Thread: Vacumm Energy Magnet

Could we theorectically create a vacuum energy magnet to draw in vacuum energy as power source. Also is there a relationship between vacuum energy occuring in empty space and gravity created from filled space?

Could gravity actually be an absence of another energy form rather than a force in it's own right?
This would help to explain why the higgs hasn't been found.

there is no medium so quite diff

can a gas be used for conducting current?
creating electric field ,voltages,and finally for application somewhere??

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Could we theorectically create a vacuum energy magnet to draw in vacuum energy as power source. Also is there a relationship between vacuum energy occuring in empty space and gravity created from filled space?

The vacuum energy is the lowest energy state of the vacuum. You can only extract energy from something if there is a lower energy state to go to - e.g. extracting energy from hot steam by cooling it down. There is no "down" from the vacuum.

As far as I know, there is no connection between this and gravity.

This would help to explain why the higgs hasn't been found.

The Higg's mechanism doesn't, directly, have anything to do with gravity.

Forgive my lack of knowledge on this, but isn't vacuum energy where particles spontaneously pop into being inside empty space, if not it is this energy I am really talking about. I was pondering the idea of trying to draw in more of these particles than would normally occur naturally. Imagine if you will that it is raining on a field and you want to collect the water, that is pretty much what I am suggesting with the spontaneous particles popping in and out of existance.


Also I thought supposed theorectical 'Higgs-Boseon' is a particle that CERN are desperate to find as it is needed to support the theory that mass is gained by matter passing through a higgs field and gaining higgs to then have mass and exert gravity.

I was just speculating on the idea that instead of matter gaining something that gives it mass, the idea that matter has lost something, or exists in a state which means it's gained mass as result and is therefore now far more suseptable from the gravity of other matter.

Also postulating the idea that rather than mass be result of a particle, that mass is result of state in which matter exists as opposed to the state in which mass less particles exist.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Forgive my lack of knowledge on this, but isn't vacuum energy where particles spontaneously pop into being inside empty space, if not it is this energy I am really talking about.

That's not vacuum energy. It's a description of how the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows for "virtual particles" to come into (and go out of) existence. Particles can indeed spontaneously pop into existence, and then disappear, after having lived a very short time. By "short" is meant really, really, really short: The product of the particle lifetime and the energy "borrowed" to create it, must be small compared to Planck's constant.

I was pondering the idea of trying to draw in more of these particles than would normally occur naturally. Imagine if you will that it is raining on a field and you want to collect the water, that is pretty much what I am suggesting with the spontaneous particles popping in and out of existance.

Your idea is a cousin of the idea underpinning "Maxwell's Demon." If the Demon existed, we could sort gas molecules according to their velocities, and thus segregate all the hot ones in one box, and all the cold ones in another. From that temperature difference, we could run a heat engine and generate power. That fallacy is known as a perpetual motion machine of the second kind (it need not directly violate conservation of energy, but entropy is driven downward -- the wrong way). It turns out that this great idea fails because one can't ignore the intelligent agent's physical properties. Your idea fails in part for the same reason. You can't assume that you can collect at zero entropy and energy cost all the virtual particles (thus making them real), and thus extract net work from them.

All that is a roundabout way of confirming what Strange has already told you -- the vacuum state is the lowest energy state, so you can't extract net energy from it.

Murphy does not let you win. Sorry.

SED suggests it may actually be possible to remove energy without effecting the minimum-energy or ground states.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

SED suggests it may actually be possible to remove energy without effecting the minimum-energy or ground states.

That would be tantamount to a violation of the principle of conservation of energy...not very likely IMO.

what is SED?

Originally Posted by Strange

what is SED?

SED is stochastic electrodynamics, it's basically a different take on classical electrodynamics.

It is used to the speculate on the possibility of a classical lorentz invariant radiation field having statistical properties similer to that of the electromagnetic zero point field of quantum electrodynamics.

Does SED actually have scientific credibility.