Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Is the universe a perpetual motion machine?

tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 8:48:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

I would like to add one item to the above:

1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is all that exists (there is only one universe)
3. and the law of conservation of matter and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
4. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:47:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 8:48:29 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

I would like to add one item to the above:

1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is all that exists (there is only one universe)
3. and the law of conservation of matter and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
4. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

If the universe is finite then I don't see how it could be.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 11:57:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 10:47:29 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:48:29 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

I would like to add one item to the above:

1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is all that exists (there is only one universe)
3. and the law of conservation of matter and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
4. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

If the universe is finite then I don't see how it could be.

Please tell me why.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:07:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

No, because like any wave function, it would collapse upon observation and become a particle.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:44:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 11:57:48 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 10:47:29 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:48:29 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

I would like to add one item to the above:

1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is all that exists (there is only one universe)
3. and the law of conservation of matter and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
4. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

If the universe is finite then I don't see how it could be.

Please tell me why.

I should have clarified before. Are you assuming an oscillating model or referring to the continued movement of particles after heat death?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:48:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

No.

The Universe is proposed to have a lifespan. We just don't know what it is -- it's a magnitude beyond reach, as the universe itself is a magnitude beyond reach. (Although Henri Poincare at least proved its shape).
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:49:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 12:07:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

No, because like any wave function, it would collapse upon observation and become a particle.

Lmao
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:50:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 11:57:48 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 10:47:29 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:48:29 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

I would like to add one item to the above:

1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is all that exists (there is only one universe)
3. and the law of conservation of matter and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
4. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

If the universe is finite then I don't see how it could be.

Please tell me why.

Because, if it's a wave function, then it has an infinitely small beginning (a singularity) and an infinitely small end (a singularity) and a middleground with awesomeshit (like humans and quasars and stuff).
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:05:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 12:44:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/13/2014 11:57:48 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 10:47:29 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:48:29 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

I would like to add one item to the above:

1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is all that exists (there is only one universe)
3. and the law of conservation of matter and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
4. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

If the universe is finite then I don't see how it could be.

Please tell me why.

I should have clarified before. Are you assuming an oscillating model or referring to the continued movement of particles after heat death?

I was assuming an oscillating model. I could have been more clear about this.

In my minuscule understanding of physics, the heat death model does noes not sense. However, I would also like to hear your thoughts on the heat death model.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 7:59:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 2:05:42 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 12:44:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/13/2014 11:57:48 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 10:47:29 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:48:29 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

I would like to add one item to the above:

1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is all that exists (there is only one universe)
3. and the law of conservation of matter and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
4. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

If the universe is finite then I don't see how it could be.

Please tell me why.

I should have clarified before. Are you assuming an oscillating model or referring to the continued movement of particles after heat death?

I was assuming an oscillating model. I could have been more clear about this.

In my minuscule understanding of physics, the heat death model does noes not sense. However, I would also like to hear your thoughts on the heat death model.

Well, my understanding may not be much better than yours! I found your question interesting though, and thought I would take a crack at it. In the oscillation model it seem like it would be a type of PMM. The only way I see around this is if such a universe is not a closed system and is losing heat, but that is pure speculation. As far as the heat death model, the universe will cool down and reach thermodynamic equilibrium. No more work will be possible.

If I am completely wrong, someone more knowledgable will correct me! Good post.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:28:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thank you for your answer, Skepticalone.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2014 10:38:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 1:12:50 PM, Accipiter wrote:
What about entropy, would that play a part?

Yes. Energy would progress through the universe until the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. Physicists call this heat death. Every portion of the universe would possess an equal amount of energy. No further work would be possible. However, negative energy, in the form of gravity, would act upon the matter, and possibly draw all matter back into a singularity or series of singularities (the big crunch). From thence another big bang event could be possible. This is the oscillating model. If the universe is finite and therefore a closed system, I believe that it could be considered a ppm. This may only be true if the oscillating model reflects the true unfolding of events throughout infinite history.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 12:23:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/24/2014 10:38:18 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/24/2014 1:12:50 PM, Accipiter wrote:
What about entropy, would that play a part?

Yes. Energy would progress through the universe until the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. Physicists call this heat death. Every portion of the universe would possess an equal amount of energy. No further work would be possible. However, negative energy, in the form of gravity, would act upon the matter, and possibly draw all matter back into a singularity or series of singularities (the big crunch). From thence another big bang event could be possible. This is the oscillating model. If the universe is finite and therefore a closed system, I believe that it could be considered a ppm. This may only be true if the oscillating model reflects the true unfolding of events throughout infinite history.

