A Big Decision That Is Nagging Me

[TomasM]

I love that movie. Low budget film about a low budge tech in the garage. It's inspiring.

 

[John K]

It operates at room temperature but I have considered introducing cold temperatures (not Absolute Zero) and a vacuum.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm not talking about temperature but the possibility that the vacuum throughout the universe is not at its lowest possible energy level, but on a metastable platform. If that were so, then extracting energy from a point in space could trigger a phase change at that point roughly analogous to when water changes to ice. It's believed that similar symmetry breaking changes took place in the few instants after the big bang, and those led to the way the universe is now. If that process left space in a metastable condition, and the energy was extracted from it in a given location that was sufficient to take it down to true nil energy, then the belief is that it would seed such a change through the entire cosmos. Far from being obscure and irrelevant, it would have dire effects because the atomic particles that make up everything we know, and the forces between them, are apparently critically dependent on the nature of space as it is now, and they would cease to exist in a lower energy vacuum. How much of this is established science and how much is speculative I don't know.

But don't you have problems extracting vacuum energy? NASA have been trying to do it for quite a while now - doesn't it run into issues with hard scientific laws like the conservation of momentum? It does sound like a very tempting way of accessing large amounts of energy though, but then there are always consequences if we could do it aren't there? Even if it didn't trigger a catastrophic phase change in the vacuum, doesn't that energy have to come from somewhere, and so there would be consequences for where it was extracted. There might be unexpected effects if the earth became surrounded by space which has been depleted in energy?

Interesting to think about.

The only thing that logically makes sense is to use the tech to grow the economics and then use the economics to create a culture that changes the existing paradigm. Like I've said, I have a pathway to achieve this but it has drawbacks which have to be checked and balanced - this is a social issue and not one of a technical nature. The good news is that nobody trusts the existing governments and social systems these days and the people have desired change for decades.

But surely it wouldn't work like that? If you start to deploy a device that creates cheap or free energy in quantity, and which can be set up easily and at low cost, then it could easily be reverse-engineered and duplicated and you would quickly lose control. There are logistic issues as well - without regulatory approval and expert assistance you couldn't simply attach such a device to the electric power supply for example, either in your home or to the national grid. Some people could rejig their homes themselves but most of us couldn't.

Having thought about it a little more in the last day or so, I would say that if you have such a technology and it has no serious environmental or safety implications, then given the state of the world and the environment there is a moral obligation to publish, demonstrate and make it available. The world is desperately trying to avoid excess global warming but is facing the social consequences of the near impossible costs of doing this in time. The technologies we are developing to eliminate greenhouse emissions are environmentally problematic in their own ways too. My feeling is that the social problems you are targeting are of much lower priority than the foreseeable social costs of global warming, whether we fail to control it or whether the cost of controlling it wrecks our societies anyway.

 

[TomasM]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm not talking about temperature but the possibility that the vacuum throughout the universe is not at its lowest possible energy level, but on a metastable platform. If that were so, then extracting energy from a point in space could trigger a phase change at that point roughly analogous to when water changes to ice. It's believed that similar symmetry breaking changes took place in the few instants after the big bang, and those led to the way the universe is now. If that process left space in a metastable condition, and the energy was extracted from it in a given location that was sufficient to take it down to true nil energy, then the belief is that it would seed such a change through the entire cosmos. Far from being obscure and irrelevant, it would have dire effects because the atomic particles that make up everything we know, and the forces between them, are apparently critically dependent on the nature of space as it is now, and they would cease to exist in a lower energy vacuum. How much of this is established science and how much is speculative I don't know.

But don't you have problems extracting vacuum energy? NASA have been trying to do it for quite a while now - doesn't it run into issues with hard scientific laws like the conservation of momentum? It does sound like a very tempting way of accessing large amounts of energy though, but then there are always consequences if we could do it aren't there? Even if it didn't trigger a catastrophic phase change in the vacuum, doesn't that energy have to come from somewhere, and so there would be consequences for where it was extracted. There might be unexpected effects if the earth became surrounded by space which has been depleted in energy?

Interesting to think about.

I'll try to hit the highlights of how I came to my conclusions.

1. I don't recognize a Big Bang though I do recognize something that has the appearance of a Big Bang.
2. I've never tested any of this in outer space so I can't speak to how it would perform in that state but I will say that outer space is not a true vacuum, is rich with matter, and has abundant access to the zero point.
3. The zero point is accessible through every atom and can be scaled. Everywhere a magnetic field can be identified we have access to the zero point. To scale this within categories: atom, planet, star, galaxy, universe. Of course there are intermediaries where I often find myself pondering.

To give some perspective, all that is needed is the material used to gain access to the zero point. As long as that material is held intact then energy can be produced. Simply stated, in theory it should operate in outer space without issue as long as the temperature can be kept within a suitable range.

But surely it wouldn't work like that? If you start to deploy a device that creates cheap or free energy in quantity, and which can be set up easily and at low cost, then it could easily be reverse-engineered and duplicated and you would quickly lose control. There are logistic issues as well - without regulatory approval and expert assistance you couldn't simply attach such a device to the electric power supply for example, either in your home or to the national grid. Some people could rejig their homes themselves but most of us couldn't.

The energy output can be throttled. It is quite possible that misuse of the technology could result in a bad outcome and this will always be the case with energy production; however, with a throttle, computerized monitoring, and redundancy, these issues can be mitigated. To your point, expert assistance would be as necessary as it is today for other green technologies though the footprint of the technology is much smaller in my case.

Attaching such a device to another power source requires creating power that is in a similar state. To connect it to the power grid would require an AC output that is in phase with what is coming from the electric lines and this requires special equipment. Similarly, anywhere a transformer exists we would encounter a bottleneck and corresponding air gap so pushing that energy out onto the grid in reverse would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain within a harmony. My thoughts are that large scale production would need to be centralized, yet I find the concept of a swarm model much more appealing. In the near term I believe people would desire their own power source while having the grid as a backup.

Having thought about it a little more in the last day or so, I would say that if you have such a technology and it has no serious environmental or safety implications, then given the state of the world and the environment there is a moral obligation to publish, demonstrate and make it available. The world is desperately trying to avoid excess global warming but is facing the social consequences of the near impossible costs of doing this in time. The technologies we are developing to eliminate greenhouse emissions are environmentally problematic in their own ways too. My feeling is that the social problems you are targeting are of much lower priority than the foreseeable social costs of global warming, whether we fail to control it or whether the cost of controlling it wrecks our societies anyway.

There were some environmental issues that I faced but recent scientific discoveries and corresponding materials have emerged that remove this issue while increasing output, increasing stability, and reducing size.

I would like to be as optimistic as you are with respect to morality, but I've done my research and morality is not in the vocabulary of those I've been discussing. Global warming, weather related phenomenon, and pollution are important topics but I have to segregate that if I am to be successful.

 

[TomasM]

Far from being obscure and irrelevant, it would have dire effects because the atomic particles that make up everything we know, and the forces between them, are apparently critically dependent on the nature of space as it is now, and they would cease to exist in a lower energy vacuum.

You are speaking about one side of the coin. The zero point is the point that separates the material (vacuum, matter, space) from the non material (where space and time are inverted). On this side of the coin we have infinite space with only the appearance of time through the observation of movement through space. On the flip side of that coin there would theoretically be infinite time with only the appearance of space through the observation of movement through time. This is my opinion based on my scientific studies and observations so please don't try to hold my feet to the fire with proof.

All I'm trying to say is that there is a point (the zero point) where the material and non material create a balance. It's at this point where creation and destruction of material occurs. When there is creation we have a corresponding release of energy which can be captured. When we look at a single atom the lifespan is infinite with respect to the human lifespan. The atom has an extremely small "zero point opening" in comparison to say a blackhole yet a blackhole is still not universally destructive. When speaking of my technology we are talking about a very small amount of atomic material and that is hardly going to be destructive on a universal scale.

Now, if the technology was able to go unchecked with the destruction of mass increasing exponentially (similar to that within a blackhole) then that could create devastating consequences. This would most likely require a feedback loop where the energy output of the device is pumped back into the the generation of energy through the device. As the energy increased exponentially so would the corresponding fields (strong force, weak force, magnetic, and gravity) which would result in the growth of the zero point opening. Of course the opening would be limited in scale by the mass consumed by the forces / fields. I don't see my technology as being able to maintain its state through that kind of growth because eventually the heat would exceed the devices ability to operate. There would come a point where the feedback is no longer possible and a natural state between both sides of the zero point reclaims its balance.

In summary, I don't see a problem with catastrophic destruction and there should be no problems with operating on earth or in the vacuum of space as long as temperature is regulated.

 

[John K]

You are speaking about one side of the coin. The zero point is the point that separates the material (vacuum, matter, space) from the non material (where space and time are inverted). On this side of the coin we have infinite space with only the appearance of time through the observation of movement through space. On the flip side of that coin there would theoretically be infinite time with only the appearance of space through the observation of movement through time. This is my opinion based on my scientific studies and observations so please don't try to hold my feet to the fire with proof.

All I'm trying to say is that there is a point (the zero point) where the material and non material create a balance. It's at this point where creation and destruction of material occurs. When there is creation we have a corresponding release of energy which can be captured. When we look at a single atom the lifespan is infinite with respect to the human lifespan. The atom has an extremely small "zero point opening" in comparison to say a blackhole yet a blackhole is still not universally destructive. When speaking of my technology we are talking about a very small amount of atomic material and that is hardly going to be destructive on a universal scale.

Now, if the technology was able to go unchecked with the destruction of mass increasing exponentially (similar to that within a blackhole) then that could create devastating consequences. This would most likely require a feedback loop where the energy output of the device is pumped back into the the generation of energy through the device. As the energy increased exponentially so would the corresponding fields (strong force, weak force, magnetic, and gravity) which would result in the growth of the zero point opening. Of course the opening would be limited in scale by the mass consumed by the forces / fields. I don't see my technology as being able to maintain its state through that kind of growth because eventually the heat would exceed the devices ability to operate. There would come a point where the feedback is no longer possible and a natural state between both sides of the zero point reclaims its balance.

In summary, I don't see a problem with catastrophic destruction and there should be no problems with operating on earth or in the vacuum of space as long as temperature is regulated.

I think you are still misunderstanding the point I'm raising. This article explains it better than I can - and what I'm wondering is if a device such as you describe could under certain circumstances lead to the catastrophe it describes as possible.

Is the Universe fundamentally unstable?

Empty space itself, the quantum vacuum, could be in either a true, stable state or a false, unstable state. Our fate depends on the answer.

bigthink.com

 

[TomasM]

I think you are still misunderstanding the point I'm raising. This article explains it better than I can - and what I'm wondering is if a device such as you describe could under certain circumstances lead to the catastrophe it describes as possible.

Is the Universe fundamentally unstable?

Empty space itself, the quantum vacuum, could be in either a true, stable state or a false, unstable state. Our fate depends on the answer.

bigthink.com

There are so many "ifs" and "what ifs" in that article. Lots of assumptions about dark energy and how the universe is configured. It also attempts to tie together quantum mechanics with relativity when we know there currently isn't a unified theory. I can certainly appreciate the investigative effort being made by scientists but the information you present to me in this article is far from complete. I do have a theory about how things are interconnected and it's actually quite simple but it's just a theory and I won't state that as fact.

I think you're giving too much credit to people being able to destroy the entire universe by upsetting the balance of energy. I can appreciate the investigation of these scientific possibilities but I believe it would first require "connecting the dots" of these currently disconnected theories and then a massive engineering effort to specifically design something which could upset the balance of energy states throughout the universe. So, I can't say to any degree of certainty that this is even a conceivable outcome.

I believe the flip side of the zero point is something that is completely different from what we recognize in our universe and that a balance is achieved in the interaction of these "states." It's happening at the atomic level all the way to the galactic level, and I believe it extends to the universe as a whole. I'm finding it difficult to explain what I'm doing at the scientific level because I don't believe the terms have been created to explain what is occurring. Perhaps the release of this technology will increase the interest and funding towards learning more about what's on the other side of it but at present there is a refusal to even acknowledge that it exists.

 

[Sorn]

Are you currently able to supply your house with this energy, yes or no?