\section{Introduction}

In his seminal article 65 years ago, Casimir formulated a physical problem
\cite{Cas}
which has had a tremendous influence on physics.
His pioneering analysis of the physical consequences of field
quantization under external, macroscopic boundary conditions
is still of current relevance. Indeed, it turned out to be
one of the most prolific ideas in modern theoretical physics.
Having a pure quantum background and being closely related to classical
physics, the Casimir effect is a universal and wide-spread phenomenon
that can be found on all scales in the Universe.

One of the fascinating aspects of the Casimir effect is its simplicity, i.e.,
there are theoretical models that are amenable to exact solutions.
Leaving aside many important features of modern Casimir physics
\cite{Dalvit_Book}, we consider the simple system of Ref.\cite{Cas}
with a slight generalization.
Namely, our setting consists of two half-spaces of
different materials with a plane-parallel gap in between. What
we know about the two media are their reflection coefficients (a matrix
in general) and macroscopic conditions like temperature distributions,
macroscopic current densities, distance and relative motion parallel to
the interfaces. We assume that these conditions are maintained
stationary by external (generalized) forces.
We want to compute correlation
functions of the electromagnetic field in the gap. These yield for example
the average energy density of the field and the pressure exerted on the
two bodies as components of the stress (energy-momentum) tensor.
We focus in particular
on symmetrized correlations, also known as Keldysh-Green functions (KGF)
in quantum kinetics,
and are able to derive them under
rather general circumstances in a stationary
Casimir geometry. We thus establish a natural non-equilibrium extension
of Casimir's results.

Our approach starts from
a simple observation which is a common feature among all
manifestations of the Casimir effect: the interaction between the two
interfaces disappears when their distance becomes large enough.
On quite general grounds, we may therefore
conclude that the electromagnetic field which we observe in
any Casimir system results from several fields that
originate in the material of the different half-spaces and in the vacuum
gap between them.
The distance dependence of the Casimir interaction is such
that these fields become independent (uncorrelated) as the
interfaces are infinitely far away.
This fact is the cornerstone of our analysis: we use the large-distance limit
to express the KGF in a two-plate setting in terms of KGFs
of independent half-spaces.

In this paper, we relax the assumption that the two plates share the same
temperature and state of motion. This makes it impossible to describe the
field between the plates as being in thermal equilibrium.
The appropriate tool to calculate photon correlation functions is
then the Schwinger-Keldysh technique\cite{Schwinger_1961, Kel} of nonequilibrium
processes.
The application of the Keldysh formalism to the field of Casimir-Van der
Waals interactions has a relatively short history. The
first application, to our knowledge, is due to Janowicz, Reddig and
Holthaus \cite{Jan} in calculations of the electromagnetic heat
transfer between two bodies at different temperature. Sherkunov
used the non-equilibrium technique extensively for dispersion interactions
involving excited atoms and excited media \cite{Sher}. A general expression
for the electromagnetic force on an atom, in terms of the KGFs
of atom and radiation field, was found a few years ago
by one of the present authors \cite{vem}.

The physical processes
behind these field-mediated interactions
are the multiple reflections of photons between the
interfaces and their tunneling from one body to the other,
which follow from the boundary conditions for the electromagnetic field on the
interfaces.
To include these boundary conditions, we use an effective action
in the Schwinger-Keldysh technique with auxiliary fields and evaluate
generating functionals for KGFs by performing path integrals \cite{NO}.
Path integral approaches for the Casimir effect were introduced by Bordag,
Robaschik and Wieczorek \cite{Bord}. Li and Kardar considered the interaction
between bodies mediated by a fluid with
long range correlations \cite{Meh2, Meh3}.
They applied a path integral technique to include
arbitrarily deformed bodies on which any kind of boundary condition can
be implemented. This feature makes the approach amenable to a perturbative
analysis of any deformed ideally conducting surfaces
\cite{Emig1, Emig2}. Further on, Emig
and B\"{u}scher \cite{Emig3} used the optical extinction theorem \cite{Born}
to reformulate the boundary conditions for a vacuum-dielectric interface
in  integral form that depends only on the fields on the vacuum side (i.e., in
the gap between two bodies). They then derived with path
integral techniques an effective Gaussian action for the photon gas in the
gap, providing the free energy and in particular the Casimir interaction
of dielectric bodies with arbitrary shaped surfaces. A similar approach has
been followed by Soltan et al.~\cite{Soltan} for a dispersive medium between the
bodies.
Recently, Behunin and Hu applied path integrals to problems of
the Casimir-Polder type (atom-surface interaction) in different
nonequilibrium
situations: in Ref.\cite{Hu1} is considered the Van der Waals
interaction between an atom and a substrate in a stationary state out of
global equilibrium; Ref.\cite{Hu2} is calculating
atom-atom interactions in a quantized radiation field which is in a
nonequilibrium state.

Our theoretical approach to the non-equilibrium Casimir interaction
where the boundary conditions involve different, locally defined
temperatures, is thus
a synthesis between the Feynman path integral and the
Keldysh-Schwinger formalism of nonequilibrium processes \cite{KL, Alt}.

The paper is organized as follows: after preliminary notations and
introductions in Sec.\ref{s:2}, we introduce rather general expressions
for retarded Green functions in the Casimir geometry of two planar
boundaries (Sec.\ref{s:3}).
In Sec.\ref{s:4} is analyzed a Gaussian action in Schwinger-Keldysh space
which yields the non-equilibrium correlations for the fields (Keldysh-Green
functions). This action implements in particular the boundary conditions for
the retarded Green functions.
In Sec.\ref{s:5} we discuss
the retarded Green functions in the limit where the interfaces of the
Casimir system are infinitely removed from each other.
Using this limiting
procedure, the Keldysh-Green function at any point in
the gap is expressed via Keldysh functions of the single interface systems
defined at the surfaces and via photon numbers in free space (Sec.\ref{s:7}). As an
application of the developed technique, we find in Sec.\ref{s:9}
the field correlation functions in a Casimir geometry with a sliding interface.
This result is checked in
Appendix~\ref{a:sliding-reflection} where the same problem is solved using
Rytov fluctuation electrodynamics.
We illustrate our results by analyzing the electromagnetic energy density
between the plates in two typical non-equilibrium situations
(Appendix~\ref{a:energy-spectrum}).
Concluding remarks are given in Sec.\ref{s:conclusions}, while technical
details are collected in the other Appendices.

\section{Preliminaries}
\label{s:2}

\subsection{Geometry of the problem}

We consider two bodies with
parallel and homogeneous boundaries
located at $z = \pm a/2$. The boundaries are in stationary conditions:
their temperatures are constant in time, and their relative motion
(if any) is uniform and parallel to each other.
We can then assume that the EM field in the cavity [$-a/2 \le z \le a/2$]
is stationary in time and homogenous in the $xy$-plane. As a consequence,
all relevant fields and correlation functions can be expanded in Fourier
integrals with respect to frequency $\omega$ and wave vectors
${\bf q} = ( q_x, q_y )$ along the interfaces.
We use in the following the shorthand
\begin{equation}
	\Omega = (\omega , q_{x}, q_{y})
	\,.
	\label{eq:def-Omega}
\end{equation}
For fields like the vector potential, we get a mixed representation
\begin{equation}
	{\bf A}( \omega, q_x, q_y, z ) = {\bf A}( \Omega, z )
	\,,
	\label{eq:field-notation}
\end{equation}
where the argument $\Omega$ is suppressed where no confusion
is possible.

We work in the Dzyaloshinskii gauge $\varphi = 0$ where
due to the transversality condition for the electric field,
the normal component $A_{z}$ of the vector potential can be eliminated
in favor of the tangential ones $A_{x},\, A_{y}$. Furthermore, given the plane
of incidence spanned by ${\bf q}$ and the normal to the interfaces,
the dynamical variables of the EM field in the cavity are the following
linear combination
\begin{equation}
A_{s} = \frac{ q_{y}A_{x} - q_{x}A_{y} }{ | {\bf q}| }
\,,\qquad
A_{p} =  \frac{ {\bf q} \cdot {\bf A} }{ | {\bf q}| }
\,,
\label{eq:1.2}
\end{equation}%
which are nothing but the vector potential amplitudes of s- and p-polarized
waves. In the following, we call the components defined in Eq.(\ref{eq:1.2})
the Weyl representation of the vector potential or we
say the vector potential is written in the Weyl basis \cite{Pieplow_2012}:
$\hat A = (A_s, A_p)$.

\subsection{Weyl representation of free space Green function}
\label{s:Weyl-free-space}

The Green function (GF) of the EM field plays a crucial role in the following.
Since it simply represents the vector potential due to a point current source,
it is also represented by a mixed Fourier representation
involving a tensor
$D_{\alpha\alpha'}( \Omega ; z, z' )$ ($\alpha, \alpha' = x, y, z$).
The latter is the solution of
(given the gauge $\varphi = 0$)
\cite{Landau_9}%
\begin{equation}
\left[ (\partial_z^{2} + q_{z}^{2})\delta_{\alpha\beta} -
{\partial}_{\alpha } {\partial}_{\beta } \right]
D_{\beta \alpha'}( \Omega ; z, z' )
= 4\pi \delta_{\alpha\alpha'} \delta(z - z')
\label{eq:1.3}
\end{equation}%
where (we set $c = 1$)
\begin{equation}
q_{z}^{2} = \omega^{2} - q^{2}%
\,,\quad
{\partial}_{\alpha } = (iq_{x}, iq_{y},\partial_z )
\label{eq:1.4}
\end{equation}%
In the following, we only need the tangential part of the GF
$D_{\sigma \sigma'}$ with $\sigma, \sigma' = x, y$.
(See Eqs.(\ref{eq:3.15.a}--\ref{eq:3.15.c}) below for the normal components.)
Projecting
both indices into the Weyl basis according to Eq.(\ref{eq:1.2}),
we get from Eq.(\ref{eq:1.3}) the simple Helmholtz equation
\begin{equation}
(\partial_z^{2} + q_{z}^{2}) \hat{D}( \Omega ; z, z' )
= 4\pi \hat{g} \delta (z - z'),
\label{eq:2.5}
\end{equation}%
where the $2\times 2$ matrix $\hat{g}$ reads
\begin{equation}
\hat{g}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & q_{z}^{2}/\omega^{2}%
\end{array}%
\right)
\,.
\label{eq:1.7}
\end{equation}

The GF in free space (no boundary conditions) is written
$\hat{ \Delta }( \Omega ; z, z' )$. As is well known, it comes
in two types:
\textit{retarded} $\hat{\Delta}^{R}$ and \textit{%
advanced} $\hat{\Delta}^{A}$ Green functions. In the Weyl
representation, they are given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Delta}^{R}( \Omega ; z, z' )
= \hat{\Delta}_{0} \, {\rm e}^{i q_{z} | z-z' | }
= \hat{\Delta}^{A\ast }( \Omega ; z, z' )
\label{eq:1.8}
\end{equation}%
where%
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Delta}_{0} = \frac{2\pi }{iq_{z}}\hat{g}
\label{eq:1.9}
\end{equation}%
and the wave vector $q_{z}$ is defined over the entire frequency axis by
\begin{equation}
q_{z} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathop{\rm sgn}\omega \sqrt{\omega^{2} - q^{2}} + i0
&\mbox{for}\quad \omega^{2} > q^{2}%
\\
i\sqrt{q^{2} - \omega^{2}}
&\mbox{for}\quad q^{2} > \omega^{2}
\end{array}%
\right.  \label{eq:1.10}
\end{equation}%
The two cases corresponding to outgoing \textit{propagating}
and to \textit{evanescent} waves, respectively.
The infinitesimal imaginary part of $q_{z}$ in ({\ref{eq:1.10}) secures the
analytical continuation of $\hat{\Delta}^R$ to complex frequencies
in the upper half plane.
It entails the existence of the limit%
\begin{equation}
\lim_{a \to +\infty} {\rm e}^{iq_{z}a} = 0
\label{eq:1.11}
\end{equation}
for both propagating and evanescent waves. In addition, we have
the symmetry relation
\begin{equation}
	q_z( - \Omega ) = - q_z^*( \Omega )
	\,.
	\label{eq:2.10}
\end{equation}
As a consequence, the retarded GF has the property
$\hat{ \Delta }^{R}( - \Omega ; z, z' ) =
\hat{ \Delta }^{R\ast}( \Omega ; z, z' )$,
as it should, being a response function between real-valued fields.

\section{Retarded Green functions}
\label{s:3}

\subsection{Single interface}

We include stationary and translation-invariant (in the $xy$-plane)
boundary conditions in the retarded GF by adding reflected waves.
Let us start with a single interface at $z = - a/2$ where the GF (subscript
$-$) reads
\begin{equation}
\hat{D}_{-}^{R}( \Omega ; z, z' ) = \hat{\Delta}^{R}( \Omega ; z, z' ) +
\hat{R}_{-}\hat{\Delta}_{0} \,{\rm e}^{iq_{z}(z + z' + a)},
\label{eq:3.14.a}
\end{equation}%
for $z, z' \ge - a/2$. The first term is the same as in free space.
The reflection matrix $\hat{R}_-$ at the lower
interface takes a simple diagonal form in the frame where the lower body is
at rest
\begin{equation}
	\hat{R}_- = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
		R^s_- & 0 \\
		0 & R^p_-
	\end{array}
	\right)
	\label{eq:diagonal-R-matrix}
\end{equation}
whose matrix elements are for a
\begin{equation}
	\mbox{metal}: \quad
	R^s_- = \frac{ q_z \zeta( \omega ) - \omega
			}{ q_z \zeta( \omega ) + \omega }
	\,,\quad
	R^p_- = \frac{ \omega \zeta( \omega ) - q_z
			}{ \omega \zeta( \omega ) + q_z }
	\,,
	\label{eq:R-for-metal}
\end{equation}
where $\zeta( \omega )$ is the (dimensionless) impedance,
and for a
\begin{equation}
	\mbox{dielectric}: \quad
	R^s_- = \frac{ q_z  - q_{z\varepsilon}
			}{ q_z  + q_{z\varepsilon} }
	\,,\quad
	R^p_- = \frac{ q_{z\varepsilon} - \varepsilon( \omega ) q_z
			}{ q_{z\varepsilon} + \varepsilon( \omega ) q_z }
	\,,
	\label{eq:R-for-dielectric}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon( \omega )$ is the dielectric permittivity and
\begin{equation}
q_{z\varepsilon} = [ \varepsilon (\omega )\omega^{2} - q^{2} ]^{1/2}
\label{eq:2.4}
\end{equation}%
the wave vector in the lower medium.

If only the upper medium is present, we have a GF similar to
Eq.(\ref{eq:3.14.a}), for $z, z' \le + a / 2$
\begin{equation}
\hat{D}_{+}^{R}( \Omega ; z, z' ) =
\hat{\Delta}^{R}( \Omega ; z, z' ) +
\hat{R}_{+} \hat{\Delta}_{0} \,{\rm e}^{-iq_{z} ( z + z' - a ) }
\,,
\label{eq:3.14.b}
\end{equation}%
where $\hat{R}_+$ is the corresponding reflection matrix.
We suppose here a generic form for $\hat{R}_{+}$.
The case of a sliding upper interface is discussed in
Appendix~\ref{a:sliding-reflection}.

\subsection{General properties}

Let us collect a few general properties of the reflection matrices and the
GFs. It follows from Eq.(\ref{eq:d.14.a}--\ref{eq:d.14.d}) for $\hat{R}_{+}$ and
from the diagonal form
of $\hat{R}_{-}$ [Eq.(\ref{eq:diagonal-R-matrix})] that both fulfill the identity
\begin{equation}
\hat{g}\hat{R}_{\nu }^{T}=\hat{R}_{\nu} \hat{g}
\,,\quad \nu = \pm
  \label{eq:2.6}
\end{equation}%
The retarded GF~(\ref{eq:3.14.a}) therefore satisfies
\begin{equation}
\hat{D}^{R}( \Omega ; z, z' ) = [ \hat{D}^{R}( \Omega ; z', z ) ]^{T}
\label{eq:2.8}
\end{equation}%
which is \textit{not} the reciprocity condition because the
wave vector $\mathbf{q}$ in the arguments of both sides is the same.

Taking into account Eqs.(\ref{eq:2.10}) and~(\ref{eq:d.14.a}--\ref{eq:d.14.d}),
the reflection matrices in Eq.(\ref{eq:diagonal-R-matrix}) and
Sec.\ref{a:sliding-reflection} satisfy the identity
\begin{equation}
\hat{R}_{\nu} (- \Omega ) = \hat{R}_{\nu }^{\ast} ( \Omega )
\label{eq:2.11}
\end{equation}%
where the asterisk denotes the element-wise complex conjugation.
This entails that the symmetry relation is also valid for the retarded GF at
a single interface
\begin{equation}
\hat{D}^{R}_\nu\left( -\Omega ;z,z' \right) =\hat{D}^{R\ast }_\nu\left(
\Omega ;z,z' \right)
\,, \quad \nu = \pm
\label{eq:2.9}
\end{equation}%
Below, we shall also deal with the advanced GF which
is defined as
\begin{equation}
	 \hat{D}^A_\nu( \Omega ; z, z' ) =
	 [ \hat{D}^R_\nu( \Omega ; z', z )]^\dag
	 =
	 \hat{D}^{R\ast}_\nu( \Omega ; z, z' )
	\label{eq:def-advanced-GF}
\end{equation}
where the last equality follows from Eq.(\ref{eq:2.8}).

\subsection{Planar cavity}

The preceding properties carry over to the retarded and advanced GF
in the cavity formed by two interfaces. By adding up multiply reflected waves,
one finds the expression
\begin{equation}
\hat{D}^{R}( \Omega ; z, z' ) = \hat{\Delta}^{R}( \Omega ; z, z') +
\sum\limits_{\nu ,\nu' =\pm} \hat{C}^{ \nu\nu' }
\, {\rm e}^{iq_{z} ( \nu z + \nu' z' ) }
\label{eq:3.1}
\end{equation}%
where
\begin{equation}
\hat{C}^{--} = \hat{U}_{+-}^{-1} \hat{R}_{+} \hat{\Delta}_{0}
\,{\rm e}^{iq_{z}a}
\,, \quad
\hat{C}^{-+} = \hat{U}_{+-}^{-1} \hat{R}_{+} \hat{R}_{-}
\hat{\Delta}_{0}
\,{\rm e}^{2i q_{z}a}
\label{eq:2.2}
\end{equation}%
and $\hat{C}^{++},\hat{C}^{+-}$ are defined by swapping indices
$-\leftrightarrow +$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:2.2}).
The matrix $\hat{U}_{+-}$ takes into account multiple reflections of
photons in the cavity; it is given by the expression
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}_{+-}=\hat{I}-\hat{R}_{+}\hat{R}_{-}\,{\rm e}^{2 i q_{z}a}
\,,
\label{eq:3.5}
\end{equation}%
where $\hat{I}$ is the unit matrix. An analogous formula gives
$\hat{U}_{-+}$. Eq.(\ref{eq:2.6}) above gives us the property%
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}_{-+}^{-1}\hat{g} = \hat{g} \hat{U}_{+-}^{-1T}
\label{eq:2.7}
\end{equation}%
which ensures that the generalized reciprocity relation~(\ref{eq:2.8}) also
holds for the cavity GF~(\ref{eq:3.1}). Similarly, the
relation~(\ref{eq:def-advanced-GF}) between retarded and
advanced GFs remains true as well.

\subsection{Normal components}

To conclude this Section, we give the tensor components involving
the normal direction. The following formulas can be shown from the
wave equation Eq. (\ref{eq:1.3}) and the symmetry properties above
($\lambda = s,p$ and $q =  |{\bf q}|$):
\begin{eqnarray}
q_{z}^{2} D_{z\lambda }^{R} &=& i q\partial_z D_{p\lambda }^{R}
\,,
\label{eq:3.15.a}
\\
q_{z}^{2}D_{\lambda z}^{R} &=& -i q\partial_{z'} D_{\lambda p}^{R}
\,,
\label{eq:3.15.b}
\\ q_{z}^{2}D_{zz}^{R} &=&
\frac{ q^2 }{ q_{z}^{2} } \partial_z \partial_{z'} D_{pp}^{R}
+ 4\pi \delta ( z - z' )
\,.
\label{eq:3.15.c}
\end{eqnarray}%

\subsection{Generalized impedance matrices}

The reflection matrices $\hat{R}_\nu$ appearing in the expressions above
are the solutions to a scattering problem at the planar interfaces. We
discuss here an equivalent formulation in terms of generalized surface
impedances. These will provide the link between boundary conditions
imposed on fields and interactions with auxiliary fields restricted
to the interfaces.

Evaluating the derivative with respect to $z$ and $z'$ of the retarded
GF~(\ref{eq:3.1}) at the interfaces $\pm a/2$, we come to the
boundary conditions. With respect to the first coordinate $z$
(derivative $\partial_z$), we find
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
iq_{z}^{-1} \partial_z \hat{D}^{R}( -a/2, z' )
- \hat{Y}_{-} \hat{D}^{R}( -a/2, z' ) = 0
\quad
\label{eq:4.1.a}
\\
&&
iq_{z}^{-1}\partial_z\hat{D}^{R}( +a/2, z')
+ \hat{Y}_{+} \hat{D}^{R}( +a/2, z' )=0
	\label{eq:4.1.b}
\end{eqnarray}
where we defined the  matrices
\begin{equation}
\hat{Y}_{\nu} = (\hat{I} + \hat{R}_{\nu} )^{-1} (\hat{I} - \hat{R}_{\nu} )
\,,\quad
\nu =\pm
	\label{eq:4.3}
\end{equation}
These generalize the concept of a surface admittance to a general
reflection problem.
Indeed, from the reflection amplitudes~(\ref{eq:R-for-metal}) for a metallic
surface at rest, we get in the Weyl basis
\begin{equation}
	\mbox{metal:}\quad
	\hat{Y}_- = \frac{ 1 }{ \zeta( \omega ) }
	\left( \begin{array}{cc}
	\omega / q_z & 0 \\ 0 & q_z / \omega
	\end{array} \right)
	\label{eq:admittance-metal}
\end{equation}
Note that despite multiple reflections, the boundary
conditions~(\ref{eq:4.1.a}, \ref{eq:4.1.b})
are of local character: they link the fields and their normal derivatives
at the same position with the corresponding admittance matrices.

With respect to the second coordinate $z'$ (derivative $\partial_{z'}$)
of the GF, a similar calculation yields
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
iq_{z}^{-1}\partial_{z'}\hat{D}^{R}( z, {-a/2} )
- \hat{D}^{R}( z, -a/2 ) \hat{Y}_{-}^{T} = 0
	\label{eq:4.2.a}
\quad
\\
&&
iq_{z}^{-1}\partial_{z'}\hat{D}^{R}( z, {+a/2} )
+ \hat{D}^{R}( z, +a/2 ) \hat{Y}_{+}^{T} = 0
	\label{eq:4.2.b}
\end{eqnarray}%
where the admittance matrices appear transposed.

In the case of a single interface, we still find two boundary conditions
at $z, z' = \pm a/2$. If the ``missing'' body is the upper one, for example,
the admittance degenerates into $\hat{Y}_+ = \hat{I}$
from Eq.(\ref{eq:4.3}).
The boundary condition~(\ref{eq:4.1.b}) then becomes equivalent to
the Sommerfeld condition for an outgoing wave:
$\hat{D}^R( z, z' ) \sim {\rm e}^{ i q_z z }$. This holds as long as
$z > z'$ and in both the propagating and evanescent sectors.

\subsection{Remarkable identity}

Using the boundary conditions~(\ref{eq:4.1.a}--\ref{eq:4.2.b}),
their counterparts for the advanced GF $\hat{D}^A$,
and the Green equation~(\ref{eq:2.5}), we come to the
following property of the GFs in the two-plate geometry
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum\limits_{\nu =\pm}
	&& \hat{D}^{R}(z, \nu a/2 ) \hat{\Gamma}^{\nu } \hat{D}^{A}(\nu a/2, z')
	\nonumber
	\\[-1ex]
	&& =
	\hat{D}^{R}( z, z') - \hat{D}^{A}( z, z' )
	\label{eq:4.7}
\end{eqnarray}
In Eq.(\ref{eq:4.7}) we have introduced effective source strengths
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Gamma}^{\nu } =
- \frac12 \left(\hat{\Delta}_{0}^{-1}\hat{Y}_{\nu} - \mbox{h.c.} \right)
	\label{eq:4.8}
\end{equation}%
which are easily shown to be antihermitian:
\(
\hat{\Gamma}^{\nu \dagger } = -\hat{\Gamma}^{\nu }
\)
and symmetric:
\(
\hat{\Gamma}^{\nu T} = \hat{\Gamma}^{\nu }.
\)
Therefore, they have purely imaginary matrix elements:
\(
\hat{\Gamma}^{\nu \ast }=-\hat{\Gamma}^{\nu }
.
\)
Besides, using the parity properties~(\ref{eq:2.10}) and~(\ref{eq:2.11})
of $q_{z}$ and the reflection
matrices, the definition of the $\hat{\Gamma}^{\nu }$ entails
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Gamma}^{\nu }(-\Omega ) = \hat{\Gamma}^{\nu \ast}(\Omega )
= -\hat{\Gamma}^{\nu}( \Omega )
	\label{eq:4.9.d}
\end{equation}
The identity~(\ref{eq:4.7}) has a long history in macroscopic
fluctuation electrodynamics. It has been noted by Eckhardt
\cite{Eckhardt_1982}, although involving a spatial integral over volumes
where the imaginary part of the permittivity is nonzero. The
version we give here is technically somewhat simpler because only
surface sources appear. This may be related to the ``holographic principle''
stating that under certain circumstances, all relevant
properties of a (source-free) field are encoded in a hypersurface.
This is obviously related to the classical Huyghens principle. An alternative
proof of Eq.(\ref{eq:4.7}) is given in
Appendix~\ref{a:remarkable-identity} using the Leontovich surface
impedance boundary condition.

If one of the two interfaces is missing, an identity similar to
Eq.(\ref{eq:4.7}) can be derived analogously.
One simply has to replace the source strength
for the missing interface by
\begin{equation}
	\Gamma^\nu \mapsto \Gamma^0 =
	- \frac12 \left(\hat{\Delta}_{0}^{-1}\hat{I} - \mbox{h.c.} \right)
	=
	- \hat{\Delta}_{0}^{-1} \Theta( \omega^2 - q^2 )
	\label{eq:4.13}
\end{equation}
where $\Theta$ is the unit step function. Note that only propagating
waves appear on the free boundary: they represent the fields incident from
infinity towards the interface.

\section{Non-equilibrium action}
\label{s:4}

We now address the key problem of this paper: evaluate correlations
for the EM field under non-equilibrium conditions. To this effect, we use
the path integral method and work with an action for the EM field.
An auxiliary field $\varphi$ is introduced to enforce the
boundary conditions at the two interfaces~\cite{NO}. This technique
was developed in previous work \cite{Bord, Meh2, Meh3} for equilibrium
situations.
We extend the approach to the whole Schwinger-Keldysh space and define
a Gaussian action for two coupled Bose fields: the vector potential
$A$ and the auxiliary field $\varphi$
\begin{eqnarray}
S &=& \frac{1}{2}\int \big\{
\check{A}^{\dag} ( \Omega , z )
\check{\Delta}^{-1}( \Omega ; z, z' )
\check{A}( \Omega , z')
+ \check{\varphi}^{\dag}( \Omega )
\check{F}\check{\varphi}( \Omega )
\nonumber
\\
&& + \check{\varphi}^{\dag}( \Omega )
\check{M}( \Omega, z ) \check{A}( \Omega , z )
+ \check{A}^{\dag}( \Omega, z )
\check{M}^{\dag}( \Omega, z ) \check{\varphi}( \Omega )
\big\}
\,.
\nonumber
\\
\label{eq:6.1}
\end{eqnarray}
The integration is over $\Omega$ and $z$. In the action~(\ref{eq:6.1}),
the vector potential $\check{A}$ lives in Keldysh space and has two
components
that are called \emph{quantum} $\hat{A}^{\rm q}$ and
\emph{classical} $\hat{A}^{\rm cl}$:
\begin{equation}
\check{A} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\hat{A}^{\rm q} \\
\hat{A}^{\rm cl}%
\end{array}%
\right)
\,,  \label{eq:6.3.a}
\end{equation}
each of which contains the familiar transverse amplitudes in the Weyl basis
\begin{equation}
\hat{A} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
A_{s} \\
A_{p}%
\end{array}%
\right)
\,.
\label{eq:6.3.b}
\end{equation}
The $4\times 4$ matrix $\check{\Delta}^{-1}$ is the inverse of the
Keldysh-Green (KG) matrix of the \emph{free} EM field. In the Keldysh
basis~(\ref{eq:6.3.a}) for $\check{A}$, this KG matrix has the block
structure
\begin{equation}
\check{\Delta} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\hat{0} & \hat{\Delta}^{A} \\
\hat{\Delta}^{R} & \hat{\Delta}^{K}%
\end{array}%
\right)
\,,
\label{eq:6.2}
\end{equation}%
where $\hat{\Delta}^{R,A}$ are the retarded and advanced Green functions
for free space, introduced in Sec.\ref{s:Weyl-free-space}.
The function $\hat{\Delta}^{K}$ is the KGF for the free field, it collects
symmetrized correlations of the vector potential.
(A calculation is sketched in Sec.\ref{s:8} below.)
Our goal is to calculate its counterpart
in the presence of
the two interfaces that we denote $\hat{D}^{K}$. It is given in the
coordinate representation~\cite{X} as ($x = ( t, {\bf r} )$)
\begin{equation}
D_{\alpha \alpha'}^{K}( x, x' ) = -i \left\langle
		\{\hat{A}_{\alpha}( x ), \hat{A}_{\alpha'}( x' ) \}_+
	\right\rangle
\label{eq:8.3}
\end{equation}%
where $\{ \cdot, \, \cdot \}_+$ is the anti-commutator.
We work here with the corresponding Fourier transforms with respect
to $t - t'$ and to the tangential coordinates. In the Weyl basis, this
gives the matrix $\hat{D}^{K}( \Omega, z, z' )$.

The auxiliary field $\check{\varphi}$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:6.1}) has
eight components that are also grouped in the Keldysh structure
\begin{equation}
\check{\varphi} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\hat{\varphi}^{\rm q} \\
\hat{\varphi}^{\rm cl}%
\end{array}%
\right) \,.  \label{eq:6.4.a}
\end{equation}%
The components $\hat{\varphi}^{\rm q, \,cl}$ themselves are
\begin{equation}
\hat{\varphi}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\varphi _{-,s} \\
\varphi _{-,p} \\
\varphi _{+,s} \\
\varphi _{+,p}%
\end{array}%
\right)
\,.
\label{eq:6.4.b}
\end{equation}%
They are Weyl spinors localized in the lower
(index $-$) and the upper ($+$) interface.
Finally, the matrix $\check{M}( \Omega, z )$
in the action~(\ref{eq:6.1}) is related, as we shall see below,
to the boundary conditions imposed at $z = \pm a/2$.

\subsection{Evaluating the path integral}

We follow the standard path integral procedure and
add source terms to the action~(\ref{eq:6.1})%
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}\int (\check{J}^{\dag} \check{A} +\check{A}^{\dag} \check{J})
\end{equation}%
Then Gaussian path integrals are evaluated, first over the EM field and then
over the auxiliary field. We get the generating functional for field correlations
whose expansion to second order in $\check{J}$ provides the following
expression for the KG matrix:
\begin{equation}
\check{D} = \check{\Delta}
+ \check{\Delta}\check{M}^{\dag} \check{\Lambda} \check{M} \check{\Delta}  \label{eq:6.5.a}
\end{equation}
where $\check{\Lambda}$ is the solution of
\begin{equation}
\check{\Lambda}^{-1} = \check{F} - \check{M}\check{\Delta}\check{M}^{\dag}
\label{eq:6.5.b}
\end{equation}
The KG matrix $\check{D}$ of Eq.(\ref{eq:6.5.a}) must
have the block structure~(\ref{eq:6.2}) with off-diagonal
blocks that are Hermitian conjugates
[Eq.(\ref{eq:def-advanced-GF})]
and with an antihermitian Keldysh block%
\begin{equation}
[ \hat{D}^{K}(\Omega ; z, z' )]^{\dag}
= -\hat{D}^{K}(\Omega ; z', z)
\,.  \label{eq:6.6}
\end{equation}
In addition, we impose the boundary conditions~(\ref{eq:4.1.a}--\ref{eq:4.2.b})
on the off-diagonal elements $\hat{D}^{R},\hat{D}^{A}$ of~(\ref{eq:6.5.a}).
These conditions unambiguously
define the structure of the matrices $\check{M}$ and $\check{F}$
in the action~(\ref{eq:6.1}) as
\begin{equation}
\check{F}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\hat{F} & \hat{0} \\
\hat{0} & \hat{0}%
\end{array}%
\right)
\label{eq:6.8}
\end{equation}%
where $\hat{F}$ is a $4\times 4$ antihermitian matrix, and
\begin{equation}
\check{M} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\hat{0} & \hat{M} \\
\hat{M}^{\ast} & \hat{0}%
\end{array}%
\right)  \label{eq:6.7}
\end{equation}%
Here the matrix $\hat{M}$ collects the boundary conditions at the
two interfaces into a vector of operators in the Weyl basis
\begin{equation}
\hat{M}(\Omega, z) = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\delta( z + a/2 ) [ iq_{z}^{-1}\hat{I}\partial_z - \hat{Y}_{-} ] \\
\delta( z - a/2 ) [ iq_{z}^{-1}\hat{I}\partial_z + \hat{Y}_{+} ]%
\end{array}%
\right)
	\label{eq:4.5}
\end{equation}%
The boundary conditions~(\ref{eq:4.1.a}--\ref{eq:4.1.b}) then take the
integral form
(common argument $\Omega$ suppressed)
\begin{eqnarray}
0 &=& \int\! dz \, \hat{M}( z ) \hat{D}^{R}( z, z' )
	\label{eq:4.4.a}
\\
0 &=& \int\! dz' \, \hat{D}^{R}( z, z' ) \hat{M}^{T}( z' )
	\label{eq:4.4.b}
\end{eqnarray}%
with a derivative $\partial_{z'}$ acting to the left in the second line.
For the advanced GF, the boundary conditions~(\ref{eq:4.2.a}--\ref{eq:4.2.b})
can be written as integrals over
$\hat{M}^{\ast}( z ) \hat{D}^{A}( z, z' )$
and over $\hat{D}^{A}( z, z' ) \hat{M}^{\dag}( z' )$.

With the choices~(\ref{eq:6.8}, \ref{eq:6.7}), one can show that the
Keldysh action~(\ref{eq:6.1}) acquires that so-called ``\textit{causal structure}" \cite{KL, Alt}.

Inserting the matrices $\check{M}$ and $\check{F}$ from
Eqs.(\ref{eq:6.7}, \ref{eq:6.8}) into Eq.(\ref{eq:6.5.a}), we find for the
KG functions $\hat{D}^{R,A,K}$ the expressions
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{D}^{R} &=& \hat{\Delta}^{R} +
\hat{\Delta}^{R}\hat{M}^{T}\hat{\Lambda}\hat{M} \hat{\Delta}^{R}
	\label{eq:6.9.a}
\\
\hat{D}^{A} &=& \hat{\Delta}^{A} + \hat{\Delta}^{A} \hat{M}^{\dag}
\hat{\Lambda}^{\dag} \hat{M}^{\ast} \hat{\Delta}^{A}
	\label{eq:6.9.b}
\\
\hat{D}^{K} &=& \big( \hat{I} + \hat{\Delta}^{R}\hat{M}^{T}
\hat{\Lambda}\hat{M} \big)
\hat{\Delta}^{K} \big( \hat{I} + \hat{M}^{\dag} \hat{\Lambda}^{\dag}
\hat{M}^{\ast} \hat{\Delta}^{A} \big)
\nonumber
\\
&& {} + \hat{\Delta}^{R}\hat{M}^{T}\hat{\Lambda}\hat{F}
\hat{\Lambda}^{\dag} \hat{M}^{\ast} \hat{\Delta}^{A}
\label{eq:6.9.c}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{\Lambda}$ is a $4\times 4$ matrix given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Lambda} = - (\hat{M} \hat{\Delta}^{R} \hat{M}^{T} )^{-1}
\label{eq:6.10}
\end{equation}
The expressions~(\ref{eq:6.9.a}) and~(\ref{eq:6.9.b}) are integral forms of
retarded and advanced GF because matrix products actually have to be read
as the concatenation of integral operators. It is trivial to check that they
satisfy the boundary conditions (\ref{eq:4.4.a}, \ref{eq:4.4.b}).
Using the explicit form (\ref{eq:4.5}) of $\hat{M}$, we have checked in
a straightforward calculation
that Eq.(\ref{eq:6.9.a}) coincides with Eq.(\ref{eq:3.1}) for the retarded GF.

\subsection{Distribution (Keldysh-Green) functions for photons}

To analyse the expression~(\ref{eq:6.9.c}) for the KG function,
we first observe that
the first term is equal to zero because $\hat{\Delta}^{K}$ is a
solution of the homogeneous equation corresponding to Eq.(\ref{eq:2.5}).
(See Appendix~\ref{a:homogeneous-DeltaK} for details.)
We shall argue that $\hat{F}$ that characterizes the auxiliary fields
can be taken in block-diagonal form
\begin{equation}
\hat{F}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
4\hat{\Delta}_{0}\hat{P}(-)\hat{\Delta}_{0}^{\dag}  & \hat{0}
\\
\hat{0} & 4\hat{\Delta}_{0}\hat{P}(+)\hat{\Delta}_{0}^{\dag} %
\end{array}%
\right)
\label{eq:6.11}
\end{equation}%
where the quantity $\hat{P}( - )$ [$\hat{P}( + )$] correspond to the
lower [upper] boundary, respectively.
Adopting this choice, a tedious, but elementary calculation leads us to
(common argument $\Omega$ suppressed)
\begin{equation}
\hat{D}^{K}( z, z' ) =
\sum\limits_{\nu = \pm}
\hat{D}^{R}( z, \nu a/2 ) \hat{P}( \nu ) \hat{D}^{A}( \nu a/2, z' )
	\,,
\label{eq:6.12}
\end{equation}%
for the KG function. This has the same form as the Keldysh equation
in quantum kinetics \cite{Kel}. If we would take this formal analogy serious,
then the quantities
$\hat{P}(\Omega ;\nu )$
would coincide with the Keldysh polarization operators on the boundaries
(i.e., the KG correlation of interface polarization fields).
In the non-equilibrium theory,
these are nonlinear functionals of the Keldysh function for
photons, so that in the semiclassical approximation, Eq.(\ref{eq:6.12})
would generate
a kinetic equation of Boltzmann type for the photon distribution function.

In the two-plate geometry of the Casimir effect, however, this is not
the case because the
$\hat{P}( \nu )$ are \emph{independent} of the photon KG
functions $\hat{D}^{R}$, $\hat{D}^{A}$, and $\hat{D}^{K}$.
They are rather determined by given
macroscopic states of the bodies and their interfaces and act like a
linear driving for the EM field in the cavity. This suggests an interpretation
of Eq.(\ref{eq:6.12}) in the spirit of Rytov's fluctuation electrodynamics:
the quantities $\hat{P}( \pm )$ encapsulate the distribution of
photon sources. They are the only piece of information needed to
produce the (non-equilibrium) distribution function
of photons in the cavity. For this reason, we call $\hat{P}( \pm )$
the \emph{photon sources} or \emph{fluctuating sources} in the following.

The above interpretation also helps to understand the
diagonal form for the source distribution function
$\hat{F}$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:6.11}): the sources are
located on the bodies' interfaces,
and correlations between the macroscopic states of
the two bodies are neglected. We intend to investigate corrections to
this approximation in future work.

\section{The large distance limit}
\label{s:5}

In this Section, we consider the limit $a \to \infty$ in order to fix the strength
of photon sources by referring to the EM field in free space and near a single interface.

There are three different ways to take the limit:

({\bf A}) If we fix both points $z$, $z'$ in the cavity and go to the limit
$a \to \infty$, we recover Green functions in free space. In particular for
the retarded Green function,
\begin{equation}
      \lim\limits_{a \to \infty} \hat{D}^{R}( z, z' ) = \hat{\Delta}^{R}( z, z' )
      \label{eq:5.1a}
\end{equation}
with the free space Green function defined in Eq.(\ref{eq:1.8}).

({\bf B}) If the points stay at fixed distances $z, z' > 0$ from the lower interface,
we get
\begin{equation}
      \lim\limits_{a \to \infty} \hat{D}^{R}( z - a/2, z' - a/2 )
      = \hat{D}^{R}_{-}( z, z'; a \to 0 )
      \equiv \hat{d}^{R}_{-}( z, z' )
      \label{eq:5.1b}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{D}^{R}_{-}$ is the Green function above a single interface.
The notation $( \ldots ; a \to 0 )$ means that in the expression for
$\hat{D}^{R}_{-}$ [Eq.(\ref{eq:3.14.a})],
$a$ should be set to zero.

({\bf C}) Similarly, we may take points at positions $z, z' < 0$ below the upper
interface and get the Green function below a single interface:
\begin{equation}
      \lim\limits_{a \to \infty} \hat{D}^{R}( z + a/2, z' + a/2 )
      = \hat{D}^{R}_{+}( z, z'; a \to 0 )
      \equiv \hat{d}^{R}_{+}( z, z' )
      \label{eq:5.1c}
\end{equation}
where the Green function $\hat{D}^{R}_{+}( z, z'; a \to 0 )$ is defined
similar to case ({\bf B}) from Eq.(\ref{eq:3.14.b}).

We also need for the Keldysh-Green function Eq.(\ref{eq:6.12})
the limiting values when one position in the Green functions
recedes to infinity. Keeping $z$ fixed,
\begin{eqnarray}
	{a \to \infty}:\quad  && \hat{D}^{R}( z, \nu a/2 )
	\to
	\hat{\Delta}^{R}( z, \nu ) \, {e}^{ i q_z a/2 }
	\,,
\\
	&&
	\hat{\Delta}^{R}( z, \nu )
	=
	\hat{\Delta}_0 \, {e}^{ - i \nu q_{z} z }
	\label{eq:5.2.a}
\end{eqnarray}
In this limit, the exponential ${\rm e}^{ i q_z a/2 }$ in the first line
restricts the support
to propagating waves (real $q_z$);  it drops out when products with
the advanced GF $\hat{D}^{A}$ are formed because of Eq.(\ref{eq:1.8}).
In a similar way, we
define for the single-interface limits ({\bf B}, {\bf C}) the
functions
\begin{eqnarray}
	\hat{d}_{-}^{R}( z, \nu ) &=&
	[ \hat{I} e^{ - i \nu q_{z} z }
		+ \hat{R}_{-} e^{ i q_{z}z} ]
		\hat{\Delta}_{0}
\label{eq:5.2.b}
\\
	\hat{d}_{+}^{R}( z, \nu ) &=&
	[ \hat{I} e^{ - i \nu q_{z} z}
		+ \hat{R}_{+} e^{ -i q_{z}z} ]
		\hat{\Delta}_{0}
\label{eq:5.2.c}
\end{eqnarray}

\section{Keldysh--Green functions}
\label{s:7}

We now consider the KG function derived at Eq.(\ref{eq:6.12}) in the
limit $a\rightarrow +\infty$ in order to find the photon sources
$\hat{P}( \nu )$.
Using the notation $\hat{\Delta}^{K}$, $\hat{d}_{\pm }^{K}$
and $\hat{P}_{0,-,+}$ in the three limits (\textbf{A}), ({\bf B})
and (\textbf{C}), we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\Delta}^{K}( z, z' ) &=& \sum\limits_{\nu}
	\hat{\Delta}^{R}(z,\nu )
	\hat{P}_{0}(\nu )
	\hat{\Delta}^{A}(\nu ,z')
	\,,
\label{eq:7.1.a}
\\
\hat{d}_{\mp}^{K}( z, z' ) &=& \sum\limits_{\nu }
	\hat{d}_{\mp}^{R}(z,\nu )
	\hat{P}_{\mp}(\nu )
	\hat{d}_{\mp}^{A}(\nu ,z')
	\,,
\label{eq:7.1.b}
\end{eqnarray}%
where the GFs on the right hand sides are defined in
Eqs.(\ref{eq:5.2.a}--\ref{eq:5.2.c}) above.
Manifestly, the sources in free space $\hat{P}_{0}(\nu )$ are defined by
the quantum state of \emph{free} EM field. Similarly, the fluctuation sources
on the physical interfaces [the lower one, $\hat{P}_{-}(-)$ in case
({\bf B}) and the upper one, $\hat{P}_{+}(+)$ in case ({\bf C})]
are defined by the macroscopic quantum state of the corresponding bodies.

We assume the statistical independence of the bodies and the free
EM field \cite{Henkel_2002}
and come to the conclusion that the sources on the `free interfaces'
coincide:
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}_{-}(+) = \hat{P}_{0}(+)
\, ; \quad
\hat{P}_{+}(-) = \hat{P}_{0}(-)
\,,
\label{eq:7.2.a}
\end{equation}%
and that the sources on the macroscopic interfaces are the same for one
and for two plates:
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}(-) = \hat{P}_{-}(-)
\,; \quad
\hat{P}(+) = \hat{P}_{+}(+)
\,.
\label{eq:7.2.b}
\end{equation}
By evaluating Eq.(\ref{eq:7.1.b}) at $z = z' = 0$,
we can also express the interface sources in terms of the KG function
there:
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}(\nu ) = \hat{\Delta}_{0}^{-1}
	(\hat{I} + \hat{R}_{\nu })^{-1} \hat{d}_{\nu}^{K}
	(\hat{I} + \hat{R}_{\nu }^{\dagger})^{-1}
	\hat{\Delta}_{0}^{-1\dagger}
	- \hat{P}_{0}( -\nu )
\label{eq:7.3}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{d}_{\nu }^{K}$ is the boundary value of the KG function
for a system with a single interface
\begin{equation}
\hat{d}_{\nu }^{K} = \hat{d}_{\nu }^{K}(\Omega ; 0, 0)
\label{eq:7.4}
\end{equation}
The free space photon sources $\hat{P}_0( \nu )$
are calculated in Appendix~\ref{s:8}.
In Sec.\ref{s:9}, we work out the quantities
$\hat{P}( \nu )$ for a specific example, allowing for the upper body
to be in uniform motion relative to the lower one.

We are now ready to collect our main result. The explicit expressions for
the GFs $\hat{D}^{R, A}$ [Eqs.(\ref{eq:3.14.a},
\ref{eq:def-advanced-GF})] and for the photon sources
$\hat{P}$ [Eq.(\ref{eq:7.2.b})]
are inserted into the KG function~(\ref{eq:6.12}) to give
\begin{equation}
\hat{D}^{K}( z, z' ) =
	\sum\limits_{\nu, \nu' = \pm}
	\hat{D}^{\nu\nu'}
	e^{ i (\nu q_{z}z -\nu' q_{z}^{\ast} z') }
	\,.
\label{eq:6.5}
\end{equation}%
We find the amplitudes
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{D}^{--} &=& \hat{T}_{+} + e^{-2 {\rm Im}\, q_{z} a}
	\hat{R}_{+}\hat{T}_{-}\hat{R}_{+}^{\dagger }
	\,,
\label{eq:7.6.a}
\\
\hat{D}^{-+} &=& \hat{R}_{+} \hat{T}_{-} e^{iq_{z}a} +
	\hat{T}_{+}\hat{R}_{-}^{\dagger } e^{-iq_{z}^{\ast }a}
	\,,
\label{eq:7.6.b}
\\
\hat{T}_{-} &=& \hat{U}_{-+}^{-1} \hat{\gamma}_{-}
	\hat{U}_{-+}^{-1\dagger}
	\,;
\label{eq:7.7.a}
\end{eqnarray}%
where $\hat{D}^{++}$, $\hat{D}^{+-}$, $T_{+}$ are found by swapping
the subscripts $+$ and $-$, $\hat{U}_{-+}$ has been defined in
Eq.(\ref{eq:3.5}),
and
\begin{equation}
\hat{\gamma}_{\nu } = e^{-{\rm Im}\, q_{z} a}
	(\hat{I}+\hat{R}_{\nu })\hat{\Delta}_{0}
	\hat{P}(\nu )\hat{\Delta}_{0}^{\dagger }
	(\hat{I}+\hat{R}_{\nu }^{\dagger})
\label{eq:7.7.b}
\end{equation}%
These expressions give the distribution function of photons in a
planar cavity (homogeneous along the $xy$-directions and
stationary in time) whatever the macroscopic state of the two
boundaries, as encoded in $\hat{P}( \nu )$. Based on the assumption of
statistical independence, the $\hat{P}( \nu )$ are given by
reference situations with a single interface [Eqs.(\ref{eq:7.3}, \ref{eq:7.4})].

In some cases (for instance in the Casimir effect), one needs to subtract
the free-space KG function to get finite results for the relevant observables:
\begin{equation}
\hat{D}_{\rm ren}^{K} = \hat{D}^{K} - \hat{\Delta}^{K}
\label{eq:7.8}
\end{equation}%
where $\hat{\Delta}^{K}$ is defined by Eq.(\ref{eq:7.1.a}) with
free-space photon sources $\hat{P}_{0}( \nu )$ in the problem.

For completeness, the normal ($z$-) components of the KG functions are also
given here. They are expressed in terms of tangential components, using
the homogenous version of Eq.(\ref{eq:1.3}). We get in analogy to
Eqs.(\ref{eq:3.15.a}--\ref{eq:3.15.c}) for the retarded GF
\begin{eqnarray}
q_{z}^{2}D_{z\lambda }^{K} &=& i q\partial_z D_{p\lambda }^{K}
\,,
\label{eq:7.9.a}
\\
q_{z}^{2}D_{\lambda z}^{K} &=& -i q\partial_{z'} D_{\lambda p}^{K}
\,,
\label{eq:7.9.b}
\\
q_{z}^{2}D_{zz}^{K} &=& \frac{ q^{2} }{ q_{z}^{2}}
	\partial_z \partial_{z'} D_{pp}^{K}
\,.
\label{eq:7.9.c}
\end{eqnarray}

\section{Example: sliding interfaces}
\label{s:9}

As an application of the theory developed so far,
let us consider the KG function in the case of two bodies in relative
motion.
In this case in the limit ($\mathbf{C}$) we have
a sliding interface (moving parallel to $x$ with velocity $v$).
We suppose that we have equilibrium in the body's rest frame (with
temperature $T_{+}'$),
similar to Refs.\cite{Polevoi_1990, Kyasov_2002, Dedkov_2002b}.
Using the Lorentz covariant formulation
of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem \cite{Pieplow_2013}, we get for the
KG function in the limit ($\mathbf{C}$) the expression
($k_B = \hbar = 1$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{D}_{+}^{K}( \Omega, z, z' ) &=& [\hat{d}_{+}^{R}( \Omega, z, z' )
	- \hat{d}_{+}^{A}( \Omega, z, z' )]
	\coth \frac{ \omega' }{ 2T_{+}' }
\,;
\nonumber
\\
\\
\omega' &=& \gamma (\omega - v q_{x})
\label{eq:9.1}
\end{eqnarray}%
where $\omega'$ is the Doppler-shifted frequency.
A calculation starting from Eq.(\ref{eq:7.3}) yields the corresponding
source located at the upper surface
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}(+) = \hat{\Gamma}^{+} \coth \frac{ \omega' }{ 2T_{+}' }
\label{eq:P-plus}
\end{equation}%
where $\hat{\Gamma}^{+}$ is given in Eq.(\ref{eq:4.8}). The
reflection matrix $\hat{R}_+$ that appears in
$\hat{d}^{R}_{+}$ [see Eq.(\ref{eq:5.2.c})]
is calculated in
Appendix~\ref{a:sliding-reflection}, Eqs.(\ref{eq:d.13}--\ref{eq:d.15}).
These expressions cover any relative velocities $v$.

The lower interface is in equilibrium at $T_{-}$. Therefore%
\begin{equation}
\hat{D}_{-}^{K}( \Omega, z, z' ) = [ \hat{d}_{-}^{R}( \Omega, z, z' )
	- \hat{d}_{-}^{A}( \Omega, z, z' ) ]
	\coth \frac{ \omega }{ 2T_{-} }
\label{eq:9.3}
\end{equation}%
and then using Eq.(\ref{eq:7.3}) we get for the sources there
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}(-) = \hat{\Gamma}^{-} \coth \frac{ \omega }{ 2T_{-} }
\label{eq:c.4}
\end{equation}
Inserting
Eqs.(\ref{eq:P-plus}, \ref{eq:c.4})
into Eq.(\ref{eq:6.12}),
we come to the KG function for the cavity with one sliding interface
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hat{D}^{K}( \Omega; z,z' )
\label{eq:9.5}
\\
&& =
	\hat{D}^{R}( \Omega; z,-a/2)
	\hat{\Gamma}^{-}
	\hat{D}^{A}( \Omega; -a/2, z' )
	\coth \frac{ \omega }{ 2T_{-} }
\nonumber
\\
&& \quad {} + \hat{D}^{R}( \Omega; z, +a/2)
	\hat{\Gamma}^{+}
	\hat{D}^{A}( \Omega; +a/2, z' )
	\coth \frac{ \omega' }{ 2T_{+}' }
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
That the frequencies differ in the two $\coth$ terms has been known
in similar contexts since the pioneering work by Frank and Ginzburg
on the Cherenkov effect (see
Ref.\cite{Ginzburg_1996} for an overview).
This spoils any attempt to describe the sliding geometry by a global
equilibrium assumption even if the two bodies are of the same temperature
(as in Ref.\cite{Philbin_2009}).
The sign change between $\omega$ and $\omega'$ (anomalous Doppler
effect) has also been noted in early work on field quantization in
moving media, see, e.g., Jauch and Watson \cite{Jauch_1948}.

\section{Conclusions}
\label{s:conclusions}

We have calculated the photon distribution function between two parallel plates
(Casimir geometry) under rather general conditions:
on the two plates, any arbitrary stationary nonequilibrium state
is allowed for. Using
the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism of nonequilibrium field theory,
we could express the Keldysh-Green
function of photons at any point in the gap between the plates via the Keldysh
functions of single interface systems,
defined at the surfaces, and via photon numbers in free space. As a cross check of
the results, we consider one plate sliding relative to the other in local equilibrium,
and we find full coincidence of the results with Rytov theory,
without any restriction in relative velocities.

Our approach is flexible enough to allow for the zero-temperature
limit $T \to 0$ to be taken. The example of the sliding plates of Sec.\ref{s:9}
then illustrates that one does \emph{not} recover an equilibrium situation.
The resulting frictional stress that opposes the relative motion is an interesting
(and controversial \cite{Philbin_2009, Dedkov_2010a, Pendry_2010, Barton_2011})
manifestation of
an unstable vacuum state.
For similar situations, we may quote the Klein paradox \cite{IV}
(electron-positron pairs created by maintaining a
static field
configuration), and
the Schwinger-Unruh effect (thermalization of an accelerated detector in
vacuum). Indeed, one possible explanation for quantum friction involves the
creation of particle pairs in the two plates \cite{Pendry_2010, Barton_2011, Maghrebi_2013b},
as pointed out in earlier work by Polevoi within the context of Rytov theory
\cite{Polevoi_1990}.

Finally, we suggest that the developed formalism is general enough to investigate
generalizations beyond the standard fluctuation electrodynamics. The crucial
assumptions of the latter are clearly spelled out: statistical independence
of the sources localized on the macroscopic bodies. If this is relaxed, one has
to establish the photon source strengths in some other way. Concepts from
non-equilibrium kinetic theory like the Boltzmann equation or the balance
of energy and entropy exchanges are likely to be instrumental here.


\section{Introduction}\label{S:main}
In recent years, there has been quite a bit of interest in the study  of the Laplacian in $\ell^{p}$-spaces on infinite graphs.
More precisely, let  $(X,b,m)$ be a weighted graph as described in section~\ref{SS:setting} below,
and  let us define a form $Q^{(c)}$  on
(complex-valued) finitely supported functions on $X$ by
\begin{align}\label{E:form-comp}
Q^{(c)}(u,v)&:=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x,y\in X}b(x,y)(u(x)- u(y))(\overline{v(x)- v(y)})\nonumber\\
  &+\sum_{x\in X}w(x)u(x)\overline{v(x)},
\end{align}
where $w\colon X\to [0,\infty)$.
We denote by $\ell^p_{m}(X)$ the space of $\ell^p$-summable functions with weight $m$, by $Q^{(D)}$ the closure of $Q^{(c)}$
in $\ell^2_{m}(X)$, and by $L$ the associated self-adjoint operator. Since $Q^{(D)}$ is a Dirichlet form,
the semigroup $e^{-tL}$, $t\geq 0$, extends to a $C_0$-semigroup on $\lwp$, where $p\in [1,\infty)$.  We denote by $-L_p$ the generators of these semigroups. For the definition of a $C_0$-semigroup and its generator, see the Appendix. The following characterization of operators $L_p$ is given in~\cite{Keller-Lenz-09}:

\medskip

\noindent\emph{Assume that
\[
\sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{+}}m(x_n)=\infty , \eqno{{\rm \bf{ (A1)}}}
\]
for any sequence $\{x_n\}_{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{+}}$ of vertices such that  $x_{n}\sim x_{n+1}$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{+}$.
Then for any $p\in[1,\infty)$, the operator $L_p$ is the restriction of $\widetilde{L}$
to
\[
\Dom(L_p) = \{u\in\lwp\cap \widetilde{D_s}:\, \widetilde{L}u\in\lwp\},
\]
where
\[
\widetilde{D_{s}}:=\{u\colon X\to\mathbb{C}\colon\, \displaystyle\sum_{y\in X}b(x, y)|u(y)|<\infty, \forall x\in X\},
\]
$\widetilde{L}:=\Delta_{b,m}+w/m$, and
\begin{equation}\label{E:ord-lap}
(\Delta_{b,m} u)(x):=\frac{1}{m(x)}\sum_{y\in X}b(x,y)(u(x)-u(y)).
\end{equation}}

Actually, (A1) can be replaced  when $w=0$ by the existence of a compatible intrinsic metric (see~\cite{Hua-Keller-13}), or
if moreover $p=2$, by the existence of an intrinsic metric so that $\frac{1}{m(x)}\sum_{y\in X}b(x,y)$ is bounded on the combinatorial neighborhood of each distance ball (see~\cite{HKMW}).

In the case of Schr\"odinger operators on  a Riemannian manifold $M$, it is natural to study maximal accretivity or self-adjointness  properties
of operators acting on sections of vector bundles over $M$.
But the notion of vector bundle is also relevant on graphs; see for example
~\cite{FKC-S-92}, ~\cite{GMT-13}, ~\cite{Kenyon-11}, and~\cite{Si-Vu-12}.
The aim of this paper is precisely to study such properties in the setup of a vector bundle over an infinite weighted graph.
In particular, we give sufficient conditions
for the equality of the operator $\hpm$ (vector-bundle analogue of $L_p$) and the closure in $\lpw$ (the corresponding
$\ell^{p}$-space of sections of the bundle $F\to X$) of the restriction of $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}$ (vector-bundle analogue of
$\widetilde{L}$) to the set of finitely supported sections.

The paper is organized as follows.
In sections~\ref{SS:setting},~\ref{SS:v-bundle} and ~\ref{SS:operator} we describe
the setting: discrete sets, Hermitian vector bundle and connection,  operators.
The main results are presented in section~\ref{SS:theorems}, with some comments.
Section~\ref{S:preli} contains  preliminary results, such as Green's formula, Kato's inequality, and ground state transform. Sections~\ref{S:kato-lp-1},~\ref{SS:main-1-1} and \ref{S:t-5} are devoted to  the proofs of the theorems. For readers' convenience, in the Appendix we review some concepts from the theory of semigroups of operators: $C_0$-semigroup, generator of a $C_0$-semigroup, and (maximal) accretivity. Additionally, the Appendix contains the statement of Hille--Yosida Theorem and a discussion of the connection between self-adjointness and maximal accretivity of operators in Hilbert spaces.

\section{Setup and Main Results}\label{S:results}
\subsection{Weighted Graph}\label{SS:setting}
Let $X$ be a countably infinite set, equipped with a measure $m\colon X\to (0,\infty)$.
Let $b\colon X\times X\to[0,\infty)$ be a function such that

\medskip

\noindent (i) $b (x, y) = b (y, x)$, for all $x,\,y\in X$;

\medskip

\noindent (ii) $b(x,x)=0$, for all $x\in X$;

\medskip

\noindent (iii) $\displaystyle\sum_{y\in X}b(x,y)<\infty$, for all $x\in X$.

\noindent Vertices $x,\, y\in X$ with $b(x, y) > 0$ are called \emph{neighbors}, and we denote this relationship by $x\sim y$. We call the triple $(X,b,m)$ a \emph{weighted graph}. We assume that $(X,b,m)$ is connected, that is, for any $x,\,y\in X$ there exists a path $\gamma$ joining $x$ and $y$. Here, a path $\gamma$ is a sequence $x_1,\,x_2,\,\dots,x_n\in X$ such that $x=x_1$, $y=x_n$, and $x_{j}\sim x_{j+1}$ for all $1\leq j\leq n-1$.

\subsection{Hermitian Vector Bundles on Graphs and Connection}\label{SS:v-bundle} A family of (finite-dimensional) complex
linear spaces $F=\bigsqcup_{x\in X}F_x$ is called a \emph{complex vector bundle over $X$} and written $F\to X$, if any two
$F_x$ and $F_y$ are isomorphic as complex vector spaces. Then the $F_x$\rq{}s are called the \emph{fibers} of $F\to X$, and
the complex linear space
$$
\Gamma(X,F):=\prod_{x\in X} F_x=\left\{u|\, u\colon X\to F,\, u(x)\in F_x\right\}
$$
is called the space of \emph{sections in $F\to X$}. We define the space of \emph{finitely supported sections} $\Gamma_c(X,F)$ of
 $F\to X$ as the set of $u\in \Gamma(X,F)$ such that $u(x)=0$ for all but finitely many $x\in X$.

\begin{defn}  An assignment $\Phi$ which associates to any $x\sim y$ an isomorphism of complex vector spaces
 $\Phi_{x,y}\colon F_x\to F_y$ is called a connection on the complex vector bundle $F\to X$ if
\begin{equation}\label{E:phi-transp}
\Phi_{y,x}=\left(\Phi_{x,y}\right)^{-1}\,\qquad \textrm{for all }x\sim y.
\end{equation}
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}\label{herm} (i) A family of complex scalar products
$$
\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{F_x}\colon F_x\times F_x\to \mathbb{C}, \quad x\in X,
$$
is called a Hermitian structure on the complex vector bundle $F\to X$, and the pair given by $F\to X$ and $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{F_x}$ is called a Hermitian vector bundle over $X$.

\medskip

\noindent (ii) A connection $\Phi$ on a complex vector bundle $F\to X$ is called unitary
with respect to a Hermitian structure $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{F_x}$ if for all $x\sim y$ one has
\begin{equation}\label{E:phi-unit}\nonumber
\Phi_{x,y}^*=\Phi^{-1}_{x,y},
\end{equation}
where $T^*$ denotes the Hermitian adjoint of an operator $T\colon F_x\to F_y$ with respect to $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{F_x}$ and $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{F_y}$.
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}\label{lapl} The  \emph{Laplacian} $\Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m}\colon \widetilde{D}\to \Gamma(X,F)$ on a Hermitian vector
bundle $F\to X$ with a unitary connection $\Phi$ is a linear operator with the domain
\begin{equation}\label{E:dom-F}
\widetilde{D}:=\{u\in \Gamma(X,F)\colon \displaystyle\sum_{y\in X}b(x, y)|u(y)|_{F_{y}} <\infty,\textrm{ for all }x\in X\}
\end{equation}
defined by the formula
\begin{equation}\label{E:magnetic-lap}
    (\Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m} u)(x)=\frac{1}{m(x)}\sum_{y\in X}b(x,y)(u(x)-\Phi_{y,x} u(y)).
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
\begin{rem} \emph{The operator $\Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m}$ is well-defined by the property (iii) of $b(x,y)$, definition~(\ref{E:dom-F}), and unitarity of $\Phi$.}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem} \emph{In the case $F_x=\{x\}\times\mathbb{C}$ with the canonical Hermitian structure, the sections
of the bundle $F\to X$ can be canonically identified with complex-valued functions on $X$. Under this
identification, any connection $\Phi$ can be uniquely written as $\Phi_{x,y}=e^{i\theta(y,x)}$,
 where $\theta \colon X\times X\to [-\pi,\pi]$ is a magnetic potential on $(X,b)$, which,
due to~(\ref{E:phi-transp}), satisfies the property $\theta(x,y)=-\theta(y,x)$ for all $x,\,y\in X$. As a result, we get
 the magnetic Laplacian operator. In particular, if $\theta\equiv 0$ we get the Laplacian operator~(\ref{E:ord-lap}).}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem} \emph{If the property (iii) of $b(x,y)$ is replaced by}
\[
\displaystyle\sharp\,\{y\in X\colon b(x,y)>0\}<\infty, \textrm{ for all }x\in X,
\]
\emph{where $\sharp\, S$ denotes the number of elements in the set $S$, then the graph $(X,b,m)$ is called locally finite. In this case, we have $\widetilde{D}=\Gamma(X,F)$.}
\end{rem}

\subsection{Operators} \label{SS:operator}
From now on  we will always work in the setting of a Hermitian vector bundle $F\to X$ over a connected weighted graph $(X, b, m)$,
equipped with a unitary connection $\Phi$.

\begin{defn}\label{schto} We define the Schr\"odinger-type operator $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}\colon \widetilde{D}\to \Gamma(X,F)$ by the formula
\begin{equation}\label{E:magnetic-schro}
\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}u:= \Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m} u +Wu,
\end{equation}
where $W(x)\colon F_{x}\to F_{x}$ is a linear operator for any  $x\in X$, and $\widetilde{D}$ is as in~(\ref{E:dom-F}).
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}\label{D:l-p-space} (i)
For any  $1\leq p<\infty$ we denote by $\lpw$  the space of sections $u\in \Gamma(X,F)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{E:l-p-def}\nonumber
\|u\|_{p}^{p}:=\sum_{x\in X}m(x)|u(x)|^p_{F_x} <\infty,
\end{equation}
where $|\cdot|_{F_x}$ denotes the norm in $F_{x}$ corresponding to the Hermitian product $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle_{F_{x}}$.
The space of $p$-summable functions $X\to\mathbb{C}$ with weight $m$ will be denoted by $\ell^p_{m}(X)$.

\noindent (ii) By ${\lwi}$ we denote the space of bounded sections of $F$, equipped with the norm
\begin{equation}\label{E:l-infty-def}\nonumber
\|u\|_{\infty}:=\sup_{x\in X}|u(x)|_{F_x}.
\end{equation}
The space of bounded functions on $X$ will be denoted by $\ell^{\infty}(X)$.
\end{defn}

The space $\lw$ is a Hilbert space with the inner product
\begin{equation}\label{E:inner-w}\nonumber
(u,v):=\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle u(x),v(x)\rangle_{F_{x}}
\end{equation}
\begin{defn}\label{D:max-op} Let $1\leq p<+\infty$ and let $\widetilde{D}$ be as in~(\ref{E:dom-F}).  The maximal operator $\hpm$ is given by the formula $\hpm u=\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}u$ with
domain
\begin{equation}\label{E:domhpm}
\Dom(\hpm)=\{u\in \lpw\cap \widetilde{D}: \widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi} u\in \lpw\}.
\end{equation}
Moreover if
\begin{equation}\label{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp}
\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}[\Gamma_{c}(X,F)]\subseteq \lpw,
\end{equation}
then we set $\hpmin:=\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}|_{\Gamma_{c}(X,F)}$.\end{defn}
\begin{rem}\label{R:min-def-op} \emph{Note that under our assumptions on $(X,b,m)$, the inclusion (\ref{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp}) does not necessarily hold.
It holds if we additionally assume that $(X,b,m)$ is locally finite.}
\end{rem}

\subsection{Statement of the Results}\label{SS:theorems}
Let us denote by $\overline{T}$ the closure of an operator $T$.

\begin{theorem}\label{T:main-1} Let $W(x)\colon F_{x}\to F_{x}$ be a linear operator satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{E:bdd-below-w}
\textrm{Re}\,\langle W(x)u(x),u(x)\rangle_{F_{x}}\geq 0, \qquad\textrm{for all }x\in X.
\end{equation}
Then, the following properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(i)]  Let $1<p<\infty$, and assume that~(\ref{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp}) and (A1) are satisfied. Then the operator $-\overline{\hpmin}$ generates a strongly continuous contraction semigroup on $\lpw$.
\item [(ii)] Assume that~(\ref{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp}) is satisfied for $p=1$, and that $(X, b,m)$ is stochastically complete. Then the operator $-\overline{{H_{1,\min}}}$ generates a strongly continuous contraction semigroup on $\Gamma_{\ell^1_{m}}(X,F)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{rem}\label{R:stochastic-completeness}
\emph{By Definition 1.1 in~\cite{Keller-Lenz-09}, stochastic completeness of $(X,b,m)$ means that there is no non-trivial and non-negative $w\in \ell^{\infty}(X)$ such that}
\[
(\Delta_{b,m}+\alpha)w\leq 0, \qquad\alpha>0,
\]
\emph{where $\Delta_{b,m}$ is as in~(\ref{E:ord-lap}).}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{R:max-accretive} \emph{The notions of generator of a strongly continuous semigroup and (maximal) accretivity are reviewed in the Appendix. In particular, under the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{T:main-1}, the operator $\overline{\hpmin}$ is maximal accretive for all $1\leq p<\infty$.}
\end{rem}
In the next theorem, we make the following assumption, which is stronger than~(\ref{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp}):
\begin{equation}\label{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp-q}
\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}[\Gamma_{c}(X,F)] \subseteq\lpw\cap\lqw,
\end{equation}
with $1/p+1/p^*=1$.
\begin{rem}\label{R:well-def-op-new} \emph{If $(X,b,m)$ is a locally finite graph then~(\ref{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp-q}) is satisfied. If $\inf_{x\in X}m(x)>0$ then (A1) and~(\ref{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp-q}) are satisfied.}
\end{rem}

\begin{theorem}\label{T:main-1-1}  Assume that the hypotheses (A1) and (\ref{E:bdd-below-w}) are satisfied. Then, the following properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(i)] Let $1<p<\infty$, and assume that~(\ref{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp-q}) is satisfied. Then $\overline{\hpmin}=\hpm$.
\item [(ii)] Assume that~(\ref{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp-q}) is satisfied for $p=1$, and that $(X, b,m)$ is stochastically complete. Then $\overline{{H_{1,\min}}}=H_{1,\max}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\noindent Regarding self-adjointness problems, let us point out that the results of~\cite{vtt-11-4, vtt-11-3, Masamune-09, Milatovic-11,
Milatovic-Truc-13} and Theorem 5 in~\cite{Keller-Lenz-10} can be extended to the vector-bundle setting. As an illustration, we state
and prove an extension of Theorem 1.5 from \cite{Milatovic-Truc-13}. Before doing this, we recall the notion of intrinsic metric.

\begin{defn}  A pseudo metric  is a map $d\colon X\times X \to [0,\infty)$  such that $d(x,y)=d(y,x)$, for all $x,\,y\in X$; $d(x,x)=0$,
 for all $x\in X$; and $d(x,y)$ satisfies the triangle inequality. \\
A pseudo metric $d=d_{\sigma}$ is called a path pseudo metric if there exists a map $\sigma\colon X\times X\to [0,\infty)$ such that
$\sigma(x,y)=\sigma(y,x)$, for all $x,\,y\in X$; $\sigma(x,y)>0$ if and only if $x\sim y$; and
$
d_{\sigma}(x,y)=\inf\{l_{\sigma}(\gamma):\gamma \textrm{ path connecting }x\textrm{ and }y\},
$
where the length $l_{\sigma}$ of the path $\gamma=(x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{E:l-sigma-def}\nonumber
l_{\sigma}(\gamma)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\sigma(x_i,x_{i+1}).
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
On a locally finite graph a path pseudo metric is a metric; see~\cite{HKMW}.
\begin{defn}\label{D-intrinsic} A pseudo metric $d$ on $(X,b,m)$ is called intrinsic if
\[
\frac{1}{m(x)}\sum_{y\in X}b(x,y)(d(x,y))^2\leq 1,\qquad\textrm{for all }x\in X.
\]
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
\emph{The concept of intrinsic pseudo metric  goes back to~\cite{flw} which discusses a more general situation. For graphs it has been discussed in
~\cite{Huang-11} and ~\cite{folz-11}. Related earlier material can be found in~\cite{MU-11}.}
\end{rem}
We will also use the notion of a \emph{regular graph} introduced in~\cite{vtt-11-4}, which is a (not yet published) revised version of
~\cite{vtt-11-2}. Let us first recall the definition of the boundary of a given set $A\subseteq X$:
\[
\partial A:=\{x\in A\colon \textrm{there exists }y\in X\backslash A\textrm{ such that }y\sim x\}.
\]
In the sequel, we denote by $(\widehat{X},\widehat{d})$ the metric completion of $(X,d)$, and we define the \emph{Cauchy boundary}
$X_{\infty}$ as follows: $X_{\infty}:=\widehat{X}\backslash X$. Note that $(X,d)$ is metrically complete if and only if $X_{\infty}$
 is empty. For a path metric $d=d_{\sigma}$ on $X$ and $x\in X$, we set
\begin{equation}\label{E:dist-boundary}
D(x):=\inf_{z\in X_{\infty}}\widehat{d}_{\sigma}(x,z).
\end{equation}
 \begin{defn}\label{ikx} Let $(X,b,m)$ be a graph with a path metric ${d}_{\sigma}$. Let $\varepsilon>0$ be given and let
\begin{equation}\label{E:x-eps}
X_{\varepsilon}:=\{ x\in X \colon D(x) \geq \varepsilon\}.
\end{equation}
We say that  $(X,b,m)$  is \emph{regular} if for any sufficiently small $\varepsilon$, any bounded
subset of $\partial X_{\varepsilon}$ (for the metric $d_{\sigma}$)  is finite.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem} \emph{Metrically complete graphs $(X,d)$ are regular since $D(x) = \infty$ for any $x \in X$,
which implies that  $X_{\varepsilon} = X$, so that $\partial X_{\varepsilon}= \emptyset$.}
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
\emph{Definition~\ref{ikx} covers also a broad class of metrically non-complete graphs.  For instance, weighted graphs whose first Betti number is finite are regular. In particular, any weighted tree is  regular; see \cite{vtt-11-4}.}
\end{rem}

\begin{theorem}\label{T:main-5}  Let $(X, b, m)$ be a locally finite graph with an intrinsic path metric  $d=d_{\sigma}$. Assume that  $(X, b, m)$
is regular. Let $W(x)\colon F_{x}\to F_{x}$ be a linear self-adjoint operator such that there exists a constant $C$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{E:potential-minorant}
\langle W(x)u(x),u(x)\rangle_{F_{x}} \geq\left(\frac{1}{2(D(x))^2}-C\right)|u(x)|^2_{F_x},
\end{equation}
for all $x\in X$ and all $u \in \Gamma_{c}(X,F)$, where $D(x)$ is as in~(\ref{E:dist-boundary}).
Then $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}$ is essentially self-adjoint on $\Gamma_{c}(X,F)$.
\end{theorem}

\section{Preliminary Lemmas}\label{S:preli}

\subsection{Green's Formula}
We now give a variant of Green's formula, which is analogous to Lemma 2.1 in~\cite{GKS-13} and Lemma 4.7 in~\cite{HK-2011}.
\begin{notation}\label{adj}
 Let $W(x)\colon F_{x}\to F_{x}$ be a linear operator. We denote by $W^*$  the Hermitian adjoint of $W$, that is, $(W(x))^*$ is the Hermitian adjoint of $W(x)$ with respect to $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{F_{x}}$.
\end{notation}

\begin{lem}\label{L:Green}  Let  $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}$ be as in~(\ref{E:magnetic-schro}). The following properties hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i)] if $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}[\Gamma_{c}(X,F)]\subseteq\lpw$ for some $1\leq p\leq\infty$, then any $u\in\lqw$ with $1/p+1/p^*=1$ belongs to the set $\widetilde{D}$ defined by~(\ref{E:dom-F});
\item[(ii)] for all $u\in \widetilde{D}$ and all $v\in \Gamma_{c}(X,F)$, the sums
\[
\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle \widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}u,v\rangle_{F_x},\qquad \sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle u,\widetilde{H}_{W^*,\Phi}v\rangle_{F_x},
\]
 and the expression
\begin{align}\label{E:form-comp-sum}
&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x,y\in X}b(x,y)\langle u(x)-\Phi_{y,x} u(y),v(x)-\Phi_{y,x} v(y)\rangle_{F_x}\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle W(x)u(x),v(x)\rangle_{F_x}
\end{align}
converge absolutely and agree.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} To make the notations simpler, throughout the proof we suppress $F_{x}$ in $|\cdot|_{F_x}$. From the assumption $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}[\Gamma_{c}(X,F)]\subseteq \lpw$, it is easily seen that the function $y\mapsto b(x, y)/m(y)$ belongs to $\ell_{m}^{p}(X)$, for all  $x\in X$. In the case $1<p^*<\infty$, for all $u\in\lqw$, by H\"older's inequality with $1/p+1/p^*=1$ we have
\begin{align*}\label{E:quad-form-convergence}
&\sum_{y\in X}b(x,y)|u(y)|\leq \left(\sum_{y\in X}\left(\frac{b(x,y)}{m(y)}\right)^{p}m(y)\right)^{1/p}\left(\sum_{y\in X}|u(y)|^{p^*}m(y)\right)^{1/p^*}.
\end{align*}
In the case $p^*=1$, for all $u\in \Gamma_{\ell_{m}^{1}}(X,F)$, by H\"older's inequality with $p=\infty$ and $p^*=1$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:quad-form-convergence-1}\nonumber
\sum_{y\in X}b(x,y)|u(y)|\leq \sup_{y\in X}\left(\frac{b(x,y)}{m(y)}\right)\left(\sum_{y\in X}|u(y)|{m(y)}\right).
\end{equation}
In the case $p^*=\infty$, for all $u\in \Gamma_{\ell^{\infty}}(X,F)$, by H\"older's inequality with $p=1$ and $p^*=\infty$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:quad-form-convergence-2}\nonumber
\sum_{y\in X}b(x,y)|u(y)|\leq \sup_{y\in X}\left(|u(y)|\right)\left(\sum_{y\in X}b(x,y)\right).
\end{equation}
This concludes the proof of property (i). Let us prove  property (ii).
Since $v\in \Gamma_{c}(X,F)$, the first sum is performed over finitely many $x\in X$. Hence, this sum converges absolutely. The proof of absolute convergence of the second sum and the expression~(\ref{E:form-comp-sum}) is based on the next two estimates. By Cauchy--Schwarz inequality and unitarity of $\Phi_{y,x}$ we get
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{x,y\in X}|b(x,y)\langle u(x),\Phi_{y,x} v(y)\rangle_{F_x}|\leq
\sum_{y\in X}|v(y)|\left(\sum_{x\in X}b(x,y)|u(x)|\right)<\infty,
\end{align*}
where the convergence follows from the fact that $u\in \widetilde{D}$ and $v\in \Gamma_{c}(X,F)$. Similarly,
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{x,y\in X}|b(x,y)\langle u(x), v(x)\rangle_{F_x}|\leq
\sum_{x\in X}|u(x)||v(x)|\left(\sum_{y\in X}b(x,y)\right)<\infty,
\end{align*}
where the convergence follows by property (iii) of $b(x,y)$ and since $v\in \Gamma_{c}(X,F)$.
The equality of the three sums follows directly from Fubini's theorem. This shows property (ii).
\end{proof}

\subsection{Kato's Inequality} This version of Kato's inequality extends that of~\cite{Dodziuk-Mathai-03}.

\begin{lem}\label{L:kato-discrete} Let $\Delta_{b,m}$ and $\Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m}$ be defined as in~(\ref{E:ord-lap}) and~(\ref{E:magnetic-lap}) respectively. Then,  the following pointwise inequality holds for all $u\in \widetilde{D}$:
\begin{equation}\label{E:kato-discrete}
|u|(\Delta_{b,m}|u|)\leq \textrm{Re}\,\langle \Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m} u,u\rangle_{F_x},
\end{equation}
where $|\cdot|$ denotes the norm in $F_{x}$, and $\textrm{Re}\,z$ denotes the real part of a complex number $z$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Using~(\ref{E:ord-lap}), ~(\ref{E:magnetic-lap}), and the unitarity of $\Phi_{y,x}$, we obtain\\
$
|u(x)|((\Delta_{b,m}|u|)(x))-\textrm{Re}\,\langle \Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m} u(x),u(x)\rangle_{F_x}\\
=\frac{1}{m(x)}\sum_{y\in X}b(x,y)\left[
\textrm{Re}\,\langle \Phi_{y,x}u(y),u(x)\rangle_{F_x}-|u(x)||u(y)|\right]\leq 0.
$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Ground State Transform}
Using the definition of $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}$ and unitarity of $\Phi_{y,x}$, it is easy to prove the following vector-bundle analogue of ``ground state transform" from~\cite{flw}, ~\cite{GKS-13}, and~\cite{HK-2011}. We omit the proof here.
\begin{lem}\label{L:lemma-ground-state}   Assume that $W(x)\colon F_{x}\to F_{x}$ is a self-adjoint operator. Assume that~(\ref{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp}) is satisfied for $p=2$. Let $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$, and  let $u\in\widetilde{D}$ so that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
(\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}-\lambda)u=0.
\end{equation}
Then, for all finitely supported functions $g\colon X\to\mathbb{R}$, we have
\begin{align*}\nonumber
&((\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}-\lambda)(gu),gu)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x,y\in X}b(x,y)(g(x)-g(y))^2(\textrm{Re}\,\langle u(x),\Phi_{y,x} u(y)\rangle_{F_x}).
\end{align*}
\end{lem}

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{T:main-1}}\label{S:kato-lp-1}
In Lemmas~\ref{L:hpmin-accretive} and~\ref{L:hpmin-dense-range} below, we assume that the hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{T:main-1} are satisfied.

\begin{lem}\label{L:hpmin-accretive} Let $1\leq p<\infty$. Then, the operator $\hpmin$ satisfies the following
inequality for all $u\in \Gamma_{c}(X,F)$:
\begin{equation}\label{E:accretive-hpmin}
\textit{Re }\sum_{x\in X}  m(x)\langle (\hpmin u)(x),u(x)|u(x)|^{p-2}\rangle_{F_x}\geq 0.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let $u\in \Gamma_{c}(X,F)$ be arbitrary. By Lemma~\ref{L:Green}(ii) with $W=0$, $u\in \Gamma_{c}(X,F)$ and $v:=u|u|^{p-2}$, we have
\begin{align}\label{E:young-accretive}
&\textrm{Re}\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle (\Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m}u)(x),u(x)|u(x)|^{p-2}\rangle_{F_{x}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x,y\in X}b(x,y)\left[|u(x)|^{p}\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.+|u(y)|^{p}-\textrm{Re}\langle \Phi_{y,x}u(y),u(x)|u(x)|^{p-2}\rangle_{F_{x}}-\textrm{Re}\langle \Phi_{x,y}u(x),u(y)|u(y)|^{p-2}\rangle_{F_y}\right]\nonumber\\
&\geq
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x,y\in X}b(x,y)\left[|u(x)|^{p}+|u(y)|^{p}-|u(x)||u(y)|^{p-1}\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.-|u(y)||u(x)|^{p-1}\right].
\end{align}

For $p=1$, from~(\ref{E:young-accretive}) and the assumption~(\ref{E:bdd-below-w}) we easily get~(\ref{E:accretive-hpmin}).

Let $1<p<\infty$ and let $p^*$ satisfy $1/p+1/p^*=1$. By Young's inequality we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:young-1}\nonumber
|u(x)||u(y)|^{p-1}\leq \frac{|u(x)|^{p}}{p}+\frac{(|u(y)|^{p-1})^{p^*}}{p^*}=\frac{|u(x)|^{p}}{p}+\frac{(p-1)|u(y)|^{p}}{p}
\end{equation}
and, likewise,
\begin{equation}\label{E:young-2}\nonumber
|u(y)||u(x)|^{p-1}\leq \frac{|u(y)|^{p}}{p}+\frac{(p-1)|u(x)|^{p}}{p}.
\end{equation}

From the last two inequalities we get
\begin{equation}\label{E:young-3}
-|u(x)||u(y)|^{p-1}-|u(y)||u(x)|^{p-1}\geq -|u(x)|^{p}-|u(y)|^{p}.
\end{equation}
Using~(\ref{E:young-3}),~(\ref{E:young-accretive}), and the assumption~(\ref{E:bdd-below-w}), we obtain~(\ref{E:accretive-hpmin}).
\end{proof}

The following lemma is a special case of Proposition 8 in~\cite{Keller-Lenz-10}:
\begin{lem}\label{L:keller-lenz-inequality} Assume (A1). Let $\alpha > 0$ and $1\leq p<\infty$. Let $\Delta_{b,m}$ be as in~(\ref{E:ord-lap}). Assume that $u\in \ell^{p}_{m}(X)$ is a real-valued function satisfying the inequality $(\Delta_{b,m}+\alpha)u\geq 0$. Then $u\geq 0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{rem} \emph{The case $p=\infty$ is more complicated and involves the notion of stochastic completeness; see, for instance,
 \cite{Huang-11}, \cite{Keller-Lenz-10}, \cite{Keller-Lenz-09}.}
\end{rem}

In the remainder of this section and in section~\ref{SS:main-1-1}, we will use certain arguments of Section A
in~\cite{Kato86} and~\cite{Milatovic-10} in our setting. In the sequel, $\textrm{Ran }T$ denotes the range of an operator $T$.

\begin{lem}\label{L:hpmin-dense-range} Let $1<p<\infty$  and let $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}$ with $\textrm{Re }\lambda>0$. Then, $\textrm{Ran }(\hpmin+\lambda)$ is dense in $\lwp$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $u\in(\lpw)^*=\lqw$, be a continuous linear functional that annihilates
$(\lambda+H_{p,\min})\Gamma_{c}(X,F)$:
\begin{equation}\label{E:v-dual}
\sum_{x\in X} m(x)\langle(\lambda+\hpmin) v(x),u(x)\rangle_{F_x}=0,\qquad\textrm{for all
}v\in\Gamma_{c}(X,F).
\end{equation}
By assumption~(\ref{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp}) we know that $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}v\in\lpw$. Since $u\in\lqw$, by Lemma~\ref{L:Green}(i) we have $u\in\widetilde{D}$. Now using Lemma~\ref{L:Green}(ii) in~(\ref{E:v-dual}), we get
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\sum_{x\in X} m(x)\langle v(x),(\overline{\lambda}+\widetilde{H}_{W^*,\Phi}) u(x)\rangle_{F_x}=0,\qquad\textrm{for all
}v\in \Gamma_{c}(X,F),
\end{equation}
where  $\overline{\lambda}$ is the complex conjugate of $\lambda$. The last equality leads to
\begin{equation}\label{E:prep-kato}
(\bar{\lambda}+ \Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m}+W^*)u=0.
\end{equation}
Using Kato's inequality~(\ref{E:kato-discrete}), assumption~(\ref{E:bdd-below-w}), and~(\ref{E:prep-kato}) we have
\begin{align*}
&|u|(\Delta_{b,m}|u|)\leq \textrm{Re}\,\langle\Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m}u,u\rangle_{F_{x}}\nonumber\\
&=-(\textrm{Re }\lambda)|u|^2-\textrm{Re}\,\langle W^*u,u \rangle_{F_x}\leq -(\textrm{Re }\lambda)|u|^2,
\end{align*}
where $|u|\in \ell_{m}^{p^*}(X)$ with $1<p^*<\infty$. Rewriting the last inequality, we obtain
\begin{equation}\nonumber
|u|(\Delta_{b,m}|u|+(\textrm{Re}\,\lambda)|u|)\leq 0.
\end{equation}
For all $x\in X$ such that $u(x)\neq 0$, we may divide both sides of the last inequality  by $|u(x)|$ to get
\begin{equation}\label{E:stochastic-completness}
(\Delta_{b,m}+\textrm{Re }\lambda)|u|\leq 0.
\end{equation}
Note that the inequality~(\ref{E:stochastic-completness}) also holds for those $x\in X$ such that $u(x)=0$; in this case, the left hand side of~(\ref{E:stochastic-completness}) is non-positive by~(\ref{E:ord-lap}). Thus, the inequality~(\ref{E:stochastic-completness}) holds for all $x\in X$.
By Lemma~\ref{L:keller-lenz-inequality}, from~(\ref{E:stochastic-completness}) we get $|u|\leq 0$. Hence, $u=0$.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{End of the Proof of Theorem~\ref{T:main-1}(i)}
The inequality~(\ref{E:accretive-hpmin}) means that $\hpmin$
is accretive in $\lpw$; see~(R1) in the Appendix with $j(u)=u|u|^{p-2}$. Hence, $\hpmin$ is
closable and $\overline{\hpmin}$ is accretive in $\lpw$; see the Appendix.
Therefore, for all $u\in\Dom(\overline{\hpmin})$ the following inequality holds:
\begin{equation}\label{E:closure-accretive-1}
\textrm{Re }\sum_{x\in X} m(x)\langle ({\hpmin} u)(x),u(x)|u(x)|^{p-2}\rangle_{F_{x}}\geq 0.
\end{equation}
Let $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}$ with $\textrm{Re } \lambda>0$. Using H\"older's inequality, from~(\ref{E:closure-accretive-1}) we get
\begin{equation}\label{E:hpmin-coercive}
(\textrm{Re }\lambda)\|u\|_{p}\leq \|(\lambda+\overline{\hpmin})u\|_{p},
\end{equation}
for all $u\in\Dom(\overline{\hpmin})$.
By Lemma~\ref{L:hpmin-dense-range} we know that $\textrm{Ran }(\hpmin+\lambda)$ is dense in $\lpw$. This, together with~(\ref{E:hpmin-coercive}), shows that
$\textrm{Ran }(\overline{\hpmin}+\lambda)=\lpw$. Hence, from~(\ref{E:hpmin-coercive}) we get
\[
\|(\xi+\overline{\hpmin})^{-1}\|\leq \frac{1}{\xi},\qquad\textrm{for all }\xi>0,
\]
where $\|\cdot\|$ is the operator norm $\lpw\to\lpw$. Thus, $-\overline{\hpmin}$ satisfies the conditions (C1), (C2) and (C3) of Hille--Yosida Theorem; see the Appendix. Hence, $-\overline{\hpmin}$ is the generator of a strongly continuous contraction semigroup on $\lpw$. $\hfill\square$
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem~\ref{T:main-1}(ii)}
Repeating the proof of Lemma~\ref{L:hpmin-dense-range} in the case $p=1$ and using Remark~\ref{R:stochastic-completeness},  from~(\ref{E:stochastic-completness}) with $u\in \Gamma_{\ell^{\infty}}(X,F)$ we obtain $|u|=0$. Therefore, for all $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}$ with $\textrm{Re } \lambda>0$, the set $\textrm{Ran }(H_{1,\min}+\lambda)$ is dense in $ \Gamma_{\ell^{1}_{m}}(X,F)$. From here on, we may repeat the proof
of Theorem~\ref{T:main-1}(i). $\hfill\square$

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{T:main-1-1}}\label{SS:main-1-1}
We begin with the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{L:closed-hpm} Let $1\leq p<\infty$ and $1/p+1/p^*=1$. Assume that~(\ref{E:assumption-vcomp-lwp-q}) is satisfied. Then $\hpm$ is a closed operator.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let $u_k$ be a sequence of elements in $\Dom(\hpm)$ such that $u_k\to u$ and $\hpm u_k\to f$, as $k\to\infty$, using the norm convergence in $\lpw$. We need to show that $u\in\Dom(\hpm)$ and $f=\hpm u$. Let $v\in\Gamma_{c}(X,F)$ be arbitrary, and consider the sum
\[
\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle(\hpm u_k)(x),v(x)\rangle_{F_x}=\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle(\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi} u_k)(x),v(x)\rangle_{F_x}.
\]
By Lemma~\ref{L:Green}(ii) we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:closed-norm-conv}
\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle(\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi} u_k)(x),v(x)\rangle_{F_x}=\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle u_k(x),(\widetilde{H}_{W^*,\Phi}v)(x)\rangle_{F_x}.
\end{equation}
Using the norm convergence $u_k\to u$ in $\lpw$ and the assumption $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}v\in\lqw$ with $1/p+1/p^*=1$, by H\"older's inequality we get
\[
\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle u_k(x),(\widetilde{H}_{W^*,\Phi}v)(x)\rangle_{F_x}\to \sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle u(x),(\widetilde{H}_{W^*,\Phi}v)(x)\rangle_{F_x}.
\]
Using the norm convergence $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}u_k\to f$ in $\lpw$, by H\"older's inequality we get
\[
\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle(\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi} u_k)(x),v(x)\rangle_{F_x}\to \sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle f(x),v(x)\rangle_{F_x}.
\]
Therefore, taking the limit as $k\to\infty$ on both sides of~(\ref{E:closed-norm-conv}), we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{E:closed-norm-conv-1}
\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle u(x),(\widetilde{H}_{W^*,\Phi}v)(x)\rangle_{F_x}=\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle f(x),v(x)\rangle_{F_x}.
\end{equation}
Since $u\in\lpw$ and since $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}[\Gamma_{c}(X,F)]\subseteq \lqw$, we may use Lemma~\ref{L:Green}(i) to conclude $u\in \widetilde{D}$. Using Lemma~\ref{L:Green}(ii), we rewrite the left-hand side of~(\ref{E:closed-norm-conv-1}) as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{E:closed-norm-conv-2}
\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle u(x),(\widetilde{H}_{W^*,\Phi}v)(x)\rangle_{F_x}=\sum_{x\in X}m(x)\langle (\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}u)(x),v(x)\rangle_{F_x}.
\end{equation}
Since $v\in \Gamma_{c}(X,F)$ is arbitrary, by~(\ref{E:closed-norm-conv-1}) and~(\ref{E:closed-norm-conv-2}) we get $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}u=f$. Thus, $u\in\Dom(\hpm)$ and $\hpm u=f$. Therefore, $\hpm$ is closed.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Maximal Operator Associated with $\Delta_{b,m}$} Let $1\leq p<\infty$ and let $\Delta_{b,m}$ be as in~(\ref{E:ord-lap}). We define the maximal operator $L_{p,\max}$ in
$\lwp$ by the formula $L_{p,\max}u=\Delta_{b,m}u$ with the domain
\begin{equation}\label{E:domapm}\nonumber
\Dom(L_{p,\max})=\{u\in \lwp\cap \widetilde{D}: \Delta_{b,m}u\in \lwp\},
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{D}$ is as in~(\ref{E:dom-F}) and sections are replaced by functions $X\to\mathbb{C}$.

Under the assumption (A1), it is known that $-L_{p,\max}$ generates
a strongly continuous contraction semigroup on $\lwp$ for all $1\leq p<\infty$; see Theorem 5 in~\cite{Keller-Lenz-09}. Thus, by Hille--Yosida Theorem (see the Appendix), we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:estimate-p-strichartz}
(0,\infty)\subset\rho(-L_{p,\max})\qquad\textrm{ and
}\qquad \|(\xi+L_{p,\max})^{-1}\|\leq
\frac{1}{\xi},
\end{equation}
for all $\xi>0$, where $\rho (T)$ denotes the resolvent set of an operator $T$.
\begin{lem}\label{L:kato-2} Let $1\leq p<\infty$ and let
$\lambda\in\mathbb{C}$ with $\textrm{Re }\lambda>0$. Assume that the hypotheses (A1) and~(\ref{E:bdd-below-w}) are satisfied. Then, the following
properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(i)] for all $u\in\Dom(\hpm)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:kato-to-prove}
(\textrm{Re }\lambda)\|u\|_{p}\leq \|(\lambda+\hpm)u\|_{p};
\end{equation}
\item [(ii)] the operator $\lambda+ \hpm\colon \Dom(\hpm)\subset
\lpw\to\lpw$ is injective.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} Let
$u\in\Dom(\hpm)$ and $f:=(\lambda+\hpm)u$. By the definition of
$\Dom(\hpm)$, we have $f\in \lpw$, where $1<p<+\infty$.
Using~(\ref{E:kato-discrete}) and~(\ref{E:bdd-below-w}) we get
\begin{align*}
&|u|((\textrm{Re}\,\lambda+\Delta_{b,m})|u|)\leq \textrm{Re}\,\langle(\lambda+\Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m})u,u\rangle_{F_{x}}\nonumber\\
&\leq\textrm{Re}\,\langle(\lambda+\Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m}+W)u,u\rangle_{F_{x}}=\textrm{Re}\,\langle f,u\rangle_{F_x}\leq |f||u|.
\end{align*}
In what follows, we denote $\xi:=\textrm{Re}\,\lambda$.
For all $x\in X$ such that $u(x)\neq 0$, we may divide both sides of the last inequality  by $|u(x)|$ to get
\begin{equation}\label{E:kato-1-intro}
(\xi+ \Delta_{b,m})|u| \ \leq \ |f|.
\end{equation}
Note that the inequality~(\ref{E:kato-1-intro}) also holds for those $x\in X$ such that $u(x)=0$; in this case, the left hand side of~(\ref{E:kato-1-intro}) is non-positive by~(\ref{E:ord-lap}). Thus, the inequality~(\ref{E:kato-1-intro}) holds for all $x\in X$.

