4.7 Article

Broken covariance of particle detector models in relativistic quantum information

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 103, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.025007

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSERC
  2. Ontario Early Researcher Award
  3. IFT-UNESP/ICTP-SAIFR
  4. CAPES
  5. Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
  6. Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The predictions of commonly used spatially smeared particle detectors coupled to quantum fields are not generally covariant outside the pointlike limit, leading to an ambiguity in time-ordering operation. The breakdown of covariance affects typical detector models in quantum field theory depending on the state of the detectors-field system, the shape and state of motion of the detectors, and the spacetime geometry. Tools are provided to evaluate the violation and identify the regimes where smeared detectors' predictions are either exactly or approximately covariant in perturbative analyses, establishing limits of validity of smeared particle detector models.
We show that the predictions of commonly used spatially smeared particle detectors coupled to quantum fields are not generally covariant outside the pointlike limit. This lack of covariance manifests itself as an ambiguity in the time-ordering operation. We analyze how the breakdown of covariance affects typical detector models in quantum field theory such as the Unruh-DeWitt model. Specifically, we show how the violations of covariance depend on the state of the detectors-field system, the shape and state of motion of the detectors, and the spacetime geometry. Furthermore, we provide the tools to explicitly evaluate the magnitude of the violation and identify the regimes where the predictions of smeared detectors are either exactly or approximately covariant in perturbative analyses, thus providing limits of validity of smeared particle detector models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据