Absolute Maximum

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 material in this press release comes from the originating research organization. Content may be edited for style and length. Have a question? Let us know.

Subscribe

One email, each morning, with our latest posts. From medical research to space news. Environment to energy. Technology to physics.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

5 thoughts on “Absolute Maximum”

  1. 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

    Reply
  2. 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

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.