Originally posted by sonhouseIt the pressure of the 'vacuum' of space. It's not completely empty as is said numerous times in the thread.
That is the origin for the temp, 2.73 K. You mention the E-20 Pa
as a pressure. Is that the pressure of the total gas in the universe
averaged over its apparent volume? Or are you referring to the
expansion of space itself? If it is the former, a 'tempurature' of
space may be worked out, the average temp of all the gas in the
universe but there is still the CBR of 2.73K. Two differant things.
Just for comparison the lowest pressure achieved in a lab is 10^-17 Pa. A thousand times higher than space.
Originally posted by sonhouseHe isn't failing to read the thread, he is explaining the roughly 3K temperature of space. Although, come on, give Wilson some credit instead of just calling him Pensias's buddy. Also, everyone keeps talking about the vacuum, but no one has mentioned the quantum vacuum, quantum foam, or the Casimir effect. By quantum theory and the uncertainty principal; in any vacuum, particle-antiparticle pairs are constantly being created and destroyed. So the vacuum has pleny of "virtual" matter and anti matter, but you can never directly see it. This has been tested as best we can (google Casimir effect) and seems to be true.
What the temperature of space means there is a background of
microwave radiation that would heat something very cold, say at 1
degree Kelvin, up to the tempurature of 2.73 degrees Kelvin.
It has nothing to do with mass, its just microwave radiation which
is the leftover radiation from the big bang but because the universe
has expanded to billions of ...[text shortened]... nearly
the same in all directions. Thats what won the Nobel prize for Pensias
and his buddies.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI think you are referring to not the "vacuum of space" but to the
It the pressure of the 'vacuum' of space. It's not completely empty as is said numerous times in the thread.
Just for comparison the lowest pressure achieved in a lab is 10^-17 Pa. A thousand times higher than space.
presence of matter in space so its the matter that is providing the
pressure. The number you gave is, I assume, the average of all
matter known vs. the known volume of space in terms of atoms
per CC. Is that what you are talking about? The one atom/CC you
hear bandied around. So I assume one atom/CC is given the number
of E-20 Pa. I would point out here that is only an average and the
presence of nebula and clouds of gas ionized or neutral, are so
pervasive in the universe that the pressure number has to vary to
a considerable degree from place to place in the universe. I am glad
we are on the same page, I was thinking for a while there you were
saying "vacuum" itself has a pressure outside the presence of gas.
Which it might but that is another subject. The Casimir effect gives
a real "pressure" in space but supposedly (there are other theories
lately) due to virtual particles coming and going on time orders
of E-25 seconds. I was thinking you were talking about that. Thanks
for clearing that up. Don
latest theories suggest that the universe is actually mostly made up of dark matter which in turn is invisable to all our own techniques as to measuring it and wheighing it and obviously seeing it, so where that leaves us is never getting the combined theory of everything and just getting a glimpse of not very much, unless we concieve a new way of explaining nothing, although there is something, which is why we need a new science to be able to begin to understand it, but it sure is good trying, and for those who want to know how we know its there if we can't see it or measure it etc, simple, its because of the reactionary force it has on the things we can see and measure , some would even go as far as saying that DARK MATTER is the ultimate force which is in turn is creating gravity and also the fore runner in the lookout for the reason our universe is speeding up.
agreed not all,
No matter how far we prope and measure, and think, and ponder we will always start and end with a singularity, the existance of such a predicament, is prove alone that there is something we just dont get and are not ready to comprehend just yet, quite ironic that our own inability is the driving force forward, but only in my mind..........
Originally posted by obvekIf there is no mass, there is no temperature.
I just thought of this today and it kinda stumped me, and i suddenly knew exactly where to ask it- the rhp forums.
There is no mass in space, yet scientists say that space is a few degrees above absolute zero. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it takes mass to have temperature, right? How can space be massless and still have temperature?
