Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Introduction to Zero-Point Energy
CalPhysics.org ^

Posted on 02/28/2003 2:59:02 PM PST by sourcery

Quantum physics predicts the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy at every point in the universe. This is different from the cosmic microwave background and is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum since it is the lowest state of otherwise empty space. This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations.

A minority of physicists accept it as real energy which we cannot directly sense since it is the same everywhere, even inside our bodies and measuring devices. From this perspective, the ordinary world of matter and energy is like a foam atop the quantum vacuum sea. It does not matter to a ship how deep the ocean is below it. If the zero-point energy is real, there is the possibility that it can be tapped as a source of power or be harnassed to generate a propulsive force for space travel.

The propellor or the jet engine of an aircraft push air backwards to propel the aircraft forward. A ship or boat propellor does the same thing with water. On Earth there is always air or water available to push against. But a rocket in space has nothing to push against, and so it needs to carry propellant to eject in place of air or water. The fundamental problem is that a deep space rocket would have to start out with all the propellant it will ever need. This quickly results in the need to carry more and more propellant just to propel the propellant. The breakthrough one wishes for deep space travel is to overcome the need to carry propellant at all. How can one generate a propulsive force without carrying and ejecting propellant?

There is a force associated with the electromagnetic quantum vacuum: the Casimir force. This force is an attraction between parallel metallic plates that has now been well measured and can be attributed to a minutely tiny imbalance in the zero-point energy in the cavity between versus the region outside the plates. This is not useful for propulsion since it symmetrically pulls on the plates. However if some asymmetric variation of the Casimir force could be identified one could in effect sail through space as if propelled by a kind of quantum fluctuation wind. This is pure speculation.

The other requirement for space travel is energy. A thought experiment published by physicist Robert Forward in 1984 demonstrated how the Casimir force could in principle be used to extract energy from the quantum vacuum (Phys. Rev. B, 30, 1700, 1984). Theoretical studies in the early 1990s (Phys. Rev. E, 48, 1562, 1993) verified that this was not contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics (since the zero-point energy is different from a thermal reservoir of heat). Unfortunately the Forward process cannot be cycled to yield a continuous extraction of energy. A Casimir engine would be one whose cylinders could only fire once, after which the engine become useless.

ORIGIN OF ZERO-POINT ENERGY

The basis of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one of the fundamental laws of quantum physics. According to this principle, the more precisely one measures the position of a moving particle, such as an electron, the less exact the best possible measurement of momentum (mass times velocity) will be, and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h. A parallel uncertainty exists between measurements involving time and energy. This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter.

A useful calculational tool in physics is the ideal harmonic oscillator: a hypothetical mass on a perfect spring moving back and forth. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that such an ideal harmonic oscillator -- one small enough to be subject to quantum laws -- can never come entirely to rest, since that would be a state of exactly zero energy, which is forbidden. In this case the average minimum energy is one-half h times the frequency, hf/2.

Radio waves, light, X-rays, and gamma rays are all forms of electromagnetic radiation. Classically, electromagnetic radiation can be pictured as waves flowing through space at the speed of light. The waves are not waves of anything substantive, but are in fact ripples in a state of a field. These waves do carry energy, and each wave has a specific direction, frequency and polarization state. This is called a "propagating mode of the electromagnetic field."

Each mode is subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. To understand the meaning of this, the theory of electromagnetic radiation is quantized by treating each mode as an equivalent harmonic oscillator. From this analogy, every mode of the field must have hf/2 as its average minimum energy. That is a tiny amount of energy, but the number of modes is enormous, and indeed increases as the square of the frequency. The product of the tiny energy per mode times the huge spatial density of modes yields a very high theoretical energy density per cubic centimeter.

From this line of reasoning, quantum physics predicts that all of space must be filled with electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations (also called the zero-point field) creating a universal sea of zero-point energy. The density of this energy depends critically on where in frequency the zero-point fluctuations cease. Since space itself is thought to break up into a kind of quantum foam at a tiny distance scale called the Planck scale (10-33 cm), it is argued that the zero point fluctuations must cease at a corresponding Planck frequency (1043 Hz). If that is the case, the zero-point energy density would be 110 orders of magnitude greater than the radiant energy at the center of the Sun.

CONNECTION TO INERTIA AND GRAVITATION

When a passenger in an airplane feels pushed against his seat as the airplane accelerates down the runway, or when a driver feels pushed to the left when her car makes a sharp turn to the right, what is doing the pushing? Since the time of Newton, this has been attributed to an innate property of matter called inertia. In 1994 a process was discovered whereby the zero-point fluctuations could be the source of the push one feels when changing speed or direction, both being forms of acceleration. The zero-point fluctuations could be the underlying cause of inertia. If that is the case, then we are actually sensing the zero-point energy with every move we make (see origin of inertia).

The principle of equivalence would require an analogous connection for gravitation. Einstein's general relativity successfully accounts for the motions of freely-falling objects on geodesics (the "shortest" distance between two points in curved spacetime), but does not provide a mechanism for generating a gravitational force for objects when they are forced to deviate from geodesic tracks. It has been found that an object undergoing acceleration or one held fixed in a gravitational field would experience the same kind of asymmetric pattern in the zero-point field giving rise to such a reaction force. The weight you measure on a scale would therefore be due to zero-point energy (see gravitation).

The possibility that electromagnetic zero-point energy may be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility that both inertia and gravitation might someday be controlled and manipulated. This could have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel.


TOPICS: Technical
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darkenergy; darkmatter; fusion; realscience; space; stringtheory; transluminal; ufo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 281-285 next last
To: RightWhale
I've never heard that Terra, Luna, and Sol are any more "proper" than earth, moon, and sun. The words mean the exact same thing, just in different languages.
61 posted on 02/28/2003 5:49:46 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I've never heard that Terra, Luna, and Sol are any more "proper" than earth, moon, and sun. The words mean the exact same thing, just in different languages.

Depends on context. If a hole is being dug in the earth (refering only to the ground), I wouldn't capitalize it. If I'm refering to the orbit of the Earth (name of the planet), I would. But I'm not the final authority in such matters. Your editor will enforce his own rules.

62 posted on 02/28/2003 6:04:11 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Earth: It is lowercase unless at the beginning of a sentence. ... depending on whether your English teacher insists.

I very much doubt an English teacher would insist that you use lower case for Jupiter, Saturn, or Mars. Likewise Earth.

When we say "the earth", we are really saying "the planet named Earth."

It is a minor point, though, and my proofreading correction really didn't belong on this physics thread. (But as we all know, there is no slack on FR.)

63 posted on 02/28/2003 6:04:41 PM PST by Semper911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
It's the same at all points...so it cannot be measured...
but it can be an energy source???

Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap
64 posted on 02/28/2003 6:05:55 PM PST by TheJollyRoger (George W. Bush for president in 2004....AGAIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheJollyRoger
It's the same at all points...so it cannot be measured... but it can be an energy source???

That would appear to be the crux of the issue. I haven't heard a good explanation regarding how one gets usable energy from ZPE without violation of the thermodynamics/conservation laws. But some rather smart people seem to think there may be a way, so I'll be willing to listen to any explanation that might be forthcoming from a credible source.

65 posted on 02/28/2003 6:12:40 PM PST by sourcery (The Oracle on Mount Doom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Toskrin
I wish I found this thread earlier, but I was out to dinner.

Car wheels against the road: all that is happening is mechanical energy is being released in a way that moves the car forward. Wheel to road is just another example of clutch to flywheel or gear to gear, or gear to driveshaft.
The energy comes from chemical potential energy in the liquid hydrocarbon fuel being combusted and converted into heat and gas which pushes the piston.

With your foot and the ground, that is also merely transmission, the energy comes from metabolism and the processing of sugars.

The key point was said in an earlier post referencing Newton's law, "III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." If you were floating free in space and had a bowling ball in your hand, and you threw it away with vigor, the ball would be set in straight line motion away from you, but you would be moving away from the point of release as well, in a straight line and in the opposite direction. You will have propelled yourself. And you would continue on in that line and the ball opposite forever until some force acted to stop you or change your directions.

Now take an amount of gas the total mass of which is equal to the ball, compress it, and release it suddenly while floating in space. You acceleration however brief, a better word would be impulse, would be the same as if you had thrown the ball. A rocket engine produces thrust that is as if you had a limitless supply of those impulses (until the fuel runs out) laid them end to end so there is no beginning or end, just a stream.
66 posted on 02/28/2003 6:13:52 PM PST by Jason_b (Newton rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
That would be my first impression. But I am humble, and am always willing to consider the possibility that I am wrong.

But what are the odds that both of us are wrong?

67 posted on 02/28/2003 6:25:57 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
On Earth there is always air or water available to push against.

I enjoyed your explanation but I still have an argument with the statement above (not yours). It implies the force is derived from "pushing" against the air which is a popular misconception and totally ignores the fact that the air or water is accelerated by the propellor.

68 posted on 02/28/2003 6:49:09 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
If it said "push the air" I would have less disagreement but it says "push against". How is the heck can the road push the car???????
69 posted on 02/28/2003 6:56:22 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Physicists, like engingeers don't always have the best writing skills.

But they are usually technically accurate and do not write in the jargon of the uniformed layman.

70 posted on 02/28/2003 6:58:23 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
On Earth there is always air or water available to push against.

Ah. I see. I interpreted that statement as simply referring to the fact that the propellor blades transfer momentum to molecules of air by hitting them, although I admit that "push" is probably not the best verb to describe the process.

71 posted on 02/28/2003 7:00:16 PM PST by sourcery (The Oracle on Mount Doom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Placemarker.
72 posted on 02/28/2003 7:03:45 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
But what are the odds that both of us are wrong?

OddsWrong(VadeRetro, Sourcery) = OddsWrong(VadeRetro) * OddsWrong(sourcery)

73 posted on 02/28/2003 7:12:45 PM PST by sourcery (The Oracle on Mount Doom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: mcsparkie
The propellor is also an airfoil. The "faster" airstream on the front side produces significant lift.
74 posted on 02/28/2003 7:20:39 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
What's your take on:

"When a passenger in an airplane feels pushed against his seat as the airplane accelerates down the runway, or when a driver feels pushed to the left when her car makes a sharp turn to the right, what is doing the pushing? Since the time of Newton, this has been attributed to an innate property of matter called inertia."

When being accelerated, we are pushed in the direction of acceleration and that's what we physically "feel". Now there may be some interesting mysteries beneath all this, as the article suggests, but in this set of examples it seems like an effort is being made to mystify scenarios that are completely consistent with basic explanations.
75 posted on 02/28/2003 7:23:07 PM PST by djr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Jason_b
You acceleration however brief, a better word would be impulse, would be the same as if you had thrown the ball.

Only if the total momemtum of each is equal. Your acceleration would depend in one case on the amount of pressure and in the other on how hard you threw the ball.

76 posted on 02/28/2003 7:25:19 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: djr
but in this set of examples it seems like an effort is being made to mystify scenarios that are completely consistent with basic explanations.

Classical physics is fine for modeling our everyday life. However, as we learn more we must refine our models. For example, light was once modeled as only a wave. Now it is modeled as a wave and a particle. My grad school is almost 30 years ago so maybe someone else can update. Similarly, gravity is modeled as a wave? particle? other? Go figure. Time for a cool one.

77 posted on 02/28/2003 7:32:15 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're driving at, either. Could you spell it out for us?

A common misconception by laymen is that the force is derived from "pushing against" the water/air as in pushing against a wall. In reality, the force is derived from the acceleration of the water/air. The force would be the same in a vacuum for the same amount of water/air accelerated even though there would be no air/water to push against.

78 posted on 02/28/2003 7:36:02 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
But what are the odds that both of us are wrong?

Without even reading the propositions, I'd bet higher than both of you being right. ;^)

79 posted on 02/28/2003 7:39:12 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Semper911
lower case for Jupiter, Saturn, or Mars

This is far more interesting and useful than ZPE. Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Venus, Sol, Luna, Terra, Pluto are classical, formal, proper names for the planets and are capitalized. Informal terms such as earth, moon, and sun are common names and are not capitalized. But as another poster mentioned, your editor will make the final decision.

80 posted on 02/28/2003 7:44:53 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 281-285 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson