Check out our monthly Lost in Space-Time newsletter for captivating ideas from around the globe. Click here to register for Lost in Time and Space.

One of the most paradoxical aspects of science is how we can delve into the universe’s deepest enigmas, like dark matter and quantum gravity, yet trip over basic concepts. Nobel laureate Richard Feynman once candidly admitted his struggle to grasp why mirrors flip images horizontally instead of vertically. While I don’t have Feynman’s challenges, I’ve been pondering the fundamental concept of temperature.

Since time immemorial, from the earliest humans poking fires to modern scientists, our understanding of temperature has dramatically evolved. The definition continues to change as physicists explore temperature at the quantum level.

My partner once posed a thought-provoking question: “Can a single particle possess a temperature?” While paraphrased, this inquiry challenges conventional wisdom.

His instinct was astute. A single particle cannot possess a temperature. Most science enthusiasts recognize that temperature applies to systems comprising numerous particles—think gas-filled pistons, coffee pots, or stars. Temperature is essentially an average energy distribution across a system reaching equilibrium.

Visualize temperature as a ladder, each rung representing energy levels. The more rungs, the greater the energy. For a substantial number of particles, we expect them to occupy various rungs, with most clustering at lower levels and some scaling higher ones. The distribution gradually tapers off as energy increases.

But why use this definition? While averages are helpful, one could argue the average height in a room with one tall person could misleadingly imply everyone else is six feet tall. Why not apply the same logic to temperature?

Temperature serves a predictive role, not merely a descriptive one. In the 17th and 18th centuries, as researchers strove to harness the potential of fire and steam, temperature became pivotal in understanding how different systems interacted.

This insight led to the establishment of the 0th law of thermodynamics—the last yet most fundamental principle. It states that if a thermometer registers 80°C for warm water and the same for warm milk, there should be no net heat exchange when these two are mixed. Though seemingly simple, this principle forms the basis for classical temperature measurements.

This holds true due to the predictable behavior of larger systems. Minute energy variances among individual particles become negligible, allowing statistical laws to offer broad insights.

Thermodynamics operates differently than Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, which apply universally regardless of how many objects are involved. Thermodynamic laws arise only in larger systems where averages and statistical regularities emerge.

Thus, a single particle lacks temperature—case closed.

Or so I believed until physics threw another curveball my way. In many quantum systems, composed of a few particles, stable properties often evade observation.

In small systems like individual atoms, states can become trapped and resist reaching equilibrium. If temperature describes behavior after equilibrium, does this not challenge its very definition?

Researchers are actively redefining temperature from the ground up, focusing on its implications in the quantum realm.

In a manner akin to early thermodynamics pioneers, contemporary scientists are probing not just what temperature is, but rather what it does. When a quantum system interacts with another, how does heat transfer? Can it warm or cool its neighbor?

In quantum systems, both scenarios are possible. Consider the temperature ladder for particles. In classical physics, heat always moves from a system with more particles to one with fewer, following predictable rules.

Quantum systems defy these conventions. It’s common for no particles to occupy the lowest rung, with all clustered around higher energy levels. Superposition allows particles to exist in between. This shift means quantum systems often do not exhibit traditional thermal order, complicating heat flow predictions.

To tackle this, physicists propose assigning two temperatures to quantum systems. Imagine a reference ladder representing a thermal system. One temperature indicates the highest rung from which the system can absorb heat, while the other represents the lowest rung to which it can release heat. This new framework enables predictable heat flow patterns outside this range, while outcomes within depend on the quantum system’s characteristics. This new “Zero Law of thermodynamics” helps clarify how heat moves in quantum domains.

These dual temperatures reflect a system’s capacity to exchange energy, regardless of its equilibrium state. Crucially, they’re influenced by both energy levels and their structural arrangement—how quantum particles distribute across energy levels and the transitions the overall system can facilitate.

Just as early thermodynamicists sought functionality, quantum physicists are likewise focused on applicability. Picture two entangled atoms. Changes in one atom will affect the other due to their quantum link. When exposed to external conditions, as they gain or lose energy, the invisible ties connecting them create a novel flow of heat—one that can be harnessed to perform work, like driving quantum “pistons” until the entanglement ceases. By effectively assigning hot and cold temperatures to any quantum state, researchers can determine ideal conditions for heat transfer, powering tasks such as refrigeration and computation.

If you’ve followed along up to this point, here’s my confession: I initially argued that a single particle could have temperature, though my partner’s intuition was spot on. In the end, we realized both perspectives hold some truth—while a single particle can’t be assigned a traditional temperature, the concept of dual temperatures in quantum systems offers intriguing insights.