But there would be no matter left at the end. Heat death and entropy both means all energy is gone and energy and matter are the same thing, remember E=MC2?
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 12:06:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/25/2014 12:23:06 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 12/24/2014 10:38:18 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/24/2014 1:12:50 PM, Accipiter wrote:
What about entropy, would that play a part?

Yes. Energy would progress through the universe until the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. Physicists call this heat death. Every portion of the universe would possess an equal amount of energy. No further work would be possible. However, negative energy, in the form of gravity, would act upon the matter, and possibly draw all matter back into a singularity or series of singularities (the big crunch). From thence another big bang event could be possible. This is the oscillating model. If the universe is finite and therefore a closed system, I believe that it could be considered a ppm. This may only be true if the oscillating model reflects the true unfolding of events throughout infinite history.

But there would be no matter left at the end. Heat death and entropy both means all energy is gone and energy and matter are the same thing, remember E=MC2?

I do not completely understand the heat death model, and I will not pretend to. So what form will energy and matter take on at this point, if energy no longer exists and matter doesn't either? Will gravitation also seek to exist? Will matter be spread out throughout the entire universe completely? As I understand it, the universe will possess the same amount of energy and matter as it currently possesses, the energy will just be perfectly dispersed to the point of complete thermodynamic equilibrium. I understand that matter will remain.

My big problem with heat death, is that it ignores gravitation as it takes place throughout the duration of the universe, possibly leading to a big crunch. What am I missing? I am an amateur at physics. Just trying to piece together theories.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:54:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/25/2014 12:06:19 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:23:06 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 12/24/2014 10:38:18 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/24/2014 1:12:50 PM, Accipiter wrote:
What about entropy, would that play a part?

Yes. Energy would progress through the universe until the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. Physicists call this heat death. Every portion of the universe would possess an equal amount of energy. No further work would be possible. However, negative energy, in the form of gravity, would act upon the matter, and possibly draw all matter back into a singularity or series of singularities (the big crunch). From thence another big bang event could be possible. This is the oscillating model. If the universe is finite and therefore a closed system, I believe that it could be considered a ppm. This may only be true if the oscillating model reflects the true unfolding of events throughout infinite history.

But there would be no matter left at the end. Heat death and entropy both means all energy is gone and energy and matter are the same thing, remember E=MC2?

I do not completely understand the heat death model, and I will not pretend to. So what form will energy and matter take on at this point, if energy no longer exists and matter doesn't either? Will gravitation also seek to exist? Will matter be spread out throughout the entire universe completely? As I understand it, the universe will possess the same amount of energy and matter as it currently possesses, the energy will just be perfectly dispersed to the point of complete thermodynamic equilibrium. I understand that matter will remain.

My big problem with heat death, is that it ignores gravitation as it takes place throughout the duration of the universe, possibly leading to a big crunch. What am I missing? I am an amateur at physics. Just trying to piece together theories.

Yes.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 9:19:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

There's no way to know if 1 and 2 are valid, but in any instance, and theoretically at least, perpetual motion is a given. According to the Standard Model, to which the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is fundamental, it is physically impossible for there ever to be no motion.

In Quantum Theory and according to the Standard Model, the foundational Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental feature of reality. It doesn't just apply to the position and velocity of a particle, it also applies to the value and rate of change of a field, and for there to be no motion in the universe the value of the field and its rate of change would both need to be exactly zero; and the Heisenberg"s Uncertainty Principle, says that it can't ever be exactly zero.

Consequently, there will always be random quantum jitters, or vacuum fluctuations, particles and fields quivering in and out of existence within so called "empty space". Perpetual motion will therefore result from the fact that there are always going to be particles and antiparticles popping into existence and annihilating each other in an instant.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 11:40:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/26/2014 2:54:57 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:06:19 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:23:06 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 12/24/2014 10:38:18 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/24/2014 1:12:50 PM, Accipiter wrote:
What about entropy, would that play a part?

Yes. Energy would progress through the universe until the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. Physicists call this heat death. Every portion of the universe would possess an equal amount of energy. No further work would be possible. However, negative energy, in the form of gravity, would act upon the matter, and possibly draw all matter back into a singularity or series of singularities (the big crunch). From thence another big bang event could be possible. This is the oscillating model. If the universe is finite and therefore a closed system, I believe that it could be considered a ppm. This may only be true if the oscillating model reflects the true unfolding of events throughout infinite history.

But there would be no matter left at the end. Heat death and entropy both means all energy is gone and energy and matter are the same thing, remember E=MC2?

