Infinite energy and conservation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concepts of infinite energy, conservation of energy, and the behavior of particles. It argues whether the perpetual motion of magnets and light photons violates conservation laws, suggesting that particles must derive energy from an unknown source. However, it is clarified that particles in motion do not require additional energy to maintain their speed due to inertia, and that energy conservation principles explain this behavior. The conversation also touches on particle-antiparticle annihilation, asserting that matter is not destroyed but transformed into energy, such as light. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes a misunderstanding of energy conservation rather than a violation of its principles.
science_rules
Messages
157
Reaction score
2
doesnt the fact that a magnet's field going from one end to another perpetually, constitute infinite energy?
also, don't particles disobey the conservation law because where do particles get their energy from? particles are always moving. they never stop. but why is matter only destroyed if a particle and anti-particle smash into one another? maybe we think they are annhilated, but something else happens. maybe they are converted into something we can't analyze yet and don't know about? dark matter or something?
doesnt the very fact that matter can't be destroyed-atoms keep going and going, their energy keeps going around in the world, making things move all the time in various ways, and that light photons go on forever, disobey the conservation law because these things shouldn't get their infinite energy from nothing? since particles and light photons are moving all the time, they should be getting their energy from something.

sure, matter always changes from one kind to another, but as far as i know, matter is never destroyed. then doesn't that mean things must be getting their energy from something we don't know about? and what about the energy from that? and on and on. and the fact that light particles will keep going and going, even if it is diverted by something, it doesn't stop-it just moves in a different direction. its energy is perpetual. light energy is perpetual. doesn't that violate the conservation law?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
science_rules said:
doesnt the fact that a magnet's field going from one end to another perpetually, constitute infinite energy?
No, a finite magnetic field has a finite energy density.
science_rules said:
also, don't particles disobey the conservation law because where do particles get their energy from? particles are always moving. they never stop.
It doesn't take energy to continue to move. That is called inertia.
science_rules said:
but why is matter only destroyed if a particle and anti-particle smash into one another? maybe we think they are annhilated, but something else happens. maybe they are converted into something we can't analyze yet and don't know about? dark matter or something?
They are converted into something we can analyze easily: light.
science_rules said:
doesnt the very fact that matter can't be destroyed-atoms keep going and going, their energy keeps going around in the world, making things move all the time in various ways, and that light photons go on forever, disobey the conservation law because these things shouldn't get their infinite energy from nothing? since particles and light photons are moving all the time, they should be getting their energy from something.
Again, it doesn't take energy to continue moving.
science_rules said:
sure, matter always changes from one kind to another, but as far as i know, matter is never destroyed.
I don't understand your statement here when just above you mentioned matter/anti-matter anhilation.
science_rules said:
then doesn't that mean things must be getting their energy from something we don't know about? and what about the energy from that? and on and on. and the fact that light particles will keep going and going, even if it is diverted by something, it doesn't stop-it just moves in a different direction. its energy is perpetual. light energy is perpetual. doesn't that violate the conservation law?
No, you just have a small misunderstanding of what energy is and what the conservation of energy means.

Energy is the capacity to do work. Work is a force times a distance. The conservation of energy basically states that the change in the energy of a body is equal to the work done on the body. If your force is zero your work is zero and so your change in energy is zero regardless of the distance travelled. So a particle in motion does not require extra energy in order to remain in motion because by Newton's first law it does not require any force to remain in motion.
 
In fact, the OP should realize that conservation of energy actually explains WHY particles remain in motion in the absence of any external influences. Once a particle has some kinetic energy (which is proportional to the square of its speed), it will continue to move at that speed. It's not just going to suddenly stop...that would mean it had somehow inexplicably lost its kinetic energy and energy conservation would have been violated.
 
but DaleSpam, isn't there constant(infinite) movement of particles in a finite magnetic field?
 
Again, it doesn't require energy to keep moving at a constant speed.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top