Does an object lose thermal energy due to gravity alone

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around whether an object loses thermal energy solely due to an increase in elevation, independent of other factors such as radiation and conduction. Participants explore the implications of raising an object and its potential effects on temperature, while also touching on the broader topic of personal theories in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if raising an object to a new height results in a loss of thermal energy, assuming all other heat losses are accounted for.
  • Another participant argues that there should be no thermal energy loss simply due to elevation change.
  • A different participant expresses a belief that there must be a way to prove thermal energy loss occurs when an object is raised, pending clarification of the initial question.
  • Concerns are raised about the testing of theories related to this topic, with a reference to conservation of energy principles.
  • Some participants discuss the challenges of allowing personal theories in the forum, citing past experiences with such discussions leading to confusion and misinformation.
  • One participant suggests that misunderstandings can be beneficial for educators, as they highlight areas where teaching can be improved.
  • A later reply introduces the idea that the method of raising the object (quasi-static vs. rapid) could influence the temperature outcome due to turbulence and air friction.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether raising an object affects its thermal energy. Some believe it does not, while others suggest there may be conditions under which it could. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the importance of understanding existing theories before proposing new ideas, highlighting the complexity of the topic and the potential for misunderstanding in discussions of personal theories.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring concepts of thermal energy, elevation effects in physics, and the dynamics of theoretical discussions within scientific communities.

curiouschris
Messages
147
Reaction score
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
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 

Similar threads

High School Cooling effect of evaporation occurs even if the surroundings are colder?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad How to measure average thermal conductivity of a metallic material?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School How do we measure the thermal energy of an object?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Temperature as a measure of thermal energy
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Modeling Thermal Equilibrium in Interacting Einstein Solids: A Python Approach
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Thought Experiment: Does Gravity's Compression Warm an Object?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Graduate Does steam rising in an insulated tube lose thermal energy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Extremely strange consequence of the speed of heat value
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
High School What happens to the temperature of an object in vacuum?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate Thermal Physics: Cooling by both Conduction & Convection
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K