Perpetual Motion: Is Cosmos an Endless Machine?

[force5]

Is the cosmos a perpetual motion machine?

 

[shrumeo]

sure , if you want it to be

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Oscillating Universe

If you subscribe to the "Oscillating Universe" Theory, then, it SURE IS...
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0025900.html

I think George Gamow came up with it. Most scientists have since "abandoned" this theory.

 

[force5]

My personal opinion is that the cosmos is (not) a perpetual motion machine. I just wanted to get some intelligent feed back. Thanks Dogon

 

[shrumeo]

to have a perpetual motion machine you need work with no heat, right?

where is the heat going?

into the other cosmos?

 

[force5]

Shrumeo, I would say you need work with no exchange of energy from outside the system.

Your questions about "where is the heat going?" and "into the other cosmos?", does no make much sense to me. I'm work under the assumption that the cosmos is total existence and therefore, heat or energy is confined to this one and only cosmos.

I can try to phrase the question a different way if you are truly interest.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Chronos]

since the universe appears to be a 'free lunch' [something from nothing], you might be able to make that argument. i don't think the oscillating universe is a good answer. it appears there would be ineffficiences between cycles resulting in it eventually achieiving a state of 'rest'. the big rip concept may, however, has some interesting implications. if expansion tears apart the space time continuum, the entire universe might topologically fold back upon itself into a singularity.

 

[ray b]

Is the cosmos a perpetual motion machine?

even little bits of it are in perpetual motion, as in an atom's orbiting electrons
or will a photon travel forever?

from our limited time scale anyway, both look like perpetual motion to me

 

[force5]

Hi Chronos,

I think that sometimes appearances can be deceiving. Since I don't think the cosmos is a perpetual motion machine, then logic tells me that the fundamental force must exist somewhere outside of the cosmos. I have a model that demonstrates how this would work, of course following strict guidelines laid down by our present day theories.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Olias]

Hi Chronos,

I think that sometimes appearances can be deceiving. Since I don't think the cosmos is a perpetual motion machine, then logic tells me that the fundamental force must exist somewhere outside of the cosmos. I have a model that demonstrates how this would work, of course following strict guidelines laid down by our present day theories.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.

Lets restate the Question? let's define the word Perpetual = to:CONTINUOUS with no Startpoint and no Endpoint. Now define the word Motion as to mean: Dynamical in movement at all locations.

So I declare that under the perspective interpretation the Universe is in a Perpetual Motion State.

The definition of Machine I will leave to others

 

[Chronos]

we cannot rely on forces outside of the cosmos. any such force must exist within our reference frame.

 

[force5]

Thank you, Olias,

I like your description and clarification of the terms used. And I am in complete agreement with your interpretation. So, does this Perpetual Motion State require anything to prevent it from eventually running down?

 

[Olias]

Thank you, Olias,

I like your description and clarification of the terms used. And I am in complete agreement with your interpretation. So, does this Perpetual Motion State require anything to prevent it from eventually running down?

The question you pose is complex, I think there has to be caution in what we can know with certainty, for instance I am quite certain that we can never See the whole Universe because of our being contained within, therefore we are limited in a 'total' complete understanding.

An example is this, if we Gauge 'Perpetual' in the Context of both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, there are similarities, for instance in Relativity the location from where one observes, gives similar results, leading to a 'Continuous-Perspective' no matter where you are, the Universe looks and behaves as if Universal Laws prevail, you cannot gauge where the Universe begins or Ends, and thefore there can not be a centre or a fixed location within the observabel Universe, Dynamical Motion exists everywhere.

Likewise in Quantum Mechanics 'Perpetual', or Continuous can mean that you cannot isolate a single Quantity so that is detached enough that you can say with total confidence you know everything about what you are isolating, the more you try to isolate some quantity by reduction, the less continuity exists for part of the isolated system, with the fact of reduction of the sysytem produces dynamical motions in observation, the HUP.

From both extremes there is no single point where one can equilibirate both perspectives?..it is my belief that the middle ground of Relativity has to meet the middle ground in Quantum Theory, and this is the best we can hope for, it is no point shutting out relativity and just treat quantum theory and consequently other reductional theories such as stringtheories as, the 'whole' fundamental perspective or governing Theory.

I don't think this is a whole answer to your inquisitive questioning, but then again I believe there can never be a single total answer, a single question by its very nature, can never have a single 'True' answer!

Your question here:So, does this Perpetual Motion State require anything to prevent it from eventually running down?

Answer:YES, the state system can be run down by a 'single' veiwpoint, the exclusion of 'other' perspective will limit the system, if I only use QM, then by doing so the system will eventually run down.

 

[shrumeo]

even little bits of it are in perpetual motion, as in an atom's orbiting electrons
or will a photon travel forever?

from our limited time scale anyway, both look like perpetual motion to me

i think the half life of the proton is something like 10^32 years, so not everything is so permanent

 

[shrumeo]

Shrumeo, I would say you need work with no exchange of energy from outside the system.

Your questions about "where is the heat going?" and "into the other cosmos?", does no make much sense to me. I'm work under the assumption that the cosmos is total existence and therefore, heat or energy is confined to this one and only cosmos.

I can try to phrase the question a different way if you are truly interest.

Thanks for your reply.

i was trying to get the point across that the whole subject is nonsense anyway

 

[force5]

Hi Shrumeo,

I don't except proton decay as fact since all the testing to date have proven unsucessful. More test are in the planning stages. The U.S. government has included the testing for proton decay as one of 13 top priorities during this century.

When I see a thread that does not interest me, I just ignore it and move on to something else. I really don't expect to be in sink with everyone here and I'm comfortable with that. Cheers!

 

[Chronos]

10^32 is optimistic. 10^40 is more realistic. there are not enough protons in the solar system to test that. proton decay only works in high energy states.

 

[geometer]

While this may be a nonsense subject as shrumeo says, it points out an interesting dichotomy (?) in the laws of physics. There are laws that apply within the Universe, but don't apply to the Universe as a whole. For example, within the Universe, perpetual motion machines are forbidden, mainly by the First Law of Thermodynamics which says that you can't create energy from nothing. However, Special Relativity requires that the vacuum have a negative pressure equation of state which gives it the characteristic of being a resovoir of unlimited energy (See "Cosmological Physics," by John A Peacock, page 26), kind of an energy out of nothing scenario. So, the Universe itself (the vaccuum) kind of gets around the First Law of Thermodynamics. Also, Special Relativity requires that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, but, there is nothing that says space-time itself cannot travel at any speed. In fact, the Inflationary Big Bang Theory has space-time expanding at MUCH faster than the speed of light during the inflationary period. Again, the Universe as a whole is exempt from this aspect of Special Relativity.

 

[force5]

Someone once said;

There are no stupid questions., only stupid answers.

Did I my make a liar out of this guy? (gal?)

 

[geometer]

Which guy/gal are you referring to force?

 

[force5]

Sorry Geometer,

I don't remember who made that observation. It was to many years ago.

 

[geometer]

No problem force! The nature of these forums makes conversations pretty disjointed and hard to follow sometimes.

 

[force5]

Just my thoughts

Now that I've received some feedback, I'll try to explain why I pose the question.

First, I think the majority of informed individuals seem to favor the idea of an open cosmos, as apposed to flat or closed. I think the reason for this is there are (thus far) very few reasonable explanations that would indicate otherwise. I still consider this matter to be an open issue.

Second, it has not yet been determined that there are no stable particles. Research will continue to look for answers as long as reasonable methods can be found and projects can be funded.

I try to keep things sorted out in my mind be placing information in one of three areas. Black, white and grey. The black issues are ignored. The white issues are accepted as proven to the point of total acceptance on my part. The grey are put on hold until they can be moved to the black or white area. This is only intended to be a simply analogy of my methods of accepting, organizing and retaining the tons of information we must constantly deal with.

So I have placed these items in the grey area at this time.
Thanks for your time and comments.

 

[shrumeo]

this statement will surely get some chuckles (amusing food for thought)

about the First Law of Thermodynamics, looking up the definition of "scientific law" in google, i quickly found

"Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true." - http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

I think this is a pretty good definition. They are based on the fact that they have always observed to be true. We have never observed the creation or destruction of matter or energy, and cannot even conceive of such things theoretically. But, just because we have never observed something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

:)

 

[SuperKamiokande]

While this may be a nonsense subject as shrumeo says, it points out an interesting dichotomy (?) in the laws of physics. There are laws that apply within the Universe, but don't apply to the Universe as a whole. For example, within the Universe, perpetual motion machines are forbidden, mainly by the First Law of Thermodynamics which says that you can't create energy from nothing. However, Special Relativity requires that the vacuum have a negative pressure equation of state which gives it the characteristic of being a resovoir of unlimited energy (See "Cosmological Physics," by John A Peacock, page 26), kind of an energy out of nothing scenario. So, the Universe itself (the vaccuum) kind of gets around the First Law of Thermodynamics. Also, Special Relativity requires that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, but, there is nothing that says space-time itself cannot travel at any speed. In fact, the Inflationary Big Bang Theory has space-time expanding at MUCH faster than the speed of light during the inflationary period. Again, the Universe as a whole is exempt from this aspect of Special Relativity.

The resevoir of unlimited energy is a bit OTT. You can reconcile this by taking the vacuum potential of space and absolute zero potetial as being two separate entities. Now let's say the universe formed at a semistable potential above zero. The subsequent drop from this semistable point would then result in a drop in the universes potential and hence not disagree with the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Now the inflationary part of the big bang. Space-time did expand faster than the speed of light but not on its own. Think of spacetime as a sphere. Now the outer limits of that sphere will be expanding out at sub-light speed. However, the space within that sphere is itself expanding at sub-light speeds and so there may have been an instane where the two effects combined to expand the universe as a whole at speeds greater than the speed of light. In this example it would perhaps be wiser to consider things in terms of General rather than Special Relativity.

 

[loganmann]

Hi Chronos,

I think that sometimes appearances can be deceiving. Since I don't think the cosmos is a perpetual motion machine, then logic tells me that the fundamental force must exist somewhere outside of the cosmos. I have a model that demonstrates how this would work, of course following strict guidelines laid down by our present day theories.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.

But what about existence in its entirety? When considering alternate dimensions, what if black holes could cause a "big bang" effect in an alternate dimension? Than when considering all possible dimensions, and the ongoing process of the interaction between all matter(and dark matter, anti- matter, etc), I believe, could be considered a perpetual motion machine. I actually thought of this idea about a week ago, and wondered if anyone had asked the same question.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This thread is seven years old and no longer conforms to PF Rules.