Fields other than the photon field in the Casimir effect?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Casimir effect, specifically the dominance of zero-point energy from the photon field over other fields, such as the electron-positron field. It establishes that the energy cutoff for the photon field is significantly higher than that for massive particles, which diminishes their contribution to the Casimir attraction. The argument concludes that only neutrinos, being less massive and neutral, could potentially contribute, but their effect is exponentially suppressed due to boundary conditions imposed by conducting plates. Thus, the Casimir effect is primarily explained through the photon field.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Casimir effect and its implications in quantum field theory.
  • Familiarity with zero-point energy and its role in quantum mechanics.
  • Knowledge of boundary conditions in quantum fields, particularly for conducting plates.
  • Basic concepts of particle physics, including the properties of photons and neutrinos.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical formulation of the Casimir effect using quantum field theory.
  • Explore the implications of zero-point energy in various quantum systems.
  • Study the properties and behavior of neutrinos in quantum field interactions.
  • Investigate the role of boundary conditions in quantum mechanics and their effects on particle fields.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum mechanics and field theory, as well as researchers interested in the implications of the Casimir effect and zero-point energy in experimental physics.

bcrowell
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
6,723
Reaction score
431
Can anyone tell me if the following argument correctly explains why the Casimir effect, as observed in experiments to date, can be explained by arguments that consider only the zero-point energy associated with the photon field, while ignoring other fields?

Between two parallel, conducting plates separated by a distance L, the longest wavelength you can have is essentially L. (Let's not worry about factors of 2.) Then the low-energy cutoff on the modes of oscillation of the EM field is hc/\lambda. This cut-off energy sets the scale for the zero-point energy, which determines the strength of the Casimir attraction between the plates.

On other other hand, suppose you have a particle of mass m. It seems like the experiments have been done with L in the micrometer range, and then if we're talking about the electron-positron field, the low-energy cutoff is obtained when the particles are nonrelativistic, so it occurs at E=p^2/2m, which (again ignoring factors of 2) comes out to be (hc/\lambda)(v/c). Therefore it's down by a factor of v/c compared to the energy cutoff for photons.

To get the field of massive particles to contribute comparably to the photon field, you could try looking for less massive particles, which might be relativistic even when their wavelengths were comparable to L. But the only particles we have that fit this description are neutrinos, I think, and since they're electrically neutral, the existence of the conducting parallel plates doesn't impose any boundary condition on them.

Is this right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, you need to impose boudary conditions on the relevant field. But for massive fields, the effect will fall of exponentially like
exp(-L/lambda) where Lambda is the Compton wavelength.

Suppose you have just one plate. Then that modifies the boundary conditions of the field there and a distance L away where you wan to put the other plate, the effect is already exponentially suppressed by exp(-L/lambda). So, putting the other plate there will always yield an exponentially small effect if L >> lambda.
 
Thanks, Count Iblis, that's very helpful!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
840
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K