finiter

I read your comments in the classical physics forum. I agree with whatever you have stated in the last posting there. In fact, I am happy that you are here. "Internal energy does not change proportionately when temperature increases". This was actually what I wanted to say. But in that forum, I just used questioning as a method to elucidate this point. So to make things clear, I will say that the internal energy is the sum of the kinetic part and the rest. In your thought experiment it requires more energy to heat water. Where does this energy go? Partly to increase the kinetic part and partly as the rest. In iron, also the same thing happens with a lesser amount of energy. So the specific heat part (say the kinetic part), in my opinion, represents heat energy and the rest simple internal energy. Now I think that we agree in our views. Or have I differed from you?

The mathematical relation between force and energy is correct and one cannot deny that. If I disagree with that, that will surely imply that I am not talking about physics. But, remember, the relation does not explicitly state from where the energy comes. I argue that the increase in speed is at the cost of internal energy of the body. No energy transfer from outside takes place. That is, if the body is perfectly insulated from all sources of energy, the initial acceleration is not maintainable and you cannot increase the speed further.

The disagreement is in the concept of a particular relation between force and energy. ( Regarding this , I have just posted my view in the speculation forum.)

The existing view is that force acting at a distance can impart energy. But I propose an alternate view: the force does not impart energy, but causes thermodynamic changes (in the body) such as changing the speed and internal energy. An increase in speed causes a reduction in the internal energy and a decrease in speed causes an increase in the internal energy, thus the total energy remains constant. The changes in the internal energy can cause either heating or cooling. That is, unless energy is put into the body or removed from the body, a force on itself cannot impart or remove energy from the body.

I do disagree. However, I cannot discuss it in this forum just because the forum rules does not allow that. I will post a reply in the speculation forum.

Your argument is logical, but whether definitions have been changed accordingly is the question. I don't know whether there is any mechanism, other than an unwritten consensus among the scientists, to redefine the terms.

I just got confused with the existing theory and my personal theory (I do not agree with the concept that energy transfer takes place just because a force acts). Sorry, I saw your reply (post no. 124) just now. My objection is particularly to what you have pointed out "It is application of force over a distance, work, that transfers energy."

I got it clearly. First you have to compress the larger container, and then remove the heat of compression (either adiabatically or isothermally) to reach the state of the smaller container. The confusion was mine: I just ignored the fact that applying the force resulted in an increase in energy. (Personally, I do not agree with the concept that energy transfer occurs just because a force acts or a force is applied, and this view interfered and caused the confusion).

I posed this question to spin1/2, and not swansont (spin1/2 suggested different temperatures). Anyway, I think what you are suggesting is that 'both containers will be at the same temperature, and so will have the same average kinetic energy, but the actual energy possessed will be different'. Is it? So far, there is really no contradiction. The question that I would like to ask now is whether there is any other energy (other than the kinetic energy, which is same in both containers) for the atoms. That is, whether the internal energy is partly kinetic and partly in some other form, and thus the total energy of the atoms will be different for the two containers.

I think that you are suggesting that two containers having the same amount of gas, but different volume, can never have the same amount of energy( or have I got it wrong?). That implies that there is a limit to the energy that can be possessed by a body. Please clarify.

To be more clear, let me put forth it again: Both the containers contain the same energy, but the smaller one is at a higher temperature. Now, if we divide the energy of atoms as 'translational energy' and 'the rest', which part will be greater in each of the containers? (If 'translational energy' increases, 'the rest' has to decrease). Or, shall we divide it in some other way so that we can identify that a certain part of the energy causes an increase in temperature.

This I think implies that some extra energy is put into it. I think that the total energy of any system can be arbitrarily fixed; there is no restriction to the amount of energy that can be possessed (of course with in a reasonable limit). So we can visualize that the energy, number of atoms and volume are fixed arbitrarily, and we let the other parameters change. What will be the temperature then?

I suspect that you have missed the point that both contains the same number of atoms. Or, is it that you actually suggest that temperatures will be the same even if the number atoms in both the containers are the same.

Please explain the following situation: (I had earlier posted the same in this post, but did not get your opinion) Suppose you have two containers, one larger than the other. Let each contain the same number of atoms of the same gas, and let their average kinetic energies be the same. In that situation, will the both have the same temperature?

Thank you very much for taking so much trouble to explain in detail. I am just a layman interested in physics, 'neither a student nor a researcher' by normal standards. Incidentally, I have my own picture of the physical world, and through this post I am just trying to understand the existing standard model in unambiguous terms so that I can correct my own views wherever required.

