Casimir Effect Puns

They seem to play similar roles in many situations. I’m not entirely sure how they differ from one another.

I read the topic concerning the casimir effect, but I don't know if I understood correctly. From what I understand, since the scale of the lab is 10^12 eV, there is no connection between the cosmology constant found through quantum effects and in cosmological scale that’s 10 ^-3 eV. In short, the energy of the quantum vacuum is much larger than the cosmological one, because the scales change and therefore in the cut-off the extreme of integration changes. What I said is a right interpretetion? Thanks.

Hello, fellow quantum physicists I am currently writing a detailed physics script for my quantum physics project and I wanted to ask if you know some good internet sources on the theme of the casimir effect. If you have something about vacuumfluctuations, vacuumpolarisation or Zero point energy I am happy to hear and read.

I've already got sources to all this stuff in german but it is a project with a partnering school in a english speakin country, so we need some english sources too

See the answers on the following question on physics stack exchange:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/570353/could-a-proton-be-produced-using-the-dynamical-casimir-effect

Essentially, the dynamical Casimir effect is a variation on the Casimir effect but with the added function of using mirrors instead of plates, and oscillating one mirror close to the speed of light. If the acceleration is high enough, any particle/anti-particle pair can be emitted from the vacuum.

Let's just imagine that we have a metal surface, and then oscillate another surface at extreme accelerations very close to this metal surface. If there is some way that we could get heavier elements to be emitted, not just protons, then this would be an ideal production method, turning energy back into matter. Given that TTSA's bismuth/magnesium piece is layered, it lends some credibility to this idea.

What do people think about this theory?

I've been postulating the relationship between quantization of electron orbitals & the Casimir effect. Although I suspect that a Casimir experiment with a gap near the wavelengths of electrons (~1nm) would be nigh impossible, I'm still curious as to what could be discovered, or observed, if it was possible, was created, and was tested.

Looking forward to your thoughts on this theoretical, for now, question.

Full Disclosure: Not academically trained in QM (if you couldn't tell by now).

If the pressure is negative, but the volume, temperature, grams per mole and Boltzmann are all positive, why wouldn't the resulting mass be negative?

Details in title! For calculations in Casimir’s effect, it’s necessary and valid. If it does work in physics as a valid solution, we need to come up with a way it works in math. Cause calculus says it’s divergent via ratio test, which means it’s impossible to find the value if it exists. However one of history’s famous mathematicians, Srinivasa Ramanujan, says it works and is valid. As he revolutionized calculus, we should listen to him.

If you want to learn more, use the sources here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_⋯ .

I found a surprising outlet for bad philosophy: The Talk page of Wikipedia articles, in particular here on metametaphysics:

> "Does every event have a cause?" > > That's not a metaphysical question. It was a physical question, and it has been answered by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. See also Casimir effect and Bell's theorem. > > "When do several things make up a single bigger thing?" > > That's not metaphysics, it's not philosophy, it's just language. It's the question of which assemblages we call things in which language. Case in point: in English, things like scissors, glasses, trousers/pants etc. are pairs; in German, they're single things (for most people most of the time, and increasingly so). The question has purely descriptive answers. > > David Marjanović (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring of course to the infamous Navy Fusion patent. Which if you haven't seen it is worth checking out if only for curiosities sake. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190295733A1/en

Here is a video on the dynamic casimir effect. https://youtu.be/r2txJBvjw5I

I graduated from university last year with a Master's degree in mathematics, focusing on mathematical physics. Currently I'm working there as a research assistant.

I am part of a small group studying vacuum energy and vacuum-derived forces (i.e. the Casimir force). Presently we're working on what we call the "wedge problem," which is the energy of empty space inside a particular shape that has perfectly conducting boundary. It's basically the shape of a wedge of cheese from a cheese wheel, except instead of being filled with delicious cheese it's empty, and the outside wax is instead made of, say, thin, solid gold foil.

When I mentioned what I did on Reddit before I got several interested responses, so here's a random AMA. I can answer general questions about quantum physics, quantum field theory, vacuum energy, and so forth.

Proof will be sent to the mods shortly.

EDIT: Alright, I'm off for the night. Feel free to keep asking questions and I'll get back to it tomorrow!

The Casimir effect causes attraction between objects that are very near to each other because the proximity limits the maximum wavelength of vacuum fluctuations, causing there to be more vacuum energy outside the objects than inside the gap, creating a sort of "push-together" pressure. Is there a limit to how far away two objects can be from each other before they stop experiencing "Casimir pressure"? Theoretically, the vacuum fluctuation includes all wavelengths (well, probably all wavelengths below the Planck length, that is), so even though there are very, very few quantum fluctuations with a wavelength of two meters, objects that are one meter apart should still feel a tiny Casimir effect because there are just barely more fluctuations inside than outside the gap, right?

And, if this is true, does that mean that objects have an unmeasurably tiny non-gravitational non-electromagnetic non-chromodynamic attractive force on all other objects within their observable universe?

Hey guys, I've now wasted my day off exploring our limits of understanding about Dark Energy and now have some questions that, hopefully, you wonderful people can answer for me. For reference, a good chunk of these questions arise from watching Professor Ed Copeland talk about Dark Energy in this video

Professor Copeland makes some assertions about Dark Energy:

1. It's uniformly spread across the entire universe (its smooth).
2. It's always been smooth (evenly distributed)
3. It is not the dominate force in the universe but it will be due to the expansion of the universe. (energy density of matter and radiation drops as space expands)
4. It weak in local systems with high mater density and strong in systems without a high matter density

On to my questions:

1. Is Dark Energy a property of space-time itself?

• If DE is uniformly distributed, has always been uniformly distributed, and does not lose energy density as space expands, does this not spell out that space-time expands 'on its own'? It seems to me that the properties of DE are so different from matter or radiation in how they propagate across the universe that DE can't be a 'thing' but rather a property of how space-time acts.

2. If Dark Energy is a property of space-time, why not attribute it to the Casimir Effect?

• So this question is a little loaded because I know that most physicists would point out that the Casimir Effect is ~7.2x10^122 times stronger than DE seems to be. Lets just put that notion aside for a second (don't worry I'm coming back to it). The Casimir Effect is what happens inside a vacuum where particle pairs are spontaneously created from residual energy of the vacuum. These particle/anti-particle pairs are created for only brief periods of time (so short that they are referred to as virtual particles) but still exert a force on the system. Since the Casimir Effect is a property of space-time and will exert pressure, it seems like a great candidate for what DE is.

3. When asked why vacuum energy (Casimir Effect) doesn't explain DE, physicists say its too powerful and give an approximation on the Planck scale as verification

• As the linked comment shows (I've seen a similar explanation in many other places as well), the classic rebuttal to vacuum energ

In many explanations of the Casimir effect (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect or Casimir's original paper http://www.dwc.knaw.nl/toegangen/digital-library-knaw/?pagetype=publDetail&pId=PU00018547) it is argued with the ground state ("vacuum") energy of harmonic oscillators. In fact the quantization of the classical harmonic oscillator has an ambiguity which leads to an arbitrary ground state energy (see e.g. http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~dragon/stonehenge/qm_eng.pdf chapters 6.3 and 6.4 or (if you're able to read german) http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~dragon/stonehenge/qm.pdf chapters 4.4 and 4.5). For relativistic theories it is even necessary to have E_0 = 0.

I tried reading the Wikipedia article, but it loses me pretty quickly.

I read the topic concerning the casimir effect, but I don't know if I understood correctly. From what I understand, since the scale of the lab is 10^12 eV, there is no connection between the cosmology constant found through quantum effects and in cosmological scale that’s 10 ^-3 eV. In short, the energy of the quantum vacuum is much larger than the cosmological one, because the scales change and therefore in the cut-off the extreme of integration changes. What I said is a right interpretetion? Thanks.