Does an object lose thermal energy due to gravity alone

In summary, the conversation discusses the idea of whether an object loses thermal energy when it is raised to a higher elevation. The participants also touch on the topic of proposing new theories and the potential issues with allowing them in a forum setting. They also mention the importance of understanding and building upon existing theories rather than skipping over them.
  • #1
curiouschris
147
0
If I have an object say a 1kg lump of metal. it is at a temperature of say 20c. I then take that object and raise it and place it on a shelf, does it lose any thermal energy due to the new height, In other words does it cool down for no other reason than being raised to a different elevation?

lets assume you are able to measure exactly the heat lost via radiation and conduction!

Therefore when you measured the temperature of the object at the new vertical position, would it be cooler than than it should be if you just deducted the measured losses?


CC
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
No - why would it ?
 
  • #3
Has such a theory ever been tested?

I believe I can prove that it must. but I needed to clarify that question first before I propose a theory as to why it must.

CC
 
  • #4
curiouschris said:
Has such a theory ever been tested?
That's such a basic issue that it is constantly being tested. It is covered just fine by conservation of energy and the relationship between the different forms of energy.
I believe I can prove that it must. but I needed to clarify that question first before I propose a theory as to why it must.
Please reread our forum guidelines regarding personal theories - they aren't allowed here. However, if you pose a question instead of asserting a new theory, we can help you understand the issue.
 
  • #5
Thanks, I am aware of the no theories policy. It has always made me wonder. there are many brilliant people here that could easily shoot down some of the more silly theories that do arise.

I always thought a section dedicated to new theories would be appropriate. kept separate of course.

As far as I am aware we don't have a GUT yet, which means there must be a large number of theories to yet be devised and tested. So some of the silliest theories could have merit. I assume that proposing a theory does not require ones name be S Hawkins. Or is it out of bounds to mere mortals? Glad Einstein didn't think that. I mean who could believe that time was relative. Such a thing is preposterous, and from a mere clerk, what right has he got!

I was not intending to put forward a "theory of physics". I was going to phrase my "theory" in the form of a question. "if this happens then shouldn't this happen?", followed by the question "if not, why not?"

Still I am not ready to ask my question yet. I need to ponder it a lot more.
 
  • #6
curiouschris said:
I always thought a section dedicated to new theories would be appropriate. kept separate of course.
We had one once. It was a disaster: a cesspool.
 
  • #7
Yeah I thought a little more about it. I have seen some of the crazies out there, so I guess it would be hard to control and would bring the tone down somewhat.

Oh and I sincerely hope no one thought I was comparing myself or anyone else to Mr Einstein.

CC
 
  • #8
The problem isn't just about the "crazies" out there, but also about the absolutely massive amount of people who "think" they understand something and want to prove it. 99.99999+% of the time that someone comes to the forum with a "new theory", it is just plain wrong. What's the point of having a new theory forum when the entire thing is filled with incorrect information?
 
  • #9
Drakkith said:
The problem isn't just about the "crazies" out there, but also about the absolutely massive amount of people who "think" they understand something and want to prove it. 99.99999+% of the time that someone comes to the forum with a "new theory", it is just plain wrong. What's the point of having a new theory forum when the entire thing is filled with incorrect information?

1) Fun

2) New ways to misunderstand topics are helpful to educators as myself who try to improve the way that topics are taught
 
  • #10
curiouschris said:
If I have an object say a 1kg lump of metal. it is at a temperature of say 20c. I then take that object and raise it and place it on a shelf, does it lose any thermal energy due to the new height, In other words does it cool down for no other reason than being raised to a different elevation?

lets assume you are able to measure exactly the heat lost via radiation and conduction!

Therefore when you measured the temperature of the object at the new vertical position, would it be cooler than than it should be if you just deducted the measured losses?


CC

It depends. If you raise it following a quasi-static process the temperature will be the same. If you do in a nanosecond, the turbulence generated and air friction would heat the object, but after some time it would cool again up to thermal equilibrium with the rest of the room.
 
  • #11
juanrga said:
1) Fun

2) New ways to misunderstand topics are helpful to educators as myself who try to improve the way that topics are taught

Well, seeing as how every once in a while I've been known to google "Einstein wrong" just to see what bizarre misunderstandings show up this time, I can't really argue with #1... But it gets old pretty quickly.

As for #2... the problem is that people interpret permission to start "my new theory" discussions as permission to skip the necessary foundation work of understanding the mathematical basis, strengths, and weaknesses of the existing theories. Thus, the discussions end up shedding no light on the way that these topics are taught. However, a question of the form "I don't understand how current accepted theory explains... Help me here?" is acceptable under the guidelines, and the resulting discussion sometimes has great value for improving the quality of teaching.

Glad Einstein didn't think that. I mean who could believe that time was relative. Such a thing is preposterous, and from a mere clerk, what right has he got!
Actually, the Einstein example can be argued the other way. Relativity starts with a deep understanding of classical physics and an appreciation of one of the great challenges of the second half of the nineteenth century (reconciling E&M with classical kinematics) . Einstein was able to come up with relativity because he had that deep understanding and was able to build on it; and "mere clerk" never entered into the acceptance of his contributions.
 

1. How does gravity affect the thermal energy of an object?

Gravity does not directly affect the thermal energy of an object. Thermal energy is the internal energy of a system due to the movement of its particles, while gravity is a force that pulls objects towards each other. However, gravity can indirectly affect thermal energy by changing the temperature and pressure of a system, which can in turn affect the thermal energy.

2. Does an object lose thermal energy when it is in a gravitational field?

Yes, an object can lose thermal energy when it is in a gravitational field. When an object moves against the force of gravity, it does work and converts some of its thermal energy into kinetic energy. This results in a decrease in the object's thermal energy.

3. Can an object gain thermal energy due to gravity alone?

No, an object cannot gain thermal energy due to gravity alone. Thermal energy can only be gained or lost through heat transfer, and gravity does not directly transfer heat. However, as mentioned earlier, gravity can indirectly affect the temperature and pressure of a system, which can lead to a change in thermal energy.

4. How does the strength of gravity affect thermal energy?

The strength of gravity does not directly affect thermal energy. However, the strength of gravity can indirectly affect the temperature and pressure of a system, which can then affect the thermal energy. For example, in a stronger gravitational field, the weight of an object may compress the particles in a system, leading to an increase in temperature and thermal energy.

5. Is thermal energy affected by gravitational potential energy?

Yes, thermal energy can be affected by gravitational potential energy. As an object moves in a gravitational field, it gains or loses gravitational potential energy. This change in potential energy can then be converted into thermal energy through work done by the object, resulting in a change in the object's thermal energy.

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
12K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Thermodynamics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
468
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
122
Replies
1
Views
867
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
911
Back
Top