Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is There Such a Thing As Absolute Hot?

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the she-does-exist-yes dept.

Space 388

AlpineR writes "Is there an opposite to absolute zero? An article from PBS's NOVA online explains several theories of the maximum possible temperature. Maybe it's the Planck temperature, 10^32 K, beyond which the known laws of physics break down. Or maybe just 10^30 K, the limit of some versions of string theory. If space is actually 11-dimensional then the maximum temperature could even be as low as 10^17 K, attainable by the Large Hadron Collider. Or maybe infinite temperature wraps around to negative temperature and absolute hot is the same as absolute cold."

cancel ×

388 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Integer overflows (5, Funny)

m50d (797211) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806158)

That's what you get for writing a universe in C.

No, it was writting in Java (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806270)

Black holes are garbage collection.

Re:No, it was writting in Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806300)

is hawking radiation the garbage collector running finalise() for planets / etc then?

Re:Integer overflows (-1, Offtopic)

Soko (17987) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806276)

That's what you get for writing a universe in C.

Hmmmm... Does the Universe run on a Linux distro? [xnet.com]

Soko

Hey timothy! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806376)

Lick my balls. You suck at articles. Second only to KDAWSON.

Re:Integer overflows (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806384)

A universe in C would result in some minor changes [dwarfurl.com]

Burn, troll. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806404)

I haven't followed that link, and neither should anyone else. Probably another MyMiniCity spam game.

Re:Burn, troll. (2, Interesting)

bhima (46039) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806966)

Hey man, you need to lighten up a little bit. XKCD is just a comic.

I've seen the MyMiniCity thing but I hadn't realized it was a game though.
Anyway this is just a funny comic about programming.

Re:Burn, troll. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806974)

You've seriously never heard of XKCD?

Re:Integer overflows (0, Flamebait)

s1d (1185389) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806408)

I just can't imagine what would've happened if it was in VB.

Re:Integer overflows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806578)

That explains why c is so fast.

Re:Integer overflows (3, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806608)

I always thought it was written in lisp [url=http://xkcd.com/224/]until I learned otherwise[/url].

Re:Integer overflows (4, Funny)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806832)

Slashdot uses HTML, not BBCode.

Re:Integer overflows (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806846)

Nope, C actually makes the overflow behavior for signed integers undefined. So blame God OS for putting efficiency ahead of security by not using a checked add instruction.

Could be... (4, Insightful)

Meshach (578918) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806166)

I would have never thought there was a speed limit for the universe before I read Einstein's special theory of relativity. Anything is possible.

Re:Could be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806812)

But no one has tied relativity to quantum mechanics yet. Therefore those speed limits only apply to a narrow vision of the universe. There are still lots of unknowns and it would not surprise me if there is something beyond a unified theory even.

Re:Could be... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806910)

Who says that that alleged "speed limit" is legitimate? After all The Special Theory of Relativity is only about 100 years old.

And really I wouldn't be surprised if in 25-50 years physicists determined that the universe didn't have a speed limit at all.

Sure (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806168)

> "Or maybe infinite temperature wraps around to negative temperature and absolute hot is the same as absolute cold."

Or maybe the universe is a snake eating its own tail!

Or maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Re:Sure (4, Funny)

WombatDeath (681651) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806302)

I think you've hit on something with the snake idea.

Anyway, it's a little-known fact that 'absolute hot' is 39.6 degrees celsius (about 103.3 degrees fahrenheit). Any observation indicating a higher temperature is simply due to malfunctioning apparatus or experimental error.

Re:Sure (1)

mfnickster (182520) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807054)

> Anyway, it's a little-known fact that 'absolute hot' is 39.6 degrees celsius (about 103.3 degrees fahrenheit).

Indeed, this hypothesis is easily testable. On any given day when the temperature is 39.6 c, just go up and ask people.

"Hot enough for you?"

They will answer "Absolutely!"

Re:Sure (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806470)

No way.

Clearly, it's turtles all the way down.
=Smidge=

Re:Sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806668)

Not a snake, a giant piece of spaghetti. String theory supports this if the strings are tiny pieces of pasta too.

