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
    2 days ago










  • @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
    2 days ago















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
    2 days ago










  • @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
    2 days ago













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 2 days ago









knzhou

38.7k9106188




38.7k9106188










asked 2 days ago









CramerTV

538413




538413








  • 1




    Closely related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1984/…
    – dmckee
    2 days ago










  • @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
    2 days ago














  • 1




    Closely related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1984/…
    – dmckee
    2 days ago










  • @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
    2 days ago








1




1




Closely related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1984/…
– dmckee
2 days ago




Closely related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1984/…
– dmckee
2 days ago












@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
2 days ago




@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
2 days ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
30
down vote













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
    2 days ago






  • 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
    2 days ago








  • 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
    2 days ago






  • 3




    @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
    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
      1
      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





















        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

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        30
        down vote













        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
          2 days ago






        • 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
          2 days ago








        • 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
          2 days ago






        • 3




          @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
          yesterday















        up vote
        30
        down vote













        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
          2 days ago






        • 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
          2 days ago








        • 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
          2 days ago






        • 3




          @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
          yesterday













        up vote
        30
        down vote










        up vote
        30
        down vote









        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 2 days ago









        knzhou

        38.7k9106188




        38.7k9106188








        • 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
          2 days ago






        • 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
          2 days ago








        • 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
          2 days ago






        • 3




          @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
          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
          2 days ago






        • 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
          2 days ago








        • 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
          2 days ago






        • 3




          @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
          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
        2 days ago




        From where does the energy come for the chemical bonds? Isn't "attractive chemical bonds" an exchange of electrons? Is this exchange lossless?
        – CramerTV
        2 days ago




        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
        2 days ago






        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
        2 days ago






        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
        2 days ago




        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
        2 days ago




        3




        3




        @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
        yesterday




        @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
        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 2 days ago









            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 yesterday









                    Virgo

                    1,7011925




                    1,7011925






















                        up vote
                        1
                        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
                          1
                          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
                            1
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            1
                            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 2 days ago









                            lamplamp

                            393317




                            393317






























                                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

                                Ellipse (mathématiques)

                                Quarter-circle Tiles

                                Mont Emei