Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Enhancement and Suppression of Decay Rates in an Accelerated Fermionic Cavity Coupled to a Massive Field

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An accelerated cavity with a light external field has its decay rate multiplied by (al/c²)/ln(1+al/c²), reaching 26% enhancement; heavy external fields instead suppress the rate exponentially.

desk verdict Clean model and an interesting factorization idea, but the main geometric-enhancement claim rests on an approximation that drops an O(1) mode phase — that is the load-bearing step, and it does not hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.11460 v3 pith:5N5Y3T5A submitted 2025-10-13 gr-qc

Vladimir Toussaint This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.62.+v03.70.+k
keywords UnruheffectacceleratedcavityDiracfieldRindlerquantizationMITbagboundaryconditionsdecayratequantumsimulationFermi-Diracstatistics
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

This paper claims that the decay of an excited massless fermion inside a uniformly accelerated cavity, emitting a massive fermion outside, divides into two sharply distinct regimes. For external fields lighter than the acceleration scale (Mc² ≪ ℏa/c), an intermediate-sized cavity (al ~ c²) boosts the decay rate by the geometric factor (al/c²)/ln(1+al/c²) relative to inertial decay — up to 26% for a = 10^20 m/s² and l = 500 μm — and this boost is not thermal Unruh stimulation but comes from the Rindler mode overlap. For external fields as heavy as electrons, the same model predicts exponential suppression exp(−2Mc²/(ℏa/c)) for every cavity size, which provides a model-level explanation for why Unruh-induced decays of fundamental fermions have not been seen. The result is a parameter-free factorization Γ_acc/Γ_in = F_g F_T in the intermediate regime, making it a concrete target for quantum simulation platforms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spatial overlap integral f(Ω_1) between the accelerated cavity mode (with power-law phases (ρ/ρ_−)^{± iΩ_1/a} and discrete Rindler frequency Ω_1 = a(1+s)π/ln(1+al)) and the Rindler-mode massive Dirac field (with modified Bessel functions K_{iβ±1/2}(Mρ)). Under the approximation that these factors are constant across the cavity, |f(Ω_1)|² reduces to the closed form l²a²π/(M cosh(πβ)); combined with the Fermi–Dirac factor e^{πβ}/(1+e^{2πβ}) from the Minkowski-vacuum squeezing, this produces the factorization Γ_acc/Γ_in = F_g F_T with F_g = al/ln(1+al) and F_T = 1/(1+e^{−2πβ}). In the heavy-mass regime the same integral is dominated by the end-point exponential e^

What would settle it

Numerically evaluate the overlap integral f(Ω_1) in Eq. (4.4b) for al ~ 1 and M/a ≪ 1 without the constant-factor approximation; if |f(Ω_1)|² does not scale as l²a²/(M cosh(πβ)) with the stated numerical coefficient, then F_g would differ from al/ln(1+al) and the predicted enhancement would shift. A tabletop test: in a superconducting-circuit or optomechanical analogue, vary a simulation parameter that changes al and look for the ratio Γ_acc/Γ_in tracking x/ln(1+x) rather than a thermal Planck factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, after averaging over the rapidly oscillating phases that any infinitesimal uncertainty in acceleration destroys, the long-time decay rate of the fundamental cavity mode for light external fields and intermediate cavities factorizes as Γ_acc/Γ_in ≈ [al/c² / ln(1 + al/c²)] · [1/(1 + e^{−2πβ})], where β = (1+s)π / ln(1 + al/c²). In this regime the thermal factor is ≈ 1 for all boundary conditions while the geometric factor exceeds 1, yielding a non-thermal enhancement. The same formalism yields, for M/a ≫ 1, the universal exponential suppression Γ_acc/Γ_in ∼ e^{−2M/a} independent of cavity size. The derivation rests on the overlap of the cavity mode (ρ/ρ_−)^{±iΩ_1/a}

Load-bearing premise

The results in the intermediate regime rely on taking the Bessel functions and the phase (ρ/ρ_−)^{± iΩ_1/a} in the overlap integral to be constant over the cavity; across an al ~ 1 cavity that phase winds through about 4.7 radians, so the approximation is not self-evidently valid and it is exactly what sets the geometric factor F_g.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For intermediate cavities with light external fields, the acceleration-induced enhancement of up to 26% is measurable with parameters a ≈ 10^20 m/s² and l ≈ 100–500 μm.
  • For heavy external fields (e.g., electrons), the decay is exponentially suppressed for every cavity size, offering a model-based reason for the absence of Unruh signatures in decays of fundamental fermions.
  • The thermal factor F_T is nearly one for all admissible boundary conditions when al ~ c², so the enhancement is geometric, not thermal.
  • The small-cavity limit recovers the inertial decay rate Γ_in, and the large-cavity light-field limit gives an algebraic Γ_acc ∝ (1−sinθ) ln(al)/al suppression, so the model interpolates across regimes.
  • Quantum simulators with engineered low effective mass (M_eff ≪ a) can reach the light-field condition and test the predicted scaling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the geometric factor is confirmed, it would imply that the 'coldness' of the Unruh bath is not the only obstacle to observing non-inertial effects; a kinematic, non-thermal channel already exists in confined fermionic systems.
  • The factorization suggests a direct experimental probe: measure the ratio Γ_acc/Γ_in at several al values and look for the universal function x/ln(1+x), independent of the boundary-condition parameters s and θ.
  • One could test the heavy-mass suppression by coupling a cavity to an environment whose effective mass is tunable across the M/a ~ 1 threshold; the transition from algebraic enhancement to exponential suppression is a sharp, testable prediction.
  • The same overlap-integral method, without the constant-Bessel approximation, might produce corrections that depend on the observer's location inside the cavity; comparing left-wall vs center rates could be used to verify the proper-time prescription.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies a (1+1)-dimensional model of a uniformly accelerated cavity containing a massless Dirac field coupled to an external massive Dirac field. Working to first order in the coupling and using Rindler quantization, the author derives the long-time decay rate of the excited cavity mode. For 'intermediate-sized' cavities (al ~ 1) and a light external field (M/a << 1), the claimed ratio Γ_acc/Γ_in is F_g F_T with F_g = al/ln(1+al) and F_T ≈ 1, giving up to 26% enhancement. For heavy external fields, the paper predicts universal exponential suppression. The derivation relies on asymptotic evaluation of the mode overlap integral f(Ω1) given in Sec. 5.1 and Appendix A.

Significance. The setup is well-defined and the analysis is first-principles, with no fitted parameters; the coupling g cancels in the ratios, and the paper identifies a concrete parameter window (a ~ 10^20 m/s^2, l ~ 100–500 μm). If the claimed enhancement were correct, it would constitute a novel measurable signature of non-inertial cavity QED. However, the central result rests on an invalid approximation in Eq. (5.1)/(A.1), as detailed in the major comments. The paper also proposes a physically interesting explanation for null Unruh searches via exponential suppression, but that claim suffers from an inconsistent normalization. Therefore the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.1); Appendix A] The approximation (5.1), used to obtain Eq. (A.7), treats the factors (ρ/ρ_-)^{±iΩ1/a} and the Bessel functions K_{iβ±1/2}(Mρ) as constant over the cavity. For the integration interval ρ∈[1/a, 1/a+l], the phase of (ρ/ρ_-)^{±iβ} changes by β ln(1+al) = (1+s)π, where β = Ω1/a = (1+s)π/ln(1+al) from Eq. (3.12b). This is an O(1) phase, independent of al, so it is not a small variation for any cavity size; it is precisely the phase that fixes the cavity boundary condition. Discarding it removes the mode structure from the overlap integral. Consequently Eq. (A.7) and the geometric factor F_g = al/ln(1+al) in Eq. (5.7) are unsupported. The claim in Sec. 5.1 that the oscillatory functions have negligible variation for large β is incorrect: the phase variation β ln(1+al) remains exactly (1+s)π.
  2. [Sec. 5.3, Eqs. (2.24), (2.26), (5.9), (5.14)] The inertial decay rate used as a benchmark is Γ_in = g^2 l, taken from the weak-mass limit M l << 1. In Sec. 5.3, however, M/a >> 1 with al ≲ 1 implies M l ≫ 1, so the external-field mass exceeds the cavity mode frequency ω1 = (1+s)π/l. In that regime Eq. (2.24) has imaginary A, i.e., the inertial decay channel is kinematically closed and Γ_in is not g^2 l (indeed it is zero for on-shell decay). The ratio Γ_left/Γ_in ∼ e^{-2M/a} is therefore not comparing with the physical inertial decay rate. This undermines the universal exponential suppression claim.
  3. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A.3)-(A.7); Sec. 5.2] The passage from the exact asymptotic expression (A.3)-(A.6) to the simplified (A.7) discards all oscillatory terms by asserting that experimental uncertainties in the acceleration average them to zero. This is not a controlled asymptotic limit: these terms carry factors of (z/2)^{±2iβ} with z = M/a << 1, so they are of the same order as the retained constant part of Term I. Averaging over a random phase is a modeling choice, not a mathematical approximation, and the 'averaged decay rate' in Eq. (5.6) is not the rate for a single cavity with fixed parameters. The predicted 6–26% enhancement depends directly on this prescription.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (A.3)] Eq. (A.3) writes 'la/4' where dimensional analysis and the final result (A.7) show it should be 'l^2 a/4'.
  2. [Eq. (5.2)] The asymptotic form of Γ(±iβ+1/2) is quoted with ellipses; please clarify that Stirling's approximation is being used and retain the relevant phase factors.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, Eq. (5.5)] The notation '|f(Ω1|^2' is missing a closing parenthesis; this appears as '|f(Ω1)|^2' should be intended.
  4. [Sec. 2.4, Eq. (2.26)] The sign of the subleading M l term in the bracket is not obviously consistent with the positivity claim immediately following; please verify the derivation or rephrase the bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the decay-rate derivation is a self-contained first-principles calculation; the contested Eq. (5.1) is an approximation, not a fitted input or definitional identity.

full rationale

The paper's central ratio Γ_acc/Γ_in is obtained by a full first-principles calculation: inertial decay rate Γ_in in Eq. (2.26), Rindler-quantized modes in Eqs. (3.3) and (3.12), overlap integral f(Ω1) in Eq. (4.4b), long-time resonant rate Γ_left in Eq. (4.7), and asymptotic evaluation of |f(Ω1)|² in Appendix A. No parameter is fitted to any data subset, and the coupling constant g cancels in the ratio. The geometric factor al/ln(1+al) emerges algebraically from substituting Eq. (A.7) into Eq. (4.7) and dividing by Γ_in; it coincides with Ω1/ω~1, but this is a consequence of the mode quantization, not a definition of the claimed prediction. The controversial step is Eq. (5.1), where the factors (ρ/ρ_-)^{±iΩ1/a} and K_{iβ±1/2}(Mρ) are replaced by their lower-limit values; this is a substantive approximation whose quantitative validity can be questioned, especially for al∼1, but it is not circular reasoning because the unsimplified integral is written down and the asymptotic expression is derived rather than assumed. The heavy-field suppression e^{-2M/a} similarly follows from a Bessel large-argument limit, not from fitting. The only self-citation is Ref. [18], used for standard free-fermion plane-wave mode conventions; it is not load-bearing, and the cavity modes and Bogoliubov thermal factors come from external references and explicit Rindler quantization. There is no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in by self-citation, and no renaming of an empirical pattern. Concerns about the validity of Eq. (5.1) are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters; the central result depends on the phase-constancy approximation and standard Unruh/Rindler quantization.

assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The oscillatory factors (ρ/ρ_-)^{± i Ω1/a} and the modified Bessel functions K_{iβ±1/2}(Mρ) are treated as constant over the cavity in Eq. (5.1) and Appendix A.
    This assumption is not justified: their phase varies by β ln(1+al), which is O(1) or larger in the regimes studied (e.g., β≈6.8 for al∼1, s=1/2). It is load-bearing for the geometric factor F_g.
  • domain assumption The Minkowski vacuum is represented by the two-mode squeezing operator S with r_Ω = arctan(e^{-πΩ/a}) for a Dirac field in Rindler spacetime.
    Standard Unruh effect for fermions, used in Eq. (3.9)-(3.11) and in the thermal factor.
  • domain assumption MIT bag and probabilistic boundary conditions (2.13)-(2.14) appropriately confine the massless cavity field.
    Taken from Refs. [13-15]; the model depends on this assignment.
  • standard math Long-time resonance dominance uses sin²(xt)/x² → πt/2 δ(x) (Eq. 4.5).
    Standard asymptotic identity.
  • ad hoc to paper The inertial decay rate formula (2.24) is valid only for M < ω1 (A real), but is used in Sec. 5.3 for M > ω1.
    The paper uses Γ_in = g² l in ratios even when the inertial decay is kinematically forbidden; the formula (2.24) has imaginary A for M > ω1, so the ratio is not defined.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancement and Suppression of Decay Rates in an Accelerated Fermionic Cavity Coupled to a Massive Field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5N5Y3T5A

@misc{pith2026251011460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancement and Suppression of Decay Rates in an Accelerated Fermionic Cavity Coupled to a Massive Field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5N5Y3T5A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.11460}
}
abstract

We study a (1+1)-dimensional model in which a massless Dirac field, initially in an excited state inside a uniformly accelerated cavity, decays to its ground state, accompanied by the excitation of an external massive Dirac field of mass $M$, through a local coupling confined to the physical extent of the cavity. The confinement mechanism is modeled via MIT bag boundary conditions and their probabilistic extensions, which depend on a boundary angle $\theta \in[0,2\pi)$ and $s\in(0,1)$. For intermediate-sized cavities ($a l \sim c^2$) with light external massive Dirac field ($Mc^2 \ll \hbar a/c$), we demonstrate that the total long-time asymptotic decay rate factorizes as $ \Gamma_{\text{acc}}/ \Gamma_{\text{in}} \sim F_g F_T $ with $\Gamma_{\text{in}}$ the inertial decay rate. Here, $F_g=\frac{al/c^2}{\ln(1 + al/c^2)}$ is a geometric factor, and $F_T= (1 + e^{-2\pi\beta})^{-1}$ is the thermal stimulation factor from the Unruh bath ($\beta = \frac{\Omega_1 c}{a} =\frac{(1+s)\pi}{\ln(1 + a l/c^2)}$). Crucially, in this regime, the thermal factor $F_T$ remains approximately unity for all admissible boundary conditions, while the geometric factor $\frac{a l/c^2}{\ln(1 + a l/c^2)}$ produces measurable enhancements up to 26\% for realistic parameters ($a=10^{20}$ m/s$^2$, $l=500~\mu$m), and represents a measurable signature accessible through quantum simulation platforms. In contrast, for heavy external fermionic fields (such as the electron field), the condition $M c^2 \gg \hbar a / c$ is satisfied at all achievable accelerations, placing the system in a regime of exponential suppression, $\Gamma_{\text{acc}}/\Gamma_{\text{in}} \sim \exp(-2 M c^2 / (\hbar a/c))$, for all cavity sizes....

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Detecting the Unruh Effect via an Engineered Low-Mass Field in a Superconducting Qubit

    gr-qc 2025-12 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Excitation of massive fields by the Unruh bath is exponentially suppressed when Mc² ≫ ℏa/c; the proposed superconducting-circuit analog with effective mass ℏωr predicts Pe ≈ Sδω.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Notes on black hole evaporation,

    W. G. Unruh, “Notes on black hole evaporation,” Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  2. [2]

    Scalar particle production in Schwarzschild and Rindler metrics,

    P. C. W. Davies, “Scalar particle production in Schwarzschild and Rindler metrics,” J. Phys. A8, 609-616 (1975)

    1975

  3. [3]

    Nonuniqueness of canonical field quantization in Riemannian space- time,

    S. A. Fulling, “Nonuniqueness of canonical field quantization in Riemannian space- time,” Phys. Rev. D7, 2850-2862 (1973)

