An Introduction to Zero-Point Energy

CalPhysics.org ^

[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.

[cinFLA]

Now, cough up the evidence linking these specific posters to the funding source.

It is well documented that Soros, Sperling, Lewis, Zimmer and other new world order, anti-gun, pro-drug advocates are spending millions to get their pro-drug message out. It is well documented that spammers are paid to get their message on open forums. I will leave it to the readers to decide if one who opens almost daily pro-drug threads would be suspect as a paid spammer. If it quacks like a duck ....

[Poohbah]

It is well documented that Soros, Sperling, Lewis, Zimmer and other new world order, anti-gun, pro-drug advocates are spending millions to get their pro-drug message out.

That isn't what you are specifically alleging.

It is well documented that spammers are paid to get their message on open forums.

Fine. PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION LINKING SPECIFIC POSTERS TO PAYMENTS.

I will leave it to the readers to decide if one who opens almost daily pro-drug threads would be suspect as a paid spammer.

Wait a minute. You said that it was "documented" that these people were paid. Now, you're saying that these people are merely "suspect."

WHICH ONE IS IT?

[cinFLA]

I believe it was U of Penn that was scammed out of millions when the scammer promised returns of 100% or more in just weeks. I am really starting to question the quality at U of Penn.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!! I love it!

[tacticalogic]

If it quacks like a duck ....

And, of course, the fact that the "duck" in question is on a physics thread, going "moo" is an obvious red herring, and further proof of your assertions.

[_Jim]

"But yes, that is the same thing. "

No, it's not. It's not purely the propellor's reaction against the air in producing 'thrust' - otherwise many other *significant designs (witness: jet turbines which *do* produce pure thrust) would be in use.

"propellor blades do not behave as wings"

Uh-huh ... tell it to the Wright Brothers:

Counted among the Wright innovations was a workable propellor design that took account of the fact that planes navigate air and not water.

Until the brothers began their research, it was assumed that a water prop would suffice.

The Wrights discovered that, on the contrary, airplane propellers are essentially wings in constant rotation. This key component couldn’t be adapted from aquatic use, but would have to be made from scratch, incorporating the brothers’ latest findings.

From: http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/DupWrightFlyer.html

Note also that at *no* time have I stated that angle-of-attack plays *no* part in a prop's function ...

[_Jim]

Somethng called The Bernoulli effect comes into play - let's delve into it a little deeper -

The Angle of Attack for an Airfoil

While an airplane wing is one of the most popular examples of the Bernoulli effect , many discussions allege that the Bernoulli lift is actually a small part of the lift force which allows the aircraft to fly. You can argue that the main lift comes from the fact that the wing is angled slightly upward so that air striking the underside of the wing is forced downward. The Newton's 3rd law reaction force upward on the wing provides the lift. Increasing the angle of attack can increase the lift, but it also increases drag so that you have to provide more thrust with the aircraft engines.

Some pilots have been known to get a bit testy about their lift being attributed to the Bernoulli effect, and reply "Then how do you suppose we can fly the plane upside down?". It looks a bit tricky, but you can adjust the attitude of the aircraft when upside down to give the proper angle of attack to get lift.

The discussions of "Bernoulli vs Newton" continue, but aerodynamicists such as Eastlake take the point of view that they are ultimately equivalent models and that neither is incorrect. In his wind tunnel testing at the Department of Aerospace Engineering, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, the Bernoulli approach is preferred because it can be tested more readily with the type of measurements which can be made in a wind tunnel. Making numerous point measurements around the airfoil and summing (integrating) them in the context of a Bernoulli model gives consistent modeling of observed lift forces.

Which is best? Bernoulli or Newton for describing lift?

Illustration of different angles of attack

---

Those who advocate the Bernoulli approach to lift point to detailed measurement of the pressures surrounding airfoils in wind tunnels and in flight. Such pressure measurements are typically done with Pitot tubes. Correlating the pressures with the Bernoulli equation gives reasonable agreement with observations.

[_Jim]

I have a EE lab example that demonstrates 'Zero Point Energy' too ...

[sourcery]

Good post.

I never said that the pressure gradient wasn't part of the mechanism. It obviously is, as the high correlation between the measurements and the Bernouli model attest.

I was not previously aware of how much controversy there has been on this subject.

It still appears to me that the entire mechanism depends upon the Laws of Motion, with the Bernouli effect being the best model of how those laws operate to enable flight. The creation of the pressure gradient depends upon the transfer of momentum by the wing/propellor to the surrounding air moleculues. In this sense, the motion of the propellor creates Bernouli effect lift by "pushing against" (and hence compressing/decompressing) the surrounding atmoshpere.

In other words, I think the distinction between the two alternate explanations is imaginary. It's the Third Law at work, but Bernouli explains the details.

[sourcery]

I have a EE lab example that demonstrates 'Zero Point Energy' too ...

Proof of existence? Or demonstration of usable extropic energy source?

[_Jim]

Proof of existence?

... more along the lines of a demonstration of the concept, which I would say works towards the proof of existance ...

It involves two identical, but different, in-phase travelling waves emanating from two different (separate) sources (to insure no 'tricks' are involved) terminating in a resistive (IOW 'real') power dissapating load (again, to eliminate the possibility of 'tricks') ...

[cinFLA]

Wait a minute. You said that it was "documented" that these people were paid. Now, you're saying that these people are merely "suspect."

Poohbah spams again.

[Poohbah]

You really dislike being caught out as a lying piece of Hillary, don't you?

[PatrickHenry]

Nice spam job. The check's in the mail.
-- The Soros Organisation

[Poohbah]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Sure it's in the mail. And sure it'll actually clear this time.

[cinFLA]

The two lowest forms on earth. Telephone solicitors that call at dinner time and professional spammers.

[cinFLA]

I thought about trying to set him straight on Newton, mass, and inertia. Then I read the rest of the thread, and thought better of it. I can bang my head against a wall in the comfort of my own home, if it comes to that.

Obviously at a loss of words? Or just at a loss?

[cinFLA]

One quibble, however: propellor blades do not behave as wings. The pressure difference caused by the difference in camber between the upper and lower surface of the blade is negligible or nonexistent; there is no Bernoulli effect, no aerodynamic lift. The pressure difference arises strictly through angle-of-attack.

Now I know you are really dumb! DUMB!

[cinFLA]

In other words, I think the distinction between the two alternate explanations is imaginary. It's the Third Law at work, but Bernouli explains the details.

This all started because I took exception to the statement that a "propellor pushes" against the air/water. A commnon statement that leads the uneducated to believe that you must "push against" something to get thrust. That is, the water that is accelerated by the propellor has to push against more water in order to provide thrust. This concept leads to the next question; "Gee, how does a rocket work in space if there is "nothing to push against?"

Now we have Mr. Physicist so enraged that he is making statements such as "propellors have no airfoil effect"!

[tpaine]

Wait a minute. You said that it was "documented" that these people were paid. Now, you're saying that these people are merely "suspect."

Poohbah spams again.
252 -cin-

Nope, 'cin' lies again.

You said early on here that it was 'documented' that I, -tpaine- was paid by the Soros group.

You simply lied, as anyone can see from your lack of even an attempt to post proof.
You have no honor or credibility left at FR.

Get lost.