[jimbeaux hillard]

jimbeaux hillard  asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Without redefining absolute zero, would we as humans benefit by determining an absolute heat point? I don't think everyone would agree there is a point that could never be surpassed, but maybe we could say the point where the particles which are completely motionless at zero have enough energy to move at light speed?

Maybe a theoretical horizon where all particles are spinning or vibrating at light speed? Does too much stuff convert to energy itself when it gains that much energy to say that it's an attainable level for any matter? Would studying energy and matter at these levels help Mankind figure out how to move at or near the speed of light?

If so, what is the address for The Office of New Science Subjects at the Great Hall of The Scientific Community At Large? Will you help me compose the proposal letter?

What do you think?

[MikeS]

If there is an absolute highest temperature then the universe was probably close to it at the moment of the big-bang.  The energy required to reach this temperature, I imagine, is way beyond anything we can produce in the laboratory. 

One of the reasons why light speed travel is unlikely is the vast amount of energy required to accelerate mass up to light speed.

[CPT ArkAngel]

Here is an older discussion about it:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38897.msg353311#msg353311

[Soul Surfer]

There is no absolute highest temperature, but whenever things get so hot that particles can gave many times their rest mass in thermal energy any collisions between particles will produce many more particles which in effect share out the energy and reduce the temperature.  So it could be that at some point dependant on the rate of energy input that is creating the increase in temperature the temperature in effect saturates.

[Titanscape]

Here is a similar thread:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=908.msg7503#msg7503