swansont

! Moderator Note Is there something you wish to discuss? This is not a platform for posting press releases

You’re ignoring all the coal and oil that was created in the past from dead plants and animals, and stored over the course of millions of years. But that energy is but a fraction of what we get from the sun. Global warming is an issue of trapping too much of that energy.

But for your idea to be true, this must hold for all materials. There are materials that are transparent in the IR. But the time delay has to be the same for all photons of the same energy, because the photons are identical, regardless of how they are generated

I think we’ve established that it will not.

AI doesn’t fact check. It will make up stuff, including citations, that sound legit.

Another bogus cite 212 issue 1-2 is from October of 2017, and the article doesn’t match what’s listed.

Yes, it is suspiciously like chatbot behavior, and I’d like the OP to explain.

1. The time is massively different. There are only so many atoms with which they can interact. 2. How do the atoms know which of these identical photons to interact with? Not interacting with light from a laser, that passes through at 2/3 c, but interacting with thermal radiation, which you claim goes much, much slower? For a small block of material the light might take 0.1 nanosecond (2 cm of travel) but the heat transfer takes perhaps a second? What is the physics that differentiates these two cases? Not some fairy tale, which is not science. Where’s the science?

Is this a view from your extensive experience in atomic physics? Absorption followed by de-excitation in a dipole pattern is the normal process in an electric dipole transition. With no explanation as to why this should magically be unobservable. This is your assertion. To conclude this is circular logic. But you said this time delay is responsible for the delay in heat transmission through the material. Why can light that isn’t heat travel through the material at 2/3 c, while the heat transmission delay - which you say is due to light - is much, much longer?

I can’t find either of these references. The page numbers don’t match the issue number for the first, with no search engine hits for the title for either (other than this post), and the second stopped publishing in 2017.

So if you had a lot of F you’d tend to form HFCs, rather than the F largely replacing H and giving you fluorocarbons

That’s the process - see if you can poke holes in an idea. Falsifiability is a key component of science. And I’m telling you it’s a rare occurrence. The photon gan go in many directions, and you require a specific one, over and over again. If they can’t be observed how can they be responsible for heat transfer? Isn’t heating something up an observable process? There’s no evidence it works this way, since the evidence we have says it doesn’t. Wishing does not make it so. Yo predicted a time for heat transfer, which depends on this speed. Why does the light for heat transfer behave differently than other light? (without resorting to magic or special pleading, please)

Is the C-F bond stronger than the C-H bond? That, at least, would give a preference for fluorocarbon

As I suspected. So fluorocarbon-based life would be more about having a lot more fluorine around than a lack of carbon.

Energy and momentum will be conserved regardless of the direction the photon is emitted. The difference is whether any energy and momentum is imparted to the atom. Your proposed mechanism is not observed to happen. i.e. your prediction fails. And since the photons can be emitted in other directions, this happens only rarely. You did more than that. You predicted a speed. Does thermal conduction happen at the speed that your idea predicts?

Don’t fluorocarbons still require a fair amount of carbon?

The emission is not preferential in that direction. The atom doesn’t “remember” the direction a photon came from. It’s simply in an excited state, and the subsequent emission probability is symmetric. It’s just as likely to emit in the direction the photon came from as in the opposite direction. How does an atom “know” the difference between these photons? We can measure how long it takes for light to pass through various materials. Polyethylene, for example, has an index of refraction of around 1.5 for infrared light. So light goes at around 2/3 c through it.

My PhD dissertation was based on laser cooling and trapping and I did projects based in it for 30 years. Your summary misses the point. Cooling happens on moving atoms (because the hot atoms are moving) but the photon absorption interaction is not dependent on that. “for me” isn’t how science works. If you don’t have experimental evidence for a notion, it’s worthless. Then derive this relationship. Physics is based on models.

No. Laser cooling (Nobel prize 1997) wouldn’t work if the photon was emitted in the same direction, since no net momentum would be imparted to the atom. But that’s not what happens. The emission is symmetric and not preferential, so momentum is imparted to the atom. (And depending on the specifics, could heat or cool the atoms. Cooling is usually more experimentally useful) The momentum would be imparted regardless of separation distance. This wouldn’t seem to explain the T vs T^4 difference we observe for conduction vs radiation.

They could have a next atom, but it would be some distance away. But the shouldn’t matter much to photons. And an atom doesn’t “know” where the photon it absorbs came from.

No, this is patently untrue. S-B gives the radiated power. It does not require thermal equilibrium. Once there’s a gap there is no conduction. It’s why a dewar flask works so well; radiative heat transfer is fairly small for low temperatures, but becomes important owing to the T^4 behavior Being unaware of facts does not make them untrue. It gets to be frustrating to be told that they aren’t simply because you don’t know much about physics.

And S-B says radiated power depends on T^4 It’s as I described. An object in vacuum can only cool via radiative heat transfer. But all that radiation must hit the matter that surrounds the vacuum.

But radiative heat transfer depends on the difference of T^4, while conductive heat transfer depends linearly on the temperature difference. A small vacuum gap between the solid and liquid has a huge change in behavior, but should make no difference if it’s radiation, since all of the photons would still be emitted from the solid.

Oh, good grief.

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.