Can pressure be negative?

[Ziggurat]

For pressure, it's even easier. While temperature is usually, but not always, a scalar quantity, pressure is properly a vector quantity in classical physics, because it is a force per unit area (and even areas can be vectorized as a unit length vector orthogonal to the surface).

Since both S and U are scalar quantities, you'd need something other than the standard thermodynamic definition to get a nonscalar temperature. I've never seen such a thing, and I don't know why it would be of any use. Perhaps you can tell us a little more about what you have in mind here.

In regards to pressure, this is a somewhat semantic issue, but what you refer to as a non-scalar pressure is often called stress, and it's a tensor quantity with the same units as pressure. In the case of hydrostatic pressure, this tensor is diagonal, with all elements being equal, and so it's completely specified by a single scalar. If you're dealing with a non-hydrostatic scenario, then "stress" is a better term because it's explicitly non-scalar, with "pressure" becoming somewhat ambiguous in that scenario.

So pressure this-a-way is positive, while pressure that-a-way is negative. It's all about how you define what "positive" and "negative" mean, and I haven't seen any efforts along those lines yet.

That's because the conventions are well settled, even for stress tensors. "Outwards" force is positive, "inwards" force is negative, measured by examining the force exerted by our system on its surroundings.

 

[Perpetual Student]

So, getting back to T and β, when β is 0, what are we saying about T? How does one interpret this infinite temperature?
If not the average kinetic energy, what exactly is infinite?

 

[Dilb]

So, getting back to T and β, when β is 0, what are we saying about T? How does one interpret this infinite temperature?
If not the average kinetic energy, what exactly is infinite?

You look at the equation: entropy stops changing as you change the energy. In rough terms, it means the arrangement of particles can't get anymore 'random' by adding more energy: to add more energy, you actually need to start ordering things up again.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, getting back to T and β, when β is 0, what are we saying about T? How does one interpret this infinite temperature?
If not the average kinetic energy, what exactly is infinite?

dE/dS is infinite. That's not the most useful quantity, because it's generally energy and not entropy that you manipulate directly, but that's what exploded. And it means that means that adding energy won't change entropy at that point (to first order, anyways). You've got a nonzero numerator and a zero denominator. But while that means something, I don't want to suggest that temperature is the only way, or even necessarily the most meaningful way, to describe a system in such a state.

One can also think about it in terms of heat capacity. In such a system, the heat capacity drops as you increase temperature. So the system gets easier and easier to heat up. And it keeps dropping, approaching zero as the temperature approaches infinity. So while one can heat to infinite temperature in such a system, the vanishing heat capacity means that the energy required to do so remains finite. But that also means that it can cool easily too, which goes along with such systems being unstable in the infinite/negative temperature regime.

 

[Perpetual Student]

OK, so when some system is so disordered that dS is zero (S is not changing -- I assume this means the system is maximally disorganized regardless of any additional input of energy +dE), the quantity dE/dS diverges. Now, it has been said that β = 1/kT, so it can vary smoothly through 0 when T diverges. What then is the meaning of a positive or negative β, which was mentioned earlier? For β to be negative, dE/dS must be negative, so adding energy must result in decreasing E (we have a positive dE with a negative dE). How is that possible?
What have I misunderstood here?

 

[Ziggurat]

OK, so when some system is so disordered that dS is zero (S is not changing -- I assume this means the system is maximally disorganized regardless of any additional input of energy +dE), the quantity dE/dS diverges. Now, it has been said that β = 1/kT, so it can vary smoothly through 0 when T diverges. What then is the meaning of a positive or negative β, which was mentioned earlier? For β to be negative, dE/dS must be negative, so adding energy must result in decreasing E (we have a positive dE with a negative dE). How is that possible?
What have I misunderstood here?

I don't think you've misunderstood anything yet, but you are missing a piece of the puzzle, namely the answer to "How is that possible?" So let's see if I can give you an answer which satisfies.

The most famous example of negative temperatures is a paramagnet in a magnetic field, both because it's analytically solvable (fairly easily, in fact) and experimentally achievable. In the simplest case, you have a collection of spin-1/2 magnetic moments which can either point with or against the field but don't interact with each other. The lowest energy state is all moments pointing with the field, the highest energy state is all moments pointing against the field. But these are both minimum entropy states. The maximum entropy state is half pointed with the field, and half pointed against the field. So if you increase energy from the lowest energy state, you'll increase entropy until you reach the 50/50 point. Increasing energy beyond that will start to decrease entropy.

So when Beta is positive, entropy increases with energy, when it's negative it decreases with entropy. But to get negative Beta, you need a system with a maximum energy, so that entropy at this maximum entropy can be lower than at intermediate energies. Any time you have a system without an upper bound to the energy (most systems), you will not have a decreasing entropy, so no negative temperatures are possible. Your intuition is right, but only for MOST systems, not for all systems.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Great stuff! Thanks.

 

[Calrid]

There is no such thing as an infinite temperature that would denote the entire medium had infinite energy and no matter how much ******** maths this chancer spouts at anyone, do not whatever you do believe that infinite energy can exist, he is a liar. And he knows it.

If he wants to talk misinformation, I don't care what his education is he is a complete crackpot.

O and infinity are limits to which any matter can approach not one thing this guys has ever said has demonstrated an actual infinite particle, with infinite kinetic energy. That is a lie. And so is this guys maths.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

Temperature is the average overall energy of a medium. It doesn't matter what you call anything infinite is not a concept that has a numerable definition. It cannot be written as a value, so that to actually measure it is impossible. It is what is beyond all bounds and is merely a concept. It has no real world application and it never will. It is an asymptote, not matter how much crap you want to talk nothing has an infinite amount of anything except the Universe itself.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IvUHjHSU-HQ/Rq01Z6gk1jI/AAAAAAAAARw/cOd7ies2YOE/s400/infinity.jpg

Do not hotlink without permission

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

What he's trying to do is infer that a maths model does indeed really simulate what happens in real world experiment.

How would you ever measure an infinite temperature in experiment? Ask yourself that?

Just because some maths dummard hasn't understood what a limit is and teaches his students poorly or is more likely this guy simply wasn't paying attention in class that day, is no reason for you to buy this god exists. It is a semantic definition that has no real world distinction.

The same semantic wibble is used to justify all sorts of paradoxes in the universe but it is merely ********. Don't buy it.

He can't even understand when I say there is no 0 point in space and 0k. So I'm not going to bother replying to this guy again I'll just put him on ignore because I really don't need my education being ruined by people who never properly learned anything about the distinction between maths and an experiment and reality and the laws of nature. Go study string theory, you'll love it, they don't have to prove **** either.

To transform a finite amount of energy or matter into an infinite state of excitation would by definition take more than infinite energy. No semantic wibble is going to change that and no maths magically make it exist. The guys full of it.

maths ≠ reality.

Time does not equal 0 to the photon, and when a medium passes beyond our ability to measure it numerically it is undefined. Simple as that.

Get over it.

In maths infinity is not a number, it cannot physically be represented it is a concept. Learn some maths, then apply it to science. First of all learn what a limit is.

I fully agree that the limit in any experimental set up is infinity. I don't accept that such maths means actual infinities exist.

A maths constant, a maths integral, a maths symbol does not exist, it is merely a figurative representation.

∞ this has no physical description, that being the case it means we cannot observe its existence in our actual results. Implying it happens is not it actually happening, and people who interpret the models correctly don't even imply infinite states of energy or matter actually make any physical sense. Not if they are scientists.

There simply is a finite amount of energy in the universe and matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Hence infinity is merely meant to be a concept. You can't do a work around on natural laws of nature with maths wibble. Sure you can hypothesise such a state exists, but it cannot happen by discrete heating because by definition it would take a greater than infinite heat gradient to achieve it and there is only a finite amount of time in the universe, so it is in fact just a concept one that some people would do well to understand.

To put it simply to heat a body to an infinite temperature a hotter body would be needed so you would need an infinite + 1 piece of matter. This is of course absurd.

For exactly the same reason we cannot exceed c, we cannot reach infinite temperature outside of maths wibble. Infinity is a limiting condition on reality. You can of course define the infinite to be finite if you want to indulge in semantics. But it then is smaller than an actual infinity, and thus entirely absurd and moot.

 

[ynot]

Anything can be anything if you change the meaning of language to suit.

 

[Calrid]

Anything can be anything if you change the meaning of language to suit.

Yes but does it actually exist outside of your mind I think is the point.

Epistemology ≠ reality either.

EDIT: and just to reiterate the point:

This is what I bloody said originally, how the hell this guy got anything more than I stated out of this is for two reasons. He assumed what I meant and didn't ask what I meant. He then repeatedly did that because he is unable to admit when he jumped to a conclusion. Apparently its my fault that he did not understand, even though I made it clear what I said half a dozen times. Please don't bother replying to this you're on ignore anyway so I wont read it. Sure if you want to pretend everyone on the thread couldn't understand me repeatedly telling you what I meant do so, but I doubt anyone's going to buy it.

0 in the vacuum seems as likely as 0°K.

This does not mean anything more than stated by me half a dozen times, no matter how much you want it to.

EDIT2: oh and in the previous post by average overall energy, I meant phonon energy in vibrational modes rather than of course the entire atomic concerns energy.

 

[Kumar]

To me, Positive or negative pressure is a secondary issue but what is pressure in basic sense is my basic question? I read wiki link, but could not understand the fundamental understanding of pressure.

Likewise other term i.e wind (flow of air). First we don't know fundamental form of air(like we know H2O for water), second waht make air to flow?

Can these two be dependant on movement of energy/force from higher to lower level?

 

[Calrid]

Two sayings attributed to Albert Einstein:

• Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
• The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

The passage quoted above suggests that its author would benefit from a review of freshman calculus:

• The upper and lower limits of integration are not limits in the same sense that the value of the integral is the limit of a infinite sequence of increasingly accurate approximations.
• Squaring the magnitude of a wave function (or multiplying it by its complex conjugate) is not remotely equivalent to changing the lower limit of integration from negative infinity to zero.
• There is no reason to assume that either zero or infinity will be an asymptote of "any system we wish to model."

It's hard to hide such basic misconceptions by burying them under an avalanche of phrases such as "renormalization", "the probability distribution of a wave function", "statistically insignificant", "assume each point is discrete", "Dirac or Schrodinger equation", or "energy/h bar".

Meh more semantics so I didn't lay out all the steps, I didn't want to patronise people and I didn't have time to explain why squaring the parts of the wave equation that are negative and deal with the probable position of a particle would create positive probability amplitudes hence making the equation rationally pictorial nor to explain the distinction between complex and negative parts of the equation, which are all equally as real in maths if not all concerns of the equation and its conjugates can be in the hydrogen electron shell configuration. In the hermetian the diagonalisation of values of the conjugates of psi mean are if squared able to give the intensity of the energy concern, or to put it simply to give the probability distributions of a wave. And I don't see the point everyone who would understand remotely what I said would know what I mean anyway. It's kind of like correcting someone's use of there inaptly even though you knew exactly what was meant. It's pointless. Fair enough if you want me to go into a huge amount of detail on the energy concerns of the wave function I will but I see no need. suffice to say that because - infinity and + infinity make little sense in terms of probability what we call squaring the wave, usually is taken to mean renormalising results that are useless or cannot physically happen. There satisfied? On places where I talk about this everyone excepts as red the squaring of the wave function does not mean anything but realising probability distributions that are non negative. And since its common parlance in physics to, why you decided to pick on this is pedantry really.

As for the maths I think that's also just useless semantics and doesn't really disagree with what I said, but please by all means continue to patronise me like that other guy. I really love when people deliberately read crap into things I say for there own sordid amusement.

I'm well aware of Taylor-Maclaurun series and the basic rules of integrals, perhaps you could start with those and proceed to bore me rigid. Hell it seems its au fait around here.

Yeah fine a sequence can converge to an exact value at infinity, even pi, or e^x. I know that well enough.

There has never been a physical demonstration of infinity in experiment or 0k so I don't really give a crap about semantics do you?

In science there being no reason to assume anything does not constitute evidence, if it did then in science we would have to accept the possibility that God exists because there is no reason to automatically assume he doesn't. Philosophical semantics on ontology aside though meh that's not science. Sure an utterly chaotic system where by matter can be created from nothing or destroyed might exist, I'm even willing to buy that in some weird universe negative energy exists even though a negative probability is probably absurd anywhere, but if you can't prove magic exists, who the hell gives a damn?

What the contention here is the difference between maths and experiment. Some people clearly cannot understand that difference and want to believe in infinities or 0 energy concerns as more than they are because they are predicted in situations that cannot physically exist to show the entire range of values approaches them but does not equal them. This is either because they don't understand the consequences of the axioms of maths, or because they weren't educated scientifically very well.

