Zero Point Energy

[hyzmarca]

wait are you telling me that if this kinda power souce existed and it somehow or for what ever reason over loaded it would destroy the entire universe? can someone please explain this to me because im not totally sure i understand this energy souce? why is it that powerful it could destroy everything? and when you say universe you mean our galaxy or like EVERYTHING THERE IS ?

Consider the steam generator. Steam is used to turn a turbine that produces electricity. In the process of turning the turbine the steam looses energy and cools, eventually becoming liquid water.
Now imagine for a moment that there are microbes living in the steam that cannot live in liquid water. When the steam loses its energy and becomes water then these microbes will die.

Space is analogus to the steam in this example. Despite what common sense and experience would have us believe, empty space has a kind of substance of its very own. We don't know nearly enough about the properties of empty space as a substance to make any reasonable assumptions about its energy states. It is simply beyond out experimental ability to determine one way or another.

If empty space has multiple energy states just as matter does, then using vacuum energy poses the same threat to us that steam energy poses to the fictional microbes in my earlier analogy. As a substance loses energy it changes physical state from a unstable state to a stable state. Gas becomes liquid and liquid becomes solid. Space may or may not be any different.
If the state of the vaccume does change it would be equivilant to the water in a bucket of fish freezing solid. The fish would all die. However, instead of fish in an isolated bucket, the solidification of space would probably destroy all matter as we know it.

[Three PhDs]

I agree with you completely on that, however, if someone told the Wright Brothers that flying is impossible and that the laws of physics dictate that man cannot fly, where would be if they gave up based on that logic?

Then that person would be wrong, because the laws of physics do not state that flight is impossible.

Granted man cannot actually fly by himself, he needs a plane to do it in, but then you could apply the same logic here.

No, it's not the same. There's a difference between thinking something is hard/impossible and knowing categorically from a tried and tested theory that something is impossible.

Technically speaking man cannot fly, so why did the Wright Brothers continue their so called dream of insisting that man could?

Because aircraft can fly.

Simply speaking, the human imagination is the source here, and if was not for people with imagination coming up with things like the light bulb, electronics, computers, airplanes, etc., then we would still be in the Stone Age right now.

All of which are possible. Certain things however, are not.

Scientifically speaking it is a miracle we came this far.

Nah, we took longer than we should have.

"They said the world was flat, was round. They said the sound barrier could never be broken. It was broken." --STV, Sybok

They were all wrong because they had no scientific evidence to back themselves up.

While I think me must all remain open to another relativity type discovery that changes our entire perception, as stated above, if you just off a building to test gravity, thats not an experiment you'll be able to repeat.

Even if tomorrow a theory of everything is found, it must be consistent with, and explain what we already know to be true, namely that objects with mass cannot go faster than c, the law of conservation of energy etc etc, it will still change nothing.

At most I think certain laws will be proven incomplete, in a fashion similar to how Relativity complements newtonian mechanics. Newton wasn't wrong, he just didnt know the whole story.

Yet everything on earth still operates perfectly well on a Newtonian basis.

While some things are undoubtedly impossible, we should be careful in declaring things impossible by inference.

Relativity is what makes the sun shine. The sun shines. Relativity is what explains gravitational lensing and time dilation. Gravitational lensing and time dilation are real. I trust relativity. It tells me I cannot go faster than c. I accept that is impossible. Why would you not?

I don’t know much about this topic but... correct me if I’m wrong but can we truly as a species say what is a FACT of science is a "LAW"? Are we advanced enough to say we know with certainty what is and isn’t the absolute truth of anything?

Yes.

Granted there are laws in place with physics that even the most open minded scientist couldn’t find a reasonable solution around. Was it not Einstein that said you cannot travel faster than the speed of light it goes against the principles of physics.. yet recently some MIT Drs. proved that there is light in space that travels faster than the speed of light granted I most def could have this information mixed up but from what I have been reading light can travel faster or slower than the speed of light.

You're wrong. He said anything with mass cannot reach the speed of light. Light has no mass. Technically it is travelling at infinite speed since as we were to see it, time has stopped for it, and it therefore does not age as it travels around the universe, essentially being at all places and points simultaneously.

Also we have found holes in space that are "Black Holes" don’t those defy laws of physics as well?

We haven't for certain found any, and no, black holes fit absolutely perfectly in with the laws of physics and relativity. Perfectly.

Not saying from what we learn from Stargate or any other sci-fi show I’m talking real black holes documented by NASA don’t those just by being real defies physics? You say that a person can’t simply jump off the empire state building and live because it would defy laws of gravity. Yet I could link you to sites of Para shooters who fall from even farther than the height of the empire state building with there parashoot not deploying and where able to walk away from it.

That's not what I proposed, and sidestepping the question. Do you think Gravity disappears for a parachutist?

You all bring very very valuable points and granted as all or most of you I’m no Dr. or rocket scientist however I do not believe we are developed enough as a species to simply say "we cant break that law because our basic science says its a law we cant break"

Then maybe you should read some more. It doesn't take much reading to understand how simple a lot of physics is. I suggest you begin with Einstein's relativity. You could read it in a few hours and add vastly to your understanding of physics in one fell swoop. After that I suggest Hyperspace by Michio Kaku, followed by the Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.

[Three PhDs]

Heh, I get this grammatically incorrect neg rep:

Your a ****.

from Hermiod for the post above, when I thought that while perhaps a little short, it was not offensive and even constructive at the end with a genuine suggested reading list.

I would have taken it up with him personally and privately, however he has neglected to receive PMs or emails.

[Lord §okar]

Really? It's remarkable that I can post the way I do here and not receive a single red pez to date while you get lambasted for what can only be interpreted as a completely unobjectionable and constructuve post.

[tony]

Consider the steam generator. Steam is used to turn a turbine that produces electricity. In the process of turning the turbine the steam looses energy and cools, eventually becoming liquid water.
Now imagine for a moment that there are microbes living in the steam that cannot live in liquid water. When the steam loses its energy and becomes water then these microbes will die.

Space is analogus to the steam in this example. Despite what common sense and experience would have us believe, empty space has a kind of substance of its very own. We don't know nearly enough about the properties of empty space as a substance to make any reasonable assumptions about its energy states. It is simply beyond out experimental ability to determine one way or another.

If empty space has multiple energy states just as matter does, then using vacuum energy poses the same threat to us that steam energy poses to the fictional microbes in my earlier analogy. As a substance loses energy it changes physical state from a unstable state to a stable state. Gas becomes liquid and liquid becomes solid. Space may or may not be any different.
If the state of the vaccume does change it would be equivilant to the water in a bucket of fish freezing solid. The fish would all die. However, instead of fish in an isolated bucket, the solidification of space would probably destroy all matter as we know it.

Thank you very much I think I understand it a little better. From reading what you wrote it seems this type of Science is waaaaay beyond us. I mean the concept isn’t we can def think this up but actually coming up with a viable means to create this kind of energy source seems WAAAAY beyond our capabilities. Not only has that it seems WAAAy to dangerous for us to even play with. The way you are explaining it, it’s basically like sitting in an in ground pool filled with gasoline with a lighted cigarette in your might

[Three PhDs]

If empty space has multiple energy states just as matter does, then using vacuum energy poses the same threat to us that steam energy poses to the fictional microbes in my earlier analogy. As a substance loses energy it changes physical state from a unstable state to a stable state. Gas becomes liquid and liquid becomes solid. Space may or may not be any different.

Space is not a state of matter, and comparing it to matter is folly.

[hyzmarca]

Space is not a state of matter, and comparing it to matter is folly.

If space were a state of matter then my analogy wouldn't be an analogy. The entire point of an analogy is to use a similarity between things that are distinctly dissimilar.

Space may or may not have different states. The analogy with water helps xplain the potential consequences of a change in the state of the vacuum, should such a thing ever occur.

[Lord §okar]

Now imagine for a moment that there are microbes living in the steam that cannot live in liquid water. When the steam loses its energy and becomes water then these microbes will die.
I find it difficult to imagine anything living in steam but I'll take your analogy in the spirit it was no doubt intended.

Space is analogus to the steam in this example. Despite what common sense and experience would have us believe, empty space has a kind of substance of its very own.
What substance would that be? Could you post some links describing/referencing it?

If empty space has multiple energy states just as matter does, then using vacuum energy poses the same threat to us that steam energy poses to the fictional microbes in my earlier analogy.
Black holes are contantly siphoning particles out of nothing (but they also surrender the necessary energy, too). The Casimir effect has been experimentally verified and does work as a direct result of zero point fluctuations and yet space isn't freezing.

Anyway, I've never read any article that describes space as a material medium nor that said material could be altered by exploiting vacuum energy (if it even is possible)

[Three PhDs]

If space were a state of matter then my analogy wouldn't be an analogy. The entire point of an analogy is to use a similarity between things that are distinctly dissimilar.

Space may or may not have different states. The analogy with water helps xplain the potential consequences of a change in the state of the vacuum, should such a thing ever occur.

My apologies, you're right, I appear to have misread your post.

[skritsys]

After reading all these theories and facts I have to say one thing:
MAY I BE EXCUSED NOW? MY BRAIN IS FULL!

[hyzmarca]

What substance would that be? Could you post some links describing/referencing it?

Substance was an inaccurate term to describe the quantum foam, but I wasn't going for accuracy. I was simply trying to put it in the most comprehendable lay terms possible.

Black holes are contantly siphoning particles out of nothing (but they also surrender the necessary energy, too). The Casimir effect has been experimentally verified and does work as a direct result of zero point fluctuations and yet space isn't freezing.

Yet. By the same logic one could say that the sun is constantly using fuel but it hasn't burned out yet. This doesn't mean that it never will.

[Three PhDs]

Heh, just got another neg rep for this post though this time from skritsys saying that I openly disrespect other people's opinion. I don't see that I do. About the harshest thing I said was "You're wrong" when responding to "I most def could have my information mixed up" or some other such. What is it with you people? Someone comes along and tells you something you don't want to hear, so you neg rep them? There is nothing insulting in my post, it's all merely factual corrections of other members' assumptions. If you can't handle honest constructive criticism, or being corrected when you're wrong then don't come here. It's not even like I think I'm always right either. Have a look at this very thread where I openly and in no uncertain terms apologise to someone for misreading what they've said. You two should really grow up.

[skritsys]

in all fairness there is an off-topic forum for issues where you can vent your frustrations out on people and post things like your rep stuff, and last time I checked when on a forum sometimes when you post stuff you run the risk at any time of getting neg reps from anyone. something called free speech. Every person that posts on this board has a right to express themselves. If you have an issue with someone PM them.
Correction: you have the freedom to give me a neg rep too. And I will not post it anywhere on the board that someone gave me a neg rep.

[Three PhDs]

I don't have any issue with your ability or right to give a neg rep, I am just a little astounded that people saw fit to use an expletive and claim I was disrepecting opinions etc. If you read that post again, you'll see I was clear, concise and constructive.

[tony]

Fight the Power Huah!