Is There a Superluminal Signal When Turning Off a Harmonic Potential?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kof9595995
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox Superluminal
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of turning off a harmonic potential on the behavior of a quantum particle, particularly whether this action results in a superluminal signal detectable by a far-away detector. The conversation spans theoretical considerations in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, exploring concepts of wavefunction evolution, group velocity, and causality.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a scenario where a ground state particle of a harmonic oscillator has its potential suddenly turned off, suggesting that the wavefunction evolves into a free particle state, potentially leading to a superluminal signal detected by a distant observer.
  • Another participant notes that nonrelativistic quantum mechanics permits particles to travel arbitrarily fast, indicating that a complete understanding requires quantum field theory to account for relativistic effects.
  • A participant argues that in their thought experiment, the group velocity is zero, implying that this aspect does not address the core issue of superluminal signaling.
  • It is pointed out that while the wavefunction changes everywhere, a violation of relativity would occur if the expectation value of position increases faster than light, which could happen under certain conditions related to the uncertainty principle.
  • One participant raises a question about the implications of using the Klein-Gordon propagator, suggesting that it may also be non-zero outside the light cone, and inquires if this modification alters the paradox.
  • A later reply clarifies that in quantum field theory, causality is discussed using the commutator rather than the propagator, although the participant expresses confusion about the relevance of the commutator in their thought experiment.
  • Another participant acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the propagator, confirming that it is indeed zero in spacelike regions, and corrects their earlier assertion about the propagator's role.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of wavefunction behavior and the role of relativistic effects, with no consensus reached on whether superluminal signaling occurs or if the arguments presented resolve the paradox.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the implications of wavefunction evolution, particularly regarding assumptions about locality, the role of relativistic effects, and the interpretation of propagators in quantum field theory.

kof9595995
Messages
676
Reaction score
2
Consider we initially have a ground state particle of a harmonic oscillator:
[tex]\psi = \exp ( - a{x^2})[/tex] (neglecting nomalization)
And we have a detector far in space monitoring the local probability of finding a particle. Now if we suddenly turn off the harmonic potential, the wavefunction will evolve as free particle, and
[tex]\Psi (x,t) = \frac{{\exp (\frac{{ - a{x^2}}}{{1 + 2iat/m}})}}{{\sqrt {1 + 2iat/m} }}[/tex].
We see no matter how far the detector is, the local probability will start to change immediately after we turn off the potential. So will the detector record a change in number of particles detected? If so, it seems there's a superluminal signal transmitted since the detector could be very far from the origin .
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nonrelativistic quantum mechanics does indeed allow particles to travel arbitrarily fast. This tells you that it's just a low-energy approximation. To account for relativistic effects completely you need quantum field theory.
 
True, but in my thought experiment the group velocity is 0, so I don't think it's the crux of the problem.
 
Note that the mere fact that the wavefunction changes everywhere isn't surprising. What would clearly violate relativity is if, say, the expectation value of the absolute value of position increase faster than light. This would indicate that the particle, initially localized around the origin, heads away from it faster than light.

This can indeed happen if "a" is large enough, meaning that the wave function is initially localized very sharply around the origin. Then by the uncertainty principle there is a very high uncertainty in momentum, and the wave function will spread out extremely rapidly--even faster than light, if you take the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation at face value, since it doesn't know about relativity.

You can expand the wave function in momentum eigenstates. Though they average out to an expectation value of zero momentum, some of them have arbitrarily high momenta and thus arbitrarily high speeds. It's the presence of these impossibly high-speed modes that allows the particle to flee the origin faster than light. In a relativistic theory, by contrast, momentum is not proportional to speed but rather high-momentum particles have speeds approaching that of light. In a relativistic theory, the presence of the high-momentum modes does not allow the wave function to spread faster than light.
 
But it seems the relativistic, let say Klein-Gordon propagator, is also non-zero outside the light cone. Then if I modify my argument with KG propagator would it still be a paradox?
 
Emm, I know in QFT to discuss causality they use commutator instead of propagator itself. However in my thought experiment I can't see how commutator of propagator is involved, it seems only propagator itself matters.
 
I see where I was wrong, the propagator is indeed 0 in spacelike region. I was thinking
[tex]< 0|\phi (x)\phi (y)|0 >[/tex] as the propagator, but it should be
[tex]< 0|[\phi (x),\phi (y)]|0 >[/tex], which is 0 for spacelike separation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K