Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 37 references

In flat spacetime, a magnetic tube's vacuum energy depends on the curvature-coupling parameter ξ unless the tube imposes Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-07-31 23:43 UTC pith:GCY6JY2Z

load-bearing objection A clean but incremental 3+1 specialization of the authors' own arbitrary-dimensional result; the central physics is plausible but the renormalization of the ξ-term is asserted rather than proved. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23331 v1 pith:GCY6JY2Z submitted 2026-07-25 hep-th math-phmath.MPquant-ph

Effects of Curvature-Scalar Coupling on Vacuum Energy in Flat (3+1)-Dimensional Space-Time

Volodymyr Gorkavenko , Oleh Barabash , Pavlo Nakaznyi , Mariia Tsarenkova , Nazar Yakovenko , Andrii Zaporozhchenko This is my paper
classification hep-th math-phmath.MPquant-ph
keywords vacuum polarizationinduced vacuum energymagnetic flux tubecurvature couplingRobin boundary conditionscasimir energyscalar field
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 claims that in flat (3+1)-dimensional spacetime, the vacuum energy induced by an impenetrable magnetic flux tube depends on the curvature–scalar coupling parameter ξ, provided the tube's boundary condition is a general Robin condition. The total induced vacuum energy per unit length takes the form E = E_can + (1/4 − ξ)E_ξ, where E_ξ vanishes only for the Dirichlet (θ=0) and Neumann (θ=−π/2) limits. For intermediate Robin parameters, E_ξ is nonzero, meaning the flat-space vacuum polarization around such a defect is sensitive to the unknown curvature coupling. The paper computes E_ξ numerically for half-integer flux, maps its dependence on the Robin parameter and tube thickness, and identifies asymptotic regimes for ultra-thin and thick tubes. A sympathetic reader would care because flat-space vacuum-energy measurements could offer a direct probe of ξ, a parameter otherwise only constrained in curved or cosmological settings.

Core claim

The paper establishes that for a charged massive scalar field in flat (3+1)-dimensional spacetime, the vacuum energy induced by a finite-thickness, impenetrable magnetic tube with Robin boundary condition (cosθ ψ + sinθ r ∂_r ψ)|_{r0}=0 is E^{(3+1)} = E^{(3+1)}_{can} + (1/4 − ξ) E^{(3+1)}_ξ, with E^{(3+1)}_ξ ≠ 0 for −π/2 < θ < 0. Thus the total induced vacuum energy explicitly depends on the curvature coupling ξ, contrary to the common expectation that flat-space vacuum effects are ξ-independent. The ξ-dependent piece vanishes only for the Dirichlet (θ=0) and Neumann (θ=−π/2) boundary conditions. The result is shown numerically for half-integer magnetic flux F=1/2, with detailed θ-dependence

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the decomposition of the vacuum energy density into a canonical part and a ξ-dependent part, ε = ε_can + (1/4 − ξ) ε_ξ, where ε_ξ arises from the operator ∇² acting on the mode sum Σ E^{-1} |ψ|², a term that survives even in flat spacetime because it comes from varying ξRψ*ψ with respect to the metric. The Robin boundary condition is parametrized by θ, and the field modes are expressed through Bessel functions J_ρ and Y_ρ combined via the normalization-dependent functions (10)–(13). The induced energy is renormalized by subtracting the zero-flux contribution, leaving the function G(θ,kr,kr0,Φ)=S(θ,kr,kr0,Φ)−S(θ,kr,kr0,0). The calculation reduces the (3+1)-dimensional

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that a single subtraction—removing the zero-flux contribution—is sufficient to renormalize the ξ-dependent term, without proving that additional counterterms or surface divergences do not alter E_ξ for non-Dirichlet/Neumann boundary conditions.

What would settle it

A direct check is to compute the ξ-dependent vacuum energy using an independent regularization scheme, such as zeta-function regularization or heat-kernel expansion with explicit boundary terms, and see whether the value of E^{(3+1)}_ξ for −π/2<θ<0 survives unchanged. If the single-subtraction prescription fails to remove a Robin-dependent divergence, the central claim collapses.

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

If this is right

  • If the paper's central claim is correct, flat-space vacuum polarization measurements near a magnetic topological defect could constrain the curvature coupling ξ, a parameter currently accessible mainly through curved-spacetime or cosmological observations.
  • The explicit ξ dependence appears only for intermediate Robin boundary conditions; any experimental or theoretical setup with Dirichlet or Neumann conditions would miss this effect entirely.
  • The induced ξ-dependent energy scales as 1/r0² for ultra-thin tubes and decays exponentially in mr0 for thick tubes, suggesting that thin tubes maximize the observable effect.
  • The near-constancy of the crossover tube thickness (mr0 ≈ 0.05) between (3+1)- and (2+1)-dimensional behavior provides a robust, θ-independent signature that could be tested in analog or condensed-matter systems.
  • The dependence on only the fractional part of the magnetic flux and the symmetry F→1−F reaffirm that the effect is a genuine Aharonov–Bohm-type vacuum phenomenon.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One could test whether the reported θ-dependence survives an independent renormalization that explicitly separates surface and bulk divergences; because the paper's subtraction is a single flux-dependent subtraction, the fate of the ξ-dependent surface term is the most fragile point to check.
  • The result suggests that any flat-space defect with nontrivial boundary conditions—not only magnetic tubes—may carry an observable ξ-sensitivity, inviting extension to other geometries such as wedges, spheres, or cones.
  • A positive Robin parameter (θ>0) is left for future work and may introduce bound-state contributions that could either enhance or partially cancel the ξ-dependent energy; testing that regime would sharpen the prediction.
  • The numerical crossover at mr0≈0.05 could be compared against an analytic small-thickness expansion of E_ξ to see whether the near-θ-independence follows from a universality in the leading coefficient C(θ,F).

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 vacuum polarization of a charged massive scalar field in flat (3+1)-dimensional spacetime outside an impenetrable cylindrical magnetic flux tube with Robin boundary conditions. Using a standard mode decomposition and the improved energy-momentum tensor, the authors write the induced vacuum energy per unit length as E = E_can + (1/4 - ξ) E_ξ. They claim that E_ξ is nonzero for intermediate Robin parameters -π/2 < θ < 0 and vanishes for Dirichlet (θ = 0) and Neumann (θ = -π/2), so that the total flat-space vacuum energy depends on the curvature-coupling ξ. Numerical results for half-integer flux F = 1/2 and asymptotic expressions for thin and thick tubes are presented.

Significance. The claimed effect is conceptually interesting: if correct, it extends the 2+1-dimensional result of Ref. [27] to 3+1 dimensions and suggests that flat-space vacuum-polarization measurements around a magnetic topological defect could probe the unknown curvature-coupling parameter ξ. The mode-sum setup is standard, and the vanishing of E_ξ in the Dirichlet/Neumann limits is consistent with a boundary-total-derivative argument. However, the central quantitative input is taken from a same-group paper [27] without independent verification, and the renormalization of the ξ-term is asserted rather than demonstrated. These two issues make the main quantitative claim—not merely the presentation—uncertain.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2, Eq. (14)] The statement that a single flux subtraction renormalizes the ξ-dependent term is not justified. The second term in Eq. (14) contains the factor (1/√(p²+k²+m²)) Δ_r G; the integral over p is logarithmically divergent unless the k-integral of k Δ_r G vanishes, and the large-k behavior of Δ_r G for intermediate Robin θ is not controlled. The text says that flux-independent surface divergences cancel (citing [32]), but this does not address the ξ-term, whose Δ_r introduces two additional powers of k. The manuscript should provide an analytic large-k estimate of G, or a numerical cutoff-independence check, and show that the integrals in Eqs. (14), (18), and (20) are finite for -π/2 < θ < 0. Without this, the nonzero value of E_ξ and its θ-dependence are not established.
  2. [§3–§4, Eqs. (18)–(23)] The quantitative results—the Fig. 1 curves, the coefficient C(θ,F) in Eq. (21), and the asymptotic fit in Eq. (22)—are obtained by numerically evaluating D_ξ using the method of Ref. [27], a same-group paper, with no description of the integration procedure, no convergence tests, and no error estimates. The large-mr0 form (22) is an empirical fit ("Numerical analysis indicates") with free parameters α(θ,F) and β(θ,F); substituting it into Eq. (23) yields an asymptotic prediction whose reliability is unknown. Since the claim E_ξ ≠ 0 for Robin boundary conditions is based entirely on these numbers, the paper should at least provide a stability analysis (e.g., variation of cutoffs and integration parameters) or an independent numerical method.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3] The vanishing of E_ξ for Dirichlet/Neumann is presented as a numerical observation. It follows more transparently from integrating the ξ-term by parts: the transverse integral of ∇²(...) reduces to a boundary term at r0, which vanishes for ψ=0 or ∂_rψ=0. Adding this argument would remove a gap.
  2. [Fig. 1] The caption multiplies the curves by an undefined coefficient c. Please define c.
  3. [Fig. 2] The right-panel caption refers to coefficients α and β in Eq. (21); these coefficients are introduced in Eq. (22).
  4. [General] There are typos and grammatical slips: "curavure" in the Introduction, "Exp.(10)" in the Appendix, "at largemr0" spacing issues, and a duplicated "as as" in Section 4. A careful proofread is needed.
  5. [§4, Eq. (21)] Footnote 1 is helpful, but the derivation of Eq. (21) from Eq. (18) should be shown explicitly rather than left as an unstated limit.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The central ξ-dependent vacuum energy is a direct integral transform of the same group's prior 2D result, making the numerical content inherited rather than independently verified; the formal derivation itself is standard.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, Eqs. (18)-(20) and the paragraph following Eq. (20)]
    "E(3+1)_ξ = (1/r0^2)(1/π) ∫_{mr0}^∞ dv v^2 D_ξ(θ,v,F)/√(v^2−(mr0)^2) ... where D_ξ determines the induced vacuum energy in two-dimensional space-time E(2+1)_ξ = mD_ξ(θ,mr0,F) ... Using the method obtained in [27] for the vacuum energy E(2+1)_ξ in (2+1)-dimensional flat space-time induced by a magnetic tube of thickness mr0=1/100, we numerically compute E(2+1)_ξ for other tube thicknesses."

    The new 3+1 quantity E_ξ is defined by Eq. (18) as a fixed integral transform of D_ξ, and D_ξ is not recomputed in this paper: its numerical values are taken from Ref. [27] by the same group (Gorkavenko, Zaporozhchenko, Tsarenkova). Thus the θ-dependence and magnitude of E_ξ—the central new effect—are inherited from that prior self-citation. Eq. (18) is a corollary of Eq. (20)/[27] by construction, so the numerical 'extension' to 3+1 dimensions is a transform of the same group's previous calculation rather than an independent test.

full rationale

The formal derivation is not self-definitional: the dependence of the stress-energy tensor on ξ through Eq. (7) is standard and independently grounded, and the single-flux-subtraction renormalization leading to Eq. (14) is justified by an external citation [32]. However, the quantitative content of the paper rests on D_ξ from Ref. [27], which has overlapping authors with the present paper, and Eq. (18) makes E_ξ^{(3+1)} a direct integral transform of that input, so the numerical results are not self-contained. The asymptotic coefficients α and β in Section 4 are extracted from the same D_ξ data, further reducing the independence of the large-mr0 analysis, though this is a self-consistency issue rather than a hard circularity. Overall, this is a load-bearing self-citation dependency, but the central formal claim still has independent content, so a moderate score of 4 is appropriate rather than a higher score reserved for reductions that are circular by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation is largely a transfer of standard QFT results plus a same-group numerical function. The listed assumptions are where the reader must trust an unproven or same-group step: the single-subtraction renormalization, the imported D_ξ, the absence of bound states in the chosen θ range, and the exponential fit used for the large-mr0 asymptotics.

free parameters (2)
  • α(θ,F) = Not tabulated; plotted in Fig. 2 as a positive coefficient depending on θ and F
    Introduced in Eq. (22) as the exponential-decay coefficient in the large-mr0 fit D_as = e^{-α−βmr0}/mr0. Determined by numerical fitting, not derived.
  • β(θ,F) = Not tabulated; plotted in Fig. 2 as a positive coefficient depending on θ and F
    Introduced in Eq. (22) as the exponential-decay rate in the large-mr0 fit. Determined by numerical fitting, not derived.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The renormalized energy density is obtained by a single flux subtraction: ε_ren = ε_can + (1/4−ξ)ε_ξ with G = S(Φ) − S(0).
    Section 2 after Eq. (13): 'requires only a single subtraction'. No proof is given that the ξ-dependent total-derivative term has no extra Robin-dependent or ξ-dependent divergent contributions.
  • domain assumption The function D_ξ in Eq. (20), the 2+1-dimensional induced vacuum energy, is computed correctly in Ref. [27] and can be reused for arbitrary thickness.
    Section 3: 'Using the method obtained in [27]... numerically compute E^(2+1) for other tube thicknesses.' No code or data is provided; the source is same-group work.
  • domain assumption For θ ≤ 0 no bound states exist, so the mode sum over scattering states is complete.
    Section 3, p.5: 'we restrict ourselves to considering only not positive values of the parameter... for positive values... bound states.'
  • ad hoc to paper The large-mr0 behavior of D_ξ is e^{-α−βmr0}/mr0 with α,β depending on θ and F.
    Section 4, Eq. (22): 'Numerical analysis indicates that this function can be well approximated...' This is a fitted ansatz, not derived from the integral.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9933 in / 18197 out tokens · 174909 ms · 2026-07-31T23:43:07.606475+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigated how a magnetic topological defect affects the vacuum polarization of a charged massive scalar field in a flat $(3+1)$-dimensional space-time. The defect was modeled as an impenetrable to matter field finite-thickness tube with magnetic flux inside. We implemented the most general form of the Robin boundary condition on the surface of the magnetic tube, which enables a fully general analysis of the problem. We have found that in flat spacetime, the total vacuum energy generated by a magnetic topological defect depends on the curvature $\xi$, except for special cases corresponding to the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions. By contrast, when Robin's general boundary conditions are imposed, the induced vacuum energy acquires an explicit dependence on the curvature coupling $\xi$, which is significant even in flat space-time. A detailed study of the dependence of the effect on the boundary condition parameter has been carried out. The obtained results highlight the nontrivial role played by boundary conditions in vacuum polarization phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23331 by Andrii Zaporozhchenko, Mariia Tsarenkova, Nazar Yakovenko, Oleh Barabash, Pavlo Nakaznyi, Volodymyr Gorkavenko.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: the induced dimensionless vacuum energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left panel: the dependence of the coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The dependence of the tube thickness mr0, at which the dimensionless induced vacuum energy E (3+1) ξ /m2 in (3 + 1)-dimensional space-time equals the corresponding dimensionless induced vacuum energy E (2+1) ξ /m in (2 + 1)-dimensional space-time, on the boundary condition parameter θ for F = 1/2. 5 Conclusions We studied vacuum polarization (change of vacuum energy) of a charged massive scalar field induc… 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

37 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    1948

  2. [2]

    Elizalde,Ten physical applications of spectral zeta functions, vol

    E. Elizalde,Ten physical applications of spectral zeta functions, vol. 35. 1995, 10.1007/978-3-540-44757-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-44757-3 1995

  3. [3]

    V. M. Mostepanenko, N. N. Trunov and R. L. Znajek,The Casimir Effect and its Applications. Oxford University Press, 01, 1997, 10.1093/oso/9780198539988.001.0001

    arXiv 1997

  4. [4]

    Bordag, U

    M. Bordag, U. Mohideen and V. M. Mostepanenko,New developments in the Casimir effect,Phys. Rept.353(2001) 1 [quant-ph/0106045]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    G. L. Klimchitskaya and V. M. Mostepanenko,Testing Gravity and Predictions Beyond the Standard Model at Short Distances: The Casimir Effect,Lect. Notes Phys.1017 (2023) 403 [2312.01422]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    E. M. Serebryanyi,Vacuum Polarization by Magnetic Flux: The Aharonov-Bohm Effect, Theor. Math. Phys.64(1985) 846

    1985

  7. [7]

    E. G. Flekkoy and J. M. Leinaas,Vacuum currents around a magnetic flux string,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A6(1991) 5327

    1991

  8. [8]

    Gornicki,Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Vacuum Polarization,Annals Phys.202(1990) 271

    P. Gornicki,Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Vacuum Polarization,Annals Phys.202(1990) 271

    1990

  9. [9]

    Bordag,The vacuum interaction of magnetic strings,Annals of Physics206(1991) 257

    M. Bordag,The vacuum interaction of magnetic strings,Annals of Physics206(1991) 257

    1991

  10. [10]

    Bordag and K

    M. Bordag and K. Kirsten,Ground state energy of a spinor field in the background of a finite radius flux tube,Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 105019

    1999

  11. [11]

    Y. A. Sitenko and A. Y. Babansky,The Casimir-Aharonov-Bohm effect?,Mod. Phys. Lett. A13(1998) 379 [hep-th/9710183]. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  12. [12]

    Aharonov and D

    Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm,Significance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory,Phys. Rev.115(1959) 485

    1959

  13. [13]

    N. A. Chernikov and E. A. Tagirov,Quantum theory of scalar field in de sitter space-time, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e. Section A, Physique th´ eorique9(1968) 109

    1968

  14. [14]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman and R. Jackiw,A New improved energy - momentum tensor,Annals Phys.59(1970) 42

    1970

  15. [15]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982, 10.1017/CBO9780511622632

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511622632 1982

  16. [16]

    Calmet, I

    X. Calmet, I. Kuntz and I. G. Moss,Non-minimal coupling of the higgs boson to curvature in an inflationary universe,Found Phys48(2018) 110

    2018

  17. [17]

