|
|
|
|
|
by evanb
3154 days ago
|
|
I think the issue is that, assuming the particle is alone or only elastically bouncing off of its container, E(x) is a constant E in which case (let's assume no internal degrees of freedom) the configuration contains only position and orientation information, rather than any information about a spread in energies. edit: sniped by alecst. |
|
edit: The point is, the far distance leaves the particles "alone" pretty much. If it doesn't make sense for a single paryicle to be seen as a closed system, of course it can't be assigned a temperature. But with regards to cooling and a strict loss of energy, the system is semipermeable, isolated in one direction. Then from our point of view, there's heat.
So for example, couldn't the temperature "be in" the electrons movement around the core (for lack of a better expression)? I mean, for a true resting state I would expect the electrons to fall into the core, not just ground state (annihilating the charges, so an atom really couldn't exist at absolut zero.
But if you are looking at a point source as the center of your frame of reference, it couldn't exhibit brownian motion. Then maybe curves described by spacetime has potential wells and exited states above that and maybe particles jitter between closely parallel worldlines, if they are entangled with anything besides.