text:
# The Magnetic Casimir Effect

## I Introduction

Since its discovery, the Casimir effect has gradually become a much-discussed subject in physics. Originally, one understood by the Casimir effect the attractive force between two metal plates in vacuum as a result of zero-point quantum fluctuations HBGCas . Nowadays the term is used for a much broader range of effects, all involving the influence of boundaries on fluctuations. As such, the Casimir effect plays a role in quantum field theory, atomic and molecular physics, condensed matter physics, gravitation, cosmology and so on. A thorough review of the Casimir effect in all these fields was published recently MBor .

For two uniformly magnetized ferromagnetic plates held parallel to each other, it is shown in a previous paper PBru  that the interplay of the Casimir effect and the magneto-optical Kerr effect gives rise to a new long-range magnetic interaction. In \[PBru, \], this magnetic Casimir force was found to decay with interplate distance D as $`D^5`$ in the limit of long distances, and as $`D^1`$ for short distances. In this case, the ferromagnetic plates were described with a Drude model and the magnetization was defined to be perpendicular to the plates. In view of future experimental investigations of this new magnetic Casimir force, it would be useful to study the case where the magnetization is parallel to the plates since this situation is easier to obtain in an experimental setup. This subject will be studied in the present paper and a force which decays as $`D^6`$ in the long-distance limit and as $`D^3`$ in the limit of short distances is found when the Drude model is used. This behavior is interesting since it means that the force is larger, and thus easier to measure, for in-plane magnetization than for perpendicular magnetization at sufficiently small distances. Next to the Drude model, another more realistic model is also studied. In this so called hybrid model, a plasma model is used for the diagonal element of the dielectric tensor of the magnetic plates, and a single absorption line model for the off-diagonal element. As for the long distance limit, the force in this model goes like $`D^8`$ for the case of perpendicular magnetization and as $`D^{10}`$ when the magnetization is parallel to the plates while the behavior in the short-distance limit is unchanged. Finally we will present some numerical calculations of the interaction for Fe, in which experimental data for the elements of the dielectric tensor are used. An experimental setup to measure the magnetic Casimir force is also discussed.

## II General Theory

Consider two uniformly magnetized ferromagnetic plates of infinite lateral extension held parallel to each other. The Casimir interaction energy per unit area at $`T=0`$ between the plates can be expressed as MTJae :

$$=\frac{\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^3}_0^+\mathrm{}d\omega \mathrm{d}^2𝒌_{}\text{Im Tr}\mathrm{ln}(1𝖱_A𝖱_B\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}k_{}D}),$$
(1)
where $`k_{}`$ and $`𝒌_{}`$ are the components of the wavevector perpendicular and parallel to the mirrors. The $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`𝖱_A`$ and $`𝖱_B`$ contain the reflection coefficients of the two mirrors:

$$𝖱_{A(B)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r_{ss}^{A(B)}& r_{sp}^{A(B)}\\ r_{ps}^{A(B)}& r_{pp}^{A(B)}\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
The index $`s`$ (resp. $`p`$) corresponds to a polarization with the electric field perpendicular (resp. parallel) to the incidence plane. We will adopt here the usual convention that the $`s`$ axis remains unchanged upon reflection. Since the reflection coefficients are dependent on the direction of the magnetisation of the mirrors, it is clear from Eqs. (1) and (2) that the magnetic Casimir energy between the mirrors will differ for the situations in which the magnetizations of the two mirrors are parallel (FM) or antiparallel (AF). This will result in a net magnetic Casimir force per unit area $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{AF}_{FM}`$ between the mirrors, different from the ordinary Casimir force discussed in Ref. \[HBGCas, \].
If a change of integration variables $`(\omega ,𝒌_{})(\omega ,k_{},\phi )`$ is performed and complex integration methods are used as in \[MTJae, \], Eq. (1) can be written as:

$$=\frac{\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^3}_0^+\mathrm{}dk_{}k_{}_0^{2\pi }d\phi _0^{k_{}c}d\omega \text{Re Tr}\mathrm{ln}[1𝖱_A(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{},\phi )𝖱_B(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{},\phi )\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D}]$$
(3)
In general, the reflection coefficients contain terms of different orders of the magneto-optical constant Q. In our calculation, only terms up to first order in Q will be conserved. When the magnetisation direction is reversed, these terms will change sign. Since the first order terms are usually much smaller than 1 and than the terms that are independent of Q, it is possible to expand expression (3) to lowest order in the linear terms.

### II.1 The Polar Configuration

After some algebra, we find for the situation with magnetisation directed perpendicular to the plates (we will call this the polar configuration from now on):

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=`$ $`_{AF}^{}_{AM}^{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}dk_{}k_{}{\displaystyle _0^{k_{}c}}d\omega \text{Re}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{sp}^{})^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D}}{(1r_{ss}^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D})(1r_{pp}^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D})}}\right],`$ (4a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{\mathrm{d}D}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}dk_{}k_{}^2{\displaystyle _0^{k_{}c}}d\omega \text{Re}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{sp}^{})^2[1r_{ss}^2r_{pp}^2\mathrm{e}^{4k_{}D}]\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D}}{([1r_{ss}^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D}][1r_{pp}^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D}])^2}}\right],`$ (4b)
where the reflection coefficients have to be evaluated at imaginary perpendicular wavevector and frequency. In this equation, the reflection amplitudes are supposed to be identical for the two mirrors. Otherwise, the squared reflection coefficients have to be replaced by the product of the coefficients for the separate mirrors (e.g. $`r_{ss}^2r_{ss}^Ar_{ss}^B`$). The integral over the angle $`\phi `$ is already performed. The reflection coefficients for a mirror in the polar configuration are given in \[GMet, \] as:

