Talk:Zero-point field

Talk moved from Talk:Zero-point field

Why does this page exist?

As a PhD physicist, this page makes no sense to me whatsoever. The zero-point energy page covers the relevant physical topics, while this page is a rambling uncited diatribe. The only coherent section is the duplication of the zero-point energy article. Please remove this ASAP. Stop Wikipedia from becoming an intellectual wasteland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.153.58 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should I believe you have a PhD? And more important, why should I believe that if you have one it means you know how to think and don't just parrot what you were told in academia? Your citations requirement in the article had merit and resulted in a major overhaul of that section. But your comment here is just a bullying tactic to quiet critics of major conceptual problems in the status quo version of the ZPF. Unluckily for you, thought and logic, as well as training, are more valued than brainwashing and coercion at Wikipedia.75.6.243.10 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has certain policies. Original thought is not to be originally published on it, for example. If Wikipedia works the way you say, then why does it seem so many disagree with you? mike4ty4 (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ZPF is not speculative while ZPE still is.

I've noticed a large amount of good physics on the ZPF has been tainted by peripheral ideas that are are still not on solid ground. For instance, it is known classically that at zero degrees Kelvin the spin state of all matter should radiate its energy away and collapse inward extremely fast. Yet it does not do so. We also know that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle predicts a certain minimum energy of a quantum oscillator in space. So we know this field must exist and is simply refered to as the zero point field and it is a solid concept.

What is more controversial is the amount of energy that is contained in the zpf. From my understanding of most of the literature, physics continues to mix apples and oranges on this issue. For instance, the particle adherents suggest the energy accumulates for each frequency of oscillation, one in each of the 3 dimensions, up to the Plank level. And they rationalize this amount by saying there are invisible "virtual" particles flitting in and out of existance that we can't see.

The problem is that physics is mixing fields and particles in their construction of the zpf. A classical field in physics is the gravitational field. We know that as matter heats up or accelerates the gravitational field increases. But what is a gravitational field? It's probably just a electromagnetic energy gradient in the zpf field. Sort of like a low pressure area surrounding a tornado. That tornado is the spin of a particle. If the universe is to retain causality the total energy of the universe must always be finite and conserved. Is is not possible that when you accelerate or heat up a particle you are just increasing the "magnitude" of it spin angular momentum vector while simultaneously drawing in energy from the surrounding field?

There's no need to project astronomical energy levels to the zpf or to expect that energy to be able to be tapped in its pure form. It's no different than suddenly expecting to be able to tap ambient air pressure from one direction only. It doesn't happen.

Comments from Talk:Zero-point energy

Why aren't there pages on both Zero Point Energy [ZPE] and Zero Point Field [ZPF] in WP? Both of these topics are new to me; hence, I am wondering why I have to go "outside" of WP to find information on ZPF? Such as the following:

• Zero Point Field
• Zero Point Energy

Can someone explain this to me?--Sadi Carnot 01:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

1) For whatever social/cultural reasons, the rate of participation by physicists in WP is considerably lower than the participation rate of mathematicians. Many articles haven't been written yet, or are in poor condition.

2) Articles on popular or general-interest topics are difficult to create and maintain (witness conversations above). The subject specialists are often overwhelmed by the onslaught of entropy, degeneration and decay, as well-meaning but ill-informed editors make detrimental edits. Its exhausting to monitor these and beat them back. (Its a lot more satisfying to write highly specialized articles; as so the unwashed masses leave one alone. This is why the WP articles on arcane topics are excellent, while those on high-school-level topics are a wasteland of misinformation.) linas 03:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; however, a stub on Zero-point field would be nice if you have the time? I may be able to contribute a little if you start it. There are a lot of new age writers out there trying to make a ramshackle connection between the ZPF and concepts like Akashic field, Morphogenic field, The field, Quantum field, Electromagnetic field, etc. Hence, it would be nice to get some straight scoop on the essentials of the topic. Or are ZPE and ZPF the essentially same topic?--Sadi Carnot 18:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I redirected Zero-point field to Vacuum state, and gave it a brief definition there. It's a peculiar term, not widely used, but roughly it is the empty quantum field, of which the quantized Electromagnetic field would be an example. Although I admit that, like many, I get a lurid thrill from reading new age philosophy, spiritualism, ESP, UFO's and the rest, and its all quite fun, I'll also be hard-nosed and state that these topics, as well as Morphogenic field and Akashic field, are scientific hokum. Fun hokum, but still hokum. On the other hand, if there is one lesson from science, it is this: truth is stranger than fiction. linas 04:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the two articles that you quote above, on halexandria.org, appear to be mostly correct, although I did not actually read them. (on second look, they seem to veer off-course a bit). Unfortunately, none of this stuff has any easy explanation, and you really do have to get a graduate degree in physics to understand it. That's just the way it is ... linas 04:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Pjacobi

Pls provide some rationale for not longer redirecting this lemma.

IMHO we may have too many, not too few articles on this topic, adding to the confusion:

• Vacuum state
• Vacuum energy
• Ground state
• Zero-point energy

Also, "Zero-point field", isn't much is used in physics. More than half of Google scholar hits go the specific theory of Haisch et al and should be discussed in a more specific article. Pjacobi 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, I barely see what the point of this topic is but the new-age crowd is attempting to bend this word into something is not. But, on the other hand, I came looking for this article as a reader wanting to find straight information on zero-point field, after reading about the word in multiple books; personally, I really don't care about the other terms (I assume other readers will feel the same?).

