text:
# Spin Anisotropy and Slow Dynamics in Spin Glasses

Present address: \]Laboratoire de Physique des Solides, Université Paris-Sud, Bât. 510, 91405 Orsay, France Present address: \]Laboratoire des Milieux Désordonnés et Hétérogènes, Université Paris 6, Paris, France

## Abstract

We report on an extensive study of the influence of spin anisotropy on spin glass aging dynamics. New temperature cycle experiments allow us to compare quantitatively the memory effect in four Heisenberg spin glasses with various degrees of random anisotropy and one Ising spin glass. The sharpness of the memory effect appears to decrease continuously with the spin anisotropy. Besides, the spin glass coherence length is determined by magnetic field change experiments for the first time in the Ising sample. For three representative samples, from Heisenberg to Ising spin glasses, we can consistently account for both sets of experiments (temperature cycle and magnetic field change) using a single expression for the growth of the coherence length with time.

preprint: APS/123-QED

Real spin glasses (SGs), which are both disordered and frustrated magnetic systems, are always found to be out of equilibrium on the laboratory time scale. When cooled below its freezing temperature $`T_g`$, a SG starts to age; from a completely random initial configuration, spin-spin correlations develop and progressively ‘rigidify’ the spin network. If the SG is further cooled, the aging process restarts (rejuvenation effect) but the previous aging is not lost. When reheated, the SG retrieves its former state (memory effect) and resumes its former evolution. These memory and rejuvenation effects suggest a description in terms of a hierarchical organization of metastable states as a function of the temperature Vincent et al. (1997), although an alternative description in terms of temperature chaos has also been proposed Yoshino et al. (2001). Recently, a comparison between an Heisenberg and an Ising SG showed that the slow dynamic properties are quantitatively different in these systems Dupuis et al. (2001), the memory effect being more pronounced in the Heisenberg case. How are the spin anisotropy and the aging properties related? Is there a systematic effect of the anisotropy? Answering these questions would shed a new light on the longstanding and topical problem of the nature of the Heisenberg SG phase Lee and Young . The relevance of anisotropy for this problem is supported by the recent finding that the critical exponents vary continuously with the SG anisotropy Petit et al. (2002).

We report in this letter on two classes of experiments. First, we have performed thermo-remanent magnetization (TRM) measurements with negative temperature cycles during aging in one Ising and several Heisenberg SGs in order to quantify the influence, at temperature $`T`$, of aging at a slightly smaller temperature $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. There is indeed a small cumulative effect from one temperature to the other which limits the sharpness in temperature of the memory effect. It is this cumulative effect that we measure here as a function of the spin anisotropy. Secondly, we have performed new magnetic field change experiments in the Ising sample. This protocol enables us to estimate the coherence length that grows during the aging process. Both sets of experiments are successfully analyzed within the framework proposed in Ref. Bouchaud et al. (2001) (building upon ideas developed in Fisher and Huse (1988), see also Jönsson et al. (2002)), which proposes a real space picture for the hierarchical organization of the SG states. In this model, at a given temperature and time scale, aging processes are associated to a specific length scale. Larger length scales are frozen while smaller length scales are fully equilibrated. Upon reducing the temperature and as a result of the change in the Boltzmann weights, the small length scales which were equilibrated at higher temperature have to evolve towards a new equilibrium state (rejuvenation). On the other hand, the structure at large length scales can no longer evolve (memory). In this picture, the sharpness of the memory effect is directly related to the rapid variation of the active length scale with temperature. A central concern of the present paper is to establish experimentally the time and temperature dependence of this active length scale (see Eq. 4 below.)

The temperature cycle experiments were performed in a monocrystalline Fe0.5Mn0.5TiO3 Ising Katori and Ito (1994) sample #1 ($`T_g=20.7K`$) and Heisenberg SGs with decreasing random anisotropy arising from Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya interactions: an amorphous alloy (Fe0.1Ni0.9)75P16B6Al3 #2 ($`T_g=13.4K`$), a diluted magnetic alloy Au:Fe8% #3 ($`T_g=23.9K`$), an insulating thiospinel CdCr1.7In0.3S4 #4 ($`T_g=16.7K`$) and we reproduce the data on the canonical Ag:Mn2.7% SG #5 ($`T_g=10.4K`$) from Ref. Hammann et al. (1992). The relative anisotropy constants $`(K/T_g)/(K/T_g)_{Ag:Mn}`$, measured by torque experiments Petit et al. (2002), are respectively 16.5, 8.25, 5 and 1 for samples #2, #3, #4 and #5. An isothermal TRM procedure allows one to define a set of reference curves that depend on the waiting time, and to which we will compare the relaxation curves obtained after more complicated histories. In our series of temperature cycle experiments, the sample is first cooled to a temperature $`T<T_g`$ under a small magnetic field (a few Oe). After waiting a time $`t_1=500`$s, the sample is further cooled to a slightly smaller temperature $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ during $`t_2=9000`$s and then re-heated to $`T`$ for another short time $`t_3=t_1`$ (see inset in Fig. 2.). The additional waiting times $`t_1`$ and $`t_3`$ permit to control any possible thermalization delays. The magnetic field is then switched off and the TRM is recorded. For each ‘cycled’ TRM curve, an effective waiting time $`t_2^{eff}`$ is defined such as to superimpose the obtained TRM with one of the purely isothermal TRM recorded at temperature $`T`$, with waiting time $`t_w=t_1+t_2^{eff}(T,\mathrm{\Delta }T)+t_3`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0`$, the effective waiting time equals the actual waiting time but becomes smaller for $`\mathrm{\Delta }T>0`$: $`t_2^{eff}(T,\mathrm{\Delta }T)<t_2`$ characterizes the effect at $`T`$ of aging at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. The results for the different SGs and for two different temperatures, $`T/T_g0.72`$ and $`T/T_g0.85`$, are plotted in Fig. 1 (for sample #5, a similar procedure, with $`t_1=t_3=0`$, was applied Hammann et al. (1992)).

The slope of $`t_2^{eff}/t_2`$ *vs* $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$ reflects the cumulative effect of aging from one temperature to the other. Hence, it quantifies the memory effect; the steeper the curve, the sharper the memory effect. For each of the temperatures $`T/T_g`$, *the influence at $`T`$ of aging at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ is found to increase with increasing spin anisotropy*. Note that, at $`T/T_g=0.72`$, the measured $`t_2^{eff}`$ for sample #3 are slightly smaller than those of the less anisotropic sample #4. However, these two samples are very similar as far as their anisotropy is concerned since their anisotropy constants differ only by 50% whereas from sample #1 to #5 they spread over more than one order of magnitude.

As can be seen in Fig. 5 below, for a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T`$, the effective time decreases with increasing temperature for all the Heisenberg-like samples (samples #4 and #5). By contrast, in the Ising sample #1, the influence at $`T`$ of a $`T\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ aging is slightly *stronger* at the *higher* temperature in the Ising case. Previous *ac*-measurements on the Ising sample Dupuis et al. (2001) demonstrated this singular behaviour even more clearly. At the higher temperature $`T/T_g=0.84`$, the dynamics was in fact found to be almost *critical* (nearly no $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ dependence).

To interpret these experiments in a real space picture Bouchaud et al. (2001), we introduce a typical length scale $`\mathrm{}(t_w,T)`$ over which spin-spin correlations establish at temperature $`T`$ and waiting time $`t_w`$. From general arguments, this coherence length $`\mathrm{}`$ should be an increasing function of $`T`$ and $`t_w`$. For small $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, the experimental TRM curves obtained after a temperature cycle superimpose onto reference isothermal curves. This implies that the SG has reached the same state after a $`t_1+t_2^{eff}`$ isothermal aging and the $`t_1+t_2`$ experimental temperature cycle. We can then sketch the temperature cycle experiment as in Fig. 2, where $`t_2^{eff}`$ is defined by:

$$\mathrm{}(t_1^{}+t_2,T\mathrm{\Delta }T)=\mathrm{}(t_1+t_2^{eff},T)$$
(1)
where $`t_1^{}`$ is given by $`\mathrm{}(t_1,T)=\mathrm{}(t_1^{},T\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$. Note that this picture which retains only the cumulative effect of aging with temperature (no rejuvenation effect) is only valid for small temperature cycle $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. The slope of the experimental curve $`t_2^{eff}/t_2`$ *vs* $`(\mathrm{\Delta }T/T)`$, which quantifies the sharpness of the memory effect, reads from Eq. (1) and for $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T1`$ and $`t_1t_2`$:

$$\frac{t_2^{eff}}{t_2}1\left(\frac{\mathrm{}/\mathrm{ln}T}{\mathrm{}/\mathrm{ln}t_w}\right)|_{t_w=t_2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}.$$
(2)
As announced, a sharp memory effect is related to a rapid variation of $`\mathrm{}`$ with the temperature.

In Ref. Joh et al. (1999), magnetic field change experiments have been used to determine experimentally the SG coherence length in the Heisenberg samples #4 and #5, that was compared with numerical simulations corresponding to an Ising SG. However, the experimental determination of this length scale in the Ising case was not reported before. We have measured the zero field cooled magnetization relaxation (mirror procedure of the TRM), after an isothermal aging, for various amplitudes of the magnetic field $`H`$ applied along the $`c`$-axis of the Ising sample # 1. The effective age $`t_w^{eff}`$ of the system is evaluated by a scaling procedure Vincent et al. (1995) on reference curves obtained with a small field ($`H=5`$Oe). The effective times as a function of the magnetic field were measured for 4 different waiting times and at two temperatures $`0.72T_g`$ and $`0.92T_g`$. On a semi-log scale, the data behaves rather linearly with the field (see Fig. 3).

The effect of a field variation is to reduce the barriers that the system overcomes during aging through the Zeeman energy $`E_z`$. The apparent age $`t_w^{eff}`$ of the SG, smaller than the actual waiting time $`t_w`$, is then given, for small enough $`E_z`$, by:

$$\mathrm{ln}t_w^{eff}/t_w=E_z/k_BT.$$
(3)
The key assumption is that the Zeeman term $`E_z=𝐌𝐇`$ depends on the number $`N`$ of dynamically correlated spins after $`t_w`$. More precisely, for Ising spins and for not too large fields, $`𝐌`$ should be $`\sqrt{N}`$ times the permanent moment $`m\mu _B`$ of one spin, implying that $`E_z`$ is proportional to $`H`$ and $`\sqrt{N}`$ (we used a moment of $`4\mu _B`$ per spins obtained from the Curie constant above $`T_g`$). Following Ref. Joh et al. (1999) and for the sake of simplicity, we then simply relate the number $`N`$ of dynamically correlated spins to the coherence length through $`N=\alpha \mathrm{}^3`$.

The results of the present study along with those reproduced for the Ag:Mn and the thiospinel samples Joh et al. (1999) are plotted in Fig. 4 (in the Heisenberg case, $`E_zN`$ and $`N`$ was extracted in this way in Ref. Joh et al. (1999)). For a given waiting time and reduced temperature, the obtained number of correlated spins in the Ising sample is noticeably smaller than in the Heisenberg samples studied so far, but this number grows faster with time, indicating a slower growth of the energy barriers with size in the Ising sample. The inset of Fig. 4 shows the evolution of $`N`$ with the temperature in samples #1 and #4. Clearly, the separation of the active length scales with temperature (“microscope effect” of the temperature Bouchaud et al. (2001)) is much weaker in the Ising sample. This is in complete agreement with the weak dependence on $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ found in the temperature cycle experiments (small value of $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{ln}T`$ in Eq. (2)).

Now we compare quantitatively the two sets of experiments performed in this study. In Ref. Joh et al. (1999), the correlation lengths were fitted by a universal power law $`\mathrm{}=b(t_w/\tau _0)^{aT/T_g}`$ ($`\tau _0`$ is the microscopic attempt time and is fixed to $`10^{12}`$s), in apparent agreement with numerical simulations performed on Ising systems Kisker et al. (1996). This purely activated scenario would correspond to a single straight line in Fig. 4, and by no means accounts for our data in the Ising sample with the parameters used for the Heisenberg samples. Moreover, using Eq. (2), one would find a slope $`\mathrm{ln}(t_2/\tau _0)`$, independent of both $`a`$ and $`b`$, for the curve $`t_2^{eff}/t_2`$ *vs* $`(\mathrm{\Delta }T/T)`$ shown in Fig. 1. This single value cannot reproduce the super-activated dynamics of the Heisenberg SGs (steep slope in Fig. 1) nor the nearly critical dynamics of the Ising sample (weak slope in Fig. 1) which requires a renormalized attempt time $`\tau _0^{}\tau _0`$. Hence, the experimental data have led us to propose a crossover expression Bouchaud et al. (2001); Dupuis et al. (2001); Berthier and Bouchaud (2002) (see also Jönsson et al. (2002)):

$$t_w=\tau _0^{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(T)\mathrm{}^\psi /T\right)$$
(4)
where $`\tau _0^{}=\tau _0\mathrm{}^z`$ is a renormalized attempt time (critical dynamics) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0T_g\left(1T/T_g\right)^{\psi \nu }`$ is the typical barrier height that vanishes at $`T_g`$ (super-activated dynamics), following Ref. Fisher and Huse (1988). As usual, $`z`$ is the dynamic critical exponent and $`\nu `$ is the critical exponent that governs the equilibrium correlation length. For each of the three SG samples #1, #4 and #5, we have fitted the whole set of experimental results to Eq. 4. These include all field change measurements shown in Fig. 4 and all temperature cycling experiments shown in Fig. 5 (in this case Eqs. 1 and 4 are used). A unique set of parameters is able to account for all the properties of each sample (see table 1). In order to limit the degrees of freedom in our fit, we have imposed the $`z\nu `$ values, taking those derived from dynamic critical scaling (see in refs in Dupuis et al. (2001)). We have also fixed the geometrical factor $`\alpha `$ to 2 ($`N=\alpha \mathrm{}^3`$). The parameters are not defined with a great quantitative accuracy, since their effects on the fit are strongly correlated. However, a consistent qualitative picture emerges. The main tendency is an increasing value of the barrier height parameter $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$ and a decreasing barrier exponent $`\psi `$ for increasing values of the anisotropy. This behavior of the exponent $`\psi `$ is similar to that found in the analysis of *ac* temperature cycling experiments Dupuis et al. (2001), but it contrasts with that derived from the scaling of $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }`$ relaxations Jönsson et al. (2002), as well as with that found in the numerical simulation of Ref. Berthier and Bouchaud (2002). Note, however, that these previous determinations were based on a less constrained analysis and, for the numerical work, on smaller time scales.

With a single expression for the growth of the active length, Eq. (4), that interpolates between critical and activated dynamics, we have thus been able to reproduce consistently two totally different sets of experiments, at different temperatures, with a unique set of parameters (for each sample). This allows us to estimate the barrier height $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$ and the barrier exponent $`\psi `$, which are notoriously hard to measure. As the anisotropy decreases from Ising to Heisenberg SGs, we find an increasingly fast separation of the active length scales with temperature, corresponding to an increased sharpness of the memory effect. Besides, we found that the extracted coherence length is noticeably smaller in the Ising sample (large $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$) , but grows faster with time (small $`\psi `$). At present, it is not clear how the strong single spin anisotropy in the Ising sample gives rise to both a high value of energy barriers and a very small value of the barrier exponent. Within a droplet description, $`\psi 0`$ would imply that the droplet energy exponent $`\theta `$ is also zero, in agreement with many recent numerical works on excitations in Ising SGs Palassini et al. . Our results underline the role of anisotropy in the nature of a SG phase with Heisenberg spins which is presently the subject of active investigations (see *e.g.* Ref. Lee and Young ; Petit et al. (2002); Kawamura and Imagawa (2001)).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Understanding the global patterns of biodiversity and its dynamics at different time scales remains a great challenge for ecological science (Rosenzweig, 1995; Wilson, 2003). One of the key features that defines community structure is the relation between range and abundance. How the community structure develops in time and how species are spatially distributed largely define the field of macroecology (Brown, 1995). In this context, an important step to unify biogeography and biodiversity has been achieved by Hubbell (Hubbell, 2001; Bell, 2001) through the formulation of a neutral theory.

The mathematical framework employed by Hubbell allows for speciation processes to be integrated with the MacArthur-Wilson theory of island biogeography. In this way, the neutral theory predicts some universal features that can be tested by direct analysis of species-abundance distributions and other large-scale measurements. In Hubbell’s theory, two key quantities largely determine the steady-state distributions of species richness (as well as relative species abundances on local and large geographic scales). These two parameters are the so-called biodiversity number and the immigration (dispersal) rate. Under Hubbell’s assumptions, the ecological properties of every individual in the population are assumed to be identical.

In a neutral model of this type, individuals compete for the same pool of resources, but chance events are responsible for the identity of the final winner(s). The dynamics of each species is thus path-dependent and a Markovian description of their time evolution is appropriate. Under the assumption of a balance between birth, death and immigration rates, the neutral theory is able to reproduce the quantitative patterns of species distributions that are well known from the ecological literature. It also permits the generation of several nontrivial and testable quantitative predictions about biodiversity and biogeography. In particular, the theory predicts that rare species would typically be recent in terms of their origination. In relation to conservation biology, a neutral community in which species are essentially equal would be very fluid, with frequent replacements. If true, protected areas should be larger than those expected for stable communities with species closely adapted to given niches.

Formally, Hubbell’s theory is the ecological analog to the neutral theory of genetic drift in genetics (Kimura, 1983; Ewens, 1972; Karlin and McGregor, 1972). Early attempts to incorporate the neutral approach from population genetics (Caswell, 1976; Hubbell, 1979) mainly highlighted the relevance of drift in community dynamics, providing evidence for a global view of ecosystems in which competitive forces, ecological niches, and even trophic interactions could be ignored in the pursuit of a better understanding of biodiversity dynamics. More recent work incorporated these ideas in an explicit way (Hubbell, 1997; Solé and Alonso, 1998) and Hubbell’s recent book provides an extensive, unifying account of these (Hubbell, 2001). The starting point of neutral models is a random community that evolves towards an equilibrium state under a stochastic birth-and death process incorporating dispersal. At high immigration rates, Hubbell’s theory predicts a logseries distribution for the abundance of species in the local community, while when the immigration coupling between the metacommunity and the local community is lower, a lognormal-like shape is obtained for this distribution. Within Hubbell’s approximation, these distributions are shown to be particular cases of what he denotes as the zero-sum multinomial (Hubbell, 2001).

Hubbell’s model for local communities is similar to that proposed in Solé et al., (2000) and analysed in McKane et al, 2000. There we took advantage of a mean field argument to find an analytical form for the stationary distribution for the probability of finding species having an abundance of $`n`$ individuals. In addition, we studied in detail its time behaviour using different approximations. Furthermore, our simplified approach based on this mean field argument allowed us to recover the scaling relationship between the fraction of links actualised and the number of species in a community — the so-called $`C^{}`$-$`S`$ relation, and gave conditions in which such a relation arose.

Within Hubbell’s mathematical framework the dynamical stochastic models were numerically solved and the equilibrium properties analysed. In this paper we present an analytic, general solution of Hubbell’s model for the local community dynamics, that provides the stationary species-abundance distributions together with the time evolution from the initial state towards the stationary distribution.

## 2 Formulation of the theory

Hubbell’s theory concerns populations on two scales: local communities and regional metacommunities. To explain the model and derive the equations in the simplest possible way, we will use the language of urn models (Feller, 1968; Johnson and Kotz, 1977). This is a natural description when the stochastic dynamics in one time step only depends on the state of the system at the beginning of the time step (in other words is a Markov process). It also provides us with a concrete picture of the process which aids the derivation of the governing equation for the model.

We begin by considering the model in a limit where the two levels of description are uncoupled. This allows us to focus only on the local community. We assume that there are $`N_i`$ individuals of species $`i`$ in the local community, with the total number of individuals of all species being $`J`$, that is, $`J=_{i=1}^rN_i`$ where $`r`$ is the total number of species. The model is defined by picking one individual at random from the local community, killing it, and then replacing it by an individual also drawn from the local community. In terms of the associated model this corresponds to having $`N_i`$ balls of colour $`i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$) in the urn. If we focus on one particular colour, $`j`$, the probability that the number of balls will decrease from $`N_j`$ to $`N_j1`$ during one time step is

$$W\left(N_j1|N_j\right)=\frac{N_j}{J}\frac{\left((J1)(N_j1)\right)}{J1},$$
(1)
since a ball of colour $`j`$ must be discarded and one of any other colour replaced for such a transition to occur. On the other hand, the probability that the number of balls will increase from $`N_j`$ to $`N_j+1`$ requires that a ball of any other colour but $`j`$ must be discarded, and one of colour $`j`$ be replaced. Therefore

$$W\left(N_j+1|N_j\right)=\frac{(JN_j)}{J}\frac{N_j}{J1}.$$
(2)
The whole point of the model, however, is to couple local communities and regional metacommunities. This is achieved by choosing a replacement ball from the urn only $`(1m)`$ of the time. For the rest of the time it is chosen from outside the urn. The probability of picking a ball of colour $`j`$ from this external source is defined to be $`P_j`$, and corresponds to assuming that the replacement individual comes from the regional metacommunity where species $`i`$ has a relative abundance of $`P_i`$. The transition probabilities (1) and (2) now read

$$W\left(N_j1|N_j\right)=(1m)\frac{N_j}{J}\frac{(JN_j)}{J1}+m\frac{N_j}{J}(1P_j)$$
(3)
and

$$W\left(N_j+1|N_j\right)=(1m)\frac{(JN_j)}{J}\frac{N_j}{J1}+m\frac{(JN_j)}{J}P_j.$$
(4)
The change in the probability that there are $`N_j`$ balls in the urn from time $`t`$ to the time after one time step has elapsed consists of four contributions. Two of these correspond to an increase in this probability (due to transitions from $`(N_j1)`$ and $`(N_j+1)`$ to $`N_j`$) and two to a decrease (due to transitions from $`N_j`$ to $`(N_j+1)`$ and $`(N_j1)`$). The balance equation showing this change is:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }P(N_j,t)`$ $`=`$ $`W(N_j|N_j1)P(N_j1,t)+W(N_j|N_j+1)P(N_j+1,t)`$ (5)
$``$ $`\left\{W(N_j+1|N_j)+W(N_j1|N_j)\right\}P(N_j,t).`$
Compared with the long time scales we are interested in — during which many transitions will take place — the step size is very small, and we may take the limit in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }P(N_j,t)dP(N_j,t)/dt`$. The resulting equation is a master equation for the probability $`P(N_j,t)`$ (Van Kampen, 1981; Gardiner, 1985). Some care is needed with the boundary conditions on this equation: clearly the cases $`N_j=0`$ and $`N_j=J`$ are special cases since there can be no transitions which reduce $`N_j`$ in the former case or which increase $`N_j`$ in the latter case. One possibility is to write two separate equations for these special cases. However there is no need for this if we first observe that some of these conditions are natural consequences of the form of the transition probabilities. For example, the expressions in (3) and (4) are both zero if $`N_j=0`$ and $`N_j=J`$ respectively. So as long as we agree to impose the formal definitions $`W(0|1)=0`$ and $`W(J|J+1)=0`$ the same master equation may be used for all states. In addition, an initial condition needs to be imposed to complete the specification of the problem. Typically, the number of individuals in the local community at $`t=0`$ will be given: $`P(N_j,0)=\delta _{N_j,N_{j,0}}`$.

The mathematical formulation of Hubbell’s theory described above can be directly mapped on to another dynamical model of a multispecies community which we introduced a few years ago (Solé et al., 2000; McKane et al., 2000; Solé et al., 2002). In this case though, the nature of the interaction depends on the “score” between one species and another, and a form of mean field theory had to be used in order to describe the dynamics by such a straightforward dynamics. In terms of the notation we have used above — $`N`$ denoting the number of individuals of a particular species and $`J`$ denoting the total number of individuals of all species — the transition probabilities of this model are (Solé et al., 2000; McKane et al., 2000):

$$W(N+1|N)=C^{}(1\mu )\frac{N}{J}\left(\frac{JN}{J1}\right)+\frac{\mu }{S}\frac{JN}{J},$$
(6)
and

$$W(N1|N)=C^{}(1\mu )\frac{N}{J}\left(\frac{JN}{J1}\right)+\frac{\mu }{S}(S1)\frac{N}{J}.$$
(7)
Here $`\mu `$ is the fraction of the time that replacing of one species by another can happen by chance, and not because the replacement individual belongs to a species which has a positive score against the first. It clearly maps into $`m`$. The other constants are $`S`$, the number of species, and $`C^{}`$, a parameter related to the degree of connectivity of the matrix of scores between the species. The precise form of the mapping is $`C^{}=1`$ and $`P_j=S^1`$.

Since we have analysed this model extensively (McKane et al., 2000) we may simply deduce expressions for quantities of interest in the Hubbell theory by setting $`C^{}=1,S=P_j^1`$ and $`\mu =m`$.

## 3 Stationary state

The most straightforward questions we can investigate concern the nature of the stationary state of the theory. Let us begin by introducing the abbreviations

$$r_{N_j}W\left(N_j1|N_j\right)=\frac{N_j}{J}\left[(1m)\frac{(JN_j)}{J1}+m(1P_j)\right]$$
(8)
and

$$g_{N_j}W\left(N_j+1|N_j\right)=\frac{(JN_j)}{J}\left[(1m)\frac{N_j}{J1}+mP_j\right].$$
(9)
The master equation now reads

$$\frac{dP(N_j,t)}{dt}=r_{N_j+1}P(N_j+1,t)+g_{N_j1}P(N_j1,t)\left\{r_{N_j}+g_{N_j}\right\}P(N_j,t).$$
(10)
The stationary probability distribution, $`P_s(N_j)`$, is determined by setting $`dP(N_j)/dt=0`$. This gives

$$r_{N_j+1}P_s(N_j+1)g_{N_j}P_s(N_j)=r_{N_j}P_s(N_j)g_{N_j1}P_s(N_j1).$$
(11)
This is true for all $`N_j`$, which implies that $`r_{N_j}P_s(N_j)g_{N_j1}P_s(N_j1)=I`$, where $`I`$ is a constant. Applying the boundary condition at $`N_j=0`$, we find that $`I=0`$ and therefore

$$r_{N_j+1}P_s(N_j+1)=g_{N_j}P_s(N_j);N_j=0,1,\mathrm{},J.$$
(12)
To solve this equation, let us first assume that $`m0`$. Then the $`r_{N_j}`$ and $`g_{N_j}`$ given by (8) and (9) are all non-zero and we can solve (12) by iteration to obtain

$$P_s(N_j)=\frac{g_{N_j1}g_{N_j2}\mathrm{}g_0}{r_{N_j}r_{N_j1}\mathrm{}r_1}P_s(0);N_j=1,\mathrm{},J.$$
(13)
The constant $`P_s(0)`$ can be determined from the normalisation condition

$$\underset{N_j=0}{\overset{J}{}}P_s(N_j)=P_s(0)+\underset{N_j>0}{}P_s(N_j)=1.$$
(14)
To simplify the algebra let us introduce some new notation for various combinations of parameters which naturally appear in the solution of the model. We write the transition probabilities as

$$r_{N_j}=\frac{(1m)}{J(J1)}N_j(N_j^{}N_j),$$
(15)
and

$$g_{N_j}=\frac{(1m)}{J(J1)}(JN_j)(N_j+P_j^{}),$$
(16)
where

$$P_j^{}=\frac{m(J1)}{(1m)}P_j\mathrm{and}N_j^{}=\left(\frac{Jm}{1m}\right)P_j^{}.$$
(17)
Substituting the expressions (15) and (16) into (13) gives an explicit representation for the $`P_s(N_j)`$ in terms of $`P_s(0)`$. An expression for $`P_s(0)`$ itself can be obtained by performing the finite sum which appears in (14). This sum can be performed analytically using properties of Jacobi polynomials (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1965). Alternatively, the mapping into the model defined by (6) and (7) can be used since the result for the $`P_s`$ is known in this case (Solé et al., 2000; McKane et al., 2000). One finds (see McKane et al., 2000, for details of the derivation):

$$P_s(N_j)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{J}{N_j}\right)\frac{\beta (N_j+P_j^{},N_j^{}N_j)}{\beta (P_j^{},N_j^{}J)},$$
(18)
where $`\beta (a,b)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b)`$ is the beta-function.

It is interesting to note that in the case $`m=0`$, where the local community is decoupled from the regional metacommunity, $`g_0=0`$, and so from (12), since $`r_10`$, it follows that $`P_s(1)=0`$. In fact, since $`r_{N_j}0`$ for $`0<N_j<J`$, we see from (12) that $`P_s(N_j)=0`$ for all $`0<N_j<J`$. So with no interaction with the regional metacommunity, species $`j`$ either disappears or becomes the only species there is in the local community. Therefore some degree of coupling is vital for biodiversity.

In Fig 1, we have computed the stationary distribution for different parameter values and sizes of the system. The relative species abundance distribution predicted to occur in local communities — the zero-sum multinomial— by the unified theory of Hubbell can be readily computed even for high community sizes using the analytic formula (18).

## 4 Time dependence

Together with universal features displayed by the stationary patterns observed in mature communities, some common features are also observed when looking at how diversity develops in time. When an empty field starts to be colonized by immigrant species a new community gets formed and a pattern of species replacement develops. The transition from abandoned field to mature forest is one of the best known examples of ecological sucession and is common in many places after the abandonment of agricultural land. In temperate climates, a mature forest is the end point of sucession, in spite of the diferent potential initial conditions. The path towards the steady species-ranks distribution seems to be common to many different ecosystems (Hubbell, 2001). Furthermore, natural systems are continuously perturbed; any disturbance resumes the process of ecological succession. It is thus natural to ask: what predictions about this process can be made in the context of Hubbell’s neutral theory?

In the last section it was shown that a closed form expression could be obtained for the probability of finding $`N_j`$ individuals of species $`j`$ in the local community when the systems has reached the stationary state. In addition to this, just mentioned, we also wish to know how the community is assembled from a given starting point. This requires us to solve for the time-dependence of the model. It is not possible, in general, to carry this out exactly, since the transition probabilities (15) and (16) are nonlinear functions of $`N_j`$. It is nevertheless possible to get a very good approximation to $`P(N_j,t)`$ by using the fact that in cases of interest $`J`$ will be large. The approach which we will use, due to Van Kampen (1981), is rather technical and has been discussed elsewhere in some detail (Van Kampen, 1981; McKane et al., 2000), but the basic idea is quite simple. Therefore, we will avoid these complications, and quote relevant results using the correspondence with the transition probabilities (6) and (7).

The key idea is to expand about the deterministic version of the theory. In the limit where the number of individuals becomes infinite, all stochasticity is lost, and the system is completely described by a deterministic equation. This equation is not known a priori, but if it can be established, an expansion in powers of $`J^1`$ could perhaps be set up to calculate corrections to the deterministic result which would be valid for large, but finite, $`J`$. Quite generally we would expect a plot of $`P(N_j,t)`$ against $`N_j`$ for fixed $`t`$ to be approximately Gaussian for large $`J`$. The motion of the peak of this distribution would move with $`t`$ according to the deterministic equation. Van Kampen’s large $`J`$ expansion gives the deterministic equation as the zeroth order ($`J\mathrm{}`$) result, with the next to leading order result giving a Gaussian distribution peaked at this value. Higher order contributions give corrections to this distribution, but they are usually so small for large $`J`$ that they are of very little interest. Since a Gaussian centred on a given value is completely determined by its width, there are only two things to find: (i) the deterministic equation, (ii) the width of the distribution.

In practice one writes $`N_j=J\varphi _j(t)+J^{1/2}x_j`$, where $`\varphi _j(t)=lim_J\mathrm{}(N_j/J)`$ is the fraction of $`j`$ species which are present in the local community at time $`t`$ in the deterministic limit. The variable

$$x_j=\frac{1}{\sqrt{J}}\left(N_jJ\varphi _j(t)\right)$$

characterises the fluctuations away from the deterministic theory. We require $`\varphi _j(t)`$ and $`x_j^2`$ ($`x_j=0`$). Using the correspondence between the two models we obtain (McKane et al., 2000)

$$\frac{d\varphi _j}{d\tau }=m\left(P_j\varphi _j\right),$$
(19)
where $`\tau =t/J`$ is a rescaled time. This equation is easily understood: if $`\varphi _j`$ is less than the abundance of species $`j`$ in the regional metacommunity, then it increases. If it is more, then it decreases. The equation is easily solved to give

$$\varphi _j(\tau )=\varphi _j(0)e^{m\tau }+P_j(1e^{m\tau }).$$
(20)
Initially we ask that $`x_j(0)=0`$, which means that $`\varphi _j(0)=N_j(0)/J=N_{j,0}/J`$. Going back to the $`t`$ variable gives

$$\varphi _j(t)=\frac{N_{j,0}}{J}e^{mt/J}+P_j(1e^{mt/J}).$$
(21)
In Hubbell (2001, Chapter 4), an alternative discrete-time formulation of this local community model is given. Obviously, both time discrete and time continuous formulations give rise to the same equations for the deterministic model counterpart (Hubbell, 2001, page 110). However, he does not address the stochastic time-continuous formulation. Here we show that insight can be gained by finding approximate solutions to the time-dependent model.

The width of the distribution is given by

$`x_j^2_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}P_j(1P_j)\left[1e^{2m\tau }\right]`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`𝒜_j{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{m}}(12P_j)e^{m\tau }\left[1e^{m\tau }\right]2(1m)𝒜_j^2\tau e^{2m\tau },`$
where $`𝒜_j=(N_{j,0}/J)P_j`$. We have already commented that the probability distribution is a Gaussian to the order we have been working. Specifically, in terms of the quantities calculated above,

$$P(N_j,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi Jx_j^2_\tau }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(N_jJ\varphi _j(t))^2}{2Jx_j^2_\tau }\right),$$
(23)
where $`\varphi _j(t)`$ and $`x_j^2_\tau `$ are given by equations (21) and (22) respectively.

In Fig. 2, we show the temporal evolution for $`P(N_j,t)`$ computed both using a Gaussian approximation (Eq. (23)) and the numerical integration of the master equation. The good agreement which is obtained is a reflection of the fact that community sizes $`J`$ are taken to be large enough so that further terms in the large $`J`$-expansion are negligible. However, if the final stationary distribution does not have a Gaussian shape, more terms should be included in the expansion so as to capture the true temporal behaviour of $`P(N_j,t)`$. Notice that, while the approximation given by Eq. (23) is always represented as dotted or punctuated curves, in some cases these are not visible because they match the exact distribution so completely.

## 5 Conclusion

The main aim of this paper has been to show that aspects of Hubbell’s neutral model of local community biodiversity dynamics can be solved for exactly, and even if this is not possible, calculational schemes are available which provide very good approximations to the solution. Specifically, we have shown that the stationary properties of the model, which can be obtained from the zero-sum multinomial, can all be found exactly. So, for instance, the mean value and variance of the number of individuals of species $`j`$, can be obtained from this probability distribution. The nature of the time evolution cannot be determined in closed form, but a controlled approximation based on assuming that the total number of individuals of all species, $`J`$, is large, is possible. This is an excellent approximation in most cases of interest, and we would expect that the results that we have obtained will be relevant in these situations. The applicability of our approximation scheme was checked by carrying out the numerical integration of the master equation (Eq. 10). The results, displayed in Fig. 2, confirm our expectations.

While the results which we have reported describe the essential aspects of the solution of Hubbell’s model, there are many other interesting features which are also amenable to analysis and for which definite, and well-controlled, results may be obtained. The structure of the metacommunity and the form of the colonisation curve are examples. These, and related questions, are presently under study, and we hope to report our results in a future publication.

## Acknowledgements

DA would like to thank the MACSIN research group at the UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil for providing constant support and a nice working environment. This work has been supported by a grant CIRIT FI00524 (DA) from the Catalan Government and by the Santa Fe Institute.

## References

Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A., 1965. Handbook of mathematical functions. Dover, New York.

Bell, G., 2001. Neutral macroecology. Science 293, 2413-2418.

Brown, J.H., 1995. Macroecology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Caswell, H., 1976. Community structure: a neutral model analysis. Ecol. Monogr. 46, 327-354.

Ewens, W. J., 1972. The sampling theory of selectively neutral alleles. Theor. Popul. Biol. 3, 87-112.

Karlin, S. and McGregor, J., 1972. Addendum to a paper of W. Ewens. Theor. Popul. Biol. 3, 113-116.

Kimura, M., 1983. The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Feller, W., 1968. An introduction to probability theory and its applications. Volume 1, Third edition. Wiley, New York.

Gardiner, C. W., 1985. Handbook of stochastic methods. Springer, Berlin. 2nd ed.

Hubbell, S. P., 1997. A unified theory of biogeography and relative species abundance and its application to tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Coral Reefs 16 (Suppl.), S9–S21.

Hubbell, S. P., 2001. The unified theory of biogeography and biogeography. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.

Johnson, N. L. and Kotz, S., 1977. Urn models and their applications. Wiley, New York.

Solé, R. and Alonso, D., 1998. Random walks, fractals and the origins of rainforest diversity. Adv. Complex Syst. 1, 203-220.

McKane, A. J., Alonso, D. and Solé, R., 2000. A mean field stochastic theory for species-rich assembled communities. Phys. Rev. E 62, 8466–8484.

Rosenzweig, M. L., 1995. Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Solé, R., Alonso, D. and McKane, A. J., 2000. Scaling in a network model of a multispecies ecosystem. Physica A 286, 337–344.

Solé, R., Alonso, D. and McKane, A. J., 2002. Self-organized instability in complex ecosystems. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 357, 667–681.

Van Kampen, N. G., 1981. Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Wilson, E. O., 2003. The encyclopedia of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 77-80.

## Figure captions

1. Zero-sum multinomial distribution. The analytic formula (18) has been used to compute the stationary distribution, $`P_s(N_j)`$, for different values of the abundance of species $`j`$ in the metacommunity, the total number of individuals $`J`$ and the probability of immigration from the metacommunity, $`m`$. We have dropped the subscript $`j`$, which labels a particular species, in the figure.
2. Temporal evolution of the probability, $`P(N_j,t)`$, of having the $`j`$-th species represented by $`N_j`$ individuals. The temporal evolution has been computed using both the Gaussian approximation and the straightforward numerical integration of the exact master equation. In both cases, the initial number of individuals of the focus species was $`0.8\times J`$. The relative abundance of the focus species in the metacommunity was $`P_j=0.1`$ also in both cases. We have dropped the subscript $`j`$, which labels a particular species, in the figure.

Figure 1

Figure 2


text:
# Observation of Lasing Mediated by Collective Atomic Recoil

## Abstract

We observe the buildup of a frequency-shifted reverse light field in a unidirectionally pumped high-$`Q`$ optical ring cavity serving as a dipole trap for cold atoms. This effect is enhanced and a steady state is reached, if via an optical molasses an additional friction force is applied to the atoms. We observe the displacement of the atoms accelerated by momentum transfer in the backscattering process and interpret our observations in terms of the collective atomic recoil laser. Numerical simulations are in good agreement with the experimental results.

preprint: APS/123-QED

Since the first observation of photonic recoil Frisch33 , a large variety of techniques has been developed to exploit the mechanical forces of light for optical cooling and trapping. The inverse process, i.e. the impact of the atomic motion on light fields, has recently received special attention with the theoretical prediction Guo92  and the observation Courtois94 ; Kruse03  of the phenomenon of recoil-induced resonances (RIR) and with the proposal for a collective atomic recoil laser (CARL) Bonifacio94 . In RIR experiments a pump and a weak probe laser beam having different frequencies give rise to a moving standing light wave at the intersection region. Atoms moving synchronously to this wave undergo two-photon Raman transitions between momentum states. This gives rise to a density grating at the intersection region, which copropagates with the standing wave. The density modulation corresponds to a classical bunching of atoms in the optical potential valleys formed by the standing wave. The Raman scattering process can equivalently be described as stimulated Rayleigh scattering of photons off the density grating Courtois94  from one beam into the other. If the probe laser is red-detuned from the pump, it receives a net gain. The probe gain increases the amplitude of the standing wave. This leads to stronger atomic bunching and, in turn, strengthens the Rayleigh scattering in an avalanche process. In RIR experiments the relative gain is typically small, so that runaway amplification of the probe is not observed. Consequently, the positive feedback described above is neglected in common RIR theories.

CARL which shares the same gain mechanism as RIR Berman99  has been formulated as a transient process Bonifacio94 , the signature of which is an exponential growth of a seeded probe field oriented reversely to a strong pump interacting with an active medium. On the other hand, atomic bunching and probe gain can also arise spontaneously from fluctuations with no seed field applied Bonifacio95 . The underlying runaway amplification mechanism is particularly strong, if the reverse probe field is recycled by a ring cavity. So far, attempts to observe CARL action have only been undertaken in hot atomic vapors Lippi96 ; Hemmer96 . They have led to the identification of a reverse field with some of the expected characteristics. However, the gain observed in the reverse field can have other sources Brown97 , which are not necessarily related to atomic recoil, so that the unambiguous experimental proof of the CARL effect is still owing.

The CARL effect should emerge most clearly in cold atomic clouds in a collisionless environment Berman99 . Furthermore, large detunings of the lasers far outside the Doppler-broadened profiles of the atomic resonances are preferable. In this regime effects from atomic polarization gratings, which are not based on density variations Brown97 , are avoided. Finally, to emphasize the role of the exponential gain responsible for selfbunching, i.e. spontaneous formation and growth of a density grating, it is desirable not to seed the probe. The observation of a probe beam is then a clear indication for CARL in contrast to RIR, where the avalanche effect is nonexistent. In this paper we present experiments which fulfill the above requirements.

Our high-$`Q`$ ring cavity consists of one plane and two curved mirrors. It is $`8.5`$ cm long, has a beam waist of $`w_0=130\mu `$m and an amplitude decay rate of $`\kappa =2\pi \times 22`$kHz. The cavity is pumped by a titanium-sapphire laser. For the sake of definiteness, we describe in the following the cavity modes by their field amplitudes scaled to the field per photon Gangl00 . The mode $`\alpha _+`$ is continuously pumped at a rate $`\eta _+=\sqrt{\delta \kappa }\alpha _+^{(in)}`$, where $`\delta `$ is the free spectral range of the cavity and $`\alpha _+^{(in)}`$ the field amplitude of the incoupled laser beam. The titanium-sapphire laser is stabilized to this mode by the Pound-Drever-Hall method. The counterpropagating mode is labelled by $`\alpha _{}`$. We call $`\alpha _+`$ the pump and $`\alpha _{}`$ the probe mode. The details of the apparatus have been published in Ref. Kruse03 . We load 85Rb atoms from a magneto-optical trap (MOT) into a TEM00 mode of the ring cavity. With typically $`N=10^6`$ atoms trapped, we achieve atom peak densities of more than $`2\times 10^{11}`$ cm-3 at temperatures of several $`100\mu `$K corresponding roughly to $`1/5`$ of the potential depth. The temperature of the atomic cloud and its density distribution are monitored by time-of-flight absorption imaging. We measure the intracavity light power via the fields leaking through one of the cavity mirrors (intensity transmission $`T=1.8\times 10^6`$, see Fig. 1). The outcoupled light power is related to the intracavity power by $`P_\pm ^{(out)}=TP_\pm ^{(cav)}=T\mathrm{}\omega \delta |\alpha _\pm |^2`$. The phase dynamics of the two counterpropagating cavity modes is monitored as the beat signal between the two outcoupled beams. Any frequency difference between pump and probe, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \omega _+\omega _{}`$, i.e. propagation of the standing wave nodes inside the ring cavity, is translated into an amplitude variation of the observed interference signal $`P_{beat}=T\mathrm{}\omega \delta |\alpha _++\alpha _{}|^2`$.

In order to observe a CARL signal, we load atoms from the MOT into the symmetrically pumped ring cavity standing wave ($`\lambda =797.0`$nm). The detuning from the nearest atomic transition ($`D`$1-line at $`794.8`$nm) is $`1`$THz. After $`30`$ms trapping time one beam ($`\eta _{}`$) is switched off via a mechanical shutter. With no atoms the interference signal $`P_{beat}`$ then drops to $`T\mathrm{}\omega \delta |\alpha _+|^2`$ within a time of $`10\mu `$s, limited by the finite shutter closing time. An observed residual low-frequency fluctuation of $`P_{beat}`$ is assigned to scattering at the imperfect mirror surfaces. In contrast, if atoms are loaded into the ring cavity standing wave, oscillations appear on the interference signal shortly after the switch-off, as shown in Fig. 2(a). Their amplitude is rapidly damped, however they are still discernible after more than $`1.5`$ms, which exceeds the cavity decay time $`\tau =(2\kappa )^1`$ by more than a factor of $`600`$. We verified that the oscillations do not occur for low cavity finesse, which is realized by rotating the polarization of the incoupled lasers from $`s`$ to $`p`$ polarization Kruse03 , thereby reducing the finesse from $`80000`$ to $`2500`$. Figure 2(c) shows the frequency of the interference signal as a function of time. From the observations we can deduce 1. that the probe mode $`\alpha _{}`$ is fed with light in the presence of atoms, thus leading to a standing wave superposed to the pump mode $`\alpha _+`$. 2. Having verified that the oscillations are solely due to a relative phase shift of the cavity modes (no oscillations are detected in either mode), we know that the detuning between probe and pump increases in time, and therefore the standing wave is displaced and accelerated by the presence of atoms. 3. With time the contrast of the standing wave reduces to zero, i.e. after a fast initial decay, the probe fades out on a time scale of $`1.5`$ms. 4. The atoms are dragged by the moving standing wave. The frequency shift of the backscattered light field by up to $`1`$MHz corresponds to an atomic velocity of $`40`$cm/s. At interaction times of a few ms, the atomic motion should lead to a detectable displacement. To verify this we have taken time-of-flight absorption images of the atomic cloud at various times after one-sided switch-off, shown in Fig. 2(d) and (e). We observe that, even though a major fraction of the cloud keeps staying at the waist of the laser beam, its center-of-mass is shifted along the propagation direction of the standing wave. In the case of low cavity finesse, the displacement is almost zero.

The observations can be understood in terms of lasing mediated by collective atomic recoil, despite the differences between our system and the original CARL proposal Bonifacio94 . The original idea is based on injecting a homogeneously distributed monokinetic atomic beam counterpropagating to the pump and a seed for the probe, which predetermines the probe frequency. In this system, the signature for CARL action is a blue-detuned amplified probe pulse followed by a highly irregular evolution of the system. In contrast, in our system the probe frequency and the atomic momentum distribution evolve in a selfconsistent manner. Initially the atoms are highly bunched at the antinodes of the symmetrically pumped standing wave cavity field. After switching off $`\eta _{}`$, those atoms which take part in the CARL process transfer photons from the pump into the probe and by recoil, acquire momentum, $`mv`$, in direction of the pump. The frequency difference between probe and pump corresponds to twice the Doppler shift, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =2kv`$. Thus, in agreement with our observations, an increasingly red-detuned probe beam is expected, whose intensity eventually diminishes, because its frequency drifts out of the cavity resonance by an amount corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$.

Being focussed on studies of transient phenomena, the original CARL model does not consider relaxation for the translational degrees of freedom. The long-term dynamics predicted by this model yields atomic acceleration without any bounds Perrin02b . To obtain steady state operation, the addition of dissipation to the momentum equations has been suggested Bonifacio96 ; Perrin01 . We translate this idea to experiment by introducing a friction force by means of a superimposed optical molasses: In a second set of experiments, we load the atoms from the MOT directly into the unidirectionally pumped running wave dipole trap ($`\eta _{}=0`$). In contrast to the first set of experiments, we now start from a basically homogeneous atomic density distribution, so that the appearance of light in the probe mode constitutes an evidence for selfbunching. After $`40`$ms trapping time, we switch on the optical molasses. We use the laser beams of the MOT and tune them $`50`$MHz below the cooling transition ($`D`$2, $`F=3F^{}=4`$). Fig. 3(a) shows the interference signal observed when the optical molasses is turned on at time $`t=0`$. Apparently, strong oscillations emerge from the noise floor. They quickly reach a steady frequency between $`100`$ and $`170`$kHz, which corresponds to an atomic velocity of $`7`$ to $`13`$cm/s, and they persist for times longer than $`100`$ms, mainly limited by the finite size of the molasses region. Fig. 3(c) demonstrates the dependence of the beat frequency on the pump rate $`\eta _+`$.

We interpret the experimental observations in the following way: Any inhomogeneity in the atomic density distribution, e.g. due to a residual standing wave ratio in the cavity field generated by back-scattering from the cavity mirrors, gives rise to some amount of atomic bunching. Without the optical molasses, this bunching is not sufficient to initiate runaway CARL amplification, mainly because the atoms are accelerated and redistributed in space, before a relevant bunching of the atomic density can occur. The damping force of the molasses now counteracts the acceleration force and prevents dispersion of the atomic velocities. A steady-state velocity is reached, when the velocity dependent damping force balances the CARL acceleration. The molasses thus acts like a pump recycling the atoms into an equilibrium momentum state that otherwise would be depleted by CARL acceleration. The equilibrium defines the frequency of the probe, which therefore is dependent on the intensity of the pump laser, as is shown in Fig. 3(c), and the molasses parameters. We found that the frequency also depends on the atom number.

We model our system consisting of an ensemble of atoms coupled to two counterpropagating modes of a ring cavity with a set of differential equations Bonifacio95 ; Gangl00 ; Perrin02 . We concentrate on the limit of very large laser detuning from the atomic resonances, where the excited atomic states can be adiabatically eliminated (Eqs. (16-18) in Ref. Gangl00 ). Adapting this model to our experiment, we have to account for the fact that one mode, the pump $`\alpha _+`$, is tightly phase-locked to the cavity. Any phase variation of $`\alpha _+`$ is translated by the servo loop into a phase correction fed back to the incoupled laser $`\alpha _+^{(in)}`$, thus suppressing any relative phase dynamics. Being interested mainly in the situation of one-sided pumping of the cavity ($`\eta _{}=0`$), we also neglect variations of $`\alpha _+`$ due to photon scattering from and into the (almost) empty probe $`\alpha _{}`$. We then obtain a stationary field amplitude $`\alpha _+=\chi ^1\eta _+`$, where we introduced the abbreviation $`\chi =\kappa +iNU_0i\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$. Here $`N`$ is the atom number, $`U_0`$ the one-photon light shift and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ the detuning of the laser from the resonance of the empty cavity. The very large detuning from the atomic resonances allows us to neglect the radiation pressure exerted by the cavity fields. The backscattered probe and the motions of the atoms located at the positions $`x_n`$ are then described by

$`\dot{\alpha }_{}`$ $`=\chi \alpha _{}\frac{iU_0\eta _+}{\chi }{\displaystyle _n}e^{2ikx_n},`$ (1)
$`k\ddot{x}_n`$ $`=2\epsilon iU_0\eta _+\left(\frac{\alpha _{}}{\chi ^{}}e^{2ikx_n}\frac{\alpha _{}^{}}{\chi }e^{2ikx_n}\right)\gamma _{fric}k\dot{x}_n,`$
where $`k`$ is the wavenumber of the field and $`\epsilon \mathrm{}k^2/m`$ is twice the recoil shift. Note that we have phenomenologically included a damping term $`\gamma _{fric}kv`$ to account for molasses friction. This procedure has been introduced in Ref. Bonifacio96  to model the impact of atomic collisions. In our experiment, collisions are negligible.

In general the equations cannot be solved analytically, and we have to numerically iterate them. For the sake of computational efficiency we treat groups of $`10^4`$ atoms as single particles. Fig. 2(b) and Fig. 3(b) trace the simulated evolution of the coupled system consistent of the atomic cloud and two optical modes of the ring cavity as pump and probe. We find good agreement with the experimental data. The simulations also reveal that part of the atoms copropagate with the moving standing wave potential, sitting on its back slope and thus experiencing a constant accelerating light force. This force comes from the photonic momentum transfer accompanying the light scattering into the reverse mode: The atoms behave like surfing on a self-sustained standing light wave. Without friction the atoms continuously accelerate, and the standing wave ratio and the atomic bunching gradually decrease. The inclusion of friction leads to increased backscattering, deeper potential valleys and stronger atomic bunching.

Analytic solutions can be derived for the case of perfect atomic bunching. We may then replace the atomic variables by center-of-mass coordinates $`xN^1_nx_n`$. Inserting the ansatz $`\alpha _{}\beta e^{2ikx}`$, with the assumption of unidirectional pumping and steady state conditions ($`\eta _{}=0`$, $`\dot{\beta }=0`$), one obtains

$`\beta `$ $`=\frac{iNU_0\eta _+}{\chi \left(\chi +2ikv\right)},`$ (2)
$`k\dot{v}`$ $`=\frac{4\epsilon NU_0^2\eta _+^2}{|\chi |^2}\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{1}{\chi +2ikv}\right)\gamma _{fric}kv.`$
For simplicity we assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c=NU_0`$, which is generally satisfied when the laser is locked to the cavity, whose resonance is shifted by the presence of atoms Elsasser03 . Ignoring friction ($`\gamma _{fric}=0`$) and with the initial condition $`v(t=0)=0`$, the differential equation in (2) is solved by

$$\left(kv\right)^3+\frac{3\kappa ^2}{4}kv=\frac{3\epsilon NU_0^2\eta _+^2}{\kappa }t.$$
(3)
The analytic solution of this cubic equation is shown as a solid line in Fig. 2(c). In order to account for atomic debunching, which is particularly strong during the one-sided switch-off procedure, we have assumed that only $`1/10`$ of the atoms participate in the CARL process. In contrast, the introduction of friction to the dynamics leads to a steady state. At long times, where $`2kv\kappa `$, the differential equation in (2) is approximately solved by

$$\left(kv\right)^3=\frac{\epsilon NU_0^2\eta _+^2}{\kappa \gamma _{fric}}.$$
(4)
In summary, we studied the mutual backaction between the light field of a unidirectionally pumped high-$`Q`$ ring cavity and cold atoms trapped in this light field. For the first time, as far as we know, strong evidence for the central role played by bunching and by atomic recoil, has been found; the former by observing a backscattered probe field in the absence of a seed and the latter by detecting a displacement of the atomic sample. By introducing an optical molasses the system approaches a steady state, which might be interpreted as a *cw* CARL. The atomic selfbunching triggered by the molasses is an example for a phenomenon occurring in extended dynamical systems: the enhancement or even the seeding of spatio-temporal instabilities by a dissipative force.

We are grateful for helpful discussions with Helmut Ritsch. We acknowledge financial support from the Landesstiftung Baden-Württemberg.


text:
# What Connects Different Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics?11footnote 1To appear in the proceedings of the workshop Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics, Center for Frontier Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, September 24–27, 2002

## 1 Introduction

A list of some thirteen different interpretations of quantum mechanics was discussed at the concluding session of this conference222See the contribution of A. Elitzur to this volume. . The very length of this list invites the questions: What are the relationships between these interpretations?; To what uses may they be put?; and Is it possible to objectively settle on one?. This brief article offers some personal reflections on these questions.

The defining thread connecting interpretations of quantum theory is their agreement on the probabilities for the outcomes of measurements, at least to an excellent approximation. Some formulations may provide probabilities for further kinds of alternatives such as the position of the Moon when it is not receiving attention from observers, or the values of density fluctuations in the very early universe when there were no observers around. However, a formulation that does not reproduce the standard textbook answers for the probabilities of measurements it is not an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rather, it is a different theory. Such alternatives to quantum theory are of great interest but not the subject of this essay.

The idea explored here is that a number of different interpretations of quantum mechanics can be connected through the consistent (or decoherent) quantum mechanics of a closed system. Specifically, a number of interpretations can be seen as restrictions of consistent histories quantum theory to particular kinds of sets of alternative histories333“Frameworks” in the terminology of Griffiths. together with the approximations and special descriptions of the sets that these restrictions permit. This essay examines three cases where this connection can be made and gives brief discussions of the utility of the restrictions involved.

## 2 The Quantum Mechanics of Closed Systems

We begin with a very brief review of the quantum mechanics of a closed system, most generally the universe as a whole444For details see the classic expositions in .. To simplify the discussion we neglect quantum gravity and assume a fixed background spacetime geometry. The familiar apparatus of Hilbert space, states, and operators may then be employed to formulate the quantum mechanics of the closed system555For the generalizations that may be otherwise required, see . We view the quantum mechanics of closed systems as an extension and completion of the Everett formulation and therefore do not count that as a separate interpretation.. As a simple model, we can think of a large, isolated box of $`N`$ non-relativistic particles. Dynamics can be specified in terms of particle positions $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$ and momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ by a Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_i^2}{2m_i}+V(\stackrel{}{x}_i).$$
(2.1)
Both observers and observed, if any, are contained inside. This is evidently not the most general description of a closed system but it will suffice to illustrate some of the connections between interpretations that we describe later.

We take the closed system to be described by a quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The most general objective of quantum theory is the prediction from $`H`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the probabilities of the individual members of a set of coarse-grained alternative histories of the closed system. A history is described by giving a sequence of alternatives $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _n)`$ at a series of times $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_n`$. Alternatives at a moment of time $`t_k`$ are represented by an exhaustive set of orthogonal, Heisenberg picture, projection operators $`\{P_{\alpha _k}^k(t_k)\}`$ and a history of alternatives is represented by the corresponding chain of projections called a class operator

$$C_\alpha =P_{\alpha _n}^k(t_n)\mathrm{}P_{\alpha _1}^1(t_1).$$
(2.2)
(On the left side of (2.2) we have abbreviated the whole chain $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$ by a single index $`\alpha `$). For example, if we are interested in a history of the Earth moving around the Sun, the $`P`$’s might be projections onto exclusive ranges of the center of mass position of the Earth at a sequence of times. This set of histories is coarse-grained because alternatives are not specified at every time but only at some times, because the center of mass position is not specified exactly but only in certain ranges, and because not every variable describing the universe is specified but only the center of mass of the Earth.

The class operators $`C_\alpha `$ defined in (2.2) permit the construction of branch state vectors

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha =C_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(2.3)
for each history in the coarse-grained set. A set of histories decoheres when there is negligible mutual interference between all the branch state vectors:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}0,\alpha \overline{)}=\alpha ^{}.$$
(2.4)
The joint probability $`p_\alpha `$ for all the events in a history $`\alpha `$ is

$$p_\alpha =|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^2=C_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }^2$$
(2.5)
when the set of histories decoheres. Decoherence ensures the validity of the probability sum rules which are among the defining properties of probability.

The above discussion is brief, certainly oversimplified in some respects, but sufficient we hope for understanding the remarks which follow. The key point for the ensuing discussion is the following: Decoherent histories quantum mechanics predicts probabilities for many different sets of alternative histories which are complimentary in the following sense: Each set is part of a complete quantum description of the system, but there is no fine-grained decoherent set histories of which all the decoherent sets are coarse-grainings. A set of histories coarse-grained by the Earth’s center of mass momentum is an example of a set which (if decoherent) would be complementary to the set coarse-grained by the Earth’s center of mass position.

Given $`H`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, it is in principle possible to calculate all decoherent sets. Among these is the quasiclassical realm of everyday experience, coarse-grained by the variables of classical physics, and exhibiting classical patterns correlation in time summarized approximately by classical equations of motion. As human observers we focus almost entirely on coarse-grainings of this quasiclassical realm. However, quantum theory does not distinguish the quasiclassical realm from other decoherent sets except by properties such as its classicality.

The picture of quantum reality which emerges from the quantum mechanics of closed systems is very different from the reality of classical physics involving, as it does, many complementary descriptions of the universe that are mutually incompatible. Restricting the allowed sets of histories by some principle666A set selection principle in terminology of Dowker and Kent . typically yields a description of reality that is closer in character to the familiar classical one. We will see that in the cases to be discussed.

## 3 Three Case Studies

This section considers the idea offered in the Introduction for three different interpretations of quantum theory.

### 3.1 Copenhagen Quantum Mechanics

The Copenhagen quantum mechanics found in most textbooks is concerned with the probabilities of histories of the outcomes of measurements carried out by observers. The subsystem being observed is described by a Hilbert space $`_s`$. Dynamics is specified by a Hamiltonian $`h`$ acting on $`_s`$ when the subsystem is isolated. Initially the subsystem is assumed to be a state $`|\psi `$ in $`_s`$. The outcomes of a measurement carried out at time $`t_k`$ can be described by a set of orthogonal, Heisenberg picture, projection operators $`\{s_{\alpha _k}^k(t_k)\}`$, $`\alpha _k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ analogous to the $`P`$’s described in Section II. The probabilities for a history of ideal measurements (ones that disturb the subsystem as little as possible) at times $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_n`$ are given by the analog of (2.5).

$$p_\alpha =s_{\alpha _n}^n(t_n)\mathrm{}s_{\alpha _1}^1(t_1)|\psi ^2.$$
(3.1)
Consistency is not an issue for these probabilities. Probabilities for a coarser-grained history need not be the sum of the probabilities of finer-grained histories consistent with it. Finer and coarser grained measurements correspond to different interactions of the subsystem with an external apparatus. Sets of histories describing alternative measurements do not have to decohere.

Copenhagen quantum mechanics is an approximation to the quantum mechanics of closed systems that is appropriate for histories of measurement situations when the decoherence of alternatives that register the outcomes of the measurements can be idealized as exact. We sketch only the essential features of a demonstration which are essentially the same as many measurement models. For details see, e.g. , Section II.10.

We consider a closed system with a Hilbert space $`_s_r`$ where $`_s`$ is the Hilbert space of the measured subsystem and the $`_r`$ is the Hilbert space of the rest of the universe including any measuring apparatus and observers. We assume an initial state of the form $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=|\psi |\mathrm{\Phi }_r`$ and consider a sequence of measurements at a series of times $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_n`$. Measured alternatives of the subsystem are described by projection operators whose Schrödinger picture representatives have the form $`S_{\alpha _k}^k=s_{\alpha _k}^kI_r`$. In a typical measurement situation, an alternative such as $`S_{\alpha _k}^k`$ becomes correlated with an alternative of the apparatus and in particular with persistent records of the measurements. The orthogonality and persistence of these records guarantees the decoherence of the histories of measured outcomes. If the usual assumption is made that the measurement interaction disturbs the subsystem as little as possible (ideal measurement), then

$$p_\alpha =S_{\alpha _n}^n(t)\mathrm{}S_{\alpha _1}^1(t_1)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^2s_{\alpha _n}^n(t_n)\mathrm{}s_{\alpha _1}^1(t_1)|\psi __r^2.$$
(3.2)
Thus Copenhagen quantum mechanics is recovered as a restriction of, and approximation to, the quantum mechanics of closed systems. The second equality in (3.2) is not exact but true to an excellent approximation in realistic measurement situations — typically far beyond the accuracy which the probabilities can be checked or the physical situation modeled.

The utility of the approximate quantum mechanics of measured subsystems is evident. It is a truly excellent approximation for every laboratory experiment which has tested the principles of quantum theory. Further, the calculations of the approximate Copenhagen probabilities utilizing just the Hilbert space of the measured subsystem will generally be vastly simpler than in the Hilbert space of the universe. These advantages, however, should not obscure the utility of embedding the Copenhagen quantum mechanics in the more general quantum mechanics of closed systems for understanding measurements (as above) and calculating just how good an approximation it is.

### 3.2 Bohm Theory

To summarize the features of Bohm theory  that are relevant to the present discussion, it is convenient to restrict attention to the closed system consisting of $`N`$, non-relativistic particles in a box discussed in Section II. An initial wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{x}_N,0)`$ is given. The particles in the box move on trajectories $`\stackrel{}{x}_i(t)`$ that obey two deterministic equations. The first is the Schrödinger equation for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{t}=H\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(3.3)
Then, writing $`\mathrm{\Psi }=R\mathrm{exp}(iS)`$ with $`R`$ and $`S`$ real, the second equation is the deterministic equation for the $`\stackrel{}{x}_i(t)`$

$$m_i\frac{d\stackrel{}{x}_i}{dt}=\stackrel{}{}_{\stackrel{}{x}_i}S(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{x}_N).$$
(3.4)
The initial wave function is the initial condition for (3.3). The theory becomes a statistical theory with the assumption that the initial values of the $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$ are distributed according to the probability density on configuration space

$$\mathrm{}(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{x}_N,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{x}_N,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})\right|^2,\text{at the initial time}0.$$
(3.5)
Once this initial probability distribution is fixed, the probability of any later alternatives is fixed by the deterministic equation (3.4).

A coarse-grained Bohmian history $`\alpha (\alpha _n,\mathrm{},\alpha _1)`$ is defined by a sequence of ranges $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha _k}^k\}`$ of the $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$ at a series of times $`t_1,\mathrm{}t_n`$ and consists of the set of Bohmian trajectories $`\stackrel{}{x}_i(t)`$ that cross those ranges at the specified times.

The predictions of Bohm theory and the quantum mechanics of closed systems can be compared for sets of alternative histories coarse-grained by ranges of the position $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$ at different times as above. Generally different probabilities are predicted for the same set of histories . This difference arises as follows: Bohm histories are deterministic. That means that the probability that the particles traverse a series of regions of configuration space at a sequence of times is the same as the probability of the initial values of $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$ that evolve to those trajectories under the equations of motion (3.3) and (3.4). The probability of a Bohm trajectory can therefore be represented as

$$p_\alpha ^{(\mathrm{BM})}=B_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }^2$$
(3.6)
where $`B_\alpha `$ is a projection onto the appropriate initial conditions.

The probabilities of the same set of histories would be calculated in decoherent histories quantum theory from \[cf. (2.5)\]

$$p_\alpha ^{(\mathrm{DH})}=C_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }^2$$
(3.7)
provided the set is decoherent. Here the $`C_\alpha `$ are chains of projections like (2.2) It is a simple observation is that a chain of projections like (2.2) is not generally a projection and that therefore $`p_\alpha ^{(\mathrm{BM})}`$ will not agree generally with $`p_\alpha ^{(\mathrm{DH})}`$. (See  for examples and further discussion.)

Another way of seeing the difference is to note that in Bohm theory the wave function always evolves by the Schrödinger equation — unitary evolution. But the action of a chain of projections $`C_\alpha `$ on the initial state can be described as unitary evolution interrupted by the action of the projections (reduction).

Only in the case of histories with alternatives at a single time are the predictions of Bohm theory and the quantum mechanics of closed systems guaranteed to agree. Then the $`C_\alpha `$ are projections. But this is an important case because it leads to the conclusion that Bohm theory and the quantum mechanics of closed systems agree on the probabilities of the outcome of measurements.

One characteristic of a measurement situation which seems generally agreed upon is that the results of a measurement are recorded — at least for a time. A history $`C_\alpha `$ of measurement outcomes is recorded in a set of alternatives $`\{R_\alpha \}`$ at a time later than the last alternative in $`C_\alpha `$ if the values of the $`R_\alpha `$ are correlated with the outcomes of the measurements described by the $`C_\alpha `$. The $`R_\alpha `$’s are projections even if the $`C_\alpha `$’s are not. Bohm theory and the quantum theory of closed systems will therefore agree on the probabilities of these records.

Bohm theory can therefore be seen as a restriction of the quantum theory of closed systems to alternatives describing the records of measurements (in the $`\stackrel{}{x}`$’s) together with the description of these outcomes in terms of deterministic trajectories obeying (3.3) and (3.4). An advantage of Bohm theory (that is, of this restriction) that we believe would be claimed by its proponents is the clear specification of one set of histories (of the $`\stackrel{}{x}`$’s) as preferred over others. A potential disadvantage is that these histories, although deterministic, may not be classical even in situations where the correlations of classical physics in time are predicted with high probability by the quantum mechanics of closed systems . Thus, for example, even when a classical past is retrodicted from present records from the quantum mechanics of closed systems, Bohm theory may predict a non-classical one depending on the nature of the initial condition .

### 3.3 Sum-Over-Histories

The starting point for a sum-over-histories formulation of quantum mechanics is the specification of one set of fine-grained histories. For the model universe of non-relativistic particles in a box, these are the particle paths $`\stackrel{}{x}_i(t),i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The allowed coarse-grainings are partitions of this set of fine-grained histories into an exhaustive set of exclusive classes. For example, the paths could be partitioned by how they traverse a set of regions of configuration space $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha _k}\}`$, $`\alpha _k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ at sequence of times $`t_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$. The class operators $`C_\alpha `$ are specified by giving their matrix elements as sums over the fine-grained paths in the coarse-grained class labeled by $`\alpha `$. Denoting a point in the $`3N`$-dimensional configuration space by $`x`$, this sum is

$$x^{\prime \prime }|C_\alpha |x^{}=_\alpha \delta xe^{iS[x(t)]/\mathrm{}}.$$
(3.8)
Here, $`S[x(t)]`$ is the action functional and the sum is over all fine-grained histories in the class labeled by $`\alpha `$. For instance, in the partition by sequences of sets of regions at a series of times, a coarse-grained history $`\alpha `$ is labeled by the regions $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$ crossed at the sequence of times and the sum in (3.8) defining the class operator is over paths that cross these regions. The construction of probabilities is then as described in Section II.

Sum-over-histories quantum theory is evidently a restriction of the quantum mechanics of closed systems described in Section II. All the possible sets of projection operators that might occur in the construction of a set of alternative histories like (2.1) are restricted to projections on ranges of position. The predictions of the restricted sets agree because of identities that express sums-over-histories in terms of operators. For instance,

$$_{[x^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{\Delta }_n,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_1,x^{}]}𝑑xe^{iS[x(t)]/\mathrm{}}=x^{\prime \prime }\left|P_{\mathrm{\Delta }_n}^n(t_n)\mathrm{}P_{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}^1(t_1)\right|x^{}$$
(3.9)
where the sum on the left hand side is over all paths that start at $`x^{}`$ pass through the regions $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n)`$ at times $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_n`$ and end at $`x^{}`$ .

The sum-over-histories formulation of quantum theory is not usually discussed as a different interpretation of quantum mechanics. But it can be  because, like Bohm theory, it specifies a fundamental set of variables. In effect, it posits a set selection principle. To the extent that the quasiclassical realm in which we operate as human observers can be described as a coarse graining of configuration space  no predictive power is lost in making this restriction. However, the restriction is not so strong as to narrow the range of available sets just to the quasiclassical realm.

There is some loss in convenience with a sum-over-histories formulation because quantities like the momentum of a particle must be described in spacetime terms — by time of flight for example . But there is also potential gain. A sum-over-histories restriction provides a head start in the characterization of classicality and the explanation of its origin (see e.g. ). A sum-over-histories formulation of quantum mechanics is the natural framework for investigating generalizations of quantum mechanics that are necessary to describe spacetime alternatives extended over time (e.g. ) and those which may be needed for a quantum theory of gravity .

## 4 Is There One Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

It would be interesting to investigate how many different interpretations of quantum theory can be seen as restrictions of the quantum mechanics of closed systems together with the approximations and particular descriptions of histories that these restrictions permit. That would be at least one way of connecting different interpretations and a common basis for discussing their assumptions, advantages, motivations, and limitations.

It would be equally interesting to identify interpretations of quantum mechanics which cannot be viewed as restrictions of the quantum mechanics of closed systems for some fundamental reason. (And not simply because they lack the coherence to decide.) Consistent histories quantum mechanics is logically consistent, consistent with experiment as far as is known, consistent with textbook predictions for measurements, and applicable to the most general physical systems. However, it may not be the only theory with these properties. Investigations of interpretations that do not fit within its umbrella framework may lead in different directions.

Can we distinguish between the different interpretations that are restrictions of the quantum mechanics of closed systems? Not by experiment or observations. By assumption the different interpretations agree on the predictions for measurement to excellent approximations. It seems unlikely to this author that we can settle on one interpretation by argument and discussion. (There is some empirical evidence for this conclusion.) There are too many individually held opinions on the objectives to be met by the restrictions. But neither does there seem to be a compelling need to settle among interpretations that are restrictions of a common quantum mechanics of closed systems

We may be able to distinguish interpretations by their utility and/or their promise as starting points for generalizations or alternatives to quantum theory. For instance, Copenhagen quantum mechanics is inadequate for cosmology. In cosmology there is no fundamental division of the closed system into two parts, one of which measures the other. Measurements and observers cannot be fundamental in a theory that seeks to describe the early universe where neither existed. In a quantum world there are generally no variables that behave classically in all circumstances. As another example, sum-over-histories quantum theory may be a productive route to generalizing usual quantum theory to incorporate the dynamical spacetime geometry of quantum gravity .

Many years ago, when an instructor at Princeton, I discussed my first effort in understanding quantum mechanics  with Eugene Wigner. At the conclusion of the discussion I asked him whether I should publish my results. Wigner explained that there were some subjects — and the interpretation of quantum mechanics was one of these — that one couldn’t learn about by reading books or attending lectures. One just had to work through them by oneself. And usually, if people took the trouble to do this and reached a conclusion, they published a paper. “So”, he said, “why shouldn’t you?” Maybe that is another reason there are so many interpretations of quantum theory.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by NSF grant PHY00-70895.