Is "heat" actually just a cloud of photons around an electron...

I was thinking of mentioning Conway's Game of Life, that's the way I tend to imagine it. The idea of quantities is what I wonder about most, though. Along with "motion" and "space".

Either way, thanks for the feedback. The notion that by existing I'm radiating infrared and can therefore lose heat without anything to transfer it to, eventually overwhelmed the ability to ignore a desire to know.

Stop making stuff up. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Dude seriously wtf, can you not be an insufferable piece of shit? If yoy dont agree with op just dont fucking reply, no need for hostility

Heat is not photons around an electron. Heat is what we call the act of energy transfer from high temperature to low temperature.

Photons are particles that can be absorbed by electrons to change their kinetic energy.

'excited' is just a way of speaking in reference to what happens when you have some kind of bound state and you add energy. You can imagine a ball rolling around in a bucket and then throwing some marbles at it to make the ball move faster or something, excitation is sorta like this.

Energy is a quantity that's conserved and is directly related by Noether's theorem to time translation symmetry.

I'm calling that kid out on his bullshit. This is math and science, it's really not opinion.

And this is why, in some systems, directional bombardment with a concentrated stream of photons can result in a net reduction in excitation of that system? Does temperature refer to a system as a whole?

So heat is more or less just motion? How do hot things radiate photons? Are they generating them, or releasing them? How can energy be converted to so many different states?

lol no this makes no fucking sense

I tried my best to cram it into language.

do you even understand the answers youre getting because your responses and follow-up questions are almost entirely gibberish

How could I know if I understood correctly? I'm not you, I'm me.

Usually we think of communication as something more than just randomly rearranging symbols. Did you try understanding it?

Yes. I then returned a response that I thought would be parsed and ultimately interpreted, if not how it was intended, then in a comparable and acceptable vein.

Why and how do (warm) materials emit photons?

you just seem like a troll, youre using dressed up language that doesnt actually say anything to ask questions that are flawed in their premise and then taking responses and rephrasing / dressing them up in the same rediculous nonsensical language

how the fuck does someone who casually muses on 'muon collisions emitting xrays' and photon emission 'losing energy to excitation' not understand heat? its like someone whos designed a bridge posting 'hey guys can someone explain equilibrium to me'

except worse because you chose to sound like a gigantic pseudo intellectual asshat and say some retarded shit like 'im trying to take a reductionist approach and describe heat in terms of its intrinsic machinery'. the language you use is completely stupid. read a book.

The problem with asking these questions specifically is the answers require you have a background in physics/mathematics to actually understand. You can get a star trek "Like putting too much air in a balloon!" kind of dumbass understanding that you can use to impress your friends with your giant deep intellect but you wont know how or why on the level you seem to want to understand without going to university.

>I then returned a response
Understanding has nothing to do with responding.

I should probably point out that I just jumped into this thread. I'm and I haven't read or posted anything else yet.

Usually, when people want to understand something, just understanding it as best they can is enough. People'll go, "Oh, okay," and be done with it. Being able to affirm that they understood anything at all is generally pointless, a waste of time, or just infeasible. There's often no real way to ensure anyone's truly understood anyone else, so don't think or it as a you vs. your opponent type of deal. Think of understanding a trait shared between two people when they cooperate in terms of communication. "I'm only me" should never be an issue when both parties are already willing to understand each other.

If this is an issue that comes up a lot for you, I can explain it a hell of a lot better provided I bother to understand where you're coming from. But if it's just an issue for this thread and discussion of the "real metaphor" behind high concept physics, then I'll just be passing on by.

>you chose to sound like
I didn't make you do anything, user. You chose to bother thinking that way, don't try to put it on me. It's as much you as it is me, so own it.

I genuinely don't understand heat, or motion. A lot of my framework is poorly connected and compartmentalized at best, and while I have some underlying generalized principles about how things function, why they can do so, and what the universe is able to afford, I'm missing a lot. A very lot.

It is machinery. That's what I think it is, and that's how I tend to try to understand and integrate it. When this sort of lens is in the way however, it can be removed, reshaped, or dissolved. I mentioned theory of mind above. Rather than complaining about the language people use, you should try to use it to reconstruct how they think. Whether you think someone cares about being gratified or elevating their status within the group is irrelevant, you're misusing valuable information.

>It's as much you as it is me, so own it.
here again.

How you choose to speak is entirely on you. Don't burden others with having to navigate your inner complexes. Again, I can talk about talking at length at length if this is an issue that keeps coming up for you.

>I didn't make you do anything, user
I didnt say you made me do anything? Reading comprehension mate

>so own it.
own what?

>When this sort of lens is in the way however, it can be removed, reshaped, or dissolved.
What the fuck does that even mean?

> Rather than complaining about the language people use, you should try to use it to reconstruct how they think
I dont know how you think because the language you use to describe it is complete gibberish. The problem isnt anyone elses language, its yours. Stop trying to sound smart. Youre like a miss universe contestent talking about politics. Just ask the question like a regular ass person so someone can actually decipher it you autist

You can drop this thread. OP cares more about spreading his hive philosophy that having an honest and open dialogue about literally anything.

I don't have much knowledge of mathematics, but I don't fully buy that it's needed for a very roughly "accurate" perspective. eg I understand conceptually the role of renormalization in a computation, despite knowing full well that knowledge isn't functional or usable. It's unlikely any of this will change soon, if ever.

I just want to know what "it" is thought to "do", and what this implies that it "is". I know how stripped and disembodied that is.

>How you choose to speak is entirely on you.
Speaking of understanding, it's as though nothing I say is being understood. You're telling me something that was implicit in what I just said as though it's novel.

Screw it, my pain bullshit is getting bad again and I'm not really competent to hold a conversation at this point either way. Can't deal, I'm done.

>as though it's novel
Veeky Forums isn't for posting novel theories. If that's how you're trying to read every post OTB, you're using Veeky Forums wrong. No idea why you'd think anything I said was supposed to come off as an attempt to be novel.

>I'm not really competent to hold a conversation
You said it pal

This thread is full of failure. Don't come here again

>I didnt say you made me do anything?
You did. Break the process down into parts.
-I generate text.
-You read the text.
-The machinery of your mind parses, evaluates, interprets, and ascribes meaning to what you've read.
-You generate a response.

Look at what steps were primarily under your influence. You're complaining about something you created, as though I chose to force you to see it that way. "You chose to make me interpret it this way." It's nonsense. We have limited information about each other. We're operating on heuristics.

>own what?
This mostly means that you should be realistic, accurate, and honest about what part your environment actually plays in your overall experience. If you stare at a bright source of red light for a while, and look around and realize everything looks quite orange, is it your environment's fault? Should it stop making you think it's so orange tinted? Or is it that you exhausted and desensitized your cone cells? Come on, this isn't hard stuff.

>What the fuck does that even mean?
Think about it a bit, and you'll understand. What is a "mindset", what would a "lens" for thinking and perception be. This is what I'm talking about, you're quite stuck in yourself and unwilling to branch out. So you blame unfamiliar things for being unfamiliar instead.

>blah blah, I think you want me to think you're smart and you should stop
Thought process is a waste of time. Even if you were correct, look at what you're doing. Where is the value in it? Do you truly think it'll improve communication and make people drop a facade and be more "real"? What's the goal? What is the ideal?

I think it's all a waste of time. It's just clutter for your own head, serves no one, and especially not you.

I thought I ought to cap off this conversation. When I get tired pain perception gets much worse and muddles the mind, and I'm stressed already. This one is it for me. Sorry.

>We have limited information about each other.
Speak for yourself, thanks.

>Where is the value in it?
Culture. If you can't understand the value of having culture, you can't understand value at all.
>Do you truly think it'll improve communication
Yes, that's why we bother responding. We do it in good faith, in hope that you'll care to reciprocate. If we all work together, we can improve the dialogue.

You're the odd man out, in this instance. The rest of us are fully capable of augmented communication.
>and make people drop a facade
There is no facade, user. The idea that there's a facade on an anonymous image board is a result of newfaggotry. You by uttering pseudohive bullshit are the only one ITT with an apparent facade. The constant of OP's faggotry didn't change with you. You, then, have done nothing to improve dialogue quality.
>and be more "real"?
Culture is real enough as it is. We become the masks we wear. No matter how many masks we try to remove, we are always becoming ourselves.
>What's the goal?
To create a facade-analogue that isn't tryhard faggotry like you espouse. Not that analogues are not facade, but might appear as such to fools that can't use advanced heuristics. Let your brain do its goddamn job and work with the heuristics rather than pretending they're the problem.
>What is the ideal?
To discuss science among those who are ready to understand it. You aren't ready if you're bitching at us through the hyperreductionist pseudohive guise.

This is what an earnest post looks like, user. You won't get a response the feels earnest until you've risked your worth by being just as earnest. This is only the end of the dialogue so long as you make yourself scarce within it.

>Note that analogues are not facades
fix

>Culture.
Culture is a grand spectrum.

>Yes, that's why we bother responding.
That's why you bother responding.

>You're the odd man out, in this instance.
Yes. And it's miserable to be crippled.

>There is no facade, user.
For you, and to you.

>We become the masks we wear. No matter how many masks we try to remove, we are always becoming ourselves.
Only to a limited extent. At any given instant there are underlying absolutes that are more resistant to shifting, despite any lack of an ultimate "true self". Identity is not so fluid.

>To create a facade-analogue that isn't tryhard faggotry like you espouse.
Refer to what I said previously. Two things are omnipresent, yourself, and your environment. Only one of these things do you have a degree of inherent control over. your goal is not feasible or worthwhile in most instances. It is better to change yourself. Use other people as though they are fields to harvest. Emulate, imitate, use intuition, reverse engineer, whatever approach you want.

>To discuss science among those who are ready to understand it.
I am not longer willing to contort myself nor interact with others strictly on their terms. If they can't at all speak my language, and if I am made to do practically all the work, there is limited value. This is how what you're suggesting actually pans out, and what it actually means. It is delusion to expect an adaptive process, just as it is to speak of an "us". Look at the conversation thus far. You only want the topic that you think it is and should be.

>To discuss science among those who are ready to understand it.
Yet no one responds to the topic I put forward. We just talk about me.

Math is the only language precise and logically nuanced enough to understand physics. It's used to describe the strict relationship between things to the point that it can predict future behavior to a certain degree. Without it, you're just wasting your time half-assing it.

-Photons are not part of the electron

your assumption that photons are absorbed and readmitted is wrong. to clarify it is not the 'same' photon.

Remittance of a photon is known as fluorescence and is done under specific circumstances. This is done when an electron has a specific energy to move up to a higher energy state

eg: n=1 -> n=2

I'd look up a guide on particle in a box to gain a basic understanding on this topic. You seem to have some issues with the fundementals

Particle in a box doesn't cut it - he needs a treatment of the hydrogen atom, cause photons are only emitted when there's a change in angular momentum.

Heat is just a word for kinetic energy of particles. When an electron in a circular potential absorbs a photon, it increases its angular momentum and jumps up an energy level.