Temperature, Magnetism, Are They The Same?

Hysteresis, remanence both suggest something is retained in the material of the magnet.  If Curie temperature is a measure of the amount of opposite particles that would cancel the magnetic potential, just as opposite charges cancels an electric potential...

The following diagram shows how the magnetic potential on a ferromagnetic material can be destroyed without the application of heat directly.

Intuitively, I am just turning the \(S\) pole into a \(N\) pole and in between the magnetic potential goes to zero.

We may find that the temperature required to neutralize the magnetic pole is much lower than Curie temperature.  The duration of the exposure will definitely play a part, given temperature.

This actually raises the question of quantum.  All particles are in quantum of \(\psi\), the existence of temperature particles implies that temperature is also in quantum.  Since, one of the temperature particle pair has charge potential, it will pop electrons from metal.  The other particle, provides gravitational potential and make light things float in air.  Collisions extract energy from the oscillating component of the wave/particle, destroying the wave/particle wholly or partially in the process.

If temperature is analogous to frequency, then Curie temperature might just be analogous to threshold frequency of photoelectric phenomenon.  In which case, the temperature required to neutralize the magnetic pole is still Curie temperature and time duration does not play a role when temperature is less than Curie temperature.

How then are such temperature particles held within the material?  Like an electron in orbit?

Are we bouncing the temperature particles off the material or are we neutralizing their potentials with the opposite particles?

And the pin drops.