Fran,
I think it is wise to stick with “relativistic” effects, but for a (very brief) moment of intense contemplation, let’s think about the implications of taking that speed limit to the next step – at least in verbalization. Hey, Mac-vorticians, it’s the American Way – “supersize it” … If superluminous acceleration were available as an input in almost any form, even for a few picometers of distance, such as inside a Casimir cavity, then few scientist would have a problem with overunity or violation of CoE, since the implications of E=Mc^2 make energy availability almost infinite in that circumstance. This goes a way towards explaining Wheeler’s enormous estimate of “vacuum” energy. ERGO superluminous acceleration should be prohibited. Or is it the other way around? At any rate, we hardly ever hear of any cause-and-effect correspondence of ZPE, Casimir force, or overunity with superluminous acceleration. It is almost the “S word” in polite fizzix circles, ya’ know. On the other hand, to wax a bit impolite spatially - the closest giant elliptical galaxy to Earth and usually the brightest radio sources in the sky is called M87. In 1999 astronomers were interested in a jet of particles being emitted, which can be seen with small telescopes here, and was first noticed in 1918. The Hubble Space Telescope was then aimed in that direction and in actual comparative images of features of the jet, taken and compared over time - the outward acceleration was measured at six times the speed of light. No lie. This was a big problem for most of mainstream physics, of course, and the ‘spin doctors’ in Ivory Towers worked in earnest to come up with a rationalization. It was then ‘officially’ stated the apparent motion of such jets (other similar jets have been found), at least the ones which are “aimed” towards Earth at an acute angle, are simply a false visual result (aka an “optical illusion”) of relativistic velocity propagating at a sharp angle, and not true superluminal motion. Right. Think about the logical error which the “rationalists” are promoting there ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion It’s all about perspective and point of view, right? There are an infinite number of spaces in the Universe, all of which are in motion with respect to each other, and even if light can only be measured at 'c' in any contiguous frame, it may be observed from a detached 3rd frame as superluminal. Are there further implications to that? That works fine for cosmology, but what about going the other way- into the depth of the nanometer threshold, i.e. the Casimir cavity? Does that space ever become “a detached 3rd frame” or isn’t that a pretty good description of precisely why there is a “force anomaly” in that kind of spatial geometry to begin with ? i.e. we can opine that at a certain degree of smallness, a threshold will be reached such that any frame of local reference becomes “detached” from the “host frame” to some extent … and then can we take that further by adding “and to the extent that the crossover effects (bleed-through) of superluminosity on the host frame must be dealt with” ? Maybe it’s a stretch, so to speak, maybe not. Jones From: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]:Casimir effect and SR to explain fractional states I read an interesting post and comments on Casimir <https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22973357&postID=6789751066575862953&page=1&token=1262861645951_AIe9_BF5_wy9JEtbG9x8XAy4Y1ZwC78F7J2yoj_xvWMTpnbdmOULcuWco6--9OhFt_HlCBljs1FVek51WHICa5JraCOQprw_lERt_w8kKpIxe7GxEZWBhCWZqouwcHY4il6DFgFahzu9fEVZVSYxo-Mb> effect that has me considering how SR and spatial confinement might explain fractional quantum states in a Casimir cavity. The post was from 2007 and I don’t know if my comment will ever be added but I brought it here because I think it may bear on fractional quantum states. Comment: Perhaps a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect should be considered. The longer wavelength vacuum fluctuations are still present but space and time curve or reshape from our perspective allowing the waveform to fit between the plates and appear faster from our perspective. Regarding the problem with negative energy and gravity the work of DiFiore et all came up empty unable to accumulate the gravitational effect in stacks of Casimir cavities just like the comment regarding “Casimatter”, I suggest there is a physical balancing force dispersed in the nuclei of the Casimir plate surfaces lattices that concentrates vacuum fluctuations faster than the "land locked" Casimir cavity can supply causing a depletion zone where the vacuum fluctuations are drawn down below the normal gravitational isotropy. The reservoir can remain in this ever exhausted state if the plates are braced apart creating a permanent depletion zone. The force can’t be accumulated because it always has a nearby equal and opposing force in the physical structure of the Casimir plates. http://byzipp.com/energy/ Someone asked if the virtual particles need a vacuum to materialize and if they can appear in dense matter - which is obviously yes if the relativistic interpretation is correct for they can squeeze through forever by twisting on their temporal axis only appearing faster -I don't know if they would be considered the time stream everything else is drawn upon or just another infinitely fine inhabitant of said stream. This would open up SR as a possible escape clause to excess heat claims for fractional state hydrogen and also redefine the fractional states as being relativistic not a true sub ground state like the controversial hydrino. SR by itself might put catalytic action in a new light but the claims of excess heat would also have to consider the spatial confinement as a factor because obviously the Twin paradox and experiments tell us that materials experiencing time dilation return otherwise unchanged. I suggest the Casimir plates are to a hydrogen atom as an event horizon is to a spaceship regarding equivalent acceleration negating the need for luminal velocities - the change in acceleration between the depletion zone and outside the cavity results in an accumulating differential velocity already on a temporal vector by nature of the effect. IMHO Fran
