New vacuum boundary effects of massive field theories

Fernando Ezquerro; Manuel Asorey; Miguel Pardina

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

New vacuum boundary effects of massive field theories

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read For a massive scalar field between plates, the vacuum energy decays as $e^{-mL}$ or $e^{-2mL}$, depending on whether the $U(2)$ boundary conditions interconnect the two plates.

desk verdict New and useful generic result on massive Casimir decay, but the two-family classification is not literally universal and the paper has typos and an unsupported dimension claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18072 v1 pith:77CFZYST submitted 2025-01-30 hep-th math-phmath.MP

Manuel Asorey , Fernando Ezquerro , Miguel Pardina This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thmath-phmath.MP MSC 81T5581T1381T10 PACS 03.70.+k11.10.Kk

keywords CasimirenergymassivescalarfieldU(2)boundaryconditionsexponentialdecayspectralfunctionnon-Abeliangaugetheoriesmassgapfree

topics Yang-Mills Mass Gap

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper analyzes the vacuum (Casimir) energy of a free massive scalar field between two parallel plates in 3+1 dimensions, under the physically allowed $U(2)$ boundary conditions (with the reality restriction $n_2=0$). Its central claim is that at large plate separation the exponential decay of the Casimir energy is fixed by one trace: if $\operatorname{tr}(U\sigma_1)$ is nonzero the energy falls as $e^{-mL}$, and if the trace vanishes it falls as $e^{-2mL}$. The first family corresponds to boundary conditions that interconnect the two plates, while the second corresponds to conditions imposed independently on each plate. The authors argue the classification is universal, holds in any dimension, and supplies an analytic target for lattice comparisons with non-Abelian gauge theories.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through the spectral function $h^L_U(q)$, whose zeros give the discrete transverse modes between the plates, and the zeta-function regularization of the determinant defining the vacuum energy. Writing the ratio $h^L_U(iq)/h^\infty_U(iq)$ and expanding it in powers of $e^{-qL}$, the Casimir energy becomes a sum of saddle-point integrals controlled by $e^{-mL}$ and $e^{-2mL}$ factors. The first exponential term carries a coefficient $n_1\sin\eta$, which is exactly $\operatorname{tr}(U\sigma_1)$ up to a fixed factor; the vanishing of that coefficient is what pushes the decay to the next order. The spectral function is the central object because it converts boundary-condition data into the exponential-rate dictionary.

What would settle it

Choose an allowed boundary condition with $n_1\sin\eta\neq 0$ (so $\operatorname{tr}(U\sigma_1)\neq 0$), compute the exact Casimir energy by summing the discrete transverse modes, and examine $(mL)^{3/2}E_c$ at large $mL$: if the leading coefficient in front of $e^{-mL}$ vanishes or a different rate appears, the two-family claim fails. A simpler check is to test numerically whether $h^\infty_U(iq)$ has a zero on $q\ge m$ for some allowed $U(2)$ parameters; a zero would break the expansion behind Eq. (39).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' own terms, the main discovery is Eq. (39): for a massive scalar field in 3+1 dimensions, $(mL)^{3/2}E_c^U$ is asymptotic to $e^{-mL}$ when $\operatorname{tr}(U\sigma_1)\neq 0$, and to $e^{-2mL}$ when $\operatorname{tr}(U\sigma_1)=0$, where $U$ is the $2\times 2$ unitary matrix parametrizing the boundary conditions and $\sigma_1$ is one of the Pauli matrices. Boundary conditions like periodic ($U=\sigma_1$) and antiperiodic ($U=-\sigma_1$), which relate field values or derivatives on the two plates, belong to the slower-decay family; Dirichlet ($U=-I$), Neumann ($U=I$), and Zaremba ($U=\pm\sigma_3$) conditions, imposed plate by plate independently, belong to the faster-decay family. The same rate governs the low-temperature thermal part of the free energy, and the two-family split is claimed to persist in any spacetime dimension. This extends earlier results found separately for Dirichlet and periodic boundary conditions to the whole $U(2)$ family.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the expansion of the spectral-function ratio in powers of $e^{-qL}$ can always be integrated term by term, which requires $h^\infty_U(iq)$ to stay nonzero on the whole $q\ge m$ contour for every allowed $U(2)$ boundary condition; the paper expects this from the parameter domain but does not prove it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Dirichlet, Neumann, and Zaremba boundary conditions all satisfy $\operatorname{tr}(U\sigma_1)=0$, so their Casimir energies share the same $e^{-2mL}$ large-distance tail.
Periodic and antiperiodic boundary conditions have $\operatorname{tr}(U\sigma_1)\neq 0$ and decay as $e^{-mL}$, a factor-two slower rate.
The classification is not a 3+1 accident: the same two-family statement is argued to hold in any space dimension.
The finite-temperature part of the free energy decays at the same rate as the zero-temperature Casimir energy, so the two-family signature should survive low-temperature measurements.
Lattice simulations of non-Abelian gauge theories can use these rates as the analytic prediction to match: independent boundary conditions should produce $e^{-2mL}$, connected ones $e^{-mL}$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

One can read the trace condition as a topological marker: it counts whether the boundary-condition matrix couples the upper and lower plate sectors; observables other than vacuum energy, such as the entanglement entropy of the slab, might split along the same line.
If future lattice data in 3+1 Yang-Mills show exactly two exponential decay rates matching these, the massive-scalar effective description would be strongly supported; a single universal rate would count against it.
When several boundary-condition sectors are superposed or averaged, the slower $e^{-mL}$ family will dominate the force at large $mL$, so the connected-plate family determines the asymptotic Casimir interaction in mixed settings.
A direct extension would repeat the spectral-function calculation for massive Dirac fermions under the same $U(2)$ boundary conditions to see whether the analogue of $\sigma_1$ coupling produces the same two-family split.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper gives a clean analytic calculation of the massive scalar Casimir energy under U(2) boundary conditions in 3+1 dimensions and identifies a two-family dichotomy in the large-mL decay: e^{-mL} when the boundary condition connects the two plates, e^{-2mL} when it does not. That classification is new and exactly the kind of reference you want before comparing with lattice Yang-Mills. The explicit Dirichlet, periodic, antiperiodic, Neumann, and Zaremba cases are computed twice, via the spectral function and via direct eigenvalue sums in Appendix A, and the results agree. The generic saddle-point argument is convincing.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, Eq. (32) and (33) have typos: the (q^2−1) term should be multiplied by cosθ, not sinθ. This does not affect the qualitative rates, but it will confuse anyone trying to reproduce X and Y. Second, the expansion in Eq. (34) requires h∞(iq) not to vanish on [m,∞). The paper asserts the domain restriction is enough but does not prove it. I believe the positivity actually holds: the allowed domain gives cosη+cosθ≥0 and the quadratic is positive on q>0. The stress-test counterexample (θ=π/4, η=0) is based on a sign error and does not stand. Third, and more substantive: for the tr(Uσ1)=0 family, the e^{-2mL} coefficient is essentially Y(m). The paper never shows Y(m) is nonzero. It is not always nonzero: for U=iI (θ=π/2, η=0) one finds Y(m) ∝ −(m−1)^2, so the e^{-2mL} term vanishes at m=1 and the decay is faster. The universal dichotomy therefore needs a non-degeneracy condition; generically it is right, but the statement is too strong. Finally, the claim that the same result holds in any dimension is unsupported; either prove it or remove it.

This paper deserves a serious referee. The core calculation is reproducible and the generic result is useful. A referee should ask for the typos fixed, a proof of the positivity condition, and an honest discussion of the exceptional cases. I would cite it for the generic two-family classification once those caveats are acknowledged.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the Casimir energy of a free massive scalar field in 3+1 dimensions confined between two parallel plates, for boundary conditions parametrized by U(2) matrices U(θ,η,n). Using a spectral-function representation and a zeta-function renormalization scheme, the authors derive integral formulas for the zero- and finite-temperature free energy and extract the large-distance asymptotic decay of the Casimir energy. Their central claim is Eq. (39): as mL→∞, (mL)^{3/2} E_c^U is asymptotic to e^{-mL} when tr(Uσ_1)≠0 and to e^{-2mL} when tr(Uσ_1)=0, so boundary conditions split into two families depending on whether the two plates are connected. The paper verifies the rates explicitly for periodic, antiperiodic, Dirichlet, Neumann, and Zaremba boundary conditions, with the periodic and Dirichlet cases also checked by an independent explicit-eigenvalue computation in Appendix A.

Significance. If correct, the two-family classification is a clean, parameter-free statement about massive scalar Casimir physics that is potentially useful for comparing analytic and lattice studies of non-Abelian gauge theories in 3+1 dimensions, where a massive-scalar effective description has been proposed. Strengths of the paper include exact closed-form Casimir formulas for several concrete boundary conditions, agreement between the spectral-function method and an independent eigenvalue-sum calculation for Dirichlet and periodic cases, and falsifiable predictions for the exponential rates that do not rely on any fitted parameter. The main conceptual statement — that the decay rate distinguishes connected from independent boundary conditions — is simple and testable. The result is, however, presented as a general theorem for U(2) boundary conditions, and the manuscript currently lacks a rigorous uniformity/positivity justification for the asymptotic expansion; this is the main barrier to full acceptance.

major comments (3)

[§4.1, Eqs. (32)–(33)] The rewritten spectral function in Eq. (32) contains a term (q²−1) sinθ in the denominator, whereas the limit h∞_U(iq) defined in Eq. (21) is (q²+1)cosη+(q²−1)cosθ+2q sinθ. The same inconsistency appears in the definition of Y in Eq. (33). Since X and Y enter the expansion (34) and hence the central result (39), this must be corrected to cosθ. Taken literally, the incorrect denominator can vanish on q≥m for allowed parameters (for example, θ=π/2, η=π/4 at q≈0.13), which would make the expansion (34) singular.
[§4.1, Eqs. (34)–(39)] The derivation assumes that log(h^L_U/h∞_U) can be expanded in powers of e^{-qL} and integrated term by term uniformly in the boundary parameters. This requires h∞_U(iq)≠0 on q∈[m,∞) and control of the remainder after integration. The paper does not state or prove such a condition. If h∞ vanished on the contour, the quotient would have a pole and the saddle-point estimate would receive a contribution ∼e^{-q0L} that could compete with the predicted e^{-2mL} rate for the tr(Uσ1)=0 family. With the corrected definition, positivity follows from the domain 0≤θ±η≤π, since h∞=q²(cosη+cosθ)+2q sinθ+cosη−cosθ is strictly positive for q>0; the authors should add this lemma explicitly.
[§4, Eq. (39)] Even after correcting Eqs. (32)–(33), the asymptotic equivalence (39) is stronger than what the saddle-point computation establishes. For boundary parameters in the tr(Uσ1)=0 family with η=0, n1=0 and θ=2 arctan m, the coefficient Y(q) in Eq. (33) vanishes at q=m. The resulting e^{-2mL} contribution is then of order (mL)^{-5/2} e^{-2mL} rather than (mL)^{-3/2} e^{-2mL}, so (mL)^{3/2}E_c^U is not asymptotic to a nonzero multiple of e^{-2mL}. The exponential rate e^{-2mL} is unchanged, so the two-family classification survives, but Eq. (39) should be restated as a statement about exponential rates, or the nonvanishing of the coefficient must be proven.

minor comments (5)

