\section{Introduction}

It is remarkable-- and to the present authors rather surprising -- to see how great an
attention
is presently
given
to the classic energy-momentum problem in electrodynamics. The problem at hand is
often dubbed
the Abraham-Minkowski problem: the rival candidates for an energy--momentum tensor for electromagnetic (EM) fields in media proposed by Abraham\cite{abraham09} and Minkowski \cite{minkowski10}, each of which may be convincingly argued for, do not appear to always predict the same physics. To wit, Abraham's tensor
predicts
an additional force acting on dielectric bodies subjected to transient EM fields. This enigma, remembered to be considered a somewhat old-fashioned branch of physics back in the 1960's and 1970's, has
been requickened to
become a modern topic again in 2012, as demonstrated by popular highlights \cite{volpe09} a series of recent experiments on its quantum photonics analog \cite{campbell05,hinds09,rikken11,wang11}, reported theoretical resolutions \cite{obukhov03,barnett10,mansuripur10,liu11, kemp11} and reviews \cite{loudon04,baxter10,barnett10b,milonni10}.

For all their virtues, purely theoretical treatments of the
problem
cannot be expected to provide a simple answer to the question of which EM tensor is the more appropriate in general, since one invariably faces the fact that the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor describes only a part (the EM field) of a coupled system including the material medium \cite{moller72,saldanha10}. Conservation laws concern the whole system, not its consituents, and a freedom of choice exists in the book-keeping of energy and momentum.

As we recently argued in a different context \cite{brevik11}, the choice of EM energy--momentum tensor is as much a question of practical convenience as one of correctness, a question which is most directly settled by asking which formalism can most easily describe observed effects. Experiments in which the Abraham force may be detected directly would be the ideal candidate. Of this category, the Walker--Lahoz--Walker experiment \cite{walker75,walker75b} remains the only one to our knowledge, making use of slowly varying, high amplitude electric fields. Analogous macroscopic experiments in the optical regime, most relevant to real-life applications, are still lacking. The effect observed in the experiment of She \emph{et al.} \cite{she08} can be described without reference to photon momentum \cite{brevik10}.

The set-up we propose herein bears some resemblance to that used by She's group, and is an optical analogy of the Walker--Lahoz--Walker experiment. The Abraham force, as well as the standard optical gradient force are transferred to a macroscopic cylinder as a torque, facilitating direct observation of the Abraham force. In fact, the angular deflection of the torsional balance has opposite sign whether Abraham's term is included in the force balance or not, rendering the observation simpler. We show that with realistic numbers for a laboratory set-up, the resulting deflections should
conservatively
be in the order of
$10^{-3}$ radians, which is readily measurable.
The system thus has several advantages over a previous suggestion involving whispering gallery modes in an optical resonator \cite{brevik10c}.

\section{Model: a long optical fiber}

Consider first the following model: a long dielectric circularly cylindrical rod  (fiber) of  length $L$ and radius $a$ is oriented along the $x$ axis. The refractive index in the material is the constant $n$, assumed to be  real. The rod is illuminated by a short laser pulse of total energy $\mathcal H_0$, duration $\tau$, frequency $\omega$, and original vacuum length $l_0= c\tau$; subscript   zero henceforth referring to  vacuum quantities. We assume for simplicity that $l_0 \ll L$ (this is easily generalized, but we
endeavor
here to keep the formalism simple).  If the wave is just broad enough to fill out the cross section $A=\pi a^2$ of the rod,  we have   ${\mathcal H_0}=\varepsilon_0 E_0^2Al_0$, where $E_0$ is the rms value of the incident electric field.   For simplicity we assume that the ends are coated with antireflection films of refractive index $\sqrt n$, so that there is no reflected wave. Thus the energy in the medium, $\mathcal{H}=\varepsilon_0  n^2E^2Al$,   is the same as the incident energy $\mathcal H_0$. (Note that  $l_0=nl$, and that the continuity of Poynting's vector across the entrance region leads to the relationship $E_0^2=nE^2$.)

The general electromagnetic force density $\bf f$ in an isotropic nonmagnetic medium can be written as a sum of three physically distinct contributions (cf., for instance, Refs.~\cite{stratton41,brevik79}),
\be\label{1}
   {\bf f}={\bf f}^\mathrm{AM}+{\bf f}^\mathrm{ES} + {\bf f}^\mathrm{A}.
\ee
We will use SI units in the following.

The middle term in this expression,
${\bf f}^\mathrm{ES}$,
is the electrostriction term ($\rho$ denotes the material density). It is of importance in cases where knowledge about the distribution of pressure in a dielectric medium is needed (this point has recent been discussed, for instance,  in  Ref.~\cite{ellingsen11,ellingsen12}). However, as far as the total force on a body is concerned, the electrostriction term  does not contribute. We will therefore omit it in the following.

The first term in Eq.~(\ref{1}) is the force that acts in regions where $n$ varies, typically at the surfaces. It is common for the Abraham and Minkowski energy-momentum tensors, and may be called the Abraham--Minkowski force,
\begin{equation}
  {\bf f}^{\rm AM}=-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon_0E^2 {\boldsymbol \nabla} n^2. \label{2}
\end{equation}
Its action on the left surface of the rod, at $x=0$, is to produce a surface pressure $\sigma_x$, directed to the left, from the medium side of the interface towards vacuum. It can be found by integrating the diagonal component of Maxwell's  stress tensor across the front surface,
\begin{equation}
  \sigma_x=\int_{0-}^{0+}T_{xx}dx= -\varepsilon_0 n(n-1)E^2, \label{3}
\end{equation}
$E$ being the field in the medium. The  surface impulse $G_{\rm surf}^{\rm AM}$  imparted to the front surface is thus
\begin{equation}
  G_{\rm surf}^{\rm AM}=\sigma_xA\tau=-(n-1)\frac{\cal H}{c}. \label{4}
\end{equation}
The transit time through the medium can with sufficient accuracy be put equal to $nL/c$. The impulse given to the exit surface is equal and opposite to the expression (\ref{4}), and the net momentum after the pulse has left is zero.

Consider next the last term in Eq.~(\ref{1}), the Abraham term,
\begin{equation}
 {\bf f}^{\rm A}=\frac{n^2-1}{c^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\bf E\times H). \label{5}
\end{equation}
It gives rise to an accompanying mechanical momentum $G_{\rm mech}^{\rm A}$ in the medium, equal to
\begin{equation}
 G_{\rm mech}^{\rm A}=\frac{n^2-1}{n}\frac{\cal H}{c}. \label{6}
\end{equation}
In the period when the pulse is contained in the medium, the pulse-induced total momentum is  thus
\begin{equation}
 G_{\rm surf}^{\rm AM}+G_{\rm mech}^{\rm A}=\frac{n-1}{n}\frac{\cal H}{c}. \label{7}
\end{equation}
Note already that the net impulse imparted including and excluding the Abraham term takes opposite signs.

Assume for simplicity that the rod is rigid, with  mass is $M=\rho AL$. As the expression (\ref{7}) must equal $Mv^{\rm A}$ where  $v^{\rm A}$ is the rod's velocity, the Abraham displacement $\Delta x^{\rm A}=v^{\rm A}Ln/c$ is
\begin{equation}
 \Delta x^{\rm A}=\frac{n-1}{\rho A}\frac{\cal{H}}{c^2}. \label{8}
\end{equation}
This displacement is formally independent of $L$ (although the above restriction $l\ll L$ has to be observed).

The expression (\ref{5}) is a small force on a macroscopic scale. In order to maximize its magnitude one would want high laser energy, high refractive index, and low mass per unit length $M/L$. Let us assume that a power of $P=1$ kW can be transmitted through the fiber (absorption and heat effects neglected). For illustration, take the duration of the pulse to be $\tau=10^{-8}$ s. With $n=3$  the length of the pulse is thus  $l_0 =3$ m  in vacuum and $l=1$ m in the medium. The pulse energy is ${\cal{H}}= P\tau=10^{-5}$ J. Taking the radius to be $a=10~\mu$m, and taking $\rho$=2000 kg/m$^3$, we  get
 \begin{equation}
 \Delta x^{\rm A}=3.5\times 10^{-16}~\rm m. \label{9}
 \end{equation}
 This is in practice unmeasurable. However -- and this is our main point -- one can make the effect much stronger by using a high-frequency {\it repetition} of pulses.

\section{Realistic manifestation and numerical results}

\begin{figure}[tb]
  \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{geometry.eps}
  \caption{The proposed geometry: an optical fiber wound around a cylinder made of a light material. A train of optical pulses produces a torque, different for Abraham and Minkowski theory.}
\end{figure}

 The idealized picture of a rod as sketched above, micrometers thick and

 meters long, is not practically useful. Let us instead assume that the fiber is flexible, and wound up on a low-mass cylindrical drum of radius $R \gg a$ and height   $H$. The system is hanging vertically in the gravitational field, suspended by a thin wire of known, small torsion constant $\kappa$. Let us assume for definiteness
 \begin{equation}
   R=10~\rm{cm}, \quad H=10~\rm cm. \label{10}
 \end{equation}
 If the cylinder is made of a dilute material, such as polystyrene whose density is about 100 kg/m$^3$, the cylinder mass $M_{\rm cyl}$ and its moment of inertia $I_{\rm cyl}=\frac{1}{2}M_{\rm cyl}R^2$ about the $z$ axis become approximately
 \begin{equation}
 M_{\rm cyl} = 31 ~\rm{g}, \quad I_{\rm cyl} = 1.6\times 10^{-3}~\rm kg~m^2. \label{11}
 \end{equation}
 The cylinder could of course be made hollow to further decrease its mass and moment of inertia.

 \subsection{Abraham theory}

 Winding a fiber of diameter $2a=20~\mu$m around the cylinder, there is room for $H/2a$ circuits in a single layer of windings. Without multiple layers of windings, this already corresponds to $5000$ turns of circumference $2\pi R$, i.e., $L\approx 3$km. The single-pulse momentum (\ref{7}), when multiplied with $R$ and with the pulse repetition frequency  $f_{\rm rep}$, is the angular momentum supplied to the cylinder per second. This is the same as the torque $N_z^{\rm A}$ about the $z$ axis. The cylinder will slowly turn abound the $z$ axis, until mechanical equilibrium is restored. The maximum angular deflection, called $\phi_{\rm max}^{\rm A}$, follows as
 \begin{equation}
 \phi_{\rm max}^{\rm A}=\frac{1}{\kappa}N_z^{\rm A}=  \left(\frac{n-1}{n}\frac{\cal{H}}{c}\right) \frac{R}{\kappa}f_{\rm rep}. \label{13}
 \end{equation}
 This expression is independent of $L$. The usefulness of having a large value of $L$ is that this easily ensures the pulses to be spatially separated  in the medium. The main parameter in the above expression, in order to obtain a large value of $\phi_{\rm max}$, is seen to be the product ${\cal{H}} f_{\rm rep}$.

