Interpreting Casimir Effect along with Hawking's Radiation

[mimocs]

I currently watched a video on youtube about Casimir effect

and here's the link The professor in the video talks about Casimir effect and Hawking's black hole radiation

While talking about black hole radiation, he says that mass of black hole decreases if some particle or antiparticle loses its pair when only one of it(either the particle or the antiparticle) gets sucked into the black hole

Because a particle is created from nowhere, a mass, energy is created from nowhere, and because it unsatisfies energy conservation, he says that 'the mass of black hole shrinks to pay the energy debt'Here's my point.
If black hole reduce their mass to satisfy energy conservation, why not in Casimir effect.
I mean, Casimir effect is about force applied on metal plates toward each other
Since force*distance is work (energy), Casimir effect tells us that energy can be created from nowhere and we don't talk about the energy debt
However, about Hawking's theory, he tells us that in order to pay the energy debt, mass of black hole should reduce.
But why not on Casimir effect?

 

[mfb]

Why not what with the Casimir effect?

Hawking radiation can be summed up as "massive black hole emits a photon with some energy, black hole loses some energy". Nothing mysterious, energy is conserved in the same way a flashlight conserves energy. I don't see where you see anything analogous related to the Casimir effect.

 

[mimocs]

Why not what with the Casimir effect?

Hawking radiation can be summed up as "massive black hole emits a photon with some energy, black hole loses some energy". Nothing mysterious, energy is conserved in the same way a flashlight conserves energy. I don't see where you see anything analogous related to the Casimir effect.

Sorry, you didn't get my point. My bad, poor english. Hawking radiation conserves energy, right?
The process is this.
1.blackhole in a total vacuum
2.creation of virtual particle
3.only one sucked into black hole
4.unsucked virtual particle loses its partner and becomes real
1.->4. : vacuum -> real particle made : I know how the video explains this.
Mass of black hole is reduced in order to conserve energy (energy to make a particle = energy loss of black hole)

However, let's talk about Casimir effect
1.vacuum with two plates
2.two plates attracted to each other (force is exerted)
3.due to the force, they move closer to each other
4. F * s = W (work, which is energy)
1. -> 4. : vacuum -> energy is made due to Casimir effect attraction

Here's the point.
Energy of vacuum is 0
Casimir effect tells us that work is done, and therefore, energy nonzero.
Energy came out of vacuum, and this doesn't obey the conservation of energy.

Does this mean that we can acquire energy from the vacuum?
Hawking's theory says that 'energy is conserved : loss of black hole mass = creation of particle'
Casimir effect says that 'energy is created : no energy in vacuum -> work is done on plates'

 

[mfb]

Hawking radiation conserves energy, right?

Yes, as every other process does.

The process is this.

No, this is a description for non-experts because the equations are too complicated.

1. -> 4. : vacuum -> energy is made due to Casimir effect attraction

No, the energy was there before - as potential energy of the plates.

 

[mimocs]

So Casimir effect tells us that
there was energy in the vacuum before the push, and this vacuum energy was used to push the metal plates.

Therefore, "Vacuum contains energy"?

Thanks

 

[zoki85]

"Vacuum contains energy"?

Knowing that Casimir force is experimentally confirmed , why the question mark?

 

[timmdeeg]

Note that according to Jaffe the casimir force can be interpreted without taking reference to the quantum vacuum (s. Wikipedia), but instead to van der Waals forces, simply said the sum of forces between molecules and Atoms respectively.
Of course regardless the interpretation energy conservation holds for both.

 

[zoki85]

Note that according to Jaffe the casimir force can be interpreted without taking reference to the quantum vacuum (s. Wikipedia), but instead to van der Waals forces, simply said the sum of forces between molecules and Atoms respectively.
Of course regardless the interpretation energy conservation holds for both.

Quote from http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503158v1.pdf :

"Despite the simplicity of Casimir’s derivation based on zero point energies, it is nevertheless possible to derive his result without any reference to zero point fluctuations or even to the vacuum. Such a derivation was first given by Schwinger[24] for a scalar field, and then generalized to the electromagnetic case by Schwinger, DeRaad, and Milton[25]. Reviewing their derivation, one can see why the zero point fluctuation approach won out. It is far simpler"

Normally, one should be careful when it comes to interpretations of existence and reality questions in quantum physics. I give advantage to simplicity. This doesn't affect reality of the observed effect.

 

[timmdeeg]

Right, it doesn't. However I'm not sure anymore as to wether the wording 'interpretation' is the correct one. If I remember correctly, Jaffe's calculation predicts the measurement with high accuracy.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Since one can explain the Casimir effect without recourse to vacuum properties, it logically follows that one cannot use this to infer properties of the vacuum.

 

[timmdeeg]

The major issue is, that is no longer possible to say the casimir force proves the evidence of zero point energies.