scholarly journals Quantum Dynamics and Non-Inertial Frames of Reference. I: Generality

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 463-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Takagi
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang-Kang Hu ◽  
Jin-Ming Cui ◽  
Alan C. Santos ◽  
Yun-Feng Huang ◽  
Chuan-Feng Li ◽  
...  

AbstractValidity conditions for the adiabatic approximation are useful tools to understand and predict the quantum dynamics. Remarkably, the resonance phenomenon in oscillating quantum systems has challenged the adiabatic theorem. In this scenario, inconsistencies in the application of quantitative adiabatic conditions have led to a sequence of new approaches for adiabaticity. Here, by adopting a different strategy, we introduce a validation mechanism for the adiabatic approximation by driving the quantum system to a non-inertial reference frame. More specifically, we begin by considering several relevant adiabatic approximation conditions previously derived and show that all of them fail by introducing a suitable oscillating Hamiltonian for a single quantum bit (qubit). Then, by evaluating the adiabatic condition in a rotated non-inertial frame, we show that all of these conditions, including the standard adiabatic condition, can correctly describe the adiabatic dynamics in the original frame, either far from resonance or at a resonant point. Moreover, we prove that this validation mechanism can be extended for general multi-particle quantum systems, establishing the conditions for the equivalence of the adiabatic behavior as described in inertial or non-inertial frames. In order to experimentally investigate our method, we consider a hyperfine qubit through a single trapped Ytterbium ion 171Yb+, where the ion hyperfine energy levels are used as degrees of freedom of a two-level system. By monitoring the quantum evolution, we explicitly show the consistency of the adiabatic conditions in the non-inertial frame.


Entropy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (11) ◽  
pp. 1515
Author(s):  
Robert K. Niven

This study examines the invariance properties of the thermodynamic entropy production in its global (integral), local (differential), bilinear, and macroscopic formulations, including dimensional scaling, invariance to fixed displacements, rotations or reflections of the coordinates, time antisymmetry, Galilean invariance, and Lie point symmetry. The Lie invariance is shown to be the most general, encompassing the other invariances. In a shear-flow system involving fluid flow relative to a solid boundary at steady state, the Galilean invariance property is then shown to preference a unique pair of inertial frames of reference—here termed an entropic pair—respectively moving with the solid or the mean fluid flow. This challenges the Newtonian viewpoint that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. Furthermore, the existence of a shear flow subsystem with an entropic pair different to that of the surrounding system, or a subsystem with one or more changing entropic pair(s), requires a source of negentropy—a power source scaled by an absolute temperature—to drive the subsystem. Through the analysis of different shear flow subsystems, we present a series of governing principles to describe their entropic pairing properties and sources of negentropy. These are unaffected by Galilean transformations, and so can be understood to “lie above” the Galilean inertial framework of Newtonian mechanics. The analyses provide a new perspective into the field of entropic mechanics, the study of the relative motions of objects with friction.


Author(s):  
David M. Wittman

This chapter develops crucial distinctions between constant‐velocity (also called inertial) frames of reference and accelerating ones. Inertial frames respect Newton’s first law—objects maintain constant velocity unless acted upon by a net force—while accelerating frames violate this law. Therefore, much of our thinking about whether the laws of physics are the same in all frames will really concern *inertial* frames. Newton’s first law gives us a foolproof test for distinguishing accelerating frames from inertial frames; this testworks even if velocitymeasurements are not directly available. We sometimes invent fictitious forces (such as “centrifugal force”) to explain the acceleration of free objects in accelerating frames, but we know how to determine that these are indeed fictitious.We also examine relationships between acceleration, force, andmass (Newton’s second law).We *define*mass as the ratio of force to acceleration, so mass represents a resistance to acceleration, or inertia.


2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 1347-1356
Author(s):  
Andrew E Chubykalo ◽  
Augusto Espinoza ◽  
B P Kosyakov

Author(s):  
S. Küchemann ◽  
P. Klein ◽  
H. Fouckhardt ◽  
S. Gröber ◽  
J. Kuhn

Author(s):  
Andrew Chubykalo ◽  
Augusto Espinoza ◽  
Victor Kuligin ◽  
Maria Korneva

The paper discusses the problem of equality of Inertial frames of reference IFR. The hypothesis of a physical ether, whose properties do not depend on the choice of an inertial reference frame, is proposed. Based on the concept of the physical ether, it turns out the features of instantaneous action at a distance. It is shown that there is a class of transformations that preserves Maxwell’s equations unchanged. The problem of choosing a transformation is posed. This choice should be based on experimental research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document