Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

One-Loop Correction to the Casimir Energy in Lorentz-Violating $\phi^4$ Theory with Rough Membrane Boundaries

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that roughness and Lorentz violation enter the one-loop Casimir energy only through a rescaling of the plate separation and one overall factor.

desk verdict New combination of Lorentz violation, rough membranes, and one-loop correction, but Eq. (35) rests on an unjustified point-value replacement for the roughness and the PBC sector is a factor of 8 off. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13413 v1 pith:4W3IRUXF submitted 2025-01-23 hep-th

M. A. Valuyan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 81T5581T1581T10 PACS 03.70.+k11.10.Gh11.30.Cp
keywords CasimirenergyradiativecorrectionroughmembraneLorentzviolationphi^4theoryposition-dependentcountertermsBoxSubtractionSchemeAbel-Planasummationformula
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

This paper tries to establish a single compact formula for the first radiative (one-loop) correction to the Casimir energy of a self-interacting scalar field when two effects are present at once: Lorentz-symmetry violation in the field's kinetic term and roughness of the confining membranes. The claimed result, Eq. (35), says the rough, Lorentz-violating correction is exactly the known smooth-plate radiative correction evaluated at a rescaled plate separation $\tilde a_1 = a\sqrt{1-\sigma_3}/\sqrt{1+M_a(0,0)}$, divided by the factor $(1+\sigma_0)(1-\sigma_1)(1-\sigma_2)$. The same rescaling is claimed for the leading-order Casimir energy, and both claims are made for massive and massless fields under Dirichlet, Neumann, periodic, and mixed boundary conditions. If true, this gives a direct way to translate roughness and Lorentz-violation parameters into shifts of the vacuum energy without redoing the boundary-value problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified Green's function identity, Eq. (12): $\tilde G_B(a;v,v') = G_B(\tilde a_1;v,v')/\sqrt{(1+\sigma_0)(1-\sigma_1)(1-\sigma_2)}$, which says that the Green's function of a Lorentz-violating field between rough plates is the ordinary smooth-plate Green's function at a rescaled separation. This identity converts the one-loop vacuum-energy expression $E^{(1)}_{\mathrm{vac}} = -\lambda/8 \int d^3x\, G^2(x,x)$ into the corresponding smooth-plate integral, so the Box Subtraction Scheme and Abel-Plana summation used for smooth plates carry over unchanged. The roughness enters through $M_a(v_1,v_2) = -2h/a + 3h^2/a^2$ in the operator $P$, and the derivation replaces it by the single number $M_a(0,0)$ defined in Eq. (A5). The position-dependent mass counterterm $\delta m(x) = -\lambda G(x,x)/2$ is what makes the tadpole contribution cancel before the Box Subtraction Scheme subtraction.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop Casimir energy for a roughness profile $h(v_1,v_2) = \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\cos(\alpha_1 L v_1 + \theta_1)\cos(\alpha_2 L v_2 + \theta_2)$ while keeping the position dependence of $M_a(v_1,v_2)$ in the mode sum; if the result depends on the roughness frequencies $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ or on the phases $\theta_1,\theta_2$ in any way other than through the single point value $h(0,0)$, the rescaled-separation identity fails. The same check can be done at leading order by comparing Eq. (27) with a direct numerical mode sum for a corrugated plate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated as Eq. (35), is that the one-loop correction to the Casimir energy for a $\phi^4$ scalar field between two rough membranes in $3+1$ dimensions is not a new independent calculation but a rescaling of the smooth-plate result: $E^{(1)}_{\mathrm{Cas},B}(a,m) = E^{(1)}_{\mathrm{Cas},B}(\tilde a_1,m)/[(1+\sigma_0)(1-\sigma_1)(1-\sigma_2)]$, where $\tilde a_1 = a\sqrt{1-\sigma_3}/\sqrt{1+M_a(0,0)}$. The $\sigma_i$ quantify Lorentz violation in the