Thoughts on perpetual motion.

  • Thread starter mapper
  • Start date
909
2
Antonio said:
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 :smile: 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.
 
1,440
1
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.
 
Last edited:
293
0
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
 
193
0
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
juju said:
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
 
293
0
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
 
193
0
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
juju said:
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
 
293
0
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
 
193
0
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

juju said:
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
 
1,440
1
juju said:
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.
 
293
0
Epsilon Pi said:
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
 
193
0
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

juju said:
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
 
1,440
1
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.
 
Last edited:
293
0
Epsilon Pi said:
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
 
Last edited:
293
0
Antonio Lao said:
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
 
1,440
1
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).
 
193
0
Antonio Lao said:
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.
Here is where I clearly deviate from modern physics as how can you explain the fact that the neutron that does not have any electric charge, it does have however a magnetic field represented in its intrinsic magnetic moment? You will certainly need then to introduce sort of theoretical "patch" that will never be understood well, and as so be applied in science and engineering, and this concept is precisely the spin concept with which you will try to explain, hiding at the same time what is its real origin, I mean, the intrinsic magnetic field.
A magnetic field is a self-consistent-entity, that is expressed in the fact that you cannot have magnetic monopoles, which is quite well understood if we think in a complex concept such as the basic unit system based on Euler relation, that by definition includes both a wave nature and a radical duality separated by the symbol i.
But if you have taken that path to explain the whole by the part or a whole/part entity as the magnetic field by one of its derived features, spin or charge, I know it will be quite imposible for you to take this other path, and here is where we come accross with an incommensurability problem, and you will certainly try by all means to correct the inconsistencies in your mathematical symbolism introducing all kind of patches, that make thing quite entangled.

Regards
EP
 
1,440
1
Epsilon Pi said:
the neutron that does not have any electric charge, it does have however a magnetic field represented in its intrinsic magnetic moment?
a free neutron will decay into a proton and electron along with an antineutrino of the electron in about 15 minutes (roughly, the attention span of an average person). So neutron is not really an authoritative base to disregard or question the notion of magnetic field generated by charged particles.

Actually, according to Particle Data Group at http://PDG.LBL.gov the neutron does have a negative charge about [tex]10^{-21}[/tex] of the electron charge.
 
Last edited:
193
0
Yes, I know, that those entities as the neutron cannot be free as the electron...in fact it seems that in a certain sense they depend on it and as so all those entities of the chemistry of nuclear interactions...but again mine is quite another point of view in which we do not need to make physical entities such as the magnetic field dependent on such theoretical and mathematical abstractions...it is this deviation of those physical certitudes, the ones, that seem to me untenable in modern physics. My rational mind cannot follow that path.
How can you explain a whole/part as the magnetic field by the part or charge? Is it not true that the contrary is already included in Maxwell's equations: the charge can be explained naturally as a result of time-varying magnetic field. But Western science since Descartes took the path to explain what is complex by the simple...and the complex must be taken to a minumum triadic symbolism so we can manage it, i.e., complex numbers.
The greatest drawback of dualism is precisely that its language becomes incommensurable even in that same field of physics, and worst with other fields of science.

Regards
EP



Antonio Lao said:
a free neutron will decay into a proton and electron along with an antineutrino of the electron in about 15 minutes (roughly, the attention span of an average person). So neutron is not really an authoritative base to disregard or question the notion of magnetic field generated by charged particles.

Actually, according to Particle Data Group at http://PDG.LBL.gov the neutron does have a negative charge about [tex]10^{-21}[/tex] of the electron charge.
 
1,440
1
Epsilon Pi said:
The greatest drawback of dualism is precisely that its language becomes incommensurable even in that same field of physics, and worst with other fields of science.
The dualism that I'm working on is that of two quantities such that the product is equal to the difference such that

[tex] ab=a-b[/tex]

where

[tex] b=\frac{a}{1+a}[/tex]

and

[tex] a=\frac{b}{1-b}[/tex]

If we look at the law of universal gravitation given by

[tex] F=G \frac{m_1 m_2}{R^2}[/tex]

m1 and m2 are duals such that

[tex] m_1 m_2 = m_1 - m_2 [/tex]

where m1 >> m2

m1 and m2 are equal iff both vanish.

Likewise, this can be applied to Coulomb's law of static electricity.
 
Last edited:
1,440
1
In electrostatics, when one charge q1 >> q2 then Coulomb's law defined an electric field such that the electric force is given by

[tex] F_E = q_2 E [/tex]

where q2 is the unit test charge and

[tex] E = k \int_{n} \frac{q_{i}}{r^2_{i2}}[/tex]
 
1,440
1
In magnetostatics, the dualism between two incremental currents i1 and i2 can also be describe but is a little more complicated because of the directional property of the currents for an incremental distance.

[tex]F_B=k \frac{i_1 i_2}{d} L_2 [/tex]

[tex] F_B= k i_2 L_2 B_1 [/tex]

B1 is the magnetic field and i2 L2 is the product of charge and speed.
 
293
0
Epsilon Pi said:
how can you explain the fact that the neutron that does not have any electric charge, it does have however a magnetic field represented in its intrinsic magnetic moment?
Hi EP,

According to the standard model, the neutron's magnetic moment is generated by the magnetic moments of its constituent quarks which are charged.

There are also additional aspects that may come into play, such as virtual particles within the neutron, and motion of the constituent quarks.

juju
 
187
0
This is a fresh reply after reading the original comment.

I am new to this board also, but I have direct interest in physics and I'm only little way into it, but I've got a conceptual answer to take with a grain of salt.

I think perpetual motionists make the basic fallacy that non-determinists make, in that non-determinists believe they can stand outside of the physical laws, and get a system to perform perfect equilibrium without ourselves or the enviroment affecting the system, or the system affecting us. Too many states of matter and energy pervade and interact throughout incomprehensibly small and large dimensions to create this isolated phenomenon. Everything may pervade everything in a sense (as long as it doesn't exist in the same time in place, which guarantees interaction).

I think we assume perpetual motion because we intuitively understand the idea of entirety of existence or singularity. I say we are the perpetual machine. That's why we exist.

As far as getting more energy to exit from an identified system that exists, that seems fairly obvious to indicate and understand as impossible. Energy comes out in units that always in a relative state sense have always existed rather than being created from a void.
 
193
0
As I said the greatest drawback of dualism is its natural tendency to reduce things; in dualism there is no chance to have a complex quantity except by introducing it as a patch, both in its magnitude and its phase. In dualism we do not have the chance to have a radical duality behind the equal sign as with complex numbers, then you must try by all means to deny or minimize the wave nature of reality.
On the other hand that universal law of gravitation is not so universal after all as we already know; in the planet Mercury we certainly will have a different law. In fact, that law is associated with a solution to a differential equation that is an ellipse in case of normal planets, i.e., different as that one mentioned. And even at galactic greatest distance it will not be valid either.
In biology and philosophy, if we can talk about meanstream philosophy with the north american philosopher Ken Wilber, dualism is really transcended, because of the tendendy mentioned above to reduce everything.
From my own point of view, philosophically, I believe reality is complex not simple, but then we must have a triadic symbolism that mathematically is represented by complex numbers to take that complexity to a minimum. In this case what I offer is that dualism is transcended and included mathematically: you can have both, (+/-), a binary logic, but complementarity too.

Regards
EP
Antonio Lao said:
The dualism that I'm working on is that of two quantities such that the product is equal to the difference such that

[tex] ab=a-b[/tex]

where

[tex] b=\frac{a}{1+a}[/tex]

and

[tex] a=\frac{b}{1-b}[/tex]

If we look at the law of universal gravitation given by

[tex] F=G \frac{m_1 m_2}{R^2}[/tex]

m1 and m2 are duals such that

[tex] m_1 m_2 = m_1 - m_2 [/tex]

where m1 >> m2

m1 and m2 are equal iff both vanish.

Likewise, this can be applied to Coulomb's law of static electricity.
 
193
0
Hi juju, thank you, I know there must be a way to explain that magnetic moment of the neutron, by means of quarks whose rules must agree with what is observed in the chemistry of nuclear interactions, but my main point is that the electron has an inherent magnetic field and it cannot be decomposed, it is a self-consistent entity.
Regards
EP
juju said:
Hi EP,

According to the standard model, the neutron's magnetic moment is generated by the magnetic moments of its constituent quarks which are charged.

There are also additional aspects that may come into play, such as virtual particles within the neutron, and motion of the constituent quarks.

juju
 

Related Threads for: Thoughts on perpetual motion.

  • Posted
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Posted
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Posted
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
993
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
6K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top