The Casimir Effect and The Quantum Vacuum PDF
The Casimir Effect and The Quantum Vacuum PDF
Abstract.
In discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive
evidence that the zero point energies of quantum fields are real. On the contrary, Casimir effects
can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero point energies.
They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit
area) between parallel plates vanishes as , the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard
result, which appears to be independent of , corresponds to the limit.
Introduction
In quantum field theory as usually formulated, the zero point fluctuations of the
fields contribute to the energy of the vacuum. However this energy does not seem to
be observable in any laboratory experiment. Nevertheless, all energy gravitates, and
therefore the energy density of the vacuum, or more precisely the vacuum value of the
stress tensor, hT i E g , appears on the right hand side of Einsteins equations,
1
R g R = 8G(T E g ) (1)
2
where it affects cosmology. (T is the contribution of excitations above the vacuum.) It
is equivalent to adding a cosmological term, = 8GE , on the left hand side.
A small, positive cosmological term is now required to account for the observation
that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. Recent measurements give[2]
at the present epoch. This observation has renewed interest in the idea that the zero point
fluctuations of quantum fields contribute to the cosmological constant, [3]. However,
estimates of the energy density due to zero point fluctuations exceed the measured value
of by many orders of magnitude. Caution is appropriate when an effect, for which
I use the conventions of Ref. [1] and in particular take g = diag {1, 1, 1, 1}, so E > 0 corresponds to
a positive energy density and a negative pressure.
there is no direct experimental evidence, is the source of a huge discrepancy between
theory and experiment!
As evidence of the reality of the quantum fluctuations of fields in the vacuum,
theorists often point to the Casimir effect [6]. For example, Weinberg in his introduction
to the cosmological constant problem, writes[5],
Perhaps surprisingly, it was along time before particle physicists began se-
riously to worry about [quantum zero point fluctuation contributions to ]
despite the demonstration in the Casimir effect of the reality of zero-point
energies.
More recent examples can be found in the widely read reviews by Carroll[7],
... And the vacuum fluctuations themselves are very real, as evidenced by the
Casimir effect.
and by Sahni and Starobinsky [8],[9]
The existence of zero-point vacuum fluctuations has been spectacularly
demonstrated by the Casimir effect.
In 1997 Lamoreaux opened the door to precise measurement of Casimir forces[10].
The Casimir force (per unit area) between parallel conducting plates,
hc2
F = (3)
240d 4
has now been measured to about 1% precision. Casimir physics has become an active
area of nanoscopic physics in its own right[11]. Not surprisingly, every review and text
on the subject highlights the supposed special connection between the Casimir effect
and the vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field [12].
The object of this paper is to point out that the Casimir effect gives no more (or less)
support for the reality of the vacuum energy of fluctuating quantum fields than any
other one-loop effect in quantum electrodynamics, like the vacuum polarization con-
tribution to the Lamb shift, for example. The Casimir force can be calculated without
reference to vacuum fluctuations, and like all other observable effects in QED, it van-
ishes as the fine structure constant, , goes to zero.
There is a long history and large literature surrounding the question whether the
zero point fluctuations of quantized fields are real[13]. Schwinger, in particular, at-
tempted to formulate QED without reference to zero point fluctuations[14]. In contrast
Milonni has recently reformulated all of QED from the point of view of zero point
fluctuations[13]. The question of whether zero point fluctuations of the vacuum are or
are not real is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead I address only the narrower
question of whether the Casimir effect can be considered evidence in their favor.
For a non-interacting quantum field the vacuum (or zero-point) energy is given by
E = 21 h0 , where the {h0 } are the eigenvalues of the free Hamiltonian and the
plus or minus sign applies to bosons or fermions respectively. In three dimensions the
sum over frequencies diverges quartically, E 4 . This contribution does not arise if the
fields in the classical Lagrangian are ordered in a prescribed way (normal ordering),
but the reason for this choice of ordering is obscure and it is probably more appropriate to
choose the ordering arbitrarily (though consistent with the symmetries of the theory), in
which case the free field zero point energy can be cancelled by a counterterm. However
comparable contributions reappear when interactions are introduced: the vacuum energy
is related to the sum of all vacuum-to-vacuum Feynman diagrams, a few of which
are shown (eg. for QED) in Fig. 1. A counter term can be introduced to cancel these
contributions to any order in perturbation theory. However since the leading divergence
is quartic, such fine tuning is generally regarded as unacceptable.
In the standard approach[12], the Casimir force is
calculated by computing the change in the zero point
energy of the electromagnetic field when the sepa-
ration between parallel perfectly conducting plates
is changed. The result, eq. (3), seems universal, in-
dependent of everything except h, c, and the separa-
tion, inviting one to regard it as a property of the vac-
uum. This, however, is an illusion. When the plates
were idealized as perfect conductors, assumptions 1: QED graphs contributing to the
zero point energy
were made about the properties of the materials and
the strength of the QED coupling , that obscure the fact that the Casimir force origi-
nates in the forces between charged particles in the metal plates. More specifically,
The Casimir effect is a function of the fine structure constant and vanishes as 0.
Explicit dependence on is absent from eq. (3) because it is an asymptotic form,
exact in the limit. The Casimir force is simply the (relativistic, retarded) van
der Waals force between the metal plates.
Casimir effects in general can be calculated as S-matrix elements, i.e. in terms of
Feynman diagrams with external lines, and without any reference to the vacuum or
its fluctuations. The usual calculation, based on the change in 21 h with separa-
tion, is heuristic. An elementary example of a similar situation occurs in electro-
statics. The energy of a smooth charge distribution, (x), can be calculated directly
R (x)(y)
from 21 dxdy |xy| , or alternatively, from the energy stored in the electric field,
1 R ~ 2
8 dx|E(x)| . The existence of the latter formula cannot be regarded as evidence
for the reality of the electric field, which awaited the discovery that light consists
of propagating electromagnetic waves.
