You can say that the additional low frequency energy increases
the velocity/momentum/kinetic energy of the molecules, or
increases the radius of the spatial distribution of the molecular
wave function. But I was trained in chemistry, and we used the
simplest available model to describe the properties of interest.
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 16:15:13 -0400, "Bill Todd"
<billtodd at foo.mv.com> wrote:
>I already expressed the opinion that propagation faster than c was unlikely.
>However, propagation at close to c seems more reasonable: my distinct
>impression is that thinking of molecules 'bouncing against' other molecules
>as opposed to interacting with them via their associated (EM, gravitic,
>etc.) fields may be naive - and while the fields interact more strongly as
>the molecules get closer together (causing their relative speed and
>separation to affect the *amount* of heat transferred), they *begin* to
>interact as soon as the molecules move at all (or, in the extreme, the
>farthest molecule *begins* to be affected - minutely, certainly
>indetectibly, but affected, at least via classical ED, though perhaps QED
>may cloud the issue - as soon as the first molecule starts to move, plus a
>c-imposed delay).
>>- bill
>>Brian Inglis <Brian.dot.Inglis at SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:5HASOHZAgVLBVaW0NUFxy4Jisy6L at 4ax.com...>> Think physics and reality. Temperature is just a measure of heat,
>> which is a result of molecular motion. Applying energy to some
>> substances causes the molecules to bounce around more: we
>> perceive this as heat and measure it as temperature.
>>>> Heat propagates as molecules transmit energy to other molecules
>> by bouncing against them, so heat conduction is limited by the
>> speed at which these molecules can bounce, and transmit energy to
>> adjacent molecules.
>>>> It's a lot slower and less efficient than shipping the energy
>> around as E-M radiation, to affect the target molecules directly.
>>>>>> Apply too much energy to any real substance and you don't get
>> heat transfer, you get a change in the substance: a chemical
>> reaction, an absorption of energy, not heat transfer.
>>>> Theoretically, you can calculate anything, but if you don't take
>> into account the limitations of some conductive substance, it
>> probably isn't heat transfer that you're calculating, just some
>> ideal mathematical construct unrelated to reality.
>>>> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:31:28 -0400, "Bill Todd"
>> <billtodd at foo.mv.com> wrote:
>>>> >I'm not sure that's relevant: the *degree* to which the top-side of the
>> >frying pan heats up is related to the heat capacity (if I recall the term
>> >correctly - or perhaps it's specific heat?) of the frying pan - i.e., the
>> >more heat it can absorb per unit volume for a given temperature rise, the
>> >slower the temperature of a portion far from the heat source will rise.
>But
>> >that doesn't prohibit instantaneous propagation (which would mean that
>the
>> >far portion's temperature rise would *begin* immediately, regardless of
>how
>> >slow it was).
>> >
>> >- bill
>> >
>> >Steven Vogel <spamvogel at iconn.net> wrote in message
>> >news:38112AAB.1E02 at iconn.net...>> >> Naturally, you're correct. As an experiment to prove your point, you
>> >> could turn the burner on your stove on high. After ten minutes, put a
>> >> cast iron pan on the burner and put your hand on the top of pan right
>> >> away for ten seconds. After ten minutes, have the poster that said
>that
>> >> heat travels faster than the speed of light put their hand on the top
>of
>> >> the pan for ten seconds.
>> >>
>> >> The person who doesn't scream has the better grasp of reality.
>> >>
>> >> Bill Todd wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > If heat in a substance does in fact propagate via the interaction of
>> >> > particles and EM fields, it's hard to see how it could do so at a
>speed
>> >> > faster than c.
>> >> >
>> >> > - bill
>> >> >
>> >> > Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:3810DBC3.3463B0BB at alcyone.com...>> >> > > Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Well actually I am, but the equation is faulty. It is only a good
>> >> > > > approximative model
>> >> > > > of the physic characteristics of heat, not an exact description
>of.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Well, no kidding.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Examine function describing heat distribution along the string.
>> >> > > > Examine value of this function at t=epsilon (epsilon approaching
>0)
>> >> > > > especially "interesting" are the values of this function
>infinitely
>> >> > > > far
>> >> > > > from
>> >> > > > point p. It is small but non-zero.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This is doing the equation, not doing the physics.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > Erik Max Francis | icq 16063900 | whois mf303 | email
>max at alcyone.com>> >> > > Alcyone Systems | irc maxxon (efnet) | web
>> >http://www.alcyone.com/max/>> >> > > San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
>> >> > > USA | Fri 1999 Oct 22 (43%/950) | &tSftDotIotE
>> >> > > __
>> >> > > / \ Do not seek death. Death will find you.
>> >> > > \__/ Dag Hammarskjold
>> >
>>>> Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>> --
>>Brian_Inglis at CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
>> use address above to reply
>
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
--
Brian_Inglis at CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
use address above to reply
