What is the role of vibrational energy in heat conduction in solids?

AI Thread Summary
Heat conduction in solids differs from gases due to the fixed positions of atoms in a lattice, where energy transfer occurs through interatomic forces rather than direct collisions. The discussion highlights that while gas conduction involves kinetic energy transfer through particle collisions, solid conduction relies on vibrational energy and the strong bonds holding atoms together. Metals are particularly good conductors because their crystalline structure allows for efficient vibrational energy transfer and mobile conduction electrons. Understanding these concepts requires a solid background in physics, particularly solid-state physics, which emphasizes the role of vibrational energy in thermal properties. Overall, the conversation underscores the complexity of heat conduction mechanisms in different states of matter.
avicenna
Messages
96
Reaction score
8
It is easy to understand heat conduction in a gas as the nucleus of atoms may collide with transfer of kinetic energy. But the space within a solid is vastly empty space and the nucleus of the atoms cannot collide. So if the surface of a solid is in contact with a hot gas, how is kinetic energy transferred across the solid body.
 
Science news on Phys.org
Imagine the atoms as fixed in position by springs: bump one and others move too.

[edit] re
avicenna said:
easy to understand heat conduction in a gas as the nucleus of atoms may collide with transfer of kinetic energy
atomic collisions are not nuclear collisions: there is a negatively charged shroud of electrons around an atom nucleus; the shroud is huge in size compared to the nucleus
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur and davenn
avicenna said:
It is easy to understand heat conduction in a gas as the nucleus of atoms may collide with transfer of kinetic energy.
Clearly it's not that easy. Over simplified models can give one a feeling of familiarity with Science but can that be called 'understanding'?
 
avicenna said:
It is easy to understand heat conduction in a gas as the nucleus of atoms may collide ...
That would be more like a nuclear reaction, rather than heat conduction.
 
BvU said:
Imagine the atoms as fixed in position by springs: bump one and others move too.

[edit] re atomic collisions are not nuclear collisions: there is a negatively charged shroud of electrons around an atom nucleus; the shroud is huge in size compared to the nucleus
We don't always go into fine details here; after all we don't have any absolute physics theory. Collision of gas particle are like between billiard balls; in gas, the +ve nucleus would "collide".

I do suspect there are forces holding atoms in the lattice of solids - your spring model. Accepted. So is there a name for the forces holding the atoms of solids together? Van der Wall forces?

We know such transfer of heat - kinetic energy - is through "collisions" in gases. In solid, it would the transfer of kinetic energy through the forces holding the lattice structure. A simple classical model too is helpful; if quantum treatment is better, then we use it.
 
avicenna said:
I do suspect there are forces holding atoms in the lattice of solids - your spring model. Accepted. So is there a name for the forces holding the atoms of solids together? Van der Wall forces?
Chemical bonds.

avicenna said:
We know such transfer of heat - kinetic energy - is through "collisions" in gases. In solid, it would the transfer of kinetic energy through the forces holding the lattice structure. A simple classical model too is helpful; if quantum treatment is better, then we use it.
Given that you have an interatomic potential, why would it matter if the atoms are freely moving (as in a gas) or moving about an equilibrium position in a crystal lattice?

Note that in metals, the conduction electrons form a Fermi gas which is a very important contributor to heat conduction and the reason why metals are so good at conducting heat.
 
avicenna said:
in gas, the +ve nucleus would "collide"
No.
 
BvU said:
No.
In a sense, it is correct. The majority contribution to the repulsive part of the interatomic potential is nuclear/nuclear interaction.
 
  • Like
Likes BvU
BvU said:
No.
BvU said:
No.
Geiger–Marsden experiments where alpha particles are reflected directly by thin gold foil. It is "electrical collision" of +ve nucleus and +ve charged ions.
 
  • #10
avicenna said:
Geiger–Marsden experiments where alpha particles are reflected directly by thin gold foil. It is "electrical collision" of +ve nucleus and +ve charged ions.
There is a difference between ions colliding with atoms and neutral atoms colliding.
 
  • Like
Likes BvU
  • #11
The nuclei don't come anywhere near another in atomic collisions. The perception of billiard balls in this context is absurd and misleading.
 
  • #12
BvU said:
The nuclei don't come anywhere near another in atomic collisions. The perception of billiard balls in this context is absurd and misleading.
When an object rests on a table, there is reaction that prevents "merging" of the object to the matter of the table. I only vaguely know it is the electrical force that prevents the the object and the table to merge.
 
  • #13
avicenna said:
When an object rests on a table, there is reaction that prevents "merging" of the object to the matter of the table. I only vaguely know it is the electrical force that prevents the the object and the table to merge.
This is getting off topic.

Do you an answer to
DrClaude said:
Given that you have an interatomic potential, why would it matter if the atoms are freely moving (as in a gas) or moving about an equilibrium position in a crystal lattice?
or do you get why solid can conduct heat?
 
  • #14
DrClaude said:
This is getting off topic.

Do you an answer to

or do you get why solid can conduct heat?
My physics background is not yet at a level where I can say I fully understand; one cannot fully understand without a proper background of the physics involved - say interatomic potentials. But I vaguely remember the rudimentary explanations of the kinetic theory of gas where the gas particles collide with the vessel wall. I can't see why this is not somehow related to collision of billiard balls and the electrical forces that separates solid bodies and cause the balls to bounce off each other.
 
  • #15
avicenna said:
My physics background is not yet at a level where I can say I fully understand; one cannot fully understand without a proper background of the physics involved - say interatomic potentials. But I vaguely remember the rudimentary explanations of the kinetic theory of gas where the gas particles collide with the vessel wall. I can't see why this is not somehow related to collision of billiard balls and the electrical forces that separates solid bodies and cause the balls to bounce off each other.

This is why the field of solid state physics is different than the field of atomic physics. As Phil Anderson has said "More Is Different"!

The fact that it is a solid means that there are strong bonds that hold the atoms and molecules in place. So there is already strong coupling between the atoms that make up the solid. It means that when one part of the solid is agitated (as in the supply of heat), then it is possible (but not always) that this agitation can be transferred.

Metals are good conductors of heat due to two reasons (naive picture): (i) they are usually crystalline solids, so the transfer of the vibrational energy is not "haphazard", unlike amorphous or polycrystaline solids; (ii) the conduction electrons are not only very mobile, and thus, can transfer the heat energy easily, but they also have a rather low specific heat capacity, meaning that they heat up very quickly and easily, and give up heat the same way when they reach cooler regions of the metal.

In solids, vibrational energy (something that is not available in isolated atoms) plays a huge role in their properties. This is what you are missing in your scenario, because you are focusing on free particles that can only transfer energy via collision.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes BvU and Lord Jestocost
  • #16
ZapperZ said:
This is why the field of solid state physics is different than the field of atomic physics. As Phil Anderson has said "More Is Different"!

The fact that it is a solid means that there are strong bonds that hold the atoms and molecules in place. So there is already strong coupling between the atoms that make up the solid. It means that when one part of the solid is agitated (as in the supply of heat), then it is possible (but not always) that this agitation can be transferred.

Metals are good conductors of heat due to two reasons (naive picture): (i) they are usually crystalline solids, so the transfer of the vibrational energy is not "haphazard", unlike amorphous or polycrystaline solids; (ii) the conduction electrons are not only very mobile, and thus, can transfer the heat energy easily, but they also have a rather low specific heat capacity, meaning that they heat up very quickly and easily, and give up heat the same way when they reach cooler regions of the metal.

In solids, vibrational energy (something that is not available in isolated atoms) plays a huge role in their properties. This is what you are missing in your scenario, because you are focusing on free particles that can only transfer energy via collision.

Zz.
I think this is what I am missing. The answers are in reading more physics as you say - solid state physics,etc.

Thanks to all. I have some things clarified.
 
Back
Top