There's an infinite amount of energy locked in the vacuum of space-time. Could we ever use it?

[Admin]

Unfortunately, any work you do in the universe will have to be done the old-fashioned way.

There's an infinite amount of energy locked in the vacuum of space-time. Could we ever use it? : Read more

 

[billslugg]

The author states the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as "you can never know both the energy of a particle and the duration of its existence with a perfect degree of precision."
The principle says we cannot measure both the momentum and location of a particle to perfect precision. I don't know where "duration of its existence" came from, or how it fits. The author, Paul Sutter, has an impressive resume, this is hard to fathom. Anyone can help? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Classical Motion]

No there isn’t. Nothing can be locked in space. The energy in space, IS the MOST unlocked energy state there is. That energy is also in a state dissolving. A fade state. Because nothing is holding it.

It’s not locked and free to all. It’s too weak to be of use. It would have to be integrated. With large collectors and long durations.

Hayseed zero point of view.

 

[billslugg]

There is a vacuum energy according to Heisenberg but I don't see how it could be infinite. Can't have infinite energy or that would have infinite mass which would put us in an infinitely strong gravitational field and we could not move.

 

[Classical Motion]

If space was created with matter and mass, and if there was a BB----- then there is a definite volume to this cosmos. And if there is a definite amount of space, then a definite amount of energy in space.

I believe there is an infinite amount of space. But not an infinite amount of mass and energy. AND that, that amount of mass and energy is decaying. Due to fade in infinite space.

Heisenberg has nothing to do with it. Or anything else. He only believed and worked with energy and mass. Properties of the substance of matter. Fields only, not substance.

Hayseed substance model. The substance of e.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The article says "Any finite volume, like an empty box, contains an infinite number of geometric points, so this means there's an infinite amount of energy in that volume."

I say "BS!"

The energy densities we measure and even postulate for "dark energy" are not infinite, even in the postulated finite universe of the BBT.

And, all this talk about energy in the ground state makes no sense if the ground state is actually zero energy. Zero times infinity is still zero.

So, the only way any of the author's musings make any sense at all is if the "ground state" of the universe is a false ground state. That is, if there is actually energy that could be released by some sort of change. Some theorists have postulated such a false ground state for the conditions of the universe, and talk about a potential for something to condense out in some sort of phase change.

But, that is all hypothesis, and still would not have an infinite amount of energy in any finite volume.

 

[Helio]

The vacuum energy idea goes back to Einstein's GR equations when he added his cosmological term to push against the natural collapsing tendency of the universe, given all the matter out there. [He rejected this term once he accepted the expansion model of Lemiatre.] But Lemaitre never discarded it an he held that the universe has vacuum energy, which allowed him to show acceleration of the expansion rate for the earlier universe.

Vacuum energy, for reasons I'm unclear, isn't quite the same as DE.

What I think should be mentioned in the article is the calculation differences between QM and GR per BBT and observations. The energy, I think, Sutter is presenting is calculated to be about 10^120 greater than observed. I've been wrong on many quiz questions, but never off by that much, well, perhaps close.

The energy is real and it is manifested in virtual particles, that come, but then disappear. However, this hypothetically, isn't always the case. For instance, at the EH of blackholes, the paired particles can split, allowing the one to survive and be "real", apparently. This is the mass loss process for black holes, IIRC.

 

[billslugg]

I've been off by 10^117 before, but never 10^120. Why that is a THOUSAND times worse!!!

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Do we have actual evidence that "virtual particles pop in and out of existence" all over the place all of the time? IF we do, THEN those particles ARE real, and a virtual particle can annihilate with a "real" particle and leave its sibling virtual particle as the "real" particle REPLACEMENT.

Here is a recent discussion of "virtual particles" - seems we do not have proof, just theoretical arguments.

But, that is not really relevant to the idea that they indicate infinite amount of energy in every finite volume of the universe, not matter how small a volume we choose. That is the statement in the subject article, and it is wrong on its face.

And, as to the uniformity, Hawking radiation supposedly disturbs that, leading to the supposed evaporation of black holes.

Edit Seems like my link went missing!?

 

[Helio]

Do we have actual evidence that "virtual particles pop in and out of existence" all over the place all of the time? IF we do, THEN those particles ARE real, and a virtual particle can annihilate with a "real" particle and leave its sibling virtual particle as the "real" particle REPLACEMENT.

The Casimir Experiment demonstrated their existence.

But, that is not really relevant to the idea that they indicate infinite amount of energy in every finite volume of the universe, not matter how small a volume we choose. That is the statement in the subject article, and it is wrong on its face.

Agreed. Infinite also seems used as hyperbole to express something beyond astronomical in number or size. Squeezing the juice out of a 10^120 turnips should be enough.

And, as to the uniformity, Hawking radiation supposedly disturbs that, leading to the supposed evaporation of black holes.

Hmmm, I thought what I described was Hawking radiation. But apparently not.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

From Helio's link:
"The treatment of boundary conditions in these calculations is controversial. In fact, "Casimir's original goal was to compute the van der Waals force between polarizable molecules" of the conductive plates. Thus it can be interpreted without any reference to the zero-point energy (vacuum energy) of quantum fields.[19]"

Sometimes it is attraction, sometimes it is repulsion, depending on the materials at the boundaries. Sounds like an effect of the materials, not the vacuum between them.

Regarding Helio's description of the Hawking Radiation at black hole event horizons, he describes the theory correctly. It is just that I don't know of any proof that the theory itself is correct.