Quantum Refill, can infinite energy be derived through a single atom?!
-
Peace all,
Lately ive been thinking we as humans and all living things continue to absorb ebergy from the environment in one way or another and have a mechanism to utilize it. ELEMENTARY PARTICLES MUST ALSO DO THE SAME IF THEYR NOT TO VANISH AND BECOME QUANTAE the moment they are used alot. I beleive atoms too have a mechanism of absorbing energy in the form of quantum packets to retain their structure as soon as they loose it through one reaction or another, through fission or fusion, with other elementary particles. The question is HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE for an elementary particle or a collection of them to regain their lost energy? A minute, seconds, ms? In case of secs thtd be ok for a few atoms but imagine a whole lot of them. If you locked them somewhere where theres not much energy from the sun or others then theyd probably suck all the heat out of the room. But what if tht too is no more there and they still require much more energy to retain their state? WOULD THEY TAKE ENERGY DIRECTLY FROM THE QUANTUM FIELD? Here is the real probelm since that would make all stuff apart from a single atom and some metals to create our devices useless since wed be able to derive all we need from tht. GOD Bless! -
Atoms have finite energy. IIRC, at the ground state (i.e. lowest possible energy), they have, the equivalent of mc^2 joules of energy. When an atom absorbs a quanta, the energy goes to the electrons, which go into higher quantum states, meaning they go further away from the nucleus. At a certain energy, the electrons will delocalise completely, and we can get current from that. But the electrons, almost immediately radiate this energy away, as quanta, and go back to the ground state. When you swamp them with a continuous stream of photons, I'MMA CHARGIN MA LAZER!!!
So no, you most probably cannot get infinite energy from one atom. Basic physics dictates that things will tend towards maximum entropy, as time moves on - in other words, energy should spread out as much as possible. For elementary particles, the best way is to form atoms. Meaning, that energy is not needed to keep them together - energy is needed to split an atom.
-
I can't edit my post but the answer to your question is that atoms in themselves are inert - they are in the lowest state of energy possible, and they do not need any more energy. They certainly do not need energy to be sustained.
-
Peace "OPF",
I said deriving infinite energy THROUGH, NOT FROM, an atom meaning that the subatomic particles like electorns continuously catch radiation from the quantum field and deliver it in another useful form to us and enable work to be done. Also yes the energy an atom posesses equals mc^2 and that is alot but can be derived only wholly by collision with anti atoms but as explained i didnt mean tht. GOD Bless! -
Peace "OPF",
I can't edit my post but the answer to your question is that atoms in themselves are inert - they are in the lowest state of energy possible, and they do not need any more energy. They certainly do not need energy to be sustained.
JK- Id say lowest state of energy observable. We now know that protons are made of smaller particles called quarks which in turn could yet be amde of smaler particles etc, thus the energy state also becoming lower and lower. I see no reason why this should end. GOD Bless!
-
But what do you mean by the quantum field?
As for that, remember that regardless of what quantum field you speak of, the law of energy conservation means no infinite energy for us - full stop.
As for atoms, I meant that things will always try and get to their lowest energy state, this happens by storing the energy, such as between bonds in atoms.
Atoms don't need energy from the outside to be sustained, they can just "be".
-
Peace "OPF",
But what do you mean by the quantum field?
JK- The quantum field is everywhere since its what makes up the atoms and all particles according to quantum theory they all exist within that field.
As for that, remember that regardless of what quantum field you speak of, the law of energy conservation means no infinite energy for us - full stop.
JK- I agree with the conservation of energy ofcourse. But there is energy all around us as heat for exxample. Now i was saying that an atom cld catch that energy in huge concentrations and release it as another useful form.
As for atoms, I meant that things will always try and get to their lowest energy state, this happens by storing the energy, such as between bonds in atoms.
JK- The lowest energy states gotta be at the infinitesimal and thats not by what the atom is defined which is of finite size. It is made of yet smaller particles hence lower states of energy. As such we could never reach the lowest energy state.
Atoms don't need energy from the outside to be sustained, they can just "be".
JK- This kinna sounds somewht like magic to me. Atoms will, if not sustained, over time decay and turn into quantae. GOD Bless!
-
Ah, now I understand what you mean.
By quantum field, you presumably mean just "space and time" in the quantum sense. Didn't understand that at first.
What I meant was that atoms are in the lowest energy state possible given the combination of mass and energy, adding energy will decompose them to an even lower state p Just like melting ice by adding heat...
What you are proposing is a derivative of Maxwell's demon, and it breaks energy conservation, because such a "demon" must use up energy to absorb energy in such a way. Odd thing, but that's conservation for you.
As I said, maybe something can absorb so much energy, but it won't be infinite, and the law of entropy shall see to it that we get zero, or some highly inefficient useful work out of this!