Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Dynamical edge modes in Maxwell theory from a BRST perspective, with an application to the Casimir energy

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two plates with dynamical edge-mode boundary conditions attract with exactly the same Casimir force as perfectly conducting plates, in any gauge, once BRST invariance is restored at the boundary.

desk verdict Interesting BRST construction, but the Casimir claim rests on an unjustified treatment of a degenerate determinant in the b_a sector. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04270 v5 pith:OXMTUHIC submitted 2024-12-05 hep-th

Fabrizio Canfora , David Dudal , Thomas Oosthuyse , Luigi Rosa , Sebbe Stouten This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th PACS 03.70.+k11.15.-q
keywords CasimireffectdynamicaledgemodesBRSTinvarianceMaxwelltheoryparallelplatesboundaryconditionsfunctionaldeterminantsgauge
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 computes, for the first time, the Casimir energy of two infinite parallel plates carrying dynamical edge mode (DEM) boundary conditions, conditions recently introduced for Maxwell theory that turn would-be gauge degrees of freedom into physical edge modes living on the plate. The authors enforce the conditions with Lagrange multiplier fields and then add boundary ghosts and an auxiliary scalar to restore BRST invariance, because the DEM conditions break ordinary gauge invariance at the plates. Their central result is that the DEM Casimir energy density per unit area equals $-\pi^2/(720L^3)$, identical to two perfectly conducting plates, in both generalized Coulomb gauge and linear covariant gauge. The two gauges differ in which fields supply the effect, and the BRST construction is exactly what makes the final number gauge-independent. The reason to care: at zero temperature the vacuum force cannot tell DEM plates apart from perfect conductors, despite the extra boundary degrees of freedom.

What carries the argument

The central object is the boundary prolongation of the BRST-invariant action: the multiplier fields $b^\rho_t$, $b^\rho_a$ that enforce the DEM conditions on the plates, together with boundary ghosts $\eta^\rho$, $\bar\eta^\rho$ and scalar $\gamma^\rho$, whose introduction makes $b^\rho_t A_t + \bar\eta^\rho c$ BRST-closed but not BRST-exact. That non-exactness is the crux: a BRST-exact term would be pure gauge fixing and the edge field would be a BRST doublet with no physical content, while closed-but-not-exact keeps the edge degree of freedom alive. Two identities carry the identification with the original DEM formulation: Gauss's law $\partial_i E_i = b^\rho_t\,\delta(z-z_\rho)$, which equates $b_t$ with the normal flux $E_\perp$ at each plate, and $\alpha \propto (-\nabla^2_{\rm 2D})^{-1/2}\gamma$, which exhibits $\gamma$ as the conjugate edge mode. The engine of the Casimir calculation is the reduced boundary action $S_{b,\gamma} = -\frac12 \int (b^\rho_t M b^\sigma_t + b^\rho_a N b^\sigma_b + b^\rho_t O \gamma^\sigma)$, whose partition function factors as $1/\sqrt{\det N}\cdot 1/\det O$; the paper evaluates these determinants after integrating out $k_z$, discards the $\gamma^2$ term and the $k_t$-independent ghost determinant via the $\delta(0)=0$ rule of dimensional regularization, and obtains $1/\sqrt{\det N} = \exp(\pi^2/720L^3)$ while in Coulomb gauge $1/\det O = 1$, with a full ghost-versus-$O$ cancellation in the covariant gauge.

What would settle it

Evaluate the boundary path integral in a finite time box of length $T$, applying identical momentum cutoffs to the ghost and boundary-mode determinants, then send $T\to\infty$ at fixed plate separation $L$; the paper's claim predicts the $L$-dependent exponent $-\pi^2\ell_x\ell_y/(720L^3)$, whereas a uniform application of the $\delta(0)=0$ rule predicts zero. A cheaper variant of the same test: redo the Coulomb-gauge computation of Appendix B, this time treating the ghost determinant with the same procedure used for the $b_a$ determinant, and check whether $\exp(\pi^2/720L^3)$ survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the claim is this: if two infinite parallel plates impose the DEM conditions $A_t = 0$ and $F_{i\nu}n^\nu = 0$, the vacuum energy of QED between them is per unit area $E_{\rm Cas} = -\pi^2/(720L^3)$, the same value as for two perfect conductors, giving an attractive force per unit area $F = -\pi^2/(240L^4)$. The route to this number is a BRST-invariant boundary action: the constraints are enforced by multiplier fields $b^\rho_t$ and $b^\rho_a$ localized on the plates, and BRST invariance forces in addition the boundary ghosts $\eta^\rho$, $\bar\eta^\rho$ and a scalar $\gamma^\rho$. The paper argues this extension changes no physics: $b_t$ is the edge mode itself, equal by Gauss's law to the normal electric flux $E_\perp$ through the plate, and $\gamma$ plays the role of the canonically conjugate field $\alpha$, with the edge Hamiltonian of the original DEM formulation recovered from the reduced boundary action. After integrating out the photon, the effective boundary action splits into a $b_t$-$\gamma$ sector, a ghost sector, and a $b_a$ sector, and these conspire differently in the two gauges: in Coulomb gauge the ghosts and the $b_t$-$\gamma$ determinant are each trivial, leaving the two transverse modes $b_a$ to supply the entire $\exp(\pi^2/720L^3)$; in linear covariant gauge the ghost determinant and the $b_t$-$\gamma$ determinant cancel each other exactly, and the same $b_a$ sector survives.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation leans on an asymmetric treatment of two similar pieces: the ghost piece is discarded because an integral of a constant over the time direction is declared to be zero in dimensional regularization, while the boundary-mode piece that produces the negative energy is kept, even though its integrand is constant in the time direction in the same way; treating both pieces by the same rule would cancel the claimed energy down to zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two DEM plates attract with force per unit area $F = -\pi^2/(240L^4)$, identical to the PEC force, so a zero-temperature Casimir measurement at fixed separation cannot by itself reveal whether the plates host dynamical edge modes.
  • The equality is achieved in two different gauges by different cancellations, meaning the boundary BRST construction is what enforces gauge independence of the energy.
  • Without the boundary ghosts and the $\gamma$ field the $b_t$ contribution would leave the gauge parameter $\xi$ in the energy; with them, $\xi$ drops out, so the gauge-parameter freedom is removed by the BRST structure rather than by a choice.
  • The edge-mode sector contributes zero net Casimir energy in both gauges (trivial or exactly cancelled), and in both cases the entire effect comes from the two transverse modes $b_a$.
  • Since the only dimensionful scale in the problem is the plate separation $L$, the $L^{-3}$ scaling of the energy density is fixed by dimensional analysis, and the paper's result fixes the coefficient to the textbook PEC value.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My extension: the selective use of $\delta(0)=0$ is the spot where the argument could turn out to be regulator-dependent; a finite-$T$ evaluation that treats every $k_t$-independent determinant identically is the natural test, and the claimed PEC value survives only if that test confirms it.
  • If the equality is genuine, then edge modes leave no fingerprint in the Casimir force, so their observational signature would have to be sought in observables that do couple to boundary degrees of freedom, such as the entanglement-entropy contact term that originally motivated them.
  • The same multiplier-plus-boundary-ghost construction should transplant to DEM-like conditions in Yang-Mills theory and to curved or non-planar boundaries; whether the 'two transverse modes do all the work' pattern also appears there would show whether the PEC coincidence is specific to Maxwell theory on parallel plates.
  • The authors list mixed DEM/one-plate and PEC/PMC/other-plate configurations as open; extending their cancellation logic suggests that only such an asymmetric setup could produce a force distinguishable from the symmetric DEM and PEC values, making it the sharper experimental test.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper imposes the dynamical-edge-mode (DEM) boundary conditions (At = 0, Fax = Fay = 0) on two infinite parallel plates in four-dimensional Euclidean Maxwell theory by adding plate-localized Lagrange-multiplier fields bt and ba, together with boundary ghosts (eta, etabar) and a scalar gamma needed to maintain BRST invariance. It then shows that bt is the edge mode (the normal electric flux through the plate) and gamma its conjugate, via a Gauss-law pillbox argument and a Wilson-line construction, and compares the induced boundary dynamics with the edge Hamiltonian of [1]. The central technical result is a path-integral computation of the Casimir energy. After integrating out the Maxwell field, the boundary action splits into a ba sector, a (bt, gamma) sector, and a ghost sector. In generalized Coulomb gauge the ghost and (bt, gamma) determinants are kt-independent and are set to unity by the delta(0) = 0 rule, leaving the ba determinant, whose L-dependent part is (1 - exp(-2|k|L))^2; in linear covariant gauge the ghost and (bt, gamma) determinants are evaluated as finite three-dimensional integrals and cancel, leaving the same ba contribution. Both gauges give E_Cas = -pi^2/(720 L^3), the standard perfectly-conducting-plate result.

Significance. The result, if correct, is a parameter-free, falsifiable prediction: the first Casimir energy for DEM boundary conditions, equal to the PEC value, with no fitted constants and an external benchmark. The manuscript has two genuine methodological strengths: the BRST-invariant construction of the boundary action, which automatically produces the conjugate edge-mode field gamma, and the two-gauge cross-check, which shows that different field sectors carry the L-dependence in different gauges while the total is stable. The appendix contains enough detail to reproduce each determinant; I have verified the key manipulations by hand: det N is proportional to kt^4 (1 - exp(-2|k|L))^2 and carries genuine kt dependence, the (bt, gamma) determinant reduces to 1/det O with the bt-propagator canceling, and the sign of the final exponent is correct. The main weakness is that the regularization and normalization of the determinants is under-specified, and one displayed expression ((B2)) is inconsistent with the integral table (A2) that produces it; this is the one point that needs tightening before the paper is fully rigorous.

major comments (2)
  1. [III A-B, App. B (B2), (B4), (B11), (B14), (B17)] Both gauges are reduced to the same ba contribution only through an implicit, partly unstated regularization prescription. I have checked the natural suspicion that the ba determinant is kt-independent and thus also killed by delta(0) = 0: it is not. With k = (kt, kx, ky), the 4x4 matrix N of (B11) has determinant kt^4 (1 - exp(-2|k|L))^2 / 16 (up to an L-independent factor), so its contribution is a convergent, regulator-independent three-dimensional integral. The genuinely kt-independent objects are the ghost matrix H of (B2) and the mixing operator O of (B14); in Coulomb gauge these are discarded by the delta(0) = 0 rule (B4) and (B15), whereas in covariant gauge they are evaluated as finite three-dimensional integrals and cancel. These two procedures are equivalent only after specifying (i) the sign convention of the boundary Green's function ((B2) and Section III B 1 display exp(+|k||z_rho - z_sigma|), while the integrals (A2) used to derive them give exp(-|k||z_rho - z_sigma|)), (ii) a common kt regulator, and (iii) the subtraction of extensive, linear-in-L terms such as the 2|k|L contribution to log(exp(2|k|L) - 1). The manuscript states none of these, and the gauge-independence claim rests on this point. I believe the final value is correct and the fix is local, but the two gauge computations should be reconciled under an explicitly stated common regulator, with the extensive terms removed in the same way in both cases.
  2. [III A 2, App. B (B11), (B13)] The Gaussian integration over ba is written as 1/sqrt(det N) without comment, but N has a null direction at kt = 0 for the in-plane longitudinal mode (ba proportional to (kx, ky)), and det N vanishes on the entire plane kt = 0. The paper should state that these zero-mode directions are excluded from (or factored out of) the integration measure; the resulting normalization is L-independent and does not affect the Casimir energy, but the step is currently silent.
minor comments (4)
  1. [App. B (B2), Section III B 1] The ghost kernel is displayed with a growing exponential exp(+|k||z_rho - z_sigma|), whereas the integrals (A2) from which it follows give the decaying kernel exp(-|k||z_rho - z_sigma|)/(2|k|). The two conventions differ by an extensive factor exp(2|k|L) in the determinant; please fix the sign or state explicitly that extensive factors are removed by the infinite-separation subtraction.
  2. [III A 2 (last paragraph), (B10)] The statement that the kz-integral in (B10) gives M = 1/(2 sqrt(kx^2 + ky^2)) for one plate at xi = 0 is not reproduced by the standard integrals (A2), which retain kt-dependence (e.g., 1/(4 sqrt(kt^2 + kx^2 + ky^2))-type expressions). If a static, kt = 0 reduction is intended for the comparison with the edge Hamiltonian (18), it should be stated explicitly.
  3. [III A 2, (B8)] The disappearance of the gamma-quadratic term through delta(0) = 0 in (B8) is essential for the reduction Z_{bt,gamma} = 1/det O; the coincidence-limit convention for delta(z_rho - z_sigma) at rho = sigma should be stated once where the rule is first introduced, since it is applied separately in (B4), (B8), and the gamma-quadratic term in Section III A 2.
  4. [Eq. (22)] The identity Z_{c,cbar,eta,etabar} = det H = 1 silently absorbs the L-independent normalization of det H; writing '= 1 up to an L-independent factor' would make the omission explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Casimir energy is a parameter-free functional-determinant computation and is not an input to itself.

full rationale

The central claim is derived by explicit functional integration over the BRST-extended action (7), with the L-dependent Casimir energy coming from the determinant computation in App. B, Eqs. (B17)-(B18). The key contribution is the ba determinant, which after the kz integration depends on |k| = sqrt(kt^2 + kx^2 + ky^2) and is a genuine three-dimensional momentum integral; it is not removed by the δ(0)=0 rule used for the kt-independent sectors. No parameter is fitted to any target value, and the agreement with the PEC result is a comparison, not an input. Citations to [1] define the DEM boundary conditions and the edge-mode identifications, while [57-61] supply a standard Lagrange-multiplier functional method; neither fixes the Casimir prefactor. The δ(0)=0 treatment of the ghost and (bt,γ) sectors and the handling of the ba zero mode are regularization choices that could affect correctness, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. The BRST construction is used to validate gauge invariance and to identify physical degrees of freedom, not to impose the numerical result. No circular step exhibiting an equation that reduces to its own input by construction can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard path-integral method for boundary conditions, augmented by a BRST construction that introduces three auxiliary boundary field sectors. No physical parameters are fitted, but the evaluation depends on two regularization choices (δ(0)=0 and deletion of the ba zero mode) that are not fully derived.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gauge-invariant dimensional regularization sets scaleless integrals to zero, including δ(0)=0
    Invoked at Eq. (B4) and after Eq. (23) to discard the ghost determinant and the γ² term; a standard but non-universal convention.
  • domain assumption The path integral over the boundary multiplier fields ba is evaluated by ignoring zero modes of the kinetic operator
    The determinant of N in Eq. (B17) is computed over the nonzero eigenvalue only, without treating the longitudinal gauge mode.
  • domain assumption The Casimir energy is extracted from the L-dependent part of the functional determinant after factorizing the infinite translation-invariant volume
    This is the standard method of [57-61], used throughout Section III.
  • domain assumption BRST invariance on the boundary is the correct quantization principle when gauge transformations with boundary support are broken
    Follows the approach of [77-82]; motivates the introduction of the boundary ghosts and γ.
invented entities (3)
  • Boundary multiplier fields bt and ba
    purpose: Enforce the DEM conditions At=0 and Faz=0 on the plates via delta-function terms in the action
    Auxiliary fields implementing constraints; bt is later identified with the electric flux edge mode.
  • Boundary scalar γ
    purpose: Enforce the boundary condition on the Nakanishi-Lautrup field h and serve as the conjugate edge mode to bt
    Introduced to restore BRST invariance; sits in a BRST doublet with η.
  • Boundary ghosts η and ηbar
    purpose: Enforce Dirichlet conditions on the Faddeev-Popov ghosts c and cbar at the boundary, maintaining BRST invariance
    Grassmann auxiliary fields required for off-shell BRST invariance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical edge modes in Maxwell theory from a BRST perspective, with an application to the Casimir energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OXMTUHIC

@misc{pith2026241204270,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical edge modes in Maxwell theory from a BRST perspective, with an application to the Casimir energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OXMTUHIC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04270}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, dynamical edge modes (DEM) in Maxwell theory have been constructed using a specific local boundary condition on the horizon. We discuss how to enforce this boundary condition on an infinite parallel plate in the QED vacuum by introducing Lagrange multiplier fields into the action. We carefully introduce appropriate boundary ghosts to maintain BRST invariance. Explicit correspondence of this BRST extended theory with the original DEM formulation is discussed, both directly, and through the correspondence between edge modes and Wilson lines attached to the boundary surface. We then use functional methods to calculate the Casimir energy for the first time with DEM boundary conditions imposed on two infinite parallel plates, both in generalized Coulomb and linear covariant gauge. Depending on the gauge, different fields are contributing, but, after correctly implementing the BRST symmetry, we retrieve the exact same Casimir energy as for two perfectly conducting parallel plates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04270 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the boundary configuration: infinitely large plates at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An infinitesimal cylinder Σ bounding a volume [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the Wilson line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Soft edges: the many links between soft and edge modes

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In Maxwell theory, asymptotically charged edge modes (soft edges) pull asymptotic symmetries and soft data into finite subregions, giving finite-distance corner charges without an infinite-volume limit.

  2. Non-Abelian Casimir energy in the Curci-Ferrari model through a functional approach

    hep-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the Curci-Ferrari model, the non-Abelian Casimir energy between magnetic-conductor plates is 3/2 times that for electric-conductor plates, and the massless limit is discontinuous (vDVZ-like), with the same pattern ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    So our goal is to show that, on-shell, E⊥ corresponds to bt

    Correspondence of edge fields – Gauss’s law In [1], the edge field is given by the boundary field E⊥, which corresponds to the z-direction for our plate configuration. So our goal is to show that, on-shell, E⊥ corresponds to bt. In order to 6 dS x y z Figure 2: An infinitesimal cylinder Σ bounding a volume V piercing one of the plates. make this correspon...

  2. [2]

    anchored

    Correspondence of edge fields – Wilson lines ending on the boundary In this paragraph, we will give another argument why bt should be interpreted as the edge mode, this time using Wilson lines ending on the boundary, in the spirit of e.g. [29, 36, 39, 50, 51, 84, 85]. 8 t x, y z = zplate t = t0 t→∞C(x+, y+) +q (x−, y−) −q Figure 3: Schematic representatio...

  3. [3]

    bulk” Φ bulk = {Aµ, h, c,¯c} and 3D “plate

    Correspondence of edge dynamics Now we can investigate the dynamics of the edge modes. More specifically: we want to show that the edge part of our action corresponds to the edge Hamiltonian in [1, Eq. (2.43)]. Again, for the sake of simplicity, let us show the correspondence for a configuration of only one plate. For the one-plate configuration, the edge...

  4. [4]

    The path integral in ( c, ¯c) is Gaussian, so they can readily be integrated out using (A4)

    Ghost contributions Let us start with the ghost contributions coming from Sc,¯c,η, ¯η = Z d4x ¯c⃗∂2c + (¯ηρc + ηρ¯c) δ(z − zρ) , 11 where we have used that δF [A] δAµ = δµi∂i for Coulomb gauge. The path integral in ( c, ¯c) is Gaussian, so they can readily be integrated out using (A4). Since we are only interested in contributions to ECas that depend on t...

  5. [5]

    edge mode

    Non-ghost contributions For the non-ghost contributions, we can start from the action (19). Indeed, the h-propagator did not contain any L-dependence, so we can omit its determinant: ZA,h,b,γ = ZA,b,γ. If we inspect the term quadratic in γ, we see that it is proportional to δ(z − zρ)δ(z − zσ), which equals zero if ρ ̸= σ, and equals δ(0) if ρ = σ. Using δ...

  6. [6]

    After integrating out ( c, ¯c), the ( η, ¯η)-action in Fourier space (21) thus becomes Sη, ¯η = − Z d4k (2π)4 ¯ηρ( ⃗k)eikzzρ 1 k2 ησ(− ⃗k)eikzzσ

    Ghost contributions We can copy the argument for the Coulomb case, simply substituting ⃗∂2 → ∂2, or equivalently ⃗k2 → k2. After integrating out ( c, ¯c), the ( η, ¯η)-action in Fourier space (21) thus becomes Sη, ¯η = − Z d4k (2π)4 ¯ηρ( ⃗k)eikzzρ 1 k2 ησ(− ⃗k)eikzzσ . Applying the kz-integral (A2), this becomes Sη, ¯η = − Z d3 ⃗k (2π)3 ¯ηρ( ⃗k) e| ⃗k||zρ...

  7. [7]

    standard

    Non-ghost contributions For the non-ghost contributions, we can modify the calculations done in III A 2 by substituting ∂iAi → ∂µAµ. Doing so, we again find a Gaussian path integral (24) for A, but with Kµν = k2δµν − 1 − 1 ξ kµkν ! and    vt(−k) = bρ t (− ⃗k) − i ξ ktγρ(− ⃗k) eikzzρ va(−k) = ikzbρ a(− ⃗k) − i ξ kaγρ(− ⃗k) eikzzρ vz(−k) = −ikabρ a...

  8. [8]

    A. Ball, Y. T. A. Law, and G. Wong, Dynamical edge modes and entanglement in Maxwell theory, JHEP 09, 032, arXiv:2403.14542 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    H. B. G. Casimir, On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates, Indag. Math. 10, 261 (1948)

    1948

  2. [10]

    M. J. Sparnaay, Measurements of attractive forces between flat plates, Physica 24, 751 (1958)

    1958

  3. [11]

    Bordag, U

    M. Bordag, U. Mohideen, and V. M. Mostepanenko, New developments in the Casimir effect, Phys. Rept. 353, 1 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0106045

    2001 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Lambrecht and S

    A. Lambrecht and S. Reynaud, Casimir force between metallic mirrors, Eur. Phys. J. D 8, 309 (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/9907105. 19

    2000 arXiv

  5. [13]

    I. H. Brevik, K. A. Milton, S. D. Odintsov, and K. E. Osetrin, Dynamical Casimir effect and quantum cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 62, 064005 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0003158

    2000 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Brevik, O

    I. Brevik, O. Gorbunova, and D. Saez-Gomez, Casimir Effects Near the Big Rip Singularity in Viscous Cosmology, Gen. Rel. Grav. 42, 1513 (2010), arXiv:0908.2882 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    T. W. van de Kamp, R. J. Marshman, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Quantum Gravity Witness via Entanglement of Masses: Casimir Screening, Phys. Rev. A 102, 062807 (2020), arXiv:2006.06931 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. A. Saharian, Wightman function and Casimir densities on AdS bulk with application to the Randall- Sundrum brane world, Nucl. Phys. B 712, 196 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0312092

    2005 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Frank, I

    M. Frank, I. Turan, and L. Ziegler, The Casimir Force in Randall Sundrum Models, Phys. Rev. D 76, 015008 (2007), arXiv:0704.3626 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jiang and F

    Q.-D. Jiang and F. Wilczek, Chiral Casimir Forces: Repulsive, Enhanced, Tunable, Phys. Rev. B 99, 125403 (2019), arXiv:1805.07994 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Fukushima, S

    K. Fukushima, S. Imaki, and Z. Qiu, Anomalous Casimir effect in axion electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 100, 045013 (2019), arXiv:1906.08975 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. G. Grushin, Consequences of a condensed matter realization of Lorentz violating QED in Weyl semi-metals, Phys. Rev. D 86, 045001 (2012), arXiv:1205.3722 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. G. Grushin and A. Cortijo, Tunable Casimir repulsion with three dimensional topological insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 020403 (2011), arXiv:1002.3481 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Tajik, N

    F. Tajik, N. Allameh, A. A. Masoudi, and G. Palasantzas, Nonlinear actuation of micromechanical Casimir oscillators with topological insulator materials toward chaotic motion: Sensitivity on magne- tization and dielectric properties, Chaos 32, 093149 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    A. E. R. Lopez and V. Giannini, Casimir nanoparticle levitation in vacuum with broadband perfect magnetic conductor metamaterials, arXiv:2210.12094 [quant-ph] (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    X. L. Qi and S. C. Zhang, Topological insulators and superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011), arXiv:1008.2026 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fidkowski and A

    L. Fidkowski and A. Kitaev, Topological phases of fermions in one dimension, Phys. Rev. B83, 075103 (2011), arXiv:1008.4138 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2011 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Zhong, W.-L

    W.-H. Zhong, W.-L. Li, Y.-C. Chen, and X.-J. Yu, Topological edge modes and phase transitions in a critical fermionic chain with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022212 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    B¨ uttiker, Absence of backscattering in the quantum hall effect in multiprobe conductors, Phys

    M. B¨ uttiker, Absence of backscattering in the quantum hall effect in multiprobe conductors, Phys. Rev. B 38, 9375 (1988)

    1988

  20. [28]

    Hatsugai, Chern number and edge states in the integer quantum Hall effect, Phys

    Y. Hatsugai, Chern number and edge states in the integer quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3697 (1993)

    1993

  21. [29]

    J. Cano, M. Cheng, M. Mulligan, C. Nayak, E. Plamadeala, and J. Yard, Bulk-edge correspondence in (2 + 1)-dimensional Abelian topological phases, Phys. Rev. B 89, 115116 (2014), arXiv:1310.5708 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tong, Lectures on the Quantum Hall Effect (2016) arXiv:1606.06687 [hep-th]

    D. Tong, Lectures on the Quantum Hall Effect (2016) arXiv:1606.06687 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hashimoto, T

    K. Hashimoto, T. Kimura, and X. Wu, Boundary conditions of weyl semimetals, Progress of The- oretical and Experimental Physics 2017, 053I01 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2017/5/053I01/16637855/ptx053.pdf

    2017

  24. [32]

    Howard, L

    S. Howard, L. Jiao, Z. Wang, P. Vir, C. Shekhar, C. Felser, T. Hughes, and V. Madhavan, Observation of linearly dispersive edge modes in a magnetic weyl semimetal co3sn2s2, (2021), arXiv:1910.11205 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Howard, L

    S. Howard, L. Jiao, Z. Wang, N. Morali, R. Batabyal, P. Kumar-Nag, N. Avraham, H. Beidenkopf, P. Vir, E. Liu, C. Shekhar, C. Felser, T. Hughes, and V. Madhavan, Evidence for one-dimensional chiral edge states in a magnetic weyl semimetal co3sn2s2, Nature Communications 12, 4269 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Donnelly and A

    W. Donnelly and A. C. Wall, Entanglement entropy of electromagnetic edge modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 111603 (2015), arXiv:1412.1895 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Donnelly and A

    W. Donnelly and A. C. Wall, Geometric entropy and edge modes of the electromagnetic field, Phys. Rev. D 94, 104053 (2016), arXiv:1506.05792 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Donnelly and L

    W. Donnelly and L. Freidel, Local subsystems in gauge theory and gravity, JHEP 09, 102, arXiv:1601.04744 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Donnelly, Y

    W. Donnelly, Y. Jiang, M. Kim, and G. Wong, Entanglement entropy and edge modes in topological string theory. Part I. Generalized entropy for closed strings, JHEP 10, 201, arXiv:2010.15737 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Huang, Central Charge and Entangled Gauge Fields, Phys

    K.-W. Huang, Central Charge and Entangled Gauge Fields, Phys. Rev. D 92, 025010 (2015), arXiv:1412.2730 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Freidel, M

    L. Freidel, M. Geiller, and D. Pranzetti, Edge modes of gravity. Part I. Corner potentials and charges, JHEP 11, 026, arXiv:2006.12527 [hep-th]

    2006 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ciambelli and R

    L. Ciambelli and R. G. Leigh, Universal corner symmetry and the orbit method for gravity, Nucl. Phys. B 986, 116053 (2023), arXiv:2207.06441 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    T. G. Mertens, J. Sim´ on, and G. Wong, A proposal for 3d quantum gravity and its bulk factorization, JHEP 06, 134, arXiv:2210.14196 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Donnelly, L

    W. Donnelly, L. Freidel, S. F. Moosavian, and A. J. Speranza, Matrix Quantization of Gravitational 20 Edge Modes, JHEP 05, 163, arXiv:2212.09120 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Blommaert, T

    A. Blommaert, T. G. Mertens, and H. Verschelde, Edge dynamics from the path integral — Maxwell and Yang-Mills, JHEP 11, 080, arXiv:1804.07585 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gomes, F

    H. Gomes, F. Hopfm¨ uller, and A. Riello, A unified geometric framework for boundary charges and dressings: non-Abelian theory and matter, Nucl. Phys. B 941, 249 (2019), arXiv:1808.02074 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gomes and A

    H. Gomes and A. Riello, The quasilocal degrees of freedom of Yang-Mills theory, SciPost Phys. 10, 130 (2021), arXiv:1910.04222 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Geiller and P

    M. Geiller and P. Jai-akson, Extended actions, dynamics of edge modes, and entanglement entropy, JHEP 09, 134, arXiv:1912.06025 [hep-th]

    1912 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ball and L

    A. Ball and L. Ciambelli, Dynamical Edge Modes in Yang-Mills Theory, (2024), arXiv:2412.06672 [hep-th]

    2024

  40. [48]

    Donnelly, Decomposition of entanglement entropy in lattice gauge theory, Phys

    W. Donnelly, Decomposition of entanglement entropy in lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D85, 085004 (2012), arXiv:1109.0036 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Pretko and T

    M. Pretko and T. Senthil, Entanglement entropy of U (1) quantum spin liquids, Phys. Rev. B 94, 125112 (2016), arXiv:1510.03863 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    S. Aoki, T. Iritani, M. Nozaki, T. Numasawa, N. Shiba, and H. Tasaki, On the definition of entangle- ment entropy in lattice gauge theories, JHEP 06, 187, arXiv:1502.04267 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Radiˇ cevi´ c, Entanglement in Weakly Coupled Lattice Gauge Theories, JHEP 04, 163, arXiv:1509.08478 [hep-th]

    D. Radiˇ cevi´ c, Entanglement in Weakly Coupled Lattice Gauge Theories, JHEP 04, 163, arXiv:1509.08478 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    R. M. Soni and S. P. Trivedi, Aspects of Entanglement Entropy for Gauge Theories, JHEP 01, 136, arXiv:1510.07455 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    M. N. Chernodub, V. A. Goy, A. V. Molochkov, and A. S. Tanashkin, Boundary states and non-Abelian Casimir effect in lattice Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014515 (2023), arXiv:2302.00376 [hep- lat]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Kabat, Black hole entropy and entropy of entanglement, Nuclear Physics B 453, 281 (1995)

    D. Kabat, Black hole entropy and entropy of entanglement, Nuclear Physics B 453, 281 (1995)

    1995

  47. [55]

    D. V. Fursaev and G. Miele, Cones, spins and heat kernels, Nuclear Physics B 484, 697 (1997)

    1997

  48. [56]

    S. N. Solodukhin, Newton constant, contact terms, and entropy, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084028 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Riello, Symplectic reduction of Yang-Mills theory with boundaries: from superselection sectors to edge modes, and back, SciPost Phys

    A. Riello, Symplectic reduction of Yang-Mills theory with boundaries: from superselection sectors to edge modes, and back, SciPost Phys. 10, 125 (2021), arXiv:2010.15894 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Riello, Edge modes without edge modes, (2021), arXiv:2104.10182 [hep-th]

    A. Riello, Edge modes without edge modes, (2021), arXiv:2104.10182 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. R. David and J. Mukherjee, Partition functions of p-forms from Harish-Chandra characters, JHEP 09, 094, arXiv:2105.03662 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Mukherjee, Entanglement entropy and the boundary action of edge modes, JHEP 06, 113, arXiv:2310.14690 [hep-th]

    J. Mukherjee, Entanglement entropy and the boundary action of edge modes, JHEP 06, 113, arXiv:2310.14690 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Cheng, A black hole toy model with non-local and boundary modes from non-trivial boundary conditions, Eur

    P. Cheng, A black hole toy model with non-local and boundary modes from non-trivial boundary conditions, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 570 (2023), arXiv:2302.03233 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Cheng, Gauge theories with nontrivial boundary conditions: Black holes, Phys

    P. Cheng, Gauge theories with nontrivial boundary conditions: Black holes, Phys. Rev. D 107, 125022 (2023), arXiv:2302.03847 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Ball and Y

    A. Ball and Y. T. A. Law, Dynamical Edge Modes inp-form Gauge Theories, (2024), arXiv:2411.02555 [hep-th]

    2024

  56. [64]

    Dudal, P

    D. Dudal, P. Pais, and L. Rosa, Casimir energy in terms of boundary quantum field theory: The QED case, Phys. Rev. D 102, 016026 (2020), arXiv:2005.12693 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Canfora, D

    F. Canfora, D. Dudal, T. Oosthuyse, P. Pais, and L. Rosa, The Casimir effect in chiral media using path integral techniques, JHEP 09, 095, arXiv:2207.09175 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Oosthuyse and D

    T. Oosthuyse and D. Dudal, Interplay between chiral media and perfect electromagnetic con- ductor plates: Repulsive vs. attractive Casimir force transitions, SciPost Phys. 15, 213 (2023), arXiv:2301.12870 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Dudal, A

    D. Dudal, A. Gobeyn, T. Oosthuyse, S. Stouten, and D. Vercauteren, Casimir energy with perfect electromagnetic boundary conditions and duality: A field-theoretic approach, Phys. Rev. D 110, 065015 (2024), arXiv:2406.19743 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Dudal, T

    D. Dudal, T. Oosthuyse, S. Stouten, A. Gobeyn, and B. W. Mintz, Scalar field theory under Robin boundary conditions: Two-point function and energy–momentum tensor, Annals Phys. 470, 169827 (2024), arXiv:2409.07060 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Bordag, D

    M. Bordag, D. Robaschik, and E. Wieczorek, Quantum field theoretic treatment of the Casimir effect, Annals Phys. 165, 192 (1985)

    1985

  62. [70]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet, and R. Stora, Renormalization of the Abelian Higgs-Kibble Model, Commun. Math. Phys. 42, 127 (1975)

    1975

  63. [71]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet, and R. Stora, The Abelian Higgs-Kibble Model. Unitarity of the S Operator, Phys. Lett. B 52, 344 (1974)

    1974

  64. [72]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet, and R. Stora, Renormalization of Gauge Theories, Annals Phys. 98, 287 (1976)

    1976

  65. [73]

    I. V. Tyutin, Gauge Invariance in Field Theory and Statistical Physics in Operator Formalism, (1975), arXiv:0812.0580 [hep-th]

    1975 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Baulieu, Perturbative Gauge Theories, Phys

    L. Baulieu, Perturbative Gauge Theories, Phys. Rept. 129, 1 (1985)

    1985

  67. [75]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems (Princeton University Press, 1994). 21

    1994

  68. [76]

    Piguet and S

    O. Piguet and S. P. Sorella, Algebraic renormalization: Perturbative renormalization, symmetries and anomalies, Lect.Notes Phys.Monogr., Vol. 28 (1995)

    1995

  69. [77]

    Fuster, M

    A. Fuster, M. Henneaux, and A. Maas, BRST quantization: A Short review, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 2, 939 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0506098

    2005 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Nakanishi, Covariant Quantization of the Electromagnetic Field in the Landau Gauge, Prog

    N. Nakanishi, Covariant Quantization of the Electromagnetic Field in the Landau Gauge, Prog. Theor. Phys. 35, 1111 (1966)

    1966

  71. [79]

    Lautrup, Canonical quantum electrodynamics in covariant gauges, Matematisk-fysiske meddelelser udgivet av det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab (1967)

    B. Lautrup, Canonical quantum electrodynamics in covariant gauges, Matematisk-fysiske meddelelser udgivet av det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab (1967)

    1967

  72. [80]

    Nakanishi and I

    N. Nakanishi and I. Ojima, Covariant operator formalism of gauge theories and quantum gravity , Vol. 27 (1990)

    1990

  73. [81]

    Andrei et al., Boundary and Defect CFT: Open Problems and Applications, J

    N. Andrei et al., Boundary and Defect CFT: Open Problems and Applications, J. Phys. A 53, 453002 (2020), arXiv:1810.05697 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Edery and V

    A. Edery and V. Marachevsky, The Perfect magnetic conductor (PMC) Casimir piston in d+1 dimen- sions, Phys. Rev. D 78, 025021 (2008), arXiv:0805.4038 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Edery, N

    A. Edery, N. Graham, and I. MacDonald, 3D scalar model as a 4D perfect conductor limit: Dimensional reduction and variational boundary conditions, Phys. Rev. D79, 125018 (2009), arXiv:0906.0089 [hep- th]

    2009 arXiv

  76. [84]

    D. V. Vassilevich, Heat kernel expansion: User’s manual, Phys. Rept. 388, 279 (2003), arXiv:hep- th/0306138

    2003

  77. [85]

    I. G. Moss and P. J. Silva, BRST invariant boundary conditions for gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 55, 1072 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9610023

    1997 arXiv

  78. [86]

    D. V. Vassilevich, The Faddeev-Popov trick in the presence of boundaries, Phys. Lett. B 421, 93 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9709182

    1998 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Acharyya, A

    N. Acharyya, A. P. Balachandran, V. Errasti D ´ ıez, P. N. Bala Subramanian, and S. Vaidya, BRST Symmetry: Boundary Conditions and Edge States in QED, Phys. Rev. D 94, 085026 (2016), arXiv:1604.03696 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Baulieu and T

    L. Baulieu and T. Wetzstein, BRST covariant phase space and holographic Ward identities, JHEP 10, 055, arXiv:2405.18898 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Baulieu, T

    L. Baulieu, T. Wetzstein, and S. Wu, BRST Noether Theorem and Corner Charge Bracket, (2024), arXiv:2411.17829 [hep-th]

    2024

  82. [90]

    Kugo and I

    T. Kugo and I. Ojima, Local Covariant Operator Formalism of Nonabelian Gauge Theories and Quark Confinement Problem, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 66, 1 (1979)

    1979

  83. [91]

    Carrozza and P

    S. Carrozza and P. A. Hoehn, Edge modes as reference frames and boundary actions from post- selection, JHEP 02, 172, arXiv:2109.06184 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  84. [92]

    Kabel, C

    V. Kabel, C. Brukner, and W. Wieland, Quantum reference frames at the boundary of spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 108, 106022 (2023), arXiv:2302.11629 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Fischler, Quark - anti-Quark Potential in QCD, Nucl

    W. Fischler, Quark - anti-Quark Potential in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 129, 157 (1977)

    1977

  86. [94]

    Dudal, A Potential setup for perturbative confinement, Phys

    D. Dudal, A Potential setup for perturbative confinement, Phys. Lett. B 677, 203 (2009), arXiv:0905.4214 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Blommaert, T

    A. Blommaert, T. G. Mertens, H. Verschelde, and V. I. Zakharov, Edge State Quantization: Vector Fields in Rindler, JHEP 08, 196, arXiv:1801.09910 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  88. [96]

    V. P. Nair, Eductions of Edge Mode Effects, (2022), arXiv:2210.14137 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  89. [97]

    J. C. Collins, Renormalization: An Introduction to Renormalization, The Renormalization Group, and the Operator Product Expansion , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Vol. 26 (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986)

    1986

  90. [98]

    Zinn-Justin, Quantum field theory and critical phenomena , 5th ed., Int

    J. Zinn-Justin, Quantum field theory and critical phenomena , 5th ed., Int. Ser. Monogr. Phys., Vol. 171 (Oxford University Press, 2021)

    2021

  91. [99]

    I. V. Lindell and A. Sihvola, Perfect electromagnetic conductor (2005), arXiv:physics/0503232 [physics.class-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  92. [100]

    S. Rode, R. Bennett, and S. Y. Buhmann, Casimir effect for perfect electromagnetic conduc- tors (PEMCs): A sum rule for attractive/repulsive forces, New J. Phys. 20, 043024 (2018), arXiv:1710.01509 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  93. [101]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to quantum field theory (Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995)

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.