109
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
109 points (95.8% liked)
science
20284 readers
413 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean that's literally what this study has shown. So it is indeed completely possible.
I don't think you have the grasp on things that you think you do. I'm not in the mood nor do I have the time to have a beginners class on this so I suggest you do some reading on your own and learn how to analyze things and come to your own conclusions. Way way too many studies are straight up faked at worst, at best they are tweaked and results that say something different are thrown out or ignored.
By this logic, when we heat up food or drinks in the microwave we are not using heat at all. We are in fact generating heat as the water molecules are excited by the energy in the radio waves being transmitted towards whatever is in the microwave. For those who may not know, radio waves are just light we can't see because our eyes don't have whats needed to see them.
You know what. Ignore everything I said above and keep on keeping on. Stay ignorant and full of yourself. See how far that gets you in life.
I hope you lack the time because you’re setting up your own study. This one was set up due to previous observations of rates of evaporation double or greater than those understood to be mathematically possible. Hell of an equipment error. It also observes a difference in the rate of evaporation under different colors of light, with the highest rate of evaporation occurring under green light, which you would probably also deem impossible, since color has nothing to do with it and green isn’t even the most energetic wavelength. An MIT professor, a postdoc, and four others hang their hat on these results, and the reality of this phenomenon. rdyoung disagrees with them in a comments section on an obscure forum. Which source might be more credible?
You also definitely don't understand what I or the study is saying. Not surprised here at all.
Again, as I said. Maybe we don't have the tech to read the miniscule amount of heat in a photon of light or the heat generated as the light excites the water molecules, that doesn't mean that heat wasn't a part of it.
Yet another one who has no idea or grasp of the concepts at play here.
Just like reddit, I thought a sub such as this would have a smarter community but once again you lot proved me wrong and showed me that no matter how dumb I think people can be, they can always surprise you with the idiocy.
I'll leave you with a quote from Harvey Danger.
Been around the world and found That only stupid people are breeding.
Just like Reddit you're being an absolute asshole for no reason.
Lighten up. This is no way to have a productive discussion. If you aren't in the mood, then maybe you shouldn't be commenting right now. Take a breather. We all have bad days. Hope you feel better.
You replied to a fairly accurate summary of the postulated explanation of an observed phenomena by saying it’s literally impossible. Either the study is faking its* data, or the study has real data but you don’t like the way definitions are playing out here. You’re arguing for both, because it’s really important that this study is wrong, because you don’t like it. But it can’t be both. Let’s assume PNAS didn’t publish a completely fraudulent study about a made-up phenomenon.
The thermal heat that is being transferred is what causes evaporation. That’s the historical understanding. Yes? Energy in, energy out. 1:1 ratio, everything is conserved. But it’s evaporating twice as fast as that measured heat transfer explains. 1=2? That’s not right. Saying “it’s just more heat that you can’t measure” doesn’t make any sense, because you’re claiming that 1.0004 = 2. It’s a new process. Yeah, something happened on a molecular level and there was probably heat transfer. But on a completely different scale than the known process of evaporation through actual ‘macro’ heat transfer. So it’s not the fucking same.
Again, the green thing. If evaporation is caused only by previously understood processes of heat transfer—more energy is more heat transfer is more evaporation—then why does a less energetic green light produce more evaporation than a more energetic blue or violent light?
“The researchers tried to duplicate the observed evaporation rate with the same setup but using electricity to heat the material, and no light. Even though the thermal input was the same as in the other test, the amount of water that evaporated never exceeded the thermal limit. However, it did so when the simulated sunlight was on, confirming that light was the cause of the extra evaporation.”
Sorry to steal so much of your time, but if you’re not fucking what’s so damn important
Don't feed the troll.
First, being rude makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Condescension in technology and science is very 'last century'.
Second, you're right. This article is a bad translation at best. If the light interacted with the water in any way that produced motion and caused evaporation, that motion IS heat.
They probably mean to say that they can evaporate water directly with light without having to use a heating element or something non-water to absorb the light. That's my best guess at translating a poorly written article at least.
From the abstract: “We interpret these observations by introducing the hypothesis that photons in the visible spectrum can cleave water clusters off surfaces due to large electrical field gradients and quadrupole force on molecular clusters.”
The commenter’s interpretation of the summary was pretty close to the language Chen used.
To be clear, this article is written by an English native speaker who is summarizing a study written in English primarily by a man who’s been at U.S. universities for three decades. Unless you meant it was a bad summary, which I don’t think it was, but that’s opinion.
No they literally state more water was evaporated than heat energy from the light could do by up to 3 times.
That's assuming some definition of heat that requires light absorbtion. This is still heat, because all motion of atoms is heat.
Oh look, another snowflake who reads factual statements as being rude. Fuck off with that shit.
The above said, thank you for being one of the few who actually gets it. There is heat everywhere there is light even if we can't detect it with equipment. The light exciting the water molecules generates heat, this is a fact that could only be argued with by those who think birds aren't real and/or that JFK will rise from the dead and bring along Lincoln as his vp.
Insulting others for pointing out your mistakes makes you look like a child. Graceful acceptance of feedback is a sign of maturity.
I realize that it's a common autistic trait to need to be correct and have little patience for those who don't understand, but take it from my personal experience, training yourself to not do that will improve your life significantly.
Ah you're just a giant insufferable douche. Got it.
Haha, what a nice trolling attempt!
What exactly are you talking about? What in any of my comments here lead you to that assumption? Or were you so horned up to make that comment that you responded to the wrong person?
As for my marriage. Happier than you could ever hope to be and having more sex in a week than you probably have in a decade all while working a reasonable number of hours and taking time off whenever I feel like it (I am self employed). Also buying a house and 3+ acres. Take a ton of vacations, see ever concert we can fit in to our schedule and even some we shouldn't. For example, just saw Theory Of a Deadman, Saint Asonia and Skillet in Salem VA. Have Creed next summer, Hagar, Vai, etc next spring iirc among others.
If you had any working braincells you would cross reference my username here on other platforms. That would give you an idea of who I am, what I am and what the fuck is really going on here.
I don't actually want your answer here so I will be proactively blocking you.
You had been really angry in your comments recently, but I'm sorry for offending you.
Since it seems to bother you so much, I'll delete the comment for you. I hope that helps.
Also, I wasn't one of the people arguing with you about the topic of the thread.