• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Question on Light and Temperature

Thank you all for your most informative replies.

What did I ask the question?

Well I am still pondering, and thought extra info from any would help the process.
Indeed, I could have gone looking elsewhere, but half the fun of a forum, is in the feedback one can get from asking a Question, and also because there are more opinions and points of view which come together in one thread, rather than me having to pop from site to site and plow through the information and maybe even get bogged down, and give up finding the answer altogether.
So anyhoo...

It has been established that every object in the universe is not made of light, but light does fill the universe.

I note that energy is the major player, rather than light. At least this is what I am getting from the answers.

So energy creates light?

Like the sun shines and from this action, given the best scenario, a seed geminates, and the code within the seed determines what that seed will become.

A tree.

Not the tree grows and a major contributer to this growth is energy.

Not light.

Energy.

Now the tree is big and strong and a limb is cut off it, and cut up and used for firewood.

As it burns, the energy which went into producing it is released.

So are all objects made of energy?

Thank You
 
Zombified said:
If you have materials at different temperatures they will eventually exchange heat and reach equal temperatures, even if they aren't in contact, purely by radiating and absorbing infrared. So if two masses of air are seperated by glass, they would reach the same temperature if the glass was transparent to IR. Since glass isn't that transparent, the IR is reflected back into the car.
Click to expand...

It is true that ordinary glass transmits IR badly. But principally glass transmits heat badly. It is a thermal insulator.
If you change all the windows of your car by quartz, that transmits IR better than glass, you would still have a higher temperature internally than externally, since quartz is a good thermal insulator too.
IR emission, as any other EM energy emission is caused by jumps of electrons from high energy states to lower ones. Atoms don't loose as much energy by IR emission as molecules do when transferring their kinetic energy to lower moving ones.
 
Navigator said:


So energy creates light?
Click to expand...

Yes, as other posters have said, when an electron in an atom jumps from a state of high energy to a lower energy state, it radiates the excess energy as electromagnetic radiation (visible light, IR, UV).


Like the sun shines and from this action, given the best scenario, a seed geminates, and the code within the seed determines what that seed will become.

A tree.

Not the tree grows and a major contributer to this growth is energy.

Not light.

Energy.

Now the tree is big and strong and a limb is cut off it, and cut up and used for firewood.

As it burns, the energy which went into producing it is released.
Click to expand...

It is true. The tree converts sunlight, water and CO2 into carbohydrates. Carbohydrates have greater energy content than the mixture water-CO2. This energy comes from the light. When you burn the limb you obtain again water and CO2. Since these products have less energy than the carbohydrates, the excess energy is turned into heat and light.


So are all objects made of energy?

Thank You
Click to expand...

As has been pointed, no! But you can turn energy into matter and vice-versa.
 
Re: SGT

hammegk said:
http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node191.html

Which part/parts is the "energy" & which part/parts is the "matter"?


Navigator: the photon is your bit of "light".
Click to expand...

Electron and positron are matter. They have mass, so when moving they have kinetic energy. When they collide they are anihilated and their masses converted in energy. The resultant photon carries both the energy generated by the anihilation of the masses plus the kinetic energies.
The photon then transforms its energy in mass plus kinetic energy of the quark and antiquark.
 
When they collide they are anihilated and their masses converted in energy.

It seems clear to me that transformation is what is occurring rather than anihilation.

Sure the mass is no longer mass, because it has transformed.

So perhaps by see one thing as energy and another as matter, it could just as easily all be viewed as one thing.

Which is energy sometimes and mass at other times.

It is this process which seems to self perpetuate, and logic seems to scream that as such, it either never had a beginning, (has always been) or if it did, then there is a third element which separated or split the one thing into two things, energy and mass to give the whole thing a beginning.

Or: I missed a point somewhere....
 
Mass and energy ARE interchangable for some purposes, with the conversion rate provided by Einstein's famous
E=mc^2

However the exact mechanisms and exchanges by which this is manifest is, I understand, not fundamentally agreed upon and involves some quite complicated mathematics. Basic primers on quantum theory may help you, but if you don't understand the difference between photons, bosons, matter, energy, and momentum, you're going to have trouble following it.

How good's your maths?

Edit to add: An introduction to supersymmetry, for example:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9611409
 
Matabiri said:
Mass and energy ARE interchangable for some purposes, with the conversion rate provided by Einstein's famous
E=mc^2

However the exact mechanisms and exchanges by which this is manifest is, I understand, not fundamentally agreed upon and involves some quite complicated mathematics. Basic primers on quantum theory may help you, but if you don't understand the difference between photons, bosons, matter, energy, and momentum, you're going to have trouble following it.

How good's your maths?

Edit to add: An introduction to supersymmetry, for example:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9611409
Click to expand...

Greetings Matabiri

Fundamental disagreement?

This may have something to do with mathematics having no symbol for the thing which made one thing seperate into two things.

My own abilities to understand complicated mathmatics is not that great.

However, because there is no agrreement on the fundamentals, there are obviously bits of the equation missing.

Uncle Einstein must have missed something.

Fundamental
 
Navigator said:
Fundamental disagreement?
Click to expand...

Good, scientific disagreement.

This may have something to do with mathematics having no symbol for the thing which made one thing seperate into two things.

See, how can you make a statement like that and follow it with

My own abilities to understand complicated mathmatics is not that great.
Click to expand...
?


However, because there is no agrreement on the fundamentals, there are obviously bits of the equation missing.

Uncle Einstein must have missed something.

Fundamental
Click to expand...

There've been many advances in the last 50 years that I'm not really qualified to comment on, but there's pretty good progress being made.
 
Please be aware that I am not being critical. many advances have been made, and as we know for sure now, each day brings as much information as we are able to place together in the coherant manner, to ever discover the bigger reality.

Yes it can be healthy to disagree, and this is okay as long as dogmatism is not the reason for lack of willingness to agree.

mathematics is perhaps where Scientist have common grounding in order to agree.

However, the mathematics does not include anything outside of the belief systems of individuals.

Yet It could.

Perhaps the common grounding need expand a little, or mathematics become just another form of God to worship.

And since we mostly understand that these worshiped gods are disjointed and fragmented aspects of individual beliefs, and math is something more stable, then it behoves Mathematicians to include other aspects of this universe into their equations.

Is it posible for Math alone to explain 'how'?

or "Why?"

Of course, what has this to do with Light and temperature?

The Answer is this:

Everything has to do with everything.

Leave anything out, and well....it is not science or maths...incomplete equations.

Thank You
 
Navigator said:



Is it posible for Math alone to explain 'how'?

or "Why?"
Click to expand...

Math explains nothing! Physics, Biology and other experimental sciences try to explain the how and why of observable phenomena. Math is only a tool used by Science in order to quantify the principles.
 
SGT said:


Math explains nothing! Physics, Biology and other experimental sciences try to explain the how and why of observable phenomena. Math is only a tool used by Science in order to quantify the principles.
Click to expand...

I think this is an example of what I am refering to.

Okay - lets put it another way.

these 'experimental sciences which try to explain' - are they altogether using the tool of math to substanciate explainations?

If anything, math explains a great deal. That famouse formula certainly did it for humanity.

Did what?

Opened a door into the bigger pic...just a crack to peek through, but still, the ability to peek can lead to deeper wider explainations.

So in a way, Math does at least HELP to explain?
 
Navigator said:




these 'experimental sciences which try to explain' - are they altogether using the tool of math to substanciate explainations?

If anything, math explains a great deal. That famouse formula certainly did it for humanity.
Click to expand...

First, I don't think biology uses much math. Physics uses a lot, but as I said, math is only a tool. Do saw and hammer make a shelf? No, the carpenter does! In the same way, a scientist observes a phenomenon, mesures it and try to describe the behavior of the system in terms of mathematical equations. You must be aware that the equations are only a means to describe partially the system. When new observations are made, the equations can be changed. This does not mean that the initial math was wrong, only the description was not complete.
 
AM I the only one who has a strong sense of deja vu here?

- New poster shows up and asks an innocent question or two.

- Other posters try to answer.

- New poster asks additional questions, poses half conclusions for evaluation.

- Other posters patiently try to explain better.

- New poster grabs bits and pieces that fit his aganda and asks additional questions, poses additional half conclusion, based on half-understood answers.

.
.
.
etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, Navigator, but you remind me of several recent visitors here. You might even be one of them. Anyhow, let's try something new: Tell us how YOU view things, and let's take it from there, OK?

Hans
 
SGT said:


First, I don't think biology uses much math. Physics uses a lot, but as I said, math is only a tool. Do saw and hammer make a shelf? No, the carpenter does! In the same way, a scientist observes a phenomenon, mesures it and try to describe the behavior of the system in terms of mathematical equations. You must be aware that the equations are only a means to describe partially the system. When new observations are made, the equations can be changed. This does not mean that the initial math was wrong, only the description was not complete.
Click to expand...

Okay - that good.

So math is not anyone's strong point because it is only partically complete.
New observations come along, and no doubt will always come along.
So to speak.
No one suggested math was wrong, and I think I already said what you have reiterated.
We have a tool which is adequate for some things but not for others.
Math therefore is not the fundamental building block, but is used to help the explaination of the building itself. As far as it is able, and no more.
It can help determine what is happening at quantum levels maybe, at least give a clue.

Thank you for your reply
 
Greetings MRC_Hans

I am a new poster on this forum yes.

I have not posted on this forum, nor was even aware that this forum existed, before I comenced posting on this forum.

We are all here to learn, and we all have different ways of learning.

It appears you have a wee problem with they way I am learning?

Well, that is just the way of it.

Please feel free to contribute to the discussion if you want, but be advised that I am not interested in getting into any unrelated arguements with you as this is not the reason I am here posting.

You want to know how I view things?

:)

Differently from you I imagine.

Maybe that is why you made your comments in the first place?

How I View Things

AS for "taking things from there" well be adviced that politeness is part of the equation.

Try not to leave it out.

In Love
 
Er...

I think we have may some misundertandings here...

Math is a tool used by all brands of science. All brands of science are using more and more math, year after year. Even natural sciences, like biology or geology, that a few decades ago used little of it, nowdays are using it more and more. Computers are to "blame", since they allow a large number of mathematical operations to be made at a small ammount of time. Biologists and geologists no longer just describe and classify. Now they can model, simulate and predict.

Math is not, as some misinformed people say, a new religion or cryptic religious language. It is a tool used to study, describe, model and predict phenomena (natural or artificial). Left by itself, its nothing and will do nothing, like information stored on a book or on a cd.

A typicall use would be-

-Researcher collects data. Note that math starts to enter here- equipments used for data acquisition and storage will have a great chance of working under mathematical principles (ex. computers and digital devices) or at least having been projected somehow using math (ec. CAD).
-Researcher studies tha data. Statistics methods are the tool.
-Researcher seeks an explanation. Some sort of mathematical modelling may be used (basically a set of equations that produce results similar to the original data when fed with the propper parameters). This will most likely require a number of iteracions to obtain a satisfactory result. And may not have succes, but even in this case the work and the result are still worthwile and usefull.

-Researcher gathers new data sets.
-Researcher adds new data and starts the whole process again, making the propper needed adjustments. Eventually, his original conclusions may even be thrown in the bin.

Math permeates the process. Its a tool used at all parts of the process, one that is being used right now when the screen shows this text.

Also, a new statistical technique (or one that the researcher was not familiar with), for example, may cause another change. It may have been there on a book lying at a shelf for years. But, left alone, its useless. Math does not "know" abouth anything or nothing. Its a tool that we use to understand something. And so far, its the best avaliable tool to understand the universe we live in. "Alternate", "intuitive" and similarly labelled methods suggested by religious people and belivers of the paranormal are useless.
 
Greetings Correa Neto

This is a good all round reply regarding the importance of math.
As a tool it helps us appreciated the body of work collectively called life on earth.
It can even provide a sort of power of forsight, a way of mapping possible pathways into the future.



And so far, its the best avaliable tool to understand the universe we live in. "Alternate", "intuitive" and similarly labelled methods suggested by religious people and belivers of the paranormal are useless.

Usless in what way? Or are these intuitive senses unable to be mapped with Math?

I know that there are many folk who are certain that intuitive reflex has been benificial to them, and would not agree that it is 'useless' at all.
Just another tool.

Believers in so called 'paranormal' are a different story. Yet they still find their belief systems useful, even if this use only helps them to be nice to others.

Then there is another kind of Math.

If:
I am nice to you
Then:
You are more likely to be nice to me.
Equals:
A better chance to create a greater thing together...

Someone might argue that there is really no point in being nice to others, because it is....well what reason is there not to be nice to others?

As far as math goes, we are still only scratching the surface and certainly computers are helping speed up the digging.

Thank You
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom