Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Why the heck don't atoms "wear out," or experience entropy?


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 10,637 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2016 - 09:37 AM

It's just one of those odd cosmological questions with limited practical value that I tend to occupy myself with, especially when I'm supposed to be doing actual work.

 

 

And by "wear out" I mean why aren't they subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

 

Atoms are often involved in entropy, but they themselves seem to be mere "carriers" of it since they remain unchanged throughout all such interactions (with the exception of rendering them into plasma, reactions with anti-matter, and nuclear fission, which may be clues...).

 

 

Atoms created in stars and supernovae billions of years ago are still the same as they ever were (as far as we can tell anyway). They may take part in countless chemical (and possibly some nuclear) reactions over that time, combining into various molecules and returning to their elemental form and then reacting again (or being rendered into heavier elements within stars, but not lighter elements, oddly enough). They also might just "sit there" stuck inside a rock floating through space...forever? I almost feel sorry for those atoms that never get a chance to know the joys of exothermicity, but that would be weird.

 

Anyway, when they do get to react with other atoms, the reactions are sometimes endothermic and sometimes exothermic (and the 2nd Law is dutifully upheld), but the atoms themselves endure through it all, making them seem a whole lot like little "perpetual motion" machines, which are supposedly impossible at our scale of physics but are apparently a-ok (and common) at the quantum level.

 

So... what's up with that?


  • Myc, ernestro, Stoned Angel and 1 other like this

#2 Stoned Angel

Stoned Angel

    aka cactus lady

  • OG VIP
  • 1,960 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2016 - 11:39 AM

lol I find my best questions when I'm suppose to be doing actual work. :biggrin:I love that your thinkin about this too. I was just asking myself about radioactive atoms and what they turn into as the decay yesterday. I hadn't even thought of all atoms. None-the-less I came to real work, and had to prolong my search for the answer. 

 

Maybe your question has to do with dimensions.


Edited by Stoned Angel, 17 February 2016 - 11:45 AM.

  • TVCasualty likes this

#3 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 8,463 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2016 - 11:59 AM

Don't say dimensions, say densities.

 

In my mostly unpublished thesis, Resonant Vortex: the Fluid Motion Approach To How Things Work, I touch on how, at the ætheric level of density, certain motional forms are in resonance with some creative impetus, the basic forms being quarks and electrons (after Leadbeater, Besant, Tewari).   Those two forms are likely to be a resultant structure coming from perhaps even finer densities than even that of the æthers.  

 

As to what is real...  "work" remains a four letter word.


  • TVCasualty, Stoned Angel and MConchis like this

#4 happy4nic8r

happy4nic8r

    cyans rule!!

  • OG VIP
  • 3,426 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2016 - 12:02 PM

I think they lose parts and it all goes where the old rubber that wears off countless tires does. Into the Twighlight Zone.

 

Gleep bleep bleep bleep, Gleep bleep bleep bleep....sha-zaaaah!!


  • Stoned Angel likes this

#5 pharmer

pharmer

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 2,315 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2016 - 04:33 PM

atoms wearing out doesn't fit into the current paradigm

 

maybe when CERN gets good at smashing enough particles they'll find out we didn't know nearly as much (or as well) about matter as we thought - which is normal as can be.

 

some basic principle will still govern this but a minor adjustment in the details will make the explanation

 

in this case substitute "particles" for energy and the old saw about "energy is neither lost nor gained, only changed"  would account for atoms being destroyed if destruction is the same as transformation

 

OR

 

it's something else   :)      this is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay above my pay grade



#6 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 8,463 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2016 - 04:49 PM

Luckily I work for free.



#7 dead_diver

dead_diver

    Stoned Since '76

  • Free Member
  • 3,388 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2016 - 05:02 PM

I don't think there is really anything there to wear out.

#8 morfin-56

morfin-56

    Mr. Miyagi

  • Expired Member
  • 1,521 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2016 - 05:04 PM

Look at the sun young one, the light you see is caused by the equation e=mc^2 turning mass at the speed of light into energy, photons that you see.
Brings me to the center of the sun.
Is the center of the sun stripped protons at high densities that has the equal and opposite charge of electrons and neutrons in the outer layers of the sun where proton(s) fuse and are then jettisoned out of the center to where they attract and are smashed together by electrons and neutrons emitting photons and energy? We could all be the product of the decay of atoms in the 4th dimension might be a while till we find out.
Everything is conserved but by decaying you could turn from on atom to a couple of lesser forms of that atom.

Edited by morfin-56, 17 February 2016 - 05:08 PM.

  • TVCasualty and pharmer like this

#9 dead head jed

dead head jed

    Lost Hill Billy

  • Moderator
  • 1,594 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2016 - 05:15 PM

They do gain and lose energy as they bump into other atoms. The thing is they exist in such well defined "stable" energy wells that seeing any real change in state is extremly hard. It takes a large slug of energy (think) "photoexcitation" to really knock stable states out of thier wells. They can also bleed off enough energy to loss stability and be forced to settle on lower energy states, radioactive decay.

Atleast thats how i see it

#10 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 8,463 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2016 - 06:41 PM

Where gravity is mass and not electric charge, ever will suns and planets have to be assumed to be solid, and the forces active at the macro scale will mostly be seen as irrelevant at the micro.   However, if that universe out there is electric, and the spheres hollow and energetic, then there could finally be a chance that the forces will be unified at last.   It could very well be that the same thing that spins the electron spins the galaxies.   The electric force reaches the physical/material from the pre- or non-material realms residing with us in these same three spacial dimensions.  We are living in an electric universe.  

 

BTW, at my pay grade, there is no extra charge (or missing matter).


Edited by Alder Logs, 17 February 2016 - 06:56 PM.

  • Stoned Angel likes this

#11 dead head jed

dead head jed

    Lost Hill Billy

  • Moderator
  • 1,594 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2016 - 09:27 PM

As a professor once told me... There is no solid....
We don't even know that what we call an electron is solid point. What we think of as an atom is really just a fuzzy cloud of energy, who's particular arangments of denser energy pockets we have come to call "atoms". An Atom is just the name we gave a particular pattern of energy. They look solid, but we really can't say for sure that they are any more solid then a cloud in the sky.
  • TVCasualty, Stoned Angel and Alder Logs like this

#12 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 8,463 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2016 - 10:36 PM

This would fit just fine, Jed.  What gives the atoms their form is but the æthers in motion.  Material is made of the non-material at its resonant spin rate. 

 

This is what the Theosophists, Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater, pictured as the form taken by quarks and electrons well over one hundred years ago, as seen in the vision they gained by studying and mastering the yogic siddhi they called, "clairvoyant magnification," one of the siddhis Patanjali wrote about in his Yoga Sutras, circa 400 B.C.*

 

gallery_131808_1351_229547.gif

 

*The Ultimate Physical Atom

Depicted as early as

1895 by C.W. Leadbeater

and Annie Besant.

 

Click the link and see what the two Theosophists saw long before the physicists.


Edited by Alder Logs, 17 February 2016 - 10:39 PM.

  • TVCasualty and Stoned Angel like this

#13 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 10,637 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 18 February 2016 - 02:12 AM

lol I find my best questions when I'm suppose to be doing actual work. :biggrin:I love that your thinkin about this too. I was just asking myself about radioactive atoms and what they turn into as the decay yesterday. I hadn't even thought of all atoms. None-the-less I came to real work, and had to prolong my search for the answer. 

 

Maybe your question has to do with dimensions.

 

 

It's amazing how efficient I can be at doing stuff when I'm supposed to be doing other stuff. And I'm probably too dense to parse this dimension, though I'm steadily lightening up.

 

And we noticed that you hadn't logged in in a while, so it's good to see you back and bringing your good liberty bat dung beetle vibes back with ya!


  • Stoned Angel likes this

#14 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 10,637 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 18 February 2016 - 02:54 AM

atoms wearing out doesn't fit into the current paradigm

 
In that sense, atoms wearing out and I have a lot in common (I'm trying to work out how to make a quantum leap to another one since it's way too dense for my taste).
 
 

I don't think there is really anything there to wear out.

 
I guess that depends on your definition of "is." And "really." But I can't think about it any further since at the moment I'm feeling kinda worn out, though my atoms seem to keep on doing the atom thing regardless. FNORD!
 
 
 

They do gain and lose energy as they bump into other atoms. The thing is they exist in such well defined "stable" energy wells that seeing any real change in state is extremly hard. It takes a large slug of energy (think) "photoexcitation" to really knock stable states out of thier wells. They can also bleed off enough energy to loss stability and be forced to settle on lower energy states, radioactive decay.

 
 
I'm curious why a carbon (or any) atom is still every bit a carbon atom even after billions of years; all other forms of energy seem to dissipate until thermal equilibrium is reached, but not the energy embodied (so to speak) in atoms...
 
 
 

As a professor once told me... There is no solid....


Indeed. Or as the fictional wise man said, "there is no spoon!"  But why do I still seem to see so many of 'em when I open a drawer in my kitchen?

 
 
 

 

gallery_131808_1351_229547.gif

 

*The Ultimate Physical Atom

Depicted as early as

1895 by C.W. Leadbeater

and Annie Besant.

 

 

 

That's an elegantly-compelling rendering that I first checked out in some of your previous posts, and they do have a fascinating take on the subject. And they arrived at it through a process similar to what Einstein did to come up with Relativity, namely by envisioning what it'd be like to cruise along on a ray of light while he kicked back and watched the scenery go by (where 'envisioning' means meditating with a specific subject to focus on). That's the kind of scientific inquiry I can really get into!

 

 

 

This kind of subject always reminds me of an old saying (one that used to piss off Bertrand Russell when he was a kid when adults used it to shut him up when he asked too many questions, and helped inspire his later philosophical musings of cosmological questions):

 

What is matter?

 

Never mind!

 

What is mind?

 

No matter!

 

:deadhorse:


Edited by TVCasualty, 18 February 2016 - 02:57 AM.

  • Stoned Angel and morfin-56 like this

#15 Myc

Myc

    Myc - o 'Topia

  • App Administrator
  • 4,964 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 18 February 2016 - 08:57 AM

Why do atoms not wear out over time?

 

I like that question as much as the age-old question among electrical engineers:

 

Q: Why do transformers hum? 

(A: Because they don't know the words.)

 

I still have never seen an atom - or the imaginary structures involved in the description so I'll be on the fence for awhile longer.

After "tripping" a few times, I seriously doubt that what we think we see is actually "real". If my reading of trip reports over the years is correct, while tripping, we all share very similar experiences/visions. I've "heard of" anecdotal accounts where folks went on a trip and never came back - but I've never met a single one of those folks. Matter of fact, I've taken some of those substances with reckless abandon - almost inviting the point of no return - yet here, I AM. 

So I call such stories bs until I have my proof.

 

They search desperately at CERN to understand matter.

So let me get this strait. You take two coherent pieces of something - let's use wine glasses. Take one wine glass and hurl it at another wine glass. When the two meet in mid-air and are destroyed into thousands of pieces, we go get a broom and dustpan to sort through the aggregate. By looking at all of the crumbled, broken pieces, we then try to describe the makeup of the wine glasses.

Aren't we just looking at broken stuff?

 

You would have to be one serious reverse engineer to make that happen. Especially since alphabet agencies are having to pressure the manufacturers of phones and computers for a back-door into their software. 

Given the above example, why can't we just smash the phone in order to look inside and retrieve the address books and other information?

Think about it. If breaking stuff is the way to learn about matter - we should have just about mastered all of this by now. After all, we're consummate destroyers of stuff. 


  • Alder Logs likes this

#16 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    Shiitake Novice 206 Logs

  • OG VIP
  • 8,463 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 18 February 2016 - 10:38 AM

Good point, Myc, but isn't it made absolutely clear in the bubble chamber at CERN?

 

I got yer Higgs boson right here, buddy!

 


CERN-Higgs-boson.jpg

 

 

I'm not sure if this is an atom or a smart phone:

 

 

chamber tracks.jpg



#17 dead head jed

dead head jed

    Lost Hill Billy

  • Moderator
  • 1,594 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 18 February 2016 - 05:51 PM

Cern is actually trying to find stable energy states where "matter" can exist.

Wine glasses aside... A carbon atom is a carbon atom is a carbon atom, unless its a carbon-13 atom and one day spits out a neutron and becomes a carbon-12 atom... While it might not seem like a big difference, look at deuterium and tritrium. Or thorium decaying into radium...its all about stable states. The components that make carbon carbon are so deep in thier stable wells it would take atlest 2.4 jiggawatts to bump them out
  • morfin-56 likes this

#18 morfin-56

morfin-56

    Mr. Miyagi

  • Expired Member
  • 1,521 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 18 February 2016 - 06:15 PM

What Jed said. After all we live in small corner of what we call time that we can't even comprehend how long processes of the universe take to occur.
Everything prefers equilibrium and it would makes sense that there's a middle ground in the periodic table that elements are most stable at.
Decaying of unstable atoms too big and fusion of atoms to small.
Time is correlative to gravity whatever that is..
Maybe what we see as time is not a function of "gravity" but the amount of heavy elements in a mass making it more dense and having a greater effect on our perseption of "time"
  • ernestro likes this

#19 pharmer

pharmer

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 2,315 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 18 February 2016 - 06:58 PM

looking at atoms is looking through the wrong end of the microscope.

 

atoms are old news. we know plenty about them, well.......somebody does

 

atoms are made up of measurable stuff

 

seems to me the new frontier is energy. or more specifically what are ALL the energies and how do they work? That should keep several hundred generations of physics researchers busy



#20 dead head jed

dead head jed

    Lost Hill Billy

  • Moderator
  • 1,594 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 18 February 2016 - 07:19 PM

Agreed it is all about energy.

I think the puzzel has really moved into how or what exactly is holding these bundles of energy together, and why is it that only certain amounts of energy in certain sized and shapes bundles are are stable enough to keep from expanding in all directions at the speed of light, like a mini super nova




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!