Re: [問題] 這個熱學敘述哪裡不對呢?

[JohnMash (John)]

※ 引述《JohnMash (John)》之銘言：
: 標題: Re: [問題] 這個熱學敘述哪裡不對呢?
: 時間: Mon Oct 12 11:41:23 2009
:
: ※ 引述《pianoboy (人還挺多的嘛)》之銘言：
: : 熱鐵塊置於水中,由於鐵塊對水作功而使水溫上升
: : 我看不出哪裡有錯= =
: : 請各位大大指點一下..
:
:
:    是由於量子電動力學
:
:    鐵原子的價電子和水分子的價電子交換虛光子所致
:
:
: --
: ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
: ◆ From: 112.104.115.180
: 噓 kenny2963:無法計算也是有物理意義，能計算的有比較高尚嗎??        10/12 12:59
: 噓 sunev:這問題和QED有啥鬼關聯...                                  10/12 13:46

    This problem is BASICALLY QED in PRINCIPLE.

    there are only 4 fudamental force.

    GRAVITY is negligible in this problem.

    STRONG FORCE is irrelevant in this problem

    (since electrons are leptons)

    WEAK FORCE is neglible in this problem

    (since W,Z boson is too heavy).

   the ONLY POSSIBILITY is QED.

    I am pity that many animals want to fly

    even they cannot crawl.



: 推 obluda:JM大 幫你捕個血(其實都有再注意你的文章 算比較好的)       10/12 13:57

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.112.101.44
※ 編輯: JohnMash        來自: 140.112.101.44       (10/12 14:15)
※ 編輯: JohnMash        來自: 140.112.101.44       (10/12 14:16)
推 obluda:XD 別生氣
噓 kenny2963:最後一段
→ JohnMash:it must be 這問題和QED有啥鬼關聯...
→ joe70136:In my opinion, in this classical problem you may not
→ joe70136:need to use the concept of QED. Just like for some
→ joe70136:mechanical problems what you use is Newtonian
→ joe70136:picture not Schordinger picture. Not all the problems
→ joe70136:should be analyzed down to the essential mechanism,
→ joe70136:i.e., the four kinds of essential force.
→ joe70136:By the way, I think in this problem CED is enough.
推 sunev:樓上...這樣會被原po說你未爬先飛啊....