Perpetual motion

[arkain101]

If the universe collapsed would it still be moving?

 

Relative to what?

 

My point exactly.

 

an object can not exceed C. But, is this collapsed body in obidience or rebellion of the law of C.

 

May light escape?

 

If yes, can it exist if it never comes back. Or, does light require an object to travel to in order to have travelled.

 

If not, If nothing is escaping, Is the universe still there?

[Pyrotex]

...I can think of that would "stop" the universe is if it all became one big black hole....

Note that we were not talking about "stopping" the universe. Semantics is kinda important here; we must be careful in our choice of words.

 

The Universe will never "stop" in the mundane sense of that word. Like a car stops or a motor stops. The Universe may indeed exist forever, but if the Universe is everywhere at the same temperature (say 75 F) it may be shirtsleeve weather to you, but nothing significant is EVER gonna happen. Finding usable energy to move a car, or power a motor means finding an "energy gradient". For our purposes, that means two nearby locations; one location is "hot" the other is "cold". From such a gradient, we can extract useful energy and do work. But if all energy in the Universe is evenly spread everywhere...

 

...then no useful work can be done. The universe has "run down". Entropic death. Kaput.

[IDMclean]

The thing that I am hinting at is that the universe is made up of space and energy. Mass is made up of energy and Space is time. If photons (the quanta of energy) never stop, then the universe will never stop. No energy must be add to or taken from. Therefore the universe as whole is a Perpetual Motion Machine, that does a (several magnitudes more than I know how to express actually) ton of work.

 

As for the probablilty of a PMM? Not likely, however you can get something like a Proton going, a near PMM. (I believe mass is unstable, and will eventually decay into pure energy. So the proton has a half-life, in my eyes, due to the fact that it is mass.)

[Pyrotex]

...If photons (the quanta of energy) never stop, then the universe will never stop. No energy must be add to or taken from.....)

{SIGH} Again we confront the careless use of language. No offense intended.

 

The universe will not "stop" or "collapse". The universe may indeed "exist" forever. The total energy in the universe may never change. I cede all those points. BUT...

 

To heat up a star, what do you need? A cloud of hydrogen. High potential energy. As gravity pulls it together, the infalling hydrogen speeds up. Friction against itself creates heat. Pressure creates more heat. Hydrogren fuses turning mass into energy and you've got a star. There's a dirt ball orbiting the star. Dirt ball is cold, say 0 degrees F. Star is hot, say 6,000 F. We have a temperature difference, a gradient. We can do some serious work with that, including driving the weather and increasing complexity. We can even create Life.

 

Fast forward to 10^18 AD. That's one billion, billion AD. Space is nearly empty except for a sprinkling of black holes and a lot of very low energy (radio) photons. The hydrogen is gone. There is no chemical or nuclear energy available. Everything has been used up, spent, burned. The average temperature (call it energy-density) is uniformly even everywhere.

 

You think you can just use any energy around you? No. You can't.

 

Say you're floating on a lake with a water wheel and electric generator. The lake is 100 feet deep. Make electricity. Sorry, you can't. It doesn't matter HOW deep the water is if it is ALL THE SAME. To make electricity (do useful work) you must find water at TWO different levels and let the water flow from the high level to the low level, spinning your water wheel. But if ALL the water is at the same level, it doesn't matter how big or how deep or how whatever the water is, there is no USABLE ENERGY available to you.

 

If space is full of 75 F photons, it is 75 F everywhere. No points of high energy and low energy -- high temp and low temp. No usable energy. This is what Cosmologists mean by the "Death of the Universe". It's uniformity, not stopping or collapsing or ceasing to exist. Uniformity is death.

[arkain101]

So if the universe is linear in time line. That is it has an end, then this states it has a begining. It was created at some point. I say created and mean it was new, it was young, and had a beginning.

 

However, if the universe can die, then this means it is a finite time-line. A finite timeline says its a one time deal. A one time deal means that is had to have been created. Created from what? I cant begin to say, but it would be from something that we would most likely lable "nothing" or Non-existent at this time.

[IDMclean]

Pyrotex, I know what is ment by "stop". I understand the concept of equilibrium death. I understand the idea of a indifferent haze of energy.

 

However I also understand several other concepts that need to be addressed here. Like the fact that light is always moving, or that the density of energy seems to be significantly below that of the volume of space.

 

I'm just saying that in my mind I can't see the universe equalizing out, it just can't happen for any permentant ammount of time. Then again I see the universe as an has been, is and always will be.

[TheBigDog]

Say you're floating on a lake with a water wheel and electric generator. The lake is 100 feet deep. Make electricity. Sorry, you can't. It doesn't matter HOW deep the water is if it is ALL THE SAME. To make electricity (do useful work) you must find water at TWO different levels and let the water flow from the high level to the low level, spinning your water wheel. But if ALL the water is at the same level, it doesn't matter how big or how deep or how whatever the water is, there is no USABLE ENERGY available to you.

 

If space is full of 75 F photons, it is 75 F everywhere. No points of high energy and low energy -- high temp and low temp. No usable energy. This is what Cosmologists mean by the "Death of the Universe". It's uniformity, not stopping or collapsing or ceasing to exist. Uniformity is death.

I love your description here Pyro. I think that left unattended this would be the ultimate (however far off) scenario. I would contest that intellgence is the unbalanced part of the equation. Enough intelligence with enough tools could take action to help keep everything moving. To maintain enough imbalance to significantly slow, if not stop the evetual energy equilibrium.

 

Not to create, but to maintain. ;)

 

Bill

[Guadalupe]

Hi! InfiniteNow

 

 

Not really... there isn't much of an absence of forces out there, which is one of Newton's key tenets for the first law's feasibility.

 

 

Cheers. :evil:

 

 

 

I’m assuming your referring to his third law. O.K. :)

 

 

 

:)

[Pyrotex]

...Like the fact that light is always moving, or that the density of energy seems to be significantly below that of the volume of space.

I'm just saying that in my mind I can't see the universe equalizing out,....

Okay. Light always moves. I don't see your point.

 

What do you mean by: "density of energy ...below ...the volume of space". In ordinary physical terms, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Energy is measured in Joules, so you are saying: the Joules per cubic meter is somehow "less" than the cubic meters? :D :)

[Pyrotex]

I’m assuming your referring to his third law. ..:

Just so we are all on the same page, could you list Newton's three laws of motion and number them the way you think they should be numbered? Thanks.

[arkain101]

Okay. Light always moves. I don't see your point.

 

I think his point is that according to relativity the light will remain at C even for observers inside a black hole. I couldnt back up his idea or support it. Things CAN and do burn out in space, and stop producing visible light or enough energy in order for anything to happen. The one thing I can see continuing is heat and energy inside bodies of mass. Be it planets or whatever. Gravity will continue squishing atoms together and pressurising them, would it not?

[Pyrotex]

I think his point is that according to relativity the light will remain at C even for observers inside a black hole. I couldnt back up his idea or support it. Things CAN and do burn out in space, and stop producing visible light or enough energy in order for anything to happen. The one thing I can see continuing is heat and energy inside bodies of mass. Be it planets or whatever. Gravity will continue squishing atoms together and pressurising them, would it not?

As far as I have read, Relativity (and all physical laws for that matter) cease to have any meaning inside the Schwartzchild Radius of a Black Hole. Speed of light interpretations require at least one "reference frame". We have no guarantee at all that "inside" a Black Hole has any meaning -- and therefore no "reference frame". :hihi: ;) :D :shrug:

 

There will be "hotness" and therefore, energy, in squashed bodies. But it may not be "available" to do work with. In other words, it might as well not exist, cause without a "difference" -- a gradient -- it cannot be utilized by ANY natural or artificial process.

 

[bones] It's "dead energy", Jim. [/bones]

[InfiniteNow]

Hi! InfiniteNow

 

I’m assuming your referring to his third law. O.K. :shrug:

 

;)

 

 

Well, you know what they say when people assume... :hihi:

 

Actually, it was the first to which I referred.

 

 

Cheers. :D

[IDMclean]

What I mean is that if you attempt to equalize space, energy wise. So that the universe is at equalibirium. You would find that there is just to much space to fill. I am saying by virtue of volume alone the universe can not equalize, there will always be somewhere for light to travel, and therefore energy.

 

Light is in constant motion, the only place it becomes "trapped" is in a blackhole. otherwise it moves about freely. All mass is energy. All mass is photonic. All energy is Photonic. The universe can't cool because of constant motion and therefore transfer of energy.

 

Expecially if you take into account the non-deterministic nature of light. random directions and magnitudes. I am certain that the universe has been going, is going and will continue to go indefiniantly. The only things i see stopping this are:

Blackholes (Not likely if Stephen Hawking's prediction that blackholes evaporate over time)

Change in the fact that energy is always motion.

 

The universe is a motion machine and I don't see it stopping, slowing, or otherwise equalizing anytime soon (IE [math]1*10^100 seconds[/math])

[arkain101]

Light is in constant motion, the only place it becomes "trapped" is in a blackhole. otherwise it moves about freely. All mass is energy. All mass is photonic. All energy is Photonic. The universe can't cool because of constant motion and therefore transfer of energy.

 

I think though that if it were to happen (universe burn out), with stars gone and such. All objects would end up at nearly 0 kelven, and probably eventually would. At this temepture there is no visible light. There would only be I guess some very sad radio waves, which could not heat up anything enough for stuff to happen on any scale larger than a molecule.

[IDMclean]

Your forgetting some basic pieces to the puzzle.

 

Blackholes have tempeture.

 

Radiowaves excite certain materials. Energy is energy. What is being talked about is the assumed fact that the universe will wind down. I ask: how? when? why?

[arkain101]

Yes Kick, I hear your question and I hear the answer they are giving but each of you are on different pages.

 

Your showing energy keeps going, they are saying not much will happen when you look at principles like entropy (or whatever).

 

This is a quote of something that might help.. I dont understand entropy all that well as I havnt read about it..

 

Now, what exactly was it that these astronomers discovered? They found 90% of the universe. Any day that you find 90% of the universe is a red-letter day. What they essentially found was a new kind of matter. For a couple of years, physicists have suspected that the universe must have a different kind of matter.

 

Ordinary matter is the stuff that we're used to. Electrons, protons, neutrons, everything we see here on planet Earth is made up of ordinary matter. Ordinary matter is a property that strongly interacts with radiation, so it's rather easy for astronomers to detect the stuff.

 

But we found the problem, which was this: In 1990, the cosmic background explorer satellite proved that the universe is extremely entropic. In fact, the universe has a specific entropy measure of 1,000,000,000. Entropy measures the efficiency with which a system radiates heat and light, and the inefficiency in which it performs work.

 

The universe is by far the most entropic system in all existence. To give you a point of comparison, a burning candle has a specific entropy of two. A burning candle is something we realize is very efficient in making heat and light, and very inefficient in performing work. The universe is far more entropic than a candle, by many orders of magnitude.

 

But it led to a problem. If the universe has that high a degree of entropy and all matter strongly interacts with radiation, and the radiation left over from the creation event measures to be incredibly smooth, then the matter likewise should be that smoothly distributed. But it isn't.

 

As you look at the galaxies and clusters of galaxies, rather than being smoothly distributed like the radiation form the creation event, it's clumpy. Astronomers wanted to know why. We have proof that the universe was created in a hot, big, bang due to the incredible entropy, but how do we explain the galaxies?

 

its from here if you are interested

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

I only used this cause it talked about energy and work of the universe, dont mind the rest :naughty: