Casimir Force in Spacetimes with Torsion

M.W. AlMasri

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Casimir Force in Spacetimes with Torsion

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Axial torsion adds a small, negative correction to the Casimir pressure between conducting plates.

desk verdict The torsion Casimir correction in eq. (42) is off by a factor of three because the mode sum drops an O(S_z²) term from the exact dispersion, and the paper's own total-derivative caveat leaves the O(S_z²) contribution contested anyway. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10009 v1 pith:PIOLJCWL submitted 2026-08-07 hep-th

M.W. AlMasri This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords Casimireffectspacetimetorsionaxialeffectivefieldtheoryzeta-functionregularizationStandard-ModelExtensionquantumvacuumChern-Simonscoupling

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 tries to establish that a constant axial torsion background, a non-Riemannian ingredient of gravity, leaves a measurable-in-principle imprint on the quantum vacuum. It claims the Casimir pressure between perfectly conducting plates acquires a correction of the form $\Delta P/P_0 = -5\xi^2 S_z^2 a^2/(4\pi^2) + O(S_z^4)$, which slightly weakens the standard attraction. The correction comes from a gauge-invariant Chern-Simons-type coupling of torsion to the electromagnetic field, which changes the photon dispersion relation and hence the zero-point mode sum. The paper is explicit that this result is contested: because the coupling is a total derivative, some treatments find a null correction at this order. Even if the correction is real, the numbers are tiny, with the relative effect bounded by about $10^{-30}$ at micron separations, so the value of the calculation is mainly as a consistent bridge between vacuum phenomena and non-Riemannian geometry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the axial torsion vector $S^\mu$ together with the unique dimension-four gauge-invariant coupling $L_{\rm int} = (\xi/4)\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}S_\mu A_\nu F_{\rho\sigma}$. This interaction modifies Maxwell's equations and produces a Carroll-Field-Jackiw-type dispersion relation $\omega^2 = k_\perp^2 + k_z^2 + \kappa^2/2 \pm \kappa\sqrt{k_z^2+\kappa^2/4}$ with $\kappa=\xi S_z$, which in the weak-torsion limit becomes $\omega^2_{k,\sigma} = k^2 + \sigma \xi S_z |k_z|$. The mode sum with $k_z=n\pi/a$, regularized by the spectral zeta function and cross-checked by the Abel-Plana formula, converts this dispersion shift into the $O(S_z^2)$ correction to the vacuum energy.

What would settle it

Recompute the vacuum mode sum with the exact dispersion relation (16) instead of the linearized version (17); because the exact relation already contains $O(S_z^2)$ terms, any change in the $O(S_z^2)$ Casimir coefficient would signal an internal inconsistency in the paper's expansion. Alternatively, quantize the theory after integrating the interaction by parts and explicitly keeping the plate boundary term; a result with zero $O(S_z^2)$ correction would falsify eq. (42).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is the torsion-modified Casimir pressure $P(a) = -\pi^2/(240a^4) + \xi^2 S_z^2/(192a^2) + O(S_z^4)$ for two parallel perfectly conducting plates separated by $a$, with the axial torsion vector aligned with the plate normal. This corresponds to a relative correction $\Delta P/P_0 = -5\xi^2 S_z^2 a^2/(4\pi^2)$, a negative contribution that softens the attractive force. The calculation also shows that the boundary condition $k_z = n\pi/a$ is unchanged by torsion, that the linear-in-$S_z$ pieces cancel after summing the two polarization helicities, and that the gauge-invariance surface term vanishes exactly when $S^\mu$ points along the normal to the plates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the torsional Chern-Simons coupling is physically active in the bulk, so the modified mode spectrum rather than a pure boundary-term treatment determines the vacuum energy; if the total-derivative nature of the coupling makes the correction vanish at $O(S_z^2)$, eq. (42) collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For fixed coupling, the torsion correction grows relative to the standard Casimir pressure as $a^2$, so the effect is relatively stronger at larger separations.
The coupling $\xi S^\mu$ is identified with the CPT-odd photon coefficient $(k_{AF})^\mu$ of the Standard-Model Extension, so torsion bounds translate directly into bounds on that Lorentz-violating coefficient.
At high temperature the $n=0$ Matsubara term dominates and the torsion-induced relative correction is suppressed by $1/(k_B T)^2$; at low temperature the thermal correction acquires torsion-dependent Bose-Einstein factors.
Symmetry-breaking geometries, such as sphere-plate or cylinder boundaries, should lift the linear-in-$S_z$ cancellation and produce angular modulations, lateral forces, and vacuum torques.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the strongest test of the paper's central assumption is to redo the mode sum with the exact dispersion relation (16) rather than the linearized form (17), since the exact relation has additional $O(S_z^2)$ terms that could change the claimed coefficient.
Editorial inference: if the Chern-Simons term is instead treated purely as a boundary term and the boundary term is kept in the quantization, the $O(S_z^2)$ correction may vanish; the paper's result will stand only if the mode-sum quantization and the boundary-term treatment agree once gauge-invariant boundary conditions are fixed.
Editorial inference: a tilted alignment of $S^\mu$ with respect to the plates would make the surface term in eq. (14) nonzero, so the theory would need boundary counterterms; computing the tilted case would reveal whether the aligned result is a special artifact.
Editorial inference: condensed-matter systems with effective torsion-like fields, such as strained graphene or Weyl semimetals, could realize the same dispersion with a much larger effective coupling, making the $a^{-2}$ correction potentially observable in an analog experiment.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper has a clean setup and an explicit calculation, but the headline result doesn't survive a careful look at the order counting. On its own terms, eq. (42) is wrong: the exact dispersion relation (16) expands to ω² = k² + κ²/2 ± κ|k_z| + O(κ³), but the mode sum in eq. (36) and the Abel–Plana cross-check use only k² ± κ|k_z|, dropping the κ²/2 term. That term is O(S_z²), exactly the order the paper claims for the final answer. If you include it, the correction coefficient changes from 1/192 to 1/64 in the energy (and correspondingly in the pressure), a factor of three. Both regularization schemes give the same number because they both start from the same truncated dispersion. So eq. (42) is not established even granting the mode-sum approach.

What the paper does well: it reproduces the standard Casimir term exactly, the zeta and Abel–Plana methods agree, the identification with the CFJ/SME coefficient (k_AF)_μ = ξS_μ is explicit and useful, and the treatment of boundary conditions is careful. The paper is also honest about the two big caveats: the total-derivative nature of the Chern–Simons term (which leads some analyses to a null O(S_z²) result) and the complete experimental inaccessibility of the effect. That transparency is real.

The soft spots, in order of severity. First, the dropped O(S_z²) term—this is a concrete mistake, not a matter of interpretation. Second, the deeper unresolved question: if the Chern–Simons term really is a total derivative for these boundary conditions, the O(S_z²) contribution could vanish entirely, and the paper's mode-sum result would be an artifact of the chosen quantization. The paper flags this but doesn't resolve it. Third, the mode construction is a bit hand-wavy: the TE ansatz is not an exact eigenmode, and the paper essentially assumes the dispersion correction is all that matters. That's plausible but not fully shown.

Who this is for: readers interested in Lorentz-violating Casimir calculations or torsion-gravity phenomenology will find the setup useful as a reference point. But the numerical result should not be cited.

My take: this deserves a serious referee because the topic is legitimate and the error is specific and fixable—the authors can rerun the sum with the full O(S_z²) dispersion and also address the total-derivative critique more directly. As it stands, though, it's a major revision, not a minor one.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the electromagnetic Casimir pressure between perfectly conducting parallel plates in a flat spacetime with a constant axial torsion background S_z. The authors use an effective action with a Carroll–Field–Jackiw-type Chern–Simons coupling ξ S_μ A_ν \tilde F^{μν}, derive a modified photon dispersion relation, quantize the modes with perfect-conductor boundary conditions, and compute the vacuum energy by zeta-function regularization. Their main result, Eq. (42), is a pressure P(a) = -π²/(240a⁴) + ξ²S_z²/(192a²) + O(S_z⁴), i.e., a relative correction ΔP/P0 = -5ξ²S_z²a²/(4π²). The paper also reports an Abel–Plana cross-check and acknowledges that, because the interaction is a total derivative, other analyses obtain a null result at this order. The final sections estimate detectability, discuss finite-temperature and geometric extensions, and relate the coupling to the SME coefficient (k_AF)_μ.

Significance. The topic is timely: connecting torsion or Lorentz-violating backgrounds to quantum vacuum phenomena is of active interest, and the paper draws a concrete link to the Standard-Model Extension. The manuscript has definite strengths: an explicit derivation of the modified field equations and dispersion relation, a transparent mode-sum construction, and two independent regularization schemes (zeta-function and Abel–Plana) that agree. If the central result were correct, it would provide a specific, falsifiable prediction for how a background axial torsion modifies the Casimir force. However, the central numerical claim contains an internal omission at exactly the order of the claimed correction, and the total-derivative subtlety is acknowledged but not resolved. The reported coefficient is therefore not established even within the paper's own mode-sum framework.

major comments (2)

[§II.d, Eqs. (16)–(17); §III.B, Eqs. (36)–(38); Appendix A, Eqs. (A3)–(A4)] The exact CFJ dispersion relation in Eq. (16), expanded to second order, reads ω² = k² + σξS_z|k_z| + ξ²S_z²/2 + O(S_z³). Equation (17) drops the mode-independent +ξ²S_z²/2 term, but the calculation claims O(S_z²) accuracy in the final energy. Because the vacuum energy in Eq. (34) is a functional of ω², this dropped term contributes at the same order as the retained σ-dependent term. Inserting M²_{nσ} = (nπ/a)² + σξS_z(nπ/a) + ξ²S_z²/2 into Eq. (36) and summing over σ changes the O(S_z²) coefficient in Eq. (38) from -s(1-s)/2 to (1-s)²/2; at s = -1/2 this is 9/8 instead of 3/8, i.e., a factor of three. Consequently Eq. (41) becomes E_Cas/A = -π²/(720a³) + ξ²S_z²/(64a) + O(S_z⁴), and Eq. (42) becomes P(a) = -π²/(240a⁴) + ξ²S_z²/(64a²) + O(S_z⁴). The relative correction is ΔP/P0 = -15ξ²S_z²a²/(4π²), three times the value in the abstract. The Abel–Plana cross-check in Appendix A uses the same truncated M²_{nσ} and therefore does not detect this error; it verifies only the internal consistency of the truncated calculation, not the correctness of the O(S_z²) coefficient.
[§III.C and §V] The existence of any O(S_z²) correction is not established because the paper does not resolve the total-derivative issue that it itself raises. The text states that L_int can be written as a total derivative and that 'other approaches ... find a null result.' This is not a peripheral caveat: if the total-derivative reduction removes the bulk interaction under the perfect-conductor boundary conditions used here, then the leading correction is O(S_z⁴) and Eq. (42) is not a physical prediction. The manuscript's response—that its mode-by-mode analysis gives a non-zero result—is an assertion of the contested point, not an argument. A concrete test would be to evaluate the vacuum energy by integrating out the bulk in a gauge-invariant way and tracking the surface terms from Eq. (14); if those surface terms vanish under the stated boundary conditions, the O(S_z²) contribution must vanish as well. Until this is addressed, the conclusion in Section V that the calculation 'establishes a consistent bridge between quantum vacuum phenomena and non-Riemannian geometry' is stronger than what the paper demonstrates.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and §IV.B, Eq. (43)] The numerical estimate in Eq. (43) uses the coefficient 5/(4π²) from the abstract; if the corrected coefficient in the first major comment is adopted, this number should be 15/(4π²), and the associated bound |ΔP/P0| ≲ 3×10⁻³⁰ should be updated accordingly.
[§II.d, Eq. (17)] Equation (17) is labeled as an expansion to O(S_z²), but it omits the +κ²/2 term of exactly that order. At minimum, the equation should include the κ²/2 term or should be explicitly labeled as keeping only the O(S_z) term in the dispersion before squaring, with the O(S_z²) term restored in the mode-sum calculation.
[Appendix A] There is a typo in the sentence 'These sums are formally diver and require a regularization procedure'; 'diver' should be 'divergent'.
[Section IV.C] The angular modulation ansatz in Eq. (46) is introduced without derivation; a brief justification of why the leading scalar invariant takes the form 1 + α(\hat n·\hat S)² would improve readability.
[General] The abstract and first paragraph of Section II.c contain the sentence '...provides a geometric interpretation of Lorentz-violating coefficients' in the abstract and '...provides a geometric origin' in the text; the grammar is slightly inconsistent, and one formulation should be used throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivation is self-contained; the dropped O(S_z^2) dispersion term is a correctness concern, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. It starts from an explicit gauge-invariant effective action (eq. 9) with two external model inputs, xi and S_z, derives the modified Maxwell equations and dispersion relation, imposes standard conducting-plate boundary conditions, quantizes the modes, and evaluates the vacuum energy using spectral zeta-function regularization plus an independent Abel-Plana cross-check. No parameter is fitted to the target Casimir pressure; the standard -pi^2/(720 a^3) term emerges from the same mode sum when torsion is absent, and the O(S_z^2) correction is obtained by expanding the spectrum, not by imposing the desired answer. The references to [20] and [21] are to standard mathematical methods and are not self-citations carrying the argument. The paper explicitly flags the total-derivative subtlety and notes that other approaches obtain a null result; this is an acknowledged limitation rather than a circular justification. One internal consistency concern is that the expansion of the exact Carroll-Field-Jackiw dispersion relation (eq. 16) contains a mode-independent +kappa^2/2 term that is dropped in eq. (17) even though it is O(S_z^2), the order of the claimed correction; including it would change the coefficient in eq. (42). That is a correctness/consistency issue, not circularity: it does not amount to defining the prediction in terms of its inputs or renaming a fitted parameter as a prediction. The force law is not statistically forced by any subset of data. Hence the circularity score is 0.

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

The calculation rests on an assumed EFT action with two external inputs (xi and S_z) and on standard regularization techniques. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

xi
Dimensionless effective coupling of the torsion-photon interaction; an input of the EFT, not fitted in this paper.
S_z
Background axial torsion amplitude; treated as a constant classical input, bounded by external experiments to |S_z| <= 5e-9 m^-1.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The effective Lagrangian eq. (9) with the Chern-Simons coupling is the correct low-energy description of torsion-photon interactions.
The paper selects this operator by symmetry and power-counting rules; no derivation from a more fundamental theory is given.
domain assumption The torsion background S_mu is constant and fixed on flat Minkowski spacetime.
Justified by the weak-field EFT limit and by analogy with the SME; this is an input.
domain assumption The mode functions in Section II C form a complete set and the boundary conditions are correctly implemented.
The paper constructs TM-like modes explicitly but assumes completeness and that TE-like modes reduce to the torsion-free ones at leading order.
standard math Zeta-function regularization with analytic continuation and subtraction of the a->infinity part yields the physical Casimir energy.
Standard technique; the paper also cross-checks with Abel-Plana.
ad hoc to paper The O(S_z^2) term in the exact CFJ dispersion can be neglected in the O(S_z^2) energy calculation.
Eq. (17) drops the kappa^2/2 term, but the energy is computed to second order; this is not justified in the text.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Casimir Force in Spacetimes with Torsion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIOLJCWL

@misc{pith2026260810009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Casimir Force in Spacetimes with Torsion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIOLJCWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10009}
}

abstract

We compute the Casimir force between perfectly conducting parallel plates in a spacetime endowed with constant axial torsion. Working within an effective field theory framework where torsion couples to the electromagnetic sector via a gauge-invariant Chern--Simons-type interaction, we derive the modified photon dispersion relation and mode spectrum. Using zeta-function regularization, we obtain the vacuum energy and the resulting Casimir pressure to second order in the torsion parameter. Our calculation yields a correction scaling as $\Delta P/P_0 = -\frac{5\xi^2 S_z^2 a^2}{4\pi^2} + \order(S_z^4)$, which corresponds to a slight weakening of the attractive Casimir force. We acknowledge a known subtlety in the literature: because the Chern-Simons interaction is a total derivative, some analyses conclude that it should not contribute to the Casimir energy for standard boundary conditions, implying the leading correction is of higher order, $\order(S_z^4)$. For experimentally accessible plate separations ($a \sim \qty{1}{\micro\meter}$), the effect remains well below current detection thresholds ($|\Delta P/P_0| \lesssim 10^{-30}$) due to stringent bounds on macroscopic torsion from spin-torsion coupling experiments. Nevertheless, the calculation establishes a consistent, gauge-invariant bridge between quantum vacuum phenomena and non-Riemannian geometry. We discuss finite-temperature effects and geometric asymmetries as potential pathways for enhancing sensitivity, while placing the results in the broader context of dynamical torsion, condensed matter analogs, and quantum information protocols. Our results are consistent with the CPT-odd photon sector of the Standard-Model Extension and provide a geometric interpretation of Lorentz-violating coefficients in terms of spacetime torsion.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

These sums are formally diver and require a regularization procedure to extract finite, physically meaningful quanti- ties

Overview of the Abel–Plana F ormula and its Generalization In quantum field theory with boundaries, the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of physical observables, such as the energy-momentum tensor, are typically expressed as mode sums over the zero-point fluctuations of the field. These sums are formally diver and require a regularization procedure to ext...

work page
[2]

− − − − − − − − →1 4π Γ(−3/2) Γ(−1/2) (M 2 n,σ)3/2 =− 1 6π M 3 n,σ

Rigorous APF Derivation of the T orsion Correction The formal vacuum energy per unit area is given by E0 A = 1 2 ∞X n=1 Z d2k⊥ (2π)2 X σ=± ω(σ) n,k⊥ ,(A2) where the eigenfrequencies are ω(σ) n,k⊥ = r k2 ⊥ + nπ a 2 +σ ξSz nπ a .(A3) For notational simplicity, we define the transverse mass term for each mode as M 2 n,σ ≡ nπ a 2 +σ ξSz nπ a .(A4) Performing ...

work page
[3]

H. B. G. Casimir,Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wet.51, 793 (1948)

work page 1948
[4]

Bordag, G

M. Bordag, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and V. M. Mostepanenko,Advances in the Casimir Effect(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009)

work page 2009
[5]

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

2001
[6]

G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and V. M. Mostepa- nenko,Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1827 (2009)

work page 2009
[7]

G. L. Klimchitskaya and V. M. Mostepanenko,Physics6 (3), 1072 (2024)

work page 2024
[8]

N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982)

1982

Show all 28 references

[9]

Magnetic Casimir effect of a Lorentz-violating scalar with higher-order derivatives,

A. Erdas, “Magnetic Casimir effect of a Lorentz-violating scalar with higher-order derivatives,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A40, 2550061 (2025), arXiv:2503.06829 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[10]

Dynamical Casimir effects: The need for nonlocality in time-varying dispersive nanophotonics,

S. A. H. Gangaraj, G. W. Hanson, and F. Monticone, “Dynamical Casimir effects: The need for nonlocality in time-varying dispersive nanophotonics,”Phys. Rev. A 110, L041502 (2024), arXiv:2408.15504 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[11]

H. Shen, S. Liu, Y. Quan, Y. Li, T. Wang, T. Yu, and X. Tao,Nanotechnology36, 482002 (2025)

2025
[12]

Force Metrology with Plane Parallel Plates: Final Design Review and Outlook,

H. Haghmoradi, H. Fischer, A. Bertolini, I. Gali´ c, F. Intravaia, M. Pitschmann, R. A. Schimpl, and R. I. P. Sedmik, “Force Metrology with Plane Parallel Plates: Final Design Review and Outlook,”Physics6, 690 (2024)

