
3
By inspection of Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) we can see that
if we have ε1≫1 and b2≈ε1L2≫1 this means that
ν≈βL ≫1. In this regime, the ratio of Hankel functions
and 1/(2βL) go fast to zero, giving rs≈+1. In order
to mimic a PMC, we need to go slowly from lower to
high permittivity. It is not complex to find high permit-
tivity materials; for example, with self-assembled metal
nanoparticles, we can easily get ε∼100 [25, 26] or with
a composite material value around ε∼105are possi-
ble [32, 33].
For example, choosing ε1= 100, b = 103nm, and L=
120 nm, from Eqs.(2) and (3) we obtain that rs≈+1
in a broad range of frequencies and k-vectors, as shown
in Fig.1d. It turns out that only for a irrelevant sharp
region near the light cone (k⊥0= 0) we have rs=−1.
Another possible solution to mimic a PMC could be
found in future advances in magnetic nanomaterial com-
posites [34, 35]. Such materials present strong mag-
netic effects up to the far infrared but with promis-
ing extensions to the near-IR. This can be easily seen
from the reflection coefficient between two materials (vac-
uum/magnetic composite):
rs=µ1k⊥0−k⊥1
µ1k⊥0+k⊥1
.(4)
Having large values of the magnetic permeability of the
nanocomposite (µ1≫1) implies rs≈+1.
We want to highlight that there are probably other
possible solutions for a broadband PMC but no fun-
damental reason against it. We hope that more re-
searchers will explore this phenomenon. Now we show
that nanoparticle levitation is possible with a PMC be-
havior over a broad region of frequencies and k-vectors,
while full-spectrum is not necessary.
The force on a nanoparticle arises from the interac-
tion between the surrounding EM field, the plane sur-
face and the nanoparticle considered as a point dipole.
A detailed derivation is shown in Sect.I of the Suppl.
Mat. Following Refs.[36, 37], the force over the dipole
to the lowest order is F(r)≈ ⟨ˆ
d(ind)
i(t)∇ˆ
E(fl)
i(r, t)⟩+
⟨ˆ
d(fl)
i(t)∇ˆ
E(ind)
i(r, t)⟩, where ris the nanoparticle’s po-
sition (summation over subscripts is implicit). The first
term describes the fluctuations of the field that corre-
late with the corresponding induced dipole, while the
second involves dipole fluctuations and the field they in-
duce. In principle, each entity have its own temperature,
{TEM, TS, TNP}. The force over the nanoparticle at a dis-
tance zfrom the surface for a general scenario results:
Fz(z) = F0(z)+FR(z, TEM, TNP)+FT(z, TEM, TS),(5)
where F0stands for the contribution of the zero-point
fluctuations, depending on the surface’s reflection coeffi-
cients {rs,p};FRstands for the contribution associated
to the surrounding EM field and the nanoparticle radi-
ation also depending on {rs,p}, while FTrelates to the
surface’s radiation and depends exclusively on its trans-
mission coefficients {ts,p}. A metamaterial surface may
present frequency cutoffs, having restricted the values of
(ω, k∥) where rs= +1 and rp=−1. A full-bandwidth
PEC (PMC) surface has rs=∓1, rp=±1, while ts,p= 0
for every (ω, k∥). The latter implies that FT→0 regard-
less on the temperatures. In agreement to the intuitive
picture of Fig.1, in Sect.II of the Suppl. Mat. we show
the striking feature F(PMC)
z=−F(PEC)
z. In principle,
this theoretically guarantees the levitation of a nanopar-
ticle provided the full-bandwidth PMC property is ef-
fective. However, in general metamaterial will present
PMC properties on finite bandwidth. We now analyze
its impact on the Casimir-Polder force.
For a nanoparticle of R= 50nm, the weight
mg ∼10−17N for common materials such as SiC, Au
and Si. The levitation takes place where the Casimir
force compensate the weight, as we show below, this
occurs for z < 1µm. In the short-distance regime, for
which kBTMinz/[ℏc]≪1 (with TMin = min[TEnv, TNP]),
the Casimir force is given by the zero-temperature
(fully quantum) contribution [see Eq.(S.43) of the Suppl.
Mat.]:
Fz(z)≈F0(z).(6)
This implies that the conclusions obtained from now
are robust to thermal effects and relies on the (quan-
tum) zero-point fluctuations (see Sect.IIIA of the Suppl.
Mat.). For the full-bandwidth PMC, this contribution
reads:
F0(z)→F(PMC)
0(z)=3ℏV I0(z)/(8πz4),(7)
having I0(z)≡R+∞
0
dω
2πξ(iω)A(iω, z)e−2ω
cz, with
A(iω, z) = P3
n=0 1
n!2ω
czn. In Fig. 2 we show the
Casimir force acting on a SiC nanoparticle of R= 50nm
for different upper and lower frequency/k-vectors cutoffs
combinations numerically obtained by employing Eq.(2)
for the surface (dashed-red and dashed-yellow curves), as
well as the exact analytical and numerical cases for case
the full-bandwidth PMC given by Eq.(7) (blue solid and
dashed-green curves). For SiC we employed a permittiv-
ity model εSiC(ω) = ε∞(ω2
L−ω2−iγω)/(ω2
T−ω2−iγω),
where ωL= 18.253 1013s−1,ωT= 14.937 1013s−1,
γ= 8.966 1011s−1and ε∞= 6.7. According to the basic
physical intuition conveyed in Fig. 1, a repulsive force
acts on the nanoparticle even in the broadband PMC
case, i.e. the not full-bandwidth case (dashed red and
yellow lines). A broader interval in frequencies increases
the repulsion at every distance from the surface. The
maximum repulsion is achieved for the full-bandwidth
PCM (blue solid and dash green lines). Furthermore,
in Sect.III of the Suppl. Mat., we show that for a SiC
nanoparticle the force by a full-bandwidth ideal PMC
surface, F(PMC)
0(blue solid curve), can be approximated