Radiation heat transfer

[Roshi]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en ... t-transfer

Unlike conduction and convection, heat transfer by thermal radiation does not necessarily need a material medium for the energy transfer. In the case of thermal radiation from a solid surface, the medium through which the radiation passes could be vacuum, gas, or liquid. Molecules and atoms of the medium can absorb, reflect, or transmit the radiation energy. If the medium is a vacuum, since there are no molecules or atoms, the radiation energy is not attenuated and, therefore, fully transmitted. Therefore, radiation heat transfer is more efficient in a vacuum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. Particle motion results in charge-acceleration or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

Classically, electromagnetic radiation consists of electromagnetic waves, which are synchronized oscillations of electric and magnetic fields.

So - particles of matter move (when that matter is hot), then - what do they mean by "it does not need a medium to propagate"? To what do those particles transmit their movement?

And how come heat can travel in space, but electricity can't?

[crawler]

So - particles of matter move (when that matter is hot), then - what do they mean by "it does not need a medium to propagate"? To what do those particles transmit their movement?
And how come heat can travel in space, but electricity can't?

I aint a scientist but here iz what i am thinking. They sayd a material medium, ie matter (ok). But there are some shortcomings.

There are three kinds of radiation, & all are a heat radiation.
em radiation is due to photaenos, not photons. And photaenos hav energy mass & momentum & inertia etc.
Photaenos are emitted by all matter all of the time, even at zero K. This means that zero K aint what they think.
However not all photaenos affect temp. Temp aint affected by magnetism or charge etc, temp is affected by nett magnetism & nett charge. Or putting it another way what we call magnetism is the nett result of a photaeno war, with some photaenos negating others (charge wize)(& magnetizm wize), the negated photaenos being in effect invizible to matter (& thusly having no effect on temp).

Photons too hav energy mass momentum inertia. Photons are emitted if the temp iz over zero K.

The third radiation iz gravity. This iz emitted by all matter all the time (& by photaenos & photons), at all temps (ie even at zero K). Gravity affects velocity (or trys to). And velocity can manifest as temp.

Electricity travelling in space is a tough question. Charged particles travelling in space are one kind of electricity (or 3 kinds)(praps more). But Heaviside & Catt & Bishop sayd that an electric current is aktually an energy current, consisting of an E by H slab. They reckon that E by H slabs are em slabs, made of photons. But i know that em slabs consist of photaenos (small scale aetheric excitations which emanate from all photons)(photons too being aetheric excitations of a different kind)(gravity being due to a bulk acceleration of aether rather than an excitation).

Slabs of course consist of individual photaenos, each photaeno being a kind of mini slab if u like. Once again we hav a photaeno war, & the slab is aktually the nett slab, the negating mini slabs being in effekt invizible to matter (ie giving zero nett current).

So, what iz electricity? I reckon that we hav a number of kinds of electricity consisting of the moovment of particles (eg electrons protons ions etc), particles can of course travel in empty space. And we hav one kind of electricity consisting of a nett E by H slab of photaenos, that can travel in empty space (& can travel in matter)(or at least can travel in the empty space in atoms & tween atoms etc).

I dont think that photons can be called electricity. They hav no nett charge etc. But in some instances photons are as good as electricity.

[Electrodynamic]

Roshi

So - particles of matter move (when that matter is hot), then - what do they mean by "it does not need a medium to propagate"? To what do those particles transmit their movement? And how come heat can travel in space, but electricity can't?

I understand your confusion and wikipedia etc... are not good places to learn science and physics.

First, heat is not "something" in itself it is a measure of molecular motion which is perpetually jiggling and moving about. Heat is not a substance it is a measure of the amount motion of the particles within material things.

Second, matter is like a cloud of particles which is immersed in a universe filled with Electro-Magnetic fields. So when the particles in matter start jiggling faster they disturb the EM fields they are immersed in and the "heat/jiggling" energy radiates outward as Electro-Magnetic wave energy.

If you throw a rock in a pond the initial disturbance on the surface is like a hot object with it's particles jiggling very fast and the waves of water radiating outward are like the EM waves radiating from matter through space.

So when you ask...

So - particles of matter move (when that matter is hot), then - what do they mean by "it does not need a medium to propagate"?

Heat does not need a medium to propagate because Heat is a measure of the internal motion in matter. Heat cannot move unless the motion of the jiggling particles physically propagates OR when the motional energy of the particles produces EM waves which can move through a space without a medium such as in a vacuum. They don't mean the "heat" moves because heat is a measure of internal motion, can a measure like inches or pounds move?.

To what do those particles transmit their movement?

The particles are immersed in EM fields which when disturbed or excited force energy to radiate as more energetic EM waves.

And how come heat can travel in space, but electricity can't?

Heat cannot travel in space because heat is just a measurement of internal motion. However the motion of the particles can excite the EM fields they are immersed in producing EM waves which radiate out into space. Particle motion>>>>EM excitation motion>>>>motion of EM waves from the source out into space.

On an interesting note, EM fields and waves are like electricity which fills the whole electric universe. Think of it this way... the universe is like an ocean and the EM fields/waves in it are like water. So when a piece of matter becomes hotter/excited and jiggles it radiates EM waves just like a jiggling bobber radiates waves in water... same concept.

Conceptually all motion on any scale is energy, energy is a measure of motion and the translation of motion. Thus energy as motion can change form from Heat/jiggling particles to excited EM waves travelling through space without an apparent medium and the energy is conserved because the motion is conserved.

I would suggest discarding all of the ambiguous language and terminology and complex explanations and concentrate on the concept of "Energy is motion".

[Roshi]

So - material particles jiggle - then they produce EM waves, these travel (through nothing?) and make other material particles jiggle when they arrive.

But to call EM waves "waves" with no medium that contains them, makes no sense. How can we have waves on the sea with no sea? Because scientists can only detect the waves and not the sea, they say there is no sea, that's how I see it.

This "EM field" where waves appear when heat is transferred, is the "aether", or the "medium".
And we do not know if this "medium" is fixed (in relation to what?) or moves with the Earth, or with the Sun, or each celestial body has it's own "sea" that interacts with other "seas", or whatever. I do not trust the negative result of Michelson Morley.

Perhaps this medium, at the scale at which it exists - cannot be said to be "moving" or "not moving" in relation to big objects.

[Sci-Phy]

Conceptually all motion on any scale is energy, energy is a measure of motion and the translation of motion. Thus energy as motion can change form from Heat/jiggling particles to excited EM waves travelling through space without an apparent medium and the energy is conserved because the motion is conserved.

Imagine empty space and EM wave which is sine wave.
In some particular point of space the amplitude is growing, growing..
Why it change direction and start getting smaller?
Field does not affect field and there are nothing more, just empty space.
Where is some kind of returning force?

Regards.

[crawler]

So - material particles jiggle - then they produce EM waves, these travel (through nothing?) and make other material particles jiggle when they arrive.

But to call EM waves "waves" with no medium that contains them, makes no sense. How can we have waves on the sea with no sea? Because scientists can only detect the waves and not the sea, they say there is no sea, that's how I see it.

This "EM field" where waves appear when heat is transferred, is the "aether", or the "medium".
And we do not know if this "medium" is fixed (in relation to what?) or moves with the Earth, or with the Sun, or each celestial body has it's own "sea" that interacts with other "seas", or whatever. I do not trust the negative result of Michelson Morley.

Perhaps this medium, at the scale at which it exists - cannot be said to be "moving" or "not moving" in relation to big objects.

The fundamental essence is Praether, excitation of praether makes aether. Yes, Michelson Morley & every other proper MMX dedected the aetherwind, however the calibration of MMX's was in error untill Demjanov in 1968, & in the west untill Cahill in 2003. The SagnacX detected the aether (but not the wind). And the MGX detected the aetherwind.

The aether certainly moovs, aether flows into all matter-mass, giving us aetherwind.

We might talk of em waves, but i think that Heaviside & later Catt tell us that there is no such thing as a rolling em wave, it iz an E by H slab. And later still i told everyone that the slab is due to photaenos which are an excitation of aether (but i wouldnt rule out the possibility of being an excitation of praether).

[Electrodynamic]

Roshi

So - material particles jiggle - then they produce EM waves, these travel (through nothing?) and make other material particles jiggle when they arrive.

If the universe is full of Energy and energy is conserved then there can be no "nothing" anywhere only something.

But to call EM waves "waves" with no medium that contains them, makes no sense. How can we have waves on the sea with no sea? Because scientists can only detect the waves and not the sea, they say there is no sea, that's how I see it.

You and the scientists have already seen and proven the medium exists for yourself. Do you see stars in the night sky?, well some are over 16,000 light years away and if you were near that distant star you could see other stars just as far away. This is irrefutable proof that there is no place in the universe we know of that does not contain EM waves as light and other forms of EM radiation.

Follow the logic, all stars radiate EM energy, energy is conserved and cannot be created or destroyed therefore all EM energy from every star must be in motion in between every star filling every space in the known universe. To say this is not true is to say energy has been destroyed and the conservation of energy is false... which is simply not true.

As such any person who claims the universe or any space contains nothing must also claim they do not believe in the conservation of Energy and Mass. This is true because to say any space contains nothing is to say the conservation of Energy and Mass is false and cannot apply. Do you believe in the conservation of Energy and Mass?, if so then you must also believe the universe is a sea of EM energy otherwise you will have contradicted yourself.

Perhaps this medium, at the scale at which it exists - cannot be said to be "moving" or "not moving" in relation to big objects.

The problem relates to our superficial sense of perception in my opinion. If the conservation of Energy and Mass is true then the universe must be full of Energy because it cannot be created or destroyed only transform and translate. It begs the question, why do people claim to believe in the conservation of Energy and Mass then give examples and hold beliefs which directly contradict it?.

[paladin17]

According to quantum field theory it looks roughly like this: moving particles excite the electromagnetic field (i.e. they transfer their energy to the field), which then transmits the energy (in the form of its own excitations - photons).

[hlg]

nice discussion.

some thoughts:

em-energy means what? must be electric and magnetic field changing. but changing must have moving something to give the effect of change...

so energy needs real world interaction possibility at least, or else it may stay undetected forever...

i am thinking of aether in a way, that it makes up matter in form of stable whirls, always flowing through the swirls, never the same aetherparticles in the same place...

very much like hurricanes are made out of air particles mainly...

heat may cause sort of whirls in that aether, that we call photons...

[Sci-Phy]

EM field is like the sand for the ostrich.
Electric and magnetic components of the EM wave are perpendicular to each other, but the most interesting - they are in phase (even Wikipedia admit that). Where the energy goes when both components of the wave equal to zero?

Very interesting thing is also electric attraction by the exchanging of photons as a carrier of electric force. Can you imagine that photon hits some atom with momentum pointing to the right and this atom start moving left? Easy! Just the momentum of the photon is negative! (Quantum effect).

Cheers.