What is the actual temperature in space vacuum ???
354428
Read;\n\nhttp://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part4/section-14.html
30315
Well absolute zero is -273.15 C or so, and we have gotten very close to that (within about a tenth of billionth of a degree C). We cannot get any colder than absolute 0. \n\nThere is such a thing as negative temperature, but this is not a case of something being colder than absolute zero, but "hotter than infinite temperature". See the attached web pages.
897838
Hi. Space is not a complete vacuum. There are a number of hydrogen atoms throughout. A few per cubic meter. But if you think about it, light can reach us through billions of light years of space, so it is a very good vacuum if not a perfect one. And any material should SLOW the light. 'c' is still the fastest speed.
1156638
"Temperature" is the measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles of a substance.\nIn the case of using a thermometer to measure temperature, the temperature of the thermometer is what is actually being seen in the measurement, we just assume that it has come to thermal equailibrium (no net flow of heat energy) with the surroundings.\n\nSince a vacuum is totally empty (i.e. no particles), a vacuum does not have a temperature by definition.\n\nIf we also assume this vacuum system is isolated from the rest of the universe and that the walls are perfect reflectors, then the temperature reading on the thermometer will not change when placed into a vacuum....but remember the conditions which we just had to apply.\nThere are 3 methods in which heat [energy] is transfered, through conduction, convection, and radiation.  In a vacuum, conduction and convection are inappliacble in terms of carrying heat away from the thermometer (or to the thermometer).  However, radiation is still quite possible, and likely.  The thermometer will emmit Infra red radiation in the form of photons of light which will carry away heat energy from the thermometer (lowering its temperature).  Likewise, if we allow any other EM radiation to some into the box, it may increase the heat energy of the thermometer (and raise its temperature).  If we assume the box is isolated and its walls are perfect reflectors (which will refrlect 100% of any EM radiation the thermometer emmits back), then the thermometer's heat energy should remain constant as will its temperature.
627134
Actually, There is no such thing as a true vacuum...Period!\nA true vacuum has never been created, anywhere, where the atomic count is zero.\nThere is always atomic content left to fill the "vacuous" space. No one has ever been able to creat a true vacuum.\n\nContrary to popular belief, empty space is not empty, and it is certainly not a vacuum. \nresearch it, its true.\n"Empty" space actually contains an average of 1 hydrogen atom for every 32 cubic centimeters of space, this data is per NASA.\n\nIn our own Milky Way, space is more dense with 1 hydrogen atom for every 1 cubic centimeter.\n\nSo to answer your question, EMs have never been propagated through a true vacuum that we know of.\n\nOne day the misinformation of space, or anything else, as a true vacuum will finally die out.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/vacuum...\n\n\nspread the knowledge
608010
epsilon=0.6\nsigma=5.6704*10^-8 [J/(s*m^2*K^4)]\nP=Q/A=120 [W/m^2]\n\nWe know:\n\nP=epsilon*sigma*T^4\n\n120=0.6*5.6704*10^-8*T^4\n\nSolving for T we get:\n\nT=(120/(0.6*5.6704*10^-8))^(0.25) = 243.7 [K]\n\nThen, using Newtons cooling law:\n\nT(t)=T(environment)+(T(initial)-T(environment))*e^(-rt)\nT(t)=293+(243.7-293)*e^(-r*t)\nT(t)=293+(-49.3)*e^(-r*t)\n\nNow, I'm stuck, because I don't know the rate of change of temperature (r).  Maybe you try a different formula!?
388117
No, the wave propagates as light through the vacuum of space.  The heat produced by the sun is caused by the interaction of the wave (light) and some other object (your skin).  There must be a secondary object.  This nullifies the original vacuum requirement.   \n\nNow, you could say there is no such thing as a true vacuum and point out the fact Absolute Zero can't ever truly exist.  However, that is beyond the scope of the original question. \n\n(In space, no one can here you scream.)
1040095
heat radiation is possible in a vacuum, thats how the suns energy reaches us
38874
How warm it feels is related to both the average speed of the gas molecules, and their density. Even though the average speed of the gas molecules at some places high in the air column might be quite substantial, and even faster than those at lower altitudes, there is less density as well at altitude, so there is less air to hold the heat. \n\nThink of the limiting case: at the edge of the atmosphere, where there are very few gas molecules. The gas molecules might be very hot, and moving with tremendous velocities, but there are very few of them, so if you are not in direct sunlight, it would feel quite cold. Of course, in direct sunlight, it might be very warm.  \n\nSo for the moon, \n\n"The temperature on the moon varies from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius), at night,\nto 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day"\n\naccording to \n\nhttp://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/moontemp.shtml
9497
The interior of the Earth reaches temperatures of 5650 ± 600 kelvins [3] [4]. The planet's internal heat was originally generated during its accretion (see gravitational binding energy), and since then additional heat has continued to be generated by the decay of radioactive elements such as uranium, thorium, and potassium. The heat flow from the interior to the surface is only 1/20,000 as great as the energy received from the Sun.\n\n5650 Kelvin = 5377 Celsius = 9710 Fahrenheit\n\nThe Sun's temperature:\nSurface temperature  5780 K\nTemperature of corona  5 MK\nCore temperature  ~13.6 MK
909214
The average temperature of the universe is less than 3 degrees above absolute zero.  So starlight (sunlight) already travels in the temperatures about which you ask at a constant speed.\n\nOf course temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of a volume...  and is there is little mass inside a volume, there is little KE, so vacuum must be very close to zero.
756131
You asked a very good question. The fact is that vacuum or "empty space" is NOT empty at all. Scientists have recently confirmed that vaccum contains "energy" and the energy density has been measured to be on the order of 10^-29 grams per cubic cm or 10^-47 GeV^4.\n\nSince we all know that mass and energy are equivalent through Einstein's Special Relativity, so we can certainly say that vacuum contains some form of "matter".\n\nBTW, it has also been confirmed that the majority of our Universe's mass/energy density is due to the mass/energy density of the vacuum. As a matter of fact, vacuum is rsponsible for 73% of it. This vacuum energy is also called "Dark Energy".
507518
The coldest temperature in deep space is -454 degrees Fahrenheit, 2.728 degrees above absolute zero. This universal temperature is called the cosmic microwave background radiation and is the leftover temperature from the Big Bang which started out at about 2^13 degrees Fahrenheit.
405474
This is the rest energy of a particle. Energy equals mass times the speed of light in a vacuum squared. This expression became famous for its simplicity, even though it's not really all that practical. I read once that even at absolute zero particles will still have some motion. I'm not sure how one would go about proving that since it's impossible to get anything to a temperature of absolute zero. Anyway since there will always be some movement, the more practical version is:\n\nE = mc^2 /(sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)), where v is the speed of the particle. (sqrt() is meant to mean the square root of the argument inside the parenthesis)\n\nIt's important to note that this is only true for a particle since you have to consider binding energies if you want to look at anything more complex.
764905
the temperature of space is pretty close to zero Kelvin (-273 C)\n\nthat is due to the lack of substance to create energy.\n\nHeat, or lack of heat, is transferred by substances like air or water or metal.  No air = no transfer of cold or heat from space to the ship.  The ship's outer hull actually is hot where the sun shines on it and very cold on the shady side.  It's just really well insulated.\n\nIf spaceships were in -273 C air, then it would freeze solid (mostly because the air would freeze too)
865619
In 1965 Dr Mather and Dr. Moot discovered cosmic microwave background radiaton at a peak frequency of 1.604 x10^11 herz at an equivalent tempeature of 2.725 degrees .Kelvin. They were awarded the Nobel prize in physics 41 years later for their work in cosmology.\nCalculation of the mass of the Universe and the volume of the Universe confirms that the temperature per meter^3 of space agrees with their observed 2.725 degree kelvin temperature.
880980
This is actually not an easy question! It depends on what you mean by temperature. Here on Earth, in our cozy blanket of air at one atmospheric pressure, we think of temperature as how hot something is. But on a microscopic level, that really means how vigorously molecules and atoms are bumping into each other. The faster they move, the harder they bump, and the higher the temperature. \n\nHowever, have you ever wondered why water at 70 degrees Centigrade might scald you, but air at that temperature won't? Air is less dense than water, so it carries less energy total even if the temperature is the same. The atoms are jiggling just as fast, but there are fewer of them. \n\nI bring this up because there can be ridiculously high temperatures in the Universe, but they don't mean much! For example, the Voyager probe measured a temperature of over one billion degrees in the magnetosphere of Uranus. Imagine! But really what it was measuring were particles moving extremely quickly. If you stood (well, floated) in Uranus' magnetosphere, you wouldn't suddenly vaporize. On the contrary, you'd freeze! The particles may be very very hot, but there simply aren't enough of them for them to heat you up. \n\nSo to answer your question, probably the hottest temperatures reached in the Universe today are in the cores of supernovae (stars that explode), or possibly in the mysterious gamma ray bursters, extremely energetic explosions the cause of which no one knows. But the hottest temperature of all time would have been the Big Bang: since it had all the matter and energy squeezed into one point, it must have had nearly infinite temperature! \n\nThere is no agreed-upon value, among physicists, for a maximum possible temperature. Under our current best-guess of a complete theory of physics, the maximum possible temperature is the Planck temperature, or 1.41679 ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬" 10^32 Kelvins. This translates to about a quarter of a hundred nonillion degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 x 10^32). However, it is common knowledge that our current theories of physics are incomplete, thus leaving open the possibility of still higher temperatures.\n\nThe answer a typical physicist gives to the question, "what is the highest possible temperature?" will depend on their implicit opinion of the completeness of our current set of physical theories. Temperature is a function of the motion of particles. If the speed of light is the universal speed limit, then a gas of maximum temperature may be defined as a gas whose atomic constituents are each moving at the speed of light. The problem is that attaining the speed of light in this universe is impossible; light speed is a quantity that may only be approached asymptotically. The more energy you put into a particle, the closer it gets to moving at light speed, though it never fully approaches it.\n\nAt least one scientist has proposed defining the maximum possible temperature as what we would get if we took all the energy in the universe and put it into accelerating the lightest possible particle we could find as closely as possible to the speed of light. If this is true, then discoveries about elementary particles and the size/density of the universe could be relevant to discovering the correct answer to the question this article addresses. If the universe is infinite, there may be no formally defined limit to the maximum possible temperature.\n\nEven though infinite temperature may be possible, it might be impossible to observe, therefore making it irrelevant. Under Einstein's theory of relativity, an object accelerated close to the speed of light gains a tremendous amount of mass. That is why no amount of energy can suffice to accelerate any object, even an elementary particle, to the speed of light - it becomes infinitely massive at the limit. If a particle is accelerated to a certain velocity near that of light, it gains enough mass to collapse into a black hole, making it i