# Hypothetical formula for perpetual motion

So they do become a single self substaining perpetual unit?

contemporary jazz for theme music in a kids cartoon
instead of short cycled electronic high pitch siren emulating noise pollution over stimulation.

So they do become a single self substaining perpetual unit?

Well yes.
Atoms are effectively perpetual motion devices.

Well yes.
Atoms are effectively perpetual motion devices.
Since, in my (well not really my but a theory put forward with some traction), the Universe will continue to expand until all the individual atoms are dispersed over a vast (not really a word suitable for the size) region

I'll go out on a limb and invoke 'a infinite region' as a description and ignore objections

Since energy and heat flows from more to less I contend the energy and heat of each atom will flow from the atom into the infinite void

How the energy and heat will be manifested??? I just run out of back of envelopes and napkins to do the final calculations

Perhaps after lunch

Well yes.
Atoms are effectively perpetual motion devices.
So is it safe to say that the entropy of the energy in the atom is in equilibrium inside a closed system for the atom to be implied as a perpetual motion device. If this is the case, what is the closed system? Isn’t the energy lost during the decay of the nucleus? What force is preserving the energy in a state of motion while the matter is being decayed? In this case wouldn’t the energy be transferred at the same rate as the atoms half life?

You got right that the Universe MIGHT be a perpetual machine (expanding / contracting) but the idea is not new

My take is IF the Universe is a perpetual machine it is such because it (all of it) is a closed system

Nothing lost nothing gained

Problem with building a perpetual motion machine within the closed Universe system - such a system is open

Energy (frequently heat) from such a system will transfer from the system into the big bad Universe

And add to that such a system (as all systems do) wear out

No way to replace such worn out parts without cancelling out its perpetual motion status

Welcome aboard

Thanks for the welcome and reply. As the universe is speculatively a closed system, I conclude it is the lack of matter for the energy to be transferred to outside of the universe. So in a closed system,at a smaller scale, one would need to barrier all forms of matter,together, inside of this “mini universe” so it can become at complete disorder. Not leaving out that this smaller scaled universe would need to also be stopped from expanding with the larger universe.

Thus sustaining equilibrium of the energy, allowing the random motion to be perpetual.

I conclude it is the lack of matter for the energy to be transferred to outside of the universe.
I've been informed there is no outside to the universe

Don't quite follow but thems the rules

The last part of that sentence is grammatically incorrect. Can you please rephrase it?

I meant that the supposed amount of energy being used for the perpetual motion device may be as much as the whole of the energy known and unknown in the universe, or as little as kinetic energy at the lowest temperature close to zero Kelvin technologically possible at the time of the experiment.

The speed of light is indeed a constant, in vacuum.

This is wrong. C is a velocity, so C squared is a velocity squared.

This thus is wrong too: energy is mass times velocity squared.

Indeed; depending on your definition of perpetual motion, either nothing satisfies it, or only the universe itself. Since your definition was grammatically incorrect, I can't judge which one, but saying the universe itself exhibits perpetual motion is indeed the only option (next to "nothing exhibits perpetual motion").

No, it did not. The expansion of space is not the same as stuff flying outward.

Isn’t the expansion of the universe into nothing theoretical. Wouldn’t this be discredited with a theory such as infinite dimension connecting our universe to a hypothetical, infinite amount of other universes? Are you stating that our universe is the only one or that any theory tied to what is outside our universe is bound by a law that everything is expanding and could not be “flying” out into something, or something’s?

Take a balloon, and draw dots on it. Now, inflate the balloon. Which dot is at the center of expansion; from which dot do all other dots appear to be moving outwards? Answer: from all dots. The dots aren't moving, it's space (i.e. the skin of the balloon) that's expanding, "dragging" the dots with it.

Black holes also (slowly) evaporate, and there are other options of what will happen, but the one you give is one of the more common ones, yes. It's called the "heat death" scenario.

No; it's very likely that by that time the black holes will have drifted too far apart to all merge with each other. Also, as I said, black holes evaporate, so they probably would evaporate away before they can all merge anyway.

I agree it is improbable that these BH’s would come back together, but I was speculating it could be a possibility by using what’s known in the second law of thermodynamics. Particularly that the universe has not reached equilibrium and leaves these BH’s coming back together a possibility.

Why? There is no known physics that allows for this. This appears to be pure speculation. And why would only this there-can-be-only-one black hole do that, but today's black holes not?

You stated that Black Holes do “ slowly evaporate”. It is unknown what caused the Big Bang’s explosion, but are there known physics making all or one black hole from very quickly evaporating, at say the same rate as the Big Bang, scaled to the mass of said black hole, impossible?

Matter can most certainly be lost or created, and most likely is in a violent scenario such as you are describing.

Look up the "big bounce" hypothesis. It's basically what you are describing.

Ah, you are using the incorrect equality you derived earlier...

That's not how science works. You can't just pick shapes because they are nice to you; you have to motivate your choice with scientific argumentation.

I can and I did. science is relative to the people’s visible scope of what’s observable and what is known at a specific time. This is why science is in a constant state of change.

What line? Do you mean an edge? In that case, how is that mass "on one side"? Or did you mean edge there too? I'll assume that you did.

Yes, an edge. Line was a poor choice to use as I did state the path the objects moved along would be finite. Although, they could be three lines intersecting at a three points, but I won’t argue that.

What second mass? Is there another mass waiting at that angle, that you forgot to mention earlier?

Yes, the first mass would stop at the point of angle that the first edge and second edge meet. Also I said there were two masses on the second edge. I should have specified two separate masses from the first. Dido with the third edge having three separate masses from the first three mentioned on the first and second edges.

There will be an energy input necessary to have the first mass "turn the corner". Also, if energy is conserved, the two masses will now be travelling at a lower speed, because the kinetic energy has to be spread between more mass.

The hypothetical triangle is moving in a rotation. I stated this. Would this suffice as a necessary energy?

And every time, you either have to input more energy into the system, or the masses slow down further.

I’ll get back to you on this one.

Just so you know, it's covered by most high-school physics courses. Look up "elastic collision".

I will.

Why? Why are the masses radiating heat? You said the masses can move freely, so no friction. You haven't specified the mechanism through which heat can be transferred.

Mass decaying by giving off radiation.

Why would the (energy?) density of the innermost ring go up? If it's radiating away heat, it would go down!

Yes and regain it in the process of expansion and contraction.

See? You said "yank back"; even you know the (energy?) density of the innermost ring goes down, because it is loosing heat. You are contradicting yourself.

I Cannot argue that nor will I try.

What about all the heat that gets radiated into infinite (i.e. is not absorbed by any other rings)? The system you described constantly looses energy, and thus will not go on infinitely.

Indeed.

How do you propose to construct your triangle with masses in the real world? Remember that friction is a thing.

Hypotheticaly,as of now. Adjustments will be made with the accumulation of knowledge. Bluntly put, ill use science.

This would make the units of perpetual motion: energy to the power infinity. That makes no sense.

I should of specified that I meant energy to the power of what energy exist or the amount being used. In the case of the triangle it would cease at energy to the power of 3.

You really need to rephrase this as well. The "to the scaled amount of energy"-bit makes no sense... Scaled how? What is being scaled, and on what scale?

Energy is the bit being scaled. The energy is being scaled by the amount used from the energy that exist. I.e. energy to the power of 3.

This is incorrect; you have done the multiplication wrong. The mass-term also squares, and cubes.

Whoops.

Well, yeah. It only takes high-school physics knowledge to point out the issues with it.

And I appreciate all issues pointed out.

So, that "real world experiment" you were talking about, it doesn't exist? Then why did you bring that up?

Because, hypothetically.

It has entertained me, slightly. Thanks!

You’re welcome.

No problem; I hope you can make progress with what I've just written.

I will try, and thanks again.

I've been informed there is no outside to the universe

Don't quite follow but thems the rules

Poopedy, pewpedy pants

So is it safe to say that the entropy of the energy
There is no such thing as "the entropy of the energy".

in the atom is in equilibrium inside a closed system for the atom to be implied as a perpetual motion device.
Again, that depends on your definition of perpetual motion device. If it means something along the lines of: "a system that has internal movement, and doesn't lose energy" then sure. However, I personally would call an atom a "device".

If this is the case, what is the closed system?
The atom. An isolated atom, in this particular case.

Isn’t the energy lost during the decay of the nucleus?
Of course, you have to pick a stable isotope.

What force is preserving the energy in a state of motion while the matter is being decayed?
Not a force, but a law. Specifically, conservation laws.

In this case wouldn’t the energy be transferred at the same rate as the atoms half life?
In the case of decay: yes. But not when you pick a stable isotope.

Thanks for the welcome and reply. As the universe is speculatively a closed system, I conclude it is the lack of matter for the energy to be transferred to outside of the universe. So in a closed system,at a smaller scale, one would need to barrier all forms of matter,together, inside of this “mini universe” so it can become at complete disorder. Not leaving out that this smaller scaled universe would need to also be stopped from expanding with the larger universe.

Thus sustaining equilibrium of the energy, allowing the random motion to be perpetual.
The expansion actually doesn't need to be stopped. The atom is locally bound, and thus can withstand the effects of the expansion, as long as the expansion is "slow enough" (adiabatically).

I meant that the supposed amount of energy being used for the perpetual motion device may be as much as the whole of the energy known and unknown in the universe, or as little as kinetic energy at the lowest temperature close to zero Kelvin technologically possible at the time of the experiment.
OK, got it.

No; it's very likely that by that time the black holes will have drifted too far apart to all merge with each other. Also, as I said, black holes evaporate, so they probably would evaporate away before they can all merge anyway.

I agree it is improbable that these BH’s would come back together, but I was speculating it could be a possibility by using what’s known in the second law of thermodynamics. Particularly that the universe has not reached equilibrium and leaves these BH’s coming back together a possibility.
Ah, I see. You saw an issue, and you tried to come up with a solution. A creative solution, but not the most likely one. It's much more likely that all BH's will have evaporated long before they all can meet (if they can even still do that, as already pointed out), reaching equilibrium that way.

Why? There is no known physics that allows for this. This appears to be pure speculation. And why would only this there-can-be-only-one black hole do that, but today's black holes not?

You stated that Black Holes do “ slowly evaporate”. It is unknown what caused the Big Bang’s explosion, but are there known physics making all or one black hole from very quickly evaporating, at say the same rate as the Big Bang, scaled to the mass of said black hole, impossible?
To model things happening at the big bang moment, we'd need a theory quantum gravity. We don't have a theory of quantum gravity. Ergo, no known (certainly not established) physics can describe that moment correctly. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm only saying there currently is no known way for what you describe to happen, so I asked you about the mechanism.

Yes, an edge. Line was a poor choice to use as I did state the path the objects moved along would be finite. Although, they could be three lines intersecting at a three points, but I won’t argue that.
OK, got it.

Yes, the first mass would stop at the point of angle that the first edge and second edge meet. Also I said there were two masses on the second edge. I should have specified two separate masses from the first. Dido with the third edge having three separate masses from the first three mentioned on the first and second edges.
Ah, I totally didn't get that from your text. Thanks for the clarification!

The hypothetical triangle is moving in a rotation. I stated this. Would this suffice as a necessary energy?
In that case, the rotation will be slowing down every time the masses draw energy from it.

I’ll get back to you on this one.
OK

Good.

Mass decaying by giving off radiation.
Wait, the masses are made of radiative material? Where in your first post did you state that?!

Yes and regain it in the process of expansion and contraction.

I Cannot argue that nor will I try.
Ah, so that was an error in your first post. OK.

So your described system is not a perpetual motion device. Good, glad we cleared that up.

Hypotheticaly,as of now. Adjustments will be made with the accumulation of knowledge. Bluntly put, ill use science.
Good luck with that...

I should of specified that I meant energy to the power of what energy exist or the amount being used.
In the case of the triangle it would cease at energy to the power of 3.
Ah, OK. So the units of this "PM"-thing are variable, based on the situation. That makes it physically a nonsensical value; it has no worth in physics, because it's ill-defined.

Energy is the bit being scaled. The energy is being scaled by the amount used from the energy that exist. I.e. energy to the power of 3.
Oh, by the *number* of energies, not by the *amount*. Got it.

Glad you spotted that too now.

And I appreciate all issues pointed out.
No problem.

Because, hypothetically.
Sure, but without a real-world demonstration, I doubt people are going to believe you've constructed a perpetual motion device.

You’re welcome.
I will try, and thanks again.
Good, every step in the right direction is progress you can be proud of!

Of course, you have to pick a stable isotope.
Is a single isolated atom (stable) really stable surrounded by a infinite vacuum ( nothing - not even radiation - outside of the atom)?

My very unscientific guess - NO, it will decay

Not a force, but a law. Specifically, conservation laws.

The decay uses the Energy which, is now was, present to propele the parts of the atom apart

Conservation preserved

Least that's how I would design my Universe

If god, or physics, have done it differently then what can I say?

In the case of decay: yes. But not when you pick a stable isotope.

In a Total Infinity Void no one can hear you scream or see you pull your hair cut over my post

But in a Total Infinity Void no isotope is stable

Coffee and scribble napkins needed

Last edited:
Typo

Should be out

As I understand the situation, somewhat like leaking black holes, the forces (energy) keeping atoms together will wind down until not enough left to keep it together

Or are you saying (under the conditions I put forward) individuals atoms will become their own singular perpetual motion things?

That is quite wrong. There is no mechanism by which these forces can "wind down".

