3 ms·

I'm a total layman to this stuff, but from my understanding isn't thinking about temperature in terms of linear scales (Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin) fairly misl

by Phemist 10y ago

I'm a total layman to this stuff, but from my understanding isn't thinking about temperature in terms of linear scales (Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin) fairly misleading for understanding how hard it is to "hit" absolute zero. Wouldnt describing temperature as a logarithmic scale make it much more obvious, from a layman's perspective, that absolute zero is impossible to "hit". Ie, negative infinity degrees of "temperature"?

x1798DE 10y ago
I've heard arguments to this effect, that absolute zero is more obviously impossible when you think in terms of Thermodynamic beta - which is standard physics notation for 1/(k_B * T) and appears in many places including in statistical mechanics.[1] That also makes it more clear that while reaching 0 (i.e. infinite Beta) is impossible, negative temperatures are possible (this occurs in processes that undergo a state inversion like in a laser / maser). [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_beta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_beta [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature
- Phemist 10y ago
  Interesting! Thanks, great answers (both this post and your response to its sibling post)
sparky_z 10y ago
Even if that's a vaild approach (I have no idea if it is) I suspect that such a system would be hilariously impractical for any real-world day-to-day usage. Therefore there would be no reason for a layman to even learn about it in the first place (much like the Planck unit system).
- x1798DE 10y ago
  Actually, I'm not so sure. If you used inverse temperature (i.e. "coldness") and scaled it properly, it wouldn't actually be all that different, in practice, from a positive temperature scale. Here is a plot of Temperature vs. Coldness from 0-100 C, scaled such that water freezes at 100 coldness units and boils at 0 coldness units[1]: https://i.imgur.com/fluOSY2.png https://i.imgur.com/fluOSY2.png It traces out a pretty gentle curve, which seems like it's not appreciably less linear than our ability to perceive differences in temperatures (from eyeballing this: https://biology.stackexchange.com/a/28522 https://biology.stackexchange.com/a/28522), so probably for day-to-day use inverse temperature would be a perfectly acceptable substitute. Of course, this is just to say that if we were starting de novo today in determining how to discuss temperature, coldness could be a reasonable choice. I don't think it actually offers substantial advantages over the current system and it would likely be very costly to switch everyone over just for the sake of making it a bit easier to think about why temperature has an absolute zero. [1] Python source code: https://bpaste.net/show/76bf4f7c36cb https://bpaste.net/show/76bf4f7c36cb

by Phemist 10y ago

x1798DE 10y ago

I've heard arguments to this effect, that absolute zero is more obviously impossible when you think in terms of Thermodynamic beta - which is standard physics notation for 1/(k_B * T) and appears in many places including in statistical mechanics.[1] That also makes it more clear that while reaching 0 (i.e. infinite Beta) is impossible, negative temperatures are possible (this occurs in processes that undergo a state inversion like in a laser / maser). [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_beta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_beta [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

Phemist 10y ago
Interesting! Thanks, great answers (both this post and your response to its sibling post)

sparky_z 10y ago

Even if that's a vaild approach (I have no idea if it is) I suspect that such a system would be hilariously impractical for any real-world day-to-day usage. Therefore there would be no reason for a layman to even learn about it in the first place (much like the Planck unit system).

x1798DE 10y ago
Actually, I'm not so sure. If you used inverse temperature (i.e. "coldness") and scaled it properly, it wouldn't actually be all that different, in practice, from a positive temperature scale. Here is a plot of Temperature vs. Coldness from 0-100 C, scaled such that water freezes at 100 coldness units and boils at 0 coldness units[1]: https://i.imgur.com/fluOSY2.png https://i.imgur.com/fluOSY2.png It traces out a pretty gentle curve, which seems like it's not appreciably less linear than our ability to perceive differences in temperatures (from eyeballing this: https://biology.stackexchange.com/a/28522 https://biology.stackexchange.com/a/28522), so probably for day-to-day use inverse temperature would be a perfectly acceptable substitute. Of course, this is just to say that if we were starting de novo today in determining how to discuss temperature, coldness could be a reasonable choice. I don't think it actually offers substantial advantages over the current system and it would likely be very costly to switch everyone over just for the sake of making it a bit easier to think about why temperature has an absolute zero. [1] Python source code: https://bpaste.net/show/76bf4f7c36cb https://bpaste.net/show/76bf4f7c36cb