Talk:Zero-point energy/Archive 1

message: This article is really hard to follow and the format feels a bit scattered-brained. I'm not qualified to edit this article, or otherwise I would. If someone could please make it more readable, that would be much appreciated, especially since I came to this article for research on a game module I am writing.
--David3565 19:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to Follow 

message: There was a weird merge request on the article, I couldn't find any article in duplicate so I removed the message. It was also weird that it used  instead of the  in use now. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 04:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Request? 

message: Shouldn't the topic include some sort of simplified description or analogy for the person without a degree in quantum mechanics and mathematics?
:Definitely agree. - Omegatron 14:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
What the heck, (simplification is risky, but here goes)
Quantum mechanics provides some mathematical models that characterize the behavior of small particles (atoms, molecules sub-atomic particles). The main behavior in question is the motion of particles that are moving in close proximity and are attracted to each other. What we observe is that the particles cannot move freely in any old orbit, they are restricted to particular orbits that are characterised by particular energies and momenta, with elaborate sets of rules. If particles find themselves in non-allowed states of motion, they radiate energy and drop into an allowed state. This is all observed, and all the mathematical complexity amounts to a road map that tells us a lot about the allowed states and how they interact.
What the equations show is that the state of "no energy" (I suppose, just two particles stuck together) doesn't occur. Hydrogen, (an electron and a proton) has a lowest or "ground" state - that's why it persists otherwise it would collapse and the electron would crash in to the proton and stay there (it couldn't collapse into neutron without added energy). 
So in a sense, ordinary matter has a lowest possible or "zero point" energy. A common feature of all these low energy states is that they comply with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle wherein parameters (energy mutliplied by duration and/or dimension multiplied by momentum) remain above a certain minimum (h/2) where h is Planck's constant. 
The concept of Zero Point Fields (ZPF) is a kind of thought experiment in which it is supposed that electromagnetic radiation in space is also constrained by the same quantum rules that apply to the motion of particles of matter.  ZPF proponents often propose that the Heisenberg principle is universal and applies to light and other electromagnetic radiation.
To start with, we observe that electromagnetic radiation induces harmonic motion when it interacts, and on top of that, quantum theory gives us formal equations as to how to model this. 
Quantum theory shows that a physical harmonic oscillator is characterized by a motion that has a constant frequency (f), no matter what the energy. The interval between levels is hf (h is Planck's constant) and a lowest possible energy (ZPH) is hf/2.
On top of that, photons of light are governed by a similar relationship wherein each carries an energy (E) given by E=hf. The match-up with spacing of the oscillator's levels of E=hf leads to the idea that the two are related phenomena.  
To get to the ZPF, one then assumes that the fields that make up radiation in free space are exactly like a physical harmonic oscillator where the energy exchanged is E=hf but there is an underlying "inaccessable" Zero Point Field energy of hf/2. As far as I know, nobody has figured a clear-cut experiment that allows us to demonstrate the existence (or abscence) of this energy, because it is by definition, inaccessable.  As an aside, if ZPF works, then why aren't there photons of 2hf, 3hf etc...
In summary, the quantum mechanics cannot be appled directly to get the ZPF because the equations specifically describe states of motion of matter (not fields) and how matter exchanges energy with electromagnetic radiation. To get ZPF, on has to make assumptions such as: 
1) That Heisenberg uncertainty applies to radiation in space and/or 
2) That radiation in space is constrained to operate in a manner similar to a physical harmonic oscillator.
Does this help? Or is it still too obscure?
:It's a good try, but I think you're working from a misunderstanding of what ZPF is and why it pretty much has to exist according to current theory.  It comes straight from the equations of quantum electrodynamics/quantum field theory, not from a vague reasoning by analogy of the electromagnetic field with a harmonic oscillator.  I don't think "inaccessible" is correct either. ObsidianOrder 07:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still needs to be dumbed-down some more, please --Piemanmoo 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gobbledegook to Lay Person 

message: A naive question I have after reading this is that the conclusion made doesn't make sense because the presmises are completely contrived.
The presmise is:
a particle is confined to a box.  
Conclusion:
It cannot have 0 velocity because then its position would be infinitely indetermite, meaning that it could be outside of the box, thereby violating the premises.  So, the particle must have at least some non-zero velocity, therefore it must have some amount of kinetic energy.
My problem with this argument is that the premises doesn't make sense.  The conclusion is only possible given that one can make a box that can confine a particle.  This is a theoretical conception and one that I do not believe can be valid in the real world.  In reality, nothing can confine something like an electron.  The probability function for a particle is not dependent upon that particle's surroundings, so the presmises that a box can be made that can confine a particle is not true, thereby allowing the conclusion to say anything one wants.  -- 63.252.65.120
The perfect particle-in-a-box is a bit of an idealized concept, but something very close is quite easy to do, e.g. two mirrors facing each other would box in photons (of the right wavelength) or two conductive plates with strong negative charges would box in electrons.  Obviously such boxes do not have perfect walls, and so you get quantum tunneling, but that does not matter since even with tunneling you still get a minimum energy greater than zero.  The uncertainty principle is just an intuitive explanation of where that energy comes from.  ObsidianOrder 22:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification Request 

message: In the equation for the average energy  of a harmonic osciallator in the "History" section, the notation "h-bar is Planck's constant" should be "h-bar is Planck's constant divided by 2 pi"
DoctorD 20:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. linas 01:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  caption correction 

message: H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987).
Tommy Mandel 08:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ZPE papers

message: Several recent anon edits of this article have been made by an anon using the IP , aka the pltn13.pacbell.net anon.  This domain has also been suspected of providing IP anons for Jack Sarfatti.  Haisch and Sarfatti do know each other IRL; Haisch apparently resides in Redwood City, CA (in the Southern Bay Area) and Sarfatti apparently resides in San Francisco, CA.
From this edit, it appears that this domain has been used by , who has added a citation of
*
and thus would appear to be in real life Bernard Haisch, whose proposals regarding zero-point energy is discussed in this article.  If true, this would appear to violate the spirit of guidelines and policies such as WP:AUTO.
See also this edit (which was reverted by someone else before I came along).  It appears possible that Haisch was an anon for some weeks before registering, so the anon edits might represent a newbie who didn't realize how these edits would appear once his identity became known.  Although, to point out the obvious, from his choice of handle, User:Haisch cannot have been attempting to hide his identity, so these edits, which I think may have been in questionable taste, cannot represent an attempt to shill or anything like that.  I've probably been oversensitized by some recent incidents I've noticed which appeared far more sinister. ---CH 02:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After a long discussion with some other users, I can see that I probably should have started by leaving a message in the user talk page of User:Haisch, as I did with User:Ibison.  Alarmed by the sudden space of related edits by persons involved in this stuff, I may have overreacted to the Haisch edits.  I don't yet have a firm opinion about this since I still haven't had a chance to closely examine all the edits not to mention all the relevant eprints.  I am formulating a draft guideline to help suggest possible courses of action to future Wikipedians who notice a suspicious pattern of edits, in which I hope to incorporate my discussion with several other users concerning this incident.  ---CH 02:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent conflict of interest

message: (Tele2 Norge AS. Dynamic IP pool near Oslo) added this paragraph:
"Despite these circumstances, the search for devices tapping the zero point energy has a certain fundamental scientific basis, given that in the Casimir effect, zero point energy is translated into work on the macroscopic scale by the movement and welding-together of the metal plates. Those supportive of the idea of free energy devices argue that although the zero point energy may or may not be removed from the system, it is already proven to do actual work in physical experiments, and hence is a viable area of research."
Tele2 Norge, can you explain what you have in mind?  If zero-point energy cannot be removed from "the system", how can it be used to generate electric power or whatever? (I.e. transmitted over power lines to light a bulb in someone's study.)  ---CH 07:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit by the ''Tele Norge anon''

message: The article states, without any explanation
:"Because zero point energy is the lowest possible energy a system can have, this energy cannot be removed from the system."
And goes on to prove from that that no device could ever "tap" a particles zero-point energy, or extract energy from it. However, to a non-physicist, this doesn't seem entirely obvious. If a trapped elementary particle is required by Heisenberg's principle to have some finite momentum, then it would seem to me (a non-physicist) that it's momentum could never-the-less be lowered, without it ever hitting zero. That is, Heisenberg's principle doesn't appear to state that the particle's momentum must necessarily be the smallest possible momentum of that particle.
This isn't to say that anything in the article is incorrect, just that it doesn't make clear why this is not the case. Could some explanation for the statement quoted above be inserted? — Asbestos | <FONT COLOR="#808080">Talk </FONT> <FONT COLOR="#808080">(RFC)</FONT> 16:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article's statement not entirely clear

message: The article has four sections about physics and a (as usual) rather messy "free energy" section. But the "external links" contains almost exclusively dubious "free energy" sites. As my first removal of these got reverted, I wanted to point this out here. Also, I've shortened the "free energy" section. This topic can be covered at free energy suppression and Perpetual motion. --Pjacobi 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weblinks 

message: 12:05, 17 March 2007 91.153.144.149 wrote in the history section:
Why not add a graph of these functions, to visually descrbe the behaviour of the "energy radiator"? It would make this article much less dry and lifeless.
Martin62 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphs in history section? 

message: I think the Null oscillations page should be merged into the Zero-point energy page; unless that article is expanded to show how it is different from ZPE, it appears to be about the same thing. -- Whitepaw 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply redirected, there was nothing to be saved. linas 16:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Null oscillations]] into this 

message: I understand that zero point energy is not a usable energy source.
Energy can not come out of it, its no perpetuem mobile.
Its a state discription and not a flow or drain where our energy can freely endup
But in physics particles can arise from nothing in a vacuem, together with their anti particles.
At the quantum scale this happens so frequently that our world as we know it would not exist without this effect.
Altough even hard to imagine to me, those 'virtual' particles are needed in the quantum mechanics world.
The Einstein formula is an 'atomic' formula not a quantum formula.
So does this concept of zeropoint energy only aply to atom physics in the old physics model ?
Or is zero point energy not that zero perhaps a noisy zero
As other wise i cannt imagine what would drive these virutal particle creations.
If that is true what would then be the 'new' Quantu mechanics (QM) concept of the lowest energy state of an cubic empy space of a given size?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are attempting to distinguish "first quantization" (sometimes called "atomic physics") from second quantization, which is the quantization of fields. This is a good distinction to make. The idea of a zero point energy appears in both, although in dramatically different form in each. linas 16:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowest state of energy ? 

message: Although the Casimir Effect was postulated on the hypothesis of ZPE, there are other explanations for the effect. R Jaffe, at MIT, recently argued that it could be explained in classical E/M terms. See http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158.
Maybe the section that mentions Casimir should be a litle more circumspect on this. --lutin 21:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I skimmed the preprint, and Jaffe is, in a certain sense, correct. The Casimir effect is "just" a one loop correction, just as the Lamb shift is, or other common one-loop corrections. The cosmological vacuum energy is a different beast. Surely, even Steven Weinberg would agree; unfortunately, in the past, Weinberg, along with almost all traditional, mainstream authors, have helped confuse the concept of a one-loop correction with the concept of the vacuum state: and for good reason, as they are not unrelated. However, untangling these properly, and doing so in a forum like wikipedia, may prove somewhat difficult. So while Jaffe has a point, its may be too subtle to try to incorporate this into the current article. linas 16:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casimir Effect not proof of ZPE 

message: I tried to rewrite this article to clarify the whole Casimir thing. Casimir forces are Van-Der Waals forces in the limit that the separation of objects is big enough. Big enough is compared to the distance light travels in a typical excited state period. This is the difference between London force and Casimir force, and this is what Casimir calculated in 1947.
The casimir force can be calculated as the difference in zero point energy of the electromagnetic field in different boundary conditions. All these boundary conditions do is take into account the different polarizabilities of the different materials which are now too far to be entangled. So they contribute a local boundary condition to the E-M field, and the attraction becomes universal.
That this calculation can be calculated from differences in the field energy in different boundary conditions is not contested. But the idea that this tells you something about the vaccuum energy is ridiculous. The vaccuum energy can always be defined to be zero, and only differences between different states are defined. The different states are different boundary conditions.
Perhaps it is impossible to get this page changed to reflect these facts. But they are facts, and they will not change.Likebox 21:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite rejected 

message: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html
Does Burkhard Heim's work have anything to do with zero-point energy? --Emesee 15:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  may be helpful, may be not 

message: The term "dark energy" is associated with an unknown energy that has been found to be accelerating the expansion of the universe. This term was coined around 1998 when the effect was discovered from measuring the distance to supernovas of a type with a known brightness, and measuring their red shift, whereas quantum field theory dealing with vacuum energy started in the 1930s and 40s. These are separate ideas and should not be conflated.
The predicted (though probably wrong) energy of the ZPE is over 10^100 times more than it should be according to the CC. However the dark energy, including the energy in dark matter (another subject) is only 10 times more than CC predicts. These are very different things, nor should one automatically assume just one or the other is the real answer to the ZPF energy question. It deserves far more thought than a quick off the cuff answer. 75.6.245.24 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dark Energy is not Vacuum Energy

message: I have removed the following paragraph from the article, because it is uncited.--Srleffler (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed uncited paragraph 

message: If the universe is expanding as commonly believed, and vacuum has energy, then the first law of thermodynamics is violated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.67.71 (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation of energy

message: It might be neat to include some popular/news references to Zero Point.
I know Tori Amos has a song called Zero Point and I've heard it a few other places.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.223.228 (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Might be neat 

message: I recently removed an assertion by someone that there is no experimental evidence for zero point energy. It's beyond me how anyone could say that. This isn't to say there aren't extensive errors thoughout this article that need correction, but that statement was just so wrong I couldn't let it go. Physics is not about ironclad interpretations, but about preponderance of the evidence and the ability of an interpretation to solve problems in physics.
When I read this article it tends to remind me of the myth about the group of blind men feeling an elephant and each having a completely different interpretation based on the area of the body they are touching. Everyone contributing to this article has their little niche of expertise that they take as gospel and are unconcerned about how their interpretation affects the subject as a whole. It seems very self-centered and narrow to me.75.7.31.190 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This whole article has problems 

message: Does anybody believe it is worth mentioning in this article that Gary McKinnon from the United Kingdom supposedly discovered that the U.S. government has been suppressing information on free energy? I mean the United States is VERY eager to prosecute McKinnon, who as of today is likely going to take his case the European Court of Human Rights. Just a thought, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm interested in what McKinnon supposedly found and the reaction by the United States. Flproject131 (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is not a conspiracy theory, I do not know what one is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvkeller (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary McKinnon 

message: Moving this to Talk"The Galt Motor in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged is thought to run on zero point energy principles. The machine supposedly was designed to harness static electricity from the atmosphere and convert it to kinetic energy."For starters  "is thought to run on"  rates a , however, beyond that, "static electricity from the atmosphere" has nothing to do with Zero-point energy, AFAIK. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Galt Motor is a fictional device fictionally invented by a fictional character.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvkeller (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving "Galt Motor" to Talk

message: Here is the material I keep cutting and an explanation why I am cutting it:
:"Another vacuum source of zero-point energy is the quantum vortex."[7]
There are no "sources of vacuum energy".  This statement lack an antecedent basis
:"A quantum vortex[8] uses the outer orbital spin of the electron"
Quantum vortex's do not use anything.  Using techinical words without recognition of their meaning is a hallmark of psuedoscience
:"to pass excited atoms through the Casimir-like inner cavity of the electron itself,[9]"
The cavity of a quantuum vortex is not an electron - this is babble.  Probably from deleted sources 8 and 9 which like that fancy sounding word.  See quantum vortex ("a quantum vortex is a hole with the superfluid circulating around the vortex; the inside of the vortex may contain excited particles, air, vacuum")
:"whose structure expresses electromagnetic cavity modes at the transition frequency between the atom's excited and ground states."
This explains nothing about demonstrating zero point energy, or extracting it (this material has appeared in both free energy and experimental evidence sections)
:"With the introduction of the zero point radiation a vacuum at absolute zero is no longer considered empty. Instead, the vacuum is now considered as filled with randomly fluctuating fields having the zero-point radiation spectrums."
This is the nonsequitor conclusion to the previous quotes
:"[7]http://www.astrosciences.info/QV.htm"
This citation does not make the point in the text
:"[8]http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/images4/PCT-PAGES/2006/282006/06073381/06073381.pdf"
This broken link is to a PCT patent application.  Patent applications, and even granted patents, have no weight of authority.  I believe I checked this when the link was up, and found it filled with the misused terms and non-sequitor language quoted above.
:[9]http://www.tewari.org/Theory_Papers/FROM%20THE%20ELECTRON%20TO%20A%20PERPETUAL%20SYSTEM%20OF%20MOTION.htm
This is self-published and claims experimental demonstraton of perpetual motion.  Must I say more?Paul V. Keller (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum Vortex

message: The article section on foundational physics does not contain any.  I am on the verge of cutting it.  It does not matter whether you are talking about quantum or classical mechanics, energy values are only meaningful in relative terms: energy does not exist as a thing apart and there is no absolute energy scale.  E=mc2 should be written delta-E=delata-m c2.Paul V. Keller (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Foundational Physics

message: New Energy News and the Institute for New Energy raise very serious criticisms of the politics of science, namely, that, even if scientists do repeat valid experiments, the flow of knowledge through society is damagingly slow and stubborn due to the inertia of village thinking and (don't run scared now) PR attack campaigns.
New Energy News is here: http://www.padrak.com/ine/
If anyone believes that "news" (or dominant thinking) is a reliable source of information for Wikipedia, stop and remember the hundreds of false stories (in war politics) about Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, and WMD: for citations, see the books "So wrong for so long" and "You are being lied to" and "Cowboy Politics" and "You're Not Stupid" and "Chain of Command".
Wikipedia is bound to get suckered again and again, and human information systems need to get fixed, quickly, not least due to energy and other problems facing the world.
All of this is to raise a question:
NEN and INE (named above) allege that in fact cold fusion has been widely replicated, and that, for whatever reason, those reports are an open secret.  How can citizens concern with the truth deal with such claims?
I can't assess scientific claims one way or another, but it would seem exceedingly naive to assume that PR (or whatever media) distortions have been active ONLY in war politics.
Further, what about this device that NEN and INE point to as seeming to represent a revolutionary source of energy:
Methernitha Swiss M-L Converter developed by Paul Baumann
This is from INEhttp://www.padrak.com/ine/INE21.html:
The Methernitha Swiss M-L Converter developed by Paul Baumann and the Methernitha spiritual community in Switzerland has been repeatedly demonstrated to many scientists upon request (26th IECEC, Nieper 1984, SEA). Its three foot counter-rotating disks and specially designed energy storage system are reported to generate a steady output power of about 3 to 5 kilo-Watts (kW) indefinitely - while sitting on top of a table. A videotape has been produced and its narration has been transcribed.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of these publications can be said to be a reliable source. A quick review finds articles that are quite incredible - e.g. suggesting that endless energy can be obtained by setting light to fibre optic cables  (!). Do you really think that if Baumann really had, 25 years ago, invented a machine that generates endless energy, the only coverage would be in this kind of publication? LeContexte (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Energy News Question 

message: Just thought I'd mention this. Several places in this article it mentions that the ZPF might be infinite. And I suppose this can be considered correct if each new volume that is added to the universe as it expands is assigned the same constant planck length energy. In other words there is no cutoff to the energy as the volume of the universe expands. So as long as the universe expands then the energy is infinite. And it is also said in this article that only differences in energy are measureable.
There are many logical errors to this. I'll try to name them.
1. Energy is the most fundamental "thing" in the universe. To say only differences in energy can be measured is true but not in the way you are assuming the universe works. This only works in the difference between potential and kinetic energy. If you add something to one side of the ledger you subtract it from the other. The universe as it is currently conceptualized assumes a positive (the zpf energy) and a negative energy that is "instantaneously" created. Each you new volume that is added to the universe as it expands is assigned this "instantiated" energy. And because this instantiated energy together equals zero then technically energy is conserved. This patently disagrees with conservation of energy and the first law of thermodynamics.
:You need to research the history of science and the formulation of the definition of energy.  Read a thermodynamics textbook or Richard Faynman's Lectures on Physics.  What happens on the scale of the entire universe, or a hypothetical still greater scale, is so far departed from the evidence on which conservation of energy has been formulated and tested that is nearly irrelevant to the discussion.  Your first sentence here seems to be a matter of gratiuitous faith.75.33.44.214 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I read Feynman's lectures on physics books and have gotten a lot of understanding from them. But even he had blind spots. For instance when a Phd candidate wanted to research Einstein's EPR paper he chased the guy out of his office! I think you are confusing being open minded about the fundamentalness of energy with the need for a constraint in a system. To have any hope to come up with a useable prediction for a theory requires a constrained system. It doesn't mean there might not be something outside of our universe but it does means anything outside of our universe has no meaning whatsovever in our analysis of OUR universe. Energy is the most logical thing to place the fundamental constraint on for our universe to have any hope at all of making sense of our universe. Otherwise it ends up just being a confusing symantic exercise of what constitutes a universe if additional energy of different types can be brought into it arbitrarily. I think most scientists agree with that.75.7.7.247 (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add one more thing. The conventional view of the ZPF where each new Planck volume is assigned the same energy is exactly like creating a new identical quantum universe that is added to the existing sum of quantum universes as the universe expands. But if that is true then why has the radiation temperature of the CMBR lowered as the universe expanded. See, there is a constraint!75.7.7.247 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the help :)75.33.44.214 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaring conceptual problem 

message: A Blueprint for a Quantum Propulsion Machine http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24499/ (Wednesday, December 09, 2009)  --89.152.177.195 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Blueprint for a Quantum Propulsion Machine 

message: This article is too riddled with confused language and misinformation to be of any value to physicists or the lay public. In all likelihood it is doing more harm than good to the latter. If there is some way to prominently add a warning to this effect at the top of the page it should be done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.94.76 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What??

message: in the article, What is meant by: It is also arguable that new physics takes over at the (Planck scale and that the energy growth is cut off at that point. 
exactly what is meant by: "energy growth is cut off"--e:Y,?:G 04:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  energy growth is cut off  

message: This doc is what US Army had to say about the Casimir subject as of mid-2007:
http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-ZeroPointEnergy.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.130.235 (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spherical zero point energy shouldered, cubic zero point energy rolled 

message: I removed this text because it doesn't explain how it relates to the topic of zero-point energy:
--Enric Naval (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is this text in this page? 

message: the intro calls this a "consequence of the heisenberg uncertainty principle".  this is not true.  not anymore than anything in quantum physics is a consequence of the heisenberg uncertainty principle.  the heisenberg principle is just a mathematical statement that can be derived from the shrodinger equation.  as can zpe.  zpe is more properly a consequence of the fact that a charged particle about another is confined by coloumb forces in a parabolic well, and by definition it can't have negative energy.  putting these factors into the time-independant shrodinger equation (solved in this case by dirac - which he won a nobel prize for)  you discover that the only way to avoid negative energy values is to have a non-zero energy "ground state".   to say that the value of a possible quantum energy state -- i.e. the eigenvalues of the hamiltonian -- is due to the uncertainty principle is non-sensical. Kevin Baastalk 15:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: how about if instead it said "consequence of the fact that the position and momentum operators don't commute"?  that would seem more accurate. Kevin Baastalk 21:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a consequence of heisenberg uncertainty 

message: The derivation is sparse in details. I would like to amend it to something like the following...
Near the bottom of a potential well, the Hamiltonian of a system (the quantum-mechanical operator giving its energy) can be approximated as
::\hat{H} = E_0 + \frac{1}{2} k \left(\hat{x} - x_0\right)^2 + \frac{1}{2m} \hat{p}^2
where E_0 is the minimum of the classical potential well.
Therefore, the expectation of \hat{H} is
:: \left\langle \hat{H} \right\rangle = E_0 + \left\langle \frac{1}{2} k \left(\hat{x} - x_0\right)^2 \right\rangle + \left\langle \frac{1}{2m} \hat{p}^2 \right\rangle
Since (a-b)^2 \geq 0 \Rightarrow a^2 + b^2 \geq 2ab, (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2 + 2ab \geq 4ab, or equivalently (for positive a and b) a+b \geq 2\sqrt{ab}. This means the above equation is bounded from below by:
:: \left\langle \hat{H} \right\rangle \geq E_0 + 2\sqrt{ \left\langle \frac{1}{2} k \left(\hat{x} - x_0\right)^2 \right\rangle \left\langle \frac{1}{2m} \hat{p}^2 \right\rangle }.
The uncertainty principle tells us that
::\sqrt{\left\langle \left(\hat{x} - x_0\right)^2 \right\rangle} \sqrt{\left\langle \hat{p}^2 \right\rangle} \geq \frac{\hbar}{2},
making the expectation values of the kinetic and potential terms above satisfy
::\left\langle \frac{1}{2} k \left(\hat{x} - x_0\right)^2 \right\rangle \left\langle \frac{1}{2m} \hat{p}^2 \right\rangle \geq \left(\frac{\hbar}{4}\right)^2 \frac{k}{m}.
The expectation value of the energy must therefore be at least
::\left\langle \hat{H} \right\rangle \geq E_0 + \frac{\hbar}{2} \sqrt{\frac{k}{m}} = E_0 + \frac{\hbar \omega}{2}
where \omega = \sqrt{k/m} is the angular frequency at which the system oscillates.
Rocketman768 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivation Details 

message: Per Xxanthippe's request when removing my original insertion of this section, I reverted & expanded it slightly (adding the sentence about FanFiction.net) and added sources.  The IMDB page for the character references his use of ZPE several times, the linked video is devoted to an examination of the film's use of it vs actual physics, with the first explicit mention at :34 seconds, and as noted in the new sentence, with link, the character's fan fiction home is named for ZPE.  Additionally the linked Wikipedia article on the film & character go in to this in depth.  Hopefully this's sufficient. SLEPhoto (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

message: Can we add a popular media sightings section? Although this would allow a non scientific section to an all physics page, zero point energy IS very widely recognised as one of the most falsified claims by fakers (perpetual motion and free-energy machines)
If so, I offer my sighting - The Incredibles, Pixar film, Buddy Pine/Syndrome has created a zero point energy wrist weapon.
:See Zero-point energy in popular culture, which should be summarized in a section of this article, if you ask me.--Yannick 02:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop Culture References List

message: Nadesico
Stargate
Also your link seems to go to a nonexistent page, with no new section in this article either.
Kd5npf (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Two more references:

message: Film Scene: Aliens among us - Jim Reed http://savannahnow.com/do/2013-05-29/film-scene-aliens-among-us#.Uao8XZ6kS_Y  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankRadioSpecial (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New Sources

message: I was just reading this article which would seem to be new experimental evidence.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130426115449.htm
Can someone who can properly integrate it into the page do so?
I feel that I don't have the experiance with WikiPedia to do it correctly :)
brill (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding New Experimental Evidence 

message: I realize that the laws of thermodynamics can not be "broken" of course, but I also realize that they are probabilistic laws in essence (particularly the second law), so as it is not to say that energy has to lose some to heat, just that it's extremely likely to. Violating the Laws sounds a bit too rigid,in this context, anyway. 
Just my 2c
124.171.207.219 (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "violating"... not the right word? 

message: In the section "gravitation and cosmology" it reads:
"One obvious difficulty with this association is that the zero-point energy of the vacuum is absurdly large. Naively, it is infinite, because it includes the energy of waves with arbitrarily short wavelengths. But since only differences in energy are physically measurable, the infinity can be removed by renormalization."
I think this is wrong, since gravitation (unlikie any of the other fundamental forces) senses absolute energy, not just energy differences. Thus, renormalization cannot resolve the conflict in the case of gravity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.222.243 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravitation and cosmology 

message: The history section was originally added in this edit:.  It was edited by User:Sadi Carnot who was blocked indefinitely because of various abuse.  Therefore, the content may be of suspect value.  In fact, it has one gross errors.  The vibrational energy formula
: \epsilon = \frac{h\nu}{ e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT}}-1} + \frac{h\nu}{2}
was actually given by Max Planck.  The references are here: 
"The paper by Einstein and Otto Stern ... presents the results of their study of some ways in which the zero-point energy, introduced two years earlier by Max Planck in his second quantum theory, might affect physical phenomena", , "When Max Planck introduced the concept of zero-point energy in 1911...", "...corresponding to the zero-point energy hv/2 that Planck ascribed to his resonators in his second theory of radiation."
Based on these findings, I think we should give proper credit to whomever it is due.--Laochen 06:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: It may not be "fringe physics", but it is frequently used in fringe physics.  I think that makes it close enough for inclusion in the category.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Fringe physics]] 

message: Dear Public,
Please stop using this term - "mainstream". There is no such thing. There is science, and there are scientists, they are not a single body, nor are they all affiliated with each other or anything. Science is science. It is not a club, you do not need to purchase a membership. Science is a concept. You do not "join" or "sign up". 
If your pet hypothesis is having trouble being accepted by the scientific community, you are deluding yourself if you think that all of the scientists and scientific institutions have somehow got together to exclude it. I guarantee that if your pet concept had any legs, there would be someone out there who is willing to try and find evidence for it - someone from the *scientific* community. 
That is what science is - the testing of ideas against observations to formulate explanations and extrapolate predictions. If your concept fails to predict any meaningful observations, that is not a failure of "mainstream" science to adapt.
There are no scientists *outside the mainstream* because if there were, and they were worth their salt, they would be...well...pretty regular scientists. The idea that we all band together to "suppress" ideas that we don't like is preposterous, because that would be ignoring a pathway to a better explanation of whatever phenomena. Oh, I'm sure they are a few people out there who would pick and choose, manipulate data or ignore ideas because they are emotionally invested in some avenue of research, but there is always a certain percentage of bad apples in every group of people. Say it aint so.
Regards,
One tiny, infinitesimal part of the scientific community.178.15.151.163 (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  So-Called "mainstream" science/scientists. 

message: Even though the zero-point energy is theoretically infinite, there is as yet no practical evidence to suggest that infinite amounts of zero-point energy are available for use, that zero-point energy can be withdrawn for free, or that zero-point energy can be used in violation of conservation of energy.[13]
If you actually read reference 13, it states that there is an actual way to extract ZPE (the Casimir effect), and doing so doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics... only that it's such a small amount of energy that it's completely useless.  It says that on pg 2.
Hhh3h (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the last sentance 

message: The article currently advises that ZPM energy generators are specifically from Stargate Atlantis, while they are also in Stargate SG1.
Amended the article to reflect this. 203.13.3.93 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Stargate correction

message: HUP causes nothing to happen. It merely attempts to describe something that we believe happens. Please change this.
2001:5B0:4ED5:3D98:3401:7A38:F7CA:1360 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heisenberg's uncertainty principle [HUP] 

message: The first half of this very long article is based on good physics, but the second half strays into some very weird and fringe areas. Should the weird stuff be spun off into a new article say-Unconventional proposals for the use of zero-point energy? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, I agree it includes some fringy subjects. Where do you say we may make a clear cut of the article?MaoGo (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Purported applications, which is all outside the mainstream, could be hived off. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird science

message: Previously this article was listed under "Category:Physics". This is a container category to group other categories, rather than a category for individual articles, since otherwise it would contain thousands of articles and make the physics category page difficult to navigate. This idea is explained in the page WP:DIFFUSE. Articles often belong to many specific categories, but since this article already belongs to categories "Mathematical physics", "Condensed matter physics" and several other physics daughter categories, adding the overall category "Physics" is not necessary here. Forbes72 (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Sorry for the confusion - I realize now my initial edit summary was not as clear/helpful as it could have been. Forbes72 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Physics

message: I have never heard of the term “zero-point radiation”, except from “cranks”.
DWHalliday (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A search for "zero point radiation" gives 3,900 ghits, so usage is known. Please follow convention and add your comments to the bottom of the page. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did the term “zero-point ''radiation''” come from? 

message: I propose to merge Zero Point Energy into Free energy suppression conspiracy theory. Outdated research, revived by conspiracy theorists.  ToddGrande (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero point energy is a real thing in physics, it is not a conspiracy theory.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: What precisely is the difference?(And, as I'm not (yet) an expert in this area of physics, please keep the explanation simple).
:GSE is the lowest energy state of a system (greater or equal to zero). ZPE is the energy above zero energy due to energy quantum uncertainty. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero-point energy vs. Ground-state energy. 

message: The article titled "Zero-point energy",
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy,
contains a referenced entry that is Not corroborated by its reference. This entry appears twice in the article.
The statement is "Recent experiments advocate the idea that particles themselves can be thought of as excited states of the underlying quantum vacuum, and that all properties of matter are merely vacuum fluctuations arising from interactions with the zero-point field."  It is tied to reference [10].
Two statements contained in this entry are not corroborated by its reference.  They are
1) "...particles themselves can be thought of as excited states of the underlying quantum vacuum..."
2) "...all properties of matter are merely vacuum fluctuations arising from interactions with the zero-point field."
A close reading of their reference does not support either of these statements. I removed the statements, but they're reappeared after 2 hours without comment as to how they're supported by their reference. Further editing by myself will only result in a deletion-reinsertion battle.
Please have someone with a background in particle physics review these statement and their reference for accuracy.  If they're not valid, please remove permanently remove them. 73.217.123.108 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements do not reflect mainstream views and should be removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Quantum field theory (QFT) treats particles as excited states (quanta) of their underlying fields. Particles are understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are considered excitations of the underlying quantum fields, but are "temporary". As you write, someone with a background in particle physics should review these statement and their reference for accuracy. Until then, I suggest the sentence be left in the article. I too will find a reference as soon as I have some time. I am checking sources such as Fiscalettia et al and others. As for the second half of the sentence, I'm not sure about "all properties of matter"... I would think 'Some properties of matter' is more accurate. Coldcreation (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I disagree with your interpretations. As the article states: Given the equivalence of mass and energy expressed by Albert Einstein's E = mc2, any point in space that contains energy can be thought of as having mass to create particles. Virtual particles spontaneously flash into existence at every point in space due to the energy of quantum fluctuations caused by the uncertainty principle. Modern physics has developed quantum field theory (QFT) to understand the fundamental interactions between matter and forces, it treats every single point of space as a quantum harmonic oscillator. According to QFT the universe is made up of matter fields, whose quanta are fermions (i.e. leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g. photons and gluons). All these fields have zero-point energy.[2] Coldcreation (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  An entry is Not supported by its reference 

message: Look at the Intro, 2nd paragraph:
" . . . with a single light bulb containing enough energy to boil all the world's oceans."
This is utter nonsense !  A light bulb does not contain energy.   It consumes energy and radiates energy.
How can an article with this kind of drivel be allowed to exist ?   Darkman101 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't understand what is meant. The ZPE contained within the vacuum enclosed in an incandescent light bulb would be enough to boil all the world's oceans.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

text: ZPE is not pseudoscience but a lot of pseudoscience is speculated on its basis. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article pseudoscience ? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This page includes a reference to a Feyman quote that says there is enough ZPE in a lightbulb to boil all the world's oceans. The source for this quote is a single Guardian quote that itself provides no context. Further, there are no other references that back up Feyman ever made this claim. 
It's an extraordinary claim and it underpins a lot of conspiracy thinking related to ZPE. It would be a good idea to get additional citations or consider dropping the quote. 76.209.240.71 (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is from Feynman it is probably accurate, but I agree that it needs a source. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I deleted the sentence as the source is not reliable on physics. The short article makes the claim about Feynman and Wheeler but provides no source. It's basically gossip at this point. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sketchy reference to Feyman quote 

message: The "Purported applications" is too long per the policy WP:UNDUE. AFAICT it attempts to enumerate every ZPE application ever proposed.
Most of the refs are primary sources or "news" articles about those publications. The section should be based on secondary science sources (as this topic is scientific ZPE not fiction or entertainment). Johnjbarton (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Purported applications" is primarily primary sources.