That is quite wrong. There is no mechanism by which these forces can "wind down".

That said, true eternal life depends on whether or not protons can decay. Some scientists have put forth hypotheses related to this, and it is referred to as “proton decay” (a hypothetical form of radioactive decay). According to one idea, the Georgi–Glashow model, protons transition into a positron and a neutral pion, which then decays into 2 gamma ray photons. Estimates put the half-life for protons at 1.29×1034 years.

https://futurism.com/science-explained-atoms-last-forever

Certainly a long time but short of forever also but more research needed to confirm

Excellent point Michael345! For eternal life to exist protons must not decay, else the particles that constitute life would break-down causing the end of the world as we know it.

That said, true eternal life depends on whether or not protons can decay. Some scientists have put forth hypotheses related to this, and it is referred to as “proton decay” (a hypothetical form of radioactive decay). According to one idea, the Georgi–Glashow model, protons transition into a positron and a neutral pion, which then decays into 2 gamma ray photons. Estimates put the half-life for protons at 1.29×1034 years.

https://futurism.com/science-explained-atoms-last-forever

Certainly a long time but short of forever also but more research needed to confirm

That is something different. Radioactive decay is nothing to do with the electrostatic or strong force "winding down".

Excellent point Michael345! For eternal life to exist protons must not decay, else the particles that constitute life would break-down causing the end of the world as we know it.
Not LIFE life

Life as in existence of proton

depends on whether or not protons can decay. Some scientists have put forth hypotheses related to this, and it is referred to as “proton decay” (a hypothetical form of radioactive decay)

Note not really radioactive and also hypothetical

My 2 cents worth take away (with other stuff)

Protons will not last FOREVER but will be the last to go

Who knows, perhaps as the billions of protons decay the off shoot particles will somehow group (unite) to become a new Big Bang

Just had thought bubble - could Dark Matter be all the stuff which didn't get to take place in the last Big Bang

If we are only seeing less than 10% of our Universe perhaps the next Big Bang / Universe formation will see less than us

Alice is well down the hole and Dorothy way out of Kansas

So they do become a single self substaining perpetual unit?

Welcome to the realm of QM. With macroscopic systems, there is always some energy leakage ( even orbiting planets, failing anything else would eventually spiral into their stars due to energy loss via gravitational wave radiation.)
However, when you get down to the level of atoms, things aren't as simple. Instead of being able to slowly "leak" energy, energy loss or gain can only be done in discrete units that are significant compared to the atom's total energy.

For example: Classically, if you consider an atom as a nucleus with an electron orbiting around it, then the electron is a charge undergoing constant acceleration. This should lead to it radiating EMR, losing energy and spiraling in towards the nucleus. Given the orbital period of the typical electron, which determines the frequency of the radiation and its energy, no atom should last more than a fraction of a second before all the electrons had fallen into the nucleus. This of course is not the case. This is because Quantum mechanics limits how electrons can lose energy to discrete units. If we assign this a value of 1, we can compare this to the energy it should radiate in one orbit, which would produce 1 wavelength or one unit of EMR, it turns out that this is less than 1, Since this is smaller than the energy unit the electron must lose energy by, it lose energy by radiation.
Now of course, QM has moved beyond the electron orbiting the nucleus model, but the same basic principle holds, Atoms can only "fall apart" if they lose energy, but they can only lose energy in "chunks" of a minimum size, and there is no process in an undisturbed (non-radioactive) atom that can emit energy "chunks" that large. A stable isotope is expected to remain stable indefinitely. It doesn't require any outside influence to hold together.

That said, true eternal life depends on whether or not protons can decay. Some scientists have put forth hypotheses related to this, and it is referred to as “proton decay” (a hypothetical form of radioactive decay). According to one idea, the Georgi–Glashow model, protons transition into a positron and a neutral pion, which then decays into 2 gamma ray photons. Estimates put the half-life for protons at 1.29×1034 years.

https://futurism.com/science-explained-atoms-last-forever

Certainly a long time but short of forever also but more research needed to confirm

The half-life of free neutron is ~15 min, however, the half-life of a neutron in a stable isotope is indefinite. So if the half-life of a free proton is estimated a 1.29e34 years(10e25 times longer than the present age of the universe), how long would you expect it to last in the nucleus of a stable isotope?

And this has nothing to do with atoms falling apart if placed in an infinite vacuum, as what's outside the atom would have no effect on this possible decay. An atom has just as much chance of decaying when isolated as it does surrounded by other atoms. (radioactive atoms do not have different half-lives depending on how close or far apart they are from other atoms.)