What is Digg?272 Comments
- scootscr15, on 12/24/2007, -8/+141who keeps the metric system down?
we do, we do - ieataquacrayons, on 12/24/2007, -12/+13388 mph. Oh, and you need to be doing it in a Delorean,,,,,,,,,
- brad3378, on 12/24/2007, -5/+95C?
(the speed of light) - potdarko, on 12/24/2007, -7/+81Absolute Hot? Not since Jessica Alba got pregnant ;)
- ryanward, on 12/24/2007, -5/+56A hottest temperature....since things speed up with heat, wouldn't this play into the equation. Nothing moves at absolute zero. what's the opposite of that? How fast is the fastest?
- tech42er, on 12/24/2007, -0/+42Absolute zero is 0 K. :)
- JigoroKano, on 12/24/2007, -1/+43Good guess, but energy approaches infinity as the massive particle's speed approaches the speed of light. So that places no constraint on the temperature.
- Thundercat1971, on 12/24/2007, -6/+44you forgot to correct for daylight savings time.
- inactive, on 12/24/2007, -8/+45The opposite of absolute zero is +273.15 °C
Pwntage. - Rhodamine, on 12/24/2007, -7/+43absolute zero is –273.15 °C
- oduska, on 12/24/2007, -1/+34wtf... you're a digg user. Dumb *****.
- Cruelapollo, on 12/24/2007, -0/+32The Planet Express ship.
- jtbandes, on 12/24/2007, -1/+32They're not "degrees Kelvin". They're Kelvins. 0 K.
- bmunichman, on 12/24/2007, -2/+33The fastest anything can travel (with the exception of crazy things like tachyons) is the speed of light c. Heating something up, though, affects its internal energy (vibration), not really its kinetic energy (movement), but there would be a speed limit to the vibration or small movements of the particles. Since 'mass increases' to infinity as the speed approaches c, it takes more energy (heat) to accelerate it, so I would think you should be able to keep heating something, and the speed of the internal vibrations will only approach c.....if this makes sense to anyone. I'm having a hard time trying to describe it. Basically I don't see why the speed as brought up by ryanward would cause an "absolute hot"
- engrishGamer, on 12/24/2007, -2/+33I don't get it, what would happen at the hottest temperature? I mean absolute zero is the temperature in which all molecular movement ceases, and it makes sense why there would be a lower limit for this but for the "highest" temperature...would it be where all molecules are moving at the speed of light?
- metamorfoza, on 12/24/2007, -1/+31Your comment is the absence of common sense.
- euro22, on 12/17/2008, -1/+27Trying to make it to that "Most Unpopular Comments on Digg" website, eh?
- inactive, on 12/24/2007, -5/+31Worst. Plug. Ever.
- MioTheGreat, on 12/24/2007, -0/+25Just when you thought you got a hang Thermodynamics, they go ahead and pull this kind of *****.
- sbluetruck, on 12/24/2007, -6/+29um excuse me sir, i believe you have my 0 degrees K.
- noPCtoday, on 12/24/2007, -5/+27buried your comment AND your submission. EAT THAT
- Tiak, on 12/24/2007, -2/+21No, no there aren't...
(Tachyons aren't popularly believed to exist literally, are hard to clasify as "objects", and have never been detected) - noPCtoday, on 12/24/2007, -3/+22Failed again. Buried.
- tech42er, on 12/24/2007, -2/+19It is. You're spamming this story, and he dugg down your submission so you'd see it wasn't a valid strategy. You deserved what you got.
- TWiTsoldier, on 12/24/2007, -2/+18That's especially impossible. The Planet Express Ship still can't travel faster than the speed of light. That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.
(This is a reply to Cruelapollo's comment because Digg won't let me reply directly; something about: "Your session has expired, please refresh the page before commenting." I refresh, yet nothing.) - shaun1018, on 12/24/2007, -1/+17Is far from ok. Its ***** freezing.
- sbluetruck, on 12/24/2007, -1/+16but if absolute zero is 0K, this must be a trick question seeing as the opposite is EXACTLY THE SAME!!!! ZOMG I THINK I HADS A REVALATION!!!!!
- popothebright, on 12/24/2007, -4/+19Clearly these scientists don't receive the Victoria's Secret catalog.
Yes. There is an "absolute hot". I believe it's on page 12 in this issue. - nastajus, on 12/24/2007, -2/+16Approaches. The Limits of Calculus yield to reality and the constraint is whatever we can produce as a maximum.
- maz2331, on 12/24/2007, -1/+15If you believe that Max Planck was correct, then the maximum is "Planck's Temperature" of 1.41679 × 10^32 K. Beyond that and the energy density is sufficiently high that it collapses into a black hole due to gravitational effects.
