0

Are we aware of any theoretically sound approach that would potentially allow us to extract energy out of the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations indefinitely.

The magnitude of the energy extracted doesn't matter, just the soundness of the approach (not just speculation) based on our current knowledge.

For example (Specifically): Why can't we use Static Casimir Effect to do it?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • 2
  • @JohnRennie Thanks I read the Question. Its very unclear and the answers are not satisfactory (They are more discussing about 'definitions'). Moreover, I don't see the Static Casimir Case discussed anywhere. So, its not exactly a duplicate. – TheoryQuest1 Aug 02 '17 at 09:53
  • It seems that the proposed duplicate's answer is No because the vacuum is something you can't extract energy from by definition answers both your questions (you have to simply infer that since the QFT vacuum energy cannot be extracted per definition, then the static Casimir effect won't work because of the definition). – Kyle Kanos Aug 02 '17 at 10:09
  • I am not convinced with that argument. Here is my interpretation: It is possible that we might be able to extract the energy locally, and as a result, the local vacuum energy decreases. To balance it the vacuum energy at some other non local point increases. The net energy therefore would remains the same. And we were able to extract energy locally. What prevents this from happening? – TheoryQuest1 Aug 02 '17 at 10:20
  • 2
    Well, I guess another take on @KyleKanos's argument is that there isn't really an argument: it's simply an experimental observation. We've never been able extract energy from the quantum ground state, therefore we make an inductive inference that this is not possible and that therefore the quantum ground state is the true vacuum, by the definition that Kyle cites. If we seek to extract energy from this state, then we need to identify another, lower energy quantum state. Contrapositively, if someone succeeds in extracting energy from this state, then it was never the vacuum to begin with. – Selene Routley Aug 02 '17 at 10:24
  • Thanks. The confusion arose because when it was pointed that the definition says A, so B is not possible, for me i interpreted it that we will violate current theories if we were able to do so. – TheoryQuest1 Aug 02 '17 at 10:38

0 Answers0