My father told me a story once about a Dutch mathematician working in the Netherlands under the Nazi occupation. He was constructing a large Cartesian grid of the complex primes, a project without any known practical applications. Nevertheless, he told his captors that his work somehow had nearly magical military value, so they left him alone to work on it in safety and comfort throughout the war. Afterwards, he supposedly admired the pretty pattern of the grid and had it printed up as a tablecloth. Later, a Rice University mathematician who owned one of the tablecloths built a home in West University (Houston) and commissioned a black and white tile floor in the house in an area where a central column was surrounded on all four sides by a kitchen and open living area. (He also supposedly commissioned a screen door with a graphical proof of the 4-color theorem built into its frame.) The mathematician was said to have taken infinite pains with the tile-workers, who were skeptical that the precise random-looking scatter-pattern was meaningful, and were therefore irritated when their client proofread the work every night and forced them to make corrections.
It was a charming story that, as far as I can tell today, had no basis in fact. There was indeed a Dutch mathematician, Balthasar van der Pol (1889–1959), who made a Cartesian grid of the Gaussian primes and had it printed up as a tablecloth, a novelty item that was sold at the 1954 International Congress of Mathematicians. Surviving examples are held in museum collections such as the Museum Boerhaave in Leiden. Although van der Pol had held a prominent position at the Philips laboratories in Eindhoven throughout the Nazi occupation, where his work in radio/electronics and relaxation oscillations was considered an essential industry, there is no record of his work during that period involving the complex primes grid, or of his persuading the Nazis that it had abstruse military applications. The tablecloth project itself was post-liberation, tied to the 1954 ICM. So darn it, that was a nice story that I wish were true. The West U. house with the interesting tile floor and screen door may have existed, but there’s no record of it.
I was reminded of this story, which my father may have invented himself, or may have passed along as an amusing story heard from someone else, when I saw breathless reports on X this evening about a breakthrough physics paper that would unlock unlimited power from vacuum and render moot all the current quarreling over fossil fuels, including the current military action in Iran. The abstract reads like a Sokal hoax, packed with buzzwords:
Emergent quantization from a dynamic vacuum, Harold White, Jerry Vera, Andre Sylvester, and Leonard Dudzinski, 2025, Physical Review Research 8, 013264 (2026). We show that adding quadratic temporal dispersion to a dynamic-vacuum acoustic model yields a fully analytic, exactly isospectral mapping to the hydrogenic Coulomb problem. In the regime [formula], a proton-imprinted constitutive profile produces an inverse sound speed [formula] and hence a time-harmonic operator [formula] that is Coulombic at each bound eigenfrequency. . . .
But what do I know? I’m about as well-versed in quantum theory as the man in the moon. Grok maintains that it is a real paper, in a reputable journal, not currently being outed as a hoax. On the other hand, Grok also reports:
The hype you’re seeing on X, Reddit, and sites like stardrive.org (“Power from zero point energy!”) is not coming from the paper. It’s people (and sometimes White’s company) connecting dots that aren’t there. Harold White runs Casimir, Inc., which separately claims to be building tiny nano-scale “Casimir cavities” (asymmetric vacuum structures with nanopillars) that supposedly let electrons tunnel one way and produce a trickle of DC power—on the order of microwatts (e.g., 1.5 V at ~25 µA per chip in their promotional descriptions). They’re framing this new paper as theoretical support for their “dynamic vacuum” ideas, but:
Those claims are not in the Physical Review Research article.
The outputs are minuscule—enough for maybe a sensor or IoT tag that “never needs charging,” not your house, car, or grid.
Independent verification is essentially nonexistent; mainstream physics views continuous net power from the quantum vacuum as incompatible with thermodynamics (you can’t extract usable work from equilibrium fluctuations without violating detailed balance).
In short: this paper is fascinating math for people who like fluid analogs of quantum mechanics, but it gives no more practical power-generation advice than a paper on black-hole analogs tells you how to build a starship. The “revolution” narrative is classic over-extrapolation from a speculative theory paper + a company’s early-stage promotional claims.
So don’t sell all your fossil-fuel stocks yet.
I'm afraid I have no idea what some of those phrases mean. It sort of sounds like they came up with a mathematical model that has the same solutions as the model for the hydrogen atom. That's clever, but I don't know what significance it has, if any.
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying, no warp drive?
DeleteThe issue as I understand it is this:
Delete1) Hydrogen is just a proton and an electron joined together. (Indeed all elements are more complex versions of the same phenomenon, many featuring also neutrons; but they are all formed by combining these sub-atomic particles).
2) These things come to be because quanta create the sub-atomic particles.
3) These quanta seem to pop out of the vacuum rather than being formed of smaller particles.
4) How that part works has been a real mystery.
They seem to be saying that they can use sound to cause vacuum to create hydrogen by producing the quanta in the right solutions to form hydrogen. You didn’t link the paper, so I can’t read the rest of it. If that’s true, though, well fusion power just requires hydrogen. If the expense of creating hydrogen ex nihilo is low enough, you still have to solve the cold fusion problem; but if you can do all of that, you could create limitless energy from nothing.
Not really ‘nothing,’ of course; the background reality that supports the creation of quanta already. You could stimulate the vacuum to produce matter that can be used to produce energy: E=MCsquared.
Can't invest in it, I put all my money in the Turbo Encabulator.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag
Grim, your item 1) is correct. Wrt 2-3, If they are using the word "quanta" that way I don't know what they're talking about. It certainly can happen that an electron appears spontaneously, but that's accompanied by antimatter -- and demands energy input if they are to survive. Things can get weirdly non-intuitive at very short time scales, but it all has to balance out at the end. The theory that describes this behavior has been verified to extremely high precision.
ReplyDeleteIf you fused 4 hydrogen nuclei together you'd get out at most (some energy would be lost to neutrinos escaping) less than 1% of the total mc^2 of the 4 hydrogen nuclei, so if you _could_ create the hydrogen you'd not get back very much of your investment.
As I mentioned, all I have to read is the brief quote that Tex put up. I'm not really sure what they're claiming beyond that.
DeleteFound the link way down in the X thread: https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/pdf/10.1103/l8y7-r3rm
DeleteGreat, I'll read it when I get some time.
DeleteAs I said above, the idea that you can cause the void to produce various quantum entities isn't weird because that's how they always come to be naturally; and if it produces both hydrogen and also antimatter reliably, that could also be useful if you could separate/contain/control that (or, alternatively, usefully capture the release of energy when they combine and destroy each other).
What I see as problems is (a) the cost; as James points out, usually the cost of creating something is greater than the cost of leaving things alone because the creation has to balance out, plus you've put energy into the process of creating the change. Also (b) why sound would be the right way to stimulate a vacuum; that's at least surprising, if not the tell that this isn't quite real, given that sound doesn't travel in a vacuum. But we have recently learned that you sort-of can, for very short distances:
https://www.space.com/sound-transmit-in-vacuum
And maybe they're containing this vacuum, so the sound is affecting the container directly and the vacuum indirectly. In any case, it's an interesting concept.
I'd have to argue that the claim you can transmit "sound" across a vacuum (albeit a tiny distance) is flat out false. They're basically doing a radio transmission- converting sound into energy, transmitting that and receiving it. That's not "sound" transmission. That's not to say it might not later have some practical application, but it's not transmitting "sound".
DeleteActually, thinking a little more about it, it's not even really similar to radio transmission- it's more like a telegraph. The EMF they have to create to give a medium for the transmission is like the wires, and the vibrations converted to electrical charge which disrupts the field is the transmission.
DeleteSo you're saying, no warp drive?
ReplyDeleteNo, but there's still the UPD, the Uncertainty Principle Drive. This takes advantage of the principle that you can't specify, at the subatomic particle level, both speed and location.
All it takes is a computer powerful enough that it can scale that to our macroworld and that can cycle fast enough to perform the useful calculations at a useful rate.
The UPD actually renders speed irrelevant, and working from the wave status of the thing (our spaceship), which is just a probability estimate, until specifications occur, all that's necessary is to choose the location desired and collapse the wave. In order to simplify the calculations, it's better to choose a location near the peak of the probability curve, but this is OK, too, because of that rapid calculation cycle rate of the ship's computer.
The outcome is an arbitrarily fast translation of our spaceship through space, a translation as far above FTL motion as we might wish. There's no violation of the speed limit of light, though, since our spaceship isn't really moving; we're just selecting a sequence of places to b while not existing (in normal space, but only the space of our computer's operations) between location selections until we arrive at our destination.
That this would take a computer that's presently beyond our capability to build, much less to power and operate is not particularly worrisome; I have confidence in ultimate human ingenuity.
Eric Hines
The paper doesn’t seem to contemplate the energy issues, neither to give a sense of how much it costs to conjure hydrogen from the void in this way nor to suggest that this could be a source of power. My questions about using sound are not clearly addressed, unless it’s in the parts of the mathematics that are beyond my training.
ReplyDelete