text:
# Confinement and bound states in QCD

## 1 Green Functions

The single quark, the quark-antiquark and the three quark gauge invariant Green functions can be written as

$$G^{\mathrm{gi}}(xy)=0|\mathrm{T}U(y,x)\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(y)\overline{\psi }(y)|0=\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{C}U(y,x)S(x,y;A),$$
(1)
$`G^{\mathrm{gi}}(x_1,x_2;y_1,y_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}0|\mathrm{T}\psi _2^c(x_2)U(x_2,x_1)\psi _1(x_1)\overline{\psi }_1(y_1)U(y_1,y_2)\overline{\psi }_2^c(y_2)|0=`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{C}U(x_2,x_1)S_1(x_1,y_1;A)U(y_1,y_2)\stackrel{~}{S}_2(y_2,x_2;\stackrel{~}{A})`$
(the two quarks are supposed to have a different flavor, otherwise an annihilation term should be added to the last term)

$`G^{\mathrm{gi}}(x_1,x_2,x_3;y_1,y_2,y_3)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}\epsilon _{a_1a_2a_3}\epsilon _{b_1b_2b_3}0|\mathrm{T}U^{a_3c_3}(x_M,x_3)U^{a_2c_2}(x_M,x_2)`$
$`U^{a_1c_1}(x_M,x_1)\psi _{3c_3}(x_3)\psi _{2c_2}(x_2)\psi _{1c_1}(x_1)\overline{\psi }_{1d_1}(y_1)\overline{\psi }_{2d_2}(y_2)\overline{\psi }_{3d_3}(y_3)`$
$`U^{d_1b_1}(y_1,y_M)U^{d_2b_2}(y_2,y_M)U^{d_3b_3}(y_3,y_M)|0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}\epsilon _{a_1a_2a_3}\epsilon _{b_1b_2b_3}`$
$`\left(U(x_M,x_1)S_1(x_1,y_1;A)U(y_1,y_M)\right)^{a_1b_1}(U(x_M,x_2)S_2(x_2,y_2;A)`$
$`U(y_2,y_M))^{a_2b_2}\left(U(x_M,x_3)S_3(x_3,y_3;A)U(y_3,y_M)\right)^{a_3b_3}.`$ (3)
To avoid complicate indices in the above equations we have identified the various type of functions simply by their arguments; furthermore $`\psi ^c`$ denotes the charge-conjugate fields, and $`U`$ the path-ordered gauge string (Schwinger string)

$$U(b,a)=\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left\{ig_a^b𝑑x^\mu A_\mu (x)\right\},$$
(4)
(the integration in (4) is along an arbitrary line joining $`a`$ to $`b`$), the tilde and $`\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{C}`$ denote the transposition and the trace over the color indices alone. The second equalities are the result of an explicit integration over the fermionic fields and the angle brackets denote average on the gauge variable alone (weighted in principle with the determinant $`M_f(A)`$ resulting from the integration). The quantities $`S`$, …$`S_3`$ are the quark propagators in the external gauge field $`A^\mu `$, which are defined by equations of the type (we shall suppress indices specifying the quarks, as a rule, when dealing with single quark quantities)

$$(i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu m)S(x,y;A)=\delta ^4(xy).$$
(5)
Here $`m`$ is supposed to hold an infinitesimal negative imaginary part ($`m=mi0`$).

## 2 Quark-antiquark potential

By performing a Foldy–Wouthuysen transformation on Eq. (5) we can replace the the $`4\times 4`$ Dirac type matrices $`S(x,y;A)`$ with a $`2\times 2`$ Pauli propagator $`K(𝐱,𝐲;t_\mathrm{f},t_\mathrm{i})`$ satisfying a Schrödinger-like equation. Solving such equation by standard path-integral technique, we obtain

$`K(𝐱,𝐲;t_\mathrm{f},t_\mathrm{i})={\displaystyle _{𝐳_1(t_\mathrm{i})=𝐲_1}^{𝐳_1(t_\mathrm{f})=𝐱_1}}𝒟𝐳𝒟𝐩`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle _{t_\mathrm{i}}^{t_\mathrm{f}}}dt[𝐩\dot{𝐳}m{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩^2}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩^4}{8m^3}}]\}\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\{ig{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }}dz^\mu A_\mu (z)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{m_j}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }}dz^\mu (S_j^l\widehat{F}_{l\mu }(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_j}}S_j^l\epsilon ^{lkr}p^kF_{\mu r}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8m}}D^\nu F_{\nu \mu }(z))\}.`$ (6)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the quark world line connecting $`(𝐲,t_\mathrm{i})`$ with $`(𝐱,t_\mathrm{f})`$ over which the path integral acts, $`\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\mathrm{P}`$ are time ordering prescriptions for the spin and the color matrices respectively. Furthermore, as usual $`F^{\mu \nu }=^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu +ig[A^\mu ,A^\nu ]`$, $`\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }`$ and $`D^\nu F_{\nu \mu }=^\nu F_{\nu \mu }+ig[A^\nu ,F_{\nu \mu }]`$, $`\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ being the four-dimensional Ricci symbol.

Replacing (6) in (2) we obtain a path integral representation for a Pauli type $`q\overline{q}`$ propagator which can be compared with the corresponding expression in potential theory (see \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\] for details). Then one find that, in order the interaction between the two particles can be described in terms of a potential, a function $`V^{q\overline{q}}(𝐳_1,𝐳_2,𝐩_1,𝐩_2,𝐒_1,𝐒_2)`$ must exist such that op to the order $`\frac{1}{m^2}`$

$`i\mathrm{ln}W_{q\overline{q}}+i{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{m_j}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}}dx^\mu (S_j^l\widehat{F}_{l\mu }(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_j}}S_j^l\epsilon ^{lkr}p_j^kF_{\mu r}(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8m_j}}D^\nu F_{\nu \mu }(x)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }_{j,j^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2}{m_jm_j^{}}}\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{s}{\displaystyle }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}dx^\mu {\displaystyle }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}}dx^\sigma S_j^lS_j^{}^k`$
$`\left(\widehat{F}_{l\mu }(x)\widehat{F}_{k\sigma }(x^{})\widehat{F}_{l\mu }(x)\widehat{F}_{k\sigma }(x^{})\right)+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle _{t_\mathrm{i}}^{t_\mathrm{f}}}𝑑tV^{q\overline{q}},`$ (7)
with the notation $`f[A]=W_{q\overline{q}}f[A]/W_{q\overline{q}}`$ and $`W_{q\overline{q}}`$ is the Wilson loop correlator defined by

$$W_{q\overline{q}}=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{C}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q\overline{q}}}𝑑x^\mu A_\mu (x)\right).$$
(8)
In Eq. (8) the integration loop $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q\overline{q}}`$ is supposed to be made by the quark world line $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, the antiquark world line $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ described in reverse direction and the two Schwinger strings that close the curve and can be here taken equal time straight lines; the symbol $`\mathrm{P}`$ denotes color ordering along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q\overline{q}}`$.

Notice that the quantities $`F_{\mu \nu }(z_j)`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }(z_j)F_{\rho \sigma }(z_j^{})`$ can be expressed as functional derivatives of $`i\mathrm{ln}W_{q\overline{q}}`$ and so the potential is determined in principle by such quantity alone.

Eq. (7) can be reelaborated in various way. By expanding $`i\mathrm{ln}W_{q\overline{q}}`$ and the spin dependent terms in $`\dot{z}_j`$ it is possible to recast the resulting local coefficients in terms of static Wilson loop correlators (straight quark world-lines parallel to the time axis) with insertion of field strengths. Such expressions are particularly suitable for numerical simulation and to this aim have been successfully used \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\].

To obtain analytical expressions today we have to relay on models for the evaluation of the Wilson correlator. The simplest model is the so called minimal area law model (MAL model) and consists in writing $`i\mathrm{ln}W_{q\overline{q}}`$ as the sum of its perturbative, an area and possibly a perimeter term

$$i\mathrm{ln}W_{q\overline{q}}=(i\mathrm{ln}W_{q\overline{q}})_{\mathrm{pert}}+\sigma S_{\mathrm{min}}+\frac{1}{2}CP$$
(9)
where $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ denotes the minimal surface enclosed by the loop $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q\overline{q}}`$ and $`P`$ length of the loop. In Eq. (9) the first quantity is supposed to give correctly the short range limit of the interaction and it is suggested by asymptotic freedom; the other two are supposed to represent the long range behavior and are suggested by pure lattice gauge theory and numerical simulations \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\].

At the lowest order the perturbative term can be written as

$$i(\mathrm{ln}W_{q\overline{q}})_{\mathrm{pert}}=\frac{2}{3}g^2𝑑z^\mu 𝑑z^\nu D_{\mu \nu }(zz^{})$$
(10)
$`D_{\mu \nu }(zz^{})`$ being the free gauge propagator. For what concerns the area term it can be checked, by solving the appropriate Euler equations, that $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ can be replaced by the surface spanned by the straight lines joining equal time points on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ up to $`\mathrm{O}(v^2)`$. That is, we can write

$$S_{\mathrm{min}}_{t_\mathrm{i}}^{t_\mathrm{f}}𝑑t\sigma r_0^1𝑑\lambda [1(\lambda \dot{𝐳}_{1\mathrm{T}}+(1\lambda )\dot{𝐳}_{2\mathrm{T}})^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(11)
where $`\dot{𝐳}_{j\mathrm{T}}`$ denotes the transversal part of $`\dot{𝐳}_j`$, $`\dot{z}_{j\mathrm{T}}^h=(\delta ^{hk}\widehat{r}^h\widehat{r}^k)\dot{z}_j^h`$.

Replacing (10) and (11) in (9) and (7), by expanding in the velocities and other manipulations we obtain a semi-relativistic potential of the form $`V^{q\overline{q}}=V_{\mathrm{static}}^{q\overline{q}}+V_{\mathrm{sd}}^{q\overline{q}}+V_{\mathrm{vd}}^{q\overline{q}}`$, where $`V_{\mathrm{static}}^{q\overline{q}}=\frac{4}{3}\alpha _\mathrm{s}\frac{1}{r}+\sigma r+C`$, $`V_{\mathrm{sd}}^{q\overline{q}}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{vd}}^{q\overline{q}}`$ are certain complicate spin dependent and velocity dependent expressions which are reported in \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\] but we do not reproduce here. Similar results can be obtained starting from more elaborate models \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\].

## 3 Three quark potential

A semi-relativistic three quark potential can be obtained proceeding in a similar way on the three quark Green function (3). Instead of (7) this time we have

$`i\mathrm{ln}W_{3q}+i{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ig}{m_j}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}}dx^\mu (S_j^l\widehat{F}_{l\mu }(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_j}}S_j^l\epsilon ^{lkr}p_j^kF_{\mu r}(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8m_j}}D^\nu F_{\nu \mu }(x)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }_{j,j^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2}{m_jm_j^{}}}\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{s}{\displaystyle }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}dx^\mu {\displaystyle }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}}dx^\sigma S_j^lS_j^{}^k`$
$`\left(\widehat{F}_{l\mu }(x)\widehat{F}_{k\sigma }(x^{})\widehat{F}_{l\mu }(x)\widehat{F}_{k\sigma }(x^{})\right)={\displaystyle _{t_\mathrm{i}}^{t_\mathrm{f}}}𝑑tV^{3q}`$ (12)
where now $`f[A]=W_{3q}f[A]/W_{3q}`$ and $`W_{3q}`$ is the Wilson loop correlator for three quarks

$`W_{3q}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}\epsilon _{a_1a_2a_3}\epsilon _{b_1b_2b_3}\left[\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left(ig{\displaystyle _{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1}}𝑑x^{\mu _1}A_{\mu _1}(x)\right)\right]^{a_1b_1}`$
$`\left[\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left(ig{\displaystyle _{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2}}𝑑x^{\mu _2}A_{\mu _2}(x)\right)\right]^{a_2b_2}\left[\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left(ig{\displaystyle _{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_3}}𝑑x^{\mu _3}A_{\mu _3}(x)\right)\right]^{a_3b_3}.`$ (13)
In (13) $`a_j,b_j`$ are color indices, $`j=1,2,3`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_j`$ denote the curve made by the world lines $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ for the quark $`j`$ joining $`y_j`$ to $`x_j`$, a straight line on the surface $`t=t_\mathrm{i}`$ merging from an arbitrary fixed point $`y_M`$ and arriving to $`y_j`$, another straight line on the surface $`t=t_\mathrm{f}`$ connecting the world line to a second fixed $`x_M`$.

A straightforward generalization of the arguments used in the quark-antiquark case suggests to write in place of (9) and (10)

$$i\mathrm{ln}W_{3q}=\frac{2}{3}g^2\underset{i<j}{}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}𝑑x_i^\mu _{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}𝑑x_j^\nu iD_{\mu \nu }(x_ix_j)+\sigma S_{\mathrm{min}}+\frac{1}{3}CP,$$
(14)
where the perturbative term is taken at the lowest order in $`\alpha _s`$ and now $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ denotes the minimum among all the surfaces made by three sheets having the curves $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_3`$ as contours and joining on a line $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$ connecting $`y_\mathrm{M}`$ with $`x_\mathrm{M}`$ (the minimum is understood at fixed $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_j`$ as the surfaces and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}`$ change ). Obviously, $`P`$ denotes the total length of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_3`$.

As in the $`q\overline{q}`$ case, up to the second order in the velocities $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ can be replaced by the surface spanned by the straight lines joining the point $`𝐳_M(t)`$ at the time $`t`$ with the equal time positions of the three quarks $`𝐳_1(t)`$, $`𝐳_2(t)`$ and $`𝐳_3(t)`$, $`𝐳_M(t)`$ being constructed according to the following rule: if no angle in the triangle made by $`𝐳_1(t)`$, $`𝐳_2(t)`$ and $`𝐳_3(t)`$ exceeds $`120^0`$ (configuration I), $`𝐳_M(t)`$ coincides with the point inside the triangle which sees the three sides under the same angle $`120^0`$; if one of the three angles in the triangle is $`120^0`$ (configuration II), $`𝐳_M(t)`$ coincides with the corresponding vertex, let us say $`𝐳_{\overline{j}}(t)`$.

The final result is of the form $`V^{3q}=V_{\mathrm{stat}}^{3q}+V_{\mathrm{sd}}^{3q}+V_{\mathrm{vd}}^{3q}`$, where $`V_{\mathrm{stat}}^{3q}=_{j<l}\left(\frac{2}{3}\frac{\alpha _s}{r_{jl}}\right)+\sigma (r_1+r_2+r_3)+C`$ (with $`𝐫_j=𝐳_j𝐳_M`$, $`𝐫_{jl}=𝐫_j𝐫_l𝐳_j𝐳_l`$), while $`V_{\mathrm{sd}}^{3q}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{vd}}^{3q}`$ are spin dependent and momentum depend expressions of order $`1/m^2`$ for which again I refer to \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\].

We observe also that the short range part in $`V^{3q}`$, coming from the first term in (14) is of a pure two body type: in fact it is identical to the electromagnetic potential among three equally charged particles but for the color group factor $`2/3`$.

The three sheet definition of $`S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ given above is suggested by a direct generalization of Wilson’s original argument for $`W_{q\overline{q}}`$, based on the lattice formulation. It is adopted by the majority of the authors and it is said to correspond to an $`Y`$ flux tube configuration. However an alternative possibility has also been considered \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\]. This consists in setting

$$S_{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{1}{2}\sigma (S_{12}+S_{23}+S_{31}),$$
(15)
where now $`S_{ij}`$ denotes the minimal surface delimited $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_j`$ and the factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ is introduced in order to reproduce the $`q\overline{q}`$ case when two quark world-lines collapse. Assumption (15) is said to correspond to a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ flux tube configuration. In this case even the long range part of the three quark potential is the sum of purely two body potential and one can write simply $`V_{3q}=\frac{1}{2}(V_{12}^{q\overline{q}}+V_{23}^{q\overline{q}}+V_{31}^{q\overline{q}}),`$ $`V_{ij}^{q\overline{q}}`$ being equal to the quark antiquark potential relative to the couple $`ij`$ as defined by (7).

If we restrict ourself to the linear rising part (the confining part) of the static potentials alone we can write for the two configurations

$`V_Y^{\mathrm{conf}}=\sigma (r_1+r_2+r_3),`$ (16)
$`V_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{conf}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma (r_{12}+r_{23}+r_{31}).`$ (17)
Then, simple geometrical considerations show that

$$V_Y^{\mathrm{conf}}V_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{conf}}\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}V_Y^{\mathrm{conf}},$$
(18)
where the equal sign in the first step holds when the three quarks are aligned, in the second one when they form an equilateral triangle; the second one being the situation in which the difference between the two expressions is maximal (note, however that $`\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}1.155`$). Until recently the various attempts to discriminate the two expressions by evaluating numerically $`\mathrm{ln}W_{3q}`$ for a static loop have been unsuccessful. Presently preliminary results obtained by Bali et al. \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\] for the equilateral arrangement are claimed to support $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ configuration. On the contrary the very accurate estimates reported by Matsufuru at this conference \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\] are definitely in favour of the $`Y`$ configuration. Indeed it seems that, due to the large errors occurring in the results reported in Ref. \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\] at the large distances, these can be reasonably reconciled with those of Ref. \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\] simply by an appropriate choice of the constant $`C`$ (private communication by Suganuma). If this were confirmed, the $`Y`$ configuration should be considered established.

## 4 Bethe-Salpeter and Dyson-Schwinger equation

Full relativistic bound state equations can be obtained along similar lines using a covariant representation for the solution of (5).

To this aim it is convenient to rewrite the “first order” propagator $`S(x,y;A)`$ in terms of a “second order” one

$$S(x,y;A)=(i\gamma ^\nu D_\nu +m)\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (x,y;A),$$
(19)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (x,y;A)`$ being defined by

$$(D_\mu D^\mu +m^2\frac{1}{2}g\sigma ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu })\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (x,y;A)=\delta ^4(xy),$$
(20)
with $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]`$.

After replacing (19) in (2), using an appropriate derivative it is possible to take the differential operator out of the angle brackets and write \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\]

$$G^{\mathrm{gi}}(x_1,x_2;y_1,y_2)=(i\gamma _1^\mu \overline{}_{1\mu }+m_1)(i\gamma _2^\nu \overline{}_{2\nu }+m_2)H^{\mathrm{gi}}(x_1,x_2;y_1,y_2);$$
(21)
a similar expression can be given for $`G^{\mathrm{gi}}(xy)`$, having set

$`H^{\mathrm{gi}}(x_1,x_2;y_1,y_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{C}U(x_2,x_1)\mathrm{\Delta }_1^\sigma (x_1,y_1;A)U(y_1,y_2)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2^\sigma (x_2,y_2;\stackrel{~}{A}),`$
$`H^{\mathrm{gi}}(xy)`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{C}U(y,x)\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (x,y;A).`$ (22)
For the second order propagator we have the Feynmann-Schwinger representation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma (x,y;A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle _y^x}𝒟z\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m^2+\dot{z}^2)]`$ (23)
$`𝒮_0^s\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}[ig{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑\tau \dot{z}^\mu A_\mu (z)],`$
where the world-line connecting $`y`$ to $`x`$ is specified in the four-dimensional language by $`z^\mu =z^\mu (\tau )`$, in terms of an additional parameter $`\tau `$, and $`𝒮_0^s=\mathrm{T}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4}_0^s𝑑\tau \sigma ^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta }{\delta S^{\mu \nu }(z)}\right]`$ and $`\delta S^{\mu \nu }=dz^\mu \delta z^\nu dz^\nu \delta z^\mu `$ (the functional derivative being defined through an arbitrary deformation, $`zz+\delta z`$, of the world-line).

Substituting (23) into (22), we obtain covariant path integral representations for $`H^{\mathrm{𝐠𝐢}}(x_1,x_2;y_1,y_2)`$ and $`H^{\mathrm{𝐠𝐢}}(xy)`$. These representations involve again the gauge field only trough the Wilson correlator $`W_{q\overline{q}}`$ for the four point function and a similar quantity $`W_q`$ for the two point function. $`W_q`$ is obtained replacing in (8) the loop $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q\overline{q}}`$ by a second loop made by the world-line connecting $`y`$ to $`x`$ closed by the appropriate Schwinger string \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\].

For the Wilson loop correlator we can make the ansatz (9 -11)in the center of mass system even in the relativistic case, after taking $`C=0`$ (since in a relativistic treatment the perimeter term can be completely reabsorbed in a mass renormalization). Notice that in such a case in general (11) is only an approximation, however, if rewritten in an appropriate way, it seems to be a significant one. In fact, beside to have the correct semi-relativistic limit,(11) becomes exact in important geometrical situations \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\] like those of a flat Wilson loop or of uniform rotatory motion.

From the above path integral representations and by an appropriate recurrence method, an inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation and a Dyson-Schwinger equation can be derived for two other second order functions
$`H(x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2)`$ and $`H(xy)`$, which are simply related to $`H^{\mathrm{gi}}(x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2)`$ and $`H^{\mathrm{gi}}(xy)`$, reduce to them in the limit of vanishing $`x_1x_2,y_1y_2`$ or $`xy`$ and are completely equivalent for what concerns the determination of bound states, effective masses, etc.

In the momentum space, the corresponding homogeneous BS-equation can be written (in a $`4\times 4`$ matrix representation)

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_P(k)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4u}{(2\pi )^4}\widehat{I}_{ab}(ku,\frac{1}{2}P+\frac{k+u}{2},\frac{1}{2}P\frac{k+u}{2})}`$ (24)
$`\widehat{H}_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P+k\right)\sigma ^a\mathrm{\Phi }_P(u)\sigma ^b\widehat{H}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P+k\right),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P(k)`$ denotes an appropriate wave function, $`\sigma ^0=1`$, $`a=0,\mu \nu `$ and the center of mass frame has to be understood (i.e. $`P=(m_B,\mathrm{𝟎})`$, $`m_B`$ being the bound state mass). Similarly, the DS-equation can be written also

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)=\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\widehat{I}_{ab}(kl;\frac{k+l}{2},\frac{k+l}{2})\sigma ^a\widehat{H}(l)\sigma ^b.$$
(25)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)`$ being the irreducible self-energy, defined by $`\widehat{H}(k)=\widehat{H}_0(k)+i\widehat{H}_0(k)\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)\widehat{H}(k)`$.

Notice that in principle (24) and (25) are exact equations. However the kernels $`\widehat{I}_{ab}`$ are generated in the form of an expansion in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ and the string tension $`\sigma `$. At the lowest order in both such constants, we have explicitly

$`\widehat{I}_{0;0}(Q;p,p^{})=16\pi {\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _\mathrm{s}p^\alpha p^\beta \widehat{D}_{\alpha \beta }(Q)+`$
$`+4\sigma {\displaystyle d^3\zeta e^{i𝐐\zeta }|\zeta |ϵ(p_0)ϵ(p_0^{})_0^1𝑑\lambda \{p_0^2p_0^2[\lambda p_0^{}𝐩_\mathrm{T}+(1\lambda )p_0𝐩_\mathrm{T}^{}]^2\}^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$
$`\widehat{I}_{\mu \nu ;0}(Q;p,p^{})=4\pi i{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\delta _\mu ^\alpha Q_\nu \delta _\nu ^\alpha Q_\mu )p_\beta ^{}\widehat{D}_{\alpha \beta }(Q)`$
$`\sigma {\displaystyle d^3\zeta e^{i𝐐\zeta }ϵ(p_0)\frac{\zeta _\mu p_\nu \zeta _\nu p_\mu }{|\zeta |\sqrt{p_0^2𝐩_\mathrm{T}^2}}p_0^{}}`$
$`\widehat{I}_{0;\rho \sigma }(Q;p,p^{})=4\pi i{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _\mathrm{s}p^\alpha (\delta _\rho ^\beta Q_\sigma \delta _\sigma ^\beta Q_\rho )\widehat{D}_{\alpha \beta }(Q)+`$
$`+\sigma {\displaystyle d^3\zeta e^{i𝐐\zeta }p_0\frac{\zeta _\rho p_\sigma ^{}\zeta _\sigma p_\rho ^{}}{|\zeta |\sqrt{p_0^2𝐩_\mathrm{T}^2}}ϵ(p_0^{})}`$
$`\widehat{I}_{\mu \nu ;\rho \sigma }(Q;p,p^{})=\pi {\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\delta _\mu ^\alpha Q_\nu \delta _\nu ^\alpha Q_\mu )(\delta _\rho ^\alpha Q_\sigma \delta _\sigma ^\alpha Q_\rho )\widehat{D}_{\alpha \beta }(Q)`$ (26)
where in the second and in the third equation $`\zeta _0=0`$ has to be understood.

## 5 Reduction of the BS equation and spectrum.

To find the $`q\overline{q}`$ spectrum, in principle one should solve first (25) and use the resulting propagator in (24). In practice this turns out to be a difficult task and one has to resort to the three dimensional equation which can be obtained from (24) by the so called instantaneous approximation. This consists in replacing $`\widehat{H}_j(p)`$ in (24) with the free quark propagator $`\frac{i}{p^2m_j^2}`$ and the kernel $`\widehat{I}_{ab}`$ with $`\widehat{I}_{ab}^{\mathrm{inst}}(𝐤,𝐤^{})`$ obtained from $`\widehat{I}_{ab}`$ setting $`k_0=k_0^{}=\frac{m_2}{m_1+m_2}\frac{w_1+w_1^{}}{2}\frac{m_1}{m_1+m_2}\frac{w_2+w_2^{}}{2}`$ with $`w_j=\sqrt{m_j^2+𝐤^2}`$ and $`w_j^{}=\sqrt{m_j^2+𝐤^2}`$.

The reduced equation takes the form of the eigenvalue equation for a squared mass operator, $`M^2=M_0^2+U,`$ with $`M_0=\sqrt{m_1^2+𝐤^2}+\sqrt{m_2^2+𝐤^2}`$ and

$$𝐤|U|𝐤^{}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\sqrt{\frac{w_1+w_2}{2w_1w_2}}\widehat{I}_{ab}^{\mathrm{inst}}(𝐤,𝐤^{})\sqrt{\frac{w_1^{}+w_2^{}}{2w_1^{}w_2^{}}}\sigma _1^a\sigma _2^b.$$
(27)
The quadratic form of the above equation obviously derives from the second order character of the formalism we have used.

Alternatively, in more usual terms, one can look for the eigenvalue of the mass operator or center of mass hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{CM}}M=M_0+V`$ with $`V`$ defined by $`M_0V+VM_0+V^2=U`$. Neglecting, consistently, the second order term $`V`$ can be obtained from $`U`$ simply by the kinematic replacement $`\sqrt{\frac{(w_1+w_2)(w_1^{}+w_2^{})}{w_1w_2w_1^{}w_2^{}}}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{w_1w_2w_1^{}w_2^{}}}`$.

In ref. \[$`^\mathrm{?}`$\] we have evaluated the spectrum using both the operator $`M^2`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{CM}}`$, including the hyperfine terms in the potentials but omitting the spin-orbit ones. The numerical procedure we have followed was very simple. It consisted in solving first the eigenvalue equation for the zero order hamiltonian $`H_0^{\mathrm{CM}}=M_0\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{r}+\sigma r`$ by the Rayleigh-Ritz method, using the three-dimensional harmonic oscillator basis and diagonalising a $`30\times 30`$ matrix. Then we have evaluated the quantities $`\psi _\nu |H_{\mathrm{CM}}|\psi _\nu `$ and $`\psi _\nu |M^2|\psi _\nu `$ for the eigenfunctions $`\psi _\nu `$ obtained in the first step. Since the quantity $`V^2`$ was not completely negligible (ranging e. g. between few tens and 150 MeV for $`c\overline{c}`$), we had to use slight different values of the adjustable parameters in the linear and in the quadratic formulation.

We have kept the light quark masses fixed in both cases on typical current values, $`m_u=m_s=10\mathrm{MeV},m_s=200\mathrm{MeV}`$. Then for the calculations based on $`H_{\mathrm{CM}}`$ we have assumed $`m_c=1.40\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_b=4.81\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}=0.363`$ and $`\sigma =0.175\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, taken essentially from the semi-relativistic fits. On the contrary for the calculations based on $`M^2`$ we have used a running coupling constant of the form

$$\alpha _\mathrm{s}(𝐐)=\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}\pi }{(\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝐍_\mathrm{f})\mathrm{ln}\frac{𝐐^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}}$$
(28)
cut at a maximum adjustable value $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(0)`$ and with $`N_\mathrm{f}=4`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=200\mathrm{MeV}`$. Furthermore we have chosen $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(0)=0.35`$ and $`\sigma =0.2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ in order to reproduce the correct $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\eta _c`$ separation and the Regge trajectory slope; $`m_c=1.394\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_b=4.763\mathrm{GeV}`$ in order to obtain exactly the masses of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

In both cases, on the whole, the agreement with the data is good, not only for bottonium and charmonium (as in ordinary potential models), but also for the light-light and light-heavy systems which are here essentially parameter free. Examples are reported in figs. 1 and 2. Circlet and dotted lines refer to the linear formulation, crosses and broken lines to the quadratic one. The only serious disagreement concerns the light pseudo-scalar mesons related to the chiral symmetry breaking problem. In fact in this case, as well known, a strict connection should exist between wave function in (24) and irreducible self energy in (25) and the use of the free propagator can not be correct.

## 6 References


format: text

text:
# Robust transitivity and topological mixing for 𝐶¹-flows

## 1. Statement of the Results

Throughout this paper $`M`$ denotes a compact $`d`$-dimensional boundaryless manifold, $`d3`$, and $`𝔛^r(M)`$ is the space of $`C^r`$ vector fields on $`M`$ endowed with the usual $`C^r`$ topology, where $`r1`$ . We shall prove that, generically (residually) in $`𝔛^r(M)`$, nontrivial homoclinic classes are topologically mixing. As a consequence, nontrivial $`C^1`$-robustly transitive sets (and $`C^1`$-robustly transitive flows in particular) become topologically mixing after arbitrarily small $`C^1`$-perturbations of the flow.

These results generalize the following theorem by Bowen \[B\]: non-trivial basic sets of $`C^r`$-generic Axiom A flows are topologically mixing. Note that $`C^1`$-robustly transitive sets are a natural generalization of hyperbolic basic sets; they are the subject of several recent papers, such as \[BD1\] and \[BDP\].

In order to announce precisely our results, let us introduce some notations and definitions.

Given $`t`$ and $`X𝔛^r(M)`$, we shall denote by $`X^t`$ the induced time $`t`$ map. A subset $``$ of $`𝔛^r(M)`$ is *residual* if it contains the intersection of a countable number of open dense subsets of $`𝔛^r(M)`$. Residual subsets of $`𝔛^r(M)`$ are dense. Given an open subset $`U`$ of $`𝔛^r(M)`$, then property (P) is *generic in $`U`$* if it holds for all flows in a residual subset $``$ of $`U`$; (P) is *generic* if it is generic in all of $`𝔛^r(M)`$.

A compact invariant set for $`X`$ is *non-trivial* if it is neither a periodic orbit nor a single point. A compact invariant set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`X`$ is *transitive* if it there is some point $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that the future orbit $`\{X^t(x):t>0\}`$ of $`x`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is *topologically mixing* for $`X`$ if given any nonempty open subsets $`U`$ and $`V`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ then there is some $`t_0>0`$ such that $`X^t(U)V\mathrm{}`$ for all $`tt_0`$. A non-trivial $`X`$-invariant transitive set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is *$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-isolated* if there is some open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`U\mathrm{\Omega }(X)=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is *isolated* if there is a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (called an *isolating block*) such that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\underset{t}{}X^t(U).$$

Given a hyperbolic closed orbit $`\gamma `$ of $`X`$, the *homoclinic class* of $`\gamma `$ relative to $`X`$ is given by

$$H_X(\gamma )=\overline{W^s(\gamma )W^u(\gamma )},$$

where $``$ denotes points of transverse intersection of the invariant manifolds. $`H_X(\gamma )`$ is a transitive compact $`X`$-invariant subset of the non-wandering set $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X)`$. Moreover, if $`\gamma `$ is a closed orbit of index $`i`$, then the set $`P_i(H_X(\gamma ))\{pH_X(\gamma )\text{Per}(X):p\text{ is hyperbolic with index }i\}`$ is dense in $`H_X(\gamma )`$. (See \[BDP\]). $`H_X(\gamma )`$ is not necessarily hyperbolic, but if $`X`$ is Axiom A then its basic sets are hyperbolic homoclinic classes. In the absence of ambiguity, we may write $`H(\gamma )`$ for $`H_X(\gamma )`$.

An *attractor* is a transitive set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`X`$ that admits a neighborhood $`U`$ such that

$$X^t(U)U\text{ for all }t>0\text{, and }\underset{t}{}X^t(U)=\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

A *repeller* is an attractor for $`X`$. Clearly any attractor or repeller is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-isolated.

An isolated $`X`$-invariant compact set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is *$`C^1`$-robustly transitive* if there is some open neighborhood $`𝒱`$ of $`X`$ in $`𝔛^1(M)`$ and some isolating block $`U`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that given any $`Y𝒱`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_Y\underset{t}{}Y_t(U)$$

is a compact transitive non-trivial set of $`Y`$.

Finally, a flow $`X`$ is *$`C^1`$-robustly transitive* if there is some open neighborhood $`𝒲`$ of $`X`$ in $`𝔛^1(M)`$ such that given any $`Y𝒲`$ then $`Y`$ is transitive.

Our main result is the following:

###### Theorem A.

There is a residual subset $``$ of $`𝔛^1(M)`$ such that if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an isolated non-trivial transitive set of $`X`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is topologically mixing for $`X`$.

Theorem A has the following immediate consequence for robustly transitive sets or flows:

###### Corollary A’.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a non-trivial robustly transitive set, with $`𝒱`$ and $`U`$ as in the definition above. Then there is some residual subset $``$ of $`𝒱`$ such that if $`Y`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Y`$ is topologically mixing for $`Y`$. In particular, given an open set $`𝒲𝔛^1(M)`$ of transitive flows, then there is some residual subset $``$ of $`𝒲`$ such that any $`Y`$ is topologically mixing.

Theorem A is very much a nonhyperbolic, $`C^1`$ version of Bowen’s aforementioned result. It is actually a consequence of the proof of the following result:

###### Theorem B.

Given any $`r`$, there is a residual subset $``$ of $`𝔛^r(M)`$ such that if $`Y`$ and $`H(\gamma )`$ is a non-trivial homoclinic class of $`Y`$, then $`H(\gamma )`$ is topologically mixing for $`Y`$.

Theorem B follows from general properties of homoclinic classes combined with simple topological arguments. All of the arguments in the proof of Theorem B hold in any $`C^r`$ topology with $`r1`$, whereas Theorem A requires the use of $`C^1`$-generic properties which are not known in finer topologies.

Pugh’s General Density Theorem \[Pu\] and Theorem B of \[BD2\] (which is stated for diffeomorphisms but holds for flows via the same arguments) imply that $`C^1`$-generically any $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-isolated transitive set coincides with some homoclinic class. Therefore Theorem B implies the following corollary:

###### Corollary B’.

There is a residual subset $``$ of $`𝔛^1(M)`$ such that if $`Y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a non-trivial transitive $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-isolated set of $`Y`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is topologically mixing for $`Y`$. In particular, $`C^1`$-generically any non-trivial attractor/repeller is topologically mixing.

Note that Corollary B’ generalizes the “mixing” aspect of \[MP\]. We remark that the dependence of our proofs on the ($`C^1`$) Closing and Connecting Lemmas means that extending our results (with the exception of Theorem B) to finer topologies is probably very difficult.

Of course, in general not every non-trivial homoclinic class is topologically mixing: the basic sets of suspensions of Axiom A diffeomorphisms, for example, are not mixing. One may therefore ask how large is the set of the flows that have a non-trivial homoclinic class which is *not* mixing. A partial answer to this question is given by:

###### Theorem C.

There exists a $`4`$-manifold $`M`$ and an open set $`𝒰𝔛^1(M)`$ such that each flow $`X`$ in a dense subset $`𝒟𝒰`$ has a non-trivial homoclinic class which is *not* topologically mixing for $`X`$.

Theorem C shows that the residual set $``$ of Theorem B is, in general, not open. The construction in Theorem C relies on the wild diffeomorphisms from \[BD2\] and \[BD3\].

On the other hand, robustly transitive flows have relatively tame dynamics. We pose the following:

###### Question.

Is the set of ($`C^1`$-)robustly topologically mixing flows dense in the set of robustly transitive flows?

In \[AA\] the first two authors prove analogues of Theorems A, B, and C for diffeomorphisms. In addition, a robustly transitive but non-mixing diffeomorphism is constructed.

The next section first lists some definitions and properties needed for the proofs and then sets out the proofs themselves.

## 2. The Proofs

Given a hyperbolic periodic point $`p`$, let $`\gamma =\gamma (p)`$ be its orbit and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_X(p)=\mathrm{\Pi }_X(\gamma )`$ be its period. Set also

$`W^s(p)`$ $`=\{xM:`$ $`d(X^t(x),\gamma (p))0\text{ as }t+\mathrm{}\},`$
$`W^{ss}(p)`$ $`=\{xM:`$ $`d(X^t(x),X^t(p))0\text{ as }t+\mathrm{}\}.`$
We define $`W^u(p)`$ and $`W^{uu}(p)`$ as the corresponding sets for $`X`$. Note that the set $`W^s(p)`$ is $`X^t`$-invariant for all $`t`$, whereas $`W^{ss}(p)`$ is $`X^t`$-invariant only for $`t\mathrm{\Pi }_X(p)`$. The *index* of $`\gamma `$ is the dimension of the stable manifold $`W^s(\gamma )=W^s(p)`$.

###### Lemma 1.

Given any $`r`$, there exists a residual subset $`_1`$ of $`𝔛^r(M)`$ such that if $`X_1`$ then given any distinct closed orbits $`\gamma `$, $`\gamma ^{}`$, we have that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_X(\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Pi }_X(\gamma ^{})}.$$

###### Proof.

For $`N`$, let $`A_N𝔛^r(M)`$ be the set of vector fields $`X`$ such that all singularities of $`X`$ are hyperbolic and all closed orbits with periods less than $`N`$ are hyperbolic. It follows from the standard proof of the Kupka–Smale theorem that the set $`A_N`$ is open and dense in $`𝔛^r(M)`$.

Now let $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, …be an enumeration of the positive rational numbers and let $`B_N𝔛^r(M)`$ be the set of vector fields $`XA_N`$ such that if $`\gamma `$, $`\gamma ^{}`$ are distinct closed orbits with periods less than $`N`$ then $`\mathrm{\Pi }_X(\gamma )/\mathrm{\Pi }_X(\gamma ^{})`$ does not belong to $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_N\}`$.

If $`XA_N`$ then the number of orbits with periods less that $`N`$ is finite. Moreover, each of these orbits has a continuation and the period varies continuously. It follows that the set $`B_N`$ is open.

Let us show that $`B_N`$ is also dense, so we can define $`_1=_NB_N`$. Given any $`X_0𝔛^1(M)`$, first approximate it by $`X_1A_N`$. Let $`\gamma _1`$, …, $`\gamma _k`$ be the $`X_1`$-orbits with periods less than $`N`$. Let $`\delta >0`$ be small enough such that the neighborhoods $`B(\gamma _i,\delta )`$ are disjoint. Take $`C^r`$ functions $`\psi _i:M[0,1]`$ such that $`\psi _i`$ equals $`1`$ in $`\gamma _i`$ and equals $`0`$ outside $`B(\gamma _i,\delta )`$. For $`s_+^k`$ close to $`0`$, let

$$Y_s=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1+s_i\psi _i)^1\right)X_1$$

Then $`Y_s`$ has the same orbits as $`X_1`$ and $`Y_s`$ converges to $`X_1`$ in the $`C^r`$ topology as $`s0`$. Moreover,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{Y_s}(\gamma _i)=(1+s_i)\mathrm{\Pi }_{X_1}(\gamma _i),$$

so we can find $`s_+^k`$ close to $`0`$ such that $`Y_sA_N`$ and the quotients $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{Y_s}(\gamma _i)/\mathrm{\Pi }_{Y_s}(\gamma _j)`$, $`ij`$, do not intersect $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_N\}`$. If $`\gamma `$ is another closed orbit of $`Y_s`$, then $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{Y_s}(\gamma )\mathrm{\Pi }_{X_1}(\gamma )N`$. This proves that $`Y_sB_N`$. ∎

We shall use the following simple fact, whose proof is omitted (it follows easily from the transitivity of the future orbits of irrational rotations of the circle):

###### Lemma 2.

Given numbers $`a>0`$, $`b>0`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$, with $`a/b`$ irrational, the set

$$\{ma+nb+s:m,n,|s|<\epsilon \}$$

contains an interval of the form $`[T,+\mathrm{})`$.

We may now prove Theorem B:

###### Proof of Theorem B.

Let $`_1𝔛^r(M)`$ be the residual set given by Lemma 1, and let $`H=H_X(\gamma _0)`$ be a non-trivial homoclinic class of some $`f_1`$. Take two nonempty open sets $`U`$, $`V`$ intersecting $`H`$. We shall prove that there exists $`t_0>0`$ such that $`X^t(U)V\mathrm{}`$ for every $`tt_0`$.

