Schwinger's Dynamical Casimir Effect: Bulk Energy Contribution
Carl E. Carlson (William, Mary), Carmen Molina--Paris (Los Alamos),, Juan Perez--Mercader (LAEFF, Madrid), and Matt Visser (Washington University)
TL;DR
This paper clarifies that previous criticisms of Schwinger's estimate of the Casimir energy in the Dynamical Casimir Effect are due to omission of a volume term, reaffirming its potential role in explaining sonoluminescence.
Contribution
It demonstrates the importance of including the volume term in Casimir energy calculations, restoring agreement with Schwinger's original estimates.
Findings
Correct inclusion of the volume term aligns calculations with Schwinger's results.
Casimir effect remains a viable candidate explanation for sonoluminescence.
Previous inaccuracies were due to omitted volume contributions.
Abstract
Schwinger's Dynamical Casimir Effect is one of several candidate explanations for sonoluminescence. Recently, several papers have claimed that Schwinger's estimate of the Casimir energy involved is grossly inaccurate. In this letter, we show that these calculations omit the crucial volume term. When the missing term is correctly included one finds full agreement with Schwinger's result for the Dynamical Casimir Effect. We have nothing new to say about sonoluminescence itself except to affirm that the Casimir effect is energetically adequate as a candidate explanation.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.