Hypothesis about temperature (split from Physical mechanism how matter absorbs radiation.)

[swansont]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

It's your opinion

It’s not opinion. Your idea is wildly incompatible with established physics. 

Shopping for a more credulous audience won’t change that.

[martillo]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Your idea is wildly incompatible with established physics. 

So what? For you absolutely nothing could be wrong in established Physics. For me is the established one but this does not prevent it for being wrong in something. As far as I know Physics as any other Science has never been totally infallible and there is a possibility I could be right in something.

You mentioned sometime something like (my words because I don't remember it literally) that Physics' theories are essentially models of what happens in reality and they are considered valid ones while verifying the observational evidence. These are the established theories and I respect that. But what if another model appears also verifying the observational evidence? Then it just must show it can present a better agreement with some observations. Let me say now that I could be finding some such new model and I will work developing it as far as could. It would take time, of course, may be it would need the participation of other ones, of course, and actually there's no guarantee of success at this time, of course. This is not an impediment in my research for me.

What I find at this time is that I must continue some research but not continuing this discussion in this thread now. I mean I could return at some time, I don't know, in this thread or another one, I don't know.

I appreciate your comments very much but unfortunately we are in strong disagreement in some things and I cannot continue discussing now.

My best regards.

 

Edited March 23 by martillo

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, martillo said:

But what if another model appears also verifying the observational evidence?

You would have to establish that it is, by quantifying the behavior and comparing it with experiment. You haven’t done this. 

A model is supposed to make predictions. I took your model and predicted how a solid would behave if it were true. If the established physics I used is wrong, you could point this out, but where? Calorimetry is pretty well-established, as is the value of speed of light. You’re basing your idea on the Stefan-Boltzmann law, so you obviously don’t have a problem with it. The rest is just pretty straightforward math.

And a competing model has to be consistent with all the evidence the existing model covers. You can’t just cherry pick one or two data points.

14 minutes ago, martillo said:

As far as I know Physics as any other Science has never been totally infallible and there is a possibility I could be right in something.

This is fallacious reasoning. Instances of physics being wrong in some aspect does not mean any arbitrary aspect of it is wrong. A model is wrong if it disagrees with observation. And your model disagrees with observation.

[KJW]

Transparent substances such as gases do emit thermal radiation. But because they are transparent, one has the take into account Kirchhoff's radiation law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff's_law_of_thermal_radiation).

 

 

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, KJW said:

Transparent substances such as gases do emit thermal radiation

Doesn’t really matter; you still can’t reconcile the emitted radiation with the photon gas density you need to account for the thermal energy, since the residence time of the photons is so short.

[martillo]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

A model is supposed to make predictions. I took your model and predicted how a solid would behave if it were true. If the established physics I used is wrong, you could point this out, but where?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

A model is wrong if it disagrees with observation. And your model disagrees with observation.

As you insist your calculations in your given case is right and for you to not think I didn't consider it properly I will point the main error. As I already said my proposed model must verify energy conservation of course.

You begin calculating the number of atoms in the surface of the block of copper and for a given radiation energy you calculate the number of photons each atom must emit. In the second part you calculate the number of atoms in the entire solid block and calculate the energy of the radiation of all these atoms emitting the same quantity of photons. The error is in you are assuming all those atoms are emitting at the same time or in the same considered interval of time. How you can know in advance how many atoms do really emit at the same time? Nothing guarantees that. Actually the number of atoms emitting must be calculated considering that, at the inverse of your reasoning, both radiations the external one and the internal match to verify a thermal equilibrium state where a perfect verification of the balance in the radiations energies takes place.

I conclude that as for now and having confidence in my reasoning (although aware of capable of making errors sometimes) my proposed model does have good chances.

 

By the way...

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1 hour ago, KJW said:

Transparent substances such as gases do emit thermal radiation

Doesn’t really matter; you still can’t reconcile the emitted radiation with the photon gas density you need to account for the thermal energy, since the residence time of the photons is so short.

You seem to think that photons just disappear after some short period of time. You have mentioned this other times too. That is wrong. Photons don't just disappear. Photons don't just vanish. Whatever they are they have momentum and energy which cannot be simply lost or vanish. They can only be converted to other momentum and/or energy and this only happening in the interaction with some other existent particle(s) like the electrons for instance. May be you are confusing the behavior of photons with that of some virtual photons which for instance, like some other virtual particles, can randomly come in and out of existence. Real photons, as bosons they are, don't do that.

 

Edited March 24 by martillo

[swansont]

2 hours ago, martillo said:

The error is in you are assuming all those atoms are emitting at the same time or in the same considered interval of time. How you can know in advance how many atoms do really emit at the same time? Nothing guarantees that. Actually the number of atoms emitting must be calculated considering that, at the inverse of your reasoning, both radiations the external one and the internal match to verify a thermal equilibrium state where a perfect verification of the balance in the radiations energies takes place.

I didn’t assume they emit at the same time. I assumed they emit at the same rate, because why wouldn’t they? They are identical atoms. And if they don’t emit and absorb at the same average rate, then some area would be emitting more or less than another, which would heat or cool it. But we have thermal equilibrium, so that can’t be the case. 

2 hours ago, martillo said:

You seem to think that photons just disappear after some short period of time. You have mentioned this other times too. That is wrong. Photons don't just disappear. Photons don't just vanish. Whatever they are they have momentum and energy which cannot be simply lost or vanish. They can only be converted to other momentum and/or energy and this only happening in the interaction with some other existent particle(s) like the electrons for instance. May be you are confusing the behavior of photons with that of some virtual photons which for instance, like some other virtual particles, can randomly come in and out of existence. Real photons, as bosons they are, don't do that.

A photon that is absorbed by an atom ceases to exist. There is no more oscillating EM field. The energy and momentum are transferred to the atom, but there is no more photon. 

Boson number is not a conserved property. You can create and destroy bosons.

 

[martillo]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I didn’t assume they emit at the same time. I assumed they emit at the same rate, because why wouldn’t they? They are identical atoms. And if they don’t emit and absorb at the same average rate, then some area would be emitting more or less than another, which would heat or cool it. But we have thermal equilibrium, so that can’t be the case. 

You added the same rate of energy emitted by all  atoms to obtain the total radiation energy. That is wrong. The rate and number of emitting atoms to be considered makes the match in the balance of the internal and external radiation energies for the thermal equilibrium take place. Your calculation is wrong.

I could refute all your posted arguments against my proposed model one by one although I know that would lead to an endless discussion. I'm sorry, I'm not able to do this at this time. I cannot continue the discussion. I must concentrate in developing the model  further.

Edited March 24 by martillo

[swansont]

5 hours ago, martillo said:

You added the same rate of energy emitted by all  atoms to obtain the total radiation energy. That is wrong. The rate and number of emitting atoms to be considered makes the match in the balance of the internal and external radiation energies for the thermal equilibrium take place. Your calculation is wrong.

You won’t provide a calculation of your own. How do you get the number of photons your model requires? If you emit at the rate required for the blackbody radiation the number inside the material is negligible compared to the thermal energy.

[KJW]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Boson number is not a conserved property. You can create and destroy bosons.

I assume the same is not true for fermions. While I know that particular fermions, such as electrons, have conserved properties that prevent their creation and destruction, can it be said that the property of being a fermion itself prevents their creation and destruction?

 

 

[martillo]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How do you get the number of photons your model requires?

Not possible to know in advance, I think.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, KJW said:

I assume the same is not true for fermions. While I know that particular fermions, such as electrons, have conserved properties that prevent their creation and destruction, can it be said that the property of being a fermion itself prevents their creation and destruction?

Yes. Fermion number is conserved. (Anti-fermions have a negative fermion number, which is why we get matter and antimatter in pairs)

[martillo]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If you emit at the rate required for the blackbody radiation the number inside the material is negligible compared to the thermal energy.

Seems to me that a block of solid copper is not a black body.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, martillo said:

Not possible to know in advance, I think.

Then you don’t have a model. You’re proposing a new description for temperature and you need new physics to make it happen

[martillo]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then you don’t have a model. You’re proposing a new description for temperature and you need new physics to make it happen

Yes I do have a model. I just don't have what you need to your calculation. That is not up to me after all. It is you that don't have any proof my model is wrong.

Edited March 24 by martillo

[swansont]

1 minute ago, martillo said:

Seems to me that a block of solid copper is not a black body.

No, it reflects, but the emissivity is only going to reduce the blackbody power by a factor of 2 or so. This isn’t going to save your conjecture. Pick another solid that’s a better blackbody. 

But consider that you could paint a block of copper matte black, and this would make it a much better blackbody, yet this only changes the surface and not the bulk property of the copper. Negligible change in the thermal energy content.

5 minutes ago, martillo said:

Yes I do have a model. I just don't have what you need to your calculation. That is not up to me after all. It is you that don't have any proof my model is wrong.

A model allows you to do calculations, and accounting for the photons is a critical part of your conjecture. If you can’t quantify the effects, you don’t have a model.

[martillo]

51 minutes ago, swansont said:

A model allows you to do calculations, and accounting for the photons is a critical part of your conjecture. If you can’t quantify the effects, you don’t have a model.

As I have already said I have just begun working on the new model. I just don't have the quantification you are asking at this time. I told you I would do the calculation at the inverse: assuming the energy balance matches in the thermal equilibrium the number of particles emitting at some time could in principle be determined. What I perfectly know is that it is a total waste of time to try to convince you on the model. As I already told you, better for me to invest the time in developing the model further.

Edited March 24 by martillo

[martillo]

For those who could be interested in the new model I have proposed, with no vibrations in the particles (atoms/molecules of a substance), I think I have advanced in the direction of the energies' quantification. Of course the proofs of several (intuitive) assumptions made still remains to be accomplished. I show here just the straightforward quantification already developed only.

