| Evanescent-wave (EW) mirrors have been considered [1] as a means of measuring atom-surface forces, assuming that the reflecting potential is the sum of the exponentially repulsive dipole potential created by the EW and the attractive atom-wall van der Waals potential, resulting in a potential barrier whose height can be measured [2]. Quantum reflection from a solid surface as observed for low density BECs [3], occurs at atomic velocities very close to zero. The existence of a potential barrier in EW mirrors opens the possibility for effective quantum reflection at non-zero atomic velocities. From the perspective of quantum electrodynamics, Casimir and Polder [4] analyzed a system consisting of a ground state atom in the electromagnetic vacuum inside a cubic cavity with perfectly conducting walls and calculated the second-order perturbation energy of the ground state atom in the vacuum, using as intermediate states the excited states of the atom and the state of the radiation field in which only one light quantum is present. Atoms reflected by the EW mirrors interact however not only with the vacuum but with the reflecting evanescent field, which induces an atomic dipole-moment at the frequency of the applied field. We introduce here a quantum dipole-dipole interaction model to obtain cold atom-dielectric wall interaction potentials in the presence of an EW created by total reflection of a wave. The atom-wall interaction is described by the effective, non-Hermitian, quantum dipole-dipole interaction between the atomic induced dipole and its image dipole in the dielectric. The effective potential has the short distance behavior of the van der Waals potential and the asymptotical behavior of the optical potential but does not correspond to their direct addition. The imaginary part of the effective dipole potential represents spatially modulated losses caused by radiative processes into vacuum modes that do not contribute to the dipole-dipole interaction but rather to random scattering of the reflected atoms. [1] M. Kasevich, K. Moler, E. Riis, E. Sunderman, D. Weiss, and S. Chu, in Atomic Physics 12, edited by J. C. Zorn, R. R. Lewis, and M. K. Weiss (AIP, New York, 1991), vol. AIP Conf. Proc. No. 233, p. 47. [2] A. Landragin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1464 (1996). [3] T. A. Pasquini, Y. Shin, C. Sanner, M. Saba, A. Schirotzek, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 223201 (2004). [4] H. B. G. Casimir and D. Polder, Phys. Rev. 73, 360 (1948). |