10 Oct 05
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?
10 Oct 05
6 edits
Originally posted by obvekI think you mean zero-gravity, right?
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?
Because you can't feel the affect earth's gravity pulling you, but it still is actually.
Weight is a measurement of gravity on mass. Mass does not change with gravity, weight does.
Temperature is just measurement of kinetic energy of atomic particles.
All matter has no kinetic energy "freezes/stops" at absolute zero. in theory.
This explains why objects expand and contract with temp.
Also why elements or compounds are more reactive with higher temps.
So yes, you must have mass to have a measurable temp, basicly.
Or is mass and temp is a property of matter? So matter is needed. I thinks thats a better answer.
I have no degree on the topic. So you and I will be set straight soon.
10 Oct 05
Originally posted by obvekWell, your average bit of space isn't completely devoid of matter; it has bits of dust and stuff in it too. And, of course, your thermometer 😵.
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?
10 Oct 05
Correct. Space is obviously not mass-less. There are things like insterstellar dust, comets, and meteors, and asteroids, and planets and stars and galaxies and stuff in it. Not to mention nebulas and stuff given off by supernovas and quite a bit more free hydrogen than you'd expect. AND not to mention somewhat hypothetical stuff, like dark matter.
While the local tempurature, like inside star systems, is quite a bit above absolute zero, there is a heck of a lot of space between galaxies that is relatively matter-free, and therefore a lot closer to absolute zero. So much so that the hypothesis is that the overall average temp of the universe ends up being slightly above absolute zero.
10 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by obvekThe "vacuum" of space is essentially mass-free. There's around 1 atom of hydrogen per cubic centimetre.
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?
The reason why the temperature is not absolute zero is very simple. Absolute zero, or 0 Kelvin, does not exist anywhere. It's a theoretical temperature, if you like. Heat travels from a warm area to a cooler one. That's how things cool down. So, for absolute zero to exist, there would have to exist a place which is cooler still. And this is not possible.
12 Oct 05
rOriginally posted by obvekWhat the temperature of space means there is a background of
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?
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 light years across, this radiation has
been stretched out by the same amount, so it originally was a much
higher frequency, shorter wavelength, and thus a higher tempurature
but if you make the wavelength longer, the energy content per
packet of radiation (each wavelength) goes down. I am not sure what
the original wavelength was, ten times higher, hundreds of times,
not sure but its been measured at 2.73 degrees Kelvin.
It also doesn't matter which direction you point your antenna, its nearly
the same in all directions. Thats what won the Nobel prize for Pensias
and his buddies.
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by sonhouseYou continue to fail to read threads.
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.
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZThat is the origin for the temp, 2.73 K. You mention the E-20 Pa
You continue to fail to read threads.
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.