Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 43 references

Surviving correlations across a horizon: reflected entropy for bosonic fields in non-inertial frames and black hole spacetimes

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 This paper claims that for bosonic fields the Alice–Bob reflected entropy degrades under acceleration but saturates at a finite nonzero floor—1.757, 0.752, and 0.315 bits for Bell, W, and GHZ states—while only the inter-wedge reflected…

desk verdict A careful bosonic extension of reflected entropy to accelerated observers; the exact sector method is real, but the quantitative floors are conditional on the single-mode approximation the paper flags but never quantifies. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05473 v1 pith:P46CPOCX submitted 2026-08-05 hep-th gr-qcquant-ph

Sayid Mondal This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qcquant-ph PACS 03.67.Mn04.70.Dy03.65.Ud
keywords reflectedentropyMarkovgapUnruheffectbosonicfieldsRindlerspacetimeSchwarzschildblackholequantumentanglementsingle-modeapproximation
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

Uniformly accelerated observers see the Minkowski vacuum as a thermal bath, and standard entanglement measures say that bosonic entanglement between an inertial and an accelerated observer is completely destroyed at infinite acceleration. This paper argues that the picture changes when correlations are quantified by reflected entropy, which captures total (classical plus quantum) correlation: the Alice–Bob reflected entropy decreases but saturates at nonzero floors—1.757 bits for the Bell state, 0.752 bits for the W state, and 0.315 bits for the GHZ state at infinite acceleration. The sharp boson/fermion distinction is not in the Alice–Bob pair but in the inter-wedge pair, where $S_R(B:\bar B)\sim 4r\log_2 e$ diverges linearly while the fermionic counterpart stays bounded. Because the computation depends on the state only through $\tanh r$, the same floors reappear as mass-independent constants for bosonic modes near a Schwarzschild black hole horizon. If correct, the result says that 'bosonic correlations vanish' is a statement about entanglement only, not about all correlation.

What carries the argument

The central technical device is a conserved $U(1)$ charge, $\hat q=\hat n_B-\hat n_A$ for Bell and GHZ states and $\hat n_B+\hat n_A$ for the W state, which block-diagonalizes the infinite-dimensional Alice–Bob reduced density matrix into an infinite family of exact $2\times 2$ sectors labelled by the charge eigenvalue. For Bell and GHZ the sectors are rank one, which turns the square root of each sector into a closed expression and reduces the three diagonal Gram sums to a Lerch transcendent, with the infinite-acceleration limit governed by the exponential integral $E(k)=e^kE_1(k)$. For the W state the sectors are rank two and the computation is exact sector-by-sector but numerical. The Gram-matrix step—writing $\rho_{AA^*}$ as the matrix of Hilbert–Schmidt overlaps of four Fock-space blocks $M^{xx'}$—collapses the infinite Fock space to a $4\times 4$ matrix with a single coherence $c$. The physical parameter controlling the floors is the affinity $g(r)=\operatorname{Tr}[\sqrt{\tau_B}\sqrt{\sigma_B}]$, which saturates to $\sqrt{\pi}/2$ at infinite acceleration; the exact relation $g(r)=\tanh r\,\tilde g(r)$ forces the $A:\bar B$ pairing to meet the $A:B$ pairing at the common floor. Reflected entropy is defined as the entropy $S_R(X:Y)=S(XX^*)$ in the canonical purification, and the Markov gap $h=S_R-I$ equals the conditional mutual information $I(X:Y^*|Y)$, so a nonzero gap certifies irreducibly tripartite correlation.

What would settle it

A direct check would be to purify the accelerated bosonic state with Bob's detector replaced by a broadband multi-frequency coupling and take the acceleration to infinity: if the Alice–Bob reflected entropy decays to zero, or if the inter-wedge reflected entropy fails to grow linearly in the squeezing parameter, the central saturation claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the author's terms, the core discovery is that reflected entropy—entanglement between a system and its mirror copy in the canonical purification—saturates for bosonic modes in the infinite-acceleration limit rather than vanishing. The three Alice–Bob floors are $S_R^{(B)}(A:B)\to 1.7572$ bits (Bell), $S_R^{(W)}(A:B)\to 0.7523$ bits (W), and $S_R^{(GHZ)}(A:B)\to H_2\!\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{\pi}/2}{2}\right)=0.315$ bits (GHZ). In the same limit, $S_R(A:B)$ and $S_R(A:\bar B)$ converge to a common value, expressing that the two Rindler wedges become statistically indistinguishable. The only unbounded correlation is the inter-wedge reflected entropy, which diverges linearly in the squeezing parameter, $S_R(B:\bar B)\sim 4r\log_2 e$, driven by the unbounded mean occupation $\bar n=\sinh^2 r$; this is the paper's proposed sharp discriminator from fermions, where all such quantities stay bounded. The Markov gap $h=S_R-I$ also saturates, and for Bell and GHZ it rises from zero, showing that the Unruh effect itself generates tripartite correlation. These statements transfer verbatim to Schwarzschild, where the same saturation floors reappear as mass-independent constants approached by soft Hawking modes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the single-mode approximation: Bob's detector couples to exactly one Unruh frequency, so a single Minkowski mode maps onto a single pair of Rindler modes; physical detectors couple to a family of modes, so the exact floor values and the $4r\log_2 e$ coefficient could acquire corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the saturation-floors claim is correct, the standard statement that bosonic entanglement vanishes at infinite acceleration must be read as a statement about entanglement alone: total correlation, as measured by reflected entropy, survives.
  • Alice's correlation with the accessible wedge Bob and with the inaccessible wedge anti-Bob become equal at infinite acceleration, since the two wedges become statistically indistinguishable.
  • The linear divergence $S_R(B:\bar B)\sim 4r\log_2 e$ gives a direct statistical discriminator between Bose and Fermi fields in accelerated-frame settings, because the fermionic inter-wedge reflected entropy stays bounded.
  • For a Schwarzschild black hole, the saturation floors are mass-independent constants: solar-mass and supermassive black holes degrade correlations of a given exterior mode to the same residual value, with only the frequency at which a mode sits on the curve depending on $M$.
  • The Markov gaps saturate, and for the initially bipartite Bell and GHZ states the gap rises from zero, meaning the Unruh effect creates genuinely tripartite correlation that bipartite measures cannot see.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A corollary the author leaves implicit is that the same saturation floors should appear for any bosonic state built on the same two-mode squeezed structure, since the derivation uses only $\tanh r$; the sector decomposition could be applied to other superpositions to test this directly.
  • Relaxing the single-mode approximation by coupling Bob's detector to a distribution of Unruh frequencies is the most direct quantitative test; the paper's own caveat suggests the exact floor values may shift, while the qualitative saturation and the inter-wedge divergence should survive because both trace back to unbounded Bose occupation.
  • For an observer at infinity in the Schwarzschild problem, greybody transmissivities attenuate each mode, so the mass-independent floors are best read as per-interior-mode upper bounds rather than as fluxes measured at infinity; convolving the per-mode curves of Table I with the transmissivity factors would quantify the attenuation.
  • The per-mode infrared divergence of $S_R(B:\bar B)$ means that any total inter-wedge reflected entropy summed over the Hawking spectrum needs an infrared regulator, in parallel with the familiar infrared divergence of horizon entanglement entropy.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper applies the reflected entropy and Markov gap to a free bosonic field shared between inertial observers (Alice, Charlie) and a uniformly accelerated observer (Bob), for Bell, W, and GHZ states. The author identifies a conserved charge that block-diagonalizes the infinite-dimensional reduced density matrices into 2x2 sectors, yielding closed or semi-analytic expressions. The central claims are that the Alice-Bob reflected entropy saturates at nonzero floors (1.757 bits for Bell, 0.315 for GHZ, 0.752 for W), that Alice's correlations with Bob and anti-Bob approach a common limit, that only the inter-wedge reflected entropy diverges (S_R(B:barB) ~ 4r), that the Markov gaps saturate, and that the construction transfers mode-by-mode to Schwarzschild with mass-independent floors. The single-mode approximation is stated explicitly as an idealization.

Significance. The main analytic machinery is sound: the rank-one sector determinants, the Lerch-transcendent Gram sums, the coherence identity c -> alpha^2 - ||M_00||^2 at infinite acceleration, the GHZ limit g_infinity = sqrt(pi)/2, and the Bell exponential-integral floor all check. The sector decomposition is a genuine technical advance over brute-force truncation of the bosonic Fock space, and the paper is honest about the single-mode idealization and the non-monotonicity caveat of reflected entropy. If the claimed saturation and divergence behavior survives multimode corrections, it would sharpen the fermion/boson distinction in relativistic quantum information and provide simple mass-independent predictions for Hawking-mode correlations. The main uncertainties are the quantitative single-mode caveat and the numerical provenance of the W and Markov-gap values.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.A; V] The nonzero saturation floors (1.757, 0.315, 0.752) and the linear divergence S_R(B:barB) ~ 4r are derived entirely within the single-mode approximation stated in Sec. II.A: Bob's detector couples to one Unruh frequency omega and one Minkowski mode maps to one Rindler pair via Eqs. (1)-(2). The text itself notes, following [10], that a physical detector responds to a one-parameter family of Unruh modes and that 'quantitative corrections can arise.' The abstract and Sec. V nonetheless present these numbers as 'the sharp fermion/boson discriminator' and as mass-independent black-hole constants. Because the infinite-acceleration limit of a multimode detector is not the r -> infinity limit of a single sector, the quantitative claims are conditional on the idealization. Please either quantify the multimode correction within the sector framework or explicitly restrict the central claims to the single-mode model and mark the black-hole numbers as mode-by-mode idealizations.
  2. [III.D; IV.A] The W-state floor 0.752 (also quoted as 0.7523 in Table I) and the Markov gap saturation values (0.75 for Bell, 0.16 for GHZ, and the W-channel values around 0.40 and 0.64) are presented as numerical results from 'exact sector-by-sector' computations, but the manuscript gives no truncation parameter, tolerance, or convergence test. This matters twice: the W floor is one of the three headline saturation numbers, and h(B:barB) = S_R(B:barB) - I(B:barB) is a difference of two quantities each growing like 4r, so its saturation at large r is only meaningful if the cancellation is controlled numerically. Please specify the cutoff in q and r, report the convergence of the sums in Eq. (58), and describe how the asymptotic values were extracted; a short reproducibility appendix would suffice.
  3. [III.E; V] The common-limit claim 'S_R(A:B) and S_R(A:barB) converge to a common value' is proven in closed form only for the GHZ state (via Eq. (31)); for Bell and W it is supported by Fig. 3 but not by an analytic expression or a stated numerical tolerance. Because the convergence of the two Alice pairings is listed as a central physical result in Sec. I and used in Sec. V for the black-hole interpretation, please provide the limiting values for Bell and W (the Bell limit is already available from the exponential-integral expressions in Sec. III.C.1) or state explicitly the numerical accuracy with which the apparent equality holds.
minor comments (7)
  1. [III.D] In the last paragraph of Sec. III.D, 'Thus for A:B pair' should read 'for the A:barB pair'; the paragraph is about the A:barB reduction.
  2. [V] The statement that for hard modes 'rho_AB is pure, and S_R(A:B) -> 2H_2(alpha^2)' applies only to the Bell state; for GHZ rho_AB is classically correlated and for W it is mixed already at r=0. Please rephrase to avoid implying that all three states become pure in the hard-mode limit.
  3. [III.B] Equation (33), the identity for rho_BB*, is stated without derivation. A few lines showing the traces over barB and barB* that produce the tensor products kappa*otimes*kappa and kappa^dagger*otimes*kappa^dagger would help readers verify this central step.
  4. [III.C.1] Equation (48) uses the notation Phi* before defining it as the Lerch transcendent Phi(u,1,1+nu). Please define the notation at first use and state the domain of convergence in u.
  5. [II.A; III.C.1; V] There are several typos: 'anlogously' in Sec. III.C.1, 'un-effected by the horizon' in Sec. V, and 'restricting r at pi/4' in Sec. II.A. These should be corrected.
  6. [Figs. 2-4; Table I] Figures 2-4 and Table I: label entropy axes as 'S_R (bits)' and 'h (bits)' explicitly on the figures, and list the state parameters in the table caption (Bell/GHZ alpha=1/sqrt(2), W alpha=1/sqrt(3)) rather than only in the figure captions.
  7. [V] The statement that greybody transmissivity acts as a Gaussian attenuator preserving the charge grading and sector structure is asserted without derivation; either justify it or label it as a heuristic limitation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the saturation floors and the 4r divergence are derived from the stated Bogoliubov inputs by exact sums and inequalities, not fitted or self-referential.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs are obtained by exact analytic manipulation of the stated input two-mode squeezed states (1)-(2), with no free parameter tuned to any target value. The GHZ floor follows from evaluating the convergent sum (25) in the limit r to infinity, giving g = sqrt(pi)/2 and hence 0.315 bits; the Bell floor follows from the closed Gram data (48)-(53), giving 1.7572 bits; the W floor is obtained by sector-by-sector numerical evaluation of the same exact construction. The linear divergence S_R(B:barB) ~ 4r log_2 e follows from the general bound (20) together with the rank-two structure of rho_BbarB and the growth S_B ~ 2r log_2 e, not from assuming the result. No parameter is fitted to a predicted quantity, and no 'prediction' is defined in terms of the quantity it is claimed to predict. The only self-citation, [32], is used as a comparison for the fermionic counterpart and as precedent for the explicitly stated single-mode approximation; the approximation itself is stated as an assumption in the text rather than imported as an unexamined conclusion, and the paper explicitly flags the Bruschi et al. caveat [10] that quantitative corrections can arise. The Schwarzschild transfer is an invariance of the formulas under the substitution t = tanh r, not a circular input. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the stated assumptions, and any concern about the single-mode approximation is a modeling limitation, not a circularity.

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

The calculation rests on standard Rindler/Bogoliubov quantization, the single-mode approximation, and the choice of Bell/W/GHZ input states. No free parameters are fitted; alpha, r, omega, M are physical inputs. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A single Minkowski mode maps to a single pair of Rindler modes via the two-mode squeezed Bogoliubov transformation (Eqs 1-2).
    Used throughout; the detector is assumed to couple to one Unruh frequency (Sec. II.A), an approximation flagged by the author citing Bruschi et al. [10].
  • domain assumption The states are the bosonic Bell, W and GHZ states with Bob in a Minkowski single-excitation sector (Eq. 7).
    These are the input states; the paper computes their correlations rather than deriving them.
  • standard math Reflected entropy is defined by canonical purification (Dutta-Faulkner) and the Markov gap as SR - I (Hayden-Parrikar-Sorce); the purification is computed via sqrt(rho).
    Definitions taken from Refs [11,14]; no derivation needed.
  • domain assumption For Schwarzschild, the Hartle-Hawking vacuum restricted to a Boulware mode is the same TMSV with tanh r = exp(-omega/2TH) (Eqs 63-64).
    Standard near-horizon result invoked in Sec. V.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surviving correlations across a horizon: reflected entropy for bosonic fields in non-inertial frames and black hole spacetimes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P46CPOCX

@misc{pith2026260805473,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surviving correlations across a horizon: reflected entropy for bosonic fields in non-inertial frames and black hole spacetimes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P46CPOCX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05473}
}
read the original abstract

We study the reflected entropy and the Markov gap for modes of a free bosonic field shared by inertial observers (Alice, Charlie) and a uniformly accelerated one (Bob), for a bipartite Bell state and the tripartite Werner (W) and Greenberger--Horne--Zeilinger (GHZ) states. The bosonic Bogoliubov transformation spans an infinite-dimensional Fock space with an unbounded squeezing parameter unlike the fermionic case. By identifying a conserved charge, we block-diagonalize the reduced density matrices into exact two-dimensional sectors, yielding closed or semi-analytic forms for all three states. Although bosonic entanglement is known to vanish asymptotically, the Alice--Bob reflected entropy instead saturates at a nonzero saturation floor, retaining the surviving classical correlation, and converges to the value Alice shares with Bob's causally disconnected partner. Crucially, only the inter-wedge reflected entropy diverges, linearly in the squeezing parameter---the sharp distinction from the fermionic case, where it stays bounded---while the Markov gaps saturate. The construction transfers verbatim to a Schwarzschild black hole, where the saturation values become mass-independent constants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05473 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Minkowski spacetime in Rindler coordinates. The lightlike lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Reflected entropy of the three pairings as a function of the squeezing parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Saturation of the reflected entropy for the two Alice pairings a function of the squeezing parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The Markov gap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Hwang, D

    M.-R. Hwang, D. Park, and E. Jung, Phys. Rev. A83, 012111 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [1]

    Surviving correlations across a horizon: reflected entropy for bosonic fields in non-inertial frames and black hole spacetimes

    Semi-analytic closed form 10 D. The W state 12 E. Reflected entropy results 13 IV. Markov gap 14 A. Markov gap Results 14 V. Reflected entropy in Schwarzschild black hole spacetime15 VI. Summary and discussion 17 Acknowledgements 18 A. Explicit reduced density matrices18 References 19 I. INTRODUCTION One of the more striking lessons of combining quantum i...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [2]

    Semi-analytic closed form The sector construction can be pushed further, to a nearly closed-form answer. The crucial observation is that each blockρ (q) in (37) isrank one: a short computation gives detρ (q) =a qdq −b 2 q =α 2β2(1−u) 3(q+1)u2q −α 2β2(1−u) 3(q+1)u2q = 0, (46) withu≡t 2 = tanh2 r. Physically, for fixedqboth Bogoliubov branches in (8) carry ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  5. [4]

    P. C. W. Davies, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General8, 609 (1975)

    1975

  6. [5]

    Fuentes-Schuller and R

    I. Fuentes-Schuller and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 120404 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [6]

    P. M. Alsing, I. Fuentes-Schuller, R. B. Mann, and T. E. Tessier, Phys. Rev. A74, 032326 (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0603269

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  8. [7]

    Continuous variable entanglement sharing in non-inertial frames

    G. Adesso, I. Fuentes-Schuller, and M. Ericsson, Phys. Rev. A76, 062112 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0701074

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez and J

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez and J. Le´ on, Phys. Rev. A81, 052305 (2010), arXiv:1003.3550

    2010 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Nasr Esfahani, M

    B. Nasr Esfahani, M. Shamirzaie, and M. Soltani, Phys. Rev. D84, 025024 (2011), arXiv:1103.0258

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. J. Torres-Arenas, Q. Dong, G.-H. Sun, W.-C. Qiang, and S.-H. Dong, Phys. Lett. B789, 93 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    D. E. Bruschi, J. Louko, E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, A. Dragan, and I. Fuentes, Phys. Rev. A82, 042332 (2010), arXiv:1007.4670

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dutta and T

    S. Dutta and T. Faulkner, JHEP3, 178 (2021), arXiv:1905.00577

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Takayanagi and K

    T. Takayanagi and K. Umemoto, Nature Phys.14, 573 (2018), arXiv:1708.09393

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nguyen, T

    P. Nguyen, T. Devakul, M. G. Halbasch, M. P. Zaletel, and B. Swingle, JHEP01, 098 (2018), arXiv:1709.07424

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Hayden, O

    P. Hayden, O. Parrikar, and J. Sorce, JHEP10, 047 (2021), arXiv:2107.00009

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Fawzi and R

    O. Fawzi and R. Renner, Commun. Math. Phys.340, 575 (2015), arXiv:1410.0664

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hayden, M

    P. Hayden, M. Lemm, and J. Sorce, Phys. Rev. A107, L050401 (2023), arXiv:2302.10208

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bueno and H

    P. Bueno and H. Casini, JHEP11, 148 (2020), arXiv:2008.11373

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bueno and H

    P. Bueno and H. Casini, JHEP05, 103 (2020), arXiv:2003.09546

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Richter and Y

    B. Richter and Y. Omar, Phys. Rev. A92, 022334 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Tian and J

    Z. Tian and J. Jing, Annals Phys.333, 76 (2013), arXiv:1301.5981

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Datta, Phys

    A. Datta, Phys. Rev. A80, 052304 (2009), arXiv:0905.3301

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. Wang, J. Deng, and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. A81, 052120 (2010), arXiv:0912.4129

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez and J

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez and J. Le´ on, Phys. Rev. A81, 032320 (2010), arXiv:1001.4302

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dutta, T

    S. Dutta, T. Faulkner, and S. Lin, JHEP02, 223 (2023), arXiv:2211.17255

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Berthiere and G

    C. Berthiere and G. Parez, Phys. Rev. D108, 054508 (2023), arXiv:2307.11009

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    H. A. Camargo, L. Hackl, M. P. Heller, A. Jahn, and B. Windt, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 141604 (2021), arXiv:2102.00013

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Berthiere, B

    C. Berthiere, B. Chen, and H. Chen, JHEP09, 160 (2023), arXiv:2307.12247

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Akers, T

    C. Akers, T. Faulkner, S. Lin, and P. Rath, JHEP05, 162 (2022), arXiv:2112.09122

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    T. Li, J. Chu, and Y. Zhou, JHEP11, 155 (2020), arXiv:2006.10846

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Akers, T

    C. Akers, T. Faulkner, S. Lin, and P. Rath, JHEP06, 089 (2022), arXiv:2201.11730

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Lu and J

    Y. Lu and J. Lin, JHEP03, 043 (2023), arXiv:2211.06886

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. K. Basak, D. Giataganas, S. Mondal, and W.-Y. Wen, Phys. Rev. D108, 125009 (2023), arXiv:2306.17490

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    L. C. B. Crispino, A. Higuchi, and G. E. A. Matsas, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 787 (2008), arXiv:0710.5373

    2008 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Takahashi and H

    Y. Takahashi and H. Umezawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B10, 1755 (1996), reprint of Collect. Phenom.2, 55 (1975)

    1996

  29. [37]

    Israel, Phys

    W. Israel, Phys. Lett. A57, 107 (1976)

    1976

  30. [38]

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

    1975

  31. [39]

    G. L. Sewell, Annals Phys.141, 201 (1982)

    1982

  32. [40]

    J. M. Maldacena, JHEP04, 021 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0106112

    2003 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Akers and P

    C. Akers and P. Rath, JHEP04, 208 (2020), arXiv:1911.07852

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Coffman, J

    V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A61, 052306 (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/9907047

    2000 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, L

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, L. J. Garay, and J. Le´ on, Phys. Rev. D82, 064006 (2010), arXiv:1006.1394

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

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