I think both Unruh- and Hawking-effects are real but might be interpreted not as radiation but as spatiality and as the manifestation of gravitation/inertia.

Strictly speaking, it isn't an effet since it has never been observed. It is a theoretical prediction. Like Hawking's radiation, it is based on the false assumption that "emptiness is not empty," and could experience the same fate. That is an artefact of reasoning with diagrams, and overlooking the mathematical formalism they represent.

I think that Unruh effect exists but it has nothing to do with temperature. See, for example

Article Can we use thermodynamics in the systems with gravity?

Asking about ``existence'' is meaningless. The Unruh effect is a mathematical statement about accelerating observers in Minkowski spacetime, that are sensitive to quantum effects, while neglecting their backreaction on spacetime.

It's straightforward to deduce that, under these assumptions, an accelerating observer is equivalent to an inertial observer, in equilibrium in a thermal bath-the interaction of observer and bath provides a mathematically equivalent description.

Given the relation between acceleration and the Unruh temperature, one can then ask, whether it is possible, in practice, to perform an experiment, with current technology, to measure the effects of such a bath, that's all.

CPM: "Like Hawking's radiation, it is based on the false assumption that "emptiness is not empty," and could experience the same fate. "

Hello Claude!

AFAIK, Hawking radiation is still very much a current prediction. In addition, "analogues" of HR have since been found in other theoretical and physical situations: Acoustic metrics generate Hawking radiation, cosmological horizons are acoustic horizons and have an analogue of Hawking radiation, Eighteenth Century Newtonian dark stars radiate indirectly through their horizons in a manner that seems to correspond statistically to Hawking radiation, there's an analogous effect expected in in Bose-Einstein condensate, there's probably an analogous effect associated with gravity-wave propagation, and of course there's the effect in acoustics.

Hawking radiation turns out to be a fairly general behaviour (it's present in Newtonian relativity), it's normally only when we explicitly invoke the equations of special relativity or the "tidy" version of causality that the SR equations lead to, that it disappears.

Acoustic horizons allow limited back-transfer of information. If you stand downwind of a supersonic jet engine exhaust, you might think that it's tautologically true that a pressure signal can't travel upstream faster than the nominal speed of sound ... but if the exhaust is travelling along an enclosed tube, and you cap off the end, then the jet engine is going to feel the effect. Possibly by blowing up.

There are some interesting papers by John Bell and Jon Magne Leinaas from the 1980's, where they try to link the Unruh effect to depolarisation effects in accelerators for polarised particles. There are some problems: First, the accelerators where this could possibly be seen must be circular; this leads to a somewhat different prediction of the Unruh effect. Second, to accelerate particles in practice, they must be charged. Hence, the accelerated particles will radiate, and the back-reaction effects of this radiation are much larger than the Unruh effect.

Article Accelerated Electrons and the Unruh Effect

Eric Baird

The evaporation of a black hole is more intense for smaller objets. Evaporating black holes obviously get smaller and smaller, up to evaporate so fast that they produce is a very short and intense flash of light, in a time of the order of magnitude of a hour. Such event has never been observed, which could mean that either the Hawking radiations don't exist, either the blacks holes don't exist, which amount to the same. Therefore this effect have not been verified. The analogy with acoustics may be wrong, since it is about properties of vacuum and virtual particles, not real atoms, and is probably again based on reasoning with diagrams and overlooking the underlying theory.

Rindler space is physically unrelated with Minkowski space and the state of a Rindler observer cannot be described by the equilibrium density matrix with the Fulling-Unruh temperature. Therefore it is pointless to talk about an Unruh effect in canonical sense.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/does-space-heat-when-you-accelerate-physicists-propose-test-controversial-idea

From the lecture of this article it is clear they have left the realm of science. Has the pink fog of unicorns a measurable invisible effect?

C. Møller was wrong in his famost paper "On homogeneous gravitational fields in the general theory of relativity and the clock paradox" . see pdf. •C. Møller wroted: The equations (14) thus reduce to the single equation (16) with the general solution D = a(1+gx)2

However (16') obviously is not a global solution of the Eq.(16)

Under this Møller mistake Unruch calculation obviously breaks down.

Dear allm, obviouslu Unruch calculation is completely stupid and gives result=0

Article Does the Unruh effect exist?