Temperature

[admiral_ju00]

What is the highest(heat) possible temperature?

It's interesting that while the lowest possible temp has a value(absolute zero) even though it has never yet been reached.

 

What about the highest or hottest temp possible. The biggest number I've seen is 100Million degrees C, or are there even higher temps?

[Nisou]

temperature has no limit as to how high since its kenetic energy =).. at least thats what i think, ..

edit: doh, absolute zero is the lowest

[Sayonara]

Not sure if we came to a conclusion or not, but check here.

 

Also check out the thread id

[swansont]

temperature has no limit as to how high since its kenetic energy =).. at least thats what i think, .. and also, i dont think there is a limit to how cold either.. is there?

 

On the high end you are limited by how much energy is available to you, and the size of your sample.

 

At the low end, it's zero, as the Adm stated. people have come close - below a nanoKelvin - but the limit is unattainable.

[YT2095]

according to my book, New York Public Library Science Desk Reference (1995)

 

the Highest temp is: 1,000,000,000,000 Kelvin, and that`s from the fireball at the beginning of the Universe.

 

the Relic Fireball is 3k and the lowest acheived in a Lab is one 16 millionth of a degree Kelvin

[jordan]

What particle would be used to obtain such a low temperature?

[YT2095]

I don`t know, but I would assume it would be Helium under a fast evaporation process.

maybe even a mix of gasses with some sort of atomic interplay to loose as much heat as possible over a short time period, I can`t imagine they could sustain that temp for long.

[jordan]

I origionaly thought of atoms, but the electron part confused me. Would the electrons have to stop moving to reach these temperatures?

[YT2095]

they`de be VERY close to not moving at that temp, certainly

[jordan]

That has to screw with the whole S and W force thing then.

[YT2095]

define S & W and we`ll chat again

[jordan]

Sorry. Strong and Weak.

[YT2095]

got ya, well the Nuclear forces should remain largely unchanged, Motion/movement on the otherhand should Cease entirely at 0 Kelvin (basicly anything cappable of generating any heat energy).

and so Electrons as said to stop still in their tracks, metals will conduct without resistance and liquids will flow uphill!

 

of course, without anyone ever attaining these temps (or lack of) and doing extensive studies/experimentation, much of it remains logic based guess work.

there`s no reason as yet to beleive that current theories about materials and phenomenon at this temp are untrue though

[jordan]

Wouldn't the electrons be drawn into the nucleus if they had no momentum?

[YT2095]

as far as I know, No they wouldn`t be, the same forces that attract and repel them will still apply, the only difference is that the movement ceases.

and on a Molecular scale, the "Ideal Gas" is said to "vanish" at 0 Kelvin (something I never quite understood, so don`t ask ME about it) LOL )

[Dave]

Well, the laws of thermodynamics tell us that 0K can never be obtained anyway.

[jordan]

I was going to point out that similar to the moon, I would guess that it is the momontum of the electrons that keep them in orbit. If the moon stopped moving, it would just fall in and colide with the earth.

 

Way to spoil the fun dave.

[timo]

What is the highest(heat) possible temperature?

It's interesting that while the lowest possible temp has a value(absolute zero) even though it has never yet been reached.

 

What about the highest or hottest temp possible. The biggest number I've seen is 100Million degrees C' date=' or are there even higher temps?[/quote']

 

EDIT: First off : Heat != Temperate. Heat is energy while temperature is a statistical variable. They are related because temperature describes the distribution of energy in a system and hence the heat. But they´re not the same (they´re as similar as nationality and income).

 

Generally, there´s no upper limit to temperature. Temperature is a statistical variable that determines the distribution of energy of your particles (atoms, molecules, whatever).

The relative probability of a particle to have energy E is given by p(E) ~ n(E)*exp(-E/kT) where T is temperature and k is a constant. n(E) is the state-density which basically sais how many possibilites there are to have energy E. Function given is correct for higher temperatures and is replaced by quantum-statistics at lower temps. As you can (hopefully) see higher T means higher average temp (exp(-E/T) falls down slower).

 

 

 

Some comments on other posts:

 

temperature has no limit as to how high since its kenetic energy =).. at least thats what i think, .. and also, i dont think there is a limit to how cold either.. is there?

Yes. Staying in your picture which comes quite close to reality it would be "no kinetic energy" <=> "T=0K"

 

Jordan: What particle would be used to obtain such a low temperature?

YT2095: I don`t know, but I would assume it would be Helium under a fast evaporation process.

While Helium is right you have to use more sophisticated methods to obtain low temperatures. See the website I´ll propose below.

 

I origionaly thought of atoms' date=' but the electron part confused me. Would the electrons have to stop moving to reach these temperatures?

[/quote']

Forget about the electrons. Bound electrons in an atom is nothing that can be treatened without quantum mechanics. As for QM: You can safely assume a negligible part of the atoms is excited or plug the excitations into the state-density distribution and not further care about it.

 

@Stong and Weak interactions:

Stong and Weak forces only play a role in the nucleus. Excited nuclei states have a very high energy (x-ray). They don´t play a role when talking about low to moderate temperatures (I´d even say they don´t play a role at all at any temperature attainable but I couldn´t prove that now).

 

... the "Ideal Gas" is said to "vanish" at 0 Kelvin ...

Don´t know where you heard that and also don´t know what that means. Nevertheless the state equation for ideal gases "pV = NkT" (p:Pressure, V:Volume, N: Number of particles, k: Constant, T: Temp) might help you figuring it out.

 

 

Proposed reading:

I held a small speech about cooling and bose-einstein condensates for 1st semesters about one year ago. While preparing for the speech I stumbled across a very nice webpage that should be easy to understand for non-scientists while it still is accurate:

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/temperature.html

[YT2095]

yeah, that link backs up most of all I said

I did have a prob accessing the last sub link however, here: http://www.aip.org/physnews/graphics/condensed/1996/helium-3/

 

the "1/1000 of a degree" link

[jordan]

I'm still not too sure, though I never did know much about this stuff. Whouldn't the attraction of the protons and electrons take over when the electrons stop moving?

[budullewraagh]

there is a physics principle that states that at absolute zero (a completely impossible temperature to achieve since you cannot divide by zero AND it is impossible to cool something without touching it with matter) electrons would still move. of course, this only speculates.

 

speaking of speculation, as for a highest possible temperature, i believe that there is one, but it is almost infinately high. there is a certain finite amount of energy in existence currently. there is a certain finite amount of matter in existence currently. IF all of creation were to continuously undergo nuclear reactions and yield energy converted from mass, there would be a finite amount of energy. of course, this would be an inconceivable amount of energy, but hey, it makes sense.

[K. B. Robertson]

As most subscriber's in this forum apparently know, there's considerable, relatively obscure but active controversy on the issue of the opposite ends of the 'temperature' (motion) spectrum.

 

A limit on the 'high (maximal heat) end' (of the proposed 'motion spectrum') is unknown to this membership (Equus), whereas, Lord Kelvin and Clausius made important contributions to thermodynamic principles and general knowledge in that field.

'Absolute Zero' is, to the best of this record's knowledge, unattainable, as earlier and following membership posts here have astutely submitted.

 

'Absolute Zero' is - (minus) 400 something, Farenheit and - (minus) 200 something, Centigrade.

 

Absolute Zero has yet to be achieved. (There may be 'unforeseen reasons' for this.), and may be unattainable.

That's when all molecular and even atomic and subatomic motion stops ('would stop'). There is no physical condition known to science where any known entity exists at Absolute Zero.

 

(Refer 'Lord Kelvin', 'Absolute Zero', on google).

 

'There is no space empty of field'. - Einstein.

Whereas, a 'field', by definition is a moving proposition, and motion is heat.

 

Ergo, until further notice, Absolute Zero is a universal 'non-event'...

 

Which, notably, is exactly what Absolute Zero would achieve - a physical condition or space where 'nothing is moving'...

 

It has been impressively implied that, should Absolute Zero ever be induced in a given physical test object, said object would promptly contract into the microcosms (It is already implied that some gases may already do that) - becoming ever smaller, and proportionately more dense and timeless with the passage of time (motion) surrounding it - whatever test object bereft of any (internal, molecular, atomic and/or sub-atomic) motion whatsover; motion being synonymous with time - for infinity.

 

Inspiring the consideration that microcosmic smallness may be just as endless as macrocosmic largeness.

 

Cryogenic experimentation has brought physical test objects to within near billionths of a of a (the) degree (thermodynamic threshhold) of Absolute Zero:

 

... but - how close is 'close', when the microcosmic test object tenaciously bustles with motion, as the cryogenic effort to abate it is obliged to pursue the ever smaller microcosms with their accompanying, apparently interminable motions progressing into apparently limitless microcosmic 'smallness'...

 

Whereas, the 'center' of a given sub-atomic particle is, until further notice, unreachable - that is to say, the so called sub atomic 'particle' has no distinct, discontinuous 'surface', separating it from the space surrounding it...

 

Instead, the so called 'particle' is an undulating charge of electricity, having no discontinuous boundaries (fullfilling the definition for mass/'particle' - that which 'posesses negative and positive inertia; disallows the simultaneous occupaton of it's space by any other 'particle'; Repeat: )- found in fact to be a charge of electriciy having no distinct boundaries; becoming increasingly more dense toward it's center.

