Is this a new paradox of energy?

  • 109 Replies
  • 27716 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Anukshan Ghosh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 15
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« on: 19/02/2011 03:42:19 »
On lifting a system from the floor to a height does the energy I expended get added to the system's internal energy? Cause change in Internal Energy in a isothermal process is given by nCv(T2-T1),which predicts ΔU to be zero.

*

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 601
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #1 on: 19/02/2011 09:15:27 »
where do you see a paradox? More explanations, please... It seems to be a simple problem.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #2 on: 19/02/2011 15:40:58 »
No, they are two different processes. You may lift a book from the floor to the table, while you're acting on the book you loose some 'energy' but the book gain no energy from you. The only thing changing for the book is the position it have relative gravity, that is, you just moved it a little further away from 'gravity's center'. That means that its 'potential energy' might be seen to grown a little versus Earths center although if measured you will find no extra 'energy' expressed as mass in that book. At the same time as you lifted that book and put it on the table you also, if you like, decreased its 'potential energy' relative the moon if doing so at night, daytime you might assume that you increased its 'potential energy' relative the moon as the moon then could be in a opposite position relative the direction you moved that book.

If you on the other hand define gravity as a 'force', you actually decreased that 'force' by removing the book from the Earths floor, relative Earth/book at the same time as you, if at night, increased the moons 'force/gravity' acting on that book. And that's why I find myself mixing those two at times. It's hard not looking at gravity as a 'force' as that is exactly as we experience it normally, it acting on us. but it's no 'force' in a normal manner, it's more like a invincible dynamic topology.
==

It's slightly confusing as I ignore Earth when discussing the moon/book. But it is true in that you can define any two objects as a system if you like, depending on what you try to define. I had to look at this twice to get it right :) Also it is a question about how to define the possible interaction from that 'potential energy' to me. If I move something away from gravity we can assume that it, if following the geodesics moving into that 'gravity well' its 'interaction' will become stronger the further it have to travel, hitting the ground. But when we have several gravity wells acting in different directions on that book it becomes more confusing to me. And that's why I ignore Earth for this moon/book. A cheap escape I know :)

==

The only way I know to increase the 'energy' aka mass of that book is if you 'compress' it and then somehow make it stay in a compressed state. The rest is variables of 'potential energy' relative what you define as your system, be it Earth/book or Moon/book, well, as I see it.
==

It naturally depends on how you define your system but even if defining it as a system including you, the book and the gravity wells acting on you you will find that the book do not gain any measurable energy, only a potential and that 'energy' not relative you, only relative gravity.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2011 16:43:17 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Anukshan Ghosh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 15
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #3 on: 20/02/2011 03:01:58 »
To summarize it, you say not a measurable potential energy gain in the system.
Thank you

*

Offline Anukshan Ghosh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 15
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #4 on: 24/02/2011 06:42:03 »
I got my answer and everything else is crap actually what happens is that a systems internal energy is defined from a frame of reference in which the center of mass is at rest and hence adding potential energy to the system does not add to its internal energy. A steady state is established in terms of internal energy for these works performed.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #5 on: 24/02/2011 08:14:05 »
Actually, if the book is part of the system which has the internal energy, because you did work to move the book, you did change the internal energy of the system. If you didn't, you'd have violated the first law of thermodynamics.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #6 on: 24/02/2011 10:17:37 »
No Geezer, you're not transferring any energy to the book, and I think that was what this question was about? 'Potential energy' is a conceptual framework describing possible interactions under the influence of the arrow of time. Not 'now' but 'when/if' the book falls down. you can move the moon if you like, without adding any energy to it by moving it, same as you move a starship by 'expending' energy. The star-ships 'invariant mass' will not increase as far as I know, the possible exception to it being its Lorentz contraction that just might add a invariant mass.

We had this discussion before methinks :)
« Last Edit: 24/02/2011 10:31:46 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #7 on: 24/02/2011 19:02:26 »
Yoron,

It's a thermodynamic question, and internal energy is a thermodynamic concept. Whenever work is done on a "system", it alters the internal energy of the system.

Check out

Daemons - Systems     at    http://www.thermofluids.net/
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #8 on: 25/02/2011 11:39:56 »
Nice site Geezer, and I agree on that looked at as a system the 'internal energy' have changed for it. But a system is very much a conceptual exercise wherein you are free to define it like you need, for the validation of your experiment, within limits of course but..

The 'internal energy' you refer too I see a as a common description for all relations involved between, and in, the objects you defined as belonging to that same 'system'. And you need only to change what objects you refer to to get a new and different 'system'. As I see it not unlike the idea of 'potential energy'. But even so, that book has no extra energy collected in it by you lifting it up on a table. The potential energy that it refer too is not measurable as any new mass, its atoms are not jiggling faster. In fact, nothing have changed for the book itself. The only thing changing is the relation it will have relative gravity. And that's the plain truth, nothing more :) But the 'systems' possible energy have changed, if we remember that it's the 'possible' energy we're talking about, that is the 'potential energy'.

Gravity is no force, to me it's more of a 'topology'. What you could assume, possibly, is that when getting compressed, like moved close to the event horizon, or past, it should express itself as more mass. At least it seems reasonable to assume that, also there is the question about what a Lorentz contraction does to a piece of lasting matter. Those two are really interesting :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #9 on: 25/02/2011 19:23:28 »
Nice site Geezer, and I agree on that looked at as a system the 'internal energy' have changed for it. But a system is very much a conceptual exercise wherein you are free to define it like you need, for the validation of your experiment, within limits of course but..

The 'internal energy' you refer too I see a as a common description for all relations involved between, and in, the objects you defined as belonging to that same 'system'. And you need only to change what objects you refer to to get a new and different 'system'. As I see it not unlike the idea of 'potential energy'. But even so, that book has no extra energy collected in it by you lifting it up on a table. The potential energy that it refer too is not measurable as any new mass, its atoms are not jiggling faster. In fact, nothing have changed for the book itself. The only thing changing is the relation it will have relative gravity. And that's the plain truth, nothing more :) But the 'systems' possible energy have changed, if we remember that it's the 'possible' energy we're talking about, that is the 'potential energy'.

Gravity is no force, to me it's more of a 'topology'. What you could assume, possibly, is that when getting compressed, like moved close to the event horizon, or past, it should express itself as more mass. At least it seems reasonable to assume that, also there is the question about what a Lorentz contraction does to a piece of lasting matter. Those two are really interesting :)

Yes, but I think you'll find that if the book was part of a system, and the work done to raise it came from outside the system, the internal energy of the system increased. If you can explain how it's possible to elevate the book without doing work, I might start to believe you. [:D]

There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #10 on: 25/02/2011 20:01:05 »
I'm just saying that there is no 'energy' transfered to the book Geezer? Where the 'energy' used by lifting the book went? Where does any 'work done' go? We have this formulation of 'work' transforming into 'work done', and what differs between them is 'energy expended', but exactly where it goes in any system? It depends on what you define as it I guess, in a rocket you might say that it transformed into its 'speed' and 'heat/radiation'. In the case of a human chemical processes should be the most important I guess?

As for the 'energy' increasing?
Not sure I follow you there?

The only thing changing is work being done on the book? Maybe you're thinking of the books 'potential energy' relative gravity?
==

Let's make it simple.
I say there is no energy transfered to the book?
That was the original question as I understood it.

Are you saying that there is an added energy in the book?
Prove it.
==

Maybe you're thinking of a enclosed system? Like a container in where you pour something hot, increasing the systems energy, the pouring taking place from outside the defined system? Then I would agree. If we define it as lifting something really heavy inside a closed container then the systems 'energy' will transform, but not increase. If we define it as a open system, no physical enclosure, but still including someone lifting a book against gravity, then I expect the system to lose its 'energy expended', in form of heat and other chemical processes, diminishing the systems 'energy'. If we define the system as only the book versus gravity and let the lifter be outside our 'system' then work is being done on the book and its 'potential energy' relative gravity is increased but its own internal measurable mass/energy will not increase as far as I know? To actually increase the 'energy' for the system? If I compressed it I would expect the books internal energy to increase, no gravity needed other than the books own invariant mass/energy increasing, produced by a compression, just like making a black hole.

« Last Edit: 25/02/2011 20:42:07 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #11 on: 25/02/2011 20:28:05 »
Hey! They're not my rules. I'm only applying the laws of thermodynamics  [:D]

"The internal energy of a system can be changed by heating the system or by doing work on it;[1] the first law of thermodynamics states that the increase in internal energy is equal to the total heat added and work done."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #12 on: 25/02/2011 20:44:51 »
Well, we define 'potential energy' too Geezer. We have a lot of laws describing transformations, but as for how they are measurable? A compression should be measurable.
==

"In thermodynamics, the internal energy is the total energy contained by a thermodynamic system. It is the energy necessary to create the system, but excludes the energy to displace the system's surroundings, any energy associated with a move as a whole, or due to external force fields."
« Last Edit: 25/02/2011 20:48:49 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #13 on: 25/02/2011 20:49:31 »
Well, we define 'potential energy' too Geezer. We have a lot of laws describing transformations, but as for how they are measurable? A compression should be measurable.

Not quite sure I understand your point there Yoron, but I do know that work and heat are fairly easy to quantify.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #14 on: 25/02/2011 20:55:22 »
What is your point Geezer?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #15 on: 25/02/2011 21:01:58 »
Oh, I'm only saying it's not hard to quantify the amount of work or heat added to a system (in thermodynamics).

I didn't understand what you meant by "A compression should be measureable."
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #16 on: 25/02/2011 21:06:38 »
Conservation of energy.

"The first law of thermodynamics simply asserts that energy is conserved,[17] and that heat is included as a form of energy transfer. A commonly used corollary of the first law is that for a "system" subject only to pressure forces and heat transfer (e.g., a cylinder-full of gas), the differential change in energy of the system (with a gain in energy signified by a positive quantity) is given as the following equation:

***

where the first term on the right is the heat transfer into the system, defined in terms of temperature T and entropy S (in which entropy increases and the change dS is positive when the system is heated), and the last term on the right hand side is identified as "work" done on the system, where pressure is P and volume V (the negative sign results since compression of the system requires work to be done on it and so the volume change, dV, is negative when work is done on the system). Although this equation is the standard textbook example of energy conservation in classical thermodynamics, it is highly specific, ignoring all chemical, electric, nuclear, and gravitational forces, effects such as advection of any form of energy other than heat, and because it contains a term that depends on temperature. The most general statement of the first law (i.e., conservation of energy) is valid even in situations in which temperature is undefinable.

Energy is sometimes expressed as the following equation:

***

which is unsatisfactory[11] because there cannot exist any thermodynamic state functions W or Q that are meaningful on the right hand side of this equation, except perhaps in trivial cases.
==

What I meant was that if you compress a spring, and leave it compressed, that should be measurable as an added 'invariant' mass. But if we're discussing heat, fluids and gases it's different than with our 'lifting a book'.
« Last Edit: 25/02/2011 21:10:39 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #17 on: 25/02/2011 21:38:54 »
All good stuff, but I'm not sure how to apply it in this particular case.

Try this:

We define a system consisting of the Moon, a table and a book only.

Initially, the book is sitting on the surface of the Moon. A big hand comes down from above and moves the book onto the table.

We then might try to answer questions like:
Was work done on the book?
Was work done on the system?
Did the internal energy of the system change?
Is it even possible to answer these questions by applying Thermodynamics? (I have a suspicion the answer may be no.)
 
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #18 on: 25/02/2011 22:03:55 »
:)

Sh*

I really liked that big hand, reminded me of MP:n. Sorry, I was away for a while, helped me mum. The first law is about conservation of energy as I think of it. You're probably all too right in it being tricky defining where the 'energy' went though :) heat? This one might help us, ah, maybe?

"The total energy of the universe does not change. This does not mean that the form of the energy cannot change. Indeed, chemical energies of a molecule can be converted to thermal, electrical or mechanical energies.

The internal energy of a system can change only by work or heat exchanges. From this the change in the free energy of a system can be shown by the following equation:

ΔE = q – w

When q is negative heat has flowed from the system and when q is positive heat has been absorbed by the system. Conversely when w is negative work has been done on the system by the surrounding and when positive, work has been done by the system on the surroundings.

In a reaction carried out at constant volume no work will be done on or by the system, only heat will be transferred from the system to the surroundings. The end result is that:

ΔE = q

When the same reaction is performed at constant pressure the reaction vessel will do work on the surroundings. In this case:

ΔE = q – w

where

w = PΔV

When the initial and final temperatures are essentially equal (e.g. in the case of biological systems):

ΔV = Δn[RT/P]

therefore,

w = ΔnRT

By rearrangement of the above equations one can calculate the amount of heat released under constant pressure:

q = ΔE + w = ΔE + PΔV = ΔE + ΔnRT

In this last equation, Δn is the change in moles of gas per mole of substance oxidized (or reacted), R is the gas constant and T is absolute temperature. "

From there it gets constantly more scientific :)
==

And as that hand is involved we probably need to look at 'Standard State Conditions in Biological Reactions'. It's easier to call it an 'Act Of God' and leave it be I think :)
« Last Edit: 25/02/2011 22:21:36 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #19 on: 25/02/2011 22:36:26 »
Here's another one:

A system consists of a mechanical clock that is powered by a spring.

A big hand comes down from the sky and winds up the spring.

Was work done on the system? (Yes, I think.)
Did the internal energy of the system change? (Yes, I think.)
Is this really any different from the book and moon model? (No, I think.)
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #20 on: 25/02/2011 22:48:35 »
I would put this way. The hand expended energy drawing up the spring, the spring is now in a more or less compressed state, containing a very slight added invariant mass that it will expend, finally in form of mechanically induced 'heat' also driving levers, cogs etc in the process, moving the hands of the clock.

Was work done by the hand. Yep.
Did (some/most of) that work get stored as 'energy' by that spring. Yep
Did that spring finally lose that 'energy' to the rest of the machinery. Yep.
Did that machinery gain any energy? (final state) Nope.

Did the clock as a system gain energy? Yep, momentarily it did.

Your hand, did that expend energy? As long as it's mortal it did :)
Did the book gain any energy by being lifted. Nope
Where did the energy expended go then? I would say it got 'lost' into the universe as 'heat/radiation' ultimately that is. But if we really want to pinpoint where the he* it went we should ask Bored Chemist :)

I'm pretty sure he's having a good time reading us :)
« Last Edit: 25/02/2011 22:52:45 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #21 on: 25/02/2011 23:18:20 »

Did that machinery gain any energy? (final state) Nope.


Ah! But it did.

Imagine the system (the clock) is in a perfectly insulated box and we can read the temperature of the air in the box. After the spring has wound down again, the temperature of the system will have increased.

The reason for this is that all the mechanical energy that was in the spring is eventually converted into heat in overcoming friction in the mechanism. If you keep repeating the wind/unwind cycle the temperature will continue to increase with each cycle.

Now let's try it with a weight powered grandfather clock in a perfectly insulated box. We'll get a similar result. (We should really include the Earth in the insulated box to get the most accurate measurement, but that could be a bit tricky.)
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #22 on: 25/02/2011 23:36:54 »
Yes, I agree, in a enclosed system you will find the temperature go up as the energy gets expended transforming into radiation. If you define the universe as 'closed' you might want to define the same happening there. So loosely we can say that the hands 'energy' got transfered to the universe in form of heat, and assume that some of it momentarily was existing in form of 'energy' in the book too. But that kind of 'energy' is not there any longer time, and, as the universe is infinite, and conservation of energy assume that there always is a equilibrium?

You might want to argue that there should be a temperature difference to the universe after the hand expended its energy but even if so I don't expect it to be measurable and as the universe finally is expected to end in a Heat Death. in where nothing 'jiggle' anymore I would expect any heat/radiation coming from the hand lifting to dissipate very quickly. My view :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #23 on: 26/02/2011 00:04:37 »
If you define the universe as 'closed' you might want to define the same happening there.

I don't think that works. If the hand that wound up the spring is part of the system, it cannot alter the internal energy of the system. The internal energy of a system only increases if external work or energy is added to or removed from it. That's why the big hand has to mysteriously appear from nowhere.

The book situation is no different. You can lift the book against the force of gravity, or, if you prefer, you are doing work to distort space-time. Either way it's not so different from winding a spring or lifting the weight on a grandfather clock. If you allow the book to fall, all the work that went into changing the position of the book will be dissipated as friction (heat).
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #24 on: 26/02/2011 07:42:47 »
Well, I expect it to be different though :) To disprove it you have to show there is a measurable energy collected into that book, after lifting it. It's a interesting thought in that it also should mean that gravity was a 'force', and that we then could expect it to do different work on us throughout the universe. If that was so you might also assume that it could lose 'energy' itself, but as far as I know it doesn't? You have another 'force' reminding of gravity though, permanent magnetism doesn't lose 'energy' either as I understands it, levitating something. At least not by applying the magnetic 'force'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #25 on: 26/02/2011 08:00:54 »
It won't be different. All the kinetic energy of the book will be converted into thermal energy.

If you define the system so that it really captures all of the thermal energy while the book fell, it will precisely equal the energy spent in elevating the book.

If it does not, you'll have to rewrite the laws of energy conservation.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #26 on: 26/02/2011 09:23:57 »
You're right there :) I assume that you mean a 'closed system' for that though. We can define all interactions as expending some energy, that then, no matter how small, will add, or rather transform, some energy in the 'system' and actually the whole SpaceTime you're in. Do you agree?

I don't know if you're right in that, although it's also about how we should see this 'energy expended' in a interaction. To my eyes 'energy' is just a description of something 'not there' but needed to explain why a transformation can express itself as a 'force' doing work. Looked at that way, assuming that we have a conservation of 'energy', whatever that is thought to be, (would have been better to call it 'conservation of transformation' heh, Alchemy here we come :) You still have to define how this 'energy' find its new state as work done in the final stage. 'Energy' is not measurable, radiation is but the radiation clings out in interacting releasing its work into work done. It would be very nice to find some way to measure 'energy' on its own, not only the interactions transforming 'work' into 'work done'.

But I still withhold that you will find no new 'energy/mass' added to that book :). That's also why we need 'potential energy'.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2011 12:24:50 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #27 on: 26/02/2011 09:30:49 »
It's like most subjects in physics, looked at from basic we will find that they build on axioms and 'statistics/probability' or 'experience' if you like. That's what we used when we invented 'potential energy', and that's what we used when we invented 'energy'.
==

That is why I speak of compressing a spring as the only way I know of actually proving that something have happened 'energy wise' or as I see it 'mass wise'. Assuming that this have been tested that is :) But I do believe this to be correct, and that's also why I wonder about a Lorentz contraction.
==

Another question is where 'work done' goes ultimately, and if it lose something in the transformation? We say it change but never disappear, still, what did it 'lose' in its transformation? If the ultimate state is radiation? Won't that interact too? And when it interact, doesn't it annihilate?

You might ask yourself what you think to exist when the radiation too have interacted? 'Energy'? Or should I call it 'Work done'? What the he* is it? Not measurable, not defined, existing as a very useful concept, but nothing more as I know.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2011 12:35:54 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #28 on: 27/02/2011 06:54:14 »

You're right there :) I assume that you mean a 'closed system' for that though.


In thermodynamics you have to define a boundary for the system. It does not have to be closed necessarily. For example, the mass within the system could be changing. However, you do need to be able to quantify what is changing in the system.

In the book case (not the bookcase  [;D]) there is no reason for the mass within the system to change, so it could be completely closed.

"Internal energy" and "system" are just simplifying constructs that allow us to model what we are interested by eliminating a lot of stuff that is not relevant to the problem we are trying to solve.

Potential energy produced by elevating the book is just the same as winding up the spring in a clock. The only difference is that the energy happens to be a distortion of space-time rather than distortion of the atomic lattice in a piece of spring steel.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 582
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #29 on: 27/02/2011 09:12:35 »
If you hold the book at arms length, even if you feel you are doing work and there is a perceptible strain on your arms, you are not doing any work because the book remains stationary. If you pick up the book and move it somewhere else you have done work because you have moved it over a distance.
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #30 on: 27/02/2011 12:51:50 »
Yep, displacement theory :)
And in neither case the book will weight more, that is have an added 'energy'.

If we want to discus 'energy' and 'gravity' as 'forces' then we should start to look at virtual particles and why we expect them to be more the nearer we get to an EV (Event horizon).

I'll suggest this phenomena will be a direct result of 'space' getting 'folded' the closer you get. Not a result of 'gravity's magnitude' as some magnetic force increasing.

As for thermodynamics relative any other system. They are the same, you always need to define boundaries. Not doing so makes it impossible to 'count' on whatever you are trying to define. Don't mistake this for not being allowed to set a 'boundary' as being open though, you can do so as I did when I stated that the radiation/energy disappear into the Universe. That we found conservation laws makes perfect sense, Without them this universe would be unstable and prone to disappearing, us included.

Those laws I expect to be a 'emergence' too.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #31 on: 27/02/2011 22:18:03 »

And in neither case the book will weight more, that is have an added 'energy'.


It's not the book that has added energy. It's the system that that has added energy, and the book is only one part of that system. When you let the book fall, the Earth is accelerating towards the book while the book is accelerating towards the Earth.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #32 on: 28/02/2011 00:12:04 »
"Potential energy produced by elevating the book is just the same as winding up the spring in a clock. The only difference is that the energy happens to be a distortion of space-time rather than distortion of the atomic lattice in a piece of spring steel."

Nope :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #33 on: 28/02/2011 00:18:10 »
"It's not the book that has added energy. It's the system that that has added energy, and the book is only one part of that system. When you let the book fall, the Earth is accelerating towards the book while the book is accelerating towards the Earth."

Can you tell me what you mean by the system having an 'added energy'?

There is a equilibrium existing, that's what the conservation laws are about. The thing happening in all interactions as I see it are 'transformations', all of them ending with some or all of the 'energy' getting transformed into our idea of 'work done' meaning that we won't be able to use it any more.

So, while we can speak of a object getting an added energy, SpaceTime as a whole always should be in a equilibrium. I'm not sure what your 'system' is here? The only way you can transfer new energy into SpaceTime is by divine intervention :) Well, that and entanglements/tunneling and possibly, virtual pair production involving a EV (Event horizon).
« Last Edit: 28/02/2011 00:39:39 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #34 on: 28/02/2011 01:10:56 »

Can you tell me what you mean by the system having an 'added energy'?


Sure can.

In the case of the clock, the "big hand" appeared and added energy to the system, which, in this case happens to be within the boundaries of the clock.

In the case of the book, the "big hand" appeared and added energy to the system, which, in this case happens to be within the boundaries of the book and the gravitational system that exists between the book and the Moon, Earth, or whatever.

The only difference is that in one case the energy is stored in the distortion of a piece of steel while in the other case the energy is stored in the distortion of space-time.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #35 on: 28/02/2011 01:40:33 »
Seems we have a difference of opinion here Geezer. A 'potential energy' is a definition that change with how you define that system, you can have as many 'potential energy's' you like, simultaneously, just by defining the book relative Earth, or the moon, or a passing meteor, or anything differing, from whatever frame you look at.

As for the 'big hand' :) Okay, i kind'a like that one. But when it comes to comparing doing mechanical work on a spring, winding it up and storing the energy, that also will express itself as a added 'invariant mass' if measured with lifting a book? Nope. It's not the same.

In the case of that same book there is no extra energy stored in any 'distortion'. Whatever distortion that book will create by its invariant mass and possible uniform motion will be the same, the only thing differing being what position it has relative the gravitation at large represented of those objects you define as your system. Although in a real experiment you will find that whatever gravity you measure, in any point of SpaceTime, will be the sum of all gravity existing as gravity has no limits, as shown by inertia.

You might assume though that the closer you are to a gravity well, the more 'deformed' will you be as observed from a far observer, but in that case the distortion will diminish for that same observer as the book is moved from the gravity well.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #36 on: 28/02/2011 03:10:34 »
As for the 'big hand' :) Okay, i kind'a like that one. But when it comes to comparing doing mechanical work on a spring, winding it up and storing the energy, that also will express itself as a added 'invariant mass' if measured with lifting a book? Nope. It's not the same.

Sure is.

If gravitational force is the result of a distortion of space-time, the work that was done in raising the book simply increased that distortion. If space-time is distorted by the position of matter, it acts like a sort of spring because it always tries to return to the least distorted state.

I think you may be neglecting the fact that the book also creates a gravitational well. When the force that is keeping the Earth's gravitational well separate from the book's gravitational well is removed, space-time reverts to its most relaxed state by joining the two wells together.

Of course, the analogy with the spring probably breaks down when you compare the measurable forces compared with distance. It's also interesting to note that the concept of a "gravitational well" employs an assumption that things will fall into a well, so we are using the assumption that gravity causes things to "fall" to prove that there is no such thing as gravity. Hmmmm???

I have only three things to say.
Well, well, well.
« Last Edit: 28/02/2011 04:55:20 by Geezer »
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #37 on: 28/02/2011 08:34:45 »
"If space-time is distorted by the position of matter, it acts like a sort of spring because it always tries to return to the least distorted state." That's a really nice idea Geezer, you might assume that if 'gravity' was like our 'virtual particles'. An expression of something we can't really touch, even though we find it coupled to mass, and then imagine a totally empty SpaceTime, without matter. If so, how would gravity express itself, as a 'plane'? And would space then .?

As for the rest, I think we both will exhaust ourselves defending our viewpoints :) the thing I saw questioned was if the book got some added energy/mass by being lifted. I say no, and I think we both agree on that? When it comes to how the energy used by the hand should be defined I say it gets lost into 'space', whereas you think of it as adding to a distortion of sort, if I got it right?

Now, we are of different views there, and, until someone can point us to that definite experiment proving one or another, and I don't mean Monte Python :) we will differ on that.

"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #38 on: 28/02/2011 21:35:33 »
Well, I would like to disagree with you, but as I'm not sure how you explain what causes the book to fall, it's kind of difficult to disagree. Maybe you could try to explain what happens in your model?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #39 on: 01/03/2011 16:08:29 »
You mean if the book falls of the table? Ignoring the hand then? It will follow a geodesic until it meet a obstacle, like the ground. Are you moving the discussion from if the book had a energy or not, to what happens when/if it falls?

Are you saying gravity is a force containing a energy Geezer?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #40 on: 01/03/2011 18:15:06 »
Are you saying gravity is a force containing a energy Geezer?

No. I'm saying the system which, in this case, consists of the book, the Earth and space-time, causes the book to fall. We can obtain work from that system, so, if you like, there is energy stored in it, but it's not stored in any particular element of the system. It's an interaction between matter and spacetime.

It's the same as the rubber sheet model that demonstrates how the distortion of space-time produces the gravitational effect that keeps bodies in orbits. It also demonstrates how bodies are apparently attracted towards each other.

When you say "follows a geodesic", I'm not sure what that means.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #41 on: 01/03/2011 18:40:46 »
As I see it.

It will follow a geodesic in what you refer to as falling. If standing on Earth we would define it as accelerating too. Though if we were gnomes living inside the book we would not find any gravitation acting upon us, making it inseparable from any other uniform motion, excepting tidal forces. The definition I have on a acceleration is that you will feel 'gravity work/act' upon you. And in the case of the book falling there is nothing acting, as told by our gnomes. It's more like it's 'out of bounds' relative the gravity well and search its equilibrium, well, sort of :)

==

If you define uniform motion as being 'at rest' as there is no way to define any 'speed', you can also say that it already are in a equilibrium, and finally will find that equilibrium disturbed by Earths surface acting upon it, as long as it rests there, squashed or not :)
« Last Edit: 01/03/2011 23:01:07 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #42 on: 01/03/2011 19:26:29 »
I think I'll stick with the rubber sheet  [;D]  Gnomes are not to be trusted.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #43 on: 01/03/2011 19:40:16 »
Think of SpaceTime like a topology. If we could color it you would find all those bends twists and curves. The roller coaster tracks to a planet is really 'deep' so the book has only one way to go, its speed 'accelerating' as seen from Earth is no acceleration at all, it's a free fall all the way to the surface. Any acceleration has to act on the object accelerating, creating the equivalent to a 'gravitational force', a weight if you like. Without it, no acceleration exist. Try this one, chapter two and forward.. It seems nice.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #44 on: 01/03/2011 19:57:23 »
The funniest thing with this 'topology' we have, is that all of it are representing 'straight lines', although through 'SpaceTime'. So if we could roll it out on a flat surface? Which we can't really, it would tear up, we would see how it looks in 'reality' :) Although I can't imagine exactly how it would look then, I'm mighty sure that it would look pretty weird. And even though the book to us Earthlings is 'accelerating' it does not expend any energy, neither does it gain any. The thing changing is only its position inside space and time, in the 'topology' as I call it :)

What one can do, and as I think you do too(?) is to define different 'gravitational potentials' to different positions in a 'system', and then state that relative this position the books 'potential energy' relative Earth will be ??, assuming that it would 'fall' from there. It's one way to think of it.
==

In fact, it's close to how I wonder about matter too, if you just let matter be 'spread out' on that flat plane. I've been thinking of it for some time now :) If that isn't how it really is, 'virtuality' included. Think of the explanation to how the Casimir force is thought to 'work' relative its wavelengths. What such an explanation starts with is assuming that those wavelengths matters, and 'classically' they don't, exist I mean. So, what are they? And how can they be excluded from the plate and sphere proving it. Doesn't all matter include 'virtual particles'? It's sort of weird, but interesting.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2011 20:37:28 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #45 on: 01/03/2011 20:52:21 »

Though if we were gnomes living inside the book we would not find any gravitation acting upon us, making it inseparable from any other uniform motion,


Only because you are defining a system that does not include the Earth and space-time. If you define the system to include the Earth, the gnomes, and space-time, which you must if you recognize that the gnomes and Earth get closer together, you will discover that they really are accelerating towards Earth and the Earth is accelerating towards them.

It's like a game of football. If you keep moving the goal posts around, you can always win. It you don't define the boundaries of your system, you can talk yourself in to believing almost anything.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #46 on: 01/03/2011 20:58:13 »
Geezer, that won't work. Either you have a acceleration in that book, then you also have a 'weight' acting on our gnomes. Or you don't have a acceleration at all. Using that definition you also can define 'inertia' as an acceleration, as that is exactly what it is. And the direction of that 'acceleration' have no importance at all. What is important is that either you expend some energy, or something else expend it, acting on you forcing you to break your uniform motion.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2011 21:06:30 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #47 on: 01/03/2011 21:12:36 »
The gnomes are no different from trainee astronauts experiencing "weightlessness" in the Vomit Comet. If the system is confined to the aircraft, they are weightless. If the system includes the Earth, they are accelerating towards it, just as they would if they were not contained within the aircraft.

It's all about boundaries and frames of reference. You can say the gnomes are not accelerating as long as you keep the Earth out of it. But you cannot use an argument that ignores the Earth to prove that they are not accelerating towards the Earth.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #48 on: 01/03/2011 21:28:15 »
Try this.

Step out of an aeroplane at 20,000 feet. Close your eyes. Keep repeating "Yippee! I am weightless! I can fly anywhere I want to!"

As long as you don't open your eyes, you'll be OK.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12339
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a new paradox of energy?
« Reply #49 on: 01/03/2011 21:28:55 »
Remember how you could define two uniformly moving object, moving relative each other, as any of them using the total 'motion' with the other becoming a 'inertial frame' without motion. This is the same but instead of motion we're discussing gravity. And any uniform motion, including the one seen as a gravitational acceleration when standing on Earth is defined by no 'gravity' perceptible inside a 'black box'. If you can't define the 'gravity' in there it do not exist for you. It is a function of space, matter and time, the 'topology'.
==

To see SpaceTime you will have to accept that both statements above actually is true. If you don't you will have to use Newtons definitions. They work perfectly on Earth, but becomes slightly 'out of sync' with the universe at large
« Last Edit: 01/03/2011 21:34:44 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."