No quantum mechanics doesn't explain why the electron doesn't emit, it just states that that is the case for certain fixed orbits. Some "explanations" invoke the wave nature of the electrons and state that the orbitals are stationary states similar to standing waves in a pipe. It is an heuristic explanation but again not really getting rid of the main paradox.
You need some exotic explanation and there is an abundance of them in any area of science. But none of them is accepted as the standard. About why holding a weight in your hand is making your tired even if you are in principle not doing work is not a real mystery. What happens is that your muscles are like springs and they are getting stretched by the weight. When they are stretched beyond a point the muscle pulls back and then relaxes, this over and over again and this oscillatory motion does indeed work. It is usually not explained in physics classes to keep things simple. Giovanni On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com>wrote: > Harry, I think that conventional or classical physics is just wrong, > because it just assumes gravity without explaining it. In real physics we > cannot just assume such things, as giovanni mentioned. If you hold two 10 > kg hand weights stationary with straight hands in horizontal orientation, > then conventional physics says that you are not doing any work, but I would > say that your muscles are burning more oxygen than your blood vessels can > supply. Refrigerator magnet does exactly the same work as your muscles are > doing, when they are fighting against the gravity. > > Terry, of course Magnets will wear down, because they are imperfect. > However neodyme magnets are very resilient and I would say that produced > energy exceeds by far the energy required to make the magnet in the first > place. I would say by factor of 1000 or more. And if system is cooled to > near absolute zero, the factor should be many orders of magnitude larger. > > I was also pondering that could this magnetic motor be sustained with > electromagnets, but I thought that it would not be very likely that it > would produce OU. However permanent magnets are more interesting because in > ideal case they do not lose magnetism when they are doing work. This ideal > case should be good enough theoretical proof that perpetual motion machine > is possible in principle. > > Giovanni, I think that fixed electron orbitals can be explained and > understood with probabilistic interpretation of QM. This can give also > sound philosophical explanation. > > --Jouni > > On Sep 4, 2012, at 4:28 AM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> However I do not think that it is anymore complex idea than > refrigerator magnet that is doing endless work >against gravity or electron > that can orbit nucleus without losing it's energy. > > > > In your example no work is performed according to the definition of > > work that physicists developed about two centuries ago. Unless the > > magnet displaces itself upwards the magnet hasn't accomplished > > anything from the standpoint of conventional physics. Unfortunately > > physics has no concept of stationary work. > > harry > > > >
