Ambient temperature versus ambient acceleration in the circular motion Unruh effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that the experience of a linearly accelerated observer with acceleration <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><a:mi>a</a:mi></a:math>, interacting with a massless scalar field in its vacuum state in <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><c:mn>3</c:mn><c:mo>+</c:mo><c:mn>1</c:mn></c:math> Minkowski spacetime, is identical to that of a static observer interacting with a massless scalar field in a thermal state of temperature <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><e:mrow><e:mi>a</e:mi><e:mo>/</e:mo><e:mn>2</e:mn><e:mi>π</e:mi></e:mrow></e:math> in <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><g:mn>3</g:mn><g:mo>+</g:mo><g:mn>1</g:mn></g:math> Minkowski spacetime. We study the robustness of this duality by comparing an observer undergoing circular motion in a thermal bath with an observer that undergoes circular motion around a linearly accelerated trajectory. We find that in most regimes, observers in these two cases experience the field in different ways, and are generally able to tell the difference between the two cases by measuring observables localized along their trajectories. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".