Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Quantised Inertia

  1. Sep 29, 2017 #21
  2. Sep 29, 2017 #22

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thank you Mike McColloch.

    Dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way appear to be gravitationally bound, but their stars’ orbital motion seems too fast to allow this given their visible mass. This is akin to the larger-scale galaxy rotation problem. In this paper, a modification of inertia called quantised inertia or MiHsC (Modified inertia due to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) which correctly predicts larger galaxy rotations without dark matter is tested on eleven dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way, for which mass and velocity data are available. Quantised inertia slightly outperforms MoND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) in predicting the velocity dispersion of these systems, and has the fundamental advantage over MoND that it does not need an adjustable parameter.
     
  3. Sep 29, 2017 #23

    kimbyd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This states that this model does better than MOND. It does. But it still has a strong tendency to predict much smaller velocities than observed. Some of the dwarf galaxies are within the error bars. Many are not.

    I don't think it can be reasonably stated that this model "predicts dwarf galaxies well".
     
  4. Sep 30, 2017 #24

    timmdeeg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I might be wrong, just wonder if it is not a contradiction in itself that an observer-dependent effect like Unruh-radiation can be the cause of something which is not observer-dependent like the rotation curve of bound systems. Whats wrong with this reasoning?
     
  5. Sep 30, 2017 #25

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    "Observer-dependent" in this case doesn't mean what you think it means. Unruh radiation does not depend on your choice of coordinates; it depends on the state of motion of an object--specifically its proper acceleration. But proper acceleration is an invariant, independent of coordinates. And the quantum field state transitions involved in the Unruh radiation are also invariant, independent of coordinates. So there's no issue in principle with using such effects to explain galaxy rotation curves. That's not to say this model is correct, just that it doesn't suffer from the particular issue you raise.

    (It is true that the description in ordinary language of what is happening with Unruh radiation depends on the observer. The accelerated observer describes it as radiation being absorbed by a radiation detector that moves with him--he therefore says that there must be radiation coming from his Rindler horizon, in order to explain why his detector is absorbing it. But an inertial observer watching the process would describe it as radiation being emitted by the accelerated detector and flying off into empty space. What this really illustrates is that in QFT, the notion of the "vacuum state" of a quantum field depends on your state of motion.)
     
  6. Sep 30, 2017 #26

    timmdeeg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks for you answer. So, I was mislead by the statement in this article:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07195
    It is well known that a uniformly accelerated detector which interacts with external fields becomes excited in the Minkowski vacuum. This effect is named as Unruh effect1,2, which indicates the fact that quantum properties of fields is observer dependent3,4,5,6,7,8,9

    Hm, but I understand that proper acceleration is invariant. I've to think about it.
     
  7. Oct 2, 2017 #27

    kimbyd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think the way to resolve the apparent discrepancy is that all observers agree upon what the proper acceleration of a given body is, and they thus agree upon what the Unruh radiation observed by that body would be.

    The apparent contradiction of Unruh radiation being observer-dependent would be a true contradiction if different observers would interpret the Earth as interacting with different amounts of Unruh radiation. But as long as proper acceleration is an invariant, this isn't the case.

    Though incidentally, proper acceleration is identically zero for an object in free-fall, like the Earth, so that might be the wrench that makes the use of proper acceleration in this context meaningless. While it is true that stars in galaxies experience some friction and thus aren't exactly in free-fall, they're pretty darned close to it, so that proper acceleration would be minuscule.
     
  8. Oct 3, 2017 #28

    timmdeeg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, I think this is the key point which was also mentioned by PeterDonis in #25.

    And thus to argue with Unruh radiation.
     
  9. Oct 3, 2017 #29

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, but not for the reason you suggested earlier. Proper acceleration of an object being zero (which means it should observe zero Unruh radiation) is not observer-dependent, any more than proper acceleration being nonzero is.
     
  10. Oct 3, 2017 #30

    timmdeeg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In #28 I refered to the case that proper acceleration is "meaningless" (described by kimbyd in #27). Then its meaningless to argue with Unruh radiation too.

    I agree that both, zero and non-zero proper acceleration is invariant (my post #26). What I suggested in #24 was wrong, perhaps you refer to that.

    Its confusing I just stumbled apon

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect
    The Unruh effect (or sometimes Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect) is the prediction that an accelerating observer will observe blackbody radiation where an inertial observer would observe none.

    Could you kindly clarify?
     
  11. Oct 3, 2017 #31

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    "Blackbody radiation" is just another way of saying "thermal radiation at some temperature", where in the case of the Unruh effect the temperature depends on the proper acceleration of the observer.
     
  12. Oct 3, 2017 #32

    timmdeeg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hopefully I got it. If you say "an inertial observer watching the process would describe it as radiation ..." this doesn't imply that he observes it. Correct? Otherwise it seems that Wikipedia is wrong.
     
  13. Oct 3, 2017 #33

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Wrong. The inertial observer does observe radiation--but he observes it being emitted by the accelerated detector, whereas the accelerated observer, moving along with the detector, observes it absorbing radiation (the Unruh radiation). In other words, the detector itself can't avoid changing the state of the quantum field when it detects radiation, and that state change is a "real" change, seen by all observers, though different observers will describe the change differently.

    Yes. And this surprises you? :wink:

    Basically, the Wikipedia article is ignoring the effect of the detector on the quantum field. Many informal descriptions of the Unruh effect do so as well. But that's not really correct. See above.
     
  14. Oct 3, 2017 #34

    timmdeeg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, indeed, I had the impression that the inertial observer doesn't see any radiation for quite a wile, due to some sources. The more I'm thankful that you have clarified this matter!
     
  15. Oct 3, 2017 #35

    kimbyd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, I don't think so. PeterDonis was pointing out that proper acceleration is not, in fact, observer dependent.

    I added to that that the proper acceleration for an object in free-fall is identically zero. Which means that the proper acceleration of all stars and galaxies is so close to zero that it can be considered negligible, thus there should be no noticeable Unruh radiation with which to cause the rotation curve effect suggested by McCulloch. He seems to have made the mistake of assuming the Newtonian acceleration would result in the Unruh effect, but this isn't the case.

    It is perhaps interesting that using this as an effect leads to results that match observation better than MOND. But the model is probably a non-starter as the premise appears to be impossible. I figured there was such an explanation why this idea wouldn't work, as otherwise the model would probably have gained more traction among theorists. I just wasn't sure what that explanation was early in the discussion, and I think this is it.
     
  16. Oct 3, 2017 #36
    It's not wrong but it's a bit ambiguous. What is meant by "where an inertial observer would observe none" is merely "vacuum state". They don't attempt to reconcile the detection events on the accelerated detector with the vacuum state measured by the first. This is done, as was said, by realizing that according to the inertial observer the detector emits radiation and Unruh radiation makes sense. You can think of it as a quantum mechanical analogue of centrifugal force, which is something you have to include for consistency when writing Newton's laws in a noninertial frame.

    That said, any phenomenon that you explain in a noninertial frame has to have a corresponding explanation in the inertial one, for consistency. There is no Rindler horizon for the inertial observer, so it can't impose any boundary conditions on the radiation (even if it made sense that horizons did this, and it doesn't). This is a serious problem.
     
  17. Oct 4, 2017 #37

    timmdeeg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes. As a layman I was confused by this approach. The observer dependence of Unruh radiation is a bit subtle as I realized here, but that it is due to proper acceleration isn't.
     
  18. Oct 4, 2017 #38

    timmdeeg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    They should have mentioned the latter at least shortly. They didn't and I'm the best example what kind of misunderstanding it creates. :frown:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Quantised Inertia
  1. On the Origin of Inertia (Replies: 19)

Loading...