Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > General Physics

General Physics General Physics Help Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Sep 1st 2019, 02:52 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Azores
Posts: 17
zero point energy ?

Hi I am new to this forum. I do not know if anyone on this forum can answer this question.
But here goes:-
I have an interest in QED, and was mildly interested in Bohemian mechanics. Recently I read a link on Stochaistic Electro Dynamics and zero point energy, here is the link Calphysics Institute: Introduction to Zero-Point Energy Some of the claims in the link are obviously a bit wacko ref claims on free energy, but I did a bit of poking around as SED has peaked my curiosity. I found some more serious papers the following is a link to one of them. https://www.researchgate.net/publica...of_the_Quantum This link is very heavy reading. They turn QM inside out in that they claim the ZPF gives rise to the wavelike behaviour of matter, including quantisation and even Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy. Is there any reason why this paper could be rubbish, what is wrong with it. It seems to me to be too plausible, and I cant find anything obviously wrong with it.
interested is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2nd 2019, 01:31 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by interested View Post
Hi I am new to this forum. I do not know if anyone on this forum can answer this question.
But here goes:-
I have an interest in QED, and was mildly interested in Bohemian mechanics. Recently I read a link on Stochaistic Electro Dynamics and zero point energy, here is the link Calphysics Institute: Introduction to Zero-Point Energy Some of the claims in the link are obviously a bit wacko ref claims on free energy, but I did a bit of poking around as SED has peaked my curiosity. I found some more serious papers the following is a link to one of them. https://www.researchgate.net/publica...of_the_Quantum This link is very heavy reading. They turn QM inside out in that they claim the ZPF gives rise to the wavelike behaviour of matter, including quantisation and even Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy. Is there any reason why this paper could be rubbish, what is wrong with it. It seems to me to be too plausible, and I cant find anything obviously wrong with it.
I don't really have the expertise to critique this paper, but at first glance it looks reasonable. Specifically, the usual signs of a cranky paper (only referencing your own papers, not referencing modern texts, no literature review, disreputable journal, etc.) are not there. Probably worth a poke.

As is the case with new theories, differences between it and other theories need to be investigated.

Last edited by benit13; Sep 2nd 2019 at 04:24 AM.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2nd 2019, 02:46 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Azores
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
I don't really have the expertise to critique this paper, but at first glance it looks reasonable. Specifically, the usual signs of a cranky paper (only referencing your own papers, not referencing modern texts, no literature review, disreputable journal, etc.) are not there. Probably worth a poke.

As is the case with new theories, differences between it and other theories need to be investigated, either through experiment or by Occam's razor.
I have found lots of other papers from theoretical physicists all over the world. Also lots of what might be questionable papers also possibly trying to gain credibility by linking to other possibly more credible papers.

SED appears to be a goer then, and is not total hogwash probably.
interested is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2nd 2019, 03:19 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 998
As Benit says,
It is usually possible to identify a serious, well researched, properly considered, paper
verses a wacko, made-up, arm-waving, Bull-S..., paper
simply from its style.
Also, usually, the briefest scan of the substance of a wacko paper will reveal self-inconsistencies and unsubstantiated leaps of supposition.

However, just because it is a serious paper, (even from a fully accredited professor of physics) does not mean it is correct.
__________________
~\o/~
Woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2nd 2019, 04:20 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 443
Another way to tell whether a paper is BS or not is to actually follow the mathematical derivations yourself and see if you can derive the same relationships by following their own steps. You can't do this with all papers because not all papers lay out their derivations in a clear and well-defined means, but I've managed to find a couple of bad apples this way in the past. The paper you linked seems to have some derivations, so maybe give them a go and see if everything holds up?

Last edited by benit13; Sep 2nd 2019 at 04:22 AM.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > General Physics

Tags
energy, point, sed, stochaistic, zero point energy



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How many Planck's in a point? Instantonly Quantum Physics 17 Sep 8th 2016 01:20 PM
moment about a point = 0 ling233 Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Oct 7th 2015 06:21 AM
Arhimedes ( Energy is able be support point) MMM Advanced Mechanics 12 Mar 13th 2015 03:51 AM
Moments about a Point febbie22 Kinematics and Dynamics 3 Aug 4th 2010 11:29 AM
Help with point charges colstu0510 Advanced Electricity and Magnetism 1 May 7th 2009 12:03 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed