What is energy?

[Ben Dhyan]

Um...no, why?


Are you aware of the procedure for approving patents and how little depends on whether it the invention or product works vs. whether it is not infringement, illegal, dangerous, etc?
A popular, sensationalist type book was published in ~2005-2009 on using "zero-point energy" some time in the future. Recent articles I've read (some I stumbled on looking for sources for you or for concise material I could quote that explains things better than I can) have concerned the potential use of zero-point energy.

All you have is a guy whom you misquoted out of context and whose invention failed that you used misleadingly:


The typical description of zero-point energy for you comes from patents? Seriously? That's what you're going with?

Do just read patents as a hobby or is it the Einstein connection that motivates quote-mining patents?



Who do you think gets contracts from NASA, DARPA, the CIA, the NSA, private think-tanks, private militaries, and other government agencies and private companies dealing with proprietary and/or classified information about cutting edge technologies? MIT, Harvard, JHU's APL, etc. When DARPA initiated ARPAnet (the original internet) it was universities that made up most of the internet. The programming language (scripting, technically) that the entire world wide web is based upon? It was developed for academics to share information. Do you know who first produced the method to take MSU readings from satellites to construct a global temperature record? Two scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. They are still under contract with the NOAA to produce these records. The most abstract and probably least applied area in mathematics (i.e., arguably we're not even dealing with the sciences anymore) is number theory. Cryptography in its entirety is number theory.

Basically, the "breakthroughs" you imagine that applied scientists developed came mostly from the "educational orthodoxy" you disdain. The number of PhDs with government contracts who are not, will not, or haven't already held university appointments is tiny.


You misquoted part of it, ripped from context and asked me to interpret it. Then, you declare some sort of triumph because someobody was awarded proprietary status for junk that ended up nowhere and as nothing. Your (mis)quote-mining of patents is supposed to make me think you have the faintest idea of physics, the sciences, or scientific research? What's next? How we should understand quantum physics because of Verizon Fios Quantum?


Actually I read the entire patent in two different forms and looked into the applicants background, just to be sure how seriously I should take the patent in its entirety versus your original misquote taken out-of-context.



I quoted your original question with the original quote above. It wasn't the full-text, but a (mis)quote-mined piece of a paragraph in a patent that you described as a "typical description" of zero-point energy.



I'm not. I just know enough people with contracts requiring clearance (hell, my uncle works for JHU's APL and requires both clearance and special military grade encryption/protection systems (hardware and software) even for his phone. HCII conferences have military personnel every year. I've never done contract work for the government but have for research companies and think-tanks and companies in DC that I am not sure what they do and I don't want to know. Napalm was developed right near my lab.

Sorry for the delay, had tech problems you know.....

So you have made claims about lack of credibility of Dr Mead's patent text. Rather than continue to engage in tit for tat general rebuttals, let's examine the science of zpe together in the spirit of learning. I don't mind if parts of my understanding are found to be lacking, I'm about error correction.

So what is your understanding of the science of zpe? For starters, my understanding is that space vacuum zpe is omnipresent and has infinite or approaching infinite energy density.....do you agree with this understanding?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sorry for the delay, had tech problems you know.....

That is always a pain.

So you have made claims about lack of credibility of Dr Mead's patent text.

Not exactly. It's all about context. It would be great to have Einstein here, as he would have the knowledge of a physicist and an ex-patent clerk. Without Einstein, it is safe to say that patents do not conform (and are not meant to conform) to the same standards expected of published research, nor are they evaluated using the same criteria. Work on technology which can make use of zpe isn't exactly new, but it is also unrealized. Were I to propose a system and send it in to an IEEE journal or an APS journal or any number of other publishers, they'd have it reviewed for accuracy and legitimacy (there was a minor scandal some months ago when it turned out a number of peer-reviewed articles in engineering and computer sciences were published despite the fact that they were written by a program designed to extract text from other papers and construct a new paper; that's an extreme example of non-legitimacy, but still). For a patent, the issues are legal.

After all, we have a patent but no product, just a legal record that an idea from the 90s belongs to this gentleman if some ~20 years later he can make it work.

So what is your understanding of the science of zpe?

It depends upon the field I'm working in (though not in the way that usually means). For example, imagine for I'm a mini-golf fanatic and am interested in the zpe of a 100 gram golf ball confined to a 5 meter line that ends at the hole. I can calculate it:

I can even convert it to electron volts if I wanted, but I've never come across a mini-golf course with an infinite potential well. In quantum mechanics, things are a bit different but not as much as you'd think. I might occasionally deal with h/2 or h-bar/2, but nothing like I would in quantum electrodynamics. Moreover, as QED is a field theory, unlike quantum mechanics, I'm now dealing with quantum vacuums that I can't even express using QM.

For starters, my understanding is that space vacuum zpe is omnipresent and has infinite or approaching infinite energy density.....do you agree with this understanding?

I would say that the infinite density part is right and that quantum vacuums are omnipresent, but vacuums. So as a concise summary I guess I would agree the above is one way of putting it.

 

[Tiapan]

Energy is all that isn't nothing, Unbound energy is any wave that travels in a straight line at the speed of light, where as energy locked up in standing waves are called matter.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is always a pain.


Not exactly. It's all about context. It would be great to have Einstein here, as he would have the knowledge of a physicist and an ex-patent clerk. Without Einstein, it is safe to say that patents do not conform (and are not meant to conform) to the same standards expected of published research, nor are they evaluated using the same criteria. Work on technology which can make use of zpe isn't exactly new, but it is also unrealized. Were I to propose a system and send it in to an IEEE journal or an APS journal or any number of other publishers, they'd have it reviewed for accuracy and legitimacy (there was a minor scandal some months ago when it turned out a number of peer-reviewed articles in engineering and computer sciences were published despite the fact that they were written by a program designed to extract text from other papers and construct a new paper; that's an extreme example of non-legitimacy, but still). For a patent, the issues are legal.

After all, we have a patent but no product, just a legal record that an idea from the 90s belongs to this gentleman if some ~20 years later he can make it work.


It depends upon the field I'm working in (though not in the way that usually means). For example, imagine for I'm a mini-golf fanatic and am interested in the zpe of a 100 gram golf ball confined to a 5 meter line that ends at the hole. I can calculate it:

I can even convert it to electron volts if I wanted, but I've never come across a mini-golf course with an infinite potential well. In quantum mechanics, things are a bit different but not as much as you'd think. I might occasionally deal with h/2 or h-bar/2, but nothing like I would in quantum electrodynamics. Moreover, as QED is a field theory, unlike quantum mechanics, I'm now dealing with quantum vacuums that I can't even express using QM.


I would say that the infinite density part is right and that quantum vacuums are omnipresent, but vacuums. So as a concise summary I guess I would agree the above is one way of putting it.

Good, so from experiments with Casimir effect, we see that energy has been extracted from the vacuum. Zero point energy apparently comprises oscillations whose wavelengths are smaller than electrons, and whose lower limit is not known. I like this elementary visualization of the principle behind the Casimir effect.....that of the center plate being moved towards the left plate as the energy imbalance increases between the two spaces, as the zpe frequencies with longer wavelengths get excluded from the left side due to the narrower plate distance, and longer wavelengths get added to the zpe on the right hand side as the plate distance gets wider. Thus the plates are pushed together with increasing Casimir effect in time...

I have a question...would the zpe waves be EM in nature, just like oscillations at radio/light frequencies? I would suppose the answer is yes....based on my own intuition and Dr. Mead's patent.

Btw, if this is so, I do think Dr Mead is on to something, at least in theory....getting the difference beat frequency between two zpe super high frequencies beyond the present technological capability to even measure, that has a wavelength that we can handle with extant technology, is a brilliant idea. All that is needed is a nonlinear environment for the two zpe oscillatory frequencies to produce a mixing, and a means to extract the difference frequency...quite simple principle wise. I presume that non-linearity mixing factor is addressed in the patent details.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Good, so from experiments with Casimir effect, we see that energy has been extracted from the vacuum.

I wouldn't put it like that. In fact this is one of the big problems with retaining the terminology from classical physics. The uncertainty principle forbids a "classical" vacuum, and thus quantum vacuums are seething with activity of various kinds of activity. More importantly, they define the lowest possible energy state, and thus to extract energy from them would be to go below the absolute minimum.

Zero point energy apparently comprises oscillations whose wavelengths are smaller than electrons, and whose lower limit is not known.

The Casimir effect, while a marvel of experimental ingenuity and a historical stride in the history of progress in physics, isn't zpe or quantum vacuums but one (and the first, I believe) experimental realization of the effects of such states. The lower limit is usually known, and regardless this limit is zpe. That's how it is defined.

and longer wavelengths get added to the zpe on the right hand side as the plate distance gets wider.

If you add to zero-point energy, it isn't zero-point energy anymore.

I have a question...would the zpe waves be EM in nature, just like oscillations at radio/light frequencies?

No, although they would be similar in some respects. Recall that EM waves are classical waves (which don't exist). Recall also that (as shown in my previous post) one can derive the zero-point energy of massive objects like a golf ball. Many of the effects, such as oscillation or the emission of a particular wavelength when an atom is perturbed in such a way as to force a "shift" in its orbit, do have similarities with EM. But we're dealing with extremely low energy physics here. This is more where the standard model comes in as this is how we derive the fundamental forces and is the basis for all quantum experiments.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I wouldn't put it like that. In fact this is one of the big problems with retaining the terminology from classical physics. The uncertainty principle forbids a "classical" vacuum, and thus quantum vacuums are seething with activity of various kinds of activity. More importantly, they define the lowest possible energy state, and thus to extract energy from them would be to go below the absolute minimum.

But I understand that GR's Cosmological Constant is based on the vacuum of space as being empty, the lowest or no energy state. QM otoh has the vacuum of space at infinite energy density. so the two theories are presently incompatible in this respect.

The Casimir effect, while a marvel of experimental ingenuity and a historical stride in the history of progress in physics, isn't zpe or quantum vacuums but one (and the first, I believe) experimental realization of the effects of such states. The lower limit is usually known, and regardless this limit is zpe. That's how it is defined.

In light of my statement above, I don't understand this...

If you add to zero-point energy, it isn't zero-point energy anymore.

I didn't mean add to zpe, that can't be done, the zpe's energy density is already infinite. What I tried to convey is that if we have two plates close together, only frequency wavelengths smaller than the distance between the plates can be present to push the plates apart, while these same frequencies plus those longer ones that are excluded from resonating between the plates together are of greater energy and thus overcomes the lessor outward pressure energy to 'push' the plates together. All this experiment is taking place in the vacuum, and iirc, they used some spring mechanism associated with the plates being compressed, to, when released, did work in this world. Only miniscule of course, but proved that zpe vacuum energy can be engineered to accomplish work.

No, although they would be similar in some respects. Recall that EM waves are classical waves (which don't exist). Recall also that (as shown in my previous post) one can derive the zero-point energy of massive objects like a golf ball. Many of the effects, such as oscillation or the emission of a particular wavelength when an atom is perturbed in such a way as to force a "shift" in its orbit, do have similarities with EM. But we're dealing with extremely low energy physics here. This is more where the standard model comes in as this is how we derive the fundamental forces and is the basis for all quantum experiments.

This I don't get also, perhaps the GR/QM incompatibility problem mentioned above is getting in the way... The fact of virtual particles bubbling into existence in the subatomic vacuum of an atom, means that, since there is an electric component and a magnetic moment associated with, say, a virtual positron, these inherent E and M properties of the virtual lepton arose from the zpe, and must therefore be intrinsic to it....it seems....

 

[Gambit]

I don't know of any legitimate reason to conflate energy as the word is used in physics with energy as the word is used in some religious, paranormal, or spiritual discourse.

Here's a legitimate reason.

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." - Richard Feynman

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And one might also add...science doesn't even pretend to know what the omnipresent dark energy is, and I see it not unreasonable to consider seriously that the omnipresent dark energy, or zpe, may be the same 'stuff' for which the religious concept 'spirit' stands for.....or the metaphysician's aether...

 

[Yerda]

Here's a legitimate reason.

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." - Richard Feynman

Why would you say that this quote is a sufficient
response to Sunstone's point?

 

[Gambit]

Why would you say that this quote is a sufficient
response to Sunstone's point?

I would think it is self-evident. If physics doesn't actually know what energy is, then who is to say that physical energy and spiritual energy are not convertible or interchangeable?.

 

[Yerda]

I would think it is self-evident. If physics doesn't actually know what energy is, then who is to say that physical energy and spiritual energy are not convertible or interchangeable?.

We can speculate freely but it looks like you are suggesting that since Richard Feynman said we don't know what energy is, we can say what we like about it. That would be dodgy reasoning, I suspect.

Do you have the context for that quote?

Does Feynman have anything to say about the convertibility of spiritual and physical energy?

 

[`mud]

I have a about a dozen or so questions about quantum field theory and the sub-attributes involved in the formulation of sophisticated mathematics involved in the kind of guesswork involved in the performance of calculations needed to duplicate any manner of proof that any of these formulations really work.
All of that crap aside......
what in the hell is energetic plasmid occurrences that happen in the Cosmos ?
I'd guess that 99.9% of all 'energy' in the Cosmos is in the photons that compose it.
Beyond that guesswork...who really knows !
~
'mud

 

[Gambit]

We can speculate freely

You're simply reiterating my point.

Do you have the context for that quote?

He made it in the context of discussing the conservation of energy.

Does Feynman have anything to say about the convertibility of spiritual and physical energy?

No. But Freud does. (Freud calls it psychic energy, not spiritual energy.)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have a about a dozen or so questions about quantum field theory and the sub-attributes involved in the formulation of sophisticated mathematics involved in the kind of guesswork involved in the performance of calculations needed to duplicate any manner of proof that any of these formulations really work.
All of that crap aside......
what in the hell is energetic plasmid occurrences that happen in the Cosmos ?
I'd guess that 99.9% of all 'energy' in the Cosmos is in the photons that compose it.
Beyond that guesswork...who really knows !
~
'mud

The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy[/URL]zero point energy is infinite, and so probably comprises more than 99.9+% of energy in the Cosmos. This subject is very confusing apart from the maths which is beyond me, for there are a number of schools of research which results in differing theories as one would expect when blind men are trying to describe the elephant. However Cosmic omnipresence is the one common attribute applied to the following cosmic conceptualizations....ZPE, Dark Energy, Space/Quantum Vacuum, CMBR, Higgs Field, etc.. Note that the older field of metaphysics used the term Aether, and the religious term is Spirit.[/URL]

 

[Yerda]

You're simply reiterating my point.

Can you see where there may be some question regarding the validity of such speculation?

 

[Gambit]

Can you see where there may be some question regarding the validity of such speculation?

I see no reason why I should not be at liberty to speculate on the nature of energy, especially when the nature of energy is considered an open question.

 

[Yerda]

No.

Fair enough. Did you ever get around to saying what you think energy is?

 

[Gambit]

Fair enough. Did you ever get around to saying what you think energy is?

Energy is the capacity to do work.

 

[shawn001]

You're simply reiterating my point.



He made it in the context of discussing the conservation of energy.



No. But Freud does. (Freud calls it psychic energy, not spiritual energy.)

"In The Ego and the Id, Freud argued that the id was the source of the personality's desires, and therefore of the psychic energy that powered the mind."

Energy (psychological) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a legitimate reason.

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." - Richard Feynman

You're simply reiterating my point.



He made it in the context of discussing the conservation of energy.



No. But Freud does. (Freud calls it psychic energy, not spiritual energy.)

The below is older to what scientist know now even. But that term is old and doesn't apply anymore, in psychology or neuroscience.

"
What is Ego?

What ego is depends largely on who you ask. Philosophical and psychological definitions abound. Popularly, ego is generally understood as one's sense of self-identity or how we view ourselves. It may encompass self-confidence, self-esteem, pride, and self-worth, and is therefore influenced by many factors, including genes, early upbringing, and stress.

The popular concept of ego is a far cry from what Sigmund Freud elaborated at the turn of the 19th century in his seminal work on psychoanalytical theory. Freud distinguished between primary (id) and secondary (ego) cognitive systems and proposed that the id, or unconscious, was characterized by a free exchange of neural energy and more primitive or animistic thinking. It was the job of the ego, the conscious mind, to minimize that free energy, to "bind" it and thereby regulate the impulses of the unconscious. It was Freud's attempt to "link the workings of the unconscious mind to behavior," says Joseph T. Coyle, M.D., chair of psychiatry and neuroscience at Harvard School of Medicine/McLean Hospital and a Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives member.

Ego constructs continue to be used in some psychoanalytical therapies, but beyond that, the term seems to be falling out of favor in modern psychiatry. ("Ego is so last century," quips Coyle.) Dana Alliance member Jerome Kagan, Ph.D., professor emeritus of psychology at Harvard, says: "Ego is a terrible word. In Freudian theory, ego has a meaning–not a very precise one, but a meaning. But you can't take the word ego out of Freudian theory and apply it in non-Freudian ways. It just doesn't work."

The unhealthy ego: What can neuroscience tell us about our 'self'?

 

[Yerda]

Energy is the capacity to do work.

Sorted.