text:
# Quasi-spin wave quantum memories with dynamic symmetry

\[

## Abstract

For the two-mode exciton system formed by the quasi-spin wave collective excitation of many $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ atoms fixed at the lattice sites of a crystal, we discover a dynamic symmetry depicted by the semi-direct product algebra $`SU(2)\overline{}h_2`$ in the large $`N`$ limit with low excitations. With the help of the spectral generating algebra method, we obtain a larger class of exact zero-eigenvalue states adiabatically interpolating between the initial state of photon-type and the final state of quasi-spin wave exciton-type. The conditions for the adiabatic passage of dark states are shown to be valid, even with the presence of the level degeneracy. These theoretical results can lead to propose new protocol of implementing quantum memory robust against quantum decoherence.

\]

Recent progresses in quantum information have stimulated the development of new concept technologies, such as quantum computation, quantum cryptography and quantum teleportation . The practical implementation of these quantum protocols relies on the construction of both quantum memories (QMEs) and quantum carriers (QCAs) free of quantum decoherence. While photons can be generally taken as quantum carriers, quantum memories should correspond to localized systems capable of storing and releasing quantum states reversibly. Moreover, to control the coherent transfer of information, there should be a time dependent mechanism for turning on and turning off the interaction between QME and QCA at appropriate instants of time.

A single atom in a cavity QED system  seems to satisfy the above mentioned requirements for QME using the Raman adiabatic passage mechanism . To achieve the strong coupling required for a practical QME a very elegant method has been proposed recently , where ensembles of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type atoms are used to store and transfer the quantum information of photons by the collective atomic excitations through electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) . Some experiments  have already demonstrated the central principle of this technique \- the group velocity reduction. The recent success in experiment also shows the power of such an atomic ensemble QME  and motivates additional theoretical works . But there still exists the decoherence problem. An ensemble consists of many moving atoms and atoms in different spatial positions may experience different couplings to the controlling external fields. This results in decoherence in quantum information processing . To avoid the spatial-motion induced decoherence, one naturally considers the case that each $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ atom is fixed at a lattice site of a crystal. The most recent experiment of the ultraslow group velocity of light in a crystal of $`Y_2S_iO_5`$  proposes the possibility of implementing robust quantum memories by utilizing the solid state exciton system.

In this letter, we study a system consisting of the quasi-spin wave collective excitations of many $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type atoms. In this system, most spatially-fixed atoms stay in the ground state, the two quasi-spin collective excitations to two excited states behave as two types of bosons and thus a two mode exciton system forms. We prove that in the large $`N`$ limit with low excitations, this excitonic system possess a hidden dynamic symmetry described by the semi-direct product $`SU(2)\overline{}h_2`$ of quasi-spin $`SU(2)`$ and the exciton Heisenberg-Weyl algebra $`h_2`$. With the help of the spectrum generating algebra theory  based on $`SU(2)\overline{}h_2`$, we can construct the eigen-states of the two mode exciton-photon system including the collective dark states as a special class. Since the external classical field is controllable, the quantum information can be coherently transferred from the cavity photon to the exciton system and vice versa. Therefore, the two mode quasi-spin wave exciton system can serve as a robust quantum memory.

The model system we consider consists of a crystal with $`N`$ lattice sites as shown in Fig. 1. There are $`N`$ 3-level atoms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type with the excited state $`|a`$, the relative ground state $`|b`$ and the meta-stable lower state $`|c`$. They interact with two single-mode optical fields. The transition from $`|a`$ to $`|b`$ of each atom is approximately resonantly coupled to a quantized radiation mode (with coupling constant $`g`$ and annihilation operator $`a`$), and the transition from $`|a`$ to $`|c`$ is driven by an exactly resonant classical field of Rabi-frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In recent years, for the similar exciton system in a crystal slab with spatially fixed two level atoms, both quantum decoherence and fluorescence process have been extensively studied .

For convenience we introduce the notation $`𝐣=(a_xj_x,a_yj_y,a_zj_z)`$ to denote the position of the $`𝐣th`$ site where $`a_u`$ is the length of the crystal cell along $`u`$direction and $`j_u=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, $`N_u`$ for $`u=x,y,z`$. Then the quantum dynamics of the total system is described by the following Hamiltonian in the interaction picture:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`ga{\displaystyle \underset{𝐣=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐊_{ba}𝐣)\sigma _{ab}^𝐣`$ (2)
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(i𝐊_{ca}𝐣)\sigma _{ac}^𝐣+h.c.,`$
where $`N=N_xN_yN_z`$, and $`𝐊_{ba}`$ and $`𝐊_{ca}`$ are respectively the wave vectors of the quantum and classical light fields. The quasi-spin operators $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^𝐣=|\alpha _{\mathrm{𝐣𝐣}}\beta |`$ ($`\alpha ,\beta =a,b,c`$) for $`\alpha \beta `$ describe the transition between the levels of $`|a`$, $`|b`$ and $`|c`$.

The function of quantum memory is understood in terms of its quantum state mapping technique. This motivates us to define the basic quantum states according to the concrete form of the interaction. We denote by $`|v=|b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_N`$ the collective ground state with all $`N`$ atoms staying in the same single particle ground state $`|b`$. It is obvious that, from the ground state $`|v`$, the first order and second order perturbations of the interaction can create the one exciton quasi-spin wave states $`|1_a`$ and $`|1_c`$:

$$|1_s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{𝐣=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i𝐊_{bs}𝐣}|b,b,\mathrm{},\stackrel{𝐣th}{\stackrel{}{s}},\mathrm{},b,$$
(3)
for $`s=a,c`$ respectively. The wave vector $`𝐊_{bc}=𝐊_{ba}𝐊_{ca}`$ is introduced to depict the second order transition process from $`|b`$ to $`|c`$ as shown in Fig. 2(a). Its collective effect can be described by operator

$$C=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{𝐣=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i𝐊_{bc}𝐣}\sigma _{bc}^𝐣,$$
(4)
which gives $`|1_cC^{}|v`$. Correspondingly, the collective excitation from $`|b`$ to

$`|a`$ is described by

$$A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{𝐣=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i𝐊_{ba}𝐣}\sigma _{ba}^𝐣,$$
(5)
which gives $`|1_aA^{}|v`$. In the large $`N`$ limit with the low excitation condition that there are only a few atoms occupying $`|a`$ or $`|c`$ , the two mode quasi-spin wave excitations behave as two bosons since in this case they satisfy the bosonic commutation relations $`[A,A^{}]=1`$, $`[C,C^{}]=1`$. In the same limit, it is worth to point out that $`[A,C]=0`$ and $`[A,C^{}]=T_{}/N0`$, thus these quasi-spin wave low excitations are independent of each other.

In terms of these two mode exciton operators, the interaction Hamiltonian reads

$$H=g\sqrt{N}aA^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }T_++h.c.,$$
(6)
where the collective operators

$$T_{}=\underset{𝐣=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i𝐊_{ca}𝐣}\sigma _{ca}^𝐣,T_+=(T_{})^{},$$
(7)
generate the $`SU(2)`$ algebra together with the third generator $`T_3=_{𝐣=1}^N(\sigma _{aa}^𝐣\sigma _{cc}^𝐣)/2`$. It is very interesting to observe that the exciton operators and the $`SU(2)`$ generators span a larger Lie algebra. By a straightforward calculation we obtain

$$[T_{},C]=A,[T_+,A]=C.$$
(8)
Denote by $`h_2`$ the Lie algebra generated by $`A`$, $`A^{}`$, $`C`$, and $`C^{}`$. It then follows that $`[SU(2),h_2]h_2`$. This means that in the large $`N`$ limit with the low excitation condition the operators $`A`$, $`A^{}`$, $`C`$, $`C^{}`$, $`T_3`$, $`T_\pm `$ and the identity $`1`$ span a semidirect product Lie algebra $`SU(2)\overline{}h_2`$. In the following discussion we will focus on this case except otherwise explicitly specified. Since the Hamiltonian $`H`$ can be expressed as a function of the generators of $`SU(2)\overline{}h_2`$, one says that the two-mode exciton system possesses a dynamic symmetry governed by the dynamic “group” (or dynamic algebra) $`SU(2)\overline{}h_2`$. The discovery of this dynamic symmetry leads us, by the spectrum generating algebra method , to find $`H`$ invariant subspaces, in which one can diagonalize the Hamiltonian easily.

To that cause, we define

$$D=a\mathrm{cos}\theta C\mathrm{sin}\theta $$
(9)
with $`\theta (t)`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{tan}\theta (t)=\frac{g\sqrt{N}}{\mathrm{\Omega }(t)}`$. It mixes the electromagnetic field and collective atomic excitations of quasi spin wave. Evidently, $`[D,D^{}]=1`$ and $`[D,H]=0`$. Thus the Heisenberg-Weyl group $`h`$ generated by $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ is a symmetry group of the two-mode exciton-photon system. We introduce the state $`|\mathrm{𝟎}=|v|0_l`$ where $`|0_l`$ is the vacuum of the electromagnetic field, we find $`D|\mathrm{𝟎}=0`$ and it is an eigen-state of $`H`$ with zero eigen-value. Consequently, a degenerate class of eigen-states of $`H`$ with zero eigen-value can be constructed naturally as follows:

$$|d_n=[n!]^{1/2}D^n|\mathrm{𝟎}.$$
(10)
Physically, the above dressed state is cancelled by the interaction Hamiltonian and thus is called a dark state or a dark-state polariton (DSP). A DSP traps the electromagnetic radiation from the excited state due to quantum interference cancelling. For the case with an ensemble of free moving atoms, the similar DSP was obtained in refs.  to clarify the physics of the state-preserving slow light propagation in EIT associated with the existence of quasi-particles.

Now starting from these dark states $`|d_n`$, we can use the spectrum generating algebra method to build other eigenstates for the total system. To this end we introduce the bright-state polariton operator

$$B=a\mathrm{sin}\theta +C\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(11)
It is easy to check that $`[B,B^{}]=1`$, and $`[D,B^{}]=[D,B]=0`$. Evidently $`[A,B]=[A,B^{}]=0`$, this amounts to the fact that $`A`$ commutes with $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ in the large $`N`$ limit with low excitations. What is crucial for our purpose is the commutation relations $`[H,Q_\pm ^{}]=\pm ϵQ_\pm ^{}`$ for $`Q_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(A\pm B)`$ where $`ϵ=\sqrt{g^2N+\mathrm{\Omega }^2}`$. Thanks to these commutation relations we can construct the eigen-states

$$|e(m,k;n)=[m!k!]^{1/2}Q_+^mQ_{}^k|d_n,$$
(12)
as the dressed states of the two-mode exciton system. The corresponding eigen-values are

$$E(m,k)=(mk)ϵ,m,k=0,1,2\mathrm{}.$$
(13)
We notice that for each given pair of indices $`(m,k)`$, $`\{|e(m,k;n)|n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ defines a degenerate set of eigen-states. Physically the spectral structure of the dressed two-mode exciton system resembles that of a two mode harmonic oscillator, but its energy level number is finite and each energy level possesses a very large degeneracy.

