Are zero-point energy and inertia incompatible?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the compatibility of zero-point energy (ZPE) and inertia, exploring theoretical implications and the nature of these concepts. Participants engage with the foundational aspects of ZPE and its relationship to motion and rest, while also referencing notable figures in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that ZPE, characterized by random jittering, implies that nothing is ever at rest or moving at a constant speed, raising the question of compatibility with inertia.
  • Another participant challenges the premise that ZPE and inertia are incompatible, stating that starting from a false premise will not lead to valid conclusions.
  • A claim is made that the popular description of Hawking radiation being based on ZPE is incorrect, with a suggestion that the actual mathematical derivation differs significantly from common interpretations.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the validity of Wikipedia as a source for understanding these topics, suggesting that it may lead to misconceptions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the initial premise about ZPE and inertia, with some asserting that the premise is false while others defend it. There is no consensus on the compatibility of ZPE and inertia, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific articles that may provide further insight into the concepts discussed, but the participants do not reach a shared understanding of the implications of ZPE on inertia.

jaketodd
Gold Member
Messages
507
Reaction score
21
With zero-point energy, endlessly jittering everything around randomly, nothing is ever at rest, and never moving at a constant speed (inertia).

But we've been getting along without knowledge of it for quite a while! Haha.

So, since it's random, and produces such little variations, maybe it just doesn't matter.

But, the question here is, are ZPE and inertia incompatible?

ZPE is interesting enough for even Stephen Hawking to have his Hawking Radiation based upon it.

So what does this all mean, and does it lead us to anything new?

Thanks,

Jake
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jaketodd said:
With zero-point energy, endlessly jittering everything around randomly, nothing is ever at rest, and never moving at a constant speed (inertia).
Starting from a false premise is not going to lead you to any valid conclusions. (Nor is using Wikipedia as a source for topics like this.)

I suggest reading these Insights articles:

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/physics-virtual-particles/

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuation-myth/

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuations-experimental-practice/
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mattt, berkeman and vanhees71
jaketodd said:
ZPE is interesting enough for even Stephen Hawking to have his Hawking Radiation based upon it.
This is not correct. Hawking radiation is often described this way in pop science sources, but the actual math in Hawking's actual derivation is quite different.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: protonsarecool and vanhees71
PeterDonis said:
Starting from a false premise is not going to lead you to any valid conclusions. (Nor is using Wikipedia as a source for topics like this.)

I suggest reading these Insights articles:

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/physics-virtual-particles/

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuation-myth/

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuations-experimental-practice/
Maybe you'd like to make the appropriate revisions to Wikipedia then?
 
jaketodd said:
Maybe you'd like to make the appropriate revisions to Wikipedia then?
I have no interest in revising Wikipedia; nor, I suspect, do the authors of those Insights articles. I am simply pointing out to you that, whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is not a valid source if you're trying to learn about physics.

In any case, this kind of suggestion is off topic here. Read the articles and improve your understanding; then you will be in a much better position to ask cogent questions.

In the meantime, this thread is closed since there are no cogent questions in it to answer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K