Abiabatically (meaning no heat transfer in either direction) and isentropically (meaning it is a reversible process with no losses, i.e. no friction or efficiency differences), while a gas is being evacuated from a tank, the temperature of that gas will drop (if you cut the pressure of air inside a tank in half, the temperature can be about 12% less).  
 
Think about how we get temperatures: molecules in motion transfer their knetic energy to poential energy, this builds up with millions of them and the reactions get stronger when they are warmer because they move faster.   Sure if nothing is bouncing around, we detect zero, but that doesn't mean it is.   I can vacuum seal a jar of nuts, but they won't suddenly freeze even though there isn't that much air in there (although the air around the jar could be room temperature and therefore not adiabatic). 
 
Farther down the thermal scale, we can say the measurement itself is a statistical probability of running into a random cloud of molecules that haven't impacted out thermal probes yet because they are moving slowly.  So is it zero until then?   It clearly wouldn't be uniform to assume actual distributed temperature if we decide to move the probe to different areas of what we think is a vacuum.
 
Pure vacuum would be deep outerspace, I think, where there is nothing as we've defined.  What is that temperature reading? I guess it is assumed zero until you run into more particles.

You guys are all so silly.  Shurikenangel is a good guy.  The answer is obvious.
 
I'm at all of you!
 

lehpron

Abiabatically (meaning no heat transfer in either direction) and isentropically (meaning it is a reversible process with no losses, i.e. no friction or efficiency differences), while a gas is being evacuated from a tank, the temperature of that gas will drop (if you cut the pressure of air inside a tank in half, the temperature can be about 12% less).  

Think about how we get temperatures: molecules in motion transfer their knetic energy to poential energy, this builds up with millions of them and the reactions get stronger when they are warmer because they move faster.   Sure if nothing is bouncing around, we detect zero, but that doesn't mean it is.   I can vacuum seal a jar of nuts, but they won't suddenly freeze even though there isn't that much air in there (although the air around the jar could be room temperature and therefore not adiabatic). 

Farther down the thermal scale, we can say the measurement itself is a statistical probability of running into a random cloud of molecules that haven't impacted out thermal probes yet because they are moving slowly.  So is it zero until then?   It clearly wouldn't be uniform to assume actual distributed temperature if we decide to move the probe to different areas of what we think is a vacuum.

Pure vacuum would be deep outerspace, I think, where there is nothing as we've defined.  What is that temperature reading? I guess it is assumed zero until you run into more particles.

 
There is no such thing as a pure vacuum. The "vacuum" of deep space still has a tiny amount of matter in it, which temperature is about 3k.
 
In theroy, a pure vacuum has no matter inside of it at all. Since there is no matter, there is no molecular movement, which is temperature. Since there can not be a pure vacuum in real life, any actual 'vacuum' will have a temperature.

shurikenangel

brcromer

You guys are all so silly.  Shurikenangel is a good guy.  The answer is obvious.

I'm at all of you!

?
No I was serious because it made me rage a brick.

The answer to the OP question is No.