|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Why is absolute zero finite compared to maximum heat (which is seemingly infinite)?
"Henry Allen" wrote in message
om... Perhaps you should find out how temperature is defined? Absolute zero is when the average velocity of particles is zero. Absolute zero is when the velocity of all particles is zero. Nope--there's a zero-point energy that isn't zero. The average velocity of the particles that make me is zero relative to the floor because I'm not moving Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of a system of moving particles that has zero net velocity... It's actually translational kinetic energy. Rotation and internal vibration of molecules don't show up in the temperature. If you have a diatomic molecular gas in thermal equilibrium with a monoatomic gas (and the temperature is high enough to activate other than translational motion), the diatomic species will have more energy per molecule. The highest possible temperature is when the average velocity of particles approaches the speed of light. Temperature is a measure of energy not The highest possible temperature is not limited by the speed of light- it's limited by the amount of energy in the universe...because you can always dump more energy into a moving particle even though it gets no faster. So I've always been puzzled that one of the limiting design parameters of spacecraft is the amount of reaction mass avaliable-- since you can make anything that has mass contain an infinite amount of energy one electron accelerated fast enough and shot out of the talepipe should bring you up to light speed regardless of the mass of your spacecraft. Granted this approach has a few engineering problems... You also need to factor in specific impulse. Mark Folsom |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Why is absolute zero finite compared to maximum heat (which is seemingly infinite)?
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Why is absolute zero finite compared to maximum heat (which is seemingly infinite)?
Dear mmeron:
wrote in message ... In article , "Greg Neill" writes: ... Quantum mechanics says you can't ever completely eliminate tiny jiggles of the constituent particles, so the temperature of a collection of particles can never reach absolute zero. And that's quite wrong. If a system is at its lowest possible state, it is at zero temperature. Not to feed any flames... A system could be a dewar of a substance that we have deemed to be at its lowest energy state. With the little "jigglings", would it be meaningful within our system (that little Universe sub-set) to ascribe non-zero "local" temperature? So, is temperature relative? David A. Smith |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Why is absolute zero finite compared to maximum heat (which is seemingly infinite)?
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Why is absolute zero finite compared to maximum heat (which is seemingly infinite)?
Here's an interesting aside:
Is this the beginnings of a Freeze Ray device? Molecules Knocked Cold --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chemists have long used supersonic gas expansions to create beams of molecules that are "cold" in the sense that the molecules are in low vibrational and rotational states and do not undergo collisions. However, translational motion of the molecules still makes them "hot" in the laboratory frame of reference, and this temperature broadening creates noise that obscures many experimental signals. Elioff et al. (p. 1940) show that single "billiard-like" collisions between the molecules of two molecular beams can produce a population of molecules that essentially come to rest in the lab frame and achieve true temperatures below 1 K. Inelastic collisions between beams of NO molecules and argon atoms produced between 108 and 109 NO molecules in a specific quantum state with speeds no greater than 15 meters per second, which corresponds to a maximum temperature of 0.4 Kelvin. Science "John" wrote in message ... On 9 Dec 2003 12:45:56 -0800, (Binary Object) wrote: Why is absolute zero approximately -460 F, yet the maximum possible amount of heat is seemingly infinite? There is certainly an asymmetry. Why is there no upper bound for heat? Why is there a lower bound for cold? As I understand it, at absolute zero temperature, molecular vibration ceases. You can't have less than zero (or negative) vibration, but theoretically there is no upper limit to degree of vibration. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.550 / Virus Database: 342 - Release Date: 12/9/03 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Why is absolute zero finite compared to maximum heat (which is seemingly infinite)?
In article z9kCb.4199$gN.2607@fed1read05, \(formerly\)" writes:
Dear mmeron: wrote in message ... In article , "Greg Neill" writes: .. Quantum mechanics says you can't ever completely eliminate tiny jiggles of the constituent particles, so the temperature of a collection of particles can never reach absolute zero. And that's quite wrong. If a system is at its lowest possible state, it is at zero temperature. Not to feed any flames... A system could be a dewar of a substance that we have deemed to be at its lowest energy state. With the little "jigglings", would it be meaningful within our system (that little Universe sub-set) to ascribe non-zero "local" temperature? No. So, is temperature relative? Again, no. I repeat what I wrote in another post, tmeperature is *not* (repeat, **not**, ***not***, ****not**** ....) kinetic energy. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, | chances are he is doing just the same" |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Why is absolute zero finite compared to maximum heat (which is seemingly infinite)?
wrote in message ...
In sci.astro wrote: Quantum mechanics says you can't ever completely eliminate tiny jiggles of the constituent particles, so the temperature of a collection of particles can never reach absolute zero. And that's quite wrong. If a system is at its lowest possible state, it is at zero temperature. Then the lowest "temperature" isn't zero energy? Ah, once more "Zero Point Energy" rears it's ugly head. So is Quantum Mechanics still "bunk"? Seems to me that if there is molecular energy still available at 0 K, then that ISN'T the lowest possible temperature! A TRUE "lowest temperature" would be when the aether is frozen solid! Availability of energy is not the same as energy. Mark Folsom |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Why is absolute zero finite compared to maximum heat (which is seemingly infinite)?
In article , writes:
In sci.astro wrote: This is not philosp[hy but physics, so what it "seems" to you is irrelevant. Temperature has a physical definition and it is *not* energy. So let's do some physics! Are you saying that Temperature has NO relation to energy of a system? It appears that reading comprehension is a dying art:-( Compare the two statements: 1) Temperature is not energy. 2) Temperature is not related to energy. Now, which of the two statements I used, in the text above? Take your time, if you run into difficulties comparing, try to count words:-) When you'll recognize the difference, you're welcome to ask further questions. Till then, don't bother, I'm not responding to strawmen, as a rule. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, | chances are he is doing just the same" |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Why is absolute zero finite compared to maximum heat (which is seemingly infinite)?
(eric) wrote in message om...
(Binary Object) wrote in message . com... Why is there a lower bound for cold? Can you define absolute zero? I think that would help you to answer your own question. Surely temperature is (denotes) the RATE at which a system can GIVE UP ENERGY. It may not only be a factor of the kinetic energy of the individual particles which make up the system, but also of their relationship to each other. A certain number of molecules may each have their individual energies, but the 'temperature' of the system would increase if they were in closer proximity to each other. Merry Christmas Jim G |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|