Concept

Thermal fluctuations — where it appears

The random departures of a system from its average state caused by the heat motion of its parts, each degree of freedom holding on average half of kT. They make a surface ripple, a mirror jitter and a resistor hiss, and their size measures the temperature against the system's stiffness.

Named by 2 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Two descriptions of gold that agree everywhere but at zero. How strongly gold answers a slowly varying field, (ε(iξ) − 1)ξ²/ωₚ² in the two forms of its permittivity at imaginary frequency ξ, against ξ on a logarithmic axis: the plasma model (dashed), which ignores the electrons' collisions and gives exactly 1, and the Drude model (solid), which includes them at the measured rate ħγ = 35 meV and falls to zero below about γ = 5.3·10¹³ per second. The Lifshitz force samples this curve only at the Matsubara frequencies 2πlkT/ħ (dots, 300 K): the first, 2.47·10¹⁴ per second, lies above γ, and there the two descriptions differ by 18 per cent, at the next by 10, and less beyond. At l = 0, ξ = 0, they part completely: 1 against 0. Everything the two models disagree about is in that one point.

The static field a metal may or may not reflect

The Casimir force between two gold plates at room temperature has been computed two ways for twenty-five years, and the two answers differ by forty per cent at three micrometres. Both use the same measured optical properties of gold. They part company over a single number: whether gold reflects a magnetic field that does not change in time. Common sense and every electrical engineer say it does not, since a static field passes straight through a copper sheet. The most precise force measurements say it does. The disagreement is not about the Casimir effect at all; it is about what a metal's electrons do with a fluctuation slower than their collisions.

electromagnetism · Retardation

A surface whose thickness depends on how much of it is looked at. The rms roughness of a water surface at 20 °C, in nanometres, against the size of the patch over which it is measured, from the thermal ripples that fit inside the patch — with gravity (solid) and without it (dashed) — for ripples down to a molecular wavelength of 0.6 nm. Over 10 nm the surface is 0.16 nm rough; over a micrometre, 0.26; over a millimetre, 0.36; and beyond a few millimetres gravity flattens the longest ripples and the roughness stops at 0.390 nm. In free fall it would keep growing as the square root of the logarithm: 0.43 nm over a metre. An X-ray reflectivity measurement sees the ripples smaller than its own coherence length, typically some micrometres, and reports a thickness of about a third of a nanometre — a number that belongs to the instrument as much as to the water.

The surface whose thickness depends on the view

The surface of a glass of water looks like a perfect plane, and over most distances it nearly is. But it is at room temperature, and every ripple it could carry — from a few molecules long to a few millimetres — is shaken by heat with its own share of thermal energy. The ripples are tiny, a fraction of a nanometre high, and they add up in an odd way: every factor of ten in wavelength contributes the same amount of roughness. So the thickness of a water surface has no single value. It depends logarithmically on how large a patch is looked at, until gravity stops it at a few millimetres, and the X-ray measurements that report a third of a nanometre are reporting a property of their own resolution as much as of the water.

fluids · Surface tension

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Capillary length Capillary waves Casimir effect Drude model Eddy currents Equipartition Interface width Lifshitz theory Logarithmic divergence Matsubara frequency Plasma frequency Reflection coefficient

All concepts