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

2
Maxwell + Coulomb gauge (.A=0) 2 0
(no local current/charge) t 2

General sol to wave equation 1

i ( k .r t )

* i ( k .r t ) *

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

Then V

1 1 2
V ( E 2 B 2 )dV Substitute
{| Re[ C (t )] | 2
| Im[ C (t )] | 2
}
8 2 c 2
 Consider the SHO
m q 2
1
p 2 2 2 Re scale: p m P , q Q
SHO
SHO (Q P 2 ) m
2m 2 2
Note: pm
dq
P
dQ
then Q(t ) o cos(t ), P(t ) o sin( t )
dt dt
Re[ C (t )] Q(t )
Then there is a 1-1 relation Im[ C (t )] P(t )

If we set o to be such that c 2

C (t ) (Q iP )

Then, per mode we have:
E &M (Q 2 P 2 )
2
 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
1
 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 tw o 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&t
bnw=109&hl=en&start=20&prev=/images%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
Mock set up
For z>dCRITICAL system is bistable K= 0.019 Nm-1
PE has a local + global minima Sphere radius = 100m
FC makes the shape of local min anharmonic dEQUILIBRIUM = 40nm
Note: chosing a sphere as one of the surfaces
avoids alignment problems c A 3c R
F F
to

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 [o 2 F ( z )] cos t 2 3
I
c R
3
F ( z ) z1 dist ance of closest approach
120(z z1 ) 4
k
o , damping coef
I
amplitude of driving torque
b 3 FC b 4 FC
Freq shift ~ FC gradient (FC) ,
2I 6I
Ignoring the terms in 2 and 3
Due to FC
F
1 0 [1 b 2 C 2 ]
2 I0 Due to Electrostatic force

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

 FC anharmonic behavior

I: Sphere far away normal resonnance

Sphere is moved closer to plate I IV
F
Res. freq shifts as per model [1 b 2
] C
2 I
1 0 2
0

At close distance hysteresis occurs

ie: amplitude A has up to 3 roots: A [( A ] 4I
2
2 2 2
1 2 2
1

3 5
2
characterizes non linearity
81 1213
 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