I almost regret stepping out of this conversation... the sheer illogic of it is enough to give all the Vulcans Abrams slaughtered a sense of relief that they don't have to live through it.
Honestly, I LOVE the idea of "zero point energy fields" but there is absolutely zero (pun intended) evidence that any such thing even exists. It's fantasy, nothing more, at this point. A fiction that some folks hope turns out to mirror some truth which we have yet to come remotely close to identifying.
That's not a critique of the concept as proposed. Just a statement of fact - such a thing may exist, or may not exist, and we have absolutely no reason to draw any conclusion (in REAL SCIENCE terms) at this point.
So let's stop treating it as more "valid" than it really is. It's the same "magic" that we see in every other storytelling conceit in science fiction... "magic" given a semi-plausible "sleight of hand" explanation.
Same as "warp drive" or "phasers" or "subspace radio" or "transporters" or any of the stuff that makes these stories able to be told.
In-universe... well... I agree that "quantum torpedoes" are almost certainly some form of crude "zero point" device. Not because it makes any sense, exactly, but because that's clearly what the intention of the storytellers was.
However, there's a huge difference between creating a device which creates an UNCONTROLLED reaction and one which is capable of creating a controlled, sustainable one.
How many years has it been since the first hydrogen bomb was set off, here on good ol' Planet Earth? And, to date, how many practical fusion powerplants have been built?
I see "ZPE" as being very much along the same lines, in "Trekkian" terms. Somebody figured out how to tap that field, and get a big burst of energy... but the energy can't be controlled or directed. Sort of like a big hydrogen bomb, today. Tap the field, and you destroy the equipment tapping the field, as the supposedly "infinite" energy flow seeps through.
You disagree? Fine... because it's entirely fictional. Even the supposed "theories" behind it don't rise to the definition of theories, or even of hypotheses... they're just wild "speculative fiction" at this point.
FUN speculative fiction, sure, but nothing more. If someday, we find any hint of evidence that it's real... I'll be the first to pop a cork on a bottle of Dom over it, but I'm not counting on that coming to pass... certainly not in my lifetime, and probably not in my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren's lifetimes, for that matter.
That said... the arguments here are fascinating... somehow, a science-fiction conceit... "zero point energy"... is treated as "hard science" but at the same time we're also being told that sensors can detect everything, at every resolution, at every range, without any issues with noise, interference, or even having to know what you're looking for.
You just magically hit the "find everything" button and you suddenly know everything which can be known about everything, everywhere, and "everywhen" for that matter. Apparently, that's how "Star Trek Sensors" work, huh?
You don't have to know what you're looking for, you don't have to worry about filtering out the noise... you don't have to identify the patterns you're looking for... they just magically appear in Okudagram fashion, when you tell Majel's voice to "find mysterious magical plotpoint."
How about this... look at what the SETI program has been doing. Yes, Trekkian "sensor" and "scanner" hardware is far more capable... but that just means far more data is being collected. Yes, Trekkian computers are far more capable... but they're still computers... they only do as they're programmed to do.
Yes, I'm sure that the 1701-D's computers could scan every bit of data ever collected by SETI in short order and find things we've missed so far. But the concept still remains... you have a ridiculous amount of information (for all practical purposes, the upper limit is INFINITY, remember) and unless you know what, pretty much EXACTLY, you're looking for, you're not gonna find it among the rest of the nearly-infinite data.
"Energy" isn't nearly as simple as some people appear to think it is.
Go spend some time reviewing collected data points, looking for patterns... Review a 20,000,000-data-point set (typical for vibrational analysis) and you'll learn just how difficult it is to derive MEANINGFUL RESULTS... no matter how effective your "measurement tools" happen to be. Trust me... doing so gave me a few gray hairs over the years!