Zero point energy, hu?

gblaze42 · Post by **gblaze42** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:56 am

Doing some further research, It may be possible that the ground state is metastable and only a local minimum and not a true ground state as we determine it, this of course is based on supersymmetry.

Tom Ligon · Post by **Tom Ligon** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:05 am

Sir, kindly put the metastable ground state down gently, and back away ...

gblaze42 · Post by **gblaze42** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:43 pm

LOL, almost had a spit take. Now that was funny!

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:04 pm

If the Zero Point energy is invested in the structure of the universe as we know it, what happens if someone manages to extract some?

Does the structure of the universe wobble (time distortion, say, or worse) or do the conservation laws still get obeyed over some timescale?

Or maybe the universe just gets locally colder, as with aircraft vapour trails.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:36 pm

I thought it was interesting that it's now believed there may be naked singularities -- places where density is infinite but from which light can escape (i.e. black holes that aren't black).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularity

We might learn something applicable if we can find one to study...

I never liked the cosmic censorship hypothesis anyway. It always felt like a bad plot device. It'll be fun to see whether LCG, string, or Heim (!) turn out to be most correct.

gblaze42 · Post by **gblaze42** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:50 pm

alexjrgreen wrote:If the Zero Point energy is invested in the structure of the universe as we know it, what happens if someone manages to extract some?

Does the structure of the universe wobble (time distortion, say, or worse) or do the conservation laws still get obeyed over some timescale?

Or maybe the universe just gets locally colder, as with aircraft vapour trails.

That's the million dollar question. There's so much research that needs to be done to answer that question.

If (big IF) there is away to remove usable energy from zero point fields then by default the conservation of energy has to be kept intact.
ZPF is regarded as an infinite electromagnetic frequency modes. Conservation of energy is different in quantum mechanics, energy is defined as being proportional derivative of time to the wave function. How this would work with converting energy from the ZPF field modes into a photon, I can only guess at the moment, It's been years since I looked at SED theory, and unfortunately was never able to finish my degree so I have missed some of the information.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:36 am

Skipjack wrote:http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/jovion ... -zero.html

So, I am not a physicist. I really tried to read up on this, Casimir Cavities and all that. I can try to understand it on the surface, but I can not even try to understand the math behind that and the quantum physical details.
In any case this seems to good to be true. As the author said, it is being compared to Black Lights claims, but with a different (more plausible?) physical explanation for the effect.

I read up on Haisch's conjectures a few years back. His interpretation of inertia* was intuitive and interesting, but his association with Harold Puthoff was IMO a major hit to credibility.

*Basically that virtual particles emerging from the ZPF are real, not mathematical ghosts, and their interaction with "real" electromagnetic particles imparts a drag force on the "real" particles.

Duane

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:44 am

djolds1 wrote: I read up on Haisch's conjectures a few years back. His interpretation of inertia* was intuitive and interesting...
*Basically that virtual particles emerging from the ZPF are real, not mathematical ghosts, and their interaction with "real" electromagnetic particles imparts a drag force on the "real" particles.

Sorry. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Inertia says things DON'T slow down (unless forced to), this says virtual particals drag on things... which should slow them down for no apparent reason. Opposite characteristics, no?

It may explain red-shift though.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:36 am

I think it is past time for a little decorum on this most disturbing thread.

For decencies sake: put a red shift on you naked singularity.

gblaze42 · Post by **gblaze42** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:02 am

From what I've gleaned from the theories, ZP fields only "resists" movement when their is a force acting on a particle, not when there is a constant velocity.

Thinking about it, using the analogy of Doppler shift, where the frequency of an electromagnetic wave increases when the source approaches the receiver for the Doppler shift, in a ZP field the frequencies tend to increase when a change in momentum occurs. The higher frequency (higher energy) would create a "force" acting in the opposite direction to the direction that the change of momentum takes place.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:55 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
djolds1 wrote: I read up on Haisch's conjectures a few years back. His interpretation of inertia* was intuitive and interesting...
*Basically that virtual particles emerging from the ZPF are real, not mathematical ghosts, and their interaction with "real" electromagnetic particles imparts a drag force on the "real" particles.
Sorry. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Inertia says things DON'T slow down (unless forced to), this says virtual particles drag on things... which should slow them down for no apparent reason. Opposite characteristics, no?

It may explain red-shift though.

"Drag" = Resistance to altering the rest state.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:51 pm

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/jovion ... ience.html

So, IMHO they just went up on the snakeoil and unlikeliness scale.
In their defense one has to say that they themselves are very careful with promising anything.
However, they too (like everyone else it seems) are looking for 10 million in funding to do more sophisticated tests. What is up with the 10 million? And why do they need that.
From their descriptions a device like that should be easy enough to build with todays tech, probably for a lot less.
So I dont understand the 10 million part. Is that some magical number when it comes to funding, or something? I mean why is it never 9 million, or 7 million? Or even better 9.6 million.
I mean if I have a solid plan to conduct my research (which should involve some complex planning and calculations), then I should have some means of calculating a more precise cost than the rather random "10 million". I mean 100.000 USD are a lot of money. If I was an investor giving them 100.000, I would really like to know what exactly they are going to use those 100.000 for. Other than "some reasarch"...

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:04 am

I'm wondering this as well. The devices they propose are relatively easy to make by conventional foundries. Certainly a foundry specializing in MEMS devices can fabricate scaled-down versions of these devices for testing purposes. Even the patent description makes references to the fact that the proposed devices can be manufactured relatively easily by semiconductor fabrication technology.

It seems to me that they should be able to make a proof of concept device for $200,000 or so. Perhaps the $10 million is for commercial production once they have verified that their theory is correct.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:44 am

Twenty KW from a cube under 1 cm on a side? That seems a bit optimistic. One hundred watts from such a cube would tax materials science. OTOH five cubes would give you a nice power pack for an auto.

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:18 am

Gas flow rate of 10 cm/second would generate 21-210 watts

Easy come, easy go. Pray-tell, How many watts will it take to push 10 cm/second gas through the device? 21-210 watts perhaps?

Give them $10M. I'll bet, and I'll give odds, they'll make a discovery:
One man's Casimir effect is another man's friction, or at least a component thereof.

Talk-Polywell.org

Zero point energy, hu?

Re: Zero point energy, hu?

Re: Zero point energy, hu?

Re: Zero point energy, hu?