Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Deep in the knotted black hole

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A falling quantum detector can tell apart two black holes that look identical from outside.

desk verdict Solid detector-response calculation showing infalling UDW detectors can tell BTZ from RP2 geon; the main gap is a terse analytic-continuation step that deserves scrutiny rather than a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02755 v3 pith:SWT2STUY submitted 2024-12-03 gr-qc quant-ph

Massimiliano Spadafora , Manar Naeem , María R. Preciado-Rivas , Robert B. Mann , Jorma Louko This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcquant-ph MSC 83C5781T20 PACS 04.70.-s04.62.+v
keywords Unruh-DeWittdetectorBTZblackholeRP2geoninteriortopologytransitionrateglitchesHartle-Hawking-Israelstateimage-sumWightmanfunction
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 asks whether a quantum detector falling into a black hole can sense the topology hidden behind the horizon, even when the exterior geometry is exactly the same. The authors compare the transition rate of a freely falling Unruh-DeWitt detector in a spinless BTZ black hole with its counterpart in the RP2 geon, a Z2 quotient of BTZ that has the same exterior but a different interior topology. They find that outside the horizon the two rates are qualitatively similar, with the geon amplitude slightly larger, but after horizon crossing the geon rate develops extra nondifferentiable points, called glitches, at computable proper times. If the detector is switched on early enough, inside the past white hole region, some of these glitches appear even before the detector crosses the future horizon. The paper concludes that an infalling detector can serve as an early warning system that spots the horizon and distinguishes the interior topology.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the image-sum Wightman function (17): Wgeon = WBTZ + WBTZ composed with the Z2 identification J, where J : (U,V,φ) → (V,U,φ+π). This single additional term encodes the nontrivial topology behind the horizon. The transition rate formulas (23)-(25) are then obtained by pulling the Wightman function back to the infalling trajectory, and the glitches are located by solving for the proper times at which the geodesic-distance arguments in the square-root denominators vanish at an endpoint of integration, i.e. where a null ray from the switch-on event on an image trajectory meets the actual trajectory.

What would settle it

Compute the transition rate of the same infalling UDW detector using a numerically constructed Hadamard state on the geon that does not rely on the image-sum analytic continuation, or compute the response with a smooth switching function of finite width and check whether the glitches at the predicted proper times (31), (35), (37), (38) survive as genuine nondifferentiabilities rather than smoothed kinks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a radially infalling Unruh-DeWitt detector coupled to a massless conformally coupled scalar in the Hartle-Hawking-Israel state, the transition rate in the RP2 geon differs from that in the BTZ black hole even though the two spacetimes are classically identical outside the horizon. The geon rate has a larger amplitude outside the horizon, and once the detector crosses into the black hole interior the geon rate acquires additional glitches, located at the times given by Eqs. (31), (35), (37), and (38), in addition to the BTZ glitches that occur at the same places in both spacetimes. These geon glitches are discontinuities in the temporal derivative of the response rate, produced by the extra image terms in the geon Wightman function. When the detector is switched on sufficiently early, within the past white hole region, the extra glitches can appear already in the exterior, meaning the detector can discern the interior topology before crossing the horizon.

Load-bearing premise

The transition-rate formulas (23)-(25) are obtained by analytically continuing the exterior Wightman expressions through the global chart (11) into the white and black hole interiors, and the paper assumes this continuation gives the correct physical response of a sharply switched detector after horizon crossing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A small, freely falling quantum detector can operationally distinguish the interior topology of two black holes that are classically indistinguishable outside the horizon.
  • The extra geon glitches occur only after horizon crossing when the detector is switched on in the exterior, consistent with topological censorship, but the larger geon amplitude outside the horizon provides a subtler pre-horizon signal.
  • If the detector starts operating before emerging from the white hole region, geon-specific glitches can appear already outside the black hole horizon, giving an earlier warning of the topology.
  • The positions of the glitches depend on the black hole mass, the detector's release height q, the switch-on time, and the boundary condition ζ, so the same framework yields a family of testable predictions for detector trajectories.
  • For Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions (ζ = ±1) new glitches also arise from null rays reflected from infinity, extending the effect to the standard unitary boundary conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The distinction between the geon and BTZ rates outside the horizon, though small, suggests that the detector is sensitive to the non-stationarity of the geon state, not only to the topology behind the horizon; a static detector would see a similar but time-dependent thermal deviation.
  • The glitch locations could be extracted experimentally in analogue-gravity or quantum-simulation settings if a quotient spacetime with a controlled topology can be engineered, since the formulas (30) and (37) give sharp proper-time predictions.
  • The method of locating glitches by null geodesics between image trajectories may generalize to other quotient spacetimes, such as the rotating BTZ geon or higher-genus black holes, where the exterior is identical but the interior topology differs.
  • The paper leaves open whether the additional glitches survive for a detector with a smooth switching function, since the sharp switch-on in (3) is what makes the endpoint singularity generically produce a nondifferentiability; a smoothed switch would likely replace the kink with a rapid but continuous change.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a radially infalling Unruh-DeWitt detector in the spinless BTZ black hole and in the RP2 geon, two spacetimes whose exteriors are locally isometric but whose interiors have different topology. The scalar field is conformally coupled and taken in the state induced by the global AdS vacuum, so the BTZ and geon Wightman functions are written as image sums over the quotient identifications. For a sharply switched detector the transition rate is compared before, at, and after horizon crossing. The authors find that the geon rate is larger than the BTZ rate in the exterior and that the geon develops additional non-differentiable 'glitches' in the interior, with analytic formulas given for their locations. The paper concludes that an infalling detector can serve as an early-warning probe of hidden black-hole topology.

Significance. If correct, the result provides a concrete 2+1-dimensional example in which a local quantum probe distinguishes the interior topology of two classically indistinguishable black holes. The analytic glitch formulas and their verification against both causal diagrams and numerics are genuine strengths, and the computation has no fitted parameters. The main caveat is the analytic-continuation step that connects the exterior Wightman expressions to the interior rates; this step is asserted rather than demonstrated and is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.E, after Eq. (25)] The transition-rate formulas (23)–(25) are the basis for all new results, but the step from the exterior-only Wightman expressions (18) to the interior rates is not actually demonstrated. Equation (18b) contains sqrt(r^2-r_h^2) and cosh((r_h/ell^2)(t+t')); once the trajectory (19) is continued to proper times beyond the horizon, t becomes complex and the square root requires a branch choice. The sentence 'This follows by analytic continuation' does not specify that branch. As a concrete check, for t0=0, q=1.2, M=10^{-4}, n=0, tau/ell=1.011 and tau'=0, the global embedding coordinates (10)–(16) give sigma≈0, in agreement with (20b), whereas a principal-branch continuation of (18b) gives sigma≈-0.466. The paper's formulas therefore implicitly use a non-principal branch that is never stated. Please either derive (20) directly from (10)–(16) for all real tau,tau', or give an explicit branch convention and show that the resulting pullback is the Hadamard Wightman function of the geon state. This is load-bearing for the geon glitches (31), (35), (37), (38) and for the pre-horizon glitch discussed in Sec. IVC.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The statement that outside the horizon the geon transition rate has larger amplitude than the BTZ rate is presented as a general finding, but it is supported only by the numerical examples in Figures 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12. If the authors intend a general statement, they should provide an analytic argument or at least a precise statement of the parameter range; otherwise the abstract and conclusions should say 'in the parameter ranges studied.' This is secondary to the analytic-continuation issue but affects the 'early warning' wording.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (18b)] The notation (r^2-r_h^2)^{1/2} is ambiguous once analytic continuation is allowed to reach r<r_h; the branch should be specified explicitly or the formula should be derived directly from global coordinates.
  2. [Eq. (22b)] The quantity K^geon_{n,t0} depends on t0 as well as on n, which is easy to overlook; a notation such as K^geon_n(t0) would clarify the parametric dependence.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The sentence 'the actual null rays have to travel through the phi direction by an odd multiple of pi' is confusing because phi is suppressed in the diagrams; please state more explicitly that the figure shows only the radial projection of the null rays.
  4. [Sec. III.B] The symmetry n -> -1-n of the geon sum is stated correctly, but the presentation would be clearer if it also explained how the pairing n and -1-n is used to truncate the numerical sum.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the geon-specific glitch predictions are computed from standard image-sum Wightman functions and geometric null-separation conditions, not from fitted parameters or self-cited conclusions.

full rationale

The central prediction of additional geon glitches, Eqs. (31), (35), (37), and (38), is obtained by inserting the radial infall trajectory (19) into the image-sum geodesic distances (18), producing the sigma expressions (20)-(22), and then solving the geometric null-separation conditions sigma_geon = 0 and sigma_geon + 2 = 0. The transition rates (23)-(25) follow from first-order perturbation theory with a sharp switching function, and no parameter is fitted to any target rate. The self-cited earlier works [9,28,29] supply the exterior Wightman formulas, the infalling trajectory, and the BTZ glitch baseline, but the geon-specific term and its glitch locations are new consequences of the quotient by J, not imported conclusions. The analytic-continuation step in Sec. II.E is asserted rather than rigorously derived, and a reader could question the chosen branch for the square roots and the multi-valued exterior time; however, this is a mathematical support gap or correctness risk, not a circular reduction of the result to its own input. No step of the derivation is equivalent by construction to a fitted quantity, a renamed known result, or an unverified self-citation chain.

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

No fitted parameters and no new entities. The physical parameters M, q, t0, tau0, Omega and boundary condition zeta define the scenario and are scanned in numerics, not tuned to force the conclusions. The main external inputs are the AdS3 vacuum Wightman function, the image-sum construction, and the analytic-continuation assumption, all from established QFT in curved spacetime literature, some coauthored by the present authors but with independent grounding.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The transition rate of a sharply switched UDW detector is given by first-order perturbation theory, Eq. (4), for Hadamard states.
    Sec. II.A; this is the standard Louko-Satz/Kay-Wald framework, not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption The Wightman function on the geon is Wgeon = WBTZ + WBTZ(.,J.) from Eq. (17b), induced by the global AdS3 vacuum via the method of images.
    Sec. II.D; depends on the geon being a Z2 quotient of BTZ and on prior image-sum results [41,42] and geon state analyses [7,11,12,45].
  • domain assumption The exterior Wightman expressions (18) and response formulas (23)-(25) extend by analytic continuation into the white and black hole interiors along the infalling geodesic.
    Sec. II.E after Eq. (25); requires global analytic charts on the quotient and convergence of the image sums across the horizon.
  • standard math The trajectory (19) with q>1 is a timelike geodesic crossing the horizon at tau_H = l arccos(1/q).
    Sec. II.E; standard geodesic integration in the BTZ exterior, continued through the horizon.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep in the knotted black hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWT2STUY

@misc{pith2026241202755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep in the knotted black hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWT2STUY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02755}
}
abstract

We consider the transition rate of a freely falling Unruh-DeWitt detector, coupled linearly to a massless scalar quantum field prepared in the Hartle-Hawking-Israel state, as a probe of the interior of a black hole. Specifically, we consider the transition rate of a detector in the spinless Ba\~nados-Teitelboim-Zanelli (BTZ) black hole as it freely falls toward and across the horizon and compare it to the corresponding situation for an $\mathbb{R}\text{P}^{2}$ geon. Both the BTZ black hole and its geon counterpart are quotients of $\text{AdS}_3$ spacetime that are identical exterior to the horizon but have different interior topologies. We find outside the horizon that the rates are qualitatively similar, but with the amplitude in the geon spacetime larger than in the BTZ case. Once the detector crosses the horizon, there are notable distinctions characterized by different discontinuities in the temporal derivative of the response rate. These discontinuities can appear outside the horizon if the detector is switched on at a sufficiently early time, within the past white hole horizon. In general, the detector can act as an `early warning system' that both spots the black hole horizon and discerns its interior topology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02755 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Penrose-Carter diagram of the spinless BTZ black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. As in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Causal relationship between points on the infalling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the transition rate as a function of τ /ℓ for a detector released much closer to the horizon, at q = 1.2, for M = 10−4 . The first geon glitch is clearly discernible in the plot, behind the horizon at τ geon 0 /ℓ ∼ 1.0102, by (37) with n = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Transition rate for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Transition rate for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Transition rate for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Transition rate for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Transition rate for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Transition rate for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Transition rate in the geon spacetimes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    As illus- trated in Figure 3, changing the value oft0 generates the three distinct scenarios described below

    t0̸= 0 =τ0 Consider first the case in whicht0̸= 0 = τ0. As illus- trated in Figure 3, changing the value oft0 generates the three distinct scenarios described below. • t0 = 0: From the top diagram in Figure 3, we ob- serve that a null ray from the initial location of the image detector (at the left) encounters the trajec- tory of the original detector (at...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Thismetricisadaptedtoafamilyofuniformly accelerated observers on AdS3, and it may be described as the AdS3-Rindler metric [38, 39]

    (7) Theregionwhere T1 >|X1|andX2 >|T2|canbecovered by new coordinates in which X1 =ℓ r rh sinh (rh ℓ ϕ ) , X 2 =ℓ √ r2 r2 h − 1 cosh (rh ℓ2t ) , T1 =ℓ r rh cosh (rh ℓ ϕ ) , T 2 =ℓ √ r2 r2 h − 1 sinh (rh ℓ2t ) , (8) and this coordinate transformation brings the metric on AdS3 to the form (5) withr∈ (rh,∞), but with ϕ∈ (−∞,∞). Thismetricisadaptedtoafamilyof...

    work page

  3. [3]

    geon glitches

    t0 = 0̸=τ0 Consider next the case in whicht0 = 0 ̸= τ0. The geodesic distance (20b) becomes σgeon n (τ,τ′) =−1 +K geon n cos(˜τ) cos(˜τ′) + sin(˜τ) sin(˜τ′), (34) with K geon n := K geon n,0 . This expression is identical to (20a), with the substitution of the function (22b) in place of (22a). Hence, the positions of “geon glitches” are τ geon n =ℓsgn ( ˜...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Equa- tion (35) assumes now the simple form τ geon n =ℓ arccos ( 1 K geon n )

    t0 = 0 =τ0 Consider finally the case in whicht0 = 0 = τ0. Equa- tion (35) assumes now the simple form τ geon n =ℓ arccos ( 1 K geon n ) . (37) SinceK geon n >q , we haveτ geon n >τ H, for alln. It follows that the distinct topologies of the two black holes, in terms of their signature glitches, only become evident after crossing the horizon. IV. NUMERICAL...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Penrose, The question of cosmic censorship, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy20, 233 (1999)

    R. Penrose, The question of cosmic censorship, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy20, 233 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    J. L. Friedman, K. Schleich, and D. M. Witt, Topological Censorship[Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1486 (1993)], Physical Review Letters 75, 1872–1872 (1995)

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    The Cosmic Censor Forbids Naked Topology

    G. Galloway and E. Woolgar, The Cosmic censor forbids naked topology, Classical and Quantum Gravity14, L1 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9609007

    work page Pith review arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    G. J. Galloway, K. Schleich, D. M. Witt, and E. Wool- gar, Topological censorship and higher genus black holes, Physical Review D 60, 104039 (1999), arXiv:gr- qc/9902061

    work page arXiv 1999

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    W. G. Unruh, Notes on black-hole evaporation, Physical Review D 14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  2. [10]

    B. S. DeWitt, Quantum gravity: The new synthesis, in General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, England, 1979) pp. 680–745

    1979

  3. [11]

    J.LoukoandD.Marolf,InextendibleSchwarzschildblack hole with a single exterior: How thermal is the Hawk- ing radiation?, Physical Review D 58, 024007 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9802068

    1998 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. R. H. Smith and R. B. Mann, Looking inside a black hole, Classical and Quantum Gravity31, 082001 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Hodgkinson and J

    L. Hodgkinson and J. Louko, Static, stationary and in- ertial Unruh-DeWitt detectors on the BTZ black hole, Physical Review D 86, 064031 (2012), arXiv:1206.2055 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hodgkinson, J

    L. Hodgkinson, J. Louko, and A. C. Ottewill, Static detectors and circular-geodesic detectors on the Schwarzschild black hole, Physical Review D89, 104002 (2014), arXiv:1401.2667 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Louko and D

    J. Louko and D. Marolf, Single exterior black holes and theAdS/CFTconjecture,PhysicalReviewD 59,066002 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9808081

    1999 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Louko, D

    J. Louko, D. Marolf, and S. F. Ross, On geodesic propa- gators and black hole holography, Physical Review D62, 044041 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0002111

    2000 arXiv

  9. [17]

    G. J. Galloway, K. Schleich, D. M. Witt, and E. Woolgar, The AdS / CFT correspondence conjecture and topo- logical censorship, Physics Letters B 505, 255 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/9912119

    2001 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Martín-Martínez, A

    E. Martín-Martínez, A. R. H. Smith, and D. R. Terno, Spacetime structure and vacuum entanglement, Physical Review D 93, 044001 (2016), arXiv:1507.02688 [quant- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    L. J. Henderson, S. Y. Ding, and R. B. Mann, Entangle- ment harvesting with a twist, AVS Quantum Science4, 014402 (2022), arXiv:2201.11130 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    L. C. Barbado, C. Barceló, and L. J. Garay, Hawking ra- diation as perceived by different observers, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 125021 (2011), arXiv:1101.4382 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Barceló, S

    C. Barceló, S. Liberati, S. Sonego, and M. Visser, Min- imal conditions for the existence of a Hawking-like flux, Phys. Rev. D83, 041501 (2011), arXiv:1011.5593 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    L. C. Barbado, C. Barceló, and L. J. Garay, Hawking radiation as perceived by different observers: An analytic expression for the effective-temperature function, Class. Quant. Grav.29, 075013 (2012), arXiv:1201.3820 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Smerlak and S

    M. Smerlak and S. Singh, New perspectives on Hawk- ing radiation, Phys. Rev. D 88, 104023 (2013), arXiv:1304.2858 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    L. C. Barbado, C. Barceló, L. J. Garay, and G. Jannes, Hawking versus Unruh effects, or the difficulty of slowly crossing a black hole horizon, JHEP 10, 161, 17 arXiv:1608.02532 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    A.Ahmadzadegan, E.Martín-Martínez,andR.B.Mann, Cavities in curved spacetimes: the response of parti- cle detectors, Physical Review D 89, 024013 (2014), arXiv:1310.5097 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    K. K. Ng, C. Zhang, J. Louko, and R. B. Mann, A little excitement across the horizon, New Journal of Physics 24, 103018 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    C. J. Shallue and S. M. Carroll, What Hawking Radi- ation Looks Like as You Fall into a Black Hole (2025), arXiv:2501.06609 [gr-qc]

    2025

  20. [28]

    B. A. Juárez-Aubry and J. Louko, Onset and decay of the 1+1 Hawking-Unruh effect: What the derivative- coupling detector saw, Classical and Quantum Gravity 31, 245007 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    B. A. Juárez-Aubry,Asymptotics in the time-dependent Hawking and Unruh effects , PhD thesis, University of Nottingham (2016), available at https://eprints. nottingham.ac.uk/id/eprint/32924

    2016

  22. [30]

    Gallock-Yoshimura, E

    K. Gallock-Yoshimura, E. Tjoa, and R. B. Mann, Har- vesting entanglement with detectors freely falling into a black hole, Physical Review D 104, 025001 (2021), arXiv:2102.09573 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    B. A. Juárez-Aubry and J. Louko, Quantum kicks near a Cauchy horizon, AVS Quantum Science4 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    M. R. Preciado-Rivas, M. Naeem, R. B. Mann, and J. Louko, More excitement across the horizon, Physical Review D 110, 025002 (2024), arXiv:2402.14908 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. Wang, M. R. Preciado-Rivas, M. Spadafora, and R. B. Mann, Singular excitement beyond the horizon of a ro- tating black hole, Physical Review D110, 065013 (2024), arXiv:2407.01673 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    B. S. Kay and R. M. Wald, Theorems on the Unique- ness and Thermal Properties of Stationary, Nonsingular, Quasifree States on Space-Times with a Bifurcate Killing Horizon, Physics Reports207, 49 (1991)

    1991

  27. [35]

    C. J. Fewster, A General worldline quantum inequal- ity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 17, 1897 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9910060

    2000 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Junker and E

    W. Junker and E. Schrohe, Adiabatic vacuum states on general space-time manifolds: Definition, construction, and physical properties, Annales Henri Poincaré3, 1113 (2002), arXiv:math-ph/0109010

    2002 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Louko and A

    J. Louko and A. Satz, Transition rate of the Unruh- DeWitt detector in curved spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity 25, 055012 (2008), arXiv:0710.5671 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Langlois, Imprints of spacetime topology in the Hawking-Unruh effect, Ph.D

    P. Langlois, Imprints of spacetime topology in the Hawking-Unruh effect, Ph.D. thesis, University of Not- tingham (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0510127

    2005 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Satz, Then again, how often does the Unruh-DeWitt detector click if we switch it carefully?, Classical and Quantum Gravity24, 1719 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0611067

    A. Satz, Then again, how often does the Unruh-DeWitt detector click if we switch it carefully?, Classical and Quantum Gravity24, 1719 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0611067

    2007 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bañados, C

    M. Bañados, C. Teitelboim, and J. Zanelli, Black hole in three-dimensional spacetime, Physical Review Letters 69, 1849 (1992)

    1992

  33. [41]

    Bañados, M

    M. Bañados, M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, and J. Zanelli, Geometry of the 2+1 black hole, Physical Review D48, 1506 (1993)

    1993

  34. [42]

    Jennings, On the response of a particle detector in Anti-de Sitter spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 205005 (2010), arXiv:1008.2165 [gr-qc]

    D. Jennings, On the response of a particle detector in Anti-de Sitter spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 205005 (2010), arXiv:1008.2165 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  35. [43]

    L. J. Henderson, R. A. Hennigar, R. B. Mann, A. R. H. Smith, and J. Zhang, Anti-Hawking phenomena, Physics Letters B 809, 135732 (2020), arXiv:1911.02977 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity (Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984)

    1984

  37. [45]

    Lifschytz and M

    G. Lifschytz and M. Ortiz, Scalar field quantization on the (2+1)-dimensional black hole background, Physical Review D 49, 1929–1943 (1994)

    1994

  38. [46]

    Carlip, The (2+1)-dimensional black hole, Classical and Quantum Gravity12, 2853 (1995)

    S. Carlip, The (2+1)-dimensional black hole, Classical and Quantum Gravity12, 2853 (1995)

    1995

  39. [47]

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Path Integral Deriva- tion of Black Hole Radiance, Physical Review D13, 2188 (1976)

    1976

  40. [48]

    Israel, Thermo field dynamics of black holes, Physics Letters A 57, 107 (1976)

    W. Israel, Thermo field dynamics of black holes, Physics Letters A 57, 107 (1976)

    1976

  41. [49]

    Guica and S

    M. Guica and S. F. Ross, Behind the geon horizon, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 055014 (2015), arXiv:1412.1084 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A. R. H. Smith, Detectors, reference frames, and time, Springer Theses https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-11000-0 (2019)

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.