Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Casimir Effect in Stochastic Semi-Classical Gravity

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 A weak gravitational field changes the Casimir force between plates by a first-order term proportional to g and 1/L^3, the paper argues.

desk verdict The advertised stochastic-gravity correction is never derived; the paper's final result is a known Fermi-coordinate Casimir force, and the Einstein-Langevin machinery is unused. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01415 v1 pith:HAGDCPIO submitted 2025-01-02 quant-ph

M.Hossein. B.Khoshnevis , Sadaf Ebadi , M. Reza Lahooti , Reza Pirmoradian This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords CasimireffectstochasticsemiclassicalgravityEinstein-LangevinequationweakgravitationalfieldFermicoordinatesvacuumfluctuationscorrectionparallelplates
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 seeks to show that a weak gravitational field modifies the Casimir attraction between two parallel conducting plates, and that the modification is a first-order effect in the gravitational acceleration $g$. Working in stochastic semi-classical gravity—gravity sourced by the vacuum's quantum stress tensor plus its fluctuations—the authors couple the standard Casimir energy per unit area, $\mathcal{E}_C = -\pi^2/(720L^3)$, to a weak-field metric through Fermi coordinates. Their central result, Eq. (35), is $F^F/A = -g\mathcal{E}_C$, meaning the gravitational correction is linear in $g$ and inversely proportional to $L^3$. If correct, this gives a concrete prediction for how a gravitational field alters a measurable vacuum force.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three pieces: the vacuum stress tensor of a conformally coupled scalar field between plates, $\langle T^\mu{}_\nu\rangle = (\mathcal{E}_C/L)\,\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,1,3)$; the gauge transformation $h_{\mu\nu}\to h_{\mu\nu}+\partial_\mu \varsigma_\nu+\partial_\nu \varsigma_\mu$ that converts isotropic coordinates to Fermi coordinates; and the Fermi metric $ds^2 = -(1+2gz)dt^2 + d\mathbf{r}'^2$. The energy shift is computed from $\Delta W = -2\int (dx)\,\varsigma^\nu \partial_\mu T^\mu{}_\nu$, yielding $\Delta E_g = -A g \mathcal{E}_C z_0$. This conversion is what turns the flat-space Casimir energy into a gravitational response.

What would settle it

Solve the linearized Einstein-Langevin equation with the plate stress tensor as the source and check whether the metric perturbation at order $g$ equals the purely gauge-transformed Fermi metric; any extra contribution from the noise kernel would add a term to $F^F/A$. A more direct check is whether the divergence $\partial_\mu T^{\mu\nu}$ used in $\Delta W$ has additional stochastic components that were omitted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Casimir force per unit area in the presence of a weak gravitational field, as measured in Fermi coordinates, is $F^F/A = -g\mathcal{E}_C$, where $\mathcal{E}_C = -\pi^2/(720L^3)$ is the standard flat-spacetime Casimir energy per unit area. The calculation obtains an energy shift $\Delta E_g = -A g \mathcal{E}_C z_0$, from which the force change per unit area is $\Delta F/A = g\mathcal{E}_C$. Adding this to the isotropic gravitational force $F^I = -2g\mathcal{E}_C$ yields the Fermi-frame force $F^F = -g\mathcal{E}_C$. The authors present this as the first-order correction to the Casimir force that follows from the Einstein-Langevin equation in the stochastic semi-classical gravity framework.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes the flat-space plate stress tensor is unchanged in the stochastic weak-field setting, so that gravity enters only through the Fermi-coordinate gauge field and the noise kernel contributes nothing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed plate separation $L$, the gravitational correction to the Casimir force is linear in the local gravitational acceleration $g$.
  • At fixed $g$, the correction scales as $1/L^3$, so it becomes more pronounced for closely spaced plates.
  • The force per unit area is independent of the plate area $A$, while the total force change $\Delta F$ grows linearly with $A$.
  • The result is a first-order weak-field correction; going beyond it would require retaining higher orders in the Fermi-coordinate expansion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The derivation in Section 4 never invokes the noise kernel of the Einstein-Langevin equation; showing whether stress-energy fluctuations contribute to the metric perturbation at order $g$ would either complete or change the claimed result.
  • The same gauge-field calculation could be applied to other boundary geometries, such as spheres or cylinders, giving gravitational corrections proportional to the relevant vacuum energy with the same $g$ prefactor.
  • Because the correction scales as $1/L^3$, precision Casimir experiments with tunable plate separation might in principle constrain this gravitational term if background gravity gradients can be controlled tightly enough.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reviews the standard flat-space Casimir effect and then aims to compute a first-order stochastic-gravity correction to the Casimir force. Sections 2 and 3 introduce the semiclassical Einstein-Langevin equation and the noise kernel, and rederive the Minkowski-space Casimir energy density and pressure. Section 4 starts from the Brown-Maclay vacuum stress tensor, applies a gauge transformation from isotropic to Fermi coordinates, and obtains Eq. (35), -g E_C = F^F/A, which the conclusion describes as a first-order correction derived by incorporating the Einstein-Langevin equation. On reading the manuscript, the central claim is not supported: Section 4 never uses the Einstein-Langevin equation, the noise kernel, or the fluctuation-dissipation relation introduced in Section 2, and Eq. (35) is explicitly identified with the previously published Fermi-force result of Refs. [22,42-44].

Significance. If the manuscript actually derived a stochastic-gravity correction to the Casimir force, it would be a useful contribution to the semiclassical-gravity literature. The flat-space Casimir review in Section 3 is standard and the final weak-field relation Eq. (35) is a real result with a clear falsifiable prediction, and the paper contains no fitted parameters. However, the advertised novelty is absent: the calculation leading to Eq. (35) is a coordinate/gauge transformation applied to the known Brown-Maclay stress tensor, not a solution of the Einstein-Langevin equation. The paper may have value as a compact review of weak-field Casimir gravity, but as a research claim about stochastic gravity it does not establish its central assertion.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (27)-(35)] Eq. (10) is not the Einstein-Langevin equation of stochastic semiclassical gravity. The noise source in such an equation is a stochastic tensor field, typically written as a linearized metric perturbation or a Gaussian stochastic source whose two-point correlation is the noise kernel, whereas Eq. (10) instead integrates the two-point function N_μν(x,x') directly into the field equation. Moreover, the definition of N_μν(x,x') as ⟨δT_μν(x)δT_μν(x')⟩ has fully contracted indices, so it cannot provide the free indices required for the left-hand side of Eq. (10). Eq. (11) has the same index-structure problem: the left side is a contracted two-point function, while the right side is a local functional derivative; a proper fluctuation-dissipation relation involves a four-index noise kernel and a nonlocal dissipation kernel. Because these equations are the announced stochastic ingredients and are never used in Section 4, they cannot underwrite the paper's conclusion.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (33)-(35)] The advertised stochastic correction is not computed. The section begins with the Brown-Maclay stress tensor Eq. (27), applies the gauge transformation Eq. (29) and the Fermi-coordinate metric Eqs. (31)-(32), and integrates to obtain the energy shift ΔE_g and Eq. (35). No term involving the noise kernel N_μν, the Einstein-Langevin equation, or the fluctuation-dissipation relation appears anywhere in this calculation. Eq. (34) explicitly identifies the resulting expression with the Fermi force as obtained in Refs. [22,42-44], which means Eq. (35) is a restatement of a known weak-field Casimir result rather than a new stochastic-gravity correction. To support the conclusion in the final paragraph, the authors would need to solve or at least use the linearized Einstein-Langevin equation with the stochastic source and show how the noise kernel modifies the stress tensor or the metric; a coordinate transformation of the flat-space Brown-Maclay tensor cannot do this.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (32)] The notation in Eqs. (33)-(35) mixes force with force per unit area. Eq. (33) defines ΔF/A as the negative area-normalized derivative of ΔE_g with respect to z0, so it is a pressure; the text then defines F^I = -2gE_C and writes F^I + ΔF/A in Eq. (34). If F^I is intended to be a force, then adding it to a pressure is dimensionally inconsistent, whereas if F^I is intended to be a pressure, it should be written as F^I/A. Since the final claim Eq. (35) is presented as F^F/A, the notation should be normalized consistently throughout, otherwise the reader cannot tell whether the predicted quantity is a force or a pressure.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (30)] The linearized static metric is stated in Eq. (31) as ds^2 = -(1+2gz)dt^2 + dr'^2, which implies h_00 = -2gz if g is the standard gravitational acceleration parameter, yet Eq. (32) sets h^F_00 = -gz and h^I_00 = -gz. The factor-of-two convention for g is never defined. Because the numerical coefficient of the claimed correction in Eq. (35) depends on this convention, the relation between g in Eq. (31) and the metric components in Eq. (32) must be stated explicitly.
  5. [Section 2, Eqs. (10)-(11)] The formula ΔW = -2∫(dx) ς_ν ∂_μ T^{μν} is asserted without derivation, and it is not obvious how this gauge-transformation formula follows from the preceding discussion. If this identity is the basis for the energy shift ΔE_g, it should be derived or its source cited precisely; otherwise the central integration in Section 4 rests on an unexplained step.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (16)] The text uses the typographical subscripts 'uv' in expressions such as ⟨ˆTuv⟩ and 'metric guv'; these should be Greek indices μν throughout.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (22)] The step from Eq. (14) to Eq. (16) is under-explained: Eq. (15) is not true for an arbitrary field configuration and appears to require an integration by parts or use of the field equations and boundary conditions. A short derivation would make the flat-space review self-contained.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] There is a typo in the phrase 'the local version of the bellow equation' near Eq. (22): 'bellow' should be 'below'.
  4. [Section 2, Eqs. (10)-(11)] The caption contains the typo 'Casmire Force Per Unit Area'; it should read 'Casimir Force Per Unit Area'.
  5. [Section 1] The fluctuation-dissipation relation in Eq. (11) is never used after it is introduced, and its notation conflicts with the noise kernel in Eq. (10). Either the relation should be corrected and used in the calculation, or it should be removed as an unnecessary distraction.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Section 4 derives the claimed stochastic correction without using any stochastic input; the advertised result is the known weak-field Casimir force from Refs. [22,42–44], and the only new-looking equation, ΔEg = −AgEC z0, is the defining relation between the energy shift and the force.

