CO2 Follows Temperature

[IanC]

SSDD believes that God takes the temperature of everything in the world and then makes decisions about which directions are allowable when a molecule drops to groundstate by emitting a photon.


most scientists believe that energy flows are controlled by the statistics of large numbers and no individual interactions are prohibited. a casino of sorts where some 'winners' are offset by more 'losers' depending on the probability and the myriad of individual events.

if you look at a Planck curve graph you can see that any value on the x axis is possible for a single event but the likelihood is dependent on the temperature of the emitting object. it is easy to see that a randomly chosen photon from two objects at different temperatures will usually produce a higher value for the warmer object but not exclusively.

the second law is simply a statement that the casino always wins in the end.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD believes that God takes the temperature of everything in the world and then makes decisions about which directions are allowable when a molecule drops to groundstate by emitting a photon.

I believe that when you drop an object from a height, there is a reason that it falls in the direction it does. Likewise I believe that there is some reason that neither heat nor energy will move on its own from a region of cold to a region of warm. There are reasons that chemical reactions happen as they do and a reason that electricity will only flow one way along any wire. Call it what you like.

When the laws of physics are rewritten to accomodate the movement of heat or energy from regions of cold to regions of warm, and those changes can be proven experimentally, make a post of it.

most scientists believe that energy flows are controlled by the statistics of large numbers and no individual interactions are prohibited. a casino of sorts where some 'winners' are offset by more 'losers' depending on the probability and the myriad of individual events.

Believe? Post modern science has all sorts of beliefs that arise out of computer and mathematical models built upon questionable interpretations of the laws of physics. Large parts of post modern science (climate science in particular) has abandoned the scientific method and readily accepts model output as if it were evidence.

if you look at a Planck curve graph you can see that any value on the x axis is possible for a single event but the likelihood is dependent on the temperature of the emitting object. it is easy to see that a randomly chosen photon from two objects at different temperatures will usually produce a higher value for the warmer object but not exclusively.

Again, an interpretation that might be "proven" via a questionable mathematical or computer model but completely unprovable in the laboratory. If it weren't for the billions of dollars at stake, it would astound me that so much mental energy has been squandered trying to get around the laws of physics to prove an effect that if it exists at all, is so tiny that it will never be separated out of the noise of natural variability.

the second law is simply a statement that the casino always wins in the end.

Spoken as if you "knew that for a fact" and had more than mathematical and computer models to support the claim. We both know that you don't. I am guessing that you are spiritually, or emotionally invested in your belief and might hang on to it in the face of all evidence to the contrary as long as people like rocks hold tight to their beliefs. How many years of flat or lowering temperatures in the face of increasing atmospheric CO2, or abject failure of models based on the physics you believe in will it take to pry you away from what you believe into the world of what is empirically evident?

 

[konradv]

"Heat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible."

You've done it again. The second part that you highlighted is not part of the 2nd law and once again you've substituted energy for heat. They are not the same thing. Many natural processes ARE reversible. A water molecule may become part of an ice crystal and then leave the ice crystal despite the temperature never going above freezing. I could go on and on with examples, but I suspect I'm talking to a wall.

 

[SSDD]

"Heat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible."

You've done it again. The second part that you highlighted is not part of the 2nd law and once again you've substituted energy for heat. They are not the same thing. Many natural processes ARE reversible. A water molecule may become part of an ice crystal and then leave the ice crystal despite the temperature never going above freezing. I could go on and on with examples, but I suspect I'm talking to a wall.

I highlighted it because I was pretty sure you would overlook it. And I haven't substitued anything. Those quotes are verbatum. The problem is that you don't seem to understand that the laws of thermodynamics are about energy.....heat being just one manifestation of energy.

And no natural processes are reversable without the input of work being done to reverse those processes. You obviously don't get it and your water ice example proves it. That water is still water no matter what state it is in. As ice, water, or steam, it is still a molecule of H2O.

I repeat....all natural processes are irreversable. Sorry it interferes with your failed hypothesis, but it remains true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

Thus, for example, if Q was 50 units, T1 was initially 100 degrees, and T2 was initially 1 degree, then the entropy change for this process would be 49.5. Hence, entropy increased for this process, the process took a certain amount of "time", and one can correlate entropy increase with the passage of time. For this system configuration, subsequently, it is an "absolute rule". This rule is based on the fact that all natural processes are irreversible.....


