XPost: sci.physics, sci.astro   
      
   In article , bjacoby@iwaynet.net writes:   
   >In sci.astro mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:   
   >   
   >>>Quantum mechanics says you can't ever completely eliminate   
   >>>tiny jiggles of the constituent particles, so the temperature   
   >>>of a collection of particles can never reach absolute zero.   
   >>>   
   >> And that's quite wrong.  If a system is at its lowest possible state,   
   >> it is at zero temperature.   
   >   
   >Then the lowest "temperature" isn't zero energy?   
      
   Lowest energy.   
      
   > Ah, once more   
   >"Zero Point Energy" rears it's ugly head. So is Quantum Mechanics   
   >still "bunk"?   
      
   And how did you reach this conclusion>   
      
   > Seems to me that if there is molecular energy   
   >still available at 0 K, then that ISN'T the lowest possible   
   >temperature!   
      
   This is not philosp[hy but physics, so what it "seems" to you is   
   irrelevant.  Temperature has a physical definition and it is *not*   
   energy.   
      
   Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,   
   meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)