2011
DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.107.090403
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reduction of the Casimir Force from Indium Tin Oxide Film by UV Treatment

Abstract: A significant decrease in the magnitude of the Casimir force (from 21% to 35%) was observed after an indium tin oxide sample interacting with an Au sphere was subjected to the UV treatment. Measurements were performed by using an atomic force microscope in high vacuum. The experimental results are compared with theory and a hypothetical explanation for the observed phenomenon is proposed.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

13
163
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(177 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
(38 reference statements)
13
163
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…[45][46][47][48]52 It was claimed that anomalous dependences of the residual potential difference and separation on contact on the separation distance observed in several experiments cast doubts on the measurements of the Casimir force performed to date. It was also suggested that inasmuch electrostatic calibrations are based on a fitting procedure there is no principal difference detween independent measurements of the Casimir force [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][35][36][37][39][40][41][42][43][44]71 and deriving the Casimir force by means of a fit from some much larger measured force of hypothetical origin. 31 In this respect we would like to note that the calibration consists in determination of the parameters of a setup using well established physical laws (in our case of electrostatics) and involves only well understood and precisely measured forces.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[45][46][47][48]52 It was claimed that anomalous dependences of the residual potential difference and separation on contact on the separation distance observed in several experiments cast doubts on the measurements of the Casimir force performed to date. It was also suggested that inasmuch electrostatic calibrations are based on a fitting procedure there is no principal difference detween independent measurements of the Casimir force [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][35][36][37][39][40][41][42][43][44]71 and deriving the Casimir force by means of a fit from some much larger measured force of hypothetical origin. 31 In this respect we would like to note that the calibration consists in determination of the parameters of a setup using well established physical laws (in our case of electrostatics) and involves only well understood and precisely measured forces.…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For dielectric test bodies the theoretical predictions were found in agreement with the data only if the contribution of free charge carriers is omitted [33][34][35][36][37][38]. Keeping in mind that many of the experiments mentioned above were used, first, to make a selection between different theoretical approaches and, second, to constrain corrections to Newtonian gravity from the measure of agreement between the data and the predictions following from a selected approach, the constraints obtained were sometimes claimed to be of dubious merit [39].…”
mentioning
confidence: 94%
“…[11][12][13][14][15][16] ) and between a metallic and a semiconductor surfaces (see, e.g., Refs. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] ). Quite unexpectedly, the experimental data of many experiments performed at room temperature 13,15,16,18,[23][24][25][26] were found to exclude the theoretical predictions taking into account the relaxation properties of conduction electrons for metals and the contribution of free charge carriers for semiconductors of the dielectric type.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] ). Quite unexpectedly, the experimental data of many experiments performed at room temperature 13,15,16,18,[23][24][25][26] were found to exclude the theoretical predictions taking into account the relaxation properties of conduction electrons for metals and the contribution of free charge carriers for semiconductors of the dielectric type. The same data were found to be consistent with theory neglecting the relaxation properties of conduction electrons for metals and the free charge carriers for dielectric-type semiconductors (the two experiments which claim confirmation of the role of relaxation properties of free electrons for metallic test bodies 27,28 are critically discussed in the literature [29][30][31][32] ).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%