Object Gains Heat: What Does it Mean?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tam Le
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Heat
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of heat and its relationship to energy transfer, particularly in the context of thermodynamics. Participants explore the definitions and implications of saying an object "gains heat," examining whether heat can be considered a property of an object or merely a process of energy transfer.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that heat is not a substance but rather a process of energy transfer from a hotter object to a colder one.
  • Others argue that it is awkward to say an object gains or loses heat, as heat is a form of energy that is measured rather than possessed.
  • A participant questions the notion of heat as a form of energy, suggesting that an object can hold energy, which complicates the idea of heat being something that can be gained or lost.
  • Some participants clarify that while heat is associated with internal vibrations and kinetic energy, it is not correct to say an object "has heat" in the same way it has kinetic or potential energy.
  • One participant mentions that heat can be generated internally through spontaneous processes, such as radioactive decay or exothermic reactions, without external energy input.
  • There is a discussion about the terminology used to describe heat, with suggestions that terms like "internal kinetic energy" or "thermal energy" may be more appropriate.
  • Another participant notes that while raising an object gives it potential energy, it does not necessarily increase its temperature unless energy is converted to heat during a fall or impact.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether heat can be considered a property of an object or merely a transfer process. There is no consensus on the terminology or the implications of heat in relation to energy.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in the definitions and assumptions surrounding heat and energy, particularly regarding the distinction between energy transfer and energy possession. Some mathematical or conceptual steps remain unresolved.

Tam Le
Messages
23
Reaction score
1
What do we mean when we say an object gained heat?

According to my understanding, heat is not a "thing" that an object can have: It is internal energy that is transferred from a hotter object to a colder object. In other words, it is an energy transfer process.

So, if an object gained heat, it must have received internal energy from a hotter object, right?
 
Science news on Phys.org
In short, yes.
However, it's still a little awkward to say that an object gains or loses heat.
Heat is not a substance that is created or destroyed,
it is just a form of energy measured in part by thermometers, calorimeters, and the like.

With the laws of thermodynamics, we can show that heat flows from hot (high-temperature) to cold (low temperature)
So yes, if an object received heat through a spontaneous process, it must have received that internal energy from a hotter object.
However, if you put additional work into the system, you can drive heat flow in the opposite direction. This is principle underlying refrigerators, air conditioners, and other such things.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tam Le
Thank you jfizzix for replying.

However, if I understand correctly, you say that heat is a form of energy. But, can't an object possess/hold onto this "thing" called energy. Therefore, an object can possess/hold onto heat, which it should not be able to do.
 
Tam Le said:
Thank you jfizzix for replying.

However, if I understand correctly, you say that heat is a form of energy. But, can't an object possess/hold onto this "thing" called energy. Therefore, an object can possess/hold onto heat, which it should not be able to do.

What i said before could definitely stand to be made clearer:

An object has energy, which may take many forms, of either kinetic, or potential energy.

If you were to add up the kinetic energy of all the atoms making up an object, you would get a number much larger than \frac{1}{2}m v^{2}, where m is the total mass, and v is the speed of the center of mass.
The rest of that energy is tied up in the internal vibrations, and other jiggling. That bunch of kinetic energy can be considered heat (though there are other contributions to heat as well).

All things being equal, hotter objects have more internal kinetic energy per kilogram than colder objects. If a hot and cold object are brought together, energy can flow back and forth, as these internal vibrations can propagate from one material to another and back again. Over time, the distribution of internal energy is evenly balanced, and both objects have equal temperature. The reason that this happens is that it is by far the most likely random distribution of energy to occur. To have something different happen is about as likely as still air in a sealed room spontaneously becoming windy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DTM and Tam Le
jfizzix said:
So yes, if an object received heat through a spontaneous process, it must have received that internal energy from a hotter object.

Heat can also be generated spontaneously internally without input from an outside source --- consider radioactive decay :smile:

Dave
 
Essentially, heat is a form of energy associated with an object's "internal vibrations, and other jiggling."

Now, if an object moves from point A to point B, it has translational kinetic energy. If an object were lifted up high relative to the earth, it has gravitational potential energy.
Yet, if I said that an object has heat, it is incorrect? Would saying "an object has heat energy" be the correct way?
 
Tam Le said:
Essentially, heat is a form of energy associated with an object's "internal vibrations, and other jiggling."

Now, if an object moves from point A to point B, it has translational kinetic energy. If an object were lifted up high relative to the earth, it has gravitational potential energy.
Yet, if I said that an object has heat, it is incorrect? Would saying "an object has heat energy" be the correct way?

I would say that the object has internal kinetic energy, or thermal energy, but I'm no authority on proper scientific terminology. That's just what I've heard/seen.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tam Le
davenn said:
Heat can also be generated spontaneously internally without input from an outside source --- consider radioactive decay :smile:

Dave
Radioactive decay is indeed a spontaneous process that releases heat.
Instead of energy being transferred from another object, it is energy transferred from different degrees of freedom within the same object.
Another example of a spontaneous process that creates heat would be an exothermic chemical process, like combustion/fire
 
Tam Le said:
Essentially, heat is a form of energy associated with an object's "internal vibrations, and other jiggling."

Now, if an object moves from point A to point B, it has translational kinetic energy. If an object were lifted up high relative to the earth, it has gravitational potential energy.
Yet, if I said that an object has heat, it is incorrect? Would saying "an object has heat energy" be the correct way?
Raising the object higher relative to the Earth gives it greater potential energy,it won't get hotter.
If the object falls back to Earth and impacts that potential energy will be released as heat.
(If it burns up in the atmosphere it amounts to much the same thing)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
12K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K