My zero-point energy theory.
Author
My theory is simple: Electromagnetic energy divided by distance. No matter how far you get away from a source there will always some level of energy. So basically zero-point energy is just the combined electromagnetic energy of the universe. Seems so simple to me that I'm sure I must be wrong?
No. You're pretty much on the dot. Zero-point energy is just all the background radiation that exists in an empty space that we can't get away from. As you figured out, pretty much every energy equation works as an exponential. The amount of energy decreases dramatically as we back away from the source, but it is still there. For example, if we had sensitive enough equipment, we could measure every star in the sky individual gravitational pull on you. Even given the distances.
The quackery comes in if you try to harness zero-point energy, since it is the lowest point you can go. Trying to get something from zero(nothing) is the oldest scam in the book.
The quackery comes in if you try to harness zero-point energy, since it is the lowest point you can go. Trying to get something from zero(nothing) is the oldest scam in the book.
Author
No. You're pretty much on the dot. Zero-point energy is just all the background radiation that exists in an empty space that we can't get away from. As you figured out, pretty much every energy equation works as an exponential. The amount of energy decreases dramatically as we back away from the source, but it is still there. For example, if we had sensitive enough equipment, we could measure every star in the sky individual gravitational pull on you. Even given the distances.
The quackery comes in if you try to harness zero-point energy, since it is the lowest point you can go. Trying to get something from zero(nothing) is the oldest scam in the book.
Why does it not seem to be clearly stated anywhere? They always acknowledge the existence of zero point energy but they never explain why it exists.
As far as I understand it, you can consider zero-point energy to be the lowest possible energy possible in our universe, i.e. the "ground state". This is also known as the vacuum energy, which is caused by the spontaneous generation and annihilation of particles and their virtual counterpart in space.
And this where my knowledge on this subject stops.
And this where my knowledge on this subject stops.
Note that vacuum energy would exist even in a totally empty universe, because of quantum effects. This is not the same as having a tiny-but-nonzero energy influence from everything in the universe itself; it's literally the inescapable minimum energy level of nothing (well, "nothing" in classical mechanics terms).
My theory is simple: Electromagnetic energy divided by distance. No matter how far you get away from a source there will always some level of energy. So basically zero-point energy is just the combined electromagnetic energy of the universe. Seems so simple to me that I'm sure I must be wrong?
The wikipedia article on zero point energy seems to explain it simply enough. It is an open field of research that was exposed when you compared the difference between actual zero and 1/infinity, which is very nearly zero but not quite. It is very closely related to the relativistic effects of the speed of light, or considering the theory, what may actually be a speed of c-(1/inf) that pairs nicely with the side 0+(1/inf).
WAY back when I had college physics, IIRC it was explained as the energy that exists between either two objects at quatntum distances, or the energy of a single particle when at absolute zero due to vibrations.
Seems the wikipedia article matches that, along with the same equations I recall.
It is an incrediby tiny amount of energy on an individual scale, but because the parts are so tiny and the Universe is so big then it represents a huge amount of energy.
It is also an active research topic, has many open questions, and consequently is used by pop culture and science fiction as a really big thing.
The zero-point energy you see in pop culture and sci-fi is completely bogus. It is the miniscule bits of potential that is had as you approach the difference between the infinitely small and actual zero. It is the science of almost-but-not-quite-zero. It is the 1/inf It is numbers so small that they are only interesting because they are so small. It is the stuff that very nearly doesn't exist, because it is very nearly zero in a very large universe.
It is something useul to theoretical physicists and fiction writers.
Author
Note that vacuum energy would exist even in a totally empty universe, because of quantum effects. This is not the same as having a tiny-but-nonzero energy influence from everything in the universe itself; it's literally the inescapable minimum energy level of nothing (well, "nothing" in classical mechanics terms).
"Because of quantum effects," can you elaborate? That does not explain anymore than the wiki article...
To dramatically and hideously oversimplify the Wikipedia article on vacuum energy:
First, you have the energy/time uncertainty principle. To totally rape the mathematics, this states that as time intervals grow shorter, the ability to precisely measure the energy level change of a field diminishes. In other words, as you move interactions towards Planck time scales, you can no longer reliably track the energy of a field. Shorter than the Planck time, all bets are off; you can no longer define the energy level at all. This means that on ultra-brief time scales, energy is more or less doing totally unpredictable things.
This is generalized in particle mechanics as the concept of "virtual particles." Virtual particles are, to again totally molest the mathematics, just particles that exist for such brief fractions of the Planck time that their properties are utterly unmeasurable. (Anything that survives long enough or exists with enough energy to interact with anything measurably is no longer virtual.) A virtual particle exists and then stops existing. One theoretical mechanism for this is particle/anti-particle pairings, where a virtual particle spawns near its virtual antiparticle, the two combine, and then resolve back into component energy via annihilation. I don't know if there are any measured results that indicate that this is going on, but I certainly remember it being one of the most popular explanations of virtual particle interaction.
There's a ton more to this and I'm obliterating a lot of relevant facts in trying to condense the information. Quantum mechanics is notoriously sticky stuff - the kind of thing that some of the world's most brilliant minds have had trouble comprehending - so you'll have to forgive me if (1) something got lost in my own learning of this material and/or (2) I've totally left out something cool and/or important.
Anyways, the point is, because of quantization of energy fields (i.e. you can't have any arbitrary real number value for an energy level, only multiples of the relevant fundamental charge constant) and the uncertainty principles, energy is never zero, even in a totally empty universe.
First, you have the energy/time uncertainty principle. To totally rape the mathematics, this states that as time intervals grow shorter, the ability to precisely measure the energy level change of a field diminishes. In other words, as you move interactions towards Planck time scales, you can no longer reliably track the energy of a field. Shorter than the Planck time, all bets are off; you can no longer define the energy level at all. This means that on ultra-brief time scales, energy is more or less doing totally unpredictable things.
This is generalized in particle mechanics as the concept of "virtual particles." Virtual particles are, to again totally molest the mathematics, just particles that exist for such brief fractions of the Planck time that their properties are utterly unmeasurable. (Anything that survives long enough or exists with enough energy to interact with anything measurably is no longer virtual.) A virtual particle exists and then stops existing. One theoretical mechanism for this is particle/anti-particle pairings, where a virtual particle spawns near its virtual antiparticle, the two combine, and then resolve back into component energy via annihilation. I don't know if there are any measured results that indicate that this is going on, but I certainly remember it being one of the most popular explanations of virtual particle interaction.
There's a ton more to this and I'm obliterating a lot of relevant facts in trying to condense the information. Quantum mechanics is notoriously sticky stuff - the kind of thing that some of the world's most brilliant minds have had trouble comprehending - so you'll have to forgive me if (1) something got lost in my own learning of this material and/or (2) I've totally left out something cool and/or important.
Anyways, the point is, because of quantization of energy fields (i.e. you can't have any arbitrary real number value for an energy level, only multiples of the relevant fundamental charge constant) and the uncertainty principles, energy is never zero, even in a totally empty universe.
[quote name='ApochPiQ' timestamp='1316921285' post='4865646']
Note that vacuum energy would exist even in a totally empty universe, because of quantum effects. This is not the same as having a tiny-but-nonzero energy influence from everything in the universe itself; it's literally the inescapable minimum energy level of nothing (well, "nothing" in classical mechanics terms).
"Because of quantum effects," can you elaborate? That does not explain anymore than the wiki article...
[/quote]
Imagine you have two very tiny particles.
You freeze them to the point that they approach absolute zero.
Thanks to some nifty math that you can't divide by zero, and size of particles is a function of their temperature, as you get infinitely close to absolute zero you also start to have the particle get infinitely huge. So these two very tiny particles that are normally immeasurably small are almost stopped and also big enough to be useful.
Now you've got these two particles, they cannot be stopped completely, lest you divide by zero. There are several real examples that show this is how it actually works. So now they are really close to each other. The are close enough together that the most infinitely-small waves between them won't fit.
So now you have particles that are infinitely small, yet because they are approximately zero degrees in temperature they have ballooned to occupy much space. They must have some tiny oscillation and wiggling because they are not quite at absolute zero, but they cannot actually hit absolute zero because that would be division by zero, which so far can't happen.
So between these two particles, lots of really weird stuff happens. There is an infinitely-small space between them that cannot be filled yet is being pushed together. There are a bunch of nearly-infinite systems bumping together. Everything is bouncing off the infinite (beyond what we can measure), you have infinitely small waves traveling infinitely close to the speed of light, infinitely small particles that at infinitely low temperatures expand toward the finite and rapidly approach infinitely high size, but can't because the infinitely tiny prevents it.
Think of zero-point energy as the back-up plan God uses to prevent an accidental division by zero. Instead all these systems just get infinitely close. They are smaller than the smallest estimated quantum unit. They are less than anything, and yet they are something. They are the bits of energy that are non-nothing, but still not quite anything. Without it, you would have long ago had science experiments where a single photon would have ballooned in size to fill the entire Universe and consumed everything.
Not only are we unable to measure it, we are unable to represent it exactly in math yet. The systems are still infinite; that is; they use numbers that we cannot represent in any meaningful way. Infinitely small bits of energy, coming from sources still unknown, that happen to prevent division by zero and instead keep sizes and temperatures and wavelengths at sizes 1/(1/inf), instead of 1/0 which would seemingly be very very bad.
Individually you are talking about bundles of energy that are so tiny they cannot really be quantified yet.
Science fiction loves it because emptiness is everywhere. It is easy to approach zero in science fiction. "Hey, much of the Universe is a vacuum, it must have lots of zeros in it" they say. "Since it is everywhere it must be free, right? Infinite free energy for everyone!" Since it is dealing with the difference between the immeasurably small there must be an amazingly huge amount of this free energy just floating around, waiting for us to harness it. :-) In actuality is just a whole lot of (almost) nothing.
My theory is simple: Electromagnetic energy divided by distance. No matter how far you get away from a source there will always some level of energy. So basically zero-point energy is just the combined electromagnetic energy of the universe. Seems so simple to me that I'm sure I must be wrong?
it does not matter you are wrong or not: you should made a graphics demo from it ;)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement