Re: Tread Mills

maestro8 said:

johnhimsworth said:

*P.S. ... the energy cannot be created or destroyed thing falls
apart with quantum physics

No one in their right mind would make this statement because it is
absolutely incorrect (and irrelevant to boot, who'd want to "beat you"
to making such a blunder?) There's nothing complicated about the
phenomenon you're trying to obfuscate: Einstein's famous formula E=mc^2
says it all (when generalized, see below). Energy is _never_ created or
destroyed!

E=mc^2 is a classical result which may break from a quantum mechanical
perspective. How do you explain virtual particles that, according to
quantum theory, act as intermediates in interactions at the quantum
level? What about the virtual particles which form just outside of
the event horizon of black holes, become real, and escape as Hawking
radiation?

I'm no expert on quantum physics, but it seems to me that many
reasonable people might describe quantum violations of the first law
of thermodynamics.

Looking forward to your response,

Ken

I have no idea what Ken Cline just said.

Let me see if I can express my OPINION on this.
Say you have a perfectly level tread mill with the riding surface at an
elevation of exactly one foot. Assume everything moving at exactly 3
miles per hour, that is the treadmill in one direction and the unicycle
in the other direction so that the rider is perfectly stationary
relative to the ground.

If you incline the treadmill and everything continues to move at exactly
the same speed and the unicycle remains at an elevation of exactly one
foot and perfectly stationary relative to the ground then, I would say
it would take the same amount of energy to ride the unicycle on the
inclined treadmill because the mass of the rider is not being moved up.
However, if the rider slows down the least little amount then has to
speed up to regain his elevation at one foot, then it will require more
energy because of the gain in altitude.

--
mucRider - From the Over 50 Group

It is wise to invest in your happiness. - Harper
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mucRider's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/6119
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/21413

I have a powered treadmill. Here's what happens:

Unicycling on a treadmill is easy. It feels a bit skittish for the first
few seconds but, once you set it to a comfortable speed, there's nothing
to it.

Unicycling on an inclined treadmill is like unicycling uphill.

If you think about travelling on an inclined treadmill you're going up
to counteract it going down. Separate the two and a session on the
treadmill is the same as you walking/riding up a hill and then catching
a lift (or elevator) back down. No overall gain in potential energy but
you still had to put in the effort.

Regards,
Mark.

--
markw - Frustrated RSU Emailer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
markw's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5704
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/21413

Ken Cline said:

E=mc^2 is a classical result which may break from a quantum mechanical
perspective. How do you explain virtual particles that, according to
quantum theory, act as intermediates in interactions at the quantum
level? What about the virtual particles which form just outside of
the event horizon of black holes, become real, and escape as Hawking
radiation?

I'm no expert on quantum physics, but it seems to me that many
reasonable people might describe quantum violations of the first law
of thermodynamics.
[/B]

Here, I believe, you're splitting hairs. First and foremost, the reason
such particles are called "virtual" is that their existence is only
inferred (theoretically). They do not exist, and are only "observable"
through their interactions with other particles. Some force carrying
particles are, in fact, real and detectable, but as is the case with
"virtuals", their lifetime is quite short (read on)

Such particles exist for times only determined by the uncertainty
principle. In the case of the W boson, its lifetime is somewhere under
1e-26 seconds, just enough time for it to travel between neighboring
particles (more or less at the speed of light). Outside of that, it is
very unlikely that one could capture such a particle in isolation and
make any measurements confirming its position.

To return to your claims of "violations" I say phooey. Unless you have
some nifty device that can make 1e26 energy measurements per second,
you'll never measure any violations of energy conservation!
Nonetheless, any "observed violations" would be corrected _very_
quickly; the net result of any interaction will surely uphold all
conservation laws.

I'm not fully versed in Hawking's works, but I believe his latest
findings (again, all theory) support conservation laws in the case of
"black hole annihilations".

I'm going to go ride my unicycle up a hill now... this theoretical stuff
makes my stomach quiver!

--
maestro8 - Mad Scientists for World Domination

Those are my principles. If you don't like those, I have others. --
Groucho Marx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
maestro8's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7871
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/21413

mucRider said:

*Let me see if I can express my OPINION on this.

Say you have a perfectly level tread mill with the riding surface at
an elevation of exactly one foot. Assume everything moving at exactly
3 miles per hour, that is the treadmill surface in one direction and
the unicycle in the other direction so that the rider is perfectly
stationary relative to the ground.

If you incline the treadmill and everything continues to move at
exactly the same speed and the unicycle remains at an elevation of
exactly one foot and perfectly stationary relative to the ground then,
I would say it would take the same amount of energy to ride the
unicycle on the inclined treadmill because the mass of the rider is
not being moved up. However, if the rider slows down the least little
amount then has to speed up to regain his elevation at one foot, then
it will require more energy because of the gain in altitude. *

Sorry, you're wrong.
As the surface inclines, the gravity vector starts to push you down the
incline, and you have to do extra work to overcome that force.
This is exactly the same as having a ball sitting on a flat surface, and
then inclining the surface without changing the altitude of the ball; I
think you'll find that the ball rolls off the end.

--
tholub - Kinetic Sculptor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tholub's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/804
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/21413

Quoted message said:

Here, I believe, you're splitting hairs. ...

Call it what you wish. I'm trying to make a distinction between the
tiny, fast quantum world and the classical (relativistic) world we are
more familiar with. As you know, behavior at the quantum mechanical
level is often very surprising. Einstein didn't like it!

But Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that the uncertainty
in energy of a particle times the uncertainty in time is h/4pi. That
means the energy of a particle becomes indeterminate (not merely
unknown) as you severely narrow the time during which measurement may
be made. In the quantum scale of things, the energy of a particle may
well be different than the energy it starts out with viewed from a
classical perspective.

I'll agree I shouldn't have talked about a violation of the laws of
thermodynamics. It would have been better to say that the laws do not
describe the behavior of particles at the quantum scale, where energy
is created and destroyed all the time with a net result of zero
change.

Quoted message said:

I'm not fully versed in Hawking's works, but I believe his latest
findings (again, all theory) support conservation laws in the case of
"black hole annihilations".

That's corrrect, but I as I understand it the relevant law is the
second law of thermodynamics. Originally, Hawking suggested that
information going into a black hole was lost as the balck hole
"evaporated" through random Hawking radiation. This loss of
information violated the second law of thermodynamics.

Last year, Hawking reversed himself. I don't understand the details,
but the idea is based on a string theoretic model of black holes as
"fuzzballs" of strings that reach all the way to (and sometimes past)
the event horizon. Now, the Hawking radiation is thought to be
influenced by the fuzzball and consequently carries information from
the interior of the black hole.

Well, it looks like we may approach things from opposite sides. And
not just about the physics - you are heading out to ride uphill, I
just returned from riding downhill.

Cheers,

Ken

johnhimsworth said:

* A ball falling off a cliff and speeding up is intuitive, a ball
falling off a cliff and getting heavier as it falls is less obvious *

The fact is, what you say is true. It's just not obvious since the
differences aren't quite so observable in the scale of things we
experience in everyday life. Also, if you'd heat the ball, or compress
it, you'd get the same effect. Give anything more energy, it appears as
more massive... if that's what you're measuring (read on)

johnhimsworth said:

*energy being converted into mass. The two are physically different.
Energy relates to the position and speed of particles, mass is their
resistance to change of velocity.*

I believe our disagreement stems from the fact that you're creating a
duality where there is none. See that thing between E and mc^2? It's
an equal sign, signifying equivalency. If you look for energy, you'll
measure E, if you look for mass, you'll measure mc^2, they're both right
there! The "difference" is in your measurement technique, not in the
physics!

--
maestro8 - Mad Scientists for World Domination

Those are my principles. If you don't like those, I have others. --
Groucho Marx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
maestro8's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7871
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/21413

johnfoss said:

*Please send pictures! The one I have is from 1981 and is on an
un-powered treadmill. I want the real thing!

Someday that page *will* be brought into the 21st century!
http://www.unicycling.com/things/ *

We have a powered treadmill. I've done that a lot before, Its fun and
scary. I'll try to post a picture evauntally.....

No matter what the physics says, riding an inclined powered treadmill
feels like rideing uphill.

My 2.0001 cents.

--
forrestunifreak - Mr. addict/team YAMS member

"You do not make the unicycle-the unicycle makes you."

~Y.C. tv

'torkerusa.com' (http://torkerusa.com)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
forrestunifreak's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/6828
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/21413

markw said:

*
Unicycling on an inclined treadmill is like unicycling uphill.

Regards,
Mark. *

Proof enough for me.

--
mucRider - From the Over 50 Group

It is wise to invest in your happiness. - Harper
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mucRider's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/6119
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/21413

Ken Cline said:

*.... As you know, behavior at the quantum mechanical level is often
very surprising. .....But Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ....
energy of a particle times the uncertainty in time is h/4pi.....In the
quantum scale of things, the energy of a particle .... as I understand
it the relevant law is the second law of
thermodynamics.....information going into a black hole was lost as the
balck hole "evaporated" ..... the idea is based on a string theoretic
model of black holes as "fuzzballs".....
Cheers,
Ken *

Are you, like trying to pull our legs??🙄

How did we get from tread mills to black holes and fuzzballs?

This is way too deep for me.

--
mucRider - From the Over 50 Group

It is wise to invest in your happiness. - Harper
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mucRider's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/6119
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/21413