Are zero-point energy and inertia incompatible?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 1K views
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