Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Zero Point Module: Fact or Fiction?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The Zero Point Module: Fact or Fiction?

    I have pondered over the zpm for some time. Thinking of how the technology works, the function of using subspace energy to generate usable energy.

    It would seem to me that the zpm works on a principle of Zero mathematics or Null math, in which we measure the potential energy of a space and utilize it by taking it out of the space it occupies and then concentrate it into a single point (a singularity) whch has regulated out put of any number of radiations that exist.

    For the sake of argument, lets say the main radiation of this singularity is muons and alpha radiation. Muons are harmless, and Alpha radiation can be turned into beta radiation by using some type of material as a transitory substance which collects the alpha radiation as it is bombarded, and releases electrons (beta radiation).

    So first the break down of potential subspace, a lesson in null math;

    We use numbers as a means of measuring, counting, and so on. However, math, as we use it currently is subject to many flaws which we deem exceptions to the standard rules. For example: 0/0 =0, 0/1= 0, 1/0= undefined and (where I= infinity) I/I=1, I/0=I, 0/I=0.

    So the question is, how do we arrive at the numbers we do?
    Most mathematicians use set theory to define numbers. That is we give a measure of a number an equivalence based on the number of cardinal (exact) pairings between more than one measures.

    Let us use an example: I=Infinity, i=(I-x), cardinal sets are marked with an : (semi colon)

    I:I is then one, there is one comparable and equal measures of a set.

    I= a b c d e f g ...
    I:I would then look like

    aa
    bb
    cc
    dd
    ...

    Now I:i would not be 1, because there is an uncertain number of cardinal sets.

    Assuming I is like the above example and i is A B C D...
    then I:i
    aA
    bB
    cC
    dD
    e?
    f?

    So what about zero and the other numbers? Imagine that we have a truly empty space. Nothing in it, no energy, nothing; we'd call this null and it's represented by the empty set->[]

    []:I would then be zero. There is no pairing between nothing and something. Unfortunately this gives two major headaches. One: 0/0 then equals 1 and Two: we have something between Nothing and Something, which we can define as null space, or subspace, or hyperspace. Your pick.

    (Wait 0/0=1? 0~[]:I> ([]:I)/([]:I) nulls cancel out, they are nothing, you can't compare nothing to nothing. The division line acts as a cardinal set. I/I=1. How does the division line act like a cardinal set: Well lets take 2/2, you have two apples, and two more apples. Treat the first two apples as set X (I) and treat the second set of apples as set Y (I) I=I, so X:Y is a single pairing structure of exact cardinality, much like the example above of I:I, hence 2/2=1)

    So what does this have to do with the zpm you mght ask. Well this is where it gets complicated, but we're all Stargate geeks so you should beable to follow this.

    A singularity works on both a macro (our level) and micro (quantum level) state. The value on which it functions is in essence a cardinality between the macro and micro. What I mean here is that in the micro universe the quantum level, and even sub-quantum level, space is abundent. There is more null than I sort to speak. Between the particles of energy that make up the macro universe as we see it, there is space, and plenty of it. And at the quantum level such things like strings, and leap quantum gravity, (which personally I think are one in the same-lets not get me started on this) produce potential energy.

    What potential energy: well a particle at the quantum state has innumerable possible states to be in. They react to the slightest of changes, they are as much a part of the actual functional state as they are of the potential state. A Singularity of any sort (black holes, wormholes, temporal rifts) rely on this potential energy. What could the quantum particles in this null comparison potentially do. We can measure that possibility with a fractalized set theory.

    So let's set up a fractalized set theory, but to do that we need to first examine standard set theory.

    Set theory works linearly, like we see numbers.

    []:I=0 (no cardinal pairs)
    []:I:I=1 (one set of cardinal pairs)
    []:I:I:I=2 (2 sets)
    []:I:I:I:I=3 (3 sets)

    And most mathematicians uses that as a method of constructing numbers, but this is wrong past the number one.

    Eamining the third grouping (number 2) a major flaw can be seen with the linear structure. That is as follows: Designating each I as a different value, x, y, z, []:x:y:z is 2 linearly, fractionalized, its 3.

    []:x=0
    []:y=0
    []:z=0

    X:y=1
    X:z=2
    z:y=3

    This fractionalized measuring system becomes exponential.

    Examining linear number 3:
    []:x:y:z:a
    x:y=1
    x:z=2
    x:a=3
    y;z=4
    y:a=5
    z:a=6

    In essence in a fractionalized set theory, we can measure potential in greater numbers of dimensions of a quantum function. And that is why a zpm should work. Because, a zpm relies on potential energy of a singularity. Where we measure the singularity as being at a measure of 3, its actually,at the quantum level, really using the potential energy of 4 dimensions.

    Now I know this probably sounds crazy, but consider the measures of everyday life from that we use from a meta-dimension that is objective.

    We not only measure what we assume, but also the potential variables as well.

    Look at f=ma (force = mass * acceleration) Assuming we have a mass of 10kg
    and a force of 160 newtons then the acceleration 16m/s^2

    Lets examine that for a moment though.

    10>[]:I:I:I:I;I
    160>[]:I:I:I:I:I:I:I:I:I:I:I:I:I:I:I:I:I:I
    16>[]:I:I:I:I:I:I:I

    if we follow the fractionalized rule, then we also have an equatable comparison for all other factors for a set potential value of each measure of the number.
    So say we change the acceleration from 16m/s^2 to 14m/s^2 then the available potential answer would be supplied in the potential number set of 160newtons. Based on the displacement in the acceleration chart. So z:c is two less then 16. So the answer to the equatoin of force is two less then the 160 in the chart.
    []:x:y:z:a:b~
    x:y 1
    x:z 2
    x:a 3
    x:b 4
    y:z 5
    y:a 6
    y:b 7
    z:a 8
    z:b 9
    a:b 10

    []:x:y:z:a:b:c:d
    x:y 1
    :z 2
    :a 3
    :b 4
    :c 5
    :d 6
    y:z 7
    :a 8
    :b 9
    :c 10
    :d 11
    z:a 12
    :b 13
    :c 14
    :d 15
    a:b 16
    :c 17
    :d 18
    b:c 19
    :d 20
    c:d 21

    If we keep 160 maximized (which its not technically speaking) and keep 10 maximized which it is (its the top of its potential limit) then
    16 at group a:b of the linear cardinal set 7 may produce the answer, as well as a:d, a:c, z:d, and z:c so we a potential range with a number of potential answers.

    Examining: z:c (14) maintaining the maximized 10kg, the force would

    Using
    []:__x:__y:__z:__a:__b:__c:__d:__e:__f:__g:__h:__i:__j
    x 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013
    y 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 025 026
    z 027 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 038 039
    a 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052
    b 053 054 055 056 057 058 059 060 061 062 063 064 065
    c 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078
    d 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091
    e 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104
    f 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117
    g 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
    h 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143
    i 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 152 153 154 155 156 157
    j 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170



    So the answer should be 140 newtons. line H is two sets beind J and the exponential relative of 2 behind in the acceleration chart is 18 behind (2*9)

    If we put the acceleration above 16, say 17.

    f=10*17, 17 is only one set ahead of 16 in the acceleration chart, thus (1*9) numbers away. F=170.

    So the validity of null math works even with conventional numbers if applied right. It shows potential as well as actual information based on a relative exponentiality which is very similar to leap quantum gravity and string theory.
    “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

    #2
    How exactly are you turning helium nucleus into electrons? Is this some new age science being passed off as fact again?

    Comment


      #3
      Actually its a technology currently available at least on the radiation level used today. They're called betametric or alphametric batteries. Betametric batteries use a radiation source that outputs beta radiation to power a device. Alphametric or Alphavoltaic batteries have a core that radiates alpha radiation (a helium nucleus) that then bombards a heavy electron filled element (in this case gold) the gold obsorbs the alpha radiation while at the same time the impact of the alpha particle ejects beta radiation which is then used to power a device. Of course our current version of this are small, we're talking less than a microwatt of power coming out of these batteries. But they do exist. My hypothesis is that the ZPM uses a similar principle, but using a super heavy element possible the imagined naquida. A singularity would output large amounts of radiation which would push out electrons. The ZPM is in essence a steady state electric generator or SSEG.
      “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

      Comment


        #4
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        How exactly are you turning helium nucleus into electrons? Is this some new age science being passed off as fact again?
        please.... dont project your anger against all the people here.

        Comment


          #5
          A zero point module extracts zero point energy from subspace. That last sentence makes no sense. Zero point energy is un-extractable, it is the minimum energy a system can have. Subspace is a nonsensical plot device that has no theoretical basis for existence. Therefore the using zero point energy bit and subspace bit from the description of a ZPM are nonsense.

          We can therefore form a scientifically accurate description of a ZPM:
          A zero point module is nonsense.

          Comment


            #6
            agreed

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by morrismike View Post
              How exactly are you turning helium nucleus into electrons? Is this some new age science being passed off as fact again?
              if by new age you mean almost a century old, we've had direct charging generators that can run off alpha radiation since 1913, they aren't very powerful though, you really should do some background research before you start running your mouth, this is what the second time you've done something like this in a week

              Comment


                #8
                I think that you couldn't directly extract zero point energy but you can theoretically generate power through vacuum energy which is sort of a byproduct of zero point energy as vacuum energy can interact with normal matter and energy i.e. the casimir effect,spontaneous symmetry breaking, etc.


                my spidey sense is telling me morrismike is going to call bs on the casimir effect

                Comment


                  #9
                  ZPMs are not nonsense. You are assuming that zero point energy is the minimum. You are ignoring the limitations of both our understanding of the quantum potential state, and the expansiveness of subspace.

                  My null math above attempts to illustrate that there is an expansive amount of potential energy at the quantum level which can be used to generate electrical energy through radiation.

                  Your assumption that its nonesense only shows that you're incapable of thinking beyond the paradigm that current quantum theory and string theory has set up. I'm certainly glad that you're not the researcher that is supposed to be pioneering new discoveries into this area.

                  SSEG's on the other hand have a great potential, and have existed in limited forms for sometime. I think, however, that the technology with a bit of tweaking could produce alot more electricity at a decreased life span.

                  From what I've read most of the earlier SSEGs had huge life spans, near equal to the electron shell of the transitory material used for electron ejection (easily ten, fifteen, even up to thirty years of life) at the cost of any useful electric generation. By ramping up a short electron field build up with a magnetic net that is in variance, the electron capture could be increased dramatically and thus increase both efficiency and over all output of the SSEGs.
                  “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by RubberJesus View Post
                    I think that you couldn't directly extract zero point energy but you can theoretically generate power through vacuum energy which is sort of a byproduct of zero point energy as vacuum energy can interact with normal matter and energy i.e. the casimir effect,spontaneous symmetry breaking, etc.
                    That's not correct. zero point energy and vacuum energy are entirely separate phenomena. Zero point energy is the residual energy that exists in a system because one or more parameters are unable to reach zero due to the uncertainty principle. Vacuum energy and the Casimir effect come from spontaneous pair production of virtual particles, which then go on to have a net effect on the surrounding real particles. Hawking Radiation stems from the same phenomena. The problem with exploiting vacuum energy is that extracting it will probably not result in a net energy gain, but it would be handy if it could be exploited.

                    Originally posted by TheTraveler View Post
                    ZPMs are not nonsense. You are assuming that zero point energy is the minimum. You are ignoring the limitations of both our understanding of the quantum potential state, and the expansiveness of subspace.

                    My null math above attempts to illustrate that there is an expansive amount of potential energy at the quantum level which can be used to generate electrical energy through radiation.

                    Your assumption that its nonesense only shows that you're incapable of thinking beyond the paradigm that current quantum theory and string theory has set up. I'm certainly glad that you're not the researcher that is supposed to be pioneering new discoveries into this area.
                    The uncertainty principle has been proven to be a universal truth. It's not based on a lack of human understanding or inept human measurements. As a result zero point energy is a universal truth. Also by its very definition it is the minimum energy in a system. If it was not the minimum energy a system could have, then it wouldn't be zero point energy. The expansiveness of subspace is zero, because there is no such thing. The very idea of it makes no physical sense. I have investigated and studied quantum physics and am currently applying for a research post into quantum integrability. I can definitely tell you that a ZPM, as defined in the show, is total utter garbage. The difference between an open-minded person and an open-minded researcher is the researcher's understanding of what has been proven impossible and what has not. I can think 'beyond' modern quantum theory (which by the way includes string theory, since it is a metaphysical theory that is unprovable) but I know that what you are suggesting is not 'beyond' quantum theory, it's down a completely different lane. It would require a lot of empirically tested physics to be wrong before it could even be considered possible.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Splitsecond, why cant Subspace exist?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Subspace is very ill-defined in science fiction and has no counterpart in real scientific theory. In fact, the descriptions of it, which are normally vague and centre around the name as the main description of what it is, are at odds with the current understanding of what space and spacial dimensions actually are. It's the ramblings of someone who doesn't know physics trying to come up with an explanation for why an impossible thing is possible.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by RubberJesus View Post
                          if by new age you mean almost a century old, we've had direct charging generators that can run off alpha radiation since 1913, they aren't very powerful though, you really should do some background research before you start running your mouth, this is what the second time you've done something like this in a week
                          I can create more power than that by using a hamster in a spinning wheel (my hamster test is brutal - sorry) or walking across a carpet with rubber soled shoes. This doesn't convert alpha particles to beta particles it uses a stream of alpha to release betas - this would be a transducer that consumes energy since the power out is far less than the power input and one form of energy or motive is converted into another (an engineer would call this a power consuming transducer vs. a power generation device). In the case of a solar cell that is great because there is an abundence of irradiance going to waste that can be harnessed but for this??? How is something that is never going to make more than a few microwatts of power going to amount to anything? If you have a large enough alpha source to make a go of this why not shield it and use the heat created from the attenuation to run a conventional generator vs. something whose efficiency is probably just a percent or two.

                          I don't have a problem with the way-out stuff if it is portrayed that way instead of dressing up novelties as the wave of the future.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            It depends which version we're talking about.. if it's the Canadian version (Zed-Pee-Em), it's fiction..
                            "You spent 7 years as MacGyver and you can't figure this one out? We got belt buckles and shoe laces and a piece of gum, build a nuclear reactor for crying out loud.."

                            "...."

                            Comment


                              #15
                              This doesn't convert alpha particles to beta particles it uses a stream of alpha to release betas
                              and how the HELL is that different from what he said?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X