The third ingredient is crucial: how do spatial variations in \(\Phi\) affect the ability to maintain coherent records?
Consider two nearby quantum systems separated by distance \(\delta x\). They experience slightly different lapses:
\[\Phi(x) \text{ vs } \Phi(x + \delta x) \approx \Phi(x) + \nabla\Phi \cdot \delta x\]This means they accumulate phase at different rates, leading to dephasing. The phase difference grows as:
\[\Delta\theta \propto \omega (\nabla\Phi \cdot \delta x) \Delta t\]The coherence time - how long the systems remain correlated - is inversely related to \(|\nabla\Phi|\). We define a coherence factor \(\Xi(x)\) as an independent field, with the coherence-time-potential (CTP) relation connecting it to \(\Phi\):
\[C[\Phi](x) = \exp\left(-\frac{|\nabla\Phi|^2}{\xi^2}\right)\]The constraint \(\Xi(x) = C[\Phi](x)\) will be imposed separately via a Lagrange multiplier to avoid circular logic. The CTP relation has key properties:
Regions with large lapse gradients cannot maintain coherent temporal records. During variational optimization, we treat \(\Xi\) as independent from \(\Phi\), then impose the CTP relation \(\Xi = C[\Phi]\) as a separate constraint. This avoids the circular logic of having \(R\) depend on \(\Phi\) while claiming \(\Phi = \delta R/\delta \rho\).
Symbol | Name | Meaning | Value / Units | Metaphor |
---|---|---|---|---|
\(\Xi(x)\) | coherence factor | independent field during variation | 0 to 1 (dimensionless) | "Temporal record quality" |
\(C[\Phi](x)\) | CTP relation | coherence-time-potential mapping | 0 to 1 (dimensionless) | "Environment-coherence converter" |
\(\nabla\Phi\) | lapse gradient | spatial variation of time flow | 1/length | "Steepness of time hill" |
\(\xi\) | coherence length | scale over which coherence decays | length | "Range of synchronized clocks" |
\(\Delta\theta\) | phase difference | relative phase between systems | radians | "Clock desynchronization" |
\(\delta x\) | separation | distance between quantum systems | length | "Clock spacing" |