Does SSDD have a point that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to radiative heat transfer

[polarbear]

Due to personal circumstances I don`t have the luxury to spend a lot of time debating here.
SSDD:
You might find this interesting because there are a number of scientists who have been saying that the 2nd law of thermodynamics also applies to radiative heat transfer.
Included here is their e-mail and other contact information. This is just a small segment of the scientific community that wants to have a free and open debate, which suggests that they would be inclined to answer any questions you have.
Okay here are some examples
Paul S. Braterman,
Regents Professor of Chemistry,
University of North Texas,
Denton, TX 76203 psb@unt.edu
Barrett's paper cited here with approval is erroneous, ignores an important term, and thus violates the second law of thermodynamics, as I have shown (Spectrochim Acta, '97).
The present contribution (unless and until it is accepted by a reputable journal, it should not be referred to as a "paper") appears to commit similar errors, and to ignore, or claim with no evidence to supersede, the voluminous experimental studies on the spectrum of carbon dioxide.
Are we being faced with yet another media pseudo-event?

Volz, Dr. Hartwig" GPRHV@rwedea.de
It seems to me that my understanding of greenhouse physics is completely different from yours. I would like to remind you of the well-known method to measure the temperature of flames. A zirconium dioxide lamp (black body radiator) is placed behind a flame and the black body radiance is measured by a spectrometer through the flame. If the temperature of flame is lower than the lamp's, you will see absorption lines in the black body spectrum. If the flame is hotter, you will see peaks on the black body spectrum at the same wave number positions; if the temperature of lamp and flame equal each other, you will see the ideal black body spectrum.
A similar experiment: in the spectrum of the sun you see Fraunhofer lines (absorption lines). During aneclipse you see emission lines in the chromosphere at the very same wave numbers of the Fraunhofer lines. In both experiments thermodynamics and quantum mechanics are closely interconnected. If you replace the hot lamp by the black radiator earth and the excited states in the flame by the vibration/rotation of gases in the atmosphere, you are in the correct greenhouse physics.

Jarl Ahlbeck AT jahlbeck@ra.abo.fi
Jarl R. Ahlbeck D.Sc.(Chem Eng.)
Abo Akademi University, Finland
Dr. Hartwig's letter pointed out that the second law of thermodynamics is valid also for radiative heat transfer. Of course no radiation can be absorbed by a gas of the same temperature as the radiating surface

All I can add to the above is that I have observed the same disappearance of the Fraunhofer lines using state of the art atomic absorption spectrophotometers with various cathode ray and deuterium arc lamps. Anybody who has been using these analytical tools for quantitative emission and absorption spectroscopic analysis could tell you the same thing.
Have fun with it. I`m curious what happens next after this post is up

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Due to personal circumstances I don`t have the luxury to spend a lot of time debating here.
@ SSDD:
You might find this interesting because there are a number of scientists who have been saying that the 2nd law of thermodynamics also applies to radiative heat transfer.
Included here is their e-mail and other contact information. This is just a small segment of the scientific community that wants to have a free and open debate, which suggests that they would be inclined to answer any questions you have.
Okay here are some examples
Paul S. Braterman,
Regents Professor of Chemistry,
University of North Texas,
Denton, TX 76203 psb@unt.edu
Barrett's paper cited here with approval is erroneous, ignores an important term, and thus violates the second law of thermodynamics, as I have shown (Spectrochim Acta, '97).
The present contribution (unless and until it is accepted by a reputable journal, it should not be referred to as a "paper") appears to commit similar errors, and to ignore, or claim with no evidence to supersede, the voluminous experimental studies on the spectrum of carbon dioxide.
Are we being faced with yet another media pseudo-event?

