• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

SOSTrooper

Platinum Member
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.

 
Back
Top