 In order to make clear the main idea behind our model let us assume again that the medium is rigid (thus ignoring its real elasticity properties), and let us take it to be long and straight. During the time the first pulse is in the fiber, the fiber undergoes a displacement $\Delta x^{\rm A}$,  given by Eq.~(\ref{8}). A subsequent pulse, sufficiently delayed by a time interval $\Delta t$  not to  overlap with the first, provides another displacement $\Delta x^{\rm A}$. Assume  for definiteness that the pulse train contains $N$ pulses in all, and that they are all contained in the fiber at the same time.  Once the first pulse exits the fiber, the impulse from this pulse is canceled out, the action from the other $(N-1)$ pulses however remaining. The subsequent pulses act in the same way. The total displacement effect is additive, so that the total displacement is  equal to the
 one-pulse displacement $\Delta x^{\rm A}$ multiplied by $N$. When the pulse train has left, the position of the fiber is thus changed, but
 its residual momentum (assuming no absorption)
 is zero.
 It is possible to interpret the  force  as a transient effect, as any  pulse when contained in the fiber contains a separate momentum of its own. The force accumulates the momenta of the pulses contained in the fiber at any time.

Returning to the cylinder geometry, when the number of repeated pulses is high the deflection can be enhanced considerably.  Repetition rates in the multi gigaherz regime have been experimentally achieved for a long time \cite{tai86,longhi00, vlachos00}. In these experiments the average optical power is typically in the range of a few tens of mW, although high output power is not the objective. Let us assume the same value for $\tau$ as above, but moderate the input value of $P$ to make it more realistic:
\begin{equation}
P= 1~\rm{W}, \quad \tau=10^{-8}~\rm{s}, \quad {\cal{H}}=10^{-8}~\rm J.
\end{equation}
To calculate $\phi_{\rm max}$ we have moreover to
 estimate a value for the torsion constant $\kappa$. In extreme cases, such as when dealing with torsion experiments testing the equivalence principle \cite{hou03,schlamminger08}, the torsion constant has been reported as low as about $10^{-9}$ Nm/rad. Let us adopt a somewhat larger value here,
 \begin{equation}
 \kappa \sim 10^{-8}~\rm Nm/rad. \label{15}
 \end{equation}
 Insertion into Eq.~(\ref{13}) now gives
 \begin{equation}
 \phi_{\rm max}^{\rm A} =2.2\times 10^{-10}f_{\rm rep}.       \label{A}
 \end{equation}
 Let us for definiteness assume that the separation between the centers of each pulse (each of length $l=1~$m) is 10 m. Then there are $L/10=300$ pulses in the fiber at the same time. To propagate 10 m in the fiber, light needs $10^{-7}$ s (the entrance time $\tau$, as mentioned, is only one tenth of this). It thus seems reasonable to adopt as repetition frequency
 \begin{equation}
 f_{\rm rep}=10~\rm MHz.
 \label{B}
 \end{equation}
Then Eq.~(\ref{A})  leads to the estimate
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\rm max}^{\rm A} = 2.2\times 10^{-3} \,\rm rad. \label{C}
\end{equation}
A deflection of this magnitude should be easily measurable.  The expression is positive, meaning that the cylinder turns in the
direction of light propagation.

It should be emphasized that the above argument rests upon the assumption of additivity: the effective force on the fiber is found by multiplying the impulse transferred from one single pulse by the number of pulses transmitted through the fiber {\it per second}. It is not necessary that each pulse enters and exits the fiber before the next pulse enters. The important point is merely that the pulses are separated from each other in the fiber.

A comment on sources of corrections is warranted.
Take again the model of a long straight rod and assume that the antireflection films on the ends are not perfect, but that there is an effective
reflectivity coefficient
$\cal R$ at each end. Assuming ${\cal{R}} \ll 1$ we may assume that the fields in the medium are practically the same as in the ideal case considered above.  Since a fraction $\cal R$ of the incident energy is reflected at the front surface we estimate that, during the entrance period of each pulse, an extra positive impulse equal to $\cal R$ times the magnitude $|G_{\rm surf}^{\rm AM}|$ of the surface impulse (\ref{4}) is imparted to the rod,
\begin{equation}
  {\cal{R}} |G_{\rm surf}^{\rm AM}| = {\cal{R}}(n-1)\frac{\cal H}{c}. \label{D}
\end{equation}
During the exit time of the same pulse the same extra amount is imparted to the rod, also then in the forward direction. Adding this to Eq.~(\ref{7}) we have
\begin{equation}
  G_{\rm surf}^{\rm AM}+G_{\rm mech}^{\rm A} \rightarrow (1+2n{\cal R})\frac{n-1}{n}\frac{\cal H}{c}, \label{E}
\end{equation}
implying that the relative correction to the total momentum is simply $2n\cal R$. Thus the required accuracy of the reflection coefficient is not too demanding; with $n=3$ as assumed above we see that ${\cal R} = 0.005$ is sufficient to give an accuracy of about 3\% in the momentum.
In the same way the small but nonzero absorption of momentum from the propagating light by the fiber must be accounted for as a correction.

 \subsection{Minkowski theory}

 The above theory concerns the Abraham theory. Let us consider Minkowski's theory in which the Abraham term is excluded. The Minkowski energy-momentum tensor has in general several advantages, not least so in optics: it is divergence-free in a homogeneous medium without external charges implying  that the four components of energy and momentum make up a four-vector \cite{moller72}, and   it moreover adjusts itself very nicely to a canonical treatment \cite{brevik70,barnett10}, in spite of its space-like character (the field energy can be negative in some inertial systems).

 In our case, the  difference from the Abraham case
 appears
 in the omission of the  last term in Eq.~(\ref{1}), and similarly in the omission of the term $G_{\rm mech}^{\rm A}$ in Eq.~(\ref{7}). The contribution to the mechanical momentum in the rod comes entirely from the surface forces. The linear displacement $\Delta x^{\rm M}$ predicted in the Minkowski theory thus becomes
 \begin{equation}
 \Delta x^{\rm M}=-\frac{n(n-1)}{\rho a^2}\frac{\cal H}{c^2}, \label{16}
 \end{equation}
 instead of Eq.~(\ref{8}) (note that the energy $\cal H$ is the same). Similarly we get
 \begin{equation}
 \phi_{\rm max}^{\rm M}=-(n-1)\frac{\cal H}{c}\frac{R}{\kappa}f_{\rm rep}. \label{17}
 \end{equation}
 That means,
 \begin{equation}
 \phi_{\rm max}^{\rm M}=-n\phi_{\rm max}^{\rm A}.
 \end{equation}
 With the numbers employed above, this amounts to
 \be
   \phi_{\rm max}^{\rm M}=-6.6 \times 10^{-3}~\rm rad.
 \ee

 The most important difference from Eqs.~(\ref{13}) and (\ref{C}) is the difference in {\it sign}. The cylinder is predicted to turn in the opposite direction from the case above. This point obviously serves to facilitate possible forthcoming experiments.

 There is of  course  ample room for choosing different values for the input parameters than those used in our numerical estimates above. However,  our main point has  been to demonstrate that the simple trick of using repetitive pulses should make it
 possible to measure the difference between the Abraham and Minkowski predictions in optics in an experiment which is simple, at least
 conceptually.
 It would be of definite interest to see such an experiment carried out in practice.

 \section{Conclusions}

 The two main contestants for the energy--momentum tensor in media are those due to Abraham and Minkowski, both presented more than a century ago, yet still the question of which one to choose attracts considerable attention. While several experiments have been carried out in recent years probing the question at an atomic and photonic scale, experiments in macroscopic electromagnetics have been scarce due to the Abraham force's small magnitude and difficulty of access.

 Here we have proposed a set-up which might make such a measurement possible, by which the difference between (na\"{\i}ve) Abraham and Minkowski predictions can be observed, perhaps even with the naked eye. While this certainly would not prove either tensor ``right'' (it is a fallacy to talk
 of
 correctness
 --- rather it is a question of usefulness), it would provide a strong case for the usefulness of
 the
 concept of the Abraham force in explanation or prediction of optical forces on matter interacting with transient electromagnetic fields.

\newpage


\section*{Acknowledgments}
We acknowledge support by the Polish Ministry of Science and
Higher Education under Project No. N202~104138. A.M. Ole\'s
acknowledges also support by the Foundation for Polish Science
(FNP).


\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Cosmological N-body simulations show that if gravitational
interactions between `standard' (i.e., massive, weakly-interacting) cold
dark matter (CDM) particles dominate structure formation, then galaxies must be embedded in dark matter haloes that (i) collectively follow a mass function that diverges at low masses as $\d N/\d M_{\rm vir}\sim M_{\rm vir}^{-1.9}$ (e.g. Springel et al. 2008 and references therein); and (ii) individually follow mass-density profiles characterized by centrally-divergent `cusps', with $\rho(r)\propto r^{-1}$ at small radii (Dubinski \& Carlberg 1991; Navarro, Frenk \& White 1996, hereafter NFW).
The dark matter haloes inferred from observations of real galaxies differ significantly: the estimated mass profiles are consistent with homogeneous-density 'cores' (Kuzio de Naray et al. 2008; Battaglia et al. 2008; de Blok 2010; Walker \& Pe\~narrubia 2011; Amorisco \& Evans 2012) and the satellite mass function is remarkably flat (Klypin et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999).

Either the dark matter is not standard CDM or, if it is, then
non-gravitational forces must play a significant role in structure
formation.  Indeed various baryon-physical mechanisms have
been proposed and demonstrated to be capable of fixing both problems {\it separately}:
e.g. supernova explosions (Navarro et al. 1996, Read \& Gilmore 2005; Mashchenko et al. 2008; Governato et al. 2010; Pontzen \& Governato 2012), or the orbital decay of compact baryonic objects (El-Zant et al. 2001; Goerdt et al. 2010; Cole et al. 2011) can under plausible conditions flatten the central cusps of CDM-like haloes.  Likewise, supernova feedback, inefficient cooling of interstellar media, cosmic reionization, UV radiation, and acoustic oscillations have all been invoked to explain the suppression of galaxy formation in low-mass satellite haloes
(e.g. Tassis et al. 2008; Bovill \& Riccotti 2009; Sawala et al. 2010; Bovy \& Dvorkin 2012).

