"Settled Science"??

[PLC1]

I would not think so. Perhaps higher humidity in some surface areas make a difference as water can trap heat by converting its form and with most of our surface area happens to be water so distribution is sorta kinda even. More molecules of water down low than up high given the un-thinness.

Why is it colder at the top of a mountain than it is at sea level?

As air rises, the pressure decreases. It is this lower pressure at higher altitudes that causes the temperature to be colder on top of a mountain than at sea level.

For more information on related topics, try the links on the next page.

 

[palerider]

Of course. There is absolutely no question that quantum mechanics defies the intuition of humans. That has been known since its inception. There is no experiment that has ever been done in atomic physics that puts doubt on the computations of quantum electrodynamics (QED, for short).

It has nothing to do with intuition....it has to do with post modern science abandoning reality for fantasy.

second law of Clausius stated that HEAT could not spontaneously flow from a cold body to a hot body. He did not know anything about EM radiation. That came later with Maxwell. The second law of Clausius alone was incapable of explaining how heat could be exchanged between bodies in a vacuum with no physical connection. He didn't know about photons and quantization.

Is radiation energy? If so, then it is covered.....here, from the Georgia State University physics Department....

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.

can freely flow both ways to and from hot and cold bodies. Give me a source that says photons cannot spontaneously flow from a cold body to a hot body.

So you say....and I have to hand it to you, you say it as if you genuinely believe it to be true. The first order of business is to prove that photon's exist. Can you do that? There will be a nobel in it for sure if you can. How do you suppose you will prove the existence of the theoretical particles you so fervently believe in? No one has managed to do it so far....I am interested to hear what sort of experiment you might construct to prove that they exist. Once you have proven the existence of photons, then we can move on to you showing an observed example of them moving from a cool object to a warmer object.

 

[palerider]

Why is it colder at the top of a mountain than it is at sea level?

Lower pressure....imagine that. The adiabatic lapse rate is approximately 6.5K /km. watch closely now....The 255K at 5km (the mean emission height of the atmosphere) added to the adiabatic lapse rate (6.5K x 5km) 33C = 288K OR 15C....Sound familiar? One doesn't need the forcing of greenhouse gasses to account for the so called greenhouse effect.

 

[Lagboltz]

It has nothing to do with intuition....it has to do with post modern science abandoning reality for fantasy.

My gosh, you think lasers, LEDs, atomic clocks, etc all came from fantasy.

Is radiation energy? If so, then it is covered.....here, from the Georgia State University physics Department....

This is a translation from Clausius' book, The Mechanical Theory of Heat 1875.
"In all cases where a quantity of heat is converted into work and where the body effecting this transformation ultimately returns to its original condition another quantity of heat must necessarily be transferred from a warmer to a colder body and the magnitude of the last quantity of heat in relation to the first depends only on the temperature of the bodies between which heat passes and not upon the nature of the body effecting this transformation or more briefly heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a warmer body"

Clausius did not use the word energy at all in his definition of the second law. He used "heat."
The Georgia State physics site gives this picture with your exact quotation.


Clausius did not use the word energy at all in his definition of the second law. He used "heat." The Georgia State site specifically cited Clausius but misquoted him where they used the word "energy" when they should have used the word "heat". The site immediately counters that miswording with a picture that shows that they are actually referring to heat since Q always refers to heat in thermodynamic formulae. The site also put that wording and picture in a box titled, "Second Law: Refrigerator."

So in short, you are pinning your whole objection to backscatter on the basis of a site that
1) Explained refrigeration and not radiation thermodynamics.
2) Explicitly referred to Clausius,
3) Misquoted Clausius's wording, by typing energy instead of heat,
4) Clarified the mistake with a diagram that referred solely to Q, which means heat.

That miswording from that site is the only thing on which you are basing your arguments. Isolating misquotes from text while ignoring the very obvious context is intellectual corruption.

 

[palerider]

My gosh, you think lasers, LEDs, atomic clocks, etc all came from fantasy.

They are products of human ingenuity, not quantum mechanics.

did not use the word energy at all in his definition of the second law. He used "heat."

Heat is a transfer of energy. Equivocate...shuck and jive....dodge and weave...dance till your heart's content...All present are still waiting for you to provide an observed example of heat, or energy moving from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state.

The Georgia State site specifically cited Clausius but misquoted him where they used the word "energy" when they should have used the word "heat".

Maybe you should call them up and point out their error, at which time, they might have the chance to laugh out loud at you the same as me.

