arfa brane:
I honestly don't think you're equipped to have this discussion. You can't even manage to follow what I'm saying, despite my careful, repeated clarifications and explanations. You constantly attribute to me opinions that I have never held, let alone written down anywhere in this thread.
Moreover, you're acting like a troll. You ignore important parts of my posts, mangle other parts beyond recognition, and fail to respond to the thread topic. I'm starting to lose patience with you.
No you insisted that instead of the equation being for electron orbitals, which is exactly what you expect when the nuclear energy is fixed and what I stated, the total energy of the atom was in the equation. Now you say that the nucleus is stationary.
I was quite clear. Not once, but
twice I told you that the stationary nucleus approximation is just that.
I do indeed insist that, even in that approximation, the Schrodinger equation is not an "equation for electron orbitals". The wavefunction you get when you solve the equation for hydrogen is the wavefunction for the atom. The energy values that fall out are energies of the atom, not the electron on its own. If you pretend the proton isn't there, you can't even get the result, because you're no longer describing an atom but instead describing an electron on its own.
Then you admit the total energy should include the nuclear energy and this means the results are a bit different.
I told you that
if you want a more accurate answer,
then you will need to take the nuclear motion into account. This is not me "admitting" to something. This is me attempting (again) to educate you about stuff you pretend you already understand but clearly do not.
But if what you're after, as Schrodinger was, is the orbitals of an electron, you can fix the nuclear energy like I said.
Yes. And so? What is the relevance of
any of this stuff about the hydrogen atom? It's completely off topic, except insofar is it is yet another illumination of your misunderstandings about energy.
Well I think you're actually wrong, about what quantum field theorists say about fields. But you don't believe me and aren't prepared to even examine it. So that's obviously a big waste of time.
I'm quite prepared to examine it. You bring it; I'll examine it.
You've managed to misinterpret just about every quote you've posted in this thread from competent physicists, so far, so I won't be at all surprised if you start presenting more stuff in the mistaken belief that it somehow refutes what I've been telling you all along.
But we'll see whether you can put your money where your mouth is.
No. Excitation. Mistaking the wave for the pond. I walked you through this in my last post. Why did you ignore it?
Maybe you aren't prepared to examine it.
Yes, a field can have energy, so each of the four fundamental fields is in fact a "form of" energy.
A field can
have energy, you say. Don't you see any problem with then saying in the next breath that a field
is energy?
I mean, it's been almost 400 posts now. Aren't you getting even an inkling of a notion of where you're going wrong, over and over again? Is it really possible you're as stupid about this as you make out, or is this just you trying to get a rise out of me?
What do you think the word "form" is supposed to mean?
I walked you through "forms of energy" in an earlier post. Have you forgotten? Of course, you didn't acknowledge any of that at the time. You skipped over it, probably because it was something you preferred not to see.
Go back and read it. If you still have problems with the concept, let me know where your issue lies, in relation to what I posted, and we can discuss. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.
Why do you still think infrared radiation shouldn't be called infrared heat?
Because heat, being energy, is not stuff. Radiation is stuff. I've only told you this about a hundred times. You should, at the very least, know what my position on this is by now, even if for some reason known only to yourself you can't bring yourself to accept the obvious.
Is everyone doing that making a fundamental error? What error?
They are confusing the energy associated with the radiation with the radiation itself. They are doing what you've been doing all the time - reifying energy.
Your explanations for the reason that infrared isn't heat just don't parse...
You give no indication that you've seriously attempted to parse them.
What I actually first said is that light is a form of energy.
You're still as wrong as you were at the start of this discussion. Why don't you directly grapple with the
reasons I have given you as to why you are wrong, rather than ignoring them?
I'll expand that a little and say light is a form of electromagnetic field energy.
Wrong.
So, the idea is, electrons and positrons are also quantised forms of field energy...
Wrongy wrong wrong wrong, with sugar on top!
This is ridiculous.
This kind of sums up the problem.
1) Heat is a form of energy (not "energy" as such, but what's the difference, do you know?).
What do you think the difference is between "energy" and a "form of energy"? The only difference I can see is that one is a subcategory of the other.
2) But then, energy doesn't increase temperature. But heat, when it flows into a cold body, does increase temperature.
Let me try once again to save you from yourself.
If the internal energy of an object increases, there is usually an associated temperature increase. One way to increase the internal energy of an object is to add heat (i.e. more energy) to it.
Of course, it's not the
energy that causes the temperature to increase. For temperature to increase, the average kinetic energy of the molecules or atoms in the object must increase, which means those molecules must, in some sense, be moving faster than before. No mathematical abstraction can cause molecules to move faster. Only interactions between those molecules and other "stuff" can do that.
3) So, now heat is not a form of energy, even though it is . . .
Heat is a form of energy, and forms of energy are ... energy. What's the problem? This, I thought, was something we actually
agree on.
I'm guessing you're confused because you think heat, like energy, is a sort of substance. It isn't.
Infrared can increase temperature; how does it do that if it isn't a form of heat, and heat is a number, not "stuff".
The infrared radiation interacts with the "stuff" that it is heating, causing the temperature increase. Stuff interacts with stuff. The numbers you call "heat" and "energy" don't cause anything.
It just doesn't follow, sorry. It's just wrong.
You're hopelessly, and I fear irretrievably, lost when it comes to this stuff. Part of the problem is that you refuse to engage with the actual arguments being put to you. Instead, you construct straw men and pretend those are my arguments. That's when you can bring yourself to do anything more than ignore what you find inconvenient.