The primary objection to a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect and catalytic action is that the equation for Casimir force at MINIMAL cavity width provides results which would seem insufficient to manifest the necessary time dilations to contract space time enough to suddenly make the longer vacuum flux capable of fitting between the interior walls of a Casimir cavity. The concept is akin to many SCIFI story lines where the interior volume of a room can be many time larger than the exterior volume. The concept of a MINIMAL cavity width for Casimir plates is based on plate geometry and the quantum accumulation of a field at some small distance paralell to the plate surface. This limit has been established by Liftshitz and others but is based on our 3D perspective outside the cavity which my theory attempts to circumvent. I am positing that the 3D perspective inside the cavity is changed by vacuum energy suppression that results in a Lorentzian translation between space and time. The mini hydrogen, hydrino, or other anomalous forms of condensed hydrogen (take your pick) made famous in claims of excess heat would see the walls of the cavity shrink but an observer on the cavity wall would likewise see the hydrogen appear to shrink. This brings me to the crux of this issue which is, how can the equivalent acceleration inside the cavity be of such a large magnitude to achieve Lorentzian contraction and sidestep these limits of MINIMAL width and plate proximity constraints imposed by Liftshitz and others? A shortcut is needed that ignores the need for spatial velocity and directly manipulates time. We know that both acceleration and equivalent acceleration due to gravity can result in time dilation. Therefore I assume a relationship between vacuum energy density and time dilation. We see this in the twin paradox because acceleration to fractional C can be replaced by a stationary twin at the bottom of a High G gravity well such as a dead star through equivalent acceleration. time dilation would still accumulate even though both twins are spatially stationary.
First keep in mind that although Einstein’s relativity is more convenient, Lorentzian theory is equally valid, and a neo Lorentzia theory of an ether that intersects our 3d spatial plane at 90 degrees to all 3 spatial axis provides a better model for my posit. Normal Lorentzian contraction requires spatial velocity approaching luminal scale to become visible along the axis of observation and displacement. These large velocities are required because it is a Pythagorean relationship between the rate of intersection of this ether axis with our 3d spatial axis. A vehicle that approaches these velocities on a spatial vector is no longer on the same 3d axis line as a stationary observer but rather a trigonometric angle between the etheric and spatial axis reflected in Lorentzian contraction. Equivalent acceleration does not require any velocity at all. It can be considered an opposition to the intersection rate of the ether axis (note I don’t dare call this a velocity because this is normally a nonphysical axis that only manifests itself for the briefest instant when virtual particle pairs appear and disappear while intersecting our physical axis). A nucleus will oppose this flow of virtual particles and results in stretching tiny relativistic wells in space time. The orbital electron are not pushed as hard but are electrically tethered to the nucleus which they try to follow unto the well but can never catch up. This is equivalent to Puthoff’s model of restoring energy to an electron orbital in an inverse fashion – I am positing that the intersection rate of vacuum fluctuations is opposed more by the condensed mass of the nucleus then the electrons which are left in a permanent state of being pulled along the time axis by their electrical tether. This opposition of mass to the rate of intersection accumulates to our macro scale as gravity and in the case of high gravity planets or dead stars can accumulate time dilation quickly enough relative to our scale to be observable in experiments. Normally inertial frames reflect the slight differences to this opposition proportional to velocity or equivalent acceleration provided by a large mass.( We are never aware of time dilations in these different inertial frames because our physical world is scaled and propelled by the intersection of these axis- wheelworks of nature). In the case of Casimir geometry and suppression we have something novel that cannot possibly occur at the macro scale. We refer to the normal rate of opposition to the ether axis by mass as gravity but this is amplified by Casimir geometry utilizing suppression to create a SEGREGATION of the intersection rate. The large exterior plates are able to very rapidly accumulate a shallow reservoir of delayed vacuum flux while inside the tiny cavity an equal quanity of vacuum flux are accelerated and concentrated into a permanent venturi. The intersection rate of the ether with our 3d spatial axis becomes segregated, the isotropy is broken and you can have local variations in vacuum energy density without the normal square law displacement gradient of a gravity well. In this interpretation there is no overall net gain or loss to the segregation as DiFiore et all discovered in their experiments to measure change in gravitational forces with stacked cavities. The large surface area of Casimir plates would accumulate a shallow reservoir of somewhat higher energy density than would be accumulated by normal mass due to supression but the tiny volume of space inside the Casimir cavity would then concentrate said reservoir into a MUCH lower energy density venturi far below what we would consider the zero reference point of open space. This is another way to model the concept of “negative energy density” or what could be called a gravitational “Hill”. My analogy here is the ambient wind speed filling a ships sail can be far slower than the wind whistling through a small hole in the sail. If the hole is small enough to never deplete the reservoir in the sail you have an equivalent for Casimir plates and the cavity.