$`r_{ss}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}c\xi }{k_{}c+\xi }},r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )k_{}c\xi }{\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )k_{}c+\xi }}`$ (5a)
$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`r_{ps}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})={\displaystyle \frac{k_{}c\omega \epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )}{\left[k_{}c+\xi \right]\left[\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )k_{}c+\xi \right]}},`$ (5b)
with: $`\xi =\sqrt{\omega ^2(\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )1)+(k_{}c)^2}`$

### II.2 The In-plane Configuration

For the case where the magnetisation is parallel to the plates (we will refer to this situation as the in-plane configuration from now on), not only $`r_{sp}`$, but also $`r_{pp}`$ will contain a term that is linear in the magneto optical constant. As a consequence we find two contributions to the Casimir magnetic interaction energy. The first one ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$) results from the longitudinal Kerr effect, while the second term ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$) is a consequence of the transversal Kerr effect. Again the integral over $`\phi `$ can be performed directly. We obtain (for identical mirrors):

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}dk_{}k_{}{\displaystyle _0^{k_{}c}}d\omega \text{Re}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{sp}^{})^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D}}{(1r_{ss}^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D})(1r_{pp}^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D})}}\right],`$ (6a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}dk_{}k_{}{\displaystyle _0^{k_{}c}}d\omega Re\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }r_{pp}^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D}}{(1r_{pp}^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D})^2}}\right],`$ (6b)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}dk_{}k_{}^2{\displaystyle _0^{k_{}c}}d\omega \text{Re}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{sp}^{})^2[1r_{ss}^2r_{pp}^2\mathrm{e}^{4k_{}D}]\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D}}{([1r_{ss}^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D}][1r_{pp}^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D}])^2}}\right],`$ (6c)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}dk_{}k_{}^2{\displaystyle _0^{k_{}c}}d\omega \text{Re}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }r_{pp}^2(1+r_{pp}^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D})\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D}}{(1r_{pp}^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_{}D})^3}}\right].`$ (6d)
Of course $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$. For two different mirrors, the squares of the reflection coefficients have to be replaced as mentioned above. The integration over the angle $`\phi `$ is already performed. The reflection coefficients in Eq. (6) are given in \[GMet, \]:

$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`r_{ps}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})=(1){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2}\omega \epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )(k_{}c)}{\left(k_{}c+\xi \right)\left(\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )k_{}c+\xi \right)\xi }},`$ (7a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2}\epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )(k_{}c)}{\left(\epsilon _{xx}(i\omega )k_{}c+\xi \right)^2}},`$ (7b)
with again: $`\xi =\sqrt{\omega ^2(\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )1)+(k_{}c)^2}`$. $`r_{ss}(i\omega ,ik_{})`$ and $`r_{pp}(i\omega ,ik_{})`$ are still given by Eq. (5a). Note that the contributions arising from the longitudinal and transversal Kerr effect are of opposite sign and therefore tend to cancel each other. On the basis of Eqs. (4-7), we will calculate the Casimir magnetic energies and forces for two simple models in the next two sections. In section V, we will use these equations to numerically calculate the interaction for iron plates.

## III The Drude Model

Consider two identical magnetic mirrors with a dielectric tensor described by the Drude model:

$`\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2\tau }{\omega (1+\omega \tau )}},`$ (8a)
$`\epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2\omega _c\tau ^2}{\omega (1+\omega \tau )^2}}.`$ (8b)
In this equation $`\omega _p`$ is the plasma frequency defined by $`\omega _p4\pi ne^2/m^{}`$; $`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency given by $`\omega _ceB_{\mathrm{eff}}/m^{}c`$ where $`B_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective magnetic field experienced by the conduction electrons as a result of exchange and spin-orbit interactions; $`\tau `$ is the relaxation time. In the usual situation: $`\omega _c\tau 1\omega _p\tau `$.

There are three important distance regimes to consider. In the long distance limit ($`Dc\tau `$) the dominant part in the integrals in Eqs. (4) and (6) comes from the region $`\omega k_{}cc/D1/\tau `$. In this range, one has:

$`\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )`$ $``$ $`\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2\tau }{\omega }}1,`$ (9a)
$`\epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2\omega _c\tau ^2}{\omega }}.`$ (9b)
With these approximations, one finds for the reflection coefficients:

$`r_{ss}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})1,`$ (10a)
$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c}{\omega _p}}\sqrt{\omega \tau },`$ (10b)
$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c}{\omega _p^2}}\sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2},`$ (10c)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _c}{\omega _p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2}}{k_{}c}},`$ (10d)
For the polar configuration, we arrive at:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\zeta (3)}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\tau }{\omega _{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^2}{D^4}},`$ (11a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\zeta (3)}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\tau }{\omega _{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^2}{D^5}},`$ (11b)
While for the in-plane configuration it is found that:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (4)}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^2}{\omega _p^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^3}{D^5}},\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (4)}{10\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^2}{\omega _p^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^3}{D^5}},`$ (12a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}{\displaystyle \frac{3\zeta (4)}{20\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^2}{\omega _p^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^3}{D^5}},`$ (12b)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5\zeta (4)}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^2}{\omega _p^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^3}{D^6}},\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (4)}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^2}{\omega _p^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^3}{D^6}},`$ (12c)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}{\displaystyle \frac{3\zeta (4)}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^2}{\omega _p^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^3}{D^6}}.`$ (12d)
The second regime is that for intermediate distances ($`c/\omega _pDc\tau `$). Now the integrals in Eqs. (4) and (6) are dominated by the range $`1/\tau \omega k_{}cc/D\omega _p`$. For the elements of the dielectric tensor one then finds:

