4 ms·

Thanks for responding, however I'm still confused. That is--I have no formal training in physics, but to my hobbyist's mind: interactions between subatomic par

by mowenz 9y ago

Thanks for responding, however I'm still confused. That is--I have no formal training in physics, but to my hobbyist's mind: interactions between subatomic particles creating scenarios where energy is produced in perpetuity either sounds like (1) the equivalent to a perpetual motion machine--impossible, or (2) mass-energy exchanged back and forth without radiating energy (but I am not sure if that's basically what's happening).

pavement 9y ago
So, I'm a bit unclear on how some of these ideas reconcile with violating thermodynamic laws as well, but we are probably not alone, since it's an area of active research, so, I'm pretty sure these are Unanswered Questions. That the nucleus locks away energy, which can be set loose, is basically the fundamentals of fission and fusion, and that peculiar varieties of standing matter could produce heat for no outwardly obvious reasons, was the genesis of the idea for the atom bomb. Feynman diagrams and rules, within the scope of quantum electrodynamics [0], provide for how a stable molecular system would still represent components exchanging energy at the subatomic level. An object would be regarded as cold and stable in deep space at absolute zero, but other activity could still occur. Maybe a population of stray photons bouncing around in some kind of stablized trap, forever... I'm not saying that such a thing exists, but somehow it doesn't sound totally unreasonable. Either way, my example is a bit facetious, since there doesn't seem to be any escape from galactic star light at any distance, if Hubble space telescope images are to be believed. So we don't know that a system could exist which does not experience at least some photons falling onto it, from outer space. That photons can travel for 13 billion years, uninterrupted, and still produce a signal with any degree of fidelity, should provide at least a clue as to how long a photon can keep doing the same thing among non-decaying protons, for a pretty long time. As for whether protons decay, I'm not being 100% accurate. Recent research set "lower bounds" on the period or likelihood for natural decay [1], and it's an exceptionally long amount of time: 5.9 × 10^33 years [2]. More than the billions of years we ballpark as the entire existence of the universe, so far. But if I'm remembering correctly that number is regarded as a safe number, simply because for the duration of the longitudinal study, they have not yet recorded a spontaneous decay event for any of the protons in the experiment, which is a huge number, and so, statistically, based on no observations across N protons (50,000 tons of not-just-any water), over N units of time (three experimental research phases from 1996 to 2008?), they've stated an interpretation that one proton is expected to last at least so many years. When that appeared in the news, the sentiment was expressed as "nothing yet, boss!" Does this mean perpetual motion exists within protons? Don't say that out loud, in front of the wrong people, geeze... But, if perpetual motion is not possible, then does time eventually stop? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande#Proton_Decay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande#Proton_Decay [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande#Results
spiralx 9y ago
Interactions between particles don't produce energy, but there is an uncertainty relation between energy and time that means that over a short-enough time period the energy of a system is uncertain, and this can be thought of as allowing for virtual particles to appear "out of nothing" for a brief time. This uncertainty in energy over small time-scales provides a "floor" for the energy of empty space.

by mowenz 9y ago

pavement 9y ago

So, I'm a bit unclear on how some of these ideas reconcile with violating thermodynamic laws as well, but we are probably not alone, since it's an area of active research, so, I'm pretty sure these are Unanswered Questions. That the nucleus locks away energy, which can be set loose, is basically the fundamentals of fission and fusion, and that peculiar varieties of standing matter could produce heat for no outwardly obvious reasons, was the genesis of the idea for the atom bomb. Feynman diagrams and rules, within the scope of quantum electrodynamics [0], provide for how a stable molecular system would still represent components exchanging energy at the subatomic level. An object would be regarded as cold and stable in deep space at absolute zero, but other activity could still occur. Maybe a population of stray photons bouncing around in some kind of stablized trap, forever... I'm not saying that such a thing exists, but somehow it doesn't sound totally unreasonable. Either way, my example is a bit facetious, since there doesn't seem to be any escape from galactic star light at any distance, if Hubble space telescope images are to be believed. So we don't know that a system could exist which does not experience at least some photons falling onto it, from outer space. That photons can travel for 13 billion years, uninterrupted, and still produce a signal with any degree of fidelity, should provide at least a clue as to how long a photon can keep doing the same thing among non-decaying protons, for a pretty long time. As for whether protons decay, I'm not being 100% accurate. Recent research set "lower bounds" on the period or likelihood for natural decay [1], and it's an exceptionally long amount of time: 5.9 × 10^33 years [2]. More than the billions of years we ballpark as the entire existence of the universe, so far. But if I'm remembering correctly that number is regarded as a safe number, simply because for the duration of the longitudinal study, they have not yet recorded a spontaneous decay event for any of the protons in the experiment, which is a huge number, and so, statistically, based on no observations across N protons (50,000 tons of not-just-any water), over N units of time (three experimental research phases from 1996 to 2008?), they've stated an interpretation that one proton is expected to last at least so many years. When that appeared in the news, the sentiment was expressed as "nothing yet, boss!" Does this mean perpetual motion exists within protons? Don't say that out loud, in front of the wrong people, geeze... But, if perpetual motion is not possible, then does time eventually stop? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande#Proton_Decay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande#Proton_Decay [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande#Results

spiralx 9y ago

Interactions between particles don't produce energy, but there is an uncertainty relation between energy and time that means that over a short-enough time period the energy of a system is uncertain, and this can be thought of as allowing for virtual particles to appear "out of nothing" for a brief time. This uncertainty in energy over small time-scales provides a "floor" for the energy of empty space.