1. Spherical universe: The universe is spherical; the galaxy clusters are the individual units. The natural energy of any cluster is mc2/2. However, due to energy transfer, the inner clusters have shortage of energy and the outer clusters have excess energy. Part of this energy is its speed and part internal energy. The speed- internal energy ratios of all clusters are the same at any given instant. The clusters are distributed uniformly, and the speed is directly proportional to the distance from the centre of the universe. 2. Thermodynamic process: The expansion is a thermodynamic process involving internal and external energies of the clusters. The forces have no real role in the process. When internal energies change into speeds, the clusters move away from the centre, and when the speeds change back into internal energies, the clusters move inwards. Thus, the universe remains pulsating. Just before expansion, the motion of a cluster is planar, in a plane perpendicular to the radius of the universe. As the expansion commences, the clusters move outwards and their motions become helical, the radius of the helix increasing as they move outwards. The outward component increases at a faster rate, and by the time expansion reaches halfway, both the components become equal. Thereafter, the outward component decreases and finally reaches zero. The motion thus becomes planar again, and the expansion comes to an end. Thereafter, the reverse process takes place. 3. Speedof light determines the limit: The maximum speed of expansion is attained at halfway, and it is equal to 2c/p. A cluster at the exact boundary will move outwards (outward component) at that speed, the planar component is also the same. It will attain the speed 'c' when expansion comes to the end. However, no cluster can remain at the exact boundary. The clusters remain well within the boundary, and the maximum speed a cluster can attain is 0.65c. The speed of the cluster never reaches zero, and so the centre is empty. The clusters thus form a spherical shell. It takes12.85 billion years for the expansion to reach halfway (it is the proposed period of revolution of light). 4. Potential states: At the beginning and end of expansion, the universe has potential states. At the beginning, they have high internal energies. This represents super-hot state. The (proposed) average temperature at that time corresponds to white-hot, nearly 5488K. At the end, all have high speeds; this represents the super-cold state, the average temperature, 5488 degrees below 0K. Therefore, at exact halfway, the average temperature will be 0K.

Surely. I will meet you in that forum. Why is it impossible? Average kinetic energy in relation to volume is not average kinetic energy. That is, you are proposing that volume is also a factor (in addition to the kinetic energy) that decides the temperature. (Incidentally, such a proposal is what seems right to me.) Did you actually mean that?

That part is clear. However, I would like to know whether it is 'the kinetic part' or 'the rest' that causes the increase in temperature. The specific heat is the energy required to increase the temperature by one degree. Naturally, I think that internal energy 'other than the kinetic energy' can be referred to as 'thermal energy' or 'heat energy' of the body.

Please explain a little bit. //I just pointed out 'the absence of a simple valid perspective/ definition'. So you say heat is transfer or flow, not thermal energy. Now I got your point. In that case, the question I would have asked is "what is thermal energy?" Is it just kinetic energy or does it exist in any other form. I mean whether the atoms of gas have thermal energy in addition to the kinetic energy.

How can heat remain as radiation? There, of course, is a relation between the wavelength of the radiation emitted by a body and the temperature of the body. The radiation just tells the temperature of the body that remains in the background. Without that back ground, it tells us nothing other than that the energy quanta in it have certain amounts of energy. Can we say an x-ray is very hot? If you say it is hotter than infrared rays, then you have to agree with what Tom Booth says - that there is nothing like heat, it is just kinetic energy. You have corrected it. I posted the above before reading this Simple, is it? That is what one would expect, at least about the fundamentals in physics. But, even the fundamental concepts like heat, force, etc. are not well defined. These words seem more philosophic than pertaining to science, their meanings depending upon the school of thought. If asked to define, one may just beat about the bush and ask, "now you got it?" You may or may not be correct. Suppose you have two containers, one larger than the other. Let each contain the same number of atoms of the same gas, and let their average kinetic energies be the same. In that situation, will the both have the same temperature?

My notion about heat is the same (whether right or wrong) An atom contains more than one particle. However, the electrons are bound and remain in the respective orbitals. So I think an atom also cannot have heat energy. So the question that I would like to ask is, "Can we restrict the concept of heat to 'systems containing atoms and molecules' only, ie, masses like Earth, sun, etc."

I want to know what exactly is heat energy. Whether it is potential energy or kinetic energy, and whether a single particle/atom can have heat energy.

I think you have correctly described the present situation. However, one can extend the period backwards to include Einstein and Heisenberg also, on the same grounds. The real problem is that it has become impossible to distinguish between speculations and bona-fide physics due to the complexity of both the mathematical equations and the logic used. This would require clarification: What is bona-fide physics? Should we start again from independent matter, space and time?

So can I come to the conclusion that a single atom or a system of subatomic particles cannot have heat energy. How can we explain the term 'thermal energy"?

What is heat? (i). Potential energy (ii). Kinetic energy (iii). The state of an individual particle/wave (iv). The state of an individual atom (v). The state of a collection of particles/waves (vi). The state of a collection of atoms, ie, a body (vii). Something else