Scientific American says vacuums are not empty. So casimer effect producing something from nothing is pure speculation:
taken from:
http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html
(the above site endorses the Bib bang theory which I think is an invalid theory)
Also, consider this information from a website that explains that a vacuum is not truly empty and the author seems to indicate that the first law is not violated (the first law is the law of the conservation of mass and energy):
"WHY A COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT SEEMS INEVITABLE
In this section we discuss the form that the vacuum energy-momentum tensor must take, and why the predicted value of vac is unreasonably high (Weinberg 1989; for nontechnical introductions see Abbott 1988 and Freedman 1990).
To a particle physicist, the word ``vacuum'' has a different meaning than to an astronomer. Rather than denoting ``empty space,'' vacuum is used to mean the ground state (state of lowest energy) of a theory. In general, this ground state must be Lorentz invariant, that is, must look the same to all observers. If this is the case, then the stress-energy- momentum tensor Fv of vacuum must be proportional (in any locally inertial frame) simply to the diagonal Minkowski metric, diag(-1, 1, 1, 1), because this is the only 4 x 4 matrix that is invariant under Lorentz boosts in special relativity (as can easily be checked). As is well known, a perfect fluid with density and pressure P has the stress-energy-momentum tensor diag(, P, P, P). (see, e.g. Misner et al. 1973; in this section, we choose units with c = 1). Comparing to the Minkowski metric, it follows that (a) ``vacuum'' is a perfect fluid, and (b) it has the equation of state
4.
Not by coincidence, this equation of state is precisely the one that, under application of the first law of thermodynamics, causes vac to remain constant if a volume of vacuum is adiabatically compressed or expanded: PdV work provides exactly the amount of mass-energy to fill the new volume dV to the same density vac. Thus vac remains truly a constant. Its relation to is simply = 8G vac."
taken from:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Carroll/Carroll2.html
Here is some information from an interesting website regarding Casimir effect and zero point energy:
"Specifically, Sakharov suggested that gravity might be an induced effect brought about by changes in the zero-point energy of the vacuum, due to the presence of matter. If correct, gravity would then be understood as a variation on the Casimir theme, in which background zero-point-energy pressures were again responsible. Although Sakharov did not develop the concept much further, he did outline certain criteria such a theory would have to meet such as predicting the value of the gravitational constant G in terms of zero-point-energy parameters. The approach to gravity outlined by Sakharov has recently been addressed in detail, and with positive reults, again by the author. (7) The gravitational interaction is shown to begin with the fact that a particle situated in the sea of electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations develops a "jitter" motion, or ZITTERBEWEGUNG as it is called. When there are two or more particles they are each influenced not only by the fluctuating background field, but also by the fields generated by the other particles, all similarly undergoing ZITTERBEWEGUNG motion, and the inter-particle coupling due to these fields results in the attractive gravitational force.
Gravity can thus be understood as a kind of long-range Casimir force. Because of its electromagnetic unerpinning, gravitational theory in this form constitutes what is known in the literature as an "already-unified" theory. The major benefit of the new approach is that it provides a basis for understanding various characteristics of the gravitational interaction hitherto unexplained. These include the relative weakness of the gravitational force under ordinary circumstances (shown to be due to the fact that the coupling constant G depends inversely on the large value of the high-frequency cutoff of the zero-point-fluctuation spectrum); the existence of positive but not negative mass (traceable to a positive-only kinetic-energy basis for the mass parameter); and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded (a consequence of the fact that quantum zero-point-fluctuation "noise" in general cannot be shielded, a factor which in other contexts sets a lower limit on the detectability of electromagnetic signals).
As to where the ubiquitous electromagnetic zero-point energy comes from, historically there have been two schools of thought: existence by fiat as part of the boundary conditions of the universe, or generation by the (quantum-fluctuation) motion of charged particles that constitute matter. A straightforward calculation of the latter possibility has recently been carried out by the author. (8) It was assumed that zero-point fields drive particle motion, and that the sum of particle motions throughout the universe in turn generate the zero-point fields, in the form of a self-regenerating cosmological feedback cycle not unlike a cat chasing its own tail. This self-constistent approach yielded the known zero-point field distribution, thus indicating a dynamic-generation process for the zero-point fields. Now as to the question of why quantum theory. Although knowledge of zero-point fields emerged from quantum physics as that subject matured, Professor Timothy Boyer at City College in New York took a contrary view.
He bagan asking in the late sixties what would happen if we took classical physics as it was and introduced a background of random, classical fluctuating fields of the zero-point spectral distribution type. Could such an all-classical model reproduce quantum theory in its entirety, and might this possibility have been overlooked by the founders of quantum theory who were not aware of the existence of such a fluctuating background field? (First, it is clear from the previously-mentioned cosmological calculation that such a field distribution would reproduce itself on a continuing dynamic basis.) Boyer began by tackling the problems that led to the introduction of quantum theory in the first place, such as the blackbody radiation curve and the photoelectric effect. One by one the known quantum results were reproduced by this upstart neoclassical approach, now generally referred to as Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) (9), as contrasted to quantum electrodynamics (QED). Indeed, Milonni at Los Alamos noted in a review of the Boyer work that had physicists in 1900 thought of taking this route, they would probably have been more comfortable with this classical approach than with Planck's hypothesis of the quantum, and one can only speculate as to the direction that physics would have taken then."
taken from:
http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html
Two theories regarding vacuums:
http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html
Consider this information from a website:
"Third, the Casimir Effect appears to show the existence of virtual particles that exist in a perfect vacuum. An infinitesimal pressure has been measured within a laboratory vacuum, apparently from these ethereal particles (Baker, 1997). The virtual particles are sometimes further used to explain the origin of the universe. Thus it is said that a quantum mechanical fluctuation of virtual particles long ago gave rise to the big bang expansion. However, this origin explanation fails for at least two reasons. First, the big bang theory postulates no preexisting space or vacuum. Hence there would have been no place for virtual particles to fluctuate. Second, virtual particles, if real, form as matter and antimatter in equal amounts. However our universe appears to consist almost entirely of ordinary matter. Antimatter is distinctly rare."
taken from (also has larger discussion rewgarding quantum physics):
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
discussion of zero point energy from a website:
"Question #2: In expanding so rapidly there was a conversion of potential energy to the ZPE (what is the difference between zero-point energy and zero-point radiation?). This was not completed in two days but needed a longer period of time, about 3000 years (?)
Setterfield: Please distinguish here between what was happening to the material within the cosmos, and the very fabric of the cosmos itself, the structure of space. The expansion cooled the material enclosed within the vacuum allowing the formation of stars and galaxies. By contrast, the fabric of space was being stretched. This stretching gave rise to a tension, or stress within the fabric of space itself, just like a rubber band that has been expanded. This stress is a form of potential energy. Over the complete time since creation until recently, that stress or tension has exponentially changed its form into the zero-point energy (ZPE). The ZPE manifests itself as a special type of radiation, the zero-point radiation (ZPR) which is comprised of electromagnetic fields, the zero-point-fields (ZPF). These fields give space its unique character."
taken from:
http://www.setterfield.org/other.htm
Discussion of Casimer effect from the same website:
"This links back to another query that you had, namely the reason for the speed of light in the vacuum. This speed, c, is related to the ZPE through the manifestation of virtual particle pairs in the paths of photons. As photons travel through the vacuum, there is a continual process of absorption of the photon by virtual particles, followed very shortly after by its re-emission as the virtual particle pairs annihilate. This process, while fast, does take a finite time to accomplish. Its akin to a runner going over hurdles. Between hurdles the runner maintains his maximum speed, but the hurdles impede progress. The more hurdles over a set distance, the longer it takes to complete the course. This is essentially the reason for the slowing of light in glass, or water etc. Atoms absorb photons, become excited, and then re-emit the photons of light. The denser the substance, the slower light travels.
Importantly, the strength of the ZPE governs the number of virtual particles in the paths of photons. It has been shown that when the energy density of the ZPE is decreased, (as in the Casimir effect where the energy density of the vacuum is reduced between two parallel metal plates), then lightspeed will be faster. The reason is that there are fewer virtual particles per unit length for light photons to interact with. It has been shown that this process can account for the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of the vacuum. A summary of some of this can be found in an article by S. Barnett in Nature, Vol.344 (1990) p.289. A more comprehensive study by Latorre et al in Nuclear Physics B Vol.437 (1995), p.60-82 stated in conclusion that "Whether photons move faster or slower than c [the current speed of light] depends only on the lower or higher energy density of the modified vacuum respectively". Thus a vacuum with a lower energy density for the ZPE will result in a higher speed of light than a vacuum where the energy density of the ZPE is higher."
taken from:
http://www.setterfield.org/other.htm
MY COMMENTARY
It seems as if there is a divergence of opinion regarding the source of zero point energy and the casimir effect. I would say at this point in time our knowledge of physics is too limited to leap to the conclusion that energy or particles appear from nowhere/nothing. I would also say that our instruments we use to observe/measure data from physics are blunt considering the size and speed of the material we are measuring. So to jump to conclusions which contradict more established science at this point is premature.
Next, to those who say the law of the conservation or matter and enrgy is being violated currently, I would say that if the law of the conservation of matter and energy is being violated then where is all the new matter (and energy) going? Are creationist sticking new matter and energy under their mattresses or burying it in landfills created by a vast creationist conspiracy?
Lastly, as I demonstated logic is being violated by those who say nothing created something. Also, nobody has given any solid evidence to show that nothing has any causal power. I also showed that using inductive logic and science that those who wish nothing to have causal power including creative power are making a counter claim to the best evidence at this time (for example, the law of the conservation of mass and energy).
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-23-2004]
For something (most likely) easily explained, laziness hits me sometimes.
™ Version 4.2