Thread: Perpetual Motion vs. Absolute Zero

Who says it's impossible? That's what I'm starting to hate about "science", though I do completely love it


Isn't there just an "in-between" to what you're saying? Or maybe these states do not exist because of each other. A Yin-Yang (sp?) kind of thing. Maybe they both just cannot exist.

But why do these states have meaning if they are not possible? How are they "existant" if they cannot even exist?

I believe that the vibration of atoms and heat waves are analogous. I think this means that you can't draw energy (heat) from a vibrating atom. If you can, then I guess it would slow down.... and maybe one day reach absolute zero.


It's easy for these things to 'exist'... only as concepts though.

True, true. It's just that the nature of these things perplexes me sometimes.

I think your point makes good sense, bradybaker. I am not quick to accept anything as impossible, so I think we might eventally learn that both perpetual motion and absolute zero are possible. We might also learn that light speed is not the speed limit in the universe.

I was reading some Wittgenstein writings a few months ago, and one of the propositions he used to prove a point was that humans will never go to the moon. He was saying what was generally accepted as fact at the time. If only he knew how wrong he was...

The smartest people in the world once said that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around the Earth. We are in what will eventually be considered part of the "dark ages" now. Six million years ago, we were monkeys. Imagine where we will be six million years from now. Imagine 600 million years from now. If we can learn to live in space and travel the universe forever, imagine 600 googol (googol = a 1 followed by a hundred zeros) years from now. We might stumble upon perpetual motion somwhere along that path.

I agree with Joesph_Stalin.

Indefinite Motion along with Absolute Zero are the two extremes. Nothing in the universe, to my knowledge, ever follows extremes.

I feel the same about our existence. It's neither complete free will NOR complete randomness.

I agree with Joesph_Stalin.

Indefinite Motion along with Absolute Zero are the two extremes. Nothing in the universe, to my knowledge, ever follows extremes.

I feel the same about our existence. It's neither complete free will NOR complete randomness.

I'd give us only about 200 years to leave the Solar System...maybe even to live in space itself and not need oxygen (ie, the air is continuosly recycled.

i think that perpetual motion may be reached using nucleur physics.. because the division of unstaple nuclues isnt linear, its sorta on a x2 basis, so i believe that perpetual motion will be possible in machines with energy still left to spare for other things like air conditioning, radio, ect.

Is the sun in perpetual motion? Seems like it...I dunno.

When you think of perpetual motion, you have to think infinitely into the future. The Sun would not qualify because eventually it will grow to the size of a red giant (frying our quaint homes in the process) and then, when its nuclear fuel is exhausted, will shrink to the size of a white dwarf and go dark. Eventually even the matter in that object will decay into exotic forms of energy and subatomic particles. Past that its hard to say...some theories predict that even protons and neutrons will decay in their constituent parts (quarks and such) after trillions of years. So therefore the Sun as a whole is definitely not in perpetual motion. As for the physics of nuclear reactions, the particles that take place in these reactions will also eventually decay into a bland cosmic stew of quarks and muons and gluons and whatever else-ons.

The question is most likely unanwerable, but hey, its cool to think about.

Muons are the sub-atomic particles that travel extremely fast, are they not? So fast, that when they travel from the sun(or wherever) to the Earth, they get to the Earth before humans perceive them to reach earth, since their time is distorted.

Sorry, lil off - topic. Just thought it was interesting.

guess everything as a whole is perpetual motion... unless the universe actually is expanding and there will be no energy left after eons...

Why has nobody even mentioned the laws of thermodynamics yet?

Absolute zero is impossible. You need an transidental (sp?) amount of time for that to happen, and...we don't have that.

Perpetual Motion is also impossible because in any energy transfer heat is lost, no matter how minute an amount the machine will eventually stop.

But you are right in saying atoms are always moving. But they vibrate. They don't go anywhere. They retrace their steps.

Ahh so my simple Sun theory may not be all that wrong. Thing about it. The cycle may repeat and repeat, and if it becomes a white dwarf or a black hole, the atoms are still moving...though I wouldn't know if that counts...

Heh, haven't came to this part of the forums in months or something.

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joseph_Stalin)</div>

Ahh so my simple Sun theory may not be all that wrong. Thing about it. The cycle may repeat and repeat, and if it becomes a white dwarf or a black hole, the atoms are still moving...though I wouldn't know if that counts...[/b]

Perpetual motion - repeats same motion. If the object changes it doesn't qualify. Think: a pendulum in pure simple harmonic motion.

<!--QuoteBegin-CT
guess everything as a whole is perpetual motion... unless the universe actually is expanding and there will be no energy left after eons...

I think that's a plausible theory. That's why the universe has a red shift. But of course there's the universal recycling theory that might screw everything up.

Sure about that?...though it seems to make sense.

Pretty sure. Our sun isn't big enough to become a black hole anyways. It'll just die out one day and stop shining, but first it'll go through several transformations, each of the stages will give out different amounts of energy.

Entropy.

Kaniaz, you only mentioned the second law of thermodynamics. According to the first law of thermodynamics, the total energy of the system plus the surroundings is constant. And because this energy is constant, one could argue that the universe is, in fact, in perpetual motion. Pwned.

Actually... the first law of thermodynamics says that energy is always conserved over all. Unless all energy exists as a type of motion... which last time I checked wasn't true, you're wrong. Conservation of energy does not equal conservation of motion, and we're talking about perpetual motion, not perpetual energy.

Counter-pwned -

Lesson of the day: make sure you know your stuff before attempting to pwn someone.

damn.

Originally posted by odd2k
damn.

See? I'm sooooo cool I've for- I mean, employed Squall to pwn people for me.

I'm gonna gloat now.

(gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat).













(gloat).
[Oh, yeah, that's 1 point for squall. ]

Originally posted by Kaniaz
See? I\'m sooooo cool I\'ve for-

Penises?

Gloat all you want then.

Originally posted by Squall+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Squall)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Kaniaz

See? I\'m sooooo cool I\'ve for-

Penises?

Gloat all you want then.

[/b]

Thanks for making sense. o_o;

(gloat gloat).