# Unlimited energy?

1. Aug 16, 2007

### The Onion

Unlimited energy???

Hi all , this is my first post here. Im 20 yrs old and although i have a physics A-level i'm a bit of a physics noob, especially when it comes to the interesting stuff like Quantum mechanics and relativity.

Anyways i'm here to learn all i can cause these subjects fascinate me and i didn't have an opportunity to further my studies in Physics.

So i have a question:

Is it possible to create unlimited energy by causing a particle to interfere with itself in a way that the wave that gets superimposed onto itself in a way that simply doubles the amplitude without collapsing the wave function?

That would mean that firing an electron and causing it to interfere with itself in that manner would cause it to create a wave function with larger amplitudes which when collapsed to a certain point will end up with a higher energy value than before.

In a way i know that it is impossible, cause if it where possible then we would have free energy but i would like to know why :tongue:, by the way im not one of those free energy seeking ppl that come up with all those non-scene contraptions, its just a curiosity i had.

Thanks :)

2. Aug 16, 2007

### JDługosz

No.

The sum of the probabilities is always 1.0.

3. Aug 16, 2007

### The Onion

So what your sayin is that its impossible for it to be twice in the same place?

Like in the double slit experiment, where the crests of the waves meet, If the original amplitude of each wave is equal to A and is equal to the Source, then wouldent the amplitude of these points be equal to 2A?

So if the same happens to a single electron couldent the wave function collapse at that point?

4. Aug 16, 2007

### Nesk

It is always great when people want to learn beyond their academic needs :)

Now, if you sum the probabilities of an electron passing through a double slit before collapse you still get 1.

Unlimited energy put aside (!), autointerference seems rather unmotivated. In quantum mechanics, however, things happen solely because they can.

Though it probably does not solve your admireable quest for energy, I'd recommend that you peek in litterature about virtual particles. As I understand it, they pop in-and-out of existence at any given time, though they cannot be observed. I believe you might find the topic interesting.

5. Aug 23, 2007

### asterias

cd u plz explain this ?

~A

6. Aug 24, 2007

### JDługosz

u cd gt z bk, "The Wizard of Quarks: A Fantasy of Particle Physics" by Robert Gilmore. 't xsplz þat & mch mr.

7. Aug 24, 2007

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Please do not use text-speak unless you wish to have this thread locked.

Zz.

8. Aug 25, 2007

### JDługosz

I was just replying in-kind, as a passive-aggressive way of letting him know it bothered me. Being new here, I didn't feel comfortable admonishing him for it directly. It didn't occur to me that he wouldn't realize I was parodying him. The use of the "thorn" character which is not used in modern English should have been a dead giveaway. It's contradictory as an abbreviation, since although it saves one character position, it's not something most people can type at all!

Personally, I type quite rapidly, in complete grammatically-correct sentences, and check the spelling.

—John

9. Aug 25, 2007

### LURCH

I don't believe the OP was chiefly interested in free energy, but in Quantum Interference, especially the idea of self-interference (correct me if I'm wrong there, Onion). The idea that a single electron can interfere with itself, and that intereference could be constructive, certainly makes it sound like an electron can come out of a double-slit with more energy than it had going in. Since this would be "free energy", and therefore impossible, there is something missing from this understanding of QI, right?

10. Aug 25, 2007

### Nesk

One could argue that preservation of probability follows from the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

11. Aug 26, 2007

### JDługosz

Or they are both caused by a deeper underlying symmetry.
The second law of thermodynamics won't be visible when you only have one particle. It is statistical.

12. Aug 26, 2007

### Nesk

True, but then again, "only one particle" contradicts the notion of self-interference, so applying 2nd LoT to the system in order to decide whether self-interference is feasible might make some sence.