Relativity and temperature question

Physicsguru
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
Since the other thread got moved for a reason that I do not understand, let me try to ask a question which belongs in this category.

Suppose that the temperature of some object is T(t), where t is the time coordinate in the objects rest frame. Now, in reality nothing has a perfectly constant temperature, rather there are tiny fluctuations about some average temperature Te.

Suppose the temperature of some object in its rest frame is given by

T(t) = T_e + T_0 sin(\omega t)

Where Te is the average temperature of the object, and T0 is the maximum amplitude of the temperature flux, and \frac{dT_0}{dt} = 0, and \frac{d\omega}{dt} = 0

What does relativity say that the temperature is in a reference frame moving at a relative speed of v?

Regards,

Guru
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ignore relativity:what does that T=T(t) mean,PHYSICALLY SPEAKING...?

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
Ignore relativity:what does that T=T(t) mean,PHYSICALLY SPEAKING...?

Daniel.

That the temperature is a function of time.

Regards,

Guru
 
Physicsguru said:
Since the other thread got moved for a reason that I do not understand,

Considering that a bunch of your threads got moved to the TD section, you appear to be a very slow learner, or you simply refuse to learn.

Can you point out one, JUST ONE, example of such time variation of temperature that is in a thermal equilibrium? And if you point out that this occurs in a superconductor once again via a supposition, I will repeat my recommendation.

Zz.
 
Physicsguru said:
That the temperature is a function of time.

Regards,

Guru

Sorry,this the mathematical interpretation... :wink: PHYSICS,please...

Daniel.
 
ZapperZ said:
Considering that a bunch of your threads got moved to the TD section, you appear to be a very slow learner, or you simply refuse to learn.

Can you point out one, JUST ONE, example of such time variation of temperature that is in a thermal equilibrium? And if you point out that this occurs in a superconductor once again via a supposition, I will repeat my recommendation.

Zz.

I want to watch someone do a Lorentz transformation on a very simple formula.
 
Is this another one of those 'if time dilation slows down motion, doesn't that decrease the temperature of an object?' misunderstandings? Hint: Temperature is measured in your frame. Time dilation is something that happens in the other guy's frame. Time dilation does not affect temperature. (measurements of radiated energy of moving objects, however...)
 
dextercioby said:
Sorry,this the mathematical interpretation... :wink: PHYSICS,please...

Daniel.

Mathematically to say that something is a function of time t, means many things, the main one being that if we differentiate that function with respect to t, that we will get a formula, rather than zero.

Physically, to say that temperature is a function of time, would be to take out statistical analysis, and say that there is some precise reason why the temperature must fluctuate. Is that the kind of answer you were looking for?

Regards,

Guru
 
And to what kind of "fluctuations" would you refer to...?

Daniel.
 
  • #10
Physicsguru said:
I want to watch someone do a Lorentz transformation on a very simple formula.

Fine. However, if you start invoking any "magical" superconductivity stuff without bothering to actually learn what it is, you can bet that I'll be all over it like a cheap suit.

Zz.
 
  • #11
dextercioby said:
And to what kind of "fluctuations" would you refer to...?

Daniel.

Well, a body can emit photons, and absorb photons. Those photons either carry away energy (in the form of heat) or supply energy (in the form of increased speed of electrons). So to say that there is a "temperature" fluctuation, it suffices to say that there is a "thermal energy" fluctuation.

Regards,

Guru
 
  • #12
So what chapter of physics could account for your formula...?

Assume i know nothing and i ask you what discipline of (more or less) modern physics explains T=T_{equil}+Amplit\cdot\sin\omega t

Daniel.

P.S.And promiss Zapper you won't bring superconductivity into discussion...
 
  • #13
dextercioby said:
P.S.And promiss Zapper you won't bring superconductivity into discussion...
No, see, since electrons are moving "fast," they get cold due to time dilation, thus: superconductivity!
 
  • #14
dextercioby said:
So what chapter of physics could account for your formula...?

Assume i know nothing and i ask you what discipline of (more or less) modern physics explains T=T_{equil}+Amplit\cdot\sin\omega t

Daniel.

P.S.And promiss Zapper you won't bring superconductivity into discussion...

Quantum mechanics covers the emission and absorption of photons from a hydrogen atom. For atoms of higher atomic number, the mathematics is too complex to find a precise formula for the wavefunction. This would be the 'modern physics' answer.

According to quantum physics, a photon has an energy given by:

E = hf

Where f is the frequency of a photon, and h is Planck's constant, which is presumed to be a fundamental constant of nature. In other words, h is NOT a function of time, so that dh/dt=0.

In quantum mechanics, the frequency f of a photon is proportional to omega we have:

\omega = 2\pi f

Which appears in the quantum mechanical wavefunction:

\psi (x,y,z,t) = e^{i(k\vec r - \omega t)}


Less modern, would be to try and use thermodynamics/statistical mechanics, founded by Boltzmann in the late 1800's. One could also try to derive h from classical electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and statistical mechanics, by trying to connect stephan's constant \sigma to quantum mechanics, and electrodynamics, but that would be difficult, if not impossible.

Regards,

Guru
 
Last edited:
  • #15
I've always seen temperature defined in the rest frame of the fluid when speaking relativistically.

For an ideal gas/ideal fluid, temperature is (physically), proportional to the kinetic energy of the particles in the fluid in the fluid's rest frame, as dexter was hinting.

For more complex fluids such as actual gasses, one has to consider factors such as rotational and vibrational degrees of freedom -- every degree of freedom has an energy of kT/2 because of the equipartition theorem.
 
  • #16
Physicsguru said:
Quantum mechanics covers the emission and absorption of photons from a hydrogen atom.

Incorrect.

Physicsguru said:
This would be the 'modern physics' answer.

An incorrect answer... :rolleyes:

Physicsguru said:
According to quantum physics, a photon has an energy given by:

E = hf

Where f is the frequency of a photon, and h is Planck's constant, which is presumed to be a fundamental constant of nature. In other words, h is NOT a function of time, so that dh/dt=0.

Yes.

Physicsguru said:
In quantum mechanics, the frequency f of a photon is proportional to omega we have:

Incorrect.

\omega = 2\pi f

Physicsguru said:
Which appears in the quantum mechanical wavefunction:

\psi (x,y,z,t) = e^{i(kx - \omega t)}

Incorrect.


Physicsguru said:
Less modern, would be to try and use thermodynamics/statistical mechanics, founded by Boltzmann in the late 1800's.

Why would you say that...?

Physicsguru said:
One could also try to derive "h" from classical electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and statistical mechanics, by first finding out how stephan's constant \sigma connects to quantum mechanics, and electrodynamics, but that would be messy.

"h" cannot be derived."h" is postulated.Period.

Daniel.
 
  • #17
dextercioby said:
Incorrect.



An incorrect answer... :rolleyes:



Yes.



Incorrect.

\omega = 2\pi f



Incorrect.




Why would you say that...?



"h" cannot be derived."h" is postulated.Period.

Daniel.

Then by all means, suggest to me your corrections, and let's see if i correct them or not.

Kind regards,

Guru
 
  • #18
Hi all, I am slightly interested in this question so I thought I'd jump aboard.
Questions I have before further thought on this:
By temperature do you mean the moving objects rate at which it emits radiation?
Or do you mean it has a temperature that, if it weren't moving, would remain constant. It emits nothing?

Are you asking what the emmitted radiation would do under Lorentzian transformation?

Why does temperature have to be a function of time? Can it not be constant?

Are you trying to imply that the rate of change of temperature(emmitted radiation) is a function of velocity?

Thanks.
 
  • #19
pervect said:
I've always seen temperature defined in the rest frame of the fluid when speaking relativistically.

For an ideal gas/ideal fluid, temperature is (physically), proportional to the kinetic energy of the particles in the fluid in the fluid's rest frame, as dexter was hinting.

Mmm hmm, U = 3/2 kT, in the rest frame of the fluid, using the Mawellian speed distribution formula. The derivation of the formula quite long, but rather interesting.

Regards,

Guru
 
  • #20
The reason why i put that "incorrect" word after almost every phrase of yours is because you don't seem to grasp the object of quantum mechanics...Specifically,you do not know that in the field of quantum mechanics,the word photon doesn't have any meaning...And Planck's constant is postulated...

Do you insinuate that,by performing a LT over the formula giving internal energy vs.equilibrium temperature,the time dependence of temperature would become explicit...?

Daniel.
 
  • #21
Healey01 said:
Questions I have before further thought on this:
By temperature do you mean the moving objects rate at which it emits radiation?
Or do you mean it has a temperature that, if it weren't moving, would remain constant. It emits nothing?

By temperature, I mean that temperature is a measure of the internal kinetic energy of the parts which make up the object, in some frame where the center of mass of the system is at rest. A balloon contains helium gas, the gas molecules are all inside of it, and the balloon has a center of mass. Consistent with what Pervect wrote.

Regards,

Guru

PS:
Operational definition: Put your hand on an electric stove which is off, and your hand will not get burned. Turn on the stove, wait five minutes, and repeat the experiment. You will be on your way to the hospital, unless you performed the experiment with your eyes open. After five minutes, you will see that the metal is glowing red hot. Common sense will then tell you not to put your hand on it, because you will get a severe burn. What has changed, is the speed of the parts in the metal.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Physicsguru said:
By temperature, I mean that temperature is a measure of the internal kinetic energy of the parts which make up the object, in some frame where the center of mass of the parts is at rest. Consistent with what Pervect wrote.

Regards,

Guru

In all of this, there seems to be something missing here. Are you trying to develop a theory for including relativistic effects in thermodynamics? I mean, aren't you aware of the development of relativistic thermodynamics, or did you miss that completely (considering your track record of ignoring already-established theory, I wouldn't put this pass you completely). There are already tons of stuff out there on Relativistic thermodynamics[1], even a text on it![2] Are you disputing these works, or are you trying to come up with new ones?

Zz.

[1] http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9803007
[2] R.C. Tolman "Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology" (Dover, 1987)
 
  • #23
Zz,is the 1934 edition fundamentally different than the one republished in 1987...?

Daniel.
 
  • #24
dextercioby said:
The reason why i put that "incorrect" word after almost every phrase of yours is because you don't seem to grasp the object of quantum mechanics...Specifically,you do not know that in the field of quantum mechanics,the word photon doesn't have any meaning...And Planck's constant is postulated...

You don't postulate a constant of nature, you measure it. What do you mean by "field of quantum mechanics"? There is quantum physics, quantum theory, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics?

dextercioby said:
Do you insinuate that,by performing a LT over the formula giving internal energy vs.equilibrium temperature,the time dependence of temperature would become explicit...?

Daniel.

The way I have phrased the question, starts off with time dependence of temperature being 'explicit', in the rest frame of an object. The question then is, what is the temperature of the object as measured by an observer moving at a speed v relative to the object.

Regards,

Guru
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Physicsguru said:
You don't postulate a constant of nature, you measure it. What do you mean by "field of quantum mechanics"? There is quantum physics, quantum theory, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics?


1.Yes,u do postulate it...
2.Sorry,poor wording:THE OBJECT/DOMAIN of quantum mechanics...
"Quantum theory" is an extremely vague term... :wink: Don't use it...


Daniel.
 
  • #26
ZapperZ said:
In all of this, there seems to be something missing here. Are you trying to develop a theory for including relativistic effects in thermodynamics? I mean, aren't you aware of the development of relativistic thermodynamics, or did you miss that completely (considering your track record of ignoring already-established theory, I wouldn't put this pass you completely). There are already tons of stuff out there on Relativistic thermodynamics[1], even a text on it![2] Are you disputing these works, or are you trying to come up with new ones?

Zz.

[1] http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9803007
[2] R.C. Tolman "Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology" (Dover, 1987)

First off, I am not trying to develop a theory, let me be clear on that. At this stage, I just want to know if formulas for temperature transform correctly from one frame to another using Lorentz transformations, and by correctly I mean that statements made in those frames are consistent with facts that are necessarily frame independent.

Regards,

Guru
 
  • #27
Physicsguru said:
First off, I am not trying to develop a theory, let me be clear on that. At this stage, I just want to know if formulas for temperature transform from one frame to another using Lorentz transformations, and if the conclusions are consistent with facts which are frame independent.

Regards,

Guru

Then read the book! [There appears to be COMMON theme here]

Zz.
 
  • #28
Healey01 said:
Hi all, I am slightly interested in this question so I thought I'd jump aboard.
Questions I have before further thought on this:

Are you asking what the emmitted radiation would do under Lorentzian transformation?

No, I am asking whether or not the temperature of an object T(t) transforms correctly using a Lorentz transformation.


Healey01 said:
Why does temperature have to be a function of time? Can it not be constant?

The condition for an object to have a temperature which is independent of time (i.e. constant temperature), is for its temperature to be absolute zero degrees kelvin. This is impossible, therefore temperature must be a function of time.

