Undergrad "Breaking the loop" in Casimir force?

Click For Summary
The discussion explores the Casimir force, emphasizing the complex interactions between electrons and electromagnetic fields in the gap between two plates. A thought experiment is proposed, suggesting the replacement of one plate with a "smart antenna" that mimics the field pattern of the original plate, potentially allowing for increased force by ramping up the intensity of the applied field. The assumptions include the independence of frequency and mode interactions with the metal and a monotonically increasing force with field intensity. However, concerns are raised about the feasibility of this substitution due to the directional properties of the Poynting vector. The conversation highlights the intricate nature of the Casimir effect and the challenges in manipulating it.
Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
775
The Casimir force involves a complicated interaction between electrons in one plate, the electromagnetic field in the gap, and the electrons in the other plate. In this process, it makes no sense to talk of cause and effect, since all entities affect each other all the time.

Would it make sense to imagine a thought experiment where we try to do a "man in the middle" trick, so to speak? Let's consider one single frequency and mode that is known to contribute to the attractive force. We know the associated field pattern that would exist at the surface of plate A. Can we just get rid of plate B, and substitute a "smart antenna" that would project the same field pattern onto the surface of plate A?

Presumably, this model would predict the same force as before, which would, of course, be minuscule. But now we can ramp up the intensity (photon number) of the applied field and achieve arbitrarily strong forces.

One assumption here is that each frequency and mode interacts with the metal independently of all others. This seems reasonable to me, but is it true? Another assumption is that the force would increase monotonically as we ramp up the field, which also seems reasonable. Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Most likely you will be unable to do the substitution with far-field antenna because "smart antenna" would have "Poynting vector" pointing from the inside of plate A.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K