I’d like to put my two cents worth into the discussion on the zero point energy.
The following web sites had the comments that I will mark with the letters ‘ThC’ for ‘Their Comment”. My comments will be marked with a ‘MC’.
http://www.mariner.connectfree.co.uk/Gravity/gravity.html
http://www.socorro.demon.co.uk/zpe.htm
http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether_0.html
http://www.mariner.connectfree.co.uk/Gravity/Basic_gravity/basic_gravity.html
MC –Before I can explain my understanding of Zero Point Energy, I must first explain what my understanding is of the various words that are being used in the explanation.
First let me point out that the key words that will be used will have the meaning in the fundamental sense. That is, the meaning of the words will be reduced to the fundamental or mathematical level, such as the words ‘fundamental space’ will mean; three dimensional area devoid of anything. Or if you prefer “fundamental space=fs3. ‘ or what ever other kind of designation one wishes to use, as long as the meaning remains that there is absolutely nothing in that cubic area. Strangely enough, that is a difficult concept to understand, since even the space that we usually consider empty, such as the area between the distant galaxies, is full of various types of ‘energies’ and ‘fields’. Fields such as gravity and ‘energies’ such as ‘photons’ and ‘radio waves’ that are there, after all are ‘something’, therefore the area is not ‘empty’.
Mass in its fundamental state is ‘that something’ that forms ‘density’. The density of mass can vary between absolute (solid) to almost zero. The most abundant density form of mass is in the form of medium density intergalactic space. (Intergalactic space is a mixture of fundamental space and fundamental mass of an intermediate density.)
In the Beginning (before the Universe existed) that density forming and fundamental ‘something’ that we call mass, may have been static (stationary) and distributed evenly throughout the fundamental space. That density of mass and space distribution can be a reference point such as a ‘zero’ or a ‘constant’ for mathematical purposes. Also, note that the intergalactic space density that exists today approximates that of the original space and mass density. At this space/mass density, photons travel at the measured speed of approximately 300000 kilometres per second.
In other words the Universe and everything in it, is composed of the two fundamental ingredients, fundamental mass (fm) and fundamental space (fs).
Now, these fundamental ingredients have some fundamental rules applied to them.
1) Neither fm or fs can be created or destroyed, therefore they are ‘constants’.
2) The fm is unstable in its ‘solid’ state. As soon as the fm attains the solid state it will explode, and in the process will become less dense.
3) The fs is always in areas where fm is not. The fs contains a ‘force’ or a potential for the motion of fm. (Motion of fm is called kinetic energy or simply ‘energy’.)
So: in other words, the mass that we are familiar with is composed of fs and fm and they always exist together by exchanging places through the process of ‘motion’.
Mathematically stated the ‘normal mass’ (that mass that we are familiar with) is actually composed of ‘fs ‘ and ‘fm’ where the fs contains potential force. To calculate how much Potential force (Pf) the fs/fm mixture contains, we can take the Constant C and multiply it with the square of the mass that is in the area. Pf=C*m 2. Now that we have the potential force, we can calculate the amount of energy. To calculate the total amount of ‘energy’ that there is in any amount of ordinary mass, we can use the formula e=(Pf/m)C. The Pf calculation and the e calculation must be made from the same amount of mass.
( I always wondered why Einstein had to raise the value of the C to the second power in order to get the math to conform to reality, now we know.)
It may be easier to understand the fundamental role of mass and space if you consider the ‘fundamental mass’ as a globe or a ball or a bubble that has ‘ fundamental space’ inside it and a certain amount of ‘fundamental mass density’ surrounding it.
Imagination is a good tool when you cannot physically observe something, so lets imagine that we are looking at one ‘fundamental unit of mass’. Lets suppose that the fundamental unit of mass is a single electron that is in intergalactic space far away from any gravitational, electronic, magnetic, or any other ‘fields’. Since the electron itself, normally, has various fields and energies associated with it, lets ‘freeze’ it at some specific moment in time. Now we have an electron that is totally without motion and suspended in the ‘fundamental mass density’ (or continuum/ether/aether) of intergalactic space. What would the electron look like under such circumstances, why would it look like that and what forces would be acting on it? In my opinion, the electron could look like the above mentioned ball, globe, or a bubble or it could be a solid dot or it could be a ‘bubble’ that has the internal density that is much lower than the density of the intergalactic space where it is located. What it would look like would depend on the specific moment in time that it was ‘frozen’.
OK now, lets allow this imaginary electron/bubble to ‘thaw out very slowly. Lets first say that the bubble was expanding at the moment that it was ‘frozen’, when we allow it to ‘thaw out’ its expansion continues. In other words the ‘fm’ of this electron bubble acts somewhat like the expanding rubber skin of a balloon as it is filled with air. Although the forces that are involved are different, the expanding effects are similar in that the ‘mass’ of the ‘balloon’ or ‘electron’ becomes less dense. (Less mass per cubic area equals less mass density.) Remember that, as the ‘electron bubble’ expands, its internal volume increases, as the internal volume increases, the potential force within that area also increases. When the kinetic energy (motion) of the bubble surface (fm) is totally dissipated then the potential force of the space (fs) within the bubble is at maximum. When the fm has ceased its expansion and the fs within is at maximum, then the fm begins its contraction process. The fm ’falls’ into the fs at ever increasing speed until the fm becomes ‘solid’ at that moment the kinetic energy that the fm gained in the ‘fall’ is released in the form of an explosion, whereby the fm begins its expansion and the process repeats. Since all the energy that is lost in the expansion vector is gained back in the contraction vector, the fm keeps exploding and imploding forever. In my opinion, this analogy can be applied to any ‘fundamental unit’ that is composed of fm and fs.
The electron, proton, and the universe may be such fundamental units.

ThC --Zero Point Energy, sometimes called Zero Point Fluctuations (ZPF) or even Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation Energy, with or without the optional quantum, is caused by the continual popping into existence of virtual particles. These particles vanish almost as soon as they've popped into existence. The particles, which arise as matter-antimatter twins, can interact but must, disappear within an interval set by Planck's constant. They are a result of random electromagnetic oscillations, they are what’s left within a vacuum once you've extracted all the energy.
MC –In my explanation the “virtual particles” are ‘empty’ areas of ‘space’ in other words ‘fundamental space’ or fs. Antimatter is made up of the same fundamental mass as the regular mass, the only difference is that the ‘pulsations’ or oscillations are happening at a 180 degree phase shift.
ThC --One way to explain this apparent contradiction is Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle, this implies that it is impossible to have an absolutely zero energy condition. The same condition holds for light waves in space. For all wavelengths of light, there is a non-zero amount of that light. Adding up the energy for all those different wavelenghts, the amount of energy in a given space is enormous. Even though this is a difficult concept for traditional phyicists to come to terms with, the idea that all this vacuum energy exists is becoming more widley accepted, and the quantum physicists have come in from the cold.
MC –The “vacuum” has the ‘potential’ for energy. Energy is ‘kinetic’ in nature and needs ‘fundamental mass’ to manifest itself.
ThC --So is there any evidence of all this free energy actually exists. Well there have been a number of experimental results that would suggest/show (depends on whether your a traditional physicist or not) that such energy actually exists:
The Casimir Effect - The most straight-forward evidence for vacuum energy
Van der Waal Forces
The Lamb-Retherford Shift - Refers to a slight frequency alteration in the light emitted by an excited atom

ThC --Even for those of you who have read 'A Brief History of Time', by Prof. Stephen Hawkins - Hawkins Radiation, should it exist relies on the creation of virtual particles in matter/anti-matter pairs. One particle spirals into the Hole, the other escapes, causing the theoretical effect.
MC --The universe contains only fs, fm, and ‘energy’, (energy is the motion of fm in fs,) All forces, energies, and fields can be explained using these ‘fundamental’ properties of nature.
ThC --With such large amounts of energy bouncing around, why is it so hard to notice?
ThC --Imagine, for example, if you lived on a large plateau, so large that you didn’t know you were 1000 ft up. From your point of view, your ground is at zero height. As long as your not near the edge of your 1000 ft plateau, you won’t fall off, and you will never know that your zero is really 1000. It’s kind of the same way with this vacuum energy. It is essentially our zero reference point.
MC –Our zero reference point is the fundamental mass and fundamental space density of intergalactic space. The ‘fs’ is lower in density and the ‘fm’ is higher in density than the intergalactic space.
ThC --The energy of the vacuum is a puzzle in theories of quantum gravity since it should act gravitationally and produce a large cosmological constant that would cause space-time to curl up. The solution to the inconsistency is expected to be found in a theory of quantum gravity. There has been some interesting work, done in this field, by Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff , where vacuum fluctuations are used to explain the effects of both gravity and inertia.
MC – Gravity is the absence of, or increase of density, of fundamental mass within a volume of fundamental space. A simple experiment, that almost anyone can do, will prove this statement.
ThC --Can we extract any of this energy ?
ThC --Puthoff believes that atoms themselves offer a way to extract this energy. This idea hinges on an unproved hypothesis: that zero-point energy is what keeps electrons in an atom orbiting the nucleus. In classical physics, circulating charges like an orbiting electron lose energy through radiation. Putoff believes that zero-point energy keeps the electron zipping around the nucleus (Quantum mechanics as originally formulated simply states that an electron in an atom must have some minimum, ground-state energy.)
MC –What is called zero-point energy here has the same source as the ‘charge’ of the electron and proton and the ‘gravity’ attributed to ‘mass’.
ThC --Physicists have demonstrated that a small enough cavity can suppress the natural inclination of a trapped, excited particle to give up some energy and drop to a lower energy state [see "Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics," by Serge Haroche and Jean-Michel Raimond; Scientific American, April 1993]. Basically, the cavity is so small that it can exclude some of the lower-frequency vacuum fluctuations, which the excited atom needs to emit light and drop to a lower energy level. The cavity in effect controls the vacuum fluctuations.
ThC --Under the right circumstances, Puthoff reasons, one could effectively manipulate the vacuum so that a new, lower ground state appears. The electron would then drop to the lower ground state--in effect, the atom would become smaller--and give up some energy in the process.
MC –If it is a ‘lower’ energy state, why do they not drop there without this type of coaxing?
ThC --"It implies that hydrogen or deuterium injected into cavities might produce excess energy," Puthoff says.
ThC --This possibility might explain some of the cold-fusion experiments, he notes--in other words, the occasional positive results reported in cold-fusion tests might really be indicators of zero-point energy (rather than, one would assume, wishful thinking). Work in cavity quantum electrodynamics is experimentally challenging in its own right, so it is not clear how practical an energy supply from "shrinking atoms" could be. The Austin institute is testing a device that could be interpreted as manipulating the vacuum. Puthoff, however, declines to provide details, citing a proprietary nondisclosure agreement with its designers.
ThC --Can this Energy take us to the Stars ?
ThC --Puthoff's institute receives a little government money but gets most of its funds from contracts with private firms. Others are backed more explicitly by public money. This past August the National Aeronautics and Space Administration sponsored a meeting called the "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop." According to participants, zero-point energy became a high priority among those trying to figure out which "breakthroughs" should be pursued.
MC –The creation of ’zero-point energy’ or ‘fundamental space’ in front of a rocket ship is an interesting idea, perhaps the fm of the rocket would ‘fall’ (or be pushed) into the ‘fs’ that was formed in front of it. But how could it be accomplished?
ThC --The propulsion application depends on a speculation put forth in 1994 by Puthoff, Bernhard Haisch of Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory and Alfonso Rueda of California State University at Long Beach. They suggested that inertia--the resistance that objects put up when they are accelerated--stems from the drag effects of moving through the zero-point field. Because the zero-point field can be manipulated in quantum experiments, Puthoff reasons, it should be possible to lessen an object's inertia and hence, for a rocket, reduce the fuel burden. Puthoff and his colleagues have been trying to prove this inertia-origin hypothesis--a sensitive pendulum should be able to detect a zero-point-energy "wake" left by a moving object--but Puthoff says they have not managed to isolate their system well enough to do so. More conventional scientists decried the channeling of NASA funds to a meeting where real science was lacking. "We hardly talked about the physics" of the proposals, complained Milonni, adding that during one of the breakout sessions "there was a guy talking about astral projection." Certainly, there should be room for far-out, potentially revolutionary ideas, but not at the expense of solid science. "One has to keep an open mind, but the concepts I've seen so far would violate energy conservation," Milonni concludes. In sizing up zero-point-energy schemes, it may be best to keep in mind the old caveat emptor: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
MC – The ‘zero-point effect’ is not ‘energy’ it is a ‘force’ or a ‘potential’ for energy. It takes kinetic energy to increase the amount of ‘potential for energy” or ‘force’. Such as a swinging pendulum has a maximum potential for energy or maximum ‘force’ acting on it when the weight is at the highest position. If you want to increase the (potential energy) or ‘force’, you must increase the kinetic energy of the pendulum so that it swings higher.
Of course ‘if’ it was possible to turn the ‘potential for energy’ or ‘force’ off and on…………
P.S. If you want more info on this subject then send an e-mail to me ‘Johannes’. Send it in care of the fine person that made the web site that you will find here just click on the “My Email” on the right bottom corner of the screen.
Cheers !!!