Zero Point Energy and Antigravity(aka Electrogravitic research

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of zero point energy and electrogravitics, particularly focusing on the Biefeld-Brown effect and its implications for propulsion technologies. Participants explore the scientific validity of these theories, their potential applications, and the challenges in understanding the underlying physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference the Biefeld-Brown effect, where a charged capacitor exhibits movement toward its positive pole, suggesting a coupling between electric charge and gravitational mass.
  • There are claims that electrogravitics could be explained through quantum electrodynamics (QED), although general relativity has not provided satisfactory explanations for these phenomena.
  • Participants discuss the implications of zero point energy, particularly in relation to the Casimir effect, which suggests that vacuum fluctuations can influence atomic behavior.
  • Some express skepticism about the validity of claims regarding "free energy" and over-unity devices, noting a lack of commercial viability and empirical evidence.
  • Others propose that the connection between electric and magnetic fields and gravity is worth exploring, with references to various researchers and experiments, including those by Podkletnov.
  • There are concerns about potential biases within the scientific community that may prevent open discussion of these theories, despite their intriguing implications.
  • One participant speculates on the transformative impact of limitless zero-point energy on global economies and industries, suggesting it could revolutionize energy consumption and space exploration.
  • The mention of the B-2 bomber raises questions about the possible use of electrogravitic technology in advanced military applications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of skepticism and intrigue regarding the theories presented. While some acknowledge the potential connections between electricity, magnetism, and gravity, others question the empirical support for these claims. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views on the validity and implications of the concepts discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the current understanding of gravity and inertia, as well as the speculative nature of claims related to zero point energy and electrogravitics. There are also references to the lack of concrete evidence for commercial applications of these theories.

  • #31
No. When the virtual particles anhilate, they vanish again. Remember it occurs on the shortest possible time scale. If one whishes however, they can say the anhilation of the virtual matter will create elsewhere virtual photons that will also cancel out very fast.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
It is that clear cut. The energy does exist and is infinite. BUT, it exists for a very short time. Remember if we know the energy (in this case infinite) the time fram it is in must be very small. In fact, it would be as small as possible. So yes, technically it is there, but it is also not there. Not to mention the symmetry problems I mentioned. Nothing useful can come of it. If you breakt he symmetry, the effect disappears.

It boils down to trying to harness water to make power when you are in the water, and this water is water that cannot flow (b/c then you could get the equivalent of windmills). The energy potential is equal across the universe, and hence cannot be tapped into.

I guess that I must do some review. How do we justify infinite energy in a potentially finite universe? This notion has always bothered me. I was not aware that anything truly infinite was known to exist. Do we mean that the total energy of the universe is the upper limit?

Doesn't the Casmir effect use ZPE to do work on the mirrors [in the quote given earlier]?

I understand the objection of having no sink for the source.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by Jonathan
The people on the websites I gave have on them or links to sites with disclaimers saying that the field is usually about fraud, so don't give free energy people money. I have a working version, I have tested it over and over, and it lifts a 23g magnet 1.7cm up, then drops it. I'm working on a rotary version now, since a magnet spitting device isn't practical. Btw, the ramp is 5.75 degrees and the table it is on is level, minus 1 or 2 degrees, making the ramp accually 6.75 to 7.75 degrees.
Indeed. Wasting money is a bad thing.

But because I am bored, I will explain why this particular perpetual motion device is false.

Let's first cut away the extraneous BS. What you have here is a ball, which is set up at a distance from a magnet. When you let go of the ball, naturally it goes forward, attracted to the magnet. It goes forward, and reaches the point where it is closest to it. So far, so good.

But notice there is actually NO free energy at all involved. The system is set up with a potential energy from the distance you positioned the ball at the start. You have in effect, already given the ball a little push. What thermodynamics tells us is that eventually, the inital reservoir of energy you have will run out, and the ball will stop.

Now let's look at the "successful" experiment. The ball climbs. Yep, it is using up it's potential energy into kinetic, and into GPE. It reaches the end, potential in the magnetic field effectively runs out and GPE is at max. It now falls, but as it falls, it's acceleration is reduced by the attraction of the magnet.

Now, suppose we are actually scientific, and put a set of scales at the end to measure the final KE of the falling ball, you will find that it is in fact less that the potential energy you had at the start. You've lost energy all the way from friction on the ramp, from air resistance during the fall. (You might note that the website entiring messes up here, because they stupidly assume that the only potential energy that exists in GPE, something easily disprovable by the attraction of a bar magnet.)

It gets worse. Ever wondered why it is so hard to make the system "practical"? Because the suggestion of connecting one to the other doesn't actually work. After the ball goes off at the end of the device, the old magnetic field doesn't just disappear. It still has an attraction of the ball! And unlike the attraction of the next device, this is at maximum. An experimental will find that the device has run out of energy - in the combined magnetic fields of the two devices, there is simply not enough potential energy left to go up the ramp again. At this point the ball just gets stuck, and our poor pseudoscientist goes off in quiet dejection to talk about conspiracies.

Sorry mate. The laws of thermodynamics win out EVERY TIME.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by FZ+
"I'm baaaack!"

I was wondering about you. :wink:
 
  • #35
Some related reading:

OK I'm starting to review this and other information, but the one glaring question thus far for me is this: If we can't do work with ZPE, then what are we doing here? Perhaps I will answer my own question shortly...

Since those early days, however, sophisticated equipment has made it much easier to study the Casimir effect. A new generation of measurements began in 1997. Steve Lamoreaux, who was then at the University of Washington in Seattle, measured the Casimir force between a 4 cm diameter spherical lens and an optical quartz plate about 2.5 cm across, both of which were coated with copper and gold. The lens and plate were connected to a torsion pendulum - a twisting horizontal bar suspended by a tungsten wire - placed in a cylindrical vessel under vacuum. When Lamoreaux brought the lens and plate together to within several microns of each other, the Casimir force pulled the two objects together and caused the pendulum to twist. He found that his experimental measurements agreed with theory to an accuracy of 5%.

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6/1

Quintessence
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8/1

Casimir Effect:
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00045486-6600-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00045486-6600-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3
 
  • #36
I thought I pretty much debunked the Casimir effect as a potential source of ZPE in a post titled "Is vacuum energy ficticious?, and I even found a quote by Casimir himself saying that it seemed to be related to the surface tension of the material and wasn't part of the vacuum.
 
  • #37
Originally posted by FZ+
But because I am bored, I will explain why this particular perpetual motion device is false...
Ain't the internet great?
Finally, if these zero point energy guys were on to something why aren't they building examples to make believers out of all of us instead of selling book after book?
May I answer that? Please?
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Tyger
I thought I pretty much debunked the Casimir effect as a potential source of ZPE in a post titled "Is vacuum energy ficticious?, and I even found a quote by Casimir himself saying that it seemed to be related to the surface tension of the material and wasn't part of the vacuum.

What about the experimental results that agree with predictions?
I will read your debunking you troublemaker...
 
  • #39
Originally posted by russ_watters
May I answer that? Please?

Please! Before the mystery kills us. :wink:
 
  • #40
I am finding that the language used by some experts is not quite as absolute as otherwise indicated. For example:

In summary, there is no doubt that the ZPE, vacuum energy and Casimir effect are physically real. Our ability to manipulate these quantities is limited but in some cases technologically interesting. But the free-lunch crowd has greatly exaggerated the importance of the ZPE. Notions of mining the ZPE should therefore be treated with extreme skepticism

---Dr. Matt Visser; Washington University in St. Louis

Next:
These vacuum fluctuations may have effects, both subtle and gross, on the behavior of microscopic particles and on the world around us. Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov speculated that they may give rise to the force of gravity. At present, nobody knows how to exploit the zero-point energy in a macroscopic device that delivers sizable amounts of energy.

Point being made...he continues:
There is, however, a considerable fringe element (similar to those attracted to UFOs, astrology, numerology and so on) of people who speculate and fantasize about the possibility of exploiting the zero-point energy to achieve various technical marvels and the long-sought 'perpetual motion.' Consider yourself warned."
----Dr. John Obienin; University of Nebraska at Omaha



The crux of this issue being this [from Baez] I would assume:
"One should not take this vacuum energy too literally, however, because the free-field theory is just a mathematical tool to help us understand what we are really interested in: the interacting theory. Only the interacting theory is supposed to correspond directly to reality. Because the vacuum state of the interacting theory is the state of least energy in reality, there is no way to extract the vacuum energy and use it for anything.
The key point being:"Because the vacuum state of the interacting theory is the state of least energy in reality"
---Dr. John Baez; University of California at Riverside.

IMO, this limitation should be stated exactly as such with no further interpretation.

"The zero-point energy cannot be harnessed in the traditional sense..."
---Paul A. Deck, assistant professor of chemistry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I am finding that the language used by some experts is not quite as absolute as otherwise indicated...
That's because scientists rarely ever speak in absolutes. There was however nothing at all equivocal about those quotes. They all said what we have been saying: its a real, interesting, and useless effect.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by russ_watters
That's because scientists rarely ever speak in absolutes.

And for good reason.

Remind me again, is the rate of expansion of the universe increasing or decreasing?

"The zero-point energy cannot be harnessed in the traditional sense..."
---Paul A. Deck, assistant professor of chemistry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"
 
  • #43
Originally posted by russ_watters
its a real, interesting, and useless effect.

Could you direct me to a comprehensive theory of everything to confirm this assertion?
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Could you direct me to a comprehensive theory of everything to confirm this assertion?
Just reread the quotes you posted.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by russ_watters
Just reread the quotes you posted.

So your position is that we have a unified theory? Furthermore, my quotes constitute this theory?

I think the correct interpretation here is that we can see no way to access this energy. This does not rule out the possibility forevermore. It only means that at this point in time, with our level of knowledge, no way can be imagined that this could be possible. Without a TOE, to assert anything more than this is fallacious at best.
 
  • #46
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
So your position is that we have a unified theory? Furthermore, my quotes constitute this theory?
Yeah, I said nothing of the sort.
I think the correct interpretation here is that we can see no way to access this energy. This does not rule out the possibility forevermore. It only means that at this point in time, with our level of knowledge, no way can be imagined that this could be possible. Without a TOE, to assert anything more than this is fallacious at best.
Your interpretation is wrong. Like the "light barrier" this is known as a "theoretical impossibility." Its not a matter of us not having figured it out how to harness it, it simply isn't possible.

Now of course our theories evolve and old theories are often found to be wrong, but I've said it before: I wouldn't bet against quantum mechanics. Our understanding of it will certainly change, but ZPE is part of a farily important implication that will likely not change.

This is known as Pseudoscience Fallacy #1.* "Anything is possible given that we don't know everything." Wrong. Just because we don't know everything, does NOT mean that anything is possible. Certain things are known to a high degree of certainty to be NOT POSSIBLE.

Further, since the same theory that predicts that it exists also says its not harnessable you MUST accept (or reject) both sides of the coin TOGETHER. If you want to throw out QM (I wouldn't), you throw out BOTH parts of the prediction. Its a catch-22 and I'm sorry, but you can't get out of it.



* Pseudoscience Fallacy #1 is whichever pseudoscience fallacy I'm discussing right now.
 
  • #47
Something else I should have addressed before:
And for good reason. [re: scientists rarely speak in absolutes]
Your implication is that they don't speak in absolutes because there are no absolutes. Thats not correct. Scientists don't speak in absolutes because like anyone else they don't want to stick their neck out even on a one and a billion chance that they are wrong. And the certainty of the issue has little bearing on that.

Plane crashes are rare and surviving them even rarer, but they still give you the safety speach every time you fly.

This is a use of language issue. You're reading a hedge where there isn't one. Thats just how they talk. Those statements you quoted are VERY unequivocal.
 
  • #48
Originally posted by russ_watters
Something else I should have addressed before: Your implication is that they don't speak in absolutes because there are no absolutes. Thats not correct. Scientists don't speak in absolutes because like anyone else they don't want to stick their neck out even on a one and a billion chance that they are wrong. And the certainty of the issue has little bearing on that.

Plane crashes are rare and surviving them even rarer, but they still give you the safety speach every time you fly.

This is a use of language issue. You're reading a hedge where there isn't one. Thats just how they talk. Those statements you quoted are VERY unequivocal.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I was more interested in the proper scientific interpretation here.

"At present, nobody knows how to exploit the zero-point energy in a macroscopic device that delivers sizable amounts of energy."

Again, I ask you for the theory to support your conclusions. The fact is, we don't have one. The rest of this is just a language problem.
 
  • #49
Originally posted by russ_watters
Yeah, I said nothing of the sort. Your interpretation is wrong. Like the "light barrier" this is known as a "theoretical impossibility." Its not a matter of us not having figured it out how to harness it, it simply isn't possible.

Now of course our theories evolve and old theories are often found to be wrong, but I've said it before: I wouldn't bet against quantum mechanics. Our understanding of it will certainly change, but ZPE is part of a farily important implication that will likely not change.

This is known as Pseudoscience Fallacy #1.* "Anything is possible given that we don't know everything." Wrong. Just because we don't know everything, does NOT mean that anything is possible. Certain things are known to a high degree of certainty to be NOT POSSIBLE.

Further, since the same theory that predicts that it exists also says its not harnessable you MUST accept (or reject) both sides of the coin TOGETHER. If you want to throw out QM (I wouldn't), you throw out BOTH parts of the prediction. Its a catch-22 and I'm sorry, but you can't get out of it.



* Pseudoscience Fallacy #1 is whichever pseudoscience fallacy I'm discussing right now.

Russ, you want to make a legitimate scientific point of view into pseudoscience. Where do you think that I got most of my ideas? The answer is while studying physics in college. History is replete with closed minds that were wrong. I was told time after time that it is a "fact" that the expansion of the universe is slowing down. What more dramatic example do we need? For 50 years the only "valid" question was whether the expansion would stop or not. I am sure that you would have argued with equal fervor against anyone who questioned this interpretation.
 
  • #50
Ivan, Russ is giving you the scientific interpretation. You don't need 6 pages of esoteric mathematics to figure this one out. ZPE basically is the Heisenberg energy-time relation. The theory that supports his conclusions is quantum mechanics. Theory predicts that the zero point energy exists and you can never use it to do work, all in the same line.

If the energy-time relation is wrong, (as it would have to be to allow you to harness ZPE) then there is no guarantee that the ZPE even exists.
 
  • #51
Originally posted by Joy Division
Ivan, Russ is giving you the scientific interpretation. You don't need 6 pages of esoteric mathematics to figure this one out. ZPE basically is the Heisenberg energy-time relation. The theory that supports his conclusions is quantum mechanics. Theory predicts that the zero point energy exists and you can never use it to do work, all in the same line.

If the energy-time relation is wrong, (as it would have to be to allow you to harness ZPE) then there is no guarantee that the ZPE even exists.

Why do so many people refuse to recognize that we have limits? We do not posses all knowledge. I understand the reason that we can't use this energy in any practical way right now. But to argue that this will always be true is nothing less that pseudoscience. We don't know.

Could someone show me where in the scientific method prognostication is indicated as a function of science?

Are you and Russ really psychics or something? Do you have secret knowledge?
 
  • #52
Originally posted by Joy Division
Theory predicts that the zero point energy exists and you can never use it to do work

Here we see that no one bothers to read what has already been established. When we test for ZPE, we do work with it; so this is already wrong.
 
  • #53
Until we know physics to be complete, we never know when someone like Einstein will come along and introduce a new variable that changes everything. Edit: Some of the arguments put forth here would have us ingore him or her.

What is wrong with the simple conclusion that based on what we know, ZPE cannot be tapped? This limitation applies to all science - based on what we know. Some seem to make a religion of science as if it were infallible.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Because it's not accurate to say, "Based on what we know ZPE cannot be tapped."

It is accurate to say, "Quantum Mechanics predicts that ZPE exists and that you cannot use it to do work. If Quantum mechanics is wrong on this then there is no reason for QM ZPE to exist. There may however exist some other form of energy similar to the ZPE that can be harnessed but there is so far no evidence as such nor any theory which predicts it. Therefore there is no reason to believe it exists."

Again it's very wrong to equate "may exist" with "does exist".
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Here we see that no one bothers to read what has already been established. When we test for ZPE, we do work with it; so this is already wrong.

Your years of studying physics should have at least taught you that not everything needs to do work to be physically observable.
 
  • #56
Originally posted by Joy Division
Because it's not accurate to say, "Based on what we know ZPE cannot be tapped."

It is accurate to say, "Quantum Mechanics predicts that ZPE exists and that you cannot use it to do work.

Based on the assumptions used in this hypothesis. Assumptions can be wrong or modified. Edit: or even transparent and unrecognized.

If Quantum mechanics is wrong on this then there is no reason for QM ZPE to exist. [/B]

Did I attack QM?

There may however exist some other form of energy similar to the ZPE that can be harnessed but there is so far no evidence as such nor any theory which predicts it. Therefore there is no reason to believe it exists."

Now you are into nothing but opinions. The consensus is the ZPE does exist. This could be wrong, but it is the mainstream opinion.

Again it's very wrong to equate "may exist" with "does exist". [/B]

I am only claiming the existence of ZPE to the extent that this is accepted by physics.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
Originally posted by Joy Division
Your years of studying physics should have at least taught you that not everything needs to do work to be physically observable.

Are you saying that since we do work when we demonstrate the Casimir Effect, this energy if free? You seem to be contradicting your own position.
 
  • #58
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Now you are into nothing but opinions. The consensus is the ZPE does exist. This could be wrong, but it is the mainstream opinion.

I am only claiming the existence of ZPE to the extent that this is accepted by physics.

Yes the consensus is that Quantum mechanical Zero Point Energy exists, the one that stipulates it cannot do work. I'm merely pointing out that your argument that only half of that statement may be wrong (Making ZPE useful.) is as arbitrary as saying the first part is wrong and that ZPE doesn't exist.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Again, I ask you for the theory to support your conclusions. The fact is, we don't have one.
[?] [?] [?] So I guess I went through that whole description of "theoretically impossible" for nothing? Theoretically impossible literally means impossible because of a scientific theory. In this case, HUP. Or better yet, ZPE theory itself (which is based on HUP).
I was told time after time that it is a "fact" that the expansion of the universe is slowing down. What more dramatic example do we need?
Thats not even close to the level of proof for HUP.
Russ, you want to make a legitimate scientific point of view into pseudoscience.
By definition, a legitimate scientific point of view is a position held by legitimate scientists - such as the ones you quoted. NONE claimed that they believed it even theoretically possible to harness ZPE. I submit you will not find one who will. However, you fallaciously took the corollary to be true: Since they didn't say it is absolutely impossible, it must be possible.
Ivan, Russ is giving you the scientific interpretation. You don't need 6 pages of esoteric mathematics to figure this one out. ZPE basically is the Heisenberg energy-time relation. The theory that supports his conclusions is quantum mechanics. Theory predicts that the zero point energy exists and you can never use it to do work, all in the same line.
Thank you, that is exactly my point.
Are you and Russ really psychics or something? Do you have secret knowledge?
Heh, apparently HUP and Pseudoscience Fallacy #1 are still secret knowledge even though I have posted them for all to see. [note: I didn't make them up]. Ivan, PLEASE take to heart PF#1. You're going to get yourself scammed someday if you don't.
Here we see that no one bothers to read what has already been established. When we test for ZPE, we do work with it; so this is already wrong.
That is simply not correct. Example: A voltemeter does no work.
Did I attack QM?
Yes. You did. ZPE is QM (is HUP). By saying ZPE theory is wrong, you are saying QM is wrong.
I am only claiming the existence of ZPE to the extent that this is accepted by physics.
Convenient. You are also claiming properties of ZPE contrary to the extent that is accepted by physicists. Have cake eat cake.

Ivan, your argument boils down to: 'If I ignore the part of the theory that says I'm wrong, then the theory says I'm right.'
 
  • #60
Lets see if we can actually agree on a couple of things.

ZPE theory says this (boiled down and simplified): Due to quantum fluctuations, energy exists even in a vacumm and is perfectly symetrical.

Do you agree that is what ZPE theory SAYS?

Now your OPINION is that the first part of the theory could be right while the second part (after the "and") could be wrong.

Am I correct in my interpretation of your opinion?
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Mechanism of Energy Conservation in Zero-Amplitude Sum of EM Waveforms
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Graduate Is there an alternative form of the zero point energy?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Graduate Interesting article on gravity and the zero-point energy
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Is a Virtual Photon Flux the Same as Ether?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Instability of classical system of point charges
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Graduate Zero Point Energy and Bose Einstein Condensates
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
Graduate Cause of spontaneous emission?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Fundamentals of the PN Junction
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Graduate Does Adding or Removing an Electron Change a Helium-3 Atom to a Boson?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K