I do not completely understand the heat death model, and I will not pretend to. So what form will energy and matter take on at this point, if energy no longer exists and matter doesn't either? Will gravitation also seek to exist? Will matter be spread out throughout the entire universe completely? As I understand it, the universe will possess the same amount of energy and matter as it currently possesses, the energy will just be perfectly dispersed to the point of complete thermodynamic equilibrium. I understand that matter will remain.

My big problem with heat death, is that it ignores gravitation as it takes place throughout the duration of the universe, possibly leading to a big crunch. What am I missing? I am an amateur at physics. Just trying to piece together theories.

Yes.

Not sure I understand what you are saying yes to. Mind clarifying?
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 1:15:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 8:48:29 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

I would like to add one item to the above:

1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is all that exists (there is only one universe)
3. and the law of conservation of matter and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
4. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Apparently, you found my initial responses insufficient, so out of good faith, I'll try again.

Mind you, I'm not a physicist, but why not bounce around ideas about things we know a little about?

Anyway, it all depends on balance. "Order" as its described in physics, as far as I know, relates to clusters of matter and energy condensed in pockets of timespace that converts from one form to the other, termed "work." Entropy describes the inclination of all things in the universe to tend toward "disorder," or the disbursement of that matter and energy to reach a state of equilibrium throughout timespace.

However, entropy only seems to apply at a given level. Once matter reaches an arrangement that's too complex, it actually seeks to counteract entropy by continuously maintaining its concentration of matter and energy. This is what we know as "machines," but there are two types of machines. One is naturally occurring ones that are, for the lack of a better term, automated and will continue to operate for as long as there are resources available to maintain it. An example could be a sun or star, which will continue to exist as long as there is hydrogen to fuse into helium. Once that hydrogen is spent, then the sun will collapse on itself from its own gravity. Another example of an automated machine is life and similar manifestations. But, unlike suns, which will exist until there are are no necessary resources left in its general point in space, life will actively seek more resources to maintain when there are none left in its immediate area. As a simple example, a unicellular organism will travel to another part of a petri dish once it has consumed all of the energy in the area it's in.

Then, the other type are machines that aren't automatic -- that require some sort of impetus, some application of energy to function, and will exhaust that energy until it runs out or more is applied.

A perpetual motion machine is actually the second type, but which will actually operate like the first once it receives its initial impetus. But, the reason why a perpetual motion machine is theoretical and not actual is because it is actually something that will produce more energy through the work it conducts than it requires to continue conducting work.

So, in other words, a machine that requires five joules to operate, but will run from a substance that yields ten joules of energy when processed. The problem is that even with such a massive imbalance, it would still require more of that substance to continue running. Consider -- the first application of that substance would yield ten joules -- enough for that cycle and the next cycle. Then, that cycle would be able to cycle ad infinitum, but the most one could say is that it is operationally cycling energy. All other processes would require greater access to energy in order to conduct that process, but the problem is that the energy would also be consumed and converted into that work. Then, of course, there's entropy -- that a fraction of the energy would be lost by merit of its cycle through the machine, unless it were passed through a superconductor.

Therefore, the most that a perpetual motion machine can serve as is a storage medium, because it cannot create energy from nowhere, which would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

So, let's say that the Universe were a machine. What would it do? If it were simply storing energy within a vacuum, then of course it abides by that interpretation of a perpetual motion machine, because although energy can't be created, it also can't be destroyed.

But, if the Universe were doing anything other than simply existing, then it couldn't possibly be a perpetual motion machine, because it would imply that somewhere, somehow, matter or energy were also being created in the Universe. Otherwise, it would be operating at a lower level then the output of its energy, which doesn't make any sense.

So, when I said that it all depends on balance, what I meant was that it all depends on how much entropy takes over the universe at large. Heat death isn't actually the elimination of heat. It is the elimination of varying temperatures. Consider gasses. They are in a constant state of actual, visually perceptible entropy. Once they disburse totally, so they're indistinguishable from the area that they're in. If there are no concentrations of energy and no work being done, and simply disparate particles generally equidistant from one another, then there is nowhere for heat to collect or from which to emanate, so everything will seem the same temperature. With no work being done, that will be close to absolute zero.

Which will, in other words, be heat death, and with no impetus to make everything be any other way, the universe will be little more than a collect of particles in an area of spacetime.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 4:17:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/26/2014 1:15:58 PM, Such wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:48:29 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

I would like to add one item to the above:

1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is all that exists (there is only one universe)
3. and the law of conservation of matter and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
4. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Apparently, you found my initial responses insufficient, so out of good faith, I'll try again.