In the following section I review the dependence of the Casimir effect on the fine
structure constant. Next I discuss the calculation of Casimir effects without mention of
vacuum energies. Finally I conclude with a brief summary.
This reformulation is based on the identification of the Casimir energy as the one-loop effective action
in a static background, , S [] = T E [][26, 27].
Conclusion
I have presented an argument that the experimental confirmation of the Casimir effect
does not establish the reality of zero point fluctuations. Casimir forces can be calculated
without reference to the vacuum and, like any other dynamical effect in QED, vanish as
0. The vacuum-to-vacuum graphs (See Fig. 1) that define the zero point energy do
not enter the calculation of the Casimir force, which instead only involves graphs with
external lines. So the concept of zero point fluctuations is a heuristic and calculational
aid in the description of the Casimir effect, but not a necessity.
The deeper question remains: Do the zero point energies of quantum fields contribute
to the energy density of the vacuum and, mutatis mutandis, to the cosmological constant?
Certainly there is no experimental evidence for the reality of zero point energies
in quantum field theory (without gravity). Perhaps there is a consistent formulation
of relativistic quantum mechanics in which zero point energies never appear. I doubt
it. Schwinger intended source theory to provide such a formulation. However, to my
knowledge no one has shown that source theory or another S-matrix based approach can
provide a complete description of QED to all orders. In QCD confinement would seem
to present an insuperable challenge to an S-matrix based approach, since quarks and
gluons do not appear in the physical S-matrix. Even if one could argue away quantum
zero point contributions to the vacuum energy, the problem of spontaneous symmetry
breaking remains: condensates that carry energy appear at many energy scales in the
Standard Model. So there is good reason to be skeptical of attempts to avoid the standard
formulation of quantum field theory and the zero point energies it brings with it. Still, no
known phenomenon, including the Casimir effect, demonstrates that zero point energies
are real.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Eddie Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Roman Jackiw, Antonello
Scardicchio, and Max Tegmark for conversations and suggestions, and the Rockefeller
Foundation for a residency at the Bellagio Study and Conference Center on Lake Come,
Italy, where this work was begun. This work is supported in part by funds provided
by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement DE-
FC02-94ER40818.
REFERENCES
1. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, (Wiley, 1972).
2. M. Tegmark et al. [SDSS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 69, 103501 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0310723].
3. As early as 1967 Zeldovich suggested that the zero-point energy contributes to [4, 5].
4. Y. B. Zeldovich, JETP Lett. 6, 316 (1967) [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 6, 883 (1967)].
5. For a review of work connecting vacuum fluctuations to the cosmological constant see S. Weinberg,
Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989).
6. H. B. G. Casimir, Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. 51 (1948) 793.
7. S. M. Carroll, Living Rev. Rel. 4, 1 (2001) [arXiv:astro-ph/0004075].
8. V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9, 373 (2000) [arXiv:astro-ph/9904398].
9. Some further examples include S. M. Carroll, W. H. Press, and E. L. Turner, Ann. Rev. Astron. As-
trophys. 30 499 (1992); J. D. Cohn, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 259, 213 (1998) [arXiv:astro-ph/9807128];
J. L. Feng, J. March-Russell, S. Sethi and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. B 602, 307 (2001) [arXiv:hep-
th/0005276]; P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003) [arXiv:astro-ph/0207347].
10. S. K. Lamoreaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5 (1997).
11. For a recent review and further references, see M. Bordag, U. Mohideen and V. M. Mostepanenko,
Phys. Rept. 353, 1 (2001) [arXiv:quant-ph/0106045].
12. See, for example, V. M. Mostepanenko and N. N. Trunov, The Casimir effect and its applications
(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997); K. A. Milton, The Casimir effect : Physical manifestations of zero
- point energy (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001).
13. For a discussion and references to earlier work, see P. W. Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum, (Aca-
demic, 1994).
14. J. Schwinger, Particles, Sources, and Fields I, II, and III (Addison Wesley).
15. E. M. Lifshitz, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 29, 94 (1955) [ Sov. Phys. JETP, 2, 73 (1956)]; see also
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of Continuous Media (Pergammon, 1960).
16. N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics (Saunders, 1976).
17. See, for example, J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd Edition (Wiley, 1998).
18. G. Barton, J. Phys. A 34, 4083 (2001), J. Phys. A 37 1011 (2004).
19. T. H. Boyer, Phys. Rev. 174 (1968) 1764.
20. For further discussion, see N. Graham, R. L. Jaffe, V. Khemani, M. Quandt, M. Scandurra and
H. Weigel, Phys. Lett. B 572, 196 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0207205] and N. Graham, R. L. Jaffe,
V. Khemani, M. Quandt, O. Schroeder and H. Weigel, Nucl. Phys. B 677, 379 (2004) [arXiv:hep-
th/0309130].
21. H. B. G. Casimir and D. Polder, Phys. Rev. 73, 360 (1948).
22. As quoted in P. W. Milonni, Ref. [13].
23. H. B. G. Casimir, at the Colloque sur la thorie de la liaison chimique, Paris, April 1948, as quoted
in [6].
24. J. Schwinger, Lett. Math. Phys. 1 43 (1975). See also G. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. B9 2490 (1974).
25. J. Schwinger, L. DeRaad, and K. A. Milton, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 115 1 (1978).
26. M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (Addison Wesley, 1995)
27. S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cambridge, 1995).