Welcome
Welcome to physicsdiscussionforum

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Are atoms in perpetual motion?

Are free energy devices possible?

Yes
1
100%
No
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 1

Are atoms in perpetual motion?

Postby quantum_fan » Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:30 pm

I'm a a big fan of quantum physics but by no means an expert. I've heard it said that there is no such thing as perpetual motion or free energy. From what I know this is confusing. My understanding is that electrons rotate around the nucleus of an atom given an arrangement of positively and negatively charged particles. So all matter is in perpetual motion? Doesn't this require a power source? How do particles hold their positive and negative charge? Does the universe have an outside power source or does all matter stay in perpetual motion on its own? What keeps electrons circling around the nucleus? Is this a similar force that keeps planets rotating around their sun? These questions have been burning a hole in my head for a long time. Electrons rotating around a nucleus is just rotational energy right? So isn't discovering and replicating how this happens the secret to free energy???
quantum_fan
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:13 pm

 

Re: Are atoms in perpetual motion?

Postby wlminex » Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:53 pm

Very possible . . . . IMO, atomic structures and process 'appear' to be in a state of perpetual motion as we observe them. Also, it is likely (IMO) that the smallest atomic/subatomic 'critters' , e.g., quarkss, electrons, etc., continually draw energy from the (more fundamental) subquantum (subplanckian) field state (aka Zero Point energy, ZPE) which is a very highly-energetic state (my est. 10^120 ergs!) that we never detect. The problem IS that we are only on the 'edge' of exploration and discovery of the subquantum state and promulgation of such is a 'hard-sell' to the current Standard Model scientific community.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
wlminex
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:50 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Are atoms in perpetual motion?

Postby andreasjva » Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:32 pm

In my opinion, technically, no. My explanation would be too lengthy though, so I'll leave it at that for now. I could also be wrong on a number of levels, admittedly, but I don't think so. It sure does look perpetual though, as does light. I have puzzled over this for a couple of decades before deciding entropy/thermodynamics was simply doing its job. We just don't know it yet.
andreasjva
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:16 am
Location: Chesapeake Virginia

Re: Are atoms in perpetual motion?

Postby Good Elf » Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:26 am

quantum_fan wrote:I'm a a big fan of quantum physics but by no means an expert. I've heard it said that there is no such thing as perpetual motion or free energy. From what I know this is confusing. My understanding is that electrons rotate around the nucleus of an atom given an arrangement of positively and negatively charged particles. So all matter is in perpetual motion? Doesn't this require a power source? How do particles hold their positive and negative charge? Does the universe have an outside power source or does all matter stay in perpetual motion on its own? What keeps electrons circling around the nucleus? Is this a similar force that keeps planets rotating around their sun? These questions have been burning a hole in my head for a long time. Electrons rotating around a nucleus is just rotational energy right? So isn't discovering and replicating how this happens the secret to free energy???
Actually there is too much here to answer in several terms of an undergraduate course in physics, let alone a quick reply here.
Energy!
A consistent answer would be there is no free energy as in available zero point energy. There are only two types of energy in the Universe, potential energy and kinetic energy. The fact that we can convert one form into the other and visa versa is "instructive" in that they are basically the same. So we distinguish only on the basis of our ability to see changes over periods of time. If over a period of time there is no change we call that "potential energy" like a rock sitting on the top of a mountain has potential energy that loses as it falls to the bottom of the mountain acquiring kinetic energy along the way. The same rock has either or both kinetic or potential energy depending on how you see it in it's state of motion. And a state of motion requires a comparison (before and after) in time to determine it's "state".
Particles.
Lets clear up a point about "particles"... a particle is like a rock... a part of something else... OK? This also makes them indestructible. This indestructibility is owing to the fact that the quantization principle enforces the internal energy cannot be changed except through the exchange of individual photons. But the basic quantum state of fundamental particles is inviolate. A quantum state, like an electron has no parts so is not really a particle. All physicists actually agree that quantum states are waves rather than particles. Unfortunately they still speak about "particles" in their grand theory called the Standard Model.

Here is the Standard Model.
Image
If you inspect it carefully all the "particles" are actually quantum states and are "indivisible". So there is a fair degree of gilding the lily involved in describing sub-atomic particles... as "particles". If is true that they are used to make all larger particles, but they themselves break the rule of being particles themselves. Calling them "fundamental particles" does not help and only creates further confusion for those trying to think of wavelets as particles like "rocks" for instance. Believe me they are not "rocks" like those you can hold in your hand. If I called them fundamental excitations in a fluid medium (tones/frequencies) that naturally form at certain energies or solitons, perhaps that is a better way to describe them... they are self reforming solitary waves like the way a Tsunami (tidal wave) propagating in the ocean is like a "particle" propagating/moving in a superconducting quantum superfluid, they are sometimes moving or stationary standing waves of a very special kind, like the Giant Red Spot on Jupiter. The "spot" moves around and the "eye" of the spot also rotates as totally independent motions. A resonance wave can stand in the one place while still in oscillation or a wave might move about without the core appearing to change just simply rotating as a whole. A tennis ball rotates as a whole and it also goes places. A quantized particle may be internally stationary while it's "ball" rotates and it's center of gravity moves about. There are more than one kind of motion here and quantization such as a stationary wave kind of quantization means that the "ball" retains it's quantum integrity while still rotating and moving about. In an unstable quantum state, the "ball" of the internal quantum is under change from one stationary state to another, it may emit other particles such as electrons and photon "particles" if atoms. If related to the sub-atomic range the unstable quanta may emit electrons, photons and even other moire energetic particles as the unstable quantum state searches for a lower energy state.

You catch it during this phase it's shape is changing. At other times the "ball" does not change... can you see this? If a tennis ball kept changing it's shape while you were playing tennis you would have a difficult job at hitting that changing ball correctly. A tennis ball is made of particles but a quantum ball or fundamental particles is not, so it only has two different states of being... being a stationary wave and being a resonance in progress of changing to a higher or lower energy. Ball lightning is a spatial resonance and while it radiates away, it is a quantum state between emissions of those individual photons as a bright matter-wave soliton. A dark matter wave soliton is quite the opposite. It's a hole in the radiation field which is dark and exists as a region of photon blockade or as a dark object in a matter-wave lattice. I think that an electromagnetic equivalent of a gravitational black hole is a dark matter wave soliton. Spacetime will have holes because spacetime itself is part of that unseen matter wave background. We notice only excitations in this background, the emissions and absorptions of photons at most temperatures and pressures we live in. Everything else is "dark"... that includes spacetime itself and also the dark states as dark matter-wave solitons.
Quantum States are not particles, however many particles may cooperate to make a single quantum state.
Now physicists consider the quantum theory as being a theory about quantum boxes. Quantum "particles" can be fitted into quantum boxes, but only if they meet the boundary conditions. For example a freight train cannot be fitted into a matchbox. If all quantum particles are indivisible, you just can't put an indestructible freight train into an indestructible matchbox, even if you know that "philosophically speaking" that matter, as "particles", is mostly empty space. Now I remind you that the reason for this is because these "particles" are only "waves"... from our point of view as waves ourselves, they are indestructible but can "fit" into small spaces only if they "fit" along their bounding margins. That is the basis of quantum theory. So an atom, having many "fundamental particles", can form a single "multiply overlapping" quantum state. These special arrangements of "fundamental particles" are unique in nature and form the periodic table of the elements. This is because the quantum box of those atoms were formed in extreme conditions in the Universe where energies are so high (supernova) that nuclei can fuse together into heavier atoms.

Otherwise these overlapping states cannot exist naturally and it requires the same kind of particles to form single quantum states. In one case that of fermions, only one particle per quantum box is allowed, but you can have many contiguous boxes which will reform into a single quantum enlarged spatial state. In the case of bosons of the same kind and energy and phase, an infinite number can exist in the one place at the one time. And if two or more identical bosons are made contiguous they will flow together into a single state and ultimately form inside just one box. The first is called Fermi-Dirac Statistic and the latter is a Bose-Einstein Statistic. Some atoms are only "quasi-stable" and break down through radioactivity into smaller fragments and finally achieving a more stable arrangement of the "fundamental particles". The reverse in nature hardly ever happens.
The property of time and it's role in quanta.
Time in relativity is a continuous time measured by clocks that "tick" at so high a rate that it is impossible to distinguish "motion" between any two sequential quantum states. This is a good clock for use in relativistic experiments. The observers of such clocks are not able to notice any individual "tick" of this clock biologically speaking. Human clocks have difficulty seeing anything without aid faster than about 16 events per second. At some of the rates of atomic clocks, quantum processes are too slow to notice these changes in time and it must average over longer periods to make sense of them. There is a fundamental limit where individual quantum processes are starting and stopping all the time in large physical objects such that no single atom is measuring time itself but it becomes a bulk property of the clock as a whole so this becomes "classical time". On the other hand the basic quantum property of objects is quantum time which proceeds in steps, one step at a time, one after the other depending on how often or how long the individual "sleep mode" events between stationary states lasts. In very cold objects, this "sleep mode" might last a long time compared with the events or ticks of a "best practise time keeping quantum clock". It is easy to see that quantum time depends only on events that happen to quantum processes such that intervals in time is the numeric sum of all bulk events in the quantum system being observed. The smallest of quantum systems held at low temperatures and in zero gravity do not keep regular time. The more events being measured per second the more accurate time appears to progress smoothly. In these small cold quantum systems time itself advances irregularly from one quantum unstable state to the next. The long periods of stability between unstable quantum processes does not "clock" up time for these processes and the "clock" moves irregularly through time. If you are interested in details (and also a link to the paper):
Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement - Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they have the first experimental results to prove it. So in a sense we understand how classical time varies from quantum time due to entanglement experiments. But at the individual quantum event we now understand how it works. For example "observers", who are not single quantum states cannot notice their own quantum time and they only measure the quantum time of "other observed quantum systems". The theory of time was enumerated by Page and Wootters in 1985 in their paper: Evolution without evolution: Dynamics described by stationary observables - Phys. Rev. D 27, 2885 – Published 15 June 1983. It is paywalled, but If you look around you can still find it on the web.

In a sense when you are looking and seeing atoms or individual quantum states the states are under change so it is being modified as a temporal resonance. When the quantum state is unobserved and while it is under no quantum interactions, one in which a "fundamental quasi-particle state exists" and is either in photon blockade (reflecting photons and electrons while the electrons are "home") or a dark state (ready to absorb photons or electrons when the electrons are "away"). Note the use of "Classical Clocks" in the depiction here.

An example of photon blockade is here:

Extraction of a single photon from an optical pulse - Serge Rosenblum - Fig1 - 1410-2015.jpg
[Click for all the details and references]
Extraction of a single photon from an optical pulse - Serge Rosenblum - Fig1 - 1410-2015.jpg (74.13 KiB) Viewed 385 times


The reference to the paper is in the image. Amazingly this is not a random process and you can ensure that every photon is redirected into another system. This process is used to eavesdrop on quantum encrypted systems. See: Extraction of a single photon from an optical pulse - Serge Rosenblum - 1410-2015

So the electron or even a photon trapped in an "orbital" is only revealing a series of stationary snaps when it is in the process of radiating or absorbing or scattering a photon. A series of these images may give a "cloud" of where the electron might have been, except that "recording this phenomenon" disturbs the system so much that the shape and position of this quantum state is disrupted due to the Uncertainty Principle. There are some ways to evade some of these consequences... way beyond the scope of this "shortish" discussion.
Are atoms in perpetual motion?
Not really, between "observations" they are in stationary states. However electrons and photons conserve properties such as angular momentum, energy, and other quantum properties such as polarization so when the particles are observed in some dynamic process, they form a somewhat continuous process based on statistical averages as if the clock cycles were short enough and if it were actually possible to show true position that "satisfies" the appearance of continuous motion between the dynamic phases of states.
How do particles hold their positive and negative charge?
It is all in the "knot", it is possible to knot electromagnetic fields so that they do not unravel. Unfortunately these knots must be made in pairs (particle and antiparticle at the same time... a fundamental conservation law). The "knot" and "anti-knot" form positive and negative charges separately due to the nature of the "twisted strip" produced.
Warning, this is not the conventional view: You can have three ways of understanding electromagnetic fields.

