Talk:Temperature

reasons for undo of good faith edit

I have undone this edit for the following reasons.

The edit was posted by an IP, without a username to make it easy to chat. The poster is apparently unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing.

A post in an article must be supported completely by Wikipedia-defined reliable sources; the edit cited no source.

A post in an article must not be constituted by a synthesis of sourced ideas, nor of original research; the edit seemed to violate those rules.

The edit was also of inappropriate form, chatting about several topics, not formed as part of a summary of the body of the article as is required in the lead.

The IP user may well have useful contributions to make, but they must be made properly in accord with Wikipedia editing rules. If the IP user intends to try again, it would be pleasant for other editors if he gave himself an anonymity-preserving username. It is safe and easy to do so; best to think up your anonymity-preserving user name before starting the registration procedure. For successful contribution, the user needs to familiarise himself with Wikipedia policies and rules. If he wants to go that way, I wish him well.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

reason for undo of good faith edit

I have undone this edit.

The edit cover note proposed "A few words where abstract noun phrase was needed instead of adjectives.".

Temperature is an attribute of a body; so are hot and cold. No reason to use a substantive noun phrase.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

why manifolds

There are a few references to manifolds in this article, i.e. "Hotness may be represented abstractly as a one-dimensional manifold." In this context, it seems like this introduces unnecessary jargon, and is less precise: there are only two one-dimensional manifolds, the circle and the real line, and hotness is represented abstractly as the real line, not the circle.

Before making this change, I want to check in with people that I'm not missing some historical reason to use the term manifold here--my background is in math, not physics. ProboscideaRubber15 (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ProboscideaRubber15:. The literature contains discussions of temperature in terms of a hotness manifold. I haven't thought much about this, but I guess that so-called 'negative temperatures' can be seen as residing in the circle.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

How is the real line a two-dimensional manifold? 81.225.32.185 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Temperature scales

This section is very confusing, redundant, and probably erroneous...

All physically reasonable temperature scales are related by affine relations of the form T' = a T + T0. I believe the article should only mention the Fahrenheit and Celsius "relative scales" (i.e. defining a 1° difference) and the Kelvin scale (absolute zero at 0, same 1° difference than Celsius). The reader should understand that °C or °F are 2 definitions of ° difference, with their respective offsets, and that K is like °C up to an offset. Olivier Peltre (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Olivier Peltre:. Thank you for your concern. Yes, the article is overloaded with part repetition, and even confusing, and could do with improvements. If you find things in it that are "probably erroneous", please identify them, settle whether they are actually or just probably erroneous, and get them corrected, all by use of reliable sources. Quite likely there are erroneous things in the article. Much in Wikipedia is erroneous.

Perhaps all "physically reasonable" temperature scales would be of the form $T^{\prime }=aT+T_{0}$; indeed, I suppose that all physically reasonable absolute temperature scales are so. But by that criterion, there are notable temperature scales that are "physically unreasonable". In particular, there is no general way of relating empirical temperature scales precisely affinely to the absolute scales. Material thermometric properties are often nearly but rarely precisely so. Much practical thermometry is empirical.

There are many notable temperature scales beyond the SI, Kelvin, Celsius, and Fahrenheit.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Too talky

This wikipage is way too talky and mentions a lot of irrelevant stuff. Is it really necessary to include a graph of the human body temperature over the course of a day and various temperature scales before giving a formal definition and description of what temperature comes from?

I added the thermodynamical definition in the intro and consider moving/deleting several sections that feels like word fillers. 81.225.32.185 (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I undid your edit: I think there was a formatting error, it messed up the layout of the intro, and I don't see the point of that highly technical thing in the lead. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think at least one proper definition is suitable.

  Compare with the article on momentum. It starts with: "In Newtonian mechanics, momentum (PL: momenta or momentums; more specifically linear momentum or translational momentum) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object."

  It isn't unreasonable to demand one sentence with a more scientific definition. 81.225.32.185 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)