/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5728634
Because there is no "cold" in thermodynamics. When you have energy, you'll also naturally create heat, which is a form of energy transfer from things with a higher temperature to a lower temperature. So of course, when you rub your hands together or send a spaceship plummeting through the atmosphere, the effects are evident.

What we call cold is just a lack of heat. Our definition of cold has to do with our own energy, and thus heat, expenditure, in reference to the external environment.

>>5728642
>When you have energy, you'll also naturally create heat

Why?

You just described what and why it happens from observing things but not why it happens at all. And that's what I don't understand.

Friction could create nothing for all I care.
Why do things have a temperature just because particles touch each other?

>>5728642
but what energy is being transferred? your hands be the same temperature or very close so why is it that the heat is noticeable? where does that heat come from?

>>5728658

>Friction could create nothing for all I care.

Too bad thermodynamics doesn't give a shit what you think

>>5728659
Yes but why does it behave the way it does. That's the question here.

>>5728658

Also, particles never touch. The energy and heat is generated from the friction of the particles being forced together and repelling at a very high frequency.

>>5728671
Yes but why?

>>5728658
>Why do things have a temperature just because particles touch each other?

It's not just touching each other. It's using energy to force things to grind past each other, when they'd rather stay put. That energy has to go somewhere.

>>5728679
>. That energy has to go somewhere.
Okay but it could go from things to things without causing heat or anything like that.

>>5728677

This is science, not philosophy.

>>5728682
>Okay but it could go from things to things without causing heat or anything like that.

How do you mean, "go from things to things?"

>>5728685
Can't science answer this? It can explain everything but not this. why?

http://youtu.be/36GT2zI8lVA

this thread in a nutshell

>>5728689
When it's being transferred. or transformed.

>>5728694
>http://youtu.be/36GT2zI8lVA
Beat me to it, you wonderful bastard...

Ok, let me try and rephrase this. Look at what friction actually is, on the molecular scale. You have two rough surfaces in contact with one another. Their parts interlock (because their shape is irregular) and weak molecular bonds form. Now try and slide one relative to the other. You have to provide energy. You have to knock things around. What is "knocking things around?" It's giving them velocity, causing vibrations, etc. And what is that? It's making them hotter. That's all temperature is.

>>5728688
What the hell don't you understand? This isn't rocket science fucks sake.

Tiny balls are floating and spinning
As they spin they produce a electric field
As they move they create a electromagnetic field
If another ball (atom) attempts to enter the electromagnetic field it will be pushed out of the field by the field

>>5728709

But that's not what friction is, you retard.

>Thread this long and tard still doesn't get what friction is.
When an atom gets excited from its groundstate, in this case by other atoms, their electrons will release photons to shed that excess energy. In this case, the photons are low frequency infrared waves whose effects we perceive as heat.

>>5728709
Okay I will also try to be clearer.

Everything you just said is true and I understand that, but...

>It's giving them velocity,

okay

>causing vibrations,

sure why not

>It's making them hotter.

BAM

why do these things make it hotter? That's what I want to know.

Why do vibrations cause increase of temperature?

>>5728724
Would there be temperature without someone like us to perceive it?

>>5728723
Because mass and energy are intrinsically related. If you move anything, you add energy to it. What makes heat? Energy. What contains energy? Mass. How do you excite massive particles? With motion.

Watch >>5728694

>>5728719

Uh, yes it is.

>>5728726
>>>/phi/

>>5728726
YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID.
Does ice melt? gtfo troll

>>5728729
Okay, so that's oversimplifying it, but bollocks OP is not bright.

>>5728729
I will watch the video and see if it answers my questions. tahnks

>>5728723
>Why do vibrations cause increase of temperature?

Because that's what temperature IS, essentially. Temperature is a way of defining the average kinetic energy of a group of particles.

>>5728734

Q: Does the pope shit in the woods?

A: He both does and doesn't under we observe it one way or the other.

>>5728736
Don't thank me, this isn't a homework thread.

But in the future, maybe click the links the smart people give you before continuing asking circular questions?

>>5728760
Okay I just watched the video.

He says that there are up until now forces, like electrical forces and gravity that exist and that these forces are simply taken for granted that they exist and do what they do but no one can actually explain why this is?

Because I always feel that the answers I get are not satisfying me like he said, too..

>>5728781

I think you missed the point of the video.

You have to accept some things to be true or you'll forever be asking why.

>>5728786
>You have to accept some things to be true
Exactly. THis is what I find difficult because I always want to know until the very end why everything is the way it is.

Is this bad?

> why is heat the outcome and not cold

>>5728781
>Because I always feel that the answers I get are not satisfying me like he said

Are you still unsatisfied with the answers given in this thread? Could you say why? These are me, btw:

>>5728709
>>5728739

>>5728795
No, but several of us have explained to you, in varying gradients of complexity, what is in fact going on.

>>5728793
Yes and no. All answers are great and thanks for them.
It's just that when explaining a mechanism like friction or energy conversion it seems like all explanations just explain what seems to be taking place and not why.

I want to go further and know why heat is the result of something like that. Why does heat exist at all. Couldn't everything just work without it?

>>5728798
Yes and thanks.

omg OP just disproved the existence of temperature.

Science fucking destroyed.

>>5728795
But you must accept some things. Do you really question whether an electron is an electron, or why they are repulsed by each other (because we can explain that).

Although, you missed the point of the video. The point is, some things you simply can't know because you don't have the proper basis for founding that information and further building upon it. If you don't understand the simple increased energy = increased heat (or light, in some cases, or sound), then it's gonna be a bit harder to explain how that motion creates an excited state which releases latent energy (or whatever reaction the case may be).

>>5728809
>why heat is the result
>>5728729
>>5728724
>>5728679


These are all acceptable answers to 'why.'

>autism general
From the actual original post i could understand that he was asking, WHY the laws of physics operate the way they do, he just used an example, maybe the OP himself wasn't aware he was asking that.

You can't even read between the lines, homosexuals.

Welp, you're in luck OP, cause MrDrAttic is here.

Universe is based on arbitrary axioms.
Why gravity works like it works?
Why light travels at C?
Why energy is lel?

Because they say so.
The absolute boundaries are always axiomatic and thus by their nature are arbitrary, you cannot have a meaningful/purposeful axiom otherwise it wouldn't be an axiom.

>>5728829
>because they say so
No, I think you've got it backwards. It works that way because it is what we observe, not because we tell the universe how to work.

And macro reactions (newtonian physics, for example) have a whole different set of relations from micro reactions (quantum physics, for example). Sometimes those micro reactions are completely illogical compared with the macro ones (that tricky higgs-boson, for example, or the magnetic amplification effects of many spins lining up).

>>5728840
>being this dense

"because they so say"
Who says so?
The gravity, the light, energy.
What we observe.

>what is reading comprehension
Sagan is rolling in his grave right now.

>Why does friction create heat? When particles collide and rub each other why does it cause heat? Energy is being transferred but why is heat the outcome and not cold?
Stop that now! You're causing global warming!!!

>>5728829
>WHY the laws of physics operate the way they do
Yes that kinda sounds what I tried to imply.
Interesting. So when explaining why then we always presume a 'true' or accepted postulate and there's no point arguing further?

But somwhoe we must know what drives everything and why it does. That's what I am aiming at.

>>5728840
>It works that way because it is what we observe

Exactly this is the point. All the explanations given explain why everything works within a set of different factors. But they don't explain why certain things are the way they are in the first place.

THere my question is heading. Maybe we just can't answer such questions today??
Is science even interested in such questions and pursuing their answer?

>>5728859

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

YOU COULD HAVE GAVE HER THE WARMING

>>5728876

s/WARMING/COOLING

This thread is confusing the shit out of me.

>>5728860
see
>>5728854
You're welcome.

Reread this:
>>5728829
If you fully grasp this post you have the answer to your question.
So let me rephrase this.
You cannot know the reason behind why there light travels at C.
Because there isn't one.
Even if you find further reasons in the future, the ultimate reasons still be arbitrary and meaningless in the sens they are axioms.

If you can grasp this then you're set.

>>5728860
They are the way they are because that's how they are. Are you trying to ask if there's some god creating it, or are you trying to ask why did the big bang (and the probability into which we are expanding) create these circumstances? Or are you trying to ask why the 12 particles and four forces act as they do in the first place? It's because that's how they act, and were back to square one telling you that sometimes you have to accept things for other things to work.

You don't ask why 'English' is 'English' and not something else. English is English because it's English, and it wouldn't be English if it weren't English.

The speed of light is the speed of light because that's how fast light travels in a vacuum. It wouldn't be a particle/wave of light if it didn't.

If the second one gives you more trouble than the first with the 'why' question (but why is English 'English?' but why does light travel at the speed of light?), you probably aren't grasping what we are telling you.

>>5728885
But they aren't meaningless, they define our very existence.

Just because we're using words to define something doesn't mean the concept is arbitrary, but our words for it are perhaps. Quit the semantic bullshit. I think you know better, Mute. I think. The speed of light isn't arbitrary, it's the speed at which light travels. although, if you bring in quantum entanglement, even those speeds could be wrong (and far from arbitrary, especially if two photons can interact simultaneously instead of at C).

>>5728885
I think this is questionable. Like in the video the guy gave the example of a woman falling on ice. Now I could ask why did this happen. The answers could be several. One is because the ice is slippery and the other could be that the woman wasn't careful or paying attention. I would be satisfied because those two things could be observed and logically deduced.

But with heat, that's another story. I can't deduce logically that temperature must increase just because other certain mechanisms were at work first, namely that particles move and collide and et cetera, which causes friction. The question would be then why does friction cause heat (which is mine). Then the answers could be (just like all the ones given here in the thread) that heat is the result of those different aspects being at work. But they don't answer why heat is the result and maybe not something else.

I just don't feel like it has been answered (maybe it can't or I language just confines me how to express it aptly).

>>5728890
I am not really asking whether there must be a creator, because then I could go on and ask why did the creator do it and where did it crom from and why and so on and so forth.
The question is just why a certain observable result is the result of other factors who have been at work prior to it.

It's like going further or deeper. We can explain that heat is created because this and that happens. But now why heat must be the result or why all of this can't just work without it at all.

>>5728894
>Quit the semantic bullshit.
And i think you should know better in what context "meaningless" and "arbitrary" are used here.

OP wants to have a sense.
Doesn't matter if light travels at C or C+1 when it's sunday.
It is meaningless in OP's terms.
He wants the absolute explanation of everything.

I think he needs to understand that it's not the limitation of knowledge or time or the physical limitation or our brains or superhyper quantum mystic physics.

"reason" is a meaningless word, as is 'why', in this context.

Even if in the future you discovered crazy physics that could explain why light is C and not A, B or D, the ultimate reason would still be arbitrary, because you can't have it otherwise it just can't, not because of limitation of any kind..

This is not some kind of philosophy or 'theory', it's a natural consequence.

>>5728917
The point is, we are explaining it, just as clearly as saying she falls because ice is slick. Just as clearly as saying ice is slick because of momentary compression and the special properties of ice. Those same principles that make ice slick are the same ones that dictate why heat is created.

Each part is intrinsic and integral. You do understand that electrons never really touch, right? You do understand that electrons have energy levels, and that (to a simple point) is how light and heat are created. You do understand that the motion you instigate changes these properties, right? I'm not sure what you're asking. All of this has been explained, and is readily available in most physics texts that deal with these phenomena. I'm not sure what we're missing to your point here.

>>5728925
>OP wants to have a sense.
>He wants the absolute explanation of everything.

Yes this is what I want. I want to know why certain properties are the way they are.

You're making it even more interesting now for me. I am tempted to ask why it is a natural consequence and why we can never know the reason.

>>5728925
Except that it isn't. When you go further, it breaks down further, until we hit the limits of it and it becomes random (like which particles pop into and out of existence - that is hardly arbitrary, but it affects every single other thing which we are discussing.). Saying it's an arbitrary reason implies it was made that way, and the evidence isn't pointing to that. I suppose we could go one step further and say it's not arbitrary that we had a big bang just because it happened. We had a big bang because a bunch of probability popped it into existence. It's not arbitrary, not even in the sense you are using it I think.

>>5728930
Yes everything you say is right. We can look at it, observe how things seem to work and then apply connections and logical deduction to see if there are dependencies or not. But you can't answer why some properties are the way they are in the first place.

It's akin to asking why is fire fire and not water?

>>5728931
They are that way because that's what we observe. The ocean is blue because we see it as blue. We see it as blue because the photons are received by our eyes in such a way that we recognize it thus. It appears blue because of the photons that are scattered and don't reach your eyes. It's not blue at all, because water is basically colorless and transparent, and the blue is other things in the ocean. We see light because we have light receptors in our eyes and brain which allow us to understand it. We see the blue because of the energy level of the electrons charging the photons to be a particular wavelength when they leave the electrons/are reflected by the electrons. So yes, to one point, blue is a given wavelength and that is arbitrary, but the fact that it does it is governed by other laws which are governed by further laws, laws which we use words to describe and may ultimately be incorrect and inconsistent on some level, and are likely not arbitrary at all.

There's a lot of garbage in this thread, but
>>5728709
>>5728739
is a good explanation.

>>5728946
Fire is a state of energy. Water is a molecule. That's why. It's what we call those two separate things. Fire gives off light and heat for the same reason rubbing your hands together warms them, basically. States become excited.

>>5728953
On the one hand I accept these explanations because they are forces at work we can observe and then label. But they leave questions open like why are our light receptors so that they absorb light in order for us to perceive the world we do?

>>5728959
Yes that's true. But why are the properties like that in the first place? What caused fire to be fire and water water. It doesn't have to be a creator. I just want sense of why a thing is the way it is.

And heat is a great example. I could think of every mechanism that in real life creates heat but in my imagination does not. Why is that way and not the other?

>>5728969
Evolution is why we have eyes.
We evolved this way because it worked. See Darwin, Dawkins, Sagan, etc.

Because molecules aren't energy states. Water is water because A) that's what we call it, B) it's a molecule, C) this molecule has those properties. You want to know further why an electron state isn't a molecule? You mean, like why Electrons aren't made up of the same subatomic particles as protons or neutrons? Or why electrons hold together molecules? Or why excited electrons leave/join atoms/energy states to create/destroy those molecular structures? OR why the weak force and strong force aren't the same? Or why subatomic particles have spins that create properties within those things?

Probably in your imagination you aren't understanding one of those things, or perhaps you are missing something elementary?

>>5728940
You're doing this on purpose, right?
Its like you're talking about boats because i said i drink water.
Somewhat related but you're way off.

>>5729004
No, I'm saying that something's not arbitrary just because something exists.

An arbiter arbitrates things. As far as we can tell, the grass is green whether we call it green or not. Grass being green isn't arbitrary, but it happens to be that way. Calling it green is an arbitrary decision of language.

>>5729010
Furthermore, the grass is green because it contains chlorophyl and it evolved it because that worked best, not because it woke up one evolutionary round and said hey, we're gonna be green from now on. Light doesn't just decide to travel at an arbitrary speed. That's the difference. Light travels at C because it does, but we arbitrarily call it C.

>>5728988
>Or why subatomic particles have spins that create properties within those things?


I think the question I would then ask would be why are these properties created by these spins. Why don't these spins create something compeltely different?

I know it's a tough topic or I can't express myself better. But the main point is why is everything the way it is. You just gave many explanations why water is the way it is water. Fine. I understand and can accept them. However, the furthering question is why are these properties created by these structures/mechanisms and not others? Why is it that all these explanations are exactly these explanations and not completely other explanations?

>>5729026
And I very much appreciate your answers even if they leave me unsatisfied!

>>5729026
Because that's how they appear to work. Without going deeper (I'm not a quantum physicist) that's the answer you have to accept because that's how it works. Just like Feynman said.

>>5729030
Okay. Thanks for your patience.

Maybe one day we will know the answers.

>>5729012
I hope you're not replying to me.
Because it is pointless and painful to watch.

The question can have more and different answers, depending on the perspective you look at it. OP wants to know why things exist in the way they do. He isn't seeking sequential information, where you can explain everything by observing whether certain processes and actions depend on or relate with each other. He wants to know why they are like that in isolation.

I think OP would be well served by knowing what heat is in the first place: It's the average speed or vibration of particles. It's simply kinetic energy at a very small scale.

>>5728689
Like heat, lol?

I think you are missing some shit here brah.

>>5730787
>It's the average speed or vibration of particles.

Yes and why is it that? Why doesn't this exact vibration cause no heat? That's the question.

>>5730961
>Yes and why is it that? Why doesn't this exact vibration cause no heat? That's the question.

The question makes no sense. Movement is what temperature IS. It doesn't cause it. It is it. There is no other definition.

>>5730839

Are you drunk?

>>5730976
>It is it

That's not satisfying at all. The question is exactly what it is: Why is it like that?

>>5731004
>Why is it like that?

Why is it like what? You're asking why movement is movement.

>>5731009
You said temperature is movement. When something gets faster it gets hotter et cetera.

I am asking why temperature is movement.

>>5728634
First ask yourself, "What is heat?"

The rest should be quite clear.

>>5731016
>I am asking why temperature is movement.

Those things are synonyms. Temperature is just movement on a small scale.

>>5731022
Well yes and no. You can observe temperature rising because something moves faster. Ergo, heat is a result of high velocity.

Why can't everything just move without having any temperature. I am asking it down to the very core of existence. Why does it have to be like that.

>>5731030
>Well yes and no.

No, not yes and no. Just yes. Temperature is movement. "Why can't it move without having temperature" is a nonsensical question.

>>5731030
>You can observe temperature rising because something moves faster.

"Temperature rising" and "something moves faster" are the same thing.

>>5731032
Partly. Something moves, and it changes temperature. It always has a temperature because it moves so in that aspect you're right.

But why? What made it have temperatre just by moving?

>>5731036
>Something moves, and it changes temperature.

NO. Not "and." Those are not separate things. They are not cause and effect. Temperature IS movement. I don't know how else to say this.

>>5731041
But that would mean that when there is no movement then there is no temperature either and how can that be considering absolute zero is something below -273. How would they even be able to measure it if it wasn't like that.

>>5731036
>what made it move just by moving

>>5731046
No. Why is it that temperature is a property of something moving?

>>5731048
>But that would mean that when there is no movement then there is no temperature either

Yup.

>and how can that be considering absolute zero is something below -273. How would they even be able to measure it if it wasn't like that.

I don't understand what you mean.

>>5731054
>Why is it that temperature is a property of something moving?

Temperature is movement.

>>5731057
If temperature is movement, then it is an inherent property of movement. Why is this?

>>5731061

It's not a property of movement. It is movement.

>>5731060
High temperture = faster movement of energy
low temperature = slower movement of energy

Why can't it just be movement without energy?

>>5731067
>Why can't it just be movement without energy?

You are asking why can't it move without moving?

>>5731072
The basic question is why is the world the way it is. If we observe something moving and therefore experience temperature rising, it is a consequence of something moving. But why?

>>5731075

Are you asking about the EXPERIENCE of temperature? Like with nerves and the brain and stuff?

>>5731075

Fundamental laws of nature are decided by whatever the cause of nature is.
Then the question is - where did the universe come from?
We don't know.

>>5731079
No. We experience it like that because receptors receive information and send electrical impulses yada yada yada,. I know that.

Take humans out of the picture and we find a world where things are just completely random. And this is what I want to know. Why heat is the way it is. Why can't it be that when things move nothing happens?

>>5731084
Exactly this is what my questions are basically aiming at. I want reason and sense why things are the way they are.

>>5731088
>Why can't it be that when things move nothing happens?

Nothing does happen. Temperature is not separate from "things moving."

>>5731088

So you're asking what the purpose or benefit of having temperature is?
Well, it's an energy that affects things, and that's a helpful thing.

>>5731090

Nature is designed very deliberately. There's a reason for everything. Forces, phenomena, they all have purpose - they benefit things, affect things, change things, help the universe work.

>>5731091
A star is an amalgamation of infinite particles just moving. Therefore it is hot. What if everything moved but it wasn't hot. Now you would say that then nothing would move.

So the property of movement is temperature. Both are the same. But why can't particles move without temperature.

>movement without movement

What if movement wasn't temperature?

>>5731095

>What if movement wasn't temperature?

If there was no temperature, things just wouldn't work so well.

>>5731095
>So the property of movement is temperature. Both are the same. But why can't particles move without temperature.

This literally makes no sense. You are asking why can't something move without moving. But you claim you're not asking that. But that is LITERALLY what you are asking. So, I give up.

>>5731092
>>5731094
Yes it might be beneficial that everything works the way it does. But what makes it do all of that?

I am not even necessarily hinting at a creator or something like that. Because if everything just came about out of pure nothingness my questions would be even more interesting.

>>5731098
I am sorry I can't express myself better.
English isn't my first language.

>>5731097

>But what makes it do all of that?

The laws of nature, decided by nature.

>>5731100
Yes. And that's the point here. Why? What makes these laws and forces work just like that.

I doubt we can find an answer but I find it interesting.

>>5731084
Universe came from big bang. Big bang came from the probabilistic nothing that exists outside our universe (and is observable, no less).
Krauss has a good book on this one, and a video that goes with it somewhere on the youtubes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U

>>5731099
Movement is temperature. As molecules/particles/atoms vibrate and/or go from place to place (ipso facto, a vibration, but also linear movement whatever) they are literally a given temperature based on how fast they vibrate. Moving your hands together makes them vibrate faster by causing the movement of the particles to increase (vibrate faster, shoot around faster in between your hands, et cetera). The temperature rises because bits are moving faster, in all senses of the word. The temperature increases because you are increasing the temperature (movement) of the things. This is what it is.

Beyond that, as with the others, I can't figure what you are asking.

>>5731102
No, we have the answer. We've given it in various gradients (from the friction of the hands to the bumping of the particles to the subatomic explanations, in part). I'm not sure what can be explained here further.

>>5728723
OP didn't understand that temperature was related to the speed of the molecules. You might not be able to completely answer a "why" question completely but you can at least try instead of being acting like supercilious assholes.

OP is asking why fiction produces heat. The reason friction produces heat is because it somehow increases the kinetic energy of the molecules, or creates molecular vibrations which radiate heat (I don't know the answer). But instead of trying to explain the mechanism by which friction produces heat you just say "it does".

Science is about providing proofs. Just get OP to accept one thing as true and he will stop asking why.

>>5731324
The universe *is* the big bang.

When potential energy is turned into kinetic energy (when rubbing hands together), the energy turns into heat. It's why you get warmer after exercise. i think.

>>5731389
Biological processes have to do with it also. Increasing motion is increasing temp. So yes, while most of it is chemical reactions, part of it is indeed simply the fact that your muscles are expanding and contracting.

>>5731381
Now you're just playing semantics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
Wikipedia says: The instant in which the universe is thought to have begun rapidly expanding from a singularity is known as the Big Bang.

Deal with it. If you wanna refer to the universe, then use Cosmological Expansion. Don't be a troll. Lrn2context.

>>5731374
No, but we gave tons of sufficient answers (and actually, half the thread already discussed the very point you just made - RTFthread plox).
For example....
>>5731032
>>5731022
>>5731009
>>5728959
>>5728739
>>5728729
>>5728724
>>5728713
>>5728709
>>5728697
>>5728679
>>5728659
>>5728658

And you are incorrect, because OP keeps asking
>>5731102
even after we keep explaining the bits behind the bits behind the bits.

because you're moving electrons around. when electrons move, they release energy

>>5731374
>OP didn't understand that temp was related to speed of molecules
You're making our point. We explained that, he asked again why it does that, so we told him, and why that cause does what it does, and so on down to subatomic particles. See my other response for the list of points wherein we actually did tell him that.

>>5731430
>>5731424
>>5731374
Okay. Yes you all gave good answers which explain everything the way we can observe it. Namely cause and effect.

But I am asking why the cause is the way it is in the very first place. Like why movement is temperature, namely that faster movement is at the same time higher temperature.

Why do the natural forces exist in such a way to make the process of fast movement equalling higher temperature? What is the reason for the constants of forces to be the way they are?

So far none of the answers has answered these questions unfortunately.

>>5729030
Also I believe in this answer you understood what I wanted.

>>5731498

Bumps on both surfaces rub together, and push electrons down an orbital, and then when the bumps pass, the electrons spring back to the orbital it was before, and releases energy. Something like that anyway.

>>5731516
Yes. You explained it from an observable perspective. You named every process and action in a sequential order. Cause > Effect.

>releases energy

What does that actually mean at the very core of what happens?
Why is it that exactly these described processes create the outcomes they create and maybe not something entirely different and unimaginable, unpredictable?

>>5728660
Moving your arms requires chemical energy, which gives your hands kinetic energy. The friction is the kinetic energy from your hands making the atoms vibrate faster, and when atoms vibrate faster they have a higher temperature.

>>5731498
Alright OP......
>Why does more movement=higher temperature?
THINK ABOUT IT.
What happens when ice melts? The molecules in the ice are hit by photons which cause the molecules to vibrate until they can move freely to form water.
Add more energy and the molecules can fly because they are moving so fast.
Hot steam feels hot because the water molecules and their photons interact violently with your skin. Your nerves convert this into electrical signals which flow to your brain. Your brain tells you HOT.

>>5728658
Energy is created from friction or other sources. "Heat" does, but doesn't exist. "Heat" is our nerves' interpretation of this energy on them. If our body didn't interpret this energy and alert us that it is "hot", then our bodies would be damaged and or destroyed. I'm not sure if that's what you were asking about, but whatever.
TL;DR: Energy exists in physically everything, but heat is actually just our body's interpretation of that energy upon us.

>>5731528
Are you asking why photons are released when an atom gets excited?

>>5731591
This guy knows.

When you're rubbing your hands together, you are creating movement out of stored sugars in the muscles of your arms (producing ATP to move the myosin). The kinetic energy gained from this, in your arms, is then interrupted by your hands. The kinetic motion pushes the atoms around and they shake around faster. Your nerves pick up on this shaking.

>>5731595
No. In precise language, heat is a physical property. It has nothing to do with a body's interpretation.

lrn2science

>>5731624
?
I know that the movements of atoms are technically energy and heat, but how is an organism's sensation a physical property? Can you please explain for me?

>>5731630
I'll answer for him. Temperature and heat are two different things. The sparks from a sparkler (Type of fire work) are thousands of degrees, but they won't burn you.

Better ask how.
You'll never know why.
But you might be able to describe the process to some degree and see how shit happens.
Why it happens is ultimately a fucking mystery. Try philosophy and religion for some "why" and "what for".

>>5731772
It's the conversion of kinetic energy to heat, moving atoms to shaking atoms.

The "why" is just because that's how atoms behave in these conditions. The energy gets transferred and is of course conserved. That's a very real "why" does friction create heat.

>>5731498
>namely that faster movement is at the same time higher temperature

Not "at the same time." The same thing.

You seem to be having a problem with the English language. That's the only explanation I can come with for how you're still not getting this.

You are asking, "Why does higher temperature cause higher temperature?"

ITT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=X8aWBcPVPMo#t=6s

>>5728634
Newtons Laws of motion are a good place to start to understand this. When 2 objects are at rest there are still forces acting on them and as it isn't moving there is an opposing to every force acting on it, so its in a state of equilibrium.
To get 2 objects to slide over one another you need to overcome forces that will oppose the change and introduce another force like you forcing your hands back and forward.
Objects have a coefficient of friction. Heavy objects will have bigger coefficient, and so do hands when you apply more pressure.
Losses in the force you apply to do the rubbing (due to the coefficient of friction x applied force in newtons) causes hands to slow down and some is released as heat. If you want to know more than that look into thermodynamics on a good physics page

>>5731591
>The molecules in the ice are hit by photons which cause the molecules to vibrate

Why must they vibrate then? What tells them to do so just because they are hit by somethign?

>Add more energy and the molecules can fly

Why does more energy mean to become another state of being? What tells it to do so?

And I know that the sensation of hot and cold is just our interpretation to protect us. But I am talking about the processes independent of our existence.

>>5731595
>Energy exists in physically everything
Why is this so? What makes it so?

I seem to believe energy is at the root of every action, process that takes place anywhere ever. Why is it that energy is needed for everything to change? Why can't everything just exist without energy?

>>5731610
I am asking why such processes happen at all. Not because we observe two processes and then link them together and use the preceding process as the cause or reason for the resulting effect. I am asking why exactly the first process, in your example when atoms get excited, causes the release of something, be it photons or anything else. Why is nature wired like this to cause exactly this effect and not a completely different one. Why don't photons just stay the same while everything else works like it does?

>>5731772
Yes the why is what makes me curious.

>>5731811
Maybe. I don't know how to express it better, it's difficult when not in person.

The main point is: Why do things exist the way they do. Something must have triggered or decided everything to be the way it is. Or is there no reason? When things clash, we would say that energy is trnasferred or changed from one state to another. And I would then ask why it must be like that, that the change or flow of energy is necessary for the resulting effect to take place.

>>5731847
>When 2 objects are at rest there are still forces acting
This for instance. Why must it be so that when something is in rest, forces still act on them? What makes it do so?

*continued

>>5731847
>To get 2 objects to slide over one another you need to overcome forces that will oppose the change and introduce another force l

Why? Why does it exist like that, in that it needs force or energy to overcome soemthing? Why can't all processes just work without any inclusion of force?

What makes the very first decision of processes to act the way they do, decide just like that?

>>5728677
Because particles of the same sign charge (the outer electrons) repel eachother due to electromagnetic force.

Why is this? Because it's happened every time we've checked.

>>5731595
>Energy is created
>Heat is our nerves' interpretation
Why are you even here?

Temperature is the average measure of the movement of atoms. When rub atoms together, they move. The more they move, or the more you rub, the higher the temperature. Atoms not moving at all would have no temperature.

You're asking why when things move do they produce a measurable movement.

>>5732760
Because the universe where things work like that couldn't produce you asking such questions. Because your hands would rub each other on their own, and you couldn't stop them and would die from a blood loss.

>>5728662
Why does mass have to infer a gravity?

There's a theory that says that all the rules of our universe is set by pure chance, and that there's other universes without our systems, which obviously would be unable to sustain life.

Eventually anon, scientific concepts have to work because if they didn't, you wouldn't be around to see them.

>>5732781

it's not a legitimate theory, it's just philosophical babble set to something someone thinks makes physical sense

>>5732781
That's shit and you know it.

Science must be falsifiable. You're going into unobservable metaphysics. That is the realm of philosophy and other mental maaturbatory topics.

Why does gravity go down and not up?

Why do particles move?

Why does 2+2 = 4 and not 5678?

>>5732988
*tiny particles at the surface

>>5728634
OP

What the friction is, is tiny at the surface BUMPING into each other. By bumping they increase they speed of rotation, which is heat.

>>5732895
There's no up or down.

>>5732988
Yes. This is exactly what we can observe but I am wanting to know why these processes work just like that. Why does the bump of these particles trigger their increase of velocity and not maybe their destruction or something completely different. What made them do these tasks?

Because when two of the same particles come together its a collision and therefore a conflictive relationship. Therefore heat is the outlet because its an oppositional reaction

>>5732988

But why?

>>5733243
Because conservation of energy, retard. It seems to be a concept you are unwilling to accept. That's the way it is, whether you like it or not.

>>5733212
>Therefore heat is the outlet because its an oppositional reaction

And what makes it say that heat must be the result of such a conflictive relationship?
The actual why question isn't answered.

>>5733297
Heat is just what happens when the particles in a material have velocity in random directions. When you pump a bunch of energy in to a material through friction, it makes the particles in the material want to go every which way. Imagine for a second you have a box, and you impart velocity on the whole box in one direction, it will move one way because all the particles have velocity in that direction. When you just randomly impart energy in to the surfaces of the box through friction, the particles end up with velocities in random directions. This is why things melt when they get hot, the particles become so energized that they don't stick together anymore.

>>5733297
Phonons have an energy band which is accessible for the energy quanta generated by friction (the size of the quanta depends on the structure of the rubbing materials). Low-entropy phonons = heat.

You are correct that this is nontrivial; piezoelectric materials turn pressures into electrical currents because the valence electron bands are accessible to the energy quanta of mechanical movement.

>why does it cause heat?
Colloquial use of the word heat as a high temperature is partly to blame for this misunderstanding. Heat is the total kinetic energy of the particles in question. Kinetic energy can be thought of as active energy, in this case, the energy of vibration the atoms/molecules have. The particles in solids vibrate slowly, faster in liquid, and much faster in gases. This explains why ice forms at colder temperatures than water exists at, and why if you heat water up it becomes steam.

Also, cold isn't a thing. It's simply an absence of heat.

Philosophy threads should be reported.

>>5731830
Good video. Feynman chasers are always good.

>>5732753
>what tells them to vibrate
Nothing. It's what they do. Who tells you to post on 4chan? Same idea.

>What tells it to change states
Nothing. It's an intrinsic property. It does it in response to another stimulus. It's cause and effect, and that's why.

Now, if you want to know why a cause creates an effect, you'll have to ... erm, yeah. Didn't you get into newtons laws as a child? Or at least learn about causal relationships or what have you?

>energy exists in everything, why
Because matter and energy are the same thing, to a point. E=MC2 explains this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaB-zq864-c
Starts around 6:00, but watch the whole thing.

>why things happen
Because other things happened first. Why did those things happen? Because other things happened first. Et cetera.
>why exactly like this
Because it's what we observe, because it's what happens. Because if it didn't, then the universe would not work (and would not have popped into existence, but that's another conversation).

>why is it like what it is, what triggered or decided it
Nothing. Literal probabilistic nothing. See the video above.

>why are objects in rest still being acted upon by forces
Well, relativity, for one. When an object is 'at rest,' it simply means it's in a state of entropy or equilibrium. The chair on your floor is still flying through the cosmos because the earth is doing so, and the whole galaxy. 'at rest' is a relative term.

>>5732760
Because that is how it works.
>why can't processes work without force
what is this I don't even...
>what makes the first decision
>first decision
>first
>decision
No. Just no. The first force in the universe came from the big bang. Everything else is consequential.

>>5732768
This.

>>5732770
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/below-absolute-zero/
But I think it might blow OP's mind.

>>5728634
>Why does friction create heat
Modern Physics doesn't know. There just a couple of contradiction and incorrect theories...

>>5733190
We've told you over and over again why.
>why not maybe destroy them
Because it hasn't happened yet. Newton's laws on conservation. Because if they did, the universe wouldn't work.

Although, saying 'bump together' probably is the thing that's most incorrect in the thread, but it's convenient phrasing. Two molecules never touch. Two atoms never touch. At least, not in everyday interactions. The force you feel is the repelling of negatively charged electrons coming in close to one another. This excites them, creating energy. Even every single molecule in your body isn't touching, but they are held together by the forces of nature.

>>5733297
Nothing makes it that way. That is how it is. There isn't a god saying 'now heat those hands when he rubs them together.' This is not a conscious thing, it is not a decision some conscious entity is making. This is how things work. That is the simplest 'why.'

>>5733934
Oh? Which ones are contradictory?