[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The problem was solved ages ago when someone did the design.
Why would you still care now?

The problem still exists, the designs put countermeasures to render it insignificant.
If you believe that there is no problem in the first place, you are likely to forget about the countermeasures, and the system will fail.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But I'm clearly talking about a laser that is a gas laser.
I only need to show one example of a case where your idea is impossible to show that your idea is wrong.
It doesn't matter if your idea works in other circumstances.

The gas condenses when cooled down to near abolute zero, and no longer be a gas. It introduces unnecessary complexity.
You need to learn a concept from the simplest cases. Mendel chose a specific kind of pea. Keppler was lucky that planets are far apart that their gravitational influence among them are insignificant compared to the sun's.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The kinetic energy of the electrons is dependent on temperature, not on whether or not it is an antenna.
Do you accept that?

Yes.
Electric current in the wire adds electrons kinetic energy.
Do you accept that?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Most schoolkids understand the concept of temperature.

Or misunderstand it, depends on what was taught to them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No point in teaching it to any machine (apart from a thermostat - and they seem to grasp it immediately time).

It seems like you are not familiar with AI.
Have you ever taught a thermostat?
What did you teach it?

[Bored chemist]

Electric current in the wire adds electrons kinetic energy.
Do you accept that?

Do you understand how little kinetic energy the current adds?
Only about a part in a billion.
Do you see how that makes your statement nonsense?

It introduces unnecessary complexity.

Then don't.

You need to learn a concept from the simplest cases.

Yes.
A monatomic gas like neon is much simpler than the heterojunction between two layers of  semiconductor in a laser diode.

But that's beside the point.
The neon case shows that you are wrong.
It does no matter what you say.
You were still wrong.

So it's still an example of this

Name one.

I already named one of the things you confidently got wrong.

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on Today at 04:54:12
Thus a kind of energy not related to motion can not be called temperature.
It quite often is.
The electronically excited neon atoms in a HeNe laser which emit light have a negative electronic temperature. Nobody cares much about their movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature#Lasers

Did you not understand it?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Do you understand how little kinetic energy the current adds?
Only about a part in a billion.

Little or big are relative.
How do you get that number?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A monatomic gas like neon is much simpler than the heterojunction between two layers of  semiconductor in a laser diode.

If the gases are cooled down to near abolute zero, will they still have negative temperature?
Is there a magnitude of negative temperature? Can an object have more negative temperature than another object? What would happen if they interact?

[alancalverd]

Have you ever taught a thermostat?
What did you teach it?

The point at which I wanted it to switch the heater on or off. We summarised all the stuff about kinetic energy by using a bimetallic strip that bends according to the mean k.e. of the atoms inside two different bits of metal.

[alancalverd]

Or misunderstand it, depends on what was taught to them.

"Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the constituent atoms and molecules in a body". There being no other definition in my lifetime, that was always what was taught.

[Bored chemist]

How do you get that number?

Like this

What's the proportion of transmitter power heating up the antenna compared to the power transmitting radio wave into space around it?

Who cares?
Why do  they care?
In an ideal world, no energy is dissipated as heat in the antenna, it's all transmitted.
In practice the reflected power may be larger than that lost to heat via resistance.

I never measured them.  Have you?

I'm sensible enough to usually let other people do the actual measurements for me.
On the other hand, I did once do one of them.
Measuring the speed of sound in air is a high-school experiment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z8d2mp3/revision/3#:~:text=Clap%2Decho%20method,to%20the%20wall%20and%20back).
I'm pretty sure we got an answer near 330m/s.
And I know how sound works, so I know that the speed of the molecules in air is about the speed of sound.
And I understand the equipartition principle.
So I know that the thermal KE of the electrons in a wire is the same as that of the air molecules (at the same temperature as the wire).

And I know that an air molecule weighs about 60,000 times as much as an electron, so , since they have the same KE, the electrons must be travelling square root (60,000) times as fast.
That's about 80 km/s.
It's only an approximation, but it's good enough to make the point.

It's also fairly easy to find the drift speed of an electron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity#Numerical_example
Tells you " the electrons are flowing at the rate of 23 μm/s".

So, now that you know that the current through a wire only changes the speeds of the electrons by a tiny fraction- about a part in a billion- do you see why it doesn't really matter if the transmitter is turned on or off?
 

More importantly, do you understand that if you actually knew science, you would already have known that?
Do you realise you wouldn't have said

Electrons on a radio transmission antenna or a power distribution transformer may have high kinetic energy, but we don't usually say that they have high temperature.

because you would have known that the use of electrons in an antenna hardly changes their KE at all.

Do you understand how, if you had spent time learning, you would ave avoided looking stupid?

Pay attention; you might learn something.

[Bored chemist]

If the gases are cooled down to near abolute zero, will they still have negative temperature?

Could you at least try to think about your questions a bit before you ask them?
If you have something at a negative temperature, and you want to get to absolute zero you don't cool it down, you warm it up.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Have you ever taught a thermostat?
What did you teach it?

The point at which I wanted it to switch the heater on or off. We summarised all the stuff about kinetic energy by using a bimetallic strip that bends according to the mean k.e. of the atoms inside two different bits of metal.

Your definition of teaching is unconventional.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Or misunderstand it, depends on what was taught to them.

"Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the constituent atoms and molecules in a body". There being no other definition in my lifetime, that was always what was taught.

As you can see, not everyone here agreed with that definition.

A resonating tuning fork has higher average kinetic energy than a silent tuning fork.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So I know that the thermal KE of the electrons in a wire is the same as that of the air molecules (at the same temperature as the wire).

You look careful with terminology. But you called for further questions. What does thermal KE means?  If you say it's KE which affects temperature, then it creates a circular logic, thus meaningless.
Is there such a thing as thermal potential energy?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So, now that you know that the current through a wire only changes the speeds of the electrons by a tiny fraction- about a part in a billion- do you see why it doesn't really matter if the transmitter is turned on or off?

What makes you think that ideal gas model can accurately describes behavior of electrons in a conductor?
Where does most of power fed by radio transmitter to the antenna go?

[Bored chemist]

Have you ever taught a thermostat?
What did you teach it?

The point at which I wanted it to switch the heater on or off. We summarised all the stuff about kinetic energy by using a bimetallic strip that bends according to the mean k.e. of the atoms inside two different bits of metal.

Your definition of teaching is unconventional.

Any definition is unorthodox once you start applying it to teaching machines.
And you did that.
You can't complain about it now.

[Bored chemist]

What makes you think that ideal gas model can accurately describes behavior of electrons in a conductor?

The fact that the electron gas model is widely accepted and in broad agreement with experimental results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_model#Properties_of_an_electron_gas

Why do you ask?
Have you a better model?

Where does most of power fed by radio transmitter to the antenna go?

If it is properly set up, most of the power is radiated away into space.
Ideally, all of it would be radiated.
The important bit is that practically none goes into increasing the KE of the electrons.

[alancalverd]

A resonating tuning fork has higher average kinetic energy than a silent tuning fork.

And a tuning fork inside a rocket has more kinetic energy than one on the ground. Or maybe not, if you are in the rocket. According to Einstein, it's the one on the ground that is receding at umpteen mph and thus has more kinetic energy.

Hence the rather pedantic distinction between internal (thermal) and total (gross motion) kinetic energy. Physics is pedantic.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Any definition is unorthodox once you start applying it to teaching machines.
And you did that.
You can't complain about it now.

A more widely used word for machine learning is training. The machine is trained by feeding it data which are used to adjust its internal parameters until it reach desired behaviors. The process is similar to teaching kids, and less similar to designing thermostats.