Energy (E) can be expressed as a function of temperature. absolute zero is a theoretical lower limit of temperature (just above which we see interesting things happen to physical particles, such as bose-einstein and fermi-einstein condensates) at which, hypothetically speaking, the properties of the fabric of the spacetime reach a dimensional limit.
let’s speculate then–with sporting disregard for any research evidence or theory that heretofor suggests otherwise–that this limit is the point at which temperature can be reduced no further without “tearing” or “reducing” the dimensional properties of the continuum.
in purely imaginitive terms, let’s say that point is the place at which only two dimensions can be supported. i.e., a volumetric activity is only relevant above that point, i.e., the very properties of the spacetime fabric take on a 3rd dimension at or above absolute zero.
below that point, perhaps we find particles such as “superstrings” or other theoretical field-generating quanta with phenomenally long wavelengths (we’re talking about values below Planck’s such as those at 10e-35 and smaller).
the suggestion i make here is that Einstein’s general relativity is a suggestion of the dimensional boundaries seen and understood within our visible and understandable three dimensional universe (measurable E is an existential integral or the “area under the curve” of the function that defines three dimensional spacetime).
so suppose that the speed of light is not the “speed of light” at all, but really a more generalized maximum (theoritical) limit of any particle velocity through the spacetime fabric. we could say the speed of light is that maximum (as Einstein did), but i imagine we cannot do so without considering that any kind of particle accelerated to those speeds may not, in fact, produce light. i.e., the speed of “light” is a syptomatic property of maximum velocity through spacetime, not a law defined or governed by light itself. light speed as we understand it is a speed at which light travels, yes, but that speed is attainable by particles other than light quanta (photons).
the electromagnetic spectrum suggests a range of wavelengths, with gamma rays at the upper limit (and visible light somewhere in the middle). if gamma ray quanta (or any quanta for that matter) cannot exceed the “speed of light” within three dimensions, then it follows perhaps that additional dimensional overhead is needed to accomodate the parametric values of those accelerated quanta.
compare this to a computer’s memory bank: the maximum memory available is the maximum addressable space. beyond the last (highest) address, more “dimension” is needed to accomodate additional addresses.
a particle moving at a speed beyond this theoretical upper maximum could then possibly do one of two things: the first is nothing. no further dimensional overhead is actually available and therefore the maximum is the maximum and it ends there.
the second, which i suggest here as pure speculation, is that dimensional overhead is available and the particle as seen from three dimensions actually escapes measurement by any instrument confined by three dimensional spacetime. in other words, it’s moving faster than the fabric can accomodate, and thereby expands (think of a train jumping off its tracks) into four-dimensional spacetime. the particle velocity is beyond 3-d support, effectively rendering the object without a known existence, at least within the measurable universe.
if a particle’s excitation is expressed as Energy (E) with a wavelength at the theoretical speed limit as suggested by relativity, and if Energy can be expressed as a function of temperature, then i propose (perhaps recklessly) that the following two properties of Relativistic spacetime are true:
1. there is a theoretical maximum temperature in spacetime. this temperature can be expressed as particle excitement and wavelength (velocity, if you like). mass is relevant only for the mass of a particle within the calculative context, i.e., the theoretical upper limit for temperature (the absolute maximum) is *not* expressed as a product of the “speed of light” and all the available mass in the universe, although this would produce a lot of Energy. the maximum temperature for a single particle, therefore, is no smaller than the temperature to which you could rise by accelerating all mass in the universe to the speed of light.
2. beyond the theoretical maximum temperature in spacetime, a particle is accomodated by an additional dimension. since it moves beyond the range of measurement from the perspective of a three-dimensional space, it no longer exists as far as we’re concerned. four-dimensional instrumentation, however, would see a particle appear just above the “absolute zero” of that dimension, which is equivalent to the three-dimensional “absolute maximum temperature”
this is sunday morning thinking in progress, and represents opinion and speculation far more than it does any fact. nonetheless, it’s turned out to be entertaining (at the least).
ml
The fact that it has been proven that zero mass particles can move faster than light makes the photon a very good argument against being able to use c as stopping point. In addition, the inclusion of neutrinos would further complicate things due to the fact that no one can even agree if this is a massless particle. If it is, then the evidence of antimatter (in the form of anti-neutrinos)would mean loss of energy in some interactions and gain of energy in other interactions. If it is massless, then it stands to reason that it is not bound by c. Either way, prediction of an absolute maximum temperature is unlikely to exist, and impossible to predict.
The argument that there is an absolute maximum to temperture is incorrect. Temperture is a measurement of the average kinetic energy in a randomly moving collection of particles with mass. As the temperture increases, the velocity of the particles increases but is subject Special Relativity at all speeds, but becomes especially noticable as that said average velocity approaches C (300,000km/s). The velocity will approach, but never equal C. Further, the mass will increase toward infinity… and since E=1/2MV**2, the kinetic energy can be locally increased to any abitrarily larger value by adding more energy. Now there is no limit on local temperture under Special Relativity. However, there may be cosmological arguments that may be applied. That is to say that the absolute maximum would be found when one take all of the energy of the universe and use it to heat one small collection of particles. If the universe is finite, then the total energy is finite and there would then be an absolute maximum temperture that any given small collection of particles could be raised. One would also have to take in account the laws of thermodynamics, which would also limit how concentrated one could make the energy.
I hope this has helped.
I am interested in MEGLEV. It is new technology under
development. I have a simple question, and can some one help
me locate the site? What is MEGLEV’s home of design,
manufacture and testing?
Contact me at awtmon@yahoo.ca
Thank you
i also agree with you
however, if there is a maximum range to the speed (aka. the speed of light) then could it not also be possible to calculate the maximum heat?
if you agree, do you know of anyone who has done this? if so, would you tell me?
mopidozo@hotmail.com
I agree with you. If there is no limit to temperature then there is no limit to velocity. Temperature is an analog for atomic excitation (internal activity). Atomic structures interacting under pressure vibrate and their friction generates what we call “heat.” Can atoms and molecules vibrate at a rate exceeding some maximum (c)? If so, there is no limit to terperature. If not, there is. Pat Toffler
patnic@msn.com