The Casimir Effect

[Ed3]

Hi to All,

Last week the Public Broadcasting system here in the US started broadcasting a series entitled “the fabric of the cosmos” hosted by Brian Greene (I’m not sure about the title). The episode was on the nature of space.

One of the topics covered was the Casimir Effect. I don’t recall hearing about the subject previously but it seems very interesting to me.

Consider the following drawing:



This drawing is supposed to show two metal plates inside a vacuum.

The theory behind the Casimir effect says that if the plates are close enough together, Greene said less than the thickness of a sheet of paper, then some of the virtual particles will be too big to fit between the sheets. This means that there will be a greater density of particles outside the sheets than inside and the sheets will be pushed together by the difference in the pressure.

The theory has been tested and confirmed.

I have been thinking that the seminal address that Feynman made entitled: “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom” is probably wrong.

Basically nano bots will collapse or twist out of position if they come too close to one another.

Any questions or comments?

Thanks Ed

[victorel21]

yeah casimir effect is very old thery it just tells you that the vacuum is energy as well.

[ZenKitty]

I tend to lean more to an empiricist position, and this means I like to see the actual experimental findings, devoid of theoretical terms and all of that. (Yes, I know that our common language is theory-laden like "chair" and "TV", but I think Pierre Duhem handles this nicely). So all you need to know about the Casimir effect is that when you have two plates in a vacuum, these plates move together. That's the Casimir Effect (or experimental findings that we call the Casimir Effect), plus or minus "pointer readings".

Here is a video of a modern day repetition of the Rutherford experiments. Just watch the clip with the volume off, and you'll see what experimental findings are like. This basically goes for all science.

[James S Saint]

The Casimir Effect demonstrates that what we call "vacuum" is in fact an ocean of motion of turbulent sub-detectable energy.
The higher turbulent waves are masked from each plate by the other plate, but only from one side, thus the balance of turbulent force pressures each plate toward the other. The exact same effect can be seen by placing larger plates in an ocean, or merely watch the boats at the peer as they slightly gravitate together.

As far as nanobots, once small enough, there would be very little Casimir effect involved, but they would still be much like fish in the ocean rocking around in Brownian motion.

[Poimandres]

It could be just me but doesn't that mean that vaccuum space MUST be within a sort of container? And thusly, doesn't that mean that this container of sorts must also be within another container?

An unending equation, perhaps?

[lizbethrose]

It could be just me but doesn't that mean that vaccuum space MUST be within a sort of container? And thusly, doesn't that mean that this container of sorts must also be within another container?

An unending equation, perhaps?

There's no such thing as a perfect 'vacuum' not even in what we call space. And there have been several theories about the shape of space. But the Casimir effect seems to have more relevance in nanotechnology and the bonding capabilities of substances used in developing nanotechnology. I have no idea what processes are involved, although my husband was in charge of various labs, one of which experimented in the use of the Casimir Effect in developing the materials needed to aid in the development of nanotechnology.

With no physicist around to explain it it layman's terms, I suggest this is beyond the scope of an internet forum.

[James S Saint]

It could be just me but doesn't that mean that vaccuum space MUST be within a sort of container? And thusly, doesn't that mean that this container of sorts must also be within another container?

An unending equation, perhaps?

"Unending equation", yes. Containers, no.
The turbulence is its own container surrounded by more of the same, ad infinitum.

[Poimandres]

It could be just me but doesn't that mean that vaccuum space MUST be within a sort of container? And thusly, doesn't that mean that this container of sorts must also be within another container?

An unending equation, perhaps?

"Unending equation", yes. Containers, no.
The turbulence is its own container surrounded by more of the same, ad infinitum.

Well, to be quite honest we haven't been able to quantify the vaccuum so far as I know, but if we could we would have to understand what kind of principles we would be using as empirical evidence. Therefore, to say that a container exists is a laughable statement if it cannot exist at all to begin with.

Let's start from a theoretical perspective on the Big Bang. If I was a supercondensed form of matter, I'd be formed inside of a substance that had the capacity to create me in the form of a supercondensed ball of matter. So obviously, given the magnitude of pressure needed to compress all this matter, the actual volume of this substance would have to be immense.

Now, say we use that Casimir effect and pretend like the particles inside me were TRYING to move around each other, but couldn't because of the pressures forced upon them. And then let's say that one day, the force of one compressed particle finally shooting free was enough to create a fission explosion. Well, that substance is going to be pushed apart by the force of the explosion, my rebirth, and create a pressure pocket.

Perhaps we have found our container, and the source of the vaccuum energy?

[James S Saint]

Particles don't form due to outside pressure. They form by the choice of their constituency to not leave.

[lizbethrose]

I've asked an acquaintance of mine, a physicist at the University of Heidelberg, for web pages concerning and/or explaining the Casimir Effect. That was just last night. If I hear from him, I'll let you know. In the meantime, I'd refrain from offering any "insight" or "explanation." But I think I've said this before.