Is Radiative Heat Transfer a Resonance Phenomenon Between Bodies?
Computational BlackBody Radiation offers a new proof of the Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann Law PSB.
Based on electromagnetic wave resonance under deterministic finite precision computation, taking the form
- Q=σ(T4A−T4B), (1)
where Q is (normalised) radiative transfer of heat energy between two blackbodies A and B with temperatures TA and TB Kelvin, and σ is the SB constant. If TA>TB then the heat transfer is from A to B.
- Q=σT4. (2)
In particular, (1) expresses that heat transfer from A requires the presence of a receptor B with lower temperature. On the other hand (2) appears to express that a body can radiate (spit out quanta/photons) without receptor, or assuming the presence of “empty space” at 0 Kelvin acting as receptor. In this case the body at higher temperature will spit most and so win the combat.
- Does radiative heat transfer from one body need a receptor at lower temperature?
- Does radiative heat transfer involve a resonance phenomenon between bodies?
The new proof of PSB suggests that the answer is YES, while the standard proof suggests NO. What does physics and observation say? YES or No?
Is radiative heat transfer carried by electromagnetic waves or particles/photons? An answer that it is both is no good. The questions concern basic physics and must be answered.
Compare with resonance between two tuning forks:
PS Read about Planck’s struggle to prove (2) in Quantum Mechanics at the Crossroads starting with Schrödinger Against Particles and Quantum Jumps by M. Bitbol and continuing with Max Planck’s Compromises on the Way to and from the Absolute by J. L. Heilbron.
Yes, it is not a good idea to resort to compromises in science, which is the essence of politics. Planck was not happy with his particle/quanta statistics and neither was Schrödinger, yet it has come to serve as a fundamental part of quantum mechanics following Born-Bohr.
Real Quantum Mechanics in the spirit of Schrödinger presents a new realist deterministic approach based on waves instead of particle statistics.
See more here: blogspot.com
Header image: Chemistry Libre Texts
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Rocky
| #
Claes – There is no experiment in existence that invalidates (2). Furthermore you should read Einstein’s work on the topic. Molecules in thermodynamic equilibrium with a radiation field are continuously emitting and absorbing radiation. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult topic for everyone.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
How do you know (2) alone is correct?
We need a universe with one object to test this.
Reply
Rocky
| #
We also need a blackbody to test it. That doesn’t exist. For what does exist, there are no experiments that have ever provided contrary results to the theoretical framework put forth by Planck and his predecessors. So feel free to come up with an experiment that can falsify Planck’s work. A Nobel Prize in Physics awaits. Why is the fact that at the microscopic level, energy flows in all directions is so difficult for everyone here to understand?
Reply
Rocky
| #
Sorry, I meant “successors” not “predecessors”.
(You are BANNED) SUNMOD
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Objects do not transfer energy to other objects. They transfer energy to an energy field which then transfers energy to other objects. Forget black bodies, they don’t exist. Objects absorb and radiate energy by the bonds they contain. If one object radiates energy in a wavelength that another object cannot absorb then there can be no equalization, but a blue object and red object will equalize by equalizing with the surrounding energy field.
It is the vibration of the electron fields across bonds that create electromagnetic waves. If the amplitude of that vibration is greater than the amplitude of that wavelength in the energy field, the object will transfer energy to the field. If the amplitude is less than that in the energy field the object will absorb energy. Equalization occurs when the amplitude across the bond equals the amplitude in the field surrounding it
Planck was wrong. The energy of a wave is not a function of its frequency (although how much energy it transfers is) but a function of the amplitude of the wave.
Reply
Rocky
| #
Sorry Herb, but you can’t come up with a single experimental observation that refutes Planck’s work on radiative transfer.
You can’t even understand the simple physics governing elastic collisions.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Claes, can we agree that there are historical facts??? If you cannot agree to this, it is a waste of your time to read this and a waste of my time to write it. It’s that simple.
In black and white, a book was written in the Italian language. by an Italian man with the name of Galileo Galilei and this book was published in the Italian language by a Dutch man with the name of Louis Elzevir. And a historical fact is that Louis Elzevir wrote a PREFACE to the potential readers of this book before a reader was to read that which Galileo had written. And it seems another historical fact is that for nearly two centuries before 1914; Galileo’s book, translated to the English language, had not been available to an English language reader. Hence, it seems, when Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio’s English translation of Galileo’s Italian was published, very few English readers actually read it.
I personally know that I, with a career of studying chemistry and physics and then teaching chemistry for 20, or so, years, had never read the 1914 English translation of Elzevir’s preface and Galileo’s book. The factual reason, in my case, being no professors of chemistry and physics had ever suggested I might read it and, of course, I never suggested to my students that they might read it.
Now, I will get to the point of my comment: Elzevir had written that a common saying of 1638 was: “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” “Intuitive”: “using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning.” (New Oxford American Dictionary)
Claes, you began: “Computational BlackBody Radiation offers a new proof of the Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann Law PSB.” Do you, a mathematician, know what the science definition of a LAW is? “Law: a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.” “Phenomenon: a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen” (New Oxford American Dictionary) Do you really believe an OBSERVED FACT needs to be PROVEN, or can be, by REASONING? If you answer this question, I will then explain how a scientific law can be disproven.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Claes
| #
Hi Jerry! Planck gave in 1900 a mathematical proof of a formula connecting radiative flux to temperature and frequency based on particle/quantum statistics later named Planck’s law, which can be viewed as a mathematical theorem. A proof of a theorem shows the meaning of the theorem and how to interprete it. Without a proof the premises for the theorem may be unclear, which opens to misunderstanding. This is what happened. I gave a new ”realist” proof based on determinitistic wave mechanics and finite precision computation which is less prone to misunderstanding because it does not use statistics but classical wave mechanics. Have you looked into Planck’s proof and mine? Which proof is best, in your view?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Claes.
I read that Planck assumed that radiation was quantized as photons and based upon this assumption reasoned a formula that predicted the quantitative radiative flux being emitted by a surface (solid or liquid) to the surface’s temperature. When many experimental quantitative results of the measurement of the flux and of the temperature “fit” the equation. the equation became a SCIENTIFIC LAW.
My question to you is does the measured flux and temperatures fit his equation within experimental error? If there are experimental results which do not fit the equation outside of experimental error, Planck’s equation (The Law) the law is wrong.
But I have yet to read you claiming that there is data which does fit the mathematical equation outside of experimental error. If there is no failure of the data to fit the equation, whatever you do better is not needed.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Claes
| #
If you read my proof, you will understand that the temperature of the surrounding of a body influences how much energy the body will radiate. For example, if the surrounding has the same temperature as the body, then no heat energy will be radiated to the surrounding from the body. The drawback of Planck’s proof (besides statistics) is that only the body temperature appears as if the surrounding has 0 Kelvin. If you then use Planck’s law in this form in a situation with surrounding temperature bigger than 0 K, then you a wrong result. This is what is done when claiming back radiation from cold atmosphere to warm Earth surface. Ok?
Reply