The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good old SSDD. He has no sources that back up his one-way flow of radiation, but he knows
that the Handbook of Modern Sensors was fooled.

I have the second law of thermodynamics which states that it is not possible for energy to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....you have opinions, and occasionally a drawing illustrating an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. So in the end, what do you have? Nothing...In the end what do I have? The second law of thermodynamics saying that it isn't possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm. Who has the better source? You with some opinions and a few drawings illustrating the opinions or me with the second law of thermodynamics?

I have the second law of thermodynamics which states that it is not possible for energy to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object..

You have the second law of thermodynamics which you misinterpret to state that it is not possible for photons to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

you have opinions, and occasionally a drawing illustrating an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

It's hilarious that a source you originally referenced, The Handbook of Modern Sensors, shows that energy flows from a sensor to its target and from the target to the sensor. At the same time.

The second law of thermodynamics saying that it isn't possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm. Who has the better source?

If you were correct, energy on the Sun's surface would be "trapped" by the hotter corona.
If you were correct, energy on the Earth's surface would be "trapped" by the hotter thermosphere.

 

[SSDD]

I already told you I agreed with the paper. So you, Mr Hypocrite are now twisting and perverting.

No..you didn't you did nothing more than attempt to twist what was said. You claim that he wasn't talking about photons...I asked you when electromagnetic energy ever takes a form other than photons. Then you claim that he was just talking about heat...what is heat but the movement of EM energy..and what is either EM energy or heat but photons. You think because he didn't say photons, that photons are out of the equation? Are you really that stupid?

You are lying and you know it. It is the paper you cited that did not mention photons. The author was not talking about photons or EM energy he was talking about heat and I agreed with what he said. You are always citing papers that disagree with you.

What? Are you going to cry now? Of course he was talking about photons...when you are talking about radiation, energy movement, or heat resulting from the movement of radiation, you are talking about photons. Once again...what Is EM radiation before it is photons? What is EM energy if it isn't photons? How is heat via EM radiation possible without photons?

You couldn't be more wrong. Penlights have no heat sink and still a lower junction temperature than some natural objects. They can emit photons or EM radiation to a warmer object. They follow the physics definition of spontaneous. An you have no argument against that. Period.

You have no argument...what you have is ignorance and abject stupidity. D you have any idea how a junction diode works? In the simplest possible terms: First, you take a bit of n-type siicon which has a few to many electrons, and then you join that to a piece of p-type silicon which has a few too few electrons. A few of the electrons from the n-type silicon will slip across the junction and fill in the spaces in the p-type silicon which had to few electrons and suddenly, you have some plain old silicon. Since plain old silicon doesn't conduct electricity, it forms a barrier between the n-type and the p-type silicon. Call this barrier the depletion zone. There you have a system.

Now connect a battery to this p-type/n-type junction so that the battery's positive terminal goes to the p-type silicon and the negative terminal goes to the n-type silicon. Flip the switch and the depletion zone shrinks dramatically. Electrons, and holes that would like to be filled with electrons start moving across the junction as the from the battery flows. As the electrons, and the holes that would like to be filled with electrons are moving in opposite directions across the junction they are constantly joining together and in that way, eliminating each other. This joining together makes an atom that is complete and more stable and as a result, it gives off a little burst of energy in the form of a photon.

And you are stupid enough to even think about calling that a spontaneous process? Sorry doofus, it isn't. If you could join the n-type and p-type silicon and have light as a result, you would have a spontaneous process....but alas, you have to connect a battery to the silicon...remember, a spontaneous process is one that will occur without any energy input from the surroundings...a stimulated process is one where energy is added to the system to make the process happen. When you connect that battery to the silicon you initiated a stimulated process...not a spontaneous process.
exam
It isn't my fault that you lack any actual knowledge on the topic and that wherever you get your information didn't bother to tell you how wrong you were. My bet is that even if it did tell you, you would twist, pervert, and interpret what you read in an attempt to make it agree with you and in doing so, learn nothing.

Physics is mathematical models. If you don't believe that then you don't believe physics. You were shown time and again that EM energy or photons can flow anywhere impeded only by matter at any temperature. Since you don't believe atomic physics which was observed, measured, tested and verified to parts per billion, then you are only left with your trolldom of faith. You can mock 372 thousand physicists if you want, but it really makes a mockery of you.

Physics may be models, but he models are supposed to be predicting what is happening in reality. Till such time as the model demonstrates that it predicts and actually models reality, it is just a model. That is the primary problem with post modern science in general. It has forgotten that models aren't evidence...they are only predictions and till such time as observed, measured evidence backs them up, they are nothing but models.

And are you really this f'ing stupid? Do you get that the word spontaneous is important in relation to the second law of thermodynamics and energy movement in general? Do you think I keep typing the word spontaneous just for fun? The second law itself says that you can move energy anywhere you want if you are prepared to expend work to get it done...stimulated process vs spontaneous process. The fact that you can connect a battery to a system, flip a switch and start a stimulated process has no bearing whatsoever on the natural movement of energy via spontaneous process.

Not we. You have reached an impasse since your faith barricades you from the success of physics, and you judge nature by what you think is "elegant" or "face value", or metaphysics. It seems your only recourse now is to lie, be a troll, and make bitter caustic remarks.

No...its we...I keep pointing out and spelling out that the second law says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm, you claim otherwise based on nothing more than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models, and the only example you manage to come up with is the result of you jumping on the crazy train with a true idiot who clearly didn't grasp the importance of the word spontaneous as it relates to energy movement and the second law of thermodynamics any more than you.

 

[Wuwei]

No..you didn't you did nothing more than attempt to twist what was said. You claim that he wasn't talking about photons...I asked you when electromagnetic energy ever takes a form other than photons. Then you claim that he was just talking about heat...what is heat but the movement of EM energy..and what is either EM energy or heat but photons. You think because he didn't say photons, that photons are out of the equation? Are you really that stupid?

You still didn't read your own paper! And you are criticizing me for telling you what the author said!? Of course radiation exchange is mediated by EM energy but your author didn't say anything about EM radiation. He called it heat. Take your gripe up with him not me.

What? Are you going to cry now? Of course he was talking about photons...when you are talking about radiation, energy movement, or heat resulting from the movement of radiation, you are talking about photons. Once again...what Is EM radiation before it is photons? What is EM energy if it isn't photons? How is heat via EM radiation possible without photons?

As I said take your gripe to the author. I know what EM energy is. So read the paper to find out what he is saying. EM energy doesn't exist before becomes photons. That should be obvious. Your question can be reworded as, What are photons before they are photons.

You have no argument...what you have is ignorance and abject stupidity. D you have any idea how a junction diode works?

Yes, but I don't need to copy lectures from the web.

I see you still don't know what spontaneous is. Just because it's complex doesn't make it not spontaneous. Think of the complex spontaneous nuclear fusion sequences in the sun. There is no outside energy source driving the sun nor a penlight with an internal battery. Tape the button closed if that bothers you.

The following definitions describe battery operation and the sun as a spontaneous chemical process. There is nothing about stimulated emission or junctions, etc if that's what's bothering you.

A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state.

Thermodynamic free energy is the amount of work that a thermodynamic system can perform. The concept is useful in the thermodynamics of chemical or thermal processes

Physics may be models, but he models are supposed to be predicting what is happening in reality. Till such time as the model demonstrates that it predicts and actually models reality, it is just a model. That is the primary problem with post modern science in general. It has forgotten that models aren't evidence...they are only predictions and till such time as observed, measured evidence backs them up, they are nothing but models.

How many times do I have to tell you that the models of atomic physics not only predict reality but they do it to parts per billion accuracy. You keep going over the same things as if you never heard it before.

No...its we...I keep pointing out and spelling out that the second law says that energy can not move spontaneously from cool to warm, you claim otherwise based on nothing more than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models, and the only example you manage to come up with is the result of you jumping on the crazy train with a true idiot who clearly didn't grasp the importance of the word spontaneous as it relates to energy movement and the second law of thermodynamics any more than you.

Wrong as usual. We went over that many times, but you don't understand physics and make up your own definitions of well established terminology. If you want to go against the verified theory of QM that's your decision, but it does make you look ignorant and puts you at an impasse. You have certainly lost your credibility.

 

[SSDD]

You still didn't read your own paper! And you are criticizing me for telling you what the author said!? Of course radiation exchange is mediated by EM energy but your author didn't say anything about EM radiation. He called it heat. Take your gripe up with him not me.

It isn't often that one encounters a congenital liar, but you sure seem to fit the bill. And of course I am not criticizing you for what the author said...I am criticizing you for being stupid, wrong and a damned liar.

You say he called it heat, but didn't say anything about EM radiation? Generally speaking, authors don't list every term any given thing could be called as it would be terribly boring to read, and make the document excessively long. It is expected, that if you can read, you might have the intellectual wattage to learn if a particular term may be referred to in multiple ways.

If you were reading an article on the sun, would you argue that it must not be our star because he didn't specifically name it Sol? What a putz...

Since you clearly either aren't bright enough, or are so inherently dishonest that you can't bother to look up the truth, here, let me help you out.

Environmental Physics

Environmental Physics - Claire Smith - p.77 -

clip: Radiant heat is a form of electromagnetic radiation which covers the spectrum from X-rays to radio waves, all having certain properties in common.

(want to cry because she said radiant heat and you think heat and radiant heat are two different things in the context of radiation?)

Heat radiates 10,000 times faster at the nanoscale

clip: Heat is a form of electromagnetic radiation, so it moves at the speed of light.


