Scale Models Can "Compute" Casimir Forces 136
KentuckyFC writes "Place two conducting parallel plates a few nanometres apart and the well-known but difficult-to-measure Casimir force will push them together. The force depends crucially on the shape of the plates but nobody is exactly sure how. That's because calculations with anything other than flat plates are fiendishly difficult and measurements are even harder. Now a group at MIT has come up with an ingenious new way to investigate Casimir forces. What the team has noticed is a mathematical analogy between the Casimir force acting on microscopic bodies in a vacuum and the electromagnetic behavior of macroscopic bodies floating in a conducting fluid. Their idea is to build a centimeter-scale metal model of the system they want to investigate, place it in salt water, and bombard it with microwaves and see what happens. The team says the experiment does not measure the force on the scale model but instead a quantity that is mathematically related to the force. So the experiment is not a simulator but actually an analog computer that calculates the force (abstract). What's exciting is that the method should for the first time give researchers a way of testing nano-machines designed to exploit the Casimir force."
Re:Casimir Force (Score:5, Informative)
The way the Casimir force works is that when you put smooth plates very very close together, they are pulled closer.
This is posited to be caused by pairs of virtual photons which spring into existence and annihilate constantly.
When you put the plates close enough together, there's not enough room for photons to appear between them. Therefore there is theoretically more of a vacuum between the plates than outside. As we all know, vacuum's suck so we get a force pulling the plates together.
Re:Casimir Force (Score:5, Informative)
<pedantic>Vacuums do not suck! They are areas of lower potential, and everything has a tendency to move from a higher potential to a lower potential. Things in the non-vacuum area are blown into the vacuum area.>/pedantic<
FYI: Black holes do not suck, either. They're pretty cool.
Re:Casimir Force (Score:4, Informative)
to the contrary - important for nanotech (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Casimir Force (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Casimir Force (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Casimir Force (Score:5, Informative)
Just attach something to the back of both these plates that will be pulled on by the plates as they try to move together. The "something" would not allow the plates to get together, but as far as my understanding goes, the plates would "perpetually" try to move together and you'd have a constant generation of energy.
All you'd have in that case is a constant (and very, _very_ small, even for large plates) force. To actually do useful work, that force has to move something through a distance (which itself would have to be very small, because the plates have to be close together). Even if that were done, you'd then have to pull the plates apart to repeat the process, and to pull them apart takes just as much work as you'd get from letting them be pulled together.
Also note that people have predicted (I'll go to a talk next week on this) that the Casimir force might be able to be reversed (that is, there's a repellent force between the plates) if the plates have certain materials properties (in this case, probably a "left-handed" electromagnetic coupling -- that is, their permeability should be negative).
Hawking radiation (Score:3, Informative)
No, that is what Hawking, and a considerable number of other scientists believe. Essentially, nature is allowed to "borrow" energy from nowhere provided the product of the energy and time the energy exists does not exceed Planks constant. When it does so, a particle and its matching antiparticle (to keep all the charges, baryon numbers etc. matched) spring into existence for a very short time, then cancel out again, "repaying" the borrowed energy.
Except that if this happens really close to the event horizon of a black hole, one of the two particles can fall into the hole and the other doesn't, resulting in the net creation of a particle outside the event horizon. The energy needed to "balance the books" and create the particle comes from the black hole. This means that black holes are continuously emitting particles, which are called Hawking Radiation, and losing energy. However, to maximise the chance of one particle falling in and the other escaping, the gravitational field has to be very non-linear, which means that the hole has to be small. The smaller the hole, the faster it evaporates, so the faster it shrinks which eventually leads to a runaway; tiny black holes explode. However, stellar mass black holes evaporate so slowly that it takes a bucket load of exponents to measure the time until they explode.
Re:Question: Uncertainty Principle (Score:4, Informative)
Does the Uncertainty Principle play into this at all?
The uncertainty principle (or quantum indeterminacy, if you prefer) is fundamental to quantum mechanics, so it plays a role in ... well in just about everything.
Hawking's explanation is one way of looking at virtual particles [wikipedia.org], which are indeed the origin of vacuum fluctuations.
If his explanation seems wrong, it is because the uncertainty principle is usually misrepresented in mainstream media. It is usually described as an a measurement imprecision: as if a particle has a definite position and velocity, but there is some law that prevents us from measuring it properly. That's (if I may be so bold) a very antiquated interpretation. The more modern interpretation is that a particle is inherently fuzzy: wavelike and indeterminate in its properties. The wavefunction for a particle inherently is 'spread out': it specifies a spread in various variables (e.g. position or momentum).
The Heisenberg uncertainty principles (there are actually many such relations; there is one between position and momentum; one between time and energy; etc.) describe how these indeterminacies evolve. Certain kinds of interactions (which you can call 'measurements' if you like) will reduce one kind of indeterminacy, but there will be a corresponding 'spread out' in another quantity.
Now back to virtual particles. The time-energy Heisenberg uncertainty says that deviations in energy are allowed as long as they don't exist for 'too long' (I'm being loose with language, the actual equations of course set rigorous bounds on all these things). So a vacuum can suddenly have 'more energy' as long as that energy disappears in a short amount of time. This is what virtual particles are: particles that are created 'out of nowhere', exist for a short time, then disappear. The interesting thing is that though these short-lived particles cannot be directly measured, their effects are very real. In fact if you think about a charged particle that emits a static electric field which exerts a force on some other particle, it is in fact virtual particles which are being exchanged between the two particles which explains the origin of the force between them (and explains the seeming 'action at a distance'). A time-varying electric field would instead generate 'real' photons, which are the light and radio waves we are all familiar with.
Some people think that virtual particles sound 'silly and made up' or somesuch. But they are a natural prediction of modern quantum theory, and they happen to nicely explain a wide variety of experimental results.
So Hawking is right that vacuum fluctuations arise because of quantum indeterminacy (which you can call 'Heisenberg uncertainty' if you prefer). The vacuum has particles appearing and disappearing all the time, and they produce real, measurable effects (like the Casimir force), even if they cannot be directly measured. (Just like a static electric field.)
(Disclaimer: I'm not a quantum physicist, so I've probably made a few mistakes. Corrections and clarifications are welcome.)
Re:Casimir Force (Score:3, Informative)
In these experiments, they ground the plates to account for this.
Re:Casimir Force (Score:1, Informative)
It's a different way of looking at it, all right. But it is wrong none the less. Casimir has to do with "virtual photons" and not van der waals forces.
Re:Casimir Force (Score:3, Informative)
No, they don't.
Re:Casimir Force (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Casimir Force (Score:5, Informative)
No car analogy here, sorry to say, but I can provide a somewhat more visual description than any I have seen on this thread so far. And I would very much appreciate any critiques by those who know QM (I know of it, and use it in my fiction, but I certainly don't know it. Dammit, I'm a writer, not a quantum mechanic).
First, visualize "quantum foam": virtual particles are constantly springing into existence in "empty" space, mostly to disappear again in very short intervals of time. When working at very small distances and units of time, space is full of these virtual particles, winking in and out. Some are more common than others, but all are present. The total population of these over an interval of time will exhibit QM statistical properties: that is virtual neutrinos will be much more common than virtual electron - positron pairs, which in turn will be very much more common than virtual protons and antiprotons. The sum of all this activity has been called quantum foam [wikipedia.org] [John Wheeler gets credit for this, back in 1955].
Particles are waves, and waves have wavelengths. If you can put a constraint on a location in space so that a particular wavelength cannot exist at that location, then the particle associated with that wavelength cannot exist. The quantum foam in that location is less rich than in other locations. There is now a kind of "pressure gradient" between the quantum foam in the constrained region and the unconstrained regions around it.
Placing two sheets of metal closer together than the longer wavelengths of light prevent some of those virtual photons from manifesting. (My understanding is that this would only block the ones whose wavelengths are constrained by the plates, which suggests a kind of polarizing effect, but for now we can ignore that.) The Casimir effect is the force exerted on each of these plates by the pressure gradient of the quantum foam from one side of the plate to the other.
I'm thinking that we are going to have an increased need to develop effective ways of visualizing this as we start doing more with nanomaterials. For instance, I'm guessing that some of the transmission properties of buckytubes are related to constraints on the quantum foam in the inside of the tube. That a tube of the right diameter would prevent any real electron or real photon introduced at one end from doing anything other than exiting at the other end; that the geometry would force the wave to propagate only down the center of the tube.
I'm also thinking that Casimir effects might explain the attachment and release of neurotransmitters in the synaptic gap (not that the gap is necessarily involved: the synaptic cleft [wikipedia.org] is around 20 nm across and that is an order of magnitude too large I think). However the surface geometries of the binding proteins are definitely in the range of Casimir effects, and it is possible that these are changing shapes in ways that release or attach the neurotransmitters. Also, I just now came across some stuff on electrical synapses [wikipedia.org] where the gap is less than 4 nm and there are transmission structures with lumens of 1.2 nm diameter, which I think does mean that Casimir effects are going to be present. (But that does not mean that they are being used. Then again, as a rule, life takes advantage of every condition and edge case it can.)
I'm hoping to see some useful comments from the QM guys. Also materials engineers, anesthesiologists, and neurologists.
Re:A computer? (Score:3, Informative)
Yep.
Just like more typical "analog computers" where a voltage or current represents a value in the computation.