Thermal energy is the energy an object due to the motion of it's molecules. This means as long as an objects molecules have kinetic energy, it will not reach absolute zero. Does that mean if there was a complete vacuum(no molecules or waves inside the vacuum at all), it would be at absolute zero inside the vacuum because there is no molecules, meaning they can't have kinetic energy, and theirs no radiation to heat the space. So I was thinking it would be absolute zero in a complete vacuum.
122275
Why is absolute zero considered to be ? Wouldn't regions such as massive gaps between galaxy clusters have temperatures of absolute zero?  I just do not see why our model must work the way that it does. I mean there have to be regions with no thermal energy out there, the universe is massive.
32254
I've seen this claim made all over the Internet.  It's on Wikipedia.  It's in John Baez's FAQ on virtual particles, it's in many popular books. I've even seen it mentioned offhand in academic papers.  So I assume there must be some truth to it.  And yet, whenever I have looked at textbooks describing how the math of Feynman diagrams works, I just can't see how this could be true.  Am I missing something?  I've spent years searching the internet for an explanation of in what sense energy conservation is violated and yet, I've never seen anything other than vague statements like "because they exist for a short period of time, they can borrow energy from the vacuum".  The rules of Feynman diagrams, as I am familiar with them, guarantee that energy and momentum are conserved at every vertex in the diagram.  As I understand it, this is not just true for external vertices, but for all internal vertices as well, no matter how many loops deep inside you are.  It's true, you integrate the loops over all possible energies and momenta independently, but there is always a delta function in momentum space that forces the sum of the energies of the virtual particles in the loops to add up to exactly the total energy of the incoming or outgoing particles.  So for example, in a photon propagator at 1-loop, you have an electron and a positron in the loop, and both can have any energy, but the sum of their energies must add up to the energy of the photon.  Right??  Or am I missing something?  I have a couple guesses as to what people might mean when they say they think energy is not conserved by virtual particles...  My first guess is that they are ignoring the actual energy of the particle and instead calculating what effective energy it would have if you looked at the mass and momentum of the particle, and then imposed the classical equations of motion on it.  But this is not the energy it has, right?  Because the particle is off-shell!  It's mass is irrelevant, because there is no mass-conservation rule, only an energy-conservation rule.  My second guess is that perhaps they are talking only about vacuum energy diagrams, where you add together loops of virtual particles which have no incoming or outgoing particles at all.  Here there is no delta function that makes the total energy of the virtual particles match the total energy of any incoming or outgoing particles.  But then what do they mean by energy conservation if not "total energy in intermediate states matches total energy in incoming and outgoing states"?  My third guess is that maybe they're talking about configuration-space Feynman diagrams instead of momentum-space diagrams.  Because now the states we're talking about are not energy-eigenstates, you are effectively adding together a sum of diagrams each with a different total energy.  But first, the expected value of energy is conserved at all times.  As is guaranteed by quantum mechanics.  It's only because you're asking about the energy of part of the superposition instead of the whole thing that you get an impartial answer (that's not summed up yet).  And second... isn't the whole idea of a particle (whether real or virtual) a plane wave (or wave packet) that's an energy and momentum eigenstate?  So in what sense is this a sensible way to think about the question at all?  Because I've seen this claim repeated so many times, I am very curious if there is something real behind it, and I'm sure there must be.  But somehow, I have never seen an explanation of where this idea comes from.
58253
Added: 5 times down vote for now! Down voter is this religion or physics, please try to explain your decision.  I'm confused about this.  In physics we know for a , but I think that there is a contradiction in this term. The  are the phenomena that  contradicts the vacuum existence because, according to them, the vacuum isn't the empty space.  In vacuum the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs is allowed for small times and this is also proven in practice.  From the other side, the relativistic theory says about space-time that interactions like gravitation bend the vacuum (empty space). There seems to be a contradiction to me. If vacuum is an empty space then we can't bend it, because we can't bend something nonexistent. In other words: we can't bend 'nothing'.  Can empty space really exist in physics?  EDIT1: quote: Luboš Motl     "By definition, the space without   energy is the space whose total value   of energy is equal to 0."   But this space is nonexistent, so it is abstract and should exist only in our mind... Why is so? My second statement of this post says that in physics we cant bend nothing because such a bending is only thinking and not physics!  Another possibility is that space is unknown kind of energy, but this is contradiction in modern physics!  EDIT2:  Can any physics believe that nothing exists? By mathematical logic no! And mathematic is elementary tool in physics. Anything other than that is religion!  Nothing (empty space without energy) is only a logical state!  EDIT3: quote: Roy Simpson:     The General Relativity Vacuum is a   space-time model region without   matter.   and Luboš Motl says: "By definition, the space without energy is the space whose total value of energy is equal to 0."  Agree...   But this is only mathematical Euclidean space + time so this is only a mathematic and not physics! With other words: this is only a method of mathematical mapping. But, in real (not theoretic) physics we can't mapping empty things. Empty is only a logical state!  EDIT4:   Roy Simpsons argumentation seems to me acceptable.   quote: Roy Simpson:     Einstein struggled with this too, and   the problem has come to be known as   the "Hole argument" within GR. You   have to decide whether you are just   interested in GR's vacuum (empty   space) or the full physical vacuum   which includes quantum aspects as   well.   Thanks
42877
I had always thought that temperature of a substance was a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in that substance:  $E_k = (3/2) k_bT $   where $E_k$ is the average kinetic energy of a molecule, $k_b$ Boltzmann's constant, and $T$ the temperature. (I'm not sure of the 3/2 coefficient.) Then I heard from several folks that this is a simplistic notion, not strictly true, but they didn't explained what they thought was flawed with this idea. I'd like to know what (if anything) is objectionable about this idea? Is it that the system must be macroscopically at rest? Is it that it ignores the quantum mechanically required motion of particles that persists at low temperatures? When is it not valid?
123776
Kinetic energy conservation in collision.  In any type of collision type of collision if we take the system to comprised of both bodies then the net external force is zero. So the work done by external force is also zero. By the relation $W=K_f-K_i$ as $W$ is zero hence kinetic energy is conserved. But this not the case.   Can you tell me what is the flaw in my argument? Some people say that the argument has neglected the fact that some kinetic energy is transformed into heat. But heat is created due to the interactions between bodies during collision which is thus an internal force and thus shouldn't affect kinetic energy.
120269
Suppose we have an object in space. say gravity is negligible, and the thing has a rocket on both sides. the thing fires one rocket for, say, 5 seconds. now it's moving. The object has kinetic energy. Now the other rocket fires for 5 seconds. Then it's stationary. where does the energy go? I know that some of the energy from the rockets would just go into space as heat and kinetic energy of the hydrogen particles flying out, but how does there seem to be more energy in the situation if the first rocket just goes for 10 seconds than if one goes for 5 and the other goes for 5?
36345
I am attempting to settle a friendly bet.  Would a pendulum swing indefinitely in a hypothetical vacuum (i.e. no air resistance) having a hypothetical frictionless bearing (i.e. no energy lost due to friction) assuming the following   The frictionless vacuum is on Earth (9.8 m/s^2). The pendulum is already in motion and no other external forces other than gravity act on the pendulum.
34877
Of course there is pretty hot stuff too. For example Suns.  But isn't the vacuum of space the perfect containment for heat? And shouldn't the rare collision with particles even heat up an object that floats around in space?  Why aren't they hot from time to time? Is it because they loose their heat by radiant heat?  And if so does radiant heat emission always occur until the object is the same temperature as the surrounding or does it depend on other factors?
7035
For the sake of simplicity, let's imagine that the entire universe is empty except for a single lump of (classical) matter with mass $m$. In its center of momentum frame, it is clear that the total energy is simply $E_\text{CoM}=mc^2$. However, in a frame moving relative to it with speed $v$, we have $E_\text{moving}=\sqrt{m^2c^4+p^2c^2}&gt; mc^2$ for all nonzero $v$.  Are we to infer that the energy content of a system can be different relative to the observer? Does this not violate the first law of thermodynamics?
47504
I used to read the term "pure energy" in the context of matter-antimatter annihilation.  Is the "pure energy" spoken of photons? Is it some form of heat?  Some kind of particles with mass?   Basically, what does "pure energy" in the context of matter-antimatter annihilation refer to?
48892
Suppose a vibrating fork exerts force to the air particles to compress which leads to the increase of internal energy (heat).This heat or energy given by the fork is given to the next layer of air and in this way, this energy makes sound. But if it was so, it will be isothermal. And Laplace told it was adiabatic. How can it be? I am confused. The heat energy infact is the energy given by the fork. If it is adiabatic, how can the air pass this energy ?
71963
Regarding this thread:    Why is the idea that the total energy in the universe "zero" so popular (re: Laurence Krauss) and why is the flatness of the universe used to back this up when, according to that post, an open universe would not conserve energy so the total energy of the universe cannot be "zero", can it? What's the energy being defined as zero and why is that energy used to predict things about the universe when "the" energy (as the term is used in that post) is not zero?  Additionally, I found one very good explanation here for this,    This seems to indicate that in flat space (the sort of space used in these zero energy universe theories) the mass can NOT be positive thus contradicting the notion that mass is positive and gravity negative and the whole thing winds up being zero. Did I interpret that correctly?  The MO question is cross-posted to Physics.SE here,
120347
We've all heard of the inverse square law, but apparently that refers to the flux or intensity or number of photons hitting an imaginary surface area. This is not exactly what I want to ask about.  I'm asking about the energy level of an individual photon, or individual ray of light. The light could be any frequency or wavelength.  If I'm not mistaken, the amplitude of the light ray is directly related to its energy.  Consider a ray of light travelling through a vacuum. Does its energy decrease over time according to inverse square law? Maybe inverse linear? Or not at all?  This question comes from . If it's true that the energy doesn't diminish at all, then that would mean a laser beam shot into space (and never hits anything) would never lose any energy and arrive at the other side of the Universe with the same energy it started with. That's kinda hard to believe.  EDIT: It appears "energy" and "amplitude" are not synonyms for light rays. Apparently the concept of waves is tricky for light, since after all, a vacuum has no medium to propagate through in the normal wave sense. So let the question be, "Does an individual photon lose energy solely from the act of traveling through a vacuum?"
43070
There have been recent questions about the vacuum. In my simplified knowledge the vacuum is like a ground state energy level, and also that there might even exist other lower energy levels than the vacuum we find ourselves in. The sea is a soup of created and annihilated pairs of virtual particles with virtual energies and momenta. In a normal sea on earth, which also represents a ground state of water, energy can be taken out of random waves by the clever construction of valves that allow only one way motion of water. Is it conceivable that a  gadget of similar function could be found for the vacuum sea, or is it forbidden by conservation laws? My intuition tells me that it might be possible if GR is taken into account, but my physics knowledge does not stretch to support this. Edit : An explanation of why I am asking this question: Let me expand on the example of the sea. The energy from the waves comes from either tides, i.e. gravitational forces, or wind (temperature differentials). If these were missing the oceans would be like glass representing a unique ground state of the gravitational well of the earth. In an analogy, a gravitational wave going through the vacuum  would be supplying energy to the vacuum sea. I have been thinking of this analogy ever since cold fusion surfaced and refuses to die out, the most  too. Approached from nuclear physics orders of magnitude the claims seem preposterous. There are people though who believe they have  results of extra energy over input energy, much more than chemical reactions could supply. This set me thinking on vacuum energy and the analogy with getting energy from the sea. A crystal is a prime candidate for any exploration of such concepts and in all cold fusion &quot;successful&quot; results crystals have been used. Now if the effect depended on the vacuum and how much distorted it was by a passage of a gravitational wave at the time of the experiment, or the exact orientation of the crystal, or the type of impurities in the crystal ( F centers etc) one would expect to get haphazard results, and non repeatable by other experimenters. Of course this would be the first experimental evidence of gravitational waves :). Edit 20/7/12 Maybe I should clarify that an acceptable answer in the negative would be one based on conservation laws. I believe that data trumps theory, and next in line are conservation laws,because they are the distillation of an enormous amount of data. Some people seem to think that theoretical definitions can substitute for proof in physics, but physical theories change, solid data do not, and this is physics, not axiomatic mathematics.
17487
The simplistic undergrad explanation aside, I've never really understood what energy really is. I've been told that it's something when converted from one kind of something to another kind, or does some "work", as defined by us, but what is that something?  Moreover, if the total amount of energy in the universe is finite and we cannot create energy. Then, where did it come from? I've learned from thermodynamics where it goes, but where does it come from?  I know this sounds like something trivially simple, but there is so much going on in the physical universe and I just can't grasp what it is. Maybe it is because I lack the mathematical understanding that I can't grasp the subtle things the universe is doing. Still, I want to understand what it is doing.  How do I get to the point of understanding what it's doing?  (Note: What prompted me to ask this was . I'm afraid that it just puzzled me further and I sat there staring at the screen for a good 10 minutes.)
66015
Sorry if this is really naive, but we learned in Newtonian physics that the total energy of a system is only defined up to an additive constant, since you can always add a constant to the potential energy function without changing the equation of motion (since force is negative the gradient of the potential energy).   Then in Quantum Mechanics we showed how the ground state of a system with potential energy $V(x) = \frac{1}{2} m \omega^{2} x^{2}$ has an energy $E_{0}=\frac{1}{2} \hbar \omega $.   But if we add a constant to $V(x)$ won't that just shift the ground state energy by the same constant? So in what sense can we actually say that the ground state energy has an absolute value (as opposed to just a relative value)? Is there some way to measure it?   I ask this in part because I have heard that Dark Energy might be the ground state energy of quantum fields, but if this energy is only defined up to a constant, how can we say what it's value is?
70630
Basically, which is the correct formula for thermal energy, and is this the same as kinetic energy? My notes are pretty conflicting on this topic, and I'm getting pretty confused.