XPost: sci.physics, sci.astro   
      
   In article , "dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)"   
    writes:   
   >Dear mmeron:   
   >   
   > wrote in message   
   >news:fb4Cb.14$_4.12033@news.uchicago.edu...   
   >> In article <_PFBb.43014$YJ6.563208@wagner.videotron.net>, "Greg Neill"   
   > writes:   
   >..   
   >> >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.   
   >   
   >Not to feed any flames...   
   >A system could be a dewar of a substance that we have deemed to be at its   
   >lowest energy state.  With the little "jigglings", would it be meaningful   
   >within our system (that little Universe sub-set) to ascribe non-zero   
   >"local" temperature?   
      
   No.   
      
   >  So, is temperature relative?   
      
   Again, no.  I repeat what I wrote in another post, tmeperature is   
   *not* (repeat, **not**, ***not***, ****not**** ....) kinetic 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)