A possible violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy

[Zetetic]

"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." – ayeaye


I am not saying that it takes more energy to demagnetize a magnet when it is in another magnet's magnetic field, ... but I am saying that it is possible.

Imagine a magnet and a magnet and a metal ball bearing.  The ball bearing is in the magnet's magnetic field and so the particles within it are, because of this, magnetically aligned.

If a heat pack is broken near the ball bearing, then the increase in temperature will work to tend to disalign (randomly align) the particles in the ball bearing.  In other words, it will becomes demagnetized.

This takes energy.  And so there will be a decrease in thermal energy.

If the metal ball bearing was not in the magnet's magnetic field then the particles within it would not be magnetically aligned.  And if a heat pack was broken near it, then there would be no tendency to magnetically align within the metal ball bearing for the randomization of thermal energy to overcome.  There would be no decrease in thermal energy.

The same thing when two magnets are in one another's magnetic field.  Just as a metal ball bearing in a magnet's magnetic field is externally magnetically aligned, when one magnet is in another magnet's magnetic field its own alignment is externally reinforced.

And, so, it's possible that when a magnet is in another magnet's magnetic field and it is demagnetized that it takes more energy to do this.

It's possible.  And that's the point.

I am challenging one of the most fundamental laws of Physics.  If there is any wiggle room they will take it.

And, by the way, I tested this exact proposition some time ago.

I posted, essentially, the same thought experiment that you have proposed in Science Forums.  I guessed that this is where they'd (logically) go.  And they did.

(See: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87342-where-does-the-potential-energy-of-a-field-reside/?p=847467 and the response that follows)

Again, maybe energy is conserved or maybe not.  I don't know.  It is an empirical question.  However, there is logical wiggle room.  And the whole point of my specific argument (linked to in the OP of this post) is to craft an argument that eliminates all of the wiggle room and logically corners the Law of Conservation of Energy and its flaws.

Maybe if you demagnetize both magnets at the same time energy is conserved or maybe not.  (Empirical question.)  However, when you demagnetize both magnets simultaneously they are (at that moment) in one another's magnetic field (it takes time for the demagnetization of each to reach the other) and so, I believe, this still leaves that same logical "wiggle room."  And if there is any wiggle room, mainstream Physicists will take it!  (Whether it is actually physically true or not.)

-

If the heat pack is closer to one magnet and further from the other magnet, then when the heat pack is broken the closer magnet will become demagnetized before the other.

The loss of mutual attraction will cross the distance between the two magnets far faster than the increased thermal energy will then dissipate across the distance between the two magnets (and then demagnetize the second magnet).  This is the time period where we get two different amounts of kinetic energies, depending on whether it is the moving or the fixed in place magnet that is demagnetized first.

(In the "casual" description of my thought experiment here, I left out that the second magnet will eventually become demagnetized because it is superfluous.  However, you noted its absence, as I'm sure others will too, and so in the actual argument (in the link in the OP in this thread) I take the time to anticipate all such things and include them (for the sake of clarity).  In that statement of the thought experiment, I note that both magnets will be demagnetized in the end.  And if you don't believe me that the retreating magnetic field lines will cross the distance between the two magnets much much faster than the heat dissipates across that distance, then the thought experiment can simply be modified to also include a thermal barrier that slows down the dissipating heat but that does not affect magnetic field lines.)

-

"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." – ayeaye

This has been my experience too.

The point is that when demagnetizing one of them the field lines from the other (like with a metal ball bearing) may have a strengthening effect on the internal magnetic alignment and so offer more resistance to demagnetization and so require more energy.

It's possible.

Which means given them (mainstream Physicists) some wiggle room to avoid the conclusion "the Law of Conservation of Energy is logically flawed."

If there is a way to craft the argument and eliminate this logical "out" then it makes sense to take it ... it makes sense to use the formulation of the argument (if there is one and there is) that eliminates this "out" (wiggle room).

Yes?  No?

