Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 59 references

Gravitational Casimir-Polder interaction in a thermal bath

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper claims that in a thermal bath, the gravitational Casimir-Polder force between a gravitationally polarizable object and a gravitational mirror is controlled jointly by temperature, polarization, and distance, with…

desk verdict The paper's thermal gravitational CP results are plausible and worth refereeing, but the reader's on-shell residue objection is likely a red herring; the real problem is that the contour evaluation and high-temperature asymptotics are never shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08128 v1 pith:PTNGNMRJ submitted 2026-08-08 quant-ph

Shijing Cheng , Tianxin Wang , Zili Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords gravitationalCasimir-PolderinteractionthermalbathgravitonsDirichletboundaryradiationreactionfluctuationspolarizationeffectsattractiveforce
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 asks what happens to the gravitational analogue of the Casimir-Polder force when the space between a gravitationally polarizable two-level object and an infinite gravitational mirror is filled with a thermal bath of gravitons. Using the split between thermal fluctuations (tf) and radiation reaction (rr), it obtains the total interaction potential as a vacuum part plus a real-axis thermal integral, and shows that the rr part is temperature-independent while the tf part carries all thermal effects. The paper's central result is that at high temperature the distance scaling and even the sign of the force become controlled by the polarization configuration: a vertical-planar polarizable object sees a $\sim T L^{-1}$ potential, a vertical-axial polarizable object experiences an attractive force, and at the largest distances the potential oscillates with $L$, flipping between attraction and repulsion. If correct, this means thermal gravitons are not a small correction but an active control mechanism for quantum gravitational interactions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the thermal two-point correlation function of the gravito-electric tensor $E_{ij}=-\nabla_i\nabla_j\phi$ evaluated on the thermal state in the presence of the Dirichlet boundary. Its tensor structure is fixed by the polarization sum in Eq. (15) and is packaged into the function $G_{ijkl}(\omega L)=f_{ijkl}(\omega L)\cos(2\omega L)+g_{ijkl}(\omega L)\sin(2\omega L)$ in Eq. (19); inserting $G_{ijkl}$ into the fluctuation-radiation-reaction separation yields the total potential Eq. (26). The argument then proceeds by expanding $f_{ijkl}$ and $g_{ijkl}$ in each distance and temperature regime to read off the scaling laws and signs.

What would settle it

An independent calculation of the thermal gravito-electric two-point function near a Dirichlet boundary, for instance a method-of-images construction of the thermal propagator for the linearized Weyl tensor, could be compared component by component with Eqs. (19)-(21); any sign flip in an off-diagonal component would erase the predicted attractive vertical-axial branch. A direct force measurement on a vertical-axial polarizable object in the regime $\sqrt{\beta\lambda}\ll L\ll\lambda$ would also distinguish the predicted attraction from the universally repulsive vacuum force.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the gravitational Casimir-Polder potential of a ground-state, gravitationally polarizable two-level object in front of an infinite gravitational Dirichlet boundary inside a thermal bath is given by Eq. (26): an imaginary-frequency vacuum integral plus a real-frequency thermal integral weighted by the Bose-Einstein factor. From this formula, the radiation-reaction contribution Eq. (25) is exactly temperature-independent and identical to the vacuum result, while the thermal-fluctuation contribution Eq. (24) separates into a zero-point part and a thermal part. In the high-temperature regime the thermal part dominates and produces qualitatively new distance laws: for $\sqrt[4]{\beta\lambda^3}\ll L\ll\lambda$ with vertical-planar polarization the total potential scales as $T L^{-1}$; for $\sqrt{\beta\lambda}\ll L\ll\lambda$ with vertical-axial polarization the force becomes attractive; and for $\beta\ll\lambda\ll L$ the potential oscillates with $L$, making the force attractive, repulsive, or zero depending on the exact distance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the polarization-sum rule imported as Eq. (15) gives the complete tensor structure of the thermal gravito-electric correlations at a gravitational Dirichlet boundary; if that mode decomposition is not what a physical gravitational mirror produces, every subsequent scaling law and sign prediction would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The total potential in a thermal bath reduces exactly to the vacuum gravitational Casimir-Polder result when $\beta\to\infty$; thermal effects enter only through the Bose-Einstein-weighted real-axis integral.
  • The radiation-reaction part is temperature-independent and identical to vacuum, so any temperature effect in the total potential must come from thermal fluctuations of the graviton field.
  • In the high-temperature intermediate-distance window $\beta\ll L\ll\lambda$, polarization controls the outcome: vertical-planar polarization gives a $TL^{-1}$ scaling, vertical-axial polarization gives attraction, and the other configurations give $TL^{-3}$ repulsion.
  • At extremely high temperatures and large distances ($\beta\ll\lambda\ll L$), the temperature-driven oscillatory terms no longer cancel with radiation reaction, so the force can reverse sign and even vanish at specific distances.
  • In the low-temperature regime the oscillatory terms from thermal fluctuations and radiation reaction cancel exactly, leaving monotonic repulsive forces that scale as $L^{-6}$, $L^{-7}$, or $TL^{-5}$ depending on the distance window.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors leave implicit: the thermal-bath control could be used to probe gravitational vacuum fluctuations, since raising the temperature isolates the thermal-fluctuation contribution against the temperature-blind radiation-reaction background.
  • If a physical gravitational mirror has finite reflectivity, the exact cancellation of oscillatory terms in the low-temperature regime will be imperfect, so the predicted monotonic $L^{-7}$ window may acquire subleading oscillations; this is testable in a more realistic model.
  • The $TL^{-1}$ scaling decays far more slowly than any vacuum power law, so in a hot environment the gravitational Casimir-Polder force could dominate over ordinary Casimir forces at intermediate distances, an order-of-magnitude estimate in a concrete material setup could reveal.
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 extends the gravitational Casimir-Polder interaction between a gravitationally polarizable two-level object and an infinite Dirichlet boundary from vacuum to a thermal bath at temperature T. Using the Dalibard-Dupont-Roc-Cohen-Tannoudji separation into thermal fluctuations and radiation reaction, the authors derive candidate formulas for the interaction potential, Eq. (26), and then present asymptotic tables for low- and high-temperature regimes. The central physical claims are that at high temperatures the potential can scale as T L^{-1} for vertical-planar polarization in the window (βλ^3)^{1/4} ≪ L ≪ λ, that the force becomes attractive for vertical-axial polarization when (βλ)^{1/2} ≪ L ≪ λ, and that at very high temperatures and large distances the potential oscillates with L. The radiation-reaction contribution is claimed to be temperature-independent, and the total potential is presented as a vacuum term plus a thermal real-axis integral.

Significance. If the asymptotic results are correct, the paper makes a genuine and falsifiable prediction: temperature, polarization orientation, and distance jointly determine the magnitude, scaling, and sign of the gravitational Casimir-Polder force. The work is parameter-free and built on an established DDC correlation-function formalism, and the extension from vacuum gravitational CP interactions to finite temperature is a natural and previously missing step. The main weakness is verification: the central frequency integrals and their asymptotic evaluations are asserted rather than derived, no numerical checks are given, and the principal-value treatment of the pole in Eq. (26) is not stated. The specific reader-level objection about a missing thermal on-shell residue appears misplaced, because the potential is real and the u=ω0 pole should be treated by principal value; the real problem is that the contour treatment and high-temperature asymptotics are absent.

major comments (4)
  1. [III (between Eqs. (23) and (24))] The transition from the correlation functions to the central formulas is not shown. After substituting Eqs. (17), (18), (22) and (23) into Eqs. (4) and (5), the text states in one sentence that the remaining frequency integrals are evaluated by contour integration and the residue theorem, and then writes Eq. (24). This is the derivation of every subsequent result, including Eq. (26) and all tables, so it must be displayed at least in outline. In particular, the first integral in Eq. (26) has a pole at u=ω0 on the integration contour; the paper must state the principal-value prescription or specify the contour deformation used. A pure on-shell delta/residue term is not expected for this real ground-state energy shift, but the reader cannot infer the prescription from the manuscript as written.
  2. [IV.B, Eq. (30), Tabs. IV-VI] The high-temperature asymptotic entries are presented without derivation. The integrals are not elementary: for β≪L≪λ the Bose factor 1/(e^{βu}-1) behaves as T/u over most of the relevant range, the denominator (ω0^2-u^2) changes sign, and the large-u behavior is cut off by the exponential at u~1/β while f and g grow as powers of uL. The manuscript gives no asymptotic master formula, no contour treatment, and no numerical evaluation. Consequently the claimed T L^{-1} and T L^{-3} scalings, the attractive zz branch in Tab. V, and the oscillatory branch in Tab. VI cannot be checked from the submitted text. These entries are load-bearing for the abstract's central qualitative predictions.
  3. [IV.B.2, near Tab. V] The sign-reversal statements for the temperature-independent terms are unsupported by any displayed expansion. The text says that upon entering β≪L≪λ the leading temperature-independent terms undergo a clear sign reverse, and Tab. V contains T0 terms that change sign. Such terms plausibly arise from the high-temperature expansion of the Bose factor, for example the -1/2 term in T/u - 1/2 + ..., but that expansion and its validity in the stated distance windows are never shown. The derivation should be supplied or the sign statements should be downgraded.
  4. [IV.A, Tabs. II-III] The claimed exact cancellation of the oscillatory M_{klkl} terms between the tf- and rr-contributions is a striking and nontrivial result, but it is only stated, not derived. Since the cancellation determines the entire total potential in the low-temperature intermediate- and long-distance regions, the paper should provide the explicit high- or low-temperature expansion of Eq. (30) that produces the residual non-oscillatory terms, including the T L^{-5} entry in Tab. III.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction and V] There are language errors such as 'increasing attentions' in the Introduction and 'overweighs' in the Summary; these should be corrected.
  2. [Eqs. (8)-(9), (14)] The symbol β is used both for the thermal state |β⟩ and for the inverse temperature β=1/T, which makes some passages ambiguous; a different symbol for the thermal state would help.
  3. [Eq. (27)] The notation |q_{kl}|^2 (δE)_h^{kl} is used without stating the summation convention over repeated indices; please state it explicitly.
  4. [IV.B.2] The text switches between potential and force when describing distance dependences near Tab. V: the table entries are potentials, while the text phrases such as 'a novel distance dependence appears, ∼ L^{-2}' describe the corresponding force. The distinction should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Eq. (15)] The polarization sum in Eq. (15) is imported from Ref. [21] without derivation; since it is a load-bearing input for the correlation functions, a short appendix or a remark that Eq. (15) is a mode-completeness identity independent of thermal occupation would strengthen the paper.
  6. [References] Ref. [32] is cited as 'Modern Physics Letters A (2026)' without volume or page; a complete citation is needed because the paper relies on the formalism and results of that reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the thermal gravitational CP potential is derived from a stated Hamiltonian, thermal field correlations, and contour integrals, with no fitted parameters; self-citations are methodological only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equations (17) and (18) are obtained by inserting the quantized transverse-traceless mode expansion (11) into the gravito-electric tensor (12) and evaluating thermal expectation values with the occupation numbers in Eq. (14); the polarization sum (15) is imported from Ref. [21], which is independent of the present authors and is not derived from the claimed result. Equations (4) and (5) restate the standard DDC split; Ref. [32] is a self-citation for the vacuum version of that split, but the present paper re-derives the necessary statistical functions and performs the thermal-state replacement explicitly, so the citation is not load-bearing in the sense of making the conclusion equivalent to a prior unverified premise. No parameter is fitted and no external dataset is predicted; the high-temperature tables and scaling laws are asymptotic evaluations of the integrals in Eq. (26). The unstated principal-value prescription for the u = omega_0 pole is a mathematical rigor and verifiability issue, not a circularity.

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

The calculation rests on standard low-energy quantum gravity, the Dirichlet mode sum, the two-level quadrupole model, and an unshown contour integration that may omit a thermal on-shell residue. There are no fitted parameters and no new entities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Linearized quantum gravity in a canonical thermal state: the gravitational field modes are populated according to the Bose-Einstein factors in Eq. (14), and graviton self-interactions are neglected.
    Invoked in Eqs. (13)-(14) to construct the thermal field correlation functions; standard low-energy effective theory assumption.
  • domain assumption The Dirichlet mode sum and polarization sum rule, Eq. (15) from Ref. [21], give the complete tensor structure of the thermal gravito-electric correlations with the boundary.
    Eq. (15) defines the G_ijkl functions in Eqs. (19)-(21); an incorrect sum rule changes all potentials.
  • domain assumption The object is a ground-state two-level system with Hamiltonian coupling -1/2 Q_ij E_ij and free transition matrix elements q_ij and frequency ω0 (Eqs. (1)-(3), (22)-(23)).
    Standard DDC idealization; ignores multilevel structure, back-reaction, and bath-induced level shifts.
  • ad hoc to paper The real-axis frequency integrals in Eqs. (24)-(26) are evaluated by contour integration with the residue structure shown, and no thermal on-shell residue at u=ω0 survives.
    Stated in one sentence between Eqs. (23) and (24); the on-shell residue handling is not shown and appears to omit the Bose-weighted term.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Casimir-Polder interaction in a thermal bath." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PTNGNMRJ

@misc{pith2026260808128,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Casimir-Polder interaction in a thermal bath},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PTNGNMRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08128}
}
abstract

We have investigated, by separating the contributions from thermal fluctuations (tf) and the radiation reaction (rr), the gravitational Casimir-Polder interaction between a gravitationally polarizable two-level object and an infinite gravitational Dirichlet boundary in a thermal bath at a temperature $T$. The results indicate that the rr-contribution to the interaction potential is independent of the temperature, whereas the tf-contribution is generally governed by a nontrivial interplay between the thermal corrections and the polarization effect. Here, the object-to-boundary distance, the characteristic transition wavelength of the object and the thermal wavelength of gravitons are denoted by $L$, $\lambda$ and $\beta$, respectively. In contrast to the vacuum case, where the interaction potential scales as $L^{-5}$ for $L\ll\lambda$ and $L^{-6}$ for $L\gg\lambda$, corresponding to an always repulsive force, qualitatively new behaviors emerge at high temperatures. Particularly, when $\sqrt[4]{\beta\lambda^3}\ll L\ll\lambda$ and the object is polarizable within the plane perpendicular to the boundary, a novel scaling of $TL^{-1}$ arises; when $\sqrt{\beta\lambda}\ll L\ll\lambda$ and the object is polarizable along the vertical-to-boundary axis, the interaction force becomes surprisingly attractive. At extremely high temperatures and large distances, i.e. when $\beta\ll \lambda\ll L$, the potential oscillates with the distance $L$ and thus an attractive or repulsive and even vanishing force can be resulted, depending on the exact values of $L$. Our work demonstrates that thermal gravitons can act as an active control mechanism for quantum gravitational interactions, and temperature, polarization configuration, and object-to-boundary distance jointly determine the magnitude, scaling law, and even the attractive or repulsive nature of the interaction force.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Antezza, Surface-atom force out of thermal equilibrium and its effect on ultra-cold atoms , J

    M. Antezza, Surface-atom force out of thermal equilibrium and its effect on ultra-cold atoms , J. Phys. A 39, 6117 (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [1]

    Short-distance region L ≪ λ ≪ β We begin with the short-distance region L ≪ λ ≪ β. The corresponding results for the tf-contribution (δE)kl tf , the rr-contribution ( δE)kl rr and the total gravitational CP potential (δE)kl tot , obtained from the general expressions in Eqs. (28)-(30), are summarized in Tab. I. 9 T ABLE I:The results in the low-temperatur...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Intermediate-distance region λ ≪ L ≪ β When the object-to-boundary distance L is much larger than the characteristic transition wavelength of the object λ, the rr-contributions to the gravitational CP potential (δE)kl rr are accurately depicted by Eq. (29). It can be clearly seen that, in all polarization configurations, these rr-contributions generally e...

    work page

  4. [3]

    (29), showing a characteristic oscillatory dependence on the distance L

    Long-distance region λ ≪ β ≪ L In the long-distance region where the condition L ≫ λ still holds, the rr-contributions to the gravitational CP potentials ( δE)kl rr remain completely identical to those in the intermediate-distance region λ ≪ L ≪ β and are accurately described by Eq. (29), showing a characteristic oscillatory dependence on the distance L. ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    IV presents a comprehensive summary, based on Eqs

    Short-distance region L ≪ β ≪ λ Tab. IV presents a comprehensive summary, based on Eqs. (28)-(30), of the approximate results for the tf-contribution ( δE)kl tf , the rr-contribution ( δE)kl rr and the total gravitational 13 CP potential ( δE)kl tot in the high-temperature short-distance region L ≪ β ≪ λ. T ABLE IV:The results in the high-temperature shor...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Intermediate-distance region β ≪ L ≪ λ In accordance with the results summarized in Tab. V, both the tf-contributions to and the total gravitational CP potentials in the high-temperature intermediate-distance region β ≪ L ≪ λ can be drastically influenced by temperature, and compared with the behaviors observed in the regions L ≪ λ ≪ β and L ≪ β ≪ λ, a va...

    work page

  7. [6]

    VI, we present the approximated results for the gravitational CP potential in the long-distance region β ≪ λ ≪ L, which also corresponds to an extremely high-temperature limit

    Long-distance region β ≪ λ ≪ L In Tab. VI, we present the approximated results for the gravitational CP potential in the long-distance region β ≪ λ ≪ L, which also corresponds to an extremely high-temperature limit. Similar to the high-temperature intermediate-distance region β ≪ L ≪ λ, the temperature-induced effects manifest themselves in two aspects. O...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Bordag, U

    M. Bordag, U. Mohideen, and V. M. Mostepanenko, New developments in the Casimir effect , Phys. Rep. 353, 1 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and V. M. Mostepanenko, The Casimir force between real materials: Experiment and theory , Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1827 (2009)

    2009

  2. [9]

    Bordag, G

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

    2009

  3. [10]

    H. B. G. Casimir and D. Polder, The influence of retardation on the London-van der Waals forces, Phys. Rev. 73, 360 (1948)

    1948

  4. [11]

    E. M. Lifshitz, The theory of molecular attractive forces between solids , Sov. Phys. JETP 2, 73 (1956)

    1956

  5. [12]

    I. E. Dzyaloshinskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii, The general theory of van der Waals forces, Adv. Phys. 10, 165 (1961)

    1961

  6. [13]

    Zhou and L

    F. Zhou and L. Spruch, Van der Waals and retardation (Casimir) interactions of an electron or an atom with multilayered walls , Phys. Rev. A 52, 297 (1995)

    1995

  7. [14]

    Wu and C

    S. Wu and C. Eberlein, Quantum electrodynamics of an atom in front of a non-dispersive dielectric half-space. II. Effects of finite temperature , Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 456, 1931 (2000)

    2000

  8. [15]

    Eberlein and R

    C. Eberlein and R. Zietal, Force on a neutral atom near conducting microstructures , Phys. Rev. A 75, 032516 (2007)

    2007

  9. [16]

    K. A. Milton et al., Casimir-Polder repulsion near edges: Wedge apex and a screen with an aperture, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062507 (2011)

    2011

  10. [17]

    Rizzuto, Casimir-Polder interaction between an accelerated two-level system and an infinite plate, Phys

    L. Rizzuto, Casimir-Polder interaction between an accelerated two-level system and an infinite plate, Phys. Rev. A 76, 062114 (2007)

    2007

  11. [18]

    Rizzuto and S

    L. Rizzuto and S. Spagnolo, Lamb shift of a uniformly accelerated hydrogen atom in the pres- ence of a conducting plate , Phys. Rev. A 79, 062110 (2009)

    2009

  12. [19]

    Zhu and H

    Z. Zhu and H. Yu, Position-dependent energy-level shifts of an accelerated atom in the presence 19 of a boundary , Phys. Rev. A 82, 042108 (2010)

    2010

  13. [20]

    Antezza, L

    M. Antezza, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, New asymptotic behavior of the surface-atom force out of thermal equilibrium , Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 113202 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    J. M. Obrecht, R. J. Wild, M. Antezza, L. P. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, and E. A. Cornell, Measurement of the temperature dependence of the Casimir-Polder force, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 063201 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    S. Y. Buhmann and S. Scheel, Thermal Casimir versus Casimir-Polder forces: Equilibrium and nonequilibrium forces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 253201 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Zhu and H

    Z. Zhu and H. Yu, Modification of energy shifts of atoms by the presence of a boundary in a thermal bath and the Casimir-Polder force , Phys. Rev. A 79, 032902 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    W. She, H. Yu, and Z. Zhu, Thermal Casimir-Polder interaction between an atom and a conducting wall , Phys. Rev. A 81, 012108 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    L. H. Ford and N. F. Svaiter, Gravitons and light cone fluctuations , Phys. Rev. D 54, 2640 (1996)

    1996

  19. [27]

    Yu and L

    H. Yu and L. H. Ford, Light-cone fluctuations in flat spacetimes with nontrivial topology, Phys. Rev. D 60, 084023 (1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    H. Yu, N. F. Svaiter, and L. H. Ford, Quantum light-cone fluctuations in compactified space- times, Phys. Rev. D 80, 124019 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Cheng, H

    S. Cheng, H. Yu, and J. Hu, Quantum fluctuations of spacetime generate quantum entangle- ment between gravitationally polarizable subsystems , Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 954 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Cheng, J

    S. Cheng, J. Hu, and H. Yu, Spontaneous excitation of an accelerated atom coupled with quantum fluctuations of spacetime , Phys. Rev. D, 100, 025010 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    J. Q. Quach, Gravitational Casimir effect , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 081104 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    L. H. Ford, M. P. Hertzberg, and J. Karouby, Quantum gravitational force between polarizable objects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 151301 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Pinto, Gravitational Casimir effect, the Lifshitz theory, and the existence of gravitons , Classical Quantum Gravity 33, 237001 (2016)

    F. Pinto, Gravitational Casimir effect, the Lifshitz theory, and the existence of gravitons , Classical Quantum Gravity 33, 237001 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    P. Wu, J. Hu, and H. Yu, Quantum correction to classical gravitational interaction between two polarizable objects , Phys. Lett. B 763, 40 (2016). 20

    2016

  27. [35]

    Hu and H

    J. Hu and H. Yu, Gravitational Casimir-Polder effect , Phys. Lett. B, 767, 16 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Hu and D

    Y. Hu and D. Wen, Dynamical gravitational Casimir-Polder interaction , Phys. Rev. D 112, 026010 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Hu and D

    Y. Hu and D. Wen, Gravitational Casimir-Polder interaction between an excited nonpointlike object and a gravitational boundary , Phys. Rev. D 112, 044017 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Cheng and Z

    S. Cheng and Z. Zhang, The quantum interaction between a gravitationally polarizable object and a gravitational Neumann boundary , Modern Physics Letters A (2026)

    2026

  31. [39]

    Smolin, On the intrinsic entropy of the gravitational field , Gen

    L. Smolin, On the intrinsic entropy of the gravitational field , Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 17, 417 (1985)

    1985

  32. [40]