Irreversible process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All complex natural processes are irreversible.[1] The phenomenon of irreversibility results from the fact that if a thermodynamic system, which is any system of sufficient complexity, of interacting molecules is brought from one thermodynamic state to another, the configuration or arrangement of the atoms and molecules in the system will change in a way that is not easily predictable....

Irreversibility - Hmolpedia


All natural processes are irreversible.


What are Reversible and Irreversible Processes in Thermodynamics?

There are two main types of thermodynamic processes: the reversible and irreversible. The reversible process is the ideal process which never occurs, while the irreversible process is the natural process that is commonly found in the nature.


Prigogine, Ilya

When he started his life's work, conventional attitudes were based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body, with the inference that energy transfer is unidirectional and all natural processes are irreversible.


Thermodynamics

Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. Thus, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.


Thermal Processes and State Variables

* All Natural processes are Irreversible.


SECOND LAW

• Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.
  
• All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder. And although energy is conserved, its availability is decreased.
  
• Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy.
  
• The entropy of a system is proportional to the logarithm of the probability of that particular configuration of the system occuring. The more highly ordered the configuration of a system, the less likely it is to occur naturally - hence the lower its entropy.

Discover NOAA's Coral Reef Data

As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.


http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf

As a result of
this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and
all natural processes are irreversible.


http://www.le.ac.uk/chemistry/thermodynamics/pdfs/1500/Topic1140.pdf

All processes in the real world (i.e. all natural processes) are irreversible; there is a
defined direction for spontaneous changes [5].


I repeat once again.....all natural processes are irreversible. Care to argue the point by providing some example of a reversible natural process. You stated that many natural processes are irreversible. Maybe you know something all these universities have overlooked. Lets hear about some of those "many" reversible natural processes.

 

[IanC]

SSDD believes that God takes the temperature of everything in the world and then makes decisions about which directions are allowable when a molecule drops to groundstate by emitting a photon.

I believe that when you drop an object from a height, there is a reason that it falls in the direction it does. Likewise I believe that there is some reason that neither heat nor energy will move on its own from a region of cold to a region of warm. There are reasons that chemical reactions happen as they do and a reason that electricity will only flow one way along any wire. Call it what you like.

When the laws of physics are rewritten to accomodate the movement of heat or energy from regions of cold to regions of warm, and those changes can be proven experimentally, make a post of it.

most scientists believe that energy flows are controlled by the statistics of large numbers and no individual interactions are prohibited. a casino of sorts where some 'winners' are offset by more 'losers' depending on the probability and the myriad of individual events.

Believe? Post modern science has all sorts of beliefs that arise out of computer and mathematical models built upon questionable interpretations of the laws of physics. Large parts of post modern science (climate science in particular) has abandoned the scientific method and readily accepts model output as if it were evidence.

if you look at a Planck curve graph you can see that any value on the x axis is possible for a single event but the likelihood is dependent on the temperature of the emitting object. it is easy to see that a randomly chosen photon from two objects at different temperatures will usually produce a higher value for the warmer object but not exclusively.

Again, an interpretation that might be "proven" via a questionable mathematical or computer model but completely unprovable in the laboratory. If it weren't for the billions of dollars at stake, it would astound me that so much mental energy has been squandered trying to get around the laws of physics to prove an effect that if it exists at all, is so tiny that it will never be separated out of the noise of natural variability.

the second law is simply a statement that the casino always wins in the end.

Spoken as if you "knew that for a fact" and had more than mathematical and computer models to support the claim. We both know that you don't. I am guessing that you are spiritually, or emotionally invested in your belief and might hang on to it in the face of all evidence to the contrary as long as people like rocks hold tight to their beliefs. How many years of flat or lowering temperatures in the face of increasing atmospheric CO2, or abject failure of models based on the physics you believe in will it take to pry you away from what you believe into the world of what is empirically evident?

I find it odd that you have a problem with Planck curves that are built from direct observations but you believe unconditionally in a stated 'Law of Thermodynamics' based on Planck curves.

I am interested in your mental image of energy (and heat) exchange. let us propose a thought experiment. two blocks are side-by-side, very close but not touching, in a vacuum to stop conduction and convection, and we are only interested in the near faces.

if both blocks are the same temperature then they have identical Planck curves and each block is radiating away and absorbing the same amount of energy therefore there is no net change. do you agree that the faces are radiating energy? do you agree that the faces are absorbing energy? or do you think that the radiation according to the Planck curve simply stops when there is no temperature gradient?

if there is a difference in temperature, do you believe that the identical areas in the Planck curve are still both radiating and being absorbed by both blocks but the excess area in the warmer block's Planck curve is now unbalancing the system by adding more radiation into the cooler block, causing a transfer of heat until the blocks are again at the same temperature. or do you believe that only the extra radiation from the warmer block actually happens?


my system works for all cases and indeed describes and demands the effects of the SLoT between warmer and cooler objects while at the same time taking into effect the random nature of specific individual atomic events.


any system that calls for radiation to test the temperature of the surrounding universe before a photon is released needs a judge or referee to control every elemental particle in the universe for all past, present and future interactions.

 

[SSDD]

I find it odd that you have a problem with Planck curves that are built from direct observations but you believe unconditionally in a stated 'Law of Thermodynamics' based on Planck curves.

You have this way of ignoring what someone says and replacing their words with what you wish they had said. I have a problem with your interpretation of Planck and the ramifications. Not Planck's work itself.

I am interested in your mental image of energy (and heat) exchange. let us propose a thought experiment. two blocks are side-by-side, very close but not touching, in a vacuum to stop conduction and convection, and we are only interested in the near faces.

I don't have a mental image of energy and heat exchange. The second law says that it is not possible for heat or energy to move spontaneously from a low temperature region to a high temperature region. I don't need a mental image to acknowledge the law. Mental experiments generally fail due to a complete lack of understanding on the part of the experimenter. Dr Spencer did a mental experiment on his web site similar to that you describe and he got shreded and all that came out of it was to have his lack of understanding exposed.

You can't buck, or get around the second law and if weren't for the billions at stake, I am not sure why you would want to. Sorry.

 

[IanC]

I find it odd that you have a problem with Planck curves that are built from direct observations but you believe unconditionally in a stated 'Law of Thermodynamics' based on Planck curves.

You have this way of ignoring what someone says and replacing their words with what you wish they had said. I have a problem with your interpretation of Planck and the ramifications. Not Planck's work itself.

I am interested in your mental image of energy (and heat) exchange. let us propose a thought experiment. two blocks are side-by-side, very close but not touching, in a vacuum to stop conduction and convection, and we are only interested in the near faces.

I don't have a mental image of energy and heat exchange. The second law says that it is not possible for heat or energy to move spontaneously from a low temperature region to a high temperature region. I don't need a mental image to acknowledge the law. Mental experiments generally fail due to a complete lack of understanding on the part of the experimenter. Dr Spencer did a mental experiment on his web site similar to that you describe and he got shreded and all that came out of it was to have his lack of understanding exposed.

You can't buck, or get around the second law and if weren't for the billions at stake, I am not sure why you would want to. Sorry.

you refuse to state anything. probably because you know that any concrete statement you could make will be found to logically lead to an absurdity.

do two objects with identical temperatures exchange radiation or not? it really is that simple. just answer yes or no.

 

[SSDD]

you refuse to state anything. probably because you know that any concrete statement you could make will be found to logically lead to an absurdity.

I refuse to go out on a limb by suggesting that I disagree with the second law, or any established law of physics for that matter. Sorry if that frustrates you as you have apparently taken up residence on that limb in disagreeing with the second law.

do two objects with identical temperatures exchange radiation or not? it really is that simple. just answer yes or no.

[/quote]

We aren't talking about objects of the same temperature when we are talking about backradiation. The discussion was about the second law and the second law is regarding energy exchange between bodies of different temperatures. If you want to talk about exchanges between bodies of different temperatures, by all means we can talk about that.

The second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body.

 

[IanC]

you refuse to state anything. probably because you know that any concrete statement you could make will be found to logically lead to an absurdity.

I refuse to go out on a limb by suggesting that I disagree with the second law, or any established law of physics for that matter. Sorry if that frustrates you as you have apparently taken up residence on that limb in disagreeing with the second law.

do two objects with identical temperatures exchange radiation or not? it really is that simple. just answer yes or no.

We aren't talking about objects of the same temperature when we are talking about backradiation. The discussion was about the second law and the second law is regarding energy exchange between bodies of different temperatures. If you want to talk about exchanges between bodies of different temperatures, by all means we can talk about that.

The second law says that energy can't move spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body.

[/QUOTE]

I am not disagreeing with the SLoT, I am arguing with your interpretation of it. it makes a huge difference if you are arguing that some mystery force is affecting individual atomic events rather than just supporting the statistical description of a system made up of large numbers of interactions.

are you saying that the SLoT is capable of denying a CO2 molecule from emitting a photon in a direction that is warmer?

are you saying that two objects with an infinitesimally small difference in temperature only have radiation being emitted in one direction, towards the cooler object with no radiation towards the warmer object?