-

"And makes the conservation of energy in that case impossible in any known or unknown way." – ayeaye


Right.

If you go onto Science Forums and propose and argument that purports to show that the Law of Conservation of Energy is flawed based on "missing or an unaccounted for loss of potential energy" they will simply mock it.

The concept of "potential energy" in mainstream Physics is a bit surreal and they seem fine with that.

And so, again, if there is a way to craft an argument that disproves the Law of Conservation of Energy which does not rely on missing or unaccounted for potential energy (which there is) then this is the argument to use.  The argument linked to in the OP of this thread shows that the two systems end up with different amounts of kinetic energy.  That's it.  It does not deal with what did or did not happen with the (surreal and ambiguous (in mainstream Physics)) potential energy between them.

(If it seem like I'm arguing against your suggestions, please don't think so.  In these forums often times people are so wedded to their own ideas that if someone else makes a suggestion and improves on their idea they don't want to hear it.  It's just that the point you are raising ... the excellent points and excellent alternative ideas you are raising ... have, often, been the same important points that I worked through and found the "wiggle room" with them on my way to ultimately ending up with the specific argument that I did (linked to in the OP).  So, thank you for all your suggestions.  It's my hope that you don't mind it when I say why it think they lead to more logical "outs" than the specific formulation of the argument as it stands.  If you're not offended, please keep them coming!)



-



"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." – ayeaye

I can't find a link for this.  But, I do believe that, yes, having the magnetic lines of flux pass through the piece of iron rather than just through the air will "make stronger" or "reinforce" the internal magnetic alignment of the magnet.

Again, I can't find a link for this so it's just speculation on my part.

The point is, however, it's possible.  Again, this leads to wiggle room.  And if this (iron in the magnetic field) concept where to be presented to a mainstream Physicists as part of an argument about why "the Law of Conservation of Energy is false" they would take this logical "out" in an instant (whether it is actually true or not).

(Again, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, or that I'm so wedded to "my" idea that I can't see other ideas that improve it.)

In the formulation of the argument that I propose this logical "out" is eliminated with "... when the two magnets in the two systems are the same distance apart, the moving magnet in the one system is demagnetized and the fixed in place magnet in the other system is demagnetized ...".   They can't wiggle out by claiming "different distances and so different amounts of energy to demagnetize."


-


"Cool thing you thought out." - ayeaye

Thank you.  I've loved every (failed) pmm design that I have come up with.  And I love everyone else's attempts.  (While I failed, there is still the hope that someone will find the right mechanical arrangement that I was never able to find!)

This argument against the Law of Conservation of Energy (not a pmm attempt) might also end up as "failed" (perhaps there is a flaw in my logic), but, as of right now, I can't see one.  Right now, I think I've got it.  (But, I'm always open to being shown why I'm wrong.)


-


"If there is any problem that the things there are happening too fast, and the magnet cannot be demagnetized fast enough ..." – ayeaye

In a thought experiment, it is possible to stipulate that the magnet is demagnetized in an instant.

And, like you say, if you want to slow down the heat transfer from the first demagnetized magnet to the second magnet where it too will be demagnetized, then such real world things can be added to the thought experiment.

Thank you for considering my argument!  I appreciate all of the time and effort you have put into considering my idea!

(Again, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, but rather that I am pointing out why the specific choices I made in crafting the argument where made and why , I believe , were necessary.)


-


"I think that you see now that my analytical thinking is not bad at all." - ayeaye

I have never thought that your analytical abilities are any less than excellent.

What I do think is that you made a mistake in your use of terminology.  (I think you used "asymmetric" to mean one thing ("omnidirectional") when talking about magnets and to mean a different thing ("unidirectional") when talking about gravity.)

To make such a mistake is in no way a reflection of your (or mine (and I make these kinds of mistakes all the time)) analytical abilities.  It's simply an oversight.

And, yes, the fact that in your last post you have raised as alternative possible arguments many of the alternative possible arguments that I worked though on my way to the actual argument (linked to the OP) that I ended up with, only adds to my esteem of your thinking.

You have no way of knowing all of what I worked through on the way to that that final form of this argument.  And the fact that you are proposing ideas that I also came up with along the way shows that you really have a grasp of the broader scope of the idea!



Again, thank you for continuing this conversation!

Let me know if you have any response to what I've just said!



Take care,

- Zet

[ayeaye]

Well, if a piece of iron is in the magnetic field of a magnet, then i think the magnetic field distribution changes, not its strength. Thus when there are no other magnets nearby, it should take the same energy to demagnetize the magnet, no matter what the distribution of its magnetic field is. I can so much say that i have never heard that the strength of a magnet can be changed just by adding iron to it.

But if they can say this, they can say whatever. They can say that something impossible happens, and you cannot prove that it doesn't, because you don't have a complete model of everything that happens there. Everyone has a burden of proof, so when they cannot prove their arguments, they should drop them. But some think that some don't have. That way you can never convince them, even if you are completely right. So maybe you are trying impossible, never do that, and never agree to do that.

[sm0ky2]

I have a few things to say here, this is an interesting proposal. However, I see some issues that must be resolved before a complete analysis of the systems can be conducted.

1) when examining a magnetic field from two magnetic sources, in terms of potential energy, wherein one or both magnetic sources is free to move towards the other - it must be considered that not all of the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Some of the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, the remainder still exists, though it is not observable from the perspective between the two magnetic sources. This is the total potential energy of the field.
It is distinctly different from the perspective potential energy between the two sources.
       Example: one system the magnetic sources are free to move without restriction.
                      the other system, the moving magnetic sources are attached to a mass that is not great enough to significantly alter the acceleration of the moving magnetic source. In the second example the kinetic energy is greater than in the first, although they both started with the same potential energy. Therefore, there is assumed to be more energy transformation occurring.

2) In the provided example from the author: There is a mass of thermo-chemical mixture attached to the moving magnet in one system, which adds to the kinetic energy of that system. This is not accounted for in the example. (see above)

3) The author states:   "The demagnetized magnet is immediately cut off from the mutual attraction.  But the lack of mutual attraction takes some time to make its way across the distance to the still magnetized magnet.  It remains attracted to the other magnet for a while longer."
     This is not entirely accurate.
It would be more clear to state that, when the one magnet is demagnetized, the mutual attraction aspect of the field interactions begins to collapse from both ends, and over time dissipates or approaches 0 near or at the center point between the two attracting fields. The influence on the shape of the field of the still magnetized magnet takes some time to realign, but there is not an actual "attraction" during this (very short) time.

The "total energy" of the system is the same in both cases. In the case where the chemical mixture is in motion, more of the initial potential energy has been converted into kinetic energy. But in both cases, in the end, all of the remaining potential energy of the magnetic fields has been converted. Once above the curie temperature, the magnetic domains within each magnet becomes scattered and any remaining magnetic potential energy will have been converted into kinetic energy within the material itself. Domains are no longer aligned in a parallel direction, and the atoms are in an excited state due to heat energy.
On the atomic level, there are many small magnets in rapid motion, in both attractive and replusive interactions.



 

[JEJEHO]

Hi,

Please correct me if I am wrong. In this topic we are comparing two systems, one has low out put and another has high output. Two identical levers with one has high loss due to friction means , one give high out put another give low out put.It didnt violate the Law of conservation of energy.

Likewise in your both system , due to one magnet is fixed its kinetic energy is resticted. so you cannot get the output equal in both systems

If out put is greater than Input then only law of conservation of energy is violated

Regards
Nixon



Regards
Nixon

[norman6538]

Here is another violation of the law of conservation of energy.
Where did the energy come from that lifts the pendulum past
10 oclock?

the pendulum that is dropped from 2 oclock and rises to 12 oclock and falls back down with no sticky spot.  see that here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzK2XKQ-74

Norman