Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Maximum Thermal Energy for Matter

  1. #1 Maximum Thermal Energy for Matter 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213
    Absolute zero is 0 kelvin, but what is the most thermal energy matter can contain? Is their such limit?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I have no idea, but this is interesting:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html

    At what temperature after the Big Bang did particles with mass first appear?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    There's a limit in that there is a limited amount of energy in the universe. If there's some limit before that I don't really know.

    However, as the temperature increases, the state of the matter changes into more and more exotic forms. From coldest to hottest (and someone correct me if I'm wrong):

    - Bose-Einstein/Fermionic Condensate
    - Solid
    - Liquid
    - Gas
    - Plasma
    - Quark-Gluon Plasma
    - Weirder stuff

    BTW, there's a more complete list at Wikipedia, of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Maximum Thermal Energy for Matter 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Absolute zero is 0 kelvin, but what is the most thermal energy matter can contain? Is their such limit?
    Heat rays do not come from matter. Matter slows ambient radiation down to create heat.
    If you heat up an object, that is next to another similar object, you will note that the heat from the first object is somewhat repelled by the heat from the second.

    That is why two objects one hot and one cold do not match each others temperature. The second is always going to be colder then the first.

    There is a repulsive force created by an object being heated. It repels the heat that is being applied to it. A flame may be 2400 degrees. But it will take time and persistence to melt a piece of metal that melts at 1100 degrees.

    Because the metal slowly absorbs the heat. The metal creates a partial diode, that repels the heat mostly at the source. Usually at the source hundreds or thousands of degrees less then the flame temperature. And there will be a gradient decrease in heat as you move away from the area being heated.

    This effect is in all things. Gases, even the very light gases of space.

    However if you take that piece of metal and hit it from all sides with 2400 degree heat. It can heat very quickly. It has to do with ambient radiation. All the ambient radiation in the area inside a kiln where multiple flames are present, is at a certain velocity, a certain temperature, of 2300 degrees. The metal cannot create a diode and repel the heat.

    My point here is that we always say that cold draws in heat. And it is true. However it does not draw it in with the vigor I have seen some describe it drawing in heat.

    What is the hottest temperature? Some experts said honestly 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit might be it.
    Because you will have a hard time proving what is taking place at those temperatures. Matter because of an abundance of electrons often becomes not uniform. Its density becomes a shifting gelatin or plasma. There is electromagnetic effects taking place.

    Or if it is a composite material it may just be sending enough heat or other type of ray back, to stop the heat you are applying to it.

    Look I can take a plasma torch and slice off a piece of stainless steel plate. Like it is not even there. Now that is amazing. But is it all heat? Or is it a combination of electricity, heat and frequency?

    Do you just call it heat because it kind of melts? I really do not know. I do know that other very hot things do not have the same effect on stainless steel. So perhaps a better understanding of what the plasma is doing should be gained.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Maximum Thermal Energy for Matter 
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Absolute zero is 0 kelvin, but what is the most thermal energy matter can contain? Is their such limit?
    For a limited amount of mass there is of course a maximum temperature i.e. when all the particles are moving at c, but this in turn would end the universe as this would mean infinite mass. Also there would not be enough energy int the universe to accelerate even one particle to c as MagiMAster pointed out. So theoretically there IS a maximum temperature but it will never be reached.
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Maximum Thermal Energy for Matter 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Absolute zero is 0 kelvin, but what is the most thermal energy matter can contain? Is their such limit?
    For a limited amount of mass there is of course a maximum temperature i.e. when all the particles are moving at c, but this in turn would end the universe as this would mean infinite mass. Also there would not be enough energy int the universe to accelerate even one particle to c as MagiMAster pointed out. So theoretically there IS a maximum temperature but it will never be reached.
    Have you ever entertained the idea that heat is a slower moving radiation. That a hot object emits a slower moving radiation then a cold object?

    Think about during the cooling of a hot metal object. Not during the heating of it, when you are actually adding in a variable.

    Look into space, what do you see mostly and very clearly? Blackness. Yet I cannot see Uranus. But every bit of blackness I can see perfectly.

    I used to have a very powerful black light when I was a kid. It was a huge spotlight powered by a big transformer, that powered a mercury vapor lamp.

    You really could not see the light from it. It just put out dark rays. Invisible to the human eye. If it was not for dust, you could aim it at a dark rug and not see anything.

    Yet those rays could travel a great distance. And even at a great distance create a powerful visible light, against white cotton or fluorescent colors. So although our eyes do not detect anything. And we assume there is no power or substance in the darkness. The power and the light are present in those rays.

    The sun is a weak spot. Low energy potential.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •