Introduction
The general belief on the conditions of the deep space, beyond the terrestrial exosphere, is about a completely empty place without temperature.
However, highly accurate measurements made by satellites, like the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) [2], have corroborated that the deep space has a temperature and, additionally, that it is not an absolutely empty space.
WMAP has revealed a deep space temperature of 2.7251 K and a density of 1 particle/cm^3 (density based on protons in the outer space) [3].
The theoretical temperature was confirmed by WMAP measurements. The theoretical basis related to the temperature of the deep space is given by the correlation between the temperature and the kinetic energy of the particle. On this case, the root mean square (rms) speed vrms of protons in deep space is 260 m/s.
The purpose of this essay is to know the amount of energy emitted by the Earth towards the outer space and the concept of microstates.
The Earth in the Cold Space
The formula to calculate the temperature of deep space is as follows:
T = (m*v^2rms) / (3*k)
Where m is the mass of particles, vrms is the root mean square velocity of those particles in that medium –because protons speed is highly variable, and k is for Boltzmann constant.
Given that ionized Hydrogen is the main constituent in the outer space, we consider the mass and the root mean square velocity of a proton in deep space to make our calculations.
Known values:
m = 1.67 x 10^-27 kg (mass of a proton)
vrms = 260 m/s (root mean square velocity of protons in the outer space).
k = Boltzmann’s constant = 1.38 x 10^-23 J/K
By introducing magnitudes into the formula T = (mv^2rms)/( 3*k), the theoretical temperature T of deep space, taking into account the kinetic energy of protons in deep space gives a result of 2.72686. The rms error is 0.00176 K, which is quite insignificant (0.06%), therefore, the theoretical value is in conformity with direct measurements.
The outer space is the environment of the Earth. The question is:
How much power the Earth radiates per unit area toward the deep space? To answer this question, let us resort to the Stephan-Boltzmann Equation:
P = e (A) (σ) (TEarth^4 – Tds^4)
Here, a problem arises with respect to the emissivity of the Earth. However, careful examinations and calculations of the Earth’s emissivity give a mean correlation factor of 0.82. [4] Introducing this correlation factor, the power emitted by the Earth, per square meter, during one second, is 329.51 W.
To correct this apparent incongruence with respect to the supposed amount of the incident solar IR radiation on Earth’s surface, some authors resort to iterate the quantity until the resulting power equals to the supposed incident solar IR radiation.
However, we only are allowed to take into account the sphericity of the Earth, so the value changes to esph = e / (4(π)) = 0.644.
The result after introducing the new correlation factor of 0.644 is 258.8 W.
Our last option to get the emissivity is to invent it by means of introducing a flawed value of the emissions from the Earth:
e = (249 W) / [A (σ) (TEarth^4 – Tds^4)] = 0.62
This way, we make the hypothesis matches with the Earth’s energy budget model.
However, this is not a valid procedure in science because the scientific methodology starts with observations and after it proceeds to produce hypotheses, which must be proven by means of experimentation, or more observations.
If we consider the correlation coefficient 0.82 as the total emissivity of the Earth, the absorbed energy by the Earth would be 601.92 J. The latter magnitude represents 44% of the solar constant (1368 W/m^2 x 0.44 = 601.92 W/m^2). NASA assigns a theoretical absorption of solar energy by the Earth of 48%.
Here, the power emitted by an ideal Earth should be 401 W. However, the measurements of the Earth’s emissivity reveal a correlation factor of 0.82.
Consequently, the observations of the real world reveal that the value of 0.62 assigned a priori to the emissivity of the Earth is not real and rise serious doubts about the total amount of solar power absorbed and the amount of power emitted by our planet.
Microstates and the Outer Space
To properly talk about microstates, we need that any amount of matter is present in a given medium. We cannot talk about microstates if we have not, at least, one Hydron (H+) in a given medium.
A microstate refers to any initial of final configuration of the energy in a given system.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, although initially was derived from the observation of thermal processes, has been proven to be acting on every level of energy exchange between two or more systems.
Initially, the Second Law was described in terms of the directionality in the flow of the energy in transit (a process function), which depends on the states of the systems involved in the exchange of such energy in transit. The Second Law clearly specified that the work only can be done by a higher energy density system on a lower energy density system and not the opposite.
However, with the advent of Quantum Physics, the scientists wondered whether this Law was valid at the quantum level or not. The answer to this question was given heuristically through the calculations of Maxwell, Boltzmann and Gibbs. The heuristic character of the calculations vanished when those hypotheses were later confirmed by experimentation.
In consequence, the definition of the Second Law was amplified to include its influence on the quantum level and not only on those process functions where heat and work were implied.
This shift was important because it defined the real concept of entropy and detached it from contextual derivations. For example, now we know that the fundamental concept of entropy has nothing to do with disorder, movement, complexity or heat “content”, but with the configurations that the energy adopts in a given system and the directionality of the energy exchange.
Entropy is now defined as the natural trend of the energy to flow towards the system or systems with a higher number of available microstates.
Let us say that two systems permit six configurations of the energy. One of them, let us say the system A, has four “occupied” configurations and only two available configurations. The other system, or system B, has only one “occupied” configuration and five available configurations. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy will flow spontaneously from the system A to the system B and never the opposite.
Perhaps, you are wondering if the energy could flow from B to A during the process. The answer is no because two systems implied in an energy exchange process cannot adopt the same configuration at once, although any system could adopt any configuration.
To calculate the number of microstates that a system can adopt, we resort to the following formula:
Nms = N! / (n1! * n2! * n3! …)
Where Nms is the number of available microstates (Maxwell-Boltzmann Number), N is the number of particles, and n is the number of particles in a determined occupied microstate. For example, we have a system A that have six particles from which four are in the microstate 0E, one is in the microstate 3E and one is in the microstate 5E. The number of available microstates for system A is:
Nms = 6! / (4! * 1! * 1!) = 720 / 24 = 30
Then, 30 is the number of available microstates for this system.
Let us consider a system B with the same number of particles (six) and the same number of levels of energy, i.e. six, but where each particle is occupying a level of energy, i.e. one particle at level 0E, one particle at level 1E, one particle at level 2E, etc. The solution is as follows:
Nms = 6! / (1! * 1! * 1! *1! * 1! * 1!) = 720 / 1 = 720
This system offers more available microstates, that is, more configurations to be adopted by the energy in a radiation process. Therefore, the radiation will flow from system A, with 30 available microstates, towards system B, with 720 available microstates.
What about the outer space, where there is only one particle per cubic meter? Is it possible that it has more available microstates than the massive Earth?
All the particles in the deep space are in their basic configuration, that is, there are no particles occupying any level of energy, but only high speed protons, therefore:
Nms = 6! / (0!) = 720 / 1 = 720
Consequently, the radiation trajectory will be always from the Earth towards the deep space, the most efficient sink of radiation of any kind. Notice that it has nothing to do with temperature, disorder, complexity, etc.
Kevan Hashemi asked Cohenite if a particle at 300 K will or will not emit photons. Any particle at 300 K is at its fundamental energy state, i.e. its available microstates will be higher than those of any particle with a temperature above 300 K. Such particle won’t radiate, but it will absorb energy.
By Nasif S. Nahle, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet Mexico,
Nasif’s website http://www.biocab.org
More from Nasif at this blog http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/nasif-s-nahle/
Acknowledgements
This topic has been magisterially touched by Alan Siddons in Chapters 2 and 3 of the book “Slaying the Sky Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Theory”.
Alan Siddons explains how the models on the Earth’s energy budget cannot depict the real exchange of energy through radiation between the Sun and the Earth and the Earth and the deep space [1].
This essay deals with the exchange of energy between the Earth and the deep space, already explained by Alan Siddons in his articles, and with the quantum concept of microstates, which agrees with the explanation given by Alan Siddons on his articles in the book Slaying the Sky Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Theory.
Further Reading
- http://slayingtheskydragon.com
- http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
- John D. Cutnell and Kenneth W. Johnson. Physics, 3rd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1995. New York. Page 434.
- http://www.gisdevelopment.net/technology/rs/ma03196.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Slaying the Skydragon” eh Nasif . Where have you been for the last 30 yrs? 🙂
Perhaps a copy should be sent to each and every Australian MP to enlighten these dolts.
Unfortunately you’re up against the cunning of a fox combined with the brain of a mushroom.
Nasif, another interesting essay.
For the benefit of Cohenite (and anyone else interested) I have added a comment (41) to your previous post with a link to W Lamb’s paper about photons (or no photons). W Lamb was awarded a Nobel prize in physics in 1955.
More and more information is appearing that there is no settled theoretical science (and most probably no science at all- certainly not the incorrect use of the Stefan-Boltzman blackbody equation) behind AGW. Then on top of that actual measurements such as described in the paper by Dr Noor Van Andel ( in case it has been missed http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CO2_and_climate_v7.pdf) are showing that changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and potential increases in the future have no effect on atmospheric temperatures just above the earths surfaces.
Maybe someone with more skill than I can get Willis Eschenbach to comment on Van Andel’s paper.
Nasif,
Many thanks for adding further intellectual and scientific rigor to our expanding global network of Sky Dragon Slayers!
John
cementafriend,
And settled physical science as well behind the AGW hypothesis – the AGW camp treat the atmosphere as independently acting separate molecular phases when it’s actually a gas phase, a liquid phase and a particulate phase.
That they have the basic physics wrong was expected though – the signs were there during the middle 1970’s at University when the Arts faculties students were “forced” to participate in “multidiscplinary” studies that required them to enroll in some hard physical science subjects. Most didn’t and preferred to enroll in physical sciences that are dominated by rhetorical skill, like geography and the softer strands of geology. They avoided physics, chemistry, biology etc.
AGW “science” is the logical outcome of that policy.
You like kicking the hornet’s nest, don’t you Nasif! Or as Mack wittily describes a mythical creature with the cunning of a fox and the intelligence of a mushroom.
There is much to talk about here but I am interested in this:
“For example, now we know that the fundamental concept of entropy has nothing to do with disorder, movement, complexity or heat “content”, but with the configurations that the energy adopts in a given system and the directionality of the energy exchange.
Entropy is now defined as the natural trend of the energy to flow towards the system or systems with a higher number of available microstates.”
That being the case would that not support zero point energy, which has already been vindicated through Casimir? That is entropy and ZPE are the same thing at a quantum level?
No mythical creatures Cohers. I’m talking about the pollies. :).
Sorry for the delay.
@Mack…
Thanks a lot for your comment.
We need many copies also to be sent to the Mexican PM Authorities, who are in a worse status than in Australia. 🙂
@Cementafriend…
Thank you very much for your post.
I’m aware of Lamb’s paper and paid special attention to his results. In 12 May 2010 I published an essay about the Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide based on H. Hottel’s Leckner’s and other scientists’ studies and results and found that the AGW proponents were dismissing this ineludible characteristic of the gas. I found that the carbon dioxide is not capable of causing any warming of the Earth’s surface, but instead of cooling, the same than Lamb, Chillingar, and Van Andel found.
The formula that I applied is:
ECO2 = 1-[(a-1 * 1-PE / (a + b) – (1+ PE)) * e (-c (Log10 (paL) m / paL) ^2)] * (ECO2)0
And the result was 0.0016 for the Total Emissivity of the CO2. Notice, from the formula, that I considered the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide through the whole length of the troposphere (paL).
@Louis Hissink…
Thank you for your observations.
Check!
@Cohenite…
Thank you so much for the analysis.
Indeed, this essay supports the existence of energy even in absolute vacuum.
In the context of an inflationary universe, without any Big Bang (imaginary), this energy has only a quantum origin. Furthermore it establishes the probability on the existence of Higgs’ energy fields.
As you have noticed, there are many other issues that this essay supports, for example quantum tunneling, Higgs’ bosons, Casimir Effect (quantum vacuum fluctuations due to differences of pressure), Zero Point Entropy (as a characteristic of absolute vacuum that I considered separated from the Casimir Effect), etc.
ZPE refers to the entropy extent sustained by a system at absolute zero and, as you have pointed out in your last question, ZPE is related to the Casimir effect in that the quantum fluctuations at absolute zero generate Casimir -Polder force, or those forces generated in the quantum field (some investigators have measured this forces and the last results are very precise; however, the related technology is advancing and we hope to have high precision measurements in a couple years, or perhaps in less time).
Quantum tunneling is an observable phenomenon that gives a solution to the entropy paradox: it was not that the Universe had started in a maximum entropy state, but in a minimum entropy state. The formation of the Universe starting in a high energy field would have obeyed to a quantum tunneling event; there was no need of imaginary Big Bangs, but of the negative pressure – of absolute vacuum, of course, from less available microstates to more available microstates (false void).
Nevertheless, the original purpose of this work is to demonstrate that the second law acts at the quantum level and that the second law of thermodynamics is explained unambiguously by quantum mechanics.
🙂
@John O’Sullivan…
@Mack…
Thank you very much! We have a proverb: “a lie lasts as long as the truth does not surface“, and this is what is happening to AGW nowadays after those last 30 years of being deceiving the whole world, during which they have been sacking and distorting real physics. Now they’re inventing things that are not observed in nature, things that go against reality. Slaying the Sky Dragon is clearing out AGW lies in a very comprehensible way.
🙂
Seem I can’t leave you guys alone for even a day or two so let’s look at the core of this starting with “The purpose of this essay is to know the amount of energy emitted by the Earth towards the outer space and the concept of microstates” an utter distraction in the general scheme of all things AGW!
IMHO it’s nonsense to consider the effect, if any Earth has on Deep Space, Time, background energy what ever when we know light passes through most of it all the time and we don’t need fancy math to prove it.
Also the concept of absolute zero is for practical purposes a waste of time. It does us no good to think sunlight traveling through Solar Space can’t hurt out retinas or Infra Red from anywhere is useless because we can’t see it.
BTW for the non technical; Space = space
@Gavin…
Thanks for your post.
You say:
Seem I can’t leave you guys alone for even a day or two so let’s look at the core of this starting with “The purpose of this essay is to know the amount of energy emitted by the Earth towards the outer space and the concept of microstates” an utter distraction in the general scheme of all things AGW!
That was the purpose of this essay and the objective was fulfilled.
You say:
IMHO it’s nonsense to consider the effect, if any Earth has on Deep Space, Time, background energy what ever when we know light passes through most of it all the time and we don’t need fancy math to prove it.
We need mathematics, which, on any scientific assessment, has nothing of “fancy”. I’m afraid mathematics is essential for serious science. All mathematical results in this article have been corroborated by observations and experimentation, so we can trust on projections made by following these mathematical procedures. If AGW proponents select only those algorithms and distorts them to make them “useful” to continue lying, it’s not the fault of mathematics, but of the people that don’t like to see beyond their noses.
You say:
Also the concept of absolute zero is for practical purposes a waste of time. It does us no good to think sunlight traveling through Solar Space can’t hurt out retinas or Infra Red from anywhere is useless because we can’t see it.
Your argument would be true if the concept of absolute zero were just an idea, like AGW; unfortunately for you and your argument, the existence of energy at absolute zero has been corroborated experimentally and has been applied on technology; for example, superconducting quantum interference devices, ultrasensitive detectors, highly sensitive voltmeters, nuclear magnetic resonance, magnetohydrodynamic power generators, etcetera, etcetera… I hope you never need a nuclear magnetic resonance, given that you consider it a waste of time.
So your argument is an unfortunate distractor; I’m sorry…
🙂
Nasif: ‘Your argument would be true if the concept of absolute zero were just an idea’
Mate; in this forum it should be good enough and I do have an understanding of the above as mentioned in the above parra re energy in cold mediums but this is not the place to go into such physics on behalf of general anti AGW arguments.
Another aspect could be Fourier Space where we look at pure substance near zero then get off on the energy transmissions in crystals as we do with modern electronics. It’s these things that get us near tru thermodynamic states and frequency domain v time domain.
You see; I had a very good tutor in physics and electronics who once designed weapons guidance systems using hardware he made himself from home grown atomic structures as he did with his all astronomy gear. It’s a good guess though, if you reckoned on me loosing most of the fancy math down the way after wearing out some of the grey matter. But it’s safe to say what counts the most in in the end is what we can individually put into practice.
Solutions must relate to the environment and the gear we work with.
@Gavin…
The environment of the Earth is the outer space. Would not you, Gavin, search it with the gear you work with? This essay is a practical application of the gear we work with:
Physical Chemistry, quantum physics, classic physics, mathematics (that you call “fancy”), biology, ecology, observations of reality, experimentation. Nothing dismissed.
🙂
My, my Gavin,
from a simple instrument technician a couple of years back, you have certainly advanced.
If you keep it up, at this rate, you’ll be flashing a Phd about soon.
Phd? what sort of tool is that and where would you use it JW?
have you got one I could borrow just in case we can’t find another clever guy?
Nah Gav, I ain’t got one either, just an humble master’s.
never mind, it didn’t make me smarter, just more employable in those days, now you need a Phd to do the job a the tea lady.
“job a the tea lady”????
job as a tea lady, well not quite, but if you want to work in the public “service”
at a higher level, you almost have to have one.
Mr. Nahle in your last post you stated “The energy required to excite an electron for it shifts from a lower quantum microstate to the next higher quantum microstate is 5.4468 x 10^-19 J. Ref. 5”
As CO2 is said to radiate IR due to a vibrational or rotational change not an electron shift how does this apply? Curious.
@mkelly
Thank you so much for your question.
Actually, vibrational or rotational shifts happen by the emission or absorption of energy through any mode of energy transfer. We cannot produce a vibrational shift if we don’t add or remove energy from that molecule because the normal state of a molecule is 0 , 0, m. The reverse explanation is a violation to the first law of thermodynamics.
The energy needed for an electronic shift (explained in this article) is considerably higher than that for a change of vibrational motion. A rotational shift needs, by far, a lower amount of energy than a vibrational shift.
The absorption of IR by a molecule of CO2 leading to an electronic shift places the molecule on another band of emission, regularly, on ultraviolet or visible bands, while simultaneous shifts of vibrational and rotational motions, without the occurrence of an electronic shift, makes the molecule to remain in the IR band, i.e. a change of emission band does not happen because the energy absorbed or emitted is quite low as to produce a change of emission band.
In conclusion, any argument from any website saying that the CO2 only emits by vibrational or rotational shifts and not by electronic shifts is wrong and the explained process is unphysical.
🙂
While checking on Nasif’s last statement I found this interesting Nilsson Thesis aimed at at rotational CARS model for CO2. I think it illustrates the difficulties of seeing what actually goes on but since we are off on a brief seachange I can’t get right into it now.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4MocHtNAu00J:www.forbrf.lth.se/fileadmin/forbrf/Documents/Exjobb/Old/2007_Nilsson_Thesis.pdf+CO2+only+emits+by+vibrational+and+rotational+shifts+and+not+by+electronic+shifts&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgIJkwfLqbCT_whsGrx8WuQIE9Ioveb016rJRoBkvbDbvqSL45CLdl-gr4VFwQF5AmbiY7zjgcOjAsjtO7JTsvbxFxaz7zDZ7ex-A2fDbcVe7744wQAC3kjmvwDyKEOGY4Nt6Dm&sig=AHIEtbTCMEc7JsprsG3R-_kPFoDPDLkzwA
@Gavin…
Thanks for the link to Kristin Nilsson’s article.
Despite the problems she had with time gating and CR overlap, the results of her experiment are acceptable. I think she should have considered that the energy of an electron getting lower as it is closer to the atomic nucleus. When a molecule of carbon dioxide is hit by a laser beam, the molecule is excited, but also, and most important, electronic shifts become more frequent.
The last paragraph on my post is understandable if we consider that the quantum energy density of the quantum/waves emitted by the surface is high enough as to cause electronic shifts in CO2 molecules (8.15 x 10^-6 J/m^3).
🙂