The significance of kelvin as a unit of absolute temperatureIs the Boltzmann constant really that important?Temperature below absolute zero?Thermodynamics, temperature below 0 KelvinAre there reasons for the discrepancies in absolute temp units - Kelvin vs. kelvins vs. degrees Kelvin?minimum possible absolute temperature in the universe?Physical significance of temperatureBase unit definition and realization under relativistic conditionsThermal expansion of solid body and calculation of work producedHumans have an average energy budget of $100$ Watts, but the power radiated from the body is $1000$ Watts?Is absolute zero still 0 Kelvin?Why is the length of the Kelvin unit of temperature equal to that of the Celsius unit?
Having some issue with notation in a Hilbert space
How to make a villain when your PCs are villains?
Will users know a CardView is clickable?
How to prevent cables getting intertwined
How can Caller ID be faked?
Why can't I craft scaffolding in Minecraft 1.14?
Why are almost all the people in this orchestra recording wearing headphones with one ear on and one ear off?
What could be the physiological mechanism for a biological Geiger counter?
Can you cover a cube with copies of this shape?
Does knowing the surface area of all faces uniquely determine a tetrahedron?
Fill the maze with a wall-following Snake until it gets stuck
What is the precise meaning of "подсел на мак"?
How to ask if I can mow my neighbor's lawn
How to know whether to write accidentals as sharps or flats?
How can the US president give an order to a civilian?
What is this plant I saw for sale at a Romanian farmer's market?
Schedule Batch Apex too many rows
Can "Es tut mir leid" be used to express empathy rather than remorse?
Should I email my professor to clear up a (possibly very irrelevant) awkward misunderstanding?
Someone who is granted access to information but not expected to read it
Is there a term for someone whose preferred policies are a mix of Left and Right?
How would Japanese people react to someone refusing to say “itadakimasu” for religious reasons?
Have Steve Rogers (Captain America) and a young Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto) interacted during WWII?
I have found ports on my Samsung smart tv running a display service. What can I do with it?
The significance of kelvin as a unit of absolute temperature
Is the Boltzmann constant really that important?Temperature below absolute zero?Thermodynamics, temperature below 0 KelvinAre there reasons for the discrepancies in absolute temp units - Kelvin vs. kelvins vs. degrees Kelvin?minimum possible absolute temperature in the universe?Physical significance of temperatureBase unit definition and realization under relativistic conditionsThermal expansion of solid body and calculation of work producedHumans have an average energy budget of $100$ Watts, but the power radiated from the body is $1000$ Watts?Is absolute zero still 0 Kelvin?Why is the length of the Kelvin unit of temperature equal to that of the Celsius unit?
$begingroup$
$$PV=nRT$$
Where $P$ is pressure in pascals ($textPa$)
$V$ is volume in cubic metres ($textm^3$)
$n$ is amount of substance in moles ($textmol$)
$R$ is the gas constant having units, joules per mole kelvin
($text J K^-1text mol^-1$)
$T$ is the temperature in kelvins ($text K$)
The melting and boiling points of pure water are $0 ^circtext C $ and $100 ^circtext C $ respectively. $1 ^circtext C$ is $dfrac 1 100^textth$ of the difference in temperature.
1 kelvin and 1 degree Celsius represent the same difference in temperature.
However, why is it that in any formula (such as the one above) involving temperature (not temperature difference), plugging in values will result in a nice and correct temperature?
For example, $P=100 mathrm$, $V=8.314 mathrm$, $n=1 mathrm$, $R=8.314 mathrm $
Plugging in the values will result in $T=100 $
$100$ kelvin.
But what is the significance of 100 kelvin? Why could it not have been any other unit in an absolute temperature scale? e.g. 100 degrees Rankine
In simple formulas such as
$$textDisplacement = Velocity times textTime$$
I can understand that metres would be obtained when metres per second is multiplied with seconds. It does not make sense to obtain inches from the multiplication between metres per second and seconds.
thermodynamics temperature units si-units
asked Jun 8 at 10:12
helpmehelpme
9710
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$PV=nRT$$
Where $P$ is pressure in pascals ($textPa$)
$V$ is volume in cubic metres ($textm^3$)
$n$ is amount of substance in moles ($textmol$)
$R$ is the gas constant having units, joules per mole kelvin
($text J K^-1text mol^-1$)
$T$ is the temperature in kelvins ($text K$)
The melting and boiling points of pure water are $0 ^circtext C $ and $100 ^circtext C $ respectively. $1 ^circtext C$ is $dfrac 1 100^textth$ of the difference in temperature.
1 kelvin and 1 degree Celsius represent the same difference in temperature.
However, why is it that in any formula (such as the one above) involving temperature (not temperature difference), plugging in values will result in a nice and correct temperature?
For example, $P=100 mathrm$, $V=8.314 mathrm$, $n=1 mathrm$, $R=8.314 mathrm $
Plugging in the values will result in $T=100 $
$100$ kelvin.
But what is the significance of 100 kelvin? Why could it not have been any other unit in an absolute temperature scale? e.g. 100 degrees Rankine
In simple formulas such as
$$textDisplacement = Velocity times textTime$$
I can understand that metres would be obtained when metres per second is multiplied with seconds. It does not make sense to obtain inches from the multiplication between metres per second and seconds.
thermodynamics temperature units si-units
asked Jun 8 at 10:12
helpmehelpme
9710
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
It may be useful to note that $R T$ has the units of energy, so the choice for units of T is really about what value you take $R$ to be.
$endgroup$
– jim
Jun 9 at 15:17
$begingroup$
I suggest you keep the units with the numbers. $R$ is not $8.314$. $R = 8.314 mathrmJcdotmathrmK^-1cdotmathrmmol^-1 = 1.104 mathrmcal_thcdotmathrm⁰R^-1cdotmathrmmol^-1$ (for example). That's true equals, because it is still the same constant with the same value, just expressed in different units.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:43
1
$begingroup$
This post is relevant: Is the Boltzmann constant really that important?.
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
Jun 10 at 19:47
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$PV=nRT$$
Where $P$ is pressure in pascals ($textPa$)
$V$ is volume in cubic metres ($textm^3$)
$n$ is amount of substance in moles ($textmol$)
$R$ is the gas constant having units, joules per mole kelvin
($text J K^-1text mol^-1$)
$T$ is the temperature in kelvins ($text K$)
The melting and boiling points of pure water are $0 ^circtext C $ and $100 ^circtext C $ respectively. $1 ^circtext C$ is $dfrac 1 100^textth$ of the difference in temperature.
1 kelvin and 1 degree Celsius represent the same difference in temperature.
However, why is it that in any formula (such as the one above) involving temperature (not temperature difference), plugging in values will result in a nice and correct temperature?
For example, $P=100 mathrm$, $V=8.314 mathrm$, $n=1 mathrm$, $R=8.314 mathrm $
Plugging in the values will result in $T=100 $
$100$ kelvin.
But what is the significance of 100 kelvin? Why could it not have been any other unit in an absolute temperature scale? e.g. 100 degrees Rankine
In simple formulas such as
$$textDisplacement = Velocity times textTime$$
I can understand that metres would be obtained when metres per second is multiplied with seconds. It does not make sense to obtain inches from the multiplication between metres per second and seconds.
thermodynamics temperature units si-units
asked Jun 8 at 10:12
helpmehelpme
9710
$endgroup$
$$PV=nRT$$
Where $P$ is pressure in pascals ($textPa$)
$V$ is volume in cubic metres ($textm^3$)
$n$ is amount of substance in moles ($textmol$)
$R$ is the gas constant having units, joules per mole kelvin
($text J K^-1text mol^-1$)
$T$ is the temperature in kelvins ($text K$)
The melting and boiling points of pure water are $0 ^circtext C $ and $100 ^circtext C $ respectively. $1 ^circtext C$ is $dfrac 1 100^textth$ of the difference in temperature.
1 kelvin and 1 degree Celsius represent the same difference in temperature.
However, why is it that in any formula (such as the one above) involving temperature (not temperature difference), plugging in values will result in a nice and correct temperature?
For example, $P=100 mathrm$, $V=8.314 mathrm$, $n=1 mathrm$, $R=8.314 mathrm $
Plugging in the values will result in $T=100 $
$100$ kelvin.
But what is the significance of 100 kelvin? Why could it not have been any other unit in an absolute temperature scale? e.g. 100 degrees Rankine
In simple formulas such as
$$textDisplacement = Velocity times textTime$$
I can understand that metres would be obtained when metres per second is multiplied with seconds. It does not make sense to obtain inches from the multiplication between metres per second and seconds.
thermodynamics temperature units si-units
thermodynamics temperature units si-units
asked Jun 8 at 10:12
helpmehelpme
9710
asked Jun 8 at 10:12
helpmehelpme
9710
edited Jun 9 at 16:06
helpme
asked Jun 8 at 10:12
helpmehelpme
9710
asked Jun 8 at 10:12
helpmehelpme
9710
asked Jun 8 at 10:12
helpmehelpme
9710
9710
5
$begingroup$
It may be useful to note that $R T$ has the units of energy, so the choice for units of T is really about what value you take $R$ to be.
$endgroup$
– jim
Jun 9 at 15:17
$begingroup$
I suggest you keep the units with the numbers. $R$ is not $8.314$. $R = 8.314 mathrmJcdotmathrmK^-1cdotmathrmmol^-1 = 1.104 mathrmcal_thcdotmathrm⁰R^-1cdotmathrmmol^-1$ (for example). That's true equals, because it is still the same constant with the same value, just expressed in different units.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:43
1
$begingroup$
This post is relevant: Is the Boltzmann constant really that important?.
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
Jun 10 at 19:47
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
It may be useful to note that $R T$ has the units of energy, so the choice for units of T is really about what value you take $R$ to be.
$endgroup$
– jim
Jun 9 at 15:17
$begingroup$
I suggest you keep the units with the numbers. $R$ is not $8.314$. $R = 8.314 mathrmJcdotmathrmK^-1cdotmathrmmol^-1 = 1.104 mathrmcal_thcdotmathrm⁰R^-1cdotmathrmmol^-1$ (for example). That's true equals, because it is still the same constant with the same value, just expressed in different units.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:43
1
$begingroup$
This post is relevant: Is the Boltzmann constant really that important?.
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
Jun 10 at 19:47
5
5
$begingroup$
It may be useful to note that $R T$ has the units of energy, so the choice for units of T is really about what value you take $R$ to be.
$endgroup$
– jim
Jun 9 at 15:17
$begingroup$
It may be useful to note that $R T$ has the units of energy, so the choice for units of T is really about what value you take $R$ to be.
$endgroup$
– jim
Jun 9 at 15:17
$begingroup$
I suggest you keep the units with the numbers. $R$ is not $8.314$. $R = 8.314 mathrmJcdotmathrmK^-1cdotmathrmmol^-1 = 1.104 mathrmcal_thcdotmathrm⁰R^-1cdotmathrmmol^-1$ (for example). That's true equals, because it is still the same constant with the same value, just expressed in different units.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:43
$begingroup$
I suggest you keep the units with the numbers. $R$ is not $8.314$. $R = 8.314 mathrmJcdotmathrmK^-1cdotmathrmmol^-1 = 1.104 mathrmcal_thcdotmathrm⁰R^-1cdotmathrmmol^-1$ (for example). That's true equals, because it is still the same constant with the same value, just expressed in different units.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:43
1
1
$begingroup$
This post is relevant: Is the Boltzmann constant really that important?.
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
Jun 10 at 19:47
$begingroup$
This post is relevant: Is the Boltzmann constant really that important?.
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
Jun 10 at 19:47
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You do not need to use the kelvins for the ideal gas formula. The important thing to know is that $PV propto nT$ where $T$ is the absolute temperature and can be expressed in any arbitrary linear scale (as long as the temperature is still absolute), including the kelvin and the rankine scale.
However, if you choose the constant of proportionality to be $R$ given in J/(K mol), then the temperature's units must be in kelvins for the equation to make sense. But you're not forced to use such a constant. You could pick up any other constant and you could adjust the temperature scale you're using. In particular you could have picked the constant that would make the temperature in rankine units.
Edit: Since the title of the question refers to "formulas", let me mention a case I've seen up to several papers. With regard to thermoelectric materials, there is a $ZT$ factor that's used to gauge the quality of the material to be used as a thermoelectric one, for example to make a thermoelectric generator. The important thing is that $T$ must be the absolute temperature. Unfortunately many papers mention that $T$ is given in kelvins, while it is not necessarily the case. Fortunately enough, I would say most (good) papers refer to $T$ as being the absolute temperature and do not mention the units.
answered Jun 8 at 13:19
thermomagnetic condensed bosonthermomagnetic condensed boson
2,91231448
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Follow-up question: Would the most natural absolute temperature unit be one where the constant of proportionality R=1?
$endgroup$
– helpme
Jun 9 at 4:20
2
$begingroup$
@helpme The answer is subjective and would only be "well suited" for the ideal gas relation. Not with, for example, the ZT relation I mention in my answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 9 at 7:44
6
$begingroup$
@helpme: "It's subjective" is probably not a satisfactory answer to your question. Thankfully there is a satisfactory answer and that answer is simply, no. :-) You'd instead want to use PV = NkT rather than PV = nRT, where k is the per-molecule normalized version of R, putting N in the natural units of "number of molecules". So the more natural choice would seem to be k = 1. And indeed this is what Planck units do... and if you continue this you get the Planck temperature as the natural unit.
$endgroup$
– Mehrdad
Jun 9 at 11:02
1
$begingroup$
The equation $PVpropto T$ (in the ideal gas limit) does not work for any scale. It only works for linear scales, that is scales where the reference points are linearly interpolated.
$endgroup$
– Diracology
Jun 10 at 17:59
$begingroup$
Good point @Diracology let me modify and improve the answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 10 at 19:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For example, 𝑃=100, 𝑉=8.314, 𝑛=1, 𝑅=8.314.
Plugging in the values will result in 𝑇=100
kelvin.
But what is the significance of 100 kelvin? Why could it not have been
any other unit in an absolute temperature scale? e.g. 100 degrees
Rankine
The answer is already contained in the first part of your question, when you write the units of the Gas Constant $R$. In order to get temperature in different units, one should use a different value and units for $R$. Similarly for a different thermometric scale.
Edit (improved the examples):
For example, in the case of Rankine degrees and using the same units for all other quantities, the perfect gas formula keeps the same form, but with a gas constant $R^prime=4.61915$. In the case of temperature, $theta$, in Celsius degrees, becomes:
$$
PV = ntilde Rtheta+ Q n,
$$
where $Q = 2.271 cdot 10^3 = 8.314*273.15$ J mol$^-1$, and $tilde R$ has the same numerical value of $R=8.314$, although now its units should be read as J mol$^-1$ $^circ$C$^-1$.
answered Jun 8 at 13:06
GiorgioPGiorgioP
6,1592934
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't think you should have $Rprime$ and $tilde R$ there. It is still the same constant, with the same value, even if expressed in different units (and then, you really should have units in the last equation, otherwise the dimensions don't match).
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:47
$begingroup$
@JanHudec I used different symbols for clarity. Even if the numerical values are the same, different units are used. I'll modify the way I am writing the last equation to avoid misunderstandings,
$endgroup$
– GiorgioP
Jun 10 at 17:46
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a point that the other answers haven't made, which I believe is important: Celsius and Farenheit both allow temperatures below (what they call) zero. If you plug those measurements into the formula, you get a value of (pressure times value) which is negative; this is not physically possible. Note also that negativeness cannot be compensated-for by a simple constant of proportionality (R). Kelvin at least has the virtue of never being negative-valued.
answered Jun 10 at 13:08
PMarPMar
111
New contributor
PMar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since a few weeks, the kelvin is a unit that is defined by setting Boltzmann's constant to exactly $1.380 649 cdot 10^-23$ J/K (see https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?k ).
For now, this does not change the practical temperature scale for calibrating thermometers around ambient temperatures: https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/cct/guide-its90.html
answered Jun 10 at 19:47
PieterPieter
9,66931739
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484930%2fthe-significance-of-kelvin-as-a-unit-of-absolute-temperature%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You do not need to use the kelvins for the ideal gas formula. The important thing to know is that $PV propto nT$ where $T$ is the absolute temperature and can be expressed in any arbitrary linear scale (as long as the temperature is still absolute), including the kelvin and the rankine scale.
However, if you choose the constant of proportionality to be $R$ given in J/(K mol), then the temperature's units must be in kelvins for the equation to make sense. But you're not forced to use such a constant. You could pick up any other constant and you could adjust the temperature scale you're using. In particular you could have picked the constant that would make the temperature in rankine units.
Edit: Since the title of the question refers to "formulas", let me mention a case I've seen up to several papers. With regard to thermoelectric materials, there is a $ZT$ factor that's used to gauge the quality of the material to be used as a thermoelectric one, for example to make a thermoelectric generator. The important thing is that $T$ must be the absolute temperature. Unfortunately many papers mention that $T$ is given in kelvins, while it is not necessarily the case. Fortunately enough, I would say most (good) papers refer to $T$ as being the absolute temperature and do not mention the units.
answered Jun 8 at 13:19
thermomagnetic condensed bosonthermomagnetic condensed boson
2,91231448
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Follow-up question: Would the most natural absolute temperature unit be one where the constant of proportionality R=1?
$endgroup$
– helpme
Jun 9 at 4:20
2
$begingroup$
@helpme The answer is subjective and would only be "well suited" for the ideal gas relation. Not with, for example, the ZT relation I mention in my answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 9 at 7:44
6
$begingroup$
@helpme: "It's subjective" is probably not a satisfactory answer to your question. Thankfully there is a satisfactory answer and that answer is simply, no. :-) You'd instead want to use PV = NkT rather than PV = nRT, where k is the per-molecule normalized version of R, putting N in the natural units of "number of molecules". So the more natural choice would seem to be k = 1. And indeed this is what Planck units do... and if you continue this you get the Planck temperature as the natural unit.
$endgroup$
– Mehrdad
Jun 9 at 11:02
1
$begingroup$
The equation $PVpropto T$ (in the ideal gas limit) does not work for any scale. It only works for linear scales, that is scales where the reference points are linearly interpolated.
$endgroup$
– Diracology
Jun 10 at 17:59
$begingroup$
Good point @Diracology let me modify and improve the answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 10 at 19:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You do not need to use the kelvins for the ideal gas formula. The important thing to know is that $PV propto nT$ where $T$ is the absolute temperature and can be expressed in any arbitrary linear scale (as long as the temperature is still absolute), including the kelvin and the rankine scale.
However, if you choose the constant of proportionality to be $R$ given in J/(K mol), then the temperature's units must be in kelvins for the equation to make sense. But you're not forced to use such a constant. You could pick up any other constant and you could adjust the temperature scale you're using. In particular you could have picked the constant that would make the temperature in rankine units.
Edit: Since the title of the question refers to "formulas", let me mention a case I've seen up to several papers. With regard to thermoelectric materials, there is a $ZT$ factor that's used to gauge the quality of the material to be used as a thermoelectric one, for example to make a thermoelectric generator. The important thing is that $T$ must be the absolute temperature. Unfortunately many papers mention that $T$ is given in kelvins, while it is not necessarily the case. Fortunately enough, I would say most (good) papers refer to $T$ as being the absolute temperature and do not mention the units.
answered Jun 8 at 13:19
thermomagnetic condensed bosonthermomagnetic condensed boson
2,91231448
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Follow-up question: Would the most natural absolute temperature unit be one where the constant of proportionality R=1?
$endgroup$
– helpme
Jun 9 at 4:20
2
$begingroup$
@helpme The answer is subjective and would only be "well suited" for the ideal gas relation. Not with, for example, the ZT relation I mention in my answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 9 at 7:44
6
$begingroup$
@helpme: "It's subjective" is probably not a satisfactory answer to your question. Thankfully there is a satisfactory answer and that answer is simply, no. :-) You'd instead want to use PV = NkT rather than PV = nRT, where k is the per-molecule normalized version of R, putting N in the natural units of "number of molecules". So the more natural choice would seem to be k = 1. And indeed this is what Planck units do... and if you continue this you get the Planck temperature as the natural unit.
$endgroup$
– Mehrdad
Jun 9 at 11:02
1
$begingroup$
The equation $PVpropto T$ (in the ideal gas limit) does not work for any scale. It only works for linear scales, that is scales where the reference points are linearly interpolated.
$endgroup$
– Diracology
Jun 10 at 17:59
$begingroup$
Good point @Diracology let me modify and improve the answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 10 at 19:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You do not need to use the kelvins for the ideal gas formula. The important thing to know is that $PV propto nT$ where $T$ is the absolute temperature and can be expressed in any arbitrary linear scale (as long as the temperature is still absolute), including the kelvin and the rankine scale.
However, if you choose the constant of proportionality to be $R$ given in J/(K mol), then the temperature's units must be in kelvins for the equation to make sense. But you're not forced to use such a constant. You could pick up any other constant and you could adjust the temperature scale you're using. In particular you could have picked the constant that would make the temperature in rankine units.
Edit: Since the title of the question refers to "formulas", let me mention a case I've seen up to several papers. With regard to thermoelectric materials, there is a $ZT$ factor that's used to gauge the quality of the material to be used as a thermoelectric one, for example to make a thermoelectric generator. The important thing is that $T$ must be the absolute temperature. Unfortunately many papers mention that $T$ is given in kelvins, while it is not necessarily the case. Fortunately enough, I would say most (good) papers refer to $T$ as being the absolute temperature and do not mention the units.
answered Jun 8 at 13:19
thermomagnetic condensed bosonthermomagnetic condensed boson
2,91231448
$endgroup$
You do not need to use the kelvins for the ideal gas formula. The important thing to know is that $PV propto nT$ where $T$ is the absolute temperature and can be expressed in any arbitrary linear scale (as long as the temperature is still absolute), including the kelvin and the rankine scale.
However, if you choose the constant of proportionality to be $R$ given in J/(K mol), then the temperature's units must be in kelvins for the equation to make sense. But you're not forced to use such a constant. You could pick up any other constant and you could adjust the temperature scale you're using. In particular you could have picked the constant that would make the temperature in rankine units.
Edit: Since the title of the question refers to "formulas", let me mention a case I've seen up to several papers. With regard to thermoelectric materials, there is a $ZT$ factor that's used to gauge the quality of the material to be used as a thermoelectric one, for example to make a thermoelectric generator. The important thing is that $T$ must be the absolute temperature. Unfortunately many papers mention that $T$ is given in kelvins, while it is not necessarily the case. Fortunately enough, I would say most (good) papers refer to $T$ as being the absolute temperature and do not mention the units.
answered Jun 8 at 13:19
thermomagnetic condensed bosonthermomagnetic condensed boson
2,91231448
edited Jun 10 at 19:33
answered Jun 8 at 13:19
thermomagnetic condensed bosonthermomagnetic condensed boson
2,91231448
answered Jun 8 at 13:19
thermomagnetic condensed bosonthermomagnetic condensed boson
2,91231448
answered Jun 8 at 13:19
thermomagnetic condensed bosonthermomagnetic condensed boson
2,91231448
2,91231448
3
$begingroup$
Follow-up question: Would the most natural absolute temperature unit be one where the constant of proportionality R=1?
$endgroup$
– helpme
Jun 9 at 4:20
2
$begingroup$
@helpme The answer is subjective and would only be "well suited" for the ideal gas relation. Not with, for example, the ZT relation I mention in my answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 9 at 7:44
6
$begingroup$
@helpme: "It's subjective" is probably not a satisfactory answer to your question. Thankfully there is a satisfactory answer and that answer is simply, no. :-) You'd instead want to use PV = NkT rather than PV = nRT, where k is the per-molecule normalized version of R, putting N in the natural units of "number of molecules". So the more natural choice would seem to be k = 1. And indeed this is what Planck units do... and if you continue this you get the Planck temperature as the natural unit.
$endgroup$
– Mehrdad
Jun 9 at 11:02
1
$begingroup$
The equation $PVpropto T$ (in the ideal gas limit) does not work for any scale. It only works for linear scales, that is scales where the reference points are linearly interpolated.
$endgroup$
– Diracology
Jun 10 at 17:59
$begingroup$
Good point @Diracology let me modify and improve the answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 10 at 19:32
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Follow-up question: Would the most natural absolute temperature unit be one where the constant of proportionality R=1?
$endgroup$
– helpme
Jun 9 at 4:20
2
$begingroup$
@helpme The answer is subjective and would only be "well suited" for the ideal gas relation. Not with, for example, the ZT relation I mention in my answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 9 at 7:44
6
$begingroup$
@helpme: "It's subjective" is probably not a satisfactory answer to your question. Thankfully there is a satisfactory answer and that answer is simply, no. :-) You'd instead want to use PV = NkT rather than PV = nRT, where k is the per-molecule normalized version of R, putting N in the natural units of "number of molecules". So the more natural choice would seem to be k = 1. And indeed this is what Planck units do... and if you continue this you get the Planck temperature as the natural unit.
$endgroup$
– Mehrdad
Jun 9 at 11:02
1
$begingroup$
The equation $PVpropto T$ (in the ideal gas limit) does not work for any scale. It only works for linear scales, that is scales where the reference points are linearly interpolated.
$endgroup$
– Diracology
Jun 10 at 17:59
$begingroup$
Good point @Diracology let me modify and improve the answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 10 at 19:32
3
3
$begingroup$
Follow-up question: Would the most natural absolute temperature unit be one where the constant of proportionality R=1?
$endgroup$
– helpme
Jun 9 at 4:20
$begingroup$
Follow-up question: Would the most natural absolute temperature unit be one where the constant of proportionality R=1?
$endgroup$
– helpme
Jun 9 at 4:20
2
2
$begingroup$
@helpme The answer is subjective and would only be "well suited" for the ideal gas relation. Not with, for example, the ZT relation I mention in my answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 9 at 7:44
$begingroup$
@helpme The answer is subjective and would only be "well suited" for the ideal gas relation. Not with, for example, the ZT relation I mention in my answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 9 at 7:44
6
6
$begingroup$
@helpme: "It's subjective" is probably not a satisfactory answer to your question. Thankfully there is a satisfactory answer and that answer is simply, no. :-) You'd instead want to use PV = NkT rather than PV = nRT, where k is the per-molecule normalized version of R, putting N in the natural units of "number of molecules". So the more natural choice would seem to be k = 1. And indeed this is what Planck units do... and if you continue this you get the Planck temperature as the natural unit.
$endgroup$
– Mehrdad
Jun 9 at 11:02
$begingroup$
@helpme: "It's subjective" is probably not a satisfactory answer to your question. Thankfully there is a satisfactory answer and that answer is simply, no. :-) You'd instead want to use PV = NkT rather than PV = nRT, where k is the per-molecule normalized version of R, putting N in the natural units of "number of molecules". So the more natural choice would seem to be k = 1. And indeed this is what Planck units do... and if you continue this you get the Planck temperature as the natural unit.
$endgroup$
– Mehrdad
Jun 9 at 11:02
1
1
$begingroup$
The equation $PVpropto T$ (in the ideal gas limit) does not work for any scale. It only works for linear scales, that is scales where the reference points are linearly interpolated.
$endgroup$
– Diracology
Jun 10 at 17:59
$begingroup$
The equation $PVpropto T$ (in the ideal gas limit) does not work for any scale. It only works for linear scales, that is scales where the reference points are linearly interpolated.
$endgroup$
– Diracology
Jun 10 at 17:59
$begingroup$
Good point @Diracology let me modify and improve the answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 10 at 19:32
$begingroup$
Good point @Diracology let me modify and improve the answer.
$endgroup$
– thermomagnetic condensed boson
Jun 10 at 19:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For example, 𝑃=100, 𝑉=8.314, 𝑛=1, 𝑅=8.314.
Plugging in the values will result in 𝑇=100
kelvin.
But what is the significance of 100 kelvin? Why could it not have been
any other unit in an absolute temperature scale? e.g. 100 degrees
Rankine
The answer is already contained in the first part of your question, when you write the units of the Gas Constant $R$. In order to get temperature in different units, one should use a different value and units for $R$. Similarly for a different thermometric scale.
Edit (improved the examples):
For example, in the case of Rankine degrees and using the same units for all other quantities, the perfect gas formula keeps the same form, but with a gas constant $R^prime=4.61915$. In the case of temperature, $theta$, in Celsius degrees, becomes:
$$
PV = ntilde Rtheta+ Q n,
$$
where $Q = 2.271 cdot 10^3 = 8.314*273.15$ J mol$^-1$, and $tilde R$ has the same numerical value of $R=8.314$, although now its units should be read as J mol$^-1$ $^circ$C$^-1$.
answered Jun 8 at 13:06
GiorgioPGiorgioP
6,1592934
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't think you should have $Rprime$ and $tilde R$ there. It is still the same constant, with the same value, even if expressed in different units (and then, you really should have units in the last equation, otherwise the dimensions don't match).
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:47
$begingroup$
@JanHudec I used different symbols for clarity. Even if the numerical values are the same, different units are used. I'll modify the way I am writing the last equation to avoid misunderstandings,
$endgroup$
– GiorgioP
Jun 10 at 17:46
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For example, 𝑃=100, 𝑉=8.314, 𝑛=1, 𝑅=8.314.
Plugging in the values will result in 𝑇=100
kelvin.
But what is the significance of 100 kelvin? Why could it not have been
any other unit in an absolute temperature scale? e.g. 100 degrees
Rankine
The answer is already contained in the first part of your question, when you write the units of the Gas Constant $R$. In order to get temperature in different units, one should use a different value and units for $R$. Similarly for a different thermometric scale.
Edit (improved the examples):
For example, in the case of Rankine degrees and using the same units for all other quantities, the perfect gas formula keeps the same form, but with a gas constant $R^prime=4.61915$. In the case of temperature, $theta$, in Celsius degrees, becomes:
$$
PV = ntilde Rtheta+ Q n,
$$
where $Q = 2.271 cdot 10^3 = 8.314*273.15$ J mol$^-1$, and $tilde R$ has the same numerical value of $R=8.314$, although now its units should be read as J mol$^-1$ $^circ$C$^-1$.
answered Jun 8 at 13:06
GiorgioPGiorgioP
6,1592934
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I don't think you should have $Rprime$ and $tilde R$ there. It is still the same constant, with the same value, even if expressed in different units (and then, you really should have units in the last equation, otherwise the dimensions don't match).
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:47
$begingroup$
@JanHudec I used different symbols for clarity. Even if the numerical values are the same, different units are used. I'll modify the way I am writing the last equation to avoid misunderstandings,
$endgroup$
– GiorgioP
Jun 10 at 17:46
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For example, 𝑃=100, 𝑉=8.314, 𝑛=1, 𝑅=8.314.
Plugging in the values will result in 𝑇=100
kelvin.
But what is the significance of 100 kelvin? Why could it not have been
any other unit in an absolute temperature scale? e.g. 100 degrees
Rankine
The answer is already contained in the first part of your question, when you write the units of the Gas Constant $R$. In order to get temperature in different units, one should use a different value and units for $R$. Similarly for a different thermometric scale.
Edit (improved the examples):
For example, in the case of Rankine degrees and using the same units for all other quantities, the perfect gas formula keeps the same form, but with a gas constant $R^prime=4.61915$. In the case of temperature, $theta$, in Celsius degrees, becomes:
$$
PV = ntilde Rtheta+ Q n,
$$
where $Q = 2.271 cdot 10^3 = 8.314*273.15$ J mol$^-1$, and $tilde R$ has the same numerical value of $R=8.314$, although now its units should be read as J mol$^-1$ $^circ$C$^-1$.
answered Jun 8 at 13:06
GiorgioPGiorgioP
6,1592934
$endgroup$
For example, 𝑃=100, 𝑉=8.314, 𝑛=1, 𝑅=8.314.
Plugging in the values will result in 𝑇=100
kelvin.
But what is the significance of 100 kelvin? Why could it not have been
any other unit in an absolute temperature scale? e.g. 100 degrees
Rankine
The answer is already contained in the first part of your question, when you write the units of the Gas Constant $R$. In order to get temperature in different units, one should use a different value and units for $R$. Similarly for a different thermometric scale.
Edit (improved the examples):
For example, in the case of Rankine degrees and using the same units for all other quantities, the perfect gas formula keeps the same form, but with a gas constant $R^prime=4.61915$. In the case of temperature, $theta$, in Celsius degrees, becomes:
$$
PV = ntilde Rtheta+ Q n,
$$
where $Q = 2.271 cdot 10^3 = 8.314*273.15$ J mol$^-1$, and $tilde R$ has the same numerical value of $R=8.314$, although now its units should be read as J mol$^-1$ $^circ$C$^-1$.
answered Jun 8 at 13:06
GiorgioPGiorgioP
6,1592934
edited Jun 10 at 17:49
answered Jun 8 at 13:06
GiorgioPGiorgioP
6,1592934
answered Jun 8 at 13:06
GiorgioPGiorgioP
6,1592934
answered Jun 8 at 13:06
GiorgioPGiorgioP
6,1592934
6,1592934
$begingroup$
I don't think you should have $Rprime$ and $tilde R$ there. It is still the same constant, with the same value, even if expressed in different units (and then, you really should have units in the last equation, otherwise the dimensions don't match).
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:47
$begingroup$
@JanHudec I used different symbols for clarity. Even if the numerical values are the same, different units are used. I'll modify the way I am writing the last equation to avoid misunderstandings,
$endgroup$
– GiorgioP
Jun 10 at 17:46
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't think you should have $Rprime$ and $tilde R$ there. It is still the same constant, with the same value, even if expressed in different units (and then, you really should have units in the last equation, otherwise the dimensions don't match).
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:47
$begingroup$
@JanHudec I used different symbols for clarity. Even if the numerical values are the same, different units are used. I'll modify the way I am writing the last equation to avoid misunderstandings,
$endgroup$
– GiorgioP
Jun 10 at 17:46
$begingroup$
I don't think you should have $Rprime$ and $tilde R$ there. It is still the same constant, with the same value, even if expressed in different units (and then, you really should have units in the last equation, otherwise the dimensions don't match).
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:47
$begingroup$
I don't think you should have $Rprime$ and $tilde R$ there. It is still the same constant, with the same value, even if expressed in different units (and then, you really should have units in the last equation, otherwise the dimensions don't match).
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:47
$begingroup$
@JanHudec I used different symbols for clarity. Even if the numerical values are the same, different units are used. I'll modify the way I am writing the last equation to avoid misunderstandings,
$endgroup$
– GiorgioP
Jun 10 at 17:46
$begingroup$
@JanHudec I used different symbols for clarity. Even if the numerical values are the same, different units are used. I'll modify the way I am writing the last equation to avoid misunderstandings,
$endgroup$
– GiorgioP
Jun 10 at 17:46
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a point that the other answers haven't made, which I believe is important: Celsius and Farenheit both allow temperatures below (what they call) zero. If you plug those measurements into the formula, you get a value of (pressure times value) which is negative; this is not physically possible. Note also that negativeness cannot be compensated-for by a simple constant of proportionality (R). Kelvin at least has the virtue of never being negative-valued.
answered Jun 10 at 13:08
PMarPMar
111
New contributor
PMar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a point that the other answers haven't made, which I believe is important: Celsius and Farenheit both allow temperatures below (what they call) zero. If you plug those measurements into the formula, you get a value of (pressure times value) which is negative; this is not physically possible. Note also that negativeness cannot be compensated-for by a simple constant of proportionality (R). Kelvin at least has the virtue of never being negative-valued.
answered Jun 10 at 13:08
PMarPMar
111
New contributor
PMar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a point that the other answers haven't made, which I believe is important: Celsius and Farenheit both allow temperatures below (what they call) zero. If you plug those measurements into the formula, you get a value of (pressure times value) which is negative; this is not physically possible. Note also that negativeness cannot be compensated-for by a simple constant of proportionality (R). Kelvin at least has the virtue of never being negative-valued.
answered Jun 10 at 13:08
PMarPMar
111
New contributor
PMar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
There is a point that the other answers haven't made, which I believe is important: Celsius and Farenheit both allow temperatures below (what they call) zero. If you plug those measurements into the formula, you get a value of (pressure times value) which is negative; this is not physically possible. Note also that negativeness cannot be compensated-for by a simple constant of proportionality (R). Kelvin at least has the virtue of never being negative-valued.
answered Jun 10 at 13:08
PMarPMar
111
New contributor
PMar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Jun 10 at 13:08
PMarPMar
111
New contributor
PMar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Jun 10 at 13:08
PMarPMar
111
answered Jun 10 at 13:08
PMarPMar
111
111
New contributor
PMar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
PMar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since a few weeks, the kelvin is a unit that is defined by setting Boltzmann's constant to exactly $1.380 649 cdot 10^-23$ J/K (see https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?k ).
For now, this does not change the practical temperature scale for calibrating thermometers around ambient temperatures: https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/cct/guide-its90.html
answered Jun 10 at 19:47
PieterPieter
9,66931739
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since a few weeks, the kelvin is a unit that is defined by setting Boltzmann's constant to exactly $1.380 649 cdot 10^-23$ J/K (see https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?k ).
For now, this does not change the practical temperature scale for calibrating thermometers around ambient temperatures: https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/cct/guide-its90.html
answered Jun 10 at 19:47
PieterPieter
9,66931739
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since a few weeks, the kelvin is a unit that is defined by setting Boltzmann's constant to exactly $1.380 649 cdot 10^-23$ J/K (see https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?k ).
For now, this does not change the practical temperature scale for calibrating thermometers around ambient temperatures: https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/cct/guide-its90.html
answered Jun 10 at 19:47
PieterPieter
9,66931739
$endgroup$
Since a few weeks, the kelvin is a unit that is defined by setting Boltzmann's constant to exactly $1.380 649 cdot 10^-23$ J/K (see https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?k ).
For now, this does not change the practical temperature scale for calibrating thermometers around ambient temperatures: https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/cct/guide-its90.html
answered Jun 10 at 19:47
PieterPieter
9,66931739
edited Jun 10 at 19:58
answered Jun 10 at 19:47
PieterPieter
9,66931739
answered Jun 10 at 19:47
PieterPieter
9,66931739
answered Jun 10 at 19:47
PieterPieter
9,66931739
9,66931739
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f484930%2fthe-significance-of-kelvin-as-a-unit-of-absolute-temperature%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
$begingroup$
It may be useful to note that $R T$ has the units of energy, so the choice for units of T is really about what value you take $R$ to be.
$endgroup$
– jim
Jun 9 at 15:17
$begingroup$
I suggest you keep the units with the numbers. $R$ is not $8.314$. $R = 8.314 mathrmJcdotmathrmK^-1cdotmathrmmol^-1 = 1.104 mathrmcal_thcdotmathrm⁰R^-1cdotmathrmmol^-1$ (for example). That's true equals, because it is still the same constant with the same value, just expressed in different units.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
Jun 10 at 13:43
1
$begingroup$
This post is relevant: Is the Boltzmann constant really that important?.
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
Jun 10 at 19:47