Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home >< Physics

# absolute zero but what about max temp? watch

1. (Original post by RWills)
I may be wrong, but if heat is a form of energy and our universe is more or less infinitely massive then surely if you could have an infinite amount of heat?

Edit:
Touche!
Which physicists have claimed that the universe is infinitely masisve.
2. I asked this the other day, there doesn't seem to be an absolute max, but above the Planck temperature the laws of physics no longer apply because quantum gravity is not yet understood. Not sure if I've worded that right but anyway, that's what I understood by it.
3. (Original post by Chwirkytheappleboy)
Really? I would have thought that you'd end up with an infinite temperature since no matter how much energy you put in you'd never be able to reach the speed of light. So plotting a graph of temperature against speed, your asymptote would be at v=c on the speed axis, and the temperature axis would just fly off into infinity

TBH, its somewhat meaningless as a concept once we get beyond 10^32K, because at that point every particle would become so massive that they would have collapsed into their own black hole. We have no meaningful definition of temperature at this point.
4. (Original post by py0alb)
TBH, its somewhat meaningless as a concept once we get beyond 10^32K, because at that point every particle would become so massive that they would have collapsed into their own black hole. We have no meaningful definition of temperature at this point.
Good point.

Physics is weird.
5. (Original post by limetang)
Which physicists have claimed that the universe is infinitely masisve.
Wouldn't the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker Metric model suffice- assuming that everything is expanding. As I said I may be wrong and seeing as I have made the tremendous assumption that infinite expansion equates to infinite mass I wouldn't be writing a thesis on my statement any time soon I would also like to say that I am basing this on half assed A-level teaching. I'm sure if I read this in 4 years time I will be horrified.
6. Heat is just KE of particles in a system?

THerefore there must be a maximum due to the speed of light?
7. (Original post by RWills)
Wouldn't the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker Metric model suffice- assuming that everything is expanding. As I said I may be wrong and seeing as I have made the tremendous assumption that infinite expansion equates to infinite mass I wouldn't be writing a thesis on my statement any time soon I would also like to say that I am basing this on half assed A-level teaching. I'm sure if I read this in 4 years time I will be horrified.
I dunno. Although I'd have thought just with the idea of common sense that if the universe is infinite it must have had infinite mass at the big bang which would mean the universe couldnt expand as it was already as big as it was going to be. Although this is me talking with very little physics knowledge (just a level) so yeh like you I dont know.
8. (Original post by turn and fall)
Heat is just KE of particles in a system?

THerefore there must be a maximum due to the speed of light?
I had a feeling that might come into some how . . .

(Original post by limetang)
I dunno. Although I'd have thought just with the idea of common sense that if the universe is infinite it must have had infinite mass at the big bang which would mean the universe couldnt expand as it was already as big as it was going to be. Although this is me talking with very little physics knowledge (just a level) so yeh like you I dont know.
I'm only talking with only gcse physics and after watching programmes such as horizon and Prof Brian.
9. (Original post by turn and fall)
Heat is just KE of particles in a system?

THerefore there must be a maximum due to the speed of light?
Wrong. Once particles approach the speed of light their kinetic energy will continue to increase as their mass will begin to increase. Ek=1/2mv^2.
10. (Original post by limetang)
Wrong. Once particles approach the speed of light their kinetic energy will continue to increase as their mass will begin to increase. Ek=1/2mv^2.
That's pretty misleading. Firstly, they'll never reach the speed of light. Secondly, their mass begins to increase as soon as they start accelerating - although the increase is negligible until the speed is noticeable fraction of the speed of light.
11. (Original post by Chwirkytheappleboy)
That's pretty misleading. Firstly, they'll never reach the speed of light. Secondly, their mass begins to increase as soon as they start accelerating - although the increase is negligible until the speed is noticeable fraction of the speed of light.
However, the point still stands that the speed of light is not a limit on the amount of kinetic energy a particle could have, and if it were to become so massive that it became a black hole, why could it no longer gain kinetic energy? I thought we have no reason to believe that there was a limit on the mass of a black hole?
12. (Original post by thievingllama)
However, the point still stands that the speed of light is not a limit on the amount of kinetic energy a particle could have, and if it were to become so massive that it became a black hole, why could it no longer gain kinetic energy? I thought we have no reason to believe that there was a limit on the mass of a black hole?
What you say is right, but what py0alb said about black holes was just that there isn't really a meaningful definition of temperature in a black hole... our understanding of physics just kinda breaks down in such crazy conditions.

I think the important thing to take away from this discussion is what I said before: Physics is weird.

Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: April 13, 2011
Today on TSR

### Unofficial Markscheme list 2018

Find all the answers here

### Edexcel C4 exam discussion

Poll

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE