1
$\begingroup$

As we know heat is a form of energy and its main source is sun and it causes the atoms to vibrate. On the other hand, many say that coldness is just the absence of that energy, but if any thing is moving and has some energy then to stop it requires some energy. If coldness is making the atoms stop vibrating then it also has energy, and it is a form of energy. That energy is being utilized as well such as in super conductors. If coldness is a form of energy then it is not possible to have energy without any source, so coldness should also have some source in the universe.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "Coldness" and "hotness" aren't physical properties, they are neuro-physiological perceptions. Also, coldness doesn't "make atoms stop vibrating", because coldness isn't a thing. Instead, what is happening is that these atoms have lost kinetic energy due to collision with other things. $\endgroup$ – march Jan 28 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ But both do have energy ? $\endgroup$ – Haris Abdullah Jan 28 at 18:12
  • $\begingroup$ Absolute zero is the lowest limit of the temperature scale, any temperature above this has some amount of heat energy. see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero $\endgroup$ – Adrian Howard Jan 28 at 19:39
5
$\begingroup$

No, 'coldness' really just is the absence of heat energy.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

"but if any thing is moving and has some energy then to stop it requires some energy so if coldness is making the atoms stop vibrating then it also has energy and it is a form of energy and that energy is being utilized as well"

This is based off a faulty premise. Stopping something moving doesn't require more energy; it just requires somewhere else for the energy to go besides the moving object. Energy is still conserved in the universe, the slowing of the moving object means that something else gained energy.

The same is true for heat when things get cold. It doesn't take extra energy to cool them down. The thermal energy is just going somewhere else besides the body that has cooled.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So if even the energy is conserved how does the transfer of it takes place doesn't it requires energy turning water into gas require more heat energy and turning water into ice require more cold temperature so energy is used even if the last one is not ended but conserved , again it says that coldness has energy $\endgroup$ – Haris Abdullah Jan 28 at 18:19
  • $\begingroup$ @HarisAbdullah Objects transfer heat based on the temperature. Higher temperature systems transfer heat to lower temperature systems when in thermal contact. This causes the lower temperature system to warm up, and the higher temperature system to cool down. With heat transfer; it's two sides of the same coin; one object gains thermal energy (heats) and the other loses it (cools). Turning water into ice just means that you need to remove thermal energy from the system. Coolness is just a lack of heat. $\endgroup$ – JMac Jan 28 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ So what you are saying that everything in universe is originally cold and its the sun that provides heat energy to it removal of that energy bring things to there original cold state ? $\endgroup$ – Haris Abdullah Jan 29 at 7:27
  • $\begingroup$ @HarisAbdullah I don't know enough about cosmology to really say how it started or the state it is heading too. I wasn't trying to say anything about everything in the universe and how it started/will end. I'm just speaking about general concepts in heat transfer. $\endgroup$ – JMac Jan 29 at 13:29
0
$\begingroup$

A heat engine such as a steam turbine in a big electric power station does work by tapping the flow of heat from a heat source to a heat sink (i.e., to what you might call a "source of coldness.") You can make a tea-cup stirling engine run off the flow of heat from a room-temperature heat source to a very cold heat sink (e.g., dry ice).

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I once saw a demonstration at the Royal Institution in London about heat.

The lecturer was about to talk about infra-red radiation and pulled a red hot cannon ball of about $10\,\rm cm$ diameter out of a furnace and placed in on a tripod.
Almost immediately there was a flash and a loud explosion near the roof of the lecture theatre which was about 25 metres above the audience.
After the audience had calmed down the lecturer explained that he had place the red hot cannon ball at the focal point of a metal concave mirror which most had not noticed.
High above that concave mirror was another mirror with an explosive charge at its focal point.
The lecturer then explained that infra red radiation had travelled from the cannon ball, been reflected into a parallel beam by the bottom mirror and then collected and focussed by the top mirror.
The temperature in the vicinity of the explosive charge had risen and set it off.
So "heat" had been transferred from the cannon ball to the explosive change.

The experiment was then repeated with a cannon ball that had been cooled in liquid nitrogen and a thermocouple with a large display showing the temperature at the top.
He then asked the audience, with a little direction, why the temperature of the thermocouple had decreased.
A lot of the audience said was "coldness" travelling from the cold cannon ball to the thermocouple mirroring the reason when the hot cannon ball was used.

The explanation that it was "heat" (infra red radiation) travelling from the thermocouple to the cold cannon ball which caused the thermocouple to cool as heat/energy was being removed from it, was met with some initial surprise but certainly made a lasting impression to the point that there is no such thing a "coldness" travelling from place to place.

He then went on to show that all bodies in the demonstrations had emitted infra red radiation but the higher the temperature of the body the more radiation it emitted and that what he had demonstrated was the direction of the net flow of such radiation.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I am not talking about heat its only about coldness , it was use full but not the answer of my questions $\endgroup$ – Haris Abdullah Jan 30 at 10:24
0
$\begingroup$

The question looks like a wrong use of terminology. First we need to see what we mean by heat. The intrinsic kinetic energy of atoms is what we measure as temperature. Now the kinetic energy of atoms is something we intuitively understand. When we say heat is energy, what we actually mean is that a temperature gradient is what "creates" energy.

Of course, we cannot create energy, we can only convert it from one type to another. You can call it whatever you want, but if you want to power anything using heat, you basically convert the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules, to potential energy(battery).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't answer my questions , its only about coldness and is it a form of energy hear energy is just given to describe and compare it , $\endgroup$ – Haris Abdullah Jan 30 at 10:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.