[§4, Eq. (35)] The integration by parts in Eq. (35) gives a prefactor S/(4π²), not S/(4π); the missing factor of π propagates into the constants c_{j,k} in Eq. (37), although it does not affect the exponential rates. This should be corrected for consistency with the explicit formulas in Section 5 and Appendix A.
[§2, Eq. (4)] The sentence 'we have to impose that n2=0 because the scalar field we are working with is real' restricts the parametrization to a subspace of U(2), but the abstract and the main theorem are phrased for all U(2) boundary conditions; please clarify that the classification concerns the real-scalar admissible subset.
[§4, after Eq. (39)] The statement 'the same result can be proven for any space dimension D' is an unsupported assertion; a proof sketch or a reference should be provided, or the sentence should be removed.
[§5(v)] The Zaremba case is written U_Z=±σ3, but in the parametrization (4) with the stated domain 0≤θ±η≤π only one sign appears to be allowed (U_Z=-σ3 with θ=π/2, η=π/2, n=(0,0,1)); please specify the branch used.
[Throughout] There are several typographical and language issues (e.g., 'adimensional' for 'dimensionless', 'negligeable', 'a exponential decay', 'spacial' for 'spatial'); a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-family decay dichotomy is derived from the spectral-function expansion, not assumed as an input; self-citations are antecedents, not equivalent premises.

full rationale

The paper's central result (Eq. 39) is obtained by expanding log(h^L_U/h^∞_U) in powers of e^{-qL} (Eq. 34), inserting the expansion into the Casimir integral (Eq. 35), and applying a saddle-point estimate. The leading e^{-mL} coefficient is proportional to n1 sin η, which is half the trace tr(Uσ1), so the dichotomy follows algebraically from the coefficient vanishing; it is not fitted, defined, or cited into existence. The spectral-function input h^L_U in Eq. (9) is taken from the authors' prior Ref. [9], and the renormalization scheme from Refs. [24,25]; these are prior mathematical frameworks, and the asymptotic classification is a new consequence rather than a restatement of them. The Dirichlet and periodic cases are independently recomputed in Appendix A from the explicit discrete spectra, giving an external check that the general method is not just encoding its own output. The main weaknesses are correctness/completeness issues, not circularity: the paper does not prove that h^∞_U(iq) stays nonzero on q≥m, so the term-by-term saddle-point expansion (34)-(35) is not justified for all U(2) parameters; the equations (9), (21), and (32) contain inconsistent coefficients (cosθ vs sinθ); and the claim 'the same result can be proven for any space dimension D' is asserted without proof. These do not amount to a derivation that is equivalent to its inputs, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one hand-set scale (ell = 1), four axioms (zeta regularization, U(2) boundary-condition parametrization, the L0 renormalization prescription, and saddle-point uniformity), and no invented entities or fitted parameters. The renormalization scale mu appears in intermediate steps but cancels in the final Casimir energy; no numerical constants are tuned to match data.

free parameters (1)

ell (boundary-condition scale) = 1 (set by hand)
Eq. (2) introduces an arbitrary scale ell in the boundary-condition parametrization and sets it to 1. The final classification is independent of ell, so this is a normalization choice rather than a fitted parameter.

assumptions (4)

standard math The partition function equals a determinant and is regularized by zeta functions, with derivative at s = 0 giving the effective action.
Used in Section 2, Eqs. (5) and (6).
domain assumption All self-adjoint boundary conditions for a scalar between two plates are parametrized by U(2) matrices with domain 0 <= theta ± eta <= pi and n_2 = 0 for a real scalar.
Invoked in Section 2, Eqs. (2)-(4), following Refs. [9,19].
domain assumption The renormalized Casimir energy is defined by the L0-prescription in Eq. (13), which subtracts bulk and boundary divergences and terms linear in L.
Defines the object being computed; taken from Refs. [24,25].
ad hoc to paper Term-by-term saddle-point evaluation of the asymptotic expansion in powers of e^{-qL} is valid uniformly in the boundary parameters.
Needed for Eq. (39); the paper does not provide error bounds or a proof that h^infinity_U has no zeros on q >= m.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New vacuum boundary effects of massive field theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/77CFZYST

@misc{pith2026250118072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New vacuum boundary effects of massive field theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/77CFZYST}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18072}
}

read the original abstract

Analytical arguments suggest that the Casimir energy in 2+1 dimensions for gauge theories exponentially decays with the distance between the boundaries. The phenomenon has also been observed by non-perturbative numerical simulations. The dependence of this exponential decay on the different boundary conditions could help to better understand the infrared behavior of these theories and in particular their mass spectrum. A similar behavior is expected in 3+1 dimensions. Motivated by this feature we analyze the dependence of the exponential decay of Casimir energy for different boundary conditions of massive scalar fields in 3+1 dimensional spacetimes. We show that the boundary conditions classify in two different families according on the rate of this exponential decay of the Casimir energy. If the boundary conditions on each boundary are independent (e.g. both boundaries satisfy Dirichlet boundary conditions), the Casimir energy has a exponential decay that is two times faster than when the boundary conditions interconnect the two boundary plates (e.g. for periodic or antiperiodic boundary conditions). These results will be useful for a comparison with the Casimir energy in the non-perturbative regime of non-Abelian gauge theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18072 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Behavior of the adimensional free energy in logarithmic scale for four different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

H. B. G. Casimir. On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates. Indag. Math., 10(4):261–263, 1948

1948
[2]

M. J. Sparnaay. Attractive forces between flat plates. Nature, 180(4581):334–335, 1957

work page 1957
[3]

M. J. Sparnaay. Measurements of attractive forces between flat plates. Physica, 24(6- 10):751–764, 1958

work page 1958
[4]

K Lamoreaux

S. K Lamoreaux. Demonstration of the Casimir force in the 0.6 to 6 µm range. Phys. Rev. Lett., 78(1):5, 1997

work page 1997
[5]

Mohideen and A

U. Mohideen and A. Roy. Precision measurement of the Casimir force from 0.1 to 0 .9µm. Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:4549–4552, 1998

work page 1998
[6]

H. B. Chan, V. A. Aksyuk, D. J. Kleiman, R. N. Bishop, and F. Capasso. Nonlinear micromechanical Casimir oscillator. Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:211801, 2001

work page 2001
[7]

Dalvit, P Milonni, D Roberts, and F

D. Dalvit, P Milonni, D Roberts, and F. da Rosa. Casimir physics. Lecture Notes in Physics, 834, 2011

work page 2011
[8]

Bressi, G

G. Bressi, G. Carugno, R. Onofrio, and G. Ruoso. Measurement of the Casimir force between parallel metallics surfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett., 88:041804, 2002

work page 2002

Show all 28 references

[9]

Asorey and J

M. Asorey and J. M. Mu˜ noz-Casta˜ neda. Attractive and repulsive Casimir vacuum energy with general boundary conditions. Nucl. Phys. B, 874, 2013

2013
[10]

J. M. Mu˜ noz-Casta˜ neda, L. Santamar ´ ıa-Sanz, M. Donaire, and M. Tello-Fraile. Thermal Casimir effect with general boundary conditions. EPJC, 80:1–16, 2020

2020
[11]

Asorey, C

M. Asorey, C. Iuliano, and F. Ezquerro. Casimir energy in (2+1)-dimensional field theories. Physics, 6(2):613–628, 2024

2024
[12]

Symanzik

K. Symanzik. Schrodinger representation and Casimir effect in renormalizable quantum field theory. Nucl. Phys. B, 190(1):1–44, 1981

1981
[13]

Karabali and V

D. Karabali and V. P. Nair. On the origin of the mass gap for non-abelian gauge theories in (2+1) dimensions. Phys. Lett. B, 1(379):141–147, 1996

1996
[14]

Karabali, D

C. Karabali, D. Kim and V.P. Nair. Planar Yang-Mills theory: Hamiltonian, regulators and mass gap. Nucl. Phys. B, 524(3):661–694, 1998

1998
[15]

Karabali and V

D. Karabali and V. P. Nair. Casimir effect in (2 + 1)-dimensional Yang-Mills theory as a probe of the magnetic mass. Phys. Rev. D, 98:105009, 2018

2018
[16]

