Is there a maximum temperature?

[Narmer]

Is there a limit as to how hot something can be? I've heard that there is a floor for temperature (O K) but no such ceiling exists. I ask because if there is a maximum speed and minimum particle, surely there must be a limit to how much kinetic energy can be measured in a finite space.

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_temperature

 

[Chaotic42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_hot

 

[artikk]

Not really, probably limited by the amount of energy/mass in the universe

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_temperature

I note that not even the article defines it as any kind of maximum physically possible temperature.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Planck
2.538 x 10^32 F

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

I note that not even the article defines it as any kind of maximum physically possible temperature.

Living up to your username, I see.

 

[Narmer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_hot

What about this part?

Note that an isolated system with a bounded energy spectrum, such as a two-state quantum system, can have a temperature greater than this. In fact, such a system can have a negative temperature, which is actually "hotter" than any positive temperature and indicates population inversion. In such a context, the greatest possible temperature is negative zero, which means the system is in the state of highest possible energy. For systems with unbounded energy, however, negative temperature states are impossible, and the greatest possible temperature would be positive infinity, if not for the finite limit of "absolute hot" discussed here.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Living up to your username, I see.

You're just jealous of my all-knowing-ness.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I note that not even the article defines it as any kind of maximum physically possible temperature.

It's the maximum temperature that has any meaning. Once we cross into the realm of quantum gravity there may (note may) not be anything recognizable or quantifiable.

The Planck temp would be the greatest temperature which could exist in our universe.

 

[Chaotic42]

What about this part?

What about it? I'm not a physicist, I've just got a little side knowledge from my interests. The answer to your question the way you asked it seems to be "it depends".

 

[techs]

Try posting an AMD versus Intel thread.

Then you will see some flames.

 

[FoBoT]

i googled infinite hot and got this

 

[busydude]

Try posting an AMD versus Intel thread.

Its AMD vs Nvidia now.

 

[Analog]

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.

 

[her209]

i googled infinite hot and got this

Is that Justin Bieber in drag?

 

[SSSnail]

Infinite hotness = sssnail

 

[Narmer]

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.

What was the temperature at 10^-44 seconds?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What was the temperature at 10^-44 seconds?

What makes you sure there was a 10^-44 of a second?

 

[Narmer]

What makes you sure there was a 10^-44 of a second?

Because there was a time 0. Since the world is continuous, there would've had to have been such a time since it is only 10% of 10^-43 seconds.

Or, I can inquire about 10^-43 - e seconds where e>0.

 

[Soccerman06]

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.

My current theory, one I cant remember the name of off the top of my head, states that when a black hole is created, it creates another universe in an alternate dimension in its virtual area. Kinda like how we could possibly be a hologram from a black hole created from another universe. In this theory, whenever the black hole is made and the space-time fabric is warped to infinite, it collides with another universe creating enough energy or matter/anti-matter (since energy = mass) to form a new universe. This collision is what we would call the big bang.

And technically there is higher temperatures, we just dont know what that is, since we cant create it and dont know what happens to quantum mechanics at that point as we dont have a unified theory. However unified theory may not help us when temperatures get that high as the 4 forces begin to shift their properties beyond Tp.

 

[Leros]

Because there was a time 0. Since the world is continuous, there would've had to have been such a time since it is only 10% of 10^-43 seconds.

Or, I can inquire about 10^-43 - e seconds where e>0.

Who said the world is continuous?

 

[TridenT]

Yes.

 

[Narmer]

Who said the world is continuous?

The world is both continuous and digital. The thing is the unit measurement of time can be so infitismal (sic?) as to make it digital and continuous (on a small and large scale, respectfully).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because there was a time 0. Since the world is continuous, there would've had to have been such a time since it is only 10% of 10^-43 seconds.

Or, I can inquire about 10^-43 - e seconds where e>0.

If the world were continuous there would be no need for a quantum theory of gravity. The planck scale is the point where gravity must be reconciled with the other three forces of nature. Once we get to sub Planck scales everything is governed by the uncertainty principle so dimensions and causality fly out the window. It's rather difficult to quantify the meaningless and it's so troublesome that it's known as "The problem of time". There is reason to suspect that time doesn't exist, but it's an illusion caused by universal expansion. Sub Planck? Even that doesn't exist.