Slashdot Mirror


British Scientists Reverse Casimir Effect

An anonymous reader writes "The Telegraph reports that Scientists at the University of St. Andrews have developed a technique to cause the Casimir effect to repel instead of attract. This discovery could lead to near frictionless machines or in theory even levitation."

347 comments

  1. wait... by flanker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't it "repel" rather than "repeal"?

    --
    Left shift 1 for e-mail...
    1. Re:wait... by Himring · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are suggesting that they repel repeal in order to repeal the misunderstanding of repel.

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    2. Re:wait... by dsginter · · Score: 1

      Isn't it "repel" rather than "repeal"?

      No - the technique is nothing more than concentrated Republican extract.

      --
      More
    3. Re:wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      TFA says

      Now, using a special lens of a kind that has already been built, Prof Ulf Leonhardt and Dr Thomas Philbin report in the New Journal of Physics they can engineer the Casimir force to repel, rather than attact. Isn't it "attract" rather than "attact"?
    4. Re:wait... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wouldn't that be repugnant, then?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh. A bust on Republicans. Someone hurry up and mod this insightful.

    6. Re:wait... by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, the OP was right. They're repealing attraction. Don't know why they took so long, Slashdotters repealed attraction years ago.

      --
      I hate printers.
    7. Re:wait... by MeanderingMind · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Someone needs to read a dictionary.

      Repugnant

      Now someone needs to understand the subtle humor in using a word that sound similar to redundant, but is obviously the wrong word.

      You will be a happier man when you have done both.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    8. Re:wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh. A bust on Republican busters. Someone hurry up and get Fez out here.

    9. Re:wait... by Don853 · · Score: 1

      Didn't look like a malapropism to me. Maybe a bit better than the typical one-line political dig, but hardly clever.

    10. Re:wait... by rwgeorge · · Score: 1

      "...using a word that sound similar..." Someone needs to learn how to conjugate simple verbs.

    11. Re:wait... by slack_prad · · Score: 1

      that's UK English .. the whole world is not American you know? :P

      --
      Sent from my desktop computer
    12. Re:wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK

    13. Re:wait... by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      Actually, I need to learn to proofread. I was thinking "sounds" but mised... er.. missed the ever important "s".

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    14. Re:wait... by russ1337 · · Score: 5, Funny

      >>> the whole world is not American you know

      That depends on who is defining "world".

    15. Re:wait... by CaptnMArk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You mean Americans are screwing themselves in Iraq. Yeah, that's about right.

    16. Re:wait... by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      You just gave me a great idea, next goat humping spell Nazi that bugs me on /. all I have to do is tell him to "Piss off you wanker, I'm British" and to hell with the spell checker!

      Yeah!

      Not to be rude though I've noticed that UK English is not even English English, unless of course you guys got around to narrowing it down to just 5 or so versions when I wasn't looking.

    17. Re:wait... by mopower70 · · Score: 1

      And I'm pretty sure they don't spell 'repel' with an 'a' in the UK either.

    18. Re:wait... by Power_Pentode · · Score: 1

      Isn't it "repel" rather than "repeal"?


      Yes, and the tech could have a very detrimental impact in certain segments of the garment industry. It's hard enough as it is to get those damn Casimir goats herded together for shearing...
    19. Re:wait... by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      Where did this come from? The word "repeal" does not appear in TFA.

    20. Re:wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They changed it.

    21. Re:wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not yet.

  2. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gasp, that means we will have to repel one of the laws of seance.

  3. uplifting by bobby1234 · · Score: 3, Funny

    How says science cannot be uplifting.... literally.

    1. Re:uplifting by bobby1234 · · Score: 1

      ok.... who says it cannot be uplifting .... note to self....next time use the preview button.....

    2. Re:uplifting by IBBoard · · Score: 5, Funny

      Depends how you look at it - pessimists will see the lower atom being depressed ;)

    3. Re:uplifting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, I've got a chimpanzee here who says uplifiting is total bunk.

    4. Re:uplifting by mhall119 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because not many people will understand the reference:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplift_Universe

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    5. Re:uplifting by piedpiper18 · · Score: 1

      The device they show in the article is actually a Levitron. It's not amazingly new or anything, but pretty damn cool IMO. http://www.levitron.com/

    6. Re:uplifting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As in... come and see the repulsion inherent in the system! Help - I'm being depressed?

  4. Repeal instead of attract. by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 4, Funny

    This could be put to immediate use in the USA, where much bad legislation needs to be repealed and they need to attract fewer blockheads to a career in politics.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    1. Re:Repeal instead of attract. by gb506 · · Score: 2, Funny

      This could be put to immediate use in the USA, where much bad legislation needs to be repealed and they need to attract fewer blockheads to a career in politics.

      You're so right on, DR! I'm packing my shit up and moving someplace where the laws are all just and the politicos are uniformly uncorrupt and capable. (looks at map, scratches head)

    2. Re:Repeal instead of attract. by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Shhh, letting them into politics where they're in the spotlight & everyone can watch them ensures they don't get any bright ideas like becomming scientists or engineers. ;)

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    3. Re:Repeal instead of attract. by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0
      wait wait wait, what it could really be used for in the US is obviously hinted at in the article:

      The practicalities of designing the lens to do this are daunting but not impossible and levitation "could happen over quite a distance".
      I mean really, they might as well just have put "finally, we can pick up AOL's headquarters and drop it on the Norton section of Symantec's headquarters" instead of beating around the bush
      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  5. Repeal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    It can revoke laws?

    1. Re:Repeal? by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, it appears it's in the process of trying to revoke the law of gravity

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Repeal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gravity is a lot like your parents, break the law and you are grounded.

  6. casmir by edittard · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm not a big fan of knitwear at the best of times.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    1. Re:casmir by Kohath · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you're already repelled. When they reverse the effect, maybe you'll be attracted. It will be sweaters every day for you.

    2. Re:casmir by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      Well, You know how the song goes:

      "Those soft and fuzzy sweaters, too magical to touch..."

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  7. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have a feeling that this breakthrough will eventually lead to the development of giant flying mecha.
    You heard it hear first, on slashdot.

    1. Re:Hmm by John+Hurliman · · Score: 1

      Actually it will lead to the discovery of tachyon bolts, and eventually the secrets of creation if Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri is correct.

    2. Re:Hmm by KoldKompress · · Score: 1

      I'm not interested unless it can be used to blow stuff up. I demand my science volatile.

  8. Finally... by rootus-rootus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Soon we can do away with stupid things like elevators..

    --
    The moral of the story is: "Always remember to mount a scratch monkey."
    1. Re:Finally... by fthomas · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's a "lift" you insensitive clod...

  9. repeal vs. repel by Laebshade · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's "repel" as in "the body odor of submitter repels women worldwide", as opposed (heh) to repeal, which means, "to remove or reverse a law".

    1. Re:repeal vs. repel by dmbasso · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Too bad I don't have modding points... you deserve an Informative rating. I'm not a native English speaker, so I found your explanation useful. People should read the Slashdot Modding FAQ before modding down posts like yours...

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    2. Re:repeal vs. repel by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Awww come on! Mod this one up! That was a brilliant play!

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
  10. Disintegrators by b0z0n3 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    What happens if all the molecules in your body suddenly repels eachother?

    --
    (write-line *coolsig*)
    1. Re:Disintegrators by SirJorgelOfBorgel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You would probably explode ;)

    2. Re:Disintegrators by AxminsterLeuven · · Score: 1

      The effect would be similar to what my girlfriend calls 'bad hair day', especially if it happens during the weekend.

    3. Re:Disintegrators by asliarun · · Score: 2, Funny

      What happens if all the molecules in your body suddenly repels eachother? You will be rudely repealed.
    4. Re:Disintegrators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Total protonic reversal.

      Don't cross the streams.

    5. Re:Disintegrators by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or even worse: what if all your *electrons* repelled each other?????

    6. Re:Disintegrators by Pixel+Rider · · Score: 1

      It gets really messy, really fast!

    7. Re:Disintegrators by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Funny

      "What happens if all the molecules in your body suddenly repels eachother?"

      Okay, that's a good safety tip. Don't cross the streams!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:Disintegrators by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      It means you crossed the streams. It would be Bad.

    9. Re:Disintegrators by dapsychous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm... They do?

    10. Re:Disintegrators by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      Electrons...or elections?

  11. ummmm? by loafula · · Score: 1

    i RTFA, but didn't see any explanation or examples. im baffled how this works.. any insight?

    --
    FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    1. Re:ummmm? by IBBoard · · Score: 5, Informative

      The BBC are slightly more useful at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_ east/6932283.stm - they say it's a "friction reducing lens". Still doesn't give us a lot to go on, but it's a start!

    2. Re:ummmm? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, they have a decent theory and ideas on how it could be done, but have not actually tried it yet.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:ummmm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      the Frictionless lens is a material with negative refractive index...
      which seems to change the energy distribution of the vacuum ...err ...kinda
      i didn't post the page of the author for obvious reasons, suffice it to say the profs do have a page with a nice laymen explanation(well laymen 'cause theres no math)...google is your friend

    4. Re:ummmm? by ROMRIX · · Score: 2, Funny

      i RTFA, but didn't see any explanation or examples. im baffled how this works.. any insight?
      It works on the same principle as zits on your prom date.
    5. Re:ummmm? by DJ+Paradox · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try checking out the University website - it had much more information about the science of the discovery:

      http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~ulf/levitation.html

      Pity they have a photo of Syndrome and his Zero-Point Energy device as an example at the top. Doesn't help anyone to take them seriously surely.

    6. Re:ummmm? by catman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thanks for the link - the Wikipedia article explains the effect and says that for materials with certain electromagnetic properties and configurations, the Casimir effect might result in a repulsive force instead of an attractive. Looks like somebody demonstrated that. Still, there's a long way from this to a macroscopic levitation system...

    7. Re:ummmm? by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Funny

      im baffled how this works.. any insight?

      I assume it involves a cat with a piece of buttered toast strapped to its back...

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    8. Re:ummmm? by IBBoard · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would repel from the floor, but not from another cat with another slice of buttered toast strapped to its back (which is what this can potentially do).

      From what I remember of the buttered toast cat, doesn't it end up spinning just above the floor as the cat tries to land feet-first and the toast tries to land butter-side down? If so then why is no-one wrapping these cats in wire, putting them between magnets and throwing them off surfaces en-mass to generate electricity while they spin?

    9. Re:ummmm? by 49152 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Only works with live cats. The cost of feeding and care for the cats makes this uneconomical. ;-)

    10. Re:ummmm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pity they have a photo of Syndrome and his Zero-Point Energy device as an example at the top. Doesn't help anyone to take them seriously surely. Only if you have no sense of humour.

    11. Re:ummmm? by evanbd · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's all well and good until you have to take the cat down for maintenance. Have you ever seen a cat that's been wrapped in wire, strapped to a piece of buttered toast, and spun for 3 days? Let's just say it's not happy.

    12. Re:ummmm? by dmclap · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, the cat will freeze in midair suspended on its side, because in that case, the direction of spin that requires the least work to get the cat/toast to the correct position are in opposite directions with an equal magnitude. So, sadly, it will hit static equilibrium, so you'll just have a crazy floating cat, not a crazy floating power-generating cat.

    13. Re:ummmm? by hypnagogue · · Score: 4, Funny

      I assume it involves a cat with a piece of buttered toast strapped to its back...
      No, silly! That would be the cat-schmear effect.
      --
      Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
    14. Re:ummmm? by Analogy+Man · · Score: 3, Funny

      Check out my e-bay auctions...I will sell you a pair of cat wiring gauntlets - guaranteed to protected you from the savage beasts.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    15. Re:ummmm? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      If you're curious about the levitating top in the picture, that is a Levitron based on two permanent magnets. The magnet in the top hovers over another more powerful magnet in the base; the torque applied by the bottom magnet to flip over the top doesn't change its spin axis because the top is dynamically stabilized. (It cannot be statically stabilized.) But it has to be perfectly parallel to the field, and the field has to be absolutely vertical with respect to gravity. In practice this means you slide these goofy wedges under the base to stabilize it on a table (otherwise the top flies off in the direction of the field tilt), and you learn to spin the top and carefully raise it on a platform until it pops up into position, carefully weighted down by thin plastic disks. The correct choice of disk weights is sensitive to the temperature in the room or some other factor that seems to vary from day to day, so three or four attempts are usually necessary. It levitates for 2-3 minutes before the angular momentum is lost to air resistance, at which point the precession succeeds in flipping it over and it falls and sticks to the base. I guess it might last a few hours in a vacuum.

    16. Re:ummmm? by Kohath · · Score: 2, Funny
    17. Re:ummmm? by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      Ironically the slashdot groupmind isn't very fond of New Scientist, but their story provides some useful information about how and why this works:

      http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=dn12 429&feedId=tech_rss20

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    18. Re:ummmm? by nwhitehorn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's the paper, courtesy of arXiv:

      http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608115

      It should be noted that this work is purely theoretical. What they have done is show that there is a much more physically realizable way to way a repulsive Casimir effect than the previous schemes, using a material with negative refraction over some range of important frequencies (this is a similar problem as making a cloaking device, but with a harder range of the spectrum). In practice, the effect would be small and the material hard to make, but the idea is interesting.

    19. Re:ummmm? by EdinBear · · Score: 1

      In fact, the state of said cat is completely indeterminate. No-one can say if the cat is face up, face down, spinning or still, unless there is someone else in the room to observe it.

    20. Re:ummmm? by Genady · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now if only they'd try this with Edwin's cat. Bam! Superpossition of perpetual motion and non-perpetual motion... Ugh. Head hertz now.

      --


      What if it is just turtles all the way down?
    21. Re:ummmm? by Iron+Condor · · Score: 1

      Try checking out the University website - it had much more information about the science of the discovery:

      http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~ulf/levitation.html

      Pity they have a photo of Syndrome and his Zero-Point Energy device as an example at the top. Doesn't help anyone to take them seriously surely.

      OK, so the Casimir effect is simply a property of the quantum vacuum. It is a resut of there being nothing. These "reseachers" propose to replace that vacuum with a material that was carefully chosen for its electromagnetic properties. Hey, that's all fine and dandy but then your so-called "levitating" object is simply an object that is sitting on top of a crystal of some sort.

      With all due respect, but that ain't levitation. That's an object sitting on another object. A feat that I'm sure I have accomplished in my own life before -- and I didn't even need an object of negative index of refraction to do it.

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    22. Re:ummmm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very simple. When you have the standard Casimir effect, you just ask Geordi La Forge to reverse the polarity.

    23. Re:ummmm? by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Funny
      Ugh. Head hertz now.

      Don't worry, that's a cyclic effect that primarily appears when posting AC. In your case, it's probably just your sinuses. No need to go off on a tangent. Have a slice of pie and call me in the morning. I'm sure you're feel radiant by then.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    24. Re:ummmm? by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      And that's the whole problem with the world... as soon as you start having fun and actually enjoying your work you're no longer professional.

    25. Re:ummmm? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean Irwin's cat?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    26. Re:ummmm? by tillerman35 · · Score: 1

      2nd law of thermodynamics applys: Eventually, the cat will die and cease its efforts to land on its feet, and the toast will win. The sum of the energy generated by the spinning cat/toast dynamo will be miniscule compared the energy needed to feed and raise the cat plus the energy needed to sow/grow/harvest/mill/etc. the flour and other ingredients, bring them to the bakery, bake the bread, slice it into toaster-compatible cross-sections, bring the bits to the generating facility, monitor and transmit the power. You might be able to achieve some short-term benefit from feeding the cat during the power generation process, and you might be able to answer that age-old physics question "does Schrodinger's cat's foeces act more like a particle or a wave?" But again, the power expended in cleaning centripitally-accellerated cat poo off the walls will exceed any small gains.

    27. Re:ummmm? by WCLPeter · · Score: 1

      Hollow out a loaf of bread and stick the cat in that. As long as you don't butter the bottom, it should give the desired effect.

    28. Re:ummmm? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't they mean Schrödinger's cat? It would simultaneously both produce electric current and not produce it until you touched the wire to find out.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    29. Re:ummmm? by db32 · · Score: 1

      It has been patented. I patented it right after my similar method for doing the same using the spinning dead bodies of the members of the Second Continental Congress. Further, I have patented the method for suing potential infringers, such as yourself, of insane patents as a method to increase the rotational speed of the dead bodies increasing the power output of the motor.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    30. Re:ummmm? by ultracool · · Score: 1
      Pity they have a photo of Syndrome and his Zero-Point Energy device as an example at the top. Doesn't help anyone to take them seriously surely.

      Surely a sense of humour shouldn't be a negative influence on their credibility.

    31. Re:ummmm? by RationalRoot · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is no net energy gain here.

      The cat, due to the spinning motion dies pretty quickly.

      It turns out that the lenght of time it will survive, and thue spin for, is a function of it's body fat.

      In short - you are simply using up the stored energy in the cat. No Net Gain.

      Simply chucking the cat into a furnace and generating electricity that way would be more efficient.

      --
      http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
    32. Re:ummmm? by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      Actually, the cat will freeze in midair suspended on its side, because in that case, the direction of spin that requires the least work to get the cat/toast to the correct position are in opposite directions with an equal magnitude. So, sadly, it will hit static equilibrium, so you'll just have a crazy floating cat, not a crazy floating power-generating cat.

      Nah, you'll have a crazy cat lying on the ground, not a floating one. The forces will be in equilibrium (and parallel to the floor), which means there's nothing to cancel out the gravity, and the whole thing will crash to the ground.

      Of course, it'll be perfectly on its side with respect to the gravitational force, so we could use this to measure local variation or something.

      I wish perpetual motion machines would work. Then again, even if they did, so far this has been a completely classical system. Once you take into account quantum mechanics you're screwed anyway - half the time even looking at the cat will kill it, destroying your generator.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    33. Re:ummmm? by dmclap · · Score: 1

      Nah, both forces will be opposing gravity. Remember, we're using the scientific first principles of
      * Cats always land on their feet
      * Toast lands butter-side down.

      Thus, in order to satisfy these principles, the cat can't hit the ground. As such, the "cat-feet" and "yucky-butter" vectors will be pointing in opposite directions on the x-axis (the one running through the cat's stomach/back while it's suspended), but they will both be opposing gravity on the y-axis, effectively canceling gravity while the other two forces attempt to make the cat or the toast line up properly.

    34. Re:ummmm? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      That's why I said Irwin? - parent poster probably meant Schrödinger too, but had Schrödinger's first name wrong. But your explanation of how it would work in this context is very clever, and you well deserved the +1 funny mod.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    35. Re:ummmm? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I figured that's who he must have meant. The alternative, Steve Irwin, just didn't make sense. Now if it been a crocodile in the box....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. They'd better be careful by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or they'll vaporize the universe with this contraption. I suppose somebody's out there looking to make a weapon out of the thing.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:They'd better be careful by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or they'll vaporize the universe with this contraption. I suppose somebody's out there looking to make a weapon out of the thing.


      Probably. Many major scientific breakthroughs have come from researchers working on weapons technology. And vice-versa -- many new weapons technologies have come from researchers working on scientific breakthroughs.

      Imagine causing all of the atoms in a tank to repel each other. Messy.
    2. Re:They'd better be careful by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Or they'll vaporize the universe with this contraption. I suppose somebody's out there looking to make a weapon out of the thing. /quote>

      Step 1: Weaponize Casimir reverser
      Step 2: Figure out how much money to demand from the world governments so you don't use the weapon
      Step 3: Profit!
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    3. Re:They'd better be careful by Jayemji · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not thinking big enough. Try the ground level of a skycraper. Now THAT'S messy.

    4. Re:They'd better be careful by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Osama? Is that you?

    5. Re:They'd better be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have a masters in physics, and although im not an expert in these things, i believe i have a better working knowledge than parent.

      In the quantum description of the electromagnetic field, there is no such thing as uniformly zero field - even in completely empty space, there are oscilations in the field spread over all modes (ie. wavelengths). It can be compared to an ocean or pond in stormy weather where there will allways be *some* waves.
      Now, if we have a geometry consisting of two flat opposing plates, only certain wavelengths corresponding to the distance between the plates will be allowed. Thus by increasing or decreasing the distance between the plates, we can deside which zero-point wavelengths will be allowed, and it is such that the situation where the plates are very close are energetically favorable, hence we will see the two plates attract each other and this is known as the casimir force which has been measured many times in the experiment. Its important to realize that its not charges on the plates which are doing the work - everything is kept charge neutral. Its vacuum doing work :-) .

      (by manipulating the geometry of the plates, inserting lences, etc. its then theoretically possible to make the plates repel instead, which is what the article is about)

      Anyway. My point is. This is not like nuclear chain reactions. The experimental conditions under which you see these effects are extreme (as in: the truck on the street or the cellphone in the assistants pocket will ruin it). Its a neat discovery, but the doom and gloom is completely uncalled for.

    6. Re:They'd better be careful by geeknado · · Score: 1

      Given that you apparently have to put a "perfect" lens between the two attractors in order to cause the reversal, this doesn't seem to have an obvious weapon application.

    7. Re:They'd better be careful by Chief+Camel+Breeder · · Score: 1

      "I suppose somebody's out there looking to make a weapon out of the thing"

      If they do it, it will be the classic SF "disintegrator" weapon. But I doubt that it will be efficient over a macroscopic volume or range. Easier just to pump in kinetic energy until the target comes apart in the traditional way.

    8. Re:They'd better be careful by Ster · · Score: 1
      MD Device


      -Ster

    9. Re:They'd better be careful by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
      Your explanation is dead on. I had to calculate the strength of this effect way back in grad school.

      Some hint in the article of how they've reversed it would be nice. Maybe a sentence or two. Anyone have a link?

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    10. Re:They'd better be careful by paulmac84 · · Score: 1

      A bit like this maybe?

      --
      One of the universal rules of happiness is always be wary of any helpful item that weighs less than its operating manual
    11. Re:They'd better be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a masters in physics, and although im not an expert in these things, i believe i have a better working knowledge than parent.

      Hmm, no you don't and I have a PhD in physics.

  14. I'll be impressed... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

    when they can figure out how to build those artificial gravity doohickeys used on the USS Enterprise and other spaceships.

  15. Using the force? by therufus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Micro or nano machines could run smoother and with less or no friction at all if one can manipulate the force. Obi-Wan was right after all! I can become a Jedi!

    So was it only me that heard Sir Alec Guinness read that line out?
    --
    You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
    1. Re:Using the force? by MalHavoc · · Score: 1

      You know, Alec Guinness is on official record as saying that the original Star Wars trilogy was the biggest load of crap he ever did.

      I still love his work in the movies, though.

    2. Re:Using the force? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You know, Alec Guinness is on official record as saying that the original Star Wars trilogy was the biggest load of crap he ever did. Which exemplifies why he was an A-list actor. You'd never know it from his performance.
      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:Using the force? by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      Yeah and he also went for a % of the gross. Which made it by far the best paying load of crap he ever did, and shows he believed (rightly) that it would do really well at box office, whether it was crap or not.

    4. Re:Using the force? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Guinness, one of the grand figures of British film with more than 60 cinematic appearances to his credit, told the new chatter magazine Talk that he convinced series creator Lucas that Kenobi would be a more effective mystical mentor if he appeared to Luke as a ghost. Lucas liked the idea, rewriting the first film to include the Jedi Knight's death in combat with former protégé Darth Vader.

      However, Guinness said he had less purely artistic goals at heart.

      "What I didn't tell him was that I just couldn't go on speaking those bloody awful, banal lines. I'd had enough of the mumbo jumbo," he told Talk interviewer Fintan O'Toole.


      Sounds like BS to me. As a ghost, Guinness would still have to speak those banal lines. In fact, that's all he'd do. And as a ghost, they'd be even more awful and banal.

      I think Sir Guinness just made that up to pretend to be better than the adolescent fare that paid him most of his money. He wanted to look classy. After all, he was a great actor.
      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Using the force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>So was it only me that heard Sir Alec Guinness read that line out?

      Only a master of evil, therufus...

    6. Re:Using the force? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sir Guiness


      In actual fact it's Sir Alec, if he was a Lord it would be Lord Guiness and if he was a King it would be King Alec.
    7. Re:Using the force? by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      It's sorta like eating at steakhouses on the dividends from your McDonald's stock.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    8. Re:Using the force? by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1

      I would prefer "Sir Pass Me A Guiness"

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    9. Re:Using the force? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I have Sir Alec Guinness read all Slashdot articles to me.

    10. Re:Using the force? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      In fact I'm an American, and I really don't care about those fine matters of peerage protocol. He's just Obi-Wan. Every other name is made up.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  16. Not a high point in science journalism by Mathinker · · Score: 4, Informative

    The discovery is not to be belittled, but both the article and the poster somehow forget to mention that the "levitation" which is talked about is on the order of nanometers (check the Wikipedia article on the Casimir effect). Far from the kinds of stuff you see stage magicians do.

    1. Re:Not a high point in science journalism by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      Ur, "order of nanometers" meaning not more than 100's... sorry about the inaccuracy....

    2. Re:Not a high point in science journalism by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yes, levitation of whole objects may be what non geeks understand but at the subatomic level like in the Jetsons. The Casimir effect has made it difficult to develop nanomachines. It's not a full reversal but it may lead to a technique to build nanomachines.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Not a high point in science journalism by Weezul · · Score: 1

      Yes, but near friction-less movement is even more important at those scales.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    4. Re:Not a high point in science journalism by TALlama · · Score: 5, Funny

      Far from the kinds of stuff you see stage magicians do.

      I assure you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the audience, this gigantic crate is levitating! Between it and the stage are entire nanometers of magic.

      --

      - The Amazina Llama

    5. Re:Not a high point in science journalism by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      The discovery is not to be belittled, but both the article and the poster somehow forget to mention that the "levitation" which is talked about is on the order of nanometers

      True, but if the effect is embiggened through refined technology, I bet even you would believe the results would be quite cromulent!
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:Not a high point in science journalism by ThePlague · · Score: 0

      Actually, though, if you could flip the effect on and off by altering between the attractive Casimir effect and the repulsive effect via the lense, you would have a "perpetual motion machine". Now, granted, it would be getting a constant influx of energy from the zero-point vaccuum, but it would essentially be free as in beer: no fuel required. Even if this effect can't be scaled up to the macro level, this could be the foundational building block for perpetual power sources.

    7. Re:Not a high point in science journalism by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Anyone wonder if this sort of thing is what Keely might have used? I'm sure someone with a good pseudo-scientific background will clue me in.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    8. Re:Not a high point in science journalism by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Very strong nano-forces FTW!

      The original Casmir force discovery is one of the most important elements in our understanding on whether the universe had enough energy to contract or not.

    9. Re:Not a high point in science journalism by sliz3 · · Score: 1

      That sounds a lot like "Clemon's Dumbbells".

      --
      Spin 'em, slize 'em, dice 'em, burn 'em......
  17. And the Casimir effect is... by Mike1024 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Wikipedia:

    In physics, the Casimir effect or Casimir-Polder force is a physical force exerted between separate objects, which is due to neither charge, gravity, nor the exchange of particles, but instead is due to resonance of all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening space between the objects. [...] Since the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance it is only measurable when the distance between the objects is extremely small. On a submicron scale, this force becomes so strong that it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors. Indeed at separations of 10 nm -- about a hundred times the typical size of an atom -- the Casimir effect produces the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.3 kPa).
    --
    "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
    1. Re:And the Casimir effect is... by LindaMack · · Score: 1

      Combine this with latest advances in neurotechnology, and you have a mind controlled, levitating bong that automatically floats to its natural in-front-of-mouth position at the merest thought of it! Man, I guess civilization is doomed.

      --
      You will be assimilated

    2. Re:And the Casimir effect is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it have KILLED the editor or submitter to have included that?

    3. Re:And the Casimir effect is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was disappointed with the Wikipedia entry. Not because it is inaccurate— I don't have the background to judge that. But because I was once shown a much better way to visualize what is going on with the Casimir effect, and this wasn't mentioned.

      The following is NOT TRUE, in the same way that centrifugal force is not true. However both of these fictions are very convenient, and often useful enough in practice that their theoretical shortcomings are ignored.

      Qunatum foam is the constant creation and disintegration of pairs of virtual particles that is an inherent property of empty space. The Heisenberg principle is at work and causes empty space to continually create pairs of virtual particles such that simple low energy, high probability pairs happen more frequently than high energy or complex pairs that have much lower probabilities. That is the essence of quantum foam.

      Now put a couple of neutral, very flat, parallel plates within this space and move them toward each other. At some point the plates are too close for some long wavelength particles to fit between them: the quantum foam is constrained from creating virtual particles of these wavelengths in the direction perpendicular to the face of the plates. But there is no such constraint on the other side of either plate, and a radiation pressure gradient has been formed. The plates will start to move closer to each other, which constrains shorter wavelengths, and so there is a positive feedback in play: the closer they get to each other, the greater the forces pushing them at each other. It isn't so much that the space between plates somehow sucks them toward each other; it is more a case of the rest of the universe pushing them at each other.

    4. Re:And the Casimir effect is... by jd · · Score: 1

      Yes. You must be new here. You see, the submit story form is tied to a hoarde of berserker wildebeasts that go into a feeding frenzy at the scent of factual information. If people write too informatively, the wildebeasts charge and rip the submitter into tiny pieces. Thus, it is vital for personal safety to omit enough critical facts that the wildebeasts do not respond.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:And the Casimir effect is... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Also known as Zero Point energy, a term that is more familiar these days due to recent pseudo-scientific interest.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    6. Re:And the Casimir effect is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how the hell are they reversing it? With some kind of "lens"?

    7. Re:And the Casimir effect is... by volpe · · Score: 1

      I think they sent a tachyon pulse through the phase plasma conduit.

  18. Requires a perfect lens by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 4, Informative
    From this article:

    Now, Leonhardt and Philbin have calculated that the Casimir force between two conducting plates can turn from being attractive to repulsive if a "perfect" lens is sandwiched between them. A perfect lens can focus an image with a resolution that is not restricted by the wavelength of light. Such a lens could be made from a metamaterial made of artificial structures that are engineered to have negative index of refraction -- which means that the metamaterial bends light in the opposite direction to an ordinary material.

    According to the researchers, the negative-index metamaterial is able to modify the zero-point oscillations in the gap between the surfaces, reversing the direction of the Casimir force. Indeed, the researchers believe that this repulsive force is strong enough to levitate an aluminium mirror that is 500nm thick, causing it to hover above a perfect lens placed over a conducting plate. Since the Casimir force acts on the length scale of nanomachines, manipulating it could be important for future applications of nanotechnology. To summarize, nothing has been built yet. It's possible that it could be built, though you'd have to make a "perfect" lens in the tiny space between the two plates. Unfortunately, every "perfect" lens I've heard of tends to be wavelength-specific and relatively large (compared to the gap the Casimir effect requires). It may be that these are just engineering hurdles, but it may also be physically impossible to pull off.
    1. Re:Requires a perfect lens by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, well, then I guess we're not going to leave it up the guys who made the original lenses on the Hubble, now are we?

    2. Re:Requires a perfect lens by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      And dont forget negative refractive index materials for the lens. Is it real or imaginary. From what little I remember, refractive index is the ratio of the speed of light in a medium and the speed in vacuum. Negative index means, negative speed of light? Speed is not a vector. How does one get negative speed?

      Reminds me of the brilliant proof for the existence of perpetual motion machines, that assumes a magnetic monopole.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Requires a perfect lens by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, since we know from Einstein that as soon as the speed of light is involved, it all depends on the position of the observer, i.e. where you are in the system, and when I stand in the traffic jam on a Monday, subjectively I can sense what negative speed is. You should try it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Requires a perfect lens by vigmeister · · Score: 1

      How does one get negative speed IANAP, but I would wager a guess that negative (directionless) speed would involve some kind of phase shift by 180deg which would 'negate' the orginal wave. That would be EXACTLY the kind of senseless convention that scientists use ;) .

      Just in case... you saw it here first :)

      Cheers!
      --
      Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    5. Re:Requires a perfect lens by BlueTemplar · · Score: 1

      First rule of Internet: check Wikipedia before asking questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_refractive_i ndex

    6. Re:Requires a perfect lens by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      Sorry, refractive indexes actually have very little to do with the speed of light in the various mediums. (At least, not directly.) Instead, they have to do with the materials permeability and permittivity to electromagnetic fields. (That is: How fast it magnatizes, and how fast it polarises.)

      Negative refractive index materials have already been demonstrated, for specfic wavelengths. Haven't managed on visual wavelengths yet, as far as I can remember.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    7. Re:Requires a perfect lens by Agripa · · Score: 1

      From what little I remember, refractive index is the ratio of the speed of light in a medium and the speed in vacuum. Negative index means, negative speed of light? Speed is not a vector. How does one get negative speed?

      The index of refraction is the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum to the phase velocity in the material and the later under certain conditions can be negative meaning that the wave fronts are moving in the opposite direction to the flow of energy.

      These materials display some other odd characteristics:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_refractive_i ndex#Negative_refractive_index

      I am reminded of an article in Radio Electronics long ago showing the design and construction of a refractive satellite antenna. It is much easier to cut concentric circles in a flat piece of material then to shape a 3 dimensional parabola. That you can create a lens by obscuring a distant signal in a specific way is not intuitive and I can only imagine what people would think seeing one constructed today.

    8. Re:Requires a perfect lens by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      i.e. where you are in the system, and when I stand in the traffic jam on a Monday, subjectively I can sense what negative speed is. You should try it.


      I don't recommend standing in a traffic jam. Should speeds increase again, you could get hit by a car.
    9. Re:Requires a perfect lens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you can create a lens by obscuring a distant signal in a specific way is not intuitive and I can only imagine what people would think seeing one constructed today.

      Personally, I'd think "Fuck me, a Fresnel lens!"

    10. Re:Requires a perfect lens by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The worst part is that the Hubble lenses were some of the most perfect lenses ever created, even with the flaw.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    11. Re:Requires a perfect lens by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Negative refractive index materials, called "lefthanded metamaterials" are already in use.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Requires a perfect lens by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, given the jams around here on a typical Monday, you could build a house in the middle of the road and nobody'd even come close to hitting you. Some theories for the cause of the jams actually go that way that someone already did.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Requires a perfect lens by daeg · · Score: 1

      But if we're talking things involving the quantum level, he can simply observe the car approaching him and it will change the outcome.

    14. Re:Requires a perfect lens by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      Now that's a prediction that definitely merits some further testing.

      "Aha! I observe an Escalade approaching me at about 70 mph. Because I can see it, I have invisibly altered the state of the vehicle, which - "

      *SPLAT*

    15. Re:Requires a perfect lens by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Neat, and because the angle of incidence is the opposite of normal, I can finally make a true mirror. You know, without the added hassle and expense of buying two regular mirrors.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    16. Re:Requires a perfect lens by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      If the Casmir force succumbs to the same effects produced on light by a lense wouldn't it be possible to focus it?

  19. huh? by apodyopsis · · Score: 5, Funny

    What is this? a spelling contest or a discussion about a new scientific discovery?

    Sheesh. Anybody would think /. is populated purely by obsessive pedants with nothing better to do.

    oh..

    1. Re:huh? by Ciarang · · Score: 5, Funny

      You need a capital A to start a new sentence.

    2. Re:huh? by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      You must be new here...

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    3. Re:huh? by Duhavid · · Score: 5, Funny

      AI want to start a new sentence. Aso, I need a capital A.
      AI did not know that. AI'm glad you were here to point that out!

      Abye.

      APS:, AWhy didn't your sentence start with a capital A?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    4. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What is this? a speeling contest or a discussion about a new scientific discovery?"

      There... fixed that for you.

    5. Re:huh? by theorem4 · · Score: 1

      AKA Asperger's Syndrome :)

    6. Re:huh? by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, ha ha. But just so people don't get the wrong idea, apodyopsis wasn't starting a new sentence, but rather was using a question mark mid-sentence, which is perfectly allowed.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark

      It can also be used mid-sentence to mark a merely interrogative phrase, where it functions similarly to a comma, such as in the single sentence "Where shall we go? and what shall we do?", but this usage is increasingly rare.
    7. Re:huh? by jd · · Score: 1

      Aye! An avast A accumulation at all activity!

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:huh? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Ahem.. Ah, your, ah, sig, as it were, is not conforming.

      A small matter, I am sure.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  20. zomg flying cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the future will finally arrive!

  21. I tried to RTFA... by HappySmileMan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    But the ad on the right felt to need to cover up half the text of the article

    1. Re:I tried to RTFA... by MollyB · · Score: 1

      I don't know if anyone else had this experience, but CoolIris won't load the page on my Ubuntu notebook. No problem with ads, though, with AdBlockPlus, NoScript running...

    2. Re:I tried to RTFA... by tenco · · Score: 1

      Well, like the box of /. new discussion systems needs to cover part of the sites left column. Disable Javascript ( and return to /. old discussion system...)

    3. Re:I tried to RTFA... by rainmayun · · Score: 1

      Nuke Anything Enhanced

      One of my favorite Firefox extensions.

    4. Re:I tried to RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem is that linux trash. get rid of that and load a real os in it's place.

      Yeah, but do you have any idea how hard it is to find a copy of VMS now days?

  22. Dry glue? Are you thinking what I'm thinking? by objekt · · Score: 4, Funny

    "dry glue" effect that enables a gecko to walk across a ceiling.

    "Spider-pig, Spider-pig,
    Does whatever a Spider-pig does."

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
    1. Re:Dry glue? Are you thinking what I'm thinking? by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Spider-pig, Spider-pig,
      Does whatever a Spider-pig does."

      "Can he fly from a web?
        No he can't 'cause he's a pig"
    2. Re:Dry glue? Are you thinking what I'm thinking? by FJR1300+Rider · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "Look out, he is a spiderpig."

    3. Re:Dry glue? Are you thinking what I'm thinking? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Spider-pig, Spider-pig,
              Does whatever a Spider-pig does."

      "Can he fly from a web?
          No he can't 'cause he's a pig"


      "Look out! He isn't paper trained....."

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Dry glue? Are you thinking what I'm thinking? by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      Too soon.

  23. Re:I, for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My frictionless Slip-n-Slide overlords will kick the asses of your levitating overlords.

    but seriously.. will this allow someone to build a slip-n-slide to get between cities?

  24. *applause* by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nicola Tesla would be proud. This sounds like all the electrical field tuning he did back in the 1800's only on a smaller scale and for different purposes.

    Modulating fields like this seems to me to be some sort of thrusting action although they don't come out and say it.

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:*applause* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NIKOLA Tesla

    2. Re:*applause* by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      This may sound similar, but the Casimir effect has no electrical cause. I agree that some works of Tesla don't get the attention they should, but the zero point energy is something that was completely unknown in Tesla's time and unrelated to all of his works I am aware of.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  25. Well, it's _scheduled_ for publication by tenco · · Score: 3, Informative
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=forthart/1367- 2630#Papers

    Quantum levitation by left-handed metamaterials
    Ulf Leonhardt and Thomas Philbin
    Provisionally scheduled for August 2007

    1. Re:Well, it's _scheduled_ for publication by Cyrus2001 · · Score: 0
  26. Woohoo by zonestalker · · Score: 2, Funny

    now where is my hover skateboard?

    --
    Electronic Liberties must be defended at all costs!
    1. Re:Woohoo by Andrew+Aguecheek · · Score: 1

      There are still seven and a half years left for them to be developed in. Be patient.

      --
      Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
    2. Re:Woohoo by vigmeister · · Score: 1

      If and when they are available, am I the only one that thinks the pink edition would be the bestseller of the lot? Thanks a lot, Calvin!

      Cheers!

      --
      Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
  27. Casimir Scientists' Own Page by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

    A humorous page about these British scientists' work by St Andrews physics Professor Leonhardt explains their work on Casimir "levitation".

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Casimir Scientists' Own Page by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. Without a doubt the most useful bit in this whole discussion, spelling and grammar lessons excepted.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  28. Being British... by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Invent/discover something cool
    2. Tell everyone about it
    3. ???? 4. NO Profit

    It's sad to say that here in the UK we never learn and have a long and distinguished history of brilliant research followed by total fumbling of the ball and making no money out of the discoveries whatsoever.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    1. Re:Being British... by Pecisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And this is bad because...?

      Woah, you want to tell me that there are scientists who actually do science for...err...sake of science, not money? What a surprise!

      Without irony, I personally don't believe in profiting from BIG discoveries. If you get some applications going from that discovery, then it is understandable that you can and you will profit from them, but not from discovery itself.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    2. Re:Being British... by vigmeister · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've always wondered about what would happen if/when a time machine is discovered. You can patent it only for so many years, but with free travel possible in the temporal dimension, just thinking about a profitable business model makes my head hurt.

      Cheers!

      --
      Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    3. Re:Being British... by Chief+Camel+Breeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the researcher's point of view:

      1. Discover something cool.
      2. Publish results in peer-reviewed journal and get famous.
      3. Get better research job (or more money, security in current one).
      4. Profit!

      Step 3 doesn't have to involve selling technology.

    4. Re:Being British... by Minwee · · Score: 2, Funny

      That should be pretty obvious. The moment that you start to make progress on a working Time Machine, something unfortunate and completely unforseen will happen to stop you from finishing it. Maybe you will just decide to paint bubble wrap red and paint the words 'TENSION SHEET' on it instead.

      Because somewhere in the future, somebody has got to really hate having his history messed with.

    5. Re:Being British... by ssorc · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe the answer is U.S. Patent Number 1 by Cheapass Games.

      --
      /-\-/
    6. Re:Being British... by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Contrary to popular belief, the world does in fact not revolve around money.

      That is all.

    7. Re:Being British... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Of course. What do you think the Patent Office would do with the design for a working time machine? Just grant the patent? Or reject it and adopt the device for "bureaucratic use".

      We have now the explanation for the Patent Office's cavalier disregard for the Constitution's direction that they secure inventions for "limited times". The Constitution is in violation of the laws of physics that time is unlimited.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Being British... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being British...

      Hey, it's still better than being French. Right?
    9. Re:Being British... by LowlyWorm · · Score: 1

      The British don't mind. See European Vacation.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    10. Re:Being British... by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

      Duh... the Time Lords keep the infinite temporal flux free from profiteers. It's Daleks you really need to worry about.

    11. Re:Being British... by Redwin · · Score: 1

      Contrary to popular belief, the world does in fact not revolve around money.

      Sure it does, you just have to put a value on the Sun thats all. Now, who wants to open the bidding? :-)

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    12. Re:Being British... by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      No, no, no.

      They should patent it so that they can monetise their discovery.

      That way, when somebody comes up with the means of making a perfect lens which is only nanometers thick (something required for this "reversion" to work), they can bring their patent and make millions out of somebody else's work.

      That is, if somebody goes to the trouble of trying to find how to make such a lens since these guys would have a patent on what's likely the only money making application of said lens. But that shouldn't be a problem since everybody else will glady spent countless time in a likelly to never succeed research path purelly for the glory of the potential discovery, while in the full knowledge that if and when they come up with a way of making such a lens, these guys would stand to make a huge ammount of $$$ ...

      Besides, if these guys don't patent this, they will have no incentive to keep researching and will likelly just give up on physics so as to live a simple life of poverty, away from the cheap cookies of physics conferences and the unpleasentess of being the target of much admiration and respect for making important discoveries.

      Clearly patenting everything creates incentives all around for everybody to keep doing research and fill in the gaps on everybody else's patents.

      QED
      boing boing
      i rest my case!

    13. Re:Being British... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You Brits are soooo cute.
      Right-o, the world does not revolve around money. The world revolves around Hereditary Titles. Time for tea, cheerio.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    14. Re:Being British... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the British researchers are playing games instead of making their research into products it's no wonder they don't make any profit.

  29. an almost content-free article by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Apart from saying it uses a "special lens" there's no information about how the team managed to reverse this effect. In fact there's more space given to the hocus-pocus aspects (that every straight thinking /.'er dismissed in an instant) than of any actual science.

    The thelegraph is supposed to be one of the more serious british dailies. So heaven help us all if this is what they pass off as a science story.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:an almost content-free article by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Just because it's serious doesn't mean it's scientific. Personally I never liked the style of the Telegraph (or the Independent) but at least it wasn't in the Sun/Mail/Star with some "scientist may be able to boost boobs with magic underwear" headline, some made-up reference to underwear using the repelling force for improved figure and some lewder phraseology.

  30. Casimir... by Rhaban · · Score: 3, Funny

    I did not know this guy => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_(dinosaur) had a physics degree.

    1. Re:Casimir... by Chutulu · · Score: 0

      if Brian May from rock band Queen has one it's not so surprising....

  31. Slam Dunk Reporting, Guys by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 5, Informative
    You can tell the journalistic standards at the Telegraph are through the roof. From the article:

    The force is due to neither electrical charge or gravity, for example, but the fluctuations in all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening empty space between the objects and is one reason atoms stick together, also explaining a dry glue effect that enables a gecko to walk across a ceiling.

    This wasn't enough for me, so I wandered over to Wikipedia:

    In physics, the Casimir effect or Casimir-Polder force is a physical force exerted between separate objects, which is due to neither charge, gravity, nor the exchange of particles, but instead is due to resonance of all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening space between the objects.

    The only changes to the Wikipedia article lately have been a link to this article, which is sort of meta. Wikipedia linking to an article plagiarizing from, of all places, Wikipedia. Cute, but also a little sad.
    --
    Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    1. Re:Slam Dunk Reporting, Guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia linking to an article plagiarizing from, of all places, Wikipedia. Oh noes, circular information!!!!!
    2. Re:Slam Dunk Reporting, Guys by 49152 · · Score: 1

      Seems obvious that single paragraph at last was lifted from Wikipedia or perhaps they where both copied from another source.

      But you should really read the article better before you start trolling!

      The link from Wikipedia relates to the claim that these two professors at St. Andrews that claims to have reversed the Casimir effect. This information did NOT originate at Wikipedia so there is no problem here. The wikipedia article (after the last changes) also explicitly mention that this is also just a claim.

      Circular references is not uncommon but both the article on Wikipedia and the Telegraph contains novel information the other one does not, which suggest the Wikipedia link to the Telegraph article is perfectly reasonable.

  32. When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am a physicist, but these subjects are often beyond me. Still, let me try a short explanation. This seems, to me, rather an important discovery.

    The Casimir effect happens when you get two surfaces very nearly touching. Virtual particles emerge on the other side of the surfaces and force them together. Virtual particles being, well, virtual -- very short-lived and low-energy -- this effect only occurs when the surfaces are very, very close to one another.

    What's intriguing about the Casimir effect is that it is extracting work from the zero point energy of the universe, the base energy field of empty space. (Yes, even a total vacuum contains virtual particles, and thus some energy.) It is not immediately obvious how to make this useful, however, if the only way to tap into the zero point energy is to destructively sandwich two expensive materials together.

    Reversing the Casimir effect is brilliant. By placing a perfect lens between the two materials, the virtual particles create a repulsive force. This could, as stated, create a levitation effect by preventing the surfaces from ever touching. 'Levitation' is a strong word, though. It'll 'levitate' a nanometer or so above the other surface, which is only good for reducing the friction between them to zero. So 'frictionless surfaces' is probably the keyword we should be using here.

    I'm intrigued because it would seem to be easier to generate power from the zero point energy with a repulsive effect than an attractive one. So this could also be the first step toward a zero point energy generator -- free energy. What will they think of next...

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    1. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm intrigued because it would seem to be easier to generate power from the zero point energy with a repulsive effect than an attractive one. So this could also be the first step toward a zero point energy generator -- free energy. What will they think of next...

      My thoughts exactly, although I found myself unable to word them thusly, which brings us to this inevitable question : Wouldn't it violate the second law of thermodynamics?

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by vigmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wouldn't it violate the second law of thermodynamics? I'd assume there's no violation unless the surfaces move closer to each other as a result of the force since no work gets done. But the validity of that statement lies with my rephrased question: "Does any potential energy get 'created' in the process of increased attraction?"

      Cheers!
      --
      Vig

      --
      Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    3. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by Vulva+R.+Thompson,+P · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am a physicist, but these subjects are often beyond me. Still, let me try a short explanation.

      That's fine. The non-physicists here will gleefully take up the slack.

    4. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The most obvious ways I can think of would all require switching either between attraction and repulsion or even repulsion to neutral.

      Any means of doing that will likely require as much energy as can be captured from the effect. However, I can envision something like a disk backed by quartz levitated over another disk composed of cells where a lens is either present or not (with more than 50% having a lens to maintain a net levitation). Perhaps the assembly would efficiently convert between mechanical and electrical energy.

      Of course, it's equally likely that a more conventional motor/generator with frictionless bearings would be just as good.

    5. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Stop...brain hurt...ow...

    6. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Just take the energy from another universe then.

      --
    7. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 5, Informative

      The energy isn't created really, is kept from moving into the area between the plates.

      Let me explain further:

      Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says you can't know where a particle is, or it's momentum, at the same time. That applies to space too. For any point in space, you can't know if there's a particle there or not.

      Therefore, the reality is that the vacuum is boiling all the time with particles popping into and out of existence all the time. Particle soup. For another interesting effect of this, check out Hawking radiation.

      Anyway, if the plates are close enough together, no particles can be popping into existence in that space, because it's too small. It's literally small enough that if there were a particle there, you'd know it's position and momentum, and that is NOT allowed.

      So, the situation you've set up is that you have two plates very close together, with particles appearing and disappearing on one side of the plates (the outside surfaces) but not on the inside surfaces. That means that there's a pressure created which forces the plates together.

      No energy is created because what you're doing is preventing particles (energy) from appearing inside the plates. The energy of a vacuum is not zero because of those particles. The energy inside the plates is zero (zero point energy).

      The problem is that once the plates have moved together which is work, you don't get any more work out of the system unless you move the plates back apart.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    8. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by nukeade · · Score: 1

      If you want to see a derivation, it was on my QM3 mid-term last fall... hardest class I've ever taken. The force per unit area between two large flat plates falls off as 1/R^4.

      http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/bsauerwi/Problems/2 006QUA3MIDb.pdf -- problem #3. :)

      ~Ben

    9. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
      The question of useful work is no different when considering the Casimir effect or the simple attraction of two charged particles. Bring them together, and work is performed. Put work into the system, and you can move them further apart. Different configurations of the consitiuents have different amounts of potential energy. This is true whether the force is due to the Casimir force or the electrostatic force, or any other force, for that matter.

      As for levitation, all it requires is a repulsive force in some stable configuration. Putting a magnet over a superconducting sheet will give you levitation.

      Making the Casimir force repel instead of attract will not give you perpetual motion. It'll keep small things from sticking together.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    10. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Wait. I thought I'd read that it wasn't based upon "zero point energy" but on a Perfect reflecting surface.

      Apparently, photons reflecting each other in close proximity cause the two surfaces to pull towards each other. They use a special material, that has an inverse refraction, which causes the plates to push outwards (and so, apparently this causes a repelling effect on the outside of the two surfaces).

      This would be an interesting property of light then, if this is true.

      I agree it is probably not levitation -- perhaps more of a "resonance" created by the interaction of photons and it probably has a very specific range. Levitation is a different property than something like this -- more like a "ground effect" air car, but using instead photons.

      My guess is that the distance, has a lot to do with the frequency of light reflected, so if they "charged it" with a tiny laser, they might get more consistent distances and a stronger resonance effect. I'm guessing that there is a distance where photons are re-absorbed by their originating atom as soon as they are released -- thus the surfaces cannot touch because it creates a sort of pressure.

      It may be the same properties as described of the Quantum Effects here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_effect
      Photons or electromagnetic forces -- may be the same thing here.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    11. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says you can't know where a particle is, or it's momentum, at the same time. That applies to space too. For any point in space, you can't know if there's a particle there or not.

      Therefore, the reality is that the vacuum is boiling all the time with particles popping into and out of existence all the time.


      A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. This is almost completely wrong. Particles popping into and out of existance all the time? Where do people get these ridiculous half-notions? The particles exist, or don't. The fact that YOU don't know where they are or how fast they're going has NO EFFECT on them.

      Don't be so egocentric.
    12. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I'm not a physicist, but I still have to apply a bit of my own horse sense here.

      What bothers me is the treating of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as if it were a force of nature -- that it was information of place and speed that is somehow sacrosanct. I contend that is not what is going on. Since all particles are really waves, that interact in discrete energy levels and only at a very specific point (hence, as particles, in a quantum manner), that the uncertainty is a byproduct of not being able to measure something so small and interactive without influencing it. Like not being able to look at a flame, but discovering it's position or speed by blowing on it -- you could imagine that using such a technique would also make flames uncertain. Any field interacting with the observed particle will collapse it, or move it -- so you can only measure one aspect at a time. By pushing on it, and measuring the energy of what is given off, you know it's speed, because you knew what you threw at it, and can assume the mass of both objects from previous knowledge. Likewise, you could discern position, if you throw more objects at it and see where it isn't -- kind of like looking at the scatter patterns of BBs from a shotgun. Something was in-between the BBs and the target. With may tries, you can use many BBs to find the location of one BB. So, in practical terms -- such techniques will always make you choose between what you want to measure. But this is not inherent to what is being measured.

      I think a lot of this mental spaghetti, is hindering quantum physics. I know, bold statement little man.

      So this is just me saying, that Casimir Effect has a lot to do with the "quantum" expression of the particles. I visualize this as a "focal length" on a camera, where there is one ideal range of two lenses. Anything NOT in focus of the input and output of fields in the space time fold we like to call particle waves, is cancelled out. So by being an exact "quanta" of distance -- basically, the ideal energy expression distance of the particle away, means that the energy is re-absorbed as it is expressed and doesn't travel. This is like the wheel on a car -- it's circumference is fixed. Or the magnetic field on a bar magnet -- again, there is an ideal distance for the field as the poles connect with each other.

      A lot of quantum physics sounds like the blind describing an elephant. The models only define consistent properties. Though, they know very detailed and exact things about what elephants do, without knowing what the elephant looks like. It's made overly complex, because people get caught up on the models that describe the behavior as if the model of physics were the actual thing. The "uncertainty principle" is probably due to our technique of launching the equivalent of large mountains at the elephants in order to try to figure them out, we destroy the elephants, who in the time we leviathans can get another mountain ready to throw, have had babies and replaced the crushed Elephant with new ones, and we might assume that they were boiling up out of nothing. The Universe IS, and physics tries to figure it out. I could even describe the space/time of the Universe, as an infinitely dense and energetic substance, and the matter and energy we experience, is all a vacuum of resonant flaws that move emptiness through the infinitely dense mass. Some of these particle interactions, might make more sense if we inverted them anyway. As long as you have consistent properties of the Elephants, or the inverted spaces and it is consistent -- then you could use that just as well to understand the Universe. And in a Universe this big -- some one else besides me probably does.

      So, I'm just trying to pick a nit, and say that particles aren't exerting a special force because they don't want us to know both their speed and location. This probably has a lot more to do with a resonant distance that the fields resolve their energies as their "quantum distance." But we don't know the whole story. Some property that keeps

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    13. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      "The problem is that once the plates have moved together which is work, you don't get any more work out of the system unless you move the plates back apart." So what is needed is a structure that can be converted from a left handed substance to a right handed substance using less energy than you can extract from the plates movement. You could store energy from the plates moving together, then change the material properties of the material inbetween (making it left handed), then the plates would repel and you could extract energy again. If it were possible to do this then it would be possible to extract energy from vaccuum? I can't think of why but that just seems like too much of a free lunch to be feasible. But Samantha Carter always makes it look soo easy so it should be possible, at least on cable.

    14. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by deblau · · Score: 1

      Wait, did you just say zero point module? Uh oh...

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    15. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if I am right or wrong. I'm rich. And my illustration of the principle is more useful than yours.

      The fact that YOU don't know where they are or how fast they're going has NO EFFECT on them.

      Did I say that it did?

      The particles exist, or don't.

      Hawking is wrong then, the AC said so. Hawking radiation is just bogus. Well, it could be bogus, but I'm going to refrain from saying so until after Hawking says so. I'm arrogant, but not stupidly so.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    16. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by F34nor · · Score: 1

      How well would this work as a space drive system? Could it be a reactionless drive that needs no fuel?

    17. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by computer_chacham · · Score: 1

      Are you trolling? Look up "virtual particles", "quantum foam", or the energy-time uncertainty relation for starters.

    18. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      The problem is that once the plates have moved together which is work, you don't get any more work out of the system unless you move the plates back apart.

      What I've asked before but never really got an answer I understood:

      What if the plates weren't parallel, but slightly angled toward each other (like a wedge)? It seems like the forces would be perpendicular to the plates, and since they'd be angled, there'd be a slight force toward the open end of the wedge.

      I am not a physicist so please be merciful if this is a dumb question.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    19. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't work, because we're dealing with quantum effects, not analog effects.

      Either the plates are close enough, or they're not. Angling is a gradual change, but at each point along the angling it's either close enough, or not close enough. The effect is that at the quantum level your plate isn't a line, it's a step function (if your plates were lines on a graph).

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    20. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Zero Point'... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Oh! Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  33. Doesn't sound useful on a large scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given the distance over which the force operates, it doesn't sound like you can use this to levitate large items. Surface roughness is measured in micro-meters and the force operates over nano-meters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roughness

    A standard solution for a 'frictionless bearing' is an air bearing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_bearing

    The utility of this work seems limited to very small things.

  34. From the article by VitrosChemistryAnaly · · Score: 3, Funny

    Their discovery could ultimately lead to frictionless micro-machines with moving parts that levitate.
    Finally that fast talking dude will have a job again!
    --
    "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
    1. Re:From the article by Pixel+Rider · · Score: 1

      WOW....I was beginning to think I was the only one who caught that!!! (there were only about a million references to "MICRO MACHINES" in that article!)

  35. the Force by iiii · · Score: 1

    "...all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening space between the objects..."
    a.k.a. "the Force"

    --
    Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
  36. Re:I, for one by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

    Finally, I can retrofit the Prius and get it to fly. And screw you guys that want to retrofit your Hummers.

    I say we enact a law that will only allow environmentally friendly vehicles to fly. Do it now before Hummers are grandfathered.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  37. miniature giant space hamsters by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have a feeling that this breakthrough will eventually lead to the development of giant flying mecha.


    Given that the Casimir effect actually produces enough force (well, pressure) at tens of nanometres distances between the two plates, that'll be some really tiny giant mecha ;)
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  38. In Disguise by jlebrech · · Score: 0

    Is this reverse engineering from Megatron or from one of those cigars??

  39. Nothing new here... by seven+of+five · · Score: 1
  40. Re:I, for one by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've already patented using this technology on skateboard decks, and no, Back to the Future doesn't count as prior art! I didn't get the idea from there at all!

    --
    which is totally what she said
  41. Re:I, for one by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    I don't know, I think that Deloreans would definitely need an exemption from that law.

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  42. In Theory by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hereby theorize that cramming peanuts into your arsehole will cause levitation.

    There, now that I've officially theorized this, I can say, "In theory, cramming peanuts into your arsehole will cause levitation." and it's perfectly true.

    1. Re:In Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unless you have some kind of experimental evidence to back that up I suggest that you are actually hypothesizing rather than theorizing.

    2. Re:In Theory by Randseed · · Score: 0

      I hereby theorize that cramming peanuts into your arsehole will cause levitation.
      There, now that I've officially theorized this, I can say, "In theory, cramming peanuts into your arsehole will cause levitation." and it's perfectly true.

      I theorize that people will stop at no absurdity to defend cramming peanuts into their arseholes. However, I, for one, welcome our new creamy peanut butter-oozing overlords.
    3. Re:In Theory by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hereby theorize that cramming peanuts into your arsehole will cause levitation.

      Well, I tested your theory, three times.

      And I've documented the effects, three times.

      I got the same results every time.

      No levitation, but I won't be able to sit down for a week.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    4. Re:In Theory by unjedai · · Score: 1

      That's levitation, holmes!

    5. Re:In Theory by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      I hereby theorize that cramming peanuts into your arsehole will cause levitation. There, now that I've officially theorized this, I can say, "In theory, cramming peanuts into your arsehole will cause levitation." and it's perfectly true.

      You can theorize all you want but until critical mass of enough people referencing each other (ie Supports of Inteligent Design, the Democratic Party, and Everything Wrong in the World being the US's fault and in no way shape or form Europe's.) no absolute truth can be gleaned from said theory.

    6. Re:In Theory by Bloater · · Score: 1

      I happened to have a bag of sweet chilli coated nuts in the cupboard and your theory appears to be true because I didn't stay on the ground for long.

    7. Re:In Theory by StoneTempest · · Score: 1

      I know you're being sarcastic and funny, but you point out a very important difference between the colloquial notion of a "theory" and the scientific notion of a "theory." In the colloquial idea, a theory is just that, an idea. It doesn't need any sort of proof or any other support. In science, however, such a notion is called a "hypothesis," and after it has gone through a rigorous proving process (either under a current mathematical framework like quantum mechanics or through a series of experiments if it is itself a new framework) it earns the word "theory."

      So in this case the scientists have proven this hypothesis with the mathematics and ideas of quantum mechanics, thus it is a theory. Peanuts in your arse is still just hypothesis.

    8. Re:In Theory by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well duh, obviously you didn't use enough peanuts.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:In Theory by ozphx · · Score: 1

      After the satay I ate last night, I suggest that Peanuts in My Arse, is more than just a hypothesis.

      I'm not levitating, but as the GP suggested, I might need more peanuts.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
  43. jazzy by hairymike · · Score: 1

    I want a hoverboard!!

  44. Re:I, for one by Bandman · · Score: 1

    Seconded. And a Delorean should be the prototype, complete with a Mr Fusion on the back

  45. Casimir effect allows geckos to walk on ceiling by mrjb · · Score: 5, Funny

    FTA: "The force is due to neither electrical charge or gravity, for example, but the fluctuations in all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening empty space between the objects and is one reason atoms stick together, also explaining a "dry glue" effect that enables a gecko to walk across a ceiling." ... and now that scientists have figured out how to reverse the Casimir effect, this will soon enable geckos to walk on the floor.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    1. Re:Casimir effect allows geckos to walk on ceiling by ahkbarr · · Score: 1

      ...or rather, to not walk at all. Well, unless it learned how to walk on its elbows/knees.

      I have you now, little one...

      Sincerely,
      Progressive Auto Insurance

      --
      Compared to war, all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God, how I love it. - Gen. George Patton
  46. These scientists by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    always thinking of ways to wage peace with their technology.. not one mention of frictionless bullets.

    --
    meh
    1. Re:These scientists by technococcus · · Score: 1

      No feeding the trolls, etc, etc. but I have to...

      Reducing barrel-bullet friction would really only reduce wear on the barrels of high volume-of-fire weapons (crew-served, HMGs, SAWs). It wouldn't significantly aid in penetration or increase tissue trauma and in fact might reduce actual tissue damage.

      If you want a low-friction, high penetration projectile, try a saboted depleted uranium .50 BMG penetrator round. We've already got those and this Casimir tech would not, I believe, ever become cost effective for use in such an application.

  47. This could signal the end of Slashdot by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    As millions of geeks try this out on members of the opposite sex.

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    1. Re:This could signal the end of Slashdot by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      Ohhh the Jedis are going to feel this one.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  48. We were going to let you have it for free..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like RADAR and Jet motors, but then Parliament voted to keep it all British, once you'd finished helping us make it.

    Shame!

    1. Re:We were going to let you have it for free..... by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Won't do you any good to try to keep it. We'll just lift it.

  49. Does anybody know? by DanielMarkham · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know how great this force is? I mean, say with one-meter-square plates, each suspended above each other, how much force would be required to push the two plates together? If the answer is two pounds (er, kilograms) then that's one thing, but if it's thousand hogsheads, that's a whole nother thing entirely.

    Seems like you could build a nano/macro motor out of both the regular casmir and the anit-casmir materials. Somehow I smell perpetual motion in there somewhere.

  50. Casimir Effect Explained by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Casimir effect is very wierd indeed. If you take two metal plates and put them close together in a vacuum they will attract one another VERY weakly. The effect is caused by fluctuations in the electric charge of the vacuum. Think of it a little like sea level. On average if you measure sea level lots of times you wil get "0" for the height but if you measure it just once the height you get will depend on the tide and the size of any waves. The same is true for a vacuum. Look at a particular volume of space and measure the electric charge. On average you will get zero but for a particular moment in time it may be non-zero.

    Ok so far but how do we get an attractive force? Well it turns out that charge must be conserved so if one region of space has a small positive charge at one instant a neighbouring area must have a small negative charge (in quantum terms we say that we pair produce and virtual electron-positron pair) thuse we have a dipole. Now remember the two conductors? Well the one nearest the positive charge will have the electrons in the conductor attracted to it and being a conductor they will move towards it giving the conductor a net negative charge. The opposite will happen in the conductor nearest the negative charged area of space.

    So now we have, instantaneously, a conductor with a negative charge and one with a positive charge...so they attract one another. this is the Casimir effect. If you stop to think about it is is VERY strange because it means that two metal plates in vacuum, with no externally applied fields will attract...so you have to ask yourself what exactly is doing the work i.e. where is the energy coming from to move these plates?

    I'm not a condensed matter guy so I must admit I don't quite understand why this effect is so important to them. I understood that in molecules it was known as Van der Waal forces and due to periodic dipoles occuring in molecules in much the same way it does ina vacuum. Only, because there is a real electric field, the effect is much larger. So if there are any condensed matter people out there perhaps they would like to explain why it is Casimir and not Van der Waals that is important? or is it just because they have the same origin the name Van Der Waals has been dropped?

    1. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no physicist but arn't you just talking about gravity?

      Put any two objects near each other and there will be a weak gravitational attraction. I don't have to tell you electricity, magnetic fields, gravity, it's all interrelated.

    2. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by posterlogo · · Score: 1

      Van Der Waals happens on extremely small scales due to induced dipole-dipole interactions between molecules. I believe it is not as random as the casimir effect, but you're right in that net result is the same: attraction.

    3. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Informative

      I understand how you might think I got the two confused but no, this effect is completely distinct from gravity. It has a different strength, behaves differently and its fundamental mechanism is understood at the quantum level, unlike gravity.

      Also there is actually no evidence whatsoever that gravity and EM fields are interrelated. It is postulated that at around 10^16 GeV they are but there is no evidence for that yet....and just to show you how much faith you should put in theory without concrete evidence to back it up remember that at one time people thought that the Earth was flat!

    4. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      The Casimir effect is also on extremely small scales. In fact I think I may have foud out why the condensed matter guys are interested in it: accordinging to Wikipedia it becomes the dominant force between conductors at submicron distances and can generate pressures exceeding atmospheric....although I'm not sure how much trust to put in the article since the original title was the "Kashmir effect"!

    5. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by Garridan · · Score: 1

      Also, recall that at one time, people thought the Earth was round.

    6. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure how much trust to put in the article since the original title was the "Kashmir effect"!

      Oh, it's an understandable mistake. The "Kashmir effect" is what keeps Led Zeppelin up. Physics is full of these similarities.

      By the way, there's gonna be a quiz next period...

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    7. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one disappointed that I had to scroll down about 200 posts to find a post that was actually informative and relevent to the article? Everything before was 'funny' posts about misspellings or puns. I thought this site was supposed to be full of nerds?

    8. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by danlock4 · · Score: 1

      Was that before they realized it was an oblate spheroid?

      --
      To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
    9. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by logophage · · Score: 1

      You've explained Van der Waals force but not the Casimir Effect. In principle, Casimir Effect doesn't need conducting plates; it just turns out to work better experimentally. It's a pretty simple idea if you've ever worked with QM. The first word in QM is "quantum" meaning that forces are quantized.

      Imagine the vacuum is seething with "virtual" particles instantaneously created and nullifying each other. Because these are "quantum" particles, they can only have certain energy states. Now, when you bring two plates together, the space between those plates *exclude* certain energy states. Why? Imagine dropping something into a rectangular pool of water. A lot of different waves will be generated, however the only waves which will be "stable" between those two walls are integer multiples of the distance between the walls. That is, the waves are the harmonic intervals of the wall distance.

      Okay, back to Casimir. So, when you bring two plates together, the only "virtual" particles that will be admitted are those particles with wavelengths at harmonic intervals of the distance between the two plates. The closer you bring the plates together, the more particles that are excluded. Now, think of outside those plates (which is the rest of the Universe) where no exclusion exists. We will have created a "pressure" forcing the two plates together.

    10. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Most of the nerds on this site have, at best, only a vague idea of what quantum mechanics actually is. Me, for example. So in order to appear productive we resort to stupid jokes, hoping to keep the ball rolling long enough for an informed individual to get fed up and provide some real entertainment.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    11. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by Garridan · · Score: 1

      Oblate spheroids are round. I meant, before they realized that it was a massive polytope.

    12. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Does this mean we are closer to real Zed PMs?

      The star gate reference is joking, but the question is serious. Does this mean we are closer to zero point energy?

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    13. Re:Casimir Effect Explained by raphae · · Score: 1

      Other excuses notwithstanding, I am not onlz disappointed but also disgusted by it.

  51. Re:When I hear 'Casimir', I think 'Led Zeppelin' by simong · · Score: 1

    Sorry, sorry.

  52. Repulsive Van der Waals known for a long time by Mothinator · · Score: 1

    Maybe this article is discussing a new way of creating a repulsive Casimir force, but a closely related force, known as the Van der Waals force is repulsive for certain combinations of materials. For instance, polystyrene next to a gold surface in water has a repulsive Van der Waals force(See Visser).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force

    Visser, J. "On Hamaker constants: A comparison between Hamaker constants and Lifshitz-van der Waals constants" Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 3(4), 331-361

    1. Re:Repulsive Van der Waals known for a long time by jetherrie · · Score: 1

      Even more impressive is what is seen in Superconductors with the Meisner Effect and Flux pinning. I use this set to demonstrate to students the effect http://www.users.qwest.net/~csconductor/Experiment _Kits/Demonstration%20Kits.htm/ . The exciting thing about the article is not levitation but the fact that it may be a way to get rid of friction on the nano level. There are a few other things that I can think of where to apply this but with out actually reading their paper I don't want to comment. But levitation is real, we have been able to do it for a while now.

    2. Re:Repulsive Van der Waals known for a long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! Thank you! I'm not crazy! Van Der Waals force *is* the same force as the casimir force, but it's measured between atoms/molecules and not large plates at macroscopic scales.

  53. Please.... by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Would you stop with all this talk of thrusting action please? My parents my walk into my basement/room.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  54. What REALLY Matters by E++99 · · Score: 1

    This is all very interesting, but does it at all help us understand how scientists were able to use the Casimir Effect to send "Bunny #15" into the future?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJaU211gdg8

  55. "Scientists" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Are they some special bunch of scientists that they deserved to be addressed as "Scientists"?

  56. Same team unveiled invisibility cloak by Nezer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    According to TFA, the same team announced, last week, some breakthrough with an invisibility cloak. This week they make another spectacular claim regarding levitation (granted on a very small scale). Either this team is having an incredible run and some serious intellectual luck or they are totally full of shit. Given the history of such claims, my money is on the latter.

    Maybe next week they will announce they have discovered cold fusion.

    I hate to be such a skeptic but these claims seem to lack truthiness according to my gut. Your gut may differ. Either way, I'd take these claims with a very fine grain of salt.

    1. Re:Same team unveiled invisibility cloak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or maybe this discovery that works by means of 'a "perfect" lens with a negative index of refraction' is somehow related to their work on the invisibility cloak, which is based on metamaterials with a negative refraction index.

  57. At long last... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    We will finally have Casimir sweaters that will repel lint and pet hair instead of attract it!

  58. I don't see how this is new news... by illumnatLA · · Score: 2, Funny

    Slashdot readers have had the ability to repel instead of attract for years!

    --
    Web hosting that doesn't suck!Dreamhost
  59. Sensationalist BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Casimir force occurs because the zero point energy of the vacuum is quantized. If you hold two plates close together they tend to align on quantized boundaries. It may be attractive, or it may be repulsive, but either way the plates align on quantized boundaries. I thought this was common knowledge?

  60. Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend of mine is getting his PhD in physics from Stanford this year. Whenever he comes back to town, we'll always go for a run and he'll try to explain a little of what he's been learning and doing lately. I first heard about 'quantum vacuum' and the Casimir effect almost two weeks ago.

  61. This may enable molecular assemblers by mattr · · Score: 1

    I recall an argument between Drexler and Smalley in which the "fat fingers" and "sticky fingers" problems mean that molecular assemblers are impossible. My impression is that the Van der Waals force drives the sticky fingers problem in which a nanobot's finger will stick to an atom it is trying to manipulate. That seems to be quite an overreaching statement anyway, but considering that the "fat fingers" problem is on shaky ground according to Drexler, and now we have the possibility of nanoscale repulsion, it seems that the sticky fingers argument is also on shaky ground.

    1. Re:This may enable molecular assemblers by wikdwarlock · · Score: 1

      This "argument" is worthless for one very simple reason, as are many of people's arguments against molecular nanotechnology. At the end of the day, the people raising objections exist as sentient, mobile, self-reproducing beings because of the startlingly complex and near infinite array of nanoscale machines working inside them. Working in a noisy environment, at well above room temperature, to pick apart organic molecules and put them back together in different ways. It may not be EASY to replicate what nature has created, but to argue that it's impossible is blind to a truth that a 5 yr old could spot. If a "scientist" says that arguments can't happen unless both people are in the same room, but has sent this "profound" wisdom in an e-mail to someone who has a different opinion, then it should be pretty damn obvious that the wisdom is bunk. Similarly, if a scientist says that nanomachines can't disassemble and re-assemble molecules atom by atom, while the whole time existing solely thanks to such actions, that scientists argument is bunk.

      --

      "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
    2. Re:This may enable molecular assemblers by mattr · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Although this might mean that nanoscale machines designed naively by contemporary machinists might also work. Obviously nanoscale machines using organic molecules and the chemistry of aqueous solutions already work great.

  62. how great this force is by S3D · · Score: 1

    With one-meter-square conducting plates in vacuum with meter distance between them plates it is something on the order of magnitude 1^^-30 kg. That is one-billionth of one-billionth of one-billionth gram.

  63. All just a matter of tolerances now by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1
    Now if we can make railroad tracks within a 1nm tolerance, the cars can have ski's instead of wheels.

    In seriousness, what devices are there that can hold the tolerances necessary for a practical application?

    --
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
  64. Energy source? by ledvinap · · Score: 1

    Just a wild idea ...
    There was an article some time ago about device using very thin gap between conductors to generate electricity from temperature gradient (asymmetrical tunneling of electrons with different temperature). Main problem was to get conductors close enough and still keep place between them.
    But with negative Casimir force it could be easier to manage this ... Casimir force is short reaching but quite strong in interesting distance, so it should oppose electrical and mechanical force in gap ...
    So where is the catch ? ;-)

  65. Insensitive Clod!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My hummer is environementally friendly, you insensitive, and very jealous, clod!!

    Oh - I know - why don't enact a law that will only allow environmentally friendly vehicles to fly, provided that their owners follow a strict vegan diet

    ** rolls eyes **

    I guess if it's something you don't like then it's ok to pass a law banning it, right?

    OK, go ahead an mod me a troll now. MOD PARENT FLAMEBAIT.

    1. Re:Insensitive Clod!! by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

      Zoooooooom, as it goes over your head.

      Damn, we really do need a <Sarcasm> tag so these thinned skinned dolts don't get their panties in a bunch.

      Hey, AC, check my link to my journal, you'll see where you went wrong. By the way, how's your knee?

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  66. Well then... by wtansill · · Score: 1

    How long before I can have my flying car?

    --
    The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
  67. Assumptions by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Is it me or are scientists assuming that there are no particles smaller then quarks now? For all we know the effect could be the result of really tiny widgets making ultra-tiny (even for widgets) ropes. Tossing them out and pulling!

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:Assumptions by quincunx55555 · · Score: 1

      I thought quarks were held together with gluons. Don't know how big a neutrino is supposed to be, but I know they pass through matter easily.

  68. I'm tapped for jokes, by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    So does this mean they've discovered the complete opposite of duct tape, or should there be a midichlorian joke here?

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  69. they are on a roll by llZENll · · Score: 1

    first invisibility and now levitation, man these guys are on a roll, next up has to be teleportation...

  70. Re:I, for one by izzyllamas · · Score: 1

    Big Deal David Blaine has been doing this for years, w/o the need of overpaid scientists.

  71. The big winner I see from this potential tech . . by mmell · · Score: 1
    Nanomachines. Physicists have struggled for some time with the "sticky fingers" problem as it relates to nanobots (i.e. - if a nanomachine can "pick up" an atom/molecule, odds are good it's done via chemical bonding involving valence electrons. "Pick up" is easy - "Put down" is (so far) impossible).

    Reversing the Casmir effect would enable nanobots to "Put down" atoms or molecules which they have "picked up".

  72. Sidetrack by Boronx · · Score: 1

    If we're moving through a swirl of particles that can put some pressure on plates, how come out of two object traveling at different velocities through space, one of them doesn't experience more drag than the other from these virtual particles?

    1. Re:Sidetrack by Bloater · · Score: 1

      Because of the equal and opposite thrust from the virtual particles on the other side of the object.

    2. Re:Sidetrack by Boronx · · Score: 1

      And why would two objects moving at different velocities in a soup experience equal thrusts on all sides?

    3. Re:Sidetrack by Bloater · · Score: 1

      Each object experiences a drag from the pressure applied to its bow and experiences an equal thrust from the pressure applied to its stern.

      It doesn't matter what speed they're going at because they each experience a net "nothing" from the soup - except the casimir effect when another object is close by and, I suppose, a compression.

    4. Re:Sidetrack by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      The particles are virtual particles, not really there. Virtual Particle is a pretty good article in Wikipedia, check it out.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
  73. Mundi est omnis divisa in partes tres by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

    The universe has three sections: the part between the plates, the part to the left of the left plate, and the part to the right of the right plate. All three parts of the universe are undergoing adiabatic expansion and are thus applying pressure to their boundaries. Generally they have more success at the edges of the universe (near where the CMB appears) than at the surfaces of the plates since it isn't clear that they have anything to push against near the CMB, but the boundary conditions at the surface of a plate are different because of the universe on the other side. The universe in the middle of the plates doesn't do a good job of expanding because even virtual particles have trouble fitting in there (the plates form a high pass filter that attenuates any long wavelength standing waves), so the other two parts of the universe make it contract. Soon the virtual particles in the middle universe have very high energy and apply an imaginary pressure on the plates that counters the imaginary pressure being applied from the two external portions of the universe, and this affects the position of the plates relative to one another. The force can either be attractive or repulsive depending on the electromagnetic characteristics of the plates and their effects on the wave functions of the charged virtual particles inside.

    1. Re:Mundi est omnis divisa in partes tres by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      The universe has three sections: the part between the plates, the part to the left of the left plate, and the part to the right of the right plate. All three parts of the universe are undergoing adiabatic expansion and are thus applying pressure to their boundaries.

      Uhh... that's not how it works. It's a purely statistical approach based on the virtual particles. Strictly speaking, between the plates there is less chance of finding a particle than outside them (because the wave length of the particle is on average too large to fit between them), so the number of particles you find there is lower than the number outside, so the random motion of the virtual particles on average acts like pressure on the outside of the plates, with nothing to balance it from the inside.

      Expansion of the universe doesn't come into it - certainly not on those scales. Especially as if it were, the attractive force would decrease over time.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    2. Re:Mundi est omnis divisa in partes tres by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      I wasn't thinking so much that the actual expansion is causing the Casimir effect than the other way around- both are manifestations of the same type of particle-in-a-box pressure mechanism. The attractive force does decrease over time as the plates move together but I don't think that's what you meant.

  74. Plagiarized by archnerd · · Score: 1

    The explanation of the Casimir effect is plagiarized from Wikipedia.

  75. Smells like a fish market by Nephroth · · Score: 1
    The article smells an awful bit fishy to me. The fact that the article borrows pretty heavily from the wikipedia article while still not showing an understanding of how the force works (not so much an attraction as the surfaces are "pushed" together by vacuum energies) and the fact that the term "lens" is used, implying that the author understands the phenomena to be some sort of beam or light. And then of course there is this: "The practicalities of designing the lens to do this are daunting but not impossible and levitation "could happen over quite a distance"." which makes very little sense to me, considering the very Wikipedia article they quote (without citation) states: "Because the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance, it is only measurable when the distance between the objects is extremely small."

    I think that I'd love to see frictionless bearings and hoverboards as much as any slashdotter, but I am afraid that I'm just far too much of a skeptic to buy that a magic lens can produce long-range matter repulsion.

    --
    Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
  76. tceffE rimisaC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tceffE rimisaC?

  77. Wait... by SailorSpork · · Score: 1

    Didn't Led Zeppelin do a song about this? ...Oh wait, that was Kashmir.

  78. Re:I, for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Hummer already is a grandfather (see H3).

  79. Re:I, for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Mr. Blaine isn't overpaid ?

    CAPCHA is 'fraudster' LOL

  80. Gecko infestation by Bloater · · Score: 1

    Great! Now I can keep the damn geckos of my windows, I just need to coat them with negative index of refraction materials.

  81. gecko sticky force not casimir effect by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

    "Recent studies of the spatula tipped setae on gecko footpads demonstrates that the attractive forces that hold geckos to surfaces are van der Waals interactions between the finely divided setae (almost 500,000 Setae on each foot, and each of these tipped with between 100 and 1,000 spatulae) and the surfaces themselves." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gecko#_note-0 http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/01/208205
  82. indeed by game+kid · · Score: 2, Funny

    that's a cyclic effect that primarily appears when posting AC.

    Indeed. The power of privacy that comes with being an Alternating Commenter can be electrifying but is sometimes a revolting experience. It's sometimes better to take charge and post directly as your user name instead.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  83. Re:Assumptions.. In the words of Agustus de Morgan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_infinitum

    "Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
    And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
    And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
    While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan

    Holy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy
    Siphonapteric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flea
    Recursion! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion
    Batman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman

  84. Re:I, for one by Doddman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why the hell did this get modded down? I think this is an insightful point.. he is right.

    I used to post AC when doing this, but it's just Slashdot. I don't give a shit about my karma anymore. Mod me down all you want.

    --
    If creativity is the field, copyright is the fence.
  85. Re:I, for one by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

    Real hoverboards don't work on water, dumb ass. :I

  86. Money correlates with Value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know it's not always true, but most of the time if someone is willing to pay more for something, that is because it's worth more. The reason Capitalism took so long to come about is that lots of people can't tell the difference between fraud and quality, and it wasn't until sophisticated property law that Avarice was more often OK than evil.

    The point of the Market is to prioritize. Most research has a good output - but what about the opportunity cost? Nothing is free. The money for this lab might have been spent on a lab to cure malaria, for all we know. Sometimes the government picks things that are better for society that corporations, but that isn't always the case.

    Most inventions are made by corporations, as are most goods, because politics doesn't confuse priorities in corporations. Research run by politicians is valuable to lobbyists, research run by Corporations is valuable to anyone who will pay. The latter is slightly more democratic.

  87. Finally some recognition! by Kazymyr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hallelujah. My username is finally getting the credit it deserves.

    --
    I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
  88. So what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't put those spinning type II superconductors away just yet kids.. The Casimir effect is so small it'll never lift my fat ass off the ground.

  89. Birth Force by aschoeff · · Score: 1

    I remember the Casimir effect was measured using two closely spaced plates, but I thought it was an only-repulsive force, not attractive. Oops, I guess I didn't input that data correctly. Gosh I wish I had known that before. As always, just a reflection away.

    But of course this is the natural way to build machines. Use the infinitely-renewable natural birth-force of the universe to keep things that do exist and are dynamically in opposition from crashing into one another. The birth-force of the universe emanates from nothing, but not from something. If there is no local space for the birth-force virtual particles to actualize into something, it shall extinguish and reincorporate as the force to either attract or repel any two objects considered in relation to one another. Is this not the perfection of "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?" Something like "The Holy Spirit?"

    I can't imagine this doesn't take place in thought, as well, and therefore in our personalities, and therefore in society.

  90. Imagining by WinchesterPC.Com · · Score: 1

    I'm trying to imagine how fast a frictionless cylinder could spin in a vacuum. I wonder if this would be possible with data storage devices. Would it affect magnetic or optical storage? Anyone have any idea how hard it is to accomplish this repulsion? (In other words, any idea how soon we might start seeing children's toys based on this discovery?) Anyone know how much effect the Casimir effect has on what we call friction and how much is electromagnetic or otherwise? (In other words, once the Casimir effect is reversed, what else has to be done to alleviate friction? Or is this going to take electromagnetic friction out of the picture entirely?) And levitation aside, will this significantly reduce friction in machines that can be lubricated with oil, or will it simply make them maintenance free, more reliable, and marginally more energy efficient?

    Sorry, I have so many questions. I'm really curious about all of this now!

  91. quote... by derjames · · Score: 0

    ... may the (Casimir) force be with you...

  92. bah by fijal · · Score: 1

    everyone can get reverse casimir effect, I know a guy who observed reverse friction http://www.totalizm.pl/free_energy.htm

  93. Invisibility, levitation,...? by Bentov · · Score: 0

    I think I'm with the people who are thinking zpe. There should be a way to roll up multiple layers of this and form some sort of continuous quantum oscillator. Sad thing is, non of use will probably live long enough to really see the true impact of this type of technology.

  94. similar effect? by rbubb2 · · Score: 1

    If flat "Jo-blocks" (super flat gage blocks of metal that have been super-finished to laboratory grade tolerances, eg., +/- 1 microinch or so, their contact area is about 3/8" x 1", with thicknesses determined during manufacture) are wrung together, they will be difficult to seperate. A stack of them is assembled from a combination of sizes (in this case, the thicknesses) to yield a very specific stack-height. A stack of them can be held suspended by any of the blocks in the stack without the stacked blocks falling apart if they are wrung together correctly. I always thought this was due to the air literally being squeezed out of the contacting surfaces and the air pressure forcing (read: keeping) the blocks in 'contact'. Is this Casimir Effect related?

  95. Would be more impressive by Gabrill · · Score: 1

    If they demonstrated the effect on wood. That would differentiate this from already well known magnetic levitation. Maybe a chess piece or balsa wood glider?

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  96. So now we finally know... by volpe · · Score: 1

    what causes Teflon to stick to the pan.

  97. Re:I, for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh, again, because this is slashdot and reading articles from a week ago means you had to have been able to read a week ago.

    --same guy that posted GP