zero point energy ?

Sep 2019
39
3
Azores
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/publication/270725917_The_Zero-Point_Field_and_the_Emergence_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.
 
Oct 2017
567
287
Glasgow
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/publication/270725917_The_Zero-Point_Field_and_the_Emergence_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:
Sep 2019
39
3
Azores
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.
 
Jun 2016
1,190
555
England
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.
 
Sep 2019
39
3
Azores
Thanks for the comments.

From what I have read so far, SED seems plausible, to my (very) none expert eye. A bit more perhaps than a prof saying to students shut up and calculate in other quantum theories. Which whilst it works, does not necessarily explore the why something happens just the what happens. SED appears to attempt an explanation of the why and what happens, which has me interested.
 
Oct 2017
567
287
Glasgow
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: