Objections, please.

[Kuznetzova]

Maybe not, I've a fair idea what field theories entail, but I couldn't do the maths if that's what you mean.

No. That is not "what I meant" at all. I meant exactly what I said.

I think once again you are confusing a mathematical model with reality.

I did no such thing. I said something rather plain and well-established.

1) The time it takes to cool a sample of ultra-cool gas at nanokelvins increases in time as the temperature of the sample decreases.

2) therefore, you were just plain wrong about zero kelvin being a matter of shielding from neutrinos.

[tillingborn]

Maybe not, I've a fair idea what field theories entail, but I couldn't do the maths if that's what you mean.

No. That is not "what I meant" at all. I meant exactly what I said.

If there is anything you think you can tell me about field theories, I'd be happy to hear it.

I think once again you are confusing a mathematical model with reality.

I did no such thing. I said something rather plain and well-established.

1) The time it takes to cool a sample of ultra-cool gas at nanokelvins increases in time as the temperature of the sample decreases.

I wasn't aware that any isotope was still a gas at nanokelvins, that really is news to me.

2) therefore, you were just plain wrong about zero kelvin being a matter of shielding from neutrinos.

2 doesn't follow from 1; therefore: your therefore doesn't apply. Apart from that, this is confirmation bias on your part again. The point wasn't simply about neutrinos, it was that a sample you wish to cool to absolute zero will need to be shielded from any source of energy. The effects of gravity and neutrinos, not to mention the non zero energy of a vacuum are very small, but if you are serious about achieving the mathematically coherent 0K, you first have to eliminate the entire universe. I don't think you understand how much you are committing yourself to Platonism when you make ontological claims about the physical world based on mathematical relations.

[HexHammer]

The interaction between light and matter ( in all parts of physics ?! )
we accept as absurd from our philosophical ( logical ) point of view.
Then to understand Nature we need to reconsider our
'' philosophy of physics ''.
Where was the mistake made ?
Where did we lose the true path ?

In my opinion, we ignore the absolute zero of vacuum and therefore
Feynman was correct writing that from the point of view of common
sense we accept Nature as absurd.

What you say is absurd nonsense and babble. Get your head straight.

[Cerveny]

Book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.
/ by Richard Feynman /
More details.
Book. QED:
The Strange Theory of Light ( E=h*f ) and Matter ( E=kT )
/ by Richard Feynman /
=====..
Objections, please.
==.

You should see the problem (Light / Matter) as a "wave / boat" interaction. Or, a little better, as a "phonon / crystal defect" interaction ... Highly energetic phonon can generate a defect in the regular structure of crystal, more precisely, two complementary defects...