What is heat?

[DrRocket]

Anyway, calling the heat capacity of the system as the 'heat energy' of the system, I think, is logical.

 

I am sure that you do.

 

Therein lies a great deal of the problem.

 

Classical physics, including classical thermodynamics has proved to be an astonishingly sccurate predictor of everyday macroscopic natural phenomena. It is the basis for almost all of engineering (a notable exception is electronic devices). It is certainly the basis for the design of engines, compressors and heating and refrigeration equipment.

 

You cannot simply toss aside such a large body of self-consistent theory because it does meet your personal preconceptions. Worse, you cannot toss aside selected parts and keep more personally appealing parts without destroying the self consistency of the overall structure.

 

To go to the title of this thread, it is quite obvious that heat is not what you think it is. Apparently neither are work and energy.

 

Now go read a physics book. The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Feynman, Leighton and Sands is one of the best.

[finiter]

Using the definitions, it does go against observational evidence. A force acting through a distance does work, and that adds or subtracts from the energy present. That is what observational evidence shows. You have to come up with new terminology and a new self-consistent model.

No, it does not go against observational evidence. In the case of force acting at distance, what is observed is what you have said: "adds or subtracts from the energy present". The explanation 'how that happens' may be different. In the case of a body moving in a gravitational field, when the speed changes, there may be a corresponding change in its internal energy. The force or work done causes that change, but does not impart energy on its own ( a possibility that seems logical).

Regarding the rest of the part I agree, and actually I have developed a self consistent model, which may or may not be correct.

 

Therein lies a great deal of the problem....To go to the title of this thread, it is quite obvious that heat is not what you think it is. Apparently neither are work and energy.

I do agree with the rest of the comments (other than what I have quoted from you). I think one can always think of an alternate explanation (I have been doing it for the past many years), and that in itself is not a problem. The only condition is that it should not go against the observational evidence. That is, one can redefine heat, work and energy, provided the definitions do not go against observations and cover all aspects.

[swansont]

No, it does not go against observational evidence. In the case of force acting at distance, what is observed is what you have said: "adds or subtracts from the energy present". The explanation 'how that happens' may be different. In the case of a body moving in a gravitational field, when the speed changes, there may be a corresponding change in its internal energy. The force or work done causes that change, but does not impart energy on its own ( a possibility that seems logical).

Regarding the rest of the part I agree, and actually I have developed a self consistent model, which may or may not be correct.

 

You can only do this by changing the definitions of the terms that are being used. Saying that a force of compression does not impart energy changes the meaning of work, and that has a domino effect, because energy is still conserved. So now at least one other thing has to change to accommodate this, but changing that term will cause other problems. And so on, and so on.

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

No, it does not go against observational evidence. In the case of force acting at distance, what is observed is what you have said: "adds or subtracts from the energy present". The explanation 'how that happens' may be different. In the case of a body moving in a gravitational field, when the speed changes, there may be a corresponding change in its internal energy. The force or work done causes that change, but does not impart energy on its own ( a possibility that seems logical).

Regarding the rest of the part I agree, and actually I have developed a self consistent model, which may or may not be correct.

 

Hello Finiter,

 

I understand where you are trying to go with this, but unfortunately, you cannot separate work being done during compression from the kinetic energy of the system nor can you (via any stretch of the concept or even the definitions) create proportional relationships between system properties that simply - due to the nature of the system - cannot exist.

 

There is no alternative concept outside of work from which you can relate the increase in kinetic energy of the system following compression. Objects fall due to gravity - there is no other source from which to derive this behavior.. This is what observation tells us, just as observation tells us that work done on the system when it was compressed increased the kinetic energy.

 

The how that happens is just as important as the why that happens. This goes back to the concept of for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In it's most basic form, physics is the science of quantifying actions and their corresponding equal and opposite reactions such that energy and matter are accurately described and always conserved.

 

Thus, sticking to the law of conservation of energy - you cannot have an increase in kinetic energy without some kind of change, the increase in kinetic energy would be the reaction to the action (compressing the system via work) in your example.

 

I do agree with the rest of the comments (other than what I have quoted from you). I think one can always think of an alternate explanation (I have been doing it for the past many years), and that in itself is not a problem. The only condition is that it should not go against the observational evidence. That is, one can redefine heat, work and energy, provided the definitions do not go against observations and cover all aspects.

 

Yes, you can redefine heat - as in you can use heat to describe whatever you want so long as an appropriate legend accompanies your definitions, but in this case you are not only redefining heat - you are also confusing the concepts.

 

That is to say the word for heat in german is not heat - but while the concept is called something different - the mathematical representation of it remains the same. In your case you are trying to redefine the math. You are stating that work done on the system does not in fact result in the increase in kinetic energy - that this increase can be explained by something else.. this is not a difference in definitions being used, but rather a completely different description of the system.

 

Hope this was helpful,

Cheers

Edited August 29, 2011 by spin-1/2-nuclei

[finiter]

You can only do this by changing the definitions of the terms that are being used. Saying that a force of compression does not impart energy changes the meaning of work, and that has a domino effect, because energy is still conserved. So now at least one other thing has to change to accommodate this, but changing that term will cause other problems. And so on, and so on.

Please do not take this as an argument for argument sake (now at this stage it may perhaps appear to be). The relation between work done and energy imparted breaks down when the speed approaches 'c'. I think such a tendency exists even under normal circumstances. The work done is work done; there is no change in the definition of work. The energy that the body gains due to the work done on it will be proportional to the work done only for small changes that can be accommodated by realignment of the energy already available (say the internal energy decreases and the speed increases). If the energy of the body is to increase continuously, the body has to draw in energy from the surroundings. Surely one will have to redefine matter, energy and force to start with and subsequently some other terms also. However, the changed definitions should always be in conformity with the observations. I think it is not a task impossible; but problems may arise at each step. The opening post was just to make clear whether my understanding of the existing concepts has flawed any where. And, I say it was very useful till this time..

[DrRocket]

Please do not take this as an argument for argument sake (now at this stage it may perhaps appear to be). The relation between work done and energy imparted breaks down when the speed approaches 'c'.

 

No, it does not. Energy is conserved in special relativity.

 

I think such a tendency exists even under normal circumstances. The work done is work done; there is no change in the definition of work. The energy that the body gains due to the work done on it will be proportional to the work done only for small changes that can be accommodated by realignment of the energy already available (say the internal energy decreases and the speed increases).

 

Wrong. Work expended is exactly matched by energy gained by the system on which the work is done. You cannot possibly keep the current definition of work but change the definition of energy and still have conservation of energy. There is no point in calling your concept "energy" since whatever it is (you have assiduously avoided producing a definition), it is not the energy of classical mechanics or special relativity. Why not call it "Oscar' and avoid confusion with a theory that is known to work ?

 

 

If the energy of the body is to increase continuously, the body has to draw in energy from the surroundings. Surely one will have to redefine matter, energy and force to start with and subsequently some other terms also. However, the changed definitions should always be in conformity with the observations.

 

If you believe this, then explicitly produce the required definitions and prove that your assertion is correct.

 

 

I think it is not a task impossible; but problems may arise at each step. The opening post was just to make clear whether my understanding of the existing concepts has flawed any where. And, I say it was very useful till this time..

 

What you think is irrelevant. All that is relevant is what you can demonstrate using rigorous logic and verifiable empirical data. Classical mechanics and special relativity have met this criteria within known domains of validity. You have not even come close.

 

Your understanding of the existing concepts appears to have been and continues to be seriously flawed.

[finiter]

I understand where you are trying to go with this, but unfortunately, ..

I am very much sure that you know. However, in view of the existing concepts, I can go up to the extent of proposing virtual photons for that increase in energy (not that I am proposing it). My basic idea (I may be wrong) is that laws should be strictly mathematical, but the definitions, physical; a clear line is to be drawn in between the two.

The object falls due to gravity; the increase in its speed can be due to the decrease in the internal energy, and if it falls in the field of earth, it is in contact with the atmosphere, and this can cause energy transfer. However, whether it is possible to quantify the increase on the basis of transfer from these sources, or we have to invoke virtual particles again, is something to be verified.

 

Yes, you can redefine heat .. this is not a difference in definitions being used, but rather a completely different description of the system.

Yes, it involves a redefinition of heat, and also a re-description of the physical system. However, the mathematical relation for work holds good (it deals with non real objects); but the physical system responds in physical terms.

 

 

 

Wrong. Work expended is exactly matched by energy gained by the system on which the work is done. You cannot possibly keep the current definition of work but change the definition of energy and still have conservation of energy. There is no point in calling your concept "energy" since whatever it is (you have assiduously avoided producing a definition), it is not the energy of classical mechanics or special relativity.

Suppose energy is defined in this way: Energy is a fundamental quality of matter like mass and volume. This I think will not breach any observational evidence. This is a physical definition. If you want to quantify it, you have to use the mathematical equation for kinetic energy, mv²/2, and say that energy is equal to that, if the whole energy is in the form of motion. If you propose a physical limit, then you can say that the body is made up of fundamental particles which always move at the speed 'c', and so this body can never move faster than 'c'. This energy, I think is the same as that visualized by classical mechanics in terms of mathematical relations. But a change in the physical definition makes it require some alternate explanation for energy transfer.

 

If you believe this, then explicitly produce the required definitions and prove that your assertion is correct. What you think is irrelevant....

Your statement may appear as if you are suggesting that no body should try to change the definitions. I mean that trying to do something, and achieving the same are entirely different. Achieving is gradual, sometimes you may never achieve. But that need not deter anyone from trying.