Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33

Thread: Hottest temperature in universe

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,869

    Hottest temperature in universe

    What is the hottest the universe naturally gets?
    I am thinking it is the center of an exploding supernova, is that right?
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,000
    The first instants of the Universe were the hottest: BB. We're still basking in its afterglow.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    The first instants of the Universe were the hottest: BB. We're still basking in its afterglow.
    I meant at present time.
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,586
    The centre of a black hole?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    I meant at present time.
    Inasmuch as a Universe without simultaneity can have a "present time". I'd say probably a SMBH mergence. If a black hole can be said to have a "temperature".
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Inasmuch as a Universe without simultaneity can have a "present time". I'd say probably a SMBH mergence. If a black hole can be said to have a "temperature".
    I thought SMBHs actually had ridiculously LOW temperature? At least for googles of years until the last second before they evaporate?
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    I thought SMBHs actually had ridiculously LOW temperature? At least for googles of years until the last second before they evaporate?
    Low external, maybe?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,000
    If not BHs, then Gamma bursters.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,163
    Physicsy trivia: there is a maximum temperature a substance (well, by then it's an equilibrium mix of elementary particles and photons) can be heated up to , the Hagedorn temperature, around 2x1012 K. Above that, the kinetic energy of particles gets transferred into more particles via pair production; it is possible that quark matter could absorb more energy but not even theoretically certain, AFAICT. (The very early Universe could have cheated this by not heating particles or having time for this process to occur).

    Warning: sketchy explanation, many discussions veer into the string-theory consequences.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    From Wikipedia:
    The Planck temperature is defined as:

    {\displaystyle T_{\text{P}}={\frac {m_{\text{P}}c^{2}}{k}}={\sqrt {\frac {\hbar c^{5}}{Gk^{2}}}}\approx } {\displaystyle T_{\text{P}}={\frac {m_{\text{P}}c^{2}}{k}}={\sqrt {\frac {\hbar c^{5}}{Gk^{2}}}}\approx } 1.416808(33)×1032 K where:

    mP is the Planck mass,
    c is speed of light in a vacuum,
    {\displaystyle \hbar } \hbar is the reduced Planck constant defined as {\displaystyle \hbar \ ={\frac {h}{2\pi }}} {\displaystyle \hbar \ ={\frac {h}{2\pi }}},
    k is the Boltzmann constant,
    G is the gravitational constant.
    The two digits between the parentheses are used to denote the standard error of the last two digits of the estimated value.[4]

    Significance
    As with most of the Planck units, a Planck temperature of 1 (unity) is a fundamental limit of quantum theory, in combination with gravitation, as presently understood. In other words, the wavelength of light emitted by an object can be calculated by its temperature. If an object were to reach the temperature of 1.42×1032 kelvin (TP), the radiation it would emit would have a wavelength of 1.616×10−35 m (Planck length), at which point quantum gravitational effects become relevant. At temperatures greater than or equal to TP, current physical theory breaks down because we lack a theory of quantum gravity.[5]
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    I am thinking it is the center of an exploding supernova, is that right? ... I meant at present time.
    If, by present time, we can include anything post-last-scattering (ie since around 379,000 years), then we can include the first stars. Being mostly hydrogen (without the metals that today’s stars start off with), they would have grown BIG, bright and hot (and Really short-lived - barely a million years IIRC) - and their supernovae would have dwarfed those of today.

    I just found that SciAm have publicly posted their article about the first stars here : https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ars-in-the-un/

    Aside from supernovae, I wonder how hot colliding neutron stars would get - say that one detected by LIGO ?

    For man-made devices, I thought offhand the hottest would be the National Ignition Facility (now there’s some frickin’ laser beams , all blasting a small nugget !), but turns out it only gets to a measly 100million degrees (I assume Celsius), and is overtaken by the Large Hadron Collider at 5.5 trillion Celsius (http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/08...omic-soup.html) - hotter than supernovae, (but as ngc3314 notes, it’s not really the same substance after the collision )





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    Well, by present I meant like at 13.8 billion years.
    I think hyperpowerful cosmic rays might be hotter at the collion-with-an-atom point, so let's say over an extended volume like one cubic meter.
    Looking on Wikipedia I came up with these:

