text:
# A Continuous Transition Between Quantum and Classical Mechanics (I)

## I Introduction

One of the most puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics is the quantum measurement problem which lies at the heart of all its interpretations. Without a measuring device that functions classically, there are no ‘events’ in quantum mechanics which postulates that the wave function contains complete information of the system concerned and evolves linearly and unitarily in accordance with the Schrödinger equation. The system cannot be said to ‘possess’ physical properties like position and momentum irrespective of the context in which such properties are measured. The language of quantum mechanics is not that of realism.

According to Bohr the classicality of a measuring device is fundamental and cannot be derived from quantum theory. In other words, the process of measurement cannot be analyzed within quantum theory itself. A similar conclusion also follows from von Neumann’s approach . In both these approaches the border line between what is to be regarded as quantum or classical is, however, arbitrary and mobile. This makes the theory intrinsically ill defined.

Some recent approaches have attempted to derive the classical world from a quantum substratum by regarding quantum systems as open. Their interaction with their ‘environment’ can be shown to lead to effective decoherence and the emergence of quasi- classical behaviour , . However, the very concepts of a ‘system’ and its ‘environment’ already presuppose a clear cut division between them which, as we have remarked, is mobile and ambiguous in quantum mechanics. Moreover, the reduced density matrix of the ‘system’ evolves to a diagonal form only in the pointer basis and not in the other possible bases one could have chosen. This shows that this approach does not lead to a real solution of the measurement problem, as claimed by Zurek , though it is an important development that sheds new light on the emergence of quasi-classical behaviour from a quantum susbstratum.

The de Broglie-Bohm approach , on the other hand, does not accept the wave function description as complete. Completeness is achieved by introducing the position of the particle as an additional variable (the so-called ‘hidden variable’) with an ontological status. The wave function at a point is no longer just the probability amplitude that a particle will be found there if a measurement were to be made, but the probability amplitude that a particle is there even if no measurement is made. It is a realistic description, and measurements are reduced to ordinary interactions and lose their mystique. Also, the classical limit is much better defined in this approach through the ‘quantum potential’ than in the conventional approach. As a result, however, a new problem is unearthed, namely, it becomes quite clear that classical theory admits ensembles of a more general kind than can be reached from standard quantum ensembles. The two theories are really disparate while having a common domain of application .

Thus, although it is tacitly assumed by most physicists that classical physics is a limiting case of quantum theory, it is by no means so. Most physicists would, of course, scoff at the suggestion that the situation may really be the other way round, namely, that quantum mechanics is contained in a certain sense in classical theory. This seems impossible because quantum mechanics includes totally new elements like $`\mathrm{}`$ and the uncertainty relations and the host of new results that follow from them. Yet, a little reflection shows that if true classical behaviour of a system were really to result from a quantum substratum through some process analogous to ‘decoherence’, its quantum behaviour ought also to emerge on isolating it sufficiently well from its environment, i.e., by a process which is the ‘reverse of decoherence’. In practice, of course, it would be impossible to reverse decoherence once it occurs for a system. Nevertheless, it should be possible in principle to think of such a process. In fact, it is possible to prepare a system sufficiently well isolated from its environment so that its quantum behaviour can be observed. If this were not possible, it would have been impossible ever to observe the quantum features of any system.

Thus, it would appear that there must be a continuous link between classical and quantum mechanics bridged by environment-induced decoherence, although no one has so far succeeded in formulating this link clearly and satisfactorily. The purpose of this paper is to show that it is possible to formulate such a link.

We are keenly aware that we are putting forward a view that is clearly heretic within the reigning paradigm. But it is based on the following general considerations:

1. We accept Bell’s criticism that quantum mechanics is an inherently ambiguous theory because of the measurement problem which nobody has been able to solve in eventy six years without introducing nonlocal hidden variables or additional terms in the Schrödinger equation (as in the GRW model) or invoking many universes.

2. We accept Bohr’s point of view that the classical world cannot be derived from quantum mechanics but is essential for its interpretation.

3. We see the virtue of the idea of decoherence as a possible bridge between the classical and quantum worlds, but reject the claim that it solves the measurement problem.

4. We assume the world is real in the classical sense, and that both classical and (Bohmian) quantum mechanics are accurate descriptions of nature in appropriate limits.

Our proposal must be viewed within the above framework of assumptions.

## II The Hamilton-Jacobi Theory

Our starting point is the non-relativistic Hamilton-Jacobi equation

$$S_{cl}/t+\frac{(S_{cl})^2}{2m}+V(x)=0$$
(1)
for the action $`S_{cl}`$ of a classical paticle in an external potential $`V`$, together with the definition of the momentum

$$𝐩=m\frac{d𝐱}{dt}=S_{cl}$$
(2)
and the continuity equation

$$\frac{\rho _{cl}(𝐱,t)}{t}+.(\rho _{cl}\frac{S_{cl}}{m})=0$$
(3)
for the position distribution function $`\rho _{cl}(𝐱,t)`$ of the ensemble of trajectories generated by solutions of equation (1) with different initial conditions (position or momentum). Suppose we introduce a complex wave function

$$\psi _{cl}(𝐱,t)=R_{cl}(𝐱,t)exp(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_{cl})$$
(4)
into the formalism by means of the equation

$$\rho _{cl}(𝐱,t)=\psi _{cl}^{}\psi _{cl}=R_{cl}^2.$$
(5)
What is the equation that this wave function must satisfy such that the fundamental equations (1) and (3) remain unmodified? The answer turns out to be the modified Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi _{cl}}{t}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2+V(x)\right)\psi _{cl}Q_{cl}\psi _{cl}$$
(6)
where

$$Q_{cl}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2R_{cl}}{R_{cl}}$$
(7)
Thus, a system can behave classically in spite of it having an associated wave function that satisfies this modified Schrödinger equation.

Notice that the last term in this equation is nonlinear in $`|\psi _{cl}|`$, and is uniquely determined by the requirement that all quantum mechanical effects such as superposition, entanglement and nonlocality be eliminated. It is therefore to be sharply distinguished from certain other types of nonlinear terms that have been considered in constructing nonlinear versions of quantum mechanics . An unacceptable consequence of such nonlinear terms (which are, unlike $`Q_{cl}`$, bilinear in the wave function) is that superluminal signalling using quantum entanglement becomes possible in such theories . Since $`Q_{cl}`$ eliminates quantum superposition and entanglement, it cannot imply any such possibility. Usual action-at-a-distance is, of course, implicit in non-relativistic mechanics, and can be eliminated in a Lorentz invariant version of the theory, as we will see later.

Deterministic nonlinear terms with arbitrary parameters have also been introduced in the Schrödinger equation to bring about collapse of quantum correlations  for isolated macroscopic systems. Such terms also imply superluminal signals via quantum entanglement. The term $`Q_{cl}`$ is different from such terms as well in that it has no arbitrary parameters in it and eliminates quantum correlations for all systems deterministically, irrespective of their size.

Most importantly, it is clear from the above analysis that none of the other types of nonlinearity can guarantee strictly classical behaviour described by equations (1) and (3).

Notice that the additional interaction of a classical system with its environment in the form of the effective potential $`Q_{cl}`$ becomes manifest only when the Hamilton-Jacobi equation is recast in terms of the classical wave function (equations (6) and (7)). This is why the Hamilton-Jacobi equation can be written without ever knowing about this interaction. The wave function approach reveals what lies hidden and sterile in the traditional classical approach. This is a significant new insight offered by the wave function approach.

## III Bohmian Mechanics

The wave function $`\psi `$ of a quantum mechanical system, on the other hand, must of course satisfy the Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\psi +V\psi .$$
(8)
Using a polar representation similar to (4) for $`\psi `$ in this equation and separating the real and imaginary parts, one can now derive the modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation

$$S/t+\frac{(S)^2}{2m}+Q+V=0$$
(9)
for the phase $`S`$ of the wave function, where $`Q`$ is given by

$$Q=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2R}{R},$$
(10)
and the continuity equation

$$\frac{\rho (𝐱,t)}{t}+.(\rho \frac{S}{m})=0$$
(11)
These differential equations ((9) and (11)) now become coupled differential equations which determine $`S`$ and $`\rho =R^2`$. Note that the phase $`S`$ of a quantum mechanical system satisfies a modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation with an additional potential $`Q`$ called the “quantum potential”. Its properties are therefore different from those of the classical action $`S_{cl}`$ which satisfies equation (1) . Applying the operator $``$ on equation (9) and using the definition of the momentum (2), one obtains the equation of motion

$$\frac{d𝐩}{dt}=m\frac{d^2𝐱}{dt^2}=(V+Q)$$
(12)
for the quantum particle. Integrating this equation or, equivalently equation (2), one obtains the Bohmian trajectories $`x(t)`$ of the particle corresponding to different initial positions. The departure from the classical Newtonian equation due to the presence of the “quantum potential” $`Q`$ gives rise to all the quantum mechanical phenomena such as the existence of discrete stationary states, interference phenomena, nonlocality and so on. This agreement with quantum mechanics is achieved by requiring that the initial distribution $`P`$ of the particle is given by $`R^2(x(t),0)`$. The continuity equation (11) then guarantees that it will agree with $`R^2`$ at all future times. This guarantees that the averages of all dynamical variables of the particle taken over a Gibbs ensemble of its trajectories will always agree with the expectation values of the corresponding hermitian operators in standard quantum mechanics. This is essentially the de Broglie-Bohm quantum theory of motion. For further details about this theory and its relationship with standard quantum mechanics, the reader is referred to the comprehensive book by Holland  and the one by Bohm and Hiley .

## IV Environment Induced Decoherence

Now, let us for the time being assume that quantum mechanics is the more fundamental theory from which classical mechanics follows in some limit. Consider a quantum mechanical system interacting with its environment. It evolves according to the Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2+V(x)+W\right)\psi $$
(13)
where $`W`$ is the potential due to the environment experienced by the system. For a complex enough environment such as a heat bath, the density matrix of the system in the position representation quickly evolves to a diagonal form. In a special model in which a particle interacts only with the thermal excitations of a scalar field in the high temperature limit, the density matrix evolves according to the master equation

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}=\gamma (xx^{^{}})(_x_x^{^{}})\rho \frac{2m\gamma k_BT}{\mathrm{}^2}(xx^{^{}})^2\rho $$
(14)
where $`\gamma `$ is the relaxation rate, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant and $`T`$ the temperature of the field. It follows from this equation that quantum coherence falls off at large separations as the square of $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=(xx^{^{}})`$. The decoherence time scale is given by

$$\tau _D\tau _R\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2mk_B(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^2}=\gamma ^1\left(\frac{\lambda _T}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}\right)^2$$
(15)
where $`\lambda _T=\mathrm{}/\sqrt{2mk_BT}`$ is the thermal de Broglie wavelength and $`\tau _R=\gamma ^1`$. For a macroscopic object of mass $`m=1`$ g at room temperature ( $`T=300K`$) and separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=1`$ cm, the ratio $`\tau _D/\tau _R=10^{40}`$ ! Thus, even if the relaxation time was of the order of the age of the universe, $`\tau _R10^{17}`$ sec, quantum coherence would be destroyed in $`\tau _D10^{23}`$ sec. For an electron, however, $`\tau _D`$ can be much more than $`\tau _R`$ on atomic and larger scales.

However, the diagonal matrix does not become diagonal in, for example, the momentum representation, showing that all coherence has not altogether been destroyed. The FAPP diagonal density matrix does not therefore correspond to the classical limit in which it should be diagonal in both representations. In addition, it does not correspond to a heterogeneous ensemble and the measurement problem remains.

This is not hard to understand once one realizes that a true classical system must be governed by a Schrödinger equation that is modified by the addition of a unique term that is nonlinear in $`|\psi |`$ (equation (6)), and that such a nonlinear term cannot arise from unitary Schrödinger evolution. On the contrary, it is not unnatural to expect a linear equation of the Schrödinger type to be the limiting case of a nonlinear equation like equation (6). It is therefore tempting to interpret the last term in equation (6) as an ‘effective’ potential that represents the coupling of the classical system to its environment. It is important to bear in mind that in such an interpretation, the potential $`Q_{cl}`$ must obviously be regarded as fundamentally given and not derivable from a quantum mechanical substratum, being uniquely and solely determined by the requirement of classicality, as shown above.

## V The Classical Wavefunction

Let us now consider a quantum system which is inserted into a thermal bath at time $`t=0`$. If it is to evolve into a genuinely classical system after a sufficient lapse of time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, its wave function $`\psi `$ must satisfy the equation of motion

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2+V(x)\lambda (t)Q_{cl}\right)\psi `$ (16)
where $`\lambda (0)0`$ is the quantum limit and $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Delta }t)=1`$ is the classical limit. (Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\tau _D`$ where $`\tau _D`$ is typically given by $`\gamma ^1(\lambda _T/\mathrm{\Delta }x)^2`$ (15).) Thus, for example, if $`=\lambda (t)=1exp(t/\tau _D)`$, a macroscopic system would very rapidly behave like a true classical system at sufficiently high temperatures, whereas a mesoscopic system would behave neither fully like a classical system nor fully like a quantum mechanical system at appropriate temperatures for a much longer time. What happens is that the reduced density operator of the system evolves according to the equation

$`\rho (x,x^{^{}},\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`exp(i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}\lambda Q_{cl}𝑑t/\mathrm{})\rho (x,x^{^{}},0)exp(i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}\lambda Q_{cl}𝑑t/\mathrm{})`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`R^2(x,\mathrm{\Delta }t)\delta ^3(xx^{^{}})`$ (18)
during the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ during which the nonlinear interaction $`\lambda Q_{cl}`$ completely destroys all superpositions, so that at the end of this time interval the system is fully classical and the equation for the density operator reduces to the Pauli master equation for a classical system.

A variety of functions $`\lambda (t)`$ would satisfy the requirement $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\lambda =1`$. This is not surprising and is probably a reflection of the diverse ways in which different systems decohere in different environments. We will elaborate on this in the following paper.

It is clear that a system must be extremely well isolated ($`\lambda 0`$) for it to behave quantum mechanically. Such a system, however, would inherit only a de Broglie-Bohm ontological and causal interpretation, not an interpretation of the Copenhagen type. The practical difficulty is that once a quantum system and its environment get coupled, it becomes FAPP impossible to decouple them in finite time because of the extremely large number of degrees of freedom of the environment. However, we know from experience that it is possible to create quantum states in the laboratory that are very well isolated from their environment. Microscopic quantum systems are, of course, routinely created in the laboratory (such as single atoms, single electrons, single photons, etc.,) and considerable effort is being made to create isolated macroscopic systems that would show quantum coherence, and there is already some evidence of the existence of mesoscopic ‘cat states’ which decohere when appropriate radiation is introduced into the cavity .

Equation (16) is a new equation that is different from both the Schrödinger equation and the wave equation that describes classical mechanics (6), and provides a smooth link between the two. We supplement this equation with the postulate that $`\psi `$ is single-valued. Then it would contain quantum mechanics in the limit $`\lambda 0`$. It would also contain classical mechanics in the limit $`\lambda =1`$, although the single-valuedness of the wavefunction is not a necessary requirement for this limit. It can therefore form a sound starting point for studying mesoscopic systems in a new way in which they are parametrized by $`0<\lambda 1`$ and lie anywhere in the continuous spectrum stretching between the quantum and classical limits. We will show in the following paper that this leads to new physical predictions for mesoscopic systems that cannot be obtained from either standard quantum mechanics or standard Bohmian mechanics which accepts the Schrödinger equation as fundamental and not our new equation (16).

## VI The Klein-Gordon Equation

Let the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for free relativistic classical particles be

$$\frac{S_{cl}}{t}+\sqrt{(_iS_{cl})^2c^2+m_0^2c^4}=0.$$
(19)
Then, using the relation $`p_\mu =_\mu S_{cl}=m_0u_\mu `$ where $`u_\mu =dx_\mu /d\tau `$ with $`\tau =\gamma ^1t`$, $`\gamma ^1=\sqrt{1v^2/c^2},v_i=dx_i/dt`$, the particle equation of motion is postulated to be

$$m_0\frac{du_\mu }{d\tau }=0=\frac{dp_\mu }{d\tau }.$$
(20)
It is quite easy to show that the classical equations (19) and (3) continue to hold if one describes the system in terms of a complex wave function $`\psi _{cl}=R_{cl}exp(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_{cl})`$ that satisfies the modified Klein-Gordon equation

$$\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{m_0^2c^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{Q_{cl}}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)\psi _{cl}=0$$
(21)
with

$$Q_{cl}=\mathrm{}^2\frac{\mathrm{}R_{cl}}{R_{cl}}.$$
(22)
As in the non-relativistic case, $`Q_{cl}`$ may be interpreted as an effective potential in which the system finds itself when described in terms of the wave function $`\psi _{cl}`$. If this potential goes to zero in some limit, one obtains the free Klein-Gordon equation which is the quantum limit.

On the other hand, using $`\psi =Rexp(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S)`$ in the Klein-Gordon equation and separating the real and imaginary parts, one obtainds respectively the equation

$$\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{S}{t}\right)^2\left(_iS\right)^2m_0^2c^2Q=0$$
(23)
which is equivalent to the modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation

$$\left(\frac{S}{t}\right)+\sqrt{\left(_iS\right)^2c^2+m_0^2c^4+c^2Q}=0$$
(24)
and the continuity equation

$$^\mu (R^2_\mu S)=0.$$
(25)
One can then identify the four-current as $`j_\mu =R^2_\mu S`$ so that $`\rho =j_0=R^2E/c`$ which is not positive definite because $`E`$ can be either positive or negative, and therefore, as is well known, it is not possible to interpret it as a probability density.

Nevertheless, let us note in passing that, if use is made of the definition $`p_\mu =_\mu S`$ of the particle four-momentum, (23) implies

$$p_\mu p^\mu =m_0c^2+Q$$
(26)
and $`p_\mu =M_0u_\mu `$ where $`M_0=m_0\sqrt{1+Q/m_0^2c^2}`$. Thus, the quantum potential $`Q`$ acts on the particles and contributes to their energy-momentum so that they are off their mass-shell. <sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*The author is grateful to E. C. G. Sudarshan for drawing his attention to this important point. Applying the operator $`_\mu `$ on equation (23), we get the equation of motion

$$\frac{dp_\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{_\mu Q}{2M_0}$$
(27)
which has the correct non-relativistic limit. The equation for the acceleration of the particle is therefore given by

$$\frac{du_\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{1}{2m_0^2}(c^2g_{\mu \nu }u_\mu u_\nu )^\nu log(1+\frac{Q}{m_0^2c^2}).$$
(28)
If, on the other hand, one uses the modified Klein-Gordan equation (21) and the corresponding Hamilton-Jacobi equation (19), the particles are on their mass-shell and the free particle classical equation (20) is satisfied.

## VII Relativistic spin 1/2 particles

Let us now examine the Dirac equation for relativistic spin $`1/2`$ particles,

$$(i\mathrm{}\gamma _\mu ^\mu +m_0c)\psi =0.$$
(29)
Let us write the components of the wave function $`\psi `$ as $`\psi ^a=R\theta ^aexp(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S^a)`$, $`\theta ^a`$ being a spinor component. It is not straightforward here to separate the real and imaginary parts as in the previous cases. One must therefore follow a different method for relativistic fermions.

It is well known that every component $`\psi ^a`$ of the Dirac wave function satisfies the Klein-Gordan equation. It follows therefore, by putting $`\psi ^a=R\theta ^aexp(iS^a/\mathrm{})`$, that $`S^a`$ must satisfy the modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation

$$_\mu S^a^\mu S^am_0^2c^2Q^a=0.$$
(30)
where $`Q^a=\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{}R\theta ^a/R\theta ^a`$. Summing over $`a`$, we get

$$\underset{a}{}_\mu S^a^\mu S^a4m_0^2c^2\underset{a}{}Q^a=0.$$
(31)
Defining

$`_\mu S^\mu S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}_\mu S^a^\mu S^a`$ (32)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}Q^a,`$ (33)
we have

$$_\mu S^\mu Sm_0^2c^2Q=0.$$
(34)
Then, defining the particle four-momentum by $`p_\mu =_\mu S`$, one has $`p_\mu p^\mu =m_0^2c^2+Q`$. Therefore, one has the equation of motion

$$\frac{dp_\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{_\mu Q}{2M_0}.$$
(35)
The Bohmian 3-velocity of these particles is defined by the relation

$$v_i=\gamma ^1u_i=c\frac{u_i}{u_0}=c\frac{j_i}{j_0}=c\frac{\psi ^{}\alpha _i\psi }{\psi ^{}\psi }.$$
(36)
Then, it follows that

$$u_\mu =\gamma v_\mu =\gamma c\frac{j_\mu }{\rho }$$
(37)
where $`\rho =\psi ^{}\psi `$. This relation is satisfied because $`j_\mu j^\mu =\rho ^2/\gamma ^2`$ if (36) holds.

As we have seen, for a classical theory of spinless particles, the correct equation for the associated wave function is the modified Klein-Gordon equation (21). Let the corresponding modified wave equation for classical spin $`1/2`$ particles be of the form

$$\left(i\mathrm{}\gamma _\mu D^\mu +m_0c\right)\psi _{cl}=0$$
(38)
where $`D^\mu =^\mu +(i/\mathrm{})Q^\mu `$. Then we have

$$(D_\mu D^\mu +\frac{m_0^2c^2}{\mathrm{}^2})\psi _{cl}^a=0.$$
(39)
Writing $`\psi _{cl}^a=R_{cl}\theta ^aexp(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S_{cl}^a)`$, one obtains

$$_\mu S_{cl}^a^\mu S_{cl}^am_0^2c^2Q_{cl}^a+Q_\mu Q^\mu 2Q_\mu ^\mu S_{cl}^a=0$$
(40)
where

$$Q_{cl}^a=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{}R_{cl}\theta ^a}{R_{cl}\theta ^a}.$$
(41)
Define a diagonal matrix $`B_\mu ^{ab}_\mu S_{cl}^a\delta ^{ab}`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{2}TrB_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\underset{a}{}_\mu S_{cl}^a_\mu S_{cl}.$$
(42)
Then

$`_\mu S_{cl}^\mu S_{cl}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}TrB_\mu TrB^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Tr(B_\mu B^\mu )`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}_\mu S_{cl}^a^\mu S_{cl}^a.`$ (44)
Therefore, taking equation (40) and summing over $`a`$, we have

$$_\mu S_{cl}^\mu S_{cl}m_0^2c^2Q_{cl}+Q_\mu Q^\mu Q_\mu ^\mu S_{cl}=0$$
(45)
where

$$Q_{cl}=\frac{1}{4}\underset{a}{}Q_{cl}^a.$$
(46)
In order that the classical free particle equation is satisfied, the effects of the quantum potential must be cancelled by this additional interaction, and one must have

$$Q_\mu (Q^\mu ^\mu S_{cl})=Q_{cl}.$$
(47)
A solution is given by

$`p_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu S_{cl}=m_0u_\mu ,`$ (48)
$`Q_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha m_0u_\mu `$ (49)
with

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1+4Q_{cl}/m_0^2c^2}.$$
(50)
## VIII Relativistic spin 0 and spin 1 particles

It has been shown  that a consistent relativistic quantum mechanics of spin 0 and spin 1 bosons can be developed using the Kemmer equation

$$(i\mathrm{}\beta _\mu ^\mu +m_0c)\psi =0$$
(51)
where the matrices $`\beta `$ satisfy the algebra

$$\beta _\mu \beta _\nu \beta _\lambda +\beta _\lambda \beta _\nu \beta \mu =\beta _\mu g_{\nu \lambda }+\beta _\lambda g_{\nu \mu }.$$
(52)
The $`5\times 5`$ dimensional representation of these matrices describes spin 0 bosons and the $`10\times 10`$ dimensional representation describes spin 1 bosons. Multiplying (51) by $`\beta _0`$, one obtains the Schrödinger form of the equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{dt}=[i\mathrm{}c\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i_im_0c^2\beta _0]\psi $$
(53)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\beta _0\beta _i\beta _i\beta _0`$. Multiplying (51) by $`1\beta _0^2`$, one obtains the first class constraint

$$i\mathrm{}\beta _i\beta _0^2_i\psi =m_0c(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\beta _0^2)\psi .$$
(54)
The reader is referred to Ref.  for further discussions regarding the significance of this constraint.

If one multiplies equation (53) by $`\psi ^{}`$ from the left, its hermitian conjugate by $`\psi `$ from the right and adds the resultant equations, one obtains the continuity equation

$$\frac{(\psi ^{}\psi )}{t}+_i\psi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\psi =0.$$
(55)
This can be written in the form

$$^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu 0}=0$$
(56)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ is the symmetric energy-momentum tensor with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{00}=m_0c^2\psi ^{}\psi <0`$. Thus, one can define a wavefunction $`\varphi =\sqrt{m_0c^2/E}\psi `$ (with $`E=\mathrm{\Theta }_{00}𝑑V`$ ) such that $`\varphi ^{}\varphi `$ is non-negative and normalized and can be interpreted as a probability density. The conserved probability current density is $`s_\mu =\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu 0}/E=(\varphi ^{}\varphi ,\varphi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\varphi )`$ .

Notice that according to the equation of motion (53), the velocity operator for massive bosons is $`c\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i`$, so that the Bohmian 3-velocity can be defined by

$$v_i=\gamma ^1u_i=c\frac{u_i}{u_0}=c\frac{s_i}{s_0}=c\frac{\psi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\psi }{\psi ^{}\psi }.$$
(57)
Exactly the same procedure can be followed for massive bosons as for massive fermions to determine the quantum potential and the Bohmian trajectories, except that the sum over $`a`$ has to be carried out only over the independent degrees of freedom (six for $`\psi `$ and six for $`\overline{\psi }`$ for spin-1 bosons). The constraint (54) implies the four conditions $`\stackrel{}{A}=\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{E}=0`$.

The theory of massless spin 0 and spin 1 bosons cannot be obtained simply by taking the limit $`m_0`$ going to zero. One has to start with the equation

$$i\mathrm{}\beta _\mu ^\mu \psi +m_0c\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi =0$$
(58)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a matrix that satisfies the following conditions:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (59)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\beta _\mu +\beta _\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _\mu .`$ (60)
Multiplying (58) from the left by $`1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, one obtains

$$\beta _\mu ^\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi )=0.$$
(61)
Multiplying (58) from the left by $`_\lambda \beta ^\lambda \beta ^\nu `$, one also obtains

$$^\lambda \beta _\lambda \beta _\nu (\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi )=_\nu (\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi ).$$
(62)
It follows from (61) and (62) that

$$\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi )=0$$
(63)
which shows that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi `$ describes massless bosons. The Schrödinger form of the equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi )}{dt}=i\mathrm{}c\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i_i(\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi )$$
(64)
and the associated first class constraint

$$i\mathrm{}\beta _i\beta _0^2_i\psi +m_0c(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\beta _0^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi =0$$
(65)
follow by multiplying (58) by $`\beta _0`$ and $`1\beta _0^2`$ respectively. The rest of the arguments are analogous to the massive case. For example, the Bohmian 3-velocity $`v_i`$ for massless bosons can be defined by equation (57).

Neutral massless spin-1 bosons have a special significance in physics. Their wavefunction is real, and so their charge current $`j_\mu =\varphi ^T\beta _\mu \varphi `$ vanishes. However, their probability current density $`s_\mu `$ does not vanish. Furthermore, $`s_i`$ turns out to be proportional to the Poynting vector, as it should.

Modifications to these equations can be introduced as in the massive case to obtain a classical theory of massless bosons.

## IX The Gravitational Field

Exactly the same procedure can also be applied to the gravitational field described by Einstein’s equations

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=0$$
(66)
for the vacuum, where $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Ricci tensor and $`R`$ the curvature scalar. In this section, following , we will use the signature $`+++`$ and the absolute system of units $`\mathrm{}=c=16\pi G=1`$. The decompostion of the metric is given by

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ (67)
$`=`$ $`(N_iN^iN^2)dt^2+2N_idx^idt+g_{ij}dx^idx^j`$ (68)
with $`g_{ij}(𝐱)`$, the 3-metric of a 3-surface embedded in space-time, evolving dynamically in superspace, the space of all 3-geometries.

By quantizing the Hamiltonian constraint, one obtains in the standard fashion the Wheeler-DeWitt equation

$$\left[G_{ijkl}\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta g_{ij}\delta g_{kl}}+\sqrt{g}^3R\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(69)
where $`g=`$ det $`g_{ij}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}R`$ is the intrinsic curvature, $`G_{ijkl}`$ is the supermetric, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }[g_{ij}(x)]`$ is a wave functional in superspace. Substituting $`\mathrm{\Psi }=Aexp(iS)`$, one obtains as usual a conservation law

$$G_{ijkl}\frac{\delta }{\delta g_{ij}}\left(A^2\frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{kl}}\right)=0$$
(70)
and a modified Einstein-Hamilton-Jacobi equation

$$G_{ijkl}\frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}\frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{kl}}\sqrt{g}^3R+Q=0$$
(71)
where

$$Q=A^1G_{ijkl}\delta ^2A/\delta g_{ij}\delta g_{kl}$$
(72)
is the quantum potential. It is invariant under 3-space diffeomorphisms. The causal interpretation of this field theory (as distinct from particle mechanics considered earlier) assumes that the universe whose quantum state is governed by equation (69) has a definite 3-geometry at each instant, described by the 3-metric $`g_{ij}(𝐱,t)`$ which evolves according to the classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation

$$\frac{g_{ij}(𝐱,t)}{t}=_iN_j+_jN_i+2NG_{ijkl}\frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{kl}}|_{g_{ij}(x)=g_{ij}(𝐱,t)}$$
(73)
but with the action $`S`$ as a phase of the quantum wave functional. This equation can be solved if the initial data $`g_{ij}(𝐱,0)`$ are specified. The metric in this field theory clearly corresponds to the position in particle mechanics, equation (73) being its guidance condition.

It is now clear that one can modify the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (69) to the form

$$\left[G_{ijkl}\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta g_{ij}\delta g_{kl}}+\sqrt{g}^3RQ_{cl}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{cl}=0$$
(74)
where $`Q_{cl}`$ is defined by an expression analogous to (72) with $`A`$ and $`S`$ replaced by the classical variables $`A_{cl}`$ and $`S_{cl}`$. This leads to the classical Einstein-Hamilton-Jacobi equation

$$G_{ijkl}\frac{\delta S_{cl}}{\delta g_{ij}}\frac{\delta S_{cl}}{\delta g_{kl}}\sqrt{g}^3R=0.$$
(75)
The term $`Q_{cl}`$ can then be interpreted, as before, as a potential arising due to the coupling of gravitation with other forms of energy. If this coupling could be switched off, quantum gravity effects would become important. The question arises as to whether this can at all be done for gravitation.

## X Multi-particle Generalization

The proper multi-particle generalization of eq.(16) is straightforward and given by

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{t}=\left[\underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_i}_i^2+V(x_i,\mathrm{},x_n)\right)\underset{i}{}\lambda _i(t)Q_i\right]\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(76)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ stands for $`\psi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ and $`i`$ refers to the $`i`$th particle. These particles can, in general, have different degrees of coupling to their environment so that $`\lambda _i\lambda _j`$. It follows that those particles (or degrees of freedom) that are very strongly coupled to their environment and behave classically have $`\lambda _i=1`$ and those that are less strongly coupled have $`0<\lambda _j<1`$. The effective $`\lambda (t)`$ is therefore given by

$$\lambda (t)=\frac{_i\lambda _i(t)Q_i}{Q},$$
(77)
where $`Q=_i^nQ_i`$ . This determines the value of $`\lambda (t)`$ in general for any multi-particle system.

Let us first consider building a reasonable physical theory of observed systems in the universe (and not the universe itself which we will take up later). The important point to note about the many-particle generalization (eqn. 76) is that it describes a multi-particle system $`S`$ interacting with its environment $`E`$ (which is assumed to have infinite degrees of freedom) in a specific nonlinear manner such that it is obtained when $`E`$ is traced over. However, if one subdivides $`S`$ into two parts, say $`S_a`$ and $`E_a`$ which interact nonlinearly to yield this equation for $`S_a`$ when $`E_a`$ is traced over, then $`S`$ can no longer be regarded as a quantum mechanical system.

Let us now consider the universe, i.e., the total system $`S+E`$ where $`S`$ is now the observable universe and $`E`$ the rest of the universe. Then, since $`S`$ and $`E`$ are assumed to interact nonlinearly to yield eqn. (76) for $`S`$ when $`E`$ is traced over, it is no longer legitimate to regard the total system $`S+E`$ to be quantum mechanical, although it would appear from this equation that $`S+E`$ obeys the Schrödinger equation if $`\lambda 0`$. In order to avoid any internal inconsistency of this type, we must omit the limit point $`\lambda =0`$, i.e., quantum mechanics must be viewed only as a limiting case of eqn. (76) and not as a fundamental theory. We take the point of view here that there are no physical systems, including the observable universe, that are truly closed and isolated, although it is possible in principle to isolate a system as closely as one desires. This assumption lies at the foundation of statistical mechanics . The total system $`S+E`$ is, of course, closed by definition, but is a metaphysical concept to which, admittedly, eqn. (76) cannot be applied consistently.

## XI Concluding Remarks

It is usually assumed that a classical system is in some sense a limiting case of a more fundamental quantum substratum, but no general demonstration for ensembles of systems has yet been given. That classical and quantum systems may, on the other hand, be linked through a more general system in which their typical features are not fully expressed is, however, clear from the above discussions. The limits therefore naturally share the ontology of the link system. The nonlocal quantum potential that is responsible for self-organization and the creation of varied stable and metastable quantum structures, becomes fully active only when the coupling of the part to the whole is completely switched off. This is a clearly defined physical process that links the classical and quantum domains.

According to this view, therefore, every quantum system is a closed system and every classical system is an open system. The first Newtonian law of motion therefore acquires a new interpretation—the law of inertia holds for a system not when it is isolated from everything else but when it interacts with its environment to an extent that all its quantum aspects are quenched. Various attempts to show that the classical limit of quantum systems is obtained in certain limits, like large quantum numbers and/or large numbers of constituents, have so far failed . The reason is clear—a linear equation like the Schrödinger equation can never describe a classical system which is described by a modified Schrödinger equation with a nonlinear term. This nonlinear term must be generated through some mechanism like the coupling of the system to its environment. There are, of course, other purely formal limits too (like $`\mathrm{}`$ going to zero, for example) in which a closed quantum system reduces to a classical system, as widely discussed in the literature.

It is clear from the usual ‘decoherence’ approach that the interaction of a quantum system with its environment in the form of some kind of heat bath is necessary to obtain a quasi-classical limit of quantum mechanics. This is usually considered to be a major advance in recent years. Such decoherence effects have already been measured in cavity QED experiments. Decoherence effects are very important to take into account in other critical experiments too, like the use of SQUIDs to demonstrate the existence of Schrödinger cat states. The failure to observe cat states so far in such experiments shows how real these effects are and how difficult it is to eliminate them even for mesoscopic systems. I have taken these advances in our knowledge seriously in a phenomenological sense and tried to incorporate them into a conceptually consistent scheme.

The usual decoherence approach however suffers from the following difficulty: it neither solves the measurement problem nor does it lead to a truly classical phase space. This does not happen in the approach advocated in this paper because of the new equation (16) which guarantees the emergence of a heterogeneous ensemble and classical phase space.

A clear empirical difference must therefore exist between the predictions of the usual decoherence approach and the approach advocated in this paper, and this will be considered in more detail in the following paper.

We must emphasize that equation (16) cannot be derived from quantum mechanics whereas the converse is true. The simple reason is that the third term in (16) is nonlinear, and no such term can be generated within quantum mechanics itself which is strictly linear.

This eqn. (16) is consistent with all known phenomena in the classical and quantum limits and opens up new possibilities in the unchartered meso domain. The theory is conceptually clear and precise and internally consistent within the framework of the assumptions $`1`$ through $`4`$ stated in section I. It is capable of making predictions that are in principle different from those of conventional theory, as we will show in the next paper. It is therefore not metaphysical.

One could speculate that eqn. (16) is a pointer to a new fundamental theory because it cannot be derived from either quantum mechanics or classical mechanics. It is here, I guess, that there would be serious differences of opinion.

## XII Acknowledgements

The basic idea of this paper occurred to me during a discussion with C. S. Unnikrishnan in the context of an experiment carried out by R. K. Varma and his colleagues and Varma’s theoretical explanation of it in terms of the Liouville equation written as a series of Schrödinger-like equations. Unnikrishnan should not, however, be held responsible for any defects of my particular formulation of the idea.

The first version of the non-relativistic part of this paper was presented at the “Werner Heisenberg Colloquium: The Quest for Unity: Perspectives in Physics and Philosophy” organized by the Max Muller Bhavan, New Delhi, the National Institute of Science, Technology and & Development Studies, CSIR, Government of India and the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla from 4th to 7th August, 1997 at Shimla.

The author is grateful to the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, for a research grant that enabled this work to be completed.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

CONTROVERSY ABOUT QUANTUM TIME DECAY

W.O. Amrein

Département de Physique Théorique

Université de Genève

CH-1211 Genève 4, Switzerland

UGVA-DPT 2001/03-1094

In the recent physics literature there have appeared contradictory statements concerning the behaviour of scattering solutions of the 3-dimensional Schrödinger equation at large times. We clarify the situation and point out that the issue was rigorously resolved in the mathematics literature.

In their papers  and , García-Calderón, Mateos and Moshinsky considered the nonescape probability $`P(t)`$ to find a quantum particle, subject to a potential of finite range, still confined in some given finite spatial region at a large time $`t`$. They claim that $`P(t)t^1`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand Muga, Delgado and Snider in  and Cavalcanti in a Comment on  (see ) obtain a decay of $`P(t)`$ as $`t^3`$. In their Reply  to this Comment the authors of  reassert that $`P(t)t^1`$.

The authors cited above seem to be unaware of the fact that, about two decades ago, the question of time decay of solutions of the Schrödinger equation was studied in considerable detail by mathematicians (some relevant references are  for the 3-dimensional case and  for the n-dimensional case, $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$). The results of these papers clearly imply that $`P(t)t^3`$ (see e.g. §4 of , Theorems 10.3-10.5 in  or Theorem 7.6 and Example 7.8 in ). More precisely, for a large class of potentials in 1 or 3 dimensions, one has $`P(t)=O(t^3)`$ except possibly for a discrete set of values of the coupling constant (essentially, these exceptional values of the coupling constant are those for which there is a zero energy resonance, and in such a situation the asymptotics of $`P(t)`$ may be only $`O(t^1)`$). For generic values of the coupling constant the $`t^3`$ decay of $`P(t)`$ holds for any bounded spatial domain and any wave packet $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,0)`$ (the initial wave function at time $`t=0`$) has no bound state components and decays sufficiently rapidly at large $`|x|`$ (for example, if $`n=3`$, such that $`_{\text{ }\mathrm{R}^3}(1+|x|)^{2s}|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,0)|^2d^3x<\mathrm{}`$ for some $`s>5/2`$ ). For various initial states $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the decay of $`P(t)`$ will be faster than $`t^3`$ (several terms in Eq. (7.25) of , when applied to $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, may be zero).

In the case of $`s`$-wave states as considered in , the nonescape probability for a ball $`B_R`$ of radius $`R`$ (i.e. $`B_R=\{x\text{ }\mathrm{R}^3||x|rR\}`$ ) is given as follows (see Eqs. (2) and (3) of ) :

$$P(t)=_0^R\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(r,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(r,t)𝑑r=_0^R𝑑r_0^R𝑑r^{}g^{}(r,r^{};t)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(r^{},0)_0^R𝑑r^{\prime \prime }g(r,r^{\prime \prime };t)\mathrm{\Psi }(r^{\prime \prime },0),$$

where $`g(r,r^{};t)`$ denotes the time-dependent retarded Green’s function. To calculate $`P(t)`$ the authors of  express the Green’s function $`g(r,r^{};t)`$ as an infinite sum of resonant state functions and freely interchange the order of integrations and summations. In the absence of a justification for these interchanges, the expression (14) for $`P(t)`$ given in  (identical with (2.41) in ) can not be considered to be exact (in  and in the Reply , the incorrect time decay $`P(t)t^1`$ is obtained as a consequence of Eq. (14)). It should also be mentioned that all calculations have to be done for a fixed (possibly large) value of the time parameter $`t`$; the argumentation presented in  - invoking an interchange of the long time limit and the integration over the variable $`r`$ \- is beside the point.

The author thanks J.G. Muga for drawing his attention to the disagreement on time decay and for discussions.

References

 G. García-Calderón, J.L. Mateos and M. Moshinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 337 (1995).

 G. García-Calderón, J.L. Mateos and M. Moshinsky, Ann. of Physics 249, 430 (1996).

 J.G. Muga, V. Delgado and R.F. Snider, Phys. Rev. B52 16381 (1995).

 R.M. Cavalcanti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4353 (1998).

 G.García-Calderón, J.L.Mateos and M.Moshinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4354 (1998).

 J. Rauch, Comm. Math. Phys. 61, 149 (1978).

 A. Jensen and T. Kato, Duke Math. J. 46, 583 (1979).

 M. Murata, J. Funct. Anal. 49, 10 (1982).