The above equations show that there exists a larger class $`𝐒:\{|e(m,m;n)|d(m,n)|`$ $`m,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ of states of zero-eigen-value $`E(m,m)=0`$. They are constructed by acting $`Q_+^{}Q_{}^{}`$ $`m`$ times on $`|d_n`$ :

$$|d(m,n)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{A^{2(mk)}B^{2k}}{2^m(mk)!k!}|d_n.$$
(14)
This larger degeneracy is physically rooted in the larger symmetry group $`h_2`$ generated by $`Q_+^{}Q_{}^{}`$ and $`Q_+Q_{}`$ together with $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$. The original quantum memory defined by $`\left\{|d_n=|d(0,n)\right\}`$ in ref.  actually is a special subset of the larger class.

Now we consider whether these states of zero-eigen-value can work well as a quantum memory by the adiabatic manipulation . The quantum adiabatic theorem  for degenerate cases tells us that, under the adiabatic condition

$$|\frac{e(m,k;n)|_t|d(m,n)}{E(m,k)}|\frac{g\sqrt{N}\stackrel{.}{|\mathrm{\Omega }(t)|}}{ϵ^3}1,$$
(15)
the adiabatic evolution of any degenerate system will keep itself within the block $`𝐒`$ of dark states with the same instantaneous eigen-value $`0`$. However, it does not forbid transitions within states in this block $`𝐒`$, such as those between $`\left\{|d_n=|d(0,n)\right\}`$ and $`\{|d(m,n)(m0)\}`$. So it is important to consider whether there exists any dynamic mechanism to forbid such transitions. Actually this issue has been uniformly ignored in all previous studies even for the degenerate set $`\left\{|d_n\right\}`$.

We can generally consider this problem by defining the zero-eigenvalue subspaces $`𝐒^{[m]}:\{|d(m,n)|`$ $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$, $`𝐒^{[0]}=𝐒`$. The complementary part of the direct sum $`\mathrm{𝐃𝐒}=𝐒^{[0]}`$ $`𝐒^{[1]}\mathrm{}`$ of all dark state subspaces is $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐒}=\{|e(m,k,n)|km,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ in which each $`|e(m,k,n)`$ has non-zero eigenvalue. Any state $`|\varphi ^{[m]}(t)=_nc_n^{[m]}(t)|d(m,n)`$ in $`𝐒^{[m]}`$ evolves according to

$$i\frac{d}{dt}c_n^{[m]}(t)=\underset{m^{},n^{}}{}D_{mn}^{m^{}n^{}}c_n^{}^{[m^{}]}(t)+F[\mathrm{𝐂𝐒}],$$
(16)
where $`F[\mathrm{𝐂𝐒}]`$, which can be ignored under the adiabatic conditions , represents a certain functional of the complementary states and $`D_{mn}^{m^{}n^{}}=id(m^{},n^{})|_t|d(m,n)`$. Considering $`_\theta B=D`$ and $`_\theta D=B,`$ we have $`D_{mn}^{m^{}n^{}}=i\stackrel{.}{\theta }d(m^{},n^{})|_\theta |d(m,n)`$. The equation about $`_\theta |d(m,n)`$ contains 4 terms: $`|e(m,m1;n\pm 1)`$ and $`|e(m1,m;n\pm 1)`$. This implies the exact result $`d(m^{},n^{})|_\theta |d(m,n)`$ $`=0`$, showing there is indeed no mixing among the dark states during the adiabatic evolution. Viewed from physical aspect, this can also be understood as the adiabatic change of external parameters do not lead the system to enter into the complementary space $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐒}`$. Notice that only for the non-adiabatic evolution, will the non-zero matrix elements $`e(m^{},k,n^{})|_\theta |d(m,n)`$ will be a cause for state mixing. The same physics has been considered in the context of the Abelianization of the non-Abelian gauge structure induced by an adiabatic process . This argument gives a necessary theoretical support for the practical realization of the original scheme of quantum memory by Fleischhauer, Lukin and their collaborators .

Based on the above consideration, we thus claim that, for each fixed $`m0`$, each subspace $`𝐒^{[m]}`$ can work formally as a quantum memory different from that in ref. . We introduce the notation

$$|𝐀,𝐏,m=\frac{1}{2^mm!}(A^2P^2)^m|\mathrm{𝟎}$$
(17)
for $`𝐏=𝐚,𝐂`$. Both the initial state $`|d(m,n)|_{\theta =0}=|𝐀,𝐂,m|n_L`$ and the final state $`|d(m,n)|_{\theta =\pi /2}=|n_C`$ $`(1)^n`$ $`|𝐀,𝐚,m`$ have factorization structure. Thus we can use the general initial state $`|s(0)=_nc_n|n_L`$ of single-mode light to record quantum information and prepare the exciton in a paired state $`|𝐀,𝐂,m`$. When one rotates the mixing angle $`\theta `$ from 0 to $`\pi /2`$ by changing the coupling strength $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ adiabatically, the total system will reach the final state $`|S(t)=(_nc_n|n_C)|𝐀,𝐚,m`$ with the $`c`$-mode quasi-spin wave decoupling with the other parts. From the viewpoint of quantum measurement the decoding process is then to average over the states of photon and $`A`$-exciton and to obtain the pure state density matrix $`\rho _C=_{n,m}c_nc_m^{}|n_{cc}m|`$, which is the same as that for the initial photons. Therefore, the above discussion suggests a new protocol of storing quantum information when the decay of excited state is enough small during adiabatic manipulation.

Before concluding, we would like to address that, the individual atoms in the generalized states $`|d(m,n)`$ have excited state components and therefore $`|d(m,n)`$ is not totally dark in practice. If the excited state decays faster, the generalized states $`|d(m,n)`$ would also decay during slow adiabatic manipulation. This metastable nature would leads to an undesirable effect for memory application. We also point out that the present treatment is only valid for the low density excitation regime where the bosonic modes of the quasi-spin wave excitations can be used effectively. Therefore the above down Fock state formally written as $`A^mC^n|\mathrm{𝟎}`$ doesn’t make sense when $`m`$ or $`n`$ is large. By the mathematical duality, the situation with extremely-high excitation can be dealt with in a similar manner. In fact, the serious difficulty only lies in the region where the excitation is neither very low nor very high. In that case, it turns out that the boson commutation relation of the excitaton operators must be modified, for example, to the $`q`$-deformed one ($`q=1O(\frac{1}{N}))`$ . Physically this modification will cause quantum decoherence of the collective degrees of freedom in the exciton system. Finally we emphasize that, though in our model system assumed to be located at regular lattice sites as in a crystal, our results (at least in mathematical formulation ) remain valid for an ensemble of atoms with random spatial positions, provided that we can ignore the kinetic energy terms (of the center of mass motion) of the atom. It seems that the ensemble of free atoms can function as quantum memory of same kind. However the strict treatment of the atomic ensemble based quantum memory should include the kinetic energy terms of the atom center of mass. The momentum transfer of atomic center of mass can induce additional quantum decoherence . In our present protocol, this decoherence effect is partly overcome by fixing atoms at lattice sites and thus neglecting the kinetic energy terms.

We acknowledge the support of the CNSF (grant No.90203018) and the knowledged Innovation Program (KIP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the National Fundamental Research Program of China with No.001GB309310. We also sincerely thank L. You and H. Pu for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Correlation of energy and free energy for the thermal Casimir force between real metals

## I Introduction

The Casimir effect is a rare macroscopic manifestation of the zero-point electromagnetic energy. It results from the alteration of the zero-point spectrum by the material boundaries (see the original Casimir’s paper  and extensive reviews ). In recent years considerable attention was paid to the precision measurements of the Casimir force between metallic surfaces . The results of these measurements were used in Refs.  to constrain the hypothetical interactions predicted by many extensions to the Standard Model and also in nanotechnology . This called for new theoretical investigation of the Casimir force with allowance made for the realistic boundary properties, i.e., surface roughness, finite conductivity of a metal and nonzero temperature (see Ref.  for the review). Also the combined effect of these factors has attracted considerable attention.

In this paper we consider the correlation between energy and free energy for the Casimir force acting between two plane parallel plates made of real metal of finite conductivity kept at nonzero temperature. At zero temperature the influence of the finite conductivity of the boundary metal onto the Casimir force was examined in Refs.  on the basis of the Lifshitz theory using the optical tabulated data supplemented by the Drude model. In this approach the Casimir energy was represented by an integral with respect to continuous frequency, as it is at zero temperature. However, the optical tabulated data and the value of the relaxation parameter of the Drude model at $`T=300`$K were substituted, which are actually temperature dependent. By this means, in fact, some hybrid quantity was computed, which is different from both energy and free energy, with no clear relevance to either of them. When it is considered that the Casimir energy between two plates is generally used to calculate the Casimir force in the experimental configuration of a sphere (spherical lens) above a plate, the resolution of this issue is of great interest. Below is shown the relationship between energy, free energy and a quantity computed in Refs. .

Investigation of the correlation between energy and free energy for the thermal Casimir force has also assumed great importance in connection with the contradictory results obtained by different authors when applying the Lifshitz theory to real metals . The contradictions arise on whether or not the zero-frequency term of the Lifshitz formula for the perpendicular polarized modes of electromagnetic field contribute to physical quantities. There are four main approaches to the resolution of this issue in the recent literature.

a) According to Refs.  based on the immediate application of the unmodified Lifshitz formula, the zero-frequency term of this formula for the perpendicular polarized modes is equal to zero in the case of real metals described by the Drude model (remind the reader that for ideal metals the reflection coefficients for both polarizations are equal to unity at zero frequency, and hence the zero-frequency term for both modes is not equal to zero). This approach leads to the conclusion that thermal corrections to the Casimir force are large, negative, and linear in temperature at small separations, and the asymptotic Casimir force between real metals at large separations is two times smaller than for the case of an ideal metal (with no regard for the particular value of the conductivity) .

b) From the standpoint of Refs. , the perpendicular polarized modes give a nonzero contribution at zero frequency. To find it, a special modification of the zero-frequency term of the Lifshitz formula was proposed (found by analogy with the prescription of Ref.  for an ideal metal but not coinciding with it).

c) According to Refs. , the perpendicular polarized modes also give a nonzero contribution at zero frequency. For real metals it is, however, the same as for ideal metal, i.e., the reflection coefficients for both modes are equal to unity at zero frequency. What this means is for real metals the same modification of the zero-frequency term of the Lifshitz formula is made as for ideal metals . This approach leads to linear (although positive) thermal corrections to the Casimir force at small separations and to the absence of any finite conductivity corrections for real metals starting from moderate separations of several micrometers regardless of metal quality .

d) Finally, according to the approach of Refs.  both modes with the parallel and perpendicular polarizations do contribute to the zero-frequency term and this contribution can be calculated by the substitution of the plasma model dielectric function into the unmodified Lifshitz formula. The same conclusion is obtained in Ref.  on the basis of the surface impedance approach.

Thus, at the moment there is no agreement in the theoretical literature as to the description of the thermal Casimir force between real metals. To gain a more complete understanding of the present state of affairs, in Ref.  the thermodynamical argument was exploited. According to Ref. , the approaches a) and c) do not conform to the requirements of thermodynamics as they lead to the negative values of entropy and violation of the Nernst heat theorem. Although the qualitative conclusions of  are quite correct, the quantitative calculations are incomplete as they do not take into account the entropy of real photons. The precise expressions for the energy and free energy of the fluctuating electromagnetic field found below are used to obtain the quantitative behavior of entropy as a function of surface separation distance and temperature. The obtained results confirm the conclusion of Ref.  that the approaches a) and c) are not compatible with thermodynamics. They also give the possibility to compare the approaches b) and d) in order to decide between them.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II the main notations are introduced and the case of nondissipative condensed media separated by a gap is considered, with the media described by a temperature independent dielectric permittivity. It is proved that in this situation one can introduce photons as quasiparticles due to the collective elementary excitations of condensed matter and electromagnetic field. As a consequence, the energy at temperature $`T`$ defined via the derivative of the free energy with respect to $`T`$ comprises of the (renormalized) energies of the zero-point and thermal photons. In Sec. III the energy and free energy of the fluctuating electromagnetic field are considered on the basis of the Lifshitz theory and the plasma model. In Sec. IV the applicability of the Drude model for the calculation of the thermal Casimir force is discussed. The energy and free energy are found in the case of a metal described by the Drude model. The alternative approaches to this problem available in literature are analysed and compared. The physical sense of the energy at temperature $`T`$ appears to be more complicated than in the case of the plasma model. It is shown that energy contains additional terms depending on the derivatives of the dielectric permittivity with respect to temperature. In Sec. V the entropy for the thermal Casimir force acting between real metals is calculated precisely for both plasma and Drude dielectric functions. Sec. VI contains conclusions and discussion.

## II Photons between plates as elementary excitations

We consider the configuration of two semispaces (thick plates) with frequency-dependent dielectric permittivity $`\epsilon (\omega )`$ restricted by parallel planes and separated by an empty space with distance $`a`$ between them at a temperature $`T`$. This is a system in thermal equilibrium. The free energy per unit area is given by the well known Lifshitz formula

$$F_E(a,T)=\frac{k_BT}{4\pi }\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}k_{}𝑑k_{}\left[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\xi _l,k_{})+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\xi _l,k_{})\right].$$
(1)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_,(\omega ,k_{})`$ are the quantities having zero values on the photon eigenfrequencies permitted between the plates by the boundary conditions (indices $`,`$ label two independent polarizations, and $`k_{}`$ is the modulus of a wave vector in the plane of plates)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_,(\omega _{k_{},n}^,,k_{})=0.$$
(2)
They can be expressed in terms of reflection coefficients on the imaginary frequency axis

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_,(\xi _l,k_{})=1r_,^2(\xi _l,k_{})e^{2aq_l},$$
(3)
where

$$r_{}^2(\xi _l,k_{})=\left[\frac{\epsilon (i\xi )q_lk_l}{\epsilon (i\xi )q_l+k_l}\right]^2,r_{}^2(\xi _l,k_{})=\left(\frac{q_lk_l}{q_l+k_l}\right)^2$$
(4)
with the notations

$$q_l\sqrt{\frac{\xi _l^2}{c^2}+k_{}^2},k_l\sqrt{\epsilon (i\xi _l)\frac{\xi _l^2}{c^2}+k_{}^2}.$$
(5)
In Eq.(1) $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant and $`\xi _l=2\pi lk_BT/\mathrm{}`$, where $`l=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$, are the Matsubara frequencies. As seen from Eq.(3), the quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }_,`$ are normalized in such a way that the free energy (1) tends to zero for the infinitely remote plates ($`a\mathrm{}`$). The details of the renormalization procedure can be found in Refs..

In this section we consider nondissipative media, which is to say that $`\epsilon (\omega )`$ is a real function. It will be assumed also that at a given frequency $`\epsilon `$ does not depend on temperature. Both conditions are satisfied, e.g., for metals described by the plasma model or for dielectrics with a constant dielectric permittivity (the case of dissipative media is considered in Secs.IV,V). Under these conditions we find the simple quasiparticle interpretation for photons between plates and the expression for the energy of the fluctuating field at a temperature $`T`$.

According to thermodynamics, energy at arbitrary temperature is given by

$$E(a,T)=T^2\frac{}{T}\frac{F_E(a,T)}{T},$$
(6)
where the free energy is defined in Eq.(1).

Taking into account that the term of Eq.(1) with $`l=0`$ is linear in temperature and the quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }_,`$ are even functions of $`l`$ one obtains

$$E(a,T)=\frac{k_BT^2}{2\pi }\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}k_{}𝑑k_{}\frac{}{T}\left[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\xi _l,k_{})+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\xi _l,k_{})\right].$$
(7)
Let us next use that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_,`$ depend on temperature through the Matsubara frequencies only, so that $`/T=(\xi _l/T)/\xi _l`$. Thus, energy per unit area is given by

$$E(a,T)=\frac{k_BT}{2\pi }\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\xi _l_0^{\mathrm{}}k_{}𝑑k_{}\frac{}{\xi _l}\left[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\xi _l,k_{})+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\xi _l,k_{})\right].$$
(8)
We consider now the interpretation of energy at temperature $`T`$ in terms of elementary excitations. In the case of the nondissipative media under consideration the photon eigenfrequencies are real and the nonrenormalized energy of equilibrium fluctuating electromagnetic field in the system comprises of the energy of zero-point fluctuations and Planck’s protons

$$E_{nr}(a,T)=\mathrm{}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{k_{}dk_{}}{2\pi }\underset{n}{}\left\{\omega _{k_{},n}^{}\left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{e^{\mathrm{}\omega _{k_{},n}^{}/(k_BT)}1}\right]+\omega _{k_{},n}^{}\left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{e^{\mathrm{}\omega _{k_{},n}^{}/(k_BT)}1}\right]\right\}.$$
(9)
Identically, Eq.(9) can be rearranged to give

$$E_{nr}(a,T)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{k_{}dk_{}}{2\pi }\underset{n}{}\left(\omega _{k_{},n}^{}\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{k_{},n}^{}}{2k_BT}+\omega _{k_{},n}^{}\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{k_{},n}^{}}{2k_BT}\right).$$
(10)
This quantity is evidently infinite. The renormalized value of the sum over the eigenfrequencies $`\omega _{k_{},n}^,`$ can be calculated by the use of the argument theorem .

$$\underset{n}{}(\omega _{k_{},n}^{}\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{k_{},n}^{}}{2k_BT}+\omega _{k_{},n}^{}\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{k_{},n}^{}}{2k_BT})|_{ren}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_C\omega \mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2k_BT}d[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\omega ,k_{})+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\omega ,k_{})],$$
(11)
where the integration path $`C`$ in the plane of complex $`\omega `$ is shown in Fig. 1, and the normalized quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }_,`$, having zero values on eigenfrequencies, were substituted defined by Eqs.(3)–(5), with $`\xi _l`$ changed by $`i\omega `$. Note that the function $`\omega \mathrm{coth}[\mathrm{}\omega /(2k_BT)]`$ has poles at the imaginary frequencies $`\omega _l=i\xi _l`$, $`l=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$, where $`\xi _l`$ are the Matsubara frequencies (it is, however, regular at $`\omega _0=0`$). Because of this, the integration along the imaginary axis involves semicircles about these poles. Integration along a semicircle, whose radius extends to infinity, makes zero contribution to the right-hand side of Eq.(11). As a result Eq.(11) leads to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\omega _{k_{},n}^{}\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{k_{},n}^{}}{2k_BT}}+\omega _{k_{},n}^{}\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{k_{},n}^{}}{2k_BT}})|_{ren}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\xi \mathrm{cot}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\xi }{2k_BT}}d[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\xi ,k_{})+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\xi ,k_{})]`$ (12)
(13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{Res}[\omega \mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2k_BT}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\omega ,k_{})}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\omega ,k_{})}},i\xi _l]{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\text{Res}[\omega \mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2k_BT}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\omega ,k_{})}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\omega ,k_{})}},i\xi _l]`$ (14)
(15)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2k_BT}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\xi _l\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\xi _l,k_{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\xi _l,k_{})}{\xi _l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\xi _l,k_{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\xi _l,k_{})}{\xi _l}}\right].`$ (16)
Here prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`\omega `$ and we took into account that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_,`$ are even functions of $`\omega `$, so that their derivatives are odd ones. This property leads also to the zero value of the seemingly pure imaginary integral in the right-hand side of Eq. (14).

Substituting the right-hand side of Eq.(14) into Eq.(10) instead of a nonrenormalized sum, we obtain the renormalized energy at a temperature $`T`$ coinciding with Eq.(8) derived from the thermodynamical definition (6). In such a manner we have proved that at certain conditions the thermodynamical energy at equilibrium is given by the additive sum of the contributions from the zero-point fluctuations and Planck’s photons. The renormalization of both quantities reduces to the subtraction of the contribution of a free space with no plates. As a consequence, in the absence of dissipation, photons between plates can be considered as some kind of quasiparticle excitations in the system of the electromagnetic field interacting with the matter of plates. The simple example of this situation is given by metals described by the plasma model.

## III Energy and free energy for the thermal Casimir force in the framework of the plasma model

The considerations of the previous section can be illustrated by the dielectric function of the plasma model

$$\epsilon (\omega )=1\frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega ^2},\epsilon (i\xi )=1+\frac{\omega _p^2}{\xi ^2},$$
(17)
where $`\omega _p`$ is the plasma frequency. This dielectric function is real and its parameter does not depend on temperature. The use of the plasma model to calculate the thermal Casimir force corresponds to the approach d) described in the introduction. The free electron plasma model works well for frequencies of visible light and infrared optics. It is common knowledge that the dominant contribution to the Casimir effect comes from the range around the characteristic frequency $`\omega _c=c/(2a)`$. Thus the plasma model is applicable in the $`a`$-range from a few tens of nanometers to around a hundred micrometers.

For the sake of convenience, we introduce the dimensionless variables

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }=\frac{2a\xi }{c},y^2=4a^2\left(k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{\xi ^2}{c^2}\right)$$
(18)
in terms of which the plasma dielectric function takes the form

$$\epsilon (i\stackrel{~}{\xi })=1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p^2}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }^2},\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p=\frac{2a\omega _p}{c}.$$
(19)
In terms of the variables $`\stackrel{~}{\xi },y`$ the Lifshitz formula (1) can be rewritten as

$`F_E(a,T)={\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{16\pi a^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{|\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l|}^{\mathrm{}}}ydy[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)`$ (20)
$`+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)],`$ (21)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_,(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)=1r_,^2(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)e^y$$
(22)
and the reflection coefficients are

$$r_{}^2(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)=\left\{\frac{y\epsilon (i\stackrel{~}{\xi })\sqrt{\left[\epsilon (i\stackrel{~}{\xi })1\right]\stackrel{~}{\xi }^2+y^2}}{y\epsilon (i\stackrel{~}{\xi })+\sqrt{\left[\epsilon (i\stackrel{~}{\xi })1\right]\stackrel{~}{\xi }^2+y^2}}\right\}^2,r_{}^2(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)=\left\{\frac{y\sqrt{\left[\epsilon (i\stackrel{~}{\xi })1\right]\stackrel{~}{\xi }^2+y^2}}{y+\sqrt{\left[\epsilon (i\stackrel{~}{\xi })1\right]\stackrel{~}{\xi }^2+y^2}}\right\}^2.$$
(23)
By virtue of the fact that $`\epsilon `$ depends on temperature through the Matsubara frequencies only, the zero-frequency term of Eq. (20) ($`l=0`$) does not contribute into the energy (6) \[compare with Eq. (7)\]. It is notable also that in the special case of the plasma model the perpendicular reflection coefficient from Eq. (23) is given by

$$r_{}^2(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)=r_{}^2(y)=\left(\frac{y\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p^2+y^2}}{y+\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p^2+y^2}}\right)^2,$$
(24)
i.e. it is frequency- and temperature-independent for any $`l`$. By this reason its derivative with respect to temperature does not contribute to energy (6). As a result, in the framework of the plasma model the energy per unit area at a temperature $`T`$, calculated by Eqs. (6), (20), takes the form

$$E^{pl}(a,T)=\frac{k_BT}{8\pi a^2}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l^2\left[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l)+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l)\right]+\frac{k_BT}{4\pi a^2}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}^{\mathrm{}}y𝑑y\frac{r_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)}{e^yr_{}^2(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)}\frac{r_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}.$$
(25)
This equation is convenient for numerical calculations.

Let us now compare the values of energy at temperature $`T`$ given by Eq. (25) and free energy of Eq. (20) with the values of energy at zero temperature given by

$$E(a,0)=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{32\pi ^2a^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{\stackrel{~}{\xi }}^{\mathrm{}}y𝑑y\left[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi },y)+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi },y)\right].$$
(26)
The calculational results at $`T=300`$K for the case of $`Al`$ with

$$\omega _p=11.5\text{eV}=1.75\times 10^{16}\text{rad/s}$$
(27)
are shown in Fig. 2. In this figure the dimensionless ratios

$$R^{pl}=\frac{E^{pl}(a,T)}{|E^{pl}(a,0)|},\frac{F_E^{pl}(a,T)}{|E^{pl}(a,0)|},\frac{E^{pl}(a,0)}{|E^{pl}(a,0)|}=1$$
(28)
are plotted by the solid lines 1, 2 and dashed line, respectively, as the functions of the surface separation. The energy at zero temperature $`E^{pl}(a,0)`$ is computed by Eq. (26) where the plasma dielectric function given by Eq. (17) is substituted. It is clearly seen, that at smallest separations all three quantities (energy at $`T=0`$, energy and free energy at $`T=300`$K) have approximately equal values. With an increase of the separation distance the modulus of the relative energy at temperature $`T`$ decreases to zero limiting value while the modulus of the relative free energy increases. Note that the limiting cases of small and large separations can be simultaneously considered as the limits of low and high temperatures, respectively, if one compares with the so called effective temperature $`k_BT_{eff}=\mathrm{}\omega _c=\mathrm{}c/(2a)`$ .

The asymptotic behavior of energy and free energy at small and large separations (low and high temperatures) in the case of the plasma model can also be investigated analytically. As was proved in Ref., one can expand Eq. (20) in powers of a small parameter $`\lambda _p/2\pi a`$, where $`\lambda _p`$ is the plasma wavelength, and in a contribution, depending on temperature, it would suffice to preserve the first power only. The result valid for all $`a\lambda _p`$ is

$`F_E^{pl}(a,T)=E^{pl}(a,0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c}{8\pi ^2a^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2(lt)^3}}\mathrm{coth}(\pi lt){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(lt)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2(lt)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\pi lt)}}`$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _p}{2\pi a}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{(lt)^3}}\mathrm{coth}(\pi lt){\displaystyle \frac{4}{(lt)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{(lt)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\pi lt)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^3}{lt}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{coth}(\pi lt)}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\pi lt)}}]\},`$ (30)
where $`tT_{eff}/T`$. The quantity $`E^{pl}(a,0)`$ is the energy at zero temperature. Its expansion in powers of $`\lambda _p/2\pi a`$ can be found in Refs. (here the result up to fourth order should be used in order to get sufficient accuracy at smallest separations).

From Eq. (30) the required asymptotics follow. At small separations ($`TT_{eff}`$) one obtains

$$F_E^{pl}(a,T)=E^{pl}(a,0)\frac{\mathrm{}c\zeta (3)}{16\pi a^3}\left[\left(1+\frac{\lambda _p}{\pi a}\right)\left(\frac{T}{T_{eff}}\right)^3\frac{\pi ^3}{45\zeta (3)}\left(1+2\frac{\lambda _p}{\pi a}\right)\left(\frac{T}{T_{eff}}\right)^4\right],$$
(31)
where $`\zeta (z)`$ is the Riemann zeta function.

Applying the thermodynamical definition (6) to Eq. (31), we obtain the low-temperature asymptotic of energy

$$E^{pl}(a,T)=E^{pl}(a,0)+\frac{\mathrm{}c\zeta (3)}{8\pi a^3}\left[\left(1+\frac{\lambda _p}{\pi a}\right)\left(\frac{T}{T_{eff}}\right)^3\frac{\pi ^3}{30\zeta (3)}\left(1+2\frac{\lambda _p}{\pi a}\right)\left(\frac{T}{T_{eff}}\right)^4\right].$$
(32)
This asymptotic expression is obtained also from Eqs. (8) or (25) by the use of the Abel-Plana formula (see Ref. where similar calculations were performed).

In the opposite case of large separations ($`TT_{eff}`$), Eq. (30) leads to the main contribution of the form

$$F_E^{pl}(a,T)=\frac{k_BT}{8\pi a^2}\zeta (3)\left(1\frac{\lambda _p}{\pi a}\right).$$
(33)
By virtue of Eq. (6) the asymptotic value of energy is $`E^{pl}(a,T)=0`$. If one wished to have a more exact asymptotic of energy, the next (exponentially small in $`T/T_{eff}`$) terms omitted in Eq. (33) should be taken into account or Eq. (25) should be used. In both cases the result is one and the same

$$E^{pl}(a,T)=k_BT\frac{\pi }{a^2}\left(\frac{T}{T_{eff}}\right)^2\left(12\frac{\lambda _p}{\pi a}\frac{T}{T_{eff}}\right)e^{2\pi T/T_{eff}}.$$
(34)
Comparison of the numerical calculations presented in Fig. 2 with calculations by the asymptotic formulas of Eqs. (31)–(34) shows that the asymptotic of small separations works well within the separation range $`\lambda _pa23\mu `$m, and the asymptotic of large separations is applicable for $`a5\mu `$m. In the transition range, Eqs. (20), (25) should be used to calculate the values of the free energy and energy for the thermal Casimir force in the framework of the plasma model.

If we consider the limit $`\omega _P\mathrm{}`$ ($`\lambda _P0`$) in Eqs. (30)–(34), the results for ideal metal are obtained.

## IV Different approaches to the calculation of energy and free energy in the framework of the Drude model

Let us now consider metals described by the Drude dielectric function

$$\epsilon (\omega )=1\frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega (\omega +i\gamma )},\epsilon (i\xi )=1+\frac{\omega _p^2}{\xi (\xi +\gamma )},$$
(35)
where $`\gamma `$ is the relaxation parameter. In terms of a dimensionless frequency introduced in Eq. (18), the Drude dielectric function along the imaginary axis is

$$\epsilon (i\stackrel{~}{\xi })=1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p^2}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }(\stackrel{~}{\xi }+\stackrel{~}{\gamma })},\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\frac{2a}{c}\gamma .$$
(36)
As was noticed in the introduction, there is no agreement in the recent literature regarding the use of the Drude model in the framework of the Lifshitz theory. Because of this, it is appropriate to reexamine the applicability of the Drude model in the context of the thermal Casimir force. The Drude model, as opposed to the plasma model, takes into account the phenomenon of volume relaxation. In reality, this phenomenon plays a role in the domain of the normal skin effect where the mean free path $`l`$ of the electron is much less than the penetration depth of the electromagnetic oscillations into a metal $`\delta `$ and the mean distance $`v/\omega `$ traveled by an electron in a time $`1/2\pi `$ of the period of the electromagnetic field . For most of metals at $`T=300`$K the domain of the normal skin effect extends from the quasistatic fields (where $`\epsilon `$ is pure imaginary) to the frequencies of order $`10^{12}`$rad/s. What this means is that the Drude dielectric function has a direct relationship only to plate separations $`0.1\text{cm}<a<1`$km such that the characteristic frequency $`\omega _c=c/(2a)`$ belongs to this domain. However, at so large separations the Casimir force is extremely small and is of academic interest only.

For higher frequencies, depending on which metal is considered, the anomalous skin effect ($`\delta l`$, $`\delta v/\omega `$) or relaxation region ($`v/\omega l\delta `$) occur. Here the volume relaxation described by the parameter $`\gamma `$ is not significant, but, in general, the space dispersion gives an important contribution. Note that in the domain of the anomalous skin effect (it extends up to around $`7\times 10^{13}`$rad/s) metal cannot be described by either the Drude model, given by Eqs. (35), (36), or by any dielectric function depending only on frequency as well.

On further increase of frequency, the transition to the infrared optics occur, where $`v/\omega \delta l`$ (or to the “extremely anomalous skin effect” if we use Casimir’s terminology ). In this domain the volume relaxation does not play any role. In the semiclassical theory of AC conductivity $`\epsilon `$ is practically real, signifying no dissipation of the electromagnetic energy within the metal . Because of this, the plasma model is realistic if the characteristic frequency $`\omega _c`$ belongs to the domain of the infrared optics (see Sec. III). This domain extends to the frequencies of around $`2\times 10^{16}`$rad/s and for higher frequencies is followed by the domain of the ultraviolet transparency of metals. However, some interelectron collisions and a scattering on the surface lead to a small imaginary part of $`\epsilon `$ in the domain of infrared optics  as is demonstrated by the optical tabulated data for complex refraction index . These data are often used to find the values of $`\epsilon (i\xi )`$ along the imaginary axis through the dispersion relation . By way of example, for $`Al`$ the optical data for $`\omega 6.08\times 10^{13}`$rad/s are tabulated .

At the same time, the existence of the anomalous skin effect domain, where the concept of $`\epsilon (\omega )`$ is not applicable, is usually ignored, and the optical tabulated data are theoretically extended into the domain of lower frequencies by means of the Drude dielectric function . This is needed to compute the dispersion integral from zero to infinity. The values of $`\epsilon (i\xi )`$ obtained in such a manner by means of the dispersion relation and extended tabulated data are satisfactory up to $`\xi 10^{15}`$rad/s with $`\epsilon (i\xi )`$ obtained by the immediate substitution of the imaginary frequency into the Drude model according to Eq. (35) with no use of the dispersion relation. This suggests that the Drude model can be applied for the calculation of the Casimir force within a micrometer domain $`a0.4\mu `$m in parallel with the plasma model. It should be particularly emphasized, however, that the application of the Drude model in the domain of infrared optics is physically unjustified as the volume relaxation is absent in this domain (below we call into question also the possibility to substitute the Drude dielectric function into the zero-frequency term of the Lifshitz formula).

In contrast to the case considered in Sec. II, the Drude metals are dissipative media, described by the complex $`\epsilon (\omega )`$. At a given frequency $`\epsilon `$ depends explicitly on temperature through the relaxation parameter $`\gamma `$. Because of this, the energy of the equilibrium fluctuating electromagnetic field cannot be presented any more in the simple form of Eq. (9). In accordance with the thermodynamic equality (6), additional terms appear in the right-hand side of Eq. (9) containing the derivatives $`\omega _{k_{},n}^,/T`$ .

Substituting Drude dielectric function (36) into the Lifshitz formula for the free energy (20) and using the definition (6) of energy at temperature $`T`$, one obtains

$`E^D(a,T)={\displaystyle \frac{k_BT^2}{16\pi a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{T}}f_0^{(\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c})}(a,T)+{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{8\pi a^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l^2\left[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l)+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l)\right]`$ (37)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{4\pi a^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}^{\mathrm{}}}ydy\{{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)}{e^yr_{}^2(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)}}[\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}}+T{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)}{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}{T}}]`$ (38)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)}{e^yr_{}^2(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)}}[\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}}+T{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l,y)}{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}{T}}]\}.`$ (39)
Here the zero-frequency term of Eq. (20) is separated because there is disagreement in recent literature on whether or not it contributes to the Casimir energy and force. The immediate consequence of Eqs. (6), (20), (36) \[approach a) described in Introduction\] is

$$f_0^{(\mathrm{a})}(a,T)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yy\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^y\right)=\zeta (3).$$
(40)
This result is given by the parallel modes only, while the perpendicular modes do not contribute.

The special modification of the zero-frequency term of Eq. (20) proposed in  \[approach b)\] leads to

$$f_0^{(\mathrm{b})}(a,T)=\zeta (3)+_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yy\mathrm{ln}\left[1r_{}^2(y,y)e^y\right].$$
(41)
The two contributions in the right-hand side of Eq. (41) are given by the parallel (perpendicular) modes, respectively.

If for real metals the same prescription is used as for ideal metal \[approach c)\], one obtains

$$f_0^{(\mathrm{c})}(a,T)=2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yy\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^y\right)=2\zeta (3),$$
(42)
where both polarizations lead to equal nonzero contribution. Evidently, in the framework of the approaches a) and c) the zero-frequency term is temperature independent and does not contribute to the energy (37). In the framework of the approach b) there is only a fair contribution due to the dependence of $`r_{}(y,y)`$ on $`\gamma (T)`$ in Eq. (41).

Note that Eq. (37) is in direct analogy to Eq. (25). The additional terms which are present in Eq. (37) take into account the explicit dependence of the dielectric permittivity on temperature through the relaxation parameter. This equation is convenient for the numerical calculations.

Before performing the calculations, let us give the approximate expressions for both free energy and energy which allow one to compare the results obtained in the framework of the Drude and plasma models. For this purpose we expand Eq. (20) in powers of a small parameter $`\gamma /\omega _p`$ preserving the first-order term only (for $`Al`$ at $`T=300`$K $`\gamma =0.05\text{eV}=7.6\times 10^{13}`$rad/s, so that for lower $`T`$ $`\gamma /\omega _p0.004`$). The coefficient near this term can be computed in the zeroth order in a small parameter $`\alpha =\lambda _p/4\pi a=1/\stackrel{~}{\omega }_p`$. The result is

$`F_E^D(a,T)=F_E^{pl}(a,T)+{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{16\pi a^2}}\left\{f_0^{(\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c})}(a,T)+\zeta (3){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑yy\mathrm{ln}\left[1r_{}^2(y)e^y\right]\right\}`$ (43)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\omega _p}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{4\pi a^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{e^y1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dyy^2}{e^y1}}\right],`$ (44)
where $`F_E^{pl}(a,T)`$ is the free energy in the plasma model given by Eq. (30), and $`r_{}(y)`$ is defined in Eq. (24). It is notable that the results of numerical calculations by this formula and by Eqs. (20), (36) (with different approaches to the zero-frequency term) coincide with an accuracy of 0.06% at $`a=0.4\mu `$m and better than 0.01% for $`a3\mu `$m. Note, as discussed above, the Drude model leads to satisfactory $`\epsilon (i\xi )`$ only up to $`\xi 10^{15}`$rad/s and is in strong disagreement with the optical tabulated data for higher frequencies. Because of this, at $`T=300`$K it is meaningless to use the Drude dielectric function at separations $`<0.4\mu `$m. However, even at these separations, Eq. (44) is correct with an accuracy of 0.07%.

As evident from Eqs. (40)–(44), the contribution of the zero-frequency term into the difference of the free energies $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_E=F_E^DF_E^{pl}`$, computed in the framework of the Drude and plasma models, depends on the approach used:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }F_E^{0(\mathrm{a})}={\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{16\pi a^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑yy\mathrm{ln}\left[1r_{}^2(y)e^y\right],`$ (45)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }F_E^{0(\mathrm{b})}={\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{8\pi a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (T)}{\omega _p}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ydy}{e^y1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi k_BT}{48a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (T)}{\omega _p}},`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }F_E^{0(\mathrm{c})}={\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{16\pi a^2}}\left\{\zeta (3){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑yy\mathrm{ln}\left[1r_{}^2(y)e^y\right]\right\}.`$ (47)
In the case of approaches a) and c), the difference of the free energies contains linearly decreasing with temperature terms \[Eqs. (45), (47)\]. In the case of approach b), owing to the relaxation parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_E^0`$ falls off more quickly with decreasing temperature \[the same is true for $`F_E^{pl}`$, as is seen from Eq. (31), and for the summation term in the right-hand side of Eq. (44)\]. It should be particularly emphasized that the presence of the linear terms in temperature in the free energy is in contradiction with the requirements of thermodynamics (see Sec. V).

To obtain the approximate perturbative expression for the energy by analogy with Eq. (44), one should use the explicit dependence of $`\gamma `$ on temperature. It has been known that at temperature $`T>T_D/4`$, where $`T_D`$ is the Debye temperature (for $`Al`$ $`T_D=428`$K ), $`\gamma /T=\gamma /T`$, i.e. $`\gamma `$ is linear in temperature. Generally, $`\gamma /T=\nu \gamma /T`$ with $`\nu =\nu (T)1`$. In Fig. 3, the dependence of $`\gamma `$ on temperature is plotted for $`Al`$ on the basis of tabulated data . Finally, the required expression for the energy is

$$E^D(a,T)=E^{pl}(a,T)+e_0^{(\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c})}(a,T)+\frac{k_BT}{4\pi a^2}\frac{\gamma }{\omega _p}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l^2}{e^{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}1}(\nu +1)\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l_{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{e^y1}\frac{\nu 1}{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}_{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dyy^2}{e^y1}\right],$$
(48)
where $`e_0^{(\mathrm{a})}=e_0^{(\mathrm{c})}=0`$, and

$$e_0^{(\mathrm{b})}(a,T)=\frac{\pi k_BT}{48a^2}\frac{\nu \gamma }{\omega _p}.$$
(49)
In Fig. 4 the results of the numerical calculations are shown for $`Al`$ described by the Drude model in different approaches at $`T=300`$K. In the vertical axis the dimensionless ratios are plotted

$$R^D=\frac{E^D(a,T)}{|E^D(a,0)|},\frac{F_E^D(a,T)}{|E^D(a,0)|},\frac{E^D(a,0)}{|E^D(a,0)|}=1$$
(50)
as a function of the surface separation. Curve 1 shows the behavior of the relative energy (which is practically the same in all three approaches); curves 2a, 2b and 2c show the relative free energy in the approaches a), b), and c), respectively. The dashed curve is for the energy at zero temperature. All calculations are performed both using the exact expressions (20), (37) and the approximate ones (44), (48) with coinciding results.

It is important to explain in more detail the notation $`E^D(a,0)`$. It is the value of energy in the framework of the Drude model (36), computed at zero temperature in the sense that Eq. (26) with a double integral instead of a discrete sum is employed. At the same time, in calculations of $`E^D(a,0)`$ the value of the relaxation parameter $`\gamma `$ at $`T=300`$K is used. We divide the calculational results into this hybrid quantity, previously used in literature (see, e.g., Refs. ). This allows one to associate this quantity with energy and free energy in order to clarify its physical meaning.

As is seen from Fig. 4, curve 1, illustrating the equal behavior of energy in all three approaches, and curve 2b, illustrating the behavior of free energy as given by the approach b), demonstrate plausible properties. Among other things, the free energy approaches energy with a decrease of the surface separation distance (compare with Fig. 2 in the case of the plasma model). As to the curves 2a and 2c, representing the free energy in the approaches a) and c), they do not approach to each other nor to energy within the application range of the Drude dielectric function. Note that even at separations of about $`0.40.5\mu `$m the free energy $`F_E^D`$ (curve 2a), obtained by the direct application of the Lifshitz formula, differs by 8% from the double integral $`E^D(a,0)`$ (dashed line).

An important point is that not only the free energy of curve 2a but also 2b and 2c, and energy of curve 1 do not approach the dashed line in Fig. 4 representing the quantity which is in common use as a measure of energy at zero temperature . This is clearly seen from Fig. 5 where the curves 1, 2b and 2c are reproduced on an enlarged scale for the smallest separations where the Drude model is applicable. The long-dashed curve 3 in Fig. 5 illustrates the dependence of one more quantity on surface separation defined as

$$R^D=\frac{E_\gamma ^D(a,T)}{|E^D(a,0)|},$$
(51)
where $`E_\gamma ^D`$ is the energy at a temperature $`T`$ computed on the assumption that $`\gamma `$ does not depend on temperature (and preserves its value as at $`T=300`$K). Curve 3 is computed by Eq. (37) with $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }/T=0`$. The same curve is obtained by the application of the approximate Eq. (48) with $`\nu =0`$.

From Fig. 5 we notice that curve 3 approaches the short-dashed curve with a decrease of a separation distance. Because of this, it may be concluded that the hybrid quantity $`E^D(a,0)`$ computed in the literature is in fact some approximation for $`E_\gamma ^D`$, i.e. for the energy at temperature $`T`$ computed without regard for the explicit dependence of the dielectric properties on temperature \[remind that this kind dependence is absent in the case of the plasma model (see Secs. II, III) but is essential for metals described by the Drude model\]. From Fig. 5 it follows that at a separation of $`0.5\mu `$m $`E^D(a,0)`$ departs from the correct value of energy (curve 1) by approximately 0.75%. As to the free energies of the approaches a) and c), the deviations are larger (8% and 3.3%, respectively; these approaches are in contradiction with thermodynamics, see Sec. V). The above deviations should be added to the errors of $`E^D(a,0)`$, discussed in Ref. , that are connected with uncertainties in the optical tabulated data.

## V Entropy for the thermal Casimir force between real metals

Considerations of the entropy of the fluctuating field in dependence on temperature allows one to test different approaches discussed above for conformity to thermodynamics. Entropy of the fluctuating electromagnetic field can be expressed in terms of a free energy

$$S(a,T)=\frac{F_E(a,T)}{T}$$
(52)
or, taking into account Eq. (6), identically, as

$$S(a,T)=\frac{1}{T}\left[E(a,T)F_E(a,T)\right].$$
(53)
So it can be simply computed by the use of the results for the free energy and energy obtained in Secs. III, IV.

Let us start with the plasma model where the analytical calculation is possible \[approach d)\]. At small separations (low temperatures) one can use Eqs. (31), (32) for the free energy and energy, respectively ($`a\lambda _p`$ is supposed). Then both Eqs. (52) and (53) lead to one and the same result

$$S^{pl}(a,T)=\frac{3k_B\zeta (3)}{8\pi a^2}\left(\frac{T}{T_{eff}}\right)^2\left\{1\frac{4\pi ^3}{135\zeta (3)}\frac{T}{T_{eff}}+\frac{\lambda _p}{\pi a}\left[1\frac{8\pi ^3}{135\zeta (3)}\frac{T}{T_{eff}}\right]\right\}.$$
(54)
Note that this expression was first obtained in Ref.  with errors in numerical coefficients, because in Ref.  the energy of thermal photons was not taken properly into account. At large separations (high temperatures) the asymptotic expressions (33), (34) are applicable leading to

$$S^{pl}(a,T)=\frac{k_B\zeta (3)}{8\pi a^2}\left(1\frac{\lambda _p}{\pi a}\right)$$
(55)
(we have omitted exponentially small terms in $`2\pi T/T_{eff}`$). In the limit of $`\lambda _p0`$ Eqs. (54), (55) lead to the values of entropy for plates made of ideal metal

$$S(a,T)=\frac{3k_B\zeta (3)}{8\pi a^2}\left(\frac{T}{T_{eff}}\right)^2\left[1\frac{4\pi ^3}{135\zeta (3)}\frac{T}{T_{eff}}\right],S(a,T)=\frac{k_B\zeta (3)}{8\pi a^2}$$
(56)
for $`TT_{eff}`$, $`TT_{eff}`$, respectively. The results (47) coincide with those obtained for an ideal metal in Ref. . Asymptotical behavior of the entropy for an ideal metal in a high temperature limit was obtained also in Ref. . The result of  is, however, two times smaller than in Eq. (56) and Ref.  due to an error contained not only in the entropy but also in the expression for the Casimir energy between two plates made of ideal metal at zero temperature as is used in Ref. .

It is obvious that Eq. (54) leads to nonnegative values of entropy with $`S^{pl}(a,0)=0`$ as is demanded by the third law of thermodynamics (the Nernst heat theorem ).

We now direct our attention to the entropy in the framework of the Drude model. As before, numerical calculations can be performed by the exact formulas for the energy and free energy or by the approximate ones valid at $`a\lambda _p`$ with coinciding results. From Eqs. (44), (52) one obtains

$$S^D(a,T)=S^{pl}(a,T)+S_0^{(\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c})}(a,T)+\frac{k_B}{4\pi a^2}\frac{\gamma }{\omega _p}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l^2}{e^{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}1}(\nu +2)\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l_{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{e^y1}\frac{\nu }{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}_{\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dyy^2}{e^y1}\right].$$
(57)
Here $`S^{pl}(a,T)`$ is the entropy in the framework of the plasma model computed by Eqs. (30), (52), and $`S_0^{(\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c})}(a,T)`$, defined by

$$S_0^{(\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c})}(a,T)=\frac{k_B}{16\pi a^2}\frac{}{T}\left\{T\left[f_0^{(\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c})}(a,T)+\zeta (3)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yy\mathrm{ln}\left(1r_{}^2(y)e^y\right)\right]\right\},$$
(58)
describes the contribution of the zero-frequency term of the Lifshitz formula into entropy in different approaches. Using the same perturbation expansions as in Sec. IV, one obtains

$`S_0^{(\mathrm{a})}(a,T)={\displaystyle \frac{k_B\zeta (3)}{16\pi a^2}}\left(12{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _p}{\pi a}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _p^2}{\pi ^2a^2}}\right),`$ (59)
$`S_0^{(\mathrm{b})}(a,T)={\displaystyle \frac{k_B\pi }{48a^2}}(\nu +1){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\omega _p}},`$ (60)
$`S_0^{(\mathrm{c})}(a,T)={\displaystyle \frac{k_B\zeta (3)}{8\pi a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _p}{\pi a}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _p}{\pi a}}\right).`$ (61)
The results of numerical calculations using Eqs. (57), (60) for $`a=2\mu `$m are presented in Fig. 6. As is seen from the figure, in the approach a) entropy is negative in a wide temperature range from $`T=0`$ to almost $`T=300`$K, which is a nonphysical result. In the approach a) entropy preserves the negative sign for lesser separations between the plates as well. In the approaches b), c) entropy is positive as it must be. In the approach b) $`S^D(a,0)=0`$, whereas in the approaches a), c) $`S^D(a,0)0`$ which is in contradiction with the Nernst heat theorem. From Eqs. (57), (60) it follows that

$`S^D(a,0)=S_0^{(\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c})}(a,0),`$ (62)
$`S_0^{(\mathrm{b})}(a,0)=0,S_0^{(\mathrm{c})}(a,0)S_0^{(\mathrm{a})}(a,0)={\displaystyle \frac{k_B\zeta (3)}{16\pi a^2}},`$ (63)
where the absolute values of $`S_0^{(\mathrm{a},\mathrm{c})}(a,0)`$ are given by Eq. (60). They are not only different from zero but depend on the parameters of the system (plate separation distance and plasma wavelength) which is prohibited by the third law of thermodynamics . Because of this, approaches a) and c) must be rejected. Note also that approach a) predicts nonzero value of entropy at zero temperature for an ideal metal in contradiction with the field-theoretical result of Ref. . As for approaches b) and d), based on the special modification of the zero-frequency term of the Lifshitz formula and on the use of the plasma model, respectively, they are in agreement with the requirements of thermodynamics. To decide between them some additional considerations, which are presented in the next section, are needed.

## VI Conclusions and discussion

In the above the correlation between the Casimir energy and the free energy at a temperature $`T`$ is investigated for the case of two plane parallel plates made of real metal. It is shown that for the nondissipative media described by the real dielectric permittivity with no explicit dependence on temperature the photons between plates can be considered as the elementary excitations of the electromagnetic field interacting with a matter of plates. In this case the energy at temperature $`T`$ is proved to be a sum of the (renormalized) energy of zero-point oscillations and thermal photons. If the media are dissipative and their dielectric permittivity depends on temperature, the simple picture above is not correct. The concept of thermal photons loses immediate significance and the energy of fluctuating field contains additional terms depending on the derivatives of the dielectric permittivity with respect to temperature.

The expression for the energy at a temperature $`T`$ found in this paper helps to elucidate the meaning of the so called “Casimir energy at zero temperature” calculated by many authors as a double integral using the Drude model and optical tabulated data at room temperature (note that this quantity is of great importance as it is proportional to the Casimir force in the configuration of a sphere or a spherical lens above a plate used in experiments ). The commonly accepted opinion that the above-mentioned quantity is approximately equal to the free energy at small temperatures (small separations) is inexact. In fact, even at rather small separations the “Casimir energy at zero temperature” deviates from the free energy by several percent but approaches to the energy at room temperature calculated on the assumption that the dielectric permittivity does not depend on $`T`$ explicitly (this assumption is not correct in the case of the Drude dielectric function).

Different approaches to describe the thermal Casimir force from recent literature were compared and analysed \[approaches a), b), c) in the framework of the Drude model and approach d) in the framework of the plasma model - see Introduction\]. The quantitative expressions for the entropy of the fluctuating field are obtained here for the first time in the case of real metals. They give the possibility to conclude that the approaches a) and c) are in contradiction with the principles of thermodynamics and must be rejected. The approaches b) and d) are found to be in agreement with thermodynamics.

To make a choice between the approaches b) and d) let us discuss the behavior of the dielectric permittivities of the plasma and Drude models at small frequencies. Several authors  give preference to the Drude model because it shows $`\omega ^1`$ frequency dependence of the dielectric permittivity at small frequencies as it follows from Maxwell equations (compare with $`\omega ^2`$ frequency dependence given by the plasma model). Although this statement is true, it should be remembered that the Drude model is not applicable at all frequencies. We note that the concept of $`\epsilon (\omega )`$ itself, not only the Drude model, does not work in the domain of the anomalous skin effect (see Sec. IV). As to the quasistatic limit, although $`\epsilon (\omega )`$ is of order $`\omega ^1`$ in this domain, the Drude model is also not applicable as the correct $`\epsilon (\omega )`$ is pure imaginary. Since the zero-frequency term of the Lifshitz formula necessarily belongs to the domain of the quasistatic fields, where the concept of traveling waves fails, the substitution of the Drude dielectric function into this term (resulting in all the above problems) seems to be unjustified.

To clarify the situation with the thermal Casimir force, let us consider two pairs of plane parallel plates $`a=5\mu `$m apart made of $`Al`$ (one pair of plates) and of indium tin oxide (the other one). Due to large separation distance, the asymptotic of high temperatures is applicable and only the zero-frequency term of the Lifshitz formula determines the total value of the Casimir force. At quasistatic frequencies both $`Al`$ and indium tin oxide are good conductors. Because of this, the Lifshitz formula would lead to one and the same Casimir force at $`5\mu `$m separation for both pairs of plates if one substitutes into it the actual reflection properties of these materials at zero frequency. This conclusion is in contradiction with intuition. Note that an indium tin oxide is transparent to visible and near infrared light. Within a wide wavelength range 7$`\mu `$m$`<\lambda <100\mu `$m around the characteristic wavelength $`\lambda _c=62.8\mu `$m (the latter corresponds to the characteristic frequency $`\omega _c=c/2a=3\times 10^{13}`$rad/s), giving the main contribution into the Casimir force at zero temperature , the reflectivity of indium tin oxide is below 80% . Note that the second parameter of the problem, first Matsubara frequency, is $`\omega _M=2\pi k_BT/\mathrm{}=2.45\times 10^{14}`$rad/s, i.e. $`\lambda _M=7.7\mu `$m, which belongs to the region of even larger transparency of indium tin oxide. In this situation it is difficult to imagine that at $`a=5\mu `$m the indium tin oxide plates are attracted with the same Casimir force as $`Al`$ plates which are almost perfect reflectors within a wide range around the characteristic wavelength.

We can avoid this contradiction between the literally understood theory and physical intuition if we assume that it is not correct to substitute the actual behavior of the dielectric permittivity at zero frequency into the Lifshitz formula. Instead, in order to obtain the physically correct results, the frequency dependence of the dielectric permittivity and reflection coefficients around the characteristic frequency should be extrapolated to zero Matsubara frequency and substituted into the Lifshitz formula. If this conjecture is accepted, one should conclude that within the range of micrometer separation distances between plates the plasma model dielectric function, i.e. the approach d), is preferable as compared with the use of the Drude dielectric function combined with any of the above approaches a), b), c). It is apparent from the fact that the plasma dielectric function and respective reflection coefficients admit reasonable continuation from the range of infrared optics to zero frequency.

The contradictions discussed in this paper lead to a conclusion that the concepts of the frequency dependent dielectric permittivity and fluctuating electromagnetic field inside media in application to the thermal Casimir force between real metals are inadequate idealizations. Less sophisticated approaches, such as the surface impedance approach (the Leontovich boundary conditions), which does not consider the fluctuating field inside matter , appear to be more adequate and lead to physically justified results for all separation distances between plates. By way of example, in the domain of the infrared optics the surface impedance leads to the same results as the Lifshitz formula in combination with the plasma model \[approach d)\]. If the characteristic frequency belongs to the domain of the normal skin effect, where the Drude model is physically correct, there is no reasonable continuation of $`\epsilon `$ to zero frequency avoiding the above problems. At the same time, the impedance approach, when applied in the domain of the normal skin effect, leads to quite satisfactory results  coinciding with those for ideal metal as it must be at separations larger than 0.1 cm \[almost the same results are given in this domain by the approaches b), c)\].

To conclude, at present the impedance approach can be considered as the most universal, reliable and straightforward way to calculate the thermal Casimir force between real metals at different separation distances. In the domain of micrometer separations the plasma model is also realistic. Regarding the Drude model, it can be used to describe the thermal Casimir force only with some appropriate modification of the zero-frequency term of the Lifshitz formula \[like in the approach b), for instance\].

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

G.L.K. is greatly indebted to I. E. Dzyaloshinskii for helpful discussions. The authors are grateful to U. Mohideen for valuable remarks. They acknowledge the financial support from CNPq.


text:
# MAXIMAL ACCELERATION OR MAXIMAL ACCELERATIONS?

## 1 Introduction

Since Weyl’s attempt  to unify Gravitation and Electromagnetism, many different generalizations of Einstein Relativity have been proposed increasing the number of dimensions as in Kaluza - Klein approach or using Finsler spaces, complex manifolds, scalar - tensor coupling, extended particles in the form of strings or bubbles, etc. Some of these models start from fixing another observer independent scale in addition to the speed of light of standard Special Relativity. Recently a new interest in this kind of theories has been revived by Amelino-Camelia  who proposed a model based on the existence of a Length scale and by Magueijo and Smolin  who preferred to use an Energy scale. Both the attempts lead to a resulting maximal momentum (which has been found also by Low  using a different approach). Also Ahluwalia and Kirchbach  argued that the interplay of gravitational and quantum realms requires two invariant scales and obtained a gravitationally modified de Broglie wavelength that acquires a value of the order of Planck length in Planck regime. Another way was followed by Ketsaris  who, starting from a seven dimensional manifold, obtained a Maximal Acceleration and a Maximal Angular Velocity. The three models of ”Quantum Special Relativity” need to be developed and Amelino-Camelia  suggests ”to reach a formulation of a Quantum General Relativity by an appropriate extension of the k - Minkowski spacetime to some sort of k - phase space (which however here is intended as the space $`x_i,t,p_i,E`$ rather than just $`x_i,p_i`$)”. This was the same aim of the ”Quantum Geometry” proposed by Caianiello  more than twenty years ago that led to the introduction of a maximal acceleration . The boosts deformations of a ”Quantum Special relativity” with an upper limit on the acceleration were derived by Scarpetta  in 1984 and even different models of ”Quantum General Relativity” have already been developed by Brandt  and Schuller . Caianiello himself and his co-workers have analyzed the quantum corrections to the classical spacetime metrics due to the existence of a Maximal Acceleration. His idea  is that the simplest theoretical framework, which includes maximal proper acceleration, consists of considering as physical invariant, not the classical four dimensional space time distance element, but a new one, more general, defined in an eight dimensional phase space, where the infinitesimal element of distance can be written

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=g_{AB}dx^Adx^B=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +\frac{c^4}{A_{max}^2}g_{\mu \nu }d\dot{x}^\mu d\dot{x}^\nu .$$
$`(1)`$
where $`\dot{x}^\mu =dx^\mu /ds`$ is the relativistic four–velocity. The consequence is that a particle of mass $`m`$ accelerating along its worldline, behaves dynamically as if it were embedded in a spacetime of metric

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=ds^2\left(1\frac{c^4|g_{\mu \nu }\ddot{x}^\mu \ddot{x}^\nu |}{A_m^2}\right),$$
$`(2)`$
But which is the right value of $`A_m`$ to use in (2)? From the historical point of view the maximal proper acceleration has been first derived starting from the principles of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity by Caianiello  who obtained the value

$$A_{max}=\frac{2mc^3}{\mathrm{}}$$
$`(3)`$
depending on the rest mass of the particle $`m.`$ While in the context of quantum geometry  the maximal acceleration is generally referred to extended particles, the proof , from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, holds also for point particles. Starting from the value (3), we obtained interesting results both with a simplified model (lacking of covariance) applied to Rindler , Schwarzschild , Reissner - Nordstrom , Kerr  and Robertson - Walker  metrics, and with a fully covariant approach that leads to a complete integrability of equations of motion (up to now) only in spacetimes of constant curvature . As the concept of maximal acceleration has proved to be very fertile producing a lot of different interesting models, in this paper we want to review critically the main arguments that support the existence of this upper limit but not its uniqueness. We will quote old results and will give a new interpretation to some recent papers showing that, after Caianiello’s proposal, different values of Maximal Acceleration can be predicted in different physical situations.

## 2 Maximal acceleration for extended objects

It is well known that massive extended objects imply critical accelerations, determined by the extension of the particles and by the causal structure of the space–time manifold. For instance, in classical relativity , an object of proper length $`\lambda `$, in which one extreme point is moving with acceleration $`a`$ with respect to the other, will develop a Rindler horizon at a proper distance $`a^1`$ from the accelerated extremity, so that all parts of the object can be causally connected only if $`\lambda <a^1`$. This implies a proper critical acceleration $`a_c\lambda ^1`$ which depends on $`\lambda `$ and diverges in the limit in which the object reduces itself to a point–like particle.

In the quantum relativistic context, the analysis of string propagation in cosmological backgrounds revealed that an acceleration higher than the critical one give rise to the onset of Jeans–like instabilities  in which the string oscillating modes develop imaginary frequencies and the string’s proper length diverges. Gasperini  has given a very interesting kinematic interpretation of this string instability, showing that it occurs when the acceleration induced by the background gravitational field is large enough to render the two string extremities causally disconnected, because of the Rindler horizon associated with their relative acceleration. This critical acceleration $`a_c`$ is determined by the string size $`\lambda `$ and is given by $`a_c=\lambda ^1=(m\alpha ^{})^1`$ where m is the string mass and $`\alpha ^1`$ the usual string tension.

Frolov and Sanchez  analyzed the dynamics of an uniformly accelerated open string in flat space. They used the classical Rindler metric

$$ds^2=\xi ^2d\eta ^2+d\xi ^2+dy^2+dz^2$$
$`(4)`$
(where the Rindler coordinates are $`\xi =1/a,\eta =as`$, and $`a`$ is the acceleration) and supposed that there are two heavy particles (e.g. monopoles) at the ends of the string, numbered with the indices $`1`$ and $`2`$, on which some external force is applied in such a way that both particles are moving with the same constant proper acceleration $`a=g`$. In an inertial frame of reference the coordinates $`(t,x,y,z)`$ are chosen in such a way that the $`x`$–axis coincides with the direction of acceleration, while the $`y`$–axis is parallel to the distance L between the ends of the string; correspondingly, the Rindler coordinates are $`(\eta ,\xi ,y,z)`$ and in the accelerated Rindler frame the particles at the string ends obey the boundary conditions:

$$\xi _1=\xi _2=g^1;y_1=y_2=L/2;z_1=z_2=0$$
$`(5)`$
Putting $`y=L\sigma /\pi `$, the spatial parameter $`\sigma `$ varies from $`\pi /2`$ to $`\pi /2`$.

They found a special solution of the equations of motion describing an uniformly accelerated string, which moves as a rigid body without any excitation:

$$\xi =\frac{L}{\pi \beta }\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\beta \pi }{L}y\right)$$
$`(6)`$
As for the $`\beta `$ parameter, its value is fixed by the boundary condition that the string ends must move with the assigned acceleration $`g`$, expressed by the equation:

$$\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\beta \pi }{2}\right)=\frac{\beta \pi }{gL}$$
$`(7)`$
For different values of the acceleration $`g`$, this equation admits two, one, or no solution for $`\beta `$. Frolov and Sanchez proved that rigid equilibrium configurations of the accelerated string exist only for an acceleration less than a critical one. Finally, they calculated the string size $`\lambda `$ in the Rindler frame:

$$\lambda =\frac{2L}{\beta \pi }\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\beta \pi }{2}\right)=\frac{2L}{\beta \pi }\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\frac{\beta \pi }{2}\right)1}$$
$`(8)`$
Now, in order to compare their result with Gasperini’s one, we can substitute (7) in (8) and easily obtain the parameter $`\beta `$ in terms of the acceleration and the proper length of the string:

$$\beta =\pm \frac{2gL}{\pi \sqrt{4g^2\lambda ^2}}$$
$`(9)`$
From the equation above we calculate that $`\beta `$ is real if

$$g<\frac{2}{\lambda }$$
$`(10)`$
that confirms the critical value of acceleration predicted by Gasperini.

Papini, Wood and Cai  showed that the same maximal acceleration (10) of an extended particle follows naturally from the theory of conformal transformations. On the other side, they also studied  the motion, in a sort of Madelung fluid, of a spherically symmetric extended object, a bubble, of Riemannian geometry embedded in external Weyl geometry where a conformal covariant calculus is used. The field equations for that case are obtained starting from the conformally invariant action

$$I_C=\{\frac{1}{4}f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }+|\beta |^2\overline{R}+k|\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{\mathrm{}}}\beta \stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}\beta |+\lambda |\beta |^4\}\sqrt{g}d^4x$$

$$+\rho g^{\mu \nu }\gamma _\mu (\underset{\nu }{\overset{}{\mathrm{}}}\rho ϵ\rho \phi _{,\nu })\sqrt{g}d^4x,$$
$`(11)`$
where $`\beta `$ is a complex scalar field with $`\rho =|\beta |`$ and $`\phi =arg\beta `$, then $`\gamma _\mu `$ is a vector Lagrange multiplier and $`k`$ and $`\lambda `$ are arbitrary constants. Furthermore an overbar is used to distinguish an object defined in terms of the gauge-covariant calculus of Weyl geometry from the corresponding object associated with the covariant calculus of Riemannian geometry. For example, $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ is the spacetime gauge-covariant derivative. Even in this very different case they found a maximal acceleration for the bubble

$$A_{max}=\frac{2}{R}$$
$`(12)`$
(where R is the bubble’s radius) very similar to the value (10).

In any case we can conclude that the maximal acceleration depends on the characteristic size of the extended object we are considering.

## 3 Maximal acceleration for classical charged particles

Recently Goto  has studied the equation of motion for a classical charged particle including radiation reaction force performing a stable hyperbolic motion immersed in a uniform gravitational field. He finds that the observer in the laboratory frame measures the gravitational force acting on charged particles as

$$F_g=\frac{mg}{1g^2\tau ^2}$$
$`(13)`$
where

$$\tau =\frac{2e^2}{3mc^4}$$
$`(14)`$
His interpretation of equation (13) is that the gravitational mass of charged particles should be slightly greater than its inertial mass. But we can write his formula also as

$$F_g=\frac{mg}{1g^2/A_{max}^2}$$
$`(15)`$
and interpret it considering that an infinite gravitational force $`F_g`$ is necessary to produce an acceleration

$$g=A_{max}=\frac{3mc^4}{2e^2}$$
$`(16)`$
In this case the maximal acceleration depends on the charge of the classical particle.

It is worth noting that Caldirola , in his theory of the classical electron founded on the introduction of a fundamental interval of time (the so called chronon), showed the existence of a maximal value of acceleration equal to half of Goto’s one (16).

## 4 Maximal acceleration for nonspreading wave packets

Recently Caldas and Silva  have analyzed the motion of a nonspreading wave packet in a harmonic potential. It is well known that in the case of a quantum harmonic oscillator the motion of the center of a wave packet is rigorously identical to that of a classical particle. Caldas and Silva impose that the packet does not spread so that

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }q(t)]_{timeaverage}^2=[\mathrm{\Delta }q_o]^2$$
$`(17)`$
from which they obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }p_o=m\omega \mathrm{\Delta }q_o$$
$`(18)`$
and assume that, at the initial time, the wave packet is such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q_o\mathrm{\Delta }p_o=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}$$
$`(19)`$
This way

$$m\omega (\mathrm{\Delta }q_o)^2=\mathrm{}/2$$
$`(20)`$
But considering that the classical particle (hence the peak of wave packet) obeys $`q(t)=Acos\omega t`$, we have

$$v_{max}=\omega Ac$$
$`(21)`$
and

$$a_{max}=\omega ^2A$$
$`(22)`$
From (20) (21) and (22) we obtain the relation:

$$a_{max}\frac{\mathrm{}c}{2m\mathrm{}^2}$$
$`(23)`$
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the characteristic size of the packet $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_o`$. In this case we find a maximal acceleration that depends on the square length of the wave packet.

On the contrary, Caldas and Silva calculate a ”classical variance” $`\mathrm{\Delta }q=A^2/2`$ and require that it can be identified with the quantum variance, obtaining from (20)

$$m\omega A^2=\mathrm{}$$
$`(24)`$
From (22) and (24) and putting $`\omega A=c`$ they find a maximal driving force that we can read as a maximal acceleration

$$A_{max}=\frac{mc^3}{\mathrm{}}$$
$`(25)`$
similar to Caianiello’s one (3).

## 5 Maximal acceleration from maximal temperature

It is very easy to derive the existence of a maximal acceleration from a maximal temperature by using Unruh and Davies demonstration  stating that a particle-detector subject to a constant acceleration would react to vacuum fluctuations as if it were at rest within a gas of particles having a temperature proportional to acceleration

$$T=\frac{\mathrm{}a}{2\pi kc}$$
$`(26)`$
where $`k`$ is Boltzmann constant.

Brandt , for example, starts from the result obtained by Sakharov , according to which the absolute temperature of thermal radiation in vacuum is

$$T_{max}\frac{c^2}{k}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}c}{G}}$$
$`(27)`$
that in (26) implies that there is a maximal acceleration relative to vacuum:

$$A_{max}\sqrt{\frac{c^7}{\mathrm{}G}}=\frac{m_pc^3}{\mathrm{}}$$
$`(28)`$
It is worth noting that $`A_{max}`$ is similar to maximal acceleration found by Caianiello, but in this case the rest mass is substituted by the Planck mass $`m_p=(\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}`$ In this case the maximal acceleration is a universal constant and assumes an extraordinarily high value: $`A_{max}5\times 10^{53}cm/s^2`$. Therefore it is very difficult to find through experimental tests some physical effects which can be ascribed to the existence of this upper limit on the acceleration.

The same demonstration can be performed starting with other values of maximal temperature available in literature . For example, another interesting critical value of the temperature is the so called Hagedorn temperature $`T_H\alpha ^{1/2}`$ that arises also in string thermodynamics. Parentani and Potting  studied the motion of a string in Rindler frame and found the occurrence of a maximal temperature $`T_{max}=T_H/\pi `$ above which the string partition function diverges. Substituting this value of maximal temperature in the Unruh formula (26), we can find the same maximal acceleration of Gasperini.

## 6 Conclusions

The maximal acceleration principle can be successfully used to prevent the occurrence of singularities in General Relativity \[16 - 19\], and of ultraviolet divergences in quantum field theory , in particular in the estimation of free energy and entropy of quantum fields . We have shown that several possible values of maximal acceleration can be found. The choice among them is crucial to obtain the right model of a relativistic dynamics with an upper limit on the acceleration and can be definitely done only through experiments. Finally it is even possible that two different values of maximal acceleration can survive in the same model. Using in (1) Planck acceleration (28), we obtained  a modified Rindler metric

$$ds^2=(\xi ^2A_m^2)d\eta ^2+d\xi ^2+dy^2+dz^2$$
$`(29)`$
We showed that, in the case analyzed by Frolov and Sanchez, a maximal acceleration depending on the string’s length $`\lambda `$ still exists and it does not diverge in the limit $`\lambda 0`$, but we have $`aA_m=m_pc^3/\mathrm{}`$. As in classical relativity only particles with zero mass can move at the maximal velocity $`c`$, so in our theory only point particles can move at maximal acceleration $`A_m`$.

## Acknowledgement

The author is grateful to Gaetano Scarpetta and Giorgio Papini for useful suggestions.

## References

1. H. Weyl, Sitzungsberichte der Preussinske Akademie der Wissenschaften, 465, (1918)
2. G. Amelino-Camelia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11, 35 (2002); Phys. Lett. B 510, 255 (2001)
3. J.Magueijo and L.Smolin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 190403 (2002)
4. S.G. Low, J. Math. Phys., 38, 2197 (1997)
5. D.V.Ahluwalia, Phys. Lett, A 275, 31 (2000); D.V.Ahluwalia and M.Kirchbach, ”Fermions, bosons and locality in special relativity with two invariant scales” in gr-qc/0207004
6. A.A. Ketsaris, ”Accelerated motion and special relativity transformations” in physics/9907037 and ”Turns and special relativity transformations” in physics/9909026
7. G. Amelino-Camelia, ”Status of Relativity with observer independent length and velocity scales” in gr-qc/0106004
8. E.R.Caianiello, Nuovo Cimento, 59B, 350 (1980); E.R.Caianiello, G.Marmo, G.Scarpetta, Nuovo Cimento, 86A, 337 (1985)
9. E.R.Caianiello, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 32, 65 (1981)
10. G.Scarpetta, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 41, 51 (1984); W.Guz, G.Scarpetta, in Quantum field theory ed. F.Mancini (North-Holland, Amsterdam,1986), p.233
11. H.E. Brandt, Found. Phys. Lett., 2, 39, (1989)
12. F.P. Schuller, Annals Phys., 299, 174, (2002)
13. E.R. Caianiello, A.Feoli, M.Gasperini and G.Scarpetta, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 29, 131 (1990)
14. E.R. Caianiello, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 41, 370, (1984); W.R. Wood, G. Papini, and Y.Q. Cai, Nuovo Cimento, 104 B, 361, (1989)
15. A.Feoli, G. Lambiase, G.Papini and G.Scarpetta, Phys. Lett. A263, 147 (1999); S.Capozziello, A.Feoli, G.Lambiase, G.Papini and G.Scarpetta, Phys. Lett. A268, 247 (2000).
16. V.Bozza, A.Feoli, G.Papini and G.Scarpetta, Phys. Lett. A271 35 (2000).
17. V.Bozza, A.Feoli, G.Lambiase, G.Papini and G.Scarpetta, Phys. Lett. A283 53 (2001)
18. E.R. Caianiello, M. Gasperini and G. Scarpetta, Class. Quan. Grav. 8, 659 (1991); E.R.Caianiello, A.Feoli, M.Gasperini and G.Scarpetta, “Cosmological implications of maximal proper acceleration” in “Bogoliubovskie čtenija”, eds. E.V.Ivaskevic and E.V.Kalinnikova, (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 1993) p.134
19. V.V. Nesterenko, A.Feoli and G.Scarpetta, Jour. Math. Phys. 36, 5552 (1995); Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 1201 (1996)
20. C.W.Misner, K.S.Thorne and J.A.Wheeler, Gravitation (W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1973), chapt. 6
21. N.Sanchez and G.Veneziano, Nucl. Phys., B333, 253 (1990); M.Gasperini, N.Sanchez and G.Veneziano, Nucl. Phys., B364, 365 (1991); Int. J. Mod. Phys., A6, 3853 (1991)
22. M.Gasperini, Phys. Lett., B258, 70 (1991); Gen. Rel. Grav., 24, 219 (1992)
23. V.P.Frolov and N.Sanchez, Nucl. Phys., B349, 815 (1991)
24. R.W.Wood, G.Papini and Y.Q.Cai, Nuovo Cimento, B104, 653 (1989)
25. G. Papini and W.R. Wood, Phys. Lett. A170, 409(1992).
26. M. Goto, ”The equivalence principle and gravitational and inertial mass relation of classical charged particle” in physics/0104021
27. P.Caldirola, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 32, 264 (1981)
28. H.C.G. Caldas and P.R. Silva, Apeiron 8 n.1 (2001) (gr-qc/9809007)
29. P.C.W. Davies, J. Phys. A., 8, 609 (1975); W.G. Unruh, Phys. Rev., D14, 870 (1976).
30. H.E. Brandt, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 38, 522, (1983)
31. A.D. Sakharov, JEPT Lett., 3, 288 (1966).
32. K.Huang and S.Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 895 (1970)
33. R. Parentani and R. Potting Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 945 (1989)
34. V.V.Nesterenko, A.Feoli, G. Lambiase and G.Scarpetta, Phys. Rev. D 60, 65001 (1999).
35. M.McGuigan, Phys. Rev. D 50, 5225, (1994)
36. A.Feoli, Nuclear Physics B396, 261 (1993)