View Full Version : Thoughts on perpetual motion.
First off, I don’t have a phd, im not a scientist (hehe well im a comp programmer and i know some of them to claim to be scientist) My skills and basic understanding physics, classical and quantum are weak compared to the people that frequent this forum. I actually found this forum while I was searching google about dark matter vs dark energy. Since then I have been reading every post discussion here for about the last month. I must say, these boards hold the most interesting discussion I have ever seen/read anywhere else. I love reading peoples views and ideas.
When it comes to science/life I look at it with an open mind. Nothing is impossible, the only limit is our own imagination. Although someone’s idea may be proven wrong our ability to create that idea is the truly impressive part of an individual (and mankind) and the successfulness of the human race. Whether it be wrong or right, doesn’t matter.
There have been many great thinkers that have changed the way we view the world, physics or just simply put, how we perceive things to work. But when someone creates a formula/theory it may work for the time with our current understanding but years later it can either be completely proven completely wrong or simply needs a modifier or constant implied to make it work with our current understanding or to fit with other forumals/theories that seem to work.
Ok, sorry for the rambling, ill get onto my subject.
The topic that makes most every scientist cringe. Perpetual motion. Claims of being able to have a self maintaining motion. Although the math doesn’t support the word perpetual cause it creates physical impossibilities. I believe it’s simply the word associated with the action that makes the topic seem so ridiculous that scientist don’t want to touch the subject.
This is a subject that has been a long time interest of mine. I would love to hear peoples views and ideas on the matter. Think of this first. We already can see motion similar to this in every day life. From the motion of our solar system alone, and our planets for hundreds of millions of year currently orbiting the sun. Although it’s at a large scale we can still see the motion, and we know its been along for a long time and will be around for some time to come. Think about small scale now too. How about matter, in its constant vibration. Isnt that kind of an idea of perpetual motion. Will it last forever, kinda. It will last perpetually in our lifetimes.
I think peoples biggest problem is the ability to think on a scale other then their physical form. Now we see things working on a big and small scale what can we do to create something similar that will work on a scale we can tangibly see and use?
The biggest problem I see with many machines of creating possible perpetual motion is the fact that they all really on gravity in some way to create the motion. Could coming up with a self maintaining motion machine be easier if you could build it in the void of space where gravity wont be necessary? Using superconductors in some way? Also, can a motion machine harness the power of the motion and create an energy surplus that can be stored?
I would really just like to read peoples views and ideas on the subject. I don’t want to hear about impossibilities. Cause it may be an impossibility for our current understanding but what good are you to science if you can simply dream up ways something can work. Or at least come to a absolute understanding on why it cant work and could never work.
Cheers :smile:
Hi mapper;
If you are only interested it discussing the possibilities and not the reasons it will not work, I guess I can't offer much input. At one point in the past, I explored the subject at lenght and now except the fact that at any level within the cosmos, perpetual motion as I understand it, is not possible. But, I must admit, I did learn a few things exploring the subject.
Good Luck.
First off, I don’t have a phd, im not a scientist (hehe well im a comp programmer and i know some of them to claim to be scientist) My skills and basic understanding physics, classical and quantum are weak compared to the people that frequent this forum. I actually found this forum while I was searching google about dark matter vs dark energy. Since then I have been reading every post discussion here for about the last month. I must say, these boards hold the most interesting discussion I have ever seen/read anywhere else. I love reading peoples views and ideas.
When it comes to science/life I look at it with an open mind. Nothing is impossible, the only limit is our own imagination. Although someone’s idea may be proven wrong our ability to create that idea is the truly impressive part of an individual (and mankind) and the successfulness of the human race. Whether it be wrong or right, doesn’t matter.
There have been many great thinkers that have changed the way we view the world, physics or just simply put, how we perceive things to work. But when someone creates a formula/theory it may work for the time with our current understanding but years later it can either be completely proven completely wrong or simply needs a modifier or constant implied to make it work with our current understanding or to fit with other forumals/theories that seem to work.
Ok, sorry for the rambling, ill get onto my subject.
The topic that makes most every scientist cringe. Perpetual motion. Claims of being able to have a self maintaining motion. Although the math doesn’t support the word perpetual cause it creates physical impossibilities. I believe it’s simply the word associated with the action that makes the topic seem so ridiculous that scientist don’t want to touch the subject.
This is a subject that has been a long time interest of mine. I would love to hear peoples views and ideas on the matter. Think of this first. We already can see motion similar to this in every day life. From the motion of our solar system alone, and our planets for hundreds of millions of year currently orbiting the sun. Although it’s at a large scale we can still see the motion, and we know its been along for a long time and will be around for some time to come. Think about small scale now too. How about matter, in its constant vibration. Isnt that kind of an idea of perpetual motion. Will it last forever, kinda. It will last perpetually in our lifetimes.
I think peoples biggest problem is the ability to think on a scale other then their physical form. Now we see things working on a big and small scale what can we do to create something similar that will work on a scale we can tangibly see and use?
The biggest problem I see with many machines of creating possible perpetual motion is the fact that they all really on gravity in some way to create the motion. Could coming up with a self maintaining motion machine be easier if you could build it in the void of space where gravity wont be necessary? Using superconductors in some way? Also, can a motion machine harness the power of the motion and create an energy surplus that can be stored?
I would really just like to read peoples views and ideas on the subject. I don’t want to hear about impossibilities. Cause it may be an impossibility for our current understanding but what good are you to science if you can simply dream up ways something can work. Or at least come to a absolute understanding on why it cant work and could never work.
Cheers :smile:
Hey there
Consider the power and eternity of wind.
An atom is a perpetual motion machine. The solar system is a perpetual motion machine [almost]. The problem is you cannot extract any energy from the forces that power these systems [electromagnetic, gravity] without taking them to lower energy states. This is the underlying problem with the classic perpetual motion machine concept.. free energy. The total energy of any system, including the universe as a whole, is fixed.
Think of it as a bank account. You can transfer money from one account to another, but, you cannot increase the amount of money in one account without decreasing the amount of money in another account by an equal amount [conservation of energy]. In fact, due to banking fees, the total amount of money in both accounts is slightly less than it was before the transaction [entropy]. Of course that money is not destroyed, merely diverted to other accounts not even involved in the transaction.
Consider the power and eternity of wind.
Yes, but wind cant be constant in an area so the motion of an object cannot be moved perpetually. Well it may be constant (slight breeze) but still, to move with enough force our current technology can create enough resistance to get an energy source out.
Its probably our best method to date with the best ability to advance over the decades. Could also say the same for solar panels too. But i want to discuss different. Something that can be created from scratch using mankind’s innovation.
For example, in space, a giant Space Tether. 2 synchronous rotating objects bound together by a cable of some kind that creates resistance between the two object at each end. The energy/stress between the two can be absorbed and stored. This is being planed on powering space stations currently. Although not perpetual, wouldnt this be able to sustain itself and produce enough energy to be stored to make feasible? If left uninterrupted wouldn’t this sustain itself forever or till at least the stress snapped the tether?
Its also been thought, having a tether like that with miles of cable, the base is the earth and the end is in orbit. Wouldnt that be considered perpetual motion. I dont like the term perpetual cause it implies "lasting forever". But would this be able to continue for uncountable years? Also, the expansion of the universe, wouldnt that be perpetual?
If you are only interested it discussing the possibilities and not the reasons it will not work, I guess I can't offer much input. At one point in the past, I explored the subject at length and now except the fact that at any level within the cosmos, perpetual motion as I understand it, is not possible. But, I must admit, I did learn a few things exploring the subject.
If you could I would actually like help with understanding fundamentally why it doesnt work. I just hate seeing things that exist in nature and think it cant be reproduced in some way form or fashion. Although nothing lasts forever, I think it’s the term perpetual motion is the thing that gets people to not give it a second thought. Some new way of thinking of energy generation and capture is available, and capturing energy from motion and having that sustain itself does not seem impossible to me. Just something I would like to chat about and hear your guy’s ideas on the subject. All in good fun and understanding. :)
Also, the expansion of the universe, wouldnt that be perpetual?
The expansion of the universe naturally happens through destruction and then rebirth. Perpetual, in my belief, implies 'transformation'.
If you could I would actually like help with understanding fundamentally why it doesnt work. I just hate seeing things that exist in nature and think it cant be reproduced in some way form or fashion.
If we are able to harness the dynamics that guide 'transformation' I previously mentioned, then I think we may have it. Eternal, Self-sustaining energy cannot be harnessed in itself, only the elements that transform it.
Harnessing a natural force implies that a non-transformational dynamic is applied to a progressive/transforming one, which results in explosion (outward destruction), or in the case of the universe, implosion (self-destruction).
russ_watters
Aug5-04, 05:31 PM
The term "perpetual motion" (aka free energy) may be a little bit of a misnomer. A solar panel works as long as the sun is shining, but isn't perpetual motion (power), nor is it "free energy." Perpetual motion refers to a machine built by humans that ouputs more energy than is input. Lately perpetual motion hoaxsters have gotten more shrewd with things like Zero Point Energy, which both exists and if harnessable wouldn't really be perpetual motion or free energy. The hoax is in the idea that it may be harnessable
The term "perpetual motion" (aka free energy) may be a little bit of a misnomer. A solar panel works as long as the sun is shining, but isn't perpetual motion (power), nor is it "free energy." Perpetual motion refers to a machine built by humans that ouputs more energy than is input.
Kinda like my vaccuum cleaner...
Lately perpetual motion hoaxsters have gotten more shrewd with things like Zero Point Energy, which both exists and if harnessable wouldn't really be perpetual motion or free energy. The hoax is in the idea that it may be harnessable
More, more, pleeeze! ?
The problem with extracting energy from 'zero point energy', is inherent with the definition. ZPE is the lowest possible energy state permitted by quantum theory. Since the only way to extract energy from any system is to reduce it to a lower energy state, extracting net energy from ZPE is impossible.
According to theory underlying the Casmir effect, you can create an even lower energy state by blocking virtual particle creation between two parallel plates in close proximity. A force is then created because more virtual particles are create outside the two plates than between them.
I think this theory is inherently untestable. ZPE only exists in a pure vacuum. No such state exists in the known universe, much less the laboratory. The Casmir effect is more easily explained as a classical phenomenon. The equivalent of the Casmir effect can be produced accoustically, and even by ships at sea under certain conditions [which has been known since the 1800's].
I think this theory is inherently untestable. ZPE only exists in a pure vacuum. No such state exists in the known universe, much less the laboratory. The Casmir effect is more easily explained as a classical phenomenon. The equivalent of the Casmir effect can be produced accoustically, and even by ships at sea under certain conditions [which has been known since the 1800's].
Cool. But then how do you fathom black holes in the universe if it's meant to be an implosive event?
alpha_wolf
Aug6-04, 08:50 AM
I think this theory is inherently untestable. ZPE only exists in a pure vacuum. No such state exists in the known universe, much less the laboratory. The Casmir effect is more easily explained as a classical phenomenon. The equivalent of the Casmir effect can be produced accoustically, and even by ships at sea under certain conditions [which has been known since the 1800's].
The accoustic/sea versions are not Casimir effect, although the principle is the same - it's just applied to different types of waves. The quantum Casimir effect has in fact been confirmed experimentally, and measured with good accuracy. Whether it is possible to harness it to produce work continuously, is still unknown, but I beleive it can be.
i have a perpetual motion machine. I can't show it to people or tell anyone how it works or it will EVAPORATE
scary, no?
The accoustic/sea versions are not Casimir effect, although the principle is the same - it's just applied to different types of waves. The quantum Casimir effect has in fact been confirmed experimentally, and measured with good accuracy. Whether it is possible to harness it to produce work continuously, is still unknown, but I beleive it can be.
Actually, the accoustic Casimir effect very similar and uses much the same math as the quantum version. It has the added advantage of being much easier to test. You may find this interesting
http://www.physics.nps.navy.mil/larraza/Casimir_PLA.pdf
I don't question the theoretical foundation for the quantum Casimir effect [albeit I left plenty of room to make that inference!] My reservations are on the experimental end. There is no known way to create a test environment where the Casimir effect can be isolated. This necessitates using correction factors that are still controversial [not so much as a few years ago, but, important questions remain unanswered]. A recent paper of relevance is
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0406/0406024.pdf
The math gets pretty brutal in place, but, still interesting.
Epsilon Pi
Aug7-04, 08:21 AM
The topic that makes most every scientist cringe. Perpetual motion. Claims of being able to have a self maintaining motion. Although the math doesn’t support the word perpetual cause it creates physical impossibilities. I believe it’s simply the word associated with the action that makes the topic seem so ridiculous that scientist don’t want to touch the subject.
Does not have the term Perpetual motion has to do with a reference to a meta-physical-system? Is that MPS possible to conceive within our science?(not in the philosophical metaphysical sense).
For example according to Francis Crick, life has an extraterrestrial origin, but on the other hand, according to the "good science", we, the scientist cannot travel at higher velocities than that of light, so, within the frame of that MPS is it possible to conceive a principle that includes and transcends the second law of thermodymics, that law that makes it impossible that Perpetual motion?
But a principle in this case must be applied, so in what meta-context would the principle be applied? By whom, not God, precisely?
I think peoples biggest problem is the ability to think on a scale other then their physical form. Now we see things working on a big and small scale what can we do to create something similar that will work on a scale we can tangibly see and use?
Their physical form does not imply mind yet, right? so, I wonder if there exists an intermediate level of reality, not a spiritual reality, but sort of meta-physical reality where that principle could be applied?
In our mathematical physical representations we have that level that is represented by the complex plane- that plane where quantum phenomena take place- that can include and transcend the space-time continuum, would it be possible to apply that principle, that transcends the second law, by higher minds that could take advantage of that intermediate level in ways not known by us, yet?
Just some thoughts
EP
PD: As far as I know the complex plane has not be taken so seriously by our science yet; complex numbers are normally used in a most convenient way.
Cheers :smile:[/QUOTE]
Antonio Lao
Aug7-04, 10:56 AM
A closer look at formulae and equations derived from physical laws gave clues as to how nature responds to letting go of its infinite supply of energy.
Let's start with Einstein's mass and energy equivalence equation, E=mc^2. If nature is really generous with its energy bank then the equation would be E = m . But if energy equal mass, there would be no creation and no big bang and matter never comes into existence.
Antonio Lao
Aug7-04, 11:33 AM
What nature is telling us is that: if we want energy, we have to really work hard to get it, by going to a very small scale such as the interior of the nuclei, or to move very fast approaching the speed of light.
