Arxiv:1607.00955V1 [Gr-Qc] 4 Jul 2016 ML Second Law of Planetary Motion (Figure 1)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Thermal Time and Kepler's Second Law∗ Deepak Vaidy National Institute of Technology, Karnataka (Dated: September 26, 2018) It is shown that a recent result regarding the average rate of evolution of a dynamical system at equilibrium in combination with the quantization of geometric areas coming from LQG, implies the validity of Kepler's Second Law of planetary motion. INTRODUCTION Ehrenfest effect and the rate of dynamical evolution of a system - i.e. the number of distinguishable (orthog- One of the leading contenders for a theory of quan- onal) states a given system transitions through in each tum gravity is the field known as Loop Quantum Grav- unit of time. The last of these is also the subject of ity (LQG) [1]. A fundamental result of this approach to- the Margolus-Levitin theorem [17] according to which the wards reconciling geometry and quantum mechanics, is rate of dynamical evolution of a macroscopic system with the quantization of geometric degrees of freedom such as fixed average energy (E), has an upper bound (ν?) given areas and volumes [2,3]. LQG predicts that the area of by: any surface is quantized in units of the Planck length 2E squared l2. ν ≤ (1) p ? h Despite its many impressive successes, in for instance, solving the riddle of black hole entropy [4,5] or in under- Note that ν? is the maximum possible rate of dy- standing the evolution of geometry near classical singu- namical evolution, not the average or mean rate, and larities such as at the Big Bang or at the center of black also that in [17] the bound is determined by the aver- P holes [6,7,8], LQG is yet to satisfy the primary criteria age energy: E = cnEnj ni of a system in a state P n for any successful theory of quantum gravity - agreement jΨi = n cnj ni, where fj nig is a basis of energy eigen- between predictions of the quantum gravity theory and states of the given system. As a corollary the smallest well known and well understood aspects of spacetime as time interval which the system can be used to measure, described by classical physics. The same is also true of if used as a clock, is given by the other, more popular, approaches to quantum gravity ML such as String Theory and its offshoot the AdS/CFT cor- t? = h=2E (2) respondence. This correspondence does offer predictions about the behavior of the quark-gluon plasma generated What HR work with is not the average energy of the in heavy-ion collisions [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15], however, system, but the fluctuation around the mean given by: as with black hole entropy or the big bang these predic- ∆E2 = hH2i − hHi2 (3) tions concern energy scales far outside the reach of our daily experience. where H is the Hamiltonian of the given system. Thus Here we argue that a recent result [16] regarding the elementary time-step that HR consider is given by: the average rate at which a quantum system at equi- HR librium transitions between (nearly) orthogonal states, t? = h=2∆E (4) when taken together with the quantization of geometric HR areas arising from LQG, implies the validity of Kepler's There is a big difference between the two time-steps t? arXiv:1607.00955v1 [gr-qc] 4 Jul 2016 ML Second Law of planetary motion (Figure 1). This would and t? . The former depends on the standard deviation be a prediction from a theory of quantum gravity which in the mean energy of a given system, while the latter has a direct correspondence with an observable and well- depends on the mean energy itself. The difference can be understood aspect of classical gravity. seen via the following argument given on pg. 8 of ML's paper, and I quote. MAXIMUM SPEED OF QUANTUM EVOLUTION For an isolated, macroscopic system with en- ergy average energy E, one can construct a state which evolves at a rate v = 2E=h. If we In [16], Haggard and Rovelli (HR) discuss the relation- have several non-interacting macroscopic sub- ship between the concept of thermal time, the Tolman- systems, each with average energy Ei, then the average energy of the combined system P is Etot = i Ei ... our construction ap- ∗This article is dedicated to my wife, my constant companion in plies perfectly well to this combination of all my endeavors. non-interacting subsystems for which we can 2 construct a state which evolves at a rate P P i v? = 2Etot=h = i 2Ei=h = i v?. Thus if we subdivide our total energy between sep- A2 arate subsystems, the maximum number of orthogonal states per unit time for the com- A1 bined system is just the sum of the maximum number for each subsystem taken separately. FIG. 1: Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion: A ;A Therefore for a composite system, consisting of a num- 1 2 are the areas swept out by the line joining the planet to the ber of non-interacting subsystems each with maximum Sun. If the two segments are traversed in equal time interval ML rate of evolution νi , the maximum rate of evolution is then A1 = A2 simply the sum of the rates of the individual subsystems: ML P ML ν = i νi . As the system size increases the mini- mum time-interval and the maximum rate of dynamical For the time being, let us assume that the two-body evolution associated with the system also increase. the Sun+Planet system is a thermal system which happens Margolus-Levitin bound is, thus, an extensive property to be at equilibrium and whose dynamical evolution is of a system. given by the motion of the planet around the Sun (or Now, while there is no restriction on the average energy more precisely, the motion of the planet and the sun of each of the subsystem - we can pick a subsystem that around each other). Now, according to HR the num- is as small or as large as we wish - the same is not true for ber of states swept out by such a system in the course of the variance of the energy of each subsystem. In fact, if its evolution, over a given interval of time δt is the same each of the subsystems is in equilibrium with all the other regardless of the location of the system along its dynamic subsystems and with the composite system as a whole, trajectory. This is a quantity which depends only on the then the variance of the energy for each subsystem must characteristic temperature kT of the system. be the same and also be equal to that of the composite system. Thus, whereas, Margolus-Levitin tell us that increasing the energy of a system increases the (maximum) rate of dynamical evolution, the rate given by Haggard-Rovelli depends only on the temperature kT ∼ ∆E, a quantity A1 which does not depend on system size (in a suitable ther- modynamic limit). Of course, Haggard-Rovelli do take due care to state that their elementary time-step is the FIG. 2: LQG tells us that the macroscopic area A1 can be average time the system takes to move from one state to decomposed into smaller quanta. Each triangle in the trian- the next. gulation of A1 corresponds to a single quantum of area. For the two-body system, the \states" in question KEPLER'S SECOND LAW correspond to the various microscopic configurations of quantum geometry which the system traverses over a Having gone over the distinction between the given time interval δt. The macroscopic area value δA Margolus-Levitin theorem and the Haggard-Rovelli re- swept out by the planet's trajectory during δt is a sum sult, let us move to consider how one can possibly apply over all the microscopic quantum geometric area ele- Haggard and Rovelli's reasoning to a real world problem, ments which make up the patch under consideration (Fig- namely that of two-body central force problem in the ure 2). δA is thus a measure of the total number of Newtonian theory of gravitation. There we have Kepler's microscopic states the system passes through during δt. three laws deduced empirically, which preceded Newton's Consequently, Haggard-Rovelli tell us that the number analytic solution of the two-body problem. The three of such states the system passes through per unit time is laws are: a constant: 1. The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun δA at one of the two foci. / kT (5) δt 2. A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time. which is nothing other than Kepler's second law of plan- etary motion. Thus Haggard and Rovelli's result, along 3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is di- with our understanding of the nature of the microscopic rectly proportional to the cube of the semi-major degrees of freedom of quantum geometry allows us to de- axis of its orbit. rive one of the most basic results of Newtonian physics - REFERENCES 3 Kepler's second law - and relate it to the thermodynam- [2] Carlo Rovelli. \Area is the length of Ashtekar's ics of the many-body system consisting of the quantum triad field”. In: Physical Review D 47 (Feb. 1993), geometric degrees of freedom which determine the macro- pp. 1703{1705. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.47.1703. scopic dynamics of the system. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.47.