Talk:Thermodynamic temperature

message: ... where it is argued that modes of motion other than translational do not contribute to temperature is quite interesting but I saw no reference. Is this a well-known aspect of the microscopic/statistical treatment of temperature?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.71.115 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Temperature is the parameter that governs the transfer of heat energy. Accordng to the 2nd Law heat tranfers from a high temperature to a lower temperature; the critical matter is 'transfer' i.e. it changes place - 'moves' - has directional properties - thus is a vector quantity. Energy - even kinetic energy - is not a vector (v2); however momentum 'mv' is a vector and heat transfer is actually the transfer of momentum - see Einstein's 1917 paper 'On the Quantum Theory of Radiation', (The German for Momentum is 'Impuls'). Momentum corresponds to the translational aspects of particle energy. --Damorbel (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 8, 

message: I deleted this section because it contains no refs., it has of course been replaced with the observation :-
:Put cite needed if you like, but don't delete large sections of good material without TALK consensus
I have not the slightest objection to, in this case, material being replaced. But why no refs.?
For example 1/ the first paragraph opens with this:-
:The thermodynamic temperature is defined by the second law of thermodynamics and its consequences
But 2nd Law is about a difference in temperature, it applies to a difference anywhere on the temperature scale between 100K and 200K as well as 1100K and 1200K. There is no definition of temperature here.
The argument is justifed further by saying:-
:...and in particular can be seen to be uniquely defined (up to some constant multiplicative factor) by considering the efficiency of idealized heat engines
In no way is the efficiency of a heat engine defined by the temperature scale used, this has got to be absurd!
I propose it be deleted.
2/ the 2nd para. opens with:-
:Strictly speaking, the temperature of a system is well-defined only if it is in thermal equilibrium
Nothing to do with Strictly speaking. If the system is not in equilibrium, either more than one temperature is needed to describe it and/or the temperature(s) is/are changing with time. This not a suitable defintion for a Wiki article.
3/ The 3rd para. has:-
:This suggests that there should be a relationship between temperature and entropy
How can this be justified? To assign a temperature to any system it must be in a state of maximum entropy i.e. in equilibrium. If the system is not in equilibrium its entropy is completely undefined since different systems may well have the same sub-maximum entropy.
4/The final paragraph begins:-
:Loosely stated, temperature differences control the flow of heat between two systems
The section is about the defintion of Thermodynamic temperature, it is not about some process that depends on the difference of temperatures, but this is the whole content of the last section.
Either the section should be deleted or heavily revised. --Damorbel (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of thermodynamic temperature 

message: Why are there two separate articles, Thermodynamic temperature and Temperature?  Couldn't they be mereged in some way? DavRosen (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had the same question for years. As far as I'm concerned, the Temperature page has become so comprehensive as to essentially contain everything covered in the Thermodynamic temperature page. JCMPC (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover the Temperature article is more accurate than this one in some respects.  For example it correctly uses the rms velocity in the computation of temperature where this article incorrectly uses the mean velocity (changing it to mean speed does not fix this, and median velocity is even worse). The incorrect statement was introduced over eight years ago, in a footnote on 24 Oct. 2006. And where is "vector-isolated velocity" defined?  Does the term exist anywhere besides material derived from this article?  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

text: I also think this is a problem. The title of this article makes it even worse since it does not show up in a search for an article titled "temperature". That could be fixed by changing the title of this article to "Temperature (thermodynamic)". It does seem that there is a lot of overlap between the two articles, but I have not examined either enough to comment on relative accuracy. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you  may have a point that people looking for this page may not always start with the word "Thermodynamic". And since there already are the redirects Absolute temperature and Kelvin temperature to this page, I don't see why there can not be one more. The redirect Temperature (thermodynamic) now exist to direct readers here. w.carter-Talk 18:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thermodynamic temperature]] vs [[Temperature]] articles 

message: The text given there (``Based on a computer model ... 5% greater than its rest mass (m0).)  is not in the paper referred to, and googling for it
only finds thoughtless copies of this wikipedia article. I propose deletion. 130.233.138.9 (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnote is discussing Model S1216 of the paper, which is singled out for special attention in Figures 5 and 6.  Is there any specific number in the footnote that you feel is not supported by the paper? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 20 

message: I have removed the following template from the lead section, in context:
:At this point, absolute zero, the particle constituents of matter have minimal motion and can become no colder.
I believe "colder" is well-understood here.  A body would be "colder" than absolute zero if, when you put them in thermal contact, heat energy would flow from the one at absolute zero to the colder one.  By definition of absolute zero, this cannot happen.
As to the point about negative temperatures, they are lower numerically, but they are not colder; they are in fact hotter, as the linked article explains.  If you put a system at negative temperature in thermal contact with one at positive temperature, heat energy flows from the former to the latter.
So there still might be a question about the best wording.  If it confused the person who put the  template there, it might confuse someone else.  I don't think the  template is the right way of addressing this, but perhaps it should be addressed.  Suggestions?  Maybe just an explanatory footnote, with an explanation something like the one I give above? --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|vague}} template 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Thermodynamic temperature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150720174212/http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/star.htm to http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/star.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified