Random questions

[Oosey]

Why can't scientists accept that every piece of empty space in the universe is 0K? (Read that one carefully, it says zero kay, as in zero degrees Kelvin, rather than oh-kay.)

Well for starters, as I understand it's not actually possible for anything to reach that temperature, naturally or in the laboratory (but they have got dangerously close: 0.45 nano kelvins). As you well must know it is absolute zero, that is, the point at which there is zero movement in matter, save for quantum stuff which I havn't looked into yet, but still I think this is theoretical.

Also there is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, which is the light left over from the big bang. This shrowds every point in the sky with an extremly cool cosmic glow ( about 2.725 Kelvin) so no matter where you look there is radiation thanks to the big bang.

I'm guessing what your asking is, why... in the space between everything. The empty space between to particles even, why isn't this considered 0 Kelvin.

Well, it comes down to the definition of temperature, which is dependant on particles. The slower particles are moving, the lower the temperature is. If there are no particles, there is no temperature to detect. There's not zero movement of the particles because there are no particles (in empty space) and thus no temperature at all.

Hope that helps

[Greyshore]

Why does life last for a short time, and death for eternity?

That is because everyone automatically acknowledges your existence is over... simply, your existence lies in our heads! You might not even be real! Nor me... o.o

[Evelond Formos]

Why does life last for a short time, and death for eternity?

That is because everyone automatically acknowledges your existence is over... simply, your existence lies in our heads! You're not even real! Nor I, mayhap... o.o

Fixed it for ya.

Well for starters, as I understand it's not actually possible for anything to reach that temperature, naturally or in the laboratory (but they have got dangerously close: 0.45 nano kelvins). As you well must know it is absolute zero, that is, the point at which there is zero movement in matter, save for quantum stuff which I havn't looked into yet, but still I think this is theoretical.

Also there is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, which is the light left over from the big bang. This shrowds every point in the sky with an extremly cool cosmic glow ( about 2.725 Kelvin) so no matter where you look there is radiation thanks to the big bang.

I'm guessing what your asking is, why... in the space between everything. The empty space between to particles even, why isn't this considered 0 Kelvin.

Well, it comes down to the definition of temperature, which is dependant on particles. The slower particles are moving, the lower the temperature is. If there are no particles, there is no temperature to detect. There's not zero movement of the particles because there are no particles (in empty space) and thus no temperature at all.

Hope that helps

It does indeed. I guess my dictionary is a tad too vague.

Thanks Chiken!

*shrugs* You might be right. I don't feel very scientific right now.
Thanks!

Time is not linear. There is no past, there is no future. There is only now. Everything that once happened is either a memory or written down in history books.

That's one perspective of it, anyway.

Hmm . . . I believe you are correct . . .



Thanks all!

[Will]

Time is not a line. It is a circle. That is why clocks are round.

[Evelond Formos]

Time is not a line. It is a circle. That is why clocks are round.

That would imply that even though there is a forever, it always goes back to the beginning at its end. Your former sentence per se is correct.


I think the same is true with the number line. There is no 'number line'; however there is a scaleable 'number circle', only as big as the greatest by least number you're dealing with.

Here's an example: A star starts out as virtually nothing (don't argue with me about dark matter and atoms and dust particles and blah blah blah). Eventually it reaches its maximum point. It then becomes a black hole (a lot of the time), which is more or less the opposite of a star's maximum point; in truthfulness I think it is negative the star's maximum size, because it goes an infinite distance inward at an infinitely small size. Eventually this black hole decays (Hawking radiation), becoming zero. In some point of its eternal life, it will become a star again, and replay the cycle.

That's just one example though.

[Greyshore]

Why does life last for a short time, and death for eternity?

That is because everyone automatically acknowledges your existence is over... simply, your existence lies in our heads! You're not even real! Nor I, mayhap... o.o

Fixed it for ya.

*sighs* Me and my awesome English. But for real, there is a rather well known theory about things that exist because someone acknowledges its existence. I can't remember the name of the theory nor of the person who thought of it. Personally, I think it's a fairly interesting theory.

[broncoblitz]

To clarify even the deepest reaches of space there are not 0 particles per given unit of measure. However, statistically speaking the the probablility of a atom being in say a cubic meter is rapidly approaching 0. Such that (and this is the most recent number i have seen) that in deep space on average there is one particle per cubic meter of space. Even that single particle will be in constant movement. As even a stray photon of light would have enough energy to excite the atom and move it in some way imparting a temperature on the system.

Oose is correct about the definiton of temperature being based upon the movement of atoms. And the only real way to counteract the lack of particles is to have a larger detector array to pinpont the particles.