 

[SSDD]

I am not disagreeing with the SLoT, I am arguing with your interpretation of it. it makes a huge difference if you are arguing that some mystery force is affecting individual atomic events rather than just supporting the statistical description of a system made up of large numbers of interactions.

I am not interpreting. My argument is based on the second law as it is stated. Neither heat nor energy can spontaneously move from a region of cold to a region of warm. That is not an interpretation, it is a literal statement of the 2nd law. Any deviation from that is an interpretation.

are you saying that the SLoT is capable of denying a CO2 molecule from emitting a photon in a direction that is warmer?

Of course not. The second law is just a statement of the physics at work. The word gravity doesn't make a rock fall when you drop it, the physics make it fall. The physics that the 2nd law describes keeps any energy from moving from a region of cold to a region of warm. I didn't make up the law but I can accept it without having to try and get around it somehow.....a pointless exercise in futility by the way.

are you saying that two objects with an infinitesimally small difference in temperature only have radiation being emitted in one direction, towards the cooler object with no radiation towards the warmer object?

I am not saying anything. The second law says that neither heat nor energy can move from a cooler region to a warmer region. It doesn't split hairs regarding the differential between the warmer and cooler regions, it simply states that it can't spontaneously happen.

You are the one interpreting and trying to get around the 2nd law...not me. I believe the physics operate as the law states till something other than a questionable mathematical model or computer simulation based on a questionable mathematical model proves otherwise. I am sure that it will be big news when it happens.

 

[konradv]

I am not interpreting. My argument is based on the second law as it is stated. Neither heat nor energy can spontaneously move from a region of cold to a region of warm. That is not an interpretation, it is a literal statement of the 2nd law. Any deviation from that is an interpretation.

Yes, you are interpreting, because the 2nd Law says no such thing. It states that the entropy of a closed system doesn't decrease. It says nothing whatsoever about the actions of individual photons. It's a broad statement about the average of all interactions, NOT solitary interactions. If you didn't interpret this yourself, please cite your source.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SSDD]

Yes, you are interpreting, because the 2nd Law says no such thing. It states that the entropy of a closed system doesn't decrease. It says nothing whatsoever about the actions of individual photons. It's a broad statement about the average of all interactions, NOT solitary interactions. If you didn't interpret this yourself, please cite your source.

I have given you the source twice, but will gladly give it to you again. The source is the physics department of Georgia State University. You will have to excuse me but I will accept their statement of the 2nd law over any amount of wiki.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

If you would like some other references, here they are although why you refuse to understand that the 2nd law is all about energy transfer (heat being only one form of energy) I can't understand.

Energy

The Second Law of Thermodynamics -

• Every energy transfer or transformation increases the entropy of the universe
• There is a trend toward randomness
• Energy must be spent to retain order - this spending of energy usually releases heat, which increases the entropy elsewhere

Here is one that you might find easier to understand:

The second law of thermodynamics - how energy flows from useful to useless.

The Direction Energy Always Goes
The second law tells us which way energy naturally flows when not blocked or "pushed" by other mechanisms. It says energy has an absolute unfailing tendency to go from "more concentrated" to "less concentrated". It sort of "spreads out" and gets "diluted". That's a good way for beginners to think about it.

• Energy flows from a higher temperature to a lower temperature (heat flow).
• Energy flows from a higher pressure to a lower pressure (expansion).
• Energy flows from a higher voltage potential to a lower voltage potential (electric current).
• Energy flows from a higher gravitational potential to a lower gravitational potential (falling objects).
• Marbles and trucks roll downhill.
• Water flows and falls from higher elevation to a lower elevation (downhill).
• And last, but not least, chemical reactions proceed from higher concentrations of molecular bond energy to lower bond energies.

Are you getting this....the second law is about energy transfer....all energy transfer. If photons are energy then it is about them as well.


second law of thermodynamics -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

TITLE: principles of physical science
SECTION: Conservation of mass-energy

...energy is conserved provided that heat is taken into account. The irreversible nature of the transfer from external energy of organized motion to random internal energy is a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics.


6(e). Laws of Thermodynamics

Heat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

There are literally thousands of references stating that the second law is about energy transfer. Argue against them all if you like. The fact remains that the 2nd law is about energy, heat being just one manifestation of energy.

 

[konradv]

Once again, I wasn't talking about heat, but photons. You're a broken record. Heat and photons aren't the same thing!

