Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 85 references

On the information behavior from quadratically coupled accelerated detectors

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that quadratic detector-field coupling multiplies the Unruh response by $(a^2+\Omega^2)/(12\pi^2)$, so accelerated quantum systems lose coherence and wave-particle information faster.

desk verdict A plausible new application of a known quadratic UDW response function; the main formulas are likely right, but the 'amplification' headline depends on an arbitrary coupling normalization and the derivations are sloppy. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14915 v2 pith:KTJXHCXI submitted 2025-05-20 hep-th

P. H. M. Barros , P. R. S. Carvalho , H. A. S. Costa This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords UnruheffectquadraticcouplingUnruh-DeWittdetectorquantumcoherencewhich-pathdistinguishabilitywave-particledualityrelativisticinformationmasslessscalarfield
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 sets out to show that the way an accelerated detector couples to a quantum field controls how quickly the Unruh effect destroys quantum information. Working perturbatively with an Unruh–DeWitt detector quadratically coupled to a massless scalar field, it derives a transition rate that is exactly the linear rate multiplied by $(a^2+\Omega^2)/(12\pi^2)$. It then carries this factor through calculations of single-qubit coherence, internal-state probabilities, interferometric visibility, and which-path distinguishability, finding that all degrade faster than in the linear case. The proposed reason is that quadratic coupling lets the detector absorb two field quanta at once, opening excitation channels the linear coupling lacks. If the derivation holds, the coupling structure becomes a practical dial for how much acceleration-induced noise an information-storing qubit experiences.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the detector response function per unit time, $R^\pm(\infty)$, the Fourier transform of the quadratic Wightman function along the Rindler trajectory. The Wightman function is built from the linear one by $W_{\phi^2}=2W_\phi^2$ with normal ordering to control divergences; its KMS-periodic series form, Eq. (18), is Fourier-transformed term by term and summed as a geometric series, yielding Eq. (30) and then the ratio identity (32). The same $F^\pm$, $G^\pm$, $C^\pm$ integrals feed all subsequent information-theoretic quantities, so the single ratio propagates unchanged into coherence, visibility, distinguishability, and complementarity.

What would settle it

Numerically evaluate the exact Fourier integral (24) using the quadratic Wightman function (18) along a Rindler trajectory and compare with the closed form (30) and the ratio (32); any discrepancy beyond numerical precision would falsify the derivation. An experimental analogue would be a two-level system quadratically coupled to a phonon or electromagnetic bath at Unruh temperature $T=a/2\pi$, checking whether the excitation rate follows $(a^2+\Omega^2)/(e^{2\pi\Omega/a}-1)$ rather than $\Omega/(e^{2\pi\Omega/a}-1)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (32): for uniform acceleration $a$ and detector gap $\Omega$, the infinite-time excitation and de-excitation rates of the quadratic detector satisfy $R^\pm_{\phi^2}(\infty)=\frac{a^2+\Omega^2}{12\pi^2}R^\pm_\phi(\infty)$, with $R^\pm_\phi$ the standard linear rates. From this, the paper obtains closed forms for finite-time Gaussian switching, and then for the $\ell^1$-norm coherence of an accelerated qubit, Eq. (59), where the degradation term carries $(1+a^2)$ in units of $\Omega$; for the interferometric visibility (88); for which-path distinguishability (95), which becomes acceleration-dependent; and for the complementarity relation (98). In every quantity the difference from the linear case is only the coupling constant and the factor $(1+a^2)/12\pi^2$. The physical mechanism identified in the paper is the structure of the vacuum correlation function: $W_{\phi^2}(\Delta\tau)\propto W_\phi(\Delta\tau)^2$, which encodes simultaneous absorption of pairs of quanta.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that setting the linear and quadratic coupling strengths equal (after fixing the scale by $\Omega=1$) is the physically meaningful way to compare the two detectors; a different choice of units can shrink or even reverse the claimed acceleration amplification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At high acceleration ($a\gg\Omega$), the quadratic transition rate exceeds the linear rate by a factor growing like $a^2/(12\pi^2)$, so the Unruh-thermal effect is increasingly amplified in the relativistic regime.
  • Single-qubit coherence under quadratic coupling degrades quadratically with acceleration, Eq. (59), meaning qubits in high-acceleration environments lose superpositions far more quickly than linear-coupling predictions suggest.
  • Which-path distinguishability becomes acceleration-dependent for quadratic coupling, Eq. (95), while it is acceleration-independent for linear coupling, so the Unruh effect can itself generate which-path information.
  • The complementarity relation $V^2+D^2\le 1$ decreases faster under quadratic coupling, so both wave-like and particle-like information are lost more quickly; the paper notes that matching the quadratic degradation with linear coupling requires a roughly ten times larger coupling constant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The comparison's normalization dependence means the headline 'amplification' is partly a convention; an operational calibration, such as matching excitation probabilities at a reference acceleration, could make the linear-versus-quadratic comparison invariant. (Editorial inference.)
  • If the ratio (32) is correct, it behaves like an effective rescaling of the Unruh temperature or detector gap; mapping the factor to a temperature shift could give analogue experiments a direct falsifiable target. (Editorial inference.)
  • For massive fields or other spacetime dimensions, the square structure $W_{\phi^2}\propto W_\phi^2$ suggests the extra factor generalizes to mass- and dimension-dependent functions, which may change or offset the protective effect that mass gives to linear detectors. (Editorial inference.)
  • Quadratic coupling's stronger response may also boost entanglement harvesting between accelerated detector pairs, although the known divergences of quadratic detectors would make that conclusion delicate. (Editorial inference.)
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a Unruh-DeWitt detector quadratically coupled to a massless scalar field, derives the vacuum Wightman function and finite-time transition rates for uniformly accelerated motion, and then applies the results to three information-theoretic setups: an accelerated single qubit, a quantum interferometric circuit, and a which-path distinguishability circuit. The central technical result is Eq. (30) for the infinite-time excitation rate and the factorization Eq. (32), R^{±}_{φ²}(∞)=((a²+Ω²)/12π²)R^{±}_{φ}(∞), which links the quadratic and linear detector responses. The paper reports closed-form expressions for l1-norm coherence, internal-state probabilities, interferometric visibility, which-path distinguishability, and the complementarity relation, and concludes that quadratic coupling amplifies the Unruh effect and degrades quantum information faster than linear coupling.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question in relativistic quantum information: whether the structure of the detector-field coupling changes Unruh-induced decoherence and information loss. If the central formulas are correct, the factorization in Eq. (32) is a useful organizing result, and the explicit expressions for coherence, visibility, distinguishability, and complementarity provide concrete predictions that could be compared with other detector models. The paper also deserves credit for emphasizing the different mass dimensions of the linear and quadratic coupling constants and for attempting to handle the corresponding normalization issue. The main weaknesses are that the derivation of the central rate contains an invalid contour step, the which-path distinguishability has an internal factor-of-two inconsistency, the headline 'amplification' claim depends on an arbitrary coupling normalization, and the finite-time correction formulas are not derived consistently.

major comments (4)
  1. [II C, Eqs. (26)-(30)] The derivation of the central rate Eq. (30) is not valid as written. The text states that the contour choice subtracts the contributions k∈[-∞,0), leaving the sum over k=0∞ of exp(2πΩk/a); for Ω>0 this is a divergent geometric series, and the manipulation 1/(1-e^{2πΩ/a}) is only formal. Closing the contour in the correct half-plane for e^{-iΩΔτ} selects k<0, giving Σ_{k=-∞}^{-1} e^{2πΩk/a} = 1/(e^{2πΩ/a}-1). The final expression Eq. (30) is consistent with known quadratic-detector results, but the derivation should be replaced by the convergent k<0 sum.
  2. [III B, Eqs. (75)-(78), (93)-(95)] There is an internal inconsistency in the tracelessness conditions. Eq. (76) states F^{∓}_{φ²}-2Re(G^{±}_{φ²})=0, which makes the λ² diagonal corrections in Eq. (75) vanish individually; this contradicts Eq. (78), ReG^-=¼(F^-+F^+), which is the correct trace condition and is used in deriving Eqs. (83)-(84). Applying Eq. (78) to Eq. (75) gives w_A=1/2+λ²/4(F^- - F^+) and w_B=1/2+λ²/4(F^+ - F^-), hence D_{φ²}=λ²/2|F^- - F^+|. In the long-time quadratic limit this is (1+a²)σΛ²/(48π³), i.e. half of Eq. (95), after using Eq. (32). Eq. (95) and any discussion depending on its numerical coefficient need correction; Eq. (98) is unchanged at O(Λ²) since D² is O(Λ⁴).
  3. [III A 4, Figs. 1-3 and 6; Conclusion] The headline claim that quadratic coupling degrades information more quickly is not invariant under the chosen coupling normalization. Because λ (linear) is dimensionless while λ_{φ²} (quadratic) has mass dimension -1, the statement λ=Λ (with Ω=1) in the figures is a choice of units, not a physical equivalence. The ratio of the quadratic to linear degradation coefficients in Eq. (59) versus Eq. (60) is (Λ²/λ²)(1+a²)/12π²; changing the normalization of Λ, e.g. Λ=λ/10, changes or reverses the comparison. The authors should either justify a physical convention for fixing the relative strength of the two couplings or present the comparison as conditional on that convention.
  4. [II C, Eqs. (22), (25), (33)-(34)] The finite-time expansion is not derived consistently. For the stated Gaussian χ(τ)=exp(-τ²/(2T²)), χ''(0)=-1/T², and Eq. (22) gives a coefficient +1/T² for ∂²R/∂Ω², not +1/(2T²) as in Eq. (25); a direct evaluation of the double Gaussian integral gives yet another coefficient. Moreover, Eq. (25) is an asymptotic expansion around Δτ=0, and substituting the long-time Planckian rates into the correction term as done in Eq. (33) is not controlled for a≫Ω, where the second-order correction can be comparable to the leading term. Since the σ≫1 results such as Eq. (59) drop these corrections, this does not invalidate the main long-time formulas, but Eqs. (33)-(34) should be re-derived and their validity regime stated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C2)-(C8)] The appendix contains several sign and factor errors: Eq. (C2) disagrees with Eq. (18) in the overall sign and in the sign of the a² term; Eq. (C8) uses e^{+ξ²} in the Fourier representation, which is divergent and should be e^{-ξ²}; and the u-integral in Eq. (C5) evaluates to 2T√π, not √π. The final result Eq. (C20) appears correct after cancellations, but the derivation should be rewritten.
  2. [III A 2, Eq. (58)] After defining dimensionless rates R̄^{±}_{φ²}=R^{±}_{φ²}/Ω, the notation R^{±}_{φ²}/Ω² in Eq. (58) is ambiguous; the bars should be used consistently to avoid dimensionally confusing expressions.
  3. [II B, Eqs. (14)-(15)] The notation with 2a^{-1} in the denominators is hard to read; writing aΔτ/2 explicitly would improve clarity.
  4. [Figures 1-3, 6] The captions do not state whether the plotted curves use the leading long-time expressions Eqs. (59)/(60) or the finite-time expressions from Section II C; please clarify, since the finite-time corrections are dropped in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quadratic response and information quantities are derived from the normal-ordered Wightman function, and the lambda=Lambda comparison is a stated normalization convention rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities are not circularly defined. The quadratic Wightman function W_phi2 = 2 W^2 is derived in Appendix B from normal ordering of the quadratic interaction, and the infinite-time rates (30)-(31) follow by Fourier transformation along the Rindler trajectory; Eq. (32) is a computed ratio of these derived rates to the standard linear rate, not an assumed equivalence. The finite-time corrections (25) are an explicit derivative expansion in the Gaussian switching function, and the information-theoretic results (59), (65)-(66), (83)-(84), (88), (90), (95), and (98) are algebraic consequences of those response functions rather than fits. The comparison in the figures sets lambda = Lambda with Omega = 1 (Sec. III A 4 and Fig. 1(e) caption); this is a normalization convention that makes the quantitative comparison convention-dependent, but it is not a circular reduction, because the (1+a^2)/(12 pi^2) factor is derived independently of that choice. The citations to the authors' earlier work [34] supply standard linear-case baselines and are not load-bearing for the quadratic derivation, which is self-contained once the quadratic Wightman function is obtained. The finite-time expansion validity and the coupling-normalization convention are legitimate scientific concerns, but they are not instances of a derivation reducing to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's free parameters are the coupling strengths, the detector gap, and the interaction time; none are fitted to data, but the comparative conclusion is sensitive to the choice λ=Λ. The main axioms are the UDW model with normal-ordered quadratic coupling, second-order perturbation theory, and the Gaussian switching approximation with its derivative expansion. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • λ_{φ²} (quadratic coupling strength) = set equal to λ in plots, e.g., 1.25e-2 with Ω=1
    The dimensionless quadratic coupling Λ=λ_{φ²}Ω is chosen equal to the linear λ for comparison; this choice drives the claimed amplification.
  • Ω (detector energy gap) = set to 1 in numerical plots and in the dimensionless comparison
    The energy gap sets the scale; setting Ω=1 makes Λ numerically equal to λ_{φ²}.
  • σ = ΩT (interaction time parameter) = σ=10 in all figures
    The long-time limit σ≫1 is used; σ=10 is chosen for plots.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Standard UDW detector model with normal-ordered quadratic coupling :φ²:
    The interaction Hamiltonian Eq. (1) and normal ordering are assumed to define a valid detector; normal ordering is needed to remove persistent divergences.
  • domain assumption Perturbative expansion to second order in the coupling is valid
    Density matrix evolution Eq. (37) truncates at O(λ²), requiring weak coupling.
  • domain assumption Gaussian switching function and the approximation R ≈ R(∞) + (1/2T²)∂²R(∞)/∂Ω²
    Eq. (25) assumes a slowly varying switching function; the correction is only the second derivative term, which may miss higher-order terms for finite T.
  • standard math Identity (17) for sinh^{-4} x
    Partial fraction expansion used to evaluate the Wightman function; correct, but applied with a divergent sum in Eq. (29).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the information behavior from quadratically coupled accelerated detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTJXHCXI

@misc{pith2026250514915,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the information behavior from quadratically coupled accelerated detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTJXHCXI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14915}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we propose to investigate the information behavior of quantum systems through accelerated detectors quadratically coupled with a massless scalar field. In addition, we made detailed comparisons with the case of linear coupling. The perturbative method was used to evolve the density matrix that describes the interaction of the detector-field system during a finite time. The systems studied were: accelerated single-qubit, quantum interferometric circuit, and the which-path distinguishability circuit. The results on the probability transition rates show that quadratic coupling amplifies the Unruh effect. This is due to the modification of the interaction structure, allowing the simultaneous absorption of multiple quanta. Our findings showed that the information is degraded more quickly in the case of quadratic coupling, when compared to the linear case. Furthermore, this change is mainly given by the coupling constant and by an additional factor that arises in the case of quadratic coupling. Therefore, these results indicate that the nature of the coupling between the detector and the field plays a fundamental role in the behavior of quantum information in high acceleration regimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14915 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Quantum coherence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Quantum coherence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The representation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The physical model In quantum computing, the qubit (quantum bit) constitutes the fundamental unit of information [60], effectively replacing the classical bit employed in traditional computing architectures. Unlike its classical counterpart, a qubit can exist in a coherent superposition of its ground and excited states simultaneously, a property that unde...