From experiments, we know that an object will reach thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, if left alone for a long enough time \delta t, where t is the time coordinate in the objects rest frame. Thermodynamics was designed to say that two objects placed in thermal contact will reach an equilibrium temperature... that this is the most 'probable' result. This is most interesting in the case of an object in the vacuum.

Regards,

Guru
 
Last edited:
  • #29
As long as you agree that the number of particles and the total volume in a given reference frame will not change, the definition of temperature is the following:

1/T = dS/dU "one over temperature is the derivative of entropy with respect to energy".

So to solve your problem, you would first calculate entropy (the number of microstates corresponding to a given macrostate) as a function of energy, so that du/ds = T + Tcos(wt). Once you had that (physically unrealistic) entropy function, you could make relativistic corrections, and take the derivative with respect to energy to find the temperature in a given lorentz frame.
 
  • #30
Crosson said:
As long as you agree that the number of particles and the total volume in a given reference frame will not change, the definition of temperature is the following:

1/T = dS/dU "one over temperature is the derivative of entropy with respect to energy".

So to solve your problem, you would first calculate entropy (the number of microstates corresponding to a given macrostate) as a function of energy, so that du/ds = T + Tcos(wt). Once you had that (physically unrealistic) entropy function, you could make relativistic corrections, and take the derivative with respect to energy to find the temperature in a given lorentz frame.

Ok suppose that I had the entropy as a function of energy S(U). I could then take the derivative of S with respect to U, to obtain dS/dU. By definition, this is equal to the inverse of the absolute temperture T. Clearly T=0 is impossible, division by zero error. Now, invert the formula for dS/dU, to obtain dU/dS, and we have a formula for temperature (expectedly one that depends on the time coordinate t in the frame). My question started off with:

T(t) = T_e + T_0 sin(\omega t)

Equating the expression above with dU/dS we have:

\frac{dU}{dS} = T_e + T_0 sin(\omega t)

Now suppose I multiply both sides of the equation above by the differential of entropy, to obtain:

dU= [ T_e + T_0 sin(\omega t) ] dS

Now, suppose that we integrate both sides of the equation above:

\int_{U_1}^{U_2} dU= \int_{S_1}^{S_2} [ T_e + T_0 sin(\omega t) ] dS

Where U1,S1 are simultaneous values at time coordinate t=t1, and U2,S2 are simultaneous values at time coordinate t=t2. The LHS is easy enough to integrate so that we have:

U_2 - U_1 = \int_{S_1}^{S_2} [ T_e + T_0 sin(\omega t) ] dS

But in order to integrate the RHS, i need time as a function of entropy don't I?

Regards,

Guru
 
Last edited:
  • #31
I was going to post something more, but then realized that
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9803007
basically has all i needed to know about the topic. If you can read that paper and understand it, your questions will be answered.
 
  • #32
Healey01 said:
I was going to post something more, but then realized that
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9803007
basically has all i needed to know about the topic. If you can read that paper and understand it, your questions will be answered.

I briefly perused the paper, and he is discussing entropy as if it's a current. Does that make sense?

Regards,

Guru
 
  • #33
Physicsguru said:
The condition for an object to have a temperature which is independent of time (i.e. constant temperature), is for its temperature to be absolute zero degrees kelvin. This is impossible, therefore temperature must be a function of time.

This is bogus. Again, you have made a statement without justification. Show me exactly where it has been shown that what you said is true. The whole idea of thermodynamic equilibrium IS to establish a time-independent equation of state, which is perfectly valid as far as experimental observations have shown - this is way more than what you have.

Please take note that PF is populated not just by theorists, but also by experimentalists. If you are bold enough to make supposition/guesswork such as this, be prepared to prove that what you are suggesting has been verified experimentally. If not, then (i) consider yourself warned (ii) how can you build your knowledge on top of something unverified? Does this not give you cause for concern, or do you not care if what you believe is valid or not?

Zz.
 
  • #34
Originally Posted by Physicsguru
The condition for an object to have a temperature which is independent of time (i.e. constant temperature), is for its temperature to be absolute zero degrees kelvin. This is impossible, therefore temperature must be a function of time.

ZapperZ said:
This is bogus. Again, you have made a statement without justification. Show me exactly where it has been shown that what you said is true.


Well suppose that (as Crosson said) the definition of temperature for the case of constant mass M (therefore dM/dt=0), and constant volume V (therefore dV/dt=0) is given by:

\frac{1}{T} = \frac{dS}{dU}

With density \rho defined as

\rho = \frac{M}{V}

Using symbols consistent with the paper cited by Healy.

Now focus on the formula 1/T=dS/dU

Clearly the LHS is undefined for the case of T=0. Most clearly stated, division by zero error must lead to a contradiction, so that the definition above, on its own forbids a temperature of absolute zero from being realized. Not even the vacuum has a temperature of absolute zero, certainly material objects immersed in it won't have a temperature of absolute zero either, in fact they will be hotter than the vacuum. And so, a material object in the vacuum will radiate energy, so that its temperature will drop, and the vacuum local to it will gain energy, assuming the basic laws of thermodynamics are correct. This having been said, consider the RHS, which is dS/dU... the derivative of entropy with respect to energy.

Suppose that U and S, can be related through the variable t, therefore we have two unknown functions U(t), and S(t).

We can take the derivative of S with respect to t, to obtain dS/dt, and we can take the derivative of U with respect to t, to obtain dU/dt. We can then solve for temperature as follows:

\frac{1}{T} = \frac{dS}{dU} = \frac{dS}{dt} \frac{dt}{dU}

Suppose that the temperature T can be constant. In this case, the derivative with respect to time of the LHS above, will necessarily be zero.

The derivative with respect to time of the RHS is given by:

\frac{d}{dt} [\frac{dS}{dt} \frac{dt}{dU} ]

Now use the product rule of the differential calculus to obtain:

\frac{dt}{dU} \frac{d^2S}{dt^2} + \frac{dS}{dt} \frac{d}{dt} \frac{dt}{dU}

So if the temperature can be constant in time, then the formula above must be equal to zero that is:

\frac{dt}{dU} \frac{d^2S}{dt^2} + \frac{dS}{dt} \frac{d}{dt} \frac{dt}{dU} = 0

From which it follows that

\frac{dt}{dU} \frac{d^2S}{dt^2} = - \frac{dS}{dt} \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dt}{dU})

Now, suppose instead that we already do have a formula for entropy in terms of energy U, and that we can just differentiate S with respect to U. In this case, we have again:

1/T = dS/dU

So that if temperature is to be constant then we must have:

0 = \frac{d}{dt} \frac{dS}{dU}

Realizing that the dt is superfluous, we really just need to look at the differential of the formula for dS/dU, that is the condition for constant temperature is also given by:

0 = d ( \frac{dS}{dU})

One way for the statement above to be true, is for a system to have a constant entropy. In that case, dS=0, independently of U. Suppose that the entropy of an object must necessarily increase over any two consecutive moments in time. Thus, even though dS is necessarily nonzero, the formula above could still be true if dS must be constant.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Ok, you got
\frac{dt}{dU} \frac{d^2S}{dt^2} = - \frac{dS}{dt} \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dt}{dU})

now what are you trying to show with it? You just go back to standard definition of temperature.
 
  • #36
Healey01 said:
Ok, you got
\frac{dt}{dU} \frac{d^2S}{dt^2} = - \frac{dS}{dt} \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dt}{dU})

now what are you trying to show with it? You just go back to standard definition of temperature.

Actually, I'm just trying to answer his question mathematically.

The intuitive answer is this: if the temperature of the vacuum were absolute zero kelvin in reality, and an object immersed in the vacuum had to eventually reach thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, then eventually its temperature would reach zero and truly be constant. On the other hand, the temperature of the vacuum really isn't zero (nor is it constant), so in order for an object in the vacuum to have a constant temperature by eventually reaching thermal equilibrium with the vacuum, the temperature of the vacuum would also have to be constant, and isn't. There are a sea of photons there.

Regards,

Guru
 
  • #37
Physicsguru said:
Well suppose that (as Crosson said) the definition of temperature for the case of constant mass M (therefore dM/dt=0), and constant volume V (therefore dV/dt=0) is given by:

\frac{1}{T} = \frac{dS}{dU}

With density \rho defined as

\rho = \frac{M}{V}

Using symbols consistent with the paper cited by Healy.

Now focus on the formula 1/T=dS/dU

Clearly the LHS is undefined for the case of T=0. Most clearly stated, division by zero error must lead to a contradiction, so that the definition above, on its own forbids a temperature of absolute zero from being realized. Not even the vacuum has a temperature of absolute zero, certainly material objects immersed in it won't have a temperature of absolute zero either, in fact they will be hotter than the vacuum. And so, a material object in the vacuum will radiate energy, so that its temperature will drop, and the vacuum local to it will gain energy, assuming the basic laws of thermodynamics are correct. This having been said, consider the RHS, which is dS/dU... the derivative of entropy with respect to energy.

Suppose that U and S, can be related through the variable t, therefore we have two unknown functions U(t), and S(t).

We can take the derivative of S with respect to t, to obtain dS/dt, and we can take the derivative of U with respect to t, to obtain dU/dt. We can then solve for temperature as follows:

\frac{1}{T} = \frac{dS}{dU} = \frac{dS}{dt} \frac{dt}{dU}

Suppose that the temperature T can be constant. In this case, the derivative with respect to time of the LHS above, will necessarily be zero.

The derivative with respect to time of the RHS is given by:

\frac{d}{dt} [\frac{dS}{dt} \frac{dt}{dU} ]

Now use the product rule of the differential calculus to obtain:

\frac{dt}{dU} \frac{d^2S}{dt^2} + \frac{dS}{dt} \frac{d}{dt} \frac{dt}{dU}

So if the temperature can be constant in time, then the formula above must be equal to zero that is:

\frac{dt}{dU} \frac{d^2S}{dt^2} + \frac{dS}{dt} \frac{d}{dt} \frac{dt}{dU} = 0

From which it follows that

\frac{dt}{dU} \frac{d^2S}{dt^2} = - \frac{dS}{dt} \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dt}{dU})

Now, suppose instead that we already do have a formula for entropy in terms of energy U, and that we can just differentiate S with respect to U. In this case, we have again:

1/T = dS/dU

So that if temperature is to be constant then we must have:

0 = \frac{d}{dt} \frac{dS}{dU}

Realizing that the dt is superfluous, we really just need to look at the differential of the formula for dS/dU, that is the condition for constant temperature is also given by:

0 = d ( \frac{dS}{dU})

One way for the statement above to be true, is for a system to have a constant entropy. In that case, dS=0, independently of U. Suppose that the entropy of an object must necessarily increase over any two consecutive moments in time. Thus, even though dS is necessarily nonzero, the formula above could still be true if dS must be constant.

Reread your posting above, and count for me the NUMBER of times you said "suppose ... blah blah blah...". You did NOTHING but made one supposition after another, and on top of another! Aren't you the LEAST bit worried that you are dangling from a non-existent branch? Of course you're not!

Note that you have still FAILED to show me any experimental evidence for any of your suppositions... not that I was expecting any.

Here's one last supposition (hey, if you can do it, why can't I?). Suppose that all you're doing is nothing more than blowing smoke? If we go by that, then this thread now belongs in the TD section like the rest of your threads.

Zz.
 
  • #38
Physicsguru said:
Actually, I'm just trying to answer his question mathematically.

The intuitive answer is this: if the temperature of the vacuum were absolute zero kelvin in reality, and an object immersed in the vacuum had to eventually reach thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, then eventually its temperature would reach zero and truly be constant. On the other hand, the temperature of the vacuum really isn't zero (nor is it constant), so in order for an object in the vacuum to have a constant temperature by eventually reaching thermal equilibrium with the vacuum, the temperature of the vacuum would also have to be constant, and isn't. There are a sea of photons there.

Regards,

Guru

But, intuitively, if you put a hot item into a hypothetical vacuum, and you left the constraint that the volume of the item must not change, and the volume of the vacuum must not change, and the pressure of the vacuum must not change(to stay vacuum). Then you are left with the fact that the constant pressure heat capacity is 0. So no heat will transfer to the vacuum, becasue there is nothing to transfer it to.
the thermal equillibrium of that object would be its current temperature, without having the possibility of losing heat (thermodynamically).
 
  • #39
Healey01 said:
But, intuitively, if you put a hot item into a hypothetical vacuum, and you left the constraint that the volume of the item must not change, and the volume of the vacuum must not change, and the pressure of the vacuum must not change(to stay vacuum). Then you are left with the fact that the constant pressure heat capacity is 0. So no heat will transfer to the vacuum, becasue there is nothing to transfer it to.
the thermal equillibrium of that object would be its current temperature, without having the possibility of losing heat (thermodynamically).

What formulas are you using to draw your basic conclusions?

Regards,

Guru
 
  • #40
Cp = T (dS/dT) (with p and N constant)
So for a theoretical vacuum Cp = 0

Otherwise the equations I am using are the equations of state (basic thermo).
Actually, i might be wrong about the above, but it doesn't matter.
Unfortunately a vacuum doesn't exist, 0 temp doesn't exist, so this is moot.
--------
Picture this, you have an object, it is at 160K. The object does not radiate heat. Energy is conserved.

Got it? Ok, now tell me WHY does the temperature have to change with time? I don't see any equations forcing it to. Are you saying that it forces itself to change temperature, like oscillation, and changes the volume proportionally? or pressure?
Why do you insist that this has to happen?
 
  • #41
Healey01 said:
Cp = T (dS/dT) (with p and N constant)
So for a theoretical vacuum Cp = 0

Otherwise the equations I am using are the equations of state (basic thermo).
Actually, i might be wrong about the above, but it doesn't matter.
Unfortunately a vacuum doesn't exist, 0 temp doesn't exist, so this is moot.
--------
Picture this, you have an object, it is at 160K. The object does not radiate heat. Energy is conserved.

Got it? Ok, now tell me WHY does the temperature have to change with time? I don't see any equations forcing it to. Are you saying that it forces itself to change temperature, like oscillation, and changes the volume proportionally? or pressure?
Why do you insist that this has to happen?

Pretty much yes, the temperature oscillates. The charge density at the surface (boundary) obeys a wave equation.
 
  • #42
Physicsguru said:
Pretty much yes, the temperature oscillates. The charge density at the surface (boundary) obeys a wave equation.

But temperature oscillation doesn't have a spatial dimention, so wouldn't the effect of GR on the charge oscillation be solely time-dependent, and therefor you could just replace your t in wave equations with t' (dialated) and you're done?
 
  • #43
Healey01 said:
But temperature oscillation doesn't have a spatial dimention, so wouldn't the effect of GR on the charge oscillation be solely time-dependent, and therefor you could just replace your t in wave equations with t' (dialated) and you're done?

Before I answer this, do you mind if I ask you what it is you do?

Regards,

Guru
 
  • #44
I have a degree in applied physics, and I am currently working at sandia national labs, though my area of work is purely crystalline materials modeling.

The reason I bring up the spatial dimention stuff is because if you're thinking that under a non accelerating inertial frame, and whatever property you're observing from stationary happens to be spacially dependent, then the direction of travel would have an effect on the value measured. The effects don't exist perpindicular to the direction of motion.

You see what I'm saying? I hope I'm being clear, I don't use SR or even thermo in my everyday life, so I really could use a refresher, and I could be making a complete mistake, but I like to think I have a little understanding of these topics.


EDIT : I meant SR.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Healey01 said:
I have a degree in applied physics, and I am currently working at sandia national labs, though my area of work is purely crystalline materials modeling.

That sounds very interesting. Is your modelling specifically for the purposes of superconductor development?

Healey01 said:
The reason I bring up the spatial dimention stuff is because if you're thinking that under a non accelerating inertial frame, and whatever property you're observing from stationary happens to be spacially dependent, then the direction of travel would have an effect on the value measured. The effects don't exist perpindicular to the direction of motion.

You see what I'm saying?

I think so. Suppose that you are studying a property of an object, and the objct is at rest relative to you, but that the measured value of the property which you are trying to measure depends on spatial coordinates in someone elses inertial frame.


For example suppose that you are studying temperature, and that temperature is a function of position (x,y,z) in the universe relative to some fixed point in the universe like the center of mass of the universe (0,0,0), and t in a frame in which the center of mass of the universe is at rest. Therefore, T=T(x,y,z,t), where T is the temperature of your sample.

Now, the center of mass of your sample is located at (x`,y`,z`,t) in your frame, and your frame is moving in the center of the universe CMU frame. So now, if you are at rest relative to the center of mass of the universe, and your sample is at rest relative to you, then the coordinates of the center of mass of the sample arent changing in the center of the universe frame, and therefore have no effect on measurements that you make.

ON THE OTHER HAND, suppose that your velocity in the CMU frame is nonzero. In that case, if temperature is a function of spatial coordinates, then indeed your measurements will be affected by your velocity in the CMU frame. I think that is what you are saying, and if it is then the answer is yes. And yes, obviously what happens to the temperature will depend on what direction you are moving in the frame.



Healey01 said:
I hope I'm being clear, I don't use SR or even thermo in my everyday life, so I really could use a refresher, and I could be making a complete mistake, but I like to think I have a little understanding of these topics.
EDIT : I meant SR.

I don't use SR, I treat time as absolute, simultaneity as absolute, and use Galilean transformations. But I do understand the mathematical structure of the special theory of relativity.


Kind regards,

Guru
 
  • #46
I thought the whole point of this discussion was SR and Thermo?

And no, what you're saying is not what I was trying to say.
If you're in the reference frame of some object, (as if you are the object) then your properties are inconsequential of your non-inertial properties in other reference frames. ALL of your properties.

I believe(that I am right) that if youre traveling at 0.8c, YOU don't see any effects of SR. Everything, including light , from your reference frame, remains intact. If you look at other reference frames, then YES, it does look different, but you still have the same properties. Thats due to the properties being invarient under LT.
 
  • #47
Healey01 said:
I believe(that I am right) that if youre traveling at 0.8c, YOU don't see any effects of SR. Everything, including light , from your reference frame, remains intact. If you look at other reference frames, then YES, it does look different, but you still have the same properties. Thats due to the properties being invarient under LT.

You are right that in your rest frame you see everything as if you were at rest. You ARE at rest, with respect to yourself, and as long as your frame is inertial you will be completely satisfied with the physics of rest. If there is an .8c velocity between you and some particular other observer, that doesn't affect your observations. The other observer sees length contractions and time dilations in your frame but you don't. You see just the same contractions and dilations in her frame. These properties are not invariant under LT, but the LT from your frame to itself, with 0c relative velocity, is the identity.

Notice another thing. You might be interested in just the one observer with the .8c velocity relative to you, but there are in fact an infinite number of possible observers of you with velocities of xc, 0 \le x < 1, relative to you. So you don't have a definite velocity at all, just a set of relative velocities to others.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Healey01 said:
I thought the whole point of this discussion was SR and Thermo?

And no, what you're saying is not what I was trying to say.
If you're in the reference frame of some object, (as if you are the object) then your properties are inconsequential of your non-inertial properties in other reference frames. ALL of your properties.

I believe(that I am right) that if youre traveling at 0.8c, YOU don't see any effects of SR. Everything, including light , from your reference frame, remains intact. If you look at other reference frames, then YES, it does look different, but you still have the same properties. Thats due to the properties being invarient under LT.

The point of this discussion is about SR and thermo, but without choosing sides right away. Specifically I was inquiring whether or not T(t) obeys the Lorentz transformation or not, based upon physical interpretation of the formula after the transformation. For example suppose that in some frame a magnet is floating over a superconductor. If the Lorentz transformation on the formula for T(t) predicts that in the moving frame the temperature of the superconductor is above Tc, then there would be a mistake.

Regards,

Guru
 
  • #49
Healey01 said:
I was going to post something more, but then realized that
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9803007
basically has all i needed to know about the topic. If you can read that paper and understand it, your questions will be answered.

I'm finding the paper rather tough going. As nearly as I can tell, density*temperature transforms as one component of a rank-2 tensor, very similar to the stress-energy tensor. This is logical, temperature is just antothre form of energy. The (thermal) energy density depends both on the (thermal) energy/particle, and the number of particles/unit volume (or the energy/unit mass, and the mass/unit volume).

I think the paper is saying that entropy, S, transforms as a 4-vector (similarly to the way the charge-current 4-vector transforms).

[add]
One of the things that still puzzles me somewhat is how the fact that entropy can increase is dealt with. Charge is conserved, so it can't be created or destroyed - entropy, however, can increase (though it can never decrease). I'm used to seeing currents defined from quantites that are conserved, not quantities that can increase.
[end add]

T itself, in isolation, doesn't seem to be a component of any 4-vector or tensor from what I can tell (but as I said before, I'm not really sure I'm following the paper).
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Physicsguru said:
... suppose that in some frame a magnet is floating over a superconductor. If the Lorentz transformation on the formula for T(t) predicts that in the moving frame the temperature of the superconductor is above Tc, then there would be a mistake.

Not necessarily. IF there is an increase in temperature in the moving frame, it is possible there may also a corresponding increase in the critical temperature. So the Meissner effect is preserved.

Creator :biggrin:
 
Back
Top