Progress in Experimental Measurements of the Surface–Surface Casimir Force: Electrostatic Calibrations and Limitations to Accuracy

Lamoreaux, S. K.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20288-9_7

Cited by 17 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Casimir force [1] is a manifestation of vacuum field fluctuations [2] which is now measured with a good experimental precision in various experiments [3][4][5][6]. However, the comparison of experimental results with theoretical predictions remains a matter of debate [7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Derivation of the Lifshitz-Matsubara sum formula for the Casimir pressure between metallic plane mirrors

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We carefully re-examine the conditions of validity for the consistent derivation of the LifshitzMatsubara sum formula for the Casimir pressure between metallic plane mirrors. We recover the usual expression for the lossy Drude model, but not for the lossless plasma model. We give an interpretation of this new result in terms of the modes associated with the Foucault currents which play a role in the limit of vanishing losses, in contrast to common expectations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Derivation of the Lifshitz-Matsubara sum formula for the Casimir pressure between metallic plane mirrors

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, it is meaningless to speak about 1% or any other numerical degree of accuracy, and attribute it to some unspecified experiments. 1 Another concept used 1 in the same context is the concept of precision. Measurement precision is the closeness of agreement between measured quantity values obtained by replicate measurements on the same or similar objects under specified conditions.…”

Section: Confusion Between Accuracy Precision and Measure Of Agreemementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The value of the sphere radius in the experiment 3 was determined to be R = 151.2 ± 0.2 µm leading 2,3 to the relative error of only 0.13%, i.e., smaller error than is demanded. 1 In fact all the details for determination of sphere radius by means of electrostatic calibrations are provided. 3,8,9 The other sources of errors considered 1 are unrelated to the experimental precision.…”

Section: Total Experimental Error and Its Constituentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We consider a relationship among the concepts of accuracy, precision and measure of agreement with theory, discuss total experimental error, its constituents, and rules of their combination, explain the misjudgement of constraints on long-range forces made. 1 In Sec. 3 it is shown that all measurements of the Casimir force employing centimeter-size spherical lenses are fundamentally flawed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Is Credible and What Is Incredible in the Measurements of the Casimir Force

Mostepanenko

2011

Int. J. Mod. Phys. A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We comment on progress in measurements of the Casimir force and discuss what is the actual reliability of different experiments. In this connection a more rigorous approach to the usage of such concepts as accuracy, precision, and measure of agreement between experiment and theory, is presented. We demonstrate that all measurements of the Casimir force employing spherical lenses with centimeter-size curvature radii are fundamentally flawed due to the presence of bubbles and pits on their surfaces. The commonly used formulation of the proximity force approximation is shown to be inapplicable for centimeter-size lenses. New expressions for the Casimir force are derived taking into account surface imperfections. Uncontrollable deviations of the Casimir force from the values predicted using the assumption of perfect sphericity vary by a few tens of percent within the separation region from 1 to 3 µm. This makes impractical further use of centimeter-size lenses in experiments on measuring the Casimir force.

show abstract

“…Although extensive measurements were conducted, novel instrumentation methods and data analysis techniques with better accuracy and robustness are needed [24]. Measurement uncertainties will raise the ambiguity in interpreting the experimental data [25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrostatic calibration method for large-amplitude dynamic Casimir force measurements

Soh

2012

Phys. Rev. A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electrostatic calibration is important in Casimir force measurements. It is necessary for the estimation of the unknown system parameters such as the absolute separation distance and the identification of the electrostatic force model. Correct estimates of the unknown parameters and the electrostatic force model are crucial for interpreting the Casimir force data. In this paper, we present an electrostatic calibration method with higher sensitivity and robustness. It is based on large-amplitude dynamic force measurements. It is proven in theory that the unknown system parameters can be obtained accurately and the electrostatic force model can be identified by our method. The effectiveness and robustness of our method are tested on synthetic data with added noise when the Casimir force measurement is conducted between a sphere and a flat surface.

show abstract

Progress in Experimental Measurements of the Surface–Surface Casimir Force: Electrostatic Calibrations and Limitations to Accuracy

Cited by 17 publications

References 55 publications

Derivation of the Lifshitz-Matsubara sum formula for the Casimir pressure between metallic plane mirrors

Derivation of the Lifshitz-Matsubara sum formula for the Casimir pressure between metallic plane mirrors

What Is Credible and What Is Incredible in the Measurements of the Casimir Force

Electrostatic calibration method for large-amplitude dynamic Casimir force measurements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About