Do atoms themselves violate thermodynamics and relativity? If I have an atom in a completely isolated system where there's no energy coming in or going out, let's say it's already at it's ground state since the second law of thermal dynamics implies all systems will eventually lose all possible energy to entropy. It can't lose any more energy so at this point it doesn't attempt to violate thermodynamics, and then if we measure those electrons, we would find that at that energy level, an electron still has a probability of existing at a larger distance away form the nucleus, but is the electron considered to have a greater energy at a greater distance, or is that just part of it's probability wave? Because if it's just part of it's probability wave to have a chance of existing at a larger distance away without increasing in energy, why is an mean location of even further away considered to be at a higher energy level? And then, couldn't that still technically be used for electrons to by chance happen to exist at a a greater distance form the nucleus and so form a compounds that could normally only be formed by adding more energy? Also, someone told me that nothing can reach absolute 0 and that if we did it means time has stopped, but another person made a good point by saying if we pick up a block and hold it in our hand, from our point of reference it is not moving and therefore has 0K from our view, and the clock will still continue to count time. So...can absolute 0 actually be measured just by a mere frame-of-reference, or is technically anything that is not moving having 0K relative to you? And to add on to that, because of the uncertainty within particles, we should be able to measure something not moving at all, however given the proper instruments we would measure that all particles within any object are in one location and at a later time in another or traveling distance over time, suggesting the presence of kinetic energy or at least motion. So, how does that not violate relativity if we can always measure that an atom is moving even though motion depends on the frame-of-reference and therefore no motion can be measured from a frame-of-reference? Because I have heard form people that relativity isn't broken at that point. And when I say broken, I don't mean all of it is flat out wrong, I mean for that particular instance it fails to accurately describe the situation.