    700 GK in quasars' accretion discs
    740 GK, Hagedorn temperature or Fermi melting point of pions
    1012
    1 TK 0.1–1 TK at new neutron star
    0.5–1.2 TK, Fermi melting point of hadrons into quark–gluon plasma
    3–5 TK in proton–antiproton reactions
    3.6 TK, temperature at which matter doubles in mass (compared to its mass at 0 K) due to relativistic effects
    5.5 TK, highest man-made temperature in thermal equilibrium as of 2015 (quark–gluon plasma from LHC collisions)[12]
    10 TK, 100 microseconds after the Big Bang
    45–67 TK at collapsar of a gamma-ray burst
    300–900 TK at proton–nickel conversions in the Tevatron's Main Injector[clarification needed]
    1015
    1 PK 0.3–2.2 PK at proton–antiproton collisions
    2.8 PK within an electroweak star

    1018
    1 EK 2–13 EK at heavy nuclear conversions in the Large Hadron Collider
    1021
    1 ZK Dark matter at active galactic nuclei
    1024
    1 YK 0.5–7 YK at ultra-high-energy cosmic ray collisions
    1027
    103 YK Electrocoloral excitations
    everything 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang
    1030
    106 YK Hagedorn temperature of strings
    1032
    108 YK 142 million YK, Planck temperature of Planck particles and geons or kugelblitzes
    everything 5×10−44 seconds after the Big Bang; also predicted likely range of absolute hot
    1033
    109 YK Theory of everything excitations[citation needed]
    Extradimensional gauge freedom[citation needed]
    Landau poles[citation needed]
    … …
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,573
    If an x-ray jet from a quasar hit a planet, that heat might build up quickly, but without a supernova shock wave blowing everything apart--so in terms of a planet just getting hot--that is probably the best mechanism.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Ufonaut99 View Post
    For man-made devices, I thought offhand the hottest would be the National Ignition Facility (now there’s some frickin’ laser beams , all blasting a small nugget !), but turns out it only gets to a measly 100million degrees (I assume Celsius), and is overtaken by the Large Hadron Collider at 5.5 trillion Celsius (http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/08...omic-soup.html) - hotter than supernovae, (but as ngc3314 notes, it’s not really the same substance after the collision )
    Actually, I think it is Kelvin, though it's the same thing.
    As above, so below

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Actually, I think it is Kelvin, though it's the same thing.
    . Reminds me of a story I heard that went something like this :

    A journalist asked a professor “given how flat the observable universe is, in metric units what would be the minimum size of the entire universe?”

    The professor replied “it must be at least 10 to power of 30”

    The journalist asked “would that be in centimetres or kilometres?”

    It was only after the professor gave him a strange look that he realised that that difference in scale was insignificant to the answer !



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,766
    Or there's also the joke about the museum guide who was showing guests around, and said,

    "This skull is from a human that lived 1.8 million and four years ago."

    One of the visitors is astounded and asks, "Jeez, how do you know the date so precisely?"

    And the guide answers, "Well, when I started working here four years ago, my predecessor told me it was 1.8 million years old..."

    As above, so below

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    744
    A bit late, and a bit nerdy ...

    What do we - folks who've posted to this thread - mean by "temperature"?

    If I remember my university physics, it is the inverse of the "n" in an expression that is, at its heart, e^n. In turn, that is related to the (relative) number of occupied energy states; yeah, there are caveats galore, but I think this capture the essence. Oh, and 0K is where the only occupied states are the lowest.

    From this, it follows that where there is a "population inversion", temperature (in K) becomes negative. As in lasers, masers, etc. Which means, among other things, that when the blue light laser in your computer's HDD starts, it goes through a state with a temperature of ∞K.

    Of course, masers exist in nature, so in one (very nerdy) sense, the answer to the OP's question is ∞.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    i meant a less nerdy sense, Jean Tate.
    And BTW, how do you type things like that infinity symbol?
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Of course, masers exist in nature, so in one (very nerdy) sense, the answer to the OP's question is ∞.
    Personally I am intrigued by this nerdy answer. Will do some research.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    i meant a less nerdy sense, Jean Tate.
    Thanks for that.

    May I ask, in terms of physics, what would you say “temperature” means, in the non-nerdy sense of your OP?

    And BTW, how do you type things like that infinity symbol?
    I wrote it using my MacBook, and DDG-ed how to write the infinity symbol ... option5 (DDG? I use DuckDuckGo, because it doesn’t bubble me).

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Personally I am intrigued by this nerdy answer. Will do some research.
    My exceedingly bad memory tells me that one starts with the zeroth law of thermodynamics, and work your way to statistical mechanics, where you encounter \beta. Which, modulo a constant or two, is inverse temperature.

    An important concept is “equilibrium”. In some parts of of astrophysics, you’ll encounter “LTE”, local thermodynamic equilibrium. In systems which are not in LTE, “temperature” may be a somewhat slippery thing ...

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,832
    One poster on here said a black hole has absolute zero temperature, in a real sense, in that it does not transfer energy.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    One poster on here said a black hole has absolute zero temperature, in a real sense, in that it does not transfer energy.
    Depend on whether or not Hawking radiation is a thing.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    One poster on here said a black hole has absolute zero temperature, in a real sense, in that it does not transfer energy.
    A back hole both absorbs and radiates energy, as a black body.

    In fact a small enough black hole can have a very large temperature: a 1ug black hole would have a temperature of about 1032 K.

    Of course, we don't know if black holes of that size exist. But I assume the temperatures in accretion disks and jets can get quite extreme (about 1013 K accordion to this: https://www.space.com/32467-black-ho...-expected.html)

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,869
    I meant temperature as the temperature here is 20 C today, or the temperature of the star's photosphere is 9000 K, not the nerdy meaning that gives -200 K or plus infinity.
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    I meant temperature as the temperature here is 20 C today, or the temperature of the star's photosphere is 9000 K, not the nerdy meaning that gives -200 K or plus infinity.
    Thanks.

    Both are systems of particles (atoms, molecules, ions, etc) and radiation (photons); in both the accessible energy states are populated and the distributions are close to equilibrium. So, in principle, one could determine a temperature from the those distributions.

    Looking at some of the "hottest temperature in the universe" candidates mentioned in this thread so far:

    * Planck temperature: speculative, as there is no good theory combining/consistent with both QFT and GR
    * 5.5 TK, highest man-made temperature in thermal equilibrium as of 2015 (quark–gluon plasma from LHC collisions): good one; a quark-gluon plasma, created by colliding lead nuclei in the LHC, exists for long enough for the quarks and gluons to reach equilibrium (or close enough)
    * a 1ug black hole would have a temperature of about 1032 K: speculative, both because there is no good theory combining/consistent with both QFT and GR, and because there's no evidence that such black holes exist in the post-surface of last scattering universe
    * 1 ZK Dark matter at active galactic nuclei: highly speculative; we don't even know that dark matter is particles (and not, say, a feature of gravity we don't know about yet)
    * 1 YK 0.5–7 YK at ultra-high-energy cosmic ray collisions: I'm not sure about the value, but also a good one ... there certainly are cosmic ray particles with energies of ~1021 eV, and while exceedingly rare, collisions of two such must happen. This would be like the LHC's quark-gluon plasma (on steroids ), but because we don't know what these EeV+ cosmic rays are, I doubt that we could estimate the equilibrium temperature in such a collision.

    For those interested, I think it would be cool to explore the points ngc3314 made ... when you dump a humongous amount of energy into a (small) system, can you do it fast enough for the constituent particles to reach equilibrium (before they sap energy by pair production, say)?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    For those interested, I think it would be cool to explore the points ngc3314 made ... when you dump a humongous amount of energy into a (small) system, can you do it fast enough for the constituent particles to reach equilibrium (before they sap energy by pair production, say)?
    That is a good point. I think that is one reason the temperatures in accretion disks are relatively modest (on the scales being discussed here).

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,500
    I use characters like ∞ by copying and pasting them from wherever I can find them.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    I meant temperature as the temperature here is 20 C today, or the temperature of the star's photosphere is 9000 K, not the nerdy meaning that gives -200 K or plus infinity.
    Here's a different take: instead of 'lead nucleus scale' things, what is the hottest temperature in the (post-SLS) universe, for macroscopic objects? Say ~1m, or ~1 au, or ~1 pc?

    "Reach equilibrium" (or nearly so) would still apply.

    Shocks, of various kinds, would be a good place to look, I think. How hot do the various shocks in various supernovae get?

    Another probe: cosmic rays with EeV+ energies, and TeV (even PeV) gammas, certainly exist. Where are they created? In the places where they are born, are there macroscopic regions, more or less in equilibrium, with very high temperatures? My fave would be the engines which create the jets in AGNs - what are they? how hot do they get?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    I meant temperature as the temperature here is 20 C today, or the temperature of the star's photosphere is 9000 K, not the nerdy meaning that gives -200 K or plus infinity.
    Temperature of matter? Then, the last highest temp before the particles disassociate.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •