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.'"

Comments

Empty Spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Empty Spaces

[tgd]

Thats funny, after reading the article I thought:

Gee, there's good looking ladies in Physics.

But thats just because I read physics articles mostly for the pictures.

Re:Empty Spaces

[endrue]

Thousands of /. readers just read the article for the first time ever.

- Andrew

Zero-point energy?

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Zero-point energy?

[pHatidic]

Zero-point energy is predicted by both the leading quantum physics and relativity models. This is like 70 years old.

Re:Zero-point energy?

[internic]

Here is a this very nice discussion of the zero-point energy by mathematical physicist John Baez. You're right, the idea is hardly new, but some of the experimental evidence about the cosmological constant is relatively new.

I think it's fair to say that almost no physicists believe you can extract useful work from the vacuum energy. Most of the people claiming you can are con men trying to swindle people into buying "free energy devices" that supposedly tap the zero-point energy (it's the modern day incarnation of perpetual motion machines). While you may be able to setup a situation where the vacuum does work (i.e. with the Casamir force), I think it is simply less than or equal to the energy it took to put the apparatus together. Essentially, it's equivalent to sitting in a room with uniform atmospheric pressure and trying to use that atmospheric pressure to do work. You can certainly use a vessle with low or high pressure to do work, but you're never going to get out more energy than it took to create that high (or low) pressure. While one can think about this in terms of thermodynamics, that's really litte more than making concrete the common-sense proposition that you can't get something for nothing. Thus far, nature has not given us any good reason to abandon that idea.

Sometimes people do talk about things like pair creation from the vacuum and the energy-time uncertainty relation, but they are speaking about virtual particles rather than actual particles. The bottom line here is that when you make a measurement, what you will find is actual particles and energy will be conserved, even according to quantum field theory.

Re:Zero-point energy?

[0xABADC0DA]

A bug trap uses no energy and does not violate any thermodynamic law, yet it works. It just creates a condition where the bug is more likely to get in than out. Zero-point energy could be the same kind of deal, where you make a construct that allows you to 'collect' the energy in some way. This also would not violate any theory of balance if you consider the whole system including where this energy comes from. And if this is from outside what we consider our universe, for example some meta-verse or a bug in the simulation of ours, then to us this would seem indistinguishable from free energy.

I'm not saying that a 'zpm' could be built and generate free power, but to remind that laws of balance only hold over closed systems. For example if the room you postulate is connected to the atmosphere you can harness the 'uniform pressure' as it changes over time as low/high pressure systems pass by. Thus, you are getting 'free energy' from outside the system, drawing from the global heat. From the perspective of the room this is energy out of nowhere or free energy.

Re:Zero-point energy?

[Manchot]

What you've just described is commonly known as Maxwell's demon, and is thought by most physicists to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

What a babe

[ma11achy]

I know, as a scientist I should be objective. But..

Lisa Randall is a babe!!

Ho hum, back to the numbers.

let's see here...

[smaerd]

"...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.

Thank You, Slashdot

[McPolu]

...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".

oops..

[doowy]

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.. :)

Come One, Come All!

[Petersko]

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 Casimir effect

[MC68000]

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

Re:New news?

[Danny Rathjens]

The Casimir Effect has been observed/measured.

Your Energy Bill . . .

[rogerborn]

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

Morons...

[dildo]

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.

Re:Science Fluxion

[Doc Ruby]

What about an ape who can talk with humans (maybe sign language) about its personal environment. But who can't possibly understand the mutual gravitational attraction of matter, though they can shake an apple from a tree. Is gravity both "ape faith" and "human science"?

Of course empty space energy is not zero

[trelayne]

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.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy

[dino213b]

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:

• arranges a think tank to meet at a conference
• sets a time constraint on the think tank (conference time limitation)
• asks THE question he wants answered
• waits until the end of this time-constrained conference for the answer

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...