Jump to content

Zero Point Energy?


JTM³

Recommended Posts

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?:confused:

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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' ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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[/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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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[/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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?:confused:

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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[/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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.