Everyone's already mentioned how great your content is, so I just want to take a moment to talk about how great the commenters here are - after seeing almost every educational video on youtube bombarded with absurd top-voted comments about jokes, memes and other rubbish, it's so refreshing to see a comment section where I continue to learn from what people share. You guys (the creator and the viewers) are absolutely amazing. I especially loved David Pysnik and z beeblebrox's comments!
This is an absolutely top comment and I wholeheartedly agree. The community that is building up here is amazing, the vast majority of commenters and their comments are adding immeasurably to the video. I really appreciate the time and effort people take to help others with their understanding (and do it better than I could). People also make excellent constructive suggestions to help me improve my videos. The quality of comments here is truly superb, and I thank each and every one of you (even if I can't do it individually). I really feel like a community is developing here of people who are willing to get involved in meaningful discussions. Thank you everyone!
I do apologize if this is going to ruffle some feathers, but this comment. Some of science greatest contributor’s were people who loved jokes and pranks. They contributed so much to human knowledge and still maintained a sense of humor, and plenty were humble. I mean, Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein were men known for their sense of humor. I’m pretty sure Stephen Hawking loved meme culture. Pretty sure that some of the greatest minds from the past would be out here sh*t posting while at the same time making huge leaps and bounds in their areas.
@@nothereforit.605 @Not here for it. I get what you're saying, and I agree that some very smart people do enjoy the humor of the puns, memes, jokes etc. (And several smart people may make those jokes), but I do think that the OP has a point. I've been reading through the comments just for this video and there is, in general, a much higher intellectually rigorous posts to not serious posts ratio. Not saying one is better than the other, both are fun and enjoyable depending on your mood and personality, but it's nice to read and see lots of really well thought out, intelligent posts. It feels like a continuation of why I came to see this video in the first place: to learn something and have new knowledge, concepts and ideas presented to me. Though I do love say Kurgezut in a nutshell, both the video and the goofy jokes/humor in the comments. TBH, it would be kinda nice if there was 2 separate comment sections for fun and jokes and serious discussion.
It’s amazing to consider that, in the “recent” history of the universe, both the hottest and coldest temperature to be found anywhere for a given time might have been right in the vicinity of earth and produced by humans.
That said on the premise that we are the only intelligent species in the whole of the universe. Given the abundance of other galaxies in the universe I remain open to the idea that there might be others "out there".
Given the magnets in the LHC are cooled with liquid helium, the hottest and coldest temperatures at that moment would have been a few centimetres away from each other!
satyris410 It’s always interesting when opposite extremes like this happen in close vicinities. Another one that comes to my mind is how the accretion discs of black holes (the definitively darkest objects of the universe) lying just beyond their event horizons are ironically the most luminous objects due to the extreme gravitational and frictional forces exerted on accreting matter, generating intense blackbody radiation, as well as (iirc) any stray photons which temporarily orbit and thus accumulate around the black hole in the photon sphere reflecting off of any accreting matter in great amount (adding some luminosity). Vsauce made a video on this. That said, regarding your claim, the liquid helium cooling the LHC is not a Bose-Einstein condensate and so is definitely not the *coldest* temperature reached/recorded, though it seems relatively close on human and universal temperature scales of course.
3:54 Also a fun consequence of the universe starting out extremely hot and cooling to its current very cold state, is if you go far enough back into the past, you MUST reach a point where the entire universe was room temperature. This was about 15 million years after the Big Bang. Stuck in deep space? Just snag yourself an oxygen mask and a t-shirt and you'll be fine! Don't even worry about getting thirsty, all the water in the universe is liquid right now!
@@ricksanchez9669 Luckily since our body is an airtight system, your blood can only boil wherever it's exposed to the vacuum. So just don't get scratched. And wear goggles. They WILL do something!
@@z-beeblebrox you have some gaps in your knowledge my friend. Your blood will boil in your veins. Your body has these giant openings called lungs. Google what happens to a human in hard vacuum.
@@ricksanchez9669 No, I'm afraid you do. The circulatory system is by its nature, like many things in the human body, sealed off from the outside world. This is, in fact, why we bleed, as this seal represents a pressure differential. While our lungs are *obviously* not sealed from the outside world and air would be violently expelled from your lungs in vacuum (which is why you shouldn't hold your breath), it is nethertheless a fact that the nodules carrying oxygen molecules from the lungs to the bloodstream are too small to represent a leak in this seal. There is in fact a TON of misconceptions about hard vacuum and pop science looooves to oogle how gruesome it would be such that it fails to realize that it actually wouldn't be. You'd just die of asphyxiation like you'd naively expect. You won't spontaneously boil, you won't explode, you won't get turned inside out or instantly freeze (THAT'S a whole discussion about how bad people are at understanding direct vs convective radiation!), and you won't get struck dead by cosmic rays unless you're lottery-winner lucky. You just run out of air. That's it.
@@z-beeblebrox look into the bends. Essentially a loss in pressure causes the air thats naturally disolved in our blood to come out of solution and fill our blood vessels with pokets of air. Yes, our bodies are air tight, but that doesnt mean they handle preasure very well.
Interesting, so if you heat the fabric of reality up to the planck temperature it spontaneously forms black holes or to think another way, cavities are created in the fabric of spacetime. This would be akin to when liquids are almost boiling, so you could make the conjecture that if you heat anything to the planck temperature you've reached the boiling point of reality itself.
The fabric of reality would be the fabric of space. And the fabric of space has no temperature of any kind. What we measure the temperature of is the particles in space.
And just like a boiling point, the system won’t get any hotter until it’s all boiled away. Except it can’t, then, because once everything has been converted into hawking radiation, there’s nothing left to heat-just empty space. This does give a really good accurate and intuitive description of why the Planck Temperature is physically impassable.
As a physicist, I just need to correct one thing! The hottest temperature ever found on earth is that hot pizza cheese hitting the roof of your mouth. This can be read about in Planck's "Hot Pocket Theorem." I am sorry, I will go away now. 😁
We need to help and promote channels like this, pure science with no clickbaits, just awesome content full of information. Keep up the good work and thank you!
that is exactly my thought, too ... and it is so good explained and easy to understand. i think it could be up there with veritassium, be smart, smarter every day, the action lab or PBS SPacetime and whoever there is :D
THEY FINALLY DID IT! A non click-bait channel without sensationalism and hyperbole. All meat, no filler, and understandable. Thanks for the great info, and staying realistic by acknowledging more "learned" people and asking for input. Can't help there, lol. Great video
Thank you, that's a lovely comment. I try to stick to the facts, and hopefully still make it entertaining. It can be a fine line at times. I'm glad you enjoyed the video.
It was only created in 2019, would be one reason. A second reason may have a little to do with what been coined as the recent awakening (personally this term takes the importance away from its occurrence). Where a percentage of the global population are bringing forth alternative theories for explaining the narrative, that up til now has been documented mostly manifested events (care of the higher education beliefs and thoughts of the scientific community only) to form the world's history. This video brings forth a lot of simular views to just where this knowledge has arisen from, and if indeed it should or be it could be quantified as truthfulness and/or factual in its entirety. Though I'll save that for some other time. TRUTH OR TRANCE
Because a very large portion of the population is far more concerned about Elon musk being pale on a yacht or what's going on with Elon musk and twitter. And I know that's something that seems like it's an incredibly ignorant statement but it's the truth. So many people don't want to learn anything they just want gossip gossip gossip. Personally I can't handle that shit. I spend almost no time on social media I guess if you were to consider RU-vid social media yes I spend quite a bit of time on here but typically I'm learning things. My search queries are interesting to say the least. This was very well done. Makes me want to watch more on this channel.
Would love to see a "what if" example if the magnitude of that heat. Like, if there were a sugar cube sized piece of matter at the planck temperature, would that be enough heat that it's dissipation would burn up a city? ocean? globe? Could help give a sense of magnitude.
Yeah that would be an interesting postulation, I'm left wondering if it would lead to another big bang, with the mass and energy required to create a sizable quantity of plank level state "matter" would that be the tipping point for another big bang? Totally guessing based on some of the points raised in the video, no idea the creation of plank state matter is even possible without all the matter in our observable universe.
Your question depends on the density of the cube in question. It will have a very different answer if you mean a cube of actual sugar or a cube of matter at the Planck density. Remember, don't confuse temperature with heat! The corona of the sun is millions of degrees hot but you could stand in it just fine because there is very little heat in it.
@@ObjectsInMotion As I was asking that question, I was thinking of density in my head. The matter would be a quark soup no? How dense is that. With the amount of energy in that, is there any constraint that would dictate the density? Or it's simply a function of the mass we decide on? I think someone did a "what if" with a spoon of neutron star before. Is quark plasma more dense than a neutron star?
Fusing silicon into heavier elements releases less energy than fusing hydrogen into helium. Most of the increase in temperature in the star is due to the star shrinking in size as the fusion process continues. Basically, the star is converting potential energy of matter being farther from the center of the star into kinetic energy, which is expressed as hotter atoms. Initially, the proto-star's core is not hot enough to fuse anything until it contracts and heats. This heating is simply due to the atoms getting closer together and happens all over the earth, although not so dramatically. Once most of the hydrogen is converted to helium, the star contracts and the core warms up until it is hot enough to initiate fusion of helium. This continues until the star turns most of its matter into iron. Stars that are too small don't heat up enough as they contract and eventually stop short of forming either a neutron star or black hole (or more exotic paths of the very large stars). These stars become white, red, or brown dwarfs.
@@mandelabrein8116 because when you stretch the elastic, it gets hotter than its surroundings. The heat is quickly radiated away to the environment. When you release the elastic, its energy is less than when when it was before. Less energy equals lower temperature.
Well you're failing to consider something - which is that when a star fuses hydrogen into helium, it does it over millions to billions of years. When a star fuses aluminum and silicon into iron, it lasts for about a day. So YES, much less binding energy is available from silicon fusion and much less energy is released per kilogram when it fuses, and yet the power produced is still much more, so you are mistaken in your premise anyway. It's like comparing a tank of gasoline to a stick of dynamite. Yes the dynamite releases less heat than the total from burning the gasoline, and yet you shouldn't be underestimating the dynamite.
Actually the higher temps required are due to the way higher coulomb barriers between the heavier elements, in other words, their kinetic energy has to be much higher to overcome it and have nuclei touch each other to fuse into even heavier elements. In other words, beyong hydrogen-hydrogen fusion, the process starts to hinder itself when it fuses progressively heavier and heavier elements. The input required for larger nuclei increases as the yield decreases. And it so happens that crossover beetween net positive and net negative fusion is at...Iron. Oh the Irony. Yes, the reason why Neutron stars have an Iron crust.
@@Bug_Abuse same. it scared tf outta me! glad i'm not alone. It was just such a quiet chill video then BANG. sounded like it was actually outside my window
My big takeaway from this is that our personal notion of "normal" is, relatively speaking, just a whisker away from absolute zero. And yet, there are all sorts of interesting things happening. Like the famous three states of matter (plus I suppose plasma, which is the fourth), all of which don't come into play unless we're in this almost-zero condition. It seems highly unlikely to me that all the interesting stuff would be happening on one end of the spectrum. The video mentions some interesting things that start to happen at the high end as well. So are there similar states that manifest throughout the temperature range? Or is it just boring in the 99.99999999+++ in the middle?
I think, and hope, you are right. Would be kind of narcissistic to think everything interesting must be happening where we can see it. Who knows that kind of tech we could create if weird stuff does start happening? Every new phenomena opens up so many possibilities.
What you would consider interesting events, are events that occur in stable environments. The issue of temperature and kinetic energy then becomes: what environments allow interesting things to occur? The most stable ones do. So every **sustained** temperature will be in an "interesting" environment. And it's no surprise we find ourselves in the place with the most "interesting" things happening, as we are the most stable environment by definition, as far as we know, as it has produced the most complex things we know of : humans. What you mean by "interesting" is "complex" and only the most stable environments do not override complexity with some simple metric gone rampant. Like temperature. Too much temperature, does not allow the other forces to produce complex things before the temperature destroys them. Complexity (that considers what is complex to be interesting) must find itself in an environment that does not override any forces too much. Tidbit: if the universe as a whole manages to stay stable while being hotter, (all forces balance in that environment), then that will be where all the most "interesting" things will happen. When less of one thing occurs, more of all the others occurs, basically.
@@douggale5962 That's not entirely true if you scale the frequencies logarithmically, which is how our ears perceive them. Octaves are derived from the doubling of frequencies. So 100-200 Hz is the same jump as 10,000-20,000 Hz.
Another thing to consider is the velocity of the hot particles themselves. As they increase velocity with an increase in temperature, then there must be an ultimate temperature at which the particles are moving at the speed of light.
The “Absolute Zero Tea” that you describe is just what happens to my Dad’s typical cup of tea after he leaves half of it unconsumed. Then he’ll come back to it 12 hours later and still deem it safe to drink.
Planck Time: the smallest unit of time where anything can be said to meaningfully happen, the "frame rate" of the universe Planck Distance: the smallest unit of distance where something can be said to have moved to a different position, the "resolution" of the universe Planck Temperature: ...not a unit, but the top end of the temperature scale, as far from absolute zero as the laws of physics allow ...seems legit.
Apparently it just relates to Planck distance which is why they called it Planck temperature. Due to the way temperature is described, something at "max temperature" emits light with wavelengths only at 1 Planck Distance, so the lowering of one Planck Temperature unit would be to increase at least one light particle emitted to 2 Planck Lengths, the smallest unit of temperature that we can decrease from a heat source.
@@iCarus_A I wonder if blackbody radiation would be the only thing that really breaks at the planck temperature. I could imagine that the photons are emitted at 1 planck length, but just.. more of them as you get hotter. The only true limit to temperature I can imagine, and I may be mistaken for assuming this is higher than the planck temperature described, would be the point where the speed of each particle is the speed of light.
You deserve 10^15 times more subscribers! All killer no filler, clear and understandable, great visuals, and the audio quality is spot on! I’ve only just discovered this channel and I’m so happy!
10 to the 15th power times more? Really? So 1.05 times 10 to the 19th power total then? He should have over a billion subscribers for every human on Earth?
He deserves Plank number of subscribers. That should be way more than 10^15, not enough mass for them to collapse into a black hole. Should be about 10^28.
Ph.D. Physicist here: the Planck temperature isn’t so much a maximum temperature in the same sense in which absolute zero is a minimum temperature. That situation occurs in things like magnetic materials, like Ising models, where absolute zero has all spins parallel to a magnetic field and absolute not has exactly half the spins aligned (actually infinite temperature because the derivative of energy with respect to entropy hits 0). If all the spins are pointing opposite to the magnetic field the system is in its highest possible energy state, yet at zero entropy. The concept of temperature goes weird here, in one sense negative temperature because increasing energy decreases entropy, and greater than infinity in another sense, because thermal energy will spontaneously flow from a system of negative/infinite temperature to any system of finite temperature. If this sounds like integer overflow in CS, and that’s in fact similar to some really cute math involved. This is totally ok and normal and well described by 19th century thermodynamics. Planck temperature isn’t like this at all. It’s a maximum temperature in the sense that above that we don’t know what temperature, energy, or spacetime mean anymore, the concepts themselves break down.
Wow! He explains everything in a way that's so easy to digest and understand but not so stupidly oversimplified that you lose the point. Congrats on that alone! Also, the video is really well put together, so amazing job on that as well. I'm definitely checking out your channel after I finish this video.
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope. He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot.. Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. Matthew 7:21
Please, please make more of this kind of content! The universe is so fascinating at its extremes, whether in the extremes of temperature, speed, space or size. Your video is well produced, engaging and easy to follow.
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope. He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot.. Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. Matthew 7:21
When he started explaining how the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation decrease with heat and began leading to his point about a planck wavelength, my mind exploded in slow motion, that's insane. Great video.
When he said "I think you know where I'm going with this..." (the shortening of the wavelengths) I was like, holy shit, I actually DO know where you're going with this! Remarkable content discusses eloquently and in a manner understandable by nearly everyone with two brain cells to rub together. Instantly subscribed.
Idk why but I tried calculating the Planck temperature using the constants and formula shown at 11:30. However when I did so, I got the wrong answer. So I looked it up and it appears that you wrote down the value of the Planck constant (h), while the formula seems to use the reduced Planck constant (ħ), which is equal to around 1.05457×10^-34, or h/2π. Using this value does give the temperature mentioned in the beginning of the video.
Magnificent what a brilliant communicator!! Only a matter of time before this channel starts accumulating millions of views. Thoroughly enjoyed that top job
It's sad that teachers have to deal with classrooms full of disinterested teens xD Kids could learn so much if they were as fascinated with the material as some of their teachers are. (By which I of course don't try to blame kids for being kids. I'm just saying that classrooms aren't always the best pedagogic environment)
He said that at absolute zero the molecule still vibrate. They're not vibrating, they're shivering. They're saying, "Is it just me, or is it cold out there?" LOL
With under 100K subscribers you managed to make 1M+ viewed videos, and that's a rare achievement. I wish your voice tembre were a tone lower to my ear, but lack of music and/or other sound effects greatly contributes to the quality. Thank you for sharing.
Hi there. I am a physicist and I published my doctoral thesis on the Quark-Gluon Plasma created at the LHC at CERN. Great video, but you sort of lose the plot around 13:22 . Firstly, as you yourself point out, the concept of 'relativistic mass' is a contentious one within the community. Einstein's equations (and experimental evidence) shows that *momentum* increases non-linearly with greater and greater speed, p=ymv, where y is the relativistic gamma ( y = 1/root(1-v^2/c^2) ). But the rest mass (E=mc^2) remains the same. So you either have to say that there are multiple types of "mass" ('relativistic mass' and 'rest mass', M=ym)... which is kinda a weird idea if you think about it. Or you can just say that there are multiple 'types' of velocity (V=yv). Both idea work to explain observations, but the second idea is much more popular because the idea of 'relative' velocities is consistent with the rest of Eistein's theory of 'relativity' and the first idea is not. Secondly, while it's true that the strength of gravity increases as you add kinetic energy to a system, it's a huge leap in logic to say that maybe gravity will become so strong that is creates mini black holes which somehow evaporate and cool the system. Rather, I would say that our current models simply don't predict what will happen if black body radiation becomes on the order of the plank length. We have absolutely zero experimental observations in that regime - it's all 100% speculation. Objects in this temperature regime don't 'break physics' anymore than Kepler's observations of the planets 'broke physics'. Instead, we just don't currently have a model that explains what might happen in this scenario. You kind of say that at the end, but only after you - pardon my harsh language here - wildy speculate about a fringe theory with no evidence. I think you could have just skipped to "I don't know". And it's okay to say 'I don't know'. Admitting ignorance is the foundation of the scientific method.
The point you make is fair, however ending the video with uncertainty over the matter would certainly would have been less entertaining than the ending he gave albeit speculation. Just the possibility of what he described actually occurring is more than enough to excite the mind of the uninitiated!
@@AdamAttia007 Yes, I understand the need to entertain, but I think there was a better way to do it. Modern society places a *lot* of faith in science (one might even say too much), and so I think that it's more important than ever for scientists - and even science entertainers - to be very very clear about the limitations of our knowledge. Misconceptions and overstatements can cause a lot of damage, even if they are well intentioned.
i think 'breaking physics' referred to human physics not nature's physics & more importantly the narrator has, in many vids inc this one, demonstrated that he's not afraid of saying his knowledge is limited so he is not one of the many people who needs to be told "it's ok to say you don't know" ...your last comment was therefore irrelevant, at best, or patronising
At 13:06 there is a bit of confusion about relativistic mass. Short summary: only the rest mass contributes to gravity, the “extra” mass of an object with high velocity has to do with its momentum- specifically the difficulty in changing its momentum. This video points out the misconception: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LTJauaefTZM.html The relativistic pool game (starting at around nine minutes) in Episode 44 of The Mechanical Universe goes into the exact details of “relativistic mass (momentum)” actually being due to the velocities of the observers. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lZUrLq0LLIU.html
Thanks for the info. I'm not specifically a physicist, but I'll watch the video. I'm just doing my research for Planck mass and whilst I can't promise I won't make any mistakes I'll do my best to keep it accurate and entertaining.
@@LearningCurveScience in any case with content of this quality there'll eventually be millions of subscribers, it'll just happen at some point. Thank you for providing such a superb educational resource some.very cool videos here
Fun fact, at one point the coldest place in the universe was in a lab in Espoo, finland. Pretty weirdly out of place location for a record like that at the time.
Besides the LHC, I think Tokamak plasmas would have been worth mentioning. While not as hot as particle coliders, they are still hotter than even the core of the sun.
I actually thought the laws of physics themselves would break down at much lower temperatures than Planck's temperature. Though if you think about it, they kind of have to break down at that high of a temperature in order for the singularity that became the big bang to have even existed at all.
Particles can't move faster than light so it seems that that would also have implications for the maximum temperature. The particles can only vibrate so fast.
I am an avid documentary viewer for many years but have never come across anyone explaining such complex topics with such simplistic words. Not only I have subscribed, but also enabled the bell to receive notifications as soon as any video is uploaded and this is the only one which has it for me.
First minute and I already gotta thank you for including Fahrenheit too! It's nice (and rare) when science videos list temperatures in F at all. Heck, you used all THREE! (Kelvin, Celsius, Fahrenheit). I would've liked this video anyway because this is fascinating stuff, but that's a nice little bonus. This channel currently has only 1.73k subscribers? Oh THAT'S not right. Have my sub. :) (is it bad that as soon as you mentioned "a nice hot cup of tea", my brain went straight to the Infinite Improbability Drive? ;))
Thank you very much. Most of my viewers are American so it just seems polite to use units they understand as often as I can, and yes the nice hot cup of tea was absolutely a reference to the infinite improbability drive!
Technically there's also this french one that I can't pronounce, the symbol is an R. Kelvin and Celsius are the same scale just with a different Zero Point.
@@dorderre I know there is a Rankine scale. Based on the Fahrenheit scale, with 0 Rankine being absolute zero, which is around -459 degrees Fahrenheit.
So here's a thought that comes to mind. Based on the examples given of 100 seconds after the Big Bang and the ambient temperature of space, this implies that a given amount of energy was concentrated into a given infinitesimally small volume at the moment of the Big Bang. How close is the estimate of that energy to Planck Temperature? Assuming it's lower than Planck Temperature, then given this concentration of energy would represent all (or almost all) of the energy available in the universe as a whole, that puts a separate practical upper limit on the highest possible temperature that could ever be achieved within the confines of this universe.
It is my pet hypothesis that time asymptotically approaches the moment of the big bang but, due to the density of energy, never reaches it. Spacetime can bend, so I'm not sure this is an absurd statement. Either way, space was probably infinite in size, both then and now, it's just... a bigger infinite, now, and that spreading out is what has cooled the background radiation over time. Well, that and being absorbed by matter. Go back far enough and you reach "infinite" energy density. That's the idea, anyway. That's why I don't think of the big bang as an actual event that literally occurred within linear time, but rather as a point on some axis that is never intersected by spacetime.
The singularity that created the Big Bang was infinitely not, and also likely not even from this universe to begin with (0+0=0 in a closed system, doesn’t matter what you do, nothing can ever change that).
I mean this in the most positive possible way, the way you enunciate certain worlds at pauses in sentences is strange to my ears but very pleasant to listen to. I think it keeps my brain 'tuned in' by being thrown off in the way you work your way through the script being a little 'off' to me
Really interesting video. I always wondered if there is a maximum temperature, how high it would be and why it would be that high. Thank you for answering all my questions on this 😃
Wow, you made all this science comprehensible - to me! What an achievement, well done. If I was a high school science teacher I'd be showing your videos all the time.
Basically at plank temperature, matter move as fast as speed of light, so if we add more energy, it become a black hole since nothing can go faster than speed of light.
I know a lot of this is theoretical, but when you say the atoms would still vibrate at absolute zero, for how long? Vibration requires energy, so eventually those atoms should stop vibrating. Then what happens?
What I like is that 1.4x10^32 K is the same as 1.4x10^32 degrees C. No more conversions between the two when the magnitude is 10^30 away from the conversion factor.
Blackbody radiation is not "a wavelength". It is a distributed spectrum of a well-defined bell-like shape, the shape's peak wavelength is of course scaling with 1/ temperature. (Total radiated power is scaling by T to the power of 4). Even a 1K cold atom will radiate at planck wavelength, although the intensity at that wavelength is unbelievably low, practically zero. So how to exactly define a "temperature where the laws of physics break"?
@Thomas Lechner - Wrong conclusion, totally wrong! The blackbody DISTRIBUTION curve you refer to is an _emergent property_ from large collections of particles, and does not at all apply to single atoms. Indeed, the entire blackbody concept is an idealization of continuum radiation that only properly applies to totally closed systems in perfect equilibrium (no heat leakage and infinitely old), AND it is contradicted by Quantum Mechanics where only certain energy levels are allowed... the very opposite of a continuum.
@@YodaWhat Indeed. It's what turned around 19th century physics, when quantum physics emerged out of the blue, as classical physics could not answer the riddle of the UV catastrophe.
11:30 "h" is the planck constant, whereas you've shown "h bar" (an h with a bar through it), which is the *reduced planck constant*: h over 2pi, or roughly 1.055 x 10^-34
Also: the units are wrong. They are m^2.kg.s^-1 (rather than m^2.kg^-1.s^-1). Otherwise the units of the Planck Temperature come out as K.kg^-1, which is clearly wrong.
10:30 How did they maintain the structural integrity of the container at the large hadron collider after generating such a temperature, if said temperature was higher than the melting point of mater, even if it was only for a millisecond?
it didn't do any damage probably because it only lasted like a millisecond it's like the same way you can touch something hot without burning yourself if you do it very very fast,there's not enough time to transmit that heat to the other object
Inside tha hadron colider is vacuum And it is held up by magnetic fields,the temperature was produced for nanoseconds only on Just 2 particles with almost zero mass. So basically 2 small particles,not touching anything And for very briefly. Theres no way we could bring even 1 gram of something up to that temperature,if that was done in the air it would probably vaporize kilometres of land.
@@dlouhyjohnny6810 Thanks for the info. That sounds reasonable. I'm just learning about the Planck Measurement system, I'm not an Astro or Quantum physicist so up until a few weeks ago I didn't know it existed. I didn't know there was a melting point of mater either. Fusion and Fission sure but melt? Then learning we actually generated such a temperature, it got me thinking how that was even possible. but then I remembered, Because Science.
When my age was single-digit and I first became aware of absolute zero, I immediately wondered if there were an "absolute hot". At the time, I was told there was not. At last, I learn that there IS...!
Wait, I thought things could not actually get colder than the Cosmic Microwave Background since they'd constantly be "warmed" up by it... Could someone explain that to me? Genuinely interested
IIUC the CMB is more akin to the air temperature outside on a cod winter night compared to your warm house. If you turned off the heat and all electricity, your house would eventually cool to the air temperature, but not colder.. Without AC, it wouldn't get any cooler than this since your house and the air would reach "steady state" where they're both receiving and emitting the same amount of IR radiation. To get it colder requires energy to move the excess heat somewhere else. The same is true for anything far away from something hot (like the sun, or a planet, etc). If you took a brick, and stuck it in interstellar space, it'll cool down to the CMB temperature where that object is the same temperature as the microwaves from the big bang that hit it.
@@LearningCurveScience Just to give my opinion: I did not like it because you talk for 10 mins about some other stuff before going to what the title promised: "planck temperature" and talk about it for 4mins. so i think you should consider changing the title of the video.
@@srmeister1 Well the average person needs some kind of prospective first before jumping straight into this kind of topic, not everyone is a quantum physicist like you.
Good content! Thank you. I had always understood absolute zero, but in my superficial understanding, I assumed there was no limit to hot temperatures. I thought one could always add more energy. Now, it makes sense there is an absolute high temperature as well. Relativity and quantum mechanics suggests as much. Not that I understand it. It’s too much for my small brain to comprehend, but it’s so fascinating to ponder the very small and the very large in our universe!
Physics Major here. 13:44 Hits on an interesting, fundamental question of physics. It is important to note that we have no clue, or evidence supporting, whether increasing the temperature/momentum of an object affects the strength of its gravitational field. All we know is that increasing temperature increases the *mass* of the atoms involved. But this does not necessarily equate to increase in the strength of the gravitational field. This can be a really confusing concept, so physicists, as always, invented vocabulary to explain it. The current, canonical explanation is thus. There are TWO types of "mass". One is called "inertial mass" or "momentum", and its the mass you see in equations like F=ma or p=mv, typically labeled m(i) (the i standing for inertia, and being a subscript) in higher level physics. In these advanced systems of physics, the F=ma equation is revealed to be a far more complex ordinary differential equation system which describes the interchange of momentum between object and other objects or fields. Essentially the DEFINITION of force is the derivative of momentum with respect to time: ma=m(dv/dt)=d(mv)/dt=dp/dt=F Einstein's theories of relativity describe a change in *inertial* mass with increase in velocity. In other words, if an object is moving at relativistic speeds, then p=mv no longer applies, and it takes a lot more force to increase the momentum by the same amount at that point. This is often described as if the mass of the object is changing. But this is not necessarily the case: we simply don't know. All we know is that the change in momentum is not linear: ie the change in momentum for a 1kg mass going from 1m/s to 2m/s is much less than that same mass going from 299,800 m/s to 299,801 m/s. Mass isnt necessarily increasing, all this really means is that p=mv doesnt apply at reletavistic scales. Here enters the second type of mass: "gravitational mass", labeled m(g) (the g, again, used as a subscript). This is the mass that appears in gravity related equations like F=-GMm/r², and this mass describes a correlation between the amount of "stuff" in a given volume and the strength of that stuff's gravitational field. This force is a bit more simple to understand than the F=ma equation (so far for me, still taking classes so fingers crossed if there is some hidden complexity here too that I dont yet know about). Now, "inertial" mass (how much momentum the stuff has per m/s of velocity) and "gravitational" mass (how powerful the stuff's gravitational field is) do not have *any* form of correlation in the mathematics of physics. As far as weve been able to experimentally verify, the correlation is basically exactly 1 to one on the normal, everyday, macro scale: m(g)=m(i) But this turns out to be quite a bit....difficult....when you enter quantum physics, where a particle with gravitational mass can suddenly move? Or teleport? To another location with no apparent causing force, or quantum tunneling, basically weird quantum 💩ship💩 that doesnt easily reconcile with the rest of physics. And it doesnt seem to work on the large, cosmic scale either, mostly because we're still "in the dark about dark energy" (I'm not sorry 🤣). In fact, this is part of the reason why black holes are still so baffling for us, even though they are only described by their mass, charge, and spin. But they continue to confound us because they tie in with both macro level physics (gravity, relativity, etc), AND quantum mechanics (information paradox, describing the gravitational singularity, etc). As far as we can tell, it DOES generally hold that if you find an object that has a strong gravitational field, its probably really hard to push it/give it momentum. And, inversely, it DOES hold that if you find an object that's really hard to push and give momentum, odds are it has a strong gravitational field. But, we're just not sure if the two have the same cause, or if one causes the other, or maybe its all just a coincidence, or who knows maybe Kurzgesagt was right and we're all just holograms and nothing is real anyway and 4=5 and math is weird therefore physics (applied mathematics) is weird. I dont know if you can tell, but being a physicist tends to fill one with existential dread.
It’s funny because I’ve been thinking of a max temperature since I was 8 or 10 or something in that range, and I always thought, even up to this point (I’m 16 now) that the limit of temperatures would be determined by how fast atoms can move because they obviously can’t go faster than the speed of light.
That also begs the question, could a particle at the plank temperature be moved? Or would it become a universal anchor, since it’s already vibrating at the speed of light and therefore there is no more available speed to move it?
Boomerang Nebula: gases are expanding rapidly, then they are moving so fast that the space they occupy is cool. But heat is the speed of the particle in a system. I'm sure I'm missing some part of the argument, but what?
To mention (chemist here), since temperature is a measure of the movement of particles, when the nature of particles break down, the movement of those particles can no longer be measured in any appreciable way. It would be like attempting to study biology without chemistry. If you have no chemicals, you have no biology. If you have no physics (movement), you have no chemistry. If you have no geology (stuff), you have no physics (movement of stuff). So the pattern of scientific study which goes somewhat as follows would be broken at Plank temperature. 1. Geology (study of stuff) 2. Physics (study of movement) 3. Chemistry (study of what makes up matter) 4. Biology (study of life) 5. Human anatomy and physiology; medicine (study of human life functions) 6. Social Sciences: Economics, Politics; Psychology; Sociology; Law; Education, etc. 7. Theology: study of things beyond our universe and beyond our capacity to experiment 8. Metaphysics: study of the state of being Note that at no time can a higher number be rationally observed without conforming to all lower numbers. If, at any time, a higher number should violate a lower number, then the lower number, by definition, would have to be changed in its fundamental laws. Thus, if a biological creature could move faster than the speed of light, physics would be changed overnight. Additionally, no economic policy should ever be decided that disregards survival of people, since if there are no people, there is no population with which to have an economy.
That thunder crack in the Venus section of the video...I'm wearing headphones, and that was serious surround sound, nearly fell out of my chair from jumping.
I don’t know the context of this comment, but just a thought emerged in my mind….. Maybe 0 degree Kelvin exists, but we cannot or are unable to observe it because we need to put some sort of input/ (energy) to observe any form of state and to get feedback from without altering its initial conditions; so by doing that it might be near impossible to observe a static universe without putting some energy while observing such cold temperature and not increase it by doing so; Universe might not break, but to find such an extreme or one might say ideal situation/environment, it will be challenging; besides one might say such condition (ideal condition) won’t exist as we humans are yet to find or may not find a solution in which we can prepare output without putting additional energy/information (It’s ). [I know it is contradictory and breaks our understanding of physics, but i just started thinking out of the box scenario; it’s stupid of me to make such comments. I’m nobody. A basic understanding of science is what I have. Who just got curious and started commenting where people are 100’s of time’s smarter than me. Maybe I’ve forgotten my place :)]
What happens is that it creates a white hole that folds space time and connects itself with one or numerous other black-hole of equal mass and begins spewing out all mass collected from the black hole side at random while absorbing hawking radiation in to fill the missing space in a sort of vacuum. This creates a mini big-bang effect and seeds its pocket of the universe with all the ingredients to create stars and planets.
1:26 actually in Aalto University, Finland, some researchers achieved negative Kelvins. Those atoms have negative vibration energy which equals to infinite energy
My understanding is that as something speeds up its mass does not increase and that this is something scientists have said in order to help most non-scientists understand. From what I understand it's actually inertia that increases.
Just found this channel, and only a couple of minutes in I thought you were going to do a "Douglas Adams" (Hitchhikers Guide) when referencing the tea. You resisted the temptation! Other than that, fascinating to see all of this information together in one easy to watch piece. I'm also no physicist but did enjoy the mental gymnastics involved in what you were describing.
