text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

During the last three decades the renormalization of the two-dimensional Coulomb-gas or the equivalent sine-Gordon scalar model in dimension $`d=2`$  was investigated in a great detail either perturbatively  or by means of the differential renormalization group (RG) method in momentum or in coordinate space, using a sharp  or a smooth cut-off . The well-known Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition of the two-dimensional Coulomb-gas was obtained in the framework of the Kadanoff-Wilson renormalization scheme, using a dilute gas approximation . Several intuitive approaches exist by which one has tried to go beyond the dilute gas approximation . However, these attempts to improve the dilute gas approximation do not fit in a systematic scheme.

In this work we tried to go beyond the local potential approximation in the gradient expansion. Our previous work  by means of the Wegner-Houghton approach indicated that wave-function renormalization may play an important role in the RG flow modifying it for strong external fields. Furthermore, it showed that above a critical value of the external field the path integral for the UV modes is dominated by a non-trivial saddle-point and a spinodal instability occurs. In order to clarify the supposed role of the wave-function renormalization we determine the RG flow for the periodic scalar field theory in dimension $`d=2`$ in this work. We discuss the field-dependent wave-function renormalization in the framework of Polchinski’s RG method.

## 2 The sine-Gordon, X-Y model and the Coulomb-gas

Several different models, like the sine-Gordon, Thirring, and the X-Y planar models belong to the same universality class, namely to that of the two-dimensional Coulomb-gas. The X-Y model with an external magnetic field consists of classical two-component spins where the magnitude of the spin is $`|S_x|=1`$ at each site. The model is given by the action:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle \underset{<x,x^{}>}{}}𝑺_x𝑺_x^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}𝑺_x𝒉`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle \underset{<x,x^{}>}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _x\theta _x^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{h}{T}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _x)`$
with the temperature $`T`$, the external field $`h=|𝒉|`$, and the angle $`\theta `$ of each spin with an arbitrarily chosen direction. In the model there exist topological excitations, called vortices, which interact via Coulomb interaction. The X-Y model can be mapped by means of the Villain-transformation to a Coulomb-gas . Such a mapping is, however, only valid up to irrelevant interaction terms. The other example, the two-dimensional sine-Gordon model is a one-component scalar field theory with periodic self-interaction, which is defined by the Euclidean action :

$$S=\mathrm{d}^2x\left[\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2+u\mathrm{cos}(\beta \varphi )\right].$$
(2)
with the Fourier-amplitude $`u`$ and the length of period $`\beta `$. The equivalence between the X-Y model and the lattice regularized compact sine-Gordon model can be shown by expressing (2) in terms of the compact variable $`z(x)=\mathrm{exp}[i\beta \varphi (x)]`$ . This makes the kinetic energy periodic and introduces vortices in the dynamics.

## 3 Polchinski’s RG equation

In Polchinski’s RG method  the realization of the differential RG transformations is based on a non-linear generalization of the blocking procedure using a smooth momentum cut-off. In the infinitesimal blocking step the field variable $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ is separated into the slowly oscillating, IR ($`\varphi `$) and the fast oscillating, UV ($`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$) parts, but both fields contain low- and high-frequency modes due to the smoothness of the cut-off. The propagator for the IR component is suppressed by a properly chosen regulator function $`K(p^2/k^2)`$ at high frequency above the moving momentum scale $`k`$. The introduction of the regulator function generates infinitely many vertices with derivatives of the field. Most of these vertices are considered irrelevant and their flow is neglected. In order to determine Polchinski’s RG equation for the one-component scalar field theory, we follow here the method first explained in Ref. .

Let us start with the partition function for the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ at scale $`k`$,

$$Z=𝒟[\mathrm{\Phi }]\mathrm{exp}\left(S_k[\mathrm{\Phi }]\right)=𝒟[\mathrm{\Phi }]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }G_k^1\mathrm{\Phi }S_k^I[\mathrm{\Phi }]\right),$$
(3)
where the action is split into the sum of terms representing the free propagation and the interactions, $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }G_k^1\mathrm{\Phi }=(2\pi )^d\mathrm{d}^dp\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_pG_k^1(p^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$ and $`S_k^I[\varphi ]`$, respectively, where $`G_k^1(p^2)=p^2K^1(p^2/k^2)`$ stands for the regulated inverse propagator. The regulator function $`K(z)`$ suppresses the high-frequency modes ($`|p|k`$) and keeps the low-frequency ones ($`|p|k`$) unchanged due to the limiting behaviors $`K(z)0`$ for $`z1`$ and $`K(z)1`$ for $`z1`$, respectively. Then the field variable and the propagator are split into the sum of IR and UV parts,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi +\stackrel{~}{\varphi },$$
(4)
and

$$G_k=G_{k\mathrm{\Delta }k}+\stackrel{~}{G}_k,$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_k`$ and $`G_{k\mathrm{\Delta }k}`$ correspond to $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ and $`\varphi `$, respectively. The UV propagator is written as $`\stackrel{~}{G}_k=\mathrm{\Delta }k_kG_k`$ for infinitesimal $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$. Since both $`\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ are non-vanishing for all momenta it seems as if the degrees of freedom were doubled. In order to have the same number of degrees of freedom as before the blocking one may introduce a new dummy field $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ by inserting a trivial constant factor in the partition function, written as a Gaussian path integral over the new field $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ with the arbitrarily chosen propagator $`G_D(p^2)`$,

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟[\mathrm{\Phi }]\mathrm{exp}\left(S_k[\mathrm{\Phi }]\right)}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`𝒩{\displaystyle 𝒟[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}]𝒟[\mathrm{\Phi }]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }G_k^1\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\stackrel{~}{G}_D^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}S_k^I[\mathrm{\Phi }]\right)}.`$
The fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ are defined by a Bogoliubov-Valatin transformation of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$  and the partition function becomes

$$Z=𝒟[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }]𝒟[\varphi ]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi G_{k\delta k}^1\varphi \frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{G}_k^1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }S_k^I[\varphi +\stackrel{~}{\varphi }]\right).$$
(7)
The blocked action is defined by

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(S_{k\delta k}^I[\varphi ]\right)=D[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{G}_k^1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }S_k^I[\varphi +\stackrel{~}{\varphi }]\right).$$
(8)
We assume that the saddle point

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_c=\stackrel{~}{G}_k\frac{\delta S_k^I[\varphi +\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_c]}{\delta \varphi }$$
(9)
in this functional integral is $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }k)`$ since $`\stackrel{~}{G}_k=𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }k)`$. The expansion of the exponent around $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$ yields

$`S_k^I[\varphi ]S_{k\delta k}^I[\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_k^I[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi }}\stackrel{~}{G}_k{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_k^I[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi }}`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left[\stackrel{~}{G}_k^1+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_k^I[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }}\right]+𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }^2k).`$
Finally we perform the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }k0`$,

$$_kS_k^I[\varphi ]=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta S_k^I[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi }_kG_k\frac{\delta S_k^I[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left[_kG_k\frac{\delta ^2S_k^I[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }\right].$$
(11)
One can rewrite (11) for the complete action  as

$`_kS_k[\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _p}_kG_k(p^2)[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_k[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi _p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_k[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi _p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_k[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi _p\delta \varphi _p}}`$ (12)
$`2\varphi _pG_k^1(p^2){\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_k[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi _p}}].`$
The closed functional integro-differential equation (11) could only be obtained because the saddle point dominating the path integral of the blocking in (8) is $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }k)`$. Such a suppression occurs because the saddle point is driven by $`S_k^I[\varphi +\stackrel{~}{\varphi }]`$ and its amplitude is controlled by the kinetic energy $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{G}_k^1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }/2`$. But it may happen that the kinetic energy is vanishing at a certain momentum scale $`k=k_c`$ and a spinodal instability shows up. One may think of models where the regulator function also evolves and at given scale $`k=k_c`$, it starts to develop a singularity for some mode $`p_c`$ for which $`\frac{dK}{dp^2}|_{p_c}=\mathrm{}`$. The saddle point may become strong and an important tree-level renormalization is observed in this case. This phenomenon is not covered by Polchinski’s equation and then a systematical search for the saddle point of (8) has to be performed.

## 4 Periodicity and Polchinski’s equation

In order to solve the functional integro-differential equations (11) and (12), one has to project them to a particular functional subspace. It is generally assumed that the blocked action contains only local interactions, and that it can be expanded in the gradient of the field. We retain the terms up to the next-to-leading order,

$$S_k=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{d}^dxZ_k(\varphi (x))_\mu \varphi (x)^\mu \varphi (x)+\mathrm{d}^dxV_k(\varphi (x))$$
(13)
with $`Z_k(\varphi )`$ and $`V_k(\varphi )`$ being the field-dependent wave-function renormalization and the potential. The interaction part of the action $`S_k^I[\varphi ]`$ is defined as

$`S_k^I[\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`S_k[\varphi ]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^dp}{(2\pi )^d}G_k^1(p^2)\varphi _p\varphi _p}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`S_k[\varphi ]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^dp}{(2\pi )^d}p^2K^1\left(\frac{p^2}{k^2}\right)\varphi _p\varphi _p}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^dp_1}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^dp_2}{(2\pi )^d}}(p_1p_2)[Z_{p_1p_2}(\varphi )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(K^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{k^2}}\right)+K^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_2^2}{k^2}}\right))\delta _{p_1+p_2}]\varphi _{p_1}\varphi _{p_2}+{\displaystyle }V_k(\varphi ),`$
with $`Z_{p_1p_2}(\varphi )=\mathrm{d}^dxZ_k(\varphi _x)e^{ix(p_1+p_2)}`$. The Polchinski equation reduces to the RG equations for the dimensionless functions $`Z_k(\varphi _0)`$ and $`V_k(\varphi _0)`$ in dimension $`d=2`$,

$`(2+k_k)V_k(\varphi _0)=[V_k^{(1)}(\varphi _0)]^2K_0^{}+(Z_k(\varphi _0)K_0^1)I_1+V_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0)I_2,`$
$`k_kZ_k(\varphi _0)=4(Z_k(\varphi _0)K_0^1)V_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0)K_0^{}`$
$`2V_k^{(1)}(\varphi _0)Z_k^{(1)}(\varphi _0)K_0^{}2[V_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0)]^2K_0^{\prime \prime }+Z_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0)I_2,`$ (15)
with $`Z_k^{(n)}(\varphi _0)=_{\varphi _0}^nZ_k(\varphi _0)`$, $`V_k^{(n)}(\varphi _0)=_{\varphi _0}^nV_k(\varphi _0)`$, where $`K^{}_{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}K(\stackrel{~}{p}^2)`$, $`K_0^{}=_{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}K(\stackrel{~}{p}^2)|_{\stackrel{~}{p}^2=0}`$ , $`I_1=(2\pi )^2\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{~}{p}\stackrel{~}{p}^2K^{}(\stackrel{~}{p}^2)`$, $`I_2=(2\pi )^2\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{~}{p}K^{}(\stackrel{~}{p}^2)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}^2=p^2/k^2`$. One can find the same RG equations for the potential and for the wave-function renormalization in the literature by setting the anomalous dimension $`\eta =0`$ in Ref. .

We consider the renormalization of the bare action exhibiting the symmetry

$$\varphi (x)\varphi (x)+\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(16)
therefore the potential $`V_k(\varphi )`$ and the wave-function renormalization $`Z_k(\varphi )`$ are expected to remain periodic functions of the field with the length of period $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$Z_k(\varphi (x))=Z_k(\varphi (x)+\mathrm{\Delta }),V_k(\varphi (x))=V_k(\varphi (x)+\mathrm{\Delta }).$$
(17)
We shall furthermore assume that both the kinetic energy and the interaction term of the action are periodic. It can be seen that the Polchinski equation (11) for the interaction part of the action keeps the periodicity of $`S_k^I[\varphi ]`$ with the unchanged period $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$`S_{k\mathrm{\Delta }k}^I[\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`S_k^I[\varphi ]`$ (18)
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }k\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_k^I[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi }}_kG_k{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_k^I[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[_kG_k{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S_k^I[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }}\right]\right),`$
i.e. the energy $`V_k(\varphi )`$ and the wave-function renormalization $`Z_k(\varphi )`$ satisfy (17).

Instead of equation (11), which is valid for the interaction part of the action, one can use the more usual form of the Polchinski equation (12) which is valid for the complete action. Although the equation (12) could appear to break the periodicity of the action due to the term $`2\varphi _pG_k^1(p^2)\frac{\delta S_k[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi _p}`$, this is not the case since

$$2\left(\varphi _p+\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{p,0}\right)G_k^1(p^2)\frac{\delta S_k[\varphi +\mathrm{\Delta }]}{\delta \varphi _p}=2\varphi _pG_k^1(p^2)\frac{\delta S_k[\varphi ]}{\delta \varphi _p}$$
(19)
owing to the periodic nature of $`S_k[\varphi ]`$ and the property $`G_k^1(0)=0`$.

## 5 Linearized solution

Here we consider the linearized Polchinski equations. First, we use them to show that practically no constraints are laid upon the regulator function by requiring the same classification of the scaling operators at the Gaussian fixed point as obtained in the Wegner-Houghton method. Second, we solve the linearized equations for the periodic blocked action and recover the Coleman fixed point.

One can linearize the equations (4) around the UV Gaussian fixed point: $`V_k(\varphi _0)=V^{}+\delta V_k(\varphi _0)`$ and $`Z_k(\varphi _0)=Z^{}+\delta Z_k(\varphi _0)`$ with $`V^{}=0`$ and $`Z^{}=1`$ (if the anomalous dimension $`\eta `$ is introduced, it is set to zero $`\eta =0`$). Then the linearized equations are:

$`(2+k_k)\delta V_k(\varphi _0)`$ $`=`$ $`I_1\delta Z_k(\varphi _0)+I_2\delta V_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0),`$
$`k_k\delta Z_k(\varphi _0)`$ $`=`$ $`4(1K_0^1)\delta V_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0)+I_2\delta Z_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0).`$ (20)
In order to calculate the integrals $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$, first one has to specify the regulator function $`K(\stackrel{~}{p}^2)`$. One of the most important advantages of Polchinski’s RG method is the use of the smooth cut-off, which is compatible with the gradient expansion. Therefore it is possible to consider the renormalization of higher derivatives of the field, as well as the wave-function renormalization $`Z_k(\varphi )`$. The price which has to paid, is that the RG equations depend on the particular choice of the regulator function $`K(\stackrel{~}{p}^2)`$. Unfortunately, this ambiguity cannot be easily removed. A rather straightforward constraint on the regulator function $`K(\stackrel{~}{p}^2)`$ is that it should be defined in such a manner, that around the Gaussian fixed point the classification of the scaling operators into relevant and irrelevant ones be the same as that obtained with the Wegner-Houghton method. In order to formulate this requirement, first we rewrite equation (5) for the field-independent wave-function renormalization $`\delta Z_k(\varphi _0)=\delta z(k)`$:

$`(2+k_k)\delta V_k(\varphi _0)`$ $`=`$ $`I_1\delta z(k)+I_2\delta V_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0),`$
$`k_k\delta z(k)`$ $`=`$ $`4(1K_0^1)\delta V_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0).`$ (21)
Then we can compare equation (5) to the linearized form of the dimensionless Wegner-Houghton equation  around the Gaussian fixed point:

$`(2+k_k)\delta V_k(\varphi _0)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \mathrm{log}\left[1+(\delta z(k)+\delta V_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0))\right]`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\alpha (\delta z(k)+\delta V_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0)),`$
and

$$k_k\delta z(k)=0,$$
(23)
with

$$\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{2(2\pi )^2}=\frac{1}{4\pi },$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=2\pi `$ is the solid angle in dimension $`d=2`$. In order to get rid of the undesirable tree-level contribution in the linearized Polchinski equations, $`K_0=1`$ has to be chosen. Then, both methods give no wave-function renormalization, $`z(k)=Z^{}=1`$. The comparison of the field-dependent terms on the right hand sides of the first equations of (5) and (22), we find the constraint $`I_2=\alpha `$,

$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{~}{p}}{(2\pi )^2}K^{}(\stackrel{~}{p}^2)}=\alpha {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dxK^{}(x)=\alpha [K(\mathrm{})K(0)]=\alpha ,`$ (25)
that is satisfied by any regulator function disappearing at infinity $`K(\mathrm{})=0`$. Since the field independent terms on the right hands side in the equations for the blocked potential depend on the normalization, the value of the constant $`I_1`$ remains undefined. There exist infinitely many regulator functions satisfying the above mentioned rather weak constraints, an example is $`K(x)=(1+ax^n)^1`$ or $`K(x)=\mathrm{exp}(ax^n)`$.

The linearized equations (5) do not give an evolution for the field independent part of the wave-function renormalization $`z(k)=1/\beta ^2`$, therefore we can rescale the field $`\varphi z^{1/2}(k)\varphi =\beta \varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{2\pi }{\beta }`$ becomes the length of period in the internal space, which remains unchanged during the RG transformations. We can look for a solution of equation (5) among periodic functions. The potential $`\delta V_k(\varphi _0)`$ and the wave-function renormalization $`\delta Z_k(\varphi _0)`$ are expanded in Fourier-series:

$`\delta V_k(\varphi _0)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}u_n(k)\mathrm{cos}\left(n\beta \varphi _0\right),\delta Z_k(\varphi _0)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}z_n(k)\mathrm{cos}\left(n\beta \varphi _0\right).`$ (26)
For the sake of simplicity we consider the potential $`\delta V_k(\varphi _0)`$ and the wave-function renormalization $`\delta Z_k(\varphi _0)`$ which possess the Z(2) symmetry, $`\varphi _0\varphi _0`$. The whole scale dependence occurs in the Fourier amplitudes $`u_n(k)`$ and $`z_n(k)`$, the ‘coupling constants’ of the blocked action. The linearized evolution equations for the Fourier-amplitudes read as follows,

$`(2+k_k)u_n(k)`$ $`=`$ $`I_1z_n(k)I_2u_n(k)\beta ^2n^2,`$
$`k_kz_n(k)`$ $`=`$ $`I_2z_n(k)\beta ^2n^2`$ (27)
for $`n1`$, where $`I_2=\alpha =1/(4\pi )`$ and the actual value of the integral $`I_1`$ is not fixed.

For $`Z_k(\varphi )=z(k)`$ independent of the field, the analytic solution

$$u_n(k)=u_{n0}\left(\frac{k}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{\alpha \beta ^2n^22},\text{ for }n0$$
(28)
exists in two dimensions with the initial values $`u_{n0}`$ at the UV momentum cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This reproduces the well-known Coleman-fixed point and the phases of the sine-Gordon model. Depending on the choice of $`\beta ^2`$ the Fourier amplitude $`u_n(k)`$ is a relevant ($`\beta ^2<8\pi /n^2`$), marginal ($`\beta ^2=8\pi /n^2`$) or irrelevant ($`\beta ^2>8\pi /n^2`$) coupling constant.

If the wave-function renormalization $`Z_k(\varphi )`$ is field-dependent, then the second equation in (5) can be solved analitically:

$$z_n(k)=z_{n0}\left(\frac{k}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{\alpha \beta ^2n^2},\text{ for }n1.$$
(29)
Therefore, every $`z_n(k)`$ $`(n1)`$ is irrelevant whatever be the choice of $`\beta ^2`$ and the actual value of the integral $`I_1`$. This means that wave-function renormalization is irrelevant for both phases of the model in the UV regime, where the linearized equations hold. In this case, the solution for the Fourier amplitude $`u_n(k)`$ can be found only numerically, although in the IR domain, far from the UV cut-off $`k\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the scaling of $`u_n(k)`$ only depends on the choice of $`\beta ^2`$, since all the coupling constants $`z_n(k)`$ are irrelevant. In Fig. 1, we plot the scaling of the Fourier amplitude $`u_1(k)`$ when $`\beta ^2=16\pi >\beta _c^2`$ and the initial value for $`z_1(k)`$ is positive and the integral $`I_1`$ is set to be equal to: $`I_1=I_2=\alpha `$. The position of the Coleman fixed point and the phase structure is independent of the choice of the regulator fiction, that of the renormalization scheme, while the actual flow depends on it.

## 6 Comparison to the Coulomb-gas

During the last two decades the real space RG approach for the Coulomb-gas in dimension $`d=2`$ has been investigated in great detail. The real space RG equations for the dilute vortex-gas are well-known and their derivation is given in the literature :

$$a\frac{dh(a)}{da}=\left[2\mathrm{}\alpha T(a)\right]h(a),a\frac{dT(a)}{da}=\mathrm{}\pi T(a)^2h(a)^2$$
(30)
with the lattice spacing $`a`$, and the dimensionless coupling constants $`h`$ and $`T`$. Due to the equivalence between the sine-Gordon model and the two-dimensional vortex or Coulomb-gas, it is possible to compare Polchinski’s RG equations for the sine-Gordon model with equation (30). Since the real space RG equations for the Coulomb-gas are non-linear, one has to go beyond the linearized equations (5) in order to compare the equations obtained by the two different methods.

In the real space RG equations (30) for the two-dimensional Coulomb-gas only the field independent wave-function renormalization $`Z_k(\varphi _0)=z(k)=1/T=1/\beta ^2`$ is taken into account, therefore we consider Polchinski’s equations for the following two-dimensional model:

$$S_k[\varphi ]=\mathrm{d}^2x\left[\frac{1}{2}z(k)(\varphi )^2+u(k)\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )\right]$$
(31)
where the two coupling constants are the Fourier amplitude $`u(k)=u_1(k)`$ and the field independent wave-function renormalization $`z(k)=z_0(k)`$. Inserting the ansatz (31) in Polchinski’s equations (4) and neglecting the terms on the right hand sides containing higher harmonics, we find

$`(2+k_k)u(k)=\mathrm{}\alpha u(k),`$
$`k_kz(k)=K_0^{\prime \prime }u^2(k).`$ (32)
The terms containing the derivatives of the wave-function renormalization with respect to the field $`\varphi _0`$ do not appear in (6), since $`Z_k(\varphi _0)=z(k)`$ is independent of the field. In the first equation of (6), the field independent term $`z(k)I_1`$ and the term $`[V_k^{(1)}(\varphi _0)]^2K_0^{}`$ do not give contributions for the Fourier mode $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ since $`[V_k^{(1)}(\varphi _0)]^2=u^2(k)\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi _0)=u^2(k)(1/21/2\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi _0))`$. In the second equation of (6), only $`2[V_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0)]^2K_0^{\prime \prime }`$ gives field independent contribution, since $`[V_k^{(2)}(\varphi _0)]^2=u^2(k)\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi _0)=u^2(k)(1/2+1/2\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi _0))`$.

These equations should be compared to the flow equations of the sine-Gordon model obtained in the Wegner-Houghton approach ,

$`(2+k_k)u(k)=\mathrm{}\left[\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{u(k)}{z(k)}}+𝒪(u^3)\right],`$
$`k_kz(k)=\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2(k)}{z^2(k)}}+𝒪(u^4)\right].`$ (33)
These are Eqs. (7) of  rewritten for the dimensionless parameter $`u(k)`$ and $`z(k)`$ when the higher order terms on the right hand sides are neglected. The significant difference is that the field independent wave-function renormalization in (6) occurs due to tree-level renormalization. Therefore, the field-independent piece of the wave-function renormalization depends on the ‘scheme’, which is equivalent to saying that it depends on the details of the blocking procedure (of Polchinski’s type with various regulators, or of Wegner–Houghton’s type). For the choice $`K_0^{\prime \prime }=0`$, and on the linear level, the scheme gets closer to the WH approach as to the evolution of the local potential, but the field-independent wave-function renormalization does not alter during the blocking as opposed to the results obtained with the WH method, Eqs. (6). Then the choice $`z(k)=1/T(k)1`$ is consistent.

Using the equivalence between the lattice regularized compact sine-Gordon model and the X-Y model defined in (1),

$$z=1/T=1/\beta ^2,u=h/T,$$
(34)
one finds that Polchinski’s equations (6) can be rewritten in the form of the two-dimensional Coulomb-gas as follows:

$$a\frac{dh(a)}{da}=\left[2\mathrm{}\alpha T\right]h,a\frac{dT(a)}{da}=0T(a)=T1.$$
(35)
These equations (35) are rather different from those obtained by the real space RG approach for the two-dimensional Coulomb-gas (30). At the linear level the RG flow equations are identical irrespectively of the blocking procedure by which they are obtained. The differences of the various approaches occur when the non-linearities are kept that are responsible for the violation of the UV scaling laws.

## 7 Summary

Our goal was to investigate how far the limitation of the Wegner-Houghton approach due to the truncated gradient expansion can be overcome by using Polchinski’s method combined with the gradient expansion. The price one has to pay for introducing the smooth cut-off and not clearly discriminating between UV and IR modes of the quantum fluctuations seems to be high. It has been argued that the application of Polchinski’s equations to the renormalization of the scalar field theory with periodicity in the internal space may be troublesome. First, the method mixes the modes above and below the critical scale at which the spinodal instability occurs. Therefore, if such an instability does exist as it is expected from the investigations  by means of the Wegner-Houghton method, then the closer we come to this scale, the more questionable the usage of the Polchinski’s method is. Second, there is a regulator dependent tree-level renormalization even if the path integral is dominated by a trivial saddle point and no spinodal instability occurs. The latter heavily depends on the choice of the regulator function $`K`$, which is a priori not specified by any conditions. Various forms of the cut-off function have been discussed in the literature; the choice was motivated by the need to reproduce the limiting behavior (critical exponents) . Here, we take a different approach and we investigate if rigorous conditions can be established for $`K`$ based on the matching of Polchinski’s equation with the Wegner-Houghton equation. The classification of the scaling operators at the Gaussian fixed point does not imply any substantial contraints on the regulator function, but at least fixes the limiting behavior of $`K`$ at zero argument, and at infinity, in a unique way. Third, unfortunately, no further conditions can be obtained on the regulator function $`K`$ by comparing the dilute gas results with those obtained by Polchinski’s method for the two-dimensional Coulomb-gas, since the non-linear flow equations are rather different basically due to the regulator-dependent tree-level renormalization in Polchinski’s approach.

Summarizing, Polchinski’s equation in its linearized form enables one to establish the Coleman fixed point and the phase structure of the two-dimensional sine-Gordon model. Furthermore, in the strong coupling phase $`\beta >8\pi `$ the linearization does not loose its validity in the limit $`k0`$, and we have shown that all couplings associated with the field dependent wave-function renormalization are irrelevant in this phase. They are effectively ‘renormalized out’ of the theory. For the weak coupling phase the flow equations in their non-linear forms should be solved. Then a strong dependence of the flow on the first and second derivatives of the regulator function at zero momentum occurs, and the various renormalization schemes, Polchinski’s, Wegner-Houghton’s, and the real space ones give rather different results, although all they were equivalent in the linearized form. Polchinski’s scheme gets closer to Wegner-Houghton’s one if the derivatives of the regulator function at zero momentum are vanishing. The dependence on the regulator functions, and that on the renormalization scheme (the details of the blocking procedure) modifies the effective (blocked) couplings.

The scheme dependence of the blocked couplings is strongly related to a more general question. When do we say that the more simple theory reduced by the help of the RG is solved? What is the use of knowing the evolution of the Wilson action? One may be inclined to say that in the $`k0`$ limit the blocked couplings become physical observables, since only the single mode $`p=0`$ is kept. This is, however not true. First, the parameters of the bare (Wilson) action are not observables, just quantities closely related to observables. Second, the dynamics of the ‘last’ mode is scheme dependent, similarly to the dynamics obtained after eliminating any of the modes during the subsequent blocking steps. This scheme-dependence can only be avoided by using the effective action. The evolution equations for the effective action describe real physics. Their solutions provide the values of the one-particle irreducible (1PI) graphs and the observables are the graphs (transition amplitudes), not the couplings. According to this, the endpoint of these evolution equations is the set of the exact 1PI Green functions.

## Acknowledgments

I. N. and K. S. thank J. Polonyi for useful discussions. This work has been supported by the projects OTKA T032501/00, NATO SA(PST.CLG 975722)5066, and MÖB-DAAD 27 (323-PPP-Ungarn). I. N. is also grateful for support by DAAD. This work has also been supported by BMBF and GSI (Darmstadt).


format: text

text:
# Decoherence in the Heisenberg model

## 1 Introduction

Decoherence is widely accepted as an explanation of how quantum correlations are damped out to make physical systems effectively classical. Open (infinite) quantum systems have been studied in great detail by many researchers . Their works are not relevant in our case, because they consider an infinite environment that consumes the quantum coherence irrevocably. But how about a finite environment or a finite system without an environment? In principle, if time is unlimited a finite system returns arbitrarily close to its starting position an infinite amount of times (Poincaré recurrence). Therefore, if a finite system starts from a superposition state it begins to lose its coherence, but will at some moment return back to its initial superposition state. Within these systems, is it reasonable to talk about decoherence, and whether there is some kind of preferred, i.e., pointer basis as Zurek calls it , that is realised by decoherence. If the answer is “yes”, is it somehow possible to circumvent decoherence in closed quantum systems?

Our interest in closed and finite quantum systems arises from the “cosmological” aspects of reality. The universe has no environment  and it has a finite number of degrees of freedom . Yet decoherence is observed in our universe . To understand decoherence, one should be able to model these critical aspects of the universe in decoherence studies. Previously closed quantum systems have been studied  using the frame of the many histories interpretation of quantum mechanics. This approach is, however, found to be problematic . In this study we consider the off-diagonal elements of a reduced density matrix to avoid the problems of many histories. Another reason is that decoherence theory using reduced density matrices has not been studied in great detail, unlike the decoherent histories approach. A well established decoherence theory using reduced density matrices may clarify the concept of decoherence in closed systems. Moreover, these approaches are not equivalent .

Elsewhere we have analysed in detail the conceptual problem of decoherence in closed and finite systems . A few major results should also be outlined here, since, they are the key concepts and premises.

1. There are two different decoherence types (similar to the different entropy types): the idealistic and the realistic decoherence.

* The idealistic decoherence scheme can be applied only by those observers who do not interact with the universe, and who know the wave function of the universe and its time evolution. In a closed system, there is no idealistic decoherence, since the wave function of the universe remains always pure.
    * The realistic decoherence scheme is the internal view of the universe calculated from the wave function of the universe. It describes the events as the real observers that are totally correlated with the universe perceive them. To acquire this realistic viewpoint, one should make an effective theory from the wave function of the universe, e.g., to use reduced density matrices. This is often referred to as coarse-graining.

In this study, the word “decoherence” refers to the concept of realistic decoherence. Exceptions are mentioned.
2. The possibility of recoherence does not mean that there is no decoherence. Decoherence is the decay of the off-diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix, and hence, recoherence means the growth of the off-diagonal elements of reduced density matrix. All finite quantum systems may experience recoherence.

Idealistic decoherence is often referred to with the word “decoherence”, since, in open and infinite system studies both decoherences behave similarly. The principal difference between idealistic and realistic decoherence can be seen only in closed systems.

Using a reduced-density-matrix approach, we have studied a Heisenberg spin model in order to clarify the idea of decoherence in closed systems. We focus on one particle coherence (and entropy), and thereby calculate the time evolution of the system. This coarse-graining makes our (closed) system effectively open. Within this model, it is easy to sketch how decoherence is advancing in the system. The main task of this research is to derive functional dependences of decoherence time on relevant parameters of the system (particle number $`N`$, density $`\rho `$, potential and dimension $`D`$ of the system), i.e., to determine how the decoherence time depends on these system variables, and why.

This paper consists of four main sections. First, we introduce our model in section 2. In section 3 we present theoretically the dynamics of a simple initial state, and define a decoherence function $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ as the measure of the coherence of the whole system. Section 4 explains the structure of our simulations, along with the main results. Section 5 is for discussion.

## 2 The model

We have chosen the Heisenberg spin model because it is simple enough to solve, and yet complicated enough to simulate properties of real quantum systems. Coupled spin systems are interesting from a quantum computational point of view, too. Our system, $`N`$ interacting particles fixed in space, has no environment and, in that sense, the system forms a closed quantum universe. The particles are spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles, and the interaction between them is due to their spin $`z`$-component (analogous to the Ising model). When there is no coupling with the environment (i.e., no outer environment), the two spin states have the same energy, which is taken to be zero. Zurek  and Omnès  have considered a similar, but simpler model in order to show that off-diagonal elements (i.e., quantum correlations) will decay in time. They labeled one particle as the system, and the others as an environment 111In their model the particles that form an environment do not interact with each other.; but, we study the particle system as a whole.

The interaction Hamiltonian,

$$H=\mathrm{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{i=j+1}{\overset{N}{}}g_{ij}\sigma _z^j\sigma _z^i\underset{k=1,j,i}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{𝟏}_k,$$
(1)
describes the dynamics of the system. The interaction matrix $`G`$, where $`g_{ij}=g_{ji}`$, gives the interaction strength between particles $`i`$ and $`j`$. The interaction strength arises from the potential $`V`$; but, for formal calculations there is no need to know more about it, because particles are doomed to stay in one place. Fixing the positions of the particles is a justified assumption in decoherence studies since, in most cases, the decoherence time scale is the shortest time scale , at least shorter than the time scale of particle motion.

## 3 Theoretical calculations

Let us now consider only the simplest case in order to present our method, namely initially a product state of superposition states

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(a_k|+_k+b_k|_k\right),$$
(2)
where $`a`$’s and $`b`$’s are normalised probability amplitudes $`|a_k|^2+|b_k|^2=1`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The Schrödinger equation,

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_t|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=H|\mathrm{\Psi }(t),$$
(3)
gives the dynamics of the system, and with the given initial condition of equation (2) one gets the time dependence

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{i=j+1}{\overset{N}{}}g_{ij}\sigma _z^j\sigma _z^it\right]\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(a_k|+_k+b_k|_k\right).$$
(4)
The fate of the $`l^{\mathrm{th}}`$ particle is solved by tracing over other particles, i.e., degrees of freedom,

$$\rho _l=\mathrm{Tr}_{1,\mathrm{},Nl}\rho ,$$
(5)
where $`\rho =|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|`$. This is a crucial step. We make an effective theory of our particle system by tracing over the “uninteresting” particles (that form an effective environment to the particular particle of our interest), as in the mean field approximation. The net effect of traced-out particles is described in a simpler form and with lesser degrees of freedom. This results in the particular particle under consideration being an effectively open system. The validity of this type of coarse-graining can be checked by comparing the results with the entropy studies (see section 4.3).

We thus have

$`\rho _l`$ $`=|a_l|^2|+_l+_l|+|b_l|^2|_l_l|`$ (6)
$`+[a_lb_l^{}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,l}{\overset{N}{}}}(|a_k|^2\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}2g_{lk}t}+|b_k|^2\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}2g_{lk}t})|+_l_l|+h.c.].`$
It is interesting that the result of equation (6) is the same as in reference , if one drops the index $`l`$ away. In reference  only an interactionless environment has been considered, but our model counts all the interactions between particles. The result of equation (6) is obvious: one particle of the system will be a victim of decoherence. In fact, all particles separately will be victims of decoherence. Other particles act as an environment for the particle of interest, and the coherence of this particular particle is dumped (i.e., displaced) temporarily into its “environment”. Now the interesting question concerns the decoherence of the whole particle system, as opposed to the decoherence of the particles separately.

The answer can be reasoned out in the following way: let us first make our notation a bit lighter by denoting

$$z_l=a_lb_l^{}\underset{k=1,l}{\overset{N}{}}\left(|a_k|^2\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}2g_{lk}t}+|b_k|^2\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}2g_{lk}t}\right).$$
(7)
This $`z_l`$ (or its complex conjugate $`z_l^{}`$) describes the fate of the off-diagonal elements of $`l^{th}`$ particle. Let us put the whole system into the superposition state $`a_k=b_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$, $`k`$, and let the elements of the matrix $`G`$ be random numbers at the interval $`[0,1]`$ 222This means that the interaction between the particles does not depend on the distances between particles, so, in this case, adding particles into the system means the same as increasing the density of the system with $`r`$-dependent interactions. It is obvious that decoherence is density-dependent, and thus we will consider more realistic interactions in section 4.. The time dependencies of the off-diagonal elements for all particles of the system are presented in figure 1. Note that parts of the system may come close to their starting level, but each recurs at different times. It is obvious that the whole system returns to its starting point more seldom than its parts, so the fate of all off-diagonal elements of the system is described by the function

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(t)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}|z_l(t)|.$$
(8)
We have returned to a description of the whole system; but, $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ is a quantity of an effective theory, and therefore our initially closed system becomes effectively open. We are definitely describing the system from the inside view of the system, i.e., using the realistic decoherence scheme.

If $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ achieves its initial level, the system has returned to its initial position, i.e., superpositions have recurred. The complement event of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$, i.e. $`Y=\frac{1}{N}_{k=1}^N|a_kb_k^{}|\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$, behaves as the statistical entropy in classical physics: it grows fast to some equilibrium value with certain fluctuations that depend on the number of particles in the system \[in figure 2 we have presented the behaviour of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$\]. In open and infinite systems entropy and decoherence are related to each other (see, e.g., reference ), and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the same holds also in closed (and finite) systems. The decoherence function, $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$, is a quantity similar to the sum of all one particle (von Neumann) entropies of the system. The most stable (and the most probable) state is the one with the maximum entropy, i.e., with minimum quantum coherence. The system tends to reach this state and to spend most of its time in it. It should be clear that decoherence is a similar dynamical process as the growth of the entropy (see section 4.3); therefore, recurrences in $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ are rare and short-termed phenomena.

Our model shows that decoherence is advancing at different speeds at different parts of the system. The decoherence speed of the whole particle system differs from decoherence speed of the parts of the system, and it can be evaluated from the normalised sum of all particles, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$. Also, the pointer basis is realised. In our model with a particular interaction of equation (1), the pointer basis is the $`\sigma _z`$-basis. It is quite reasonable to talk about decoherence (and entropy) in a closed system.

## 4 Decoherence time

In infinite quantum systems, decoherence time is easily defined: it is the time when off-diagonal elements have decayed by the factor $`\mathrm{}^1`$ (e.g. ). If this definition is straightforwardly applied in closed systems, the following problem will appear. Decoherence is advancing at different speeds at different parts of the system, so what is the decoherence time in this case? In open systems the decay of off-diagonal elements nicely follows the function $`\mathrm{}^{t/\tau _d}`$, where $`\tau _d`$ is decoherence time; but, in closed systems the decay function fluctuates, in some cases fluctuating a lot compared to the usual exponential behaviour. What is the decoherence time when these fluctuations are present?

We have solved this problem in the following way. First, we focus on the decoherence time of the whole system. Therefore, we use $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ to solve for the decoherence time. Of course, it is also possible to pay attention only to some subsystem $`S`$, and solve the behaviour of this subsystem using

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_S=\frac{1}{m}\underset{lS}{\overset{m}{}}|z_l(t)|.$$
(9)
Second, we use a least squares fit on $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ using a function $`\xi (t)=(0.5c)\mathrm{}^{t/\tau _d}+c`$ that allows fluctuations around the average level $`c`$. This fluctuation model is valid only when $`t`$ is small. “Real” time averages and fluctuations are calculated after $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ has stabilised. The above mentioned decay time $`\tau _d`$ is the decoherence time. By the way, the given definition yields the same results in open and infinite systems as the familiar form $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}^{t/\tau _d}`$, because in open and infinite systems $`c0`$.

### 4.1 Numerics and simulations

Our main task is to try to derive the function $`\tau _d=\tau _d(N,\rho ,V,D)`$. The starting point in our simulations is a $`D`$-dimensional “box” whose volume is $`l^D`$. $`N`$ particles are placed randomly in this box. These particles are in fixed places, and they interact with each other according to the Hamiltonian (1). In this paper, we concentrate on potentials of type

$$g_{ij}=\frac{\eta }{|\overline{r}_i\overline{r}_j|^ϵ},$$
(10)
where $`ϵ=1`$. Now we calculate $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ and fit it to the function

$$\xi (t)=(0.5c)\mathrm{}^{t/\tau }+c.$$
(11)
We also solve the average level of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ by calculating its time average over the interval $`[t_1,t_2]`$, where $`\tau _dt_1`$ and $`\tau _dt_2t_1`$:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }=\frac{1}{t_2t_1}_{t_1}^{t_2}\mathrm{\Xi }(t)𝑑t.$$
(12)
This procedure is repeated $`U`$ times, after which we have a statistical hunch about what is going on in the box. Finally, we average acquired values of $`\tau _u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_u`$ to get a statistical estimate. $`\tau _d=\frac{1}{U}_{u=1}^U\tau _u`$ is a function of parameters $`N`$, $`\rho `$, $`V`$ and $`D`$. Standard deviations $`\sigma _{\tau _d}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Xi }`$ are also interesting. $`\sigma _{\tau _d}`$ is used in calculating error estimates of our model, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Xi }`$ describes fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ around its average level $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$.

If the density under consideration is constant, then, when the number of particles is changed, the size of the box is changed, too:

$$l=\left(\frac{N}{\rho }\right)^{1/D}.$$
(13)
This simulation is repeated with different values of parameters $`(N_i,\rho _i,V_i,D_i)`$, and we get results $`(\tau _{d}^{}{}_{i}{}^{},\sigma _{\tau _{d}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}},\mathrm{\Xi }_i,\sigma _{\mathrm{\Xi }_i})`$. The next task is to find the possible underlying functional dependence.

### 4.2 Dependence on relevant parameters

We have focused on an initial state that contains complete superpositions, so $`a_i=b_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ 333We want to study a closed system with maximum initial coherence and minimum initial entropy, and therefore, we set $`a_k=b_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$. Of course, the choice of $`a_k`$ (and $`b_k`$) is arbitrary and we have tested that the results with $`a_k`$’s as random complex numbers $`[0,|a_k|^2=1]`$ behave similarly as in the case $`a_k=b_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$.. The number of simulations with particular parameter values is $`L=100`$. Entangled particles have not (yet) been studied in relation to the case of determination of decoherence time, so our initial state is the state of equation (2). The time average is calculated in the interval of $`t_1=50`$ to $`t_2=100`$.

In this paper, we only consider the potential (10) with $`ϵ=1`$. The average level of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ is only a function of $`N`$, and it behaves as

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(N)=A\mathrm{}^{BN},$$
(14)
where $`A1.27`$ and $`B0.43`$. The fluctuation level around $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is the same type of function: $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Xi }(N)=F\mathrm{}^{GN}`$, where $`F0.03`$ and $`G0.3`$.

Zurek  and Omnès  have reported that theoretical fluctuations of one particle coherence, $`z(t)`$, are $`\mathrm{}^{N\mathrm{ln}2/2}\mathrm{}^{0.3466N}`$, so it is reasonable that our numerical results for $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ behave in a similar manner.

The behaviour of decoherence time is more complicated, but it can also be analysed. The function which fits well to simulated data is

$$\tau _d=\frac{1}{\eta }\left(\frac{P}{N^Q}+R\right)\rho ^S,$$
(15)
where $`P,Q,R,S`$ are fitting constants which depend on dimension $`D`$, and where the potential scaling factor $`\eta `$ is taken into account. In Table 1 we present the values of these fitting constants in dimensions $`D=1,2,3`$. Dimensional dependencies may be extracted from these results.

Some general results for different kinds of systems can be calculated. For $`D=3`$ system of $`N=100`$ atoms in $`V=0.01\mathrm{m}^3`$, whose interaction strength is an electromagnetic-type interaction ($`\eta 2.210^6`$), the decoherence time is $`\tau _d210^{10}\mathrm{s}`$. We encourage experimentalists to do experiments with as good as possible isolated closed interacting quantum systems.

In figure 2(a2, b2, c2) differences between the dimensions are considered. The analysis shows clearly that $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ describes the decoherence of the system quite well; especially when $`D>1`$, it follows nicely the exponential form that is typical for open and infinite quantum systems.

### 4.3 Recurrence

The interesting thing to notice is that our quantum system (of $`N`$ particles) is a closed and finite quantum system. That means, roughly speaking, that quantum correlations are never lost. They are only displaced, and the system may return to its initial state, if one waits long enough. But how much time is long enough? The answer can be reasoned out in the following way. Let us give an approximation about Poincaré recurrence time $`T_P`$ of our almost periodic function $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$. In reference  it has been argued that the period of a function of type

$$F=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{cos}\omega _it$$
(16)
is

$$T_{P_F}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{min}|\omega _j\omega _i|}.$$
(17)
This is quite elementary. The same line of thinking is applicable to the products of cosine functions, too. So, we can give an estimate of period $`T_{P_\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ for the function of type

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(t)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{j=1,i}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{cos}2g_{ij}t,$$
(18)
that is,

$$T_{P_\mathrm{\Xi }}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{min}|\omega _i\omega _i^{}|},$$
(19)
where $`\omega _i=2\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}|g_{ij}g_{ij^{}}|`$.

The recurrence time in our simulations can be solved, and in Table 2 some examples with various $`N`$ and $`D`$ are given. The effect of $`\rho `$ shows up only as a common factor of $`g_{ij}`$ in $`\omega _i`$.

Let us study the possibility for recurrences from an entropy-based point of view. The von Neumann entropy of a particular system that is described by the density matrix $`\rho `$ is

$$S(\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho ).$$
(20)
The entropy of a pure state is, of course, equal to zero. Information that lies in correlations between particles is given by

$$I=\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}S(\rho _l)S(\rho ),$$
(21)
where index $`l`$ counts subsystems, e.g., particles (see reference ). In our system, $`S(\rho (t))0`$ because the system is closed and it starts from a pure state $`|\psi (t)\psi (t)|`$. But the entropy of subsystems grows because the information, which is in the correlations between particles, grows. Let us now put this into a quantitative form: the total entropy of subsystems is

$$S_{tot}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}S(\rho _l)=\underset{i,l}{}\lambda _{i,l}\mathrm{ln}\lambda _{i,l},$$
(22)
where $`\lambda _{i,l}=\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{14(|a_l|^2|b_l|^2|z_l(t)|^2)}`$ are the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix $`\rho _l`$. If $`|a_l|^2=|b_l|^2=\frac{1}{2}`$, then $`\lambda _{i,l}=\frac{1}{2}\pm |z_l(t)|.`$ In figure 2 we have plotted $`S_{tot}`$ with various particle numbers $`N`$. It is notable that the total entropy behaves as a mirror image of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$. Moreover, the shape of the sum $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)+\frac{1}{2N\mathrm{ln}2}S_{tot}(t)`$ is similar in every case, even if in $`D=1`$ there are large fluctuations present. The peak in figures 2(a3-f3) indicates that, in the beginning, the entropy grows slightly faster than decoherence, but, after the system is relaxed, they are equal. Decoherence and entropy behave regularly; they are linked to each other because they have the same origin (quantum dynamics). Our analysis shows that $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ is the right concept to describe decoherence in closed and finite systems.

It seems clear that the system may return to its initial position, but the recurrence time grows fast with respect to $`N`$. From the entropy point of view, it is possible, in principle, for the system to get completely to the initial state again, but, it is thermodynamically impossible, i.e., the recurrence time is much greater than the age of the universe.

## 5 Discussion

We have studied this simple scenario in order to clarify the idea of decoherence in closed systems. We have stated that decoherence and entropy are two sides of the same coin: they are well defined inside (effective theory) descriptions of the closed system. This effective theory of a closed system is valid for observers inside the universe, i.e., they observe a truly closed and finite universe as effectively open. The universe is truly closed from an outside point of view (complete description), but the only way to access this view is an academic example. We leave the detailed analysis of different types of observers in complete and effective theories for elsewhere. Still, decoherence is a working concept in closed systems also in principle, not only in practice, e.g., as Bell has argued . Bell’s argument against decoherence has been refuted (e.g., by Omnès ) 444Bell’s argument is mainly that if the universe starts in a pure state, it will always remain in a pure state, no matter how quickly the off-diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix decrease and how small they will become. He claims that this gives in principle possibility to make such a measurement that will show quantum interference. However, there is not even in principle such a measurement device that can perform the measurement. For a detailed discussion about the Bell’s argument, one is encouraged to study references ..

The possibility of recurrence makes neither concept, entropy nor decoherence, empty. Decoherence is a dynamical process, arising from interactions between particles, that diagonalises reduced density matrices in the pointer basis. This holds true in our model. Decoherence time $`\tau _d`$ can be applied and determined in closed systems as well as in open systems, and the function $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ describes the fate of all off-diagonal elements of particles forming the system. $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ can be linked with the entropy of the system as a mirror image. The particles-in-a-box example in classical statistical physics is analogous to decoherence: the recurrence of all off-diagonal elements in our system is a similar kind of phenomenon to the gas in a closed chamber going completely to the other half of the chamber. This is possible, but its possibility diminishes as $`N`$ grows. In the complete description (view from outside), the total entropy and the idealistic quantum coherence of a closed system are constants, but in the effective theory (view from inside) sums of both realistic quantities are evolving in time, as described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.

It is quite obvious that the decoherence time $`\tau _d`$ behaves as $`N^Q`$ and $`\rho ^S`$, because decoherence is faster in bigger systems (many particles and high density) than in small systems. An interesting feature is that the decoherence time with respect to $`N`$ saturates to a certain value $`R`$ that is dimension-dependent. Using equation (15) one can argue that an $`N43000`$ $`3D`$-particle system behaves as an infinite particle system with an accuracy of $`99\%`$. The amount of particles needed to cause a nearly-infinite type of behaviour is small compared to the baryon number of our universe ($`10^{80}`$ ). The saturation effect gives in principle a possibility to fight against decoherence: just make a low density system. Of course, vacuum fluctuations are present in low density cases, and therefore studies of the effects of second quantisation are important in fighting decoherence.

With our model, it is possible study the Schrödinger cat experiment which crucially showed the problems in understanding quantum mechanics and the demarcation problem between quantum and classical . Many improvements have been made in quantum mechanics since the days of Schrödinger, especially concerning decoherence. This study covers basically the question of quantum-classical problem; we have shown that quantum mechanics can be applied to the whole universe, and as an effective theory we acquire almost a classical universe with the help of decoherence. The Schrödinger cat problem is more than this demarcation problem, but the presented model can be used in constructing a realistic enough model of a cat and its surroundings. Entangled states will play a crucial role in that case.

The “cat-in-the-box” will be in our future interests, as well as other $`1/r^ϵ`$ potentials. Also, ideas how to circumvent decoherence are interesting. The system geometry may play some role in slowing down decoherence and making recurrence more probable. Correlations between particles should be studied as well in greater detail; here we have only considered an effective theory with one-particle correlations, but many-particle correlations may contribute to the dynamics of the system. However, our entropy studies seem to justify the results. There is one minor drawback in our model that is a result of simplifying and making an academic example, and it may affect the results: the model is, strictly speaking, discrete because the particles are placed (randomly, but this does not matter) in fixed and accurate places. Clearly, this violates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and may cause considerable effects. It would be interesting to study what kind of results are acquired with particles as probability distributions in space.

The author would like to thank Kalle-Antti Suominen for guiding him into the scientific world, and Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation & the Academy of Finland (project 50341) for funding. He also thanks John Calsamiglia for questions that have inspired him to try to find answers, if there are any, and Matt Mackie for constructive criticism.

## References

## Tables and table captions

## Figures and figure captions


text:
# Fermion determinant with dynamical chiral symmetry breaking

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by fundamental research grant of Tsinghua University.

## A Coefficients definitions

$`A_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}(12\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2(12\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{\prime \prime })`$ (A2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}k^4(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{\prime \prime })`$
$`B_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}(12\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2(12\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{\prime \prime })`$ (A4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}k^4(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{\prime \prime })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}k^2(12\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{})`$
$`C_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2`$ (A5)
$`D_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{\prime \prime }(12\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}k^4\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{\prime \prime }(1+2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{})]{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}k^4\mathrm{\Sigma }^2_k(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{\prime \prime })`$ (A7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{\prime \prime })`$
$`E_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}(12\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}k^4\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2(1+2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{})^2`$ (A8)
$`F_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}k^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}k^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{\prime \prime })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}k^4(\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{\prime \prime })`$ (A10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}k^2(12\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^2`$