Talk:Hagedorn temperature

Not rare
What happens if there are more than 1 "Hagedorn Temperature" ? :) -,it shouldn't be very "rare" depending on the partition function -Karl-H 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Need example
The article doesn't explain the interpretation of the Hagedorn temp in condensed matter physics. If this is a real thing that's got commonly observed empirical consequences, then at least one concrete physical example would help a lot.--76.93.42.50 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Explain transition
I'm not a physicist, so I'm not going to understand this article. But the first para has a rather astounding statement, even at that: "Phase transitions (e.g. from a solid state of matter to that of a liquid one) are in general possible only when the system has a higher number of particles than is thought possible." Does this mean that in theory, ice can't melt? Or it could only melt if there were an extremely large quantity of it? Mcswell (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC) -- Dude the sentence at which you point out is written nonsense (even if as a physicist I can understand what the writer meant), but still your question make you look total retarded.
 * I think what is meant is a transition to a system with a higher number of degrees of freedom - some process occurs which liberates new degrees of freedom (like for instance the liberation of water molecules from the crystals). Although this statement is still untrue since you can run the phase transition in reverse. Anyhow good question. It is healthy to question that which does not seem to make sense. --ChrisLHC (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio
I reverted the page to its 2009 state to resolve the copyvio. --vuo (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Fireballs ???
Quote: "spew out fireballs" ... I'm sorry, but that is to unscientific for my taste. Normally I argue for approachability in the language used in Wikipedia, but in this case I think this went too far. Maybe a better word or short description can be found as fire has no meaning at that scale, particularly since a photon emission is not necessarily connected. JB. --212.202.49.179 (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, and there are a lot of other passages that could use work. For example:


 * "Thus, naively considered, a system at Hagedorn temperature can accommodate as much energy as one can put in, because the formed quarks provide new degrees of freedom, and thus the Hagedorn temperature would be an impassable absolute hot."


 * What does "accomodate as much energy as one can put in" mean? The phrase "an impassable absolute hot" sounds more like poetry than anything clear or scientific.  John Baez (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)