Are zero-point energy and inertia incompatible?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of zero-point energy and its relationship to inertia. The idea that everything is constantly in motion due to zero-point energy is brought up, but the validity of this premise is questioned. The conversation also mentions Stephen Hawking's theory of Hawking radiation and its connection to zero-point energy. However, it is pointed out that Hawking radiation is not actually based on zero-point energy. The conversation concludes with a suggestion to read articles on virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations to improve understanding of the topic.
  • #1
jaketodd
Gold Member
508
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
  • #2
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
  • #3
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
  • #4
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?
 
  • #5
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

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top