Casimir effect in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime

In summary, the conversation is about solving a physics homework problem involving the vacuum energy and the Hamiltonian. The student is having trouble with the first question and is seeking help from the instructor. The instructor suggests using classical waves and boundary conditions to find the modes and mentions that the integral should be replaced by a sum due to the discrete set of modes. The student also asks about the possible values of lambda and k.
  • #1
Emil_M
46
2

Homework Statement



https://i.imgur.com/sI3JiB4.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/PLpnPZw.jpg
I have no idea how to solve the first question about the vacuum energy. I solved the second and third problems, but I'm hopelessly stuck at the first.

2. Homework Equations

The Hamiltonian can be written as ##H_H=\int \frac{\mathrm{d} k}{2 \pi 2\omega_k}\left(A(k) A^\dagger (k)+A^\dagger (k) A(k) \right)## and the canonical commutation relations apply:

##[A(k), A(k')]=0, [A^\dagger(k), A^\dagger(k')]=0, [A(k), A^\dagger (k')]=2 \pi 2 \omega_k \delta(k-k')##

The Attempt at a Solution



The trouble is that I have no idea how to begin to solve this question.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Do you know how equation (2) was derived? From the problem statement, it sounds like it was derived in lecture.

Equation (4), which you need to show, is essentially repeating the derivation of equation (2) but taking the boundary conditions in equation (3) into account.
 
  • #3
Emil_M said:
##[A(k), A^\dagger (k')]=2 \pi 2 \omega_k \delta(k-k')##

This won't be true here.

"Argue heuristically" means use classical waves and boundary conditions to find the modes, which will be a discrete set, so a Dirac delta function is not appropriate.
 
  • #4
king vitamin said:
Do you know how equation (2) was derived? From the problem statement, it sounds like it was derived in lecture.

Equation (4), which you need to show, is essentially repeating the derivation of equation (2) but taking the boundary conditions in equation (3) into account.
Thank you for your reply! I derived equation (2) by setting ##H_H |0>=0## with ##H_H=\int \frac{\mathrm{d} k}{2 \pi 2\omega_k}\left(A(k) A^\dagger (k)+A^\dagger (k) A(k) \right)##

This Hamiltonian is derived by utelizing the Fourier transformation ##\tilde{\Phi}(k)## of ##\Phi(x)##, however, so I don't know how to work with the boundary conditions in this computation.
 
  • #5
Emil_M said:
##H_H |0>=0## with ##H_H=\int \frac{\mathrm{d} k}{2 \pi 2\omega_k}\left(A(k) A^\dagger (k)+A^\dagger (k) A(k) \right)##

Again, since the set of modes is discrete, this integral is replaced by a sum.

From the boundary conditions (3), ##\phi \left( t,0 \right) = \phi \left( t,d \right) = 0##. What are the possible values ##\lambda##? What are the possible values ##\omega##?
 
  • #6
George Jones said:
Again, since the set of modes is discrete, this integral is replaced by a sum.

From the boundary conditions (3), ##\phi \left( t,0 \right) = \phi \left( t,d \right) = 0##. What are the possible values ##\lambda##? What are the possible values ##\omega##?

Thank you for your answer!

I thought if the wave consists of discrete modes, the continuous spectrum should have corresponding delta functions in order to go from integration to summation? Otherwise the dimension of the expression would change, no? I was under the impression that the canonical commutation relations would provide those delta functions?
 
  • #7
Emil_M said:
I thought if the wave consists of discrete modes, the continuous spectrum should have corresponding delta functions in order to go from integration to summation?

I had in mind starting with a discrete set, but let's try this.

Arguing heuristically,

George Jones said:
From the boundary conditions (3), ##\phi \left( t,0 \right) = \phi \left( t,d \right) = 0##. What are the possible values ##\lambda##?

And thus what are the possible values of ##k##?
 
  • #8
George Jones said:
And thus what are the possible values of ##k##?

Thank you so much for your help!

##\lambda=\{ 2d, d, d/2, d/3,...\}## which means by ##\lambda=2\pi /k## that ## k= \{ \pi/d, 2 \pi/d, 4 \pi /d, 5 \pi/d,...\}##
 

FAQ: Casimir effect in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime

1. What is the Casimir effect in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime?

The Casimir effect in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime is a quantum phenomenon that occurs when two parallel plates are placed in a vacuum, resulting in a measurable force between them. This force is caused by the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum, which can only exist in the limited space between the plates.

2. How does the Casimir effect in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime differ from the traditional Casimir effect?

In the traditional Casimir effect, the plates are placed in a 3+1 dimensional space, while in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime, the plates are placed in a 1+1 dimensional space-time. This results in a different mathematical formulation and a different magnitude of the Casimir force.

3. What is the significance of studying the Casimir effect in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime?

Studying the Casimir effect in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime can provide insights into the behavior of quantum fields in lower dimensions. It can also help us understand the effects of space-time curvature on the Casimir effect.

4. Can the Casimir effect in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime be observed experimentally?

Yes, the Casimir effect in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime has been experimentally observed in various systems such as superconducting circuits and microelectromechanical systems (MEMS).

5. How is the Casimir effect in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime calculated?

The Casimir effect in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime is calculated using quantum field theory, specifically by considering the energy density of the quantum vacuum between the plates. This calculation involves complex mathematical equations and requires knowledge of advanced physics concepts.

Similar threads

Back
Top