AG-2026.05-030·hep-th·cross-listed: gr-qc
Revisiting semiclassical scalar QED in 1+1 dimensions
Authors
- Santiago Sanz-Wuhl
- Jochen ZahnInstitut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Leipzig
Abstract
We study the backreaction of a charged scalar quantum field in the presence of two opposite charges placed at the boundaries of a finite one-dimensional region, with attention to boundary effects. We review, correct, and extend previous corresponding work of Ambjørn \& Wolfram \cite{ambjorn_properties_1983}. Despite notable differences, our analysis confirms the mechanism, discussed by Ambjørn \& Wolfram, by which the incorporation of backreaction avoids certain instabilities. We also observe the interesting phenomenon of ``over-screening'', by which for high external charges an increase of the external charges leads to a decrease of the electric field between the two charges.
Submitted
4 May 20262 weeks ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2605.02570
Summary
In a simplified quantum field theory model, researchers examine how quantum effects of charged particles modify the electric field near charged boundaries, confirming that quantum backreaction stabilizes the system and discovering a counterintuitive effect where stronger charges can actually weaken the field between them.
- Quantum backreaction—the way quantum fields push back on classical charges—prevents mathematical instabilities that would otherwise appear in this system, validating a 40-year-old mechanism.
- The team corrects and extends earlier calculations by carefully treating boundary effects, showing how quantum screening near the edges differs from bulk behavior.
- The 'over-screening' effect reveals that very high external charges paradoxically reduce the electric field between them, a non-intuitive consequence of quantum field interactions.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.