I've read the four books mentioned on the article page, plus a few more and they keep referring to the zero-point field by various names, e.g. A-field, zpf, The field, etc., but from a respectable electrical engineering point of view, are making a mockery of things for the average-joe. Some books such as McTaggart's 2001 The Field has been a top-500 Amazon book for several years running now. With multiple books now written on this topic justifies a short to-the-point article explaining the term technically and rigorously. I was the one who added the derivation to zero-point energy (history section). I also asked User talk:linas to chip in on this article. Maybe you can as well? --Sadi Carnot 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You should better have read only 2 of the books mentioned on the article page plus two standard textbooks on quantum field theory. --Pjacobi 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Started stub on zero-point field

Disucssion from User talk:linas

Hi, can you pitch in a bit on this article I started. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 17:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, sorry. My gut impression was "crank physics", and this is exactly what I was trying to avoid when I last went through this class of articles. There might be a valid article about "the sociology and psychology of zero point energy in crank physics", but that would be a sociology article, not a physics article. linas 01:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just revert an article sourced with four references, the first being a definition verbatim out an Encyclopedia of Quantum Physics? You just lost a lot of respect. Your actions are not to be commended. My intentions are to see a straight textbook article on the term "zero point field" as it is understood in modern physics. If you think you can do better than me, than please do; if not, take your concerns to Talk:Zero-point field where we can discuss this in the coming weeks. Doing a redirect-revert on my effort to write a short article on the topic was not at all nice. I will be posting rfc's on all of the science project pages if you do a redirect on my efforts again. --Sadi Carnot 14:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is now up to 20 references. I most likely won’t be contacting your user page for help in the future. --Sadi Carnot 15:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd still vote for changing back to a redirect. The number of references isn't the ultimate measure of article quality. The historical excourse doesn't really fit.... --Pjacobi 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't known what you mean by "vote". Before I wrote up a short summary of this term, as best I could, using the 16 references shown, it was a redirect to vacuum state where, supposedly, one sentence, namely "the term "zero-point field" is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field", written by user:linas, was supposed to explain this term. I’m not claiming that the article I wrote is robust, but it is definitely an improvement on linas’ one sentence. Please feel free to chip in to improve the article. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 02:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Adding nonsense to sense is not an improvement. --Pjacobi 10:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some trouble at Zero-point field

from Portal talk:Physics

which was and most likely should be again a redirect to vacuum state. Now it has become a strange mixture of history of QM, Haisch-cruft and worse. See talk page. --Pjacobi 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As for this comment, I don’t know why you are shooting down my efforts to write up on a notable topic. A start page page is never perfect, that is the idea at Wikipedia. Second, as for your comment “Haisch-cruft and worse”, I didn’t know who “Haisch”, i.e. Bernard Haisch, was until just now, nor do I care. If you have a better reference, go ahead and put it in. As for your conditioner “and worse”, this term if very popular in the new-age book stores, hence the related section. Wikipedia is not about information censorship, even if it is a mis-application or mis-representation of basic science. Also, I don’t know why you seem to always be coincidently popping up on the talk page of articles that I start? --Sadi Carnot 02:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on Haisch and Stochastic Electrodynamics

I don't know how it comes to be that Bernard Haisch has come to be regarded with such venom. While stochastic electrodynamics may not be correct, for instance SE predicts the total energy of universe comeing out around 10^100 more than cosmological constant predicts, he at least is thinking out of the box. I personally think the biggest failing is to not include the lower radiation pressure surrounding particles we see as gravity into those calculations, which would change everything.

What he says otherwise connecting Zitterbewegung and Inertia makes perfect sense. Why is it that modern physics is accepting of the non-causality of virtual particles existing, colliding, and non-existing over and over again. It's just an excuse for results not adding up - bad physics. It makes much more sense to expect a "primordial" field, the ZPF, that shows up in Zitterbewegung action of electrons. Instead of the non-causality of virtual particles, one has instead infinitesmal lines of force that have existed forever causing the Zitterbewegung action, but which are "organized" though the process of acceleration into the various fields. While being imperfect in factual results, I consider him a hero for opening up the discussion into new ideas that have great potential, instead of the same old, same old that led to the monster we call string theory. I personally think there wouldn't be so much venom directed his way if some of his ideas, such as the ones I just mentioned, didn't actually make sense and didn't directly threaten the status quo.

The other stuff, such as UFOs, extracting energy from the vacuum, can all be considered personal opinions. But there is no reason to attack "everything" he's come up with because one disagrees with other parts. That's more of a visceral reaction and not logical or useful.

Zero-point field redirects here (again)

For being severely misleading and the much less used term, I've made Zero-point field and redirect to this article (again). Compare the last version before redirecting: Zero-point field. Stuff like According to recent 2005 theoretical considerations, the source free vacuum electromagnetic field can be considered to be a composite of a neutrino and an anti neutrino IMHO speaks for itself. The opinions of Bernard Haisch should be presented at Stochastic electrodynamics as they are considered fringe. Pjacobi 10:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You just deleted an entire article with 16 references, because you don't like one reference? Your behavior is very unbecoming and will be reported if it continues. If you have a problem with that reference, feel free to find a better one and replace it. --Sadi Carnot 11:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've already tried to get as much expert attention for this sad topic by posting an the respective project and portal talk pages, I'm more than willing to to endure any amout of reporting.

The only thing you've demonstrated by your article attempt was, that almost anything can be sourced. Without a knowledge of the standard textbooks of the fields, you will never have the ability to weight the sources.

Pjacobi 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Article critique

The article states:

The electromagnetic zero-point field is loosely considered as a sea of background electromagnetic energy that fills the vacuum of space, and is often regarded merely as a curious outcome of the quantum mechanical requirement...

This sentence is strange/misleading. 1) why single out the electromagnetic field? There is a vacuum state for all fields not just this one.

2) The assertion that its "merely a curious outcome" blatently contradicts the sentence right before it (which talks about the Casimir effect), and completely ignores things like Lamb shift, which was awarded with a Nobel prize, I believe.

linas 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

More non-sense

The article states:

It is believed that an electromagnetic field exists in a vacuum even when the temperature of the surrounding material is reduced towards zero so that the thermal field tends to zero.[3]

Two problemms:

1)True but insane/misleading. The vacuum state has nothing to do with thermal effects.

2) Again, a focus on the electromagnetic field; the phenomenon holds for all fields.

The existence of such a zero-point field has been confirmed experimentally by the Casimir experiment, i.e. the measurement of the attractive force between two parallel plates in an evacuated, near-zero temperature enclosure.[3]

Temperature has nothing to do with it. The Casimir effect is now regularly seen in nanotech devices, and is sometimes taken account of during the engineering phase.

That force is found to be proportional to the inverse fourth power of the distance apart of the plates; it has been shown that such a result can only be produced by a zero-point field whose spectral energy density has a frequency dependence of ρ(ν) = kν3.[3]

Half-true, half-bullshit. The article on the Casimir effect gives a better derivation. The actual effect depends not only on the bulk contribution, but also on the boundary conditions.

According to recent 2005 theoretical considerations, the source free vacuum electromagnetic field can be considered to be a composite of a neutrino and an anti neutrino and that the zero-point field may have a relation to the ubiquitous dark energy.[4]

This is utter and total crack-smoking insanity. linas 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet more nonsense

So far, every sentence in this article has contained either minor or major errors, or has been nonsense. The history section is particularly almost completely irrelevent to the concept. It attempts to recap half a century of development of QM and QFT into a focus on black body radiation and the quantization of the simple harmonic oscillator. This whole section should be deleted.

Its conclusion is insane:

In recent years, it has been suggested that the electromagnetic zero-point field is not merely an artifact of quantum mechanics, but a real entity with major implications for gravity, astrophysics and technology. This view is shared by a number of researchers, including Boyer (1980), McCrea (1986), Puthoff (1987) and Rueda and Haisch (1998).[8][9][10][11]

A long list of notable cranks. I too, had the mis-pleasure of dining with someone who was going put the dirty petroleum industry out of business by mining clean energy from the zero-point field. That does not mean my dinner guest was not a crank, despite his illustrious publications on this topic. linas 14:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Make this an article on the pseudoscience effects only.

I have a proposal. Given that this article got just about every aspect of the actual physics wrong, and given that actual physicists call it the "vacuum state" and not "zero-point energy", I suggest turning this article into an article about the pseudoscience only. This would allow more or less unlimited discussion of the cranky bits withlittle or no arguments. Would that work? linas 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I performed this edit, removing the erroneous explanations, and keeping only the pseudoscience discussions. I think it could turn into a marvelous article with a bit of work; I've enjoyed reading this kind of stuff on and off over the years. linas 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This has some problems with overlaps regarding Free energy suppression and Stochastic electrodynamics. But it's remarkably better than the previous attempt by Said. --Pjacobi 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A while ago, I actually read through some of the SED papers. These people aren't completely crazy; there's a kernel of an interesting idea there. The problem with SED is the rejection of QED, which, in terms of decimal places of measured values, is the most successful theory humankind has ever known. (FWIW, my wide & varied travels in math is in large part driven by a gut feeling that there's a certain something missing in QFT, and I have an inkling of what it is, but I don't have the tools to express it.) linas 00:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Move talk page back

I think it would be good to move the talk page back to Talk:Zero-point field, since its appearence here, at Talk:Vacuum state, is disconcerting and somewhat confusing. Is there an admin watching this, who could do this? linas 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Pjacobi 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment

I’m short on time presently, but quickly I see that the solution linas and Pjacobi have decided on is to chuck the term completely into the pseudoscience category and to strip off any respectable references I may have used. This obviously violates WP:NPOV. I understand, I don’t like articles that confound pseudoscience and science together; and I really could care less about this term, but quoting from Gribbin’s Encyclopedia of Particle Physics (subheading zero-point energy) “in quantum field theory, the lowest energy state of a field, i.e. its ground state, is non-zero, giving the quantum vacuum a complex structure.” Hence, at this point, I would rather scrap the whole article for this one sentence, with this one reference. Down the road, I will likely have more time to argue. Again, I really could care less if there actually is such a field or not; at this point there is too much derogatory commentary invariable directed at me as though I were up to some kind of conspiracy. I’ll have to come back to this irritating situation when my tanks are full. --Sadi Carnot 04:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As said above, we have articles for this mainstream knowledge. You find it everywhere in the QFT articles, starting from the very basic and well understood Vacuum polarization, the main article Vacuum state, the axiomatic QFT variant Reeh-Schlieder theorem, there's a connection to the Unruh effect. And a non-technical introduction is in the article Virtual particle.

Adding User:Sadi Carnot's essay on the zero-point field to this list of articles doesn't help.

And if you "don’t like articles that confound pseudoscience and science together", you shouldn't perhaps started btinging Lynne McTaggart in here.

Pjacobi 07:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

New option

Judging by the trend of logic the two of you are using against my efforts, namely (1) ridicule each reference then (2) delete it, I am going to assume that neither of you have the capacity to write a decent one page article on zero point field from a rigorous scientific point of view. I will also suggest that this article be split into zero-point field (science) and zero-point field (pseudoscience). This will be similar to the articles Law of attraction and laws of attraction, which both have their origins in Plato’s first law of affinity, i.e. “likes attract unto likes”, but have since veered off into their own topics, namely “self help” (the first variation) and “thermodynamics and quantum chemistry” (the second variation). I’ll let this sit for a while to see if either of you can prove me wrong by writing up a decent article: zero-point field (science). --Sadi Carnot 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sadi, you still don't get it. We already have articles about the topic which is (in science) rarely named "zero-point field", I will repeat the list I've already given above but each time I look into this, I find even more article on this topics, so the list is still growing:

• Vacuum state
• Vacuum polarization
• Virtual particle
• Vacuum expectation value
  • More specific
    • Casimir effect
    • Reeh-Schlieder theorem
    • Unruh effect
  • More general
    • Vacuum#Quantum-mechanical_definition
    • Ground state
    • Zero-point energy

Pls compare the citebase search result [1]:

The top cited paper actually using the phrase "zero point field" are all by David Haisch, and relate to his non-mainstream theory of Stochastic electrodynamics. Per current guidelines and common sense, this use of a term shouldn't enter the mainstream articles. Then there papers by BG Siddarth -- only cited by other papers of this author. The Ibison paper is also about SED, as are most of the less cited ones.

Pjacobi 09:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence for strong and weak force zero-point fields.

The previous undoing of the latest edited version is unwarranted and against the policy of Wikipedia. If an edit is to be undone without comment it must be obvious and proven that the previous edit was vandalism of the subject in question. There is no reason to undo the previous edit I made because it has never been proven that there is a corresponding zero point field for the weak and strong force, either experimentally or that it is required mathematically. If you don't believe it then just do some of the latest cutting edge research on what quantum entanglement of particles actually is. You will find that the strong and weak force are just examples of quantum entanglement of particles and that the decay of particles in th weak force is just an imperfect instance of entanglement. Quantum Entanglement has also been shown to not require anything besides an electromagnetic zero-point field to come into existance. Until you have educated yourself on this subject you have no right to undo this past edit without comment.75.6.239.2 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Are New Age ideas based on the zero point field completely pseudoscience?

It's interesting how easy it is for people to jump to conclusions about things. In the effort to put themselves in line with the herd of sheep called society "most" theortical physicists will delude themselves into believing certain things are impossible and that other things deemed impossible are not possible because it has been stated by authority figures in the field. For instance it has been an enduring position of the scientific community that conservation of energy does not pertain at the quantum level. Scientists have acted like contortionists to create theories of virtual particles, quantum "fluctuations" and delayed choice so as not to have to admit this is what they really believe. But everything they have said and speculated about in the last 50 years says they don't take conservation of energy at the quantum level seriously. Every time the flag of "conservation of energy" is run up the flafpole they all salute it because they just can't bring themselves to own up to it. But they are like little kids with crumbs on their faces telling their mom they don't know what happened to the chocolate cake she just baked.

But once you take conservation of energy and conservation of information (which is the same thing) seriously at the quantum level all sorts of strange and even mythical effects start to emerge. If information never is really lost do you really want to treat other people in a way you would not want to be treated? Even the idea of "fairness" suddenly takes on a richer meaning. Things just might come back to bite you if you don't act right. An idea we could all use a little bit more of.75.7.16.106 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get how you derive such things from conservation of information. Note that conservation of information does not necessarily mean the information comes back in the same form it was put out. E.g. if you toss a gun down a black hole and the Hawking radiation were to return the information contained in it (one theory about how "conservation of information" could be achieved in a black hole -- there are actually quite a few), what comes back out is not capable of shooting people... (I don't know of any theory in which the gun magically returns intact to its original form) you get a flux of photons emitted over many aeons, that if you could interpret it correctly would contain the original pattern of the gun, but don't expect someone to get shot just because this information radiated out of the BH. The information was transmuted into a form in which it was no longer capable of doing that. Nice try at explaining stuff, but you have to remember that Information, like Energy, can change form even if it is "conserved", and some forms are more or less useful than others, and the same information in different forms can have different effect. You cannot use QM in the way you would like to here, sorry. QM is NOT a magic box that is capable of simply and easily explaining away every question and belief in existence, which, it seems, is what you are trying to do with it. mike4ty4 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edited "time" out of definition of temperature.

I changed my own edit because I realized time was intimately involved with the flow of information locally. At zero degrees kelvin the flow of energy and information stops. This seems to indicate that time itself for any space or body that could actually be brought to that temperature, would stop. So time is a redundant definition in that context. Time seems to be a measure of the "ticking over" of information locally. It may also be the reason that time slows down for any object accelerated to near the speed of light. If gravity is a measure of the zpf energy density surrounding a massive object or particle, then near the speed of light the zpf energy density around that object would be so "thinned out" that the energy and information exchange between the zpf and the object would slow down - time slows down. 75.7.18.188 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Planck Length

I added a new section about the Planck length and how it relates to the upper limit for zpf density. I tried to write in the most elegant way I could so the reader could follow the logic easily without being asked to make leaps of faith. Because I don't have citations for this section I felt this was neccessary. If anybody has a citation that fits with this section it would be appreciated. This isn't to say the logic I put into the section requires it. Anybody with a brain can follow it and I left the final judgement on its efficacy to be left to the future. So please don't take this comment as my admission that it "requires" a citation.

It would just be nice, that's all. 75.6.249.219 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Header for ZPF article

I changed the overall emphasis zpf theory summary from one of being derived purely from statistical probability to one that is larger than merely a result of statistical analysis. This larger idea also encompasses changes resulting from quantum uncertainty. The only problem with this change is that it effects a footnote. With the change it makes it look like a disagreement with the authors in the footnote. However, I have reason to believe those authors probably also have changed their opinion from what that footnote references. So, rather than having the article look like it was trying to negate the opinion of those specific individuals I would like to remove the footnote. The previous concensus view really wasn't just the view held by those individuals but was widespread in the scientific community.

So if someone wants to reinstate the footnote for some other work by those individuals I would be appreciative. I'm trying to avoid stepping on toes while still being respectful of the subject. If no one comes up with one I will try to find something to footnote them them that is consistant with the article, but it might appear somewhere else in the article. No promises though, so I would appreciate if those individuals, or someone representing them, would make the needed insertion. 75.6.240.73 (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Added new section on limits of causality

Started new section and will finish it up in the next few days. I need to add citations for Puthoff and Haisch on inertial forces and zitterbewegung action and on Haisch alone for plane waves created dring acceleration. I'll do implication for this tunneling action and how it is a different way of looking at both quantum entanglement and torsion, but is basically the same thing. Also need to add 1935 EPR reference. This is just a start... 75.6.253.154 (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Finished section, mostly. Decided not to get into history of quantum entanglement because most of that info is in public domain and can be referenced elsewhere. Included new and better citations for Puthoff, Rueda, and Haisch.75.6.249.151 (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Too long?

I read the comment that its too long. I hate to say it but I think the section I added may have been too much. So I will delete it. There's a lot of information that goes with it and the section doesn't really do it justice. Plus it comes close to duplicating things that came earlier in the article. To some people I'm sure it comes just too close to effects they typically associate with pseudoscience. I don't think people are ready to accept that and it deserves its own separate subject anyway that goes into much more detail. So I'm deleting the section. However I will delete the comment that the article is too long with it. If there is still a problem with the article's length please make any response here first. Then we can work on the issue together rather than having me try to read minds.75.7.19.150 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I included the mathematical justification for an index that counteracts an increasing G as the universe expands. It was taken from the section that I recently deleted. It fits in more with the tone of the article than the previous section and it adds only about 6 lines. So I don't think anyone will object to excessive length from that small addition. However, I'm aware that the article has now pretty much reached a length that is about right. I don't think much more can be added without decreasing its overall quality. So if anyone, including me, adds something quantitatively it should probably be at the expense of having to delete something else. The only alternative seems to be a major reorganization, but I don't think that is neccessary as the article as a whole hangs together really well right now.75.7.13.237 (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic style

It is a fact that Albert Einstein's equation in General Relativity for the geometrodynamics of space is one of the most beautiful equations in physics. Unfortunately, its beauty has resulted in a fixation in the West on the mathematics of geometry, including the geometry of hyper-dimensional space. This focus has resulted in Western mainstream physics ignoring the need for a mathematical definition that connects the classical General Relativity 4-dimensional and Kaluza-Klein 5-dimensional theories of the geometry of space with new quantum mechanical derived ideas that will better correlate with them. Until an explicit mathematical equation is robustly proven to link these two disparate interpretations of physics the first law of thermodynamics for our universe appears to be conceptually violated.

This writing style is not what someone would expect from an encyclopaedia. Though I couldn't find any rule on writing style, I believe that an objective-unemotional style would be more appropriate. --77.56.90.38 (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Adjusted style somewhat and made it less subjective. If the criticism above relates only to style then it is fixed. If it relates also to an intrinsic criticism of where physics has gone in the last 30 years then it probably won't meet your satisfaction. I think it can be argued that 4d and 5d space required better integration with QFT before >5d space was tackled. I won't back down on that. Its just bad problem solving technique, period.75.7.5.159 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Casting the neutrality of this into dispute. Time for overhaul?

I don't like this. It seems to be advocating various nonstandard physical theories such as Andrei Sakharov's alternative gravitation theories. As it seems to be slanted toward these theories (as opposed to not having a slant at all), it feels as though it runs afoul of Wikipedia's Neutrality policies (NPOV). Does anyone here agree, and does anyone want to do something about it? It also suggests that zpf somehow is incompatible with the law of conservation of energy and that this presents a significant problem in physics. Yet I've never heard of an incompatibility between zpf and conservation of energy -- this sounds like some sort of "Original Research" that is not appropriate for WP. Anyone really, really knowledgeable about physics in all the relevant areas want to examine the claims made on the page? They seem a little suspect. I also noted cites of Harold Puthoff, whom I consider suspicious as he seems to be "convinced" that Uri Geller's "psychic" claims are valid -- yet from what I've seen, Geller has been pretty thoroughly debunked and exposed as an outright fraud and con man, though this of course is no substitute for a logical exam of his claims (though that itself is beyond the scope of WP -- WP is concerned with reporting on things, not investigating their validity or lack thereof.). It just adds to the growing overall atmosphere of suspectness/dubiousness of the things expounded about on this page. I also find some statements on here a little odd. E.g. "In recent years, it has been suggested that the electromagnetic zero-point field is not merely an artifact of quantum mechanics, but a real entity with major implications for gravity, astrophysics and technology." However I'm not sure what physicists would call the zpf "merely" an "artifact" as though it were unimportant. I could be wrong on this, of course. And "One cannot invoke another world or universe to justify unjustifiable fluctuations just when it is useful to solve an inconvenient problem, as in the many worlds philosophy of quantum mechanics." This seems like a strange and peculiar slam at Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory -- I have not heard of MWI being used as a "cop out" to push away inconvenient problems. Again I could be wrong, but this just doesn't seem good.

A great deal of information has been put into this article, making it highly complex and difficult to figure out what should be kept and rejected (there might be good stuff buried in there after all), and I think someone with both good expertise in physics and good neutrality should go over this and get it up to spec with Wikipedia policy. mike4ty4 (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike, there are many things you've said that don't seem to add up to a valid criticism. The main criticism seems to be that the information is non-standard. It seems to be based on the idea that all points of view should always be represented, even when subject is about one particular thing. Sakharov's representation of the zpf is one of the main sources of knowledge of the ZPF. Even now his paper on induced gravity is being referenced in a course on general relativity for cosmology at the Perimeter Institute, perhaps the leading foundational research facility for physics in the world.

If you haven't understood that the zpf requires a huge assortment of unproven simultaneous things to make it unobserved then you just aren't thinking.

Where did I say ZPF was not observed? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

First, it requires something to offset it which acts like a negative energy source, like super partner particles. None have ever been discovered and you can't assume they are there until they are discovered.

Second, it requires that the "observed" vacuum energy be zero. It isn't because of the recent discovery of redshift in type Ia supernovae which shows an acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

The existence of ZPF is not in question here. What is in question is certain theories about it, whether it is appropriate to include those theories in Wikipedia, especially on this article, and how they should be presented. Who's saying ZPF (i.e. nonzero vacuum energy) has not been observed? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Third, it requires that each Planck length volume that is added to the existing sum of Planck length volumes each have the the requisite "positive" zpf energy and exotic "negative" energy to create a balance of zero observed energy. That means as the universe expands each new volume that is added to the sum of volumes is assigned this balance of positive and negative. This technically conserves observable energy at zero but this does not agree with the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is based on gas law where a system has a finite energy and as the volume containing that energy is enlarged the density goes down. Please research basic physics. This is not original research but simple logical deduction.

