chemical reaction is one of the most remarkable quantum mechanical phenomena that made biological life possible on earth , which can also be manipulated to discover novel `` green '' chemistry , and to avoid `` toxic '' technologies , provided we can understand the reaction microscopically to a certain extent .
however , within the current formalism of chemical kinetics and the laws of thermodynamics , a chemical reaction between two reactant atoms ( for a given chemical potential , temperature , pressure and concentration ) occurs when they collide with each other with enough energy to overcome an arrhenius - type activation energy , to form a(several ) new bond(s )  @xcite . here
, we attempt to go beyond this macroscopic collision - thermodynamic based description by incorporating some microscopic physics ( with respect to atomic energy level spacings ) to understand why and how a chemical reaction proceeds for a given set of conditions .
the chemical reaction considered here may need the right reaction coordinates to form the transition states . therefore , for two atoms ( either isolated or from two different molecules ) to chemically react , they need to have the correct reaction coordinates , and even after fulfilling this condition , these atoms still need to have an overall strong attractive interaction ( either before or after the collision ) to form the required transition states .
for example , the transition state is by definition gives equal probability for the reaction to go either way ( to form reactant atoms , or the reaction product ) .
therefore , there should be a microscopic mechanism that is responsible for an effective attraction between reactant atoms such that the reaction product is more likely than the formation of reactant atoms , even after forming the transition state .
the standard attractive vdw interaction is a long - range type , and it is too weak ( because it is proportional to 1/@xmath0 ) to initiate any chemical reaction . on the other end , we have the electron(from atom 1)-ion(from atom 2 ) coulomb attraction , which is the strongest , but can not lead to an attraction due to electron(from atom 1)-electron(from atom 2 ) coulomb repulsion . apparently , collisions among the reactant atoms can overcome this electron - electron coulomb repulsion if the atoms are weakly interacting .
collisions can induce electronic excitation and/or polarization , which then can activate ( i ) the electron - electron coulomb repulsion or ( ii ) the attraction due to ion - ion vdw and electron - ion coulomb interactions . as a consequence , we need to find the microscopic physical origin of a chemical reaction with respect to the above strong attractions , which goes beyond the present - day thermodynamics ( chemical potential ) and energetic - collision knowledge .    here
, we prove the existence of a stronger attraction ( stronger than the usual vdw type ) that can be used to understand why and how a chemical reaction can proceed ( with further assistance from collisions ) by overcoming the electron - electron coulomb repulsion .
in other words , we set out to prove the existence of a stronger vdw interaction , which is also shown to be further enhanced by the electron - ion coulomb attraction to activate the chemical reaction .
in particular , we expose that these stronger attractions are polarization - induced effect , which can be precisely associated to atomic energy - level spacings , and these stronger attractions are also responsible to overcoming the said repulsion ( or the activation energy ) .
once the repulsion is overcome , either after , or before the collision , then it is straightforward to understand why and how a chemical reaction between two reactant atoms can proceed .
we stress here that we do need atom - atom collisions for strongly interacting atoms ( with isotropic polarization ) , and also for weakly polarized atoms .
however , after the collision , the above attractions still need to be activated for a chemical reaction to proceed .
it is to be noted here that this stronger vdw attraction has also been partly predicted computationally and indirectly  @xcite by means of the hermansson blue - shifting hydrogen bond  @xcite , the arunan composite hydrogen - vdw bond  @xcite and the non - covalent carbon bond  @xcite . in the section ,
additional notes prior to conclusions , we will show that ramachandran , sasisekharan and ramakrishnan  @xcite have already discovered the notion of stronger non - covalent bonds ( stronger than the vdw bond ) between atoms .
this means that the hermansson blue - shifting hydrogen bond , the hydrogen - vdw composite bond and the non - covalent carbon bond are special cases of the ramachandran bond , in the absence of wavefunction overlapping or chemical reaction .
hence , the ramachandran bond is a non - chemical bond that does not require chemical reaction .
however , to pin down the origin of a stronger vdw and an attractive electron - ion coulomb interactions that overcome the electron - electron repulsion ( due to polarization ) , we definitely need analytic solutions and some abstract analyses .
therefore , we exploit the crude quasi one - dimensional ( 1d ) drude model within the ionization energy theory ( iet )  @xcite using the energy - level spacing renormalization group method  @xcite to arrive at accurate and exact results .
the `` quasi '' here implies that one can realign the vectors in a one - dimensional system to account for the two and three dimensional cases in which the atoms are treated as real atoms . in our further analyses ( i and ii ) ,
we unequivocally show why and how the stronger vdw interaction is also consistent with respect to the second - order perturbation theory and the @xmath1 multipole expansion .
therefore , its existence is not due to some interpretational issues arising exclusively from the crude drude model hamiltonian .
the relevant hamiltonian for the one - dimensional two - atom system ( strictly neutral atoms , but with polarizable valence electrons ) plotted schematically in fig .
[ fig:1 ] is given by  @xcite @xmath2 , \label{eq:2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath3 are the electrons momenta , and the ground state energy for the above hamiltonian is ( taking @xmath4 and after some nontrivial substitutions )  @xcite @xmath5 , \label{eq:3}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath6 is the electron mass and @xmath7 is the interaction constant ( that changes for different atoms ) . note here that @xmath8 and @xmath9 are indeed vectors , but we have aligned the atoms such that their electronic polarization are maximum along a straight line where @xmath10 and @xmath11 .
we now prove why this alignment is valid for three - dimensional cases ( imagine two polarizable spheres)suppose @xmath8 ( from sphere 1 ) is aligned along the @xmath12 axis , so that @xmath13 .
the induced polarization due to @xmath8 causes @xmath14 where @xmath15 , @xmath16 , @xmath17 is the angle in the @xmath18-plane and @xmath19 denotes the angle in the @xmath20-plane .
it is easy to verify that if @xmath21 and @xmath22 , then there is an additional induced polarization affecting @xmath14 .
if such a case exists , then we just need to take this additional polarization into account ( that affects @xmath9 ) , and realign @xmath9 ( from sphere 2 ) with respect to this new @xmath23 . in this second case ,
@xmath24 causes @xmath25 where @xmath15 and @xmath16 .
this means that , @xmath17 and @xmath19 remains the same such that @xmath26 $ ] and @xmath27 $ ] . for one - dimensional cases , @xmath28 , while for a two - dimensional case , one has @xmath26 $ ] and @xmath29 .
@xmath30    in eq .
( [ eq:3 ] ) , @xmath31 is the planck constant divided by 2@xmath32 , @xmath33 is the distance between two neutral and identical atoms .
the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to electron 1 and 2 bounded to nuclei 1 and 2 , respectively .
the ordinary hamiltonian denoted by @xmath34 consists of two kinetic energy terms , and two semiclassical harmonic - oscillator type electron - ion potential terms , and they are associated to two electrons bounded to their respective nucleus ( see fig .
[ fig:1 ] ) .
the interaction hamiltonian , @xmath35 captures all the coulomb interaction between the two atoms depicted in fig .
[ fig:1 ] .
note that @xmath35 does not consider the coulomb forces within the atom ( between the valence electrons and their respective nucleus ) , which have been taken into account by @xmath34 .
now , one can renormalize the interaction potential constant , @xmath7 such that  @xcite @xmath36 } , \label{eq:4}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath37 , in which , @xmath38 is the bohr radius of atomic hydrogen , @xmath39 and @xmath40 are the electron charge and the permittivity of free space , respectively
. the above renormalization procedure is also related ( exactly ) to the shankar renormalization technique  @xcite .
the renormalized interaction potential constant , @xmath41 ( from eq .
( [ eq:4 ] ) ) replaces the standard @xmath7 in @xmath34 to capture the changes to @xmath7 whenever one changes the type of atom .
whereas , the variable , @xmath42 denotes the atomic energy level spacing when @xmath43 , which is proportional to @xmath42 when @xmath44 .
this proportionality ( see eq .
( [ eq : in14b ] ) ) has been proven in ref .
@xcite , and we do not allow any electronic wavefunction overlapping .    if the drude model hamiltonian  @xcite is independent of @xmath7 , then one should renormalize the frequency , such that  @xcite , @xmath45}$ ] . since the factor @xmath46}$ ] is a constant for a given system and for
a given set of conditions , one will obtain the identical vdw interaction energy ( see eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) ) such that this energy is proportional to @xmath47}$ ] , @xmath48 regardless whether one uses the @xmath7-dependent hamiltonian given by eq .
( [ eq:2 ] ) or the @xmath49-dependent drude model hamiltonian , provided that the condition , @xmath50 } \gg e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] is satisfied .
if @xmath50 } \gg e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] is not satisfied , then one may obtain @xmath51 where @xmath52 denotes a positive integer ( @xmath53 ) . the proper renormalization procedure ( with explanation )
are given in ref .
@xcite .
we now expose some details on the meaning of @xmath42 and the ionization energy approximation , which can be understood from the iet - schr@xmath54dinger equation  @xcite , @xmath55\psi(\textbf{r},t ) = h_{\rm
iet}\psi(\textbf{r},t ) = ( e_0 \pm
\xi)\psi(\textbf{r},t ) , \label{eq : in14}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath56 , @xmath57 denotes the planck constant and @xmath6 is the mass of electron , and @xmath58 is the time - dependent many - body wavefunction .
the eigenvalue , @xmath59 is the real ( true and unique ) energy levels for a given quantum system ( for a given molecule ) .
here , @xmath60 is a constant because it represents the energy level spacings at zero temperature , and in the absence of any external disturbances . on the other hand
, @xmath61 is the so called ionization energy .
therefore , all we need to do now is to find a way to obtain @xmath62 .
we make use of the ionization energy approximation to approximate @xmath62 .
this approximation hinges on this proportionality , @xmath63 as stated earlier , @xmath62 represents the real ( unique and true ) energy level spacings of a particular quantum system , and it can be regarded as a generalized electronic energy gap . in other words , @xmath62 can only be obtained if we know the real many body wavefunction ( @xmath58 ) , not some guessed wavefunctions , because only the true wavefunction can represent the electrons properly , and consequently , can capture the real electronic properties of a quantum matter . in molecules
, @xmath64 is the energy level spacing between an occupied level ( in the highest occupied molecular orbital ( homo ) ) and an empty level ( in the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital ( lumo ) ) . using this approximation
, we can now predict the changes to @xmath62 if we know @xmath65 .
the values for @xmath65 can be readily obtained from the experimental atomic spectra .
the ionization energy approximation becomes exact if the quantum matter are atoms or ions ( @xmath66 from eq .
( [ eq : in14b ] ) ) .
the approximation given in eq .
( [ eq : in14b ] ) has been proven  the indirect proof reads , @xmath67 , while the second formal proof is direct based on logic and the excitation probability of electrons and holes within the ionization energy based fermi - dirac statistics  @xcite .      from here onwards ,
any variable found to wear a tilde implies a renormalized parameter .
subsequently , @xmath68 ( from eq .
( [ eq:3 ] ) ) can be written in the form ( after making use of the series , @xmath69 ) @xmath70\sqrt{\frac{\tilde{k}}{m } } , \label{eq:5}\end{aligned}\ ] ] in which , we consider only the first three terms by imposing the condition , @xmath71
\gg e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] , in other words @xmath72 for @xmath73 and @xmath74 where @xmath75 is the set of even natural numbers , and finally , eq .  ( [ eq:5 ] ) also satisfies @xmath76 . using @xmath77 we can carry out the subsequent algebraic rearrangements of eq .
( [ eq:5 ] ) . after subtracting @xmath78 , eq .
( [ eq:5 ] ) will lead us to @xmath79 .
\label{eq:6}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this is the standard vdw interaction energy in its renormalized form ( due to the renormalizing factor ( renormalizer for short ) , @xmath80 $ ] ) , and note the popular vdw factor , @xmath81 . the original ( unrenormalized ) vdw formula is given in the curly bracket .
however , even in the presence of this renormalizer , eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) is only valid for weakly interacting systems because of this condition @xmath71
\gg e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] .
we will explain why this is so in the following section .
the term , @xmath78 is the renormalized ground state energy ( @xmath82 ) when @xmath44 ( in the absence of coulomb interactions between charges from different atoms or molecules ) .
one can observe the correct trend from eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) , in which , for a given @xmath33 , when @xmath42 shoots to infinity ( valence electrons with zero polarization ) , @xmath83 , as it should be .
in contrast , @xmath84 maximum , if @xmath42 obtains an allowable minimum value .
note here that taking @xmath85 is physically not acceptable as this means that the valence electrons are not bound to their respective nucleus , and they are free .
we now prove the existence of a stronger attraction between two interacting atoms . the above standard renormalized vdw attraction ( see eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) ) is weak because @xmath86 such that the polarization is either small or , if the polarization is large , then it is approximately isotropic ( see fig .
[ fig:2](a ) ) because the atoms are weakly interacting , made sure by the condition , @xmath50 } \gg e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] or @xmath87 . in the case of strongly interacting two - atom system ,
a larger induced anisotropic polarization is obtainable ( see fig .  [ fig:2](b ) ) . here ,
[ fig:2](a ) depicts a weakly interacting system with an isotropically polarized atom , while fig .
[ fig:2](b ) and ( c ) depict two types of strongly interacting systems with anisotropic polarization .
in particular , ( a ) depicts isotropic polarization that is valid for weakly interacting atoms , ( b ) is for strongly interacting atoms , which induce an anisotropic polarization and also an electron - electron coulomb repulsion between atoms , while ( c ) contains a mixture of easily - polarizable and least - polarizable atoms , giving rise to an asymmetric polarization .
here , ( a ) and ( b ) need additional assistance to initiate the strong attractions , namely , collisions between reactant atoms . in contrast , ( c ) may not need any external `` help '' , hence could be spontaneous . to induce such an anisotropic polarization , we need a stronger interaction between these atoms such that the condition , @xmath88 is not violated ( to make sure eq .  ( [ eq:3 ] ) is still valid ) . in other words ,
we need a new condition , @xmath50 } = e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] , not @xmath50 } \gg e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] to impose a large anisotropic polarization .
the new condition allows a large intermolecular interaction energy if @xmath42 is small ( see eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) ) .
the only analytic relation with the smallest @xmath42 is coincidently @xmath50 } = e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] where @xmath50 } < e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] is physically not allowed .    after making use of this new condition ,
@xmath50 } = e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] , we can rewrite eq .
( [ eq:3 ] ) to obtain ( subject to the renormalization procedure developed in ref .
@xcite ) @xmath89 - \hbar\tilde{\omega}_0 . \label{eq:8}\end{aligned}\ ] ] unlike eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) , which was approximated using eq .
( [ eq:5 ] ) , eq .
( [ eq:8 ] ) is obtained exactly from eq .
( [ eq:3 ] ) without any approximation and therefore , eq .  ( [ eq:5 ] ) is irrelevant when @xmath50 } = e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] . however , the proper question here is that whether eq .
( [ eq:5 ] ) when summed after taking @xmath50 } = e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] ( not @xmath72 for @xmath73 ) gives eq .
( [ eq:8 ] ) . to see that it does
, we rewrite eq .
( [ eq:5 ] ) accordingly @xmath90 - \hbar\tilde{\omega}_0 \nonumber \\&= & \bigg[\frac{\hbar\tilde{\omega}_0}{2}\sum_{\texttt{p } = 0}^{\infty}\frac{2\cdot(2\texttt{p})!}{(1 - 2\texttt{p})(\texttt{p}!)^2(4^{\texttt{p } } ) } - \hbar\tilde{\omega}_0\bigg ] = \hbar\tilde{\omega}_0\bigg[\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2 } - 1\bigg ] , \label{eq:6a}\end{aligned}\ ] ] as it should be .
here @xmath91 , @xmath92 and we have used @xmath93 obtained from ref .
@xcite . equation  ( [ eq:6a ] ) unequivocally proves that the original vdw formula is for atoms with small polarization such that these atoms are weakly interacting .
equations  ( [ eq:6 ] ) and  ( [ eq:8 ] ) are true for any distance between two nuclei ( @xmath33 ) , for as long as there is no wavefunction overlapping .
the difference here is that eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) is valid only for systems with small polarization ( or large isotropic polarization ) and/or for weakly interacting atoms .
whereas , eq .  ( [ eq:8 ] ) is for systems with large anisotropic polarization and/or for strongly interacting atoms .
this means that , by definition , eq .  ( [ eq:6 ] )
is not applicable for strongly interacting systems , while eq .
( [ eq:8 ] ) is inapplicable for weakly interacting systems .
for example , for weakly interacting atoms ( with small polarization or large isotropic polarization ) , we need to invoke the condition , @xmath50 } \gg e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] into eq .
( [ eq:3 ] ) to obtain eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) . on the other hand ,
we should impose @xmath50 } = e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] into eq .
( [ eq:3 ] ) to obtain eq .
( [ eq:8 ] ) for strongly interacting atoms ( giving rise to large anisotropic polarization ) .
another point to note here is that eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) can be regarded as valid for large @xmath33 , while eq .
( [ eq:8 ] ) becomes valid for small @xmath33 , which will be explained in the section further analyses ii .
we now move on and rearrange eq .
( [ eq:8 ] ) to arrive at @xmath94^{\frac{1}{2}}\bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 } } - 1\bigg)\frac{1}{r^{3/2 } } , \label{eq:1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath95 } , \label{eq:1.2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] by using @xmath96 interchangeably . here
, we should not assume that @xmath42 or @xmath41 has become @xmath33-dependent from the condition , @xmath96 .
in fact , this condition simply means that the magnitude of @xmath41 is equal to the magnitude of @xmath97 .
both @xmath41 and @xmath97 vary independently .    obviously , @xmath98 and @xmath99 are negative guaranteed by the inequality @xmath100 , hence these interactions are always attractive , while the proportionality , @xmath101 implies it is of a stronger - type compared to the renormalized standard vdw interaction , @xmath102 ( see fig .
[ fig:1 ] ) .
it is worth noting that the proportionality @xmath103 is identical to the vdw interaction energies derived for two different geometric conditions  @xcite . in particular ,
the relevant geometric conditions are ( a ) two infinite - length cylinders with radii @xmath104 and @xmath105 , separated by @xmath33 , and ( b ) a cylinder ( radius @xmath104 and with infinite length ) separated from a two - dimensional sheet ( negligible thickness but with infinite length and width ) at a distance @xmath33 .
contrary to eq .
( [ eq:1 ] ) , both ( a ) and ( b ) must satisfy the condition , @xmath106 , in which , these classical objects are very close to each other  @xcite . in contrast , eqs .
( [ eq:1 ] ) and  ( [ eq:1.2 ] ) are for two spherical quantum objects ( see fig .
[ fig:1 ] ) that satisfy conditions , @xmath4 and @xmath50 } = e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] ( large polarization or weakly bound valence electrons ) .
this large polarization will give rise to an anisotropic polarization in the presence of strong interactions between atoms .
however , the imposed condition @xmath4 does not in any way , implies eq .
( [ eq:1.2 ] ) is inapplicable for any @xmath33 other than @xmath4 .
for example , what eq .
( [ eq:1.2 ] ) tells us is that for a given @xmath33 such that @xmath4 , if @xmath42 is large , then one obtains a large attractive interaction .
now , the only way to change the value of @xmath42 is to change the type of atoms because each atom has a unique set of ionization energies or energy level spacings .
therefore , when we extrapolate this scenario for any @xmath33 such that @xmath107 , then such an extrapolation does not technically and physically change the effect of the renormalizer or @xmath42 . in other words ,
large @xmath42 still gives rise to a large attractive vdw interaction , regardless whether the atoms are close to each other or far apart .
unfortunately , eq .  ( [ eq:1 ] ) does not provide any new physical insight other than , that it is stronger than the original vdw interaction . whereas , eq .  ( [ eq:1.2 ] ) is indeed a function of the microscopic variable , @xmath42 , but physically not yet appropriate because eq .
( [ eq:1.2 ] ) does not allow large anisotropic polarization effect the repulsive interaction between the anisotropically polarized electrons from two identical atoms separated by @xmath33 , will give rise to an effective repulsion , not an attractive interaction ( see fig .
[ fig:2](b ) ) . as a consequence , eq .
( [ eq:1.2 ] ) certainly can not lead to a stronger vdw attraction for large anisotropic polarization , due to the @xmath39-@xmath39 repulsion between anisotropically polarized atoms .
warning : eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) is valid when @xmath50 } \gg e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] ( valid for the least polarizable or weakly interacting atoms ) , whereas eq .
( [ eq:1.2 ] ) is valid for @xmath50 } = e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] ( valid for easily polarizable or strongly interacting atoms ) .
for example , the condition , @xmath50 } \gg e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] , which allows us to invoke the solution in series ( see eq .
( [ eq:5 ] ) ) imposes the least polarizability condition into the atomic system .
in contrast , @xmath50 } = e^2/2\pi\epsilon_0r^3 $ ] by definition allows large polarization .
we stress here that both eqs .
( [ eq:6 ] ) and  ( [ eq:1.2 ] ) ignore the existence of @xmath39-@xmath39 coulomb repulsion , @xmath108 between polarized electrons .    now , the easily polarizable atoms ( that obey eq .
( [ eq:1.2 ] ) ) satisfies the anisotropic polarization ( see fig .
[ fig:2](b ) ) . here
, the polarized electrons will also activate the repulsive @xmath39-@xmath39 coulomb interaction ( @xmath108 ) between the polarized atoms .
therefore , we require @xmath109 for an overall strong attraction .
in fact , the existence and importance of @xmath108 between any two highly anisotropically polarizable entities has been analytically proven and discussed in refs .
however , the effect of anisotropic polarization , induced by strongly interacting atoms , which gives rise to the @xmath39-@xmath39 repulsive interaction ( @xmath108 ) has been neglected in the standard ( for both renormalized and original ) vdw formula , given in eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) .
consequently , eq .  ( [ eq:1 ] ) , which allows stronger vdw attractive interaction needs to be made compatible with eq .
( [ eq:1.2 ] ) in the presence of large anisotropic polarization . in order to do so
, we need to do something to counter the repulsive effect coming from @xmath108 . we know
( [ eq:1.2 ] ) allows large polarization but requires both atoms to be least polarizable ( to avoid @xmath108 ) such that the nucleus of atom 1 ( left - hand side ( l.h.s ) of fig .
[ fig:1 ] ) attracts the valence electron of atom 2 ( right - hand side ( r.h.s ) of fig .
[ fig:1 ] ) , and vice versa .
thus , eq .  ( [ eq:1.2 ] ) , which ignores @xmath108 , can not lead to a stronger vdw attraction .
however , the strength of this attraction can be greatly enhanced if the polarizabilities of these two atoms are made to be strongly asymmetric ( see fig .
[ fig:2](c ) ) , _ i.e. _ , these atoms are strongly interacting .
meaning , one atom is anisotropically polarized in the presence of another . in particular , if one of the atoms has large @xmath42 , while the other has small @xmath42 ( @xmath110 ) then this will guarantee the existence of @xmath111 because @xmath112 is also negative by definition . in this case
, the electron - ion ( e - ion ) coulomb attraction ( @xmath112 ) is between the polarized valence electron of atom 1 ( easily polarizable ) and the nucleus of atom 2 ( difficult to be polarized ) .    to justify the stronger vdw attraction given in eq .
( [ eq:1 ] ) , we require asymmetric polarizabilities between two atoms with strong interactions ( see fig .
[ fig:2](c ) ) . in this case
, an asymmetric - polarization can be properly introduced into eq .
( [ eq:1.2 ] ) to obtain @xmath113 equation  ( [ eq:1.3 ] ) is the one that correctly corresponds to eq .
( [ eq:1 ] ) in the presence of large asymmetric polarization ( see fig .  [ fig:2](c ) ) .
our notation , @xmath114 is justified in the section , additional notes ( see the last paragraph ) . the second term on the r.h.s of eq .
( [ eq:1.3 ] ) represents the effect of two identical and weakly interacting atoms coming face - to - face ( see fig .
[ fig:1 ] ) , hence the factor @xmath115 .
whereas , @xmath112 captures the coulomb attraction between a polarized electron from a polarizable atom ( induced by the non - polarizable atom ) and the nucleus of a non - polarizable atom .
the screening effect is included by default whenever we deal with @xmath42 ( due to eq .
( [ eq : in14b ] ) ) to predict the polarizability  @xcite ( or any physical properties ) from the ionization energy theory .    in any case , the atoms depicted in fig .  [ fig:1 ]
are least polarizable ( weakly interacting ) , and they affect each other equally with approximately isotropic polarization . while , @xmath112 is defined as the interaction between the polarized electron of an easily - polarizable atom and the nucleus of the least polarizable nearest - neighbor atom .
therefore , we do not need to include the factor @xmath115 in @xmath112 due to its definition given above , in which the induced anisotropic polarization is unidirectional , from the polarized valence electron of a strongly polarizable atom , to the nucleus of the least polarizable atom . in the absence of renormalization
, the new condition reads @xmath116 , and one obtains an exact copy of eq .
( [ eq:1 ] ) for @xmath98 and @xmath117 here , eq .
( [ eq:10 ] ) physically correctly captures the same effect as eq .
( [ eq:1.2 ] ) .
in particular , for a given separation @xmath33 , large @xmath7 implies small polarization , which is exactly identical to large @xmath42 that causes small polarization .
hence , two least polarizable atoms ( weakly interacting ) can give rise to the standard vdw attractive interaction , for instance , when @xmath118 maximum ( from eq .
( [ eq:10 ] ) ) , or @xmath119 maximum ( from eq .
( [ eq:1.2 ] ) ) then both @xmath120 and @xmath99 increase to a maximum value due to zilch coulomb repulsion between the polarized electrons ( isotropically polarized atoms ) . as stated earlier , eq .
( [ eq:1 ] ) is independent of any microscopic variable ( that can be related to the atomic structure ) , and as such it is not useful , except it correctly predicts the inverse proportionality between @xmath121 and @xmath122 . on the other hand , the changes in @xmath7 ( from eq .
( [ eq:10 ] ) ) is arbitrary , for example , we will never know how to implement the changes in @xmath7 accordingly for different atoms in a given system .
in contrast , and as proven earlier , only eqs .
( [ eq:1.2 ] ) and  ( [ eq:1.3 ] ) give us the option to accurately extract the microscopic information on two competing interactions , between the vdw attraction and the @xmath39-@xmath39 coulomb repulsion ( due to anisotropically polarized atoms ) simultaneously , for strongly interacting atoms ( _ via _
@xmath42 ) .
equation  ( [ eq:1 ] ) is shown to vary as @xmath123 , and this stronger vdw attraction can only be understood by adding an attractive coulomb interaction ( due to asymmetric polarization between two strongly interacting atoms ) to a standard vdw attraction ( eq .  ( [ eq:6 ] ) ) , or to a stronger vdw attraction ( eq .  ( [ eq:1.2 ] ) ) .
therefore , due to this added coulomb attraction , one can not obtain eq .
( [ eq:1 ] ) using the 1/@xmath33 expansion since each individual energy term in this expansion represents a specific interaction ( coulomb , dipole , quadrupole , and so on ) without any additional interaction ( that gives rise to anisotropic polarization ) added to 1/@xmath33 expansion  @xcite .
meaning , each specific interaction is determined by a specific @xmath124 and varies as 1/@xmath125 where @xmath126 , which is applicable for weakly interacting systems .
recall here that a weakly interacting system means there will be no induced anisotropic polarization , even though these atoms can have large isotropic polarization due to intense laser . to understand this point
, we derive eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) using the second - order perturbation theory ( the first - order energy is zero )  @xcite . the renormalized second - order energy @xmath127 + \big[\tilde{e}^{(0)}_{s}(2 ) - \tilde{e}^{(0)}_{t}(2)\big ] } , \label{eq:11}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) refer to atom 1 and 2 ( see fig .  [ fig:1 ] ) , while the subscripts , @xmath128 and @xmath129 denote the ground and excited eigenvalues ( @xmath130 ) and eigenstates ( @xmath131 ) , respectively .
moreover , @xmath132 after taking @xmath4 .
we first note @xmath133 , \label{eq:12}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath134 is the ground - state eigenvalue , while @xmath135 is the first excited state eigenvalue for the harmonic oscillator - like two atomic system sketched in fig .
[ fig:1 ] .
subsequently , using eq .
( [ eq:12 ] ) and @xmath136 ^ 2 , \label{eq:13}\end{aligned}\ ] ] we can derive eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) from eq .
( [ eq:11 ] ) following griffiths  @xcite the renormalization procedure introduced here does not disturb the derivation in any way . as predicted earlier , @xmath137 , and
is always negative determined entirely by the eigenvalue - denominator ( ground state eigenvalue @xmath138 excited state eigenvalue = @xmath139 ) in eq .
( [ eq:12 ] ) . the numerator in eq .
( [ eq:11 ] ) is positive - definite .
interestingly , the same conclusions ( without renormalization ) can be obtained from ref .
for example , the coefficient @xmath140 [ see eq .
( 4.3 ) in ref .
@xcite ] represents the vdw attraction , and is always negative due to @xmath141 because @xmath142 , @xmath143 and @xmath144 . here ,
@xmath145 and @xmath146 denote atom 1 and 2 , respectively , @xmath147 and @xmath148 represent both the principal and the angular momentum quantum numbers such that @xmath149 , while @xmath150 are the respective eigenvalues .    to understand the above inequalities , assume @xmath145 and @xmath146 are two hydrogen atoms , and therefore , @xmath151 and @xmath152 are the ground - state eigenvalues for these atomic hydrogen , respectively , while @xmath153 and @xmath154 are the respective excited - state eigenvalues for hydrogen atoms . since , @xmath15513.6 ev @xmath156 , @xmath1573.4 ev @xmath158 , then we can immediately see why the denominator [ in eq .
( 4.6 ) of ref .
@xcite ] is always negative ( as predicted earlier ) for as long as the polarization is from a lower energy level ( strongly bounded electron ) to a higher energy level ( weakly bounded electron ) .
add to that , @xmath159 originates from the interaction potential operator , @xmath160 [ see eqs .
( 2.13 ) and  ( 4.3 ) in ref .
@xcite ] . in our atomic system , we had @xmath161 [ see eq .
( [ eq:11x ] ) ] .
importantly , regardless whether @xmath162 is negative or positive , @xmath140 is guaranteed to be negative due to the eigenvalue - inequalities given above , and note that @xmath163 , which is positive - definite . as anticipated
, @xmath162 is a specific interaction potential ( @xmath164 ) , which was identified to give the vdw attraction without any additional induced anisotropic polarization added to @xmath162 .
therefore , similar to eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) , @xmath162 excludes the @xmath39-@xmath39 coulomb repulsion in the presence of large anisotropic polarization , both in the ground and excited states or in the mixed states .
the large @xmath39-@xmath39 repulsion due to large anisotropic polarization ( see fig .  [ fig:2](b ) ) has been excluded by invoking certain initial conditions used in ref .
@xcite to write the potential , @xmath165 the initial conditions were @xmath166 such that most of the charges are distributed within an atomic or a molecular radius .
this means that the allowable polarization is either small or increase isotropically ( see fig .
[ fig:2](a ) ) .
isotropically increasing polarization implies that the amount of increased polarization is essentially identical in all physical directions , namely , in @xmath12 , @xmath167 and @xmath168 axes .
now , these conditions need to be imposed so that eq .
( 2.14 ) in ref .
@xcite is valid .
rightly so , chang has correctly invoked the above conditions even for large atomic or molecular polarization such that the amount of increased polarization is three - dimensionally isotropic .
this in turn means that the systems studied there were for weakly interacting atoms or molecules .
if the atoms or molecules are strongly interacting , then any polarization that increased isotropically has got to be invalid .
in addition , the condition that requires the polarization to increase isotropically can not hold for @xmath169 .
hence , what we have proven earlier is that isotropic polarization is inapplicable for @xmath169 ( for small internuclear distances ) because we need to take the anisotropic polarization effect into account , which has been included in our formalism [ see the first term in eq .
( [ eq:1.3 ] ) ] .
moreover , one should also note that the isotropic polarization is not applicable for strongly interacting systems , even if @xmath166 .
thus , eq .  ( [ eq:1.3 ] ) is derived for strongly interacting systems that allow asymmetric polarization for @xmath166 ( see fig .
[ fig:2](c ) ) .
in contrast , isotropic polarization can only occur for systems that are weakly interacting and @xmath166 .
it is physically incorrect to enforce isotropic polarization for @xmath169 or for strongly interacting systems . in particular , for strongly interacting systems with @xmath170 , there will definitely be a significant amount of induced anisotropic polarization on one atom or molecule that is caused by its neighboring atoms or molecules , which then gives rise to this strong asymmetric polarization .
this is what we have addressed in this paper when we derived eq .
