Empty space?

[Devils.High]

What if you took out EVERYTHING in a big box. what would the inside look like? Blocking out the dark energy thoery and everything.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Inside wouldn't look like anything, because for it to be observed, there would have to be something inside of it.

My primitive caveman brain don't handle physics too good, but I generally hold to the belief that matter density is a matter of degree, and that a density of exact mathematical zero is impossible. Math-speaking friend of mine tried to explain the concept of "negative density" to me once, but he stopped when my nose started bleeding; I'm pretty sure that if such a thing existed, it would only be as an illusion caused by three-dimensional perception of an n-dimensional universe.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Cavity Search

"Cavity Search"

I'm pretty sure that if such a thing existed, it would only be as an illusion caused by three-dimensional perception of an n-dimensional universe.

Branes

 

[Monk-Eye]

Flower Of Life - Macrocosm

"Flower Of Life - Macrocosm"

I'm pretty sure that if such a thing existed, it would only be as an illusion caused by three-dimensional perception of an n-dimensional universe.

Multiple Dimensions - Six - Video

Manifold
Calabi-Yau Manifold

 

[Tashah]

What if you took out EVERYTHING in a big box. what would the inside look like? Blocking out the dark energy thoery and everything.

Your question is impossible to answer realistically because you have set impossible experimental parameters. EVERYTHING infers 'anything' that may exist this universe.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Nonsense Questions

"Nonsense Questions"

Your question is impossible to answer realistically because you have set impossible experimental parameters. EVERYTHING infers 'anything' that may exist this universe.

The improper irrational response is to hurl anything and everything in contribution to the non-solution, including a topology of the kitchen sink.

 

[justone]

What if you took out EVERYTHING in a big box. what would the inside look like? Blocking out the dark energy thoery and everything.

dave, it is not the first time when you post a question which is stupid, simplistic and naive.
Your posts of such kind show that you have a mind of a physicist.
You are still young and you still have a chance. Why don't you try to jump into the rollercoaster train of physics? I feel like .. giving you a bad advise… it is a rollercoaster.. not everyone can hold to the seat…

I will try to get back to your question when I have time. Your question is simple. I have to take time to reach the same level of simplicity in my answer. It means I am not so good in physics.

 

[Devils.High]

My names not dave...

 

[Johnson]

you should do a google search for Schrodinger and his cat. It'll answer your question as well as anything else could.

 

[Kandahar]

In order for it to "look like" anything, there would have to be light in the box. But there isn't, because we removed EVERYTHING.

 

[Kandahar]

you should do a google search for Schrodinger and his cat. It'll answer your question as well as anything else could.

That doesn't have anything to do with the properties of a vacuum.

 

[Johnson]

Right, but it basically says that in a situation such as this, you can't look at the inside of this "box of nothing" without changing the properties of the nothing, so in essence it's impossible to view without altering the state of nothing. So you can only work on assumptions. Like with Schrodinger's cat.

 

[Devils.High]

I didnt get the cat thing, maybe it was because it was late but it was really confusing. I'll look at it more later on.

 

[Kandahar]

Right, but it basically says that in a situation such as this, you can't look at the inside of this "box of nothing" without changing the properties of the nothing, so in essence it's impossible to view without altering the state of nothing.

No. Schrodinger's Cat deals with quantum mechanics.

 

[justone]

My names not dave...

I know, Devils.High;524190.

Imagine you are taking air out of the box a molecule by molecule. You know you had n molecules in the box, and you took 5 out, so you know at this moment you have n-5 molecules left in the box. But when you count what is left in the box -you count n-7, but not n-5. 2 molecules are missing. You look everywhere -but they are missing. Dark energy must has eaten them. It should be some dark energy responsible for eating the missing molecules. It is not detectible by any other action except for eating molecules of air when you take air out of the box. If you detect it empirically, you'll get a lot of fame and money. Once in a while some individuals announce that they have detected undetectable......

Imagine you have an air balloon packed with molecules of air under high pressure and you are sitting inside your box. You pinch the balloon, it explodes and the molecules of the air compressed in the balloon fly to the walls of the box ,-- the volume of the molecules in the balloon expands in your box. The higher is the difference of pressure of the molecules in the balloon and the air in the box, the faster the molecules will towards to the walls. If you take air out of the box and pinch the balloon - the molecules would fly to the walls faster. You can do math and calculate the speed using equations. When you calculate the speed, it turns that the molecules are moving a lot faster than they could possible be according to the difference between pressure in the balloon and vacuum in the box. You cannot understand why, so you choose to say that there are additional points of negative pressure in you box undetectable by any instrument. Such statement makes your math work.
In order for the molecules to fly to the walls of the box with the calculated acceleration the difference in pressure between the balloon and the box should be 20. Pbaloon -Pbox should be 20. But when you put real numbers you read:
Pbaloon =10.
Pbox=0
You get the difference of only 10.

Since you are smart you say that there is an additional negative pressure of exactly 10 in your box. (10 below vacuum).

Now you recalculate and you get your needed 20.
Everything work now.

This is the meaning of extra negative pressure P -- and by the equation PV= mRT (where V is volume and volume is 1/density, T is tempreture and m is molecules and R is a constant) --- it leads to negative dark density, and negative dark energy, dark matter and dark forces acting on us. In old days you would have to pull out your cross to protect yourself from dark forces of hell.

You pinching the balloon is Big Bang, molecules are stars and planets and the box is the Universe.

Of course,I have never studied Cosmology and I am just trying to figure out things in old fashioned way, when one really had to draw a box and get a picture of the forces. (The fact of expansion of the Universe was well known long before BBT.)

But what can we do if we are completely abandoned by our professional Big bang lady choosing not to give you any explanation but just to point that you are just primitive and simplistic and naive. Well, I am too. We are on the side which is opposite to sophisticated roulades of the random word generator program.

Anyway, it all looks to me as a good math, but I really doubt that there is too much physics in the subject.

At the same time in my view BBT has still some creditability in my eyes for 2 reasons:
1. It was invented by a very credible old man who was the godfather of Pauli at Pauli’s baptism and Pauli was known as "conscience of physics",

After his death, Pauli was granted an audience with God. Pauli asked God why the fine structure constant has the value 1/137.. God nodded, went to a blackboard, and began scribbling equations at a furious pace. Pauli watched Him at first with great satisfaction, but soon began shaking his head violently: "Das ist ganz falsch!" – ‘’it is completely wrong! ‘’


2. The BBTists still stay inside the box, while other Cosmologists take walks outside the box – which is in view –‘’ sie sind nicht sogar falsch’’ – ‘’they are not even wrong’’.

It is up to you to make your own judgment.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Right, but it basically says that in a situation such as this, you can't look at the inside of this "box of nothing" without changing the properties of the nothing, so in essence it's impossible to view without altering the state of nothing. So you can only work on assumptions. Like with Schrodinger's cat.

It is an illustration used to explain an important issue in quantum mechanics and has nothing to do with empty space as kandahar keeps pointing out.

Simply put, the issue is that the state of a particle or a system of particles is only defined once it is experimentally observed. Before observation, all states can be said to co-exist, and all that can be calculated by quantum mechanics is the probability of observing each state.



The cat is IRRELEVANT. It is merely an embelishment to the principle. We could eliminatethe cat and talk about the radioactive source. But the public is more fascinated by something when it has something it can relate to like a cute fluffy cat

 

[justone]

The cat is IRRELEVANT. But the public is more fascinated by something when it has something it can relate to like a cute fluffy cat

Very cute and sharp observation.

Simply put, the issue is that the state of a particle or a system of particles is only defined once it is experimentally observed. Before observation, all states can be said to co-exist, and all that can be calculated by quantum mechanics is the probability of observing each state.

Simply put..:

When light moves it is not a particle but a wave , therefore we cannot talk about a position of a photon (particle) in space when the photon hits a wall it is experimentally observed (registered as a particle.) One cannot know for sure where the photon is in space until it hits ones forehead.

In this meaning an empty space is the space where no waves or particles are observed (registered). It is the state where in

E=mc^2, E=0. When energy =0 there is no mass and no movement.

That was named the heat dead of the Universe. When it is expanding the universe goes through different transformations – changes of energy. Each change of energy is followed by a loss (dissipation) of energy (2nd law of T-cs). In the end all the energy will be dissipated in the Universe.

