wiki says


Heat, in physics, is energy which is spontaneously flowing from an object with a high temperature to an object with a lower temperature.

Heat can also refer to:

In physics:

Thermal energy, the sum of a body's latent and sensible forms of energy (sometimes confused with "heat")
Heating, the act of increasing temperature

but like gravity, what is it?

Who can share what is released when a chemical reaction occurs?

more definitions to work off a




In a thermodynamic sense, heat is never regarded as being stored within a body. Like work, it exists only as energy in transit from one body to another; in thermodynamic terminology, between a system and its surroundings. When energy in the form of heat is added to a system, it is stored not as heat, but as kinetic and potential energy of the atoms and molecules making up the system.

The noun heat is defined only during the process of energy transfer by conduction or radiation.

Heat is defined as any spontaneous flow of energy from one object to another, caused by a difference in temperature between two objects.

Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high-temperature object to a lower-temperature object.

Heat as an interaction between two closed systems without exchange of work is a pure heat interaction when the two systems, initially isolated and in a stable equilibrium, are placed in contact. The energy exchanged between the two systems is then called heat.

Heat is a form of energy possessed by a substance by virtue of the vibrational movement, i.e. kinetic energy, of its molecules or atoms.


Heat is the transfer of energy between substances of different temperatures.




SO what is, that stuff?

more definitions to work off a



SO what is, that stuff?

Heat is nothing more than one form of energy. It "expresses" itself in the vibration of atoms and molecules.

and what causes resonance upon mass?

What's resonance upon mass?

electromagnetic


kind of new line of thinking for the scientific community but there is a whole bunch in the works right now all over the globe

perhaps take a read and use the tools provided to offer you a scope


The effect of resolution and accuracy of resonances depends on physical processes. The height of photoionization resonances is theoretically unbounded, unlike electronion excitation cross sections where it is limited by the unitarity constraint on the scattering matrix. Therefore resonances in photoionization cross sections may approach unphysical heights if all relevant physical effects are not carefully considered. A complete resolution of resonances in photoionization cross sections, particularly for higher n and ℓ, is difficult to achieve. Neither can the calculated resonances be individually verified by experiments, since the measured cross sections are averages over
the beam width and shape. Nevertheless, R-matrix calculations for photoionization cross sections have been experimentally verified, some computed in LS coupling prior to experiments. For example, we note the extremely detailed comparison between R-matrix cross sections and recent experiments on synchrotron based light sources reported by the Reno/Berkeley group for O II (Covington et al, 2001), the Aarhus group for C II (Kjeldsen et al. 1999, Nahar 2002), and the Paris group for O ions (Champeaux et al 2003, Nahar 2004). Near-threshold resonances need to be carefully resolved, often with relativistic fine structure. In the relativistic Fe XVII photorecombination calculations including 359 bound levels with n < 10, Zhang et al (2001) explicitly delineate 2,985 resonances in a very small near-threshold region 0 - 5eV. 2.1.

Photionization cross sections and rates
In Fig. 1 we compare high-resolution R-matrix photoionization cross sections
for the ground and two metastable states

http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0406/0406472v1.pdf

or notice how the wave equations are shared, then perhaps a few lights will open up

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/HFrame.html

point to be observed; energy is electromagnetic and energy upon mass resonates

If you're talking about photoionization, just say so in future. It makes things easier.

Can't see what it has to do with heat, though.

I thought question was 'what is resonance?'

perhaps the idea that em upon a structure is resonance and trying to build up to the reality that resonance, momentum, strong force, weak force and gravity are all just properties of em is too much just yet?

Why do you think the thread was asking folk to simply share what 'heat' is?

(taking baby steps)

But like always a few will find a word, make a comment and have no intent of seeking comprehension. (usually comes from the old school)

most youngsters know how to look items up before making stupid comments

you asked what's resonance upon mass. I shared em upon mass is what creates a resonance. This fact is true not sometimes but everytime....

sorry if it was a little beyond you to actually look up something and read a bit before making a stupid comment....

Wonder what would happen if i redefined the double slit experiment so monkeys will quit teaching that a per se photon is a particle and a wave....
(ie... you would think the photoelectric effect would have fixed that error a long time ago)

I'm sorry if my question upset you, Bishadi. Never mind. I'll leave you to it.

