scholarly journals Quantum energy inequalities for the non-minimally coupled scalar field

2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 025402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J Fewster ◽  
Lutz W Osterbrink
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 2050033
Author(s):  
M. R. Setare ◽  
M. Sahraee

In this paper, we obtain the effect of backreaction on the scale factor of the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) and de Sitter spaces. We consider a non-minimally coupled massive scalar field to the curvature scalar. For our purpose, we use the results of vacuum expectation values of energy–momentum tensor, which have been obtained previously. By substituting the quantum energy density into the Friedmann equation, we obtain the linear order perturbation of the scale factor. So, the effect of backreaction leads to the new scale factor.


2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Fewster ◽  
Calvin J. Smith

2005 ◽  
Vol 17 (05) ◽  
pp. 577-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPHER J. FEWSTER ◽  
STEFAN HOLLANDS

Quantum energy inequalities (QEIs) are state-independent lower bounds on weighted averages of the stress-energy tensor, and have been established for several free quantum field models. We present rigorous QEI bounds for a class of interacting quantum fields, namely the unitary, positive energy conformal field theories (with stress-energy tensor) on two-dimensional Minkowski space. The QEI bound depends on the weight used to average the stress-energy tensor and the central charge(s) of the theory, but not on the quantum state. We give bounds for various situations: averaging along timelike, null and spacelike curves, as well as over a space-time volume. In addition, we consider boundary conformal field theories and more general "moving mirror" models. Our results hold for all theories obeying a minimal set of axioms which — as we show — are satisfied by all models built from unitary highest-weight representations of the Virasoro algebra. In particular, this includes all (unitary, positive energy) minimal models and rational conformal field theories. Our discussion of this issue collects together (and, in places, corrects) various results from the literature which do not appear to have been assembled in this form elsewhere.


2018 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Fewster ◽  
Christian Pfeifer ◽  
Daniel Siemssen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document