Why is the length of the Kelvin unit of temperature equal to that of the Celsius unit? [duplicate]Why is a degree Celsius exactly the same as a Kelvin?Is the Boltzmann constant really that important?Would setting the ideal gas constant to $1$ yield an attractive natural temperature scale?How do Temperature Scales work?Liquid with freezing point above 0 Celsius that could be use at ice rinksDoes the Kelvin have a rigorous definition?Why is a degree Celsius exactly the same as a Kelvin?Are there reasons for the discrepancies in absolute temp units - Kelvin vs. kelvins vs. degrees Kelvin?Is there a commonly used unit of measure (other than temperature units) that is not absolute?What unit system does Fahrenheit belong to?Why can't we use Boltzmann's ideal gas law using temperature in Celsius (intuition)?How is temperature defined, and measured?The significance of kelvin as a unit of absolute temperature
What are the mechanical differences between Adapt and Monstrosity?
Print the phrase "And she said, 'But that's his.'" using only the alphabet
Is swap gate equivalent to just exchanging the wire of the two qubits?
Is it a bad idea to have a pen name with only an initial for a surname?
Time at 1G acceleration to travel 100000 light years
What does a/.b[c][[1]] mean?
Does anyone recognize these rockets, and their location?
How can I detect if I'm in a subshell?
How can Caller ID be faked?
Can "Es tut mir leid" be used to express empathy rather than remorse?
Why is gun control associated with the socially liberal Democratic party?
How "fast" does astronomical events happen?
How to sort human readable size
How to write a nice frame challenge?
First occurrence in the Sixers sequence
Having some issue with notation in a Hilbert space
Is this set open or closed (or both?)
Co-worker is now managing my team. Does this mean that I'm being demoted?
How to address players struggling with simple controls?
Why do you need to heat the pan before heating the olive oil?
Why should the equality of mixed partials be "intuitively obvious"?
How to make a villain when your PCs are villains?
What is the color associated with lukewarm?
Using roof rails to set up hammock
Why is the length of the Kelvin unit of temperature equal to that of the Celsius unit? [duplicate]
Why is a degree Celsius exactly the same as a Kelvin?Is the Boltzmann constant really that important?Would setting the ideal gas constant to $1$ yield an attractive natural temperature scale?How do Temperature Scales work?Liquid with freezing point above 0 Celsius that could be use at ice rinksDoes the Kelvin have a rigorous definition?Why is a degree Celsius exactly the same as a Kelvin?Are there reasons for the discrepancies in absolute temp units - Kelvin vs. kelvins vs. degrees Kelvin?Is there a commonly used unit of measure (other than temperature units) that is not absolute?What unit system does Fahrenheit belong to?Why can't we use Boltzmann's ideal gas law using temperature in Celsius (intuition)?How is temperature defined, and measured?The significance of kelvin as a unit of absolute temperature
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Why is a degree Celsius exactly the same as a Kelvin?
2 answers
The Celsius unit is arbitrarily defined, based on the boiling and freezing point of water. Is it a coincidence, then, that the SI unit of temperature Kelvin, which is used in all natural equations, has the same length as the Celsius unit?
thermodynamics temperature definition units si-units
edited Jun 9 at 19:22
Solomon Ucko
1054
asked Jun 9 at 0:08
ThomasThomas
288112
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by John Rennie thermodynamics
Users with the thermodynamics badge can single-handedly close thermodynamics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
Jun 10 at 10:52
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Why is a degree Celsius exactly the same as a Kelvin?
2 answers
The Celsius unit is arbitrarily defined, based on the boiling and freezing point of water. Is it a coincidence, then, that the SI unit of temperature Kelvin, which is used in all natural equations, has the same length as the Celsius unit?
thermodynamics temperature definition units si-units
edited Jun 9 at 19:22
Solomon Ucko
1054
asked Jun 9 at 0:08
ThomasThomas
288112
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by John Rennie thermodynamics
Users with the thermodynamics badge can single-handedly close thermodynamics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
Jun 10 at 10:52
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
6
$begingroup$
There is also the Rankine scale, which has the same unit length as the Fahrenheit scale, but shifted down such that 0°R = 0K.
$endgroup$
– Tim
Jun 9 at 9:36
1
$begingroup$
@Tim So if we wanted to adopt the Rankine scale, the Boltzmann constant would have to be assigned a different value, right?
