pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.16217 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-18 · 🌀 gr-qc · hep-th

Back-action from inertial and non-inertial Unruh-DeWitt detectors revisited in covariant perturbation theory

Adam S. Wilkinson , Leo J. A. Parry , Jorma Louko , William G. Unruh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 21:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc hep-th
keywords Unruh-DeWitt detectorback-actionstress-energy tensorUnruh effectRindler horizonnegative energy densitycovariant perturbation theoryMinkowski spacetime
0
0 comments X

The pith

The energy flux from the field's stress-energy tensor exactly balances the energy transitions of Unruh-DeWitt detectors for both inertial and accelerated motion.

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

This paper computes the back-action on a quantum scalar field from a pointlike Unruh-DeWitt detector by evaluating the expectation value of the field's renormalized stress-energy tensor in second-order perturbation theory. The calculation uses covariant curved-spacetime techniques that control the interaction's localization in time and space without mode decompositions or particle-counting procedures. For a two-level detector prepared in an energy eigenstate and interacting with a massless scalar field in Minkowski spacetime, the back-action splits into deterministic and fluctuating parts that mirror the detector's two-point function. Explicit results for inertial trajectories show only outward flux tied to de-excitations, while uniformly accelerated trajectories yield both inward and outward fluxes that precisely match the detector's energy gains and losses due to the Unruh effect. Ground-state accelerated detectors additionally produce two localized regions of negative energy density, one near the Rindler horizon and one in the far future.

Core claim

The central claim is that the renormalized expectation value of the field's stress-energy tensor around an inertial or uniformly accelerated Unruh-DeWitt detector yields energy fluxes that exactly compensate the detector's internal energy changes arising from its interactions with vacuum fluctuations. This exact accounting holds without conditioning on measurement outcomes and applies to detectors switched on in the asymptotic past, with the fluctuating part of the detector's correlations fully determining the back-action for an energy-eigenstate preparation.

What carries the argument

The manifestly causal two-point function of the detector-field system obtained in second-order covariant perturbation theory, from which the expectation value of the stress-energy tensor is constructed.

Load-bearing premise

The field begins in a zero-mean Gaussian Hadamard state and the detector-field interaction is treated perturbatively only to second order without any conditioning on detector measurement outcomes.

