Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Vacuum fluctuations in Rainbow space-time: Study of Casimir effect

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In rainbow spacetime, quantum vacuum energy between parallel plates is modified by an energy-dependent factor, weakening or strengthening the standard Casimir attraction depending on the chosen rainbow functions.

desk verdict The central rainbow correction to the Casimir energy is not derived: the step that kills the first-order Green's function integral in Eq. (4.13) is wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27722 v1 pith:MG7VLRTB submitted 2026-07-30 hep-th quant-ph

Bhagya. R , Suman Kumar Panja This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thquant-ph MSC 81T5583C4783C45 PACS 03.70.+k04.60.-m11.10.-z
keywords rainbowgravityCasimireffectmodifieddispersionrelationGreen'sfunctionvacuumfluctuationsquantumphenomenologyparallelplatesscalarfield
topics Quantum Gravity
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 argues that the Casimir effect, usually a purely quantum-field-theoretic phenomenon in flat spacetime, becomes sensitive to the energy-dependent structure of rainbow gravity. Using a scalar field with delta-function plate potentials and the Green's function method, it derives leading-order corrections that appear as overall multiplicative factors: for the first rainbow function the Casimir energy is multiplied by (1 - 2 lambda E_o/E_P), for the third by (1 + eta E_o/E_P), and for the second it is unchanged. In the ideal-conductor limit the corrected force is -(1 - 2 lambda E_o/E_P) pi^2/(480 L^4) or -(1 + eta E_o/E_P) pi^2/(480 L^4). Comparing with measured Casimir forces yields a bound on the rainbow parameter combination a epsilon < 10^-24. A sympathetic reader cares because this offers a tabletop window into a quantum-gravity length scale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reduced Green's function g(z, z') for two parallel plates modeled as delta-function potentials, obtained from the scalar Klein-Gordon equation in Minkowski spacetime. The paper introduces a perturbative ansatz for the rainbow-deformed Green's function, G_hat = G + (alpha + k) E_o G1, and asserts that the integral correction in the equation for G1 vanishes, giving G_hat = (1 + (alpha + k) E_o) G. This multiplicative factor, combined with the factor (1 - (3k + alpha) E_o) from the metric determinant, produces the overall (1 - 2 k E_o) rescaling of the Casimir energy and force.

What would settle it

Evaluate the convolution integral in eq. (4.13) for the explicit delta-plate Green's function g(z, z') with finite coupling strengths lambda1 and lambda2; if it is nonzero, then G1(x,x') = G(x,x') is false and the multiplicative-factor result collapses. Alternatively, solve the deformed equation (4.2) numerically for the delta-plate potential and compare the resulting Casimir energy to the closed-form expression in eq. (5.12).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the vacuum energy density between two parallel plates in rainbow spacetime is the standard Minkowski Casimir energy times an overall factor that depends on the choice of rainbow functions. Concretely, after solving the deformed scalar field equation and relating the vacuum expectation value of the deformed energy-momentum tensor to the Green's function, the paper finds that the reduced Green's function acquires a multiplicative factor (1 + (alpha + k) E_o) relative to the Minkowski result, and that this translates into Casimir energy and force rescaled by (1 - 2 k E_o). For the first rainbow function f(E)=g(E)=1/(1 - lambda E_o/E_P), k = lambda/E_P, so the magnitude

Load-bearing premise

The derivation rests on the claim that the convolution integral in eq. (4.13) vanishes, so the correction to the reduced Green's function is zero and the entire rainbow effect reduces to an overall multiplicative factor; if that integral is nonzero, the claimed (1 - 2 lambda E_o/E_P) and (1 + eta E_o/E_P) factors are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, Casimir-force measurements directly constrain the rainbow parameters lambda and eta, with the current bound a epsilon < 10^-24.
  • The sign of the correction is not universal: the first rainbow function suppresses the standard attraction while the third enhances it, so a measurement could distinguish between these candidate dispersion relations.
  • For the second rainbow function the Casimir effect is predicted to be identical to the Minkowski result to first order, making it a null test of that particular energy dependence.
  • All corrections are overall multiplicative factors independent of plate separation, meaning the L-dependence of the Casimir energy and force remains the standard L^-3 and L^-4 power laws.
  • The results reduce exactly to the conventional Casimir expressions when the rainbow parameters lambda and eta go to zero.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the multiplicative-factor result holds beyond the specific delta-function plate model, the same energy-dependent rescaling should apply to other vacuum-energy phenomena, such as the Casimir-Polder force or vacuum friction, which would offer additional experimental handles.
  • The validity of the whole derivation hinges on the vanishing of the convolution integral in eq. (4.13); a nonzero value would make the correction dependent on plate separation and coupling strengths, changing the power-law behavior and the experimental signature.
  • The asymmetry between suppression and enhancement across rainbow functions suggests that precision force-gradient measurements, like those already performed at micron separations, could identify which energy-dependent spacetime geometry nature realizes.
  • The bound a epsilon < 10^-24 is extremely stringent; if lambda or eta is of order unity, it implies E_o/E_P < 10^-24, which may be interpreted as a constraint on the energy scale probed by the experiment or on the rainbow parameter itself.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the Casimir effect for a scalar field in rainbow gravity, with two parallel plates modeled by delta-function potentials. The authors expand the rainbow functions to first order, derive a deformed energy-momentum tensor, solve the Green's function equation perturbatively, and obtain modified Casimir energy and force expressions for three choices of rainbow functions. For two of the choices the result is an overall multiplicative correction (1−2kE_o), while for the second choice there is no correction. The paper also compares the result with experimental measurements and claims a bound aε<10^{-24}. The central derivation, however, rests on an assertion that a convolution integral vanishes, which is not valid; without this step the main formulas are not established.

Significance. If the derivation were sound, the paper would be a relevant contribution to quantum-gravity phenomenology: it would give simple, testable corrections to the Casimir force in rainbow gravity and a strong bound on the rainbow parameter combination. The topic is appropriate for the journal, and the paper is clearly organized. However, the core result is invalid because the key Green's-function step is based on a false assertion. The experimental bound is also not supported by the cited data. The significance of the claimed results is therefore not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eqs. (4.13)–(4.14)] The assertion that the second term in (4.13) vanishes is incorrect. In the convolution ∫ d\bar z g(z,\bar z)[2ω²(α−k)/(α+k)+k V/(α+k)]g(\bar z,z′), the integration variable \bar z runs over the whole z-axis, not over the interval between z and z′. The reduced Green's functions (4.8)–(4.10) are nonzero throughout the domain, and the source term is generally nonzero. Even in the free case V=0 one has ∫ g(z,\bar z)g(\bar z,z′)d\bar z = (4κ³)^{-1}(1+κ|z−z′|)e^{−κ|z−z′|} ≠ 0. Therefore g1(z,z′) ≠ g(z,z′), and eq. (4.15), \hat g = (1+(α+k)E_o)g, is not derived. Since the overall factor (1−2kE_o) in Eqs. (5.4), (5.12), and (5.14) follows exclusively from this step, the central claim of the paper is unsupported.
  2. [§5, experimental bound after Eq. (5.15)] The claimed bound aε<10^{-24} is not justified. Reference [35] reports a sphere-plate Casimir force measurement at separations 0.1–0.9 μm, not a force gradient at 10 μm. More fundamentally, if the experimental error is about 1%, then the relative modification |ΔF/F| = |aε| would be bounded by 10^{-2}, not 10^{-24}, unless some additional extremely small scale is introduced, which is not specified. Without a stated value of E_o, the bound aε<10^{-24} cannot be derived from the quoted measurement. This issue also affects the abstract and the conclusion.
  3. [§5, Eq. (5.4); §3–4] The factorization of the rainbow correction out of the frequency/momentum integrals in (5.2)–(5.4) treats E_o as a single constant common to all vacuum modes. This is an additional assumption that is not discussed. If E_o is instead the energy of a particular vacuum mode, the correction term in (4.3) would be mode-dependent and could not be factored from the integrals over ζ and k⊥. The paper should state and justify the constant-E_o prescription, because the final multiplicative result depends critically on it.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (3.2)] The notation |g(E0)| uses E0 instead of E_o; the subscripts should be made uniform throughout.
  2. [Figs. 1 and 2] The plotted values aε=0.05 and 0.1 are inconsistent with the claimed bound aε<10^{-24}; the deviations displayed are many orders of magnitude larger than the claimed allowed range.
  3. [Figs. 1 and 2] The plots are shown in SI units (J, N), but the formulas are in natural units. The conversion factors (ℏ and c) are not stated, so the plots cannot be reproduced from the equations as written.
  4. [Eq. (5.5)] The first integral over z is written with \bar k dz and later appears as dz; also the limits are typeset as ∞ rather than −∞ to ∞. Please harmonize these expressions.
  5. [§6, Conclusion] The phrase 'decreases by a factor of 2λE_o/E_P' is ambiguous; the correct statement is that the energy is multiplied by (1−2λE_o/E_P), so the decrease is by the multiplicative factor 2λE_o/E_P times the standard value.
  6. [References] Reference [35] is cited for a 10 μm force-gradient measurement, but the cited paper reports a sphere-plate Casimir force at 0.1–0.9 μm. Please correct the citation or the quoted experimental quantity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The rainbow Casimir factor is forced by the assumption g1=g, not derived from the deformed field equation.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.13)-(4.15); used in Eqs. (5.4), (5.12)-(5.15)]
    "Here, the contribution from the second term is zero, as the integration has a range either from z→z′ for z′>z or z′→z when z>z′ i.e., g1(z,z′)=g(z,z′) (4.14) and using the above, from eq.(4.3), the complete expression of the reduced Green's function solution comes to be ˆg(z,z′) = {1+(α+k)Eo} g(z,z′), (4.15)"

    The step that produces the entire rainbow correction is not a solution of Eq. (4.12); it is the assertion that the convolution integral in (4.13) vanishes. The stated reason confuses the dummy integration variable z¯ with the endpoints: z¯ runs over the whole domain (outside and between the plates), not from z to z′. With g1 set equal to g, the ansatz (4.3) gives ˆg=(1+(α+k)Eo)g by substitution, and Eq. (5.4) then yields the factor 1−2kEo after multiplying by √−g. Thus the final multiplicative Casimir corrections, Eqs. (5.12) and (5.14), are identical to the assumed vanishing of the first-order correction; they are not derived from an independent solution. The appeal to 'the same calculational procedure given in [33]' (a paper co-authored by S.K. Panja) does not supply independent verifica

full rationale

The paper is not circular with respect to experimental data or the rainbow functions: the rainbow functions are external inputs and the experimental bound is a parameter comparison. The circularity is internal to the Green's function derivation. The perturbative ansatz (4.3) has a free first-order term (α+k)Eo G1; the paper then sets G1=G by declaring the convolution integral in (4.13) to vanish. That cancellation is not computed—the integration variable z¯ covers the full plate domain—so Eq. (4.14) is an assumption, not a result. Substituting g1=g into (4.3) gives (4.15) by construction, and the final overall factor 1−2kEo in (5.4), (5.12), and (5.14) follows algebraically. Hence the central predicted modification is equivalent to the assumed vanishing of the first-order correction. The method is explicitly imported from the same authors' prior work [33], but that citation does not make the cancellation independent. Because the paper's main new claim reduces by construction to the ansatz-plus-cancellation, the circularity score is high, though the standard Casimir part and the rainbow-function input remain non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All three rainbow-function choices come from the prior DSR literature (eqs. 2.7-2.9); the paper adds no new entities. The ledger entries below are the model assumptions and the two ad hoc choices (E_o as a fixed constant, n=1) that the final multiplicative result depends on. The claimed cancellation in the Green's-function correction is listed as an ad hoc axiom because it is asserted, not derived.

free parameters (2)
  • E_o (observer/probe energy entering rainbow functions) = unspecified; only the combinations λE_o/E_P and ηE_o/E_P appear
    The final correction factors and the bound depend on E_o, but the paper never fixes it or integrates over field-mode energies; it is carried through as a constant.
  • n (exponent in third rainbow function) = n=1
    Chosen by hand ('taking n=1', Sec. 2); the general rainbow function in eq.(2.9) contains n, and the result depends on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rainbow gravity metric and modified dispersion relation (eqs. 2.1-2.3)
    The whole calculation rests on the DSR/rainbow framework and the specific choices of rainbow functions (2.7)-(2.9), imported from prior literature without derivation.
  • domain assumption Scalar field Lagrangian in RST with inverse metric diag(-f^2,g^2,g^2,g^2) and delta-function plate potentials (eqs. 3.1-3.3)
    The field theory is assumed to be obtained by replacing η^{μν} with r̂η^{μν} while keeping the field φ defined in Minkowski space; no independent justification is given.
  • ad hoc to paper E_o is a constant, mode-independent energy (used to factor it out of integrals, eqs. 5.2-5.4)
    For a quantized field the mode energy ω would enter the rainbow functions; the paper instead treats E_o as a single external number, which is essential to the simple overall multiplicative result.
  • ad hoc to paper The first-order Green's function correction vanishes (eq. 4.14)
    The assertion that the convolution integral in eq.(4.13) is zero is unsupported and generally false; it is load-bearing because it produces r̂g = (1+(α+k)E_o)g.
  • standard math Standard zeta-function evaluation ∫ y^3/(e^y-1) = ζ(4)Γ(4) = π^4/15 used in eq.(5.13)
    Standard integral used for the strong-coupling Casimir limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vacuum fluctuations in Rainbow space-time: Study of Casimir effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MG7VLRTB

@misc{pith2026260727722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vacuum fluctuations in Rainbow space-time: Study of Casimir effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MG7VLRTB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27722}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the Casimir effect in rainbow space-time, focusing on leading-order corrections to the Casimir energy and force. Starting with the scalar field Lagrangian in rainbow space-time, with parallel plates introduced through delta-function potentials, we find the corresponding energy-momentum tensor. We obtain the vacuum expectation value of this energy-momentum tensor by expressing it as a quadratic operator acting on the Green's function. By solving the Euler-Lagrange equation of a scalar field in rainbow space-time, we obtain the Green's function solutions. Employing these Green's function solutions in the vacuum expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor, we obtain the modified Casimir energy and Casimir force expressions in rainbow space-time. We study the variation of the deformed Casimir force and energy with the distance between the plates for different choices of rainbow functions. Our results show that for two choices of rainbow functions, the absolute value of the Casimir energy and force is decreasing or increasing, whereas for one specific choice of rainbow functions, it remains the same as the standard result in Minkowski space-time. Comparing our result with experimentally measured value of Casimir force, we obtain the bound on the rainbow parameter dependent terms to be of the order of 10^-24.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27722 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Variation of Casimir energy and Casimir force with separation between the plates for first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variation of Casimir energy and Casimir force with separation between the plates for third [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fig.2. Plots in Fig.1 show the variation of Casimir energy and Casimir force for the first choice of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references

  1. [35]

    Mohideen and A

    U. Mohideen and A. Roy, Precision Measurement of the Casimir Force from 0.1 to 0.9 micrometers, Phys. Rev. Lett.81(1998) 4549; V. M. Mostepanenko, Experiment, theory and the Casimir effect, J. Phys: Conf. Ser.161(2009) 012003

    1998

  2. [1]

    Rovelli,Quantum gravity, Cambridge University Press, UK (2004)

    C. Rovelli,Quantum gravity, Cambridge University Press, UK (2004)

    2004

  3. [2]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and E. Witten,Superstring theory. vol. 1: Introduction, Cambridge University Press (1987). 11

    1987

  4. [3]

    Connes,Noncommutative geometry, Academic Press, London (1994)

    A. Connes,Noncommutative geometry, Academic Press, London (1994)

    1994

  5. [4]

    S. M. Carroll, J. A. Harvey, V. A. Kostelecky, C. D. Lane and T. Okamoto, Noncommutative Field Theory and Lorentz Violation,Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 141601

    2001

  6. [5]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, String theory and noncommutative geometry,JHEP09(1999) 032

    1999

  7. [6]

    Doplicher, K

    S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen and J. E. Roberts, The Quantum structure of space-time at the Planck scale and quantum fields,Commun. Math. Phys.172(1995) 187

    1995

  8. [7]

    Amelino-Camelia, Testable scenario for relativity with minimum length,Phys

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Testable scenario for relativity with minimum length,Phys. Lett.B 510 (2001) 255

    2001

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Kowalski-Glikman, Observer independent quantum of mass,Phys

    J. Kowalski-Glikman, Observer independent quantum of mass,Phys. Lett.A 286(2001) 391

    2001

  2. [9]

    Magueijo and L

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Gravity’s Rainbow,Class. Quant. Grav.21, (2004) 1725

    2004

  3. [10]

    Y. Ling, X. Li and Hong-bao Zhang, Thermodynamics of modified black holes from gravity’s rainbow,Mod. Phys. Lett.A 22(2007) 2749

    2007

  4. [11]

    C. E. Mota, L. C. N. Santos, F. M. da Silva, C. V. Flores, T. J. N. da Silva and D. P. Menezes, Anisotropic compact stars in Rastall-Rainbow gravity,Class. Quant. Grav.39(2022) 085008

    2022

  5. [12]

    Parai and S

    D. Parai and S. K. Panja, Non-commutative correction of ideal gas thermodynamics,Annals Phys. 470(2024) 169815

    2024

  6. [13]

    Harikumar, Gauge theories in rainbow space-time and Aharonov–Bohm phases, Eur

    Bhagya R and E. Harikumar, Gauge theories in rainbow space-time and Aharonov–Bohm phases, Eur. Phys. J. Plus141(2026) 824

    2026

  7. [14]

    Harikumar, Stefan-Boltzmann law in rainbow space-time,EPL155(2026) 59002

    Bhagya R and E. Harikumar, Stefan-Boltzmann law in rainbow space-time,EPL155(2026) 59002

    2026

  8. [15]

    Kimberly, J

    D. Kimberly, J. Magueijo and J. Medeiros, Nonlinear relativity in position space,Phys. Rev.D 70 (2004) 084007

    2004

  9. [16]

    Magueijo and L

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Lorentz invariance with an invariant energy scale,Phys. Rev. Lett.88 (2002) 190403

    2002

  10. [17]

    de Montigny, J

    M. de Montigny, J. Pinfold, S. Zare and H. Hassanabadi, Klein–Gordon oscillator in a global monopole space-time with rainbow gravity,Eur. Phys. J. Plus.137(2022) 54

    2022

  11. [18]

    Bakke and H

    K. Bakke and H. Mota, Dirac oscillator in the cosmic string spacetime in the context of gravity’s rainbow,Eur. Phys. J. Plus133(2018) 409

    2018

  12. [19]

    H. B. G. Casimir, On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates,Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet.51(1948) 793

    1948

  13. [20]

    K. A. Milton, The Casimir effect: recent controversies and progress,J. Phys.A 37(2004) R209

    2004

  14. [21]

    K. A. Milton,The Casimir Effect Physical manifestations of Zero-Point Energy, World Scientific, Singapore, (2001)

    2001

  15. [22]

    Brevik, S

    I. Brevik, S. A. Ellingsen and K. A. Milton, Thermal corrections to the Casimir effect,New J. Phys.8(2006) 236

    2006

  16. [23]

    I. I. Abrikosova and B. V. Deriagin, Direct measurement of molecular attraction of solid bodies. II. Method for measuring the gap. Results of experiments, Soviet PhysicsJETP4(1957) 2

    1957

  17. [24]

    M. J. Sparnaay, Measurements of attractive forces between flat plates,Physica XXIV(1958) 751

    1958

  18. [25]

    S. K. Lamoreaux, Demonstration of the Casimir force in the 0.6 to 6µmrange,Phys. Rev. Lett. 78(1997) 5. 12

    1997

  19. [26]

    Buks and M

    E. Buks and M. L. Roukes, Stiction, adhesion energy, and the Casimir effect in micromechanical systems,Phys. Rev.B 63(2001) 033402

    2001

  20. [27]

    H. B. Chan, V. A. Aksyuk, R. N. Kleiman, D. J. Bishop and F. Capasso, Quantum Mechanical Actuation of Microelectromechanical System by the Casimir Force,Science291(2001) 1941

    2001

  21. [28]

    Casadio, A

    R. Casadio, A. Gruppuso, B. Harms and O. Micu, Boundaries and the Casimir effect in noncom- mutative space-time,Phys. Rev.D 76(2007) 025016

    2007

  22. [29]

    C. D. Fosco and G. A. Moreno, Casimir effect in (2+1)-dimensional noncommutative theories, Phys. Lett.B 659(2008) 901

    2008

  23. [30]

    Harikumar, S

    E. Harikumar, S. K. Panja and V. Rajagopal, Time-space noncommutativity and Casimir effect, Nucl. Phys.B 950(2020) 114842

    2020

  24. [31]

    S. K. Panja and V. Rajagopal, Thermal Casimir effect inκ-Minkowski space-time,Nucl. Phys.B 1024(2026) 117335

    2026

  25. [32]

    Harikumar and S

    E. Harikumar and S. K. Panja, Casimir effect in DFR space-time,Int. J. Mod. Phys.A 38(2023) 2350009

    2023

  26. [33]

    Harikumar, K

    E. Harikumar, K. V. Shajesh and S. K. Panja, How does Casimir energy fall inκ-deformed space- time?,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 647

    2024

  27. [34]

    B Bezerra, H

    V. B Bezerra, H. F. Mota and C. R. Muniz, Casimir effect in the rainbow Einstein’s universe,EPL 120(2017) 10005

    2017

  28. [36]

    Magueijo and L

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Generalized Lorentz invariance with an invariant energy scale,Phys. Rev.D 67(2003) 044017

    2003

  29. [37]

    Amelino-Camelia, J

    G. Amelino-Camelia, J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos and S. Sarkar, Tests of quantum gravity from observations of gamma-ray bursts,Nature393(1998) 763

    1998

  30. [38]

    Jacob, F

    U. Jacob, F. Mercati, G. Amelino-Camelia and T. Piran, Modifications to Lorentz invariant dis- persion in relatively boosted frames,Phys. Rev.D 82(2010) 084021

    2010

  31. [39]

    Amelino-Camelia, Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology,Living

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology,Living. Rev. Rel.16(2013) 5

    2013

  32. [40]

    K. A. Milton, P. Parashar, K. V. Shajesh and J. Wagner, How does Casimir energy fall? II. Gravitational acceleration of quantum vacuum energy,J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.40(2007) 10935

    2007

  33. [41]

    A. M. Frassino and O. Panella, Casimir effect in minimal length theories based on a generalized uncertainty principle,Phys. Rev.D 85(2012) 045030

    2012

  34. [42]

    C. A. Escobar, A. Martin-Ruiz, R. Linares, J. M. Silva, A coherent state approach to the Casimir effect for a massive scalar field in a noncommutative spacetime,Annals Phys.460(2024) 169570

    2024

  35. [43]

    H. Shen, S. Liu, Y. Quan, Y. Li, T. Wang, T. Yu and X. Tao, The progress of the Casimir effect: from theory to application,Nanotechnology36(2025) 482002

    2025

  36. [44]

    Sedmik and P

    R. Sedmik and P. Brax, Status Report and first Light from CANNEX: Casimir Force Measurements between flat parallel Plates,J. Phys: Conf. Ser.1138(2018) 012014. 13

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.