If thermal energy is divided by wavelength, the result is a “thermal force”. Force may be represented as a vector. Plank Temperature, Hawking Temperature, and Kelvin Temperature may be associated with vectors of force. Components may be called “thermal forces”. The vectors may be called “thermal vectors”. Do thermal vectors define temperature? Reference; http://newstuff77.weebly.com 10 Thermal Vectors
Temperature is a scalar (a number), while you correctly state that force is a vector. A scalar is not a vector. In the linked PDF, the following formulae are given: A vector: \(\mathbf{F}=\mathbf{F}_1\mathbf{i}+\mathbf{F}_2\mathbf{j}+\mathbf{F}_3\mathbf{k}\) Thermal energy: \(E_{K3}=\frac{1}{2}k_BT_K\) Thermal force: \(F_{K3}=\frac{E_{K3}^2}{\hbar c}\) This is obviously silly: temperature does not operate any differently in the (arbitrarily chosen) z-direction then it does in the x- and y-directions. Simple symmetry considerations prove those definitions to be wrong.
Temperature is an attribute of bulk matter at thermal equilibrium, or sometimes, by extension, of a "black body" wavelength distribution of radiation, i.e. the wavelength distribution emitted by bulk matter at thermal equilibrium. You cannot speak of the temperature of an individual QM entity, or of monochromatic radiation, or indeed of any state of matter that is not at thermal equilibrium. With this in mind, what is the object whose temperature you are considering, and what wavelength are you trying to divide it by? (The answer to the question in the thread title is obviously "no", for the reasons NotEinstein gives. What direction would a "thermal force" point in, given that temperature has no direction?)
Using unit analysis with no physical basis can trick you into thinking you have something meaningful, when in fact you have nothing.
Yes that seems to be what he has done. Looks on the face of it like another of these eccentrics whose speculations are not rooted in physicality, as they need to be for science.
