system such as the Earth orbiting the sun has a negative temperature.

 

[.ultimate]

What will happen if we put a heated (suppose) metal in vacuum? Will it lose its heat? But how can this be possible, since there are no particles in the sorruonding vacuum?

 

[pixel01]

What will happen if we put a heated (suppose) metal in vacuum? Will it lose its heat? But how can this be possible, since there are no particles in the sorruonding vacuum?

Heat transfers through 3 ways : conduction, radiation and convection. In your case, only radiation takes place which imits IR

 

[.ultimate]

If heat means the movement for patricles, plase clarify how this movemnt subsides by loss of heat as radiation, how can IR radiation be responsible?

 

[christianjb]

I don't understand the last part. 0 Kelvin is absolute zero. Particles don't move in 0 Kelvin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin

Particles have kinetic energy, and non-zero momenta even at 0 K. It's an interesting question as to whether they can be said to move or not.

What we can say, is that at 0 K, the probability density from the wave-function is stationary and the wave-function is in its ground state.

It's possible to define a time correlation function for a system in its ground state. That leads me to suspect that it is meaningful to talk about atomic motion at 0K.

 

[pixel01]

If heat means the movement for patricles, plase clarify how this movemnt subsides by loss of heat as radiation, how can IR radiation be responsible?

Heat is one kind of energy which is the kinetic energy of the particles. In this case, this kind of energy is converted to radiation, the IR which is also another kind of energy.
The energy from the sun to reach Earth is transferred by this way as well.

 

[christianjb]

Heat is one kind of energy which is the kinetic energy of the particles. In this case, this kind of energy is converted to radiation, the IR which is also another kind of energy.
The energy from the sun to reach Earth is transferred by this way as well.

Slightly OT, but kinetic energy is actually part of the internal energy of the system. Heat is the energy transfer that goes into raising the temperature of the system.

Edit: Even that's wrong. Heat flow acts to change the internal energy of a body, which may or may not result in a temperature increase. However, heat flow can only take place between bodies of different temperatures.

 

[.ultimate]

Arent Infra-red eletromagnetic waves? If that is so, can over wavelngth em waves also be considered to carry heat energY?

 

[ZapperZ]

Arent Infra-red eletromagnetic waves? If that is so, can over wavelngth em waves also be considered to carry heat energY?

Say what? What is "over wavelength"?

What we call "radiant heat" is defined as the IR spectrum. This is because this is the range of the em spectrum that many of our common molecules (such as water and our skin) can receive the energy efficiently and convert to what we call "heat".

ALL em waves carry energy, but not all of this energy are converted efficiently to what we normally call heat. UV spectrum can heat up ordinary glass because it absorbs that spectrum efficiently, yet visible light has no affect on it.

This thread has become rather confusing and unfocused.

Zz.

 

[.ultimate]

Say what? What is "over wavelength"?

What we call "radiant heat" is defined as the IR spectrum. This is because this is the range of the em spectrum that many of our common molecules (such as water and our skin) can receive the energy efficiently and convert to what we call "heat".

ALL em waves carry energy, but not all of this energy are converted efficiently to what we normally call heat. UV spectrum can heat up ordinary glass because it absorbs that spectrum efficiently, yet visible light has no affect on it.

This thread has become rather confusing and unfocused.

Zz.

Sorry, I meant 'other' wavlenght, I apologise if it caused any misconfusion

How can you hypothesize that enrgy can be Absorbed

As Energy is indirectly proportional to Wavelngth, shorter wavelngth Electromagnetic waves SHOULD also be considered to cause Heat

By the way, Can you please clarify what you mean by Heat in the above context

Also, I thnik that heat has to be related to movement of molecules since tempertaure is responsible for the physical state of matter (gas, liquid, solid)


Thank you.

Uu.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sorry, I meant 'other' wavlenght, I apologise if it caused any misconfusion

How can you hypothesize that enrgy can be Absorbed

Because that is what happens when light "disappears" when it hits objects. Do you have an alternative explanation for the blackbody radiation?

As Energy is indirectly proportional to Wavelngth, shorter wavelngth Electromagnetic waves SHOULD also be considered to cause Heat

Not it doesn't. You are forgetting one half of this important equation - THE NATURE OF THE RECEIVER. You may want to read our FAQ on photon transmission through a solid, especially on the PHONON spectrum of a material. The TYPE of material can also dictate if em radiation of a certain wavelength can be absorbed. No material has an infinite bandwidth of absorption. Your skin is obviously transparent to x-ray, which has a higher energy than visible light which is absorbed by the skin and turned into heat. So just because something has a higher energy doesn't mean it can "cause heat". Besides, you are ignoring the possibility that a certain range of wavelength can cause other phenomena such as molecular energy transition, photoemission, etc... Here, the absorbed energy does not go into heat.

By the way, Can you please clarify what you mean by Heat in the above context

Atomic or molecular KE or lattice vibrations, the SAME way it is defined in thermodynamics!

Zz.

 

[Ki Man]

due to the definition of temperature, its impossible to have negative movement, so by soemhow going below 0 Kelvin would actually be going warmer

 

[JPRitchie]

Zero point motion is predicted to persist to 0K. This energy cannot be radiated or lost any other way because there are no lower vibrational states available. But, the remaining motion occurs on a scale that is relatively small with respect to atomic sizes. The time-averaged atomic position remains fixed. The Lewis and Randall definition of 0K is that the entropy also be 0 and the substance be in a pure, perfect, crystalline state. As you get close to 0K, unpaired electron spin or nuclear spin can complicate matters, because mixtures of spin states can be obtained in the absence of a perturbing applied field.
-Jim

 

[.ultimate]

That is what happens when light "disappears" when it hits objects.

If you say all the EM radiations carry energy. How can the energy 'dissapper'? Isnt that violation of Enery-Mass equivalence

Not it doesn't. You are forgetting one half of this important equation
- THE NATURE OF THE RECEIVER.

All matter is supposed to be made of same material. And What do you mean by 'nature' in atomic terms.

The TYPE of material can also dictate if em radiation of a certain wavelength can be absorbed. No material has an infinite bandwidth of absorption. Your skin is obviously transparent to x-ray, which has a higher energy than visible light which is absorbed by the skin and turned into heat.

Well, this is purely hypothetical. X-rays are not absorbed by skin neither by bones. I recently postulated the reason for reflection of light

Size of wavelength of Visible radiation = of order of 10^{-7}
and size of whole atom = 10^{-10}
Size of nucleas = 10^{-15}
Empty space = 10^(-5}

Hence the EM wave will not penetrate through the atom, and the photon will be reflected as such.

You can apply tjhis to the above scenario, X-rays can penetrate through the skin cells but not bonemarrow.

Atomic or molecular KE or lattice vibrations, the SAME way it is defined in thermodynamics!

Fine that Heat is considered to be molecular Kinetic Energy, But how can it be 'lost' as radiations?

Zzzz. (sleeping)

 

[ZapperZ]

If you say all the EM radiations carry energy. How can the energy 'dissapper'? Isnt that violation of Enery-Mass equivalence

Read again what I said. I said the "light disappear". The FACT that I then said that it has been turned into heat means that the energy in that light has been converted in another form of energy, which is heat.

All matter is supposed to be made of same material. And What do you mean by 'nature' in atomic terms.

Then you must have not read the FAQ that I have written and asked you to read. Consider the following: Graphite and Diamond are both made up of carbon atoms. Yet, they can't be any more dissimilar. That alone is enough to show you why what you wrote isn't complete.

Well, this is purely hypothetical. X-rays are not absorbed by skin neither by bones. I recently postulated the reason for reflection of light

Careful with your speculative post and re-read the PF guidelines that you have agreed to.

Furthermore, you missed the point. I was debunking your idea that the higher the energy of em radiation, the most that energy will be absorbed. X-ray has a higher energy per photon than visible light, yet it isn't absorbed by skins the way visible light is.

Size of wavelength of Visible radiation = of order of 10^{-7}
and size of whole atom = 10^{-10}
Size of nucleas = 10^{-15}
Empty space = 10^(-5}

Hence the EM wave will not penetrate through the atom, and the photon will be reflected as such.

Eh? Please read the FAQ!

Fine that Heat is considered to be molecular Kinetic Energy, But how can it be 'lost' as radiations?

Zzzz. (sleeping)

This is getting convoluted. I suggest you understand one part at a time before delving into another, and certainly before asking about "negative temperatures".

Zz.

 

[throng]

I think there's no concept of vacuum's temperature at least for classical physics. Because temperature measures the movement and/or oscillation of particles, so no particles mean no temperature. It is like you say of the speed of a car, but if there's no car, the speed of nothing is meaningless.
I am not sure if in modern physics when they say the vacuum is not nothing, but somethingl, the temperature concept can be applied.

Just a thought. - space is a positive energy form +Ey plus a negitive energy form -Ey (y being qty) thus expressed Ey-Ey. It's not the some as zero. Conceptually it's different.

Quantum geeks have done experiments to support this "negative energy" or "antimatter" (same thing by definition) and concluded it is actually "positive energy" (matter)

If energy can't be created or destroyed and doesn't have geometric origins (time and place) It follows that it can exist independently of space and time. Defying any absolute zero of time space or temperature.

My muse is,

Is this "positive" energy outside added to equal "positive" energy inside (our universe) a possible explanation for why Vacuum has no temperature as opposed to 0 temperature?

 

[xavier_r]

If tempertaure means the movement of particles, Can tempertaure be below 0 Kelvin? I mean no movement, vacumm

Yes, I think the same...

 

[pally]

Size of wavelength of Visible radiation = of order of 10^{-7}
and size of whole atom = 10^{-10}
Size of nucleas = 10^{-15}
Empty space = 10^(-5}

I suggest you go learn some maths first too, how can the empty space inside an atom be greater that the size of the atom itself?...

anyway...

from what I've read about this...
as a system approaches zero kelvin, the atoms rearrange themselves to form a perfectly crystalline structure, however due to the spin of nuclei this alternte incidences occur in structure, in which there are certain outcomes.
negative energy doesn't exist in boundless energy systems, only those with two energy states or less, where by having increased the energy so much the system can have no more, and therefore adding energy removes energy from the system.