Rethinking ‘Temperature’: Beyond Words and Simple Observations

As I continue to explore the depths of quantum and particle physics, as well as the fundamental nature of the universe, I do so with a new awareness of how our biological evolution and language development shape and limit our understanding. Even still, I struggle to find the correct word choices to fully explain my conclusions.

As mentioned in my previous article about ‘Light,’ our senses, molded by evolution, naturally limit our perception, causing us to undervalue the phenomena happening right before us. The terms we use to describe our refined understanding are entirely our choice but often remain influenced by these sensory limitations or by their legacy in discovery.

Let’s next explore the concept of ‘temperature.’ It’s a term so ingrained in our daily lives that we give it little thought beyond our daily clothing selection or recipe requirements. Our everyday understanding of temperature is tied to our sensory experiences — how hot or cold something feels to our touch.

In reality, temperature is a much more complex phenomenon. At the quantum level, temperature can be understood as the number and intensity of electromagnetic wave interactions within a given area and timeframe. When we refer to something as ‘hot,’ we are describing a state where there is a high rate of electromagnetic energy excitations occurring among the particles, particularly electrons. These excitations increase the energy states of the electrons, leading to more frequent interactions and emissions of electromagnetic waves.

When we touch something ‘hot,’ the elevated activity of these electromagnetic waves interacts with the particles in our skin, transferring energy that excites our sensory neurons. Conversely, when we touch something ‘cold,’ the transfer of energy occurs from our skin to the object, making us, in effect, the ‘hot’ source from the perspective of the object. These interactions cause our sensory neurons to send signals to our brain, enabling us to perceive temperature changes. Our biological evolution has tuned our senses to detect these changes that are relevant to our survival, but this sensory experience represents only a narrow slice of the broader concept of temperature. This duality in perception highlights how perspective often frames our understanding of thermal interactions and the broader concept of temperature.

A clear example of how terminology can lead to misunderstanding is the use of the term “heat” in scientific contexts. For instance, when we say that heating a substance causes its electrons to get excited, we are simplifying the interaction. In truth, we are exciting the atoms through energy transfer, and our sensory system perceives the resultant excited state as ‘hot.’ This simplified language can obscure the deeper electromagnetic interactions at play.

A practical example is when we heat water on a stove. We might say the water gets ‘hot,’ but what’s actually happening is that the stove’s electromagnetic energy is exciting the water molecules, increasing their kinetic energy and causing them to emit more infrared radiation. This process is detected by our sensory neurons as ‘heat.’ In essence, we are channeling electromagnetic waves, directing them through the stove, through the pot, and into the water molecules. The localized increased electromagnetic activity can damage the atoms in our cells, and we have evolved to detect that and avoid it and have chosen to call that ‘heat’ and described it as ‘hot.’ We have also learned to harness and control those reactions with advanced tools and named that underlying understanding as thermodynamics. It is important to remember that the laws of thermodynamics are based on our observations of electromagnetic wave interactions, and are not fundamental laws of heat or temperature, concepts that exist solely because of our evolutionary development and not due to the universe itself.

Physicists like James Prescott Joule and Rudolf Clausius, who developed the laws of thermodynamics, made their groundbreaking discoveries without the benefit of our current understanding of molecular motion and quantum mechanics. Joule’s experiments on the relationship between heat and mechanical work laid the foundation for the first law of thermodynamics. Clausius introduced the concept of entropy, deepening our understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. These pioneers worked with the tools and knowledge available to them, and their insights remain fundamental to our modern understanding. Their work was accurate, and their laws remain valid today, but they did not have the advantage of James Clerk Maxwell’s subsequent work to explain why their observations took place, leaving this area of science impacted by the terms and definitions available to them at the time.

I continue to believe that a combination of observations shaped by our biological limitations and language choices selected prior to a more complete understanding restricts our ability to fully comprehend the universe. For a deeper understanding, we must strive to see beyond our sensory biases and adopt a more universal perspective. Physicists and scientists understand these distinctions, yet here too, comfortable and familiar terms persist despite their imprecision. I am beginning to realize that a deep dive into advanced mathematics is likely in my future.