Hypothetical formula for perpetual motion

Janus58 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Michael 345 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.


Michael 345 said:
How the energy and heat will be manifested??? I just run out of back of envelopes and napkins to do the final calculations
Click to expand...
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.
 
Michael 345 said:
Can us Minions split the hydrogen atom?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Michael 345 said:
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
Click to expand...
Decay into what, exactly? And why couldn't the humble hydrogen atom be stable, according to you?

Michael 345 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

Michael 345 said:
But in a Total Infinity Void no isotope is stable
Click to expand...
Please explain why you think this, because it is news to me.
 
Michael 345 said:
So

not exactly correct as I presume a distroyed hydrogen atom is at a lower energy level

:)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Michael 345 said:
Re read

Long time decay ✓

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...cay-then-will-all-matter-ultimately-decay-int

Does this not say the same?

:)
Click to expand...
(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.
 
NotEinstein said:
The point is that, if the neutron becomes stable when part of an atom, why wouldn't the proton do the same?
Click to expand...
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 :?:?:confused:

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Get that

Question though

Can us Minions split the hydrogen atom?

:)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Michael 345 said:
So

not exactly correct as I presume a distroyed hydrogen atom is at a lower energy level

:)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Michael 345 said:
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 :?:?:confused:

:)
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top