MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Causality in quantum optics and entanglement of Minkowski vacuum

2021· article· en· W3135304233 on OpenAlexafffund
Anatoly A. Svidzinsky, Arash Azizi, J. Ben-Benjamin, Marlan O. Scully, W. G. Unruh

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Electrodynamics and Casimir Effect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchWelch FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsUnruh effectMinkowski spaceQuantum entanglementPhysicsPhotonQuantum mechanicsExcited stateVacuum stateAtom (system on chip)Atomic physicsTheoretical physicsQuantumComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emission of photons by atoms can occur into modes which extend into a region causally disconnected with the emitter. For example, a uniformly accelerated ground-state atom emits a photon into the Unruh-Minkowski mode which is exponentially larger in the causally disconnected region. This makes an impression that photon emission is acausal. Here we show that conventional quantum optical analysis yields that a detector atom will not detect the emitted photon in the region noncausally connected with the emitter. However, joint excitation probability of atoms in the causally disconnected regions can be correlated due to entanglement of Minkowski vacuum and be much larger than the product of independent excitation probabilities. Moreover, atoms uniformly accelerated in the same Rindler wedge cannot become simultaneously excited without changing the state of the field, that is, the Unruh-Minkowski photon emitted by one atom cannot be absorbed by the other atom. We discuss examples demonstrating interesting features of Minkowski vacuum entanglement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.397 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ResearchSame topicQuantum Electrodynamics and Casimir EffectFrench-language works237,207