Hence time is not 0 for the photon it is undefined, regardless of what the equation says and infnity is not part of a measurable value in an experiment it is a semantic conceptual issue like the limits of

[latex]\int_{0}^{\infty} \pi\;\; dx ; (\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty})[/latex]

is.

3.142 is not pi

3.141... is but it is only a symbolic representation because nothing can be physically represented to all its infinite decimal places at least not given the age of the universe is probably finite and your death is certain, or about as absolute as it gets.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Meh more semantics so I didn't lay out all the steps, I didn't want to patronise people

When you post flaming nonsense combined with attacks on the knowledge and integrity of people who genuinely know something of what they are talking about, you're likely to hear about it.

When you try to impress by salting your posts with technical terms you barely understand, you're likely to hear about it.

For example:

and I didn't have time to explain why squaring the parts of the wave equation that are negative and deal with the probable position of a particle would create positive probability amplitudes hence making the equation rationally pictorial nor to explain the distinction between complex and negative parts of the equation, which are all equally as real in maths if not all concerns of the equation and its conjugates can be in the hydrogen electron shell configuration. In the hermetian the diagonalisation of values of the conjugates of psi mean are if squared able to give the intensity of the energy concern, or to put it simply to give the probability distributions of a wave. And I don't see the point everyone who would understand remotely what I said would know what I mean anyway. It's kind of like correcting someone's use of there inaptly even though you knew exactly what was meant. It's pointless. Fair enough if you want me to go into a huge amount of detail on the energy concerns of the wave function I will but I see no need. suffice to say that because - infinity and + infinity make little sense in terms of probability what we call squaring the wave, usually is taken to mean renormalising results that are useless or cannot physically happen. There satisfied? On places where I talk about this everyone excepts as red the squaring of the wave function does not mean anything but realising probability distributions that are non negative. And since its common parlance in physics to, why you decided to pick on this is pedantry really.

None of that babble has anything to do with your error. You said, and I quote:

When we square the wave function negatives disappear so we end up with:

[latex]\int_{0}^{\infty}x\;\; dx[/latex]

That's a fundamental mistake, at the level of freshman calculus.

As for the maths I think that's also just useless semantics and doesn't really disagree with what I said, but please by all means continue to patronise me like that other guy. I really love when people deliberately read crap into things I say for there own sordid amusement.

Mathematics is a tool. It is a very useful tool, and modern science would not be possible without it, but it's useful only when wielded by those who understand how to use it.

There has never been a physical demonstration of infinity in experiment or 0k so I don't really give a crap about semantics do you?

Having published several technical papers on semantics in the tradition of Alfred Tarski, Saul Kripke, Christopher Strachey, and Dana Scott, I cannot deny my interest in semantics.

You, however, were probably using "semantics" as a meaningless pejorative.

Hence time is not 0 for the photon it is undefined, regardless of what the equation says and infnity is not part of a measurable value in an experiment it is a semantic conceptual issue like the limits of

[latex]\int_{0}^{\infty} \pi\;\; dx ; (\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty})[/latex]

is.

3.142 is not pi

3.141... is but it is only a symbolic representation because nothing can be physically represented to all its infinite decimal places at least not given the age of the universe is probably finite and your death is certain, or about as absolute as it gets.

If you understood the mathematics you are pretending to discuss, you would not have written that. The integral you wrote is undefined, which I presume to have been your point, but your parenthetical limit notation is meaningless in that context and I can only guess at what you were trying to say.

I understand the relationships between symbolic representations and their referents quite well. Those relationships are, after all, what semantics is about. You could have used 1/3 as your example instead of pi, because the decimal representation of 1/3 requires just as many decimal places as the decimal representation of pi.

Yet your claim that "nothing can be physically represented to all its infinite decimal places at least not given the age of the universe is probably finite and your death is certain, or about as absolute as it gets" seems rather pedantic. Many people would regard two pennies as a legitimate physical representation of the number .02 to all its infinite decimal places, and would look at you funny if you were to argue with them using the kinds of arguments you've been posting to this subforum.

 

[Calrid]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal remarks

Since you saw fit to return the text that I had already removed, that activity is not allowed. Do not do it again.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Calrid]

None of that babble has anything to do with your error. You said, and I quote:

The fact remains if you ever did learn about quantum mechanics you would know that in common parlance squaring the wave does not mean squaring the whole equation anyway and I never said it did. I just said it was in those equations.

All this says to me is you don't have a *********** clue what you are talking about. That is not babble that is what happens in physics. Clearly another engineer with no understanding of quantum mechanics. *sigh.

See what I mean though this guy doesn't even understand an analogy is, is lateral thinking outside your comfort zone? Do you honestly in any sort of universe think that comparing pi to the wave equation has *********** anything but an analogy value, both contain infinities ffs. What is wrong with you people. You're just trying way too hard to impress. This is the internet no one gives a **** who you are or what you think. Get over yourself.

How the **** do you know what level of education I have just by some posts that were made when I was in a hurry to get out the door.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12. Please keep the discussion civil/polite and address the argument vs attack the arguer.

Having published several technical papers on semantics in the tradition of Alfred Tarski, Saul Kripke, Christopher Strachey, and Dana Scott, I cannot deny my interest in semantics.

You, however, were probably using "semantics" as a meaningless pejorative.

Quite clearly you have mistaken me for someone who gives a ****. <snip>

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

No I am using it in its non philosophical way to mean someone who argues about pointless details that don't matter to try to pander to his followers and e reputation actually. And then despite being corrected continues to maintain I was saying something I wasn't.

I've not got time to spend hours editing my post for every detail. You have because you are so worried that if you make a mistake it would damn you forever. Good for you.

What you should be really worried about though is this guy is telling people things that are completely untrue about physics. But you'd rather turn on me like a pack of dogs than bother about the real crime here.

 

[sol invictus]

What you should be really worried about though is this guy is telling people things that are completely untrue about physics. But you'd rather turn on me like a pack of dogs than bother about the real crime here.

I assume you're talking about Zig. Zig is one of the most knowledgeable and reliable posters on this forum on physics. In fact I can't recall him ever being in error.

You, on the other hand, are posting equations you plainly do not understand, making basic mistakes in what you write, and at the same time exhibiting a high level of condescension and arrogance.

You have two choices - you can learn from the posters here that know far more than you, or you can continue on your course and learn nothing. If there's something Zig said that you disagree with, post it (as an exact quote, not your paraphrase) and we will discuss it and sort it out.

 

[tsig]

The fact remains if you ever did learn about quantum mechanics you would know that in common parlance squaring the wave does not mean squaring the whole equation anyway and I never said it did. I just said it was in those equations.

All this says to me is you don't have a *********** clue what you are talking about. That is not babble that is what happens in physics. Clearly another engineer with no understanding of quantum mechanics. *sigh.

See what I mean though this guy doesn't even understand an analogy is, is lateral thinking outside your comfort zone? Do you honestly in any sort of universe think that comparing pi to the wave equation has *********** anything but an analogy value, both contain infinities ffs. What is wrong with you people. You're just trying way too hard to impress. This is the internet no one gives a **** who you are or what you think. Get over yourself.

How the **** do you know what level of education I have just by some posts that were made when I was in a hurry to get out the door.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12. Please keep the discussion civil/polite and address the argument vs attack the arguer.

Quite clearly you have mistaken me for someone who gives a ****. <snip>

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

No I am using it in its non philosophical way to mean someone who argues about pointless details that don't matter to try to pander to his followers and e reputation actually. And then despite being corrected continues to maintain I was saying something I wasn't.

I've not got time to spend hours editing my post for every detail. You have because you are so worried that if you make a mistake it would damn you forever. Good for you.

What you should be really worried about though is this guy is telling people things that are completely untrue about physics. But you'd rather turn on me like a pack of dogs than bother about the real crime here.

If you don't take the time to make your post accurate then you will be called on the mistakes.

Actually, unlike hell, around here when you admit your mistake the beatings will stop.*

*personal experience.

 

[Emet]

You have two choices - you can learn from the posters here that know far more than you, or you can continue on your course and learn nothing. If there's something Zig said that you disagree with, post it (as an exact quote, not your paraphrase) and we will discuss it and sort it out.

You'll need to wait a few days for a response.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no such thing as an infinite temperature that would denote the entire medium had infinite energy

No, it would not mean that.

Temperature is the average overall energy of a medium.

As I have already explained, this is NOT the definition of temperature. Nor is it possible to use this as a sensible definition of temperature. In some systems, the thermal energy of the material scales linearly with temperature (and hence they have constant heat capacities), but that is not true in general, and it is VERY MUCH not true in systems which support negative temperatures. In such systems, the heat capacity vanishes at high temperatures. So it only takes a finite amount of energy to heat them to infinite temperature. I'm not making the claim you think I'm making, and I have already given the reasons why.

When you object to arguments nobody ever made, based on a misunderstand of both my claim AND the basic physics which you could have discovered by simply reading the thread, you shoot your credibility in the foot.

How would you ever measure an infinite temperature in experiment? Ask yourself that?

Ask yourself how you measure ANY temperature.

The answer is that you measure some state property of a system whose temperature dependence you understand, and then infer the temperature based on the value of that state property. For example, the voltage across a thermocouple, the volume of a liquid (traditional mercury or alcohol thermometers), the pressure of an ideal gas, the twist in a bimetalic coil, etc. You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of idealized thermometer which measures temperature directly. No such thing exists.

So how would one measure an infinite temperature? Same way you measure the temperature of anything else: you measure a state variable which depends on temperature. In the case of a paramagnet in a magnetic field, that's really quite easy: just measure the magnetization. If the magnetization is along the field, the temperature is positive. If it's against the field, it's negative. And if it's zero, the temperature is infinite.

To transform a finite amount of energy or matter into an infinite state of excitation would by definition take more than infinite energy.

I have no idea what you mean by "infinite state of excitation", but it doesn't resemble temperature. Your belief about what temperature is is completely wrong. Your disbelief in the possibility of infinite temperature flows from that mistake. The fact that you have this mistaken belief about temperature is quite understandable. If you haven't taken a thermo/stat mech course, you're probably never even going to see the real definition. And you're far from the only person to have this mistaken understanding of temperature.

But being mistaken isn't the real problem here. Refusing to learn is.

There simply is a finite amount of energy in the universe and matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Hence infinity is merely meant to be a concept. You can't do a work around on natural laws of nature with maths wibble. Sure you can hypothesise such a state exists, but it cannot happen by discrete heating because by definition it would take a greater than infinite heat gradient to achieve it

First off, you're repeating your mistake about infinite temperature requiring infinite energy. That is true in many systems, but it is NOT true in general. And it is not true because your definition of temperature is wrong to begin with.

Secondly, if you want to create a very high temperature (infinite or not), the easiest way is NOT to put it in thermal contact with something else at very high temperature (that simply becomes a chicken/egg problem), but to pump energy into it. And energy can flow from low-temperature to high-temperature. For example, if you connect a cold battery to a warm resistor, energy will still flow from the cold battery to the warm resistor, against the thermal gradient, because you're transferring energy, not heat. The energy only turns into thermal energy when it reaches the system you're trying to warm up.

So how do you heat up a paramagnet to infinite temperature? Well, the easiest way is to actually heat it to negative temperatures, then let it cool to infinite temperature. And you do that by applying a magnetic field, let the spins align with the field, then quickly reverse the field so that the spins are anti-aligned. It's negative temperature at that point. When it cools down to the point where magnetization is zero (before it becomes magnetized parallel to the field), the temperature is infinite. The process takes energy, but not an infinite amount.

Again, all of this is fairly easy to understand if you know what temperature is. If you don't, then it can seem like voodoo. And you don't know the definition of temperature. It is NOT the average thermal energy of the particles.

 

[Ziggurat]

I assume you're talking about Zig. Zig is one of the most knowledgeable and reliable posters on this forum on physics. In fact I can't recall him ever being in error.

Oh, I've definitely made mistakes here. I'm not going to tell you what they are, but they exist.

This next part is addressed to Calrid, not sol:

But when I've made those mistakes, I've also accepted correction, and learned from them. Which is more important in the long run than not making mistakes. So for example, from our exchange in this thread it's clear that I know more about thermodynamics than Perpetual Student does. But he's clearly expressed his opinions, he logically outlined his objections so that they could be directly addressed, and when those objections were addressed, he learned. He lived up to his name, quite admirably. He may not know as much about the subject as I do, but one could not ask for more gentlemanly conduct than he displayed.

At the end of the day, it's not really very important if you learn from me what temperature actually is. But it is important that you learn from Perpetual Student how to behave in a debate.