[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Does it imply that we can't predict where the energy will naturally flow?

No.

How do you predict where the energy will naturally flow between two objects if their temperatures are not well defined?

[Bored chemist]

Ultraviolet catastrophe.

Was resolved by the quantisation of  em radiation- which is implicit in the use of the word "photons".

Which implies that the em radiation is not equally partitioned.

I think you may have failed to spot the word "average" in the definition.

[Bored chemist]

Does it imply that we can't predict where the energy will naturally flow?

No.

How do you predict where the energy will naturally flow between two objects if their temperatures are not well defined?

It generally flows towards equipartition.

[Bored chemist]

Previously, you concluded that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons because you thought that equipartition theory is still valid in this case. You thought that its validity is a consequence of the conservation of energy.

The type of error that you have made here is comparable with assuming that, since all poodles are dogs, all dogs must be poodles.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Does it imply that we can't predict where the energy will naturally flow?

No.

How do you predict where the energy will naturally flow between two objects if their temperatures are not well defined?

It generally flows towards equipartition.

But you don't know which way, for they are not well defined.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ultraviolet catastrophe.

Was resolved by the quantisation of  em radiation- which is implicit in the use of the word "photons".

Which implies that the em radiation is not equally partitioned.

I think you may have failed to spot the word "average" in the definition.

Ultraviolet catastrophe is a scenario already accounting for average.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Previously, you concluded that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons because you thought that equipartition theory is still valid in this case. You thought that its validity is a consequence of the conservation of energy.

The type of error that you have made here is comparable with assuming that, since all poodles are dogs, all dogs must be poodles.

What makes you think that equipartition theory is still valid to conclude that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons?

[Bored chemist]

Previously, you concluded that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons because you thought that equipartition theory is still valid in this case. You thought that its validity is a consequence of the conservation of energy.

The type of error that you have made here is comparable with assuming that, since all poodles are dogs, all dogs must be poodles.

What makes you think that equipartition theory is still valid to conclude that energy of thermal neutrons at room temperature is the same as electrons?

It's still, as I said,  the conservation of energy.

Ultraviolet catastrophe is a scenario already accounting for average.

But, as I said,  not for quantisation.

But you don't know which way, for they are not well defined.

You might not think they are well enough defined.
But, as I said, the rest of us do.

Why do you keep repeating teh same questions after that have been answered?
Do you have a learning disability?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You might not think they are well enough defined.
But, as I said, the rest of us do.

You are the one who said that the temperature wasn't well defined.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why do you keep repeating teh same questions after that have been answered?

Because you keep giving contradicting or circular answers.

[Bored chemist]

You might not think they are well enough defined.
But, as I said, the rest of us do.

You are the one who said that the temperature wasn't well defined.

Temperature isn't well defined. The state of the system is well defined.

This is not meant to be difficult.
You really should stop wasting time here and go and learn some physics.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What EXACTLY is Temperature?!

You may have heard temperature is just the kinetic energy of molecules, but that's a subtle lie. In this video, Nick Lucid explains those subtlies in the only way he knows how: CRAZY!

This old video describes what became my concern pretty well.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Misconception about temperature.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Difference Between Temperature and Heat

This video explains the concepts of temperature and heat, their units of measurement, instruments used to measure them and their main characteristics and behavior with graphic examples.

Average kinetic energy alone isn't enough to describe temperature, a concept that's supposed to predict heat flow when two objects are allowed to exchange heat. The missing ingredients are what I was trying to identify.

[Bored chemist]

Misconception about temperature.

Yes; the misconception of people who were never properly taught about it.
If you asked the same questions at a science conference you would get laughed at.

All that video does is show that some people didn't study physics.
And we already know that.

[Bored chemist]

This old video describes what became my concern pretty wel

Well... he's wrong.
He failed to explain that, the various modes have to be in equilibrium.
But, he got sort of close when he said something about averages sometimes not making much sense.

[Bored chemist]

Difference Between Temperature and Heat

This video explains the concepts of temperature and heat, their units of measurement, instruments used to measure them and their main characteristics and behavior with graphic examples.

Average kinetic energy alone isn't enough to describe temperature, a concept that's supposed to predict heat flow when two objects are allowed to exchange heat. The missing ingredients are what I was trying to identify.

And, once again, you are listening to the "lies we tell to children".
Consider this picture and what the writig says

[Bored chemist]

"the faster the molecules vibrate".
But the average velocity of a vibrating molecule is zero- it moves left to right, them it moves right to left.
On average, it doesn't move at all.

He goes on to say that temperature only makes sense if you look at a large group of molecules.- so, at least he gets that part right.

He goes wrong at about 6:55 because he fails to point out that he's talking about spontaneous, macroscopic heat transfer.

Seriously. What "point" do you think you are making?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"the faster the molecules vibrate".
But the average velocity of a vibrating molecule is zero- it moves left to right, them it moves right to left.
On average, it doesn't move at all.

If you use speed instead of velocity, the average is not zero.

[Bored chemist]

"the faster the molecules vibrate".
But the average velocity of a vibrating molecule is zero- it moves left to right, them it moves right to left.
On average, it doesn't move at all.

If you use speed instead of velocity, the average is not zero.

Please yourself.
But remember, on average half the stored energy is in the spring, not the movement.
So the average kinetic energy of an oscillating spring/ mass system is not the average energy of that system.
The point remains; he's close but wrong.


And with other systems, you may need to consider electronic excitation. (Possibly even nuclear if it's hot enough).