Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 104 references

Axion dark matter can generate a resonantly enhanced pressure between graphene plates whose peaks sit at separations fixed by the axion mass and graphene reflection phase.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 18:57 UTC pith:MLFHKWZ7

load-bearing objection Clean analytic extension of axion-Casimir pressure to graphene; the theory holds, the optimistic multi-layer reach is the only soft spot. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07757 v1 pith:MLFHKWZ7 submitted 2026-07-08 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mes-hallhep-th

Axion-Induced Casimir Interaction Between Graphene Plates

Ahmad Alachkar , Philippe Brax , Pierre Brun This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mes-hallhep-th
keywords axion dark matterCasimir pressuregraphene conductivitycavity resonanceaxion-photon couplingKubo formalismLifshitz theorytwo-dimensional materials
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper shows that a homogeneous axion dark-matter field, in the presence of a strong external magnetic field, sources a classical electromagnetic pressure between two parallel graphene sheets. Using the microscopic Kubo conductivity of graphene and a cavity Green’s function, the authors derive closed expressions for the induced electric field and the resulting pressure. The pressure is resonantly amplified at a discrete set of plate separations set by the axion Compton wavelength, with a small shift fixed by the phase of the graphene reflection coefficient. Doping and low dissipation sharpen those resonances and raise the peak signal relative to the ordinary Casimir background. The calculation identifies the parameter window—highly doped, low-loss graphene operated near resonance—in which the axion-induced excess could become comparable to percent-level Casimir measurements, offering a new materials-based route to probe axion–photon couplings.

Core claim

The axion-induced pressure between graphene plates exhibits resonant enhancement at separations d_n = (2πn − ϕ(r))/m_a, where ϕ(r) is the phase of the graphene reflection coefficient evaluated at the axion frequency. For highly doped, low-dissipation graphene (or effective multi-layer stacks) operated near those resonances, the peak pressure can reach a detectable fraction of the conventional Casimir background, yielding projected sensitivities to the axion–photon coupling that approach the QCD-axion band under optimistic laboratory parameters.

What carries the argument

The cavity Green’s function for the axion-sourced electric field, subject to graphene boundary conditions that encode the real-frequency Kubo conductivity σ(ω; T, µ, Γ). Its poles produce the resonance condition re^{i m_a d} = ±1, which organises both the analytic pressure formula and the projected sensitivity contours.

Load-bearing premise

The strongest projected reach assumes that stacks of electronically decoupled graphene sheets can simultaneously deliver very low dissipation, high effective conductivity, and percent-level Casimir pressure measurements at tens-to-hundreds of micrometres inside a 50-tesla field.

What would settle it

Measure the pressure between gated, low-loss graphene plates in a strong magnetic field while scanning separation through a predicted resonance d_n for a chosen axion mass; an excess that tracks the calculated Lorentzian peak height and width (and disappears off-resonance or without B-field) would confirm the claim, while its absence under those conditions would refute the projected sensitivity.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Graphene doping via gate voltage becomes an experimental dial that sharpens cavity resonances and amplifies the axion-induced pressure relative to the Casimir background.
  • Cryogenic operation further improves signal-to-background because the Casimir pressure falls linearly with temperature while the axion-driven signal remains essentially unchanged for large µ.
  • Effective multi-layer stacks (σ → Nσ) can raise peak pressure as N^4 and narrow linewidth as N^{-2}, mapping otherwise inaccessible chemical potentials onto realistic single-layer doping.
  • The same microscopic conductivity that governs ordinary Casimir forces also governs the real-frequency axion response, so existing graphene Casimir platforms can be re-purposed as axion sensors once a magnetic field is added.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If residual interlayer coupling or substrate losses prevent Γ ~ 10^{-5} eV, the projected contours degrade by orders of magnitude, so materials quality, not cavity geometry, is likely the true limiting factor.
  • The sawtooth exclusion shape implies that a modest extension of the accessible separation range can open new mass windows without any improvement in force precision.
  • The same Green’s-function construction could be applied to other two-dimensional conductors (e.g., transition-metal dichalcogenides) whose conductivity can be tuned independently of graphene’s Dirac spectrum.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the classical electromagnetic pressure induced by axion dark matter between two parallel graphene sheets in a homogeneous external magnetic field. Using axion electrodynamics, the Kubo conductivity of graphene (including temperature, chemical potential and dissipation), and a Green’s-function solution of the driven wave equation with the appropriate 2-D boundary conditions, the authors obtain closed analytic expressions for the induced electric field and the resulting pressure. The pressure exhibits a tower of resonances at plate separations d_n = (2πn − ϕ(r))/m_a, where the phase ϕ(r) is fixed by the graphene reflection coefficient evaluated at ω = m_a. The resonance height and width are controlled by doping and the damping rate Γ. Comparing the peak resonant pressure with the conventional Lifshitz Casimir background, the authors map the parametric regimes in which a percent-level deviation could become detectable, with the strongest projected g_aγγ reach obtained for highly doped, low-dissipation graphene (and effective multi-layer stacks) operated near resonance.

Significance. The work supplies a first-principles, analytically tractable calculation that links axion electrodynamics, graphene’s microscopically derived conductivity, and cavity resonances in a Casimir geometry. The closed-form Green’s-function solution (Sec. IV and App. A), the resonance condition (Eqs. 62–71), the Lorentzian peak formula (Eqs. 98–105), and the explicit dependence on µ and Γ constitute a concrete, falsifiable prediction that can be tested once the experimental parameters are realized. If the optimistic multi-layer and low-loss extrapolations prove feasible, the setup would open a new condensed-matter route to axion searches complementary to cavity and light-shining-through-wall experiments. Even if the strongest sensitivity contours remain out of reach, the analytic framework itself is a useful addition to the literature on axion-induced forces and tunable Casimir systems.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. V.C and Appendix B: the strongest projected sensitivities (dashed N ∼ 10²–10³ curves in Fig. 15) rest on the effective-conductivity replacement σ_eff = Nσ for electronically decoupled, sub-wavelength-spaced graphene sheets. While the scaling γ_N ∝ N⁻² and P_res ∝ N⁴ is derived consistently within that model, the paper itself presents the multi-layer curves as extrapolations rather than first-principles calculations. The central claim that the effect “could become experimentally relevant” therefore hinges on an assumption whose validity (interlayer decoupling, residual losses, turbostratic stacking) is not demonstrated. The manuscript should either (i) restrict the main sensitivity forecasts to realistic single-layer parameters (µ ≲ 10 eV, Γ ≳ 10⁻³ eV) and move the multi-layer projections to a clearly labelled speculative subsection, or (ii) supply a more microscopic multi-layer calc
  2. Sec. V.C, Eqs. (109)–(114) and the surrounding discussion: the sensitivity estimate assumes that a 1 % deviation from the Casimir background can be resolved at d = 5–500 µm in a 50 T field. The text acknowledges that such measurements are “technically challenging,” yet the projected contours treat η = 1 % and B_0 = 50 T as fixed benchmarks without a quantitative assessment of the dominant systematics (electrostatic patches, surface roughness, magnetic-field-induced forces, finite-size effects, thermal drifts). Because these systematics set the actual detection threshold, a short but concrete discussion of how they scale with d and B_0 is needed before the contours can be read as realistic experimental reach rather than idealised parametric bounds.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 6 caption and main text: the shaded “experimentally accessible” region is not defined quantitatively; a brief statement of the assumed d-range would help the reader.
  2. Eq. (17) and the subsequent discussion of Γ: the phenomenological scattering rate is taken constant; a short remark on the expected energy dependence (or a reference) would clarify the domain of validity.
  3. Notation: the same symbol µ is used for chemical potential and (occasionally) magnetic permeability; a consistent distinction (e.g., µ_c vs µ) would avoid momentary confusion.
  4. Fig. 15: the existing laboratory, astrophysical and cosmological bounds are shown but not labelled with the corresponding experiments in the figure itself; adding short labels would improve readability.
  5. Appendix A: the lengthy coefficient lists are valuable for reproducibility, yet a short summary table of the final compact expressions for e_s and e' used in the pressure formula would make the main text more self-contained.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: analytic pressure and resonance follow from Maxwell + Kubo boundary conditions; self-citation of prior metallic result is comparative only.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. IV.F (after Eq. 71) and Sec. V.C (contrast with metallic case)]
    "In the perfect conductor limit, r→−1 and hence ϕ(r)→π, recovering the resonance condition obtained in Ref. [14] for ideal metallic plates. ... In contrast to the metallic case considered in Ref. [14], the graphene response is intrinsically frequency dependent through the Kubo conductivity σ(ω)."

    The citation is to the same authors’ prior metallic-plate calculation. It is not load-bearing: the graphene resonance and pressure are re-derived from the Green’s function with Kubo boundary conditions; the reference serves only as a consistency check of the ideal-conductor limit and a point of contrast. No uniqueness or ansatz is imported that forces the present result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The axion source Jeff enters the wave equation (Eqs. 10–13); the Green’s function is constructed piecewise from the Helmholtz operator subject to the graphene jump conditions involving the Kubo conductivity σ(ω) (Sec. IV, App. A, Eqs. 39–40, 55–56). Resonance poles of that Green’s function yield the condition r e^{i k_z d}=±1 and hence d_n=(2πn−ϕ(r))/m_a with r determined by σ(m_a) (Eqs. 62–71); the pressure follows from the Maxwell stress discontinuity evaluated on the same fields (Eqs. 72–92). The Lorentzian peak formula (Eqs. 98–105) is a local expansion of the same closed-form expression. Sensitivity contours are obtained by equating the derived P_peak to an independently computed Lifshitz Casimir background (Eqs. 109–114). The sole self-citation of the authors’ metallic-plate paper [14] is used only for comparison of the ideal-conductor limit and is not an input that forces the graphene result. The multi-layer replacement σ_eff=Nσ (App. B) is explicitly labelled an extrapolation, not a circular derivation. No fitted parameters are re-labelled as predictions, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation. Score 1 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard axion electrodynamics, the Kubo conductivity of gapless graphene, the Lifshitz formula, and the homogeneous classical axion-field approximation. Free parameters that control the projected reach (B_0, Γ, µ or N, η, T) are scanned rather than fitted to data; the multi-layer replacement σ → Nσ is an effective model introduced for the sensitivity forecast. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • external magnetic field B_0 = 50 T
    Fixed at the optimistic laboratory value 50 T for all sensitivity projections; the signal scales as B_0^{2}.
  • graphene dissipation rate Γ = 10^{-5}–10^{-3} eV
    Scanned between 10^{-5} eV and 10^{-3} eV; the lower value is required for the strongest projected reach and is not measured for the specific samples contemplated.
  • chemical potential µ (or effective layer number N) = µ = 10–10^4 eV or N = 10^2–10^3
    Scanned up to 10^4 eV or equivalently N ∼ 10^2–10^3 via σ_eff = Nσ; realistic single-layer doping is µ ≲ 1 eV, so the high-µ/N values are extrapolations.
  • detection threshold η = 0.01
    Assumed 1 % fractional deviation from the Casimir background; motivated by existing Casimir precision but not demonstrated for the graphene + 50 T geometry.
  • temperature T for background = 4 K
    Cryogenic benchmark T = 4 K used to suppress the thermal Casimir background while the axion signal remains essentially T-independent at high doping.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Axion–photon interaction Lagrangian L ⊃ (g_aγγ/4) ϕ F F̃ with g_aγγ = 1/M, and the homogeneous classical axion field ϕ = ϕ_0 cos(m_a t) with ρ_DM = (1/2) m_a^{2} ϕ_0^{2}.
    Standard axion electrodynamics and the coherent-field approximation for ultralight dark matter (Sec. II.A).
  • domain assumption Graphene conductivity given by the local Kubo formula (intraband + interband) at finite T, µ, Γ, with Δ = 0 and no spatial dispersion.
    Standard microscopic response of gapless graphene; spatial dispersion is argued to be irrelevant because the axion source is homogeneous (Sec. II.C).
  • domain assumption Casimir pressure given by the Lifshitz formula with graphene reflection coefficients obtained from the same polarisation tensor / conductivity (analytic continuation to imaginary frequencies).
    Standard Lifshitz theory specialised to freestanding graphene (Sec. III).
  • standard math Electromagnetic boundary conditions for a 2-D conducting sheet: continuous tangential E, discontinuous tangential H fixed by surface current K = σ E.
    Direct consequence of Maxwell equations with a surface current (Sec. IV.A).
  • ad hoc to paper Effective multi-layer conductivity σ_eff = N σ for electronically decoupled, sub-wavelength-spaced graphene sheets.
    Introduced in Appendix B to extrapolate the resonant pressure to large effective conductivities; justified by linear response and parallel conduction channels but not derived from a microscopic multi-layer calculation.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 41801 in / 3686 out tokens · 40120 ms · 2026-07-10T18:57:39.665438+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Axion dark matter may induce observable electromagnetic effects in resonant cavity systems and potentially lead to modifications of the Casimir interaction. In this context, graphene represents an attractive platform owing to its tunable electromagnetic properties, and the fact that its electromagnetic response can be modelled microscopically from first principles within quantum field theory. The electromagnetic response induced by axion dark matter is investigated in a planar cavity consisting of parallel graphene interfaces in the presence of a homogeneous external magnetic field, incorporating finite temperature, chemical potential and dissipation through the graphene conductivity. Closed analytical expressions are obtained for the induced electric field and the resulting pressure. The pressure exhibits resonant enhancement at a series of plate separations satisfying $d_n=(2\pi n-\phi(r))/m_a$, where $m_a$ is the axion mass and the phase $\phi(r)$ is determined by the reflection coefficient $r$, which depends on the graphene conductivity evaluated at $\omega=m_a$. The resonant structure is strongly influenced by the graphene chemical potential and damping parameter. In particular, increased doping, for example via a gate voltage, sharpens the resonances and amplifies the axion-induced signal. By comparing the resonantly enhanced signal with the conventional Casimir background, the parametric regimes in which the effect could become experimentally relevant are identified, with the strongest sensitivity obtained for highly doped low-dissipation graphene configurations operated near resonance. These results demonstrate that graphene-based Casimir-type configurations may provide a sensitive framework for probing axion-induced electromagnetic phenomena and highlight the interplay between axion electrodynamics, cavity resonances, and material properties in low-dimensional systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07757 by Ahmad Alachkar, Philippe Brax, Pierre Brun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Magnitude of the conductivity in the Kubo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: One-loop Feynman diagram contributing to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Magnitude of the Casimir pressure between two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Magnitude of the Casimir pressure between two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Coordinate system and cavity geometry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Magnitude of the pressure as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Ratio of the single-pole to double-pole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Magnitude of the reflection coefficient of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Axion-induced pressure as a function of plate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Resonance linewidth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Axion-induced pressure as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Resonant enhancement of the axion-induced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Magnitude of the graphene conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Sensitivity projections for the axion–photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Magnitudes of the surface electric field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Comparison of the resonant pressure near a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G Pressure 12 G

    for ideal metallic plates. G Pressure 12 G. Pressure For a surface whose unit normal is ˆz, corresponding to plates located atz= 0 andz=d, the mechanical pressure on the sheet is determined by the discontinuity of the normal-normal component of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor, P(z s) =⟨T zz ⟩|z+ s − ⟨T zz ⟩|z− s ,(72) wherez s ∈ {0, d}and⟨· · · ⟩...

    work page

  2. [2]

    as function of frequency, for a cavity at room temperature and damping parameter Γ = 10 −3 eV in the Kubo conductivity model. FIG. 10: Resonance linewidth as a function of frequency, for graphene cavity at room temperature and damping parameter Γ = 10 −3 eV in the Kubo conductivity model. γn is largely insensitive toµand is controlled primarily by the dis...

    work page

  3. [3]

    at DESY, which probe axion-like particles through C Potential Sensitivity of Casimir Experiments 19 photon regeneration in strong magnetic fields. Astro- physical bounds arise from stellar cooling arguments, in- cluding globular clusters [82] and solar neutrino obser- vations [83], while cosmological constraints are derived from large-scale structure, rei...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Solution forz 0 <0: For a source located in the regionz 0 <0, the coef- ficients entering the Green’s function solution are given by A0 = 0,(A1) B0 = −ie−ikzz0 2kzD h kzσ(kzσ+ 2ω) +k zσ(2ω−k zσ)e2ikzd +e 2ikzz0 k2 zσ2e2ikzd −(k zσ+ 2ω) 2 i . (A2) C0 =− i 2kz e−ikzz0 ,(A3) D0 = −iσe−ikzz0 2D kzσ+ 2ω+ (2ω−k zσ)e2ikzd ,(A4) E0 = iω(kzσ+ 2ω) kzD e−ikzz0 ,(A5)...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Solution for0< z 0 < d: For a source located inside the cavity region, 0< z 0 < d, the coefficients entering the Green’s-function solution are given by I0 = 0,(A9) J0 = iωe−ikzz0 kzD −kzσe2ikzd + (kzσ+ 2ω)e 2ikzz0 , (A10) K0 = −iσe−ikzz0 2D −kzσe2ikzd + (kzσ+ 2ω)e 2ikzz0 , (A11) L0 = i(kzσ+ 2ω) 2kzD h (kzσ+ 2ω)e ikzz0 −k zσ eikz(2d−z0) i , (A12) M0 = i(kz...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Solution forz 0 > d: Finally, for a source located in the regionz 0 > d, the coefficients take the form Q0 = −ie−ikz(2d+z0) 2kzD h k2 zσ2e4ikzd −(k zσ+ 2ω) 2 e2ikzd +k zσ(k zσ+ 2ω)e 2ikzz0 −k zσ(k zσ−2ω)e 2ikz(d+z0) i , (A17) R0 = 0,(A18) S0 = −iσeikzz0 2D 2ω−k zσ+ (k zσ+ 2ω)e −2ikzd , (A19) T0 =− i 2kz eikzz0 ,(A20) U0 = −iωσ D eikzz0 ,(A21) 4 Sheet Deri...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Sheet Derivativese ′(0±) a. Contribution fromz 0 <0 For sources located in the regionz 0 <0, the reduced Green’s function takes the form ˜G(z, z0) = ( C0(z0)eikzz +D 0(z0)e−ikzz, z 0 < z <0, E0(z0)eikzz +F 0(z0)e−ikzz,0< z < d. (A25) The corresponding contributions to the field derivatives are therefore e′(0+) z0<0 =j 0ikz Z 0 −∞ dz0 [E0(z0)−F 0(z0)], e′(...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Final Expressions fore ′(0±) Collecting the contributions from the three spatial re- gions, the derivatives of the electric field at the left in- terface can be written as e′(0−) =j 0 ikz hZ 0 −∞ (C0 −D 0)dz 0 − Z d 0 J0 dz0 − Z ∞ d X0 dz0 i ≡j 0 ikz I−, (A55) e′(0+) =j 0 ikz hZ 0 −∞ (E0 −F 0)dz 0 + Z d 0 (K0 −L 0)dz 0 + Z ∞ d (U0 −V 0)dz 0 i ≡j 0 ikz I+....

    work page

  9. [9]

    Right Sheet Derivativese ′(d±) a. Contribution fromz 0 <0 For 0< z < dthe Green’s function takes the form ˜G=E 0eikzz +F 0e−ikzz,(A63) which gives ∂z ˜G(d−, z0) =ik z E0(z0)eikzd −F 0(z0)e−ikzd .(A64) Forz > done has ˜G=G 0eikzz,(A65) leading to ∂z ˜G(d+, z0) =ik z G0(z0)eikzd.(A66) The contribution of this sector to the derivatives of the electric field ...

    work page

  10. [10]

    The derivative of the field at thez=d interface can be written as the sum of the three spatial sectors, e′(d−) =e ′(d−) z0<0 +e ′(d−) 0<z0<d +e ′(d−) z0>d