According to~(\ref{E:estimate-p-strichartz}) the linear operator
\[
(\xi+L_{p,\max})^{-1}\colon \lwp \to \lwp
\]
is  bounded. Hence, we can rewrite~(\ref{E:kato-1-intro}) as
\begin{equation}\label{E:temp-1-kato}
(\xi + \Delta_{b,m})[(\xi+L_{p,\max})^{-1}|f| -|u|] \geq 0.
\end{equation}
Since
\[
(\xi+L_{p,\max})^{-1}|f|\in \lwp \qquad\textrm{ and }\qquad|u|\in\lwp,
\]
it follows that $((\xi+L_{p,\max})^{-1}|f| -|u|)\in \lwp$.  Hence, applying Lemma~\ref{L:keller-lenz-inequality} to~(\ref{E:temp-1-kato}) we get
\begin{equation}\label{E:kato-link-strichartz}\nonumber
|u|\leq (\xi+L_{p,\max})^{-1}|f|.
\end{equation}
Taking the $\ell^p$-norms on both sides and using~(\ref{E:estimate-p-strichartz})
we get
\[
\|u\|_{p}\leq
\|(\xi+L_{p,\max})^{-1}|f|\|_{p}\leq\frac{1}{\xi}\|f\|_{p},
\]
and~(\ref{E:kato-to-prove}) is proven.
We turn to property (ii). Assume that $u\in \Dom(\hpm)$ and
$(\lambda+\hpm)u=0$. Using~(\ref{E:kato-to-prove}) we
get $\|u\|_{p}=0$, and hence $u=0$. This shows that $\lambda+\hpm$
is injective.
\end{proof}

\subsection*{End of the Proof of Theorem~\ref{T:main-1-1}} We will consider the cases $1<p<\infty$ and $p=1$ simultaneously, keeping in mind the stochastic completeness assumption on $(X,b,m)$ when $p=1$.
Since $\hpmin\subset\hpm$ and
since $\hpm$ is closed (see Lemma~\ref{L:closed-hpm}), it follows that
$\overline{\hpmin}\subset\hpm$. To prove the equality $\overline{\hpmin}=\hpm$, it is enough to show that $\Dom(\hpm)\subset \Dom(\overline{\hpmin})$. Let $\xi>0$, let $u\in\Dom(\hpm)$, and consider
\begin{equation}\label{E:element-v}
v:=(\overline{\hpmin}+\xi)^{-1}(\hpm+\xi)u.
\end{equation}
By Theorem~\ref{T:main-1}, the element $v$ is well-defined, and $v\in\Dom(\overline{\hpmin})$.

Since $\overline{\hpmin}\subset\hpm$, from~(\ref{E:element-v}) we get
\[
(\hpm+\xi)(v-u)=0.
\]
Since $\hpm+\xi$ is an injective operator (see Lemma~\ref{L:kato-2}), we get $v=u$. Therefore, $u\in\Dom(\overline{\hpmin})$. $\hfill\square$

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{T:main-5}}\label{S:t-5}
The following lemma, whose proof is given in Proposition 4.1 of~\cite{vtt-11-4}, describes an important property of regular graphs. For the case of metrically complete graphs, see~\cite{HKMW}.

\begin{lem}\label{L:finsup} Assume that $(X,b,m)$ is a locally finite graph with a path metric $d_{\sigma}$. Additionally, assume that $(X,b,m)$ is regular in the sense of Definition~\ref{ikx}. Let $X_{\varepsilon}$ be as in~(\ref{E:x-eps}). Then, closed and bounded subsets of
$X_{\varepsilon}$ are finite.
\end{lem}
By Remark~\ref{R:min-def-op} and Lemma~\ref{L:Green}(ii), $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}|_{\Gamma_{c}(X,F)}$ is a symmetric operator in $\lw$. To prove Theorem~\ref{T:main-5} we follow the method of Theorem 1.5 in~\cite{Milatovic-Truc-13}, which goes back to~\cite{Col-Tr} in the continuous setting. The main ingredient is the following Agmon-type estimate:

\begin{lem}\label{L:Hor}
Let $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ and let $v\in\lw$ be a weak solution of $(\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}-\lambda)v=0$.
Assume that  there exists a constant $c_1>0$ such that, for all $u \in \Gamma_{c}(X,F)$
\begin{equation}\label{E:bou}
( u,\, (\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}-\lambda) u )  \geq
 \dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{x\in X}\max \left(\dfrac{1}{D(x)^2},1
\right) m(x) |u(x)|^2_{F_x}  +  c_1 \|u\|^2,
\end{equation}
where $D(x)$ is as in~(\ref{E:dist-boundary}). Then $v\equiv 0$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Let $\rho$ be a number such that $0< \rho < 1/2$.
For any $\varepsilon >0$, we define $f_{\varepsilon}\colon X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
by $f_{\varepsilon}(x)=F_{\varepsilon}(D(x))$, where $D(x)$ is as in~(\ref{E:dist-boundary}) and $F_{\varepsilon}\colon{\mathbb{R}}^{+} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is given by $F_{\varepsilon}(s)=0$ for $s\leq \varepsilon$; $F_{\varepsilon}(s)=(s-\varepsilon)/(\rho  - \varepsilon)$ for
$\varepsilon\leq s \leq  \rho$; $F_{\varepsilon}(s)=s$ for $\rho  \leq s \leq  1$; $F_{\varepsilon}(s)=1$ for $s\geq 1$.

Let us fix a vertex $x_0$. For any $\alpha >0$, we define
$g_\alpha\colon X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ by $g_{\alpha}(x) =G_\alpha(d_\sigma(x_0,x))$, where  $G_\alpha\colon {\mathbb{R}}^{+} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is given by $G_\alpha(s)=1$ for  $s\leq 1/\alpha$; $G_\alpha(s)=-\alpha  s + 2$ for $1/\alpha  \leq s \leq  2/\alpha$; $G_\alpha(s)=0$ for $s\geq 2/\alpha$. We also define
\begin{equation}\label{E:support}\nonumber
 E_{\varepsilon , \alpha}:= \{x \in X \colon \varepsilon \leq D(x) \  {\rm and}  \ d_\sigma(x_0,x) \leq 2/\alpha \}.
\end{equation}
By Lemma~\ref{L:finsup} the set $E_{\varepsilon, \alpha}$ is finite because $E_{\varepsilon, \alpha}$ is a closed
and bounded subset of $X_{\varepsilon}$, where $X_{\varepsilon}$ is as in~(\ref{E:x-eps}). Since the support of $f_{\varepsilon}g_{\alpha}$ is contained in $E_{\varepsilon, \alpha}$, it follows that $f_{\varepsilon}g_{\alpha}$ is finitely supported.
Using Lemma 4.1 in~\cite{vtt-11-2} it is easy to see that $f_{\varepsilon}g_\alpha$ is a $\beta$-Lipschitz function with respect to $d_{\sigma}$,  where $\beta={\rho}/({\rho-\varepsilon})+\alpha$. By Lemma~\ref{L:lemma-ground-state} with with $g$ replaced by $f_{\varepsilon}g_\alpha$, unitarity of $\Phi_{y,x}$, $\beta$-Lipschitz property of $f_{\varepsilon}g_\alpha$, and Defintion~\ref{D-intrinsic}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{E:equ-rhs}
(f_{\varepsilon}g_{\alpha} v,\, (\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}-\lambda) (f_{\varepsilon}g_{\alpha} v))
\leq \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\rho}{\rho-\varepsilon}+\alpha\right)^2\sum _{x\in X} m(x) |v(x)|^2_{F_x}.
\end{equation}

On the other hand, by the definitions of $f_{\varepsilon}$ and $g_{\alpha}$ and the assumption~(\ref{E:bou}) we have
\begin{equation} \label{E:equ-lhs}
(f_{\varepsilon}g_{\alpha}v,\,(\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}-\lambda) (f_{\varepsilon} g_{\alpha}v))
\geq \frac{1}{2} \sum _{x\in S_{\rho , \alpha}} m(x)|v(x)|^2_{F_x} +c_1 \| f_{\varepsilon}g_{\alpha} v
\|^2,
\end{equation}
where
\[
S_{\rho, \alpha}:=\{x \in X \colon \rho \leq D(x) \  {\rm and}  \ d_\sigma(x_0,x) \leq 1/\alpha\}.
\]
Combining (\ref{E:equ-lhs}) and (\ref{E:equ-rhs}) we obtain
\[
\frac{1}{2} \sum _{x\in S_{\rho , \alpha}}m(x)|v(x)|^2_{F_x} +c_1 \| f_{\varepsilon} g_{\alpha}v\|^2\leq \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\rho}{\rho-\varepsilon}+\alpha\right)^2\sum _{x\in X}m(x) |v(x)|^2_{F_x}.
\]
We fix $\rho$ and $\varepsilon$, and let $\alpha \to 0+$. After that, we let  $\varepsilon \to 0+$. Finally, we take the limit as $\rho\to 0+$.
As a result, we get $v\equiv 0$.
\end{proof}

\subsection*{End of the Proof of Theorem~\ref{T:main-5}} Since  $\Delta^{F,\Phi}_{b,m}|_{\Gamma_{c}(X,F)}$ is a non-negative operator, for all $u \in \Gamma_{c}(X,F)$, we have
\[
(u,\, \widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi} u) \geq \sum_{x\in X} m(x) \langle W(x)u(x),u(x)\rangle_{F_{x}}.
\]
Therefore, using assumption~(\ref{E:potential-minorant}) we obtain:
\begin{align}\label{E:bou-new}
&(u,\, (\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}-\lambda) u)\geq \dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{x\in X} \frac{1}{D(x)^2} m(x)|u(x)|^2_{F_{x}}-(\lambda+C)\|u\|^2\nonumber\\
&\geq  \dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{x\in X} \max\left(\frac{1}{D(x)^2},1\right) m(x)|u(x)|^2_{F_{x}} -(\lambda+C+1/2)\|u\|^2.
\end{align}
Choosing, for example, $\lambda=-C-3/2$ in~(\ref{E:bou-new}) we get the
inequality (\ref{E:bou}) with $c_1=1$. Thus, $(\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}-\lambda)|_{\Gamma_{c}(X,F)}$ with $\lambda=-C-3/2$ is a symmetric operator satisfying
$(u,\, (\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}-\lambda) u)\geq \|u\|^2$, for all $u\in \Gamma_{c}(X,F)$. By Theorem X.26 in~\cite{rs} we know that the essential self-adjointness of $(\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}-\lambda)|_{\Gamma_{c}(X,F)}$ is equivalent to the following statement: if $v\in\lw$ satisfies $(\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}-\lambda)v=0$, then $v=0$. Thus, by Lemma~\ref{L:Hor}, the operator $(\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}-\lambda)|_{\Gamma_{c}(X,F)}$ is essentially self-adjoint. Thus, $\widetilde{H}_{W,\Phi}|_{\Gamma_{c}(X,F)}$ is essentially self-adjoint. $\hfill\square$

\section*{Appendix}
In this section we review some concepts from the theory of one-parameter semigroups of operators on Banach spaces. Our exposition follows Chapters I and II of~\cite{engel-nagel}. A family of bounded linear operators $(T(t))_{t\geq0}$ on a Banach
space $\mathscr{X}$ is called a \emph{strongly continuous semigroup} (or
$C_0$-\emph{semigroup}) if it satisfies the functional equation
\[
T(t + s) = T(t)T(s),\quad\textrm{for all }t, s\geq 0,\qquad T(0) = I,
\]
and the maps $t\mapsto T(t)u$ are continuous from $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ to $\mathscr{X}$ for all $u\in \mathscr{X}$. Here, $I$ stands for the identity operator on $\mathscr{X}$.

The \emph{generator} $A \colon \Dom(A) \subset \mathscr{X} \to \mathscr{X}$ of a strongly continuous
semigroup $(T(t))_{t\geq0}$ on a Banach space $\mathscr{X}$ is the operator
\[
Au:=\lim_{h\to 0+}\frac{T(h)u-u}{h}
\]
defined for every $u$ in its domain
\[
\Dom(A) := \{u \in \mathscr{X}: \lim_{h\to 0+}h^{-1}(T(h)u-u)\textrm{ exists}\}.
\]
By Theorem II.1.4 in~\cite{engel-nagel}, the generator of a strongly continuous
semigroup is a closed and densely defined operator that determines the semigroup uniquely.

A linear operator $A$ on a Banach space $\mathscr{X}$ with norm $\|\cdot\|$ is called \emph{accretive}
if
\[
\|(\xi+A)u\|\geq \xi\|u\|,
\]
for all $\xi>0$ and all $u\in\Dom(A)$. In the literature on semigroups of operators, the term \emph{dissipative} is used when referring to an operator $A$ such that $-A$ is accretive. If $A$ is a densely defined accretive operator, then $A$ is closable and its closure $\overline {A}$ is also accretive; see Proposition II.3.14 in~\cite{engel-nagel}.

We now give another description of accretivity. Let $\mathscr{X}^{*}$ be the dual
space of $\mathscr{X}$. By the Hahn–-Banach theorem, for every $u\in \mathscr{X}$ there exists
$u^*\in \mathscr{X}^*$ such that $\langle u,u^*\rangle=\|u\|^2=\|u^*\|^2$, where $\langle u,u^*\rangle$ denotes the evaluation of the functional $u^*$ at $u$.
For every $u \in\mathscr{X}$, we define
\[
\mathscr{J}(u) :=\{u^*\in \mathscr{X}^*:\langle u,u^*\rangle=\|u\|^2=\|u^*\|^2\}.
\]
By Proposition II.3.23 of~\cite{engel-nagel}, an operator $A$ is accretive if and only if for
every $u\in\Dom (A)$ there exists $j(u)\in\mathscr{J}(u)$ such that
\[
\textrm{Re }\langle Au,j(u)\rangle\geq 0. \eqno{{\rm { (R1)}}}
\]
An operator $A$ on a Banach space $\mathscr{X}$ is called \emph{maximal accretive} if it is accretive and $\xi+A$ is surjective for all $\xi>0$. There is a connection between maximal accretivity and self-adjointness of operators on Hilbert spaces: $A$ is a self-adjoint and non-negative operator if and only if $A$ is symmetric, closed, and maximal accretive; see Problem V.3.32 in~\cite{Kato80}.

A contraction semigroup $(T(t))_{t\geq0}$ on a Banach space $\mathscr{X}$ is a semigroup such that $\|T(t)\|\leq 1$ for all $t\geq 0$, where $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the operator norm (of a bounded linear) operator $\mathscr{X}\to \mathscr{X}$. Generators of strongly continuous contraction semigroups are characterized as follows (Theorem II.3.5 in~\cite{engel-nagel}):

\medskip

\noindent{\textbf{Hille--Yosida Theorem.}} \emph{An operator $A$ on a Banach space generates a strongly continuous contraction semigroup  if and only if the following three conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(C1)] $A$ is densely defined and closed;
\item [(C2)] $(0,\infty)\subset\rho(A)$, where $\rho(A)$ is the resolvent set of $A$;
\item [(C3)] $\|(\xi-A)^{-1}\|\leq\xi^{-1}$, for all $\xi>0$.
\end{enumerate}}

\medskip

Finally, we note that if $A$ generates a strongly continuous contraction semigroup, then $-A$ is maximal accretive.

\section*{Acknowledgment} The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee
for providing valuable suggestions and helping us improve the presentation of the material.