Peter,
I have exchanged numerous emails with Thomas over the years and he has
commented on my relativistic blogs in support of his interpretation. We
amicably agree to disagree on certain issues but he has found me far less
polarized than supporters of the classic interpretation where longer
wavelength/larger virtual particles are posited to be displaced by the confined
space between the plates. In fact I happen to agree with his concept of
upshifted VUV but in a MUCH more inclusive way - where he concentrates on a
specific spectrum the relativistic interpretation upshifts the entire radiation
spectrum by virtue of changing the quantum time unit... time dilation. I don't
recall if his equations supported the 1/distance^4 we observe in Casimir effect
but if so then it might be an equivalent way of saying the same thing AND I am
not the first to suggest these seemingly opposing methods would lead to the
same results. If vacuum wavelengths should turn out to be simply working models
it does not subtract from their usefulness, More so to the creation of a static
environment where the Casimir plates are braced apart and the stiction force
remains permanently unrequited instead of allowing the plates to move and the
"pressure" negated. Because both theories result in an upshift in em
frequencies with respect to a permanent cavity they are in agreement regardless
if the achievement is thru COE or time dilation.
These forces would be of little use if the plates were perfect - like a
nanotube you would only observe catalytic action at openings and defects where
energy density changes but nature provides a tapestry of geometries when you
leach a softer metal from a harder metal to form a skeletal cat or allow loose
nano powders to randomly pack together to form a bulk material- it is these
changes in energy density you need to exploit with a 3rd body such as gas atoms
to create asymmetries.
Regards
Fran
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:RE: Relativistic Casimir Cavities
Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert:
> BTW, this theory
> http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm
> could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in nanoscaled
> inhomogenous condensed matter systems, but it denies classic Casimir
> Force.
> So, what should I believe and why? ;-)
>
> Am 06.09.2011 17:51, schrieb Peter Heckert:
>> Also, Casimir force was -to my knowledge- never measured near zero
>> degrees Kelvin, which would be necessary for a proof.
>> Here is an alternative theory that explains the casimir force from
>> electrostatics:
>> http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm
>> The author says, the force doesnt exist at absolute zero.
>>
>>
>
