What is the opposite of absolute zero?

[grumpy44134]

Absolute hot

[-getitrite]

Terminal energy ???

[Der Trihs]

This is the column being referred to by the OP I believe.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Say you accelerated a boson through empty space at within 10^-42 km/s of the speed of light. What would its temperature be?

[C K Dexter Haven]

Just for clarification: grumpy44134, you provided a link to a Wikipedia article that says nothing really different from what Cecil said?

[jmrcm]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Say you accelerated a boson through empty space at within 10^-42 km/s of the speed of light. What would its temperature be?

A photon is a boson, and it's already going at the speed of light.


You may be thinking of a fermion. Like an electron. Anyway, you'd get nowhere near that speed. Empty space is not actually empty. It's full of radiation - the background radiation in the universe is very low, but the faster you travel at it, the more powerful it becomes, a lot like running at a brick wall. Or a better description. As you're walking down the street, you don't notice the air resistance - but if you're on a motorbike travelling at high speeds you do. If you're moterbike could travel faster than speed of sound, you're be burned to a crisp very quickly.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by jmrcm

A photon is a boson, and it's already going at the speed of light.


You may be thinking of a fermion. Like an electron. Anyway, you'd get nowhere near that speed. Empty space is not actually empty. It's full of radiation - the background radiation in the universe is very low, but the faster you travel at it, the more powerful it becomes, a lot like running at a brick wall. Or a better description. As you're walking down the street, you don't notice the air resistance - but if you're on a motorbike travelling at high speeds you do. If you're moterbike could travel faster than speed of sound, you're be burned to a crisp very quickly.

I think of it as: there is no such thing as nothing. Space sort of is an ether after all, with it's infinitesimal mass. I wonder though- if a portion of outer space were shielded from radiation, would that 'empty space' still have an effective mass?

Anyway, I was thinking of a Higgs boson. I don't really know what it is though, or if temperature applies to it. And the whole question becomes perplexing, since space turns out to have mass and these particles don't

[jmrcm]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

I think of it as: there is no such thing as nothing. Space sort of is an ether after all, with it's infinitesimal mass. I wonder though- if a portion of outer space were shielded from radiation, would that 'empty space' still have an effective mass?

One thing. There is no portion of space completely shield from radiation.

And the second thing. Empty space is never completely empty. Due to vacuum fluctuations, also called quantum fluctuations, there are always particles in empty space - they pop in an out of existence. So, in a cubic metre of empty space, there's always roughly at least one hydrogen atom worth of mass.

Anyway, I was thinking of a Higgs boson. I don't really know what it is though, or if temperature applies to it. And the whole question becomes perplexing, since space turns out to have mass and these particles don't

Not many people know what a Higgs boson really is. The maths is too hard.


Temperature is not a thing in itself. It's a measurement of something. It's actually a measurement of two things that happen, and lead to the effect of either heat or coldness.

One thing is the movement of atoms and molecules - the faster they move, the hotter they seem to a thermometer or us - it's actually their movement and when they bang off things like each other. They literally bang off each other like ping pong balls.

The second thing is radiation/light. Atoms banging off each other creates light (it's one way light/radiation is created) Radiation/light can also nudge and push atoms around, causing them to go faster.

The atoms themselves are neither hot nor cold. They're either moving fast or slowly. We experience the speed and force of these atoms as heat - or cold if they're moving slowly.

We also experience sunlight as warmth - because when it hits the atoms on our skin it causes them to move.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by jmrcm

One thing. There is no portion of space completely shield from radiation.

And the second thing. Empty space is never completely empty. Due to vacuum fluctuations, also called quantum fluctuations, there are always particles in empty space - they pop in an out of existence. So, in a cubic metre of empty space, there's always roughly at least one hydrogen atom worth of mass.

That's part of my problem though. If a portion of space could theoretically be isolated from background radiation, would it still have mass or not? I'm thinking of vacuum energy

Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy in a cubic meter of free space has been estimated to be 10^−9 Joules.[1] However, in both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck Constant requires it to have a much larger value of 10^113 Joules per cubic meter.[2][3]

I have a hard time with these ideas.

Not many people know what a Higgs boson really is. The maths is too hard.

They sure are!

Temperature is not a thing in itself. It's a measurement of something. It's actually a measurement of two things that happen, and lead to the effect of either heat or coldness.

One thing is the movement of atoms and molecules - the faster they move, the hotter they seem to a thermometer or us - it's actually their movement and when they bang off things like each other. They literally bang off each other like ping pong balls.

The second thing is radiation/light. Atoms banging off each other creates light (it's one way light/radiation is created) Radiation/light can also nudge and push atoms around, causing them to go faster.

The atoms themselves are neither hot nor cold. They're either moving fast or slowly. We experience the speed and force of these atoms as heat - or cold if they're moving slowly.

We also experience sunlight as warmth - because when it hits the atoms on our skin it causes them to move.

Ok, but the concept of 'absolute hot' in the OP considers black-hole formation to be the end of the road, since particles don't really act like particles anymore in the way you describe at that point.

But what if that isn't the limit? From the link above:

Vacuum fluctuations are always created as particle/antiparticle pairs. The creation of these virtual particles near the event horizon of a black hole has been hypothesized by physicist Stephen Hawking to be a mechanism for the eventual "evaporation" of black holes. The net energy of the Universe remains zero so long as the particle pairs annihilate each other within Planck time. If one of the pair is pulled into the black hole before this, then the other particle becomes "real" and energy/mass is essentially radiated into space from the black hole. This loss is cumulative and could result in the black hole's disappearance over time.

What if, in our quest for 'absolute hot', we went way, way past the point of black hole formation to an absurd conglomeration of massive black holes such that the result was the emission of virtual particles that exceeds the limits described by 'absolute hot'? Is that even possible? What if the result were also bathed in a super-intense flood of Higgs bosons (which I assume are not affected by gravity?)- would that nudge the result up past the limit described in 'absolute hot'?