Volz, Dr. Hartwig" GPRHV@rwedea.de
It seems to me that my understanding of greenhouse physics is completely different from yours. I would like to remind you of the well-known method to measure the temperature of flames. A zirconium dioxide lamp (black body radiator) is placed behind a flame and the black body radiance is measured by a spectrometer through the flame. If the temperature of flame is lower than the lamp's, you will see absorption lines in the black body spectrum. If the flame is hotter, you will see peaks on the black body spectrum at the same wave number positions; if the temperature of lamp and flame equal each other, you will see the ideal black body spectrum.
A similar experiment: in the spectrum of the sun you see Fraunhofer lines (absorption lines). During aneclipse you see emission lines in the chromosphere at the very same wave numbers of the Fraunhofer lines. In both experiments thermodynamics and quantum mechanics are closely interconnected. If you replace the hot lamp by the black radiator earth and the excited states in the flame by the vibration/rotation of gases in the atmosphere, you are in the correct greenhouse physics.

Jarl Ahlbeck AT jahlbeck@ra.abo.fi
Jarl R. Ahlbeck D.Sc.(Chem Eng.)
Abo Akademi University, Finland
Dr. Hartwig's letter pointed out that the second law of thermodynamics is valid also for radiative heat transfer. Of course no radiation can be absorbed by a gas of the same temperature as the radiating surface

All I can add to the above is that I have observed the same disappearance of the Fraunhofer lines using state of the art atomic absorption spectrophotometers with various cathode ray and deuterium arc lamps. Anybody who has been using these analytical tools for quantitative emission and absorption spectroscopic analysis could tell you the same thing.
Have fun with it. I`m curious what happens next after this post is up

Of course no radiation can be absorbed by a gas of the same temperature as the radiating surface

What prevents the gas from absorbing radiation?

 

[Wuwei]

This is what I think is happening.

The flame has atoms in excited states and ground states.
Radiation from the hot BB hits the flame and is

1. continually forcing the ground states to excited states
2. continually forcing excited states to ground states
   through stimulated emission of the excited states.

An arbitrary atom will not be excited or stimulated by a photon at an exact spectral line wavelength unless it's velocity is exactly zero. Since the flame is hot, the distribution of velocities is given by Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics which varies with temperature so the absorption distribution will follow that law too. However the BB also has a distribution of energies which varies with temperature.

If the BB radiator and the flame are at the same temperature, the distributions match and the excitation and stimulated emission have the same probability and apparently cancel out as far as someone viewing the flame. If the temperatures don't match, either absorption or simulated emission will win out depending on which temperature is higher. And you will see either absorption or emission lines.

 

[polarbear]

This is what I think is happening.

The flame has atoms in excited states and ground states.
Radiation from the hot BB hits the flame and is

1. continually forcing the ground states to excited states
2. continually forcing excited states to ground states
   through stimulated emission of the excited states.

An arbitrary atom will not be excited or stimulated by a photon at an exact spectral line wavelength unless it's velocity is exactly zero. Since the flame is hot, the distribution of velocities is given by Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics which varies with temperature so the absorption distribution will follow that law too. However the BB also has a distribution of energies which varies with temperature.

If the BB radiator and the flame are at the same temperature, the distributions match and the excitation and stimulated emission have the same probability and apparently cancel out as far as someone viewing the flame. If the temperatures don't match, either absorption or simulated emission will win out depending on which temperature is higher. And you will see either absorption or emission lines.

2 replies are not much to go on, but at least there is no denial that "it" is happening...(so far)
"It" being the disappearance of Fraunhofer lines under this circumstance.
I am not saying that your explanation is the wrong one, but want to zero in on the specific spectral bandwidth of any one of the Fraunhofer lines that disappeared rather than applying it for the entire M.B. distribution.
The 2 examples they are discussing in these e-mails are perhaps not the best ones.
I came across it when there was a need to improve the detection limit for Mercury by atomic absorption spectroscopy. There were 2 ways to do that.
1.) by "cold vapor" absorption using either a deuterium arc lamp or a Hg cathode ray and inject the (vapor) sample into a cuvette placed in the path of the light beam
2.) By emission injecting the sample into a high temperature graphite tube.
The most popular AA`s were Perkin Elmer and Jarrell Ash which were set up to do both.
So you could play around to see what happens at the absorption lines when you used the graphite tube and while the lamp was turned on and varied the output.
It`s easy to make a Fraunhofer line disappear at whatever wavelength it happens to be for a specific element by matching the lamp-output with the emission out-put of the sample that was injected into the graphite tube...or the other way around matching the graphite tube temperature so that the emission at a specific wavelength was the same intensity as the lamp.
Works especially well if you try this with Na or K in the visual range instead of Hg in the UV range.
Then you won`t need a graphite tube atomizer and can try it out using a Bunsen burner and much simpler optics.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Interesting...