Are you, or are you not going to provide an observed, measured example of energy transferring from a cool object to a warm object? My bet is no since it has never been observed since the beginning of time.

 

[Lagboltz]

Yes, the devices of the modern world are products of human ingenuity which discovered and applied quantum mechanics.

First you say, “heat is a transfer of energy”. That is not correct. Heat is the internal energy of a system. Heat energy can be transferred, but it is not itself a transfer of energy.

I never mentioned, “heat, or energy moving from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state.” You just made that up or are confused. That sentence makes no physical sense. Only a system (of matter for example) can exhibit entropy. Energy does not exhibit entropy and therefore cannot be in, or move from, a high or low entropy state. In thermodynamic equations entropy and energy are quite different concepts. You don't seem to have a good grasp of the thermodynamic concepts and variables.

“Laugh out loud”? That is not a very good defense of the science involved. Note that the caption at the lower left corner of the Georgia State U diagram reads, “Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator, forbidden by the second law.” They did refer to heat, and did refer to energy.

I think what is confusing you is that heat is always energy, but energy is not always heat. For example a photon has energy, but the concept of heat, a hot or cold photon, makes no sense in a photon.

 

[palerider]

Yes, the devices of the modern world are products of human ingenuity which discovered and applied quantum mechanics.

Simply not true. I believe that you believe it, but that does not make it true. QM can't even explain the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc assumption...it doesn't even begin to explain the periodic table so don't try and pretend that QM is settled science engraved in stone.

you say, “heat is a transfer of energy”. That is not correct. Heat is the internal energy of a system. Heat energy can be transferred, but it is not itself a transfer of energy.

And your errors simply compound and compound. You like to pretend that you grasp and understand physics, but you keep making elementary errors. Here, from various source that certainly have a far better grasp of physics than you.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-2/Measuring-the-Quantity-of-Heat

On the previous page, we learned what heat does to an object when it is gained or released. Heat gains or losses result in changes in temperature, changes in state or the performance of work. Heat is a transfer of energy. When gained or lost by an object, there will be corresponding energy changes within that object. A change in temperature is associated with changes in the average kinetic energy of the particles within the object.
http://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/Energy-Work-Heat-Temp.html

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what heat is, so let's try and make it real clear: heat is not a thing, heat is a process. Here's the definition: heat is the transfer of energy between two objects due to temperature differences. Notice that the name of the transfer process is heat. What gets transfered is energy. Heat is NOT a substance although it is very convenient to think of it that way. In fact, it used to be thought that heat was a substance.

http://physics.csustan.edu/Marvin/HowThingsWork/Temperature/Temperature.htm

Heat is a transfer of energy, not a substance.
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Class/phy141md/doku.php?id=phy141:lectures:35

The first law is a powerful statement of the conservation of energy, indeed conservation of energy can only be understood once we understand that heat is a transfer of energy.
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/thermo/glossary.shtml

Heat is a transfer of energy that occurs when objects with different temperatures are placed into contact. Heat is a process, not a property of a material.
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTutorials/Thermochem/Fridge.html

Adding heat causes intermolecular attractions to be broken.How does this occur? Heat is a transfer of energy to molecules, causing the molecules to increase their motion as described by the kinetic theory of gases
http://physics.bu.edu/~rebbi/py251_lect11.pdf

Historically this phenomenon was at- tributed to a flow of “heat” from the hotter to the colder object. It has been known for a while that this flow of heat is a transfer of energy....

And I could go on and on ad nauseum to practically any physical science text or center of learning which would say the same thing I have said, because contrary to your claim, heat is, in fact, a transfer of energy.

never mentioned, “heat, or energy moving from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state.” You just made that up or are confused.

And again from the Georgia State physics department:

Temperature is expressed as the inverse of the rate of change of entropy with internal energy, with volume V and number of particles N held constant. This is certainly not as intuitive as molecular kinetic energy, but in thermodynamic applications it is more reliable and more general.



And the errors continue to compound. High entropy....low entropy.....high temperature....low temperature....For energy to move from a cooler object to a warmer object, it would have to go from a higher entropy state (cooler) to a lower entropy state (warmer). Don't you understand that without the addition of work, entropy always increases. I am sorry that I confused you with such a technical term....you did, after all pretend to understand this stuff. Had I said energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object it would have been the same as saying energy moving from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state.

sentence makes no physical sense.

Guess not, since it is becoming more than obvious that you don't actually understand any of this.

a system (of matter for example) can exhibit entropy. Energy does not exhibit entropy and therefore cannot be in, or move from, a high or low entropy state. In thermodynamic equations entropy and energy are quite different concepts. You don't seem to have a good grasp of the thermodynamic concepts and variables.

Alas, I am afraid it is you who fails to grasp...which perhaps explains why you have fallen so hard for the hoax..

Do you believe that California Polytech understands entropy?

http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html

Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy.

Laugh out loud”? That is not a very good defense of the science involved. Note that the caption at the lower left corner of the Georgia State U diagram reads, “Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator, forbidden by the second law.” They did refer to heat, and did refer to energy.

The laughter was over your complete misunderstanding...the laughter was because you don't grasp that heat is not a thing, but the very transfer of energy itself.

think what is confusing you is that heat is always energy, but energy is not always heat.

As the quotes from the various educational institutions above prove, it is you who is confused regarding the meaning of the terms heat and energy. Why do you continue to pretend that you grasp this topic when it is abundantly clear that you don't?

example a photon has energy, but the concept of heat, a hot or cold photon, makes no sense in a photon.

We can't discuss photons till you prove their existence. When might you get around to that? At this point, you really should take the time to at least learn the basics....you have made so many fundamental errors in just these few exchanges that I am embarrassed for you. It seems that you are to ignorant to even grasp your own humiliation.

 

[palerider]

Energy does not exhibit entropy and therefore cannot be in, or move from, a high or low entropy state.

Just to further hammer home how wrong you are:

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~p670/Wi04/textbook/per6.pdf

In other words, as the thermal energy of the system of molecules increases (solid to liquid to gas), there is a progression from less disordered to more disordered behavior, that is, from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state.

http://entropysite.oxy.edu/teaching_entropy.html

Now, a larger entropy change — wherever it occus — means that energy would be more widely spread out there. Thus, because energy spontaneously becomes more spread out, if it is not hindered, the q will move from the hotter to the cooler (from a smaller entropy state to a larger entropy state , from our hot pan to our cool room.) This is universally true, as stated by Clausius, as is our common human experience, and as quantified by the relative entropy changes in hotter and cooler parts of this "frying pan - cool room universe".

 

[Lagboltz]

... QM, heat, entropy ... etc.

You seem to be saying that QM was not helpful for inventing the laser, atomic clocks, etc. If so, that is a very interesting view of the advancement of modern electronic devices.

Now to the phrase concerning heat being a transfer of energy. Yes the articles got it right. We now all agree that heat is a transfer of energy when there is a flow of heat from one object to another. But you forgot to add that qualification to your original statement as the articles did. So we are now consistent, and we can be friends again.

Ah. Now you are quoting the second law as an idea of entropy in the Georgia State expression. Your previous phrase “heat, or energy moving from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state” was not correct. As you now realize, the phrase would have been correct if you had said, “heat, or energy of a system moving from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state”

You have got to be careful with wording when you discuss principles of physics.

Your quote, “Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy” is a rather informal way of way of stating the second law, which makes it easier for the layman to understand, but less useful mathematically. I prefer the more formal way involving the concept of the logarithm of the number of states of a system. That concept is not only applicable to physics, but it also is useful in computer pattern recognition, information theory, and other areas.

Now about proving the existence of photons: You have got to understand that science does not prove anything. Again: Science proves nothing. There are two major roles in physics (1) experimental physics (measuring physical phenomena of nature) and (2) theoretical physics (constructing mathematical models that are consistent with those measurements). The photon is a definition of an entity used in the model. Definitions of a photon are all over the web. The model is very successful because there is no experiment that has ever been done in atomic physics that puts doubt on quantum electrodynamics model.

 

[Lagboltz]

... entropy, etc. ...

Well, if you have a hammer there certainly is no nail. You didn't understand what I said. Pure energy by itself has no entropy. I was referring to a phrase you made: PaleRider, post 51, “heat, or energy moving from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state.”

As I said earlier, it would have been correct if you said,“heat, or energy of a system moving from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state” You left out the underlined phrase.

Energy can be measured in ergs. Heat is often measured in calories.

So when you refer to energy in a high entropy state, what is the “entropy” of 5 ergs, how does it compare to the “entropy” of 3 ergs. That makes no physical sense. However the following example is the proper way of considering entropy and energy.

What is the entropy of a system containing 1 million O2 molecules at equilibrium in a 1 cm cubed container with a total energy of 5 ergs.

Now that refers to a system, not pure energy. It makes physical sense and can be computed.

 

[PLC1]

Lower pressure....imagine that. The adiabatic lapse rate is approximately 6.5K /km. watch closely now....The 255K at 5km (the mean emission height of the atmosphere) added to the adiabatic lapse rate (6.5K x 5km) 33C = 288K OR 15C....Sound familiar? One doesn't need the forcing of greenhouse gasses to account for the so called greenhouse effect.

That all sounds technical, but it doesn't answer the question at all.

It really has nothing to do with water vapor or the composition of the atmosphere. Denser atmosphere helps retain heat. Atmosphere is denser at lower elevations, so the temperatures are higher. That is the greenhouse effect, and no, it requires no "forcing" of anything.

 

[palerider]

You seem to be saying that QM was not helpful for inventing the laser, atomic clocks, etc. If so, that is a very interesting view of the advancement of modern electronic devices.

I am saying that they would have been invented with or without QM....At present QM provides far more questions than it answers and it is chock full of contradictions, assumptions, and ad hoc constructs....Maybe some day, in the far future, QM will actually be able to explain the universe, but that QM will bear about as much resemblance to today's QM as a roman chariot resembles an Aston Martin Vanquish.

to the phrase concerning heat being a transfer of energy. Yes the articles got it right. We now all agree that heat is a transfer of energy when there is a flow of heat from one object to another. But you forgot to add that qualification to your original statement as the articles did. So we are now consistent, and we can be friends again.

Yes, the articles got it right...you however, still haven't. Heat is not a "thing" that can flow. Heat is the result of energy flowing from one place to another. Again, from the Department of Physics...California State University:

Heat is a transfer of energy, not a substance.
Again, heat does not flow...energy flows and heat is the result. You can not torture the second law, or any law of physics into saying that energy can move from a cool object to a warmer object. It simply doesn't happen and if you believe it does, in spite of the fact that it has never once been observed, then you believe in fantasy. Till you get over that, I don't think we can be friends...I don't need crazy people for friends...no future in it.

you are quoting the second law as an idea of entropy in the Georgia State expression. Your previous phrase “heat, or energy moving from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state” was not correct. As you now realize, the phrase would have been correct if you had said, “heat, or energy of a system moving from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state”

Get over yourself and try and admit that you aren't Mr. Physics. When energy transfers from a warm object to a cooler object, that energy still exists (can't be created or destroyed) but that energy has moved from a low entropy state to a higher entropy state. Again, from the Georgia Sate Physics Department...

Temperature is expressed as the inverse of the rate of change of entropy with internal energy, with volume V and number of particles N held constant. This is certainly not as intuitive as molecular kinetic energy, but in thermodynamic applications it is more reliable and more general.

have got to be careful with wording when you discuss principles of physics.

You might want to keep that in mind before you go making claims that simply are not true.

quote, “Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy” is a rather informal way of way of stating the second law, which makes it easier for the layman to understand, but less useful mathematically. I prefer the more formal way involving the concept of the logarithm of the number of states of a system. That concept is not only applicable to physics, but it also is useful in computer pattern recognition, information theory, and other areas.

There is a term for your pretense to have a firm grasp of physics...it is called mental masturbation. If you want to pretend, go ahead, but you have had so many basic errors on your part pointed out in this short conversation that no one with any education at all is going to believe you.

about proving the existence of photons: You have got to understand that science does not prove anything. Again: Science proves nothing.

Really? Did science not prove the existence of germs at a time when it was thought that bad humours were the cause of disease? Enough said...right? Science certainly proves things. Again: Science has proven a multitude of things. Maybe we could have a contest among those who are reading this thread...everyone name something that science has proven, or disproven...I am sure that the number of things could go into the millions. Now it may be true that post modern science doesn't prove things....but that would be because post modern science has left the realm of reality and entered into a fantasy land. The fact that you are unaware of this is laughable.

Now. About those photons that you seem to be so sure exist?

 

[palerider]

That all sounds technical, but it doesn't answer the question at all.

It really has nothing to do with water vapor or the composition of the atmosphere. Denser atmosphere helps retain heat. Atmosphere is denser at lower elevations, so the temperatures are higher. That is the greenhouse effect, and no, it requires no "forcing" of anything.

That's because the compositon of the atmosphere is irrelevant to the temperature of a planet beyond what the various gasses contribute to the weight of the atmosphere.

