Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Casimir Effect.

  1. Jul 21, 2009 #1
    Can anyone explain the casimir effect to me? I've only just got back to reading parallel worlds and it's mentioned quite alot, yet i have no idea what it is. Though i think it may have something to do with vacuum energy.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 21, 2009 #2

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Welcome to PhysicsForums, eimos!

    Please check out this and other similar threads: Casimir Effect

    It may also be helpful to look to Wikipedia and other similar spots. I would then suggest returning to this thread for specific followup questions. :smile:
     
  4. Jul 21, 2009 #3
    I have a different take on this: - the vacuum of space is full of radiation, practically the whole electromagnetic spectrum. When you put in your two plates, at a close spacing, the space between them can only contain wavelengths of a half-wave that is less than the spacing.
    Thus the plates have lots of momentum transfer on the outside, from real and virtual EM and little on the inside. A net force pushing them together.
    This explains why the plates have to be close together, and why the force reduces as you move them apart.
    This says little about virtual particles.
     
  5. Jul 21, 2009 #4

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Map19, I think I know what you are trying to say, but I think it got mangled. For example, the vacuum of space is most assuredly not "full of radiation".
     
  6. Jul 21, 2009 #5
    Here is an example of the Casmir effect causing an attractive force between two warships (not warpships) close broadside to broadside at sea.
    Since we are now realizing that the Casimir effect can manifest itself under entirely classical circumstances, it is reasonable to wonder whether any observation of it has ever been reported on a macroscopic scale. The answer is not only affirmative but also fascinating. As reported in the professional physics literature in 1995, an entirely classical, that is, non-quantum, treatment of the Casimir force is all is needed to explain the mysterious attractive force between two parallel, rolling ships at sea with no wind and a building swell sailors were being warned about as far back as the early 19th century. By treating the two ships similarly to two atoms immersed in an ocean of random waves, one finds that, in analogy to the van der Waals force of chemical physics, such two vessels will also attract. (From http://www.interstellartechcorp.com/phyTheoretical.html
     
  7. Jul 21, 2009 #6
    the vacuum of space is most assuredly not "full of radiation"
    I disagree. From the context you can see that I was talking EM. Maybe stronger in some places and weaker in others, but EM never dies.
     
  8. Jul 22, 2009 #7

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    From "Interstellar Technologies"? Are you sure that's a reputable site?
     
  9. Jul 22, 2009 #8

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You don't get to disagree. This is not a matter of opinion.

    EM radiation is a very specific thing: far-field solutions to Maxwell's equations. Space is most assuredly not filled with this, and if you shield against it, you still have Casimir forces.
     
  10. Jul 22, 2009 #9

    Born2bwire

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Exactly, we could always enclose a volume of vacuum with reflectors on the exterior surface and absorbers on the interior, ensuring that radiation does not flow into the volume and any existing radiation inside will be dissipated. The Casimir effect can be explained by the change in the vacuum energy that results from the fluctuations of electromagnetic fields (without any real photons present) but it has also been shown to be the product of current and charge fluctuations on and within the scatterers themselves (Schwinger). Or, as originally formulated by Casimir and Polder, the effect is a result of relativistic effects. The vacuum energy and fluctuations do not need to be brought into the theory of the Casimir force at all. R. L. Jaffe has an interesting paper that discusses the ramifications (or more specifically the lack there of) of the Casimir effect in terms of what it can prove about its mechanisms. Jaffe is also part of the EGJK group that has developed some interesting methods of calculating the Casimir force.
     
  11. Jul 22, 2009 #10
    Posted by Bob S
    Here is an example of the Casmir effect causing an attractive force between two warships (not warpships) close broadside to broadside at sea.
    One of my neighbors is a PhD physicist who was a naval commander before retirement. He says there definitely is an attractive "force" between two ships when they are very close, and it is attributed to the relatively calmer wave structure between them.
     
  12. Jul 22, 2009 #11
    I cringe at classical "analogies" of quantum mechanical principles. They might be OK in popular literature but in the end they more often mislead than lead. Furthermore I think a majority of scientists fall prey to the same mistake. I believe it is grossly unscientific to assume the theories we've devised solely to predict the average behavior of many tiny machines (particle interactions) must unquestionably be assumed to be the founding axioms for theories designed to predict the behavior of a single one of those little machines. This includes the ideas of space-time, manifolds, continuums, dimensions, and yes, even the idea of non-integer values. All of those things we learned from observing classical phenomena (average behavior of many machines). It also includes pilot wave/Bohmian stuff. I'm not saying the universe is discrete in the sense that most think of "discrete", but it is discrete in that an interval doesn't exist unless there are events at each end (and saying it does exists is clearly unscientific because you can't measure or detect such an interval). You can't have the concept of dimension unless there are multiple intervals that happen to interact with, for example, Euclidean transforms, causing us to picture something we call "dimensions". "Dimensions" are an interpretation of the behavior of multiple intervals, and have nothing to do with the idea of a single interval. So any classical analogy misleads our understanding of a particle interactions. Now it may be that the Casimir effect might be somewhat classical (an effect related to many interactions), but from what I understand of it, it isn't.
     
  13. Jul 22, 2009 #12

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    And the fact your neighbor used to be in the Navy makes "Interstellar Technologies" reputable exactly why?
     
  14. Jul 22, 2009 #13
    It's not so easy. Any "aborber" must absorb a full quantum of energy; otherwise it will just re-radiate it. If the total amount of energy at a certain frequency is less than one quantum, how do you "absorb" it?

    I'm not sure you can experimentally disprove the claim that the vacuum is full of classical e-m energy. Some people say it's a "fact", but I don't know how you would prove it either way.
     
  15. Jul 22, 2009 #14

    Born2bwire

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Who cares? It's a thought experiment in regards to map19's statements. There is a background level radiation in the universe but it is not assumed to exist in the calculation of Casimir effects. The vacuum fluctuations that can be used as a means of calculating the Casimir effects are not directly observable. There are no photons and the expectation of the field values are zero. These are different from the background radiation.
     
  16. Jul 22, 2009 #15
    I don't know what you mean when you say "who cares?". You suggested a thought experiment and I offered the opinion that your thought experiment wouldn't work. Do you think I'm wrong or are you just saying you don't care if it works or not?

    I would say that I care at least to the extent of being interested in whether or not I raised a valid rebuttal to your thought experiment.
     
  17. Jul 22, 2009 #16

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Note that your statement is different than map19's.

    Just out of curiosity, how many of the people here who are attempting to explain the Casimir effect have calculated it themselves, and how many have read about it in popularizations?
     
  18. Jul 22, 2009 #17
    I actually knew that.

    But more to the point, in re-reading the thread, I see that I was responding equally well to your point about space being "most assuredly not" full of radiation; Bob S merely gave a better, more operational version of the same claim.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2009
  19. Jul 22, 2009 #18
    From Bob S
    One of my neighbors is a PhD physicist who was a naval commander before retirement. He says there definitely is an attractive "force" between two ships when they are very close, and it is attributed to the relatively calmer wave structure between them.
    Originally Posted by Vanadium 50
    From "Interstellar Technologies"? Are you sure that's a reputable site?
    (My neighbor is the only person I know who can write out the proof of the Brachistochrone problem w/o referring to his book collection. He is very sharp.) This effect, whether due to true Casmir forces or not, is taught to graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. This has nothing to do with the trustworthyness of Interstallar Technologies.
    Here is another version from Chemistry Daily
    http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Casimir_effect:
    An effect analogous to the Casimir effect was observed by 18th century French sailors. Where two ships are rocking from side to side in conditions with a strong swell but light wind, and the ships come closer together than roughly 40 m, destructive interference eliminates the swell between the ships. The calm sea between the ships has a lower energy density than the swell to either side of the ships, creating a pressure that can push the ships closer together. If they get too close together, the ships' rigging can become entangled. As a countermeasure, a handbook from the early 1800s recommends that each ship should send out a boat rowed by 10 to 20 sailors to physically pull the ships apart.
    Here is another from http://scienceweek.com/2004/sa041119-6.htm (see ref 5.)
    3) Although the Casimir effect is deeply rooted in the quantum theory of electrodynamics, there are analogous effects in classical physics. A striking example was discussed in 1836, in P. C. Caussee's L'Album du Marin (The Album of the Mariner)(5). Caussee reported a mysteriously strong attractive force that can arise between two ships floating side by side -- a force that can lead to disastrous consequences. A physical explanation for this force was offered only recently by Boersma (1996), who suggested that it originates in the radiation pressure of water waves acting differently on the opposite sides of the ships. His argument goes as follows: the spectrum of possible wave modes around the two ships forms a continuum (any arbitrary wave-vector is allowed); but between the vessels their opposing sides impose boundary conditions on the wave modes, restricting the allowed values of the component of the wave-vector that is normal to the ships' surfaces. This discreteness created in the spectrum of wave modes results in a local redistribution of modes in the region between the ships, with the consequence that there is a smaller radiation pressure between the ships than outside them.

    References (abridged):

    1. Casimir, H. B. G. Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. 51, 793-795 (1948).

    2. Bordag, M., Mohideen, U. & Mostepanenko, V. M. Phys. Rep. 353, 1-205 (2001).

    3. Kenneth, O., Klich, I., Mann, A. & Rezen, M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 033001 (2002).

    4. Boyer, T. H. Phys. Rev. A 9, 2078-2084 (1974).

    5. Caussee, P. C. L'Album du Marin (Mantes, Charpentier, 1836).
     
  20. Jul 22, 2009 #19
    Sorry, I meant Born2BWire, not Bob S.
     
  21. Jul 23, 2009 #20

    Born2bwire

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    /me raises hand for calculations.

    Any kind of radiation will require photons, there would not be any energy levels less than a quantum. map19's original contention was that actual radiation was a factor in the Casimir force. But this is not assumed in its derivations. The radiation pressure from EM radiation is a separate and known phenomenon. When we calculate the Casimir effects, we are assuming a quantum vacuum as our background medium. If we were to ensure this by having some mythical absorbing box encasing our vacuum, this could be modeled as a boundary condition. To any excited waves and fields inside the box, the medium would be like an infinite vacuum since there would be no reflections off of the absorbers. The Casimir force can be calculated as the result of current and charge fluctuations in and on the scatterers. These fluctuations are akin to the quantum vacuum fluctuations that were used to model the force in Casimir's paper, following the suggestion by Bohr. There are theoretically perfect absorbing boundaries that have been derived for EM waves, like the perfectly matched layer. Any one of these will not affect the waves and fields on the interior. To the interior, it is like being in an infinite medium. As such, such an absorbing box would not affect the current and charge fluctuations on the scatterers and thus would not affect the Casimir energy or force calculations. However, the absorbing box would at least ensure that the results are not from radiating waves.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Casimir Effect.
  1. Casimir effect (Replies: 4)

  2. Casimir effect (Replies: 1)

  3. Casimir Effect (Replies: 1)

  4. Casimir Effect (Replies: 5)

  5. The Casimir effect (Replies: 1)

Loading...