Arxiv:1704.02285V1 [Quant-Ph] 7 Apr 2017

Home , Rindler coordinates

arXiv:1704.02285v1 [quant-ph] 7 Apr 2017 hr h xlctfr of form explicit the where oeta,sc sta fteErh ae h form: the takes Earth, the of that as particles such quantum potential, mass interacting rest of total system with composite a of sym- me- [5]. between Hamiltonian chanics construct (symplectic) can in observables one and grounded map metries the well on mathematically based is is argu- and heuristic derivation more frames our previous non-inertial ments, to in differently derived reference: many-body be of a can of systems dynamics quantum the to corrections relativistic neglected. be can annihilation and cre- ation to allows particle corrections where [3] situations relativistic Schrödinger in (c.m.) Foldy of the equation a discussion mass and well-defined [2], of a Krajcik contexts for centre by relativistic of introduced in notion formalism ambiguous the is does and particles coordinates [1], interacting of exist number not conserved a of tion icsin hscnrspeiu eut 6.Teterm The is [6]. present here results the interest for previous of relevant not confirms is This and [4] discussion. Ref. in found be can ia position tical eoeec ffc nseicstain,a icse in discussed as situations, [6]. specific Ref. in effect decoherence oet,wihw olcieydnt as denote position collectively c.m. we the which of momenta, function a as R understood be to has spectively: rfrnefae r sda yoyos)I e.[]we [4] and Ref. (“Observer” In synonymous.) on from. as used things depending are at frame” changes, “reference looks general one frame in which appears and effect disappears, decoherence and the are and predictions physical dependent, that observer Relativity—is of light the in n ucm fteaayi sta h Hamiltonian the that is analysis the of outcome One how [4] shown recently have we formalism, this Using descrip- mechanical quantum relativistic a Although eodotoeo u nlssvr unsurprisingly analysis—very our of outcome second A n momentum and H = H U el oCmeto Qatmmcaisfrnnieta obs non-inertial for mechanics “Quantum on Comment to Reply cm ext H 1 h opigbtencne fms oiint h internal the to position a mass system of the center ( supporting between force external coupling s quantum an the complex that for out freedom pointed of we degrees internal and mass of rtcs n lrf h u ruet eanvalid. remain e con arguments we in our Here, be why would clarify clocks. term and atomic coupling criticism using the dilation of time lack gravitational the that argument the arXiv:1702.06670 eateto hsc,Uiest fTise taaCosti Strada Trieste, of University Physics, of Department + X = 2 u eetppr( paper recent Our sa xenl(uprig potential. (supporting) external an is siuoNzoaed iiaNcer,Szoed Trieste, di Sezione Nucleare, Fisica di Nazionale Istituto H oteitra aitna,idcn a inducing Hamiltonian, internal the to 1 gXH ( P − R n fterltv oriae and coordinates relative the of and , M , 2 P rel M 3 nahmgnosgravitational homogeneous a in , P AM nvriyo rmn mFltr ,239Bee,Germ Bremen, 28359 2, Fallturm Am Bremen, of University ZARM, ,π ρ, , /c 2 2 H c ak Toroˇs,Marko 2 2 hc ope h ..ver- c.m. the couples which , cm ). + qatp] oorppr iosie l usinorconcl our question al. et Pikovski paper, our to [quant-ph]) and X g arXiv:1701.04298 c 2 H rel H rel pt re 1 order to up ,2, 1, + ρ ∗ U and ext André Großardt, Dtd ue1,2018) 11, June (Dated: qatp] icse h curneo opigo centr of coupling a of occurrence the discussed [quant-ph]) , π re- , /c (1) H 2 fcm oiinadcokHmloin( Hamiltonian clock and position c.m. of H R nefae sbfr,teHmloini hsnwframe new this in to Hamiltonian the reduces before, As is frame. which ence clock, identical second a at holding 2 observer ond n en ihietclcok.Nw h w Hamilto- two what the to Now, is belong This clocks. nians identical same observers. with nearby the means the at the one by tick on measured clocks as dependence two rate functional the same coordinates, the respective have ones) nal vlto ntelcltm oriaeof coordinate time local the in evolution egsbo 8.(e pedxA o ealdderiva- detailed a for A1 Appendix (See Wein- [8]. in example book for berg’s world elucidated as observers’ gravi- dilation, classical two time well-known the tational the exactly of yields times which lines, proper the of parison rm.Teetm oriae r dnia oteproper the the to of identical are times coordinates time These frame. hs oriae r aee ihteidx“” Ac- “1”. at index ( the then Eq. with to is labeled cording which are coordinates clock, whose a holding rest 1 observer Rindler ln ewe ..aditra oina re 1 order at motion cou- internal a and to the leads c.m. of also between con- role it pling that no the show in analyze and potential ii) is supporting between clocks; result dilation atomic our time (identical) why of two observation clear the make with As i) sys- tradiction correctly. the we: analyzed supporting reply, be not potential a would external gravity an against clocks); of tem atomic role (with the dilation exper- ii) time with for contradiction decoher- in evidence the be imental cases would some in cancels that effect fact ence the i) respects: be- main motion of state observer. relative and system the tween on things depending different where happen, situations, specific four considered 1 (0 stetoHmloin seicly h w inter- two the (specifically, Hamiltonians two the As o,cmaigtetocok mut oacom- a to amounts clocks two the comparing Now, .Tm iainbtenaoi clocks.