The true perpetual motion machines

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by nwaogu, May 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,022
    I have no idea. It merely seems convenient, and explains many things accurately enough to be taken as fact. It also corresponds with the other constants we see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    your mother is a perpetual machine.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Actually, I think his mother was a hamster. That smelt of Elderberries.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Absane Rocket Surgeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,989
    I agree.. but I have a question. If small enough, how could you measure a Planck unit of distance (assuming you could have a measuring device)?
     
  8. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,022
    Technically such a measuring device is impossible.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the same way we know the wavelenght of red, blue or any color.
    we do not have micrometers that will measure it directly.
    we use an indirect method
     
  10. Absane Rocket Surgeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,989
    Well, what I mean is that if I were small enough and had a small enough ruler, would I be able to see this distance? How does it differ from zero units? Couldn't I see a distance smaller than a Planck unit?
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,358
    Think of it like frames of a movie on a film strip. Any object would have to exist on one frame, or the frame next door, or whatever. No object could exist between frames.

    The same idea is probably easier to visualise for the Planck time. All motion and action in the universe would have to happen in discrete "frames" of the movie, with no movement in between frames, if time is quantised at the Planck scale.
     
  12. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,217
    Does this really happen? As in, the smallest unit of time being 10^-43 seconds?
     
  13. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Agreeing with JamesR is in the same league as being buried alive with a Gillian fire ants, but, he nailed it.

    There are theories that the smallest unit may be smaller than the Planck unit, but the principle is the same: the alternate theories speculate that there is a smallest unit, and the next smallest unit is zero.

    Whereas Newton's calculus allows the hypothesis of unlimited smallness, the quantum physics based ideas speak of a specific smallest actual unit, and the only smaller unit is zero.
     
  14. Absane Rocket Surgeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,989
    Well that is how I was thinking of it, however I was trying to get the answer in a round-about way to hide my ignorance.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So basically, say the unit of distance is 1 for the Planck, then that means either I move 1 unit at a time or zero? I cannot move 1/2 a unit? That's pretty damn cool. Makes me re-think Zero's runner paradox

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Absane:

    You got it. According to quantum physics, there is some specific smallest distance possible. Half of it doesn't exist.

    Consequently there is supposed to be a smallest time interval possible. Half of that time can't exist. Next smallest time interval is zero.

    At one time, the smallest distance was the Planck distance and the smallest time interval was called the chronon.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,358
    Facial:

    Does it really happen? Nobody knows, since we don't have any apparatus that can measure time to sufficient precision or observe "action" on Planck time scales.

    Absane:

    Yes.
     
  17. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    As we like to oversample, for accuracy, is this possible? We always try to measure an object using a smaller wavelength than the object, so would it be possible to construct apparatus that operated in a smaller timeframe, than the event it was trying to observe?
     
  18. grim Registered Member

    Messages:
    6
    A machine driven by gravity could give the illusion of perpetual motion.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page