Hypothetical formula for perpetual motion

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

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,529
    Indeed.

    Just to amplify the point, there is no state below the "ground state" of any system. The ground state is a QM concept for the state with the least energy that the system in question is allowed to have. This is the "zero point" energy of that system. For example, in the hydrogen atom, the electron in the 1s orbital is in the ground state. No lower energy levels exist.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    It won't be. Matter that is already clumped together via gravity will remain so. Stars will die and turn into frozen lumps.
    But there's no reason why the gravity of that matter will fail.


    As increasingly lower energy radiation. Right now, the universe is about 4 Kelvin. That's the reading from the background microwave radiation. It will just drop as the universe continues to expand.
     
  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
    Get that

    Question though

    Can us Minions split the hydrogen atom?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    Sure. Sun does it all the time.

    Plasma: electron(s) get dissociated from the nucleus.

    Though popularly, "splitting an atom" usually means splitting the nucleus.
    Well, you can do that too. Peel off some neutrons.
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    So
    not exactly correct as I presume a distroyed hydrogen atom is at a lower energy level

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    No reason to think that.
    "Lower energy level" is a well-defined term. It doesn't just mean "busticated".
     
  10. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Decay into what, exactly? And why couldn't the humble hydrogen atom be stable, according to you?

    Yep, there appear to be conservation laws in effect in our universe. Showing any of them to actually not hold would be quite a big deal in the field of physics.

    Please explain why you think this, because it is news to me.
     
  11. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,396
    The simplest hydrogen atom consists of a proton and electron. To "destroy" it, you can rip the electron loose, but this takes a net input of energy, and the isolated proton and electron pair will be at a higher energy state then the original hydrogen atom was. Given the chance, they will want to recombine to that lower energy state. If you want to "destroy" the proton, you have to input enough energy to separate the quarks, However quarks don't exist singly and must at least occur in pairs. Since a proton consists of three quarks, you will have to add at least enough energy in order to create an extra quark, so you end up with 2 quark pairs. But again, these two quark pairs as a whole will be more energetic than the original proton.
    So your presumption is incorrect.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
  13. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
  15. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    (Your link is broken. Ah, but I see it's just a bad copy-past from the one above.)
    The point is that, if the neutron becomes stable when part of an atom, why wouldn't the proton do the same? You'll have to explain that. This point was also not mentioned by person in your link, so I wouldn't trust that (part of the) answer given there.
     
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    I don't know and from 7 billion + people on Earth I doubt more than 5 have even a good defendable speculative view

    My Minion view has come from such links and previous stuff read long ago, probably well out of date

    I do take a view - nothing last forever - along with the idea of the Universe expanding and splitting down to individual atoms which decay

    Guess that leaves me with a point of view but no evidence

    Have I become a religion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,529
    You can ionise it easily enough, certainly, i.e. pull the electron off, leaving a proton behind.

    And if one tries really hard I suppose in theory one might be able to split the proton into quarks.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,529
    A lot of people get this sort of thing wrong, imagining that somehow an atom contains a lot of energy that is waiting to burst out, if the forces confining it can be overcome. Perhaps an incomplete understanding of atomic energy leads to that impression, but it is wrong.

    As Janus points out, free electrons and protons are in a higher energy state than any bound state, such as a hydrogen atom. That is what makes the hydrogen atom stable: it has less energy than the free components that make it up. Stability comes from being in a lower energy state than the alternatives available.

    In nuclear fission, or fusion, energy has to be put in to split the nucleus of the atom. The reason these reactions produce energy is that the reaction products that are then formed, from the split nuclei, have less energy than the starting materials. So there is a net output of energy from the process.

    It is exactly the same with chemical reactions. You normally have to put in energy (the activation energy) to get the molecules to react, but if the energy of the products is less than the reactants the reaction may continue on its own, using the energy released from one set of molecules to provide the activation energy for the next. This is why you need to light a match in order to start a fire, but then it continues to burn, for example.
     
  19. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Are you by any chance describing the big rip scenario, where atoms end up being ripped apart by the ever increasing expansion of the universe?
     
  20. TheFrogger Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,175
    Yes Michael345, you have become a religion I pray to you for one.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,529
    For one what?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. TheFrogger Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,175
    He is, "the one."
     
  23. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Sounds like it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page