Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Does acceleration always degrade quantum entanglement for tetrapartite Unruh-DeWitt detectors?

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A four-party W state's 1–3 entanglement falls, then rises with acceleration and persists at infinite acceleration, overturning the view that the Unruh effect only degrades entanglement.

desk verdict The W-state enhancement claim is interesting but rests on a first-order perturbative expansion that diverges exactly where the effect is claimed, so the current calculation does not establish it. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05881 v2 pith:NCQILZGW submitted 2025-02-09 gr-qc

Si-Han Li , Si-Han Shang , Shu-Min Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.70.Dy03.65.Ud04.62.+v
keywords UnruheffectUnruh-DeWittdetectormultipartiteentanglementWstateGHZnegativitytetrapartiterelativisticquantuminformation
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

The paper asks whether the Unruh effect always degrades entanglement in detector models, as earlier results for bipartite states suggested. It studies four Unruh–DeWitt detectors initially sharing a $W$ state or a GHZ state, with one detector uniformly accelerated. It claims that the $1$–$3$ entanglement of the $W$ state first decreases to a minimum and then increases to a fixed positive value as the acceleration grows, so the entanglement persists even in the limit of infinite acceleration. By contrast, the GHZ state's $1$–$3$ entanglement and all bipartite detector entanglement are destroyed. The authors read this as showing that the Unruh effect can both degrade and enhance entanglement, depending on the multipartite structure of the state.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tetrapartite $W$ state $|W_4\rangle=\tfrac12(|0001\rangle+|0010\rangle+|0100\rangle+|1000\rangle)$, evolved through a first-order detector-field interaction with the accelerated David detector. The Bogoliubov transformation between Rindler and Minkowski operators turns the Minkowski vacuum into thermally populated Rindler modes, and after tracing out the field the reduced density matrix is determined by the coefficients $K_0=\nu^2/[4(1-q)+\nu^2(1+3q)]$, $K_1=(1-q)/[4(1-q)+\nu^2(1+3q)]$, and $K_2=\nu^2 q/[4(1-q)+\nu^2(1+3q)]$. The $1$–$3$ negativity, defined through the partial transpose, extracts entanglement from this density matrix; the $q$-dependent competition between $K_1$ and $K_2$ is what produces the dip-and-recovery curve.

What would settle it

Compute $N_{A(BCD)}(W_4)$ at $q=0.9999$ and $\nu^2=0.04$ beyond first order—for example by including the second-order terms the paper itself derives—and check whether the upward turn and the positive infinite-acceleration limit survive. If higher orders remove the upturn or drive the negativity to zero, the claimed enhancement is a perturbative artifact; if they preserve it, the effect is robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the tetrapartite Unruh–DeWitt detector model—four two-level detectors, one of which follows a uniformly accelerated Rindler trajectory while the other three are stationary—the reduced state of the detectors after tracing out the scalar field has coefficients that depend on $q=e^{-2\pi\Omega/a}$ and the effective coupling $\nu^2$. The paper derives the negativity $N_{A(BCD)}(W_4)$, the $1$–$3$ tangle between Alice and the Bob–Charlie–David block, and finds it is non-monotonic in $q$: it declines to a minimum and then rises to a fixed positive value as $q\to 1$. The same quantity for the GHZ state, and the negativity $N_{D(ABC)}$, vanish in that limit. An appendix extends the calculation to second order in the interaction and reports that the W-state negativity is reduced but retains the qualitative resilience, while the GHZ negativity undergoes sudden death more rapidly.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the detector–field interaction is weak enough that first-order perturbation theory is reliable, but at the large accelerations where the entanglement recovers the effective expansion parameter $\nu^2/(1-q)$ is not small, so the headline behavior may be an artifact of the approximation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the $1$–$3$ tangle of the $W$ state is not monotonic in acceleration: there is an acceleration at which degradation stops and entanglement begins to grow.
  • In the infinite-acceleration limit $q\to 1$, the $W$-state entanglement approaches a fixed positive value, so it is not completely destroyed by the Unruh effect, unlike bipartite detector entanglement.
  • The GHZ state, under the same conditions, loses its $1$–$3$ entanglement completely, so the multipartite structure of the initial state controls whether Unruh noise is harmful or helpful.
  • The $W$ state's resilience makes it a better candidate than GHZ or bipartite states for quantum information tasks in relativistic settings, because some entanglement can be recovered from the detector-field correlations.
  • The non-monotonic dependence on interaction time and energy gap (for fixed $q$) means the effect can be tuned by choosing detector parameters, not only by choosing acceleration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a nonperturbative calculation confirms the upturn, the same dip-and-recovery should appear for other W-class states and for detector arrays with one accelerated node, suggesting a general mechanism of entanglement refocusing through thermal field correlations.
  • The turnaround value of $q$ (or of the interaction time) could be used as a design target: an experiment could choose the energy gap and interaction duration that maximize the recovered $1$–$3$ tangle.
  • The first-order calculation becomes uncontrolled as $q\to1$ because the effective expansion parameter $\nu^2/(1-q)$ diverges; testing whether the recovery survives at second and higher orders, or in an exact treatment, is the decisive open check.
  • A direct witness of the claimed refocusing would be to compute the tripartite entanglement among the three stationary detectors alone; if the field returns correlations to the whole $W$ state, part of that return should be visible inside the stationary block.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper considers four Unruh-DeWitt detectors initially prepared in a four-qubit W state (and, for comparison, a GHZ state), with David's detector uniformly accelerated. The authors evolve the detector-field system to first order in the coupling, trace out the field, and compute the negativities for the 1-3 bipartitions. They report that, while the GHZ-state negativities and one of the W-state negativities are completely destroyed, the negativity N_A(BCD) of the W state is non-monotonic in the acceleration parameter q and remains positive in the infinite-acceleration limit, leading them to conclude that the Unruh effect can enhance as well as degrade multipartite entanglement. Appendix B repeats the analysis to second order and reports the same qualitative trends.

Significance. If the claims were established, the paper would present an interesting counterexample to the usual monotonic degradation of entanglement for Unruh-DeWitt detectors and would extend the standard detector framework from bipartite to tetrapartite systems. The algebraic part of the calculation is transparent, the W-versus-GHZ comparison is a sensible probe of multipartite structure, and the inclusion of a second-order appendix is honest in intent. However, as detailed below, the qualitative effects are exhibited only in a regime where the perturbative expansion is uncontrolled, so the reported phenomenon is not currently supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [II, Eqs. (8)-(13), Fig. 2(a)] From the squared norm in Eq. (12), ||W4∞||^2 - 1 = ν^2(1+3q)/(4(1-q)). The perturbative expansion of the state is controlled only if this correction is small, not merely if ν^2 ≪ 1. For the parameters used in Fig. 2 (ν^2 = 0.04, q = 0.9999) the correction equals approximately 400, so the first-order term is about twenty times larger than the zeroth-order term. The claimed recovery and infinite-acceleration persistence of N_A(BCD)(W4) occur precisely in this uncontrolled regime, and normalizing by the large norm suppresses the original W components while promoting the field-induced |0000> and |0011>/|0101>/|1001> components.
  2. [III, Figs. 1-3] For any fixed ν^2, the pronounced non-monotonic rise in the plotted negativity appears only when ν^2/(1-q) is of order one; in the controlled window ν^2/(1-q) ≪ 1 the reduced density matrix is a small perturbation of the initial W state and the negativity remains near its zero-acceleration value. The manuscript does not identify any parameter set in which the claimed enhancement occurs with a controlled first-order expansion, so the qualitative conclusion is not established for the model as treated.
  3. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B5)-(B8), Fig. 4] The second-order calculation offered as corroboration is itself unphysical in the region of interest. In Eq. (B7), K̃1 = (1-q-ν^2)/(4(1-q)), which is negative whenever q > 1 - ν^2; with q = 0.9999 and ν^2 = 0.04 this gives K̃1 ≈ -99.75. Hence ρ^(2)_∞(W) is not a positive semidefinite matrix, and the negativity plotted for the second-order curve in Fig. 4 is not an entanglement measure of a valid quantum state. The appendix therefore cannot repair the breakdown of the first-order calculation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II, Eq. (4)] The symbol ∑_τ in Eq. (4) is undefined and should be replaced by standard notation for an integration over a Cauchy surface.
  2. [II, after Eq. (10)] The word 'Bogliubov' should be spelled 'Bogoliubov'.
  3. [II, Eqs. (15), (19), (21)] The notation '(H.c.)nondiag.' is nonstandard; the Hermitian-conjugate terms should be written explicitly or defined before use.
  4. [III, Eq. (22)] The closed form for N_A(BCD)(W4) is not given even though the corresponding formula for N_D(ABC)(W4) is provided in Eq. (22); providing the analogous expression would make the central curve reproducible from the text.
  5. [Figures 1(a)-1(b)] The two panels use different vertical ranges, which makes the W and GHZ curves harder to compare; identical ranges would be preferable.
  6. [Abstract and Conclusions] The phrase 'overturns the traditional view' is stronger than the evidence even under the authors' assumptions; the reported effect concerns a single bipartition of one multipartite state.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the tetrapartite W-state negativity is computed directly from the stated UDW Hamiltonian, and the perturbative-control breakdown near q→1 is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a direct perturbative computation from a stated interaction Hamiltonian (Eq. 4) and initial W and GHZ states. The reduced density matrices (Eqs. 12-15, A6-A7, B6-B7, B12) and negativities (Eq. 22, A9, A11) are obtained by tracing out the field and applying the standard partial-transpose criterion; no parameter is fitted to the target quantity, and no prediction is defined in terms of the data it claims to explain. Citations to earlier bipartite UDW detector results (e.g., refs. 81-86) are used only as comparison benchmarks and do not enter the derivation of the W-state density matrix or negativity. Self-citations of the same group (refs. 31, 45, 47, 51, 80) are contextual background and are not load-bearing. The non-monotonic behavior and the persistence of N_A(BCD)(W4) in the large-acceleration limit follow algebraically from the K0, K1, and K2 coefficients of the traced state; no step reduces to an input by construction. The skeptic's objection is a legitimate correctness concern: the paper states only ν^2 << 1 as the perturbative condition, but the squared norm of the first-order correction is ν^2(1+3q)/(4(1−q)), which diverges as q→1 (≈400 for ν^2=0.04 and q=0.9999), so the plotted regime is not controlled, and the second-order coefficients in Appendix B become negative there. This undermines the reliability of the claimed enhancement, but it is an expansion-control problem rather than a circularity, because the claimed result is not assumed in the model or hidden in a fitted parameter.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the UDW detector formalism and the negativity measure. No new entities are introduced. The main concern is the uncontrolled perturbative expansion near q=1, which is an axiom of the calculation rather than a fitted parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • effective coupling ν = ν² = 0.04 in the main figures
    Chosen by hand for the plots. The negativity depends on ν, although the q=1 limit is independent of ν, so the persistence claim is less sensitive to this choice than the minimum value and the recovery rate.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption First-order Dyson series for the detector-field interaction, with subsequent normalization by the state norm, gives the correct reduced detector state.
    Used to obtain Eq. (12) and the coefficients K0, K1, K2. The stated validity condition ν² ≪ 1 is insufficient near q=1 because the effective expansion parameter is ν²/(1-q), which diverges.
  • domain assumption The scalar field is initially in the Minkowski vacuum, and only David's detector is switched on and accelerated.
    This is the standard Unruh-DeWitt detector setup, introduced in Section II and used throughout the derivation.
  • domain assumption The Bogoliubov transformation between Rindler and Minkowski modes, as given in Eqs. (9) and (10), correctly describes the vacuum structure for a uniformly accelerated observer.
    Invoked to express the final state in terms of Minkowski operators and to trace out the field. This is a standard result in relativistic quantum information, cited from the prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Does acceleration always degrade quantum entanglement for tetrapartite Unruh-DeWitt detectors?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NCQILZGW

@misc{pith2026250205881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Does acceleration always degrade quantum entanglement for tetrapartite Unruh-DeWitt detectors?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NCQILZGW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05881}
}
abstract

Previous studies have shown that the Unruh effect completely destroys quantum entanglement and coherence of bipartite states, as modeled by entangled Unruh-DeWitt detectors. But does the Unruh effect have a different impact on quantum entanglement of multipartite states within this framework? In this paper, we investigate the influence of the Unruh effect on $1-3$ entanglement in the context of entangled tetrapartite Unruh-DeWitt detectors. We find that quantum entanglement of tetrapartite $W$ state first decreases to a minimum value and then increases to a fixed value with the growth of the acceleration. This indicates that the Unruh effect can, under certain conditions, enhance quantum entanglement. In other words, the Unruh effect plays a dual role in the behavior of quantum entanglement-both diminishing and enhancing it. This discovery challenges and overturns the traditional view that the Unruh effect is solely detrimental to quantum entanglement and coherence in entangled Unruh-DeWitt detectors, offering a fresh and profound perspective on its impact.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05881 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Privacy-Preserving Driver Drowsiness Detection with Spatial Self-Attention and Federated Learning

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Entanglement harvesting from a mass-superposed BTZ black hole is enhanced by interference, while mutual information shows a distance-dependent crossover relative to a single spacetime.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    X. M. Hu, Y . Guo, B. H. Liu, C. F. Li and G. C. Guo, Progress in quantum teleportation, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 339353 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    X. M. Hu, C. Zhang, B. H. Liu, Y . Cai, X. J. Y e, Y . Guo, W. B. Xi ng, C. X. Huang, Y . F. Huang, C. F. Li and G. C. Guo, Experimental high-dimensional quantum tel eportation, Phys. Rev. Lett 125, 230501 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, R. V an Meter and L. Hanzo, Wh en entanglement meets classical com- munications: Quantum teleportation for the quantum intern et, IEEE Trans. Commun. 68, 3808 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    F. L. Y an and X. Q. Zhang, A scheme for secure direct commun ication using EPR pairs and teleporta- tion, Eur. Phys. J. B 41, 075 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    T. Gao, F. L. Y an and Y . C. Li, Optimal controlled teleportation, Europhys. Lett. 84, 50001 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    Gupta and M

    M. Gupta and M. J. Nene, Quantum computing: An entangleme nt measurement, 2020 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Advent Trends in Multidisciplinary Research and Innovation (ICA TMRI)30, 001006 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Qu antum Information, Cambridge Uni- versity Press, (2000)

    2000

  8. [8]

    Datta, S

    A. Datta, S. T. Flammia and C. M. Caves, Entanglement and t he power of one qubit, Phys. Rev. A 72, 042316 (2005)

    2005

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Yin, et al

    J. Yin, et al. , Entanglement-based secure quantum cryptography over 1,1 20 kilometres, Nature 582, 501 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Masanes, Universally composable privacy amplificat ion from causality constraints, Phys

    L. Masanes, Universally composable privacy amplificat ion from causality constraints, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 140501 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Z. X. Ji, P . R. Fan, H. G. Zhang and H. Z. Wang, Several two- party protocols for quantum private comparison using entanglement and dense coding, Opt. Commu n. 459, 124911 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Meher, Scheme for realizing quantum dense coding via entanglement swapping, J

    N. Meher, Scheme for realizing quantum dense coding via entanglement swapping, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 53, 065502 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Chitambar and F

    E. Chitambar and F. Leditzky, On the duality of teleport ation and dense coding, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 70, 3529 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Piveteau, J

    A. Piveteau, J. Pauwels, E. H˚ akansson, S. Muhammad, M. Bourennane and A. Tavakoli, 12 Entanglement-assisted quantum communication with simple measurements, Nat. Commun. 13, 7878 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Zou, Quantum entanglement and its application in qua ntum communication, J

    N. Zou, Quantum entanglement and its application in qua ntum communication, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1827, 012120 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    J. M. Renes and M. Grassl, Generalized decoding, effect ive channels, and simplified security proofs in quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. A 74, 022317 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Y . H. Zhou, Z. W. Y u and X. B. Wang, Making the decoy-state measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution practically useful, Phys. Rev. A 93, 042324 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    M. Ma, Y . Li and J. Shang, Multipartite entanglement mea sures: a review, Fundamental Research 19 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P . Horodecki, M. Horodecki and K. Horodec ki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    G¨ uhne and G

    O. G¨ uhne and G. T´ oth, Entanglement detection, Phys. Rep. 474, 1 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    Friis, G

    N. Friis, G. Vitagliano, M. Malik and M. Huber, Entangle ment certification from theory to experiment, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 72 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Fuentes-Schuller and R

    I. Fuentes-Schuller and R. B. Mann, Alice Falls into a Bl ack Hole: Entanglement in Non-inertial Frames, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 120404 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    P . M. Alsing, I. Fuentes-Schuller, R. B. Mann and T. E. Te ssier, Entanglement of Dirac fields in noninertial frames, Phys. Rev. A 74, 032326 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Ahn, Unruh effect as a noisy quantum channel, Phys

    D. Ahn, Unruh effect as a noisy quantum channel, Phys. Re v. A 98, 022308 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Adesso, I

    G. Adesso, I. Fuentes-Schuller and M. Ericsson, Contin uous-variable entanglement sharing in non- inertial frames, Phys. Rev. A 76, 062112 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Gonzalez-Raya, S

    T. Gonzalez-Raya, S. Pirandola and M. Sanz, Satellite- based entanglement distribution and quantum teleportation with continuous variables, Commun. Phys. 7, 126 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Pan and J

    Q. Pan and J. Jing, Hawking radiation, entanglement, an d teleportation in the background of an asymp- totically flat static black hole, Phys. Rev. D 78, 065015 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    M. M. Du, H. W. Li, S. T. Shen, X. J. Y an, X. Y . Li, L. Zhou, W. Zhong and Y . B. Sheng, Maximal steered coherence in the background of Schwarzschild space -time, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 450 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    W. Liu, C. Wen, J. Wang, Lorentz violation alleviates gr avitationally induced entanglement degrada- tion, J. High Energy Phys. 01, 184 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Banerjee, A

    S. Banerjee, A. K. Alok, S. Omkar and R. Srikanth, Charac terization of Unruh channel in the context 13 of open quantum systems, J. High Energy Phys. 02, 82 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    S. M. Wu, X. W. Fan, R. D. Wang, H. Y . Wu, X. L. Huang and H. S. Zeng, Does Hawking effect always degrade fidelity of quantum teleportation in Schwarz schild spacetime?, J. High Energy Phys. 11, 232 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Le´ on and E

    J. Le´ on and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Spin and occupationnumber entanglement of Dirac fields for nonin- ertial observers, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012314 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    J. He, S. Xu, Y . Y u and L. Y e, Property of various correlat ion measures of open Dirac system with Hawking effect in Schwarzschild space-time, Phys. Lett. B 740, 322 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Elghaayda, A

    S. Elghaayda, A. Ali, S. Al-Kuwari and M. Mansour, Physi cally accessible and inaccessible quantum correlations of Dirac fields in Schwarzschild spacetime, Ph ys. Lett. A 525, 129915 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    J. K. Basak, D. Giataganas, S. Mondal and W. Y . Wen, Reflec ted entropy and Markov gap in noniner- tial frames, Phys. Rev. D 108, 125009 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    S. Sen, A. Mukherjee and S. Gangopadhyay, Entanglement degradation as a tool to detect signatures of modified gravity, Phys. Rev. D 109, 046012 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    A. Ali, S. Al-Kuwari, M. Ghominejad, M. T. Rahim, D. Wang and S. Haddadi, Quantum characteris- tics near event horizons, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064001 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Wu and L

    H. Wu and L. Chen, Orbital angular momentum entanglemen t in noninertial reference frame, Phys. Rev. D 107, 065006 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    C. Y . Liu, Z. W. Long and Q. L. He, Quantum coherence and qu antum Fisher information of Dirac particles in curved spacetime under decoherence, Phys. Let t. B 857, 138991 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    M. R. Hwang, D. Park and E. Jung, Tripartite entanglemen t in a noninertial frame, Phys. Rev. A 83, 012111 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    S. Xu, X. K. Song, J. D. Shi and L. Y e, How the Hawking effec t affects multipartite entanglement of Dirac particles in the background of a Schwarzschild black h ole, Phys. Rev. D 89, 065022 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    W. C. Qiang, G. H. Sun, Q. Dong and S. H. Dong, Genuine mult ipartite concurrence for entanglement of Dirac fields in noninertial frames, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022320 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    H. M. Reji, H. S. Hegde and R. Prabhu, Conditions for sepa rability in multiqubit systems with an accelerating qubit using a conditional entropy, Phys. Rev. A 110, 032403 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    A. J. Torres-Arenas, Q. Dong, G. H. Sun, W. C. Qiang and S. H. Dong, Entanglement measures of W-state in noninertial frames, Phys. Lett. B 789, 93 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    S. M. Wu, X. W. Teng, J. X. Li, S. H. Li, T. H. Liu and J. C. Wan g, Genuinely accessible and 14 inaccessible entanglement in Schwarzschild black hole, Ph ys. Lett. B 848, 138334 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Zhang, X