So what do you think happens then as the universe expands? Finally, original research, in the sense of Wikipedia, is any argument or reasoning that has not been mentioned outside of Wikipedia. From the policy page itself -- WP:NOR: "[original research] includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." Have a good read over WP:NOR thoroughly. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fourth, each new Planck volume that is added to the universe the way you are thinking about can be viewed as a quantum universe that is added to existing sum of quantum universes. But the temperature of the universe is going down as is reflected in the now lowered cmb radiation temperature. Think about it: if you put energy into a hypothetical system and you continue to add energy, albeit of a positive and negative complimentary nature, will that radiation temperature still go down? The zpf as you are thinking about it does not conserve energy.

So you believe the ZPF energy density actually goes down as the universe expands, so as to conserve energy? Or what? Also, the CMB radiation is not the ZPF, either. It's essentially leftover photons from the Big Bang. The ZPF of the EM field is what you're left with if you were to remove ALL photons (that's why it's called zero-point field!). As the volume of the universe increases the photons get more widely spread and also redshifted. mike4ty4 (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can call the most basic and simple logic "non-standard". Do you really want to become that squeamish about "thought" that the most rudimentary clear thinking is rejected in Wikipedia because a lot of people haven't really thought about it? As far as the many worlds interpretation is concerned it basically is derived from everything I've stated about the un-logical view of the zpf. It just continues it and makes excuses for it. Do some research and start thinking again.

Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought or research of any type. Only what is published elsewhere is allowed here, and furthermore, it must be represented neturally, that is that even if you believe your theory superior to some other, Wikipedia is not the place to champion that view or to degrade the other. You might also want to take a thorough read of WP:NPOV to better understand precisely what Wikipedia requires. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, Puthoff is a respected physicist who has done a lot of original work that I respect. However that doesn't mean I agree with everything he does. Nor should you. No one agrees 100% with someone else but does that mean you damn everything that person thinks or does because of one thing? You are being overly harsh with both him and me when you imply that because he agrees with Yuri Geller that "nothing" he says or does should be counted.

I didn't at all say it was a substitute for a logical analysis of the claims. I was just saying it makes it more suspicious. It seems you are interpreting that I'm presenting this in an extreme black-and-white manner: if there is anything to cast doubt on any part of something, then the whole darn thing is totally, completely, patently false with precisely 0% truth in it. This is not at all what I was saying. I was saying it makes it suspicious, i.e. it makes the other claims less trustworthy. It is not a disproof, and I even said explicitly and directly: "this [the 'suspicion' cast by the Geller stuff] of course is no substitute for a logical exam of his claims" and that "it just adds to the growing overall atmosphere of suspectness/dubiousness of the things expounded about on this page". Where am I saying it proves it to be wrong? To me this sounds like a straw man attack. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I really think you should examine your own motives for your criticism to understand where your criticism is coming from. Eric Habegger 75.7.12.4 (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I would like very much if you could answer every one of my rebuttals. Most importantly, I would like you to explain how simple logic than can be understood by anyone and which does not require technical expertise can be considered a non-standard element of a subject on Wikipedia, even if it disputes some things many people have "assumed". If you can answer that in a satisfying way that doesn't completely end up with a policy of emasculation of Wiki then I will let your criticism stand. Otherwise I will consider your criticism based on your own biases based on tacit acceptance of unexamined ideas and will remove the criticism. Eric Habegger75.7.12.4 (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious: have you subjected your ideas to the exact same level of rigorous examination you'd want me to subject mine to? mike4ty4 (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What sort of "motives" do you think it is? The motives are simple: help WP do what it's supposed to do. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Timetable for resolution of dispute

I think its worthwhile to be reasonable and courteous about disputes. However the criticism about neutrality seems to be coming from someone who really isn't conversant with big issues in physics, and perhaps not even with physics in general. I have no way of knowing because he hasn't responded to my rebuttal of his claim that the article is biased. A timetable seems reasonable for that party or anyone else to respond to my rebuttal of the issues that were raised. Does a week seem long enough? I propose that if good arguments are not put forward to counter my rebuttal in the section above then I will remove the neutrality banner in a week.

The issues involved seem pretty straight forward to me - are all sides of a subject required to be viewed equally on all subjects even when not all viewpoints are equally valid by logic and evidence. This is a central issue for the dumbing down of culture today. I'm not saying highly technical arguments for a thesis invalidity or validity have high merit, but I am saying easily understandable arguments should be given a good airing. That's what I've tried to present in this article. I've put a lot of effort into showing that the issues involved with the status quo version of the zpf are not complicated and that a different vision of it are easily understood physically. Eric Habegger 75.7.11.140 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem however is that Wikipedia articles are not the place to challenge "status quo" theories, or any theories for that matter: it is supposed to be about neutral reporting on such theories. And finally WP:NPOV is NOT about giving "equal validity", either. Also which theories are more logically correct is a matter for scientific research. Wikipedia is not a scientific research organization. It is an encyclopedia, that attempts to report on the best current knowledge available. You seem to think one viewpoint is not logically valid. Others would disagree, and say yours is not logically valid. Wikipedia is not to take a stand in that, however. That is what neutrality has to do with, and that is the source of my objections. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I'm afraid you didn't answer any of my rebuttals to your original challenge. Until you answer my rebuttal arguments to the complaints YOU BROUGHT UP I will be reversing your banner in a little less than a week. You defined the stage of battle and that is the stage I've acquiesced to and am argueing on. Now you want to change that stage because you know you don't know the history and cutting edge questions in physics today. Start answering my rebuttal in a physics context. This subject is about the physics of the zpf and not about physics that you might have read about 30 years ago. Established knowledge moves on, and that is what I've presented. You will have to move on also, your ignorance of modern physics and your perverse pride in that fact not withstanding. Eric Habegger 75.6.255.139 (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not about the validity of the physics. The questions are about whether this is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and in the way it is being included right here. That is what this is about. Also, what top, leading-edge physicists support all your views and theories? You say this is the cutting edge, so then it should be known to the top physics renowned the entire world over. You say it's "established" knowledge, so then you should find few physicists today that disagree with it. Do you? And there is no "perverse pride", that's crap and you know it. But you can call that a lie of course or something like that, so I'll never be able to convince you. And if I don't know enough about physics where the hell can I get more knowledge about it that would be more "current"? Apparently every source I've gone to to learn anything about physics and so on is all 30 years out of date regardless of the dates on them?! (Of course that's totally irrelevant to the WP policy issue.) 170.215.90.116 (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, why don't you answer the questions, such as where am I saying that ZPF has not been observed, for example? 170.215.90.116 (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not an "expert" in physics. But what I'm really after here is the appropriateness of the material for WP, which does not depend on the scientific validity of the theory involved. mike4ty4 (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Eric, this article is such a mess that I don't know where to begin. I prefer to end content disputes by coming to an agreement about the content, but I think that's hopeless in this case, so I'm going to stick with policy. Wikipedia is not the place to publish revolutionary paradigm-shifting ideas in physics. That's not what it is about. You can write about them on your own web site, or you can write an overview paper and try to get a journal to publish it; you just can't publish it here. -- BenRG (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

BenRG, I think you should be much more specific about it being a "mess". As one example, the last section in which I mentioned the ratios of lengths that Feynman brought up, but with the only contradiction being "G". Now, it can be just left at that but we know more now than he did that there really is a cosmological constant that fits and that it isn't zero. He assumed G had to be right because he thought the cc was zero. It seems to me I'm just asking an ordinary question if G really is correct if we now know there really isn't a balance of positive zpf energy and something that completely cancels it. Is asking that question and delving into the suspected answer to be considered just a "mess" considering the fact that changing "G" would clear up just about every other conctradiction between gravitational physics and quantum physics? It does not seem like an arcane or complicated subject to be investigated even if there are not direct references.

How do you want to handle the "G" question? I have a feeling there are references related to this question that are relevant but I don't know where they are. You are assuming there are no references to this and that therefore the question cannot be asked. I would say the task for you is to find the references that are closest and then modify the subject matter to those references rather than do a wholesale alteration. I've put a huge amount of work into this article. Couldn't you make a small effort to find those references. The previous banner to have it wikified was justified but you are assuming its my job to do everything and if "I" don't do it then it has to be sort of destroyed. It seems to me the wiki community is just letting the article dangle in the wind by not contributing substantively with links and references. That's what the Wikify banner was suppose to promote.75.6.255.139 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

References are needed per WP policy. Furthermore, you should've put the references in while writing the thing, and also minded the neutrality. If you don't know where these references are, then I want to know where you're getting the information from that you have put in here. If it was in a book or paper or something, then that would be an initial first choice for a reference, but you might want to also consult Wikipedia's reliable references guidelines to determine if it would be up to snuff. If it's something you came up with yourself, then it's not suitable for Wikipedia unless someone else already came up with it and it is somewhere in a reference or you have had it published elsewhere in a sufficiently reliable outlet, all per WP's no original research policy. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike,this was addressed to BenRG because he is the one who concurs with you. However since you mentioned it, technically the Wikification banner covers many things. I would think it would also cover the citing of references in scientific journals. You seem to be very sure that what I'm writing is original research but I don't really think it is. For instance I understand that Dirac, then Jordan, then Brans and Dicke investigated a varying gravitational constant. It seems to me you have jumped the gun in accusing me of doing original research. I've put in a lot of work on the article but never said it was complete. That's why I hoped someone would respond to the Wikify banner. Why didn't you do some research and try to add references. And if there are slight differences with the references, then you could harmonize the material to the references. Wiki isn't a one man show. I've only done what one man can do without help. What I'm seeing in both your and BenRG response is not an effort to improve the article based on the earlier Wikify banner but an emotional response to an "intuitive" interpretation of what the ZPF represents. The math actually does represent something physical and most if not all of the article is about the physical underpinnings to the math.

I know it wasn't addressed to me but I thought I'd offer my comment. Also, it's not an "emotional response" to anything, it is rather a response based on what appears to be things that aren't suitable for Wikipedia per its policies. Those policies are there regardless of any "emotional response". Also, you may wish to review the definition of the "wikify": Wikipedia:Glossary#Wikify "To format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and add internal links to material [i.e. to other Wikipedia articles], incorporating it into the whole of Wikipedia." If there was any "emotional response" it would likely have been to a few certain key claims, for example to the inclusion of giving certain views which I consider highly "pseudoscientific" a free pass in the "Related" section by saying "some consider them pseudoscience" but only in the middle of stuff that seems to buttress it. This "emotional response" though would be more because the views seem highly against science, esp. the "messages in water" thing whose discoverer even admits to the use of selective methodology in, which is pretty much useless insofar as determing if any phenomena are really occuring. Also, perhaps there was some "emotional response" that came later, when you seemed to refuse to answer questions in the above section about, for example, how your theories resolve claimed "pradoxes" like the constant zpf density vs nonconstant cosm volume thing, more like frustration really. However, emotional responses are an aside: the issue still remains, regardless of them, the compliance or lack thereof of this article with Wikipedia policy. Do you see what I am talking about? mike4ty4 (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have assumed wrongly, in combination with my lack of references, that the main substance represents new research. But it is mostly just a different, and more physical approach to the subject. But it still seems to me that if both you and BenRG want to be constructive and not destructive, you would find the applicable references from the names I mentioned, including Feynman, and then harmonize the article regarding "G" with those references. I hereby assign you that job because Wiki is a group effort and no one person can do it all. I also still think that the Wikify banner covers the problems, including references, in this article. I think both of you have jumped the gun in declaring it POV without trying to find the references yourselves. If no references can be found for some of the subject material, THEN it may be profitably removed. Intuitive physical understanding and technical mathematic underpinnings often are two ways of describing the same things and I think you might be surprised how much reference material there is between the two things.75.6.251.17 (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Research" in the term "original 'research'" is a little more broad than that: what Wikipedia means by the term original research includes "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." So the first question then is: is this "approach" (which I'd say would be an "idea") published in any source outside of Wikipedia? If so, what sources? The sources must agree with the reliability guidelines. There is also a "burden" on the poster of material to provide the necessary sources and citations, as well. I don't have access to academic libraries, so I myself might not be able to do the proper research to verify the claims and/or provide the necessary sources. Though I know I might not be able to, I nonetheless also know this likely can't be on here at least not the way it is written. Yet I see an awful lot of statements that seem to be making conclusions (some I mentioned) and statements that don't have references added, and that is what I was coming here to point out. So I'll ask again: where are you getting the information from? Where did you get all those statements from? As if you were getting them from a book, paper, etc. you could have referenced it, provided it met the reliability guidelines. You would not have to go and do some digging somewhere because you'd have the material right there! mike4ty4 (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is this: both of you try to find "in good faith" the references to the problems you see in the article. I'm talking about references in established respected media and journals that agree with the article. One can always find references from prior knowledge that is out of date and that does not count. This probably will take a long time if you do that and then harmonize it with them. In the meantime I propose to delete the POV banner on the original timetable if you agree with that. In this way you will no longer have a problem with me taking over the subject matter for this article and you will be contributing substantively to the article and increasing your own knowledge of subject simultaneously. May I suggest you watch Feynman's first Messenger Lecture on the TUVA site for your first introduction to the G problem.75.6.251.17 (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So where are you saying all this stuff came from, if not such media and journals?

What I'd suggest is that you should first review the neutrality policy, which among other things means that conclusions cannot be advanced in Wikipedia articles, and also that opinions in disputes must be weighted according to how widely they are held. And also the original research and verifiability policies, if you haven't done so already. If you have, my apologies, I just don't know. If these views and theories are not mainstream (though you called it "established" in one post), then they might not belong or might be only briefly referenceable in this article about "zero-point field", per the weighting guidelines section of the neturality policies, which is about that subject in general not a specific theory about it. If they are notable enough, they might be deserving of a distinct article. Even if not worth their own article, they may be includable in another existing article or articles -- I'm not sure what they'd fall under as I haven't seem a name for the theories. I'd say you should consult with other Wikipedia editors, who may be able to advise you further in determining, for example, the notability of the theories, getting better references, presenting it from a neutral point of view, etc. mike4ty4 (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, as long as this argument is still ongoing, I'd suggest the banner be retained as the argument/"dispute" is still going. mike4ty4 (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a believer in giving people what they think they want. Only that way do they learn the hard work and contentious issues that come up. Therefore I will no longer contribute to this article or to Wiki. I'm only suggesting that you, or you and BenRG do the research on references that back up the information in the article. That way you'll have a clear conscience instead of just deleting things and suffering the consequences from others. I think I've had it with Wiki from this experience with you. Take it over and you and BenRG can make it into whatever you want. I don't want to turn into a defensive person by having to deal with blanket accusations from the both of you after doing so much work gratis. Bye. Eric Habegger 75.6.251.17 (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not "accusations", I'm just pointing out what the policy says, and why this doesn't seem to conform. You failed to tell me what sources you got what you wrote from, which I questioned you on because you seemed to make it sound like it would be a huge hassle for you to add the references, yet if you got your stuff from some other sources, then that's what you cite and citing them would not be hard at all since you know what they are! Do you see? If you made it all up yourself then it's not suitable for Wikipedia unless you have already premiered it elsewhere that is sufficiently reliable, per the original research policy. See? That's all I'm trying to say. mike4ty4 (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and as for suffering "consequences", if the consensus of the community -- which is something I'm still plumbing for as it seems few others have come to weigh in on this -- is to delete, there are no "consequences" and no unclear conscience. I have already said that I myself am not in the position to be able to do the research myself, so I can't do it. I just do not have the ability or means to do the necessary work, as I have explained to your earlier. Learn well the difference between "not willing" and "not able". If the consensus is to trim, then it gets trimmed. If someone else with the necessary access and ability which I lack finds sources, then sources get added. If the consensus is the article could be saved but it requires a big rewrite to meet NPOV, then that's what happens. mike4ty4 (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And also, if you want to preserve the work, there's nothing that says you can't take that stuff you yourself did off to a website other than Wikipedia. You can even include stuff someone else has done, provided the distribution is done in accordance with to the licensing agreements (see WP:C). mike4ty4 (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, that's what this is about: what's compatible with WP policy. I suppose if there was to be an "agreement" about the content, then he'd have to agree to that, and that would involve sticking only to published research and sticking to the neutral point of view. mike4ty4 (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Boldly redirected

Just look at this talk page. This article has been an embarrassment since inception, a WP:COATRACK for fringe-cruft and amalgamation of topics not found in any single reliable source metioned. One particular unregistered user has been using it for his original research and personal essay space, violating synthesis. The separate topics are covered in other articles. I have redirected to Vacuum state, as that article mentions the zero point field in its first paragraph as a synonym, but if someone wants to redirect it to Zero-point energy, that would be fine as well. Tim Shuba (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

wow, and then the whole heated argument just kind of peters out! like, would the last person leaving the room please turn the lights out kind of thing. Richard8081 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

+1 User:Linas (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)