Is Perpetual Motion Truly Impossible or Simply Misunderstood?

[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).

 

[Epsilon Pi]

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 across 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

 

[Antonio Lao]

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 $$10^{-21}$$ of the electron charge.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

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

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 $$10^{-21}$$ of the electron charge.

 

[Antonio Lao]

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

$$ab=a-b$$

where

$$b=\frac{a}{1+a}$$

and

$$a=\frac{b}{1-b}$$

If we look at the law of universal gravitation given by

$$F=G \frac{m_1 m_2}{R^2}$$

m1 and m2 are duals such that

$$m_1 m_2 = m_1 - m_2$$

where m1 >> m2

m1 and m2 are equal iff both vanish.

Likewise, this can be applied to Coulomb's law of static electricity.

 

[Antonio Lao]

In electrostatics, when one charge q1 >> q2 then Coulomb's law defined an electric field such that the electric force is given by

$$F_E = q_2 E$$

where q2 is the unit test charge and

$$E = k \int_{n} \frac{q_{i}}{r^2_{i2}}$$

 

[Antonio Lao]

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.

$$F_B=k \frac{i_1 i_2}{d} L_2$$

$$F_B= k i_2 L_2 B_1$$

B1 is the magnetic field and i2 L2 is the product of charge and speed.

 

[juju]

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

 

[omin]

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 environment 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.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

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

The dualism that I'm working on is that of two quantities such that the product is equal to the difference such that

$$ab=a-b$$

where

$$b=\frac{a}{1+a}$$

and

$$a=\frac{b}{1-b}$$

If we look at the law of universal gravitation given by

$$F=G \frac{m_1 m_2}{R^2}$$

m1 and m2 are duals such that

$$m_1 m_2 = m_1 - m_2$$

where m1 >> m2

m1 and m2 are equal iff both vanish.

Likewise, this can be applied to Coulomb's law of static electricity.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

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

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

 

[Antonio Lao]

If we can apply dualism in the square of energy (there really are two kinds of energy: the potential and the kinetic), then

$$H^{+}=E^2$$ this is a general form of kinetic energy.

$$H^{-}= - E^2$$ this is a general form of potential energy.

then the square root of the general potential energy is a pure imaginary number.

$$\sqrt{H^{-}} = Ei$$

H+ and H- is possible if and only if the infinitesimal forces and metrics are orthogonal.

If kinetic and potential energy are absolutely dual then

$$E_K E_P= E_K - E_P$$

And the RHS expression can be defined as a Lagrangian.

 

[Antonio Lao]

But if we insist on solving E then Ek=E and EP=Ei give

$$EEi=E-Ei$$

there are two solutions (-1+i) and (-1-i), which show that energy is a complex number.

Written in exponentials, the solutions are

$$E= \sqrt{2} e^{i\theta}$$

$$E= \sqrt{2} e^{-i\theta}$$

where the phase angle is 45 degrees.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

I am sorry, Antonio, but I really cannot follow you in your path.
Regards
EP

If we can apply dualism in the square of energy (there really are two kinds of energy: the potential and the kinetic), then

$$H^{+}=E^2$$ this is a general form of kinetic energy.

$$H^{-}= - E^2$$ this is a general form of potential energy.

then the square root of the general potential energy is a pure imaginary number.

$$\sqrt{H^{-}} = Ei$$

H+ and H- is possible if and only if the infinitesimal forces and metrics are orthogonal.

If kinetic and potential energy are absolutely dual then

$$E_K E_P= E_K - E_P$$

And the RHS expression can be defined as a Lagrangian.

 

[juju]

my main point is that the electron has an inherent magnetic field and it cannot be decomposed, it is a self-consistent entity.

Hi EP,

I guess the question here is this.

Are the mass, charge, magnetic moment, and spin of the electron independent properties, or do they depend on each other in some way, or do they depend on even deeper as yet unknown properties?

juju

 

[Arsonade]

Pmm

I think peoples biggest problem is the ability to think on a scale other then their physical form. Now we see things working on a big and small scale what can we do to create something similar that will work on a scale we can tangibly see and use?

ok lol first of all, this is the physics fourum lol, most people her think on the physical realm, i won't go into explaining my ideas because i have homework I am procrastinating on but i will link you to my post, you may find it interesting.
my post

take a look

Adam

P.S if anyone would want to reply to my post, that's good, but could u e-mail me tellin me? its AdamChess4@aol.com