spontaneous symmetry breaking

[subversion]

I want to make this thread to discuss spontaneous symmetry breaking and how/if it relates to zero point free energy, and the theory of everything. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is the phenomenon by which a symmetrical system suddenly becomes asymmetrical. Remember the old trick question, if a Rooster lays an egg on a house, which way does it roll off? Well the answer is that roosters can't lay eggs, but if we ask the question correctly, about hens, we are asking a question about spontaneous symmetry breaking. IN the situation of an egg ontop of a house, the egg will never be stable even if you place it directly on the top of the house. So the question is, what causes it to roll one way or the other? What causes symmetry to break, and is it a source of "limitless" free energy?

Imagine I have invented a device. This device is composed of an extremely flat surface, a planet let's say, and an extremely smooth, extremely heavy ball. The idea is that this ball is theoretically perfectly spherical and smooth, and so is the planet. Now, if you place the ball onto the smooth surface, it should stay perfectly still, since the surface is perfectly smooth and level. But due to spontaneous symmetry breaking, the ball will begin rolling in one direction or another, because the ball is unstable. The ball needs three points of contact to be stable, but it always only has one. So there you have it, the ball will always roll around the surface of the planet, trying in vain to reach stability. This would in theory be a perpetual motion device, driven by gravity and spontaneous symmetry breaking. This may imply that the laws of thermodynamics are not correct in special cases.

So, does spontaneous symmetry breaking have anything to do with zero point free energy? Would a perfect ball always roll across a perfectly smooth surface? Is this pertinent information when we're considering the laws of thermodynamics? what about the theory of everything?

[Mohan.C]

I didn't understand much of what you have said, but I think all this has got something to do with entropy.

[Guille]

It's just an idea, but what if spontanous symmetry breaking was a false phenomena caused by our limitations that have lead us to such illusion. And probably there is some property of the objects, or some sort of other thing which is happening...?

[Mohan.C]

Well it does happen. Though earth is not round. Moon orbits around it. Yes, I know it is centripetal force. But this spontaneous symmetry breaking is because there is a force acting on one side. The ball cannot be stable as always there is an imbalance in the force. But what's it got to do with thermodynamics being wrong.

[subversion]

Yes Mohan, your example of orbiting planets is quite the same sort of thing. So imagine this, let's say that a satellite is put perfectly into orbit, such that it always orbits at the same distance and speed. Now, is this not an example of perpetual motion, and therefore does it not violate the laws of thermodynamics? Now generally after a long period of time a satellite will either fall back to the body it is orbiting or will be ejected into outerspace, but, if it is cast perfectly well, it will orbit for all eternity. There is no input energy, yet the motion is maintained. This seems in obvious violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

Now in my example, of the ball rolling across the surface of the planet, it is easier to get the perfect equilibrium, because the ball can never fall any closer to the planet, since it is already rolling on the surface, and it never has enough energy to be ejected into outerspace. Depending on the weight of the ball and the weight of the planet the ball will begin rolling until it reaches a certain velocity and then it will continue rolling around the planet with that velocity indefinitely, assuming no frictional losses (which is possible if the surfaces are PERFECTLY smooth and if they are surrounded by a perfect vacuum). The only energy that is required is to set the system up, and after that it sustains perpetual motion indefinitely, providing a seemingly free source of energy. This free energy may be germane to the fundamental force which causes intrinsic motion in our universe, i.e. gravity and dark energy.

Nikola Tesla believed that one day we would be able to harness free energy from the fundamental force that pervades the universe. Such I believe is the technology that the TOE will grant us, and give us a new hope for prosperity and equality. Would you be surprised then, that such a renowned inventor as Nikola Tesla would have himself believed that the laws of thermodynamics are not immutable?

Here are some more examples of why the laws of thermodynamics must be technically invalid when taken in an absolute sense. Ok, Matter sprung into existence according to contemporary models at the moment of the big bang, but where did it come from? I assume matter was derived from somewhere, in fact that's what my theory is about, but we cannot deduce that that is the case at this moment in time, therefore we cannot ascertain where matter came from just yet, and therefore we cannot guarantee that it was not simply "created" at the moment of the big bang. Therefore until we solve the puzzle of the TOE, and of cosmology, we cannot guarantee that matter has not or cannot be created, in fact, the big bang seems to imply that it was. Similarly, we cannot ascertain that matter necessarely will not be destroyed at the "end" of time. As for perpetual motion, I have already given you the example above, but also consider time itself. Now as I have just said, time may have a theoretical "end," in fact according to my theory it does, but we cannot ascertain that for sure at this moment in time, therefore we cannot guarantee that time itself is not in a state of perpetual motion. And even if time were to have an end, if this end were not to come until after an "infinitely" long amount of time, as my theory predicts, then perhaps the question of whether time is perpetual is irrelevant, or at least time will continue infinitely prior to ending. So to say that motion cannot be perpetual is to not consider time itself. In the case of the arrow of time and the ever increasing march of entropy, how can we be so sure that entropy will always increase, even after an infinite amount of time? For in theory, or at least in my theory, if time were to end it could only be due to the fact that the arrow of time reverses. This could happen one of two ways. It could happen at the end of time, when the universe begins expanding at greater than light speed, at less than planck scales, or it could happen during the "middle" of time, if gravitational attraction overcomes dark energy and causes the universe's expansion to reverse. So in other words, the expansion of the universe is what dictates the passage of time, and if the expansion of the universe were to reverse then time itself would reverse. I'm not saying this is definitely for sure, I'm just saying it seems like a logical possibility, and one which flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics.

All these are good reasons why the laws of thermodynamics seem to be technically irrelevant when you consider everything. But remember, it doesn't take all this information to have a hunch that the laws of thermo are wrong. If you like the Law of Laws, which I developed (which incidentally was already developed, as the Law of No Laws, by John Wheeler, who incidentally also coined the term black hole) then you will believe that it is uncalled for and downright inappropriate and blasphemous to formulate a law which specifically says something is impossible. Correct and true laws must only be formulated to say that which is possible, not what is impossible. Therefore on these grounds alone the laws of thermo can be seen as incorrect, for they attempt to tell us what is not possible. According to the definition, nothing is the only thing which is considered impossible and everything is the only thing which is considered possible. Now be careful, that doesn't mean that nothing is impossible and that everything is possible, just that that's what we consider it to be. In other words, that should be our definition. Therefore statements of impossibility are only statements about nothing. That is why Russell's paradox is an irrelevant question, about nothing, the empty set, because it is a strict impossibility.

'till next time, subversion

[AntonioLao]

Just adding a weblink on spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontan...metry_breaking