Mind you, I'm not a physicist, but why not bounce around ideas about things we know a little about?

Anyway, it all depends on balance. "Order" as its described in physics, as far as I know, relates to clusters of matter and energy condensed in pockets of timespace that converts from one form to the other, termed "work." Entropy describes the inclination of all things in the universe to tend toward "disorder," or the disbursement of that matter and energy to reach a state of equilibrium throughout timespace.

However, entropy only seems to apply at a given level. Once matter reaches an arrangement that's too complex, it actually seeks to counteract entropy by continuously maintaining its concentration of matter and energy. This is what we know as "machines," but there are two types of machines. One is naturally occurring ones that are, for the lack of a better term, automated and will continue to operate for as long as there are resources available to maintain it. An example could be a sun or star, which will continue to exist as long as there is hydrogen to fuse into helium. Once that hydrogen is spent, then the sun will collapse on itself from its own gravity. Another example of an automated machine is life and similar manifestations. But, unlike suns, which will exist until there are are no necessary resources left in its general point in space, life will actively seek more resources to maintain when there are none left in its immediate area. As a simple example, a unicellular organism will travel to another part of a petri dish once it has consumed all of the energy in the area it's in.

Then, the other type are machines that aren't automatic -- that require some sort of impetus, some application of energy to function, and will exhaust that energy until it runs out or more is applied.

A perpetual motion machine is actually the second type, but which will actually operate like the first once it receives its initial impetus. But, the reason why a perpetual motion machine is theoretical and not actual is because it is actually something that will produce more energy through the work it conducts than it requires to continue conducting work.

So, in other words, a machine that requires five joules to operate, but will run from a substance that yields ten joules of energy when processed. The problem is that even with such a massive imbalance, it would still require more of that substance to continue running. Consider -- the first application of that substance would yield ten joules -- enough for that cycle and the next cycle. Then, that cycle would be able to cycle ad infinitum, but the most one could say is that it is operationally cycling energy. All other processes would require greater access to energy in order to conduct that process, but the problem is that the energy would also be consumed and converted into that work. Then, of course, there's entropy -- that a fraction of the energy would be lost by merit of its cycle through the machine, unless it were passed through a superconductor.

Therefore, the most that a perpetual motion machine can serve as is a storage medium, because it cannot create energy from nowhere, which would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

So, let's say that the Universe were a machine. What would it do? If it were simply storing energy within a vacuum, then of course it abides by that interpretation of a perpetual motion machine, because although energy can't be created, it also can't be destroyed.

But, if the Universe were doing anything other than simply existing, then it couldn't possibly be a perpetual motion machine, because it would imply that somewhere, somehow, matter or energy were also being created in the Universe. Otherwise, it would be operating at a lower level then the output of its energy, which doesn't make any sense.

So, when I said that it all depends on balance, what I meant was that it all depends on how much entropy takes over the universe at large. Heat death isn't actually the elimination of heat. It is the elimination of varying temperatures. Consider gasses. They are in a constant state of actual, visually perceptible entropy. Once they disburse totally, so they're indistinguishable from the area that they're in. If there are no concentrations of energy and no work being done, and simply disparate particles generally equidistant from one another, then there is nowhere for heat to collect or from which to emanate, so everything will seem the same temperature. With no work being done, that will be close to absolute zero.

Which will, in other words, be heat death, and with no impetus to make everything be any other way, the universe will be little more than a collect of particles in an area of spacetime.

Thank you so much for your wonderful response. I am also not a physicist, so I fumble over theories and think so hard about them that I sometimes hurt myself! But nonetheless, physics is the funnest thing I have ever studied, so I will continue to fumble around with it.

In the heat death model, does gravitation cease at some point? If the universe were to come close to thermodynamic equilibrium, would gravitation not cause a big crunch?
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 4:32:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/26/2014 4:17:58 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/26/2014 1:15:58 PM, Such wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:48:29 AM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:43:41 AM, tabularasa wrote:
1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the law of conservation of mass and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
3. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Not making an argument, just asking a question.

I would like to add one item to the above:

1. If the universe is finite in its material and energetic aspects
2. and the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is all that exists (there is only one universe)
3. and the law of conservation of matter and energy holds true throughout the duration of the universe,
4. can the universe be said to be a perpetual motion machine if we could observe its complete wavefunction?

Apparently, you found my initial responses insufficient, so out of good faith, I'll try again.

Mind you, I'm not a physicist, but why not bounce around ideas about things we know a little about?

