Moderators: gmalivuk, Prelates, Moderators General
BlackSails wrote:If you expose yourself to a massive dose of gamma rays you get super strength.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Well, I killed a homeless man. We can't all be good people.
doogly wrote:What? No, if you are moving at c they are just your $h\nu$ and $h/\lambda$
KyleOwens wrote:doogly wrote:What? No, if you are moving at c they are just your $h\nu$ and $h/\lambda$
A massive particle moving at c would have infinite momentum if it could exist
doogly wrote:KyleOwens wrote:doogly wrote:What? No, if you are moving at c they are just your $h\nu$ and $h/\lambda$
A massive particle moving at c would have infinite momentum if it could exist
That not existing is a bit of an obstacle though.
gbagcn2 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_absolute_temperature
This article claims that its infinite since the momentum of an atom can be infinite. I think this is wrong though because its momentum should be limited by the speed of light.
Charlie! wrote:Also, this is the first time I've heard of "negative" temperature. It's really cool (yuk yuk), but it does seem like an abuse of theboltzmann distributionthermodynamics in general. I like the more basic definitions of temperature.
KyleOwens wrote:doogly wrote:What? No, if you are moving at c they are just your $h\nu$ and $h/\lambda$
A massive particle moving at c would have infinite momentum if it could exist
Erm, there's definitely a disagreement with the equation E = 3/2 kT. It's a pretty fragile mathematical construct. *grumble grumble population inversions grumble grumble.*Diadem wrote:Charlie! wrote:Also, this is the first time I've heard of "negative" temperature. It's really cool (yuk yuk), but it does seem like an abuse of theboltzmann distributionthermodynamics in general. I like the more basic definitions of temperature.
Actually it's really hot. Temperature runs from 0 to positive infinity and then from negative infinity to zero. So -5 K is hotter than 5 K. In fact it's hotter than 100,000,000 K or even infinite temperature. So the hottest possible temperature is, in fact, -0.
But that's a bit of a mathematical construct, I admit. In every day situations just goes from 0 upwards and there is no highest possible temperature.
gbagcn2 wrote:This article claims that its infinite since the momentum of an atom can be infinite. I think this is wrong though because its momentum should be limited by the speed of light.
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.
I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.
Wikipedia wrote:Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. ... A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion (one thousand million; 109; SI prefix giga) Kelvin and the density was about that of air, neutrons combined with protons to form the universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
Google images wrote:
Conventional big bang thingy. Infinite temp/density, singularity, start of everything.
One idea of a different big bang -- a big bounce. Not a singularity, just a really really really narrow little crunch where everything bashed into everything else quite hard, then exploded again. Not infinite in any measure, just really big (or really small, depending on the property being measured).
poxic wrote:It would be interesting to find out what the temperature might have been at the point of a big bounce. That, then, would be the highest temperature this universe has experienced (as far as we know).
Erm, there's definitely a disagreement with the equation E = 3/2 kT. It's a pretty fragile mathematical construct. *grumble grumble population inversions grumble grumble.*Charlie! wrote:But that's a bit of a mathematical construct, I admit. In every day situations just goes from 0 upwards and there is no highest possible temperature.
wst wrote:Surely it is anywhere a singularity occurs, due to the funky infinities involved? Anything with that many infinities must be doing something good with heat.
Diadem wrote:Well it has to be at least the Planck temperature. Because we know that whatever happened at the Big Bang, our physics must break down there (because normal GR or QM can explain neither a big bang nor a big bounce, nor any alternative), so we must have at least the Planck temperature.
The Planck temperature is 1.416785(71) × 10^32 K
So... hot
ikrase wrote:Tempuratures can be as hot as you want but eventually you get to the point where it's not really "hot gas" or "plasma" but "a few relativistic velocity particles held in a magnetic field, that spread out in flash of radiation if the field goes down"
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 3 guests