$`\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )`$ $``$ $`\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\omega ^2}}1,`$ (13a)
$`\epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\omega _c}{\omega ^3}}.`$ (13b)
In this case, the reflection coefficients $`r_{ss}`$, $`r_{pp}`$, $`r_{sp}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{pp}`$ still satisfy Eqs. (10a-10d), while

$$r_{sp}^{}\frac{\omega _c}{\omega _p}.$$
(14)
Since the reflection coefficients for the in-plane configuration in this regime are not different from the ones in the short distance limit, the expressions (12) are still valid for the Casimir magnetic energies and forces in the in-plane configuration. However, for the polar configuration, one has:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c}{D^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\omega _{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}},`$ (15a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c}{D^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\omega _{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}.`$ (15b)
The third regime to be considered is the limit of short distances ($`Dc/\omega _p`$). Here one has to distinguish between two regions: (i) $`\omega k_{}c\omega _p`$ and (ii) $`\omega _p\omega k_{}c`$. In region (i) the dielectric tensor elements are given in Eqs. (13), so the reflection coefficients $`r_{sp}^{}`$, $`r_{sp}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{pp}`$ are the same as those in the intermediate distance regime, but we will now make an expansion for $`r_{ss}`$ and $`r_{pp}`$ around $`1`$ and $`1`$ respectively:

$$r_{ss}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})1+\frac{2k_{}c}{\omega _p},r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})12\frac{\omega ^2}{\omega _pk_{}c}$$
(16)
In region (ii) the dielectric tensor elements are given by:

$`\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega ^2}}1,`$ (17a)
$`\epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2\omega _c}{\omega ^3}}.`$ (17b)
We then find for region (ii):

$`r_{ss}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`0,r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{}){\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2}{2\omega ^2+\omega _p^2}},`$ (18a)
$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\omega _c}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_{}c)(2\omega ^2+\omega _{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}},`$ (18b)
$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2\omega _c}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2}}{(k_{}c)^2(2\omega ^2+\omega _p^2)}},`$ (18c)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`2\omega _p^2\omega _c{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2}}{(k_{}c)(2\omega ^2+\omega _p^2)^2}}.`$ (18d)
With these approximations for the reflection coefficients in regions (i) and (ii), one finds the following expressions for the energies and forces (only the dominant term is given):

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{2}\pi }}\omega _c^2\sqrt{\omega _p}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{c^{3/2}D^{1/2}}},`$ (19a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\sqrt{2}\pi }}\omega _c^2\sqrt{\omega _p}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{c^{3/2}D^{3/2}}},`$ (19b)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\sqrt{2}\pi }}\omega _c^2\sqrt{\omega _p}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{c^{3/2}D^{1/2}}},`$ (19c)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{192\sqrt{2}\pi }}\omega _c^2\sqrt{\omega _p}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{c^{3/2}D^{3/2}}},`$ (19d)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{2}\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(4n+3)!!}{(n+1)(4n+6)!!}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^2}{\omega _p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{D^2}},`$ (19e)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(4n+3)!!}{(n+1)(4n+6)!!}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c^2}{\omega _p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{D^3}},.`$ (19f)
From these expressions, it is obvious that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ for distances small enough. Note that for the polar configuration, the exponent of the dependence with respect to D obtained here in the short distance limit differs from the one obtained in Ref. \[PBru, \]. This is due to the effect of multiple reflections, which were neglected in Ref. \[PBru, \] in this regime. It is interesting to note that although the reflection coefficients are much smaller than 1 in this high-frequency limit, the effect of multiple reflections is so important that the analytical dependence with D is modified. This is a unique feature of the magnetic Casimir effect.
It is clear that in the polar configuration, the energies are always negative. For the in-plane configuration however, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ is positive, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ is negative, so the sign of the resulting energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ will depend on the magnitude of these two terms in the different regimes. As a result, a change of sign of the interaction is observed; in the long and intermediate distance regimes, the total energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is negative, while for short distances it is positive. So whether the magnetic Casimir interaction is negative or positive depends on the distance between the mirrors.
We numerically calculated Eqs. (4) and (6) and compared them to the analytical expressions derived above. Details of the numerical procedure will be given in section V. The absolute values of the magnetic Casimir forces per unit area (both numerical and analytical results) for distances between 1 nm and 10 $`\mu `$m for the two configurations are plotted in Fig. 1. Since typically $`\tau 10^{13}`$ s, the long distance regime ($`Dc\tau 10\mu `$m) will not be visible in these plots. For the plots, a Drude model is used with $`\mathrm{}\omega _c=5.9`$ meV and $`\mathrm{}\omega _p=9.85`$ eV. As expected from the analytical results, the force in the in-plane configuration will be larger than that for the polar configuration for small enough distances ($`D<10`$ nm). The discontinuity at $`D40`$ nm in the plot of the in-plane case depicts the change of sign. The analytical results are in pretty good agreement with the numerical calculations.

