text:
# On the Incompatibility of Standard Quantum Mechanics and the de Broglie-Bohm Theory

## I Introduction

Quantum mechanics has been plagued by interpretational problems since its inception. This is rooted in the measurement problem which has defied all attempts at a satisfactory solution . Once the wavefunction is assumed to contain complete information of a system, the measurement problem is an inescapable consequence of its linear, unitary Schrödinger evolution. This inevitably implies the lack of (a) determinism at a fundamental level, (b) of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen type of reality  and (c) Einstein-Bell locality , all of which raise deep interpretational and philosophical problems. One possible way out of these problems is to give up the assumption that the wavefunction contains complete information of the system and introduce hidden variables to restore determinism and reality at a deeper level. It has been shown, however, that all local hidden variable theories and all non-contextual hidden variable theories (theories in which the experimental set-up or context in which a measurement is made plays no role) are incompatible with quantum mechanics . The only hidden variable theory that has so far survived all incompatibility theorems and experimental falsification is the de Broglie-Bohm theory (dBB) , which is both contextual and non-local.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that even dBB is incompatible with SQT for multiparticle systems that are non-ergodic in dBB, an aspect that has not been analyzed before. Seen in this light, dBB is not merely an interpretation of SQT as was originally intended by Bohm but a different physical theory with different predictions in special circumstances that have not been tested so far. A realistic experiment will be described which can distinguish between dBB and SQT. This experiment will once and for all settle the dispute between critics of (i) determinism and (ii) EPR type reality and their opponents.

A simple and brief discussion of ergodicity in classical and quantum mechanics will be found in sections $`\mathrm{II}`$ and $`\mathrm{III}`$. Section $`\mathrm{IV}`$ contains a discussion of joint detection probabilities that are crucial in distinguishing between dBB and SQT, and the theory behind a realistic experiment to do so is decribed in section $`\mathrm{V}`$.

## II Ergodicity in classical mechanics

I will begin by giving a simple example from classical mechanics to introduce the nomenclature and the basic features of ergodicity that will be useful for my purpose. Consider the familiar classical system of two identical simple pendulums of length $`l_1=l_2=1`$ and mass $`m_1=m_2=1`$ connected by a weightless spring whose length $`\mathrm{}`$ is equal to the distance between the points of suspension. If $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ denote the angles of inclination of the pendulums, then for small oscillations the kinetic energy $`T=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{q}_1^2+\dot{q}_2^2)`$ and the potential energy $`U=\frac{1}{2}(q_1^2+q_2^2+\alpha (q_1q_2)^2)`$ where $`\alpha (q_1q_2)^2`$ is the potential energy of the elastic spring. Now define the normal coordinates

$$Q_1=\frac{q_1+q_2}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{and}Q_2=\frac{q_1q_2}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(1)
Then,

$$T=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{Q}_1^2+\dot{Q}_2^2)\mathrm{and}U=\frac{1}{2}(\omega _1^2Q_1^2+\omega _2^2Q_2^2)$$
(2)
where $`\omega _1=1`$ and $`\omega _2=\sqrt{1+2\alpha }`$. So, the characteristic oscillations are:

1. $`Q_2=0,\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.,q_1=q_2`$ and the two pendulums oscillate in phase with the original frequency $`\omega _1=1`$, or

2. $`Q_1=0,\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.q_1=q_2`$ and the two pendulums oscillate with opposite phase with the increased frequency $`\omega _2>1`$.

The smooth phase-space manifold $`M`$ on which the motion occurs is the torus $`T^2=S^1\times S^1`$, and the orbits are closed curves on this torus. This shows that the system is non-ergodic. What that means is that the orbits are not everywhere dense on the torus, or intuitively, the orbits do not cover the entire available phase space (the energy surface) even if one waits infinitely long . If one regards the system as a two-dimensional oscillator rather than two one-dimensional ones that are coupled, the system will still be non-ergodic provided $`\omega _1/\omega _2`$ is a rational number. If $`\omega _1/\omega _2`$ is irrational, the system will be ergodic, i.e., the orbits will not be closed curves and will be everywhere dense on the torus.

The non-ergodic character of a dynamical system results in a difference between the space and time means of its dynamical variables. The space and time means of a complex valued function $`F`$ on $`M`$ are defined by

$`\overline{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}F(q,p)\rho (q,p)𝑑q𝑑p,{\displaystyle \rho (q,p)𝑑q𝑑p}=1`$ (3)
$`F^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{lim}_N\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}F(\varphi _t^nq)`$ (4)
where $`q`$ and $`p`$ stand for the set of coordinates and momenta, $`\rho (q,p)dqdp`$ for the invariant measure in phase space (Liouville’s theorem), and $`\varphi _t:MM`$ a one parameter (time) group of measure preserving diffeomorphisms. There are fundamental theorems in ergodic theory which state that the space and time means of every complex valued function $`F`$ on $`M`$ exist and will be identical if the system is ergodic, and cannot be the same if the system is non-ergodic .

## III Ergodicity in quantum mechanics

The same system of oscillators is described in standard quantum theory (SQT) by the two-particle Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi (Q_1,Q_2)}{t}=[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}_{Q_1}^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}_{Q_2}^2+\frac{1}{2}\omega _1^2Q_1^2+\frac{1}{2}\omega _2^2Q_2^2]\psi (Q_1,Q_2)$$
(5)
$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi (Q_1,Q_2)}{t}=[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}_{Q_1}^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}_{Q_2}^2+\frac{1}{2}\omega _1^2Q_1^2+\frac{1}{2}\omega _2^2Q_2^2]\psi (Q_1,Q_2)$$
(6)
One can then construct two non-dispersive wave-packets oscillating about $`Q_1=a_1`$ and $`Q_2=a_2`$ . Let

$`\psi _A(Q_1,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega _1/\pi \mathrm{})^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\{(\omega _1/2\mathrm{})(Q_1a_1\mathrm{cos}\omega _1t)^2`$ (7)
$``$ $`(i/2)[\omega _1t+(\omega _1/\mathrm{})(2Q_1a_1\mathrm{sin}\omega _1t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_1^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\omega _1t)]\}`$ (8)
be the packet initially centred about $`Q_1=a_1`$ and

$`\psi _B(Q_2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega _2/\pi \mathrm{})^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\{(\omega _2/2\mathrm{})(Q_2+a_2\mathrm{cos}\omega _2t)^2`$ (9)
$``$ $`(i/2)[\omega _2t+(\omega _2/\mathrm{})(2Q_2a_2\mathrm{sin}\omega _2t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_2^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\omega _2t)]\}`$ (10)
the packet initially centred about $`Q_2=a_2`$. The packets oscillate harmonically without change of shape between the angles $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ . The two-particle wavefunction is given by

$$\psi (Q_1,Q_2,t)=\psi _A(Q_1,t)\psi _B(Q_2,t)=R(Q_1,Q_2,t)\mathrm{exp}\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}S(Q_1,Q_2,t)$$
(11)
and therefore the phase or action function by

$`S(Q_1,Q_2,t)=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega _1t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _1(2Q_1a_1\mathrm{sin}\omega _1t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_1^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\omega _1t)`$ (12)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega _2t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _2(2Q_2a_2\mathrm{sin}\omega _2t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_2^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\omega _2t)`$ (13)
The Bohmian trajectory equations are therefore

$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ_1}{dt}}=_{Q_1}S(Q_1,Q_2,t)=\omega _1a_1\mathrm{sin}\omega _1t`$ (14)
$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ_2}{dt}}=_{Q_2}S(Q_1,Q_2,t)=\omega _2a_2\mathrm{sin}\omega _2t`$ (15)
whose solutions are

$`Q_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`Q_1(0)+a_1(\mathrm{cos}\omega _1t1)`$ (16)
$`Q_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`Q_2(0)a_2(\mathrm{cos}\omega _2t1)`$ (17)
where $`Q_1(0)`$ and $`Q_2(0)`$ are the initial coordinates. If one considers an ensemble of such oscillators, their centre points are distributed in a gaussian fashion. The characteristic oscillations are again:

1. $`Q_2(t)=0`$, i.e., $`q_1(t)=q_2(t)`$, and the two particles oscillate in phase with the original frequency $`\omega _1`$ (and hence with the length $`\mathrm{}`$ of the spring unchanged), or

2. $`Q_1(t)=0`$, i.e., $`q_1(t)=q_2(t)`$, and the two particles oscillate out of phase with the increased frequency $`\omega _2`$.

The quantum potentials of the two oscillators turn out to be

$`Q(1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _1^2(Q_1(t)a_1\mathrm{cos}\omega _1t)^2`$ (18)
$`Q(2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _2^2(Q_2(t)+a_2\mathrm{cos}\omega _2t)^2`$ (19)
Thus, $`Q(1)`$ and $`Q(2)`$ are constants on the trajectories (17). Using these results, one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1^2(t)+\omega _1^2Q_1^2(t))+Q(1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _1^2a_1^2+\omega _1^2(Q_1(0)a_1)\mathrm{cos}\omega _1t`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_2^2(t)+\omega _2^2Q_2^2(t))+Q(2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\omega _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _2^2a_2^2+\omega _2^2(Q_2(0)+a_2)\mathrm{cos}\omega _2t`$ (21)
The motion is still on a torus $`T^2`$ in each case (1 and 2) with the size of the torus oscillating in time about a mean value. Since the motion is periodic, the system must be non-ergodic. Then it follows from the general theorem in ergodic theory that there must be at least one observable of the system whose space and time averages are different.

Having demonstrated that a system in dBB can be non-ergodic, I will now make use of a von Neuman-Birkhoff-Khinchin type ergodicity theorem in quantum mechanics which shows that all systems in SQT are ergodic . This theorem is well-known among mathematicians, and therefore I will only sketch a simple proof for non-degenerate systems. Consider a two-particle quantum mechanical system with a discrete, non-degenerate energy spectrum. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2,t)=\mathrm{exp}(iHt/\mathrm{})\psi (x_1,x_2)`$ be a normalized solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, and let $`\psi (x_1,x_2)=_nc_n\varphi _n(x_1,x_2)`$ where $`\varphi _n(x_1,x_2)`$ are a complete set of orthonormal energy eigenfunctions. Since the average over states in Hilbert space or wavefunctions does not have any direct physical interpretation, we follow Ref.  and consider the time average of the expectation value in the state $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2,t)`$ of a hermitian operator $`\widehat{F}`$ that does not commute with the Hamiltonian :

$`F^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{lim}_T\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x_1,x_2,t)\widehat{F}\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2,t)}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{lim}_T\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle _0^T}dt{\displaystyle }dx_1dx_2({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|c_n|^2\varphi _n^{}(x_1,x_2)\widehat{F}\varphi _n(x_1,x_2)`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}c_n^{}c_me^{i(E_nE_m)t}\varphi _n^{}(x_1,x_2)\widehat{F}\varphi _m(x_1,x_2))`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|c_n|^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\varphi _n^{}(x_1,x_2)\widehat{F}\varphi _n(x_1,x_2)}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`Tr(\widehat{\rho }\widehat{F})`$ (26)
$``$ $`\overline{F}`$ (27)
because $`E_nE_m`$. $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is the reduced density matrix obtained after time averaging. It is clear in this case that the limit exists, is unique, non-vanishing and time independent, and also equals the space average defined with the reduced density operator corresponding to the weighted average of the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{F}`$. In the absence of a well defined phase space in SQT, this is the general criterion of ergodicity in SQT. If $`\widehat{F}`$ commutes with the Hamiltonian, then it is clear from the above that $`F^{}=Tr(\rho \widehat{F})=\overline{F}=\widehat{F}`$ where $`\rho `$ is the density matrix of the pure state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. This theorem can be trivially generalized to multi-particle systems. However, its generalization to systems with a continuous energy spectrum is non-trivial. The proof is complicated and involves coarse-graining and random-phase approximations, and the reader is referred to Ref.  and  for further details.

Notice that the time averaged reduced density matrix in the proof of ergodicity given above is the same as the reduced density matrix introduced by von Neumann through the collapse postulate. It is generally believed that the measurement process embodied in the collapse postulate must be instantaneous. An ideal measurement, on the other hand, involves an accurate measurement of energy which takes an infinitely long time. This apparent contradiction was resolved by von Neumann  in the following way. To quote him,

> “ …what we really need is not that the change of $`t`$ be small, but only that it have little effect in the calculation of the probabilities … That is, the state $`\varphi _n`$ should be essentially … a stationary state; or equivalently …$`\varphi _n`$ an eigenfunction of $`H`$.”

This is indeed what has been used in the proof of ergodicity given above.

To recapitulate, I have so far shown that SQT systems are necessarily always ergodic but that the corresponding dBB as well as classical systems are not necessarily so. I will now show how this can lead to observable differences between dBB and SQT.

## IV Joint detection probabilities

The demonstration rests on the special ontological status that the particle position has in dBB. To quote Holland ,

> “Although the general theory of measurement entails a disturbance of the initial wavefunction so that the actual value found for the particle property is not the preexisting value, there is one important exception to this rule : ideal measurements of position. These hold a unique significance in the theory for, while the initial arbitrary wavefunction is transformed, it condenses around the current position of the particle and so we are able, in principle, to infer the premeasurement position as defined by the causal interpretation.”

This special status can be exploited to design experiments that can distinguish between dBB and SQT. In this context the joint detection of two positions is of special interest. In order to do that one must first define the space average of a dynamical variable in dBB. Unlike in SQT, it is possible to define a phase space in dBB, and through it the space average of dynamical variables. A joint distribution function $`f(q,p,t)`$ can be defined in dBB by

$`f(q,p,t)`$ $`=`$ $`P(q(t))\delta (pS(q,t))`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle f(q,p,t)𝑑q𝑑p}`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (29)
where $`P(q(t))`$ is the real statistical probability density in dBB that is equivalent to the quantum mechanical probability density $`|\psi (q,t)|^2`$. Take any function $`F(q,p)`$ on phase-space. Its space average is defined by

$`\overline{F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle F(q,p)f(q,p,t)𝑑q𝑑p}`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle F(q,S)P(q(t))𝑑q}`$ (31)
which is the same as the ensemble average. It must be emphasized that the premeasurement momentum $`p`$ defined in this way will not generally agree with the measured momentum because momentum does not have the same ontological status as position in dBB. Nevertheless, dBB does lead to the correct prediction for momentum consistent with SQT and the uncertainty relations once the effect of measurement is taken into account ,. This is a consequence of the fact that dBB is constructed in such a way as always to have the space or ensemble average of every observable identical with its quantum mechanical expectation value.

## V Two-particle interferometer experiment

Before concluding, I will discuss another system for which dBB and SQT are incompatible and which can be used to distinguish between them in practice. Consider a source of two momentum correlated identical particles of mass $`m`$ (in the sense of the original EPR paper) (described by wave packets) set up in such a fashion that they pass simultaneously through two point slits $`A`$ and $`B`$ situated on the $`y`$ axis and separated by a distance $`2a`$. Let only one pair of packets pass through the slits at a time. Let the line bisecting the line joining the two slits be the $`x`$ axis (i.e., $`y=0,x0`$). It is a natural symmetry axis of the system. After passing through the slits, the two probability amplitudes propagate with uniform speed $`v`$ in spherical waves as a result of diffraction. In a region in which these waves do not overlap, the normalized stationary state two-particle wavefunction in the $`xy`$ plane is given by

$$\psi (r_{1A},r_{2B},t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{e^{ik(r_{1A}+r_{2B})}}{r_{1A}r_{2B}}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Et}$$
(32)
where $`r_{1A}=\sqrt{x_1^2+(y_1a)^2}`$ and $`r_{2B}=\sqrt{x_2^2+(y_2+a)^2}`$ are the radius vectors of points on the wave fronts measured from the two slits. This wavefunction is symmetric under reflection in the $`x`$ axis together with the interchange of the particle labels $`12`$. The phase $`S(r_{1A},r_{2B})`$ of the wavefunction is

$$S(r_{1A},r_{2B},t)=\mathrm{}k(r_{1A}+r_{2B})Et$$
(33)
It is clear from this that the Bohmian trajectories fan out radially with the slits as the initial positions. Note that a spherical wavefunction is singular at its origin. Hence, the point nature of the slits must be understood only in the sense of a limit. This is also necessary because otherwise one would get a single trajectory corresponding to a single initial position rather than trajectories normal to every point of the spherical wave front, corresponding to an ensemble of initial positions at the slit. This is necessary for the compatibility of dBB and SQT for ensembles. The $`x`$ and $`y`$ components of the Bohmian velocities of the particles are given by

$`v(1)_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{r_{1A}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{1A}}{x_1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}kx_1}{mr_{1A}}}`$ (34)
$`v(2)_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{r_{2B}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{2B}}{x_2}}|={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}kx_2}{mr_{2B}}}`$ (35)
$`v(1)_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{r_{1A}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{1A}}{y_1}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}k(y_1a)}{my}}`$ (36)
$`v_{y_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{r_{2B}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{2B}}{y_2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}k(y_2+a)}{mr_{2B}}}`$ (37)
Since the spherical waves have the same speed of propagation, we have $`r_{1A}=r_{2B}=vt`$, and therefore it follows that

$$v(1)_xv(2)_x=\frac{d(x_1x_2)}{dt}=\frac{1}{t}(x_1x_2)$$
(38)
and

$$v(1)_y+v(2)_y=\frac{d(y_1+y_2)}{dt}=\frac{1}{t}(y_1+y_2)$$
(39)
Solving these equations with the initial conditions $`x_1(t_0)x_2(t_0)=\delta (0)`$ and $`y_1(t_0)+y_2(t_0)=\sigma (0)`$, one obtains

$`x_1(t)x_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (0){\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}`$ (40)
$`y_1(t)+y_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma (0){\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_0}}`$ (41)
In the limit $`\delta (0)0`$ and $`\sigma (0)0`$, we get

$$x_1(t)=x_2(t)$$
(42)
$$y_1(t)=y_2(t)$$
(43)
at all times $`t`$. This shows that in this limit the trajectories of the two particles are at all times symmetrical about the $`x`$.

If one considers the region where the two spherical waves overlap, and the particles are bosons, the wavefunction (32) must be replaced by

$$\psi (r_1,r_2,t)=\frac{1}{N}[\frac{e^{ik(r_{1A}+r_{2B})}}{r_{1A}r_{2B}}+\frac{e^{ik(r_{1B}+r_{2A})}}{r_{1B}r_{2A}}]e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Et}$$
(44)
where $`N`$ is a normalization factor, $`r_{1B}=\sqrt{x_1^2+(y_1+a)^2}`$ and $`r_{2A}=\sqrt{x_2^2+(y_2a)^2}`$. This is separately symmetric under reflection in the $`x`$ axis and the interchange of the two particles. It follows from the conditions $`r_{1A}=r_{2B}=vt`$ and $`r_{1B}=r_{2A}=vt`$ which must be satisfied simultaneously that the conditions (42) and (43)) must still hold. Hence, the Bohmian trajectories of the two particles are at all times symmetric about the $`x`$ axis in this case too. This shows that the trajectories separate into two disjoint sets, and the theory is non-ergodic.

Furthermore, the $`y`$ components of the velocities of the particles are given by

$`v(1)_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{_{y_1}\psi (r_1,r_2)}{\psi (r_1,r_2)}}`$ (45)
$`v(2)_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{_{y_2}\psi (r_1,r_2)}{\psi (r_1,r_2)}}`$ (46)
and therefore

$`v(1)_y(x_1(t),y_1(t),x_2(t),y_2(t))`$ $`=`$ $`v(1)_y(x_1(t),y_1(t),x_2(t),y_2(t)`$ (47)
$`v_(2)y(x_1(t),y_1(t),x_2(t),y_2(t))`$ $`=`$ $`v_(2)y(x_1(t),y_1(t),x_2(t),y_2(t))`$ (48)
This shows that $`v(1)_y`$ and $`v(2)_y`$ vanish when $`y_1(t)=0`$ as well as when $`y_2(t)=0`$, i.e., on the $`x`$ axis. This implies that the trajectories of the particles are not only symmetrical about the $`x`$ axis, they also do not cross this axis in the limit $`\delta (0)0`$ and $`\sigma (0)0`$. This result is interesting but not essential to show the incompatibility between dBB and SQT.

The symmetry of the trajectories about the $`x`$-axis has nontrivial empirical consequences. If two detectors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are placed at some $`x_0`$ such that they are sufficiently asymmetrical about the $`x`$-axis, the joint detection probability as a time average will vanish,

$$P_{12(dBB)}^{}=\mathrm{lim}_N\mathrm{}\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}P(\varphi _t^nY)|_{D_1,D_2}=0$$
(49)
where $`Y=(y_1,y_2)`$ because, by hypothesis, the wavefunction in Bohmian theory acts like a ’pilot wave’ that guides the particles via the quantum potential. It is the particle that can fire a detector but not the ’pilot wave’ itself. On the other hand, the space average is non-vanishing:

$$\overline{P}_{12(dBB)}=_{D_1,D_2,t}𝑑y_1𝑑y_2P(y_1(t),y_2(t))=\overline{P}_{12(SQT)}0$$
(50)
because the complete ensemble contains correlated pairs with all possible $`y`$ values at a given time. This difference is a consequence of the non-ergodicity of the Bohmian motion. Now, SQT predicts (50) but not (49) in the limit $`\delta (0)0`$ and $`\sigma (0)0`$. It is therefore incompatible with dBB. Any experimental test of this incompatibility must, of course, take into account the corrections arising out of nonvanishing $`\delta (0)`$ and $`\sigma (0)`$.

Using the formalism of ensembles, one can identify the space mean as the average over a Gibbs ensemble (the set of identical copies of the system in all its possible states at a given instant of time) and the time mean as the average over a time ensemble (the set of identical copies of the system in different possible states at different instants of time). The space average can be measured by using a suitable flux or beam consisting of a sufficiently large number of identical copies of the system in different states at the same time, and the time mean by using a sufficiently attenuated beam so that there is no more than a single copy of the system in the beam at a given instant of time.

The same conclusions hold for pairs of photons produced by type-I parametric down-conversion of laser beams in a non-linear crystal. The pairs are highly correlated in momentum and polarization, and can be made to pass through a double-slit arrangement, one pair at a time, and detected by single photon detectors. This type of experiment is therefore capable of measuring the joint detection probability of the two photons as a time mean. The appropriate relativistic quantum mechanical theory that is applicable to photons is based on the Harish-Chandra-Kemmer formalism . This formalism and the above arguments have been used to design a realistic experiment with down-converted photon pairs at Turin . The Bohmian trajectories of the photons for this type of experiment have been plotted and will be found in Ref. . They clearly do not cross the symmetry axis. Importantly, $`\sigma (0)`$ does not spread at all in this case because there is no velocity dispersion for photons.

## VI Conclusions

What we have shown above is generic. One can, in fact, state a general theorem:

Conventional dBB is incompatible with SQT unless the Bohmian system corresponding to an SQT system is ergodic.

I must emphasize one point before concluding. First, the time average in the examples given above must be measured by joint detections of the particle positions on identical two-particle systems prepared successively in time (i.e., over a time ensemble) and not by repeated measurements on the same system. This is because the time average of an observable is defined over the unitary Schrödinger evolution of the system (Eqns. (18) and (36)).

Finally, it is worthwhile drawing attention to what Bohm himself had to say about the standard interpretation of quantum theory and his own interpretation:

> “An experimental choice between these two interpretations cannot be made in a domain in which the present mathematical formulation of the quantum theory is a good approximation; but such a choice is conceivable in domains, such as those associated with dimensions of the order of $`10^{13}`$ cm, where the extrapolation of the present theory seems to break down and where our suggested new interpretation can lead to completely different kinds of predictions.”

The fact that the particular domain referred to by Bohm still continues to be described very accurately by SQT is irrelevant in this context. What is significant is that even in domains where SQT is supposed to be an excellent theory, dBB can be in conflict with it, and that this difference can only be discovered through time averages of observables whenever the Bohmian system is non-ergodic, a feature of his own theory that Bohm seems to have overlooked.

## VII Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Anilesh Mohari for many helpful discussions on ergodicity, and to the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India, for a research grant that enabled this work to be undertaken.


format: text

text:
# 1 The quark propagator

## 1 The quark propagator

The quark propagator $`S(x,y;A)`$ for a quark of mass $`m`$ in the presence of a gluon field $`A^\mu `$ plays an important role in many investigations of quantum chromodynamics. It appears, e.g., if one considers the quark four-point Green function, the basis of all modern investigations on quark-antiquark interactions, and integrates over the quark fields. It is defined by 111Our formulae are given in Minkowsi space, we use Bjorken Drell conventions , and the field tensor is defined by $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ig[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$.

$$S_{\alpha \beta }(x,y;A)=i<0|T(\psi _\alpha (x)\overline{\psi }_\beta (y))|0>.$$
(1.1)
The spinor indices $`\alpha ,\beta `$ will be dropped in the following. We recall the relevant properties of the propagator. With the covariant derivative $`D_\mu (x)`$ which acts on operators to the right, and $`\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{D}}}(y)`$ which acts on operators to the left, defined by

$`D_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\mu }}igA_\mu (x),`$
$`\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{D}}}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{}}{y^\mu }}+igA_\mu (y),`$ (1.2)
the field equations give

$`[i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu (x)m]S(x,y;A)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{(4)}(xy),`$
$`S(x,y;A)[i\gamma ^\mu \underset{\mu }{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{D}}}(y)m]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{(4)}(xy).`$ (1.3)
These equations may be reformulated as integral equations:

$`S(x,y;A)`$ $`=`$ $`S_0(xy)g{\displaystyle S(x,z;A)\gamma ^\mu A_\mu (z)S_0(zy)d^4z}`$ (1.4)
$`=`$ $`S_0(xy)g{\displaystyle S_0(xz)\gamma ^\mu A_\mu (z)S(z,y;A)d^4z},`$
with $`S_0`$ the free propagator. From charge conjugation one has

$$S(x,y;A)=\gamma ^2\gamma ^0S^T(y,x;A^T)\gamma ^2\gamma ^0.$$
(1.5)
Finally, under a gauge transformation $`\psi \psi ^{}=e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }}\psi ,\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }^{}=\overline{\psi }e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }},A_\mu A_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}=e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }}A_\mu e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }}(i/g)(_\mu e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }})e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }}`$, the propagator transforms as

$$S(x,y;A)S^{}(x,y;A)=e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }(x)}S(x,y;A)e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }(y)}.$$
(1.6)
An exact solution for $`S(x,y;A)`$ for an arbitrary gluon field $`A_\mu `$ is not available. However, it would be highly desirable to have an approximation which respects the fundamental properties of the propagator, in particular the correct transformation under Lorentz transformations and under gauge transformations.

The two well known approximations, perurbation theory and the static approximation, either violate gauge covariance or Lorentz covariance:

Iteration of eq. (1.4) gives the perturbation series

$$S(x,y;A)=S_0(xy)gS_0(xz)\gamma ^\mu A_\mu (z)S_0(zy)d^4z+\mathrm{}.$$
(1.7)
Any finite order of the perturbation series gives the correct behavior under Lorentz transformations and under charge conjugation. It will, however, never be able to describe central features of QCD like confinement. In particular, it clearly violates gauge invariance; no truncation of the perturbation series (1.7) has the correct transformation property (1.6).

Following the pioneering work of Brown, Weisberger  and Eichten, Feinberg , one neglects the spatial part $`i\gamma ^mD_m(x)`$ in eq. (1.3). The partial differential equation then becomes an ordinary differential equation which can be solved in closed form. This leads to the static approximation

$`S_{stat}(x,y;A)`$ $`=`$ $`i\left\{\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0y_0){\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^0}{2}}+\mathrm{\Theta }(y_0x_0){\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma ^0}{2}}\right\}`$ (1.8)
$`\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲)e^{im_|x_0y_0|}P\mathrm{exp}\{ig{\displaystyle _y^x}A_0(z)𝑑z^0\}.`$
The path in the line integral is the straight line from $`y`$ to $`x`$, and the path ordering orders $`A_0(x)`$ to the left, $`\mathrm{},A_0(y)`$ to the right.

The neglected spatial term $`i\gamma ^mD_m(x)`$ in (1.3) can subsequently be taken into account as perturbation. This approach has been extremely succesful (see e.g. the review ). It can be easily generalized to quarks moving with four velocity $`v^\mu `$, and thus is the direct predecessor of heavy quark effective theory. Succesful combination with perturbation theory has also been made more recently (see  and references therein). For quarks moving with high momentum a related formula can be derived from the eikonal approximation .

The static approximation and it’s generalizations are non-perturbative and have the correct behavior under gauge transformations and under charge conjugation. However, they drastically violate Lorentz invariance. Therefore the static approximation is useful for heavy quarks only. It needs quite an effort to recover the relations following from the original Lorentz invariance subsequently . Finally the static approximation does not coincide with the exact propagator even in the trivial case of vanishing gluon field.

It is obvious that a gauge covariant propagator should contain path ordered exponentials as in (1.8). Using just the path along the straight line between $`x`$ and $`y`$ would give a Lorentz covariant result, but such a procedure would be far too simple. It would involve the vector potential only along the straight line connection and nowhere else, which is clearly unphysical. We prefer to proceed systematically by rewriting perturbation theory in a suitable way. It can then easily be transformed into a gauge covariant expression by simple exponentiation, while keeping the correctness of perturbation theory in the relevant order. The non-perturbative approximation for the quark propagator obtained in this way has the following properties:

* Correct behavior under Lorentz transformations.
* Correct behavior under gauge transformations.
* Correct behavior under charge conjugation.
* Agreement with perturbation theory in first order of the coupling.

The representation is a weighted superposition of path ordered exponentials between $`x`$ and $`y`$ along well defined field lines. We don’t need to assume that the quark mass is large, we could even put it equal to zero. This opens perspectives to applications which were hard to attack previously.

The paper is organized as follows:

In sect. 2 we decompose the propagator with respect to Dirac matrices, and write the formula of first order perturbation theory in a form which is convenient for the following. In sect. 3 we rewrite the four-dimensional space-time integrals which arise in perturbation theory as weighted superpositions of line integrals over certain field lines which all run from $`x`$ to $`y`$. From this form one can simply derive a representation in terms of superpositions of path ordered exponentials. This representation coincides with perturbation theory up to order $`g`$ and has the correct behavior under gauge transformations. In sect. 4 we evaluate the weight function explicitly and show a plot of the field lines for different masses. We discuss the limit of large mass $`m`$, and give some first simple applications. Actual applications will be given in forthcoming papers.

## 2 A useful form of first order perturbation theory

We start with the first order approximation (1.7), and express the free propagators $`S_0`$ by the free scalar propagator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the following way:

$`S_0(xz)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(xz)[i\gamma _\nu \stackrel{}{}/z_\nu +m],`$
$`S_0(zy)`$ $`=`$ $`[i\gamma _\lambda /z_\lambda +m]\mathrm{\Delta }(zy).`$ (2.1)
The free scalar propagator satisfies the equation

$$(_\rho ^\rho +m^2)\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=\delta ^{(4)}(x).$$
(2.2)
In the following all differential operators in the integrand are understood as differentiations with respect to the variable $`z`$.

Using the well known identities $`\gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu =g_{\nu \mu }i\sigma _{\nu \mu }`$, and $`\gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu \gamma _\lambda =g_{\nu \mu }\gamma _\lambda g_{\nu \lambda }\gamma _\mu +g_{\mu \lambda }\gamma _\nu +iϵ_{\nu \mu \lambda \kappa }\gamma ^5\gamma ^\kappa `$, one can write the propagator in form of the familiar decomposition

$$S(x,y;A)=s+p\gamma ^5+v^\mu \gamma _\mu +a^\mu \gamma ^5\gamma _\mu +t^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }.$$
(2.3)
Before giving the expressions for $`s,\mathrm{},t^{\mu \nu }`$ which result in this way, it is convenient for later use to define a scalar field $`u(z;x,y)`$ and a vector field $`u^\mu (z;x,y)`$ by

$$u(z;x,y)=\mathrm{\Delta }(xz)\mathrm{\Delta }(zy),$$
(2.4)
and (with $`\stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{}{}}=\stackrel{}{}/z_\mu \stackrel{}{}/z_\mu `$)

$$u^\mu (z;x,y)=\mathrm{\Delta }^1(xy)[\mathrm{\Delta }(xz)\stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(zy)].$$
(2.5)
From (1.7), (2.1), and (2.3) we then obtain the following equations:

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`m\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)[1+ig{\displaystyle u^\mu (z;x,y)A_\mu (z)d^4z}],`$ (2.6)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.7)
$`v^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}/x_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }(xy){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)\stackrel{}{}/y_\mu `$
$`g{\displaystyle }\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }(xz)[m^2g^{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{\nu }{\stackrel{}{}}\stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{}{}}\underset{\lambda }{\overset{}{}}g^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{\lambda }{\stackrel{}{}}+\stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{}{}}\stackrel{\nu }{\stackrel{}{}}]\mathrm{\Delta }(zy)\right\}A_\nu (z)d^4z,`$
$`a^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`igϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \kappa }{\displaystyle }[\mathrm{\Delta }(xz)\underset{\kappa }{\overset{}{}}\underset{\lambda }{\overset{}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(zy)]A_\nu (z)d^4z,`$ (2.9)
$`t^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{gm}{2}}{\displaystyle }\{_\nu u(z;x,y)A_\mu (z)(\mu \nu )\}d^4z.`$ (2.10)
We next transform $`v^\mu `$ in (2.8), we denote the four terms in the second line by $`v_1^\mu +v_2^\mu +v_3^\mu +v_4^\mu `$. In $`v_2^\mu `$ one can use $`\underset{z}{\overset{\mu }{\stackrel{}{}}}=\underset{y}{\overset{\mu }{\stackrel{}{}}}`$, in $`v_4^\mu `$ correspondingly $`\underset{z}{\overset{\mu }{\stackrel{}{}}}=\underset{x}{\overset{\mu }{\stackrel{}{}}}`$. The differentiations with respect to $`y`$ and $`x`$ can then be taken outside of the integral. The term $`v_1^\mu `$ is split into two identical contributions, in the first one we use eq. (2.2) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(xz)`$, in the second one for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(zy)`$. Next perform a partial integration on one of the derivatives in the d’Alembert operator. The terms where the differentiations act on the other $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ cancel against the contribution $`v_3^\mu `$, and one has the intermediate result

$`v_1^\mu +v_3^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)\{A^\mu (x)+A^\mu (y)\}`$ (2.11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle _\lambda u(z;x,y)[^\lambda A^\mu (z)^\mu A^\lambda (z)]d^4z}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle }_\lambda u(z;x,y)^\mu A^\lambda (z))d^4z.`$
We subtraced and added the term $`^\mu A^\lambda (z)`$. In the second line we can then replace $`^\lambda A^\mu (z)^\mu A^\lambda (z)`$ by $`F^{\lambda \mu }(z)`$, which only introduces a higher order error $`O(g^2)`$. Furthermore the differential operator $`_\lambda =_\lambda ^z`$ which acts on $`u(z;x,y)`$ can be replaced by $`(_\lambda ^x+_\lambda ^y)`$ and taken outside of the integral. In the third line we perform a partial integration on $`^\mu `$, shift the differentiations from the variable $`z`$ to $`x`$ and $`y`$, and take the differentiations out of the integral. After these manipulations $`v^\mu `$ can be expressed in a rather compact form if we replace partial derivatives by covariant derivatives which introduces a correction of order $`g^2`$ only:

$`v^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}D^\mu (x)\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)[1+ig{\displaystyle u^\nu (z;x,y)A_\nu (z)d^4z}]\right\}`$ (2.12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)[1+ig{\displaystyle u^\nu (z;x,y)A_\nu (z)d^4z}]\right\}\stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{}{D}}(y)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}D_\nu (x){\displaystyle u(z;x,y)F^{\mu \nu }(z)d^4z}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle u(z;x,y)F^{\mu \nu }(z)d^4z}\underset{\nu }{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{D}}}(y).`$
In $`a^\mu `$ we perform a partial integration with respect to $`\underset{\kappa }{\overset{}{}}`$ or $`\underset{\lambda }{\overset{}{}}`$ , take half of the sum of both terms, antisymmetrize the $`_\kappa A_\nu (z)`$ or $`_\lambda A_\nu (z)`$ in the integrand, and introduce the field strength tensor $`F_{\kappa \nu }(z)`$ or $`F_{\lambda \nu }(z)`$ as before. Shifting again the differentiation from $`z`$ to $`x`$ and $`y`$ we have in order $`g`$

$$a^\mu =\frac{ig}{4}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \kappa }\left\{D_\lambda (x)u(z;x,y)F_{\nu \kappa }(z)d^4zu(z;x,y)F_{\nu \kappa }(z)d^4z\underset{\lambda }{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{D}}}(y)\right\}.$$
(2.13)
Similar manipulations applied to $`t^{\mu \nu }`$ finally give

$$t^{\mu \nu }=\frac{gm}{2}u(z;x,y)F^{\mu \nu }(z)d^4z.$$
(2.14)
The decomposition (2.3), together with the formulae (2.6), (2.7), (2.12), (2.13), (2.14) is now in a form which allows to rewrite the four-dimensional integrations $`d^4z`$ as a superposition of line integrals.

## 3 Gauge covariant reformulation

The vector field $`u^\mu (z;x,y)`$ defined in (2.5) satisfies the fundamental equation

$$\frac{u^\mu (z;x,y)}{z^\mu }=\delta ^{(4)}(zy)\delta ^{(4)}(zx),$$
(3.1)
which is a simple consequence of eq. (2.2). Therefore $`u^\mu `$ may be interpreted as a four-dimensional velocity field of an incompressible fluid with a point-like source at $`y`$ and a sink at $`x`$. The stream lines $`z^\mu (s,𝐰)`$, which all run from $`y`$ to $`x`$, are defined by the characteristic equations

$$\frac{dz^\mu (s,𝐰)}{ds}=u^\mu (z(s,𝐰)).$$
(3.2)
Here $`s`$ is the parameter which describes the motion along the stream line, while the three dimensional parameter set $`𝐰`$ characterizes the various stream lines. To make $`s`$ unique, it is convenient to fix $`s=0`$ at the symmetrical point of the stream line which has equal distance to $`x`$ and $`y`$. The dependence on $`x,y`$ has been suppressed in the notation. There is precisely one field line passing through every space time point, except, of course, for the source points $`x`$ and $`y`$. After having solved (3.2) there is a unique correspondence between the 4-dimensdional space-time coordinates $`z^\mu `$ and the parameters $`s,𝐰`$, i.e. $`(z^0,z^1,z^2,z^3)(s,w^1,w^2,w^3)`$.

We next write the four-dimensional integrals over $`d^4z`$ which appear in $`s`$ and the first two lines of $`v^\mu `$ (eqs (2.6) and (2.12)) as integrals over $`dsd^3w`$, the Jacobian is called $`\rho (𝐰)`$:

$$\rho (𝐰)=\frac{(z^0,z^1,z^2,z^3)}{(s,w^1,w^2,w^3)}.$$
(3.3)
We have anticipated the crucial fact that $`\rho `$ does not depend on the curve parameter $`s`$. This is a direct consequence of the incompressibility of the flow, and easily proved from the following geometrical argument. Take an infinitesimal four-dimensional box in $`(s,𝐰)`$-space with corners $`(s_0,𝐰)`$ and $`(s_0+ds,𝐰+d𝐰)`$. In $`z`$-space this corresponds to a an infinitesimal region with a certain volume. Consider now the motion of this volume along a field line from $`s_0`$ to $`s_1`$, keeping $`𝐰,d𝐰`$ and $`ds`$ constant. Because of the vanishing divergence (3.1) outside the sources, the volume in $`z`$-space stays constant, the volume in $`(s,𝐰)`$-space stays constant anyhow by construction. This demonstrates that the Jacobian (3.3) is indeed independent of $`s`$.

We can therefore write

$`{\displaystyle u^\mu (z;x,y)A_\mu (z)d^4z}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \rho (𝐰)[_y^xA_\mu (z(s,𝐰))u^\mu (z(s,𝐰))𝑑s]d^3w}`$ (3.4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \rho (𝐰)[_y^x𝐰A𝑑z]d^3w}.`$
Here $`_y^x𝐰A𝑑z`$ is a shorthand notation for the line integral of $`A_\mu `$ from $`y`$ to $`x`$ along the stream line characterized by the parameter $`𝐰`$.

The normalization of $`\rho (𝐰)`$ is easily obtained from the special case $`A_\mu (z)=_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }(z)`$, where both sides of (3.4) can be immediately integrated. This gives

$$\rho (𝐰)d^3w=1.$$
(3.5)
We are now in the position to rewrite the scalar function $`s`$ in (2.6):

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`m\mathrm{\Delta }(xy){\displaystyle \rho (𝐰)[1+ig_y^x𝐰A𝑑z]d^3w}`$ (3.6. a)
$`=`$ $`m\mathrm{\Delta }(xy){\displaystyle \rho (𝐰)P\mathrm{exp}[ig_y^x𝐰A𝑑z]d^3w}+O(g^2).`$ (3.6. b)
This was the essential step of the approach! Once having written the first order approximation in terms of line integrals, exponentiation allows to promote it into a non-perturbative gauge covariant expression.

One may wonder about the justification of this step which led to a non-perturbative expression simply by exponentiation. It does not make sense to compare the two lines in (3.6), because (3.6.b) is gauge covariant while (3.6.a) is not. In fact one can easily see, e.g. for a suitable pure gauge, that (3.6.a) can be made as large as one likes. The correct question to be asked is whether (3.6.b) is a reasonable approximation to the exact propagator. To answer this question one only needs to check the quality of the approximation in some special convenient gauge. The manifest covariance of the expression then guarantees this quality for any gauge. A sufficient condition is the smallness of $`g_y^x𝐰A𝑑z`$ for all relevant stream lines, which justifies the validity of first order perturbation theory. Clearly one can always find a gauge where $`A_\mu dz^\mu =0`$ on one special stream line, but it is not possible to do the same for two or more lines. For heavy quarks the situation is simple. We will show in sect. 4 that in this case all relevant paths lie near the straight line connection. If one chooses a gauge such that $`A_\mu (xy)^\mu `$ vanishes along this line, and if the variations of $`A_\mu `$ near this line are small, the approximation will be justified. In applications we have to perform an integration over the gauge field $`A_\mu `$ at the end, which involves the whole spectrum in momentum space. Because there are only two scales available, $`m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, one expects a good approximation if $`m>>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$.

For light quarks the lines spread out over the whole space, and the above argument cannot be applied. But in any case the step of exponentiation leading from (3.6.a) to (3.6.b) can be interpreted as partially including higher orders of the perturbation series, namely a minimum of those necessary to guarantee gauge covariance. There are good reasons to believe that gauge covariance is such a fundamental principle that it may indeed be used to transform perturbative expressions into non-perturbative ones of physical relevance.

The expressions in the first and second line of $`v^\mu `$ can be treated in exactly the same way. The integrals in the third line of $`v^\mu `$, as well as those in $`a^\mu `$ and $`t^{\mu \nu }`$ have a different form, but the structure of all of them is identical. They have a factor $`g`$ in front, therefore one can introduce path ordered exponentials without changing the result in order $`g`$. To each $`zx,y`$ there belongs a unique $`s^{}`$ and $`𝐰`$ which characterize it’s position $`s^{}`$ on the field line $`𝐰`$. One can write

$$gF^{\mu \nu }(z(s^{},𝐰))=P\left\{gF^{\mu \nu }(z(s^{},𝐰))\mathrm{exp}[ig_y^x𝐰A𝑑z]\right\}+O(g^2).$$
(3.7)
We have chosen the symbol $`s^{}`$ in $`z(s^{},𝐰)`$ in order not to mix it up with the curve parameter $`s`$ in the path ordered exponential. The color matrix $`F^{\mu \nu }(z(s^{},𝐰))`$ has to be included in the path ordering prescription with respect to $`s`$ of the field line characterized by $`𝐰`$. In this way (3.7) behaves correctly under gauge transformations.

Finally one has to multiply by $`u(z;x,y)`$ and perform the integration over $`d^4z=\rho (𝐰)ds^{}d^3w`$, resulting in

$`{\displaystyle u(z;x,y)gF^{\mu \nu }(z)d^4z}=`$ (3.8)
$`{\displaystyle \rho (𝐰)u(z(s^{},𝐰))P\left\{gF^{\mu \nu }(z(s^{},𝐰))\mathrm{exp}[ig_y^x𝐰A𝑑z]\right\}𝑑s^{}d^3w}+O(g^2).`$
This type of integral is a generalization of the operator insertions into a Wilson loop introduced by Eichten and Feinberg  and later on widely used in the literature. It is, however, more general, because the insertions are not equally distributed along the path, but weighted by the $`s^{}`$-dependence of $`u(z(s^{},𝐰))`$.

We summarize our representation for the quark propagator: It has the decomposition (2.3) with

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`m\mathrm{\Delta }(xy){\displaystyle \rho (𝐰)P\mathrm{exp}[ig_y^x𝐰A𝑑z]d^3w},`$ (3.9)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.10)
$`v^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}D^\mu (x)\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }(xy){\displaystyle \rho (𝐰)P\mathrm{exp}[ig_y^x𝐰A𝑑z]d^3w}\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }(xy){\displaystyle \rho (𝐰)P\mathrm{exp}[ig_y^x𝐰A𝑑z]d^3w}\right\}\stackrel{\mu }{\stackrel{}{D}}(y)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_\nu (x){\displaystyle \rho (𝐰)u(z(s^{},𝐰))P\left\{gF^{\mu \nu }(z(s^{},𝐰))\mathrm{exp}[ig_y^x𝐰A𝑑z]\right\}𝑑s^{}d^3w}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \rho (𝐰)u(z(s^{},𝐰))P\left\{gF^{\mu \nu }(z(s^{},𝐰))\mathrm{exp}[ig_y^x𝐰A𝑑z]\right\}𝑑s^{}d^3w}\underset{\nu }{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{D}}}(y),`$
$`a^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \kappa }\{D_\lambda (x){\displaystyle }\rho (𝐰)u(z(s^{},𝐰))P\left\{gF_{\nu \kappa }(z(s^{},𝐰))\mathrm{exp}[ig{\displaystyle _y^x}𝐰Adz]\right\}ds^{}d^3w`$ (3.12)
$`{\displaystyle }\rho (𝐰)u(z(s^{},𝐰))P\left\{gF_{\nu \kappa }(z(s^{},𝐰))\mathrm{exp}[ig{\displaystyle _y^x}𝐰Adz]\right\}ds^{}d^3w\underset{\lambda }{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{D}}}(y)\},`$
$`t^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle \rho (𝐰)u(z(s^{},𝐰))P\left\{gF^{\mu \nu }(z(s^{},𝐰))P\mathrm{exp}[ig_y^x𝐰A𝑑z]\right\}𝑑s^{}d^3w}.`$ (3.13)
We could have simplified the curly brackets $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ in $`v^\mu `$ by $`s/m`$, but we left it in the present form in order to keep it applicable also in the case of small or vanishing mass. Obviously the last two lines in $`v^\mu `$ and the terms $`a^\mu `$ and $`t^{\mu \nu }`$ contain the same types of insertions into path ordered integrals.

Clearly the representation (2.3), (3.9)-(3.13) fulfills all properties mentioned at the end of sect. 1.

## 4 Weight function, stream lines, and a simple application

It is now appropriate to switch to Euclidean space, i.e. put $`x^0=ix_4^E,x^n=x_n^E,\gamma ^0=\gamma _4^E,\gamma ^n=i\gamma _n^E`$. In the following the index $`E`$ will be written explicitly only where it appears appropriate. For the explicit calculations we make use of the rotation symmetry around the vector $`(xy)_\mu `$. Choose, just for intermediate simplification of notation, a system where $`(xy)_\mu `$ has a four-component only and where $`𝐱=𝐲=0`$. It is then convenient to describe the vector $`z_\mu `$ by it’s four-component $`z_4`$, and ordinary three-dimensional polar coordinates $`r,\mathrm{\Theta },\phi `$, i. e.

$$z_\mu =(r\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}\phi ,r\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}\phi ,r\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta },z_4).$$
(4.1)
Let us now choose an appropriate parametrization of the various stream lines. We classify them by the orthogonal distance $`w`$ of the line from the midpoint $`(x+y)/2`$ between the sources, and by the angles $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\phi `$, thus $`d^3w=dwd\mathrm{\Theta }d\phi `$. Fig. 1 shows a stream line together with the parameters introduced above.

Fig. 1:  The plane spanned by the stream line, and the coordinates introduced in the text (in the system where $`xy`$ has a four-component only).

The weight function $`\rho (𝐰)`$ defined in (3.3) becomes

$$\rho (w,\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)}{(r,\mathrm{\Theta },\phi ,z_4)}\frac{(r,\mathrm{\Theta },\phi ,z_4)}{(s,w,\mathrm{\Theta },\phi )}=r^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{(r,z_4)}{(s,w)}.$$
(4.2)
It is now very convenient that $`\rho `$ depends on $`𝐰`$ only, but not on the curve parameter $`s`$. Therefore we can evaluate it at a suitable point. We choose the symmetry point $`\zeta `$ in the middle of the stream line with the coordinates $`r=w,z_4=(x+y)_4/2`$. At this point we obviously have $`r/s=0`$ and $`r/w=1`$, and thus $`(r,z_4)/(s,w)=z_4/s=u_4`$, where we used the definition of the stream lines in (3.2). This allows to write down the weight function in closed form.

$$\rho (w,\mathrm{\Theta })=w^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }u_4(\zeta ;x,y),$$
(4.3)
with

$$\zeta _\mu =(w\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}\phi ,w\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}\phi ,w\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta },(x+y)_4/2).$$
(4.4)
Obviously $`u_4(\zeta ;x,y)`$ is independent of the angles $`\mathrm{\Theta },\phi `$.

It is convenient to put

$$\rho (w,\theta )=\frac{\widehat{\rho }(w)}{4\pi }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta },$$
(4.5)
such that the weight function $`\widehat{\rho }(w)`$ is normalized to

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{\rho }(w)𝑑w=1.$$
(4.6)
We first give the resulting formulae for the special case of vanishing quark mass which may be of some general interest:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}(x)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2x^2},$$
(4.7)
$$u^{(0)}(z;x,y)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^4(xz)^2(zy)^2},$$
(4.8)
$$u_\mu ^{(0)}(z;x,y)=\frac{(xy)^2}{2\pi ^2}\left\{\frac{(xz)_\mu }{(xz)^4(zy)^2}+\frac{(zy)_\mu }{(xz)^2(zy)^4}\right\},$$
(4.9)
$$\widehat{\rho ^{(0)}}(w)=\frac{2w^2|xy|^3}{\pi [(xy)^2/4+w^2]^3}.$$
(4.10)
The maximum of $`\widehat{\rho }^{(0)}`$ is at $`w_{max}^{(0)}=|xy|/(2\sqrt{2})`$.

We now come to the general massive case. The free scalar propagator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ then is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=\frac{m}{4\pi ^2x}K_1(mx),$$
(4.11)
which gives

$$u(z;x,y)=\frac{m^2}{16\pi ^4}\frac{K_1(m|xz|)K_1(m|zy|)}{|xz||zy|}.$$
(4.12)
With the relation $`(K_1(z)/z)^{}=K_2(z)/z`$ for the Kelvin function, one further obtains

$`u_\mu (z;,x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{m^2|xy|}{4\pi ^2K_1(m|xy|)}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{K_2(m|xz|)K_1(m|zy|)}{(xz)^2|zy|}}(xz)_\mu `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{K_1(m|xz|)K_2(m|zy|)}{|xz|(zy)^2}}(zy)_\mu \}.`$ (4.13)
$$\widehat{\rho }(w)=\frac{m^2w^2(xy)^2}{\pi }\frac{K_1(m\sqrt{(xy)^2/4+w^2})K_2(m\sqrt{(xy)^2/4+w^2})}{K_1(m|xy|)[(xy)^2/4+w^2]^{3/2}}.$$
(4.14)
The weight function $`\widehat{\rho }(w)`$ is trivially suppressed for small $`w`$ by the volume element in polar coordinates, it rises to a maximum at some $`w_{max}`$, and decreases exponentially for large $`w`$.

In Fig. 2 we plot the function $`\widehat{\rho }(w)`$ for fixed distance $`|xy|`$ for various values of the mass. It is clearly seen how the maximum moves to the left if the quark mass increases.

Fig. 2:  The weight function $`\widehat{\rho }(w)`$ defined in (4.6). The distance $`|xy|`$ is fixed, we show the curves for the mass values $`m|xy|=0,1,5,10,20`$. The maximum moves from right to left and increases with increasing mass.

In Fig. 3 we show the stream lines of the vector field $`u_\mu `$ for four values of $`m|xy|`$.

Fig. 3:  The stream lines (3.2) for the cases (from left to right, top to bottom) a) $`m|xy|=0`$, b) $`m|xy|=5`$, c) $`m|xy|=20`$, d) $`m|xy|=100`$. The sources at $`x`$ and $`y`$ are located at $`\pm 0.5`$. We show the stream lines for the values of $`w/w_{max}=0,\pm 0.5,\pm 1,\pm 1.5`$.

For vanishing mass the lines spread out widely in space, up to $`w`$ of the order of $`|xy|`$. For increasing mass they concentrate more and more to the straight line connection. Apparently the product $`m|xy|`$ has to become quite large, however, in order to get a sizeable concentration.

The large mass limit will now be investigated analytically. We use the asymptotic behavior $`K_n(z)\sqrt{\pi /(2z)}e^z`$ for $`z\mathrm{}`$ and get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sqrt{m}}{(2\pi x)^{3/2}}e^{mx}\text{ for }m\mathrm{},$$
(4.15)
$$u(z;x,y)\frac{m}{32\pi ^3}\frac{e^{m[|xz|+|zy|]}}{[|xz||zy|]^{3/2}}\text{ for }m\mathrm{},$$
(4.16)
$`u_\mu (z;x,y)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m|xy|}{2\pi |xz||zy|}}\right)^{3/2}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(xz)_\mu }{|xz|}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(zy)_\mu }{|zy|}}\right\}e^{m[|xy||xz||zy|]}`$ (4.17)
$`\text{ for }m\mathrm{},`$
$$\widehat{\rho }(w)\frac{m^{3/2}w^2|xy|^{5/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi }[(xy)^2/4+w^2]^2}\mathrm{exp}[m(|xy|2\sqrt{(xy)^2/4+w^2})]\text{ for }m\mathrm{}.$$
(4.18)
Obviously only $`w`$ of order $`\sqrt{|xy|/m}`$ are now of relevance in the weight function. Therefore one may expand the square roots and gets the simple result

$$\widehat{\rho }(w)\frac{16}{\sqrt{2\pi }}(\frac{m}{|xy|})^{3/2}w^2\mathrm{exp}[\frac{2mw^2}{|xy|}]\text{ for }m\mathrm{}.$$
(4.19)
This is just the picture which one expects for large mass. Only stream lines near the straight line connection essentially contribute, the maximum of $`\widehat{\rho }(w)`$ is at $`w_{max}=\sqrt{|xy|/(2m)}`$.

If the mass is large enough, such that the variation of the gluon field in transversal direction becomes negligible, all line integrals give the same contribution. The weighted superposition over the paths can then simply be replaced by the path along the straight line connection. This means that one has effectively a three-dimensional $`\delta `$-function in transversal direction. The situation looks now similar to the case of the static propagator but with an important difference. While the static propagator (1.8) singles out a special reference frame, our propagator is manifestly Lorentz covariant. It is the vector $`(xy)_\mu `$ which specifies the direction of propagation.

This has a simple consequence. In the limit of large mass, the scalar function $`s`$ in (3.9) becomes

$$s\frac{1}{2}(\frac{m}{2\pi |xy|})^{3/2}e^{m|xy|}P\mathrm{exp}[ig_y^xA𝑑z],$$
(4.20)
with the Euclidean path along the straight line connecting $`x`$ and $`y`$.

Consider now the term $`s`$ plus the first two lines of $`v^\mu \gamma _\mu `$ in (3.11). This sum can be written as

$`s`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}(D_\mu ^E(x)ss\underset{\mu }{\overset{E}{\stackrel{}{D}}}(y))\gamma _\mu ^E`$
$``$ $``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\pi |xy|}})^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma _\mu ^E(xy)_\mu /|xy|}{2}}e^{m|xy|}P\mathrm{exp}[ig{\displaystyle _y^x}A𝑑z].`$ (4.21)
In contrast to the $`e^{m|x_4y_4|}`$ of the static approximation which falls off with the euclidean time difference, our $`e^{m|xy|}`$ falls off with the euclidean distance. This means that the Hamiltonian is correctly given by the full relativistic energy. Furthermore we also get the correct projection operator for the $`\gamma `$-matrices.

We finally discuss the terms $`a^\mu ,t^{\mu \nu }`$ in (3.12), (3.13) which can be treated rather simply. We specialize to the case $`𝐱=𝐲`$ and put $`x_4y_4=T>0`$. In the large mass limit we can replace $`\rho (𝐰)`$ by $`\delta ^{(3)}(𝐰)`$. The $`s^{}`$-integrations can be written as follows:

$$u(z(s^{},0))ds^{}=u(t)\frac{ds^{}}{dt}dt=\frac{u(t)}{u_4(t)}dt=\frac{e^{mT}}{8\sqrt{2}\pi ^{3/2}T^{3/2}\sqrt{m}}dt.$$
(4.22)
In the second step we used the 4-component of (3.2), in the third step we introduced the asymptotic formulae (4.16), (4.17) for the special case where $`z`$ lies on the line connecting $`x`$ and $`y`$. In $`a^\mu `$ we only need to consider the index $`\lambda =4`$ which gives a leading factor $`(m)`$ from the differentiation of $`e^{mT}`$. All other contributions are suppressed by higher powers of $`1/m`$. In $`t^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ only spatial indices $`\mu =m,\nu =n`$ survive if we concentrate on the diagonal part of the Dirac matrices. The transition to $`2\times 2`$-matrices than gives

$`\text{in the axial vector (3.12): }a^\mu \gamma ^5\gamma _\mu `$ $``$ $`ϵ_{mn4k}F_{nk}\gamma ^5\gamma _mϵ_{mnk}F_{nk}\sigma _m2B_m\sigma _m,`$
$`\text{in the tensor (3.13): }t^{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`F_{mn}\sigma _{mn}ϵ_{mnk}F_{mn}\sigma _k2B_k\sigma _k.`$ (4.23)
Both contributions give identical magnetic field insertions which add up.

The resulting expressions have to be combined with the leading term (4.21) where we can drop the projector $`(1+\gamma _4^E)/2`$. This gives a spin dependent expression of the form

$$(\frac{m}{2\pi T})^{3/2}e^{mT}P\mathrm{exp}[ig_y^xA𝑑z](1+\frac{g}{m}𝐁(t)𝐬𝑑t).$$
(4.24)
If we take the product of the quark- and the antiquark propagator which arises in the four-point Green function, focus on the product term of the two magnetic field insertions, and extract the Hamiltonion in the usual way ,, we immediately obtain the spin spin and the tensor terms with the correct representations for the corresponding potentials $`V_4`$ and $`V_3`$. In the static approach these terms only arise as higher order corrections.

Spin orbit terms are momentum dependent and therefore involve moving quarks. These are, of course, contained in our formalism, but the derivation is slightly more complicated. Spin independent corrections are obtained even harder. Therefore we will not discuss those in this first application, but be content with the simple and correct derivation of spin spin and tensor terms given above.

## 5 Conclusions and outlook

Let us first compare our representation (2.3), (3.9)-(3.13) with the static approximation (1.8). The static approximation is, drastically speaking, completely wrong everywhere. It is completely wrong for $`𝐱𝐲`$ where it vanishes, but it is also completely wrong for $`𝐱=𝐲`$ because it has a $`\delta `$-function there which is not present in the exact propagator. These features survive if one treats the neglected spatial part $`i\gamma ^mD_m`$ in the field equation as perturbation. In any finite order of this perturbation the approximated propagator vanishes for $`𝐱𝐲`$, while higher order derivatives of $`\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲)`$ appear. The miracle that one can nevertheless obtain useful results from this propagator is due to the fact that the perturbation series turns out to become an expansion with respect to $`1/m`$. As long as $`<p^2/m^2>`$ is small, the results are reliable.

The propagator proposed in the present work is manifestly covariant and appears to have a reasonable structure everywhere. This advantage is payed by a more complicated form, which, however, looks very natural physically. Not only one path ordered integral, but a whole set of them contribute. We saw how the paths near the straight line connection dominate for large mass. We believe that it will also be possible to get useful information for finite mass. For an investigation of the quark-antiquark interaction one should start, as usual, with the gauge invariant $`q\overline{q}`$ four-point Green function and integrate out the fermion fields. Instead of the familiar Wegner-Wilson loop one will now obtain a superposition of loops where the straight paths in time direction are replaced by the stream lines making up our propagator. Quite a lot of knowledge how to treat such loops has been accumulated by various authors which can be used for this investigation.

A comparison with the Feynman-Schwinger representation (see e.g. ) is also instructive. This representation of the propagator is formally exact and has essentially the form of a quantum mechanical Green function. It can therefore be written as a path integral. In the literature  one also finds approximate path integral representations for the propagator and the quark-antiquark kernel valid up to order $`1/m^2`$. In both cases one has, as usual in this formalism, a sum over all paths, which is, conceptionally as well as technically, a rather delicate concept. Even for rather simple situations the path integral cannot be evaluated. In our case, on the other hand, we have only line integrals along a well defined set of field lines. This is a much simpler situation. Our representation stands just between approximations which involve a single path only and those requiring a sum over all paths.

Besides the application of the present propagator for large as well as for finite mass, there is another topic which should be worked out. This is the systematic improvement of our propagator. We don’t have a simple differential equation for it, as it is available in the case of the static propagator. Therefore one probably has to improve higher orders of perturbation theory directly and transform them into gauge covariant expressions in an analogous way as done here for the first order. We emphasize, however, that such an improvement does not appear necessary for many purposes. The present form gives already the correct relativistic energy of a free particle together with the correct spin projectors. Furthermore we have seen that it gives the correct spin-spin and tensor forces for heavy quark-antiquark systems. To get these ”relativistic corrections” from the static propagator one has to make quite complicated manipulations. We expect that all other relativistic corrections can also be obtained with some more effort.

Therefore there are good reasons to believe that the suggested expression for the propagator will turn out quite useful already in it’s present form.

Acknowledgement: I thank H. G. Dosch for reading the manuscript.