Are atoms 'perpetual machines'?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Desiree
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms Machines
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether atoms can be considered 'perpetual machines', particularly focusing on the behavior of electrons within atoms and the implications of friction at the atomic level. Participants explore the theoretical and conceptual aspects of atomic structure, electron behavior, and the nature of perpetual motion in relation to classical and quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that atoms might be seen as perpetual machines due to the long-term stability of electron positions around the nucleus.
  • Others argue that it is misleading to apply macroscopic concepts like perpetual motion to microscopic particles, emphasizing that electrons do not orbit the nucleus in a classical sense.
  • One participant mentions that the electron cloud is more accurately described as a probability distribution rather than a fixed orbit, referencing quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of motion and stillness in relation to electron clouds, with some asserting that the wave function of an electron can be considered stationary while acknowledging the complexities of measurement and probability.
  • Concerns are raised about the appropriateness of using terms like "friction" in the context of atomic interactions, suggesting that such language may not accurately represent the phenomena at play.
  • Some participants highlight that atoms do not produce work and thus cannot be classified as machines, regardless of their stability or motion characteristics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of electron behavior and the applicability of classical mechanics to atomic structures. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on whether atoms can be classified as perpetual machines.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying interpretations of atomic behavior, the dependence on definitions of motion and friction, and the unresolved nature of how to accurately describe electron states in quantum mechanics.

Desiree
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Are atoms 'perpetual machines'? To me it seems they are? Does friction affect electrons at all?

For example, A rock's atom's electrons have been orbiting the nucleus for the past, say 4 billion years without energy being supplied to the atom... Thanks for your input.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not accurate to think of microscopic objects in terms of macroscopic features. At the level of the electrons friction doesn't exist. This makes as much sense as asking what colour is an electron or what smells and feels like. It's not really accurate to talk about electrons oribiting the nucleus, but depending on the level of the answer you're seeking it suffices as a rudimentary picture. And as for the orbiting, hasen't the Earth also orbited the sun since its formation 4 billion years ago? What energy has been supplied to the Earth to make it orbit? As have all the other planents and comets?
 
the electron cloud doesn't orbit the nucleus. except for vibration due to heat, its stationary.
 
granpa said:
the electron cloud doesn't orbit the nucleus. except for vibration due to heat, its stationary.

Can you cite any evidence for such a statement?
 
HallsofIvy said:
Can you cite any evidence for such a statement?

as opposed to what? what is your theory?
 
I don't think it's particularly meaningful to describe an electron cloud as "stationary", as though the concepts of motion and stillness applied to it.
 
The purpose of a "machine" (and thus a "perpetual machine", were such a thing to exist) is to produce work. Clearly atoms don't do this.
 
As I understand it, electrons around a nucleus are more like a probability cloud. If I'm remembering correctly, at that level it starts falling into quantum mechanics. They don't really orbit on specific planes like planets around a sun, but rather are more likely found in one position rather than another around the nucleus. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty.
 
  • #10
Defennder said:
And as for the orbiting, hasen't the Earth also orbited the sun since its formation 4 billion years ago? What energy has been supplied to the Earth to make it orbit? As have all the other planents and comets?

Well I understand the Newton's laws: There is no friction in the way of Earth so it keeps on moving...but the question is mainly about electrons. And to this point I have seen good posts...
 
  • #11
Desiree said:
Well I understand the Newton's laws: There is no friction in the way of Earth so it keeps on moving...but the question is mainly about electrons. And to this point I have seen good posts...

You might want to read the FAQ in the General Physics forum and see if your view of how electrons behave in an atom requires a major modification. After you understand that, see if you think you still want to ask this question.

Zz.
 
  • #12
ZapperZ said:
You might want to read the FAQ in the General Physics forum and see if your view of how electrons behave in an atom requires a major modification. After you understand that, see if you think you still want to ask this question.

Zz.

I am not going to "modify" it and don't have any views on it, just wanted to have a good answer/explanation if someday some curious lay person(like me)asked me about it. Is it clear now?:)
 
  • #13
Desiree said:
I am not going to "modify" it and don't have any views on it, just wanted to have a good answer/explanation if someday some curious lay person(like me)asked me about it. Is it clear now?:)

No it isn't. Have you read the FAQ? Because if you have, then you would have seen that your starting point isn't valid. We have no "electrons orbiting a nucleus" the way you seem to picture it. Thus, your question is based on something that isn't valid in the first place. So you can already see how futile it is to come up with an answer.

Zz.
 
  • #14
Desiree said:
Are atoms 'perpetual machines'? To me it seems they are? Does friction affect electrons at all?

A rock's atom's electrons have been orbiting the nucleus for the past, say 4 billion years
What people are trying to say is simply that electrons do not "orbit" the nucleus. Today, we don't ask so much what they are doing when we are not measuring them becasue we can't predict where they will be; we simply ask where we might find them at any given time that we go to measure them. It is a measument of probability. (I believe this is what Feynman meant when he famously said "shut up and calculate!" It means don't ask how or why, just do the math and you'll get the answer.)

This probability, when we map it all out, forms a "cloud" of a particular shape around the nucleus. Different electron states result in different cloud shapes. Look up 'electron orbitals' for more info.

Noe of this directly helps answer your question, but it may help you phrase your questions without getting caught up in details.


granpa said:
the electron cloud doesn't orbit the nucleus. except for vibration due to heat, its stationary.
The electron isn't stationary, but the shape of the probability cloud is (inasmuch as a probability cloud can be).
 
  • #15
The posts about proton decay have been moved to a new thread, in order to keep this thread focused on its original topic.
 
  • #16
Desiree said:
Are atoms 'perpetual machines'? To me it seems they are? Does friction affect electrons at all?

For example, A rock's atom's electrons have been orbiting the nucleus for the past, say 4 billion years without energy being supplied to the atom... Thanks for your input.

Atoms are not machines; atoms do not move. Bound electrons are stationary objects, using the correct mathematical definition of a stationary state. Thus, one cannot use them to extract work. Neither do dissipative processes occur.
 
  • #17
To be accurate, shouldn't we stick to saying the wave function of a bound electron is a stationary state? I mean, in principle you can measure a single electron at a certain location A, allow its wave function to spread out again according to the Schroedinger equation, and then measure it at another location B, which implies at least a lack of "stationary-ness" on the electron's part (although I should be careful with this, since it's unclear how the electron got from A to B in the first place). Is this incorrect?
 
  • #18
Desiree said:
Are atoms 'perpetual machines'? To me it seems they are? Does friction affect electrons at all?

For example, A rock's atom's electrons have been orbiting the nucleus for the past, say 4 billion years without energy being supplied to the atom... Thanks for your input.

Everything here is a question of language. If you think about friction for an electron like you do it for a plane in the air, then you have a wrong representation. First of all because there is no air between the nucleus and the surrounding electrons. If you define the concept of friction as being any phenomenon characterizing a reaction with the surrounding environment, and if you consider the surrounding environment as being a set of EM fields, then yes one could imagine a reaction between an electron and these fields. But, stricto sensu, it is not the usual context for that word: “friction”; and so you will hurt the community.
Now, if one considers the asked question at a semi-philosophical level, then yes one can effectively wonder about the stability of some natural structures, for example atoms, … as long as nothing is breaking them!
The question concerning electrons having apparently permanent motion inside a material is another complicated item and is correlated to the supra conduction. I think it was not your initial question.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Question about the Bohr model of atom and and electron in an orbital
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Total spin from atomic spectroscopy term symbols, e.g. neon's excited states
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
906
Graduate Confused about the Purcell effect in a cavity
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad What causes magnetism at the atomic level?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Undergrad How does detuned laser frequency affect atomic dipole forces?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad Trouble understanding the SI definition of 1 second
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
7K
Undergrad Energy levels in atoms & speed of interaction
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
8K
Undergrad Time rondeau crystals, experimental observations
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Vibrational energy in molecules
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Undergrad Physical Meaning of Atomic Oscillations
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K