Temperature is just the measurement of how fast the molecules are moving, If the Temperature is 0 degrees Kelvin, then the molecules are stopped, but you will never find anything 0 degrees Kelvin anywhere (even in space) supposedly because of the "Big Bang" or the sun. There is no such thing as cold, its just an absent of heat. I think they measure temperature of space with laser. In which they measure mass in space thats not in the sunlight
Originally posted by flyUnityCrap.
If there is no mass, there is no temperature.
Temperature is just the measurement of how fast the molecules are moving, If the Temperature is 0 degrees Kelvin, then the molecules are stopped, but you will never find anything 0 degrees Kelvin anywhere (even in space) supposedly because of the "Big Bang" or the sun. There is no such thing as cold, its just ...[text shortened]... e temperature of space with laser. In which they measure mass in space thats not in the sunlight
Temperature is the effect of thermal energy transfer due to the difference between the thermal energies of "adjacent" bodies. Molecule vibration is proportional to the temperature of the space occupied by the mass, but theoretically, there doesn't need to be mass in order for temperature to "exist".
It is true that there is nowehere where it is 0 Kelvin (the word degrees is misused in this context), but that is purely by definition.
Originally posted by Kalsenwell technicly there is no tempurature when there is no mass, but there is energy in space, like sonhouse explained in his first post. When scientist say thats the tempurature in space, its relative to mass tempurature,
Crap.
Temperature is the effect of thermal energy transfer due to the difference between the thermal energies of "adjacent" bodies. Molecule vibration is proportional to the temperature of the space occupied by the mass, but theoretically, there doesn't need to be mass in order for temperature to "exist".
It is true that there is nowehere where it is 0 Kelvin (the word degrees is misused in this context), but that is purely by definition.
Originally posted by flyUnityIf you'd read the thread you'd know that Space isn't empty. Just very very low pressure. You'd also know that the whole issue was finished with a while back. Also the whole molecules stopping moving at 0 Kelvin isn't correct if I remember my physics lab on the subject.
well technicly there is no tempurature when there is no mass, but there is energy in space, like sonhouse explained in his first post. When scientist say thats the tempurature in space, its relative to mass tempurature,
Please know what you are talking about and read threads before trying to sound smart.
look, there is no such thing as empty or full when it comes to physics, although we have scales of measurements etc, these are only usefull if you know where your starting from and ending, so planets, galaxies and all other thiings under the general term matter can be measured from our own recognised point of begining and end, but because of time space and reletivety these points of measurements have to be ever expanded, whether your looking for the biggest or smallest of anything, so at the moment when we look for the measurements of things in space we are unfortunatly at a singularity in both directions, not because there is nothing bigger or smaller but because we just havent had the funding to build larger particle excelleraters to measure these ever increasing margins, and how do we calculate such infinitive numbers.
Originally posted by XanthosNZIn extreme areas, there is as little as 0.1 hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter, and a lot less particles of cosmic dust than hydrogen. Therefore, there are areas with literally nothing occupying space (but, of course, there are such areas inside all atoms as well). You could have a square mile with just 1 atom, and still have a finite, non-zero pressure - doesn't mean there is mass everywhere.
If you'd read the thread you'd know that Space isn't empty. Just very very low pressure. You'd also know that the whole issue was finished with a while back. Also the whole molecules stopping moving at 0 Kelvin isn't correct if I remember my physics lab on the subject.
Please know what you are talking about and read threads before trying to sound smart.
And either your memory is bad, or your physics lab was crap.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI never said that space is completly empty, I said there is no tempurature when there is no mass, because it takes mass to measure tempurature. but there is energy in space.
If you'd read the thread you'd know that Space isn't empty. Just very very low pressure. You'd also know that the whole issue was finished with a while back. Also the whole molecules stopping moving at 0 Kelvin isn't correct if I remember my physics lab on the subject.
Please know what you are talking about and read threads before trying to sound smart.
What kind of physics lab did you go to? I have to learn this junk to become a pilot, And I just learned that when tempurature is 0 Kelvin, molecules stop moving, I can give you a link of it if you still wont believe it.
Also for your last point... I know what im talking about. And I read the thread, but didnt find a good answer on it, so I gave an answer in my own way. And last of all I was not trying to sound smart