If you're talking about photoionization, just say so in future. It makes things easier.


it makes thing easier when people read.... even if you cannot do the math

you would have seen something in that pub


In conclusion we note that:
1. For photoionization and NLTE modeling applications, it may be necessary to
compute photoionization cross sections with higher accuracy and resolution than in the Opacity Project data. Accuracy of resonance positions is crucial in the determination of (e + ion) and photoionization rates. A number of self-consistent computations are in progress as part of a program to calculate photoionization and unified (e + ion) reocmbination (RR plus DR) cross sections and rates (Nahar and Pradhan 2003a).

2. Although the monochromatic and mean opacities are not measurably different using the high-resolution data for oxygen ions, as opposed to the Opacity Project data, these quantities may differ considerably for more complex atomic systems such as the low ionization stages of iron. In a previous work (Nahar and Pradhan 1994b), we showed that the Rosseland mean opacities using new improved data for Fe II differed by up to 50% from OP values. There is increasing evidence that there is ”missing UV opacity”, possibly due to Fe I, that is critical to the determination of abundances in the Sun and other objects (e.g. Asplund 2003). New atomic and opacities calculations for iron ions are needed with higher accuracy and resolution.

the energy upon the mass is what much of the chemistry folk do not comprehend....

ionized mass is but a portion of the total energy state..... perhaps you would have comprehended that if you read

I'm sorry if my question upset you, Bishadi. Never mind. I'll leave you to it.

james if you be an admin kind of guy, perhaps use your talents to 'support' learning and the progression of knowledge (as it evolves)

ask good questions that assist even the little people to reach the next plateau but be fair to each and yourself and simply recognize the current paradigm must have flaws as the next generation can be assisted in going beyond the previous generations complacency.

this is their period in time; if you do not wish to actually hash through the issues, then use your skills to assist the next generation (do you remember being a youngster ready to take on the world? well don't step on their mojo, support their learning; give the new a chance, it is their world now)

it makes thing easier when people read.... even if you cannot do the math

you would have seen something in that pub



the energy upon the mass is what much of the chemistry folk do not comprehend....

ionized mass is but a portion of the total energy state..... perhaps you would have comprehended that if you read

Yeah heat, you know the hot shit.
fark James, sometimes frank and succinct actually cuts through the hyperbole but you'll drop this post like the last one..like a hot potato!
Too stitched up..seriously!

The tomographically measured matrices often fail to be positive semidefinite, especially when measuring low-entropy states. To avoid this problem the ‘‘maximum likelihood’’ tomographic approach to the stimation of quantum states has been developed @3–7#. In this approach the density matrix that is ‘‘mostly likely’’ to have produced a measured data set is determined by numerical optimization.

In the past decade several groups have successfully employed tomographic techniques for the measurement of quantum mechanical systems. In 1990 Ashburn et al. reported the measurement of the density matrix for the nine sublevels of the n53 level of hydrogen atoms formed following collision between H1 ions and He atoms, in conditions of high symmetry which simplified the tomographic problem @8#. Since then, in 1993 Smithey et al. made a homodyne measurement of the Wigner function of a single mode of light @9#. Other explorations of the quantum states of single mode light fields have been made by Breitenbach et al. @10# and Wu et al. @11#. Other quantum systems whose density matrices have been investigated experimentally include the vibrations of molecules @12#, the motion of ions and atoms @13,14#, and the internal angular momentum quantum state of the F54 ground state of a cesium atom

might as well let them tell you

In this paper we will examine in detail techniques for quantum state measurement as it applies to multiple correlated two-level quantum mechanical systems ~or ‘‘qubits’’ in the terminology of quantum information!

this is sharing the ‘state’ is not so much a particle or physical construct but a qubit (state) as the et al’s share the variant methods of describing this state

point being the ‘state’ of the energy upon mass is the observable function (one qubit at a time)

ie… ‘heat’ is simply a ‘state’ of energy for each per se photon (line item of heat itself)

Each et.al is sharing a measured property of the same thing……….. light (upon mass)



Measurement of qubits
Daniel F. V. James,1,* Paul G. Kwiat,2,3 William J. Munro,4,5 and Andrew G. White2,4
1Theoretical Division T-4, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
2Physics Division P-23, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
3Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801
4Department of Physics, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
5Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Filton Road, Stoke Gifford, Bristol BS34 8QZ, United Kingdom
~Received 20 March 2001; published 16 October 2001!

We describe in detail the theory underpinning the measurement of density matrices of a pair of quantum
two-level systems ~‘‘qubits’’!. Our particular emphasis is on qubits realized by the two polarization degrees of
freedom of a pair of entangled photons generated in a down-conversion experiment; however, the discussion
applies in general, regardless of the actual physical realization. Two techniques are discussed, namely, a
tomographic reconstruction ~in which the density matrix is linearly related to a set of measured quantities! and
a maximum likelihood technique which requires numerical optimization ~but has the advantage of producing
density matrices that are always non-negative definite!. In addition, a detailed error analysis is presented,
allowing errors in quantities derived from the density matrix, such as the entropy or entanglement of formation,
to be estimated. Examples based on down-conversion experiments are used to illustrate our results.

http://research.physics.uiuc.edu/QI/photonics/papers/2PhotonTomo.pdf

all the material is for is to allow a comprehension as to all the stuff that makes up heat…..

(light) ……….. electromagnetism …………..

think in the lines of heat is usually mentioned in volume but a per unit line by line mass to energy relation is where to start all over from….

That is what this thread is for; to allow the new thinkers to begin making a difference. i.e….. to observe em as the energy upon mass, then see how chemistry needs a little help. Such that an environment at a specific ‘temperature’ is simply the resonance upon the surrounding mass. So when molecules combine the catalyst (new energy) may combine with the environment (resonance) to reach a threshold for the next progression (reaction).

The key is energy is always of ‘intent’ to continue (progress) where as in current paradigm the 2LoT suggests the opposite, to equilibrate. Define the system as open until you get the hang of identifying the energy itself as the specimen.

What is heat?
This is one of those questions that is simple and complex at the same time. Everyone has felt heat, but what is it?

The simple answer is that heat is energy.

Heat travels in waves like other forms of energy, and can change the matter it touches.


http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/thermal/1-what-is-heat.html


and if you have done the homework above in the other posts, then read the current ideas

what wrong with the current model?

think of potential exchanges and look into van der waals, as well look at

em exchanging with matter and how ionization is created

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod3.html#c1

what do you see?

I thought heat was the transfer of energy via vibrating of mass or particle collison.

Metaphoricaly speeking heat, is like pool/billiad balls. The white ball could be thought of the energy source (Motion), then the white ball hits all the coloured balls they bounce around and crash into each other (Heat)

Friction is a good way to understand heat.. you turn motion energy into heat energy from rubbing/colliding atoms together.

correct me if im wrong

I thought heat was the transfer of energy via vibrating of mass or particle collison.

Metaphoricaly speeking heat, is like pool/billiad balls. The white ball could be thought of the energy source (Motion), then the white ball hits all the coloured balls they bounce around and crash into each other (Heat)

Hello Harro, In a sense you are on the ball.

So the white ball is basically the initial spark to get the other balls in motion.

makes sense.....


Friction is a good way to understand heat.. you turn motion energy into heat energy from rubbing/colliding atoms together. And now you into the fun part; as in some cases it could be said the rubbing is taking electrons from each other and creating a potential of static energy.

The reason i shared this is in each case the energy whether the white ball or the exchange in rubbing the energy is electromagnetic of origin.

ie..... we have four recognized forces shared in physics.. strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity.... there isn't one called heat or temperature

such that heat is not a property but like a river of energy


correct me if im wrong your idea of logic is good to go...

the purpose of the thread is to share that when observing any chemical reaction, temperature or heat, in each and every case is simply a form of energy that must be drilled down to the basic forces shared in physics. (white ball and mass) / Atoms and energy (em)


I like to see 'heat' as either electromagnetic resonance in which the atoms are vibrating (just like you said) based on the frequency and wavelength of the em upon that structure or once a threshold is reached that mass may increase its momentum; such as the flame below a cooking surface, the mass is hitting the bottom of the pan releasing its energy to the metal which resonates increasing the 'temperature'....

again in all cases the energy is em when drilled down to the mechanics of atoms and energy

this is what chemisty fails to address in its 'reactions' where as in quantum representations such as bohrs atom, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/bohr.html or the wave form of schroadinger (bottom of linked page) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

sharing that in all cases the energy change or state is and exchange of em

Which will share in the overall, that energy itself is simply em (light) upon mass and the electron usage is simply em isolating the structure called electron from the mass of its origin.

please ask the questions you feel you need to know and allow me to point you in the right direction :D

wiki says



but like gravity, what is it?

Who can share what is released when a chemical reaction occurs?

It's free-flowing kinetic energy.

I thought heat was the transfer of energy via vibrating of mass or particle collison.

