Yes, we get a lot of tourists here to admire the fjords, wildlife, and there is a huge amount of biomass reflected by large trees, dense bushes, and lush moss everywhere. And it rains a lot! Better have a good raincoat.
My understanding is that what we call temperature/heat is a measure of the rate of kinetic energy/vibration occurring in a substance or mass:
“It reflects the average kinetic energy of the vibrating and colliding atoms making up a substance.”
(From wikipedia)
So anything that isn’t ‘absolute zero’ (which is supposed to be unreachable) is vibrating to some extent.
I know that what we call an ‘atom’ is a theoretical structure, but is the vibrating also only a model?
edit: I found this article which describes the first imaging of molecular vibration. In the article they describe that prior to this imaging, the vibrations had been theoretical:
“To date, molecular vibrations have been pictorially explained using wiggling balls and connecting springs to represent atoms and bonds, respectively. Now we can directly visualize how individual atoms vibrate within a molecule. The images we provide will appear in textbooks to help students better understand the concept of vibrational normal modes, which till now had been a theoretical concept.”
However:
Scanning tunneling microscopy still depends on a theoretical underpinning re: exactly what it is measuring. A scanning tunneling microscope holds a probe very close to a substance in a high vacuum at very low temperatures. Then a current is passed between the probe and the surface, and changes to that current are measured. Crucially, this still requires some interpretation regarding exactly what those changes in current are depicting. This is where theory re-enters the situation. ‘Vibration’ is how certain behaviors of that current are interpreted. While it may be accurate, it cannot be known for sure.
As an additional aside: the ‘tunneling’ in scanning tunneling microscopy is a reference to quantum tunneling, a theorized mechanic in which " …an object such as an electron or atom passes through a potential energy barrier that, according to classical mechanics, should not be passable due to the object not having sufficient energy to pass or surmount the barrier." Models strike once again!
Part of what is significant here is the demonstration that sense data is the supreme way to experience and interpret actuality. I have found that ‘my’ reality depends on many of these theoretical constructs in which understanding and interpretation of ‘what is happening’ is outsourced and dominated/controlled/owned by an authoritative constructed reality. Where there is interpretation there is room for mistakes, and the model can never be actuality. In a slight-of-hand, our own sense-data is hustled off to a closet and ignored, replaced by these models (which are given the official stamp of approval, taught in schools, printed in books and online sources, etc.). But this cannot replace the fact that these eyes are actually seeing, these mechanoreceptors are actually touching, and so on. Any further explanation to this potentially apperceptive sensing remains interpretation, and frequently if not always leads away from what is actually happening as fact.