- inactive, on 12/24/2007, -4/+16Go back to the HALO Forums.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 12/24/2007, -2/+14Point of story is, there is no story. In the end, no one knew anything. It's like, "HEY, I THINK SOMEONE'S FIGURED OUT A NEW ANSWER TO PART OF THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING!" Yet, when you get there, they've all just got more questions, noone asked anything of any particular significance.
FTA - ""Well, you're not talking about thermal distribution anymore," he said, "but if you keep pushing it, you basically go through infinity over to minus infinity and then come around on the other side." Wow! "What you really should be paying attention to," he added, "is 1 over T [where T is temperature], because one over infinity and one over minus infinity are basically the same thing." Totally!"
Bullsh*t. As a particularly non genius philosopher said about the Universe, "If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true." Well I submit to you that if there is an absolute cold, where things freeze, then there is an absolute hot, where the energy probably transforms into light or some other material and goes no higher. It's like saying... IS THERE MORE GREEN THAN GREEN...suuuuure...green/purple... But then, you're not talking about purely green anymore. - Poovey, on 12/24/2007, -1/+13Contender #2 is 10 to 30th power K or in more simple terms, a convenience store burrito microwaved for 10 minutes.
- inactive, on 12/24/2007, -2/+13i'll make sure to bury that ***** every time
- Fordi, on 12/24/2007, -2/+13religion is the absence of thought.
By the by, what's evil to you may be good for others. What's good to you may be evil to others. For example, a 'good' war on terrorism is quite evil to those citizens caught in the crossfire. It's best not to bandy about those terms without a full understanding of the consequences of being a 'good' person. - LowROI, on 12/24/2007, -0/+11http://www.digg.com/general_sciences/Nations_who_h ...
- Vanan, on 12/24/2007, -0/+10+5 Informative
Wait... wait... this comment should be on slashdot. - adventflux, on 12/24/2007, -2/+12"Did you hear about ***** definitely zero?"
- cmezak, on 12/24/2007, -1/+11I think that would have to be it. But it's hard to see how a group of molecules (or whatever) moving at the speed of light could still be considered a group with a measurable temperature. I mean, they'd be pretty far apart unless they were traveling in nearly the same direction, and if they were then we would really be talking about the velocity of the group rather than its temperature. Of course, you couldn't have a group of molecules orbiting each other at the speed of light, right? because that would involve tremendous accelerations . . .
All of this highlights the fact that temperature is am emergent property. A single molecule does not have a temperature, but put a group of them together and you've got something. - moskaudancer, on 12/24/2007, -2/+12It doesn't move, it moves the universe around it!
- anarchytv, on 12/24/2007, -1/+10Absolut Vodka... From a purely mathematical standpoint, no... but from a reality / laws of physics stand point, yes. There's probably a limit to how fast you can get atoms moving before they won't move any faster because they won't accept more energy pumped into the system.
- noPCtoday, on 12/24/2007, -1/+10it's a trap!
- Tanath, on 12/24/2007, -0/+9Er, evil isn't the absence of good.
- fluoro, on 12/24/2007, -2/+11Why is that the real question? And the answer is no. Absolute zero is when there is no more thermal energy, so it can't get colder than that. The question of absolute hot seemed kind of silly to me when I first read it, because I figured "you just keep adding more energy and it keeps getting hotter". But then I thought maybe there is a limit to how much energy can be contained in one place, which would I guess be an absolute hot. I haven't read the article yet though, so maybe I'm wrong and that's not it.
- inactive, on 12/24/2007, -1/+10Good to know.
- MioTheGreat, on 12/24/2007, -1/+10Relativity throws off that whole sense of linear energy making it go faster, once you hit decent sized percentages of the speed of light. For anything below like 1%c, it's a good approximation, though.
You pump in energy, but the energy required to bring a particle up to the speed of light follows an asymptotic curve. you never quite get there.
Also, the relationship between velocity and temperature isn't double one, double the other. Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2, and then to convert to temperature, you need to use the boltzman constant. - Hobbes24, on 12/24/2007, -0/+9just one of the ways back to the future rescues current science
- ImperatorTerrae, on 12/24/2007, -2/+10The opposite of Absolute Zero? Why, Absolute -Zero, of course.
- SiNN4R, on 12/24/2007, -3/+11In a world without hate can there be any love? CAN THERE? The answer is maybe.
- inactive, on 12/24/2007, -1/+9I am Kelvin, and I approve this message.
Brought to you by the Republican Committee for the denial of global particle warming. -
Show 51 - 100 of 264 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is