The Casimir effect

Physics 250 Spring 2006

Dr Budker
Eric Corsini

Casimir
Patron Saint of Poland
and Lithuania (March 4th)
Hendrik Casimir (1909-2000)
Dutch theoretical physicist
Predicted the force from
nowhere in 1948

Abstract

The Casimir Force

The Casimir Force was first predicted by Dutch theoretical physicist Hendrik
Casimir and was first effectively measured by Steve Lamoreaux in 1995.
The boundary conditions imposed on the electromagnetic fields by metallic
surfaces lead to a spatial redistribution of the zero-point energy mode density
with respect to free space, creating a spatial gradient of the zero-point energy
density and hence a net force between the metals. That force is the most
significant force between neutral objects for distances <100nm
Because of that dependence on boundary conditions, the Casimir Force
spatial dependence and sign can be controlled by tailoring the shape of the
interacting surfaces.
In this presentation I briefly review the formalism pertaining to the zero point
energy and summarize the recent experiment By Bell and Lucent labs,
investigating the effect of the Casimir Force on a dynamic system.

Origin of the Casimir force

The short answer

The vacuum cannot have absolute zero energy

that would violate
Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The long answer green book approach

We show a 1-1 relationship: SHO E&M Field

Maxwell + Coulomb gauge (.A=0) 2

0
2
(no local current/charge)
t

General sol to wave equation

Then

1
* i ( k .r t ) *
i ( k . r t )
( r , t )
(C e
C e
)
V

1
i ( k .r )
*
i ( k .r ) *
( r , t )
(C (t )e
C (t )e
)
V

2
1
1

2
2

V ( E 2 B 2 )dV Substitute

{|
Re[
C
(
t
)]
|

|
Im[
C
(
t
)]
|
}
2
8
2 c

Consider the SHO

SHO

p
m q

2m
2

Note:

pm

Re scale: p m P , q

1
Q
m

SHO

2
(Q P 2 )
2

dq
dQ
P
then Q(t ) o cos(t ), P (t ) o sin(t )
dt
dt

Then there is a 1-1 relation

Re[C (t )] Q(t )
Im[C (t )] P (t )

If we set o to be such that

c 2
C (t )
(Q iP)

Then, per mode we have:

2
(Q P 2 )
2

E &M

We can then apply the SHO mechanics

to the E&M field

Eigenstates |n>
Eigenvalues En = (n+1/2)
In particular Eo= /2 0 for mode
However

/ 2

But we are only concerned in the

difference in energy density

Between two conducting parallel

plates only virtual photons whose
wavelengths fit a whole number
of times between the plates
contribute to the vacuum energy
there is a force drawing the
plates together.

c A
F
480 d 4
A 1cm 2 , d 1m F 10-7 N or Pressure 10-3 Pascal
d 10nm Pressure 105 Pacal 1atm
Strongest force between two neutral objects (d 10nm)

Notes

Bosons attractive Casimir force

Fermions repulsive Casimir force
With supersymmetry there is a fermion for
each Boson no Casimir effect.
Hence if supersymmetry exists it must be a
broken symmetry

Casimir Force
From theory to experiment

Predicted by Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948.

First attempt to measure the Casimir Force: 1958 by M.J.Sparnaay
- Used the attraction between a pair of parallel plates.
- But irreducible systematic errors measurements had a 100%
uncertainty, (but it fit the expectations)

Sparnaay gave three guidelines;

- The plates should be free of any dust or debris, with as little surface roughness as possible
- Static electrical charges should be removed (electrostatic force can easily swamp the weak Casimir
attraction).
- The plates should not have different surface potentials
- Ref: "Measurements of Attractive Forces Between Flat Plates
(Sparnaay, 1958) Physica, 24 751-764

2nd attempt and first successful results: 1996 by Steven Lamoreaux: - In

agreement with theory to within uncertainty of 5%.
Several other successful experiments since.

Steven Lamoreaux experimental set up

Steve Lamoreaux
(University of
Washington
Seattle)
Measured the
Casimir force
between a 4 cm
diameter spherical
lens and an optical
quartz plate about
2.5 cm across, both
coated with copper
and gold. The lens
and plate were
connected to a
torsion pendulum.

There are only a few dozen published experimental

measurements of the Casimir force
But there are more than 1000 theoretical papers
And citations of Casimirs 1948 paper are growing
exponentially.

Effects of edges

shape of decay function is strongly dependent on size and separation of surfaces

ref:http://images.google.com/imgres?
imgurl=http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/yr4pasr/project/casimir/currentthumb.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/yr4pasr/project/casimir/&h=275&w=275&sz=41&tbnid=Buy2QDUNZEvi6M:&tbnh=109&tbnw=109&hl=en&start=20&prev=/ima
ges%3Fq%3Dcasimir%2Beffect%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

Dist > 25m: dome shape

The Casimir force occurs when
virtual photons are
restricted.
The force is reduced where
virtual photons are
diffracted into the gap
between the plates
Unshaded areas correspond to
higher Casimir forces
Casimir force is decreased at
the edges of the plates

The Casimir force: FC

on Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)
(PRL: H. B. Chan et al Bell Lab & Lucent Tech Published Oct 2001)

Prior experiments have focused on static FC

and adhesion FC
This experiment investigates the dynamic
effect of FC:
A Hookes law spring provides the restoring
force
FC between a movable plate and a fixed
sphere provides the anharmonic force
For z>dCRITICAL system is bistable
PE has a local + global minima
FC makes the shape of local min anharmonic
Note: chosing a sphere as one of the
surfaces avoids alignment problems

Mock set up
K= 0.019 Nm-1
Sphere radius = 100m
dEQUILIBRIUM = 40nm
c A to
3 c R
F
F
480 d 4
360 d 3

The actual set up

Oscillator: 3.5-mm-thick, 500-mm2, gold plated (on top), polysilicon plate

Room temp 1 milli Torr
A driving voltage VAC excites the torsional mode of oscillation
(VDC1: bias)
Vdc: bias to one of the two electrodes under the plate to linearize the voltage
dependence of the driving torque
VDC2: detection electrode
Note: amplitude increases with VAC = 35.4V to 72.5 V
Torsional Spring constant: k=2.1 10-8 Nrad-1
Fund res. Freq. = 2753.47 Hz
I = 7.1 10-17 kgm2
System behaves linearly w/o sphere

Add a gold plated polystyrene sphere radius = 200m

Equation of motion

F ( z b ) Taylor ex pand about z up to 3

2

b
2
2 [o F ( z )] cos t 2 3
I
3
c R
F ( z )
z1 dist ance of closest approach
120(z z1 ) 4
k
, damping coef
I
amplitude of driving torque

Freq shift ~ FC gradient (FC)

Ignoring the terms in 2 and 3
F
1 0 [1 b 2 C 2 ]
2 I0

b 3 FC
b 4 FC

,
2I
6I
Due to FC
Due to Electrostatic force

z (equil dist sph-plate w/o F )

C

FC anharmonic behavior

I: Sphere far away normal resonnance

Sphere is moved closer to plate I IV
Res. freq shifts as per model [1 b
At close distance hysteresis occurs
ie: amplitude A has up to 3 roots: A [( A

FC
]
2
2 I0
2
] 2 2
4 I 1
2

3
5

characterizes non linearity

81 1213
2

Depends on history
Freq < resonant freq

Freq > resonant freq

Or we can keep a constant excitation freq

(2748Hz), vary sphere-plate distance, and
measure amplitude.

Is repulsive Casimir force physical ?

Plate-plate: attractive
Sphere-plate: attractive
Concave surface concave surface: can be
repulsive or attractive depending on separation
pendulum
Plate-plate with specific dielectric properties
can be repulsive nanotech applications

References

Nonlinear Micromechanical Casimir Oscillator

[PRL: published 31 October 2001
H. B. Chan,* V. A. Aksyuk, R. N. Kleiman, D. J.
Bishop, and Federico Capasso Bell Laboratories,
Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
Physics World article (Sept 2002) Author:Astrid
Lambrecht
REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS
Rep. Prog. Phys. 68 (2005) 201236
Steven Lamoreaux