Talk:Zero-point field

message: === Why does this page exist? ===
As a PhD physicist, this page makes no sense to me whatsoever.  The zero-point energy page covers the relevant physical topics, while this page is a rambling uncited diatribe.  The only coherent section is the duplication of the zero-point energy article.  Please remove this ASAP.  Stop Wikipedia from becoming an intellectual wasteland.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.153.58 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should I believe you have a PhD? And more important, why should I believe that if you have one it means you know how to think and don't just parrot what you were told in academia? Your citations requirement in the article had merit and resulted in a major overhaul of that section. But your comment here is just a bullying tactic to quiet critics of major conceptual problems in the status quo version of the ZPF. Unluckily for you, thought and logic, as well as training, are more valued than brainwashing and coercion at Wikipedia.75.6.243.10 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia also has certain policies. Original thought is not to be originally published on it, for example. If Wikipedia works the way you say, then why does it seem so many disagree with you? mike4ty4 (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk moved from [[Talk:Zero-point field]] 

message: As a PhD physicist, this page makes no sense to me whatsoever.  The zero-point energy page covers the relevant physical topics, while this page is a rambling uncited diatribe.  The only coherent section is the duplication of the zero-point energy article.  Please remove this ASAP.  Stop Wikipedia from becoming an intellectual wasteland.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.153.58 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should I believe you have a PhD? And more important, why should I believe that if you have one it means you know how to think and don't just parrot what you were told in academia? Your citations requirement in the article had merit and resulted in a major overhaul of that section. But your comment here is just a bullying tactic to quiet critics of major conceptual problems in the status quo version of the ZPF. Unluckily for you, thought and logic, as well as training, are more valued than brainwashing and coercion at Wikipedia.75.6.243.10 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia also has certain policies. Original thought is not to be originally published on it, for example. If Wikipedia works the way you say, then why does it seem so many disagree with you? mike4ty4 (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this page exist? 

message: Disucssion from User talk:linas
Hi, can you pitch in a bit on this article I started.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 17:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, sorry. My gut impression was "crank physics", and this is exactly what I was trying to avoid when I last went through this class of articles. There might be a valid article about "the sociology and psychology of zero point energy in crank physics", but that would be a sociology article, not a physics article. linas 01:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, did you just revert an article sourced with four references, the first being a definition verbatim out an Encyclopedia of Quantum Physics? You just lost a lot of respect.  Your actions are not to be commended. My intentions are to see a straight textbook article on the term "zero point field" as it is understood in modern physics.  If you think you can do better than me, than please do; if not, take your concerns to Talk:Zero-point field where we can discuss this in the coming weeks.  Doing a redirect-revert on my effort to write a short article on the topic was not at all nice.  I will be posting rfc's on all of the science project pages if you do a redirect on my efforts again. --Sadi Carnot 14:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I'd still vote for changing back to a redirect. The number of references isn't the ultimate measure of article quality. The historical excourse doesn't really fit.... --Pjacobi 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't known what you mean by "vote".  Before I wrote up a short summary of this term, as best I could, using the 16 references shown, it was a redirect to vacuum state where, supposedly, one sentence, namely "the term "zero-point field" is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field", written by user:linas, was supposed to explain this term.  I’m not claiming that the article I wrote is robust, but it is definitely an improvement on linas’ one sentence.  Please feel free to chip in to improve the article.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 02:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. Adding nonsense to sense is not an improvement. --Pjacobi 10:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As for this comment, I don’t know why you are shooting down my efforts to write up on a notable topic.  A start page page is never perfect, that is the idea at Wikipedia.  Second, as for your comment “Haisch-cruft and worse”, I didn’t know who “Haisch”, i.e. Bernard Haisch, was until just now, nor do I care.  If you have a better reference, go ahead and put it in.  As for your conditioner “and worse”, this term if very popular in the new-age book stores, hence the related section.  Wikipedia is not about information censorship, even if it is a mis-application or mis-representation of basic science.  Also, I don’t know why you seem to always be coincidently popping up on the talk page of articles that I start?  --Sadi Carnot 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Started stub on [[zero-point field]]

