4.7 Article

Interferometers as probes of Planckian quantum geometry

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 85, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.064007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Energy at Fermilab [DE-AC02-07CH11359]
  2. NASA at the University of Chicago [NNX09AR38G]
  3. NASA [107213, NNX09AR38G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A theory of position of massive bodies is proposed that results in an observable quantum behavior of geometry at the Planck scale, t(P). Departures from classical world lines in flat spacetime are described by Planckian noncommuting operators for position in different directions, as defined by interactions with null waves. The resulting evolution of position wave functions in two dimensions displays a new kind of directionally coherent quantum noise of transverse position. The amplitude of the effect in physical units is predicted with no parameters, by equating the number of degrees of freedom of position wave functions on a 2D space-like surface with the entropy density of a black hole event horizon of the same area. In a region of size L, the effect resembles spatially and directionally coherent random transverse shear deformations on time scale approximate to L/c with typical amplitude approximate to root ct(P)L. This quantum-geometrical holographic noise in position is not describable as fluctuations of a quantized metric, or as any kind of fluctuation, dispersion or propagation effect in quantum fields. In a Michelson interferometer the effect appears as noise that resembles a random Planckian walk of the beam splitter for durations up to the light-crossing time. Signal spectra and correlation functions in interferometers are derived, and predicted to be comparable with the sensitivities of current and planned experiments. It is proposed that nearly colocated Michelson interferometers of laboratory scale, cross-correlated at high frequency, can test the Planckian noise prediction with current technology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据