Perpetual Motion: Particle Spin & Earth's Role

AI Thread Summary
Elementary particles, including electrons, possess a property known as spin, which is a quantum number rather than actual rotational motion. This spin does not violate the laws of thermodynamics because it does not generate energy; it merely stores it. While it is possible to extract energy from a spin lattice by aligning spins, this process requires energy to unalign them, preventing true perpetual motion. The term "perpetual motion" typically refers to devices that produce more energy than they consume, which is not applicable to particle spin. Overall, particle spin is not considered perpetual motion because it does not lead to continuous energy generation without external input.
samsara15
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Elementary particles spin. So does the Earth. Spin does work. The spin of electrons and other elementary partlces never stops, or slows down. Why isn't the spin of particles considered to be perpetual motion? Doesn't particle spin violate the laws of Thermodynamics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Spin does work.
Not without slowing down.

Why isn't the spin of particles considered to be perpetual motion?
The spin of particles is not motion. They are not rotating. Spin is just a quantum number, similar to charge.

Doesn't particle spin violate the laws of Thermodynamics?
No.
 
There's nothing unphysical about perpetual motion unless you try to extract energy from it. Throw a ball in space and it will keep moving until something stops it.

The spin merely stores energy; it doesn't generate it. If you have a spin lattice, you might be able to extract some energy by aligning all the spins, but then you are done. You can't extract anymore energy until you unalign the spins, which takes all the energy you got out. Same basic story is true for all "perpetual motion" scenarios.
 
The buzz phrase "perpetual motion" means an over unity, more energy out than in type device. It may not seem technically correct, but that is what it means.
 
Both types are called perpetual motion.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

Can a Spinning Astronaut Use a Tethered Bowling Ball to Gain Motion in Space?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Rotation of Rigid Body: Analyzing Classical Mechanics
Replies
4
Views
3K
Feynman Lectures vol.1 Chapter 4 Topic 4-2GravitationalPotentialEnergy
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Local mechanism for nonlocal anticorrelations inside spin theory
2
Replies
74
Views
4K
B What exactly is spin? Does the standard model work without spin?
Replies
27
Views
3K
Tidal friction and global warming
Replies
10
Views
3K
What Are the Challenges of Creating a Perpetual Motion Machine?
Replies
2
Views
703
My Perpetual Motion - Would it work?
Replies
4
Views
6K
I Relational QM question from Rovelli's book Helgoland
Replies
27
Views
2K
Perpetual Motion: Can It Be Achieved In Space?
Replies
4
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top