Time Dilation and center of Mass Normalization in the Page-Wootters Formalism

Juan Sebastian Ardenghi

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Time Dilation and center of Mass Normalization in the Page-Wootters Formalism

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that when a composite quantum clock is treated with its full mass-energy structure in the Page-Wootters formalism, internal energy feeds back into center-of-mass motion through an operator-valued normalization factor…

desk verdict A solid incremental extension of the Page-Wootters clock program: the quadratic-in-energy visibility correction is real in the controlled small-eta limit, but the large-eta observability talk overreaches the expansion used. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09601 v1 pith:ELKB3OVJ submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph

Juan Sebastian Ardenghi This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords Page-Woottersformalismrelationalquantummechanicscompositeclocktimedilationinterferometricvisibilitymass-energyequivalenceComptoncenter-of-massnormalization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a composite quantum clock described with its full mass-energy structure inside the Page-Wootters relational formalism produces a back-reaction of internal energy on center-of-mass motion. The back-reaction appears as an operator-valued normalization factor $\Omega(H_r)$ multiplying the center-of-mass kinetic term, and it makes the conditioned center-of-mass dynamics non-local in clock time over a scale set by the Compton time $\hbar/Mc^2$. In a momentum superposition, this adds a phase term quadratic in the internal energy to the interferometric visibility, so the dephasing depends on the absolute distribution of clock energies and not only on transition-frequency gaps. The upshot is a concrete, in-principle testable prediction: two clocks with the same transition frequency but different mean internal energies should show slightly different time-dilation dephasing, and a differential visibility measurement could isolate the difference.

What carries the argument

The central object is the operator-valued normalization factor $\Omega(H_r)=\frac{H_r}{Mc^2}+\left(I+\frac{H_r}{Mc^2}\right)^{-1}$ that dresses the center-of-mass kinetic term in the relativistic composite Hamiltonian $H=\sqrt{P_{\mathrm{cm}}^2 c^2+M'^2c^4}$, $M'=M+H_r/c^2$. This factor is non-diagonal in the clock-time basis, so its kernel $\langle \omega t|\Omega(H_r)|\phi'\rangle$ converts the conditioned Schr\"odinger equation into a non-local integral equation whose effective temporal non-locality is set by the Compton time $\hbar/Mc^2$. The same factor is what generates the quadratic-in-energy phase $\Delta\epsilon E_n^2/(M^2c^4)$ in the interferometric visibility.

What would settle it

Compare the interferometric visibility of two composite clocks that have the same transition frequency $\Delta E$ and the same initial clock state but different mean internal energies, in the same momentum-superposition geometry with fixed laboratory time $T$ and branch kinetic-energy difference $\Delta\epsilon$: standard time-dilation dephasing predicts identical visibility curves, whereas the paper predicts a relative phase $\delta\theta_\Omega=(T/2\hbar)\,\Delta\epsilon\,\Delta E\,(E_1+E_0)/(M^2c^4)$ in the cosine, so observing the two curves coincide within experimental uncertainty would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that retaining the full mass-energy structure of a free composite particle, through $H=\sqrt{P_{\mathrm{cm}}^2 c^2+M'^2c^4}$ with $M'=M+H_r/c^2$, produces a conditioned center-of-mass Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{cm}}\otimes\Omega(H_r)+\gamma(P_{\mathrm{cm}})\otimes H_r$, where $\Omega(H_r)=H_r/(Mc^2)+(I+H_r/(Mc^2))^{-1}$ and $\gamma(P_{\mathrm{cm}})=I-P_{\mathrm{cm}}^2/(2M^2c^2)$. Because $\Omega(H_r)$ is non-diagonal in the clock-time basis, the conditioned Schr\"odinger equation becomes non-local in clock time with kernel $\langle \omega t|\Omega(H_r)|\phi'\rangle$; in the ideal-clock limit $\eta\to0$ the kernel reduces to $\delta(\Delta)$ and locality is restored. In a momentum superposition, this yields interferometric visibility $V(T)\simeq\left|\sum_n |f_n|^2 e^{-iT(\Delta\gamma E_n+\Delta\epsilon E_n^2/(M^2c^4))/\hbar}\right|$, so the leading new effect is quadratic in internal energy and sensitive to the absolute energy distribution, not just the energy gaps. The usual time-dilation visibility is recovered when $\Omega(H_r)\to I_r$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the relativistic energy formula $H=\sqrt{P_{\mathrm{cm}}^2c^2+(M+H_r/c^2)^2c^4}$ is the correct Hamiltonian for a composite quantum clock and that replacing the kinetic term by $P_{\mathrm{cm}}^2/(2M')$ together with the low-energy Taylor expansion of $(1+H_r/(Mc^2))^{-1}$ is legitimate; if that effective Hamiltonian is wrong, the quadratic visibility correction disappears or changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, the conditioned center-of-mass wavefunction of a free composite particle is non-local in clock time, with non-locality controlled by the Compton time $\hbar/Mc^2$ and disappearing only in the ideal-clock limit.
Interferometric visibility of a composite clock in a momentum superposition acquires a phase term $\Delta\epsilon E_n^2/(M^2c^4)$ in addition to the standard $\Delta\gamma E_n$ term, so clocks with identical transition frequencies but different mean internal energies dephase differently.
A differential visibility measurement comparing clocks with the same $\Delta E$ but different $E_1+E_0$ can isolate the new contribution, because the standard time-dilation phase is identical for such clocks.
For low internal energies the correction is suppressed by $E/(Mc^2)$; the paper identifies light composite systems and large-coherent-energy oscillators as the regimes where the suppression is least severe.
In cold-atom relational-time analogs, the same low-energy expansion $\Omega(H_r)=1+H_r^2/(M^2c^4)+\cdots$ predicts a quadratic Hamiltonian correction to the first-order entropic Schr\"odinger equation, observable as a systematic deviation in the bright-sector width.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the central claim holds, a quantum clock used as a time reference is characterized by its full energy distribution, not just its transition frequency; this could affect how 'which-branch' information is quantified in quantum-clock interferometry.
The same operator-valued normalization mechanism should appear in any relational or constraint-based formulation that imposes mass-energy equivalence, not only the Page-Wootters construction; comparing such derivations could reveal whether the quadratic visibility term is a generic relativistic feature.
The effective temporal non-locality of order $\hbar/Mc^2$ suggests a symmetric picture of particle non-locality in space and time; one testable extension is to look for memory effects in the revivals of an oscillator clock at large mean internal energy, where the anharmonic phase $\propto \eta n^2$ shifts and broadens revivals beyond the paper's illustrative parameter range.
A three-clock differential protocol, using the same $\Delta E$ but three different mean internal energies, could map the quadratic dependence directly and provide a sharper test than a single binary comparison.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a credible, incremental extension of the Page-Wootters proper-time program. The genuinely new piece is the operator-valued normalization Omega(H_r) that dresses the CM kinetic term, plus the resulting quadratic-in-internal-energy term in the interferometric visibility. The paper recovers the standard Zych visibility in the Omega->identity limit, which is the right consistency check. The derivation of Eq. (10) from the square-root Hamiltonian is consistent under the stated nonrelativistic ordering assumptions, and the visibility formula follows from a straightforward expansion of Omega.

What gives me pause is the expansion regime. Eq. (43) is obtained by expanding Omega(H_r) and keeping the quadratic term while dropping P^4 corrections from the square root. That is controlled only when both H_r << Mc^2 and P^2 << M^2c^2. The paper's own Fig. 1 uses eta=0.02 and 0.05, which are huge compared to realistic values (~1e-8), and the text says the correction becomes appreciable when rho^2 hbar omega ~ Mc^2. That regime violates the expansion, and the paper does not compute the exact branch phase. So the large-eta curves are illustrative at best, not predictions. The paper does state the correction is tiny for realistic systems, and the estimates (1e-11, 1e-8) are honest. But the discussion of observability via large coherent internal energy overreaches the derivation. A short section computing the exact sqrt{p^2c^2+(Mc^2+H_r)^2} phase for the cyclic clock, at least numerically, would close this gap.

The rest is minor: Eq. (15) is hand-waved with 'it is not difficult to show', and the hydrogen kernel construction is dense. The comparison with the cold-atom analog experiment is speculative but clearly labeled. The citation pattern looks fine—no self-citation chains.

Bottom line: the central quadratic correction is real within the small-eta expansion, which is the only regime where the derivation is controlled. The paper deserves a serious referee. I'd ask for an exact-Hamiltonian check and a tightening of the large-eta language before publication.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Page-Wootters mechanism to a composite quantum clock with center-of-mass and internal degrees of freedom. Starting from the relativistic energy H = sqrt(P_cm^2 c^2 + (M + H_r/c^2)^2 c^4), it performs a nonrelativistic expansion and rewrites the Hamiltonian as H = P_cm^2/(2M) ⊗ Ω(H_r) + γ(P_cm) ⊗ H_r, with Ω(H_r) = H_r/(M c^2) + (1 + H_r/(M c^2))^{-1}. It then derives a conditioned Schrödinger-type equation for the center-of-mass wave function that is nonlocal in clock time, with an effective nonlocality scale ℏ/(M c^2). For a center-of-mass momentum superposition, the interferometric visibility is argued to acquire a correction quadratic in internal energy, so that clocks with the same transition frequency but different mean internal energies display slightly different dephasing. The results are applied to cyclic, harmonic-oscillator, and hydrogen clocks, and are compared with the standard Zych visibility formula.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the paper gives a new, concrete prediction—the quadratic-in-energy visibility correction and its dependence on absolute clock energies—that can be tested by a differential measurement. The construction has no fitted parameters, uses standard physical constants and clock models, and reproduces the known Zych limit when Ω → I, which is a genuine consistency check. The identification of a temporal nonlocality scale analogous to the Compton wavelength is conceptually appealing. The main limitations are the smallness of the predicted effect and the fact that the quantitative predictions are derived in a restricted expansion, as discussed below.

major comments (3)

[Section III B, Eq. (43), Fig. 1] The central visibility formula is obtained by expanding Ω(H_r) = 1 + H_r^2/(M^2 c^4) + ..., which is controlled only for |H_r| ≪ M c^2. The parameter choices used to illustrate the effect—η = 0.02 and 0.05 with ⟨n⟩ = 5, and the condition ρ^2 ℏω ∼ M c^2 for an appreciable correction—place the relevant energies at |H_r|/(M c^2) ∼ 0.1–0.5, outside the convergence domain of the expansion. The paper should compute the branch evolution from the exact Hamiltonian H_i = sqrt(p_i^2 c^2 + (M c^2 + H_r)^2), or at least from the exact Ω(H_r) = 1 + (H_r/M c^2)^2/(1 + H_r/M c^2) including the P_cm^4 terms of Eq. (8), and verify that the quadratic-in-E term and the revival suppression shown in Fig. 1 survive in that regime. Without this check, the quantitative prediction in the highlighted observable regime is uncontrolled.
[Section III, Eq. (15)] The nonlocal Schrödinger equation, which is one of the two central claims, is introduced with the phrase 'It is not difficult to show' rather than a derivation. The steps leading from Eq. (14) to Eq. (15)—including the role of the weight function χ(t), the gauge factor ξ(γt), and the evaluation of the overlap ⟨γωt|Ω(H_r)|φ'⟩—should be displayed explicitly. As written, the nonlocality claim and the effective Compton-time scale cannot be independently checked, and the branch structure of the cyclic-clock time operator may introduce subtleties that are only mentioned in Appendix A.
[Section III, Eqs. (8)–(10)] The statement that the derivation retains the full mass-energy structure is stronger than what is actually used. Eq. (10) rests on the nonrelativistic replacement sqrt(P_cm^2 c^2 + M'^2 c^4) → H_r + P_cm^2/(2M'), which drops the P_cm^4 terms and higher. Since the visibility prediction Eq. (43) inherits this approximation, the paper should state this two-parameter expansion explicitly at Eq. (10) and estimate the contribution of the P_cm^4 terms (which depend on H_r through (M c^2 + H_r)^{-3}) to the E_n^2 coefficient in Eq. (43).

minor comments (4)

[Section II heading] The heading appears as 'THE P A W MECHANISM'; the spacing should be corrected to 'PaW'.
[Eq. (17)] The 'real trigonometric form' is not manifestly real because of the distributional term −iηδ'(Δ); please state the distributional sense of the equality and the branch of δ' on the circle.
[Eqs. (28) and (31)] The notation for the hydrogen coherent states switches between |n,l,m⟩ and the averaged state |n⟩; define the averaged state before it is used in the kernel.
[Section III C] The order-of-magnitude comparison with the cold-atom analog of Ref. [44] is presented as supportive evidence; since that model is not derived from the Hamiltonian of Eq. (8), it should be labeled explicitly as an analogy rather than a quantitative test.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results follow from a standard relativistic composite Hamiltonian with no fitted parameters and no self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain starts from the relativistic composite-particle Hamiltonian H = sqrt(P_cm^2 c^2 + M'^2 c^4) with M' = M + H_r/c^2, which is introduced as a physical input with external references rather than as a consequence of the results. The subsequent manipulations leading to Eq. (10) are algebraic rearrangements of this Hamiltonian, and the operator-valued factor Omega(H_r) is defined by that rearrangement, not fitted to the visibility data. The quadratic-in-internal-energy visibility correction in Eq. (43) is obtained by a controlled Taylor expansion, Omega(H_r) = 1 + H_r^2/(M^2 c^4) + ..., and is therefore a mathematical consequence of the assumed Hamiltonian, not a renamed input or a constructed tautology. The recovery of the standard Zych visibility in the limit Omega -> I is a consistency check, not a circular step. There are no self-citations by the sole author, and the external references used for the Hamiltonian are standard and not load-bearing in a self-referential way. The caveats about the validity of the nonrelativistic and small-eta expansions are approximation-validity concerns rather than circularity; they do not make the derivation equivalent to its assumptions by construction. The paper is self-contained against the stated Hamiltonian model, so no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; the dimensionless ratios eta are physical scales or illustrative values. The central claim rests on the chosen relativistic Hamiltonian, the standard Page-Wootters clock assumption, and the low-energy expansion of (1 + H_r/(M c^2))^-1.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The composite system energy is H = sqrt(P_cm^2 c^2 + M'^2 c^4) with M' = M + H_r/c^2.
Enters in Section III before Eq. (8); all later results inherit this mass-energy assignment.
standard math Clock states |t> form a basis with [T, H_r] = i hbar I and identity resolution I_r = integral dt chi(t) |t><t|.
Standard Page-Wootters construction used in Section II and Eq. (12); the weighted basis produces the xi normalization factors.
domain assumption Center-of-mass and internal degrees of freedom decouple, so P_cm and H_r commute and the Hamiltonian splits as H_cm tensor I_r + I_cm tensor H_r plus correction factors.
Used in Eqs. (9)-(14) and for the two-body, oscillator, and hydrogen examples.
standard math The Taylor expansion (1 + x)^-1 is used and truncated at leading order for visibility estimates.
Eq. (49) and Eq. (43) drop O(H_r^3 / M^3 c^6) terms; valid when H_r/(M c^2) is small.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time Dilation and center of Mass Normalization in the Page-Wootters Formalism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ELKB3OVJ

@misc{pith2026260809601,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time Dilation and center of Mass Normalization in the Page-Wootters Formalism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ELKB3OVJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09601}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, we study the emergence of relativistic effects in a composite quantum clock within the Page-Wootters relational formulation of quantum mechanics. We consider a system with internal and center-of-mass degrees of freedom and analyze the conditioned evolution of the center-of-mass relative to the internal system treated as an internal clock. We show that the internal sector exhibits an effective time dilation. Retaining the full mass-energy structure of the composite particle, a back-reaction of the internal energy on the center-of-mass sector appears through an operator-valued normalization factor. As a direct consequence of the back-reaction, the conditioned center-of-mass dynamics is governed by a Schroodinger equation that is non-local in the clock time, with an effective temporal non-locality of the order of the Compton time of the composite system. Applying the formalism to a center-of-mass momentum superposition, we find that the interferometric visibility acquires a correction that is quadratic in the internal energy, and therefore depends on the absolute distribution of clock energies rather than only on the energy gaps that control the standard time-dilation dephasing. Although this correction is parametrically small, it is a generic feature of relativistic composite clocks and can, in principle, be isolated through a differential visibility measurement comparing clocks with equal transition frequency but different mean internal energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09601 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

[1]

Two quantum particles coupled with a spring In this case the Hamiltonian reads H= p2 1 2m1 + p2 2 2m2 + 1 2 ω2(x1 −x 2)2 (19) where we are considering only one spatial dimension. Introducing the position, momentum and mass associ- ated with the center of mass system asx cm = (m 1x1 + m2x2)/M,p cm =p 1 +p 2 whereM=m 1 +m 2 and the position, momentum and th...

work page
[2]

This HamiltonianHis again of the form required for the PaW mechanism, where no interaction is between the subsys- tems

Hydrogen atom An identical procedure can be applied to the hydrogen atom, which can be separated asH=H CM ⊗I r +I CM ⊗ Hr, whereH cm = P 2 cm 2M is the center of mass Hamiltonian which is purely kinetic andH r = P 2 r 2µ +V(r) and where Mandµare the total and effective mass of the center of mass system and the relative system respectively. This Hamiltonia...

work page
[3]

The only ingre- dients needed are the spectrum ofH r and the energy distribution of the initial clock state

Explicit clock models and experimental estimates The general expression obtained above can now be evaluated for different internal clocks. The only ingre- dients needed are the spectrum ofH r and the energy distribution of the initial clock state. For the harmonic oscillator clock, considering that the internal state is ini- tially prepared in a coherent ...

work page
[4]

B. S. DeWitt,Phys. Rev.160, 1113 (1967)

work page 1967
[5]

C. J. Isham, arXiv:gr-qc/9210011 (1992)

arXiv 1992
[6]

K. V. Kuchaˇ r,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D20, 3 (2011)

work page 2011
[7]

D. N. Page and W. K. Wootters,Phys. Rev. D27, 2885 (1983)

work page 1983
[8]

W. G. Unruh and R. M. Wald,Phys. Rev. D40, 2598 (1989)

work page 1989

Show all 48 references

[9]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone,Phys. Rev. D 92, 045033 (2015)

2015
[10]

Marletto and V

C. Marletto and V. Vedral,Phys. Rev. D95, 043510 (2017)

2017
[11]

P. A. H¨ ohn, A. R. H. Smith, and M. P. E. Lock,Phys. Rev. D104, 066001 (2021)

2021
[12]

P. A. H¨ ohn, A. R. H. Smith, and M. P. E. Lock,Front. Phys.9, 181 (2021)

2021
[13]

Rijavec,Phys

S. Rijavec,Phys. Rev. D108, 063507 (2023)

2023
[14]

Moreva, G

E. Moreva, G. Brida, M. Gramegna, V. Giovannetti, L. Maccone, and M. Genovese,Phys. Rev. A89, 052122 (2014)

2014
[15]

M. Zych, F. Costa, I. Pikovski, and ˇC. Brukner,Nat. Commun.2, 505 (2011)

2011
[16]

Pikovski, M

I. Pikovski, M. Zych, F. Costa, and ˇC. Brukner,Nat. Phys.11, 668 (2015)

2015
[17]

A. R. H. Smith and M. Ahmadi,Nat. Commun.11, 5360 (2020)

2020
[18]

Zych and ˇC

M. Zych and ˇC. Brukner, Nat. Phys.14, 1027 (2018)

2018
[19]

Khandelwal, M

S. Khandelwal, M. P. E. Lock, and M. P. Woods,Quan- tum4, 309 (2020)

2020
[20]

P. T. Grochowski, A. R. H. Smith, A. Dragan, and K. D¸ ebski,Phys. Rev. Research3, 023053 (2021)

2021
[21]

Castro-Ruiz, F

E. Castro-Ruiz, F. Giacomini, and ˇC. Brukner,Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA114, E2303 (2017)

2017
[22]

Rovelli,Int

C. Rovelli,Int. J. Theor. Phys.35, 1637 (1996). 12

1996
[23]

Boette, R

A. Boette, R. Rossignoli, N. Gigena, and M. Cerezo, Phys. Rev. A93, 062127 (2016)

2016
[24]

A. R. H. Smith and M. Ahmadi,Quantum3, 160 (2019)

2019
[25]

Giacomini, E

F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and ˇC. Brukner,Nat. Commun.10, 494 (2019)

2019
[26]

Castro-Ruiz, F

E. Castro-Ruiz, F. Giacomini, A. Belenchia, and ˇC. Brukner,Nat. Commun.11, 2672 (2020)

2020
[27]

Vanrietvelde, P

A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. H¨ ohn, F. Giacomini, and E. Castro-Ruiz,Quantum4, 225 (2020)

2020
[28]

P. A. H¨ ohn and A. Vanrietvelde,New J. Phys.22, 123048 (2020)

2020
[29]

Ali Ahmad, T

S. Ali Ahmad, T. D. Galley, P. A. H¨ ohn, M. P. E. Lock, and A. R. H. Smith,Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 170401 (2022)

2022
[30]

Chiba and S

T. Chiba and S. Kinoshita,Phys. Rev. D106, 124035 (2022)

2022
[31]

A. J. Paige, A. D. K. Plato, and M. S. Kim,Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 160602 (2020)

2020
[32]

Sonnleitner, N

M. Sonnleitner, N. Trautmann, and S. M. Barnett,Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 053601 (2017)

2017
[33]

S. M. Barnett and M. Sonnleitner,Contemp. Phys.59, 145 (2018)

2018
[34]

L. R. S. Mendes, F. Brito, and D. O. Soares-Pinto,Uni- verse11, 308 (2025)

2025
[35]

C. Foti, A. Coppo, G. Barni, A. Cuccoli, and P. Verruc- chi,Nat. Commun.12, 1787 (2021)

2021
[36]

Calvani, A

D. Calvani, A. Cuccoli, N. I. Gidopoulos, and P. Verruc- chi,Open Syst. Inf. Dyn.20, 1340002 (2013)

2013
[37]

E. M. F. Curado, M. A. Rego-Monteiro, L. M. C. S. Ro- drigues, and Y. Hassouni,Physica A371, 16 (2006)

2006
[38]

Margalit, Z

Y. Margalit, Z. Zhou, S. Machluf, D. Rohrlich, Y. Japha, and R. Folman,Science349, 1205 (2015)

2015
[39]

Lorianiet al.,Sci

S. Lorianiet al.,Sci. Adv.5, eaax8966 (2019)

2019
[40]

Kovachy, P

T. Kovachy, P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, C. A. Donnelly, S. M. Dickerson, A. Sugarbaker, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich,Nature528(7583), 530 (2015)

2015
[41]

A. D. Cronin, J. Schmiedmayer, and D. E. Pritchard, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1051 (2009)

2009
[42]

M. P. Woods, R. Silva, and J. Oppenheim,Ann. Henri Poincar´ e20, 125 (2019)

2019
[43]

Roura,Phys

A. Roura,Phys. Rev. X10, 021014 (2020)

2020
[44]

C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland,Science329, 1630 (2010)

2010
[45]

Bothwell, C

T. Bothwell, C. J. Kennedy, A. Aeppli, D. Kedar, J. M. Robinson, E. Oelker, A. Staron, and J. Ye,Nature602, 420 (2022)

2022
[46]

P. A. Bushev, J. H. Cole, D. Sholokhov, N. Kukharchyk, and M. Zych,New J. Phys.18, 093050 (2016)

2016
[47]

Barontini,Phys

G. Barontini,Phys. Rev. Research8, L022047 (2026)

2026
[48]

Gorin, T

T. Gorin, T. Prosen, T. H. Seligman, and M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Phys. Rep.435, 33 (2006)

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Two quantum particles coupled with a spring In this case the Hamiltonian reads H= p2 1 2m1 + p2 2 2m2 + 1 2 ω2(x1 −x 2)2 (19) where we are considering only one spatial dimension. Introducing the position, momentum and mass associ- ated with the center of mass system asx cm = (m 1x1 + m2x2)/M,p cm =p 1 +p 2 whereM=m 1 +m 2 and the position, momentum and th...

work page

[2] [2]

This HamiltonianHis again of the form required for the PaW mechanism, where no interaction is between the subsys- tems

Hydrogen atom An identical procedure can be applied to the hydrogen atom, which can be separated asH=H CM ⊗I r +I CM ⊗ Hr, whereH cm = P 2 cm 2M is the center of mass Hamiltonian which is purely kinetic andH r = P 2 r 2µ +V(r) and where Mandµare the total and effective mass of the center of mass system and the relative system respectively. This Hamiltonia...

work page

[3] [3]

The only ingre- dients needed are the spectrum ofH r and the energy distribution of the initial clock state

Explicit clock models and experimental estimates The general expression obtained above can now be evaluated for different internal clocks. The only ingre- dients needed are the spectrum ofH r and the energy distribution of the initial clock state. For the harmonic oscillator clock, considering that the internal state is ini- tially prepared in a coherent ...

work page

[4] [4]

B. S. DeWitt,Phys. Rev.160, 1113 (1967)

work page 1967

[5] [5]

C. J. Isham, arXiv:gr-qc/9210011 (1992)

arXiv 1992

[6] [6]

K. V. Kuchaˇ r,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D20, 3 (2011)

work page 2011

[7] [7]

D. N. Page and W. K. Wootters,Phys. Rev. D27, 2885 (1983)

work page 1983

[8] [8]

W. G. Unruh and R. M. Wald,Phys. Rev. D40, 2598 (1989)

work page 1989