[neilep (OP)]

Good AM or Good PM to one and all.

Absolute zero is like, well cold yes ?....ok...can someone tell me if there is an absolute 'high' temperature ?....I suppose a good example would be at the instant of the big bang eh ?.....I'm probably wrong but if there is a definitve definition of the opposite of absolute zero then I would be interested to know for the forthcoming BBQ season.

Ta


'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[Ylide]

I suppose it would be the sum of the thermal component all the energy in the universe if you could somehow condense it, but I can't think of a physical law that proves its existance and/or attainability.  (or lack thereof)



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[gsmollin]

Even at the instant of the big bang, there is no indication that there was an absolute highest temperature. We don't know enough about T=0 to say what the temperature was then. At 10E(-45) s the temperature was about 10E(32) K, the energy density was about 10E(120) J/m, and the universe was 10(-60) m in size.

[Ylide]

Exactly my point.  Temperature is a measure of thermal/heat energy, the matter in the singularity of origin doesn't necessarily have to be in a form that radiates energy as heat.  Mathematically speaking, there's no upper limit (or put better, upper limit = infinity) in the equations of thermodynamics, merely a lower limit (T=0)





This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[neilep (OP)]

So the answer's NO then....cheers jay and Gsmollin....I can plan my BBQ without too much concern then !!

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[Titanscape]

I would say that beyond the sum total of all the energy that ever existed in the universe that there may be some kind of wall and limit to heat energy as there is a limit to velocity.

With temperature and light levels there is a lower limit due to complete absence were it possible. But what if you could put all the energy of the universe into one Hydrogen atom only. How far could it disintergrate? Solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, then what? Like matter to light there may be a wall and limit, unless there are more poweful rays than X Rays. As in e=mc squared. So much energy need go into that conversion if done by acceleration of substance by thrusters.

Just how many sun atomic particals are there to be discovered? Perhaps there is a relationship between matter and dimensions as well. Perhaps there is a move into a fifth dimension.

Just think then as a hypothesis, what if there is a maximum number of sub atomic particals and a maximum velocity for them to travel at?

How is that my fellows?

Titanscape

[neilep (OP)]

Phew !!!...cheers  Bren.....well I'm convinced.....I suppose in theory/hypothetically anything is possible eh ?...at least with yours and everybodys help here I have learned that there does not seem to be a definitive term for the opposite for Absolute Zero...but the possibilty exists for there to be one though..it seems. Thanks.

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[Titanscape]

If X Ray velocity is the limit, and with each fission due to energy levels rising, {after initial vapourisation}, being a calculable figure, with a set number of sub atomic particals, then perhaps it would not take any more energy. Also the energy to accelerate the particals until fission would need be known.

Similar to heating water with latent heat energy... and vapourisation... And if X Rays are the maximum powerful radiation in terms of wavelength and velocity, remembering the red shift factor and the nature of space permitting perhaps nothing faster.

In my above post I mispelled sub atomic as sun atomic.

So how do you like my ideas fellow science minded?

Titanscape

[Titanscape]

Acceleration to fission probably would not be the issue but instaed, the process of fission to the next fission, would be.  Proton to simpler and simpler particals until the limit, which may involve simlicity and maximum velocity. After all I think I have heard of slow moving sub atomic particals. A smash and fission could result in some cases in essential insant maximum velocity.

The whole universe could absorb quite alot of energy then, and a partical could be set up to be maxed out with less energy. And I hear it is very hard to smash the simplest particals.

Titanscape

[Titanscape]

quote:Originally posted by Titanscape

Similar to heating water with latent heat energy... and vapourisation... And if X Rays are the maximum powerful radiation in terms of wavelength and velocity, remembering the red shift factor and the nature of space permitting perhaps nothing faster.

Titanscape

...Then a set calculable figure for at least one factor there can be included in the equation. From X Rays.

Titanscape

[MayoFlyFarmer]

I think if we proved a maximum temp, we'd prove a limited size  to the universe due to what Jay said about a sum of all the energies in th universe.

A submarine is NOT a cargo ship!

[neilep (OP)]

Why would temperature be an indication of size ?..but before you answer that I think I kinda see your point but do not possess the academia to adequately describe it so.....hmmm pondering a bit !!!...err...if we got all the heat in the universe and condensed it I suppose we'd end up with a snowball eh ?...cos most of the universe is like the inside of my head...cold and empty !!...oh I don't know !! (effortlessy proves how little I know about said subject but is frustrated cos I'm very curious about it)

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'

[MayoFlyFarmer]

well because temp measures heat or energy.  If there is a limited amount of energy there is a limited size, because if there's not energy, what is there?

A submarine is NOT a cargo ship!

[Ylide]

I don't think temperature is any indicator of quanity of total energy, only quantity of thermal energy. (which is really kinetic energy...contrary to 1800 physics, heat is not a substance) Not all forms of energy readily convert to kinetic, for example potential energy.  Certain conditions must be met for this to happen.  Also, not all kinetic energy events demonstrate heat...but they can transfer it upon collision.  

I suppose in theory, the maximum temperature possible would be if every atom in the universe collided with every other atom and the kinetic energy was converted entirely into heat focused into a singularity.  But how are you going to read that temperature?  [:p]

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[neilep (OP)]

That's what I thought Jay. that temperature is an indication of heat (thermal energy)...well that's what my thermometer says anyway.[]

But, I suppose it does go to prove that there is no term for the opposite of 'Absolute Zero' (yet) which is what my original question was.

 Though it is fascinating to hear everybodys postulations about how the defintion of the term may be discovered. Even though it is just theory...but hey...who knows what mathematical models may be constructed in the future ? I would love to come back in a few hundred years (assuming we haven't blown ouselves up by then, or some natural disaster or contagion hasn't wiped us out yet. Long live the cockroaches eh ?

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'  

[tweener]

I don't know where anyone says X rays are "maximum" or "most powerful" or anything like that.  X-rays are electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than ultraviolet and longer than gamma rays.  Thus X-rays travel at the speed of light, just like all other electromagnetic radiation, and they contain less energy per photon (and thus less penetrating power) than gamma rays.  
----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

[gsmollin]

What do we call them after "gamma"? I have information on gamma photons of up to 10E22 GeV, being created in the most energetic astrophysical events. These gammas have a stability problem, however, since they will form electron-positron pairs if they have to travel through a strong magnetic field.

Of course, big-bang gammas could have been more powerful than that, and would have annhiliated repeatedly as they formed baryons and anti-baryons. After the temperature dropped low enough, the baryon formation would have frozen out, and the anti-baryons would have annhiliated with the baryons, and we would be left with 1 part in 10E8 baryons left over from the primordial event.

[tweener]

I guess there is no general classification higher than gamma radiation, but there is no hard cutoff to how energetic the radiation can be.  Like you say, some of the big-bang radiation was probably shorter wavelength than has been produced so far, but I don't really know.

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

[neilep (OP)]

I've just discovered the opposite to Absolute Zero !!!...it's the chilli sauce I've just had on my kebab !!!..BUUURRPP !!

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'  

[tweener]

Yum!  I've been craving hot stuff for weeks.  I got some Jalapenos last week, but they just aren't very hot.

Now I'm going to have to go fix a snack!

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.