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Jun 9 at 11:12
4
$begingroup$
@Thomas : its value would effectively be the same, modulo the scaling factor into foot-pounds per degree Rankine.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Jun 9 at 11:20
1
$begingroup$
@Tim - The Boltzmann constant has units of energy units / temperature unit. Change the units and the Boltzmann constant changes. Both the conventional units used in the USA and the metric system used almost everywhere else are arbitrary. The only difference is that one must use $F=kma$ in the US rather than the more familiar $F=ma$ used in the metric system.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:43
$begingroup$
@Tim As of 20 May 2019, the Boltzmann constant is assigned its present value. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Jun 9 at 11:48
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Why is a degree Celsius exactly the same as a Kelvin?
2 answers
The Celsius unit is arbitrarily defined, based on the boiling and freezing point of water. Is it a coincidence, then, that the SI unit of temperature Kelvin, which is used in all natural equations, has the same length as the Celsius unit?
thermodynamics temperature definition units si-units
edited Jun 9 at 19:22
Solomon Ucko
1054
asked Jun 9 at 0:08
ThomasThomas
288112
$endgroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Why is a degree Celsius exactly the same as a Kelvin?
2 answers
The Celsius unit is arbitrarily defined, based on the boiling and freezing point of water. Is it a coincidence, then, that the SI unit of temperature Kelvin, which is used in all natural equations, has the same length as the Celsius unit?
This question already has an answer here:
Why is a degree Celsius exactly the same as a Kelvin?
2 answers
thermodynamics temperature definition units si-units
thermodynamics temperature definition units si-units
edited Jun 9 at 19:22
Solomon Ucko
1054
asked Jun 9 at 0:08
ThomasThomas
288112
edited Jun 9 at 19:22
Solomon Ucko
1054
asked Jun 9 at 0:08
ThomasThomas
288112
edited Jun 9 at 19:22
Solomon Ucko
1054
edited Jun 9 at 19:22
Solomon Ucko
1054
edited Jun 9 at 19:22
Solomon Ucko
1054
1054
asked Jun 9 at 0:08
ThomasThomas
288112
asked Jun 9 at 0:08
ThomasThomas
288112
asked Jun 9 at 0:08
ThomasThomas
288112
288112
marked as duplicate by John Rennie thermodynamics
Users with the thermodynamics badge can single-handedly close thermodynamics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
Jun 10 at 10:52
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by John Rennie thermodynamics
Users with the thermodynamics badge can single-handedly close thermodynamics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
Jun 10 at 10:52
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
6
$begingroup$
There is also the Rankine scale, which has the same unit length as the Fahrenheit scale, but shifted down such that 0°R = 0K.
$endgroup$
– Tim
Jun 9 at 9:36
1
$begingroup$
@Tim So if we wanted to adopt the Rankine scale, the Boltzmann constant would have to be assigned a different value, right?
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Jun 9 at 11:12
4
$begingroup$
@Thomas : its value would effectively be the same, modulo the scaling factor into foot-pounds per degree Rankine.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Jun 9 at 11:20
1
$begingroup$
@Tim - The Boltzmann constant has units of energy units / temperature unit. Change the units and the Boltzmann constant changes. Both the conventional units used in the USA and the metric system used almost everywhere else are arbitrary. The only difference is that one must use $F=kma$ in the US rather than the more familiar $F=ma$ used in the metric system.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:43
$begingroup$
@Tim As of 20 May 2019, the Boltzmann constant is assigned its present value. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Jun 9 at 11:48
|
show 2 more comments
6
$begingroup$
There is also the Rankine scale, which has the same unit length as the Fahrenheit scale, but shifted down such that 0°R = 0K.
$endgroup$
– Tim
Jun 9 at 9:36
1
$begingroup$
@Tim So if we wanted to adopt the Rankine scale, the Boltzmann constant would have to be assigned a different value, right?
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Jun 9 at 11:12
4
$begingroup$
@Thomas : its value would effectively be the same, modulo the scaling factor into foot-pounds per degree Rankine.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Jun 9 at 11:20
1
$begingroup$
@Tim - The Boltzmann constant has units of energy units / temperature unit. Change the units and the Boltzmann constant changes. Both the conventional units used in the USA and the metric system used almost everywhere else are arbitrary. The only difference is that one must use $F=kma$ in the US rather than the more familiar $F=ma$ used in the metric system.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:43
$begingroup$
@Tim As of 20 May 2019, the Boltzmann constant is assigned its present value. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Jun 9 at 11:48
6
6
$begingroup$
There is also the Rankine scale, which has the same unit length as the Fahrenheit scale, but shifted down such that 0°R = 0K.
$endgroup$
– Tim
Jun 9 at 9:36
$begingroup$
There is also the Rankine scale, which has the same unit length as the Fahrenheit scale, but shifted down such that 0°R = 0K.
$endgroup$
– Tim
Jun 9 at 9:36
1
1
$begingroup$
@Tim So if we wanted to adopt the Rankine scale, the Boltzmann constant would have to be assigned a different value, right?
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Jun 9 at 11:12
$begingroup$
@Tim So if we wanted to adopt the Rankine scale, the Boltzmann constant would have to be assigned a different value, right?
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Jun 9 at 11:12
4
4
$begingroup$
@Thomas : its value would effectively be the same, modulo the scaling factor into foot-pounds per degree Rankine.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Jun 9 at 11:20
$begingroup$
@Thomas : its value would effectively be the same, modulo the scaling factor into foot-pounds per degree Rankine.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Jun 9 at 11:20
1
1
$begingroup$
@Tim - The Boltzmann constant has units of energy units / temperature unit. Change the units and the Boltzmann constant changes. Both the conventional units used in the USA and the metric system used almost everywhere else are arbitrary. The only difference is that one must use $F=kma$ in the US rather than the more familiar $F=ma$ used in the metric system.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:43
$begingroup$
@Tim - The Boltzmann constant has units of energy units / temperature unit. Change the units and the Boltzmann constant changes. Both the conventional units used in the USA and the metric system used almost everywhere else are arbitrary. The only difference is that one must use $F=kma$ in the US rather than the more familiar $F=ma$ used in the metric system.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:43
$begingroup$
@Tim As of 20 May 2019, the Boltzmann constant is assigned its present value. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Jun 9 at 11:48
$begingroup$
@Tim As of 20 May 2019, the Boltzmann constant is assigned its present value. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Jun 9 at 11:48
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Kelvins aren't really all that natural either; or rather, they are just as arbitrary as Celsius. You need another arbitrary quantity--the Boltzmann constant--to get the temperature unit to work with the other physical units.
answered Jun 9 at 5:14
Mark HMark H
12.8k22844
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
Yes, exactly. The "zero point" of Kelvin is natural, but the scale is not.
$endgroup$
– Noldorin
Jun 9 at 15:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Kelvin history
The kelvin unit was designed so that a change of $1 textK$ corresponds to a change of $1 ^circtextC$. This makes sense because people were working in Celsius at the time. Kelvin just realized that the Celsius scale couldn't go down arbitrarily negative. It stopped at $-273.15 ^circtextC$.
The idea was to then make a new scale, the Kelvin scale which has the same gradations as the Celsius scale (for compatibility with the existing scale) but with the property that $0 textK$ corresponds to this special $-273.15 ^circtextC$ temperature. In other words, it is not a coincidence but rather the kelvin was historically defined so that the two scales had the same gradation.
There is a bit of confusion regarding the triple point of water ($273.16 textK$, or $0.01 ^circtextC$) and the freezing point of water at standard pressure ($273.15 textK$ or $0.00 ^circtextC$). Let me clarify.
The Celsius, or Centigrade, scale was historically defined as follows.
$0 ^circtextC$ was defined to be the temperature (measured by, for example, a mercury thermometer) at which water (at standard atmospheric pressure: $101,325 textPa$) freezes. $100 ^circtextC$ was chosen to be the temperature (at standard pressure) at which water boiled. Thus one degree Celsius is a gradation of temperature (as measured by a mercury thermometer, for example) equivalent $frac1100$ of the temperature difference between the freezing and boiling points of water at standard pressure.
As early as the $17^textth$ century scientists began to understand that the Celsius scale didn't go infinitely negative. In fact, the value where the Celsius scale would stop could be calculated and measured and it was found to occur at around $-273 ^circtextC$. It seems to me that further refinement of laboratory experiments found the temperature to be $-273.15 ^circtextC$. That is if you started at the freezing point of water $(0 ^circtextC)$, and went down by $273.15$ of the gradations described above, you would hit absolute zero.
Ok, we still haven't rigorously defined the kelvin. In 1967 people wanted to give good definitions to the units. The freezing point of water was a bad physical reference point because it depended on the water being at atmospheric pressure. But pressure varies with the weather and elevation on Earth so different labs might calibrate their thermometers differently by this metric. However, the temperature of the triple point of water is unambiguous (at least regarding pressure) because it only occurs when the pressure is at the right value. The triple point of water occurs at $0.01 ^circtextC$. Thus, in 1967 it was resolved to define the kelvin as $frac1273.16$ of the temperature of the triple point of water. This sets 1) $0 textK$ to be absolute zero as desired, 2) ensures the gradations of Kelvin were referred to a decent physical reference quantity and 3) has the effect that gradations of the Kelvin scale are the exact same as gradations of the Celsius scale.
I will leave the answer here for now. See A Peruzzi 2018 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1065 12011: On the redefinition of the kelvin for details on the redefinition of the kelvin which went into effect last month.
edited Jun 9 at 19:29
Loong
1,4471221
answered Jun 9 at 0:18
jgerberjgerber
2,9222627
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
One could add, that the starting point of the scale does not matter much in many applications, but temperature differences do matter. And preserving this numerical value is helpful, hence the same unit size.
$endgroup$
– Chieron
Jun 9 at 10:18
3
$begingroup$
Upvoted, but kelvin as a unit should be lowercase. Kelvin as a person is of course uppercase.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:46
1
$begingroup$
Isn't it $-273.15$?
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jun 9 at 12:40
$begingroup$
@Wojowu 273.15K is where water freezes = 0 degrees C, 273.16K is the triple point of water, which is the point that defines the Celcius scale
$endgroup$
– Neil_UK
Jun 9 at 15:09
2
$begingroup$
"people were working in Celsius at the time" most people are still working with the Celsius scale for measuring temperature, Kelvin is only used in specific areas of physics.
$endgroup$
– user000001
Jun 10 at 5:56
|
show 4 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Kelvins aren't really all that natural either; or rather, they are just as arbitrary as Celsius. You need another arbitrary quantity--the Boltzmann constant--to get the temperature unit to work with the other physical units.
answered Jun 9 at 5:14
Mark HMark H
12.8k22844
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
Yes, exactly. The "zero point" of Kelvin is natural, but the scale is not.
$endgroup$
– Noldorin
Jun 9 at 15:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Kelvins aren't really all that natural either; or rather, they are just as arbitrary as Celsius. You need another arbitrary quantity--the Boltzmann constant--to get the temperature unit to work with the other physical units.
answered Jun 9 at 5:14
Mark HMark H
12.8k22844
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
Yes, exactly. The "zero point" of Kelvin is natural, but the scale is not.
$endgroup$
– Noldorin
Jun 9 at 15:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Kelvins aren't really all that natural either; or rather, they are just as arbitrary as Celsius. You need another arbitrary quantity--the Boltzmann constant--to get the temperature unit to work with the other physical units.
answered Jun 9 at 5:14
Mark HMark H
12.8k22844
$endgroup$
Kelvins aren't really all that natural either; or rather, they are just as arbitrary as Celsius. You need another arbitrary quantity--the Boltzmann constant--to get the temperature unit to work with the other physical units.
answered Jun 9 at 5:14
Mark HMark H
12.8k22844
answered Jun 9 at 5:14
Mark HMark H
12.8k22844
answered Jun 9 at 5:14
Mark HMark H
12.8k22844
answered Jun 9 at 5:14
Mark HMark H
12.8k22844
12.8k22844
7
$begingroup$
Yes, exactly. The "zero point" of Kelvin is natural, but the scale is not.
$endgroup$
– Noldorin
Jun 9 at 15:18
add a comment |
7
$begingroup$
Yes, exactly. The "zero point" of Kelvin is natural, but the scale is not.
$endgroup$
– Noldorin
Jun 9 at 15:18
7
7
$begingroup$
Yes, exactly. The "zero point" of Kelvin is natural, but the scale is not.
$endgroup$
– Noldorin
Jun 9 at 15:18
$begingroup$
Yes, exactly. The "zero point" of Kelvin is natural, but the scale is not.
$endgroup$
– Noldorin
Jun 9 at 15:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Kelvin history
The kelvin unit was designed so that a change of $1 textK$ corresponds to a change of $1 ^circtextC$. This makes sense because people were working in Celsius at the time. Kelvin just realized that the Celsius scale couldn't go down arbitrarily negative. It stopped at $-273.15 ^circtextC$.
The idea was to then make a new scale, the Kelvin scale which has the same gradations as the Celsius scale (for compatibility with the existing scale) but with the property that $0 textK$ corresponds to this special $-273.15 ^circtextC$ temperature. In other words, it is not a coincidence but rather the kelvin was historically defined so that the two scales had the same gradation.
There is a bit of confusion regarding the triple point of water ($273.16 textK$, or $0.01 ^circtextC$) and the freezing point of water at standard pressure ($273.15 textK$ or $0.00 ^circtextC$). Let me clarify.
The Celsius, or Centigrade, scale was historically defined as follows.
$0 ^circtextC$ was defined to be the temperature (measured by, for example, a mercury thermometer) at which water (at standard atmospheric pressure: $101,325 textPa$) freezes. $100 ^circtextC$ was chosen to be the temperature (at standard pressure) at which water boiled. Thus one degree Celsius is a gradation of temperature (as measured by a mercury thermometer, for example) equivalent $frac1100$ of the temperature difference between the freezing and boiling points of water at standard pressure.
As early as the $17^textth$ century scientists began to understand that the Celsius scale didn't go infinitely negative. In fact, the value where the Celsius scale would stop could be calculated and measured and it was found to occur at around $-273 ^circtextC$. It seems to me that further refinement of laboratory experiments found the temperature to be $-273.15 ^circtextC$. That is if you started at the freezing point of water $(0 ^circtextC)$, and went down by $273.15$ of the gradations described above, you would hit absolute zero.
Ok, we still haven't rigorously defined the kelvin. In 1967 people wanted to give good definitions to the units. The freezing point of water was a bad physical reference point because it depended on the water being at atmospheric pressure. But pressure varies with the weather and elevation on Earth so different labs might calibrate their thermometers differently by this metric. However, the temperature of the triple point of water is unambiguous (at least regarding pressure) because it only occurs when the pressure is at the right value. The triple point of water occurs at $0.01 ^circtextC$. Thus, in 1967 it was resolved to define the kelvin as $frac1273.16$ of the temperature of the triple point of water. This sets 1) $0 textK$ to be absolute zero as desired, 2) ensures the gradations of Kelvin were referred to a decent physical reference quantity and 3) has the effect that gradations of the Kelvin scale are the exact same as gradations of the Celsius scale.
I will leave the answer here for now. See A Peruzzi 2018 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1065 12011: On the redefinition of the kelvin for details on the redefinition of the kelvin which went into effect last month.
edited Jun 9 at 19:29
Loong
1,4471221
answered Jun 9 at 0:18
jgerberjgerber
2,9222627
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
One could add, that the starting point of the scale does not matter much in many applications, but temperature differences do matter. And preserving this numerical value is helpful, hence the same unit size.
$endgroup$
– Chieron
Jun 9 at 10:18
3
$begingroup$
Upvoted, but kelvin as a unit should be lowercase. Kelvin as a person is of course uppercase.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:46
1
$begingroup$
Isn't it $-273.15$?
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jun 9 at 12:40
$begingroup$
@Wojowu 273.15K is where water freezes = 0 degrees C, 273.16K is the triple point of water, which is the point that defines the Celcius scale
$endgroup$
– Neil_UK
Jun 9 at 15:09
2
$begingroup$
"people were working in Celsius at the time" most people are still working with the Celsius scale for measuring temperature, Kelvin is only used in specific areas of physics.
$endgroup$
– user000001
Jun 10 at 5:56
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Kelvin history
The kelvin unit was designed so that a change of $1 textK$ corresponds to a change of $1 ^circtextC$. This makes sense because people were working in Celsius at the time. Kelvin just realized that the Celsius scale couldn't go down arbitrarily negative. It stopped at $-273.15 ^circtextC$.
The idea was to then make a new scale, the Kelvin scale which has the same gradations as the Celsius scale (for compatibility with the existing scale) but with the property that $0 textK$ corresponds to this special $-273.15 ^circtextC$ temperature. In other words, it is not a coincidence but rather the kelvin was historically defined so that the two scales had the same gradation.
There is a bit of confusion regarding the triple point of water ($273.16 textK$, or $0.01 ^circtextC$) and the freezing point of water at standard pressure ($273.15 textK$ or $0.00 ^circtextC$). Let me clarify.
The Celsius, or Centigrade, scale was historically defined as follows.
$0 ^circtextC$ was defined to be the temperature (measured by, for example, a mercury thermometer) at which water (at standard atmospheric pressure: $101,325 textPa$) freezes. $100 ^circtextC$ was chosen to be the temperature (at standard pressure) at which water boiled. Thus one degree Celsius is a gradation of temperature (as measured by a mercury thermometer, for example) equivalent $frac1100$ of the temperature difference between the freezing and boiling points of water at standard pressure.
As early as the $17^textth$ century scientists began to understand that the Celsius scale didn't go infinitely negative. In fact, the value where the Celsius scale would stop could be calculated and measured and it was found to occur at around $-273 ^circtextC$. It seems to me that further refinement of laboratory experiments found the temperature to be $-273.15 ^circtextC$. That is if you started at the freezing point of water $(0 ^circtextC)$, and went down by $273.15$ of the gradations described above, you would hit absolute zero.
Ok, we still haven't rigorously defined the kelvin. In 1967 people wanted to give good definitions to the units. The freezing point of water was a bad physical reference point because it depended on the water being at atmospheric pressure. But pressure varies with the weather and elevation on Earth so different labs might calibrate their thermometers differently by this metric. However, the temperature of the triple point of water is unambiguous (at least regarding pressure) because it only occurs when the pressure is at the right value. The triple point of water occurs at $0.01 ^circtextC$. Thus, in 1967 it was resolved to define the kelvin as $frac1273.16$ of the temperature of the triple point of water. This sets 1) $0 textK$ to be absolute zero as desired, 2) ensures the gradations of Kelvin were referred to a decent physical reference quantity and 3) has the effect that gradations of the Kelvin scale are the exact same as gradations of the Celsius scale.
I will leave the answer here for now. See A Peruzzi 2018 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1065 12011: On the redefinition of the kelvin for details on the redefinition of the kelvin which went into effect last month.
edited Jun 9 at 19:29
Loong
1,4471221
answered Jun 9 at 0:18
jgerberjgerber
2,9222627
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
One could add, that the starting point of the scale does not matter much in many applications, but temperature differences do matter. And preserving this numerical value is helpful, hence the same unit size.
$endgroup$
– Chieron
Jun 9 at 10:18
3
$begingroup$
Upvoted, but kelvin as a unit should be lowercase. Kelvin as a person is of course uppercase.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:46
1
$begingroup$
Isn't it $-273.15$?
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jun 9 at 12:40
$begingroup$
@Wojowu 273.15K is where water freezes = 0 degrees C, 273.16K is the triple point of water, which is the point that defines the Celcius scale
$endgroup$
– Neil_UK
Jun 9 at 15:09
2
$begingroup$
"people were working in Celsius at the time" most people are still working with the Celsius scale for measuring temperature, Kelvin is only used in specific areas of physics.
$endgroup$
– user000001
Jun 10 at 5:56
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Kelvin history
The kelvin unit was designed so that a change of $1 textK$ corresponds to a change of $1 ^circtextC$. This makes sense because people were working in Celsius at the time. Kelvin just realized that the Celsius scale couldn't go down arbitrarily negative. It stopped at $-273.15 ^circtextC$.
The idea was to then make a new scale, the Kelvin scale which has the same gradations as the Celsius scale (for compatibility with the existing scale) but with the property that $0 textK$ corresponds to this special $-273.15 ^circtextC$ temperature. In other words, it is not a coincidence but rather the kelvin was historically defined so that the two scales had the same gradation.
There is a bit of confusion regarding the triple point of water ($273.16 textK$, or $0.01 ^circtextC$) and the freezing point of water at standard pressure ($273.15 textK$ or $0.00 ^circtextC$). Let me clarify.
The Celsius, or Centigrade, scale was historically defined as follows.
$0 ^circtextC$ was defined to be the temperature (measured by, for example, a mercury thermometer) at which water (at standard atmospheric pressure: $101,325 textPa$) freezes. $100 ^circtextC$ was chosen to be the temperature (at standard pressure) at which water boiled. Thus one degree Celsius is a gradation of temperature (as measured by a mercury thermometer, for example) equivalent $frac1100$ of the temperature difference between the freezing and boiling points of water at standard pressure.
As early as the $17^textth$ century scientists began to understand that the Celsius scale didn't go infinitely negative. In fact, the value where the Celsius scale would stop could be calculated and measured and it was found to occur at around $-273 ^circtextC$. It seems to me that further refinement of laboratory experiments found the temperature to be $-273.15 ^circtextC$. That is if you started at the freezing point of water $(0 ^circtextC)$, and went down by $273.15$ of the gradations described above, you would hit absolute zero.
Ok, we still haven't rigorously defined the kelvin. In 1967 people wanted to give good definitions to the units. The freezing point of water was a bad physical reference point because it depended on the water being at atmospheric pressure. But pressure varies with the weather and elevation on Earth so different labs might calibrate their thermometers differently by this metric. However, the temperature of the triple point of water is unambiguous (at least regarding pressure) because it only occurs when the pressure is at the right value. The triple point of water occurs at $0.01 ^circtextC$. Thus, in 1967 it was resolved to define the kelvin as $frac1273.16$ of the temperature of the triple point of water. This sets 1) $0 textK$ to be absolute zero as desired, 2) ensures the gradations of Kelvin were referred to a decent physical reference quantity and 3) has the effect that gradations of the Kelvin scale are the exact same as gradations of the Celsius scale.
I will leave the answer here for now. See A Peruzzi 2018 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1065 12011: On the redefinition of the kelvin for details on the redefinition of the kelvin which went into effect last month.
edited Jun 9 at 19:29
Loong
1,4471221
answered Jun 9 at 0:18
jgerberjgerber
2,9222627
$endgroup$
Kelvin history
The kelvin unit was designed so that a change of $1 textK$ corresponds to a change of $1 ^circtextC$. This makes sense because people were working in Celsius at the time. Kelvin just realized that the Celsius scale couldn't go down arbitrarily negative. It stopped at $-273.15 ^circtextC$.
The idea was to then make a new scale, the Kelvin scale which has the same gradations as the Celsius scale (for compatibility with the existing scale) but with the property that $0 textK$ corresponds to this special $-273.15 ^circtextC$ temperature. In other words, it is not a coincidence but rather the kelvin was historically defined so that the two scales had the same gradation.
There is a bit of confusion regarding the triple point of water ($273.16 textK$, or $0.01 ^circtextC$) and the freezing point of water at standard pressure ($273.15 textK$ or $0.00 ^circtextC$). Let me clarify.
The Celsius, or Centigrade, scale was historically defined as follows.
$0 ^circtextC$ was defined to be the temperature (measured by, for example, a mercury thermometer) at which water (at standard atmospheric pressure: $101,325 textPa$) freezes. $100 ^circtextC$ was chosen to be the temperature (at standard pressure) at which water boiled. Thus one degree Celsius is a gradation of temperature (as measured by a mercury thermometer, for example) equivalent $frac1100$ of the temperature difference between the freezing and boiling points of water at standard pressure.
As early as the $17^textth$ century scientists began to understand that the Celsius scale didn't go infinitely negative. In fact, the value where the Celsius scale would stop could be calculated and measured and it was found to occur at around $-273 ^circtextC$. It seems to me that further refinement of laboratory experiments found the temperature to be $-273.15 ^circtextC$. That is if you started at the freezing point of water $(0 ^circtextC)$, and went down by $273.15$ of the gradations described above, you would hit absolute zero.
Ok, we still haven't rigorously defined the kelvin. In 1967 people wanted to give good definitions to the units. The freezing point of water was a bad physical reference point because it depended on the water being at atmospheric pressure. But pressure varies with the weather and elevation on Earth so different labs might calibrate their thermometers differently by this metric. However, the temperature of the triple point of water is unambiguous (at least regarding pressure) because it only occurs when the pressure is at the right value. The triple point of water occurs at $0.01 ^circtextC$. Thus, in 1967 it was resolved to define the kelvin as $frac1273.16$ of the temperature of the triple point of water. This sets 1) $0 textK$ to be absolute zero as desired, 2) ensures the gradations of Kelvin were referred to a decent physical reference quantity and 3) has the effect that gradations of the Kelvin scale are the exact same as gradations of the Celsius scale.
I will leave the answer here for now. See A Peruzzi 2018 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1065 12011: On the redefinition of the kelvin for details on the redefinition of the kelvin which went into effect last month.
edited Jun 9 at 19:29
Loong
1,4471221
answered Jun 9 at 0:18
jgerberjgerber
2,9222627
edited Jun 9 at 19:29
Loong
1,4471221
edited Jun 9 at 19:29
Loong
1,4471221
edited Jun 9 at 19:29
Loong
1,4471221
1,4471221
answered Jun 9 at 0:18
jgerberjgerber
2,9222627
answered Jun 9 at 0:18
jgerberjgerber
2,9222627
answered Jun 9 at 0:18
jgerberjgerber
2,9222627
2,9222627
2
$begingroup$
One could add, that the starting point of the scale does not matter much in many applications, but temperature differences do matter. And preserving this numerical value is helpful, hence the same unit size.
$endgroup$
– Chieron
Jun 9 at 10:18
3
$begingroup$
Upvoted, but kelvin as a unit should be lowercase. Kelvin as a person is of course uppercase.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:46
1
$begingroup$
Isn't it $-273.15$?
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jun 9 at 12:40
$begingroup$
@Wojowu 273.15K is where water freezes = 0 degrees C, 273.16K is the triple point of water, which is the point that defines the Celcius scale
$endgroup$
– Neil_UK
Jun 9 at 15:09
2
$begingroup$
"people were working in Celsius at the time" most people are still working with the Celsius scale for measuring temperature, Kelvin is only used in specific areas of physics.
$endgroup$
– user000001
Jun 10 at 5:56
|
show 4 more comments
2
$begingroup$
One could add, that the starting point of the scale does not matter much in many applications, but temperature differences do matter. And preserving this numerical value is helpful, hence the same unit size.
$endgroup$
– Chieron
Jun 9 at 10:18
3
$begingroup$
Upvoted, but kelvin as a unit should be lowercase. Kelvin as a person is of course uppercase.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:46
1
$begingroup$
Isn't it $-273.15$?
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jun 9 at 12:40
$begingroup$
@Wojowu 273.15K is where water freezes = 0 degrees C, 273.16K is the triple point of water, which is the point that defines the Celcius scale
$endgroup$
– Neil_UK
Jun 9 at 15:09
2
$begingroup$
"people were working in Celsius at the time" most people are still working with the Celsius scale for measuring temperature, Kelvin is only used in specific areas of physics.
$endgroup$
– user000001
Jun 10 at 5:56
2
2
$begingroup$
One could add, that the starting point of the scale does not matter much in many applications, but temperature differences do matter. And preserving this numerical value is helpful, hence the same unit size.
$endgroup$
– Chieron
Jun 9 at 10:18
$begingroup$
One could add, that the starting point of the scale does not matter much in many applications, but temperature differences do matter. And preserving this numerical value is helpful, hence the same unit size.
$endgroup$
– Chieron
Jun 9 at 10:18
3
3
$begingroup$
Upvoted, but kelvin as a unit should be lowercase. Kelvin as a person is of course uppercase.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:46
$begingroup$
Upvoted, but kelvin as a unit should be lowercase. Kelvin as a person is of course uppercase.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:46
1
1
$begingroup$
Isn't it $-273.15$?
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jun 9 at 12:40
$begingroup$
Isn't it $-273.15$?
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
Jun 9 at 12:40
$begingroup$
@Wojowu 273.15K is where water freezes = 0 degrees C, 273.16K is the triple point of water, which is the point that defines the Celcius scale
$endgroup$
– Neil_UK
Jun 9 at 15:09
$begingroup$
@Wojowu 273.15K is where water freezes = 0 degrees C, 273.16K is the triple point of water, which is the point that defines the Celcius scale
$endgroup$
– Neil_UK
Jun 9 at 15:09
2
2
$begingroup$
"people were working in Celsius at the time" most people are still working with the Celsius scale for measuring temperature, Kelvin is only used in specific areas of physics.
$endgroup$
– user000001
Jun 10 at 5:56
$begingroup$
"people were working in Celsius at the time" most people are still working with the Celsius scale for measuring temperature, Kelvin is only used in specific areas of physics.
$endgroup$
– user000001
Jun 10 at 5:56
|
show 4 more comments
6
$begingroup$
There is also the Rankine scale, which has the same unit length as the Fahrenheit scale, but shifted down such that 0°R = 0K.
$endgroup$
– Tim
Jun 9 at 9:36
1
$begingroup$
@Tim So if we wanted to adopt the Rankine scale, the Boltzmann constant would have to be assigned a different value, right?
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Jun 9 at 11:12
4
$begingroup$
@Thomas : its value would effectively be the same, modulo the scaling factor into foot-pounds per degree Rankine.
$endgroup$
– Brian Drummond
Jun 9 at 11:20
1
$begingroup$
@Tim - The Boltzmann constant has units of energy units / temperature unit. Change the units and the Boltzmann constant changes. Both the conventional units used in the USA and the metric system used almost everywhere else are arbitrary. The only difference is that one must use $F=kma$ in the US rather than the more familiar $F=ma$ used in the metric system.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
Jun 9 at 11:43
$begingroup$
@Tim As of 20 May 2019, the Boltzmann constant is assigned its present value. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Jun 9 at 11:48