This paper reexamines the statistical quantum field theory of a free, minimally coupled, real scalar field {Φ} in a statically bounded, classical Friedmann cosmology, where the time-dependent scale factor {Ω}(t) tends to constant values Ω₁ and Ω₂ for tt₁ and t>t₂. The principal objective is to investigate the intuition that ``entropy'' S correlates with average particle number 〈N〉, so that increases in 〈N〉 induced by parametric amplification manifest a one-to-one connection with increases in S. The definition of particle number Nₖ becomes unambiguous for t>t₂ and tt₁, where the spacetime is static, the spatial modes ±{}k for early and late times being coupled by Bogoliubov coefficients αₖ and βₖ.The textbook entropy associated with some density matrix {ρ} (for a state either mixed or pure) is conserved since {ρ} evolves unitarily, so that one is led instead to consider a new measure SN(t) defined in terms of P({k,Nₖ}), the probability of observing Nₖ quanta in each mode k, which may be viewed as a diagonal component of {ρ} in a number representation. A key observation then is that 〈Nₖ(t₂)〉-〈Nₖ(t₁)〉 is guaranteed generically to be positive only for special initial data which, in a number representation, are characterized by ``random phases'' in the sense that any relative phase for the projection of {ρ}(t₁) into two different number eigenstates is ``random'' or ``unobservable physically,'' and averaged over in a density matrix. More importantly for the notion of entropy, random-phase initial data also guarantee an increase in the spread of P({k,Nₖ}), so that, e.g., the sum of the variances Δ²{N}_{±{}k}$(${t}₂$) exceeds the initial ${{Δ}}²N_±k(t₁). It is this increasing spread in P, rather than the growth in average numbers per se, which suggests that, for initial data manifesting random phases, SN(t₂)>SN(t₁), a result established rigorously in the limits of strong and weak particle creation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Henry E. Kandrup (1988) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: