Why have a minimum temperature

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of temperature, highlighting the existence of a minimum temperature at absolute zero (-273 Celsius) and the absence of a defined maximum temperature. Participants explain that while temperature can theoretically increase indefinitely with kinetic energy, practical limits arise due to atomic structure and the energy of the universe. The conversation also touches on the implications of extreme temperatures, suggesting that at very high levels, matter could disintegrate. Overall, the dialogue seeks to understand the nature of temperature and its mathematical implications at atomic and subatomic levels. The exploration of these concepts reveals the complexities of thermodynamics and the behavior of matter under extreme conditions.
cataldo
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody...I have a sutupid questionf for you. Question is:
Why have i a minimum temperature (-273 celsisus) and no maximum temperature in nature?
Tanks...
 
Science news on Phys.org


its not much different from asking why is there a lowest natural number, but no highest natural number?

you can have infinite temperature, in principle, with infinite kinetic energy of the particles involved...
if you want to get technical, it would be bounded by something proportional to the total energy of the universe.
 


Mephisto said:
its not much different from asking why is there a lowest natural number, but no highest natural number?

you can have infinite temperature, in principle, with infinite kinetic energy of the particles involved...
if you want to get technical, it would be bounded by something proportional to the total energy of the universe.


What? Atoms are made of subatomic particles. The more energy you dump into your system, the more likely it is that you will strip the electrons off, then the nucleus itself, and then that into smaller particles. You can't have any arbitrarily high energy level while maintaining the atomic structure of what your looking at.
 


cataldo said:
Hi everybody...I have a sutupid questionf for you. Question is:
Why have i a minimum temperature (-273 celsisus) and no maximum temperature in nature?
Tanks...

It's jusk like you have a balance, in which you can put something and measure its weight. The weight can be zero, can be a certain value , a bigger value and bigger... you can not have the top end if the balance allows . speaking differently, it has lower limit (zero) , but has no higher limit.
 


cataldo said:
Hi everybody...I have a sutupid questionf for you. Question is:
Why have i a minimum temperature (-273 celsisus) and no maximum temperature in nature?
Tanks...

Just think of what temperature means. At absolute zero, the subatomic particles aren't moving at all. There is no kinetic energy. If something is not moving at all, how can you make it move less?

Also, I may be wrong about this, but I'd imagine there is some upper limit on temperature. We would need conditions like the very beginning of the universe to have certain temperatures. At some temperature, I'd imagine matter would shake itself apart completely.
 


tanks for your answers...can you ask if there is a mathematical proof on this matter especially at atomic and sub-atomic level?
Best regards
Aldo
 


Cyrus said:
What? Atoms are made of subatomic particles. The more energy you dump into your system, the more likely it is that you will strip the electrons off, then the nucleus itself, and then that into smaller particles. You can't have any arbitrarily high energy level while maintaining the atomic structure of what your looking at.

right, but you can still talk about the kinetic energy of the constituents, whatever they may be. Is temperature defined strictly for atoms?
 
Back
Top