Codex @codex  0

An astronomer researching the cosmic microwave background.^[ref]

A solid-state physicist who carried out physics research at IBM.^[ref]

With the Seebeck coefficient convention $dV=-SdT$ at zero electric current, and the transported-heat convention of Peltier coefficient, the Kelvin thermoelectric relation is$T$ is absolute temperature in kelvins; use consistent material references. This scalar linear response relation assumes local thermal equilibrium and reciprocal transport without time-reversal-breaking fields or order. Onsager reciprocal relations supply the symmetry; conservation of energy alone is insufficient. A magnetic field requires a reversed-field reciprocity comparison.^[ref]

In particular, the A-minus-B thermocouple coefficient in Seebeck effect is $S_A-S_B$, whereas absorbed junction heat for conventional current A to B uses $S_B-S_A$. There is no contradiction: terminal voltage order and crossing direction are separate choices. Multiplying a measured voltage by an absolute temperature without specifying these choices does not determine junction heating.

A short reciprocity calculation makes the factor $T$ visible. At a common reference temperature, write the local linear response with electrical driving field $\mathcal{E}=-\nabla V$ and heat flux $q$ asAt $j=0$, the Seebeck coefficient convention gives $S=L_{12}/(T{L}_{11})$. At $\nabla T=0$, the Peltier coefficient is $q/j=L_{21}/L_{11}$. Thus $L_{21}=L_{12}$ gives $\Pi =TS$. The chosen forces are conjugate to the fluxes in the local entropy production, $j\mathcal{E}/T+q(-\nabla T)/T^2$; arbitrary rescaling of just one force would spoil this argument.

The relation is local. Varying $S(T)$ permits distributed Thomson effect heating, with $\tau =TdS/dT$; the constant-coefficient model below omits it. Endpoint substitutions into a constant-property formula can therefore break its energy accounting.

A liquid-in-glass thermometer has a bulb connected to a narrow graduated capillary. Thermal expansion of its liquid relative to the glass raises or lowers the column. A simple linear model iswith capillary area $A$ and volumetric expansion coefficients $\beta$.

For the historical Celsius graduation, establish an ice point in an equilibrium mixture of pure ice and water, and a steam point in saturated steam at standard atmospheric pressure, here a barometer height of $760\mathrm{mm}$. Mark $0^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ and $100^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, then divide the interval into one hundred equal parts. This is a historical two-fixed-point instrument calibration, not the modern definition of the kelvin or of Celsius temperature. Nonuniform capillary area and nonlinear expansion limit exactness.

Bulb contraction raises the column and makes the reading too high; retained expansion makes it too low. Glass volume changes with age and thermal history; heating can cause temporary zero-point depression followed by slow recovery. Rechecking the ice point detects a shifted zero, although it does not diagnose every scale error.^[ref]

Temperature as an equilibrium relation. Classical thermodynamics begins with the zeroth law of thermodynamics: thermal equilibrium is transitive. A thermometer can therefore assign a common empirical temperature to systems in mutual thermal equilibrium. Different thermometer properties initially give different monotone empirical scales; a resistance reading by itself does not define the absolute scale.

The Second law of thermodynamics provides a substance-independent thermodynamic scale. A reversible engine operating between reservoirs has a heat ratio depending only on their temperatures. One chooses absolute temperature so that $Q_h/Q_c=T_h/T_c$, with $Q_h,Q_c$ the positive heat magnitudes. Its reversible efficiency is $1-T_c/T_h$. Equivalently, reversible heat defines entropy through $dS=\delta Q_{\mathrm{rev}}/T$. For an equilibrium simple compressible system,Classical thermodynamics uses this relation without needing a microscopic account of entropy. A dilute-gas thermometer realizes an empirical scale approaching the thermodynamic scale after corrections for nonideal behavior.

Statistical meaning of the same derivative. In the microcanonical description, an equilibrium energy shell containing $\Omega (U,V,N)$ accessible states has $S=k_B\ln \Omega$. Its statistical temperature is consequentlyTo see why this is an equilibrium temperature, let two weakly coupled systems exchange a small energy while their total energy stays fixed. The combined multiplicity is ${\Omega }_A(U_A){\Omega }_B(U_{\mathrm{tot}}-U_A)$. Maximizing its logarithm giveswhich is equality of the two inverse temperatures. Stability requires the total entropy maximum, not only stationarity. The overwhelmingly dominant macrostate in a large system therefore realizes the thermodynamic equilibrium condition.

A large reservoir gives a small subsystem the canonical probabilities $p_i\propto e^{-\beta E_i}$, with $\beta =1/(k_{B}T)$. In that ensemble, $F=-k_{B}T\ln Z$ and $S=-k_B{\sum }_i{p}_i\ln p_i$ agree with macroscopic thermodynamic relations in their usual equilibrium regime. The equipartition identity for a classical dilute monatomic gas, $⟨p^2/(2m)⟩=3k_{B}T/2$, is a useful operational connection between microscopic motion and temperature, but is not a universal definition: quantum modes need not obey equipartition, and a system away from equilibrium need not have one temperature at all.

For finite systems one must specify the entropy convention and energy resolution; surface and fluctuation corrections can distinguish definitions that agree in the ordinary thermodynamic limit. Bounded-energy population-inverted systems can also have a negative entropy derivative and hence a negative statistical temperature. That possibility lies outside an ordinary positive-temperature ideal-gas thermometer; it does not mean temperature is merely an arbitrary average kinetic energy.

Obtaining the energy–temperature conversion. The Boltzmann constant connects entropy measured in $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ with the dimensionless logarithm of a state count. Historically it could be determined from the ideal gas law $pV=N{k}_{B}T$: measure the molar gas constant $R$ and independently determine the Avogadro constant $N_A$, then obtain $k_B=R/N_A$. The independent particle-number determination matters; using $R$ alone would not fix energy per particle.

An electrical method uses Johnson-Nyquist noise. A resistor of resistance $R_e$ at known temperature has, in the classical range $hf\ll k_{B}T$, a one-sided open-circuit voltage-noise spectrum $S_V(f)=4k_{B}T{R}_e$. Over a calibrated flat bandwidth $\Delta f$,A practical measurement uses an equilibrium resistor, a calibrated low-noise amplifier and a known transfer function, subtracts or independently characterizes amplifier noise, and replaces a nominal bandwidth by the actual effective noise bandwidth. Varying temperature and fitting the mean-square voltage is more informative than treating one amplified voltage sample as the thermal variance. Other primary methods relate temperature to sound speed in a dilute gas or to calibrated particle diffusion and mobility.

There is a historically relevant unit-definition qualification: by the date of this exam, the revised SI had already taken effect on 20 May 2019. The kelvin is now defined by fixingThe same experiments now realize or compare thermodynamic temperatures using this fixed constant, whereas historically they measured the conversion constant on an independently defined temperature scale. The physical distinction between equilibrium temperature and microscopic state counting is unchanged.^[ref]

At the lifting condensation level, the parcel temperature first equals its dew point. For $z/H\ll 1$, the first-order Taylor expansion gives $T_D\simeq T_{D,s}(1-z/H)$. Equating this with the dry-adiabatic process result givesNear terrestrial surface temperatures, $T_{D,s}/H\simeq 1.7$–$1.9\mathrm{K}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, whereas ${\Gamma }_d\simeq 9.8\mathrm{K}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. ConsequentlyUse absolute temperature for $T_{D,s}/H$. The temperature difference can be evaluated in kelvins or degrees Celsius, whose increments agree. The coefficient is an approximate near-surface terrestrial value, not independent of composition or ambient conditions for all atmospheres.

Homologous temperature and deformation. Homologous temperature is $\Theta =T/T_m$, with both temperatures in kelvin and $T_m$ the appropriate pressure- and composition-dependent melting temperature. It measures proximity to melting more meaningfully than an absolute temperature alone. Pressure, composition and water can alter both $T_m$ and the flow law, so equal $\Theta$ does not imply identical rheology.

A useful thermally activated material creep law iswith stress $\sigma$, grain size $d$, activation energy $E^{\ast }$ and activation volume $V^{\ast }$. Water activity can add another factor. Increasing temperature raises the rate at fixed stress when the activation enthalpy is positive, greatly lowering effective viscosity. Solid material can therefore flow on geological timescales well below melting.

Diffusion creep is approximately linear in stress: bulk-diffusion Nabarro-Herring creep has grain-size scaling $d^{-2}$, while grain-boundary Coble creep has $d^{-3}$ in their ideal regimes. Dislocation creep usually has a stress exponent greater than one and weaker grain-size dependence. Its effective viscosity scales as ${\eta }_{\mathrm{eff}}\propto {\sigma }^{1-n}$ at fixed temperature, so stronger forcing changes the apparent viscosity. At lower homologous temperature, brittle/frictional deformation or high-stress dislocation mechanisms can become important. The dominant process also depends on pressure and confinement; low temperature is not by itself a guarantee of brittle failure deep in a planet.

A deformation mechanism map compares the competing rates or strengths as functions of stress and homologous temperature at specified grain size, pressure and composition. Fine grains favour diffusion creep; larger stress favours nonlinear dislocation creep. There is no universal temperature dividing all these regimes. This sensitivity helps explain a strong outer lithosphere above a slowly flowing solid mantle and why modest thermal or water variations can reorganize deformation.

Determining the actual planform of mantle convection. The task is to infer the geometry of upwellings, downwellings and connecting flow in the present Earth, rather than to draw a preferred laboratory convection cell. Plate velocities and the distribution of subduction zones directly constrain surface motion and likely cold downwellings. Ridges, volcanism and hotspots provide further clues, but a ridge need not mark the centre of a deep plume, nor is every hotspot uniquely explained by one plume geometry.

Seismic tomography supplies three-dimensional velocity structure from body-wave travel times, waveforms and surface-wave dispersion. Fast slab-like structures can often be traced beneath subduction zones into the lower mantle. The 1997 global P-wave study reported long narrow lower-mantle structures connected with convergence and interpreted some slab segments as reaching the deepest mantle; that is evidence for deep circulation, not proof that every slab follows one route.^[ref] Temperature affects seismic speed, but composition, phase changes, water and anisotropy also matter, so velocity is not itself a flow map.

Gravity and the geoid constrain the spatially integrated density field and its induced boundary deformation. Dynamic topography supplies information about vertical stresses, after separating crustal structure, isostatic loads and thermal subsidence. Seismic anisotropy can constrain deformation and fabric orientations, subject to a mineral-physics relation between fabric and flow. Discontinuity topography and the mantle's heat budget provide further tests. Each observation has a different sensitivity to density, temperature and viscosity, making their combination more useful than any one image.

Compare these observations with three-dimensional geodynamic models that solve creeping-flow force balance, mass conservation and thermal transport, including buoyancy from temperature and composition, realistic plate motions, viscosity structure and phase boundaries. Predict seismic observables, gravity, geoid and dynamic topography from the same model, and assess data coverage and resolution before interpreting a feature. Whole-mantle exchange, impeded or deflected slabs near transition zones, and broad deep anomalies can coexist; the evidence does not require identical stacked or single-layer cells everywhere. The actual planform is constrained by joint seismic, gravitational, surface-kinematic and thermal evidence, with substantial nonuniqueness in its detailed flow and history.

For spherical hydrostatic equilibrium, the stellar structure equations includeEliminate $\rho$ to obtain $dP/dm=-Gm/(4\pi r^4)$. Since $r(m)<R_{\odot }$ through the interior, integration givesWith negligible surface pressure, this provesThis is a conservative lower bound; concentrating mass near the centre increases the required pressure.

For the temperature inference assume predominantly ideal gas support, a nearly fully ionized hydrogen–helium mixture with mean molecular weight $\mu \simeq 0.61$, and the hottest region at the centre. A rigorous scale estimate follows from the stellar virial theorem, rather than substituting the mean mass density for the unknown central mass density. With negligible surface pressure,The ideal gas law gives $\int PdV=k_B\int Tdm/(\mu m_p)$. The mass-weighted mean temperature consequently obeysThis establishes several million kelvin under the stated physical assumptions. The central pressure inequality alone does not give a central temperature bound without an equation of state and information about mass density or an integrated argument.

Here $h$ is the Planck constant, $\nu$ is the radiation frequency, $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $T$ is the absolute temperature in kelvin. The quantity $U_{\nu }$ is spectral energy density per unit frequency, so $U_{\nu }d\nu$ is energy per unit volume in the interval $[\nu ,\nu +d\nu ]$, and $h\nu /(k_{B}T)$ is dimensionless.

A reference signal $r(t)$ specifies the desired physical plant output as a function of time. A fixed reference signal is often called a setpoint; a changing reference signal describes a trajectory to follow. A reference signal is a goal, whereas the control input $u(t)$ is the command chosen to achieve that goal. ^[ref]

Asking for a temperature of $40{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ does not specify a heater command of $40\%$: dimensional analysis distinguishes the units of these quantities. The reference signal and the measured output must describe the same quantity in the same coordinates before their difference can define a tracking error. An unconverted sensor readout cannot be subtracted directly from a desired temperature.

For example, let $y=T-T_0$ be temperature rise above a fixed ambient baseline $T_0$, and write the desired temperature as $T_d=T_0+r$. A Heaviside step function gives $r(t)=R$ for $t\ge 0$, with $r(t)=0$ before the change: the target rise becomes $R$ at once, although a physical controlled plant generally cannot jump at once. A ramp reference signal $r(t)=vt$ instead asks the temperature rise to increase at a fixed rate $v$. If $R=1{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ and $v=0.2{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, the first reference signal asks for a lasting one-degree rise; the second asks for a one-degree rise at $t=5\mathrm{s}$ and a two-degree rise at $t=10\mathrm{s}$. Here degree Celsius differences are also kelvin differences. A target that grows forever is useful for analytical tests but eventually exceeds a real heater's range.

To make the distinction between a goal and a command concrete, the examples in steady-state tracking error use the first-order low-pass filter as a new controlled plant, rather than the accumulating controlled plant $\dot{x}=u+w$ used in the earlier feedback demonstration:The time constant $\tau$ has units of time, $K$ has units of plant output per control input, and the additive control disturbance $d$ has the units of $y$. This $d$ is an equivalent output offset, not the rate-like $w$ in $\dot{x}=u+w$. A heater interpretation uses $y$ in degree Celsius differences and $u$ in percentage points of heater command, with $K$ in degrees per percentage point; the control input is a command, not a direct measurement of delivered power. With exact measurement, holding $y=R$ requires $u=(R-d)/K$. Thus even a constant reference signal can require a persistent nonzero control input. The numerical model below is deliberately synthetic and has no fitted laboratory parameters.

The Seebeck coefficient $S(T)$ quantifies the thermoelectric voltage response per small temperature difference at zero electric current. Use $S=-dV/dT$ along a homogeneous material, with voltage understood through electrochemical potential. Its units are volts per kelvin, commonly $\mu V/K$. The word thermopower is also used, despite this being a voltage response rather than power; some authors use that word for $|S|$, so check their convention. ^[ref].

For the A-minus-B terminal order in the Seebeck effect experiment,Thus a small temperature difference around $T_0$ gives $V_{AB}\approx [S_A(T_0)-S_B(T_0)]\Delta T$. The finite-interval ratio $V_{AB}/\Delta T$ is an average of the coefficient difference, not necessarily its value at either endpoint. Ordinary two-material measurements determine a relative Seebeck coefficient: to recover $S_A$ from the measured difference, add a separately known $S_B$. Neither the choice of a zero for voltage nor the use of a familiar reference material makes $S_B$ identically zero.

A concrete research example is Martin and colleagues' 2021 certification experiment. They measured small temperature differences and voltages on six silicon–germanium specimens at 13 base temperatures between $295$ and $900\mathrm{K}$. At each setting they acquired 40 voltage-and-temperature-difference pairs and used linear regression with a free intercept, so a constant voltage offset did not become part of the slope. Platinum voltage leads required a reference-material correction; their terminal order gave $S_{\mathrm{measured}}=S_{\mathrm{Pt}}-S_{\mathrm{specimen}}$, hence $S_{\mathrm{specimen}}=S_{\mathrm{Pt}}-S_{\mathrm{measured}}$. This is an actual measurement protocol, unlike the toy plot above. ^[ref].

Microscopically, a temperature gradient changes charge carrier transport until an opposing electrical response balances it at zero net electric current. In the usual simple semiconductor picture, electrons and electron holes give opposite Seebeck coefficient signs, and their contributions are weighted by their electrical conductivities. The Seebeck coefficient is a transport property: density of states alone does not determine it, since carrier motion and scattering also matter. Its usefulness extends beyond temperature sensing to diagnosing which carriers transport electric charge. ^[ref].

The Seebeck effect is the generation of a thermoelectric electromotive force by a temperature difference. In a thermocouple, two different homogeneous electrical conductors A and B connect a measuring junction at $T_h$ to two reference connections at a common $T_c$. With negligible electric current, the measured terminal voltage is determined by the difference of their Seebeck coefficients. A hot junction alone does not specify the reading: the reference temperature, the second material, and the terminal order matter.

For a motivating experiment, join one end of A to one end of B, insulating the wires elsewhere. Connect their free ends to identical meter leads at reference temperature $T_c$, for example in an ice-water heat bath. A meter with input electrical resistance much larger than the thermocouple's electrical resistance approximates an open circuit, meaning $I\approx 0$. Keep the measuring junction in a separately controlled heat bath at $T_h$ and wait for stable junction temperatures. Both reference connections must share $T_c$; identical leads with identical endpoint temperatures have cancelling thermoelectric contributions, allowing the meter to be elsewhere. ^[ref].

Define the reading as $V_{AB}=V_A-V_B$, with the positive input on the A reference terminal and the negative input on B. Use the Seebeck coefficient convention in which the voltage change along a homogeneous wire at zero electric current is $dV=-S(T)dT$. Following the path from A at $T_c$ to the common junction at $T_h$, then back along B to $T_c$, givesThis formula assumes homogeneous materials whose Seebeck coefficients depend only on the local temperature, and no additional uncompensated lead contributions. Here voltage is the electrical transport voltage associated with electrochemical potential, rather than a direct measurement of an isolated equilibrium contact electric potential.

Start with $T_h=T_c$, then increase $T_h$ while holding $T_c$ fixed and record $V_{AB}$ at each stable setting. In the ideal model the equal-temperature reading is zero. If $S_A-S_B>0$ throughout the interval, A reads positive when $T_h>T_c$. Exchanging meter inputs reverses the reading; exchanging the two junction temperatures reverses the oriented integral. Repeating the run with identical homogeneous materials gives zero because $S_A=S_B$. These controls test the stated model; a nonzero experimental baseline should be measured rather than silently removed by assuming it is zero.

For an explicitly toy linear example, stipulate constant Seebeck coefficients $S_A=25\mu V/K$ and $S_B=-15\mu V/K$. Choose reference temperature $T_c=20{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ and measuring-junction temperature $T_h=70{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. A temperature difference has the same numerical size in kelvins and on the degree Celsius scale, soSwapping the inputs gives $-2.00\mathrm{mV}$. Bringing both junction regions to the same temperature gives zero. With temperature-dependent Seebeck coefficients, shifting both junction temperatures equally while keeping their difference fixed can change the reading. No actual material pair is claimed to have the stipulated coefficients over this interval.

Real thermocouples need a calibrated voltage-versus-temperature relation: the constant-Seebeck coefficient approximation is useful only where the coefficient difference changes little. Wire inhomogeneity can make the result depend on where the temperature gradient lies, and reference connections at unequal or unknown temperatures introduce errors. An electronic reference correction uses a measured reference temperature in place of an ice bath. ^[ref]. Burns and colleagues provide the standardized reference functions for common letter-designated thermocouple types; the toy line above is not a replacement for them. ^[ref].

The historical experiment used a different detector. In his 1821–1823 investigations, Seebeck found that a closed electrical circuit of two dissimilar materials with junctions at different temperatures deflected a compass needle. The modern explanation is that thermoelectric electromotive force drives an electric current, whose magnetic field deflects the needle. The open-circuit experiment above detects voltage while drawing negligible electric current. The striking connection is that a thermal imbalance can become an electrical signal and then a magnetic response. ^[ref].

Sensible heat is transferred heat associated with a temperature change within a single thermodynamic phase. By contrast, latent heat can change the phase fraction while the temperature stays fixed during equilibrium phase coexistence. Neither name denotes an additional stored substance: both describe how transferred heat participates in a process.

For fixed mass $m$ and composition, use the heat capacity appropriate to the heating constraint. Under the quasistatic process assumptions in heat capacity, with only pressure-volume work and unchanged bulk kinetic energy and potential energy, fixed-pressure heating givesHere $c_p$ is specific heat capacity at constant pressure; fixed-volume heating instead uses specific heat capacity at constant volume $c_V$. A cooling step has negative $Q_{\mathrm{sens}}$ with the sign convention in heat. A temperature difference has the same numerical value in units of the kelvin or degree Celsius. The integral follows by adding the small transfers $\delta Q=m{c}_p(T)dT$, rather than assuming a constant heat capacity.

As a stylized ice-to-water example for a fixed-composition closed system at fixed pressure $1\mathrm{atm}$, take $m=0.5\mathrm{kg}$, an initial temperature of $-10{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, melting at $0{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, and a final temperature of $20{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. Assume constant specific heat capacity at constant pressure values $c_{\mathrm{ice}}=2.1\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and $c_{\mathrm{water}}=4.18\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, and latent heat of fusion $L_f=334\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$. These are stipulated, rounded model values; ignore the container and heat losses, retain all the material, and assume only pressure-volume work under the quasistatic process conditions above. The three steps areOnly the first and third terms are sensible heat; the middle term is latent heat. The plateau begins after $10.5\mathrm{kJ}$ and ends after $177.5\mathrm{kJ}$ of total supplied heat. At $94\mathrm{kJ}$ total input, half the mass is liquid water and the temperature remains $0{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. The equilibrium phase transition temperature depends on pressure; this example stipulates a single fixed pressure. ^[ref]

This split makes heating budgets easy to interpret: melting consumes $167/219.3\approx 76.2\%$ of the supplied heat in this model despite causing no temperature rise. Within either single thermodynamic phase, the heating curve slope is $dT/dQ=1/(m{c}_p)$; a larger heat capacity makes the slope shallower. A flat interval represents changing phase fraction, so it cannot be modeled by applying $Q=m{c}_p\Delta T$ across the phase transition. The complementary constructed example in latent heat tracks that phase fraction explicitly.

The Stefan–Boltzmann law gives the total hemispherical radiant exitance of an ideal blackbody at absolute temperature $T$:Here $\sigma$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Total means integrated over all wavelengths; hemispherical means integrated over all outward directions with the projected area weighting. Thus $M_b$ is emitted power per actual emitting area, rather than directional radiance or spectral radiance. Absolute temperature must be in kelvin; raising a Celsius reading to the fourth power gives the wrong result. A uniform surface of area $A$ emits radiant flux $P_{\mathrm{emit}}=A{M}_b$. A real surface instead has $M=ϵ(T)\sigma T^4$, where $ϵ(T)$ is its total hemispherical emissivity. The older symbol $F$ in the formula above denotes this emitted radiant exitance.^[ref]

For an ideal blackbody, doubling absolute temperature multiplies radiant exitance by $16$. With the approximate Stefan-Boltzmann constant $5.670374419\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}{\mathrm{K}}^{-4}$, the radiant exitances at $300\mathrm{K}$ and $600\mathrm{K}$ are approximately $459.300$ and $7348.805\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. This steep response explains why thermal radiation becomes so consequential at high temperature. It also enables heat transfer through a vacuum, where thermal conduction through a gas and convection are absent.

A short derivation integrates Planck's law in its frequency form. For a blackbody, direction-independent spectral radiance is $B_{\nu }(T)=2h{\nu }^3/[c^2(e^{h\nu /(k_{B}T)}-1)]$, where $h$ is the Planck constant, $k_B$ the Boltzmann constant and $c$ the speed of light. The outward hemisphere contributes $\int \cos \theta d\Omega =\pi$, soExpanding $(e^x-1{)}^{-1}={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }{e}^{-nx}$, nonnegative terms allow termwise integration. Repeated integration by parts gives ${\int }_0^{\infty }{x}^3{e}^{-nx}dx=6/n^4$; the Riemann zeta function value $\zeta (4)={\pi }^4/90$ gives the remaining integral as ${\pi }^4/15$. Hence $M_b=\sigma T^4$ with the coefficient in Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The angular integral is essential: omitting it confuses radiance with radiant exitance.

Temperature labels thermal equilibrium: two internally equilibrated bodies have the same temperature when contact permitting only heat exchange produces no net heat transfer. The zeroth law of thermodynamics makes the comparison transitive. If bodies A and B separately reach thermal equilibrium with the same thermometer without appreciably disturbing either body, they agree with each other. This is what lets a gas thermometer compare a metal block with water, despite their different internal energies and heat capacities. Insulation alone makes no such comparison: it can prevent heat transfer between bodies at different temperatures. ^[ref]

The zeroth law of thermodynamics establishes equality comparisons, but does not choose a numerical scale. Thermodynamic temperature supplies an absolute scale consistent with Carnot's theorem and entropy. For a simple compressible system at thermodynamic equilibrium with fixed particle number $N$ and composition,Here $U$ is internal energy, $S$ is entropy, and $V$ is volume; the second equality assumes the derivative can be inverted. Temperature is a thermodynamic conjugate variable to entropy and belongs to the intensive and extensive thermodynamic quantities as an intensive quantity. Its partial derivative tells us how much internal energy must change per unit change of entropy under the stated constraints. More general systems require their other mechanical and material variables to be held fixed too. ^[ref]

For an infinitesimal quantity $\delta Q>0$ of heat transferred from A to B, with no work or matter exchange, the equilibrium entropy changes giveFor ordinary positive temperatures, spontaneous heat transfer from $T_A>T_B$ increases total entropy; thermal equilibrium has $T_A=T_B$. This comparison uses changes in entropy, rather than the total internal energy contained in either body. A small hot object can have less internal energy than a large cool one. See entropy maximization under thermal contact for the equilibrium criterion and negative temperature for the special case of bounded energy spectra.

