B Are zero-point energy and inertia incompatible?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between zero-point energy (ZPE) and inertia, questioning whether they are incompatible. It is noted that ZPE causes constant jittering, implying that nothing is ever at rest or moving at a constant speed. The conversation critiques the use of Wikipedia as a source for understanding complex physics topics, emphasizing the need for more reliable references. Additionally, there is a clarification regarding Hawking radiation, asserting that popular science interpretations often misrepresent its mathematical foundation. Ultimately, the thread concludes that without a solid understanding of these concepts, meaningful questions cannot be posed.
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 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 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 vanhees71
For the quantum state ##|l,m\rangle= |2,0\rangle## the z-component of angular momentum is zero and ##|L^2|=6 \hbar^2##. According to uncertainty it is impossible to determine the values of ##L_x, L_y, L_z## simultaneously. However, we know that ##L_x## and ## L_y##, like ##L_z##, get the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. In other words, for the state ##|2,0\rangle## we have ##\vec{L}=(L_x, L_y,0)## with ##L_x## and ## L_y## one of the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. But none of these...

Similar threads