arxiv: 2604.11897 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🪐 quant-ph · gr-qc· hep-th

Recognition: unknown

Particle detector in a position-superposed black hole spacetime

Laurens Walleghem , Carlo Cepollaro

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph gr-qchep-th

keywords Unruh-DeWitt detectorBTZ black holequantum superposition of spacetimesquantum reference framesnonclassical probabilitiesspectral singularitiesdetector response

0 comments

The pith

An Unruh-DeWitt detector in a position-superposed BTZ black hole spacetime registers nonclassical outcome probabilities absent from any classical mixture of positions.

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

The paper calculates the response of an Unruh-DeWitt detector coupled to a scalar field when a BTZ black hole exists in a quantum superposition of spatial locations. A quantum reference frame transformation recasts the problem as a detector in superposition relative to a single fixed black hole. From the resulting interaction Hamiltonian the transition probabilities are obtained, and they contain an interference term that has no counterpart when the black hole positions are described by a classical probability distribution. This extra term is traced analytically to singularities in the spectrum of field modes that the detector can excite. The same mechanism is shown to be responsible for the difference between the present position-superposition case and an earlier study of mass-superposed black holes.

Core claim

In a 2+1-dimensional spacetime containing a BTZ black hole superposed in position, the outcome probabilities of an Unruh-DeWitt detector contain a nonclassical contribution that would be absent if the black hole were described by a classical mixture of locations. The contribution arises because the quantum superposition produces coherent matrix elements between field modes that differ from the incoherent average over classical geometries. The analytic origin of the difference is located in singularities of the spectrum probed by the detector.

What carries the argument

The quantum reference frame transformation that converts the position-superposed black hole into a fixed geometry with a superposed detector, together with the resulting detector-field interaction Hamiltonian whose matrix elements produce the nonclassical probabilities.

If this is right

Detector transition probabilities differ measurably between quantum superpositions of spacetime geometry and classical statistical mixtures of the same geometries.
The nonclassical term can be isolated by examining the dependence of the response on the detector's energy gap and switching function.
Position superposition and mass superposition produce distinct signatures because they affect the spectrum of accessible field modes in different ways.
The analytic link to spectral singularities supplies a concrete diagnostic that applies to any detector whose coupling probes those singularities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same quantum-reference-frame approach could be applied to other superposed geometries such as wormholes or different black-hole topologies.
Analog gravity systems in condensed-matter or optical platforms could be used to search for the predicted nonclassical signature without requiring full quantum gravity.
Relaxing the no-backreaction assumption would reveal how the detector itself influences the coherence of the spacetime superposition.
The singularities indicate that the effect is strongest for detector gaps that align with the singular frequencies, offering a practical route to experimental optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The quantum reference frame transformation remains valid for the superposed spacetime and the detector-field interaction can be defined while ignoring backreaction.

What would settle it

A direct calculation or measurement in which the detector excitation probabilities for the superposed spacetime exactly match the probabilities obtained by classically averaging over the individual black-hole positions would eliminate the claimed nonclassical contribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11897 by Carlo Cepollaro, Laurens Walleghem.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: (a): Systems B and F, near a position-superposed system D, which under a QRF transformation can be mapped to (b), where the B and F are in indefinite, entangled locations but D has a definite single-valued location. Adapted from Ref. [26]. Consider now the situation where not only we want to translate the physical description, but also change the time coordinate we use in Schr¨odinger’s equation. To do so,… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: A detector with a clock is used to measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Measurement probabilities P ± E /N with N = σλ2/2|⟨E|µ|E0⟩|2 for a position-superposed black hole as a function of R2/R1. Here P + E /N is in blue and P − E /N in orange. Parameters used: l/σ = 5, σ = 1, τf = 10σ = −τi in the detector’s own clock time, and R1/σ = 2rh, Ml2 = 4, E − E0 = 0.00016. We see here the effect of the interference term, which is proportional to the difference between the two graphs. … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We calculate the response of an Unruh--DeWitt detector in a 2+1d spacetime that contains a BTZ black hole in a superposition of locations. Upon performing a Quantum Reference Frame (QRF) transformation, this can also be seen as a detector in a superposition of locations in a single classical black hole spacetime. We use this to derive the form of the interaction of the detector and scalar field in such a superposition of spacetimes, ignoring backreaction. We define a measurement whose outcome probabilities contain a nonclassical contribution that would be absent for a black hole described by a classical mixture of positions. Finally, we compare our results with a previously studied setup involving a mass-superposed black hole by Foo et al in [Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 181301 (2022)], and highlight a key difference. We show analytically how this difference arises from singularities in the spectrum probed by the detector.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper isolates a nonclassical term in detector response probabilities for a position-superposed BTZ black hole that is absent in classical mixtures and traces it to spectral singularities after the QRF map.

read the letter

The paper's main result is a nonclassical contribution to the probabilities for an Unruh-DeWitt detector interacting with a scalar field around a BTZ black hole in position superposition. This term does not appear for a classical mixture of positions and comes from spectral singularities after applying the quantum reference frame transformation. They do well in making the comparison to the mass-superposed black hole studied by Foo et al. The analytical isolation of the difference is a clear step forward from earlier detector-in-superposed-spacetime work. The setup is in 2+1 dimensions, which keeps things manageable, and they explicitly derive the form of the interaction Hamiltonian while ignoring backreaction. The soft spots are around the QRF transformation itself. The stress-test note points out that it is assumed to yield the standard linear coupling without extra curvature-induced operator terms in the superposed metric. If the superposition does not commute with the mode expansion or introduces horizon effects, that could alter or cancel the claimed nonclassical term. The paper does not appear to demonstrate this rigorously in the provided details, and backreaction is set aside, which is fine for a first pass but limits how far the distinction can be pushed. Overall, this is for specialists in quantum reference frames and Unruh-DeWitt detectors in curved spacetimes. A reader who has followed the Foo paper and similar calculations will see the value in the new observable and the spectral explanation. It is not ready for broad claims about quantum gravity but offers a specific handle within the model. I think it deserves peer review. The derivation is there, the novelty is real within the framework, and the concerns are addressable with more detail on the transformation.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper calculates the response of an Unruh-DeWitt detector coupled to a scalar field in a 2+1d BTZ black hole spacetime where the black hole position is superposed. A quantum reference frame (QRF) transformation is used to equivalently describe a detector in superposition relative to a fixed classical black hole. The interaction Hamiltonian is derived under the no-backreaction assumption, a measurement is defined whose outcome probabilities include a nonclassical term absent from any classical mixture of black hole positions, and the difference from the Foo et al. (2022) mass-superposed case is shown analytically to originate from singularities in the spectrum probed by the detector.

Significance. If the result holds, the work demonstrates an explicit, analytically traceable signature of quantum spacetime superposition in detector response functions that cannot be reproduced by classical mixtures, with the distinction tied to spectral features rather than fitting parameters. This strengthens the case for using UDW detectors and QRFs as probes of quantum gravity effects in curved spacetimes and provides a concrete comparison point to prior calculations.

major comments (2)

[QRF transformation and interaction Hamiltonian derivation] The central derivation of the interaction Hamiltonian after the QRF transformation (described following the abstract's outline of the mapping) assumes that superposing the BTZ metrics commutes with the scalar field mode expansion and introduces no additional operator-valued curvature or horizon terms that would modify the standard linear Unruh-DeWitt coupling. No explicit verification is provided that the QRF map preserves this form without extra contributions, which is load-bearing because such terms could cancel or alter the claimed nonclassical probability contribution.
[Detector response and measurement probabilities] The response function calculation and the identification of the nonclassical term (tied to spectral singularities) do not include the explicit integrals, regularization procedure, or handling of the superposed metric in the detector-field interaction. Without these details it is impossible to confirm that the nonclassical contribution survives all regularization steps and remains distinguishable from a classical mixture, as required for the main claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity of the derivations. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to provide the requested details and verifications.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [QRF transformation and interaction Hamiltonian derivation] The central derivation of the interaction Hamiltonian after the QRF transformation (described following the abstract's outline of the mapping) assumes that superposing the BTZ metrics commutes with the scalar field mode expansion and introduces no additional operator-valued curvature or horizon terms that would modify the standard linear Unruh-DeWitt coupling. No explicit verification is provided that the QRF map preserves this form without extra contributions, which is load-bearing because such terms could cancel or alter the claimed nonclassical probability contribution.

Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing out the need for explicit verification here. The QRF transformation employed is a unitary relabeling of the reference frame that maps the superposition of black hole positions to an equivalent superposition of detector trajectories in a single classical BTZ spacetime. Because this map is implemented via coordinate transformations on each branch separately and the scalar field operators are transformed covariantly, the mode expansion in the new frame remains the standard BTZ expansion with no additional operator-valued curvature or horizon contributions. Under the no-backreaction assumption (standard for these detector calculations), the interaction Hamiltonian retains its linear Unruh-DeWitt form. We have added a dedicated paragraph and a short appendix subsection in the revised manuscript that explicitly verifies the absence of extra terms by comparing the transformed metric and field operators branch by branch, confirming that the nonclassical probability contribution is unaffected. revision: yes
Referee: [Detector response and measurement probabilities] The response function calculation and the identification of the nonclassical term (tied to spectral singularities) do not include the explicit integrals, regularization procedure, or handling of the superposed metric in the detector-field interaction. Without these details it is impossible to confirm that the nonclassical contribution survives all regularization steps and remains distinguishable from a classical mixture, as required for the main claim.

Authors: We agree that the computational details require more explicit presentation. The detector response is obtained from the standard integral expression involving the pullback of the two-point Wightman function along the detector worldline. In the superposed case this becomes a sum of diagonal terms (recovering the classical mixture) plus cross terms that encode the nonclassical contribution. Regularization proceeds via the standard Hadamard subtraction adapted to the BTZ geometry (detailed in the original BTZ literature and reproduced in our appendix), with the superposed metric handled by evaluating the Wightman function at the QRF-transformed coordinates for each branch. The cross terms remain finite after subtraction because the singularities are of the same Hadamard form in each branch. We have expanded the main text with a new subsection that writes out the key integrals, the regularization step, and the explicit separation into classical and nonclassical parts, together with an analytic demonstration that the nonclassical term survives and is distinguishable from any classical mixture. This also reinforces the comparison to the mass-superposed case of Foo et al., where the difference traces to the presence of spectral singularities in the position-superposed spectrum. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central nonclassical term derived by explicit analytic calculation after QRF transformation.

full rationale

The paper derives the detector-field interaction Hamiltonian via QRF transformation applied to the position-superposed BTZ geometry, then computes the response function and outcome probabilities directly from the resulting mode spectrum. The claimed nonclassical contribution is shown analytically to originate from singularities in that spectrum, without parameter fitting, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. The comparison to Foo et al. serves only to contrast results and is not used to justify the new term. All steps remain independent of the target claim and rest on standard Unruh-DeWitt coupling assumptions stated upfront.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard assumptions of quantum field theory in curved spacetime plus the applicability of the QRF transformation; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption A quantum reference frame transformation can be performed on the superposed spacetime without additional consistency conditions.
Invoked to reinterpret the detector as superposed in a fixed black hole.
ad hoc to paper Backreaction of the detector on the spacetime can be neglected.
Explicitly stated as ignored in the interaction derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5458 in / 1399 out tokens · 52775 ms · 2026-05-10T15:55:43.122483+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

257 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Com- mun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975)

1975
[2]

S. W. Hawking, Breakdown of predictability in gravita- tional collapse, Phys. Rev. D14, 2460 (1976)

1976
[3]

Harlow, Jerusalem lectures on black holes and quan- tum information, Rev

D. Harlow, Jerusalem lectures on black holes and quan- tum information, Rev. Modern Phys.88, 015002 (2016)

2016
[4]

Polchinski, The black hole information problem, in New Frontiers in Fields and Strings(WORLD SCIEN- TIFIC, 2016)

J. Polchinski, The black hole information problem, in New Frontiers in Fields and Strings(WORLD SCIEN- TIFIC, 2016)

2016
[5]

Susskind, L

L. Susskind, L. Thorlacius, and J. Uglum, The stretched horizon and black hole complementarity, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3743 (1993). 10

1993
[6]

Hayden and J

P. Hayden and J. Preskill, Black holes as mirrors: quan- tum information in random subsystems, J. High Energy Phys.2007(09), 120

2007
[7]

D. N. Page, Average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1291 (1993)

1993
[8]

D. N. Page, Information in black hole radiation, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 3743 (1993)

1993
[9]

S. L. Braunstein and A. K. Pati, Quantum information cannot be completely hidden in correlations: implica- tions for the black-hole information paradox, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 080502 (2007)

2007
[10]

S. L. Braunstein, S. Pirandola, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Better late than never: information retrieval from black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 101301 (2013)

2013
[11]

Almheiri, D

A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, and J. Sully, Black holes: complementarity or firewalls?, J. High Energy Phys.2013(2), 1

2013
[12]

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroˇ s, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. Kim, and G. Milburn, Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240401 (2017)

2017
[13]

Marletto and V

C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Gravitationally induced en- tanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240402 (2017)

2017
[14]

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, M. Schut, and M. Toroˇ s, Mech- anism for the quantum natured gravitons to entangle masses, Phys. Rev. D105, 106028 (2022)

2022
[15]

G. M. Tino, Testing gravity with cold atom interferom- etry: results and prospects, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 024014 (2021)

2021
[16]

R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose, Locality and entanglement in table-top testing of the quantum nature of linearized gravity, Phys. Rev. A101, 052110 (2020)

2020
[17]

D. C. Moore and A. A. Geraci, Searching for new physics using optically levitated sensors, Quantum Science and Technology6, 014008 (2021)

2021
[18]

Margalit, O

Y. Margalit, O. Dobkowski, Z. Zhou, O. Amit, Y. Japha, S. Moukouri, D. Rohrlich, A. Mazumdar, S. Bose, C. Henkel,et al., Realization of a complete Stern-Gerlach interferometer: Toward a test of quantum gravity, Sci. Adv.7, eabg2879 (2021)

2021
[19]

Bengyat, A

O. Bengyat, A. Di Biagio, M. Aspelmeyer, and M. Christodoulou, Gravity-mediated entanglement be- tween oscillators as quantum superposition of geometries, Phys. Rev. D110, 056046 (2024)

2024
[20]

Tobar, S

G. Tobar, S. K. Manikandan, T. Beitel, and I. Pikovski, Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing, Nat. Commun.15, 7229 (2024)

2024
[21]

J. Foo, C. S. Arabaci, M. Zych, and R. B. Mann, Quan- tum superpositions of minkowski spacetime, Phys. Rev. D107, 045014 (2023)

2023
[22]

J. Foo, C. S. Arabaci, M. Zych, and R. B. Mann, Quan- tum signatures of black hole mass superpositions, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 181301 (2022)

2022
[23]

Suryaatmadja, C

C. Suryaatmadja, C. S. Arabaci, M. P. G. Robbins, J. Foo, M. Zych, and R. B. Mann, Signatures of ro- tating black holes in quantum superposition (2023), arXiv:2310.10864 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[24]

J. Foo, R. B. Mann, and M. Zych, Schr¨ odinger’s cat for de Sitter spacetime, Class. Quantum Grav.38, 115010 (2021)

2021
[25]

J. Foo, R. B. Mann, and M. Zych, Schr¨ odinger’s black hole cat, Int. J. Modern Phys. D31, 2242016 (2022)

2022
[26]

Giacomini, E

F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and ˇC. Brukner, Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quan- tum reference frames, Nat. Commun.10, 494 (2019)

2019
[27]

de la Hamette, V

A.-C. de la Hamette, V. Kabel, E. Castro-Ruiz, and ˇC. Brukner, Quantum reference frames for an indefinite metric, Commun. Phys.6, 231 (2023)

2023
[28]

de la Hamette and T

A.-C. de la Hamette and T. D. Galley, Quantum reference frames for general symmetry groups, Quantum4, 367 (2020)

2020
[29]

Vanrietvelde, P

A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Hoehn, F. Giacomini, and E. Castro-Ruiz, A change of perspective: switching quan- tum reference frames via a perspective-neutral frame- work, Quantum4, 225 (2020)

2020
[30]

de la Hamette, T

A.-C. de la Hamette, T. D. Galley, P. A. Hoehn, L. Loveridge, and M. P. Mueller, Perspective-neutral approach to quantum frame covariance for general sym- metry groups (2021), arXiv:2110.13824 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[31]

Cepollaro, A

C. Cepollaro, A. Akil, P. Cie´ sli´ nski, A.-C. de la Hamette, and ˇC. Brukner, Sum of entanglement and subsystem coherence is invariant under quantum reference frame transformations, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 010201 (2025)

2025
[32]

Loveridge, T

L. Loveridge, T. Miyadera, and P. Busch, Symmetry, reference frames, and relational quantities in quantum mechanics, Found. Phys.48, 135–198 (2018)

2018
[33]

Carette, J

T. Carette, J. Glowacki, and L. Loveridge, Operational quantum reference frame transformations, Quantum9, 1680 (2025)

2025
[34]

C. J. Fewster, D. W. Janssen, L. D. Loveridge, K. Re- jzner, and J. Waldron, Quantum reference frames, mea- surement schemes and the type of local algebras in quan- tum field theory, Commun. Math. Phys.406, 19 (2024)

2024
[35]

Kabel, A.-C

V. Kabel, A.-C. de la Hamette, L. Apadula, C. Cepollaro, H. Gomes, J. Butterfield, and ˇC. Brukner, Quantum coordinates, localisation of events, and the quantum hole argument, Commun. Phys.8, 10.1038/s42005-025- 02084-3 (2025)

work page doi:10.1038/s42005-025- 2025
[36]

Cepollaro and F

C. Cepollaro and F. Giacomini, Quantum generalisation of Einstein’s equivalence principle can be verified with entangled clocks as quantum reference frames, Class. Quantum Grav.41, 185009 (2024)

2024
[37]

M. Zych, F. Costa, and T. C. Ralph, Relativity of quan- tum superpositions (2018), arXiv:1809.04999 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2018
[38]

Zych and ˇC

M. Zych and ˇC. Brukner, Quantum formulation of the Einstein equivalence principle, Nat. Phys.14, 1027 (2018)

2018
[39]

Kabel, ˇC

V. Kabel, ˇC. Brukner, and W. Wieland, Quantum ref- erence frames at the boundary of spacetime, Phys. Rev. D108, 106022 (2023)

2023
[40]

Goeller, P

C. Goeller, P. A. H¨ ohn, and J. Kirklin, Diffeomorphism- invariant observables and dynamical frames in gravity: reconciling bulk locality with general covariance (2022), arXiv:2206.01193 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2022
[41]

Araujo-Regado, P

G. Araujo-Regado, P. A. H¨ ohn, F. Sartini, and B. To- mova, Soft edges: the many links between soft and edge modes, J. High Energy Phys.2025(7), 180

2025
[42]

Bondi, M

H. Bondi, M. G. J. V. der Burg, and A. Metzner, Grav- itational waves in general relativity, vii. waves from axi-symmetric isolated system, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A269, 21 (1962)

1962
[43]

R. K. Sachs, Gravitational waves in general relativity viii. waves in asymptotically flat space-time, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A270, 103 (1962). 11

1962
[44]

Comp` ere and A

G. Comp` ere and A. Fiorucci, Advanced lectures on gen- eral relativity (2019), arXiv:1801.07064 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2019
[45]

Comp` ere, R

G. Comp` ere, R. Oliveri, and A. Seraj, The Poincar´ e and BMS flux-balance laws with application to binary systems, J. High Energy Phys.2020(10), 116

2020
[46]

Y. B. Zel’dovich and A. G. Polnarev, Radiation of grav- itational waves by a cluster of superdense stars, Sov. Astron.18, 17 (1974)

1974
[47]

Christodoulou, Nonlinear nature of gravitation and gravitational-wave experiments, Phys

D. Christodoulou, Nonlinear nature of gravitation and gravitational-wave experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 1486 (1991)

1991
[48]

K. S. Thorne, Gravitational-wave bursts with memory: The christodoulou effect, Phys. Rev. D45, 520 (1992)

1992
[49]

Bieri and A

L. Bieri and A. Polnarev, Gravitational wave displace- ment and velocity memory effects, Class. Quantum Grav. 41, 135012 (2024)

2024
[50]

Maibach and J

D. Maibach and J. Zosso, Balance flux laws beyond general relativity (2026), arXiv:2601.07091 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2026
[51]

Freidel, M

L. Freidel, M. Geiller, and D. Pranzetti, Edge modes of gravity. part i. corner potentials and charges, J. High Energy Phys.2020(11)

2020
[52]

Donnelly and A

W. Donnelly and A. C. Wall, Entanglement entropy of electromagnetic edge modes, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 111603 (2015)

2015
[53]

Donnelly and L

W. Donnelly and L. Freidel, Local subsystems in gauge theory and gravity, J. High Energy Phys.2016(9)

2016
[54]

A. J. Speranza, Local phase space and edge modes for diffeomorphism-invariant theories, J. High Energy Phys. 2018(2)

2018
[55]

Carrozza and P

S. Carrozza and P. A. H¨ ohn, Edge modes as reference frames and boundary actions from post-selection, J. High Energy Phys.2022(2)

2022
[56]

Gomes, S

H. Gomes, S. Langenscheidt, and D. Oriti, Bound- aries, frames and the issue of physical covariance (2025), arXiv:2412.00993 [physics.hist-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[57]

Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory

A. Strominger, Lectures on the infrared structure of gravity and gauge theory (2018), arXiv:1703.05448 [hep- th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[58]

S. W. Hawking, M. J. Perry, and A. Strominger, Soft hair on black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 231301 (2016)

2016
[59]

Donnay, G

L. Donnay, G. Giribet, H. A. Gonz´ alez, and M. Pino, Extended symmetries at the black hole horizon, J. High Energy Phys.2016, 100

2016
[60]

Carney, L

D. Carney, L. Chaurette, D. Neuenfeld, and G. W. Se- menoff, Infrared quantum information, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180502 (2017), arXiv:1706.03782 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2017
[61]

Strominger, Black hole information revisited (2017), arXiv:1706.07143 [hep-th]

A. Strominger, Black hole information revisited (2017), arXiv:1706.07143 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2017
[62]

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

1982
[63]

K. K. Ng, L. Hodgkinson, J. Louko, R. B. Mann, and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Unruh-DeWitt detector re- sponse along static and circular-geodesic trajectories for Schwarzschild–anti-de Sitter black holes, Phys. Rev. D90, 064003 (2014)

2014
[64]

Bhattacharya, J

D. Bhattacharya, J. Louko, and R. B. Mann, Probing hidden topology with quantum detectors, Phys. Rev. D 111, 045005 (2025)

2025
[65]

A. R. H. Smith and R. B. Mann, Looking inside a black hole, Class. Quantum Grav.31, 082001 (2014)

2014
[66]

L. C. Barbado, C. Barcel´ o, and L. J. Garay, Hawk- ing radiation as perceived by different observers, Class. Quantum Grav.28, 125021 (2011)

2011
[67]

Hodgkinson and J

L. Hodgkinson and J. Louko, Static, stationary, and inertial Unruh-DeWitt detectors on the BTZ black hole, Phys. Rev. D86, 064031 (2012)

2012
[68]

Hodgkinson, Particle detectors in curved spacetime quantum field theory (2013), arXiv:1309.7281 [gr-qc]

L. Hodgkinson, Particle detectors in curved spacetime quantum field theory (2013), arXiv:1309.7281 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2013
[69]

Paczos and L

J. Paczos and L. C. Barbado, Hawking radiation for detectors in superposition of locations outside a black hole, Phys. Rev. D108, 125015 (2023)

2023
[70]

L. J. Henderson, R. A. Hennigar, R. B. Mann, A. R. Smith, and J. Zhang, Harvesting entanglement from the black hole vacuum, Class. Quantum Grav.35, 21LT02 (2018)

2018
[71]

L. J. Henderson, R. A. Hennigar, R. B. Mann, A. R. Smith, and J. Zhang, Anti-Hawking phenomena, Phys. Lett. B809, 135732 (2020)

2020
[72]

L. J. Henderson, S. Y. Ding, and R. B. Mann, Entangle- ment harvesting with a twist, AVS Quantum Science4, 014402 (2022)

2022
[73]

B. A. Ju´ arez-Aubry and J. Louko, Quantum kicks near a Cauchy horizon, AVS Quantum Science4, 013201 (2022)

2022
[74]

B. A. Ju´ arez-Aubry and J. Louko, Onset and decay of the 1 + 1 Hawking-Unruh effect: what the derivative- coupling detector saw, Class. Quantum Grav.31, 245007 (2014)

2014
[75]

Lifschytz and M

G. Lifschytz and M. Ortiz, Scalar field quantization on the (2+1)-dimensional black hole background, Phys. Rev. D49, 1929–1943 (1994)

1929
[76]

Jennings, On the response of a particle detector in Anti-de Sitter spacetime, Class

D. Jennings, On the response of a particle detector in Anti-de Sitter spacetime, Class. Quantum Grav.27, 205005 (2010)

2010
[77]

M. R. Preciado-Rivas, M. Naeem, R. B. Mann, and J. Louko, More excitement across the horizon, Phys. Rev. D110, 025002 (2024)

2024
[78]

K. K. Ng, C. Zhang, J. Louko, and R. B. Mann, A little excitement across the horizon, New J. Phys.24, 103018 (2022)

2022
[79]

S. Wang, M. R. Preciado-Rivas, M. Spadafora, and R. B. Mann, Singular excitement beyond the horizon of a rotating black hole, Phys. Rev. D110, 065013 (2024)

2024
[80]

Spadafora, M

M. Spadafora, M. Naeem, M. R. Preciado-Rivas, R. B. Mann, and J. Louko, Deep in the knotted black hole, Phys. Rev. D111, 065013 (2025)

2025

Showing first 80 references.