3

Since the vibration of the particles is what cause temperature and a particle from its own point of view is not moving, is its temperature 0°K from its own point of view?

Is there a thing like relativistic temperature at all? If not, Why not?

Brandon Enright
  • 11,937
Benjavides
  • 41
  • 4
  • Temperature is relative. – Brandon Enright Nov 15 '14 at 04:43
  • Particle can not be at rest w.r.t any inertial frame, as it violates uncertainty principle. Particle can't "say" whether it is moving or not unless and until it "sees" others.Topic you need to understand: Inertial frame, zero point energy, HUP. Good luck! – Sensebe Nov 15 '14 at 07:00
  • 3
    I'm going to vote to reopen on the basis that the Lorentz scalar nature of $T$ is a red herring -- as Ben Crowell points out, the fundamental problem is a statistical one in that $T$ isn't defined for one particle. The proposed duplicate still deals with bulk collections of particles. –  Nov 24 '14 at 13:42

1 Answers1

10

Temperature is not a property of individual particles, it's a statistical property of a collection of particles. For example, nuclear physicists have been known to do thermodynamics with as few as $10^2$ particles, but that's pretty minimal. As you get to lower and lower particle numbers, thermodynamics works more and more poorly, e.g., the second law can be violated with high probability.

Since temperature is not a property of individual particles, it doesn't make sense to talk about a single particle's temperature, in that particle's rest frame.