Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Simple quest leads to deep problem

  1. Jan 9, 2004 #1
    Quest: to understand proportional control of space heating in structures in general and a quite well-controlled and perfectly successful radiant heating experiment of mine in particular.

    Deep problem: I arrived at the conclusion that the only way to explain the movement of the smallest possible unit of infrared energy (infrared photon, energy bundle, or whatever you want to call it) is that part of it is already contained in its' destination before it arrives. Then I start seeing a rational basis for spirits, déjà vu and dare I say, God.

    I'm seeing this imaginary construction where matter/energy has no choice but to be in two places at the exact same time.

    I'm seeing this instant where the energy of "one" ceases to have meaning because all distance is "zero" whereby all distance becomes "one" and all energy "zero".
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 10, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    How did you arrive there???
  4. Jan 11, 2004 #3
    This will be long on words and imagination but short on numbers. Math is not one of my gifts but I can slog through it if necessary.

    I'm writing a book on hydronic heating--mainly geared to contractors--and was trying to come up with a simple (but fictitious) way to understand the "two-way" nature of heat transfer via radiation. Such wound up that if you just imagine that "The sun wants to change this rock into its own image but at the same time the sun doesn't want to have to change to accomplish this. The rock is doing the same with the sun. With the sun shining on the rock, part of the the sun is 'in' the rock, and part of the rock is 'in' the sun. But because the rock is so much cooler than the sun, more of the sun is in the rock than the rock in the sun and the rock heats more than it cools. Just think of the radiation as an illusion of matter that is in two places at the same time."

    I'm certain that many have had that same sort of idea but just dismissed it as ludicrous even though it does seem a rather easy way to understand the way radiation appears to work in the real world.

    Then I started digging very deeply into the nature and understanding of radiation and, despite my best efforts, only found verification for this crazy idea.

    Most troubling is the way I seem to "see" this as a way that explains things that aren't things traveling in dual waves at 90° opposition to one another in varying degrees of amplitude and different frequencies but all traveling at the same apparent speed.

    Before I go any farther and try to explain how this might actually happen, please show me how it can't be correct.

    The explanations become hideously confusing (to me as well) as you have to start imagining multiple "things" both forward and reverse at the same time.

    Do sub-atomic particles have known (or theoretical) values of emissivity?
  5. Jan 13, 2004 #4
    I started this post with the utmost sincerity. As I'm sure you can tell I'm neither physicist nor mathemetician.

    Since it [seems] from my study that in the quantum arena at least, energy/mass/velocity/distance become rather transmutable, I thought this to be the appropriate place to ask. If the rules "change" for "things" we can never see why do the things we can see have to follow the "rules" that we detect with our senses?

    I've talked about this personally with some people. Not many want to get this deep.

    I've spoken with a couple professors who are good acquaintences and reasonbly within this field. "Interesting", is their reply then silence. Have written to a couple directly in this field (with some numbers). No reply--not a peep.

    Again, I just want this to be discounted so I can move on... If it can't be discounted I'll keep measuring and simplifying equations even if the variables don't always have a known relationship...

    Is the idea so laughable that it is not worth of reply or does it send you back to work on your old unification theory?

    p.s. If mentioning the "G" word in the initial post put you off I apologize. That aspect came from talking with people who I know are "deep" but not of the teaching profession. Without fail, they think I'm talking about religion (of the Eastern or Native American types at least) or spiritualism (spirits, ghosts, past lives, etc.).
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2004
  6. Jan 13, 2004 #5
    Perhaps if you could present a single question without entanglement we can help.
  7. Jan 14, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There exist very good mathematical models of heat transfer. The fact that we are able to control, very precisely, temperatures of everything from homes to chemical baths is a testimony to our knowledge of this field.

    It is not clear to me what you are talking about. Perhaps if you could attempt to ask a question without attempting to answer it in the same sentence we could figure out what you are trying to say, or need to know.

    Do a web search on Newtons law of cooling.
  8. Jan 14, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    My post notwithstanding, yes.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook