Comment on "Casimir force in the $O(n\to\infty)$ model with free boundary conditions"

TL;DR

This paper critiques a recent study on the Casimir force in the $O(n)$ model, clarifying the equivalence of models and correcting misinterpretations of previous results, emphasizing the accuracy and universality of earlier findings.

Contribution

The paper demonstrates the equivalence of the spherical model with $g= fty$ to the model studied previously, reaffirming the accuracy and universality of earlier results and correcting misinterpretations.

Findings

Models A and B are numerically exact for various thicknesses.

The spherical model with $g= fty$ is identical to the model studied.

Misinterpretation of the scaling limit led to perceived discrepancies.

Abstract

In a recent paper [D. Dantchev, J. Bergnoff, and J. Rudnick, Phys. Rev. E 89, 042116 (2014)] the problem of the Casimir force in the $O(n)$ model on a slab with free boundary conditions, investigated earlier by us [EPL 100, 10004 (2012)], is reconsidered using a mean spherical model with separate constraints for each layer. The authors (i) question the applicability of the Ginzburg-Landau-Wilson approach to the low-temperature regime, arguing for the superiority of their model compared to the family of $\phi^4$ models A and B whose numerically exact solutions we determined both for values of the coupling constant $0<g<\infty$ and $g=\infty$. They (ii) report consistency of their results with ours in the critical region and a strong manifestation of universality, but (iii) point out discrepancies with our results in the region below $T_{\mathrm{c}}$. We show here that (i) is unjustified and prove that our model B with $g=\infty$ is identical to their spherical model. Hence evidence for the reported universality is already contained in our work. Moreover, the results we determined for anyone of the models A and B for various thicknesses $L$ are all numerically exact. (iii) is due to their misinterpretation of our results for the scaling limit. We also show that their low-temperature expansion, which does not hold inside the scaling regime, is limited to temperatures lower than they anticipated.