0
$\begingroup$

Can there be some version of the Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect, in which the accelerating observer is moving with a non-uniform acceleration? Can someone refer some papers to read?

If there can not be such a version of the effect under consideration and we can say that with certainty, which is the reason?

Any help will be appreciated.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

I see two possible, reasonable, and interesting interpretations for this question. I'll answer both of them. I'll start with the easier one, and then move on to the hardest.

Can a non-uniformly accelerating observer perceive the Minkowski vacuum as having particles?

I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. The notion of particle is extremely observer-dependent and it would be actually surprising if they were to agree with an inertial observer without being inertial themself. Deep down, the notion of particle is related to the observer's notion of what is positive energy, which is then related to the observer's worldline (see this answer I wrote a while ago). If they have different notions of what is positive energy, they will have different notions of particle. I would find it surprising for a non-inertial observer to actually see no particles in the Minkowski vacuum.

Can a non-uniformly accelerating observer perceive the Minkowski vacuum as being thermal?

This requires the observer to not only see particles, but also for them to obey a thermal spectrum. That's a lot more difficult. I find it unlikely, because the thermal spectrum is related to the observers moving along the orbits of a timelike Killing field in the spacetime. Namely, accelerating observers move along wordlines composed of events related by Lorentz boosts. This symmetry is related to the occurrence of a thermal spectrum (a 1991 paper by Kay and Wald discusses how the existence of such a symmetry ends up leading to a thermal spectrum). In the Minkowski spacetime, there are ten independent Killing fields (the maximum possible). The possible symmetries we could then exploit would be:

  • timelike translation: this is the usual notion of time and inertial observers move along these lines,
  • 3 boosts: in the regions in which they are timelike, these correspond to uniformly accelerated observers moving toward different directions;
  • 3 spacelike translations: these are spacelike and no observer can move along them;
  • 3 rotations: these are spacelike and no observer can move along them.

Hence, there are no other available symmetries left, which means it seems unlikely for other observables to also experience thermality. Furthermore, this lack of symmetry can make the analysis somewhat more challenging, which explains why there is such a huge focus on uniform acceleration.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Hi and thanks for the detailed and nicely written reply. However, there are some things I am unsure of. For example, how is the thermal spectrum is related to the observers moving along the orbits of a timelike Killing field in the spacetime? And furthermore, how is the fact that accelerating observers move along wordlines composed of events related by Lorentz boosts is related to the observer moving along the orbits of a timelike Killing field? $\endgroup$
    – schris38
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 8:55
  • $\begingroup$ If I choose a trajectory, in which the acceleration is not constant, does it mean that I am violating the symmetries? $\endgroup$
    – schris38
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 8:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @schris38 The relation between the thermal spectrum and the Killing orbits is a calculation often done in QFT textbooks. Look for "Unruh effect in curved spacetime". Wald's book discusses it. Furthermore, boost symmetry is a symmetry of Minkowski spacetime, and hence it is described by a Killing field. This Killing field is parallel to the orbits of the observers considered in the Unruh effect $\endgroup$ Commented May 18, 2023 at 21:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @schris38 In some sense you are violating the symmetries, yes. That's allowed (I mean, it is physical to consider such an observer), but it is likely to lead to a more difficult computation and there is no a priori reason to expect thermality $\endgroup$ Commented May 18, 2023 at 21:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.