It has long been accepted that there is a lowest possible temperature,
known as absolute zero, at which the constituent atoms do not vibrate
at all.  It is less frequently stated, but seems to be assumed, that there
is, however, no highest possible temperature; in other words, that,
unlike the low-temperature absolute-zero closure, that high temperature
is open-ended.  But there is indeed a limit to the possible vibratory
speed of atoms, and that is, of course, c, or the speed of light.  It seems
to me that one should be able to correlate vibratory speed with
temperature and arrive at a maximum possible temperature, beyond
which the constituent atoms could not vibrate faster due to c
restrictions.  Any comments?
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

> Yes, I have comments.
>
> However, I've been in bed for 3 days coughing myself a new asshole, so
> I'll defer til later.
>
> Walter
>
Sorry; I really feel for you.  That RSV is a mofo!  Been there, coughed
till I puked and shit myself.  And it hangs on for six weeks!
>
> joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > It has long been accepted that there is a lowest possible
> > temperature, known as absolute zero, at which the constituent atoms
> > do not vibrate at all.  It is less frequently stated, but seems to
> > be assumed, that there is, however, no highest possible temperature;
> > in other words, that, unlike the low-temperature absolute-zero
> > closure, that high temperature is open-ended.  But there is indeed a
> > limit to the possible vibratory speed of atoms, and that is, of
> > course, c, or the speed of light.  It seems to me that one should be
> > able to correlate vibratory speed with temperature and arrive at a
> > maximum possible temperature, beyond which the constituent atoms
> > could not vibrate faster due to c restrictions.  Any comments? ---
> > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> --
>
> Walter Watts
> Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
>
> "No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!"
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:46 PM
>
>
> > is open-ended.  But there is indeed a limit to the possible
> > vibratory speed of atoms, and that is, of course, c, or the speed of
> > light.  It
> seems
> > to me that one should be able to correlate vibratory speed with
> > temperature and arrive at a maximum possible temperature, beyond
> > which the constituent atoms could not vibrate faster due to c
> > restrictions.  Any comments?
>
> If you plug c into the molecular speed formula from [1] (using the
> root mean square from the distribution, since there is no max velocity
> formula), you get 3.6e+15 K.
>
> However this page [2] about the early universe says that the earliest
> temperature was 1e+32 K and by the time there were particles to
> vibrate it had dropped to 1e+15 K (remarkably close to my calc above).
>
> [1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html [2]
> http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/BB.html
>
Interesting.  I guess I'm onto something.
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>