Recent content by MiljenkoM

Try this this Lecture Notes on General Relativity.

Yep, I figured it was question of terminology. My example above was just for illustrative purposes. Hilbert space for the theory is the same in either representation, its interpretation as a Fock space is different.

No, its not that there is one vacuum. There is one quantum field, inertial observer is reporting that this field is in its "ground" state, or vacuum. And accelerating observer is saying it is not a vacuum state, it is thermal state. They disagree because they have different notion of vacuum...

If you have access to fantastic book by Sean Carroll - Spacetime and Geometry, you can find best explanation of Unruh effect in chapter 9, he assumes no knowledge of QFT, and derives all you need to know from QFT to understand Unruh effect step by step. I have read a lot on Unruh effect for my...

You are on the right track. There are many examples of this apparent disagreeing in interpretations of same process. I found this paper particularly interesting - arXiv:gr-qc/9901008v1 Authors discuss weak decay of noninertial protons. Althought inertial protons are stable according to...

I think I see your point Mentz114, correct me please if I misunderstood something... So, my definition of vacuum is this: State coresponding to intuitive notion of "the absence of anything", or "empty space", without any particles, state with lowest possible energy. Now you say this: This makes...

Hmm... I think you are interchanging vacuum with frame. There is no contradiction, or am I missing something :/ .

I don't agree with bald part. Accelerating observer is constantly accelerating. Whan he is approaching "stacionary" observer, he is slowing down (acceleration), when they are both comoving, accelerating observers still has acceleration since next moment he is traveling faster relative to...

You can't if you are by yourself :) . But let say that you have a friend named Peter, and you fly by him in accelerating rocket. You: Dude, what do you see? Peter: Dude, I don't see anything, this must be vacuum. You: Strange, my thermometer is showing temperature.

Hi, Naty1... I'll try to make my points more clear in this post, and if you have any questions after, please ask. Well, there is parse nothing particularly wrong with putting it like that, but I don't think it is very accurate description of effect. It raises a lot of questions if you put it...

Let me correct my self.. Actually this link gives pretty good description of Hawking radiation. Naty1 by saying gave what author in the link calls watered-down version, and this version is usually given because it simplifies math considerably. That "watered-down" version is what I was...

I'll like to point out that this view is not completely accurate. What autor, Naty1 is quoting, is describing is Unruh effect in extended Schwarzschild spacetime. The analog of Rindler vacuum state in extended Schwarzschild spacetime is known as Boulware vacuum and analog of Minkowski vacuum...

I think he meant g^{\mu\nu}g_{\mu\nu}=\delta^{\mu}_{\mu} and this is just trace of Identity matrix, and equals n, where n is dimension of Manifold (usually 4).

Oh.. you are right, I didn't say what exactly I was disagreeing in OP. I'm not disagreeing with paper you attached. I'm disagreeing on a way that OP is defining a particle. Positive and negative modes functions are not particles. So when you use Bogoliubov transformations you are not turning...

I don't think negative energy particles are virtual particles, but antiparticles.