message: from Portal talk:Physics
which was and most likely should be again a redirect to vacuum state. Now it has become a strange mixture of history of QM, Haisch-cruft and worse. See talk page. --Pjacobi 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for this comment, I don’t know why you are shooting down my efforts to write up on a notable topic.  A start page page is never perfect, that is the idea at Wikipedia.  Second, as for your comment “Haisch-cruft and worse”, I didn’t know who “Haisch”, i.e. Bernard Haisch, was until just now, nor do I care.  If you have a better reference, go ahead and put it in.  As for your conditioner “and worse”, this term if very popular in the new-age book stores, hence the related section.  Wikipedia is not about information censorship, even if it is a mis-application or mis-representation of basic science.  Also, I don’t know why you seem to always be coincidently popping up on the talk page of articles that I start?  --Sadi Carnot 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some trouble at [[Zero-point field]] 

message: The article states:
:The electromagnetic zero-point field is loosely considered as a sea of background electromagnetic energy that fills the vacuum of space, and is often regarded merely as a curious outcome of the quantum mechanical requirement...
This sentence is strange/misleading.
1) why single out the electromagnetic field? There is a vacuum state for all fields not just this one.
2) The assertion that its "merely a curious outcome" blatently contradicts the sentence right before it (which talks about the Casimir effect), and completely ignores things like Lamb shift, which was awarded with a Nobel prize, I believe.
linas 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article critique 

message: The article states:
:It is believed that an electromagnetic field exists in a vacuum even when the temperature of the surrounding material is reduced towards zero so that the thermal field tends to zero.[3]
Two problemms:
1)True but insane/misleading. The vacuum state has nothing to do with thermal effects.
2) Again, a focus on the electromagnetic field; the phenomenon holds for all fields.
:The existence of such a zero-point field has been confirmed experimentally by the Casimir experiment, i.e. the measurement of the attractive force between two parallel plates in an evacuated, near-zero temperature enclosure.[3]
Temperature has nothing to do with it. The Casimir effect is now regularly seen in nanotech devices, and is sometimes taken account of during the engineering phase. 
:That force is found to be proportional to the inverse fourth power of the distance apart of the plates; it has been shown that such a result can only be produced by a zero-point field whose spectral energy density has a frequency dependence of ρ(ν) = kν3.[3]
Half-true, half-bullshit. The article on the Casimir effect gives a better derivation. The actual effect depends not only on the bulk contribution, but also on the boundary conditions. 
:According to recent 2005 theoretical considerations, the source free vacuum electromagnetic field can be considered to be a composite of a neutrino and an anti neutrino and that the zero-point field may have a relation to the ubiquitous dark energy.[4]
This is utter and total crack-smoking insanity. linas 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More non-sense 

message: So far, every sentence in this article has contained either minor or major errors, or has been nonsense. The  history section is particularly almost completely irrelevent to the concept. It attempts to recap half a century of development of QM and QFT into a focus on black body radiation and the quantization of the simple harmonic oscillator.  This whole section should be deleted.
Its conclusion is insane:
:In recent years, it has been suggested that the electromagnetic zero-point field is not merely an artifact of quantum mechanics, but a real entity with major implications for gravity, astrophysics and technology. This view is shared by a number of researchers, including Boyer (1980), McCrea (1986), Puthoff (1987) and Rueda and Haisch (1998).[8][9][10][11]
A long list of notable cranks. I too, had the mis-pleasure of dining with someone who was going put the dirty petroleum industry out of business by mining clean energy from the zero-point field. That does not mean my dinner guest was not a crank, despite his illustrious publications on this topic. linas 14:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more nonsense 

message: I have a proposal. Given that this article got just about every aspect of the actual physics wrong, and given that actual physicists call it the "vacuum state" and not "zero-point energy", I suggest turning this article into an article about the pseudoscience only. This would allow more or less unlimited discussion of the cranky bits withlittle or no arguments. Would that work? linas 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I performed this edit, removing the erroneous explanations, and keeping only the pseudoscience discussions. I think it could turn into a marvelous article with a bit of work; I've enjoyed reading this kind of stuff on and off over the years. linas 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has some problems with overlaps regarding Free energy suppression and Stochastic electrodynamics. But it's remarkably better than the previous attempt by Said.  --Pjacobi 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A while ago, I actually read through some of the SED papers. These people aren't completely crazy; there's a kernel of an interesting idea there. The problem with SED is the rejection of QED, which, in terms of decimal places of measured values, is the most successful theory humankind has ever known. (FWIW, my wide & varied travels in math is in large part driven by a gut feeling that there's a certain something missing in QFT, and I have an inkling of what it is, but I don't have the tools to express it.) linas 00:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Make this an article on the pseudoscience effects only. 

message: I think it would be good to move the talk page back to Talk:Zero-point field, since its appearence here, at Talk:Vacuum state, is disconcerting and somewhat confusing. Is there an admin watching this, who could do this? linas 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Pjacobi 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move talk page back 

message: The previous undoing of the latest edited version is unwarranted and against the policy of Wikipedia. If an edit is to be undone without comment it must be obvious and proven that the previous edit was vandalism of the subject in question. There is no reason to undo the previous edit I made because it has never been proven that there is a corresponding zero point field for the weak and strong force, either experimentally or that it is required mathematically. If you don't believe it then just do some of the latest cutting edge research on what quantum entanglement of particles actually is. You will find that the strong and weak force are just examples of quantum entanglement of particles and that the decay of particles in th weak force is just an imperfect instance of entanglement. Quantum Entanglement has also been shown to not require anything besides an electromagnetic zero-point field to come into existance. Until you have educated yourself on this subject you have no right to undo this past edit without comment.75.6.239.2 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no evidence for strong and weak force zero-point fields.

message: It's interesting how easy it is for people to jump to conclusions about things. In the effort to put themselves in line with the herd of sheep called society "most" theortical physicists will delude themselves into believing certain things are impossible and that other things deemed impossible are not possible because it has been stated by authority figures in the field. For instance it has been an enduring position of the scientific community that conservation of energy does not pertain at the quantum level. Scientists have acted like contortionists to create theories of virtual particles, quantum "fluctuations" and delayed choice so as not to have to admit this is what they really believe. But everything they have said and speculated about in the last 50 years says they don't take conservation of energy at the quantum level seriously. Every time the flag of "conservation of energy" is run up the flafpole they all salute it because they just can't bring themselves to own up to it. But they are like little kids with crumbs on their faces telling their mom they don't know what happened to the chocolate cake she just baked.
But once you take conservation of energy and conservation of information (which is the same thing) seriously at the quantum level all sorts of strange and even mythical effects start to emerge. If information never is really lost do you really want to treat other people in a way you would not want to be treated? Even the idea of "fairness" suddenly takes on a richer meaning. Things just might come back to bite you if you don't act right. An idea we could all use a little bit more of.75.7.16.106 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get how you derive such things from conservation of information. Note that conservation of information does not necessarily mean the information comes back in the same form it was put out. E.g. if you toss a gun down a black hole and the Hawking radiation were to return the information contained in it (one theory about how "conservation of information" could be achieved in a black hole -- there are actually quite a few), what comes back out is not capable of shooting people... (I don't know of any theory in which the gun magically returns intact to its original form) you get a flux of photons emitted over many aeons, that if you could interpret it correctly would contain the original pattern of the gun, but don't expect someone to get shot just because this information radiated out of the BH. The information was transmuted into a form in which it was no longer capable of doing that. Nice try at explaining stuff, but you have to remember that Information, like Energy, can change form even if it is "conserved", and some forms are more or less useful than others, and the same information in different forms can have different effect. You cannot use QM in the way you would like to here, sorry. QM is NOT a magic box that is capable of simply and easily explaining away every question and belief in existence, which, it seems, is what you are trying to do with it. mike4ty4 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Are New Age ideas based on the zero point field completely pseudoscience?

message: I changed my own edit because I realized time was intimately involved with the flow of information locally. At zero degrees kelvin the flow of energy and information stops. This seems to indicate that time itself for any space or body that could actually be brought to that temperature, would stop. So time is a redundant definition in that context. Time seems to be a measure of the "ticking over" of information locally. It may also be the reason that time slows down for any object accelerated to near the speed of light. If gravity is a measure of the zpf energy density surrounding a massive object or particle, then near the speed of light the zpf energy density around that object would be so "thinned out" that the energy and information exchange between the zpf and the object would slow down - time slows down. 75.7.18.188 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited "time" out of definition of temperature.

message: I added a new section about the Planck length and how it relates to the upper limit for zpf density. I tried to write in the most elegant way I could so the reader could follow the logic easily without being asked to make leaps of faith. Because I don't have citations for this section I felt this was neccessary. If anybody has a citation that fits with this section it would be appreciated. This isn't to say the logic I put into the section requires it. Anybody with a brain can follow it and I left the final judgement on its efficacy to be left to the future. So please don't take this comment as my admission that it "requires" a citation.
It would just be nice, that's all. 75.6.249.219 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Planck Length 

message: I changed the overall emphasis zpf theory summary from one of being derived purely from statistical probability to one that is larger than merely a result of statistical analysis. This larger idea also encompasses changes resulting from quantum uncertainty. The only problem with this change is that it effects a footnote. With the change it makes it look like a disagreement with the authors in the footnote. However, I have reason to believe those authors probably also have changed their opinion from what that footnote references. So, rather than having the article look like it was trying to negate the opinion of those specific individuals I would like to remove the footnote. The previous concensus view really wasn't just the view held by those individuals but was widespread in the scientific community.
So if someone wants to reinstate the footnote for some other work by those individuals I would be appreciative. I'm trying to avoid stepping on toes while still being respectful of the subject. If no one comes up with one I will try to find something to footnote them them that is consistant with the article, but it might appear somewhere else in the article. No promises though, so I would appreciate if those individuals, or someone representing them, would make the needed insertion. 75.6.240.73 (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header for ZPF article  

message: Started new section and will finish it up in the next few days. I need to add citations for Puthoff and Haisch on inertial forces and zitterbewegung action and on Haisch alone for plane waves created dring acceleration. I'll do implication for this tunneling action and how it is a different way of looking at both quantum entanglement and torsion, but is basically the same thing. Also need to add 1935 EPR reference. This is just a start... 75.6.253.154 (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished section, mostly. Decided not to get into history of quantum entanglement because most of that info is in public domain and can be referenced elsewhere. Included new and better citations for Puthoff, Rueda, and Haisch.75.6.249.151 (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added new section on limits of causality 

message: I read the comment that its too long. I hate to say it but I think the section I added may have been too much. So I will delete it. There's a lot of information that goes with it and the section doesn't really do it justice. Plus it comes close to duplicating things that came earlier in the article. To some people I'm sure it comes just too close to effects they typically associate with pseudoscience. I don't think people are ready to accept that  and it deserves its own separate subject anyway that goes into much more detail. So I'm deleting the section. However I will delete the comment that the article is too long with it. If there is still a problem with the article's length please make any response here first. Then we can work on the issue together rather than having me try to read minds.75.7.19.150 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I included the mathematical justification for an index that counteracts an increasing G as the universe expands. It was taken from the section that I recently deleted. It fits in more with the tone of the article than the previous section and it adds only about 6 lines. So I don't think anyone will object to excessive length from that small addition. However, I'm aware that the article has now pretty much reached a length that is about right. I don't think much more can be added without decreasing its overall quality. So if anyone, including me, adds something quantitatively it should probably be at the expense of having to delete something else. The only alternative seems to be a major reorganization, but I don't think that is neccessary as the article as a whole hangs together really well right now.75.7.13.237 (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long? 

message: It is a fact that Albert Einstein's equation in General Relativity for the geometrodynamics of space is one of the most beautiful equations in physics. Unfortunately, its beauty has resulted in a fixation in the West on the mathematics of geometry, including the geometry of hyper-dimensional space. This focus has resulted in Western mainstream physics ignoring the need for a mathematical definition that connects the classical General Relativity 4-dimensional and Kaluza-Klein 5-dimensional theories of the geometry of space with new quantum mechanical derived ideas that will better correlate with them. Until an explicit mathematical equation is robustly proven to link these two disparate interpretations of physics the first law of thermodynamics for our universe appears to be conceptually violated.
This writing style is not what someone would expect from an encyclopaedia. Though I couldn't find any rule on writing style, I believe that an objective-unemotional style would be more appropriate. --77.56.90.38 (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Adjusted style somewhat and made it less subjective. If the criticism above relates only to style then it is fixed. If it relates also to an intrinsic criticism of where physics has gone in the last 30 years then it probably won't meet your satisfaction. I think it can be argued that 4d and 5d space required better integration with QFT before >5d space was tackled. I won't back down on that. Its just bad problem solving technique, period.75.7.5.159 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic style 

message: Just look at this talk page. This article has been an embarrassment since inception, a WP:COATRACK for fringe-cruft and amalgamation of topics not found in any single reliable source metioned. One particular unregistered user has been using it for his original research and personal essay space, violating synthesis. The separate topics are covered in other articles. I have redirected to Vacuum state, as that article mentions the zero point field in its first paragraph as a synonym, but if someone wants to redirect it to Zero-point energy, that would be fine as well. Tim Shuba (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 User:Linas (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldly redirected