A perpetual movement in matter particle

[roineust]

Hello!

What would be the theoretical properties of a particle, that moves perpetually and infinitely inside an object, bouncing from side to side inside the object walls, hardly being objected to collisions with other particles and which changes its path of movement inside the object, only when the object is pushed in a certain direction, by a strong enough force?

Are there any contradictions to proven laws of physics, that inhibit the theoretical existence of such a particle?
Was such a particle already theorized in the past?

 

[Nugatory]

You're describing molecules of gas confined within a vacuum chamber, and (although the walls are not solid and sharp-edged) the behavior of electrons around a nucleus. So yes, if you get the initial conditions right, such things exist.

If neither of these examples are the sort of thing you're looking for, you'll have to tell us more.

 

[roineust]

Yes,
But i wonder about the possibility of such a particle to exist inside any kind of rigid substance (and maybe also in liquid and gas), no matter what chemical compound the matter is made of. This imaginary particle does not necessarily go around the nucleus, but necessarily bounces endlessly from one inner side of an object to the other inner side and back again etc... that is with a very stable direction, direction that is preserved very accurately as long as there are no collisions with other particles, collisions which are very rare. Maybe a subatomic particle?

What are the hypothetical consideration for and against such a particle existing?

 

[Nugatory]

Yes,
What are the hypothetical consideration for and against such a particle?

It has to "bounce off the walls". What are these walls made of?

 

[roineust]

The walls are made out of rigid substance. But the particle path can be described by its movement, from one side of the object to the other side of the object, inside the object, while preserving very accurately its direction and only flipping one dimension of this movement, every time it reaches the object edge. If the object is Earth then it goes all these thousands of miles from side to side and back again, while almost endlessly preserving its direction, if the object is only 2 meters long, then it goes the same way inside that 2 meter object. It changes that direction only when a strong enough force is applied on the object.

 

[Nugatory]

The walls are made out of rigid substance.

All rigid substances are made out of protons, neutrons, and electrons in various combinations - that's what all matter is made of. Your hypothetical particle must, therefore, interact with protons, neutrons, and electrons if it is to bounce off of the walls. If it interacts with these particles and it's going to travel freely between the walls, then there must be only a very small amount of matter between the walls... and a gas molecule bouncing around in a vacuum chamber is what you're talking about.

 

[roineust]

OK,
Thanks.

 

[mfb]

The gas molecule won't keep its direction. Every time it hits the wall, its speed and direction change randomly.

If you don't need the walls: satellites orbiting Earth can keep their orbit for very long times, and the Earth has been orbiting sun for about 4.5 billion years now, without large changes in the orbital plane.

 

[CWatters]

What are the hypothetical consideration for and against such a particle existing?

Wouldn't such a particle cause excess pressure in the container? eg forces on the walls of the vessel that can't be accounted for by doing the maths for the known particles/atoms/molecules in the vessel? Would that suggest the new particle, if it exists, must be quite rare? Perhaps some other material properties such as the density would also be inconsistent if there were extra unknown particles bouncing around in the vessel?

 

[roineust]

I just want to be clear that i didn't mean a chamber or a hollow object, in which such a particles travels in. I meant a whole lump of full matter of whatever chemical compound with more or less the same density all over the matter of that lump. The particle moves within that matter, within the matter itself, without changing its path and velocity and then somehow 'senses' the edge of the matter, in relation to vacuum or gas surrounding the object and therefore changes it's velocity and path, to the exact reverse ones it made before reaching the edge and so on and on forever, if no force is applied on that object or lump of matter. If force is applied on the lump, then it might change its path and velocity, but if no more force is applied, it will stay at that new path and velocity eternally, until a strong enough force a is applied again on the lump/object.

 

[Vanadium 50]

and then somehow 'senses' the edge of the matter,

Nothing like this exists.

 

[DaveC426913]

I just want to be clear that i didn't mean a chamber or a hollow object, in which such a particles travels in. I meant a whole lump of full matter of whatever chemical compound with more or less the same density all over the matter of that lump. The particle moves within that matter, within the matter itself, without changing its path and velocity and then somehow 'senses' the edge of the matter, in relation to vacuum or gas surrounding the object and therefore changes it's velocity and path, to the exact reverse ones it made before reaching the edge and so on and on forever, if no force is applied on that object or lump of matter. If force is applied on the lump, then it might change its path and velocity, but if no more force is applied, it will stay at that new path and velocity eternally, until a strong enough force a is applied again on the lump/object.

This violates too many physical laws to enumerate here.

 

[Dale]

There is a very standard introductory quantum mechanics problem called the particle in a box. It is one of the most commonly studied problems in QM, probably the second or third problem students encounter.

It is well studied because it is easy to solve and gives some insight to how QM works. It is not studied because anyone believes that it is an accurate representation of any actual physical system.

We don't discuss magic here, either perpetual motion machines or psychic particles.