In reply to Robert Leguillon's message of Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:29:59 -0600: Hi, [snip] > >I've never delved into Casimir Force, but I have to say, it's really >intriguing. >As I understand the basic evidence of Casimir Force: experiments seem to >verify that metal plates at extremely close distances in a vacuum preclude >longer wavelengths of the "aether-equivalent", creating a higher pressure >outside the plates than between. > >I just have a few questions, and the Vortexians seem an excellent crew to ask: > >1) Does the measured Casimir Force match with those predicted by the >underlying theory with precision? Have any specific materials (esp. >conductors/nonconductors) been discovered to be Casimir-outliers?
Last I read, it matches to within about 5%. Not sure what the experimental error was, but these measurements are rather difficult. > >2) Does the force exercised upon the plates necessarily have to be an aether >repulsion, in lieu of a plate attraction? How can one tell the difference? > >It is known that precision-milled metals can bond together when brought into >proximity in a vacuum. I'd always attributed this to broken crystalline >structures being essentially unbalanced, and desiring chain completion, much >like molecular bonds. For reference on the metal bonding, see cold welding as >a quick reference:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_welding) >I ask, because it seems that, experimentally, in order to get the plates close >enough without touching, the milling precision would be identical to, possibly >far surpass, the level at which one would demonstrate cold welding. How do you know that cold welding isn't due to Casimir force? > >3) With the presence of Casimir Force, how does one measure the effects of >Newtonian Gravity at nano-scales? If you are talking about Newtonian gravity between the two plates, then this goes as the square of the distance *between centers of mass*, whereas the Casimir force goes as the 4th power of the distance between the plates. Furthermore, the Casimir force should be independent of the mass of the plates. > >In consulting Occam, I would first ask the question as to whether this is just >another incarnation or variance of gravity (another completely invisible >force, with which we cannot contribute any of its characteristics to a >detectable particle, but can only verify its existance through inferrence of >evidence, and conformance to mathematical models) >The immediate thought would be to alternate the same experiments with plates >of different mass, but that gets rendered moot by practicality, as at those >distances, the mass at the back of the plates is rendered virtually >meaningless. Really, only the faces of each plate feel the largest attraction >with rapid, exponential dropoff within nanometer(s) > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
