Phlogiston Theory of Nuclear Physics

The phlogiston theory was a scientific hypothesis developed in the late 17th century stating that a combustible body contains a substance in the form of phlogistons, which during combustion is released into the air under loss of mass of the body. The theory was debunked by noting instead a gain of mass (in the form of oxygen taken from the air). 

Modern physics describes combustion in terms of chemical reactions where energy is released by rearranging electrons in space into lower total energy, not substantially as loss of mass or mass defect. 

Modern physics explains energy release in nuclear reactions in terms of mass defect with the products having smaller mass than reactants, as if mass is turned into energy according to $E=mc^2$.  

According to the (debunked) phlogiston theory, energy released in chemical reactions comes from "burning of phlogistons".  

According to modern physics, energy released in nuclear reactions comes from "burning of mass" with mass defect according to $E=mc^2$. Is this also a form of phlogiston theory not yet debunked? 

To seek an answer, recall that nuclear reactions can be described in terms of spatial rearrangement of nucleons, in the same way that chemical reactions can be described in terms of rearrangement of electrons.

Does this description capture all the energy released or only some of it, the remaining then coming from "burning of mass"? But why only some of the energy, and not all? 

With these arguments we are led to question the idea of "energy from burning of mass" as the prevailing idea. We are led to suspect that the mass defects trivially computed from list values of masses of reactants and products have been assigned values so as to allow mass defects to account for observed energy release as a form of self full-filling prophecy to impress the average mind along the Einstein model of the previous post.  

Is Mass Converted to Energy in Fusion/Fission of Atoms?

According the Einstein's $E=mc^2$ the energy released in fusion/fission of atoms corresponds to a decrease of mass. The atoms before fusion/fission have more mass than after, with the mass difference being transformed to energy. 

The process of fusion/fisson of atoms is thus considered to be different from chemical reactions generating energy from recombination of the electronic clouds of molecules/atoms/ions into new energy levels in exotermic reactions producing energy and in endothermic reactions consuming energy. Her the total mass of the molcules/atoms/ions involved does not change, only the total electronic energy level, up or down. 

A molecule/atom/ion is here considered to be one or more positively charged kernels surrounded by negatively charged electrons held together by electromagnetic Coulomb forces with corresponding electronic energies.  

In the same way atom kernels are viewed to consist of collections of protons and neutrons held together by the strong force overriding electromagnetic repulsion between protons with corresponding nuclear energies. In fusion/fission atomic kernels recombine just like electrons clouds of molecules/atoms/ions into new energy levels with corresponding production/consumption of energy. Does here the total mass change?  

In modern physics it does because energy is viewed to be equivalent to mass according to Einstein's $E=mc^2$. 

In classical physics energy mass is inertial/gravitational mass and so is not expected to change under recombination of molecules/atoms/ions, because a sufficient reason in the spirit of Leibniz is lacking. Recombination of electron configurations into new electronic energy levels is enough. This is what is observed. Reorganising a truck load does not change its mass/weight, but possibly its potential energy by putting things on top of each other.  

Why expect anything different when reorganising collections of protons and neutrons with corresponding change of nuclear energy?  Is there any sufficient reason? If not, then what?

But what about experiments? Isn't it true that 0.1% mass is lost in fission energy? Maybe, but measurement of inertial/gravitational mass is very delicate. How do you measure the loss of mass in an atomic bomb explosion? 

The fission mass of Little Boy was about 1 kilo releasing about $64\times 10^{12}$ Joule, to be compared with the $10^{17}$ Joule of the SI standard based on Einstein's $E=mc^2$ discussed in the previous post, with thus a formal loss of mass of less than 0.1%. Was it measured?

We may compare with the discussion of phlogiston theory predicting a loss of mass in chemical reactions into phlogistons of energy, which showed to be wrong because mass showed to be conserved.   

 

Phlogistons and Photons as Non-Physics

Phlogiston Theory proposed in 1667 by Becher followed by Stahl postulated the existence of a fire-like element named phlogiston (flame, burning) within combustible bodies being released during combustion/oxidation as heat energy. Phlogistons were thus thought to be carriers of energy released during burning. 

The theory was dismissed when Lavoisier in 1772 showed that phosphorous increased weight by combining with oxygen from air during burning thus increasing weight. This showed that if phlogistons were real as elements being released during burning, then they had negative weight/mass, and so could not be physical elements, only fiction.  

In 1905 Einstein suggested that light of frequency $\nu$ heuristically could be thought of as a stream of little elements of energy or energy quanta later named photons of size $h\nu$ with $h$ Planck's constant, which could be released when hitting a metal surface thus producing electric energy as photoelectricity. The physical nature of a photon has remained elusive. 

The photon is an element of the Standard Model of particle physics as a carrier of electromagnetic interaction/energy at the speed of light in vacuum, a carrier without mass and charge. 

The phlogiston and the photon are both seen as carriers of little elements or packets of energy. A phlogiston has negative mass, while a photon has no mass. Both have zero charge. 

What about then the idea of an element or quanta of energy? Is this physics? 

We know that the energy released in combustion comes from a recombination of atomic structure. Phlogistons as little elements of energy are not needed. 

I agree with Schrödinger to see electromagnetic interaction/transfer of energy as an electromagnetic wave resonance phenomenon described by Maxwell's equations. This is the way an antenna works. It can be seen as a recombination of wave structures. There is here no need of photons as little elements of energy to explain communication over distance by radio waves. 

Phlogistons have been discarded as fiction without any role to serve. More generally, there can be no elements of pure energy. 

It may well be that also photons can be discarded as fiction without any role to serve. 

In quantum field theory there is place for both particles and fields with a particle seen as a local perturbation of the field. But if a particle is nothing but a perturbation of a field, why not use Ockham's razor to be satisfied with only fields? 

 

Phlogiston Theory vs Radiation Theory with Back Radiation

Phlogiston theory and radiation theory with "back radiation" shares a common theme: Both describe  phenomena taking place as if in a vacuum, without input from the actual environment:

Phlogiston theory states that a phlogistated substance burns by consumption of phlogistons (or "fire elements") inside the substance in a process of dephlogistication without input from the environment, as if taking place in a vacuum. 

Radiation theory with back radiation states that all bodies of modest temperatures radiate infrared photons (or "light elements") out of the body independent of the temperature of the surrounding environment, as if taking place in a vacuum.  

Phlogistons have never been identified and observed, and neither have infrared photons. Both are elements believed to be hiding inside a substance capable of escaping into a surrounding vacuum.

For an earlier post on phlogistons and infrared photons, see here.

PS You can buy an infrared detector like an infrared camera reacting to infrared light. Is an infrared camera a collector of infrared photons, like a butterfly net collecting butterflies flying through the air?

No. A cooled infrared camera absorbs heat energy from a warmer object and an uncooled infrared camera emits heat energy to a cooler object. In neither case does the camera collect a nominal flow of "light elements" supposedly being emitted by an object into a surrounding vacuum. Compare with previous posts under category "infrared thermometer".

You can use your on body as detector of a colder or warmer environment than your skin, by noticing a feeling of being cooled or heated, but your perceived sensation is not evidence of  "infrared photons" flying in and out of your body.

2nd Coming of the 2nd Law

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has remained as a main mystery of physics ever since it was first formulated by Clausius in 1865 as non-decrease of entropy, despite major efforts by mathematical physicists to give it a rational understandable meaning.

The view today is, based on the work by Ludwig Boltzmann, that the 2nd Law is a statistical law expressing a lack of precise human knowledge of microscopic physics, rather than a physical law independent of human observation and measurement. This view prepared the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics as the basis of modern physics.

Modern physics is thus focussed on human observation of realities, while classical physics concerns realities independent of human observation. To involve the observer into the observed makes physics subjective which means a depart from the essence of physics of objectivity. A 2nd Law based on statistics thus comes along with many difficulties, which ended Boltzmann's life, and it is natural to seek a formulation in terms of classical physics without statistics.

Such a formulation is given in Computational Thermodynamics based on the Euler equations for an ideal compressible gas solved by finite precision computation. In this formulation the 2nd Law is a consequence of the following equations expressing conservation of kinetic energy K and internal (heat) energy E:

• dK/dt = W - D
• dE/dt = - W + D
• D > = 0,  

where W is work and D is nonnegative turbulent dissipation (rates). The crucial element is the turbulent dissipation rate D which is non-negative, and thus signifies one-way transfer of energy from kinetic energy K into heat energy E.

The work W, positive in expansion and negative in compression, allows a two-way transfer between K and E, while turbulent diffusion D >= 0 can only transfer kinetic energy K into heat energy E, and not the other way.

We compare dE/dt = - W + D or rewritten as dE/dt + W = D as an alternative formulation of the 2nd Law, with the classical formulation found in books on thermodynamics:

• dE + pdV = TdS = dQ
• dS > = 0, 

where p is pressure, V is volume (with pdV corresponding to W), T is temperature, S is entropy and dQ added heat energy.

We see that D >= 0 expresses the same relation as dS >= 0 since T > 0, and thus the alternative formulation expresses the same effective physics as the classical formulation.

The advantage of the alternative formulation is that turbulent dissipation rate D with D >= 0 has a direct physical meaning, while the physical meaning of S and dS >= 0 has remained a mystery.

The alternative formulation thus gives a formulation in terms of physical quantities without any need to introduce a mysterious concept of entropy, which cannot decrease for some mysterious reason. A main mystery of science can thus be put into the wardrobe of mysteries without solution and meaning, together with phlogistons.

Notice the connection to Computational Blackbody Radiation with an alternative proof of Planck's radiation law with again statistics replaced by finite precision computation.

For a recent expression of the confusion and mystery of the 2nd Law, see Ludwig Boltzmann: a birthday by Lubos.

PS1 The reason to define S by the relation dE + pdV = TdS is that for an ideal gas with pV = RT this makes dS = dE/T + pdV/T an exact differential, thus defining S in terms of T and p. The trouble with S thus defined, is that it lacks direct physical meaning.

PS2 Lubos refers to Bohr's view of physics:

• There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature...

This idea has ruined modern physics by encouraging a postmodern form medieval mysticism away from rational objectivity as the essence of science, where the physical world is reduced to a phantasm in the mind of the observer busy counting statistics of non-physical micro states.

PS3 Recall that statistics was introduced by Boltzmann to give a mathematical proof of the 2nd law, which appeared to be impossible using reversible Newtonian micromechanics, followed by Planck to prove his law of radiation, followed by Born to give the multidimensional Schrödinger equation an interpretation. But this was overkill. It is possible to prove a 2nd law and law of radiation using instead of full statistics a concept of finite precision computation as shown in Computational Thermodynamics and Computational Blackbody Radiation, which maintains the rationalism and objectivity of classical mechanics, while avoiding the devastating trap of reversible micromechanics.  

IR Photons as Phlogistons

A photon is as elementary particle the carrier of the electromagnetic force. 

A phonon is as collective elastic excitation in a lattice of atom or molecules the carrier of sound, referred to as a "quasiparticle". 

A phonon is a collective sound wave while a photon is a "light particle". In a previous post I considered  an acoustic model of radiative heat transfer between the Earth surface and the atmosphere and outer space, in the form of a string instrument with energy transfer from string to soundboard to surrounding air.

It is common to describe infrared radiative heat transfer between two bodies as a two-way flow of IR photon particles carrying "energy quanta" back and forth between the bodies. I have argued that this view is non-physical in the sense that energy is supposed to be carried not only from warm to cold, but also from cold to warm which is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. 

To understand that the particle view is non-physical, it is illuminating to consider a model of the string instrument where the concept of phonon wave is replaced by "phonon particle" as an acoustic counterpart to a photon particle. A "phonon particle" would thus be a form of elementary particle as "sound particle" and "carrier of sound (force)".  

We would then view the sound produced by the string instrument as consisting of a two-way flow of phonons between string and soundboard and between soundboard and surrounding air. In this model the sound of the surrounding air would send phonons to the soundboard which would send phonons to the string. This would be in violation with our experience reflecting the 2nd law, that it is the string which makes the soundboard vibrate, which makes the sound wave in the air. 

We understand that a phonon particle model of a string instrument is non-physical as violation of the 2nd law and thus misleading.

In the same way an IR photon particle model of infrared radiative heat transfer is non-physical as violation of the 2nd law and thus misleading. Yet this model underlies the idea of "backradiation" from the cold atmosphere the to warmer Earth surface, which is a central part of CO2 alarmism.
  

Such a photon theory postulating heat transfer by photon particles without mass, charge, color, odor or taste, can be compared with the phlogiston theory postulating that in all flammable materials there is present phlogiston, a substance without color, odor, taste, or weight that is given off in burning.

Notice that because of the long wave length of infrared radiation, and IR-photon is similar to a phonon and thus is better described as collective wave phenomenon than as discrete particle. Compare with previous post on the subject.

PS There is a connection between optical phonons as large amplitude out-of-phase wave vibration of a lattice of two different atoms with different mass (as compared to acoustic small amplitude in-phase vibration), and the analysis of blackbody radiation on Computational Blackbody Radiation with incoming and outgoing radiation out-of-phase (also characteristic of a string instrument designed to give large amplitude output).

Radiative Heat Transfer: Phlogistons and Photons

I will now argue that phlogiston theory has similarities with photon theory of light in the case of infrared radiation of global climate.

Phlogiston theory says that all combustible resources contain particles named phlogistons without colour, odor, taste or mass, which are liberated in burning.

Photon theory says that light consists of particles named photons without mass and charge carrying energy along straight lines at a constant speed of light. Photons have different frequencies and and energy proportional to frequency.

Photon theory describes radiative heat transfer between two bodies as a two-way stream of photons emitted/absorbed by the bodies, with the hotter body emitting photons of higher frequency and in higher numbers as compared to the colder body, which results in a net transfer of heat energy from hot to cold.

Photon theory is a particle theory of light going back to Newton's corpuscular theory of light,

and is to be compared with the wave theory of light as electromagnetic waves described by Maxwell's equations. The wave theory of light describes almost all observed phenomena of light.

The wave theory of light replaced the particle theory in the late 19th century, but was revived in the early 20th century by Planck to describe blackbody radiation and by Einstein to describe the photoelectric effect.

Phlogiston theory is no longer taught, but the photon theory of light is still used to explain certain phenomena believed to be difficult to explain by a wave model, typically related to the

phenomena of emission and absorption involving interaction between matter and electromagnetic waves. In photon theory emission is seen as ejection of photon particles and

absorption as the opposite.

For visible light, emission of photons as finite quanta of energy can be associated with discrete changes of atomic electronic structure. For infrared radiation with much larger wave lengths than atomic dimensions, the interaction between matter and waves must involve collective motion of many atoms and the photon theory does not seem to be applicable.

This mean that photon theory cannot be used to describe blackbody radiation at the modest temperatures of global climate. In this case the photon theory is similar to the phlogiston theory as a very simplistic theory with little predictive capability, and a wave theory based on Maxwell's equations can be preferable, as shown in Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation.

The fact that photon theory can be useful for certain applications at high-energy short wave-lenghts, does not mean that it is also uselful for completely different applications at low-energy long wave-lengths.

Nevertheless, the photon theory serves as support of the propaganda of CO2 alarm based on

the idea that streams of photons from the atmosphere contribute to global warming as DLR/backradiation, which rather represents phlogiston theory than real physics.