More Shameless Self-Promotion
If you wondered wht I had not posted during the past week, the answer is that I was busy finishing this:
Then again, how often does the Unruh-DeWitt detector click if we switch it carefully?
The transition probability in first-order perturbation theory for an Unruh-DeWitt detector coupled to a massless scalar field in Minkowski space is calculated. It has been shown recently that the conventional $i\epsilon$ regularisation prescription for the correlation function leads to non-Lorentz invariant results for the transition rate, and a different regularisation, involving spatial smearing of the field, has been advocated to replace it. We show that the non-Lorentz invariance arises solely from the assumption of sudden switch-on and switch-off of the detector, and that when the model includes a smooth switching function the results from the conventional regularisation are both finite and Lorentz invariant. The sharp switching limit of the model is also discussed, as well as the falloff properties of the spectrum for large frequencies.
Then again, how often does the Unruh-DeWitt detector click if we switch it carefully?
The transition probability in first-order perturbation theory for an Unruh-DeWitt detector coupled to a massless scalar field in Minkowski space is calculated. It has been shown recently that the conventional $i\epsilon$ regularisation prescription for the correlation function leads to non-Lorentz invariant results for the transition rate, and a different regularisation, involving spatial smearing of the field, has been advocated to replace it. We show that the non-Lorentz invariance arises solely from the assumption of sudden switch-on and switch-off of the detector, and that when the model includes a smooth switching function the results from the conventional regularisation are both finite and Lorentz invariant. The sharp switching limit of the model is also discussed, as well as the falloff properties of the spectrum for large frequencies.
9 Comments:
A hole week for 16 pages??? You`ll neve be a Dumas.
By Anonymous, at 7:16 PM, November 16, 2006
At least I know how to spell "whole" and "never"... Methinks you won't be either!
By Alejandro, at 7:19 PM, November 16, 2006
Would you believe me if I say... nevermind.
By Anonymous, at 1:47 AM, November 17, 2006
"Methinks"?????? Well, at least I do know a little think called "space bar"
By Mundo del Cinismo, at 4:05 PM, November 17, 2006
YES!!! Epiphany!! Finally I know the perfet name for the pub I want to open after failing at physics!! "Space Bar"! Thank you!!!
By Anonymous, at 6:09 PM, November 17, 2006
My dear cynical friend, what it seems YOU don't know is the beautiful subtleties of the English language. Try to start a little thing called Google. It will lead you to 3,220,000 results, including a dictonary definition and collections of quotes that go from Shakespeare to Virginia Woolf.
By the way, if you google "me thinks" separately you will get the question: Did you mean: "methinks"?
Come on, brother Bob, say it now.
By Alejandro, at 6:41 PM, November 17, 2006
fh: "h Bar" is much better, but I think that one it is already taken, so I'll go for your suggestion.
By Alejandro, at 6:42 PM, November 17, 2006
MDC: Uhhh... eso en mi barrio es pelea.
By Darío, at 9:59 PM, November 17, 2006
eating disorders
furniture stores long island
home decorating catalogs
the meaning of names
make money online
cholesterol levels
head hunters austin
laser hair removal in atlanta
coronado island hotels
By Britton, at 6:33 PM, September 06, 2011
Post a Comment
<< Home