[Ma8ee]

You can call the limitations of your knowledge about the exact state of a molecule a temperature, but that doesn't mean that any single molecule has an actual physical temperature in the same way as a collection of particles. You can say that a passing car had a speed between 60 mph and 70 mph because you couldn't measure it more exact, but the car has at any given moment an exact speed independent of your knowledge of it, not a distribution of speeds.

[darkerside]

You may be right about the molecule, but the car absolutely has a distribution of speeds depending on what you are measuring in relation to.

[jacquesm]

That is exactly GPS point: a car doesn't have a distribution of speeds unless you measure it relative to something else whereas a liquid or a solid does have a temperature, regardless of anything else. Depending on what the something else is that you measure your car's speed by you may decide it goes forward, backward or is motionless.

When you start talking about individual molecules, atoms or particles the whole concept of temperature becomes very counterintuitive. Think of it as a substitute for motion or vibration if you wish and even that is grossly inaccurate (but less so...).

Maybe this will help: a gas in a container has a pressure and a density as well as a temperature, all of which are properties of the gas and not of the individual gas molecules. A single molecule that the gas is made up from does not have a density, it doesn't have a temperature and it doesn't have a pressure. What it may have though is a speed relative to something else, and when it hits the something else it may impart some energy relative to that speed difference.

[darkerside]

It sounds like you're enthusiastically agreeing with me?