Casimir Effect

  • Thread starter WhiteWolf
  • Start date
62
0
Ummm...I don't know if this is the best section for this... but... it is said that a negetive energy can be created through the quantum theory via the Casimir Effect. Here is what I know as fact. In 1948, a Dutch physicist known as Henrik Casimir discovered how this negative energy can be acquired. Take two large neutrally charged metal plates, and place them in a vacuum. There is no force between the two plates, as they are neutral. (Neglecting gravity) However, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the vacuum is filled with trillions upon trillions of particles and antiparticles, appearing and disappearing back into the vacuum. These particles are so quick to appear and disappear they are on the most part unobservable. Therefore they supposedly dont violate any laws of physics. (I personnally have a hard time swallowing that they dont violate the law of conservation of mass and energy) Anyway, these particles create a net attraction between the two plates. Casimir precidicted that this negative energy was measurable. People viewed this with extreme skepticism back in the day. But in 1958, physicist M. J. Sparnaay observed this effect in a controlled laboratory experiment, and it would match Casimir's predictions. For me, it sounds rather...iffy. Is there other info someone knows? Do you people think it is a bunch of bunk? Feedback is appriciated. Thanks.
 
374
0
WhiteWolf said:
Do you people think it is a bunch of bunk? Feedback is appriciated. Thanks.
No.

The casimir effect is well understood to be a 'real' consequence of 'virtual' actions.
 
3,761
8
WhiteWolf said:
Ummm...I don't know if this is the best section for this... but... it is said that a negetive energy can be created through the quantum theory via the Casimir Effect.
Ahum, negative energy ??? Please elaborate ?


These particles are so quick to appear and disappear they are on the most part unobservable. Therefore they supposedly dont violate any laws of physics. (I personnally have a hard time swallowing that they dont violate the law of conservation of mass and energy)
Yes they DO violate energy conservation. But that is allowed for a certain amount of time thanks to the uncertainty principle. This is one of the weird behaviours of quantum field theory (at least to our classical eyes). Read my journal on this since i have debated this issue many times: Read the second entry on this page:
https://www.physicsforums.com/journal.php?s=&action=view&journalid=13790&perpage=10&page=4 [Broken]
Do you people think it is a bunch of bunk? Feedback is appriciated. Thanks.
Most certainly not, the Casimir effect proves the existence of the virtual particle sea that is directly responsible for this effect.
The Casimir Effect

regards
marlon
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
738
For a classical analogy, look up the accoustical casimir effect. The principle is very similar, and quite interesting.
 

Rade

Here is the citation for the Casimir paper:

Casimir, H.B., ``On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates'', K. Ned. Akad.\ Wetensch. Proc., 51, 793-795, (1948).

A good summary of Casimir effect by Trang Nguyen and its use in modern technology is at this link--see summary below:
http://www.hep.caltech.edu/~phys199/lectures/lect5_6_cas.pdf

Of interest to me is the statement by Dr. Nguyen that Casimir effect can be either attractive or repulsive depending on geometry of interacting entities--

would not this lead to theoretical possibility of gravity (attractive) and antigravity (repulsive) interactions between two entities having different quantum wavefunction shapes ?

Casimir Effect and Vacuum Fluctuations
Trang T. Nguyen
Department of Physics and Astronomy,
Ohio University,
Spring 2003​
Conclusion
The Casimir effect has become the subject of diverse studies of general physical interest in variety of fields. It is equally interesting and important for Quantum Field Theory, Condensed Matter Physics, Gravitation, Astrophysics and cosmology, Atomic physics and Mathematical Physics. Currently the Casimir effect has been advanced as a new powerful test for hypothetical long-range interactions, including corrections to Newtonian gravitational law at small distances, predicted by the unified gauge theories, supersymmetry, supergravity and string theory. It is also gaining in technological importance in vital applications such as in nanoelectromechanical devices. Precision measurements of the Casimir force have led to an excellent agreement between the experiments by means of atomic force microscope and theory.
 
62
0
Thanks a bunch people, you all gave me more then I ever intended.

Oh and btw, when you asked me to elaborate on "negative energy", your guess is as good as mine, that was what the energy gained by the Casimir Effect was described as. Hey, I think Im not doing that bad for a sophmore in high school. :rofl:
 
16
0
the total energy of the free vaccum if taken to be 0 then still we can have creation of matter without violating the thermodynamics.
0=+1-1
ie. if we have a particle and antiparticle the energy is 0 and will be 0.
 
3,761
8
nabodit said:
the total energy of the free vaccum if taken to be 0 then still we can have creation of matter without violating the thermodynamics.
0=+1-1
ie. if we have a particle and antiparticle the energy is 0 and will be 0.
But there IS violation of energy-conservation going on. That is the whole point of being 'virtual' and that is also why these virtual pairs are a typical quantum-fields-thing. Beware, both the quantum as well as the fields part are essential here to be able to talk about virtual particles. Quantum because of the HUP, fields because of the particles being excitations of fields. If you only had the quantum part, you'd be talking about virtual states that are the transition between an initial and a final state.

marlon
 
62
0
nabodit said:
the total energy of the free vaccum if taken to be 0 then still we can have creation of matter without violating the thermodynamics.
0=+1-1
ie. if we have a particle and antiparticle the energy is 0 and will be 0.
But I though these particles can happen "occur" in any environment, not just an absolute vacuum, even witha vacuum, there is still radiation passing through it. (At least by any vacuum able to be created on Earth) If radiation passes through, then it affects these particles, if not, then it violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics. Not to mention what if a particle and an antiparticle are given the chance to collide, that creates more radiation in itself on an extremely small scale.
 
1,675
3
I'm really not an expert on virtual particles so someone please comment on the following assertions:

1) A virtual particle pair does not posess a net energy. If they did, then the
anhiliation would produce radiation, and it does not. Therefore, energy
conservation is not violated regardless of the time duration of the particle pair.

2) According to Hawking, if one of a virtual particle pair "falls into" a black hole,
the other particle becomes "real" and persistent. The one that fell in had the
effect of converying some negative energy density into the black hole, thus
shrinking it.
 
3,761
8
Antiphon said:
I'm really not an expert on virtual particles so someone please comment on the following assertions:

1) A virtual particle pair does not posess a net energy. If they did, then the
anhiliation would produce radiation, and it does not. Therefore, energy
conservation is not violated regardless of the time duration of the particle pair.
Yes they do posses a net energy, otherwise energy conservation would NOT be violated. And yes they can influence the physics of oher objects being present. Just look at the nature of the vacuum polarization process. Keep in mind that such virtual particles can arise from EM radiation. In the vacuum, this EM radiation, strong force, weak force,.. are NON ZERO. this is the clue of it all, together with the HUP allowing to violate energy conservation.

2) According to Hawking, if one of a virtual particle pair "falls into" a black hole,
the other particle becomes "real" and persistent. The one that fell in had the
effect of converying some negative energy density into the black hole, thus
shrinking it.
Err, can't a real particle have negative energy ? YES IT CAN. So what makes you so sure that the negative particle is absorbed into the black hole.

Besides, you are looking at it the wrong way. The created virtual pair can become real if there is enough energy available (provided by the black hole) to make it real, to give it a legitimate reason to exist, if you will

marlon
 
3,761
8
https://www.physicsforums.com/journal.php?s=&action=view&journalid=13790&perpage=10&page=4 [Broken]

marlon
 
Last edited by a moderator:
214
0
Can we say the Casimir-force is a consequence of virtual particles? I thought it is a consequence of the electromagnetic vacuum fluctuation. If we calculate the lowest energy state of a harmonic oscillation we get 1/2*h(bar)omega. And a virtual photon has energy E=h(bar)omega. So, what's wrong here? I mean the lowest state of harmonic oscillator is defined in that way, that there are no photons present.

Or are there two ways to explain the Casimir-effect?
 
Last edited:
3,761
8
Kruger said:
Can we say the Casimir-force is a consequence of virtual particles? I thought it is a consequence of the electromagnetic vacuum fluctuation.
The Casimir effect proves the existence of virtual particles, so the answer to your question is YES.

Also, yes, virtual particles come from the EM vaccuum fluctuations, but also from all of the other forces like the strong force ...

marlon
 
214
0
If the Casimir-Force is a consequence of virtual particles and electromagnetic vacuum fluctuation, why we just derive the force by sum over the different wave vectors k of the harmonic oscillator in ground state in and outside the plates? Is the em-vacuum fluctuation the same as the virtual particles?
 
1,675
3
marlon said:
Yes they do posses a net energy, otherwise energy conservation would NOT be violated. And yes they can influence the physics of oher objects being present. Just look at the nature of the vacuum polarization process. Keep in mind that such virtual particles can arise from EM radiation. In the vacuum, this EM radiation, strong force, weak force,.. are NON ZERO. this is the clue of it all, together with the HUP allowing to violate energy conservation.
Of course they exist and influence other objects around them. This
is not in dispute. But why is there no energy released on their anhilation?

The simple explanation is that the paricle pair posesss no net energy.
That way there's nothing to release on anhilation.

Err, can't a real particle have negative energy ? YES IT CAN. So what makes you so sure that the negative particle is absorbed into the black hole.
I'm not sure. Stephen Hawking is sure- I'm wondering why as well.
 
Last edited:
214
0
But why is there no energy released on their anhilation?
Listen, HUP says that during a short period of time d(t) a particle with energy d(E) can exist in that way that d(E)d(t)=h(bar)/2 is sadisfied. This particle can acutally be a virtual photon. During its lifetime it can make following process: gamma->e+e-. With real particle this process is not possible in free space. Virtual particles can make this process. And remember, if this proces occur the virtual positron can be seen as a particle going backwards in time with negative momentum. Thus if the photn has momentum k and the electron momentum e then the positron has momentum e-k. The virtual electron and positron pair and also the virtual photon at begining have all a exact defined momentum and thus (position-momentum uncertainty) can be everywhere in space. The virtual e- and e+ can annihilate (remember their position is not well known) to a virtual photon. The virtual photon just gives its energy back to the "vacuum" (energy-time HUP).

The virtual photon and all virtual particles are off mass shell. They don't obey Einstein's momentum-energy relation: E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2. Thus virtual photons (always having mass = 0) can have energy u and momentum k such that u^2>p^2c^2.
 
1,675
3
Kruger said:
The virtual e- and e+ can annihilate (remember their position is not well known) to a virtual photon. The virtual photon just gives its energy back to the "vacuum" (energy-time HUP).
I appreciate this Kruger. But couldn't it be said that this is bookeeping? If energy
is briefly "borrowed and returned" in such a way that it can never be seen as energy
(i.e. it is impossible to detect the energy of the virtual photon) then I question
whether energy was "borrowed" in the first place.

Let me make a classical analogy. In the case of total internal reflection, one can say
that beyond the critical angle the angle of refraction becomes complex and therefore
there is refraction into a complex space. This is mathematically correct. But it would
be incorrect to interpret it as a physical space. In the physical space, the
energy become non-propogating and hovers near the interface decaying exponentially
away from it.

Could it not be that the energy "borrowed" by a virtual particle is of this nature?
Sure it has units of energy but isn't possibly a form of "evenecsence"- physically real
to be sure but NOT to be physically interpeted on the basis of the terminology or units
involved?
 
Last edited:
Here are some questions for you?

If you took a particle with mass and a spin of 1/2 and had the ability to instantly subtract the particle to 1 dimensional space, Would this particle still have spin?

Next, Would the particle that now was reduced to 1 dimension still be called by the same name?

Now the same questions but with increasing dimensions with the exception of the dimension you already concluded the particle to exist in.

I thought that I would bend your minds for a bit.

Gerald L. Blakley
 
462
0
I have a question I need answered after reading about Hawking radiation. Is it correct to think virtual particles can be made 'real' if you apply a force on them to pull them apart? So if I had a large enough electric field, I could in theory pull a virtual electron and positron apart before they annihilated?
 
214
0
Listen, they have no favorite position in space, the virtual particles. One particle can be everywhere in space and its antiparticle to (of course I speak of virtual ones). But If you apply a strong enough electric field a virtual particle can of get real. But do not think you can pull them appart.
 
319
0
marlon said:
The Casimir effect proves the existence of virtual particles, so the answer to your question is YES.

Also, yes, virtual particles come from the EM vaccuum fluctuations, but also from all of the other forces like the strong force ...

marlon

I don't know whether you yourself are a proponent of supersymmetry but the real question is how is the symmetry broken ?
 
319
0
roger said:
I don't know whether you yourself are a proponent of supersymmetry but the real question is how is the symmetry broken ?
could anybody please shed some light on this ?
 
334
1
The casimir effect is fascinating.

It is being used to try to explain remarkable phenomena including:

1) the stability of compact extra dimensions
2) sonoluminesence
3) inflation
4) cosological constant
5) Inter D-brane stresses


admittedly some areas are proving more succesful than others - but the applications are certainly exciting and broad.
 

Related Threads for: Casimir Effect

  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
672
Replies
2
Views
772

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top