Casimir effect and vacuum energy and a bit of relativity....

  • I
  • Thread starter asimov42
  • Start date
  • #26
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,454
3,343
this is a hijack of the thread
... because what you say is not connected to the Casimir effect.
As @A. Neumaier has pointed out on numerous occasions
and in particular here, with the connection to the Casimir effect pointed out here.
 
  • #27
230
15
... because what you say is not connected to the Casimir effect.

and in particular here, with the connection to the Casimir effect pointed out here.
Thank you!
 
  • #28
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,356
764
I've printed the papers by Jaffe and Demystifier, since I'm very interested in this Casimir-description. I think I get the reasoning, but I'm still wondering why the QFT 'vacuum fluctuation' calculation yields the same answer as the Van Der Waals calculation for the Casimir force. Is there any simple/intuitive way of seeing why these two seemingly completely different approaches lead to the same answer?
 
  • #29
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,454
3,343
why the QFT 'vacuum fluctuation' calculation yields the same answer as the Van Der Waals calculation for the Casimir force.
Perturbation theory in quantum field theory always produces results expressed in terms of vacuum expectation values, no matter which problem is treated. Thus the coincidence of the results is not surprising. What is surprising is only that many people think something significant is expressed by talking about these vacuum expectation values in terms of vacuum fluctuations.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
25,132
8,243
why these two seemingly completely different approaches
Why do you think they are completely different? In both cases, the force arises through the boundary conditions. The issue comes about when one tries to paint a mental picture of the results of this calculation.
 
  • #31
stevendaryl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
8,401
2,580
Why do you think they are completely different? In both cases, the force arises through the boundary conditions. The issue comes about when one tries to paint a mental picture of the results of this calculation.
If I understand what the two approaches to deriving the Casimir force are, they sure seem very different:
  1. Treat the electromagnetic field classically, but assume that the charges inside the metal plates are undergoing random internal motion. Then you get a Van der Waals type force between the plates.
  2. Treat the plates classically (as just boundary conditions for the electromagnetic field), and treat the field modes of the E&M field quantum mechanically.
The two approaches seem to be focusing on completely different subsystems, and are making completely different approximations about what to treat classically and what to treat quantum mechanically.
 
  • Like
Likes Haelfix, haushofer and vanhees71
  • #32
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,356
764
Why do you think they are completely different? In both cases, the force arises through the boundary conditions. The issue comes about when one tries to paint a mental picture of the results of this calculation.
Well, I have to think about that, but the VdW-force I associate with dipole-interactions, giving a 1/r^6 law. For me that's really different from 'vacuum interactions' as described by Feynman diagrams.

-edit Steven's post above me states my issue a lot clearer, I guess.
 
  • #33
Haelfix
Science Advisor
1,951
214
Just so people are clear, this business is deeply controversial in the literature and not settled. There are quite a few subtleties involved, and really requires going through the entire analysis with a scalpel.
 
  • #34
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,356
764
Just to make sure i get it: in Jaffe's paper fig.3, those external legs are the conducting charges of the plates, right?

What I still can't reconcile is the dependancy of the Casimir force on the distance between the plates, i.e. eqn.(3) v.s. the VdW expression between eqn.5 and 6 (top of page 5). Shouldn't one expect F~1/d^6? What am I missing?
 
  • #35
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
25,132
8,243
Shouldn't one expect F~1/d^6? What am I missing?
The field from a charged plane is not the same as a field from a charged point.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and haushofer
  • #36
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,356
764
Ok, that's something I definitely missed, thanks! :P
 
  • #37
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
10,947
3,657
Just to make sure i get it: in Jaffe's paper fig.3, those external legs are the conducting charges of the plates, right?
No. Those are dielectric functions ##\epsilon## treated as a classical non-dynamic background field.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
10,947
3,657
If I understand what the two approaches to deriving the Casimir force are, they sure seem very different:
  1. Treat the electromagnetic field classically, but assume that the charges inside the metal plates are undergoing random internal motion. Then you get a Van der Waals type force between the plates.
  2. Treat the plates classically (as just boundary conditions for the electromagnetic field), and treat the field modes of the E&M field quantum mechanically.
The two approaches seem to be focusing on completely different subsystems, and are making completely different approximations about what to treat classically and what to treat quantum mechanically.
Or
3. Treat both charges and EM field as quantum dynamical mutually correlated fields.
Eq. (14) in my https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.03291 explains the equivalence of the 3 pictures in a very simple way.
 
  • #39
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
10,947
3,657
Just so people are clear, this business is deeply controversial in the literature and not settled. There are quite a few subtleties involved, and really requires going through the entire analysis with a scalpel.
That's exactly why I have written
https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.03291
 
  • #42
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
10,947
3,657
Sorry all for over-advertising my most recent paper, it's probably irritating. o0)
But I have written it precisely with intention to answer the kind of questions which are asked here, so I couldn't sleep well if I didn't point that out to you. :smile:
 
  • #43
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
15,701
7,027
Well, it's self-advertisement for something the readers can download for free. That's ok, I'd say :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #45
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
15,701
7,027
Congratulations! :partytime:
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and Demystifier
  • #47
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
10,947
3,657
At a recent conference I have presented an invited talk entitled

The origin of Casimir effect: Vacuum energy or van der Waals force?

Abstract:
In the literature on Casimir effect there are two approaches that make the same measurable predictions but offer very different explanations on the conceptual level. According to one approach the effect has origin in vacuum energy, while according to another it has origin in van der Waals forces. To resolve the resulting conceptual confusion, I discuss the conceptual aspects of Casimir effect from several different points of view. This includes fundamental particle physics (general principles of quantum electrodynamics), condensed matter physics (electrodynamics in continuous media) and non-relativistic quantum mechanics (a toy model with only a few degrees of freedom). All points of view lead to the conclusion that, at the fundamental microscopic level, Casimir effect originates from van der Waals forces, while the vacuum energy approach is an effective theory valid only at the macroscopic level.

The pdf of the presentation is attached.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and bhobba

Related Threads on Casimir effect and vacuum energy and a bit of relativity....

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
408
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
882
Replies
13
Views
1K
Top