Talk:Zero-point energy

thermodynamic zero-point

E₀=½hν

"This value is called the zero-point energy because a harmonic oscillator in equilibrium with its surroundings would approach an energy of E=E₀ and not E=0 as the temperature approaches 0º K."

Concepts of Modern Physics, Arthur Beiser, McGraw-Hill, 1967, p. 147

Hard to Follow

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)

This was removed:

The Zero Point Energy is the energy of the Zero Point Field (ZPF). This is a hypotheical field of electro magnetic radiation, with random direction, phase, and polarization, but with a frequencey cubed frequency spectral energy density. The ZPF has also been called Vacuum Polarization, Vacuum Energy.

When Niels Bohr showed that one could substitute (n + 1/2) for each of the quantum numbers and keep the same transition levels in the hydrogen atom. This allows the sidestepping of the problem of energy disappearing when using zero as the quantum number.

Max Planck then substituted n+1/2 to get his second theorem:

$\rho ^{\prime }(\nu ,T)=\rho (\nu ,T)+4\pi h\nu ^{3}/c^{3}$ [J/m³]

Three items of interest:

It is independent of temperature.
As ν increases without bound the energy density rapidly approachs infinity. Thus there is a huge EMR field.
It is equal to 1/2 the numerator of %rho(%nu;,T).

Albert Einstein and Ludwig Hopf then showed that the force exterted on an electron is

$F=(4\pi ^{2}e^{2}v/5\epsilon _{0}mc^{2})[(\nu /3){\frac {d\rho }{d\nu }}-\rho (\nu )]$ [Newtons]

equating the terms within the square brackets to zero, we get the differential equation $\rho (\nu )=(\nu /3)d\rho /d\nu$ . which is true for $\rho (\nu )=k\nu ^{3}$ , where k is any constant. This shows that a random EMR field with energy density proportional to frequency cubed will, on the average, exert no force on any charged particle.

Planck's second theorem has this frequency cubed form. So the field predicted by Plank's second theorem would not be detectable in the average. There are small effects similar to brownian mothion.

But the infinite frequency and energy would preclude this from reality, if there were not a cut-off frequency. A frequency such as the one that corresponds to a wavelength of the size of the Planck length, would work. Thus a cut-off frequency can be applied.

Merge Request?

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 {{msg:merge2}} instead of the {{merge}} in use now. --[[User:Sunborn|metta, The Sunborn ☸]] 04:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article should perhaps mention nut-cases

A lot of people will come to this article because they have seen mentions of zero-point energy elsewhere on the web. They'll be interested in finding out if there is anything to the grandiose claims of perpetual-motion machines, an imminent revolution in our energy economy, the relationship of zero-point energy to the Rapture, the Cthulhu Mythos, Britney Spears, the Zionist Occupied Government, and so on and on ad nauseam.

I think we should say somewhere: these claims are bogus. At best the promulgators are misguided; at worst, they are out to steal your money in fraudulent investment schemes. The reader deserves more than our coy silence on the subject.

As you can tell, I'm a bit exercised about this, which is why I'm not writing the text I wish for. I couldn't achieve NPOV. But somebody should try. Thanks in advance.

ACW 05:42, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Define nut-case. Some of the so-called perpetual motion machines are in fact free electricity machines which is a completely different thing. And since at least some of them seem to be working at least in some manner it seems that some of the stuff is real - and that with good funding might find theories to support them too. I admit that I need more information on both these generators and physics to make any kind of final conclusions, but at least I'm giving them the benefit of doubt. --Khokkanen 7 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

I don't know what these free electricity machines of which you speak are; can you provide a reference? My guess is that if they appeal to the concept of zero-point energy, and claim to be cheap sources of energy, they are an example of the bogus claims I mentioned. I'm willing to take a look, though. And as you can see, I'm still not neutral enough to write any of this up :) ACW 7 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)