Note 2 things in the above paragraph regarding the primary objection to this theory. One, that equivalent acceleration is obviously not proportional to spatial velocity in regards to the intersection rate of vacuum flux with the spatial axis because aceleration is at a trigonmetric proportion of C while equivalent acceleration effects the rate of intersection directly, and two, that unlike the normal accumulation of vacuum energy density by mass demonstrated in a gravity well, the reduced energy density of a Casimir cavity represents a gravity hill. It is my posit that we are taking the normal intersection rate of this nonphysical axis and segregating it into an amplified opposition on the plate surface and an equivalent amount of “negative” opposition concentrated inside the cavity
(no net change only redistribution). That “negative” opposition or acceleration is relative to a gravitational zero reference of open space. A Casimir plate – cavity system allows us to DIRECTLY manipulate/segregate this rate of intersection with our 3d spatial axis based on geometry and QM.
My point being that the quantum effect of the plate atoms in Casimir effect not only causes an abrupt break in isotropy as proposed in “Cavity QED” but that the resulting break is a segregation of energy densities allowing this intersecting nonphysical axis to flow at different rates through different zones while the net average remains unchanged. I think the seemingly inconsistent claims of both half life acceleration and delays in radioactive gases correctly reflects the interactions with these opposite energy density zones and conforms to my model of shallow less notable increases in energy density spread over large plate surface areas while inside the cavity you have zones of GREATLY decreased energy density. Note the claims for half life acceleration were of significant increases while the claims for observed delay were far fewer and of much smaller magnitude. Different geometries of catalyst and radioactive gas would effect the population distribution of the radioactive gas exposed to plate surface vs cavities and would determine which gases qualify for time dilation and which zones they would occupy. Applying this theory to catalytic action is supported by a Cornell paper published last year that notes catalytic action only occurs at the openings and defects in a nano tube. I would submit that a large scale theoretically perfect Casimir plate assembly would have little catalytic action similar to a nano tube. Catalytic action appears to be related to the CHANGE in Casimir force due to changes in geometry such as nature provides inside a skeletal catalyst or the Casimir packing geometry of bulk nano powders. In the relativistic interpretation of catalytic action you have reactions that are accelerated by areas of Casimir geometry in the catalyst causing time dilations that trigger these reactions. In the most energetic catalysts the entire reactants can be dilated inside a cavity but catalytic action also occurs all the way down to at least the molecular level where only portions of an atom or molecule may interact with the Casimir geometry.
From: Wm. Scott Smith Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:43 PM
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Relativistic-Cavity Twins
Shrinking the time axis is the same thing as augmenting the spacial axes if we
are defining distance as Velocity multiplied by time. Shrinking the time axis
means that more local time is traversed, requiring more distance. This is the
reverse of the Relativistic Twins: In this instance, the cavity “Twin”
corresponds to the one that stays on Earth and vice versa!
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:01:56 -0500
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Rel Cav’s: Shrink time axis inside Relativistic
Cavities to get correct result!
I like your model for the temporal aspect but I was choosing my
words carefully to make my points as intelligible as possible to the most
common denominator. I was also trying to make the point that there can be a
larger volume of space inside the cavity then the exterior spatial dimensions
would predict. IMHO Deuterium ice, condensed hydrogen and the myriad other
names we apply are all unchanged locally but take on these strange appearances
when they occupy this extended space inside a Casimir cavity or the
interstitial space inside a lattice. I believe that when vacuum fluctuations
“appear” to get smaller between Casimir plates it is NOT a simple
displacement of the longer flux being replaced by shorter flux that can fit
between the plates as described in the present popular version of this theory.
In the relativistic interpretation it is still the same longer flux which
only appear shorter in a form of Lorentzian contraction. I believe that this
type of contraction reflects direct changes to the time axis where space time
itself is reshaped inside the cavity. Unlike the normal Lorentzian contraction
of a single dimension where you have spatial velocity in a Pythagorean
relationship to the “normal” intersecting rate of the ether, this version of
contraction instead directly changes the intersection rate of this nonphysical
axis by manipulating energy density. Because the axis of
displacement/contraction is now 90 degrees to all 3 spatial axis this type of
contraction should appear spatially symmetrical and appear to get smaller from
ANY spatial axis instead of the common Lorentzian contraction. The cost of this
type of contraction is borne by nature in segregating energy density between
the outside and inside of a plate cavity system in a manner that skips the need
for near luminal velocity and instead changes time (intersecting rate) directly
proportional to local geometry in different zones inside and outside the cavity.
Wm. Scott Smith said on Thursday , January 27, 2011 1:13 PM
I really think a better way to think about Relativistic Cavities is to think of
the time-axis shrinking, relative to the also reduced size of they particle
within the cavity. Shrinking the time axis, has the effect of accelerating the
velocity of travel along that axis, ie the passage of time. This approach
explains precisely how the H2 molecule “spends so much time there relative to
us and spends so little time there from an external perspective.
OK its clear to me that You absolutely get it! But I was trying
to avoid the confusion when talking about “velocity” on a nonphysical axis –
the seeming conflicts and arguments I got early on caused me to write the
thread in the verbose manner that I chose for the benefit of those less
familiar. Once the lights come on and someone understands the relativistic
concept of a shrinking time axis it does make an easier model to visualize.
Your reference to the reverse Relativistic Twins analogy where the cavity twin
corresponds to the less accelerated twin on earth was spot on because the
cavity twin is negatively accelerated (equivalently)such that the “stationary
twin” outside the cavity appears to be approaching luminal velocity relative to
the negatively accelerated cavity twin inside. My biggest challenge here is to
develop a mathematical relationship between the Casimir formula and energy
density that would allow an equivalent acceleration suitable to accumulate into
this new form of “equivalent” Lorentzian contraction. Some of the life after
death scenarios suggest a very slow accumulation to this contraction point
where the scale can then start to contract rapidly and produce these anomalous
forms of mini hydrogen. If I am correct about this rapid form of contraction
then these atoms are able to penetrate down into cavities hundreds of times
smaller than the “spatial” size of the atoms themselves. The relativistic space
time inside these cavities does have the Limits imposed by Liftshitz for how
close these atoms can approach the plates generating the field but in this
scenario that limit is never violated as the atoms continually shrink away from
the walls of the cavitiy allowing more and more gas to occupy the same spatial
volume without increasing pressure.
[Vo]:E = k f^3 to Ideal Casimir formula
Wm. Scott Smith
Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:36:41 -0800
E = k f^3 to Ideal Casimir formula I can't account perfectly for all the changing constants---but this is pretty close. See http://z-pec.yolasite.com/resources/Short%20NSS%20Conference%20Paper.pdf The following is a more recent paper on my perspectives on the Q Flux----I have to locate and Add all the references to support these things---but most of it is (un)common sense! http://z-pec.yolasite.com/resources/LPD-SPECIFICATION%20Ammended%2012-22-10.pdf