On the biological point of view, every living thing has to get their supply of energy from food from different sources and frequently almost daily through a cycle of waking (working) and sleeping (resting). There is no such thing as a magic pill that allow one without eating and without sleeping for one whole year and this pill also must contain all the necessary nutrients to support a healthy life.
The bottom line is that what all living is after is the density of energy. Energy density is defined as energy per unit volume. The more energy that can be packed into a given volume the longer this given volume exist. But the increase of volume is a decrease in energy density and is a sign of decay of the system. So a perpetual motion machine is a machine with constant energy density maintained by decreasing its volume. A zero volume object such as a black hole would have infinite energy density and therefore can live forever or not lived at all.
Antonio Lao
Aug7-04, 11:56 AM
Furthermore, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, temperature is proportional the time rate of change of energy density.
- \frac{dE}{dt} \propto T^4
Epsilon Pi
Aug7-04, 04:24 PM
Yes, Antonio, there, you have a real reason why such a thing as a black hole cannot exist. Something wrong, very wrong is going on with that theory that predicted them, such a law of conservation of mass and energy cannot be violated; some scientists claim they have found some ones out there, but are not measurements, observations and conclusions paradigm-determined?
Regards
EP
A zero volume object such as a black hole would have infinite energy density and therefore can live forever or not lived at all.
Antonio Lao
Aug8-04, 01:54 PM
but are not measurements, observations and conclusions paradigm-determined?
Are you saying that we only measure for something that we already know to be there?
I have not finish reading T.S.K. on the notion of paradigm shift. So excuse me if I have put the question out of context.
Epsilon Pi
Aug9-04, 07:37 AM
No, Antonio, what I mean is that our measurements and observations and conclusions depend on the paradigm at the background, i.e., the framework we use to cope reality.
T.S.K. explains this quite well in pages 119-124.
If our paradigm rejects the wave nature of energy-matter then it will be quite difficult to include them both, and the concept of particle will be then the prevailing one. We will be talking two different languages that do not talk to each other, what, T.S.K called the incommensurability of paradigms
Regards
EP
Are you saying that we only measure for something that we already know to be there?
I have not finish reading T.S.K. on the notion of paradigm shift. So excuse me if I have put the question out of context.
Antonio Lao
Aug9-04, 09:13 AM
Epsilon Pi,
Can a paradigm be a collective consciousness evolved from an individual consciousness? It started by someone seeing some properties about something and through data gathering by experimentations forming logical interpretations acceptable by more individuals.
If one of these interpretations created some inconsistencies then another new individual consciousness resolving them can lead into a paradigm shift.
Epsilon Pi
Aug9-04, 10:40 AM
Antonio,
"Why did that shift of vision occur? Through Galileo's individual genius, of course" so if this is what you mean by individual consciousness, yes; in this case, because of that shift Galileo starting seeing a pendulum where his contemporaries saw a falling stone.
But a paradigm shift according to Kuhn is not an easy thing to accomplish, and he even suggests that a sort of "conversion" process must be taken into account for that paradigm shift.
Regards
EP
Epsilon Pi,
Can a paradigm be a collective consciousness evolved from an individual consciousness? It started by someone seeing some properties about something and through data gathering by experimentations forming logical interpretations acceptable by more individuals.
If one of these interpretations created some inconsistencies then another new individual consciousness resolving them can lead into a paradigm shift.
Antonio Lao
Aug9-04, 01:29 PM
Epsilon Pi,
If the conversion process is the same as a persuasion process, how much time in term of human lifetime will the shift be completed? But with modern high speed communication and internet, maybe new paradigm shift will just take a year or two?
On the other hand, there are mathematical and experimental persuasion to think about. If the math needed is still not invented or the cost of experimentation is beyond existing economic resourses then the shift still could be delayed much farther.
Epsilon Pi
Aug9-04, 04:25 PM
Antonio,
Persuasion is just one part of the conversion process, a shift of paradigm is something more profound, for example, there have been claims that complex numbers are fundamental for explaining the physical universe; in fact Richard Feynman in his well-known lectures on physics use them but , IMHO, just for convenience, because with them interference is a direct consequence of those numbers; Roger Penrose makes that claim too, but have they really been taken seriously by physicists?
As far as I have understood meanstream theoretical physics, they have taken a different road, am I right?, probably a reason why they talk about the old QM; are we sure they have the most appropiate paradigm?
We must remember that it took 100 years for the complex plane to be accepted, and even a powerful mind as that one of Gauss was always reluctant to accept it.
Just some thoughts
Regards
EP
Epsilon Pi,
If the conversion process is the same as a persuasion process, how much time in term of human lifetime will the shift be completed? But with modern high speed communication and internet, maybe new paradigm shift will just take a year or two?
On the other hand, there are mathematical and experimental persuasion to think about. If the math needed is still not invented or the cost of experimentation is beyond existing economic resourses then the shift still could be delayed much farther.
Antonio Lao
Aug10-04, 09:45 AM
there have been claims that complex numbers are fundamental for explaining the physical universe
Complex numbers were invented in order to find solutions to the polynomial equation x^2 + 1 = 0 where x = \sqrt{-1} . But by using the complex plane, the reflection of a point in one quadrant with the imaginary axis form complex conjugates that when multiplied also equal to x^2 + 1 = 0 . The conjugates are given by the following
(x + i)(x - i) = 0
(1 + ix)(1 - ix) = 0
there are four compex solutions
x= -i , x=i, x=- \frac{1}{i} , x= \frac{1}{i}
Interesting discussion guys! :smile:
Antonio Lao
Aug10-04, 11:07 AM
There are really only two solutions out of the four shown since -i = \frac{1}{i} and the negative sign can be on the left or on the right.
Epsilon Pi
Aug10-04, 11:18 AM
Yes, that was in 1545 when that problem was coped for the first time by Cardano.
In 1745 the most prolific mathematicians of all times, Leonard Euler, when studying infinite series, found his well-known expression: Euler Relation:
i(theta)
e = Cosine (theta) + i Sine(theta)
with which we can even represent that duality of the two kinds of parity found in nature, i.e., even parity and odd parity. With this expression the equal sign is not anymore a symbol to reduce the one to the other; "i" can be taken, in fact. as a symbol of radical separation, so that we do not sum apples and pearls.
Unfortunately this symbol has received a great semantic burden: it is called since Descartes, an imaginary symbol.
But is it not a symbol precisely for representing mathematically the "radical duality" of the universe?
Just some thoughts regarding ER
Regards
EP
Complex numbers were invented in order to find solutions to the polynomial equation x^2 + 1 = 0 where x = \sqrt{-1} . But by using the complex plane, the reflection of a point in one quadrant with the imaginary axis form complex conjugates that when multiplied also equal to x^2 + 1 = 0 . The conjugates are given by the following
(x + i)(x - i) = 0
(1 + ix)(1 - ix) = 0
there are four compex solutions
x= -i , x=i, x=- \frac{1}{i} , x= \frac{1}{i}
Antonio Lao
Aug10-04, 11:18 AM
The important thing to realize is not the imaginary number i but its square which is -1. If the number 1 and -1 are used to fill in the elements of square matrices which are known as Hadamard matrices, and it these matrices are also symmetric, then an algebra of these matrices for the operation of addition and multiplication can describe charge and mass for spacetime quantization.
Epsilon Pi
Aug10-04, 11:30 AM
Did you know that it is possible to use Euler Relation for defining sort of dynamic complex geometry, starting with the definition of a basis unit system concept, with which we can deduce all fundamental equations of physics, such as those of special relativity, the equations of gravitational field of normal planets and that of Mercury, the Schrodinger wave equation, but also the equation of the pendulum formula with an approximation factor that can even be validated with what is observed?
But then we will have not a TOE, but a mathematical methodology in which, as with differential equations, the theory must always go side by side with observations so that we have always a good solution.
Regards
EP
The important thing to realize is not the imaginary number i but its square which is -1. If the number 1 and -1 are used to fill in the elements of square matrices which are known as Hadamard matrices, and it these matrices are also symmetric, then an algebra of these matrices for the operation of addition and multiplication can describe charge and mass for spacetime quantization.
Hi
I found an interesting idea on the Classical forum calld the Maxwell demon. It is an experiment that produces elctrical curent from a singel heat reserver. It looks a bit like propetual motion but I recomend you check it out for your selfs.
Epsilon Pi
Aug10-04, 01:56 PM
But is not the paradox of the Maxwell demon been explained by the fact that there is an external observer -the demon- that manipulates the information?
Regards
EP
Hi
I found an interesting idea on the Classical forum calld the Maxwell demon. It is an experiment that produces elctrical curent from a singel heat reserver. It looks a bit like propetual motion but I recomend you check it out for your selfs.
Antonio Lao
Aug11-04, 07:14 AM
Did you know that it is possible to use Euler Relation
Thanks. I am not aware of this. Is this a math concept in need of a physical meaning?
I learned that complex number sytem always implies rotational transformation and suitable for the analysis of generalized periodic functions and Euler's relation also connects the trig functions to the exponential function.
What I am trying to understand is the physical meaning of i = - \frac{1}{i} whose square is -1 = -1.
The algebra that I am developing to which I named them as H+ and H- has no identity and hence no inverse in multiplication operation although it's always commutatitve. Because of these, it does not satisfy all the group properties. It is more like a ring except for a scalar factor of integers.
Antonio Lao
Aug11-04, 09:33 AM
The successive raising of power of the imaginary number i indicates a constant cyclic permutation of 1, i, -1, -i.
i^0 = 1
i^1 = i
i^2 = -1
i^3 = -i
--------------------
i^4 = 1
i^5 = i
i^6 = -1
i^7 = -i
--------------------
i^8 = 1
i^9 = i
i^{10} = -1
i^{11} = -i
If there is a relationship between raising power and dimension then the 4th dimension of SR and GR and 11th dimension of superstring is just a cyclic repeatition of imaginary powers.There seems to be some kind of abstract perpetual motion in the imaginary domain of physical reality.
Antonio Lao
Aug11-04, 09:46 AM
the demon
The Demon will always fail in trying to go against the laws of nature since he (the Demon - reading Hans Christian von Baeyer's book "Maxwell's Demon) did not make or created these laws. Only the creator of the laws is able to change these laws. But reading Paul Davies' "The Mind of God," seems to imply that the spontaneity implied in these laws does not need for a creator. But it is our inability to know exactly by measurement because of the uncertainty in location and velocity that give rise to the spontaneity at the outset.
Antonio Lao
Aug11-04, 09:53 AM
Spontaneity is the same as being free. Free to come into being. Free to act. Free from any coercion. Free to choose. Free to say. Free to move in any selected direction. Free to exist. When nature's freedom is threaten then nature will stop to exist. But nature always counter this threat with its inherent principles of conservation laws (energy, linear momentum, angular, momentum, baryon number, lepton number, CPT theorem, etc.).
Antonio Lao
Aug11-04, 10:03 AM
The act of measurement is a threat to nature's freedom. Nature counters this threat with its Heisenberg's uncertainty of position and linear momentum and Einstein's uncertainty of energy and time.
Epsilon Pi
Aug11-04, 10:09 AM
EE uses complex numbers as its "bread and butter" tool, and specially for that remarkable property they have to convert differential equations into "simple" algebraic equations; and of course they are suitable for the analysis of generalized periodic functions, by means of Fourier theorem, in the so-called Sygnal Analysis in the frequency domain, where we find too, the two kinds of symmetry: even and odd.
Sometimes it has been said that QM is so difficult to grasp for the human mind because it violates our intuition, so in a certain sense this could be applied to EE, so I don't think it is the point.
I have been wondering since a long time ago if the difficulty does not lie in the fact that complex numbers have not been taken seriously to represent physical reality at those basic levels of QM? In fact it started with the Schrodinger wave equation, but is it not true that road was abandoned, in that moment the aim was put to explain the behavior not of the electron or Fermions that seem to have associated a non conservative field, but the bosons, that in a certain sense have associated a conservative field, such as those asociated with electric charges and gravitation.
Are we not explaining the whole by the part? Is not this a tendency of our need to make closed systems, so we can control and predict, and aspire so to a nobel prize?
Regards
EP
Thanks. I am not aware of this. Is this a math concept in need of a physical meaning?
I learned that complex number sytem always implies rotational transformation and suitable for the analysis of generalized periodic functions and Euler's relation also connects the trig functions to the exponential function.
What I am trying to understand is the physical meaning of i = - \frac{1}{i} whose square is -1 = -1.
The algebra that I am developing to which I named them as H+ and H- has no identity and hence no inverse in multiplication operation although it's always commutatitve. Because of these, it does not satisfy all the group properties. It is more like a ring except for a scalar factor of integers.
Epsilon Pi
Aug11-04, 10:16 AM
Square root of minus one is just a symbol to separate two different orders of reality so that we do not sum apples and pearls: it is that symbol the one that establishes the rules with complex numbers; it is that symbol the one that makes it possible the rationalization of duality.
Regards
EP
What I am trying to understand is the physical meaning of i = - \frac{1}{i} whose square is -1 = -1.
I don't belive you understood corectly. The demon is not actualy a creture in the case I have found it is for instence a magnetic field. I would really advice you to look it up. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=28623&page=4&pp=15
But any way I don't really belive it works becouse there probably is a lose of electrons somwher in the process
Antonio Lao
Aug11-04, 02:29 PM
The demon is not actualy a creture
I agree. The demon is really any scientific theory that attempts to break the natural laws of the universe. For example, travel forward or backward in time, perpetual motion machine, heat flow from low temperature to high temperature, etc.
Doesnt a black hole gobble up everything basically acting as a self maintaining collector of mass and energy. How long does a black hole exist from point of formation? Couldnt something like that be considered perpetual motion if it can keep adding to itself and sustain itself?
Antonio Lao
Aug11-04, 02:40 PM
I have found it is for instence a magnetic field
In quantum vacuum, the ratio of electric field to magnetic field is the speed of light.
c=\frac{E}{B}
If B is slightly greater than E then mass is created and the ratio is less than light speed. If B is slightly less than E then space expands and the ratio is greater than light speed.
Antonio Lao
Aug11-04, 02:52 PM
Doesnt a black hole gobble up everything basically acting as a self maintaining collector of mass and energy.
A black hole is the result of an exploding star if its mass before the explosion met certain conditions. It is the original star that gobble matter by way thru the accretion disc for some binary stellar systems.
After a black hole is formed, it creates an event horizon which curved the surrounding spacetime structure for more falling matter and energy. But Hawking radiation prevent complete domination by the black hole on its vicinity of influence.
Epsilon Pi
Aug14-04, 12:10 PM
Hi Antonio and others,
A physical meaning of i.i = -1?
