wirebender
Senior Member
an example to disprove your version of 'EM vector fields'. two blocks of metal are insulated on five sides which leaves one face each able to radiate as a blackbody according to their temperatures. when you place them face to face the one with a higher temperature will radiate more energy than the other but the lower temp block does not stop radiating, it just doesnt radiate as much.
The cooler block will radiate as much as it ever did. The radiation, however, will never make it to the warmer block. That is what vector calculus is all about Ian. When two vectors (and there may be millions of vectors across the blocks you describe) are in opposition, you must subtract them. That is you subtract the magnitudes of the vectors and the end result determines the direction of energy flow. The cool block doesn't stop radiating, the energy it radiates however, is depleted in its effort to overcome the greater EM field.
There will be no transfer from the cooler block to the warmer blcok however. There is no such thing as net energy flow along any EM vector. Energy flow is a one way street. The second law states that energy will not spontaneously flow from cool to hot without some input of work. Net energy flow is a device that might work in computer models, but it doesn't happen in the real world.
time passes and more energy flows from the higher temp block and it cools, reducing its radiation. conversely the lower temp block heats up and increases its radiation. given enough time the blocks will equilibrate and there will no longer be a net flow from one to the other. each block will be radiating equally, the energy lost will be equal to the energy gained but both are still radiating.
That part, you have right. Both will be radiating, but no energy will be exchanged between them. The EM fields, depending on the strength of each will be depeleted somewhere between the two. At some point, one may change enough so that when you subtract the fields and account for distance, energy transfer might begin again.
in your fanciful world, the 'EM vector field' imposes some unexplained mechanism that makes it impossible for the lower temp block to spontaneously release a photon in the direction of the higher temp block. I have called bullshit on this before and will continue to do so.
No it doesn't. The photon can be released but if it is released along a vector in which a greater amount of energy is flowing in the opposite direction, the photon will simply use up its energy in opposition and cease to exist. A photon is nothing more than a "packet" of EM emergy and when you subtract vectors of EM fields when IR is the energy source, you are, in effect subtracting photons.
I have not misapplied any law of physics, and my math, with regard to EM vectors is sound. You just don't like the fact that it disproves backradiation which would force you to give up whatever bit of heat you believe CO2 is responsible for.
Last edited: