Poll: Perpetual Motion. Will we obtain this technology in this century?

[Zacharine]

What about the possible case where the universe has only a limited amount of Bing Bang-Big Crunch cycles? Why do you assume the process of constant energy-matter conversion and redial of physical constants is 100% efficient? Or that there might not be a multiverse and our universe leeching energy via an unknown process from a dying universe?

Your solution is one possibility, but hardly the only one.

Im not saying it would be the only solution nor that it is an accurate one.

But my reasoning kind of looks like this: We've yet to actually pinpoint how energy or matter could be transferred "outside" our universe making it a pretty extreme speculation that somehow our universe "bleeds" energy or matter to some undefined and undiscovered "outside" of it's bang/crunch-cycles. What we do know however is that even insignificant dust particles and left over gravity-wells of exploded stars eventually conglomerate into nebulae and even forming new stars after a while. Quite simply, the energy released and the matter scattered doesn't become "lost" in space, it always bundles together with other particles shot from other gravitational forces and combines to form a larger body. Now if all this happens "inside" of the "bubble" that is the expanding universe, it stands to reason that the energy and matter won't be able to escape "outside" this bubble, and will eventually become trapped and compressed once the bubble reaches it's limit and collapse upon itself.

Still, I'll stress the point once again that we don't really know if a "big crunch" is coming, so this is all guesswork. But the way I see it: theories concerning the leakage of matter and/or energy to something that goes on "outside" our universe seem a lot more speculative and hypothetical at the moment. Even if the realsm of quantum physics sort of hint that a multiverse might exist, it doesn't really provide an ample explanation telling us that energy/matter could be transferred between different parts of this multiverse, and even if it could, then you could just as well claim that the multiverse is undergoing perpetual motion (I mean if a universal bang/crunch cycle leads to losses of energy/matter, then that energy/matter has to go somewhere. It can't just "disappear")

True. It would require some form of explanation as to why the total energy in the universe would decrease.

But then again, there is entropy.

The energy available for work is constantly decreasing in a closed system. So either

a) entropy must magically somehow 'reset' in a Big Bang/Big Crunch without expending energy to do that 'reset',

b) entropy keeps building even trough the cycles, leading to an eventual Heat Death (a state where all matter and energy is uniformly spread and thus no work can be done: Nothing could ever happen again)

c) the cycling universe is not a closed system.

d) due to entropy 'reset' between universes costing energy, the universe will at some point run out of energy - making the cycling universe have a finite number of cycles.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

The problem you run into with perpetual motion machines is twofold:

1. Assuming you are somehow able to break the first law of thermodynamics, you have to do so for the entire system. It's one thing to make a device that generates enough energy to keep itself going forever, and entirely something else to get energy to leave that system.

2. Assuming you are able to get energy to leave the system in the first place, it has to be able to overcome all the forces acting to stop the system as a whole. Meaning, a perpetual motion machine that produces 'harvest-able' energy will have to put out more energy than the system requires, including that energy being put to use. The excess 'waste energy' has to go somewhere, and it's probably going back into the machine. You wind up getting an exponential increase in energy output that ultimately results in the machine destroying itself as the 'waste energy' exceeds the limits of the system.

I don't want to say it's impossible because of all the physics we know about. They're making discoveries at the sub-atomic level that seem to break a lot of the rules we thought we knew. If we do get perpetual motion working, it's going to be the greatest challenge of any intelligent species in the entire universe. That, and it's going to happen at Planck-level energies which is itself problematic.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

True. It would require some form of explanation as to why the total energy in the universe would decrease.

But then again, there is entropy.

The energy available for work is constantly decreasing in a closed system. So either

a) entropy must magically somehow 'reset' in a Big Bang/Big Crunch without expending energy to do that 'reset',

b) entropy keeps building even trough the cycles, leading to an eventual Heat Death (a state where all matter and energy is uniformly spread and thus no work can be done: Nothing could ever happen again)

c) the cycling universe is not a closed system.

d) due to entropy 'reset' between universes costing energy, the universe will at some point run out of energy - making the cycling universe have a finite number of cycles.

