What is 'heat'?

What causes elements to vibrate?

I have another person who still dont comprehend that, so i would like the folks here on the forum assist.

 

All four fundamental forces are responsible for heat transfer. Their contributions depend on the circumstances though, because there are many restrictions on allowable physical processes.

In the environment we live in, electromagnetism dominates heat transfer. When atoms or molecules collide in a gas, for example, they exchange kinetic, rotational, and/or vibrational energy due to electromagnetic forces. Some energy is also emitted, stored, and absorbed as electromagnetic radiation. Under certain circumstances (often at higher temperatures), a wider variety of processes is possible. Chemical reactions, which are electromagnetic processes too, can be involved in the energy exchange. Atoms can also become ionized. In that case, energy is transferred to separate the electrons from the positively charged nuclei.

Nuclear forces (strong and weak) can come into play too. Processes like radioactive decay, fusion, and fission are possible when certain conditions are met. During such transitions much more energy is transferred per particle than in the case of electromagnetism. On the other hand, gravity is usually negligible at an atomic or sub-atomic scale.

 

Arent you the guy that thought planetary orbit was analogous to quantum entanglement?

I cant wait to see what nutty analogy you will use for heat.

 

Heat is a statistical quantity, and describes the motion of elements in a set of elements from the point of view of the total set. From the point of view of a single element of the set, this motion is the result of its Heisenberg uncertainty, namely that none of its "neighbors" can tell its displacement and velocity in the same time, or, equivalently, its total energy and the time of collision in the same time, beyond a very low accuracy limit, set by the Planck constant h = 6.63e-34 Jsec. (The constant that establishes the proportionality between the frequency and mechanical energy of light and responsible for establishing the size of quantae.)

 

Yes Bishadi all four fundamental forces are responsible for heat transfer, heat is not a force btw. For instance gravity is responsible for gases becoming attractive and forming stars. The more matter in the area the more dense the star becomes and thus more hotter.

 

Heat is a form of energy. It can't be treated as a substance, but being measurable, it can be treated mathematically. It is transferable, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

 

QE is just a description of entanglement.

Gravity itself is the property or entanglement. Just so you can have the 'straight answer', directly.

heat is simply the measurement of a system, in comparison to another 'system' (environments compared)

heat is not a property of anything.

Heat is caused, by em; all cases!

kinetic (motion) does not cause heat. A 'hot' system is a measurement of the kinetic, in relation to an environment.

The factor can vary enormously in characteristics of pressure, as measured as the mass, in 'which' environment.

 

sure...... lavoisier (caloric)

what is transfering?

that's the question, what is that 'stuff'?

 

Actually isn't it simply a byproduct of energy?

I'm asking. I'm no expert, but I thought heat was basically a kind of expulsion. Or maybe that's the same thing. WTF, I'm an artist, not a scientist.

<energy

 

finally an intelligent comment

the best answer any had posted


ie... the 'f' (frequency) to em

the error now is removing 'h' (as identified potential to speed (c)) and that direction to momentum (plancks constant).

ie..... planck incorporated "S" (entropy) which ruined the 4pir2 of the electromagnetic fields, to a point particle and d/t

At least YOU comprehend what 'heat' is 'statistically'.

now lets work on lesson 2

that 'stuff' called 'heat' is em, itself!!!!!

ie... energy itself is 'em' in any of her wavelengths (4pir2) of space/time.

how many comprehend what this means?

(hint; paradigm shift)

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0"]&#x202a;Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon)&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]

 

H(X) = SUM p(x) log p(x)

H(X|Y) = SUM p(x , y) log p(y)/p(x,y)

yeap... entropy is real.

 

Heat exists only as energy in transit from one system to another, or a system
and it's surroundings

 

Do you know what a physicist would do if he wants to convince other people, Bishadi?

He would propose an experiment that has a different outcome under the old and the new "paradigm". It should be an experiment that is doable using today's technology. If that physicist turns out to be right and successive experiments confirm his new insight, the "paradigm shift" you keep talking about will soon be complete. Think about it.

 

did you forget something?

 

then what is moving, 'from one system to another'?

 

Ask James Clerk Maxwell, he wrote the theory you are finding fault with.

 

google bishadi black body experiment and double slit experiment

try 'energy upon mass'

read this science section and that last few pages

YOU can have the nobble head(s)

i have been doing this for three decade, .....read the news, the change is happening right now, all over the world.


the main care i have is that each can understand what they are


fuch the rest

 

you are funny


he aint a heat guy.

he enabled the math to faraday fields, to math

electronic to the fields of the electromagnetic (light, in fact)

the perpendicular planes of electric and mangnetic field

he enabled the vector field (potential) to light in a mathematical form

light is your heat 'stuff' and them 'fields' are it (just like i said)


and the occillation of the wave? The resonance?

Talk about that transition!!!! (go google some more)

 

Heat is a form of energy.

 

nice post.

then we can agree that heat is the result of friction and most particles in transition form quadrature or transverse modes hence electromagnetic radiation, hence friction, hence heat?

 

Well, one can hypothetically ask, if you had a solid in a perfect stasis i.e. at an absolute zero, and then you would shine a laser beam at it, the laser photons would get absorbed by the solid's electrons and induce their excitation, but how would this transform into the kinetic motion of the solid's atoms? Well, the solid's electrons participate in the intermolecular bond formation, and if they're excited, then stresses will be put on these bonds causing them to stretch and contract.

 

how about the photon (per se) is causing the mass to resonate and the 'em' fields are imposed upon the mass?

ie... i dont see mass (elements) as solar systems

 

Well, yes, if you expose a mass to an electromagnetic field and if the atoms of this mass have electric properties, then you would induce motion. And of course you cannot draw a parallel between atoms and star systems, because the former operates according to electromagnetic and quantum principles i.e. orbital quantum energies where only certain energy levels hence orbitals are possible, while planets orbit stars due to gravitational principles where the orbiting entities always fall towards a central point, but due to the centripital velocity they're constantly gaining during this fall and because of the central point's receding surface and moreover, the ever changing direction of acceleration as experienced by the orbiting entities, they manage to get away. In such a system, any orbits and energy states are possible (not quantized).

 

how about no 2 elements can combine without em (photon per se) increasing the potential of the (per se ) electron for any 2 elements to combine? Is that the bohr analogy of pretty much all chemistry?

wow...........

all that and all i was pointing out is that I dont see the electrons and protons, as being fixed structures like little particles (balls, like planets) of an element (atom)

here is an idea for you to look into,

http://www.quantummatter.com/space-resonance/seeing-an-electron/