Particles in heat are more active, as in brownian motion puts them allover the place, the cooler things get, the smaller the ripples, the less likely to interact with another particle, by transfering that ripple.
Now in solid materials, that neighbour is always there to distribute any energy to everyone equally. But from solid to gas, there is only the surface and a gases density is lower, so the transfer propability shrinks again.
I thought heat was a form of kinetic energy? Specifically, it is a measure of the kinetic energy of an object's particles, independent of the kinetic energy of the object as a whole. That not accurate?
Basically, heat is the thing you say to describe your detection of a transfer of internal energy from an object to its surroundings.
E.g., an object's atoms are vibrating a lot, and you touch it, and that vibration spreads to your atoms, so you say you've noticed "heat" in that object. Or the vibrations are emitting radiation (like infrared light) to you, and the radiation begins vibrating your atoms, so you might say "heat is coming off of that object".
>Heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by a mechanism that involves the microscopic atomic modes of motion or the corresponding macroscopic properties.
>In the kinetic theory, heat is explained in terms of the microscopic motions and interactions of constituent particles, such as electrons, atoms, and molecules.[57] The immediate meaning of the kinetic energy of the constituent particles is not as heat. It is as a component of internal energy. In microscopic terms, heat is a transfer quantity, and is described by a transport theory, not as steadily localized kinetic energy of particles. Heat transfer arises from temperature gradients or differences, through the diffuse exchange of microscopic kinetic and potential particle energy, by particle collisions and other interactions.[0]
They experimentally demonstrated that it takes significantly more energy to move a microparticle the same distance when cooled than the amount of energy it would take when heated.
I don't quite understand. Heat is a measure of the vibrational kinetic energy any individual molecule possesses as it travels along, right? So, shouldn't the maximum temperature just be whatever the unit conversion is for one C-per-oscillation? That is, at no time should a particle be able to be pushed by its vibration into a velocity greater than light, correct?
> On the other hand, cooling at the microscopic level involves the release of energy from individual particles, resulting in a dampening of their motion. This process corresponds to the system losing energy, leading to a decrease in the intensity of particle movement.
It actually makes sense, doesn’t it? Heating the object adds energy constructively. In cooling, energy removed from one particle may in fact be absorbed again by neighboring particles, so it is not ‘efficient’. So I’d venture a guess at saying the object cools from outside until it is entirely cooled.
reply