## IV The Hybrid Model

The Drude model is not very realistic. Although it describes rather well the diagonal part of the dielectric tensor (except of course for the effect of interband transitions, which are not very important here), the off-diagonal part of the dielectric tensor is poorly described. This is because the latter is dominated by interband transitions. We therefore introduce a model (called “hybrid model”) in which $`\epsilon _{xx}`$ is described by a plasma model,

$$\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )=1+\frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega ^2},$$
(20)
and where $`\epsilon _{xy}`$ is described by a single absorption line interband transition:

$$\text{Re }\epsilon _{xy}(\omega )\omega _0\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}\delta (\omega \omega _0).$$
(21)
In real systems $`\omega _0`$ will be of the same order of magnitude as $`\omega _p`$. The off-diagonal element of the dielectric tensor at imaginary frequency can be obtained by the following Kramers-Krönig relation:

$$\epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )=\frac{2}{\omega \pi }_0^+\mathrm{}d\omega ^{}\frac{\omega _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\text{ Re }\epsilon _{xy}(\omega ^{})}{\omega _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\omega ^2},$$
(22)
and in this way we arrive at:

$$\epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )=\frac{2}{\pi }\frac{\omega _0^3\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}}{\omega (\omega _0^2+\omega ^2)}.$$
(23)
For this model, we will only have two different integration regimes; the long distance ($`Dc/\omega _p`$) and the short distance regime ($`Dc/\omega _p`$). In the long distance regime, the integrals in Eqs. (4) and (6) will be dominated by the range $`\omega k_{}c\omega _p`$. In this range, we can approximate the dielectric tensor by:

$`\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )`$ $``$ $`\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega ^2}}1,`$ (24a)
$`\epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}}{\omega }}.`$ (24b)
One then finds for the reflection coefficients:

$`r_{ss}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`1,r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})1,`$ (25a)
$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}}{\omega _p^3}}\omega ^2,`$ (25b)
$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}}{\omega _p^4}}\sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2}\omega ^2,`$ (25c)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}}{\omega _p^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2}\omega ^3}{k_{}c}}.`$ (25d)
With these approximations, we obtain for the magnetic Casimir energies and forces (per unit area):

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{210}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2}{\omega _p^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^5}{D^7}},`$ (26a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{30}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2}{\omega _p^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^5}{D^8}},`$ (26b)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4}{1050}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2}{\omega _p^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^7}{D^9}},`$ (26c)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9\pi ^4}{1050}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2}{\omega _p^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^7}{D^{10}}},`$ (26d)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4}{945}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2}{\omega _p^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^7}{D^9}},`$ (26e)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4}{105}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2}{\omega _p^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^7}{D^{10}}},`$ (26f)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4}{9450}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2}{\omega _p^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^7}{D^9}},`$ (26g)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4}{1050}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2}{\omega _p^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^7}{D^{10}}}.`$ (26h)
As in the Drude model, the force in the polar configuration will be negative. However, the total force for the in-plane configuration will be positive for the hybrid model in this distance regime.
In the limit of short distances, one has to distinguish between three different integration ranges while performing the integrals in Eqs. (4) and (6): region (i) where $`\omega k_{}c\omega _p`$, region (ii) $`k_{}c\omega _p,\omega \omega _p`$ and region (iii) $`k_{}c\omega _p,\omega \omega _p`$. In region (i), $`r_{ss}`$ and $`r_{pp}`$ are defined by Eq. (16), while $`r_{sp}^{},r_{sp}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{pp}`$ are given by Eqs. (25b-25d). In regions (ii) and (iii), we will do the calculations without multiple reflections (i.e., we put $`r_{ss}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})=r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})0`$). In region (ii), the dielectric tensor elements are given in Eqs. (24), and the magneto-optical reflection coefficients are given by:

$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\omega _0\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{(k_{}c)(2\omega ^2+\omega _p^2)}},`$
$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\omega _0\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2}\omega ^2}{(k_{}c)^2(2\omega ^2+\omega _p^2)}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}\omega _0\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2}\omega ^3}{(k_{}c)(2\omega ^2+\omega _p^2)^2}}.`$
In region (iii), the dielectric tensor can be approximated by:

$`\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega ^2}}1,`$ (28a)
$`\epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^3\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}}{\omega ^3}}.`$ (28b)
One then finds for the magneto-optical reflection coefficients in region (iii):

$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\omega _0^3\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_{}c)(2\omega ^2+\omega _p^2)}},`$
$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\omega _0^3\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2}}{(k_{}c)^2(2\omega ^2+\omega _p^2)}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}\omega _0^3\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2}\omega }{(k_{}c)(2\omega ^2+\omega _p^2)^2}}.`$
With these equations by hand, we made an interpolation for the reflection coefficients in region (ii) and (iii). This makes the calculation of the integrals less labor-intensive because we can calculate the two regions at the same time. We have put:

$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^3\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{(k_{}c)(2\omega ^2+\omega _p^2)(\omega ^2+\omega _0^2)}},`$ (30a)
$`r_{sp}^{}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^3\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2k_{}c^2}\omega ^2}{(k_{}c)^2(2\omega ^2+\omega _p^2)(\omega ^2+\omega _0^2)}},`$ (30b)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{pp}(\mathrm{i}\omega ,\mathrm{i}k_{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\omega _0^3\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega ^2(k_{}c)^2}\omega ^3}{(k_{}c)(2\omega ^2+\omega _p^2)^2(\omega ^2+\omega _0^2)}}.`$ (30c)
With these expressions for the reflection coefficients, we are finally ready to calculate the magnetic Casimir energies and forces for the short distance regime. The result is:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^6(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2}{(\omega _p+\sqrt{2}\omega _0)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{c^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c}{\omega ^{}D}}\right),`$ (31a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^6(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2}{(\omega _p+\sqrt{2}\omega _0)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{c^2D}},`$ (31b)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^6(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2}{(\omega _p+\sqrt{2}\omega _0)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{c^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c}{\omega ^{}D}}\right),`$ (31c)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^6(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2}{(\omega _p+\sqrt{2}\omega _0)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{c^2D}},`$ (31d)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\sqrt{2}\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^6(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2(\omega _p+5\sqrt{2}\omega _0)}{\omega _p(\omega _p+\sqrt{2}\omega _0)^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{D^2}},`$ (31e)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\sqrt{2}\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^6(\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}})^2(\omega _p+5\sqrt{2}\omega _0)}{\omega _p(\omega _p+\sqrt{2}\omega _0)^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{D^3}},`$ (31f)
with $`\omega ^{}`$ a cut-off frequency of the order of the plasma frequency $`\omega _p`$. It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ for distances small enough. The force for the in-plane configuration is positive in this short distance regime too, so there will not be a change of sign for this model.
We did the same numerical calculations as for the Drude model and compared the results with the analytical expressions in the different regimes. The following parameters were used in our hybrid model: $`\mathrm{}\omega _p=9.85`$ eV, $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=3.9`$ eV, $`\epsilon _{xy}^{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{1.5\; 10}^2`$ and we have put $`\omega ^{}=2\mathrm{exp}(1)\omega _p`$. In Fig. 2 the numerical and analytical results for the absolute value of the magnetic Casimir force are shown to be in rather good agreement.

## V Numerical Calculations on Fe

The Drude and hybrid model will not provide an accurate description for the dielectric tensor of the mirrors in a real system. This is because interband transitions will start playing a role at photon energies of a few eV, and these are not contained correctly in either one of the models. In order to obtain an estimate of the magnitude of the magnetic Casimir force in such a real system, it is necessary to perform numerical calculations of Eqs. (4) and (6) where the reflection coefficients are calculated with experimental data for the dielectric tensor. In this section, we will present such calculations for a system with iron plates. Similar calculations for the non-magnetic Casimir force have already been performed for Al, Au and Cu SKLam ; ALam .
Experimental values for the imaginary part of $`\epsilon _{xx}(\omega )`$ for Fe are given in \[HandOpt, \]. The diagonal element of the dielectric tensor at imaginary frequency can then be obtained by the causality relation:

$$\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )=1+\frac{2}{\pi }_0^+\mathrm{}d\omega ^{}\frac{\omega ^{}\text{ Im }\epsilon _{xx}(\omega ^{})}{\omega _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\omega ^2}.$$
(32)
Of course it is impossible to perform the numerical integration over the entire interval $`[0,+\mathrm{}]`$, so we have to define our integration range in more detail. In our calculations, the complete range of data extending from 4 meV to 10 keV available in \[HandOpt, \] was used, along with a Drude model below 4 meV as shown in Fig. 3. The following parameters for the Drude model were found by extrapolation of the available data at low frequencies: $`\mathrm{}\omega _p=3.5`$ eV and $`\mathrm{}/\tau =19`$ meV. The quantity $`\epsilon _{xx}(\mathrm{i}\omega )1`$ calculated in this way is shown in Fig. 3 to decay roughly as $`\omega ^{3/2}`$ (for $`\omega >\mathrm{}/\tau `$), so it can not be completely described by a Drude (or plasma) model.

Experimental data for the off-diagonal element of the dielectric tensor is rather scarce. Some data for $`\text{Re }\epsilon _{xy}(\omega )`$ can be found in \[Land, \]. They are shown in Fig. 4. With the causality relation (22) it is then possible to calculate $`\epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )`$. Since we only have data available between 0.1 eV and 6 eV, we had to perform the integration in Eq. (22) over this range. This, of course, is a rather rough approximation. The results of the calculation depicted in Fig. 4 show that $`\epsilon _{xy}(\mathrm{i}\omega )`$ decays the same way as in our hybrid model (cf. Eqs. (24b) and (28b)).

The magnetic Casimir force and energy are now calculated by numerical integration of Eqs. (4) and (6). We are interested in plate separations between 1 nm and 10 $`\mu `$m. These separations correspond to frequencies in the range $`10^2`$ \- $`10^2`$ eV, so we will have to perform the integration between say $`10^5`$ eV and $`10^4`$ eV. Fig. 5 shows the resulting force and energy (per unit area) for the polar and in-plane configuration. In the short distance limit, the force decays as $`D^2`$ for the polar configuration and as $`D^3`$ for the in-plane case. For long distances we find a $`D^6`$ power law for the polar configuration and $`D^8`$ for the situation with magnetization parallel to the plates. A change of sign of the interaction for the in-plane configuration is also visible from the figure (the discontinuity at $`D=50`$ nm). The power laws differ (except for the in-plane configuration at short distances) from those obtained for the Drude and hybrid model. This can be explained as due to the different behavior (because of interband transitions) of the dielectric tensor for Fe compared to that of the models. In view of future experimental investigations of the effect, distances $`D>10`$ nm are the most interesting. In this range, the effect will be greatest for the polar configuration. For two parallel plates of Fe (with infinite lateral extension) the force per unit area in this configuration is approximately 40 mN/m<sup>2</sup> at $`D=10`$ nm, and decays to 0.1 mN/m<sup>2</sup> at $`D=100`$ nm. Whether such forces can be observed experimentally will be discussed in the next section.

## VI Experimental Setup

Since it is hard to experimentally maintain two parallel plates uniformly separated by distances smaller than a micron, one of the plates is most often replaced by a lens-shaped mirror. Recently, a number of experiments has been performed using this geometry to measure the non-magnetic Casimir force with an AFM UMoh ; ARoy ; BWHar . For this plate-cylinder geometry, the Casimir force can be obtained from the plate-plate geometry by means of the force proximity theorem JBlo :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F=2\pi R\mathrm{\Delta }(D).$$
(33)
In this equation, $`R`$ is the radius of curvature of the lens-shaped mirror, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(D)`$ is the Casimir energy per unit area for the configuration with two plates. One has to be careful to distinguish between $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$; the former is the force for the plate-lens geometry, while the latter is a force per unit area for two parallel plates. With the numerical results from the previous section, we are able to estimate the magnitude of the magnetic Casimir force in the plate-lens geometry for Fe. If we take $`R=100\mu `$m and a distance $`D=50`$ nm, a force $`|\mathrm{\Delta }F|10`$ fN is found for the polar configuration. In the in-plane configuration, the force will be two orders of magnitude smaller. Such small forces can probably not be measured with the AFM technique. However, sensitivities of 0.1 to 10 fN in “magnetic resonant force microscopy (MRFM)” have been reported DRug ; JASid . More recently, the detection of forces in the attonewton range has been achieved TDStow ; PMoh .

