Sciencemadness Discussion Board

The folly of extracting zero-point energy

watson.fawkes - 18-8-2011 at 10:25

After a recent flare up here involving zero point energy, I came up with an explanatory analogy here that I hope will speak to the sensibilities of folks here. I waited for the moment to pass, so here we go.

Trying to extract useful work from the vacuum state (the 'zero point') is a futile as trying to extract useful work from carbon dioxide. It's not that there's not energy there; there clearly is. The vacuum energy is expressed as "the sea of virtual particles"; for CO2, it's the bond energy. Work, while measured in units of energy, is an expression of differences in energy states. You can only extract work out of an energy state if there's a lower energy state to get to. For chemistry, thinking about lower energy states gets complicated at this point, but for the physical issues, it's clear as day. The vacuum state is, by construction, the lowest state possible. There's nowhere down to go.

MrHomeScientist - 18-8-2011 at 12:03

Not saying that I agree with the zero point energy concept, but I think the idea is that we live in a "false vacuum." There would be a potential energy graph that looks like a 'W' with one end lower than the other, with the current vacuum state lieing in one of the dips in the curve. Then if you apply enough energy to get over one the middle hump, you can fall down to an even lower energy state and extract some extra energy. "False Vacuum" on Wikipedia has a better graphical representation.

I haven't looked into it much myself so I don't know how valid any of this is. It seems dubious, however, and your example is a good one.

Vogelzang - 18-8-2011 at 15:04

It sounds like you would need a perpetual motion machine of the second kind which is impossible based on the laws of thermodynamics.

franklyn - 18-8-2011 at 17:11

Vacuum quantum fluctuation is entirely analogous to Brownian motion. At an earlier time
Maxwell proposed a " Demon " and Szilard similarly conceived of an engine which would
sort more energetic particles from the rest , conventionally in violation of the 2 nd law of
thermodynamics. A double slit interference pattern similarly sorts incident light into light
and dark regions. We are aware that a curved mirror will concentrate incident light to a
greater intensity yet this does not violate the 2 nd law. It is known that Hawking radiation
results when virtual particle pairs at the event horizon of a gravitational black hole become
separated so one is assimilated into the gravitational well leaving the other to become real
in the space just outside. The gravitational hole will in time entirely evaporate away in this
manner , creating new matter from the potential energy of a dead star.

www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=6240#pid71203
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=1978#pid16761...

.

AndersHoveland - 18-8-2011 at 18:44

The second law of thermodynamics is only a generalization, NOT an absolute law.
Several biological processes have been observed which seem to accomplish work in violation of entropy laws.

There is no theoretical reason why ambient heat, or vacuum energy for that matter, cannot be harnessed and put to work. Such devices, however, are not currently within the realm of present technology.

Consider that a ThermoPhotoVoltaic cell inside a (very) hot room can generate electricity from the heat, without there needing to be a heat differential. http://www.jxcrystals.com/ThermoPV.htm

[Edited on 19-8-2011 by AndersHoveland]

IrC - 18-8-2011 at 22:58

A supermassive black hole eats suns for breakfast. Is the total gravity the sum of all the eaten stars. Or in effect it is infinite since light cannot escape. Where is the matter the stars are made of. Are these stars still radiating their fusion energy. If so where is it. What laws are in effect inside the black hole. Or, where are you if you were inside one. No I do not believe it is all frozen at the event horizon if so a 4 billion sun black hole would in my mind need to be larger than they are, if we assume everything is on the surface (the event horizon). Describe the answers with the same precise science you would use to explain the internal workings of a star. In other words where is the science. We do not have it. Therefore how can one prove "The vacuum state is, by construction, the lowest state possible. There's nowhere down to go.". Or the 2nd law as being inviolate. What I am saying here is in effect no matter how well you think you have proven a thing no one yet knows what they do not know. Science is frozen and will remain so until enough realize the folly of believing they know much at all. We still burn dead plants and animals suffocating slowly while not one new energy source which is a major leap has yet to be discovered. So no, I am not foolish enough to state without reservation energy from the vacuum is not possible. We have not yet discovered what vacuum at the quantum level really is.

