Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wildadragon t1_j6m0vn6 wrote

Hotter objects have higher kinetic energy. The faster the particles move the more kinetic energy so the higher the temperature.

And if you couldn't guess colder objects have slower moving particles so less kinetic energy resulting in lower temperatures.

13

AxialGem t1_j6m9by4 wrote

Why does that matter though? You could still make a scale where colder temperatures are denoted with higher numbers

−1

wildadragon t1_j6m9k9v wrote

It's counterintuitive. If you saw 2 people running and one was faster than the other would you put them lower than the slower person?

4

AxialGem t1_j6ma1ji wrote

It might be counterintuitive. Or that feeling might just be because we are used to our current system, idk. If I conceptualise my measurement as 'How still is this person?' I might put them lower, yea.

Of course, unintuitive scales do exist. For example, when astronomers measure how bright a star appears from Earth, brighter stars get a lower number, and dimmer stars get a higher number.

0

Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6mhhk8 wrote

That’s a good argument, however my point was a bit different. Temperature, by its very definition, had nothing to do with heat, or internal energy. It’s a parameter used to describe the distribution of kinetic energy across all the particles(called Maxwell’s velocity distribution curve). That curve, is of the sort e^-(1/kT) where k is a constant and T is the temperature. In that sense, we’re using temperature the wrong way. If we defined absolute zero as infinity and very high temperatures as tending to zero, we’d have a scale more in tune with this actual physical behaviour of molecules. And if THAT definition of temperature, it is INVERSELY proportional to the kinetic energy of the molecules. That’s the thing, temperature isn’t a measure of heat, it just so happens to be numerical proportional to it. Is weight a measure of inertia? No, weight is a force. However, the weight of a object does have some sort of relation with the mass of that object, which IS a measure of inertia. It’s the same thing with heat and temperature

−1

AxialGem t1_j6mi2s9 wrote

huh well today I learned. I'm far away from being that knowledgable about physics, but that's pretty interesting. Of course, that's not super intuitive to the average lay person either... But sure, thanks for the explanation lol

2

Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6mjfve wrote

Yeah, I tried not getting too technical with it in terms of my explanations, but at some point you gotta whip em out. Also, about the intuition. Wouldn’t there be any of that for temperature? If stick my hand in hot water and the other hand in ice, there isn’t anything that strikes me saying that the hot water should have a higher number attached to it. For something like distance, it’s obviously, bigger distance = higher number, but when it comes to temperature, we could have gone either way and nothing would’ve changed except some formulae

1

Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6m1jaw wrote

Hotter objects have more “heat”. Temperature, contrary to what’s commonly told, is not a measure of the heat or kinetic energy of a system

−12

Mitchelltrt t1_j6m3ows wrote

False. "Heat" or "thermal energy" is more like micro-kinetic energy, as it is the energy of motion at the atomic scale. The faster the molecules are vibrating, the higher the temperature.

9

Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6m4bpq wrote

Could you go look up some stuff about the zeroth law of thermodynamics(or read some of my replies on other comments). I have a book to recommend if you’d like. I’m tired of getting downvoted to oblivion cuz the general public has misconceptions about certain things and don’t even hear me out

−5

notveggiesoup t1_j6med20 wrote

You're not really explaining your point so no wonder you're getting downvotes

6

Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6mfitn wrote

It’s hard to explain it in the title, since it’s only two sentences but I’ve been trying. Just look at some of the other comments

0

MegaMinerd t1_j6ntt21 wrote

I looked it up and saw stuff about the equilibrium of connected bodies. I don't understand how that is related.

1

Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6nz9am wrote

That’s the point, it’s not related. What you read is(vaguely) the definition of temperature. It’s just a physical property that determines what would happen when two bodies touch each other. If they are at “different temperatures”, some process(which we can call heat transfer) would take place from one body to the other. If the two objects have the same number assigned to them(ie, their temperature) then there will be no interaction or process that occurs. Temperature, by definition is not a measure of internal energy but it IS related to it. That relation is either directly proportional, or inversely proportional, depending on which convention you take. Humans chose the one where hot objects have a bigger number, and so we chose the relation of temperature being directly proportional to kinetic energy

0