3 ms·
If such a toy could be created that displayed a perpetual quantum process, wouldn’t that count as doing work? If so, then you could only have one that contains
by zadler 3y ago
If such a toy could be created that displayed a perpetual quantum process, wouldn’t that count as doing work?
If so, then you could only have one that contains an unobservable perpetual quantum process; well, you’d need to trust that the seller that it does!
- zopa 3y agoNo, it wouldn’t count: “work” in this context is a technical physics term meaning a force applied over a distance.
- c22 3y agoIf you are not observing some force over some distance then what, exactly, are you observing?
- xboxnolifes 3y agoConstant motion doesn't require constant force.
- fsckboy 3y agoobservation requires the transmission of information to the observer, how is it being proposed to do this without force? The question on the table is "constructing a toy which demonstrates" and demonstration requires observation, I think is what is being said
- frutiger 3y agoFor example, perfectly circular motion against no resistance requires no work since the force is always perpendicular to the motion.
- fsckboy 3y agohe's saying you can't observe the phenomenon you are talking about without some additional work being done, which you might say is not part of the system, but it is part of the system that G*P proposed
- Asooka 3y agoI suspect it should be possible to have something that reflects light without doing work, or at worst absorbs a small portion of the incoming light and reflects the rest. Since it will sit on a desk, it will always be under light when observed by humans.
- rini17 3y agoBrownian motion is perpetual, easily observable by microscope and still it's not doing any work.