format: text

text:
# Backscattering enhancement of an electromagnetic wave scattered by two-dimensional rough layers

## I Introduction

Scattering of electromagnetic waves from multilayer structures is a phenomenon which is of interest in many area of physics such as remote sensing or optical industry, where for example metallic surfaces have a dielectric coating. An extended review of experimental and theoretical works on optical multilayers can be found in Oli , and references on recent papers are given in Fuks . Many works Bousquet ; Elson ; Amra ; Fuks  deal with the small perturbation method to investigate the behaviour of multilayer structure. However, due to calculations complexity, the analytical results are given only to first order in the rms-height of each rough boundary, thus the interaction between the rough surfaces can only be taken into account if the rough surfaces are correlated Elson  in the mean procedure. Our purpose is to show how light can interact with several rough surfaces, to this end, we have choosen the most simple system depicted in Fig. 1, where we have three regions with different permitivities separated by two rough surfaces. The calculations have been made under the hypothesis of the small perturbation method, initially developped by RiceRice ; Voro . Due to the great complexity to derive high orders of the perturbative development, Rice’s original method is rather difficult to apply. One way to overcome these difficulties is to use integral equations called the reduced Rayleigh equations, they were first obtained by Celli et al Celli , and later have been generalized in Ref. Soubret  to take into account upward fields in the slab medium. When combining these equations we obtain an integral equation where only the scattering matrix of the whole structure has to be determined, next we have developed a systematic method to calculate the perturbative development. We have shown by means of numerical simulations, how different mechanisms responsible of the enhanced backscattering occur. This phenomenon which has been predicted Mara1 ; Mara2 ; Mara3 ; Mendez  and observed West  in the case of a random metal surface, manifests itself as a well-defined peak in the retroreflection direction through the angular dependence of the intensity related to the diffuse component of the scattered field. For a metallic surface, the phenomenon is produced by the interference of waves which excite surface plasmon polariton along a certain path and then follow the same path but in the reverse direction. For a dielectric bounded by metallic plate with one rough surface Mara , the enhanced backscattering is produced by a similar mechanism where the surface plasmon polariton is replaced by a slab guided wave. In this case the incident wave excites in a first time a guided mode due to surface roughness, and then the roughness transforms the surface wave into a bulk wave. Furthermore, if the slab supports several guided modes, recent investigations Mara ; Soubret  have shown the presence of additionnal peaks, called satellite peaks, in the angular distribution of the incoherent intensity. When the slab has two rough boundaries, the enhancement of backscattering can be produced by two kinds of interaction. The classic one, where the wave is scattered two times by the same boundary, and a new one (see Fig. 1) where the wave is transmitted at a point $`A`$ of the surface without being diffused, then the wave is scattered by the second rough surface at a point $`B`$ and by the first one in $`C`$. If the wave follows the same path in the reverse direction and excites the same guided mode, then phase difference between the two path is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =𝒓_{BC}(𝒌+𝒌_i)`$, where $`𝒓_{BC}`$ is the distance between $`B`$ and $`C`$. Thus, in the anti-specular direction ($`𝒌=𝒌_i`$), this phase difference is independent of the random position of $`B`$ and $`C`$ which produce the backscattering peak.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section II we present the system under study and a description of the rough surfaces statistics. In Section III we define the plane wave representation of the electric field in the polarization basis and also the scattering matrix. Section IV is devoted to the calculation of the incoherent cross-section as a function of the perturbative development. In Section V we derive an integral equation from the reduced Rayleigh equations, which provides a systematic way to obtain the perturbative development. The resulting expressions are numerically computed in the case of a dielectric slab deposited on a rough silver surface in Section VI. The calculated incoherent intensity will show a narrow enhanced backscattering. Conclusions drawn from our results are presented and discussed in Section VII. In an Appendix, we collect matrices used in the calculations.

## II The random surface

The system which is considered in this paper is depicted in Fig. 2.

The three regions are characterized by an isotropic, homogeous dielectric constant $`ϵ_0`$, $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ respectively. The two boundaries are located at $`z=h_1(𝒙)`$ and $`z=H+h_2(𝒙)`$, $`𝒙=(x,y)`$, and these three media are separated by rough surfaces described statistically. In fact, we assume that $`h_1(𝒙)`$ and $`h_2(𝒙)`$ are stationary, isotropic uncorrelated Gaussian random processes defined by their moments :

$`<h_i(𝒙)>`$ $`=0,`$ (1)
$`<h_i(𝒙)h_i(𝒙^{\mathbf{}})>`$ $`=W_i(𝒙𝒙^{\mathbf{}}),`$ (2)
$`<h_1(𝒙)h_2(𝒙^{\mathbf{}})>`$ $`=0`$ (3)
where $`i=1,2`$, and the angle brackets denote an average over the ensemble of realizations of the function $`h_1(𝒙)`$ and $`h_2(𝒙)`$. In this work we will use a Gaussian form for the surface-height correlation function $`W_1(𝒙)`$ and $`W_2(𝒙)`$:

$`W_i(𝒙)=\sigma _i^2\mathrm{exp}(𝒙^2/l_i^2),`$ (4)
where $`\sigma _i`$ is the rms height of the surface $`h_i(𝒙)`$, and $`l_i`$ is the transverse correlation length. In momentum space we have:

$`<h_i(𝒑)>`$ $`=0,`$ (5)
$`<h_i(𝒑)h_i(𝒑^{})>`$ $`=(2\pi )^2\delta (𝒑+𝒑^{})W_i(𝒑),`$ (6)
$`<h_1(𝒑)h_2(𝒑^{})>`$ $`=0.`$ (7)
with

$`W_i(𝒑)`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2𝒙W_i(𝒙)\mathrm{exp}(i𝒑𝒙)}`$ (8)
$`=\pi \sigma _i^2l_i^2\mathrm{exp}(𝒑^2l_i^2/4).`$ (9)
## III The scattering matrix

We suppose that the slab is illuminated from the media $`0`$ by an electromagnetic wave of pulsation $`\omega `$. In the following we will omit the time dependence $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\omega t)`$. The field $`𝑬^0`$ in the media $`0`$ can be written as a superposition of an incident and scattered fields :

$$𝑬^0(𝒙,z)=𝑬^i(𝒑_0)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝒑_0𝒙\mathrm{i}\alpha _0(𝒑_0)z)+\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑}{(2\pi )^2}𝑬^s(𝒑)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝒑𝒙+\mathrm{i}\alpha _0(𝒑)z).$$
(10)
where

$`\alpha _0(𝒑)`$ $`(ϵ_0K_0^2𝒑^2)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (11)
$`𝑬^i(𝒑_0)`$ $`=E_V^i(𝒑_0)\widehat{𝒆}_V^0(𝒑_0)+E_H^i(𝒑_0)\widehat{𝒆}_H(𝒑_0)`$ (12)
$`𝑬^s(𝒑)`$ $`=E_V^s(𝒑)\widehat{𝒆}_V^{0+}(𝒑)+E_H^s(𝒑)\widehat{𝒆}_H(𝒑).`$ (13)
The subscript $`H`$ refers to the horizontal polarization $`(TE)`$ and $`V`$ to the vertical polarization $`(TM)`$, and are defined by the two vectors:

$`\widehat{𝒆}_H(𝒑)`$ $`=\widehat{𝒆}_z\times \widehat{𝒑},`$ (14)
$`\widehat{𝒆}_V^{0\pm }(𝒑)`$ $`=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0(𝒑)}{\sqrt{ϵ_0}K_0}}\widehat{𝒑}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑}{\sqrt{ϵ_0}K_0}}\widehat{𝒆}_z,`$ (15)
where the minus sign refers to incident wave and the plus sign to the scattered wave. It has to be noticed that the vector $`𝑬^s(𝒑)`$ and $`𝑬^i(𝒑_0)`$ are expressed in different basis due the fact that $`\widehat{𝒆}_V^{0\pm }(𝒑)`$ and $`\widehat{𝒆}_V^{1\pm }(𝒑)`$ depend on $`𝒑`$. In medium 1, we have a similar expression namely:

$$𝑬^1(𝒓)=\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑}{(2\pi )^2}𝑬^1(𝒑)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝒑𝒙\mathrm{i}\alpha _1(𝒑)z)+\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑}{(2\pi )^2}𝑬^{1+}(𝒑)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝒑𝒙+\mathrm{i}\alpha _1(𝒑)z),$$
(16)
where

$`\alpha _1(𝒑)`$ $`(ϵ_1K_0^2𝒑^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (17)
The field $`𝑬^1`$ is decomposed in the basis $`(\widehat{𝒆}_V^{}(𝒑),\widehat{𝒆}_H(𝒑))`$, and $`𝑬^{1+}`$ in the basis $`(\widehat{𝒆}_V^+(𝒑),\widehat{𝒆}_H(𝒑))`$ with

$`\widehat{𝒆}_H(𝒑)`$ $`=\widehat{𝒆}_z\times \widehat{𝒑},`$ (18)
$`\widehat{𝒆}_V^{1\pm }(𝒑)`$ $`=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1(𝒑)}{\sqrt{ϵ_1}K_0}}\widehat{𝒑}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑}{\sqrt{ϵ_1}K_0}}\widehat{𝒆}_z.`$ (19)
We now introduce the definition the scattering matrix :

$`𝑬^s(𝒑)\overline{𝑹}(𝒑|𝒑_0)𝑬^i(𝒑_0),`$ (20)
where $`\overline{𝑹}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ is a two dimensional matrix which can be written in the following form:

$$\overline{𝑹}(𝒑|𝒑_0)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}R_{VV}(𝒑|𝒑_0)& R_{VH}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\\ R_{HV}(𝒑|𝒑_0)& R_{HH}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\end{array}\right).$$

## IV Diffuse cross-section

In a previous work Soubret  we have defined a new product $``$ between two dimensional matrices in the form :

$`\overline{𝒇}\overline{𝒈}`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f_{VV}& f_{VH}\\ f_{HV}& f_{HH}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{VV}& g_{VH}\\ g_{HV}& g_{HH}\end{array}\right)`$ (21)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}f_{VV}g_{VV}^{}& f_{VH}g_{VH}^{}& Re(f_{VV}g_{VH}^{})& Im(f_{VV}g_{VH}^{})\\ f_{HV}g_{HV}^{}& f_{HH}g_{HH}^{}& Re(f_{HV}g_{HH}^{})& Im(f_{HV}g_{VH}^{})\\ 2Re(f_{VV}g_{HV}^{})& 2Re(f_{VH}g_{HH}^{})& Re(f_{VV}g_{VV}^{}+f_{HV}g_{VH}^{})& Im(f_{VV}g_{HH}^{}f_{VH}g_{HV}^{})\\ 2Im(f_{VV}g_{HV}^{})& 2Im(f_{VH}g_{HH}^{})& Im(f_{VV}g_{VV}^{}+f_{HV}g_{VH}^{})& Re(f_{VV}g_{HH}^{}f_{VH}g_{HV}^{})\end{array}\right).`$ (26)
which allows to write the incoherent Muller matrix Ishi2  in a condensed expression:

$`\overline{𝑴}^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{K_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{(2\pi )^2}}[<\overline{𝑹}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\overline{𝑹}(𝒑|𝒑_0)><\overline{𝑹}(𝒑|𝒑_0)><\overline{𝑹}(𝒑|𝒑_0)>].`$ (27)
Furthermore, we define the generalization of the classical bistatic coefficient Kong  also called mean differential coefficient McGurn  by :

$$\overline{𝜸}^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\frac{1}{A\mathrm{cos}\theta _0}\overline{𝑴}^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)$$
(28)
where $`A`$ is the area of the illuminated surface and $`\theta _0`$ the incident angle (see Fig. 3). In this paper we are interested by the perturbative development of the scattered fields as a function of the surface elevations $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$. In a perturbative expansion of the scattering matrix, the terms which contain an expression like $`h_1^nh_2^m`$ will be denoted $`\overline{𝑹}^{(nm)}`$, so that the perturbative development of $`\overline{𝑹}`$ becomes:

$$\overline{𝑹}=\overline{𝑹}^{(00)}+\overline{𝑹}^{(10)}+\overline{𝑹}^{(01)}+\overline{𝑹}^{(11)}+\overline{𝑹}^{(20)}+\overline{𝑹}^{(21)}+\overline{𝑹}^{(12)}+\overline{𝑹}^{(22)}+\overline{𝑹}^{(30)}+\overline{𝑹}^{(03)}+\mathrm{}$$
(29)
With this decomposition and using Eqs. (1,3) with the fact that $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ are Gaussian random processes i.e.

$`<h_1^{2p+1}(𝒙)>`$ $`=0,p\text{a positive integer}`$ (30)
$`<h_2^{2p+1}(𝒙)>`$ $`=0`$ (31)
the incoherent bistatic matrix will be given by the contribution of three terms:

$`\overline{𝜸}^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)=\overline{𝜸}_u^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝜸}_d^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝜸}_{ud}^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0),`$ (32)
where

$`\overline{𝜸}_u^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)={\displaystyle \frac{K_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{A(2\pi )^2\mathrm{cos}\theta _0}}\left[<\overline{𝑹}^{(10)}\overline{𝑹}^{(10)}>+<\overline{𝑹}^{(20)}\overline{𝑹}^{(20)}>+<\overline{𝑹}^{(30)}\overline{𝑹}^{(10)}>\right],`$ (33)
corresponds to the incoherent bistatic matrix for the slab where only the upper surface has a roughness ($`h_2(𝒙)=0`$), and its expansion is made up to order four in the rms-height elevation $`\sigma _1`$. Similarly,

$`\overline{𝜸}_d^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)={\displaystyle \frac{K_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{A(2\pi )^2\mathrm{cos}\theta _0}}\left[<\overline{𝑹}^{(01)}\overline{𝑹}^{(01)}>+<\overline{𝑹}^{(02)}\overline{𝑹}^{(02)}>+<\overline{𝑹}^{(03)}\overline{𝑹}^{(01)}>\right],`$ (34)
is associated to a system where only the bottom surface is rough ($`h_1(𝒙)=0`$), where also the perturbative development is made up to order four in $`\sigma _2`$. The last term $`\overline{𝜸}_{ud}^{incoh}`$ contains terms which describe the scattering process between the two rough surfaces where only the leading terms are retained:

$`\overline{𝜸}_{ud}^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)={\displaystyle \frac{K_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{A(2\pi )^2\mathrm{cos}\theta _0}}`$ $`[<\overline{𝑹}^{(10)}\overline{𝑹}^{(12)}>+<\overline{𝑹}^{(12)}\overline{𝑹}^{(10)}>`$
$`+<\overline{𝑹}^{(01)}\overline{𝑹}^{(21)}>+<\overline{𝑹}^{(21)}\overline{𝑹}^{(01)}>`$
$`+<\overline{𝑹}^{(11)}\overline{𝑹}^{(11)}>+\mathrm{}],`$ (35)
More precisely all terms up of order $`\sigma _1^2\sigma _2^2`$ are included. If the value of $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ are of the same order of magnitude, these terms will be comparable to the order four in the expressions (33,34). Thus we can suppose that the following terms in the expansion (35), which are of order $`\sigma _1^4\sigma _2^2`$, $`\sigma _1^2\sigma _2^4`$, $`\sigma _1^4\sigma _2^4`$ will be negligible compared to those retained in Eq. (35). However, due to the complexity of the perturbative development, these terms of the sixth order have not been calculated. In the following section, we will show how the perturbative development can be put in the following form:

$`\overline{𝑹}^{(10)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=\alpha _0(𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(10)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)h_1(𝒑𝒑_0),`$ (36)
$`\overline{𝑹}^{(01)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=\alpha _0(𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(01)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)h_2(𝒑𝒑_0),`$ (37)
$`\overline{𝑹}^{(11)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)=\alpha _0(𝒑_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ $`[\overline{𝑿}^{(11)12}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)h_1(𝒑𝒑_1)h_2(𝒑𝒑_0)`$
$`+\overline{𝑿}^{(11)21}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)h_2(𝒑𝒑_1)h_1(𝒑𝒑_0)],`$ (38)
$`\overline{𝑹}^{(20)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=\alpha _0(𝒑_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}\overline{𝑿}^{(20)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)h_1(𝒑𝒑_1)h_1(𝒑_1𝒑_0)},`$ (39)
$`\overline{𝑹}^{(02)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=\alpha _0(𝒑_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}\overline{𝑿}^{(02)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)h_2(𝒑𝒑_1)h_2(𝒑_1𝒑_0)},`$ (40)
$`\overline{𝑹}^{(21)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)=\alpha _0(𝒑_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_2}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ $`[\overline{𝑿}^{(21)112}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)h_1(𝒑𝒑_1)h_1(𝒑_1𝒑_2)h_2(𝒑_2𝒑_0)`$
$`+\overline{𝑿}^{(21)121}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)h_1(𝒑𝒑_1)h_2(𝒑_1𝒑_2)h_1(𝒑_2𝒑_0)`$
$`+\overline{𝑿}^{(21)211}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)h_2(𝒑𝒑_1)h_1(𝒑_1𝒑_2)h_1(𝒑_2𝒑_0)],`$ (41)
$`\overline{𝑹}^{(12)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)=\alpha _0(𝒑_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_2}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ $`[\overline{𝑿}^{(12)221}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)h_2(𝒑𝒑_1)h_2(𝒑_1𝒑_2)h_1(𝒑_2𝒑_0)`$
$`+\overline{𝑿}^{(12)212}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)h_2(𝒑𝒑_1)h_1(𝒑_1𝒑_2)h_2(𝒑_2𝒑_0)`$
$`+\overline{𝑿}^{(12)122}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)h_1(𝒑𝒑_1)h_2(𝒑_1𝒑_2)h_2(𝒑_2𝒑_0)],`$ (42)
$`\overline{𝑹}^{(30)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=\alpha _0(𝒑_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_2}{(2\pi )^2}\overline{𝑿}^{(30)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)h_1(𝒑𝒑_1)h_1(𝒑_1𝒑_2)h_1(𝒑_2𝒑_0)},`$ (43)
$`\overline{𝑹}^{(03)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=\alpha _0(𝒑_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_2}{(2\pi )^2}\overline{𝑿}^{(03)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)h_2(𝒑𝒑_1)h_2(𝒑_1𝒑_2)h_2(𝒑_2𝒑_0)}.`$ (44)
In these expressions we have added superscripts in some terms to indicate the order of apparition of the functions $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$. For example, in $`\overline{𝑿}^{(21)121}`$ the superscript $`121`$ indicates that it is the coefficient associated with the product $`h_1(𝒑𝒑_1)h_2(𝒑_1𝒑_2)h_1(𝒑_2𝒑_0)`$. When we combine Eq. (6), $`\delta (0)=A/(2\pi )^2`$ and the previous development, we obtain the following expression for the quantities (33-35):

$`\overline{𝜸}_u^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{K_0^4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _0}{(2\pi )^2}}\left[\overline{𝑰}^{(1010)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑰}^{(2020)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑰}^{(3010)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\right],`$ (45)
$`\overline{𝜸}_d^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{K_0^4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _0}{(2\pi )^2}}\left[\overline{𝑰}^{(0101)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑰}^{(0202)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑰}^{(0301)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\right],`$ (46)
$`\overline{𝜸}_{ud}^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{K_0^4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _0}{(2\pi )^2}}\left[\overline{𝑰}^{(1210)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑰}^{(1111)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑰}^{(2101)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\right],`$ (47)
where

$`\overline{𝑰}^{(1010)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=W_1(𝒑𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(10)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(10)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ (48)
$`\overline{𝑰}^{(2020)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}W_1(𝒑𝒑_1)W_1(𝒑_1𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(20)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)}`$
$`\left[\overline{𝑿}^{(20)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑿}^{(20)}(𝒑|𝒑+𝒑_0𝒑_1|𝒑_0)\right]`$ (49)
$`\overline{𝑰}^{(3010)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=W_1(𝒑𝒑_0)\left[\overline{𝑿}^{(10)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(30)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑿}^{(30)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(10)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\right],`$ (50)
$`\overline{𝑰}^{(0101)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=W_2(𝒑𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(01)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(01)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ (51)
$`\overline{𝑰}^{(0202)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}W_2(𝒑𝒑_1)W_2(𝒑_1𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(02)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)}`$
$`\left[\overline{𝑿}^{(02)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑿}^{(02)}(𝒑|𝒑+𝒑_0𝒑_1|𝒑_0)\right]`$ (52)
$`\overline{𝑰}^{(0301)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=W_2(𝒑𝒑_0)\left[\overline{𝑿}^{(01)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(03)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑿}^{(03)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(01)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\right],`$ (53)
$`\overline{𝑰}^{(1210)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=W_1(𝒑𝒑_0)\left[\overline{𝑿}^{(12)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(10)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑿}^{(10)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(12)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\right],`$ (54)
$`\overline{𝑰}^{(2101)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=W_2(𝒑𝒑_0)\left[\overline{𝑿}^{(21)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(01)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑿}^{(01)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(21)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\right],`$ (55)
$`\overline{𝑰}^{(1111)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`={\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}}[W_1(𝒑𝒑_1)W_2(𝒑_1𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(11)12}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)`$
$`\left(\overline{𝑿}^{(11)12}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑿}^{(11)21}(𝒑|𝒑+𝒑_0𝒑_1|𝒑_0)\right)`$
$`+W_2(𝒑𝒑_1)W_1(𝒑_1𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(11)21}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)`$
$`(\overline{𝑿}^{(11)21}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑿}^{(11)12}(𝒑|𝒑+𝒑_0𝒑_1|𝒑_0))]`$ (56)
with

$`\overline{𝑿}^{(30)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ $`[W_1(𝒑_1𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(30)}(𝒑|𝒑_0|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)`$
$`+W_1(𝒑𝒑_1)(\overline{𝑿}^{(30)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0𝒑+𝒑_1|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑿}^{(30)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑|𝒑_0))],`$ (57)
$`\overline{𝑿}^{(03)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ $`[W_2(𝒑_1𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(03)}(𝒑|𝒑_0|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)`$
$`+W_2(𝒑𝒑_1)(\overline{𝑿}^{(03)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0𝒑+𝒑_1|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑿}^{(03)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑|𝒑_0))],`$ (58)
$`\overline{𝑿}^{(12)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ $`[W_2(𝒑𝒑_1)(\overline{𝑿}^{(12)221}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑿}^{(12)212}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0𝒑+𝒑_1|𝒑_0))`$
$`+W_2(𝒑_1𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(12)122}(𝒑|𝒑_0|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)],`$ (59)
$`\overline{𝑿}^{(21)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ $`[W_1(𝒑𝒑_1)(\overline{𝑿}^{(21)112}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑|𝒑_0)+\overline{𝑿}^{(21)121}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0𝒑+𝒑_1|𝒑_0))`$
$`+W_1(𝒑_1𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}^{(21)211}(𝒑|𝒑_0|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)],`$ (60)
## V Perturbative development and reduced Rayleigh equations

In order to obtain the development (29) for the scattering matrix, a practical method is provided by the use of the reduced Rayleigh equations first obtained by Brown et al Celli  for a single rough surface, and then extended in Soubret  for a more general system. These equations are exact, under the Rayleigh hypothesis, and their main advantages are that one of the electric fields $`𝑬^i`$, $`𝑬^s`$, $`𝑬^1`$, $`𝑬^{1+}`$ (see Fig. 2) of the problem has been eliminated. These equations are derived by taking linear combinations of the electromagnetic boundaries conditions at the first surface $`h_1`$, where the Fourier transform of the fields has been introduced. In particular, we obtain the two following equations (see Eqs.(99-100) in Soubret ):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑}{(2\pi )^2}\overline{𝑴}_h^{1+,0+}(𝒖|𝒑)\overline{𝑹}(𝒑|𝒑_0)𝑬^i(𝒑_0)}+\overline{𝑴}_h^{1+,0}(𝒖|𝒑_0)𝑬^i(𝒑_0)={\displaystyle \frac{2(ϵ_0ϵ_1)^{\frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1(𝒖)}{(ϵ_1ϵ_0)}}𝑬^{1+}(𝒖),`$ (61)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑}{(2\pi )^2}\overline{𝑴}_h^{1,0+}(𝒖|𝒑)\overline{𝑹}(𝒑|𝒑_0)𝑬^i(𝒑_0)}+\overline{𝑴}_h^{1,0}(𝒖|𝒑_0)𝑬^i(𝒑_0)={\displaystyle \frac{2(ϵ_0ϵ_1)^{\frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1(𝒖)}{(ϵ_1ϵ_0)}}𝑬^1(𝒖),`$ (62)
where

$`\overline{𝑴}_h^{1b,0a}(𝒖|𝒑)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I(b\alpha _1(𝒖)a\alpha _0(𝒑)|𝒖𝒑)}{b\alpha _1(𝒖)a\alpha _0(𝒑)}}\overline{𝑴}^{1b,0a}(𝒖|𝒑)`$ (63)
with

$$\overline{𝑴}^{1b,0a}(𝒖|𝒑)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒖𝒑+ab\alpha _1(𝒖)\alpha _0(𝒑)\widehat{𝒖}\widehat{𝒑}& bϵ_0^{\frac{1}{2}}K_0\alpha _1(𝒖)(\widehat{𝒖}\times \widehat{𝒑})_z\\ aϵ_1^{\frac{1}{2}}K_0\alpha _0(𝒑)(\widehat{𝒖}\times \widehat{𝒑})_z& (ϵ_0ϵ_1)^{\frac{1}{2}}K_0^2\widehat{𝒖}\widehat{𝒑}\end{array}\right),$$
(64)
and

$`I(\alpha |𝒑){\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2𝒙\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝒑𝒙i\alpha h_1(𝒙))},`$ (65)
the symbols $`a=\pm `$ and $`b=\pm `$ in Eqs. (64-65) represent a given choice linked to the field propagation. In order to obtain a single equation for $`\overline{𝑹}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$, we have to find a relation between $`𝑬^1`$ and $`𝑬^{1+}`$. To this end we already know an expression of the scattering matrix for a single rough surface separating two homogenous media of permittivity $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$, which is translated along the $`z`$-axis to the height $`z=H`$, and illuminated by a plane wave $`E^1(𝒑)`$. This scattering matrix denoted $`\overline{𝑹}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^H`$ is given by:

$$\overline{𝑹}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^H(𝒑|𝒑_0)=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}(\alpha _1(𝒑)+\alpha _1(𝒑_0))H)\overline{𝑹}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}(𝒑|𝒑_0),$$
(66)
where $`\overline{𝑹}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ can be found in Refs. McGurn ; Johnson ; Soubret . The phase term in Eq. (66) comes from the translation $`z=H`$ of the rough surface $`h_2(𝒙)`$ (see Refs.Voro ; Soubret ). Thus we have the following relation:

$`𝑬^{1+}(𝒖)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒖_1}{(2\pi )^2}\overline{𝑹}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^H(𝒖|𝒖_1)𝑬^1(𝒖_1)}.`$ (67)
Now combining Eq. (67) with Eqs. (61-62), we obtain an integral equation where $`\overline{𝑹}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ is the only unknown:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ $`\left[\overline{𝑴}_h^{1+,0+}(𝒖|𝒑)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒖_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\alpha _1(𝒖)}{\alpha _1(𝒖_1)}\overline{𝑹}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^H(𝒖|𝒖_1)\overline{𝑴}_h^{1,0+}(𝒖_1|𝒑)}\right]\overline{𝑹}(𝒑|𝒑_0)=`$
$`\left[\overline{𝑴}_h^{1+,0}(𝒖|𝒑_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒖_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\alpha _1(𝒖)}{\alpha _1(𝒖_1)}\overline{𝑹}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^H(𝒖|𝒖_1)\overline{𝑴}_h^{1,0}(𝒖|𝒑_0)}\right].`$ (68)
Expanding $`I(\alpha |𝒑)`$ in Eq. (65) in power of $`h_1`$:

$`I(\alpha |𝒑)`$ $`=(2\pi )^2\delta (𝒑)i\alpha h_1^{(1)}(𝒑){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2}}h_1^{(2)}(𝒑){\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^3}{3!}}h_1^{(3)}(𝒑)+\mathrm{},`$ (69)
$`h_1^{(n)}(𝒑)`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2𝒙\mathrm{exp}(i𝒑𝒙)h_1^n(𝒙)},`$ (70)
and using the perturbative developmentSoubret  of $`\overline{𝑹}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^H`$ in power of $`h_2`$:

$`\overline{𝑹}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^H(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^2\delta (𝒑𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^{H(0)}(𝒑_0)+\alpha _0(𝒑_0)\overline{𝑿}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^{H(1)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)h_2(𝒑𝒑_0)`$
$`+\alpha _0(𝒑_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}\overline{𝑿}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^{H(2)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)h_2(𝒑𝒑_1)h_2(𝒑_1𝒑_0)}`$
$`+\alpha _0(𝒑_0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝒑_2}{(2\pi )^2}\overline{𝑿}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^{H(3)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)h_2(𝒑𝒑_1)h_2(𝒑_1𝒑_2)h_2(𝒑_2𝒑_0)},`$
we finally obtain the expansions (29,36-44). The expression for the scattering matrix when only one rough surface is involved was given in Ref.Soubret , here a small change have been made in the notations:

$`\overline{𝑹}^{(n0)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)=\overline{𝑹}_u^{(n)}(𝒑|𝒑_0),`$ (72)
$`\overline{𝑹}^{(0n)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)=\overline{𝑹}_d^{(n)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ (73)
$`n`$ being an integer ranging from $`0`$ to $`3`$. For the others coefficients we have :

$`\overline{𝑿}^{(11)21}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)=`$ $`\overline{𝑻}^{10}(𝒑)\overline{𝑼}^{(0)}(𝒑)\overline{𝑿}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^{H(1)}(𝒑|𝒑_1)\left[\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}\overline{𝑫}_{10}^{}(𝒑_1)\overline{𝑿}^{(10)}(𝒑_1|𝒑_0)+i\overline{𝑺}^+(𝒑_1|𝒑_0)\right],`$ (74)
$`\overline{𝑿}^{(11)12}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_0)=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\overline{𝑷}^+(𝒑|𝒑_1)\overline{𝑿}^{(01)}(𝒑_1|𝒑_0),`$ (75)
$`\overline{𝑿}^{(21)112}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\overline{𝑷}^+(𝒑|𝒑_1)\overline{𝑿}^{(11)12}(𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\alpha _1(𝒑)\overline{𝑷}^{}(𝒑|𝒑_2)\alpha _0(𝒑_2)\overline{𝑷}^+(𝒑|𝒑_2)\right]\overline{𝑿}^{(01)}(𝒑_2|𝒑_0)`$ (76)
$`\overline{𝑿}^{(21)121}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\overline{𝑷}^+(𝒑|𝒑_1)\overline{𝑿}^{(11)21}(𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0),`$ (77)
$`\overline{𝑿}^{(21)211}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)=`$ $`\overline{𝑻}^{10}(𝒑)\overline{𝑼}^{(0)}(𝒑)\overline{𝑿}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^{H(1)}(𝒑|𝒑_1)[\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}\overline{𝑫}_{10}^{}(𝒑_1)\overline{𝑿}^{(20)}(𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i(ϵ_1ϵ_0)}{2(ϵ_0ϵ_1)^{1/2}}}\overline{𝑴}^{1,0+}(𝒑_1|𝒑_2)\overline{𝑿}^{(10)}(𝒑_2|𝒑_0)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\alpha _1(𝒑_1)\overline{𝑺}^+(𝒑_1|𝒑_0)+\alpha _0(𝒑_0)\overline{𝑺}^{}(𝒑_1|𝒑_0))]`$ (78)
$`\overline{𝑿}^{(12)122}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\overline{𝑷}^+(𝒑|𝒑_1)\overline{𝑿}^{(02)}(𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0),`$ (79)
$`\overline{𝑿}^{(12)212}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)=`$ $`\overline{𝑻}^{10}(𝒑)\overline{𝑼}^{(0)}(𝒑)\overline{𝑿}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^{H(1)}(𝒑|𝒑_1)[\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}\overline{𝑫}_{10}^{}(𝒑_1)\overline{𝑿}^{(11)12}(𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i(ϵ_1ϵ_0)}{2(ϵ_0ϵ_1)^{1/2}}}\overline{𝑴}^{1,0+}(𝒑_1|𝒑_2)\overline{𝑿}^{(01)}(𝒑_2|𝒑_0)],`$ (80)
$`\overline{𝑿}^{(12)221}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)=`$ $`\overline{𝑻}^{10}(𝒑)\overline{𝑼}^{(0)}(𝒑)[\overline{𝑿}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^{H(1)}(𝒑|𝒑_1)\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}\overline{𝑫}_{10}^{}(𝒑_1)\overline{𝑿}^{(11)21}(𝒑_1|𝒑_2|𝒑_0)`$
$`+\overline{𝑿}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^{H(2)}(𝒑|𝒑_1|𝒑_2)(\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}\overline{𝑫}_{10}^{}(𝒑_2)\overline{𝑿}^{(10)}(𝒑_2|𝒑_0)+\mathrm{i}\overline{𝑺}^+(𝒑_2|𝒑_0))],`$ (81)
where the matrices $`\overline{𝑻}^{(10)}`$, $`\overline{𝑼}^{(0)}`$, $`\overline{𝑷}^\pm `$, $`\overline{𝑫}_{10}^\pm `$, $`\overline{𝑿}^{(10)}`$, $`\overline{𝑿}^{(20)}`$, $`\overline{𝑿}^{(01)}`$, $`\overline{𝑿}^{(02)}`$, $`\overline{𝑿}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^{H(1)}`$, $`\overline{𝑿}_{sϵ_1,ϵ_2}^{H(2)}`$ are respectively defined by Eqs.(71),(87),(114,115),(57),(104,105),(96,97),(60,61) in Ref. Soubret , and $`\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}`$, $`\overline{𝑺}^\pm `$ are given in Appendix A.

## VI Numerical results

As an application of the previous formalism we consider a system made of a air-dielectric film whose dielectric constant is $`ϵ_1=2.6896+i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.0075}`$($`ϵ_0=1`$), deposited on silver surface with $`ϵ_2=18.3+i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.55}`$. The vacuum-dielectric interface is a two-dimensionnal rough surface, whose parameters are $`\sigma _1=15nm`$ and $`l_1=100nm`$. The dielectric-silver boundary is also rough and defined by $`\sigma _2=5nm`$ and $`l_2=100nm`$. The incident wave has an arbitrary polarization and his wavelength is $`\lambda =632.8nm`$. With this set of parameters, the conditions of validity of the small-perturbation theory are satisfied Ogilvy  namely:

$`2\pi \left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1}{ϵ_0}}\right|^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _1}{\lambda }}`$ $`1,`$ $`2\pi \left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_2}{ϵ_1}}\right|^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _2}{\lambda }}`$ $`1`$ (83)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _1}{l_1}}`$ $`1,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _2}{l_2}}`$ $`1.`$ (84)
The thickness of the film is $`H=500nm`$ and support two-guided wave polaritons for the $`(TE)`$ polarizations at $`p_{TE}^1=1.5534K_0`$, and $`p_{TE}^2=1.2727K_0`$, and three guided-modes for the $`(TM)`$ polarizations at $`p_{TM}^1=1.7752K_0`$, $`p_{TM}^2=1.4577K_0`$ and $`p_{TM}^3=1.034K_0`$. We have computed the incoherent bistatic coefficient $`\gamma ^{incoh}(𝒑|𝒑_0)`$, where the integrals involved in Eqs. (49,52,56, 57-60) are evaluated using Legendre quadrature. The results are shown in Figs. (4-7), where the incoherent bistatic coefficient is drawn as of function of the scattering angle $`\theta `$ for two different angles of incidence and the incident wave is linearly polarized. In Fig. 4, the wave is normally incident and the scattered field is observed in the incident plane ($`\varphi =0^\mathrm{o}`$). The single scattering contribution on each surface, associated with the terms $`\overline{𝑰}^{(1010)}+\overline{𝑰}^{(0101)}`$, is plotted as a dotted line, the double-scattering contribution $`\overline{𝑰}^{(2020)}+\overline{𝑰}^{(0202)}+\overline{𝑰}^{(1111)}`$ as a dashed line, the other terms $`\overline{𝑰}^{(3010)}+\overline{𝑰}^{(0301)}+\overline{𝑰}^{(1210)}+\overline{𝑰}^{(2101)}`$ as a dash-dotted line, and the total contribution $`\gamma ^{incoh}`$ by the solid curve. We observed an enhancement of the backscattering which corresponds to the physical process in which the incident light excites a guided-mode through the roughness of the slab and then is scattered into a volume wave which is also due to the roughness effect. During the same process,the light can follow this path in the opposite direction where one possible configuration is shown in Fig. 1. These two paths can interfere constructively near the backscattering direction to produce a peak. As these paths are identical for the two waves under consideration, they should have the same degree of interaction with the rough surface, thus a term like $`\overline{𝑰}^{(3010)}`$ cannot produce the peak because the first wave interact three times with the upper rough surface while the second wave only one time. The effect comes only from the terms $`\overline{𝑰}^{(2020)}+\overline{𝑰}^{(0202)}+\overline{𝑰}^{(1111)}`$, which contain the paths indicated in Fig. 1. However, it has to be noticed that these terms contain also paths that do not produce enhanced backscattering, for example in $`\overline{𝑰}^{(2020)}`$ we have the scattering process where the incident wave is only scattered one time by the upper rough surface but the scattering process is of order two in $`h_1`$. This is the reason why the terms $`\overline{𝑰}^{(2020)}+\overline{𝑰}^{(0202)}+\overline{𝑰}^{(1111)}`$ are not zero away from the anti-specular direction. In order to separate the different contributions to the backscattering peak, we have drawn the contributions of $`\overline{𝑰}^{(2020)}`$, $`\overline{𝑰}^{(0202)}`$, $`\overline{𝑰}^{(1111)}`$ separately in Fig. 5 as a dashed-line, dotted-line and solid curve respectively, we see that each term produces an enhancement near the anti-specular direction. The terms $`\overline{𝑰}^{(2020)}`$, $`\overline{𝑰}^{(0202)}`$ are the classic one(see Refs. Mara ; Soubret ) where the fields do not interact with both rough surfaces but produce the peak due to the scattering on the same rough surface: the upper one for $`\overline{𝑰}^{(2020)}`$ and the bottom one for $`\overline{𝑰}^{(0202)}`$. The contribution $`\overline{𝑰}^{(1111)}`$ is the new result of this work, because we see that the mechanism of Fig. 1 exists and has the same magnitude as the other terms for the choosen parameters. In order to clearly show the displacement of the backscattering enhancement as the angle of incidence is varied, we show in Figs. 6 and 7 the numerical results of the perturbation method when $`\theta _0=20^\mathrm{o}`$. As expected, we clearly see the peak which is now located at $`\theta _0=20^\mathrm{o}`$. Recent papers Mara ; Soubret  have also explored the satellite peaks phenomenon which occurs when the wave follows two reverse paths but with different guided-mode excitations. In Fig. 5, this phenomenon appears for the $`(TM)`$ to $`(TM)`$ polarization due to the term $`\overline{𝑰}^{(0202)}`$. Although a similar phenomenon occurs for the other terms it is too weak to contribute significantly..

## VII Conclusion

In conclusion, the results in this paper clearly show that the backscattering enhancement produced by a rough slab due to the guided-wave polaritons has several origin. At small order in the perturbative development, the peak is produced by a double scattering mechanism. The new results we would like to emphasize, is that not only processes where the two scattering events take place on the same rough surface are capable to produce the backscattering peak, but it is also due to the fact that the wave can be scattered first by one of the rough surface and second by the other surface. To carry the proof, we have performed a perturbative development up to order four in the rms-height of the surfaces which has been possible using an integral equation called reduced Rayleigh equation, in which only the scattering matrix of the whole structure is unknown.

## Acknowledgments

(AS) thanks ANRT for financial support during the preparation of his thesis (contract CIFRE-238-98).

## Appendix A Scattering matrix coefficients

Here we collect the expression of the matrices not given in Soubret :

$`\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}(ϵ_0ϵ_1)^{1/2}& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (85)
$`\overline{𝑺}^\pm (𝒑|𝒑_0)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_0}{2\alpha _0(𝒑_0)(ϵ_0ϵ_1)^{1/2}}}[\overline{𝑴}^{1,0+}(𝒑|𝒑_0).\overline{𝑿}^{(00)}(𝒑|𝒑_0)\pm \overline{𝑴}^{1,0}(𝒑|𝒑_0)].`$ (86)
After some calculations we obtain :

$`\overline{𝑺}^+(𝒑|𝒑_0)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(ϵ_1ϵ_0)}{(ϵ_0ϵ_1)^{1/2}}}`$
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_1𝒑𝒑_0F_V^+(𝒑_0)+ϵ_0\alpha _1(𝒑)\alpha _1(𝒑_0)F_V^{}(𝒑_0)\widehat{𝒑}\widehat{𝒑}_0& ϵ_0^{1/2}K_0\alpha _1(𝒑)F_H^+(𝒑_0)(\widehat{𝒑}\times \widehat{𝒑}_0)_z\\ ϵ_0ϵ_1^{1/2}K_0\alpha _1(𝒑_0)F_V^{}(𝒑_0)(\widehat{𝒑}\times \widehat{𝒑}_0)_z& (ϵ_0ϵ_1)^{1/2}K_0^2F_H^+(𝒑_0)\widehat{𝒑}\widehat{𝒑}_0\end{array}\right)`$
$`[\overline{𝑫}_{10}^+(𝒑_0)]^1,`$ (87)
$`\overline{𝑺}^{}(𝒑|𝒑_0)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(ϵ_1ϵ_0)}{\alpha _0(𝒑_0)(ϵ_0ϵ_1)^{1/2}}}`$
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_0\alpha _1(𝒑_0)𝒑𝒑_0F_V^{}(𝒑_0)& ϵ_0^{1/2}K_0\alpha _1(𝒑)\alpha _1(𝒑_0)F_H^{}(𝒑_0)(\widehat{𝒑}\times \widehat{𝒑}_0)_z\\ ϵ_1\alpha _1(𝒑)\alpha _0^2(𝒑_0)F_V^+(𝒑_0)\widehat{𝒑}\widehat{𝒑}_0& \\ & \\ ϵ_1^{3/2}K_0\alpha _0^2(𝒑_0)F_V^+(𝒑_0)(\widehat{𝒑}\times \widehat{𝒑}_0)_z& (ϵ_0ϵ_1)^{1/2}K_0^2\alpha _1(𝒑_0)F_H^{}(𝒑_0)\widehat{𝒑}\widehat{𝒑}_0\end{array}\right)`$
$`[\overline{𝑫}_{10}^+(𝒑_0)]^1.`$ (88)


text:
# The source of the ”third flow component”

## 1 Introduction

Fluid dynamics is probably the most frequently used model to describe heavy ion collisions. It assumes local equilibrium, i.e. the existence of an Equation of State (EoS), relatively short range interactions and conservation of energy and momentum as well as of conserved charge(s). Thus, in ultra relativistic collisions of large heavy ions, especially if Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) is formed, one-fluid dynamics is a valid and good description for the intermediate stages of the reaction. Here interactions are strong and frequent, so that other models, (e.g. transport models, string models, etc., assuming binary collisions, with free propagation of constituents between collisions) have limited validity. On the other hand, the initial and final, Freeze-Out (FO), stages of the reaction are outside the domain of applicability of the fluid dynamical model.

We believe that the realistic and detailed description of an energetic heavy ion reaction requires a Multi Module Model, where the different stages of the reaction are each described with suitable theoretical approach. It is important that these Modules are coupled to each other correctly: on the interface, which is a 3 dimensional hyper-surface in space-time, all conservation laws should be satisfied and entropy should not decrease. These matching conditions were worked out and studied for the matching at FO in detail in refs. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

The final FO stages of the reaction, after hadronization, can be described well with kinetic models, since the matter is already dilute.

The initial stages are more problematic. Frequently two or three fluid models are used to remedy the difficulties and to model the process of QGP formation and thermalization $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Here the problem is transferred to the determination of drag-, friction- and transfer- terms among the fluid components, and a new problem is introduced with the (unjustified) use of EoS in each component in nonequilibrated situations, where EoS does not exist. Strictly speaking this approach can only be justified for mixtures of noninteracting ideal gas components. Similarly, the use of transport theoretical approaches assuming dilute gases with binary interactions is questionable, since, due to the extreme Lorentz contraction in the C.M. frame, enormous particle and energy densities with the immediate formation of perturbative vacuum should be handled. Even in most parton cascade models these initial stages of the dynamics are just assumed in form of some initial condition with little justification behind.

Our goal in the present work is to construct a model, based on the recent experience gained in string Monte Carlo models and in parton cascades, describing energy, pressure and flow velocity distributions at the beginning of relativistic heavy ion collisions.

## 2 The effective string rope model

One of the important results of the last decade is that all string models had to introduce new, energetic objects: string ropes $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, quark clusters $`^\mathrm{?}`$, fused strings $`^\mathrm{?}`$, in order to describe the abundant formation of massive particles like strange antibaryons. Based on this, we describe the initial stages of the reaction in the framework of classical (or coherent) Yang-Mills theory, generalizing ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ assuming larger field strength (string tension) than in ordinary hadron-hadron collisions. In addition we now satisfy all conservation laws exactly, while in ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ infinite projectile energy was assumed, and so, overall energy and momentum conservation was irrelevant.

First of all, we would create a grid in $`[x,y]`$ plane ($`z`$ – is the beam axes, $`[z,x]`$ – is the reaction plane) and describe the nucleus-nucleus collision in terms of steak-by-streak collisions, corresponding to the same transverse coordinates, $`\{x_i,y_j\}`$. We assume that baryon recoil for both target and projectile arise from the acceleration of partons in an effective field $`F^{\mu \nu }`$, produced in the interaction. Of course, the physical picture behind this model should be based on chromoelectric flux tube or string models, but for our purpose we consider $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ as an effective abelian field. A single phenomenological parameter describing this field must be fixed from comparison with experimental data. For detailed description we would call the attention of the reader to refs. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

Briefly speaking, after two streaks cross each other they create a ”string rope” with constant string tension $`\sigma `$ in the middle. The typical values of the string tension, $`\sigma `$, are of the order of $`10GeV/fm`$, and these may be treated as several parallel strings or ”string rope”. In further evolution this ”string rope” accommodates more and more energy by stopping the initial target and projectile streaks. If we let system evolve, the ”string rope” will stop streaks completely, then will accelerate them backward, and the analog of Yo-Yo motion may occur. We do not solve simultaneously the kinetic problem leading to parton equilibration, just assume that the arising friction is such that the heavy ion system will be an overdamped oscillator, i.e. yo-yoing of the two heavy ions will not occur. This assumption is based on recent string and parton cascade results.

To proceed one has to make more assumptions. We assume that the final result of collisions of two streaks, after stopping the string’s expansion and after its decay, is one streak of the length $`l_f`$ with homogeneous energy density distribution, $`e_f`$, and baryon charge distribution, $`\rho _f`$, moving like one object with rapidity $`y_f`$. We assume that this is due to string-string interactions and string decays. The homogeneous distributions are the simplest assumptions, which may be modified based on experimental data. Its advantage is a simple expression for $`e_f,\rho _f,y_f`$.

The final energy density, baryon density and rapidity, $`e_f,\rho _f`$ and $`y_f`$, should be determined from conservation laws. Unfortunately, the assumptions we made above oversimplify the real situations and do not allow us to satisfy exactly all the conservation laws $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. The reason for this is well known and has been discussed in the Refs. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$: two possible definitions of the flow, Eckart’s and Landau’s definition. If we are following the energy flow, we satisfy exactly the energy and momentum conservation and violate the baryon current conservation. Otherwise if we are drifted by baryon flow, we violate the energy-momentum conservation.

In the refs. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ we choose the Landau’s definition of the $`y_f`$, i.e. the exact conservation of the energy and momentum.

## 3 Initial state of QGP

Let us review the results of our calculations. We are interested in the shape of QGP formed, when the final streak formation is finished (at least in the most central region $`^\mathrm{?}`$) and their matter is locally equilibrated. This will be the initial state for further hydrodynamical calculations. The time, where we expect a local equilibrium, is also a parameter of our model - it should be large enough to allow the final streak formation, but we can’t wait too long, since the transverse expansion can’t be neglected in this case.

We see in Figs. 1, 2 that QGP forms a tilted disk for $`b0`$. So, the direction of fastest expansion, the same as largest pressure gradient, will deviate from both the beam axis and the usual transverse flow direction and the new flow component, called ”antiflow” or ”third flow component”, may appear in the reaction plane. With increasing beam energy the usual transverse flow is getting weaker, while this new flow component is strengthened. The mutual effect of the usual directed transverse flow and this new ”antiflow” or ”third flow component” leads to an enhanced emission in the reaction plane. This was actually observed and widely studied earlier and was referred to as ”elliptic flow”.

## 4 Conclusions

Based on earlier Coherent Yang-Mills field theoretical models and introducing effective parameters based on Monte-Carlo string cascade and parton cascade model results, a simple model is introduced to describe the pre fluid dynamical stages of heavy ion collisions at the highest SPS energies and above.

Contrary to earlier expectations, — based on standard string tensions of $`1GeV/fm`$ which lead to the Bjorken model type of initial state, — the effective string tension introduced for collisions of massive heavy ions, as a consequence of collective effects related to QGP formation, appears to be of the order of $`10GeV/fm`$ and consequently causes much less transparency. The resulting initial locally equilibrated state of matter in semi central collisions takes a rather unusual form, which can be then identified by the asymmetry of the caused collective flow.

Detailed fluid dynamical calculations as well as flow experiments at semi central impact parameters for massive heavy ions are needed at SPS and RHIC energies to connect the predicted special initial state with observables.

## References


text:
# 1 A General Framework for the Casimir Effect

## 1 A General Framework for the Casimir Effect

Significant progress on the Casimir effect from the experimental point of view occurred in recent times . In spite of that, several theoretical problems remain, such as a real explanation of the sign of the force in the case of compact regions. The situation is worse with regard to a mathematically precise framework for the effect, due to the cutoff (or regularization) dependence of the energy, a fact emphasized by C. R. Hagen in  and somewhat less emphatically by P. Candelas in . The physical reason why divergences occur is well understood  and is that the boundaries are treated by quantizing the radiation field with mode functions  which are adapted to the type of (classical) boundary conditions (b.c.), e.g., Dirichlet or Neumann. However, real boundaries consist of electrons and ions and such b.c. are not justified except if the particles act collectively in an essentially classical manner , which is a priori not the case , and our ignorance in dealing with this fact is signalled by divergences.

Divergences are, of course, well-known in field theory, but they arise here in a different way, as explained above. Mathematical physicists, and several theoretical physicists, agree that a mathematically precise framework to cope with these divergences would be conceptually useful. Such frameworks exist in field theory (see  and references given there). A cutoff-free or “finite” theory of the Casimir effect (in the spirit of ) was attempted by G. Scharf and one of us (W.W.) in . It requires, however, the use of periodic b.c., which are unphysical in the case of the electromagnetic field.

In this paper we present a thorough derivation of the results first announced in . We reconsider the problem introducing ab initio an ultraviolet cutoff ($`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). The Casimir energy (CE) $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ would diverge if the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ was taken, but we do not need to do so, because the Casimir pressure depends only on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent term in the asymptotic expansion, which is the (RI) cutoff independent term of the Ramanujam sum of a divergent series. This idea is due to K. Dietz . In section 2 we show how the result of  for the parallel plates is recovered as a special case. Some of the ideas of  are also used and summarized below, for convenience.

Following , consider an electromagnetic field at $`T=0`$ enclosed in cavities of identical shape, but made of different materials, the latter providing natural cutoffs for the high-frequency spectrum of zero point modes. The vacuum energy is thus given by

$$E_{\mathrm{vac}}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\underset{\alpha }{}\omega _\alpha C_\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(1)
with $`C_\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ material dependent cutoff functions dependent on a variable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with dimensions of length, which we normalize by

$$C_\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}=1.$$
(2)
Since $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}`$ has dimension $`(length)^1`$ in natural units, it may be written as an (asymptotic) series

$$E_{\mathrm{vac}}=a_0L^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+a_1L^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3+a_2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+a_3\mathrm{\Lambda }^1+a_4L^1+a_5L^2\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{},$$
(3)
where $`L`$ is a length characterizing the spatial extension of the cavity. Dietz conjectured  that by a theorem of Ramanujan the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent term $`a_4L^1`$ in (3) is independent of the regularization (i.e., of the set $`\{C_\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })\}`$ in (1)) provided (2) holds. We shall return to this conjecture later.

In this paper we consider as in  the prototypical example of massless scalar field confined in a compact region $`K`$ (a compact manifold with boundary) – the modifications introduced by considering the full electromagnetic field will be mentioned later. We show that the $`\omega _\alpha `$ in (1) should be identified with the eigenvalues of the square root of the Laplace-Beltrami operator. This is not unexpected, because the relativistic energy is $`|\stackrel{}{k}|=(\stackrel{}{k}^2)^{1/2}`$, but it has important consequences for expansion (3). Consider  the field $`A(x)`$ quantized in infinite space

$$A(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}\frac{d^3k}{\sqrt{2\omega }}\left[a(\stackrel{}{k})e^{ikx}+a^+(\stackrel{}{k})e^{ikx}\right];$$
(4)
$$[A_{}(x),A_+(y)]=\frac{1}{i}D_0^{(+)}(xy);$$
(5)
$$D_0^{(+)}(x)=\frac{i}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3k}{2|\stackrel{}{k}|}e^{ikx}=\frac{i}{4\pi ^2}\frac{1}{(x_0i0)^2\stackrel{}{x}^2}.$$
(6)
Time evolution is generated by the Hamiltonian $`H=d^3xH(x)`$, whose density can be written in the form

$$H(x)=\frac{1}{2}:\left[\left(\frac{A}{x_0}\right)^2A\frac{^2A}{x_0^2}\right]:.$$
(7)
Normal ordering is defined in momentum space. In order to go over to a geometry with boundaries, we should formulate it in $`x`$-space by the point-splitting technique:

$`:\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{x_0}}\right)^2:`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{yx}{lim}:{\displaystyle \frac{A(x)}{x_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{A(y)}{y_0}}:`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{yx}{lim}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{A(x)}{x_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{A(y)}{y_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_0^2}}D_0^{(+)}(xy)\right\}.`$
Finally,

$$H(x)=\underset{yx}{lim}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\frac{A(x)}{x_0}\frac{A(y)}{y_0}\frac{1}{2}A(x)\frac{^2A(y)}{y_0^2}+\frac{1}{i}\frac{^2}{x_0^2}D_0^{(+)}(xy)\right\}.$$
(9)
Taking into account that real boundaries consist of electrons and ions and the field which interacts with them is quantized in infinite space, we consider (9) to be the Hamiltonian density describing the field both free and with boundaries. In the latter case, however, the first two terms in (9) must be defined in the adequate Fock space, i.e., the concrete representation of the field operator is dictated by the geometry. Consider a compact region $`K`$ and Dirichlet b.c. $`A(x)=0`$ for $`\stackrel{}{x}K`$. Then $`A(x)`$ may be expanded as follows:

$$A(x)=\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _n}}\left[a_nu_n(\stackrel{}{x})e^{i\omega _nx_0}+a_n^+u_n(\stackrel{}{x})e^{i\omega _nx_0}\right],$$
(10)
where $`u_n`$ are normalized real eigenfunctions of the Laplacian in $`K`$, satisfying Dirichlet or Neumann b.c. (discrete spectrum):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u_n(\stackrel{}{x})=\omega _n^2u_n(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(11)
The concrete Fock representation is now specified by regarding $`a_n^+`$, $`a_n`$ as emission and absorption operators ($`[a_n,a_m^+]=\delta _{nm}`$) and defining the vacuum by

$$a_n\mathrm{\Omega }=0n.$$
(12)
We thus find in this Fock representation:

$`H(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x_0}}A(x)\right)^2;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};A(x){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_0^2}}A(x);`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\underset{yx}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_0^2}}\left\{D_0^{(+)}(xy)D_K^{(+)}(x,y)\right\},`$
where

$$D_K^{(+)}(x_0y_0,\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y})=i\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{2\omega _n}u_n(\stackrel{}{x})u_n(\stackrel{}{y})e^{i\omega _n(x_0y_0)},$$
(13b)
and the semicolons in (LABEL:hmom) denote normal ordering with respect to the new emission and absorption operators $`a_n^+`$ and $`a_n`$. Notice that $`D_0^{(+)}`$ is the solution of the wave equation $`\mathrm{}D_0^{(+)}=0`$ with initial conditions

$`D_0^{(+)}(+0,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{}{x}^2+i0}};`$ (14a)
$`\left(_0D_0^{(+)}\right)(0,\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta (\stackrel{}{x}),`$ (14b)
$`D_0^{(+)}(+0,\stackrel{}{x})`$ is the Green’s function of the square root of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in infinite space . Similarly

$`\left(_0D_K^{(+)}\right)(x,y)|_{y_0=x_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y});`$ (15a)
$`D_K^{(+)}(+0,\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_K)^{\frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}),`$ (15b)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ denotes the Laplacian on $`K`$, with Dirichlet or Neumann b.c..

We now consider two types of cutoff functions, one of them general, satisfying (2), the other special, of type

$$C_\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })=C(\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega _\alpha ),$$
(16a)
satisfying

$$C(0)=1.$$
(16b)
We shall also interested in a particular case of (16a), namely

$$C(k)=e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }k}k0.$$
(17)
In terms of the special choice (17), we may, by (9), (12)-(13b), compute a regularized vacuum energy density $`H_{\mathrm{vac}}(x,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the following way:

$`H_{\mathrm{vac}}(x,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle }d^3ke^{i[k_0\tau \stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})]}|_{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{y}=\stackrel{}{x}}{\tau =0}}C(k_0)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[u_n(\stackrel{}{x})\right]^2C(\omega _n)\}.`$
As an aside, notice that (17) corresponds to ascribe a small imaginary part $`i\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to $`x_0y_0=\tau `$, and thus represents a “natural” choice, akin to the principal value in distribution theory . For this special case (17),

$$H_{\mathrm{vac}}(\stackrel{}{x},\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left[P(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{x};\mathrm{\Lambda })P_0(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{x};\mathrm{\Lambda })\right],$$
(19a)
where $`P`$, $`P_0`$ satisfy the “heat equation”

$$\left(\frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\stackrel{}{x})^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)P(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y};\mathrm{\Lambda })=0,$$
(19b)
with the b.c.

$$P(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y};\mathrm{\Lambda })=0\mathrm{if}\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{or}\stackrel{}{y}K,$$
(19c)
in the case of Dirichlet b.c..

There exist methods to compute the asymptotic expansion (in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) of the quantity in brackets in (19a) , which solve the problem in principle, but the actual form (3), with the given coefficients, depends on the details of the discrete (eigenvalue) spectrum of $`(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

Let now $`L`$ be a linear dimension of the compact region $`KK_L`$ and $`M`$ a linear dimension of a region $`K_M`$ of which $`K_L`$ is a subset. Typically, if $`K_L`$ is a cube of side $`L`$, $`K_M`$ is a cube of side $`M>L`$ concentric with $`K_L`$, and similarly for a sphere or other manifolds. It is correct to impose the same b.c. (e.g. Dirichlet or Neumann) on $`K_M`$ in order to define the outer Casimir problem . In fact, previous work on the sphere using the Sommerfeld radiation condition was not correct, although the results were right, because it did not lead to real eigenvalues . Define

$$E_{\mathrm{vac}}(L,\mathrm{\Lambda },M)=E_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{inner}}(L,\mathrm{\Lambda })+E_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{outer}}(L,\mathrm{\Lambda },M),$$
(20)
where

$$E_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{inner}}(L,\mathrm{\Lambda })_{K_L}d^3xH(\stackrel{}{x},\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(21)
and

$$E_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{outer}}(L,\mathrm{\Lambda },M)=_{K_M\backslash K_L}d^3x\stackrel{~}{H}(\stackrel{}{x},\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(22)
As previously remarked, if Dirichlet b.c. are imposed on $`K_L`$, $`H`$ (respec. $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$) is the density (LABEL:h) with the $`\{u_n\}`$ defined by Dirichlet b.c. imposed on $`K_L`$ (respec. $`K_L`$ and $`K_M`$). Analogous definitions hold for other b.c. (e.g. Neumann or mixed). If (1), (2) is adopted, the second sum in (20) refers, then, to the modes $`\omega _n`$ corresponding to the solution of (11) in $`K_M\backslash K_L`$, with the above-mentioned b.c.. Suppose that both $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{inner}}(L,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{outer}}(L,\mathrm{\Lambda },M)`$ have asymptotic series (3), and let $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{inner}}(L)(a_4^{\mathrm{inner}}/L)`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{outer}}(L,M)`$ be the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent terms. Then the Casimir pressure on the boundary surface $`p_C(L)`$ (a measurable quantity) is defined by the thermodynamic formulae (zero absolute temperature):

$$p_C(L)=p_C^{\mathrm{inner}}(L)p_C^{\mathrm{outer}}(L),$$
(23a)
where the relative minus sign takes into account that $`p_C^{\mathrm{outer}}`$ refers to a normal vector pointing inwards towards $`K_L`$, while $`p_C^{\mathrm{inner}}`$ refers to a normal vector pointing outwards, and

$`p_C^{\mathrm{inner}}(L)={\displaystyle \frac{E_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{inner}}(L)}{V_{\mathrm{inner}}(L)}};`$ (23b)
$`p_C^{\mathrm{outer}}(L)=\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{outer}}(L,M)}{V_{\mathrm{outer}}(L,M)}},`$ (23c)
and an important feature of the thermodynamic limit  is that the derivative in (23c) is taken with $`M`$ fixed, only $`L`$ varies.

