LodeRunner said:
My point was that there is also a lower limit on vacuum energy as dictated by Uncertainty.
The quotes I provided earlier seem to say that uncertainty just allows you to determine the energy contributed by each wavelength of virtual particle/quantum field mode, and putting two plates next to each other eliminates some wavelengths, thus the energy is lower. This would seem to imply that the lower limit would be if you could eliminate every single wavelength, although I don't really understand why this would give a lower limit less than zero as hellfire's post seems to say--I could be understanding this wrong, maybe the total vacuum energy is not just a sum/integral of the energies of each wavelength. Does anyone know the answer?
Anyway, is this the sort of thing you're talking about when you say there's a lower limit on vacuum energy dictated by uncertainty, or do you have some different explanation in mind? Like I said before, I'm pretty sure that talking about the uncertainty in the position of a "point in space" is meaningless.
LodeRunner said:
However, I have always understood that virtual particles were a direct result of Uncertainty (please, if I'm wrong on this point, correct me!)
I think there's a certain sense that that might be true, but I don't know if it's really that simple--after all, in ordinary nonrelativistic quantum mechanics the uncertainty principle still holds but there is no such thing as virtual particles, virtual particles only come in when you try to create a relativistic theory of quantum fields (like the electromagnetic field), as I understand it. Also, there's some subtlety over whether virtual particles should even be thought of as "real" or if they're more just like terms in a mathematical series used to calculate the probability of different outcomes--check out the sections on virtual particles in
this FAQ (sections S3a - S3f), although I'm not sure all physicists would agree with the author's arguments there.
LodeRunner said:
This implies that there is a lower limit to vacuum energy, and it seems to me that this limit should be very close or equal to the average vacuum energy density. (Unless there is some other "reason" for vacuum energy that I am not aware of.)
I'm still not following your reasoning--even if we accept that the statement "virtual particles are a direct result of Uncertainty", how does this lead you to conclude a lower limit on vacuum energy, and why do you think it should be equal to the average? Also, when you say "the average", do you acknowledge that the average vacuum energy between the parallel plates in the Casimir effect is different then the average vacuum energy in empty space, or are you assuming there can be only one average everywhere?
LodeRunner said:
Again, if the kinetic energy of the two metal plates is not extracted from vacuum energy, where is it coming from?
Well, I agreed that this is the most likely explanation for where the kinetic energy of the plates is, although I can't be sure since I don't know much about this subject--it's conceivable there could be some form of potential energy that decreases as the plates get closer together. But assuming this is the correct explanation, then presumably the vacuum energy between the plates decreases by the same amount the kinetic energy of the plates increases, so energy is conserved.
LodeRunner said:
And if the vacuum energy lost is not replaced, how is Uncertainty preserved?
Again, this is the part of your argument I don't get. Why couldn't the uncertainty principle itself
dictate that the vacuum energy between the plates be lower than the vacuum energy in empty space?