-273.15

[Slashnoob]

Is there anyone in here that can honestly explain without googling the question why the above number is as low as temperatures can go? I mean, if heat can go up to astronomical figures, why is cold limited to -273.5?-273.15 why can't there just be a "colder" -500 for example?

I always had that question in mind when I heard something about the term "absolute zero temperature", and just recently found out the explenation and thought it was really cool.

Anyone knows this? Feel free to guess and speculate if you have no idea.

//looking at "people viewing"
Man, why did you two HAD to be the first to read this? :/

[Wraithlike]

In laymens terms, heat is the movement of molecules. Absolute zero is the absence of any movement of molecules, and thats why you can't go below it.

It has nothing to do with warmth or coldness, because those are sensations of feeling attached to opjects that are either endothermic or exothermic, or have more or less heat than the being toughing them. At immensely low temperatures, sensations can't be accurately applied, and thus "colder" stops at a higher heat then absolute zero, because of lack of human sensitivity.

Hope that makes sense, I could try to re-word that to be more clear, but basically the first paragraph is the answer.

[Kazuki]

From what I know, heat is a measurement of the energy released by friction caused by particles in motion. Therefore, the amount of heat exerted by a particle is directly proportionate to the friction it experiences. Since the lower limit of friction is, well, no friction at all, then that is the limit of heat.

The only way that we have come close to simulating absolute zero is by projecting lasers at a single particle from as many angles as possible so as to keep it from moving.

Edit: Damn, Wraithy beat me to it. ;(

[Slashnoob]

In laymens terms, heat is the movement of molecules. Absolute zero is the absence of any movement of molecules, and thats why you can't go below it.

To tell you the truth, the explenation I've heard was the size of an article and still this was more to the point than all of it. Stupid ass journalists.

What about heat? Does it have a limit? Can the motion of particles ever reach a top speed and does it have one at all? -serious question, I don't know that.

[Yukwunhang]

The precise definition of heat is "the process of energy transfer from one object to another because of the difference in temperature between the two objects". It is not the same as "temperature" or "heat/thermal energy".

The explanations provided by Wraith and Kazuki are mostly correct, but it's not as simple as that. I'm not an expert in physics or anything so I'm not in the position to give you a definite answer.

As for the upper limit of temperature, I don't know the exact limit but in any case there will be one since nothing can move faster than the speed of light according to Einstein.

By the way, what's wrong with Googling for the answer?

[DarkCrusade]

By the way, what's wrong with Googling for the answer?

Chance to get to talk with others and own lazyness in this case.


Yes, there is a toplevel for heat, but we won´t be able to test it.

[VijchtiDoodah]

Absolute Hot

Short answer: even physicists are unsure if there is an upper limit to heat and, if there is, what it might be.

[excruciator]

planck's temperature.

thats the theoretical max.

By the way, what's wrong with Googling for the answer?

It defies the point of asking you a question.
Nobody would ask you are question if you just spit back exactly whatever other people just told you.

[iDante]

Also, that's 0 degrees kelvin which starts at 0 movement.

The precise definition of heat is "the process of energy transfer from one object to another because of the difference in temperature between the two objects". It is not the same as "temperature" or "heat/thermal energy".

I'm pretty sure that's wrong, as heat is the amount of energy inside of something. Temperature is just how we measure it.

[excruciator]

temperature: the average kinetic energy in molecule
heat: random kinetic energy in molecules.

[Smegma]

Also, that's 0 degrees kelvin which starts at 0 movement.

The precise definition of heat is "the process of energy transfer from one object to another because of the difference in temperature between the two objects". It is not the same as "temperature" or "heat/thermal energy".

I'm pretty sure that's wrong, as heat is the amount of energy inside of something. Temperature is just how we measure it.

Heat is actually the transfer of thermal energy, while internal energy is how much energy is inside the system

[PANZERCATWAGON]

it seems as though particles cant get to be at absolute zero because its kind of hard to measure shit when it stops existing

fucking energy reliant existance

[JudgeMan]

Wow.. particles don't stop existing when they reach absolute zero. We never observed anything at 0 kelvin because 1. on earth it's impossible (LHC's superconducting magnet are cooled to 1.9 kelvin with liquid helium and that is in the lowest we've ever reached.) and 2. even in the middle of the intergalactic space at the point farthest from any star the temperature is ~3 kelvin because of the Cosmic Background Radiation caused by the popular theory of the Big Bang.

So in theory particles CAN reach absolute zero. It's just not possible in our universe. At least for now.

[~Niko~]

-273.15 Cº is the same as 0 K. 0 K means absolutely no movement in the particles, so that's because it can't go lower than that.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Wow.. particles don't stop existing when they reach absolute zero.

Volume is directly proportional to temperature.  Therefore...

[JudgeMan]

Seriously? Volume directly proportional to temp.?  Source?

A 10 cubic feet cube of ice at -10C will not become a 1 cubic foot cube of ice at -100C.

Matter would NOT disappear at 0k (or at any temp. for that matter) because of something called "law of conservation of mass/matter".

[excruciator]

Seriously? Volume directly proportional to temp.?  Source?

A 10 cubic feet cube of ice at -10C will not become a 1 cubic foot cube of ice at -100C.

Matter would NOT disappear at 0k (or at any temp. for that matter) because of something called "law of conservation of mass/matter".

Draw a graph with temperature of the gas as the x-axis and the volume of the gas for y axis.
The x-intercept of the graph would be (-273.15,0)

I think that's where they got that.

[p0ppin]

Well if you look at it using the equation (Pressure1*Volume1)/Temp.1 = (Pressure2*Volume2)/Temp2...

State1:
Pressure: 100,000 Pascals
Volume: 5m^3
Temp: 100Kelvins

If we change to state 2 while keeping the pressure constant...

State2:
Pressure: 100,000 Pascals
Volume: (?) m^3
Temp: 0 Kelvins

We get   100,000*5/100 = 100,000*x/0   <-oh dear...

 ...the resulting volume would be undefined because it is being divided by zero, right?  Interesting

[Mangled*]

What about heat? Does it have a limit? Can the motion of particles ever reach a top speed and does it have one at all? -serious question, I don't know that.

As for the upper limit of temperature, I don't know the exact limit but in any case there will be one since nothing can move faster than the speed of light according to Einstein.

The top speed of particles is the speed of light.

We can't be certain that the limit of 'vibration' of particles is the same as the limit of particle velocity. It is possible that the 'vibration' and therefore temperature of particles works in a different manner, perhaps on a level even lower than sub-atomic particles. If string theory is to be presumed it may be possible that strings can travel faster than the speed of light, and if so what if temperature is determined on a string level rather than an atomic level?

This boils down to (ha) an almost complete uncertainty, putting uper limits of particle temperature firmly in the realm of theoretical physics.

In any case I'm curious to know, what is the temperature of God?

[p0ppin]

You'd need a pretty big rectal thermometer?