0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: alancalverd on 24/09/2022 11:55:50so it will surely You may be sure, but the rest of us aren't.Eventually, it all ends up moving fast enough to overcome the gravitational attraction- it's above escape velocity- so it becomes more and more diffuse.
so it will surely
so it will surely coalesce back to a new primordial lump.
Isn't the essence of a black hole, that photons cannot leave it? Hence black, and hole.
Has it ever been changed or replaced?
Hawking radiation is a very slow form of black hole ablation.
Because that would only add something like 27 orders of magnitude to the answer.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 23/09/2022 23:12:31Has it ever been changed or replaced?Yes. The usual reason is that someone finds a process that is more precisely or more easily reproducible. Problem with temperature is that you need two accessible points to define a temperature scale. Whilst 0K is a calculable point it isn't actually accessible, thermometers that work well at low temperatures don't always work at high ones, and the linearity of any practical thermometer is limited so you really need several reference points. We tend to use the platinum resistance thermometer to provide a standard scale up to a few hundred K, accepting that it is not inherently linear but sufficiently consistent. The triple point of water is a simple reference for most industrial purposes but as we have discussed, it is a very difficult substance to use with precision, whereas gallium is rather "better behaved" around its triple point. Most people would agree that temperature measurement above about 700K is very difficult to establish to better than ±0.1K but it is a matter of little practical consequence.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2022 04:14:47Quickly rotating magnets or electrets in a box have large kinetic energy,You ignored the word "internal" in my quote. It isn't there for padding!
Quickly rotating magnets or electrets in a box have large kinetic energy,
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/09/2022 11:50:47Quote from: Deecart on 18/09/2022 19:13:19Now, yes the heat is also a mechanical energy, but he say it himself... it is a statistical mechanical energy.What's the difference between statistical mechanical energy and non-statistical mechanical energy?How would it compare to temperature? Is there a statistical mechanical energy which is not kinetic? What would it be called? These can be seen as rhetorical questions. But since no one is interested to answer them, I'll give it a try, starting with this video. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtebGVx-FxwQuoteEntropy is a fundamental concept in Data Science because it shows up all over the place - from Decision Trees, to similarity metrics, to state of the art dimension reduction algorithms. It's also surprisingly simple, but often poorly explained. Traditionally the equation is presented with the expectation that you memorize it without thoroughly understanding what it means and where it came from. This video takes a very different approach by showing you, step-by-step, where this simple equation comes from, making it easy to remember (and derive), understand and explain to your friends at parties.
Quote from: Deecart on 18/09/2022 19:13:19Now, yes the heat is also a mechanical energy, but he say it himself... it is a statistical mechanical energy.What's the difference between statistical mechanical energy and non-statistical mechanical energy?How would it compare to temperature? Is there a statistical mechanical energy which is not kinetic? What would it be called?
Now, yes the heat is also a mechanical energy, but he say it himself... it is a statistical mechanical energy.
Entropy is a fundamental concept in Data Science because it shows up all over the place - from Decision Trees, to similarity metrics, to state of the art dimension reduction algorithms. It's also surprisingly simple, but often poorly explained. Traditionally the equation is presented with the expectation that you memorize it without thoroughly understanding what it means and where it came from. This video takes a very different approach by showing you, step-by-step, where this simple equation comes from, making it easy to remember (and derive), understand and explain to your friends at parties.
My conclusion so far, is that temperature of an object is proportional to its kinetic energy, as well as its entropy.
The temperature of an object is indeed proportional to its internal kinetic energy, as several people stated on Page 1 and all the textbooks. The constant of proportionality is called the temperature scale, and most scientists use the Kelvin scale starting at absolute zero and incrementing by Celsius degrees.There is little point in arguing about the meaning of words in physics - the important ones are all defined, mostly English (or Latin/Greek/German incorporated into English), and fully understood by those who use them daily.
Here is a more complete table of molar heat capacity I compiled from NIST website.Temp (K) Hydrogen Deuterium Helium Argon Radon300 28.85 29.19 20.79 20.79 20.79 1000 30.20 31.64 20.79 20.79 20.79 3000 37.09 38.16 20.79 20.79 20.79 6000 41.97 42.25 20.79 20.79 20.79 From the table we can conclude that increase of temperature also increases the portion of rotational and vibrational movements in kinetic energy of diatomic gases. In noble gases, those types of motion are virtually non-existent.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/10/2022 03:34:33My conclusion so far, is that temperature of an object is proportional to its kinetic energy, as well as its entropy. Then your conclusion is wrong.Temperature is sometimes proportional to the energy in some simple cases.But the heat capacity is not actually a constant, so your idea is not actually correct.It's not proportional to the entropy.
What's your conclusion?
Temperature is sometimes proportional to the energy in some simple cases.But the heat capacity is not actually a constant, so your idea is not actually correct.It's not proportional to the entropy.
The proportionality between temperature and kinetic energy is well established for ideal gases.
The next questions are how to quantify it, and how to separate it from the types of motion which contribute to temperature measurement.
But the heat capacity is not actually a constant