itfitzme
VIP Member
As far as I know there is no proof that the transfer of molecular kinetic energy doesn't always go from high to low as conduction.
And there is proof that kinetic energy moves in both directions.
It is called Brownian motion. I know I keep harping on it, but it is the definitive experiment and observation that proves a) the existance of molecules and atoms, b) the statistical nature of classical thermodynamics, and c) that the kinetic energy does move from the low concentration to the high concentation, just less often.
"At first the predictions of Einstein's formula were seemingly refuted by a series of experiments by Svedberg in 1906 and 1907, which gave displacements of the particles as 4 to 6 times the predicted value, and by Henri in 1908 who found displacements 3 times greater than Einstein's formula predicted.[11] But Einstein's predictions were finally confirmed in a series of experiments carried out by Chaudesaigues in 1908 and Perrin in 1909. The confirmation of Einstein's theory constituted empirical progress for the kinetic theory of heat. In essence, Einstein showed that the motion can be predicted directly from the kinetic model of thermal equilibrium. The importance of the theory lay in the fact that it confirmed the kinetic theory's account of the second law of thermodynamics as being an essentially statistical law."
Brownian motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The paper is available at users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/eins_brownian.pdf*
This google search will provide a wealth of reading material,
https://www.google.com/webhp#q=einstein+brownian+motion
https://www.google.com/webhp#q=How+does+einstein+brownian+motion+and+heat+effect&spell=1
https://www.google.com/webhp#q=How+does+einstein+brownian+motion+and+heat
COS 126 Programming Assignment: The Atomic Nature of Matter
"In one of his "miraculous year" (1905) papers, Einstein formulated a quantitative theory of Brownian motion in an attempt to justify the "existence of atoms of definite finite size." His theory provided experimentalists with a method to count molecules with an ordinary microscope by observing their collective effect on a larger immersed particle. In 1908 Jean Baptiste Perrin used the recently invented ultramicroscope to experimentally validate Einstein's kinetic theory of Brownian motion, thereby providing the first direct evidence supporting the atomic nature of matter. For this work, Perrin won the 1926 Nobel Prize in physics. "
The bottom line of it is this. Grains of pollen are just the right size that they are visible under the microscope and small enough to be significantly impacted by the difference in momentum and kinetic energy of the individual molecules. Under a microscope, pollen grains or materal beads of sufficient size can be seen and counted as they move in random directions due to the random movement of the molecules. When they are introduced into the liquid, all at one end, they will tend towards being evenly distributed throughout the liquid. But, at any particular moment of time, a statistically calculatable quantity of beads can be seen moving in the opposite direction, in the direction of higher concentration.
This alone is sufficient to prove that statistical mechanics is correct and that classical mechanics is the result of the statistical properties of large number of atoms. And, it proves that energy does move against the temperature gradient, just not en mass.
The reason it proves it is simple. The proof of molecules and atoms proves it. The proof of atoms and molecules makes the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules sufficient to explain heat transfer. Being sufficient to explain heat transfer, having buries the caloric idea, then the gross movement of kinetic energy in opposition to the thermal gradient is proven.
One of the things with physics, and why some with never get it, is some things are understood well enough that further investigation is simply unnecessary. One could extend the brownina motion experiment to a thermal gradient experiement, but why bother?
No one with a physics education is stupid enough to think like SSDD. We all know. That he thinks otherwise is sufficient evidence to prove he doesn't have an education in engineering or physics.
Certainly the statistical evidence suggests that within any sample there will be a range of kinetic energies amoung the molecules. My point is at the scale of a single molecule. Can a lower kinetic energy molecule transfer energy to a higher energy molecule. No statistics required.
In perfectly elastic collisions, that five suspended steel ball clacker thing is the best example. The moving one stops and the stopped one moves.