Correct Bill I don't think any scientist would think any temeperature is a reference frame much less any sort of absolute reference because temperature is not a fundemental thing.

If your really interested in undertsanding socratus probably start here

http://www.lasalle.edu/~gentry/C331/Ch%200.%20%20Heat%20&%20Energy.pdf

This is sort of bringing in QM without the heavy complexity of QM and the key point to take is what science is telling you temperature is

Quote:

Temperature (T) = parameter that describes the energy distribution across the quantum states available to the system


Do you understand why temperature can't be a reference frame from that?


Perhaps if we take the problem into a one dimensional oscillator

http://cmm.cit.nih.gov/intro_simulation/node3.html

See the outcome

Quote:

The corresponding zero-point motion is a quantum mechanical phenomenon. Classically, there is no motion as T->0. Thus, we expect that quantum mechanics predicts more motion than classical mechanics, especially at low temperature.


See there is a huge problem for your temperature reference frame things move even at T=0K and thus temperature can not be a reference frame of any kind.

You may ask is this quantum movement proven and I selected the 1 dimensional oscillator example because it is quite topical for this week

=> http://phys.org/news/2012-08-good-vibrations-quantum-effects-optomechanical.html



Last edited by Orac; 08/17/12 02:54 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.