superball Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) Greetings all I have a few questions on the subject please. from wiki "In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect and the Casimir–Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field. The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, like capacitors placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. In a classical description, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them. My question is does this effect demonstrate a force that may be consider as energy from the quantized field or vacuum energy that is not observed based on mass, and distance relating to energy by principle of the inverse square law? Assuming these bodies are in outer space, and the electric field is changing due to movement of the bodies cutting the local flux lines of space. They have a charge, and it is increasing as they come closer together. I hope I did not complicate its meaning, I am looking for energy derived from inductive forces. When this field is instead studied using quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force, either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. Question, if I assumed a repulsion force, based on the inverse square law. Does the mass of two bodies pressing closer together induce a charge on the other body, or are both bodies equally increasing in energy? I am not sure I am using the terminology correctly, but could we say gravity depends on mass, and the locality of any two objects dictate the value of energy relating to this force? Is it a inductive force of gravity, or is it the energy in the medium that is always present? electric field sincerely super-ball Edited November 21, 2011 by superball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 The Casimir force is attractive. It is not inverse-square; IIRC it varies as a larger exponent, but that may not be the same in all distance regimes. You will have to do work to separate the plates, so this does not represent energy you can draw from the vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superball Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 The Casimir force is attractive. It is not inverse-square; IIRC it varies as a larger exponent, but that may not be the same in all distance regimes. You will have to do work to separate the plates, so this does not represent energy you can draw from the vacuum. wiki "When this field is instead studied using quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force, either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates." This is my confusion, virtual photon constitutes the field. I know The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, without any external electromagnetic field. If I had arranged the plates properly, it said there is also a repellent force. I have placed my plates, or spheres in the electric field, arranged them so they repel, and accelerate them together. My question, is there an increase in flux in the field or density of the charge if they get very close? Can you point me in the right direction please. Were should I be looking to find induction of two bodies in outer space like I have described? Is there a change of flux between two given objects accelerating together, leading to energy increasing on both spheres? Thanks so much for your help. sincerely super-ball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I don't recall having run across an example of a geometry where there is repulsion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superball Posted November 24, 2011 Author Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) I am surprised there has been no additional data input. I will include data for review. I had asked the questions : In relation to casimirr, Wiki said "effect When this field is instead studied using quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force, either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates." Swansont said :I don't recall having run across an example of a geometry where there is repulsion Super ball says: This is my confusion, virtual photon constitutes the field. I bring your attention to this interpretation of what constitutes the field, or virtual vacuum, or photon field what have you. My interpretation below, as stated from wiki " virtual photons (which constitute the field,) and (generate a net force,) either an (attraction or a repulsion) depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates." I know The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, without any external electromagnetic field. Super-ball states for the record, If I had arranged the plates properly. I say there is also a repellent force.I have place my plates, or spheres in the electric field, arranged them so they repel, and accelerate them together. The Field is Outer Space. In search of a gravity type response, or increase in flux of the field stated. This is leading to inductions across the entire solar system, and verified Einsteins 3 principles of relativity at the same time. I give you not only The reason 2 charged spheres may have the same given charge. I also accelerate them together creating a gravitational lensing effect, or according to GR a red shift. Why did Einstein assume only mercury? Jupiter, Venus, mercury, and Earth also experience perturbations. We can now verify the condition, stating all planets have been perturbed. With that said, how do we acquire the charge on the spheres, and cause the virtual photon field to generate a net force? By acquiring the same replant charges in the first place, and accelerating them together. I do realize this effect is verifying, it has occurred, and continues to do so. The first task is by arranging two like charges of a material that would not have any attracting force in the ISCM, or outer-space. You might say, How can that be all body's attract, but is that an assumption? It certainly is. Name two bodies that would have the same type charges as described. I will give you a clue. After you say your prayers tonight of course. your concern may lead to a better understanding of the process of torque induced precession. It has been found to be a progression of axial shift. Over a 3 to 5 year period starting in early months of 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLy0IQT8ssk Wiki " Poynting vector From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Dipole Radiation, Dipole parallel to the z-axis, electric field and poynting-vector in the x-z-plane. In physics, the Poynting vector can be thought of as representing the directional energy flux density (the rate of energy transfer per unit area, in W/m2) of an electromagnetic field. It is named after its inventor John Henry Poynting. Oliver Heaviside and Nikolay Umov independently co-invented the Poynting vector. In Poynting's original paper and in many textbooks it is defined as which is often called the Abraham form; here E is the electric field and H the auxiliary magnetic field.[1][2] (All bold letters represent vectors.) Sometimes, an alternative definition in terms of electric field E and the magnetic field B is used, which is explained below. It is even possible to combine the displacement field D with the magnetic field B to get the Minkowski form of the Poynting vector, or use D and H to construct another.[3] The choice has been controversial: Pfeifer et al.[4] summarize the century-long dispute between proponents of the Abraham and Minkowski forms." You might say, all may be verified mathematically, and the need for clarification is irrelevant. The two repulsive forces are derived by said objects being made of the same generating material. El e ho. respectfully super-ball.. Edited November 24, 2011 by superball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superball Posted November 24, 2011 Author Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaaP1bWFjDA&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldJhMDuOGxY&feature=relmfu For your research, I love this guy. A brilliant passionate genius.Temple on is bigger happy valentine.heartley 2Cheers..For your research, I love this guy. A brilliant passionate genius. Please follow up with lecture lecture 5, 6, 7, 802 lecture 8 covers induction, dipol what have you, feed your head.. follow the yellow brick road"The scientific method is still valid, and is philosophy. observation describes what you see, the ability of determining out come, and what you are actually seeing (is a fundamental property philosophy). Intuitive, questions that answers, are not intuitive per se.How was it derived is philosophy."respectfully super-ball Edited November 24, 2011 by superball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I am surprised there has been no additional data input. This was posted in the Earth Precession thread. I moved the posts here, since they discuss the Casimir force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superball Posted November 24, 2011 Author Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) This was posted in the Earth Precession thread. I moved the posts here, since they discuss the Casimir force. That is great, I AM, sorry I had a laps of thought were I had located this input. Happy thanks giving all. Thanks 007, you are a reasonable man.. sincerely super-ball. Edited November 24, 2011 by superball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts