[bardworx]

Wait, why would the temperature at any finite point will always be zero? Because I’m quite confident it would be non zero as emptying space is stupid expensive.

And there is temperature inside a neutron, since it’s not a fundamental particle but composed of quarks: The neutron temperature T, on the Kelvin scale, is given by T = 2E/3k, where E is average neutron energy and k the Boltzmann constant.

Source: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority....

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

> why would the temperature at any finite point will always be zero

Based on your answer of the temperature inside a neutron then maybe it won't be zero everywhere. Any finite point is going to either be inside a particle or outside of a particle. And since most of space is empty, and atoms are also mostly empty, the vast majority of finite points will be where there is nothing, and hence have no temperature.

> emptying space is stupid expensive

I don't what this means. Most of space is already empty.

[bardworx]

If space is “empty”, then how come we can measure the temperature of the microwave background radiation?

Think about it…any direction we point an apparatus, we will get a reading — the static of a radio IS the CMB, and if you could take that radio into space, and have the ability to travel anywhere, that radio would still have static. As such, space cannot be “empty”, it’s filled with photons, electrons, and quarks, amongst other things.

To reach 0 Kelvin would take an infinite amount of energy (infinite is not exactly accurate but might as well be), hence “stupid expensive”. It would also create holes in the CMB. CMB has no holes, as such, there is stuff everywhere.

Does that track?

[JumpCrisscross]

> since most of space is empty

Empty space is still busy fucking around with itself [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy