In reply to mixent's reply of Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:56:12
Hi Robin,
[snip]
I don't think they are actually "replaced". The shorter wavelengths are
simply
all that are left over when the long ones are excluded. The short ones exist
both inside and outside the cavity, the long ones only outside. It's the
long
ones on the outside that push the plates together.
The force is so small because the long ones are weaker than the short ones
(longer wavelength = lower frequency = less energy / photon), and they
represent
only the lower energy tail of the spectrum (and it's a very small tail at
that,
when you consider that the top end of the spectrum may be on the order of
1E43
Hz.)
[/snip]
I agree that "excluded" is a much better term or even suppressed if the
wavelength can't fit an integer number of times between the plates. This
differs from my own relativistic theory based on the Naudts orbit that the
fluctuations are in an accelerated frame due to the cavity such that they
only appear shorter and it also differs from many people like Thomas
Prevenslik who don't believe in the ZPF as he says below..
[quote]"Fran and I do not agree on the Casimir effect.
Specifically, I do not believe the zero point field (ZPF) exists as Casimir
claimed in 1949.
We know the zero point energy (ZPE) for atoms and molecules exists. But
there is absolutely no evidence for the ZPF. Today, astronomers infer the
existence of the ZPF (or dark energy) based on an expanding Universe. But
this is fallacious because the redshift that Hubble measured was most like
due to absorption of the galaxy photon in submicron cosmic dust and not due
to the Doppler effect. See www.nanoqed.org at 2009 under Cosmology and
Cosmic Dust, paper "Dark Enegy and Cosmic Dust"
So that brings us to what is being measured in the Casimir experiments
today. Fran says I have argued that thermodynamics in combination with
electrostatic charging is the source of the Casimir effect. That was my
first attempt to explain the Casimir effect without the ZPF.
Since then, I have made the argument that the Casimir effect is caused by
the thermal blackbody radiation emitted in the FIR by atoms in the surface
of Casimir's plates. Electrostatic charging is not invoked. By this theory,
wavelengths L > 2G are excluded from the gap G as Casimir asumed. But unlike
Casimnr and his followers, I do not throw away the excluded EM energy from
the gap. Instead, I conserve the excluded EM energy by creating UV and
higher energy photons having wavelength L = 2G in the gap. In effect, the
gap acts as a FIR frequency up-conversion device as required by the
conservation of energy. Unfortunately, Casimir did not conserve EM energy
and this has been going on by his followers for over a half century.
The EM energy U in the gap depends on the kT energy of the surface atoms and
is constant as the gap G changes. For N surface and subsurface atoms, U ~
NkT, and therefore there is no Casimir force F in the conventional sense,
i.e., F = dU/dG = 0. However the EM energy density U/G^3 is not constant. It
is the gradient of EM energy density at the surfaces in combination with the
polarizability of the surface atoms that produces equal and opposite force
on the gap surfaces. See Ibid, Casimir Effect, paper "Casimir Update".
Unlike Casimir followers, I only believe in what is known to exist -
blackbody thermal radiation. I leave the ZPF to the philosophers.
Thomas Prevenslik [/quote]
So we have 2 opposing camps that may turn out to be equivalent working
models regardless of which is correct and my 3rd relativistic
interpretation which all share a consensus that there is a permanent
unsatisfied force of some kind between 2 conductive plates when they are
braced apart on the nano scale. Beck and Mackey are proposing the longer
fluctuations below 2thz are more gravitationally active which suggest to me
that above 2 thz are more temporally active but even just their posit
supports a relativistic interpretation. You have a paper "cavity QED
<http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf> " by Zofia
Bialynicka-Birula written back in 96 , proposing an abrupt break in isotropy
by a Casimir cavity, More recently you have Peng Chen at Cornell with ATF
data that
<http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April09/nanotubeCatalysts.ws.html>
nanotubes only manifest catalytic action at openings /defects and MITS even
more recent announcement of what they term "thermowaves" in nanotubes which
they are claiming as a new energy source. See
<http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/thermopower-waves-0308> "Big power from
tiny wires". Taken individually these papers seem unrelated but when viewed
from the relativistic perspective they appear to be telling the same story,
that time can be mapped by the behaviour of vacuum fluctuations like dye in
the bloodstream. They accelerate through a venturi like effect whenever the
pressure is destabilized through what you term "exclusion" or Puthoff calls
"suppression" or I call "equivalent deceleration" in my blog
<http://www.byzipp.com/animaTime.htm> . Math papers by Naudts and Bourgoin
in 05/07 solved for fractional orbits using math Zofia Bialynicka-Birula
suggested back in her 96 paper that dictates a relativistic environment.
Their Math papers were controversial because they were just that -Math
papers- they did not describe the physical environment and skeptics
rightfully pointed out their models were unphysical. My point is that this
math becomes correct when applied to other inertial frames allowing
electrons to occupy the same spatial positions from the perspective of the
observer modeling the equations outside the cavity. OK my rants over - I
can't prove relativistic is the correct interpretation no matter how nice
everything seems to conform to this model vs the others but keep in mind
these recent discoveries regarding nanotubes don't have monatomic hydrogen
being injected through them - I think this tells us the entire
environment/spectrum is being affected not just atoms diffused inside the
field.
Best Regards
Fran