Is There Such a Thing As Absolute Hot? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806174)

Yes, and it's my wife's sister. I love the holidays!

Re:Is There Such a Thing As Absolute Hot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806264)

What do you know, the AC made me smile. :-)

Re:Is There Such a Thing As Absolute Hot? (-1, Redundant)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806782)

JPEG!

Re:Is There Such a Thing As Absolute Hot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806888)

Hit her in the shitter

depends (-1, Redundant)

matushorvath (972424) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806208)

Does universe run 32-bit or 64-bit operating system?

Temperaturee and velocity (3, Insightful)

0b1knob (927658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806306)

Temperature is directly related to the velocity of the atoms in a gas or plasma. Since the speed of light cannot be exceeded then there must be a maximum temperature.

Re:Temperaturee and velocity (1)

legoman666 (1098377) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806390)

but if the speed of light can be modified, how can the maximum temperature change also?

Re:Temperaturee and velocity (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806416)

As seen in this simulator Velocity Temp Sim [tinyurl.com]

Re:Temperaturee and velocity (1)

Fieryphoenix (1161565) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806484)

The speed of light cannot be exceeded, but matter never reaches it. You can always add more and more acceleration to matter, which ends up increasing the velocity smaller and smaller amounts, and the relative mass of the matter more and more. Somehow I think that a mole of atoms going .99999 c and massing (say) a baseball bat each would evaluate as less hot than one mole of the same type of atoms going .999999999999 c and massing a battleship each. Not that atoms per se would exist as such if two of them ever collided at those energies.

Re:Temperaturee and velocity (1)

richard.cs (1062366) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806552)

While there is a limit on the maximum velocity the particles can obtain, the temperature actually depends on the kinetic energy of the particles which does not (so far as anyone knows) have a limit. This is because the mass of the particles increases as they are accelerated to the speed of light. The explanation of maximum temperature in terms of the speed of light sounds nice at first and it was one of the first things I thought of but the physics doesn't really work like that.

Re:Temperaturee and velocity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806860)

Did you read the post you are replying to??

'Why have you been modded "insightful"?' is probably a better question...

Neither (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806740)

It's 42 bits.

Your question is simple.. (2, Funny)

Brian Lewis (1011579) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806230)

But the answer is much, much simpler.

42.

Yes, there is. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806234)

McDonald's coffee?

Absolute hot? (5, Funny)

Malevolent Tester (1201209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806238)

Margaret Thatcher. Covered in whipped cream. (apologies to anyone who was planning to close their eyes in the near future)

Re:Absolute hot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806342)

who are you, and why are you ALIVE

Re:Absolute hot? (1)

pyrrhonist (701154) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806562)

What's wrong with what he said? You don't find POWER sexy?

Temperature definition (3, Insightful)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806284)

I have to wonder about the definition of temperature at such high energies. I would think it would be difficult to envisage a situation where you have anything resembling a Maxwell-Boltsman distribution at 10^33 K, so just what is meant with temperature in this case?

Re:Temperature definition (2, Informative)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806534)

Maxwell-Boltzman probably wouldn't apply anyways, because at >10^32 K it would be pretty hard to be in thermal equilibrium. As for your question... maybe I just don't understand the physics enough, but wouldn't temperature still be defined as the average of atomic vibration, in this case the very large atomic vibrations.

Re:Temperature definition (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806666)

But where are the atoms at this... energy density ?

Re:Temperature definition (3, Informative)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807034)

Most of us have difficulty differentiating heat and temperature [uh.edu] . I am not even going to try to come up with a simple definition here. But, as the referred transcript states, if you have a very thin gas, temperature does, in some way, relate directly to motion. Therefore, absolute zero is approximately defined as the point where the atom in gas, where the atoms do not hit each other often, would stop moving. At present, I know of now peer review paper reporting 0 K reached, though some groups have come very close.

So the question of maximum temperature is not so silly. There are a number of ways to approach it from various definitions. If we have a few atoms in a large space, then perhaps we can drive those atoms to the speed of light, but no further. If we think of it thermodynamically, as Dr. Lienhard suggests, then we can ask is there an limit to the heat that can be driven between two systems. Such a limit would suggest a maximum temperature if we assume newtons law of cooling, which is itself is approximate, can be applied a large temperature differences, which it probably cannot.

In any case, nature, at least we way that science approaches it, appears to abhor vacuums [marinelayer.com] and black holes, both of which seem to exist, but don't seem to make sense. The question is apt as we have seem that assuming infinities do us little good.

Yeah, her name is Jessica Alba! (4, Funny)

bchernicoff (788760) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806312)

DUH!

Different beast methinks (5, Interesting)

Fieryphoenix (1161565) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806314)

While it may well be that there is a maximum "energy density" for a particular space, it would not really be a true opposite to absolute zero. Absolute zero represents complete cessation of motion... a true opposite would be infinite motion (obviously not infinite velocity). Also, it seems quite possible that whatever upper limit exists at one particular time in one particular space may differ from another... either varying as the universe ages, with whatever gravitational field may exist locally, or at the very least in different universes that may exist. As such, while absolute zero is just that... absolute (in that no heat is no heat under all conceivable reference points), "absolute heat" almost certainly does not uniformly exist. I suppose another way to say is that if you plug absolute zero in as the value in a mathematical calculation, you will always get the same result, but there is no one value "absolute heat" corresponding, which can closely approach actually existing in our universe.

Re:Different beast methinks (2, Interesting)

Kwiik (655591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806498)

Your logic is flawed

If the question was to ask for the opposite of "cessation of motion", you may be right

However, asking for the opposite of absolute zero is not asking for the opposite of the results of absolute zero. The defining attribute is that absolute zero is the lowest amount of heat possible, therefore to reverse this we are looking for the "opposite of lowest" amount of heat possible, or the lowest amount of "opposite of heat" possible, both are the same thing, and that's what this article is talking about.

Of course, if you instead define absolute zero as -273.15 C then you might define the opposite of absolute zero as +273.15 C, but if you decide to do that, you're stupid.

Re:Different beast methinks (0)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806884)

Well, that last theory might just have something to it if the postulation in TFS is right about the temperature wrapping at the absolute temperature.
If absolute cold == 0k, and absolute heat == -(absolute cold), then
absolute heat == -(0k).

Melissa is Absolutely Hot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806334)

There is a news reader in France named Melissa that would qualify as "Absolute Hot" //sorry, I thought this was Fark

Re:Melissa is Absolutely Hot (1)

FusionDragon2099 (799857) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806634)

You're thinking of Melissa Theuriau.

/got nothing

Re:Melissa is Absolutely Hot (0, Offtopic)

Golden Section (961595) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806704)

I think YouTube is becoming a rather complete news archive because of her.

Speed (2, Interesting)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806362)

Absolute zero is when all atomic motion ceases, right? The effective speed limit of the universe is the speed of light, so I'd assume absolute hot would be when when the atoms are traveling near or at the speed of light. Because mass cannot actually reach the speed of light, nothing can actually reach the absolute hot.

Or is that super mega crazy talk?

Re:Speed (4, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806432)

Nope.

Temperature depends on particles _energy_. At low temperature particle energy is calculated as E=m*v^2/2, but if you start to get closer to the light speed then the _MASS_ of a particle will grow. So you can get arbitrarily large energy as you approach the "c" limit.

Re:Speed (2, Insightful)

tulcod (1056476) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806532)

So there is a maximum speed of any object at c. Though, when approaching c, your mass increases and theoretically, your mass will eventually become infinite, which also means the amount of energy goes to infinite. Infinite energy means infinite temperature.

All this, of course, is purely theoretical and can never be accomplished because it's hard to accelerate any particle infinitely. But according to relativistic physics, an infinite temperature can exist.

Now, I'm not proficient with QED or M-theories, but I have read a little bit about it. According to the M-theory, there are points at which the world formed like we know it, but this was, afaik, purely the chemical world and not physics itself. Physics are always true, according to laws of physics. So if physics are coherent and complete, the laws of physics can't be stopped by simply a high temperature. Please recall that temperature consists of moving and bouncing particles, nothing more. I don't see how a moving particle would demolish physical laws.

The only reason for an absolute temperature as far as I know is the practical limit.

Re:Speed (5, Interesting)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806822)

>All this, of course, is purely theoretical and can never be accomplished because it's hard to accelerate any particle infinitely. But according to relativistic physics, an infinite temperature can exist.

No, relativity requires the application of infinite energy to reach the infinite temperature, just like classic mechanics. For this very reason it's impossible to reach it - you don't have the source of infinite energy in our Universe (probably).

However, quantum mechanics has _another_ theoretical limit. I don't really know its precise reason, but this 'handwaving' argument holds: imagine that you have a particle with VERY large speed. The mass of this particle can be large enough to create a black hole. And it will immediately start to lose mass due to Hawking radiation, which will be directed along the path of the black hole (due to relativistic focusing) in the opposite direction (it'll look like black hole with retrorockets).

So it's not possible to reach the infinite speed because our Universe seems to have the _maximum_ allowed finite speed.

Re:Speed (1)

jdray (645332) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806456)

For my layman's knowledge of physics, that's the best answer I've read yet.

Re:Speed (1)

Token_Internet_Girl (1131287) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806500)

To expound upon that idea:

I would think that matter would be able to get infinitely close to the speed of light. But not actually on it. Now imagine subatomic particles that grey the line between matter and energy. How hot could that get? Could you measure that in heat still, and would it vibrate in the same way?

It's enough thinking to ruin your morning coffee.

Re:Speed (4, Informative)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806510)

Temperature is defined in terms of the energy, not speed. At high velocities the mass of particles grow with their speed as per Einstein's theory, so even thou the top speed is limited, energy is in fact not. As a particle's speed aproaches the speed of light its energy diverges. This is in fact WHY you can't accelerate particles to the speed of light. As you get closer to C the particle mass starts growing rapidly so larger and larger amounts of energy is needed for smaller and smaller increments in speed. Thus you can't accelerate a particle to C using only a finite amount of energy. This effectively means that realitivity doesn't limit temperature. There may of course be other limits involved.

Re:Speed (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806792)

Thus you can't accelerate a particle to C using only a finite amount of energy
And there is an infinite amount of energy in the universe?
 

Re:Speed (1)

JambisJubilee (784493) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806646)

I like to remember temperature as 1/T=dS/dE (T=temperature, S=entropy, E=energy). So you can view absolute zero as a situation with no energy. Since the lowest energy state of a quantum system is always nonzero, this can't exist. Remember, electrons don't move around an atom. That doesn't make any sense.

As for absolute hot, if you use this temperature definition then it would exist as the maximum entropy available in a certain region.

Re:Speed (1)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806808)

Is it the speed that the particles travel that dictates their temperature or the rate at which the paricles vibrate?

I remember that you can increase the temperature of a gas by increasing the pressure on it. It's sort of like if you take one of those super bouncy balls and drop it straight down and let it bounce up and down a while. If you slowly lower your hand on top of the ball so that it bounces off of your hand to the floor, the ball will bounce faster and faster as your hand goes down. Even though it looks like the ball is moving faster, its velocity never increases. It just changes how quickly it switches from the top of the bounce to the bottom.

I suspect absolute hot will look something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806364)

like this [mostbeautifulwoman.com] .

A simple scientific experiment (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806382)

"Is there such a thing as absolute hot?"
1. Turn on a burner on the stove. Turn it up as high as it will go.
2. Wait 5 minutes for the burner to warm up.
3. Place the palm of your hand on the burner.
4. You tell me.

Re:A simple scientific experiment (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806526)

1. Turn on a burner on the stove. Turn it up as high as it will go.

Maybe you have to turn it to 11?

Re:A simple scientific experiment (1)

drainbramage (588291) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806616)

Mine goes to eleven.
That's one higher.

That'll be a yes, then. (1)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806916)

Aaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!

Re:A simple scientific experiment (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807056)

"Is there such a thing as absolute hot?" 1. Turn on a burner on the stove. Turn it up as high as it will go. 2. Wait 5 minutes for the burner to warm up. 3. Place the palm of your hand on the burner...

Very efficient: you test for absolute hot and absolute stupid all at the same time.
     

Sure is... Ever fuck a 2 year old? HOTT! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806410)

Nothing hotter than deep dicking a whining baby as its dead mother looks at you with that help me face.

Ooops.. nope there is something hotter... Wrapping the umbilical cord around your penis, making it thicker and with each thrust, squeezing its innards out of daddy's little fuck hole.

Merry Christmas, fuck a child! ... Keep the presents for youself.

You know it's coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806418)

Once we figure what absolute hot is, McDonalds will begin serving their coffee at that temperature.

Caution: I am not a physicist. (4, Insightful)

foxtrot (14140) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806422)

Seems to me there would have to be an absolute hot. Absolute zero, ferinstance, is the temperature at which all molecular motion stops. Nothing moves at absolute zero. Heat would, then, be a function of how fast the molecules are moving in a given substance, right?

Given that the universe has an effective speed limit ( C: it's not just a good idea, it's the law), it seems to me that for a given substance, there has to be an upper limit of how hot it can get solely because the molecules within it aren't allowed to vibrate any faster. (I'm not certain that the function of vibration speed to heat isn't substance dependent-- it may be.)

However, given that the idea of an absolute hot is apparently not agreed upon by physicists, I am probably missing something important in my layman's analysis of the situation.

-F

Re:Caution: I am not a physicist. (1)

neverutterwhen (813161) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806490)

As you approach the speed of light, the mass of the particles will increase. Thus the energy of particles could, assuming the system is really that simple, increase indefinitely.

Re:Caution: I am not a physicist. (4, Interesting)

KefabiMe (730997) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806594)

What happens when we add energy to the speed of a particle? When the speed gets closer and closer to the speed of light, the mass starts increasing.

Here's the important part that you probably already know. When an object nears the speed of light, the mass starts increasing. We can't cross the speed of light because more and more energy is required to accelerate the object.

Note that we can keep putting (unlimited amounts of) energy into the object and it will never go faster than light.

My theory? When so much energy is put into such a small space, it hits a form where the energy resonates and becomes primarily matter without any energy left over for movement. (Sound familiar? Absolute Hot and Absolute Cold are the same thing?) Matter, acceleration, velocity, temperature, energy... it's all the same thing just in different forms. =)

Re:Caution: I am not a physicist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806902)

No, by your theory there could be no absolute hot because it would require infinite energy.

I'm not convinced the speed of light is the limit though. Those laws don't apply to quantum mechanics.

Also, most likely there is something beyond even quantum mechanics that we don't know about yet.

Re:Caution: I am not a physicist. (1)

kenthorvath (225950) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806636)

Temperature is not a measure of the average speed of the particles in a system, but rather their average translational kinetic energy, which is a function of their speed when relativistic effects are not taken into account. However, there is no limit to the kinetic energy as speed increases towards c, and thus no limit to temperature. The story is a bit more complicated, but this is the first thing you overlooked.

Re:Caution: I am not a physicist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806746)

The statement that nothing moves at absolute zero is false. Look up zero point oscillations.

Plus certain compounds don't even have a solid phase, they stay liquid no matter how cold they get.

Re:Caution: I am not a physicist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806770)

Although the speed limit is c, relativity does not place an upper limit on kinetic energy.

The relativistic momentum is p = m_0 v / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) , so momentum goes to infinity at the speed of light. Energy (kinetic plus rest energy) is related to momentum by

E^2 = p^2 * c^2 + m_0^2 * c^4 , so energy also diverges at the speed of light.