Notice that solutions to CDM problems on small scales rest upon the
efficiency with which stars form in DM haloes. However, while
core formation generally requires an efficient conversion of gas into stars,
suppression of galaxy formation obviously requires the opposite.

In light of this apparent tension, here we examine whether baryon-physical
solutions to CDM's `core/cusp' and `missing satellites' problems are
mutually compatible.
For maximal leverage we consider explicitly the
impact of the most energetically efficient baryon-driven
events--supernova explosions of type II (SNeII)\footnote{One may show that the orbital energy of compact stellar objects is orders of magnitude lower than associated to SNeII events.} --on the least
luminous objects associated empirically with dark matter haloes: the Milky
Way (MW)'s dwarf spheroidal satellites.

\section{Cusp removal at work}\label{sec:work}

\subsection{Models}\label{sec:transf}
We proceed to derive a rough estimate of the amount of work involved in transforming a centrally-divergent cusp into a constant-density core. We adopt the following cosmologically-motivated halo density profile
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:rho}
\rho(r)=\frac{\rho_0 r_s^3}{(r_c+r)(r_s+r)^2};
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_0$ is a characteristic halo density and $r_s$ is a scale radius. We assume that the original state of the DM follows a NFW model\footnote{Adopting Einasto profiles instead of NFW models has a negligible impact on our estimates.}, i.e. for a core radius $r_c= 0$, and that the main effect of baryonic feedback is to flatten the inner cusp, so that at $r\ll r_c$ dark matter is homogeneously distributed. Clearly, this solution is not unique, and in principle more complex models (that is, with a larger number of free parameters) can be invoked in order to describe the effects of baryonic feedback in more elaborate a detail. In practice, however, eq.~(\ref{eq:rho}) provides a reasonable fit to the cored DM density profiles found in the hydro-dynamical simulations of Governato et al. (2012, G12). Also, one may show that the below estimates barely change for more complex profiles, e.g $\rho/\rho_0\sim (r^n +r_c^n)^{-1/n}$ at $r\ll r_s$.

After the DM cusp is removed we assume that the halo settles in a new equilibrium state. Hence, we can use the virial theorem to derive a {\it lower} (i.e conservative) limit of the amount of energy required by the transformation as $\Delta E=\Delta W/2= (W_{\rm core}-W_{\rm cusp})/2$, where $W$ is the halo potential energy
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:W}
W=-4 \pi G \int_0^{r_{\rm vir}} \rho(r)M(r)r\d r;
\end{eqnarray}
and $M(r)$ is the halo mass profile, which can be integrated analytically from eq.~(\ref{eq:rho})

\begin{equation}
\frac{M(r)}{M_0}=
\begin{cases}
\frac{x^2 \ln(1+\tilde r/x)+(1-2x)\ln(1+\tilde r)}{(1-x)^2} -\frac{\tilde r}{(1+\tilde r)(1-x)} & ,x\ne 1 \\
\ln(1+\tilde r) - \frac{\tilde r(2+3\tilde r)}{2(1+\tilde r)^2} & , x=1
\end{cases}
\label{eq:m}
\end{equation}
where $M_0\equiv 4 \pi \rho_0 r_s^3$, $\tilde r \equiv r/r_s$ and $x\equiv r_c/r_s$.

Given that feedback mainly shapes the inner-most regions of DM haloes, the parameter $\rho_0$ can be derived from eq.~(\ref{eq:m}) under the assumption that the halo virial mass remains constant\footnote{However, in general we expect haloes to grow in mass while forming stars, i.e $M_{\rm vir,core}\gtrsim M_{\rm vir, cusp}$, hence our estimates of $\Delta E$ must be regarded as conservative.}, i.e. $M_{\rm vir, core}=M_{\rm vir, cusp}=M_0[\ln(1+c)-c/(1+c)]$, where $c=r_{\rm vir}/r_c$ is the halo concentration.

It is useful to write
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:delw}
\Delta W= \frac{G M_{\rm vir}^2}{r_s} \Theta(x,c).
\end{eqnarray}
Although this equation has to be solved numerically, one may show that $\Theta\sim x$ for $x\ll 1$, i.e. the energy required to form small cores is proportional to the core size; whereas for $x\gg 1$, this function approaches asymptotically the limit $\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty}\Theta\approx 0.05$. This indicates that unbinding the very central cusp is the energetically demanding part of the transformation, whilst re-distributing DM beyond the halo scale radius requires, in comparison, a relatively small amount of energy, suggesting that our results will not be strongly sensitive to the details of the outer halo profile.

In our models the initial state of the halo is fully specified by $M_{\rm vir}, r_{\rm vir}$ and $c=r_{\rm vir}/r_s$. These parameters can be fixed by using the results from N-body cosmological simulations. For example, the halo virial radius $r_{\rm vir}=r_{\rm vir}(M_{\rm vir},z)$ is calculated from Bullock et al. (2001), whereas the concentration $c=c(M_{\rm vir},z)$ follows the relation proposed by Macci{\`o} et al. (2007)\footnote{The scatter in this relation $\pm 0.15$ dex is neglected for reasons that will become obvious below.}. Hence the amount of work required to remove the DM cusp ($\Delta W$) is solely determined by the size of the DM core with respect to the original scale radius, $x=r_c/r_s$.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,height=84mm]{f1.eps}
\caption{{\bf Upper panel:} Density profiles considered in this work. Thick solid lines correspond to an NFW model with $M_{\rm vir}=3\times 10^9M_\odot$, scale radius $r_s\simeq 1.9$ kpc a concentration $c=16$. Red, green and blue show cored density profiles of haloes with the same virial mass and a core radius $r_c=0.2, 1.0$ and 5 kpc, respectively.  {\bf Lower panel:} Slope of the mass profile $\Gamma\equiv \d\ln M/\d\ln r$ as a function of radius for the above models. NFW and cored haloes have $\Gamma<2$ and $\Gamma<3$, respectively. Recent measurements of $\Gamma$ in the Fornax (closed symbol, $r_{\rm h}\simeq 713$ pc) and Sculptor (open symbol, $r_{\rm h}\simeq 226$ pc) dSphs are indicative relatively large ($r_c\gtrsim 1$~kpc) DM cores in both galaxies (see WP11 for details).}
\label{fig:prof_slope}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Core size}\label{sec:coresize}
Recently, Walker \& Pe\~narrubia (2011; WP11) have measured the slope of the halo mass profile ($\Gamma$) in the two brightest MW dSphs, Fornax and Sculptor ($M_\star/M_\odot\simeq 3\times 10^7$ and $8\times 10^6$ respectively; de Boer et al. 2012a,b). The values, $\Gamma\equiv \Delta \log M / \Delta \log r=2.61_{-0.37}^{+0.43}$ and $\Gamma=2.95_{-0.39}^{+0.51}$, rule out NFW profiles ($\Gamma< 2$) at confidence levels $\gtrsim 96\%$ and $\gtrsim 99\%$, respectively.

We can use eq.~(\ref{eq:rho}) to relate the slope of the mass profile measured at the half-light radius ($r_{\rm h}$) with the core size. For stellar components that are deeply embedded within the DM halo ($r_{\rm h}\ll r_s$) we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:gamma}
\Gamma(r_{\rm h}) = 3 -\frac{3(1+2x)}{4x}\bigg(\frac{r_{\rm h}}{r_s}\bigg)+\mathcal{O}\bigg(\frac{r_{\rm h}}{r_s}\bigg)^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Two points can be gleaned from this Equation. First, measurements of $\Gamma(r_{\rm h})$ cannot be used to derive upper limits for the halo core radius, as the slope approaches an asymptotic value $\Gamma\simeq 3 - 3/2(r_{\rm h}/r_s)$ for $r_c\gg r_s$. And second, steep mass profiles ($\Gamma\gtrsim 2.5$) imply that the dark matter core extends well beyond the luminous radius of the dwarf, i.e $r_c\gtrsim r_{\rm h}$.

Fig.~\ref{fig:prof_slope} illustrates the transformation defined by eq.~(\ref{eq:rho}). We adopt a fiducial NFW model for dSphs with $M_{\rm vir}=3\times 10^9M_\odot$, $r_s\simeq 1.9$ kpc and $c=19.6$ (solid line) (see Pe\~narrubia et al. 2008). Long-dashed, dotted and short-dashed lines show cored profiles with $r_c=0.2, 1.0$ and 5 kpc, respectively. The lower panel shows the slope of the mass profiles associated to these models. As expected from eq.~(\ref{eq:gamma}), the values of $\Gamma$ measured in Fornax and Sculptor suggest $r_c\gtrsim 1$ kpc.

 It is useful to define an ``observationally-relevant'' range of core sizes.
Motivated by the above measurements, we set a minimum core size comparable to the half-light radius of the dwarf\footnote{Notice also that inferring the presence of tiny ($r_c\ll r_{\rm h}$) DM cores in dSphs is extremely challenging.}, $r_{c,\rm min}\approx r_{\rm h}$. Given that stars are deeply embedded within the CDM halos of dSphs, $r_{\rm h}\sim 0.1 r_s$ (Pe\~narrubia et al. 2008), we consider minimum core sizes $70\le r_{c,\rm {min}}/{\rm pc}\le 370$ for haloes with $M_{\rm vir}/M_\odot\sim 10^{8-11}$.
The maximum size, although poorly constrained observationally, can be safely assumed to be $r_{c,\rm max}< r_{\rm vir}$. Hence, here we inspect transformations in the range $0.1 \lesssim  r_c/r_s < c$. This uncertainty, together with the details of the outer halo profile (see \S\ref{sec:transf}), has a small relevance to our conclusions.

\subsection{Energetics of the core/cusp transformation}
Thick red lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:work} show the range of energies required to remove DM cusps as a function of the halo virial mass.
As expected from eq.~(\ref{eq:delw}) the amount of energy required by the transformation scales as $\Delta W\propto M_{\rm vir}^2$. At a fixed mass the energy range (shaded area) is relatively narrow, the {\it lower} limit of $\Delta W$ being determined by the minimum core size, $r_{c,\rm {min}}\sim 0.1 r_s$ (see \S\ref{sec:coresize}), and the upper limit being given by the asymptotic limit of $\Theta$ for $x\gg 1$. For ease of reference we also mark the case $r_c=1$ kpc with black dots.

The CDM haloes of bright dSphs have estimated virial masses in the range $M_{\rm vir}/M_\odot\sim 10^{9-10}$ (Pe\~narrubia et al. 2008). Thus, baryons must produce of the order of $10^{53}\lesssim \Delta W/({\rm erg})\lesssim 10^{55}$ in order to effect the profile transformation on the dSph mass scales.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,width=84mm]{f2.eps}
\caption{Minimum energy ($\Delta E$, red dashed area) required to form a DM core with a size $0.1 \le r_c/r_s \le c$, where $c=r_{\rm vir}/r_s$ is the halo concentration an NFW halo with virial mass $M_{\rm vir}$ at $z=0$. The energy {\it required} to form a DM core with $r_c=1$ kpc is marked with black dots for reference. On the right vertical axis we plot the luminosity derived from a star formation efficiency $F_\star=F_\star(M_{\rm vir})$ tuned to reproduce the number of luminous satellites in our Galaxy. Luminosities are converted into SNeII energy using eq.~(\ref{eq:delwms}) and adopting a strong energy coupling $\epsilon_{\rm DM}=0.4$. Notice that the tension between the `core/cusp' and `missing satellite' problems arise in haloes with $M_{\rm vir}\lesssim 10^{10} M_\odot$.}
\label{fig:work}
\end{figure}

\section{CDM problems and baryonic feedback}\label{sec:feedback}

\subsection{Supernova energy}\label{sec:sn}
The only plausible source of such an immense amount of energy appears to be the averaged $E_{\rm SN}\sim 10^{51}$ erg of kinetic energy released per SNII explosion (Utrobin \& Chugai 2011). The fraction that contributes to the pressure term in the hydrodynamical equations is the so-called `energy coupling' ($\epsilon_{\rm SN}$). Its value is still a matter or debate. Typical values range from $\epsilon_{\rm SN}=0.01$ (e.g. Kellermann 1989) to 0.40 (Governato et al. 2010). Recently, Revaz \& Jablonka (2012) argue that $\epsilon_{\rm SN}\approx 0.05$ in order to describe the relation between metallicity and luminosity found in dSphs (e.g. Kirby et al. 2011). Note, however, that the fraction of energy transferred into the gas ($\epsilon_{\rm SN}$) may be much larger than the fraction of energy eventually transferred into the DM distribution, which we term $\epsilon_{\rm DM}$. We will adopt $\epsilon_{\rm DM}=0.4$, which gives an upper limit to the energy available, since $\epsilon_{\rm DM}<\epsilon_{\rm SN}$, and a value $\epsilon_{\rm SN}=0.4$ is already quite optimistic (but facilitates comparison with Governato et al results).

The stellar mass ($M_\star$) required to generate an energy $\Delta E$ through SNeII explosions is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:delwms}
\Delta E= \frac{M_\star}{\langle m_\star\rangle} \xi(m_\star>8 M_\odot)E_{\rm SN}\epsilon_{\rm DM};
\end{eqnarray}
where we assume that stars form following a universal Initial Mass Function (IMF in short), $\xi(m_\star)$; and that only stars with masses $m_\star>8 M_\odot$ undergo SNeII during their last evolutionary stages. For simplicity we adopt a Kroupa (2002) IMF, which gives a fraction of massive single stars $\xi(m_\star>8M_\odot) =0.0037$ and a mean stellar mass $\langle m_\star \rangle=0.4M_\odot$.

Eq.~(\ref{eq:delwms}) relates stellar mass to the amount of SNeII energy available to do work on the halo, and we use it to draw the right-vertical axis in Fig.~\ref{fig:work}.  If we allow stellar mass fractions to take values as large as the universal baryon fraction --i.e. $M_\star/M_{\rm vir}=\Omega_b/\Omega_m\simeq 0.047/0.28\simeq 0.16$--then Fig.~\ref{fig:work} indicates that core formation via SNeII feedback is indeed energetically viable on all mass scales. However, this quantity is strongly constrained by the collective properties of the satellite population.

\subsection{The missing satellite problem}\label{sec:missing}
The number of visible structures in our Galaxy constrains the stellar mass that CDM subhaloes can form before being accreted onto the host and becoming ``satellites''. It is useful to define the {\it star formation efficiency} as the fraction of the virial mass that a DM halo converts into stars normalized to the universal baryon fraction, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:fs}
F_\star\equiv \bigg(\frac{M_\star}{M_{\rm vir}}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\Omega_b}{\Omega_m}\bigg)^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}

Because collision-less CDM simulations do not contain baryons, $F_\star$ is typically ``measured'' by associating the most massive subhaloes to the most luminous satellite galaxies. Due to the divergent nature of the subhalo mass function, $f_s(M_{\rm vir})\propto M_{\rm vir}^{-1.9}$, a strong suppression of star formation in low-mass haloes is needed in order to reconcile the (small) number of visible satellites with the overwhelming number of substructures predicted by CDM (a.k.a the ``missing satellite problem''; Moore et al. 1999; Klypin et al. 1999). E.g.
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:fssat}
F_{\star,{\rm sat}}\approx 10^{-3}\bigg(\frac{M_{\rm vir}}{10^{10}M_\odot}\bigg)^{1/3};
\end{eqnarray}
in haloes with $M_{\rm vir}\lesssim 10^{10}M_\odot$ (Kravtsov 2010; see also Tollerud et al. 2008 and Koposov et al. 2009). Recent studies show that eq.~(\ref{eq:fssat}) is also consistent with the abundance of luminous structures found in external galaxies (e.g. Behroozi et al. 2010).

From eq.~(\ref{eq:delwms}) the formation of a DM core with $r_c\gtrsim 0.1 r_s$ requires
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:fsmin}
F_{\star,{\rm core}}(z=0)\gtrsim 10^{-3}\bigg(\frac{M_{\rm vir}}{10^{10}M_\odot}\bigg)^{2/3}\bigg(\frac{\epsilon_{\rm DM}}{0.4}\bigg)^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Comparison with eq.~(\ref{eq:fssat}) shows that $F_{\star,{\rm core}}/F_{\star,{\rm sat}}\sim (M_{\rm vir}/10^{10}M_\odot)^{1/3}\lesssim 1$ at $M_{\rm vir}\lesssim 10^{10}M_\odot$, implying that the formation of DM cores in dSphs leads to an over-abundance of luminous satellites (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:work}).

However, this comparison has an important caveat, viz. that halo masses and concentrations are calculated at $z=0$, whilst abundance-matching techniques return star formation efficiencies at the {\it time of accretion} ($z_{\rm acc}$). For MW-like haloes the accretion redshift of the surviving satellite population peaks at $z_{\rm acc}\approx 1$ (Zentner \& Bullock 2003; Pe\~narrubia \& Benson 2005).

Let us first inspect the energetics of the core/cusp transformation as a function of redshift. Because the Universe, and therefore the structures that form within, was denser in the past, $\Delta E$ tends to {\it increase} as we go to higher redshifts at a fixed halo mass. This dependence is approximately linear during the matter-dominated era ($z\gtrsim 1$), because the virial over-densities $\delta_{\rm vir}=\rho_{\rm vir}/\rho_m-1\simeq 18 \pi^2$ were essentially independent of redshift, and because the concentration evolves as $c(z)\approx c(z=0) (1+z)^{-1}$ (Wechsler et al. 2002). Hence at a fixed halo mass we find that $F_{\star, {\rm core}}(z)\sim F_{\star, {\rm core}}(z=0)(1+z)$ at $z\gtrsim 1$.

Unfortunately, the redshift at which the profile transformation takes place (denoted here as $z_{\rm core}$) is unknown. Given that $F_{\star,{\rm sat}}$ is measured at the time of accretion ($z_{\rm acc}$), there remains the possibility that DM cusps were removed at $z_{\rm core}\gg z_{\rm acc}$, so that $M_{\rm vir}(z_{\rm core})\ll M_{\rm vir}(z_{\rm acc})$. Because the energy that baryons must supply scales as $\Delta E\propto M_{\rm vir}^2$, at sufficiently high redshifts the formation of cored DM profiles becomes less energetically demanding, even though DM haloes were on average denser. Below we inspect this possibility in detail.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio=true,height=84mm]{f3.eps}
\caption{Minimum stellar mass required to form a DM core with $r_c=1$ kpc, $M_{\star,{\rm core}}$, against the stellar mass tuned to reproduce the number of visible substructures in CDM simulations, $M_{\star,{\rm sat}}$. Solid lines show both quantities calculated at an accretion time $z_{\rm acc}= 1$, which roughly corresponds to the time at which the majority of the surviving satellites are accreted onto MW-like haloes. Dotted and short-dashed lines show how the stellar masses compare if the cusp removal is shifted to earlier times in the mass evolution of the satellites ($z_{\rm core}=6$ and 10, respectively). Thin and thick lines adopt $\epsilon_{\rm DM}=0.05$ and 0.40, respectively.}
\label{fig:sf}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Transformation redshift}\label{sec:sims}
Fig.~\ref{fig:sf} compares the minimum stellar mass required to form a DM core with $r_c=1$ kpc, $M_{\star,{\rm core}}$, against the stellar mass tuned to reproduce the number of visible substructures in CDM simulations, $M_{\star,{\rm sat}}$ (eq.~\ref{eq:fssat}).

Models that reconcile the `missing satellite' {\it and} `core/cusp' problems by suppression star formation obey the condition $M_{\star,{\rm core}}\lesssim M_{\star,{\rm sat}}$ and fall below the horizontal dotted line in Fig.~\ref{fig:sf}. Notice that if DM cusps are removed by the time satellites are accreted ($z_{\rm core}=z_{\rm acc}\approx 1$; solid line) the presence of DM cores should be limited to galaxies with $M_\star\gtrsim 10^7 M_\odot$ for $\epsilon_{\rm DM}=0.40$ (thick lines), in agreement with the hydro-dynamical simulations of G12.

The threshold between cored and cuspy DM profiles moves to fainter luminosities if the transformation is shifted to earlier times (see \S\ref{sec:missing}). How early in the past can it be shifted? According to Pontzen \& Governato (2012) and Teyssier et al. (2012) cusps are removed on a time-scale of $\sim 1$ Gyr, which roughly corresponds to the time between multiple in- and out-flows of gas during subsequent SNeII explosions. Thus in a $\Lambda$CDM cosmogony $z_{\rm core}\sim 6$ appears the earliest plausible time for the transformation, whereas $z\sim 10$ corresponds to the earliest epoch of star formation in low-mass haloes (Bovy \& Dvorkin 2012).

