Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I'm told by other physicists that the zero-point energy might actually 
>> be tappable, or at least that there's no entropic reason it couldn't be.
> 
>   Does that mean we might get a real-life gravity gun (aka. zero-point
> energy field manipulator) someday?-)

Well, the "zero-point energy" is (amongst other things) the remaining 
jiggle in atoms even at absolute-zero. It *has* to be there, because 
without it, you'd know both the momentum and position precisely. It's 
the "heat" that keeps liquid helium from freezing. It's the energy that 
comes from spontaneous pair creation and destruction. It's the driver of 
the Casimir effect.

Whether it has anything to do with gravity is unknown yet. We'll know, 
when the ToE is found that actually predicts accurately.

But this was more a discussion of whether essentially could you build a 
battery that never goes flat.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I'm told by other physicists that the zero-point energy might actually
> be tappable, or at least that there's no entropic reason it couldn't be.

	Interesting. Have no idea - my statistical mechanics is quite weak, and
I never learned much of it anyway.

-- 
ASCII stupid question... get a stupid ANSI!


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Well, the "zero-point energy" is (amongst other things) the remaining 
> jiggle in atoms even at absolute-zero.

  Isn't that kind of contradictory with the very definition of absolute
zero temperature? By definition if there's movement it's not absolute zero.

> It *has* to be there, because 
> without it, you'd know both the momentum and position precisely.

  Did Heisenberg really state that the principle applies at all possible
temperatures, including absolute zero? Does it break some kind of universal
law (like conservation of energy or conservation of momentum) if at absolute
zero the uncertainty principle does not apply?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/20 04:38:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Well, the "zero-point energy" is (amongst other things) the remaining 
>> jiggle in atoms even at absolute-zero.
> 
>   Isn't that kind of contradictory with the very definition of absolute
> zero temperature? By definition if there's movement it's not absolute zero.
> 
>> It *has* to be there, because 
>> without it, you'd know both the momentum and position precisely.
> 
>   Did Heisenberg really state that the principle applies at all possible
> temperatures, including absolute zero? Does it break some kind of universal
> law (like conservation of energy or conservation of momentum) if at absolute
> zero the uncertainty principle does not apply?
> 
ZPE is also the total energy of every photon that fits within any given finite 
space, limited by it's wave length. In any volume you will find at least one 
photon for every wave length that is less or equal than the dimentions of that 
volume.
Now, how much energy does a single gamma ray photon cary? And now, how many 
times it's wave length fits within an hydrogen atom?

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Well, the "zero-point energy" is (amongst other things) the remaining 
>> jiggle in atoms even at absolute-zero.
> 
>   Isn't that kind of contradictory with the very definition of absolute
> zero temperature? By definition if there's movement it's not absolute zero.

	From Wikipedia:

"Absolute zero is the point at which particles have a minimum energy,
determined by quantum mechanical effects, which is called the zero-point
energy."

	I guess one can define absolute zero your way as well - but then it
becomes physically unattainable.

>   Did Heisenberg really state that the principle applies at all possible
> temperatures, including absolute zero? Does it break some kind of universal
> law (like conservation of energy or conservation of momentum) if at absolute
> zero the uncertainty principle does not apply?

	Don't know if Heisenberg stated it, but I think physicists believe it
does. What makes those universal laws and not this?

-- 
ASCII stupid question... get a stupid ANSI!


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Well, the "zero-point energy" is (amongst other things) the remaining 
>> jiggle in atoms even at absolute-zero.
> 
>   Isn't that kind of contradictory with the very definition of absolute
> zero temperature? By definition if there's movement it's not absolute zero.

Only in layman's terms. Either you can't ever get to absolute zero, or 
there is a theoretical range where the energy is negative (said range 
also inaccessible in some sense).

But at this point you're pushing my knowlege of the subject.

>   Did Heisenberg really state that the principle applies at all possible
> temperatures, including absolute zero? 

I don't know. But look up "Bose-Einstein condensate", where you take one 
atom and make it about 10 feet across by getting it close enough to 
absolute zero.

 > Does it break some kind of universal
> law (like conservation of energy or conservation of momentum) if at absolute
> zero the uncertainty principle does not apply?

Honestly, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. I understand many 
of the conservation laws come from quantum measurements.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:38:17 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Well, the "zero-point energy" is (amongst other things) the remaining
>> jiggle in atoms even at absolute-zero.
>
>   Isn't that kind of contradictory with the very definition of absolute
> zero temperature? By definition if there's movement it's not absolute  
> zero.

To tie this back to your original query the concept of absolute zero  
resided in 'classical' science whereas ZPE belongs in quantum science.  
Once again we have two otherwise accurate methods disagreeing.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:38:17 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
> did spake, saying:
>>   Isn't that kind of contradictory with the very definition of absolute
>> zero temperature? By definition if there's movement it's not absolute 
>> zero.
> To tie this back to your original query the concept of absolute zero 
> resided in 'classical' science whereas ZPE belongs in quantum science. 
> Once again we have two otherwise accurate methods disagreeing.

Not as such; if absolute zero is defined as the temperature at which all 
molecular motion ceases, and ZPE is an accurate description of what 
exists, then one simply says "absolute zero is an unattainable property 
due to the phenomenon of zero-point energy".

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:10:11 -0000, Tim Cook  
<z99### [at] bellsouthnet> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:38:17 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>>   Isn't that kind of contradictory with the very definition of absolute
>>> zero temperature? By definition if there's movement it's not absolute  
>>> zero.
>> To tie this back to your original query the concept of absolute zero  
>> resided in 'classical' science whereas ZPE belongs in quantum science.  
>> Once again we have two otherwise accurate methods disagreeing.
>
> Not as such; if absolute zero is defined as the temperature at which all  
> molecular motion ceases, and ZPE is an accurate description of what  
> exists, then one simply says "absolute zero is an unattainable property  
> due to the phenomenon of zero-point energy".

But we know absolute zero is unattainable in non-isolated systems due to  
the implications of the second law of thermodynamics without the  
requirements of ZPE, however ZPE seems to set a limit on isolated systems  
too. IOW from a classical viewpoint there appears to be no reason why 0K  
for an isolated system cannot be achieved, but there is in quantum theory.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Not as such; if absolute zero is defined as the temperature at which all 
> molecular motion ceases, 

Actually, the original "absolute zero" was a calculation. If you take a 
litre of gas at 300K and chill it to 150K, it has about half the volume. 
If you chill it to 75K, it has a quarter the volume. Absolute zero was 
postulated as the temperature at which it would have no volume, 
originally, and was recognized as probably not how things would really 
work if you could manage to get things that cold. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message