If we take i, as a symbol for differentiating two different orders of reality, then we have:
- on the one hand an axis affected by i, and
- on the other an axis 90 degrees apart, not affected by i
or else we have the complex plane, where multiplication and division(differentiation and integration) can be interpreted as a rotation of 90 degrees. The complex plane can be taken then as the canvas where the dynamic complexity of the real can be represented.
Is this not a physical meaning?
Regards
EP
What I am trying to understand is the physical meaning of i = - \frac{1}{i} whose square is -1 = -1.
Antonio Lao
Aug15-04, 10:50 AM
Epsilon Pi,
Thanks. The physical reality of complex numbers seems to indicate the fundamental reality of orthogonal axes.
grabateetrap
Aug28-04, 10:28 PM
Perpetual motion...
This reminds me of life because if energy weren't given up, then things couldn't
grow and evolve. The cold heart of the Earth, that steals your breath in the
night, gives up it's own breath to the hope of the future. Nothing in this place
is ever lost... THAT IS PERPETUAL MOTION
Epsilon Pi
Aug29-04, 06:48 AM
Yes, you are quite right, in fact, is not life an open dynamic system, continually exchanging with the environment, so that "extra" -that seems to violate that second law of thermodynamics- that makes it possible to conceive a whole greater than the sum of its parts, comes precisely from that "perpetual" interchange?
Did you know that there is a mainstream in biology that is now using that triadic framework introduced by that great north american philosopher Charles Pierce?
I was wondering if this has not to do with that same need I have felt to understand and comprehend, not just the closed systems of normal science, but those open systems of reality "out there"?
Is not a triadic symbolism a symbolism in which the third is included? Don't we have in Euler relation that third included in that radical duality it represents?
Just some thoughts regarding the third included
Regards
EP
PD: Is not the inclusion of the third another point of view different from the now prevailing in modern physics or in normal science?
Perpetual motion...
This reminds me of life because if energy weren't given up, then things couldn't
grow and evolve. The cold heart of the Earth, that steals your breath in the
night, gives up it's own breath to the hope of the future. Nothing in this place
is ever lost... THAT IS PERPETUAL MOTION
kurious
Aug29-04, 05:48 PM
Perpetual motion occurs all the time.
According to Newton a mass will keep moving at the same speed
unless it is disturbed by a force.
I could explain why but my explanation might be too "interesting" for the mentors
on theory development!
cronxeh
Aug29-04, 10:51 PM
a body in motion will stay in motion unless an external force is acting upon it
in real world this translates into friction slowing down your car the (friction = coeff of friction * mass * acceleration due to gravity)
now if you start thinking of newton's law of motion in terms of general relativity and whole universe, you might get ahead of yourself and invest some new hypothesis which wont be based on any experimental data. you are probably thinking of suggesting that the universe itself is like a spongy membrane that is in motion in multiple dimensions with several dimensions for time. it could make for a great sci fi movie (even Men in Black did a great ending playing with universe in a form of little balls)
Antonio Lao
Sep2-04, 01:58 PM
a body in motion will stay in motion unless an external force is acting upon it
Is this part of Newton's 1st law of motion? If it is then it is constant motion as that of constant velocity. Accelerated motion exist when there is a force.
But the modern view of spacetime's curvature does not clearly describe how this constant velocity can be achieved by objects other than photons.
do you think there may be perpetual motion in magnets? no energy is put into the magnet and yet it does work by sticking onto the side of the fridge.
Try to avoid a classical view point. Intuition is not reality. You guys are stuck on a classical perspective that just does not work and does not explain observation. Loren, you know better. Science is hard. You understand the fundamentals, in my opinion. I think you should let go of the philosophical issues and return to the scientific part.
Antonio Lao
Sep4-04, 07:50 AM
You guys are stuck on a classical perspective that just does not work and does not explain observation.
But it is said by the Feynman's version of quantum mechanics that the process of sum over all histories of probabilistic paths: the classical path is the most probable. This is when and where the action integral is the least and the Lagrangian (difference of kinetic and potential energy) is practically zero.
Antonio Lao
Sep4-04, 07:56 AM
Furthermore, path can only be defined classically. In QM, path (of an electron) has no meaning as in the problem of trying to understand why there are quantum jumps between energy levels.
pallidin
Sep11-04, 06:00 PM
Having absolutely no shred of evidence even close to the idea of perpetual motion, this has, apparently, not deterred it's adherants.
Having seen nothing in nature they say, "well, maybe it is so"
Having no experiment to prove it they yet say, "it can happen"
Having nothing to go further on, they then say "you don't understand my theory"
When challenged to produce facts, they say "it can not be done now, or, there is not enough money, or..."
If you would nail them down to describe a qualitative experiment in support of their idea, they fall silent.
Antonio Lao
Sep12-04, 07:33 AM
Having absolutely no shred of evidence even close to the idea of perpetual motion
One of the mathematical evidences for PM can be found by using a periodic function as an example. The frequency (f) is defined as the inverse of the period (T).
f=\frac{1}{T}
as T approaches infinity, f approaches zero and vice versa. Note that frequency always exist and it even increase almost without bound as the period approaches the limit of zero time.
PRyckman
Sep12-04, 02:04 PM
D=(c-v)t note that velocity is directional, and this represents space in the line ahead of the path
do you think there may be perpetual motion in magnets? no energy is put into the magnet and yet it does work by sticking onto the side of the fridge.
Antonio Lao
Sep12-04, 03:21 PM
do you think there may be perpetual motion in magnets? no energy is put into the magnet and yet it does work by sticking onto the side of the fridge.
In current modern physics, the existence of magnetic field is due to the motion (PM?) of charged particles. But there are now at least three different kinds of charges: the electric charge, the weak charge, the strong or color charge. The motion of all these charges create its respective kind of magnetism, electric magnetism, weak magnetism, and color magnetism. The magnetism that caused fridge sticking might be just electric or combination of all three types.
Regardless of the type or kind of magnetism responsible for fridge sticking, the interaction forces are very much larger than the force from the surrounding gravitational field.
The mystery behind the explanation of charge to mass ratio remains. What is the independent meaning of charge or of mass? This still is not fully clarified in physics.
If string theory were proven to be true and that everything that exists is made up of uber tiny small vibrating strings, wouldnt they be PMotion? Or wouldnt that be proof that Pmotion exists in nature? Do these strings stop moving at absolute zero?
so do you think that someone might be able to construct a pmm useing magnets?
the earth's motion around the sun is perpetual motion.
Different kind of perpetual motion, bino.
Earth's motion about the Sun is continuous. You're not taking any energy out or putting any energy in.
PPMs supposedly get more energy out than you put in: An impossibility according to the first law of thermodynamics.
russ_watters
Sep14-04, 11:20 AM
so do you think that someone might be able to construct a pmm useing magnets? No, it isn't possible.
Earth's motion about the Sun is continuous. You're not taking any energy out or putting any energy in.
On the basis of how tethers work, couldnt you construct a large enough tether from a point on earth reaching out to space. The energy output would be great and would last as long as our sun would burn or until the materials of the tether break apart from the stress. Although far from perpetual cause our sun has a finite life but still...
Could it even be possible to create such a device and how much energy could it generate if one could build it?
Epsilon Pi
Sep14-04, 02:10 PM
Why are you so sure of what is or is not possible? When I see, some good physicists or mechanical engineers, making such a sort of dogmatic assertion, I think immediatly, the contrary must be true.
Some good physicists, too, are now thinking so seriously about ZPE, which certainly could be thought as sort of PMM, or a way to use that energy stored in that inherent magnetic field of the electrons that permeates all space...
Will it be possible? Nobody knows...most of our science, is so influenced by that second law and closed systems, that it really has paid so little attention to physical open dynamic systems; we really do not know what we will happen in the future, when they do.
Regards
EP
No, it isn't possible.
Antonio Lao
Sep14-04, 02:43 PM
In discussing perpetual motion machine, it is really necessary to clarify how energy is involved. There are two ways that energy can specify the type of PMM.
1. Energy production - continuous production of energy by the machine.
2.. Energy transformation - continuous storage and redistribution or conversion to other forms of energy.
In electrical circuitry, the example of the 1st type are called active elements such as batteries or voltage source. Examples of the 2nd type are called passive elements such as resistors, capacitors and inductors.
Different kind of perpetual motion, bino.
Earth's motion about the Sun is continuous. You're not taking any energy out or putting any energy in.
PPMs supposedly get more energy out than you put in: An impossibility according to the first law of thermodynamics.
in some hair brained attempt by someone could we take a whole lot of wire wrap it around the moons path around earth or around the path of earth around the sun. then we would get energy from the earth magnetic field. it would be like a giant generator.
^ yes, i agree we can get better at converting energy from what we do today, but im still having a hard time with something that lasts perpetually. Perpetually is the problem, it may last a long time, but that’s not forever. our moon orbit, earth orbit wont last for an infinite amount of time. Eventually the sun will burn out.. perpetually doesn’t exist here, but where im coming from is that even at a state of absolute zero atoms and whatnot are still moving ever so slightly. What gives them their energy to continue? string theory? are strings perpetual motion? ...if to be proven to exist...
what moves the strings... is there always an infinite problem? like the chicken or the egg scenario, what comes first and does something even need to come first? Or is our universe and the laws of physics as we know them also evolve? Making it so its near imposible to trace back what was or could be.
If there is something that causes the string to vibrate to create the molecules, to which particles and atoms, that make everything up in our universe? What makes the stings to do that. Is god still playin dice, but at now even a much smaller scale then quantum Mechs.? How small and giant scale can we even perceive? After all we have infinite to work with..
:frown:
ive seen a thread on here about whether nothingness exists, which got me thinking... does infinite exist? If it does that has to be perpetual motion now wouldnt it... think about it for a moment... :bugeye:
mysteryturtle
Sep15-04, 02:43 AM
It has been mentioned that perpetual motion infers the ability to extract some form of energy from the system being studied. I do not think that really equates. Perpetual motion would by definition only be motion which is continuous. Withdrawing energy would be a wonderfull dream of energy hungry scientists; but that would be more than mere perpetual motion. That would indicate perpetual surplus energy generation, which is well beyond simple motion.
M
Epsilon Pi
Sep15-04, 07:33 AM
I would prefer to differentiate between two kinds of fields:
- conservative such as those ones in batteries, capacitors, where the prevailing is the electric one, and
- non conservative such as in inductors, where the magnetic is the prevailing.
In the former there is no chance to think in terms of PMM, but in the latter, we can think in energy conversion, or in open dynamic systems such as in power systems, where we have a permanent conversion from hydraulic or gravitational, to magnetic to electric and so forth, for example; here there is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics; if we want to think about PMM, we must think having in mind those fundamental laws of nature, if we want to think in terms of science.
It is important to recall the "transformer", the one that makes it possible to use that energy at different levels and at large scale.
Regards
EP
In discussing perpetual motion machine, it is really necessary to clarify how energy is involved. There are two ways that energy can specify the type of PMM.
1. Energy production - continuous production of energy by the machine.
2.. Energy transformation - continuous storage and redistribution or conversion to other forms of energy.
In electrical circuitry, the example of the 1st type are called active elements such as batteries or voltage source. Examples of the 2nd type are called passive elements such as resistors, capacitors and inductors.
russ_watters
Sep15-04, 08:07 AM
Why are you so sure of what is or is not possible? When I see, some good physicists or mechanical engineers, making such a sort of dogmatic assertion, I think immediatly, the contrary must be true. The laws of physics are not a dogmatic assertion.
And mysteryturtle is right: ZPE, if harnessable, would not be perpetual motion. However, today's perpetual motion/free energy hoaxsters have been very careful to avoid claiming outright perpetual motion. Claims of harnessing ZPE (which contradicts the very theory that predicts it exists) is a common new perpetual motion hoax.
if someone did create a pmm. the problem would be that it would take forever to test.
:rofl:
Antonio Lao
Sep15-04, 01:54 PM
The crux of the matter is that there are two kinds of energy, the kinetic and the potential. Absolute potential energy is truly scalar (e.g. the Higgs fields) and absolute kinetic energy is truly vectorial (e.g. all other force fields). But relative potential energy and relative kinetic energy are tensorial which are just dimensional transformations of contraction and expansion of the scalar and vectorial property of space and time.
So for perpetual motion machine, the energy must be derived from an absolute kinetic energy. Only the energy of photons is truly kinetic but its mass must be zero. Yet in GR, we are not sure whether photon has no mass. This is because absolute energy whether potential or kinetic does not really exist in nature. But a relative energy of potential and kinetic can coexist in the form of a one dimensional quantization of spacetime.
But a relative energy of potential and kinetic can coexist in the form of a one dimensional quantization of spacetime.
You walking on thin ice here :smile: What do you call this, a thin edge sword that one can balance?
The thing is you look for evidence, and what traces tell you that such a idealization can exist?
You have to be a tracker. Your explanations are very lucid.
Antonio Lao
Sep15-04, 07:52 PM
The principle of least action stated clearly that the time integral over a Lagrangian must be close to zero. The Lagrangian is defined as the difference of kinetic and potential energy. These two energy functions are nearly equal but never exactly so. They are in a state of coexistence. And this state is not perfectly a point of zero dimension hence it must be one dimensional, it possesses a metric (an infinitesimal distance).
For an absolute action, the Lagrangian is exactly zero while all other relative actions give a relative minimum Lagrangian.
In mechanics or thermodynamics, the virial theorem states that the time average value of a single one degree potential energy function is equal to twice the average kinetic energy function.
Hi
The spin of elementary particles could be considered a form of perpetual motion.
The energy created by the existence of charge and mass (the potential energy in the fields associated with them) can be considered as an infinite and otherwise sourceless origin of energy.
juju
Epsilon Pi
Sep17-04, 04:44 PM
If we consider the spin of the electron a result of its inherent magnetic field, then we will have a quantum of energy stored in that field?
Regards
EP
Hi
The spin of elementary particles could be considered a form of perpetual motion.
The energy created by the existence of charge and mass (the potential energy in the fields associated with them) can be considered as an infinite and otherwise sourceless origin of energy.
juju
Hi EP,
Does the magnetic field create the spin or the spin create the magnetic field. Or are they just two seemingly entangled properties of elementary particles.
juju
Epsilon Pi
Sep17-04, 05:10 PM
Hi juju,
Does not the spin has to do with the two possible orientations of the magnetic field, I mean, a result of its inherent polarity?
When the spin is out of this context is not true that it seems to be something very strange or entangled?
Regards
EP
Hi EP,
Does the magnetic field create the spin or the spin create the magnetic field. Or are they just two seemingly entangled properties of elementary particles.
juju
Hi EP,
It is my understanding that spin was first proposed as to be a measure of the inherent angular momentum of the particle and only later was related to the magnetic moment.
Positrons and electrons with the same spin direction have magnetic moments in the opposite direction.
One last thing, gluons have spin. Do they also have a magnetic moment.
juju
Epsilon Pi
Sep17-04, 06:26 PM
Yes, but is not that inherent angular momentum of the electron associated with its inherent magnetic field?
Another thing is the chemistry of nuclear interactions, i.e., those entities that can be decompossed(not the electron)... that is certainly another thing for which Gell-Mann has given us a sound symbolic representation that must give reason of its behavior, and even of its magnetic behavior.
Regards
EP
Hi EP,
It is my understanding that spin was first proposed as to be a measure of the inherent angular momentum of the particle and only later was related to the magnetic moment.
juju
Antonio Lao
Sep17-04, 09:29 PM
The energy created by the existence of charge and mass (the potential energy in the fields associated with them) can be considered as an infinite and otherwise sourceless origin of energy.
This is the beginning (since the 1930s) of the physical method of renormalization, to get rid of infinities in the equations. The total Hamiltonian is the sum of field Hamiltonian and particle Hamiltonian and interaction Hamiltonian which are all infinities from self-energy, vertex correction and vacuum polarization.
Yes, but is not that inherent angular momentum of the electron associated with its inherent magnetic field?
It is true that all particles with magnetic moment have spin, but do all particles with spin have magnetic moment?
Does this in anyway relate to the rotational symmetry properties of particles with different spin?
juju
Epsilon Pi
Sep19-04, 07:06 AM
But what is spin? Is not the result of that polarity of the magnetic field of the electron? This is where I find it necessary to be very careful with generalizations. Every concept must be used in its proper context or else we will have confusion regarding its meaning, and as so that generalization becomes a "patch". This is why it is fundamental to express those concepts mathematically, so we can interpret the same thing.
Is the spin associated with a magnetic field or is it sort of mechanical concept? Can we take it as the latter? If we take it as the former we do not even need to ask a question about its nature, do we?
Regards
EP
It is true that all particles with magnetic moment have spin, but do all particles with spin have magnetic moment?
Does this in anyway relate to the rotational symmetry properties of particles with different spin?
juju
Antonio Lao
Sep19-04, 08:55 AM
In theory, there should be 3 kinds of magnetic fields.
1. Field derived from the motion of electric charges.
2. Field derived from the motion of weak charges.
3. Field derived from the motion of color charges.
Only the 1st kind has been well understood and applied in science and technology.
In quantum physics, from results of much empirical data, the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle is called spin and this spin gives rise to an intrinsic magnetic moment.
Furthermore, it can be theorized a 4th kind magnetic field which are derived from the motion of magnetic charges. But magnetic monopoles (N/S) cannot be found therefore somehow dimensionality is related to the kinds of field such that electric charges are 3D, weak charges are 2D, color charges are 1D and magnetic charges are 0D.
The motion of a 3D charge creates a 4D current.
The motion of a 2D charge creates a 3D current.
The motion of a 1D charge creates a 2D current.
The motion of a 0D charge creates a 1D current.
Another name for magnetic charge is space charge or spacetime charge.
But what is spin?
As I understand it, mathematically spin is related to the rotational symmetry of particles.
Particles with spin 1/2 have a 4*PI radian rotational symmetry.
Particles with spin 1 have a 2*PI radian rotational symmetry.
Particles with spin 2 have a PI radian rotational symmetry.
juju
In theory, there should be 3 kinds of magnetic fields.
1. Field derived from the motion of electric charges.
2. Field derived from the motion of weak charges.
3. Field derived from the motion of color charges.
I have read of some theoretical investigations into an O3 symmetry group represention of electromagnetism, that predict a kind of free space magnetic field.
juju
Antonio Lao
Sep19-04, 03:28 PM
Thank you, juju. I going to investigate some more about this O3 symmetry group. The one I got is a ring, a commutative semigroup under multiplication (used for determining mass values) and an Abelian group under addition (used for determining charge values).
Epsilon Pi
Sep20-04, 07:20 AM
1. Field derived from the motion of electric charges.
2. Field derived from the motion of weak charges.
3. Field derived from the motion of color charges.
Only the 1st kind has been well understood and applied in science and technology.
In quantum physics, from results of much empirical data, the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle is called spin and this spin gives rise to an intrinsic magnetic moment.
Here is where I clearly deviate from modern physics as how can you explain the fact that the neutron that does not have any electric charge, it does have however a magnetic field represented in its intrinsic magnetic moment? You will certainly need then to introduce sort of theoretical "patch" that will never be understood well, and as so be applied in science and engineering, and this concept is precisely the spin concept with which you will try to explain, hiding at the same time what is its real origin, I mean, the intrinsic magnetic field.
A magnetic field is a self-consistent-entity, that is expressed in the fact that you cannot have magnetic monopoles, which is quite well understood if we think in a complex concept such as the basic unit system based on Euler relation, that by definition includes both a wave nature and a radical duality separated by the symbol i.
But if you have taken that path to explain the whole by the part or a whole/part entity as the magnetic field by one of its derived features, spin or charge, I know it will be quite imposible for you to take this other path, and here is where we come accross with an incommensurability problem, and you will certainly try by all means to correct the inconsistencies in your mathematical symbolism introducing all kind of patches, that make thing quite entangled.
Regards
EP
Antonio Lao
Sep20-04, 08:26 AM
the neutron that does not have any electric charge, it does have however a magnetic field represented in its intrinsic magnetic moment?
a free neutron will decay into a proton and electron along with an antineutrino of the electron in about 15 minutes (roughly, the attention span of an average person). So neutron is not really an authoritative base to disregard or question the notion of magnetic field generated by charged particles.
Actually, according to Particle Data Group at http://PDG.LBL.gov the neutron does have a negative charge about 10^{-21} of the electron charge.
Epsilon Pi
Sep20-04, 01:09 PM
Yes, I know, that those entities as the neutron cannot be free as the electron...in fact it seems that in a certain sense they depend on it and as so all those entities of the chemistry of nuclear interactions...but again mine is quite another point of view in which we do not need to make physical entities such as the magnetic field dependent on such theoretical and mathematical abstractions...it is this deviation of those physical certitudes, the ones, that seem to me untenable in modern physics. My rational mind cannot follow that path.
How can you explain a whole/part as the magnetic field by the part or charge? Is it not true that the contrary is already included in Maxwell's equations: the charge can be explained naturally as a result of time-varying magnetic field. But Western science since Descartes took the path to explain what is complex by the simple...and the complex must be taken to a minumum triadic symbolism so we can manage it, i.e., complex numbers.
The greatest drawback of dualism is precisely that its language becomes incommensurable even in that same field of physics, and worst with other fields of science.
Regards
EP
a free neutron will decay into a proton and electron along with an antineutrino of the electron in about 15 minutes (roughly, the attention span of an average person). So neutron is not really an authoritative base to disregard or question the notion of magnetic field generated by charged particles.
Actually, according to Particle Data Group at http://PDG.LBL.gov the neutron does have a negative charge about 10^{-21} of the electron charge.
Antonio Lao
Sep20-04, 01:50 PM
The greatest drawback of dualism is precisely that its language becomes incommensurable even in that same field of physics, and worst with other fields of science.
The dualism that I'm working on is that of two quantities such that the product is equal to the difference such that
ab=a-b
where
b=\frac{a}{1+a}
and
a=\frac{b}{1-b}
If we look at the law of universal gravitation given by
F=G \frac{m_1 m_2}{R^2}
m1 and m2 are duals such that
m_1 m_2 = m_1 - m_2
where m1 >> m2
m1 and m2 are equal iff both vanish.
Likewise, this can be applied to Coulomb's law of static electricity.
Antonio Lao
Sep20-04, 02:11 PM
In electrostatics, when one charge q1 >> q2 then Coulomb's law defined an electric field such that the electric force is given by
F_E = q_2 E
where q2 is the unit test charge and
E = k \int_{n} \frac{q_{i}}{r^2_{i2}}
Antonio Lao
Sep20-04, 02:35 PM
In magnetostatics, the dualism between two incremental currents i1 and i2 can also be describe but is a little more complicated because of the directional property of the currents for an incremental distance.
F_B=k \frac{i_1 i_2}{d} L_2
F_B= k i_2 L_2 B_1
B1 is the magnetic field and i2 L2 is the product of charge and speed.
how can you explain the fact that the neutron that does not have any electric charge, it does have however a magnetic field represented in its intrinsic magnetic moment?
Hi EP,
According to the standard model, the neutron's magnetic moment is generated by the magnetic moments of its constituent quarks which are charged.
There are also additional aspects that may come into play, such as virtual particles within the neutron, and motion of the constituent quarks.
juju
This is a fresh reply after reading the original comment.
I am new to this board also, but I have direct interest in physics and I'm only little way into it, but I've got a conceptual answer to take with a grain of salt.
I think perpetual motionists make the basic fallacy that non-determinists make, in that non-determinists believe they can stand outside of the physical laws, and get a system to perform perfect equilibrium without ourselves or the enviroment affecting the system, or the system affecting us. Too many states of matter and energy pervade and interact throughout incomprehensibly small and large dimensions to create this isolated phenomenon. Everything may pervade everything in a sense (as long as it doesn't exist in the same time in place, which guarantees interaction).
I think we assume perpetual motion because we intuitively understand the idea of entirety of existence or singularity. I say we are the perpetual machine. That's why we exist.
As far as getting more energy to exit from an identified system that exists, that seems fairly obvious to indicate and understand as impossible. Energy comes out in units that always in a relative state sense have always existed rather than being created from a void.
Epsilon Pi
Sep21-04, 07:11 AM
As I said the greatest drawback of dualism is its natural tendency to reduce things; in dualism there is no chance to have a complex quantity except by introducing it as a patch, both in its magnitude and its phase. In dualism we do not have the chance to have a radical duality behind the equal sign as with complex numbers, then you must try by all means to deny or minimize the wave nature of reality.
On the other hand that universal law of gravitation is not so universal after all as we already know; in the planet Mercury we certainly will have a different law. In fact, that law is associated with a solution to a differential equation that is an ellipse in case of normal planets, i.e., different as that one mentioned. And even at galactic greatest distance it will not be valid either.
In biology and philosophy, if we can talk about meanstream philosophy with the north american philosopher Ken Wilber, dualism is really transcended, because of the tendendy mentioned above to reduce everything.
From my own point of view, philosophically, I believe reality is complex not simple, but then we must have a triadic symbolism that mathematically is represented by complex numbers to take that complexity to a minimum. In this case what I offer is that dualism is transcended and included mathematically: you can have both, (+/-), a binary logic, but complementarity too.
Regards
EP
The dualism that I'm working on is that of two quantities such that the product is equal to the difference such that
ab=a-b
where
b=\frac{a}{1+a}
and
a=\frac{b}{1-b}
If we look at the law of universal gravitation given by
F=G \frac{m_1 m_2}{R^2}
m1 and m2 are duals such that
m_1 m_2 = m_1 - m_2
where m1 >> m2
m1 and m2 are equal iff both vanish.
Likewise, this can be applied to Coulomb's law of static electricity.
Epsilon Pi
Sep21-04, 07:18 AM
Hi juju, thank you, I know there must be a way to explain that magnetic moment of the neutron, by means of quarks whose rules must agree with what is observed in the chemistry of nuclear interactions, but my main point is that the electron has an inherent magnetic field and it cannot be decomposed, it is a self-consistent entity.
Regards
EP
Hi EP,
According to the standard model, the neutron's magnetic moment is generated by the magnetic moments of its constituent quarks which are charged.
There are also additional aspects that may come into play, such as virtual particles within the neutron, and motion of the constituent quarks.
juju
Antonio Lao
Sep21-04, 07:30 AM
If we can apply dualism in the square of energy (there really are two kinds of energy: the potential and the kinetic), then
H^{+}=E^2 this is a general form of kinetic energy.
H^{-}= - E^2 this is a general form of potential energy.
then the square root of the general potential energy is a pure imaginary number.
\sqrt{H^{-}} = Ei
H+ and H- is possible if and only if the infinitesimal forces and metrics are orthogonal.
If kinetic and potential energy are absolutely dual then
E_K E_P= E_K - E_P
And the RHS expression can be defined as a Lagrangian.
Antonio Lao
Sep21-04, 08:05 AM
But if we insist on solving E then Ek=E and EP=Ei give
EEi=E-Ei
there are two solutions (-1+i) and (-1-i), which show that energy is a complex number.
Written in exponentials, the solutions are
E= \sqrt{2} e^{i\theta}
E= \sqrt{2} e^{-i\theta}
where the phase angle is 45 degrees.
Epsilon Pi
Sep21-04, 11:15 AM
I am sorry, Antonio, but I really cannot follow you in your path.
Regards
EP
If we can apply dualism in the square of energy (there really are two kinds of energy: the potential and the kinetic), then
H^{+}=E^2 this is a general form of kinetic energy.
H^{-}= - E^2 this is a general form of potential energy.
then the square root of the general potential energy is a pure imaginary number.
\sqrt{H^{-}} = Ei
H+ and H- is possible if and only if the infinitesimal forces and metrics are orthogonal.
If kinetic and potential energy are absolutely dual then
E_K E_P= E_K - E_P
And the RHS expression can be defined as a Lagrangian.
my main point is that the electron has an inherent magnetic field and it cannot be decomposed, it is a self-consistent entity.
Hi EP,
I guess the question here is this.
Are the mass, charge, magnetic moment, and spin of the electron independent properties, or do they depend on each other in some way, or do they depend on even deeper as yet unknown properties?
juju
Arsonade
Sep21-04, 01:42 PM
I think peoples biggest problem is the ability to think on a scale other then their physical form. Now we see things working on a big and small scale what can we do to create something similar that will work on a scale we can tangibly see and use?
ok lol first of all, this is the physics fourum lol, most people her think on the physical realm, i wont go into explaining my ideas because i have homework im procrastinating on but i will link you to my post, you may find it interesting.
my post (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=23088&page=1&pp=15&highlight=stupid+crazy+guys)
take a look
Adam
P.S if anyone would want to reply to my post, thats good, but could u e-mail me tellin me? its AdamChess4@aol.com
Ok; let me guess.
We take an electric motor, connect it to an electrical generator, connect the output of the generator to a step-up voltage transformer with a low voltage tap connected to the motor. The low voltage tap is designed to be the correct voltage for the motor. Then we take the high voltage output of the step-up transformer and power the world with it.
This one comes from folks who learn a little something about voltage transformers but don't understand how power works. It is very common; there's even a patent on it; it doesn't work, of course.
Vern
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.