M. N. Chernodub, V. A. Goy, A. V. Molochkov, and H. H. Nguyen. Casimir effect in Yang-Mills theory in d = 2 + 1. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121:191601, 2018. 16

2018
[17]

Asorey and F

M. Asorey and F. Ezquerro. Energy preserving boundary conditions in field theory. Phys. Rev. D, 4:045008, 2023

2023
[18]

M. N. Chernodub, V. A. Goy, A. V. Molochkov, and A. S. Tanashkin. Boundary states and non-abelian Casimir effect in lattice Yang-Mills theory. Phys. Rev. D, 108:014515, 2023

2023
[19]

Ibort, and G

M Asorey, A. Ibort, and G. Marmo. Global theory of quantum boundary conditions and topology change. Intern. J. of Mod. Phys. A, 20(05):1001–1025, 2005

2005
[20]

J. S. Dowker and R. Critchley. Effective Lagrangian and energy-momentum tensor in de Sitter space. Phys. Rev. D, 13:3224–3232, 1976

1976
[21]

S. Blau, M. Visser, and A. Wipf. Zeta functions and the Casimir energy. Nucl. Phys. B, 310:163, 1988

1988
[22]

V. Moretti. Direct ζ-function approach and renormalization of one-loop stress tensors in curved spacetimes. Phys. Rev. D, 56:7797–7819, 1997

1997
[23]

V. Moretti. One-loop stress-tensor renormalization in curved background: The relation be- tween ζ-function and point-splitting approaches, and an improved point-splitting procedure. J. Math. Phys., 40(8):3843–3875, 1999

1999
[24]

Asorey, C

M. Asorey, C. G. Beneventano, D. D’Ascanio, and E. Santangelo. Thermodynamics of conformal fields in topologically non-trivial space-time backgrounds. JHEP, 2013, 2012

2013
[25]

Asorey, C

M. Asorey, C. G. Beneventano, I Cavero-Pel´ aez, D. D’Ascanio, and E. M. Santangelo. Topo- logical entropy and renormalization group flow in 3-dimensional spherical spaces. JHEP, 2015(1):1–35, 2015

2015
[26]

M. Bordag. Free energy and entropy for thin sheets. Phys. Rev. D, 98(8):085010, 2018

2018
[27]

Cougo-Pinto, C

M.V. Cougo-Pinto, C. Farina, and A. J. Segui-Santonja. Schwinger’s method for the massive Casimir effect. Lett. Math. Phys., 31:309–313, 1994

1994
[28]

S. A. Fulling. Mass dependence of vacuum energy. Phys. Lett. B, 624:281–286, 2005. 17

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

H. B. G. Casimir. On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates. Indag. Math., 10(4):261–263, 1948

1948

[2] [2]

M. J. Sparnaay. Attractive forces between flat plates. Nature, 180(4581):334–335, 1957

work page 1957

[3] [3]

M. J. Sparnaay. Measurements of attractive forces between flat plates. Physica, 24(6- 10):751–764, 1958

work page 1958

[4] [4]

K Lamoreaux

S. K Lamoreaux. Demonstration of the Casimir force in the 0.6 to 6 µm range. Phys. Rev. Lett., 78(1):5, 1997

work page 1997

[5] [5]

Mohideen and A

U. Mohideen and A. Roy. Precision measurement of the Casimir force from 0.1 to 0 .9µm. Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:4549–4552, 1998

work page 1998

[6] [6]

H. B. Chan, V. A. Aksyuk, D. J. Kleiman, R. N. Bishop, and F. Capasso. Nonlinear micromechanical Casimir oscillator. Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:211801, 2001

work page 2001

[7] [7]

Dalvit, P Milonni, D Roberts, and F

D. Dalvit, P Milonni, D Roberts, and F. da Rosa. Casimir physics. Lecture Notes in Physics, 834, 2011

work page 2011

[8] [8]

Bressi, G

G. Bressi, G. Carugno, R. Onofrio, and G. Ruoso. Measurement of the Casimir force between parallel metallics surfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett., 88:041804, 2002

work page 2002