Re:Caution: I am not a physicist. (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806774)

Heat would, then, be a function of how fast the molecules are moving in a given substance, right?
Temperature, not heat. Heat is no state function [wikipedia.org]

-460 degrees what? (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806424)

The opening sentence of the article kind of ruined it for me as a science article because of the use of such a ridiculously archaic unit. I can understand the stubbornly conservative US population rejecting these new-fangled SI units, but I would've thought the scientific community, and the scientific media, would have more sense. Didn't you guys trash a Mars probe because of some idiot using PSI when he should've been using Pascals?

Re:-460 degrees what? (2, Insightful)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806626)

You do know that NOVA is a popular science program? Popular as in intended for the the general public. It's not a science article just meant for people with a decent scientific background. In this case I think it's perfectly ok to include temperature in F and they even started with Kelvin first. Yeah, it might have ruined it for you (seriously, you might want to tune down your sensitivity a bit) but it also made it a lot more accessible to the general public.

Re:-460 degrees what? (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806896)

The purpose of a popular science programme is surely to educate - and thus they should be encouraging Americans to us the same (sensible) units the rest of the world does. Clinging onto ancient and arbitrary units (yes, I know Celsius is arbitrary too, but its less arbitrary because the degree increments fit in with all the other SI units) makes it harder to collaborate with the rest of the civilised world. It just seems like juvenile bloody mindedness.

In any case, your right to call British people and things 'quaint' is suspended until such a time as you stop measuring temperature in Fahrenheit

Re:-460 degrees what? (1)

chill (34294) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806942)

In any case, your right to call British people and things 'quaint' is suspended until such a time as you stop measuring temperature in Fahrenheit.

Sure, right after you people stop measuring weight in "stone". And why does the BBC Weather give temperature measurement in both C and F? And don't you people still use "miles" for a distance measure?

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:-460 degrees what? (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807050)

1. Stones is one of the few imperial measurements that have hung on, but its on the way out. I and many my age know my weight in kilograms but not in stones. 2. BBC Weather doesn't give the temperature in Fahrenheit (unless it does so when you connect from an American IP) OK, some imperial measurements survive in Britain but they are on the way out. Miles are used on road signs (probably because of the cost of a changeover, although I imagine it is coming) but speedometers have both mph and km/h on them. Bottled and canned beer is sold in millilitres these days, and I think the only thing keeping draught beer from being sold in half-litres is the inevitable protests that would result in losing 84ml from every round.

Mod fucktard down (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806660)

You're a fucktard. TFA starts with Kelvin. And, by the way, your beloved Centigrade scale is jut as arbitrary; it's just based on water instead of an alcohol. However, it's a great chance to take a shot at America.

Re:Mod fucktard down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806830)

And indeed the fucktard got modded down! hah!

The "slashdottization" of science (3, Funny)

gr8dude (832945) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806466)

Is there a corresponding maximum possible temperature? Well, the answer, depending on which theoretical physicist you ask, is yes, no, or maybe.
This sounds... incredibly familiar!

I don't know about physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806472)

but I know about women. [photobucket.com]

Spoiled It (2, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806494)

I found the line of thought intriguing, until it said "negative temperature". The whole point of "absolute zero" is that there _are_ no negative temperatures.

Or maybe (5, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806496)

we should switch the scale of hotness: accept Carmen Electra as 1 unit of hotness as measured in the year 2000. Also accept that 2 Carmen Electras is twice as hot as 1 Carmen Electra. As the number of Carmen Electras approaches infinity, their total combined hotness approaches some saturation limit, after which it is no longer possible to determine whether hotness of N x Carmen Electra is greater than hotness of (N+1) x Carmen Electra, which breaks down the laws of mathematics and thus the laws of physics by making N=N+1.

I must add that Chuck Norris can kick Carmen Electra's ass even at the hotness limit.

Relativity DOESN'T impose cosmic temperature limit (5, Informative)

sbaker (47485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806538)

Temperature is basically the average kinetic energy of the particles, and kinetic energy is half the mass times velocity squared, when things start to get very hot, the particles would eventually start getting up to relativistic speeds.

This has lead some people to suggest that the cosmic speed limit (the speed of light) imposes a cosmic temperature limit - but that's NOT the case.

As things start to move closer and closer to the speed of light, relativity says that their mass increases (as seen from the perspective of an outside observer). Whilst there is a cosmic speed limit - as you approach it, your mass increases without limit. Since unlimited mass and finite velocity means unlimited kinetic energy, relativity does not impose a cosmic temperature limit.

If there is a cosmic temperature limit, it's caused by something else.

Thermal Smith Chart? (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806566)

That would absolutely bend my brain - a thermal equivalent of a Smith Chart. [wikipedia.org]

Ask Bill Gates (-1, Redundant)

gr8dude (832945) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806580)

640 K ought to be enough for anybody.

I'm sure it's not *that* hot... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806638)

At that temperature any water would be denatured, so it would be a "dry heat".

I read this wrong? (1)

pionzypher (886253) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806692)

I read this as:

Our physics breaks down at very high and very low "temperatures". They must be similar! What if you go to Infinity +1!? You must be back where you started!

We currently measure temperature as the kinetic energy contained within the molecules of a substance, correct? Following this, the more energy you put into those molecules... the higher the temperature. If that temperature suddenly dropped to absolute zero, where did the energy go? Did we just condense into matter? Did we just break the second? Is it simply that our definition of "temperature" breaks down with the rest of our physics at those energies? Or will the matter behave as we might expect it to, and just continue to increase in temperature as you add energy. This article felt like some wild speculation mixed with some physics concepts without any real reasoning to the question. I get it wrong somewhere?

there is not absolute zero or absolute otherway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806700)

Absolute zero is a non-existent state. Well, no. It exists, but it cannot be attained ever. It requires matter to not exist. That is a bit difficult to do.

Both absolute zero and t'other way are those lines that approach a number but never reach it (like how x/2 never equals zero but gets really close). Things also change physically as something nears AZ and t'other way.

More informations can be provided if so desired.

I have research that I can provide if desired. Also home experiments. Some fun ones with your microwave to simulate extreme temperature conditions.

Re:there is not absolute zero or absolute otherway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806866)

Exactly.

High and low temperatures are not bound by constraints on either side. The difference between any point and absolute zero or "absolute hot" is infinite. Thus as there are an infinite number of points between any point and abosulte zero/"hot" the lower and upper limits temperature are both ^.

Ergo the true values of temperature are ^+^, which would mean that there are not absolutes.

Recent advanced physics theories began accepting this concept years ago. Though like anything else it has not found its way into more basic physics classes. Then again basic physics still considers the speed of a light a fixed constant and ignore that the speed of light is increasing with time (analogized like google mail. As time goes on the value is increasing, however unlike gmail the rate of increase is becoming larger with the speed of light.)

I will be publishing my dissertation in a few months. I am hoping the prelim will be done by february.

Re:there is not absolute zero or absolute otherway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807000)

Oops.

The values of both hot and cold are infinity^infinity. Stupid slashdot killed my symbols.

so "Ergo the true values of temperature are (infinity^infinity)+(infinity^infinity), which would mean that there are not absolutes."

I can explain more about the values, but they are largely meaningless. I did my graduate work in mathemathics (specifically regarding very large and infitinitely large numbers) so I understand at that point it is really just theory.

Absolute hot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21806754)

My 10 year old son asked the same question a couple of weeks ago. I replied that perhaps it relates to the fastest that the molecules in a substance can jiggle, presumably tending towards the speed of light?

Of course! (1)

Pedrito (94783) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806946)

Obviously the poster hasn't seen Monica Bellucci in Malèna!

Paris Hilton Thinks So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807018)

That's hot....

Answer: Yes (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807028)

Is There Such a Thing As Absolute Hot?

Umm... Heidi Klum?

absolute zero is not the coldest... (-1, Redundant)

jwagman1 (1004155) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807040)

absolute zero only applies to our planet... try pluto for example... the temperatures there are a lot cooler than 0K...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?