czimborbryan Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Another idea that I had is that there is a finite end to how hot something can become. Drumroll please... The terminal temperature for heat is absolute zero at both the highest and lowest ends of the spectrum.
iNow Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 I am struggling to follow your logic. Absolute zero is an idealized condition where all molecular/atomic movement has ceased. How would that represent the highest possible temperature, since temperature is (in a rudimentary sense) a description of movement in a system?
czimborbryan Posted January 10, 2009 Author Posted January 10, 2009 The ultimate in heat would in effect burn itself out resulting in a near vaccuum and the instant return to absolute zero, if there are any bits of matter remaining, which there may not.
swansont Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 How do you reconcile this with conservation of energy?
Kyrisch Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 "burn itself out"? You seem to fail to grasp the chemistry involved.
czimborbryan Posted January 10, 2009 Author Posted January 10, 2009 I immagine that if a high enough temperature is reached, chemistry would not really matter because the molecules would be moving so fast that their bonds would break and the same could be said for atoms splitting. I'm willing to bet that absolute zero is reached somewhere close to the core of an exploding nuclear bomb, even if it's just for an instant.
swansont Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 I'm willing to bet that absolute zero is reached somewhere close to the core of an exploding nuclear bomb, even if it's just for an instant. How much?
Bignose Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 You've really missed iNow's point. Temperature is measure of the average speed of the constituent molecules of a substance. That is the definition of temperature. Speed goes up, temperature goes up. Furthermore, the definition of absolute zero is a point where the average speed of all the molecules is equal to zero; that is, no movement of the molecules at all. So, how can something get so hot -- that is specifically that its constituent molecules speed up so much that they stop?
czimborbryan Posted January 10, 2009 Author Posted January 10, 2009 You've really missed iNow's point. Temperature is measure of the average speed of the constituent molecules of a substance. That is the definition of temperature. Speed goes up, temperature goes up. Furthermore, the definition of absolute zero is a point where the average speed of all the molecules is equal to zero; that is, no movement of the molecules at all. So, how can something get so hot -- that is specifically that its constituent molecules speed up so much that they stop? The particles speed stops because the particles themselves have disintigrated. They become so hot and vibrate so violently that the forces keeping the matter intact give way and unfold into the light spectrum. This energy is released radially leaving a zone of absolute zero behind - for just an instant until it is replaced by an implosion of the surrounding conditions.
swansont Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 The particles speed stops because the particles themselves have disintigrated. They become so hot and vibrate so violently that the forces keeping the matter intact give way and unfold into the light spectrum. This energy is released radially leaving a zone of absolute zero behind - for just an instant until it is replaced by an implosion of the surrounding conditions. Particles don't just disintegrate into photons. You will have Hadrons and Leptons, and both Hadron number and Lepton number are conserved.
czimborbryan Posted January 10, 2009 Author Posted January 10, 2009 What would happen if the temperature is so high that even the hadrons and leptons disintegrate? This may or may not be possible. Even if the atoms explode into these particles and not unravel into the light spectrum, they would radiate outward leaving a zone of absolute zero behind.
ajb Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 If you look at the thermodynamics of strings you do indeed have a maximum temperature. I really have no idea of the details (I am not a professional "stringer" myself). Search the literature.
insane_alien Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 and the maximum temperature is still not absolute zero, its a long long way above it. but anyway, the fastest a particle could go is about a gnats testicle per fortnight slower than c, this isn't really going to cause it to disintigrate, infact, there is not velocity that would cause a particle to disintegrate. 1/ the particles aren't made up of anything else so they have nothing to disintegrate into. 2/ why would speed make something disintigrate?
czimborbryan Posted January 10, 2009 Author Posted January 10, 2009 I do not think strings are the building blocks of particles. As mentioned before, I think that waves (and the way time/gravity works) are the building blocks of particles - as in the light spectrum. I know, it sounds kind of nuts, but so does string theory. It goes like this: Time/gravity has tension (I don't know how, but it does), this tension creates a suitable environment for waves, which is perecieved as the light spectrum. These waves have energy and if interacting in just the right way with time/gravity of their own upon impact end up clumped as a particle. These particles eventually make up all that is matter. So the way I see things, everything is little more than time/gravity. - Yeah I know, no proof... back to playing with strings I suppose....
insane_alien Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 and do you have any experiments capable of proving this?
czimborbryan Posted January 10, 2009 Author Posted January 10, 2009 and do you have any experiments capable of proving this? I'm not even sure anybody can do an experiment to test this... maybe the Large Hadron Collider if light waves are produced after obliterating particles (although I know light is also produced when gravity is stressed). -I digress and we are getting off point. The point that I made above is that once a maximum temperature is reached, the resulting temperature is absolute zero. I think the only experiments out there are with explosives and how there is a vacuum formed at the core of the explosion. This vacuum may be at absolute zero with no surviving particles.
