The Zero Point Module: Fact or Fiction?

[Splitsecond]

so its theoretically possible, just not scientifically as far as we know

In terms of a zero point module, as described in the show, it is not even remotely scientifically possible.

[morrismike]

It looks cool and glows, that's got to count for something.

[TheTraveler]

Again, I doubt you're really a researcher, no scientist would ever make the mistake of claiming something as proven. Buzzwords, hardly, these are words used to describe something which, if used in any other context would be misunderstood. Most likely is the case we are refering to two different things with the same terminonlogy. You're thinking too simply, and I'm thinking metaphsycally.

My resources range from any number of papers I've read on string theory, to Hawkins and Heisneberg's ideas on micro gravity.

Further, if you think that relativity is unusable at the quantum level, you're wrong on so many levels. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean its not possible.

Oh, and lastly, the uncertainty principle is a measure of potential possibility from a relative point in space at the quantum level. It is not that the "universe doesn't know yet" where a particle is going, its that we don't.

[morrismike]

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

If I ever need to move a pair of 1 microgram plates a millimeter apart, I'll be sure to google up the casimer effect (or I'll just use a pair of tweezers). Sorry, I couldn't help it.

[Splitsecond]

Again, I doubt you're really a researcher, no scientist would ever make the mistake of claiming something as proven. Buzzwords, hardly, these are words used to describe something which, if used in any other context would be misunderstood. Most likely is the case we are refering to two different things with the same terminonlogy. You're thinking too simply, and I'm thinking metaphsycally.

My resources range from any number of papers I've read on string theory, to Hawkins and Heisneberg's ideas on micro gravity.

Further, if you think that relativity is unusable at the quantum level, you're wrong on so many levels. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean its not possible.

Oh, and lastly, the uncertainty principle is a measure of potential possibility from a relative point in space at the quantum level. It is not that the "universe doesn't know yet" where a particle is going, its that we don't.

A particle is in a superposition of states with no definite information unless at some point in the particle's life it will be observed. If a particle is never observed, it never has definite values. That information is never generated. This is not due to inaccurate measuring tools and is not due to a lack of human understanding. This has been empirically proven. It is known where a particle started and where it ends, the unknown is always how it got between the two positions

The terminology you used does not string together. I know enough about these specific areas of physics to know that you're using pop-science literature without understanding the basic concepts. In my last year as a physics undergrad I did a project on teaching string theory to non-science people. I recognise the language for what it is. Also string theory is far from fact.

I'm a physicist, therefore I think like a physicist, which doesn't mean simple. You on the other-hand are clearly not a physicist and metaphysics is mostly nonsense.

The definition of gravity used in general relativity does not fit into the standard model and does not fit with quantum mechanics or the electroweak and strong forces. All indications point the relativity being an incomplete theory that breaks down at the quantum-scale. It's the very fact that it's impossible that proves that we don't understand it.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is delta_X delta_P >= h_bar / 2
That's all it is. It states that X and P can never both have definite values.

Also, yes I am a researcher. I have a first-class BSc in physics and am 3-5 months away from completing my PhD thesis in accelerator physics. I have at least one post-doc offer. I have been the primary author on 1 peer-reviewed report and 1 conference paper. I have been an author on 2 other papers and have 4 papers to publish in a month's time. I am project lead on an international software R&D project for orbit steering software on an accelerator.

[The Stig]

Actually, that's not true. It's based on scientific words, not scientific fact. A writer either thinks up a plot device and fits a scientific name to it or reads a popular scientific theory and extracts the words from it in order to create a plot device.

There was a special on stargate that went into great detail the science behind some of the ideas and how it is possible. Just because we can't do it now does not mean it isn't possible.

[Splitsecond]

There was a special on stargate that went into great detail the science behind some of the ideas and how it is possible. Just because we can't do it now does not mean it isn't possible.

True, however some of the stuff on Stargate isn't even remotely possible. Even the stuff that may be possible or already exists usually has some inaccuracies in them. This is not to suggest that the writing is bad, in fact I think the writing is good, but the writers are not scientists and most people are very ignorant of the majority of scientific knowledge. This is not particularly a bad thing either, although I believe everyone can benefit from learning more science and maths. The average person knows almost nothing compared to the scope of human understanding.

[thekillman]

so a ZPM is just a bunch of techno-nonsense.


mmm.


can, assuming that subspace DOES exist, a ZPM be created?

[Splitsecond]

No, because zero point energy is the minimum energy a system can hold due to quantum mechanical effects, as such it is not extractable.

[thekillman]

thank you

[morrismike]

so a ZPM is just a bunch of techno-nonsense.


mmm.


can, assuming that subspace DOES exist, a ZPM be created?

Are you going to the darkside?

[thekillman]

i give more value to Splitseconds' opinion, well more like expertise, than yours and TT's.

SS>MM because MM=biased already
SS>TT because SS has a proper argumentation structure

[TheTraveler]

You're giving credence based on argument structure. Ok then follow this:

X (ZPM) is a value of fiction, based on Y (scientific theory presented to the writers by Ron Blecker [military advisor and primary technical advisor] and Mika McKinnon [main physics consultant])

If said Y, as presented by the two consultants is possible, and even able to be considered plausible, the X must therefore be possible (to some degree).
(Keep in mind that I am not arguing that X as presented in Stargate is accurate to the technology, as it is fiction, I am only stating that such a technology could be viable in our future, such that, as I explained in my first post in this thread, that we could take advantage of the quantum variable state and the potential it has.)

[morrismike]

You're giving credence based on argument structure. Ok then follow this:

X (ZPM) is a value of fiction, based on Y (scientific theory presented to the writers by Ron Blecker [military advisor and primary technical advisor] and Mika McKinnon [main physics consultant])

If said Y, as presented by the two consultants is possible, and even able to be considered plausible, the X must therefore be possible (to some degree).
(Keep in mind that I am not arguing that X as presented in Stargate is accurate to the technology, as it is fiction, I am only stating that such a technology could be viable in our future, such that, as I explained in my first post in this thread, that we could take advantage of the quantum variable state and the potential it has.)

You just committed an appeal to authority and argument to ignorance fallacies.

[morrismike]

i give more value to Splitseconds' opinion, well more like expertise, than yours and TT's.

SS>MM because MM=biased already
SS>TT because SS has a proper argumentation structure

ad hominem attacks now?