 

[SSDD]

Once again, I wasn't talking about heat, but photons. You're a broken record. Heat and photons aren't the same thing!

You don't seem to get it that the 2nd law is about energy transfers of any sort...not just heat. I repeat ALL ENERGY TRANSFERS ARE GOVERNED BY THE SECOND LAW OF THEROMODYNAMICS. It doesn't matter whether the energy is in the form of IR radiation, photons, microwaves, short wave radiation, water flowing downhill, electricity, pressure in a balloon, BTU's stored in a cord of wood, or TNT. ALL ENERGY TRANSFERS ARE GOVERNED BY THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. If photons are energy and they are being transferred (moved) then the second law governs that transfer. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the first thing about physics. Again, here is an explanation of the second law from the most basic source I could find.

How Everything Happens

Energy makes everything happen, and every time something happens, there is an energy change. There are two important natural "laws of energy" that describe what happens to the energy involved in every change. We call them "laws" because countless observations and thousands of experiments have shown them to always predict what will happen.

Ponder that for a moment - how everything happens. It means we don't understand much, if we don't understand both the first and second laws of Energy....

Remember that there has to be an energy transfer for something to happen; energy changes form or moves from place to place....

The Rest of the Story...

Alas, my friends, there is always a rub, and when it comes to energy, the rub is described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The first law would be quite happy to let us re-use energy over and over. The first law is happy as long as energy is conserved. It's the happy law.

The second law may seem a little less happy to some. It describes the aftermath of every energy change that makes something happen. The second law says that each time energy gets transferred or transformed, some of it, and eventually all of it, gets less useful. That's the truth. It gets less useful, until finally, it becomes mostly useless (at least as far as its ability to make things happen is concerned).

The Direction Energy Always Goes

The second law tells us which way energy naturally flows when not blocked or "pushed" by other mechanisms. It says energy has an absolute unfailing tendency to go from "more concentrated" to "less concentrated". It sort of "spreads out" and gets "diluted". That's a good way for beginners to think about it.

• Energy flows from a higher temperature to a lower temperature (heat flow).
• Energy flows from a higher pressure to a lower pressure (expansion).
• Energy flows from a higher voltage potential to a lower voltage potential (electric current).
• Energy

flows from a higher gravitational potential to a lower gravitational potential (falling objects).
Marbles and trucks roll downhill.

• Water flows and falls from higher elevation to a lower elevation (downhill).
• And last, but not least, chemical reactions proceed from higher concentrations of
  molecular bond energy to lower bond energies.

In each of those cases, we can think of the energy in the higher level as being more concentrated. Energy inevitably moves to a less and less concentrated condition.
Less concentrated = less useful.

For anything to happen, energy has to move or flow or change. Energy will keep flowing or changing from a higher concentration to a lower concentration until the concentrations are equal (not necessarily more disordered). We call that condition, cleverly enough, equilibrium......
This is the first thing to understand about the 2nd Law. Energy always and inevitably flows from higher concentrations to lower concentrations.

The next thing to understand is that every time energy changes or moves, some of it, or all of it, becomes less useful. That is the unchangeable result of becoming less concentrated.

One thing leads to another - always, always, always - cause and effect. Energy always, and only, goes from more concentrated to less concentrated. Being less concentrated also means less useful. The cause of everything that happens is a difference in energy concentration. The effect of every energy change is less useful energy. Get it? Every time energy moves, it moves to a condition in which some of it or all of it becomes less useful. Less Concentrated = Less Useful


I can't find anything more elementary than that for you konradv. It is the rock bottom basic and doesn't simply assume that you know things like heat is just one form of energy and the second law is about all energy exchanges. You can't get around the second law by sneaking energy around in the form of photons and then letting them convert to heat. If you could, then you would have the basis for a perpetual motion machine.

If you believe that the second law isn't about all energy exchange and is just about heat exchange, then do bring some credible source forward that says explicitly that the second law is only concerned with heat exchange and not applicable to any other sort of energy exchange.

 

[IanC]

SSDD thinks that a statistical description of systems somehow trumps quantum mechanics. There are many ways to affect the entropy. There is no perpetual motion machine in radiation. It's a wonder that he doesn't deny absorption itself, as a crime against the second law.

 

[IanC]

It is energy, but you've changed the goalposts. We were talking about heat. Photons aren't heat.

No we are talking about the greenhouse effect. So we are agreed that photons are energy. Good. See we can agree on things if we work at it a bit.

Now the second law isn't just about heat transfer, it is also about energy transfer because energy transfer can equal heat transfer and the second law can't be bypassed by radiating energy from cool to warm and then changing that radiation into heat.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Again, I didn't write this law...in fact, I had nothing whatsoever to do with it but you, and I, and photons, and kittens, and squids, and polar bears, and solid wood flooring, and everything else under heaven must live by it. The law is clear. Energy can not move spontaneously from a cool area to a warm area.

Since we are agreed that photons are energy, and I suppose we both agree that the second law of thermodynamics is correct, then we must agree that photons can not move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth. If they can, explain how you get around the energy transfer clause of the second law.

there is a net outward flow of energy. the second law is obeyed.

molecules can, and do, emit photons in any direction. if you think the (statistically based) second law can affect the quantum mechanics of absorption and emission, please describe the mechanism.

you are so fond of links surely you have a reference to some magical new physics law that supercedes quantum mechanics.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD thinks that a statistical description of systems somehow trumps quantum mechanics. There are many ways to affect the entropy. There is no perpetual motion machine in radiation. It's a wonder that he doesn't deny absorption itself, as a crime against the second law.

I think I speak pretty plainly. Either you can't understand plain speaking or you are deliberately misunderstanding me. Which is it.

I noticed that you liked konradvs post above where he claimed that the second law only dealt with heat transfer and not every energy transfer imaginable. Are you also of the opinion that the second law of thermodynamics is only about heat and not any energy transfer?

 

[SSDD]

there is a net outward flow of energy. the second law is obeyed.

I don't see anything about a net or gross flow of energy in the 2nd law. I see phrases like not possible and will not.

molecules can, and do, emit photons in any direction. if you think the (statistically based) second law can affect the quantum mechanics of absorption and emission, please describe the mechanism.

So you say. Can you prove it?

I can't describe the mechanism because I have never considered it. The second law says that it can't happen so I accept that. You apparently don't. Good luck with that. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the physics that you claim are at work in the atmosphere are not dowing what they are supposed to do...or if they are, the effect is so small as to be completely insiignifigant?

you are so fond of links surely you have a reference to some magical new physics law that supercedes quantum mechanics.

I haven't heard of the 2nd law being superceded by quantum mechanics. I would have thought such a thing would have been big news.

 

[IanC]

I am not interpreting. My argument is based on the second law as it is stated. Neither heat nor energy can spontaneously move from a region of cold to a region of warm. That is not an interpretation, it is a literal statement of the 2nd law. Any deviation from that is an interpretation.

Yes, you are interpreting, because the 2nd Law says no such thing. It states that the entropy of a closed system doesn't decrease. It says nothing whatsoever about the actions of individual photons. It's a broad statement about the average of all interactions, NOT solitary interactions. If you didn't interpret this yourself, please cite your source.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SSDD- why would I not agree with konradv's statement? "entropy of a closed system doesnt decrease" is a very good way of putting it.

of course the earth and its atmosphere arent really a closed system, as energy is just flowing through it. one of your problems in understanding thermodynamics is that you consider any individual interaction as a system. quantum mechanics arose because looking at smaller and smaller things led to absurdities.

 

[IanC]

there is a net outward flow of energy. the second law is obeyed.

I don't see anything about a net or gross flow of energy in the 2nd law. I see phrases like not possible and will not.

molecules can, and do, emit photons in any direction. if you think the (statistically based) second law can affect the quantum mechanics of absorption and emission, please describe the mechanism.

So you say. Can you prove it?

I can't describe the mechanism because I have never considered it. The second law says that it can't happen so I accept that. You apparently don't. Good luck with that. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the physics that you claim are at work in the atmosphere are not dowing what they are supposed to do...or if they are, the effect is so small as to be completely insiignifigant?

you are so fond of links surely you have a reference to some magical new physics law that supercedes quantum mechanics.

I haven't heard of the 2nd law being superceded by quantum mechanics. I would have thought such a thing would have been big news.

the second law is about a statistical description of systems and does not apply to individual events.

why should I prove quantum mechanics? if you disagree with quantum mechanics then you should be the one describing what you think is wrong with it. I totally agree with the second law, just not your incorrect interpretation of it. my interpretation of the second law concerning radiation even showed proof of why it must happen. yours is a dogmatic endless restating of somebody else's talking points with no understanding of the underlying basics.

actually quantum mechanics was big news! it was the explanation to the ultraviolet catastrophe for one.