ACW - to explain in a very simple nutshell how you can have "free" energy without violating any laws of physics: suppose that there are a lot of high-energy but *very* weakly interacting particles passing through everything (let's say neutrinos). the temperature of ambient neutrinos is (let's say) a few million degrees. further suppose that you find some substance that (unlike almost all other matter) is *strongly* interacting with these high-energy neutrinos. all of a sudden that heats up, and you can extract useful power from the energy gradient between it and everything else. this violates neither conservation of energy nor any of the laws of thermodynamics. the idea behind extracting energy from the ZPE field is similar except the high-energy pool is provided by electomagnetic fields which are very high-frequency (think on the order of 1/planck time) and which furthermore have random phase/orientation. they are not weakly interacting, on the contrary everything is in thermal equilibrium with them (constantly absorbing and retransmitting), but if you could (let's say) shield them to any degree you would have a useable gradient that you can extract power from. such shielding is one of the proposed explanations for the Casimir effect which has (a) been experimentally demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt and which (b) appears to produce energy out of nowhere. ObsidianOrder 8 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

ACW - In fact I don't know any free electrivity machines that claim the use of ZPE - or even Vacuum Electricity, although the 'machine' for the latter appears to have been invented. Check Cheniere for further details on vacuum energy. I am quite willing to agree that some things Bearden writes about are little nuts (take his position on scalar EM weapons for example), but some other things on that site at least appear legit - if you're open-minded enough. However, here are some of the free electricity machines I mentioned (they claim that the source of the extra energy are permanent magnets): http://www.freelectricity.com and http://www.lutec.com.au

I can't belive this is even being discussed. I think this portends the fall of western civilization perfectly( discussing whether or not these people are nutcases). By the defninition given here, all energy is free. The very thing that requires the existence of "zero point energy" also requires that it is impossible to extract for longer than the planck time. That or something aboiut physics is seriously misunderstood(which very wwell may be). Either way there won't be free enrgy.

"The very thing that requires the existence of "zero point energy" also requires that it is impossible to extract for longer than the planck time" - why is that? Perhaps you can illustrate using a work cycle based on the dynamic Casimir effect? (i.e. bring plates together flat, slide them sideways, repeat) "fall of western civilization" - right, that's a good attitude. Dunno about you, but I think Puthoff, Milonni, Haisch, Rueda, Forward, etc are as good at physics as anyone, and if they think energy from vacuum is theoretically possible (perhaps not with our current technology) that's good enough for me. ObsidianOrder 11:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have to demonstrate that you get more energy from the plates coming together than you need to 1) overcome their friction when you slide them apart again, and 2) move the plates back into alignment. My guess is no. Endomion 06:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gobbledegook to Lay Person

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)[reply]

Still needs to be dumbed-down some more, please --Piemanmoo 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Request

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)

You said "but that does not matter since even with tunneling you still get a minimum energy greater than zero." Do you know of any references explaining why quantum tunneling would be a source of energy in this case? I don't know much about it, but I'd always assumed it was just a property of particles, that they can do that. Why is it that a particle which undergrous tunneling must have some amount of energy? -- 63.252.65.120

Hmm, actually it is the other way around, a box with imperfect walls has a lower energy zero state than one with perfect walls, in a sense the tunelling is an energy leak (sort of). A good intuitive way to think about it is that any gradient of potential energy (which doesn't have to be a box, the field of a point charge would do just as well, that's basically an atom for you) sets up a "tension" which prevents the lowest kinetic energy from being zero, and the steeper the gradient the higher the minimum kinetic energy state. Ideal box walls are as steep as it gets, anything in the real world is less so but the effect is qualitatively similar. The equations for a box with walls of finite potential and finite thickness are solved in most standard textbooks (e.g. Levi, Fayer, or for a more theoretical treatment Sakurai or Griffiths). ObsidianOrder 22:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pseudo Science

Can any one offer any evidence from a Peer reviewed scientific paper or article that refers to Zero Point Energy (ZPE) as an "unsolved problem in physics"? Any papers that speak regularly of New Energy, Free Energy, Cold Fusion, Space Energy, Aether, Ether, Antigravity, or Levitation do not count. Best that I can see, ZPE is considered by every major Scientifically reputable organisation and Skeptical organisation as a pseudo science and not an "unsolved problem in physics", if im wrong please enlighten me. - UnlimitedAccess 21:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could find these yourself with about 30 seconds of work on ISI or any other citation database; or just follow a few of the links directly to online papers in the References section of the article. But if you insist, here are a few:

B. Haisch & A. Rueda, On the relation between a zero-point-field-induced inertial effect and the Einstein-de Broglie formula. Physics Letters A, 268, 224, (2000).
H. E. Puthoff, Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point Fluctuation-Determined State, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987)
M. Ibison & B. Haisch, Quantum and classical statistics of the electromagnetic zero-point-field. Physical Review A, 54, pp. 2737-2744, (1996).
B. Haisch, A. Rueda & H.E. Puthoff, Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force. Physical Review A, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 678-694 (1994).
R. L. Forward, "Extracting Electrical Energy from the Vacuum by Cohesion of Charged Foliated Conductors," Phys. Rev. B 30, 1700 (1984)
P. W. Milonni, R. J. Cook and M. E. Goggin, "Radiation Pressure from the Vacuum : Physical Interpretation of the Casimir Force," Phys. Rev. A 38, 1621 (1988)
Daniel C. Cole, Alfonso Rueda, Konn Danley, Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces, Physical Review A, 63, 054101, (2001).
Kimball A. Milton, The Casimir Effect: Physical Manifestations of Zero Point Energy, 17th Symposium on Theoretical Physics, Seoul National University, Korea, June 29-July 1, 1998
A. D. Sakharov, "Vacuum Quantum Fluctuations in Curved Space and the Theory of Gravitation, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, Sov. Phys. - Dokl. 12, 1040 (1968)

Enjoy. P.S. Perhaps some kind soul could format these and add them to the references section if they're not already? ObsidianOrder 04:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that your exclusion criteria do not make sense. You require not merely a paper in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, but also that the author already agree with your preconceptions about what is scientific. Why do you even bother asking for references then? Incidentally your criteria would exclude almost any physics journal since they have all published any number of serious papers on these topics. ObsidianOrder 04:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Do you even need to ask? Because all those topics I listed havent yet survived the scientific method of review and are all psuedoscience to the mainstream scientific community. Several Magazines that exclusively talk about "Free Energy", "Perpetual Motion" and "Cold Fusion" often talk of Zero Point Energy, I didnt want to be provided with any links from those sources because they were clearly not for the mainstream scientific community.

Basicaly if you believe in ZPE, Alien Abductions, Biofeedback, Biorhythyms, Alchemy or anything else unaccepted then start to convince the scientific community first, then come back to wikipedia. No doubt their is some really qualified educated people out their trying to prove ZPE is "real", but until then it remains a pseudoscience unaccepted by the mainstream scientific community and this page MUST reflect that and join the [[Category:Pseudoscience]]. Their is a great deal of research into Zero Point Energy as a theoretical energy source and their is quite a lot of "pretty" mathematics their, however no experiment that can be repeated has been accepted by the scientific community that it is a real energy source, and every example to date that claims they not only have proved it exists but have built a machine to utilise it have ALL so far turned out to be charlatans/frauds. - UnlimitedAccess 08:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now it has to be a working energy source, does it? Look, you asked for references, I gave you some (I have lots more) from physics journals which are about as mainstream as they get. Now go read them and maybe you'll learn something and stop trolling. You may think ZPE is as crazy as Alien Abductions, but you sure haven't made an argument for that (listing them next to each other is not an argument). Dismissing the research as "their is quite a lot of "pretty" mathematics their" isn't exactly a good argument either. None of the serious physicists working on this have made the claim that a working energy source can be built with present technology (and present understanding). You brought up such a claim, that's a strawman argument. ObsidianOrder 19:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Im not going to argue with you about whether ZPE is real or not, its irrelevant what you or I think. I was trying to raise the point that mainstream science and every Skeptics association around the world refer to it as pseudoscience and as such this article MUST reflect that. When I said "their is quite a lot of "pretty" mathematics their" I ment it as a complement for the field I wasnt dimissing anything (at Uni we often use "pretty" as a way to offer maths a complement), sorry I wasnt being clear. "None of the serious physicists working on this have made the claim that a working energy source can be built" I never said they did, but the article must reflect exactly what you just said, but I dont see it anywhere. Look I appologise for my abrasiveness but I just want this article to contain the facts, and I could of been a jerk and changed it, and then we would go into a revert war etc, but I figured it is better to chat it out before hand (since it will involve a rewrite). - UnlimitedAccess 04:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I appologise for my abrasiveness" - I thank you for being very reasonable about this. I apologize for my abrasiveness as well. "mainstream science and every Skeptics association around the world refer to it as pseudoscience" - I couldn't care less about what skeptics associations think. In my limited personal experience, they tend to be people with really unbearable personalities and way too much free time. Can you cite any actual references that show mainstream science refers to ZPE as pseudoscientific? "the article must reflect exactly what you just said" - ok. I think Milonni mentioned in an interview (from NASA's Advanced Propulsion Workshop?? I think) that we're a long ways from having working hardware. If you can find that, cite it. At the same time, several very reputable physicists have said that you can definitely extract ZPE in theory, we should mention that was well. I think what's really bothering you is the fact that there are people who describe or promote free energy devices that work based on ZPE according to them. I don't believe any of those do work, and the experimental protocols they follow are pretty execrable, but it is possible in theory, so I would be reluctant to dismiss all of them without looking at each one. The Brown effect and some electrochemical experiments in particular have interesting parallels with ways in which you could test for the presence of ZPE. If you want to add a disclaimer to the effect that present-day supposedly-ZPE devices are probably bogus, go ahead (although it would be ideal to quote one of the scientists who actually work on ZPE for that). ObsidianOrder 12:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZPE is a pseudoscience and has a history of being used by scam artists etc, but the more controversial issue for me is that it could be descibed as an "Unsolved problem in physics". Could you offer any clear evidence to support that? Hell you could be right, I just need some convincing. String Theory is clearly an "Unsolved problem in physics", but thats because it is a Protoscience, can ZPE really be reffered to as an "Unsolved problems in physics" as a psuedoscience? Perhaps look at it this way do mainstream science acknowledge their is an unsolved problem or is it only the supporters of ZPE that "see" it? Im not quite sure how to look at that one, what do you think? - UnlimitedAccess 04:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"ZPE is a pseudoscience" - no. First, there is no evidence that ZPE research does not follow the scientific method, or that ZPE violates any physical laws. Second, there is a very large ZPE literature in mainstream publications. "has a history of being used by scam artists" - possibly, but that has nothing to do with whether it is a pseudoscience. You may not like the idea of "free energy", but a number of very distinguished scientists (such as Milloni and Forward) have specifically said it is possible (with math, even ;). I would be very skeptical of any claims of actual working devices, but the theoretical possibility exists. "Could you offer any clear evidence to support that?" - yes. There are several unsolved problems. The major one is how to conduct an experiment which unambiguosly tests for the presence of ZPE. That is much harder than it may appear: while such experiments are quite easy to come up with as thought experiments the magnitude of the effects is too low to be easily observable (e.g. gravitation should not be strictly additive, but the effect is <10^-15, while a direct measurement of gravitation is only accurate to 10^-4). (I've seen this discussed in papers, I'd have to dig them up for you if you really want them). Another unsolved problem is how, given the extremely high energy density of ZPE, can the cosmological constant be what it is? This is actually pretty well explained by stochastic electrodynamics. ObsidianOrder 06:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I am happy with it being listed as an unsolved problem in physics now. However as I said before it doesnt matter whether you or I consider it a pseudoscience, it IS a pseudoscience because mainstream science and every skeptics associations considers it so, for whatever reason. Acupuncture is considered a pseudoscience despite their being a lot of scientific papers about it (written by very qualified and intelligent people) and even some evidence that it can help certain individuals in some circumstances. This is an Encyclopedia, it doesnt matter what you or I think, our oppinions and any evidence we raise is also irrelevant, it is considered pseudoscience because mainstream science considers it so, with of course a rebuttle that certain high profile, highly talented proffesionals believe otherwise.

The most important things about ZPE that come to my mind though, are; 1) What the Theory is. 2) The stance from mainstream science 3) The hundreds of machines that have been patented or at least the history of funding fathered from unsuspecting people and businesses that have lost millions (but with more NPOV wording ;) ) 4) A concession that a dedicated group of specialists scientists support the theory and are hard at work making it an accepted science, or at least have some "pretty" mathematics to show for their findings much like string theory etc. 5) Pop Culture References

What do you think? (Assuming all NPOV language and professionally written :))? - UnlimitedAccess 13:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. ok

2. "mainstream science" in this context is those mainstream scientists who are actually working on it or closely related fields. by all means cite them. (also you will note in the pseduoscience article that pseudoscience is defined by the method, not the participants)

3. ok, but be careful about what claims you make. for example, you can't say that all of these machines don't work. you can say none have been proven to work. also "based on the current level of theoretical understanding, technological applications appear premature" or some such - this can probably be supported by a cite.

4. "dedicated group" implies small - not necessarily true, well over a hundred afaik. "hard at work making it an accepted science" - anything published in Phys Rev or Phys Letters is by definition an accepted science hypothesis. promoting it to an established theory requires a lot more experiments, however there is nothing that disqualifies the topic from being a legitimate field of scientific research.

5. ok ObsidianOrder 22:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didnt see that first part of your reply;

"Can you cite any actual references that show mainstream science refers to ZPE as pseudoscientific?", sure, just did a quick google and pulled up a few, if you need more than these since some of these are pretty dodgy, just ask, but I thought it was comon knowledge that all things under the "Prepetual motion" banner (or "free energy" as they prefer to be called these days) are all considered psuedoscience; e.g. cold fusion*, quaternions, "N" machine, Zero Point Energy, Casimire effect, Anti-Gravity, Space Power, Vacuum Triode Amplifier-Vacuum Triode Amplifier etc etc etc. Note most of my links are just people mentioning ZPE in the same breath as other psuedoscience's Prepetual motion/free energy.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=508328
http://www.epinions.com/content_99050753668 (its a review of the book, but the review explains what the book is about)
http://www.physics.bcit.ca/rjw/pmm/text/current.htm
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9409/reality.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/sheaffer.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/072304willful.html (search for "zero point")

Another good one is the "Infinite Energy Magazine" that themself refer to all Free Energy fields as, "New Energy is the term applied to new sources of energy that are currently not recognized as feasible by the "scientific establishment"..." http://www.infinite-energy.com/whoarewe/whoarewe.html.

* Oh before you pounce, Cold Fusion *perhaps* is the one exception and could be called a protoscience. - UnlimitedAccess 15:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, your references are primarily from SCICOP and Randi. Sorry, but these guys are not part of the mainstream scientific community, and their expertise in this area is exactly zero. You have one ref by Randall Woods ([1], masters degree in physics only, no published work, and no work with any bearing on quantum mechanics or relativity), and one by Jacob Barandes (a physics grad student). Not impressive. Can you quote just a single physicist who is as well known as Rob Forward?

Regarding Infinite Energy Magazine/NEF: I looked at the page you pointed to [2]. All three topics they mention have a reasonable scientific basis. Speculative, maybe, and not very well/at all tested experimentally, but nonetheless reasonable hypotheses, definitely deserving further research. That is not within the definition of pseudoscience.

"Cold Fusion *perhaps* is the one exception and could be called a protoscience." - Indeed. The treatment of CF has been a total disgrace. All of the early experiments were flawed, both the positive and the negative ones, but the flaws with the positive ones were extensively criticized while the flaws with the negative ones were ignored (or in some cases data was doctored to fit). Experimental technique has gotten much better since, and now there are impeccable replications, but it doesn't matter since "everyone knows" it's bogus. ObsidianOrder 22:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Casimir effect is completely mainstream, I'm not sure why that is even on your list? You gotta watch those lists of yours of completely disparate things which imply they are in the same category... that can't be just assumed, you have to prove it or at least cite evidence ;) It's sort of like saying "Apples, just like oranges, lemons and pears, are citrus fruit". ObsidianOrder 22:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here are a few links: letter from Hal Puthoff to the Sci Am [3] which covers briefly the status of research; and a list of devices (not all related to ZPE) tested by him and IASA [4]. ObsidianOrder 22:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As a general note on the subject of skeptics: the rush by people to debunk stuff which is not well understood to begin with strikes me as reasoning in advance of the evidence. Also, I think the opportunity cost of funding stupid research (or even outright frauds) is low compared to the cost of not funding important research which seems oddball. Skeptics assume they can tell which is which, but history has consistently shown that is not generally possible. Fundamental research often proceeds more in breadth, not depth, and an inherent part of that is wasting money on things which will never work - just because they might. However, perhaps the most important reason why I don't like skeptics is because they don't actually know a damn thing (I challenge you to get a reasonable explanation of the Casimir effect from anyone over at Randi). Real scientists may be either very pig-headed, or very open-minded (although the really good ones tend to the latter), but at least they can evaluate a new hypothesis on its merits, not on the basis of (someone else's) prejudices. ObsidianOrder 00:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your mistaken Skeptics associations ARE the mainstream scientific community. Your mixing up Cynics with Skeptics (cynicism is academic laziness, the complete opposite of Skepticism, See:Pathological skepticism). All im trying to prove is their is a general perception in the scientific community that ZPE and other Free Energy is psuedoscience. The whole thing is one big joke to mainstream science, my physics lecturers crack jokes about it, skeptics associations repeatively show the flaws in each of the many proposed machines, it difficult to get a mainstream physicist to even speak of ZPE because to the mainstream scientific community it is beneath their attention because "everyone knows" it's bogus, just as Bigfoot is to mainstream Zoologists and Intelligent Design is to biologists. Mainstream Academics who bother to speak on the topics at all do so via Skeptic organisations. If your still not convinced of what the mainstream perception of ZPE is, then do a google search, because any list you ask from me are going to come from the first 50 links in google anyway :).

"All three topics they mention have a reasonable scientific basis.", in your oppinion or the Free Energy websites oppinion? In either case it doesnt matter, the label is put upon fields that the mainstream scientific community deems pseudoscience. You may believe that ZPE and Cold Fusion have been treated poorly (you may be right, but as I said it doesnt matter what we think), you cant really deny that like cold fusion "everyone knows" it's bogus, especially the mainstream scientific community.

"Real scientists may be either very pig-headed, or very open-minded (although the really good ones tend to the latter), but at least they can evaluate a new hypothesis on its merits, not on the basis of (someone else's) prejudices." No they are the extremes, *real* scientists start off at a central point of view then base their oppinions on the evidence, text book definition of the modern Skeptic movement, anyone who does anything else are NOT skeptics, but arseholes :), but this is really not the place for this debate. - UnlimitedAccess 06:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UA: "one big joke to mainstream science, my physics lecturers crack jokes about it" - may I assume they haven't read the literature? What exactly does that make them? "difficult to get a mainstream physicist to even speak of ZPE" - hint, they don't get more mainstream than Robert Forward (look up his bio and publications list sometime). He's probably one of a couple of guys with a good claim to having started this, along with Feynman and Sakharov. "ZPE and other Free Energy" - ZPE is a well known consequence/feature of quantum mechanics, which includes only as a very minor side effect the theoretical possibility for a "free energy" device of sorts. ZPE=/=free energy. "mainstream perception of ZPE" - maybe, but that is just "perception" (i.e. prejudice), not a reasoned position. Insofar as there is a position, it is expressed in the fact that such papers (e.g. Rueda's) do get published without any obstacles. I would argue that you're wrong about the perception as well, see e.g. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. In any case, the perception does not matter since perception is not one of the elements of the definition of pseudoscience. ObsidianOrder 10:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"in your oppinion or the Free Energy websites oppinion?" - neither. there are numerous research papers on each one of these in reputable peer-reviewed journals. "In either case it doesnt matter, the label is put upon fields that the mainstream scientific community deems pseudoscience." - no, that is not how the label is used. As per discussion on the pseudoscience page, it is not defined by what anyone thinks, but rather by what is. Science is not a show of hands, it is an attempt to find out the truth. While perhaps the only authority on science that wikipedia should recognize is scientists (for a number of reasons which I'm sure you can think of ;) they can and do disagree with each other. In the case of a controversial topic for which there is a substantial faction of scientists in disagreement with the majority opinion, you can't use the label, since there is obviously a legitimate dispute going on within science (rather than nonsense outside of science). ObsidianOrder 10:23, 13 August 2005

(UTC)

I remember coming upon a patent at one point and looking it up at the US patent office website. It was a magnetic generator with no moving parts tha was said to extract from the ZPE field. Sorry that I do not have the number right now but I will get back to you if I come accross it again.

Do you mean "Motionless Electrical Generator (MEG) is a unusal transformer, which is most notable for claims of over-unity operation (as stated by the inventors, after a predetermined switching event the "generator" operates without an application of external power). .... The United States patent office granted U.S. Patent 6362718 to the four inventors: Stephen L. Patrick, Thomas E. Bearden, James C. Hayes, and Kenneth D. Moore." ? The problem is the Patent Office doesn't ask for demonstation that the thing works before issueing a patent (unlike the old days). For some reason the inventors haven't bothered to become billionaires yet. GangofOne 23:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debunking (*) of which at [10]. (* Haven't read it yet). -- Efilnickufesin 06:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Zero-point energy is an alleged source of "free" energy?

The intro of the current version of this article doesn't seem to be saying much of anything. It is my understanding that Zero-point energy is actually an alleged source of "free" energy, I think the intro and/or article should specifically state that people are researching/theorizing using or tapping zero-point energy for energy production [11] [12] zen master T 20:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just gave the article a lot of simple-to-read intro, I don't know if it addresses the problems discussed here because I don't have time to read them or read the rest of the article. Therefore, I leave the discussion as is, below. -- Efilnickufesin 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Dear Efilnickufesin, if you "don't have time to read them or read the rest of the article", please don't edit the article. Besides that, there are several problems with the things you wrote: (1) In the Casimir effect, the force between the plates is attractive, not repulsive; (2) In the Casimir effect, the plates are brought close to each other since then the force is bigger (see formula), and not because air molecules cannot fit between the plates; (3) There is a separate article on the Casimir effect, so we shouldn't describe it again here; (4) You don't need the Casimir effect to provide an example for the zero-point energy - even the hydrogen atom is good enough; (5) It is an inaccurate statement that particles appear out of nothing in the vacuum. Vacuum is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, therefore nothing changes there; (6) It's not the place to discuss 'fights' between classical and quantum mechanics. An article on quantum mechanics or articles linked from there are the appropriate place. For these reasons, I undid your changes. If you still think that some of them should be included, let's discuss them here first. Yevgeny Kats 07:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"At a cavity-resonance frequency the radiation pressure inside the cavity is stronger than outside and the mirrors are therefore pushed apart. Out of resonance, in contrast, the radiation pressure inside the cavity is smaller than outside and the mirrors are drawn towards each other." [13]

Re vacuum == nothing, yes, hamiltonian says it isn't nothing, but most people see the world through perceptual organs that perceive aggregate, classical-type phenomena, and believe vacuum == nothing. That is why it needs explaining in the first par or two, and why it is darned appropriate to explain the difference between classical and quantum physics also, in the brief human-readable intro.

If you ignore my suggestion, and put a bunch of what others have termed 'gobbeledegook' first, in order to be scientist-like and impress your learned colleagues, then most readers, who come here to learn something they don't already know, will continue to describe it as gobbledegook and see the technically literati as a bunch of white-tower mystics engaging in so-much hand-waving. Their appropriate reaction would be to engage in the same behaviour, and produce more and more of these 'zero point energy' devices and other mystical toys that they don't understand, and won't have explained to them - since they can see, and rightly so, that your arguments consist mostly of ego, with a bit of hocus-pokus thrown in, and stop reading before you get to the actual point.

The fact is that if you do not present a simple example, that is "intuitively" understandable, at the start, people won't read the page. If you put such an example later on, they won't read the page. The intuitive example will be missed.

I think it was inappropriate of you to reverse the change. You should have fixed the small errors I introduced .. or was I completely off the mark? I remember the Casimir effect being used for just this type of example when I learnt about it some years ago, and I see that it is already mentioned later on this page.

Because it is an example which uses human-scale objects, and produces completely counter-intuitive results, it is a much better example than some hydrogen-atom thingo -- which you didn't even bother to describe or replace my example with -- and because of the counter-intuitive results and the fact that zero point energy is a qm phenomenon, of course it is necessary for a non-qm-educated person to be informed that there is a difference between qm phenomena and intuitive/classical descriptions of the world, and briefly described what that difference is and what type of difference it is, and the relative newness of qm. -- Efilnickufesin 22:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to learn that communication, and especially wiki, is about cooperation between disparate people, with differing skills and knowledge. So you know more physics than me. But you can't write for shit if you reversed my changes. You need to learn to accept useful input, and improve it. I didn't scratch the entire page, I added my contribution, adapting a small part and fleshing it out. You shouldn't have removed my entire contribution, you should have adapted a small part and refined it or corrected it. -- Efilnickufesin 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. This article needs to be torn down and re-written from scratch. It needs to describe zero-point energy as taught in undergrad physics, zero-point energy as conceived by particle physicists and cosmologists, zero-point energy as conceived by the over-unity and free energy crowd, and finally the other miscellaneous cultural references. Quite possibly, this should be split into two or three distinct articles, so that we don't have the scientists warring with the pseudoscientists over the topic. Right now, its a hopeless mish-mash of all of these topics, and is, as you point out, throughly uninformative. linas 21:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this article was intentionally made as an ambiguous mish-mash to ease the portrayal of something like free energy as "pseudoscience"? I agree we need disambiguation and disassociation here but I am wary of your "pseudoscience" comment. zen master T 21:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant Free energy suppression. linas 02:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the article that describes just the zero-point energy hypotheses for "free energy" outside the dismissive "conspiracy theory" label? If an article only contains hypotheses surrounding the details of zero-point energy directly, and leaves out speculation as to someone's possible motivation for supressing that technology then it can't possibly be labeled a conspiracy theory. Critics of the "conspiracy theory" label claim it is used, often subtly, to pejoratively confuse and misclassify an actual theory that alleges a conspiracy with the type of eccentric folklore for the purpose of obfuscation and to thwart a scientific and factual analysis. The label may even be considered inappropriate if used to dismiss theoretical speculation in any form. I think the same case could be made for "pseudo-science" as it is seemingly also used to discourage a scientific and factual analysis. zen master T 02:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. This article needs to be torn down and re-written from scratch. It needs to describe zero-point energy as taught in undergrad physics, zero-point energy as conceived by particle physicists and cosmologists, zero-point energy as conceived by the over-unity and free energy crowd, and finally the other miscellaneous cultural references. Quite possibly, this should be split into two or three distinct articles, so that we don't have the scientists warring with the pseudoscientists over the topic. Right now, its a hopeless mish-mash of all of these topics, and is, as you point out, throughly uninformative. linas 06:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is alleging something or someone is pseudoscience or a pseudoscientist here and what exactly is this alleger's criticism? zen master T 06:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am alleging that the topics of zero-point energy and "free" energy attract a lot of cranks and kooks; this is fairly common knowledge, and if you google around, you will see that this is true. This article should describe not only the legitimate meanings of these terms, but it should also describe the the crank community and its researches and findings. linas 06:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid wikipedia policies require us to state who believes the "free energy" aspect of zero-point energy is "crank". It is inappropriate to label theoretical speculation as "pseudoscience" as that will thwart and discourage a scientific analysis. The "free energy" aspect of zero-point energy isn't even mentioned directly in this article ("cultural references" doesn't count), labeling something as fiction is a great way to dismiss and obfuscate. zen master T 06:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I am afraid wikipedia policies require us to state who believes the "free energy" aspect of zero-point energy is "crank". " - Not when it's the majority of mainstream science that considers it as such. Take Intelligent design, a large number of its supporters are very successful acredited high profile scientists, but the mainstream scientific community consider it Pseudoscience, thus it is labeled as such. What seperates ZPE from a protoscience like String Theory is that the majority of ZPE supporters and reserarchers dont use the scientific method and even believe in its practical application for free energy and have patented thousands of machines for it over the years... You dont see such similar patterns in the majority of string theory String Theory. You can determine easily when something is psuedoscience when the majority of supporters make claims that have no grounds in science yet pretend to be, thats why established fields like chiropractic care and Reflexology are psuedoscience because the claims put forth have no grounds in science, and yet claim to be scientific. - UnlimitedAccess 18:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If theoretical speculation follows sound scientific practices, then it is scientific discourse. If it contains numerous flawed or mistaken arguments, ie is based on incorrect factual assumptions, then call it what you like, but don't call it science. Same if it uses unsound maths. Science and maths, contrary to popular belief, are not magic, and not religion. That many superstitious pricks dress up their religiously-maintained self-delusions as science is not science's fault. Scientific method is a simple and commonsense technique, of think, test, (refine, retest ad infinitum) ... present results for critique, analysis, and use. Maths is similarly derived from commonsense, real-life observations, using logic, and if not provable by robotic, mechanical deductions, deemed to be unsound and bogus and offensive to humanity. Please refine the article (and the discussion of the article) according to these linguistic criteria, which might be said to be fact, were it not for the case that so many speakers of the words science and maths speak them vacuously or with mal intent. -- Efilnickufesin 06:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]