Zero Energy

[Chris†opher Paul]

Ok, so you don't understand my position. Let me clarify.

"The quantum vacuum is a sea of virtual particles. So they're borrowing from themselves".

No, they are borrowing from energy in the vacuum, independent of themselves. Where does this time-traveling third particle come from exactly?

 

[Morat]

  It's a SM or String interpretation. Don't change the subject.

 

"The quantum vacuum is a sea of virtual particles. So they're borrowing from themselves".

No, they are borrowing from energy in the vacuum, independent of themselves.

   The only thing there are other virtual particles. You're going in circles.

   The energy in the vacuum you're claiming they borrow from, you also claim are virtual particles.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

The energy in the vacuum you're claiming they borrow from, you also claim are virtual particles.

No I don't. Why do you insist that I think this is the case?

 

[Morat]

  Because you said so.

You stated:

Ok, here is the first thing I found searching Google that supports my position.

"Virtual particles are normally explained as a quantum mechanical phenomenon,
where a particle and its anti particle [or photon and antiphoton] pop into
existence as a bound pair for a brief instant, as determined by Heisenburgs
uncertainty principle, then quickly recombine. It is said that they borrow
energy from the quantum vacuum then repay it upon recombination. Heisenburgs
uncertainty law - delta T=h/[4pi deltaE] assures this time is brief."

  A classic vacuum can't exist. Why? Because you can remove everything from a vacuum (heat, matter, energy, fields, whatever) and get a classic vacuum. Except, because of Heisenburg uncertainity, it'll be filled with virtual particles. Which means there is no classic vacuum, but there is a quantum vacuum.

  That is, a vacuum devoid of matter, energy, fields, heat, but filled with virtual particles only.

   Now, our discussion here is where virtual particles come from. You said "they borrow from the quantum vacuum". Which means, obviously enough, they they borrow from themselves.

   You're claiming that the energy for virtual particles comes from virtual particles.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Oh I see where you are coming from...you are saying it is possible to remove everything (heat, energy, matter, etc).

I am saying that it isn't possible. Not because virtual particles are there, but because it can't be done in a lab anywhere, since a lab is in this universe.

"It is said that they borrow energy from the quantum vacuum then repay it upon recombination"

Yeah, not that they borrow energy from themselves. Show me your evidence for this please.

You're claiming that the energy for virtual particles comes from virtual particles.

No, that was your claim, remember? You said that a time-traveling third particle is the first cause for a virtual particle.

And I am still waiting for some evidence for this time-traveling particle.  If it is standard knowledge for 50 years, show me something.

 

[Morat]

"It is said that they borrow energy from the quantum vacuum then repay it upon recombination"

Yeah, not that they borrow energy from themselves. Show me your evidence for this please.

  I have. Through either generalized ignorance, or complete failure to view the evidence, you keep pretending it's not there.

 The evidence is in your own quote, by the definition of "quantum vacuum". I gave it, explained it, and you still pretend I haven't presented it. I've explained how the quotes and evidence you gave supported me (and physics in general), and your feelings otherwise were the result of your own misunderstanding.

 I've given you the evidence. It's up there in your own quote, which makes this exercise particularly pointless. Not many people can offer a quote that proves themselves wrong, then demand evidence that they are wrong.

   Why don't you start, Souljah, by defining "quantum vacuum"? You apparantly didn't like, or plain ignored, my definition. And since you don't know what it is, you're getting everything wrong. And while it's occasionally amusing to watch people make fools of themselves, I've got a short tolerance today.

 Oh, in regards to time travel: Can you read Fenymen Diagrams?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Let it be recorded how many times you have reduced yourself to throwing insults at me in this thread. I have not once insulted you. You insult because you dont have anything else, apparently.

Anyway, a quantum vacuum is a term that describes what you would like to think is an empty vacuum, but in reality, contains energy.

I would love to see your experiement that shows an "empty" vacuum with nothing but virtual particles.  Oh, and those virtual particles have to appear from themselves in the first case.  You can't show that in an experiment, and its not because there are virtual particles in the vacuum, but because there is no vacuum, which is of course my whole point.

Nothing circular here, I am simply saying show me an empty vacuum that has something appearing from nothing in the first case.  You can't and you know it.  Go ahead, insult again in response.

 

[Morat]

  I'd imagine it's because I'm backing up my points, and not repeating myself.

  So, that's your definition of quantum vacuum, hmm? What's the energy in it? Where does it come from? Describe it, please. Reference it, please.  This is important. You're claiming virtual particles get there energy from this supposed "energy" in a quantum vacuum.

   What energy is it? Define it. Quantify it. Reference it. Shouldn't be too hard.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

What energy is it? The energy that exists in the universe right now...you know, the sum zero energy. Or is that why you think there is no energy in a "vacuum," because there is negative and positive energy?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
 
 Oh, in regards to time travel: Can you read Fenymen Diagrams?

Ah, so what was it again "your source contradicts your point"

"One of the several uncertainty relationships is between energy
and time, such that <DELTA Energy> * <DELTA time> &gt; h/2PI (a
very, very small number).&nbsp; So, even if there is nothing in the
vacuum, there is an uncertainty which allows a very small amount
of energy to exist for a very short duration of time."

Nothing in the vacuum, eh?&nbsp; And where is this empty vacuum?&nbsp; What secret laboratory is it kept inside?

&nbsp;

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; I'm sorry. I distinctly heard myself ask for support. You see, when I defined quantum vacuum, I didn't make up a definition that supported myself, but went and got one from a physics source. Of course, if you're not referring to zero point energy, then you have a difficult problem. Only a tiny minority of physicsts view it as real energy.

&nbsp; The rest view it as I do. Specifically, from a zero-point energy proponent (your side) you get this:

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.

<P align=justify>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.

<P align=justify>...

<P align=justify>&nbsp;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.

<P align=justify>

<P align=justify>&nbsp; Oops. That quote indicates you're still shafted, because virtual particles are the zero-point energy you're claiming they borrow from.

<P align=justify>In their Q&amp;A they state:

<P align=justify>

<P align=justify>What is the zero-point field or zero-point fluctuations (ZPF)? What is its relationship to the quantum vacuum?
In the view of modern physics, the vacuum is far from empty. Take away all particles and all electromagnetic radiation and you will have an apparently empty region of space at a temperature of absolute zero. But in fact this "vacuum" will still be full of energies and particle pairs (such as positrons and electrons): the electromagnetic zero-point field, the zero-point fields of the weak and strong interactions, and the Dirac sea of negative energy particle pairs. All of these energies and particles are collectively referred to as the quantum vacuum (making the vacuum in reality a plenum). Our work so far has involved only one component of the quantum vacuum: the electromagnetic zero-point field or zero-point fluctuations. (Henceforth, unless stated otherwise, ZPF refers only to the electromagnetic ZPF.) The ZPF was a hypothesis put forward by Max Planck in 1911, and was developed by him and Walther Nernst between 1911 and 1916. In 1947 the effect of the ZPF was directly demonstrated by Willis Lamb, in a famous experiment, which Lamb himself has described as "a proof that the vacuum does not exist" (i.e. that the "vacuum" is a "plenum"). The Casimir effect, predicted in the following year and subsequently verified, is another direct demonstration of the ZPF's reality.

<P align=justify>

<P align=justify>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So you are, in fact, claiming that virtual particles borrow energy from themselves. Because the difference between the quantum vacuum and a classic vacuum is the existance of virtual particle production in a quantum vacuum.

&nbsp; You're wrong, Souljah. You can keep trying to wiggle away, but you're completely wrong. Even a proponent of zero-point energy (vacuum energy) claims that this "energy" you keep wanting to borrow from is the very phenomenon you're arguing has to borrow to exist.

&nbsp;

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Nope, I am asking what mysterious machine can suck all of the energy out of a vacuum in some mysterious lab, so that you can start with a true vacuum.

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; *laugh*. That's it? That's your response? Oh, for the love of Pete. *snicker*. I suppose I can't talk about nuclear synthesis in stars, because you can't build one in a lab.

&nbsp; I don't need a pure vacuum. The Casmir effect shows I'm right. So do a couple of other things.

&nbsp;

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Yeah that is my response. Show me or admit it is hypothetical.

The Casmir effect requires an electromagnetic field, doesn't it?&nbsp; Oops, a vacuum wouldn't have one of those either.

The apparent emptiness of space is an illusion. The term zero point energy which refers to the energy density of space has been shown to be the root cause of inertia and gravitation. But I guess those things don't really exist either...or we don't have to explain them...Hawking...lol

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Have a nice weekend, buh bye.

 

[Caedmon]

Souljah, could you tell me which chapter and/or page in A Brief History of Time from which you got the original statement&nbsp;you posted? I need a reference point. Thanks

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Morat
Oh, in regards to time travel: Can you read Fenymen Diagrams?

Ack... Ok, this is a detail, but it's a pet peeve of mine. I cannot stand for such an eminent physicist's name to be defrauded, lol.

It's spelled: Feynman, Richard P.

&nbsp;

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

joe-

I don't have it in front of me...sorry...it was mid-way through. Sorry!

 

[D. Scarlatti]

It's on page 133 of the Bantam paperback edition, in the middle of Chapter 8 in a paragraph that begins "The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe."

Hawking never says, as Souljah claims, "we don't have to explain where energy comes from." Hawking explains why the total energy of the universe is zero. Broadly speaking Hawking says that, according to quantum theory, the matter in the universe is positive energy, whereas the gravitational field is negative energy. Assuming an approximately uniform universe, negative gravitational energy, which increases dependent upon the distance between particles, "exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter."

But I don't see where Hawking claims "we don't have to explain where energy comes from." Maybe this statement was revealed by exegesis.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

He didnt say that in those words, as evident by the obvious lack of quotation marks that I would have used, if I wanted to use his exact wording.

See, I have the ability to see the point that he is making, and summarize it in a simple manner that is appropriate for asking the question.