Comments
AxialGem t1_j6m9gf2 wrote
You could still make a scale that represented 'more heat' as a lower number though
GoldenSteel t1_j6msrnz wrote
It'd be kind of pointless. We know the point at which things cannot get colder. I'm not sure there is a point at which things can't get hotter.
AxialGem t1_j6n1204 wrote
Why would that be any more pointless than a scale like Celsius? Instead of hotter things being denoted into the millions of degrees, they would just be into the minus millions.
There would just be an upper limit to the number instead of a lower one
Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6m1f57 wrote
But that’s the mistake most people make. Temperature, as ridiculous as it sounds, is not a measure of heat. The temperature of a system is a property, like pressure or weight, which in the way it’s defined, has a value proportional to the internal energy(what’s commonly referred to as “heat”) of that object. It’s meaning is completely independent of heat. So, we could just as easily have flipped it, saying temperature is inversely proportional to heat(hot has a lower temp than cold). There are actually compelling reasons to do measure “temperature” this way, in relation to the way the “heat” of an object is distributed among the particles that make it up
lenthech1ne t1_j6m26l0 wrote
my VERY limited understanding of temperature is that its about how fast the neutrons or some scientific tiny thing is moving. higher movement speed = higher temp = higher number
[deleted] t1_j6m3j6o wrote
[removed]
GsTSaien t1_j6mn5sh wrote
I gues you could do something like a scale in which the number represents how far you are from boiling water, in which 0 would be boiling and anything hotter would go into negatives.
However, this is not as intuitive; 0 kelvin being absolute cold makes more sense.
Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6mv1ew wrote
I don’t mean reverse the negatives, I mean invert the temperatures. That way, absolute zero becomes 1/0(infinity), which makes sense cuz it’s physically impossible to reach
MrTsquared88 t1_j6onyhj wrote
Everyone is downvoting you, but I’m actually not entirely convinced that your new system is impossible. Inconvenient? Definitely. But impossible? I’m not sure.
If absolute zero is infinity, then tell me the new freezing and boiling points of water based on your new scale. And then tell me how the formula
PV = nrT
still works. If you can do that, I’ll agree that temperature could measure the amount of “cold” in a substance rather than the amount of “hot”.
Clackers2020 t1_j6m8mu8 wrote
Hot objects have more energy than cold objects. If we used absolute zero as the upper limit then all temperatures would be negative which implies all objects have negative energy which makes no sense.
AxialGem t1_j6m975o wrote
Why would you use zero as the 'upper limit'?
You could very easily make a scale where water freezes at 100 and boils at 0.
Then the absolute highest point on the scale would be 373.15, and anything warmer than boiling would just dip into negative figures
Clackers2020 t1_j6m9d4w wrote
It was just a non-arbitary point. My point still stands with whatever number you choose. Because there's no maximum temperature you'd still eventually end up in negatives.
AxialGem t1_j6m9oab wrote
Yea, that's true. But...scale with negative numbers is still a perfectly functional scale of course. I'm just saying OP's thought is still valid I guess :p
Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6m9crn wrote
About the energy thing, temperature isn’t actually a measure of the energy of a system, only proportional to it, from the way we’ve defined it. Also I don’t mean reverse the scale, but invert it. Therefore a temperature tending to “absolute zero” tends to infinity, which does make sense since it’s impossible to physically reach absolute zero
Raeandray t1_j6o8exc wrote
Except we know there's a lower range for temperature (zero kelvin). We don't know really know the upper range. Being impossible to reach zero isn't the same as infinity, and I don't know how you'd scale heat increases as you get exponentially hotter.
As an example, the hottest theoretical temperature is Planck temperature, which is 10^32 kelvin. How do you scale that in reverse? Assume 10^32 is 1, so our regular temperatures start at 10^31.9999...? I don't know how you'd apply an inverse scale like this in a realistic way. Its nonsensical.
I-dont-rickroll t1_j6pdpu9 wrote
>> Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules in the system
>> Heat is thermal energy transferred from a hotter system to a cooler system that are in contact
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.
AxialGem t1_j6m9by4 wrote
Why does that matter though? You could still make a scale where colder temperatures are denoted with higher numbers
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
notveggiesoup t1_j6med20 wrote
You're not really explaining your point so no wonder you're getting downvotes
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
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.
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
BrothrsSistersofKind t1_j6n2xtt wrote
The direction of time is arbitrary. There is no reason for older objects to be assigned a larger number than younger ones
Do you see how stupid this whole post/thread is? Sorry, but FUCK
grant_nigh19 t1_j6o3q3s wrote
Half of these “shower thoughts” are just air heads thinking they’ve had an immense philosophical or scientific revelation
TroyBenites t1_j6mayiq wrote
I mean, I guess it is reminessence of the thermometers.
Hot things expand, so it will go up.
If you put a thermometers upside down, I can't recall if geavity interfeers, but I guess. If you look at boiling water on a pan, the water rises...
I think those are a few of the reasons why the direction is upwards. Not totally arbitrary. But I don't know
AxialGem t1_j6md7h5 wrote
That answer calls up another question.
Why do you view larger numbers as 'up?'
Because OP's thought said nothing about up or down of course, and there's nothing stopping you from making a thermometer where numbers that are physically higher on the thermometer are smaller numbers
[deleted] t1_j6mg4zh wrote
[removed]
iZMXi t1_j6mp071 wrote
Wrong. Temperature is molecular kinetic energy. More jiggling = more temperature. It's measuring a physical phenomenon with clear effects on the world. You might as well say it's arbitrary to call a taller person "6 feet" and a shorter person "5 feet."
Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6mw98i wrote
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
Rinat1234567890 t1_j6mlhlm wrote
Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of particles at the molecular level. More specifically, an object at absolute zero has zero kinetic energy, that is, all the molecules in such an object are at a complete standstill.
Picture a jar of Airsoft pellets. None of the pellets are moving inside the jar. This is what we would call cold temperature. Now shake it up really hard: all the pellets are in motion. This is what we would call high temperature. But relatively speaking, all the pellets are roughly in the same spot: they're still in the same jar.
One_Planche_Man t1_j6o3u40 wrote
No it's not. Temperature has a lower limit. Heat does not. Therefore, it makes intuitive sense to i crease the number as heat increases.
Showerthoughts_Mod t1_j6m0fni wrote
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.
[deleted] t1_j6m0vw7 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6mef7t wrote
[removed]
MegaMinerd t1_j6nsj1i wrote
Physics equations would probably be much uglier if the direction of temperature were the other way, if they could get them to work at all.
Crux_AMVS24 OP t1_j6ny6lj wrote
They would, since all you’re doing is replacing T by 1/T
MegaMinerd t1_j6ok4av wrote
From the ideal gas law PV=nRT, it follows that at 1atm and T=0C, 50C, and 100C, V will be 2241.4, 2651.7, and 3062.0 cm3, respectively. To get these same volumes, T under this new system (PVT=nR) would be 0.0366, 0.0309, and 0.0268. Ignoring the fact the T's units are now 1/K, this breaks the linear relationship between V and T. T=1 in this system is 1K in our system, after which it explodes to infinity. Physics itself seems to work. The change in scale is odd, but decibels are logarithmic so it's not unheard of. The asymptote at absolute cold and limit tending toward 0 as things get hotter are actually sort of intuitive in a way if you think about it.
American_PP t1_j6oakd0 wrote
Did you know the Celsius scale used to be reverse and negative numbers were hot.
mgslee t1_j6opkdc wrote
Congratulations, you've discovered that number systems are all arbitrary!
However, even when things are arbitrary, we would want to design them to be intuitive.
So I'll stay over here with my metric units.
Another thing is that these number systems do eventually interact with each other and having outlandish conversation tables is annoying and needless.
So yes we have good reasons why some of them are the way they are. Kelvin is scientifically easy to use, intuitive and fits right in with complex physics equations while Fahrenheit or whatever reverse system you are proposing would not.
Unused_Application_ t1_j6m0lap wrote
Absolutely! We should all strive to make the world a cooler place, not just in terms of temperature but also in terms of understanding & acceptance. Let's break down these arbitrary boundaries & create a more inclusive environment for everyone.
ixramuffin t1_j6o311h wrote
Sorry mate, this is too complicated for Redditors as evidenced by the comments in this thread.
lenthech1ne t1_j6m0s7i wrote
considering "cold" isnt a thing and is just the absence of heat, id argue that the number goes up as there is "more heat"