Doesn't the point zero energy disproves the second law of termodinamics?
Nobody knows for sure if the laws are laws. But that's beside the point.Where is this zero point energy?
>>17044127>Where is this zero point energy?Energy is simultaneously nothing and everything. It’s not a thing. It’s cause. Motion. In physics, energy is not a physical object, it’s a mathematical property, or the foundational currency of all change and motion. Everyday language treats energy like a fluid or substance (e.g., "running out of energy"), but science defines it strictly as the measure of a system's capability to do work or alter its state. To do a thing.
>>17044117Why would you think that?
>>17044136because wouldn't be possible to extract energy from the point zero energy?
>>17044117“point zero energy” I guess is a psi pop way of saying ground state or vacuum state (same thing). The absolute value is still arbitrary (what matters is that it’s bounded from below, not the particular value of its absolute minimum).No, it doesn’t. The number of microstatates (the spectrum of the Hamiltonian) determines the entropy, which governs thermodynamics laws, but what matters is the relative distribution of energy states, not ever is the absolute value of the lowest energy state.
They're the laws of thermodynamics, not the suggestions of thermodynamics.
>>17044144Newton’s laws are wrong (based on empirical results) but we still call the laws).
>>17044139Nope. Since there's no lower energy than the zero point (hence the name) it can't be used to do any work.
>>17044149>False vacuum collapse has entered the chat
>>17044117Not at all, zero-point energy is compatible with thermodynamics: it changes the quantum description of the lowest-energy state but it does not create a usable perpetual-motion machine.
>>17044117Nope. It simply assumes you can drop the can even further down the kitchen cabinet.
