On Mar 9, 2014, at 10:24 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms > > Jones, why do you or anyone believe the Casimir force is real? Yes, a force > is measured but assuming it is caused by unbalanced ZPE is not consistent > with observation or logic. > > Ed, most of physics does not agree with you on this point. Of course, a > force of some kind is real and measured at nano-geometry. Casimir predicted > this and it has been shown to be real in actual experiment and in > manufactured devices- which makes your basic "observation" premise false > from the start. There is no valid alternative explanation to a few of the > experimental findings. In general, it is pretty clear that those who reject > QM or do not understand QM very well, will reject a Casimir force despite > the overwhelming evidence in favor of it.
Jones, I know this. I ask why the observed force is attributed to the ZPE when it could also be attributed to chemical attraction. Just because a collection of mathematical assumption can be made to fit does not prove the conclusion is real. > > It is true that the Casimir force was not measured to high precision until > the mid 1990s, but it has since been verified precisely and the theory is > essentially proved in practice. Moreover the Casimir force has become > important in computer technology, especially micro-mechanical structures > like hard disks heads. The terabyte hard drive would be impossible without > application of Casimir dynamics just as the CPU would be impossible without > QM electron tunneling. Of course QM is required. I'm not rejecting QM. I'm rejecting a particular application of QM. What would happen if this particular application turned out to be wrong? If so, the equations would be modified and a new application of QM would be created. The issue only involves whether a ZPE has been detected using what is called the Casimir effect. If the Casimir effect were produced by chemical attraction, QM would not change. However, the way ZPE is explained by QM would change. > > When you reject most of QM, you dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. > >> ES: First of all, all materials are assumed and found to be transparent to > the ZPE. Yet when a small gap is created in a material, this gap is claimed > to produce an imbalance in the ZPE such that a force is created and energy > can be extracted. > > A glass lens is transparent to light yet it can be focused so that 90% of > the thermal energy of photons in sunlight can be applied to a few percent of > the corresponding surface area. A lens works because it causes the photons to follow a controlled path as the material interacts with the photons. In the case of ZPE, the form of the energy does not interact with a material. If it did, a lens could be created so that ZPE could be focused and used as a ray of extreme intensity. That obviously is not possible. Therefore, your analogy does not apply. > Temperatures sufficient to melt steel are > possible. This is a decent analogy for the kind of imbalance which appears > at nano-geometry but with ZPE "focusing" instead of photons. In fact, the > term "virtual photons" is used with ZPE. The term "virtual" means only that a condition has to be pretended to exist so that the math works. This is only a kludge to avoid correcting idea. Ed Storms > > Jones > > > > >
