Vogon_Poet wrote:DarkPrimus wrote:The infuriating thing about people like Vogon is, while it takes only a few seconds to make a statement that's absolute shit, and it takes just as long to recognize said statement as such, it can take hours to be able to demonstrate why. Which is why I consulted some people who have a better understanding of physics than myself, and an even greater understanding than you, Vogon. Responses are bolded.
DP, are you embarrassed to cite this author? Does he/she wish their identity to be annonymous? Interesting quotes, but the authority is not established. Let's take a look at them then.
So DP, how many photons can a diamond pass before it breaks down and stops diffracting light by wavelength? Atoms and molecules can convert virtually any form of energy to any other form perpetually with 100% efficiency, no fuel, and never wearing or needing maintenance, and they are constantly in motion, and they are made of matter. Hmmmm. Sounds like perfect material to me.
There is always some heat lost in the system as you pointed out, and eventually, the heat will disrupt the molecular structure, unless it is radiated away. As for the comment that atoms and molecules can convert one form of energy into another "without fuel" this is simply hilarious. Fuel is itself a way of storing energy, not the means by which energy is converted. This fellow betrays his ignorance on the matter of energy. And as for energy waste, the more complex the structure, the greater the waste.
The annonymous authority (henceforth known as AA) explains that heat is generated in processes which breaks down molecules
unless the heat is radiated away. This is true in many chemical reactions. Especially the ones we use to generate heat. Had we ever alluded to chemical reactions? I think not. You failed to explain to AA that we were talking about energy conversions, not chemical processes. AA is correct that statistically, more complex structures have more waste, but this is obviously not a rule. The number of moving parts in an ecodrive kinetic watch, for example, extract the energy from normal wrist motion, store it, and operate the machinery of the watch later. And equivalent battery driven watch has fewer moving parts but has less efficiency when battery production is included in the overall function of the machine. Just one of many examples, but inefficient simple machines are a dime a dozen, and efficient complex machines can be made. So tell me, how much loss is there when chemiluminescence (cold light) activates? Ask AA precisely how much energy is required to excite a phosphor, and then how much energy is released with the photonic emission. Then tell me, after doing the math, where the energy for "heat" came from?!?!
Now to the fuel comment: AA is clearly talking about an energy carrier such as Hydrogen, not a fuel. But regardless, there is no machine made by man which can convert, say, chemical energy into mechanical energy without fuel. Do we have a machine which needs no fuel? No. Does the atom need fuel? No. Atoms can convert energy directly from one form to another, we must go through elaborate steps to make a conversion, always involving either a fuel or an energy carrier.
DarkPrimus wrote:
Atomic physics? What the hell are you talking about - radioactive decay? A radioisotope will decay to daughter particles whos sum have exactly the same energy as the parent atom. This is called the law of conservation of matter and energy: nothing can be lost at the atomic level. When we speak of "loss" like heat due to friction in machines, we're not talking about atoms, first of all, and we're not "losing" anything since adding the kinetic energyu of the heated atoms plus the energy of the work done by the machine is exactly equal to the energy put into the system: the law of conservation again. What we call "loss" is energy not used in the manner we would like by our imperfect designs.
Atoms do not break down when they are undergoing non-atomic interactions; this is incredibly obvious. This doesn't mean they are perfect; they do break down in nuclear reactions, and it is mere sophistry to point out that the total amount of mass/energy remains constant. The total amount of theoretical mass/energy in a car remains constant even if it falls apart; this hardly makes it "perfect".
Violations of Conservation of Energy occur on very short timescales, in the so-called "quantum fluctuation". The person in question is obviously trying to prove that natural creation is perfect while human invention is not, and he is using the law of conservation of energy to "prove" this. But even if we leave aside quantum fluctuation, the real problem with his argument is that, using his OWN logic, anything manmade is perfect too, by virtue of obeying Conservation of Energy.
False. You neglected to mention that our imperfect designs do not employ all energy of the system, which is why they are imperfect. Natural atomic systems convert perfectly erg for erg. Excess energy applied is converted to kinetic energy (heat), of course, but that is the fault of the source of the excess energy, not the machine, which simply dispenses with the excess as radiation. It is sophistry to assume the car can be considered "perfect" by simply redefining the machine as an automobile/heater/carbon monoxide generator/acoustic source, which accounts for all energy of the system. That is not what I'm doing since
we define our machines, but cannot define the natural ones. Lord Kelvin learned that radioactive decay actually had a purpose in heating the earth. We call heat "loss" because we don't use it, but what effect on the greater universe would we see if a certain atomic machine failed to produce heat? AA is incorrect that all reactions produce heat. Only the ones that are designed to do so produce heat. Cold light is a reality.
As for his short timescale violations of the newtonian laws, AA is partially correct. Quantum fluxuations occur, but are unrelated to mechanical processes of the atoms. Their energy derives from vacuum fluxuations, in theory. This is an energy external to and inconsequential to the processes that atomic machines perform, and I am uncertain why AA would bring it up in this vein. To the point that quantum fluxuation demonstrate a violation of conservation of mass and energy, it is simply untrue. The energy source for quantum fluxuations are distinct from any other processes; this is the fundamental disconnect between quantum mechanics and classical physics. Energy of excitation and energy of any radiation are always exactly the same in any atomic process. Compare to a car: energy to produce a gallon of gasoline > energy derived from a car. Efficiency is about 30% in the best cars.
DarkPrimus wrote:
The mass of any atom is less than that of the sum of its constituent protons and neutrons. If the masses of daughter nuclei were the same, there would be no reason for the parent nucleus to decay in the first place. Ask him how do nuclear reactions produce energy....
Nuclear reactions produce energy by converting mass to kinetic energy or radiation in perfect proportion. The energy released in fission is the sum of all component energies of fragments, neutrons and photons of the fragments, and neutrons, electrons, photons, and antineutrinos emitted by the fragments. A Uranium 238 atom in a nuclear reactor, for example, decays through several reactions to Plutonium 239 while emitting alpha particles, fast neutrons and other particles. Our reactors only use the neutrons. Some neutrons are captured by unspent fuel and cause another fission event. Other neutrons are ejected from the fuel meat into the moderator, where their kinetic energy is collected as heat and converted to electrical energy through turbine generators or other similar devices. A nuclear rector is a steam engine fueled by radioactive decay. How this bears on the topic I can't immagine. Outr reactors cannot ever be 100% efficient because at least the neutrinos and antineutrinos will always escape the core. Many gamma emissions also are wasted energy.
To try to bring this back on topic, the energy to create the Uranium atom is exactly the same as the energy radiated from its decay. Mass is converted to energy as neutrons are expelled at near the velocity of light (fast, or prompt neutrons). But the key pont is that the atom cannot wear, it can convert energy forever, and every erg of energy put into the atom is either converted or stored as kinetic energy or mass. Atoms are perfectly designed, and can never fail to perform according to specification. They have an infinite "mean time between failure", and zero reject rate, and are unaffected by age.DarkPrimus wrote:
And Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle along with the rest of quantum mechanics puts down any notion of determinism in physics. There are many processes in physics which violate energy conservation, e.g. Cooper pairs in superconducting materials and the exchange virtual particles in particle reactions.
OK. If AA is going to go into virtual particles, we can invent any kind of relation. You can't use unknown processes as evidence against an observation. As far as BCS theory and superconductivity, the theoretical cooper pairs loose no energy to heat like normal conduction. Almost seems we've made a perfect device, but not quite. The crystal lattice in the supercondutor has no loss, but it's nt really converting anything or doing work, so why mention it? The atome within the lattice are perfect.
DarkPrimus wrote:
They told me to ask, and so I do:
How do nuclear reactions produce energy?
Already done. We (imperfect designers) extract kinetic energy from radiated particles (mostly neutrons) as heat via a moderator (water, graphite, etc.), and waste the rest.
Did I mention I used to run and repair nuclear reactors for a living?
-- Asuka
