Can’t. Escape velocities and all that. 
Isn’t the following the definition of a singularity?:
“A point in a geodesically incomplete, inextensible spacetime, at which incomplete observers start or end their existence”
Or is this particular wikipedia article one of the bad ones? Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia
Assuming the definition is correct, then I take it what you said somehow follows from that definition.
-FrL-
My previous post to Exapno was also intended to address your comment here. Isn’t there a single definition of singularity in this context?
-FrL-
My previous post to Exapno was also intended to address your comment here. Isn’t there a single definition of singularity in this context?
-FrL-
I just noticed that at the top of the wikipedia article it says the article “needs attention from an expert.”
But still… is the definition correct or not?
-FrL-
from your own link
Plus there are a few other attempts at defining singularity on this one cite. I could get several others if need be. The point is that singularity is NOT adequately described by physics. I think we agree on this.
I try to envision singularity as the absence of space/time in the sense that there can be no dimensions (since sp/t) are undefined. Therefore to say it (singularity) is small has no meaning. It is just a feeble attempt to describe an event. It is therefore all matter and energy occupying no space. Which logically follows less space = increased density = more heat.
It’s not really like a deflated balloon. How big is it REALLY… well it’s as big as the universe is. It’s just more dense.
FrL check it. I like the way the guy explains the various concepts. Singularity as described in various models. The concept of singularity and infinity being similar is cool. Singularity is both the absence of mass AND the existence of ALL matter (simultaneously) Where both extremes can be defined conceptually and mathematically. Yet how can both be true? Unless the dimension in which it exist is infinite. Time and space would not exist in this state. No beginning or end. Size would be meaningless as well.
In order for matter to both exist and not exist simultaneously, matter would have to be destroyed into its’ most primitive particles. Torn apart like in an event horizon. To the point that it is no longer recognizable as matter. Yet the quantum particles are there. No matter and ALL mass, simulateneously or was that the other way around? heh 
No, it isn’t.
The important line in that Wiki article is:
We may know what causes a black hole singularity to form, but we don’t know what the singularity is. (It may not even be a point; that’s the outcome of one set of equations but not all. Heck, some physicists say there isn’t even a singularity, but a planck-sized object instead.) We do think that black holes form from finite amounts of mass. This is altogether different from the conditions at the start of the universe. All singularities are not alike. They only have in common that they are indescribable by current physics.
BYW, the statement that the universe may have come from a singularity doesn’t necessarily mean it was infinitely dense or anything else. We don’t know. We have many hypotheses but we don’t have a good way of choosing among them.
We do know for sure what absolute zero is. It’s not a singularity. It’s just ordinary space with the particles in it exhibiting a lack of motion, thereby a lack of heat. Scientists have been creating conditions asymptotically approaching zero by using lasers to stop the movement of atoms. Does that mean they are under no pressure?
WTF are you gonna argue that you KNOW what singularity is or isn’t. The cite I posted gave that as two different models and descriptions on singularities.
If one description of singularity includes the absence of mass = the absence of heat then theoretically no heat = no temperature. However I fully understand when discussing dimensions out of space/time these notions have little if any meaning.
Did you even read the paper I cited or do you assume I am making this up as I go along?
Besides the OP wasn’t about absolute zero. It was more on the subject of what is maximum hot vs. max cold. I think we agree for the most part that absolute zero may be the low end of the scale. I merely proposed the temp. at, near or immediately after singularity would be a good candidate for the high end of the scale.
Have you got a better idea?
later~JB
I think part of the problem is its not clear what the relevance is between the idea of a singularity and the idea of heat.
If heat is a measure of motion, then it doesn’t matter how much material you pack into how small of a space. If the material’s not moving, then there is no heat.
You have mentioned the fact that if there’s any material there at all, then there must be energy. You seem to be equating energy with heat, but I don’t think that equation is correct.
-FrL-
I read this much:
That’s just too ungrammatical and vague for me to give much credence to whatever follows it. Even if the author’s got the correct thoughts in mind, he’s not going to succeed in communicating them if the whole site reads like that, and I’m not going to succeed in understanding them with any confidence.
If I need to find out what physicists mean by “singularity,” I need to look in accepted textbooks or encyclopedias. Even better would be a nice summary from a research or academic paper.
-FrL-
From the first page of that site:
Pass.
I tried to make a point that singularity or rather the first seconds following the big bang is the best candidate for hottest temperature. I apparently failed in my attempt to explain myself. So I thought I’d see if I could find any links that agree. Here pickone, I think most of them do.
Google? l=en&lr=&q=hottest+temperature+universe&btnG=Search
As far as the previous link is concerned IIRC that was an academic account. About as good as you’re gonna get on the various models regarding singularity. He doesn’t just pick one idea and say, “yep, this is it” everyone else is wrong.
and if heat is not energy then I’m gonna beat the hell outta my physics prof if I ever see him again.
BTW matter is made up of atoms. Atoms move, movement requires energy. Stop the movement, change the matter.
oops I gotta run JB
Heat is one form of energy. It is not the only form that energy can take. Therefore it is not interchangeable with energy.
No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No.
You can run, but the truth - and good physics - will find you! 
You pass on an objective approach to explaining the universe. The man put forth various theories that are widely accepted in the scientific community and explained them. The definitions used in the page I cited were all made by prominent scientists.
If you don’t like that cite there’s plenty more try NASA. They’ve got a lot of the same stuff.
just forget it.
“The definition of a singularity is a place in which our current equations no longer operate.” is pretty weak.
and
“Apart from being impossible in reality, the temperature achieved by this process would still not necessarily be the absolute high, just the maximum that could be achieved with the resources on hand.”
denying the possibility of the Big Bang… hmmm
never said heat was the only energy…only that heat is energy. Isn’t that what the OP is asking about. I’m done now, that’s enough red herrings for me.
I can see we’re wasting each others time on this one. see ya later.
The man is a dentist.
http://www.toequest.com/research/authors/4/Mohsen-Kermanshahi
I crave for you to develop a good bullshit detector so you can protect yourself from crackpot amateurs like him.
So, temperature is a measurment of the speed of movement of atoms is that right? But relative to what? Is temperature relative? Can you say that a single atom has a temperature since relative to itself it is not moving?
let’s say you had 6 molecules a, b, c, d, e, and f. A, b, and c happen to be moving in the same direction at the same speed for some period of time. D, e, and f are moving at the same speed and direction as each other, but different from a, b, and c. Does each group see itself as being at absolute zero and the other group at a higher temperature? My brain hurts.
When I asked the question, “how cold is cold and how hot is hot ?” I never imagined It would generate such a response. WOW !
Thank you all for enlightening me. I want more !
Temperature is a statistical average of the behavior of large numbers of particles. There is no real meaning to the temperature of a single atom or even a tiny group of individual atoms. The whole point of statistical mechanics is that it is applied to groups whose members cannot be individually examined.
Actually, yes there is a real meaning. You work within your frame of reference.
Take for example BEC (bose-einstein condensation). You cool down atoms (a small group) until they reach a low enough temperature at which they colapse to a single quantum state. To get there, you need to be colder than a micro-Kelvin.
It was achieved right here, on earth. 