 

(The linear accelerator at Lawrence Livermore Lab, in Berkeley, CA., for example, continues to - so far, unsuccessfully - attempt to arrive at the center of a given sub-atomic particle. If that can be done, there may be a way to (access and/or otherwise) abate the otherwise inevitable motion <= heat>, therein.)

 

Until if and when the - any sub-atomic 'particular' - center can actually be arrived upon, most likely via cyrogenic - usually liquid Oxygen/LOX - or whatever other molecular and/or atomic and/or sub atomic 'particle' motion stoppers may be employed, the effort to achieve Absolute Zero continues to be a notably unsuccessful but importantly thought provoking ('nul' - unsuccessful) experimental expedition.

 

This - perhaps ubiquitously cogent; ironically obscure - issue of Absolute Zero is notably subjected in what may be a unique perspective, in the file on 'Gravity' and 'Einstein' on the menu at http:// einstein.periphery.cc/ , wherein a tenable, unprecedented premise for the cause and dynamics of 'singularities' - black holes (among many other important, previously irresolute issues), is comprehensively presented, along with what might be a -so far unrecognized - reversal, negation or interchangeability of standardized gravitational vector(s) and the identification of two dimensions (5th & 6th) beyond Einstein's 4-D space-time continuum...

 

Along with an ensemble of resolutions for previously relegated 'intractable' enigmas, such as 'time dilation', 'black holes', 'mass contraction at a rate proportional to its velocity (refer Lorentz transformations as applied to matter)', and a potent addition to what is already accumulating as a series of sobering disqualifications of the so called 'Big Bang' theory.

 

A well authenticated, previously unrecognized perspective is introduced in the above mentioned website, wherein, if and when any test object or physical system is subjected to Absolute Zero, it may inf fact implode (swiftly shrink) into the infinite microcosms - functionally 'disappear'; not going out of existence, but becoming ever smaller and more dense at a rate proportional to the expanding universe around it: squared to infinity...

 

A consideration wherein 'microcosmic smallness' is as infinite as 'macrocosmic largeness'.

 

There may also be a singular solution to the elusive 'Unified Field' here (http:// einstein.periphery.cc/), finding 'microcosmic, strong nuclear binding forces' and 'macrocosmic, weak gravitational forces', as being two apparently different - space-time multi-moment - manifestations of what prove to be the same <'earlier or later/smaller or larger'> electromagnetic - E=MCsquared invoking - force).

Vini Vici Entiendo.

- Equus

[timo]

^^ I didn´t really understand much in above post (but I didn´t really try hard) except the reference to Kelvin - and he is wrong on the subject which is not too surprising since his physical knowledge is a bit outdated (a hundred years) for today's standards.

 

Nevertheless I´ll take the reactivation of this debate as an occasion to repeat more explicitely what I already said:

EDIT: uh, oh, reading my previous post again it seems I actually didn´t say that. Well, that´s even better:

 

I'm still not too sure, though I never did know much about this stuff. Whouldn't the attraction of the protons and electrons take over when the electrons stop moving?

 

Quantum Mechanics doesn´t allow a bound electron to stop moving. QM tells you that bound atoms can be only in certain states. None of these states is associated with stop of movement (*resistthetemptationtostressuncertainty). Each of these states have an energy associated to it so if for example an electron changes to a lower-energetic state the differrence in energy will be released as a photon of characteristic energy.

At absolute zero all particles will be in the state with the lowest energy. But since there´s no state allowing the bound electrons to rest they won´t do so.

I can imagine that eating "there is no state where everything is at rest" isn´t that easy but that´s the best answer I can give you assuming you don´t know QM (you might want to read it up; the Hydrogen atom and it´s quantitized states is not too hard to understand - non-relativistic).

 

And to repeat it once more: Temperature is no physical quantitiy. It´s a statistical variable. I don´t think there´s much point thinking about it and speculating what this tells us of the world if one hasn´t really understood that and can tell statistics from physics.

[jordan]

Ok, atheist, I follow what you're saying. But when we reach that fraction of a degree away from absolute zero, exactly what is happening to the electrons?

[swansont]

Absolute Zero has yet to be achieved. (There may be 'unforeseen reasons' for this.)' date=' and may be unattainable.

That's when all molecular and even atomic and subatomic motion stops ('would stop'). There is no physical condition known to science where any known entity exists at Absolute Zero. [/quote']

 

Absolute zero being unattainable is a consequence of the third law of thermodynamics. Subatomic motion does not stop. It doesn't even slow down as you near the limit - temperature is indicative of center-of-mass motion only.

 

Cryogenic experimentation has brought physical test objects to within near billionths of a of a (the) degree (thermodynamic threshhold) of Absolute Zero:

 

No, these temperatures were achieved in Bose-Einstein condensation experiments, which use laser cooling in a magneto-optic trap or optical molasses, followed by evaporative cooling in a magnetic trap. No cryogenics.