>>8192616
>on earth
No.

The maximum may be the Planck temperature, no one knows.

>>8192616
It just is m8.

>>8192616
There is no minimum temperature. Look up negative temperature. It's just a defined thing--defined in terms of the entropy and energy of a system. What we use and think of as temperature is more operational (how much mercury rises in a tube when in contact with the thing we want to measure etc.).

Loosely, the more thermal energy a thing has, the higher the temperature. Is there a limit in the amount of thermal energy?

>>8192628
>negative temperature.
Barely comparable to positive temperature. Don't mislead OP by introducing something completely unintuitive and giving no explanation of what it means.

>>8192628
>Loosely, the more thermal energy a thing has, the higher the temperature. Is there a limit in the amount of thermal energy?

I believe that was OP's question. Why is there a minimal temperature as in how that is accomplished and how do we know what it is? And is there an upper limit? So basically what is 0 Kelvin, and how far can you go up from there?

>>8192641

I was just making a point that there is a disparity between the strict definition of temperature and what the average Joe thinks of as temperature. If he's interested, he can google it. I'm pretty sure he's a smart guy and he wasn't offended by my mentioning negative temperatures.

>>8192644

Much like Newton's third law, the third law of thermodynamics needs to be stated very precisely else counter examples are easy to find. I at least realize this, so don't jump on me for the following poor treatment of statistical mechanics:

If you have a collection of particles, they jiggle around, vibrate, and rotate. All of this energy (mostly kinetic, but some potential as in the case of the vibration) makes up the thermal energy of the system. There are other types of energy at play (mc^2), but we are concerned only with the type of energy which is related to temperature. As you increase the temperature, the amount of movement goes up. As you decrease the temperature, the amount of movement goes down. If you decrease the temperature all the way to absolute 0 (which is impossible), all motion stops (which is impossible). If your particles aren't moving at all, you can't make them move slower, which means you can't drop below absolute 0. You can always add more energy. You might be thinking that because there is a universal speed limit (c), there must be a highest temperature. The opposite is true. To make your particles travel at the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy which means you can always add more energy and thus the upper limit of temperature is unbounded.

>>8192628
Shit nigga, with negative temperatures you'll have more energy in a system than with any positive temperature.

>>8192616
cuz something can have no energy, but no maximum energy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_hot

>>8192861
Your mum is absolute hot when she gives me the SUCC

>>8192616
Pretty sure minimum temp is universal, it exists when you remove as much energy from the material as possible. Interestingly even at absolute 0 the atom will still have some residual motion known as the particles zero point energy (Don't fall for gay energy meme). As for maximum temp I don't think that exists as such, I'm thinking every material reaches a point of equilibrium where it would radiate more heat than it could absorb