Metaphoricaly speeking heat, is like pool/billiad balls. The white ball could be thought of the energy source (Motion), then the white ball hits all the coloured balls they bounce around and crash into each other (Heat)

Friction is a good way to understand heat.. you turn motion energy into heat energy from rubbing/colliding atoms together.

correct me if im wrong
Heat flow mechanisms includes radiation, conduction, and convection. The billiard ball analogy does not describe heat flow due to radiation. A better way to look at heat is as energy transfer other than work, i.e., energy transfer that changes temperature. The first law of thermodynamics in its simplest form says exactly that:

\Delta U = Q - W

What that means is that \Delta U, the change in internal energy in some system, is equal to the difference between the Q, the heat flow into the system and W, the work done by the system.

Another way to think of it: W is useful energy while Q is useless energy. The second law of thermodynamics tells how futile the search for useful energy will be.

oh.. so particles are like a heat sink, absorb heat...its actually the radiation that is heat?

oh..but if a particles stored too much heat it transfers some of that energy back out as heat radiation?
sorry for double post

Harro,

That's still not right. Your billiard ball model does not explain radiative heat transfer, but it does explain conductive and convective heat transfer.

It appears that you are making a typical mistake. Heat is not stored. An object does not contain heat. Heat is instead what is called a process variable. Suppose you want to bring a gas from some initial pressure and volume (and hence temperature, since PV=nRT for an ideal gas) to some final pressure and volume. There are many ways to do this. For example, you can
Change the volume to the final volume while keeping the pressure constant at the initial pressure, and then change the pressure to the final pressure while keeping the volume constant at the final volume, or
Change the pressure to the final pressure while keeping the volume constant at the initial volume, and then change the volume to the final volume while keeping the pressure constant at the final pressure, or
Make the gas follow a straight line path from the initial state to the final state, or
Make the gas follow some curved path through the pressure-volume state.

The amount of heat transfered to/from the system depends on the path followed. If objects contained heat, the amount of heat transfered would depend only on the difference between the final and initial state.

Heat flow mechanisms includes radiation, conduction, and convection. The billiard ball analogy does not describe heat flow due to radiation. A better way to look at heat is as energy transfer other than work, i.e., energy transfer that changes temperature. The first law of thermodynamics in its simplest form says exactly that:

\Delta U = Q - W

What that means is that \Delta U, the change in internal energy in some system, is equal to the difference between the Q, the heat flow into the system and W, the work done by the system.

Another way to think of it: W is useful energy while Q is useless energy. The second law of thermodynamics tells how futile the search for useful energy will be.

atta-boy.... if we need a steam engine, we can call on you!

Heat is not a potential difference.....

oh.. so particles are like a heat sink, absorb heat...its actually the radiation that is heat?

No, heat is the energy upon that mass and in all cases em in one 'f' or another. Ie.... all mass between any 2 points in time has em upon it no matter what the mass, no matter what the volume.

Heat is the em upon mass!

Harro,

That's still not right. Your billiard ball model does not explain radiative heat transfer, but it does explain conductive and convective heat transfer. ah... measuring the exchange does not share what the 'it' is.



It appears that you are making a typical mistake. Heat is not stored. then why does splitting an atom cause so much heat.


An object does not contain heat. that is an error of comprehending even the simple stuff like E=mc2


The amount of heat transfered to/from the system depends on the path followed. If objects contained heat, the amount of heat transfered would depend only on the difference between the final and initial state. and like reality conveys; the old are still measuring energy as a potential difference;

this comes from the laws of thermodynamics; in which to comprhend the first law, shares that the 2nd law is moot; conservation rules.

Which shares that energy is not created or destroys but exists upon mass; and the old school measured the difference between points

but that does not share what 'it' is

even when people say; 'well it's radiating' when the math does not share what that 'it' is radiating....

Em is the energy upon mass; in all cases!

That is what the paradigm shift will unfold;

Energy is the light upon mass, in time.

The three combine in a simple form (theorem) of mass, energy and time.

and to understand light as the energy between all mass, then entangled energy between mass is that other unknown 'it' ........... gravity

Gravity is entangled energy between mass; the missing potential is based on the varied wavelengths of energy (light).

ahh so heat is relatively higher energy state condenced in a small area of space. Its effects on matter is motion energy (exited matter), if the matter cant escape it casues higher pressure?

I still think matter can store energy, including heat energy, although if the atom reaches an over energized state it would emmit the energy as radiation.

I guess the high energy state can be explained, like if you consentrated a light beam into a small volume of mass it would heat up due to the relatively higher energy input. But it wont instantly get hot, it would warm up. I assume the warming up time is the matter storing the energy till it reaches a point it cant store any more and radiates that energy out to neihbouring atoms. Surely some of this energy is expessed as motion energy which starts a chain reaction or excited atoms bumping and colliding all over the place..this would be cause of high preasure would it not.

Heat can be lost via lower preasure or radient energy?

after all we measure temperature with a pressure guage (thermometer), the liquid expands in a tube, and we measure how far it expands.

I am sure DH knows, but for accuracy his post 18 statement below is not always true:

"A better way to look at heat is as energy transfer other than work, i.e., energy transfer that changes temperature."

For example:
Slowing melting ice requires heat flow, but the temperature does not change. It is not even necessary to change form liquid to solid etc. to transfer heat at constant temperature. For example, solid iron exist in the body centered lcubic atice and in the face centered latice and heat at constant temperature is required to convert the lower temperature one (I forget which that is) to the higher temperature one. Some solids have several solid phases, but as I recall, iron has only these two.

Ice is also interesting as when it forms work is done againist the atmospheric pressure so making ice in the high pressure atmosphere will have different heat requirements. Likewise if you have ice and quickly do work on it (too little time for significant heat flow) it will melt - that is how iceskates work - your are often not skating on ice but a very thing film of water made by the work done (and then undone as the compression is removed for it to refreeze.)

A few more comments on Heat:

I define heat as a type of energy associated with the random motion of many atoms (or molecules). Thus, for me "heat radiation" is not heat. It is IR radiation, but it is not a different form of energy from light or UV or X-rays or even gama rays. This division of the electromagnetic spectrum into wavelength groups is arbitary and very much the IR/light/ UV boundary are just reflecting human neural capacities.

Heat is a lower form of energy in the sense that all other forms can be converted 100% into it but it can only partially be converted into other forms.

Individual atoms can store energy (in there excited states and in their motion, but that motion is not random, so it is not heat.) When one considers "Brownian Motion" the boundary between heat and directed kinetic energy get a little fuzzy. The energy in 1000 marbles shaken steadly and confined in a box would not normally be consdered heat either, but is sort of large scale Brownian like motion and if one wants to for some reason this fuzzy boundary could be pushed to called either heat, except for the fact my definiton specifically said "random motion of atoms (or molecules)" not, "polen pieces or marbles."

Hi thanks for your informative post.

Heat is a usefull form of energy, as it is easy to convert into work.
Why is that?
because the excited particles trying to get from a high preasure environment to a lower pressure environment. You can capture the motion energy of the matter (it collides with other matter which can be a piston in a car engine for example)

So to define heat.
The more particles of mass per volume of space plus input of energy will yield higher temperatures.

Which goes back to my pool table anology, rack the balls in a cluster (high pressure) and smash them with a cue ball (input energy) and they all scatter around like crazy (high temp) now the balls are spread around the table (lower preassure) and less balls should collide (yielding lower temp).

Hi thanks for your informative post.

Heat is a usefull form of energy, as it is easy to convert into work.
Why is that?
because the excited particles trying to get from a high preasure environment to a lower pressure environment. ...Presure and density are not in any direct way related to heat. Both are high near the surface of Jupitor (say 100miles below the surface) but the heat energy per gram of mass is probably less than the air around you. (I am just guessing, to illustrate the point, and do not want to get too close to the core as the primortal gravity collapse energy, now converted to heat, still has not dissipated. - I.e. it is hot at the core still. (Jupitor radiates significantly more energy than it recieves from the sun still. Jupitor failed to make the cut to become a very long lived faint companion star of the sun.)

"Easy" is a relative word. Converting other forms of energy nearly 100% into heat is easier than converting even part of the heat into other forms of energy. An engine is not always required - for example, thermo-electric generators exist with no moving parts. One needs to "streech" to see how "pressure" is used (but that POV is possible by considering the "electron pressure" inside of solids conductors. Thermionic converters also exits. You no doubt own a few - incandesent light bulbs "boil off" electrons and a slight negative charge develops on the inside surface of the glass bulb. When enough electric field is generated there is no longer any net flow to the surface, but heat has been converted into electic potiential.