A possible MRFM setup is already discussed in detail in Ref. \[PBru, \]. A thin film ($``$ 10 nm) of ferromagnetic material with hard magnetization is deposited on a substrate which is placed on a piezo-electric actuator. The lens-shaped mirror is attached to a cantilever by first depositing a small droplet of polymer on the cantilever, which can then be covered by evaporation with a thin ($``$ 10 nm) layer of soft ferromagnet (such as permalloy). In this way, one is able to create the lens-shape, with a curvature radius of say $`100\mu `$m. The distance between the samples can be controlled easily with the piezo-actuator. By applying an ac magnetic field, one is able to modulate the magnetization of the soft sample at the resonance frequency of the cantilever. This will generate an oscillating magnetic Casimir force that causes the cantilever to vibrate. The deflection of the cantilever can then be measured with a laser. In this way, the magnetic force ($`\mathrm{\Delta }F=F_{AF}F_{FM}`$) can be measured. The force resolution achievable using a freely vibrating cantilever is fundamentally limited by intrinsic thermomechanical noise. This force noise can be controlled by the geometry of the cantilever; one needs a high Q cantilever that is thin, narrow and long to obtain the best sensitivity. With ultrathin silicon cantilevers, force resolutions in the attonewton range have been obtained TDStow . More information on the sensitivity of MRFM can be found in \[TDStow, ; JASid, \].

Since the non-magnetic Casimir effect is independent of the magnetization direction of the samples, only the magnetic contribution to the Casimir effect will be measured by using this modulation technique. Parasitic electrostatic forces (caused by a difference in potential between the magnetic samples) are also taken care of automatically in this way. The exchange interaction between the samples does not contribute much at the separations of interest ($`D>10`$ nm). Another parasitic magnetostatic interaction is the dipole interaction between the ferromagnets. This dipole force can be made as small as needed by taking a ferromagnetic plate with sufficiently large lateral extension and sufficiently small thickness. The plate should also be as uniformly magnetized as possible. With a plate of radius 1 cm, and a thickness of 10 nm, this parasitic magnetostatic force can be estimated to be below 1 attoNewton. Interaction of the soft sample with the ac magnetic field will yield a signal at two times the modulation frequency, so this can be filtered out effectively by using a lock-in amplifier. Thus with MRFM, it should be possible to measure the magnetic Casimir interaction without much influence of other effects.

## VII Conclusion

In this paper, the magnetic Casimir interaction discovered in \[PBru, \] was generalized to the case where the magnetization is parallel to the plates. The calculations for the Drude model in the short-distance limit were revised, and another model was introduced. The behavior of the interaction was discussed in the different distance regimes, and it is seen that the interaction in the two models decays quite different with interplate distance. Numerical calculations for a real system with iron plates were also presented. Here we used experimental data for the dielectric tensor of the mirrors. The results from this numerical work on Fe could not be fitted by one of the introduced models, because interband transitions play a prominent role in Fe, and these were not implemented correctly in the models.
It was made acceptable that the new Casimir magnetic interaction can be measured with magnetic resonance force microscopy. However, to obtain an accurate comparison of the theory with eventual experimental results, more work is needed on the theoretical side. A detailed analysis of the geometrical effects would be valuable; the proximity force theorem does not provide reliable estimations at a level of accuracy of a few percent. Also one has to consider other corrections already calculated for the non-magnetic Casimir effect; e.g. surface roughness corrections would probably play an important role ARoy2 . Finally, more experimental data on the off-diagonal element of the dielectric tensor for several ferromagnetic materials is also necessary in order to obtain a better estimate of the magnitude of the interaction from the numerical procedure presented.


format: text

text:
# Anomalous Transport in Conical Granular Piles

## I  Introduction.

Transport phenomena are found at the core of almost every discipline in many-body physics; for example in nuclear physics, with the motion of neutrons through a fissionable material; in electronics, with the transport of holes and electrons in semiconductors; in astrophysics, with the diffusion of light through stellar atmospheres; and also in plasma physics, biological physics, etc. . The study of granular matter (like sand, powders, and all that) has only very recently become a goal for the physics community (surprisingly, see Ref. ) and therefore the understanding of their transport properties will be required in order to explain the (sometimes-strange) properties of these materials .

Seminal experimental work on transport of individual grains through a granular pile was performed by Christensen et al. : a $`1+1`$-dimensional pile was built in the narrow gap between two parallel plates using elongated rice grains. The time taken by tracer grains to cross the system was measured when the pile was driven out of equilibrium by a constant addition of grains. The probability density of these transit times turned out to be, for long times, a decreasing power law with an exponent $`\alpha 2.4`$, signaling the existence of an anomalous (non-Gaussian) behavior. By means of some theoretical models the transport process was later microscopically understood as a composition of Lévy flights (in the jumps of the grains during an avalanche) and also power-law distributed trapping times .

On the other hand, the same rice pile was previously shown to display self-organized criticality (SOC) due to the dissipation introduced in the motion by the elongated shape of the grains, which removes inertial effects . This SOC behavior simply means that the motion of the grains takes place in terms of avalanches, and the distribution of sizes of these avalanches is scale invariant, that is, another power law, achieved without any parameter fine tuning . Interestingly, SOC does not appear when the grains are somewhat round, and therefore more free to roll and accumulate kinetic energy .

