Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6mw98i wrote
Reply to comment by iZMXi in The direction of temperature is arbitrary. There is no reason for hot objects to be assigned a larger number than cold ones by Crux_AMVS24
Temperature is NOT, a measure of internal kinetic energy. Because of the current convection we have, where absolute zero represents a state where molecules have zero speed, and +infinity where molecules have a high speed. It has a correlation with kinetic energy, which in this system is direct proportionality, but we could just as easily have defined the convention the other way, and the only difference would be that our equations would have 1/T rather than T (for temperature)
Comfortable-Fail-558 t1_j6nsgt1 wrote
I believe all you are saying is that a 1 to 1 function f(x) can be applied to another g(x) losslessly.
Similarly there’s no need to chart velocity on a linear scale or have ph be exponential. We can apply 1 to 1 functions to these at will to arrive at other mappings we can use without loss of information.
I think it’s likely a true statement but I won’t attempt to prove it.
Do you see any computational advantage to using your inverted mapping?
Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6nxkr1 wrote
Computationally, I don’t know. One advantage is related to the Maxwell velocity distribution curve, where the function is related to e^-(1/kT) where 1/kT is replaced by B. I would probably say, when it comes to explaining temperature non-rigourusly, it seems simpler in the current scale, but if we used the g(x) version, not much would have changed. Our scales would be calibrated differently, boiling water would be 0*C and the ideal gas equation would be PVT = nR but there wouldn’t be any contractions/problems or as you put it, loss of information
MegaMinerd t1_j6nth4j wrote
Where would 0 be?
Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6nyezf wrote
Since the conversion is 1/T, a body would have a temperature of zero when it’s internal energy tends to infinity
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments