What happens when you heat plasma?

[Skhandelwal]

My teacher said nothing but I don't believe that. Since heating has no limit, and the more you heat, the higher the energy level rises, the bonds break, if you keep increasing the temperature, something is bound to happen.

 

[ZapperZ]

My teacher said nothing but I don't believe that. Since heating has no limit, and the more you heat, the higher the energy level rises, the bonds break, if you keep increasing the temperature, something is bound to happen.

What if your plasma is nothing more than an electron gas? After all, a "plasma" is nothing more than ionized gas, and a cloud of electrons qualifies! What "bonds" do you break now?

Your teacher's answer is correct, but you also have to frame your question in such a way that (i) you understand what it is that you're asking (i.e. what exactly qualifies as a "plasma") and (ii) you are aware of the different possibilities and variations to your question that can dictate the nature of the answer you are given. After all, I can also ionize hydrogen gas, and I don't think you would want to be told that a proton can't be heated up until its quark content starts separating, do you?

Zz.

 

[Skhandelwal]

Ok, I am guessing now but if you keep heating cloud of electrons, wouldn't the bonds of leptons(if there is such a thing) break apart? What my point is is that if you keep heating up something, at some point of time, shouldn't it convert into energy?(thats just my instint so don't ask me what I base that on to, I know the rules of forum, since it is a question, I am guessing, I wouldn't tell my philosophy in an answer.)

 

[TuviaDaCat]

heat is a function of the particles average velocity(magnituge average), so i guess if we assume that a particle is unbreakable, we could heat particles until they get close to the speed of light, and there is our boundary.
though such assumption is most probably wrong...

 

[Skhandelwal]

But the thing is they are always breakable and the thing I am trying to get is that when we keep breaking it, we get to a particle in which when we break that, we release energy, don't you agree? So my conclusion is when you heat something infinitely it turns into energy(way before reaching infinity though), unless my assumption is wrong and some things arent breakable by heat.(or there are infinitely subparticles before reaching infinity, are there?)

One more thing, if we are assume that a particle is unbreakable, and we keep heating it, when we achieve infinity in temperature, do the particles move at the speed of light?
Which brings me to a point that higher the temperature is, slower the time because the velocity of hte particle is greater! What do you think?

 

[ZapperZ]

Ok, I am guessing now but if you keep heating cloud of electrons, wouldn't the bonds of leptons(if there is such a thing) break apart? What my point is is that if you keep heating up something, at some point of time, shouldn't it convert into energy?(thats just my instint so don't ask me what I base that on to, I know the rules of forum, since it is a question, I am guessing, I wouldn't tell my philosophy in an answer.)

Then you should start by telling me what leptons are made of, because there's nothing in physics that does. And if you can do such a thing, this thread will be moved into the IR forum so fast, it will make your head spin.

Zz.

 

[Skhandelwal]

aah, so we get into variables, but do physicist no if what leptons are connected by? If they are connected by something similar to bonds then would they break? Breaking the eletronious gas.

 

[ZapperZ]

aah, so we get into variables, but do physicist no if what leptons are connected by? If they are connected by something similar to bonds then would they break? Breaking the eletronious gas.

Obviously, you have no clue on what is meant by an "electron cloud", or even a "plasma". Be very careful about using words that you think you know without understanding the physics. Doing so will cause utter confusion, especially for you.

An "electron gas" is a NON-INTERACTING free particle gas. It means that they are "not connected". There are no bonds to break, thankyouverymuch. This is why I asked you if the only remaining thing you want to claim is for the electron now to "break apart".

Be very careful before you answer and make sure you understand what you are claiming.

Zz.,

 

[Skhandelwal]

Sorry about that, I just assumed the meaning of electron gas. What are leptons connected by? Bonds? Attraction?

 

[actionintegral]

Admit your teacher was right and get on with your life!

 

[Skhandelwal]

A true physicist reasons with logic, not order.

 

[Astronuc]

My teacher said nothing but I don't believe that. Since heating has no limit, and the more you heat, the higher the energy level rises, the bonds break, if you keep increasing the temperature, something is bound to happen.

If one heats a plasma, it gets hotter, and the pressure increases.

As the temperature increases, the velocities of the particles increases (which causes the pressure increases), and radiation losses (e.g. brehmsstrahlung radiation) will increase. If the plasma is confined in a magnetic field, the losses due to cyclotron radiation will increase.

Electrons (one of the leptons) are believed to be fundamental particles which are not subject to being broken into smaller components. Electrons remain in a plasma by virtue of the coulombic attraction to positive charges, namely the nuclei of the atoms from which the electrons were freed.

At sufficient temperatures, the nuclei may 'fuse'. Proton-proton fusion is mechanism powering stars -
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/cno-pp.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/ppchain.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/cno.html
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/StarPhys/ppchain.html

At even higher temperatures helium and carbon fusion become possible, but the particle densities and temperatures are extremely high.

It should be mentioned that particle densities in stars are orders of magnitudes higher than those achieved on Earth at plasma temperatures. We cannot build sufficiently strong magnetic confinement systems which enable plasma densities greater than ~10¹⁴ particles/cm².

The fusion plasmas we achieve on Earth have temperatures on the order of 5-100 keV (maybe up to 200 keV), and 1 keV is equivalent to a temperature of 11,605,000 K, but even at these temperatures, they are still not sufficient to achieve disassembly of nucleons into their quark components. However, to minimize radiation losses, we aim for lowest possible temperatures at which fusion takes place.

 

[rohit88]

HI M ROHIT I HAVE RIGHT NOW JOINED THE FORUM ND M A STUDENT OF 12 th ONLY SO CAN U PLSS EXPLAIN TO ME WAT EXACTLY CONSTITUTES THE PLASMA COZ MY TEACHER WAS NOT ABLE TO SATISFY ME SO PLSSSS

 

[Zelos]

Since heating has no limit,

there is a limit, plank temperature, hotter than that can't it got

as it heats up it turns to a electron-quark-gluon plasma were nucleus don't exist and if you heat it even further you get a state of matter where matter is continiusly formed and annihilated

 

[ZapperZ]

there is a limit, plank temperature, hotter than that can't it got

as it heats up it turns to a electron-quark-gluon plasma were nucleus don't exist and if you heat it even further you get a state of matter where matter is continiusly formed and annihilated

Well, since you decided to be picky and technical about such a thing, then I will also point out that you can't "heat up" matter up to that point. Not only is it technologically impossible to supply heat to that range, it also becomes vague on what we mean by the concept of "heat" by then.

The "quark gluon plasma" that we have possibly achieved so far was not arrived at by "heating". This certainly isn't the technique used at RHIC.

Zz.

 

[Zelos]

The "quark gluon plasma" that we have possibly achieved so far was not arrived at by "heating". This certainly isn't the technique used at RHIC.

im not sure what you mean with this?

 

[ZapperZ]

im not sure what you mean with this?

What part did you not undertand? The "quark gluon plasma" that you brought up, or "RHIC", the Relavistic Heavy Ion collider, which is the ONLY facility right now that can claim the production of the quark gluon "fluid"?

Zz.

 

[Zelos]

the RHIC part which i now understand
but you get the quark gluon plasma when its ehated since its alos of energ at one point which happens at the cooliders a lot of energy at one single point

 

[ZapperZ]

the RHIC part which i now understand
but you get the quark gluon plasma when its ehated since its alos of energ at one point which happens at the cooliders a lot of energy at one single point

But WHERE else have we obtained this? That's my point. The ONLY place where we have gotten such a state is at RHIC. And they certainly didn't get it by "heating", at least not in the conventional sense.

Zz.

 

[Zelos]

heat is energy, and when the energy it represents equals the same in RHIC got at that single point we get quark gluon plasma

 

[ZapperZ]

heat is energy, and when the energy it represents equals the same in RHIC got at that single point we get quark gluon plasma

Heat is energy, but NOT all energy is heat! So how do you think RHIC achieved the energy level to produce such state? Via heat?

Zz.

 

[jtbell]

heat is energy,

...that is transferred from an object at high temperature to an object at low temperature, because of the difference in temperature. See for example

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html

which uses slightly different words, but with the same meaning.

 

[Quaoar]

HI M ROHIT I HAVE RIGHT NOW JOINED THE FORUM ND M A STUDENT OF 12 th ONLY SO CAN U PLSS EXPLAIN TO ME WAT EXACTLY CONSTITUTES THE PLASMA COZ MY TEACHER WAS NOT ABLE TO SATISFY ME SO PLSSSS

Sorry, I laughed...