What Is Heat

[percysunshine]

I have recently been in an ongoing discussion with some members of the forum about energy transfer...movement from warm to cool..etc. It doesn't take long for the conversation to move from one of evidence to one of what science "knows".

Good question don't you think....what does science know.

Heat, I would guess is the cornerstone of the global warming, AGW discussion. So lets look at that cornerstone and ask "What is heat?" Is heat a form of energy, or is heat the fingerprint, or signature of energy moving from one place to another?

What does science say?

Science Daily says: Heat

In physics, heat is a form of energy associated with the motion of atoms, molecules and other particles which comprise matter

So heat is a form of energy.

The physics department at the University of Maryland says: http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys260/agashe/S10/notes/lecture11.pdf

Heat: energy transferred between system and environment; heat is not a form of energy or state variable; heat can cause thermal energy to change

So heat is not a form of energy.

The Physics Classroom says: What is Heat

Heat is a form of energy that can be transferred from one object to another or even created at the expense of the loss of other forms of energy.

So heat is a form of energy.

The Grandinetti Laboratory Teachers Reference on Thermodynamics says:
Thermodynamics

Just like work, Heat is not a form of energy, but rather, is an energy transfer process.

So heat is not a form of energy.

The Chemistry Department at the University of Arizona says:
Energy Work and Heat The first Law

One of the great breakthroughs in the history of science was the recognition that heat is a form of energy.

So heat is a form of energy.

The Lecture Exchange - Physics for Scientists and engineers says:
http://lectureexchange.com/wp-conte...hysics-for-Scientist-and-Engineers_Serway.pdf

Heat Is Not a Form of Energy. The word heat is one of the most misused words in our popular lan- gauge.

So heat is not a form of energy.

Hands on Physics says: Heat and Temperature- Concepts

Heat is a form of energy, so it has the units of energy

So heat is not a form of energy.

The Factmonster says: HEAT FactMonster.com

Heat is a form of energy

So heat is a form of energy.

And I could go on at some length providing credible scientific sources claiming that heat is a form of energy and that heat is not a form of energy. Here we stand, nearing the end of the 14th year of the 21st century and science remains unsure of what, precisely, heat is.

For all of you out there who believe that science somehow knows all...knows what photons are doing, or even knows whether photons exist or not...or knows that at the microscopic level that energy transfers between objects in two directions even though it has never been observed out here in the real world...or believes that science knows whether light is a wave, or particles, or either...or any of the literally hundreds of things that people here have claimed that science knows rather than science thinks, or science believes...or science theorizes or science hypothesizes...consider the fact that today, science doesn't even know what heat is.

Any of you geniuses out there want to say what heat is? Clearly science doesn't know....and if science does't know what something as basic and fundamental as heat is, what else doesn't science know?

.
Is heat energy?

The distinction is semantic. Heat is a tactile sense of temperature differences.

The physics is always the same.

.

Heat IS energy -- measured in Joules or the equivalent. And it is based on both stored and kinetic components. Go ask Obama for a definition of kinetic actions. It means dropping bombs and firing weapons. Stay away from any kinetic actions that involve heat. Just tied up Henry's heat definition nicely here.

Important part here for the topic is that materials lose or gain heat by conduction, convection or photon radiation.. Like they say on the Sesame Street -- "Two of things are not like the other"...

I stand (slightly) corrected. To quote from the basic reference on my desk: 'Fundamental Formulas of Physics; Edited by Donald H Manzel' pg. 292...

"The heat energy E of a molecule is defined to be the energy 1/2mC**2 of its random translatory energy, together with any additional energy, either rotational or internal, which is communicable from one molecule to another on encounter; for example, this would not include any rotary energy of a smooth, rigid, elastic spherical molecule ..It's value at r, t is denoted by E. Naturally E is a function of the temperature T."

So from a classical physics stand point. 'Heat' is one form of energy., and is basically temperature which is communicable in a specific way. Kind of like herpes..

I liked my 'tactile sense' definition better, but the equations are the equations.

