In climate science it is common to view radiative heat transfer as a two-way flow of IR-photons particles carrying lumps of energy back and forth between e.g. the Earth surface and the atmosphere.
This view lacks physics rationale because it includes heat transfer by IR-photons not only from warm to cold, but also form cold to warm in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The usual way to handle this contradiction is to say that the net transfer is from warm to cold, and so there is no violation of the 2nd Law. But this requires the two-way transfer to be connected which is in conflict with an idea independent two-way transfer.
On Computational Blackbody Radiation I present a model of radiative heat transfer which is based on a wave equation for a collection of oscillators with small damping subject to periodic forcing solved by finite precision computation. Fourier analysis show that the oscillators in resonance take on a periodic motion which is out-of-phase with the forcing, which connects to optical phonons as wave motion in an elastic lattice with large amplitude (as compared to acoustical phonons with smaller amplitude).
Optical phonons typically occur in a lattice composed of two atoms of different mass, one big and one small, which connects to the radiation wave model with small damping.
We thus find reason to view IR-photons as a wave phenomenon similar optical phonons, rather than as "particles".
The radiation wave model includes two-way propagation of waves but only one way transfer of heat energy as an effect of cut-off of high frequencies due to finite precision computation.
Do not trust laws of Thermodynamics, as they approximate only half the dynamics of experience. A closed system is a very special case, and thermo is related directly to radiative phenomenon which implies Electrodynamics.
SvaraRaderaHowever, since electrodynamics ignores half it's phenomenological base, I guess we have to have non symmetrical rules like Thermodynamics
Ref your statement: "But this requires the two-way transfer to be connected which is in conflict with an idea independent two-way transfer."
SvaraRaderaSorry, but I cannot make any sense of this argument, and I do not find anything like this at any other scientific source. So can you please explain what you really mean to say. Why should an intercange of energy be impossible, that included a two-way transfer?
As a matter of fact, common sense as well as other scientists tell us that a two-way transfer and interchange of energy can take place. Scientists have measured data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the Earth's surface. So how is it possible to deny this?
Two-way independent transfer of heat between warm and cold, without external forcing, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics by involving transfer of heat from cold to warm. The instruments supposedly measuring DLR are fake instruments reporting an illusion of DLR from cold atmosphere to warm Earth surface, while in fact only measuring net transfer of heat from warm to cold. By a fake instrument you can measure anything you want, e.g. the aura around your body.
SvaraRaderaThank you so much for a prompt answer. This is very interesting! But I am still in doubt about this. You are saying: "Two-way independent transfer of heat between warm and cold, without external forcing, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics by involving transfer of heat from cold to warm."
RaderaBut I am still wondering what is your definition of a "two-way independent transfer of heat"? And whether the energy systems we are talking about really are without external forcing?
As far as I can see, neither the surface of Earth nor its atmosphere are independent energy transmitters, and without external forcings. The Earth surface is dependent upon a steady flow of energy from the sun, and the atmosphere is dependent upon re-emitted energy from the Earth. Thus the re-emission from the atmosphere, in all directions - also back to the Earth surface - should not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Of course, all things considered, the _net flow_ of energy will always go from warm to cold. But it may well be that if the 2nd law did not allow for "countercurrents", life would not at all be able to exist.
Yes, the Sun supplies the forcing to the Earth-atmosphere system, but independent transfer of heat from a cold atmosphere to a warm Earth surface violates the 2nd law. Two-way independent transfer of heat is fiction and serves no scientific purpose. Only net flow from warm to cold is a reality. Only an alarmist with the objective of fooling people to believe in global warming from nothing, could have use of two-way transfer including transfer of heat of the Earth surface from a cold atmosphere.
SvaraRaderaHi :)
SvaraRaderaThe Earth is not a Black Body radiator and neither is our Sun or the Universe, The mis-interpretation of Kirchoffs Law led Max Planck to wrongly assume it held "universality" over ALL situations. There is no microwave background from the Universe, to have a thermal spectrum requires a lattice, Penzias and Wilson's discovery is actually from the Earths Oceans ... trying to unravel the dynamic action of our weather/warming/cooling system without a correct thermal profile of our Planet is never going to happen.
Regards Allan