Infinite Energy: Is Constant Exchange of Photons Possible?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of infinite energy in the context of gravitational fields and the exchange of photons. Participants explore whether a constant exchange of photons could theoretically lead to infinite energy, particularly in idealized scenarios of orbital motion.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that in a gravitational field, there is a constant exchange of photons, suggesting that this could imply infinite energy if one object orbits another indefinitely.
  • Others challenge this premise, stating that gravity is not mediated by photons but rather by virtual gravitons, and that infinite energy cannot be achieved.
  • It is noted that real celestial bodies do not maintain perfect orbits indefinitely, as orbits decay over time due to various factors, including gravitational radiation.
  • A participant questions the meaning of "losing energy to gravitational waves" and discusses the implications of Newtonian mechanics versus general relativity in this context.
  • There is a distinction made between regular photons and virtual particles that mediate forces, emphasizing that static fields do not propagate and only changes in the field do.
  • Some participants express frustration over the lack of citations for claims made, emphasizing the importance of accurate sourcing in discussions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the initial premise regarding the exchange of photons and the possibility of infinite energy. Multiple competing views remain, particularly regarding the role of gravity and the nature of energy exchange in orbital systems.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on idealized scenarios, the need for proper citations to support claims, and the unresolved nature of how gravitational waves interact with orbital mechanics.

Lasha
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
In gravitational field its a constant exchange of photons right? Then in ideal circumstances, if one object orbits the other one forever, then it means we get the exchange of photons forever right?which means infinite energy, I get that it can't be observed but that's possible for infinite energy to exist right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lasha said:
In gravitational field its a constant exchange of photons right?

This appears to be your starting premise, and it is imperative that you get this right (which it isn't) FIRST and foremost. So can you please cite a proper source to back this up?

If not, the rest of what you have written is moot, because it is based on a faulty concept.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
I read a thread on this forum :D
 
Best to post the link to that thread.
 
Not only is gravity not mediated by photons, but theoretically by gravitons, these gravitons would be virtual gravitons and you would not be able to get infinite energy.
 
Then in ideal circumstances, if one object orbits the other one forever, then it means we get the exchange of photons forever right?which means infinite energy

But things like planets, stars, even galaxies, are not ideal and do not 'orbit forever'...the orbits slowly decay.

A short bit here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay#By_gravitational_radiation

edit: just remembered this discussion is in "quantum physics'...
so better to check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

For subatomic particles, no gravity has yet been included in the Standard Model of Particle physics
 
Lasha said:
I read a thread on this forum :D

This is lazy and unacceptable. Cite the link to the exact thread!

https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2703

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Naty1 said:
But things like planets, stars, even galaxies, are not ideal and do not 'orbit forever'...the orbits slowly decay.

While true, even if they did not lose energy to gravitational waves, it would still not be infinite energy. I just want to make sure the OP understands that.
 
ZapperZ said:
This is lazy and unacceptable. Cite the link to the exact thread!

https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2703

Zz.

I am really sorry for that, it was a long ago.I assume that it was about the electrical field and I somehow understood it that way

Drakkith said:
While true, even if they did not lose energy to gravitational waves, it would still not be infinite energy. I just want to make sure the OP understands that.

Wait so what does "losing energy to gravitational waves" mean? By Newtonian mechanics it would have been easily explained, in ideal circumstances it would move evenly, which means no force,no energy.But it takes speed of light for gravitational field to travel right? So there's no quants of energy traveling?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Lasha said:
Wait so what does "losing energy to gravitational waves" mean?

In general relativity two orbiting bodies lose orbital energy by emitting waves in the metric, aka gravitational waves.

By Newtonian mechanics it would have been easily explained, in ideal circumstances it would move evenly, which means no force,no energy.But it takes speed of light for gravitational field to travel right? So there's no quants of energy traveling?
In Newtonian mechanics there is no such thing as a gravitational wave because there is no metric. Also, it is important to understand that a static field does not propagate. It is only changes in that field that propagate.

Finally, don't confuse regular photons and other force carrier particles with their virtual counterparts. It is these virtual particles that mediate forces.
 
  • #11
Lasha said:
I am really sorry for that, it was a long ago.I assume that it was about the electrical field and I somehow understood it that way

Then either your memory got corrupted, or you understood the wrong thing. This is why we require that you cite the source completely. After all, none of us here want to defend and explain something that is wrong.

Gravity isn't mediated by photons. Photons (virtual ones) are responsible for all electromagnetic interactions as described using quantum field theory.

So the starting premise of your thread is false.

Zz.
 
  • #12
Lasha said:
I read a thread on this forum :D

Use the search function and search for keywords to find the thread.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Do atoms recoil when emitting a photon?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Graduate Relationship between Larmor precession and energy eigenstates
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Undergrad Boltzmann brains and limitless energy....
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
High School Planck's equation and upper and lower bounds on the energy of a photon
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate What is the quantum picture of laser field accelerating free electrons?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad QED Picture of static EM Fields
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate About the photon exchange and the electromagnetic force
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad De Broglie Wavelength at rest: λ = h/p = h/0 when v=0?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad QED/Quantum Mechanics: Probability or Spatial Function?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School Why don't emission/loss of virtual photons lower a charge's energy?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K