Is Boltzmann's Constant k Fundamental?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- 0:14: Boltzmann constant, NOT Stephan-Boltzmann, a little embarrassing, I know...
To the question, there will be a two-fold answer, yet in any case, one can learn a lot about physics methodology from the history of k.
0:14: Just Boltzmann constant, not Stefan-Boltzmann. Sorry..
Constants of nature to fill in macroscale gaps in equations/theory are called dark things, and earlier 1800s constants to backfill equation problems are called constants. A fundamental constant is a fudge factor that occurs in more than one equation.
It is very useful in electronics, when calculating noise figures of electronic circuits.
Just because noise is basically a statistical frecuency pattern distribution of energy, most of them originated in thermal conditions, and Temperature at atomic level is just energy
I really enjoy your videos, you are absolutely correct understanding the fundamental constants is the key to understanding basic physics.
Agreed. The sad thing is that even many physics professors have never asked themselves or anyone else these questions.
Love your vids Mr. Unzicker 🙂🥰 Thanks for your time and energy and I guess your mass and angular momentum too 🫢🙂🥰
1:03, Mr unziker you made a slight mistake. It is 273 kelvin = 0 Celsius. Not 0 kelvin = 273 Celsius.
Yes. That is why I made the overlay...
Constant k becomes dimensionless if one defines temperature as a form of energy (unit of T: Joule). By rescaling the temperature scale, one can set k=1, and this shows k is not at all fundamental. If one defines T such that k=1, then the physical concept of entropy (S = ln(W) ) becomes very similar to entropy in the context of Shannon's information theory: a dimensionless property. This is intuitive, since entropy is the 'form' of energy, and this is strictly mathematical.
Arieh Ben Naim wrote many recommended books about Entropy explaining that Physics should be reformulated from that precept
Could anybody explain why if we divide Planck contant by speed of light and by the electron carge q it gives the Boltzmann constant K? K = h/Cq
The average kinetic energy 1/2 mv^2 of N molecules that have temperature T equals 3/2 k T ( unit of k is Joule/Kelvin, which is also the unit of entropy). The entropy S (form of energy) is S = k ln(W), where W is the number of distinct microscopic states of N particles. The value of k (1.38 10^-23 J/K) is not fundamental, since it depends on the arbitrary choice of the SI units. Is k a constant in all thermodynamic circumstance? Thermodynamic systems must be in thermodynamic equilibrium (with maximum entropy S) for k to be meaningful, and this condition is not generally fulfilled. k is not fundamental, but very useful. Planck defined k for the first time in history. I am always in awe of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics theory, very difficult to give a good lecture about this theory (many subtle points, easy to confuse the TD student by ignoring the subtleties), kudos to Boltzmann and Planck, to Maxwell and Gibbs, to Clausius. See also, physics.stackexchange.com/questions/231017/is-the-boltzmann-constant-really-that-important
Constants are fillers for imprecise formulas or expressions of relationships. Not knowing exactly what temperature is, requires a constant to fill the gap. When frequencies miss match or when external energies are applied to matter electrons within fail to couple i.e. create a bond and fly off to be detected as heat by a scientist. It is crucial to understand in this context that there is no just one electron or two creating a bond but rather that bonds are created by continuously newly created electrons which die off as magnetic fields or 'temperature'.
If you think of mass not as a thing with an absolute surface but a thing with a fuzzy boundary, we sense temperature in the close-in surface dispersion, and things like charge and magnetism at a distance where particles are cast off but don't come back.
That Reality is proceedurally generated by our observations is supported by the empirical evidence.
(We make it up as we go along)
Mathematicians desire constants because it makes their mathematics easy.
However Dr. Rupert Sheldrake reports that the speed of light varies by orders of magnitude greater than the error bars, and Big G, gravity, is notoriously fickle.
Why should we concede anything to the left, model making brain?
First observe, then hypothesize; not the reverse.
Exactly. I just wrote a similar comment. Most "constants" are assumed and not confirmed. Like you said, it makes the math easier when variables are eliminated.
How to justify k in KE=3kT/2 is the same as k in S=klnW?
Stop saying that heat is kinetic energy only! Vibrations have one degree of freedom more that is connected with potential energy.
ok...
Future generations must work on connecting both levels (subatomic and cosmological levels) to have deeper understanding of space, time, gravity, mass, energy,…. etc
that is the only way to understand the relationship between light speed and mass, space, momentum, gravity,…. and the real purpose of other constants such as Planck’s constant thus better understanding of infinity, the real meaning of numbers,….etc
“Temperature is nothing else but microscopic kinetic energy” could we have these constants because of simple spherical 4π geometry Kʙ=1/4πɛ˳
OK, maybe I am not as rude as Ramanujan but from the equation you have kT = kinetic energy ... why do you need both k and T?
Well, in hindsight, you don’t. You can have any kind of temperature scale where the units and a constant multiply to give the average kinetic energy.
But the equation itself is not obviously true. As before this discovery temperature was just the expression of the hotness of something, and specific theories on its true nature weren’t just limited to that kinetic theory.
@@2tehnik Thank you for that, I was a bit unsure. Maybe we can do away with the Gravitational constant in the same way? I get 'identities' and 'equations' mixed up since they both use the '=' sign, a bit like the increas in mass = E/c^2 as an equation but E = mC"2 as an identity .. but then why do we need C? Can't we just utilise units without constants?
@@alphalunamare I suppose you could say that mass is just one kind of energy phenomenon, the way that temperature is just one kind of kinetic phenomenon. But I’m not sure you could say that c^2 just defines the mass scale the way k does the temperature scale. Since c is the speed of light in a vacuum, which has a concrete physical meaning in a way that (as far as I know) k doesn’t.
I think there’s also another matter of how putting it in another category doesn’t simplify things too much (if I got my str right). We still have essentially different kinds of energies (one can’t confuse rest mass energy with kinetic energy), with only some kind of unformalized rule about how this rest mass energy can be converted into other forms. But we don’t have different types of kinetic phenomena really. Nothing where a things kinetic energy isn’t describable by mv^2/2.
If you speculate that relative motion emits information then things in circular motion would constantly emit as would composite objects with ever moving contents like neutrons and protons.
It is a very funny notion that starting with 2 objects at rest setting one in motion causes it to indefinitely transmit bits of information into space. I find it rather an odd spectulation.
The most important here is thermal equilibrium. If there is no thermal equilibrium, temperature is not defined.
I know physics professors who believe otherwise.
To define Entropy, Temperature has to be defined, so thermal equilibrium is a requisite for that, but Temperature is an emergent statistical variable assigned as a scalar value to a whole system under analysis, but the system Energy is always defined, does not require thermal equilibrium. Temperature is a great level simplification, a corse grain product of our human perception. Temperature is a kind of stable energy
Electricity in a vacuum needs work function, meaning the the cathode increasing it's kelvin so that electrons brake free and electricity can flow.
Isn't that a contender to the red shift theory?
I mean that galaxies that are red, might not be so because of they are far away, but only have less or no work function, between us the observers and the light source?
The conservation of energy should not be affected by the distance.
So a "photon" should conserve the energy through out a distance/red shift because it can only arrive here without any interaction with matter on the way.
But without work function it shouldn't.
Wouldn't this be the difference between an electric universe and a gravitational universe.
An experiment could prove or disprove either, just by measuring the kelvin at our side as an recipient/cathode of an incoming energy from a far away red light.
What do the words ' need work function' actually mean? The absence of meaning does tend to destroy consequent 'electric universe' except in discourse.
@@alphalunamare Described to me by? A self induced release of electrons from the cathode in a vacuum that allows current to bridge the distance between the anod and the cathode. This allows energy to flow from one source to another. The presence of a magnetic field allows the cathode to heat up and receive additional heat from an external source like the sun instantly. it would be easy to prove by putting an atomic clock in a Lagrange point and time a plasma eruption compared to when we see it on earth. If the synchronized clocks have the same time stamp or there is no actual delay, thus no speed of light.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_constant?wprov=sfla1
Stefan-Boltzmann is different from k, the Boltzmann constant.
Nature seems to be a black box with a certain behavior. We can learn about the behavior more and more, but the black box remains a black box. Moreover, the behavior may reflect the structure of our mind rather than the box. And it's good.
Boltzmann's name was Ludwig, not Stefan ....
I know. just the constant is named after Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann.
@@TheMachian No, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is a different constant. It is not k.
You are right. I messed this up. A little embarrassing, but thanks for the correction.
k is only relevant to particles and quantum mechanics and not the vacuum. 'Below' 0k there are no particles, just denser spacetime, too dense to vibrate at the required frequencies of particles. Spacetime still flows at these densities and so vacuum energy persists, this describes the early universe before the CMB was formed.
I think the potential energy is also a kinetic energy(of transplankian particles). ruclips.net/video/nmC0ygr08tE/видео.html
This isn’t related to the subject of this video but very important for all (no exaggeration at all) it is about self concept, personal identity, consciousness type one and type two,.. etc
Closer to truth RUclips channel: 3 Nov 2022 How do human brain works?
they usually leave my comments for a while then hide them later (that happens since 2019) to find them later in books or interviews, they claim that they own what they have stolen and polluted!
You need to watch the RUclips video to understand.
The mechanism is very complicated regarding the function of both sides together, both consciousness type one and personal identity generated in both sides of the brain simultaneously, very likely personal identity (the main simulation of self concept happen in the right side and uses the left side to complete the process of both consciousness type one and personal identity (cooperation with the left side) this is very likely correct for a reason “because this model matches the features of consciousness type two”
so comparing self concept and consciousness type two as part of it, the left side adds important features to consciousness process of consciousness type one, yeah so weird, there is complete simulation to self concept and consciousness type two but add kind of precision through left side, far more complicated than that but very likely this is very close (in general).
and no doubt that there a map of infinitesimal details of the whole body and any malfunction could cause many phenomena such as phantom limbs,…etc
there is a process of generating both personal identity and consciousness type one, unbelievable it’s kind of regenerating both self concept and consciousness type two, even though consciousness type two is more complicated and advanced but what is going on in the left hemisphere makes it more specialised.
Correct (in general correct to high percentage).
I think the precise mechanism of consciousness type one could take up to two thousands of years (hard scientific work of multi-generations)! that will need more advanced mathematics, physics, …… etc.
both hemispheres are not really independent, they work together but somewhat the right side is more important because of personal identity.
17:00 split personality probably is related to the process of generating personal identity not really because how both hemispheres work independently
To concise: both sides work together to generate personal identity and complete consciousness type one, there partial speciality but at the end they should complete each other (there something else)
19:00 There’s something missing , no way to talk about that, but the process is more complicated than that (unbelievable) but in general what I have wrote is very likely accurate enough.
12:30 is important point (simulation of self concept which is so-called personal identity)
16:00 very important, the process of generating consciousness requires self concept (all I have wrote is very likely correct)
What I have wrote must reach future generations.
14:00 brain stem -> limbic system ~> both hemispheres
(Limbic system)
13:00 there’s outcome of the whole process at the end
10:00 that matches what I have wrote
20:00 there is something missing for sure will keep it ambiguous for long time in future because there’s something essential is missing makes their interpretations incomplete and incorrect.
19:30 there is something else far more complicated and advanced in the whole process makes it murky (useless to talk about it
Limit the comments to the topics of this channel.
This is about Time
Closer to truth RUclips channel
5 days ago
Julian Barbour - Which Laws of Nature are Fundamental
Amin Omar- 5 days ago
Dirac was right in his wondering about ……
it is essential to connect both levels (subatomic and cosmological levels) for deeper understanding including entanglement and so-called superposition, space, time, gravity,….etc
Amin Omar- 5 days ago
It’s not about shapes, some shapes are important at subatomic level but that comes later…..(no one can jump to the last step on the ladder of science without deeper understanding of the basics!)
Amin Omar- 5 days ago
the real meaning of numbers in different scales, the relationship between space, time, velocity, force, …… gravity.
constants are not just a numbers (numbers have meaning) …..
there is a lot of work to do.
I think that could take up to hundreds of years to reach a good level enough to open the gate of science.
physics reached its limits, patching techniques will never work any more (physics needs deeper understanding first of all to be able to make real progress).
Amin Omar- 5 days ago
Time is the result of calculating process that requires an action and space.
that means the real problem is in space and how it does emerge, understanding space will need better understanding of numbers (constants and its role)
probably what is going on in atomic clocks in different gravitational fields is related to how gravity affects particles not to time itself as an independent dimension.
a lot of work to do, opening the gate of science will need real hard worker scientists , that will take time, I think up to hundreds of years of continuous hard work and cooperation (no wars among the irrationals„they have nothing to fight each other for!’).
and before that, will, vision and wisdom, and away from the destructive irrational meanness.
Amin Omar- 5 days ago
Angle and curve has to do with one of the important constants, ancient humans….
Time does exist, they are wondering and confused because they don’t understand what is time.
but time isn’t independent!
Amin Omar- 5 days ago
1:50 time is not an independent dimension as he mentioned, what he is talking about is the process of calculating time (time is not independent as a process, its relationship with space, action, velocity,….. etc)
and very likely that the interpretation of equivalent principle is incorrect too,….
Amin Omar- 5 days ago
Physics needs revision, using a nee revolutionary way of thinking,…
former scientists did a good work (valuable ) but incomplete because of the lack of deep understanding of the fundamentals, incomplete doesn’t mean invaluable!
Amin Omar- 5 days ago
2:00 don’t understand that there a process of space and time creation, ….. too early for that (better to focus on how to connect both subatomic level and cosmological level to have deeper understanding of what’s going on, …..
this already was mentioned years ago here on this RUclips channel…!
Amin Omar- 5 days ago
He talks about one of the constants unknowingly!
that has to do with both space and infinity,…..
they want to run forward without understanding the basics of physics!
by the way I have already talked about a model of connecting both subatomic level and cosmological level,… the angle and rotation to understanding some constants,….
that was mentioned here on this RUclips channel too !
Amin Omar- 5 days ago
They use patching techniques, that could help to solve simple problems but not helpful to solve fundamental problems!
Doesn't cold fusion work by lowing the plank constant in a metal lattice so you can do fusion more easily? Some constants aren't. I might be getting the wrong constant name and didn't bookmark the explanation, but it was some constant, maybe you know.
The lattice is just there to hold things in place whilst the action occurs, it saves having toexplode things to compress the active constituents. Plank has little to do with it.
@@alphalunamare I remember now that I looked up the constant at the time and it was definitely not the plank constant. It was something directly related to the threshold for fusion. Maybe you know some of the constants and which it was.
attention is not consciousness, it’s just a part of larger cognitive process , It takes place as part of larger cognitive process, and awareness is the result of consciousness process the present or previous cognitive process, or through self-concept and consciousness type two (it’s a result of process, it’s not consciousness itself).
unless they have different definition to awareness.
2:00 they have complete misunderstanding!
They mix things up!
conscious process is very complicated, it generated concurrently with so-called personal identity…
3:50 they mix things up.
4:10 that has nothing to do with consciousness, self concept is not personal identity, it is just a simulation of self concept.
culture! they say whatever they want because no one knows.
6:03 that is kind of patching techniques, teaching so-called philosophy is wasting of time, resources,…etc education is essential but no university can make so-called philosophers or thinkers,… ! education is essential process but ….!
8:00 both consciousness type one and type two are limited to individuals, there is no so called universal consciousness!
humans do contact with each other unknowingly, but that has nothing to do with consciousness itself!
Hallucinators !
everything is governed by science and only science (nothing would come into existence without science whatsoever )
humans didn’t open the gate of science yet , current technology dazzles many, but humans have not yet climbed even the first step of ladder of science.
replies
they think that this universe built by chance!
they even call hidden mind (self concept and consciousness type two ) primitive! what they call primitive is far more advanced than what they think that it’s complicated!
nothing came up by chance, started simple then became more complicated doesn’t mean what is behind it is simple!
for instance: galaxies start simple (seems simple) then became more complicated does not mean that the system behind it necessarily is simple (that is why they don’t understand what life means)
to concise: nothing would come into existence without science (it is the rule), there’s a kind of science machine (has nothing to do with so-called gods or consciousness)
so-called life is not only biological entities !
It is a little bit hard to explain but primitive can not build more advanced systems the way they think!
This existence is very advanced, it’s possible that existence started simple then became more complicated and advanced but so-called life never started as primitive (they describe part of the features of life only)
they don’t differentiate between existence and life !
they think that they are the very thing (the same)!
what to do with!
they think that so-called gods or universal consciousness created this universe, basically they don’t know that there are two types of apes consciousness! consciousness is just a tool (essential for intelligent entities to understand the mechanism of consciousness type one to survive ) but it has nothing to do with life cycle.
to concise: consciousness is just a tool.
By the way, some thieves read comments regularly, one of the thieves wrote a book out of my own thoughts (comments) and attributed all I have wrote to himself ! this is real not a joke, some others used thievery as patching techniques (similar to car thieves those repaint the stolen cars to hide the theft crimes they have committed) to write books since 2019!
I wrote only for future generations not for sick irrational thieves to steal and pollute what I have wrote!
They think that primitive means not advanced, related to early stages of development doesn’t mean not very advanced (it is one of the characteristics of life).
the funniest part is that each thief think that he is the only one who reads what I have wrote, but that is not always the case, because I have noticed that group of irrational thieves cooperated to commit the theft crimes!
Human can find an excuse for some theft crimes such as someone steals because he is hungry (have no money) but why would the sick irrational thieves steal human thoughts?! because they have no minds!
the really weird part is that they don’t have human characteristics such as morals, values, principles, minds,…etc
they don’t feel shame like humans too!
they even cannot understand what they have stolen!
if future generations survived as rational intelligent entities then they will be able to know the past in exquisite details for sure.
I was aware of the sick irrational thieves from The beginning and already warned them not to steal and pollute human thoughts (don’t touch what is not yours)! the sick irrational thieves couldn’t resist!
I had to take the risk for the sake of future generations only, I sm aware of the sick irrational thieves from the beginning.
valuable thoughts are valuable wherever they are, on the walls, as comments,….erc
what gives value to thoughts is not media or the number of followers,….
Hopefully not all are thieves and the messages will reach future generations clean (intact) they will need them to survive.
that is all I can do for them.
High Valence 3 hr ago In the beginning was science... through him all things were made.
High Valence. 1 hr ago
@Amin Omar well that's an interesting idea but I don't know that it has nothing to do with consciousness. I don't know what else it would have to do with.
High Valence. 1 hr ago @Amin Omar idk what you mean by primitive
I have always viewed k as a direct relation to the velocity of vibrating atoms at a point where they are able to discharge a photon at an exact energy state to their velocity. So, I guess I am saying that I consider "k" to be a threshold rather than a constant, putting me more in the abstract than the equation.
Constants are only constants in math! Not in real physics were there are none.
Untrue. It is singularly constant that String Theorist's extort money for self fulfilling nonsense.
Pardon me whilst I go grab another 6 pack 🙂
Shhhh....you're not supposed to talk about that. The speed of light fluctuated many times through the 20th century so scientists decided to use a new way to calculate it's speed in order to retain continuity of measurement. Many other constants are assumed and not actually confirmed.
@@alphalunamare You are wrong! I am sure there is one delusional string theorist out there who is not funded!
I believe that too but I don’t have any proof. It would be a holy grail if we had governing equations to prove this point.
Isn't it k subscript B, because of the Coulomb constant is k subscript C?
"Temperature is just microscopic kinetic energy"
Though this view is frequently articulated, I am afraid it's fundamentally incorrect and makes it hard for new students in thermodynamics to understand the crucial role of entropy. Here is a better way to think about it:
Consider a model for a solid, where each connection between two atoms is modelled as a quantum harmonic oscillator with possible energies (n+1/2)hf; a so-called "Einstein solid". It is of course a theoretical model, but such a system could in principle be constructed. Imagine at first that all oscillators are at rest, so the total energy inside is U=Nhf/2, where N is the total number of oscillators. Now add a known amount of energy to the system to excite some of the oscillators and measure its temperature using a thermomenter. Repeat this procedure and record the energy of the system along with the corresponding temperature. Plotting the data, you will find that it follows
U(T)/N=hf/2+hf/(exp(hf/kT)-1).
Note that U consists of the kinetic and potential energies of a large number of oscillators and that it's functional form is very different from
U(T)/N=3/2kT=1/2m,
which is *only valid for an ideal gas*! In this equation, it's exceptionally tempting to conclude that temperature is just a measure of "average kinetic energy". However, the two just happen to be proportional for an ideal gas, which is not the case for the Einstein solid (as well as many other thermodynamic systems).
So if temperature is not a measure of kinetic energy, what is it?
Consider the Einstein solid again. When it's "empty" there is only 1 possible configuration (all oscillators are relaxed). Adding exactly hf worth of energy means that any of the N oscillators can store this. Thus, the number of possible microstates has increased. Add an additional hf worth of energy and the number of microstates will further increase. Using an appropriate model, it's possible to determine the number of microstates Ω given the number of oscillators, N, and the number of quanta of hf added (q). Since Ω gets very big very quickly, it's convenient to look at the natural log of Ω, ln(Ω). Here is an interesting question we can now ask:
"If we have already added E worth of energy, how much does ln(Ω) change when we add an additional dE?"
In other words, what is the derivative d(ln(Ω))/dE?
Let's label this derivative as C. If C is large, then adding a tiny bit of energy will massively increase the order of magnitude of the number of accessible microstates. If C is close to 0, then adding that same increment of energy does not change the order of magnitude of the number of microstates very much. If C is negative, adding more energy reduces the number of accessible microstates (!).
If we take two Einstein solids with two different C values and put them in contact, we experimentally find that energy spontaneously flows from the one with the smaller C value to ones with a higher C value until they reach the same C value. If we do the same thing with two ideal gasses, an ideal gas and an Einstein solid or any other combination of thermodynamic systems, we find that this always happens. If we consider a population inverted laser gain medium, where adding more energy eventually reduces the number of configurations as all the dopants become excited, we realize that its C-value must be negative and that it will spontaneously donate energy to any system, which is "more positive" than itself.
We therefore formulate the following law of thermodynamics:
"Energy will always spontaneously flow from systems with a lower C-value to a system with a more positive C-value."
Now it should be clear that a useful everyday word for C would be "coldness", in which case our "law" says that energy will spontaneously flow from "low coldness" (i.e., "hot") objects to high coldness ones.
Since historically, humans have been more interested in heating things up than cooling them down, we have usually worked with "inverse coldness" or as we typically call it: Temperature!
This is what temperature *actually* represents. Its inverse, coldness, tells us how much the number of accessible microstates changes when a small amount of energy is added. A cold object will see a bigger increase in ln(Ω) from receiving dE from a hot system than the hot system will see when getting dE from the cold system, so the 2nd law of TD ensures that heat spontaneously flows one way.
I have not gone through all the historical details, but thermometers and their unit scales were introduced long before the microscopic picture of TD was advanced by Boltzman, so his constant (which I believe was actually invented by Planck) seems to not be fundamental. Indeed, "entropy" is often defined as S=k*ln(Ω) in textbooks just so the units of T will check out when it's defined as:
1/T =dS/dE.
Personally, I think it's better to think about temperature as "inverse coldness", which is measured in units of "orders of magnitude in number of accesible microstates/Joule" or simply "1/J".
Thanks for your informed contribution. I guess you are right in terms of a pedagogical access to theoretical thermodynamics. My aim here is a little different: addressing the (also often misleadingly discussed) constants of nature and how they are related to simplification. I hope you forgive me thus the shortcomings.
No problem and thank you for continuously posting your insightful videos. Apart from my point about the pedagogy of teaching thermodynamics, my view is that boltzmans constant is indeed redundant. It seems to me that temperature was initially introduced to quantify the "human" perception of things "feeling warm". I.e., how much hotter is a pot of water A than ice water compared to pot B? Early scientists could see that many different objects would produce the same "height of mercury" (or similar) when touched with a thermometer. Celsius recorded the height when touching ice water and boiling water, divided the range of heights into 100 segments and labelled each step 1 degree C without knowing the microscopic picture of entropy. Later, k was introduced to reconcile the "real physical meaning" of d(ln(Ω))/dE with the pre-existing (and somewhat arbitrary) units of temperature (Kelvin, celsius, farenheit etc.).
If the microscopic picture had been developed first, I suspect that C=d(ln(Ω))/dE would have arisen as the "quantity of interest" for determining spontaneous energy flow, in which case coldness would have units of "orders of magnitude per Joule" its reciprocal would have units of "Joules per order of magnitude".
That's not true. You can't define Temperature for a system of a few molecules neither for a lot of molecules that are not in thermal equilibrium, Temperature is a statistical emergent scalar variable, exists because Avogadro constant is great relative to human units, a mol-grs of a substance contains 6*10^23 molecules in environmental normal conditions. Temperature requires thermal equilbrium condition, while Energy does not
Rupert Sheldrake has given some great lectures on the "constants" of nature and how some of them aren't actually constants and vary over time. It's a dirty little- not often spoken about -secret in the scientific community.
But, fundamentally, Boltzmann's constant ain't due to Boltzmann.
Kelvin temperature is measured in Kelvin Units, not degrees.
It's a weird distinction and I know English is not your first language.
Just one if those weird things I notice.
One degree on the Kelvin scale = One Kelvin on the degree scale
This intro and setup is just ridiculous
If you only to grumble in the comments, I ask myself why do you watch the channel in the first place.
@@TheMachian
I think he means it's over produced for a 3 minute video. It's a slick intro that's well produced but it's followed by a very short mid quality video in the woods. The grand intro doesn't match the content. I love the videos and don't mean any disrespect. Just an observation that nobody asked for.
There is the expanding electron. All else is vain babble.
The only K ‘constant ‘ occurs in the geometric orbit equation. Even then it varies according to which object being orbited, I.e. sun’s K is different than earth’s K. Funny mental physics is a more appropriate title for this comedy skit about nothing relevant.
This is boring
Why? What is less boring than a child's rebuff to a good idea?