    1973

  4. [4]

    Particle Creation by Black Holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle Creation by Black Holes,” Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199-220 (1975) [erratum: Commun. Math. Phys.46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  5. [5]

    Has Hawking radiation been measured?,

    W. G. Unruh, “Has Hawking radiation been measured?,” Found. Phys.44, 532-545 (2014) [arXiv:1401.6612 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Anti-Unruh Phenomena,

    W. G. Brenna, R. B. Mann and E. Martin-Martinez, “Anti-Unruh Phenomena,” Phys. Lett. B757, 307-311 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    B. S. DeWitt,Quantum gravity: the new synthesis, inGeneral Relativity: An Ein- stein Centenary Survey, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, England, 1980)

    1980

  8. [8]

    Transition rate of the Unruh-DeWitt detector in curved spacetime,

    J. Louko and A. Satz, “Transition rate of the Unruh-DeWitt detector in curved spacetime,” Class. Quant. Grav.25, 055012 (2008) [arXiv:0710.5671 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2008

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Retzker, J

    A. Retzker, J. I. Cirac, and B. Reznik,Detecting vacuum entanglement in a linear ion trap, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 050504 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Test- ing the effects of gravity and motion on quantum entanglement in space-based experiments,

    D. E. Bruschi, C. Sab ´ ın, A. White, V. Baccetti, D. K. L. Oi and I. Fuentes, “Test- ing the effects of gravity and motion on quantum entanglement in space-based experiments,” New J. Phys.16, 053041 (2014) [arXiv:1306.1933 [quant-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    The Unruh effect and its applications,

    L. C. B. Crispino, A. Higuchi and G. E. A. Matsas, “The Unruh effect and its applications,” Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 787-838 (2008) [arXiv:0710.5373 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Vacuum fluctuations and moving atoms / detectors: From Casimir- Polder to Unruh effect,

    B. L. Huet al., “Vacuum fluctuations and moving atoms / detectors: From Casimir- Polder to Unruh effect,” J. Opt. B6, S698-S705 (2004) [arXiv:quant-ph/0401188 [quant-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A New Extended Model of Hadrons,

    A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn and V. F. Weisskopf, “A New Extended Model of Hadrons,” Phys. Rev. D9, 3471-3495 (1974)

    1974

  6. [14]

    Kinematic entanglement degrada- tion of fermionic cavity modes,

    N. Friis, A. R. Lee, D. E. Bruschi and J. Louko, “Kinematic entanglement degrada- tion of fermionic cavity modes,” Phys. Rev. D85(2012), 025012 [arXiv:1110.6756 [quant-ph]]. 35

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Scalar, spinor, and photon fields under relativistic cavity motion,

    N. Friis, A. R. Lee and J. Louko, “Scalar, spinor, and photon fields under relativistic cavity motion,” Phys. Rev. D88(2013) no.6, 064028 [arXiv:1307.1631 [quant-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ideal clocks - a convenient fiction,

    K. Lorek, J. Louko and A. Dragan, “Ideal clocks - a convenient fiction,” Class. Quant. Grav.32, no.17, 175003 (2015) [arXiv:1503.01025 [quant-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Decay of accelerated protons and the existence of the Fulling-Davies-Unruh effect,

    D. A. T. Vanzella and G. E. A. Matsas, “Decay of accelerated protons and the existence of the Fulling-Davies-Unruh effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 151301 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    Unruh-DeWitt detector’s response to fermions in flat spacetimes,

    J. Louko and V. Toussaint, “Unruh-DeWitt detector’s response to fermions in flat spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D94(2016) no.6, 064027 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.064027 [arXiv:1608.01002 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Acceleration through the Dirac-Pauli vacuum and effects of an exter- nal field,

    E. Bautista, “Acceleration through the Dirac-Pauli vacuum and effects of an exter- nal field,” Phys. Rev. D48(1993), 783-789

    1993

  12. [20]

    Fermion Fields in Accelerated States,

    P. Candelas and D. Deutsch, “Fermion Fields in Accelerated States,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A362(1978), 251-262

    1978

  13. [21]

    Dirac vacuum: Acceleration and external field effects,

    R. Jauregui, M. Torres and S. Hacian, “Dirac vacuum: Acceleration and external field effects,” Phys. Rev. D43(1991), 3979-3989

    1991

  14. [22]

    EFFECTS OF ACCELERATION THROUGH THE DIRAC SEA,

    S. Hacian, “EFFECTS OF ACCELERATION THROUGH THE DIRAC SEA,” Phys. Rev. D33, 3630-3633 (1986)

    1986

  15. [23]

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

    S. Takagi, “Vacuum Noise and Stress Induced by Uniform Acceleration: Hawking- Unruh Effect in Rindler Manifold of Arbitrary Dimension,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.88(1986), 1-142

    1986

  16. [24]

    The Dirac equation in Rindler space: A Pedagogical introduction,

    D. McMahon and P. Embid, “The Dirac equation in Rindler space: A Pedagogical introduction,” [arXiv:gr-qc/0601010 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    DIRAC PARTICLES IN RINDLER SPACE,

    M. Soffel, B. Muller and W. Greiner, “DIRAC PARTICLES IN RINDLER SPACE,” Phys. Rev. D22(1980), 1935-1937

    1980

  18. [26]

    Spin 1/2 Quantum Field Theory in Schwarzschild Space,

    D. G. Boulware, “Spin 1/2 Quantum Field Theory in Schwarzschild Space,” Phys. Rev. D12(1975), 350

    1975

  19. [27]

    Imprints of spacetime topology in the Hawking-Unruh effect,

    P. Langlois, “Imprints of spacetime topology in the Hawking-Unruh effect,” [arXiv:gr-qc/0510127 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quan- tized Field and Gravity,

    L. E. Parker and D. Toms, “Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quan- tized Field and Gravity,” Cambridge University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-521-87787- 9, 978-0-521-87787-9, 978-0-511-60155-2

    2009

  21. [29]

    Minkowski vacuum in Rindler spacetime and Un- ruh thermal state for Dirac fields,

    R. Falcone and C. Conti, “Minkowski vacuum in Rindler spacetime and Un- ruh thermal state for Dirac fields,” Phys. Rev. D107, no.10, 105021 (2023) [arXiv:2303.13159 [hep-th]]. 36

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Effect of acceleration on local- ized fermionic Gaussian states: from vacuum entanglement to maximally entangled states,

    B. Richter, K. Lorek, A. Dragan and Y. Omar, “Effect of acceleration on local- ized fermionic Gaussian states: from vacuum entanglement to maximally entangled states,” Phys. Rev. D95, 076004 (2017) [arXiv:1701.05906 [quant-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, Cambridge University Press, 1982, ISBN 978-0- 511-62263-2, 978-0-521-27858-4

    1982

  24. [32]

    P. M. Alsing, I. Fuentes-Schuller, R. B. Mann and T. E. Tessier, Phys. Rev. A74, 032326 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.74.032326 [arXiv:quant-ph/0603269 [quant- ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  25. [33]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology,Digital Library of Mathematical Functions, accessed: 17 August 2025,https://dlmf.nist.gov/

    2025

  26. [34]

    Relativistic Quantum Teleportation with superconducting circuits,

    N. Friis, A. R. Lee, K. Truong, C. Sabin, E. Solano, G. Johansson and I. Fuentes, “Relativistic Quantum Teleportation with superconducting circuits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.110, no.11, 113602 (2013) [arXiv:1211.5563 [quant-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,

    E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz and P. Zoller,et al.“Real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with a few-qubit quantum computer,” Nature534, 516-519 (2016) [arXiv:1605.04570 [quant-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Cavity Optomechanics,

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg and F. Marquardt, “Cavity Optomechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391 (2014) [arXiv:1303.0733 [cond-mat.mes-hall]]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Physics of laser-driven plasma- based electron accelerators,

    E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder and W. P. Leemans, “Physics of laser-driven plasma- based electron accelerators,” Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1229-1285 (2009). 37

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.