Could electron movement influence the vibrational energies that define heat?

[aims_]

Is it possible that the the small vibrational energies that make up "heat", are caused by the pull of electrons circling their nucleus, the farther out they get the more extreme the movement is. In turn making the mass vibrate?

Sorry if its a stupid question, I view physics as an art form more than a raw mechanical entity. Most of my predictions have been correct however.

 

[Shooting Star]

(I would simply love to hear about some of the predictions.)

The "heat" in solids is mainly due to the vibrational energies of the atoms. The mass of the electron is too small to make the atoms vibrate significantly by "pulling", and anyway, things don't happen that way. The further they get from an atom, the less the two interact. The thermal energy of the free electrons is very less compared to that of the atoms. But the free electrons in metals do contribute hugely to conduction of heat.

 

[cristo]

Sorry if its a stupid question, I view physics as an art form more than a raw mechanical entity.

But physics is a science, regardless of how you view it. There are no "artistic freedoms" in physics.

Most of my predictions have been correct however.

Just as a preemptive measure I feel I should warn you that overly speculative posts, or personal theories are not allowed on the forums; see the forum rules by clicking the "rules" button on the top toolbar.

 

[Shooting Star]

Oh cristo, please don't spoil it. aims_ won't speculate, only tell us of the predictions, which, according to Bohr, is incredibly difficult.

 

[stewartcs]

Just as a preemptive measure I feel I should warn you that overly speculative posts, or personal theories are not allowed on the forums; see the forum rules by clicking the "rules" button on the top toolbar.

Unless you post them in the "Scepticism and debunking" subforum...

https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5

 

[aims_]

I am very sorry If this should be in another forum sub-section. My predictions have been things like darkmatter existing before I ever knew what it was, even though now I think its improbable, there are more but I can't think of them now.

My theory makes much more sense than just saying vibrational energy, vibrational energy doesn't make sense, that's like saying someone has seizures just because they can. "Vibrational energy" makes me think that, the energy the mass has is forcing it to wobble in place because of constraints made of some form of magnetic/gravitational energy such as strong/weak nuclear force. your probably going to have to explain yoursel... I mean someone elses theory now

I dislike it when people are rude, as much as anyone other would, however I supose that's unavoidable seeing in how the world and the internet is run by rude sarcastic people.

I don't know why I am even here, you people are like broken records repeating what others have said. You don't know anything if you think the world is not artistic, it is in every way, shape, and form. I have many other questions, but since I am not talking to aspiring physicists who are open minded, I am just not going to bother.

Sorry if I am to harsh.

 

[stewartcs]

I am very sorry If this should be in another forum sub-section. My predictions have been things like darkmatter existing before I ever knew what it was, even though now I think its improbable, there are more but I can't think of them now.

My theory makes much more sense than just saying vibrational energy, vibrational energy doesn't make sense, that's like saying someone has seizures just because they can. "Vibrational energy" makes me think that, the energy the mass has is forcing it to wobble in place because of constraints made of some form of magnetic/gravitational energy such as strong/weak nuclear force. your probably going to have to explain yoursel... I mean someone elses theory now

I dislike it when people are rude, as much as anyone other would, however I supose that's unavoidable seeing in how the world and the internet is run by rude sarcastic people.

I don't know why I am even here, you people are like broken records repeating what others have said. You don't know anything if you think the world is not artistic, it is in every way, shape, and form. I have many other questions, but since I am not talking to aspiring physicists who are open minded, I am just not going to bother.

Sorry if I am to harsh.

I don't think anyone was trying to be rude to you, but rather simply let you know that if you want to use this forum, you most follow the rules. Just like in civilized society, we all agree to follow them.

You're comments and questions are welcome, but just in the proper place. That's all that is being said here.

 

[Shooting Star]

I am very sorry If this should be in another forum sub-section. My predictions have been things like darkmatter existing before I ever knew what it was, even though now I think its improbable, there are more but I can't think of them now.

My theory makes much more sense than just saying vibrational energy, vibrational energy doesn't make sense, that's like saying someone has seizures just because they can. "Vibrational energy" makes me think that, the energy the mass has is forcing it to wobble in place because of constraints made of some form of magnetic/gravitational energy such as strong/weak nuclear force. your probably going to have to explain yoursel... I mean someone elses theory now
...

I don't know why I am even here, you people are like broken records repeating what others have said. You don't know anything if you think the world is not artistic, it is in every way, shape, and form. I have many other questions, but since I am not talking to aspiring physicists who are open minded, I am just not going to bother.

Positive points first – we are still in the same forum.

To be perfectly honest with you, I've never seen atoms, much less see them vibrate. Also, I have no intention of explaining myself through others’ theories using magnetic/gravitational energy and the strong/weak force for the vibrations of the atoms, which, I repeat, I’ve never seen. I dislike being compared to a broken record. I don’t know about the other forum members. I prefer to think of myself as an mp3 file, if I’m absolutely compelled to compare myself to audio formats.

But I would have loved to hear about the other predictions, now that dark matter has fallen out of grace. And could you also add a bit more of elucidation on this electron pulling theory of yours? But I, let me repeat, have not seen electrons, much less seen them pulling at the atoms. Would it be a problem if I repeat your theory, like a corrupt mp3 file?

I, too, tried to handle Physics as an artform once, and drew pictures of electrons as brown dots, but the result was frowned upon by my teacher, mostly because the diagram was very bad.

> I have many other questions, but since I am not talking to aspiring physicists who are open minded, I am just not going to bother.

I thought you would want to talk to open minded people…

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Heat (or rather, temperature; there is a subtle difference) is due to three things:

1. The motion of atoms (that is, not vibrations, but actual velocities).

2. The rotation of molecules (you need at least two atoms for the rotation to be meaningful).

3. The vibration of molecules (again, you need at least two atoms in the molecule).

For 2 and 3, consider a simple model of a diatomic molecule: two tennis balls connected by a stiff spring. You can rotate them around each other, so that takes care of 2. Also, you can make the two balls oscillate back and forth with respect to the center of mass; this is the vibration in 3.

Altogether, 1, 2, and 3 are different forms of kinetic energy; i.e., the energy an object has by virtue of its motion.