Rigorous Definition of Kelvin?

  • Thread starter "pi"mp
  • Start date
  • #1
129
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.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
34,962
11,147
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.
 
  • #3
129
1
Ah okay, so how would I go about constructing the Kelvin that way?
 
  • #4
34,962
11,147
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.
 
  • #5
129
1
hmm okay. But then what would "f" be? I thought you said we ought not refer to a specific isotope or anything like that.
 
  • #6
34,962
11,147
The planck units have something you can use there.
 

Related Threads on Rigorous Definition of Kelvin?

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
784
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
868
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
633
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
11K
Top