t x Excitation + + Excitation + + Plan 1. Unruh - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

t x excitation
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

t x Excitation + + Excitation + + Plan 1. Unruh - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Waiting for Unruh Jorma Louko School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham Quantum Field Theory, University of York, 47 April 2017 Christopher J Fewster, Benito A Ju arez-Aubry, JL CQG 33 (2016) 165003 [arXiv:1605.01316] t


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Waiting for Unruh

Jorma Louko

School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham

Quantum Field Theory, University of York, 4–7 April 2017

Christopher J Fewster, Benito A Ju´ arez-Aubry, JL

CQG 33 (2016) 165003 [arXiv:1605.01316]

t x

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Excitation

+ + − −

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Excitation

+ + − −

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Plan

  • 1. Unruh effect

◮ Long time limit: adiabatic scaling versus plateau scaling

  • 2. Detector

◮ Unruh-DeWitt

  • 3. Results

◮ Thermalisation time at large Egap

  • 4. Summary
slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • 1. Unruh effect

Well established

◮ Uniformly linearly accelerated observer sees Minkowki vacuum

as thermal, T =

a 2π

Unruh 1976

◮ Weak coupling, long time, negligible switching effects ◮ Thermal: Detector records detailed balance:

P↓ P↑ = eEgap/T

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • 1. Unruh effect

Well established

◮ Uniformly linearly accelerated observer sees Minkowki vacuum

as thermal, T =

a 2π

Unruh 1976

◮ Weak coupling, long time, negligible switching effects ◮ Thermal: Detector records detailed balance:

P↓ P↑ = eEgap/T

Beyond: non-stationary

◮ Non-uniform acceleration ◮ Curved spacetime: Hawking effect

E.g. detector falling into a black hole

“Time-dependent temperature” ?

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Our aim

How long does a detector need to operate to record (approximate) detailed balance,

P↓ P↑ = eEgap/T ?

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Our aim

How long does a detector need to operate to record (approximate) detailed balance,

P↓ P↑ = eEgap/T ?

Novel setting

◮ How long in terms of Egap, at large Egap

− → experiment?

◮ Switching: smooth and compact support ◮ Mathematically precise (nothing hidden in iǫ)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Our aim

How long does a detector need to operate to record (approximate) detailed balance,

P↓ P↑ = eEgap/T ?

Novel setting

◮ How long in terms of Egap, at large Egap

− → experiment?

◮ Switching: smooth and compact support ◮ Mathematically precise (nothing hidden in iǫ)

Limitations

◮ Weak coupling −

→ first-order perturbation theory

◮ (3 + 1) Minkowski, massless scalar field (for core results)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

How long?

Adiabatic switching

τ

λ 1

χ (τ) = χ (τ/λ) λτ

Plateau switching

τ

p

χ (τ)

λ

τs τs λτ Long time: λ → ∞

slide-11
SLIDE 11
  • 2. Detector

(Unruh-DeWitt)

Quantum field Two-state detector (atom)

(3 + 1) spacetime dimension

  • state with energy 0

φ real scalar field, m = 0 1

  • state with energy E

|0 Minkowski vacuum x(τ) detector worldline, τ proper time

slide-12
SLIDE 12
  • 2. Detector

(Unruh-DeWitt)

Quantum field Two-state detector (atom)

(3 + 1) spacetime dimension

  • state with energy 0

φ real scalar field, m = 0 1

  • state with energy E

|0 Minkowski vacuum x(τ) detector worldline, τ proper time

Interaction

Hint(τ) = cχ(τ)µ(τ)φ

  • x(τ)
  • c

coupling constant χ switching function, C ∞

0 , real-valued

µ detector’s monopole moment operator

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Probability of transition ⊗ |0 − → 1 ⊗ |anything in first-order perturbation theory: P(E) = c2

  • 0µ(0)1
  • 2
  • detector internals only:

drop!

× F(E)

trajectory and |0: response function

F(E) = ∞

−∞

dτ ′ ∞

−∞

dτ ′′ e−iE(τ ′−τ ′′) χ(τ ′)χ(τ ′′) W (τ ′, τ ′′) W (τ ′, τ ′′) = 0|φ

  • x(τ ′)
  • φ
  • x(τ ′′)
  • |0

Wightman function (distribution)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Stationary

W (τ ′, τ ′′) = W (τ ′ − τ ′′) F(E) = 1 2π ∞

−∞

dω | χ(ω)|2 W (E + ω)

Unruh

  • W (ω) =

ω 2π

  • e2πω/a − 1
  • a > 0: proper acceleration
  • W (−ω)
  • W (ω)

= e2πω/a ⇒ T = a 2π Unruh temperature

slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • 3. Results

Theorem 0. With either switching, for any fixed E,

Fλ(E) λ − − − →

λ→∞

(const) × W (E) ⇒ Detailed balance at λ → ∞ (as expected)

slide-16
SLIDE 16
  • 3. Results

Theorem 0. With either switching, for any fixed E,

Fλ(E) λ − − − →

λ→∞

(const) × W (E) ⇒ Detailed balance at λ → ∞ (as expected)

Theorem 1. For fixed λ, Fλ(E) is not exponentially suppressed

as E → ∞. ⇒ Detailed balance at λ → ∞ cannot be uniform in E.

slide-17
SLIDE 17
  • 3. Results

Theorem 0. With either switching, for any fixed E,

Fλ(E) λ − − − →

λ→∞

(const) × W (E) ⇒ Detailed balance at λ → ∞ (as expected)

Theorem 1. For fixed λ, Fλ(E) is not exponentially suppressed

as E → ∞. ⇒ Detailed balance at λ → ∞ cannot be uniform in E.

Theorem 2. For either switching,

Fλ(−E) Fλ(E) − − − − →

E→∞

e2πE/a with exponentially growing λ(E) ⇒ Detailed balance at large Egap in exponentially long waiting time

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Theorem 3. For adiabatic switching,

Fλ(−E) Fλ(E) − − − − →

E→∞

e2πE/a (∗) with polynomially growing λ(E), provided

  • χ(ω)
  • has sufficiently

strong falloff

(Cf. Fewster and Ford 2015)

⇒ Detailed balance at large Egap in polynomially long waiting time

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Theorem 3. For adiabatic switching,

Fλ(−E) Fλ(E) − − − − →

E→∞

e2πE/a (∗) with polynomially growing λ(E), provided

  • χ(ω)
  • has sufficiently

strong falloff

(Cf. Fewster and Ford 2015)

⇒ Detailed balance at large Egap in polynomially long waiting time

Theorem 4. For plateau switching, no polynomially growing

λ(E) gives (∗) ⇒ Detailed balance at large Egap requires longer than polynomial waiting time.

slide-20
SLIDE 20
  • 4. Summary

Detailed balance in the Unruh effect at Egap → ∞:

◮ (3 + 1) massless scalar ◮ Polynomial waiting time suffices for adiabatically scaled

switching with sufficiently strong Fourier decay

◮ No polynomial waiting time suffices for plateau scaled

switching Upshots:

◮ Large Egap regime has limited relevance for defining a “time

dependent temperature”

◮ Interest for (analogue) experiments?