Slashdot Mirror
The Energy of Empty Space != Zero
Raindeer writes "Lawrence Krauss (well-known physicist and author of The Science of Star Trek) invited a group of 21 cosmologists, experimentalists, theorists, and particle physicists and cosmologists. Stephen Hawking came; three Nobel laureates, Gerard 'tHooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek etc. He wrote about the conclusions of this session in Edge; in short: 'there appears to be energy of empty space that isn't zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won't be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem.'"
Sorry, after reading this headline, I have the following going through my head:
What shall we use
to fill the empty spaces
where we used to talk?
How shall I fill
The final places?
How can I complete the wall?
I thought that this was previously known - isn't the Higgs field (http://hepwww.ph.qmul.ac.uk/epp/higgs1.html) supposed to endow empty space with a non-zero energy? (Or maybe it was postulated but not observed)
Cool, now the space in most peoples head can be put to good use.
"Oh boy"
It sounds like they are talking about zero-point energy, the energy in the quantum vacuum. This has been known about by theoretical physicists for some time, and has even made it into popular science fiction. There is some debate, I believe, as to whether it is possible to extract this energy in a usable form, but its existence is hardly new.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Are you certain that it won't be found that this energy was the chicken in the proverbial egg and the chicken dilemma?
For politicians, they have much empty space, yet have energy to be able to move around and such.
I know, as a scientist I should be objective. But..
Lisa Randall is a babe!!
Ho hum, back to the numbers.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
"...21 cosmologists, experimentalists, theorists, and particle physicists and cosmologists"
Guys, it's early Monday morning here. When I see a fragment like that, my very-tired brain makes be go back and read it again until it makes sense. Then, because I'm not awake, I don't catch that the only thing wrong is that there are two "cosmologists" in there. Then I have to go back and read it again... then, because I'm not awake, I don't catch that there's two "cosmologists" in there and I have to go back and read it again...
You get the picture. I was going to make a point or say something a little more witty, but it's early Monday morning here.
. . .invited a group of 21 cosmologists, experimentalists, theorists, and particle physicists and cosmologists.
Still, this doesn't explain why the editors always miss the obvious goofs when posting.
And I thought "Zero Point Energy" was just technobabble.
Fact: what you know that you have proven to yourself
Belief: what you know that you could prove to yourself but have not
Faith: what you know that you can not prove to yourself
Is there a distinction between faith you can't prove to yourself because it's not proveable (metaphysics), and faith you're too dumb to prove?
--
make install -not war
Where did they think all that suction comes from in a vacuum?
Pfft! Stupid scientists.
Meta will eat itself
...in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics...
In which other web page do you think you will ever find a phrase like that? I really love Slashdot today. Talking about "conventional wisdom" in "theoretical particle physics".
Dr. Krauss's book is actually called The Physics of Star Trek and has a forward written by Stephen Hawking.
I got half way through the article and stopped. He isn't saying anything really at all.
:)
I don't think this is a discovery of any sort.. I think it is just a guy bragging that he had a nice audience at some conference for which he gave a presentation regarding the non-zero energy of empty space.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this has been known for some time and is even explained our current models.
His presentation seemed to be very anecdotal, I don't think he's claiming to have discovered anything - in fact, I don't think he is claiming to even understand what he is talking about, he's just providing some anecdotal perspective on it.
P.S. I don't claim to understand it myself..
..mork
I have built a machine in my back yard that harnesses this amazing, free source of energy. The government, however, wants to keep it under wraps, and the oil companies have a contract out on my head.
I can't show you how it works - that's a secret I want to keep until things cool off enough for me to patent it. But rest assured, it works. You can drop by and see the spinning plates attached to it. They've been spinning for eight months with no added power.
Yes, I did build it entirely on my own, using the vast knowledge I gleaned by sitting in on engineering classes two or three times a month.
The perfect demonstration of zero point energy is the Casimir effect, which has actually been observed in a laboratory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
As others have noted, the idea of the energy of empty space being nonzero isn't an new idea. The quantum zero-point vacuum energy is nonzero. However, our predictions of its value are ridiculously large, which led some to speculate that either we should redefine the zero point of energy to equal the zero-point energy so that the energy of space exactly equals zero. It's also possible that our ways of doing the accounting are naive (e.g., ignoring quantum gravity), or that some kind of cancellation is going on (e.g. bosons cancelling out fermions in supersymmetry).
This is related to what may be the biggest open question in cosmology, the cosmological constant problem. The energy of space is intimately related to the "cosmological constant". We now know from the accelerating expansion of the universe that there appears to be a nonzero cosmological constant, implying a nonzero vacuum energy. Its experimentally measured value is many orders of magnitude smaller than a naive calculation of zero-point energy based on the Planck scale, however. Another possibility is that the cosmological constant is actually zero, and the accelerating expansion is actually due to the energy/pressure content of some kind of dynamical "dark energy" field (as opposed to the static cosmological-constant form of dark energy).
More on vacuum energy and the cosmological constant, plus a tutorial.
P.S. Contrary to some science fiction applications (cough-StargateAtlantis-cough) and crank physics (cough-Puthoff-cough), you can't extract free energy as work from the zero-point energy. The zero-point energy is by definition the lowest energy state that a system can have; to extract usable energy, you'd have to decrease the energy of the rest of the system below that minimum value, which is by definition impossible.
... doesn't mean it is usable. The pen sitting on your desk has energy, but I don't see you jumping to extract energy from it.
The exciting thing here is that empty space has **some** energy potential. Less energy potential than a lump of mass just sitting on a desk or a burning coal in a fire, but **some** energy potential.
The interesting part is not that it exists, but that if you apply the theory empty space has 120 orders of magnitude more energy than the visible universe. Still, you can take the same theory and apply it to a hydrogen atom and get a number that is validated by experiment to nine decimal points. So the big question is, how do you use the same theory (relativity and quantum mechanics) to make a great prediciton about hydrogen atoms and a terrible prediction about vaccuum energy?
Still, the point of the article isn't about vaccuum energy, but rather the anthropic principle. The concept is that there's a constant in our universe that almost precisely cancels out this vaccuum energy. This is purely by chance and we see it because if it didn't happen, we wouldn't be around to talk about it.
Somebody finally thought to ask both Cosmologists AND Cosmologists! This is where breakthroughs come from.
Wish I could throw a party, and Stephen Hawking rocks up. "Invitation, Hawkings will be there, and free beer"
Well, it seems to me that if space itself has a nonzero energy, you may be able to stop looking for that extra matter/energy that is missing from the big bang. Most of the universe is...well, space. That might account for that missing 90%, right?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
FINAL NOTICE
THIS IS YOUR FINAL BILL FROM INTERGALATIC EDISON
PLEASE PAY
$100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.29
FOR THE VACUUM PACKAGED ENERGY WE PROVIDED FOR YOU OVER THE PAST 100,000 YEARS
FAILURE TO PAY THIS BILL MAY RESULT IN YOUR SUN BEING TURNED OFF FOR NON PAYMENT
REGARDS,
INTERGALACTIC EDISON
A BIG BANG COMPANY
Scene: A scientist (Albert) and a zero-point-energy fan (Crackpot) are at the bottom of a very deep well.
Albert: Well, it may be cold and wet here, but at least we can't get any lower! I guess that is some sort of consolation.
Crackpot: What are you talking about? We're still filled with potential energy! If we could harvest the potential energy we could get from going a foot lower, we could use it to boost our way out of here!
Albert: Um... no.
Crackpot: What do you mean? Do you work for the oil companies or something?!
Albert: The amount of potential energy you have depends on where you define your lowest point. Typically we set the "zero" point to be the point where you can't fall any further. Since you can't obtain any energy by any means at that point, that means there is no potential energy left.
Crackpot: But what if we dig down another foot?
Albert: Do you have any idea how much energy that would require to do that?
Crackpot: Fine, we'll dig down 20 feet to extract more energy, and that will pay for the energy expense of digging.
Albert looks confused. He thinks he might be missing a subtle joke. He decides that he isn't deficient in humor -- his companion is deficient in brainpower. Albert unfurrows his brow and tries to talk some sense into his friend.
Albert: Ok. Let's consider two situations. We've got our situation right now -- we're at the bottom of a well with no way out -- and another situation. In the other situation an evil man is dangling two jet-packs on a fishing line right above our heads. The man will always pull the jet packs out of our reach whenever we try to grab them. The man will never get tired and he will never let us have the jet packs no matter what we do. No matter how long or hard we try, we won't get the jet packs. Question: is it easier to get out of the well in the first situation, or in the second situation?
Crackpot: What does this have to do with getting access to our latent potential energy?
Albert: (sighs)
Crackpot: I have a shovel and some rubber bands. You try to talk to the guy with the jet packs while I dig.
Albert drowns himself. Fin.
It's funny that I happened to think about this subject last week for no apparent reason (thoughts like this just pop into my mind, damn that astronomy minor,) and I thought wouldn't it make sense if gravity had polarity?
:)
A gravitational well possesses some energy, which at minimum depends on its mass, the gravitational pull towards the center of that mass can be seen as one pole of a gravitational 'magnet', if that were the case, where would be the opposite pole of that mass? It could be that the entire space/time in the universe has to stretch to accomodate the difference in gravitational potential. So it stretches enough to counterbalance the energy of the gravitational well. There must be some sort of communication between the opposite poles, either by 'gravitational waves' or some gravitational particles (gravitons?) or maybe both. If it were waves, it would have looked as if ripples on the surface of a pond were moving out in 2 dimensional space from the center of the gravity well, and the further these ripples move away from the center of the well, the more they subside.
But these ripples have to be absorbed by something, this something is the normal space, and the more mass there is in the universe, the more of this 'normal empty' space there must be to balance out that mass.
Based upon all of these assumptions, which I admit are nothing more than speculations at this point, I could even introduce some ideas on the creation of the universe:
Imagine a totally empty space. Suddenly there was an influx of mass at one point in this space. This influx created a gravitational imbalance in the space and forced the space to balance out this potential by 'creating' more empty space. If any of the above makes sense, I would say that appearence of 'empty space' is actual property of non-empty space, but it takes much more of this 'empty space' to balance any small amount of non-empty space. So while the amount of non-empty space was not very large, the amount of 'empty space' had to be astronomically greater.
So the more of the non-empty space appears in the universe, the more empty space is provided as a balancer.
-
This is all my own conjectures and should not be taken too seriously. yet
You can't handle the truth.
This must be old as they apparently relied on the Pentium FDIV to compute a non-zero result. Had they used the newer AMD processors, they would have had a much higher resolution of a non-zero result.
That's true, but now we call the "luminiferous aether" the "Higgs boson".
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
which expands to the approximation
and recovers the classical kinetic energy equation (that second term) from the Lorenz contraction formulae.
Einstein is reputed to have worked for a while to try to explain away the mc^2 constant term on the front (which doesn't affect classical motion since it is constant), but it was not measurable until nuclear decay was characterized. Chemical reactions don't release enough energy for the binding-energy mass loss to be measurable, but nuclear reactions due. Every (non-failing) chemistry student is familiar with the mass deficit in bound nuclei (the atomic mass of hydrogen is more than 1/12 the atomic mass of C-12, because the C-12 nucleus is tightly bound and lost some mass/energy when it stuck together).
My point is that the mere fact that something is not measurable today does not make it completely senseless. The fact that nuclear mass deficits and corresponding energy loss during radioactive decay agreed with Einstein's relation was a major early win for Einsteinian relativity.
This is already known in theoretical quantum physics. In fact NASA has funded research into it with the long range goals of achieving propellant-less propulsion.
The Casimir Effect is also an experiment that is touted as ultra-precise proof of the phenomenon.
And there are a number of tantalizing theories that are built on its existence and have been published in the usual top ranking physics journals. Some suggesting that vacuum energy is responsible for the very structure (and hence stability) of the physical universe.
For example: http://www.calphysics.org/ explores the possibility that vacuum energy fluctuations account for mass (even particle mass!), inertial forces and [through an elegant corrolary] gravity. This opens up possibilities that go well beyond star trek.
Krauss is always pulling stunts like this. I was a physics undergrad in his dept., and recall hearing about a huge prank that was pulled on a class he taught:
In Rockefeller 301, the main lecture room, there are maybe a hundred old uncomfortable desks bolted to the floor. One night, some students from his class came in, unbolted all the desks, turned them around, then bolted them back down. One of them wrote on the chalkboard in big letters, "Krauss's big head turns students away!" They had to cancel several classes early the next day, as maintenance rushed in to turn all the desks back around. The funny thing is that the comment remained on the chalkboard for a week or so after the incident--apparently everyone was in agreement about it.
Another interesting incident... at the Stephen Hawking lecture a few years ago, when the school randomly decided to give him the Michelson Morley award (basically because they would never get another person so esteemed to talk at the school), the interim president (Hundert) of the school was giving a lecture, holding the award, and getting ready to present it. As he was about to bring the award over to Hawking, Krauss does some sort of stunt in grabbing the award away from Hundert without looking weird, and takes it over to Hawking. He then gets his photo opportunity with Hawking.
I also recall earlier that day, during Krauss's lecture, and later quoted in the school paper, him mentioning that he was one of the key figures behind dark matter research, which is total nonsense.
One final example that I remember way back as a freshman: I was sitting outside the professors' offices waiting for someone, and heard some yelling, then saw Krauss's secretary run out in a total fit, tears streaming from her eyes, face bright red. She's still around today though, so they must be paying her a lot. I don't think anyone could handle him on a daily basis for less than $60k a year.
Ummm... I'm not sure where exactly you think the Sun is.....
[/sarcasm]
This sounds like a classic setup. A star trek "scientist" wants to find a favorable answer to reconcile the real world with his fantasy, so he:
And the end result - a nice juicy "yeah..sure.. align the phase.. inverters" answer that he sought in the first place. Call me a skeptic, but that sounds like the classic T.S.F. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fa llacy . By tampering with the normal course of the scientific method, a non-scientific answer was produced. Anyone else see a problem here?
I love imagination as much as the next guy..but c'mon...
It took all those brains to just now discover something that has been known for over 100 years?
According to Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity space was never empty and could be explained by an Aether. Apparently he thought you could get energy out of space. Considering this is a hot topic on Wikipedia it would seem to me that a paradigm shift is what we need next.
I found the author to ramble and repeat himself a bit. I kept scrolling back going, "Wait, didn't I just read this?" thinking I had hit the wheel button or something.
/are/ the center of the universe? Sure makes me think twice about the whole God thing...
The thing I found most interesting out of the whole TFA, though, was this last bit:
"That is, we live in one universe, so we're a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just means we're lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number's smaller than you'd predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun -- the plane of the earth around the sun -- the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Wow. What if we really
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.