time and three space directions, and $M_a(0,0)$ encodes the membrane roughness evaluated at a fiducial point. The author derives the same reduction for the zero-order Casimir energy, with effective separation $\tilde a_0$ and an overall factor $A = [(1+\sigma_0)(1-\sigma_1)(1-\sigma_2)(1-\sigma_3)(1+M)]^{1/2}$. The result is obtained with position-dependent counterterms and the Box Subtraction Scheme, and it holds for Dirichlet, Neumann, periodic, and mixed boundary conditions, with the boundary-condition dependence entering only through the constants $C_B$ and $c=\pm1$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole reduction rests on treating the rough surface profile, which varies from point to point, as a single constant value $M_a(0,0)$ in the Green's function, so that a wavy plate changes the effective separation but does not couple different sideways wavelengths.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Dirichlet, Neumann, periodic, and mixed boundary conditions, the one-loop Casimir correction is fully determined by the smooth-plate result, so the boundary-condition dependence stays confined to the known constants $C_B$ and $c=\pm1$.
  • Membrane roughness acts as an effective change of plate separation: $a \to a\sqrt{1-\sigma_3}/\sqrt{1+M_a(0,0)}$, and the Lorentz-violating coefficients $\sigma_1,\sigma_2$ appear only in an overall kinetic prefactor.
  • The massless radiative correction takes explicit closed forms, for example $E^{(1)}_{\mathrm{Cas},B}(0,a) = -\lambda C_B^4 \mathrm{Li}_2(c)^2 / (512\pi^4 a^4)$, so the one-loop vacuum force scales as $a^{-5}$ for massless fields.
  • The relative change in Casimir energy caused by roughness grows as the plate separation shrinks, reaching roughly 40% in the massless case, which is large enough to matter for micro- and nanoscale force measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The author leaves implicit that the $M_a(0,0)$ reduction predicts a strong insensitivity: two rough plates with the same local height at the chosen point but very different corrugation wavelengths would produce identical Casimir energies, a statement that could be checked by direct numerical mode summation and is unlikely to survive beyond leading order.
  • A direct extension would be to treat the roughness profile as random and replace $M_a(0,0)$ by a statistical average; the rescaled-separation formula would then predict that only the mean height matters, not the roughness spectrum, which is a testable distinction from perturbative roughness treatments.
  • The sign discrepancy between renormalization schemes noted in the introduction implies that any experimental confrontation of these one-loop corrections must first commit to the position-dependent-counterterm scheme; otherwise the same measured force could be matched by different values of $\lambda$ and $\sigma_i$.
  • The same Green's-function identity, if it survives scrutiny, would apply to finite-temperature Casimir energies and to higher-loop corrections, since the one-loop reduction is driven entirely by the Green's function rather than by the specific loop order.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper computes the leading and one-loop (first order in the coupling λ) Casimir energy for a Lorentz-violating self-interacting scalar field confined between two rough parallel membranes in 3+1 dimensions, for Dirichlet, Neumann, periodic, and mixed boundary conditions. The method uses position-dependent counterterms, the Box Subtraction Scheme, and cutoff regularization. The central result, Eq. (35), states that the one-loop correction for the rough Lorentz-violating system equals the smooth one-loop correction taken from the author's earlier work, evaluated at a rescaled separation ã1 = a√(1−σ3)/√(1+Ma(0,0)) and divided by (1+σ0)(1−σ1)(1−σ2). This reduction follows from the claimed Green's function identity Eq. (12), derived in Appendix A, and the paper also presents the corresponding zero-order Casimir energies for all four boundary conditions.

Significance. The paper is attractive because of the compactness of the claimed result: if Eq. (12) were valid, Lorentz violation and roughness would factor out of the one-loop Casimir problem, reducing it to a distance rescaling for all four boundary conditions. The manuscript is also explicit about its renormalization scheme, and it clearly states the validity condition Max{h} ≪ a. In the smooth Lorentz-invariant limit, the zero-order Dirichlet and mixed-boundary coefficients (Eq. (28)) reproduce the familiar values −π²/(1440 a⁴) and +7π²/(11520 a⁴), which suggests a coherent algebraic framework. However, these strengths are outweighed by load-bearing problems: the derivation in Appendix A replaces a position-dependent roughness profile by its point value at the coordinate origin, the periodic-sector spectrum is mishandled by a factor of eight, and the σ3 rescaling has the wrong sign relative to the dispersion relation. Because every main result (Eqs. (28) and (32)–(35)) inherits at least one of these flaws, the claimed results cannot be regarded as reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III.A, Eqs. (6), (22), (28)] The periodic-boundary zero-order result is a factor of eight too small: Eq. (28) with C_P = 2 gives −π²/(720 a⁴) per unit volume in the massless smooth limit, whereas the standard result for a real massless scalar with period a is −π²/(90 a⁴). The origin of the discrepancy is the PBC mode basis in Eq. (6), which uses cos(2πn(v3+1/2)) with n = ±1, ±2, ...; the modes n and −n are identical, the sine modes and the zero mode are omitted, and the additional division by C_B = 2 in Eq. (22) is inconsistent with the spectrum k_n = 2πn of Eq. (7). Because all PBC results, including the one-loop formulas (32)–(35), inherit this spectrum, the PBC sector of the paper is not reliable.
  2. [§II, Appendix A, Eqs. (12), (A4), (A5), (35)] The central reduction of the roughness profile to the point value Ma(0,0) is unjustified and internally inconsistent with the zero-order treatment. The matrix element of the roughness term (1−σ3)Ma(v1,v2)∂₃²/a² between transverse momentum modes k and k′ is the Fourier component Ma-hat(k−k′); the momentum-diagonal element is the spatial average M = ∫∫ Ma dv1 dv2 used in Eq. (8) and in the zero-order results (27)–(28). Appendix A instead asserts a diagonal form for all modes, and Eq. (A5) evaluates the coefficient as Ma(0,0), a real-space point value that is not equal to the diagonal matrix element and that changes under a transverse translation of the roughness profile, i.e., under a shift of the phases θ1, θ2 in Eq. (A3). Since Eq. (35) depends on ã1 through Ma(0,0), the predicted one-loop energy is origin-dependent, which is unphysical; the off-diagonal couplings between different transverse momenta are never solved.
  3. [§III, Eqs. (21), (28), (12), (35)] The σ3 dependence of the effective separation is inverted. From Eq. (9), the z-momentum contribution is (1−σ3)(1+Ma)k_n²/a², so for a constant roughness M the equivalent smooth separation is a/√((1−σ3)(1+M)), not a√(1−σ3)/√(1+M) as written in Eqs. (12), (21) and (35). The paper's convention makes the effective separation decrease and the energy magnitude increase as σ3 grows, opposite to what the dispersion relation (1+σ0)ω² = (1−σ3)k_n²/a² + ... implies. In the smooth massless limit, for example, the zero-order energy should scale as (1−σ3)^{3/2}, whereas Eq. (28) with ã0 = a√(1−σ3) and A = √((1+σ0)(1−σ1)(1−σ2)(1−σ3)) scales as (1−σ3)^{−5/2}. Every σ3-dependent result in the paper is affected.
  4. [§III.B, Appendix B, Eqs. (32)–(35)] The one-loop input to the central formula (35) is taken from the author's previous works [17,18,51] and is only summarized in Appendix B; the manuscript does not provide enough intermediate steps to check the factors in Eqs. (32)–(33), including the ((c+1)/2) C_B m/a term in the massive bracket and the C_B⁴ scaling in the massless case, and one of the key references ([17]) is a Persian-language journal article that is not generally accessible. Since Eq. (35) is essentially this smooth input evaluated at the rescaled argument ã1, the new claims of the paper cannot be verified independently of that unstated derivation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figs. 2–3] The captions of Figs. 2 and 3 state that one membrane is smooth and the other rough, whereas the model in Eq. (3) gives both membranes the same roughness profile h(x,y); please specify which geometry is actually plotted.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A5)] Equation (A5) should display the momentum-transfer dependence explicitly by writing Ma-(k−k′) = ∫∫ Ma(v1,v2)e^{i(k−k′)·v} dv1 dv2; the current notation conflates the Fourier transform of the roughness profile with its point value and is the step that makes Eq. (12) appear plausible.
  3. [Appendix B, Eqs. (32)–(33)] Because Appendix B is explicitly a summary, the factors in Eqs. (32)–(33) should be derived at least to the level of Eqs. (B12)–(B17), or the omitted steps should be included in a supplementary file, so that the symbolic factors in the one-loop results can be checked.
  4. [Title, §III, §IV] The text contains several typos: "Viola ting" in the title, "Dichlet" at the start of Section III, and "Neumann" with an extra space in Section IV; the Feynman-diagram notation in Eqs. (14)–(18) is also not typeset and is hard to read.
  5. [Figs. 2–4, Eq. (A3)] The roughness function used in the plots, h(x,y) = ¼ cos(xπ/2) cos(yπ/2), is not connected to the general form h(v1,v2) = ε1ε2 cos(α1 L v1 + θ1) cos(α2 L v2 + θ2) of Eq. (A3); the figure captions should state the values of εi, αi, θi, and the relation between x, y and v1, v2 so that the curves can be reproduced.
  6. [Introduction, §III.A] The manuscript should state explicitly which zero-order results are new: the Introduction attributes rough-membrane zero-order results to Refs. [36,37] (in 2+1 dimensions), while Section III presents the 3+1 case as part of this paper's computation; a sentence clarifying the attribution would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Eq. (35) is a restatement of the rough-Green's-function ansatz in Eq. (12), so the central one-loop prediction is the input rescaling by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section II, Eq. (12); Section III.B, Eq. (35); Appendix A, Eqs. (A4)-(A5)]
    "The resulting Green’s function, accounting for membrane roughness and Lorentz violation under both boundary conditions, is given by: ˜GB(a; v, v′) = GB(˜a1; v, v′)√(1+σ0)(1−σ1)(1−σ2) (12) ... the parameter ˜a1 = a√1−σ3√1+Ma(0,0). ... Therefore ... the radiative correction to the Casimir energy for a massive scalar field confined between two rough membranes can be expressed as follows: ˜E(1)Cas.B(a,m) = E(1)Cas.B(˜a1,m)(1+σ0)(1−σ1)(1−σ2) (35)."

    The rough-membrane Green’s function is not computed from the position-dependent operator in Eq. (4); it is asserted to equal the smooth Green’s function with a rescaled separation ã1, with all roughness encoded in the single point value Ma(0,0). Appendix A obtains this by evaluating the roughness matrix element at the origin (Eqs. A4-A5), i.e., by assuming the term (1−σ3)Ma(v1,v2)∂_3^2/a^2 is diagonal in the plane-wave basis. Substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (19) makes Eq. (35) literally Eq. (32) with a→ã1. For non-constant Ma(v1,v2), the rough term couples transverse momentum modes through its Fourier transform; that coupling is never solved.

full rationale

The central one-loop result Eq. (35) is obtained by substituting the rough Green’s function Eq. (12) into Eq. (19). Eq. (12) states that the rough, Lorentz-violating Green’s function is just the smooth Green’s function with separation rescaled by ã1 = a√(1−σ3)/√(1+Ma(0,0)), up to an overall factor. That identification is the entire physical content of the roughness model; Appendix A does not solve the coupled-mode problem generated by a position-dependent Ma(v1,v2), but instead evaluates the roughness at the origin (Eq. A5) and writes a diagonal result (Eq. A4). Therefore Eq. (35) is an algebraic restatement of the input ansatz: the claim that roughness and Lorentz violation reduce to a rescaling holds by construction, not by computation. This is reinforced by an internal inconsistency: the zero-order Casimir energy uses the spatial average M (Eqs. (8) and (27)), while the one-loop result uses the point value Ma(0,0) (Eqs. (12) and (A5)), so the rescaling parameter is not uniquely derived from the operator. The smooth one-loop input Eq. (32) is cited from the author’s prior works [17,18,51], but Appendix B provides a derivation sketch; the self-citation is not the main source of circularity. However, because the one-loop correction inherits its entire numerical content from that prior result through Eq. (12), the paper’s central novelty reduces to the rescaling ansatz. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the prediction is forced by the definition of the rough Green’s function, while some independent content remains in the zero-order calculation and the BSS treatment of the smooth case.

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

The central result depends on the Lorentz-violation parameters σi, the coupling λ, the mass m, and a single roughness-derived constant Ma(0,0). No new particles or forces are introduced. The most sensitive assumptions are the constant-replacement of the roughness function and the validity of the Box Subtraction Scheme cutoff adjustments.

free parameters (4)
  • Lorentz-violation parameters σ0, σ1, σ2, σ3 = set to 0.1 in plots
    Chosen by hand; they parameterize the Lorentz-violating model and are not fitted to data.
  • coupling constant λ = 0.1 in plots
    Model parameter of the φ⁴ theory.
  • field mass m = 1 in plots
    Model parameter; both massive and massless cases are considered.
  • roughness profile parameters ε1, ε2, α_i, θ_i = h(x,y) = ¼ cos(xπ/2) cos(yπ/2) in plots
    Chosen by hand to model surface roughness; the final result depends only on the derived quantity Ma(0,0).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Max{h(x,y)} << a, so the roughness can be treated perturbatively.
    Justifies the expansion in h/a and the form of Ma(v1,v2).
  • domain assumption Position-dependent counterterms are the correct renormalization scheme for boundary-dependent QFT.
    The paper adopts this scheme from prior work [12,17,18]; different schemes give different results for radiative corrections.
  • domain assumption The Box Subtraction Scheme with cutoff regularization and appropriate adjustment of per-region cutoffs (Eq. B9) is a valid regularization procedure.
    The cutoff adjustment is ad hoc and not rigorously derived; the finite part extraction depends on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The Green's function with position-dependent roughness Ma(v1,v2) can be replaced by the smooth Green's function with a rescaled separation.
    This is the central simplifying assumption; it holds only if Ma is constant, which contradicts the roughness profile being position-dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One-Loop Correction to the Casimir Energy in Lorentz-Violating $\phi^4$ Theory with Rough Membrane Boundaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4W3IRUXF

@misc{pith2026250113413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One-Loop Correction to the Casimir Energy in Lorentz-Violating $\phi^4$ Theory with Rough Membrane Boundaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4W3IRUXF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13413}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we calculate the radiative correction to the Casimir energy for both massive and massless Lorentz-violating scalar fields confined between two membranes with rough surfaces in a 3+1 dimensional spacetime. The computations are performed for four types of boundary conditions: Dirichlet, Neumann, Periodic, and Mixed. A crucial element of our approach involves the use of position-dependent counterterms to incorporate the influence of boundaries within the renormalization program. To manage the divergences that emerge in the Casimir energy calculations, we apply the Box Subtraction Scheme (BSS) along with the cutoff regularization technique. We present and discuss results for various degrees of membrane roughness, emphasizing the consistency of our findings with theoretical expectations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13413 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The left figure is “A configuration” and the right one is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The left (right) figure depicts the leading-order Cas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The left (right) figure illustrates the radiative cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The left (right) figure presents the ratio of changes i [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. One-Loop Quantum Corrections to the Casimir Effect for Smoothly Rough Plates in the Low-Temperature Regime

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    For a self-interacting scalar field between rough parallel plates, the one-loop Casimir energy and induced mass get corrections set by integrals of the roughness profile plus exponentially small thermal terms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [17]

    A. I. Dubikovsky, P. K. Silaev and O. D. Timofeevskaya, On a possible method of Casimir pressure renormalization in a ball, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 30 (2015) 1550067

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

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

    work page 1948

  3. [2]

    Furthermore, for DBC/NBC, the domain of nB is nD, N ∈ N, while for the case of MBC, the domain is nM ∈ N ∪ {0}

    (A1) where GB(a; v, v′) = ∑ nB ∫ dω 2π ∫ d2k (2π)2 Cn, B(v′)φ(0) n, B(v), (A2) where v = ( v1, v2, v3) and v′ = ( v′1, v′2, v′3). Furthermore, for DBC/NBC, the domain of nB is nD, N ∈ N, while for the case of MBC, the domain is nM ∈ N ∪ {0}. This allowed domain for the case of PBC is nP ∈ Z − {0}. To determine the form of the function Ma(v1, v2) embedded ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    (11) The roughness of the membranes, combined with Lorentz violation in the scalar field, modifies the standard forms of the Green’s function expressions

    + (−1)n cos(kn, Mv′ 3)] ω2 + k2 1+k2 2 L2 + k2 n, M a2 + m2 . (11) The roughness of the membranes, combined with Lorentz violation in the scalar field, modifies the standard forms of the Green’s function expressions. To address these modifications , we provide a detailed derivation of the new Green’s function expressions for all types of boundary conditions ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    M. J. Sparnaay, Physica 24 (1958) 751

    work page 1958

  6. [5]

    S. K. Lamoreaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 5

    work page 1997

  7. [6]

    S. K. Lamoreaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 5475

    work page 1998

  8. [7]

    Mohideen and A

    U. Mohideen and A. Roy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4549

    work page 1998

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Bressi, G

    G. Bressi, G. Carugno, R. Onofrio and G. Ruoso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 041804; arXiv:quant-ph:/0203002

    2002

  2. [9]

    Milton, The Casimir Effect: Physical Manifestations of Zero-Point Ene rgy (Singapore: World Scientific) 2001

    K.A. Milton, The Casimir Effect: Physical Manifestations of Zero-Point Ene rgy (Singapore: World Scientific) 2001

    2001

  3. [10]

    Bordag, G.L

    M. Bordag, G.L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen and V.M. Most epanenko, Advances in the Casimir Effect (New York: Oxford University Press) 2009

    2009

  4. [11]

    Pawlowski and P

    P. Pawlowski and P. Zielenkiewicz, The quantum casimir effect may be a universal force organizing the bilayer structure of the cell membrane , The Journal of membrane biology 246 (2013) 383-389

    2013

  5. [12]

    Gambassi, The Casimir effect: From quantum to critical fluctuations , J

    A. Gambassi, The Casimir effect: From quantum to critical fluctuations , J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 161 (2009) 012037, [arXiv:0812.0935]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [13]

    B. B. Machta, S. L. Veatch, and J. P. Sethna, Critical casimir forces in cellular membranes , Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 138101

    2012

  7. [14]

    Moazzemi, A

    R. Moazzemi, A. Mohammadi, Siamak S. Gousheh, A renormalized perturbation theory for problems with non-t rivial boundary conditions or backgrounds in two space–time dimen sions, Eur. Phys. J. C 56 (2008) 585

    2008

  8. [15]

    Graham, R

    N. Graham, R. Jaffe, H. Weigel, Casimir Effects in Renormalizable Quantum Field Theories , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17 (2002) 846

    2002

  9. [16]

    Graham, R.L

    N. Graham, R.L. Jaffe, V. Khemani, M. Quandt, M. Scandurr a, H. Weigel, Calculating vacuum energies in renormalizable quantum field theories: A new approach to the Casimir problem , Nucl. Phys. B 645 (2002) 49

    2002

  10. [18]

    Melnikov, Phys

    K. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 045002

    2001

  11. [19]

    M. A. Valuyan, Radiative Correction to the Casimir Energy for the Scalar Fi eld with the Mixed Boundary Condition in 3+1 Dimensions, Journal of Research on Many-body Systems, 9 (2019) 187-201. [ArXiv: 1912.08039 (hep-th)] (In Persian)

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Moazzemi, M

    R. Moazzemi, M. Namdar, S.S. Gousheh, The Dirichlet Casimir effect for φ 4 theory in 3 + 1 dimensions: a new renormal- ization approach, JHEP 09 (2007) 029

    2007

  13. [21]

    D. R. da Silva, M. B. Cruz and E. R. Bezerra de Mello, Fermionic Casimir effect in Horava-Lifshitz theories , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34 (2019) 1950107

    2019

  14. [22]

    K. E. L. de Farias, M. A. Anacleto, E. Passos, I. Brevik, H . Mota and J. R. L. Santos, Æther-electromagnetic theory and the Casimir effect , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 125010. 14

    2024

  15. [23]

    M. B. Cruz, E. R. Bezerra de Mello and A. Y. Petrov, Casimir effects in Lorentz-violating scalar field theory , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 045019

    2017

  16. [24]

    Matsui and Y

    H. Matsui and Y. Sakamura, Pauli–Villars Regularization of Kaluza–Klein Casimir Ene rgy with Lorentz Symmetry , Prog. Theo. and Exp. Phys. 2024 043B06

    2024

  17. [25]

    M. B. Cruz, E. R. Bezerra de Mello and A. Y. Petrov, Fermionic Casimir effect in a field theory model with Lorentz symmetry violation , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 085012

    2019

  18. [26]

    Robaschik, K

    D. Robaschik, K. Scharnhorst and E. Wieczorek, Radiative corrections to the Casimir pressure under the infl uence of temperature and external fields , Ann. Phys. 174 (1987) 401

    1987

  19. [27]

    L. H. Ford, Casimir effect for a self-interacting scalar field , Proc. R. Soc. A 368 (1979) 305

    1979

  20. [28]

    Mojavezi, R

    A. Mojavezi, R. Moazzemi and M. E. Zomorrodian, NLO radiative correction to the Casimir energy in Lorentz-v iolating scalar field theory , Nucl. Phys. B 941 (2019) 145–57

    2019

  21. [29]

    Kiani, J

    B. Kiani, J. Sarabadani, Repulsive Casimir interaction between conducting and perm eable corrugated plates , Phys. Rev. A 86 (2012) 022516 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Setare, A

    M.R. Setare, A. Seyedzahedi, Lateral Casimir force between two sinusoidally corrugated eccentric cylinders using proximity force approximation, Acta Phys. Pol. B 45 (2014) 1119. [arXiv:hep-th/1402.3652]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Setare, A

    M.R. Setare, A. Seyedzahedi, Casimir energy between a sinusoidally corrugated sphere an d a plate using proximity force approximation, Indian J. Phys. 90 (2016) 583–588. [arXiv:conmat.other/1311.4022]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D. J. Toms, Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 2805

    1980

  25. [33]

    M. B. Cruz, E. R. Bezerra de Mello and H. F. Santana Mota, P hys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 045006, arXiv:2005.09513

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Santana Mota and G.Q

    P.J.Porf ´ ırio, H.F. Santana Mota and G.Q. Garcia, Int.J.Mod.Phys.D30 (2021) 2150056

    2021

  27. [35]

    A. J. D. F. Junior and H. F. Santana Mota, Phys. Rev. D 107 ( 2023) 125019

    2023

  28. [36]

    Baron, R.M

    F.A. Baron, R.M. Cavalcanti and C. Farina, Radiative co rrections to the Casimir effect for the massive scalar field, N ucl. Phys. 127 (Proc. Suppl.) (2004) 118

    2004

  29. [37]

    Barone, R.M

    F.A. Barone, R.M. Cavalcanti and C. Farina, Radiative c orrections to the Casimir energy in the λ |φ |4 model under quasi-periodic boundary conditions, hep-th/031216

  30. [38]

    Borquez and B

    V. Borquez and B. Droguett, Casimir effect of a rough membrane in 2+1 Horava-Lifshitz theo ry, Eur. phys. J. C 84 (2024) 62

    2024

  31. [39]

    Borquez and B

    V. Borquez and B. Droguett, Casimir effect of a rough membrane in an Aether-likevLorentz- violating scenario , ArXiv: 2404.13187v2 (hep-th)

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Moazzemi, Siamak S

    R. Moazzemi, Siamak S. Gousheh, A new renormalization approach to the Dirichlet Casimir effec t for φ 4 theory in 1+1 dimensions, Phys Lett. B 658 (2008) 255-265

    2008

  33. [41]

    M. A. Valuyan, Radiative correction to the Casimir energy for Lorentz-vio lating scalar field in d+1 dimensions , Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35 (2020) 2050149

    2020

  34. [42]

    M. A. Valuyan, The Casimir energy for scalar field with mixed boundary condi tion, Int. J. Geo. Meth. Mod. Phys. 15 (2018) 1850172

    2018

  35. [43]

    Seltzer, Finite temperature Casimir effect for charged massless scala rs in a magnetic field , Phys

    Andrea Erdas and Kevin P. Seltzer, Finite temperature Casimir effect for charged massless scala rs in a magnetic field , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 105007

    2013

  36. [44]

    Nesterenko, G

    V.V. Nesterenko, G. Lambiaseb, G. Scarpetta, Calculation of the Casimir energy at zero and finite temperat ure: some recent results, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 27 (2004) 1-74; [arXiv: hep-th/0503100]

    2004 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Romeo, K.A

    A. Romeo, K.A. Milton, Casimir energy for a purely dielectric cylinder by the mode s ummation method, Phys. Lett. B 621 (2005) 309

    2005

  38. [46]

    de la Luz, A.D.H., Moreno, M.A.R., Casimir Force Between Two Spatially Dispersive Dielectric Parallel Slabs , Braz. J. Phys. 41 (2011) 216–222

    2011

  39. [47]

    Brevik, V.V

    I.H. Brevik, V.V. Nesterenko, I.G. Pirozhenko, Direct mode summation for the Casimir energy of a solid ball , J. Phys. A 31 (1998) 8661

    1998

  40. [48]

    Nesterenko, I.G

    V.V. Nesterenko, I.G. Pirozhenko, J. Math. Phys. 41 (2000) 4521

    2000

  41. [49]

    M. A. Valuyan, The Dirichlet Casimir energy for φ 4 theory in a rectangular waveguide , J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 45 (2018) 095006

    2018

  42. [50]

    M. B. Cruz, E. R. Bezerra de Mello and A. Yu. Petrov, Casimir effects in Lorentz-violating scalar field theory , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 045019

    2017

  43. [51]

    M. B. Cruz, E. R. Bezerra de Mello and A. Yu. Petrov, Fermionic Casimir effect in a field theory model with Lorentz symmetry violation , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 085012

    2019

  44. [52]

    D. R. da Silva, M. B. Cruz and E. R. Bezerra de Mello, Fermionic Casimir effect in Horava–Lifshitz theories , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34 (2019) 1950107

    2019

  45. [53]

    M. A. Valuyan, One-loop correction to the Casimir energy in Lifshitz-like theory, Int. J. Geo. Meth. Mod. Phys. 18 (2021) 2150204

    2021

  46. [54]

    Henrici, Applied and Computational Complex Analysis , vol

    P. Henrici, Applied and Computational Complex Analysis , vol. 1, Wiley, New York, 1984

    1984

  47. [55]

    Whittaker, G.N

    E.T. Whittaker, G.N. Watson, A Course of Modern Analysis , Cambridge Univ. Press, 1958

    1958

  48. [56]

    A. A. Saharian, The generalized Abel-Plana formula. Applications to Besse l functions and Casimir effect , arXiv:hep-th/0002239v1

    arXiv

Pith tools

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