Difference between Celcius and Kelvin other than the -273.15 gap?

SOSTrooper

Platinum Member
Dec 27, 2001
2,552
0
76
Why do scientists use Kelvin (I know 0 K is absoluate zero) instead of Celcius? Are their advantages to use Kelvin in calculating than Celcius?
 

josphII

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
1,490
0
0
because certain formulas would break down if you had an object at 273 Kelvin and used celcius instead because youd be multiplying or dividing by 0
 

NogginBoink

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
5,322
0
0
The difference is solely the 273.15 degree gap.

One is more convenient for measuring everyday temperatures, the other is more convenient for measuring really, really cold temperatures.

Yes, it really is that simple.
 

Haircut

Platinum Member
Apr 23, 2000
2,248
0
0
200K is exactly double 100K, 200C is not double 100C

Working in Kelvin makes it so much easier if you are using formulae that have temperature as a variable because of the above reason.
 

NogginBoink

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
5,322
0
0
Originally posted by: josphII
because certain formulas would break down if you had an object at 273 Kelvin and used celcius instead because youd be multiplying or dividing by 0

Multiplying by zero is a perfectly valid operation.

And who the heck divides by temperature?
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
multiplying by 0 in C is not ncessarily the disired operation in most formulas.

i,e, any gas laws...multipling by 0 for something that isn't absolute 0 would suck.
 

Legendary

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2002
7,019
1
0
Originally posted by: NogginBoink
Originally posted by: josphII
because certain formulas would break down if you had an object at 273 Kelvin and used celcius instead because youd be multiplying or dividing by 0

Multiplying by zero is a perfectly valid operation.

And who the heck divides by temperature?


Boyle's Law (PV/T = constant)
Just an example. Gotta use Kelvin in that
 

JW310

Golden Member
Oct 30, 1999
1,582
0
0
Originally posted by: NogginBoink
Originally posted by: josphII
because certain formulas would break down if you had an object at 273 Kelvin and used celcius instead because youd be multiplying or dividing by 0

Multiplying by zero is a perfectly valid operation.

And who the heck divides by temperature?

Dividing by temperature is a valid operation using gas laws.... using PV=nRT (Pressure * Volume = # of moles of gas * constant * temperature), you would divide by T to find the number of moles of gas given a pressure, volume, and temperature.


JW
 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
Is it that hard to figure out? When something is 200K, it is literally twice as hot as something that is 100k. Something that is 2C is not twice as hot as something that is 1C. It's about 0.3% hotter... Hence the better utility for math. Even I know that and I'm a liberal arts student!
 

pennylane

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2002
6,077
1
0
Originally posted by: Haircut
200K is exactly double 100K, 200C is not double 100C

Working in Kelvin makes it so much easier if you are using formulae that have temperature as a variable because of the above reason.

Exactly.
 

hdeck

Lifer
Sep 26, 2002
14,530
1
0
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
Is it that hard to figure out? When something is 200K, it is literally twice as hot as something that is 100k. Something that is 2C is not twice as hot as something that is 1C. It's about 0.3% hotter... Hence the better utility for math. Even I know that and I'm a liberal arts student!

brag more, yes?
 

Staples

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2001
4,953
119
106
Well then what is the opposite of absolute zero in Kelvin? They say that an atomic bomb gets so hot at its core during explosion that things close buy just get discinigrated (sp). And what is it called? Absolute heat?
 

Haircut

Platinum Member
Apr 23, 2000
2,248
0
0
Originally posted by: Staples
Well then what is the opposite of absolute zero in Kelvin? They say that an atomic bomb gets so hot at its core during explosion that things close buy just get discinigrated (sp). And what is it called? Absolute heat?
There isn't such a thing as 'absolute heat', basically temperature is a way of measuring how much energy particles have. The faster they move, the more energy they have and so the higher the temperature.

There is an upper limit of the speed of light as to how fast particles move, but because of special relativity this does not mean there is an upper limit on the energy they may possess, so logically there is no maximum acheivable temperature.