Can someone tell me how to describe the virtual particles giving rise to the Casimir effect? I assume it can be described in simple terms like densities of electron positron pairs and other particles.
Would one way to determine them be to calculate what electron positron densities gives rise to the vacuum constants € and µ? Under the assumption that space with no virtual particles have €=µ=0. Please give me a clue how to make these calculations. I have seen it once but I have forgotten. A simple way I can imagine is to assume a capacitor and apply a field and find out what particles need to be there to give the field energy u=½€E^2 Lets assume the capacitor plates are each one sqaremeter and one meter apart with one Volt applied. E=1 V/m The force on an electron is F=q*E=-e*E and on the positron F=e*E The same force separates the positron and electron from each other according to Coulombs law F=1/4/pi/€*e*(-e)/r^2 The separation distance thus becomes r= sqrt(e/(4*pi*€*E)) And this value can be determined to investigate how much energy is spent to separate the positron from the electron. This would be the field energy. But how can I know how far apart the electrons were from the positrons initially? Is their ground state determined by the zero point energy? David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370 On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Mauro Lacy <[email protected]> wrote: > Jones Beene wrote: > > No, I cannot see the flaw, but I do find the conclusions very provocative > – and, given the extreme minority conclusion - there is a great incentive > for everyone who disagrees to assert a flaw: > > > Indeed. > > > > 1) This is an apparent first-order violation of local Lorentz > invariance; light propagates in an absolute or preferred reference frame, a > conclusion that physicists will be reluctant to accept. > > 2) The speed of light seems depend on the motion of the observer > after all > > 3) This implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the > propagation of light. > > 4) However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical > system to which such a reference frame might be tied. > > > > It will be interesting to hear your assessment of the situation - and > whether the author agrees with it … > > > I'll post about all that after the author answers my comments, addressing > or acknowledging the issues (and conclusions) I have raised. > Maybe I'm wrong, and there'se no flaw in his reasoning. Anyway, SR is > falsified in both cases, as far as I can tell. > Gezari has recently sent me a message saying that he'll look at my comments > carefully, and see if he can come up with a response. > > Best regards, > Mauro >