What would settle it

A numerical or analytic evaluation of the integrated energy flux from the stress-energy tensor that fails to equal the detector's energy change for a specific uniformly accelerated trajectory switched on in the past would falsify the exact balance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.16217 by Adam S. Wilkinson, Jorma Louko, Leo J. A. Parry, William G. Unruh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A spacetime diagram showing the detector’s trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The energy flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A spacetime diagram of the Rindler trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows a plot of ξ −1 ⟨Tηb⟩ (2) in the plane y = 0 as a function of aξ and ax, evaluated from formula (F.30) in Appendix F, which generalises the near-trajectory formula (VI.16) to general (Xξ, Xx, Xy). By the rotational sym￾metry in the transverse directions (x, y), the choice of the plane y = 0 has no loss of generality. As seen from (F.30), the E-dependence of ξ −1 ⟨Tηb⟩ (2) is again in the multiplica￾ti… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows a plot of ⟨Tσσ⟩ (2) (VI.9a) as a function of aσ and E/a. This is the energy density seen by the Milne observers. At the Milne infinity aσ → ∞, in the far future, the leading term in the falloff of ⟨Tσσ⟩ (2) consists of terms proportional to σ −6 and to the real and imaginary parts of σ −6 (aσ) 2iE/a, with E-dependent coefficients, as can be 0 2 4 aσ −5 0 5 E/a −10−1 −10−4 −10−7 0 10−7 10−4 10−1 FIG. … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Spacetime plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the back-action from a spatially pointlike particle detector on a quantum scalar field, as characterised by the expectation value of the field's stress-energy tensor, without conditioning on a measurement of the detector. First, assuming the field to be initially in a zero-mean Gaussian Hadamard state in a globally hyperbolic spacetime, we evaluate the field's two-point function in second-order perturbation theory by techniques of covariant curved spacetime quantum field theory, which allow a full control of the time and space localisation of the interaction, and do not rely on field mode decompositions or non-local particle countings. The detector's two-point function splits into a deterministic and a fluctuating part, and we show that this split is maintained in the back-action. We then specialise to a two-level Unruh-DeWitt detector, prepared in an energy eigenstate, for which the back-action is fully fluctuating. We compute the renormalised stress-energy tensor for a massless scalar field in $(3+1)$-dimensional Minkowski spacetime for a general detector trajectory, using the manifestly causal two-point function. We present explicit analytic and numerical results for an inertial detector and a uniformly linearly accelerated detector, switched on in the asymptotic past. The energy flux into and out of the accelerated detector accounts exactly for the energy gained and lost by the detector in its transitions due to the Unruh effect. The same holds for the outward flux associated with de-excitations of the inertial detector, which has a vanishing excitation rate and no inward flux. A novelty with the accelerated detector is two regions of negative energy density when the detector is initially prepared in its ground state, one near the Rindler horizon that bounds the causal future of the trajectory, the other in the far future of the trajectory.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper computes the back-action of a pointlike Unruh-DeWitt detector on a quantum scalar field via the renormalized expectation value of the stress-energy tensor, using second-order covariant perturbation theory in globally hyperbolic spacetimes. The field's two-point function is constructed manifestly causally from a zero-mean Gaussian Hadamard state without mode expansions. For a two-level detector in Minkowski space, the back-action is shown to be fully fluctuating when the detector starts in an energy eigenstate. Explicit analytic and numerical results for inertial and uniformly accelerated trajectories (switched on in the asymptotic past) demonstrate that the integrated energy fluxes into/out of the detector exactly equal the net energy change from Unruh-induced transitions. A new feature is the appearance of two regions of negative energy density for an accelerated detector prepared in its ground state.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a consistent, mode-independent verification that energy is conserved between the detector and the field in the Unruh setting, obtained from a manifestly causal two-point function and standard Hadamard renormalization. The exact flux-transition balance constitutes a non-trivial internal check of the perturbative framework. The reported negative-energy-density regions constitute a concrete, falsifiable prediction that can be tested in future calculations with different switching functions or trajectories. The approach avoids non-local particle interpretations and is therefore directly extensible to curved spacetimes.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4.3] §4.3, around Eq. (35): the exact equality between the integrated flux and the detector energy change is demonstrated numerically for the specific asymptotic-past switching; an analytic identity showing that the equality holds for arbitrary compactly supported switching functions would make the claim independent of the particular regularization of the interaction.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'manifestly causal two-point function' is used without a one-sentence definition; a brief parenthetical reference to the point-splitting construction employed would aid readers unfamiliar with the covariant formalism.
  2. [Figures 2 and 4] Figure 2 (inertial case) and Figure 4 (accelerated case): the color scale for the renormalized energy density does not indicate the location of the Rindler horizon or the light-cone boundaries; adding these reference lines would clarify the spatial support of the negative-energy regions.
  3. [§2.1] §2.1: the notation for the detector-field coupling constant and the switching function is introduced without an explicit statement of their dimensions; a short remark on units would prevent confusion when comparing to other Unruh-DeWitt literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment and constructive suggestion. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.3] §4.3, around Eq. (35): the exact equality between the integrated flux and the detector energy change is demonstrated numerically for the specific asymptotic-past switching; an analytic identity showing that the equality holds for arbitrary compactly supported switching functions would make the claim independent of the particular regularization of the interaction.