    Final Expressions fore ′(d±) We now combine the contributions obtained in the pre- vious subsections. The derivative of the field at thez=d interface can be written as the sum of the three spatial sectors, e′(d−) =e ′(d−) z0<0 +e ′(d−) 0<z0<d +e ′(d−) z0>d . (A103) Collecting the corresponding expressions yields e′(d−) = ij0 kzD " ωkzσ e2ikzd +ω(k zσ+ 2ω)...

    work page

  11. [11]

    ω kz kzσ+ 2ω kz +σe 2ikzd + ωeikzd kz σ+ kzσ+ 2ω kz + σ+ω/k z kz (eikzd −1) kzσ(1−e ikzd) + 2ω # . (A112) 27 I− = 1 2k2z − 1 D

    Auxiliary Functions I+ =− 1 D " ω kz kzσ+ 2ω kz +σe 2ikzd + ωeikzd kz σ+ kzσ+ 2ω kz + σ+ω/k z kz (eikzd −1) kzσ(1−e ikzd) + 2ω # . (A112) 27 I− = 1 2k2z − 1 D " σ 2kz kzσ(1−e 2ikzd) + 2ω(1 +e2ikzd) + ω k2z (eikzd −1) kzσ(1−e ikzd) + 2ω − 2ω2 k2z eikzd # . (A113) We introduce the quantitySthat enters the surface-field factor S= Z 0 −∞ (E0 +F 0)dz 0 + Z d 0...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Scaling of the Resonant Pressure with the Number of Graphene Layers Recall the Lorentzian approximation at resonance, given in Eq. 98. At large effective conductivityσ eff corresponding to a stack ofNelectronically decou- pled graphene sheets, the quantities entering the reso- nant pressure exhibit simple asymptotic scaling. From Eqs. 85, 90 and 100, the ...

    work page

  13. [13]

    14 motivates interpreting the large effective conductivities in terms of engineered multilayer graphene stacks

    Relation to Large Chemical Potentials The low-temperature conductivity shown in Fig. 14 motivates interpreting the large effective conductivities in terms of engineered multilayer graphene stacks. At T= 4 K, the conductivity is approximately temperature independent and grows roughly linearly with the chemi- cal potential, |σ| ∝µ.(B18) This behaviour is ex...

    work page

  14. [14]

    In particular, the graphene conductivity de- pends not only on the chemical potential, but also on the probing frequency, or equivalently the axion mass

    Validity and Mass Dependence The effective-conductivity model presented above pro- vides only an approximate description of multilayer graphene. In particular, the graphene conductivity de- pends not only on the chemical potential, but also on the probing frequency, or equivalently the axion mass. In general, there is no universal correspondence between t...

    work page

  15. [15]

    R. L. Workman et al. Review of Particle Physics.PTEP, 2022:083C01, 2022

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Cos- mology of the invisible axion.Physics Letters B, 120(1- 3):127–132, 1983

    John Preskill, Mark B Wise, and Frank Wilczek. Cos- mology of the invisible axion.Physics Letters B, 120(1- 3):127–132, 1983

    work page 1983

  17. [17]

    A cosmological bound on the invisible axion.Physics Letters B, 120(1- 3):133–136, 1983

    Laurence F Abbott and Pierre Sikivie. A cosmological bound on the invisible axion.Physics Letters B, 120(1- 3):133–136, 1983

    work page 1983

  18. [18]

    The not-so-harmless axion.Physics Letters B, 120(1-3):137–141, 1983

    Michael Dine and Willy Fischler. The not-so-harmless axion.Physics Letters B, 120(1-3):137–141, 1983

    work page 1983

  19. [19]

    A new light boson?Physical Review Letters, 40(4):223, 1978

    Steven Weinberg. A new light boson?Physical Review Letters, 40(4):223, 1978

    work page 1978

  20. [20]

    Problem of strong p and t invariance in the presence of instantons.Physical Review Letters, 40(5):279, 1978

    Frank Wilczek. Problem of strong p and t invariance in the presence of instantons.Physical Review Letters, 40(5):279, 1978

    work page 1978

  21. [21]

    The strong cp problem and axions

    Roberto D Peccei. The strong cp problem and axions. In Axions: Theory, Cosmology, and Experimental Searches, pages 3–17. Springer, 2008

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    Constraints im- posed by cp conservation in the presence of pseudoparti- cles.Physical Review D, 16(6):1791, 1977

    Roberto D Peccei and Helen R Quinn. Constraints im- posed by cp conservation in the presence of pseudoparti- cles.Physical Review D, 16(6):1791, 1977

    work page 1977

  23. [23]

    Axions in string the- ory.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2006(06):051–051, 2006

    Peter Svrcek and Edward Witten. Axions in string the- ory.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2006(06):051–051, 2006

    work page 2006

  24. [24]

    String axiverse.Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 81(12):123530, 2010

    Asimina Arvanitaki, Savas Dimopoulos, Sergei Dubovsky, Nemanja Kaloper, and John March-Russell. String axiverse.Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 81(12):123530, 2010

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    Bordag, G

    M. Bordag, G. L. Klimchitskaya, and V. M. Mostepa- nenko. Advances in the casimir effect.Oxford University Press, 2015

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    G. L. Klimchitskaya and V. M. Mostepanenko. Casimir and van der waals interactions between two graphene sheets.Phys. Rev. B, 89:035407, 2014

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    Bordag, I

    M. Bordag, I. V. Fialkovsky, D. M. Gitman, and D. V. Vassilevich. Electromagnetic interaction of a charged par- ticle with graphene via the casimir effect.Phys. Rev. B, 80:245406, 2009

    work page 2009

  28. [28]

    Classical casimir pressure in the presence of axion dark matter.Physical Review D, 110(5):056015, 2024

    Philippe Brax and Pierre Brun. Classical casimir pressure in the presence of axion dark matter.Physical Review D, 110(5):056015, 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    On the past and present of carbon nanostructures.physica status solidi (b), 248(7):1566– 1574, 2011

    Mildred S Dresselhaus. On the past and present of carbon nanostructures.physica status solidi (b), 248(7):1566– 1574, 2011

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    The rise of graphene.Nature materials, 6(3):183–191, 2007

    Andre K Geim and Konstantin S Novoselov. The rise of graphene.Nature materials, 6(3):183–191, 2007

    work page 2007

  31. [31]

    Colloquium: The transport proper- ties of graphene: An introduction.Reviews of modern physics, 82(3):2673–2700, 2010

    Nuno MR Peres. Colloquium: The transport proper- ties of graphene: An introduction.Reviews of modern physics, 82(3):2673–2700, 2010

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    The elec- tronic properties of graphene.Reviews of modern physics, 81(1):109–162, 2009

    Antonio H Castro Neto, Francisco Guinea, Nuno MR Peres, Kostya S Novoselov, and Andre K Geim. The elec- tronic properties of graphene.Reviews of modern physics, 81(1):109–162, 2009

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    Dy- namical polarizability of graphene with spatial disper- sion.Physical Review B, 103(12):125421, 2021

    Tao Zhu, Mauro Antezza, and Jian-Sheng Wang. Dy- namical polarizability of graphene with spatial disper- sion.Physical Review B, 103(12):125421, 2021

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Graphene: carbon in two dimen- sions.Materials today, 10(1-2):20–27, 2007

    Mikhail I Katsnelson. Graphene: carbon in two dimen- sions.Materials today, 10(1-2):20–27, 2007

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    Electronic transport in two-dimensional graphene

    Sh Das Sarma, Shaffique Adam, EH Hwang, and Enrico Rossi. Electronic transport in two-dimensional graphene. Reviews of modern physics, 83(2):407–470, 2011

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    Fine struc- ture constant defines visual transparency of graphene

    Rahul Raveendran Nair, Peter Blake, Alexander N Grig- orenko, Konstantin S Novoselov, Tim J Booth, Tobias Stauber, Nuno MR Peres, and Andre K Geim. Fine struc- ture constant defines visual transparency of graphene. science, 320(5881):1308–1308, 2008

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    Giant faraday rotation in single-and multilayer graphene.Na- ture Physics, 7(1):48–51, 2011

    Iris Crassee, Julien Levallois, Andrew L Walter, Markus Ostler, Aaron Bostwick, Eli Rotenberg, Thomas Seyller, Dirk Van Der Marel, and Alexey B Kuzmenko. Giant faraday rotation in single-and multilayer graphene.Na- ture Physics, 7(1):48–51, 2011

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    Casimir energies of spherical plasma shells.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 37(3):1011–1049, 2004

    G Barton. Casimir energies of spherical plasma shells.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 37(3):1011–1049, 2004

    work page 2004

  39. [39]

    The casimir effect for thin plasma sheets and the role of the surface plasmons.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 39(21):6173–6185, 2006

    Michael Bordag. The casimir effect for thin plasma sheets and the role of the surface plasmons.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 39(21):6173–6185, 2006

    work page 2006

  40. [40]

    Michael Bordag, B Geyer, GL Klimchitskaya, and VM Mostepanenko. Lifshitz-type formulas for graphene and single-wall carbon nanotubes: van der waals and casimir interactions.Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 74(20):205431, 2006

    work page 2006

  41. [41]

    Space-time dispersion of graphene conductivity.The European Physical Journal B, 56(4):281–284, 2007

    LA Falkovsky and AA Varlamov. Space-time dispersion of graphene conductivity.The European Physical Journal B, 56(4):281–284, 2007

    work page 2007

  42. [42]

    Optical far-infrared properties of a graphene monolayer and multilayer.Phys- ical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 76(15):153410, 2007

    LA Falkovsky and SS Pershoguba. Optical far-infrared properties of a graphene monolayer and multilayer.Phys- ical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 76(15):153410, 2007

    work page 2007

  43. [43]

    Thermal van der waals interaction be- tween graphene layers.Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 80(24):245424, 2009

    G G´ omez-Santos. Thermal van der waals interaction be- tween graphene layers.Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 80(24):245424, 2009

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    Casimir interactions in graphene systems