Anyway, it all depends on balance. "Order" as its described in physics, as far as I know, relates to clusters of matter and energy condensed in pockets of timespace that converts from one form to the other, termed "work." Entropy describes the inclination of all things in the universe to tend toward "disorder," or the disbursement of that matter and energy to reach a state of equilibrium throughout timespace.

However, entropy only seems to apply at a given level. Once matter reaches an arrangement that's too complex, it actually seeks to counteract entropy by continuously maintaining its concentration of matter and energy. This is what we know as "machines," but there are two types of machines. One is naturally occurring ones that are, for the lack of a better term, automated and will continue to operate for as long as there are resources available to maintain it. An example could be a sun or star, which will continue to exist as long as there is hydrogen to fuse into helium. Once that hydrogen is spent, then the sun will collapse on itself from its own gravity. Another example of an automated machine is life and similar manifestations. But, unlike suns, which will exist until there are are no necessary resources left in its general point in space, life will actively seek more resources to maintain when there are none left in its immediate area. As a simple example, a unicellular organism will travel to another part of a petri dish once it has consumed all of the energy in the area it's in.

Then, the other type are machines that aren't automatic -- that require some sort of impetus, some application of energy to function, and will exhaust that energy until it runs out or more is applied.

A perpetual motion machine is actually the second type, but which will actually operate like the first once it receives its initial impetus. But, the reason why a perpetual motion machine is theoretical and not actual is because it is actually something that will produce more energy through the work it conducts than it requires to continue conducting work.

So, in other words, a machine that requires five joules to operate, but will run from a substance that yields ten joules of energy when processed. The problem is that even with such a massive imbalance, it would still require more of that substance to continue running. Consider -- the first application of that substance would yield ten joules -- enough for that cycle and the next cycle. Then, that cycle would be able to cycle ad infinitum, but the most one could say is that it is operationally cycling energy. All other processes would require greater access to energy in order to conduct that process, but the problem is that the energy would also be consumed and converted into that work. Then, of course, there's entropy -- that a fraction of the energy would be lost by merit of its cycle through the machine, unless it were passed through a superconductor.

Therefore, the most that a perpetual motion machine can serve as is a storage medium, because it cannot create energy from nowhere, which would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

So, let's say that the Universe were a machine. What would it do? If it were simply storing energy within a vacuum, then of course it abides by that interpretation of a perpetual motion machine, because although energy can't be created, it also can't be destroyed.

But, if the Universe were doing anything other than simply existing, then it couldn't possibly be a perpetual motion machine, because it would imply that somewhere, somehow, matter or energy were also being created in the Universe. Otherwise, it would be operating at a lower level then the output of its energy, which doesn't make any sense.

So, when I said that it all depends on balance, what I meant was that it all depends on how much entropy takes over the universe at large. Heat death isn't actually the elimination of heat. It is the elimination of varying temperatures. Consider gasses. They are in a constant state of actual, visually perceptible entropy. Once they disburse totally, so they're indistinguishable from the area that they're in. If there are no concentrations of energy and no work being done, and simply disparate particles generally equidistant from one another, then there is nowhere for heat to collect or from which to emanate, so everything will seem the same temperature. With no work being done, that will be close to absolute zero.

Which will, in other words, be heat death, and with no impetus to make everything be any other way, the universe will be little more than a collect of particles in an area of spacetime.

Thank you so much for your wonderful response. I am also not a physicist, so I fumble over theories and think so hard about them that I sometimes hurt myself! But nonetheless, physics is the funnest thing I have ever studied, so I will continue to fumble around with it.

In the heat death model, does gravitation cease at some point? If the universe were to come close to thermodynamic equilibrium, would gravitation not cause a big crunch?

Well, see, that's the thing -- that's why there is just as much a Big Crunch theory as there is a Heat Death theory -- if entropy were to continue to the point of full entropy, then no, there would not be a Big Crunch, if only for Newton's Second Law, which states that at equilibrium, there will be no acceleration. Therefore, there will be gravitation -- there is always gravitation -- but there will be no imbalance of gravitation that would cause some draw of all matter upon the center of gravitation.

The reason why most physicists believe that the Big Crunch holds more weight than the Heat Death theory is because of anomalies that have been discovered, such as black holes and quasars, which don't allow for the progression of entropy at given points in spacetime.

Therefore, the only thing left to believe is that all matter and energy will instead collapse upon such unescapable points in a phenomenon termed "the big crunch."

But, who knows! We don't know squat about these phenomenons. If it's possible for black holes to self-destruct and explode into another section of universe, for example, then the Heat Death theory is back in effect.