On a class of bounded Hermitian operators for the Bell-CHSH inequality in Quantum Field Theory

I. Roditi; M. S. Guimaraes; S. P. Sorella

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

On a class of bounded Hermitian operators for the Bell-CHSH inequality in Quantum Field Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bounded operators built from Weyl fields violate Bell-CHSH in the vacuum of a scalar field, approaching Tsirelson's bound.

desk verdict The paper's central Bell violations are artifacts of a missing k^2 and p^2 in eq. (45), which contradicts its own starting point eq. (18); the construction is novel but the reported numbers do not survive correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00504 v1 pith:R3DCGRYB submitted 2025-05-31 quant-ph hep-thmath-phmath.MP

M. S. Guimaraes , I. Roditi , S. P. Sorella This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phhep-thmath-phmath.MP MSC 81P4081T0546L6081R15 PACS 03.65.Ud03.70.+k11.10.-z

keywords Bell-CHSHinequalityquantumfieldtheoryvacuumentanglementTomita-TakesakimodularWeyloperatorsboundedHermitiancausaldiamondsTsirelsonbound1+1Minkowskispacetime

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 constructs a class of bounded Hermitian operators, such as $A_1(f)=1/\cosh(\varphi(f))$, $A_2(f)=1/(1+\varphi(f)^2)$, and $A_3(f)=e^{-\varphi(f)^2}$, out of the unitary Weyl operators of a free scalar field in $1+1$ Minkowski spacetime. The authors show that the vacuum expectation value of the Bell-CHSH correlation built from these operators can exceed $2$ and come close to Tsirelson's bound $2\sqrt{2}$, obtaining $2.723$ analytically through Tomita-Takesaki modular theory and $2.752$ numerically with explicitly constructed test functions on causal tangent diamonds. The point of the construction is to turn abstract theorems about maximal Bell-CHSH violation in quantum field theory into an explicit computational framework where the test functions and integrals are under control. If correct, it gives a concrete route for studying vacuum entanglement in relativistic field theories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the representation of each bounded Hermitian operator as a continuous superposition of Weyl operators, $$A_i(f)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dk\,\hat{\$\sigma$}_i(k)\,$e^{{ik\varphi(f)}}$,$$ where $\hat{\sigma}_i(k)$ has closed form for $\sigma_1(x)=1/\cosh x$, $\sigma_2(x)=1/(1+x^2)$, and $\sigma_3(x)=e^{-x^2}$. Because the vacuum two-point function of Weyl operators factorizes by the Baker--Campbell--Hausdorff formula as $\langle 0|e^{ik\varphi(f)}e^{ip\varphi(g)}|0\rangle = e^{-\frac12(k^2H(f,f)+p^2H(g,g)+2kpH(f,g))}$ for spacelike supports, every Bell-CHSH correlation reduces to a two-dimensional Gaussian integral over $k,p$. The modular-theoretic input fixes the inner products (42) of the test functions in terms of the parameter $\lambda$ from the spectral subspace of the modular operator $\delta$ of a causal diamond; the numerical input replaces those exact inner products by the measured overlaps (58) of explicit compactly supported bump functions. This reduction from operator algebra to tractable integrals is what carries the argument.

What would settle it

Compute the maximum of the Bell-CHSH correlator for the massive free scalar directly, using high-precision quadrature on the exact massive Hadamard function with $m=10^{-8}$ and a systematic scan over all bump-function parameters; if the supremum falls below $2.723$ or converges to a different value as $m\to 0$, the massless-modular-data assumption is false for this setup.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a massive real scalar field in $1+1$ dimensions, the vacuum Bell-CHSH correlator built from the bounded Hermitian operators (13)--(14) violates the Bell-CHSH inequality and approaches Tsirelson's bound when the test functions are chosen according to the modular relations (39)--(42). Concretely, for the operators $A_2,B_2$ the analytic modular computation gives $\langle 0|C_2|0\rangle = 2.723$ with the parameters (47), and a numerical computation using bump functions supported in two tangent diamonds gives $\langle C_2\rangle_{\rm num} = 2.752$ for parameters (62). The paper argues that the parametrization (57), governed by the overlap parameters $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta$ of (58), provides a practical bridge between the modular-theoretic description and a fully numerical setup; the numerical values (61) come close to the modular values (60), and the remaining differences still yield large violations. The upshot is an explicit, computable demonstration of vacuum entanglement in a relativistic scalar field theory.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation relies on the modular data of causal diamonds being the same in the massive theory used for numerics as in the massless theory where it is proven, and on the fitted bump functions being close enough to the ideal modular test functions that the computed $2.752$ really approximates $2.723$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any of the three operator families, the Bell-CHSH correlator can be evaluated analytically as a two-dimensional integral, so the modular-theoretic prediction is directly testable without constructing modular operators.
The parametrization (57) in terms of $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta$ gives a quantitative measure of how close a numerically chosen test-function set is to the modular ideal; values near (60) produce violations above $2$.
The numerical setup produces violations of order $2.75$ with explicit, compactly supported test functions, giving a practical template for Bell tests in local relativistic settings.
The authors' remark on the massless nature of diamond modular theory implies the numerics with $m\sim10^{-8}$ acts as an infrared-regulated version of the massless result, so the comparison supports treating the small mass as a regulator.

Reading between the lines

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

One could search over a wider family of functions $\sigma$ with positive definite Fourier transforms; since the Gaussian-integral reduction is generic, better choices may approach $2\sqrt{2}$ even more closely than $2.752$.
Because the authors note that wedge regions have known modular data even for massive fields, a direct wedge-region computation would test the method without the massless-to-massive gap that affects diamonds.
A lattice or discretized version of the Weyl operators could turn the Gaussian-integral correlator into a finite matrix computation, offering a route to simulate vacuum Bell violations on small quantum devices.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper before spending time on it. The construction it offers—bounded Hermitian operators built from Fourier transforms of Weyl operators, and the alpha-beta-gamma-delta parametrization that connects Tomita-Takesaki data to a numerical setup—is real and not in the cited prior work. But the central analytic formula, eq. (45), is missing the k^2 and p^2 factors that its own starting point eq. (18) requires. When you restore them, the reported 2.723 and 2.752 both drop well below 2. The claimed Bell violation is an artifact of that algebraic slip.

What the paper does well: the operator class A_i(f)=sigma_i(phi(f)) is a clean way to get bounded observables from Weyl operators, and the parametrization in eqs. (56)-(58) is a useful bridge between modular theory and concrete smeared-field computations. If the formula error were fixed, the analytic part would be a compact, explicit instance of the Summers-Werner abstract results. The authors also honestly flag the massless-diamond provenance of the modular data and the small-mass limit used in numerics.

The soft spot is not minor. Eq. (45) writes the Weyl vacuum expectation as exp[-1/2(eta^2(1+lambda^2)+sigma^2(1+lambda^2)+4kp eta sigma lambda)], but eq. (18) gives exp[-1/2(k^2H(f,f)+p^2H(g,g)+2kpH(f,g))]. With the modular inner products of eq. (42) substituted, the diagonal terms must carry k^2 and p^2. The same omission appears in eq. (57) for the numerical side. With the correct quadratic form, the integrals are finite but small; a quick estimate for the paper's own parameters gives on the order of 1. Instead, the printed formula is not even convergent for the large eta', sigma' parameters, because the cross term can grow quadratically without the diagonal damping. So the central numbers 2.723 and 2.752 are not reproducible.

The numerical section has additional problems: no Monte Carlo error bars, no code, and the bump parameters are hand-fitted so the agreement with the modular parametrization is a consistency check, not a prediction. Those are fixable; the missing k^2 and p^2 are not.

Who is this for? Someone interested in explicit bounded Bell operators in QFT might read the construction, but they should not trust the reported violations. It deserves a serious referee because the construction is worth examining, but in current form the central claim fails.

My recommendation: if you referee it, focus on eq. (45) versus eq. (18). The authors need to redo the integrals with the correct exponent. As it stands, the paper should not be accepted.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs bounded Hermitian operators from real functions of a smeared scalar field via the unitary Weyl operators, and uses Tomita-Takesaki modular theory for causal tangent diamonds in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime to derive an analytic expression for the vacuum Bell-CHSH correlator. It reports large violations, e.g. <0|C_2|0>=2.723 for a specific parameter set, and presents a numerical setup with bump functions yielding <C_2>_num=2.752, which the authors interpret as agreement with the modular-theory result. The central quantitative claims rest on Eqs. (45) and (57).

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a concrete, computable bridge between the abstract modular-theory results of Summers-Werner and explicit test functions, with potential value as a benchmark for numerical studies of Bell violations in QFT. The construction of bounded operators from Weyl operators is sensible, and the idea of comparing modular parameters (alpha,beta,gamma,delta) with numerically computed overlaps is appealing. However, the main analytic and numerical formulas contain a load-bearing error: the diagonal k^2 and p^2 terms in the Weyl vacuum expectation are missing. As a result, the reported violations are artifacts of an incorrect expression, and the claimed agreement between analytic and numerical approaches is not a valid test of the modular-theory prediction.

major comments (3)

[III.A, Eq. (45)] Equation (45) is inconsistent with Eq. (18). The vacuum Weyl expectation in Eq. (18) is exp[-1/2(k^2 H(f,f) + p^2 H(g,g) + 2kp H(f,g))]. Substituting the modular inner products of Eq. (42) gives the first term of the Bell correlator as exp[-1/2(k^2 eta^2(1+lambda^2) + p^2 sigma^2(1+lambda^2) + 4kp eta sigma lambda)], not exp[-1/2(eta^2(1+lambda^2) + sigma^2(1+lambda^2) + 4kp eta sigma lambda)]. The same omission of k^2 and p^2 appears in all four terms of Eq. (45). This is not a normalization convention: without the diagonal quadratic terms, the exponent is not a positive-definite quadratic form in (k,p). In fact, for the fourth term (and similarly for the first), the exponent grows linearly in |kp| when kp<0, so the k,p integral diverges. Thus Eq. (45) is not a well-defined correlation function. The value 2.723 in Eq. (46), and hence the central claim of large violation, is unsupported.
[IV, Eq. (57)] Equation (57) repeats the same omission: the exponent should contain k^2 eta^2(1+lambda^2) and p^2 sigma^2(1+lambda^2) (and analogous terms for the primed parameters), but these diagonal quadratic factors are absent. Consequently the numerical value <C_2>_num=2.752 in Eq. (62) and the comparison in Fig. 2 inherit the same error; the numerical computation is not evaluating the correct vacuum expectation. A quick estimate using the parameters of Eq. (47) with the correct quadratic form in Eq. (18) gives a value of order 1.1, below the classical bound 2, so the reported violation is very likely an artifact of the missing k^2,p^2 terms.
[IV, Eqs. (59)-(62)] Even setting aside the k^2,p^2 error, the numerical overlaps in Eq. (61) do not reproduce the modular values in Eq. (60): gamma=0.732 versus 0, and alpha=0.944 versus 0.992. The numerical agreement claimed in Eq. (62) therefore cannot be regarded as a confirmation of the modular-theory prediction. In addition, the manuscript gives no Monte Carlo error bars or convergence criteria for the four-dimensional integrals, and the massless modular data of [23] are applied to a massive field with m~10^-8 without proving continuity in the mass; these points further weaken the numerical comparison as a check on the analytic formula.

minor comments (4)

[II, Eq. (15)] The integrand in Eq. (15) writes sech(pi k/2) twice; the second factor should presumably be sech(pi p/2). The same typo appears in Eq. (19).
[Throughout] There are several spelling and grammar errors, e.g. 'thta', 'reported' for 'reported', 'pf' for 'of', 'As already underlined' is written 'Aa already underlined', and reference [13] is incomplete ('J. Sorce,'). These should be corrected in a revision.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption uses '(eta, eta' prime)' while Eq. (62) uses (eta, eta'); the notation should be made consistent.
[III, Eq. (42)] The relations in Eq. (42) are presented as consequences of the spectral subspace condition, but the derivation is only sketched. A short justification of why <phi|j phi>=0 and how the cross terms evaluate to 2 eta sigma lambda would improve readability, especially because Eq. (45) depends on these values.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Numerical Bell-CHSH agreement is tuned to the modular parametrization; the analytic derivation is otherwise self-contained apart from minor self-citation.

fitted input called prediction [Section IV, eqs. (57)-(62)]
"We attempted at reproducing these numerical values by searching for suitable values of the parameters (a, a′, b, b′, R) entering the test functions ... After a rather lengthy analysis, we have been able to fix the parameters (a, a′, b, b′, R) in such a way to remain sufficiently close to expressions (60), namely: α= 0.944 , β = 0 , γ = 0.732 , δ = 0.906 . ... In particular we notice that ⟨C2⟩num = 2.752 ... which is in agreement with the value reprted from the modular theory, eq.(47)."

The numerical free parameters are fitted to reproduce the modular-theory inner-product ratios (60). Because the vacuum is quasi-free, the Bell-CHSH correlator (57) depends only on the same inner-product ratios that have just been tuned. With α, β, γ, δ close to their Tomita-Takesaki counterparts, and with the same η, η′, σ, σ′, λ as in the analytic evaluation, the numerical integral is nearly identical in form to the analytic expression (45). The reported agreement between 2.752 and 2.723 is therefore a consistency check, not an independent derivation: the numerical result is forced by the fitted overlaps rather than providing separate confirmation of the analytic claim.

full rationale

The main circular feature is confined to the numerical comparison. The paper openly tunes the test-function parameters to reproduce the modular-theory values of α, β, γ, δ, and then presents the resulting Bell-CHSH value as being in agreement with the Tomita-Takesaki result. Since the Gaussian vacuum correlator is fully determined by the two-point inner products, matching those inner products essentially forces the correlator to match as well; the numerical exercise is a useful consistency check but not an independent prediction. The analytic chain is not circular: eq. (18) is the standard Weyl vacuum expectation value, eqs. (42) are derived in the text from spectral properties of the modular operators, and the use of Hislop-Longo [23] for diamond modular data is an external input, not a self-citation. The citation to the authors' own review [7] for eqs. (42) is accompanied by an explicit derivation, so it is not load-bearing. The paper does not invoke a self-authored uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives, and it does not disguise a known empirical result as a new organization. I do not score the apparent omission of the k² and p² factors in the diagonal terms of eqs. (45) and (57) as circularity; if real, that is a derivation error rather than a self-referential reduction. Similarly, the extrapolation of massless modular data to the m∼10⁻⁸ numerical regime is an unproven assumption and a correctness risk, but it is not a circular step. Overall, the central analytic claim retains independent content, so the partial circularity of the numerical confirmation warrants a score of 4 rather than a higher value.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard mathematical theorems (Reeh-Schlieder, Tomita-Takesaki) plus one domain assumption: the massless diamond modular data is carried over to a nearly massless field. There are no new physical entities, but four free parameters (lambda, Bell angles, bump parameters, mass) are adjusted to obtain the reported violations.

free parameters (4)

lambda (spectral parameter of modular operator delta) = 0.884
Chosen by hand in eq. (47) to produce the representative Bell violations; not determined by the model.
eta, eta', sigma, sigma' (Bell angles) = eta=0.024, eta'=4.732, sigma=0.086, sigma'=9.307
Free real constants used to set the norms of the test functions (39), selected to maximize the CHSH correlation.
Bump parameters (a, a', b, b', R) for numerical test functions = not reported
Chosen in Sec. IV to make the overlaps alpha,beta,gamma,delta approximate the modular values (60); actual values are not stated.
Mass m (infrared cutoff) = m approximately 10^-8
Adopted because diamond modular theory is massless; the dependence of the results on m is not studied.

assumptions (5)

standard math Reeh-Schlieder theorem: the vacuum is cyclic and separating for the Weyl algebra A(O).
Used in Sec. III to define the Tomita operator S on the dense domain A(O)|0>. The paper relies on the theorem without proof.
standard math Tomita-Takesaki modular theory: existence of modular operator Delta and conjugation J with properties (28)-(31).
Imported as background; foundational for eqs. (32)-(42).
domain assumption Hislop-Longo result: for causal diamonds in 1+1 massless theory, the modular operators (j,delta) have the stated action and spectrum R+.
The paper applies this massless diamond modular structure to a massive scalar field, with only a remark that m near 10^-8 acts as an infrared cutoff (Sec. IV); no proof of the massive analogue is given.
standard math The lifted modular relations (32), s=j delta^{1/2}, and spectral orthogonality (43)-(44) for test functions.
Derived from modular theory plus the assumption that phi and j phi lie in different spectral subspaces; this underpins eq. (42).
domain assumption Free massive scalar field Fock representation and Wightman two-point function formulas (A1)-(A6).
The model is a free scalar field in 1+1; all Gaussian correlation computations rely on this.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On a class of bounded Hermitian operators for the Bell-CHSH inequality in Quantum Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R3DCGRYB

@misc{pith2026250600504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On a class of bounded Hermitian operators for the Bell-CHSH inequality in Quantum Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R3DCGRYB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00504}
}

abstract

The violation of the Bell-CHSH inequality in a relativistic scalar Quantum Field Theory is analysed by means of a set of bounded Hermitian operators constructed out of the unitary Weyl operators. These operators allow for both analytic and numerical approaches. While the former relies on the modular theory of Tomita-Takesaki, the latter is devised through an explicit construction of the test functions needed for the localization of the aforementioned operators. The case of causal tangent diamonds in $1+1$ Minkowski spacetime is scrutinized.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00504 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The Bell-CHSH correlation function for the operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The Bell-CHSH correlation function for the operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The Bell-CHSH correlation function for the operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_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. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

Modular Theory and the Bell-CHSH inequality in relativistic scalar Quantum Field Theory
hep-th 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Modular operators construct wedge-localized one-particle vectors that produce Bell-CHSH violations ~2.3 for free scalar fields, with an outline for approaching Tsirelson's bound via modular-spectrum-aware operators.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[23]

Batteli and D

O. Batteli and D. W. Robinson, Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 1 , Springer 1987

work page 1987
[1]

S. J. Summers and R. Werner, J. Math. Phys. 28, 2440-2447 (1987) doi:10.1063/1.527733

doi:10.1063/1.527733 1987
[2]

It is worth underlining that these remarkable results hold for free quantum fields, both of Bose and Fermi type. The proof of the Theorems makes use of fundamental tools of Quantum Field Theory, such as: the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation [10], the Reeh-Schlieder [11] and the Bisognano-Wichmann [12] Theorems, the von Neumann algebras [13], the modular...

arXiv 2025
[3]

For instance, in the case of the operators (A2, B2) one gets ⟨0∣ C2 ∣0⟩= 2.723 , (46) 7 FIG. 1. Causal tangent double diamond regions. The parameter R determines the size of the diamonds. for η = 0.024 , η ′ = 4.732 , σ = 0.086 , σ′ = 9.307 , λ = 0.884 . (47) Similar results are obtained for the other operators (A1, B1), (A3, B3). IV. THE NUMERICAL SETUP ...

work page 2019
[4]

Summers and Reinhard Werner, J

Stephen J. Summers and Reinhard Werner, J. Math. Phys. 28, 2448 (1987); doi: 10.1063/1.527734

doi:10.1063/1.527734 1987
[5]

S. J. Summers and R. Werner, Commun. Math. Phys. 110, 247-259 (1987) doi:10.1007/BF01207366

doi:10.1007/bf01207366 1987
[6]

J. S. Bell, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195-200 (1964) doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

doi:10.1103/physicsphysiquefizika.1.195 1964
[7]

J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880-884 (1969) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.23.880 1969

Show all 24 references

[8]

APS Medal for Exceptional Achievement in Research: Invited article on entanglement properties of quantum field theory,

E. Witten, “APS Medal for Exceptional Achievement in Research: Invited article on entanglement properties of quantum field theory,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, no.4, 045003 (2018) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.045003 [arXiv:1803.04993 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[9]

M. S. Guimaraes, I. Roditi and S. P. Sorella, Rev. Phys. 13 (2025), 100121 doi:10.1016/j.revip.2025.100121 [arXiv:2410.19101 [quant-ph]]

2025
[10]

L. J. Landau, Phys. Lett. A,120, 54, 1987

1987
[11]

Cirelson, Lett

B .S . Cirelson, Lett. Math. Phys. 4, 93-100, (1980) 13

1980
[12]

Haag, Local quantum physics: Fields, particles, algebras , Springer-Verlag, 1992

R. Haag, Local quantum physics: Fields, particles, algebras , Springer-Verlag, 1992

1992
[13]

Reeh and S

H. Reeh and S. Schlieder, Nuovo Cim. 22 (1961) no.5, 1051-1068 doi:10.1007/BF02787889

1961 doi
[14]

J. J. Bisognano and E. H .Wichmann, J. Math. Phys. 16, 985 (1975)

1975
[15]

Takesaki, ”Tomita’s theory of modular Hilbert algebras and its applications”, Lecture Notes Math., vol

M. Takesaki, ”Tomita’s theory of modular Hilbert algebras and its applications”, Lecture Notes Math., vol. 128, Springer, (1970)

1970
[16]

Guido, Contemp

D. Guido, Contemp. Math. 534 (2011), 97-120 [arXiv:0812.1511 [math.OA]]

2011 arXiv
[17]

Dudal, P

D. Dudal, P. De Fabritiis, M. S. Guimaraes, I. Roditi and S. P. Sorella, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), L081701 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L081701 [arXiv:2307.04611 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[18]

De Fabritiis, F

P. De Fabritiis, F. M. Guedes, M. S. Guimaraes, G. Peruzzo, I. Roditi and S. P. Sorella, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.8, 085026 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.085026 [arXiv:2309.02941 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[19]

De Fabritiis, M

P. De Fabritiis, M. S. Guimaraes, I. Roditi and S. P. Sorella, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.6, 065006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.065006 [arXiv:2406.20033 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[20]

M. S. Guimaraes, I. Roditi and S. P. Sorella, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.8, 085017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.085017 [arXiv:2407.14636 [quant-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[21]

M. S. Guimaraes, I. Roditi and S. P. Sorella, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) no.3, 334 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14058-4 [arXiv:2411.03485 [quant-ph]]

2025 arXiv
[22]

M. S. Guimaraes, I. Roditi, S. P. Sorella and A. F. Vieira, [arXiv:2501.03186 [quant-ph]]

arXiv
[24]

P. D. Hislop and R. Longo, Commun. Math. Phys. 84 (1982), 71 doi:10.1007/BF01208372

1982 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [23]

Batteli and D

O. Batteli and D. W. Robinson, Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 1 , Springer 1987

work page 1987

[2] [1]

S. J. Summers and R. Werner, J. Math. Phys. 28, 2440-2447 (1987) doi:10.1063/1.527733

doi:10.1063/1.527733 1987

[3] [2]

It is worth underlining that these remarkable results hold for free quantum fields, both of Bose and Fermi type. The proof of the Theorems makes use of fundamental tools of Quantum Field Theory, such as: the Haag-Kastler algebraic formulation [10], the Reeh-Schlieder [11] and the Bisognano-Wichmann [12] Theorems, the von Neumann algebras [13], the modular...

arXiv 2025

[4] [3]

For instance, in the case of the operators (A2, B2) one gets ⟨0∣ C2 ∣0⟩= 2.723 , (46) 7 FIG. 1. Causal tangent double diamond regions. The parameter R determines the size of the diamonds. for η = 0.024 , η ′ = 4.732 , σ = 0.086 , σ′ = 9.307 , λ = 0.884 . (47) Similar results are obtained for the other operators (A1, B1), (A3, B3). IV. THE NUMERICAL SETUP ...

work page 2019

[5] [4]

Summers and Reinhard Werner, J

Stephen J. Summers and Reinhard Werner, J. Math. Phys. 28, 2448 (1987); doi: 10.1063/1.527734

doi:10.1063/1.527734 1987

[6] [5]

S. J. Summers and R. Werner, Commun. Math. Phys. 110, 247-259 (1987) doi:10.1007/BF01207366

doi:10.1007/bf01207366 1987

[7] [6]

J. S. Bell, Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195-200 (1964) doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

doi:10.1103/physicsphysiquefizika.1.195 1964

[8] [7]

J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880-884 (1969) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.23.880 1969