that last part was "cloudy" the radiation is released when the electron drops energy levels, and the frequency of the radiation has the exact quanta of energy to return the elctron to its previous state. the energy is store in the atom by means of the electron being farther away from the nucleus. once the nucleus regains control and pulls the electron closer a photon is emmited and has the frequncy which corresponds to the specific amount of energy required to raise the electron from energy level "a" to energy level "b"
"if you look at a good periodic table (i think sgt. welsch has it) it will the you the atomic radius of every element. " The periodic table may also say which are gasses and which are solids and which are liquids. Obviously, anything that is a liquid can become solid or gas, even though the periodic table does not say so. Similarly, the radius changes even though the periodic does not say so. The periodic table is based on room temperature. "some one correct me if i'm wrong, but heat it not the same thing as temperature " I don't know exactly what you mean by this. If you mean that temperature is defined by the size of mercury in a thermometer in comparison with the actual mechanics of heat, then i guess your right... but you might want to elaborate. "okay, how about one atom in space, not remotely close enough to any other matter to bump into? " Is this even a sentence? Could you ask this again. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! One question: How would you give a detailed description of how evaporation due to friction cools the material the once liquid substance had been?
After thinking a bit, I came to the conclusion that The heat we FEEL HAS to be the "random" motion of atoms. Because we cannot possibly feel the tini crevaces and bumps that each individual electron creates, the only thing our feeling has to go by is the entire electron. My idea was that the electron speed causes this motion, and I still hold that they could indeed cause it. But I can admit that this does not neccisarily have to be the case. A plasma is defined as an atom stripped of its electrons. Plasma occur at very high heat, so it would be logical to say that the electrons are going to fast to stay locked in the nucleus. How would "random" energy of atoms knock electrons out of the shell? Although electron speed does not neccessarily define heat, electron speed and the average bouncing of atoms is intricately connected. Why would an electron be locked into a specific speed?
the plasma does not nessacerilly have to be hot. remember that losing electrons makes it an ion, so plasma has been completly ionized. sorry about the confusion, let me restate my "question" for you. how would your explanation work for a single atom in space, say an oxygen atom. the atom absorbs radiation, and becomes excited. the only way it can lose this energy would be to radiate it, as conduction and convection would not be possible because there is no matter for it to interact with. (unless it spontaniously changed locations ( one in infity chances) or was anhilated) as for the phase change, consider this. suppose the conditions are STP (standard temp &pressure) the temperature will not mater but the pressure will (see a phase diagram, also look up "triple point" and "super critical fluid" for a better understanding) the ice is solid at 0 celcius. 1 calorie is defined as the energy to raise 1 gram (1 cm^3) of water 1 degree. so to heat water from o to 1 degrees celcius take 1 calorie per gram. at 0, the hydrogen bonding occurs in the water and forms a crystal structure. the energy required to melt ice is 80 calories per gram, and that energy only melts the ice and breaks up the lattice structure. the temperature is still zero celcius, and the water has undergone a phase change. so 1 gram of ice at 0 degrees takes 81 calories to raise the temp to 1 degree celcius, 80 to melt it (break up them hydrogen bonds) and 1 more to raise it 1 degree. simmilarily, the energy required to convert water to steam also absorbs energy without raising the temperature. so when water evaporates, it "borrows" the extra energy from its surround commerades which in turn lowers their temperature. water can also be in the aques phase, where it is dissolved in itself. in this case, 2(h20) turns into 1 h30+ and 1 oh-, a hydronium ion and hydroxide ion , respectivly. ever read a CRC book (chemical rubber company) ? its the most condensed reference book that i know of, packed with every physical constant, from energy of sunlight to hit a meter squared of earths surface per second to elemnt properties to chemical formulas to tables of integrals and derivatives. i highly suggest you look at one if you have the chance. they can be found in the reference section of any halfway decent library
Frencheezy, "The resonance of the particle relate directly to the electrons. As the electrons spin around, they create a wave formation that can be said to be a "resonance". Each atom and molecule has a different electron configuration, thus a different "resonance". " This is hocus-pocus nonsense. "Im glad you think so, but don't you think that the electrons going at very high speeds as they do would bump into other atoms? Every property of an atom is sumed up in its electron shell's structure. The atoms outside a particular atom have no way of "feeling" the cells inner nucleus. " No. The electrons have nothing to do with temperature when they are confined in atoms. "There are many definitions of heat, my man. The average kinetic energy of a particle is the direction it is moving. As I said, the kinetic energy of a particle is related to the electrons motion, slamming into other atoms. " No. There are many different uses of the word "heat," most of which are wrong in the physical sense. The word I defined, however, is "temperature," and the precise, scientific definition is that of the average kinetic energy of the particles, as per <KE> = 3/2 kT. No one cares if you think it's wrong. "Can you give me a question that might prove my theory wrong? " Scientific theories must be falsifiable to be taken seriously. A theory must provide distinct predictions that may be verified through experiment. You have the burden of proof: Can you give me an experiment that might prove your theory right? "Oh contrair (if i was french Id spell that right). I think you would be strongly opposed if you said atomic radius did not increase with temperature.... " I guess I'll just have to deal with said opposition. Atomic radii do not increase with temperature. "The periodic table may also say which are gasses and which are solids and which are liquids. Obviously, anything that is a liquid can become solid or gas, even though the periodic table does not say so. Similarly, the radius changes even though the periodic does not say so. The periodic table is based on room temperature." This is entirely false. "After thinking a bit, I came to the conclusion that The heat we FEEL HAS to be the "random" motion of atoms. Because we cannot possibly feel the tini crevaces and bumps that each individual electron creates, the only thing our feeling has to go by is the entire electron. " This is pseudophysical nonsense. I have already explicitly stated the definition of temperature. "How would "random" energy of atoms knock electrons out of the shell?" Collisions between atoms routinely eject electrons from the participants. That plasmas occur at high temperatures is no indication that they move faster with increasing temperature; instead, they are able to be ejected when the given kinetic energies exceed the ionization energy. "Although electron speed does not neccessarily define heat, electron speed and the average bouncing of atoms is intricately connected." This is false. "Why would an electron be locked into a specific speed?" This is just the way Nature works. - Warren
Chroot: "This is hocus-pocus nonsense. This is entirely false. This is pseudophysical nonsense. This is false. This is just the way Nature works. None of this has ANYTHING to do with electrons. Sorry Frencheezy, you're wrong yet again. " Fuck you. You don't like to support YOUR ideas, you just say im stupid. Thanks, but no thanks. How bout i just ignore your closed minded carcass.
On Radioactive Waves: "the plasma does not nessacerilly have to be hot. remember that losing electrons makes it an ion, so plasma has been completly ionized. " I think you can agree that plasma is usually hot, and also an ion goes both ways, so if hydrogen somehow obtains 3 electrons, it is more ionized then a plasma. I think a plasma is described as when a large mass of atoms loose there electrons. If heat has nothing to do with electron speed, then why isn't a sound proof wall (a wall that resists vibration) also heat proof? If heat is the vibration of atoms, and sound is the vibration of atoms, then they should be both blocked by a sound proof wall. I understand that sound is more structured than the seemingly "random" vibration of heat, but nevertheless, a vibration is a vibration to a wall. "it "borrows" the extra energy from its surround commerades which in turn lowers their temperature. " Wouldn't the to-be-gas's atoms be at a higher energy state than its "commerades"? If that's the case, the lower energy liquid would take rather than give its energy to a higher energy atom... Remember that the energy for the evaporation process comes from the friction of air. According to either my electron theory or the strictly atom bouncing theory, the friction would increase the speed of some atoms, but with other atoms it would decrease the speed. Therefore the atoms with higher energy fly off, and the other atoms would stay, having been stripped of their speed/energy. I will say I can see very few differences in practice of the two theories we have discussed. The only advantages I can think of with my theory is the sound proof wall example and this question: since an electron is a particle of mass like any other, why would it be restricted to one speed? I might also add that my theory does indeed contain the atoms bouncing.
Fuck me? I don't support "my" ideas? Let's think about this: "my" ideas are those ideas accepted by the greater scientific community. This community has included hundreds of thousands of people, who have conducted a body of at least several million experiments, over several hundred years. Every experiment ever conducted indicates the greater scientific community has things right. There's an enormous body of evidence corroborating "my" ideas. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of your "theory," nor have you made any verifiable predictions. YOU ARE A CRACKPOT. You cannot simply make up some wild "theory" that sounds elegant and beautiful to you, and try to challenge modern scientific understanding with it. You have to do experiments. You have to believe whatever those experiments tell you. You have no other choice if you wish to remain in the realm of reality. What in hell makes you think you can outdo the countless thousands of men and women who precede you? What makes you think your theory is better than the existing theory that accounts for 100% of all heretofore observed experiments? You're uneducated and silly. Here's a plan for you: go learn existing physics. Even if you bodily hate it. Go learn what those countless hundreds of thousands of others have helped create. When you are an expert in existing physics, you may be able to find holes, and proceed to fill those holes. You will then earn the title of scientist. Learn this one thing: you cannot better a theory you've yet to understand. - Warren
""my" ideas are those ideas accepted by the greater scientific community. " The "greater scientific commuhnity" in the 16th century thought the world was flat. "There's an enormous body of evidence corroborating "my" ideas. " I realize this, but you have yet to show me you realize it too. If your still confused im asking YOU for an example of this evidence. "There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of your "theory," " If my theory works with existing evidence, thats all I need for now. "You cannot simply make up some wild "theory" that sounds elegant and beautiful to you, and try to challenge modern scientific understanding with it. " Hey, thats what Einstein did... "What in hell makes you think you can outdo the countless thousands of men and women who precede you? " I stand on their shoulders, thus I see higher. Besides, what the hell makes you think I can't? "YOU ARE A CRACKPOT. You're uneducated and silly. " If you make any more of these comments im going to make a whole new forum just to comemorate it. "Here's a plan for you: go learn existing physics. Even if you bodily hate it. " I'm majoring in phisics, dillweed. I don't hate it, I think SOME of what is taught is not correct. "Learn this one thing: you cannot better a theory you've yet to understand. " It would be hard, but I COULD create a whole new one from scratch... what kind of scientist do you call yourself anyway, dillweed?
Is "dillweed" really the best you can do? "The "greater scientific commuhnity" in the 16th century thought the world was flat." And according to the body of evidence they had (which was very scant) that theory had merit. As contrary evidence accumulated, the theory was decommissioned. This, you see, is how science works. "I realize this, but you have yet to show me you realize it too." Didn't I just show you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "If my theory works with existing evidence, thats all I need for now." But it doesn't work with existing evidence at all. You cleverly dodge this issue whenever possible. "Hey, thats what Einstein did... " No, it actually really isn't. There were a number of unexplained phenomena hanging around ("holes" in physical understanding) in Einstein's time. He found a way to plug the holes. The holes you're trying to plug don't even exist. "I stand on their shoulders, thus I see higher. Besides, what the hell makes you think I can't?" Everything you've said thus far would indicate to me that you cannot. You can't even understand basic thermodynamics. "If you make any more of these comments im going to make a whole new forum just to comemorate it. " Shall I tremble in fear now, or later? "I'm majoring in phisics, dillweed. I don't hate it, I think SOME of what is taught is not correct." You have a looooooong way to go, son. You best go hit the books. "what kind of scientist do you call yourself anyway, dillweed?" Are you asking for credentials? - Warren
"Is "dillweed" really the best you can do? " Do you really want me to FOCUS on insulting you? "This, you see, is how science works." Wow, Dan, I did not no that. How do you use a spoon? "Didn't I just show you? " No, you talk about the evidence that both of us know exists, but you fail to bring it into the argument. "The holes you're trying to plug don't even exist. " Religious people have the point of view that science is doing just that. Why does a theory have to accurately explain the universe to give accurate predictions? "You cleverly dodge this issue whenever possible." Hey, glad you think im clever, but when did i dodge the issue? "You can't even understand basic thermodynamics." Where did you come to this conclusion......? I think I understand them quite well, and I can agree with both laws given a certain definition. From experience, I have seen the second law of thermodynamics to be writen in more than one way. "Shall I tremble in fear now, or later?" Heh, i wasn't trying to threaten you, im just saying itll be a long list. "Are you asking for credentials? " Go ahead.
Frencheneesz : i havnt had time to read this entire thread, but here are some quick thoughts for you. sound is a compressional wave (earthquakes may consist of three sperate types of waves!) as for ions, plasma is a cation right? if i remember correctly anions are negative, gained e- so plasma is completly ionized in the positive direction, as is cannot lose anymore electrons ( although, would it be possible to gain positrons?) i agree plasma would be "hot" , more so i would say energized. remember pv=nrt , r is the ideal gas constant, and n=number of mols which is constant unless matter is dissapearing,and say with volume constant since this type of engy is usually enclosed to contain it, we can drop n and r from the equation to obtain temperature/pressure=constant volume and they are inverly proportional. meaning that increased pressure will make up for a temperature loss and vica versa. look at a phase diagram for water and you will see its uniqueness that it decreases in density as it freezes, which is represented by its abilty to sublime(go directly from a gas to solid by means of increased pressure in this case) and then will go to a liquid phase. this happens in a specific temp range look up these things for a better understanding of how pressure and temperature work a phase diagram for water triple point supercritical fluid (has very interesting properties, such as seemingly defeying gravity and emmiting intense light) ok well gotta run
"Do you really want me to FOCUS on insulting you? " If it's good for a laugh, why not? "Wow, Dan, I did not no that. How do you use a spoon?" Since you can't seem to understand that successful theories must make predictions that can be experimentally verified, I seriously doubt you really understand how anything works in the sciences. "No, you talk about the evidence that both of us know exists, but you fail to bring it into the argument. " Would you like me to hit you with a truck full of reputable textbooks, or what? I don't have any interest in spoon-feeding you what is common knowledge to most educated people. "Hey, glad you think im clever, but when did i dodge the issue?" You've yet to accept the fact that every shred of scientific evidence collected to date indicates rather conclusively that atomic radii are not sensitive to temperature, and electrons do not move faster with temperature (in unionized gas). "Where did you come to this conclusion" You throw around terms like "heat" like a layman. You do not understand (and dispute) the scientific definition of temperature. "Go ahead." B.S. of Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech, 2000. Minors in Astrophysics and Math. Second year M.S. Astrophysics candidate at U.C. Berkeley, working on data analysis tools for the SETI program's new Allen Telescope Array in Shasta county. - Warren
I've never understood why people bother to respond to this sort of thing. What's the point? Frencheneesz, get a college chemistry book. You can get a used one from the early 1990s off ebay for under $5.00. It will answer all your questions, and it's recent enough that most of the information in it hasn't been disproven yet.