 

[flacaltenn]

I RE-read the OP @SSDD. And I get your point.. It's mostly semantics in that the differences rely on whether heat only exists as the transfer mechanism of energy or whether it is the energy flow itself.

Essentially they are arguing that heat is a property of materials and does not exist on it's own.. Which is correct -- but can lead to a lot of belly button contemplation..

And some are just tortured ill-considered trash. Like..

Heat: energy transferred between system and environment; heat is not a form of energy or state variable; heat can cause thermal energy to change

Which contradicts itself within the span of a tweet.

English is NOT a valued commodity in the Physics dept..

 

[elektra]

Have both of you passed the explanation of what heat, is? First, it must be explained in simple layman terms.

The OP was not written technically, its simple, so at least at some point, I seem to think you need to say what you are saying, simply.

please

 

[elektra]

zeroeth law of thermodynamics.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. When getting ones butt kicked in a debate, resort to semantics.

 

[percysunshine]

Have both of you passed the explanation of what heat, is? First, it must be explained in simple layman terms.

The OP was not written technically, its simple, so at least at some point, I seem to think you need to say what you are saying, simply.

please

"When I use my tactile senses to stroke your quivering breasts, I am making you hot."

How was that? In layman's terms anyway.

.

 

[SixFoot]

Heat is what happens when you burn firewood.

Heat is the buy product of molecular movement. As molecules move they create friction, friction warms the molecules, they then radiate heat in the form of infrared radiation.

That would have been my official reply, but I can't think of anything else since winter still happens and I have a lot of winterizing to do still.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I have recently been in an ongoing discussion with some members of the forum about energy transfer...movement from warm to cool..etc. It doesn't take long for the conversation to move from one of evidence to one of what science "knows".

Good question don't you think....what does science know.

Heat, I would guess is the cornerstone of the global warming, AGW discussion. So lets look at that cornerstone and ask "What is heat?" Is heat a form of energy, or is heat the fingerprint, or signature of energy moving from one place to another?

What does science say?

Science Daily says: Heat

In physics, heat is a form of energy associated with the motion of atoms, molecules and other particles which comprise matter

So heat is a form of energy.

The physics department at the University of Maryland says: http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys260/agashe/S10/notes/lecture11.pdf

Heat: energy transferred between system and environment; heat is not a form of energy or state variable; heat can cause thermal energy to change

So heat is not a form of energy.

The Physics Classroom says: What is Heat

Heat is a form of energy that can be transferred from one object to another or even created at the expense of the loss of other forms of energy.

So heat is a form of energy.

The Grandinetti Laboratory Teachers Reference on Thermodynamics says:
Thermodynamics

Just like work, Heat is not a form of energy, but rather, is an energy transfer process.

So heat is not a form of energy.

The Chemistry Department at the University of Arizona says:
Energy Work and Heat The first Law

One of the great breakthroughs in the history of science was the recognition that heat is a form of energy.

So heat is a form of energy.

The Lecture Exchange - Physics for Scientists and engineers says:
http://lectureexchange.com/wp-conte...hysics-for-Scientist-and-Engineers_Serway.pdf

Heat Is Not a Form of Energy. The word heat is one of the most misused words in our popular lan- gauge.

So heat is not a form of energy.

Hands on Physics says: Heat and Temperature- Concepts

Heat is a form of energy, so it has the units of energy

So heat is not a form of energy.

The Factmonster says: HEAT FactMonster.com

Heat is a form of energy

So heat is a form of energy.

And I could go on at some length providing credible scientific sources claiming that heat is a form of energy and that heat is not a form of energy. Here we stand, nearing the end of the 14th year of the 21st century and science remains unsure of what, precisely, heat is.

For all of you out there who believe that science somehow knows all...knows what photons are doing, or even knows whether photons exist or not...or knows that at the microscopic level that energy transfers between objects in two directions even though it has never been observed out here in the real world...or believes that science knows whether light is a wave, or particles, or either...or any of the literally hundreds of things that people here have claimed that science knows rather than science thinks, or science believes...or science theorizes or science hypothesizes...consider the fact that today, science doesn't even know what heat is.

Any of you geniuses out there want to say what heat is? Clearly science doesn't know....and if science does't know what something as basic and fundamental as heat is, what else doesn't science know?

Heat is the measure of the excitation of molecules - how fast they're moving. Faster a molecule moves, the more heat is measured. When there's no movement or heat to be measured, the temperature is called absolute zero, about minus 460 degrees F.

I've always thought temperature should be measured from absolute zero up. A nice day of 80 degrees F then is actually 540 degrees F. Reason being zero degrees Fahrenheit is not zero afterall. There's still a lot of heat present and molecular activity continues. True zero is absolute zero.

All we need to know about heat is the average temperatures globally are rising. This is having a devastating effect on polar ice caps north and south. Less permanent ice there is, more solar radiation is absorbed from the Sun, and the warmer is stays. Ice and snow on the ground re3flects this solar radiation back into space. So having a year-round ample covering of it benefits us. Without it, I dunno what happens but nothing good. I like to think we can adapt after some difficulties, but I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if humanity has ever existed at a time when the planet was absorbing and storing up all of the Sun's radiation.

People denying climate change is occuring are like the appeasers before World War 2 trying to placate Hitler. Denying Hitler's ambitions are global, not just Europe, doesn't make it so any more than denying climate change is man-made is occuring will make it not happen. There's no upside to denial and being wrong.

 

[IanC]

We haven't even been able to define energy or temperature. There is no way we will be able to agree on what 'heat' means.

 

[Crick]

Why does it matter? Our differences with SSDD are not based on different interpretations of the word "heat".

 

[Billy_Bob]

[

Heat is the measure of the excitation of molecules - how fast they're moving. Faster a molecule moves, the more heat is measured. When there's no movement or heat to be measured, the temperature is called absolute zero, about minus 460 degrees F.

I've always thought temperature should be measured from absolute zero up. A nice day of 80 degrees F then is actually 540 degrees F. Reason being zero degrees Fahrenheit is not zero afterall. There's still a lot of heat present and molecular activity continues. True zero is absolute zero.

All we need to know about heat is the average temperatures globally are rising. This is having a devastating effect on polar ice caps north and south. Less permanent ice there is, more solar radiation is absorbed from the Sun, and the warmer is stays. Ice and snow on the ground re3flects this solar radiation back into space. So having a year-round ample covering of it benefits us. Without it, I dunno what happens but nothing good. I like to think we can adapt after some difficulties, but I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if humanity has ever existed at a time when the planet was absorbing and storing up all of the Sun's radiation.

People denying climate change is occuring are like the appeasers before World War 2 trying to placate Hitler. Denying Hitler's ambitions are global, not just Europe, doesn't make it so any more than denying climate change is man-made is occuring will make it not happen. There's no upside to denial and being wrong.

No one denys that the climate changes. But your meaning of that term is "it is all man caused" is complete and utter bullshit. The arrogance of anyone who thinks we are capable of total climactic change is a fool or a moron or both.

Please show how you attributed all change to man. I can show that the climate has changed far worse in earth's history and MAN was never involved. Given that as a base line for the range of climatic change that occurs naturally (Natural Variation) we are well within that normal cyclical variation. IN fact, CO2 continues to rise but now 18 years has passed where temperature and the beloved hypothesized cause CO2 have totally diverged showing NO CAUSAL LINKAGE! Yes True Science shows the premise FALSIFIED..

 

[IanC]

Why does it matter? Our differences with SSDD are not based on different interpretations of the word "heat".

SSDD is using various references to contrary explanations for heat as a reason to discount everything science has to say. All of his links make sense in context but heat is a somewhat arbitrary term at best. Heat is almost exclusively dealt with in terms of conduction and convection not radiation. This thread is just a red herring.

 

[elektra]

"When I use my tactile senses to stroke your quivering breasts, I am making you hot."

How was that? In layman's terms anyway.

.

Elektra is a record label, I am a guy, how was that?

 

[percysunshine]

"When I use my tactile senses to stroke your quivering breasts, I am making you hot."

How was that? In layman's terms anyway.

.

Elektra is a record label, I am a guy, how was that?

.

Well, this is really embarrassing. I was thinking of the Greek goddess.

The point still stands. In laywoman's terms, touch and heat are inseparable.

.

 

[SSDD]

I RE-read the OP @SSDD. And I get your point.. It's mostly semantics in that the differences rely on whether heat only exists as the transfer mechanism of energy or whether it is the energy flow itself.

That is not the dispute at all....some credible sources are saying that heat is, in itself, a form of energy...that is a quite different thing than being the energy flow itself. Others are saying that heat is just the fingerprint of energy movement. Those two things are quite different from your interpretation of them.

 

[SSDD]

LOL. When getting ones butt kicked in a debate, resort to semantics.

You think being unclear whether heat is a type of energy or whether heat is no more than the fingerprint of energy movement is semantics? A dispute over the fundamental property of a thing is semantics? Again..you don't have a clue. A disagreement over what sort of energy heat might be may be a semantic argument...or over what sort of energy movement heat might be would be a semantic argument...but a disagreement over whether heat is a form of energy...or whether heat is the result of an energy movement is far to fundamental to ever be construed as semantics.

 

[SSDD]

Heat is the measure of the excitation of molecules - how fast they're moving. Faster a molecule moves, the more heat is measured. When there's no movement or heat to be measured, the temperature is called absolute zero, about minus 460 degrees F.

That's nice, but are you saying that heat is itself, a form of energy...or are you saying that heat is the result of energy moving from one place to another..or are you saying that heat is something else entirely?.......and how can you possibly know in either case since equally credible sources are saying entirely different things about what heat is? Do you choose a side and believe?...or do you accept that here, in the 21'st century science remains unsure as to exactly what heat is.

 

[SSDD]

Why does it matter? Our differences with SSDD are not based on different interpretations of the word "heat".

Your differences with me rest on the fact that you think science knows things that it, in fact doesn't and you find yourself unable to admit that fact...rather you go on speaking as if you were reciting fact when in fact you are repeating a narrative which is trying to explain what is, at present , unknowable.

 

[SSDD]

Why does it matter? Our differences with SSDD are not based on different interpretations of the word "heat".

SSDD is using various references to contrary explanations for heat as a reason to discount everything science has to say. All of his links make sense in context but heat is a somewhat arbitrary term at best. Heat is almost exclusively dealt with in terms of conduction and convection not radiation. This thread is just a red herring.

No I am not....I certainly don't discount all that science has to say..(yet more story telling on your part)....but I can recognize a difference between what science thinks, and theorizes and what science knows....and to speak about what science thinks and theorizes as if it were known, observed, tested, and measured fact strikes me as either ignorant, or fundamentally dishonest. The fact that you can't even bring yourself to admit that your argument is based on an, as yet, unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical model speaks volumes. You have it in your mind that your story is fact when it isn't...you have it in your mind that science actually knows the things you claim as fact, when it doesn't...you believe that science knows far more than science actually knows and you recite theory as if it were known fact. Not recognizing the difference between what is known and what is theorized is a serious failing on your part.

 

[flacaltenn]

I RE-read the OP @SSDD. And I get your point.. It's mostly semantics in that the differences rely on whether heat only exists as the transfer mechanism of energy or whether it is the energy flow itself.

That is not the dispute at all....some credible sources are saying that heat is, in itself, a form of energy...that is a quite different thing than being the energy flow itself. Others are saying that heat is just the fingerprint of energy movement. Those two things are quite different from your interpretation of them.

The semantics don't affect the math. I am SURPRISED that such sloppy argument exists, but I'm not confused by it. Heat is a property associated with matter. Doesn't exist on it's own. And the fact that it is measured in Joules or BTUs or watt-seconds kinda solves the issue for me because I am not doing any engineering or science in the ABSENCE of matter right this moment..

Matter of fact, "flow" is not neccessary. Matter contained in insulated places without MIGRATION still has a heat content value..