Applying the theroy to our atmosphere is a tough road. I'm not sure using a canceling wave test can disprove SSDD's position, nor can it prove it.

At best this is proving spectral bandwidth, it is not proving direction of travel or if temperature of the object is 'directing' travel.

 

[Wuwei]

I am not saying that your explanation is the wrong one, but want to zero in on the specific spectral bandwidth of any one of the Fraunhofer lines that disappeared rather than applying it for the entire M.B. distribution.

I think I did zero in on the spectra. The BB lamp only furnishes a broad band of radiation wavelengths to excite the moving atoms in the flame. My argument hinges on the fact that the absorption cross-sections and stimulated emission cross-sections are the same for each spectral line. (A. Einstein) The lamp only serves as a backdrop for viewing the full spectrum. When the flame and lamp are at the same temperature, the absorption and emission of energy from those specific spectral lines are equal and disappear into the backdrop.

 

[SSDD]

Polar bear....I don't think Ian will show up on this thread...I believe one look at your first post and he knew exactly were this conversation was heading...empirical evidence and all, and simply didn't want to heap those big questions on his faith....

 

[Crick]

SSDD, you are a fool. Your interpretation of the 2nd law is wrong. No one on this planet or any other agrees with you. There is a good reason for that. It's wrong. It requires intelligent matter that can sense its surroundings, make faultless predictions about the future of the entire universe, control its own emissions with sub-sub-sub-atomic precision and routinely violate special relativity. If ANY of you (Frank, Polarbear, jc, anyone) think those aren't problems, then go with SSDD, you deserve each other.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, you are a fool. Your interpretation of the 2nd law is wrong. No one on this planet or any other agrees with you. There is a good reason for that. It's wrong. It requires intelligent matter that can sense its surroundings, make faultless predictions about the future of the entire universe, control its own emissions with sub-sub-sub-atomic precision and routinely violate special relativity. If ANY of you (Frank, Polarbear, jc, anyone) think those aren't problems, then go with SSDD, you deserve each other.

And yet, the law agrees with me, and every observation ever made agrees with me...it is you and yours who are reading something into the law that it does not say.

Lest you forget:

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.

Now tell me about your "interpretation".....

 

[Crick]

No, the law does not agree with you and no observations support your claim. We have had a pretty large disagreement about this. We've been talking about this on this board for months and months. Surely, if you're correct, the point would have enough relevance to earn a mention in a text book SOMEWHERE. Show us a textbook that says cold matter doesn't radiate towards hot matter.

 

[SSDD]

No, the law does not agree with you and no observations support your claim. We have had a pretty large disagreement about this. We've been talking about this on this board for months and months. Surely, if you're correct, the point would have enough relevance to earn a mention in a text book SOMEWHERE. Show us a textbook that says cold matter doesn't radiate towards hot matter.

Again: 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.

now which part of my position disagrees with that statement?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, the law does not agree with you and no observations support your claim. We have had a pretty large disagreement about this. We've been talking about this on this board for months and months. Surely, if you're correct, the point would have enough relevance to earn a mention in a text book SOMEWHERE. Show us a textbook that says cold matter doesn't radiate towards hot matter.

Again: 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.

now which part of my position disagrees with that statement?

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body

The point was "radiate" not "heat flow".

 

[Wuwei]

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You are playing dumb. We told you dozens of times and gave you many references that radiation can be exchanged between objects at any temperature. Yet you keep saying the same thing over and over like the mantra of a troll. That statement is wrong and you know it. The word energy must be replaced with the word heat. To say otherwise is totally stupid. No scientist over the last 100 years would agree with you.

 

[SSDD]

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You are playing dumb. We told you dozens of times and gave you many references that radiation can be exchanged between objects at any temperature. Yet you keep saying the same thing over and over like the mantra of a troll. That statement is wrong and you know it. The word energy must be replaced with the word heat. To say otherwise is totally stupid. No scientist over the last 100 years would agree with you.

Yes...you have said all sorts of stuff...and provided references to people who say the same stuff...and yet, the second law of thermodynamics still says what it says and doesn't mention statistics...or microscopic two way energy flow or any of it...it says what it says and my position is based on what it says....let me know when the wording of the law is changed to reflect what you say and then we can talk about me changing my position. Till then, the second law supports my position and you must "interpret" it..and alter it..and add stuff that simply isn't there in order to try to make it support you.

 

[Wuwei]

Yes...you have said all sorts of stuff...and provided references to people who say the same stuff...and yet, the second law of thermodynamics still says what it says and doesn't mention statistics...or microscopic two way energy flow or any of it...it says what it says and my position is based on what it says....let me know when the wording of the law is changed to reflect what you say and then we can talk about me changing my position. Till then, the second law supports my position and you must "interpret" it..and alter it..and add stuff that simply isn't there in order to try to make it support you.

The references say you are wrong. Do you disbelieve all the famous physicists in these references? Max Planck? Einstein? Wilhelm Wien? Gustav Kirchhoff?

Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
Wilhelm Wien - Nobel Lecture: On the Laws of Thermal Radiation
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

“Kinetic Theory of Thermal Equilibrium and of the Second Law of Thermodynamics”
Albert Einstein, 1916: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdfPage 31:
The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

 

[SSDD]

[
The references say you are wrong. Do you disbelieve all the famous physicists in these references? Max Planck? Einstein? Wilhelm Wien? Gustav Kirchhoff?

And for all that...the second law still says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...never been observed...never been measured...never will because it doesn't happen...ever.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
The references say you are wrong. Do you disbelieve all the famous physicists in these references? Max Planck? Einstein? Wilhelm Wien? Gustav Kirchhoff?

And for all that...the second law still says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...never been observed...never been measured...never will because it doesn't happen...ever.

And for all that...the second law still says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...

And for all that, none of those references violates the second law.
Why do you keep confusing radiation with heat?
Is it because you're stupid?
Or do you realize the idiocy of your original claim but just can't admit it?

 

[Wuwei]

And for all that...the second law still says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...never been observed...never been measured...never will because it doesn't happen...ever.

I see you actually disagree with the great Nobel prize winners in science. One might think you have a lot of hubris, but I don't think so. I think either you are a troll, or Todd is right, you can't admit it because you staked your ego on it.

 

[SSDD]

[
The references say you are wrong. Do you disbelieve all the famous physicists in these references? Max Planck? Einstein? Wilhelm Wien? Gustav Kirchhoff?

And for all that...the second law still says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...never been observed...never been measured...never will because it doesn't happen...ever.

And for all that...the second law still says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...

And for all that, none of those references violates the second law.
Why do you keep confusing radiation with heat?
Is it because you're stupid?
Or do you realize the idiocy of your original claim but just can't admit it?

Why do you keep excluding energy...If you have a problem with the word...take it up with the physics department at Georgia State...

I repeat...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat 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.

 

[SSDD]

And for all that...the second law still says that energy doesn't move spontaneously from cool to warm...never been observed...never been measured...never will because it doesn't happen...ever.

I see you actually disagree with the great Nobel prize winners in science. One might think you have a lot of hubris, but I don't think so. I think either you are a troll, or Todd is right, you can't admit it because you staked your ego on it.

As does the second law of thermodynamics....if they had it right..why does the second law disagree with them? Evidently they never managed to demonstrate, or record energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer one...let me know when it actually happens and is recorded...and the law is changed as a result.