I am going to ask you again...using the greenhouse effect, as described by climate science, explain why the bottom of the troposphere on Uranus is 33K warmer than the bottom of the troposphere on earth in spite of the fact that Uranus is 30X further away from the sun than the earth and Uranus has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium....and while you are at it, using that same greenhouse effect that you believe in, explain why the temperature on the night time side of Venus doesn't drop even though the nights are 2000 hours long?

 

[palerider]

Well, if you have a hammer there certainly is no nail. You didn't understand what I said. Pure energy by itself has no entropy. I was referring to a phrase you made: PaleRider, post 51, “heat, or energy moving from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state.”

You don't seem to be able to situate yourself firmly in the realm of the real. Pure energy? What is that? Can you show me some that is not desperately trying to move from its present entropy state to a higher entropy state?...because that is what all energy is trying to do....move to a higher entropy state.

 

[Lagboltz]

I am saying that they would have been invented with or without QM....

You think atomic clocks, lasers, tunnel diodes, superconducting magnets etc. could be invented without knowledge of QM? My my you are so naive in the technology of devices and research in solid state physics, let alone anything else in quantum physics. Yet you make baldfaced statements about something you do not understand You know what that's called ? Truthiness. (If you don't know what that means, look it up.) The LCD monitor you are staring at right now, and the computer connected to it would not exist without knowledge of QM. But you don't believe in QM so it must be voodoo magic to you.

Heat is not a "thing" that can flow.

Again, heat does not flow...energy flows and heat is the result.

Wowee, you are dripping with hypocrisy. Here is a quote from a reference that you sent me as your definition of the second law given by Georgia State: the caption at the lower left corner of the Georgia State U diagram reads,
“Spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator, forbidden by the second law.”

They referred to the phrase, flow of heat aka heat flow.

This directly contradicts what you say above. You can't seem to get your mind together on this. Since you don't understand modern physics at all, let alone radiation thermodynamics you should at least try for consistency of thought. But of course that would be difficult for you because you don't understand quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is your friend. Don't be afraid of it.

You can not torture the second law, or any law of physics into saying that energy can move from a cool object to a warmer object. It simply doesn't happen and if you believe it does, in spite of the fact that it has never once been observed, then you believe in fantasy.

Pale, it is not me that thought it up. I'm just the messenger. Max Plank and Einstein and others are are the ones who discovered quantum physics long before me. You should scoff at them and their modern science because they are the ones who discovered that photon energy can move both ways between a cool object and warmer object. This is what modern physicists said:

"One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, no matter how far apart, or what partially obstructive, reflective, or refractive, obstacles lie in their path of radiative exchange, not moving relative to one another, 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.”

Max Planck's original paper, page 40 concerning radiation thermodynamics:
"...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..."

There is a term for your pretense to have a firm grasp of physics...it is called mental masturbation. If you want to pretend, go ahead, but you have had so many basic errors on your part pointed out in this short conversation that no one with any education at all is going to believe you.

Sorry Pale, that won't fly. It was the great physicists of the past century who did all that thinking, and I only learned from them. On the other hand, you have no understanding of radiation thermodynamics and confuse it with refrigeration thermodynamics. You think theories of Rudolf Clausius in the mid 1800s explains radiation thermodynamics when he didn't even know it existed. You have no understanding of quantum thermodynamics as it was in the 1900s. You have no understanding of the difference between power and power density. You have no understanding of the difference between coherent and incoherent black body radiation. You think photons can strike each other and cancel each other out. You think that the light energy between two light bulbs cancel each other out and cause a black streak between filaments.

Really? Did science not prove the existence of germs at a time when it was thought that bad humours were the cause of disease? Enough said...right? Science certainly proves things. Again: Science has proven a multitude of things. Now it may be true that post modern science doesn't prove things....but that would be because post modern science has left the realm of reality and entered into a fantasy land. The fact that you are unaware of this is laughable.

It should have been obvious from the context that I was talking about quantum mechanics not germs. But it is telling that you would give germs as an example since the only science you believe dates back to the 1800s. So it seems that you think Einstein, Pauli, Born, Heisenberg, Dirac, Feynman, Gell-Mann and many others are laughable. You are being so silly.

Now. About those photons that you seem to be so sure exist?

What about them. You are looking at them right now as you read this. The photons are hitting the rods and cones in your retina and causing an electrochemical reaction. However since you don't believe in modern physics, it must be magic to you.