I have been considering the relationship between gravity and Casimir effect by comparing the macro gravity well to the nano scale of Casimir force. This compares the difference in the equivalent acceleration of particles at different depths of a gravity well to the posit of equivalent acceleration of particles due to different Casimir geometries. This idea is based on the paper <http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf> "Cavity QED" by Zofia Bialynicka-Birula which introduces the concept of an abrupt BREAK in gravitational isotropy due to Casimir geometry. A paper by Jan Naudts, <http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2, and another on the increased velocity of light in Casimir cavities <http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9911/9911062.pdf> http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9911/9911062.pdf, by Tom Ostoma and Mike Trushyk proposes the Casimir cavity as a relativistic environment. Taken together these papers suggest the equivalent velocity is substantial enough to accumulate relativistic effects. Keep in mind the change in C is measured across a direct optical path and does not reflect the more confined geometries where Lorentzian effects might allow gas atoms to SEEMINGLY violate the limits set out by Liftshitz and others regarding proximity to Casimir boundaries. That is to say the gas atoms would never locally violate these rules but yet would appear to contract away into smaller and smaller confinements from our relative perspective outside the cavity. From our perspective we could then model gas atoms as occupying the same spatial coordinates and like Bourgoin employ math normally reserved for photons.
This is just a rough outline here as a thread starter so it doesn't fall between the cracks over the holidays and perhaps garner a helpful citation or two as I try to put this into a succinct format with appropriate links. I would like to extend several theories to counter arguments that Casimir effect is not sufficient to fuel relativistic effects in gas atoms. Our ratio of gravity at the macro scale of a small body attracted to a larger body such as a planet would not suggest a more powerful force between a gas atom and the mass of a Casimir plate without consideration of the dispersion forces and suppression. Rather than repeat the basis on why this force is so accelerated inside a cavity my interpretation of Casimir force is here http://byzipp.com/energy/ I recently read some of the work by Jack Sarfatti regarding stationary particles in different local inertial frames (LIFs) due to their relative vertical positions in a gravity well which he describes much better than I and with appropriate mathematical formalism. This is a difference in inertial frames due to equivalence because the acceleration is imparted by the gravitational field. I am positing these equivalent inertial fields could also be applied to the nano scale where the normal isotropy is broken by Casimir geometry and that locally these forces start to vary wildly proportional to the inverse cube of boundary displacement defined by the Casimir formula. I also recently viewed an intriguing simplification of the Mills theory by J Philips http://www.youtube.com/user/audrip that at first blush seems unrelated to my stated objective. Philips proposes that all matter has an infinite field associated with it and that these overlapping fields do not need to propagate - rather they always exist in a mutual balance with matter and we are only able to measure the minute differences between these overlapping fields caused by their offsets or they would totally cancel out. What we consider gravitation and inertia at the macro scale is only a shadow of the forces available to us if we could selectively couple and accumulate energy at the Planck scale - in keeping with most theories where particles and antiparticles or chaotic foam or vacuum fluctuations all cancel out to zero. This Zero Point Energy is normally considered un-exploitable but I take the position that gas law is a macro example of energy derived from ZPE and simply disguised as the material science of gases. Sorry if this started to ramble but feel free to add some direction or suggestions now that you can see where I am trying to go.. Regards Fran
