SOUND AND HEAT
Chapter 21 INDEX TO OTHER PAGES
we speak of sound waves we think of disturbances that are carried through the
air like ripples from a stone cast in water. The notion is correct, and in the
search for its fundamentals, we come with two questions.
First, what sound is for its nature.
And second, what specifically are sound waves?
sound be in the nature of dust, in the mechanics, which are matter and motion?
No, not the nature of sound itself, for how shall a stone hear, or a tree
conceive sounds, or how - for that matter - shall a man be able to create or
answer here is that we receive pressure disturbances and we create pressure
differential's, which in themselves are not sound, but mechanical movements
among the parts of nature. Sound,
as such, is not in the nature of things, but a faculty of our spirit.
And in that same essence we have the ability to make sounds without making a sound. For when you reason within yourself, you are making words, words that can be transmitted through the air if only at the same time you implemented a code in pressure vibration with the use of your vocal cords.
Sound however only comes to that term when we decode a pressure
disturbance into what is essentially - incomprehensible, - namely, the sense of
hearing, a sound, a most marvelous faculty of the nature of the spirit.
The mechanical innovation - which by figure of speech is also called "sound", is transposed along the grid-lines of nature, passing over and upon the cores (nucleuses) of the atoms. When a momentum F (Figure 21-1), strikes the first atom, which is elastically held in the grid of the electrons interacting and inter-spacing with one another, that momentum is then transferred to the next in line, which again passes the same to the next, and so on.
A bit crude perhaps, but that definition suits man better than the more refined definition. When therefore each of these cores are struck - they acts a bit like a pendulum moving back and forth.
The initial force of the momentum is however not retained, for since the
core is fastened by as were it elastic tentacles, some more rigid than others,
they quickly bring the vibration of their core to a halt.
Sound is not transposed along the perimeters of atoms, if it did, it would instantly come to a velocity equal to that of light. Nor will sound travel in between atoms where there is no bond, where the cores of the atoms do not relate to one another, where no grid-lines exist, or are too far apart.
In the case where the whole atoms are moved to bounce against
one another, shell to shell, a low pitch sound is possible provided there are
again other more stationary atoms against which they may find sufficient
resistance to cause that typical vibration upon the cores.
The velocity of sound depends on the relative spacing of the cores and their rigidity, and not necessarily in that order. For in air that is heated, the atoms are spaced further apart as compared to colder air, wherefore it seems logical that in warmer air the velocity should be slower.
This is based upon the reasoning that as atoms are spaced further apart - more time is required for one to contact upon the next.
the velocity of sound is higher in the warmer air, which of course appears
illogical. At 10 Celsius 1107 ft/sec, at
30 Celsius 1147 ft/sec. Accordingly, we have yet
to gather what a higher temperature has in common with the transmission of sound
Then if you think about this how very perfectly all these parts work, like in music the perfection of all the tones, how very wise and very capable the great Creator is to have formed all these things to such - for us - inconceivable perfection.
For even this - for us to make sounds with our vocal cords, to cause these unique vibrations that make for our language to one another, that likewise is most marvelous.
Think about it, attempt to conceive how to such perfection may be made from nothing at all. The fact being that with the best of our means we can't even begin to comprehend it, unless one is a fool, since a fool is always wiser than the wise. (so he gathers)
Much is written on thermal energy (heat). Yet in all that - the definition to the - nature - of heat is nowhere written or even hinted upon. The sensation to warmth, like sound, is of course also a faculty of the spirit of man, nature itself having no conception of what it is to be hot or cold.
As then "motion," as in - parts in motion by coordination, is fundamental in all of the phenomena of nature, so heat for its fundamentals is spelled "motion," with "temperature" a scale of that motion.
But motion and motions are many, wherefore the question remains, what particular motion in nature registers itself to us as warmth? For an answer, we come with more questions.
For just why should expanding gases like Freon all of a sudden become so much colder? What is it in these molecules and atoms that they thus cause the temperature to drop? This phenomena alone should give us a hint, provided we correlate clearly one factor to the other.
Shall it be in their greater spacing? Or perhaps in their freedom from pressure? When for example we heat a bar of steel, what is really going on inside that bar that by the mere touch of it the skin on our hands will be reduced to dead and inoperable tissue?
when we boil water, what really is causing the molecular bond to disengage by
which a liquid changes to a gaseous state?
For again on the other hand, the molecular bond of a rubber band under
normal temperature is very resilient, but when frozen it will crumble like a
Molecular bonds, as also atomic bonds, can be made or broken in either direction by increasing or decreasing the degree of what we call temperature. Thus comes the question; in what way this temperature - as motion - operates to effect these changes?
Shall heat be in the movement of molecules, or in that of atoms, or both?
But then neither the molecules nor the atoms in that bar did much in the
way of movement while they were heated. Their
structure remained perfectly intact, at least up to a certain point, and so we
ask again; what was the heat that came upon it?
Shall we argue that the heat might be in vibration, that is, in the vibration of atoms oscillating back and forth like a pendulum?
But how shall that be possible, for as we know, vibrating atoms set-up
pressure disturbances that come to us as sound waves, while we, as the bar was
heated, heard no such sound, nor does a light-bulb wherein the atoms of the
filament are so vigorously shaken, make any sound.
Let us have a closer look at our air conditioners that Freon, which in expanding sheds heat while under compression, takes on heat. (figure 21-2) Anyone of three things may occur as the gas expands; number one is more spacing between atoms and molecules.
two, a reduction in "relative angular
movement" (RAM), which some may interpret as oscillation or vibration.
Which of these three if any may be in the nature of heat?
Eliminating the most obvious not to fit the bill would be - the greater spacing of the atoms, since that as such does not interpret into motion, since again, movement is the primary basis on which our senses are tuned.
That leaves the velocity of the electrons, or the rpm
wheels. That also is a no. That then leaves the so-called oscillation, the change in relative angular movement
of atoms and molecules to one another.
This last factor then takes into account the relative spacing of the atoms, for as they are spaced further apart, the average relative angular movement decreases accordingly. For if not the actual angular movement of the parts or systems, at least the factor called "relative" has seen a decrease.
what I mean by "relative angular moment, or movement,"
(RAM) is in the
nature of oscillation, but not that movement of each the individual part, but
rather the essence of what is between them, the relative factor between them.
When we search the fundamentals to find out how we perceive motion, or how our sense of feeling is tuned to motion, we find that it is not movement as such which plays upon our sense of feeling, but the "change in movement". For only when we accelerate or decelerate do we sense movement.
The fact that we are moving eastwards at the speed of the Concorde, or even higher still in our orbit around the sun has no effect upon our senses since these movements are constant.
Only in the "change" of velocity do we note movement, even as it is in the "change" of angular momentum that we feel a centrifugal impact.
The basis for warmth or heat then is no different, it also being in
"change", the change in the relative (interactive) movement of
fundamental parts. This then is not
to be confused with vibration nor oscillation, except as I have previously
To draw a picture of all this now is simpler said than done. There is this however to consider, that as cooler air has a lower rate of RAM, with warmer air a higher rate, sound may travel faster in that warmer air since plainly speaking less acceleration is required owing to the higher vibrational mode of the parts. Or it might be in the greater inertia, or even in a greater rigidity of the grid-lines coupling the cores.
again as we know, greater temperature often-times produces a better bond between
the parts of nature, an example of which may be found with rubber, the parts
holding very well together at room temperature, but when frozen these will lose
What the latter than suggest for the speed of sound in warmer air, is a shorter swing for the core to produce the same amount of compression, as compared to colder air.
The speed then at which the compression covers the distance between the cores, is practically instantaneous limited only to some value of rigidity, meaning, how compressible it shall be.
Yet this is of no real gain when it takes the cores a due amount of time
to receive, and transfer the momentum.
Warmth or heat thus as I wish to define further someday is in RAM.