    S. J. Minter, K. Wegter-McNelly, and R. Y. Chiao, Do mirrors for gravitational waves exist? , Physica (Amsterdam) 42E, 234 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    R. Y. Chiao, J. S. Sharping, L. A. Martinez, B. S. Kang, A. Castelli, N. Inan, and J. J. Thompson, Dynamical Casimir effect and the possibility of laser-like generation of gravita- tional radiation, arXiv:1712.08680

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Dalibard, J

    J. Dalibard, J. Dupont-Roc, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Vacuum fluctuations and radiation reaction: identification of their respective contributions , J. Phys. (Paris) 43, 1617 (1982)

    1982

  35. [43]

    Dalibard, J

    J. Dalibard, J. Dupont-Roc, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Dynamics of a small system coupled to a reservoir: reservoir fluctuations and self-Reaction , J. Phys. (Paris) 45, 637 (1984)

    1984

  36. [44]

    Audretsch and R

    J. Audretsch and R. M¨ uller,Spontaneous excitation of an accelerated atom: The contributions of vacuum fluctuations and radiation reaction , Phys. Rev. A 50, 1755 (1994)

    1994

  37. [45]

    Z. Zhu, H. Yu, and S. Lu, Spontaneous excitation of an accelerated hydrogen atom coupled with electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations , Phys. Rev. D 73, 107501 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Zhu and H

    Z. Zhu and H. Yu, Fulling-Davies-Unruh effect and spontaneous excitation of an accelerated atom interacting with a quantum scalar field , Phys. Lett. B 645, 459 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Y. Jin, J. Hu, and H. Yu, Spontaneous excitation of a circularly accelerated atom coupled to electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations , Ann. Phys. 344, 97 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Audretsch and R

    J. Audretsch and R. M¨ uller,Radiative energy shifts of an accelerated two-level system , Phys. Rev. A 52, 629 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    Audretsch, R

    J. Audretsch, R. M¨ uller, and M. Holzmann,Generalized Unruh effect and Lamb shift for atoms on arbitrary stationary trajectories , Class. Quantum Grav. 12, 2927 (1995)

    1995

  42. [50]

    J. L. Tomazelli and L. C. Costa, Atomic radiative transitions in thermo field dynamics , Int. 21 J. Mod. Phys. A 18, 1079 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    Marino, A

    J. Marino, A. Noto, and R. Passante, Thermal and nonthermal signatures of the Unruh effect in Casimir-Polder forces , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020403 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Rizzuto, M

    L. Rizzuto, M. Lattuca, J. Marino, A. Noto, S. Spagnolo, W. Zhou, and R. Passante, Non- thermal effects of acceleration in the resonance interaction between two uniformly accelerated atoms, Phys. Rev. A 94, 012121 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Menezes, C

    G. Menezes, C. Kiefer, and J. Marino, Thermal and nonthermal scaling of the Casimir-Polder interaction in a black hole spacetime , Phys. Rev. D 95, 085014 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Zhou and H

    W. Zhou and H. Yu, Boundarylike behaviors of the resonance interatomic energy in a cosmic string spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 97, 045007 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    W. Zhou, S. Cheng, and H. Yu, Interatomic interaction of two ground-state atoms in vacuum: Contributions of vacuum fluctuations and radiation reaction, Phys. Rev. A103, 012227 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Cheng, W

    S. Cheng, W. Zhou, and H. Yu, Probing long-range properties of vacuum altered by uniformly accelerating two spatially separated Unruh-DeWitt detectors, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137440 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Menezes and N

    G. Menezes and N. F. Svaiter, Radiative processes of two entangled atoms outside a schwarzschild black hole , Phys. Rev. A 92, 062131 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    Menezes and N

    G. Menezes and N. F. Svaiter, Radiative processes of uniformly accelerated entangled atoms , Phys. Rev. A 93, 052117 (2016)

    2016

  51. [59]

    Zhou and H

    W. Zhou and H. Yu, Radiation-reaction-induced transitions of two maximally entangled atoms in noninertial motion , Phys. Rev. D 101, 025009 (2020). 22

    2020

Pith tools

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