XPost: sci.physics, sci.astro   
   From: owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk   
      
    wrote in message news:brmftr$r11$1@tribune.oar.net...   
   > In sci.astro mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:   
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > So let's do some physics!  Are you saying that Temperature has NO   
   > relation to energy of a system?  That's clearly not true! However,   
   > Zero temperature is clearly NOT zero energy (which I believe you   
   > are also saying).   
      
   It would be for non Quantum, non Relativistic physics.   
      
   >In the thermodynamic (ideal gas) or Kelvin scale,   
      
   i.e. non quantum, non relativistic, quite apart from non condensing (!)   
      
   > Zero temperature is defined as when isothermal and adiabatic   
   > processes are identical. In other words when a system undergoes   
   > an isothermal process with no transfer of heat, the temperature   
   > at which this occurs is called absolute zero.   
      
   It's one interpretation. Probably more mathematical than physical under the   
   circumstances.   
      
   > Obviously by that   
   > definition a zero point energy CAN exist. But hey, what if I   
   > now REMOVE in some manner a quantity of that zero point energy.   
   > Is the system now at a temperature BELOW absolute zero?   
      
   What exactly do you mean by 'remove some 0-point energy in some manner'?   
      
   > Have   
   > we extended temperature into a negative region? Could the Kelvin   
   > temperature scale consist of more that simply positive numbers?   
   > Now this is getting into philosophy since I don't think anyone   
   > has removed any zero point energy even in theory, but it is interesting.   
      
   Or not   
      
   > However, if you wish to stick with just physics, then lets just   
   > say that by removing some zero point energy,   
      
   I thought we were sticking with physics.  How would you remove this energy   
   without risking adding some energy?   
      
   >we have gone outside   
   > the range of the definition of Temperature, thus, the system no   
   > longer can be said to have a temperature at all! Is that not true?   
      
   Well. let's just get past the "if I can" stage first   
      
   OG   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)