A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy

[ayeaye]

Zetetic, i think you should explain your theory some more, your last drawing really gives no idea of the horns or tail. So you say some energy is lost because the magnetic field is switched off? How can a potential energy be transformed to another form of energy i don't well understand either. It seems that when there is a law, then the equations always have to be written so that the law is valid. Which maybe cannot be done in some cases. You may have a point, but you should explain more.

If you can draw faster with a pencil, do that and capture the image with a web cam. I think when it's easier and faster, then it's better than the high quality drawings made with some software. In some science discussion some asked me, did i draw these drawings on a napkin. Absolutely wrong, i drew them on a packing paper, because this was the only paper i had under hand. Use simple means to do things, this may make all the difference between doing and not doing. And i'm more into thinking, so these practical things are rather a nuisance.

[Zetetic]

"... i think you should explain your theory some more" - ayeaye


Gladly, I will.  Thank you for asking!

-

"... your last drawing really gives no idea of the horns or tail." - ayeaye


Yeah, that was less than clear.  The drawing in my last post here in this thread was one of the four drawings that are embedded in my argument in my Science Forums argument against the Law of Conservation of Energy (linked to in the OP here).

Yep, I guess by just reposting it here (with no context) was not helpful.  (Also, it somehow got corrupted when I posed it, unlike all of the other drawings I have posted on this forum in this thread that showed up just fine.  I don't know, but again, not helpful.)


-


"How can a potential energy be transformed to another form of energy i don't well understand either." - ayeaye

If I'm standing in my backyard and I throw a ball up into the air, it slows down as it rises and eventually comes to a stop.

When the ball left my hand it was in motion.  This motion is a form of energy ("kinetic energy").  And this motion is a certain amount of kinetic energy, say 10 units of kinetic energy.

After the ball rises and then comes to a stop, those 10 units of kinetic energy are now gone.  However, the Law of Conservation of Energy tells us that the total amount of energy within a closed system (such as the Universe, everything) will always remain constant.  But we are now missing 10 units of energy (kinetic energy) that was in our closed system but is now gone.

Energy is conserved, in this case, because as the ball rises and slows down (an increasing loss of kinetic energy) there is a corresponding and equal gain (assuming no friction) in "gravitational potential energy."  When the ball is closer to the ground it has less potential energy and when the ball is farther from the ground it has more potential energy.  (A ball farther from the ground can do more "work" (in the technical Physics sense) than a ball closer to the ground and so it has more "potential" energy.)

And so, when the ball finally comes to a stop, there is a decrease in 10 units of kinetic energy and a corresponding and equal increase in 10 units of potential energy.  So the total amount of energy within the Universe remains the same (10 units of energy becomes 10 units of energy).

And now (to answer your question (... if I understand it correctly...)) as the ball at rest up in the air then falls back to my hand, that potential energy then becomes kinetic energy.   As the ball falls back down and speeds up, there is a loss of 10 units of potential energy and a corresponding and equal increase in 10 units of kinetic energy (as the now moving again ball smacks back into my hand).

Does this answer your question?  Did I miss it?  Do you already understand all of what I just wrote, but, rather, you were asking about the role of "potential energy" specifically in the context of my moving and demagnetized magnets thought experiment?

In my thought experiment in "Post #21" in the thread in Science Forums (liked to in the OP of this thread here) I take care to not talk about changing amounts of potential energy as the source for the violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy in my argument.  (The key word here is "amounts.")

The concept of "how much potential energy" in mainstream Physics is a subtle and slippery one.  I can explain it here in this thread it you'd like (just ask).  But to go further into it now, would be a long discussion that ... I believe ... might be beyond the scope of your question (... I don't know).

In my argument against the Law of Conservation of Energy there is , yes , definitely a loss of potential energy between the two magnetically attracted magnets when one of the them becomes demagnetized ("switched off").  And this is definitely a key factor in that thought experiment.  But the amount ("how much") potential energy lost is purposely avoided.  There is potential energy between the two magnets just before the moment of demagnetization and how much is irrelevant to the argument.

(The main point when it comes to potential energy in that argument of mine, is that the loss of mutual attraction takes time to cross the distance to the other non-demagnetized magnet.  But, I'll explain this more below.)

I hope this has been helpful and addresses your question.  If not, please let me know!

-

Okay, back to the main point in your last post ("... i think you should explain your theory some more ...").

The argument that I make in Science Forums is very carefully done.  I took about a week or so (not non-stop but every now and then and here and there) to write and rewrite and rewrite it.  I wanted to get the language and concepts clear and correct.

But, I can here give a more casual rendering of the same case.  And this may be helpful.

Say, I have two magnets on my desk and they are magnetically aligned.  I'm holding one in my hand and so it is fixed in place.  And say I glue the other magnet to the back of a little plastic toy car.  The magnet and toy car are also on my desk, but they are free to move.

The two magnets are in one another's magnetic fields.  There is a tendency for them to move towards one another.  The one on the back of the toy car can and will while the other one in my hand is held in place and prevented from doing so.

As the toy car and magnet move towards the one in my hand they accelerate.  The faster they more the more "kinetic energy" there is.

At this point energy is conserved.  The increase in kinetic energy (motion) is matched by an equal and corresponding decrease in the potential energy between the two magnets due to their mutual attraction.  (5 units of energy gained comes from 5 units of energy lost).

At this point, all is good in the world (of mainstream Physics).

Before the two magnets (the one on the toy car and the one in my hand) collide, the magnet on the toy car is demagnetized (its internal magnetic alignment becomes unaligned).  How this demagnetization occurs is not so important in this more casual description.  For the sake of this description of my thought experiment, it just does.  (There are different ways to demagnetize a magnet and I'll address that separately below.)

When the moving magnet on the back of the toy car becomes demagnetized it is no longer mutually attracted to the magnet in my hand.  (It's no longer a magnetized magnet.)  And, so, it stops accelerating.

Assuming no friction, the now demagnetized magnet and toy car will continue to move at the same velocity that they had at the time of the demagnetization.

Now, if instead, when the two magnetized magnets (the one on the toy car and the one in my hand) are the same distance apart from one another in the scenario just described above, the magnet on the toy car remains magnetized while the magnet in my hand is demagnetized, the magnet on the toy car (and the toy car) will continue to accelerate for a moment longer.  When the magnet held still in my hand is demagnetized it is instantly no longer mutually attracted to the magnet on the toy car.  However, this loss of mutual attraction is not instantly "communicated" across the field to the other still magnetized magnet (the one on the toy car that is accelerating).  And so the magnet on the toy car will continue to accelerate for a moment longer (it will get faster), and so in the end, in this second scenario, we end up with more kinetic energy than in the first scenario (where it was the moving magnet that was demagnetized).

Okay, that was the practical set up of the thought experiment.  Now here is the theoretical importance.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that "in a closed system, while energy can change forms the total amount of energy remains the same."

In the first scenario (where the moving magnet is demagnetized) there is less kinetic energy in the end.  And in the second scenario (where the fixed in place magnet is demagnetized) there is more kinetic energy in the end.

So, if the total amount of energy within the Universe is to remain the same in both cases, then in the first scenario there must be more of another form of energy (to make up for the lesser amount of kinetic energy) and in the second scenario there must be less of this other form of energy (to counter the greater amount of kinetic energy).

In my argument linked to in the OP, at this point I leave it as a question:  "What is it?"

Because I believe that there is no answer to this question.  I believe that we end up with two different total amounts of energy within the closed system of the Universe in the two different cases.  I believe that there is not an offsetting increase and decrease in another form of energy between the two cases which keeps the total amount of energy within the Universe constant.

And, so, I believe this thought experiment shows a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy, and therefore this "Law" has been demonstrated to be false (and to a logical certainty).

That it!

(I realize this "casual" description is very long.  It is hard to make all of the relevant points in a shorter form.  That's why I took so long and worked so hard on the argument linked to in the OP.  It took effort to get it down to two pages.)

I hope this helps!

Let me know if it doesn't (or it if does)!


-


There are different ways to demagnetize a magnet.

(allcanadian alluded to this in his Reply #13; "... generating heat ...", "... impact in itself ...".)

Here is a link to a Wikipedia article on demagnetization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetization#Demagnetization

You can demagnetize a ferromagnet by raising its temperature above a certain amount, and you can demagnetize a ferromagnet by striking it hard.


-


I hope this helps make my point (argument) clearer.  If not, please let me know.  I apologize for the lengthy length of it!  It's harder to keep something short (and hit every point necessary) than it is to let it flow longer (while also hitting every point).  The argument linked to the OP is short and hits every point.

And thank you for continuing the conversation about my argument against (hopefully my disproof of) the Law of Conservation of Energy!

Let me know what you think!

(allcanadian , norman6538 , any more ideas?)


Thank you and take care!


- Zet




(PS:  I have spent a lot of time in Microsoft Paint.  And so it's real easy for me to make my drawings there.  Whether a drawing is hand drawn or computer drawn, to me, makes no difference.  What matters, to me, is their clarity.  So, if you choose to hand draw and I choose to computer draw, I really see so difference.  Cheers!)

[ayeaye]

Ok, so your argument is like this. A fixed magnet, and a moving magnet, attracting each other. You do two experiments, in one experiment you demagnetize the moving magnet, and in the other you demagnetize the standing magnet. The input energy is the same. Then, as you argue, in the second case the output energy is greater, because the demagnetization of the standing magnet influences the moving magnet with a delay.

What about to modify the experiments, so that in both cases we demagnetize the standing magnet, only at different times. Then too i guess, the input energy is the same, the energy necessary for demagnetization is also the same, but the output energy is different.

As i see it, when assuming that there is a conservation of energy in that experiment, then at the moment of demagnetization, the potential energy of the moving magnet has to be transformed to some other form of energy. So when the kinetic energy of the moving magnet after the demagnetization will be less, the energy in some other form, like vacuum energy, will increase by the same amount.

I understand how a potential energy in a gravity transforms into a kinetic energy. But i don't see how that same potential energy can transform into another form of energy, such as heat, electromagnetic energy, vacuum energy, etc. This is why i asked about transforming potential energy to another form of energy.

Because as much as i can see it now, the potential energy in your experiment has to be transformed into another form of energy, at the moment of demagnetization. As there seems to be no possible way how this can happen, there should be a violation of the conservation of energy. It is possible that i overlook something, but this is how i see it by now.

[Zetetic]

 
"Ok, so your argument is like this. A fixed magnet, and a moving magnet, attracting each other. You do two experiments, in one experiment you demagnetize the moving magnet, and in the other you demagnetize the standing magnet. The input energy is the same. Then, as you argue, in the second case the output energy is greater, because the demagnetization of the standing magnet influences the moving magnet with a delay." - ayeaye


Yes.  Exactly.


-


"What about to modify the experiments, so that in both cases we demagnetize the standing magnet, only at different times. Then too i guess, the input energy is the same, the energy necessary for demagnetization is also the same, but the output energy is different." -ayeaye



Right.

We have two systems that start out identical in terms of energy (see the drawing below).

In both systems there are two magnetically aligned magnets the same distance apart from one another (same potential energy).  Both magnets in both systems are at rest (no kinetic energy).  And in both systems there is a chemical heat pack (same chemical potential energy).

The magnets on the right in both systems are held in place, while the magnets on the left in both systems are allowed to move.

The two left magnets accelerate towards the fixed magnets on the right (there is an increase in kinetic energy and an equal decrease in potential energy; energy is conserved).

When the one magnet in the one system is a certain distance away from the fixed magnet, the chemicals are exposed to one another and it becomes demagnetized.  It immediately stops accelerating.

In the other system the other moving magnet continues to move and accelerate.  And then, at a point where it is moving faster and is closer to the fixed in place magnet, this moving magnet is demagnetized.  And it then stops accelerating.

So, in the end, in the one case there is less kinetic energy and in the other case there is more kinetic energy.

(The same thing can be done with demagnetizing the fixed magnets, and the analysis is essentially the same.)

If there is not also a corresponding greater amount of another form of energy in the case with less kinetic energy and a corresponding lesser amount of this other form of energy in the case with more kinetic energy, then the logic of the Law of Conservation of Energy has been violated and it has been proven false.

Yep.

And it may be the case that this scenario is also, in fact, a violation of, and disproof of, the Law of Conservation of Energy.

However, in this scenario there is some logical wiggle room.

It seems counterintuitive at first but the demagnetized state is the "higher energy state" and the magnetized state is the "lower energy state."

If there is a ball at rest at the top of a hill it is in the "higher energy state" and if there is a ball at rest at the bottom of the hill it is in the "lower energy state."  That is, it takes energy to move the ball from the bottom of the hill to the top, while the ball will naturally move from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill if it is able.

Same thing with magnets.  It takes energy to take a magnetically aligned magnet and to then internally disalign it (to "demagnetize" it).  While, if able, the particles within a ferromagnet will naturally magnetically align.  And so, the magnetized state is the "lower energy state" (like the ball being at the bottom of the hill) and the demagnetized state is the "higher energy state (like the ball being at the top of the hill).

(This is called "spontaneous magnetization":  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_magnetization)

This can be counter intuitive because we normally think of a bar magnet as "having energy put into it" when it becomes magnetized.  And we normally think of a bar magnet as losing its magnetism over time if it is just sitting around for a long long time.  But this is not the case.  A magnet does not "spontaneously demagnetize."  Some other force (energy) must demagnetize it.

Okay.  So why is this relevant to the thought experiment you have proposed?

Here is the "wiggle room."

Since the demagnetized state is the higher energy state and the magnetized state is the lower energy state, that means, in this thought experiment, when the magnetized magnets become demagnetized there must (according to the Law of Conservation of Energy) be an equal decrease in another form of energy.  And here we have the increase in energy in the form of demagnetization offset by a corresponding and equal decrease in thermal energy.

Thermal energy (heat) is "micro kinetic energy;" it is movement but on a tiny scale.  And it is this microscopic movement that works against the tendency for the particles within the magnet to align with themselves.  And so, as the movement of the thermal energy moves the magnetically aligned particles into randomized disalignment, ("demagnetization") there is a loss of this energy (thermal energy, micro kinetic energy); just as there is a slowing down (on a macro scale), a decrease in kinetic energy, when a motorcycle reaches a ramp and is redirected upwards (and to a higher energy state).  The same thing happens on a "micro" scale as occurs on a "macro" scale.

I hope all of this makes sense.  (?)  If not, please let me know!

Okay, so back to the thought experiment.

So, it takes energy to demagnetize a magnet, and in this case this energy comes from thermal energy.  In this thought experiment, when the chemicals in the pack are first exposed to one another there is a loss of chemical potential energy and there is an equal increase in thermal energy.  However, when that increased temperature then reaches and demagnetizes the magnets there is a loss in thermal energy and an equal increase in energy in the form of demagnetization.  Energy, at all times, is conserved.

Now, in this thought experiment, there is a difference between the two cases.  In the one case the moving magnet is demagnetized while further away from the fixed in place magnet while in the other case the moving magnet is demagnetized while it closer to the fixed in place magnet.  And the two magnets (the moving magnet and the fixed magnet) in the two cases are in each other's magnetic fields.  And so, by being in each other's magnetic fields they reinforce each other's magnetic (internal magnetic) alignment.  And so, given that the closer together two magnets are, the greater the magnetic strength of each magnet is on the other magnet, ... this means it should take less energy to demagnetize the one moving magnet which is further from the fixed magnet (so, a lesser decrease in thermal energy) and more energy to demagnetize the other moving magnet which is closer to the fixed magnet (so, a greater decrease in thermal energy).

And so, here is the wiggle room.

In the case with less kinetic energy in the end (the further apart scenario) there is more thermal energy (less of a decrease) and in the case with more kinetic energy in the end (the closer together scenario) there is less thermal energy (more of a decrease).

And if the difference in kinetic energies between the two systems just happens to be exactly equal to the opposite difference in thermal energies between the two systems, then energy is conserved!

Now, whether or not these two differences are precisely equal is an empirical question.  Maybe they are (and energy is conserved and this Law is not violated) or maybe they are not (and energy is not conserved and this Law is then violated).

The point is, energy could be conserved.  There is a logical possibility that it could be conserved.


That was a lot of words.  I hope it wasn't too much.


So, this is why in my thought experiment I stipulate "... when the two magnets in the two systems are the same distance apart ..." the moving magnet in the one system is demagnetized and in the other system the fixed magnet is demagnetized.

As I said, I spent a lot of time working on the argument linked to in the OP of this thread.  Something like "when they are the same distance apart" in that argument of mine might seem like some throwaway line (or throwaway concept) but it is there (they are there) for a purpose.

By setting up the argument as I did (in the link in the OP) I have eliminated this logical way of "wiggling out" of the conclusion that there is in fact a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

I believe my logic in that link is very tight.  But that's why I'm here.  For stuff (alternative possibilities and ways of looking at the issue) like this.  Thank you.  I hope you will continue to consider my argument and any alternative issues around it!  Thank you.

Please let me know if this makes or does not make sense!



-



"As i see it, when assuming that there is a conservation of energy in that experiment, then at the moment of demagnetization, the potential energy of the moving magnet has to be transformed to some other form of energy. So when the kinetic energy of the moving magnet after the demagnetization will be less, the energy in some other form, like vacuum energy, will increase by the same amount." - ayeaye


Yep.

"Potential energy" is a somewhat subtle and slippery concept.

When I roll a ball across the floor and it comes to a stop, 10 units of kinetic energy (when the ball leaves my hand) becomes 10 units of thermal energy (when the ball comes to a stop due to friction).

The 10 units of kinetic energy was a real thing.

And the 10 units of thermal energy is also a real thing.

They exist.

However, when dealing with "potential energy" (in mainstream Physics) things are different.

When I throw a ball up in the air and it comes to a stop, 10 units of kinetic energy (when the ball leaves my hand) becomes "an increase" in 10 units of potential energy (when the rising ball comes to a stop; and assuming no friction).

The 10 units of kinetic energy was a real thing.

But the increase in 10 units of potential energy is not a thing in the same way.

Potential energy, as they say, is the amount of potential energy in a given situation relative to an amount of potential energy designated as 0.  Huh?

When the ball thrown up in the air is just leaving my hand, it could be (it could be designated) that the amount of potential energy between the Earth and the ball at this point is -10 units of potential energy.  And so, then as the ball rises and comes to a stop the increase in potential energy is from – 10 units to 0 units.

So, yes, when you have two magnets some distance apart, it seems like you have a real thing (because there really is attraction between those two magnets and if you let them go they will really in fact move towards one another).  And, yes, so it seems like if you demagnetize one of them and thus lose this real attraction that they had (this real potential energy that they had), that if the Law of Conservation of Energy is true then there should be a corresponding and equal increase in another form of energy to offset this lose in potential energy between the two magnets.

Yep.  It seems like this should be the case.

But, I didn't write the accepted and known Laws of Physics.

As I said, potential energy in mainstream Physics is a subtle and slippery concept.

So, when two magnets are some distance apart and one is demagnetized and so the potential energy between them is lost, it could be that 0 units of potential energy have become no units of potential energy.  And so, energy is conserved.

(This is not my argument but the argument of mainstream Physics.)

(BTW:  There is a way to bust this argument.  The link in the OP of this thread leads to "Post #21" in a Science Forums thread.  However, the OP in that same Science Forums thread (which I wrote), I believe, shows why this subtle and slippery use of the concept of potential energy cannot hold and breaks down.  But that post (the OP over there) is so long and complicate that I don't think anyone really read it.  That's why I kept playing with these concepts and got the argument down to a two page, very simple and very tight (logically wise), argument in the linked to "Post #21.)



-



I hope I have answered your questions.

I hope I have addressed your concerns.

I realize there are a lot of words here.  My argument linked to is very short, but every little detail (such as "when the two magnets in the two systems are the same distance apart") has a lot of thought behind it.   I hope you find this interesting.  I love explaining what is behind each element in that argument.


If I've missed your points and didn't address them, please let me know!



Thank you for continuing the conversation about my argument against the Law of Conservation of Energy!




Take care my online overunity friend,

- Zet

[ayeaye]

Ok, the unclear part. You say that it takes more energy to demagnetize a magnet when another magnet is near it. And the other magnet remains fully magnetized? This doesn't make much sense. But anyway, when this is so unclear, then change the experiment so that we demagnetize *both* magnets at the same time. Only in the second experiment later than in the first experiment. This demagnetization should take the same energy in both cases. And the obscurity is gone.

Or do the magnets get more field energy when they are closer together? This doesn't make much sense, and the experiments i have done with magnets don't confirm that. If i have two magnets of a certain strength and i put them together, then i get a magnet with the sum of the strengths of these two magnets. At least this is what i have seen.

Notice that i said that in case of demagnetizing the magnets, the *potential energy* of the magnets should be transformed to another form of energy. I didn't say that without a reason. Demagnetization removes the magnetic field energy, and this energy is very small btw, may be much less than the kinetic energy or potential energy. This energy transforms to heat likely.But anyway, this is a different thing, and has nothing to do with the problem.

What will be lost when the magnets are demagnetized, is the *potential energy* of the magnets, and only that. And that this potential energy is different in two experiments, this is what causes the problem. When the energy should be conserved, then the only way is that this potential energy will be transformed into some other form of energy. But that there is no way for a potential energy to be transformed into anything else than kinetic energy, this causes a paradox. And makes the conservation of energy in that case impossible in any known or unknown way.

Zetetic, Ok, a piece of iron is approaching a magnet, and the magnet shall be demagnetized at different times. Even simpler. I don't think that anyone says that an iron near a magnet makes the magnet anyhow stronger or weaker, and that demagnetizing it takes any different energy, no matter how far the piece of iron is from the magnet. I would make a drawing of the experiment below too

[S N]        <--        [Iron]
[___]    <--    [Iron]
...
[___][Iron]

[S N]        <--        [Iron]
[___]<--[Iron]
...
[___][Iron]

Cool thing you thought out. If there is any problem that the things there are happening too fast, and the magnet cannot be demagnetized fast enough, something, then the magnet and the iron can be placed in a heavy oil, or such, so that everything happens more slowly.

It may be that i overlooked something, but this is how i see it by now. I think that you see now that my analytical thinking is not bad at all.