I might be late for the party and don't claim to have any special background knowledge to contribute, but this thread reminds me of a talk by Nobel laureate William Phillips I attended last year, sort of an Absolute Zero For Dummies introduction to his research in Doppler cooling and the possible implications.
So I tried to find a video of his talk (apparently he always does more or less the same thing with same flashy show elements, playing around with liquid nitrogen on stage, etc)...this should be it, the first few minutes are in Chinese, just ignore them.
Doesn't the earth rotate around the sun? Am I misreading this? Or did you mistype?
Imagine the graphics to go with the text.
1. The earth rotates around the sun.
2. The sun rotates around the earth.
3. Is not standing still!?
4. Everything moves but you. Relatively forever alone!
The earth rotates around the sun as much as you can say the sun rotates around the earth. It depends what position in space you designate as a fixed point. In truth, there are no fixed points and everything moves relatively to each other.
But how does the earth not rotate around the sun? I mean, it doesn't make sense to me...
If you take the sun as a fixed point, then the sun is still and the earth orbits around it.
If you take the earth as a fixed point, then the earth is still and the sun orbits around it.
Neither of those have any privilege over each other, which one you favour is arbitrary. You can make countless other points fixed if you want, and have the earth and sun performing quite strange orbits relative to those points. That said, it's useful for many calculations to treat the centre of mass as the fixed point (convenient for humans, basically, but not necessary), and the sun contains the vast majority of the solar system's mass, and thus the centre of mass, if you a dealing solely with the solar system, falls well within the sun most of the time. Some arangements of the planets have the centre of mass falling outside the sun though, but not by much (relative to the solar system's size at least!).
All of that applies to all motion, essentially, including stillness. It's a bit different with acceleration, but ultimately just as arbitrary as to which point is considered not to be accelerating, if any.
Yup, but anyway, it was just an analogy, back to absolute zero, it is impossible to reach absolute zero whilest being inside the universe. Getting a particle inside a perfect container is physically impossible as you would have to account for all of the universes magnetic fields, even the ones from the furthest stars, whose magnetic influence on the particle would be a 1^-999~almost infinity. There is no way to account for all influences and create perfect order within a container.
Suppose for the sake of arguement (because its fun), that a perfect container could be made and a particle can truely be stopped and reach absolute sub-zero, the consequences could be quite dire. Impossible to predict how the particle would react because the particle would step outside of the boundaries of physics as we know it.. At absolute zero, possibilities would be endless. Maybe it causes another big bang even! That would be kind of odd though, because the big bang is more likely to be an expansion of space itself which would be impossible inside a container, unless it happens at relative levels. (ie. the space is not expanding, but matter is shrinking.)
Who knows, we might all be living and shrinking inside an existing container within another universe.