Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 87 references

A relativistic QFT description for the interaction of a spin with a magnetic field

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the Zeeman spin–magnetic coupling from a second-quantized Dirac field for a hydrogen-like atom, tracks its fine-structure corrections, and shows that the resulting gapped spin detector is simpler than the two-level…

desk verdict A careful QED derivation of the smeared Zeeman Hamiltonian with a genuinely useful comparison to UDW, held back by a sign convention slip and an unquantified two-level projection. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14523 v2 pith:7PCHLEKN submitted 2024-11-21 quant-ph gr-qchep-th

Ruhi Shah , Eduardo Martín-Martínez , T. Rick Perche This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phgr-qchep-th
keywords DirachydrogenatomZeemanHamiltonianspindetectorUnruh-DeWittrelativisticquantuminformationelectromagneticfieldfine-structurecorrectionssmearedinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's aim is to show that the familiar non-relativistic Zeeman term, in which a spin couples to a magnetic field through $\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot \mathbf{B}$, is not put in by hand: it emerges from a second-quantized Dirac description of an electron bound in a hydrogen-like atom. Starting from the full interaction $q\,\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu A_\mu\psi$ between the Dirac field and the quantum electromagnetic field, the authors restrict to the two spin states of an $s$ orbital and derive a smeared Zeeman Hamiltonian $H_I = -\frac{q}{2\pi}\int d^3x\, \varphi(|\mathbf{x}|)\,\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{x})$, with corrections of order $\alpha^2$ entering through the atomic radial wavefunctions. They then use this model as a localized spin detector for the quantum magnetic field, compute leading-order transition probabilities, and compare it with the standard two-level Unruh-DeWitt detector. The result that matters: for a spin with a non-zero energy gap, this magnetic spin detector has fewer parameters and more symmetries than the Unruh-DeWitt model, while for a gapless spin the Unruh-DeWitt model remains the simpler one.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the reduction of the second-quantized Dirac field to the $j=1/2$, parity $+1$ subspace of an $s$ orbital, implemented by the non-local projector $\hat{P}_s$, followed by the construction of the radial smearing function $\varphi(r)$ defined by $\nabla\varphi = (f(r)g(r)/r)\,\mathbf{x}$ (equivalently $\varphi(r)=-\int_r^\infty dr'\, f(r')g(r')$). This function converts the QED vertex $q\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu A_\mu\psi$ into a smeared $\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot \mathbf{B}$ coupling after a vector-calculus identity drops a boundary term; the Fourier transform $|\tilde{\varphi}(|\mathbf{k}|)|^2$ then weights the magnetic-field two-point function in the detector response. The comparison with the Unruh-DeWitt model is carried by the response integrals $L(\Omega)$ and $M(\Omega)$ (and the UDW-specific $K(\Omega)$), which encode how the smearing and switching functions filter the field modes.

What would settle it

A concrete calculation that would settle the claim: take the full second-quantized Dirac field in the Coulomb potential, couple it to the quantized magnetic field with a finite Gaussian switching, and compute the electron's final Bloch vector exactly to leading order in $q$ without projecting to the $s$ orbital. If that answer differs from the paper's leading-order result by terms that scale with the probability of exciting higher orbitals or continuum modes, the two-level reduction fails; experiment-side, the same test is a spin-flip measurement on a hydrogen-like ion under a field gradient comparable to $1/a_0$, where the smearing profile $\varphi(r)$ and the pointlike Zeeman term predict different rates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the low-energy spin–magnetic-field coupling of an electron in an $s$ orbital is exactly a smeared Zeeman interaction: $H_I(t) = -\frac{q}{2\pi}\int d^3x\, \varphi(|\mathbf{x}|)\,\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot \mathbf{B}(t,\mathbf{x})$, where the smearing function $\varphi(r)$ is built from the upper and lower radial components $g(r)$ and $f(r)$ of the Dirac modes. In a homogeneous field the radial integral factors out and the leading-order Hamiltonian reduces to $-\frac{q}{2m_e}\,\hat{\mathbf{S}}\cdot \mathbf{B}(t)$ plus terms of order $\alpha^2$ controlled by $\int dr\, r^2 f^2(r)$, which are the atomic-localization corrections to the electron's magnetic moment. The paper also claims that, as a detector of the quantum magnetic field, this spin system is—when an external field gives it an energy gap—simpler than the standard two-level Unruh-DeWitt detector: its leading-order response is fixed by two functions $L(\pm\Omega)$ and $M(\Omega)$, it has no analogue of the UDW $K(\Omega)$ term, and it is invariant under time translations; the spin component along the external field behaves exactly as in the UDW model, while the perpendicular components do not.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the low-energy reduction of the full Dirac field to the two spin states of a single $s$ orbital, which uses a non-local projector; the paper states that the resulting causality and covariance violations are controlled by the size of the field-mode localization, so the model is only trustworthy when interaction energies and times stay within that atomic-localization regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a homogeneous magnetic field the model recovers the textbook Zeeman Hamiltonian $-\frac{q}{2m_e}\,\hat{\mathbf{S}}\cdot \mathbf{B}(t)$ at leading order, with the first relativistic correction of order $\alpha^2$ fixed by the square integral of the small Dirac component $f(r)$ of the atomic mode.
  • For a spin with energy gap $\Omega$, the leading-order detector response is fully determined by $L(\pm\Omega)$ and $M(\Omega)$; there is no $K(\Omega)$ term, so the response is invariant under shifting the switching time, a symmetry the two-level Unruh-DeWitt detector lacks.
  • The component of the spin along the external magnetic field evolves at leading order exactly like the corresponding component of a two-level Unruh-DeWitt detector, which the authors take as evidence that the UDW model captures the essence of absorption and emission; the perpendicular components, by contrast, behave differently.
  • For a degenerate (gapless) spin, the leading-order effect is an isotropic contraction of the Bloch vector toward the centre of the Bloch sphere, while the gapless UDW detector leaves one Bloch-sphere component untouched; moreover, the Magnus expansion does not terminate for the spin-magnetic model, so non-perturbative methods used for UDW detectors do not carry over.
  • Because the derivation holds for any spherically symmetric central potential, the same smeared Zeeman structure and its $\alpha^2$ corrections apply to atoms with finite-size-nucleus or inner-shell modifications of the electron modes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct next step is to compute entanglement harvesting between two gapped spin-magnetic detectors; because the response lacks the $K(\Omega)$ term, the leading-order harvested entanglement should be independent of the switching time, a prediction that could be checked with the same Dyson-series machinery.
  • The smearing function $\varphi(r)$ implies that magnetic field gradients on the scale of the orbital radius are resolved by the detector; measuring spin-flip rates in a field varying over a fraction of the Bohr radius would distinguish the smeared coupling from the pointlike Zeeman term.
  • Because the derivation only needs spherical symmetry of the binding potential, the same effective spin detector can be written down for nuclear spins or for trapped atoms in modified potentials, giving a family of QFT-derived spin probes rather than a single hydrogen example.
  • The claimed simplicity of the gapped spin detector is established at leading order in $q$; a second-order Dyson-series calculation would show whether the freedom from $K(\Omega)$ and the time-translation symmetry persist beyond first order, since the Hamiltonian density does not commute with itself at spacelike separations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives an effective spin--magnetic-field interaction for an electron in the 1s orbital of a hydrogen-like atom starting from a second-quantized Dirac field in a classical Coulomb potential. By projecting onto the two-dimensional s-orbital subspace, the authors obtain a smeared Zeeman Hamiltonian H_I = -(q/2π)∫d^3x φ(|x|) σ·B(x) with corrections of order α², and then promote the magnetic field to a quantum field to study the finite-time response of the spin as a local probe. They compute the leading-order evolution of the spin state for both degenerate and gapped configurations, obtain the spin-flip probability and transition rate, and compare the model with the two-level Unruh--DeWitt detector, concluding that the spin--magnetic coupling is simpler and more symmetric for finite gaps.

Significance. The derivation is self-contained and largely parameter-free, with only physically meaningful parameters (T, Ω, Z) entering the final response functions. The paper provides a detailed and careful treatment of the vector calculus in Section IV and the angular integrals in Appendix B, and it explicitly identifies the O(α²) relativistic corrections to the Zeeman Hamiltonian, which go beyond the usual effective spin models. The comparison with the Unruh--DeWitt detector is novel and yields concrete structural differences, such as the absence of the K(Ω) term and the presence of L(0) terms in the perpendicular Bloch components. If the two remaining issues described below are resolved, the paper would constitute a useful bridge between QED and effective particle-detector models in relativistic quantum information.

major comments (2)
  1. [§II, Eq. (5), Eq. (9); §V B, Eq. (121), footnote 9] The sign convention for the electron charge is internally inconsistent. The gauge transformation ψ → e^{iqα}ψ with D_μ = ∂_μ − iqA_μ corresponds to a particle of charge +q, not −q as the text states; consequently Eq. (9) should read (i∂ − m_e)ψ = +q Aψ if the electron charge is −q. This issue propagates to the Zeeman Hamiltonian: the derivation leading to Eq. (81) is consistent with q being the actual charge of the electron (negative), since it yields the standard positive coefficient +|q|/(2m_e)σ·B. However, in Section V B the definition Ω = −(q/π)|B_0|∫d³x φ gives Ω<0 only if q is positive, and the footnote asserts Ω<0 'due to the negative charge of the electron', contradicting the q<0 used elsewhere. With q<0, Ω>0 and the adiabatic rate in Eq. (135) vanishes identically because of the factor θ(−Ω), leaving no spontaneous emission from the excited state; with q>0, the overall sign of the Zeeman Hamiltonian (81) is wrong. The authors must settle on a consistent convention—either q is the magnitude of the electron charge and all derivative/coupling signs are adjusted accordingly, or q is the actual electron charge and the sign of Ω and the ground/excited assignment in Section V B are corrected. This affects Fig. 1 and the interpretation of the transition rate, and it is therefore load-bearing for the central claims of the paper.
  2. [§III, last paragraph; §V, Eqs. (63), (64), (131)] The reduction to the two-dimensional subspace H_s via the non-local projector P_s is uncontrolled. The full interaction Hamiltonian (63) connects the states |↑⟩ and |↓⟩ to other bound states and to the continuum at first order in q, yet the paper substitutes H_I = P_s H_ext P_s (Eq. (64)) and computes the Dyson series with this projected Hamiltonian without estimating the probability of leaving H_s. The stated justification—that the processes are low-energy and do not produce mode excitations—is not automatic, because the switching function χ(t) in Eq. (132) has support at arbitrarily high frequencies and the interaction time T is a free parameter. If the leakage probability to excited bound states or to the continuum is comparable to the spin-flip probability in Eq. (131), then Eq. (126) and Fig. 1 do not describe the actual electron dynamics. The authors should quantify the out-of-subspace transitions (e.g., bound-bound and bound-continuum matrix elements) or explicitly state the parameter regime in which they are negligible relative to the leading-order spin-flip response.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§I and throughout] There are several typos that should be corrected: 'decription' in the Introduction, 'magentic' in the Introduction, 'ans orbital' in Section III, and 'quantum field theory theory' in Section III.
  2. [§V B, text before Eq. (118)] The phrase 'constant external electromagnetic field aligned with the z axis' should be 'constant external magnetic field', since the field B_0 is purely magnetic.
  3. [§V C, Eq. (137)] The sentence 'In the derivative coupling case, L(Ω) = L(Ω) and M(Ω) = M(Ω)' appears tautological and likely intended to distinguish the spin model from the derivative-coupling UDW model; the notation should be clarified.
  4. [§V B, Eq. (126)] The physical interpretation of the term involving L(Ω) ± L(−Ω) would benefit from an explicit statement of which sign corresponds to absorption versus emission, particularly given the sign-convention issue raised above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Derivation is self-contained from standard Dirac hydrogen solutions; no circular steps identified.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: (i) second-quantized Dirac field in a Coulomb potential, with standard bound-state solutions; (ii) projection onto the s-orbital two-level subspace via the non-local projector P_s; (iii) computation of the projected interaction Hamiltonian, leading to the smeared Zeeman form (80); (iv) evaluation of detector response (126), spin-flip probability (131), and adiabatic transition rate (135) from the Dyson series; and (v) comparison with the UDW model. Each step is computed from stated definitions and standard QED/minimal coupling, with no fitted parameters and no target result assumed. The coefficient in the leading-order Zeeman Hamiltonian (82) is fixed by the normalization integral (A8), not by matching to the desired answer. The transition rates depend only on the mode functions, switching function, and q, and are therefore parameter-free predictions. The cited self-references, e.g. [49] for non-locality/causality caveats and [74] for conventions, are not load-bearing: removing them leaves the derivation intact, and the claims they support are independently recognisable limitations external to the main derivation. The acknowledged projector-reduction caveat in Section III (last paragraph) is a validity/regime concern about out-of-subspace transitions, not a circularity: the paper explicitly states the condition under which the reduction is justified, and the reduced Hamiltonian is derived, not posited. No equation is shown to be equivalent to an input by construction, and no renamed fit is presented as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or entities. It relies on standard QED, the Dirac hydrogen atom, and the existing UDW detector framework. The free parameters listed are physical inputs (interaction time, energy gap, nuclear charge) rather than fitted quantities. The key axioms are the static-nucleus approximation, the low-energy two-level reduction, and the perturbative treatment of the field interaction, all standard in the detector-model literature.

free parameters (3)
  • T
    Switching function width in Eq. (132), chosen by hand to control interaction duration. Not fitted to data.
  • Omega
    Energy gap of the spin detector, set by the external classical field B0 in Eq. (121). A model input, not fitted.
  • Z = 1 for hydrogen
    Nuclear charge number. Set to 1 for the hydrogen 1s orbital example. Physical parameter, not fitted.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The electron is described by a Dirac field minimally coupled to the classical electromagnetic field, with the nucleus modeled as a static point charge.
    Section II, Eqs. (6)-(14). This is the starting point of the derivation.
  • domain assumption The reduction to the s-orbital two-level subspace is valid for low-energy processes that do not excite other modes.
    Section III, last paragraph, where the non-local projector P_s is discussed. If this fails, the detector model is not accurate.
  • standard math The interaction with the quantum electromagnetic field is treated perturbatively to leading order in q.
    Section V A, Eq. (97), Dyson series. Higher orders in q are neglected.
  • domain assumption The external magnetic field is approximately homogeneous over the atomic wavefunction when deriving the standard Zeeman form.
    Section IV, before Eq. (81), dipole approximation. The full smeared form is retained in the detector section.
  • standard math The quantum EM field is initially in the vacuum state and uncorrelated with the detector.
    Section V A, after Eq. (99). This is a standard assumption in particle detector models.
  • domain assumption The nuclear charge is fixed and the proton spin/hyperfine structure is neglected.
    Section II, footnote 3. The paper explicitly notes this limitation.
  • standard math The Coulomb gauge is used consistently for both the hydrogen modes and the quantized EM field.
    Sections II and V A. This is a standard gauge choice and is required for the mode decomposition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A relativistic QFT description for the interaction of a spin with a magnetic field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PCHLEKN

@misc{pith2026241114523,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A relativistic QFT description for the interaction of a spin with a magnetic field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PCHLEKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14523}
}
abstract

We analyze how non-relativistic effective models for the magnetic coupling of a spin to the electromagnetic field (proportional to $\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot \boldsymbol{B}$) emerge from a full quantum field theoretical description of charged fermionic fields with the quantum electromagnetic field. This allows us to keep track of relativistic corrections to the models commonly used in experimental spin physics. We discuss how this interaction compares to the usual simplified models used in relativistic quantum information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14523 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The excitation/deexcitation probability of an elec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Valentini, Non-local correlations in quantum electro- dynamics, Phys

    A. Valentini, Non-local correlations in quantum electro- dynamics, Phys. Lett. A 153, 321 (1991)

    1991

  2. [2]

    Reznik, A

    B. Reznik, A. Retzker, and J. Silman, Violating Bell’s 17 inequalities in vacuum, Phys. Rev. A 71, 042104 (2005)

    2005

  3. [3]

    Silman and B

    J. Silman and B. Reznik, Long-range entanglement in the Dirac vacuum, Phys. Rev. A 75, 052307 (2007)

    2007

  4. [4]

    Salton, R

    G. Salton, R. B. Mann, and N. C. Menicucci, Acceleration-assisted entanglement harvesting and rangefinding, New J. Phys. 17, 035001 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Pozas-Kerstjens and E

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Harvesting correlations from the quantum vacuum, Phys. Rev. D92, 064042 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Pozas-Kerstjens and E

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Entangle- ment harvesting from the electromagnetic vacuum with hydrogenlike atoms, Phys. Rev. D 94, 064074 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    J. Foo, R. B. Mann, and M. Zych, Entanglement ampli- fication between superposed detectors in flat and curved spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D 103, 065013 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    L. J. Henderson, R. A. Hennigar, R. B. Mann, A. R. H. Smith, and J. Zhang, Entangling detectors in anti-de Sit- ter space, J. High Energy Phys. 2019 (5), 178

    work page 2019

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    L. J. Henderson and N. C. Menicucci, Bandlimited en- tanglement harvesting, Phys. Rev. D102, 125026 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    M. P. G. Robbins, L. J. Henderson, and R. B. Mann, Entanglement amplification from rotating black holes, Class. Quantum Gravity 39, 02LT01 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Bueley, L

    K. Bueley, L. Huang, K. Gallock-Yoshimura, and R. B. Mann, Harvesting mutual information from BTZ black hole spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 106, 025010 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Mendez-Avalos, L

    D. Mendez-Avalos, L. J. Henderson, K. Gallock- Yoshimura, and R. B. Mann, Entanglement harvesting of three Unruh-DeWitt detectors, Gen. Relativ. and Gravit. 54, 87 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    L. J. Henderson, S. Y. Ding, and R. B. Mann, Entan- glement harvesting with a twist, A VS Quantum Sci. 4, 014402 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, E

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, E. G. Brown, W. Donnelly, and A. Kempf, Sustainable entanglement production from a quantum field, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052310 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Hotta, Quantum measurement information as a key to energy extraction from local vacuums, Phys

    M. Hotta, Quantum measurement information as a key to energy extraction from local vacuums, Phys. Rev. D 78, 045006 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Hotta, J

    M. Hotta, J. Matsumoto, and G. Yusa, Quantum energy teleportation without a limit of distance, Phys. Rev. A 89, 012311 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Funai and E

    N. Funai and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Engineering negative stress-energy densities with quantum energy teleporta- tion, Phys. Rev. D 96, 025014 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    N. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Briones, H. Katiyar, E. Mart ´ ın- Mart ´ ınez, and R. Laflamme, Experimental activation of strong local passive states with quantum information, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 110801 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    R. H. Jonsson, E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, and A. Kempf, In- formation transmission without energy exchange, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 110505 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Blasco, L

    A. Blasco, L. J. Garay, M. Mart ´ ın-Benito, and E. Mart ´ ın- Mart ´ ınez, Timelike information broadcasting in cosmol- ogy, Phys. Rev. D 93, 024055 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Blasco, L

    A. Blasco, L. J. Garay, M. Mart ´ ın-Benito, and E. Mart ´ ın- Mart ´ ınez, Violation of the strong Huygen’s principle and timelike signals from the early universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 141103 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    E. E. Salpeter and H. A. Bethe, A relativistic equation for bound-state problems, Phys. Rev. 84, 1232 (1951)

    1951

  15. [23]

    Greiner and J

    W. Greiner and J. Reinhardt, Field Quantization (Springer, 1996)

    1996

  16. [24]

    W. G. Unruh, Notes on black-hole evaporation, Phys. Rev. D 14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  17. [25]

    DeWitt, General Relativity; an Einstein Centenary Survey (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1980)

    B. DeWitt, General Relativity; an Einstein Centenary Survey (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1980)

    1980

  18. [26]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, M

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, M. Montero, and M. del Rey, Wavepacket detection with the Unruh-DeWitt model, Phys. Rev. D 87, 064038 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Funai, J

    N. Funai, J. Louko, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez,ˆp · ˆA vs ˆx · ˆE: Gauge invariance in quantum optics and quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D 99, 065014 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Lopp and E

    R. Lopp and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Quantum delocaliza- tion, gauge, and quantum optics: Light-matter interac- tion in relativistic quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 103, 013703 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, T

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, T. R. Perche, and B. de S. L. Torres, General relativistic quantum optics: Finite-size particle detector models in curved spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 045017 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, T

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, T. R. Perche, and B. d. S. L. Tor- res, Broken covariance of particle detector models in rela- tivistic quantum information, Phys. Rev. D 103, 025007 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Causality issues of particle detector models in QFT and quantum optics, Phys

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Causality issues of particle detector models in QFT and quantum optics, Phys. Rev. D 92, 104019 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    de Ram´ on, M

    J. de Ram´ on, M. Papageorgiou, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Relativistic causality in particle detector models: Faster- than-light signaling and impossible measurements, Phys. Rev. D 103, 085002 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    de Ram´ on, M

    J. de Ram´ on, M. Papageorgiou, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Causality and signalling in noncompact detector-field in- teractions, Phys. Rev. D 108, 045015 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Baugh, J

    J. Baugh, J. Chamilliard, C. M. Chandrashekar, M. Ditty, A. Hubbard, R. Laflamme, M. Laforest, D. Maslov, O. Moussa, C. Negrevergne, M. Silva, S. Sim- mons, C. A. Ryan, D. G. Cory, J. S. Hodges, and C. Ramanathan, Quantum information processing us- ing nuclear and electron mag...

    2007

  27. [35]

    Akhmetzyanov, T

    D. Akhmetzyanov, T. W. Borneman, I. Taminiau, S. Sadeghi, H. R. Mohebbi, and D. G. Cory, Electron spin resonance spectroscopy using a Nb superconducting resonator, Appl. Phys. Lett. 123, 224002 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    T. M. Hoang, J. Ahn, J. Bang, and T. Li, Electron spin control of optically levitated nanodiamonds in vacuum, Nat. Commun. 7, 12250 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano, Modern Quantum Me- chanics, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    C. J. Fewster and R. Verch, Quantum Fields and Local Measurements, Commun. Math. Phys. 378, 851 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    C. J. Fewster, A generally covariant measurement scheme for quantum field theory in curved spacetimes, in Progress and Visions in Quantum Theory in View of Gravity (Springer International Publishing, 2020) pp. 253–268

    2020

  32. [40]

    Polo-G´ omez, L

    J. Polo-G´ omez, L. J. Garay, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, A detector-based measurement theory for quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D 105, 065003 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Maeso-Garc ´ ıa, J

    H. Maeso-Garc ´ ıa, J. Polo-G´ omez, and E. Mart ´ ın- Mart ´ ınez, How measuring a quantum field affects entan- glement harvesting, Phys. Rev. D 107, 045011 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Greiner, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics

    W. Greiner, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. Wave Equations (Springer, 2000). 18

    2000

  35. [43]

    Capri, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Introduc- tion to Quantum Field Theory , G - Reference, Informa- tion and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series (World Scien- tific, 2002)

    A. Capri, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and Introduc- tion to Quantum Field Theory , G - Reference, Informa- tion and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series (World Scien- tific, 2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    L. C. Biedenharn and J. D. Louck, Angular momentum in quantum physics. Theory and application , Vol. 8 (1981)

    1981

  37. [45]

    L¨ uders and B

    G. L¨ uders and B. Zumino, Connection between spin and statistics, Phys. Rev. 110, 1450 (1958)

    1958

  38. [46]

    Araki, On the connection of spin and commutation relations between different fields, J

    H. Araki, On the connection of spin and commutation relations between different fields, J. Math. Phys 2, 267 (1961)

    1961

  39. [47]

    Hoyer, Relativistic bound states at Born level, Acta Phys

    P. Hoyer, Relativistic bound states at Born level, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 6, 59 (2013), arXiv:1210.8073 [hep- ph]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    L. L. Foldy and S. A. Wouthuysen, On the dirac theory of spin 1/2 particles and its non-relativistic limit, Phys. Rev. 78, 29 (1950)

    1950

  41. [49]

    T. R. Perche, J. Polo-G´ omez, B. d. S. L. Torres, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Particle detectors from localized quantum field theories, Phys. Rev. D109, 045013 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    C. P. Burgess, Introduction to Effective Field Theory: Thinking Effectively about Hierarchies of Scale (Cam- bridge University Press, 2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    P. A. M. Dirac, The quantum theory of the electron, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 117, 610 (1928)

    1928

  44. [52]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cam- bridge University Press, 1997)

    1997

  45. [53]

    Breit, The magnetic moment of the electron, Nature 122, 649 (1928)

    G. Breit, The magnetic moment of the electron, Nature 122, 649 (1928)

    1928

  46. [54]

    Beier, The g j factor of a bound electron and the hy- perfine structure splitting in hydrogenlike ions, Physics Reports 339, 79 (2000)

    T. Beier, The g j factor of a bound electron and the hy- perfine structure splitting in hydrogenlike ions, Physics Reports 339, 79 (2000)

    2000

  47. [55]

    V. A. Yerokhin, P. Indelicato, and V. M. Shabaev, Eval- uation of the self-energy correction to the g factor of s states in h-like ions, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052503 (2004)

    2004

  48. [56]

    V. A. Yerokhin and Z. Harman, Two-loop QED correc- tions with closed fermion loops for the bound-electron g factor, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042502 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Sikora, V

    B. Sikora, V. A. Yerokhin, N. S. Oreshkina, H. Cakir, C. H. Keitel, and Z. Harman, Theory of the two-loop self-energy correction to the g factor in nonperturbative coulomb fields, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 012002 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Morgner, B

    J. Morgner, B. Tu, C. M. K¨ onig, T. Sailer, F. Heiße, H. Bekker, B. Sikora, C. Lyu, V. A. Yerokhin, Z. Harman, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, C. H. Keitel, S. Sturm, and K. Blaum, Stringent test of QED with hydrogen-like tin, Nature 622, 53 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Pozas-Kerstjens, J

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens, J. Louko, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Degenerate detectors are unable to harvest spacelike en- tanglement, Phys. Rev. D 95, 105009 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    T. R. Perche and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Role of quantum degrees of freedom of relativistic fields in quantum infor- mation protocols, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042612 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Simidzija, A

    P. Simidzija, A. Ahmadzadegan, A. Kempf, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Transmission of quantum informa- tion through quantum fields, Phys. Rev. D 101, 036014 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    T. R. Perche, Localized nonrelativistic quantum systems in curved spacetimes: A general characterization of par- ticle detector models, Phys. Rev. D 106, 025018 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    D. J. Raine, D. W. Sciama, and P. G. Grove, Does a uniformly accelerated quantum oscillator radiate?, Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Math- ematical and Physical Sciences 435, 205 (1991)

    1991

  56. [64]

    B. L. Hu and A. Matacz, Quantum brownian motion in a bath of parametric oscillators: A model for system-field interactions, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6612 (1994)

    1994

  57. [65]

    B. L. Hu, S.-Y. Lin, and J. Louko, Relativistic quantum information in detectors–field interactions, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 224005 (2012)

    2012

  58. [66]

    D. E. Bruschi, A. R. Lee, and I. Fuentes, Time evolution techniques for detectors in relativistic quantum informa- tion, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 46, 165303 (2013)

    2013

  59. [67]

    E. G. Brown, E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, N. C. Menicucci, and R. B. Mann, Detectors for probing relativistic quantum physics beyond perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 87, 084062 (2013)

    2013

  60. [68]

    T. R. Perche, B. Ragula, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Har- vesting entanglement from the gravitational vacuum, Phys. Rev. D 108, 085025 (2023)

    2023

  61. [69]

    B. d. S. L. Torres, T. Rick Perche, A. G. S. Landulfo, and G. E. A. Matsas, Neutrino flavor oscillations without flavor states, Phys. Rev. D 102, 093003 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    T. R. Perche, C. Lima, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Har- vesting entanglement from complex scalar and fermionic fields with linearly coupled particle detectors, Phys. Rev. D 105, 065016 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    T. R. Perche and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Antiparticle de- tector models in QFT, Phys. Rev. D 104, 105021 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    T. R. Perche, J. Polo-G´ omez, B. d. S. L. Torres, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Fully relativistic entanglement har- vesting, Phys. Rev. D 109, 045018 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Haag, Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Al- gebras, 1st ed

    R. Haag, Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Al- gebras, 1st ed. (Springer Publishing Company, Incorpo- rated, 2012)

    2012

  66. [74]

    C. R. D. Bunney, L. Parry, T. R. Perche, and J. Louko, Ambient temperature versus ambient acceleration in the circular motion Unruh effect, Phys. Rev. D 109, 065001 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Commun

    W. Magnus, On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 7, 649 (1954)

    1954

  68. [76]

    Blanes, F

    S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. Oteo, and J. Ros, The Magnus expansion and some of its applications, Physics Reports 470, 151 (2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    A. G. S. Landulfo, Nonperturbative approach to relativis- tic quantum communication channels, Phys. Rev. D 93, 104019 (2016)

    2016

  70. [78]

    Takagi, Vacuum Noise and Stress Induced by Uniform Acceleration: Hawking-Unruh Effect in Rindler Manifold of Arbitrary Dimension, Prog

    S. Takagi, Vacuum Noise and Stress Induced by Uniform Acceleration: Hawking-Unruh Effect in Rindler Manifold of Arbitrary Dimension, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 88, 1 (1986)

    1986

  71. [79]

    Montero and E

    M. Montero and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Fermionic entan- glement ambiguity in noninertial frames, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323 (2011)

    2011

  72. [80]

    fermionic en- tanglement ambiguity in noninertial frames

    K. Br´ adler and R. J´ auregui, Comment on “fermionic en- tanglement ambiguity in noninertial frames”, Phys. Rev. A 85, 016301 (2012)

    2012

  73. [81]

    com- ment on ‘fermionic entanglement ambiguity in noniner- tial frames’

    M. Montero and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Reply to “com- ment on ‘fermionic entanglement ambiguity in noniner- tial frames’ ”, Phys. Rev. A 85, 016302 (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    Friis, A

    N. Friis, A. R. Lee, and D. E. Bruschi, Fermionic-mode entanglement in quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 87, 022338 (2013)

    2013

  75. [83]

    Becattini, V

    F. Becattini, V. Chandra, L. Del Zanna, and E. Grossi, Relativistic distribution function for particles with spin at local thermodynamical equilibrium, Annals Phys.338, 19 32 (2013)

    2013

  76. [84]

    Friis, Reasonable fermionic quantum information the- ories require relativity, New J

    N. Friis, Reasonable fermionic quantum information the- ories require relativity, New J. Phys. 18, 033014 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    Becattini, Thermodynamic equilibrium with acceler- ation and the Unruh effect, Phys

    F. Becattini, Thermodynamic equilibrium with acceler- ation and the Unruh effect, Phys. Rev. D 97, 085013 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Debarba, F

    T. Debarba, F. Iemini, G. Giedke, and N. Friis, Teleport- ing quantum information encoded in fermionic modes, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052326 (2020)

    2020

  79. [87]

    G. Y. Prokhorov, O. V. Teryaev, and V. I. Zakharov, Novel phase transition at the Unruh temperature (2023), arXiv:2304.13151 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.