swansont Posted January 10, 2009 Posted January 10, 2009 What would happen if the temperature is so high that even the hadrons and leptons disintegrate? This may or may not be possible. No, there would be no disintegration. What happens when you reach certain energy thresholds is that you start creating particle/antiparticle pairs. It occurs to me that this would limit the temperature increase, as energy is added and these pairs were created, since temperature is the kinetic energy and you're tying up some energy in mass. There could be something that looks like a latent heat term if this were a sharp threshold. Even if the atoms explode into these particles and not unravel into the light spectrum, they would radiate outward leaving a zone of absolute zero behind. Now you're disregarding entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, as well as appearing to mix up "vacuum," i.e. the lack of particles, with absolute zero.
ajb Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 If you look at the thermodynamics of strings you do indeed have a maximum temperature. I really have no idea of the details (I am not a professional "stringer" myself). Search the literature. What I have said is not quite true. You can show that the Hagedorn temperature (the temperature at which partition function diverges) of a collection of strings is [math]T_{H}=\frac{1}{4 \pi \sqrt{\alpha'}} \approx 10^{30}K[/math]. Apparently, this is not a maximum temperature, contrary to what I have been told. It is more to do with a phase-transition and the production of long strings. (I really need to read up on string thermodynamics!) Any thoughts on the so called Planck temperature? Is this the maximum temperature allowed?
czimborbryan Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 and the maximum temperature is still not absolute zero, its a long long way above it. but anyway, the fastest a particle could go is about a gnats testicle per fortnight slower than c, this isn't really going to cause it to disintigrate, infact, there is not velocity that would cause a particle to disintegrate. 1/ the particles aren't made up of anything else so they have nothing to disintegrate into. 2/ why would speed make something disintigrate? 1. These particles must be made of something. 2. Does E=MC squared sound familiar?
Sayonara Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 czimborbryan, you are misapplying well-defined physical terms, and misunderstanding well-documented physical processes. As in your other threads it appears that you have a basic understanding of some popular terms and concepts, but for the purposes of applying them to your own ideas you seem to have nowhere near enough of a grasp of the fundamental principles that underpin them all. At the very very very least, you really need to read around the subjects in a great deal more depth before you start trying to make an argument for a hypothesis. As far as this thread goes, no. Even if particles could be said to be stopped (as opposed to converted) when they get "too hot", the definition of absolute zero is specific to the point of negating your proposal.
czimborbryan Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 czimborbryan, you are misapplying well-defined physical terms, and misunderstanding well-documented physical processes. As in your other threads it appears that you have a basic understanding of some popular terms and concepts, but for the purposes of applying them to your own ideas you seem to have nowhere near enough of a grasp of the fundamental principles that underpin them all. At the very very very least, you really need to read around the subjects in a great deal more depth before you start trying to make an argument for a hypothesis. As far as this thread goes, no. Even if particles could be said to be stopped (as opposed to converted) when they get "too hot", the definition of absolute zero is specific to the point of negating your proposal. I understand that the particle are not going to just stop and I never stated that. This would be rediculous. The absolute zero comes from all matter in that zone being released into pure energy. For the tiniest amount of time, that zone has no energy left, it had been radiated explosively to the extent that there is nothing remaining - nothing. The recharging of this zone with energy would have the same properties as recharging matter at absolute zero to another state.
Sayonara Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 I understand that the particle are not going to just stop and I never stated that. I know, what you said was: The particles speed stops because the particles themselves have disintigrated. Here you are trying to make the conversion of the particles to energy equivalent in thermodynamic terms to the state matter reaches at absolute zero, and they are simply not the same thing. From the Wiki page, "at absolute zero all molecular motion does not cease but does not have enough energy for transference to other systems, it is therefore correct to say that at 0 kelvin molecular energy is minimal." That clearly rules out a system where high-temperature matter is converted to energy in a single release. Your brief "energy-free zone" which you claim results from that conversion, even if it existed, would not be a part of the system anyway.
swansont Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 1. These particles must be made of something. Not if they are the fundamental particles. Physicists investigate this all the time in particle accelerators. 2. Does E=MC squared sound familiar? Yes. But, to quote Inigo Montoya, I do not think it means what you think it means. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI understand that the particle are not going to just stop and I never stated that. This would be rediculous. The absolute zero comes from all matter in that zone being released into pure energy. For the tiniest amount of time, that zone has no energy left, it had been radiated explosively to the extent that there is nothing remaining - nothing. The recharging of this zone with energy would have the same properties as recharging matter at absolute zero to another state. "Nothingness" is not the same as absolute zero.
czimborbryan Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 Swansont, good point, I beleive that there is a distinction between nothingness and absolute zero that I failed to realize. Follow-up question: does nothingness interact with matter (nothingness meaning the presence of time/gravity, but without matter, waves or particles)? I'm imagining nothingness as having the temperature of absolute zero; such as if you put an item of matter into it, the matter would react as if you had just dipped it into a zone of absolute zero. What do you think?
Recommended Posts