"Well, that's the problem: we can't reproduce it. "
allow me to requalify that for you.
"Well, that's the problem: we haven't reproduced it yet."
so now, whats the problem?
hypothetically speaking, we cant achieve Absolute 0 either, yet we're getting so close, it's frightening. (somewhere in the 1/12% range if i recall correctly)
just because we haven't reached it doesnt mean it does not/cannot exist.
here's one for you to think about as well though:
We have a concept of the abstract, yet we have nothing around us that we would have learned "abstract" from. where, precisely, did our understanding of "non-existance" come from? how do we dissociate this from "un-existance"?
and of course, a twist on my first big point in the thread:
if we have not seen (nor been able to replicate) "life" from simple matter.... where, still, did we come from? fine, evolution got us to this stage. what got us to live in the first place?
Your word of the week is "asymptotic". Very important when dealing with discrete systems.
The theoretical reasons some things are impossible are much deeper than the level you are looking at them. Things like thermodynamics are said to be what they are not because it is a strong scientific hypothesis (e.g. the Big Bang), but as a necessary mathematical consequence of fundamental properties. You are allowed to get "close" to absolute zero as you want to, so getting "close" is not a sign that the laws of thermodynamics are about to be broken. Saying so is similar to saying that we are getting close to breaking the speed of light, and we just need to build faster rockets to do it.
We have a concept of the abstract, yet we have nothing around us that we would have learned "abstract" from. where, precisely, did our understanding of "non-existance" come from? how do we dissociate this from "un-existance"?
This isn't intended as a flame or anything like that, but you aren't really ready to go there. We're still working on the fundamentals here.