Conservation of Energy and Closed System

pakoppan,

"Couldn't Conservation of Energy result in a a Closed System ?

Does this make any sense?"

Not the way you are expressing it.

Please elaborate on what you are trying to say.

Normally we define a closed system in order to demonstrate conservation of energy, but energy is always conserved whether or not the system is "closed" ..... it just can make it harder to account for all the energy in a specific way, but its there.

Regards, Greg

Google entropy.

Yes, I guess so, whaevere Google Enropy means.

he question in itself has n meaning at all.

Thanks

PAK

Google as used here means "go to www.google.com and type in" and "entropy" has to do with thermodynamics. Actually, you might want to check www.Wikipedia.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy Also thermodynamics, the first and second law. The suggestion, in case you are still not clear is that you do some research into these things and in doing so may discover some answers to you question.

Thanks for the reply rcapper.

Please see my reply to Hottec.

I 'm still not convinced that the question has any sense at all.

A closed system, by definition, is supposed not to exchange any form of energy and/or mass with the surrounding space. Very hard to find in practice, if not impossible.

On Earth, no system is closed in these terms. Our space on Earth (in which we swim more or less successful) is sandwiched between the Sun energy and the Earth gravity and geothermal energy. Any attempt to build a shielded enclosure in respect to one form of energy (let's say a Faraday cage) will fail in respect with gravity.

Only mass-closed systems can be built - like a closed hydraulic system or a vacuumed enclosure. However, in time, leaks are occurring due to walls porosity. But they are always exchanging energy with the surroundings!

Conservation of energy refers to its indestructible nature, transforming from one form into another (or into mass and vice versa) in equivalent amounts!

Since the Big Bang, there is no true source of energy that we can observe: all are just converters!

I hope you understand the confusion induced by everyday language. We say generator thinking just at one form of energy delivered by that device. In fact, it's a converter. Power is the measure of possibility (potential) to do some kind of energy conversion. Time is always related to energy - in fact is just a dimension of it's flow.

Free energy is what we don't pay, yet.

Efficiency is another confusion: it is NOT output/input. All motors, generators, engines, etc. are in fact 100% efficient by this definition! The correct definition of efficiency is usable-desired/input (connect energy to all these words). Losses are just undesired, unusable or unnecessary forms of energy. But still energy!

So, I don't see your point.

Maybe you should rephrase your question.

Hi Hottec,

Nice explanation. The big problem of answering the question proposed is HOW to rephrase it as I don't think I can find a suitable question that replaces something that is deem as nonsense.

My objective here is answer the question as it was proposed to me by someone else.

If we assume a system where there are no leaks what we would have is a perfect conservation of energy. One single example of 100% efficient converter is matter-antimatter collision- here we have no loses whatsoever, as long as we 'walls' of the closed system do not interact with the energy dissipated in the collision. You are right. There will ALWAYS be some form of leak / loss because we have not discovered any form of energy that allows its contents to remain inside the closed system forever.i e, the contents will never interact with the 'walls'. That is also impossible. We can have this for a short period of time in a controled environment like in a particle accelerator where the particle is kept off the "walls" of its container by means of a magnetic field.

So the next question would be : What exactly is energy. Pure energy? Does such thing exist in the realm of the quark/electron "world"?

As far as I know energy is defined as capacity of doing mechanical work.

I guess this is a bit flawed as it is not totally acepted as a true statement or the only posible definition.

Consider a steel bar in the ground. It is made of energy, it can be changed to some other kind of energy but at the present moment it has no capacity of doing any mechanical work by itself unless acted upon an external force (another form of enerfy) that place it in a situation where it can perform some kind of mechanical work.

OK. E = mc^2 but what is E in its pure form, what does it look like? Does it have to look like something?

Since everything we observe directly or indirectly is a manifestation of energy then I think the question has no possible answer unless we label some form of enery as pure energy which is an arbitrary concept.(see above).

Am I too off the mark ?

Hi pakoppan,

If we cannot see something, it doesn't mean is not there.

You're navigating through a lot of staff...

Don't forget that for keeping a particle away from the accelerator wall, a lot of energy is consumed... I see no closed system here.

I agree that is a good practice to look at energy as at some form of mechanical movement, at any scale.

Matter-antimatter collision is the most dramatic annihilation of mass and almost complete transformation of it into energy.

Matter is considered to be made of six quarks and six leptons. The electron is the best known flavor of leptons. Is it energy there? Sure it is. The less energetic matter is the Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) close to Absolute Zero. The "residual" temperature left by the Big Bang is 3 degrees Kelvin above Absolute Zero. Artificially, 400nK could be achieved. But even at this temperature, the so-called super atom is moving (translation). Even if the electrons would stop their revolution around the nucleus, they would continue to spin. The idea is that it seems impossible to completely deprive matter of energy. And vice versa!

Now is the big moment: if we admit there is pure matter, then we have to admit also that there is pure energy!

Anything we see around us is a mixture of pure matter and pure energy. Strange assertion as any mixture is no more pure...

Regards

Ýou confused me there Hottech. Isn´t it that at Absolute Zero all atomic motion stops? So where does it all energy go after that?

Hi cofeebean,

Linear thinking is not helping in sub-atomic domain.

Nothing is perfect: there is no perfect vacuum, a.s.o. And there is no complete extraction of energy from matter when cooling it to Absolute Zero...

Absolut Zero remains just a temperature (i.e. heat) value but sub-atomic motion doesn't stop. We went close enough to understand that heat means only translational/vibration motion of atoms. What happens when atoms are getting so close to one another... well, is a whole story and still a lot of work to do to find out.

Don't worry, the energy is not going anywhere. It stays trapped in the Bose-Einstein Condensate.

Hotech. Thanks for further clarifying the issue under discussion. That was deep.

One departing question, Has anybody even come close to disprove Einstein¨s mathematically?

Cofeebean:

Your last question could be a subject for a new Forum Thread.

You can Google "Einstein wrong equations".

The most important is not if Einstein's equations and concepts will be proved wrong some day but what Einstein left to posterity as legacy: the power of mind.

The sad thing is that some physicists are motivated only by the spectrum of ripping some of Einstein's fame. Even Nobel prises are no more making the news. So what else? Media is damaging real science a lot by unprofessional reporting or even promoting frauds.

Regards

You must look to these deep cooled situations in terms of steps: you can cool down step by step. The cooled matter must give it's energy away in packets.

Electrons spinning, when we try to explain what an electron is we can only explain some of its behaviour as being a spin. Does it really spin? The mathematics do fit the experimental results, so it spins.

In the spin is some of the energy that makes the electron. Taking away this energy would stop it from being an electron.

Now is the big moment: if we admit there is pure matter, then we have to admit also that there is pure energy!

Isn't that the other way around. All matter is made of energy but not all energy is matter.

I'd risk to say that this could or does apply to a photon. It is a form of energy but it is in no way matter.

You make me very sad, pakoppan: photon is very much matter. It is generated by electrons transitions from higher to lower orbits. It just doesn't have stationary mass. But didn't you hear about light pressure? Is measurable and comes from photons' momentum transfer through collision. It is intended to be used in deep space propulsion.

Matter and energy cannot be separated.

By pure matter we understand pure substance of one species of atoms taken from Mendeleev's table at a time. And by pure energy I meant one species (form) of energy that we know and are able to measure more or less directly. So it's all about classification, which is very valuable in the adventure of knowledge.

When looking at a problem, we cannot see but one aspect at a time (sequential thinking). From here is coming the sense of time. It's physiological. That's why we have real difficulties in seeing the whole picture of a complex issue. Are we enough humble to admit how much we don't know? Unfortunately, only a very small minority of people are that humble and they are not big decision makers!

Mr. Hottech,

Good your comentar on problem in discution !

ps. please visit :http://www.akoil.ru and select 'english' .

I quote from the Akoil-Energy web site

Heat generators have the coefficient of energy conversion (electrical – mechanical – thermal), which is much more than 100 %.

Here we go again, another more energy out than in scam only this time in Russian.

I wonder if Akoil-Energy is Russian for Ever-Watt?

These scams are really starting to give me a serious dose of dysentery and the sooner they are shown to be the total procreating male bovine excrement that they all are the better. One a month was sort of acceptable but they seem to be turning up once a week lately and the time, effort and money they are wasting is getting to be a serious concern.

I'm completely overwhelmed. The world will be at those guys' feet... Can they sleep?

Could you tell me what's behind that front panel? Some suitcase nuclear plant?

I'm waiting for a quote...

Japonsese scientists already lauched a solar sail that works in practice.

I guess any argument is closed since energy and matter are one and the same and cannot be separated. So there is no point beating a dead horse.

If light has no stationary mass, then what is its non-stationary mass compared with, say, the mass of the proton?

My next question/comment (on how I will formulate it) will depend on your comment about the question above.

I have something in mind but I'd like to have the confirmation of what is the non-stationary mass of the light first if you don't mind.

To "weigh" a photon there are two logical ways : "fly" with it in parallel at the same speed through a gravitational field or "freeze" (stop) it in some trap (aerogel?), in a gravitational field.

For some reasons, physicists are trying just to slow it down... a few % of c.

Because it is accepted that at 0 speed the photon dies, it's rest mass is considered zero. To accommodate this assertion with the proof of having momentum, we are expressing only its kinetic energy through momentum multiplied by speed. The concept of relativistic mass is fuzzy and not recommended in this case.

As light is curved by gravitational fields, maybe another method would be to deduct it's mass from ballistic equations, if gravity and light speed are accurately measured during the experiment.

Last but not least, light has two aspects: particle (photon) and electromagnetic wave. Light curvature through gravity could come from both aspects... But for that we need a final answer what gravity is.

I suggest to review:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photonMass.html

http://pdglive.lbl.gov/listings1.brl?quickin=Y

Thanks for your explanation.

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck but people is looking for a Higgs boson and if proven its existence would explain why things have mass and that the universe is permeated with a Higgs ocean that act as mollases by slowing down some particles and the more slower it gets (greater resistence to the Higgs ocean), the more mass they have. I wonder if this ocean proven true is the reason why C is constant in the space (vacuum).

As of gravity, that's another another issue. My guess is that we are not ready for the gravity from the technological point of view in order to "see" what's gravity is "made of". In the last 100 years or so Humankind had a giant leap understanding the World around him but some new experimental discoveries had to wait till a suitable technology caught up first.

It's funny the way things are. The physist proves some physical phenomena in theory and put the hot potato in the engineer's lap to come up with a gadget that will prove/disprove the theory.

My next question is already in the explanation you gave. I guess it is better for me to drop off as I think I need to study more some basic concepts and stop talking about things I think I know. I don't want to give the impression of being somebody I'm not.

"If people thinks that one is stupid is much better keep it that way than open the mouth and remove all doubts" or something like this for that effect.

I'd have lots of question for what I haven't found answers but then chances are that the answer is just yelling at me and I can't understand it clearly enough.

Thanks for the links and it is nice to have someone who knows what he is talking about.

Thanks again.

Good to now you.

Don't be so harsh with yourself. You know, many great discoveries came from "stupid questions". I'm also doing this on a daily basis.

It was a pleasure.

"See" you next time.

mr pakopan,

You have right on hottech explanations . Finally both are fine mans !

Thanks for discutions.

Hi,

I feel honored by your words.

Let's not forget Hottec, and his knowledge and the way Hottec shows himself humble is also something to be taken in account.

Not only technical knowldge is essecial in any serious and well intended discussion.

Your words also tell a lot about yourself. Good things.

Regards

pakoppan

Hottech,

I once got the explication that light keep his speed even if the measurement device also has its speed.

The wavelength will change, but not the speed.

So if you try to travel with the light, it will still seem as if it has the same speed.

Am I correct or did I mis a comma?

Gwen

I once got the explication that light keep his speed even if the measurement device also has its speed.

You are absolutely correct the speed of light is constant. It doesn't matter how fast or in which direction you or the light source is moving the speed of light in a vacuum is always 299,792,458 ms^-1.

That means that you will never be able to go as fast as a photon and look to it.

I means that you cant go as fast as a photon full stop.

The only way that the speed of light can be a constant is that time isn't. It also means that as your speed increases time dilates and ceases to exist at the speed of light and that means that it is impossible to travel at the speed of light.

The implications of the speed of light being a constant regardless of your frame of reference is far reaching and effects our understanding of just about everything in physics.

Hy Gwen,

Your attention to detail is very good but please don't read my text with the speed of light (sort of speaking) and notice the smile sign which means: what's next is tricky.

You are perfectly right: speed of light is the same in any referential and no vectorial calculus is applicable. In fact, this is one of the most questionable postulates of relativity since it contradicts our reasonable thinking.

"Couldn't Conservation of Energy result in a a Closed System ?

Does this make any sense?"

I think I understand what you are asking and yes it does make sense. "Conservation of energy" is often misapplied. As others have stated in this thread, we are not in a closed system. This does not mean that "entropy" could not occur however. If two levels of energy exist in the same closed system, they will seek to balance. The higher level will bleed off to the lower level.

Well, I'm getting ever more confused.

What you are saying is that in a closed system entropy will not exist after the two levels get int equilibrium?

Equilibrium = no entropy in a closed system?

I guess I'm starting to lose it.

Pakoppan: thank you for your kind words.

At equilibrium, entropy is at maximum! The reason is that entropy is a measure of our ignorance on a system's energetic states and at equilibrium the whole history is erased.

Coming back to closed systems: they are an impossibility but we need them for practical reasons. It all depends where and how you set boundaries. A boundary can be just an imaginary closed surface in free space or a real thing like some sort of shielding (thermos, Faraday cage, magnetic shield, etc.) After setting boundaries, we try to do measurements on different elements or points of the system. Here is a big issue: when measuring something, we always influence the energy states of the system under test and we cannot do a final reading until the measuring probe (transducer) is not reaching the equilibrium with the system in energy terms.

When using a thermometer, we have to wait until the mercury or other fluid is in equilibrium with the measured medium, which took some energy flow for making possible the dilation or contraction of the measuring fluid.

Same thing is happening in any field, with no exception. The more subtle the system or energy is, the more trouble we have in lowering the threshold of energy our probe is taking from the system under test (like increasing the input impedance of a tester). Bottom line is: the "closed" system under test is no more the same as it was before intruding a probe! Doing a measurement, we might influence a lot the system under test in terms of substance, energy or even information flow. Deceiving, but we still have to pay our bills. So we always lie about our readings...

I hope I was in your line of thinking about closed systems, energy, equilibrium and entropy.

Regards

Hi Hottec,

I broke my promisse of dropping of the discussion/conversation so I beg you pardon but I sometimes can't resist and when someone writes me something I feel I must answer even if the answer is not quite one would expect. I think it is gross not to answer to the efforts of a person trying to elaborate on whatever subject is in discussion.

Your explanation about closed systems is something I had to add to my ignorace so to speak.

I was not quite sure about my own definition of closed system in our line of thinking.

In one moment my example or question was more in the line of the thermos, then I tried to generalize it in terms of Universe (I guess that was not a very smart choice) but anyway it would be a generalization focusing in one part of the Universe ( not sure which part exactly I was thinking of) where I could find a closed system. Fat chance.

I guess there is no closed system in the universe or I just don't recognize what could be considered so.

You're right, our measurements affect the outcome of an observation.

That remainds me of the Schorodinger Cat story. Dead and Alive at the same time and only our measurement/observation will decide the cat's fate.

All probabilistic in quantum physics but I wouldn't go there so soon.

Now, about entropy at the maximum. I had a chemistry teacher who used to say that everything tends to the equilibrium. (probably he was talking about chemical reaction equilibrium but then that could be expanded , generalized I guess).

Entropy is the measurement of the disorganization of a system and it always tends to increase. (that's why my desk is full of papers "organized" in a completley chaotic manner and the more paper I add to the pile more entropy is inserted in the pile). If I stop piling up paper then we have the maximum entropy acording to what you said and we have equilibrium at the same time. Quite weird conclusion this one.

At the universe level the fact that all galaxies are moving away from the others exemplifyes the entropy and leads us to a chaotic system. Correct?

Now comes the question, Equilibrium=Max Entropy and all history is erased. But by definition of entropy, we always should end up with a chaotic system and that will never tend to an equilibrium. I'm not considering a closed system and open one or whatever else is out there .

So, if everything tends to the equilibrium, but at the same time the entropy tends to increase creating a more chaotic environment then these two statements seem to be in contradiction.

One thing I discussed with my kid was the formation of a planet. (he's in college - Chemcal Engineering -and tha'ts what I wanted to be but I had to stop my studies and move to a completlety different career even though I'm Industrial Chemist but that was 30+ years ago and at my age, my memory fails me pretty badly).

Based on what I exposed above, entropy could not allow the existence of planets for example since equilibrium seems to contradict entropy that creates the chaotic environment. Go figure.

I guess there is a serious flaw in this thinking but I just can't pinpoint it.

My next stop was to stick my head under a cold shower and see whether or not that would help me. It didn't :(

I'd like to hear your take on my mumbo-jumbo so I can take my head from under the shower. :)

See ya

pakoppan

Pakoppan:reasoning keeps us young and active and burns a lot of calories. So let's go on.

Many times, confusion and misleading is coming from wrong definitions or side- interpretation of the good ones.

Equilibrium is equivalent with maximum disorder (entropy).

Try to review the following mess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Entropy_balance_equation_for_open_systems

If you don't have time for that, just read what I quoted bellow:

""The mathematical basis with respect to the association entropy has with order and disorder began, essentially, with the famous Boltzmann formula, S = k ln W, which relates entropy S to the number of possible states W in which a system can be found.^[12] The relationship between entropy, order, and disorder in the Boltzmann equation is so clear that according to the views of thermodynamic ecologists Sven Jorgensen and Yuri Svirezhev, "it is obvious that entropy is a measure of order or, most likely, disorder in the system."^[12] In this direction, the second law of thermodynamics, as famously enunciated by Rudolf Clausius in 1865, states that:

" The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum. "

Thus, if entropy is associated with disorder and if the entropy of the universe is headed towards maximal entropy, then many are often puzzled as to the nature of the "ordering" process and operation of evolution in relation to Clausius' most-famous version of the second law, which states that the universe is headed towards maximal "disorder". In the recent 2003 book SYNC – the Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order by Steven Strogatz, for example, we find "Scientists have often been baffled by the existence of spontaneous order in the universe. The laws of thermodynamics seem to dictate the opposite, that nature should inexorably degenerate toward a state of greater disorder, greater entropy. Yet all around us we see magnificent structures—galaxies, cells, ecosystems, human beings—that have all somehow managed to assemble themselves." ^[13]

The common argument used to explain this is that, locally, entropy can be lowered by external action, e.g. solar heating action, and that this applies to machines, such as a refrigerator, where the entropy in the cold chamber is being reduced, to growing crystals, and to living organisms.^[1] This local increase in order is, however, only possible at the expense of an entropy increase in the surroundings; here more disorder must be created.^[1][14] The conditioner of this statement suffices that living systems are open systems in which both heat, mass, and or work may transfer into or out of the system. Unlike temperature, the putative entropy of a living system would drastically change if the organism were thermodynamically isolated. If an organism was in this type of "isolated" situation, its entropy would increase markedly as the once-living components of the organism decayed to an unrecognizable mass.""

As you see, something is missing here and that is the explanation for mass, gravity, Universe expansion and life. We are still in the infancy of Science despite our technological achievements. We still cannot understand how age-stone societies technologically-free could achieve the today's unachievable and for what purpose.

All these are related to our structure as we definitely have a limit of understanding Nature, including ourselves. What is really sad is that the more technological knowledge we gain, the more self-destructive we are. For this reason, we might disappear before getting the answers to those troubling questions... History erased!

Enjoy your cold shower!

Awful !!!!

OK,OK,OK. First I drown under the shower and then stop beating the dead horse.

Thanks

.

You're very welcome.

But please, don't be pessimistic. There is still a chance for our kids.

Congratulations for your kid and for yourself in encouraging him to get good knowledge.

All the best.

Mike

Thanks

Peter

Hi Hottech and pakoppan.

This all reminds me of a short story I once read by Isaac Asimov, if I remember correctly. I cant remember the title but the story went something like this.

In the not too distant future a super computing network was created and one of the first tasks the system was used to perform was to design a system that could harness the power of a star directly on demand. This solved all our energy needs but a couple of bright engineers decided that this wasn't the ultimate answer and that due to entropy the universe and consequently mankind would run out of energy. The therefore decided to asks the supercomputing network which was called AC if entropy could be reversed. The computer replied that there was insufficient data to answer the question at this moment in time but it would continue to gather data and seek an answer.

As time progressed mankind traveled to the nearby planets an populated them using the now almost infinite energy they had on tap. After a few generations a couple of other scientists had the same thought and again asked the AC could entropy be reversed. The reply was the same, that there was insufficient data at this moment in time to answer the question but it would continue to seek an answer.

To cut the story short we jump ahead to the end of time and the universe. By now the supercomputer network existed in subspace and the human mind could meld directly with AC. For some time now mankind had populated the entire universe and as the stars had frittered away with ever increasing entropy the people effected had merged with AC. There was only one star left and the two last scientists that had stayed behind to watch the end of time, space, matter and the universe as entropy reached infinity. Before the two last scientists merged with AC they decided to ask one last time if there was a way to reverse entropy and AC replied with the same answer that there was insufficient data to answer the question at this time but it would continue to work on the problem.

The scientists then merged with AC and the universe slipped into totally dark and absolutely cold inexistence.

The story then closes with the following paragraphs.

AC continued to analyze all the data and after an eternity discovered that there was indeed a way to reverse entropy but there was no one left to give the answer to. AC then contemplated the problem for a further eternity and decided that there was only one solution. So.

AC said let there be light.

Totally irrelevant but an interesting story and something I thought you would appreciate.

Thank you, Masu.

Unfortunately, science fiction (SF) is not my type of reading except Joules Verne - long time ago. I still have a lot of trouble in understanding the academic one.

I apologize for leaving an open mess on entropy. Now I try to conclude.

Initially, entropy was introduced as a concept for describing closed thermodynamic systems working in Carnot cycles. It was OK for refrigerators, internal combustion engines, etc. at our scale.

The damage was done when entropy concept was enlarged to describe systems at sub-atomic and Universe scales. We cannot handle these systems because we don't know where to set the correct boundaries and any mismatch of experiment and observation with theory was "resolved" introducing patches (new correction factors). Any patched theory is no more a theory.

The Pandora's box was opened when it was said that entropy is a measure of disorder. From that moment, even serious scientists jumped to generalize entropy for describing almost anything! Why? Well, because here it comes again our limit of understanding what's beyond our direct senses. The words order and disorder triggered in many minds a loop like a subliminal message. Unfortunately, this is the way our brain works!

I strongly believe that applying entropy to describe the Universe, sub-atomic world and life is a big mistake. It leads to a perfect absurd. How can you predict the behavior of a system you don't even know what is made of? As long as I have big gaps in my knowledge about a structure, I am cautious in generalizing or scaling even good concepts and I stay away from entering mental loops. History of science is full of examples on how mankind wasted a lot of time being stuck in a wrong idea until someone could open the mental loop. It's amazing how a subliminal message is propagating through generations and how strongly human mind is opposing to a loop brake...

Mike

Hi Masu,

Interesting. Sometimes a bit of humor (perhaps dark matter humor???) comes handy in midst of serious business and I don't think it's that irrelevant.

If you have more like this one, just keep it coming. :)

Peter