On 11/25/2025 at 8:20 AM, swansont said:

you can’t tap into zero-point energy

Right, not yet.

1 hour ago, cyberdyno said:

Right, not yet.

You’d need new physics to explain how you could.

And there’s no need to shout

Is Our Universe Inside a Black Hole? - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Zero point energy is directly related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and as such, it is a global property of our universe.
It is also directly related to the expansion of the universe, and the reason it cannot be infinite ( some original ideas ) or even the current calculated 120 orders of magnitude greater than the values derived from observations of 'flatness' and expansion rates of our universe.

See here for history and details regarding vacuum energy Zero-point energy - Wikipedia

As it is a global property of the vacuum, and gives the vacuum a 'mass/energy' allowing it to 'gravitate', any decrease in vacuum energy allows expansion to increase.
This is the mechanism for the inflationary period of the universe, while it was still in a global causal contact.

See here for inflation history and modelling Cosmic inflation - Wikipedia

As the universe is no longer in causal contact, 'tapping into' vacuum energy has the effect of decreasing local vacuum energy, possibly causing localized inflation.

Think of the prospect of using zero point energy to power your car, and creating a new universe in your driveway.
It would be a long walk to get to your front door 😄 .

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

See here for history and details regarding vacuum energy Zero-point energy - Wikipedia

I found this articel wallowing in woollyness.

Unfortunately I see this as all part of the trend towards mysticism and woo replacing hard science and facts.

As far as ZPE is concerned there are even books, websites and societies promoting magic wands to control the ZPE.

Edited November 26Nov 26 by studiot

Ooops!
I didn't actually read the article, and provided it as general reference.

I notice now that it starts getting very speculative about halfway through.
My bad.
( in my defense, it's a loooong article )

Edited November 26Nov 26 by MigL

On 11/26/2025 at 10:33 AM, swansont said:

And there’s no need to shout

Sorry, didn't notice bold letters were on.

On 11/22/2025 at 7:02 AM, swansont said:

What contemporary physics “considers” this?

Tensor Networks Initiative

From entangled quantum matter to emergent space time

https://perimeterinstitute.ca/tensor-networks-initiative

Search: Tensor Networks + perimeter institute

On 11/26/2025 at 10:33 AM, swansont said:

You’d need new physics

It is a process where an object's matter waves are described as being continuously condensed by gravity.

Leon Rosenfeld (1933, 1963 papers) considered:

Where psi) represents the quantum state of matter fields, and:

 Gravitation is the beginning of a semi-deterministic process. The gravitational field (G) is considered a classical, non-quantized field.

 Gravity and wave packet collapse are interrelated. There is wave packet collapse because there is gravity, gravitation being the product of gravitational forces generated within matter.

* Gravitation is caused by a space pressure differential created by the inward, radial space flow that occurs as a result of the object's wave packet continuous collapsations.

* Quantization and organization of space is orchestrated by matter fields which originate from, and follow, exclusive dimensions already existing as matter. Energy being quantized into particles by spontaneously emitted sub-atomic particles (Higgs boson?).

41 minutes ago, cyberdyno said:

Tensor Networks Initiative

From entangled quantum matter to emergent space time

https://perimeterinstitute.ca/tensor-networks-initiative

Search: Tensor Networks + perimeter institute

No mention of dark matter on that page.

A link needs to point to the actual relevant information. Not a place to dig for it.

41 minutes ago, cyberdyno said:

It is a process where an object's matter waves are described as being continuously condensed by gravity.

Leon Rosenfeld (1933, 1963 papers) considered:

Where psi) represents the quantum state of matter fields, and:

You’re providing, at best, a veneer of physics. Not any actual substance.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Not any actual substance.

The aether is not in spacetime, spacetime is in the aether. Empty space and spacetime are not the same thing. Einstein's spacetime is material, empty space is not. There can be no space without time nor motion, this is why Einstein called it spacetime. As Einstein once said: if we had no time (process), everything would have to happen at once. That is why Einstein described reality as a spacetime continuum where he saw process as the weaver of the fabric of space, a fabric made from space and time. Reality is process... spacetime is process.

Time, space, and matter start with the quantum, and quanta can exist only when in motion. Field motion, or energy, turns into matter. If we could stop the motion, matter would go back to being just empty space. Outside of time, quantum events are not possible. There is time and space because there is motion, and there is motion because there is energy. The aether itself does not move, matter does, the quantum does. As Einstein used to say: energy is space in motion. In this sense, aether is synonymous to energy, it is pure energy.

In this view, the aether is the substrate to all matter, including Wheeler's Quantum Foam. It is before geometry. Everything depends on this substrate, this is where the laws of gravity and electromagnetism are administered from.

Electromagnetic fields should not appear as ultimate, irreducible realities. Existence starts with the field, and before that there is what we call empty space, or aether, which is neither big, nor small: extension is not one of its properties. Spacetime and geometrization happen after the aether. The aether, unlike spacetime, is primary. Matter, space, and time are not. Empty space which is not really empty but full of pure energy. Energy which exists before EMR, and therefore is neither hot, nor bright.

1 hour ago, cyberdyno said:

this is why Einstein called it spacetime.

I think swansont's comment is particularly relevent here.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

A link needs to point to the actual relevant information. Not a place to dig for it.

You need to read the actual paper and quote the reference in order to be able to make claims such as the one above about Einstein.

I look forward to a proper reference/citation.

Edited December 2Dec 2 by studiot