exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Suggest you start at the beginning by looking up Newton's First Law.
Leave entropy until later: it's quite a hard concept and, from your questions, not something you are going to find easy to grasp.
Pressure Harvesting - from ocean depths
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Leave entropy until later: it's quite a hard concept and, from your questions, not something you are going to find easy to grasp.
Heat from the Sun.
Momentum.
Energy does not remain the same in the universe. It is converted between different forms (EM radiation to heat for example) and can be created from matter via various nuclear, chemical and physical processes.
What I think Ethernos 1997 was attempting to convey is that the universe itself is a pseudo perpetual motion/energy system. In fact the Laws of thermodynamics could be relabeled the Laws of Perpetual Energy and probably better describe what they state.
It is ironic that the very laws that describe perpetual-ality are often used to condemn any attempt to build such a system.
..and God looked down upon his creation and said.."Wow!... I just broke the laws of thermodynamics" and in a second thought said " Nope I think I just created them".
suggest google "Quantum thermodynamics" if interested.
Last edited:
Except it's not. It's winding down. Fortunately it will take 10^100 years or so for that to happen and the universe to reach thermodynamic equilibrium.
Nope. They are quite clear - and they do not state that.
ok...so you have never heard of the use of the phrase pseudo perpetual energy... before...
Do you know why the word pseudo is used?
Any device created can only be as perpetual as the universe is and must be a part of that universe and not separate to it.
Thus any PPM or PPE device must conform to the laws of thermodynamics in the same way that the universe does.
Last edited:
seeing as you are all so concerned about the laws of thermodynamics and the transformation of energy... have a go at sussing out this gendanken.
A rocket ship called USS Frustration
You have a rocket that is designed to go nowhere.
It has two thruster's on opposite sides of the ship.
thrusting in opposite directions so that as they fire and release all that energy the ship gains no momentum and stays perfectly still.
>--------<
How is the energy fully conserved?
What happened to the energy value that would have gone into momentum?
or:
As Feynman stated:
There is enough energy in a cubic meter of space to boil the worlds oceans...
so where does that energy come from? How is it conserved?
have fun...
I am quite happy to discuss PPM and PPE's if you like...
btw the first P stands for pseudo.
A rocket ship called USS Frustration
You have a rocket that is designed to go nowhere.
It has two thruster's on opposite sides of the ship.
thrusting in opposite directions so that as they fire and release all that energy the ship gains no momentum and stays perfectly still.
>--------<
How is the energy fully conserved?
What happened to the energy value that would have gone into momentum?
or:
As Feynman stated:
There is enough energy in a cubic meter of space to boil the worlds oceans...
so where does that energy come from? How is it conserved?
have fun...
I am quite happy to discuss PPM and PPE's if you like...
btw the first P stands for pseudo.
Last edited:
Because it's fake?
For a chemical engine? Chemical energy is turned into heat energy which in turn is used to accelerate reaction mass out both sides of the ship. The chemical energy in the fuel is converted to kinetic energy in the exhaust of the rocket.
Last edited:
so you are saying that the energy is fully conserved yet no momentum has been gained....
ok...
Now what happens if you redesign the same ship's thruster's to gain momentum... are you suggesting that the momentum with it's potential energy, is somehow for free?
>----<
vs
<----<
Last edited:
no... not at all, because it is as perpetual as the universe is...
it's not hard to understand.
In absolute terms "perpetual" ( an absolute) is impossible. Hence the term pseudo tagged to it...
Whether or not Feynman actually believed that line, true experts in QFT know better nowadays....https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuation-myth/
it appears all open for debate.
see:
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph240/blakemore1/
Perhaps physicsforums may need to contact the ongoing NASA project team Eagleworks Lab and compare notes...
The first illustration in that Eagleworks/NASA piece - Casimir force as 'suppressed vacuum EM fluctuations' was thoroughly discredited way back. I keep posting it now and then but it inevitably collectively goes in one ear and out the other. Again: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158v1
Since there was no way you could have read the Insight article at PF before your hunt for counter-article response, I don't expect you will actually read this one either.
A great deal of momentum has been gained by the exhaust.
Not at all. You get exactly the same amount of momentum. As the ship accelerates, the speed of the exhaust (relative to a stationary observer) decreases due to the motion of the ship. Momentum (and energy) is still conserved.
A perpetual motion machine is a machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. There is no suggestion that it will outlast the universe, nor is that a factor in any claimed perpetual motion machine. The classic overbalanced wheel, for example, makes no claim that its bearings will last forever. It claims instead that it can generate rotational energy sufficient to overcome its own friction with no external energy input. That's where the "perpetual" comes from.
oh and how is that momentum observed?
Two thruster's facing each other going no where ...(one thruster negates the other) v=0
By measuring the mass and speed of the exhaust. Do you need that explained, too?
In terms of the ship moving, yes. In terms of energy and momentum, there's no negating. Both still balance.
Both articles are really old...
try:
18/April/2020
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...e-zero-point-energy-of-space/?sh=79de893e7ecb
if you are interested.
it discusses relationship between ZPE and Dark Energy among other things.
Last edited:
not moving regardless of observer.
v+(-v)=0 m
E+ (-E) = 0 m
or simply put
x+(-x) = 0
if the vector is opposed equally then there is no acceleration.
the ship does not move due to the thrusters output.
no velocity = no momentum
thus the energy of the thruster's output is not conserved as momentum ( mv or mass*velocity)
so for the laws of T to hold the energy must be conserved some how.
If not momentum then what?
P normally equals mass*velocity
or p=mv
but in our gedanken
v = 0
Last edited:
Siegel is thorough enough to admit in that article:
"But there are always "novel physics" scenarios to consider as well. It's possible that there's no cosmological constant and no contribution to the zero-point energy from the quantum fields we know...."
Quite. You seem to deprecate the article by Jaffe because it's 'old'. Not that old really - 2005. Its age is beside the point, either his analysis is correct or not. I'm not aware of a single peer reviewed article challenging his findings. Which is that well understood inter-atomic van der Waals interactions account for 100% of the measured Casimir force. Which leaves exactly zero contribution from 'ZPF vacuum fluctuations'. Put another way, if the latter were also in effect, the measured Casimir force would be twice what is observed. Savvy?
Regarding the absolutely piddling energy density assumed for 'dark energy', I awhile back posted several very recent articles casting severe doubt on the existence of DE. A work in progress and not worth going further here as side-track issue.
You have obviously devoted more time to this issue than I have, so I shall defer and accept you position as credible.
When I posted that it is open for debate what I really meant was that it is still a work in progress. What I do see is a slow progression in mainstream towards a pet hypothesis of mine that I am not prepared to discuss here as being too controversial.
The question of the cosmological constant and zero for example touches very close to the notion that absolute zero ( nothingness ) is in fact the only universal constant...but this side tracks the discussion... so I shall leave it there...
Thanks for your posts though... much appreciated...