Is the Universe a Perpetual Motion Machine?

I was just wondering....

Is the universe a perpetual motion machine... Assuming that the universe is a closed system, then if it obeyed the Laws of Thermodynamics then you can't have perpetual motion... but is the universe a perpetual motion machine or will it undeniably (following thermodynamics) come to a screeching halt.

If it is a perpetual motion machine, what does that say about the laws of thermodynamics?

Just something I thought was interesting... excuse my ignorance of physics if the question sounds stupid

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, heat death! It's like a warm, cozy blanket for nihilism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm... interesting, what allowed the initial condition of the universe, 'big bang' point to be of a state with low entropy?

So the world will come to an end? At least as we know it, who knows if we will come with some super-technology to escape

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

if laws of thermodynamics are not violated than how would you explain the loss of energy paradox in the black hole?

 

Just an aside note- It will be a tremendously long time before the Universe is Cold and Dark.
One of those numbers that can only be expressed exponentially (or, in a pinch, with up arrow notation...).
Ok... It COULD be typed out on the forum but it would take up a lot of space.

One of those big numbers that the brain cannot really comprehend how big it is kind of thing.

Chances are, one of the numerous other threats, like GRB's and the like will cause us concern long before then.
REALLY long before then...

Hawking radiation?

 

than how come Hawking radiation emmitted from black hole actually reduces its mass? Meanwhile it was never observed in the first place (the Hawking radiation)...yet black holes dissipate...where does the energy go?

GLAST has not seen any gamma ray bursts indicating black hole dissipation...yet black holes obviously are dissapearing, otherwise they would have consumed all matter long time ago.

 

First off, energy and mass are equivalent.
In Hawking Radiation *(Why I asked above), you have the action of particles falling into a Black hole-- Anti-particles and Particles.
As the anti-particle falls in, it will annihilate a particle within. Because of conservation, the particle must be expelled.
The annihilation within retains the same energy within in the form of photons. Even if the physical mass is reduced.

This results in a VERY slow evaporation of Black Holes. Given the time it would take for a Black Hole of the Mass of about 40 times the mass of our Sun to evaporate, The universe will be a very cold place by that time...
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions of years...

 

well obviously E=mc^2

So where are these expelled particles? Where is this Hawking radiation? Its been theorized but not proven.

 

if that was the case than our whole universe would have been nothing but black holes all around us as they consumed more and more mass around them, yet there is obviously a limit.

 

This is microstates vs macrostates.. let me see if i remember right. As the number of available macrostates increases, entropy also increases, right?

I am confident that there will be future techs which will generate energy - perhaps from vacuum fluctuations. :shrug:



In response to OP
I don't think this is classified as perpetual motion. A glass of water is full of molecules which constantly move around. Interstellar gas will always be in motion. The notion is that one can't build a perpetual motion machine, even if nature will be in motion forever. The best way to really classify something as perpetual motion is if it violates either the first or second law of thermodynamics.. although this does leave a simple frictionless device which never loses energy and runs forever without increasing or decreasing entropy (also considered impossible).

The expansion of the universe does indeed lead to an increase of entropy, in particular the entropy of mixing. The universe however will never cool to absolute zero, and so will be in motion for ever.

 

You do not understand what Proof is and what a Theory is.

Let's recap:
A Hypothesis is an idea or concept that is based on some observations but not based on experiments or tests.
A Theory is a hypothesis that has been demonstrated as Valid with observations and repeated testing. If repeated testing and experimentation demonstrate a problem with a theory that does not scrap the theory, then the theory is modified in order to make it More Accurate to the Observational Evidence. This enables us to create the most accurate model of reality that we can attain in order to describe that which exists around us.
A Proof is something that exists only in mathematics. It is not necessarily applicable in Science. In science, nothing is EVER Proven. No matter how much you may demonstrate that a Working Theory is sound, there will always remain the possibility that the theory has Fault.

Please stop using words ignorantly. You wish to post on a Science forum- I suggest that you learn some science so that you might contribute meaningful responses, rather than a desperate attempt at trying to make science look like folly in order to rationalize your beliefs.

Again-- Clearly you have no idea how a Black Hole works.
You seem to be laboring under the misconception that Black Holes are like Cosmic Hoovers, vacuuming up all the goodies in Space.

Please Learn about Black Holes.


If the Sun (Hypothetically, as it does not have enough mass to get enough force going to crush itself into a Black Hole), our Sun, MAGICALLY and Suddenly became a Black Hole right now- What would happen to the planets and Earth?
Would they get Sucked into it?
NO.
The Mass that became the black Hole is still the SAME amount of mass. No NEW mass was added. In fact, a Slight Amount would have been expelled in the creation of the Black hole.

This means the Earth would continue in the SAME orbit it has now.

All the Planets would.

Because gravity works by the inverse square law (And this theory is demonstrated as quite accurate through experiment and observation), the reason why the gravity at our new black hole Sun would become so much greater in the VICINITY of the Sun is because the compression brought the surface of the mass much closer to the center of mass.
So you would then be able to approach much, much, much closer to the center of mass to the Black Hole Sun before reaching the surface. The gravity you would feel would grow exponentially the closer you went.
Eventually, it has increased to the point that space around it is so warped back up upon itself that even light, while traveling in a straight line, is curved back inward much as a racecar hits a curve on the racetrack that is BANKED and can travel in a near straight line around the curve.

 

gravity does not work as inverse square law, otherwise galaxies would not be rotating faster than calculated by Einstein-Newton dynamics.

And if you recall black matter to be responsible for the faster rotation of galaxies, than why in the world is NGC 3379 rotating slower than it would have been if it did have black matter?

However you are right about the mass being the same if our Sun was converted into a black hole (which of course would not happen...as Sun just does not have enough mass to collapse into itself)

 

I cannot effectively explain it as I'm a bit ignorant on Dark Matter. Hopefully, someone knowledgeable on that topic can follow up...

However, gravity has been clearly demonstrated as accurate to the inverse square law. It is for this reason that Dark Matter is hypothesized as one would have to go into fits of denial and delusion in order to claim that gravity does not in order to explain galactic rotations and movements. It seems far more rational and plausible to look for the CAUSE of galactic rotations being different than predicted than to suddenly scrap the things that DO make sense.

As an analogy, imagine that we said water is fluid. Then someone says that water could not possibly be fluid considering that in an extremely compressed and heated environment, it behaves as a superheated solid.
Clearly, there are other factors at play to cause that effect.

If I am correct, why did you just spout all that nonsense about the Universe being nothing but Black Holes by now?
Make up your mind.

 

But isn't the space expanding as a response to what 'happened' inside the space? Or is the space expanding indefinitely for no reason?

Now if all those particles/mass just came out of no-where thanks to some quantum field then would you expect them to have those particles in 'max entropy'- if not, shouldn't that be happening even now? Or is the space expanding faster than these particles coming into existence to saturate the world into the same level of entropy as was in the beginning.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Okay, but at the level of maximum entropy don't you think the universe would be inhabitable? I mean you need energy to do work- and if you can't work against entropy, I don't see how life will survive. Is the motion at close to 'absolute zero' going to be meaningless for life in the long run, because basically its like taking a limit (calculus) would essentially give you 'absolute zero' but you just never reach it exactly.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point_(Tipler)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point_(Tipler)

Helpin' a boy out...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!