Zero Point Energy?

[JTM³]

Are there any other ways of extracting zero point energy? The only one I've heard of is that cassimir effect thing, which is pretty much useless because the plates can't be unstuck.

 

So will this ever be a viable energy source?

 

Does science hint at a "subspace" star trek like dimension? If there was another dimension or if we could intereact with a universe made of energy (according to string theory's multiple universe/dimensions), if we use as much energy as we extract, would that bypass the laws of conservation, which says you can't "create" new energy?

 

 

I'm no expert of course, so please correct me if there's anything wrong in that description.

[Phi for All]

Are you suggesting a connection between the concepts of ZPE and multiple dimensions? AFAIK, ZPE is just a hypothesis that the seemingly empty space between matter has an extremely small amount of heat in it, barely above absolute zero, but since their is such an incredibly vast amount of this space the energy involved is equally incredibly vast.

 

I don't know that ZPE has been linked to M or Srting theory though.

[JTM³]

Are you suggesting a connection between the concepts of ZPE and multiple dimensions? AFAIK' date=' ZPE is just a hypothesis that the seemingly empty space between matter has an extremely small amount of heat in it, barely above absolute zero, but since their is such an incredibly vast amount of this space the energy involved is equally incredibly vast.

 

I don't know that ZPE has been linked to M or Srting theory though.[/quote']

 

Oh...ok. Just checkin'

[Norman Albers]

I challenge the quantum hypothesis of the vacuum. Just because there are many quantized photons does not mean that the native characteristic of the vacuum is that of a "ficticious oscillator". Quantum theory as we have applied it produces a ridiculous result that is not small. Ten with one hundred and twenty zeroes???

[ecoli]

 

I don't know that ZPE has been linked to M or Srting theory though.

 

I thought that there was a connection somewhere... can't remember where, though.

[Locrian]

There is a connection:

 

You can't do anything useful with either of them.

[swansont]

Are you suggesting a connection between the concepts of ZPE and multiple dimensions? AFAIK' date=' ZPE is just a hypothesis that the seemingly empty space between matter has an extremely small amount of heat in it, barely above absolute zero, but since their is such an incredibly vast amount of this space the energy involved is equally incredibly vast.

[/quote']

 

 

Quantum theory actually predicts an infinite amount of energy (half a photon per mode, for an infinite number of modes), but what's relevant is the energy difference between two states. So we normally ignore the infinity, as it's not accessible to us as an energy source.

 

However, the Casimir effect, and the inhibited or enhanced decay rates seen in cavity QED, do agree with the "particle in a box" picture of QM.

[Norman Albers]

I say it needs a Boltzman exponent and some fiscal responsibility. I challenge the concept.

[swansont]

I say it needs a Boltzman exponent and some fiscal responsibility. I challenge the concept.

"Speculations" is the place to challenge it, not here.

[SmallIsPower]

If there's such a huge amount of energy, there's got to be a way of harnessing a useful amount of it. Anyone who insists otherwise, without proof, is like someone who in 1905, saw E=mc² and claimed the only energy that was available from matter was chemical.

[Locrian]

If there's such a huge amount of energy, there's got to be a way of harnessing a useful amount of it. Anyone who insists otherwise, without proof, is like someone who in 1905, saw E=mc^{2[/sup'] and claimed the only energy that was available from matter was chemical.}

 

^{No, that isn't the same at all. The first statement you made is a broad, qualitative statement that predicts little and doesn't make sense in the face of modern scientific knowledge. Einstein's paper in 1905, on the other hand, was a specific derivation that quantitatively predicts the value of energy produced and was entirely based on well known scientific principles of the time. There's no reason the second should follow from the first.}

[SmallIsPower]

The vaccum flux is what makes black holes explode. The physics classes I took indicated that the gamma rays produce some usable energy.

[Klaynos]

Black holes, exploding?

 

That's a new one on me, but then again I'm not much of an astrophycisist....

 

What I have heard of though is hawking radiation, which results in blackholes giving off radiation.... (that's not 100% true in it's wording but'll do)

[swansont]

If there's such a huge amount of energy, there's got to be a way of harnessing a useful amount of it. Anyone who insists otherwise, without proof, is like someone who in 1905, saw E=mc^{2[/sup'] and claimed the only energy that was available from matter was chemical.}

 

^{A more apt analogy is using mgh for potential energy, and then using a huge number for h. The table is at 999999 meters, and the floor at 999998 meters. That's a lot of energy, but only 9.8 J/kg are available to you. h isn't the important value. [math]\Delta h[/math] is.}

[Norman Albers]

I say it is a mistake to connect the fact that there exist many quantized photons, with the characterization of space as only a quantum oscillator. This is ad hoc. We atoms are as vending machines working on nickels, dimes, and quarters. What can we know of any possible sea of pennies?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Save it for the Speculations forum. If you think you've found some proof that you're correct here, we'd be glad to see it, in the right place.

[Phi for All]

Quantum theory actually predicts an infinite amount of energy (half a photon per mode' date=' for an infinite number of modes), but what's relevant is the energy difference between two states. So we normally ignore the infinity, as it's not accessible to us as an energy source.

 

However, the Casimir effect, and the inhibited or enhanced decay rates seen in cavity QED, do agree with the "particle in a box" picture of QM.[/quote']Does the infinite potential work out theoretically in spacial dimensions higher than three? The OP's question about ZPE and higher dimensions being linked would then be valid, wouldn't it?

 

I've always thought that if there is some key bit of information that current physics is lacking about energy, it might lie in higher spatial dimensions. We would not be equipped to "see" it, after all. If we were two-dimensional creature, would we ever think to look "up"?

[swansont]

Does the infinite potential work out theoretically in spacial dimensions higher than three? The OP's question about ZPE and higher dimensions being linked would then be valid' date=' wouldn't it?

 

I've always thought that if there is some key bit of information that current physics is lacking about energy, it might lie in higher spatial dimensions. We would not be equipped to "see" it, after all. If we were two-dimensional creature, would we ever think to look "up"?[/quote']

 

If you add an arbitrary additional dimension, you still get an infinity. It's there for a one-dimensional potential; it's [math]\hbar \omega (n + \frac {1}{2})[/math] for each mode. It's that pesky "1/2" that's the source of all the issues. But that 1/2 has to be there. The Casimir force and the decay games occur when you eliminate modes from the system by messing with the boundary conditions, but energy conservation is not violated.

 

The issue of other dimensions becomes how to interact with them. We don't perceive them, and they are presumably orthogonal to the ones we do perceive.

[Norman Albers]

It's that pesky "1/2" that's the source of all the issues. But that 1/2 has to be there.

Horsefeathers.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Back yourself up, and do it in the right place. If you would like to come up with your own theory, I don't mind, but don't quibble with people unless you're willing to explain yourself.

[zeropoint]

Are there any other ways of extracting zero point energy? The only one I've heard of is that cassimir effect thing' date=' which is pretty much useless because the plates can't be unstuck.

 

So will this ever be a viable energy source?

 

Does science hint at a "subspace" star trek like dimension? If there was another dimension or if we could intereact with a universe made of energy (according to string theory's multiple universe/dimensions), if we use as much energy as we extract, would that bypass the laws of conservation, which says you can't "create" new energy?

 

 

I'm no expert of course, so please correct me if there's anything wrong in that description.[/quote']

 

According to some, the Schumann Resonance has increased from 7.8 to about 12 and this is bringing us closer to the 4th dimension. If true, we won't have long to find out about your 'subspace.'

 

Linda

[zeropoint]

If there's such a huge amount of energy, there's got to be a way of harnessing a useful amount of it. Anyone who insists otherwise, without proof, is like someone who in 1905, saw E=mc^{2[/sup'] and claimed the only energy that was available from matter was chemical.}

 

^{Maybe our attempt to "harness" this energy is being done in a fashion similar to trying to lassoo the moon with a rope.}

 

^Linda

[abskebabs]

Sorry if I'm being ignorant, but what exactly does the Schumann resonance have to do with negative energy? This thread is getting quite confusing, Swansont seems to be the only one I can understand just about. It seems this stuff is far beyond my scope at the moment, and only with patient, persistent study and thought will I ever be able to understand it.

[swansont]

Sorry if I'm being ignorant, but what exactly does the Schumann resonance have to do with negative energy?

 

As far as I can tell, any Schumann resonance connection is new-age nonsense.

[Norman Albers]

I have offered ad nauseum the perspective I have come to by working with electrodynamics of quasi-monochromatic wave packets. I have not much more to say. http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na