text:
# Contribution to muon g-2 from the 𝝅^𝟎𝜸 and 𝜼𝜸 intermediate states in the vacuum polarization

## Abstract

Using new experimental data, we have calculated the contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon from the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ and $`\eta \gamma `$ intermediate states in the vacuum polarization with high precision: $`a_\mu (\pi ^0\gamma )+a_\mu (\eta \gamma )=(54.7\pm 1.5)\times 10^{11}`$. We have also found the small contribution from $`e^+e^{}\pi ^0,e^+e^{}\eta `$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}\pi ^0`$ intermediate states equal to $`0.5\times 10^{11}`$.

New experimental data  allows to calculate contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $`a_\mu \frac{g_\mu 2}{2}`$ from the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ and $`\eta \gamma `$ intermediate states in the vacuum polarization with high precision. We have also found the contribution from $`e^+e^{}\pi ^0,e^+e^{}\eta `$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}\pi ^0`$ intermediate states.

The contribution to $`a_\mu `$ from the arbitrary intermediate state X ( hadrons, hadrons+$`\gamma `$, etc.) in the vacuum polarization can be obtained via the dispersion integral

$$a_\mu =\left(\frac{\alpha m_\mu }{3\pi }\right)^2\frac{ds}{s^2}K(s)R(s).$$
(1)
$$R(s)\frac{\sigma (e^+e^{}X)}{\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})},\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})\frac{4\pi \alpha ^2}{3s}.$$

$$K(s>4m_\mu ^2)=\frac{3s}{m_\mu ^2}\left\{x^2(1\frac{x^2}{2})+(1+x)^2(1+\frac{1}{x^2})\left[\mathrm{ln}(1+x)x+\frac{x^2}{2}\right]+\frac{1+x}{1x}x^2\mathrm{ln}(x)\right\}=$$

$$=\frac{3}{a^3}\left(16(a2)\mathrm{ln}\frac{a}{4}2a(8a)8(a^28a+8)\frac{\text{arctanh}(\sqrt{1a})}{\sqrt{1a}}\right),$$

$$x=\frac{1\sqrt{1\frac{4m_{}^{2}{}_{\mu }{}^{}}{s}}}{1+\sqrt{1\frac{4m_{}^{2}{}_{\mu }{}^{}}{s}}},a=\frac{4m_\mu ^2}{s}.$$

$$K(s<4m_\mu ^2)=\frac{3}{a^3}\left(16(a2)\mathrm{ln}\frac{a}{4}2a(8a)8(a^28a+8)\frac{\mathrm{arctan}(\sqrt{a1})}{\sqrt{a1}}\right).$$

Evaluating integral (1) with the trapezoidal rule for the experimental data from SND , see Fig. 1(a), we found the contribution of $`\pi ^0\gamma `$:

$$a_\mu (\pi ^0\gamma )=(46.2\pm .6\pm 1.3)\times 10^{11},600MeV<\sqrt{s}<1039MeV.$$
(2)
The first error is statistical, the second is systematic. For the energy region $`\sqrt{s}<600`$ MeV we used theoretical formula for the cross-section:

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^0\gamma )=\frac{8\alpha f^2}{3}\left(1\frac{m_{\pi ^0}^2}{s}\right)^3\frac{1}{\left(1\frac{s}{m_\omega ^2}\right)^2},$$
(3)
where $`f^2=\frac{\pi }{m_{\pi ^0}^3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }10^{11}/MeV^2`$ according to . Eq. (3) has been written in the approximation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho =\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega =0,m_\rho m_\omega =0.$$
(4)
The $`\gamma \pi ^0\gamma `$ amplitude is normalized on the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ one at $`s=0`$. The result is

$$a_\mu (\pi ^0\gamma )=1.3\times 10^{11},\sqrt{s}<600MeV.$$
(5)
Note that the region $`\sqrt{s}<2m_\mu `$ gives the negligible contribution $`2\times 10^{13}`$.

We neglect the small errors dealing with the experimental error in the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi ^0\gamma \gamma }`$ (7%) and the approximation (4) (1.5%).

The Eq. (3) agrees with the data in the energy region $`\sqrt{s}<700`$ MeV, at higher energies the approximation (4) does not work carefully, see Fig. 1(b).

If we use the point-like model, as in , we will get Eq. (3) without factor $`\left(1\frac{s}{m_\omega ^2}\right)^2`$. This formula predicts the contribution from low energies several times less than (5), see also Fig. 1(b).

Treating the data from CMD-2  in the same way, we get contribution of $`\eta \gamma `$:

$$a_\mu (\eta \gamma )=(7.1\pm .2\pm .3)\times 10^{11},720MeV<\sqrt{s}<1040MeV.$$
(6)
According to the quark model (and the model of vector dominance also), the energy region $`\sqrt{s}<720`$ MeV is dominated by the $`\rho `$-resonance, hence $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\eta \gamma )\sigma (e^+e^{}\rho \eta \gamma )`$. So we change Eq. (3) according to this fact, take into account the $`\rho `$ width and get the small contribution:

$$a_\mu (\eta \gamma )=.1\times 10^{11},\sqrt{s}<720MeV,$$
(7)
Summing (2), (5), (6) and (7), we can write

$$a_\mu (\pi ^0\gamma )+a_\mu (\eta \gamma )=(54.7\pm .6\pm 1.4)\times 10^{11},$$
(8)
where statistical and systematic errors are separately added in quadrature. In Table 1 we present our results with statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature. Comparing Eq. (8) with the analogous calculation in  (see Table 1), one can see that our result is 27% more and the error is 2.5 times less. The contribution (8) accounts for 1.37 of the projected error of the E821 experiment at Brookhaven National Laboratory ($`40\times 10^{11}`$) or 36% of the reached accuracy ($`150\times 10^{11}`$ ).

We can also take into account the intermediate state $`\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$, using the obvious relation

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^0e^+e^{},s)=\frac{2}{\pi }_{2m_e}^{\sqrt{s}m_{\pi ^0}}\frac{dm}{m^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma e^+e^{}}(m)\sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^0\gamma ,s,m),$$
(9)
where m is the invariant mass of the $`e^+e^{}`$ system, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma e^+e^{}}(m)`$=$`(1/2)\alpha \beta _em(1\beta _e^2/3),\beta _e`$=$`\sqrt{14m_e^2/m^2},\sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^0\gamma ,s,m)=(p(m)/p(0))^3\sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^0\gamma ,s),p(m)=(\sqrt{s}/2)\sqrt{(1(m_{\pi ^0}+m)^2/s)(1(m_{\pi ^0}m)^2/s)}`$ is the momentum of $`\gamma `$ in s.c.m.

In the same way we can calculate $`a_\mu (\mu ^+\mu ^{}\pi ^0)`$ and $`a_\mu (e^+e^{}\eta )`$. The result is

$$a_\mu (e^+e^{}\pi ^0)+a_\mu (\mu ^+\mu ^{}\pi ^0)+a_\mu (e^+e^{}\eta )=(.4+.026+.057)\times 10^{11}=.5\times 10^{11}.$$
(10)
Note that if $`mm_\rho `$ we have the effect of the excitation of resonances in the reaction $`e^+e^{}\pi ^0(\rho ,\omega )\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$. However this effect increases the final result (10) less than by 10% because of the factor $`(p(m)/p(0))^3`$, which suppresses the high m. So we ignore this correction. We also neglect $`a_\mu (\mu ^+\mu ^{}\eta )=2\times 10^{14}`$.

As it was noted in  and , it is necessary to take into account also

$$a_\mu (hadrons+\gamma ,rest)=a_\mu (\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )+a_\mu (\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )+a_\mu (hadrons+\gamma ,s>1.2GeV^2).$$

We take $`a_\mu (\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )=(38.6\pm 1.0)\times 10^{11}`$ from  (see also ), $`a_\mu (\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )+a_\mu (hadrons+\gamma ,s>1.2GeV^2)=(4\pm 1)\times 10^{11}`$ from . Adding this to (8), we get

$$a_\mu (hadrons+\gamma ,total)=(97.3\pm 2.1)\times 10^{11}.$$
(11)
The contribution (11) accounts for 2.43 of the projected error of the E821 experiment or 65% of the reached accuracy.

In fact, the errors in (8) and (11) are negligible for any imaginable $`(g2)_\mu `$ measurement in near future.

| Table 1. Contribution to $`a_\mu \times 10^{11}`$ | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| State | Our value | Ref.  |
| $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ | $`47.5\pm 1.4`$ | $`37\pm 3`$ |
| $`\eta \gamma `$ | $`7.2\pm .4`$ | $`6.1\pm 1.4`$ |
| $`\pi ^0\gamma +\eta \gamma `$ | $`54.7\pm 1.5`$ | $`43\pm 4`$ |
| hadrons+$`\gamma `$, total | $`97.3\pm 2.1`$ | $`93\pm 11`$ |


format: text

text:
# Universality in Glassy Low–Temperature Physics

(30. December 2001)

## Abstract

We propose a microscopic translationally invariant glass model which exhibits two level tunneling systems with a broad range of asymmetries and barrier heights in its glassy phase. Their distribution is qualitatively different from what is commonly assumed in phenomenological models, in that symmetric tunneling systems are systematically suppressed. Still, the model exhibits the usual glassy low-temperature anomalies. Universality is due to the collective origin of the glassy potential energy landscape. We obtain a simple explanation also for the mysterious quantitative universality expressed in the unusually narrow universal glassy range of values for the internal friction plateau.

The physics of glassy systems at low temperatures differs strikingly from that of their crystalline counterparts ZePo71 . Differences are observed in thermal properties, in transport phenomena, and in dielectric and acoustic response, and are believed to be due to the existence of tunneling excitations with a broad range of energy splittings and relaxation times, which are absent in crystals. The phenomenological standard tunneling model (STM) And72 , and its generalization, the soft potential model (SPM) Kar83 , which paraphrase this idea quantitatively were for many years considered to provide a satisfactory rationalization of glassy low-temperature physics.

Questions into the origin of the universality of these phenomena YuLe88  have not yet found clearcut answers; see, however, Bur+96 . In particular, the remarkable degree of quantitative universality (e.g., the narrow range of values for sound-attenuation in the 1 K regime) has remained a mystery so far. Also, relations between low- and high-temperature phenomena could not possibly emerge from phenomenological descriptions. Moreover, a number of recent experiments Nat98 ; Str98 ; Cla+00  are difficult to reconcile with predictions of prevalent models.

In order to better understand the successes and limitations of the phenomenological approaches, we have recently proposed microscopic models for glassy low-temperature physics KuH97 ; KuU00  using heuristics taken from spin-glass theory. The purpose of the present letter is to improve upon KuH97 ; KuU00  with respect to both modeling and scope of analysis. We investigate a glass model described by the Hamiltonian $`H=_i\frac{p_i^2}{2m}+U_{\mathrm{int}}(\{u_i\})`$ with a translationally invariant interaction energy of the form

$$U_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{1}{4}\underset{ij}{}J_{ij}(u_iu_j)^2+\frac{g}{2N}\underset{ij}{}(u_iu_j)^4$$
(1)
The $`u_i`$ designate deviations of particle coordinates from some reference positions, and (1) may be thought of as arising from a Born von Karman expansion of the full interaction energy about these positions – taken to be stationary but not necessarily stable. As before KuH97 ; KuU00 , glassy properties are modeled by assuming the expansion coefficients at the harmonic level to be Gaussian random couplings with mean $`\overline{J_{ij}}=J_0/N`$ and variance $`\overline{(\delta J_{ij})^2}=J^2/N`$. The non-random quartic potential is for stabilization, and so requires $`g>0`$. Non-translationally invariant versions KuH97  or models with partial translational invariance KuU00  have been introduced before.

Our main results are the following. (i) The model exhibits a glassy phase at low temperatures. (ii) The potential energy landscape is represented self-consistently through an ensemble of effective single-site potentials which comprises both single-well potentials (SWPs) , and double-well potentials (DWPs), the latter with a broad spectrum of barrier heights and asymmetries. (iii) The distribution of parameters characterizing the single-site potentials depends on the collective state of the system, and differs qualitatively from what is assumed in the phenomenological models. (iv) The model exhibits typical low temperature anomalies, e.g., of the specific heat, and of acoustic or dielectric response. (v) Within the model we can explain, in particular the quantitative universality of glassy low-temperature anomalies expressed e.g. in the unusually narrow range of values for the internal friction plateau. (vi) We also see some unusual frequency dependence of internal friction curves similar to that recently observed in vitreous silica Cla+00 .

We now turn to the analysis. Due to the translationally invariant interaction, the system contains global translations as zero modes, and the partition function must be evaluated orthogonal to these modes, i.e. with the constraint $`_iu_i=0`$. Apart from this detail, the analysis follows standard reasoning. The free energy is obtained by averaging an $`n`$-fold replicated partition sum, $`\beta f(\beta )=lim_{N\mathrm{},n0}(Nn)^1\mathrm{ln}[Z_N^n]_{av}`$, and can be expressed in terms of an Edwards-Anderson matrix of two-replica overlaps $`q_{ab}`$. Although four-replica overlaps must also be introduced during the calculation, the final result does not depend on them. The replica free energy reads

$$n\beta f(\beta )=\frac{(\beta J)^2}{4}\underset{ab}{}q_{ab}^23\beta g\underset{a}{}q_{aa}^2\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{Z}_n$$
(2)
with $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_n`$ a single-site partition function corresponding to the $`n`$-replica potential $`U_n=\frac{1}{2}_a(J_0+12gq_{aa})u_a^2\frac{\beta J^2}{2}_{ab}q_{ab}u_au_b\frac{\beta J^2}{8}\left(_au_a^2\right)^2+g_au_a^4`$, that is, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_n=_adu_a\mathrm{exp}\{\beta U_n\}`$. The order parameters $`q_{ab}`$ must satisfy the fixed point equations $`q_{ab}=u_au_b`$ with angle brackets denoting a Gibbs average w.r.t. the potential $`U_n`$. As usual, to perform the $`n0`$ limit, one starts from parameterizations of the $`q_{ab}`$ matrix based on assumptions concerning transformation properties of solutions under permutation of the replica.

We have looked at the replica symmetric (RS) solution and a solution with one step of replica symmetry breaking (1RSB). Both in RS and 1RSB (and at all higher levels of Parisi’s RSB scheme) the system is described by an ensemble of effective single-site potentials of the form

$$U_{\mathrm{eff}}(u)=d_1u+d_2u^2+d_4u^4,$$
(3)
in which $`d_4=g`$ is the coupling constant of the quartic stabilizing interaction, and $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ are randomly varying parameters. We shall occasionally refer to $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ as to an effective local field $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and an effective harmonic coupling $`k_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ via $`d_1=h_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`d_2=\frac{1}{2}k_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Their joint distribution is expressed in terms of the order parameters of the system which are in turn obtained in terms of Gibbs averages self-consistently evaluated over the $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ ensemble (3). This ensemble of effective single-site potentials is a representation of the glassy potential energy landscape within a mean-field description. Glassy low-temperature anomalies follow from considering the effects of quantized excitations within this ensemble of local potentials.

In RS one assumes $`q_{aa}=q_d`$ and $`q_{ab}=q`$ for $`ab`$. These must solve the RS fixed point equations

$$q_d=u^2_{\overline{z},z},q=u^2_{\overline{z},z}$$
(4)
in which inner brackets denote a Gibbs average w.r.t. the effective single-site potential (3) with

$`d_1`$ $`=`$ $`d_1^{\mathrm{RS}}=J\sqrt{q}z,`$
$`d_2`$ $`=`$ $`d_2^{\mathrm{RS}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J_0+12gq_dJ^2C+J\overline{z}),`$ (5)
and $`C=\beta (q_dq)`$, and outer brackets an average over the zero-mean, unit-variance Gaussians $`\overline{z}`$ and $`z`$ in $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$. The ensemble of single-site potentials thus comprises both SWPs, and DWPs, the latter with a broad spectrum of barrier heights. A glassy state is signaled by $`q0`$, thus a non-degenerate distribution of asymmetries of single-site potentials. In the present model the transition is continuous and the critical condition is given by $`1=(\beta _cJ)^2u^2^2_{\overline{z},z}`$, which is just the de Almeida-Thouless condition for the occurrence of a RSB instability. For models with symmetric coupling distributions the transition temperature satisfies $`T_c(J,g)=\frac{J^2}{g}T_c(1,1)`$ with $`k_\mathrm{B}T_c(1,1)0.133E_{}`$ rem1 . In RS, $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ are Gaussian and uncorrelated. This would be qualitatively in line with assumptions of the SPM, although there are quantitative differences. In contrast to the STM, correlations are predicted between asymmetries and tunneling matrix elements of tunneling systems in DWPs.

The RS solution is unstable and thus strictly not acceptable throughout the glassy phase. For a non-translationally invariant model KuH97 , we have shown RSB effects to be small for the specific heat. Here, we look in greater detail also at the distribution of $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`k_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. We shall find it to be qualitatively different from what has been obtained in the RS approximation, and thus also from what is assumed in the phenomenological models.

In 1RSB, expected to exhibit the salient RSB effects, one assumes $`q_{aa}=q_d`$, $`q_{ab}=q_1`$ for $`1<|ab|m`$ and $`q_{ab}=q_0`$ for $`|ab|>m`$. The fixed point equations are now much more complicated, and we shall not reproduce them here. Whereas $`d_2`$ has the same form as in RS, $`d_2^{1\mathrm{R}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{B}}=\frac{1}{2}(J_0+12gq_dJ^2C+J\overline{z})`$, except that now $`C=\beta (q_dq_1)`$, the local field is more complicated. It is formulated in terms of two variables $`z_1`$ and $`z_0`$

$$d_1=d_1^{1\mathrm{R}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{B}}=J\sqrt{q_1q_0}z_1J\sqrt{q}_0z_0$$
(6)
of which $`z_0`$ is a standard Gaussian, whereas $`z_1`$, while deriving from a Gaussian, becomes correlated with $`z_0`$ and $`\overline{z}`$ (thus $`d_2`$) in an intricate way through $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. In the low-temperature limit, to which we restrict our attention here, the result is

$$p(z_1|z_0,\overline{z})=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\{z_1^2/2DU_{\mathrm{eff}}(\widehat{u})\}}{\sqrt{2\pi }𝒟z_1\mathrm{exp}\{DU_{\mathrm{eff}}(\widehat{u})\}}$$
(7)
Here $`D=\beta m`$, which has a finite $`T0`$-limit, $`\widehat{u}=\widehat{u}(z_1,z_0,\overline{z})`$ is the value of $`u`$ which minimizes $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}(u)`$ for given values of $`z_0`$, $`z_1`$,and $`\overline{z}`$, and $`𝒟z_1`$ is a Gaussian measure. Fig. 1 displays the resulting distribution of $`d_1`$ conditioned on $`d_2`$.

The RSB result is qualitatively different from the RS result and from what is assumed in phenomenological models, in that small $`d_1`$ and thus symmetric tunneling systems are systematically suppressed. In fact, in the DWP region for negative $`d_2`$ and small $`d_1`$, the form is $`P(d_1,d_2)\pi _0(d_2)(1+\pi _1(d_2)|d_1|)`$, so $`P(d_1,d_2)`$ is non-analytic at $`d_1=0`$. Yet, due to the smallness of $`\pi _1(d_2)`$, RSB effects do not have significant influence on functional forms of thermodynamic and response functions at low temperatures. This was observed before for the specific heat in a non-translationally invariant model KuH97 , and is confirmed here.

Glassy low-temperature anomalies follow from low energy excitations in the ensemble of single-site problems $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{p^2}{2m}+U_{\mathrm{eff}}(u)`$. The energy of tunneling excitations in DWPs is determined by an asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a tunneling matrix element $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ as $`E=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}`$, which are in turn expressed through $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }=E_{}d_1\sqrt{2(|d_2|1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=E_{}\sqrt{2}|d_2|^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{2}{3}(1|d_2|^{3/2})\}`$ RaB98 . Frequencies of higher (quasi-harmonic) excitations in SWPs or DWPs are given by the curvature of the potential in its minimum, $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\prime \prime }(u_{\mathrm{min}})=m\omega ^2`$ rem1 .

By averaging over $`P(d_1,d_2)`$ one obtains tunneling and vibrational density of states and the specific heat as usual. Tunneling systems give rise to a slightly super-linear specific heat at low temperatures, $`C(T)T^{1+\epsilon }`$, with $`\epsilon `$ decreasing with $`J`$ (hence $`T_c`$), $`\epsilon `$ 0.1, 0.05 and 0.01 for $`J=25`$, 50, and 100 respectively, whereas the strongly peaked vibrational density of state is the origin of a Bose-peak in our model; see Fig. 2. RSB effects are small in $`C(T)`$, the dominant effect being a reduction of the tunneling density of states as compared to RS. Except for the super-linearity at low $`T`$, which can be traced down to the translational invariance of the interactions, $`C(T)`$ is qualitatively as in KuH97 , both in RS and 1RSB.

It is interesting to compare with assumptions of the STM at the level of the distribution $`P(\mathrm{\Delta },\lambda )`$ where $`\lambda =\mathrm{ln}(E_{}/\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$. In the STM $`P^{\mathrm{STM}}(\mathrm{\Delta },\lambda )=P_0`$ is assumed. We have

$$P(\mathrm{\Delta },\lambda )=\frac{P(d_1,d_2)}{E_{}\sqrt{2(|d_2|1)}\left[\sqrt{|d_2|}3/(2|d_2|)\right]}$$
(8)
for $`d_2<(3/2)^{2/3}`$, with $`d_1=d_1(\mathrm{\Delta },\lambda )`$ and $`d_2=d_2(\mathrm{\Delta },\lambda )`$ instead. Unlike in the STM or the SPM (i) the result is not a constant, and (ii) symmetric tunneling systems are systematically suppressed. If one were to fit our results to an STM parameterization one would associate $`P_0P(0,\lambda ^{})`$ for some $`\lambda ^{}=𝒪(1)|d_2^{}|=𝒪(10)`$. Interestingly, for reasonable energy scales (associated with tunneling of complexes like SiO2 over atomic distances, and giving $`E_{}`$ between 1 and 5 K), we would estimate $`P_0=10^7\mathrm{}10^6K^1`$/Atom for the system with $`J=50`$, which is the right order of magnitude for typical glasses. Also, using the fact that the low-$`T`$ limit of the fixed-point equations entails $`q_d,qJ`$, and $`CJ^1`$ in RS, and similarly $`q_d,q_1`$ and $`q_0J`$, $`CJ^1`$, and $`DJ^2`$ in 1RSB, we can combine this with $`T_cJ^2`$ and the expression for $`P(d_1,d_2)`$ to predict the scaling $`P_0T_c^{5/4}`$ for large $`T_c`$ both in RS and 1RSB, our second result relating low-$`T`$ properties with a property of the glass-transition in our model. A detailed comparison with experiments is difficult, as a large change in glass transition temperature requires changing composition of the glas, and thus interactions in non-trivial ways. Yet the trend expressed by this result appears to be correct.

Next, we discuss dynamics due to a coupling between local degrees of freedom $`u`$ and the strain field $`e`$ generated by Debye phonons, $`H_{\mathrm{SB}}=\gamma ue`$, where $`\gamma `$ is a deformation potential and $`e=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}_{q,s}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\rho \omega _{q,s}}}iq(b_{q,s}b_{q,s}^{})`$ the strain-field; the sum is over transversal and longitudinal modes and the tensorial nature of the strain-field is neglected. Quantities like internal friction are obtained by averaging the the dynamical susceptibility over the ensemble of single-site problems,

$$Q^1=\frac{\gamma ^2}{\rho v^2}\overline{\chi _{uu}^{\prime \prime }(\omega )}.$$
(9)
At low $`T`$, and for $`\mathrm{}\omega k_\mathrm{B}T`$, the dominant contribution is the relaxational contribution of tunneling systems in DWPs within the ensemble of single-site potentials. For these a two-level approximation for $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is appropriate and (9) reduces to the well known expression known for two-level tunneling systems, when the internal coordinate $`u`$ is approximated by a two state variable in terms of a Pauli matrix, $`u=u_0\sigma _z`$. Fig. 3 shows the internal friction of the present model for $`J=50`$ and driving frequencies as in Cla+00  computed in 1RSB (except for a different global overall pre-factor, RS results are functionally hardly distinguishable). Unlike in the STM and SPM, the dominant asymptotics is $`Q^1T^{3+\epsilon }(1+c_1T)`$ for $`TT^{}`$ and $`Q^1\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{P_0\gamma ^2}{\rho v^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{k_\mathrm{B}T}\right)^{\epsilon /2}(1+c_2T)`$ for $`TT^{}`$ — the influence of the $`c_\alpha =𝒪(10^3)`$ due to RSB effects being basically undiscernable. The exponent $`\epsilon `$ is that introduced before to quantify the super-linearity of the low-T specific heat, and $`\epsilon 0.05`$ for the $`J`$-value chosen. Note the following features: (i) there is a slight frequency dependence $`\omega ^{\epsilon /2}`$ of the plateau height, correlated with the low-$`T`$ specific heat exponent (the extra $`T^{\epsilon /2}`$ factor is undiscernable for the small range of temperatures considered) HoKu99 ; (ii) the low $`T`$ asymptotics is has by a temperature exponent slightly larger than 3. However, the crossover region from plateau to low-temperature asymptotics is so large that effective exponents in accessible temperature ranges are still smaller than 3, the effect being stronger for lower frequencies. Both findings are well in line with recent experiments Cla+00 , though observed effective exponents tend to show a somewhat stronger frequency dependence and be smaller than ours.

Lastly, we turn to the universality issue. In Bur+96 , universality is explained within a renormalization group approach as a collective effect due to interactions of quantized low–energy excitations. Here it is understood as a property of the interaction-generated glassy potential energy landscape, thus as a collective effect leading to a particular spectrum of quantized low–energy excitations. The mechanism is robust and may therefore justly be expected to be insensitive to details. This holds in particular for the tunneling density of states which is driven by a broad distribution of asymmetries and barrier heights. Higher order excitations depend to a larger extent on the shape of the stabilizing potential which is not collectively modified to the same extent, and so a stronger material dependence may be expected in this energy range; this fits well with the observed partial loss of universality in the Bose peak region. Within the present theory there is, beyond a rationalization of universality at the level of exponents, also a rather simple explanation for the mysterious quantitative universality of glassy low-temperature physics as expressed in the unusually narrow range of values for the internal friction plateau. It simply follows from combining the scaling $`P_0J^{5/2}`$ with the plausible supposition $`\gamma J`$ expressing the fact that deformation potential and original interaction are of the same origin, and the elasticity theory scaling $`\rho v^2J`$ for the sound velocity, which together entail $`\frac{P_0\gamma ^2}{\rho v^2}J^{3/2}T_c^{3/4}`$. This weak parameter dependence due to cancellations implies, e.g., that the internal friction plateau is changed by only a factor 8 when interaction energies are changed such such as to increase $`T_c`$ from 100 to 1600 K!

In summary, we have proposed and analyzed a translationally invariant glass model. It exhibits typical glassy low-temperature anomalies of specific heat and acoustic attenuation. The super-linearity of the low-$`T`$ specific heat is linked with the non-degenerate barrier-height distribution which in turn can be shown to follow solely from translational invariance (a feature that was absent in our original proposal KuH97 ). Within the model we can correlate low- and high-temperature properties. Universality is understood as consequence of collective effects, and we also have a simple explanation of the mysterious quantitative universality of internal friction data.

This project profited a lot from a workshop on the low-temperature physics of glasses held at the MPIPKS-Dresden. Helpful discussions with C. Enss, U. Horstmann, H. Horner, S. Hunklinger, C. Picus and M. Thesen are also gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Proposition 1.

The Pure State Space of Quantum Mechanics

as Hermitian Symmetric Space.

R. Cirelli, M. Gatti, A. Manià

Dipartimento di Fisica, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano, Italy

Abstract

The pure state space of Quantum Mechanics is investigated as Hermitian Symmetric Kähler manifold. The classical principles of Quantum Mechanics (Quantum Superposition Principle, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Probability Principle) and Spectral Theory of observables are discussed in this non linear geometrical context.

Subj. Class.: Quantum mechanics

1991 MSC : 58BXX; 58B20; 58FXX; 58HXX; 53C22

Keywords: Superposition principle, quantum states; Riemannian manifolds; Poisson algebras; Geodesics.

1. Introduction

Several models of delinearization of Quantum Mechanics have been proposed (see f.i.  , ,  and  for a complete list of references). Frequentely these proposals are supported by different motivations, but it appears that a common feature is that, more or less, the delinearization must be paid essentially by the superposition principle.

This attitude can be understood if the delinearization program is worked out in the setting of a Hilbert space $``$ as a ground mathematical structure.

However, as is well known, the ground mathematical structure of QM is the manifold of (pure) states $`𝐏()`$, the projective space of the Hilbert space $``$. Since, obviously, $`𝐏()`$ is not a linear object, the popular way of thinking that the superposition principle compels the linearity of the space of states is untenable.

The delinearization program, by itself, is not related in our opinion to attempts to construct a non linear extension of QM with operators which act non linearly on the Hilbert space $``$. The true aim of the delinearization program is to free the mathematical foundations of QM from any reference to linear structure and to linear operators. It appears very gratifying to be aware of how naturally geometric concepts describe the more relevant aspects of ordinary QM, suggesting that the geometric approach could be very useful also in solving open problems in Quantum Theories.

Of course in $`𝐏()`$ remains of the linearity are well present: one of our aims in this paper is just to show that such remains are represented by the geodesical structure; therefore even the superposition principle can be delinearized without affecting its peculiar physical content, suggesting moreover that manifolds of states endowed with a fair geodesical structure could be compatible with the superposition principle. Another feature we stress of our work is that also the spectral theory of observables has a very simple description in terms of the differential structure of $`𝐏()`$. Indeed we will show that the usual linear observables are described by functions respecting geodesics in the technical detailed meaning coded in the definition of geolinearity.

A very important bonus of our analysis of observables is the coming out of suitable classes of non linear observables; about this subject we only anticipate a little in this work, because it will be the content of a forthcoming paper .

Now, as is well known, $`𝐏()`$ is a Kähler manifold , but the geodesic structure of a Kähler manifold may be very involved. Therefore to look at $`𝐏()`$ simply as a Kähler manifold could not be the best way to bring into focus the role of the geodesic structure we have stressed above. On the other hand the geodesic structure is particularly transparent in the subcategory of Hermitian symmetric spaces as one can see, in the finite dimensional case, in the book .

In Sec 2 we briefly review the Kähler structure of $`𝐏()`$. Then we discuss infinite dimensional symmetric homogeneous $`G`$ spaces and their geodesical structure. We prove that $`𝐏()`$ is a Hermitian symmetric $`G`$ space with $`G=U()`$. As a bonus we obtain that $`𝐏()`$ is simply connected, even in the infinite dimensional case.

In sec 3 we carefully discuss the Superposition Principle and show how SP is tied up with geodesic structure of pure state space. In Sec 4 observables are characterized in terms of Kähler structure as $`K`$ functions or, equivalentely, in terms of geodesic structure, as geolinear functions.

In Sec 5 we discuss Uncertainty Principle in a strong version which holds for Hermitian symmetric $`G`$ spaces. In Sec 6 we discuss Spectral Theory and Quantum Probability Principle for observables, in a natural geometric way.

2. Projective Quantum Mechanics and Hermitian $`G`$ spaces.

Let us translate Standard Quantum Mechanics (SQM) into geometrical terms, to get Projective Quantum Mechanics , , , , , , , , .

Pure states in QM are geometrically described as the points of an infinite dimensional Kähler manifold $`𝐏()`$, the projective space of the Hilbert space $``$ of the system. The points $`\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\psi }`$, … of $`𝐏()`$ (i.e. the rays of $``$ generated by non-zero vectors $`\phi ,\psi `$ of $``$) are the (pure) states of the quantum system.

$`𝐏()`$, as a complex manifold, can be canonically regarded as a real smooth manifold with an integrable almost complex structure $`J`$. The manifold $`(𝐏(),J)`$ is endowed with a natural Kählerian metric, i.e. a Riemannian metric g such that

$`1)𝗀_{\widehat{\phi }}(v,w)=𝗀_{\widehat{\phi }}(Jv,Jw),v,wT_{\widehat{\phi }}𝐏(),`$

2) the associated fundamental $`2`$form

$$\omega _{\widehat{\phi }}(v,w):=𝗀_{\widehat{\phi }}(Jv,w)$$

is closed, hence symplectic.

The natural Kähler metric of $`𝐏()`$ is the Fubini-Study metric

$$𝐠_{\widehat{\phi }}(v,w)=2\kappa \mathrm{}(𝗏|𝗐),$$

where $`𝗏=T_{\widehat{\phi }}b_\phi (v),𝗐=T_{\widehat{\phi }}b_\phi (w),`$ and the associated fundamental $`2`$form

$$\omega _{\widehat{\phi }}(v,w)=2\kappa \mathrm{}(𝗏,|𝗐),$$

where $`\kappa >0`$ is an (arbitrary) constant. We recall that $`b_\phi `$ is the chart at $`\widehat{\phi }`$ . To get a correct correspondence with ordinary Quantum Mechanics, one must assume $`\kappa =\mathrm{}`$.

Symmetric homogeneous $`G`$ spaces. Finite dimensional homogeneous $`G`$ spaces are widely discussed in the literature. Standard reference books are  and . As there are only a few references for the infinite dimensional setting , we shortly review definitions and properties in the context of Banach manifolds. The proofs are given only in the case where the extension from finite to the infinite dimensional setting is not easy. By ordinary Banach manifold we mean a second countable connected Hausdorff smooth Banach manifold $`M`$. Let $`G`$ be an ordinary Banach Lie group acting on $`M`$. Then the pair $`(M,G)`$ will be said to be a homogeneous $`G`$ space if

1) the action of $`G`$ on $`M`$ is smooth and transitive;

2) the isotropy group $`G_x`$ at $`x`$ is a Lie subgroup of $`G`$, for $`xM`$.

Since the mapping $`\varphi :ggx`$ of $`G`$ onto $`M`$ is continuous, $`G_x=\varphi ^1(x)`$ is a closed Lie subgroup of $`G`$. Thus $`G/G_x`$ has a unique smooth (actually, analytic) structure with the property that $`G/G_x`$ is a $`G`$ space and the canonical map $`\pi :GG/G_x`$ is smooth (actually, analytic) and open. To prove that the induced surjection $`\varphi _x:G/G_xM`$ is an homeomorphism we have just to prove that it is open. This follows by Theorem A.I.1 in . Arguing as in Proposition 4.3 in  we obtain that $`\phi _x`$ is a diffeomorphism.

The symmetric $`G`$ spaces constitute an important class of homogeneous $`G`$ spaces. A symmetric $`G`$ space is a triple $`(M,G,s)`$ where $`(M,G)`$ is a homogeneous $`G`$ space and $`s`$ is an involutive diffeomorphism of $`M`$ with an isolated fixed point $`o`$. Given a symmetric $`G`$ space $`(M,G,s)`$ we construct for each point $`x`$ of the quotient space $`M=G/G_o`$ an involutive diffeomorphism $`s_x`$, called the symmetry at $`x`$, which has $`x`$ as isolated fixed point: for $`x=go`$, we set $`s_x=gsg^1`$. Then $`s_x`$ is independent of the choice of the $`g`$ such that $`x=go`$. There is a unique involutive automorphism $`\sigma `$ of $`G`$ such that $`\sigma (g)=s(go)`$.

In every symmetric $`G`$ space $`(M,G,s)`$ one has

$$𝔤=𝔥+𝔪$$

where $`𝔪=\{A𝔤:\sigma _e(A)=A\}`$ (we denote by $`\sigma _e`$ the derivative of $`\sigma `$ at $`e`$) is $`Ad(G_x)`$ invariant and complements $`𝔥`$ in $`𝔤`$.

A complex symmetric $`G`$ space is a complex Banach manifold $`M`$ which is also a symmetric $`G`$ space with biholomorphic symmetries and automorphisms. Let $`M`$ be a real Banach manifold. An almost complex structure J on $`M`$ is a smooth tensor field on $`M`$ whose value at any point $`x`$ of $`M`$ is a complex structure $`J_x`$ on the tangent space $`T_xM`$ at $`x`$. A smooth map between almost complex manifolds is said to be almost complex if its derivative at each point of the domain is complex linear. An almost complex structure $`J`$ on $`M`$ is said to be a complex structure on $`M`$ if there exists a smooth almost complex chart at any point $`xM`$. If $`J`$ is a complex structure on $`M`$, then the collection of all such almost complex charts constitutes an atlas on $`M`$ whose transition functions are holomorphic; we can thus regard $`M`$ as a complex manifold.

Let us now come to $`𝐏()`$ and give it the structure of infinite dimensional complex symmetric homogeneous $`G`$ space. We denote by $`U()`$ the Banach Lie group of unitary operators of $``$, by $`𝔲()`$ its Lie algebra and by $`S^1()`$ the unit ball of $``$. The natural action of $`U()`$ on $`S^1()`$ is transitive and quotients to the natural action of $`U()`$ on $`𝐏()`$.

###### Proposition 1.

The projective space $`𝐏()`$ is a complex symmetric $`G`$ space with automorphism group $`G=U()`$. The scalar product on $`𝔪`$ induces on $`𝐏()`$ the Fubini-Study metric.

Proof. For $`\chi S^1()`$ we denote by $`U_{\widehat{\chi }}()`$ the stabilizer subgroup of $`\widehat{\chi }`$ w.r.t. this quotient action. $`U_{\widehat{\chi }}()`$ is a closed subgroup of $`U()`$ and a Banach Lie group with Lie algebra the subspace of antiselfadjoint bounded operators commuting with the one dimensional proiection operator $`P_\chi `$ on the ray generated by $`\chi `$. In fact, $`Lie(U_{\widehat{\chi }}())`$ is a splitting subspace of $`𝔲()`$, so that $`U_{\widehat{\chi }}()`$ is a Lie subgroup of $`U()`$. If one changes the vector $`\chi `$, one obtains a conjugate Lie group. Then by standard arguments $`𝐏()`$ is diffeomorphic to the orbit space $`U()/U_{\widehat{\chi }}()`$ . We also remark that the projection operator in $`𝔲()`$ with range $`Lie(U_{\widehat{\chi }}())`$

$$AP_\chi AP_\chi +(1P_\chi )A(1P_\chi )$$

is $`Ad(U_{\widehat{\chi }}())`$ invariant.

For $`\chi S^1()`$ one consider the symmetry $`S`$ defined by $`S=12P_\chi `$. Then one defines the involutive automorphism $`\sigma `$ of $`U()`$ by the conjugation $`ASAS^1`$. The stability subgroup of $`\sigma `$ is $`U_{\widehat{\chi }}()`$. As a consequence, the quotient space $`U()/U_{\widehat{\chi }}()`$ is a symmetric $`U()`$ space. One could identify $`(P(),U(),S)`$ with $`(U()/U_\chi (),U(),S)`$.

To the symmetric $`U()`$ space $`(𝐏(),U(),S)`$ it is associated the symmetric Banach Lie algebra $`(Lie(U()),Lie(U_\chi (),\sigma )`$, where

$$𝔤Lie(U())=𝔲()$$

$$𝔥Lie(U_\chi ())=𝔲()S^{}.$$

i.e. the commutant of $`P_\chi `$ in $`𝔲()`$.

Finally, $`𝔪`$ is the anticommutant of $`P_\chi `$ in $`𝔲()`$. We remark that $`\sigma `$ is an involutive norm preserving Lie algebra automorphism.

We can define a $`Ad(U_\chi ())`$ invariant scalar product in $`𝔪`$ by

$$(A,B):=\mathrm{}Tr(AB).$$

The subspace $`𝔪`$ is canonically identified with the tangent space at $`\widehat{\chi }`$. Thus we get a Riemannian metric $`𝗀`$ on $`𝐏()`$.

The complex structure in $`\chi ^{}`$ induces a $`Ad(U_\chi ())`$ invariant complex structure $`J`$ on $`𝔪`$. Thus a complex structure is induced on $`𝐏()`$. The proof that the metric $`𝐠`$ and the complex structure $`J`$ correspond to the Fubini-Study metric and to the canonical complex structure of $`𝐏()`$ is a simple adaptation of the analogous finite dimensional statement . $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 1.

The projective space $`𝐏()`$ is simply connected.

Proof. This topological property is well known in the finite dimensional case . In the infinite dimensional case it was proved by Kuiper  that the unitary group $`U()`$ is contractible. We have the exact sequence

$$\pi _0(U_\chi ())\pi _1(U())\pi _1(U()/U_\chi ())\pi _0(U()).$$

The exponential map $`𝔲()U()`$ is onto by a theorem of de la Harpe . Therefore the isotropy subgroup $`U_\chi ()`$ is connected. Thus by Proposition 1 we obtain that $`𝐏()`$ is simply connected. $`\mathrm{}`$

The Riemannian and Hermitian case. Let $`(M,G)`$ be a reductive homogeneous $`G`$ space. We denote by $`H`$ its stability subgroup. So we can identify $`M`$ with the coset space $`G/H`$. We denote by $`o`$ the equivalence class of $`e`$.

The canonical connection $``$ on $`M`$ is defined by

$$_v(Y):=[X(v),Y]_xvT_xM$$

for all vector fields $`Y`$ defined around $`x`$. This definition is consistent with the classical definition given by Kobayashi and Nomizu . The canonic connection is complete.

We define, for $`v𝔪`$ and $`t𝐑`$

$$c_v:t=\mathrm{exp}(tv)o.$$

For every $`v𝔪`$ the curve $`c_v`$ is a geodesic starting from $`o`$ of the canonical connection; conversely, every geodesic from $`o`$ is of the form $`c_v`$ for some $`v𝔪`$.

Torsion and curvature of the canonical connection are discussed in . Every reductive homogeneous $`G`$ space admits a unique torsion free $`G`$ invariant affine connection, the natural torsion free connection . The natural torsion free connection has the same geodesics that the canonical connection.

###### Proposition 2.

If $`(M,G,s)`$ is symmetric, there is a natural bijection between the set of all subspaces $`𝔪^{}`$ of $`𝔪`$ such that

$$[[𝔪^{},𝔪^{}],𝔪^{}]𝔪^{}$$

and the set of all complete totally geodesic submanifolds $`M^{}`$ of $`M`$ (through $`o`$).

If $`(M,G,s)`$ is symmetric Riemannian, then all symmetries are isometries and the canonical decomposition is orthogonal. Moreover the canonical connection is the unique affine connection on $`M`$ which is invariant w.r.t. all symmetries of $`M`$. We denote by $`T`$ its torsion and by $`R`$ its curvature.

###### Proposition 3.

1) $`T=0`$, $`R=0`$;

$$R(u,v)w=[[u,v],w]\mathrm{for}u,v,w𝔪.$$

2) For every $`v𝔪`$ the parallel transport along $`\pi (\mathrm{exp}(tv))`$ agrees with the differential of the transformation $`\mathrm{exp}(tv)`$ on $`M`$.

3) for every $`v𝔪`$

$$\pi (\mathrm{exp}(tv))=\mathrm{exp}(tv)o$$

is a geodesic from $`o`$ and conversely, every geodesic from $`o`$ is of this form.

4) Every $`G`$ invariant tensor field on $`M`$ is parallel.

As a consequence, for every simmetric Riemannian $`G`$ space the canonical connection agrees with the natural torsion free connection. Moreover, every invariant Riemannian metric on $`M`$, if any, induces the canonical connection.

A Hermitian symmetric $`G`$ space is given by $`(M,G,s,𝗀,J)`$ where $`(M,G,s,𝗀)`$ is a Riemannian symmetric $`G`$ space and $`J`$ is an almost complex structure on $`J`$, which is symmetry invariant. Then $`J=0`$, $`J`$ is integrable, so that $`(M,J)`$ is a complex manifold.

###### Proposition 4.

Let $`(M,𝗀,J)`$ with $`J`$ almost complex and $`𝗀`$ Hermitian metric. Then

1) if $`(M,G,s,J)`$ is a complex symmetric $`G`$ space, then $`J`$ is integrable and $`𝗀`$ is Kähler.

2) if $`(𝗀,J)`$ is a Kähler structure on a symmetric Riemann $`G`$ space $`(M,G,s,𝗀)`$, then $`(M,G,s,𝗀,J)`$ is Hermitian symmetric $`G`$ space.

We refer to $`(M,𝗀,J)`$ as to the Kähler manifold underlying $`(M,G,s,𝗀,J)`$.

###### Proposition 5.

Let $`(M,G,s)`$ be a symmetric homogeneous $`G`$ space, with isotropy group $`H`$.

1) If $`𝔪`$ admits some $`Ad(H)`$ invariant complex structure $`I`$, then $`M`$ admits an invariant complex structure such that the canonical connection is complex and $`M`$ is complex affine symmetric.

2) If, moreover, $`𝔪`$ admits an $`Ad(H)`$ invariant scalar product which is Hermitian w.r.t. $`I`$, then $`M`$ admits an invariant Kähler metric and is Hermitian symmetric.

We recall that a connected submanifold $`S`$ of a Riemannian manifold $`M`$ is geodesic at $`mS`$ if, for every $`vT_mM`$, the geodesic $`c_{m,v}(t)`$ determined by $`v`$ lies in $`S`$ for small values of the parameter $`t`$. If $`S`$ is geodesic at every point of $`S`$, it is called a totally geodesic submanifold of $`M`$. By the above remarks we get that geodesics and hence totally geodesic submanifolds of a symmetric Riemannian space can be equivalentely characterized as the geodesics and the totally geodesic submanifolds w.r.t. the canonical connection.

Closed complex totally geodesic submanifolds of a Hermitian symmetric $`G`$ space corresponds to closed complex $`Ad(H)`$ invariant subspaces of $`𝔪`$ . In the particular case of the projective space $`𝐏()`$, every closed complex subspace of $`𝔪`$ is $`Ad(H)`$ invariant. So we have:

###### Proposition 6.

The projective space $`𝐏()`$, with the Fubini-Study metric, is the Kähler manifold underlying to the Hermitian symmetric space $`(𝐏(),U(),S,𝐠,J)`$. Closed complex totally geodesic submanifolds of $`𝐏()`$ at some point of $`𝐏()`$ correspond exactly to closed $`J`$ invariant subspaces of $`𝔪`$.

We have shown that $`𝐏()`$ is a Hermitian symmetric $`G`$ space. Hermitian symmetric $`G`$ spaces $`M`$ are naturally reductive and the canonical connection, the natural torsion free connection and the Riemannian connection agree . Complete totally geodesic submanifolds through some point $`m`$ in $`M`$ correspond bijectively to $`Ad(H)`$ and $`J`$ invariant closed subspaces of $`𝔪`$ . In the particular case of $`M=𝐏()`$ one sees that $`Ad(H)`$ invariant subspaces of $`𝔪`$ are precisely the $`J`$ invariant ones. Varying the point in $`𝐏()`$, we see that the family of all closed totally geodesic submanifolds of $`𝐏()`$ are identified with the family of all closed complex subspaces of $``$. Of course, the manifold $`𝐏()`$ itself is considered as totally geodesic at any point. In this way we obtain a geometric interpretation of Quantum Logic $`()`$.

We stress that Quantum Logic has a relevant role in foundations of QM . We can analogously prove that closed totally geodesic submanifolds of any Hermitian symmetric G space have the algebraic structure of a Quantum Logic. So it is very surprising and gratifying to see that this structure naturally appears in the general geometrical context of Hermitian symmetric G spaces.