We can say that something exists only when we can register it. In order to be registered something has to move or have energy.

When the molecules from the balloon in your box fly to the walls they will equalize their energies in the vacuum. And with no energy supplied to the box they will hit and interact with each other and each interaction will make them loose energy and movement. In the end (with no energy supplied to the box) they will come to the state of absolute equilibrium when they will not move - and turn into nothing, even if you have had a thermonuclear explosion of billions of molecules in your balloon in the beginning. In the end you will have nothing without even taking a bit out of the box.
In physics
Something is energy /motion. (And as the result – time.)
Nothing is no energy/no motion. (And as the result – absence of time.

It is inside of the box, of course.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Black Hole Distortion

"Black Hole Distortion"

That was named the heat dead of the Universe. When it is expanding the universe goes through different transformations – changes of energy. Each change of energy is followed by a loss (dissipation) of energy (2nd law of T-cs). In the end all the energy will be dissipated in the Universe.

We can say that something exists only when we can register it. In order to be registered something has to move or have energy.

When the molecules from the balloon in your box fly to the walls they will equalize their energies in the vacuum. And with no energy supplied to the box they will hit and interact with each other and each interaction will make them loose energy and movement. In the end (with no energy supplied to the box) they will come to the state of absolute equilibrium when they will not move - and turn into nothing, even if you have had a thermonuclear explosion of billions of molecules in your balloon in the beginning. In the end you will have nothing without even taking a bit out of the box.

Third law of thermodynamics

The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system at zero is a well-defined constant. This is because a system at zero temperature exists in its ground state, so that its entropy is determined only by the degeneracy of the ground state; or, it states that "it is impossible by any procedure, no matter how idealised, to reduce any system to the absolute zero of temperature in a finite number of operations".

One should include a review the ground state - link. It is brief, an excerpt would be state the entirety.

 

[justone]

Re: Black Hole Distortion

"Black Hole Distortion"



Third law of thermodynamics


One should include a review the ground state - link. It is brief, an excerpt would be state the entirety.

No one can satisfy an urge of some individuals for sophistication.
The source is providing very good insides to my statements - except of the one problem, if it is read by a monkey a wrong and confusing conlusion may be drawn.

It is not the first time you do not undestand what you are reading and what relation the teaxt has to somebody's statements. It is quite amasing ability of some do not undersatnd the sources posted by themselves.

Third law of thermodynamics:
In simple terms, the Third Law states that the entropy of a pure substance approaches zero as the absolute temperature approaches zero.


As a system approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value.

Yet another application of the third law is the fact that at 0 K no solid solutions should exist
Stationary state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :
The ground state of a quantum mechanical system is its lowest-energy state. The ground state of a quantum field theory is usually called the vacuum state or the vacuum.According to the third law of thermodynamics, a system at absolute zero temperature exists in its ground state.

This is exactly what I was talking about, trying to make it simple. There would be vacuum in the box in the end of the nuclear explosion in the box.

You will get vacuum (nothing) in the box in the end.

Introduction of relation of entropy to energy and tempreture would contiminate the simplicity of my post. I have found that the concept of Entropy is very confusing for the most people who have not worked with it. A monkey playing with Entropy, what a picture!

 

[justone]

Thus my post stands all correct and accurate and all confirmed by the sources :

Stationary state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Third law of thermodynamics

Of course, one can ask the Monkey eye if he can point any inconsistencies between my post and the sources... and why is he here at all... but the answer is quite predictable - another use of random word generation program at the most.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Arrogant Apes

"Arrogant Apes"

Thus my post stands all correct and accurate and all confirmed by the sources :
Stationary state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Third law of thermodynamics
Of course, one can ask the Monkey eye if he can point any inconsistencies between my post and the sources... and why is he here at all... but the answer is quite predictable - another use of random word generation program at the most.

First of all, your theoretical adiabatic expansion in the box has been inconclusively adressed by physicists for so long, you should be ashamed of yourself for maintaining such a moronic answer of pretence.

Spatial Curvature -- One consequence of general relativity is that the curvature of space depends on the ratio of rho to rho(crit). We call this ratio Ω = rho/rho(crit).

