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

[Nouw]

As I always say, take the clock back 90 years and most of the things we take for granted would have been deemed impossible.

Now think, in 90 years most of the things deemed impossible are probably going to be possible. If not, at the very least a bit more possible than before.

 

[Lyx]

Humans will "obtain" this magic technology in no century.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

This isn't one of those "Someday we'll crack it" things like powered flight was at the beginning of the 20th century. This is one of those "Never, ever going to happen" things. It's in the same category as the gravitational constant suddenly becoming a thousand times greater--it'd break the entire universe as we know it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Now think, in 90 years most of the things deemed impossible are probably going to be possible. If not, at the very least a bit more possible than before.

No, most things deemed impossible will stay impossible. Most things deemed impossible 90 years ago still are, with a few exceptions. Many things deemed wildly improbable are now seemed probable, but that's not the same thing.

Perpetual motions machines are by definition, impossible.

 

[JdA]

Perpetual motion is a great, yet impossible thought experiment. You need to approach it the same way you would approach Absolute Zero (the point at which all kinetic energy reaches minimum). Perpetual motion used as you state, in a motor, will have to do work. This work takes energy from the motor system, and 100% efficiency is a pipe dream, losses will always occur.

Absolute Zero has the opposite problem: using thermodynamic principles, energy will always find a way INTO the system, preventing Absolute Zero.

In short, we'll never develop perpetual motion, in this century or any other. In order for something to exist, energy will always have to enter into the system.

 

[Lyx]

What i consider kinda scary, is that while a lot of counterarguments why its impossible have been stated in the thread, they all have been plain statements of physical laws. No one apparently noticed that physics do not matter at all for the idea to be impossible. No matter whatever physics you come up with to allow this, it will be an invalid theory, because this is logically impossible, because it is a contradiction (causality aka "There ain't no such thing as interactionless interaction").

 

[Agayek]

Hey everyone!

Driving home from work today I was thinking to myself about the rising petrol prices in Australia (land I call home. Love the beaches!!! We need an R18+ rating for video games :-( grrr). Sorry. Anyway.

I was thinking about perpetual motion and if we will ever find a way to invent this technology in this century. If so, what do you think it might be based around? I think that in this day and age, we should be able to invent this technology. I mean, come on, if some regular, ordinary people can invent a motor that runs off old vegetables, grass, beer (although why would you want to use beer I don't know); surely our smart, intelligent scientists can come up with a motor that is run by, say a magnetic motor or something right?

So as you can see I think we will have a magnetic perpetual motor. I leave it up to my fellow escapists to see if they agree or disagree with me and to see what crazy inventions they might add to the table.

Perpetual motion is quite literally impossible. No matter what, there will always be energy lost in the process of transforming it. The whole concept of a perpetual motion machine breaks at least 2 fundamental laws of physics.

That said, it's theoretically possible to get pretty damn close to a perfectly efficient exchange of energy. We're nowhere near that yet, and I doubt we will be for decades at least, but it is theoretically possible.

 

[FalloutJack]

Big Crunch of quotes.

You're taking this a bit far, I think. Exactly why should I wish to make a big bang at all? As far as us tiny humans are concerned, the universe will be quite sufficient for our needs. Why should I want to be greedy just to prove a point? What you're arguing now has no meaning for us, because we're already so far dead by the 'end' of the universe that nobody even knows what a human being is. To that effect, since we don't even know what WILL happen to the universe beyond us, the debate on this scale has no meaning. For all we know, the universe packs into black holes and explodes into more universes. There is nothing further to say here.

Then why are you intent on trying to prove it's perpetual?

Probably because I like to wax philosophical. It's fun!

 

[Nouw]

Now think, in 90 years most of the things deemed impossible are probably going to be possible. If not, at the very least a bit more possible than before.

No, most things deemed impossible will stay impossible. Most things deemed impossible 90 years ago still are, with a few exceptions. Many things deemed wildly improbable are now seemed probable, but that's not the same thing.

Perpetual motions machines are by definition, impossible.

By definition eh? Then may I ask why was this thread created?

 

[emeraldrafael]

I dont think so. We're getting close with some of our clocks, but I think thats all the closer we'll really get this century.

 

[ReverendJ]

I'm not saying we shouldn't look for more effiecient energy means, but perpetual motion defies the laws of physics.

That statement needs to be amended to add, "as we currently understand them." Otherwise you're implying a perfect understanding of reality, which we don't quite have yet... unless they've found the quantum theory of gravity and I didn't hear about it. Science is great and mighty, but not quite to that point. Remember, every new idea sounds impossible to conventional wisdom. To flat out say "We're not investigating that!" smacks, to me at least, of the sort of thinking that relegated Mendel to obscurity for so long.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

Even if we managed it it would be useless, because for it to be useful it would need to do work and that would take energy. Perpetual motion machines by definition require no loss in energy.

So while we have made them (yes we have in the form of super conductors (which let electricty flow forever, provided it doesn't need to do anything) it will not give infinte energy, simply reduce energy loss to the minimum so the most of the source energy become useful energy (like in super conductors which are used to reduce energy loss in wires and maximize the potential of a circuit. If it does anything then the energy needs to be replaced)

 

[archvile93]

I'm not saying we shouldn't look for more effiecient energy means, but perpetual motion defies the laws of physics.

That statement needs to be amended to add, "as we currently understand them." Otherwise you're implying a perfect understanding of reality, which we don't quite have yet... unless they've found the quantum theory of gravity and I didn't hear about it. Science is great and mighty, but not quite to that point. Remember, every new idea sounds impossible to conventional wisdom. To flat out say "We're not investigating that!" smacks, to me at least, of the sort of thinking that relegated Mendel to obscurity for so long.

Yes and I aknowledged that. Please refer back to my previous message. You can search for El Dorado all you want. It could exist too, just like perpetual motion.

 

[ReverendJ]

Please refer back to my previous message.

K.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look for more effiecient energy means, but perpetual motion defies the laws of physics. Maybe we should put these resources towards things that have a decent chance of working out. To me chasing after a perpetual motion device is like chasing after El Dorado, or the fountain of youth. You can't prove they don't exist, but it doesn't seem likely that they do.

See, my point is that you make reference to the laws of physics, which implies perfect understanding of them. Remember, to all observers Newtonian physics seemed to do the job, until advancements were made regarding our understanding. It's entirely possible that the laws of thermodynamics are similar in that they could be imperfect models that nonetheless describe the physical world fairly accurately (again, like Newtonian physics). To flat out declare that no perpetual motion device can occur, to the point wherein you don't even examine claims (as the French Academy of Sciences has done since the 18th century), strikes me as the kind of reasoning that led biologists to claim that the fisherman who caught the coelocanth was a liar because we KNEW they were extinct without having even examined the specimen. Classical physicists were against relativity, and Einstein wasn't happy with quantum mechanics. The march of science is that of the "impossible" becoming possible. Worldviews must change before progress can occur, occasionally this means abandoning theories that have heretofore seemed sound (like the adoption of the heliocentric model).

 

[DanDeFool]

>snip<

If the universe truly is finite...

Do you mean in terms of space or time because if it was infinate in time then every line of sight would end on a star, so we can tell its not. However the universe is infinate in terms of space in that is is constantly expanding (i think )

In time. Specifically, that the universe has a beginning, instead of being infinitely old. If it were infinitely old, the amount of energy within the universe would necessarily have to be infinite as well.

If the universe has a beginning and an end, then the amount of energy within it has to be finite. Of course, this is assuming the universe is also a closed system. We don't really know if there's anything outside the universe, or anything besides what's in the universe.

Of course, there is a third option: that the universe is somehow cyclical, and recycles itself every so often.

 

[Zacharine]

See, my point is that you make reference to the laws of physics, which implies perfect understanding of them.

Rather, it implies sufficient understanding of them.

See, you are conflating here two different things: The theory, and the law.

For example, the theory of gravity (as per Relativity) states that it is bending of space-time. The Fact (or law) of Gravity is that mass attracts mass - objects fall if dropped on the surface of a planet etc.

It is not the theories of thermodynamics that makes perpetual motion impossible. It is the laws.

How does theory differ from the law?

A law does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation.

And repeated observation states that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system.

Nothing that may or may not happen in the future of sciences can overturn that observation in known space. Just like Einstein didn't overturn the observation that objects fall on the surface of the earth. All we might do is find an alternative explanation for why differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system (just like Einstein found a better reason why mass attract mass), and thus create a new Theory for the same old Laws of thermodynamics.

Emphasizing once more for clarity: Theory explains the why of a law. The law is the short distillation of repeated facts. Facts are confirmed observations.

Overturning a theory can never overturn the law, because the theory is just an explanation of "why" for a collection of laws, and laws are built on facts and facts are immutable, confirmed observations.

To overturn a law, you need to a new set of facts that do not agree with the old facts. This means observations that run contrary to old observations. This means the fundamental structure of the universe needs to change here, or we need to do the experiments in a place where the fundamentals of the universe are different.

For a perpetual motion machine to be possible, we would need to be able to find a place where the laws of thermodynamics do not apply - where observationally, factually, entropy does not behave the same way it does everywhere else we can find. This is like asking for an area of space where space-time does not exist (not flat space-time or uncurved spacetime, but nonexistent space-time), or a gas that does not have a temperature (not absolute zero, but gas which does not have even that) or electricity not made of electrons.

Finding such a place might be possible, but as soon as we moved the perpetual motion machine away from the place it would stop working. And finding such a place would be akin to finding a gateway to the Warp - and something like that would indeed be required to create a perpetual motion machine.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

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.

 

[Zacharine]

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.

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.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

I do not believe perpetual motion will ever happen. Unless we got something terribly wrong perpetual motion is imposable. It?s called entropy, take a look at it. What we might expect this century is for things to become more and more efficient.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

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")