3. Superposition principle and the geodesic structure of $`𝐏()`$.

The projective space $`𝐏()`$ is metrically complete; the distance is

$$d(\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\psi })=\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}\mathrm{arccos}|(\phi |\psi )|.$$

The diameter of $`𝐏()`$ is finite and equals $`\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}`$. The equator of $`\widehat{\phi }`$ is the set of all $`\widehat{\psi }`$ such that $`d(\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\psi })=1/2diam(𝐏())`$. The antipodal submanifold $`\widehat{\phi }^{}`$ of $`\widehat{\phi }`$ is the set of $`\widehat{\psi }𝐏()`$ such that

$$d(\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\psi })=\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}.$$

We remark that the antipodal submanifold $`\widehat{\phi }^{}`$ is the maximal closed complex totally geodesic submanifold of $`𝐏()`$ not containing $`\widehat{\phi }`$.

Antipodality has a very remarkable content: it translates into $`𝐏()`$ orthogonality:

a) $`\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\psi }𝐏()`$ antipodal if and only if $`(\phi |\psi )=0,`$

b) $`\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\psi }𝐏()`$ antipodal if and only if $`d(\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\psi })=diam(𝐏()),`$

c) $`\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\psi }𝐏()`$ antipodal if and only if $`\widehat{\psi }C_{\widehat{\phi }},`$

with $`C_{\widehat{\phi }}`$ the cut locus of $`\widehat{\phi }`$, i.e. the complement of the greatest open neighborhood $`U_{\widehat{\phi }}`$ of $`\widehat{\phi }`$ such that any point of $`U_{\widehat{\phi }}`$ might be connected to $`\widehat{\phi }`$ by means of one and only one minimal geodesic.

For every $`\widehat{\phi }𝐏()`$, the exponential map

$$Exp_{\widehat{\phi }}:T_{\widehat{\phi }}𝐏()𝐏()$$

is defined on the whole $`T_{\widehat{\phi }}𝐏()`$ and the injectivity radius

$$R_{\widehat{\phi }}^i:=sup\{\rho >0|Exp_{\widehat{\phi }}B(0_{\widehat{\phi }};\rho )\mathrm{is}\mathrm{injective}\},$$

($`B(0_{\widehat{\phi }};\rho )`$ is the closed ball with radius $`\rho `$ centered at $`0_{\widehat{\phi }}`$) is constant and equals $`\mathrm{}\pi `$.

The mathematical formulation of Superposition Principle in the SQM is very well known: (SP)

With the due care to normalization properties, superpositions mean $`𝐂`$-linear combinations.

Translation into $`𝐏()`$ is not particularly hard: statement $`SP_1`$

for any pair of distinct points $`\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\psi }`$ the set of all superpositions of these two states is $`𝐏(_{\phi ,\psi })`$, the projective of the two-dimensional subspace of $``$ generated by any pair $`\phi ,\psi `$ of representatives of $`\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\psi }`$.

For a sharp understanding of $`SP_1`$ one must supply a pointed geometrical characterization of $`𝐏(_{\phi ,\psi })`$ as a subset of $`𝐏()`$. This is done by looking at the geodesic structure of $`𝐏()`$. Let $`vT_{\widehat{\phi }}𝐏()`$, with normalized local representative $`\xi \phi ^{}`$. The geodesic tangent in $`\widehat{\phi }`$ to $`v`$ is

$$c_{\widehat{\phi },v}(t)=𝐩(\phi \mathrm{cos}\frac{t}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}}+\xi \mathrm{sin}\frac{t}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}})$$

where $`𝐩:S^1()𝐏()`$ denotes the canonical surjection. In particular, $`c_{\widehat{\phi },v}(\pi \sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}})=𝐩(\xi )`$, so that $`\widehat{\xi }`$ is the (unique) antipodal point to $`\widehat{\phi }`$ lying on the geodesic $`c_{\widehat{\phi },v}`$.

More generally, if $`𝗏=\rho \xi `$ with $`𝗏=\rho `$ is a local representative of $`vT_{\widehat{\phi }}𝐏()`$, the geodesic $`c_{\widehat{\phi },v}(t)`$ is given by

$$c_{\widehat{\phi },v}(t)=𝐩(\phi \mathrm{cos}\frac{\rho t}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}}+\xi \mathrm{sin}\frac{\rho t}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}}).$$

Now, using the geodesic structure of $`𝐏()`$, one easily sees that statement $`SP_1`$ is equivalent to the following Statement $`SP_2`$:

for any pair $`\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\psi },(\widehat{\phi }\widehat{\psi })`$ the set of all superpositions of $`\widehat{\phi }`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }`$ is the smallest totally geodesic submanifold of $`𝐏()`$ containing $`\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\psi }`$.

For a complete geometric description of the physical content of superposition principle, we must be able to characterize single superpositions of states. We remark that $`\xi `$ is a representative vector for the unique antipodal point to $`\widehat{\phi }`$ lying on the geodesic $`c_{\widehat{\phi },v}`$. A point $`\widehat{\chi }`$ of $`𝐏()`$ belongs to $`c_{\widehat{\phi },v}`$ if and only if $`\widehat{\chi }𝐏(_{\phi ,\xi })`$ and for some normalized vector $`\phi \widehat{\phi }`$ one has

$$\frac{(\xi |\chi )}{(\phi |\chi )}𝐑.$$

In particular, if $`\xi `$ is a normalized representative for some antipodal point to $`\widehat{\phi }`$, then $`\widehat{\chi }=\widehat{\phi +\xi }`$ lies on the geodesic $`c_{\widehat{\phi },v}`$. Thus $`\widehat{\chi }`$ lies on the intersection of the equator of $`\widehat{\phi }`$ with the geodesic $`c_{\widehat{\phi },v}`$. Conversely, this intersection point determines the geodesic $`c_{\widehat{\phi },v}`$. Any other point of the geodesic is the ray corresponding to some linear combination $`\alpha \phi +\beta \psi `$ with real $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. This intersection point is convenientely characterized as $`b_\phi (\psi )`$ (or as $`b_\psi (\phi )`$, since these rays are equal).

Geodesics connecting two antipodal points $`\widehat{\phi }`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }`$ describe linear combinations $`\alpha \phi +\beta \psi `$ with complex quotient $`\frac{\alpha }{\beta }`$ and are obtained alterating the representative normalized vector for $`\widehat{\psi }`$.

So we arrive to Statement $`SP_3`$:

if $`\phi ,\psi `$ are orthogonal versors and $`\alpha ,\beta 𝐂\{0\}`$, and

$$\chi =\alpha \phi +\beta \psi ,$$

then

$$\widehat{\chi }=c_{\widehat{\phi },v}\left(\mathrm{arctan}(\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}|\frac{\beta }{\alpha }|)\right)$$

where the tangent vector $`v`$ corresponds in the chart $`b_\phi `$ to $`e^{i\theta }\psi `$, with $`\theta `$ denoting the relative phase $`arg\frac{\beta }{\alpha }`$ of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$.

Therefore the full geometric formulation of the Quantum Superposition Principle in $`𝐏()`$ is given by $`SP_2+SP_3`$ .

By the above discussion we see the physical relevance of the geodesic structure of the manifold of states. In general, we could conclude that for a purely “kinematical” formulation of the QSP we need, as a space of states, a manifold $`M`$ equipped with a “convenient” geodesical structure. By the above discussion we conclude that such a convenient geodesical structure is provided by the structure of Hermitian symmetric G space. Of course, in this more general context, superpositions of two states are represented by the closed totally geodesic submanifold they generate.

Thinking of the well known paper of Wick, Wightmann and Wigner  we can define a superselection sector of a Hermitian symmetric space $`M`$:

a superselection sector of $`M`$ is a closed complex submanifold $`N`$ of $`M`$ such that for any pair $`xN,yMN`$ there is no geodesic connecting $`x`$ with $`y`$.

Thus superselection sectors are just connected components of $`M`$. Hence the projective space $`𝐏()`$ does not admit any not trivial superselection sector. We can however introduce superselection sectors on Projective Quantum Mechanics by means of disjoint union of projective spaces.

4. Quantum Superposition Principle and Observables

Let us remember, first of all, that observables of Projective Quantum Mechanics are real mean value maps of bounded selfadjoint operators on $``$, i.e. smooth maps $`f:𝐏()𝐑`$ of the type $`f(\widehat{\phi })=A_{\widehat{\phi }}`$, where for $`AB_{sa}()`$ and $`\phi `$ with $`\phi =1`$ we define $`A_{\widehat{\phi }}:=(A\phi |\phi )`$.

The map $`A`$ is Hamiltonian, with Hamiltonian vector field $`v_A`$ defined by

$$d_{\widehat{\phi }}A(\xi )=\omega _{\widehat{\phi }}(v_A(\widehat{\phi }),\xi )\mathrm{for}\xi \phi ^{}.$$

A Killing vector field on a Riemannian manifold $`(M,𝗀)`$ is a complete vector field $`\xi `$ whose flow preserves the Riemannian structure (i.e. $`L_\xi 𝗀=0`$). The following theorem was proved in .

###### Theorem 1.

A vector field $`\xi `$ on $`𝐏()`$ is Killing if and only if there is a selfadjoint operator $`AL(H)`$ such that $`\xi =v_A`$.

A Hamiltonian function $`f`$ on a Kähler manifold is said to be a $`K`$ function if its Hamiltonian vector field $`v_f`$ is Killing.

A smooth map $`f:𝐏()𝐑`$ is geolinear if

$$f(c_{\widehat{\phi },v}(t))=f(\widehat{\phi })+(\mathrm{sin}\frac{t}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{t}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}})d_{\widehat{\phi }}f(v)+\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{t}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}}Hess_{\widehat{\phi }}f(v,v),$$

$`(\widehat{\phi }𝐏(),vT_{\widehat{\phi }}𝐏()`$ is a versor and $`t𝐑)`$, where $`c_{\widehat{\phi },v}`$ is the geodesic through $`\widehat{\phi }`$ along $`v`$. We have proved in :

###### Theorem 2.

A map $`f:𝐏()𝐑`$ is geolinear if and only if there is a selfadjoint operator $`AL()`$ such that $`f=A`$.

Thus the $`K`$ functions on $`𝐏()`$ are precisely the geolinear maps and can be characterized as functions preserving (in this particular sense) the superpositions and correspond to expectation value functions of bounded self adjoint operators on $``$.

We see from thms 1,2 that in Projective Quantum Mechanics there is a strict link, as expected, between observables and the dynamical vector fields; but the really remarkable feature is the characterization of observables (as geolinear maps) and of dynamical vector fields (as Killing vector fields) with no more reference to mean value maps.

It could be of interest also to consider some Hamiltonian dynamics which not necessarily respect the Riemannian structure. So also non linear observables and non linear dynamic evolutions could be suitably introduced. We will discuss this important point in a fortcoming paper . Here we simply want to anticipate, as an example, some of such flexible observables on $`𝐏()`$.

We consider as example of a flexible observable the function

$$F:=ABA,BB_{sa}().$$

Since

$$(d_{\widehat{\phi }}F)(w)=B_{\widehat{\phi }}\omega (v_A(\widehat{\phi }),w)+A_{\widehat{\phi }}\omega (v_B(\widehat{\phi }),w)$$

we have

$$v_F=Av_B+Bv_A.$$

We stress that by the above discussion we can conclude that

in principle it is possible to maintain the QSP in a non linear QM provided the following conditions are respected:

i) the space of pure states is a symmetric Hermitian manifold $`(M,G,s,J,𝗀)`$,

ii) the superpositions of $`x,yM,(xy)`$, are the points of the smallest closed $`J`$ invariant totally geodesic submanifold containing $`x`$ and $`y`$,

iii) the observables are those maps $`f:M𝐑`$ that preserve superpositions (the $`K`$ functions),

iv) the dynamical evolution is given by a vector field that preserves the Riemannian structure, i.e. by a Killing vector field on $`(M,𝗀)`$.

We could add:

$`\mathrm{iv}^{})`$ the flexible dynamical evolution is given by Hamiltonian vector fields associated to some selected family of flexible observables

So we can introduce non linear dynamics.

5. Uncertainty Principle and Hermitian structure.

In SQM for each observable $`AB_{sa}()`$ the dispersion in the “state” $`\phi `$ is introduced;

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\phi A:=A\phi (\phi |A\phi )\phi ),\phi S^1(),$$

and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) is stated:

###### Proposition 7.

For every $`A,BB_{sa}()`$ and every $`\phi S^1()`$ the Heisenberg Inequality holds:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\phi A.\mathrm{\Delta }_\phi B1/2|(\phi |[A,B]\phi )|.$$

Therefore, since

$$\{A,B\}=i/\mathrm{}[A,B],$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\phi A=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2}v_A(\widehat{\phi })_𝐠,$$

the Heisenberg Inequality can be written

$$|\{A,B\}(\widehat{\phi })|v_A(\widehat{\phi })_𝐠v_B(\widehat{\phi })_𝐠,$$

that is

$$|\omega _{\widehat{\phi }}(v_A(\widehat{\phi }),v_B(\widehat{\phi }))|v_A(\widehat{\phi })_𝐠v_B(\widehat{\phi })_𝐠.$$

Heisenberg Inequality is nothing more than the uniform continuity of the symplectic form (or of the Poisson product) with respect to the topology induced on the tangent space by the Riemannian structure. The above argument also works for any pair of smooth functions, so we are lead outside of the realm of ordinary QM.

Rebus sic stantibus we can say that the HUP can be formulated in a general setting which does not depend on the linearity properties of the setting.

Let $`M`$ be a manifold endowed with a symplectic structure $`\omega `$ and a metric structure $`𝗀`$. We say that the HUP holds in $`(M,\omega ,𝗀)`$ if the symplectic form is uniformly continuous with respect to the topology of the tangent space induced by the metric, i.e. if:

$$a𝐑_+\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that},xM,|\{f,h\}(x)|av_f(x)_𝗀v_h(x)_𝗀(\mathrm{HUP})$$

for any pair of Hamiltonian functions $`f,h`$ (with Hamiltonian vector field $`v_f`$ and $`v_h`$, respectively). Indeed, if HUP holds and we define

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_xf:=\sqrt{r/2}v_f(x)_𝗀$$

where

$$r:=\mathrm{min}\{a𝐑_+\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}\mathrm{HUP}\mathrm{holds}\}$$

then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_xf\mathrm{\Delta }_xh1/2|\{f,h\}(x)|.$$

One could also introduce the dispersion function for a field $`X`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_xX:=\sqrt{r/2}(𝗀_x(X_x,X_x))^{1/2}$$

getting

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_xX\mathrm{\Delta }_xYr/2|\omega _x(X_x,Y_x)|.$$

Therefore, adding a fifth requirement to the requirements i) to iv) above, we can draw the conclusion.

In principle it is possible to maintain the QSP and the HUP in a non linear quantum mechanics assuming i) to iv) as above

and

v) the Riemannian manifold $`(M,𝗀)`$ of pure states is endowed with a symplectic form $`\omega `$ which is uniformly continuous with respect to $`𝗀`$.

In particular, this holds in any Hermitian symmetric space $`M`$, but we can say more. Actually, HUP holds with $`r=1`$ since the complex structure operator is unitary. Moreover the set of Killing vector fields of $`M`$ is full, i.e. every tangent vector $`v`$ at $`x`$ belongs to some Killing vector field, for every $`xM`$. To see this, given $`yM`$, choose some $`gG`$ such that $`y=gx`$. Then define $`\xi _y:=g_{}(v)`$. One easily verifies that $`\xi `$ is a (well defined) Killing vector field.

In any Hermitian symmetric space $`M`$, HUP can be stated in a strong form.

###### Proposition 8.

If $`M`$ is a Hermitian symmetric space, then for every vector field $`X`$ and every $`xM`$ there exists a Killing vector field $`K`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_xX\mathrm{\Delta }_xK=|\omega _x(X_x,K_x)|.$$

Proof. We can assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }_xX0`$. We know by HUP that for every vector field $`Y`$ there exists $`\lambda 𝐑_+`$ such that

$$\lambda ^2𝗀_x(Y_x,Y_x)(\omega _x(X_x,Y_x))^2.$$

In particular, this holds for any Killing vector field $`K`$ such that

$$K_x=Y_x=J_xX_x.$$

We obtain

$$\lambda ^2𝗀_x(K_x,K_x)=\lambda ^2𝗀_x(X_x,X_x)(\omega _x(X_x,J_xX_x))^2=(𝗀_x(X_x,X_x))^2$$

so that

$$\lambda ^2𝗀_x(X_x,X_x)=2\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2X$$

as required. $`\mathrm{}`$

A natural physical requirement is that all Killing vector fields are Hamiltonian. This is true if $`M`$ is simply connected. In every simply connected Hermitian symmetric space $`M`$, the set of $`K`$ functions is full, i.e. the differentials of $`K`$ functions span the whole cotangent space $`T_x^{}M`$, for every $`xM`$. This implies that for every $`K`$ function $`f`$ and $`xM`$ there exists a $`K`$ function $`h`$ such that

$$|\{f,h\}(x)|=v_f(x)_𝗀v_h(x)_𝗀$$

(see Proposition 4.5 in ).

The Cartan Ambrose Hicks Theorem allows one to characterize simply connected symmetric (complex) manifolds as (complex) Banach manifolds admitting a geodesically complete torsion free affine connection whose curvature tensor is parallel .

The dispersion function is well defined also for non geolinear functions. In particular, for a flexible observable we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{\phi }}^2(F)=B_{\widehat{\phi }}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{\phi }}^2(A)+A_{\widehat{\phi }}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{\phi }}^2(B)+2A_{\widehat{\phi }}B_{\widehat{\phi }}AB_{\widehat{\phi }},$$

where $`AB`$ denotes the Jordan product. In particular, if $`A`$ and $`B`$ commute,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{\phi }}^2(F)=B_{\widehat{\phi }}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{\phi }}^2(A)+A_{\widehat{\phi }}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\widehat{\phi }}^2(B)+2A_{\widehat{\phi }}B_{\widehat{\phi }}AB_{\widehat{\phi }}.$$

6. Spectral Theory and Quantum Probability Principle.

In this section we show that ordinary spectral theory for self adjoint operators can be easy recovered by the corresponding Killing vector fields and the dispersion function. But it has to be stressed that this formulation works very well also for non Killing vector fields. This opens the possibility to found a non linear spectral theory. For previus attempts in this direction, see .

We can define the spectrum of $`A`$ for $`AB_{sa}()`$. We say that

a) $`\lambda 𝐑`$ is a regular value if

$$ϵ>0|(A\lambda )^2_{\widehat{\phi }}>ϵ\widehat{\phi }𝐏(),$$

b) $`\lambda `$ is a eigenvalue if

$$(A\lambda )^2_{\widehat{\phi }}=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}\widehat{\phi }𝐏(),$$

c) $`\lambda `$ belongs to continuous spectrum if

$$(A\lambda )^2_{\widehat{\phi }}>0\widehat{\phi }𝐏()\mathrm{and}\{\widehat{\phi }_n\}\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}(A\lambda )^2_{\widehat{\phi }_n}0.$$

This definition of spectrum agrees with the standard one for $`AB_{sa}()`$. However, this definition immediately extends to every Hamiltonian function on $`𝐏()`$.

Now we discuss spectral aspects in terms of the Hamiltonian vector field $`v_A`$.

First, we remark that

$$v_{(A\lambda )}=v_A$$

so that the Hamiltonian vector fields, alone, do not allows to characterize the spectral points. However, since

$$\mathrm{}𝗏_A(0)=A\phi (A\phi |\phi )\phi $$

we get that $`v_A(\widehat{\phi })=0`$ if and only if

$$A\phi =\lambda \phi \mathrm{with}\lambda =(A\phi |\phi ).$$

To get eigenvectors of $`A`$ consider those versors $`\phi `$ such that $`v_A(\widehat{\phi })=0`$; the corresponding eigenvalue is given by $`A_{\widehat{\phi }}`$.

We can also characterize the points of continuous spectrum. A $`\lambda 𝐑`$ belongs to the spectrum of $`A`$ if and only if for every $`ϵ>0`$ there exists a versor $`\phi `$ such that

$$(A\lambda )\phi <ϵ.$$

This implies that there exists a sequence $`\{\phi _n\}`$ of versors such that

$$\underset{n}{lim}(A\phi _n|\phi _n)=\lambda $$

so that

$$(A(A\phi _n|\phi _n))\phi _n0.$$

This means that the sequence $`\{(A\phi _n|\phi _n)\}`$ is Cauchy and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\phi _n}A0`$. The last condition amounts to the request that the local expression of the field $`v_A(\widehat{\phi }_n)`$ in the chart $`b_{\phi _n}`$ goes to 0 for $`n\mathrm{}`$.

Conversely, let $`\lambda 𝐑`$ such that for some sequence $`\{\widehat{\phi }_n\}`$

$$A_{\widehat{\phi }_n}\lambda \mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\phi _n}A0$$

then $`\lambda `$ belongs to the spectrum of $`A`$; if, morever, it does not exists any $`\widehat{\phi }`$ such that

$$A_{\widehat{\phi }}=\lambda \mathrm{and}v_A(\widehat{\phi })=0$$

then $`\lambda `$ belongs to the continuous spectrum of $`A`$.

We also remark that

$$\mathrm{}𝗏_A(0)^2=A\phi (\phi |A\phi )\phi ^2=A^2_{\widehat{\phi }}A_{\widehat{\phi }}^2$$

We conclude that $`\lambda `$ belongs to the spectrum of $`A`$ if and only if there exists a sequence $`\{\widehat{\phi }_n\}`$ such that

$$A_{\widehat{\phi }_n}\lambda \mathrm{and}A^2_{\widehat{\phi }_n}\lambda ^2.$$

For a given linear operator $`A`$ defined on $``$, $`A\mathrm{𝟎}`$, we define the regularity domain of $`A`$ as the open set

$$𝐏()𝐏(KerA)=\{\widehat{\phi }𝐏()|A\phi 0\}.$$

We observe that $`A`$ quotients to a transformation

$$\widehat{A}:𝒟_{\widehat{A}}𝐏()\widehat{A}\widehat{\phi }:=\widehat{A\phi }$$

where $`𝒟_{\widehat{A}}:=𝐏()𝐏(KerA).`$ The transformation $`\widehat{A}`$ is smooth if and only if $`AB()`$. We can use regularity domains to characterize the spectra of bounded selfadjoint operators. Let $`AB_{sa}()`$. Then $`\lambda 𝐑`$ is said to be regular value for $`A`$ if

1) $`𝒟_{\widehat{(A\lambda )}}=𝐏()`$ and 2) $`\widehat{(A\lambda )}`$ is a diffeomorphism.

We say that $`\lambda `$ is a spectral value for $`A`$ if it is not a regular value.

This means that or

$$(1)𝒟_{\widehat{(A\lambda )}}𝐏()$$

or

$`(2)𝒟_{\widehat{(A\lambda )}}=𝐏()`$ but $`\widehat{(A\lambda )}`$ is not a diffeomorphism.

We remark that $`\widehat{(A\lambda )}`$ is a smooth bijection, but its inverse can fail to be smooth. Spectral values $`\lambda `$ of type (1) are said to be eigenvalues of $`\widehat{A}`$. Spectral values of type (2) are said to belong to the continuous spectrum of $`\widehat{A}`$. This definition of spectrum agrees with the precedent one.

Remark. We know that $`(A\lambda )^1`$, if it exists, is a linear operator defined on all the Hilbert space $``$, therefore the quotient map $`\widehat{(A\lambda )^1}`$ exists and agrees with $`\widehat{(A\lambda )}^1`$; hence $`\widehat{(A\lambda )}^1`$ is smooth if and only if $`(A\lambda )^1B()`$.

Coming to the probabilistic interpretation, we remember that in SQM the following rule is posited.

The probability that a measurement of the observable $`A`$ (s.a. operator of $``$) in the state $`W`$ (von Neumann density operator on $``$) gives an outcome in a Borel set $`X`$ on $`𝐑`$ is given by

$$P(A,W,X)=Tr(WQ^A(X)),$$

where

$`Q^A`$ is the spectral measure of $`A`$.

A quantum probability measure for $``$ is a map $`\mu :()𝐑_+`$ such that $`\mu (\mathrm{𝟏})=1`$ and

$$\mu (P+Q)=\mu (P)+\mu (Q)$$

whenever $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are orthogonal. Remember that $`()`$ denotes the Quantum Logic of $``$.

If, whenever $`\{P_i\}_{iI}`$ is a family of mutually orthogonal projections, $`_i\mu (P_i)`$ is convergent and

$$\mu (\underset{i}{}P_i)=\underset{i}{}\mu (P_i),$$

then $`\mu `$ is said to be completely additive. Completely additive quantum probability measures form a convex set, the set of states of $``$.

To every ray $`\widehat{\phi }`$ we can associate the projection operator on the ray $`P_{\widehat{\phi }}`$. Then the map

$$\mu _{\widehat{\phi }}:()𝐑Q\mu _{\widehat{\phi }}(Q):=Tr(P_{\widehat{\phi }}Q)$$

is a completely additive quantum probability mesure. Moreover, $`\mu _{\widehat{\phi }}`$ is pure, i.e. cannot be not trivially expressed as convex combination of quantum probability measures.

The essential content of Gleason Theorem is that every completely additive quantum probability measure $`\mu `$ on $`()`$ has a unique extension to a positive normal functional $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ on $`B()`$, whenever $`dim()>2`$. This implies that there exists a unique positive, selfadjoint trace class operator (density operator) $`W`$ such that $`TrW=1`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (A)=Tr(WA)AB().$$

Equivalentely,

$$\mu (Q)=Tr(WQ)$$

for every projection operator $`Q`$. In particular $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ is pure if and only if $`W`$ is a one dimensional projection operator, i.e. if $`\mu =\mu _{\widehat{\phi }}`$ for some $`\widehat{\phi }𝐏()`$.

Therefore, mixed states can be interpreted as probability measures on the family of closed totally geodesic submanifolds of $`𝐏()`$. Elements of $`𝐏()`$ (pure states) corresponds precisely to pure probability measures.

It is well known by spectral theory of density operators that functionals $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ can be uniquely expressed as probability measures on $`𝐏()`$, or else as $`\sigma `$ convex combinations of pure states.

We are able to characterize the trace functional and probability transition map in terms of the metric structure of $`𝐏()`$. In the projective space totally geodesic submanifolds $`M`$ correspond to projection operators $`Q_M`$ on the Hilbert space $``$, with the property that $`M`$ is canonically identified with the projective space of the range of $`Q_M`$. Then $`Q_M`$ is the unique geolinear map such that

$$Q_M_{\widehat{\phi }}=1,\widehat{\phi }M,Q_M_{\widehat{\phi }}=0,\widehat{\phi }M^{}=𝐏(KerQ_M).$$

In particular, there is a unique geolinear map $`Q_{\widehat{\phi }}`$ such that

$$Q_{\widehat{\phi }}_{\widehat{\phi }}=1Q_{\widehat{\phi }}_{\widehat{\psi }}=0\mathrm{for}\widehat{\psi }\widehat{\phi }^{}.$$

So we obtain the probability transition map

$$\widehat{\phi }|\widehat{\psi }:=Q_{\widehat{\phi }}_{\widehat{\psi }}.$$

So traces and probability transitions are obtained as the corresponding $`K`$ functions: for $`\widehat{\phi }𝐏()`$

$$Q_M_{\widehat{\phi }}=Tr(Q_MP_{\widehat{\phi }})=\sqrt{2\mathrm{}}\underset{\widehat{\psi }M}{inf}\mathrm{arccos}|(\phi |\psi )|=d(\widehat{\phi },M).$$

Therefore, for a pure state $`\mu =\mu _{\widehat{\phi }}`$ we have

$$P(A,P_{\widehat{\phi }},X)=\mu _{\widehat{\phi }}(Q^A(X))=d(\widehat{\phi },M^A(X))$$

where $`M^A(X)`$ is the totally geodesic submanifold of $`𝐏()`$ canonically associated to the projective space of the range of the projection operator $`Q^A(X)`$, for a given Borel set $`X`$.

The submanifold $`M^A(X)`$ can be characterized as the unique closed totally geodesic submanifold of $`𝐏()`$ such that

$$A_{\widehat{\phi }}X\mathrm{for}\widehat{\phi }M^A(X)$$

$$A_{\widehat{\phi }}𝐑X\mathrm{for}\widehat{\phi }\left(M^A(X)\right)^{}.$$

Every mixed state $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$, associated to some density operator $`W`$ is a $`\sigma `$ convex combination of pure states $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu =_i\alpha _i\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu _i}`$, with $`\mu _i=\mu _{\widehat{\phi }_i}`$. Therefore we obtain

$$P(A,W,X)=\underset{i}{}\alpha _id(\widehat{\phi }_i,M^A(X)).$$

This gives the geometric content of the probabilistic interpretation.

Acknowledgement. We would like to thank M.C. Abbati for her interest on this work and useful suggestions.