In vaccum ceasium leaves red hot tungsten, which has a high "work function" as a positive ion, which is massive compared to these electrons. Because momentum and kinetic energy scale differently with speed, these ions can be collected and neutralized to make a nearly practical "battery" that runs on thermal power, not chemical energy. They (the neutral ceasium atoms) are then returned, perhaps by gravity, (no work needed against the electric field) to the hot tungeston. There have been some studies of using sealed Ceasium vapor vaccum cells with nuclear reactors to directly generate electric power. I have not looked at this idea for 40 years. - why not search and tell the status of it now?

The truth is nobody knows exactly what is heat, energy, work, time, space, etc., etc. (circulatory definitions aside) but everybody has some kind of general grasp of these concepts. General vague idea is ALL you can get. Chances are that your particular vagueness is as good as that of Einstein, etc. Sure, lots of braniacs show off their learned feathers using cryptic language (too mesmerize less educated) trying to define those things (and to cover utter failure with all kind of learned BS). Idea of heat&energy is vague and intuitive, it cannot be strictly defined. If you are looking for some ultimate definition, you'll never find it.

Here is what Canned Heat is all about...:cool:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DV55FfDnkQ6o&usg=AFQjCNF5z1PGh_XRSkaqAFCZ8_xv1qJpjA

The truth is nobody knows exactly what is heat, energy, work, time, space, etc., etc. (circulatory definitions aside) but everybody has some kind of general grasp of these concepts. ...Not sure what you are saying, but yes all words in any language have circular definitions. Look anyone up and a dictionary and you will find it defined in different words, each of which is also defined in still more words etc. The dictionary is a circular network.* Is that what you are stating?

Words acquire their meaning by their use, not by their dictionary definitions. Those printed definition only are reasonably good reflections of the meaning aquired by use. As the way words are used slowly changes with time, the dictionary needs constant up dating. For example "Lady" now mainly means "female" not "wife of a lord" now, at least in US usage.

That said and acknowledged, there are few words as well defined by operational proceedures as the word of physics. For example, "work" is the mathematical product of the force component in the direction of motion times the extent (magnitude, or amount) of that motion. If either factor is not constant then infintesimal products of these two factors must be integrated. Both of the factors can be defined, not only by other word, but by operational MEASUREMENT proceedures. Most words can only be defined by other words, in a clearly circular process.

Terms of physic are defined operationally as well as by other words. - They are the best definded terms (words) in the language as circular definitons are not required when the / operational procedures / measurments are used.

Thus I do not understand what is your point.

----------
*For example, if given a complete dictionary of languange you do not know any words of - it is totally useless for you. The circular nature of dictionaries and their definitions is then very clear to you. Physic is not dependent on these circular terms alone - it can be operationally defined.

Not sure what you are saying, but yes all words in any language have circular definitions. Look anyone up and a dictionary and you will find it defined in different words, each of which is also defined in still more words etc. The dictionary is a circular network.* Is that what you are stating?

Classic example of circular definition:

Energy - capacity to do work (the most popular def.)
Work - change in the energy of an object

Most of physics/thermodynamics textbooks using this circular crap without much thinking. Actually, this is the most screwed up part of most books, since authors should know better that some energy cannot be transformed into work.

It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is.
The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol I, p 4-1

Yes, we can calculate & measure "energy", but we don't really understand (and may never understand) meaning of it as we may never define (in noncircular way) force, space, time, work, heat, mass - those are basic physics abstractions, something like axioms in math.




For example, "work" is the mathematical product of the force component in the direction of motion times the extent (magnitude, or amount) of that motion.

Physics requires some phenomenological definition/understanding. Besides the question "what is force & time" are also very interesting.

... the question "what is force & time" are also very interesting.Yes, but that is not physics. That is philosphy. Physic makes no attempt to tell what anything really IS. Physic is unifying scheme that allows prediction of many special cases by general rules ("laws" if you like).

For example: under conditions "A" objects "b & c" will "D"

Physics never tries to tell what "b" or "c" "really is."

The "unifying scheme" often has a model and some equations, but if the model has sub models and or "componet parts" such as electrons or quarks etc. what they "really are" is also not told. Physicists tend to think they are real objects, as believe it or not physicsists are humans also. This does not imply; however that the thing of the model or of its componet parts, have been explained as to what they "really are." In this sense no one will tell what heat "really is" (and there is the other non-physics meaning of this word also, related to human perception of warmth, which is something entirely different than the physicist's "heat.")

For example: Given the geometry of a conductor (say a coil of wire) and a mesured electric current distribution in it, I can predict the magnetic field to be found atr various locations in space and confirm these prediction by measurent of the magnetic field. I can go deeper into what the electric current is (the drift velocity added to the random thermal velocity in the conductor's free electrons etc. or what is the band structure of that type of conductor etc. ... But I still do not know what is an electron or what is a magnetic field, or what heat IS in a philosophical sense. etc.

All I know is given condidtions "A" and objects "b" and "c" I can expect "D" but there are zillions of variations on this with all covered by realtive few rules that allow the predition of condition "D."

I agree with dixonmassey

Welcome to SF. lionwarrior.
I agree with dixonmasseySo do I, if he is only saying that no ones know what anthing really is or that most words have only circular definitions. In first reply to him I said not sure what he was saying at the start of my post. (he still has not made it very clear) In second I said:

"Yes, but that is not physics. That is philosphy. Physic makes no attempt to tell what anything really IS. ..."

at the start as he now seems to only be saying that one one knows what anything "really IS" and I do agree with that.

Welcome to SF. lionwarrior.So do I, if he is only saying that no ones know what anthing really is or that most words have only circular definitions. In first reply to him I said not sure what he was saying at the start of my post. (he still has not made it very clear) In second I said:

"Yes, but that is not physics. That is philosphy. Physic makes no attempt to tell what anything really IS. ..."

at the start as he now seems to only be saying that one one knows what anything "really IS" and I do agree with that.

So it seems today's physics are 'less than' good. Such that they can build a steam engine by the usage of heat but who has taken the time to define what that 'heat' is upon mass.

ie... the thread shares that 'heat' is simply em (light) in every case no matter how you slice it up.

Is there any doubt?

Is there anything in the whole of existence that can prove that point incorrect?

...Is there any doubt? Is there anything in the whole of existence that can prove that point incorrect?Lots of doubt about what you are stating or asking. "what point"? Please try again. Is English not your native language? (No insult intended - I just have no idea what you are asking, or even if you are asking something.)

Lots of doubt about what you are stating or asking. "what point"? Please try again. Is English not your native language? (No insult intended - I just have no idea what you are asking, or even if you are asking something.)

I understand Billy T

it was me opening the thread asking 'what is heat'

and within the body a proposal was made that 'heat' as far as what 'it' is has been determined to be em (light) no matter how any wish to debate

from the resonance, to the momentum or what have you; that 'it' is em causing it in all cases.

Em (light) is the energy upon mass.

To bishadi:

lets start simple: What does "em(light)" mean?

To bishadi:

lets start simple: What does "em(light)" mean?

perhaps look into the works of roger bacon, newton, maxwell

from radio all the way to gamma..... the cross of electric and magnetic fields at perpendicular planes.....

perhaps look into the works of roger bacon, newton, maxwell

from radio all the way to gamma..... the cross of electric and magnetic fields at perpendicular planes.....OK, I take it you mean electromagnetic waves in the IR range by "em(light)"

I have already explained that IR radiation, despite often being called "heat" as in "heat lamp" is not heat. Heat is low quality energy which can only partially be converted into high quality energy. Not in practice, but in principle IR energy can be converted nearly 100% into other forms of high quality energy. The conversion is NOT limited by the Carnot equation as conversion of heat is. Except for the "black body" (or grey body) radiation distribution of radiant energy there is not even a temperature associated with radiant energy. Heat normally has a temperature associated with it (It is difficult to to avoid a Maxwell /Boltzman distrubution of particle energies in a heat source)

The first "lasers" were called "Masers" as they produced microwave energy, (The very first used NH3, as I recall. One of the most efficient is uses CO2 and radiates 10.6 microns as I recall.) then IR energy and finally visible light lasers were made. (I believe not only are there now a few UV stimulated emision source known, but even X-ray "lasers" have been demonstarted. (Teller wanted to put one in space as part of Regean's "Star Wars") Microwaves can not only in principle, but in practice, be converted into DC power with very high efficiency. Serious proposals exist to place solar cells in orbit for continuous collection of higher intensity (more than full noon at sea level, 24hours/ day) solar energy with the energy converted to microwaves and then beamed down to "rectennias" on earth for new type of power stations.

Certainly microwaves are not "heat" nor is any EM wave, IR radiation included. Heat is only as I defined it in prior post.

You, I think, are confusing what the physicist calls heat with the physiological experience that can be achieved by IR or only visible light being absorbed on your skin. That higher quality radiant energy is degraded into heat in your body when it is absorbed but was not heat. To call it heat is the same error as calling the electric power that can be converted into low quality energy in a resistor "heat." Both electic power and radiant energy can be converted into low quality energy, called heat, but neither is heat.

PS
I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS, having solved defined boundary condition problems related to reflection, polarization, Bruester's angle determination, etc., calculated the sink depth of various conductors, derived the laws of refraction from them, etc. I never was very good at antenna theory. - That is almost an art, even though Maxwell's equation are fine for simple geometries, but not for the typical TV antenna.

OK, I take it you mean electromagnetic waves in the IR range by "em(light)" light is just the term to cover the whole spectrum


ever notice the inversed square rule and how it applies to light; the size of the wave is opposite to the measured state of the energy



such is the same to tap a surface to a flat pond. At the impact the wave is at its greatest but affecting the smallest portion of mass but then as it rolls through medium the amount of mass imposed is exponentially increased

i.e... the energy is not equilibriating. It is entangling more mass. The energy is still there, it didn't just chaotically vanish (remember conservation)

So as one may define entropy to be single direction, it can be said, the 'growth' or increase of mass is positive.

that is why i say the first laws shares the 2nd law is missing something; half of the equation; think causality or simply the cat in the box. To know the out come of the experiment requires observance to the conception and all parts in between

so it is not that and 'uncertainty' exists but that the parameters are incomplete




I have already exsplained that IR radiation, despite often being called "heat" as in "heat lamp" is not heat. Heat is low quality energy which can only partially be converted into high quality energy. yet at 98.6 that lightly heated mass (life) can cause mountains to move

how can that occur?

ie...... the reality is not to think of mass and energy as rocks and the sun

but to observe that energy has intent which is proven by life (rule: life; purposd to continue)

To go a little deep; that initial cause has been defined throughout history as being from God, or in the real old periods; the sun is that spark to all life; the light of life

then to really go esoteric; an idea (human conscious/mind) is simply a new shade of light.





Certainly microwaves are not "heat" nor is any EM wave. that'll piss off every pizza reheating guy during monday night football


You, I think, are confusing what the physicist calls heat with the physiological experience Physiology is what is important, not building a particle accelerator or looking to the stars and then state the universe is composed of 75+% of dark crap that doesn't exist. (because the math will not comply with the observations)

Life is what the science were born from (we as a species 'created' the concept); perhaps to understand how existence works, life must be addressed.

In fact, life is what did reveal how it all works. The understanding of how energy affects mass and thereby to associate.



Both electic power and radiant energy can be converted into low quality energy, called heat, but neither is heat.


Exactly!

The heat of mass, is the energy upon the mass; be it resonant, momentum or held in time (mass)........... in every case, in all action and association from atom to atom.......... HEAT is of em(light).


energy is em and em is what allows all this http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR98/BAPSDPP98/abs/S6500.html to occur

it is not me being narrow minded, it is that in order to comprehend the whole scope, the understanding energy must change

i already have; time for the wave to entangle more mass

...observe that energy has intent which is proven by life (rule: life; purposd to continue)
To go a little deep; that initial cause has been defined throughout history as being from God, or in the real old periods; the sun is that spark to all life; the light of life
then to really go esoteric; an idea (human conscious/mind) is simply a new shade of light. ...Sorry - I thought you were interested in learning about heat.

Are you a sock-pupet for that guy who was argueing that "life had purpose," evolution was not by chance mutations, but working toward that purpose, etc?

You are free to preach your POV but there are better forums than this one in Science / Chemisrty section for that. I will not respond more here..

Sorry - I thought you were interested in learning about heat.

It's OK no need to apologize.




Are you a sock-pupet Lamp-chop? well .... yeehhas



for that guy who was argueing that "life had purpose," evolution was not by chance mutations, but working toward that purpose, etc?

Something like 'evolution'? Or purely put, to be capable of understanding the mechanics of how from atoms and energy as the based constituents to a living structure actually works.. Well .... yeehhas

Remeber Gets Smart; chaos looses.

ie.... if any read the laws of thermodynamics they can see for themselves that the first law makes the second law moot.

such that if entropy was pure then what started the action? Good accounting means keeping track of the figures.

Idiots of chance will never balance and what schroadingers cat analogy was all about.

Chance, chaos and uncertainty is for the simple minded; and has nothing to do with how mass and energy evolved into a life.

So if knowledge evolves, then chaos would be the tangents for the ignorant!

Wonder how many guests are actually questioning and using the points