Re: heat is "real", but...

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Larry Woolf wrote:

> At 6:22 PM -0800 1/31/2001, William Beaty wrote:
> > If the "internal energy" of an object is thermal photons and thermal
> > phonons and electron band energy and chemical bond energy and nuclear bond
> > energy and everything else, then as I understand it, the usual meaning of
> > "heat" is "thermal photon energy plus thermal phonon energy."  Heat is
> > blackbody radiation within an object, plus the hypersonic white-noise of
> > thermal vibrations of the lattice.  (Uh, do we need to add the energy
> > contained in the electrons of hot metals?)  As long as chemical or nuclear
> > reactions or phase changes aren't adding or subtracting thermal
> > photons/phonons within the object, then "heat" is conserved because energy
> > is conserved.>
>
> Temperature is simpler and can be defined and measured.

Surely.  But you seem to be arguing that BECAUSE temperature is simpler,
therefore heat DOESN'T EXIST.

To be consistent, "heat" is just as valid a concept as "light" and
"sound."  It is even useful in explaining certain things in physics.  But
as I said before, it probably does far more harm than good.  Does this
mean that "heat" doesn't exist?  No, it just means that teaching young
kids about it is a very bad idea, and there are far better alternatives
(such as the ones you've mentioned.)

> > When I say "in some circumstances", maybe I could better say "within
> > limits."  Inject a joule of electrical energy into a resistor, and this
> > resistor now contains a joule of "heat."
>
> No.  A Joule of energy has increased the temperature of the resistor
> according to the  heat capacity of the resistor.

Sure, but WHAT KIND OF ENERGY IS INSIDE THE RESISTOR?  To refuse to
examine the resistor and to then label what we find is an artificial
behavior meant to reinforce a certain viewpoint, rather than meant to give
insight.  It is not science.  What's inside the hot resistor?  There is
broadband acoustic energy.  There is blackbody radiation. There is thermal
energy stored in the conductor's band structure.  We have a term for this.
"Heat."  But "heat" can still be a very bad word, but not because it is
inaccurate.

Aha, now I've got it!  "Heat" is bad because it hides a very complicated
situation behind a single apparently simple concept.  Kids will mistakenly
think that "heat" it's simple, and that mistake will act as a learning
barrier.  The
word "heat" has the same disease as the word "electricity."

I had all kinds of trouble figuring out how to convince people that
"electricity" was a bad word.  I could not honestly say that "electricity"
was an inaccurate term.  It would be wonderful if that was true, because
then it would easy to convince everyone to stop using the word.  Instead I
had to do some work and build a case not based on dishonesty.  The problem
with "heat" is not that the word is WRONG, but instead the word is subtly
"corrupt".  Rather than leading you into false knowledge, "heat" can do
something more subtly harmful: it can suck your mind down a path of very
limited truth, and you can't escape again.  To break free from such a
thing requires UNLEARNING; it requires a change in structure of the
concept-net.  This takes far more work than learning and people rarely do
it successfully.  Better to not go down that path at all, especially in
K-12 classes.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-789-0775          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L