This one is in the form of a test from
http://repo.pmi.edu/online/Master_Documents/Radiation_Physics/Radiation_Physics_Lesson_2/Quiz2.txt

Heat is a form of electromagnetic radiation produced at relatively low energies called..

Here is one that may be on your level:

Planck constant Facts for Kids

All hot bodies give off radiant heat. Radiant heat is electromagnetic radiation. Normally this radiation is in the infra-red range, but if the body is very hot (1000 °C or more), it is in the visible range

And I could go on and on and on with sources stating that heat is electromagnetic radiation. So make a note, if someone is talking about heat in the form of radiation, he is talking about electromagnetic radiation...and also talking about photons.

As I said take your gripe to the author. I know what EM energy is. So read the paper to find out what he is saying. EM energy doesn't exist before becomes photons. That should be obvious. Your question can be reworded as, What are photons before they are photons.

Clearly you don't know what EM radiation is.

Yes, but I don't need to copy lectures from the web.

Guess once again, you don't.

I see you still don't know what spontaneous is. Just because it's complex doesn't make it not spontaneous. Think of the complex spontaneous nuclear fusion sequences in the sun. There is no outside energy source driving the sun nor a penlight with an internal battery. Tape the button closed if that bothers you.

Here...other sources besides wiki..

19.1: Spontaneous Processes

A spontaneous process is one that occurs naturally under certain conditions. A nonspontaneous process, on the other hand, will not take place unless it is “driven” by the continual input of energy from an external source.

Spontaneous and Nonspontaneous Processes | Introduction to Chemistry

A spontaneous process is capable of proceeding in a given direction without needing to be driven by an outside source of energy.

Spontaneous Process

spontaneous process: a physical or chemical change that occurs without the addition of energy.

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~mcnemar/apchem/chapter19.pdf

Any process which occurs without outside intervention is spontaneous.

Spontaneous Process & 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Assignment Help - Physics

Spontaneous Process_ It is a process which takes place on its own, i.e. there is no external energy required for the process to take place.


The following definitions describe battery operation and the sun as a spontaneous chemical process. There is nothing about stimulated emission or junctions, etc if that's what's bothering you.

A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state.

Thermodynamic free energy is the amount of work that a thermodynamic system can perform. The concept is useful in the thermodynamics of chemical or thermal processes

And again...I could go on with source after source stating that a spontaneous process occurs without input of energy from an outside source. Obvious to anyone with even a slight grasp of the basics...that leaves you out.

How many times do I have to tell you that the models of atomic physics not only predict reality but they do it to parts per billion accuracy. You keep going over the same things as if you never heard it before.

You can stop telling, and simply produce an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm one...what's that bucky? You don't have any?

Wrong as usual. We went over that many times, but you don't understand physics and make up your own definitions of well established terminology. If you want to go against the verified theory of QM that's your decision, but it does make you look ignorant and puts you at an impasse. You have certainly lost your credibility.

Verified? Really? With what? More models? Lets see that observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm....

 

[Wuwei]

Your whole post is full of misconceptions.

...EM energy ... heat ... etc.

I already told you I agreed with the author who was continually referring to the 1791 work of Provost who knew nothing about EM energy!. Do you think he did in 1971? I have no idea why you are so bent out of shape about that. You simply did not understand the paper you cited.

Any process which occurs without outside intervention is spontaneous....
spontaneous process: a physical or chemical change that occurs without the addition of energy
. … etc

Those definitions of a spontaneous process are fine too. There is no outside source of energy powering a penlight. Only the internal chemical reaction inside a battery that is inside a penlight is supplying energy. That is what makes the penlight a spontaneous process.

You can stop telling, and simply produce an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm one.

Your “smart photon” idea has no quantitative support. Your reasoning from day one via argumentum ad ignorantiam does not hold water.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (also known as: appeal to ignorance): The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.

The fallacy is usually best described by, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Verified? Really? With what? More models? Lets see that observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm....

The models of atomic physics were verified by many experiments (observations and quantitative measurements) to parts per billion. The observations and measurements support the EM radiation of all vibrating charges. Your “theory” does not obey the many experiments of atomic physics and is based on a logic fallacy.

 

[SSDD]

I already told you I agreed with the author who was continually referring to the 1791 work of Provost who knew nothing about EM energy!. Do you think he did in 1971? I have no idea why you are so bent out of shape about that. You simply did not understand the paper you cited.

Of course he new about EM energy...He didn't have a name for it...he didn't know how it happened, and he didn't know what caused it, but of course he new...anyone who ever stood before a fire or saw visible light knew.

And of course I understood the paper...the actual paper that is...you on the other hand read with the intent of twisting, perverting, and distorting rather than actually learning something..which is why you remain a poser who believes that some forms of EM energy are exempt from the second law of thermodynamics.

Those definitions of a spontaneous process are fine too. There is no outside source of energy powering a penlight. Only the internal chemical reaction inside a battery that is inside a penlight is supplying energy. That is what makes the penlight a spontaneous process.

Of course there is...the reaction by which energy and heat are converted to light happens at the junction of the p-type silicon and the n-type silicon...that reaction is driven by energy from another place all together....and if you have really convinced yourself that anything about your LED penlight is spontaneous, then you are as stupid as I thought you were and more. If you really believe your bullshit, then you are truly ignorant in the basics of not only thermodynamics, but physics in general.

This source, LibreTexts, explicitly says that you are wrong. Once, more...

19.1: Spontaneous Processes

A spontaneous process is one that occurs naturally under certain conditions. A nonspontaneous process, on the other hand, will not take place unless it is “driven” by the continual input of energy from an external source.

I can only guess that you have no idea what that means. Here, let me clue you in...take some baking soda, introduce it to some vinegar. The resulting reaction s a spontaneous process. No outside energy required. A spontaneous process, as stated above, will not take place unless it is driven by the continual input of energy from an external source. The reaction is happening at the junction of the p-type silicon and the n-type silicon...the battery is an external source and a continuous supply of that energy is required to drive the reaction...cut the energy and the reaction stops post haste.


And there was this source as well..

Spontaneous and Nonspontaneous Processes | Introduction to Chemistry

A spontaneous process is capable of proceeding in a given direction without needing to be driven by an outside source of energy.

Same thing...spontaneous processes don't need to be driven by an outside energy source. Once again...the reaction happens in the junction between p-type and n-type silicon...the battery is external to the location of the reaction and provides the power that crosses that junction...take away the battery and you have a spontaneous process...but it produces no light. Without the external energy, the spontaneous process produces some normal silicon from the p-type silicon and the n-type silicon...no external energy required.

The level of intellectual dishonesty...or abject ignorance required to suggest that a battery is not an external energy source to the location where the reaction happens is astounding...

Then there was the entry from no less that Purdue University.

spontaneous process: a physical or chemical change that occurs without the addition of energy.

You really think no energy is being added? Even if we go completely stupid and allow that your battery is not an external energy source...when the battery runs down, the reaction which converts heat and electricity to light stops...and will not begin again till such time as energy from an outside source is applied...

It is endlessly fascinating to watch the mental gymnastics and gyrations an inherently dishonest person will go through in an attempt to be right when they are so clearly wrong. You are, at present, at the intellectual level of a 3 year old covered in chocolate who is adamantly claiming that he hasn't been eating chocolate. Say anything....throw every bit of bullshit you possess at the wall and hope that something sticks..

Your “smart photon” idea has no quantitative support. Your reasoning from day one via argumentum ad ignorantiam does not hold water.

I don't have a smart photon idea...that belongs to you warmers and luke warmers, who are of the same tribe. I just have the statement of the second law of thermodynamics. And as to quantitative support, I have nothing but quantitate support. The word quantitive refers to the measure of a thing. We have only measured energy moving spontaneously from warm to cool....there are no measurements or observations of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm. If your beliefs had quantitative support we would not be having this discussion because the second law of thermodynamics would state that in some instances energy can move freely from cool to warm.

Argumentum ad

ignorantiam (also known as: appeal to ignorance): The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.

That describes your argument perfectly. You want a mechanism by which energy can't move from cool to warm. You can't think of any such mechanism because at present, we don't really understand the mechanism by which an internal vibration of a molecule is translated to outgoing radiation in the first place. You ignore the fact that we don't understand the underlying mechanism by which radiation is created and focus on the observed fact that that energy only moves from warm to cool and base your conclusion on the fact that I can't provide a mechanism by which it happens even though ever time we observe or measure the movement of energy, it is moving from warm to cool...never from cool to warm unless some external energy is being applied to make it happen.

The fallacy is usually best described by, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Precisely...we don't grasp the mechanism that prevents energy from only moving spontaneously from warm to cool, but it does so none the less...claiming otherwise is to completely ignore every observation and measurement ever made simply because we can't describe the mechanism that causes energy to move spontaneously in that direction only.

The models of atomic physics were verified by many experiments (observations and quantitative measurements) to parts per billion. The observations and measurements support the EM radiation of all vibrating charges. Your “theory” does not obey the many experiments of atomic physics and is based on a logic fallacy.

The models have verified the models. Really?..and that is good enough for you? Now you are just mewling...

And I have no theory...and after all this time, for you to suggest that I do is just one more bald faced lie on your part. I have the second law of thermodynamics which states that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...sorry the law of thermodynamics doesn't agree with your hypotheses...or the models that "support" your hypothesis...Every observation and measurement ever made says that the second law is right. What else do I need?