2024
[13]

Lambrecht and S

A. Lambrecht and S. Reynaud,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A27, 1260013 (2012)

2012
[14]

Benenti, A

G. Benenti, A. D’Arrigo, S. Siccardi, and G. Strini,Phys. Rev. A90, 052313 (2014)

2014
[15]

F. W. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G. D. Kerlick, and J. M. Nester,Rev. Mod. Phys.48, 393 (1976)

1976
[16]

I. L. Shapiro,Phys. Rep.357, 113 (2002)

2002
[17]

F. W. Hehl, J. D. McCrea, E. W. Mielke, and Y. Ne’eman, Phys. Rep.258, 1 (1995)

1995
[18]

J. W. Maluf,Annalen Phys.525, 339 (2013)

2013
[19]

S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field, and R. Jackiw,Phys. Rev. D 41, 1231 (1990)

1990
[20]

V. A. Kosteleck´ y and M. Mewes,Phys. Rev. D66, 056005 (2002)

2002
[21]

Y. N. Obukhov,Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.3, 95 (2006)

2006
[22]

Elizalde,Comm

E. Elizalde,Comm. Math. Phys.198, 83 (1998)

1998
[23]

The generalized Abel-Plana formula 10 with applications to Bessel functions and Casimir effect,

A. A. Saharian, “The generalized Abel-Plana formula 10 with applications to Bessel functions and Casimir effect,” Preprint ICTP/2007/082; arXiv:0708.1187 [hep-th]

2007 arXiv
[24]

B. R. Heckel, E. G. Adelberger, C. E. Cramer, T. S. Cook, S. Schlamminger, and U. Schmidt,Phys. Rev. D 78, 092006 (2008)

2008
[25]

V. A. Kosteleck´ y and N. Russell,Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 11 (2011); 2026 update available at arXiv:0801.0287v19

2011
[26]

R. S. Decca, D. L´ opez, E. Fischbach, G. L. Klimchitskaya, D. E. Krause, and V. M. Mostepanenko,Phys. Rev. D 75, 077101 (2007)

2007
[27]

M. A. H. Vozmediano, M. I. Katsnelson, and F. Guinea, Phys. Rep.496, 109 (2010)

2010
[28]

S. Guan, Z. M. Yu, Y. Liu, G. B. Liu, L. Dong, Y. Lu, Y. Yao, and S. A. Yang,npj Quantum Materials2, 23 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

These sums are formally diver and require a regularization procedure to extract finite, physically meaningful quanti- ties

Overview of the Abel–Plana F ormula and its Generalization In quantum field theory with boundaries, the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of physical observables, such as the energy-momentum tensor, are typically expressed as mode sums over the zero-point fluctuations of the field. These sums are formally diver and require a regularization procedure to ext...

work page

[2] [2]

− − − − − − − − →1 4π Γ(−3/2) Γ(−1/2) (M 2 n,σ)3/2 =− 1 6π M 3 n,σ

Rigorous APF Derivation of the T orsion Correction The formal vacuum energy per unit area is given by E0 A = 1 2 ∞X n=1 Z d2k⊥ (2π)2 X σ=± ω(σ) n,k⊥ ,(A2) where the eigenfrequencies are ω(σ) n,k⊥ = r k2 ⊥ + nπ a 2 +σ ξSz nπ a .(A3) For notational simplicity, we define the transverse mass term for each mode as M 2 n,σ ≡ nπ a 2 +σ ξSz nπ a .(A4) Performing ...

work page

[3] [3]

H. B. G. Casimir,Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wet.51, 793 (1948)

work page 1948

[4] [4]

Bordag, G

M. Bordag, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and V. M. Mostepanenko,Advances in the Casimir Effect(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009)

work page 2009

[5] [5]

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

2001

[6] [6]

G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and V. M. Mostepa- nenko,Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1827 (2009)

work page 2009

[7] [7]

G. L. Klimchitskaya and V. M. Mostepanenko,Physics6 (3), 1072 (2024)

work page 2024

[8] [8]

N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982)

1982