"Plasma occur at very high heat, so it would be logical to say that the electrons are going to fast to stay locked in the nucleus. " i dont understand this staement- if you said plasma is stripped of electrons, why would they be "locked in" in the nucleus? and plasma or not, confined in the nucleus!!!!!!? this seems to be a contradicting statement
"sound is a compressional wave " I realize this, people seem to think im stupid or something (I know you do Chroot). I'm not, I understand these theories, I also understand that they have a lot of evidence. I know how they work. You still did not answer my question. A compressional wave is a vibration, am i correct? The reason why something such as cork-board quites sound is because it cussions or dampers the vibrations. If heat is random vibrations, then why doesn't a cork-board damper heat? This is a simple question, well maybe not at the atomic level. "temperature/pressure=constant volume " As I said, im not stupid. pressure can not be negative, therefore to increase the energy the only way is to increase the temperature. "look at a phase diagram for water and you will see its uniqueness that it decreases in density as it freezes, [...] this happens in a specific temp range. As I said, im not stupid and you don't have to lecture me on pre-highschool ideas such as these. I UNDERSTAND THEM. I know that water has its lowest desity at 4 degrees celcius. I know that water has special properties due to it being slightly dipolar. I think I mentioned a question about how "your" theory would explain the cooling effect associated with evaporation via friction. I am not asking because I am ignorant, I am asking because I am wondering what your answer will be. THE QUESTION WAS: How would you give a detailed description of how evaporation due to friction cools the material the once liquid substance had been? This asks for a description at the atomic level. THERE can you answer it? Because I can. "i dont understand this staement" I said that Plasma has its electrons stripped. This is because the electrons have to much speed. This excess of speed causes them to break orbit with the nucleus. Does that break it down for you?
Sound waves have nothing to do with heat. Sound waves are structured waves of PRESSURE. Sound does not occur at the scale of individual atomic motion. When a sound wave hits a corkboard, the pressure increases above ambient, then decreases above ambient, then increases again, and so on. The corkboard's effectiveness at sound dampening is due to its elasticity. The corkboard can flex macroscopically in such a way to make it a barrier to pressure waves of audible frequencies. In fact, the corkboard is best able to attenuate one distinct frequency. You could say it has an "anti-resonance" at that frequency. If you apply a different frequency, say, ultrasound, you may find that your corkboard is in fact totally unable to act as a dampener -- ultrasound passes right through with no discernable attenuation. You're familiar with the same effect in electromagnetic waves. You can see right through an old-style chicken wire satellite dish, because your eyes use short-wavelength radiation; to the long wavelengths of radio waves, however, the dish is totally opaque. In TOTAL contrast, heat is neither a wave, nor a pressure phenomenon. It is a microscopic phenomenon. It has NOTHING to do with sound waves. Temperature is the random motion of atoms or molecules in a substance. Heat flows from hot to cold because the Universe tends toward disorder. The corkboard's molecules are not immune, so energy is transferred to them through atomic and molecular collisions with its surroundings. Since heat is not highly ordered, it has no frequency. Corkboard's ability to attenuate audible-frequency sound waves is due to its resonant and anti-resonant frequencies determined by its elasticity. Heat has nothing to do with any of this. Do you understand the difference? - Warren
Hi chroot, "Heat flows from hot to cold because the Universe tends toward disorder." /me smiles mysteriously... (i.e. I tend to not entirely agree) Bye! Crisp
Crisp, I know man. The phrases "heat flows" and "tends toward disorder" are loaded phrases. However, Frencheezy is exceedingly dumb, so I have to try to speak at his level. - Warren