    Authors: We agree that the numerical verification is performed for the standard asymptotic-past switching, which is chosen to suppress transient effects. The equality itself follows directly from the structure of the second-order two-point function constructed via covariant perturbation theory and the definition of the renormalized stress-energy tensor; this construction is causal and does not rely on mode expansions. While an explicit analytic identity valid for arbitrary compactly supported switching would indeed strengthen independence from regularization details, obtaining it requires a more general analysis of the time-ordered products that lies outside the present scope. In the revised manuscript we will insert a short clarifying paragraph in §4.3 that explains the origin of the equality within our framework and states that the numerical check for the conventional switching constitutes a non-trivial internal consistency test. This constitutes a partial revision. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper computes the field's two-point function via standard second-order covariant perturbation theory in a Hadamard state, using manifestly causal techniques that do not rely on mode decompositions or particle counting. The renormalised stress-energy tensor is obtained by subtracting the vacuum contribution, and the energy-flux accounting for detector transitions follows as an explicit verification from the resulting expressions for inertial and accelerated trajectories. No parameters are fitted to the target fluxes, no self-definitional loops appear in the split into deterministic/fluctuating parts, and the Unruh effect enters only as an external benchmark rather than a load-bearing self-citation. The central claims therefore reduce to the perturbative expansion and the known two-point function structure, without circular reduction to the paper's own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of quantum field theory in curved spacetime and second-order perturbation theory; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond the conventional Unruh-DeWitt coupling.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Field initially in a zero-mean Gaussian Hadamard state in a globally hyperbolic spacetime
    Invoked to evaluate the field's two-point function in second-order perturbation theory.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5634 in / 1439 out tokens · 49783 ms · 2026-05-16T21:49:02.838690+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Relativistic single-electron wavepacket in quantum electromagnetic fields II: Quantum radiation emitted by a uniformly accelerated electron

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Quantum radiation from a single-electron wavepacket at rest vanishes exactly, while for a uniformly accelerated electron the radiated power shows secular growth in the long-time regime with a classical interpretation,...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 120 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    This is the energy density seen by the observers on the uniformly accelerated worldlines of constantξ

    Energy density Figure 5 shows a plot ofξ−2 ⟨Tηη ⟩(2) as a function of aξ and E/a, evaluated from(VI.6a). This is the energy density seen by the observers on the uniformly accelerated worldlines of constantξ. 15 0 1 2 aξ −4 −2 0 2 4 E/a −100 −10−2 0 10−2 100 102 104 FIG. 5. a−4ξ−2 ⟨Tηη ⟩(2) as a function ofaξ and E/a, obtained from (VI.6a). At the detector...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The energy flux in the direction of increasingξ seen by an observer at constant ξ is equal to−ξ−1 ⟨Tηξ⟩(2) (cf

    Energy flux Figure 6 shows a plot ofξ−1 ⟨Tηξ⟩(2), in the plane of the detector’s wordline, evaluated from(VI.6b). The energy flux in the direction of increasingξ seen by an observer at constant ξ is equal to−ξ−1 ⟨Tηξ⟩(2) (cf. the discussion in Section VC for the inertial detector trajectory). For de-excitations, E < 0, the direction of the flux is away fr...

    work page

  3. [3]

    This is the energy density seen by the Milne observers

    Energy density Figure 8 shows a plot of⟨Tσσ ⟩(2) (VI.9a) as a function of aσ and E/a. This is the energy density seen by the Milne observers. At the Milne infinityaσ→ ∞ , in the far future, the leading term in the falloff of⟨Tσσ ⟩(2) consists of terms proportional to σ−6 and to the real and imaginary parts of σ−6(aσ)2iE/a, with E-dependent coefficients, a...

    work page

  4. [4]

    This region of negative energy density for largeσ and E is visible in Figure 8, including the asymptotic behaviour where the zero-crossing approaches aσ = √ 3 for large positive E. While this region of negative energy density is not com- pact, the σ−6 suppression in the coefficient of1 /E in (VI.19) indicates that the energy density does not take large ne...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The energy flux in the direction of in- creasing ρ seen by an observer at constantρ is equal to −σ−1 ⟨Tσρ⟩(2)

    Energy flux Figure 9 shows a plot of σ−1 ⟨Tσρ⟩(2), evaluated from (VI.9b). The energy flux in the direction of in- creasing ρ seen by an observer at constantρ is equal to −σ−1 ⟨Tσρ⟩(2). For de-excitation gaps the flux is left-moving, away from the detector, and for excitation gaps the flux is right-moving, towards the detector. This is consistent with the...

    work page

  6. [6]

    10 shows spacetime plots of the Minkowski energy density⟨T tt⟩(2) (VI.2a), for selected values ofE/a

    Energy density Fig. 10 shows spacetime plots of the Minkowski energy density⟨T tt⟩(2) (VI.2a), for selected values ofE/a. Close to the detector’s worldline,⟨Ttt⟩(2) is asymptotic to ⟨Ttt⟩(2) ∼ a2 v2 +u 2 64π2√−uv−a −1 4 ,(VI.21) where we recall that the detector’s worldline is atuv = −a−2 with u < 0and v > 0, we have used 3.911.2 in [96] in the first inte...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The energy flux in the direction of increasingzas seen by a static Minkowski observer is − ⟨Ttz⟩(2)

    Energy flux Figure 11 shows spacetime plots of⟨Ttz⟩(2) (VI.2b), for selected values ofE/a. The energy flux in the direction of increasingzas seen by a static Minkowski observer is − ⟨Ttz⟩(2). A striking feature in Figure 11 is the qualitative dif- −4 −2 0 2 4 at E/a = −3 E/a = 3 −4 −2 0 2 4 at E/a = −1 E/a = 1 −2.5 0.0 2.5 az −4 −2 0 2 4 at E/a = −0.1 −2....

    work page

  8. [8]

    shows that the second term isO(η−1)as η→ ∞ . The change of variablesv = κ(η)ω puts the third term in the form 1 π2 κ(η)|E| Z κ(η)|E| 0 dv 1−cosv v2 bψ v κ(η) 2 = 1 π2 κ(η)|E| Z ∞ 0 dv 1−cosv v2 bψ v κ(η) 2 − 1 π2 κ(η)|E| Z ∞ κ(η)|E| dv 1−cosv v2 bψ v κ(η) 2 . (A.13) The large argument behaviour ofbψ then implies that as η→ ∞ , the first term in(A.13)∼ τp|...

    work page

  9. [9]

    (B.3) If the detector is nondegenerate, E̸ = 0, linear in- dependence of the set {e±iE(τ+τ ′), e±iE(τ−τ ′)} implies that Cov(σ−, σ−) = Cov(σ−, σ+) = Cov(σ+, σ−) = Cov(σ+, σ+) = 0

    UDW detector For the UDW detector, in the notation of Section IIIB, (B.2) gives e−iE(τ+τ ′) Cov(σ−, σ−) + e−iE(τ−τ ′) Cov(σ−, σ+) + eiE(τ−τ ′) Cov(σ+, σ−) + eiE(τ+τ ′) Cov(σ+, σ+) = 0. (B.3) If the detector is nondegenerate, E̸ = 0, linear in- dependence of the set {e±iE(τ+τ ′), e±iE(τ−τ ′)} implies that Cov(σ−, σ−) = Cov(σ−, σ+) = Cov(σ+, σ−) = Cov(σ+, σ...

    work page

  10. [10]

    However, we also have Cov(a, a†)−Cov(a †, a) =⟨[a, a †]⟩= 1,(B.6) using[ a, a†] = 1D

    HO detector For the HO detector, in the notation of Section IIIC, (B.2) gives e−iΩ(τ+τ ′) Cov(a, a) + e−iΩ(τ−τ ′) Cov(a, a†) + eiΩ(τ−τ ′) Cov(a†, a) + eiΩ(τ+τ ′) Cov(a†, a†) = 0, (B.5) AsΩ > 0by assumption, the set {e±iΩ(τ+τ ′), e±iΩ(τ−τ ′)} islinearlyindependent, and (B.5)impliesthat Cov(a, a) = Cov(a, a†) = Cov(a†, a) = Cov(a†, a†) = 0. However, we also...

    work page

  11. [11]

    Split ofI µν From (IV.11) we recall that ⟨ϕ(x)ϕ(x′)⟩(2) = Im χ(τ−)eiEτ− 4π3f ′(τ−;x) − Z τ− −∞ dτ χ(τ)e −iEτ f(τ;x ′) +iπ χ(τ ′ −)e−iEτ ′ − f ′(τ ′ −;x ′) Θ(τ− −τ ′ −) + (x↔x ′), (C.1) wherexandx ′ are timelike separated and sufficiently close to each other.− R denotes the Cauchy principal value integral in the integral term in which the denominator has a...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Evaluation ofC µν In Cµν (C.3a), evaluating the derivatives and taking the coincidence limit gives Cµν(x,x) =πE 2∂µτ−∂ντ− χ(τ−)2 f ′(τ−;x) 2 +π∂ µ χ(τ−) f ′(τ−;x) ∂ν χ(τ−) f ′(τ−;x) ,(C.4) where we have used that the terms linear inE vanish on taking the real part. To eliminate the derivatives ofτ−, we recall that the equation definingτ− as a function ofx...

    work page

  13. [13]

    Evaluation ofS µν We now turn toSµν (C.3b). In the explicitly displayed term in(C.3b), the contribution from∂µ acting on the τ− at the upper limit of the integral vanishes, on taking the imaginary part, and similarly in the(x↔ x′)term when the primed derivative acts on theτ ′ − at the upper limit of the integral. We can therefore write Sµν(x,x ′) = Im ∂µ ...

    work page

  14. [14]

    Result forI µν Combining (C.9), (C.14), (C.16) and (C.27), the final expression forI µν (IV.12) is Iµν = 1 4π3f ′(τ−) " −E∂τ αµ(τ)α ν(τ) f ′(τ) τ=τ − +π E2αµ(τ−)αν(τ−) +α ′ µ(τ−)α′ ν(τ−) f ′(τ−) −2 Z τ− −∞ dτ E2 sin(E(τ−τ −)) f(τ) α(µ(τ−)αν)(τ) +Ecos(E(τ−τ −)) α′ (µ(τ−)αν)(τ)−α ′ (µ(τ)α ν)(τ−) f(τ) + sin(E(τ−τ −)) f(τ) α′ (µ(τ−)α′ ν)(τ) # ,(C.28) where th...

    work page

  15. [15]

    We make the technical assumption thatf(τ)is defined for −∞< τ≤τ −, that is, the trajectory is defined at ar- bitrarily negative proper times in the past

    Alternative expression forI µν We shall give forIµν (C.28) an alternative expression that will be convenient for handling the Rindler trajectory detector in Appendix F. We make the technical assumption thatf(τ)is defined for −∞< τ≤τ −, that is, the trajectory is defined at ar- bitrarily negative proper times in the past. Recalling that f(τ−) = 0, f ′(τ) >...

    work page

  16. [16]

    Null coordinates Recall that in the Minkowski coordinates(t, x, y, z)the Rindler trajectory (VI.1) is given by Z(τ) = 1 a sinh(aτ),0,0, 1 a cosh(aτ) ,(F.1) where the positive constanta is the proper acceleration. In terms of the null coordinatesu = t−z and v = t + z, the squared geodesic distance (IV.6) is f(τ;x) =ua −1eaτ −va −1e−aτ −uv+x 2 +y 2 +a −2, (...

    work page

  17. [17]

    π+ 2a Z τ− −∞ dτ sin(E(τ−τ −)) e−a(τ−τ −) −1 + 2aUeaτ− Z τ− −∞ dτ sin(E(τ−τ −)) Ve −aτ +Ue aτ− # = 1 4π3 ˜f ′2

    Simplifying⟨T µν ⟩(2) In the expression(C.37) for Iµν, the key simplification for the Rindler trajectory is the identity ˜α′ µ −f ′(τ)β µ(τ) f(τ) =a U˜αµ −A µ ˜f ′ ∂τ 2eaτ− Ve −aτ +Ue aτ− , (F.7) where At = V−U 2V , A z =− V+U 2V , A x =A y = 0,(F.8) which can be verified by a direct calculation, using K=−Ue aτ− +Ve −aτ− .(F.9) In the cosine term in (C.37...

    work page

  18. [18]

    S. A. Fulling, Phys. Rev. D7, 2850 (1973)

    work page 1973

  19. [19]

    P. C. W. Davies, J. Phys. A8, 609 (1975)

    work page 1975

  20. [20]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976)

    work page 1976

  21. [21]

    B. S. DeWitt, inGeneral Relativity: an Einstein cen- tenary survey, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979)

    work page 1979

  22. [22]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1982)

    work page 1982

  23. [23]

    L. C. B. Crispino, A. Higuchi, and G. E. A. Matsas, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 787 (2008)

    work page 2008

  24. [24]

    S. A. Fulling and G. E. A. Matsas, Scholarpedia9, 31789 (2014), revision #143950

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    J. R. Letaw, Phys. Rev. D23, 1709 (1981)

    work page 1981

  26. [26]

    M. Good, B. A. Juárez-Aubry, D. Moustos, and M. Temirkhan, JHEP (06), 059, arXiv:2004.08225 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Biermann, S

    S. Biermann, S. Erne, C. Gooding, J. Louko, J. Schmied- mayer, W. G. Unruh, and S. Weinfurtner, Phys. Rev. D 102, 085006 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    L. J. A. Parry and J. Louko, Phys. Rev. D111, 025012 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975), [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    work page 1975

  30. [30]

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D13, 2188 (1976)

    work page 1976

  31. [31]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D15, 2738 (1977)

    work page 1977

  32. [32]

    Yu, Phys

    H. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 061101 (2011)

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    L. H. Ford and C. Pathinayake, Phys. Rev. D39, 3642 (1989)

    work page 1989

  34. [34]

    L. J. Garay, M. Martín-Benito, and E. Martín-Martínez, Phys. Rev. D89, 043510 (2014)

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    R. H. Jonsson, E. Martin-Martinez, and A. Kempf, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 110505 (2015)

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Toussaint and J

    V. Toussaint and J. Louko, Phys. Rev. D103, 105011 (2021)

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Toussaint and J

    V. Toussaint and J. Louko, Phys. Rev. D109, 025007 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    A. S. Wilkinson and J. Louko, Phys. Rev. D111, 025008 (2025)

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Valentini, Phys

    A. Valentini, Phys. Lett. A153, 321 (1991)

    work page 1991

  40. [40]

    Reznik, Found

    B. Reznik, Found. Phys.33, 167 (2003)

    work page 2003

  41. [41]

    Reznik, A

    B. Reznik, A. Retzker, and J. Silman, Phys. Rev. A71, 042104 (2005)

    work page 2005

  42. [42]

    Pozas-Kerstjens and E

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens and E. Martín-Martínez, Phys. Rev. D92, 064042 (2015)

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    J. Foo, C. S. Arabaci, M. Zych, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 181301 (2022)

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    J. Foo, C. S. Arabaci, M. Zych, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D107, 045014 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    L. Goel, E. A. Patterson, M. R. Preciado-Rivas, M. Tora- bian, R. B. Mann, and N. Afshordi, Phys. Rev. D111, 025015 (2025)

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    L. C. Barbado, E. Castro-Ruiz, L. Apadula, and Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. D102, 045002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    J. Foo, S. Onoe, and M. Zych, Phys. Rev. D102, 085013 (2020)

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    Giacomini and A

    F. Giacomini and A. Kempf, Phys. Rev. D105, 125001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

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

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Polo-Gómez, L

    J. Polo-Gómez, L. J. Garay, and E. Martín-Martínez, Phys. Rev. D105, 065003 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Polo-Gómez, T

    J. Polo-Gómez, T. R. Perche, and E. Martín-Martínez, State updates and useful qubits in relativistic quantum information (2025), arXiv:2506.18906 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    J. J. Bisognano and E. H. Wichmann, J. Math. Phys. 16, 985 (1975)

    work page 1975

  53. [53]

    J. J. Bisognano and E. H. Wichmann, J. Math. Phys. 17, 303 (1976)

    work page 1976

  54. [54]

    G. L. Sewell, Physics Letters A79, 23 (1980)

    work page 1980

  55. [55]

    G. L. Sewell, Annals Phys.141, 201 (1982)

    work page 1982

  56. [56]

    De Biévre and M

    S. De Biévre and M. Merkli, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 6525 (2006)

    work page 2006

  57. [57]

    W. G. Unruh and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D29, 1047 (1984)

    work page 1984

  58. [58]

    P. G. Grove, Class. Quant. Grav.3, 801 (1986)

    work page 1986

  59. [59]

    Kolbenstvedt, Phys

    H. Kolbenstvedt, Phys. Rev. D38, 1118 (1988)

    work page 1988

  60. [60]

    D. J. Raine, D. W. Sciama, and P. G. Grove, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A435, 205 (1991)

    work page 1991

  61. [61]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D46, 3271 (1992)

    work page 1992

  62. [62]

    Massar, R

    S. Massar, R. Parentani, and R. Brout, Class. Quant. Grav.10, 385 (1993)

    work page 1993

  63. [63]

    Audretsch and R

    J. Audretsch and R. Müller, Phys. Rev. D49, 6566 (1994)

    work page 1994

  64. [64]

    Lin and B

    S.-Y. Lin and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D73, 124018 (2006)

    work page 2006

  65. [65]

    On "the'' electric field of a uniformly accelerating charge

    D. Garfinkle, On “the” electric field of a uniformly accel- erating charge (2019), arXiv:1901.04486 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    Lin and B

    S.-Y. Lin and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D76, 064008 (2007)

    work page 2007

  67. [67]

    Benatti and R

    F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, Phys. Rev. A70, 012112 (2004)

    work page 2004

  68. [68]

    G. W. Ford and R. F. O’Connell, Phys. Lett. A350, 17 (2006)

    work page 2006

  69. [69]

    Higuchi, G

    A. Higuchi, G. E. A. Matsas, and D. Sudarsky, Phys. Rev. D45, R3308 (1992)

    work page 1992

  70. [70]

    Higuchi, G

    A. Higuchi, G. E. A. Matsas, and D. Sudarsky, Phys. Rev. D46, 3450 (1992)

    work page 1992

  71. [71]

    Paithankar and S

    K. Paithankar and S. Kolekar, Phys. Rev. D101, 065012 (2020)

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    Portales-Oliva and A

    F. Portales-Oliva and A. G. S. Landulfo, Phys. Rev. D 106, 065002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    Vacalis, A

    G. Vacalis, A. Higuchi, R. Bingham, and G. Gregori, Phys. Rev. D109, 024044 (2024)

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    Gallock-Yoshimura, Y

    K. Gallock-Yoshimura, Y. Osawa, and Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. D111, 105012 (2025)

    work page 2025

  75. [75]

    Garcia-Chung, B

    A. Garcia-Chung, B. A. Juárez-Aubry, and D. Sudarsky, Phys. Rev. D108, 025002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    Hollands and R

    S. Hollands and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rept.574, 1 (2015)

    work page 2015

  77. [77]

    Décanini and A

    Y. Décanini and A. Folacci, Phys. Rev. D78, 044025 (2008)

    work page 2008

  78. [78]

    C. J. Fewster and R. Verch, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 235027 (2013)

    work page 2013

  79. [79]

    Hsiang and B.-L

    J.-T. Hsiang and B.-L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D106, 045002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  80. [80]

    Martín-Martínez, M

    E. Martín-Martínez, M. Montero, and M. del Rey, Phys. Rev. D87, 064038 (2013)

    work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.