Changing the Subject

I’m not sure how to reply to PSI.  They’ve written a post which I don’t seem to be allowed to comment on or there is some technical problem.  Read at your own risk, if you find yourself agreeing with it, I recommend you wash your mind with some kind of acidic cleaner to get the nonsense out but people vote oddly so I don’t have any illusion that some won’t fall for it.  The post claims they have somehow been wronged by my argument, as I brought up the quantum nature of thermodynamics during a ridiculous discussion from literally 4 years ago!!   The discussion in question absolutely required quantum thermodynamics, but PSI is not a group widely cited for their knowledge of thermodynamics.  I will again, yes again, explain below.

They present an equation for radiative transfer of energy between two bodies:

Q ~ σ(Th4 – Tc4)

Us engineers have seen it. Radiative heat = “constant” times the fourth power of the temperature difference between two bodies – hot and cold.  Materials emit radiation at the fourth power of their temperature.  While the PSI group can sound reasonable to an untrained person, this equation tells the story of their own failure of understanding.

Most any high-school student can tell you that heat flows from hot to cold.  In large groups of atoms, such as a microscopic organism or larger pieces of flea dander, Thermodynamics becomes a bulk property science which represents billions of atoms interacting.   Good students can figure out that the heat flow between larger globs of atoms, is two directional between hot and cold, (it goes both ways Cali style) but the flow nets toward the cold in the exact amount predicted by the basic thermodynamic equations as shown in the radiative transfer equation above.  See each atom in the glob has its own unique energy state and physically can exist at a different energy level than its neighbor.  PSI members can’t figure that easy bit out, their members repeatedly claim that somehow energy emitted from a cooler body detects the “net” state of the warmer rather than the local state of the atom actually being affected, and somehow is prevented from transfer.  Completely non-physical nonsense.

Conduction or radiation, the effect is the same.  In any body there are atoms at different vibrational energy levels.  Vibration=heat.

Below is an example of heat movement in the wrong direction:

Imagine a tiny sphere of a billion atoms of pure solid hydrogen at absolute zero temperature, born in a universe where no other radiation was impinging upon it.  No vibration in the atoms whatsoever.   One photon of the correct wavelength strikes the sphere and is absorbed!  Does one photon absorbed into a hydrogen sphere cause all atoms in that sphere to rise in temperature, or just one atom?  The answer quantum mechanics gives is one atom.  That energy will then be transmitted in quantum nature to its neighbors dropping the original atom back to absolute zero and heating its neighbor to 1 arbitrary temp unit.  If the sphere of a billion atoms, and the energy didn’t radiate out to the surrounding universe, that same unit of energy would transfer from atom to atom, all around the sphere, with each different hydrogen atom rising in temperature and falling back to zero as it transfers the energy to the next absolute zero temperature neighbor.   Other unaffected atoms wouldn’t recognize any difference in their own temperatures as they are still at absolute zero energy state.

Now imagine having two of those one billion atom spheres, each one having absorbed two photons.  Two hot atoms inside of two billion atom spheres.  When measured with a properly sensitive instrument, both would have a non-zero temperature because the hot atoms would occasionally affect the amazingly good temperature sensor.  Assume sphere 1 emits a single photon by radiation and it impinges on sphere 2.   Now since these are billion atom spheres and only two of the atoms are energized, I’m going to assume that 999,999,998 in a billion which is really close to 1/1, chance of striking a zero temperature atom on sphere 2 came true, and that the photon struck an absolute zero temp atom on sphere 2 and was therefore absorbed into sphere 2.

Now here is the trick…

Before the photon left sphere 1, the equivalent spheres had 2 photonic units of energy and were equal temperature. The instant the photon left sphere 1, sphere 1 only had a single photon of heat instead of two which sphere two has.  It traveled across the between these spheres at that point going from a colder body to a hotter one, struck the hotter one and was absorbed by an atom at absolute zero temperature.  Heat energy moved from hot to cold.   If you say NO Jeff, it went from equal to equal, that’s fine too because the ENERGY moved from sphere 1 to sphere 2 and created heat.

The story gets worse!!!

Although sphere 1 only has a single photon left, and despite the 3:1 odds, not so amazing if you’ve ever rolled dice, it emits its last photon of heat before sphere two does!!!  Evil thing.

Anyway, that photon travels the short distance between the two spheres and also strikes the surface of sphere 2 which holds the quantum heat of 3 of these same photonic interactions.  3/1,000,000,000 atoms are energized, so again using basic probability, there is basically a 1/1 chance that the photon will strike an absolute zero atom.  In this example, the photon did not win the super-lotto with powerball and did in fact hit the surface of an unenergized atom and was absorbed.  4 to nuthin!! [edited for clarity]

Energy has again transferred from cold to hot [edited].  Jeff Id, god of basic high-school thermodynamics, has done the impossible!!  Who let the cats out!

PSI cannot accept this ridiculously basic thermodynamics, although every member I’ve run across has their own morphed version of thermo, so I won’t be surprised when one of the folk agrees with this and comes up with a different and equally mental argument.

How is a single photon relevant?  PSI can account for all of the photons from the cold source by using traditional physics, and the equations show that the cold source does not heat up a hotter source.

My bold.  My example follows the equation above but contradicts the bold of their own post0.  My example is also standard thermodynamics.  My example is accurate, standard, simple, explains how quantum physics is relevant and completely destroys most of the PSI member arguments, leaving room only for those who are more mentally muddled than others.   But I’m not done yet!

So PSI members of different ilk may be the problem.  We have had more than one of them even claim that somehow the photon knows it came from a colder body and will automatically reflect without absorption from the warmer body.  Truly silly stuff but it’s right there in the equation.

Q = σ(Th4)     — hot body “emission”

Q = σ(Tc4)     — cold body “emission”

Both are emitting photons!!!

Both emitting energy outward..

both receiving energy inward from both hot and cold bodies per the example above.

the difference in emission (assuming all energy strikes the other body) is the amount of heat energy transferred:

Q ~ σ(Th4) – σ(Tc4)

Q ~ σ(Th4 – Tc4)

And the probability lesson shown in the extreme above, is why photons which ARE emitted from cold objects, don’t “bounce off” of hot ones. At Earth temperatures (meaning not plasma hot) nearly 100% of the energy states potentially available for absorption of a photon are actually available at any one time.  Near 100%.  What that means is that cold body emissions, conductions etc… are absorbed into hotter bodies, making them warmer than they otherwise would be.  Cold to hot…

This is not a violation of thermodynamics.

The reality is though that despite nearly 100% of the absorptive sites being available, any non zero percentage of un-energized states in the atoms would allow for absorption from cold to hot bodies, and since the equation above is based on de-energization of an available site, they prove my case for me.

Energy can move from cold to hot!  Just don’t try to do any work with it — that is a different story and rather cute imho.

So in global warming science, the government claims consensus on global warming danger, but the government is lying by omission.  There is no significant controversy on the absorption wavelengths or emission wavelengths of different materials at different temperatures, so there is no real argument in science about the basic CO2 warming effect.   However, there is no consensus (good name for a blog) on dangerous warming, and most “scientific” people believe CO2 warming is NOT imminently dangerous.  Therefore there is absolute consensus with respect to the warming effect of CO2, it is basic optics/thermodynamics –  outside of the flat earth PSI types.

In the real world, there is no consensus that the effect is an actual problem and significant evidence that it is absolutely NOT a problem.