Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Quantum light and radiation in Rindler spacetime: from uncertainty relations to the cosmological implications

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Acceleration rewrites quantum uncertainty and blackbody spectra through a Rindler light model.

desk verdict This paper's cosmological claims are forced by assuming the very distances it claims to predict; the earlier uncertainty/Planck results are rescaled flat-space formulas. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02417 v1 pith:HQYAERNQ submitted 2025-06-03 gr-qc physics.optics

Fujin Wang , Syed Masood , L.G. Wang This is my paper
classification gr-qcphysics.optics
keywords RindlerspacetimeHeisenberguncertaintyrelationPlanckdistributionUnruheffectcosmologicalredshiftFeynmanpathintegralCollinsdiffractionequivalentacceleration
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

Working from a formal resemblance between the Collins diffraction integral for light propagation and the Feynman path-integral propagator of a free quantum particle, the paper develops a quantum model for light and radiation seen by a uniformly accelerated (Rindler) observer. The model yields an acceleration-dependent correction to the Heisenberg position–momentum uncertainty relation, with accelerated frames spreading Gaussian wave packets faster or slower than flat space depending on the sign of the acceleration. It also produces a modified Planck energy-density distribution in which acceleration plays part of the role of temperature, echoing the Unruh effect. Turning the acceleration-induced spectral shift into a redshift formula, the paper defines an equivalent cosmic acceleration that approaches $cH_0$ at low redshift and varies between early and local epochs, which it reads as a hint that dark energy may be dynamical. If the model is right, acceleration directly alters quantum uncertainty and blackbody spectra in ways that can be probed in table-top optical setups and emulated cosmological observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Rindler-space propagator, Eq. (3), obtained by replacing the free-space Collins diffraction kernel with its Rindler counterpart and then identifying that kernel with the Feynman path-integral propagator $Q(x_2,z_2;x_1,z_1)$. This identification makes the dimensionless combination $\Lambda=az/c^2$ the measure of accumulated acceleration, turns the effective group velocity into $v'=v(e^{2\Lambda}-1)/(2\Lambda)$, and lets the field amplitude be written as a free-particle Gaussian wave function with modified dispersion. Substituting this propagator and its associated frequency $\omega'=kv'/2$ into standard quantum and thermal formulas generates the acceleration-modified uncertainty relation, the modified Planck law, the Wien-shift redshift, and the equivalent cosmic acceleration.

What would settle it

Measure the group-velocity ratio $v'/v=(e^{2\Lambda}-1)/(2\Lambda)$ or the Wien-peak shift $\lambda_{\max}=(\hbar\pi v/k_BT)(3+W(0,-3e^{-3}))(e^{2\Lambda}-1)/(2\Lambda)$ in an accelerating optical setup; if the wavelength shift does not follow the predicted $\alpha$–$\Lambda$ relation, the central claim fails. A second check would compare the equivalent-acceleration curves of Eqs. (33), (35), and (41) with redshift–distance data beyond the local-Universe limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in Rindler spacetime a paraxially propagating optical field obeys the same propagator as a free quantum particle evolving in time, so light propagation distance $z$ can be treated as evolution time. From this identification it derives the position–momentum uncertainty product $(\Delta x)^2(\Delta p)^2 = \frac{\hbar^2}{4}\left[1+\left(\frac{z}{k\sigma_0^2}\frac{e^{2\Lambda}-1}{2\Lambda}\right)^2\right]$ with $\Lambda=az/c^2$, showing that acceleration enhances the delocalization of Gaussian wave packets while leaving the momentum uncertainty without an explicit acceleration term. The same propagator produces a modified Planck energy-density distribution, Eq. (22), with an effective velocity $v'=v(e^{2\Lambda}-1)/(2\Lambda)$, so a Rindler observer sees the blackbody peak shifted by $\alpha=(e^{2\Lambda}-1)/(2\Lambda)-1$. The paper interprets this shift as a redshift and, after choosing $z=D_L$, $z=D_M$, or a Hubble-law distance $d$, derives an equivalent acceleration $a$ that approaches $cH_0$ at small redshift; for the comoving-distance and Hubble-law choices the acceleration passes through turning points, which the authors associate with a transition from early- to late-time cosmic acceleration and read as evidence that dark energy may be dynamical.

Load-bearing premise

Everything after the first section assumes that the Collins diffraction kernel in Rindler spacetime is literally the Feynman propagator of a free quantum particle, so light propagation distance $z$ can be read as evolution time and later as luminosity, comoving, or Hubble distance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the model, the position–momentum uncertainty product acquires a positive acceleration term, so Gaussian wave packets spread faster for positive $\Lambda$ and slower for negative $\Lambda$, with the flat-space result recovered as $a\to0$.
  • The modified Planck distribution shifts its peak wavelength according to the acceleration-dependent Wien-type law $\lambda_{\max}=(\hbar\pi v/k_BT)(3+W(0,-3e^{-3}))(e^{2\Lambda}-1)/(2\Lambda)$, putting acceleration and temperature on the same footing.
  • The redshift formula $\alpha=(e^{2\Lambda}-1)/(2\Lambda)-1$ is always greater than $-1$, so the model produces only positive redshift, matching the observed dominance of cosmic redshifts.
  • Identifying propagation distance $z$ with luminosity distance, comoving distance, or a Hubble-law distance yields an equivalent acceleration that saturates at $cH_0$ in the local-Universe limit, with turning points in the comoving and Hubble-law cases that the paper links to a transition between early and late cosmic acceleration.
  • If these predictions hold, accelerating optical fields in table-top setups could emulate gravitational and cosmological redshift in the lab.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the diffraction–path-integral identification is taken literally, the predicted group-velocity ratio $v'/v=(e^{2\Lambda}-1)/(2\Lambda)$ could be measured directly in an accelerating or curved optical waveguide; the paper itself argues for the analogy only indirectly.
  • The model's direction-dependent anti-Unruh-like cooling could be tested with two identical detectors accelerating in opposite directions, a comparison the paper notes but does not develop.
  • The equivalent-acceleration curves of Eqs. (33), (35), and (41) could be fitted against redshift–distance data to see which, if any, reproduces the observed expansion history; the paper does not perform that fit.
  • Because the model treats only one transverse spatial dimension and a scalar field, extending it to two transverse dimensions and to polarization would be required before its cosmological claims can be confronted with real spectral data.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum model for light in Rindler spacetime by drawing an analogy between the Collins diffraction formula and the Feynman path-integral propagator. From this assumed propagator, it derives an acceleration-dependent position-momentum uncertainty relation, a modified Planck energy-density distribution, and a Rindler redshift formula. In the cosmological part, the authors define an equivalent acceleration by identifying the Rindler propagation distance z with the luminosity distance, the comoving distance, or a Hubble-law distance, and they use this construction to discuss the accelerated expansion of the Universe and possible dynamical dark energy.

Significance. If the propagator analogy and the distance identifications were justified, the results would be significant: they would connect table-top optical diffraction emulation to Unruh-like thermal effects and to a Rindler-based interpretation of cosmic expansion. The paper contains useful algebraic developments, notably the closed-form Lambert-W inversion of the Wien-peak redshift relation and the explicit Gaussian wavepacket evolution. The authors also honestly flag limitations, including the failure of the luminosity-distance case to recover early-Universe dynamics and the direction-dependence of their anti-Unruh-like cooling picture. Nevertheless, the two load-bearing premises are not established: the propagator is posited by analogy rather than derived from quantized fields in Rindler spacetime, and the cosmic acceleration is constructed from input Lambda-CDM distances. The current manuscript therefore does not provide a testable model prediction beyond rewriting Lambda-CDM distance-redshift relations.

major comments (4)
  1. [II.A, Eq. (3)] The paper's key premise, the Rindler-space propagator, is not derived. Equation (3) is obtained by transplanting the Collins diffraction kernel into the Feynman path-integral expression based on a formal resemblance between Eqs. (2a) and (2b), and the subsequent dispersion relation omega' = k v' / 2 (Eq. (9)) and the identification of propagation distance z with evolution time are additional assumptions. No derivation from the Klein-Gordon or Maxwell equations in Rindler coordinates, no comparison with standard Unruh mode functions, and no check of the composition law for Q are given. Since Eqs. (19), (22), and (26) all follow from this unvalidated propagator, the physical predictions are conditional on an analogy rather than on a quantum field theory in curved spacetime.
  2. [III.B, Eqs. (30)-(35)] The equivalent-acceleration construction is circular. Equation (28) is an identity defining a through a z / c^2 = Lambda(alpha), where Lambda(alpha) is the inverse of the Rindler Wien-shift formula (26). The paper then identifies z with D_L or D_M, but these distances are themselves integrals over the Lambda-CDM expansion history (Eqs. (30)-(31)). Substitution yields Eqs. (33) and (35) as algebraic rearrangements; the curves in Figs. 4 and 5 therefore encode the assumed Lambda-CDM parameters rather than test the Rindler model. In particular, the limit a to c H0 as alpha to 0 follows from D_L approximately c alpha / H0 by construction, not from the Rindler framework.
  3. [III.B.3, Eqs. (36)-(41)] Case 3 is not an independent check of the model. The distance d in Eq. (39) is obtained by combining the relativistic Doppler formula (36) with Hubble's law H0 d = u (Eq. (38)); both relations are standard cosmological inputs, and H0 is assumed. Thus Eq. (41) is again a rearrangement of the assumed distance-redshift relation, and the similarity between Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 cannot be cited as evidence that the model reproduces cosmology without Lambda-CDM input.
  4. [II.B, Eq. (19)] Equation (19) is not a modification of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. It is the product of the separately computed Gaussian dispersions, with (Delta p)^2 = hbar^2 / (2 sigma0^2) unchanged by construction. The standard bound (Delta x)^2 (Delta p)^2 >= hbar^2 / 4 is unaffected; Eq. (19) merely tracks the spreading of a free Gaussian wavepacket. The abstract's claim of acceleration-induced contributions to the traditional Heisenberg position-momentum uncertainty relation therefore overstates what the calculation establishes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II.A, Eq. (1)] The passage from the first line of Eq. (1) to the approximate form drops the factor e^{2a(z2-z1)/c^2} multiplying x2^2 without stating the approximation; this matters because Eq. (3) uses the simplified kernel.
  2. [III.A, Eq. (22)] The one-dimensional mode density dk = 4 / lambda^2 is stated without derivation and with unclear units; the normalization of rho(lambda) should be specified.
  3. [III.A, Eq. (24)] The derivative expression in Eq. (24) is garbled: the second term as printed is not the correct derivative of the first term. The final Lambert-W result is consistent with Wien's law, but the intermediate equation should be corrected.
  4. [III.A, after Eq. (26)] The statement that the bound alpha > -1 guarantees a positive redshift is incorrect; positive redshift requires alpha > 0, while -1 < alpha < 0 corresponds to a blueshift.
  5. [III.B, Eq. (31)] The relation D_L = (1 + alpha) D_M is only valid for a flat universe with negligible radiation; the assumptions should be stated explicitly and the notation should distinguish the Rindler parameter Lambda from the dark-energy density parameter Omega_Lambda.
  6. [IV, Conclusion] The statement that the model predicts accurate estimates of the cosmic acceleration is not supported, because the a to c H0 limit is inherited from the distance definitions in all three cases.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Cosmological 'equivalent acceleration' is defined by fiat z=D_L, D_M, or d, so the dark-energy hint just rewrites the ΛCDM distance-redshift relation; uncertainty and Planck results are not circular.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III.B.1, Eqs. (32)-(33)]
    "Here, we postulate that the light propagation distance in Rindler spacetime is equivalent to the luminosity distance D_L as z=D_L. By coupling with Eq. (30), we derive the equivalent acceleration a in Eq. (28) as ..."

    By definition, Eq. (28) only states az/c^2 = Λ(α). Setting z=D_L, where D_L is defined through Eqs. (30)-(31) as an integral over the ΛCDM expansion history with parameters H0, Ωm, ΩΛ, makes Eq. (33) the identity a(α) = c^2 Λ(α)/D_L(α; H0, Ωm, ΩΛ). The shape of Fig. 4 (finite cH0 at α=0, monotone decay at large α) is dictated by the chosen ΛCDM luminosity distance, not by the Rindler model. The Rindler factor Λ(α) merely reparameterizes the same redshift; no independent distance prescription is derived.

  2. self definitional [Sec. III.B.2, Eqs. (34)-(35)]
    "One also has the liberty of defining equivalent acceleration in terms of comoving distance D_M. Starting from the relation z=D_M. (34) and coupling with Eq. (28), we derive the equivalent acceleration a as ..."

    The comoving distance D_M is itself defined by Eq. (30) from the ΛCDM model. Substituting z=D_M into Eq. (28) gives a(α) = c^2 Λ(α)/D_M(α; H0, Ωm, ΩΛ), so Eq. (35) is a restatement of the input cosmology. The turning points and divergent large-α behavior in Fig. 5 are properties of the ΛCDM integral D_M, not of the Rindler field evolution. The word 'derive' describes a bookkeeping substitution, not a prediction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. III.B.3, Eqs. (39)-(41)]
    "Then we define the light propagation distance in Rindler spacetime in terms of Hubble's Law, which reads z=d. (40) By coupling with Eq. (28), we derive the equivalent acceleration a as ..."

    Here d is constructed from the same redshift α via Eq. (37) (relativistic Doppler) and Eq. (38) H0 d = u. Hence Eq. (41) is again the identity a(α) = c^2 Λ(α)/d(α), with d(α) already fixed by the input redshift α and Hubble's law. The claimed convergence to cH0 and the location of turning points are inherited from the chosen kinematic distance function d(α); the Rindler model adds no constraint. Invoking the relativistic frequency shift does not break the circularity because Eq. (37) is itself used to define d from α.

full rationale

The paper has two separable parts. The uncertainty-relation calculation (Sec. II.B) and the modified Planck distribution (Eq. 22) are not circular: starting from the Collins-kernel/path-integral analogy, the paper evolves a Gaussian wave packet and obtains Eq. (19) by explicit computation, and the Planck form with v' = v(e^{2Λ}-1)/(2Λ) follows from the model's dispersion relation. These results are self-contained against standard free-particle and Planck/Unruh results, though the initial analogy is an asserted premise rather than a derived consequence. The cosmological section is where the derivation reduces to its inputs. Eq. (28) merely inverts the definition α = (e^{2Λ}-1)/(2Λ)-1; no physics is added until z is specified. The paper then postulates z = D_L, z = D_M, and z = d, where all three distances are themselves defined from ΛCDM or from the same redshift α via Hubble's law. Each 'predicted equivalent acceleration' is therefore c^2 Λ(α)/z(α) with z taken from the input cosmology. The conclusion that cosmic acceleration grows at late times and hints at dynamical dark energy is a property of the chosen distance-redshift relations, not of the Rindler model. The paper even concedes that case 1 'can not recover the dynamics of the Universe,' confirming that the three cases are just alternative bookkeeping conventions. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness import occurs; the circularity is definitional, localized to Sec. III.B, so the paper deserves a partial rather than maximal score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No numerical constants are fitted to data in this paper. The plots use illustrative values (T = 6000 K, lambda = 632.8 nm, sigma0 = 0.1 m) that do not enter the functional claims. The load-bearing choices are not numbers but identifications: the Rindler-to-cosmology mapping z = D_L, D_M, or d and the free-particle dispersion relation. These are recorded as axioms and invented entities rather than as free parameters.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Collins diffraction formula, Eq. (1), describes paraxial light propagation in Rindler spacetime and yields the propagator Eq. (3).
    The paper cites Ding and Wang [36] for the formula but does not derive it from Rindler quantum field theory; the path-integral analogy is asserted based on formal resemblance of kernels.
  • ad hoc to paper The optical field in Rindler spacetime can be treated as a free-particle wavefunction with dispersion relation omega' = v' k / 2 (Eq. 9).
    The dispersion relation follows from identifying classical action with S_cl and setting v' = v_x; it is a modeling choice, not derived from field quantization in Rindler space.
  • domain assumption The Rindler-transformed radiation obeys a Bose-Einstein distribution with one-dimensional mode density dk = 4/lambda^2 (Eq. 22).
    The Planck form is assumed for the accelerated-frame field; no derivation of thermality from the Rindler vacuum is given beyond an appeal to the Unruh effect.
  • ad hoc to paper The Rindler redshift alpha = (e^{2Lambda}-1)/(2Lambda)-1 can be identified with the cosmological redshift, and the propagation distance z can be set equal to D_L, D_M, or d (Eqs. 32, 34, 40).
    This equivalence is postulated to connect Rindler and FLRW descriptions; the derived 'equivalent acceleration' is therefore a function of the input Lambda-CDM distance-redshift relation.
  • domain assumption The FLRW/Lambda-CDM comoving distance, luminosity distance, and Hubble law formulas (Eqs. 30, 31, 38) are adopted as inputs.
    Standard cosmology inputs are used without modification; the model does not provide independent evidence for them.
  • standard math The Lambert W function branches used in Eqs. (25) and (27) give real solutions for the stated ranges.
    Standard special-function properties; not derived in the paper, but not controversial.
invented entities (1)
  • Equivalent cosmic acceleration a
    purpose: Maps Rindler redshift onto Lambda-CDM redshift to reinterpret cosmic expansion as observer acceleration.
    The acceleration is constructed by equating Eq. (26) with the cosmological redshift and choosing a distance identification; it has no independent observable beyond the input distance-redshift relation and changes with the choice of z.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum light and radiation in Rindler spacetime: from uncertainty relations to the cosmological implications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HQYAERNQ

@misc{pith2026250602417,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum light and radiation in Rindler spacetime: from uncertainty relations to the cosmological implications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HQYAERNQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02417}
}
read the original abstract

Based on an analogy between diffraction integral formalism of classical field propagation and Feynman path integral approach to quantum field theory, we develop a quantum model for light and radiation in Rindler spacetime. The framework helps to reveal acceleration-induced contributions to the traditional Heisenberg position-momentum uncertainty relation. A modified Planck energy density distribution of radiation is established and reveals equivalence between temperature and Rindler acceleration as advocated by standard Unruh and anti-Unruh effects. Later, by defining an equivalent acceleration, we investigate some cosmological implications of the model with regards to redshift and expansion of the Universe. In this context, we contend that the accelerated expansion of the Universe, in addition to possessing some well-defined limits corresponding to early and local Universe epochs, may also hint towards dynamical nature of dark energy. The findings provide glimpse into future table-top experiments aimed at emulating gravitational and other cosmological phenomena in terrestrial lab setups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02417 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Changes of the momentum-position uncertainty rela [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Spectral energy density distributions as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. reveals that the redshift α and parameter Λ exhibit FIG. 3. The dependence of the redshift α on the parameter Λ. The dashed line indicates the boundary condition, when α = −1 . a single-valued, exponential relationship, with α always satisfying α > −1 and passing through the origin (Λ = 0, α = 0). Furthermore, the inverse function of Eq. (26) allows solving for Λ as a function of α, Λ(α) = − 1 1+α + W  −1, − e −1/(… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Relationship between redshift and equivalent acceler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Relationship between redshift and equivalent acceler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Relationship between redshift and equivalent acceler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (30), we derive the equivalent ac- celerationain Eq

    Acceleration predicted from the luminosity distance Here, we postulate that the light propagation distance in Rindler spacetime is equivalent to the luminosity dis- tanceD L as z=D L.(32) By coupling with Eq. (30), we derive the equivalent ac- celerationain Eq. (28) as a cH0 =− 1 1+α +W −1,− e−1/(α+1) α+1 2(1 +α) R α 0 dα′/ p Ωm(1 +α ′)3 + ΩΛ .(33) FIG. 4...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Starting from the relation z=D M .(34) and coupling with Eq

    Acceleration predicted from the comoving distance One also has the liberty of defining equivalent acceler- ation in terms of comoving distanceD M . Starting from the relation z=D M .(34) and coupling with Eq. (28), we derive the equivalent ac- celerationaas a cH0 =− 1 1+α +W −1,− e−1/(α+1) α+1 2 R α 0 dα′/ p Ωm(1 +α ′)3 + ΩΛ ,(35) helping us to alternativ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Acceleration predicted from the relativistic redshift In this case, we begin with the relativistic frequency shift, ν2 R ν2 F = c−u c+u ,(36) whereν R represents the frequency of observer in Rindler spacetime,ν F in flat spacetime, anducorresponds to the instantaneous velocity of observer in Rindler spacetime at instantaneous time. By applying the relatio...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Hollands and R

    S. Hollands and R. M. Wald, Quantum fields in curved spacetime, Physics Reports574, 1 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Extended theories of gravity, Physics Reports509, 167 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Bekenstein, R

    R. Bekenstein, R. Schley, M. Mutzafi,et al., Opti- cal simulations of gravitational effects in the newton– schr¨ odinger system, Nature Physics11, 872 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Batz and U

    S. Batz and U. Peschel, Linear and nonlinear optics in curved space, Physical Review A78, 043821 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Barcel´ o, S

    C. Barcel´ o, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, Analogue gravity, Living Reviews in Relativity14, 3 (2011)

    2011

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Xu and L.-G

    C. Xu and L.-G. Wang, Theory of light propagation in arbitrary two-dimensional curved space, Photonics Re- search9, 2486 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Zhang, C

    J. Zhang, C. Xu, P. Sebbah, and L.-G. Wang, Diffraction limit of light in curved space, Photonics Research12, 235 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Ding and Z

    W. Ding and Z. Wang, The hollow gaussian beam propa- gation on curved surface based on matrix optics method, Journal of Optics23, 095603 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  5. [13]

    Rindler, Kruskal space and the uniformly accelerated frame, American Journal of Physics34, 1174 (1966)

    W. Rindler, Kruskal space and the uniformly accelerated frame, American Journal of Physics34, 1174 (1966)

    1966

  6. [14]

    W. G. Unruh, Notes on black-hole evaporation, Physical Review D14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  7. [15]

    W. G. Unruh and R. M. Wald, What happens when an accelerating observer detects a rindler particle, Physical Review D29, 1047 (1984)

    1984

  8. [16]

    U. H. Gerlach, The mechanism of blackbody radiation from an incipient black hole, Physical Review D14, 1479 (1976)

    1976

  9. [17]

    Parker, Particle creation in expanding universes, Phys- ical Review Letters21, 562 (1968)

    L. Parker, Particle creation in expanding universes, Phys- ical Review Letters21, 562 (1968)

    1968

  10. [18]

    Parker, Quantized fields and particle creation in ex- panding universes

    L. Parker, Quantized fields and particle creation in ex- panding universes. i, Physical Review183, 1057 (1969)

    1969

  11. [19]

    Parker, Quantized fields and particle creation in ex- panding universes

    L. Parker, Quantized fields and particle creation in ex- panding universes. ii, Physical Review D3, 346 (1971)

    1971

  12. [20]

    S. A. Fulling and P. C. W. Davies, Radiation from a moving mirror in two dimensional space-time: Conformal anomaly, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences348, 393 (1976)

    1976

  13. [21]

    I. Akal, Y. Kusuki, N. Shiba,et al., Entanglement en- tropy in a holographic moving mirror and the page curve, Physical Review Letters126, 061604 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    M. P. E. Lock and I. Fuentes, Dynamical casimir effect in curved spacetime, New Journal of Physics19, 073005 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Bambi, Testing black hole candidates with electromag- netic radiation, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 025001 (2017)

    C. Bambi, Testing black hole candidates with electromag- netic radiation, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 025001 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    M. O. Scully, S. Fulling, D. M. Lee,et al., Quantum op- tics approach to radiation from atoms falling into a black hole, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 8131 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    S. M. Carroll,Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduc- tion to General Relativity(Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Bekenstein, Y

    R. Bekenstein, Y. Kabessa, Y. Sharabi,et al., Control of light by curved space in nanophotonic structures, Nature Photonics11, 664 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    J. Zhu, Y. Liu, Z. Liang, T. Chen, and J. Li, Elastic waves in curved space: Mimicking a wormhole, Physical Review Letters121, 234301 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Sheng, H

    C. Sheng, H. Liu, Y. Wang, S. N. Zhu, and D. A. Genov, Trapping light by mimicking gravitational lensing, Na- ture Photonics7, 902 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    W. Xiao, S. Tao, and H. Chen, Mimicking the gravita- tional effect with gradient index lenses in geometrical op- tics, Photonics Research9, 1197 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Faccio, F

    D. Faccio, F. Belgiorno, S. Cacciatori,et al.,Ana- logue Gravity Phenomenology: Analogue Spacetimes and Horizons, from Theory to Experiment, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 870 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    J. R. Mu˜ noz De Nova, K. Golubkov, V. I. Kolobov,et al., Observation of thermal hawking radiation and its tem- perature in an analogue black hole, Nature569, 688 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Wave function of the universe, Physical Review D28, 2960 (1983)

    1983

  25. [33]

    R¨ atzel, F

    D. R¨ atzel, F. Schneiter, D. Braun,et al., Frequency spec- trum of an optical resonator in a curved spacetime, New Journal of Physics20, 053046 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Adesso, I

    G. Adesso, I. Fuentes-Schuller, and M. Ericsson, Continuous-variable entanglement sharing in noniner- tial frames, Physical Review A76, 10.1103/Phys- RevA.76.062112 (2007)

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    S. P. Kish and T. C. Ralph, Estimating spacetime pa- rameters with a quantum probe in a lossy environment, Physical Review D93, 105013 (2016). 11

    2016

  28. [36]

    Bornman, A

    N. Bornman, A. Kempf, and A. Forbes, Quantum imag- ing using relativistic detectors, Physical Review D100, 125004 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    S. P. Kish and T. C. Ralph, Quantum effects in rotat- ing reference frames, A VS Quantum Science4, 011401 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Ding and Z

    W. Ding and Z. Wang, ‘classical’ coherent state generated by curved surface, New Journal of Physics24, 113002 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Ding and Z

    W. Ding and Z. Wang, Laser propagation in a rindler ac- celerated reference frame based on matrix optics, Optics Express29, 28631 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Feynman, A

    R. Feynman, A. Hibbs, and D. Styer,Quantum Mechan- ics and Path Integrals, Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications, 2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Abdalla, G

    E. Abdalla, G. F. Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim,et al., Cos- mology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmo- logical tensions and anomalies, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics34, 49 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Bergstr¨ om and A

    L. Bergstr¨ om and A. Goobar,Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics, Springer Praxis Books (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Young, A survey of dark matter and related topics in cosmology, Frontiers of Physics12, 121201 (2017)

    B.-L. Young, A survey of dark matter and related topics in cosmology, Frontiers of Physics12, 121201 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    R. P. Feynman, Space-time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics20, 367 (1948)

    1948

  37. [45]

    J. Hu, L. Feng, Z. Zhang,et al., Quantum simulation of unruh radiation, Nature Physics15, 785 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    L. A. Hall, M. Yessenov, and A. F. Abouraddy, Arbitrar- ily accelerating space-time wave packets, Optics Letters 47, 694 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    S. M. Blinder, Evolution of a gaussian wavepacket, Amer- ican Journal of Physics36, 525 (1968)

    1968

  40. [48]

    F. Wang, D. Liu, and L.-G. Wang, Propagation of airy beams in uniformly accelerated space, Optics Communi- cations537, 129445 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Brenna, R

    W. Brenna, R. B. Mann, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Anti- unruh phenomena, Physics Letters B757, 307 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Wien, Ueber die energievertheilung im emissionsspec- trum eines schwarzen k¨ orpers, Annalen der Physik294, 662 (1896)

    W. Wien, Ueber die energievertheilung im emissionsspec- trum eines schwarzen k¨ orpers, Annalen der Physik294, 662 (1896)

  43. [51]

    P. J. E. Peebles, J. H. Laboratories, and B. Ratra, The cosmological constant and dark energy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559 (2003)

    2003 doi

  44. [52]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis,et al., Ob- servational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, The Astronomical Journal116, 1009 (1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber,et al., Mea- surements ofΩand Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae, The Astrophysical Journal517, 565 (1999)

    1999

  46. [54]

    Peebles,Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton Series in Physics (Princeton University Press, 2020)

    P. Peebles,Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton Series in Physics (Princeton University Press, 2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Cosmological event horizons, thermodynamics, and particle creation, Physi- cal Review D15, 2738 (1977)

    1977

  48. [56]

    Hubble, A Relation between Distance and Radial Ve- locity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science15, 168 (1929)

    E. Hubble, A Relation between Distance and Radial Ve- locity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science15, 168 (1929)

    1929

  49. [57]

    E. J. COPELAND, M. SAMI, and S. TSUJIKA W A, Dy- namics of dark energy, International Journal of Modern Physics D15, 1753 (2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    G.-B. Zhao, M. Raveri, L. Pogosian,et al., Dynamical dark energy in light of the latest observations, Nature Astronomy1, 627 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.