Eternal Clock Could Keep Time After Universe Dies

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
So.. it's o.k. for science to create a perpetual motion machine but it's not o.k. for us regular folks?

"Under the application of a weak static magnetic field, this ring-shaped ion crystal will begin a rotation that will never stop."

How are you going to generate a magnetic field without energy?

Where are you going to find a four-dimensional crystal?

What motivates a person to comment so confidently on a subject he or she obviously does not understand?

I'll turn that around on you. Where is this scientist going to get that magnetic field from? Where are they going to get a 4 dimensional crystal? I don't know either but obviously, this scientists believes it's possible. I don't see him being debunked as a hoaxer.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
So.. it's o.k. for science to create a perpetual motion machine but it's not o.k. for us regular folks?

"Under the application of a weak static magnetic field, this ring-shaped ion crystal will begin a rotation that will never stop."

How are you going to generate a magnetic field without energy?

Where are you going to find a four-dimensional crystal?

What motivates a person to comment so confidently on a subject he or she obviously does not understand?

Instead of mocking members, why don't you educate us and explain it.

Many of us come here to learn what we can on this kind of stuff, myself included.

We have to ask questions to get the answers we need which help us understand, don't we?

Reply to post by watchitburn

You cleared things up indeed, thanks

I shouldn't have said destroyed, so much as no longer existed, unless the Universe really is eternal.

Also didn't realise it could he used as a replacement for the atomic clock, sorry for not being thorough enough. Would it be more accurate? More accuracy would lead to better sattelite communications, improved GPS etc?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Look at the comments in the Source link www.livescience.com...

Many others have suggested this is a type of perpetual motion machine. Yes, that's me with the bald head and shades LOL.

One of the commenters (Martin W. Schwartz which btw is an Attorney at Law) says this,

Quantum fluctuations. The vacuum of space-time has a non-zero ground state. Virtual particles of all types come in and out of esistence, adding energy to the system. (And then he says this: ) This is not perpetual motion because energy is being added to this proposed system.

But the article states as way of explanation:

In other words, the scientists would aim to create a ring of charged particles, with the resulting electromagnetic forces causing the structure to rotate perpetually. At its lowest quantum-energy state, also known as its ground state, the system has no disorder, or entropy, and there is no way for its entropy to increase over time. Thus, the crystal's temporal structure and timekeeping ability would continue even after the universe reached a state of "heat death," also known as thermodynamic equilibrium, when it had devolved into entropy.

That doesn't sound to me like the magnetic field to run this machine is coming from an outside system. They state the source is coming from the ring itself which made of "charged particles, with the resulting electromagnetic forces causing the structure to rotate perpetually".

The idea for the commenter above I suppose is that "Quantum fluctuations" which cause "Virtual particles of all types come in and out of esistence, adding energy to the system." is where the energy is coming from.

Isn't this the same as creating energy? How did they get here.. well, they just Popped into Existence ! How convenient !

These guys are making stuff up it seems to support their fellow scientists theory. Again, if energy cannot ever be created or destroyed, only change forms thus a perpetual motion machine is impossible then how do they get away with an energy source simply popping into existence? Either they have to admit this is possible and Science has been lying to us all these years or this scientists is a hoaxer. I wonder how long it will be before they throw him under the bus.

reply to post by domasio

Currently the most precise Atomic clock is the NIST-F1

As of 2010, the clock's uncertainty was about 3 x 10-16 . It is expected to neither gain nor lose a second in more than 100 million years

This Quantum clock, theorized almost 5 years ago would be twice as accurate as that.

In March 2008, physicists at NIST described a quantum logic clock based on individual ions of beryllium and aluminium. This clock was compared to NIST's mercury ion clock. These were the most accurate clocks that had been constructed, with neither clock gaining nor losing time at a rate that would exceed a second in over a billion years.[18] In February 2010, NIST physicists described a second, enhanced version of the quantum logic clock based on individual ions of magnesium and aluminium. Considered the world's most precise clock, it offers more than twice the precision of the original.

Link

Since the "Eternal Clock" would have zero entropy. It would be potentially, infinitely more accurate depending on how long the universe lasts. And when or if it ever winds down to nothing.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I recently came across a study that talked about particles just popping into existence.
I can't remember where I saw it, and I can't seem to find it again. But I will keep looking for it and post a link when I do find it.

But I don't think it is relevant to this device. Since it would be functioning in it's own magnetic field at such a low quantum state.
One of those posters on the article brought up an interesting point though, would measuring the time on it, interfere with it in some way. I don't think I know enough to speculate on that.
I am still in agreement with you that this fits the bill for perpetual motion though.

reply to post by watchitburn



Yeah he said when you actually go to read the time, that is making it do work and thus creating entropy and will cause the system to fail - just looking at the watch dial huh.. If that's the case there is no way to observe this thing to tell if it's working.

I too have read in quantum mechanics about particles winking in and out of existence. I believe they may be real but my point was if they can do that and use it for energy, then the theories of physics ( notice I said theories because they are not really Laws - no such thing as immutable unchangeable Laws of Physics IMO) need to be revised to allow for the possibility of a perpetual motion machine and science jocks need to stop telling everyone it's impossible.

Is this a physical thing? If so it has to occupy a point in time and space.

If it does then space exists.

If space exists then the universe exists.

Therefore the universe isn't dead. Since it exists and all.

Or am I missing something?

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Absolutely.

It seems like every other week, someone is discovering something that dose not fit in mainstream science's preconceived notions of how things should work.
I think most everything is probably possible, until it is proven otherwise. But the establishment just believing a perpetual motion machine is impossible, is not proof enough for me.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

I'll turn that around on you. Where is this scientist going to get that magnetic field from?

He isn't. He's not going to be around after the universe has suffered reached thermal equilibrium. Neither is anybody else, probably for at least several billion years before that happens.

Where are they going to get a 4 dimensional crystal?

The guy who did worked out the theory that allows for (not predicts) the existence of such objects thinks they might actually exist 'if Nature has a sense of humour'.

I don't know either but obviously, this scientists believes it's possible. I don't see him being debunked as a hoaxer.

This is just a theoretical exercise. Nobody is claiming that four-dimensional crystals exist, nor are they suggesting that an eternal clock could actually be built.

The article the OP originally linked to, together with the article about four-dimensional crystals it links to, don't make this as clear as they should, but the information is there in them all the same.

reply to post by doobydoll

Instead of mocking members, why don't you educate us and explain it.

If the member had asked a civil question, or even registered a civil disagreement, rather than rudely and presumptuously denigrating science and scientists, my response would have been very different.

Now, what would you like to know? I am certainly no expert in a field only created a year ago by a Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist, but what inadequate knowledge I do possess is at your disposal.

*

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Many others have suggested this is a type of perpetual motion machine.

Do you know what 'no entropy' means? It means the system is not losing energy.

Absent any forces acting upon it, an object of uniform density rotating in a vacuum would never stop rotating, any more than an object moving in a straight line would ever stop moving. This is Newton's First Law of Motion. The difficulty is creating such conditions in real life. The post-heat-death universe, in which everything everywhere is just the same as everything everywhere else, could, in theory, provide them.

That doesn't sound to me like the magnetic field to run this machine is coming from an outside system. They state the source is coming from the ring itself which made of "charged particles, with the resulting electromagnetic forces causing the structure to rotate perpetually".

The 'resulting electromagnetic forces' are derived from the motion of charged particles in a magnetic field. The field still has to be supplied. However, the field is only necessary to cause motion to begin. The crystal will rotate on its own after that. It becomes a 'clock' simply because it always rotates at the same speed: so many RPM, so to speak.

The idea... I suppose is that "Quantum fluctuations" which cause "Virtual particles of all types come in and out of esistence, adding energy to the system." Isn't this the same as creating energy? How did they get here.. well, they just Popped into Existence ! How convenient ! These guys are making stuff up it seems to support their fellow scientists theory.

None of the people commenting on that link appear to be scientists. They are certainly not physicists. And the guy above you is wrong. Quantum fluctuations, which you appear to disbelieve in for reasons only you can tell us, have nothing to do with this particular concept.

However, quantum fluctuations are real, as demonstrated by the Casimir Effect.

I'll give you this: if a four-dimensional crystal can be found or created (it will be the first four-dimensional object ever seen by humans), then it will have the property of perpetual motion. This it will do without any violation of the laws of thermodynamics: see here. However, it will not generate energy, and the instant you apply any kind of frictional force to it, you will disrupt or halt its motion. It is not a perpetual-motion machine.

Scientists have not been lying to you, and science is not a fantasy. But science, by its very nature, discovers new truths every day. The truth that perpetual-motion machines and over-unity devices are impossible is not denied by the theoretical discovery of an object that can rotate in perpetuity without suffering friction losses.

Perhaps some day a way will be found to make these theoretical devices exist, and even produce usable energy. When that happens, it will be scientists who make it possible, not people who scoff at science because they do not understand that science, unlike religious dogma, makes no claim to articulate eternal truths.

reply to post by Astyanax

If the member had asked a civil question, or even registered a civil disagreement, rather than rudely and presumptuously denigrating science and scientists, my response would have been very different.

Now, what would you like to know? I am certainly no expert in a field only created a year ago by a Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist, but what inadequate knowledge I do possess is at your disposal.

You make me nervous of asking questions, I don't want to be made to feel like a fool for not knowing stuff.

I think I'll ask someone else.

There is NO TIME, its just a program in your brain based on your clock, your star. If you program a BOT to experience your day in 15 minutes, you disappear from his sensors and thus is it is for the cosmos.

The Universe has already been reformed, and this one has already upgraded, ascended, or progressed. There is no time. We're already past these steps in our school. We've already graduated the course material, no matter how long it took, even if took thousands of years. We're already out the other side, this is just past steps of the journey, each moment hangs forever in time. Its like a slide of pictures. Yet its ALL AT ONCE.

If science does not factually know what time is, how is a race of finites supposed to produce something infinite?

Originally posted by Unity_99
There is NO TIME, its just a program in your brain based on your clock, your star. If you program a BOT to experience your day in 15 minutes, you disappear from his sensors and thus is it is for the cosmos.

The Universe has already been reformed, and this one has already upgraded, ascended, or progressed. There is no time. We're already past these steps in our school. We've already graduated the course material, no matter how long it took, even if took thousands of years. We're already out the other side, this is just past steps of the journey, each moment hangs forever in time. Its like a slide of pictures. Yet its ALL AT ONCE.

edit on 26-9-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Tell that to the billions of races that were killed when the star supernova-ed a couple galaxies over. It happened in the past. The past, the present and the future are real. Time is it's own dimension that is either kinetic (future and past) or static (infinitesimal duration instances of "the present" as a string of instances) working in conjunction with space.

Originally posted by Astyanax

I'll give you this: if a four-dimensional crystal can be found or created (it will be the first four-dimensional object ever seen by humans), then it will have the property of perpetual motion. This it will do without any violation of the laws of thermodynamics: see here. However, it will not generate energy, and the instant you apply any kind of frictional force to it, you will disrupt or halt its motion. It is not a perpetual-motion machine.

But science, by its very nature, discovers new truths every day. The truth that perpetual-motion machines and over-unity devices are impossible is not denied by the theoretical discovery of an object that can rotate in perpetuity without suffering friction losses.

Perhaps some day a way will be found to make these theoretical devices exist, and even produce usable energy. When that happens, it will be scientists who make it possible, not people who scoff at science because they do not understand that science, unlike religious dogma, makes no claim to articulate eternal truths.

However, it will not generate energy, and the instant you apply any kind of frictional force to it, you will disrupt or halt its motion. It is not a perpetual-motion machine

How can you be so sure?

In one place you suggest that science can overcome known limitations of the theories of physics.. what you call Laws of physics, yet you seem to adhere to the notion that these "laws" cannot be changed, expanded on or re-written.. Which is it?

Tell me, do you believe we understand all possible things about thermodynamics such to the point we have to call them Laws because they are set so in stone or can you be open minded and objective and admit we are not at that point yet, and indeed may never be?

If science is always expanding it's knowledge - why do you call these Laws? Don't you think that's
very misleading, and in fact a very unscientific thing to do? This is where science becomes religion believing it's own dogma IMO.

But science, by its very nature, discovers new truths every day. The truth that perpetual-motion machines and over-unity devices are impossible is not denied by the theoretical discovery of an object that can rotate in perpetuity without suffering friction losses.

So your telling me even if something is considered impossible, creating a theory about that impossible thing becoming a reality is still accepted in the scientific community? Wouldn't the scientific community look down on this - assuming of course if is widely believed that thing is impossible? How then is this guys theory not rejected?

reply to post by Astyanax

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I am enjoying this debate immensely.
It seems like both of you are getting a little irritated, I may be wrong. But that's what it sounds like.
I am learning much from both of you, but lets continue to keep it civil.

Originally posted by tkwasny

Originally posted by Unity_99
There is NO TIME, its just a program in your brain based on your clock, your star. If you program a BOT to experience your day in 15 minutes, you disappear from his sensors and thus is it is for the cosmos.

The Universe has already been reformed, and this one has already upgraded, ascended, or progressed. There is no time. We're already past these steps in our school. We've already graduated the course material, no matter how long it took, even if took thousands of years. We're already out the other side, this is just past steps of the journey, each moment hangs forever in time. Its like a slide of pictures. Yet its ALL AT ONCE.

edit on 26-9-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

Tell that to the billions of races that were killed when the star supernova-ed a couple galaxies over. It happened in the past. The past, the present and the future are real. Time is it's own dimension that is either kinetic (future and past) or static (infinitesimal duration instances of "the present" as a string of instances) working in conjunction with space.

When that occurred, and it is still occurring. All things are like individual clips of film, and at this moment you are being born, potty trained, racing off to school, and going through all your past steps and all your future ones, and out the other side. The roll of film continually streams. As you move forward, the past catches up, and yet its all at once.

Now, the programs we have here, and in those systems, are clocked to their stars so perceptionally we are all experiencing something.

By perception I mean, like Groundhog day the movie, or our missing time experience of 9 days, what is around us, is a combination of shared reality with others and perceptional reality, where others may be just a perception as well. We can be in a blend between Hotel Earth and 7 billion private rooms. Its a matrix.

When those stars super nova'd, they went to the realms they were matched to according to their frequency. All things are infinite parts of infinity. You are not your body. That is akin to a computer program DNA.

Everyone here in the cosmos in essence has already passed moved beyond and out of these lower level schools, not every person in their incarnation, for some redo the school quite a few times, even go back a level, before moving ahead, there are infinite frequency levels, perceptionally higher and perceptionally lower.

Are you afraid of supernova? I'd rather our sun supernova'd than NWO occurs for example, all at once everyone free.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

How can you be so sure?

Science is not magic. The rules that govern the functioning of the universe do not suddenly and arbitrarily change.

In one place you suggest that science can overcome known limitations of the theories of physics...

Could you please point out exactly where I said such a thing?

...yet you seem to adhere to the notion that these "laws" cannot be changed, expanded on or re-written.

Again, could you please point out where I said anything like that?

Do you believe we understand all possible things about thermodynamics such to the point we have to call them Laws because they are set so in stone or can you be open minded and objective and admit we are not at that point yet, and indeed may never be?

Thermodynamics is merely the study of the movement and action of heat, or, more generally, energy. It is pretty much a finished study, in the same way classical optics or hydrostatics are finished studies. We have learned a lot about the universe since thermodynamics ceased to be a field of active study: we have discovered (for instance) black holes, anomalous galactic movements whose influence we put down to something we call dark matter, virtual particles that appear and disappear out of the very fabric of space-time itself, and much more. We have developed theories in which time does not exist (Unity_99 ) and theories in which space itself is expanding. We even have a hypothesis called the Many Worlds hypothesis, which proposes that a multitude of new universes come into existence at every instant. None of what we have discovered, and none of our theories and hypotheses – not even the last – contravenes the second law of thermodynamics.

Back in 1927, the great astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington said:

If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. Source

Almost a century later, Sir Arthur has yet to be proved wrong. And no physicist, not even the man who theorized that four-dimensional crystals could exist, is suggesting that the second law of thermodynamics be repealed.

So your telling me even if something is considered impossible, creating a theory about that impossible thing becoming a reality is still accepted in the scientific community? Wouldn't the scientific community look down on this - assuming of course if is widely believed that thing is impossible? How then is this guys theory not rejected?

There is nothing here to contradict what is already known. This device is not a perpetual-motion machine as you understand it – how may times must I repeat this?

You are arguing from a false premise.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

How can you be so sure?

Science is not magic. The rules that govern the functioning of the universe do not suddenly and arbitrarily change.

No, but our understanding of those "laws" can change - and science requires this of us by it's very definition of a scientific law.

In one place you suggest that science can overcome known limitations of the theories of physics...

Could you please point out exactly where I said such a thing?

HERE

But science, by its very nature, discovers new truths every day

...yet you seem to adhere to the notion that these "laws" cannot be changed, expanded on or re-written.

Again, could you please point out where I said anything like that?

HERE

The truth that perpetual-motion machines and over-unity devices are impossible

Back in 1927, the great astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington said:

If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. Source
Almost a century later, Sir Arthur has yet to be proved wrong. And no physicist, not even the man who theorized that four-dimensional crystals could exist, is suggesting that the second law of thermodynamics be repealed

Let me tell you what Sir Arthur Eddington didn't understand about the Laws of Physics. A "Law" in Science is Only a GENERALIZATION. Nothing More.

Here is the scientific definition from the National Center for Science Education.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

ncse.com...

It is Only a descriptive generalization - why? because it's a definition that allows us to effectively communicate our intentions or ideas - it by no means implies the "law" is set in stone or is even accurate.

Because new information comes out all the time and changes the truths believed in science, one cannot claim that these "laws" are immutable. That goes against the very nature of science itself. Even what is true and what is factual in science is not considered set in stone as seen in the definition of a Fact:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

ncse.com...