Talk:Orders of magnitude (temperature)

SI Prefixes
This seems to be the only page on the internet using prefixes larger than "yotta" (10^24), all other sources suggest that the widely accepted range of SI prefixes ends at that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.106.228 (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Planck temperature
Considering plank temperature is supposed to be the hottest temeprature that can be physically possible, why are there some entries as many as 3 order of magnitude higher? Rhialto 02:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Planck temperature corresponds with the Planck mass-energy of two bodies whose two level separations by gravital potential is equal to the wavelength of that potential. As gravity is rather weak, the mass of two motes and their attendant nearness must be rather strong.  At that scale resonanses between gravity and elèctricity are sharp and coherent.  It may be the greattest temperature that any body can hold with, say, elèctricity without interferent interactions, but it doesn't mean that it's the greattest possibil temperature.  Above that temperature and below that length and span, interactions are "fuzzy" or "foamy" rather than nonexistent because all the forses are involved.  There should be more energhetic harmònics yonder that scale. -lysdexia 07:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

List of significant temperatures merge
List of significant temperatures is orphaned and probably shouldn't exist. I've flagged it for merge into this page but I don't actually see any useful stuff in there that isn't already here. SteveBaker (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to Agree. Besides, as SteveBaker said, most of the info is already on this page. Adam Hillman (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No one objected, so I redirected List of significant temperatures to this article. The edit history of the page is still there, if anyone wants to copy more temperatures from that article to this one. Philbert2.71828 22:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

extradimensional gauge freedom
What the heck is "extradimensional gauge freedom" supposed to be? I'm starting to think this term is made up. This article is literally the ONLY PAGE ON THE ENTIRE INTERNET with this phrase in it. Google it, there's only like 20 results all of which are asking "what the hell is that wikipedia temperature article talking about?".&#124;&#124;bass (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was added on 2005-11-03T05:37:21, but I've removed it and added some more tags. -84user (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At Planck temperature, two bodies will become gravitally bound and tend to shed excess internal energhy; when they are superheated, however, their mekanical energhy will become divergent or hýpervolic. In M- or brane theory the smallest limiting dimensions become open to such a body, where otherwise it would condense, cool, and be stuck here or there.  In superstring terms, the body will become unbound to our brane, as a loop akin to the gravitòn's shape, and be keen to fare throuh other dimensions. -lysdexia 15:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

what does this mean
10−30 		particular speeds bound paths to exceed size and lifetime of the universe (see least-energy in orders of magnitude (energy)) What does this mean? 137.122.45.191 (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What is "particular speeds bound paths to exceed size and lifetime of the universe"?
The article says "particular speeds bound paths to exceed size and lifetime of the universe (see least-energy in orders of magnitude (energy))" as the entry for 10−30. What is this supposed to mean? The article on orders of magnitude (energy) does not mention this at all and I can't find anything more about this anywhere. 137.122.149.229 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this entry was made up, as the only place I can find anything about it is this article and mirrors of this article, and I can't find anything more about what it is supposed to mean. 137.122.149.229 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not. At this temperature, a body's potential well is greater and its perihod longer than the univers. -lysdexia 15:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency
452.15 K 	179 °C 	354.2 °F 	mean surface temperature of Mercury 453.15 K 	180 °C 	350 °F 	oven at moderate temperature

How can 179 C be 354 F and 180 (more than 179) be 350 (less than 354)??? Screen317 (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not exactly the problem here. The numbers are not properly approximated.  It is beyond crazy to say that an oven at moderate temperature is EXACTLY 453.15!!  That's just WAY too much precision!  What has evidently happened is that the typical temperature of an oven is reasonably stated as 350F or 180C because we're rounding to the nearest 10 degrees. (350F is really 177C) But this is a horribly inexact measurement.  I'm sure the temperature of the interior of a typical oven varies by at least 10C between bottom and top shelf - and no two ovens are going to maintain the temperature at the exact same value...and moreover, being thermostatically controlled, an individual oven will vary up and down by 10C.  So 350F and 180C are perfectly OK.  Of course 453.15K is just silly!  Someone probably converted 180C to K and got that number.  But it should be rounded to 450K.  Sadly, that messes things up still further from your perspective.


 * Our article on Mercury states that the surface temps vary between 200K at the poles to 340K at the equator - and between 80K and 700K overall! So stating the average to a precision of one degree is also madness!  Even though it might theoretically be possible to obtain a "mean temperature" - I VERY much doubt that it's known over the entire surface, in light and in shade, on dark rocks and light, over the entire Mercurian year/day, etc.  So it too should be radically pruned in precision.


 * So - IMHO: 450K 180K 350F is the temperature of both an oven on "moderate" and the mean surface temp of Mercury. I'll edit accordingly.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Urgh! Nearly all of the numbers in that table had stupidly high levels of precision.  The fact that nearly all of the Kelvin numbers ended in '.15' strongly suggests that they were mindlessly converted from Celcius without thought for appropriate use of precision. SteveBaker (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Planck temp inconsistent with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_temperature
On the planck temp page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_temperature the value is given as about 1.42*10^32 K. On this page it is cited as 14.2 million YK, which to my understanding is 14.2*10^6 *10*24 = 1.42*10^31. Worse yet, on the magnitude side it says its on the order of 10^30, which is consistent with neither of the other values. That discrepancy makes me believe the number on this page is wrong. I brought this up under the other page's talk page also. Washyleopard (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica - 1911
This rather old Ref. is used for some hard to understand strange claims at low temperatures. Low temperatures were rather new at this time, so this source is rather outdated to this respect. So I tranferred this strange part here for discussion an likely final removal:

Everyday substances near liquid air's temperature with incipient Fermi-condensate populations result in spontaneous luminescence, loss or lack of hysteresis, inductive and capacitive electronic moments that readily adsorb or expel or float upon unlike substances: --Ulrich67 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Paper 450F v. 450C
There was a "kindling point of paper" at 450C which I removed. It had a source citation but that may be bogus. There was and still is a paper entry at 450F, and Wikipedia's own Autoignition_temperature article has two sources saying paper's kindling point is 424-475F. This Slate article about the well-known "451F" temperature at which paper burns also backs this up. // 24.62.170.82 (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Orders of magnitude (temperature). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140913012501/http://www.antiscald.com/prevention/general_info/table.php to http://www.antiscald.com/prevention/general_info/table.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812030844/https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/hottest-reliably-measured-air-temperatures-on-earth to https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/hottest-reliably-measured-air-temperatures-on-earth

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Absurdly vague examples
Some of the items in the list are risibly vague (and more than vaguely risible):


 * Room temperature
 * Food is well done
 * Cake is well done
 * Oven on low

And so on. These don't sit at all well with the more scientific, objective temperatures elsewhere in the list. Although it's useful IMHO to have familiar temperatures in a list like this, to balance the ones people can't really relate to, these are just far too woolly. Sorry that I don't have time to fix it right now; flagging it for someone else who may have the time later. 82.71.0.229 (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)