Dotted and short-dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:sf} show the effects of shifting the cusp removal at $z_{\rm core}=6$ and 10, respectively. In order to derive conservative estimates we assume no further star formation after the DM core is formed. Halo masses are evolved back in time using Wechsler et al. (2002) formalism. These authors show that (i) CDM haloes grow exponentially, so that $M_{\rm vir}(a_{\rm core})\approx M_{\rm vir}(a_{\rm acc})\exp[-2 a_c(a_{\rm acc}/a_{\rm core}-1)]$, where $a=(1+z)^{-1}$ is the scale factor; and (ii) the ``collapse-time'' of the halo ($a_c$) correlates tightly with the virial concentration, so that $a_c\sim 4.1 a_{\rm acc}/c(z_{\rm acc})$ independent of the redshift when the halo is observed.

Fig.~\ref{fig:sf} shows that although shifting the transformation to $z_{\rm core}\approx 6$ helps to accommodate DM cores in the bright dSphs (i.e. $M_\star\gtrsim 10^6 M_\odot$), the tension cannot be completely eliminated but is simply shifted to lower luminosities. Notice also that the formation of cored halo profiles in dSphs ($M_{\star}\lesssim 10^{7}M_\odot$) requires $\epsilon_{\rm DM}\approx \epsilon_{\rm SN}\sim 1$.

\section{Discussion}\label{sec:diss}
Our estimates highlight a tension between CDM predictions and observations on small galactic scales.
On the one hand, we find that the cored density profile measured in two of the brightest MW dSphs points toward an efficient conversion of primordial gas into stars on the mass scales of dSphs ($M_{\rm vir}\lesssim 10^{10}M_\odot$). On the other, a strong suppression of star formation is required {\it on the same mass scales} in order to accommodate the small number of visible satellites with the halo mass function predicted by collisionless CDM simulations.

It is useful to identify conditions whereby this tension may be eased and discuss their compatibility with observations. (i) The removal of DM cusps requires a very efficient transfer of supernova energy into DM particles (i.e. $\epsilon_{\rm DM}\approx \epsilon_{\rm SN}$). The results of Pontzen \& Governato (2012) suggest that the required efficiency may be reached if starbursts are sufficiently frequent and energetic. (ii) The supernova energy coupling ($\epsilon_{\rm SN}$) must be order unity. However, such a strong coupling may be incompatible with the observed luminosity-metallicty relationship of dSphs (Revaz \& Jablonka 2012) (iii) Cusps must be removed at high redshifts. The cored profiles found in Sculptor and Fornax suggest $z_{\rm core}\gtrsim 6$. However, stellar ages are at odds with this scenario, as both galaxies show extended periods of star formation continuing for 6-7 Gyr in Sculptor (de Boer et al. 2012a), and for 12-13 Gyr in Fornax (del Pino et al. 2011; de Boer et al. 2012b). Also, even if DM cores formed when their haloes had tiny masses, subsequent hierarchical accretion of unperturbed subhaloes would tend to re-grow DM cusps (Dehnen 2005).
(iv) A possibility not explored here is the case of a top-heavy IMF. A higher fraction of massive stars would increase the feedback energy reservoir without aggravating the over-abundance of luminous substructures.

An alternative route out of the tension is for the satellite luminosity function to be substantially reshaped by mechanisms other than suppression of galaxy formation. Recent hydro-dynamical simulations show that baryonic feedback lowers the number of surviving satellites with respect to the DM-only case (Zolotov et al. 2012). This difference is partially due to the enhanced mass-loss rate of satellites embedded in cored DM haloes (Pe\~narrubia et al. 2010). Baryonic feedback may therefore ease the constraints discussed above by increasing the tidal disruption rate of massive (bright) subhaloes moving on eccentric orbits.
The fact that the star formation efficiencies of the bright MW satellites lie above those dictated by abundance matching arguments (Sawala et al. 2012; Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2012) may point in this direction.

Our results also provide compelling reasons to push measurements of halo mass profiles to galaxies with $M_*\lesssim 10^6M_{\odot}$, as the tension between `core/cusp' and `missing satellites' problems only increases toward lower luminosity.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
JP acknowledges support from the Ram\'on y Cajal Program as well as by the Spanish grant AYA2010-17631. AP is supported by the Oxford Martin School. MGW is supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF-51283.01-A.


\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}

The Unruh-DeWitt (UdW) model describes phenomenologically a monopole detector coupled to a massless scalar field, moving in the four-dimensional Minkowski space.  Since its inception, it has been used to study the response of detectors experiencing acceleration, to provide a proof for the Unruh effect, and particularly as  one of the main tools to probe dynamics of entanglement in the context of the recent field of Relativistic Quantum Information (RQI).

Usually, the detector considered is a quantum system with two internal states, ground state $|g\rangle$ and excited state $|e\rangle$, with $\Omega$ (taking $\hbar=1$) being the energy difference between the two levels. The detector is then coupled to the real massless scalar field $\phi$ according to the following interaction Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
H_{\text{int}}= \lambda \ \xi(\tau) \mu(\tau) \phi(\bm x(\tau))\label{udw0}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is the coupling strength, $\xi$ is a switching function which activates during the interaction time , $\mu(\tau)$ the monopole momentum operator and $x(\tau)$ the worldline of the atom.

In spite of the differences between this monopole-scalar field interaction and QED (for instance in the behaviour at very extreme frequencies which may quantitatively vary), it characterises adequately the matter-radiation interaction in some specific settings \cite{ScullyBook} (see section \ref{sec2} for further details), while it very accurately models the interaction of internal degrees of freedom of atoms with phonon fields (for example the spin-phonon interaction of ions in a Coulomb crystal, collective excitations of Bose-Einstein condensates \cite{BoseExcitations} and other solid state and analog systems). This model and certain variations of it have been extensively used in the literature for many purposes \cite{Birrell}, including thermalization dynamics and decoherence (\cite{UnruhZurek, Massar} and references therein), although it is more known for what regards the studies of the Unruh effect and Hawking radiation \cite{Unruh,Casadio1,Casadio2}.

As a detector model, it performs commonly under the pointlike approximation, i.e. it has no extension and interacts with the field only in the exact geometric point of the space-time where it is placed. While this assumption --which will always be an approximation since any physical detector has a finite size-- seems to be valid in many scenarios, it is not valid in general even for physically interesting scenarios, and is particularly problematic in some specific settings that we will discuss below. Also, it presents UV divergences as any pointlike interaction and cannot be guaranteed to hold for any context where we consider several detectors undergoing relativistic motion where the pointlike approximation may be violated from some reference frames. Moreover, additional problems with the pointlike nature of the detector arise. For instance, there are various regularisation schemes which yield different transition probabilities \cite{Schlicht}.

For all these reasons, and keeping in mind that any realistic particle detector has a finite size, it is important to model and understand particle detectors that present a spatial smearing. However, previous localisation models present a series of issues when it comes to analysing non-vacuum field states. In this paper we will show to what extent an Unruh DeWitt detector is a reliable model of electromagnetic atomic transitions, by explicitly analysing the relationship between the atomic wavefunctions and the spatial smearing. We also intend to provide a pedagogical description of the use of a spatially smeared UdW model and we will discuss how to overcome the problems when analysing signals by means of a small but essential modification of the spatial profiles employed in the past. Besides, we will focus on the particular case of spatially smeared uniformly accelerated detectors.

 The paper is organised as follows: In section \ref{sec2} we show from first principles how to relate the spatial profile of the UdW model to the wavefunctions of physical systems under standard QED interactions. In section \ref{sec3} we present the localisation issues of the canonical UdW detector employed in the literature when the size of the detector is comparable to the wavelength they are tuned to. In section \ref{sec4} we  propose a way around these difficulties by modifying the spatial profile of the smeared UdW detector. In section \ref{sec5} we discuss how to use these detectors to analyze arbitrary signals in accelerated settings. Finally, section \ref{conc} contains our conclusions.

\section{Modelling atomic physics with the Unruh DeWitt detector}\label{sec2}

An UdW detector is an ad-hoc phenomenological model commonly used to study idealised situations in field theory and non-inertial settings.  The model is built specifically for its useful properties and simplicity. While desirable traits are good guidelines for model building, one should always keep the physics in mind. This section is concerned with the build up of a smeared UdW detector out from first principles and standard QED interactions.

First, note that the simple scalar field model \eq{udw0} cannot be directly used to relate the UdW model to electromagnetic phenomena due to the vector character of the photon field. The vector version of an UdW interaction with a smeared field operator would be
\begin{align}H_\text{I}=\sum_{\lambda=+,-} \int d\bm x\ \lambda[\bm F(\bm{x})\sigma^++\bm F^*(\bm{x})\sigma^-] \cdot\bm{A}(\bm{x})\label{udw}\end{align}
where we have omitted any switching function, as the electromagnetic interaction cannot be switched, and where $\sigma^-$ is the two-level system lowering operator, as is common in the literature. We have also allowed for a complex profile function. The detector is assumed to be inertial; we discuss the treatment of an accelerated UdW detector in sec. \ref{sec5}.

The physical system the UdW detector tries to emulate is that of a two-level atom coupled to a quantum electromagnetic field. The Hamiltonian for such a system is well-known and it is simply
\begin{align} H_\text{I}^\text{QED}&=e\bm{p}_\text{D}\cdot\bm{A}(\bm{x},0)\nonumber\\&=\bm{p}_\text{D}\cdot \sum_{\lambda=+,-} \int \frac{d\bm p}{\sqrt{2p}}\left[\epsilon_{\bm{p},\lambda}a_{\bm{p},\lambda}^\dagger e^{-ipx}+\epsilon^*_{\bm{p},\lambda}a_{\bm{p},\lambda}e^{ipx}\right],\label{qedh}\end{align}
where $\bm{p}_\text{D}$ is the detector momentum and in the last  two equalities we assume a $(1+1)$-dimensional setting. In this setting, $\bf{p}_\text{D}$ is itself an operator, the momentum operator of the valence electron of the two-level system. There is a simple way to relate \eq{qedh} to \eq{udw}; we simply write down the operator in \eq{qedh} in terms of field operators and atomic Pauli matrices.  There are four possible matrix elements for the $\bm{p}_\text{D}\bm{A}(\bm{x},0)$ operator in terms of the relevant wavefunctions, $\Psi_g(\bm x)$ for the ground state and $\Psi_e(\bm x)$ for the excited state of the detector, which can be neatly written into matrix form as,
\begin{align}H_\text{I}^\text{QED}&=\alpha\mathbf{I}+\beta\sigma_z+\gamma\sigma_x+\delta \sigma_y,\nonumber\\
\alpha&=e\sum_{\lambda=+,-}\int \frac{d\bm p}{\sqrt{2p}}\left[a^\dagger_p\frac{G^\lambda_{gg}(\bm p)+G^\lambda_{ee}(\bm p)}{2}+\text{H.c.}\right],\nonumber\\
\beta&=e\sum_{\lambda=+,-}\int \frac{d\bm p}{\sqrt{2p}}\left[a^\dagger_p\frac{G^\lambda_{gg}(\bm p)-G^\lambda_{ee}(\bm p)}{2}+\text{H.c.}\right],\nonumber\\
\gamma&=e\sum_{\lambda=+,-}\int \frac{d\bm p}{\sqrt{2p}}\left[a^\dagger_p\frac{G^\lambda_{ge}(\bm p)+G^\lambda_{eg}(\bm p)}{2}+\text{H.c.}\right],\nonumber\\
\delta&=e\sum_{\lambda=+,-}\int \frac{d\bm p}{\sqrt{2p}}\left[a^\dagger_p\frac{G^\lambda_{ge}(\bm p)-G^\lambda_{eg}(\bm p)}{2i}+\text{H.c.}\right],\label{gen}\end{align}
with
\begin{align}G^\lambda_{ij}(\bm p)=\int d\bm x\ e^{-ipx} \bm{\epsilon}_{\bm{p},\lambda}\cdot(\Psi^*_i(x) [-i\bm{\nabla} \Psi_j(x)]).\label{u1}\end{align}

If we performed the same calculation with the interaction \eq{udw}, we would obtain
\begin{align}G^\lambda_{ij}(\bm p)=[\delta_{ig}\delta_{je}+\delta_{ie}\delta_{jg}]\int d\bm x\ e^{-ipx} \bm{\epsilon}_{\bm{p},\lambda}\cdot\bm{F}(\bm{x}).\label{u2}\end{align}

We have thus expressed the physical interaction hamiltonian $H_\text{I}^\text{QED}$ in the language of \eq{udw}. If we only consider the $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ terms, we may compare directly to \eq{udw}. From \eq{u1} and \eq{u2} we find that the two Hamiltonians are equivalent with a smearing function
\begin{align}\bm F(\bm x)=-i\Psi^*_e(\bm x) \bm{\nabla}\Psi_g(\bm x).\label{smear}\end{align}

We have thus made a first connection between \eq{udw} and the physics - \textit{ the smearing function can be obtained in terms of the atomic wavefunctions of the two-level system. }This means that the smeared UdW Hamiltonian commonly used in the literature can be related in a direct manner to the physical properties of the underlying system, directly relating the smearing function to the wavefunctions of the excited and ground states of the two-level atom. Note that the terms with $\mathbf{I}$ and $\sigma_z$ do not vanish and can never do so unless $\Psi_e=\Psi_g=0$, or in the dipolar approximation, where $e^{-ipx}\simeq 1$.

The $\alpha$ term can be dealt with full generality, as it can be reabsorbed into the free field Hamiltonian $H_\text{F}$,
\begin{align}H_\text{F}+\alpha&=\int d\bm p\left[(\vert p\vert a^\dagger_{\bm p} a_{\bm p}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2p}}\left(a^\dagger_{\bm p}\frac{G^\lambda_{gg}(\bm p)+G^\lambda_{ee}(\bm p)}{2}\right.\right.\nonumber\\&\left.\left.+a_{\bm p}\frac{G^\lambda_{gg}(\bm p)^*+G^\lambda_{ee}(\bm p)^*}{2}\right)\right]\end{align}
and so defining new modes
\begin{align}b_{\bm p}=a_{\bm p}+\frac{e}{(2p)^{3/2}}[G^\lambda_{gg}(\bm p)+G^\lambda_{ee}(\bm p)]\end{align}
and neglecting the usual infinite zero-point contribution, we deal with the $\alpha$ term. We only have to substitute the $a_{\bm p}$ in terms of the $b_{\bm p}$ in $\gamma$, which amounts to the addition of a constant term to $\gamma$,
\begin{align}\alpha_\gamma=\frac{e^2}{4}\Re\left\{\int \frac{d\bm p}{p}[G^\lambda_{gg}(\bm p)^*+G^\lambda_{ee}(\bm p)^*)(G^\lambda_{ge}(\bm p)+G^\lambda_{eg}(\bm p)]\right\}.\end{align}
This will induce an extra $\alpha_\gamma \sigma_x$ term in the Hamiltonian, which will be relevant or not depending on how $\alpha_\gamma$ compares with $\Omega$, the detector system gap. As $\alpha_\gamma/e$ is typically of order $1$ or less, this term will not be important if we are in a perturbation theory regime where the coupling $e$ is assumed to be small. The same considerations apply to $\alpha_\delta$. The analogous correction to $\beta$,
\begin{align}\alpha_\beta=\frac{e^2}{4}\Re\left\{\int \frac{d\bm p}{p}[G^\lambda_{gg}(\bm p)^*+G^\lambda_{ee}(\bm p)^*][G^\lambda_{gg}(\bm p)-G^\lambda_{ee}(\bm p)]\right\},\end{align}
can be reabsorbed into $\Omega$.

Dealing with $\beta$ is a more challenging matter. We cannot do the same as before because, even though we could make the Hamiltonian look like that of a free field plus an UdW interaction, the detector and field operators would not commute and hence, even without the interaction, the theory would not be a free theory.

There is one special circumstance in which $\beta$ vanishes: in systems with a strong spin interaction, so that the gap comes from the spin dependence of the energy levels. This could happen, for instance, in states of an atom within a strong magnetic field. In this case the atomic wavefunctions of the ground and excited states are the same and therefore $\beta=0$ exactly. The energy gap is $\hbar\Omega=\mu_\text{B}B$. The coupling constant to the electric field is $\approx ed$ where $d$ is a typical dimension of the atom, so in order to be in perturbation theory regime we would require electric fields of order $E<\mu_\text{B}B/ed$.

As a particular example, consider the smearing function for a hydrogen atom in its $1s$ state subjected to a magnetic field. According to \eq{smear}, we would have
\begin{align}\bm{F}(\bm{x})=-i\frac{e^{-r/a_0}}{\pi a_0^4}\bm{u}_r.\end{align}

\section{Localisation issues of the UdW detector}\label{sec3}

The first UdW localization model was introduced by Schlicht \cite{Schlicht} to solve the problems with the non-equivalence of regulators derived from the pointlike nature of the detector. In particular, he  proposed a localised spatial profile for the detector (which for computational convenience was chosen to be Lorentzian). This localisation model was further studied by Langlois \cite{Langlois2006} first, and then by Satz and Louko \cite{Satz1,Satz2}, who envisioned a more general scheme which allowed general spatial profiles to be considered undergoing arbitrary movement throughout spacetime. In these works the interaction Hamiltonian is defined as follows:
\begin{align}\label{Hamil1}
\nonumber H_{I}&=g\int_0^\infty \!\!  \frac{d \bm{k}}{\sqrt{2\omega(2\pi)^3}} \int d\bm x\ F(\bm x)\left(\sigma^+e^{i\Omega t}+\sigma^-e^{-i\Omega t}\right)\\
&\times \left(a^\dagger_{\bm{k}} e^{-i(\bm k\cdot \bm x -\omega t )}+a_{\bm{k}} e^{i(\bm k\cdot \bm x -\omega t )}\right)
\end{align}
Where $F(\bm x)$ is the spatial smearing of the detector that is supposed, for simplicity and without loss of generality, at rest and centred in $\bm x=0$, and $\Omega$ represents the frequency gap of the two-level system, in other words, the transition energy between the ground and excited state of the detector. The detector is supposed to be tuned to this frequency, i.e. it is more likely that the detector absorbs field quanta of this frequency than anything else, as we will discuss below.
In the case that the detector is point-like $F(\bm x)=\delta(\bm x)$, this model becomes the standard UdW detector introduced in \cite{DeWitt}.

 The form of the function $F(\bm x)$ must be related to the characteristics of the physical system modelled by the Hamiltonian \eq{Hamil1}. In the particular case of a two-level atom, $F(\bm x)$ should be obtainable from the wave functions of the ground and excited states of the atom and the matter-radiation interaction Hamiltonian. For the case of atomic spin transitions, the form of the Hamiltonian was derived from first principles in section \ref{sec2}.

However, it is interesting to be able to consider detectors whose size becomes comparable with the wavelength to which they are tuned. These regimes cover a great range of extremely interesting physical scenarios, e.g.  quantum microwave antennae (for example flux or charge qubits in cQED), Rydberg atoms and cavity based detectors \cite{Cavities, Circuits}, where one can no longer use an atomic wave-function to obtain the form of the Hamiltonian. Yet, it is well known that the point-like model is a good effective description of the physics \cite{Circuits,Cavities}. As we will discuss below, a question arises when studying the compatibility of  the standard spatially smeared UdW model with detectors whose characteristic length is comparable to the wavelength detected beyond the atomic scale.

In the following paragraphs we will point out a fundamental issue with the use of the traditional smeared UdW model when considering spatially extended detectors. For these cases, we propose a way to modify the detector model in order to formulate an effective theory reproducing the correct phenomenology.

Previous works dealing with the localised UdW model just considered the behavior of the detector interacting with the Minkowski vacuum, which is known to have equivalent behavior for all frequencies \cite{Satz1,Satz2}. In that respect, the problems of the model dealt with in this manuscript have not been studied yet.  We will discuss below how they can build up when one tries to process physical signals and photon wavepackets with such a detector.

For most recent analyses \cite{Schlicht,Langlois2006,Satz1,Satz2} a real symmetric profile function was chosen. In particular, the spatial profile used for most calculations was a Lorentzian. To illustrate here the problem in the most simple way we will consider a Gaussian profile, but all results apply equivalently to the Lorentzian case or to any other spatial profile.

From the Hamiltonian \eqref{Hamil1}, the integral over $\bm x$ takes the form of a trivial Fourier transform
\begin{align}
\nonumber H_{I}&=g\int_0^\infty \! \!     \frac{d \bm{k}}{\sqrt{2\omega_{\bm k}(2\pi)^3}}\left(\sigma^+e^{i\Omega t}+\sigma^-e^{-i\Omega t}\right)\\
&\times \left(\hat F(\bm k) a^\dagger_{\bm{k}} e^{i\omega_{\bm k} t }+\hat F(-\bm k)a_{\bm{k}} e^{-i \omega_{\bm k} t }\right)
\end{align}
where  we have made the dispersion relation explicit $\omega_{\bm k}=c|\bm k|$ and
\begin{equation}\label{foutra}
\hat F(\bm k)=\int d\bm x\ F(\bm x) e^{-i\bm k \cdot \bm x}\end{equation}
is the Fourier transform of the spatial profile.

We can rewrite the Hamiltonian in a way in which the resonant and anti-resonant terms are made explicit:
\begin{align}
\nonumber H_{I}&=g\int \frac{d \bm k}{\sqrt{2\omega_{\bm k}(2\pi)^3}}\left[  \hat F(\bm k)\left(a^\dagger_{\bm{k}} \sigma^-e^{i(\omega_{\bm k}-\Omega )t}+\text{H.c.}\right)\right.\\
&\left.+\hat F(-\bm k)\left(a^\dagger_{\bm{k}} \sigma^+e^{i(\omega_{\bm k}+\Omega )t}+\text{H.c.}\right)\right]
\end{align}

The time evolution operator is computed as the time ordered exponential  of the Hamiltonian. When integrating over times, the exponential factors in the Hamiltonian above are highly oscillating except when $\omega_k=c|\bm k|\approx\pm\Omega$ (stationary phase). This is the mathematical reason why a detector is tuned to the frequency of the energy gap between the ground and the excited state, as it is very well known from the study of the  matter-radiation interactions \cite{ScullyBook,JaynesCummings}. In plain words, if we want to stimulate the transition between ground and excited state we have to 'beam' the detector with radiation tuned to the natural frequency of the transition (on resonance). Otherwise, the probability of transition quickly decreases with the detuning between this natural frequency and the frequency of the radiation stimulating  the transition.

Here is the issue. If we choose $F(x)$ to be a localised smooth function such as a Gaussian or a Lorentzian, which is the case for most realistic atoms , the frequency profile $F(\bm k)$ will be a localised function centred in $\bm k=0$. Being this so, its evaluation at $\Omega/c$ will give a negligible value, for $\Omega$ sufficiently large.

The reason why this issue does not arise in electronic transitions for atoms at rest is because, for most cases, $\Omega$ is small enough. For instance, electronic transitions in the hydrogen atom have an $\Omega$ in the visible range of the spectrum, whereas the Fourier transform of the spatial profile has a width of $\sim a_0^{-1}$, which extends up to the X-ray spectrum.

However, when we consider accelerated detectors, the Minkowski frequency for a packet centered in $\Omega$ as seen from the detector, varies effectively as a function of time as $\omega_R=\Omega e^{a\tau/c}$ (See derivation on section \ref{sec5} and \cite{Diegger}) and even for very small times it goes out of resonance. Even if we compensate the Doppler shift of the wavepacket tuning the detector in real time for the period while packet and detector overlap, we would easily get the problem of the frequency getting too far from our detector support function. If the spatial profile function does not have information about the energy gap between the ground and excited state of the detector, the response of the detector to the resonance frequency (the frequency which, by far, mostly contributes to the estimated transition from the ground and excited state) will be exponentially dampened by the Gaussian or Lorentzian tails. That implies that an accelerated detector would be, in practical terms, incapable of detecting a wavepacket centred on its natural frequency. If we are to analyse signals with UdW detectors, the model should be accordingly modified to avoid this issue.

To illustrate the problem let us consider the most simple 1-D case, and a detector with a Gaussian spatial profile. We can take $F(x)$ to be a normalised Gaussian profile with characteristic length $L$:
\begin{equation}\label{gauss}
F(x)=\frac{1}{L\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\left({\frac{-x^2}{2L^2}}\right)
\end{equation}
And so its Fourier Transform $\hat F(k)$ will be a Gaussian localised around $k=0$
\begin{equation}
\hat F(k)=\exp\left(\frac{- k^2L^2}{2}\right)
\end{equation}

Any frequencies such that $\omega_k\gg 0$ would be exponentially dampened in the integral over $k$ by the weight $\hat F(k)$. In particular, if $\Omega>>0$, the stationary phase contribution $\omega_k=\pm\Omega$ will be zero due to $F(\pm\Omega/c)\approx 0$,  effectively cancelling any non-trivial time evolution.

So, as it is illustrated in fig. \ref{fig1}, if $\Omega\gg cL^{-1}$ the detector will not ever detect any signal even if it is a powerful pulse tuned to the transition frequency. Therefore, in order to be able to study relativistic settings, some modifications must be made to the model.

\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig1}
\caption{A highly localised $\hat F(k)$ centred in 0 would practically suppress  the possibility of detection for the resonance frequencies to which the detector is most responsive, $k=\pm\Omega/c$. This results in a vanishing transition probability no matter what frequency we use to illuminate the detector.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

One could argue that if the detector is very small with respect of the wavelength to which it is tuned (as it is the case of atoms), the Gaussian profile $\hat F(k)$ may cover the resonance regions. However, as seen in figure \ref{fig2}, if we analyze the probability of transition as a function of the frequency of the radiation with which the detector interacts, its spectral response will be asymmetric in the detuning between the detector natural frequency and the frequency of the radiation stimulating the transition $\Delta= \omega_k-\Omega$.

In other words, if the transition frequency is $\Omega$ and the radiation stimulating the transition is detuned from the energy gap of the detector by a small factor $\delta$,  the probability of transition will be positively weighted by $\hat F(k)$ if $\omega_k=\Omega-\delta$, and dampened if $\omega_k=\Omega+\delta$.

Although a similar asymmetry occurs in realistic atomic transitions (as detailed in section \ref{sec5}), the effect is so small that it can be neglected in most circumstances. In practice, no such effects are observed neither in atomic detectors nor in any other settings where quantum systems (like harmonic oscillators) are coupled to quantum fields.

When the size of the detectors increases as to become comparable with the wavelength to which they are tuned, e.g.  quantum microwave antennaee (for example flux or charge qubits in cQED), Rydberg atoms and cavity based detectors \cite{Cavities, Circuits}, the detector response is also symmetric in frequencies. Therefore the use of the Unruh-DeWitt detector presented above to model those scenarios (where the spatial profile is related to the natural dimension of the detector), can be problematic.

\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig2}
\caption{A not-so localised $\hat F(k)$ centred in 0 would introduce an asymmetry in the detection of frequencies $\omega_k=\Omega\pm\delta$  $k=\pm\Omega/c$}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

\section{Modulated oscillations in the spatial profile}\label{sec4}

In most realistic settings, the spectral response function of two level emitters is symmetric with respect to the resonance frequency, thus a small detuning should produce similar effects no matter if it is positive or negative. Also, as we discussed above, if the two level system size is comparable with the wavelength it is tuned to, the localized UdW model employed in the literature will dramatically fail to detect anything, even if it is the case of an intense pulse of radiation centred in the natural frequency of the detector's transition.

Taking these issues into account, we propose a modification of the way in which the UdW detector is spatially smeared. We will do so by feeding the spatial profile with information about the resonance frequency. For that matter, we will introduce a spatial profile which is strongly localized by a function $S(x)$, modulated by internal oscillations associated with the frequency the two level system is tuned to.

If the spatial profile is
\begin{equation}
F(x)=S(x)\cos\left(\frac{\Omega x}{c}\right)\label{trololo}
\end{equation}
then the spectral profile would be
\begin{equation}
\hat F(k)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\hat S(k-\Omega/c)+\hat S(k-\Omega/c)\right]
\end{equation}
which is a localised profile in frequencies around the two resonance regions. If we take $S(x)$ to be the Gaussian profile \eqref{gauss} then
\begin{equation}
\hat F(k)=\frac12\left(e^{\-\frac12 (k-\Omega /c)^2L^2}+e^{-\frac12 (k+\Omega /c)^2L^2}\right)
\end{equation}
which, as seen in figure \ref{fig4}, covers symmetrically the resonance regions.

\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig4}
\caption{A localised $\hat F(k)$ can be not centered in 0 by introducing a oscillating term in the spatial profile seen in the inset. The figure shows  symmetric detection zones centered in the frequencies $k=\pm\Omega/c$.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}

By doing this we have the desired spectral response no matter the value of $\Omega$, and the detector is spatially localized around $x=0$ with a characteristic proper length $L$. We must stress that the introduction of the cosine factor in \eq{trololo} is intended only as a solution to the problem of the unphysical suppression of the transition rates. We do not claim that such a spatial profile is realised, for instance, in inertially moving two-level atoms (where the pointlike approximation is often valid and enough to produce physical results). However, this will not be the case when the UdW detector is used to model more exotic systems where the wavelength of the absorbed and emitted radiation is comparable with the size of the physical system. The problem of considering the physical form of $F(\bm{x})$ for regular atoms was tackled in section \ref{sec2}.

Notice that we are not deriving this effective coupling from first principles. Rather, we are pointing out the limits of applicability of the UdW model to describe extended detectors when the wavelength of the radiation is comparable to their physical extension, and suggesting a way in which the phenomenology of such detectors can be effectively recovered. One can, however, understand this as a process of `antennization' (classical antennae, that are comparable with the wavelength of the radiation they are tuned to detect, have some periodical structure related to the wavelength they are resonant with). We are providing the extended detector with a spatial periodicity related to the radiation the detector is tuned to.

\section{Accelerated detectors}\label{sec5}

In order to provide a complete description of the localised detector model proposed in this note, in this section we will describe how to use this model to analyse arbitrary signals with a spatially smeared uniformly accelerated detector.

There is a well known problem with accelerating rigid bodies: the proper distance between two points of a solid accelerating with the same relativistic acceleration increases with time, eventually destroying the solid when the internal tension it supports is overrun by the relativistic effects.

The reasonable hypothesis for a physical detector is that it has to keep internal coherence. This  means that the internal forces that keep the detector together will prevent it from being further smeared due to relativistic effects up to some reasonable acceleration regimes. That means that, effectively, every point of the detector will accelerate with a different acceleration in order to keep up with the rest of its points. The natural formalism to treat this detector is the use of the well-known Fermi-Walker coordinates \cite{gravitation,Schlicht}.

Thus, the interaction Hamiltonian of a smeared uniformly accelerated rigid detector is
\begin{multline}
\label{Hamilera}
H_\text{I}(t)=g\!\!\int\!\! \frac{d k}{\sqrt{2\omega_k(2\pi)}}\!\! \int d \chi\ F( \chi)\left(\sigma^+e^{i\Omega \tau}+\sigma^-e^{-i\Omega \tau}\right) \\ \left(a^\dagger_{k} e^{i(\omega_k t( \chi,\tau) - kx( \chi,\tau))}+a_{k} e^{-i(\omega_k t( \chi,\tau)- kx( \chi,\tau))}\right)
\end{multline}
where $\bm \chi=(\chi,0,0)$ and $\tau$ are the Fermi-Walker coordinates associated with the trajectory of the detector.

These coordinates have the particularity that at every point on the trajectory $x(\tau)=(ct(\tau),x(\tau),0,0)$ the hyperplane which is orthogonal to the 4-velocity $u(\tau)=(c\dot{t}(\tau),\dot{x}(\tau),0,0)$ is the three-dimensional space which consists of all the events which are simultaneous to $x(\tau)$, where simultaneity is judged from the comoving inertial frame. We assume that we move only in one direction, so that $\chi_1=\chi,\chi_2=y=0,\chi_3=z=0$.

If we attach a dreibein to every such hyperplane
\begin{align}
e_{\chi_1}&=(c^{-1}\dot x(\tau),\dot t(\tau),0,0)\nonumber\\
e_{\chi_2}&=(0,0,1,0),\quad e_{\chi_3}=(0,0,0,1),
\end{align}
we can characterise every event $x_e$ in a neighborhood of the trajectory with $(\tau_e,\bm \chi_e)$.

These coordinates guarantee a rigid detector (where rigidity means that its 3-geometry as seen from its own momentary rest system is unchanged in the course of proper time). In contrast, in a Rindler frame (standard approach for pointlike detectors) every point of the detector accelerates with a different proper acceleration, so they cannot account for rigid detectors that have internal coherence. In the F-W frame the detector will accelerate coherently, so this models very well what would happen to an accelerated rigid-body.

The change of coordinates between the inertial system to the Fermi-Walker frame is given by
\begin{align}
\label{change}
\bm x(\tau,\bm \chi)=\bm x(\tau)+\chi^i \bm e_i (\tau),\quad t(\tau,\bm \chi)=t(\tau)+\frac{\chi^i e_i^0}{c}
\end{align}

For the uniformly accelerated observer, the trajectory (parametrised in terms of comoving time) is
\begin{equation}
x(\tau)=\left[\frac{c^2}{a}\sinh\left(\frac{a\tau}{c}\right),\frac{c^2}{a}\cosh\left(\frac{a\tau}{c}\right),0,0\right]
\end{equation}
The only relevant component of the dreibein is
\begin{equation}
e_{\chi_1}=\left[\sinh\left(\frac{a\tau}{c}\right),\cosh\left(\frac{a\tau}{c}\right),0,0\right]
\end{equation}
So, directly from \eqref{change} we read the change of coordinates
\begin{align}
\label{changec}
\nonumber t(\tau,\chi)&=\left(\frac{c}{a}+\frac{\chi_1}{c}\right)\sinh\left(\frac{a\tau}{c}\right)\\
\bm x(\tau,\chi)&=\left[\left(\frac{c^2}{a}+\chi_1\right)\cosh\left(\frac{a\tau}{c}\right),0,0\right]
\end{align}

Within this scheme we compute the probability of excitation of an accelerated detector responding to an arbitrary signal. In first order perturbation theory,
\begin{equation}
P=\left|g \right|^2\int_{\tau_0}^\tau d\tau' \int_{\tau_0}^\tau d\tau''\ e^{i\Omega (\tau'-\tau'')} \bra{y}\Psi(\tau'')\Psi(\tau')\ket{y}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{uno1}
\Psi(\tau)\!=\!\!\int\!\! \frac{F(\bm \chi)\,d {k}d {\chi}}{\sqrt{2c| k|(2\pi)}}\!\left(a_{\bm{k}} e^{i(\bm k\cdot \bm x(\bm \chi,\tau) -c|\bm k|  t(\bm \chi,\tau) )}\!+\!\text{H.c.}\right)\!
\end{equation}
where $\ket{y}$ is a general superposition of plane-wave field modes corresponding to a Minkowskian-shaped wavepacket, prepared in the lab, that we want to analyze with our detector,
\begin{equation}
\ket{y}= \left(\int d k \ y( k) a^\dagger_{k}\right).\ket{0}
\end{equation}

Let us evaluate the time-correlation function $W_y(\tau',\tau'')\equiv\bra{y}\Psi(\tau'')\Psi(\tau')\ket{y}$. The two $\chi$ integrals can be rewritten in terms of Fourier transforms greatly simplifying the expression of $W_y(\tau',\tau'')$. To do this we first note that
\begin{align}\label{uno2}
& k x( \chi,\tau) -ck  t( \chi,\tau) = L( k,\tau) \left(\chi+\frac{c^2}{a}\right)\nonumber\\
& L( k,\tau)=k e^{a\tau/c}
\end{align}

Considering that  $\omega=ck$, then the complex exponential argument depending on $\tau$ as taken directly from the amplitude in \eqref{uno1} and \eqref{uno2} goes as
\begin{equation}
\Omega \tau + \frac{c \omega}{a} e^{-a \tau/c}.
\end{equation}
So, taking derivatives, the condition for the stationary phase is as follows
\begin{equation}
\Omega  - \omega e^{-a \tau/c}=0.
\end{equation}

Now the condition is no longer time independent as in the inertial case \cite{Diegger}. Instead the resonance frequency $\omega_R$ will be
\begin{equation}
\omega_R=\Omega e^{a\tau/c}.
\end{equation}
which is obviously the inertial resonance frequency but non-trivially Doppler-shifted due to the acceleration.

Now if we define $G^{\pm}( k,\tau)=\hat F[\pm L( k,\tau) ]$,
where $\hat F( k)$ is the Fourier transform of $F(\chi)$ as in \eqref{foutra}, we can rewrite $W_x(\tau',\tau'')=$
\begin{align}
&\!=\!\int \frac{\bar y(k)y(\kappa) d {k}d {\kappa}}{2(2\pi) c\sqrt{| k||\kappa|}}  G^+( k,\tau'')G^-( \kappa,\tau')e^{i\frac{c^2}{a}[L(\kappa,\tau')-L(  k,\tau'')]} ) \nonumber\\
&+\int \frac{|y(\kappa)|^2 d {k}d {\kappa}  }{2(2\pi) c| k|} G^+( k,\tau')G^-( k,\tau'')e^{i\frac{c^2}{a}[L(  k,\tau'')-L(  k,\tau')]} \nonumber\\
&+\int \frac{\bar y(k)y(\kappa)d {k}d {\kappa} }{2(2\pi) c\sqrt{| \kappa|| k|}} G^+(\kappa,\tau')G^-(     k,\tau'')e^{i\frac{c^2}{a}[L( k,\tau'')-L( \kappa,\tau')]}\nonumber
\end{align}
which can be further simplified if $F(k)=F(-k)$ (true for a Gaussian or Lorentzian profile), then we get  $G^+= G^-=G$ (although in general $G(k)\neq G(-k)$), and if the frequency profile of the signal $y(\omega)$ we want to analyse is chosen to be real,  we can rewrite $W_x(\tau',\tau'')=$
\begin{align}
&\!\!=\!\!\int\!\! \frac{y(k)y(\kappa)d {k}d {\kappa}}{(2\pi) c\sqrt{| k||\kappa|}}  G( k,\tau'')G( \kappa,\tau')\!\cos\!\Big[\frac{L(\kappa,\tau')\!\!-\!\!L(  k,\tau'')}{ac^{-2}}\Big] \nonumber\\
&+\int \frac{[y(\kappa)]^2d {k}d {\kappa}  }{2(2\pi) c| k|}  G( k,\tau')G( k,\tau'')e^{i\frac{c^2}{a}[L(  k,\tau'')-L(  k,\tau')]},
\end{align}
providing an operative expression for the response of a localized accelerated detector to a given signal.

\section{Conclusions}\label{conc}

In this work, we have analysed the problem of wavepacket detection by an UdW model.

By appealing to phenomenological considerations, we have argued that in scenarios where our detector has to respond to a given frequency, the spatial profile considered must verify certain properties. In particular, we have studied the origin of such a profile function for the case of an atomic detector by takink the task of deriving a UdW equation from first principles, relating the smeared UdW model to the usual $\bm{p}\cdot\bm{A}$ form of the QED interaction coupling atoms to the electromagnetic field. We have shown what differences between the models actually result from this calculation. As an outcome, we have shown a way of relating the smearing profile used in the UdW case with the electronic wavefunction of the relevant orbitals of an atom.

Going beyond this atomic example, and especially, when considering the case of detectors comparable with the wavelength to which they are tuned, we show that some information about the spectral response of the detector must be fed in general to the spatial profile. Otherwise the detector will not have the expected behaviour and will dramatically fail to detect radiation on resonance with the two-level system transition.

To solve these problems, we suggest to introduce a spatial oscillation of the profile, which will make the detector tune to the resonance frequency regardless of its size and configuration.

Not all the spatial profiles for the UdW model would be compatible with the experimental response of accelerated particle detectors: the existence of some monopole (or dipolar) momentum that couples the atom to the field with a given characteristic transition frequency requires those oscillations introduced in the spatial profile to reproduce spectra centred in the characteristic transition frequency of the detector . If one thinks of that profile as being something like a charge distribution, then those oscillations would be the responsible for the appearance of the momentum that correctly couples it to the field.

Completing our proposal, we have explained how to use this formalism while calculating the probability of detection of a wavepacket for an accelerated detector.

Finally note that, in parallel with this work, an analysis of the transition rates of smeared UdW detectors coupled to different kinds of physical field modes and undergoing different relativistic motion is being carried out by Lee and Fuentes \cite{Anta}.

\section{Acknowledgements}

We thank Achim Kempf, Markus M\"ulle and Antony Lee for interesting discussions during the RQI-N 2012 conference held at Perimeter Institute. We are very grateful to Jorma Louko for his insightful comments and feedback and to Juan Le\'on and Borja Peropadre for fruitful discussions. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through Industry Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research \& Innovation. E. M-M. acknowledges support of the Banting Fellowship programme. This work was also supported by the Spanish MICINN Project FIS2011-29287 and CAM research consortium QUITEMAD S2009-ESP-1594. M. del Rey was also supported by a CSIC JAE-PREDOC grant and Fundaci\'on Bot\'in.