Quantum Gravity and String Theory


Was Polchinski Wrong? Colombeau Disributional Rindler Spacetime with Disributional Levi-Cività Connection Induced a Strong Vacuum Dominance. Unruh Effect Revisited

Authors: J. Foukzon, A. A. Potapov, E. R. Men’kova

The vacuum energy density of free scalar quantum field Φ in a Rindler distributional spacetime with distributional Levi-Cività connection is considered.It has been widely believed that, except in very extreme situations, the influence of acceleration on quantum fields should amount to just small, sub-dominant contributions. Here we argue that this belief is wrong by showing that in a Rindler distributional background spacetime with distributional Levi-Cività connection the vacuum energy of free quantum fields is forced, by the very same background distributional spacetime such a Rindler distributional background spacetime, to become dominant over any classical energy density component. This semiclassical gravity effect finds its roots in the singular behavior of quantum fields on a Rindler distributional spacetimes with distributional Levi-Cività connection. In particular we obtain that the vacuum fluctuations 〈2  has a singular behavior at a Rindler horizon   0 : 〈2~−4,  ≈ c2/a,a → . Therefore sufficiently strongly accelerated observer burns up near the Rindler horizon. Thus Polchinski’s account doesn’t violation of the Einstein equivalence principle.

Comments: 58 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2017-09-03 05:26:57

Unique-IP document downloads: 9 times

Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus