100% Efficient machines through LQG?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Silverious
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lqg Machines
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of a smallest unit of energy in relation to the smallest unit of matter, as proposed by a user named Silverious. The conversation highlights the significance of Planck units, established by Max Planck in 1899, and their role in modern physics, particularly in special relativity and general relativity as articulated by Einstein. The forum participants explore the implications of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) as introduced by Rovelli and Smolin in 1995, which quantizes space and time, suggesting a connection between these fundamental units and the structure of the universe. The overarching question remains why these natural units consistently appear in physical theories.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Planck units and their significance in physics
  • Familiarity with Einstein's theories of special and general relativity
  • Knowledge of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) principles
  • Basic concepts of energy and matter interactions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Planck units in quantum mechanics
  • Study the principles of Loop Quantum Gravity and its quantization of space-time
  • Explore the relationship between energy efficiency and fundamental physics
  • Investigate the historical development of theories surrounding energy and matter
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of energy and matter in the universe.

Silverious
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
I was sitting in my car today, before class, pondering the meaning of the universe. When I thought,"Hey, if there is a smallest unit of matter, then there should also be a smallest unit of energy." Well, then I thought, "If that's true, then if the smallest unit of energy were to act upon the smallest unit of matter, then either all the energy would be wasted, or all of it used to work on the matter." So, is this idea just some crazy lunatic thought that has no significance? Or could I be on to something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by Silverious
..."Hey, if there is a smallest unit of matter, then there should also be a smallest unit of energy."...

Personally I don't know of any theory that supports the idea of a
"smallest measurable amount of energy". I do not think that Loop Gravity, in particular, contains that notion. I will get back to that after making a general comment:

I think that there is a larger question that you are on to which
makes sense to ask, which is this:

There seems to be a natural system of units built into nature which are the so-called "planck" units. WHAT ROLE do these units play in what we see happening around us?
In the Planck system of units the unit speed is c, the speed of light and the unit of force is an extremely large force of around
1040 tons.

Ooops, I have to go----OK, back again.

The thing you have to remember is that just because something is a Planck unit doesn't mean it is always "the smallest measureable whatever"

that MIGHT be the case (in the case of length, or area, or volume)

but in the case of speed or force it conceivably might be the largest and not the smallest. Or it might be neither the smallest or the largest-----like the Planck mass is 22 micrograms which is neither large compared with an elephant or small compared with an atom.

---------------------------

in 1899 Max Planck identified the pl. units and
in 1905 Einstein came up with specialrelativity in which
one of the Planck units (c) plays a central role as a universal speed limit looking the same to all observers

then in 1915 Einstein came up with generalrelativity in which the Planck force is the central constant in the main so-called "Einstein" equation relating the curvature of a region to the energy density there---in effect it models gravity and the central coefficient that relates the lefthand side of the equation to the righthand side is this force constant (which works out to about 1040 tons.

and around 1995 the LQG people, Rovelli and Smolin, discovered that in LQG the surface area and the volume of any physically defined region is quantized in little bits and there is a smallest measureable area and a smallest measureable volume and these are some constant of order one (still not determined for sure) times the Planck area and Planck volume.

the Planck quantities are a system of quantities (some very tiny and some very large, and others just middlesized) which KEEP TURNING UP and we have no really good explanation for that, as far as I know.

They are the set of units you get if you insist on measuring length and time in such a way that the speed of light turns out to be ONE.
And beyond that, measuring mass on a scale that makes Newtons gravity constant G and Plancks hbar constant ALSO turn out to be one. If you tweak your units so all these good things turn out to be unity, then you find that your length unit is Planck length and force unit is what I said earlier and so on. There is no choice. everything is determined as soon as you say c = G = hbar = 1.

That explains how the Planck units were originally defined by Planck. But it is still a mystery why they should keep appearing in nature.
In 1905 SR and in 1915 GR and in 1995 LQG. And in various other venues along the way.

We are all free to speculate. I don't think your 100 percent energy efficiency idea will work, but the general question is a good one to be asking about now-----why is it that these natural units seem built into nature and what all things do they do and what role do they play in what is happening and the texture of space and time and so forth.
 
Originally posted by Silverious
I was sitting in my car today, before class, pondering the meaning of the universe. When I thought,"Hey, if there is a smallest unit of matter, then there should also be a smallest unit of energy." Well, then I thought, "If that's true, then if the smallest unit of energy were to act upon the smallest unit of matter, then either all the energy would be wasted, or all of it used to work on the matter." So, is this idea just some crazy lunatic thought that has no significance? Or could I be on to something?

There is a paper that defines this more clearly, the links in this post should make things much clearer:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=12562
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
9K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
7K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
13K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
673
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K