— atomic between dilation Time 1. nRf 7 h uhr rtcz u nlssi two in analysis our criticize authors the [7] Ref. In rest 3, and 0 = , ihrsett hsosre’ oa eeec frame, reference local observer’s this to respect with † 0 ρ , aoaeo u eut nrpyt their to reply in results our on laborate n neoBassi Angelo and ihrsett hsscn bevrslclrefer- local observer’s second this to respect with r 1 45 iaaeTise Italy Miramare-Trieste, 34151 11, era 1 i aei ,317Tise Italy Trieste, 34127 2, Valerio Via π , sesi o-nrilfae.There, frames. non-inertial in ystems antgaiypasacuilrl for role crucial a plays gravity gainst ere ffedm nacomment a In freedom. of degrees H 1 rdcinwt h bevto of observation the with tradiction P respective = ) (0 1 , different 1 ,adte h aitna becomes Hamiltonian the then and 0, = 0 ,tecokde o xii coupling a exhibit not does clock the ), H ρ , rel 2 π , ( ρ 2 ide observers. Rindler 1 = ) π , ,2, 1, eeec rms eciigthe describing frames, reference 1 so n present and usion + ) H ‡ rel any U ( ρ ext 2 π , ( ρ ervers” 2 1 + ) π , H rel 1 that U .Tk sec- a Take ). e :i hscase this in ): ext ( respective ρ 2 aea Take π , /c 2 2 ). . 2 tion, with specific reference to atomic clocks.) of such a relativistic potential is The coupling term of c.m. position and internal Hamil- (0) 1 (1) single Uext = U (R)+ U (R, P,ρ,π), (2) tonian for a clock, which seems to be the key el- ext c2 ext ement of the criticism of Pikovski et al. [7] to our work, (0) R is by no means necessary in order to explain the exper- (see Appendix A3 for details), where Uext( ) is the non- imentally observed time dilation between two different relativistic case considered in Ref. [7] and the 1/c2 term (1) clocks. It is also irrelevant for the explanation whether Uext couples the c.m. position (and momentum) to the in- the considered clocks are described quantum mechani- ternal variables, as the term gXHrel does. This means the cally or classically. following: an equilibrium solution mathematically exists, As our results are in no contradiction with gravita- however in such a case the coupling between c.m. and in- tional time dilation as measured with atomic clocks, the ternal degrees of freedom is given not only by the term 2 (1) R P 2 supposed mistake found by Pikovski et al. [7], i.e. the way gXHrel/c but also by the term Uext( , ,ρ,π)/c . As we consider the supporting potential, looses its scope. such, in a situation similar to that considered in Ref. [6] However, it is interesting and relevant to further discuss the external potential gives an additional contribution to the role of this potential. the coupling of internal motion and c.m., which can in 2. Supporting potential.— Here the authors of Ref. [7] principle dominate or (partially) cancel the gravitational are partly right. We did consider a special, yet at least coupling. theoretically important situation, where a system de- A note. Up to this point, our discussion has been com- scribed by the Hamiltonian H, irrespective of its internal pletely classical, as were the critical arguments in Ref. [7]. state of motion, is held against gravity by a fixed external In the quantum mechanical situation, the stationarity supporting potential Uext. Such a potential is essentially condition for the state of motion translates to the condi- a ‘counter’-gravitational potential, as, for instance, in tion that the expectation value hXi is stationary, which the Newtonian case an electric potential φel = −gmX/q is what we considered in Ref. [4]. would cancel gravity for a particle of mass m and charge Hence we come to the following conclusion: the nat- q. This choice of potential does not invalidate one of the ural state of a system in gravity is that of free fall. In outcomes of our analysis, i.e. that the decoherence effect such a case, according to the equivalence principle and is an effect of the relative state of motion between system according to what we discussed in Ref. [4], there is no de- and observer, which the authors of Ref. [7] seem not to coherence effect unless the observer is non-inertial. Ac- question. cordingly, the effect cannot be attributed to the system However, inspired by the remarks of Pikovski et al. [7], itself, but to the relative state of motion between system we found it relevant to enter into the details of the and observer. A decoherence effect can be attributed to supporting potential. Consider first the case they con- the system when its motion deviates from free fall due to sider: a potential Uext(X), function only of the c.m. an external potential. However, it is the potential that (vertical) coordinate X, having a local minimum ca- generates the 1/c2 coupling between c.m. and internal pable of holding the system against gravity. To be motion. The coupling given by gravity, originating from 2 more specific, we choose Uext(X) = αX /2 as an ex- the non-inertial motion of the observer, adds to it. Any- ample of such a potential. Now, according to Hamil- how, the observed final decoherence effect will still de- ton’s equations of motion the stationary solution is: pend on the relative state of motion with respect to the 2 X = −(Mg + gHrel(ρ, π)/c )/α. This simple result has observer. Ultimately, the decoherence effect is an effect two relevant consequences: i) First, if the internal state of of Special Relativity, not of General Relativity. the system changes (for example, by exchanging energy Acknowledgments.— The authors acknowledge fund- with the environment as in the physical situation con- ing and support from INFN and the University of Trieste sidered in Ref. [6]), then the c.m. starts moving. This is (FRA 2016). A.G. acknowledges funding from the Ger- another way of saying that if the system’s energy changes, man Research Foundation (DFG). We acknowledge use- it weights less or more and therefore its original motional ful discussions with D. Giulini and comments by A. De- state is not in equilibrium anymore. Accordingly, in the riglazov, L. Diósi, P. J. Felix, L. Lusanna, and G. Torrieri. situation envisaged in Ref. [7] the c.m. is not held fixed, in general. ii) If one insists in holding the c.m. fixed, also APPENDIX when the internal energy changes in time, then Uext(X) must depend on the internal energy as well, opposite to what is claimed in Ref. [7]. (See Appendix A2 for further A1: Gravitational time dilation details.) This brings us to consider a realistic potential Uext de- Gravitational time dilation can be found in basically pending on the position and momentum of each particle. all books on General Relativity. Here we review how it If we re-write the potential in the c.m. and internal coor- works, to stress the points of interest with respect to the dinates, up to order 1/c2, we find that the general form discussion in the main text. 3

We consider four observers: one Rindler (= at rest in in Ref. [4]. They have the same form in the respective ′ gravity) observer with coordinates xµ = (ct′, x′), and a coordinates; we write explicitly the first one (Eq. (9) in nearby Minkowski (= free fall) observer with coordinates Ref. [4]): Xµ = (cT,X), instantaneously at rest with respect to g the Rindler observer; a second Rindler observer with co- Rindler Mink. Mink. Hc.m. = Hc.m. + 2 {X,Hc.m. } + Uext , (A7) ordinatesx ˜µ = (ct˜′, x˜′), shifted by a quantity b in the ver- 2c tical direction with respect to the first Rindler observer where HMink. = P2c2 + H2 , and we have added an (the coordinate time must also change, see Eqs. (A3), c.m. rel external potentialpU . For the second Rindler observer, (A4)); a second Minkowski observer, with coordinates ext all coordinates should be replaced with the “tilde” coor- X˜ µ = (cT,˜ X˜), instantaneously at rest with respect to dinates and g withg ˜ = g/(1 + gb/c2). the second Rindler observer. The two Minkowski ob- We now Taylor expand the external potential in the servers, by construction, change from time to time, but center of mass position X: at each time they see each other instantaneously at rest, and are simply shifted with respect to each other by a 1 U = U + U X + U X2 + ... , (A8) quantity b in the vertical direction. ext 0 1 2! 2 The Minkowski coordinates Xµ = (cT,X) and the ′ µ ′ ′ j Rindler coordinates x = (ct , x ) of the first set of ob- ∂ Uext where Uj = ∂Xj |X=0, might still depend on the inter- servers are related as follows: nal coordinates and c.m. momentum. Since the clock is held by the Rindler observer, i. e. R = 0, P = 0 [9], c2 gt′ using Eqs. (A7), (A8) we obtain: cT = x′ + sinh( ), (A1) g c Rindler Hc.m. = Hrel + U0 . (A9) c2 gt′ c2 X = x′ + cosh( ) − , (A2) g c g The same is true for the second clock, with respect to the second Rindler observer. In the case considered in (see Eqs. (S1) and (S2) of [4], with t¯′ = 0 for simplicity Ref. [4] (see Eq. (12)), one immediately sees that U0 = 0. and without loss of generality). The Rindler observer, Now we can address gravitational time dilation with located at x′ = 0, has proper time equal to the coordinate ′ atomic clocks [10, 11]. In this case the observed time time, i. e. dτ = dt , and is subject to proper acceleration dilation emerges by comparing the two identical clocks g, i. e. the usual Rindler observer. (atoms) which are at different heights. Since the compar- The second Rindler observer is at point x′ = b, with gb ′ ison cannot be instantaneous, and since the Minkowski proper time dτ˜ = (1+ c2 )dt and is, as we will see, subject 2 observers so far introduced change from time to time, we to proper accelerationg ˜ = g/(1 + gb/c ). The coordinate introduce a fifth fixed Minkowski observer with coordi- transformations between the two Rindler observers there- nates xµ = (ct,x), who at time t = 0 is instantaneously fore are: at rest with all four observers so far introduced and at ′ x′ = x′ − b, (A3) that time is located at x = 0, and we describe the situation from her perspective. gb e′ ′ Suppose that at time t = 0, a photon is emitted by the t = 1+ 2 t . (A4) c second clock, which is located at x = b; the photon en- e As a consistency check, a short calculation shows that: codes the information about the clock’s ticking rate. The photon’s frequency is then compared with the ticking rate of the first clock, which by the time the photon reaches c2 g˜t˜′ it, has been uniformly accelerated from the initial point cT˜ = cT = x˜′ + sinh( ), (A5) g˜ c x =0 at t = 0. c2 g˜t˜′ c2 At the time the photon is emitted, all five reference X˜ = X − b = x˜′ + cosh( ) − , (A6) g c g˜ frames are at rest with respect to each other, therefore the photon’s properties can be easily translated from one which is the expected coordinatee transformation between frame to any of the others. We first define them with the second Rindler observer and the two Minkowski respect to the second Rindler observer (Eq. (A9)), hold- obersvers. ing the emitting clock: the energy is known (as given by To compute time dilation between two identical clocks the atomic transition, as measured by that observer), as held by the two Rindler observers, we follow the same well as its direction of motion (it must reach the first calculation as in the supplementary sections S1 and S2 clock); it also follows a null geodesics: this fixes the four- of [4]. Specifically, we construct the two Hamiltonians momentum. Then one can easily rewrite the four-vector for the two Rindler observers, by referring to the two in the Minkowski frame of the fifth observer: we call it instantaneous Minkowski observers, as amply discussed pµ. 4

So far we considered the situation at time t = 0. Now A2: Equilibrium points we follow the motion of the photon, as described by the fifth inertial observer. This is easy: since the motion is We consider the Rindler Hamiltonian in Eq. (A7) and free, four-momentum is conserved. This is the advan- impose the condition of stationary c.m., i. e. tage of describing the situation from the point of view of the fifth Minkowski observer. Now the question is, ∂HRindler ∂HRindler R˙ = c.m. =0 , P˙ = − c.m. =0, (A11) what is the photon’s energy as measured by the first ∂P ∂R Rindler observer, or equivalently by the corresponding αX2 inertial observer instantaneously at rest, at the time the where Uext(X) = 2 is a harmonic potential. It is photon is absorbed. Since at that time these two ob- straightforward to obtain the conditions: servers are moving with velocity v(t) as seen by the P gH ∂U fifth Minkowski observer, Relativity tells that the en- =0 , = − . (A12) µ ν 2 ergy they measure is [12]: E(t) = −ηµν p v (t), where H c ∂X ν v denotes the four-velocity of the Rindler observer, The first one implies P = 0, while from the second, using in the coordinates of the fifth Minkowski observer and explicitly the harmonic form of the potential, we obtain ηµν = diag(−1, +1, +1, +1). When the photon is ab- gH 2 X = − αc2 . In particular, expanding up to order 1/c we sorbed by the first clock, its energy is shifted to [13]: obtain:

gb gH(0) Emeasured = 1+ Eemitted, (A10) Mg + rel c2 X = − c2 , (A13) α which is the usual formula for time dilation. See Fig. 1 for where M is the total mass of the system. a representation of the whole emission/detection process. The calculation shows that time dilation is not related to the coupling between c.m. position (X) and the inter- A3: External potentials (0) nal energy of a single clock (Hrel ). Typical non-relativistic interaction potentials depend t only on the relative distance between the particles (Eq. (3.1d) of Ref. [3]). However, equally typical, relativistic corrections, in the formalism of Krajcik and Foldy, depend also on their momenta (Eq. (3.1e) of Ref. [3]). Thus we assume that the external potential p v(t) depends on both positions and momenta, i. e.:

N v(0)p v(0) Uext = U(xj , pj ), (A14) Xj=1 0 b x

where xj , pj denote the position and momentum of the j-th particle, with mass mj. The expression for the c.m. coordinates in terms of the individual particles’ coordinates are modiﬁed at order 1/c2 as follows (Eqs. (2.27a), (2.27b) of Ref. [3], respectively):

1 x = R + ρ + χ (P ,ρ,π), (A15) j j c2 j m 1 p j P P FIG. 1. Graphical depiction of gravitational time dilation (or j = + πj + 2 Πj ( , π), (A16) redshift) from the perspective of the fifth Minkowski (inertial) M c observer. A photon of four-momentum p is emitted at x = b where R, P denote the c.m. postion and momentum, at time t = 0 and at a later time t > 0 is absorbed by a ρ , π the relative position and momentum of the j-th detector, which is uniformly accelerated from the initial point j j x = 0. At t = 0 the four-velocity of both the emitter atom particle, ρ, π collectively the relative positions and mo- and detector is v(0), while at t > 0 the four-velocity of the menta, χj , Πj the relativistic corrections and M is the N detector is v(t). The energy of the photon as measured by total mass, i. e. M = mj . However, since Uext al- µ ν j=1 the detector, is E(t)= −ηµν p v (t). ready depends at orderP 1/c2 on momenta, we can neglect Π. On the other hand, the correction χ is always present 5 at order 1/c2: the relative momenta are an intrinsic part of elementary particles,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 195, 62– of any multiparticle potential at that order. 81 (1948). We now expand Eq. (A14) up to order 1/c2: [3] R. A. Krajcik and L. L. Foldy, “Relativistic center-of- mass variables for composite systems with arbitrary internal interactions,” Phys. Rev. D 10, 1777–1795 (1974). (0) R 1 (1) R P Uext = Uext( ,ρ)+ 2 Uext( , ,ρ,π), (A17) [4] Marko Toroˇs, André Großardt, and Angelo Bassi, c “Quantum mechanics for non-inertial observers,” (0) (1) (2017), arXiv:1701.04298 [quant-ph], where Uext, Uext denote the nonrelativistic and and first arXiv:1701.04298 [quant-ph]. relativistic contribution, respectively. One normally as- [5] Ana Cannas Da Silva, Lectures on symplectic geometry, sumes, when considering non-relativistic potentials, that Vol. 1764 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2001). over the volume of the system the potential is constant: [6] Igor Pikovski, Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, and (0) Caslav˘ Brukner, “Universal decoherence due to gravi- this implies that Uext depends only weakly on the relative degrees of freedom ρ. In particular, by neglecting tational time dilation,” Nat. Phys. 11, 668–672 (2015), arXiv:1311.1095 [quant-ph]. this dependence we obtain: [7] Igor Pikovski, Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, and Caslavˇ 1 Brukner, “Comment on ”quantum mechanics for non- (0) R (1) R P inertial observers”,” (2017), arXiv:1702.06670 [quant- Uext = Uext( )+ 2 Uext( , ,ρ,π). (A18) c ph], arXiv:1702.06670 [quant-ph]. Gravitation and cosmology: principles On the other hand, for a generic internal state of motion, [8] Steven Weinberg, (1) and applications of the general theory of relativity, Vol. 67 we cannot neglect the dependence of Uext on the relative (Wiley New York, 1972). momenta π. This shows that a potential will in general [9] A more general case R = 0, P = const =6 0 does not couple in a complicated way the center of mass vertical change the argument. position X with the relative degrees of freedom. [10] Robert V Pound and GA Rebka Jr, “Gravitational redshift in nuclear resonance,” Physical Review Letters 3, 439 (1959). [11] C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland, “Optical clocks and relativity,” Science 329, ∗ [email protected] 1630–1633 (2010). † [email protected] [12] Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, and John Archibald ‡ [email protected] Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman and Company, San [1] D. G. Currie, T. F. Jordan, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Francisco, 1973). ´ “Relativistic invariance and hamiltonian theories of inter- [13] Eric Gourgoulhon, “Special relativity in general frames,” acting particles,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 35, 350–375 (1963). Special Relativigy in General Frames, by E. Gourgoul- [2] M. H. L. Pryce, “The mass-centre in the restricted theory hon. Graduate Texts in Physics. ISBN 978-3-642-37275- of relativity and its connexion with the quantum theory 9. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2013 (2013).