The Zero Point Module: Fact or Fiction?

[morrismike]

It is certainly true that having a car battery sized power device capable of running a city is a cool concept. The feasibility of such a device is in doubt for no other reason than the interface between the power device and the electrical distribution system is not capable of being created with any level of technology. Having such a device hooked up with "jumper cables" is laughable at best and how this device doesn't melt down from electrical losses is problematic. IF room temperature superconductors were available and something like a zpm were feasible, THEN the power supply would need to be the size of a house if for no other reason the terminals would have to be spaced from one another for electrical seperation and natural and/or force cooling to occur. Any insulation system which allows it to be smaller than a house would also result in heat buildup and a cascading failure of the conductors.

[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

There is a difference between being biased and not falling for an appeal to ignorance argument. Every time someone brings up some magical new power source which can't outpace a hamster on a wheel they are committing an argument to ignorance.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance).
This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

[TheTraveler]

Ah, but you are assuming that this is an argument of ignorance, it is not. It is an argumentum ad libitum meant to instill discussion. More accurately, the argument is that there is a certain level of knowledge we have of how our universe works. That level is always being expounded upon and changed. What you claim is quantum variability today, maybe a forgotten notion tomorrow. My argument is that our technology is expanding rapidly, our understanding of quantum state potential is becoming stronger with each new discovery, and such a technology as a ZPM which would work on such knowledge becomes a stronger and stronger possibility, as prescribed by the Chief Technology Advisor and Chief Physics Consultants who work for Stargate has said.

You argue in absolutes, I am arguing in possibilities. You attempt to subsume the argument by saying what you know is absolute "proven" to be true, I argue that there are things you do know yet know (as you haven't even yet reached PhD level in your area of study) and it is possible you do not know that the ZPM isn't possible or not.

Secondly, my first post was an attempt to show the flaw in our numeric system and to show an inherent issue with our understanding of Zero, which you obviously ignored for the sake of preserving yoru paradigm. Geat job at being a researcher.

[Aer'ki]

First off...it's ancient tech so don't assume that McKay knows what he's talking about. He could have got it completely wrong.

Think of the ZPM as a dimensional 'pocket' in which energy is stored. Subspace is that other dimension. The ZPM creates a pocket of artificial subspace(not connected to hyperdrive subspace) in which the energy is stored 'like a dam'.

The physical part of the ZPM is small because the energy is stored in subspace, so you don't have to have some gigantic reactor taking up room after room of space in a ship or city, just a hand sized super battery for easy carry and insertion.

That 'battery' can be recharged at will and can release it's charge all at once or gradually at varying rates. Where they ancients charged up the things is another question entirely.

The whole Zero Point nonesense can be said as how they store the energy inside the artifical pocket of subspace.

Or you can just assume that Rodney is full of it.

[Splitsecond]

Ah, but you are assuming that this is an argument of ignorance, it is not. It is an argumentum ad libitum meant to instill discussion. More accurately, the argument is that there is a certain level of knowledge we have of how our universe works. That level is always being expounded upon and changed. What you claim is quantum variability today, maybe a forgotten notion tomorrow. My argument is that our technology is expanding rapidly, our understanding of quantum state potential is becoming stronger with each new discovery, and such a technology as a ZPM which would work on such knowledge becomes a stronger and stronger possibility, as prescribed by the Chief Technology Advisor and Chief Physics Consultants who work for Stargate has said.

You argue in absolutes, I am arguing in possibilities. You attempt to subsume the argument by saying what you know is absolute "proven" to be true, I argue that there are things you do know yet know (as you haven't even yet reached PhD level in your area of study) and it is possible you do not know that the ZPM isn't possible or not.

Secondly, my first post was an attempt to show the flaw in our numeric system and to show an inherent issue with our understanding of Zero, which you obviously ignored for the sake of preserving yoru paradigm. Geat job at being a researcher.

The point I have made multiple times is that it has been empirically shown that quantum uncertainty is a universal phenomena that does not come from inaccurate measurements or incomplete human understanding. Our understanding of quantum mechanics hasn't moved for decades, we reached the limit of understanding. What we learn now are the implications, applications and phenomena of quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics is nonsensical when applied to all possible human reference points. We can't understand quantum mechanics, but we can learn the mathematics and they forbid the use of zero point energy as a power source.

You argue in hand-wavy nonsense, I argue using scientific understanding. There are things that have been fundamentally proven using empirical testing techniques. Of course there are things I don't know, but I know, as does every good physicist, that a ZPM is nonsense. I may not have finished my PhD, but I have learned everything I need to learn in my specific research area in order to do my job after I finish.

I did not debate your proof of the flaw with zero, because I'm well aware that 0 and infinity are exceptional numbers that cause inconsistencies in mathematics. It also wasn't relevant to the topic because you assumed the existence of sub-space, which is wrong, and you misunderstood the concept of zero point energy. It's precisely because I'm a researcher that I can identify the fundamentals of your theory and point out the flaws. Instead of reading 'pop science' books and papers on the subject, you should learn quantum mechanics. The maths you need isn't hard to grasp and it becomes blatantly obvious what zero point energy means and why you can't extract it.

[thekillman]

There is a difference between being biased and not falling for an appeal to ignorance argument. Every time someone brings up some magical new power source which can't outpace a hamster on a wheel they are committing an argument to ignorance.

there is a difference in dispowering one's arguments by valid point, and just misreading what he meant (and i doubt you read alot of it in your first post), and dispowering something that isnt true cause it wasnt said or meant that way.

you said, "alpha particles cant be turned to electrons." well, you're right, but he never said it was possible. he said, he turned alpha radiation to beta radiation by having the helions impact matter, causing alpha radiation absorbtion while knocking off an electron. thus, alpha radiation to beta radiation. though the radiation itself wasnt transformed, he explained properly how he meant it.

if you had said, "the principle you apply can never reach such amounts," then fine. valid point. but you're biased cause in annother thread, you did exactly the same. so dont make yourself look stupid and instead read through what is said. all you need is 1 proper argument. if you know a bit or two about language and argumentation, a guy of your intellect obviously should know, you could easily apply a few basic things of argumentation, forcing him to reply with a maximum post lenght to try and dispower your arguments. and seeing as Splitsecond does agree that its impossible, i think that dispowering the arguments you could post = impossible.


so if you're such a science guy, behave more like one

[TheTraveler]

Thank you TheKillMan. And he is right the method I describe of particle transference (which is my word for alpha radiation absorbtion and beta radiaton ejection-its a lot easier to say) on its own will not generate all that much energy. There is a limit to the electrons being ejected by the transferent metal, and there is a limit to how much alpha radiation can be emitted. However, you're assuming, Splitsecond, that I was refering to only using alpha to beta radiation transference. I was not, in fact the beta radiation is meant to create an oscillation in a standing steady state electron field created by natural magnets. The standing oscillation would generate electricity much like any other generator.

The point I have made multiple times is that it has been empirically shown that quantum uncertainty is a universal phenomena that does not come from inaccurate measurements or incomplete human understanding. Our understanding of quantum mechanics hasn't moved for decades, we reached the limit of understanding. What we learn now are the implications, applications and phenomena of quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics is nonsensical when applied to all possible human reference points. We can't understand quantum mechanics, but we can learn the mathematics and they forbid the use of zero point energy as a power source.

Now I know for a fact you're not a scientist of any sort, you're a loud mouth who has no working knowledge and only assumes he knows what he's talking about. We have not empirically shown that quantum uncertainty is a universal constant. That is an absurd statement in and unto its self. We have not been outside of our own little solar system to know if it is or is not universal. We assume it to be universal, that doesn't mean it is. We have stalled in the study and advancement in quantum mechanics because there is only so much our technology can do. And regardless of if you believe it to be true or not, we are limited in how we measure such particles. Human error can cause a multitude of things to be wrong when it comes to quantum mechanics, and our very means of calculating and measuring such particles is based on a numeric system that is broken. I would think that someone who claims to be a scientist would know that by now. Lastly there is no forbiddence upon the use of zero point energy, we just don't know how to use it yet. We hardly even understand quantum mechanics, otherwise we wouldn't have the arguments between string theory and quantum gravity theorists that we do. And don't give me "thats a bunch of buzz words" crap either, its getting to be annoying coming from someone who does not even show one ounce of understanding the philosophy of science.

[Splitsecond]

Now I know for a fact you're not a scientist of any sort, you're a loud mouth who has no working knowledge and only assumes he knows what he's talking about. We have not empirically shown that quantum uncertainty is a universal constant. That is an absurd statement in and unto its self. We have not been outside of our own little solar system to know if it is or is not universal. We assume it to be universal, that doesn't mean it is. We have stalled in the study and advancement in quantum mechanics because there is only so much our technology can do. And regardless of if you believe it to be true or not, we are limited in how we measure such particles. Human error can cause a multitude of things to be wrong when it comes to quantum mechanics, and our very means of calculating and measuring such particles is based on a numeric system that is broken. I would think that someone who claims to be a scientist would know that by now. Lastly there is no forbiddence upon the use of zero point energy, we just don't know how to use it yet. We hardly even understand quantum mechanics, otherwise we wouldn't have the arguments between string theory and quantum gravity theorists that we do. And don't give me "thats a bunch of buzz words" crap either, its getting to be annoying coming from someone who does not even show one ounce of understanding the philosophy of science.

I assure you, I'm a physicist. I'm currently at an accelerator running experiments. I've recently been spending hours of my life looking at measurements of electron bunches. You're obviously not a scientist because you fail to understand what 'universal' means. Quantum mechanics is fundamentally true, it has been proven. It's a fact, a fundamental fact of our universe, like the rest mass of an electron, the relative weakness of gravity and the speed of light in a vacuum. They are truths of our universe, without them being what they are, the whole of our universe becomes unstable. Quantum uncertainty is not due to inaccurate measuring devices, we've proven this. It's a common misconception amongst the non-physics world that nothing can be completely proven. It's not human error, it's not bad maths (which isn't broken, you just use the wrong notation, you should use the bra-ket method), it's not arrogance, it's empirical fact. Zero point energy is the minimum energy in a system, it can't be extracted. Nobody understands quantum mechanics, but some of us do know how it works. String theorists and quantum gravity theorists are arguing about why gravity is so weak. They both know that quantum mechanics is a fact, which means that the String theorists know they can never directly observe a string and must look at large-scale consequences. Neither theory is at odds with quantum uncertainty and neither theory even comes close to explaining it away. As I have stated on many occasions, quantum uncertainty has been empirically proven to be a universal phenomenon and in no way the result of human error/stupidity or bad measurements. Give me a few months to write up my thesis and I'll be a doctor of philosophy and I can sort out that 'science-philosophy' problem for you. Also, Physicist, not nut-job.

P.S. the term penguin diagram was coined as a result of a drunken bet on a game of darts and the mind-altering effects of weed. What a legend.

[TheTraveler]

Yeah, no. Quantum uncertainty has been proven to be the most accurate theory to date, it hasn't been proven True. Science is about the growth of knowledge, nothing is ever proven to be true, it is only proven to work to a certain degree. I'm done arguing with you. If you were really a scientist, a physicist actually working at some accelerator, you'd have no time to be on here posting.

And you're wrong, it is bad math. Our very numeric system is broken. There is no such thing as absolute empirical fact. Just because you know how something works does not mean you know why something works, and until you do, your knowledge of how it works is both incomplete and not fully accurate. It is not a misconception among people who are not physicists that nothing can be absolutely proven, I know too many physicists that would literally chew your head off for saying that. No, I'm sorry, but your credibility has been lost with me.

[Buba uognarf]

It is certainly true that having a car battery sized power device capable of running a city is a cool concept. The feasibility of such a device is in doubt for no other reason than the interface between the power device and the electrical distribution system is not capable of being created with any level of technology. Having such a device hooked up with "jumper cables" is laughable at best and how this device doesn't melt down from electrical losses is problematic. IF room temperature superconductors were available and something like a zpm were feasible, THEN the power supply would need to be the size of a house if for no other reason the terminals would have to be spaced from one another for electrical seperation and natural and/or force cooling to occur. Any insulation system which allows it to be smaller than a house would also result in heat buildup and a cascading failure of the conductors.

Actually its more like something the size of a car battery powering a planet for thousands of years...

[morrismike]

Actually its more like something the size of a car battery powering a planet for thousands of years...

Holding back some water for 10000 years took 3 zpms with a dome shape shield that would be self reinforcing (like an eggshell). This hardly equals powering a planet for thousands of years.

[Splitsecond]

Yeah, no. Quantum uncertainty has been proven to be the most accurate theory to date, it hasn't been proven True. Science is about the growth of knowledge, nothing is ever proven to be true, it is only proven to work to a certain degree. I'm done arguing with you. If you were really a scientist, a physicist actually working at some accelerator, you'd have no time to be on here posting.

And you're wrong, it is bad math. Our very numeric system is broken. There is no such thing as absolute empirical fact. Just because you know how something works does not mean you know why something works, and until you do, your knowledge of how it works is both incomplete and not fully accurate. It is not a misconception among people who are not physicists that nothing can be absolutely proven, I know too many physicists that would literally chew your head off for saying that. No, I'm sorry, but your credibility has been lost with me.

The degree to which quantum uncertainty has been proven to work is the whole of our universe. The people I work with have loads of little moments during the day where they wait for an email or a bit of code to run. These forums happen to be my way of killing time. The numbers are fine, it's the notation that's bad. The notation you used, as well as the ordinary notation that we use break down at 0 and infinity. The rule 0^0=1 doesn't correctly fit, any notation that relies on that rule is slightly off. There are some notations that don't use the rule. Actually, you can fully understand how a car works in very intricate detail without ever learning particle physics, so you don't always need to know 'why' in order to fully know 'how'. Also, it's the consequences, not the 'why' that makes zero point energy unusable. Absolute truth: The rest mass of an electron in our universe is 511 keV. No real physicist would ever debate that that was true, so you see there are absolute truths. A ZPM, as described in Stargate, is completely impossible in our universe, either the descriptions wrong or the very fundamental laws of our universe have to change (not because we're wrong, they simply change) to such an extent as to make our lives physically impossible. It doesn't matter if you believe me or not, I am correct.

[raduzhok]

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.

Very interesting. Thanks.

[Buba uognarf]

Holding back some water for 10000 years took 3 zpms with a dome shape shield that would be self reinforcing (like an eggshell). This hardly equals powering a planet for thousands of years.

Maybe the ZPMs weren't full? ZPMs can apparently destroy solar systems or at least planets.

[morrismike]

Maybe the ZPMs weren't full? ZPMs can apparently destroy solar systems or at least planets.

or maybe they were full and that's all there is