Let $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$ be distinct periodic orbits in $`H`$ with same index, such that $`\gamma U\mathrm{}`$ and $`\gamma ^{}V\mathrm{}`$. In order to simplify the notation, let $`a=\mathrm{\Pi }_X(\gamma )`$ and $`b=\mathrm{\Pi }_X(\gamma ^{})`$. Recall that $`a/b`$.

Take $`p\gamma U`$ and $`q\gamma ^{}V`$. Notice that $`W^u(p)W^s(q)`$ is non-empty. Fix a point $`y`$ in this intersection. There exists $`\tau _1>0`$ such that $`X^{\tau _1}(y)W^{uu}(p)`$ and, consequently, the sequence $`\{X^{(\tau _1ma)}(y)\}_m`$ is contained in $`W^{uu}(p)`$ and converges to $`p`$. Therefore we can find $`t_1>0`$ such that

$$X^{(t_1ma)}(y)U\text{ for every }m\text{.}$$

Analogously, there exist $`t_2>0`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$ such that

$$X^{(t_2+nb+s)}(y)V\text{ for every }m\text{ and }|s|<\epsilon \text{.}$$

Let $`T>0`$, depending on $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`\epsilon `$, be given by Lemma 2. Set $`t_0=t_1+t_2+T`$. Then, for any $`tt_0`$, there exist numbers $`m`$, $`n`$ and $`|s|<\epsilon `$ such that $`t=t_1+t_2+ma+nb+s`$. So $`X^t(U)V`$ contains the point $`X^{(t_2+nb+s)}(y)`$. This concludes the proof. ∎

Now we explain how Theorem A follows from Theorem B. We first need a couple of definitions:

###### Definition 1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a compact invariant set of $`X𝔛^1(M)`$. Then we set $`P_i(\mathrm{\Lambda })\{p\mathrm{\Lambda }:p\text{ is a hyperbolic periodic point of }X\text{ with index }i\}`$.

The next definition comes from \[BDP\]:

###### Definition 2.

Let $`p`$ be a periodic point of a flow $`X𝔛^1(M)`$ and $`U`$ be a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`M`$. Then the *homoclinic class of $`p`$ relative to $`U`$* is given by

$$\mathrm{𝐻𝑅}_X(p,U)\mathrm{cl}\{qH_X(p)\text{Per}(X):\text{the orbit }\gamma (q)\text{ is contained in }U\}.$$

It is easily seen that $`\mathrm{𝐻𝑅}_X(p,U)`$ is a compact transitive invariant set. Moreover, if $`\text{ind}(p)=i`$, then $`P_i(\mathrm{𝐻𝑅}_X(p,U))`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{𝐻𝑅}_X(p,U)`$.

We need the following lemma, which is a consequence of a theorem by Arnaud \[Ar\] together with an argument from \[BDP\]:

###### Lemma 3.

There is a residual subset $``$ of $`𝔛^1(M)`$ such that if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an isolated transitive set of $`X`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{𝐻𝑅}_X(p,U)`$ for some periodic point $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`_2`$ be as in Theorem 1 of \[Ar\] and let $`_3`$ be as in Theorem B of \[BD2\], and set $`_2_3`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be an isolated transitive set of $`X`$, with $`U`$ an isolating block of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ .

By Theorem 1 of \[Ar\], there is a sequence of periodic orbits $`\gamma _k`$ which converge to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the Hausdorff topology. The orbit $`\gamma _k`$ is contained in $`U`$ for $`k`$ sufficiently large. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the maximal invariant set of $`U`$, it follows that for large $`k`$ the orbit $`\gamma _k`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Since the sequence $`\{\gamma _k\}`$ converges to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the Hausdorff topology, the set of periodic points contained in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must be a dense subset of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Now, since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is transitive and has a dense subset of periodic points, we apply an argument from \[BDP\] which uses Theorem B of \[BD2\] to conclude that given any periodic point $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ then

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{𝐻𝑅}_X(p,U).$$

We are now ready to prove Theorem A:

###### Proof of Theorem A.

It is easy to see that the proof of Theorem B actually implies the following result:

###### Theorem D.

There is a residual subset $``$ of $`𝔛^1(M)`$ such that if $`Y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a non-trivial transitive set of $`Y`$ such that for some $`i\{1,\mathrm{},d1\}`$ the set $`P_i(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is topologically mixing for $`Y`$.

Now by Lemma 3 above we have that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ coincides with some relative homoclinic class $`\mathrm{𝐻𝑅}_X(p,U)`$. Let $`i`$ be the index of the periodic point $`p`$. Since $`P_i(\mathrm{𝐻𝑅}_X(p,U))`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{𝐻𝑅}_X(p,U)`$, we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem D above, and therefore that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a mixing set for $`X`$. ∎

At last, we give the:

###### Proof of Theorem C.

Let $`S`$ be a compact $`3`$-manifold and let $`\mathrm{Diff}^1(S)`$ be the set of $`C^1`$ diffeomorphisms of $`S`$ endowed with the $`C^1`$-topology. The key of the construction is the following result of Bonatti and Díaz (\[BD3, Theorem 3.2\]):  *There exist an open set $`𝒰_0\mathrm{Diff}^1(S)`$ and a dense subset $`𝒟_0𝒰_0`$ such that for every $`f𝒟_0`$ there are an open set $`BS`$ and an integer $`n`$ such that every $`xB`$ is a periodic point of $`f`$ of (prime) period $`n`$.*

Let $`f_0:SS`$ be a diffeomorphism from the set $`𝒟_0`$ above. Let $`X_0^t:MM`$ be the suspension flow. As usual, $`M`$ is the $`4`$-manifold obtained from $`S\times [0,1]`$ by gluing points $`(x,1)`$ and $`(f_0(x),0)`$. We will identify $`S`$ with the submanifold $`\{(x,0)M;xS\}`$ of $`M`$.

Let $`𝒰𝔛^1(M)`$ be a small neighborhood of $`X_0`$ such that every vector field $`X𝒰`$ is transverse to $`S`$ and, moreover, the first-return map $`f_X\mathrm{Diff}^1(S)`$ belongs to $`𝒰_0`$. For $`X𝒰`$, we let $`\tau _X:S_+`$ be the return-time map, which is a $`C^1`$-smooth function depending continuously (in the $`C^1`$ topology) on $`X𝒰`$.

We will omit the proof of the following:

###### Lemma 4.

For every $`X𝒰`$ and every neighborhood $`𝒱X`$, if $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is a small perturbation of $`f_X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ is a small perturbation of $`\tau _X`$ then there is $`\stackrel{~}{X}𝒱`$ such that $`f_{\stackrel{~}{X}}=\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`\tau _{\stackrel{~}{X}}=\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$.

Now let $`X_1𝒰`$. We shall prove that there exists $`X_4`$ arbitrarily close to $`X_1`$ which has a non-trivial homoclinic class which is not topologically mixing.

Let $`f_1=f_{X_1}`$, and $`\tau _1=\tau _{X_1}`$. Take $`f_2𝒟_0`$ close to $`f_1`$. Since $`f_2𝒟_0`$, there is a ball $`BS`$ of points that are $`f_2`$-periodic, of period $`n`$. Let $`\tau _1^n:S_+`$ be defined by $`\tau _1^n=_{j=0}^{n1}\tau _1f_1^j`$.

Using a chart, we identify $`B`$ with a ball $`B(0,r)^3`$, in such a way that the kernel of the differential $`D\tau _1^n(0)`$ contains the plane $`xy`$.

Let $`f_3\mathrm{Diff}^1(S)`$ be a perturbation of $`f_2`$ such that:

* $`f_3`$ equals $`f_2`$ outside $`_{j=0}^{n1}f_2^j(B)`$;
* there exists a ball $`B_1=B(0,r_1)`$, with $`0<r_1<r`$, such that $`f_3^n(B_1)=B_1`$;
* $`f_3^n`$ restricted to $`B_1`$ is a orthogonal rotation (indicated by $`R`$) of angle $`2\pi /m`$, where $`m`$, along the axis $`y`$.

It is easy to construct a map $`\tau _3:S`$ $`C^1`$ close to $`\tau _1`$, such that $`\tau _3^n=_{j=0}^{n1}\tau _3f_3^j`$ is an affine map in a smaller ball $`B_2`$ around $`0`$ and such that $`D\tau _3^n(0)=D\tau _1^n(0)`$. That is, if $`xB_2`$ then $`\tau _3^n(x)=\tau _3^n(0)+D\tau _3^n(0)x`$.

Using Lemma 4, we find a flow $`X_3`$ close to $`X_1`$ and such that $`f_{X_3}=f_3`$ and $`\tau _{X_3}=\tau _3`$.

Let $`xB_2\{0\}`$. Its successive returns to $`B_1`$ under the flow $`X_3`$ are $`R(x)`$,…,$`R^{m1}(x)`$, $`R^m(x)=x`$. In particular, $`x`$ is a periodic point. Summing the respective return times we get that the period of $`x`$ is $`_{j=0}^{m1}\tau _3^n(R^j(x))=m\tau _3^n(0)`$, since $`_{j=0}^{m1}R^j(x)`$ belongs to the $`y`$ axis. That is, all points in $`B_2\{0\}`$ are periodic under $`X_3`$ of (prime) period $`m\tau _3^n(0)`$.

Let $`B_3B_2`$ be a ball (not centered in $`0`$) such that cl $`B_3`$, cl $`R(B_3)`$,…, cl $`R^{m1}(B_3)`$ are pairwise disjoint.

Choose now some $`f_4:SS`$ which is $`C^1`$ close to $`f_3`$ and such that:

* $`f_4`$ equals $`f_3`$ outside $`B_3`$;
* $`f_4^{nm}`$ restricted to $`B_3`$ has a non-trivial homoclinic class (say, a solenoid attractor).

Let also $`\tau _4:S_+`$ be given by $`\tau _4=\tau _3f_3^1f_4`$. Then $`\tau _4`$ is $`C^1`$ close to $`\tau _3`$. Using Lemma 4 again, we obtain $`X_4`$ $`C^1`$ close to $`X_3`$ such that $`f_{X_4}=f_4`$ and $`\tau _{X_4}=\tau _4`$. The return time of a point $`xB_3`$ to $`B_3`$ under $`X_4`$ is $`\tau _4^{nm}(x)=\tau _3^{nm}(f_3^1f_4(x))`$, which independs of $`x`$ (where, as usual, we let $`\tau _4^{nm}=_{j=0}^{nm1}\tau _4f_4^j`$ and $`\tau _3^{nm}=_{j=0}^{nm1}\tau _3f_3^j`$). Therefore $`X_4^t`$ has a non-trivial homoclinic class which is not topologically mixing. ∎

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the referee for his detailed report and for pointing out to us that our proof of Theorem B was not restricted to the $`C^1`$ topology.

Flavio Abdenur (flavio@impa.br)

IMPA

Estr. D. Castorina 110

22460-320 Rio de Janeiro – Brazil.

Artur Avila (avila@impa.br)

Collège de France

3 rue d’Ulm

75005 Paris – France.

Jairo Bochi (bochi@impa.br)

IMPA

Estr. D. Castorina 110

22460-320 Rio de Janeiro – Brazil.


text:
# Influence of the finite duration of the measurement on the quantum Zeno effect

## 1 Introduction

The quantum Zeno effect is a consequence of the influence of the measurements on the evolution of a quantum system. In quantum mechanics the short-time behavior of the non-decay probability of unstable particle is not exponential but quadratic . This deviation from the exponential decay has been observed experimentally . In 1977, Mishra and Sudarshan  showed that this behavior when combined with the quantum theory of measurement, based on the assumption of the collapse of the wave function, led to a very surprising conclusion: frequent observations slowed down the decay. They modeled the continuous observation of the system by a succession of the instantaneous measurements with free evolution of the system between the measurements.

Cook  suggested an experiment on the quantum Zeno effect that was realized by Itano et al. . In this experiment a repeatedly measured two-level system undergoing Rabi oscillations has been used. The outcome of this experiment has also been explained without the collapse hypothesis . Recently, an experiment similar to Ref.  has been performed by Balzer et al. . The quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno effects have been experimentally observed in Ref.

In the analysis of the quantum Zeno effect the finite duration of the measurement becomes important. In Ref.  a simple model that allows us to take into account the finite duration and finite accuracy of the measurement has been developed. However, in Ref.  it has been analyzed the case when there are no free evolution between the measurements. In this article we obtain the corrections to the jump probability due to the finite duration of the measurement with the free evolution between the measurements.

We proceed as follows: In Sec. 2 we present the model of the measurement. Sec. 3 is devoted to the derivation of the formula for the probability of the jump into another level during the measurement of the frequently measured perturbed system. In Sec. 4 the evolution of the measured two-level system is analysed as an example of the application of our model. Sec. 5 summarizes our findings.

## 2 Model of the measurements

We consider a system which consists of two parts. The first part of the system has the discrete energy spectrum. The Hamiltonian of this part is $`\widehat{H}_0`$. The other part of the system is represented by Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_1`$. Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_1`$ commutes with $`\widehat{H}_0`$. In a particular case the second part may be absent and $`\widehat{H}_1`$ may be zero. The operator $`\widehat{V}(t)`$ causes the jumps between the different energy levels of $`\widehat{H}_0`$. Therefore, the full Hamiltonian of the system equals to $`\widehat{H}_S=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_1+\widehat{V}(t)`$. An example of such a system is an atom with the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$ interacting with the electromagnetic field, represented by $`\widehat{H}_1`$.

We will measure in which eigenstate of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$ the system is. The measurement is performed by coupling the system with the detector. The full Hamiltonian of the system and the detector equals to

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_\mathrm{S}+\widehat{H}_\mathrm{D}+\widehat{H}_\mathrm{I},$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{D}`$ is the Hamiltonian of the detector and $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{I}`$ represents the interaction between the detector and the system. We choose the operator $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{I}`$ in the form

$$\widehat{H}_\mathrm{I}=\lambda \widehat{q}\widehat{H}_0,$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{q}`$ is the operator acting in the Hilbert space of the detector and the parameter $`\lambda `$ describes the strength of the interaction. This system–detector interaction is considered by von Neumann  and in Refs. . In order to obtain a sensible measurement, the parameter $`\lambda `$ must be large. We require a continuous spectrum of operator $`\widehat{q}`$. For simplicity, we can consider the quantity $`q`$ as the coordinate of the detector.

The measurement begins at time moment $`t_0`$. At the beginning of the interaction with the detector, the detector is in the pure state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The full density matrix of the system and detector is $`\widehat{\rho }(t_0)=\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}(t_0)|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|`$ where $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}(t_0)`$ is the density matrix of the system. The duration of the measurement is $`\tau `$. After the measurement the density matrix of the system is $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}(\tau +t_0)=Tr_\mathrm{D}\{\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}(\tau ,t_0)(\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}(t_0)|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|)\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}^{}(\tau ,t_0)\}`$ where $`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}(t,t_0)`$ is the evolution operator of the system and detector, obeying the equation

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}(t,t_0)=\widehat{H}(t+t_0)\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}(t,t_0)$$
(3)
with the initial condition $`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}(0,t_0)=1`$. Further, for simplicity we will neglect the Hamiltonian of the detector (as in Ref. ). Then the evolution operator $`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}`$ obeys the equation

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}(t,t_0)=\left((1+\lambda \widehat{q})\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_1+\widehat{V}(t+t_0)\right)\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}(t,t_0).$$
(4)
After the measurement the system is left for the measurement-free evolution for time $`T\tau `$. The density matrix becomes $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}(T+t_0)=\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}(T\tau ,\tau +t_0)\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}(\tau +t_0)\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}^{}(T\tau ,\tau +t_0)\}`$, where $`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}(t,t_0)`$ is the evolution operator of the system only, obeying the equation

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}(t,t_0)=\widehat{H}_\mathrm{S}(t+t_0)\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}(t,t_0)$$
(5)
with the initial condition $`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}(0,t_0)=1`$.

The measurements of the duration $`\tau `$ with a subsequent free evolution for the time $`T\tau `$ are repeated many times with the measurement period $`T`$. Such a process was considered by the Mishra and Sudarshan  and realized in the experiments .

## 3 Jump probability

We will calculate the probability of the jump from the initial to the final state during the measurement and subsequent measurement-free evolution. The jumps are induced by the operator $`\widehat{V}(t)`$ that represents the perturbation of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_1`$. We will take into account the influence of the operator $`\widehat{V}`$ by the perturbation method, assuming that the durations of the measurement $`\tau `$ and of the free evolution $`T\tau `$ are small.

The operator $`\widehat{V}(t)`$ in the interaction picture during the measurement is

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{M}(t,t_0)=\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}^{(0)}(t)\widehat{V}(t+t_0)\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}^{(0)}(t),$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}^{(0)}(t)`$ is the evolution operator of the system and the detector (1) without the perturbation $`\widehat{V}`$

$$\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}^{(0)}(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_1+\widehat{H}_\mathrm{I})t\right).$$
(7)
The evolution operator $`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}(\tau ,t_0)`$ in the second order approximation equals to

$`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}(\tau ,t_0)`$ $``$ $`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}^{(0)}(\tau )(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^\tau }t\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{M}(t,t_0)`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\tau }t_1{\displaystyle _0^t}t_2\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{M}(t_1,t_0)\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{M}(t_2,t_0)).`$
The operator $`\widehat{V}(t)`$ in the interaction picture during the free evolution is

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{F}(t,t_0)=\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}^{(0)}(t)\widehat{V}(t+t_0)\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}^{(0)}(t),$$
(9)
where $`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}^{(0)}(t)`$ is the evolution operator of the system without the perturbation $`\widehat{V}`$, i.e.,

$$\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}^{(0)}(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_1)t\right).$$
(10)
The evolution operator $`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}(t,t_0)`$ in the second order approximation equals to

$`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}(t,t_0)`$ $``$ $`\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}^{(0)}(t)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^t}t_1\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{F}(t_1,t_0)`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}t_1{\displaystyle _0^t}t_2\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{F}(t_1,t_0)\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{F}(t_2,t_0)).`$
We can choose the basis $`|n\alpha `$ common for the operators $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}_1`$,

$`\widehat{H}_0|n\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`E_n|n\alpha ,`$ (12)
$`\widehat{H}_1|n\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`E_1(n,\alpha )|n\alpha ,`$ (13)
where $`n`$ numbers the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\alpha `$ represents the remaining quantum numbers.

The probability of the jump from the level $`|i\alpha `$ to the level $`|f\alpha _1`$ is

$`W(i\alpha f\alpha _1)`$ $`=`$ $`Tr_\mathrm{D}\{f\alpha _1|\widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}(T\tau )\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}(\tau )(|i\alpha i\alpha ||\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|)`$ (14)
$`\times \widehat{U}_\mathrm{F}^{}(T\tau )\widehat{U}_\mathrm{M}^{}(\tau )|f\alpha _1\}.`$
In the second-order approximation we obtain the expression for the jump probability $`W(i\alpha f\alpha _1)`$. The jump probability consists from three parts.

$$W(i\alpha f\alpha _1)=W_\mathrm{F}(i\alpha f\alpha _1)+W_\mathrm{M}(i\alpha f\alpha _1)+W_{\mathrm{Int}}(i\alpha f\alpha _1),$$
(15)
where $`W_\mathrm{F}`$ is the probability of the jump during the free evolution, $`W_\mathrm{M}`$ is the probability of the jump during the measurement and $`W_{\mathrm{Int}}`$ is an interference term. The expressions for these probabilities are (see Refs.  for the analogy of the derivation)

$`W_\mathrm{F}(i\alpha f\alpha _1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{T\tau }}t_1{\displaystyle _0^{T\tau }}t_2V(t_1+t_0+\tau )_{f\alpha _1,i\alpha }V(t_2+t_0+\tau )_{i\alpha ,f\alpha _1}`$ (16)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\omega _{f\alpha _1,i\alpha }(t_1t_2)),`$
$`W_\mathrm{M}(i\alpha f\alpha _1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\tau }t_1{\displaystyle _0^\tau }t_2V(t_1+t_0)_{f\alpha _1,i\alpha }V(t_2+t_0)_{i\alpha ,f\alpha _1}`$ (17)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\omega _{f\alpha _1,i\alpha }(t_1t_2))F(\lambda \omega _{fi}(t_1t_2)),`$
$`W_{\mathrm{Int}}(i\alpha f\alpha _1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}^2}}Re{\displaystyle _0^\tau }t_1{\displaystyle _\tau ^T}t_2V(t_1+t_0)_{f\alpha _1,i\alpha }V(t_2+t_0)_{i\alpha ,f\alpha _1}`$ (18)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\omega _{f\alpha _1,i\alpha }(t_1t_2))F(\lambda \omega _{if}(\tau t_1)),`$
where

$`\omega _{fi}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}(E_fE_i),`$ (19)
$`\omega _{f\alpha _1,i\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{fi}+{\displaystyle \frac{E_1(f,\alpha _1)E_1(i,\alpha )}{\mathrm{}}},`$ (20)
$`F(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}x\widehat{q})|\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (21)
The probability to remain for the system in the initial state $`|i\alpha `$ is

$$W(i\alpha )=1\underset{f,\alpha _1}{}W(i\alpha f\alpha _1).$$
(22)
After $`N`$ measurements the probability for the system to survive in the initial state is equal to $`W(i\alpha )^N\mathrm{exp}(RNT)`$, where $`R`$ is the measurement-modified decay rate

$$R=\underset{f,\alpha _1}{}\frac{1}{T}W(i\alpha f\alpha _1)$$
(23)
## 4 Example

As an example we will consider the evolution of the measured two-level system. The system is forced by the periodic of the frequency $`\omega _L`$ perturbation $`V(t)`$ which induces the jumps from one state to another. Such a system was used in the experiment by Itano et al . The Hamiltonian of this system is

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{V}(t)$$
(24)
where

$`\widehat{H}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\widehat{\sigma }_3,`$ (25)
$`\widehat{V}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(v\widehat{\sigma }_++v^{}\widehat{\sigma }_{})\mathrm{cos}(\omega _\mathrm{L}t).`$ (26)
Here $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3`$ are Pauli matrices and $`\sigma _\pm =\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1\pm i\sigma _2)`$. The Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$ has two eigenfunctions $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ with the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{}\frac{\omega }{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{}\frac{\omega }{2}`$ respectively.

Using Eqs. (16), (17) and (18) for the jump from the state $`|0`$ to the state $`|1`$ we obtain

$`W_\mathrm{F}(01)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|v|^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }{2}(T\tau )\right)}{(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )^2}},`$ (27)
$`W_\mathrm{M}(01)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|v|^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}Re{\displaystyle _0^\tau }F(\lambda \omega t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega t)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\tau }}\right)t,`$ (28)
$`W_{\mathrm{Int}}(01)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|v|^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}}Re{\displaystyle _0^\tau }t_1{\displaystyle _\tau ^T}t_2\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega (t_1t_2))F(\lambda \omega (t_1\tau )),`$ (29)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =\omega \omega _\mathrm{L}`$ is the detuning . Equation (28) has been obtained in Ref. .

When $`\lambda `$ is large, the function $`F`$ varies rapidly and we can approximate expressions (28) and (29) as

$`W_\mathrm{M}(01)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{|v|^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$ (30)
$`W_{\mathrm{Int}}(01)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|v|^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega \mathrm{\Delta }\omega }}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega (T\tau ))`$ (31)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda /C`$, $`C`$ is the width of the function $`F`$, defined by the equation (see Ref. )

$$C=\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}F(x)x$$
(32)
If $`T\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega T1`$ then we obtain

$$W(01)=\frac{|v|^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{T^2}{4}+\frac{|v|^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{T}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega }\tau \right).$$
(33)
From Eq. (33) we see that the jump probability for the non-ideal measurement consists of two terms. The first term equals to the jump probability when the measurement is instantaneous, the second term represents the correction due to the finite duration of the measurement. In Ref.  it has been shown that the duration of the measurement can be estimated as

$$\tau \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega }.$$
(34)
From Eq. (33) we see that the correction term is small, since the duration of the measurement $`\tau `$ is almost compensated by the term $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega `$.

## 5 Conclusion

The quantum Zeno effect is often analysed using the succession of the instantaneous measurements with free evolution of the measured system between the measurements. We analyze here the measurements with finite duration, instead. We apply the model of the measurement, developed in Ref. . The equations for the jump probability (15)-(18) are obtained. Applying the equations to the measured two-level system we obtain a simple expression for the probability of the jump from one level to the other (33). The influence of the finite duration of the measurement is expressed as the small correction.

I wish to thank Prof. B. Kaulakys for his suggestion of the problem, stimulating discussions and critical remarks.