Well, I might be wrong here but since a big crunch would ultimately result in a black hole singularity due to the enormous gravity forces involved, do the principles of thermodynamics and entropy really apply to black hole singularities?

I mean, no one has really been able to explain what happens with matter or light passing through the event horizon, all we know is that black holes leak certain forms of radiation in rather small amounts compared to the mass that went into them.

If something were to overturn our understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and entropy, then a black hole singularity would be my best bet. I know that I previously stated that matter and energy can't just "disappear", and this is a statement based on the understanding of thermodynamics, but when it comes to black holes, matter and energy DOES seem to, well... "disappear". : /

 

[Zacharine]

Snip

Black holes are also quite long lived, and we don't really know that if Big Crunch is a giga-supermassive black hole, that all the matter and energy that went into creating it would then 'come out' in the Big Bang. As you said, we don't know what happens inside a singularity - this includes if the laws of conservation of energy apply.

Which means that we can't really use that as a basis for assuming an infinite cyclical universe. It gets rids of the problem of entropy for infinite cyclial universes, but at the same time postulates a massive unknown in its stead. Essentially circumvating a problem of a specific situation by stating that nothing can be known of it. This includes it's ability to act as catalyst, at all, for a new Big Bang.

EDIT: In fact, would a black hole run contrary to the whole cyclical thing? Black holes do evaporate via Hawkings Radiation and if given no new matter to 'eat', given enough time a black hole of arbitary size will evaporate.

Which would leave a dead universe without matter at all, possibly some energy, but with maximum entropy: all matter and energy would be perfectly evenly distributed - a Heat Death.

 

[ImprovizoR]

Maybe we will. Who knows. All I know is it wont be used. Let me tell you a short story. Once upon a time a very smart dude that goes by the name Nikola Tesla invented a bunch of stuff that our technology is based on today. One of those inventions was wireless electricity transfer. It is possible, it is free, it is endless. And the reason we don't use it is because you can't sell it. So if we make a perpetual motion device we wont use it because you could only sell it once. That's why we still use oil and other energy sources that will eventually disappear. We could use Solar energy, energy of the wind and water to run anything we wanted forever but since no one can profit from selling it, no one is using it. That's how fucked up people are on this planet and that's why greedy motherfuckers who think like that have to die horrible deaths in order for humanity to finally move forward.

 

[Atmos Duality]

When we can casually shatter the laws of Physics, we will.

 

[TRR]

Completely impossible in this universe, never going to happen. There is no such thing as a 100% efficient system, energy will always be lost in one form or another.
Im surprised there are people who still believe perpetual motion is possible, or that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light.

Well, one could argue that, if the theories about the big bang and the eventual big crunch/collapse is to be true then the universe itself would be a perpetual motion process. It goes boom, matter spreads, gravity makes matter conglomerate into stars and planets, stars eventually burn themselves out through chemical reactions as the universe continually expands until it reaches a breaking point and then collapse on itself again into becoming the same kind of primordial "ball" of matter which explodes once again, forming another universe etc. etc.

Neither the energy or the matter involved in this process can't go anywhere since we don't know how energy or matter could ever really "leave" the known universe.

Of course, the universe might continue to expand forever (which is another theory) so this is all guesswork really, but IF the theory of the universe ventually collapsing unto itself when it reaches a certain limit of expansion then the process would be one akin to perpetual motion.

Main flaw in your argument, humans can't make this happen. Sure you're at least mostly right, but you're answering a different question: does perpetual motion exist at all?
The question here is can humans create perpetual motion. To which the answer is no.

Also, after reading some of your other posts, I'm going to point this out to you: mass can be converted into energy and vice versa. Example: when you heat something, the mass increases. "Mass is the total energy of all internal degrees of freedom"
If you're going to make arguments concerning complete conservation of mass and energy (and black holes) you need a lot of knowledge of quantum physics to actually be right

 

[zfactor]

To get perpetual motion, you just need to have something never loose energy. So spin something in a vacuum using magnetic fields. The problem is you can't take away energy to do something, rendering perpetual motion useless.

 

[ReverendJ]

SNIP

Thank you very much for clarifying for everyone those differences; it's the sort of technical distinction that does need to be pointed out. I'd like to point out, if I could, that laws are based on observation, though. It is within the realm of possibility that our powers of observation are as yet imperfect, and perhaps we're missing something. Moreover, it's common practice to dismiss claims of perpetual motion out of hand, without even examining the claim. That's the practice that bothers me. Some devices behave oddly, and while they may not be true perpetual motion they may be a more efficient means of converting energy, and thus bear investigation.

 

[zfactor]

Maybe we will. Who knows. All I know is it wont be used. Let me tell you a short story. Once upon a time a very smart dude that goes by the name Nikola Tesla invented a bunch of stuff that our technology is based on today. One of those inventions was wireless electricity transfer. It is possible, it is free, it is endless. And the reason we don't use it is because you can't sell it. So if we make a perpetual motion device we wont use it because you could only sell it once. That's why we still use oil and other energy sources that will eventually disappear. We could use Solar energy, energy of the wind and water to run anything we wanted forever but since no one can profit from selling it, no one is using it. That's how fucked up people are on this planet and that's why greedy motherfuckers who think like that have to die horrible deaths in order for humanity to finally move forward.

I'm thinking fusion power is next.

 

[Andy999]

"In this house we obey the laws of THERMODYNAMICS!"

Anybody?

Anyway, I'm inclined to say no, as my limited understanding of physics suggests that it is impossible based on what we know. That has been said in the past, but I find it unlikely that we'll prove otherwise in the foreseeable future.

 

[p3t3r]

the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are greatly overrated. they are by no means absoloutes.
perpetual motion is a misnomer, it already exists, but in a different sense. I mean, it is impossible if you believe in the big bang or gravity, but only by current definitions.
gah, a simple example of a perpetual motion 'machine' would be a waterfall as part of a river as part of a weather system, I know, I know, not in the strictest sense true, but more as a metaphor.

that doesn't really make sense i mean in a waterfall and the weather system there are massive amounts of energy being added via the sun.

 

[khantron]

@Naleh. I never said anything about it invalidating the laws of physics. It's not centuries of rock solid physics anyway, it's been built on gradually. I completely agree with what you say about science evolving because you are just reiterating my point.

Now, about

if that's not how the universe works, how did we make the observations that led us to these laws?

Based on all reasonable evidence provided to us mankind once thought that the world was flat. We made this observation because there was no curve to the horizon. That was a scientific principle that got proven really wrong - actually wrong this time instead of "imprecise". The energy laws may at this time be imprecise which is why I think that soon we will be necessitated to research into alternate forms of energy.

At this point some nutty professor will decide he is going to ignore the "definite laws of physics" and go for it. Maybe something will come of that. I'm not saying it's going to, just that people should be more open minded about the future and how we have almost no idea what is going to happen from one day to another, let alone in a century.

That the earth was flat wasn't wrong it was imprecise. Because over short distances the world is basically flat.

 

[Redingold]

Also, don't believe anyone that tells you that "Zero-point energy" powers their machine, because it's a lie. Zero-Point energy is a real thing, and theoretically it COULD do it, but there has been absolutely no scientifically backed up example of how zero-point energy can be harnessed - it's just a mathematical quirk of the universe.

Actually, by definition, zero-point energy cannot be tapped, since it is the lowest possible energy state. You can't remove energy from the lowest possible energy state, because if you did, you would reach a lower energy state and so you weren't extracting it from the lowest energy state in the first place.

 

[Redingold]

Maybe we will. Who knows. All I know is it wont be used. Let me tell you a short story. Once upon a time a very smart dude that goes by the name Nikola Tesla invented a bunch of stuff that our technology is based on today. One of those inventions was wireless electricity transfer. It is possible, it is free, it is endless. And the reason we don't use it is because you can't sell it. So if we make a perpetual motion device we wont use it because you could only sell it once. That's why we still use oil and other energy sources that will eventually disappear. We could use Solar energy, energy of the wind and water to run anything we wanted forever but since no one can profit from selling it, no one is using it. That's how fucked up people are on this planet and that's why greedy motherfuckers who think like that have to die horrible deaths in order for humanity to finally move forward.

No-one can profit from the sale of wireless electricity, solar power, wind, wave or tidal power?

What a stupid idea.

These technologies only become unprofitable when everyone can use them without relying on other people. That is, when they make their own solar panels (and mine the materials needed themselves), build their own hydroelectric dam and create their own wind turbines.

As long as people are incapable of independently creating these technologies, from scratch, people will be able to profit off of them.

Also: witricity.com

They sell wireless electricity transfer technology.

Furthermore, wireless energy transfer does not create energy, it simply moves it. It is not damaging to the energy companies in any way (except the ones who make plugs).

 

[spacewalker]

Would a machine that keeps itself going for as long as the earth has gravity be considered a perpetual motion machine?
the earth has a lot of motion energy, we may be able to use some of that

the sun is a fairly abundant source, you could only ever consider the machine to be truly permanently stopped when the sun goes out.

also it is possible to avoid friction with magnetism

 

[Continuity]

Yeah I think its possible, not with straight up Newtonian mechanics obviously, that would be absurd. However who knows what sort of weird sources of energy we might be able to tap into in the future? Sub-atomic physics is very strange indeed and there are certainly many more surprises in store for us yet.

Stepping down from future science though, we already have practically limitless energy sources right now, they're just not as cost effective as fossil fuels. Tidal motion is a great way to tap into the gravitational forces of the moon, hydroelectricity and geothermal energy are also good sources of power, its just that these are limited in the locations they can be setup and have prohibitive setup costs.

I think if we really tried to wean ourselves off of petrol we perhaps wouldn't find it so hard: go somewhere like the sahara and setup massive solar power farms, add ancillary hydrolysis plants to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen from water and bingo, you have rocket fuel, all from sunlight and water. I'm pretty sure we could run cars on hydrogen without too much problem.
In fact if we fully exploited all renewable energy sources and combined that with a serious drive toward energy efficiency I think (pulling this out of my ass btw) I think we could cater to all our energy needs without fossil fuels.
The costs of setup on that scale though are astronomic, and would make landing on the moon look like a Saturday afternoon picnic form an investment perspective.

 

[solar065]

Science is constantly learning, and hence incomplete. It is entirely plausible for something we thought was impossible 100 years ago to be created now. Things like time travel, force fields and ray guns are allowed by physics, but still would be labelled impossible because they are epistemic impossibilities. I can see where some people are coming from.

However perpetual motion, I think, is a logical or physical impossibility and so no.

 

[Megacherv]

Science is constantly learning, and hence incomplete. It is entirely plausible for something we thought was impossible 100 years ago to be created now. Things like time travel, force fields and ray guns are allowed by physics, but still would be labelled impossible because they are epistemic impossibilities. I can see where some people are coming from.

However perpetual motion, I think, is a logical or physical impossibility and so no.

Here are the thoughts that ran through my head as I read this post.

Don't agree
Don't agree
Interesting point, agree with that
Don't agree
Don't agree
Must prove this guy wrong
Don't agree
Don't ag-Ooooh, right, yeah totally agree.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

I'd rather we started harvesting stars, not the giant nuclear reactors in space, the untalented giant moron actors, then you would have perpetual motion, there is an endless supply of them