On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
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? ;-)
Trust no one. 8^)
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.
I didn't have to read far to find a major error. Perhaps it is just
the kind of clerical error I make often, but I would think it would
be self evident to anyone reading the article. The author writes:
"One of the early Casimir experiments [3] using the sphere and flat
plate geometry measured the Casimir force in the 0.6 –6 mm range. The
sphere was a 4 cm diameter spherical lens and the flat plate was a
2.5 cm diameter optical flat, the optical surfaces Cu coated with a
top Au coating. A noticeable change in the Casimir force was not
found until the gap between the sphere and flat plate reached the 0.6
mm lower limit. More recently, the Casimir force was determined [4]
with an atomic force microscope using an Au coated sphere about 200
mm in diameter and a flat plate. The Casimir force Fc was measured
from 0.1 to 0.9 mm and corrected for plasmon frequency, roughness of
the surface, and finite temperature."
Even the thought of measuring the Casimir force at these scales is
ridiculous! Using:
Fc = pi^2 * h * c * R / (720 z^3)
with the given numbers R = 4 cm and z = 0.6 mm I get
Fc = 5.0426x10^-19 N
Fc = 5 x 10^-17 grams force
The thought of measuring 10^-17 grams force at these size scales is
ridiculous! The use of cm and mm dimensions is throughout the paper.
It may be a systematic typographical error, but it does not look like
it.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
