Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 249 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

  • (June 9, 2021 - June 11, 2021) ICCF-23 online

  • Hot Links

    American Antigravity

    AESOP Institute

    Closeminded Science



    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    The Orion Proj.




    Science Hobbyist

    Tom Bearden's Page


    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    Alternative Energy News
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    FringeEnergy News
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Energy21 YT Channel
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine
    Find Jobs

    Absolute Hot : Is There an Opposite to Absolute Zero?
    Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 @ 21:46:09 MST by vlad

    Science Seems like an innocent enough question, right? Absolute zero is 0 on the Kelvin scale, or about minus 460 F. You can't get colder than that; it would be like trying to go south from the South Pole. Is there a corresponding maximum possible temperature?

    Well, the answer, depending on which theoretical physicist you ask, is yes, no, or maybe. Huh? you ask. Yeah, that's how I felt. And the question doesn't just mess with the minds of physics dummies like me. Several physicists begged off of trying to answer it, referring me to colleagues. Even ones who did talk about it said things like "It's a little bit out of my comfort zone" and "I think I'd like to ruminate over it."

    After I posed it to one cosmologist, there was dead silence on the other end of the line for long enough that I wondered if we had a dropped call.

    I had touched a nerve, because, unbeknownst to me, the highest-temperature question gets to the heart of current inquiries and proposed theories in cosmology and theoretical physics. Indeed, scientists who work in these fields are zealously trying to answer that question. Why? Because, in some sense, nothing less than the future course of physics rests on the answer.

    Contender #1—1032 K

    Certain cosmological models, including the one that has held sway for decades, the Standard Model, posit a theoretical highest temperature. It's called the Planck temperature, after the Austrian physicist Max Planck, and it equals about 100 million million million million million degrees, or 1032 Kelvin. "It's ridiculous is what it is," said Columbia physicist Arlin Crotts when I asked him if he could please put that number in perspective for me. "It's a billion billion times the largest temperature that we have to think about" (in gamma-ray bursts and quasars, for instance). Oh, that helped.

    Truthfully, when contemplating the Planck temperature, you can forget perspective. All the usual terms for very hot—scorching, broiling, hellish, insert your favorite here—prove ludicrously inadequate. In short, saying 1032 K is hot is like saying the universe occupies some space. (For a game attempt at perspective, see A Sense of Scale.)

    Whatever the highest temperature is, it might be essentially equivalent to the coldest temperature.

    In conventional physics—that is, the kind that relies on Einstein's theory of general relativity to describe the very large and quantum mechanics to describe the very small—the Planck temperature was reached 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang got under way. At that instant, known as one Planck time, the entire universe is thought to have been the Planck length, or 10-35 meters. (In physics, Max Planck is the king of the eponymous.) An awfully high temperature in an awfully small space in an awfully short time after … well, after what? That's arguably an even bigger question—how did the universe begin?—and we won't go there.

    A brick wall

    The Planck temperature is the highest temperature in conventional physics because conventional physics breaks down at that temperature. Above 1032 K—that is, earlier than one Planck time—calculations show that strange things, unknown things, begin to happen to phenomena we hold near and dear, like space and time. Theory predicts that particle energies become so large that the gravitational forces between them become as strong as any other forces. That is, gravity and the other three fundamental forces of the universe—electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—become a single unified force. Knowing how that happens, the so-called "theory of everything," is the holy grail of theoretical physics today.

    "We do not know enough about the quantum nature of gravitation even to speculate intelligently about the history of the universe before this time," writes Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg about this up-against-a-brick-wall instant in his book The First Three Minutes. "Thus, whatever other veils may have been lifted, there is one veil, at a temperature of 1032 K, that still obscures our view of the earliest times." Until someone comes up with a widely accepted quantum theory of gravity, the Planck temperature, for conventional physicists like Steven Weinberg, will remain the highest temperature. Read

    Source: http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news12.25a.html



    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Science
    · News by vlad

    Most read story about Science:
    100 miles on 4 ounces of water?

    Article Rating
    Average Score: 5
    Votes: 3

    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Very Good


     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

    "Absolute Hot : Is There an Opposite to Absolute Zero?" | Login/Create an Account | 5 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Star Formation: 'Reverse Whirlpool' or Accretion Vortex? (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Sunday, December 30, 2007 @ 22:02:51 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com

    Star formation is thought to be driven by gravity-induced accretion of material distributed in space. A recent article on space.com titled Jets Spiral in 'Reverse Whirlpool' from Star [www.space.com] illustrates this widely accepted but mistaken conception of the formation of heavenly bodies. Space.com's Jeanna Bryner reports that

    "Astronomers have observed for the first time a jet of matter spiraling outward from an infant star, as if a lengthy strand of curly pasta. The enormous jet, which shoots out in two directions, is rocketing material away from the so-called protostar and into interstellar space at more than 'supersonic speeds'."...

    More: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/12/star_formation_reverse_whirlpo.html [blog.hasslberger.com]

    Re: Absolute Hot : Is There an Opposite to Absolute Zero? (Score: 1)
    by Eduffy80911 on Monday, December 31, 2007 @ 16:36:58 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.easystreetdesigns.com
    Hi Vlad,

    Okay, here's a "theory" that goes well with the concept of an aether or a zero point field. First you have to assume that the aether or zero point field is occupied by particles or entities way smaller than we've previously imagined possible (planck particles?) and that they are pervasive, that is, that they exist wherever they fit. In fact space is "held up" or created by these things. There is no such thing as "empty space".

    At minimum density you're at absolute zero. To remove any more of these little buggers would be to eliminate  space itself. You can't measure the temperature of nothing.

    At maximum density, you have your "absolute hot", the point at which nothing else will fit, not even a single "planck particle". Forcing the issue would result in explosion.

    Re: Absolute Hot : Is There an Opposite to Absolute Zero? (Score: 1)
    by RedTetrahedron on Thursday, January 03, 2008 @ 10:09:24 MST
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    OK, I'm not a physicist, but I took physics in school. 1032 K must be a typo... it's about 1398 F...


    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.