Help with deriving the Casimir Effect?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the derivation of the Casimir effect, specifically the calculation of energy density between two parallel plates and the introduction of a third plate to eliminate infinities. The user successfully derived the ground state energy and energy densities using massless field theory and summation techniques, ultimately leading to the force expression. The confusion arises from the addition of energy densities between the plates, which the user seeks clarification on.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory concepts, particularly the Casimir effect.
  • Familiarity with energy density calculations in quantum mechanics.
  • Knowledge of summation techniques and Taylor expansions.
  • Proficiency in manipulating equations involving limits and derivatives.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Casimir effect in detail, focusing on energy density calculations.
  • Learn about the implications of introducing additional plates in Casimir effect scenarios.
  • Research the mathematical techniques for handling infinities in quantum field theory.
  • Explore the physical interpretations of energy densities and forces in quantum systems.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, graduate students in quantum mechanics, and researchers interested in quantum field theory and the Casimir effect will benefit from this discussion.

21joanna12
Messages
126
Reaction score
2
I am at the very last part of a relatively long derivation of the Casimir effect, and I just don't understand the final step D:

So far, I have derived the ground state energy to be \langle 0| \hat{H} |0\rangle = \delta (0) \int _{-\infty}^{\infty} dp \frac{1}{2} E

And for a massless field using Plank units and using E=\sqrt{p^2+m^2}, then E=p. Between the two parallel plates, only virtual particles of discrete p can exist which are p=\frac{h}{\lambda} and using \hbar=1 and \lambda=\frac{2d}{n} where d is the distance between the parallel plates. This means that the summation becomes \frac{\pi}{2d} \sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}n which I find by assuming \sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}n=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}ne^{-an}=-\frac{d}{da}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}e^{-an} Which gave the sum to infinity of \frac{e^a}{e^a-1)^2

Using the Taylor expansions, the first two terms of this result are \frac{1}{a^2}-\frac{1}{12} and subsequent terms are irrelevant because I take a\rightarrow 0 for the sum to become the sum of all natural numbers. Placing \frac{a\pi}{d} for a, this gives the sum \frac{\pi}{d}\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}n. So when I put this result back in, I get that the energy density of the vacuum (assuming that \delta(0) corresponds to the volume of space, is \frac{d}{2\pi a^2}-\frac{\pi}{24d}.

Okay, so this is the part that I don't get. To eliminate the infinity, I considered adding a third plate and moving it away to infinity, so the lengths are as shown:

___L (from first to third plate)
|___|____|
d___L-d

Now here I want to find the relative energy density between the plates, take the derivative with respect to d to find the force, and move L away to infinity to remove the infinities. My problem is that, looking back over my notes, I have added the energy densities between the first and second plate and second and third plate to give

E(d)=\frac{d}{2\pi a^2} -\frac{\pi}{24d} +\frac{L-d}{2\pi a^2}-\frac{\pi}{24(L-d0} which works out because then using F=-E'(d) gives the force being -\left(\frac{\pi}{24d^2} +\frac{\pi}{24(L-d)}\right) which works out perfectly to give the force being \frac{\pi}{24d^2} when you move the third plate to infinity away.

But I just can't figure out why I added the energy densities in my notes? Thank you in advance!
 
Maybe this isn't the best analogy but ...

Consider a window in your house. What happens if you take into account air pressure in the room, and you neglect air pressure outside?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K