The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is zero point energy theory plausible?  (Read 1939 times)

Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
    • View Profile
Is zero point energy theory plausible?
« on: 02/08/2013 02:21:48 »
I thought I'd posted this but it didn't appear, so if two appear later, sorry. I read Lynn Taggart's book The Field some years ago and didn't hear much more about it for some time. Now there seems to be a web site for zero point energy and you tube talks etc. Do any of you physicists out there think this is a credible theory, likely to be the 'next big thing' after quantum physics as the proponents claim? Are the explanations valid?(supposedly endorsed and repeated by credentialed scientists).


 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is zero point energy theory plausible?
« Reply #1 on: 02/08/2013 02:31:04 »
No, the theories of Lynn Taggart and other quantum mystics have little to no basis in science.  It's hard to generalized completely, but most of this area is philosophy/mysticism that borrows a lot of fancy sounding terms from quantum theory (zero point energy being one of them), but leaves the science well behind.
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: Is zero point energy theory plausible?
« Reply #2 on: 02/08/2013 02:49:06 »
Zero point energy is a part of quantum physics even today. It's the energy that remains even when the temperature is brought to absolute zero. It comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations and exists in the form of virtual particles that flit into and out of existence in tiny fractions of a second. Although it is a form of energy that exists everywhere, it isn't accessible to power machines because there is no gradient which can be used to extract the energy from it (except for the Casimir effect, but that doesn't give you the energy for "free").

Imagine that you are in a boat in the middle of the ocean that is equipped with a water wheel like those used in watermills. The water wheel is powered by water, and there is water all around you. That's lots of free power, right? Well, not so much. The water in the ocean is in a low energy state. In order to power the water wheel, you'd have to lift it high enough for it to fall onto the wheel. Lifting the water requires an input of energy, and you'll never be able to generate more energy from the falling water than would be required to lift the water in the first place. So there is no way to extract any net energy. The zero point energy problem is similar.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is zero point energy theory plausible?
« Reply #3 on: 02/08/2013 05:40:31 »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is zero point energy theory plausible?
« Reply #4 on: 02/08/2013 06:15:56 »
And, either way, I think it is as JP stated. No 'free energy' available from a vacuum to drive a flashlight. Assume that planets and suns moving uniformly, frictionlessly, all used up 'usable' energy while moving. Furthermore assume that the unusable  final product of this energy is heat. Then assume that our universe has been doing this for 13.7 billion years about. Do Space have a temperature?
=

Eh, couldn't help myself there, just exchange space for matter (proper mass), and see if the temperature has raised. If everything is energy, and we split it in usable, to become unusable (heat) then the temperature of mass should raise, shouldn't it? As for the Casimir force I don't know how to think of it, assuming it is a property of space I wonder if one couldn't refer to it as a probability becoming a certainty, instead of waves? Or it can be property of matter maybe?
=

'Usable energy to unusable', in this case, would be the transformations between a Higgs field and proper mass, or Higgs bosons. Maybe one could argue that this is 'dark tension (energy)' though, as a idea :) This because assuming bosons, or field(s) with bosons as their 'concentrations', interacting with mass must involve transformations, and transformations cost 'energy'. So, if it won't be heat, then, what is it?

(As soon as we discuss particles, of whatever kind, there should be a cost interacting. A pure 'field' (Higgs field) on the other hand? I don't know what a 'field' is. Neither have I seen it defined what the cost for a field interacting would be? And furthermore, how do you get to observer dependencies from a field?)
« Last Edit: 02/08/2013 06:58:13 by yor_on »
 

Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
    • View Profile
Re: Is zero point energy theory plausible?
« Reply #5 on: 02/08/2013 21:09:07 »
Thanks everyone. Curiouser and curiouser.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1832
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is zero point energy theory plausible?
« Reply #6 on: 03/08/2013 00:11:35 »
I too read Lynn Taggart's book.  My non-expert opinion at the time was: 95% "snake oil", 4% mysticism and 1% something to think about.  That was a long time ago, but I have not seen anything of her's since to make me believe I would change that, except, possibly, the nature of the 1%.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is zero point energy theory plausible?
« Reply #6 on: 03/08/2013 00:11:35 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length