Physics question pertinent to global warming

[Crick]

I have no idea in your previous post -- how you turned my remarks on textbooks into ANY kind of comment about who is informed on this matter. Or ANY OTHER form of taking sides. I've been frustrated in the past that so many students THINK they know thermo but have no concept of how the IR lamps at McDonalds heat a burger.

I did it by seeing what you did with your attempt to say thermo students know little if anything about radiative heat transfer. There was no other way to take it.

Show us how much you know about radiative heat transfer by explaining to SSDD what is wrong with his conception.

 

[Crick]

Crick finds it convenient to ignore the conversations that he was involved in when he name was Abraham.

Hell, he is doing a fine job of ignoring discussions he is in now....He didn't accurately describe any part of my position...what he did was describe toddsters equally crummy description of my position.

I invited you to correct me if I was wrong.

How many times now have you told us that S-B describes a one-way transfer of heat? A dozen times? How many times have you told us that objects cannot radiate towards warmer objects? Two dozen times? What mistakes do you believe I made describing what you have contended here over and over and over again? Please, correct me.

 

[flacaltenn]

I have no idea in your previous post -- how you turned my remarks on textbooks into ANY kind of comment about who is informed on this matter. Or ANY OTHER form of taking sides. I've been frustrated in the past that so many students THINK they know thermo but have no concept of how the IR lamps at McDonalds heat a burger.

I did it by seeing what you did with your attempt to say thermo students know little if anything about radiative heat transfer. There was no other way to take it.

Show us how much you know about radiative heat transfer by explaining to SSDD what is wrong with his conception.

You need to cut me some slack here because I'm out. I went back to the DOZENS of pages and HUNDREDS of posts that flew between IanC an myself and SSDD and GSlack.. It was before your time here. But HERE is a 100 page thread where all this was previously hashed out with no success of getting a concession..

how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we Page 103 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You can START there and go on for for about 20 pages.. I probably stepped in about 10 pages PREVIOUS to that, dont remember.. Go ahead -- Use our OLD evidence and arguments and have a blast..

Other skirmishes exist. I don't mind presenting evidence that is mainstream and irrefutable basic tenets of physics, but I sure as hell (unlike you) know when to quit. YOU have your own stubborn denials that will not be changed. Even when confronted with INSURMOUNTABLE arguments and evidence. I also know the futility of dealing with YOUR more juvenile and simplistic "beliefs"...

 

[IanC]

[Q

Holster your weapons pardner. NOBODY is saying that ANY flows are from Cold to hot. Not a person..

Actually, Ian, crick, toddster, and the hairball are. That is what this whole thing is about....Ian claims that a high energy photon from a low energy molecule (best I can figure) will occasionally, once in a blue moon leave the cold and go to the warm....but the rest of them seem to think that energy moves from cool to warm on a regular basis.

You have managed to misconstrue everything I have said.

The SB laws are based on the average of countless interactions per second. The Planck curve graphs for any temperature show the range and amount or radiation. Comparing two Planck curves for any two temperatures will visually prove thermodynamics. The simplest case is where both temps are the same, and there is a one-to-one equality across the whole range. The radiation still exists but there is no excess in either direction so the net flow is zero. But momentum has been transferred which accounts for entropy. At a time interval small enough there could be a photon exchange that momentarily passes more energy in one direction but the AVERAGE flow is zero. Radiative flow is by photons which only interact with matter therefore once emitted they exist until they encounter another piece of matter. No blinking out of existence, no change of direction or magnitude.

When you muddied the water by comparing photon exchange to matter exchange I pointed out that an individual molecule or particle does not have a 'temperature', its kenetic energy is only meaningful when compared to the cohort of particles it is associated with. In the special case of water, the random range of kenetic energies leads to the occasional molecule breaking free and taking its energy away, which by definition lowers the average/temperature.

Your understanding of thermodynamics is flawed because you neglect to address that individual interactions do not have to follow the statistical average of many, many interactions. There is no physical law that demands one way flows only a statistical probability that shows the very, very likely average outcome.

 

[Crick]

So, SSDD, when you attempted to disparage Mamooth by quoting his comment regarding the statistical underpinning of thermodynamics, it was your foot in your mouth that everyone else here observed.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, SSDD, when you attempted to disparage Mamooth by quoting his comment regarding the statistical underpinning of thermodynamics, it was your foot in your mouth that everyone else here observed.

Not neccessarily. The statistical nature of photon flows is only really observable and meaningful for very low net flows or extremely short periods of observations. I am working on a photon cou ting camera for protein flourescence right now if you want a demo of the statistical distributions of nearly dark stuff observedd for a couple milliseconds.

 

[SSDD]

Radiative flow is by photons which only interact with matter therefore once emitted they exist until they encounter another piece of matter. No blinking out of existence, no change of direction or magnitude.

The fundamental conversation seems to keep coming back to this. Tell me Ian, can light waves cancel each other out, or amplify each other?

 

[SSDD]

So, SSDD, when you attempted to disparage Mamooth by quoting his comment regarding the statistical underpinning of thermodynamics, it was your foot in your mouth that everyone else here observed.

Statistics is not a mechanism...statistics is a branch of mathematics that is used in an attempt to describe a mechanism....Claiming that statistics is the mechanism for thermodynamics is as dumb as claiming that geometry is the mechanism for precision shooting....geometry may be used to describe precise shooting, or to more accurately predict where a projectile will land, but the mechanism is not geometry...the mechanism is powder, primer, firearm etc.

The fact that you guys don't seem to be able to see that fundamental flaw in your argument makes the rest of your opinions highly suspect....and the fact that you still can't get past it after all this time probably indicates that you are just stupid.

 

[IanC]

So, SSDD, when you attempted to disparage Mamooth by quoting his comment regarding the statistical underpinning of thermodynamics, it was your foot in your mouth that everyone else here observed.

Statistics is not a mechanism...statistics is a branch of mathematics that is used in an attempt to describe a mechanism....Claiming that statistics is the mechanism for thermodynamics is as dumb as claiming that geometry is the mechanism for precision shooting....geometry may be used to describe precise shooting, or to more accurately predict where a projectile will land, but the mechanism is not geometry...the mechanism is powder, primer, firearm etc.

The fact that you guys don't seem to be able to see that fundamental flaw in your argument makes the rest of your opinions highly suspect....and the fact that you still can't get past it after all this time probably indicates that you are just stupid.

the mechanism is that all objects radiate at all times according to their temperature. statistics simply describe the result. you are the only one who is confusing the macroscopic results as a fundemental law of physics.

 

[IanC]

Radiative flow is by photons which only interact with matter therefore once emitted they exist until they encounter another piece of matter. No blinking out of existence, no change of direction or magnitude.

The fundamental conversation seems to keep coming back to this. Tell me Ian, can light waves cancel each other out, or amplify each other?

in the presence of matter, using detectors made of matter, interference patterns can be observed. otherwise light passes through other light as if it was not there and there is no exchange of energy.

a simple example of this is polarization by magnetism. if the magnet is placed near the light source or near the detector then polarization occurs. however if the magnet is placed between the two where it no longer influences the matter-based light source or detector, then no polarization takes place.

photons cannot directly interact with each other, matter is needed as an intermediary.

(edit- I am aware of diminishing wavelength due to expansion of space, and curvature of light due to massive gravity. neither is applicable to terrestrial conditions)

 

[SSDD]

in the presence of matter, using detectors made of matter, interference patterns can be observed. otherwise light passes through other light as if it was not there and there is no exchange of energy.

So according to you, light waves can cancel, interfere with, or amplify each other but only if we are looking? Is that really what you believe? How does the light know that we are peeping?..and why would it put on such a show just for our benefit?

Just to be sure I am understanding what you are saying....you shoot two beams of light with the right properties from points 1000 miles apart...or a million miles apart...or a million light years apart...the beams just go along not canceling, interfering, or amplifying each other over all that distance and never would cancel, interfere, or amplify each other unless someone decided to look? Is that what you are saying?

 

[IanC]

Light travelling through a vacuum transfers no energy and no information to any other light. Is that what you wanted me to say? Two beams of light aimed at each other don't meet in the middle and disapate. Where would the energy go?

Surely you have some passing acquaintance with the double slit experiment and the uncertainty principle. If not I suggest you investigate.

 

[SSDD]

So you are saying that light waves only interfere with each other if someone is looking.

 

[SSDD]

That's what I thought you were saying.

 

[IanC]

SSDD - do you believe that light interacts with other light in the absence of matter? It is a moot point to discuss interference patterns that leave all of the light totally unchanged if it is not measured.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've been following the One Way/Two Way conversation and am wondering, if energy flows from lower to higher, then how can it radiate away in the first place? The space immediately surrounding the object when it first starts radiating is lower energy so if the radiation, or some fraction, travels from lower to higher, would the radiation that just entered the cooler space radiate back to the source.

It's thought provoking.

In the 12v/9v battery example is it possible to somehow "Color" the energy of the 9V batter and see if any shows up in the 12V battery?

 

[IanC]

I've been following the One Way/Two Way conversation and am wondering, if energy flows from lower to higher, then how can it radiate away in the first place? The space immediately surrounding the object when it first starts radiating is lower energy so if the radiation, or some fraction, travels from lower to higher, would the radiation that just entered the cooler space radiate back to the source.

It's thought provoking.

In the 12v/9v battery example is it possible to somehow "Color" the energy of the 9V batter and see if any shows up in the 12V battery?

I don't actually understand your point but....

Background radiation is mostly produced by random movement and collisions in the object. The photons exist until they are absorbed (or other) by a different particle. The average kinetic energy is increased by absorbing photons, decreased by emitting them. Hotter objects emit more photons and at a slightly more energetic wavelength on average. Therefore given enough time the warmer object always loses energy to the cooler one.

The battery flow is a red herring. The photons transferring the electric force are used up by being absorbed by the electron and the actual movement is in the direction of the overwhelming force.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD - do you believe that light interacts with other light in the absence of matter? It is a moot point to discuss interference patterns that leave all of the light totally unchanged if it is not measured.

I think light waves with the proper characteristics cancel, interfere with, and amplify each other whether we are looking or not.

 

[SSDD]

I've been following the One Way/Two Way conversation and am wondering, if energy flows from lower to higher, then how can it radiate away in the first place? The space immediately surrounding the object when it first starts radiating is lower energy so if the radiation, or some fraction, travels from lower to higher, would the radiation that just entered the cooler space radiate back to the source.

It's thought provoking.

In the 12v/9v battery example is it possible to somehow "Color" the energy of the 9V batter and see if any shows up in the 12V battery?

I don't actually understand your point but....

Background radiation is mostly produced by random movement and collisions in the object. The photons exist until they are absorbed (or other) by a different particle. The average kinetic energy is increased by absorbing photons, decreased by emitting them. Hotter objects emit more photons and at a slightly more energetic wavelength on average. Therefore given enough time the warmer object always loses energy to the cooler one.

The battery flow is a red herring. The photons transferring the electric force are used up by being absorbed by the electron and the actual movement is in the direction of the overwhelming force.

If photons are involved at all...what if it is just waves? You talk about photons as if you have seen them and know them to exist...and have actually seen them behaving as you claim they behave. The fact that you speak of them as if they were real and can't bring yourself to even admit that their existence is theoretical is just amazing.

 

[Crick]

I give. Please describe for us what you believe to be the true nature of EM radiation.