Casimir effect, where is the energy loss?

ArthurDent
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Firstly my knowledge of science is armchair tv level so any overly complicated explanations will be lost on me.

What is going on it terms energy conservation with the casimir effect.

As I understand it virtual particles created outside the plates have a greater range of wavelengths than those in the gap causing a pressure that pushes the plates together. But if the plates move then work is done and energy has been created, since you can't create energy where is the loss in this process to balance things out?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ArthurDent said:
But if the plates move then work is done and energy has been created, since you can't create energy where is the loss in this process to balance things out?

Someone had to put the two plates in their initial separated positions, and that required adding energy to the system; we're just getting that energy back when the plates move closer.

Suppose I show you two weights connected by a stretched spring. When I let go of the weights, the spring pulls them together, doing work. Where did that energy come from? It came from the work I did stretching the spring in the first place; it was already there as potential energy when I first showed you the experimental setup.
 
I'm not sure I understand your answer.

Nugatory said:
Someone had to put the two plates in their initial separated positions, and that required adding energy to the system; we're just getting that energy back when the plates move closer.

Why would you need to add energy to the system to put the plates into position?
As I see it you're just converting/using existing energy to move the plates into position.

Nugatory said:
Suppose I show you two weights connected by a stretched spring. When I let go of the weights, the spring pulls them together, doing work. Where did that energy come from? It came from the work I did stretching the spring in the first place; it was already there as potential energy when I first showed you the experimental setup.

I kind of get the idea that its recovering the amount of energy needed to overcome the plates gravitational attraction in order to push them apart. Is this what you mean?
 
ArthurDent said:
I'm not sure I understand your answer.
Why would you need to add energy to the system to put the plates into position?
As I see it you're just converting/using existing energy to move the plates into position.
Suppose I start with the two plates touching. If there's a force that draws them together then I cannot get the system into the plates-separated state without doing work, which shows up as an increase in the potential energy as I separate the plates to set up your initial condition. And if I start with the plates widely separated and bring them closer to set up the experiment, then the potential energy was there all along. Either way, energy conversation works out.

I kind of get the idea that its recovering the amount of energy needed to overcome the plates gravitational attraction in order to push them apart. Is this what you mean?
Pretty much, yes.
None of this has anything to do with quantum mechanics or the Casimir effect; it's just how forces, potential energy, and energy conservation work in ordinary classical physics.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top