Reread Wiki on Casimir then pages 26-29 of :
http://www2.ijs.si/~kkocevar/skripta.pdf which shows 6th and 7th power interaction forces take from his work. Jones Beene writes. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > All punnery aside... like all seekers-of-truth, I opt for every > > weak bubble to be burst, the sooner the better. Do you have a > > reference for that? > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect > > > "Overview > > The Casimir effect can be understood by the idea that the > > presence of conducting metals and dielectrics alter the vacuum > > expectation value of the energy of the electromagnetic field. > > Since the value of this energy depends on the shapes and > > positions of the conductors and dielectrics, the Casimir effect > > manifests itself as a force between such objects." > > > But, there seems to be more to it than this. It seems Casimir > > is involved in all particle exchanges. > > > I wish I had time now to further investigate the specific details > as they might relate to water nanobubbles - before posting this. > Maybe later today. But on first glance, the quoted material above > might arguably favor a water-based nanobubble over any other > Casimir "target" for a number of reasons. Not the least of which > reasons is that if the nanobubble is (hypothetically) basically a > charge-containment vehicle, composed of a strong dielectric > exostructure (water) but with an enclosed charged species > (hydronium) then if correct, this structure probably becomes an > "exciton" which is not "just" conductive but possibly > superconductive, at least temporarily in the same sense that a > ferromagnetic domain has been said to have its own superconductive > shared electrons. > > IOW if we just had this Wiki entry to go on - the jury is still > out on whether the Casimir is active for nanobubbles or not, but > with the enticing (slight) possibility that it could end up being > especially-active - should there be a hint of excitonic-type > superconductivity. > > Would you not agree? > > Jones >