Express absolute thermodynamic temperature $T$ in kelvin, and a Celsius reading $t_C$ in degree Celsius:The offset is exact: $300\mathrm{K}$ corresponds to $26.85{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, and $400\mathrm{K}$ to $126.85{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. Their absolute temperature ratio is $4/3$; dividing their Celsius readings gives a different number. Thus gas thermometer pressure ratios and Carnot's theorem require thermodynamic temperature. The modern SI definition of the kelvin fixes the Boltzmann constant $k_B=1.380649\times 10^{-23}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$; a reference bath realizes or transfers the scale rather than defining that constant.^[ref]

Temperature is not universally the mean kinetic energy of a particle. In a classical, nonrelativistic ideal gas at thermal equilibrium, the equipartition theorem gives the mean translational kinetic energy relative to the gas's bulk motion:Here $m$ is particle mass, $\mathbf{v}$ its velocity, and $\mathbf{u}$ the mean flow velocity. In this regime, different particle masses at the same temperature have equal mean translational kinetic energies but different characteristic speeds. A moving gas can also carry bulk kinetic energy without being hotter in its rest frame. Internal molecular modes and quantum statistics require further care; the equipartition theorem has classical assumptions, whereas the equilibrium entropy definition applies more widely. ^[ref]

Thermal conduction transfers heat through microscopic interactions without bulk transport of matter. To predict the heating load through a bar, combine Fourier's law with conservation of energy and the imposed end temperatures. In the isotropic model with positive thermal conductivity $k$, the conductive heat flux points from high to low temperature, opposite to the temperature gradient. A spoon warming along its handle and heat escaping through a wall are familiar examples.

Consider a bar of length $L=0.10\mathrm{m}$, constant cross-sectional area $A=0.010{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and constant thermal conductivity $k=2\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. Maintain its ends at $T_h=40{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ and $T_c=20{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, with $x$ increasing toward the colder end. Assume a steady state, one-dimensional thermal conduction, no internal sources and no heat transfer through the sides. The temperature falls by $20\mathrm{K}$ over $0.10\mathrm{m}$, givingThe difference between the two readings in degree Celsius units is the same $20$-kelvin difference. The positive heat flux carries heat toward increasing $x$.

The general solution under these assumptions isA proof outline is enough to explain the straight line: conservation of energy in any small slice, with no accumulation, sources or side losses, gives $d\dot{Q}/dx=0$. Constant cross-sectional area gives $dq/dx=0$; constant thermal conductivity and Fourier's law then give $d^{2}T/d{x}^2=0$. Two integrations and the end boundary conditions determine the displayed affine function. This is why a visually simple temperature profile can encode a continuous flow of energy. ^[ref]

Doubling the length halves the rate, while doubling the cross-sectional area doubles it, at fixed end temperatures and thermal conductivity. This explains why a long narrow support can limit unwanted heat transfer, while a short broad path can help remove heat. Joining materials leads to thermal resistance in series. During initial warming, internal energy can accumulate and the temperature profile need not be a straight line; the time dependence is described by the heat equation and thermal diffusivity.

Now join two layers, each of length $L_1=L_2=0.10\mathrm{m}$, with constant cross-sectional area $A=0.010{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and stipulated constant thermal conductivities $k_1=1$ and $k_2=4\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. Keep the outer ends at $40$ and $20{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. Assume a steady state, one-dimensional thermal conduction, no internal sources or side losses, and perfect contact: the temperature is continuous at the interface, with no extra contact drop. For each layer, use the area-specific thermal resistance $r_i=L_i/k_i$ and $R_i=r_i/A$. The series calculation gives

The heat flux is continuous: otherwise energy would accumulate at the interface. Yet Fourier's law gives different temperature gradients, $dT/dx=-q/k_1=-160\mathrm{K}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and $dT/dx=-q/k_2=-40\mathrm{K}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. Lower thermal conductivity requires a steeper temperature gradient to carry the same heat flux; equal lengths therefore give drops in the ratio $4:1$. A kink in the temperature profile records the change of material while perfect contact keeps the temperature itself continuous.

Thermal diffusivity measures how rapidly thermal conduction smooths a temperature difference inside a material. Thermal conductivity measures the heat flux driven by a specified temperature gradient; thermal diffusivity also accounts for the heat capacity that must be warmed. A material can carry substantial heat yet change temperature slowly because it stores substantial internal energy per kelvin.

Write $\alpha =\kappa$ for thermal diffusivity, reserving $k$ for thermal conductivity. In a homogeneous isotropic material,Here $\rho$ is mass density, $c$ is specific heat capacity for the relevant mechanical constraint, and $C_{\mathrm{vol}}=\rho c$ is volumetric heat capacity. The familiar $k/(\rho c_p)$ uses specific heat capacity at constant pressure. For ordinary solids with negligible thermal expansion, the difference between the two constrained specific heat capacities is often neglected. A rigid fixed-volume model instead uses specific heat capacity at constant volume; a compressible moving fluid requires the accompanying work and transport terms. Thus the constraint is part of the approximation, not a choice made solely from the units. ^[ref]

Assume a stationary material in the continuum approximation, local thermal equilibration on times shorter than those resolved, no internal heating, no phase transition, and negligible convection and mechanical work. Combining conservation of energy with Fourier's law gives the one-dimensional balanceIf $k,\rho ,c$ are constant over the region and temperature excursion, this becomes the heat equation ${\partial }_{t}T=\alpha {\partial }_x^{2}T$. If $k$ varies, retain the differentiated product; replacing it with $k{\partial }_x^{2}T$ loses a term. Anisotropic materials need a thermal conductivity tensor. The scalar constant-$\alpha$ examples below deliberately exclude these complications. ^[ref]

For an original comparison, stipulate two model materials with equal thermal conductivity $k=2\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ and equal mass density $\rho =1000\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, but specific heat capacities $c_A=1000$ and $c_B=4000\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. ThenAt the same temperature gradient, both have the same instantaneous heat flux by Fourier's law. At the same initial temperature profile and boundary conditions, material B takes four times as long to smooth a given spatial pattern. With fixed end temperatures, identical geometry and no sources, both eventually have the same steady profile and heat flux. The larger heat capacity changes the transient, not this steady state. These are stipulated parameters, not measurements of named substances.

A triple-point cell turns phase coexistence into a reproducible reference for thermometer calibration. The NIST water-cell demonstration uses a sealed glass vessel containing water of specified isotopic composition and an open central thermometer well. Cooling this well with solid carbon dioxide and alcohol freezes an ice mantle while leaving liquid water and its vapor. The coolant is outside the sealed sample; the sample's vapor space does not communicate with room air.^[ref]

In the actual NIST cell-comparison experiment, newly frozen mantles were compared with an aged reference mantle in a controlled maintenance bath. A warm aluminium rod melted a thin inner layer around the well, allowing the mantle to rotate freely and establishing an ice–water interface close to the sensor. A standard platinum resistance thermometer and a resistance bridge measured the electrical resistance ratio to a calibrated, temperature-controlled reference resistor. Readings at two currents permitted extrapolation to zero electrical power, correcting self-heating; measured immersion depths supplied hydrostatic pressure corrections. Comparing preparations over time tested stabilization rather than assuming freshly frozen ice was ready.^[ref]

The inference is a reproducible fixed-point response for the thermometer, not a direct reading of three chemical potentials. The reference cell anchors the comparison; a water point alone does not determine a thermometer's response at every other temperature. The ideal $F=0$ argument excludes impurity and isotope variation, finite interface effects and unintended heat transfer; real cells also require adequate immersion and stable electrical references. Repeatability is evidence that these effects are controlled, not a reason to omit their uncertainty.

Since 20 May 2019 the kelvin has been defined through a fixed numerical value of the Boltzmann constant. The thermodynamic temperature of the water triple point is consequently a measured quantity with uncertainty, rather than an exact value imposed by the kelvin definition. Its continued use as an assigned reference on the International Temperature Scale of 1990 is a separate convention.^[ref][ref]

Consider an original worked thermometer calibration, using the height $X$ of a liquid column responding through thermal expansion. Stipulate two equilibrated reference baths whose corrected thermometer readings are $0{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ and $40{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, in degree Celsius units. Suppose the corresponding column heights are $12\mathrm{mm}$ and $52\mathrm{mm}$. These are constructed inputs, not observed measurements. Assume the response is linear over this interval, with the same immersion and reading procedure throughout. Applying thermometer calibration givesFor $X=37\mathrm{mm}$, first subtract the zero-reference height, then divide by the full reference span: $(37-12)/(52-12)=25/40$. Multiplying by the $40{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ span gives $t_C=25{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, or $T=298.15\mathrm{K}$ in kelvin. Thus equal $37\mathrm{mm}$ readings in separately equilibrated samples test equal temperatures, regardless of how much internal energy those samples contain. The Celsius offset and modern absolute-scale definition are described in degree Celsius and kelvin.

The two endpoints determine the assumed line, but do not establish linearity. An independent middle reference and a return to the initial bath can test curvature and drift. If the height has an error of $0.2\mathrm{mm}$ while reference values and endpoints are held exact in this calculation, the inferred temperature error is $0.2{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$; that is only the height contribution, not a full measurement error budget. A boiling-water reference needs a measured atmospheric pressure correction, rather than an automatic $100{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ assignment. The modern kelvin is not defined by either bath.