Hypothetical formula for perpetual motion

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Colt, Dec 17, 2018.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    contemporary jazz for theme music in a kids cartoon
    instead of short cycled electronic high pitch siren emulating noise pollution over stimulation.

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    Well yes.
    Atoms are effectively perpetual motion devices.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Since, in my (well not really my but a theory put forward with some traction), the Universe will continue to expand until all the individual atoms are dispersed over a vast (not really a word suitable for the size) region

    I'll go out on a limb and invoke 'a infinite region' as a description and ignore objections

    Since energy and heat flows from more to less I contend the energy and heat of each atom will flow from the atom into the infinite void

    How the energy and heat will be manifested??? I just run out of back of envelopes and napkins to do the final calculations

    Perhaps after lunch

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Colt likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Colt Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    So is it safe to say that the entropy of the energy in the atom is in equilibrium inside a closed system for the atom to be implied as a perpetual motion device. If this is the case, what is the closed system? Isn’t the energy lost during the decay of the nucleus? What force is preserving the energy in a state of motion while the matter is being decayed? In this case wouldn’t the energy be transferred at the same rate as the atoms half life?
     
  8. Colt Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    Thanks for the welcome and reply. As the universe is speculatively a closed system, I conclude it is the lack of matter for the energy to be transferred to outside of the universe. So in a closed system,at a smaller scale, one would need to barrier all forms of matter,together, inside of this “mini universe” so it can become at complete disorder. Not leaving out that this smaller scaled universe would need to also be stopped from expanding with the larger universe.

    Thus sustaining equilibrium of the energy, allowing the random motion to be perpetual.
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    I've been informed there is no outside to the universe

    Don't quite follow but thems the rules

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Colt Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
     
  11. Colt Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    Poopedy, pewpedy pants
     
  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    There is no such thing as "the entropy of the energy".

    Again, that depends on your definition of perpetual motion device. If it means something along the lines of: "a system that has internal movement, and doesn't lose energy" then sure. However, I personally would call an atom a "device".

    The atom. An isolated atom, in this particular case.

    Of course, you have to pick a stable isotope.

    Not a force, but a law. Specifically, conservation laws.

    In the case of decay: yes. But not when you pick a stable isotope.
     
  13. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    The expansion actually doesn't need to be stopped. The atom is locally bound, and thus can withstand the effects of the expansion, as long as the expansion is "slow enough" (adiabatically).
     
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    OK, got it.

    No; it's very likely that by that time the black holes will have drifted too far apart to all merge with each other. Also, as I said, black holes evaporate, so they probably would evaporate away before they can all merge anyway.

    Ah, I see. You saw an issue, and you tried to come up with a solution. A creative solution, but not the most likely one. It's much more likely that all BH's will have evaporated long before they all can meet (if they can even still do that, as already pointed out), reaching equilibrium that way.

    Why? There is no known physics that allows for this. This appears to be pure speculation. And why would only this there-can-be-only-one black hole do that, but today's black holes not?

    To model things happening at the big bang moment, we'd need a theory quantum gravity. We don't have a theory of quantum gravity. Ergo, no known (certainly not established) physics can describe that moment correctly. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm only saying there currently is no known way for what you describe to happen, so I asked you about the mechanism.

    OK, got it.

    Ah, I totally didn't get that from your text. Thanks for the clarification!

    In that case, the rotation will be slowing down every time the masses draw energy from it.

    OK

    Good.

    Wait, the masses are made of radiative material? Where in your first post did you state that?!

    Ah, so that was an error in your first post. OK.

    So your described system is not a perpetual motion device. Good, glad we cleared that up.

    Good luck with that...

    Ah, OK. So the units of this "PM"-thing are variable, based on the situation. That makes it physically a nonsensical value; it has no worth in physics, because it's ill-defined.

    Oh, by the *number* of energies, not by the *amount*. Got it.

    Glad you spotted that too now.

    No problem.

    Sure, but without a real-world demonstration, I doubt people are going to believe you've constructed a perpetual motion device.

    Good, every step in the right direction is progress you can be proud of!
     
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Is a single isolated atom (stable) really stable surrounded by a infinite vacuum ( nothing - not even radiation - outside of the atom)?

    My very unscientific guess - NO, it will decay

    The decay uses the Energy which, is now was, present to propele the parts of the atom apart

    Conservation preserved

    Least that's how I would design my Universe

    If god, or physics, have done it differently then what can I say?

    In a Total Infinity Void no one can hear you scream or see you pull your hair cut over my post

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But in a Total Infinity Void no isotope is stable

    Coffee and scribble napkins needed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2018
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Typo

    Should be out

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,538
    That is quite wrong. There is no mechanism by which these forces can "wind down".
     
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    That said, true eternal life depends on whether or not protons can decay. Some scientists have put forth hypotheses related to this, and it is referred to as “proton decay” (a hypothetical form of radioactive decay). According to one idea, the Georgi–Glashow model, protons transition into a positron and a neutral pion, which then decays into 2 gamma ray photons. Estimates put the half-life for protons at 1.29×1034 years.

    https://futurism.com/science-explained-atoms-last-forever

    Certainly a long time but short of forever also but more research needed to confirm

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. TheFrogger Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,175
    Excellent point Michael345! For eternal life to exist protons must not decay, else the particles that constitute life would break-down causing the end of the world as we know it.
     
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,538
    That is something different. Radioactive decay is nothing to do with the electrostatic or strong force "winding down".
     
  21. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Not LIFE life

    Life as in existence of proton


    depends on whether or not protons can decay. Some scientists have put forth hypotheses related to this, and it is referred to as “proton decay” (a hypothetical form of radioactive decay)


    Note not really radioactive and also hypothetical

    My 2 cents worth take away (with other stuff)

    Protons will not last FOREVER but will be the last to go

    Who knows, perhaps as the billions of protons decay the off shoot particles will somehow group (unite) to become a new Big Bang

    Just had thought bubble - could Dark Matter be all the stuff which didn't get to take place in the last Big Bang

    If we are only seeing less than 10% of our Universe perhaps the next Big Bang / Universe formation will see less than us

    Alice is well down the hole and Dorothy way out of Kansas

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,396
    Welcome to the realm of QM. With macroscopic systems, there is always some energy leakage ( even orbiting planets, failing anything else would eventually spiral into their stars due to energy loss via gravitational wave radiation.)
    However, when you get down to the level of atoms, things aren't as simple. Instead of being able to slowly "leak" energy, energy loss or gain can only be done in discrete units that are significant compared to the atom's total energy.

    For example: Classically, if you consider an atom as a nucleus with an electron orbiting around it, then the electron is a charge undergoing constant acceleration. This should lead to it radiating EMR, losing energy and spiraling in towards the nucleus. Given the orbital period of the typical electron, which determines the frequency of the radiation and its energy, no atom should last more than a fraction of a second before all the electrons had fallen into the nucleus. This of course is not the case. This is because Quantum mechanics limits how electrons can lose energy to discrete units. If we assign this a value of 1, we can compare this to the energy it should radiate in one orbit, which would produce 1 wavelength or one unit of EMR, it turns out that this is less than 1, Since this is smaller than the energy unit the electron must lose energy by, it lose energy by radiation.
    Now of course, QM has moved beyond the electron orbiting the nucleus model, but the same basic principle holds, Atoms can only "fall apart" if they lose energy, but they can only lose energy in "chunks" of a minimum size, and there is no process in an undisturbed (non-radioactive) atom that can emit energy "chunks" that large. A stable isotope is expected to remain stable indefinitely. It doesn't require any outside influence to hold together.
     
    exchemist and Michael 345 like this.
  23. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,396
    The half-life of free neutron is ~15 min, however, the half-life of a neutron in a stable isotope is indefinite. So if the half-life of a free proton is estimated a 1.29e34 years(10e25 times longer than the present age of the universe), how long would you expect it to last in the nucleus of a stable isotope?

    And this has nothing to do with atoms falling apart if placed in an infinite vacuum, as what's outside the atom would have no effect on this possible decay. An atom has just as much chance of decaying when isolated as it does surrounded by other atoms. (radioactive atoms do not have different half-lives depending on how close or far apart they are from other atoms.)
     

Share This Page