# The true perpetual motion machines

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

Not open for further replies.
1. ### Communist HamsterCricetulus griseus leninusValued 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

3. ### c7ityi_Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,924
your mother is a perpetual machine.

5. ### guthrieparadox generatorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,089
Actually, I think his mother was a hamster. That smelt of Elderberries.

7. ### AbsaneRocket SurgeonValued 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 HamsterCricetulus griseus leninusValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,022
Technically such a measuring device is impossible.

9. ### leopoldValued 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. ### AbsaneRocket SurgeonValued 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 RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,252
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. ### FacialValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,219
Does this really happen? As in, the smallest unit of time being 10^-43 seconds?

13. ### CANGASRegistered 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. ### AbsaneRocket SurgeonValued 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.

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

15. ### CANGASRegistered 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 RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,252
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. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

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. ### grimRegistered Member

Messages:
6
A machine driven by gravity could give the illusion of perpetual motion.