How are the clock hypothesis and Unruh effect reconciled.

  • Thread starter Naty1
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Clock
In summary: However, even though the measuring device is in vacuum, it will still have some heat left over from its previous use. So the temperature measured by the accelerating observer will be higher than the temperature measured by the inertial observer.
  • #1
Naty1
5,606
40
How do we reconcile the clock hypothesis in special relativity with the Unruh effect?

The first says accelerating clocks tick at the same rate as their instantaneous velocity and the later says an accelerating observer records a temperature rise not observed by an inertial observer.

To keep it simple, consider an accelerating and inertial observer passing right by each other.
Seems like temperature changes caused by acceleration [the Unruh effect] would
cause energy changes and hence [gravitational] clock changes.

Do we just ignore this in SPECIAL relativity? Do we say it's just an 'instantaneous' differnce so it can't be observed? Is the observer instrument not 'warmed' by the background she observes? [That's impossible,,,nothing would register!] or something else?
thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The accelerating clock and an accelerating observer will both record Unruh radiation, which is a vacuum effect. An inertial observer will not. He will see the accelerating clock slowing down according to the relative velocity between him and the clock. There is to my opinion no bridge between special relativity and the Unruh effect and nothing to be reconciled.
 
  • #3
The Unruh effect IS special relativity. It is a consequence of quantum field theory in Minkowski space.
 
  • #4
Unruh effect is ONLY seen from perspective of accelerating observer. Clock change you are describing (don't really know what you mean by this), described from accelerating observers perspective are due to Unruh effect, and inertial observer is describing it with "effective gravitation" from acceleration.

Unruh effect is necessary for internal consistency of QFT. If you want do describe some effect from non-inertial perspective like accelerating observer, you need to take in account Unruh effect.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
The core observation about the OP is simply there is no equivalence at all between accelerated observers and inertial obervers in SR. The clock hypothesis says the time dilation of some object observed by an inertial observer depends only on the speed of object (accelerating or not) measured by that inertial observer. It implies nothing at all about equivalence between momentarily comoving inertial and accelerated frames. They are simply not equivalent for most physics.
 
  • #6
Clock change you are describing (don't really know what you mean by this)

The poster is assuming the accelerating observer is moving at a greater velocity than the inertial observer.

I did not explain very learly what I thought I saw as a contradiction ...let me restate it this way, and with the insights from the above posts, I can answer my own question:

Problem:
I was supposing an inertial observer is making a temperature observation. An accelerating observer approaches the inertial observer and overtakes him...during the period of acceleration the accelerating observer will record a higher temperature than the inertial observer...ok.
But as the two approach a common point, the accelerating observer stops accelerating and now the two observers have the same inertial velocity. At that instant, seems like the two temperature observations might be different...

Resolution: If the temperature recording device is instantaneous, then each of the comoving inertial observers will record the same temperature...from the Minkowksi vacuum, inertial space. [I had been thinking any temperature measuring device would have residual heat signature...but even if so, that does not represent any sort of 'different' observation, just different observation times...
thanks...
 
  • #7
It is probably simpler than you believe.

Inertial observers do not record Unruh radiation, whether comoving or not.

Accelerating observers record Unruh radiation. In the moment they stop acceleration, they are inertial observers.

Consequently, in the moment an accelerating observer passes by an inertial observer, the former records Unruh radiation, the latter doesn't.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Naty1 said:
Problem:
I was supposing an inertial observer is making a temperature observation. An accelerating observer approaches the inertial observer and overtakes him...during the period of acceleration the accelerating observer will record a higher temperature than the inertial observer...ok.
But as the two approach a common point, the accelerating observer stops accelerating and now the two observers have the same inertial velocity. At that instant, seems like the two temperature observations might be different...
I don't agree with bald part. Accelerating observer is constantly accelerating. Whan he is approaching "stacionary" observer, he is slowing down (acceleration), when they are both comoving, accelerating observers still has acceleration since next moment he is traveling faster relative to "stacionary" observer. Accelerating observer is never going to be inertial observer. Inertial observer is defined by having constant velocity.

Naty1 said:
Resolution: If the temperature recording device is instantaneous, then each of the comoving inertial observers will record the same temperature...from the Minkowksi vacuum, inertial space. [I had been thinking any temperature measuring device would have residual heat signature...but even if so, that does not represent any sort of 'different' observation, just different observation times...
thanks...
Actually, inertial observer and accelerating observer will detect different temperatures. And there is no paradox to be reconciled. Main point is that inertial observer has his definition of vacuum and he is calibrating his measuring device with respect to this vacuum. Accelerating observer on the other hand has his own definition of vacuum, and his measuring device is calibrated to measure his definition of particle (or temperature). So there is no conflict between there views.
 
  • #9
Naty1 said:
How do we reconcile the clock hypothesis in special relativity with the Unruh effect?

The first says accelerating clocks tick at the same rate as their instantaneous velocity and the later says an accelerating observer records a temperature rise not observed by an inertial observer.
The clock-hypothesis is local in time, while the Unruh effect is non-local effect. You must accelerate for a long time to detect "particles" with a thermal distribution.
 
  • #10
Demystifier said:
You must accelerate for a long time to detect "particles" with a thermal distribution.
This is misleading. The Unruh temperature is proportional to the acceleration. If e.g. the acceleration is constant, you can accelerate as long as you like, the temperature is still the same.
 
  • #11
This is misleading. The Unruh temperature is proportional to the acceleration. If e.g. the acceleration is constant, you can accelerate as long as you like, the temperature is still the same.

While Unruh temperature IS proportional to acceleration, Demystifier is correct...
He is saying in effect, I believe, that in order for Unruh temperature/radiation to be detected the Rindler horizon must be visible...but I've also read the horizon appears asymptotically so I never quite grasped how we ever are supposed to in theory record such an effect.
 
  • #12
timmdeeg said:
The Unruh temperature is proportional to the acceleration. If e.g. the acceleration is constant, you can accelerate as long as you like, the temperature is still the same.
True. But if acceleration is NOT constant, then temperature cannot even be defined.
 
  • #13
Naty1 said:
While Unruh temperature IS proportional to acceleration, Demystifier is correct...
He is saying in effect, I believe, that in order for Unruh temperature/radiation to be detected the Rindler horizon must be visible...but I've also read the horizon appears asymptotically so I never quite grasped how we ever are supposed to in theory record such an effect.
Actually, the horizon is not essential. If you accelerate for a long but not infinite time, then you will see particles with a distribution APPROXIMATIVELY equal to a thermal distribution. See also
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0103108 [Mod.Phys.Lett. A16 (2001) 579-581]
for further demystification on the Unruh effect.
 
  • #14
Demystifier said:
If you accelerate for a long but not infinite time, then you will see particles with a distribution APPROXIMATIVELY equal to a thermal distribution. See also
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0103108
From that:
For a uniform acceleration the two approaches (Minkowski, Rindler) agree in the prediction of a thermal distribution for ΔE.
No hint and no need to "accelerate for a long but not infinite time". Otherwise kindly clarify.
 
  • #15
I understand what the reference is post #13 is claiming but am not sure how widely accepted is such an explanation.

For a uniform acceleration, the two approaches agree in the prediction of a thermal
distribution for E. However, even this partial agreement of the two approaches does not
generalize when the uniform acceleration is replaced by a more complicated motion [8].
We now see that at least one of the two approaches must be wrong.

Seems like he is saying either Hawking or Unruh is wrong...I sure can't parse what is correct or not.

The Wikipedia article here expresses the temperature results which I have seen in other sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect#Explanation

I'm sticking with that result for the time being despite some underlying uncertainties.
 
  • #16
Naty1 said:
Seems like he is saying either Hawking or Unruh is wrong...
Not really, because Hawking and Unruh study only the case of uniform acceleration.
 
  • #17
timmdeeg said:
No hint and no need to "accelerate for a long but not infinite time". Otherwise kindly clarify.
An acceleration cannot be uniform if it does not last for a long time.
 

FAQ: How are the clock hypothesis and Unruh effect reconciled.

What is the clock hypothesis?

The clock hypothesis is a principle in quantum mechanics that states that the observer's measurement of time is directly related to the physical properties of the clock used to measure it. It suggests that time is not an absolute quantity, but rather a relative one that depends on the observer's reference frame and the clock used to measure it.

What is the Unruh effect?

The Unruh effect is a theoretical concept in quantum field theory that predicts that an accelerating observer in empty space will experience a thermal bath of particles due to the presence of a horizon. This effect is analogous to the Hawking radiation predicted for black holes.

How are the clock hypothesis and Unruh effect related?

The clock hypothesis and Unruh effect are both theoretical concepts in quantum mechanics that deal with the effects of an observer's reference frame on the measurement of time. The clock hypothesis explains how time is relative, while the Unruh effect predicts that an accelerating observer will experience a thermal bath of particles. Both concepts are based on the principle of relativity.

Can the clock hypothesis and Unruh effect be reconciled?

Yes, the clock hypothesis and Unruh effect can be reconciled by considering the effects of gravity. It has been proposed that the Unruh effect may be due to the gravitational time dilation experienced by an accelerating observer. This means that the Unruh effect can be understood as a manifestation of the clock hypothesis in the presence of gravity.

Are there any experiments that support the reconciliation of the clock hypothesis and Unruh effect?

There have been some experiments that provide evidence for the reconciliation of the clock hypothesis and Unruh effect. One example is the experiment conducted by the Unruh group in 2011, which showed that an accelerating detector in an electromagnetic field experiences a thermalization effect similar to the Unruh effect. This supports the idea that the Unruh effect can be explained by the clock hypothesis in the presence of gravity.

Similar threads

I What causes an accelerated clock to record less events
Replies
8
Views
574
I Comparing Tick rates of clocks across Frames
Replies
23
Views
672
I Unruh Radiation and Black Holes
Replies
10
Views
867
I Regarding centrifugal effects on the time dilation of a moving clock
Replies
27
Views
863
I Comparing Clock Rates in Accelerated vs Constant Velocity Frames
Replies
14
Views
1K
I Is time dilation a real effect?
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
B Time Dilation on Rotating Disk: Clocks on Disk Perspective
Replies
21
Views
2K
I Simultaneity of accelerated clocks
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
I Atomic Clock Exp on Ballistic Flight: Proving Clocks are Accelerometers
Replies
27
Views
2K
A Hawking and Unruh effects -- Differences and interpretations
Replies
16
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top