I have considered:
H = U + PV is the total energy supplied to the system considered at rest in a Thermal Equilibrium
U = Er = Thermal radiation energy of the photons present in the system
PV = Es + Ek where:
Es = Energy stored in the electromagnetic structure of the substance (electrons' atomic levels and electrons' molecular bonding levels)
Ek = Average Kinetic energy of the particles

The Equi-partition Principle of the model would apply as:
U = PV = H/2 = 3NKT/2 always
So: H = U + PV = 3NKT always
(K = NKb where Kb is the Boltzmann constant and N the number of the particles in the system)

Depending on the nature of the substance of the system:
PV = Es + Ek partitioned someway in Es and Ek
Particular cases:
1) Ideal gases
Es = 0 (negligible)
Ek = 3NKT/2
Er = 3NKT/2
H = Er + Ek = 3NKT
2) Ideal solids
Ek = 0 (static particles)
Es = 3NKT/2
Er = 3NKT/2
H = Er + Es = 3NKT
3) Liquids
Es + Ek = 3NKT/2 partitioned someway (depending on the nature of the substance) in Es and Ek -something between the cases of the ideal gases and ideal solids-
Er = 3NKT/2
H = Er + Es + Ek = 3NKT

As I already said, everything made just intuitively in the calculations must be yet proved valid. I will continue working forward on the subject as far as I could.

 

Edited March 29 by martillo

[Mordred]

12 hours ago, martillo said:

For those who could be interested in the new model I have proposed, with no vibrations in the particles (atoms/molecules of a substance),

 

So let me get this correct Joigus provided you with links directly related to the vibration of molecules and you feel that atoms and molecules have no vibrational modes is that correct ? Do you for some unusual reason feel that the details provided by Joigus didn't apply ?

what happens to your vibrational and rotational temperature ?

\[\theta_{vib}=\frac{h\tilde{v}c}{K_{B}}\]

and

\[\theta_{R}=\frac{hc\bar{B}}{K_{B}}\]

 

12 hours ago, martillo said:

static particles)

You know I honestly cannot think of a single static particle. Every particle has harmonic oscillations including those of atoms and molecules. It would certainly make absolute zero viable as under QM absolute zero temperature is impossible.

Edited March 29 by Mordred

[swansont]

How do solids transfer heat if they are e.g. immersed in a fluid?

There are many issue with this photon model, many of which I’ve brought up, but one would also need to reconcile radiative vs conductive heat transfer having different behaviors.

[Mordred]

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

How do solids transfer heat if they are e.g. immersed in a fluid?

There are many issue with this photon model, many of which I’ve brought up, but one would also need to reconcile radiative vs conductive heat transfer having different behaviors.

just to add to this with another example. 

How would a cosmic neutrino background which has no photon interactions have a blackbody temperature of 1.95 K ? I concur with Swansont on the rest of the quote

Edited March 29 by Mordred

[martillo]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

So let me get this correct Joigus provided you with links directly related to the vibration of molecules and you feel that atoms and molecules have no vibrational modes is that correct ? Do you for some unusual reason feel that the details provided by Joigus didn't apply ?

The answer is yes.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

How do solids transfer heat if they are e.g. immersed in a fluid?

There are many issue with this photon model, many of which I’ve brought up, but one would also need to reconcile radiative vs conductive heat transfer having different behaviors.

I consider "heat" as the energy flow of photons what is the same as a radiation of photons. As I said other time, there is empty space between atoms and molecules where the photons can pass through. The average velocity of these photons would not be c as there would be scattering dispersion with the atoms and also absorption and re-emission of them in their not linear way. Conductive heat transfer is precisely this phenomenon of photons travelling through dense materials or substances. The phenomenon could be described as the progressive diffusion of photons inside them. 

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

How would a cosmic neutrino background which has no photon interactions have a blackbody temperature of 1.95 K ?

I consider the cosmic background radiation as a radiation of photons particles. I'm considering the particles behavior of heat and light.

Edited March 29 by martillo

[Mordred]

There is also the Cosmic neutrino background however that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that there a temperature even with particles that does not interact with photons.

 As far as considering why your ignoring the kinetic energy terms of molecular vibrations your simply incorrect to do so. As such your model will fail 

On 3/14/2024 at 11:25 AM, martillo said:

 

Seems to me temperature can be explained in both ways, with or without vibrating atoms. I would prefer the second one with no vibrations.

 

 Seems to me that you have chosen to completely ignore the fundamental definition of temperature or at the very least a good portion of the kinetic energy terms involved. 

[martillo]

21 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What is relevant is that there a temperature even with particles that does not interact with photons.

Show your case.

 

24 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 As far as considering why your ignoring the kinetic energy terms of molecular vibrations your simply incorrect to do so. As such your model will fail 

May be the particles are immerse in the "gas of photons". Wherever exist temperature exist photons.

[Mordred]

1 minute ago, martillo said:

Show your case.

 

May be the particles are immerse in the "gas of photons". Wherever exist temperature exist photons.

I already have if you looked at the two equations I posted. However I ask you the following if you cause vibrations an object to increase via any mechanism including sound do you agree  that the average temperature of resonating nearby objects will increase ? or that you can heat up metal by hitting it with a hammer? Any time you increase an objects vibration you also increase the molecular and atomic vibrations. 

So ignoring molecular and atomic vibrations makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.