You are on page 1of 35

The Extraterrestrial Casimir Effect

Riccardo C. Storti Delta Group Engineering
Keywords: Casimir Effect, Electro-Gravi-Magnetics, EGM, Photons, Polarisable Vacuum, PV, Zero-Point-Field, ZPF

Abstract
Application of the Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (EGM) Photon radiation method to the Casimir Effect (CE), suggests that the experimentally verified (terrestrially) neutrally charged Parallel-Plate configuration force, may differ within extraterrestrial gravitational environments from the gravitationally independent formulation by Casimir. Consequently, the derivation presented herein implies that a gravitationally dependent CE may become an important design factor in nanotechnology for extraterrestrial applications (ignoring finite conductivity + temperature effects and evading the requirement for Casimir Force corrections due to surface roughness).

1
1.1

Introduction
Manuscript Synopsis Hypothesis to be tested: is the historically derived Casimir Force associated with a Parallel-Plate configuration measurably different in extraterrestrial environments?

Substantial effort has been invested into research of the Casimir Effect (CE); with many variations upon the central theme being rigorously investigated. However, precise physical measurement of the Casimir Force (CF) has only occurred in terrestrial laboratory environments. This is experimentally significant as the base mathematical formulation of the CF per unit area explicitly states that the CE is homogenous throughout the Universe, i.e. the base formulation defined by [“Eq. (1)”] contains no gravitationally dependent terms. This implies that, within proximity of the event horizon of a black-hole (i.e. in a curved space-time manifold), the CF associated with a Parallel-Plate experiment would register a physically measured result, equal to an identical experiment executed in a flat space-time manifold; although unverifiable, this is seemingly counter intuitive. Moreover, as the plate separation distance “Δr” tends to zero, the CF is predicted to approach infinity. In addition, van-der-Waal forces may be applied to interpret the CE without reference to the Zero-Point-Field (ZPF) or the virtual particles associated with quantum fields. “However, in practical terms, the Casimir and van-der-Waals forces are quite different; the van-der-Waals force is always attractive, whereas the sign of the Casimir force is geometry dependent. For example, if a thin spherical conducting shell is cut in half, the two hemispheres will experience a mutual repulsive force.” [1]

F PP

π .h .c .A PP
4 480.Δr

(1)

Lamoreaux et. Al. stated that at least two corrections are required to be incorporated into a practical measurement of the CF (i.e. finite temperature + conductivity). Mohideen et. Al. took the next logical step utilising an atomic force microscope to increase the precision of the measurement. They determined that by incorporating surface roughness contributions into their investigative regime, physical measurements of the CF to within “1(%)” of the theoretical prediction were observed [2]. CF measurements were further championed by Bressi et. Al., where the efforts of the experimentalists were specifically confined to a Parallel-Plate configuration (rather than a Plate-Sphere apparatus), yielding observational agreement to within “15(%)” of the historically predicted result [3]. Therefore, based upon experimental confirmation that the theoretically predicted CF for a Parallel-Plate configuration is sufficiently different from practical observation, one is forced to the wonder if additional parameters, not yet considered, might also affect the measurement. Given the exponential growth of manufacturing capability in the modern era, and the proliferation of communications technology beyond the terrestrial boundary, we explore the impact to the CF associated with a Parallel-Plate configuration, of a heterogeneous rather than homogeneous ZPF. Herein, we propose that the ZPF Spectral-Energy-Density distribution as presented by Haisch et. Al. in [“Eq. (2)”: when “ω” is expressed in “Hz”] [4], is

modified by the presence of a gravitational field (i.e. the terrestrial laboratory environment being a curved field), such that the idealised Parallel-Plate CF tends to zero in a vanishing gravitational acceleration field.

ρ 0( ω )

2 .h .ω c
3

3

(2)

In 2006, [5] demonstrated that the minimum and maximum spectral limits of the ZPF may be computed by assuming that the constitution of spectral frequencies between these limits, obeys a Fourier distribution such that the spectral energy contained locally within the ZPF is equal to the rest-mass-energy of the matter content present. The computed spectral limits were subsequently utilised to formulate many observationally verified solutions to key ParticlePhysics and Cosmological problems ([6] and [7] respectively). Hence, outside the minimum and maximum spectral limits computed by the authors, the ZPF cannot be said to exist. One of the fundamental benefits of such a construct is that it evades the “infinite energy in a vanishing volume” problem of contemporary Quantum-Electro-Dynamics (QED); as no more spectral energy exists in the ZPF surrounding an object, than the rest-mass-energy of the object itself (i.e. matter exists in equilibrium with the ZPF surrounding it). The Electro-Gravi-Magnetic (EGM) construct was applied in [8] to derive a unique solution specifically for a Parallel-Plate configuration of the CF from first principles [i.e. for a plate separation of “Δr = 1(mm)”], demonstrating that it differs depending upon ambient gravitational field strength; for example, the CF will be slightly different on Earth than Jupiter or the Moon. The construct presented herein, develops this unique solution into a generalised representation of the CF, valid for all experimentally practical values of “Δr”. Consequently, it is hypothesised that engineers may be required to incorporate broader operational tolerances when designing and constructing nanotechnology for extraterrestrial applications. The following table articulates the EGM predicted approximate average change in CF per unit area [i.e. the Casimir Pressure (CP)] over the Parallel-Plate separation range “100(nm) to 900(nm)” for a selection of extraterrestrial environments of potentially practical significance (relative to a terrestrial experiment conducted at the surface of the Earth); Environment Lunar Surface Martian Surface Venusian Surface Low Earth Orbit Sun-Synchronous Orbit Mid Earth Orbit GPS Orbit High Earth Orbit ΔCP (%) +37 +12 -0 -5 -15 -35 -88 -95
Tab. (1),

Location [9] Mean Equatorial Radius (RM, R♂, R♀) 180(km) 705(km) 2,000(km) 20,200(km) 42,164(km) Altitude

The predictions listed in “Tab. (1)” have been generated based upon the proceeding set of assumptions: 1) System or environmental “angular / spin-angular” momentum factors, including frame-dragging, are negligible. 2) The rest-mass-energy of an object is energetically equivalent to the spectral energy of the ZPF surrounding it. 3) Influences of the experimental apparatus upon the ZPF are usefully negligible. • 1.2 Note: the reader is encouraged to refer to the table of “Definitions and Nomenclature” contained in “Appendix A”, as and when required. General Relativity

Michelson and Morley disproved the existence of the mechanical luminiferous aether conceptualised in Maxwell’s era, but it did little to arrest the emergence of a contemporary version. Einstein is, at least partially, responsible for destroying the mechanical aether of old and replacing it with a new aether. Einstein’s development of Relativity and the notion of a new aether termed “curved space-time” evaporated the concept that gravity was a force mediated by the ill-defined aether of Newton’s time. Einstein’s equations demonstrate that an object’s motion in a gravitational field is determined by its “geodesic” path. Einstein introduced this concept to describe gravitational interactions between mass-objects, eliminating the necessity for “action-at-a-distance”. Curved space-time is a geometric contrivance, but exactly what is being curved? And if the vacuum of space is indeed a formless void, then how may

“nothing” have shape? General Relativity (GR) not only invokes, but requires the existence of a medium (i.e. manifold) capable of conveying information indicating whether the space-time a mass-object transits is curved. 1.3 The Polarisable Vacuum Approach to General Relativity

Bernard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda introduced a model describing matter as being immersed-in and wholly dependent upon the Quantum Vacuum (QV) for its existence. This fed an intuitively appealing interpretation of spacetime curvature termed the “Polarisable (PV) Approach to General Relativity” [10]. The PV model is an optical interpretation of gravity because it applies optical principles to define the topological features of space-time, otherwise represented geometrically within GR. It attributes space-time with a variable Refractive Index “KPV”, not “curvature”. The value of “KPV” is proportional to the energy density associated with a gravitational field. As light passes a massobject, it transits through regions of variable “KPV” and refracts in accordance with the experimentally verified results within the GR construct (at the very least, within the weak field). The PV model ascribes a value of “KPV” to the QV such that all matter generates a gradient in the energy density of the QV surrounding it. The gradient relates to a change in “KPV” acting as a space-time lens causing light to bend. Hence, the PV model demonstrates that substituting the metaphysical conceptualisation of space-time curvature with a physically meaningful optical construct yields a congruent interpretation of gravity to that of GR. The key difference between interpretations is that the PV model describes the physical manner by which spacetime is “curved”, GR does not. However, neither GR nor the PV model specifically addresses the precise mechanism by which matter physically polarises space-time. Fortunately, the PV model is not required to do so because QED explains this mechanism based upon the premise that within a volume of space-time devoid of matter, a chaotic and equally distributed mix of virtual Electron-Positron particle pairs is said to “pop” into and out of existence. The PV model asserts that matter polarises the QV (i.e. enforcing direction and order) into variable regions of energy density which, in turn, generates regions of variable “KPV”. A well-developed precedent for the existence of vacuum polarisation exists, based upon the generally accepted model of the Electron. The contemporary model of the Electron stems from QED [11], modelling it as a negatively charged point core surrounded by a cloud of virtual-particle-pairs, constantly emerging from and disappearing into the QV. According to QED and the relativistic Quantum-Field-Theory (QFT) of the interaction of charged particles and Photons, an Electron may emit virtual Photons which, in turn, may become virtual ElectronPositron pairs. The virtual Positrons are attracted to the “bare” Electron whilst the virtual Electrons are repelled from it. The bare Electron is therefore screened due to polarisation. The presence of the negatively charged core attracts the virtual positive charges and repels the virtual negative charges present in the vacuum, biasing the QV, resulting in a vacuum gradient as it segregates clustered regions of virtual charges. In this state the vacuum is no longer uniform – it has been polarised. The effect of an Electron upon the QV is termed “vacuum polarisation” and the property of charge emerges due to a change in the Quantum-Vacuum-Energy (QVE) distribution of the surrounding space-time. Thus, if the QV is effervescent with virtual-particle-pairs, we must consider its effect on all elementary particles, not just the Electron. From the perspective of the PV model; matter polarises the QV, forming gravitational fields because its atomic constituents are composed of large populations of elementary particles, all generating their own localised polarisations of the vacuum such that the cumulative effect results in a large-scale, synergistic polarisation. Conceptualising the spacetime manifold in terms of vacuum polarisation yields an isomorphic representation of GR. 1.4 The Terrestrial Casimir Effect

QFT models the vacuum of space as “something” quite different to the implied rigidity of the geometric interpretation within GR. The Casimir Effect (CE) occurs when two neutrally charged conducting plates are placed in close proximity and parallel to one another, establishing boundary conditions in the QV. In such a configuration, an attractive force is observed between the plates, beyond that which may be attributed to gravitational attraction. The QV is comprised of ElectroMagnetic (EM) wavefunctions which may only exist between the plates if their lengths are equal to or less than the plate separation distance “Δr”; any wave of longer length cannot exist within the gap. For example, if “Δr = 1(µm)”, only the QV modes of wavelength less than or equal to “1(µm)” may physically exist within that space. Presently, the CE has only been experimentally confirmed to exist in gravitational fields, demonstrating that when small distances separate two flat neutrally-charged metal plates, virtual Photons in the ambient gravitational field with wavelengths larger than the plate separation distance are excluded from the spatial cavity, resulting in an attractive force between the plates due to the bias in QVE across the system. The QVE density is lower within the cavity and higher outside, resulting in a pressure imbalance pushing the plates together.

1.5 1.5.1

Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Section Synopsis

The PV model of gravity asserts that the metaphysical concept of “space-time curvature” may be replaced by an optical representation of QV polarisation. Thus, it follows that the formation of gravitational fields are a result of QVE displacement due to the presence of matter. Recognising that QVE is EM in composition, a fundamental relationship between matter, EM energy and gravity is implied. This may described utilising a mathematical method termed ElectroGravi-Magnetics (EGM) [12], developed from the application of standard engineering principles, modelling the manner in which matter equilibrates with, and is constrained by, the local QV as a system. The initial premise in the development of the EGM method is the assumption that gravity and ElectroMagnetism may be unified via Quantum Mechanics (QM) in terms of the QV, utilising Buckingham “Π” Theory (BPT). BPT is a well established and widely used engineering principle developed by Edgar Buckingham in the early 1900’s. BPT is applied to simplify complex systems and determine which parameters are necessary (or unnecessary) to adequately represent it. The Greek letter “Π” denotes the formulation of dimensionless groups describing the system. BPT is utilised to model the behaviour of a whole system without requiring precise interactional knowledge of all components simultaneously. BPT formulations are executed within the structural framework of Dimensional Analysis Technique’s (DAT’s), indicating that similar systems may be described in like terms. An important consideration involving DAT’s and BPT is the rule of “similitude”. In order to compare a mathematical model to a physical system, certain criteria must be satisfied. The model must have dynamic, kinematic or geometric similarity to the real-world system (any of, or all of these if applicable). “Dynamic similarity” relates forces, “Kinematic similarity” relates motion (i.e. synonymous with the time domain) and “Geometric similarity” relates shape (e.g. the topology of space-time curvature within the context of GR). Once the design principles of similitude are satisfied, the mathematical model is considered applicable to the real-world system. The EGM method commences by mathematically representing mass as an equivalent localised density of wavefunction energy, contained by the QV surrounding it. Properties of Fourier harmonics are utilised to mathematically decompile the mass-energy into a spectrum of EM frequencies. This technique considers gravity to be the result of an interaction between matter and the space-time manifold; leading to the following precepts, 4) An object at rest polarises, and exists in equilibrium with, the QV surrounding it. 5) The magnitude of QVE surrounding an object at rest is equivalent to “E = mc2”. 6) The frequency distribution of the QVE surrounding an object at rest is cubic. 1.5.2 The QV Spectrum

Historically, the QV has been considered to comprise of a potentially infinite spectrum of randomly orientated wavefunction’s (i.e. in the form of virtual-particle-pairs), each of specific frequency and amplitude, analogous to the static one observes on a dead television channel. However, the EGM construct disagrees with this historical conception as it implies the existence of a potentially infinite quantity of energy in a vanishing volume; i.e. free space contains a potentially infinite amount of energy because “ω” in “Eq. (2)” may equal an infinite quantity. EGM asserts that the localised QV surrounding an object is more appropriately described as a finite spectrum whose wavefunction population (i.e. virtual-particle-pair population) is governed by the quantity of mass-energy influencing or occupying a specific volume (i.e. free space contains a near zero amount of energy). 1.5.3 The ZPF Spectrum

The “ZPF Spectrum” (ZPFS) is defined by “Eq. (2)” and refers to the “QV Spectrum” (QVS) associated with Minkowski space. The ZPFS is considered to be dispersed homogeneously throughout the Universe; consequently, the spectral energy of the virtual-particle-pairs within it denotes the ground state of the QV. However, standard Quantum Mechanics (QM) implies the existence of a potentially infinite quantity of energy in a vanishing volume, due to the potential for high frequency virtual-particle-pair creation and annihilation. Fortunately, EGM resolves this conflict such that a vanishingly small volume of flat space-time does not contain an infinite amount of energy because although the potential for such virtual-particle-pair creation and annihilation processes exists within the EGM construct, the probability of high frequency virtual-particle-pair creation approaches zero in the absence of matter-energy (i.e. the probability of low frequency virtual-particle-pair creation and annihilation approaches unity); the probability of low or

high frequency virtual-particle-pair creation and annihilation is biased by the presence of matter-energy within a defined region of Minkowski space (i.e. the greater the quantity of matter-energy present, the greater the probability of high frequency virtual-particle-pair creation and annihilation). Mathematically within the EGM construct, this is achieved by merging the continuous cubic frequency characteristic of the ZPF with a discrete and finite Fourier distribution such that the highest frequency mode within the ZPFS tends to “0(Hz)” in a vanishing gravitational acceleration field. 1.5.4 The EGM Spectrum

The energy spectrum associated with matter is termed the “EGM Spectrum” (EGMS). This is a harmonic wavefunction representation of mass-energy obeying a Fourier distribution, in terms of conjugate wavefunction pairs, such that the number of spectral frequency modes decreases as energy density increases (i.e. the number of modes is inversely proportional to the energy density of the space-time manifold) [5], implying that the energy density of freespace approaches zero, avoiding the “infinite energy in a vanishing volume” problem. The EGMS is based upon the Unit Harmonic Operator “Θ(t)”; i.e. “the number one (1)” expressed as the summation of harmonic wavefunctions in the time domain, obeying a Fourier Distribution. Within the EGM construct, “Θ(t)” utilises a Fourier Distribution in Complex form to operate upon a scalar function in order to harmonically quantise it over the Real and Imaginary planes. It is important to recognise that for any harmonic decomposition of a constant function, unity in our case, only odd harmonics are required to be summed, and the summation of Imaginary terms equals zero; “Θ(t)” may be written in Complex form as follows, 2 . π .n 0 .ω 0 .t .i Θ (t) i . e 1 π .n 0 n0 (3) where, 7) The harmonic mode distribution is given by the odd sequence “n0 = -N, 2-N ... N” and “N → +∞”; e.g. -21, -19, -17, -15 ... 21. 8) The maximum period is given by “t0 = 1 / ω0”. 9) “ω0” denotes the fundamental (i.e. minimum) spectral frequency; this is an arbitrary value. However, if one applies the “Hubble-Age” as a physical limit (i.e. the age of the observable Universe), then “ω0 = 1 / HubbleAge”. Reference [7] derives the “Hubble-Age” to be “14.6 Billion Years”, hence, the fundamental (i.e. minimum) Cosmological frequency becomes “ω0 = 1 / 14.6(Gyr) = 2.2 x10-18(Hz)”. Summing the first eleven (11) Real terms (for illustrational purposes only) of “Θ(t)” yields a graphical representation converging to unity as follows,
t0 2 1 1

Re( Θ ( t ) ) 0.5

t Time

Fig. (1): Unit Harmonic Operator,

Verifying by integration yields the appropriate results as follows,

t0 ω 0. Re( Θ( t ) ) d t = 1 0 t0 ω 0. Im( Θ( t ) ) d t = 0 0
(5) (4)

Therefore, utilising “Θ(t)”, mass-energy may be harmonically quantised according to the Massive Harmonic Operator “MΘ(M,t)” as follows, M Θ( M , t ) M .Re( Θ( t ) ) (6) Similarly, the Gravitational Harmonic Operator “gΘ(r,M,t)” may be written according to,

g Θ( r , M , t )

G. r
2

M Θ( M , t )

(7)

Hence, the EGM mass-energy amplitude and frequency spectra for “Θ(t)”, “MΘ(M,t)” and “gΘ(r,M,t)” may be described according to, Operator Unit: Θ(t) Massive: MΘ(M,t) Gravitational: gΘ(r,M,t) EGM Amplitude Spectrum 2 CΘ n 0 .n π 0 EGM Frequency Spectrum (Eq. 8) (Eq. 9) (Eq. 10)
Tab. (2),

C MΘ n 0, M
C gΘ n 0, r , M

M .C Θ n 0
G. r
2

ω Θ n0

n 0 .ω 0 (Eq. 11)

C MΘ n 0, M

1.5.5 1.5.5.1

The PV Spectrum Derivation Thereof

The energy spectrum associated with gravitational acceleration “g” is termed the “PV Spectrum” (PVS). Consider the action of adding a stationary, non-rotating, neutrally charged point mass to an empty Universe. This action superimposes the EGMS of the point mass onto the ZPFS of the Universe; doing so forms the PVS (i.e. a quantised representation of the gravitational field in terms of “g”) surrounding the point mass. This modifies the “KPV” value of the space-time manifold such that it changes at the same rate as “g”, radially outwards from the point mass. Merging the EGM and ZPF spectra results in a cross-fertilisation of characteristics; the complete mathematical derivation is contained in [5]. The EGM method produces a PVS such that the “infinite energy” dilemma of ZPF Theory (derived by contemporary QM methods) is averted by assuming that the mass-energy density of an object is equal to the spectral energy density of the gravitational field surrounding it. Therefore, when the EGM and ZPF spectra are merged, the continuous ZPFS is equated to the Fourier distribution of the EGM spectrum such that the resulting PV spectral limits may be determined. This process mathematically transforms the continuous ZPFS to a discrete and finite Fourier distribution of equivalent energy. The infinite energy in a vanishing volume problem is evaded within the EGM construct by determining the finite limits of the PVS by application of the Equivalence Principle, which indicates that an accelerated reference frame is equivalent to a uniform gravitational field. Reference [13] demonstrates that a generalised representation of acceleration “a” may be derived utilising DAT’s and BPT, incorporating the ZPF spectral frequency distribution, according to,

a K 0( ω , r , E, B, X) .

3 2 ω .r

c

(12)

where, “K0(ω,r,E,B,X)” denotes a dimensionless constant related to “KPV” as follows,

K 0( ω , r , E, B, X )

1 K PV
3

(13)

Assuming “a” represents gravitational acceleration and may be related to “gΘ(r,M,t)” via the Equivalence Principle, it is immediately apparent that a problem exists because “gΘ(r,M,t)” contains two spectra (amplitude and frequency), whilst “a” contains one spectrum (frequency). This difference may be reconciled by synchronising the frequency spectrum of “a”, with the amplitude spectrum of “gΘ(r,M,t)” at the “1st” harmonic (i.e. when “n0 = 1”); by doing so, it is possible to derive an expression for the common fundamental spectral frequency of both equations as follows, Step 1: substitute “Eq. (13)” into “Eq. (12)” to yield a generalised expression for acceleration in terms of the Refractive Index (i.e. “KPV”) within the PV approach to GR:

a

3 2 . . ω r c 3 K PV

1

(14)

Step 2: substitute “n0 = 1” into “Eq. (8,9,10)” to determine the amplitude of the “1st” harmonic of “gΘ(r,M,t)”:

C gΘ( 1, r , M )

G. r
2

C MΘ( 1, M )

G.M . r
2

C Θ( 1)

2.G.M π .r
2

(15)

Step 3: equate the RHS of “Eq. (14)” to the RHS of “Eq. (15)” and solve for “ω”; this synchronises the frequency spectrum of “a” to the frequency spectrum of “gΘ(r,M,t)” at the “1st” harmonic amplitude of “gΘ(r,M,t)”. Hence, when “ω = ω0”, the minimum spectral frequency “ω0” common to both representations of acceleration may be written as follows,

ω 0

1 . 2 .c .G.M . K PV r π .r

3

(16)

Consequently, since the PV amplitude and frequency spectra are theorised to obey a harmonic Fourier distribution, the synchronised PV frequency spectrum “ωPV” as a function of the odd harmonic sequence described by “n0” may be formulated according to, ω PV n 0 ω Θ n 0 n 0.ω 0 (17) By inspection of “Eq. (17)”, the PV frequency spectrum may be considered to exist as a subset of the EGM frequency spectrum [described in “Tab. (2)”] because “ω0 → 0” as “r → ∞” with respect to the PV amplitude spectrum [described by “Eq. (10)”], whereas “r” has no component within the EGM amplitude spectrum [described by “Eq. (9)”]. At this juncture, it is convenient to discriminate between spectra by the introduction of a PV subscript with respect to the odd harmonic distribution “nPV”, such that “nPV = n0”. Hence, the PV amplitude and frequency spectra as a function of “nPV”, “r” and “M” [i.e. “CPV(nPV,r,M)” and “ωPV(nPV,r,M)” respectively] are given by,

C PV n PV, r , M

1 . 1 . 2.G.M C gΘ( 1, r , M ) n PV n PV π .r2
n PV.ω 0 n PV 3 2.c .G.M . . K PV r π .r

(18)

ω PV n PV, r , M

(19)

1.5.5.2

Derivation of Limits

“Eq. (19)” may be applied to define the lower spectral limit of the ZPF encasing matter within the PV model of gravity (i.e. when “nPV = 1”). The next requirement is to derive the upper spectral limit, but the distribution utilised to derive the lower limit implies that the magnitude of the “Nth” harmonic approaches infinity (i.e. “nPV → ∞”). Consequently, the upper spectral limit also approaches infinity [i.e. “ωPV(∞,r,M) → ∞”] and the infinite energy in a vanishing volume problem remains unresolved. Thus, if we are seeking to overcome this functional impasse, an alternative approach is required. Fortunately, the EGM construct is capable of deriving the upper spectral limit in accordance with the following solution algorithm, Step 1: Integrate “Eq. (2)” over the frequency domain:

2 .h . c
Step 2:
3

ω dω

3

1. h . 4 ω 2 c3

(20)

Transform the continuous frequency spectrum of the ZPF represented in “Eq. (20)”, into a discrete frequency spectrum described by a harmonic Fourier distribution. To execute this, substitute “Eq. (19)” into “Eq. (20)” over one change in odd harmonic mode number (i.e. over the odd harmonic range “|nPV|” to “|nPV|+2”). This action concentrates the spectral energy contained within the ZPF implied by “Eq. (20)”, into a narrow bandwidth described by a harmonic Fourier distribution; the solution takes the form of being a scalar multiple of the fundamental spectral frequency “ωPV(1,r,M)”. Hence, let “Uω(nPV,r,M)” denote the spectral energy of this bandwidth according to,
U ω n PV, r , M h . ω PV n PV 3 2 .c 2, r , M
4

ω PV n PV , r , M

4

h . ω PV 1, r , M ) . ( . c3 2

n PV

2

4

n PV

4

(21)

Moreover, let:

h .ω 0 h . U ω( r , M ) ω PV( 1, r , M ) 3 3 2 .c 2 .c
such that,

(22)

U ω n PV, r , M
Step 3:

U ω( r , M ) .

n PV

2

4

n PV

4

(23)

Assume that the magnitude of mass-energy per unit volume associated with a material object [i.e. described by “Eq. (24)”] is equal to the magnitude of the ZPF spectral energy per unit volume surrounding it. Thus, equating “Eq. (24)” to “Eq. (23)” yields an expression with a single unknown (i.e. “nPV”) described by “Eq. (25)” as follows, 2 3 .M .c U m( r , M ) 3 4 .π .r (24)

U m( r , M )
Step 4:

U ω n PV, r , M

(25)

Derive the Harmonic Cut-Off Mode “nΩ(r,M)”: let “nΩ(r,M)” denote the harmonic mode associated with the upper spectral limit of the ZPF in the presence of a material object such that “nΩ(r,M) = |nPV|+2”; the solution algorithm for the derivation of “Eq. (26,27)” is contained in “Appendix B” [shown as “Eq. (B.6,B.7)”].

n Ω ( r, M )

Ω ( r, M ) 12

4 Ω ( r, M )

1
(26)

where,
3

Ω ( r, M )
Step 5:

108.

U m( r , M ) U ω( r , M )

12. 768 81.

U m( r , M ) U ω( r , M )

2

(27)

Derive the Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ(r,M)”: let “ωΩ(r,M)” denote the harmonic frequency associated with the upper spectral limit of the ZPF in the presence of a material object; the solution algorithm for the derivation of “Eq. (28)” is contained in “Appendix B” [shown as “Eq. (B.8)”].

ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV 1, r , M ) (
• Note: “ωPV(1,r,M) = ω0”. Thus, as radial displacement “r” at a mathematical point from a mass-object increases, 10) Gravitational field strength decreases. 11) Spectral energy density decreases. 12) The number of harmonic spectral frequency modes increases. • Note: this is analogous to the number of standing waves that fit into a cube. As the cube grows in size, so do the number of standing waves capable of occupying the dimensions of the cube. If it grows to the size of the observable Universe, the number of standing waves capable of fitting within it tends to infinity. Conversely, if the cube diminishes in size, approaching the Planck length, the number of standing waves capable of occupying it tends to unity. 13) Greater numbers of spectral frequency modes are required to be summed for mass-energy density equivalence. 1.5.5.3 Spectral Comparison

(28)

The EGM interpretation of Gravity is similar to Newton’s thoughts of an optical model such that the aether was presumed to be “denser” farther away. The gradient in aether density causes light and objects to follow trajectories characteristic of GR. EGM demonstrates that the increasing density of Newton’s aether is analogous to increases in harmonic frequency mode population in the PV. Hence, the PV is an EM frequency spectrum obeying a Fourier distribution at displacement “r” describing a mass “M” induced gravitational field such that, 14) It denotes a polarised form of the ZPFS (i.e. mass pushes the ZPF surrounding it “uphill”, against the natural flux of space-time manifold expansion). 15) The population of spectral frequency modes decreases as mass-energy density increases (i.e. the spectral frequency mode bandwidth compresses); tending to unity for a case approaching the Planck energy density limit. 16) Spectral frequency limits (lower and upper) increase as mass increases; converging to a discrete spectrum tending to the Planck frequency, for a case approaching the Planck energy density limit. Thus, utilising “Eq. (28)” a spectral comparison diagram may be constructed demonstrating the key distinctions between the ZPF and its transformed form (i.e. the PV field) as follows,

Fig. (2) (illustrational only - not to scale), Increasing mass-energy density →→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→

where, Region / Zone Applicable Category Gravitational Model Space-Time Geometry A Cosmology ZPF Flat B Astro-Physics PV Curved
Tab. (3),

C Particle-Physics PV Flat

D Planck Scale PV Curved

On a Cosmological scale, the ZPF upper spectral limit is influenced by the average energy density of the present Universe. The spectral density of the ZPF remains cubic; however, the present upper spectral frequency limit is lower than it was in the early Universe. Hence, the majority of Zero-Point-Energy (ZPE) is presently in the form of lowfrequency modes, each containing a relatively small amount of energy. The few high-frequency modes characterising the early Universe have bifurcated into a very large bandwidth of lower-frequency modes as the Universe expanded to its present form. The total energy of the Universe remains constant, but is spread out over a much greater volume as Cosmological expansion continues. It is demonstrated by derivation in [14] that the majority proportion of gravitational acceleration in a field biases the maximum frequency limit such that lower frequencies may be usefully neglected for investigative purposes; the assertion of high spectral frequency bias is supported by [15]. By application of this proportional spectral frequency characteristic, [16] demonstrates that a modal comparison diagram between the ZPF and its transformed form (i.e. the PV field) may be constructed as follows,

Fig. (3) (illustrational only - not to scale), Decreasing mass-energy density →→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→

where, Region / Zone Applicable Category Gravitational Model Space-Time Geometry • E Planck Scale PV Curved F Particle-Physics PV Flat
Tab. (4),

G Astro-Physics PV Curved

H Cosmology ZPF Flat

Note: the “1 / nPV” distribution depicted in “Fig. (3)” is analogous to the modal distribution of the amplitude spectrum described by “Eq. (18)” [i.e. “CPV(nPV,r,M)” for fixed values of “r” and “M”]. Characteristics 17) Generalised reference to the QM nature of the vacuum 18) Random and continuous 19) Unspecified frequency distribution 20) Within the EGM construct, in flat space-time geometries (i.e. Minkowski Space), the QVS transforms to the ZPFS 21) Within the EGM construct, in curved space-time geometries (i.e. gravitational fields), the QVS transforms to the PVS 22) No significant governing equation/s 23) Relates to the vacuum 24) Random and continuous 25) Obeys a cubic frequency distribution 26) Within the EGM construct, in curved space-time geometries (i.e. gravitational fields), the ZPFS transforms to the PVS 27) Primary equation: “Eq. (2)” 28) Relates to mass-energy 29) Discrete and harmonically continuous 30) Obeys a Fourier Distribution; i.e. the maximum spectral frequency is an Bandwidth (Hz) –∞ < ωQV < +∞

Further comparative characteristics between QV, ZPF, EGM and PV spectra may be tabulated as follows, Spectrum QV

ZPF

–∞ < ωZPF < +∞

EGM

–∞ < ωΘ < +∞

PV

integer multiple of the lowest spectral frequency Primary equations: “Eq. (3-11)” Relates to gravitational acceleration Formulated by relating the ZPF and EGM spectra Discrete and finite Obeys a Fourier Distribution; i.e. the maximum spectral frequency is an integer multiple of the lowest spectral frequency 36) Primary equations: “Eq. (18,19,26-28)” 31) 32) 33) 34) 35)
Tab. (5),

–ωh ≤ ωPV ≤ +ωh

1.5.6

PV Transformations

The historical derivation of the PV model exhibits isomorphism to GR in weak field approximation. By comparison, the similarities between EGM and the PV model demonstrate that EGM is also isomorphic to GR in the weak field. However, differences exist between the two representations, primarily due to the introduction of a superposition of fields, facilitating the formulation of engineering tools which may be utilised in practical applications. Within the EGM construct, “KPV” is a function of “ρ0” by wavefunction superposition at each point in a gravitational field. EGM supports the conjecture of the PV model such that measurements by “rulers and clocks” depend upon “KPV” of the medium, by applying transformations to the ZPF. Hence, a PV transformation table for application to “metric engineering” effects was articulated in [17] (see also: [18-21]) according to the proceeding table, Important information with respect to “Tab. (6)”: 37) The subscript “∞” relates to values, as would be measured or defined by a non-local observer, in a globally flat space-time manifold (i.e. at infinity). 38) The non-subscripted parameters [e.g. “c” as a function of Refractive Index “c(KPV)”] relate to measurements performed by a local observer. 39) The non-subscripted parameters of “µ”, “ε” and “Z” do not refer to the classical representation of relative permeability, permittivity and impedance (i.e. they are generalised references to the constants only). 40) The section “Unit of Measure” denotes PV transformations at the physical scale (i.e. “rulers and clocks”). 41) The section “Planck Measure” denotes PV transformations at the Planck scale. 42) The subscript “h ∞” relates to Planck scale values, as would be measured or defined by a non-local observer, in a globally flat space-time manifold (i.e. at infinity) 43) The section “Relative Measure” demonstrates the consistency of relative measures of the PV model (i.e. the relationship between the physical and Planck scales). Physical Constant Velocity of light Planck Dirac (i.e. “ħ ≡ h / 2π”) Gravitation Permeability Permittivity Impedance Unit of Measure Mass (m) Length (r) Time (t) Energy (E) Planck Measure Mass (mh) Length (λh) Time (th) Energy (Eh) PV Representation of GR c(KPV) = KPV-1⋅c∞ h(KPV) = h∞ = h ħ(KPV) = ħ∞ = ħ G(KPV) = G∞ = G µ(KPV) = KPV⋅µ∞ ε(KPV) = KPV⋅ε∞ Z(KPV) = Z∞ = (µ∞/ε∞)½ m(KPV) = KPV3/2⋅m∞ r(KPV) = KPV-½⋅r∞ t(KPV) = KPV½⋅t∞ E(KPV) = KPV-½⋅E∞ mh(KPV) = KPV-½⋅mh_∞ λh(KPV) = KPV3/2⋅λh_∞ th(KPV) = KPV5/2⋅th_∞ Eh(KPV) = KPV-5/2⋅Eh_∞

Relative Measure Mass Length Time Energy where, Eq. (29)

m(KPV)/mh(KPV) = KPV2⋅(m∞/mh_∞) r(KPV)/λh(KPV) = KPV-2⋅(r∞/λh_∞) t(KPV)/th(KPV) = KPV-2⋅(t0/th_∞) E(KPV)/Eh(KPV) = KPV2⋅(E∞/Eh_∞)
Tab. (6),

K PV( r , M ) 1

1 2 .G.M r .c ∞
2

Eq. (30) 2 E h m h .c ∞

Eq. (31)

Eq. (32)

Eq. (33)

th

G.h c∞
5

mh

h .c ∞ G

λh

G.h c∞
3

Tab. (7),

Hence, the preceding tables permit Engineers (in principle) to design and develop new technologies within the EGM construct, to affect the PV medium controlling relative polarisability (i.e. via manipulation of “KPV”), at any point in a gravitational field by the superposition of applied EM wavefunctions. This concept of “metric engineering” by superposition (commencing from [13]), lead to the development of General Similarity Equations (GSE’s) derived in [14]. These GSE’s were subsequently utilised in [22] to derive Harmonic and Spectral Similarity Equation’s (HSE’s and SSE’s respectively), eventually yielding a unique solution for the CF associated with a Parallel-Plate experiment conducted at the surface of the Earth.

2
2.1

The Extraterrestrial Casimir Effect
Section Synopsis

Substantial effort has been invested into research of the CE; with many variations upon the central theme being rigorously investigated [23]. However, precise physical measurement of the CF has only occurred in terrestrial laboratory environments [24-28]. This is experimentally significant as the base mathematical formulation of the CF per unit area explicitly states that the CE is homogenous throughout the Universe (i.e. the base formulation contains no gravitationally dependent terms) [29]. The EGM construct was applied in [8] to derive a unique solution for the CF from first principles [i.e. for a specific plate separation of “Δr = 1(mm)”], demonstrating that it differs depending upon ambient gravitational field strength; for example, the CF will be slightly different on Earth than Jupiter or the Moon. The derivation states that, 44) “…. an Earth based equivalent Casimir experiment conducted on Jupiter will exclude fewer low frequency modes – preserving higher frequency modes that simply pass through the plates, resulting in a smaller Casimir Force. By contrast, the same experiment conducted on the Moon will produce a larger Casimir Force.” 45) “…. a Casimir Experiment conducted in free space will produce an extremely small force (tending to zero) due to the lack of initial background field pressure. Since the Casimir Force arises from a pressure imbalance, the lack of significant ambient field pressure between the plates prevents the formation of large Casimir Forces.” The construct presented herein, develops this unique solution into a generalised representation of the CF, valid for all experimentally practical values of “Δr”. Consequently, it is hypothesised that engineers may be required to incorporate broader operational tolerances when designing and constructing nanotechnology for extraterrestrial applications. “Tab. (1)” articulates the EGM predicted approximate change in CF per unit area (i.e. the CP) for a selection of extraterrestrial environments of potentially practical significance (relative to a terrestrial experiment conducted at the surface of the Earth). This is achieved by three generalised applications of the EGM construct in the context of the CF, herein termed “Unconstrained, Quasi-Constrained and Constrained Modelling” according to the following definitions,

46) “Unconstrained Modelling” refers to the ZPF across an elemental displacement (i.e. “Δr”) in a gravitational acceleration field in the absence of Casimir boundaries (i.e. metal plates). 47) “Quasi-Constrained Modelling” refers to the geometric similarity requirements of “Constrained Modelling”, expressed in terms of the maximum permissible wavelength (i.e. minimum frequency) associated with an unconstrained model; i.e. the maximum permissible wavelength of a standing wavefunction across “Δr” in a constrained model, is half the wavelength of an unconstrained wavefunction transiting “Δr”. 48) “Constrained Modelling” refers to the ZPF across an elemental displacement (i.e. “Δr”) in a gravitational acceleration field in the presence of Casimir boundaries (i.e. metal plates). 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.1.1 Derivation of the Casimir Force Utilising EGM Methodology Unique Solution Unconstrained Modelling

Reference [8] derives a unique solution for the CF associated with a Parallel-Plate experiment conducted at the surface of the Earth, constructed upon foundation-work from [13] utilising the application of Buckingham “Π” (Pi) Theory (BPT). This lead to two General Modelling Equation’s (GME’s) formulated in [30], in-turn leading to a set of GSE’s developed in [14]. The authors commence their derivation by assuming that a superposition of applied EM wavefunctions mimic a gravitational acceleration field. The GSE’s were constructed from a previously defined parameter in [30], termed the Critical Ratio “KR”; a ratio indicative of the similarity between a point in an ambient gravitational acceleration field, and an applied EM field characterised by the superposition of EM wavefunctions. If the applied EM field reproduces all of the scalar characteristics of the ambient gravitational acceleration field, then the ratio of the applied EM field to the ambient gravitational acceleration field equals unity. Conceptually, this may be expressed as follows, m Superposition_of_Applied_EM_Fields . 2 s Critical_Ratio 1 . m Ambient_Gravitational_Acceleration_Field

s

2

(34)

The leap from GME’s to GSE’s is important because it represents the transition from a modelling technique based upon dimensional similarity, to an initiating step in the formulation of a testable engineering outcome. The GME’s were derived upon the presumption that the particulate constitution of the ZPF at the surface of the Earth is random, however, the GSE’s were derived post [5]. The significance of this being that the practical application of the GSE’s assumes that the ZPF in the presence of matter becomes structured in accordance with a Fourier distribution, i.e. it is no longer a randomised vector field and may be described as a Polarised Vacuum field. Since [5] calculates the ZPF spectral limits of a gravitational acceleration field, the transition from GME’s to GSE’s signifies the transition from constructing a generalised acceleration field via the superposition of EM wavefunctions, to the construction of an EM field utilising the superposition of EM wavefunctions obeying a Fourier distribution, hypothesised by the authors to mimic a gravitational acceleration field. Reference [8] applies “GSE3” from [14] in their derivation workflow because it contains the change in a parameter termed the Critical Factor “KC” [30]; a measure of the applied EM field intensity within an experimental test volume. Hence, the change in “KC” (specifically from zero) is termed the Change in Critical Factor “ΔKC”, representing a proportional measure of the magnitude of the applied Poynting Vectors as the number of applied harmonic EM field modes “nA” tends to infinity for the local observer as follows,

GSE( r , Δ r , M ) 3

Δ K C( r , M ) Δ U PV( r , Δ r , M )

.

ε0 µ0
(35)

where,

Δ K C( r , M )

1
2

.

K PV( r , M ) n A

2 E A n A, t .

B A n A, t nA

2

(36) (37)

Δ U PV r , Δ r , M ) U m( r (

Δ r, M )

U m( r , M )

Note: (i) for complete (i.e. ideal) similarity between the applied EM and ambient gravitational acceleration fields, “GSE(r,Δr,M)3 = 1”; (ii) all applied EM fields are coplanar with “g”; (iii) “ΔKC” is a constant function constructed from a superposition of EM fields at odd harmonics, obeying a distribution given by “nA = -N, 2-N ... N” and “N → +∞”; e.g. -21, -19, -17, -15 ... 21.

Once the authors established a Fourier based mathematical formalism for mimicking a local gravitational acceleration field in [14], they applied an important pragmatic approximation in [22]; being that gravitational acceleration may be usefully modelled as a one-dimensional “1-D” phenomenon at the surface of the Earth (i.e. “g” is constant at the laboratory scale). This pragmatic approach facilitated the application of “KR” in a new manner, i.e. “KR” is mathematically expressed as the sum of a family of wavefunctions obeying a Fourier distribution across “Δr”. This differs to the application of “KR” with respect to the formulation of “GSE3” because “KR” as applied in [22] [expressed as “KR(r,Δr,M)” therein], pertains to the harmonic structure of the ambient gravitational acceleration field across “Δr”, rather than the applied EM wavefunctions implicit with respect to “GSE3”. Hence, the distinction between the forms of “KR” applied in [14] and [22] may be characterised by the following attributes: 49) Reference [14] assumes that the particulate constitution of the ZPF is random within a gravitational acceleration field, but may be mimicked by the application of EM fields obeying a Fourier distribution; at conditions of ideal similarity between the ambient gravitational acceleration field and the applied EM fields such that “KR = 1”. 50) Reference [22] conjectures that the particulate constitution of the ZPF is structured within a gravitational acceleration field, such that for constant “g” approximations across “Δr”, “g” may be modelled as a summation of harmonic wavefunctions obeying a Fourier distribution. Consequently, the Critical Ratio associated with the value of “g” spanning “Δr” equals unity {expressed as “KR(r,Δr,M) = 1” in [22]} when all composite Fourier harmonics across “Δr” have been reproduced by the superposition of artificial EM fields. The next step in the executed procedure was to develop a set of HSE’s [22]; comprising of the Critical Ratio [of the form “KR(r,Δr,M)”] divided by the appropriate GSE. The nomenclature of “Harmonic Similarity” stems from the harmonic constitution of “KR(r,Δr,M)” being divided by (i.e. compared to) the appropriate GSE; such that the number of ZPF harmonic frequency modes “nPV” tends to infinity where “KR(r,Δr,M)” denotes a constant function. Hence, “KR(r,Δr,M)” may be formulated utilising the Gravitational Harmonic Operator [i.e. “Eq. (7)”] applied across “Δr” as follows, m Gravitational_Acceleration_across_ Δ r . 2 s Critical_Ratio 1 . m Gravitational_Acceleration_at_a_point_within_ Δ r

s
m Gravitational_Acceleration_across_ Δ r . 2 s Gravitational_Acceleration_at_a_point_within_ Δ r . m s
2

2

(38)
2
π .n PV .Δω δr( 1 , r , Δr , M ) .t .i

G.M . r
2

i .

.e π .n PV n PV

G.M r
2

(39)

Thus, the Critical Ratio may be stated in the following form; equivalent to the Unit Harmonic Operator defined by “Eq. (3)” according to, 2 . π .n PV .Δω δr( 1 , r , Δr , M ) .t .i K R( r , Δ r , M ) i . e π .n PV n PV (40) where, Δω δr( 1, r , Δ r , M ) ω PV 1, r Δ r , M ) ω PV 1, r , M ) ( ( (41) • Note: (i) for complete (i.e. ideal) similarity between the constant “g” approximation across “Δr” and “g” at a point within “Δr”, “KR(r,Δr,M) = 1”; (ii) “Δωδr(1,r,Δr,M)” represents the magnitude of the change in the lower ZPF harmonic spectral frequency limit across “Δr” (i.e. the magnitude of the change in fundamental frequency); (iii) The harmonic distribution is given by the odd mode sequence “nPV = -N, 2-N ... N” and “N → +∞”; e.g. -21, -19, -17, -15 ... 21.

Hence, the similarity of an engineering solution utilising applied EM field harmonics, to a constant “g” approximation of the local gravitational acceleration field is given by “HSE3” as follows,

HSE( r , Δ r , M ) 3
Substituting “Eq. (35,36,40)” into “Eq. (42)” yields,
i .Δ U PV( r , Δ r , M ) . HSE( r , Δ r , M ) 3 ε0 . µ0 K 1
2

K R( r , Δ r , M ) GSE( r , Δ r , M ) 3
2
π .n PV .Δω δr( 1 , r , Δr , M ) .t .i

(42)

π .n PV n PV .

.e

PV( r , M ) n A

2 EA n A, t .

B A n A, t nA

2

(43)

Note: (i) for complete (i.e. ideal) similarity between the constant “g” approximation across “Δr” and the applied EM fields, “HSE(r,Δr,M)3 = GSE(r,Δr,M)3 = KR(r,Δr,M) = 1”; (ii) all applied EM fields are coplanar with “g”; (iii) the denominator is a constant function constructed from a superposition of EM fields at odd harmonics, obeying a distribution given by “nA = -N, 2-N ... N” and “N → +∞”; e.g. -21, -19, 17, -15 ... 21.

The family of harmonic wavefunctions described by “Eq. (43)” may be decomposed into modal form by discrete similarity; a piecewise representation of harmonic constitution according to,

i .Δ U PV( r , Δ r , M ) . HSE E A , B A , n A , n PV, r , Δ r , M , t
3

2

π .n PV

.e

π .n PV .Δω δr( 1 , r , Δr , M ) .t .i

ε0 1 . .E n , t .B n , t A A A A µ 0 K PV( r , M )

(44)

Note: due to decomposition, the denominator of “Eq. (43)” is no longer constant and the time dependent consequence of the executed procedure is incorporated into the Left-Hand-Side (LHS) of “Eq. (44)”; via the inclusion of “EA”, “BA”, “nA” and “t” as functional parameters.
π .n PV .Δω δr( 1 , r , Δr , M ) .t .i

However, “Eq. (44)” may be simplified by recognising that,

i .e

1

(45)

Thus, the reduced form of “Eq. (44)” is given by,

HSE E A , B A , n A , n PV, r , Δ r , M , t

K PV( r , M ) .Δ U PV( r , Δ r , M )
3R

E A n A , t .B A n A , t

.

µ0 .K n R PV H ε0

(46)

where, “KR(nPV)H” denotes the harmonic amplitude spectrum of “Eq. (40,46)” according to,
K R n PV H 2 . n π PV

(47)

Thus, harmonic similarity between an approximation of constant “g” across “Δr” and an applied EM field may be characterised by the properties of the amplitude spectrum of the local ZPF. The significance of this being that ZPF frequency information is implicitly embedded into “Eq. (46)” due the relationship between amplitude and frequency within a Fourier spectrum; i.e. harmonic amplitude decreases asymptotically whilst harmonic frequency increases linearly as “nPV” tends to infinity. The engineering techniques utilised in [13] suggest that, for interactive physical modelling with the ZPF, it may be possible to engineer the Polarizable Vacuum (i.e. the ZPF in the presence of matter) by the selective manipulation of a specific ZPF frequency. Moreover, [14] extends this proposition by demonstrating that the significant majority [i.e. “>>99.99(%)”] of Polarisable Vacuum spectral energy (i.e. the ZPF spectral energy in the presence of matter) exists at (or near) the upper limit of the local ZPF frequency spectrum. Consequently, “Eq. (46)” may be conveniently reconstituted by stipulating and insisting that all applied EM field configurations for experimental purposes be executed at conditions of maximal frequency. Hence we shall, in a manner of speaking, force the denominator of “Eq. (46)” towards the characteristics of a constant function; offering a pragmatic engineering approach forward of the form shown by “Eq. (55)”. Let “Stα(r,Δr,M)” be termed the Range Factor and the applied EM fields [i.e. “EA(nA,t),BA(nA,t),Erms,Brms”] be expressed in complex phasor form such that,

St α ( r , Δ r , M ) Δ U PV( r , Δ r , M ) .
2 .π .ω A n A .t π . i 2

µ0 ε0
2 .π .ω A n A .t π 2 φ .i

(48)

E A n A, t

E 0 .e

Eq. (49)

B A n A, t

B 0 .e

Eq. (50)

E rms

E0 2
Eq. (51)
Tab. (8),

B rms

B0 2
Eq. (52)

Performing the appropriate substitution of “Eq. (47-52)” into “Eq. (46)” and evaluating utilising the “MathCad 8 Professional” symbolic processing engine, yields the following; • Note: the proceeding solution algorithm appears in standard product notation and form, and is a verbatim extraction of computational output.

Primary Sub-Routine:
substitute , E A n A , t K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , Δ r , M ) E A n A , t .B A n A , t substitute , B A n A , t substitute , B 0 substitute , E 0 simplify E 0 .e B 0 .e
2 .π .ω A n A .t π . i 2 π 2

2 .π .ω A n A .t

φ .i

.

2 π .n PV

K PV( r , M ) .

2 .B rms 2 .E rms

St α ( r , Δ r , M ) .exp i . 4 .π .ω . A nA t π .n PV.E rms .B rms

π

φ

(53)

Secondary Sub-Routine:
K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , Δ r , M ) π .n PV.E rms .B rms .exp i . 4.π .ω . A nA t π φ simplify 1. π K PV( r , M ) . St α ( r , Δ r , M ) n PV.E rms .B rms

(54)

Hence, “Eq. (46)” may be reconstituted according to,

HSE 3 E rms , B rms , n PV, r , Δ r , M

K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , Δ r , M )
3R

π .n PV.E rms .B rms

(55)

“Eq. (55)” provides a relative assessment of the similarity between a specific ZPF harmonic frequency mode and an arbitrary experimental configuration. However, whilst the process of its formulation is mathematically consistent, its implementation lacks the required pragmatism from an engineering perspective. Moreover, as stated in the preceding dialogue, the applied EM fields mathematically act as a constant function. Thus, minimal advantage is gained by comparing a sinusoidal function (i.e. the numerator) to a pseudo-constant function (i.e. the denominator). To overcome this pragmatic impasse, [14] introduces the concept of spectral similarity via the development of SSE’s; “SSE3” being of specific interest herein. “SSE’s” define the similarity between a mode averaged ZPF across “Δr”, and the applied EM fields, providing a practical target for engineers. Reference [14] defines “SSE3” as the average Harmonic Similarity per mode according to,

SSE E rms , B rms , r , Δ r , M

1
3

.
ZPF

(56) where, 51) “nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF” is termed the ZPF Beat Cut-Off Mode, and defined as an odd number approximating the upper ZPF mode limit across “Δr”; thus, the harmonic distribution of the Polarisable Vacuum (i.e. the ZPF in the presence of matter) is given by the odd sequence as follows, o “nPV = -nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF, 2-nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF ... nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF” and “nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF → +∞”. o “nPV” is a double sided odd spectrum, symmetrical about the “0th” mode; e.g. -21, -19, -17, -15 ... 21. 52) “nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF + 1” represents the number of harmonic modes across “Δr” for an odd harmonic distribution as demonstrated by the following, o e.g. “nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF = 9” yields the distribution “-9, -7, -5, -3, -1, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9”, possessing “10” terms. o Hence, the total number of modes across “Δr” is represented by “nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF + 1”. o When “nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF >> 1”, “nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF + 1 → nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF”. “Eq. (56)” demonstrates that two key units of information are required in order to artificially mimic the ZPF associated with a gravitational acceleration field; i.e. “nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF” and the sum of all harmonic modes across “Δr”. From a pragmatic engineering perspective, any simplification is typically advantageous and consistent with the best practice design philosophy of “Keep-It-Simple” (KIS). Subsequently, we may simplify “Eq. (56)” such that it is reliant upon one key unit of information rather than two, according to the following construct.

n Ω ( r, Δ r, M )

1

HSE E rms , B rms , n PV, r , Δ r , M n PV

3R

Decomposing “Eq. (56)” into three distinct products yields,
SSE E rms , B rms , r , Δ r , M 1
3

.
ZPF

K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , Δ r , M ) π .E rms .B rms

. n PV

1 n PV

n Ω ( r, Δ r, M )

1

(57)

For solutions where “nPV >> 1” and “γ = Euler’s Constant”,

1 n PV

n PV

ln 2 .n Ω ( r , Δ r , M ) ZPF

γ
(58)

Note: (i) standard QED postulates that the upper modal limit of the local ZPF approaches infinity; (ii) the error associated with “Eq. (58)” when “nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF = 106+1” is less than “6.6 x10-6(%)”; (iii) “106+1 << +∞”, hence “Eq. (58)” is a useful and validated approximation.

Let “NX(r,Δr,M)” be termed the Harmonic Inflection Mode, defined as the ratio of the number of modes to the sum of modal amplitudes [see: “Eq. (47,58)”] in the odd harmonic distribution given by “nPV” such that,
N X( r , Δ r , M ) n Ω ( r, Δ r, M )
ZPF

1 γ

ln 2 .n Ω ( r , Δ r , M ) ZPF

(59)

Note: “Eq. (59)” has been configured in such a manner as to ensure that “NX(r,Δr,M) > 1”.

Thus, reconstituting “Eq. (57)” yields,

SSE E rms , B rms , r , Δ r , M

K PV( r , M ) .St α ( r , Δ r , M )
3

π .E rms .B rms .N X( r , Δ r , M )

(60)

Note: (i) for complete (i.e. ideal) similarity between the constant “g” approximation across “Δr” and the applied EM fields, “SSE(Erms,Brms,r,Δr,M)3 = HSE(r,Δr,M)3 = GSE(r,Δr,M)3 = KR(r,Δr,M) = 1”; (ii) all applied EM fields are coplanar with “g”; (iii) at complete (i.e. ideal) similarity, “Erms” and “Brms” are representative of constant functions constructed from a superposition of EM fields at odd harmonics, obeying a distribution given by “nA = -N, 2-N ... N” and “N → +∞”; e.g. -21, -19, -17, -15 ... 21; (iv) for practical engineering investigations, “Erms” and “Brms” are time dependent functions [e.g. “Eq. (49,50)”] representative of the maximum possible EM frequencies achievable with the resources at hand.

“Eq. (59,60)” clearly articulate that “nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF” is an important parameter with respect to physically modelling the interaction between the ZPF and applied EM fields. It also demonstrates that the upper spectral limit of the local ZPF is the dominating design factor for experimental investigations; consistent with the conclusions drawn by the author’s in [14]. However, in the absence of a precise numerical evaluation of “nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF”, it has no practical value for engineering purposes. Reference [14] overcame this constraint by defining it in a manner analogous to (i.e. consistent with) “nΩ(r,M)” from “Eq. (28)” by transposition. Hence; Let “nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF” be mathematically defined as the ratio of the upper ZPF spectral frequency limit across “Δr”, termed the ZPF Beat Cut-Off Frequency “ωΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF”, to the lower ZPF spectral frequency limit at “r” [i.e. “ωPV(1,r,M)”] according to, ω Ω ( r, Δ r, M ) ZPF n Ω ( r, Δ r, M ) ZPF ω PV( 1 , r , M ) (61) By inspection of “Eq. (61)”, the determination of “ωΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF” presents a problem. Since the number of modes at “r” differs significantly to the number of modes at “r+Δr”, a simple difference calculation is inadequate to negotiate the way forward to a working solution. Moreover, the value of the upper ZPF spectral limit also varies significantly from “r” to

“r+Δr”; hence, a workaround to this problem is required. To achieve this, we shall leverage-off specific properties of the mathematical formalism as constructed. All values of “r” possess a fundamental frequency, and all values of fundamental frequency occur at “nPV = 1”. Consequently, it follows that the change in the lower ZPF spectral limit across “Δr” [i.e. “Eq. (41)”] should represent the lower ZPF spectral boundary for engineering investigations. In addition, recognising that “ωΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF” is only an approximation of the upper ZPF spectral limit across “Δr” (i.e. due to the constant “g” approximation being the cornerstone of the construct), we shall assume that “Eq. (20,21)” are applicable in the following form, h . 4 4 Δ U PV r , Δ r , M ) ( ω Ω ( r, Δ r, M ) Δω δr( 1, r , Δ r , M ) 3 ZPF 2 .c (62) Transposing yields,
4

ω Ω ( r, Δ r, M ) ZPF

2 .c . Δ U PV( r , Δ r , M ) h

3

Δω δr( 1, r , Δ r , M )

4

(63)

Therefore, “Eq. (59,61,63)” denote the key design parameters required to physically mimic the effects of an ambient gravitational acceleration field (by useful approximation) utilising applied EM fields for engineering investigations across “Δr”. 2.2.1.2 Quasi-Constrained Modelling

“Quasi-Constrained Modelling” refers to the geometric similarity requirements of “Constrained Modelling”, expressed in terms of the maximum permissible wavelength (i.e. minimum frequency) associated with an unconstrained model; i.e. the maximum permissible wavelength of a standing wavefunction across “Δr” in a constrained model, is half the wavelength of an unconstrained wavefunction transiting “Δr”. The associated frequency is termed the Critical Frequency “ωC” and defined by “Eq. (64)”. Notably thus far, the engineering model constructed has been developed without the physical boundary plates required by a Casimir experiment, only the provision for physical boundaries by the stipulation of phenomena spanning “Δr”. In preparation for the enforcement of physical boundary conditions (i.e. metal plates either side of “Δr”), let “ωC” be defined such that geometric similarity between an unconstrained system (i.e. without metal plates either side of “Δr”) and a bounded system (i.e. with metal plates either side of “Δr”) is preserved and given by “Eq. (64)”, described as quasi-constrained according to,

ω C( Δ r )

c .Δ r 2

(64)

Fig. (4): Quasi-Constrained Modelling (illustrational only - not to scale),

Hence, let the Critical Mode “NC(r,Δr,M)” of the quasi-constrained model be defined in a manner analogous to “Eq. (28,61)” as follows, ω C( Δ r ) N C( r , Δ r , M ) ω PV( 1 , r , M ) (65)

• 2.2.1.3

Note: “Eq. (64)” has been formulated (as stated) to preserve geometric characteristics of an equivalent standing wavefunction induced by metal plates either side of “Δr”. Constrained Modelling

“Constrained Modelling” refers to the ZPF across an elemental displacement (i.e. “Δr”) in a gravitational acceleration field in the presence of a Casimir Parallel-Plate Experiment. Reference [8] advances their derivation by conceptualising the transition from “Quasi-Constrained” to “Constrained” modelling by approximating the difference in sum between “NC(r,Δr,M)” and “NX(r,Δr,M)”; in the context of ZPF harmonic modes being constrained by the presence of physical boundaries (i.e. Casimir plates) either side of “Δr”. Consequently, the difference in harmonic modal summation is approximated by “Eq. (66)” according to,

ln 2.N C( r , Δ r , M )

γ

ln 2.N X( r , Δ r , M )

γ

ln

N C( r , Δ r , M ) N X( r , Δ r , M )
(66)

In this context, “NC(r,Δr,M)” represents a boundary condition of the end state achieved by the physical insertion of Casimir Plates either side of “Δr” (by geometric similarity), whereas “NX(r,Δr,M)” represents the initial state of an unmodified system. Hence, the difference between the target state and initial state constitutes the effective change induced by the insertion of Casimir Plates such that,

Δr ∝ ln

N C( r , Δr , M ) N X( r , Δr , M )
(67)

Based upon the preceding premise, [8] proposes that the CF for a Parallel-Plate configuration (i.e. “FPP”) is proportional to the following Similarity Indicators, Eq. (68) Initial State Δ U PV( r , Δ r , M ) Eq. (69) Target State N C( r , Δ r , M ) FPP ∝ N X( r , Δ r , M )

FPP

N X( r , Δ r , M )

Tab. (9): Similarity Indicators,

Thus, by inspection and reinterpretation of “Eq. (1)”, an EGM analogue to the CF for a Parallel-Plate configuration may be formulated according to “Eq. (70)” as follows,

F PV( r , Δ r , M ) A PP( r ) .

Δ U PV( r , Δ r , M ) N C( r , Δ r , M ) N ( r, Δ r, M ) . .ln C N X( r , Δ r , M ) N X( r , Δ r , M ) N X( r , Δ r , M )

4

(70)

where, “APP(r)” denotes Parallel-Plate area as a function of radial displacement according to the spherical surface area relationship as follows, 2 A PP( r ) 4.π .r (71) • Note: “APP” is expressed in terms of radial displacement “r” to ensure that a very large area is utilised for geometric similarity between the EGM construct and the infinite plate area assumed by Casimir in the original derivation. Moving to Infinity

2.2.1.4

“Eq. (70)” demonstrates that, for an experiment of unit plate area at a separation of “Δr = 1(mm)”, the Casimir Pressure induced by a planetary point mass increases with “M” and decreases with radial displacement “r”, tending to zero as “r” tends to infinity [see: “Fig. (5)”]. However, this result should not be confused with the forthcoming prediction that a physical measurement of the CF will be greater on the Moon than on Jupiter (refer to proceeding section). The

reason for this resides in the fact that a physical experiment at the surface of a planetary body can only be performed subject to the fixed gravitational acceleration conditions at its surface (i.e. radius and mass are unique combinations associated with specific planetary surface conditions); for the graphical illustration shown, “r” is a variable parameter.
5 .R E 10 .R E

Magnitude of Casimir Press. (Pa)

Radial Displacement (m)

The Moon The Earth Jupiter

Fig. (5): Plot of “Eq. (70)”: Magnitude of Casimir Pressure vs. Radial Displacement, o Plate Separation = “Δr” = “1(mm)”. o The Lunar curve obeys the proportion “FPV(r,Δr,MM) / APP(r)”. o The Terrestrial curve obeys the proportion “FPV(r,Δr,ME) / APP(r)”. o The Jovian curve obeys the proportion “FPV(r,Δr,MJ) / APP(r)”. o Y-Axis (log scale).

2.2.1.5

Engineering Infinity

With the formulation of “Eq. (70)”, [8] consequently initiates a pragmatic determination of infinite ParallelPlate separation in the context of real-world engineering outcomes. Although the original derivation by Casimir accommodates the computation of the force as Parallel-Plate separation approaches infinity (literally), it is a valueless feature to the practical engineer. In order to maximise engineering advantage, it is highly desirable (where applicable) to articulate “Engineering Infinity”. In the specific case of a Parallel-Plate configuration, [8] determined that “Eq. (70)” usefully approximates “Eq. (1)” (by coincidence) at a Parallel-Plate separation of “Δr = 1(mm)” at the surface of the Earth; hence, it may be stated that “Eq. (70) = Eq. (1)” with trivial error [approx. “-0.1122(%)”] according to the following computational output, Relationship CP -1.3001 fPa FPP(Δr) / APP -15 -1.2983 (x10 Pa) FPV(RE,Δr,ME) / APP(RE) Legend: Δr = Parallel-Plate Separation = 1(mm) APP = Parallel-Plate Area = 1(m2) RE = Radius of the Earth = 6.3781 x103(km) ME = Mass of the Earth = 5.9722 x1024(kg) APP(RE) = 5.1121 x108(km2)
Tab. (10): Casimir Pressure (i.e. Casimir Force per unit area),

2.2.1.6

Qualitative Analysis

Upon determining a convergence of forms between “Eq. (1,70)” at “Engineering Infinity”, [8] consequently initiated a qualitative analysis of the CF for a Parallel-Plate configuration at the surface of other celestial bodies relative to the Earth. Solving “Eq. (70)” with Lunar and Jovian parameters yields, Relationship CP -2.3480 fPa FPV(RM,Δr,MM) / APP(RM) (x10-15 Pa) -0.0742 FPV(RJ,Δr,MJ) / APP(RJ) Legend: RM = Radius of the Moon = 1.7381 x103(km) MM = Mass of the Moon = 7.349 x1022(kg) RJ = Radius of Jupiter = 7.1492 x104(km) MJ = Mass of Jupiter = 1.8986 x1027(kg) APP(RM) = 3.7963 x107(km2) APP(RJ) = 6.4228 x1010(km2)
Tab. (11): Casimir Pressure (qualitative prediction only),

Hence, the CF differs depending upon ambient gravitational field strength; for example, the CF will be slightly different on Earth than Jupiter or the Moon because the ZPFS, as described by “Eq. (2)”, is compressed by the gravitational acceleration field induced by the presence of matter. Thus, it may be stated that the ZPF exhibits the following characteristics, 53) As gravitational acceleration field values approach zero, the ZPF modal bandwidth tends to infinity (i.e. it is described as being infinitely broad). This does not imply that the upper spectral limit approaches infinity, as demonstrated by the following conceptualisation, o Let (i) “g(r,M) = 10-500(m/s2)” represent the gravitational acceleration field value at “r” due to field source “M”, of the local ZPF under consideration; (ii) let the upper modal limit be defined by “nΩ(r,M) = 10500”; (iii) let the lower spectral frequency limit be defined by “ωPV(1,r,M) = 10-500(Hz)”. Obeying a Fourier distribution, the upper ZPF spectral frequency limit equals the upper modal limit multiplied by the lower frequency limit; “10500 x 10-500(Hz) = 1(Hz)”. Therefore, for an infinitely broad ZPF modal bandwidth, the lower and upper spectral frequency limits tend to zero; i.e. in the absence of any form of field energy. “…. a Casimir Experiment conducted in free space will produce an extremely small force (tending to zero) due to the lack of initial background field pressure. Since the Casimir Force arises from a pressure imbalance, the lack of significant ambient field pressure between the plates prevents the formation of large Casimir Forces.”

o

o

54) The ZPF modal bandwidth associated with the gravitational acceleration field at the surface of Jupiter is compressed relative to the Earth. Similarly, the ZPF modal bandwidth at the surface of the Earth is compressed relative to the Moon; thus, o “…. an Earth based equivalent Casimir experiment conducted on Jupiter will exclude fewer low frequency modes – preserving higher frequency modes that simply pass through the plates, resulting in a smaller Casimir Force. By contrast, the same experiment conducted on the Moon will produce a larger Casimir Force.

55) As gravitational acceleration field values approach their maximum permissible magnitude (i.e. in the presence of a particle of Planck energy density), the local ZPF modal bandwidth is compressed such that the number of field modes tends to unity, and both limits (i.e. lower and upper) of the ZPF frequency bandwidth approach the Planck frequency.

2.2.2 2.2.2.1

General Solution Derivation Thereof

By inspection of “Eq. (67)”, it is immediately apparent that a virtual asymptote (i.e. discontinuity) is induced within “Δr” when “NC(r,Δr,M) = NX(r,Δr,M)” [see: “Fig. (6)”]. Discontinuities are often not an issue in the engineering domain and in-fact occur more commonly than laypeople may realise. Possibly the most widespread application of discontinuous functions relates to structural mechanics, where changes in loading situations demand discontinuous representations; refer to any university entry level structural mechanics text for graphical examples relating to shear force and bending moment diagrams.
Δr E Δr J

Magnitude of Casimir Press. (Pa)

Plate Separation (m)

The Moon The Earth Jupiter

Fig. (6): Plot of “Eq. (70)”: Magnitude of Casimir Pressure vs. Plate Separation, o Maximum plate separation = “Δr” = “0.9(µm)” = “900(nm)”. o The Lunar curve obeys the proportion “FPV(RM,Δr,MM) / APP(RM)”. o The Terrestrial curve obeys the proportion “FPV(RE,Δr,ME) / APP(RE)”. o The Jovian curve obeys the proportion “FPV(RJ,Δr,MJ) / APP(RJ)”. o Y-Axis (log scale).

To formulate a generalised application of the CF within the context of the EGM construct, we are compelled to refine the unique solution presented in the preceding section. To achieve this, we shall compensate for the induced virtual asymptote within “Δr” and calibrate the result to the terrestrial environment (i.e. the surface of the Earth). Moreover, we shall articulate the solution algorithm in a series of steps, utilising computational resources where applicable. Thus; Step 1: Calculate the position of the virtual asymptote (discontinuity) within the Casimir cavity utilising the “Given” and “Find” commands in the “MathCad 8 Professional” computational environment, Let “ΔrM”, “ΔrE” and “ΔrJ” denote the position of the virtual asymptote within the Casimir cavity, from the left-hand inner face at the surface of the Lunar, Terrestrial and Jovian environments respectively; hence, Given

ln

N C R M , Δr M , M M N X R M , Δr M , M M

0

ln

N C R E, Δr E, M E N X R E, Δr E, M E

0

ln

N C R J , Δr J , M J N X R J , Δr J , M J

0

Δr M Δr E Δr J Find Δr M , Δr E, Δr J

Δr M Δr E Δr J

131.9395 = 155.1574 ( nm) 342.3369

Note: maximum plate separation = “900(nm)”.

Step 2: Formulate an expression for CP based upon “Eq. (70)”, whilst compensating for the discontinuity of the virtual asymptote by translating its position such that it coincides exactly with the left-hand inner face of the Casimir cavity, Let the Asymptotic Correction Factor “ΔrX” denote the position of the virtual asymptote in accordance with the solution algorithm specified in the preceding step (e.g. “ΔrX = ΔrM”, “ΔrX = ΔrE”, “ΔrX = ΔrJ”). Hence, let the Casimir Pressure be given by “Eq. (72)” according to,
CP PV r , Δ r , Δ r X , M Δ U PV( r , Δ r , M ) . N C r, Δ r N X r, Δ r Δ r X, M Δ r X, M
2

.ln

N C r, Δ r N X r, Δ r

Δ r X, M Δ r X, M

4

(72)

Note: “ΔUPV(r,Δr,M)” must not be asymptotically corrected, as it is not an EGM derived relationship; inclusion of “ΔrX” will re-define the plate separation distance (i.e. changing the experimental configuration).

Magnitude of Casimir Press. (Pa)

Plate Separation (m)

The Moon The Earth Jupiter

Fig. (7): Plot of “Eq. (72)”: Magnitude of Asymptotically Corrected Casimir Pressure vs. Plate Separation, o Maximum plate separation = “Δr” = “0.9(µm)” = “900(nm)”. o The Lunar curve obeys the function “CPPV(RM,Δr,ΔrM,MM)”. o The Terrestrial curve obeys the function “CPPV(RE,Δr,ΔrE,ME)”. o The Jovian curve obeys the function “CPPV(RJ,Δr,ΔrJ,MJ)”. o X-Axis (log scale).

Step 3: Formulate a Terrestrial Casimir Calibration Factor “CCF(Δr)” utilising “Eq. (1,72)” as follows,

C CF( Δ r )

F PP( Δ r ) A PP.CP PV R E, Δ r , Δ r E, M E
(73)

Note: “FPP(Δr)” must not be asymptotically corrected, as it is not an EGM derived relationship; inclusion of “ΔrX” will re-define the plate separation distance (i.e. changing the experimental configuration).

Terrestrial Casimir Calibration Factor

Plate Separation (m)

The Earth

Fig. (8): Plot of “Eq. (73)”: Terrestrial Casimir Calibration Factor vs. Plate Separation, o Maximum plate separation = “Δr” = “900(nm)”. o APP = “1(m2)”.

Step 4: Formulate an expression for the Calibrated Terrestrial CP. The Calibrated Terrestrial CP “TCPPV(r,Δr,ΔrX,M)” may be formulated by multiplying the Casimir Calibration Factor “Eq. (73)” by the asymptotically corrected CP as defined by “Eq. (72)” such that,

TCP PV r , Δr , Δr X, M
“Eq. (74)” (x10-3 Pa) -1.3001 x104 -812.5785 -160.5093 -50.7862 -20.802 -10.0318 -5.4149 -3.1741 -1.9816

C CF( Δr ) .CP PV r , Δr , Δr X, M
“Eq. (72)” (x10-12 Pa) -2.8046 x103 -448.266 -162.3579 -81.8832 -49.139 -32.694 -23.4458 -17.6623 -13.8461 “Δr” (nm) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

(74)

“Eq. (73)” (x108) 46.3569 18.1271 9.8861 6.2023 4.2333 3.0684 2.3096 1.7971 1.4312

Tab. (12): Calibrated Terrestrial Casimir Pressure,

where, “r = RE”, “ΔrX = ΔrE” and “M = ME”.

Mag. of Cal. Terr. Casimir Press. (Pa)

Plate Separation (m)

The Moon The Earth Jupiter

Fig. (9): Plot of “Eq. (74)”: Magnitude of Calibrated Terrestrial Casimir Pressure vs. Plate Separation, o Maximum plate separation = “Δr” = “900(nm)”. o The Lunar curve obeys the function “TCPPV(RM,Δr,ΔrM,MM)”. o The Terrestrial curve obeys the function “TCPPV(RE,Δr,ΔrE,ME)”. o The Jovian curve obeys the function “TCPPV(RJ,Δr,ΔrJ,MJ)”. o X-Axis (log scale).

Step 5: Formulate an expression for the Magnitude of the Average Calibrated CP over the experimental range “Δrmin” to “Δrmax”. Given by “Eq. (75)” according to,

TCP PV_av r , Δr X , M
Environment Lunar Surface Martian Surface Earth Surface Venusian Surface Low Earth Orbit Sun-Synchronous Orbit Mid Earth Orbit GPS Orbit High Earth Orbit

. Δr max Δr min Δr min
ΔrX (nm) 131.9395 146.3822 155.1574 155.0831 158.7907 169.0331 193.6958 493.3333 802.8734

1

Δr max TCP PV r , Δr , Δr X , M d Δr
(75) Location “r” [9] Mean Equatorial Radius (RM,R♂,RE,R♀) 180(km) 705(km) 2,000(km) 20,200(km) 42,164(km) Altitude Δr (nm)

“Eq. (75)” (Pa) 0.7414 0.6041 0.541 0.5398 0.5162 0.4578 0.3537 0.0664 0.0296

Mass “M” MM M♂ ME M♀ ME

Δrmin = 100 to Δrmax = 900

Tab. (13): Magnitude of the Average Calibrated Casimir Pressure over a range of plate separations “Δr”,

Step 6: Formulate an expression for the Magnitude of the Relative Average Calibrated CP over the experimental range “Δrmin” to “Δrmax”. Given by “Eq. (76)” as follows,

TCP PV_Rel_av r , Δ r X , M
Environment Lunar Surface Martian Surface Venusian Surface Low Earth Orbit Sun-Synchronous Orbit Mid Earth Orbit GPS Orbit High Earth Orbit “Eq. (76)” 1.3705 1.1167 0.9978 0.9542 0.8463 0.6538 0.1228 0.0548 ΔrX (nm) 131.9395 146.3822 155.0831 158.7907 169.0331 193.6958 493.3333 802.8734

TCP PV_av r , Δ r X , M TCP PV_av R E, Δ r E, M E
Mass “M” MM M♂ M♀ ME Location “r” [9] Mean Equatorial Radius (RM,R♂,RE,R♀) 180(km) 705(km) 2,000(km) 20,200(km) 42,164(km) Altitude Δr (nm) (76)

Δrmin = 100 to Δrmax = 900

Tab. (14): Magnitude of the Relative Average Calibrated Casimir Pressure over a range of plate separations,

Step 7: Formulate an expression for the Magnitude of Proportional Change in the Relative Average Calibrated CP over the experimental range “Δrmin” to “Δrmax”. Given by “Eq. (77)” according to,

Δ CP r , Δ r X, M
Environment Lunar Surface Martian Surface Venusian Surface Low Earth Orbit Sun-Synchronous Orbit Mid Earth Orbit GPS Orbit High Earth Orbit 2.2.2.2 EGM Tolerance “Eq. (77)” (%) +37 +12 -0 -5 -15 -35 -88 -95

TCP PV_Rel_av r , Δ r X, M
Mass “M” MM M♂ M♀ ME

1
Δr (nm)

(77)

ΔrX (nm) 131.9395 146.3822 155.0831 158.7907 169.0331 193.6958 493.3333 802.8734

Location “r” [9] Mean Equatorial Radius (RM,R♂,R♀) 180(km) 705(km) 2,000(km) 20,200(km) 42,164(km) Altitude

Δrmin = 100 to Δrmax = 900

Tab. (15): Mag. of Prop. Change in the Relative Average Calibrated CP over a range of plate separations,

Application of the EGM construct to the CP associated with a Parallel-Plate configuration is an approximation due to the initial simplification of the system during the formulation of the solution. It was assumed that the gravitational acceleration field across all practical laboratory dimensions is uniform (i.e. “g” is constant at the human scale). Consequently, this simplification introduced errors into the solution and it is important to understand the limitations of the EGM construct as applied, in context; such that the tolerances associated with two key modelling parameters (plate separation and radial displacement) may be computed by determining the similarity between a change in gravitational acceleration field energy density [as described by “Eq. (37)”], and the constant gravitational acceleration field characterised by the derivation of “Eq. (74)”. Thus, as the change in gravitational acceleration field energy density approaches zero due to a decrease in Parallel-Plate separation, the application of “Eq. (74)” approaches its limit. Therefore, application tolerances associated with the EGM construct may be formulated utilising “Eq. (37,74)” to form “Eq. (78)” as follows, Δ U PV( r , Δ r , M ) K Δ U r, Δ r , Δ r X, M TCP PV r , Δ r , Δ r X , M (78) Hence, the approximate EGM application tolerance with respect to plate separation limit “Δr = Δrlim” is given by the following table of results; notably, the EGM construct appears to remain applicable to within X-Ray resolution (i.e. substantially exceeding the physical limitations of executed experiments).

Environment Lunar Surface Martian Surface Earth Surface Venusian Surface Low Earth Orbit Sun-Synchronous Orbit Mid Earth Orbit GPS Orbit High Earth Orbit

“Eq. (78)” (%) 3.4736 x10-3 2.3018 x10-3 9.2686 x10-4 2.0313 x10-3 1.5529 x10-3 1.1129 x10-3 1.2665 x10-3 0.0187 0.0236

ΔrX (nm) 131.9395 146.3822 155.1574 155.0831 158.7907 169.0331 193.6958 493.3333 802.8734

Mass “M” MM M♂ ME M♀ ME

Location “r” [9] Mean Equatorial Radius (RM,R♂,RE,R♀) 180(km) 705(km) 2,000(km) 20,200(km) 42,164(km) Altitude

Δrlim (nm)

0.5

1.9 3.8

Tab. (16): Approximate EGM application tolerance with respect to plate separation limit “Δr = Δrlim”,

Similarly, the EGM application limit (with respect to radial displacement) may be approximated by solving “Eq. (78)” for values of “r” such that “KU(r,Δr,ΔrX,M)” tends to zero according to, Gravitational Source The Moon Mars The Earth Venus • “Eq. (78)” (%) 6.8913 x10-10 2.125 x10-5 1.0032 x10-5 1.5133 x10-4 “r” 12.1831 RM 10.7204 R♂ 9.9815 RE 9.9888 R♀ Δr (nm) 100 ΔrX (nm) 900 Mass “M” MM M♂ ME M♀

Tab. (17): Approximate EGM application tolerance with respect to radial displacement “r”,

Note: this table of results assumes that the range of plate separation values utilised in the preceding sections of this manuscript [“100(nm)” to “900(nm)”] govern application limit criteria.

3

Conclusion

The original derivation of the relationship now termed the CF was formulated based upon a series of nonphysical assumptions, such as infinitely large plate area at absolute zero temperature. Due to this specific assumption, we have re-interpreted “Eq. (1)” as representing an average Cosmological quantity. This re-interpretation is qualitatively supported by the fact that, without substantial relaxation (i.e. from thermal influences etc.), the historically derived form does not constitute a definitive outcome by experimental validation. To date, precise measurements of the CF have been executed incorporating substantial geometric departures from the ideal configuration (i.e. plate-sphere rather than plateplate). Moreover, the experimental error associated with a plate-plate configuration is as high as “15(%)”. Perhaps more harshly, from an engineering perspective, it is tempting to describe “Eq. (1)” as being “poorly formulated” due to its inability to predict a verifiable result without significant deviation or correction. The core concepts formulated by reinterpreting the historically defined CF are: o It denotes an Average Cosmological Value (ACV). o Terrestrial measurements only approach the ACV after substantial correction; e.g. temperature etc. o An experimental tolerance of “15(%)” envelopes sufficient latitude to warrant the search for physical influences beyond the traditional; e.g. gravitational acceleration. The key conclusions derived herein for Parallel-Plate configurations of “100 ≤ Δr(nm) ≤ 900” are: o The local value of “g” affects the CF. o The minimum permissible value of “Δr” is approximately “4(nm)”. o The maximum permissible value of “r” is approximately “10” Earth Radii. Therefore, application of the EGM Photon radiation method to the CE, suggests that the experimentally verified (terrestrially) neutrally charged Parallel-Plate configuration force, may differ within extraterrestrial gravitational environments from the gravitationally independent formulation by Casimir. Consequently, the derivation presented herein implies that a gravitationally dependent CE may become an important design factor in nanotechnology for extraterrestrial applications (ignoring finite conductivity + temperature effects and evading the requirement for Casimir Force corrections due to surface roughness).

Appendix A
• Definitions and Nomenclature Description Acceleration Average Cosmological Value Parallel-Plate Area Buckingham “Π” Theory Speed of light in a vacuum Terr. Casimir Calib. Factor Casimir Effect, Casimir Force, Casimir Pressure EGM Amplitude EGM Amplitude Spectrum EGM Amplitude EGM Amplitude Spectrum Parallel-Plate CP PV Amplitude EGM Amplitude Spectrum EGM Amplitude Dim. Analysis Technique’s Energy, Planck Energy EM Amplitude Applied EM Fields Electro-Gravi-Magnetics EGM Spectrum ElectroMagnetic EM Root-Mean-Square Parallel-Plate CF Gravitational Acceleration Newtonian Grav. Constant General Modelling Equation’s General Relativity General Similarity Equation’s GSE “3” Giga-Year Grav. Harmonic Operator Planck’s Constant Harmonic Similarity Eqn.’s HSE “3” Reduced form of HSE “3” Constant Critical Factor Definition or Units (m/s2) N/A The projected area of a Parallel-Plate Casimir experiment N/A Definition: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ Dimensionless The effect associated with the quantum force / pressure of attraction between two neutrally charged parallel conducting plates The amplitude of the “1st” Harmonic associated with “gΘ(r,M,t)” The amplitude spectrum associated with “gΘ(r,M,t)” The amplitude of the “1st” Harmonic associated with “MΘ(M,t)” The amplitude spectrum associated with “MΘ(M,t)” (Pa) The amplitude spectrum associated with the PV The amplitude spectrum associated with “Θ(t)” The amplitude of the “1st” Harmonic associated with “Θ(t)” N/A (J) Amplitude of the applied Electric and Magnetic forcing functions respectively Applied electric and magnetic fields respectively A theoretical relationship between EM fields and gravitational acceleration “g” The discrete and harmonically continuous energy spectrum associated with matter, obeying a Fourier distribution N/A Root-Mean-Square values of “E0,B0” (N) (m/s2) 6.67428 x10-11 (m3kg-1s-2) (m/s2) Isomorphic to the PV Model of Gravity Dimensionless The “3rd” member from the family of GSE’s 109 Years = 1 Billion Years Scales “MΘ(M,t)” by “G/r2” 6.62606896 x10-34(Js) N/A The “3rd” member from the family of HSE’s The reduced form of the “3rd” member from the family of HSE’s Dimensionless (PaΩ) Symbol a ACV APP BPT c,c∞ CCF(Δr) CE, CF, CP CgΘ(1,r,M) CgΘ(n0,r,M) CMΘ(1,M) CMΘ(n0,M) CPPV(r,Δr,ΔrX,M) CPV(nPV,r,M) CΘ(n0) CΘ(n0) DAT’s E,E∞,Eh,Eh ∞ E0,B0 EA,BA EGM EGMS EM Erms,Brms FPP FPV(r,Δr,M) g G,G∞ GME’s GR GSE’s GSE3 Gyr gΘ(r,M,t) h,h∞ HSE’s HSE3 HSE3 R K0(ω,r,E,B,X) KC(r,M)

KPV KR(nPV)H KR(r,Δr,M) KU(r,Δr,ΔrX,M) M,m∞,mh,mh ∞ MΘ(M,t) N

Refractive Index Harmonic Amp. Spectrum Critical Ratio EGM Application Tolerance Mass, Planck Mass Massive Harmonic Operator Odd Harmonic Limit

n0,nA,nPV NC(r,Δr,M) NX(r,Δr,M) nΩ(r,M)

Odd Harmonic Distribution Critical Mode Harmonic Inflection Mode Harmonic Cut-Off Mode

nΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF PV PVS QED QFT QM QV QVE QVS r,r∞ SSE’s SSE3 Stα(r,Δr,M) t,t∞,th,th ∞ t0 TCPPV(r,Δr,ΔrX,M) TCPPV_av(r,ΔrX,M) TCPPV_Rel_av(r,ΔrX,M) Um(r,M) Uω(nPV,r,M) Z,Z0,Z∞

ZPF Beat Cut-Off Mode Polarisable Vacuum PV Spectrum Quantum-Electro-Dynamics Quantum-Field-Theory Quantum Mechanics Quantum Vacuum Quantum Vacuum Energy Quantum Vacuum Spectrum Radial Displacement Spectral Similarity Equation’s SSE “3” Range Factor Time, Planck Time Maximum Period Calibrated Terrestrial Casimir Pressure Magnitude of the Average “TCPPV(r,Δr,ΔrX,M)” Magnitude of the Relative “TCPPV_av(r,ΔrX,M)” Mass-Energy Density Spectral Energy Density Impedance

The Refractive Index at a point in the PV The harmonic amplitude spectrum associated with “KR(r,Δr,M)” Dimensionless (%) (kg) Scales “Θ(t)” by mass “M” “Nth” Harmonic Limit of the “n0,nA,nPV” Odd Harmonic Distribution; • Note: “n0,nA,nPV = -21” is a shorthand reference to the Odd Harmonic Limit “N = +21” of the “n0,nPV” Odd Harmonic Distribution (example only) “n0,nA,nPV = -N, 2-N ... N” where “N → +∞”; e.g. -21, -19, -17, -15 … 21 The ratio of “ωC(Δr)” to “ωPV(1,r,M)” The ratio of the number of modes to the sum of modal amplitudes The harmonic mode associated with the upper spectral limit of the ZPF frequency spectrum (as a function of “r” and “M”); once transformed to the Fourier distribution applied to the PV model of gravity within the EGM construct The ratio of “ωΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF” to “ωPV(1,r,M)” A polarised representation of the ZPF The discrete and finite energy spectrum associated with “g”, induced upon the ZPF, obeying a Fourier distribution The relativistic quantum field theory of ElectroDynamics Theoretical framework for constructing Quantum Mechanical models N/A A reference to spontaneous virtual-particle-pair creation and annihilation within any space-time manifold described by GR The spectral energy associated with the QV A reference to the spectral constitution of the QV (m) Dimensionless The “3rd” member from the family of SSE’s (PaΩ) (s) The fundamental (i.e. maximum) period of the “Unit Harmonic Operator” (Pa) (Pa) Dimensionless (Pa) Spectral energy density associated with the PV (Pa) Definition: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/

ZPE ZPF ZPFS Θ(t)

Zero Point Energy Zero Point Field Zero Point Field Spectrum Unit Harmonic Operator Magnitude of Prop. Change of “TCPPV_Rel_av(r,ΔrX,M)” Change in Critical Factor Parallel-Plate Separation Asymptotic Correction Factor Change in Mass-Energy Den. Fundamental Beat Frequency Harmonic Cut-Off Function

ΔCP,ΔCP(r,ΔrX,M) ΔKC(r,M) Δr ΔrX ΔUPV(r,Δr,M) Δωδr(1,r,Δr,M) Ω(r,M)

The energy associated with the ZPF The QV associated with Minkowski space obeying a continuous distribution The spectral energy associated with the ZPF “The number one (1)” expressed as the summation of harmonic wavefunctions in the time domain, obeying a Fourier Distribution (%) (PaΩ) (m) Position of virtual asymptote (m) (Pa) (Hz) The harmonic function associated with the upper spectral limit of the ZPF frequency spectrum (as a function of “r” and “M”); once transformed to the Fourier distribution applied to the PV model of gravity within the EGM construct Definition: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ θc (radians) 0.577215664901532860606512090082402431042159335 (m) Definition: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ The energy density of the ZPF based upon a continuous frequency distribution (Pa/Hz) The spectral frequency associated with the ZPF (Hz) • The fundamental (i.e. minimum) spectral frequency (Hz) of the “Unit Harmonic Operator” • The fundamental (i.e. minimum) spectral frequency (Hz) of the transformed ZPF (i.e. the PV field within the EGM construct) (Hz) (c5G-1h-1)1/2 (Hz) The spectral frequency associated with the PVS (Hz) The spectral frequency associated with the QV (Hz) The spectral frequency associated with the EGMS (Hz) The harmonic frequency associated with the upper spectral limit of the ZPF frequency spectrum (as a function of “r” and “M”); once transformed to the Fourier distribution applied to the PV model of gravity within the EGM construct (Hz)

ε,ε0,ε∞ φ γ λh,λh ∞ µ,µ0,µ∞ ρ0 ω,ωZPF ω0,ωPV(1,r,M)

Permittivity Phase Variance Euler’s Constant Planck Length Permeability Spectral Energy Density Frequency Minimum Spectral Frequency

ωC(Δr) ωh ωPV(nPV,r,M) ωQV ωΘ ωΩ(r,M)

Critical Frequency Planck Frequency PV Frequency QV Frequency EGM Frequency Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency

ωΩ(r,Δr,M)ZPF

ZPF Beat Cut-Off Frequency

Tab. (A.1),

Appendix B
Let: • Derivation of the Maximum (i.e. Upper) ZPF Spectral Frequency Limit

D

U m( r , M ) U ω( r , M )
4 4

(B.1)

Hence referring to “Eq. (23-25)”, “Eq. (B.1)” is equal to “Eq. (B.2)”,

D

n PV

2

n PV

(B.2)

To proceed with the derivation utilising the “MathCad 8 Professional” symbolic computation environment, we are required to discard the magnitude notation associated with “nPV”; henceforth, “|nPV| = nPV”. Solving for “nPV” yields,
2 1 3 1 1 3 2 2

1 . 108.D 12

2 12. 768 81.D

48 12. 108.D
1

2 12. 768 81.D 1 3

108.D
2 1 3

12. 768 81.D

2

2 1 2 1 3

1

3

D

n PV 2

4

n PV solve , n PV, factor

4

24

1.

108.D

12. 768 81.D

2

2

48 24. 108.D

12. 768 81.D

2

2

i . 3 . 108.D
1 1 3

12. 768 81.D

2

2

48.i . 3

108.D
2 1 3

2 12. 768 81.D

2 1 2 1 3

1

3

24

1 . 108.D

2 12. 768 81.D

2

48 24. 108.D

2 12. 768 81.D

2

i . 3 . 108.D
1 1 3

2 12. 768 81.D

2

48.i . 3

108.D

12. 768 81.D

2

2

(Eq. B.3) • The solution execution sequence obeyed the following hierarchy: o Command: solve “Eq. (B.2)” for “nPV”. o Command: factor the result of the preceding step with respect to “D”.

The preceding result may be simplified by assigning temporary definitions of “F” and “L” to the appropriate elements within each row of the computed matrix. By inspection of “Eq. (B.3)”; let: “F = 108·D+12√(768+81·D2)” and “F = L3”. Hence, an expression for “nPV” as a function of “L” may be defined by,
solve , n PV, factor D n PV 2
4

1. L 12
2 12. 768 81.D F 2

1

4 L 2 .i . 3 L 2 .i . 3 L 2 2

n PV

4

substitute , 108.D substitute , F L, collect , L
3

1. . i 3 24 1. . i 3 24

1 . L 24 1 . L 24

1

1
3

1

F L

,F

3

L

2

1

(Eq. B.4) •

The solution execution sequence obeyed the following hierarchy: o Command: substitute “108·D+12√(768+81·D2) = F” into “Eq. (B.3)”. o Command: substitute “F1/3 = L”, “F-1/3 = L-1” and “F2/3 = L2” into the result returned by the preceding substitution. o Command: collect “L” terms.

Next, we shall discard the Imaginary results returned in “Eq. (B.4)”; only the Real result shall be utilised going forward. “Eq. (B.4)” is a simplifying intermediary step facilitating an onward solution. However, to apply the Real result of this equation to the objective of the manuscript, we are required to express it as a function of “r” and “M”. Hence, let “Ω(r,M)” denote a solution characteristic termed the Harmonic Cut-Off Function such that “L = Ω(r,M)”. Similarly, let “nΩ(r,M)” denote a solution characteristic termed the Harmonic Cut-Off Mode such that “nΩ(r,M) = nPV + 2”. “nΩ(r,M)” represents the maximum frequency mode of the ZPF, once the ZPF frequency spectrum has been transformed to the PV model of gravity by the enforcement of a Fourier distribution. Substituting “L = Ω(r,M)” and “nΩ(r,M) = nPV + 2” into the Real result of “Eq. (B.4)” yields,

n Ω ( r , M ) n PV 2

Ω ( r, M ) 12

4 Ω ( r, M )

1

2

(B.5)

Simplifying “Eq. (B.5)” produces,

n Ω ( r, M )

Ω ( r, M ) 12

4 Ω ( r, M )

1

(B.6)

An expression for “Ω(r,M)” to be utilised in “Eq. (B.6)”, may be formulated simply by substituting “Eq. (B.1)” into “Ω(r,M)3 = L3 = 108·D+12√(768+81·D2)” as follows,
3

Ω ( r, M )

108.

U m( r , M ) U ω( r , M )

12. 768 81.

U m( r , M ) U ω( r , M )

2

(B.7)

Therefore, the maximum spectral frequency of the transformed ZPF is termed the Harmonic Cut-Off Frequency, denoted by “ωΩ(r,M)”, may be written as follows,

ω Ω ( r , M ) n Ω ( r , M ) .ω PV 1, r , M ) ( • Note: “ωPV(1,r,M) = ω0”.
Sample Calculations: ω PV(1,r,M) Hz ω Ω(r,M) Hz nΩ(r,M) ωPV(1,RM,MM) ≈ 0.05 ωΩ(RM,MM) ≈ 403 x1024 nΩ(RM,MM) ≈ 8.6 x1027 ωPV(1,RE,ME) ≈ 0.04 ωΩ(RE,ME) ≈ 520 x1024 nΩ(RE,ME) ≈ 1.5 x1028 -3 24 ωPV(1,RJ,MJ) ≈ 9.8 x10 ωΩ(RJ,MJ) ≈ 488 x10 nΩ(RJ,MJ) ≈ 5.0 x1028 ωPV(1,RS,MS) ≈ 4.8 x10-3 ωΩ(RS,MS) ≈ 646 x1024 nΩ(RS,MS) ≈ 1.4 x1029 Legend: “ωPV(1,r,M)”: Minimum (i.e. lower) spectral frequency of the transformed ZPF “ωΩ(r,M)”: Maximum (i.e. upper) spectral frequency of the transformed ZPF “nΩ(r,M)”: Maximum harmonic mode of the transformed ZPF RM,RE,RJ,RS: Radius of the Moon, the Earth, Jupiter and the Sun respectively MM,ME,MJ,MS: Mass of the Moon, the Earth, Jupiter and the Sun respectively
Tab. (B.1),

(B.8)

Bibliography
[1] Demonstration of the Casimir Force in the 0.6 to 6µm Range: S. K. Lamoreaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5–8 (1997); http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5 [2] Precision Measurement of the Casimir Force from 0.1 to 0.9µm: U. Mohideen and Anushree Roy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4549–4552 (1998); http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4549 [3] Measurement of the Casimir Force between Parallel Metallic Surfaces: G. Bressi, G. Carugno, R. Onofrio and G. Ruoso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 041804 (2002); http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.041804 [4] Inertia as a Zero-Point-Field Lorentz Force: B. Haisch, A. Rueda & H.E. Puthoff, Physical Review A, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 678-694 (1994); http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.678 [5] Electrogravimagnetics: Practical Modeling Methods of the Polarizable Vacuum — IV: Riccardo C. Storti and Todd J. Desiato, Phys. Essays 19, 592 (2006); http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3028864 [6] The Natural Philosophy of Fundamental Particles: Riccardo C. Storti, Proc. SPIE 6664, 66640J (2007); http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.725545 [7] (i) The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (A): Riccardo C. Storti, Australian Institute of Physics (AIP) 18th National Congress [electronic resource] incorporating the 27th AINSE Plasma Science Conference (refereed papers: 2008), The University of Adelaide; National Library of Australia, http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4656591, (ii) The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (B): Riccardo C. Storti, Proc. SPIE 7421, 74210H (2009); http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.822657 [8] Electrogravimagnetics: Practical Modeling Methods of the Polarizable Vacuum — VII, Riccardo C. Storti and Todd J. Desiato, Phys. Essays 20, 461 (2007); http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3153415 [9] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OrbitsCatalog/ [10] Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) approach to general relativity: H. E. Puthoff, Found. Phys. 32, 927-943 (2002) [11] http://Physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html [12] http://scitation.aip.org/ (search string: “Riccardo C. Storti”). [13] Electrogravimagnetics: Practical Modeling Methods of the Polarizable Vacuum — I, Riccardo C. Storti and Todd J. Desiato, Phys. Essays 19, 151 (2006); http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3025775 [14] Electrogravimagnetics: Practical Modeling Methods of the Polarizable Vacuum — V, Riccardo C. Storti and Todd J. Desiato, Phys. Essays 20, 101 (2007); http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3073796 [15] Quinta Essentia (Part 4) [QE4]: (Ch.5, Section 5.4, pg. 134); http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/quinta-essentia---part-4-%28us-letter%29/795547 [16] Quinta Essentia (Part 2) [QE2]: (Ch.2, Section 2.7.8, pg. 60); http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/quinta-essentia---part-2-%28us-letter%29/11909811 [17] Quinta Essentia (Part 2) [QE2]: (Ch.3, Section 3.4, pg. 68); http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/quinta-essentia---part-2-%28us-letter%29/11909811 [18] Event Horizons in the PV Model: Todd J. Desiato and Riccardo C. Storti, e-print (2003), http://www.lulu.com/product/book-download/event-horizons-in-the-pv-model/6056055 [19] Polarisable Vacuum and the Schwarzschild Solution: Joseph G. Depp, e-print (April 2005), http://www.lulu.com/product/book-download/polarizable-vacuum-and-the-schwarzschild-solution/5113659 [20] Polarisable Vacuum and the Reissner-Nordstrom Solution: Joseph G. Depp, e-print (May 2005), http://www.lulu.com/product/book-download/polarizable-vacuum-and-the-reissner-nordstrom-solution/5113681 [21] General Relativity and the Polarisable Vacuum: Todd J. Desiato, e-print (March 2006), http://www.lulu.com/product/book-download/pv-schwarzschild/6056128 [22] Electrogravimagnetics: Practical Modeling Methods of the Polarizable Vacuum — VI, Riccardo C. Storti and Todd J. Desiato, Phys. Essays 20, 255 (2007); http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3119402 [23] http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/AND+ti:+Casimir+abs:+Casimir/0/1/0/all/0/1?per_page=100 [24] http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v78/i1/p5_1 [25] http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9805038; http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i21/p4549_1 [26] http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v88/i4/e041804 [27] http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v88/i10/e101801 [28] http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v91/i5/e050402 [29] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Casimir+Force [30] Electrogravimagnetics: Practical Modeling Methods of the Polarizable Vacuum — III, Riccardo C. Storti and Todd J. Desiato, Phys. Essays 19, 406 (2006); http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/1.3025808