1. As a mixture of static charges and sourceless magnetic fields.
2. As a homegeneous mix of static charges and static magnetic fields (magnetic monopoles).
3. As a mixture of sourceless charges and sourceless magnetic fields.

I am "punting" on the third possibility. The current situation is situation N0:1 which is invalid and does not support the Standard Model. N0:2 which is non-physical and unseen in the natural world or NO:3 which is only seen in sourceless propagation events such as in propagating photons created in the event of spawning photons from a dipole.
Image
Shown here is the dipole radiator supplied with continuous source of energy radiating packets of "light" (indicated as electric loops of energy, radiated away into the "far field" after a re-connection event originating from the tiny dipole radiator in the center). See inductive aspect of the electric field where a portion of the total energy is "snapping back" near origin as negatively going Evanescent waves in the very near field "propagating" superluminally inwards in the spatial range much shorter than one wavelength. These propagating photons are stationary relative to the speed of light and maximum intensity are antinodes while the nodes are zero's in the field. You can see the movement of fields as if they were charges away from the origin and as they pass sensors they registrar as positive and negative fields top and bottom of the individual photon wavepackets. Contrary to many incorrect illustrations ... propagating photons only suffer Inverse Square Law divergence and no temporal change (as indicated above)... as all true quanta of all kinds actually physically exhibit. "Time" for propagating are not subject to any passage and as such are subject to the most extreme form of time dilation such theat until they encounter a matched empty quantum state at the exact same frequency, they remain "indestructible" packets.

I am going with N0:3. A way to proceed is to apply a new theory : Physicists discover hidden aspects of electrodynamics - EurekAlert! - 1104-2017 where electromagnetic duality is broken by gravity. Another way to proceed is to conclude that there are such states that when are "unbroken" lead to loose knots in the EM field resulting to electrons and other particles such as quarks. Gravity is a consequence of this broken symmetry and leads to Gravity being a "pseudo force". Then we have standing waves in space wrapped into an asymmetric knot as electrons and other particles.

The twisted strip model of Williamson and Van der Mark - 1995 - Is the Electron a photon with toroidal Topology?
Image

What keeps electrons circling around the nucleus?
One could say exchange force photons or one might assume that is a quantum state in which electromagnetic forces are in a stationary state. See Mirischenko experimental demonstration of Anapole radiation. See:
Nonradiating anapole modes in dielectric nanoparticles - Nature - A E Miroshnichenko - 27 Aug 2015. Open Paper.
That is what is happening during the period when it is in a stable non-dynamic mode. The electric and magnetic fields are in a mutual "holding pattern".
Anapole_no_radiation_EM_field.jpg
Anapole_no_radiation_EM_field.jpg (37.41 KiB) Viewed 385 times

Is this a similar force that keeps planets rotating around their sun?
Not really since at our scale "gravity" is an emergent property and not the direct result of pure electromagnetism like it is in atoms. Gravity is such a weak force it plays little or no role in "atoms". Though there are theories of Emergent Gravity such as Erik Verlinde and his theory which has passed some initial testing proving itself to be better than Einstein's Theory in explaining certain facts about the way Galaxies behave on that huge scale. This too is beyond the scope of this discussion. The basic theory is here: Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe - Erik Verlinde - 0711-2016. In this theory "Gravity" is not a separate force at all but is an emergent property of "electromagnetism" and other stronger forces at shorter ranges and is due to quantum entropy and the Black Hole , Beckenstein Bound Information Theory of Quantum Gravity. If you are on the right scale you might mistake one (gravity and mass) for the other (electromagnetism and charge)... in a scenario where on the scale of the Universe it all looks a bit like a larger scale super-Casimir Force due to confinement in a galactic sized "quantum box" the size of individual galaxies... and beyond. Theory sometimes called "Fuzzy Dark Matter Theory".... a theory of "Dark Matter" when there is actually no Dark Matter at all. The properties of these entities are different at that scale and are sometimes referred to as axions.

That's it... I am out of here. Sorry about the length. Will field sensible questions though.
Aa' menle nauva calen ar' ta hwesta e' ale'quenle
User avatar
Good Elf
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia


Return to Quantum Mechanics and Particles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred