This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/021401/Quantum_effect_moves_machine_021401.html

A very interesting article about the work Bell Labs has been doing to look into the potential problems of "Nano bots" due to zero-point energy.

The header "Fondational Physics" does not do wonders for your credibility. Use your spell-checker!

Don't use talk pages for advertising.

Indeed. The very long section "Chaotic and emergent phenomena" seems full of off-topic commentary associated with the article by synthesis. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this section has been removed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence in the history section Zero-point energy evolved from historical ideas about the vacuum. is not supported by Saunders & Brown (1991). It also seems somewhat misleading to suggest that ancient thinkers had any understanding of such a technical concept. While the idea of the vacuum can be traced back to antiquity, zero-point energy is purely modern concept. Given that, do we even need the section discussing early conceptions of vacuum and aether? In my opinion, it would make more sense to begin with Planck. As it stands, Einstein's ideas about the aether and ZPE appear as an isolated example, and the rest of the history section doesn't build on or connect to it. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think this first part is conflating zero-point energy with vacuum energy. Any such connection is a modern idea. There is a long history related the nature of "space" and vacuum, somewhat covered in the latter article. I think the content from that part of the history could be merged to vacuum. Sanders/Brown is listed as a Further Reading there. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not have a consistent WP:ENGVAR. The suffix -ize and its variants occur 40 times and -ise 17 times, and color occurs 4 times while colour does not occur. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest American English. In addition to the slight edge in your analysis, this version, which is the oldest history, has three ize and no ise variants. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Then it is done. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]