English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There exist two interpretations of instantons in the literature. The firstinterpretation regards instanton as divider between the initial and finalhypersurfaces. The Coleman-De Luccia instanton is one such an example. Thesecond interpretation, proposed by Brown and Weinberg, considers instanton asconnector between the initial and final hypersurfaces. In this proceedings, wetry to suitably and intuitively argue that these two interpretations arecomplementary to each other under certain conditions. Furthermore, wedemonstrate that the decay rate obtained from the Euclidean treatment and theHamiltonian treatment both are consistent with each other, which may help todissolve some concerns about the validity of regularization technique employedin the treatment of the cusp singularity of instantons. Based on these, weargue that instantons can be a sensible tool to address the information lossproblem.

Thin-shell instanton tunneling: something-to-something or nothing-to-something?