Zero Point Energy and Antigravity(aka Electrogravitic research

[Ivan Seeking]

Some related reading:

OK I'm starting to review this and other information, but the one glaring question thus far for me is this: If we can't do work with ZPE, then what are we doing here? Perhaps I will answer my own question shortly...

Since those early days, however, sophisticated equipment has made it much easier to study the Casimir effect. A new generation of measurements began in 1997. Steve Lamoreaux, who was then at the University of Washington in Seattle, measured the Casimir force between a 4 cm diameter spherical lens and an optical quartz plate about 2.5 cm across, both of which were coated with copper and gold. The lens and plate were connected to a torsion pendulum - a twisting horizontal bar suspended by a tungsten wire - placed in a cylindrical vessel under vacuum. When Lamoreaux brought the lens and plate together to within several microns of each other, the Casimir force pulled the two objects together and caused the pendulum to twist. He found that his experimental measurements agreed with theory to an accuracy of 5%.

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6/1

Quintessence
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8/1

Casimir Effect:
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00045486-6600-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00045486-6600-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3

 

[Tyger]

I thought I pretty much debunked the Casimir effect as a potential source of ZPE in a post titled "Is vacuum energy ficticious?, and I even found a quote by Casimir himself saying that it seemed to be related to the surface tension of the material and wasn't part of the vacuum.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
But because I am bored, I will explain why this particular perpetual motion device is false...

Ain't the internet great?

Finally, if these zero point energy guys were on to something why aren't they building examples to make believers out of all of us instead of selling book after book?

May I answer that? Please?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Tyger
I thought I pretty much debunked the Casimir effect as a potential source of ZPE in a post titled "Is vacuum energy ficticious?, and I even found a quote by Casimir himself saying that it seemed to be related to the surface tension of the material and wasn't part of the vacuum.

What about the experimental results that agree with predictions?
I will read your debunking you troublemaker...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
May I answer that? Please?

Please! Before the mystery kills us.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am finding that the language used by some experts is not quite as absolute as otherwise indicated. For example:

In summary, there is no doubt that the ZPE, vacuum energy and Casimir effect are physically real. Our ability to manipulate these quantities is limited but in some cases technologically interesting. But the free-lunch crowd has greatly exaggerated the importance of the ZPE. Notions of mining the ZPE should therefore be treated with extreme skepticism

---Dr. Matt Visser; Washington University in St. Louis

Next:

These vacuum fluctuations may have effects, both subtle and gross, on the behavior of microscopic particles and on the world around us. Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov speculated that they may give rise to the force of gravity. At present, nobody knows how to exploit the zero-point energy in a macroscopic device that delivers sizable amounts of energy.

Point being made...he continues:

There is, however, a considerable fringe element (similar to those attracted to UFOs, astrology, numerology and so on) of people who speculate and fantasize about the possibility of exploiting the zero-point energy to achieve various technical marvels and the long-sought 'perpetual motion.' Consider yourself warned."

----Dr. John Obienin; University of Nebraska at Omaha



The crux of this issue being this [from Baez] I would assume:

"One should not take this vacuum energy too literally, however, because the free-field theory is just a mathematical tool to help us understand what we are really interested in: the interacting theory. Only the interacting theory is supposed to correspond directly to reality. Because the vacuum state of the interacting theory is the state of least energy in reality, there is no way to extract the vacuum energy and use it for anything.

The key point being:"Because the vacuum state of the interacting theory is the state of least energy in reality"
---Dr. John Baez; University of California at Riverside.

IMO, this limitation should be stated exactly as such with no further interpretation.

"The zero-point energy cannot be harnessed in the traditional sense..."
---Paul A. Deck, assistant professor of chemistry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I am finding that the language used by some experts is not quite as absolute as otherwise indicated...

That's because scientists rarely ever speak in absolutes. There was however nothing at all equivocal about those quotes. They all said what we have been saying: its a real, interesting, and useless effect.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
That's because scientists rarely ever speak in absolutes.

And for good reason.

Remind me again, is the rate of expansion of the universe increasing or decreasing?

"The zero-point energy cannot be harnessed in the traditional sense..."
---Paul A. Deck, assistant professor of chemistry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
its a real, interesting, and useless effect.

Could you direct me to a comprehensive theory of everything to confirm this assertion?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Could you direct me to a comprehensive theory of everything to confirm this assertion?

Just reread the quotes you posted.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Just reread the quotes you posted.

So your position is that we have a unified theory? Furthermore, my quotes constitute this theory?

I think the correct interpretation here is that we can see no way to access this energy. This does not rule out the possibility forevermore. It only means that at this point in time, with our level of knowledge, no way can be imagined that this could be possible. Without a TOE, to assert anything more than this is fallacious at best.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
So your position is that we have a unified theory? Furthermore, my quotes constitute this theory?

Yeah, I said nothing of the sort.

I think the correct interpretation here is that we can see no way to access this energy. This does not rule out the possibility forevermore. It only means that at this point in time, with our level of knowledge, no way can be imagined that this could be possible. Without a TOE, to assert anything more than this is fallacious at best.

Your interpretation is wrong. Like the "light barrier" this is known as a "theoretical impossibility." Its not a matter of us not having figured it out how to harness it, it simply isn't possible.

Now of course our theories evolve and old theories are often found to be wrong, but I've said it before: I wouldn't bet against quantum mechanics. Our understanding of it will certainly change, but ZPE is part of a farily important implication that will likely not change.

This is known as Pseudoscience Fallacy #1.* "Anything is possible given that we don't know everything." Wrong. Just because we don't know everything, does NOT mean that anything is possible. Certain things are known to a high degree of certainty to be NOT POSSIBLE.

Further, since the same theory that predicts that it exists also says its not harnessable you MUST accept (or reject) both sides of the coin TOGETHER. If you want to throw out QM (I wouldn't), you throw out BOTH parts of the prediction. Its a catch-22 and I'm sorry, but you can't get out of it.



* Pseudoscience Fallacy #1 is whichever pseudoscience fallacy I'm discussing right now.

 

[russ_watters]

Something else I should have addressed before:

And for good reason. [re: scientists rarely speak in absolutes]

Your implication is that they don't speak in absolutes because there are no absolutes. Thats not correct. Scientists don't speak in absolutes because like anyone else they don't want to stick their neck out even on a one and a billion chance that they are wrong. And the certainty of the issue has little bearing on that.

Plane crashes are rare and surviving them even rarer, but they still give you the safety speach every time you fly.

This is a use of language issue. You're reading a hedge where there isn't one. Thats just how they talk. Those statements you quoted are VERY unequivocal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Something else I should have addressed before: Your implication is that they don't speak in absolutes because there are no absolutes. Thats not correct. Scientists don't speak in absolutes because like anyone else they don't want to stick their neck out even on a one and a billion chance that they are wrong. And the certainty of the issue has little bearing on that.

Plane crashes are rare and surviving them even rarer, but they still give you the safety speach every time you fly.

This is a use of language issue. You're reading a hedge where there isn't one. Thats just how they talk. Those statements you quoted are VERY unequivocal.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I was more interested in the proper scientific interpretation here.

"At present, nobody knows how to exploit the zero-point energy in a macroscopic device that delivers sizable amounts of energy."

Again, I ask you for the theory to support your conclusions. The fact is, we don't have one. The rest of this is just a language problem.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Yeah, I said nothing of the sort. Your interpretation is wrong. Like the "light barrier" this is known as a "theoretical impossibility." Its not a matter of us not having figured it out how to harness it, it simply isn't possible.

Now of course our theories evolve and old theories are often found to be wrong, but I've said it before: I wouldn't bet against quantum mechanics. Our understanding of it will certainly change, but ZPE is part of a farily important implication that will likely not change.

This is known as Pseudoscience Fallacy #1.* "Anything is possible given that we don't know everything." Wrong. Just because we don't know everything, does NOT mean that anything is possible. Certain things are known to a high degree of certainty to be NOT POSSIBLE.

Further, since the same theory that predicts that it exists also says its not harnessable you MUST accept (or reject) both sides of the coin TOGETHER. If you want to throw out QM (I wouldn't), you throw out BOTH parts of the prediction. Its a catch-22 and I'm sorry, but you can't get out of it.



* Pseudoscience Fallacy #1 is whichever pseudoscience fallacy I'm discussing right now.

Russ, you want to make a legitimate scientific point of view into pseudoscience. Where do you think that I got most of my ideas? The answer is while studying physics in college. History is replete with closed minds that were wrong. I was told time after time that it is a "fact" that the expansion of the universe is slowing down. What more dramatic example do we need? For 50 years the only "valid" question was whether the expansion would stop or not. I am sure that you would have argued with equal fervor against anyone who questioned this interpretation.

 

[Joy Division]

Ivan, Russ is giving you the scientific interpretation. You don't need 6 pages of esoteric mathematics to figure this one out. ZPE basically is the Heisenberg energy-time relation. The theory that supports his conclusions is quantum mechanics. Theory predicts that the zero point energy exists and you can never use it to do work, all in the same line.

If the energy-time relation is wrong, (as it would have to be to allow you to harness ZPE) then there is no guarantee that the ZPE even exists.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Ivan, Russ is giving you the scientific interpretation. You don't need 6 pages of esoteric mathematics to figure this one out. ZPE basically is the Heisenberg energy-time relation. The theory that supports his conclusions is quantum mechanics. Theory predicts that the zero point energy exists and you can never use it to do work, all in the same line.

If the energy-time relation is wrong, (as it would have to be to allow you to harness ZPE) then there is no guarantee that the ZPE even exists.

Why do so many people refuse to recognize that we have limits? We do not posses all knowledge. I understand the reason that we can't use this energy in any practical way right now. But to argue that this will always be true is nothing less that pseudoscience. We don't know.

Could someone show me where in the scientific method prognostication is indicated as a function of science?

Are you and Russ really psychics or something? Do you have secret knowledge?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Theory predicts that the zero point energy exists and you can never use it to do work

Here we see that no one bothers to read what has already been established. When we test for ZPE, we do work with it; so this is already wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Until we know physics to be complete, we never know when someone like Einstein will come along and introduce a new variable that changes everything. Edit: Some of the arguments put forth here would have us ingore him or her.

What is wrong with the simple conclusion that based on what we know, ZPE cannot be tapped? This limitation applies to all science - based on what we know. Some seem to make a religion of science as if it were infallible.

 

[Joy Division]

Because it's not accurate to say, "Based on what we know ZPE cannot be tapped."

It is accurate to say, "Quantum Mechanics predicts that ZPE exists and that you cannot use it to do work. If Quantum mechanics is wrong on this then there is no reason for QM ZPE to exist. There may however exist some other form of energy similar to the ZPE that can be harnessed but there is so far no evidence as such nor any theory which predicts it. Therefore there is no reason to believe it exists."

Again it's very wrong to equate "may exist" with "does exist".

 

[Joy Division]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Here we see that no one bothers to read what has already been established. When we test for ZPE, we do work with it; so this is already wrong.

Your years of studying physics should have at least taught you that not everything needs to do work to be physically observable.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Because it's not accurate to say, "Based on what we know ZPE cannot be tapped."

It is accurate to say, "Quantum Mechanics predicts that ZPE exists and that you cannot use it to do work.

Based on the assumptions used in this hypothesis. Assumptions can be wrong or modified. Edit: or even transparent and unrecognized.

If Quantum mechanics is wrong on this then there is no reason for QM ZPE to exist. [/B]

Did I attack QM?

There may however exist some other form of energy similar to the ZPE that can be harnessed but there is so far no evidence as such nor any theory which predicts it. Therefore there is no reason to believe it exists."

Now you are into nothing but opinions. The consensus is the ZPE does exist. This could be wrong, but it is the mainstream opinion.

Again it's very wrong to equate "may exist" with "does exist". [/B]

I am only claiming the existence of ZPE to the extent that this is accepted by physics.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Your years of studying physics should have at least taught you that not everything needs to do work to be physically observable.

Are you saying that since we do work when we demonstrate the Casimir Effect, this energy if free? You seem to be contradicting your own position.

 

[Joy Division]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Now you are into nothing but opinions. The consensus is the ZPE does exist. This could be wrong, but it is the mainstream opinion.

I am only claiming the existence of ZPE to the extent that this is accepted by physics.

Yes the consensus is that Quantum mechanical Zero Point Energy exists, the one that stipulates it cannot do work. I'm merely pointing out that your argument that only half of that statement may be wrong (Making ZPE useful.) is as arbitrary as saying the first part is wrong and that ZPE doesn't exist.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Again, I ask you for the theory to support your conclusions. The fact is, we don't have one.

[?] [?] [?] So I guess I went through that whole description of "theoretically impossible" for nothing? Theoretically impossible literally means impossible because of a scientific theory. In this case, HUP. Or better yet, ZPE theory itself (which is based on HUP).

I was told time after time that it is a "fact" that the expansion of the universe is slowing down. What more dramatic example do we need?

Thats not even close to the level of proof for HUP.

Russ, you want to make a legitimate scientific point of view into pseudoscience.

By definition, a legitimate scientific point of view is a position held by legitimate scientists - such as the ones you quoted. NONE claimed that they believed it even theoretically possible to harness ZPE. I submit you will not find one who will. However, you fallaciously took the corollary to be true: Since they didn't say it is absolutely impossible, it must be possible.

Ivan, Russ is giving you the scientific interpretation. You don't need 6 pages of esoteric mathematics to figure this one out. ZPE basically is the Heisenberg energy-time relation. The theory that supports his conclusions is quantum mechanics. Theory predicts that the zero point energy exists and you can never use it to do work, all in the same line.

Thank you, that is exactly my point.

Are you and Russ really psychics or something? Do you have secret knowledge?

Heh, apparently HUP and Pseudoscience Fallacy #1 are still secret knowledge even though I have posted them for all to see. [note: I didn't make them up]. Ivan, PLEASE take to heart PF#1. You're going to get yourself scammed someday if you don't.

Here we see that no one bothers to read what has already been established. When we test for ZPE, we do work with it; so this is already wrong.

That is simply not correct. Example: A voltemeter does no work.

Did I attack QM?

Yes. You did. ZPE is QM (is HUP). By saying ZPE theory is wrong, you are saying QM is wrong.

I am only claiming the existence of ZPE to the extent that this is accepted by physics.

Convenient. You are also claiming properties of ZPE contrary to the extent that is accepted by physicists. Have cake eat cake.

Ivan, your argument boils down to: 'If I ignore the part of the theory that says I'm wrong, then the theory says I'm right.'

 

[russ_watters]

Lets see if we can actually agree on a couple of things.

ZPE theory says this (boiled down and simplified): Due to quantum fluctuations, energy exists even in a vacumm and is perfectly symetrical.

Do you agree that is what ZPE theory SAYS?

Now your OPINION is that the first part of the theory could be right while the second part (after the "and") could be wrong.

Am I correct in my interpretation of your opinion?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Look, you both want to take out of context every point just to make yours appear objective. I have stated many times that based on our present level of understanding, we can't use ZPE for any useful application. If you insist on arguing that you know all that may be possible, then there is no use in arguing the point any further. Your position is one that I understand and that is indefensible. You are arguing a point of religion - absolute belief.

This is not objectivity. This is religion.

We will have to agree to disagree. I will say no more.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Look, you both want to take out of context every point just to make yours appear objective. I have stated many times that based on our present level of understanding, we can't use ZPE for any useful application. If you insist on arguing that you know all that may be possible, then there is no use in arguing the point any further. Your position is one that I understand and that is indefensible. You are arguing a point of religion - absolute belief.

This is not objectivity. This is religion.

We will have to agree to disagree. I will say no more.

lololololololololol. Backed you into a corner. I thought you had more honor than that. I truly am disappointed.

In any case, I was thinking about the issue some more:

Clearly the casimir effect is real. It is a force that exists and can be measured. A force is the potential to do work - you can take those plates and move them closeer together to convert the potential energy into kinetic energy. This is all true.

So I realized the problem: you believe that newly "created" kinetic energy to be "useful work." Something that if we figure out how can be harnessed. But that's wrong. It hasn't been created, its been CONVERTED.

It isn't useful work because it is SYMETRICAL - you give it all back when you pull the plates apart. This is EXACTLY how magnetism works. If such an asymetry were possible, we would have found a way to use magnets to create free energy long ago. From that ramp thing (can't remember if that was in this thread), clearly many people still think you can get more energy back than a magnetic potential can give. I've seen LOTS of such devices that try to use magnets to convert potential energy into kinetic energy, then get the potential energy back without losing the kinetic energy.

In fact, this is just another manifestation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

ZPE is still a 'mysterious' effect, so people don't connect it to the way magnetism works. But then clearly even with magnetism, people try to get around the first law of thermo.

And (say it with me): I wouldn't bet against the first law of thermodynamics.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I thought you had more honor than that

This is called cheap bait. Do you wish to digress into personal insults now? This is your objectivity?

I understand your point. You don't or won't understand mine. I see no reason to argue about something that has no resolution.

 

[Zantra]

/sigh

I can see what the current views are. This post has basically degenerated into a pissing contest. Shall we whip out our collectives on the virtual table now and get it over with? For the last 2 pages it's been nothing but arguing fine points and somantics.

Here's some food for thought

Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949

I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processings is a fad that won't last out the year."
- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice-Hall, 1957

But what...is it good for?"
- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip


I could provide other examples from different inventions, but this suffices. Current science does not allow the usefulness of ZPE. Hopefully people like russ won't be researching it and other important fields, or it may set things back another 50 years.

How about instead of whining about how it doesn't work, you try and find a way that it will work? Human nature is one of curiosity- that is what leads to innovation and progress. 600 years ago we KNEW the Earth was flat. At one point we KNEW the Earth was the center of the universe. And today, you KNOW that ZPE is useless. I am not a scientist, but I question everything. I TRY to view things objectively, but I have an open mind, and I do realize that we are not the masters of all, and that we still have much to learn.

Perhaps we will discover that ZPE is indeed inaccessible, and then I would say "I guess it wasn't possible" But I'm on much firmer ground than one who finds that it is, after firmly denying the possibility at all. Does that make me a "NUT"? Am I a "looney" for not accepting everything that is spoon fed to me because we "KNOW" what is what? Well damn, then I'd best start runnning, because it's a long way back to the cave and I have yet to spear dinner for the wifey. Without people who question everything, you'd still be banging your thoughts out on a stone tablet. And I leave you with this quote.

So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got through college yet.'"
- Steve Jobs, cofounder of Apple Computer

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zantra
Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949

Zantra, I explained earlier what a "theoretical impossibility" (barrier) is, but maybe I need to clarify and explain the difference between that and an ENGINEERING "barrier." Your analogy is of an ENGINEERING barrier and there is a world of difference between the two.

-An engineering barrier is breakable without changing the laws of science.
-A theoretical barrier is not breakable without changing the laws of science.

Computers are a good example - the fundamental problem in computer chip construction is manufacturing techniques. Its a technological problem. NOTHING that we knew about science made the invention of the transister impossible and NOTHING that we knew about science made it impossible to construct smaller transistors.

There is however a THEORETICAL barrier coming with computer chips in the next few years (5-20 depending on who you ask). Coincidentally, its QM again. As the wires get smaller and smaller, QM makes it impossible to keep the electrons on the right wire. This is a real barrier and it is not breakable.

The usual example though is "the sound barrier." Often cited by those in media as an unbreakable barrier and leads to some of this confusion. However, it was always known by scientists (and anyone who had ever shot a GUN) to be an engineering problem and not a real theoretical barrier.

Now - is it possible that the laws of science will change? Certainly. It happens all the time. But even a discovery that would make scientists giddy would not rise to the level necessary to make ZPE harnessable. ZPE is not harnessable because of QM and thermodynamics - two of the most powerful scientific theories we have. And you wouldn't need to make a slight adjustment in them - you'd need to throw them right out the window.

There are NO examples of such a strong theoretical barrier ever being broken (much less two at once!). It has never happened (please don't cite Aristotle: science didn't really get going until Galileo). I've said it before: I'm not betting that the most fundamental scientific theories we have are going to be thrown out.

Ivan, this is a physics board (being a moderator, you should know). If you want to talk physics, I gave you a bunch of points (new ones) to respond to. If you want to leave the arguement, fine. But invoking religion to get out of a scientific argument is reprehensible.

 

[AndersHermansson]

Can you attribute the ZPE with a temperature?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ivan, this is a physics board (being a moderator, you should know). If you want to talk physics, I gave you a bunch of points (new ones) to respond to. If you want to leave the arguement, fine. But invoking religion to get out of a scientific argument is reprehensible.

Ok I will try one more time. I just don’t care to argue when I feel that I have made my point.

I completely agree with your objections as to why we cannot access ZPE. Just like you, I have studied thermodynamics. What I can't seem to get across is the idea of implicit assumptions. Implicit in every hypothesis is a set of assumptions. From my point of view the physics is never wrong, but the assumptions can change. For now, it seems that this ZPE is the lowest energy state; the bottom of the well so to speak - thus no useful work can be done with it. However, consider the case of the Casimir effect. Here we find that we can create a well that is just a little bit deeper. Right? [Assuming of course that ZPE exist, and that the Casimir Effect is a manifestation of this ZPE.]

Clearly this cannot be used to do anything useful. But, what if for example we discover a deeper well? What about the other 6 or 8 dimensions that are thought to exist? Perhaps we will find some way to modify space so that the assumptions can change.

I don't know how else I can say this: Current theory does not allow for ZPE to be used to do useful work. I acknowledge this point.

There has never been a theory in the history of physics that has escaped modification; except for the ones that today we think are correct.

Physicists can't even agree on the definition of "measurement".

Why do you want to close the books and erase all question marks? On what basis can it be argued what will be possible; How can we say what new theories may come along in a year or a thousand years? We don't have a unified theory. Until we do, all bets are off. This does not mean that any nonsense notion qualifies. This means that we cannot define the limits of reality in any satisfactory way. Therefore, in a purely objective manner, we can look for cracks in the lining - little hints that other truths exist that as yet lie undiscovered.

The only justification that I can find for your position is the belief that we effectively have finished in physics. Do you feel that physics is nearly complete?

 

[sascha]

Is not the problem here a conceptual one: to understand WHY there is a symmetry of just this kind, as stated by QT, which appears in energies among others? Till now, QT has always been correct, also in counterintuitive situations. Nobody denies this. The question at stake is whether QT decribes strictly all of material reality or only that part which its language makes accessible, which is confirmed in every new setup that is judged in that language -- the language of measuring the minimal. QT still has its unsolved measurement problem, and in physics there is the problem of uniting strictly all of its theories.

In this question, one should not forget that QT, in spite of theory always being correct for concrete objects / processes, approaches reality from a reduced point of view: wanting to understand everything by measuring. In doing so, it introduces a bias, because it must miss what is not measurable — namely the ultimate order, which makes reality as it is, or in other words the overall laws and forces that make up the strict whole (neither laws nor forces are measurable, and yet decisive for understanding). Logical coherence does as such not yet warrant completeness of grasp.

The problem arises through the fundamental conceptual choices, whose perspectivity produces the corresponding edges beyond what is understandable in the chosen terms. Physics has developed and is applied many conceptual distinctions, but no physical theory today can explain conceptually why there are 'things' arising, existing for their time, then disappearing, while others of the same type reappear (the 'things' being renewed so to say). QT can measure the 'things' while they are around, but not explain fully their origin and hence why they are around. This does nor discredit the correctness e.g. of QT in measuring, it only says that full understanding must go beyond an isolated theory. ZPE is at a threshold and needs thus, for understanding all of what is going on, other concepts than those coming from ideas of measuring (or any position of the same "Cartesian split" type: distinguishing, observing, describing, etc., which look at the object from outside and can thus grasp only some attributes).

The point is to set out without a bias (such as distinguishing, observing, describing, measuring). This is conceptual work — interesting for some, and boring for others. Is anybody here interested in getting into this? I think I have some tidbits to offer on the path to more overall clarity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by sascha
I think I have some tidbits to offer on the path to more overall clarity.

I would like to hear more about this just out of interest.