This is probably going to sound retarded, but

  • Thread starter blip
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Sound
In summary, there is no limit on how high you can heat something, but there is a limit on how much you can cool something as you cannot decrease temperature infinitely. The only conceivable upper limit to temperature is the Planck temperature, which is extremely hot. If we were to accelerate everything but ourselves to the speed of light, we would appear to age slower compared to the rest of the universe. However, this is not currently possible and there is no such thing as a "cold" temperature, only a lack of heat.
  • #1
blip
20
0
Is there a limit to how high you can heat something?
If not (or if only limited by the amount matter - energy in the universe), then why is there are limit on cooling?

In our daily frames of reference the rest of the universe is moving (planets orbiting, galaxies spinning etc...). If we are to accelerate towards the speed of light for a certain time and then drop out of it, all the frames of reference 'slower' than ours would seem to have 'aged' more.
Is there a way to go slower, or even to the point of stopping so that the rest of the universe doesn't age but we do?. Would this be if we accelerated everything but us to the speed of light?

Sorry for the dumb questions, I'm just sitting in this internet place in Madrid waiting to catch my flight home in a few hours and I'm bored.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The only conceivable upper limit to temperature is an initial temperature of the Universe during the big bang.

As for your second question... I don't understand "stopping".
 
  • #3
blip said:
Is there a limit to how high you can heat something?
If not (or if only limited by the amount matter - energy in the universe), then why is there are limit on cooling?

In our daily frames of reference the rest of the universe is moving (planets orbiting, galaxies spinning etc...). If we are to accelerate towards the speed of light for a certain time and then drop out of it, all the frames of reference 'slower' than ours would seem to have 'aged' more.
Is there a way to go slower, or even to the point of stopping so that the rest of the universe doesn't age but we do?. Would this be if we accelerated everything but us to the speed of light?

Sorry for the dumb questions, I'm just sitting in this internet place in Madrid waiting to catch my flight home in a few hours and I'm bored.

About the first question- there is no limit as to how much you can heat something.
The limit as to how much you can cool it, simply comes from the fact there is no such thing as "cold". There is only heat, which is a form of energy.
Long story short, when you've taken all the heat from a body, well there is nothing left, and you can therefore not cool it(= take more heat out) anymore.
However, there is no problem in heating a body more and more. You're just adding more and more energy.

About the second question- I guess it has to do with General Relativity, and I don't know too much in that. However, I can't see anything wrong in your conclusion. Of course, that means you'd have to accelerate the entire universe... good luck with that.

Oh, and there's no such thing as a dumb question. There's only a stupid answer.
 
  • #4
Thank you two.
 
  • #5
"Of course, that means you'd have to accelerate the entire universe... good luck with that."

That's not what he's saying.

We are currently moving very very fast. If we was to slow down, we would age slower.
 
  • #6
Gara said:
We are currently moving very very fast. If we was to slow down, we would age slower.

The slower you go, the more you would appear (to others moving faster) to be aging FASTER. Think of the twins paradox where one twin is flying through space at a high speed, and upon returning is younger than the twin that stayed on earth. (therefore the non moving twin ages faster)

The faster you go, the slower time appears to pass to others looking on at you from stationary(or slow moving) positions.

So if you were going at speeds approaching c, then everything around you appears to be going slower.
What I think blip was asking is that if everything around you was going at speeds approaching c (as in all of the planets, stars etc) and you were stationary, then from your point of view, the universe seems to be aging very slowly, compared to you. I guess the problem is 1) how would you accelerate the whole universe and 2) find a place to be stationary!

Also, nothing can go *at* the speed of c, in theory we can get to .99999*c but no further.

PS
 
  • #7
If you are "stopping", and the rest of the universe is accelerating, that would be the same as you accelerating in the opposite direction.

Take note that the theory of special relativity (and I'm pretty sure general as well) does not include any statements on the direction of speed or acceleration when talking about time and length dilatations. Otherwize, you could construct a "preferred" frame, which should be impossible.

Greetz,
Leo
 
  • #8
Hmm, maybe I'm a little confused, but there is no limit on cooling or heating. You can continue to take away heat or keep adding heat infinitely, but you can not decrease or increase temperature infinitely. There is a limit.
 
  • #9
Um, yes, there is a limit to how much you can cool something. Heat is defined as the kinetic energy of the molecules that comprise a substance. When every single one of the atoms is completely motionless, the temperature of that substance will be 0ºK, and would define a complete lack of kinetic energy. There is no way to further lower the temperature.

As for an upper limit, theoretically there is none. However, when you consider that suns are the hottest things in our universe right now, we could define the hottest sun as being the uppermost heat limit, since we currently have no means of getting anything to be nearly as hot.
 
  • #10
There is a theoretical upper limit, it is called the Planck temperature. It is really hot.
 
  • #11
The upper limit to heat may be just before an atom gets to the speed of light, that is, at whatever such temperature that causes the atom to move so fast that it becomes light there you would theoretically have your limit, I don't know know if anyone posted that already I'm tired of reading so much, that's an awesome question by the way, never thought about it.
 
  • #12
The OP asked if there are limits on cooling and heating...the answer to that is no. However, like Chronos and others mentioned, there are upper and lower limits on temperature.
 
  • #13
I was debating this the other day myself and my friend and I came to a conclusion.
There is a limit of how "cold" something can get since as an atom becomes "colder" the electrons "slow" down. Absolute Zero is the min temp. that electrons will move at. We also came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to "see" or know when the atom was at absolute zero since we would have to use some sort of indirect energy to mesure the elctrons wavelenghts, this would cause the electron to leave its ground state again and would no longer be in absolute Zero.
 
  • #14
There is no limit to how many layers of paint you can coat a chair with, but there sure is a limit on how many you can remove.

Palindrom has wrapped the answer up in a neat package.


In reality, there is no such thing as "cooling"; there is only the removal of heat. Your air conditioner does not "cool" - it moves heat from the inside of your home to the outside.

If this seems to be bifurcating bunnies, consider the effect: your air conditioner will stop being effective if the temperature outside is as hot as the heat coming out of the A/C. If the coils cannot dump their heat to the outside air, the A/C will not deliver cool air inside. The flow of meaningful energy exchange is only one direction, and that's inside to outside.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
1.4 * 10^32 Kelvin
 
  • #16
I'm fairly sure of it now, more heat makes things move faster, but things can't move faster than light according with what we know so there ought to be a point at which more heat doesn't add to more heat but adds to more light given off from a super hot region, such as with the sun. Is that really it cronxeh?
 

FAQ: This is probably going to sound retarded, but

What do you mean by "This is probably going to sound retarded, but..."?

This phrase is often used as a disclaimer before asking a question that may seem silly or foolish. It is meant to acknowledge that the question may not be well thought out or may seem obvious to others.

Why do people use the term "retarded" in this context?

The term "retarded" has historically been used as a derogatory term for individuals with intellectual disabilities. However, in recent years, it has also been used colloquially to mean foolish or stupid. Although it is still considered offensive by some, it is often used without malicious intent in this context.

Is it okay to use the phrase "retarded" in this way?

This is a highly debated topic and ultimately depends on personal beliefs and values. Some argue that using the term perpetuates harmful stereotypes and should be avoided, while others argue that it has evolved to have a different meaning and can be used without harm. It is important to be mindful of the impact of our language and to use it respectfully.

What should I do if someone is offended by my use of this phrase?

If someone expresses that they are offended by your use of this phrase, it is important to apologize and acknowledge their feelings. You can also take the opportunity to educate yourself on the impact of language and consider using alternative phrases in the future.

How can I ask a question without using this phrase?

Instead of using this phrase as a disclaimer, you can simply ask your question without any preface. You can also try using other phrases such as "I have a question that may seem silly" or "I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question." These alternatives can still convey your intention without potentially offending anyone.

Similar threads

Back
Top