 

[Wuwei]

..the reaction by which energy and heat are converted to light happens at the junction of the p-type silicon and the n-type silicon...that reaction is driven by energy from another place all together.

The system you are defining is simply an LED with nothing else. External to that LED system is a battery. I agree that is not spontaneous.

I told you many times that the system of a penlight has the battery included, and no further input energy.

The penlight system is also consistent with the following definition of spontaneity from Purdue that you cited:

spontaneous process: a physical or chemical change that occurs without the addition of energy.

You go through intense caustic verbosity on how your system is not spontaneous. I totally agree with you that your system is not spontaneous.

What you are doing is conflating your alternate definition of a different system with my penlight system which includes an internal battery. That is where your logic totally breaks down. You also ignored the above definition that a system can have chemical changes and still be spontaneous.

I can't provide a mechanism by which it happens even though ever time we observe or measure the movement of energy, it is moving from warm to cool...

It is true that the energy of heat is always observed flowing from hot to cold objects. But everyone knows that every measurement also shows that photons are free to flow unimpeded. Black body physics guarantees entropy always increases.

The models have verified the models. Really?..

Nope, that is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. The models of atomic physics were verified by many experiments (observations and quantitative measurements) to parts per billion.

 

[SSDD]

You have the second law of thermodynamics which you misinterpret to state that it is not possible for photons to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

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.

I agree with that statement as it is written. Which part do you think I am interpreting? And where did you get the idiot idea that photons are exempt from the second law...let me guess..you jumped on the crazy train with allen when wuwei jumped on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have the second law of thermodynamics which you misinterpret to state that it is not possible for photons to flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

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.

I agree with that statement as it is written. Which part do you think I am interpreting? And where did you get the idiot idea that photons are exempt from the second law...let me guess..you jumped on the crazy train with allen when wuwei jumped on.

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

I haven't seen anyone dispute that.
I've seen many dispute your claim that it's not possible for photons to flow from a colder body to a warmer body.

And so far, you haven't produced a real source that backs you up.

I agree with that statement as it is written. Which part do you think I am interpreting?

The flow of heat is equivalent to flow of photons part.

And where did you get the idiot idea that photons are exempt from the second law

I don't have that idea. The idea I hold is that all matter above 0K emits photons in all directions with no regard to warmer matter nearby or warmer matter billions of light years away billions of years in the future.

 

[SSDD]

I haven't seen anyone dispute that.
I've seen many dispute your claim that it's not possible for photons to flow from a colder body to a warmer body.

Got a source that says that photons are not energy? I am sure that you don't because any form of radiation is happening in the form of photons...but feel free to provide a source that says that somehow radiation moves in some other form than photons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I haven't seen anyone dispute that.
I've seen many dispute your claim that it's not possible for photons to flow from a colder body to a warmer body.

Got a source that says that photons are not energy? I am sure that you don't because any form of radiation is happening in the form of photons...but feel free to provide a source that says that somehow radiation moves in some other form than photons.

Got a source that says that photons are not energy?

No.

Got a source that says photons can only move from hotter matter to colder matter?

 

[SSDD]

I haven't seen anyone dispute that.
I've seen many dispute your claim that it's not possible for photons to flow from a colder body to a warmer body.

Got a source that says that photons are not energy? I am sure that you don't because any form of radiation is happening in the form of photons...but feel free to provide a source that says that somehow radiation moves in some other form than photons.

Got a source that says that photons are not energy?

No.

Got a source that says photons can only move from hotter matter to colder matter?

Of course...I just gave it to you...but here it is 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.

I don't see any exclusion of photons there. It says clearly that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...you are either saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool objects to warm objects and is exempt from the second law, or you are not. All electromagnetic energy exists in the form of photons.

So are you saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool to warm? If not, explain how you believe photons can but EM energy can not when they are one in the same...a photon being nothing more than the smallest bit of EM energy possible.

 

[Wuwei]

I don't see any exclusion of photons there. It says clearly that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...you are either saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool objects to warm objects and is exempt from the second law, or you are not. All electromagnetic energy exists in the form of photons.

So are you saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool to warm? If not, explain how you believe photons can but EM energy can not when they are one in the same...a photon being nothing more than the smallest bit of EM energy possible.

You keep bringing the science down to grade school level. You must think deeper. Yes. Everyone knows photons and EM waves represent the same thing. Why do you dwell on that? The overall guiding principle in the second law today is in terms of increasing entropy. Black body exchange of photons (or EM energy) between all objects always leads to increased entropy, and satisfies the second law. We went through several examples of that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I haven't seen anyone dispute that.
I've seen many dispute your claim that it's not possible for photons to flow from a colder body to a warmer body.

Got a source that says that photons are not energy? I am sure that you don't because any form of radiation is happening in the form of photons...but feel free to provide a source that says that somehow radiation moves in some other form than photons.

Got a source that says that photons are not energy?

No.

Got a source that says photons can only move from hotter matter to colder matter?

Of course...I just gave it to you...but here it is 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.

I don't see any exclusion of photons there. It says clearly that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...you are either saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool objects to warm objects and is exempt from the second law, or you are not. All electromagnetic energy exists in the form of photons.

So are you saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool to warm? If not, explain how you believe photons can but EM energy can not when they are one in the same...a photon being nothing more than the smallest bit of EM energy possible.

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.

Thanks. Now try again.

Got a source that says photons can only move from hotter matter to colder matter?

​

I don't see any exclusion of photons there.​

And I don't see any mention of photons there.​

​

It says clearly that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...​

And we've previously seen sources posted here that say photons can flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object. And you've failed to post any that say they cannot.

​

So are you saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool to warm?​

Obviously. All matter above 0K emits photons.
Still waiting for your proof that says all matter above 0K emits photons unless some matter somewhere is warmer.​

you are either saying that all electromagnetic energy can flow freely from cool objects to warm objects and is exempt from the second law, or you are not.

I'm saying photons can flow freely from cool objects to warm objects and the flow requires no exemption from the second law.

 

[skookerasbil]

Oy

Nobody cares about the photons.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Oy

Nobody cares about the photons.

I love photons. They hit my retinas and I can see stuff. As far as this silly argument about photons moving from colder to warmer, how is it I can see the stuff in my refrigerator? My retinas are at 98.6F, the stuff in the fridge is about 35F, yet I can see it. All the lettuce and cheese and old spaghetti sauce and everything else are emitting photons that my eyes detect. How can that be?

 

[Wuwei]

I love photons. They hit my retinas and I can see stuff. As far as this silly argument about photons moving from colder to warmer, how is it I can see the stuff in my refrigerator? My retinas are at 98.6F, the stuff in the fridge is about 35F, yet I can see it. All the lettuce and cheese and old spaghetti sauce and everything else are emitting photons that my eyes detect. How can that be?

That's actually a clever counterexample of the SSDD misunderstanding of the wording of the second law;
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

The true second law is in action when your eyes feel the cold from standing close, but if you want to live up to SSDD's standards you have to make it spontaneous. So put some ice cream on your counter top and do something else for a while like let your fingers be snapped by a mousetrap so you forget about the ice cream. Then when you next happen to see the ice cream it will be spontaneous energy flowing to your eyes. The ice cream might have become soggy, but it was all for science.

 

[SSDD]

..the reaction by which energy and heat are converted to light happens at the junction of the p-type silicon and the n-type silicon...that reaction is driven by energy from another place all together.

The system you are defining is simply an LED with nothing else. External to that LED system is a battery. I agree that is not spontaneous.

I told you many times that the system of a penlight has the battery included, and no further input energy.

The penlight system is also consistent with the following definition of spontaneity from Purdue that you cited:

spontaneous process: a physical or chemical change that occurs without the addition of energy.

You go through intense caustic verbosity on how your system is not spontaneous. I totally agree with you that your system is not spontaneous.

What you are doing is conflating your alternate definition of a different system with my penlight system which includes an internal battery. That is where your logic totally breaks down. You also ignored the above definition that a system can have chemical changes and still be spontaneous.

Yes, you have "told" me all manner of things. Almost none of them correct. You tend to talk out of your ass with no actual idea of what you are talking about. This is a prime example. Claiming that a battery powering a LED is a spontaneous process. The idea is laughable.

Even after I gave you definitions of what a was and was not a spontaneous process, you remained unable to differentiate between the two. Clearly, you are unfamiliar with the terms and that would be because you have never had any actual education in physics. This is the rock bottom foundation stuff...they teach grade school children this sort of thing and you have no grasp of it whatsoever.

To demonstrate that you are wrong, and all your buds who thank you and agree with you on the bullshit that you are spewing, I took the time to write to some physics professors from various respected universities. I wrote them all the same note. It went as follows.

Greetings Dr. XXXX,

My name is XXXX XXXX. If I may bother you for a moment, I have a physics question regarding spontaneous processes that I could find no direct answer for on the internet. I understand that a spontaneous process occurs without being driven by an external energy source. My question arises regarding LED lights. I understand the reaction happens at the junction between a slice of p-type silicon and a slice of n-type silicon when an electric current is applied. My intuition tells me that if this was a spontaneous process, the LED would light up without an input from an electrical source, or the LED would stay lit if the electricity were cut off from the device. I am old enough to know that intuition isn’t to be trusted I matters of science, so I am seeking answers from someone who knows far more on the topic than I.

Thank you very much in advance if you have time to answer my question.

XXXX XXXX

At this point, I have received a few responses, although if I received 50, they would all say essentially the same thing...that being, that you were quite wrong.

From Dr. Sean P. Robinson, professor in the department of physics at MIT. His email is spatrick@mit.edu

He responds:

Hi XXX,

This is a good question, as the most common explanations you can find on the internet leave out critical details, which leads to confusion if you take those incomplete stories too seriously.

First, the short answer (or, rather, short response, since you didn’t actually ask a question): uhh, yeah, it’s true that light emitting diodes don’t spontaneously glow on their own. You need to supply an external power source. The emission of light from the p-n junction in an LED is not a spontaneous process. I agree with you.

But I think you already knew that, and that wasn’t exactly your real question. Before getting into the more detailed answer, a couple of clarifying points on your wording, just to make sure we’re on the same page:

The materials involved here are p-type and n-type semiconductors, yes. The most common semiconductor used in electronic devices is silicon, yes, especially in computer chips. But, the properties of the device depend on the choice of materials, and if you want your device to be a diode which emits light, making it an LED, then silicon doesn’t get the job done. The “light” in that case would be both very dim and deep into the infrared spectrum. There is a whole zoo of other semiconducting materials used for making a wide range of diodes/transistors/etc with different properties. LEDs of different colors use different materials. No visible-light LEDs use silicon.

You are correct that the important question here is about what is happening at the p-n junction. I guess you could call it a “reaction” is some general sense, but to be clear, this is not a chemical reaction between the two materials. It is an interaction between the charge carriers in each material, but chemically, the materials don’t change as they would in a chemical reaction. So, you can talk about a “reaction” being “spontaneous”, sure, I understand what you mean, but be aware that we’re not using those words in the same precise technical sense in which they are used in chemistry.

OK. Now, you’ve probably read that LEDs emit light when the mobile negative charges in the n-type semiconductor combine with the mobile positive charges in the p-type semiconductor, releasing energy as visible light. Your question (I think) is why the charges don’t just combine and emit light spontaneously; why does it require an external voltage?

One way to answer this is to realize that LEDS are just a specific type diode, and that mechanism of positive and negative charges combining across the p-n junction is how all diodes work, not just LEDs. (It’s just that in most diodes, the light emission is dim, not in a visible wavelength, and the mechanical arrangement of the junction and diode packaging doesn’t let the light out.) Once you have that one extra fact, then it becomes easier to search for answers on the internet, because you don’t have to restrict yourself to answers that are specific to LEDs. If you can find an answer to the same question for diodes (or any other device with a p-n junction, really), then you’ve answered it for LEDs, too. That said, here’s someone who asked the question on stackexchange and got what I consider to be a pretty good answer:

Why doesn't a diode or transistor get neutral?

Hope that helps,

++Sean Robinson


From Dr. Jolyon Bloomfield, also a professor in the physics department at MIT.

He responds:

Hi XXXX,

In an LED, you have an NP junction. In the N part, electrons are flowing at high energy. In the P part, holes are flowing at low energy. At the junction, electrons can "hop" from the high energy to the low energy, emitting light in the process.

Why doesn't this occur spontaneously, without any electrical input? The answer is that it does - but there's a price to be paid for doing so. When electrons hop from the N part to the P part, they create an electric field. That electric field makes it harder for future electrons to hop. Very rapidly, enough electrons have hopped from the N part to the P part that it's no longer energetically favorable to do so. By turning on a current, you drain electrons from the P part, and add them back to the N part, getting rid of this electric field, and allowing the process to continue happening.

I hope that helps.

Best,

Jolyon Bloomfield
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lecturer
MIT Physics Department
Concourse Learning Community
6C-433
(617) 253-7602

I pointed out this precise thing to you when I explained that you do, indeed, have a spontaneous process going on at the junction between the P silicon and the N silicon. That spontaneous process produces a very thin sliver of normal silicon between the two That is, as I pointed out, a spontaneous process I went on to explain to you that if you want to get light out of the LED, then you must apply energy from an external source to excite the electrons moving between the P silicon and the N silicon...ie, an electric current.

Just to clarify the point, I responded to his email as follows:

Dr. Bloomfield,

Thank you so much for your response. If I may, I would like to ask one point of clarification and then I promise to leave you alone. If I am understanding you, the spontaneous process part of the process is the initial movement of electrons from the P part to the N part which forms a bit of plain old silicon between the two parts. If, however, you wish to keep that process going, and actually produce light from the device, you must provide an outside energy source, ie an electric current which is not a spontaneous process.

Thank you again for your response, it is greatly appreciated

XXXX

To which he replied:

Hi XXXX

Yup, that's basically correct.

Cheers,

Jolyon Bloomfield


This response is from Dr. David P. Belanger, Distinguished Professor of Physics, Acting Dean, Physical and Biological sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara.

He Responds:

Dear XXX

One of the most robust of scientific principles is the second law of thermodynamics, and spontaneous actions simply can't occur. Sometimes, detailed interactions take place, but under close scrutiny, the second law always holds. U.S. patents are always rejected for ideas that claim to violate the second law. Hope that helps.

Dave


Personally, I think he left of part of his thought and meant to say that spontaneous actions that move energy from cool to warm simply can't occur, but I am not going to bother him with clarification. His stance on moving energy....any energy....in any form from cool to warm seems quite clear. You can email him about it if you like. His email address is daveph@ucsc.edu

I have known all along that I was right and you were wrong. Even when you were given the definitions of spontaneous and non spontaneous processes, you did nothing but attempt to twist and distort those definitions in an attempt to make them agree with you.

I do appreciate the discussion though, and it gave me the opportunity to prove beyond any doubt that you are nothing more than a poser who lacks even the basic knowledge in physics to differentiate between spontaneous and non spontaneous processes....a principle that is taught to middle school children. And while you may have "experience" with LEDs, it is pretty clear that that experience hasn't extended beyond perhaps stocking them on the shelves of a Quickie Mart or perhaps you owned a toy robot with LED's for eyes. Certainly you had no professional experience with them..

It is true that the energy of heat is always observed flowing from hot to cold objects. But everyone knows that every measurement also shows that photons are free to flow unimpeded. Black body physics guarantees entropy always increases.

Once more, you demonstrate how you have no actual grasp of the topic. If the energy of heat is always observed moving from hot to cold, then photons are always observed moving from hot to cold. Perhaps you are describing some "smart" photon which knows whether it is a photon of light, or heat, or any of the various types of electromagnetic radiation and consults its rule book to see if it must obey the second law of thermodynamics.

Once more, what do you think any sort of radiative energy is, if not photons?

And no observation has ever been made of photons or of any other form of energy moving spontaneously from cold to warm...and those people who think they have an example to the contrary are invariably wrong as stated in no uncertain terms by Dr. Belanger. I suppose if some form of energy were exempt from the second law, he might have mentioned it...and certainly the second law itself would mention it.

Dr. Belanger pointed out your notion that photons are free to flow unimpeded was incorrect as well since in response to my inquiry relating to light emitting from an LED, his response was to immediately turn to the second law of thermodynamics which most certainly covers photons...and every other form of energy.

Nope, that is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. The models of atomic physics were verified by many experiments (observations and quantitative measurements) to parts per billion.

Really? Show me a physical experiment which produces observations and quantitative measurements of energy moving, spontaneously, from cool to warm that are accurate to parts per 10, or parts per 100, much less parts per billion.

I would like to put up a quote by you from another thread which literally drips irony.

Scientific Method, 2016

My take on JC is that he is not just suffering just from ignorance or intelligence, but he is a bad case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He is locked on to a false idea and insults everyone that disagrees with him. He should be able to recognize that he is arguing with people that have more education than he has, but he fails at that.

Laughable is all I have to say about that. Clearly, you don't possess anything like the education you would have people believe. If you did, you would at least be able to differentiate between a spontaneous and non spontaneous process...and your posts across this board would not be littered with so many stark misunderstandings of the basic principles of physics.

 

[SSDD]

You keep bringing the science down to grade school level. You must think deeper.

Funny...coming from someone who, at this point, 3 professors of physics at respected universities have said was wrong on a very basic topic in physics. You aren't able to think deeper because you lack the education required to do so. Let me know when you can at least differentiate between a spontaneous and non spontaneous process.

Yes. Everyone knows photons and EM waves represent the same thing. Why do you dwell on that? The overall guiding principle in the second law today is in terms of increasing entropy. Black body exchange of photons (or EM energy) between all objects always leads to increased entropy, and satisfies the second law. We went through several examples of that.

So now you are claiming again, that all EM radiation is exempt form the second law?

 

[SSDD]

Oy

Nobody cares about the photons.

I love photons. They hit my retinas and I can see stuff. As far as this silly argument about photons moving from colder to warmer, how is it I can see the stuff in my refrigerator? My retinas are at 98.6F, the stuff in the fridge is about 35F, yet I can see it. All the lettuce and cheese and old spaghetti sauce and everything else are emitting photons that my eyes detect. How can that be?

Typical statement made by someone without even the slightest grasp of physics or energy movement...much like wuwei and his belief that LED's are spontaneously moving energy from cool to warm. You are seeing visible light emit from your refrigerator. What is the temperature of the light source producing that light? Open your refrigerator in a totally dark room and see how much energy moves from that cold refrigerator to your eye. The light that you are seeing coming out of your refrigerator is coming from a light bulb whose filament is something in excess of 2000 degrees F...somewhat warmer than 35F wouldn't you say.

Science is rarely intuitive...it is best to actually learn some of it and then you won't make such uninformed comments...and you won't think that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm.