1 / 35

GENERALIZED SECOND LAW LIMITS ON THE VARIATION OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS PRL 99, 061301 (2007)

GENERALIZED SECOND LAW LIMITS ON THE VARIATION OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS PRL 99, 061301 (2007). JANE H MACGIBBON UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA. MOTIVATION. Is the Fine Structure Constant constant? e = the charge of the electron ħ = Planck‘s constant c = speed of light.

milo
Télécharger la présentation

GENERALIZED SECOND LAW LIMITS ON THE VARIATION OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS PRL 99, 061301 (2007)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GENERALIZED SECOND LAW LIMITS ON THE VARIATION OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTSPRL 99, 061301 (2007) JANE H MACGIBBON UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  2. MOTIVATION Is the Fine Structure Constant constant? e = the charge of the electron ħ = Planck‘s constant c = speed of light

  3. MEASUREMENTS Webb et al. M.T. Murphy, J.K. Webb & V.V. Flambaum M.N.R.A.S..345, 609 (2003) Δα/α =(-0.543 ± 0.116) x10-5 over redshift range 0.2<z<3.7 2 independent samples, Keck/HIRES spectra, 78 absorption systems greatest deviation seen at highest z (data marginally prefer a linear increase in α with time) J.K. Webb et al. Phys.Rev.Lett.87, 091301 (2001) Δα/α = -0.72 ± 0.18 x10-5 over redshift range 0.5 < z < 3.5 3 large optical datasets and two 21cm/mm absorption systems provide four independent samples (each set shows same variation to 4 σ) J.K. Webb et al. Phys.Rev.Lett. 82, 884-887 (1999) Δα/α = -1.9 ± 0.5 x10-5 over redshift range 1.0 < z< 1.6 Δα/α = -0.2 ± 0.4 x10-5 over redshift range 0.5 < z < 1

  4. MEASUREMENTS Chand et al. VLT H. Chand et al. astro-ph/0601194 Δα/α=(+0.05 ± 0.24)x10-5 at redshift z = 1.1508 H. Chand et al. astro-ph/0408200 Δα/α = (+0.15 ± 0.43) x10-5 over redshift range 1.59< z < 2.92 H. Chand et al. Astron.Astrophys.417, 853 (2004) R. Srianand et al. Phys.Rev.Lett.92, 121302 (2004) Δα/α = (-0.06 ± 0.06) x10-5 over redshift range 0.4<z<2.3

  5. THEORETICAL LIMITS P.C.W. Davies, T.M. Davis, & C.H. Lineweaver Nature418, 602-603 (2002) • If change in α is due solely to change in e, then Black Hole Entropy Law will be violated But Davies, Davis & Lineweaver looked at entropy change due to change in e at fixed time

  6. GENERALIZED SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS over any time interval Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  7. BLACK HOLE ENTROPY Consider entropy change due to change in e of per second over any time interval Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  8. GENERALIZED SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS over time interval Δt≥0 Entropy of Black Hole Area of Charged Non-Rotating Black Hole Temperature

  9. ΔSBH First Term contains Hawking Flux Second Term ,

  10. CASE I : Net radiation loss from black hole into environment CASE (IA) is not affected by Hawking radiation So TERM 1 TERM2

  11. CASE IA : Mass Loss due to Hawking Radiation and (D.N. Page) So ΔS≥0 untilTERM 1 ≈ TERM 2 . This happens when black hole charge satisfies

  12. CASE IA : Maximal Possible Charge on Black Hole So BUT (Gibbons and Zaumen) A black hole quickly discharges by superradiant Schwinger-type e+e- pair-production around black hole if is greater than

  13. CASE IA : So for all lighter than Superradiant discharge rate (Gibbons) is greater than TERM 2 for all lighter than

  14. CASE IA : So if then ΔS≥0 for all lighter than

  15. CASE IA : So if then ΔS≥0 for all lighter than Mass of black hole whose temperature is 2.73K (cosmic microwave background temperature): Coincidence? Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  16. CASE IB : Charge Loss due to Hawking Radiation and so For it is straightforward to show net entropy increase from Hawking emission TERM 1 dominates TERM 2 soΔS≥0 if For higher , use work of Carter to show high temperature charged black hole discharges (via thermal Hawking and superradiant regimes) quickly over the lifetime of the Universe soΔS≥0 SUMMARY OF CASE I: If , ΔS≥0 for black holes emitting in the present Universe

  17. Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  18. CASE II: Net accretion (which lowers and leads to more accretion) Thermodynamics With each accretion, increase = Environment Energy decrease and so increase due to accretion > decrease due to accretion Also increase due to accretion > decrease due to Hawking radiation So compare effect of with increase due to accretion

  19. CASE II: Cold Black Hole in Warm Thermal Bath absorbs (and radiates ) per particle freedom Geometrical Optics Xstn So = mass of black hole whose temperature equals ambient temperature (Note is max for thermal bath so this gives strictest constraint on ΔS)

  20. CASE II: So ΔS≥0 untilTERM 1 ≈ TERM 2. This happens when black hole charge satisfies If then only if and only if Problem?

  21. Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  22. CASE II: So ΔS≥0 untilTERM 1 ≈ TERM 2. This happens when black hole charge satisfies If then only if and only if Problem? If at (mass at which ) require ( << )

  23. CASE II: Resolution: Can charged black hole accreted opposite charge fast enough to avoid reaching ? Number of thermally accreted positrons where is positron fraction of background So and (taking which gives the strictest limit) provided (ie for ) Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  24. CASE II: Resolution: Can charged black hole accreted opposite charge fast enough to avoid reaching ? Number of thermally accreted positrons where is positron fraction of background So and (taking which gives the strictest limit) provided (ie for ) Also (Gibbons) BH can only gravitationally accrete particle of like charge if particle is projected at BH with initial velocity and large BH is more likely to lose net charge by accreting particle of opposite charge

  25. Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  26. Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  27. CASE II: Special Case ΔS due to absorption > ΔS due to emission and from Case I for ΔS due to emission ≥ ΔS decrease from SO SUMMARY FOR CASE II: For all ΔS ≥ 0 if Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  28. NOTES Rotation Above results also apply for charged rotating black holes Get strictest constraints for charged non-rotating black hole Second Order Effects Changes in Hawking rate and pair production discharge rate due to are second order effects Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  29. SUMMARY OF CASE I & II is not ruled out by the GSL is the maximum variation in allowed by the Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics for black holes in the present Universe Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  30. IMPLICATIONS Above only uses standard General Relativity and standard QED (No Extensions) • Use same methodology to find constraints on independent and dependent variation in , and (and ) For G see arXiv: 0706.2821 • Use same methodology for Extension Models by including extra terms in Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  31. IMPLICATIONS If Webb et al. measurements are correct • Is varying at the maximal rate allowed by the GSL? • Our constraint predicts the rate of increase in and should weaken as the Universe ages now • Are the other constants of Nature and/or coupling constants varying at the maximal rate allowed by the GSL? • What is the physical mechanism for the change in ? Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  32. IMPLICATIONS Our constraint predicts the rate of increase in and should weaken as the Universe ages now • Extrapolating above constraint equations leads to at about z ~ 40 BUT extrapolating back in time may require inclusions of other effects (eg how does accretion constraint change in pre- re-ionization era?) Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  33. POSSIBLE MECHANISM? Our derivation suggests look for a coupling between the electron and the cosmic photon background (in standard QED) Note: Schwinger effect is non-linear effect in standard QED; know from accelerator experiments that varies with energy scale Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  34. POSSIBLE MECHANISM? Our derivation suggests look for a coupling between the electron and the cosmic photon background (in standard QED) Scattering of vacuum polarization e+e- around bare electron off the cosmic photon background? Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

  35. GSL LIMITS ON VARIATION IN G Depends on how : •if n > -1/2 (including n = 0 ), GSL does not constrain an increase in G but any decrease must be less than |G-1dG/dt|≈10-52 s-1 • if n < -1/2, GSL does not constrain an decrease in G but any increase must be less than |G-1dG/dt|≈10-52 s-1 • if n = -1/2, the GSL does not constrain a decrease but any increase must be less than |G-1dG/dt|≈ t -1 If restrict to only astronomically observed stellar-mass black holes, n > -1/2 and n < -1/2limits are only weakened by 108 and n = -1/2 limit is unchanged Jane H MacGibbon "GSL Limits on Varn of Constants" MG12 Paris July 12 - 18 2009

More Related