    T. Zhang, X. Wang and S. M. Fei, Hawking effect can genera te physically inaccessible genuine tripar- tite nonlocality, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 607 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    S. M. Wu and H. S. Zeng, Genuine tripartite nonlocality a nd entanglement in curved spacetime, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 4 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    L. J. Li, F. Ming, X. K. Song, L. Y e and D. Wang, Quantumnes s and entropic uncertainty in curved space-time, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 726 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    T. Y . Wang and D. Wang, Entropic uncertainty relations i n Schwarzschild space-time, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138876 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Harikrishnan, S

    S. Harikrishnan, S. Jambulingam, P . P . Rohde and C. Radh akrishnan, Accessible and inaccessible quantum coherence in relativistic quantum systems, Phys. R ev. A 105, 052403 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    W. M. Li and S. M. Wu, Bosonic and fermionic coherence of N -partite states in the background of a dilaton black hole, J. High Energy Phys. 09, 144 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    W. Liu, D. Wu, J. Wang, Light rings and shadows of static b lack holes in effective quantum gravity, Phys. Lett. B 858, 139052 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    D. E. Bruschi, J. Louko, E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, A. Draga n, I. Fuentes, Unruh effect in quantum infor- mation beyond the single-mode approximation, Phys. Rev. A 82, 042332 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    D. E. Bruschi, A. Dragan, I. Fuentes, J. Louko, Particle and anti-particle bosonic entanglement in non-inertial frames, Phys. Rev. D 86, 025026 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    G. W. Mi, X. Huang, S. M. Fei, T. Zhang, Genuine four-part ite Bell nonlocality in the curved space- time, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 354 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    L. J. Li, X. K. Song, L. Y e, and D. Wang, Quantifying quant umness in (A)dS spacetimes with Unruh- DeWitt detector, Phys. Rev. D 111, 065007 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Steinhauer, et al., Analogue cosmological particle creation in an ultracold quantum fluid of light, Nat

    J. Steinhauer, et al., Analogue cosmological particle creation in an ultracold quantum fluid of light, Nat. Commun. 13, 2890 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Z. Tian, L. Wu, L. Zhang, J. Jing and J. Du, Probing Lorent z-invariance-violation-induced nonthermal Unruh effect in quasi-two-dimensional dipolar condensate s, Phys. Rev. D 106, L061701 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    J. Hu, L. Feng, Z. Zhang and C. Chin, Quantum simulation o f Unruh radiation, Nat. Phys. 15, 785 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Y . H. Shi, et al., Quantum simulation of Hawking radiati on and curved spacetime with a supercon- ducting on-chip black hole, Nat. Commun. 14, 3263 (2023). 15

    2023

  53. [61]

    Drori, Y

    J. Drori, Y . Rosenberg, D. Bermudez, Y . Silberberg and U . Leonhardt, Observation of Stimulated Hawking Radiation in an Optical Analogue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 010404 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Agullo, A

    I. Agullo, A. J. Brady and D. Kranas, Quantum Aspects of S timulated Hawking Radiation in an Optical Analog White-Black Hole Pair, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 091301 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Z. Tian, J. Jing and A. Dragan, Analog cosmological part icle generation in a superconducting circuit, Phys. Rev. D 95, 125003 (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    H. N. Wu, Y . H. Li, B. Li, X. Y ou, R. Z. Liu, J. G. Ren, J. Yin, C. Y . Lu, Y . Cao, C. Z. Peng and J. W. Pan, Single-Photon Interference over 8.4 km Urban Atmosphe re: Toward Testing Quantum Effects in Curved Spacetime with Photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 020201 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    Xu et al., Satellite testing of a gravitationally ind uced quantum decoherence model, Science 366, 132 (2019)

    P . Xu et al., Satellite testing of a gravitationally ind uced quantum decoherence model, Science 366, 132 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband and D. J. Wineland, Op tical Clocks and Relativity, Science 329, 1630 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    J. Y . Wang et al., Direct and full-scale experimental ve rifications towards ground-satellite quantum key distribution, Nat. Photonics 7, 387 (2013)

    2013

  60. [68]

    W. G. Unruh, Notes on black-hole evaporation, Phys. Rev . D 14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  61. [69]

    B. S. DeWitt, Quantum Gravity: The New Synthesis, Cambr idge University Press, (1979)

    1979

  62. [70]

    N. D. Birrell, P . C. W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved S pace, Cambridge Monographs on Mathe- matical Physics, Cambridge University Press, (1984)

    1984

  63. [71]

    S. W. Hawking and W. Israel, General Relativity: An Eins tein Centenary Survey, Cambridge Univer- sity Press (1980)

    1980

  64. [72]

    Reznik, A

    B. Reznik, A. Retzker and J. Silman, Violating Bell’s in equalities in vacuum, Phys. Rev. A 71, 042104 (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    L. C. C´ eleri, A. G. S. Landulfo, R. M. Serra and G. E. A. Ma tsas, Sudden change in quantum and classical correlations and the Unruh effect, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062130 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    D. M. Avalos, K. Gallock-Y oshimura, L. J. Henderson and R. B. Mann, Instant extraction of nonper- turbative tripartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. Research 5, L042039 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    T. R. Perche, J. Polo-G´ omez, B. de S. L. Torres and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Fully relativistic entanglement harvesting, Phys. Rev. D 109, 045018 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    Z. Liu, J. Zhang and H. Y u, Harvesting correlations from vacuum quantum felds in the presence of a refecting boundary, J. High Energy Phys. 11, 184 (2023). 16

    2023

  69. [77]

    Y . Ji, J. Zhang and H. Y u, Entanglement harvesting in cos mic string spacetime, J. High Energy Phys. 06, 161 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Q. Liu, T. Liu, C. Wen, J. Wang, Optimal quantum strategy for locating Unruh channels, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022428 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    Gallock-Y oshimura and R

    K. Gallock-Y oshimura and R. B. Mann, Entangled detecto rs nonperturbatively harvest mutual infor- mation, Phys. Rev. D 104, 125017 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    S. M. Wu, R. D. Wang, X. L. Huang and Z. Wang, Does gravitat ional wave assist vacuum steering and Bell nonlocality?, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 155 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    A. G. S. Landulfo and G. E. A. Matsas, Sudden death of enta nglement and teleportation fidelity loss via the Unruh effect, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032315 (2009)

    2009

  74. [82]

    M. M. Du, H. W. Li, Z. Tao, S. T. Shen, X. J. Y an, X. Y . Li, W. Z hong, Y . B. Sheng and L. Zhou, Basis-independent quantum coherence and its distribution under relativistic motion, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 838 (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    J. Wang, Z. Tian, J. Jing and H. Fan, Irreversible degrad ation of quantum coherence under relativistic motion, Phys. Rev. A 93, 062105 (2016)

    2016

  76. [84]

    Z. Tian, J. Wang and J. Jing, Nonlocality and entangleme nt via the Unruh effect, Ann. Phys. 332, 98 (2012)

    2012

  77. [85]

    T. Liu, J. Wang, J. Jing and H. Fan, The influence of Unruh e ffect on quantum steering for accelerated two-level detectors with different measurements, Ann. Phy s. 390, 334 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Y . K. Zhang, L. J. Li, X. K. Song, L. Y e and D. Wang, Entropi c uncertainty and quantum non- classicality of Unruh-Dewitt detectors in relativity, Phy s. Lett. B 858, 139063 (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    J. He, Z. Y . Ding, J. D. Shi and T. Wu, Multipartite quantu m coherence and distribution under the Unruh effect, Ann. Phys. 530, 1800167 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    Y . C. Ou and H. Fan, Monogamy inequality in terms of negat ivity for three-qubit states, Phys. Rev. A 75, 062308 (2007)

    2007

  81. [89]

    R. H. Jonsson, E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, and A. Kempf, Quantum signaling in cavity QED, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022330 (2014)

    2014

  82. [90]

    R. H. Jonsson, Quantum signaling in relativistic motio n and across acceleration horizons, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50, 355401 (2017). 17 Appendix A: Dynamic quantum entanglement of tetrapartite GHZ state for the Unruh-DeWitt detector model In this section, we present the deri...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.