It is essential that the CE be independent of the cutoff function $`C`$ in (1) or (16a) provided it satisfies (2) or (16b). As remarked in , a necessary condition for this regularization independence (RI) to hold is that (3) contain no logarithmic terms, because, otherwise, the “$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent term” is obviously ill-defined. For the cube there are no such terms in (3), but such is not the case for the sphere; however such terms may be omitted in the case of the sphere because they cancel in the expression $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{inner}}(L,\mathrm{\Lambda })+E_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{outer}}(L,\mathrm{\Lambda },M)`$ which have an asymptotic series (3) as $`M\mathrm{}`$, so that for the sphere of radius $`a`$ we have:

$$p_C(a)=\frac{1}{4\pi a^2}\frac{}{a}\frac{a_4^{\mathrm{sphere}}}{a}=\frac{a_4^{\mathrm{sphere}}}{4\pi a^4}.$$
(24)
A full proof of RI is given in section 2 for parallel plates. We shall leave a more detailed discussion of higher dimensional cases  to a further publication, but we wish to make a few important remarks:

* the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent term in (3) should coincide with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent term of the Ramanujan sum of a divergent series of positive terms, such as (1), with $`C_\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })1`$ see  (p. 318 ff.) and section 1. According to this concept, for instance

$`1+1+\mathrm{}+1+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{},0);`$
$`1+2+3+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(\mathrm{},0),`$
taking the origin as reference point (see , 13.10.11). This is proved in section 2 for parallel plates, and is the basis of RI;
* the present definition of the CE is mathematically rigorous. In particular, the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ is never taken. In fact, (3) shows that, in general, it does not exist (an exception is the Casimir effect for parallel plates with periodic b.c., see  and section 2). The reason for this is that we do not know how to treat the surface properly in microscopic terms, a formidable problem (see the conclusion);
* RI justifies the definition of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent term in (3) as the CE physically: it reflects the field theoretic structure of the vacuum state which is independent of the cavity materials . It is also expected to be the only term in (3) which contributes to the pressure: this was proved in  for parallel plates.

Section 2 entails a complete proof of RI for parallel plates (a “limit” of a compact region), as well as the explanation of the “theory without cutoffs” for the case of periodic boundary conditions in ref. . The sphere is also treated a an illustration, in section 3. In contrast to the parallel plates, the force for the sphere is repulsive, as known since the pioneering work of Boyer . The nature of our derivation, which is a adaptation of the ideas and results of  and  to our framework, does not convey an intuitive “explanation” of the sign of the force. This is a difficult problem because the CE is a sum of fluctuations of the electric and magnetic fiels in the vacuum state. A basic issue is: if the flat parallel plate geometry is changed to a compact manifold with boundary, how does the sign of the force change and why? This question is most clearly analysed in the case of the cube, which is the simplest deformation of the parallel plates geometry. In section 4 we consider the interior problem for the cube, using the method of the Poisson summation formula used in . This method had already been used for the same purpose in . Since this reference is not readily available, we include our (independent) derivation which generalizes  in the sense that we obtain the full asymptotic formula, and fits nicely into the present framework. It should be also remarked that it coincides with the numerical result of . The inner problem leads, however, to an attractive force, while the result for the sphere leads us to expect a repulsive force. Therefore, the repulsive nature must be due entirely to the exterior pressure.

In section 5 we introduce an Ansatz to solve the exterior problem for the cube, which leads to a repulsive force. We also have applied the Ansatz to the only known soluble case with flat geometry, i.e., the case of parallel plates (Appendix A). From the analysis of this soluble case we identify the physical reason why our Ansatz does not modify the pressure: the Ansatz introduces some extra stresses, but these are parallel to the plates (faces of the cube) so that the pressure on the plates (faces) is insensitive to these additional stresses, then providing the correct result for the plates and (we believe) for the cube. If the latter conjecture is true, an “explanation” of the sign of the force also follows. This is left to the conclusion and open problems in section 6.

We have used a very general class of cutoffs in momentum space for parallel plates. For the cube the proof is essentially the same as for parallel plates, but there are some subtleties in the case of the sphere which have not yet been fully worked out. Nevertheless, it is an open problem whether only the cutoff-independent part of the CE is relevant to the pressure, except in the explicit case of parallel plates . We shall admit this as a working hypothesis throughout.

## 2 Parallel Plates

We consider the problem of parallel plates, with distance $`d`$ along the $`z`$-axis; take the positions of the plates at $`z=0`$ and $`z=d`$, and adopt the form (16a) in (LABEL:h), (20) with Dirichlet b.c. (Neumann b.c. yield the same results). The inner Casimir problem corresponds to the region $`K_L=K_d=\{\stackrel{}{x}^2\times [0,d]\}`$, and the outer one to the region $`K_R\backslash K_L=\{\stackrel{}{x}^2\times [d,d+R]\}\{\stackrel{}{x}^2\times [R,0]\}`$. The eigenfunctions associated to the inner problem are

$$u_n^{\mathrm{inner}}(k_x,k_y)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{2}{d}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{n\pi }{d}z\right)e^{i(k_xx+k_yy)}n=1,2,3\mathrm{},$$
(25)
corresponding to the eigenvalues of $`(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ given by

$$\omega _{n,k_x,k_y}^{\mathrm{inner}}=\sqrt{\left(\frac{n\pi }{d}\right)^2+k_x^2+k_y^2},$$
(26)
in (11). The outer eigenfunctions are

$`u_n^{\mathrm{outer},1}(k_x,k_y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{R}}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{R}}(zd)\right)e^{i(k_xx+k_yy)};`$
(27)
$`u_n^{\mathrm{outer},2}(k_x,k_y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{R}}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{R}}z\right)e^{i(k_xx+k_yy)},`$
with eigenvalues

$$\omega _{n,k_x,k_y}^{\mathrm{outer}}=\sqrt{\left(\frac{n\pi }{R}\right)^2+k_x^2+k_y^2}.$$
(28)
We first adopt the choice (17). Introducing polar coordinates in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane, we calculate the first (inner) sum in (20) (we do not integrate along $`(x,y)^2`$, which would yield $`+\mathrm{}`$). The proper way to do this is to limit the $`(x`$-$`y)`$-plane integration to a finite region with area $`A`$, and then take the limit for $`=\frac{E}{A}`$ (this procedure yields the same results presented here and we omit it for brevity):

$`_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{inner}}(\mathrm{\Lambda },d)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2\pi )^2}}\{2d{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dkk^3e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }k}`$
$`+`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dkke^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{\left(\frac{n\pi }{d}\right)^2+k^2}}\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{d}}\right)^2+k^2}\}.`$
Performing the change of variable $`k_n^{}=\sqrt{\left(\frac{n\pi }{d}\right)^2+k^2}`$ in the second integral in the r.h.s. of (LABEL:ein) we obtain

$`_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{inner}}(\mathrm{\Lambda },d)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2\pi )^2}}\left\{2d{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk^3e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }k}+2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{n\pi }{d}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k_n^{}k_n^2e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }k_n^{}}\right\}`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{(2\pi )^2}}\left\{6\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi }{d}}{e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi }{d}}1}}\right]\right\},`$
we now use the expansion (, p. 320) in (30)

$$\frac{t}{e^t1}=1\frac{1}{2}t+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{k1}B_k\frac{t^{2k}}{(2k)!},$$
(31)
obtaining ($`B_2=\frac{1}{30}`$):

$$_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{inner}}(\mathrm{\Lambda },d)=\frac{1}{4\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\pi ^2}{720d^3}+𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(32)
and thus

$$_{\mathrm{Casimir}}^{\mathrm{inner}}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\pi ^2}{720d^3}.$$
(33)
Two remarks are in order. The surface term $`\frac{1}{4\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^3}`$ in (32) are absent for periodic b.c., because the latter allow the term $`n=0`$ in (LABEL:ein) which exactly cancels it. This explains the result of . The external CE is zero due to (27), (28) because, for the outer problem, $`d`$ in (32) is replaced by $`R`$, and thus in the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$

$$_{\mathrm{Casimir}}^{\mathrm{outer}}=0.$$
(34)
Finally,

$$_{\mathrm{Casimir}}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\pi ^2}{720d^3}.$$
(35)
The above energy is one half of the result for the electromagnetic field, due to the summation over the two polarization states in the latter. Notice also that, in natural units, $``$ is of order $`(length)^3`$.

An amusing aspect of the present derivation is that it seems to depend on the choice (17), i.e., of an exponential cutoff in (LABEL:ein) and (30), which, due to (31), leads to (32). Consider now a general cutoff function (16a). Omitting the volume term in (LABEL:ein), we may write

$$_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{inner}}(\mathrm{\Lambda },d)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{8\pi }\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}g(m),$$
(36)
where

$`g(m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u\sqrt{u+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right)^2}C\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{u+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right)^2}\right)`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\left(\frac{m\pi }{d}\right)^2}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u\sqrt{u}C(\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{u}).`$
It is of interest to compute

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{\pi }}g^{(1)}(m)`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right)^2C\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right);`$ (38a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{\pi }}g^{(2)}(m)`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right)C\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right)2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi }{d}}\right)C^{(1)}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right);`$ (38b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{\pi }}g^{(3)}(m)`$ $`=`$ $`4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{d}}\right)^2C\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right)8{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi }{d}}\right)C^{(1)}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right)`$ (38c)
$``$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi }{d}}\right)^2C^{(2)}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{m\pi }{d}}\right);.`$
By  (p. 326), under the following conditions (44) and (47) on $`C`$:

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}g(m)\frac{2d}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑qq^3C(\mathrm{\Lambda }q)+\frac{1}{2}g(0)\begin{array}{c}\\ _n\mathrm{}\end{array}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k,$$
(39)
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_k=S_k(0)\frac{1}{(2k+2)!}_0^{\mathrm{}}\psi _{2k+2}(t)g^{(2k+2)}(t)𝑑t,$$
(40)
and

$`\psi _k(x)=\varphi _k(x)\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ $`(\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.,\mathrm{equal}\mathrm{to}\varphi _k(x)\mathrm{for}`$
$`0x<1\mathrm{with}\mathrm{period}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}),`$
and $`\varphi _k`$ are defined by

$$t\frac{e^{xt}1}{e^t1}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi _k(x)\frac{t^n}{n!},$$
(42)
and

$$S_k(0)=\underset{r=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^{r1}\frac{B_r}{(2r)!}g^{(2r1)}(0).$$
(43)
We changed the notation of : the $`C_k`$ on pg. 326 corresponds to our $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$. Notice that the second term in (39) corresponds to the subtraction of the vacuum term, which appears in a natural way as a necessary requirement in a purely mathematical context! The term $`\frac{1}{2}g(0)`$ contributes only to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dependent terms in the asymptotic series.

Theorem  Let the special cutoff function of type (16a) satisfy, besides (16b), the conditions: $`C`$ is infinitely differentiable and its derivatives $`C^{(k)}`$ ($`C^{(0)}C`$) satisfy

$`{\displaystyle ^{\mathrm{}}}C^{(k)}(x)𝑑x<\mathrm{};`$ (44)
$`C^{(k)}(x)\begin{array}{c}\\ _x\mathrm{}\end{array}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$ (47)
Then, for Dirichlet (or Neumann) b.c. the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent term in (3) is the cutoff-independent part of the Ramanujan sum of the divergent series (1) with $`C_\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })1`$, and is therefore RI, i.e., independent of $`C`$.

Remark  $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ ($`k1`$) is referred to as the $`(\mathrm{},0)`$ sum of the (divergent) series $`_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}g(m)`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ refers to Ramanujan and $`0`$ to the reference point (the origin in our case). Usually (see, e.g., , p. 138), the result is presented informally without the important last term in (40), and assuming that $`C`$ satisfies $`C^{(k)}(0)=0`$ for all $`k1`$, besides (16b), which is not satisfied by the special choice (17) (see, however,  for a nice approach to the subject).

Proof. The fact that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ is independent of $`k`$ for $`k1`$ follows from  (pp 326 ff). Choose $`k=2`$. By (40)-(43),

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=\frac{B_1}{2}g^{(1)}(0)+\frac{B_2}{24}g^{(3)}(0)\frac{1}{6!}_0^{\mathrm{}}\psi _6(t)g^{(6)}(t)𝑑t.$$
(48)
Putting (38a), (38c) and (16b) into (48), we find

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=\frac{B_2}{6}\left(\frac{\pi }{d}\right)^3+𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2),$$
(49)
which leads to (35) by (36). The term $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ in (49) comes from $`g^{(6)}`$, making the change of variable $`t^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi }{d}t`$ in the integral in (48) and taking into account that $`\psi _k`$ is $`𝒪(1)`$.

What if we choose $`k=1`$? By (43) and (38a), $`S_1(0)=0`$, but, in (40), we still have the second term

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\frac{1}{24}_0^{\mathrm{}}\psi _4(t)g^{(4)}(t)𝑑t.$$
(50)
We use the recurrence (, 13.2.13)

$$\psi _{2m+1}^{(1)}=(2m+1)\left\{\psi _{2m}+(1)^{m1}B_m\right\},$$
(51)
with $`m=2`$, obtaining

$$\psi _4B_2=\frac{1}{5}\psi _5^{(1)},$$
(52)
which we insert in (50), getting

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\frac{1}{24}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\psi _5^{(1)}(t)}{5}g^{(4)}(t)𝑑t\frac{1}{24}B_2_0^{\mathrm{}}g^{(4)}(t)𝑑t.$$
(53)
Integration by parts in the first term on the r.h.s. of (53) and use of (38c) in the second term yield (using $`\psi _n(0)=0`$)

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\frac{1}{120}_0^{\mathrm{}}\psi _5(t)g^{(5)}(t)𝑑t+\frac{B_2}{24}g^{(3)}(0).$$
(54)
A further integration by parts using the recurrence (, 13.2.13)

$$\psi _{2m}^{(1)}=2m\psi _{2m1},$$
(55)
brings (54) to the form (48). We have thus proved

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_k=\frac{B_2}{6}\left(\frac{\pi }{d}\right)^3+𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2),$$
(56)
for all $`k1`$ (the present argument is easily generalized). Thus, for parallel plates and Dirichlet b.c. the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent term in the asymptotic series (3) is regularization independent and is the $`(\mathrm{},0)`$ sum of the divergent series (36). Neumann b.c. yield the same result.

## 3 The Sphere

The Casimir effect for b.c. on a sphere was first considered in the classic paper by Boyer  and since it has been considered from diverse viewpoints: source theory , multiple scattering , dimensional dependence of the effect  as well as an improved mode summation method  (see also ). In  it is shown how a natural subtraction method ensures convergence of the mode sum and in  RI for the ball has been proved (for a more detailed reference list see  and ).

Here we will to reconsider the CE for a massless scalar field subjected to Dirichlet b.c. on a sphere in the light of the above developed theory. We will consider the original sphere, of radius $`a`$, embedded in a concentric greater sphere of radius $`R>a`$. As it is well-known, for the sphere it is convenient to consider the inner and outer regions together in order to avoid logarithmic contributions for the CE. So, taking into account the $`(2l+1)`$-fold degeneracy of each eigenvalue, we have

$$E_{\mathrm{vac}}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(l+\frac{1}{2})\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega _{nl}C_{nl}(\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(57)
where $`\omega _{nl}`$ are the eigenfrequencies. The sum over $`n`$ in (57) can be changed into an integral by using the Cauchy theorem . Here we will follow  with an crucial difference: the cutoff functions used in , while appropriate to treat the eletromagnetic field, do not render the integrals well-defined in the massless scalar field case, so that we will adoptMore general cutoffs of the above type have been used by C. R. Hagen in a different context .

$$C_{nl}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\nu /a+\omega _{nl})},$$
(58)
for the cutoff functions, which satisfies the normalization condition (2). Besides this, it is important to analyse the asymptotic behaviour of $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}`$ based on more general cutoff functions.

Then, we can rewrite (57) as

$$E_{\mathrm{vac}}=\frac{1}{a}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_l,$$
(59)
with ($`\nu =l+\frac{1}{2}`$)

$$Q_l=\frac{\nu ^2}{\pi }e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\nu /a}\mathrm{Re}e^{i\phi }_0^{\mathrm{}}y\mathrm{exp}\{i\nu \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{a}ye^{i\phi }\}\frac{d}{dy}\mathrm{ln}f_l(i\nu ye^{i\phi })𝑑y,$$
(60)
where $`\phi `$ is an (small) angle which orientates the contour of integration with respect to the imaginary axis of $`z`$ (see ), and

$$f_l(iz)=\frac{1}{z}I_\nu (z)K_\nu (z).$$
(61)
Now using the uniform asymptotic expansions for the Bessel functions $`I_\nu `$ and $`K_\nu `$  we can obtain an asymptotic expansion for $`Q_l`$ which is valid for large orders. Then, in general, we can rewritte $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}`$ as

$$E_{\mathrm{vac}}=E_{\mathrm{asym}}\frac{1}{a}\underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l,$$
(62)
where $`E_{\mathrm{asym}}`$ stands for the expression obtained from (59)-(60) by using the asymptotic expansions for the Bessel functions , $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l=Q_lQ_l^{\mathrm{asym}}`$ and $`n`$ is such that for $`l>n`$ the asymptotic expansion $`Q_l^{\mathrm{asym}}`$ affords a good approximation for $`Q_l`$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l0`$ for $`l>n`$).

Then, we obtain (after performing a rotation of the integration contour $`ye^{i\phi }y`$)

$`E_{\mathrm{asym}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{(1+iy)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}\mathrm{ln}tdy`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{(1+iy)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}\alpha (t)𝑑y`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi a}}\zeta (2,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}y{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}\left[\beta (t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^2(t)\right]𝑑y+𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }),`$
where $`\zeta (s,a)=_{l=0}^{\mathrm{}}(l+a)^s`$ is the Hurwitz zeta function. From this expression must be clear why we have introduced the cutoff functions (58) rather than $`e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega _{nl}}`$ used in . Namely, in the absence of the term $`e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\nu /a}`$ in (58) the first integral in (3) would have a non-integrable singularity in the origin, but all integrals are well-defined if we adopt (58).

From (3) we have ($`\zeta (2,\frac{1}{2})=\frac{\pi ^2}{2}`$)

$`E_{\mathrm{asym}}={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{8\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{1024\mathrm{\Lambda }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{35\pi ^2}{65536a}}+𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }).`$ (64)
Now, it remains to calculate $`_{l=0}^n\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l`$ in (62). Notice that in this term the sum is finite and we do not have any divergence. Then, since $`\phi >0`$ may be considered a small angle ($`\mathrm{sin}\phi >0`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\phi >0`$) we may integrate (60) by parts and perform a rotation of the integration contour ($`ye^{i\phi }y`$) to obtain

$$Q_l=\frac{\nu }{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\mathrm{ln}\left[2yI_\nu (y)K_\nu (y)\right]+𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(65)
which is nothing but the $`Q_l`$ in ref.  (except for a sign). So we may take advantage of the numerical results in  for this expression.

Analogously, we may obtain a expression for $`Q_l^{\mathrm{asym}}`$, appropriate for when there is no infinite summation, given by

$`Q_l^{\mathrm{asym}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{y}{\sqrt{1+y^2}}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\alpha (t)`$ (66)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \nu ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\left[\beta (t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^2(t)\right]+𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }),`$
which after integration yields

$$Q_l^{\mathrm{asym}}=\frac{\nu ^2}{2}+\frac{1}{128}\frac{35}{32768\nu ^2}+\mathrm{}.$$
(67)
Then, we can take $`n=4`$ in (62) as a good approximation (see ) obtaining

$$E_{\mathrm{vac}}=\frac{a^2}{8\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\frac{5}{1024\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{0.002819}{a}+\mathrm{},$$
(68)
which yields $`a_4^{\mathrm{sphere}}0.002819`$ for the coefficient of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent term in the asymptotic series (3) for $`E`$. Therefore the CE is

$$E_{\mathrm{Casimir}}=\frac{a_4^{\mathrm{sphere}}}{a}\frac{0.002819}{a},$$
(69)
and by (24) we see that the Casimir force for massless scalar field with Dirichlet b.c. on a sphere is repulsive. This result was obtained with greater precision in  (also see ).

While the numerical result provided by (69) is not new, the above calculation illustrates the fact that when we use more general cutoffs like (58) (which in the present case is mandatory) we are faced with an asymptotic series in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}`$, see (3) and (68). Then, the method discussed above provides an unambiguous way to identify the CE.

## 4 The Interior Problem for the Cube

Consider now a cube $`K`$ of side $`L`$, with Dirichlet b.c. (Neumann b.c. may be handled analogously). The normalized eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of $`(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ are

$`u_{n_1n_2n_3}(\stackrel{}{x})=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{L}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_1\pi x_1}{L}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_2\pi x_2}{L}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_3\pi x_3}{L}}\right);`$
$`(\mathrm{\Delta })^{\frac{1}{2}}u_{n_1n_2n_3}(\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{L}}|\stackrel{}{n}|u_{n_1n_2n_3}(\stackrel{}{x});|\stackrel{}{n}|=(n_1^2+n_2^2+n_3^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
where $`n_i=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$).

We consider

$$E_{\mathrm{vac}}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=_Kd^3xH(\stackrel{}{x},\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(71)
By (LABEL:hmom),

$$E_{\mathrm{vac}}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left\{\frac{L^3}{(2\pi )^3}d^3ke^{\mathrm{\Lambda }|\stackrel{}{k}|}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega _\stackrel{}{n}}\right\}.$$
(72)
By (4), $`\omega _\stackrel{}{n}=\frac{\pi }{L}|\stackrel{}{n}|`$ and hence

$$E_{\mathrm{vac}}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{3}{2\pi ^2}L^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\frac{1}{16}\frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left[\underset{\stackrel{}{n}^3}{}e^{a|\stackrel{}{n}|}3\underset{\stackrel{}{n}^2}{}e^{a|\stackrel{}{n}|}+3\underset{n}{}e^{a|n|}1\right],$$
(73)
where

$$a=\frac{\pi }{L}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(74)
The last sums in (73) are due the fact that, because of (4), the planes $`n_1=0`$, $`n_2=0`$, and $`n_3=0`$ have to be excluded from the sum over $`^3`$ because they lead to eigenfunctions which are zero. For the same reason the axes $`n_1=n_2=0`$, $`n_1=n_3=0`$, $`n_2=n_3=0`$ and the origin be excluded. Exclusion of the three planes (the term $`3_{\stackrel{}{n}^2}e^{a|\stackrel{}{n}|}`$ in (73)) corresponds to excluded each axis twice instead of only once. The third term compensates for this, while the last one excludes the origin.

A method of calculation of the lattice sums in (73) is through the Poisson summation formula

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{n}^3}{}f(\stackrel{}{n})=\underset{\stackrel{}{m}^3}{}C_\stackrel{}{m},$$
(75)
where $`C_\stackrel{}{m}`$ are the Fourier coefficients of $`f`$:

$$C_\stackrel{}{m}=d^3xe^{2\pi i\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{x}}f(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(76)
See also ref. . Applying (75) to (73), we find

$`E_{\mathrm{vac}}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi ^2}}L^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi ^2}}L^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^4{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}L^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi }}L\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2L}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^3}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{L}}\right)^2+4\pi ^2|\stackrel{}{m}|^2]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^4}{L}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{L}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^3}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{L}}\right)^2+4\pi ^2|\stackrel{}{m}|^2]^3`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi ^2}{8L}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{L}}\right)^2+4\pi ^2|\stackrel{}{m}|^2]^{\frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9\pi ^4}{8L}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{L}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{L}}\right)^2+4\pi ^2|\stackrel{}{m}|^2]^{\frac{5}{2}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{8L}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{m}{m0}}{}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{L}}\right)^2+4\pi ^2m^2\right]^1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi ^3}{4L}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{L}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{m}{m0}}{}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{L}}\right)^2+4\pi ^2m^2\right]^2.`$
We now expand the sums $`_{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}`$ in (LABEL:esoma) in the following way:

$$\left[\left(\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{L}\right)^2+4\pi ^2|\stackrel{}{m}|^2\right]^s=\left(4\pi ^2|\stackrel{}{m}|^2\right)^s\left(1\frac{s\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4L^2|\stackrel{}{m}|^2}+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(78)
The unit term in (78) yields a contribution of type $`a_4L^1`$ in (3), the remaining terms provide the rest of the asymptotic series in (3) consisting of positive powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We thus find

$$a_4=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^3}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}|\stackrel{}{m}|^4+\frac{3}{64\pi }\underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}|\stackrel{}{m}|^3\frac{3}{32\pi }\underset{\stackrel{m}{m0}}{}m^2.$$
(79)
The last sum above is nothing but $`2\zeta (2)`$, where $`\zeta `$ stands for the Riemann zeta function, and the second one may be rewritten as the product of two independent sums by means of $`_{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}|\stackrel{}{m}|^s=4\zeta \left(\frac{s}{2}\right)\beta \left(\frac{s}{2}\right)`$ (see, e.g., ), where $`\beta (s)=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{(1)^j}{(2j+1)^s}`$. Then, using the result of Lukosz  for the first sum in (79) we obtain

$$a_4=0.0157322\mathrm{},$$
(80)
which is in accordance with the result obtained numerically in ref.  (in fact we have obtained $`a_4`$ to a higher accuracy than shown). In addition, from (23b), the inner pressure is

$$p_C^{\mathrm{inner}}(L)=\frac{a_4}{3L^4}.$$
(81)
By (80) and (81) we see that the force due to the interior is attractive. The repulsive character of the sphere (section 3) suggests, however, that the same is true for the cube. This fact alone shows that this sign, if true, must be entirely due to the exterior force, a subtle problem to which we now turn.

## 5 The External Problem for the Cube

As remarked above, it is of great interest to consider also the outer problem for the cube. We will consider the cube $`K_L`$ of side $`L`$ concentric with a cube $`K_M`$, of side $`M`$, from which $`K_L`$ is a subset ($`M>L`$ and $`M`$ eventually goes to infinity at the end of calculation) and impose Dirichlet b.c. on $`K_L`$ as well as $`K_M`$ (see section 1). Unfortunately, the solution of the external Casimir problem for the cube with Dirichlet b.c. cannot be constructed out of the functions of the form (4), because the continuity conditions on several planes cannot be satisfied simultaneously. However, the form of solutions (4), which are naturally adapted to the internal geometry of the cube, suggest splitting the region $`K_M\backslash K_L`$ into 26 subregions bounded by the planes containing the faces of the cube. We may require the $`u_n(\stackrel{}{x})`$ to vanish on the boundaries of these subregions, including the original requirement of vanishing on the faces of the internal and external cubes. If we do so, the resulting problem is explicitly solvable in terms of the set (4). Of course, this Ansatz introduces additional stresses in the region $`K_M\backslash K_L`$. We shall comment on these restrictions at the end of this section.

Then we have that the 26 subregions which compose $`K_M\backslash K_L`$ are of three topologically distinct kinds (with both cubes centered in the origin): 1) a rectangular box with two sides $`L`$ and one $`\frac{ML}{2}`$ – with multiplicity 6; 2) a rectangular box with two sides $`\frac{ML}{2}`$ and one $`L`$ (with multiplicity 12) – the contribution of the edges; 3) a cube of sides $`\frac{ML}{2}`$ (with multiplicity 8) – the contribution of the corners. The Casimir energy of each of these regions can be obtained along the same lines of the calculation above outlined for the inner cube (see ). Then we obtain that the regions of type 3) do not contribute, i.e., there are no contributions of the corners, either to the energy or the pressure, in the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$. The total contribution of the regions of type 1) is

$`E_1(L,M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3L^2(ML)}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^3}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[m_1^2L^2+m_2^2L^2+m_3^2\frac{(ML)^2}{4}\right]^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3L(ML)}{32\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[m_1^2L^2+m_2^2\frac{(ML)^2}{4}\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32\pi L}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[m_1^2+m_2^2\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{16}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{L}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ML}}\right),`$
and for the regions of type 2) the total contribution is

$`E_2(L,M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3L(ML)^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^3}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[m_1^2L^2+m_2^2\frac{(ML)^2}{4}+m_3^2\frac{(ML)^2}{4}\right]^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3L(ML)}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[m_1^2L^2+m_2^2\frac{(ML)^2}{4}\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi (ML)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[m_1^2+m_2^2\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{ML}}\right).`$
Then, by (23c) and taking into account that $`dV_{\mathrm{outer}}=6dV_1+12dV_2+8dV_3`$, where $`V_i`$ is the volume of type $`i`$) region, and that in the thermodynamic limit $`dV_30`$ ($`dV_3/V_31/M`$), we obtain

$$p_C^{\mathrm{outer}}(L)=\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{3M(M2L)}\frac{}{L}\left[E_1(L,M)+E_2(L,M)\right].$$
(84)
It may also be verified explicitly that regions of type 3) do not contribute to the energy, or to the pressure, in the thermodynamic limit. From (84) we see that type 1) regions do not contribute to the outer pressure, while the edges contribution is given only by the first term in (5):

$$p_C^{\mathrm{outer}}(L)=\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\left\{\frac{}{L}\left(\frac{L}{32\pi ^2}\underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^3}{m_30}}{}\frac{1}{\left[m_1^2L^2+m_2^2\frac{(ML)^2}{4}+m_3^2\frac{(ML)^2}{4}\right]^2}\right)\right\}.$$
(85)
It follows from (85) that (see later):

$$p_C^{\mathrm{outer}}(L)=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\left(\underset{\stackrel{m}{m0}}{}m^4\right)\frac{}{L}L^3=\frac{\pi ^2}{480}L^4.$$
(86)
There is no contribution in the thermodynamic limit to (85) from the sum over $`m_20`$ or $`m_30`$, or both. Indeed, the term $`m_1=0`$ in (85) does not contribute as $`M\mathrm{}`$, as one sees easily, and

$$\underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^3}{m_10}}{m_20,m_30}}{}\frac{1}{[m_1^2L^2+m_2^2\frac{(ML)^2}{4}+m_3^2\frac{(ML)^2}{4}]^2}(\frac{2}{L^7(ML)})^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^3}{m_10}}{m_20,m_30}}{}\frac{1}{\left[m_1^2+m_2^2+m_3^2\right]^{\frac{7}{4}}}.$$
(87)
If only $`m_20`$ (or $`m_30`$)

$$\underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{m_10,m_20}}{}\frac{1}{\left[m_1^2L^2+m_2^2\frac{(ML)^2}{4}\right]^2}\left(\frac{2}{L^3(ML)}\right)\underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{m_10,m_20}}{}\frac{1}{\left[m_1^2+m_2^2\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}},$$
(88)
for $`L1`$, $`M>L`$. It may be checked that these bounds suffice to show that the contributions of the above sums to the limit in (85) is zero. The only surviving term in the sum in (85) is thus $`m_2=m_3=0`$, which leads to (86).

It is most important to note that the edges’ contribution to the Casimir pressure is greater than the inner pressure in absolute value: by (81), (86) and (23a)

$$p_C(L)=(0.005244+\frac{\pi ^2}{480})L^4=0.015317L^4$$
(89)
The Casimir pressure is thus repulsive, and the net result is that edge effects determine the sign of the force. We shall return to this point in the conclusion.

We now comment on our Ansatz. We have replaced the original Hilbert space of $`L^2`$-functions with Dirichlet b.c. in the inner and outer boundaries with a direct sum of 26 spaces, upon introduction of additional Dirichlet b.c. on planes which are extensions of the cube’s faces to the region $`K_M\backslash K_L`$. In this region all extra stresses are parallel to the cube’s faces, and for this reason the Casimir pressure is insensitive to their inclusion. We have verified this assertion in appendix A by introducing and extra Dirichlet plane orthogonal to a system of parallel plates in the inner region. The proof generalizes to an arbitrary finite number of such planes provided they are placed symmetrically to some plane orthogonal to the $`z`$-axis, thus not introducing an extraneous length in the original problem. Since the parallel plates are a soluble “limiting case” of the cube, we (strongly) believe that our Ansatz provides the exact solution for the cube.

## 6 Conclusion and Open Problems

In this paper we have introduced a mathematically precise framework for the Casimir pressure, by associating it to the cutoff-independent part of the Ramanujan sum of the (divergent) series for the Casimir energy. Our ideas have precursors in  and . We illustrated the framework by parallel plates, the sphere and the interior problem of the cube.

In section 5 we introduced an Ansatz to calculate the exterior Casimir pressure for the cube. We discussed why we (strongly) believe that it is the exact solution for the cube. If our conjecture is right, the calculation of section 5 also provides an explanation for the sign of the force: it is due to a competition betweeen the inner and outer pressures, in which the latter is positive and larger than the former in absolute value, because, as remarked in section 5, the thermodynamic limit selects a set of modes different from the inner ones<sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§See also  for a discussion (different of ours) of the different roles of the inner and outer modes of the Casimir problem, with a large positive contribution from the edges. The edges reflect the passage from the infinitely extended parallel plates to a compact region, i.e., by folding. If this folding were smooth, i.e., for any smooth approximation to the cube, it would be accompanied by nonzero curvature. At the other extreme – uniform nonzero curvature – we have the sphere. Here, however, curvature effects appear less directly, reflecting themselves in the appearance of the Neumann functions in the external problem. It is an interesting open problem to understand more clearly the role of curvature (of various kinds, e.g. Riemannian, the mean and Gaussian curvatures) in the Casimir effect for general compact manifolds with boundary (see also ).

## Acknowledgements

One of us (W.W.) should like to thank G. Scharf for having introduced him to this subject, and posing some of the questions which are only partially answered in this paper. The authors thank Dr. K. Kirsten for information regarding ref. . L. A. M. thanks FAPESP for full support (grant No. 99/04079-1). W. F. W. was supported in part by CNPq.

## Appendix A

In this appendix we consider the problem of the parallel plates with an orthogonal (Dirichlet) plane introduced in the inner region and prove that the Casimir pressure on the plates is the same that for the problem without the Dirichlet plane (see section 2).

Consider the two parallel plates placed at $`z=0`$ and $`z=d`$, and the inner Dirichlet plane at $`y=0`$, $`0zd`$. The outer problem is the same which we worked out in section 2, and it does not contribute. The inner Casimir problem is now split into two regions: $`K_1^{\mathrm{inner}}=\{\stackrel{}{x}\times [0,\mathrm{})\times [0,d]\}`$ and $`K_2^{\mathrm{inner}}=\{\stackrel{}{x}\times (\mathrm{},0]\times [0,d]\}`$. In order to calculate the Casimir energy of these regions it is necessary to consider a finite region in the plane $`x`$-$`y`$ with area $`A=L_1L_2`$ (the whole area of the plates), and take the limit $`L_1,L_2\mathrm{}`$ at the end. Then, both $`K_1^{\mathrm{inner}}`$ and $`K_2^{\mathrm{inner}}`$ are given by boxes of sides $`L_1`$ (along $`x`$-axis), $`L_2/2`$ (along $`y`$-axis) and $`d`$, so that we can proceed in the same way that in section 4, obtaining for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-independent term of the series (3) for the region $`K_1^{\mathrm{inner}}`$:

$`E_1^{\mathrm{inner}}(L_1,L_2,d)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L_1L_2d}{64\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^3}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[m_1^2L_1^2+m_2^2\frac{L_2^2}{4}+m_3^2d^2\right]^2}}`$ (A.1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L_1L_2}{128\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[m_1^2L_1^2+m_2^2\frac{L_2^2}{4}\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{L_1d}{64\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[m_1^2L_1^2+m_2^2d^2\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L_2d}{128\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\stackrel{}{m}^2}{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{0}}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[m_1^2\frac{L_2^2}{4}+m_2^2d^2\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{96}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{L_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{L_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\right),`$
and, obviously, $`E_2^{\mathrm{inner}}(L_1,L_2,d)`$ has the same form.

Now we can calculate the inner pressure by means of (23b), where $`V_{\mathrm{inner}}`$ must be taken as the whole interior volume: $`V_{\mathrm{inner}}=L_1L_2d`$. Thus, we have

$`p_C(d)`$ $`=`$ $`p_C^{\mathrm{inner}}(d)=\underset{L_1,L_2\mathrm{}}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_1^{\mathrm{inner}}(L_1,L_2,d)}{V_{\mathrm{inner}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_2^{\mathrm{inner}}(L_1,L_2,d)}{V_{\mathrm{inner}}}}\right)`$ (A.2)
$`=`$ $`\underset{L_1,L_2\mathrm{}}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{L_1L_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{d}}E_1^{\mathrm{inner}}(L_1,L_2,d)\right),`$
where we have taken into account that $`E_1^{\mathrm{inner}}=E_2^{\mathrm{inner}}`$.

From (A.1) and (A.2) we see that the only term which contributes to the pressure at the thermodynamic limit is the first term at the right side of (A.1); in fact, only the term $`m_1=m_2=0`$ contributes (that the terms with $`m_10`$ or $`m_20`$, or both, do not contribute can be proved just in the same way that in section 5 – see eqs. (87)-(88)). Then, we obtain

$$p_C(d)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\zeta (4)\frac{}{d}d^3=\frac{\pi ^2}{480}d^4,$$
(A.3)
which is the same result obtained in the case without the inner Dirichlet plane!

The above result shows that the introduction of additional stresses parallel to the physical plates do not modify the pressure on these plates. Finally, it is easy to see that the above proof generalizes in a trivial way to the case in which the Dirichlet plane is at the outer region, and also to the case in which we have a finite number of Dirichlet planes in the inner region provided these planes are disposed symmetrically with respect to some plane orthogonal to the $`z`$ axis.

Note added. The following related references have been brought to our attention: M. Bordag, E. Elizalde, K. Kirsten, S. Leseduarte, Phys. Rev. D 56, 4896 (1997) for spherical geometries; and N. F. Svaiter, B. F. Svaiter, J. Phys. A 25, 979 (1992) and Phys. Rev. D 47, 4581 (1993) for the use of auxiliary cavities in order to treat surface divergencies.