    Bo E Sernelius. Casimir interactions in graphene systems. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 95(5):57003, 2011

    work page 2011

  45. [45]

    V. P. Gusynin, S. G. Sharapov, and J. P. Carbotte. Ac conductivity of graphene: from tight-binding model to 2+1-dimensional quantum electrodynamics.Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics B, 21:4611–4658, 2007

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    Optical conductivity of graphene in the visible region of the spectrum.Physical Review B—Condensed Mat- ter and Materials Physics, 78(8):085432, 2008

    Tobias Stauber, Numo MR Peres, and Andre K Geim. Optical conductivity of graphene in the visible region of the spectrum.Physical Review B—Condensed Mat- ter and Materials Physics, 78(8):085432, 2008

    work page 2008

  47. [47]

    Optical properties of doped graphene lay- ers.Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 106(3):575–580, 2008

    LA Falkovsky. Optical properties of doped graphene lay- ers.Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 106(3):575–580, 2008

    work page 2008

  48. [48]

    Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes

    Ryogo Kubo. Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes. i. general theory and simple applications to magnetic and conduction problems.Journal of the phys- ical society of Japan, 12(6):570–586, 1957

    work page 1957

  49. [49]

    Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes

    Ryogo Kubo, Mario Yokota, and Sadao Nakajima. Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes. ii. response to thermal disturbance.Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 12(11):1203–1211, 1957

    work page 1957

  50. [50]

    Screening effect and impurity scattering in monolayer graphene.Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 75(7):074716, 2006

    Tsuneya Ando. Screening effect and impurity scattering in monolayer graphene.Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 75(7):074716, 2006

    work page 2006

  51. [51]

    Quantum transport of massless dirac fermions.Physical review let- ters, 98(7):076602, 2007

    Kentaro Nomura and Allan H MacDonald. Quantum transport of massless dirac fermions.Physical review let- ters, 98(7):076602, 2007

    work page 2007

  52. [52]

    Van der waals and casimir interactions between two graphene sheets

    GL Klimchitskaya and VM Mostepanenko. Van der waals and casimir interactions between two graphene sheets. Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials 3 Validity and Mass Dependence 30 Physics, 87(7):075439, 2013

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    Academic press, 2013

    Frederick Wooten.Optical properties of solids. Academic press, 2013

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    Nonlocal optical response in topological phase transitions in the graphene family.Physical Review Materials, 2(1):014003, 2018

    Pablo Rodriguez-Lopez, Wilton JM Kort-Kamp, Diego AR Dalvit, and Lilia M Woods. Nonlocal optical response in topological phase transitions in the graphene family.Physical Review Materials, 2(1):014003, 2018

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    Electric conductivity in graphene: Kubo model versus a nonlocal quantum field theory model.Physical Review B, 111(11):115428, 2025

    Pablo Rodriguez-Lopez, Jian-Sheng Wang, and Mauro Antezza. Electric conductivity in graphene: Kubo model versus a nonlocal quantum field theory model.Physical Review B, 111(11):115428, 2025

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    Effects of spatial dispersion on the casimir force between graphene sheets.The European Physical Journal B, 85(11):365, 2012

    David Drosdoff, Anh D Phan, LM Woods, IV Bondarev, and JF Dobson. Effects of spatial dispersion on the casimir force between graphene sheets.The European Physical Journal B, 85(11):365, 2012

    work page 2012

  57. [57]

    Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films.science, 306(5696):666–669, 2004

    Kostya S Novoselov, Andre K Geim, Sergei V Morozov, De-eng Jiang, Yanshui Zhang, Sergey V Dubonos, Irina V Grigorieva, and Alexandr A Firsov. Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films.science, 306(5696):666–669, 2004

    work page 2004

  58. [58]

    A comparative analysis of the accu- racy of kubo formulations for graphene plasmonics.Ma- terials Research Express, 6(8):086209, 2019

    Farnaz Jabbarzadeh, Mohammad Heydari, and Amir Habibzadeh-Sharif. A comparative analysis of the accu- racy of kubo formulations for graphene plasmonics.Ma- terials Research Express, 6(8):086209, 2019

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    Many-body corrections to the po- larizability of the two-dimensional electron gas.Surface Science, 73:296–302, 1978

    Pierre F Maldague. Many-body corrections to the po- larizability of the two-dimensional electron gas.Surface Science, 73:296–302, 1978

    work page 1978

  60. [60]

    Optical properties of graphene

    Leonid A Falkovsky. Optical properties of graphene. In Journal of Physics: conference series, volume 129, page 012004, 2008

    work page 2008

  61. [61]

    Small, Michael E

    Yuanbo Zhang, Joshua P. Small, Michael E. S. Amori, and Philip Kim. Electric field modulation of galvano- magnetic properties of mesoscopic graphite.Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:176803, May 2005

    work page 2005

  62. [62]

    Elsevier, 2013

    Evgenii Mikhailovich Lifshitz and Lev Petrovich Pitaevskii.Statistical physics: theory of the condensed state, volume 9. Elsevier, 2013

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates

    Hendrick BG Casimir. On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates. InProc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wet., volume 51, page 793, 1948

    work page 1948

  64. [64]

    Temperature dependence of the response functions of graphene: Impact on casimir and casimir–polder forces in and out of thermal equilibrium.Physics, 7(4):44, 2025

    Galina L Klimchitskaya and Vladimir M Mostepanenko. Temperature dependence of the response functions of graphene: Impact on casimir and casimir–polder forces in and out of thermal equilibrium.Physics, 7(4):44, 2025

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    Electric conductivity in graphene: Kubo model versus a nonlocal quantum field theory model

    M Bordag, N Khusnutdinov, GL Klimchitskaya, and VM Mostepanenko. Comment on” electric conductiv- ity of graphene: Kubo model versus a nonlocal quan- tum field theory model (arxiv: 2403.02279 v3)”.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10792, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Reply to "Comment on "Electric conductivity in graphene: Kubo model versus a nonlocal quantum field theory model"" (ArXiv:2506.10792v2)

    Pablo Rodriguez-Lopez, Jian-Sheng Wang, and Mauro Antezza. Reply to: Comment on” electric conductivity of graphene: Kubo model versus a nonlocal quantum field theory model”.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19982, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Graphene plasmonics: a platform for strong light–matter interactions.Nano letters, 11(8):3370–3377, 2011

    Frank HL Koppens, Darrick E Chang, and F Javier Garc´ ıa de Abajo. Graphene plasmonics: a platform for strong light–matter interactions.Nano letters, 11(8):3370–3377, 2011

    work page 2011

  68. [68]

    Galina L Klimchitskaya and Vladimir M Mostepanenko. The casimir force between two graphene sheets: 2d fres- nel reflection coefficients, contributions of different po- larizations, and the role of evanescent waves.Physics, 5(4):1013–1030, 2023

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii.Elec- trodynamics of Continuous Media, volume 8 ofCourse of Theoretical Physics. Pergamon Press, 2 edition, 1984

    work page 1984

  70. [70]

    OUP Oxford, 2009

    Michael Bordag, Galina Leonidovna Klimchitskaya, Umar Mohideen, and Vladimir Mikhaylovich Mostepa- nenko.Advances in the Casimir effect, volume 145. OUP Oxford, 2009

    work page 2009

  71. [71]

    Observ- ability of thermal effects in the casimir interaction from graphene-coated substrates.Physical Review A, 89(5):052512, 2014

    GL Klimchitskaya and VM Mostepanenko. Observ- ability of thermal effects in the casimir interaction from graphene-coated substrates.Physical Review A, 89(5):052512, 2014

    work page 2014

  72. [72]

    Thermal casimir effect in the interaction of graphene with dielectrics and metals.Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 86(16):165429, 2012

    M Bordag, GL Klimchitskaya, and VM Mostepanenko. Thermal casimir effect in the interaction of graphene with dielectrics and metals.Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 86(16):165429, 2012

    work page 2012

  73. [73]

    Finite-temperature casimir effect for graphene.Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 84(3):035446, 2011

    Ignat V Fialkovsky, Valery N Marachevsky, and Dmitri V Vassilevich. Finite-temperature casimir effect for graphene.Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 84(3):035446, 2011

    work page 2011

  74. [74]

    Thermal casimir-polder interaction of differ- ent atoms with graphene.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 86(1):012515, 2012

    M Chaichian, GL Klimchitskaya, VM Mostepanenko, and A Tureanu. Thermal casimir-polder interaction of differ- ent atoms with graphene.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 86(1):012515, 2012

    work page 2012

  75. [75]

    Quantum field theory in graphene.International Journal of Modern Physics A, 27(15):1260007, 2012

    IV Fialkovsky and DV Vassilevich. Quantum field theory in graphene.International Journal of Modern Physics A, 27(15):1260007, 2012

    work page 2012

  76. [76]

    Graphene transparency in weak magnetic fields.Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical, 48(6):065402, 2015

    David Valenzuela, Sa´ ul Hern´ andez-Ortiz, Marcelo Loewe, and Alfredo Raya. Graphene transparency in weak magnetic fields.Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and Theoretical, 48(6):065402, 2015

    work page 2015

  77. [77]

    Casimir and casimir-polder forces in graphene systems: Quantum field theoretical description and thermodynam- ics.Universe, 6(9):150, 2020

    Galina L Klimchitskaya and Vladimir M Mostepanenko. Casimir and casimir-polder forces in graphene systems: Quantum field theoretical description and thermodynam- ics.Universe, 6(9):150, 2020

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    Sernelius

    Bo E. Sernelius. Retarded interactions in graphene sys- tems.Phys. Rev. B, 85:195427, May 2012

    work page 2012

  79. [79]

    Stauber, N

    T. Stauber, N. M. R. Peres, and A. K. Geim. Opti- cal conductivity of graphene in the visible region of the spectrum.Phys. Rev. B, 78:085432, Aug 2008

    work page 2008

  80. [80]

    L. A. Falkovsky and S. S. Pershoguba. Optical far- infrared properties of a graphene monolayer and multi- layer.Phys. Rev. B, 76:153410, Oct 2007

    work page 2007

Showing first 80 references.