Is Perpetual Motion Truly Impossible or Simply Misunderstood?

[mapper]

If string theory were proven to be true and that everything that exists is made up of uber tiny small vibrating strings, wouldn't they be PMotion? Or wouldn't that be proof that Pmotion exists in nature? Do these strings stop moving at absolute zero?

 

[bino]

so do you think that someone might be able to construct a pmm useing magnets?

 

[bino]

the Earth's motion around the sun is perpetual motion.

 

[enigma]

Different kind of perpetual motion, bino.

Earth's motion about the Sun is continuous. You're not taking any energy out or putting any energy in.

PPMs supposedly get more energy out than you put in: An impossibility according to the first law of thermodynamics.

 

[russ_watters]

so do you think that someone might be able to construct a pmm useing magnets?

No, it isn't possible.

 

[mapper]

Earth's motion about the Sun is continuous. You're not taking any energy out or putting any energy in.

On the basis of how tethers work, couldn't you construct a large enough tether from a point on Earth reaching out to space. The energy output would be great and would last as long as our sun would burn or until the materials of the tether break apart from the stress. Although far from perpetual cause our sun has a finite life but still...

Could it even be possible to create such a device and how much energy could it generate if one could build it?

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Why are you so sure of what is or is not possible? When I see, some good physicists or mechanical engineers, making such a sort of dogmatic assertion, I think immediatly, the contrary must be true.

Some good physicists, too, are now thinking so seriously about ZPE, which certainly could be thought as sort of PMM, or a way to use that energy stored in that inherent magnetic field of the electrons that permeates all space...

Will it be possible? Nobody knows...most of our science, is so influenced by that second law and closed systems, that it really has paid so little attention to physical open dynamic systems; we really do not know what we will happen in the future, when they do.
Regards
EP

No, it isn't possible.

 

[Antonio Lao]

In discussing perpetual motion machine, it is really necessary to clarify how energy is involved. There are two ways that energy can specify the type of PMM.

1. Energy production - continuous production of energy by the machine.

2.. Energy transformation - continuous storage and redistribution or conversion to other forms of energy.

In electrical circuitry, the example of the 1st type are called active elements such as batteries or voltage source. Examples of the 2nd type are called passive elements such as resistors, capacitors and inductors.

 

[bino]

Different kind of perpetual motion, bino.

Earth's motion about the Sun is continuous. You're not taking any energy out or putting any energy in.

PPMs supposedly get more energy out than you put in: An impossibility according to the first law of thermodynamics.

in some hair brained attempt by someone could we take a whole lot of wire wrap it around the moons path around Earth or around the path of Earth around the sun. then we would get energy from the Earth magnetic field. it would be like a giant generator.

 

[mapper]

^ yes, i agree we can get better at converting energy from what we do today, but I am still having a hard time with something that lasts perpetually. Perpetually is the problem, it may last a long time, but that’s not forever. our moon orbit, Earth orbit won't last for an infinite amount of time. Eventually the sun will burn out.. perpetually doesn’t exist here, but where I am coming from is that even at a state of absolute zero atoms and whatnot are still moving ever so slightly. What gives them their energy to continue? string theory? are strings perpetual motion? ...if to be proven to exist...

what moves the strings... is there always an infinite problem? like the chicken or the egg scenario, what comes first and does something even need to come first? Or is our universe and the laws of physics as we know them also evolve? Making it so its near imposible to trace back what was or could be.

If there is something that causes the string to vibrate to create the molecules, to which particles and atoms, that make everything up in our universe? What makes the stings to do that. Is god still playin dice, but at now even a much smaller scale then quantum Mechs.? How small and giant scale can we even perceive? After all we have infinite to work with..


ive seen a thread on here about whether nothingness exists, which got me thinking... does infinite exist? If it does that has to be perpetual motion now wouldn't it... think about it for a moment...

 

[mysteryturtle]

It has been mentioned that perpetual motion infers the ability to extract some form of energy from the system being studied. I do not think that really equates. Perpetual motion would by definition only be motion which is continuous. Withdrawing energy would be a wonderfull dream of energy hungry scientists; but that would be more than mere perpetual motion. That would indicate perpetual surplus energy generation, which is well beyond simple motion.



M

 

[Epsilon Pi]

I would prefer to differentiate between two kinds of fields:

- conservative such as those ones in batteries, capacitors, where the prevailing is the electric one, and

- non conservative such as in inductors, where the magnetic is the prevailing.

In the former there is no chance to think in terms of PMM, but in the latter, we can think in energy conversion, or in open dynamic systems such as in power systems, where we have a permanent conversion from hydraulic or gravitational, to magnetic to electric and so forth, for example; here there is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics; if we want to think about PMM, we must think having in mind those fundamental laws of nature, if we want to think in terms of science.
It is important to recall the "transformer", the one that makes it possible to use that energy at different levels and at large scale.

Regards
EP

In discussing perpetual motion machine, it is really necessary to clarify how energy is involved. There are two ways that energy can specify the type of PMM.

1. Energy production - continuous production of energy by the machine.

2.. Energy transformation - continuous storage and redistribution or conversion to other forms of energy.

In electrical circuitry, the example of the 1st type are called active elements such as batteries or voltage source. Examples of the 2nd type are called passive elements such as resistors, capacitors and inductors.

 

[russ_watters]

Why are you so sure of what is or is not possible? When I see, some good physicists or mechanical engineers, making such a sort of dogmatic assertion, I think immediatly, the contrary must be true.

The laws of physics are not a dogmatic assertion.

And mysteryturtle is right: ZPE, if harnessable, would not be perpetual motion. However, today's perpetual motion/free energy hoaxsters have been very careful to avoid claiming outright perpetual motion. Claims of harnessing ZPE (which contradicts the very theory that predicts it exists) is a common new perpetual motion hoax.

 

[bino]

if someone did create a pmm. the problem would be that it would take forever to test.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The crux of the matter is that there are two kinds of energy, the kinetic and the potential. Absolute potential energy is truly scalar (e.g. the Higgs fields) and absolute kinetic energy is truly vectorial (e.g. all other force fields). But relative potential energy and relative kinetic energy are tensorial which are just dimensional transformations of contraction and expansion of the scalar and vectorial property of space and time.

So for perpetual motion machine, the energy must be derived from an absolute kinetic energy. Only the energy of photons is truly kinetic but its mass must be zero. Yet in GR, we are not sure whether photon has no mass. This is because absolute energy whether potential or kinetic does not really exist in nature. But a relative energy of potential and kinetic can coexist in the form of a one dimensional quantization of spacetime.

 

[sol2]

But a relative energy of potential and kinetic can coexist in the form of a one dimensional quantization of spacetime.

You walking on thin ice here What do you call this, a thin edge sword that one can balance?

The thing is you look for evidence, and what traces tell you that such a idealization can exist?

You have to be a tracker. Your explanations are very lucid.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The principle of least action stated clearly that the time integral over a Lagrangian must be close to zero. The Lagrangian is defined as the difference of kinetic and potential energy. These two energy functions are nearly equal but never exactly so. They are in a state of coexistence. And this state is not perfectly a point of zero dimension hence it must be one dimensional, it possesses a metric (an infinitesimal distance).

For an absolute action, the Lagrangian is exactly zero while all other relative actions give a relative minimum Lagrangian.

In mechanics or thermodynamics, the virial theorem states that the time average value of a single one degree potential energy function is equal to twice the average kinetic energy function.

 

[juju]

Hi

The spin of elementary particles could be considered a form of perpetual motion.

The energy created by the existence of charge and mass (the potential energy in the fields associated with them) can be considered as an infinite and otherwise sourceless origin of energy.

juju

 

[Epsilon Pi]

If we consider the spin of the electron a result of its inherent magnetic field, then we will have a quantum of energy stored in that field?
Regards
EP

Hi

The spin of elementary particles could be considered a form of perpetual motion.

The energy created by the existence of charge and mass (the potential energy in the fields associated with them) can be considered as an infinite and otherwise sourceless origin of energy.

juju

 

[juju]

Hi EP,
Does the magnetic field create the spin or the spin create the magnetic field. Or are they just two seemingly entangled properties of elementary particles.

juju

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Hi juju,

Does not the spin has to do with the two possible orientations of the magnetic field, I mean, a result of its inherent polarity?
When the spin is out of this context is not true that it seems to be something very strange or entangled?
Regards
EP

Hi EP,
Does the magnetic field create the spin or the spin create the magnetic field. Or are they just two seemingly entangled properties of elementary particles.

juju

 

[juju]

Hi EP,

It is my understanding that spin was first proposed as to be a measure of the inherent angular momentum of the particle and only later was related to the magnetic moment.

Positrons and electrons with the same spin direction have magnetic moments in the opposite direction.

One last thing, gluons have spin. Do they also have a magnetic moment.

juju

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Yes, but is not that inherent angular momentum of the electron associated with its inherent magnetic field?

Another thing is the chemistry of nuclear interactions, i.e., those entities that can be decompossed(not the electron)... that is certainly another thing for which Gell-Mann has given us a sound symbolic representation that must give reason of its behavior, and even of its magnetic behavior.

Regards
EP

Hi EP,
It is my understanding that spin was first proposed as to be a measure of the inherent angular momentum of the particle and only later was related to the magnetic moment.
juju

 

[Antonio Lao]

The energy created by the existence of charge and mass (the potential energy in the fields associated with them) can be considered as an infinite and otherwise sourceless origin of energy.

This is the beginning (since the 1930s) of the physical method of renormalization, to get rid of infinities in the equations. The total Hamiltonian is the sum of field Hamiltonian and particle Hamiltonian and interaction Hamiltonian which are all infinities from self-energy, vertex correction and vacuum polarization.

 

[juju]

Yes, but is not that inherent angular momentum of the electron associated with its inherent magnetic field?

It is true that all particles with magnetic moment have spin, but do all particles with spin have magnetic moment?

Does this in anyway relate to the rotational symmetry properties of particles with different spin?

juju

 

[Epsilon Pi]

But what is spin? Is not the result of that polarity of the magnetic field of the electron? This is where I find it necessary to be very careful with generalizations. Every concept must be used in its proper context or else we will have confusion regarding its meaning, and as so that generalization becomes a "patch". This is why it is fundamental to express those concepts mathematically, so we can interpret the same thing.
Is the spin associated with a magnetic field or is it sort of mechanical concept? Can we take it as the latter? If we take it as the former we do not even need to ask a question about its nature, do we?
Regards
EP

It is true that all particles with magnetic moment have spin, but do all particles with spin have magnetic moment?

Does this in anyway relate to the rotational symmetry properties of particles with different spin?

juju

 

[Antonio Lao]

In theory, there should be 3 kinds of magnetic fields.

1. Field derived from the motion of electric charges.
2. Field derived from the motion of weak charges.
3. Field derived from the motion of color charges.

Only the 1st kind has been well understood and applied in science and technology.

In quantum physics, from results of much empirical data, the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle is called spin and this spin gives rise to an intrinsic magnetic moment.

Furthermore, it can be theorized a 4th kind magnetic field which are derived from the motion of magnetic charges. But magnetic monopoles (N/S) cannot be found therefore somehow dimensionality is related to the kinds of field such that electric charges are 3D, weak charges are 2D, color charges are 1D and magnetic charges are 0D.

The motion of a 3D charge creates a 4D current.
The motion of a 2D charge creates a 3D current.
The motion of a 1D charge creates a 2D current.
The motion of a 0D charge creates a 1D current.

Another name for magnetic charge is space charge or spacetime charge.

 

[juju]

But what is spin?

As I understand it, mathematically spin is related to the rotational symmetry of particles.

Particles with spin 1/2 have a 4*PI radian rotational symmetry.

Particles with spin 1 have a 2*PI radian rotational symmetry.

Particles with spin 2 have a PI radian rotational symmetry.

juju

 

[juju]

In theory, there should be 3 kinds of magnetic fields.

1. Field derived from the motion of electric charges.
2. Field derived from the motion of weak charges.
3. Field derived from the motion of color charges.

I have read of some theoretical investigations into an O3 symmetry group represention of electromagnetism, that predict a kind of free space magnetic field.

juju

 

[Antonio Lao]

Thank you, juju. I going to investigate some more about this O3 symmetry group. The one I got is a ring, a commutative semigroup under multiplication (used for determining mass values) and an Abelian group under addition (used for determining charge values).