Recent content by lindberg

Ah yes, I see. Now I understand why we need acceleration! Thank you. But then again, this should predict the same number of particles whether we do it for RQFT or NQFT, right? What I mean is that an experiment would not be able to distinguish between the two.

I agree with you, although I know much less about it. There is a nice paper by Arageorgis, Earman and Ruetsche (2013) making similar claims: https://philpapers.org/rec/ARAFNA-2 This being said, if the detector does indeed detect any particles, these should be well modeled by the Minkowski...

Thanks a lot for such a detailed response @vanhees71

Hello, @Demystifier Here is the separate post I have talked about to properly address the issue of particles in QFT. So, if you don't mind, several questions (or specifications), since you are one of the rare proponents of absolute time (from what I know) and among those rare proponents, one of...

In a paper by Bain (2011), particles are left with little ontological value because of the Reeh-Schlieder theorem, the Unruh effect and Haag's theorem. The author claims (and here I am copying his conclusion): First, the existence of local number operators requires the absolute temporal metric...

Oh, I see. You distinguish "photons" from "phonons". I am not sure I fully get it, I will need to reread it several times. But from what I have understood, your paper about Unruh-like effects can actually do away with phonons and use actuals particles. Quote from your paper: "This state is...

So how can one make a distinction between a particle and a quasi-particle? Am I made of "real particles"? Why is the ontological status of those ones different? Two days ago I came across this paper (I think it's yours) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732310033359 But then...

@PeterDonis I see what you mean. Probably not as wide spread as I would have expected then. To be honest, a claim of "the first observation of Unruh thermality" seemed quite loud to me. I thought it might be of the same magnitude as (maybe) the observation of gravitational waves at LIGO. Perhaps...

@renormalize thanks. I could not have put it better.

@PeterDonis I get what you're saying, it's an option I have thought of. But this (the first paper) is CERN after all, not some tiny private lab... If there's anything I have retained from my school classes on writing scientific papers, it's that analyzing the state-of-the-art research is the...

A recent paper (June 2021) claims to have observed the Unruh effect: https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.00043 A more recent article (with links to the papers inside it) talks about a possible way to detect it (Barbara Soda et al., April 2022), while there are still skeptics (Anatoly Svidzinsky). Here is...

Wasn't Haag's conclusion extended later to other approaches? I might be wrong, don't hesitate to correct me. An Algebraic Version of Haag’s Theorem https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00220-011-1236-7

What is the main reason for a free field staying free according to Haag's theorem?

@Demystifier so wait, what is Physics based on then? And back to my original question: isn't it a problem that to formulate an alternative to GR, they give up the locality of the Hamiltonian? It seems like a big problem. Isn't experiment ruling this out?

Thank you, @haushofer. I have found it in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5878 (page 4 and 7) and it seemed odd to me.