Does a rock use up energy to maintain its shape?











up vote
14
down vote

favorite
4












A rock sitting on land, the ocean floor, or floating in space maintains its shape somehow. Gravity isn't keeping it together because it is too small, so I'm assuming it is chemical or nuclear bonds keeping it together as a solid. If not it would simply crumble apart. So, what type of energy maintains the shape of a rock, where did this energy come from, and is it slowly dissipating?



As a corollary, if a large rock is placed on top of a small rock, is the energy required to maintain the shape of the small rock 'used' at a greater rate?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Closely related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1984/…
    – dmckee
    Nov 30 at 21:43










  • @dmckee, that's actually the analogy I used on a Worldbuilding question which, after thinking about things, prompted this question. Thanks for the link.
    – CramerTV
    Nov 30 at 23:19















up vote
14
down vote

favorite
4












A rock sitting on land, the ocean floor, or floating in space maintains its shape somehow. Gravity isn't keeping it together because it is too small, so I'm assuming it is chemical or nuclear bonds keeping it together as a solid. If not it would simply crumble apart. So, what type of energy maintains the shape of a rock, where did this energy come from, and is it slowly dissipating?



As a corollary, if a large rock is placed on top of a small rock, is the energy required to maintain the shape of the small rock 'used' at a greater rate?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Closely related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1984/…
    – dmckee
    Nov 30 at 21:43










  • @dmckee, that's actually the analogy I used on a Worldbuilding question which, after thinking about things, prompted this question. Thanks for the link.
    – CramerTV
    Nov 30 at 23:19













up vote
14
down vote

favorite
4









up vote
14
down vote

favorite
4






4





A rock sitting on land, the ocean floor, or floating in space maintains its shape somehow. Gravity isn't keeping it together because it is too small, so I'm assuming it is chemical or nuclear bonds keeping it together as a solid. If not it would simply crumble apart. So, what type of energy maintains the shape of a rock, where did this energy come from, and is it slowly dissipating?



As a corollary, if a large rock is placed on top of a small rock, is the energy required to maintain the shape of the small rock 'used' at a greater rate?










share|cite|improve this question















A rock sitting on land, the ocean floor, or floating in space maintains its shape somehow. Gravity isn't keeping it together because it is too small, so I'm assuming it is chemical or nuclear bonds keeping it together as a solid. If not it would simply crumble apart. So, what type of energy maintains the shape of a rock, where did this energy come from, and is it slowly dissipating?



As a corollary, if a large rock is placed on top of a small rock, is the energy required to maintain the shape of the small rock 'used' at a greater rate?







energy condensed-matter energy-conservation matter






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 30 at 18:39









knzhou

38.9k9107189




38.9k9107189










asked Nov 30 at 18:34









CramerTV

540413




540413








  • 1




    Closely related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1984/…
    – dmckee
    Nov 30 at 21:43










  • @dmckee, that's actually the analogy I used on a Worldbuilding question which, after thinking about things, prompted this question. Thanks for the link.
    – CramerTV
    Nov 30 at 23:19














  • 1




    Closely related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1984/…
    – dmckee
    Nov 30 at 21:43










  • @dmckee, that's actually the analogy I used on a Worldbuilding question which, after thinking about things, prompted this question. Thanks for the link.
    – CramerTV
    Nov 30 at 23:19








1




1




Closely related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1984/…
– dmckee
Nov 30 at 21:43




Closely related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1984/…
– dmckee
Nov 30 at 21:43












@dmckee, that's actually the analogy I used on a Worldbuilding question which, after thinking about things, prompted this question. Thanks for the link.
– CramerTV
Nov 30 at 23:19




@dmckee, that's actually the analogy I used on a Worldbuilding question which, after thinking about things, prompted this question. Thanks for the link.
– CramerTV
Nov 30 at 23:19










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
32
down vote



accepted










No, the exact opposite is true.



The molecules in a rock don't stay together because they're spending energy. They stay together because of attractive chemical bonds. The molecules have lower energy when they're together than when they're not, so you have to spend energy to break the rock apart, not to keep it together.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    From where does the energy come for the chemical bonds? Isn't "attractive chemical bonds" an exchange of electrons? Is this exchange lossless?
    – CramerTV
    Nov 30 at 23:14






  • 11




    Where does the energy come from to roll downhill? There's an absolute potential energy at the bottom of the hill. Why doesn't it just roll uphill after a while sitting at the bottom when the energy runs out?
    – William Grobman
    Dec 1 at 0:13








  • 5




    I'm not being snarky either. This is an exact analogy using gravity and macro matter contours instead of electric forces and bond shapes.
    – William Grobman
    Dec 1 at 0:14






  • 4




    @CramerTV A chemical bond doesn't consist of firing electrons back and forth. It's simply the fact that electrons have some energy when they're bonded, and some energy when they're not, and the former is lower.
    – knzhou
    Dec 1 at 9:52






  • 2




    @CramerTV Unfortunately, almost every pop science source explains forces in this fake way because it's easier -- the real explanation is just too technical. There is no need for the firing and refiring of photons to be "lossless", because it doesn't actually happen, at all.
    – knzhou
    yesterday


















up vote
4
down vote













There are various mechanisms that keep solid things together, they all have one thing in common: They reduce energy to a minimum! When you want to break it apart, it costs you energy to do so!



Examples of bonds are:



Hydrogen-Bonds, which are very weak and come from an asymmetry of the electron around the proton, in such a way that it is energetically favourable to form bonds instead of repel each other.



Ion-bonds, which can be quite strong, but the materials are often recalcitrant (brittle). Materials having ion-bonds are not pure, they are a mixture of two different elements, one positively charged, another negatively charged and they form molecules together, mainly due to the Coulomb force.



There are many more!






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    4
    down vote













    The amount of work done is equal to the distance moved times the force in the direction of motion. As the rock is staying the same shape it does not need to exert energy.



    You may be thinking that the rock needs to expend energy in order to hold up its heavy mass in the same way our muscles do if we hold up a heavy weight. But muscles need to contract to lift a heavy weight and this requires continuous activity at the cellular level as explained in the answer to this question.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      Consider an answer by contradiction:



      Imagine the rock is in the vacuum of outer space with no energy able to be added to it.
      Suppose it does use energy to maintain shape. Then at some point, it will run out of energy and the shape will change. Now, since it is out of energy and can't change shape, isn't it now maintaining shape without energy?






      share|cite|improve this answer




























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        Once there was a paradox in physics: why electron doesn't fall "down onto" atom's kernel and they decided it was "rotating". But "rotating" it would emit radiation and thus would loose energy. So later then they decided that "rotating" electron looses no energy staying on its "enabled orbits" and only would emit radiation when changing orbits.



        The rock is a "set" of atoms, actually. You should look into the root of things.




        Gravity isn't keeping it together because it is too small




        Gravity is huge on small distances (look up the canonical formula — it's having /R^2, actually). But it's being compensated by other forces. We might continue this for long, but obviously there's no reason to repeat well known sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction



        Back to your q-n: rock is a collection of atoms. Atoms poses colossal energy indeed but as electrons on theirs orbits don't loose theirs energy and there's no intensive radioactive decay occurring it's all being "more or less" balanced. And when it's balanced — you guess it.






        share|cite|improve this answer










        New contributor




        poige is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.


















        • Electrons in atoms don't really move in orbits, like planets orbiting a star. There are energy levels called orbitals, but it's misleading to think of an electron in an orbital moving with a classical trajectory, where at any given moment the electron has a definite position and a definite momentum.
          – PM 2Ring
          yesterday












        • Is light a wave or not? :) All those things are actually abstractions and in my explanation I've given abstractions that use "planet model of atoms". It doesn't mean if you scale your microscope you'd really see balls around balls. It's pretty obvious what you're saying
          – poige
          23 hours ago












        • That's, BTW, why some parts of mine answer are quoted like "down onto", and "rotating". It's not the essence actually but it helps in my opinion to come up with understanding of stability the overall system has and why it's considered stable.
          – poige
          23 hours ago











        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "151"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f444307%2fdoes-a-rock-use-up-energy-to-maintain-its-shape%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        32
        down vote



        accepted










        No, the exact opposite is true.



        The molecules in a rock don't stay together because they're spending energy. They stay together because of attractive chemical bonds. The molecules have lower energy when they're together than when they're not, so you have to spend energy to break the rock apart, not to keep it together.






        share|cite|improve this answer

















        • 1




          From where does the energy come for the chemical bonds? Isn't "attractive chemical bonds" an exchange of electrons? Is this exchange lossless?
          – CramerTV
          Nov 30 at 23:14






        • 11




          Where does the energy come from to roll downhill? There's an absolute potential energy at the bottom of the hill. Why doesn't it just roll uphill after a while sitting at the bottom when the energy runs out?
          – William Grobman
          Dec 1 at 0:13








        • 5




          I'm not being snarky either. This is an exact analogy using gravity and macro matter contours instead of electric forces and bond shapes.
          – William Grobman
          Dec 1 at 0:14






        • 4




          @CramerTV A chemical bond doesn't consist of firing electrons back and forth. It's simply the fact that electrons have some energy when they're bonded, and some energy when they're not, and the former is lower.
          – knzhou
          Dec 1 at 9:52






        • 2




          @CramerTV Unfortunately, almost every pop science source explains forces in this fake way because it's easier -- the real explanation is just too technical. There is no need for the firing and refiring of photons to be "lossless", because it doesn't actually happen, at all.
          – knzhou
          yesterday















        up vote
        32
        down vote



        accepted










        No, the exact opposite is true.



        The molecules in a rock don't stay together because they're spending energy. They stay together because of attractive chemical bonds. The molecules have lower energy when they're together than when they're not, so you have to spend energy to break the rock apart, not to keep it together.






        share|cite|improve this answer

















        • 1




          From where does the energy come for the chemical bonds? Isn't "attractive chemical bonds" an exchange of electrons? Is this exchange lossless?
          – CramerTV
          Nov 30 at 23:14






        • 11




          Where does the energy come from to roll downhill? There's an absolute potential energy at the bottom of the hill. Why doesn't it just roll uphill after a while sitting at the bottom when the energy runs out?
          – William Grobman
          Dec 1 at 0:13








        • 5




          I'm not being snarky either. This is an exact analogy using gravity and macro matter contours instead of electric forces and bond shapes.
          – William Grobman
          Dec 1 at 0:14






        • 4




          @CramerTV A chemical bond doesn't consist of firing electrons back and forth. It's simply the fact that electrons have some energy when they're bonded, and some energy when they're not, and the former is lower.
          – knzhou
          Dec 1 at 9:52






        • 2




          @CramerTV Unfortunately, almost every pop science source explains forces in this fake way because it's easier -- the real explanation is just too technical. There is no need for the firing and refiring of photons to be "lossless", because it doesn't actually happen, at all.
          – knzhou
          yesterday













        up vote
        32
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        32
        down vote



        accepted






        No, the exact opposite is true.



        The molecules in a rock don't stay together because they're spending energy. They stay together because of attractive chemical bonds. The molecules have lower energy when they're together than when they're not, so you have to spend energy to break the rock apart, not to keep it together.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        No, the exact opposite is true.



        The molecules in a rock don't stay together because they're spending energy. They stay together because of attractive chemical bonds. The molecules have lower energy when they're together than when they're not, so you have to spend energy to break the rock apart, not to keep it together.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 30 at 18:39









        knzhou

        38.9k9107189




        38.9k9107189








        • 1




          From where does the energy come for the chemical bonds? Isn't "attractive chemical bonds" an exchange of electrons? Is this exchange lossless?
          – CramerTV
          Nov 30 at 23:14






        • 11




          Where does the energy come from to roll downhill? There's an absolute potential energy at the bottom of the hill. Why doesn't it just roll uphill after a while sitting at the bottom when the energy runs out?
          – William Grobman
          Dec 1 at 0:13








        • 5




          I'm not being snarky either. This is an exact analogy using gravity and macro matter contours instead of electric forces and bond shapes.
          – William Grobman
          Dec 1 at 0:14






        • 4




          @CramerTV A chemical bond doesn't consist of firing electrons back and forth. It's simply the fact that electrons have some energy when they're bonded, and some energy when they're not, and the former is lower.
          – knzhou
          Dec 1 at 9:52






        • 2




          @CramerTV Unfortunately, almost every pop science source explains forces in this fake way because it's easier -- the real explanation is just too technical. There is no need for the firing and refiring of photons to be "lossless", because it doesn't actually happen, at all.
          – knzhou
          yesterday














        • 1




          From where does the energy come for the chemical bonds? Isn't "attractive chemical bonds" an exchange of electrons? Is this exchange lossless?
          – CramerTV
          Nov 30 at 23:14






        • 11




          Where does the energy come from to roll downhill? There's an absolute potential energy at the bottom of the hill. Why doesn't it just roll uphill after a while sitting at the bottom when the energy runs out?
          – William Grobman
          Dec 1 at 0:13








        • 5




          I'm not being snarky either. This is an exact analogy using gravity and macro matter contours instead of electric forces and bond shapes.
          – William Grobman
          Dec 1 at 0:14






        • 4




          @CramerTV A chemical bond doesn't consist of firing electrons back and forth. It's simply the fact that electrons have some energy when they're bonded, and some energy when they're not, and the former is lower.
          – knzhou
          Dec 1 at 9:52






        • 2




          @CramerTV Unfortunately, almost every pop science source explains forces in this fake way because it's easier -- the real explanation is just too technical. There is no need for the firing and refiring of photons to be "lossless", because it doesn't actually happen, at all.
          – knzhou
          yesterday








        1




        1




        From where does the energy come for the chemical bonds? Isn't "attractive chemical bonds" an exchange of electrons? Is this exchange lossless?
        – CramerTV
        Nov 30 at 23:14




        From where does the energy come for the chemical bonds? Isn't "attractive chemical bonds" an exchange of electrons? Is this exchange lossless?
        – CramerTV
        Nov 30 at 23:14




        11




        11




        Where does the energy come from to roll downhill? There's an absolute potential energy at the bottom of the hill. Why doesn't it just roll uphill after a while sitting at the bottom when the energy runs out?
        – William Grobman
        Dec 1 at 0:13






        Where does the energy come from to roll downhill? There's an absolute potential energy at the bottom of the hill. Why doesn't it just roll uphill after a while sitting at the bottom when the energy runs out?
        – William Grobman
        Dec 1 at 0:13






        5




        5




        I'm not being snarky either. This is an exact analogy using gravity and macro matter contours instead of electric forces and bond shapes.
        – William Grobman
        Dec 1 at 0:14




        I'm not being snarky either. This is an exact analogy using gravity and macro matter contours instead of electric forces and bond shapes.
        – William Grobman
        Dec 1 at 0:14




        4




        4




        @CramerTV A chemical bond doesn't consist of firing electrons back and forth. It's simply the fact that electrons have some energy when they're bonded, and some energy when they're not, and the former is lower.
        – knzhou
        Dec 1 at 9:52




        @CramerTV A chemical bond doesn't consist of firing electrons back and forth. It's simply the fact that electrons have some energy when they're bonded, and some energy when they're not, and the former is lower.
        – knzhou
        Dec 1 at 9:52




        2




        2




        @CramerTV Unfortunately, almost every pop science source explains forces in this fake way because it's easier -- the real explanation is just too technical. There is no need for the firing and refiring of photons to be "lossless", because it doesn't actually happen, at all.
        – knzhou
        yesterday




        @CramerTV Unfortunately, almost every pop science source explains forces in this fake way because it's easier -- the real explanation is just too technical. There is no need for the firing and refiring of photons to be "lossless", because it doesn't actually happen, at all.
        – knzhou
        yesterday










        up vote
        4
        down vote













        There are various mechanisms that keep solid things together, they all have one thing in common: They reduce energy to a minimum! When you want to break it apart, it costs you energy to do so!



        Examples of bonds are:



        Hydrogen-Bonds, which are very weak and come from an asymmetry of the electron around the proton, in such a way that it is energetically favourable to form bonds instead of repel each other.



        Ion-bonds, which can be quite strong, but the materials are often recalcitrant (brittle). Materials having ion-bonds are not pure, they are a mixture of two different elements, one positively charged, another negatively charged and they form molecules together, mainly due to the Coulomb force.



        There are many more!






        share|cite|improve this answer

























          up vote
          4
          down vote













          There are various mechanisms that keep solid things together, they all have one thing in common: They reduce energy to a minimum! When you want to break it apart, it costs you energy to do so!



          Examples of bonds are:



          Hydrogen-Bonds, which are very weak and come from an asymmetry of the electron around the proton, in such a way that it is energetically favourable to form bonds instead of repel each other.



          Ion-bonds, which can be quite strong, but the materials are often recalcitrant (brittle). Materials having ion-bonds are not pure, they are a mixture of two different elements, one positively charged, another negatively charged and they form molecules together, mainly due to the Coulomb force.



          There are many more!






          share|cite|improve this answer























            up vote
            4
            down vote










            up vote
            4
            down vote









            There are various mechanisms that keep solid things together, they all have one thing in common: They reduce energy to a minimum! When you want to break it apart, it costs you energy to do so!



            Examples of bonds are:



            Hydrogen-Bonds, which are very weak and come from an asymmetry of the electron around the proton, in such a way that it is energetically favourable to form bonds instead of repel each other.



            Ion-bonds, which can be quite strong, but the materials are often recalcitrant (brittle). Materials having ion-bonds are not pure, they are a mixture of two different elements, one positively charged, another negatively charged and they form molecules together, mainly due to the Coulomb force.



            There are many more!






            share|cite|improve this answer












            There are various mechanisms that keep solid things together, they all have one thing in common: They reduce energy to a minimum! When you want to break it apart, it costs you energy to do so!



            Examples of bonds are:



            Hydrogen-Bonds, which are very weak and come from an asymmetry of the electron around the proton, in such a way that it is energetically favourable to form bonds instead of repel each other.



            Ion-bonds, which can be quite strong, but the materials are often recalcitrant (brittle). Materials having ion-bonds are not pure, they are a mixture of two different elements, one positively charged, another negatively charged and they form molecules together, mainly due to the Coulomb force.



            There are many more!







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 30 at 19:56









            kalle

            16311




            16311






















                up vote
                4
                down vote













                The amount of work done is equal to the distance moved times the force in the direction of motion. As the rock is staying the same shape it does not need to exert energy.



                You may be thinking that the rock needs to expend energy in order to hold up its heavy mass in the same way our muscles do if we hold up a heavy weight. But muscles need to contract to lift a heavy weight and this requires continuous activity at the cellular level as explained in the answer to this question.






                share|cite|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  4
                  down vote













                  The amount of work done is equal to the distance moved times the force in the direction of motion. As the rock is staying the same shape it does not need to exert energy.



                  You may be thinking that the rock needs to expend energy in order to hold up its heavy mass in the same way our muscles do if we hold up a heavy weight. But muscles need to contract to lift a heavy weight and this requires continuous activity at the cellular level as explained in the answer to this question.






                  share|cite|improve this answer























                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote









                    The amount of work done is equal to the distance moved times the force in the direction of motion. As the rock is staying the same shape it does not need to exert energy.



                    You may be thinking that the rock needs to expend energy in order to hold up its heavy mass in the same way our muscles do if we hold up a heavy weight. But muscles need to contract to lift a heavy weight and this requires continuous activity at the cellular level as explained in the answer to this question.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    The amount of work done is equal to the distance moved times the force in the direction of motion. As the rock is staying the same shape it does not need to exert energy.



                    You may be thinking that the rock needs to expend energy in order to hold up its heavy mass in the same way our muscles do if we hold up a heavy weight. But muscles need to contract to lift a heavy weight and this requires continuous activity at the cellular level as explained in the answer to this question.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Dec 1 at 9:50









                    Virgo

                    1,7111925




                    1,7111925






















                        up vote
                        2
                        down vote













                        Consider an answer by contradiction:



                        Imagine the rock is in the vacuum of outer space with no energy able to be added to it.
                        Suppose it does use energy to maintain shape. Then at some point, it will run out of energy and the shape will change. Now, since it is out of energy and can't change shape, isn't it now maintaining shape without energy?






                        share|cite|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote













                          Consider an answer by contradiction:



                          Imagine the rock is in the vacuum of outer space with no energy able to be added to it.
                          Suppose it does use energy to maintain shape. Then at some point, it will run out of energy and the shape will change. Now, since it is out of energy and can't change shape, isn't it now maintaining shape without energy?






                          share|cite|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote









                            Consider an answer by contradiction:



                            Imagine the rock is in the vacuum of outer space with no energy able to be added to it.
                            Suppose it does use energy to maintain shape. Then at some point, it will run out of energy and the shape will change. Now, since it is out of energy and can't change shape, isn't it now maintaining shape without energy?






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            Consider an answer by contradiction:



                            Imagine the rock is in the vacuum of outer space with no energy able to be added to it.
                            Suppose it does use energy to maintain shape. Then at some point, it will run out of energy and the shape will change. Now, since it is out of energy and can't change shape, isn't it now maintaining shape without energy?







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Nov 30 at 21:36









                            lamplamp

                            403417




                            403417






















                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote













                                Once there was a paradox in physics: why electron doesn't fall "down onto" atom's kernel and they decided it was "rotating". But "rotating" it would emit radiation and thus would loose energy. So later then they decided that "rotating" electron looses no energy staying on its "enabled orbits" and only would emit radiation when changing orbits.



                                The rock is a "set" of atoms, actually. You should look into the root of things.




                                Gravity isn't keeping it together because it is too small




                                Gravity is huge on small distances (look up the canonical formula — it's having /R^2, actually). But it's being compensated by other forces. We might continue this for long, but obviously there's no reason to repeat well known sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction



                                Back to your q-n: rock is a collection of atoms. Atoms poses colossal energy indeed but as electrons on theirs orbits don't loose theirs energy and there's no intensive radioactive decay occurring it's all being "more or less" balanced. And when it's balanced — you guess it.






                                share|cite|improve this answer










                                New contributor




                                poige is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.


















                                • Electrons in atoms don't really move in orbits, like planets orbiting a star. There are energy levels called orbitals, but it's misleading to think of an electron in an orbital moving with a classical trajectory, where at any given moment the electron has a definite position and a definite momentum.
                                  – PM 2Ring
                                  yesterday












                                • Is light a wave or not? :) All those things are actually abstractions and in my explanation I've given abstractions that use "planet model of atoms". It doesn't mean if you scale your microscope you'd really see balls around balls. It's pretty obvious what you're saying
                                  – poige
                                  23 hours ago












                                • That's, BTW, why some parts of mine answer are quoted like "down onto", and "rotating". It's not the essence actually but it helps in my opinion to come up with understanding of stability the overall system has and why it's considered stable.
                                  – poige
                                  23 hours ago















                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote













                                Once there was a paradox in physics: why electron doesn't fall "down onto" atom's kernel and they decided it was "rotating". But "rotating" it would emit radiation and thus would loose energy. So later then they decided that "rotating" electron looses no energy staying on its "enabled orbits" and only would emit radiation when changing orbits.



                                The rock is a "set" of atoms, actually. You should look into the root of things.




                                Gravity isn't keeping it together because it is too small




                                Gravity is huge on small distances (look up the canonical formula — it's having /R^2, actually). But it's being compensated by other forces. We might continue this for long, but obviously there's no reason to repeat well known sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction



                                Back to your q-n: rock is a collection of atoms. Atoms poses colossal energy indeed but as electrons on theirs orbits don't loose theirs energy and there's no intensive radioactive decay occurring it's all being "more or less" balanced. And when it's balanced — you guess it.






                                share|cite|improve this answer










                                New contributor




                                poige is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.


















                                • Electrons in atoms don't really move in orbits, like planets orbiting a star. There are energy levels called orbitals, but it's misleading to think of an electron in an orbital moving with a classical trajectory, where at any given moment the electron has a definite position and a definite momentum.
                                  – PM 2Ring
                                  yesterday












                                • Is light a wave or not? :) All those things are actually abstractions and in my explanation I've given abstractions that use "planet model of atoms". It doesn't mean if you scale your microscope you'd really see balls around balls. It's pretty obvious what you're saying
                                  – poige
                                  23 hours ago












                                • That's, BTW, why some parts of mine answer are quoted like "down onto", and "rotating". It's not the essence actually but it helps in my opinion to come up with understanding of stability the overall system has and why it's considered stable.
                                  – poige
                                  23 hours ago













                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote










                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote









                                Once there was a paradox in physics: why electron doesn't fall "down onto" atom's kernel and they decided it was "rotating". But "rotating" it would emit radiation and thus would loose energy. So later then they decided that "rotating" electron looses no energy staying on its "enabled orbits" and only would emit radiation when changing orbits.



                                The rock is a "set" of atoms, actually. You should look into the root of things.




                                Gravity isn't keeping it together because it is too small




                                Gravity is huge on small distances (look up the canonical formula — it's having /R^2, actually). But it's being compensated by other forces. We might continue this for long, but obviously there's no reason to repeat well known sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction



                                Back to your q-n: rock is a collection of atoms. Atoms poses colossal energy indeed but as electrons on theirs orbits don't loose theirs energy and there's no intensive radioactive decay occurring it's all being "more or less" balanced. And when it's balanced — you guess it.






                                share|cite|improve this answer










                                New contributor




                                poige is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                Once there was a paradox in physics: why electron doesn't fall "down onto" atom's kernel and they decided it was "rotating". But "rotating" it would emit radiation and thus would loose energy. So later then they decided that "rotating" electron looses no energy staying on its "enabled orbits" and only would emit radiation when changing orbits.



                                The rock is a "set" of atoms, actually. You should look into the root of things.




                                Gravity isn't keeping it together because it is too small




                                Gravity is huge on small distances (look up the canonical formula — it's having /R^2, actually). But it's being compensated by other forces. We might continue this for long, but obviously there's no reason to repeat well known sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction



                                Back to your q-n: rock is a collection of atoms. Atoms poses colossal energy indeed but as electrons on theirs orbits don't loose theirs energy and there's no intensive radioactive decay occurring it's all being "more or less" balanced. And when it's balanced — you guess it.







                                share|cite|improve this answer










                                New contributor




                                poige is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                edited yesterday





















                                New contributor




                                poige is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                answered yesterday









                                poige

                                1012




                                1012




                                New contributor




                                poige is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                New contributor





                                poige is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                poige is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.












                                • Electrons in atoms don't really move in orbits, like planets orbiting a star. There are energy levels called orbitals, but it's misleading to think of an electron in an orbital moving with a classical trajectory, where at any given moment the electron has a definite position and a definite momentum.
                                  – PM 2Ring
                                  yesterday












                                • Is light a wave or not? :) All those things are actually abstractions and in my explanation I've given abstractions that use "planet model of atoms". It doesn't mean if you scale your microscope you'd really see balls around balls. It's pretty obvious what you're saying
                                  – poige
                                  23 hours ago












                                • That's, BTW, why some parts of mine answer are quoted like "down onto", and "rotating". It's not the essence actually but it helps in my opinion to come up with understanding of stability the overall system has and why it's considered stable.
                                  – poige
                                  23 hours ago


















                                • Electrons in atoms don't really move in orbits, like planets orbiting a star. There are energy levels called orbitals, but it's misleading to think of an electron in an orbital moving with a classical trajectory, where at any given moment the electron has a definite position and a definite momentum.
                                  – PM 2Ring
                                  yesterday












                                • Is light a wave or not? :) All those things are actually abstractions and in my explanation I've given abstractions that use "planet model of atoms". It doesn't mean if you scale your microscope you'd really see balls around balls. It's pretty obvious what you're saying
                                  – poige
                                  23 hours ago












                                • That's, BTW, why some parts of mine answer are quoted like "down onto", and "rotating". It's not the essence actually but it helps in my opinion to come up with understanding of stability the overall system has and why it's considered stable.
                                  – poige
                                  23 hours ago
















                                Electrons in atoms don't really move in orbits, like planets orbiting a star. There are energy levels called orbitals, but it's misleading to think of an electron in an orbital moving with a classical trajectory, where at any given moment the electron has a definite position and a definite momentum.
                                – PM 2Ring
                                yesterday






                                Electrons in atoms don't really move in orbits, like planets orbiting a star. There are energy levels called orbitals, but it's misleading to think of an electron in an orbital moving with a classical trajectory, where at any given moment the electron has a definite position and a definite momentum.
                                – PM 2Ring
                                yesterday














                                Is light a wave or not? :) All those things are actually abstractions and in my explanation I've given abstractions that use "planet model of atoms". It doesn't mean if you scale your microscope you'd really see balls around balls. It's pretty obvious what you're saying
                                – poige
                                23 hours ago






                                Is light a wave or not? :) All those things are actually abstractions and in my explanation I've given abstractions that use "planet model of atoms". It doesn't mean if you scale your microscope you'd really see balls around balls. It's pretty obvious what you're saying
                                – poige
                                23 hours ago














                                That's, BTW, why some parts of mine answer are quoted like "down onto", and "rotating". It's not the essence actually but it helps in my opinion to come up with understanding of stability the overall system has and why it's considered stable.
                                – poige
                                23 hours ago




                                That's, BTW, why some parts of mine answer are quoted like "down onto", and "rotating". It's not the essence actually but it helps in my opinion to come up with understanding of stability the overall system has and why it's considered stable.
                                – poige
                                23 hours ago


















                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f444307%2fdoes-a-rock-use-up-energy-to-maintain-its-shape%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

                                How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

                                QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater