Why have a minimum temperature

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cataldo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Minimum Temperature
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of temperature, specifically addressing why there is a defined minimum temperature, absolute zero (-273°C), but no maximum temperature in nature. Participants explain that while absolute zero represents a state where subatomic particles have no kinetic energy, temperature theoretically has no upper limit due to the potential for infinite kinetic energy. However, practical limitations arise as increasing energy can lead to the breakdown of atomic structures. The conversation also touches on the relationship between temperature and the energy of particles, suggesting that extreme conditions, such as those present at the universe's inception, may define upper temperature bounds.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of thermodynamics and temperature concepts
  • Familiarity with kinetic energy and its relation to particle motion
  • Basic knowledge of atomic and subatomic particle structure
  • Awareness of the laws of physics governing energy and matter
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of absolute zero and its implications in physics
  • Explore the relationship between temperature and kinetic energy in thermodynamics
  • Investigate the conditions of the early universe and their effects on temperature
  • Study the breakdown of atomic structures at high energy levels
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, researchers in thermodynamics, and anyone interested in the fundamental principles of temperature and energy in the universe.

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?
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How did Charles obtain his law when absolute temperature wasn't define
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School Energy transfer water > air in a greenhouse
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
598
High School Temperature-Dependence of Viscosity of a Fluid?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
High School I have a question regarding temperature and the kinetic energy of molecules
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School Extrapolation of relationship of temperature and volume for gas
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Graduate Molar specific heat capacity for constant volume.
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Empirical temperature scales using different thermometers
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
High School Why We Learn Reaumur Temperature Scale in High School Physics
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
High School When Difference between Kelvin and Celsius are negligible
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Cooling effect of evaporation occurs even if the surroundings are colder?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K