  2. [2]

    We cannot determine in advance what the outcome of the measurement will be

    Quantum coherence It is worth mentioning that we cannot “see” a superposition in itself, but only classical states [65]. We cannot determine in advance what the outcome of the measurement will be. 13 The only thing we can say before the measurement is that we will observe a specific state with a corresponding probability [66]. On the other hand, we can ob...

  3. [3]

    Thus, the probabilities associated with these states are defined using the reduced density matrix with respect to the detector [Eq

    Probability of internal states In this section, we investigate the degradation of the probability amplitudes of inter- nal states due to the Unruh effect. Thus, the probabilities associated with these states are defined using the reduced density matrix with respect to the detector [Eq. (51)]. This formu- lation enables the investigation of the effects of ...

  4. [4]

    Regarding quantum coherence, when comparing Eq

    Numerical results As seen in previous sections, quantum coherence and the probabilities of internal states for quadratic coupling behave differently when compared to linearly coupled cases. Regarding quantum coherence, when comparing Eq. (59) with Eq. (60), and regarding probabilities, when comparing Eq. (65) and Eq. (66) with Eq. (67) and Eq. (68), it is...

  5. [5]

    The circuit is organized as follows: initially, a single qubit is prepared in a well-defined initial state

    The physical model In this section, we analyze the quantum scattering circuit. The circuit is organized as follows: initially, a single qubit is prepared in a well-defined initial state. Subsequently, the application of the first Hadamard gate transforms the qubit into a superposition state. Afterward, a phase accumulation occurs due to the phase-change g...

  6. [6]

    Probability of internal states For the case of the quantum interferometric circuit with quadratic coupling, we can also investigate the probabilities of finding the internal states of the detector, as was investigated 22 in the setup of the accelerated qubit. In this way, the definition of the probability of finding the ground state and the excited state,...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The interferometric visibility (commonly referred to as visibility) serves as a quantitative measure of the contrast in interference arising from superposition

    Visibility and quantum coherence At this stage, we are equipped to extract information regarding the interference pattern generated by the quantum interferometric circuit. The interferometric visibility (commonly referred to as visibility) serves as a quantitative measure of the contrast in interference arising from superposition. Visibility is formally d...

    work page

  8. [8]

    To achieve this, the second Hadamard gate is removed from the quantum interfero- metric setup, and two detectors are introduced

    Which–path distinguishability circuit In this section, we will adopt a modified setup, intending to extract which-path informa- tion. To achieve this, the second Hadamard gate is removed from the quantum interfero- metric setup, and two detectors are introduced. In this scenario, the inclusion of the two path detectors enables the quadratic interaction be...

    work page

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Complementarity relation The wave–particle relation quantifies the fundamental trade-off between these two quan- tities. Specifically, any attempt to acquire which-path information (i.e., increase in distin- guishability Dϕ2) inevitably results in a loss of coherence in the in...

  2. [10]

    4(a)– 4(f) correspond to the scenario of quadratic coupling

    Numeric results The numerical results depicted in Fig. 4(a)– 4(f) correspond to the scenario of quadratic coupling. For high acceleration values and phase parameters set to half-integer multiples of π, the results clearly indicate a degradation of quantum coherence. Moreover, ...

  3. [11]

    S. A. Fulling. Nonuniqueness of canonical field quantization in riemannian space-time. Phys. Rev. D, 7:2850–2862, May 1973

    1973

  4. [12]

    P. C. W. Davies. Scalar production in schwarzschild and rindler metrics. J. Phys. A Math. Gen., 8(4):609, apr 1975

    1975

  5. [13]

    W. G. Unruh. Notes on black-hole evaporation. Phys. Rev. D , 14:870–892, Aug 1976

    1976

  6. [14]

    L. C. B. Crispino, A. Higuchi, and G. E. A. Matsas. The unruh effect and its applications. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 80:787–838, Jul 2008

    2008

  7. [15]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies. Quantum Fields in Curved Space . Cambridge University Press, 1984

    1984

  8. [16]

    P. G. Grove and A. C. Ottewill. Notes on ’particle detectors’. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. , 16(16):3905, 1983

    1983

  9. [17]

    R. M. Wald. Quantum field theory in curved spacetime and black hole thermodynamics . Uni- versity of Chicago press, 1994

    1994

  10. [18]

    Lancaster and S

    T. Lancaster and S. J. Blundell. Quantum field theory for the gifted amateur . OUP Oxford, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    B. S. DeWitt. Quantum Gravity: The new synthesis , pages 680–745. Cambridge University Press, 1980

    1980

  12. [20]

    P. C. W. Davies. Particles do not exist , page 66. Adam Hilger Ltd., 1984

    1984

  13. [21]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez. Relativistic quantum information: developments in quantum information in general relativistic scenarios. arXiv preprint arXiv:1106.0280 , 2011. 37

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    R. B. Mann and T. C. Ralph. Relativistic quantum information. Class. Quantum Grav. , 29(22):220301, nov 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    S. W. Hawking. Particle creation by black holes. Commun. Math. Phys. , 43(3):199–220, 1975

    1975

  16. [24]

    Adlam and A

    E. Adlam and A. Kent. Device-independent relativistic quantum bit commitment. Phys. Rev. A, 92:022315, Aug 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    A. G. S. Landulfo. Nonperturbative approach to relativistic quantum communication channels. Phys. Rev. D , 93:104019, May 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Pozas-Kerstjens and E

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez. Harvesting correlations from the quantum vac- uum. Phys. Rev. D , 92:064042, Sep 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Pozas-Kerstjens and E

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez. Entanglement harvesting from the electromag- netic vacuum with hydrogenlike atoms. Phys. Rev. D , 94:064074, Sep 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Simidzija, A

    P. Simidzija, A. Ahmadzadegan, A. Kempf, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez. Transmission of quantum information through quantum fields. Phys. Rev. D , 101:036014, Feb 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Tjoa and E

    E. Tjoa and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez. When entanglement harvesting is not really harvesting. Phys. Rev. D , 104:125005, Dec 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    E. Tjoa. Quantum teleportation with relativistic communication from first principles. Phys. Rev. A, 106:032432, Sep 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Lapponi, D

    A. Lapponi, D. Moustos, D. E. Bruschi, and S. Mancini. Relativistic quantum communication between harmonic oscillator detectors. Phys. Rev. D , 107:125010, Jun 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    W. G. Unruh. Experimental black-hole evaporation? Phys. Rev. Lett. , 46:1351–1353, May 1981

    1981

  25. [33]

    Tian and J

    Z. Tian and J. Jing. How the unruh effect affects transition between classical and quantum decoherences. Phys. Lett. B , 707(2):264–271, 2012

    2012

  26. [34]

    J. Wang, Z. Tian, J. Jing, and H. Fan. Irreversible degradation of quantum coherence under relativistic motion. Phys. Rev. A , 93:062105, Jun 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    J. He, Z. Y. Ding, J. D. Shi, and T. Wu. Multipartite quantum coherence and distribution under the unruh effect. Ann. Phys., 530(9):1800167, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    A. I. Nesterov, M. A. R. Fern´ andez, G. P. Berman, and X. Wang. Decoherence as a detector of the unruh effect. Phys. Rev. Res. , 2:043230, Nov 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Zhang and X

    W. Zhang and X. Liu. Quantum coherence of a circularly accelerated atom in a spacetime with a reflecting boundary. Sci. Rep., 12(12577):2045–2322, 2022. 38

    2022

  30. [38]

    Z. Huang. Coherence behaviors of an atom immersing in a massive scalar field. Eur. Phys. J. D, 76(4):67, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Harikrishnan, S

    S. Harikrishnan, S. Jambulingam, P. P. Rohde, and C. Radhakrishnan. Accessible and inac- cessible quantum coherence in relativistic quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A , 105:052403, May 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    H. Xu. Decoherence and thermalization of unruh-dewitt detector in arbitrary dimensions. J. High Energ. Phys. , 2023(3):1–20, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    P. H. M. Barros, I. G. da Paz, O. P. de S´ a Neto, and H. A. S. Costa. Robustness of wave–particle duality under unruh effect. Entropy, 26(1), 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    P. H. M. Barros and H. A. S. Costa. Dispersive vacuum as a decoherence amplifier of an unruh–dewitt detector. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. , 57(44):445305, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    P. H. M. Barros and H. A. S. Costa. Detecting gravitational waves via coherence degradation induced by the unruh effect. Eur. Phys. J. C , 84(12):1–11, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    P. H. M. Barros, F. C. E. Lima, C. A. S. Almeida, and H. A. S. Costa. Mitigating the information degradation in a massive unruh-dewitt theory. J. High Energ. Phys. , 2025:165, Apr 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    H. A. S. Costa, I. G. da Paz, P. R. S. Carvalho, and M. Sampaio. Ramsey interferometry as a witness of acceleration radiation. Ann. Phys., 416:168158, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Gooding, S

    C. Gooding, S. Biermann, S. Erne, J. Louko, W. G. Unruh, J. Schmiedmayer, and S. We- infurtner. Interferometric unruh detectors for bose-einstein condensates. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 125(21):213603, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    H. T. Lopes, I. G. da Paz, P. R. S. Carvalho, and H. A. S. Costa. Thermal signature of the unruh effect in the interference pattern. Phys. Lett. A , 409:127483, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Jaeger, A

    G. Jaeger, A. Shimony, and L. Vaidman. Two interferometric complementarities. Phys. Rev. A, 51:54–67, Jan 1995

    1995

  41. [49]

    B. G. Englert. Fringe visibility and which-way information: An inequality. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 77:2154–2157, Sep 1996

    1996

  42. [50]

    Miniatura, C

    C. Miniatura, C. A. M¨ uller, Y. Lu, G. Wang, and B. G. Englert. Path distinguishability in double scattering of light by atoms. Phys. Rev. A , 76:022101, Aug 2007

    2007

  43. [51]

    M. N. Bera, T. Qureshi, M. A. Siddiqui, and A. K. Pati. Duality of quantum coherence and path distinguishability. Phys. Rev. A , 92:012118, Jul 2015. 39

    2015

  44. [52]

    K. J. Hinton. Particle detector equivalence. Class. Quantum Grav. , 1(1):27, 1984

    1984

  45. [53]

    S. Takagi. On the response of a rindler particle detector. iii. Prog. Theor. Phys., 74(3):501–510, 1985

    1985

  46. [54]

    S. Takagi. Vacuum noise and stress induced by uniform acceleration: Hawking-unruh effect in rindler manifold of arbitrary dimension. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. , 88:1–142, 03 1986

    1986

  47. [55]

    H¨ ummer, E

    D. H¨ ummer, E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, and A. Kempf. Renormalized unruh-dewitt particle detector models for boson and fermion fields. Phys. Rev. D , 93:024019, Jan 2016

    2016

  48. [56]

    Sachs, R

    A. Sachs, R. B. Mann, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez. Entanglement harvesting and divergences in quadratic unruh-dewitt detector pairs. Phys. Rev. D , 96:085012, Oct 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    Gray and R

    F. Gray and R. B. Mann. Scalar and fermionic unruh otto engines. J. High Energ. Phys. , 2018(11):1–34, 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    D. Wu, S. C. Tang, and Y. Shi. Birth and death of entanglement between two accelerating unruh-dewitt detectors coupled with a scalar field. J. High Energ. Phys. , 2023(12):1–23, 2023

    2023

  51. [59]

    Sriramkumar

    L. Sriramkumar. On the response of non-linearly coupled, accelerated detectors in odd- dimensional flat spacetimes. arXiv preprint gr-qc/0106054 , 2001

    2001 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Mukherjee, S

    A. Mukherjee, S. Gangopadhyay, and A. S. Majumdar. Enhancement of an unruh-dewitt bat- tery performance through quadratic environmental coupling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02849, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Louko and V

    J. Louko and V. Toussaint. Unruh-dewitt detector’s response to fermions in flat spacetimes. Phys. Rev. D , 94:064027, Sep 2016

    2016

  54. [62]

    A. S. Wightman. Quantum field theory in terms of vacuum expectation values. Phys. Rev., 101:860–866, Jan 1956

    1956

  55. [63]

    J. R. Letaw and J. D. Pfautsch. Quantized scalar field in the stationary coordinate systems of flat spacetime. Phys. Rev. D , 24(6):1491, 1981

    1981

  56. [64]

    Padmanabhan

    T. Padmanabhan. General covariance, accelarated frames and the particle concept. Astrophys. Space. Sci., 83:247–268, 1982

    1982

  57. [65]

    R. Kubo. Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes. i. general theory and simple applications to magnetic and conduction problems. J. Phys. Soc. Jap. , 12(6):570–586, 1957

    1957

  58. [66]

    P. C. Martin and J. Schwinger. Theory of many-particle systems. i. Phys. Rev., 115:1342–1373, Sep 1959

    1959

  59. [67]

    W. Rindler. Kruskal space and the uniformly accelerated frame. Am. J. Phys , 34(12):1174– 40 1178, 1966

    1966

  60. [68]

    B. F. Svaiter and N. F. Svaiter. Inertial and noninertial particle detectors and vacuum fluc- tuations. Phys. Rev. D , 46:5267–5277, Dec 1992

    1992

  61. [69]

    Higuchi, G

    A. Higuchi, G. E. A. Matsas, and C. B. Peres. Uniformly accelerated finite-time detectors. Phys. Rev. D , 48:3731–3734, Oct 1993

    1993

  62. [70]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information , volume 2. Cambridge university press Cambridge, 2001

    2001

  63. [71]

    M. M. Wilde. Quantum information theory . Cambridge university press, 2013

    2013

  64. [72]

    A. Khang. Applications and principles of quantum computing . IGI Global, 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    Jazaeri, A

    F. Jazaeri, A. Beckers, A. Tajalli, and J. M. Sallese. A review on quantum computing: From qubits to front-end electronics and cryogenic mosfet physics. In 2019 MIXDES-26th International Conference” Mixed Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems” , pages 15–25. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  66. [74]

    Kasirajan

    V. Kasirajan. The quantum superposition principle and bloch sphere representation. In Fundamentals of Quantum Computing: Theory and Practice , pages 75–104. Springer, 2021

    2021

  67. [75]

    D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter. Introduction to quantum mechanics. Cambridge university press, 2018

    2018

  68. [76]

    J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano. Modern quantum mechanics . Cambridge University Press, 2020

    2020

  69. [77]

    A. J. Leggett. Macroscopic quantum systems and the quantum theory of measurement. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. , 69:80–100, 03 1980

    1980

  70. [78]

    Streltsov, U

    A. Streltsov, U. Singh, H. S. Dhar, M. N. Bera, and G. Adesso. Measuring quantum coherence with entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 115(2):020403, 2015

    2015

  71. [79]

    Roy J. Glauber. Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field. Phys. Rev., 131:2766– 2788, Sep 1963

    1963

  72. [80]

    E. C. G. Sudarshan. Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 10:277–279, Apr 1963

    1963

  73. [81]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio. Quantifying coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 113:140401, Sep 2014

    2014

  74. [82]

    B. G. Englert. Remarks on some basic issues in quantum mechanics. Z. Naturforsch. A , 54(1):11–32, 1999. 41

    1999

  75. [83]

    Zeilinger

    A. Zeilinger. Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 71:S288– S297, Mar 1999

    1999

  76. [84]

    N. F. Ramsey. A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields. Phys. Rev., 78:695–699, Jun 1950

    1950

  77. [85]

    E. Butkov. Mathematical Physics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1968. 42

    1968

Pith tools

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