1
   

Perpetual Motion

 
 
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 12:42 pm
Mr layman here again. Isn't the way electrons whirl around in the atom a case of perpetual motion? Granted it's not man made but can't we it exists in nature. Will a saturlite revolve forever if it is in the right orbit ah there we are man made perpetual motion. Why is this principle so important?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 1,083 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 01:01 pm
@magnocrat,
Mag that's really a good q and one I've also wondered about

It's supposed that perpetual motion is indeed possible in those instances where no resistance is encountered
magnocrat
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 03:42 pm
@dalehileman,
The most puzzling thing about the electron is why it does not fall into the arms of the positive proton. Dare I suggest the electron is held in orbit by centrifical force ?
contrex
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 04:54 pm
@magnocrat,
magnocrat wrote:
centrifical

Is your understanding of physics as deep as your command of English?
dalehileman
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 05:41 pm
@magnocrat,
Quote:
Dare I suggest the electron is held in orbit by centrifical force ?
Mag that's something I've also long wondered about
0 Replies
 
magnocrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 03:07 am
@contrex,
Both are rather shakey but you must excuse me as I'm largely self taught having only a basic education. I do my best and present myself as I am worts and all.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 11:31 am
@contrex,
Quote:
Is your understanding of physics as deep as your command of English?
Con no offense but you surely must be aware that many if not most of our participants are esl
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 11:50 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Is your understanding of physics as deep as your command of English?
Con no offense but you surely must be aware that many if not most of our participants are esl

In both subjects, they should do more research. There are such things as dictionaries. And physics texts.

0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 12:28 pm
The bottom line is that the old picture of the electron spinning around in an orbit (like a tiny solar system) is simply not right. The electrons are allowed to exist at certain very precise energies, but their position is spread out, described by a "wave of probability."

dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 02:15 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
...a "wave of probability."
Might be interesting Con to speculate upon the effect of this form of existence on the theory of determinism
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 02:43 pm
Not that kind of probability, if you mean what I think you mean.

dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 02:44 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
….if you mean what I think you mean
No offense Con but swhat do you think I mean
0 Replies
 
magnocrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 03:26 pm
@contrex,
Well you've slipped of the noose but just what does that make an electric current ? I was told it was a flow of electrons, hence the word electric.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 03:57 pm
Deterministic vs. probabilistic universe. If you take any of the very successful quantum theories seriously, they say that the deep truth about the universe is that it is probabilistic. The underlying reality is the quantum amplitude, which is prior to probability. Heisenberg's uncertainty is not just a failure of technology, it's real.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 05:02 pm
@magnocrat,
magnocrat wrote:

Well you've slipped of the noose but just what does that make an electric current ? I was told it was a flow of electrons, hence the word electric.

There isn't any "noose". And it's 'off' not 'of'. Not sure what your question is. Electrons definitely exist; they just aren't little balls (with minus signs on them like in the Basic Electricity books I had). Nothing in quantum physics forbids electric current.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2015 05:25 pm
@magnocrat,
magnocrat wrote:

Mr layman here again. Isn't the way electrons whirl around in the atom a case of perpetual motion? Granted it's not man made but can't we it exists in nature. Will a saturlite revolve forever if it is in the right orbit ah there we are man made perpetual motion. Why is this principle so important?


Actually the electron doesn't orbit as a particle around the atom. It was a flawed model that continues to get taught. We now understand that the electron is more like a cloud surrounding the atom. When the electron breaks free from the atom it collapses into what we would refer to as a particle. This is how it has it's dual state. We have pictures of atoms around atoms and all you see are bubbles. This was mathematically predicted long before we had pictures.

So in other words there is no motion of an electron orbiting the atom. When the atom takes on energy the electron cloud expands and when this happens energy is given off in the form of heat and light. The same happens when the atom loses energy.

Why does the electron collapse when not captured by an atom? It is due to the negative charge of the electron. Without the support of a proton there is nothing to expand the electron so it collapses. Until it is recaptured by an atom where it surrounds the atom held up by the positive charge.

So to answer your question there is no perpetual motion for an electron. Why atoms absorb electrons has to do with it having an imbalance in charge. When the atom is stable it doesn't take on new electrons. When some atoms decay into more stable isotopes electrons are lost and become free until they are reabsorbed by atoms that have an imbalance of charge. This doesn't happen for very long but you can see the process happening. A simple flame is an example of this process. Which is why the flame gives off both heat and light.



magnocrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2015 03:12 am
@Krumple,
Thankyou for that detailed explanation it is a strange one but it made sense. It reminded me of an old saying ' The truth is often stranger than fiction.' I tend to think in terms of solid objects and it is difficult to get over that tendancy. Interestingly when Dalton conceived atoms he thought of hard solid minute spheres.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2015 11:40 am
@magnocrat,
Enough to make ya believe in God

….almost
magnocrat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 02:15 pm
@dalehileman,
Belief in God is one thing but belief in a God of Love now there is something else!
Ah Love could thou and I with fate conspire
To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire!
Would we not shatter it to bits--- and then
Remold it nearer to the Hearts Desire!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Perpetual Motion
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 10:42:32