Additionally, other remarkable properties of this rice-pile system include diverging profile fluctuations with system size , and probably a multifractal spectrum of the transit-time time series . More generically, a pile configuration allows to study the transition between different metastable configurations of a granular system, which occurs when a solid phase becomes unstable and flows like a liquid until it becomes ”frozen” again.

Another class of experiments, performed on sandpiles (or with round particles, in general) in $`2+1`$ dimensions show that in these systems a crossover from small to large avalanches occurs when the system size is increased ; that is, small piles tend to show avalanches of different sizes, although not very large, but for a big enough system very large avalanches appear in addition, a behavior that is not compatible with SOC . This is in agreement with a different type of experiments performed on rotating drums .

The extension of rice-pile experiments to $`2+1`$ dimensions, which is the subject of our research, allows a comparison with the results for sandpiles and raises a series of interesting questions: will the dissipation of the elongated grain motion be enough to suppress inertia and give SOC? If not, which is then the behavior? But even more important, our experiments allow to explore the transport of individual grains in granular piles, and in general to go deeply into the connection between anomalous transport and SOC, a connection that has not been explored in detail. We find that the behavior of the avalanches in a conical rice pile (with elongated grains) is very similar to what has been observed in conical sandpiles , with somewhat small avalanches for small piles and large relaxation oscillations in larger systems. However, the transport properties give totally new information, with a power-law transit-time distribution even in the later case of almost periodic occurrences.

## II  Experimental setup and procedure.

The rice pile was built over a wooden (circular) disk supported by a platform which allowed the grains falling out in any direction when they reached the disk perimeter. Three different disk diameters were employed, $`L=10,15`$, and $`20`$ cm, in order to study the effect of the system size. In terms of the mean grain length (6.6 mm, see below) this quantity turns out to be $`L=15`$, 22.5, and 30.

The driving of the pile was carried out by means of a single-seed machine connected to a DC motor through a gearbox. The driving rate was adjusted with a voltage transformer to a value of 43 grains per minute ($`2\pm 0.4`$ grains every 2.8 seconds); this rate is small enough to be considered as a zero driving rate for the system sizes studied (see Ref. ) but also allows to conclude the experiment in a finite time. After being expelled from the machine the grains were directed by a cardboard pipe towards a funnel where at the exit a paper tongue braked the grains and dropped them over the center of the disk with few kinetic energy. Once the pile was built, the distance from the exit of the funnel to the top of the pile was just a few centimeters.

In addition to the described driving procedure, when the pile reached a (statistical) stationary state –where the injected grains were balanced out on average by the coming out grains– tracer grains were added to the top of the pile by hand at a rate of 1 grain every 30 seconds for the two smallest piles and 1 grain every minute for the largest one . These tracer grains were used to compute the transit time, which is the time a grain remains in the pile, since it is added until it comes out. Tracers were marked by a number written on the surface, and were also colored in order to be visually distinguished from the rest of the grains. The addition of each tracer was done at a fixed input time $`T_{in}`$ (determined by the tracer driving rate), being only necessary then to record the output time $`T_{out}`$ to get the transit time as $`T=T_{out}T_{in}`$. The total number of injected tracers was about 500 for $`L=15`$ and $`L=22.5`$ and 700 for $`L=30`$. After the end of the tracer injection, the experiment and therefore the normal driving of the pile should continue until all tracers come out; however, for practical reasons this could not be achieved and the experiment was stopped when a few tracers were still inside the pile, after more than 100 hours. The elimination of these long-living tracers affects the direct calculation of the mean transit time, but not the whole probability distribution, which is a much more interesting quantity, as we will see.

In practise, the grains coming out from the pile were collected by a piece of cardboard and directed at a glass, where the colored tracers were easily recognized by the naked eye. It was then when the output time was recorded, and the glass replaced by another one. Moreover, note that the grains collected in the glass after an avalanche can give a measure of the avalanche size (of course for those avalanches that reach the boundaries). During the addition of the tracers three persons were needed to perform the described tasks, but as long as the number of tracers inside the pile decreases these demands diminish too.

The rice used in all the experiments was ”Løse parboiled ris” from Føtex (Denmark). The shape of these grains is elongated, similar to the one of Refs. , with a length of $`6.6\pm 0.9`$ mm and a width of $`1.6\pm 0.6`$ mm, which gives a length-width ratio of about 4. The mean weight of the grains is $`16.9`$ mg.

## III  Experimental results.

The first observation provided by the experiment is a qualitatively one: as in sandpiles, the size of the system influences dramatically the behavior. Small piles ($`L=15`$ and $`22.5`$) do not change very much their profile during time evolution once the pile is built (the total heigh varies in about 1 cm) and do not display big avalanches either. In contrast, the big pile ($`L=30`$) shows enormous, catastrophic avalanches, which eject a significative percentage of the grains out of the pile and therefore change totally the profile. In the time interval in between these enormous avalanches there are also small avalanches. Actually, this is a similar behavior to what was observed in sandpiles (with round particles) . Therefore, the elongation of the rice grains (which was identified as the responsible for SOC in $`1+1`$-d ) does not make dissipate enough energy in three dimensions to give SOC. The addition of one extra degree of freedom to the motion of the grains modifies totally the behavior, in comparison.

To explain the transition in sandpiles when the size of the system is increased, a simple argument was proposed based on the fact that for small piles there is ”no room” for the two angles involved in the dynamics (one for the starting of the avalanche and another one for the end) . We find that the situation is not so easy, due to the somewhat rough surface of the pile; indeed, the elongation of the grains gives rise to local bumps of packed grains which provoke fluctuations of the total height of the pile. Moreover, in the regime with large avalanches the measurement of the angle of repose –the angle after an avalanche– makes little sense, since then a large part of the pile has collapsed (like the crater of a volcano) and the conical shape is lost. Rotating-drum experiments could perhaps give more information on this point.

