why is there something rather then nothing?

[BackAgain]

no temperature like infinitely cold? You can't reach infinity that way.

How is temperature defined? To the extent it measures molecular motion, in an absolute void there would be no molecular motion.

Forgwt theoretically. As a practical matter, is there such a thing as a temperature lower than “absolute zero?”

 

[trevorjohnson83]

How is temperature defined? To the extent it measures molecular motion, in an absolute void there would be no molecular motion.

Forgwt theoretically. As a practical matter, is there such a thing as a temperature lower than “absolute zero?”

So if space were a constant temperature like absolute zero through out infinity it wouldn't pull back against heat because it would have no where colder to expand to.

 

[BackAgain]

So if space were a constant temperature like absolute zero through out infinity it wouldn't pull back against heat because it would have no where colder to expand to.

What heat? In a void of what might be absolute zero, what heat would there be? None that could be measurable as molecular motion (there being no molecules at all in an absolute void).

 

[trevorjohnson83]

What heat? In a void of what might be absolute zero, what heat would there be? None that could be measurable as molecular motion (there being no molecules at all in an absolute void).

I don't think you can achieve an absolute void then because no matter how far into infinity you go there would still be a little heat to give it temperature even if it's super void.

 

[BackAgain]

I don't think you can achieve an absolute void then because no matter how far into infinity you go there would still be a little heat to give it temperature even if it's super void.

Why would there be any heat at all?

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Why would there be any heat at all?

so infinitely cold? what temperature is that?

 

[BackAgain]

so infinitely cold? what temperature is that?

I’m not the one who said “infinitely” cold. I have no idea wtf that even means.

Instead, I made reference to “absolute zero.” And I also suggested that it is the absence of any molecular motion. And I further suggested that absent any molecules at all, there couldn’t be any molecular motion.

 

[JoeMoma]

Try reading about the subject rather than just making it up as you go. You are making many assumptions which are simply false.

 

[Circe]

Nothing that you know of.

But people don’t know much if anything about the things of which they are unaware. Why, sometimes we don’t even know what we don’t know.

ya know?

True.

I think it's recycling. The bits that have been us (and before us were Socrates, Caesar, etc.) become racoons and some woman working in a diner and birds on the bird feeder.

 

[BackAgain]

True.

I think it's recycling. The bits that have been us (and before us were Socrates, Caesar, etc.) become racoons and some woman working in a diner and birds on the bird feeder.

Crack pipe bad.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

I’m not the one who said “infinitely” cold. I have no idea wtf that even means.

Instead, I made reference to “absolute zero.” And I also suggested that it is the absence of any molecular motion. And I further suggested that absent any molecules at all, there couldn’t be any molecular motion.

do you believe that all of infinity has the background temperature of absolute zero?

 

[BackAgain]

do you believe that all of infinity has the background temperature of absolute zero?

No. Because I know we now have that infamous set of something’s which includes atoms and molecules and energy and dust and dust clouds and rocks and planets and stars and solar systems and galaxies.

 

[Colin norris]

Space has background temperature to it from having its own density when void of matter and energy. If nothing existed at all then the heat and density of space would have to expand infinitely fast, and even if that was possible the temperature and density of space could always be less. So though you can measure infinity by large and small you can't have an infinite negative temperature or density or 'nothing at all' because there could always be something less.

Neil de Grasse Tyson wrote a short book call physics for those in a hurry.

It doesn't condemn religion because that's not his game.
It explains in full exactly, what science suggest happened. It all seems plausible to me and it would probably be to anyone other than a godbotherer.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

No. Because I know we now have that infamous set of something’s which includes atoms and molecules and energy and dust and dust clouds and rocks and planets and stars and solar systems and galaxies.

Do you think all of infinity is the same as our visible universe? or if there even is a thing such as a visible universe?

 

[BackAgain]

Do you think all of infinity is the same as our visible universe? or if there even is a thing such as a visible universe?

I don’t know. All of infinity is infinite. And there could be lots of other infinities out there. I’m not sure I can ever grasp the notion of all those dimensions and bubbles of alternative universes. Infinite infinities? And each one of those may have infinite infinites contained within.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Since 'nothing' would mean no existence then I guess you wouldn't find a mouse nibbling on its foot there or anything else. How ever since space occupies eternity you can't have nothing because the heat of space would billow in on it and fill it, since space is heat true nothingness is infinitely unable to exist.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

So nuclei, infinitely big and small, create the background temperature of the universe. If you took away all the matter in infinity, you would be taking away all the heat, and all that would be left is cold. Its impossible to fathom.

 

[scruffy]

So nuclei, infinitely big and small, create the background temperature of the universe. If you took away all the matter in infinity, you would be taking away all the heat, and all that would be left is cold. Its impossible to fathom.

Here's something to consider -

In physics, observables end up being operators.

Temperature, is not.

Temperature is a property of the system, rather than its components.

In a way, temperature is how you define the boundaries of the system.

One way to understand this is with heat exchange, which always involves a partition between two subsystems.

Another way is you can look at things like annealing, to understand how system temperature affects component behavior and vice versa.

 

[zaangalewa]

No. Because I know we now have that infamous set of something’s which includes atoms and molecules and energy and dust and dust clouds and rocks and planets and stars and solar systems and galaxies.

The problem is to slow something down to speed "0" (no energy) and to slow it more down into a negative motion (negative energy) - but as well a negative and a positive motion should be "hot". And we are not able to imagine something what could a negative motion. What moves moves and what moves is hot.

 

[BackAgain]

The problem is to slow something down to speed "0" (no energy) and to slow it more down into a negative motion (negative energy) - but as well a negative and a positive motion should be "hot". And we are not able to imagine something what could a negative motion. What moves moves and what moves is hot.

Negative motion?