Tempertaure of a moving object vs. stationary one

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Giga_Man
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the temperature of a moving object and its stationary counterpart, particularly in the context of kinetic energy and different inertial frames of reference. The focus is on non-relativistic speeds and the definitions of temperature and energy forms.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Mike questions whether moving an object in space increases its temperature, based on the definition of temperature as the average kinetic energy of molecules.
  • One participant clarifies that temperature is related to a system's internal energy, which includes molecular motion but excludes net kinetic energy from external movement.
  • Another participant suggests that energy input into a system can either increase its motion or its temperature, indicating a distinction between accessible energy forms.
  • A novice participant expresses uncertainty but notes that kinetic energy can be manipulated by various forces, implying that velocity can increase without a corresponding increase in temperature.
  • The same novice participant further observes that many objects in space can have high kinetic energy while remaining at low temperatures, supporting the idea that temperature does not solely depend on velocity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between kinetic energy and temperature, with no consensus reached on whether moving an object affects its temperature. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of kinetic energy in different frames of reference.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the distinction between internal energy and net kinetic energy, but the discussion does not resolve the implications of this distinction in various contexts. There are also unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of temperature and energy forms.

Giga_Man
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello.
If temperature is defined by the average kinetic energy of molecules, does this mean that moving an object in space increase it's temperature? (Or, say, looking at it from another inertial frame of reference?).
talking about non-relativistic speeds.

Thanks a lot!
Mike
 
Science news on Phys.org
temperature is the system's *internal* energy, which includes molecular translational, rotational and vibrational motion. it does NOT include the system's *net* kinetic energy, which would be say... a piece of rock moving really fast, as opposed to a piece of rock that's still - the internal motion of the silicon/oxygen/iron/magnesium/carbon that make up the rock, stays the same.

if it were otherwise, things could have arbitrary temperatures, since you can always find a frame that's moving arbitrarily fast (within the speed of light) relative to another.
 
If you put 1J of energy into a piece of rock, you can either move it a bit or warm it up a bit. Same amount of energy but it's much more accessible (to reclaim) when it's non-random motion then when it's 'thermal'. The distinction is so relevant that we give the two forms of energy two different names.
 
I'm a bit of a Novice but the part of Kinetic Energy V^2(KE=1/2MV^2) I have noticed that it is apart of many different equations which means it can be manipulated a lot by different forces which affect the velocity of the object or particle so I'm sure you can increase the velocity without increasing the temperature.
 
EU_Raider said:
I'm a bit of a Novice but the part of Kinetic Energy V^2(KE=1/2MV^2) I have noticed that it is apart of many different equations which means it can be manipulated a lot by different forces which affect the velocity of the object or particle so I'm sure you can increase the velocity without increasing the temperature.

Well, there's an awful lot of really cold stuff hurtling around in space at amazingly high speeds. Massive available energy in the form of KE if it hit us but not enough thermal energy to nudge a thermometer (travelling alongside it).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K