Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 63 references

The paper claims that ultraviolet divergences in entanglement harvesting with detectors coupled to the renormalized energy density of a massless scalar field are controlled entirely by the switching correlation at coincident interaction tim

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 06:08 UTC pith:NPOPUI2J

load-bearing objection Strong pointlike analysis and a clear mechanism for UV divergences, but the smeared n≥3 threshold rests on an unevaluated coefficient B_n and needs fixing before the dimensional claim can be trusted. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13131 v1 pith:NPOPUI2J submitted 2026-07-14 quant-ph gr-qc

Ultraviolet structure of entanglement harvesting from energy density and other quadratic couplings

Matheus H. Zambianco , Boris Ragula , Eduardo Mart\'in-Mart\'inez This is my paper
classification quant-ph gr-qc MSC 81P4081T2046F10 PACS 03.65.Ud04.62.+v
keywords entanglement harvestingUnruh-DeWitt detectorsultraviolet divergencesenergy density couplingswitching functionsdistributional methodsnegativityHadamard states
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper asks whether the persistent ultraviolet divergences previously found for quadratically coupled particle detectors also afflict detectors coupled to the renormalized energy density of a quantum field. The authors work in position space and show that every UV divergence in the harvesting protocol is governed by the behaviour of the switching autocorrelation at zero time difference. For pointlike detectors, non-overlapping switching functions eliminate the divergences entirely; for Gaussian-smeared detectors, the harvesting correlations are automatically finite in 1+1 and 2+1 dimensions, while in 3+1 and higher dimensions the remaining divergences are again removed by non-overlapping switchings. A sympathetic reader would care because this identifies a concrete, controllable physical condition - when the detectors are switched on relative to each other - that decides whether a measurement protocol probing a renormalized field observable is well defined.

Core claim

For two Unruh-DeWitt detectors coupled to the renormalized energy density of a massless scalar field, the entanglement acquired by the detectors, as quantified by the negativity, is free of ultraviolet divergences whenever the detectors' switching functions have non-overlapping supports. The divergences arise only from the pullback of the time-ordered energy-density two-point distribution to the detectors' worldlines at coincident interaction times; they are characterized exactly by the even derivatives of the switching autocorrelation Φ_ab(u) at u=0. For Gaussian-smeared detectors, spatial smearing weakens the coincidence singularity: in 1+1 dimensions the smeared correlation becomes regula

What carries the argument

The central object is the switching autocorrelation Φ_ab(u) = e^{-iΩu} ∫ ds e^{2iΩs} χ_a(s)χ_b(s-u), together with the half-line distributional identity of Appendix C (Eq. C10), which classifies the divergences of integrals ∫₀^∞ f(x)/(x±iε)^m dx in terms of boundary terms f^(k)(0)/ε^{...} and a logarithmic term f^(m-1)(0)log ε. This identity converts the UV-singular correlation integral M into a finite part plus a divergence series controlled exclusively by Φ_ab^(2q)(0), so the vanishing of these even derivatives - guaranteed by non-overlapping compactly supported switchings - removes the divergence.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that all persistent divergences are captured by even derivatives of the switching correlation at u=0 rests on the half-line distributional identity in Appendix C; in the smeared cases with n≥3, the singular term is written with an unevaluated coefficient B_n, and the claimed cancellation of the remaining logarithmic divergence depends on properties of that coefficient that the paper does not spell out.

What would settle it

Evaluate the correlation term M numerically for two Gaussian-smeared detectors in 3+1 dimensions with overlapping Gaussian switchings and check that the divergence scales exactly as predicted by Eq. (50) with coefficients set by the even derivatives of Φ_ab at u=0. If an uncancelled logarithmic divergence survives or the divergence coefficient disagrees with the switching-derivative prescription, the claimed dimension threshold would be altered.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Pointlike detectors coupled to energy density become UV finite whenever their interaction windows do not overlap, so the protocol is well defined in that regime.
  • For Gaussian-smeared detectors in 1+1 and 2+1 dimensions, entanglement harvesting from the vacuum is UV finite for arbitrary smooth switchings, including overlapping ones.
  • In 3+1 and higher dimensions, spatial smearing alone is insufficient; non-overlapping switchings are required to remove the persistent divergences.
  • The divergences previously reported for quadratic φ² couplings have the same origin (non-vanishing even derivatives of Φ_ab at u=0) and would also disappear with non-overlapping switchings.
  • For arbitrary Hadamard zero-mean Gaussian states in 1+1 dimensions with Gaussian smearing, all contributions to the negativity, including cross terms between the vacuum and the state-dependent part, are UV finite.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The switching-correlation mechanism likely generalizes to other composite couplings (e.g., stress-energy components beyond T₀₀, or derivative couplings), where the same half-line distributional classification would predict the divergence order and the cure by non-overlapping switchings.
  • If the unevaluated coefficient B_n in the smeared n≥3 case happens to conspire to cancel the half-line logarithmic divergence, the dimension threshold (2+1 vs. 3+1) could shift; a direct numerical evaluation of the n=3 smeared correlation integral would settle the question.
  • The result suggests that experimental implementations of harvesting with quadratic couplings should schedule detector switchings to avoid temporal overlap rather than rely solely on spatial profiles to regulate UV behaviour.
  • A testable extension would be to replace Gaussian spatial profiles with profiles with faster-decaying tails or compact support; those may regularize the smeared correlation in 3+1 dimensions, effectively raising the dimension threshold.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies entanglement harvesting with two Unruh–DeWitt detectors coupled to the renormalized energy density of a massless scalar field in Minkowski spacetime. It develops a position-space distributional treatment of the second-order perturbative density matrix and claims that the persistent ultraviolet divergences are controlled by the switching correlation at coincident interaction times. For pointlike detectors, it derives explicit divergence formulas and shows that non-overlapping compactly supported switchings remove them. For Gaussian-smeared detectors, it claims automatic UV finiteness in 1+1 and 2+1 dimensions, while in n≥3 dimensions (i.e., 3+1 and higher) the remaining divergences require non-overlapping switchings. The paper also gives a general decomposition for zero-mean Gaussian Hadamard states and presents a thermal-state example in 1+1 dimensions.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper provides a useful unifying explanation of persistent divergences in quadratic UDW models and an explicit distributional toolkit for energy-density couplings. The pointlike calculation, the half-line Sokhotski–Plemelj treatment, and the Gaussian-state decomposition are concrete and potentially reusable. The paper ships no fitted parameters and the derivations are self-contained against standard QFT inputs. However, the smeared n≥3 analysis, which carries the main dimensional threshold advertised in the abstract, rests on an unevaluated coefficient and an unproved singular form; that gap currently blocks the paper's headline conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (91)] The central claim that Gaussian-smeared detectors are automatically finite only for n=1,2, while n≥3 retains UV divergences, is not supported by the displayed distribution. For n=3, Eq. (91) gives W_ab ∼ B_3[Θ(u)/(u+iε)+Θ(-u)/(u-iε)]. Its action on a smooth switching correlation Φ_ab is B_3 ∫_0∞ [Φ_ab(v)-Φ_ab(-v)]/(v+iε) dv. The half-line identity (C10) with m=1 produces a would-be divergent boundary term proportional to [Φ_ab(0)-Φ_ab(-0)] log ε = 0. Thus, as written, Eq. (91) has no logarithmic divergence for n=3 and cannot yield the 'n≥3' divergence asserted in the text. This is not a minor typo: it directly affects the 3+1-dimensional threshold in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [§IV, Eqs. (84) and (91)] The singular short-distance behavior W(u)∼B_n/(u+iε)^{n-2} and its analogue W_ab(u)∼... for n≥3 is asserted without a derivation of B_n or of the iε prescription. The preceding exact expression (81) and (87) are not used to extract B_n or to verify that the next-to-leading terms do not change the divergence order. Since the number and order of the half-line divergences depend on the actual power m in Eq. (C10), the statement that the smeared n≥3 divergences are 'of the form displayed in Eq. (50)' is not established. The referee cannot verify the claimed dimension threshold without this computation.
  3. [§IV, transition from W(u) to W_ab(u)] Equation (85) defines W_ab via W_ab(u)=Θ(u)W_d(u)+Θ(-u)W_d(u)^*, and Eq. (91) then states a specific Θ-split singular form. The sign/phase of B_n matters for whether the half-line boundary terms cancel or add. For example, the n=3 case above is finite for real B_3; a complex B_3 would change the distributional content. The paper does not provide the phase, so even the direction of the claimed divergence is not controlled.
  4. [Sec. V, thermal-state example] The thermal-state illustration is plausible but relies on numerical evaluation of the cross terms M_c and L_c without specifying the numerical method, quadrature, or convergence checks. This is not load-bearing for the paper's main UV claim, but it makes the quantitative plots (Figs. 3–5) harder to assess.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] There are several typographical issues: 'prescrition' (Appendix B), 'writting' (Appendix B), and the section header 'STA TE'. These should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A18)] The definition of G_ϕ is garbled: it reads 'G ϕ(x,x ′)≡Θ(t−t ′)Ξϕ(x,x ′) + Θ(t′ −t)Ξ ϕ(x′,x ′)' with a repeated x′ instead of Ξ_ϕ(x′,x). This is presumably a transcription error but should be fixed.
  3. [Sec. IV, example] In the 1+1-dimensional smeared example, the text says the detectors are spacelike separated throughout the interaction even though Gaussian spatial profiles have infinite tails; the text acknowledges this, but a brief quantitative statement about exponential suppression would improve clarity.
  4. [References] Some references are to arXiv-only preprints with future dates; if this is intended for journal submission, the authors should update them where published versions exist.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the UV-divergence analysis is a direct distributional computation; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The negativity formula (Eqs. (21)-(24)) follows from the standard perturbative expansion in Appendix A, with no fitted parameters. The pointlike UV-divergence structure is obtained by explicit evaluation: the correlation term M is reduced to the half-line integral in Eq. (45), and the divergence D_epsilon in Eq. (50) is computed from the distributional identity (C10). The conclusion that divergences are controlled by Phi_ab^{(2q)}(0) is a derived result, not a definition or a fit. The smeared-detector analysis in Sec. IV evaluates the Gaussian convolutions and hypergeometric functions in Appendix D; the claimed dimension thresholds follow from asymptotic analysis, not from matching the target negativity. Self-citations [36,37,44] are used for background, motivation, and comparison; none of the load-bearing steps reduce to those references. However, one passage should be flagged as an omitted proof rather than circularity: for n>=3, Eq. (84) asserts W(u) ~ B_n/(u+i eps)^(n-2) with B_n left unevaluated, and Eq. (91) extends this to W_ab(u) with the same coefficient. The statement that the divergences in the smeared case are 'of the form displayed in Eq. (50)' is not derived in detail, and for n=3 the displayed combination Theta(u)/(u+i eps)+Theta(-u)/(u-i eps) appears to cancel the leading half-line divergence when acting on smooth switching correlations. This is a correctness risk for the stated 3+1-dimensional threshold, but it is not a circular step: no input is renamed as a prediction, no parameter is fitted, and the central derivation does not presuppose its conclusion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard QFT inputs (vacuum Wightman functions, Wick's theorem, normal ordering) and on the half-line distributional identities developed in Appendix C. No free constants are fitted to data; parameters such as Ω, T, σ, d, and β are external physical choices.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Massless scalar field Wightman functions in n+1 Minkowski spacetime (Eq. (26) for n>1, Eq. (27) for n=1 with IR regulator Λ)
    Input vacuum two-point functions used to build the energy-density correlator Ξ0; standard QFT in flat spacetime.
  • domain assumption Wick's theorem applied to quasifree (zero-mean Gaussian) states to reduce :T00::T00: to products of Wightman functions (Eq. (28), Appendix B)
    The entire Gaussian-state section and the thermal-state example rest on this decomposition.
  • domain assumption Renormalization prescription for the energy density operator as vacuum-subtracted normal ordering (Eq. (6))
    The observable being probed depends on this subtraction; a different renormalization scheme could change the distributional structure and hence the UV behavior.
  • standard math Half-line distributional identities of Appendix C (Eqs. (C7)–(C10)), including the Θ(0)=1/2 convention
    Used to evaluate the UV divergences of the correlation term M; the divergence classification in Eq. (50) follows from these identities.
  • domain assumption Second-order perturbative expansion of the detector-field interaction and the leading-order negativity formula (Eqs. (16)–(21))
    The analysis is perturbative to O(λ²), discarding higher-order contributions that could in principle affect the UV structure.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29184 in / 27162 out tokens · 233598 ms · 2026-08-02T06:08:11.010456+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study entanglement harvesting with particle detectors coupled to the renormalized energy density of a massless scalar field. Our analysis identifies the distributional mechanism underlying the persistent ultraviolet divergences previously observed for quadratic detector couplings and discusses that the energy density coupling exhibits the same underlying structure. We show that these divergences are entirely controlled by the switching correlation at coincident interaction times. Consequently, pointlike detectors are UV finite whenever the switchings do not overlap. For Gaussian-smeared detectors, the harvesting correlations are automatically finite in 1+1 and 2+1 dimensions, while in higher dimensions the remaining divergences are removed by non-overlapping switchings. Finally, we derive general expressions for arbitrary zero-mean Gaussian states and illustrate the formalism with a thermal field state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13131 by Boris Ragula, Eduardo Mart\'in-Mart\'inez, Matheus H. Zambianco.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Negativity as a function of the detectors’ gap Ω for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Negativity as a function of the detectors’ gap Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Negativity as a function of the detectors’ gap Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Negativity as a function of the detectors’ gap Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    W. G. Unruh, Notes on black-hole evaporation, Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  2. [2]

    DeWitt,General Relativity; an Einstein Centenary Survey(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1980)

    B. DeWitt,General Relativity; an Einstein Centenary Survey(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1980)

    1980

  3. [3]

    W. G. Unruh and R. M. Wald, What happens when an accelerating observer detects a rindler particle, Phys. Rev. D29, 1047 (1984)

    1984

  4. [4]

    Schlicht, Considerations on the Unruh effect: causal- ity and regularization, Class

    S. Schlicht, Considerations on the Unruh effect: causal- ity and regularization, Class. Quantum Gravity21, 4647 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    Louko and A

    J. Louko and A. Satz, How often does the Unruh-DeWitt detector click? regularization by a spatial profile, Class. Quantum Gravity23, 6321 (2006)

    2006

  6. [6]

    Valentini, Non-local correlations in quantum electro- dynamics, Phys

    A. Valentini, Non-local correlations in quantum electro- dynamics, Phys. Lett. A153, 321 (1991)

    1991

  7. [7]

    Reznik, Entanglement from the vacuum, Found

    B. Reznik, Entanglement from the vacuum, Found. Phys. 33, 167 (2003)

    2003

  8. [8]

    Pozas-Kerstjens and E

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Harvesting correlations from the quantum vacuum, Phys. Rev. D92, 064042 (2015)

    2015

  9. [9]

    Pozas-Kerstjens and E

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Entangle- ment harvesting from the electromagnetic vacuum with hydrogenlike atoms, Phys. Rev. D94, 064074 (2016)

    2016

  10. [10]

    Morote-Balboa and T

    M. Morote-Balboa and T. R. Perche, Optimization of en- tanglement harvesting with arbitrary temporal profiles: the limit of second order perturbation theory (2026), arXiv:2604.06303 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    VerSteeg and N

    G. VerSteeg and N. C. Menicucci, Entangling power of an expanding universe, Phys. Rev. D79, 044027 (2009)

    2009

  12. [12]

    L. J. Henderson, R. A. Hennigar, R. B. Mann, A. R. H. Smith, and J. Zhang, Harvesting entanglement from the black hole vacuum, Class. Quantum Gravity35, 21LT02 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    K. K. Ng, R. B. Mann, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, New techniques for entanglement harvesting in flat and curved spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D97, 125011 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    Tjoa and R

    E. Tjoa and R. B. Mann, Harvesting correlations in Schwarzschild and collapsing shell spacetimes, Jour. High Energy Phys.2020, 155 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    M. P. G. Robbins, L. J. Henderson, and R. B. Mann, Entanglement amplification from rotating black holes, Class. Quantum Grav.39, 02LT01 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Maeso-Garc ´ ıa, T

    H. Maeso-Garc ´ ıa, T. R. Perche, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Entanglement harvesting: Detector gap and field mass optimization, Phys. Rev. D106, 045014 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    I. J. Membrere, K. Gallock-Yoshimura, L. J. Hender- son, and R. B. Mann, Tripartite entanglement extraction from the black hole vacuum, Adv. Quantum Technol.6, 2300125 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    T. R. Perche, B. Ragula, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Har- vesting entanglement from the gravitational vacuum, Phys. Rev. D108, 085025 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    M. H. Zambianco, A. Teixid´ o-Bonfill, and E. Mart ´ ın- Mart ´ ınez, Cosmological expansion induces interference between communication and entanglement harvesting, Phys. Rev. D113, 085023 (2026)

    2026

  20. [20]

    Wurtz, C

    K. Wurtz, C. Lima, R. C. Myers, and E. Mart ´ ın- Mart ´ ınez, Entanglement harvesting in conformal field theory (2026), in press in J. High Energy Phys., arXiv:2602.07112 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Sab ´ ın, J

    C. Sab ´ ın, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, E. Solano, and J. Le´ on, Dy- namics of entanglement via propagating microwave pho- tons, Phys. Rev. B81, 184501 (2010)

    2010

  22. [22]

    Sab ´ ın, M

    C. Sab ´ ın, M. del Rey, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, and J. Le´ on, Fermi problem with artificial atoms in circuit QED, Phys. Rev. Letters107, 150402 (2011)

    2011

  23. [23]

    Sab ´ ın, B

    C. Sab ´ ın, B. Peropadre, M. del Rey, and E. Mart ´ ın- Mart ´ ınez, Extracting past-future vacuum correlations us- ing circuit QED, Phys. Rev. Letters109, 033602 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    Armata, G

    F. Armata, G. Calajo, T. Jaako, M. S. Kim, and P. Rabl, Harvesting multiqubit entanglement from ultrastrong in- teractions in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 183602 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    Teixid´ o-Bonfill, X

    A. Teixid´ o-Bonfill, X. Dai, A. Lupascu, and E. Mart ´ ın- Mart ´ ınez, Towards an experimental implementation of entanglement harvesting in superconducting circuits: Ef- fect of detector gap variation on entanglement harvesting, Phys. Rev. A113, 043732 (2026)

    2026

  26. [26]

    Gooding, A

    C. Gooding, A. Sachs, R. B. Mann, and S. Weinfurtner, Vacuum entanglement probes for ultracold atom systems, New J. Phys.26, 105001 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    T. R. Perche, F. Gozzini, and M. K. Oberthaler, Bose po- larons as relativistic unruh-dewitt detectors: Entangle- ment harvesting from bose-einstein condensates (2026), arXiv:2512.21381 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Reznik, A

    B. Reznik, A. Retzker, and J. Silman, Violating bell’s inequalities in vacuum, Phys. Rev. A71, 042104 (2005)

    2005

  29. [29]

    Salton, R

    G. Salton, R. B. Mann, and N. C. Menicucci, Acceleration-assisted entanglement harvesting and rangefinding, New J. Phys.17, 035001 (2015)

    2015

  30. [30]

    Simidzija and E

    P. Simidzija and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Harvesting corre- lations from thermal and squeezed coherent states, Phys. 26 Rev. D98, 085007 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    Teixid´ o-Bonfill and E

    A. Teixid´ o-Bonfill and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Derivative coupling enables genuine entanglement harvesting in causal communication, Phys. Rev. D110, 105016 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Takagi, On the response of a rindler parti- cle detector

    S. Takagi, On the response of a rindler parti- cle detector. iii, Progress of Theoretical Physics 74, 501 (1985), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/74/3/501/5353230/74-3-501.pdf

    1985

  33. [33]

    T. R. Perche, C. Lima, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Har- vesting entanglement from complex scalar and fermionic fields with linearly coupled particle detectors, Phys. Rev. D105, 065016 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    N. K. Dubey and S. Kolekar, Harvesting fermionic field entanglement in schwarzschild spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 112(2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    F. He, Y. Pan, and B. Zhang, Harvesting entanglement from cylindrical gravitational wave spacetime, Chin. Phys. C49, 085103 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Sachs, R

    A. Sachs, R. B. Mann, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Entan- glement harvesting and divergences in quadratic unruh- dewitt detector pairs, Phys. Rev. D96, 085012 (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    A. M. Sachs, R. B. Mann, and E. Martin-Martinez, Entanglement harvesting from multiple massless scalar fields and divergences in Unruh-DeWitt detector models (2018), arXiv:1808.05980 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    C. J. Fewster and R. Verch, Quantum fields and local measurements, Commun. Math. Phys.378, 851 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Epstein, V

    H. Epstein, V. Glaser, and A. Jaffe, Nonpositivity of the energy density in quantized field theories, Nuovo Cim. 36, 1016 (1965)

    1965

  40. [40]

    L. H. Ford and T. A. Roman, Restrictions on negative energy density in flat spacetime, Phys. Rev. D55, 2082 (1997)

    2082

  41. [41]

    L. H. Ford, Negative energy densities in quantum field theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A25, 2355–2363 (2010)

    2010

  42. [42]

    M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity, Am. J. Phys.56, 395 (1988)

    1988

  43. [43]

    Alcubierre, The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity, Class

    M. Alcubierre, The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity, Class. Quantum Grav.11, L73 (1994)

    1994

  44. [44]

    M. H. Zambianco and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Nonlin- ear particle detectors across the rindler firewall (2026), arXiv:2607.09660 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Computable measure of en- tanglement, Phys. Rev. A65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  46. [46]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, T

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, T. R. Perche, and B. d. S. L. Tor- res, Broken covariance of particle detector models in rela- tivistic quantum information, Phys. Rev. D103, 025007 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, T

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, T. R. Perche, and B. de S. L. Torres, General relativistic quantum optics: Finite-size particle detector models in curved spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D101, 045017 (2020)

    2020

  48. [48]

    Simidzija and E

    P. Simidzija and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, All coherent field states entangle equally, Phys. Rev. D96(2017)

    2017

  49. [49]

    M. B. Plenio, Logarithmic negativity: A full entangle- ment monotone that is not convex, Phys. Rev. Letters 95(2005)

    2005

  50. [50]

    S. A. Fulling, M. Sweeny, and R. M. Wald, Singularity structure of the two-point function in quantum field the- ory in curved spacetime, Commun. Math. Phys63, 257 (1978)

    1978

  51. [51]

    C. J. Fewster and R. Verch, The necessity of the hadamard condition, Class. Quantum Grav.30, 235027 (2013)

    2013

  52. [52]

    D´ ecanini and A

    Y. D´ ecanini and A. Folacci, Hadamard renormalization of the stress-energy tensor for a quantized scalar field in a general spacetime of arbitrary dimension, Phys. Rev. D78(2008)

    2008

  53. [53]

    Tjoa and E

    E. Tjoa and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, When entanglement harvesting is not really harvesting, Phys. Rev. D104, 125005 (2021)

    2021

  54. [54]

    Louko, Unruh-dewitt detector response across a rindler firewall is finite, J

    J. Louko, Unruh-dewitt detector response across a rindler firewall is finite, J. High Energy Phys.2014(9), 142

    2014

  55. [55]

    Hollands and W

    S. Hollands and W. Ruan, The state space of perturbative quantum field theory in curved spacetimes, Ann. Henri Poincare3, 635–657 (2002)

    2002

  56. [56]

    I. M. Gelfand and G. E. Shilov,Generalized Functions, Volume 1: Properties and Operations, AMS Chelsea Pub- lishing (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2016)

    2016

  57. [57]

    DLMF,NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions, https://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.2.6 of 2026-03-15, f. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

    2026

  58. [58]

    Langlois, Causal particle detectors and topology, Ann

    P. Langlois, Causal particle detectors and topology, Ann. Phys.321, 2027–2070 (2006)

    2027

  59. [59]

    E. G. Brown, Thermal amplification of field-correlation harvesting, Phys. Rev. A88, 062336 (2013)

    2013

  60. [60]

    Kubo, Statistical mechanical theory of irreversible processes

    R. Kubo, Statistical mechanical theory of irreversible processes. 1. General theory and simple applications in magnetic and conduction problems, J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 12, 570 (1957)

    1957

  61. [61]

    P. C. Martin and J. Schwinger, Theory of many-particle systems. i, Phys. Rev.115, 1342 (1959)

    1959

  62. [62]

    B. A. Ju´ arez-Aubry and J. Louko, Onset and decay of the 1 + 1 Hawking–Unruh effect: what the derivative- coupling detector saw, Class. Quantum Grav.31, 245007 (2014)

    2014

  63. [63]

    Grimmer, B

    D. Grimmer, B. d. S. L. Torres, and E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez, Measurements in QFT: Weakly coupled local particle de- tectors and entanglement harvesting, Phys. Rev. D104, 085014 (2021)

    2021