Square-Integrable Functions in Curved Spacetime

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter stevendaryl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions Spacetime
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of square-integrable functions in the context of curved spacetime, exploring whether an analogous definition exists compared to non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Participants examine the implications of integrating over spatial slices in curved spacetime and the role of invariant volume elements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that in non-relativistic quantum mechanics, square-integrable functions are defined by a normalization condition, questioning how this translates to curved spacetime and whether the condition is independent of the slicing method used.
  • Another participant suggests the use of the invariant volume element in curved spacetimes, proposing a specific form for the volume element that incorporates the determinant of the metric.
  • A different viewpoint challenges the initial premise, arguing that the normalization condition presented is not Lorentz invariant in Minkowski spacetime and emphasizes the dependence of spatial slices on the choice of inertial observers.
  • This participant further elaborates on the concept of Lorentz invariance, providing examples of how quantities like total probability and charge are treated in relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.
  • Another participant references literature, specifically Hawking and Ellis, as well as Carroll's work, to discuss the classification of functions and volume integration in general relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the normalization condition for square-integrable functions in curved spacetime, with no consensus reached on whether the condition is independent of the choice of spatial slices or the implications of Lorentz invariance.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights complexities related to the definitions of integrability and continuity on manifolds, as well as the challenges in establishing a universally applicable framework for probability in curved spacetime.

stevendaryl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
2,955
In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, an important set of functions are the normalized square-integrable ones. Those are functions on [itex]\mathcal{R}^3[/itex] such that

[itex]\int |\Psi(x,y,z)|^2 dx dy dz = 1[/itex]

I'm just curious as to whether there is some analogous concept for curved spacetime. One complication in curved spacetime is that an integral over "all space" requires a choice of a way to divide spacetime into spatial slices. Is the above condition on [itex]\Psi[/itex] independent of how one slices up spacetime?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I also think you can use the invariant volume element in curved spacetimes. Since it's invariant it must have some certain form, which is generally
[itex]dV= \sqrt{-g} d^{D}x[/itex]
with [itex]g=detg[/itex]
I think it comes out of the Jacobian
 
What you have written down isn't even a Lorentz scalar in Minkowski space-time. Different time-like congruences of inertial observers determine different foliations of space-time into space-like hypersurfaces; two different foliations (amounting to two different families of inertial observers) will be related through Lorentz boosts. Geometrically, the foliations correspond to planes of simultaneity relative to a given family of inertial observers and Lorentz boosts will tilt the planes of simultaneity by angles related to the rapidity when going from one family of inertial observers to another.

Quantities that are invariant under such Lorentz boosts are of course Lorentz scalars. For example if we have a charged fluid with charge 4-current density ##j^{\mu}## then ##\partial^{\mu}j_{\mu} = 0## implies that ##Q = \int_{\Sigma} \rho d^{3}x## is a Lorentz invariant (here ##\Sigma## is a single plane of simultaneity relative to a given family of inertial observers).

In relativistic QM, the Lorentz invariant total probability* is given by ##\int \rho d^{3}x = \int i[(\partial_{0}\varphi)\varphi^{\dagger} - (\partial_{0}\varphi^{\dagger})\varphi]d^{3}x = 1##. This value of unity for the total probability is preserved in the same manner the total charge ##Q## is due to the conservation of the probability 4-current density ##j^{\mu} = i[(\partial^{\mu}\varphi )\varphi^{\dagger} - (\partial^{\mu}\varphi^{\dagger} )\varphi]##.

As you noted, what you have written down for the total probability is only valid in non-relativistic QM which uses Galilean relativity as a meta-theory of space-time, not special relativity. As such you can't even use that if you want a Lorentz invariant total probability let alone one that is valid for all space-time foliations, not just those determined by families of inertial observers in Minkowski space-time.

*of course once we go to QFT, the concepts of probability 4-current density and total probability are replaced, for obvious reasons, by those of charge 4-current density (operators) and total charge (operators) as per ##j^{\mu} \rightarrow qj^{\mu}##.
 

Similar threads

Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 158 ·
6
Replies
158
Views
23K