( [ eq:1.3 ] ) .
one may correctly wonder if there is an effective @xmath39-@xmath39 coulomb repulsion between two isotropically polarized atoms or molecules .
the effective repulsion will only be activated when the electrons in both atoms or molecules are polarized anisotropically in the presence of strong interaction between these atoms or molecules , and/or when @xmath169 .
for example , atoms or molecules will be isotropically polarized in the gas - phase , if these atoms or molecules are weakly interacting in the presence of high temperature or intense laser .
this isotropic polarization can be large .
in this case , eqs .
( [ eq:2 ] ) and  ( [ eq:3 ] ) are applicable where one just starts with a new set of radii for atom 1 and 2 , and again obtains eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) .
the new set of radii are larger than the original radii because the electrons are now polarized isotropically ( see fig .
[ fig:2](a ) ) .
in fact , one can go on and improve eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) by incorporating other leading terms due to spin - orbit coupling and quadrupole - quadrupole interaction as carried out by chang  @xcite .
but this additional effects can not induce the @xmath39-@xmath39 coulomb repulsion , which is due to anisotropic polarization , which occurs exclusively when there is a strong interaction between atoms or molecules or when the average internuclear distance , @xmath169 ( that eventually will induce the strong interaction ) .
now , we should know that the standard vdw theory can not handle anisotropically polarized atoms or molecules even though it has incorporated other leading terms , namely , @xmath171 ( quadrupole - quadrupole ) and @xmath172 ( magnetic interaction or due to spin - orbit coupling ) .
these terms do improve the potential given in eq .
( [ eq:14 ] ) by incorporating the above stated physical mechanisms , and can be used to improve eq .
( [ eq:11x ] ) , but they ( the other leading terms ) do not cause the @xmath39-@xmath39 coulomb repulsion to exist .
for example , these other leading terms are there to improve the equation for @xmath140 or eq .
( [ eq:6 ] ) by incorporating the appropriate correction terms such that each term represents a specific physical effect , namely , @xmath172 represents magnetic interaction , whereas @xmath171 is due to quadrupole - quadrupole interaction . in this case , the coulomb repulsion is not a correction term , but originates from the @xmath39-@xmath39 repulsion due to polarized electrons .
this means that , the first term in eq .
( [ eq:1.3 ] ) is the leading term that represents the asymmetric polarization , and is responsible for the stronger vdw attraction in strongly interacting systems .
in particular , the above @xmath39-@xmath39 coulomb repulsion , which is due to the large anisotropic polarization , caused by the strongly interacting atoms or molecules , can only be overcome by the first term in eq .
( [ eq:1.3 ] ) . as a matter of fact ,
( 2.14 ) in ref .
@xcite has been enforced to make sure that the standard vdw theory presented in ref .
@xcite is for isotropic polarizations , which does not take large anisotropic polarization effect into account .
for example , see the spherical harmonics given on page 139 in ref .
@xcite and eq .
( 2.15 ) in ref .
@xcite to observe the expansion for @xmath173 that is isotropic by definition , which has been enforced in ref .  @xcite .
for example , the standard vdw theory given in ref .
@xcite is valid for weakly interacting system and for @xmath166 such that the polarizations are ( assumed to be ) approximately isotropic . on the other hand ,
the vdw theory with asymmetric polarization developed here is valid for strongly interacting systems , and for @xmath170 .    in summary , a new van der waals ( vdw ) interaction of a stronger type
is proven to exist analytically by generalizing the original vdw interaction .
this generalization includes three types of polarizations between two atoms , namely , isotropic , anisotropic and asymmetric polarizations .
we show that an isotropic polarization is only valid for @xmath174 ( @xmath175 ) , which is a well known result within the original vdw theory .
but the other two polarizations ( anisotropic and asymmetric ) are shown to be valid for all @xmath33 .
recall here that @xmath33 is the internuclear distance between two atoms , while @xmath176 is the atomic radius for two identical atoms . using the above generalization
, we went on to explain why and how the original vdw attraction does not lead to an attractive interaction between two highly polarizable atoms due to large coulomb repulsion between polarized electrons .
this explains why @xmath88 is a necessary condition for systems with isotropic polarizations , in accordance with the original vdw formalism .
however , for @xmath177 , the two atomic system should be considered as strongly interacting , giving rise to an anisotropic or an asymmetric polarization . in these cases , there is no requirement on @xmath33 such that these polarizations are valid for any @xmath33 .
here , we briefly reiterate the consequences of our main result , which are important for an overall understanding and also to avoid confusion within quantum chemistry . if one employs a full electronic hamiltonian ( within the quantum chemical methods ) for different interaction strengths , then it is indeed possible to calculate the reaction barriers , and the reaction rates accurately by means of the variational principle and approximate wavefunctions  @xcite . on the other hand ,
the theory presented here has been used to predict ( exactly ) which atoms ( from two molecules ) can react to form a peptide bond , in accordance with the experimental observations using the principle of maximum interaction  @xcite . here , we did not attempt to calculate the activation energies because our methodology , by definition , does not allow such calculations to be carried out because our theory does not have variationally adjustable parameters and does not rely on wavefunctions directly .
therefore , our motivation here is to discover the precise microscopic physical origin responsible for a chemical reaction between two atoms , which is still unclear within the quantum chemical calculations due to the introduction of variationally adjustable interaction terms and wavefunctions .    here
, we have derived the relevant interactions ( coulomb and van der waals types ) that control a particular chemical reaction where such interactions can not be obtained by renormalizing or adjusting the coefficient , @xmath140 ( discussed earlier ) , which is also in agreement with refs .
@xcite . for example
, we obtained the stronger vdw interaction by summing all the terms in eq .
( [ eq:6a ] ) ( with or without renormalization ) , and by adding the electron(from atom 1)-ion(from atom 2 ) coulomb attraction .
in fact , @xmath178 is a natural consequence of eq .
( [ eq:2 ] ) for @xmath4 ( see eq .
( [ eq:11x ] ) ) , which then leads to the standard vdw term ( if we only take the first three terms in eq .
( [ eq:6a ] ) ) . in this work ,
the stronger interaction ( see eq .  ( [ eq:1.3 ] ) ) is shown to go beyond adjusting or renormalizing eq .
( [ eq:6a ] ) , which has been used to understand precisely how two reactant atoms can overcome the activation energy via collisions ( for weakly interacting atoms ) , or without it ( for strongly interacting atoms with induced anisotropic polarization ) .
in fact , we also have justified that the electron(from atom 1)-electron(from atom 2 ) coulomb repulsion is at least , one of the main sources that defines the origin of activation energy .
we now realized that the discovery of stronger attraction between non - chemically bonded ( or simply nonbonded ) atoms has been reported much earlier by ramachandran , sasisekharan and ramakrishnan  @xcite where nonbonded atoms in amino acids ( c , n , o and h ) can approach much closer than what is allowed by the standard vdw bond .
ramachandran correctly and properly reasoned that  @xcite the above nonbonded atoms in amino acids and peptides can approach closer ( with shorter distance between nonbonded atoms ) leading to the formation of triplehelical structure in collagen .
he further proved that such a stronger attraction due to allowed bond rotation , did play an important role in polypeptide chain s conformations , limited only by the steric - hindrance , which led him , sasisekharan and ramakrishnan to invent the ramachandran plot . in view of this fact
, we now set the record straight by stating that eq .
( [ eq:1.3 ] ) also rediscovers the ramachandran bond ( in the absence of chemical reaction ) such that the standard vdw , hydrogen , non - covalent carbon and other similar bonds are special cases .
using the ionization energy theory and the energy - level spacing renormalization group method , we obtained the relevant analytic functions to formally expose the limitation in the original vdw formalism .
in particular , the coulomb repulsion between polarized electrons has been neglected by requiring small polarization , which has been implicitly embedded into the original formalism by requiring the interaction potential constant ( @xmath7 ) to be much greater than the coulomb interaction between atoms ( molecules ) . or , by imposing a large isotropic polarization by invoking spherical harmonics . after taking the large anisotropic polarization effect into account
, we managed to obtain a new vdw formula of a stronger type , which is proportional to @xmath123 .
however , the new formalism also leads to a formula that is proportional to @xmath179 $ ] where @xmath42 is the energy level spacing of a given molecule or system . here
, large @xmath42 means large @xmath7 , in accordance with the original vdw theory .
therefore , large anisotropic polarization does not favor large attractive interaction at all , because of the @xmath39-@xmath39 coulomb repulsion effect ( due to polarized electrons ) .    to overcome this intrinsic problem ,
large asymmetric polarization between two interacting molecules was invoked to expose the existence of a stronger vdw interaction , in which , the above repulsion has been physically converted into a coulomb attraction _ via _ an asymmetric polarization .
for example , the attraction between the polarized electrons ( of an easily anisotropically polarizable atom ) and a nearest neighbor nucleus ( of the least polarizable atom ) gives rise to this asymmetric polarization .
this means that , the large vdw interaction ( due to @xmath123 ) can be justified with the large asymmetric polarization effect .
therefore , there exists a stronger attractive vdw interaction between two strongly interacting atoms if they are polarized asymmetrically such that one of the atom or molecule is anisotropically polarized due to interaction with its nearest least - polarizable neighbor .
the overall strong attractions that come from the stronger ion - ion vdw and electron - ion coulomb interactions determine the possibility of a chemical reaction between two or more neutral atoms , for a given set of conditions ( chemical potential , temperature , pressure and concentration ) .
in particular , we have established that ( i ) a chemical reaction proceeds as a result of some stronger attractions between reactant atoms , ( ii ) the attractions are due to stronger vdw and electron - ion coulomb interactions , ( iii ) systems that contains a mixture of least and easily polarizable reactant atoms induce asymmetric polarization , which then leads to the stronger attractions , and ( iv ) these stronger attractions are the ones that eventually overcome the so - called activation energy .
however , it turns out to be that this stronger attraction has been discovered and proven to exist much earlier by ramachandran , sasisekharan and ramakrishnan .
rightly so , the bond caused by this generalized stronger attraction ( see eq .
( [ eq:1.3 ] ) ) is ( and should be ) called the ramachandran bond .
we have shown here that this stronger attraction can then lead to chemical reaction , if the conditions stated above are met  @xcite .
i am grateful to madam sebastiammal innasimuthu , mr .
arulsamy innasimuthu , madam amelia das anthony , mr .
malcolm anandraj and mr .
kingston kisshenraj for their financial support and kind hospitality between august 2011 and august 2013 .
i also would like to thank the referees for directing me to ref .
@xcite , and for pointing out all the missing explanation .
special thanks to mr .
mir massoud aghili yajadda ( csiro , lindfield ) and mr .
alexander jeffrey hinde ( the university of sydney ) for providing some of the listed references .
compendium of chemical terminology , 2nd ed .
( the `` gold book '' ) . compiled by a. d. mcnaught and a. wilkinson .
blackwell scientific publications , oxford ( 1997 ) .
xml on - line corrected version : http://goldbook.iupac.org ( 2006- ) created by m. nic , j. jirat , b. kosata ; updates compiled by a. jenkins .
isbn 0 - 9678550 - 9 - 8 .
doi:10.1351/goldbook .
e. arunan , g. r. desiraju , r. a. klein , j. sadlej , s. scheiner , i. alkorta , d. c. clary , r. h. crabtree , j. j. dannenberg , p. hobza , h. g. kjaergaard , a. c. legon , b. mennucci , d. j. nesbitt , _ pure appl . chem . _ , 2011 , * 83 * , 1619 .    e. arunan , g. r. desiraju , r. a. klein , j. sadlej , s. scheiner , i. alkorta , d. c. clary , r. h. crabtree , j. j. dannenberg , p. hobza , h. g. kjaergaard , a. c. legon , b. mennucci , d. j. nesbitt , _ pure appl .
_ , 2011 , * 83 * , 1637 .            a. d. arulsamy ,
_ pramana j. phys . _ , 2010 , * 74 * , 615 ; a. d. arulsamy , phd thesis , _ many - body hamiltonian based on ionization energy concept : a renormalized theory to study strongly correlated matter and nanostructures _ , the university of sydney , australia ( 2009 ) .


graphene appears to be the only known mono - atomic two - dimensional ( 2d ) crystal and apart from the intrinsic interest it engenders , it is becoming more and more also a focus of possible and desired advanced technological applications  @xcite .
it is for these reasons that in the past several years we have witnessed a veritable explosion of theoretical and experimental interest in graphene  @xcite .
the nobel prize for physics in 2010 only consolidated this trend .
graphene differs fundamentally from other known 2d semiconductors because of its unique electronic band structure , viz .
the monoatomic sheet of carbon atoms arranged in a honeycomb lattice leads to an electron band structure that displays quite unusual properties  @xcite .
the fermi surface is reduced to just two points in the brillouin zone and the value of the band gap is reduced to zero . the energy dispersion relation for both the conduction and the valence bands are linear at low energy , namely less than 1 ev , meaning that the charge carriers behave as relativistic particles with zero rest mass .
the agent responsible for many of the interesting electronic properties of graphene sheets is the non - bravais honeycomb - lattice arrangement of carbon atoms , which leads to a gapless semiconductor with valence and conduction @xmath0-bands .
states near the fermi energy of a graphene sheet are described by a massless dirac equation which has chiral band states in which the honeycomb - sublattice pseudospin is aligned either parallel or opposite to the envelope function momentum .
the dirac - like wave equation leads to both unusual electron - electron interaction effects and to unusual response to external potentials . when the graphene sheet is chemically doped with either acceptor or donor impurities its carrier mobility
can be drastically decreased  @xcite . because of its 2d periodic structure graphene is closely related to single wall carbon nanotubes , being in fact a carbon nanotube rolled out into a single 2d sheet  @xcite .
the main difference between the electronic properties of single wall carbon nanotubes and graphene is that the former show circumferential periodicity and curvature that leave their imprint also in the electronic spectrum and consequently also van der waals ( vdw ) interactions  @xcite .
on the other hand , graphite appears to be the poor cousin of graphene though it is the stable form of carbon at ordinary temperatures and pressures .
many efforts have been invested into understanding its structural and electronic details ( for an account see ref .
various known modifications of graphite differ primarily in the way the mono - atomic two - dimensional graphene layers stack .
their stacking sequence in terms of commonality is aba for the bernal structure , aaa for simple hexagonal graphite or abc for the rhombohedral graphite  @xcite .
graphene layers in graphitic systems are basically closed shell systems and thus have no covalent bonding between layers which makes them almost a perfect candidate to study long(er ) ranged non - bonding interactions .
indeed , they are stacked at an equilibrium interlayer spacing of about 0.335 nm and are held together primarily by the non - bonding long range vdw interactions  @xcite .
therefore the interaction between graphene layers can be described as a balance between attractive vdw dispersion forces and corrugated repulsive ( pauli ) overlap forces @xcite , following in this respect closely the paradigm of nano - scale interactions  @xcite .    besides
a few notable exceptions  @xcite , until 2009 many electronic and optical properties of graphene could be explained within a single - particle picture in which electron - electron interactions are completely neglected .
the discovery of the fractional quantum hall effect in graphene  @xcite represents an important hallmark in this context . by now
there is a large body of experimental work  @xcite showing the relevance of electron - electron interactions in a number of key properties of graphene samples of sufficiently high quality .
because of band chirality , the role of electron - electron interactions in graphene sheets differs in some essential ways  @xcite from the role which it plays in an ordinary 2d electron gas .
one important difference is that the contribution of exchange and correlation to the chemical potential is an increasing rather than a decreasing function of carrier density .
this property implies that exchange and correlation increases the effectiveness of screening , in contrast to the usual case in which exchange and correlation weakens screening  @xcite .
this unusual property follows from the difference in sublattice pseudospin chirality between the dirac model s negative energy valence band states and its conduction band states  @xcite , and in a uniform graphene system is readily accounted for by many - body perturbation theory .    .
the thickness of both ( left and right ) layers are equal to @xmath1 . in view of later generalizations ,
we have labeled the left semi - infinite vacuum layer with @xmath2 , the graphene layers with @xmath3 , the intervening vacuum layer with @xmath4 and the right vacuum layer with @xmath5 .
the form of the dielectric functions of the graphene layers is given in eq .
( [ eq : dielectric - function - graphene - sheet]).,width=188 ]    in this work we focus our efforts on the vdw dispersion component of the graphene stacking interaction .
dispersion forces can be formulated on various levels  @xcite giving mostly consistent results for their strength and separation dependence . in the context of graphene stacking interactions , the problem can be decomposed into the calculation of the dielectric response of the carbon sheets and the subsequent calculation of the vdw interactions either via the quantum - field - theory - based lifshitz approach , as advocated in this paper , by means of the electron correlation energy  @xcite or the non - local vdw density functional theory  @xcite .
one can show straightforwardly that in fact the non - local van der waals functional approach of the density functional theory and the lifshitz formalism are in general equivalent  @xcite .
specifically we will calculate the vdw - casimir interaction free energy , per unit area between two graphene sheets as a function of the seperation between them , in a system composed of    * two apposed undoped or doped graphene sheets , * an undoped or a doped graphene layer over a semi - infinite substrate , and * a multilayer ( infinite ) array of graphene sheets .
in the latter case we will investigate the many - body non - pairwise additive effects in the effective interaction between two sheets within a multilayer array .
we should note that non - pairwise additive effects are ubiquitous in the context of vdw interactions  @xcite often leading to non - trivial properties of macromolecular interactions . in this case
they will lead to variations in the equilibrium stacking separation as a function of the number of layers in a graphitic configuration . in the calculation of the vdw - casimir free energy we will employ the dielectric response function of a single graphene layer calculated previously  @xcite .
the geometry of the system composed of two parallel graphene layers with thicknesses @xmath1 , facing each other in a bilayer arrangement at a separation @xmath6 , is shown schematically in fig .
[ fig : schematic - two - graphene - sheet ] . in view of later generalizations we label the left semi - infinite vacuum space as @xmath2 , graphene sheets as @xmath3 , the intervening layer as @xmath4 and the right semi - infinite vacuum space by @xmath5 .    in order to calculate the vdw - casimir dispersion interaction free energy in the planar geometry we use the approach of ref .
@xcite where it has been calculated _ exactly _ for a multilayer planar geometry .
the thus derived general form of the interaction free energy per unit area includes retardation effects and is therefore valid for any spacing between the layers .    for the system which is shown schematically in fig .
[ fig : schematic - two - graphene - sheet ] , the vdw - casimir interaction free energy is obtained in the lifshitz form as @xmath7 , \label{eq : free - energy - two - sheets}\ ] ] where @xmath8 stands for the graphene - graphene interaction free energy as a function of the layer spacing @xmath6 ( normalized in such a way that it tends to zero at infinite interlayer separation ) . in the above lifshitz formula
the @xmath9 summation is over the transverse wave vector and the @xmath10 summation ( where the prime indicates that the @xmath11 term has a weight of @xmath12 ) is over the imaginary matsubara frequencies @xmath13 where @xmath14 is the boltzman constant , @xmath15 is the absolute temperature , and @xmath16 is the planck constant devided by @xmath17 .
all the quantities in the bracket depend on @xmath9 as well as @xmath18 .
the other quantities entering the lifshitz formula are defined as    @xmath19    with @xmath20 where @xmath21 quantifies the dielectric discontinuity between homogeneous dielectric layers in the system , where a layer labeled by @xmath22 is located to the left hand side of the layer labeled by @xmath23 ( for details see ref .
@xcite ) . also @xmath24 for each electromagnetic field mode within the material @xmath23
is given by @xmath25 where @xmath26 is the speed of light in vacuo , @xmath27 is the magnitude of the transverse wave vector , and @xmath28 and @xmath29 are the dielectric function and the magnetic permeability of the @xmath23-th layer at imaginary frequencies , respectively . for the sake of simplicity
we assume that for all layers @xmath30 and that the dielectric function for vacuum layers equals to @xmath31 for all frequencies .
note that @xmath32 is standardly referred to as the vdw - london transform of the dielectric function and is defined via the kramers - kronig relations as @xcite @xmath33 it characterizes the magnitude of spontaneous electromagnetic fluctuations at frequency @xmath34 . in general @xmath35 is a real , monotonically decaying function of the imaginary argument @xmath34 ( for details see parsegian s book in ref .
@xcite ) . in order to proceed one
needs the vdw - london transform of the dielectric function of all layers in the system .
the detailed @xmath27- and @xmath36-dependent form of the dielectric function for undoped and/or doped graphene layers are introduced in secs .
[ two - undoped - graphene ] and [ two - doped - graphene ] .
we employ the response function of a graphene layer from refs .
@xcite which for doped graphene assumes the form @xmath37 , \label{eq : response - function - graphene - sheet}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath38 , @xmath39 is the fermi velocity in graphene layer and @xmath40 is the chemical potential , @xmath41 the fermi energy , and @xmath42 is the fermi momentum , where @xmath43 and @xmath44 is the the average electron density .    to begin with
, we assume that two layers are decoupled and ignore the interlayer coulomb interaction .
the vdw - london dispersion transform of the dielectric function on the level of the _ random phase approximation _
( rpa ) is then given by @xmath45 where @xmath46 is the ( transverse ) 2d fourier - bessel transform of the coulomb potential , @xmath47 , @xmath48 is the electric charge of electron , @xmath49 is the permittivity of the vacuum and @xmath50 is the average of the dielectric constant for the surrounding media which is equal to 1 for vacuum . in what follows
we furthermore assume that to the lowest order the dielectric properties of the graphene layers are not affected by the variation of the separation between them .
this assumption is also consistent with the lifshitz theory that presumes complete independence of the dielectric response functions of the interacting layers .    for undoped graphene layer ,
i.e. @xmath51 , the expression for the vdw - london dispersion transform of the dielectric function simplifies substantially and assumes the form @xmath52 where @xmath53 is the electromagnetic fine - structure constant @xmath54 .
it should be noted that , in general , a model going beyond the rpa is necessary in order to account for enhanced correlation effects that would be present in an undoped system  @xcite . in this paper , however , we restrict ourselves to the rpa approximation and analyze its predictions in detail .    , and at temperature @xmath55 .
the functional dependence of the interaction free energy on @xmath6 is compared with the following scaling forms : @xmath56 and @xmath57 as the separation increases.,width=321 ]    the functional dependence of the interaction free energy of the system per unit area , eq .
( [ eq : free - energy - two - sheets ] ) , is presented in fig .
[ fig : energy - two - undoped - graphene - sheet ] as a function of the separation between two graphene layers .
we assume that the graphene layers are immersed in vacuo and both of them have the same thickness @xmath31  as well as equal susceptibilities .
note that in all cases considered in this paper the interaction free energies as defined in eq .
( [ eq : free - energy - two - sheets ] ) are negative reflecting attractive vdw - casimir force between graphene layers in vacuum . for the sake presentation
, we shall plot the absolute value ( magnitude ) of the free energy in all cases .    as one can discern from fig .
[ fig : energy - two - undoped - graphene - sheet ] the general dependence of the vdw - casimir interaction free energy on the separation between the graphene layers has the scaling form of a power law , @xmath58 , with a weakly varying separation - dependent scaling exponent , @xmath59 .
this scaling exponent can be defined standardly as @xcite @xmath60 for two undoped graphene sheets we observe that at small separations the functional dependence of the free energy on interlayer spacing yields the scaling exponent @xmath61 for smallest values of the separation .
the scaling exponent then steadily increases to @xmath62 , then @xmath63 , and finally at asymptotically large separations it reverts back to @xmath62 .
this variation in the scaling exponent for the separation dependence of the interaction free energy can be rationalized by invoking some well known results on the vdw interaction in multilayer geometries ( see e.g. the relevant discussions in ref .
@xcite ) .
for example , for two semi - infinite layers the interaction free energy should go from the non - retarded form characterized by @xmath64 for small spacings , through retarded @xmath61 form for larger spacings and then back to zero - frequency - only form that also scales with @xmath64 but with a different prefactor than the non - retarded form . for two
infinitely thin sheets , on the other hand , we have the non - retarded @xmath62 form for small separation , followed by the retarded @xmath63 form for larger spacings and then reverting back to zero - frequency - only term with @xmath62 scaling , but again with a different prefactor than the non - retarded limit .
furthermore , the transitions between various scaling forms and the locations of the transition regions are not universal but depend crucially on the characteristics of the dielectric spectra and can thus be quite complicated , sometimes not yielding any easily discernible regimes with a quasi - constant scaling exponent @xmath10 .    reading fig .
[ fig : energy - two - undoped - graphene - sheet ] with this in mind we can come up with the following interpretation of the calculated separation dependence : for small separation the interaction free energy is dominated by the @xmath62 dependence except in the narrow interval very close to vanishing separation where the dependence asymptotically levels off at @xmath65 form .
this form is consistent with the non - retarded interaction between two very thin layers , see above , for small but not vanishing separations .
for vanishing interlayer separations the final leveling - off of the scaling exponent is due to the fact that the system is approaching the limit of two semi - infinite layers where in principle @xmath66 , but in reality the finite thickness of the graphene sheets is way too small to observe this scaling in its pure form .
all we can claim is that for vanishing interlayer spacings the scaling exponent drops below the @xmath62 value , valid for two infinitely thin layers .
for larger values of the interlayer separations we then enter the retarded regime with @xmath63 scaling exponent , again valid strictly for two infinitely thin layers .
the retarded regime finally gives way to the regime of asymptotically large spacings where the interaction free energy limits towards its form given by the zero frequency term in the matsubara summation and characterized by @xmath62 scaling dependence .
obviously the numerical coefficient in the small separation non - retarded and asymptotically large separation regimes ( both with @xmath62 ) are necessarily different .
the interaction free energy scaling with the interlayer separation is thus completely consistent with the vdw - casimir interactions between two thin dielectric layers for all , except for vanishingly small , separations where finite thickness effects of the graphene sheets leave their mark in a smaller value of the scaling exponent that should ideally approach the value valid for a regime of interaction between two semi - infinite layers .
the numerical value of the interaction free energy per unit area at @xmath67 is about @xmath68 .
that means that for two graphene layers with surface area of @xmath69 the magnitude of the free energy is about @xmath70 at 1 nm separation ; at @xmath71 it is about @xmath72 and at @xmath73 about @xmath74 for the same surface area .      for a doped graphene layer
the vdw - london dispersion transform of the dielectric function can be read off from eqs .
( [ eq : dielectric - function - graphene - sheet ] ) and ( [ eq : response - function - graphene - sheet ] ) as @xmath75 \nonumber\\ & & \hspace{-2.9 cm } + 2 \sqrt{\frac{4 \pi \rho / g}{q } } \big ( a_2 ^ 2+b_2 ^ 2 \big)^{1/4 } \cos \big [ \frac{1}{2 } \arg ( a_2 + \imath b_2 ) \big ] \nonumber\\ & & \hspace{-2.9 cm } - \frac{\xi_n } { v q } \big ( a_2 ^ 2+b_2 ^ 2 \big)^{1/4 } \sin
\big [ \frac{1}{2 } \arg ( a_2 + \imath b_2 ) \big ] \bigg\ } , \label{eq : dielectric - function - doped - graphene - sheet}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with the following coefficients @xmath76    , at temperature @xmath55 . the functional dependence of the free energy on the interlayer spacing is compared with scaling forms @xmath77 and @xmath78 in various regimes of separation.,width=321 ]    with this dielectric response function we again evaluate the vdw - casimir interaction free energy of the system per unit area , eq .
( [ eq : free - energy - two - sheets ] ) , as a function of the separation between two graphene layers @xmath6 as shown in fig .
[ fig : energy - two - doped - graphene - sheet ] .
the interaction free energy has again a scaling form with a scaling exponent varying with the separation between the layers .
it is clear that in this case it is much more difficult to partition the variation of the scaling exponent into clear - cut piecewise constant regions . as it can be seen from fig .
[ fig : energy - two - doped - graphene - sheet ] at small separations the form of the functional dependence of the interaction free energy has @xmath79 .
then for increasing spacings there follows a relatively broad regime with @xmath80 , followed eventually by the scaling form with @xmath64 for @xmath81 .
one needs to add here that only the scaling regime of @xmath64 for asymptotically large separations and an intermediate regime with @xmath80 are clearly discernible .
we can gain some understanding of these regimes by comparing with the various exact limits in the layer geometry as before .
such comparison is however not as straightforward as before .
the asymptotic @xmath64 regime is easiest to rationalize : it has the same scaling form as the _ finite temperature _ vdw - casimir interaction between two metallic sheets at asymptotically large separations .
the presence of free charges would in fact be a reasonable characterization of doped graphene layers .
for smaller separations we then enter the regime dominated by the retardation effects with @xmath82 form , and finally for vanishing separations we approach the regime of @xmath83 .
recent calculations of vdw interactions between thin metallic layers indeed lead to exactly this exponent for small layer separations  @xcite .
the doped graphene sheet results would thus indicate that the dependence of the vdw - casimir interactions free energy on the separation could be rationalized in terms of interactions between two thin metallic sheets .    for comparison
we have also plotted the interaction free energy between two _ ideal _ metallic sheets which exhibits a much stronger attractive interaction free energy , i.e. @xcite @xmath84 \nonumber \\ & = & - \frac{k_b t \zeta ( 3)}{8 \pi b^2 } + 2 k_b t \times    \\   & & \hspace{1cm}\times   \sum_{n=1}^{\infty } \int \frac{d^2 p}{(2 \pi)^2 } \ln \big [ 1- e^{-2 b \sqrt{p^2 + ( \xi_n / c)^2}}\big ] .
\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the numerical value of the energy per unit area at @xmath67 is about @xmath85 which is equal to @xmath86 for surface area of @xmath69 ; at @xmath71 it is about @xmath87 and at @xmath73 it is about @xmath72 for the same surface area .    )
immersed in vacuo as a function of the interlayer spacing @xmath6 , at temperature @xmath55 . as seen for all separations the magnitude of
the interaction free energy for doped graphene layers is greater than that of the undoped one .
, width=321 ]    , for the system composed of two doped graphene layers with different electron densities immersed in vacuum as a function of @xmath88 for different interlayer separations @xmath89 and @xmath90 ( from top to bottom ) at temperature @xmath55 .
note that @xmath91 has been calculated for @xmath92 .
, width=321 ]      it is instructive to compare the interaction between two graphene layers in the undoped and doped cases . for this purpose
we have plotted the interaction free energy of the system for both cases in fig .
[ fig : energy - two - undoped - doped - graphene - comparison ] . the electron density in doped graphene is assumed to be @xmath93 ( solid curve ) .
the dashed curve is the interaction free energy of the system composed of two undoped graphene layers .
as it can be seen , for all separations the magnitude of the interaction free energy for doped graphene layers is more than that of the undoped one ( note again that the interaction free energies as defined in eq .
( [ eq : free - energy - two - sheets ] ) are negative in the present case due to attractive vdw - casimir force between graphene layers in vacuum ) . at separation @xmath67 the vdw - casimir interactions for doped graphene is about 30 times the magnitude of the interaction for undoped graphene , while at the separation of @xmath94 this ratio is about 1600 .
this means that the attractive interaction between graphene layers is enhanced when the contribution of the electron density in the dielectric function of the graphene layers is taken into account .
this same trend was observed also in the work of sernelius  @xcite and is clearly a consequence of the fact that the largest value of vdw - casimir interactions is obtained for ideally polarizable , i.e. metallic layers .
the closer the system is to this idealized case , the larger the corresponding vdw - casimir interaction will be .
let us investigate also the effect of asymmetry of doped graphene sheets on vdw - casimir interactions between them . introducing the dimensionless parameter @xmath95 , where @xmath96 is the electron density of the @xmath23-th graphene layer ( @xmath97 ) , we find that the interaction free energy depends on the asymmetry in the system . when @xmath98 , the electron densities are the same for both graphene layers and we have a symmetric case , whereas @xmath99 means that one of the graphene layers is undoped while the other one is doped , leading to an asymmetric case . in fig .
[ fig : energy - two - different - doped - graphene ] we have plotted the rescaled free energy @xmath100 of the system composed of two graphene layers as a function of @xmath101 for different values of the interlayer separation .
the magnitude of the electron density for one of the layers has been fixed at @xmath102 while that of the other layer , @xmath103 , varies .
as seen from this figure , the curves show a monotonic dependence on @xmath101 with a stronger interaction at smaller values of @xmath101 .
note that at large separations the curves tend to coincide and will become indistinguishable .
the asymmetry effects are therefore largest at small separations between the interacting graphene layers .    .
the top solid line shows the general form of the hamaker coefficient as defined via eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - general - form - two - graphene - layers ] ) , the dashed line shows the limiting large - distance form , eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - large - distances - two - graphene - layers ] ) , and the dotted line shows the limiting small - distance form , eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - small - distances - two - graphene - layers ] ) .
, width=321 ]      the general form of the hamaker coefficient , @xmath104 , for a system composed of two dielectric layers of finite thickness ( fig .
[ fig : schematic - two - graphene - sheet ] ) when retardation effects are neglected is defined via @xcite @xmath105 .
\label{eq : hamaker - coefficient - general - form - two - graphene - layers}\ ] ] at large separations @xmath106 , the hamaker coefficient , @xmath107 , can be obtained from @xmath108 while at small separations @xmath109 , it can be read off from @xmath110 in fig .
[ hamaker - two - graphene - layers ] , we show the hamaker coefficient as a function of the layer separation for a system of two undoped graphene layers . we show the general form of the hamaker coefficient from eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - general - form - two - graphene - layers ] ) ( solid line ) as well as the limiting forms at small ( dotted line , eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - small - distances - two - graphene - layers ] ) ) and large ( dashed line , eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - large - distances - two - graphene - layers ] ) ) separations .
the large - distance limiting form obviously coincides with the general form at separations beyond @xmath111 .
the small - distance limiting form tends to the general form at small separations but given that the thickness of the layers is only about @xmath31 , it is expected to merge with the general form in sub - ngstrm separations . for doped graphene , a similar analysis to eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - general - form - two - graphene - layers ] ) is not possible because the corresponding general expression for the interaction free energy is missing .
in this section we study the interaction between a graphene layer and a semi - infinite dielectric substrate as depicted schematically in fig .
[ fig : schematic - substrate - graphene - sheet ] . for this system
the free energy per unit area is @xmath112,\nonumber\\ \label{eq : free - energy - substrate - and - graphen - sheet}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath113 now stands for the interaction free energy between the substrate and the graphene layer .
we have excluded the explicit dependence of the quantities in the bracket on the imaginary matsubara frequencies , but they are the same as in eq .
( [ eq : delta - two - sheets ] ) .
( labeled by @xmath3 ) apposed to a substrate ( labeled by @xmath2 ) at a separation @xmath6 .
we have labeled the intervening layer ( assumed to be vacuum ) with @xmath4 , and the right one with @xmath5 .
the dielectric function of the graphene layer is defined via eq .
( [ eq : dielectric - function - graphene - sheet ] ) and for substrate via eq .
( [ eq : epsilon - substrate]).,width=188 ]    in order to gain insight into the magnitude of the vdw - casimir interaction free energy and for the sake of simplicity , we assume that the semi - infinite substrate is made of sio@xmath114 which has the vdw - london dispersion transform of the dielectric function of the form @xcite @xmath115 where the values of the parameters , c@xmath116 = 1.098 , c@xmath117 = 1.703 , @xmath118 rad / s , and @xmath119 rad / s have been determined from a fit to optical data @xcite .
the static dielectric permittivity of sio@xmath114 is then obtained as @xmath120 .
a characteristic feature of the vdw - london transform of sio@xmath114 is thus that it contains two relaxation mechanisms .
the first one is due to electronic polarization and the second one is due to ionic polarization .
all calculations of the vdw - casimir interaction free energy are done at room temperature ( @xmath55 ) .
substrate and an undoped graphene layer , eq .
( [ eq : free - energy - substrate - and - graphen - sheet ] ) , plotted at temperature @xmath55 as a function of the separation @xmath6 . the functional dependence of the free energy on @xmath6 is compared with scaling forms @xmath121 and @xmath122 in various regimes of separation.,width=321 ]     substrate and a doped graphene layer , eq .
( [ eq : free - energy - substrate - and - graphen - sheet ] ) is plotted at temperature @xmath55 as a function of the separation @xmath6 . here
the functional dependence of the interaction free energy for the graphene doping electron density @xmath123 ( solid line ) is compared with scaling forms @xmath124 and @xmath78 in various regimes of separation .
we also include the same plot for the doping electron density @xmath125 ( dashed line ) . ,
width=321 ]      using the vdw - london transforms of the dielectric functions given in the preceding sections , one can now calculate the free energy , eq .
( [ eq : free - energy - substrate - and - graphen - sheet ] ) , for an undoped graphene layer next to a semi - infinite sio@xmath114 substrate .
the results are shown in fig .
[ fig : energy - substrate - undoped - graphene - slope ] .    at small separations ,
the free energy varies with a scaling exponent @xmath64 , while at larger separations one can distinguish the scaling regimes @xmath61 , and @xmath62 , finally approaching the asymptotic limit at large separations with @xmath61 .
this sequence of interaction free energy scalings can be rationalized as follows : at asymptotically large separations we are at the zero - frequency matsubara term for a semi - infinite layer and a thin sheet .
this case is right in between the asymptotically large separation limit for two semi - infinite layers ( @xmath64 ) and two infinitely thin layers ( @xmath62 ) . for smaller spacings we then progressively detect contributions from higher matsubara terms which lead to scaling exponent @xmath62 that corresponds to a retarded form of the interaction free energy and then for yet smaller spacings the scaling exponent reverts to @xmath61 non - retarded form of the vdw interaction between a semi - infinite substrate and an infinitely thin sheet . for vanishing spacings
the finite thickness of the sheet starts playing a role and eventually , we approach the @xmath64 scaling for two semi - infinite layers .
the magnitude of the interaction free energy per unit area at @xmath67 is about @xmath126 .
it means that for a system with surface area of @xmath69 this value is about @xmath127 . at @xmath71
it is about @xmath128 and at @xmath73 it is about @xmath129 for the same surface area .
substrate as a function of the distance between them , @xmath6 .
the top solid line shows the general form of the hamaker coefficient as defined via eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - general - form - substrate - graphene ] ) , the dashed line show the limiting large - distance form , eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - large - distances - substrate - graphene ] ) , and the dotted line shows the limiting small - distance form , eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - small - distances - substrate - graphene]).,width=321 ]      the vdw - casimir interaction free energy eq .
( [ eq : free - energy - substrate - and - graphen - sheet ] ) for a system composed of a doped graphene layer next to a semi - infinite sio@xmath114 substrate is shown fig .
[ fig : energy - substrate - doped - graphene - slope ] for two values of the electron density @xmath130 ( dashed line ) and @xmath131 ( solid line ) .    at small separations
the free energy shows the @xmath83 scaling , while for larger spacings it shows a scaling exponent @xmath61 , approaching the @xmath66 limit for asymptotically large separations . in this respect
the case of a thin doped graphene sheet apposed to a semi - infinite substrate is very similar to the case of two thin doped layers , except that the retarded regime covers a smaller interval of spacings .
this means that the metallic nature of one of the interacting surfaces is enough to switch the behavior of the interaction free energy completely towards the case of two metallic interacting surfaces .
this case has in fact not yet been thoroughly discussed in the literature .
the changes in the slope appear to occur at the same values of the interlayer spacing when the electron density decreases ( compare dashed and solid curves ) .
the magnitude of the free energy for the electron density @xmath132 ( dashed line ) and surface area of @xmath69 at @xmath67 is about @xmath133 , while at @xmath71 it is about @xmath134 , and at @xmath73 is about @xmath135 .
these values increase for larger electron densities , e.g. , for @xmath131 ( solid line ) and the same surface area , the free energy magnitude is @xmath136 at @xmath67 , while it is about @xmath137 at @xmath71 and about @xmath138 at @xmath73 .      the general form of the hamaker coefficient , @xmath139 , for a system composed of a dielectric layer of finite thickness apposed to a semi - infinite dielectric substrate ( fig .  [ fig : schematic - substrate - graphene - sheet ] ) when
retardation effects are neglected is defined via @xcite @xmath140 .
\label{eq : hamaker - coefficient - general - form - substrate - graphene}\ ] ] at large separations @xmath106 , the hamaker coefficient , @xmath141 , can be obtained from @xmath142 while at small separations @xmath109 , it can be read off from @xmath143 in fig .
[ hamaker - substrate - and - graphene ] , we again show the hamaker coefficient as a function of the layer separation for a system comprising a sio@xmath114 substrate and an undoped graphene layer .
we show the general form of the hamaker coefficient from eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - general - form - substrate - graphene ] ) ( solid line ) as well as the limiting forms at large ( dashed line , eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - large - distances - substrate - graphene ] ) ) and small ( dotted line , eq .
( [ eq : hamaker - coefficient - small - distances - substrate - graphene ] ) ) separations .
the large - distance limiting form obviously coincides with the general form at separations beyond @xmath71 but again since the thickness of the graphene layer is only about @xmath31 , the small - distance limiting form is expected to merge with the general form in sub - ngstrm separations .
in this section we shall use the lifshitz formalism in order to study the many - body vdw interactions in a system composed of @xmath144 layers of graphene .
the layers are separated from each other by @xmath145 layers of vacuum and are bounded at the two ends by two semi - infinite dielectric slabs as depicted in fig .
[ fig : n - layer - new ] .
the thickness of each graphene layer is @xmath1 while the separation between two successive layers is @xmath6 .
we have labeled the left semi - infinite dielectric medium with @xmath2 , the right one with @xmath5 ( which both will be assumed to be vacuum ) , the graphene layers with @xmath3 and the vacuum layers with @xmath4 .
following ref .
@xcite , one can calculate the vdw - casimir part of the interaction free energy , @xmath146 , in an explicit form for any finite @xmath145 .
interestingly , it turns out that for very large values of @xmath145 the vdw - casimir free energy can be written as a linear function of @xmath145 so that the interaction free energy @xmath146 becomes @xcite     layers of graphene ( @xmath3 ) with equal thicknesses @xmath1 separated from each other by @xmath145 layers of vacuum ( @xmath4 ) with equal thicknesses of @xmath6 .
the two semi - infinite substrates in the left and right end of the system are labeled by @xmath2 and @xmath5 and will be assumed to be vacuum . ,
width=321 ]    @xmath147    where @xmath148 can be interpreted as an _ effective _ pair interaction between two neighboring layers in the stack and is given by @xmath149 , \label{eq : att - vdw - sheets - per - number - of - layers}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath150 defined as @xmath151 + \delta^4 \big ( e^{-2 \kappa_a a } - e^{-2 \kappa_b b }   \big)^2 .
\nonumber\\ \label{eq : cal - g}\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath152 is @xmath153 where @xmath154 and @xmath155 are @xmath156 for simplicity we have dropped the explicit dependence on the matsubara frequency in all the above expressions .
we stress that @xmath148 is an effective pair interaction between two neighboring graphene layers in a multilayer geometry and is in general _ not _ equal to @xmath157 in eq .
( [ eq : free - energy - two - sheets ] ) , which is valid for two interacting layers in the absence of any other neighboring layers .
the difference between these two interaction free energies thus encodes the non - pairwise additive effects in the interaction between two layers due to the presence of other vicinal layers .
, plotted as a function of the separation , @xmath6 , between two successive undoped ( bottom black dot - dashed line ) and doped ( top black solid line ) graphene layers for a system composed of infinitely many layers of undoped / doped layers as schematically depicted in fig .
[ fig : n - layer - new ] .
the temperature of the system is @xmath55 , the thickness of the graphene layers is fixed at @xmath31  and we have chosen the dielectric function for the undoped case from eq .
( [ eq : epsilon - undoped - graphene - sheet ] ) and for doped case ( with the doping electron density chosen as @xmath158 ) from eq .
( [ eq : dielectric - function - doped - graphene - sheet ] ) .
the functional form of the free energy for the undoped case is compared with scaling forms @xmath56 and @xmath57 in various regimes of separation . for the doped case ,
the free energy is compared with the scaling forms @xmath159 and @xmath122.,width=321 ]      let us first consider the case of @xmath144 undoped graphene layers . in this case the vdw - casimir interaction free energy per unit area and per number of layers , @xmath160 ( black dot - dashed line ) , has been plotted in fig .
[ fig : energy - doped - and - undoped - n_layers - per - area - number - of - layer ] as a function of the separation between the layers , @xmath6 .
the temperature of the system is chosen as @xmath55 , the thickness of the graphene layers is @xmath31  and we have used the dielectric function given by eq .
( [ eq : epsilon - undoped - graphene - sheet ] ) for each undoped graphene sheet .
the value of @xmath161 at @xmath67 is about @xmath162 which is @xmath163 when the surface area is equal to @xmath69 . at @xmath71
the value of @xmath164 for the same surface area is about @xmath72 and at @xmath73 is about @xmath165 .
the scaling of @xmath160 for different values of the interlayer spacing @xmath6 is shown in fig .
[ fig : energy - doped - and - undoped - n_layers - per - area - number - of - layer ] .
it shows the scaling exponent @xmath61 at vanishing separations while at finite yet small separations it is characterised by @xmath62 , continuously merging into a @xmath63 form and finally attaining the @xmath62 form .
the rationalization of this sequence of scaling exponents is exactly the same as in the case of two isolated layers and will thus not be repeated here .
one can directly compare the reduced free energy , @xmath166 , with that of a system composed of only two undoped graphene layers of the same thickness @xmath1 , @xmath167 ( i.e. , comparing the results in fig .
[ fig : energy - two - undoped - graphene - sheet ] with the corresponding results in fig .
[ fig : energy - doped - and - undoped - n_layers - per - area - number - of - layer ] ) .
this is shown in fig .
[ fig : energy - nlayer - over - twolayer - doped - and - undoped ] ( black dot - dashed line and green dots ) , where apparently the results nearly coincide . however , by inspecting the ratio between these two interaction free energies it turns out that in the multilayer system the interaction free energy per layer is slightly more attractive than in the case of a two - layer system .
this difference thus stems directly from the many - body effects which in this case augment the binding interaction in a graphitic stack .
, for the system composed of @xmath144 layers of undoped ( bottom black dot - dashed line ) and doped ( top black solid line ) graphene is compared with the magnitude of the interaction free energy per unit area , @xmath168 , for the system composed of only two undoped ( green dots ) and doped ( red dots ) graphene layers as a function of the separation between the layers , @xmath6 .
the inset shows the ratio of these two quantities for both undoped ( black dot - dashed line ) and doped ( black solid line ) cases .
, width=321 ]      in fig .
[ fig : energy - doped - and - undoped - n_layers - per - area - number - of - layer ] the magnitude of the vdw - casimir interaction free energy for doped graphene layers per unit area and per number of layers , @xmath160 , is plotted ( black solid line ) as a function of the separation between layers , @xmath6 .
the vdw - london dispersion transform of the dielectric function for each graphene sheet is chosen as in eq .
( [ eq : dielectric - function - doped - graphene - sheet ] ) .
we have fixed the density of electrons for all the graphene layers as @xmath123 .
the value of @xmath161 at @xmath67 is about @xmath169 , which is about @xmath170 when the surface area is equal to @xmath69 . at @xmath71
the value of @xmath164 is about @xmath171 and at @xmath73 it is about @xmath172 .
the scaling exponents of the interaction free energy dependence for different regions of interlayer spacings are illustrated in fig .
[ fig : energy - doped - and - undoped - n_layers - per - area - number - of - layer ] .
the scaling exponent is @xmath173 for small separations while at larger separations it tends towards the value @xmath61 .
it is thus exactly the same as in the case of two isolated doped graphene sheets , see fig .
[ fig : energy - two - doped - graphene - sheet ] , except that in the multilayer geometry we have not shown the same range of separations as for two isolated layers .
the comparison of vdw - casimir interaction free energies in the case of two isolated doped graphene sheets with the effective interaction between two graphene sheets in a multilayer system ( i.e. , comparing @xmath174 in fig .
[ fig : energy - two - doped - graphene - sheet ] with @xmath164 in fig .
[ fig : energy - doped - and - undoped - n_layers - per - area - number - of - layer ] ) is made in fig .
[ fig : energy - nlayer - over - twolayer - doped - and - undoped ] . as shown by the inset
the interaction free energy is again slightly more attractive within a multilayer . comparing the results in the inset of fig .
[ fig : energy - nlayer - over - twolayer - doped - and - undoped ] shows that in average the many - body effects are stronger in the doped multilayer case than in the undoped case .
note also that a direct comparison between the undoped and doped systems ( fig .
[ fig : energy - doped - and - undoped - n_layers - per - area - number - of - layer ] ) shows that for all separations the free energy magnitude for a doped multilayer ( solid line ) is more than that of the undoped one ( dot - dashed line ) and thus the interaction is more attractive in the former case .
at separation @xmath67 the magnitude of the doped free energy is about 34 times larger , while at the separation @xmath71 it is about 1730 larger than that of the undoped one .
in this work we have studied the vdw - casimir interaction between graphene sheets and between a graphene sheet and a substrate .
we calculated the interaction free energy via the lifshitz theory of vdw interactions that takes as an input the dielectric functions , or better their vdw - london transform , of isolated layers . within this approach
it would be inconsistent to take into account any separation dependent coupling between the dielectric response of the layers .
this need possibly not be the case for some other approximate approaches to vdw interactions as in , e.g. , the vdw augmented density functional theory ( see the paper by langreth et al . in ref .
@xcite ) .    by inserting the _ random phase approximation
_ dielectric function of a graphene layer into the lifshitz theory we are thus in a position to evaluate not only the pair interaction between two isolated graphene sheets , but also between a graphene sheet and a semi - infinite substrate of a different dielectric nature ( sio@xmath114 in our case ) as well as the effective interactions between two graphene sheets in an infinite stack of graphene layers .
all these cases that have been analyzed and discussed above are relevant for many realistic geometries in nano - scale systems  @xcite and thus deserve to be studied in detail .    in the three cases
studied we found the following salient features of the vdw - casimir interaction dependence on the separation between the interacting bodies :    * in a system composed of two graphene layers we demonstrated that the vdw - casimir interactions in the case of undoped graphene show scaling exponents identical to those displayed in the case of interacting thin dielectric layers . in the doped case
the scaling exponents are consistent with vdw - casimir interactions between two thin metallic layers . * in a system composed of a semi - infinite dielectric substrate and an undoped graphene layer the vdw - casimir interactions display scaling exponents expected for this asymmetric geometry . for a doped graphene layer
the exponents revert to the previous case of two doped graphene layers . * in a multilayer system composed of many graphene sheets the vdw - casimir interaction scaling exponents are the same as in the case of two isolated layers but the interactions are stronger due to many body effects as a consequence of the presence of other layers in a stack .    in order to describe the correlation effects especially at low doping or the interlayer coupling on a more systematic level
, one needs to go beyond the standard random phase approximation by incorporating more sophisticated theoretical models for the dielectric response function which would be worth exploring further in the future .
the main motivation for a detailed study of vdw - casimir interaction between graphene sheets in graphite - like geometries is the fact that graphitic systems belong to closed shell systems and thus display no covalent bonding , so that any bonding interaction is by necessity of a vdw - casimir type .
its detailed characterization is thus particularly relevant for this quintessential nano - scale system @xcite .
we would like to thank b. sernelius for providing us with a preprint of his work .
r.p . acknowledges support from arrs through the program p1 - 0055 and the research project j1 - 0908 .
a.n . acknowledges support from the royal society , the royal academy of engineering , and the british academy .
j.s . acknowledges generous support by j. stefan institute ( ljubljana ) provided for a visit to the institute and the department of physics of iasbs ( zanjan ) for their hospitality .
a. bostwick , t. ohta , t. seyller , k. horn and e. rotenberg , nature phys .
* 3 * , 36 ( 2007 ) ; z. q. li , e. a. henriksen , z. jiang , z. hao , m. c. martin , p. kim , h. l. stormer and d. n. basov , nature physics * 4 * , 532 ( 2008 ) .
brar et al .
, , 036805 ( 2010 ) ; e.a .
henriksen et al . , _ ibid _ * 104 * , 067404 ( 2010 ) ; a. luican , g. li , and e.y .
andrei , , 041405(r ) ( 2011 ) ; k.f .
mak , j. shan , and t.f .
heinz , , 046401 ( 2011 ) ; f. ghahari et al .
, _ ibid _ * 106 * , 046801 ( 2011 ) .
m. polini , r. asgari , y. barlas , t. pereg - barnea , and a. h. macdonald , solid state commun .
* 143 * , 58 ( 2007 ) ; m. polini , r. asgari , g. borghi , y. barlas , t. pereg - barnea , and a. h. macdonald , , 081411(r ) ( 2008 ) ; a. qauimzadeh , r. asgari , phys . rev .
b * 79 * , 075414 ( 2009 ) ; new j. phys . *
11 * 095023 ( 2009 ) ; a. qauimzadeh , n. arabchi and r. asgari , solid state commun .
* 147 * , 172 ( 2008 ) .
v. a. parsegian , _ van der waals forces _
( cambridge university press , cambridge , 2005 ) ; m. bordag , g. l. klimchitskaya , u. mohideen , and v. m. mostepanenko , _ advances in the casimir effect _ ( oxford university press , new york , 2009 ) ; d. c. langreth et al . , j. phys . : condens .
matter * 21 * , 084203 ( 2009 ) ; t. emig , int . j. mod
a * 25 * , 2177 ( 2010 ) ; j. schwinger , l. l. deraad , jr . , and k. a. milton , ann . phys .
( n.y . ) , * 115 * , 1 ( 1978 ) .
b. wunsch , t. stauber , f. sols , and f. guinea , new j. phys .
* 8 * , 318 ( 2006 ) ; x .- f . wang and t. chakraborty , phys .
b * 75 * , 041404 ( 2007 ) ; e.h .
hwang and s. das sarma , phys .
b * 75 * , 205418 ( 2007 ) .