WHAT IS HEAT?
and why the Curie temperature?

by Miles Mathis

This is another of those questions that is always dodged by modern physics. For example, go to the Wikipedia page on Curie temperature. If you are seeking an answer to the question, "What causes the change at the Curie temperature?" (which is of course the only physical question at hand), you get nothing. You only get a description: the Curie temperature is the temperature at which a ferromagnet becomes a paramagnet. But you don't even get a hint about what causes that change, or why it is different for different substances. This is the sort of answer you always get from physics, a physics that we are told knows almost everything (see Hawking).

In this and all other explanations of magnetism, we are told magnetism is an alignment of domains. But that is heuristic in the extreme. What aligns the domains, and how? What determines the edge of a domain? What is spinning? If quanta only have mathematical "spins", not real spins, how is magnetism created? Remember, the spin numbers in QED are not real. We are told there is no real spin. If there is no real spin, how is the alignment created? What is aligning?

If you press on this point, the physicist will revert to pure math or pettifogging, to try to get you confused or off the point. He or she will do this because, given current theory, there is no good way to answer the question. Physics gave up on mechanics about 80 years ago, so they cannot possibly give you a mechanical (that is, sensible) answer to anything.

The reason modern physics cannot answer this question is that they have never discovered the charge field. They know it exists, in that they give it little plusses and minuses when they explain electromagnetism; but they have never given it a real presence in the field. They explain charge as an exchange of information between charged particles, but they give the exchange field no reality. Charge is currently said to be transmitted by virtual or messenger photons, which have no mass, no spin, and no radius. That is both non-mechanical and non-sensible. It is nonsense. But even if they gave the charge field to real photons, it would not help, since real photons are also said to have no mass, no spin, and no radius. In current theory, "real" photons are also virtual.

To explain heat and temperature sensibly, you must have a charge field that is real. And in order to have a charge field that is real, you must give the photon mass, spin, and radius. Once you do that, all these questions answer themselves. In this way:

Since photons are already traveling as fast as they can (at c), we cannot speed them up to increase motion or energy or temperature. We can only increase the number of photons in a given space. So heat is photon density. When you add heat to a vessel, you are adding photons. Yes, you are also adding molecules or atoms or electrons or something, since that is the normal way to add photons; but as a matter of fundamental mechanics, the heat is caused at the primary level by the photons.

I have shown in other papers that all matter is emitting charge photons. Not only that, but all matter is recycling charge photons. Therefore, the more matter you have in an area, the more charge photons you will have. And so, if you add matter of any kind, you will add to the photon density, and therefore the heat.

But not all matter recycles in the same way, or in the same amount. All matter emits photons, and that is true of both electrons and protons. It does not matter what the "charge" of the particle is (except for neutrons and other neutral particles, which trap the charge field, negating it). But, although all matter emits charge, some matter emits a lot more. The proton emits a lot more than the electron, for example, simply due to size. Atoms and molecules can also trap or block parts of the charge field, acting neutral or partially neutral.

What do I mean by that? Let's look at the "neutrality" of molecules and atoms more closely. Are they really neutral or uncharged? No. We know that ions are charged particles, which, according to my theory, means they are recycling the charge field directly: they are taking it in and emitting it, with little or no blockage. So they can transfer their heat or motion to other particles via the charge photons. The charge photons carry energy across space from one particle to the other. But in more complex groups like atoms and molecules, the charge field is not recycled in this way. The charge photons are captured by spins, but then they knock about internally, blocked by electrons or closely neighboring baryons. The charge field causes internal motion or heat or energy, but it is not re-emitted directly. It is either trapped, like with a neutron, going back on itself and creating zero energy pockets, or it is spit out in directionalized streams, between particles.

What this means is that atoms and molecules ARE charged by the field, but they are mostly internally charged. By this I mean they cannot transmit this charge energy by sending out photons, since the photons are blocked. They can transmit this energy only by touch: by collision. You don't have to collide with an ion to feel its energy, since the ion can transmit its energy via the charge photons it is emitting. But you do have to collide with a molecule or an atom to feel its heat or charge.

That is an overview, but we know that both atoms and molecules can be "charged" in some limited ways. Magnetism is one such way. Magnetism is charge leaking out between particles, either moving past orbiting electrons, or moving past neighboring baryons. This is why magnetism is directionalized. The structure of the atom or molecule determines where the gaps are. If we could hold the molecule still, we would find charge photons being emitted in only certain directions. In the first instance, we may imagine that all elements are leaky to some degree in this way, but the most magnetic like iron are either the most leaky or the most directionalized.

I am not going to get into magnetism any more deeply than that in this paper, since my title here concerns heat. But you can already see that heat is determined by the charge field. It can be transmitted either by the charge photons directly, by collision with a photon; or by collision between larger particles. In either case, the heat is caused at the primary level by the charge field. The charge field is either recycled, or it is internalized, creating more motion inside the atom or molecule.

You will say that I have just backed up one step, but that my explanation is still circular or question-begging. I have explained the heat of one thing by the heat of another thing, which is what I just accused modern physics of doing. But that isn't so. I have explained heat as the density of photons, which is not explaining heat by heat. It is explaining heat by density and motion. I have used a thing we have already been given—the velocity c and the presence of photons—to explain an open question. As Einstein used c to explain relativity, I have used c to explain heat.

You will say I have still explained one mystery by another mystery, since we don't know what causes c, and that is true. But I have at least simplified the theory, by joining the two mysteries. We have one mystery where we had two. I cannot say why all photons go c, but taking c as a first postulate, I show that we can explain heat as a function of it.

Now we are in a position to look again at the Curie temperature. If heat is photon density, then the Curie temperature is telling us that some photon density ruins the magnetic alignment of a given substance. Why would it do that? We know that an electrical field can induce magnetism (that is, help it), and I have shown that electrical fields are also caused by charge fields. So why would some addition of the charge field help magnetism and some addition harm it? In the case of an induced magnetism, the added electrical field would help to directionalize the inherent magnetism of the substance, whatever it was. The electrical field would be uni-directional itself, like a stream, so that it would literally push any existing stream into a consistent direction, increasing its magnetism. But in the case of reaching a Curie temperature, we have energy added in a much less focused manner. In such a case, the photons would not be added in any coherent way, and the energy would have no direction. Up to a given temperature, the energy would add to the photon density, which would add to the leaking charge field, which would add to the felt magnetism. But at the same time, this extra photon density would be adding to the internal energy of the molecules. Unless the molecules were perfectly balanced, this internal energy would express itself as a wobble. We may imagine that at the Curie temperature, this wobble becomes so exaggerated it destroys the path through which charge is leaking. In other words, the opening closes. The photons cannot get through the wobbling tunnel, and they are trapped. The neutrality of the molecule is increased, and we say that it has lost magnetism. It is now "paramagnetic" instead of "ferromagnetic."

That is a barebones explanation of the phenomena, and stands now mainly as a suggestion. I admit that it is only the beginning of a theory, and it will have to be pushed and extended. But I have put it on paper as proof that mechanical answers can be constructed quite easily, and as an inducement to seek others. If you don't like my answer, come up with a better one. My answer is already better than the given answer, and that is because I allowed myself to be visual, logical, and physical. I did not hide behind probabilities, big math, and big theory. I got rid of virtuality, and I forbid myself from borrowing from the vacuum and other tricks. I encourage you to do the same.

For recent experiments from MIT with nanostructured semiconductor alloy crystals which tend to confirm my theory of heat, you may take this link.

For more on this, see my paper on Superconductivity.
For more on photons and photon density, see my more recent paper on Redefining the Photon, where I show how to calculate the average density of the charge field from c.

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.