If something is 6 trillion degrees centigrade, is this equivalent to a fraction of the speed of light. If so, what would the equation for calculating this speed?
If something is 6 trillion degrees centigrade, is this equivalent to a fraction of the speed of light. If so, what would the equation for calculating this speed?
The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.
In what way are you imagining equivalence? The mean speed of the particles?
Grant Hutchison
The Kinetic Energy of a gas particle is directly proportional to the Temperature of the gas or plasma made of those particles.
Oxygen atoms at 273K (0C) travel about 460 meters per second on average. Hydrogen nuclei would be going 16 times as fast.
Forming opinions as we speak
Thanks all. That was enough info.
The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.
So, using antoniseb's figures, that means that yes, if you had hydrogen plasma a six trillion K, a naive calculation would have the protons moving at about 91% of the speed of light, and the electrons moving much faster than the speed of light. Obviously, under these conditions, you'd have to use the relativistic expression for kinetic energy to work out the actual mean velocity. We call this a relativistic plasma.
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.
When a proton is moving at .9999999996 of the speed of light is this equivalent to a certain temperature or is a traveling object not the same as temperature? The hottest measured temperature is some number around 4 trillion degrees centigrade, but it seems to be that something moving at 0.9999999996 times the speed of light would be equivalent to something much hotter than the 4 trillion degrees. What am I missing?
The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.
Strictly the equivalence of average KE per particle and temperature is only true for systems in thermal equilibrium. It get hard to make it a meaningful concept for an isolated particle in motion. Plus it is usually measured in the COM frame of the system, since relativistic notions of temperature get complicated fast (see: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17526-4, for example)
It is known. If that something is a body consisting of a vast number of particles which are jiggling with collective kinetic energy, it will be hotter with the jiggling at relativistic speeds than with them jiggling at very low speeds. If that something is a single particle in motion through space, once again temperature is not a meaningful concept.
The article in nature seemed to imply that we really don't know this, but I am not sure that I am understanding this correctly. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17526-4
The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.
Okay, now I see your point, which involves a body for which temperature is a meaningful concept, and the question of whether or not extremely fast motion relative to that body changes an observer's perception of that temperature.