The total mass of dropped grains and the occurrence time of these catastrophic avalanches (in the big pile) was measured. In all cases the number of dropping grains was in between about 3000 and 7000, with a mean value of 4600 and a standard deviation of 1100. For comparison, the largest avalanches in the small piles dropped only about 20 or 30 grains, roughly the same value as the largest small avalanches in the big pile. The mean time between big avalanches was 7700 grains (3 hours) with a deviation of 2200. The difference with respect the mean number of dropping grains in big avalanches (4600) corresponds of course to grains coming out in small avalanches.

Let us address now the problem of the transport inside the system. Part of the data for the input times and their corresponding output times for the three experiments are shown in Fig. 1, where transit times are given by the length of the horizontal lines. First, it is clear the difference between small and big systems, in terms of the number of coincidences in the output times (related to the avalanche size). Moreover, although comparison with Christensen et al.’s results  is not direct (tracer density is lower there), it is possible to see that their Fig. 2 settles in between our two behaviors. Second, one can observe the great variability of the transit times, broadly distributed from few seconds to more than 100 hours (this last value, not shown in the plot, is in fact a lower bound for the maximum transit time, determined by the duration of the experiment).

Figure 2 displays the probability densities of the transit times measured for each pile. It is apparent once more the difference between the two smallest piles and the big one. In the first case (Fig. 2(a)) we obtain a power-law distribution of transit times with an exponent close to one, i.e., $`D(T,L)1/T^\alpha ,\text{ with }\alpha 1,`$ ranging from tens of seconds to tens of hours, over more than 3 decades. This is a signature of anomalous diffusion and dispersive transport, and it has been widely studied in amorphous semiconductors, glasses, and many other disordered materials .

This self-similar behavior is limited by a sharper cutoff for long times, which increases with system size. Finite size scaling, shown in Fig. 2(b) ratifies this, giving the relation $`D(T,L)=L^\beta f(T/L^\nu )`$ between the distributions for different sizes of the system. The data collapse gives for the exponents $`\beta \nu 3.3\pm 0.5`$, in agreement with a well known scaling relation (obtained from the normalization condition), $`\beta =\nu `$ if $`\alpha 1`$. Also, from these relations it is easy to obtain that the mean transit time scales as $`T(L)L^\nu `$, which is a very fast increase. This procedure is more practical than direct calculation of $`T`$, since it can be used when data for some extreme events are unavailable, as we have for very deeply buried tracers. Notice also that a generalization of the argument of Ref.  would give an active zone increasing as $`L^{\nu 2}`$, so, even in the regime of small avalanches there is an active zone that increases with system size.

However, further increments on the size $`L`$ break completely this behavior and the previous scaling relations are no longer valid. Indeed, for the big pile we enter into the regime of large relaxation avalanches and the transport properties consequently change. As we see in Fig. 2(c) the transit time distribution becomes even broader, as it decays more slowly. A decreasing power law with exponent $`2/3`$ is shown for comparison, although the statistics is not so good as for the small piles, due to the extremely slow decay. We find particularly relevant that despite of the almost periodic ticking of the pile, there is no characteristic scale for the transit times.

## IV  Conclusions and perspectives.

As we have seen, three-dimensional piles of elongated particles behave essentially as piles of round particles in 3d, rather than as $`1+1`$-dimensional rice piles. Therefore, the transport properties we have found should apply to any sandpile in 3d . It is an open question if with an even more dissipative particle shape, piles in 3d would give scale invariance in the distribution of avalanches. In fact we believe that the use of particles with several ”arms”, like crosses or 3d crosses, or some kind of sticky particles, would brake the tendency to roll and the results –if this kind of particles could be experimentally handled with success– would be closer to SOC.

However, although we do not see indication of SOC in the distribution of avalanches, we find that the transit time of the grains is power-law distributed, signaling the existence of a scale-free behavior, as in the $`1+1`$ dimensional SOC rice pile of Refs. . Nevertheless it is worth mentioning that the type of distributions that we find are much broader (in the sense that the exponent $`\alpha `$ is much smaller) than those of the $`1+1`$-d case.

Big piles, that is, those in the relaxation-oscillation regime, demmand a more intensive study. Notice that we have studied the smallest of these big piles, just above the transition, but we have found enormous transit times which provoke serious inconveniences in the experimental realization. Indeed, the fact that the transit time distribution decays more slowly than for the small piles, gives a larger number of tracers in the tail of the distribution, which corresponds to long-living particles. This effect increases dramatically with system size; therefore, much better statistics is necessary for the elucidation of the characteristics of the transport process. We are talking about of tens of thousands of tracers, which requires a different procedure than our hand addition and visual control, so man-time consuming. In consequence, automatization of the tracer recognition process would be highly desiderable.

Finally, none of the sandpile models we know so far is able to reproduce these results; accordingly, it would be of the maximum interest to develop models that allow the necessary interplay between theory and experiment to overcome our present knowledge of these media.

## V  Acknowledgements.

The experiment was designed and performed by the first four authors as first-year undergraduate students of the University of Copenhagen, for a project for the course Fysik I with the assistance of the last author. The realization was possible thanks to the enthusiastic support of Anders Holm. A.C. is indebted to the Cooperative Phenomena Group of the University of Oslo, where he was introduced into the wonderful world of rice-pile experiments, and also to Per Bak, the ultimate father of all this. A.C.’s contribution was first financed by the TMR network on Fractal Structures and Self-Organization through the EU-grant FMRX-CT98-0183. Nowadays, he is happy to thank Santiago Ramón y Cajal program to help Spanish young scientists.