    Hrycyna,The non-minimal coupling constant and the primordial de sitter state,The European Physical Journal C80(2020) 817

    O. Hrycyna,The non-minimal coupling constant and the primordial de sitter state,The European Physical Journal C80(2020) 817

    2020

  18. [18]

    Visser,Sakharov’s induced gravity: A modern perspective,Modern Physics Letters A 17(2002) 977–991

    M. Visser,Sakharov’s induced gravity: A modern perspective,Modern Physics Letters A 17(2002) 977–991

    2002

  19. [19]

    D. I. Kaiser,Nonminimal Couplings in the Early Universe: Multifield Models of Inflation and the Latest Observations,Fundam. Theor. Phys.183(2016) 41 [1511.09148]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Sankharva and S

    K. Sankharva and S. Sethi,Nonminimally coupled ultralight axions as cold dark matter, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 103517 [2110.04322]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Branchina, E

    V. Branchina, E. Bentivegna, F. Contino and D. Zappal` a,Direct Higgs-gravity interaction and stability of our Universe,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 096029 [1905.02975]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Y. A. Sitenko, V. M. Gorkavenko and M. S. Tsarenkova,Magnetic flux in the vacuum of quantum bosonic matter in the cosmic string background,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 105010 [2208.06398]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    V. M. Gorkavenko, Y. A. Sitenko and O. B. Stepanov,Polarization of the vacuum of quantized scalar field by impenetrable magnetic vortex of finite thickness,J. Phys. A43 (2010) 175401 [0911.2877]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

    V. M. Gorkavenko, Y. A. Sitenko and O. B. Stepanov,Vacuum energy induced by an impenetrable flux tube of finite radius,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A26(2011) 3889 [1109.3068]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  25. [25]

    V. M. Gorkavenko, Y. A. Sitenko and O. B. Stepanov,Casimir energy and force induced by an impenetrable flux tube of finite radius,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28(2013) 1350161 [1312.3736]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    V. M. Gorkavenko, T. V. Gorkavenko, Y. A. Sitenko and M. S. Tsarenkova,Induced Vacuum Energy Density of Quantum Charged Scalar Matter in the Background of an Impenetrable Magnetic Tube with the Neumann Boundary Condition,Ukr. J. Phys.67 (2022) 715 [2212.03801]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    V. M. Gorkavenko, A. O. Zaporozhchenko and M. S. Tsarenkova,Dependence of scalar matter vacuum energy, induced by a magnetic topological defect, on the coupling to space-time curvature,J. Phys. A58(2025) 285401 [2412.06814]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    A. A. Grib, S. G. Mamayev and V. M. Mostepanenko,Vacuum quantum effects in strong fields. Friedmann Laboratory Publishing, St.Petersburg, 1994. 11

    1994

  29. [29]

    L. E. Parker and D. Toms,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Field and Gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 8, 2009, 10.1017/CBO9780511813924

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813924 2009

  30. [30]

    Y. A. Sitenko and V. M. Gorkavenko,Induced vacuum energy momentum tensor in the background of a d-2 brane in (d+1)-dimensional space-time,Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 085015 [hep-th/0210099]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  31. [31]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, eds.,Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, vol. 55 ofApplied Mathematics Series. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1964

    1964

  32. [32]

    A. Y. Babansky and Y. A. Sitenko,Vacuum energy induced by a singular magnetic vortex, Theor. Math. Phys.120(1999) 876

    1999

  33. [33]

    Bordag, D

    M. Bordag, D. Vassilevich, H. Falomir and E. M. Santangelo,Multiple reflection expansion and heat kernel coefficients,Phys. Rev. D64(2001) 045017 [hep-th/0103037]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  34. [34]

    D. V. Vassilevich,Heat kernel expansion: User’s manual,Phys. Rept.388(2003) 279 [hep-th/0306138]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  35. [35]

    E. A. F. Bragan¸ ca and E. R. Bezerra de Mello,Vacuum current and polarization induced by magnetic flux in a higher-dimensional cosmic string in the presence of a flat boundary, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136(2021) 50 [2007.05770]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    V. M. Gorkavenko, O. V. Barabash, I. V. Ivanchenko, P. O. Nakaznyi, M. S. Tsarenkova, N. S. Yakovenko et al.,Impact of space-time curvature coupling on the vacuum energy induced by a magnetic topological defect in flat space-time of arbitrary dimension,Nucl. Phys. B1023(2026) 117296 [2509.06815]

    arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Bordag and I

    M. Bordag and I. G. Pirozhenko,Casimir effect with an unstable mode,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A40(2025) 2543018 [2502.09407]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025