  1. renaming known result [Section 4, Eqs. (29)–(35), specifically the text between Eq. (33) and Eq. (35) and the Conclusion.]
    "Also we can write − δ∆Eg Aδz0 = ∆F A = gEC. (33) When we add it to the isotropic force ( F I = −2gEC), we obtain the Fermi force as follows [22, 42–44] F I + ∆F A = −2gEC + gEC. (34) At the end, we get −gEC = F F A . (35)"

    Eq. (33) defines the 'change in force' ΔF from the derivative of ΔEg; combined with ΔEg = −AgEC z0, this gives ΔF/A = gEC by construction, not by a dynamic calculation. Then Eq. (34) merely subtracts this defined contribution from the known isotropic force −2gEC (already quoted from the literature) to arrive at the Fermi force −gEC, which is the known result of Fulling, Milton, Parashar et al. (Refs. [22,42–44]). The paper itself cites these references for Eq. (34), so the final Eq. (35) is a restatement of a prior result obtained by a kinematic identity, not a new stochastic-gravity prediction.

  2. self definitional [Section 4, paragraph after Eq. (26): 'the vacuum expectation value stress-energy of a conformally invariant scalar field is given by ⟨T µν⟩ = EC L diag(1, −1, 1, 3) (27)' and the following…]
    "Brown and Maclay [41] showed that, in the z-direction (the direction of gravity), the vacuum expectation value stress-energy of a conformally invariant scalar field is given by ⟨T µν⟩ = EC L diag(1, −1, 1, 3) (27) ... Also we can write − δ∆Eg Aδz0 = ∆F A = gEC. (33)"

    The entire Section 4 calculation takes as input the Brown–Maclay stress tensor (Eq. 27), which already encodes the Casimir energy density EC, and then integrates it over the coordinate-transformed volume. The energy shift ΔEg is, by construction, the integral of ⟨T μν⟩ over the shifted interval, so the resulting 'force correction' ΔF/A = gEC is algebraically contained in the input stress tensor and the gauge transformation equations (29)–(32). No stochastic ingredient—the noise kernel of Eq. (10) or the fluctuation-dissipation relation of Eq. (11)—is evaluated; the Einstein–Langevin equation is never solved. Thus the final 'first-order correction' is the input EC multiplied by geometry, rather than an emergent consequence of stochastic semiclassical gravity.

full rationale

The paper's title and abstract promise a stochastic-gravity correction to the Casimir force, yet the only substantive derivation (Section 4) never evaluates the noise kernel N μν(x,x'), never solves the Einstein–Langevin equation, and never invokes the fluctuation-dissipation relation beyond writing it. Instead, it takes the known Brown–Maclay stress tensor (Eq. 27), performs a coordinate/gauge transformation from isotropic to Fermi coordinates (Eqs. 29–32), integrates to obtain ΔEg = −AgEC z0, and then writes the force shift as ΔF/A = gEC, which is the derivative identity defining the force. The final expression FF /A = −gEC is explicitly cited to Refs. [22,42–44] (including the same author group's previous work, Ref. [22]), so the paper's central claim reduces to a known result re-expressed in stochastic vocabulary. This is not a fitting circularity (no free parameters are fitted), and the underlying weak-field Casimir result may well be correct physics, but the advertised 'first-order stochastic correction' is not independently derived in the text. Score 5 reflects that the central claimed new result is a reformulation of prior known results rather than a derivation from the paper's own stated stochastic framework.

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

The calculation rests on standard Casimir background results and on two domain assumptions about the weak-field Fermi-coordinate description. The critical unsupported step is the assumed connection between the Einstein-Langevin equation and the Fermi-coordinate result: the noise kernel is introduced but never used, so the claimed stochastic correction rests on an ad hoc identification. No new particles, forces, or degrees of freedom are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Brown-Maclay vacuum stress tensor ⟨Tμν⟩ = (E_C/L) diag(1, -1, 1, 3) (Eq. 27) remains the source in the weak-field stochastic-gravity setting, with no stochastic correction added to the stress tensor.
    This is the starting point of the energy-shift calculation in Section 4; the paper does not justify it within stochastic semiclassical gravity.
  • domain assumption The weak-field spacetime is the Fermi metric ds² = -(1+2gz)dt² + dr'² with constant g, and the gravitational effect is captured by a gauge transformation from isotropic to Fermi coordinates (Eqs. 29-32).
    This restricts the result to uniformly accelerating frames and linearized gravity; it is assumed without derivation in Section 4.
  • standard math Zeta-function regularization and the standard Dirichlet-boundary Casimir sums are valid; in particular ζ(4) = π^4/90.
    Used in Section 3, Eqs. (20)-(25), to convert the mode sum into the Minkowski Casimir energy; standard background mathematics.
  • ad hoc to paper The Einstein-Langevin equation as written in Eq. (10), with Nμν defined as an expectation value of stress fluctuations, is the correct representation of stochastic semiclassical gravity, and its first-order correction is the Fermi-coordinate result.
    Eq. (10) is incomplete (no stochastic source term), and the link between the noise kernel and the Section 4 calculation is never shown; this axiom is needed to make the paper's conclusion work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Casimir Effect in Stochastic Semi-Classical Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HAGDCPIO

@misc{pith2026250101415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Casimir Effect in Stochastic Semi-Classical Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HAGDCPIO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01415}
}
read the original abstract

This article aims to examine the Casimir effect in the framework of stochastic semi-classical gravity. We commence with the semi-classical Einstein-Langevin equation, which introduces a first-order correction to the semi-classical gravity theory. Subsequently, we analyze the alteration in the Casimir force caused by this type of correction. Our results demonstrate that the corrections exhibit significant sensitivity to both the distance between the two parallel plates and the order parameter of the weak field. This finding underscores the nuanced interplay between these factors and the overall behavior of the system, providing valuable insights into the underlying dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01415 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Casimir energy density as function of distance L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Casimir force per unit area as function of distance L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Casimir energy per unit area as function of distance L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: change in Force as a function of distance L for different area A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: change in Force as a function of area A for different distance L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fermi force and change in force per unit area as function of distance L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Casimir, On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates, Proc

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

    work page 1948

  2. [2]

    Bordag et al., Advances in Casimir Effect, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)

    M. Bordag et al., Advances in Casimir Effect, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Plunien, B

    G. Plunien, B. Muller and W. Greiner, Phys. Rep. 134,87 (1986)

    work page 1986

  4. [4]

    Mostepanenko and N.N

    V.M. Mostepanenko and N.N. Trunov, The Casimir Effect and its Applications, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England (1997). 10

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Leseduarte and A

    S. Leseduarte and A. Romeo, Ann. Phys. 250, 165 (1978)

    work page 1978

  6. [6]

    Elizalde, S.D

    E. Elizalde, S.D. Odintsov, A. Romeo, A.A. Bystenko and S. Zerbini, Zeta Regularization Techniques with Applications, World Scientific, Singapore (1994)

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    Elizalde, Ten Physical Applications of Spectral Zeta Functions (springer, Berlin, 1995)

    E. Elizalde, Ten Physical Applications of Spectral Zeta Functions (springer, Berlin, 1995)

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    Hawking, Commun

    S.W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 55, 133 (1997)

    work page 1997

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Milton, L.L

    K.A. Milton, L.L. DeRaad and J. Schwinger, Casimir self-stress on a perfectly conducting spherical shell, Ann. Phys. 115 (2), 388-403

  2. [10]

    Deutsch and P

    D. Deutsch and P. Candelas, Boundary effects in quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D 20, 3063 (1979)

    1979

  3. [11]

    On Casimir Energy and Mutual Information in Non-relativistic Back- grounds

    Belyad, M., Tanhayi, M.R. On Casimir Energy and Mutual Information in Non-relativistic Back- grounds. Int J Theor Phys 59, 1905–1916 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-020-04462-9

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Belyad and M

    M. Belyad and M. R. Tanhayi, Casimir Energy in Non-relativistic Backgrounds: Numerical Ap- proach, International Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Computations, IJM2C-2305-1274, doi: 10.30495/ijm2c.2023.1985644.1274

    2023

  5. [13]

    , Parsabod, I

    Tavakoli ,F., Pirmoradian, R. , Parsabod, I. Weak Gravitational Wave and Casimir Energy of a Scalar Field. Int J Theor Phys 55, 4100–4108 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-016-3038-3

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Casimir Effect In Krein Space Quan- tization,

    H. Khosravi, M. Naseri, S. Rouhani and M. V. Takook, “Casimir Effect In Krein Space Quan- tization,” Phys. Lett. B 640, 48-51 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.07.027 [arXiv:gr-qc/0604036 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Farhad, (2016), Vacuum energy through Krein quantization approach, Canadian Journal of Physics

    Pirmoradian .Reza , Tavakoli. Farhad, (2016), Vacuum energy through Krein quantization approach, Canadian Journal of Physics. 95. 119-124. 10.1139/cjp-2016-0013

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Casimir effect for a scalar field via Krein quantization

    Pejhan H, Tanhayi MR, Takook MV. Casimir effect for a scalar field via Krein quantization. Annals of Physics. 2014 Feb 1;341:195-204

    2014

  9. [17]

    Forghan, M

    B. Forghan, M. R. Tanhayi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 30 , 1550126 (2015) Krein regularization of quantum chromodynamics

    2015

  10. [18]

    Renormalization Group Approach to Casimir Effect and the Attractive and Repulsive Forces in Substance

    Ichinose S. Renormalization Group Approach to Casimir Effect and the Attractive and Repulsive Forces in Substance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.2708. 2012 Mar 13

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The Casimir Effect: Physical Manifestations of Zero-Point Energy

    Milton KA. The Casimir Effect: Physical Manifestations of Zero-Point Energy. World Scientific; 2001

    2001

  12. [20]

    Advances in the Casimir Effect

    Bordag M, Klimchitskaya GL, Mohideen U, Mostepanenko VM. Advances in the Casimir Effect. Oxford University Press; 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    Tests of New Physics from Precision Casimir Force Measurements

    Decca RS, Lopez D, Fischbach E, Krause DE. Tests of New Physics from Precision Casimir Force Measurements. Phys Rev Lett. 2007;97(22):223602

    2007

  14. [22]

    Weak Gravitational Field and Casimir Energy

    Tanhayi, M.R., Pirmoradian, R. Weak Gravitational Field and Casimir Energy. Int J Theor Phys 55, 766–773 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-015-2714-z

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Ford, Spacetime in Semiclassical Gravity, arXiv:gr-qc/0504096v2 (2005)

    L.H. Ford, Spacetime in Semiclassical Gravity, arXiv:gr-qc/0504096v2 (2005)

    2005 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Lukash, A.A

    V.N. Lukash, A.A. Starobinsky. Isotropization of cosmological expansion due to particle creation effect. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 66, 1515, 1974 (Sov. Phys. - JETP, 39, 742, 1974); L. Grishchuk, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 302, 439 (1976); B. L. Hu and L. Parker, Phys. Lett. A 63, 217(1...

    1976

  17. [25]

    J. B. Hartle, Effective-Potential Approach to Graviton Production in the Early Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1373(1977); M. Fischetti, J. B. Hartle and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 20, 1757 (1979); J. B. Hartle and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 20, 1772 (1979)

    1977

  18. [26]

    Jaffe, The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum,Phys

    R.L. Jaffe, The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum,Phys. arXiv:hep-th/0503158, Rev. D72 (2005) 021301

    2005 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  20. [28]

    Martin and E

    R. Martin and E. Verdaguer, On the semiclassical Einstein-Langevin equation, PHYS LETT B, 465(1-4), 1999,

    1999

  21. [29]

    DeWitt, Phys

    B.S. DeWitt, Phys. Rep. 10C, 295 (1975)

    1975

  22. [30]

    Birrell and P.C.W

    N.D. Birrell and P.C.W. Davies, Quantum fields in curved space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1982)

    1982

  23. [31]

    Fulling, Aspects of quantum field theory in curved spacetime (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1989)

    S.A. Fulling, Aspects of quantum field theory in curved spacetime (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1989)

    1989

  24. [32]

    Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics

    R.M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1994)

    1994

  25. [33]

    Petersburg, 1994

    A.A.Grib, S.G.Mamayev, and V.M.Mostepanenko, Vacuum Quantum Effects in Strong Fields, Fried- mann Laboratory Publishing, St. Petersburg, 1994

    1994

  26. [34]

    Hu, Stochastic Gravity: A Primer with Applications, arxiv: gr-qc /0211090v1 (2002)

    B.L. Hu, Stochastic Gravity: A Primer with Applications, arxiv: gr-qc /0211090v1 (2002)

    2002

  27. [35]

    Hu and E

    B.L. Hu and E. Verdaguer, Recent Advances in Stochastic Gravity: Theory and Issues.Advances in the Interplay Between Quantum and Gravity Physics, Volume 60 of the series NATO Science Series pp 133-218 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Hu, Stochastic Gravity, arXiv: gr-qc/9902064v1, Int.J.Theor.Phys.38:2987-3037 (1999)

    B.L. Hu, Stochastic Gravity, arXiv: gr-qc/9902064v1, Int.J.Theor.Phys.38:2987-3037 (1999)

    1999 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hu, A Kinetic Theory Approach to Quantum Gravity, arXiv: gr-qc/0204069 ,Int.J.Theor.Phys.41:2091-2119(2002)

    B.L. Hu, A Kinetic Theory Approach to Quantum Gravity, arXiv: gr-qc/0204069 ,Int.J.Theor.Phys.41:2091-2119(2002)

    2002 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kirsten, Spectral Functions in Mathematics and Physics, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL (2002)

    K. Kirsten, Spectral Functions in Mathematics and Physics, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Burda, Casimir Effect for a Massless Minimally Coupled Scalar Field Between Parallel Plates in de Sitter Spacetime

    Ph. Burda, Casimir Effect for a Massless Minimally Coupled Scalar Field Between Parallel Plates in de Sitter Spacetime. ISSN 0021-3640, JETP Letters, Vol. 93, No. 11, pp. 632-637. arXiv:1101.2624 [hep-th], (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Parker, D

    L. Parker, D. Toms, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Fields and Gravity. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Brown, G.J

    L.S. Brown, G.J. Maclay, Vacuum stress between conducting plates: an image solution, Physical Review 184 (5), 1272 (1969)

    1969

  34. [42]

    Fulling, K.A

    S.A. Fulling, K.A. Milton, P. Parashar, A. Romeo, K.V. Shajesh, J. Wagner, How does Casimir energy fall? Phys,Rev, D 76 (2), 025004. arxiv: hep-th/ 0702091 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    S.Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, New York,Wiley (1972)

    1972

  36. [44]

    Schwinger, Particles, Sources, and Fields, Vol

    J. Schwinger, Particles, Sources, and Fields, Vol. 1, (Addison-Wesley, 1970). 12

    1970

Pith tools

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