It takes energy to think thus increasing entropy by 'using up this energy'. Logic dictates a lower state has been reached for this energy. Yet these thoughts are energy violating the law by increasing in order.

I for one do not know how to get energy from the vacuum yet I will stand my ground that not only does the possibility exist, possibly someone out there in the universe has already figured it out.

not_important - 19-8-2011 at 06:42

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
The second law of thermodynamics is only a generalization, NOT an absolute law.
Several biological processes have been observed which seem to accomplish work in violation of entropy laws.


As always, got references?
Quote:
There is no theoretical reason why ambient heat, or vacuum energy for that matter, cannot be harnessed and put to work....


Umm, see the aformentioned Laws of Thermodynamics for theoretical reasons.
Quote:
Consider that a ThermoPhotoVoltaic cell inside a (very) hot room can generate electricity from the heat, without there needing to be a heat differential. http://www.jxcrystals.com/ThermoPV.htm



Blargelsnorp. Those are GaSb cells, which have a band gap of around 0,7 V and will respond to longer wave IR than Si cells; and for which "Current efficiencies are estimated to be ~20% using a 1000°C blackbody spectrum". The devices you linked to burn butane to heat a radiator well above ambient temperature, and sink the waste energy into the surrounding room and/or in heating water. Fits well within the laws of thermodynamics.



[Edited on 19-8-2011 by not_important]

watson.fawkes - 19-8-2011 at 09:50

I am bemused with all the yammering about the second law of thermodynamics, which is fallacious on two counts. The first fallacy is that, per my example, energy state differences are the substance of the first law, so before you even need to bother appealing to the second law, you have to explain how the first law applies. The second fallacy is that thermodynamics is inadequately general to encompass the argument, which is about conservation of energy and energy states and their transitions. I didn't make any claim at the energy involved was heat energy; the argument applies to any form of energy, structured or not.

Although it's not often acknowledged, there's a hierarchy of relative certainty in physical theory. When an expert makes a claim in order assert authority, everything is just equally true. And yet we on Earth really don't understand everything that well, not enough that we have achieved incorruptible truth, not at all. So when challenging assumptions, I find it useful to keep in mind which forms of truth are more certain and which are less so. Conservation of mass and energy is right up at the top of that hierarchy for me.

starman - 19-8-2011 at 17:46

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
The second law of thermodynamics is only a generalization, NOT an absolute law.
Several biological processes have been observed which seem to accomplish work in violation of entropy laws.
[Edited on 19-8-2011 by AndersHoveland]


I find it somewhat amazing misunderstandings like this still find traction.Regardless of apparent increase in complexity of local biologiical systems,entropy overall (the solar system in this case) always increases.No exceptions.

AndersHoveland - 20-8-2011 at 12:30

In my opinion, the widely spread conception that "entropy always increases" will one day become relegated along with such other historic nonsense as the flat world hypothesis or the "vital force" theory about organic compounds.

The whole concept of "entropy" is just a concept, an expression of a physical tendency. All of the fundamental theoretical laws of physics are all time-reversible.

While it may certainly seem to an observer that entropy always tends to increase, humans only have a very limited frame of reference in comparison to cosmic time and space proportions. The real question is what will be the "end" fate of all the electromagnetic radiation that is being sent out in all directions in the universe?

Is it really so far-fetched that all the emmitted photons will eventually become red-shifted back due to the gradual force of gravity? As they become red-shifted, their wavelengths will increase to huge proportions.

The real key to the reversibility of entropy probably has much to do with the phenomena of interference. Interference overcomes the statistical randomness which is the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics. Remember the phenomena of interference is NOT constrained within the concept of time. All quantum fluctuations in the present may seem random, but they must correspond to quantum coherence outcomes for future events. This has very important implications.

So getting back to what the end fate of all those thermal photons will be. The greater the entropy in the universe, the longer the wavelengths of the photons. Which means more interference coupling between photons, until eventually all the photons in the universe will become coherent. It is at this point that the uncertainty principle can take over.

It only seems to scientists that entropy is increasing because they cannot see what is/what will be happening to all that "waste" heat. what do you think the quantum vacuum is composed off? It is just ordinary energy, which is fluctuating between different forms. More specifically, the equilibrium is in the form of coherent photons of extremely long wavelengths. This quantum vacuum does not follow the second law of thermodynamics, because the energy which pervades vast areas of space is in the same quantum state.

Departing from the phenomena of quantum coherence (such as wave interference) would require temporarily breaking the law of the conservation of energy. Two particles are forbiden from overlapping in any way which would reduce their energy. This is the direct reason why it is impossible for two photons to ever annihilate eachother (at least not without producing other particles, typically a pair of neutrinos).

Trying to interrpret the second "law" of thermodynamics as an absolute law indirectly requires the violation other laws, such as the conservation of energy and quantum states.
Or put another way, the statistical chaos of expanding entropy is countered by the statistical order from the phenomena of quantum interference and coherence.

watson.fawkes - 20-8-2011 at 13:08

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
In my opinion, the widely spread conception that "entropy always increases" will one day become relegated along with such other historic nonsense as the flat world hypothesis or the "vital force" theory about organic compounds.
Megalomania does not become you. My recommendation is to stick to chemistry, where at your rampant speculations have at least a shred of relevance to reality. It seems you've read too much of that slobbery genre of popular physics writing without knowing much anything about the mathematics behind it. Here's the most egregious example:
Quote:
[...] the longer the wavelengths of the photons. Which means more interference coupling between photons, until eventually all the photons in the universe will become coherent.
No. It's quite clear to me you don't know the first thing about how interference actually works.

Coherence in light is a phase phenomenon. The concept here is phase statistics, which is a probability density describing how much light intensity at a particular phase is present. When you add up a bunch of these, you don't get coherence, you get a random variable. (What's actually interesting about this is that you don't get zero either, which is a rather more interesting phenomenon. It's because you're dealing with imperfectly monochromatic light.) Perfect coherence in phase statistics looks like a Dirac delta, and that distribution is the lowest entropy state possible, exactly the opposite of what you get when you start adding up random photons.

There no non-linear effect here, since you're talking about a low energy regime by assumption. It's all linear.

AndersHoveland - 20-8-2011 at 14:32

The behaviour of a high-density collection of very long wavelength photons will take on many of the properties of coherence, because the energy will be able to couple with intermediate transient vacuum particles. The delta distribution is only the "lowest" energy state possible within the confines of uncertainty, which is itself due to vacuum fluctuations! It would be completely meaningless to describe the vacuum energy (at least the coherent equilibrium)itself in terms of uncertainty.

Another thing to think about :
"Non-existent" particles are referred to as "vacuum energy", which can more accurately be described as fluxuations in extremely long wavelength electromagnetic energy existing in equilibrium with particle- antiparticle pairs.
Since the vacuum energy is, on average, in a zero-value energy state, time and space could be inevitably biased toward normal matter. In the absence of "vacuum" energy, any particle would theoretically move with infinite speed, existing as a linear vector rather than a point-like particle.
It is for this reason that, in the absence of vacuum energy, concepts of space and time do not have any meaning. The vacuum energy slows down particles by coupling its large reservoir of energy to that of the particle, effectively lending the particle rest mass.

If there is too much mass in the universe than the potential energy that exists in the form of gravitational attraction will outweigh the sum of all the particles rest mass! This would obviously be impossible, because any form of energy, even gravitational potential, adds mass to a particle.

One would rather suspect that the potential gravitational energy which can be derived if all mass in the universe were to collapse on itself is exactly equal to the total rest mass. In other words, an objects rest mass might actually derive not from "Higgs bosons", but rather from the fact that it has the potential to release energy as it feels the force of gravity. From this, it would not be impossible to calculate how much mass can exist in the universe. Have a feeling this is part of a wider universal constant which ties several other constants together.

For example, it is estimated that 90% of a particle's rest mass is transformed into kinetic energy if it falls into a black hole.


[Edited on 20-8-2011 by AndersHoveland]

Endimion17 - 21-8-2011 at 02:55

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
Several biological processes have been observed which seem to accomplish work in violation of entropy laws.


You understand that this statement classifies you as a near-crackpot?

No biological process is in violation with thermodynamic laws. Every process observed in this universe increases the total entropy, even if it decreases a local one.

Here's a hint for you - try studying refrigerators. You might get surprised.

AndersHoveland - 21-8-2011 at 04:12

There was an article, which cannot now be found, which described a cell accomplishing work without expending energy, which was supposedly remarkable since this was not previously thought possible. It is this to which the previous post referred. But yes, in the strict sense, this would still not be a true violation of the second law.

The second law of thermodynamics is not considered a fundamental universal law of nature.

[Edited on 21-8-2011 by AndersHoveland]

hissingnoise - 21-8-2011 at 05:10

But of course, the Earth is flat, the theory of perpetual motion machines is sound and Sweden is a violent Muslim country . . .
Brilliant reasoning on all counts!

Endimion17 - 21-8-2011 at 05:42

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
There was an article, which cannot now be found, which described a cell accomplishing work without expending energy, which was supposedly remarkable since this was not previously thought possible. It is this to which the previous post referred. But yes, in the strict sense, this would still not be a true violation of the second law.

The second law of thermodynamics is not considered a fundamental universal law of nature.

[Edited on 21-8-2011 by AndersHoveland]


Where have you read about it? Timecube.com? ;)

[Edited on 21-8-2011 by Endimion17]

Vogelzang - 14-9-2011 at 10:14

Zero Point Energy.

http://books.google.com/books?id=5RHTCiRgnB0C&pg=PA298&a...

AndersHoveland - 14-9-2011 at 12:48

No doubt virtually all the "zero-point" energy literature which exists are 'crackpot' in nature. And, as far as I am aware, there is so far no experimental evidence for using zero-point energy as an energy source.

First, creating energy from "nothing" does not necessarily violate fundamental laws, if the nature of all mass-energy vectors are circular. That is to say that if the universe, and time, does actually eventually circle back on itself, rather than being infinite. There is a fundamental, but still not well understood, connection between mass-energy and space. It is unlikely that the quantity of mass or energy could be limited while the space is infinite. There is also the logical argument that if the universe is infinite, most of it is must be dark, unlike the observable region of the universe around us. read about Olbers paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

If time/space circles back on itself, the "creation" or "destruction" of energy may be a relative phenomena, depending on the time/space scale of reference. There are good reasons why small existence-loops of matter are unlikely to exist in small intervals, but it does suggest interesting possibilities. Especially if "string theory" has any validity, small loop vectors could very well exist. Their creation/destruction would not necessarily require any energy, since they would "create themselves", but in a much more localized way then the rest of the matter in the universe.

Second, "zero-point" energy does not necessarily imply creating energy from nothing, when the "nothing" is filled with high energy vacuum particles, or a significant quantity of ambient thermal energy (room temperature heat). "Zero-point" energy certainly would 'violate' entropy laws, but as has been stated before, entropy 'laws' are not actually fundamental laws, they are statistical generalizations. I would actually go so far as to argue, in a similar way, that much of quantum mechanics, so far as it is currently understood, might also be composed of statistical generalizations, rather than fundamental law, and that such generalizations likely would not hold true under some circumstances, even on a macroscopic level. But of course, this has never been experimentally demonstrated.

Let me provide another example, Planck's law of blackbody radiation is not a fundamental law, a violation of it can clearly be demonstrated by certain types of photonic crystals. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2...

It is commonly stated that a "cold" fusion generator has never been created, but this is not entirely true. Tabletop fusion generators, which generate more energy than they require for operation, have found applications as a neutron source, but unfortunately the energy is in the form of heat and radiation, and the conversion of this into electrical energy is too inefficient to make this method of fusion a viable source of electric power, (it is still unable to put out more electric current than it requires for operation). Such generators are quite simple actually, they require a 300kV power supply, and bombard dueturium at a lithium target in a vacuum.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:k8pgtUU5EEgJ:h...

[Edited on 14-9-2011 by AndersHoveland]

IrC - 14-9-2011 at 17:23

"try studying refrigerators"

I did but the longer I study them the greater my mass.


smaerd - 18-9-2011 at 09:32

I understand I am likely preaching to the choir here.

Now I understand the topic is based solely on the concept of ''free-energy'' paraphrased to mean getting energy from nowhere. I am exceptionally ignorant when it comes to physics, especially thermodynamics(recently bought a book though :)).

The point of my post is this: Of course we all ideally want something from nothing(the topic of this thread). Although, from a commercial and economical stand-point it doesn't matter so much if the energy is coming from ''nowhere'', it matters how much it costs($). Say we somehow could harness 1 calorie from some quantum biological phenomenon but it costs 3,000$ to do, is it even relevant? Now I hope not to de-rail the thread and am probably looking like a bit of a fool(nothing new there), but what if instead of focusing on harnessing energy of theoretical black-holes(hyperbole), we as scientific minds instead kept a focus on free($) energy?

Guess the same debate remains that everything costs money, almost parallel to the law of thermodynamics :P, but maybe instead of working on making things absolutely "free", we focused realistically instead on a low cost, high efficiency(for the given system), and lowest possible environmental impact.(many scientists are already working on this of course).

In my unimportant opinion I believe keeping goals like this in mind instead, would help to resolve the energy crisis while we could focus on the big picture stuff later.

Endimion17 - 18-9-2011 at 17:21

There's no free juice, and there's no clean juice. The very nature of the universe forbids such concepts. Ever increasing enthropy.
Once you understand that crucial and fatal "flaw", you'll be able to recognize every fraudulent energy claim.

The closest to "free" we're getting is the solar radiation that dumps huge amounts of energy on the planet, which uses plants to capture it in chemical bonds of organic matter (sugars, etc.). That, and heat. If Sun would dissapear, we'd cool down to 3 K. No more sugars, too. People tend to forget that, and think we're not using our star.

smaerd - 18-9-2011 at 18:23

Everybody forget's tidal energy and geothermal energy :). I even read of a town which uses trash as a fuel source and releases relatively 'clean' emissions. Can't find an article on that right now, but here's a garbage truck that runs on garbage :P http://www.physorg.com/news152812939.html

I guess the next leg up, is improving design, and finding more efficient renewable alternate fuel sources. I've heard good things about algae-culture and biodiesel. Now I'm getting off topic sorry.

[Edited on 19-9-2011 by smaerd]

niertap - 19-9-2011 at 08:20

I was under the impression it had to do with this....





Casimir effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Casimir forces on parallel plates
Casimir forces on parallel plates

In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect and the Casimir–Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field. The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. In a classical description, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them.[1] When this field is instead studied using quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force[2]—either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects. This force has been measured, and is a striking example of an effect purely due to second quantization.[3][4] However, the treatment of boundary conditions in these calculations has led to some controversy. In fact "Casimir's original goal was to compute the van der Waals force between polarizable molecules" of the metallic plates. Thus it can be interpreted without any reference to the zero-point energy (vacuum energy) or virtual particles of quantum fields.[5]

Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder proposed the existence of the force and formulated an experiment to detect it in 1948 while participating in research at Philips Research Labs. The classic form of the experiment, described above, successfully demonstrated the force to within 15% of the value predicted by the theory.[6]

Because the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance, it is only measurable when the distance between the objects is extremely small. On a submicron scale, this force becomes so strong that it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors. In fact, at separations of 10 nm—about 100 times the typical size of an atom—the Casimir effect produces the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.325 kPa), the precise value depending on surface geometry and other factors.[7]

In modern theoretical physics, the Casimir effect plays an important role in the chiral bag model of the nucleon; and in applied physics, it is significant in some aspects of emerging microtechnologies and nanotechnologies.[8]

AndersHoveland - 19-9-2011 at 13:45

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17  
There's no free juice...The very nature of the universe forbids such concepts. Ever increasing enthropy.
Once you understand that crucial and fatal "flaw", you'll be able to recognize every fraudulent energy claim.


The vacuum energy, the properties of which are little understood, might not necessarily be in a low state of entropy, in which case it may be theoretically possible to harness this form of energy.

The Casimir effect clearly demonstates that the vacuum contains a large quantity of energy, but it is still a question of difference of energy states. It is very difficult, in most cases impossible, to harness energy without there being a way to dump the energy into another place with a lesser quantity of energy. It would be like trying to extract the energy from normal air pressure. There certainly is plenty of energy in the air, with all those molecules flying around, but without a pressure differential it is not possible to drive a mechanical generator, at least not on a macroscopic level.

There have been some proposals to manipulate the Casmir effect using semiconductors, to switch on and off the reflectivity of the parallel plates to be able to modulate the force. But this has never been feasibly demonstrated, and it may be possible that the Casmir force itself would impose a resistance on any flux in semiconductor states, in which case it would take as much power to switch the semiconductor as the theoretic power that could be derived from the plates pulling together in the first place.

Perhaps researchers should be trying to harness the thermal energy contained in ambient air pressure before they try to harness energy from something as exotic and ill-understood as the quantum vacuum. Nanotechnology could theoretically enable tiny generators to utilize molecular movements to harness power, but even if this can eventually be demonstrated it may likely not be a practical source of power.

There have also been strategies to harness the osmotic pressure differential between two solutions. As the water level in the column with a higher ion concentration increases, it flows into a horizontal gravity filter, where the pure water can drip back into the column with the lower water level, which contains pure water. Supposedly, the energy to drip the water derives from ambient thermal energy. Despite a potentially similar osmotic pressure differential in the vertical gravity filter, pure water still difuses out, and drips down faster than it collects on the underside, precluding any osmotic pressure differential that would keep the water from falling back. This is the closest device to a perpetual motion machine, as the dripped water could theoretically power a generator. Of course, in practice, this is not a feasible source of commercial power.

The heat differences between night and day are especially pronounced in desert regions, and prototypes using this phenomena have generated electic power, but the technology is not considered an economical means of generation.
Quote: Originally posted by starman  

Regardless of apparent increase in complexity of local systems, entropy overall always increases. No exceptions.


Of course, this seems to be the case within our frame of reference. But consider what the eventual fate of all this energy in the "lowest possible entropy state" will be. Do you really think it will just go on expanding out forever? If time/space are circular in the universe this will not be possible. Or perhaps it will all be swallowed up by a black hole...

If all the mass-energy in the universe gets concentrated into a single point, it is quite possible that space-time will bend and shrink to the same small level. This could potentially be a mechanism whereby the final black hole could initiate another "big bang".

[Edited on 19-9-2011 by AndersHoveland]

IrC - 22-9-2011 at 19:07

Speed of light 'broken' by scientists

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Spee...

I notice in discussions of this type there are always those who claim their point is absolute because science 'knows all things'. I wonder...

Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484


[Edited on 9-23-2011 by IrC]

AndersHoveland - 22-9-2011 at 21:41

If the measurements are actually accurate, there may be other possible explanations, such as "quantum entanglement" that could be causing a particles to respond slightly prior to being affected, a sort of "time travel" phenomena within the realm of particle physics, which has already been well documented.

If neutrinos can actually travel faster than light, it might suggest that the quantum vacuum is interacting with matter to give it mass, and that neutrinos apparently have less interaction with the vacuum energy.

But no one really knows at this time. Probably most scientists suspect it is a measurement error, because if it is true it, everything that physics assumes is true would have to be rethought.

IrC - 22-9-2011 at 23:37

"everything that physics assumes is true would have to be rethought."

This pretty much was my point. If a Gamma with enough energy hits a nucleus an electron and positron are produced. Here in the matter world we see two particles. Say there is a connection between them, you might call it quantum entanglement. Physics in the mainstream does not seem to have a problem thinking there is some 'magical' connection between them. Somehow one 'knows' what the other is doing when they are far apart. Yet they refuse to believe in such concepts as zero point energy as it relates to being sought after as a source of usable power. Is it much of a stretch to see this quantum connection as a single entity existing extra dimensionally which shows itself in our timespace as two separate particles? Just because the electron appears to be going there does not mean it is not the same entity seen as the positron going somewhere else, with said entity existing in 'other dimensions' we do not perceive? If so the connection is not so 'magical', they are two aspects here of something which really exists somewhere outside of our known spacetime. I have no doubt this concept would be said to be quackery by physicists, the same ones who will be forever looking for the error in an experiment rather than admit they after all did not have the good bead on things they were so sure of.

AndersHoveland - 23-9-2011 at 01:04

I understand what you are saying, but I must personally disagree.
I am rather partial to the belief that "quantum entanglement" is actually a consequence of a much more simpler phenomena; that of interference.
The so-called "randomness" of decay to lower energy states cannot be entirely random. Two photons overlapping in the wrong way would result in destructive interference, which is to say that such overlap is forbiden.The real interesting phenomena is that two photons will never head towards eachother in the first place, in a way that would eventually result in destructive interference. What seems to be randomness, in which direction and phase the photons were emitted, is actually predetermined to avoid a future forbiden state. This is not specifically to say that a decaying particle "knows" what will happen in the future, but there does seem to be some sort of correlation, which is not well understood. And I think the difficulty understanding this comes mostly from our limited perception of time in terms of "cause" and "effect". Time is not necessarily "flowing" forward or backward. I think that things are less "Random" than we realise, and that there exist patterns between the past and future which cannot be explained merely through cause and effect.

[Edited on 23-9-2011 by AndersHoveland]

IrC - 5-10-2011 at 20:26

"Probably most scientists suspect it is a measurement error"

Only because they refuse to open their minds. The test was over a distance light would need 2.4 msec to travel, yet the neutrinos made it in 60 nanoseconds. I find it hard to believe their errors would be this order of magnitude. I think they have really discovered something new and paradigm altering.

watson.fawkes - 6-10-2011 at 03:19

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
the neutrinos made it in 60 nanoseconds.
That's 60ns faster than expected, not 60ns total transit time. It's about 25 parts per million.

IrC - 6-10-2011 at 08:42

Yeah I knew that but somehow blew it making the post. Really have to stop reading so late at night.

AndersHoveland - 9-8-2012 at 06:10

Parthiban Santhanam and fellow researchers from MIT have exceeded 100% efficiency in converting electric power into light. Some of the ambient room temperature heat is converted into light in the process.
http://phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html

This would seem to be an example where the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.

[Edited on 9-8-2012 by AndersHoveland]

watson.fawkes - 9-8-2012 at 06:53

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
Parthiban Santhanam and fellow researchers from MIT have exceeded 100% efficiency in converting electric power into light. Some of the ambient room temperature heat is converted into light in the process.
http://phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html

This would seem to be an example where the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.
Please read the article completely, exercise some bare shred of knowledge of physics. There's no violation of the second law evident here. That's like claiming that refrigerators violate the second law. Analyzing this device as a heat engine, it moves entropy from its immediate region, which it cools, to whatever the emitted light hits, which it heats.

AndersHoveland - 11-8-2012 at 01:52

But the experiment not merely involved heat transfer, because some of the heat was converted to light. And such light could (potentially) be converted to electric current. The only thing preventing such a device from being able to produce more electric current than it consumes would be the low efficiency of converting the light back into electricity.

Converting ambient room temperature heat (without the presence of a heat differential) into useful energy has long been a goal of inventors, but such a device has never been demonstrated.

[Edited on 11-8-2012 by AndersHoveland]

watson.fawkes - 11-8-2012 at 06:49

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
The only thing preventing such a device from being able to produce more electric current than it consumes would be the low efficiency of converting the light back into electricity.
The light emissions have an entropy and an effective temperature. Just because this device as a heat engine uses a novel means of exhausting heat (as light) doesn't mean that these quantities aren't relevant.

That said, I don't know of an analysis as a photovoltaic cell as a heat engine, but I'm sure one exists or could be developed. I have, however, seen some things analyzed as heat engines that are not obviously so. The best example of this I know is Ed Jaynes's analysis of muscle as a heat engine. Jaynes was the one who connected thermodynamic entropy with information entropy, in papers published in the 1950's.

zed - 25-9-2012 at 16:40

Apparently, before the evolution of our kind of "space".... The rules of what we call relativity, did not apply.

Some of the math nobs are suggesting that during the course of the "big bang", the universe expanded abruptly from the size of a sesame seed to approximately the size of the Milky Way Galaxy. Took less than a second.

Since the Milky Way is approximately 120,000 light years in diameter, having a radius of about 60,000 light years....It suggests that this whole speed of light thing, might be a local traffic ordinance.



[Edited on 26-9-2012 by zed]

arsphenamine - 25-9-2012 at 17:41

Extracting. Oh. You said extracting.

Nevermind.

Here, I was thinking about all those $#%&! Hessians I've generated over the last year for 5 dozen pnictogen clusters and their hydrides in pursuit of zero-point corrections and now it was all *futile*?!

(cough!)

Carry on.

zed - 27-9-2012 at 12:57

Measuring the detectable Zero-Point Energy is a fine thing. Still, the deeper we go, the more questions arise. At the moment, we are in an era of rampant speculation.

We don't really understand what "space" is (it isn't nothing!). We have no idea what exists or existed, beyond the boundaries of our finite universe. Or, how our universe really came into being....Where did the primordial speck of energy come from? Further, our conventional ideas can't quite explain observed phenomena, and there might actually be 11 dimensions.

Until experiments can be performed that prove or disprove some of the hordes of contemporary speculations, it is hard to know what to believe.







[Edited on 27-9-2012 by zed]

violet sin - 27-9-2012 at 21:54

let me just begin with I am not an expert of anything( i know a lill bit)... that being said all I can offer is personal opinion in this. to that point, the LED operating @ >100% efficiency basically implies that it will work with said efficiency *until* it depletes the room of extra extractable energy. so lets exaggerate the concept; to do something similar with another form of energy would mean you needed a substance that sought to shed all energy, or channeled it outta other materials for free, regardless of how the neighboring materials acted no? almost like something that would NEVER get warm no matter how much you heated it. then you would have something (ambient) to counterpoint it for energy production. but just like the LED this would eventually seek to vent off all light/heat/motion away from the unit. or at least drain the "fuel" of energy at the frequency/temp what ever being consumed. I think that hoping to find "ice" that refuses to melt is kinda odd.
the term overunity was used by one man (thomas bearden) to describe his transformer that supposedly gave off more energy than the core was being charged with, so at best it did like the LED but magnetically. but he assumed it to be an antenna of sorts( somehow channeling the void) and the returns were poor so they tried to refine it thinking wow we are so close. using pulsed tuned frequency's and in the end it all turned up being hooey. same guy who thought the Russians had "scalar technology" and were gonna take over the world back in the 80's... crackpot
seems to me that this concept can't really go further till we have a better understanding of energy. we have tried soo hard to unify all the laws and it is getting more and more complex. but do you ever have the feeling that we are just looking at "energy" in the wrong light? yes that was a pun.. I *personally* feel that we have missed some simple part of how it functions, and, I don't know if it because of our limited ability to understand time( on galactic scale) or what. but *seems to me* the cheapest way to go from A to B is 0energy. ie easiest way to do something is let it happen.
when you have to try verry verry hard to describe a concept it usually means ya missed something and the process is usually quite easy to explain. that is unless you believe us to be anything greater than toddlers in our understanding of everything known. have we actually reached the point where every lill detail is spelled out with 30 dedicated tomes of knowledge? or have we simply missed an integer portion of it all and just see fractions? the universe loves patterns. they pop up everywhere from a sunflowers spiral to a galaxy's arms. seems that we can learn a lot more from simple little things.

sorry this post is not meant as scientific rebuttal of theory, but more to getting a better perspective of the actual question at hand.. or in worst case scenario "food for thought"

[Edited on 28-9-2012 by violet sin]

D4RR3N - 29-9-2012 at 06:37

I read somewhere that the electron cloud around the nucleus of an atom is continuously extracting energy from the vacuum energy. I also read that the light produced by sonoluminescence is in fact a direct polarization of this energy.

watson.fawkes - 2-10-2012 at 06:53

Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N  
I read somewhere that [...]. I also read that[...].
Just because you read it doesn't make it so. Particularly online.