Flatness-Oldness Problem
However, if Ωo is sufficiently greater than 1, the Universe will eventually stop expanding, and then Ω will become infinite. If Ωo is less than 1, the Universe will expand forever and the density goes down faster than the critical density so Ω gets smaller and smaller. Thus Ω = 1 is an unstable stationary point unless the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and it is quite remarkable that Ω is anywhere close to 1 now.

Secondly your assertion of a perfectly empty box goes beyond the assumptions made by physicists about a vacuum.

Inflation
The "inflationary scenario", developed by Starobinsky and by Guth, offers a solution to the flatness-oldness problem and the horizon problem. The inflationary scenario invokes a vacuum energy density. We normally think of the vacuum as empty and massless, and we can determine that the density of the vacuum is less than 10-29 gm/cc now. But in quantum field theory, the vacuum is not empty, but rather filled with virtual particles:

The space-time diagram above shows virtual particle-antiparticle pairs forming out of nothing and then annihilating back into nothing. For particles of mass m, one expects about one virtual particle in each cubical volume with sides given by the Compton wavelength of the particle, h/mc, where h is Planck's constant. Thus the expected density of the vacuum is rho = m4*c3/h3 which is rather large. For the largest elementary particle mass usually considered, the Planck mass M defined by 2*pi*G*M2 = h*c, this density is 2*1091 gm/cc. That's a 2 followed by 91 zeroes! Thus the vacuum energy density is at least 120 orders of magnitude smaller than the naive quantum estimate, so there must be a very effective suppression mechanism at work. If a small residual vacuum energy density exists now, it leads to a "cosmological constant" which is one proposed mechanism to relieve the tight squeeze between the Omegao=1 model age of the Universe, to = (2/3)/Ho = 9 Gyr, and the apparent age of the oldest globular clusters, 12-14 Gyr. The vacuum energy density can do this because it produces a "repulsive gravity" that causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate instead of decelerate, and this increases to for a given Ho.

We can therefore conclude that most of the matter in the Universe is "dark matter" that does not emit, absorb or scatter light. Furthermore, observations of distant supernovae have shown that most of the energy density of the Universe is a vacuum energy density (a "dark energy") like Einstein's cosmological constant that causes an accelerating expansion of the Universe.

Thirdly, this was covered in another post while you were sleeping.

Fourth, monkeys have tell tail tales.

 

[justone]

Re: Arrogant Apes

First of all, your theoretical adiabatic expansion in the box has been inconclusively adressed by physicists for so long, you should be ashamed of yourself for maintaining such a moronic answer of pretence.

Spatial Curvature -- One consequence of general relativity is that the curvature of space depends on the ratio of rho to rho(crit). We call this ratio Ω = rho/rho(crit).

Flatness-Oldness Problem
However, if Ωo is sufficiently greater than 1, the Universe will eventually stop expanding, and then Ω will become infinite. If Ωo is less than 1, the Universe will expand forever and the density goes down faster than the critical density so Ω gets smaller and smaller. Thus Ω = 1 is an unstable stationary point unless the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and it is quite remarkable that Ω is anywhere close to 1 now.

In which of my statements can you see any contradiction to Spatial Curvature? Please point it to the public.

I am clearly stating in my post #15: ''You can do math and calculate the speed using equations. When you calculate the speed, it turns that the molecules are moving a lot faster than they could possible be according to the difference…. You cannot understand why, so you choose to say that there are additional points of negative pressure in you box undetectable by any instrument. Such statement makes your math work.
In order for the molecules to fly to the walls of the box with the calculated acceleration…''

These are my words.

I am clearly stating that in contrary to original expectations it has been calculated that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating.

Please explain what does the quote have to do to adiabatic expansion. Speed or acceleration of expansion is not considered in an adiabatic process.

You are poking youself in the eye again. I guess, ethier you are some kind of masochist, or you are striving for attention, whatever it takes. You post random and irrelavant quotes or words and you are happy that somebody can take you seruiously and reply.

Secondly your assertion of a perfectly empty box goes beyond the assumptions made by physicists about a vacuum.

Inflation
The "inflationary scenario", developed by Starobinsky and by Guth, offers a solution to the flatness-oldness problem and the horizon problem. The inflationary scenario invokes a vacuum energy density. We normally think of the vacuum as empty and massless, and we can determine that the density of the vacuum is less than 10-29 gm/cc now. But in quantum field theory, the vacuum is not empty, but rather filled with virtual particles:

The space-time diagram above shows virtual particle-antiparticle pairs forming out of nothing and then annihilating back into nothing. For particles of mass m, one expects about one virtual particle in each cubical volume with sides given by the Compton wavelength of the particle, h/mc, where h is Planck's constant. Thus the expected density of the vacuum is rho = m4*c3/h3 which is rather large. For the largest elementary particle mass usually considered, the Planck mass M defined by 2*pi*G*M2 = h*c, this density is 2*1091 gm/cc. That's a 2 followed by 91 zeroes! Thus the vacuum energy density is at least 120 orders of magnitude smaller than the naive quantum estimate, so there must be a very effective suppression mechanism at work. If a small residual vacuum energy density exists now, it leads to a "cosmological constant" which is one proposed mechanism to relieve the tight squeeze between the Omegao=1 model age of the Universe, to = (2/3)/Ho = 9 Gyr, and the apparent age of the oldest globular clusters, 12-14 Gyr. The vacuum energy density can do this because it produces a "repulsive gravity" that causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate instead of decelerate, and this increases to for a given Ho.

We can therefore conclude that most of the matter in the Universe is "dark matter" that does not emit, absorb or scatter light. Furthermore, observations of distant supernovae have shown that most of the energy density of the Universe is a vacuum energy density (a "dark energy") like Einstein's cosmological constant that causes an accelerating expansion of the Universe. made by physicists about a vacuum.

Can you explain to Devils High and to the public meaning of VIRTUAL particles better that I did? Go ahead, offer them your virtual dinner consisting of virtual particles on a virtual plate. Don’t ask them to pay with real money for the undetectable dinner yet, - you may feel your eye poked…. I am forgetting – this is how you achieve pleasure - when your eye gets poked.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Disinviting Tone

"Disinviting Tone"

In which of my statements can you see any contradiction to Spatial Curvature? Please point it to the public.

In a moment, first; the public might amount to 15 people as determined by dividing the number of views by the number of posts. Is this the extent of your fame and professional credentials?

I am clearly stating that in contrary to original expectations it has been calculated that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating.

Whoopy do.
One could begin with an inspection of the Ultimate Fate Of The Universe and not stop laughing in wonderment of how one, who has "never studied cosmology" and is "trying to figure these things out in a an old-fashioned way", might overwhelm the learned of institutions, which hold that conclusions are currently impossible, with declarations about events that will not show for perhaps 40 million years.

You are poking youself in the eye again. I guess, ethier you are some kind of masochist, or you are striving for attention, whatever it takes. You post random and irrelavant quotes or words and you are happy that somebody can take you seruiously and reply.
Can you explain to Devils High and to the public meaning of VIRTUAL particles better that I did? Go ahead, offer them your virtual dinner consisting of virtual particles on a virtual plate. Don’t ask them to pay with real money for the undetectable dinner yet, - you may feel your eye poked…. I am forgetting – this is how you achieve pleasure - when your eye gets poked.

Try not to swallow your own snowballs in public.

When the molecules from the balloon in your box fly to the walls they will equalize their energies in the vacuum. And with no energy supplied to the box they will hit and interact with each other and each interaction will make them loose energy and movement. In the end (with no energy supplied to the box) they will come to the state of absolute equilibrium when they will not move - and turn into nothing, even if you have had a thermonuclear explosion of billions of molecules in your balloon in the beginning. In the end you will have nothing without even taking a bit out of the box.
.....
Please explain what does the quote have to do to adiabatic expansion. Speed or acceleration of expansion is not considered in an adiabatic process.

First it is a box, and then you make an analogy and state that it is as the universe. The box as you describe it is adiabatic, and the universe as you describe it is adiabatic.
The process you are describing is a Big Freeze in a box.
Then you wanted to shift gears to an indefinite expansion and call it Heat Death.
Then you do not know whether the "known" universe is sherical, flat, or hyperbolic. And neither do you factor in dark matter or energy with gravity.

 

[Tashah]

Re: Arrogant Apes

Can you explain to Devils High and to the public meaning of VIRTUAL particles better that I did?

Quantum theory tells us that particles are constantly popping in and out of existence in the vacuum of empty space all around us. This is one of the consequences of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which says that over short periods of time it is impossible to know the precise amount of energy in a system. Small fluctuations in the amount of mass or energy in a system are possible. Particles can therefore be created spontaneously out of nothing as long as they disappear quickly enough. Virtual particles are always couplets of matter/anti-matter and their term of existence is dictated by mass/energy (i.e. the larger the mass the shorter the lifespan). The Universe allows virtual particles to be created as long as the loan is promptly paid back... a condition that is satisfied once the particles annihilate one another and return to the apparant void.

Furthermore, quantum theory not only tells us this might happen, it tells us it must happen and is taking place constantly. We are surrounded by a quantum sea of virtual particles.

 

[justone]

Re: Disinviting Tone

In a moment, first; the public might amount to 15 people as determined by dividing the number of views by the number of posts. Is this the extent of your fame and professional credentials?

Whoopy do.
One could begin with an inspection of the Ultimate Fate Of The Universe and not stop laughing in wonderment of how one, who has "never studied cosmology" and is "trying to figure these things out in a an old-fashioned way", might overwhelm the learned of institutions, which hold that conclusions are currently impossible, with declarations about events that will not show for perhaps 40 million years.



First it is a box, and then you make an analogy and state that it is as the universe. The box as you describe it is adiabatic, and the universe as you describe it is adiabatic.
The process you are describing is a Big Freeze in a box.
Then you wanted to shift gears to an indefinite expansion and call it Heat Death.
Then you do not know whether the "known" universe is sherical, flat, or hyperbolic.

I should put you on ignore list, but you are like a happy puppy running around me in circles and bringing me some toys to play. I feel like feeding you some sugar, though I should just kick you out of my way.

Let’s suggest: there is a looser in a mainstream science, whose crazy ideas had been dismissed in the learned institutions so he goes on DP and tries to find an audience to be a guru.
No, my friend, you are completely wrong. 1. I have never been a looser. 2. It’s just a coincidence that once I came a hair close to locking my life in the box of science, but I happily escaped for what looked to me to be a more interesting and profitable carrier ( or I should say carriers). I have not expected that I still can do – but it seems it is like learning to ride a bicycle. So, I may be wrong somewhere, but I still understand what I am reading and what I am saying, while you don’t, - since you appeal to authority of the learned institutions and the sources you cannot read. You don’t know what anybody from my learned institution would say about my posts. (I always care and keep in mind – what would they say? Would they find me correct?)

There is no such thing as adiabatic box. In my first post it was a cardboard box with plastic balls in it. In other posts it was outlined that the Universe was a box – no matter what shape you cared to prescribe to it. I explained that ppl produced all correct math but there was no empirical detection and may be there was no method of empirical detection of dark energy and virtual particles. And I offered everyone to use his own judgment, and to see if a virtual dinner on a virtual plate could make one full or a fool.
The process does not matter, because whatever it is – it leads to the Heat death.

Reading your source, I nave to call all my former colleagues to be witnesses:
Big Freeze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( bandaidwomen, play your sharp observation on the background)
''The Heat Death scenario is compatible with any of the three spatial models, but requires that the universe reach an eventual temperature minimum.''

It is not even wrong. It is a pure evil. One has to ignore all physics, all methodology and tasks of it in order to be able to construct such a sentence. I cannot imagine any of my former collieges in my institutution ( all of them are atheists, at least publicly) who would not be disgusted by the sentence. The Heat Death is not compatable. It is the Qeen of the universe, all others are just little scenarious which have to ask the Queen for permittion to exist. The Queen does not require an eventual temperature minimum – it orders it. The Queen accepts no thoughts, no virtaulity, by only real things in real reality. I still feel lucky that once I had an honor to see her face even from far away. You’ve guessed her name correctly – it is her majesty Thermodynamics, the ruler of all physics and its colonies.
Some of her lrules can be found here : Science Jokes:2. PHYSICS : 2.18 THERMODYNAMICS