text:
# Entropy and Wigner Functions

## Abstract

The properties of an alternative definition of quantum entropy, based on Wigner functions, are discussed. Such definition emerges naturally from the Wigner representation of quantum mechanics, and can easily quantify the amount of entanglement of a quantum state. It is shown that smoothing of the Wigner function induces an increase in entropy. This fact is used to derive some simple rules to construct positive definite probability distributions which are also admissible Wigner functions.

1Laboratoire de Physique des Milieux Ionisés, Université Henri Poincaré,
BP239, 54506 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France

2Subatech, Ecole des Mines de Nantes, BP 20722, 44307 Nantes Cedex 3, France

Electronic address : giovanni.manfredi@lpmi.uhp-nancy.fr

PACS : 03.65.-w, 05.30.-d

I. Introduction

Entropy is the central concept of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. It was introduced by Clausius in the mid-19th century as a phenomenological variable that quantifies the intrinsic irreversibilty of thermodynamical processes. It was Boltzmann who recognized the link between entropy and the lack of information about a system, defined as the number $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of microstates which have the same macroscopic properties. The celebrated formula

$$S_\mathrm{B}=k_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(1)
establishes such a link in a mathematically rigorous manner (in the rest of this article we shall use units for which $`k_\mathrm{B}=1`$: with this prescription, entropy becomes a dimensionless quantity). Boltzmann, of course, derived this formula in the context of classical statistical mechanics. In classical physics, microstates are defined as points in a continuous $`2D`$-dimensional phase space ($`D`$ is the number of degrees of freedom of the system under consideration), and cannot be ”counted” in any meaningful sense. Therefore, Boltzmann took as the number $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of microstates the available volume in phase space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ divided by the volume of a unit cell (unspecified at the time when Boltzmann published his work, but which will turn out to be Planck’s constant,raised to the appropriate power, $`h^D`$): $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }/h^D`$. In quantum mechanics, a microstate is described by a wave function, which contains all the information about the state of the system. In contrast to the classical case, now there is no ambiguity, since quantum states are discrete in principle. Hence, although the macrostate has a huge number of possible microstates consistent with it, this number, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is nevertheless definite and finite.

The most general quantum system is described by a density matrix, i.e. a positive-definite, Hermitian operator, with unit trace. In terms of the density matrix $`\rho `$, the entropy can be expressed in the following way, due to Von Neumann

$$S_{\mathrm{VN}}=\mathrm{Tr}\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho .$$
(2)
This is the standard definition of entropy, which generalizes Boltzmann’s expression to quantum mechanics. Although unambiguously defined, however, $`S_{\mathrm{VN}}`$ can be extremely difficult to compute in practice, since one would need to diagonalize $`\rho `$ in order to compute the trace of its logarithm. Von Neumann’s entropy (VN) has a number of good properties, which will be detailed in the following sections. Here we note that, if $`\alpha _i0`$ are the eigenvalues of the density matrix ($`_i\alpha _i=1`$), the VN entropy becomes $`S_{\mathrm{VN}}=_i\alpha _i\mathrm{ln}\alpha _i`$. Therefore $`S_{\mathrm{VN}}0`$, and the equality holds only if we have complete information, i.e. if only one of the eigenvalues is different from zero: in this case, the system is in the pure state corresponding to this eigenvalue. Another crucial property of $`S_{\mathrm{VN}}`$ is that it is conserved as $`\rho `$ evolves according to the quantum Liouville equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\rho }{t}=H\rho \rho H,$$
(3)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian. Indeed, the trace of any functional $`F`$ of the density matrix $`\mathrm{Tr}F(\rho )`$ is also conserved. This fact can be used to define other entropy-like quantities. Not all this quantities are equivalent, however, and we will show in the following section that only one of them is particularly adapted to the Wigner representation of quantum mechanics.

The classical limit of the Von Neumann entropy, Eq. (2), is obtained by replacing the density matrix with the phase space probability distribution $`f(x,p)`$ (for simplicity, we will consider systems with only one degree of freedom, $`D=1`$), and the trace with the integral in phase space. One obtains the following expression, due to Gibbs

$$S_{\mathrm{CL}}=f\mathrm{ln}(fh)𝑑x𝑑p,$$
(4)
and the probability distribution is positive and normalized to unity. Note that the classical entropy is defined up to an additive constant, which means that the constant $`h`$ in the argument of the logarithm in Eq. (4) can be chosen arbitrarily, although it seems reasonable to use Planck’s constant $`h=2\pi \mathrm{}`$. Indeed, if $`f`$ is constant inside a certain phase space volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and zero elsewhere (i.e. at thermodynamic equilibrium), then $`S_{\mathrm{CL}}=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Omega }/h)`$, in agreement with Boltzmann’s original definition, Eq. (1). We also stress that $`S_{\mathrm{CL}}`$ can take negative values, in contrast with $`S_{\mathrm{VN}}`$, which is always non-negative. From the previous discussion, it is easy to conclude that $`S_{\mathrm{CL}}`$ will be negative when $`\mathrm{\Omega }<h`$. This means that we are trying to localize a particle on a phase space region smaller than Planck’s constant, and therefore violate the uncertainty principle. For probability distributions that satisfy the uncertainty principle, the classical entropy is positive. Similarly to the quantum mechanical case, the classical entropy is conserved for a Hamiltonian process, i.e. when the probability distribution evolves according to the classical Liouville equation. Again, the phase space integral of any functional $`F(f)`$ is also conserved (indeed, $`f`$ itself is conserved, since it is just transported along the classical trajectories).

In this paper, we discuss the properties of an alternative definition of quantum entropy, based on Wigner functions. Although this entropy has already been known for some time (generally expressed in terms of the density matrix), we feel that its properties are not fully appreciated. In particular, it will be shown that such a definition of entropy emerges naturally from the Wigner representation of quantum mechanics. It has therefore a privileged status compared to the many other definitions proposed in the literature, and deserves to be studied in some depth.

The Wigner representation  is a useful tool to express quantum mechanics in a phase space formalism (for reviews see ). Although it was derived by Wigner for technical purposes, this approach has recently attracted much interest, since it is well-suited to analyze the transition from classical to quantum dynamics. The Wigner representation can deal with both pure and mixed quantum states, and is completely equivalent to the more usual picture based on the density matrix. In this representation, a quantum state is described by a Wigner function (i.e. a function of the phase space variables $``$ see next Section), and the Wigner equation provides an evolution equation for the state which is equivalent to the quantum Liouville equation (3). It will be shown that, if one tries to define an entropy functional in the framework of Wigner’s representation, only one ‘reasonable’ choice is possible, and this is discussed in the next Section. Subsequently, we will discuss the properties of such an entropy (Sec. III), and present some examples of its applications in Secs. IV and V.

II. Quantum Entropy

The quantum distribution function $`W(x,p)`$ is defined in terms of the density matrix $`\rho (x,y)`$ for a quantum mixed state

$$W(x,p)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\rho (x\frac{\lambda }{2},x+\frac{\lambda }{2})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ip\lambda }{\mathrm{}}\right)𝑑\lambda ,$$
(5)
or in terms of the wavefunction $`\psi (x)`$ for a pure state

$$W(x,p)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\psi \left(x\frac{\lambda }{2}\right)\psi ^{}\left(x+\frac{\lambda }{2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ip\lambda }{\mathrm{}}\right)𝑑\lambda .$$
(6)
The function $`W(x,p)`$ possesses many of the properties of a phase space probability distribution: it is real, normalized to unity, and, when integrated over $`x`$ or $`p`$, gives the correct marginal distribution, e.g. $`W𝑑p=\rho (x,x)=`$ spatial density. Furthermore, it can be used to compute averages of any dynamical variable $`A(x,p)`$ : $`A=WA𝑑x𝑑p`$. Note however that, since some terms in $`A(x,p)`$ may not commute, it is necessary to establish a non-ambiguous correspondence between classical variables and quantum operators (Weyl’s rule) . Despite these good properties, the Wigner function cannot be interpreted as a probability distribution, since it can assume negative values. The only pure state whose Wigner function is positive definite is given by the minimum uncertainty packet (i.e. a Gaussian wavefunction).

The evolution of $`W(x,p,t)`$ is governed by the Wigner equation, which replaces the classical Liouville equation :

$$\frac{W}{t}+\frac{p}{m}\frac{W}{x}=\frac{i}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }\left(x\frac{z}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(x+\frac{z}{2}\right)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(pp^{})z\right)W(x,p^{},t)𝑑z𝑑p^{},$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ is the potential. The Wigner equation is equivalent to the quantum Liouville equation (3), and can describe the evolution of both pure states and mixtures. However, in the present work, we shall privilege the Wigner formalism over the density matrix one, since it is easier to represent in the classical phase space, and it allows a more staightforward treatment of the semi-classical limit.

We would like to define an entropy functional in terms of Wigner functions. The classical choice, Eq. (4), obviously cannot work, since $`W`$ can assume negative values. It is easy to show the existence of two simple functionals of $`W`$ that are invariant under Eq. (7): the first is the total probability $`W𝑑x𝑑p=1`$; the second invariant is $`W^2𝑑x𝑑p`$, which has no obvious physical meaning. We stress that this is a property of Eq. (7), and does not depend on whether $`W`$ represents a pure state, a mixture, or even a state which violates the uncertainty principle. However, the fact that the latter expression is indeed invariant, suggests that we introduce the following definition of entropy

$$S_2=1(2\pi \mathrm{})^DW^2𝑑x𝑑p,$$
(8)
where $`D`$ is the number of degrees of freedom: except where otherwise stated, we will always work with systems for which $`D=1`$.

The $`S_2`$ entropy can be expressed in terms of the density matrix $`\rho `$

$$S_2=1\mathrm{Tr}\rho ^2,$$
(9)
a result which follows from the fact that $`W`$ is related to the Fourier transform of $`\rho `$. Equation (9) has been used in the literature as an entropy-like quantity , and sometimes referred to as the linear entropy. Its relevance to Wigner functions has been noticed by some authors , but its full implications have not, to our knowledge, been appreciated and developed. We first notice that this is the only expression of entropy having the same functional form when expressed in terms of either $`W`$ or $`\rho `$ (for example, $`W^4`$ is not simply related to $`\mathrm{Tr}\rho ^4`$). Secondly, and most importantly, the very structure of Wigner’s equation selects the functional $`S_2`$ as a special candidate for a definition of entropy. It is therefore important to study its properties and implications.

When $`W`$ is an admissible Wigner function (i.e. when it represents either a pure or a mixed quantum state), the previous entropy satisfies the relation $`0S_21`$, and $`S_2=0`$ holds for a pure state, which is a reasonable result, since pure states contain the maximum information available. Indeed, it is possible to define quantum information as the complement of $`S_2`$ to unity, $`I=1S_2`$. Note that $`S_2`$ can become negative only for states that violate the uncertainty principle, as it will be explained in Sec. III. We point out that $`S_2=0`$ is a necessary, but definitely not sufficient condition for the corresponding Wigner function to represent a pure state . This can be shown by finding a counter-example. Let us define the Wigner function as $`W=_{i=1}^3\alpha _iW_i`$, where the $`W_i`$ are orthogonal pure states, and $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2=2/3`$, $`\alpha _3=1/3`$. Even though the coefficients $`\alpha _i`$ sum up to unity, $`W`$ does not represent an admissible Wigner function, since one of the coefficients (which represent probabilities) is negative. However, it is simple to prove that $`S_2[W]=0`$. Incidentally, this example has shown the existence of phase space functions which represent neither pure states nor mixtures. This point will be discussed in more detail in the next Section.

This entropy is related to a formula proposed by Tsallis , which has stimulated much work in the last decade (see, for example,  and references therein). If $`\{\alpha _i\}`$ is a set of probabilities adding up to unity, Tsallis entropy is defined by

$$S_q=\frac{1_i\alpha _i^q}{q1},$$
(10)
where $`q`$ is a real, not necessarily positive, number, and the standard entropy is recovered for $`q1`$. Tsallis entropy is a possible, and indeed useful, way to generalize the Boltzmann-Von Neumann expression, and has been employed by several authors to study the thermodynamics of strongly correlated systems, such as self-gravitating gases and inviscid fluids .

Equation (8), is the continuous counterpart of the discrete Tsallis entropy with $`q=2`$. The continuous formula can be recovered by the following heuristic argument. Let us cover the phase space with cells of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p`$. The discrete probabilities are then $`\alpha _i=W(x_i,p_i)\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p`$, and the discrete entropy becomes

$$S_2=1\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p\underset{i}{}W^2(x_i,p_i)\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p.$$
(11)
The sum in Eq. (11) gives the integral $`W^2𝑑x𝑑p`$. However, we cannot let the factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ in front of the sum go to zero, since this would violate the uncertainty relation. Indeed, we obtain the correct continuous formula \[Eq. (8) with $`D=1`$\] by taking for $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ the smallest value allowed by quantum mechanics, i.e. Planck’s constant $`h=2\pi \mathrm{}`$.

Another way to go from the continuous to the discrete formula, is to consider a Wigner function that is the sum of $`N`$ orthogonal pure states $`W(x,p)=_{i=1}^N\alpha _iW_i(x,p)`$. Of course $`W`$ represents a quantum mixture. We recall the following useful relation, valid for orthogonal pure states:

$$W_iW_j𝑑x𝑑p=\delta _{ij}/2\pi \mathrm{},$$
(12)
where $`\delta _{ij}`$ is the Kronecker delta. By developing $`W`$ in terms of the $`W_i`$ in Eq. (8), and making use of Eq. (12), we obtain Tsallis discrete entropy $`S_2=1_{i=1}^N\alpha _i^2`$. We stress again that the above properties are valid for the quadratic entropy $`S_2`$, but do not hold for other functionals involving higher powers of $`W`$.

It is interesting to show that a local entropy $`\sigma `$ and an entropy flux $`J_S`$ can also be defined:

$$\sigma (x,t)=W𝑑p2\pi \mathrm{}W^2𝑑p,J_S(x,t)=\frac{p}{m}W𝑑p2\pi \mathrm{}\frac{p}{m}W^2𝑑p.$$
(13)
Of course one has $`S_2=\sigma 𝑑x`$. By multiplying Eq. (7) by $`W`$ and integrating over momentum space, one can prove that the local entropy obeys a continuity equation :

$$\frac{\sigma }{t}+\frac{J_S}{x}=0,$$
(14)
which shows that entropy can be transfered from one spatial location to another, but is globally conserved. The physical meaning of $`\sigma `$ is easier to grasp if we express it in terms of the density matrix in the position representation. With the help of Eq. (5) one finds (we drop the time dependence)

$$\sigma (x)=\rho (x,x)\rho (x\lambda /2,x+\lambda /2)^2𝑑\lambda .$$
(15)
Equation (15) shows that entropy is closely related to the off-diagonal terms of the density matrix. For a pure state, $`\rho (x,y)=\psi (x)\psi ^{}(y)`$ ($`\psi `$ is the wavefunction), and the local entropy can be expressed in terms of the spatial density $`n(x)=|\psi (x)|^2=\rho (x,x)`$

$$\sigma (x)=n(x)n\left(x\frac{\lambda }{2}\right)n\left(x+\frac{\lambda }{2}\right)𝑑\lambda n(x)\iota (x),$$
(16)
where we have defined the local quantum information $`\iota (x)`$ so that $`I=\iota 𝑑x`$. It appears that $`\iota (x)`$ is a density autocorrelation function, which shows that, in quantum mechanics, information and spatial correlations are intimately close concepts.

III. Properties of Quantum Entropy

The expression given in Eq. (8) has proven to be a fruitful tool to quantify some key properties of quantum systems, such as nonlocal correlations. In order to be an appropriate definition of entropy it should nevertheless satisfy some standard properties , among which concavity and additivity are particularly fundamental. Some of these properties were previously studied by Tsallis  for the discrete case.

1. Concavity. This means that, if $`W=_{i=1}^N\alpha _iW_i`$ (where the $`W_i`$ are not necessarily pure orthogonal states), then the following inequality holds

$$S_2[W]\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _iS_2[W_i].$$
(17)
The proof is obtained by direct calculation for $`N=2`$, and then is easily extended to higher $`N`$ by recursive arguments.

Note that we can also prove an upper bound for $`S_2`$

$$S_2[W]\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _i^2S_2[W_i]+1\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _i^2,$$
(18)
which holds for $`W_i`$ representing both pure states or mixtures. The term $`1_i\alpha _i^2`$ represent the so-called mixing entropy. The proof of Eq. (18) relies on the following inequality

$$W_iW_j𝑑x𝑑p0,$$
(19)
which is valid for all admissible Wigner functions, pure or mixed states (see Sec. IV for a definition of admissibility). When the $`W_i`$ represent pure states, then $`S_2[W_i]=0`$, and Eq. (18) becomes

$$S_2[W]1\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\alpha _i^2.$$
(20)
The equality sign holds when the $`W_i`$ are also orthogonal, as was shown in Sec. II.

2. Additivity. Let us consider two independent subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$. The Wigner function $`W`$ describing the total system $`AB`$ is simply given by the product of the Wigner functions $`W_A`$ and $`W_B`$ for the two subsystems

$$W(x_A,p_A,x_B,p_B)=W_A(x_A,p_A)W_B(x_B,p_B).$$
(21)
It is easy to show that both the classical entropy, Eq. (4), and the Von Neumann entropy, Eq. (2), are additive , i.e. $`S[W]=S[W_A]+S[W_B]`$. This is a key property, since it enables one to identify the statistical entropy with the thermodynamical entropy, which is also additive.

By contrast, our definition of entropy is not additive in the usual sense. Let us first notice that, whereas the number of degrees of freedom of each subsystem is $`D=1`$, the total system has $`D=2`$. Therefore the information is defined as $`I[W_{A,B}]=hW_{A,B}^2`$ for each subsystem, and $`I[W]=h^2W^2`$ for the total system. With this in mind, it is easy to establish the following expression for the quantum information

$$I[W]=I[W_A]I[W_B],$$
(22)
which shows that, since $`I<1`$, the information contained in the total system is smaller than the information of each subsystem, except for pure states, for which $`I=1`$. In terms of the entropy $`S_2=1I`$, Eq. (22) becomes

$$S_2[W]=S_2[W_A]+S_2[W_B]S_2[W_A]S_2[W_B].$$
(23)
The total entropy is therefore smaller than the sum of the partial entropies, but larger than each of them. Note that when the subsystems are ”almost pure” quantum states, then $`S_2[W_{A,B}]1`$, and the non-additive correction to Eq. (23) becomes of higher order. In this case, approximate additivity is recovered.

It is also interesting to note that Eq. (23) is formally identical to the expression for the probability of the union of two subsets $`A`$ and $`B`$, which reads

$$prob(AB)=prob(A)+prob(B)prob(AB),$$
(24)
and $`prob(AB)=prob(A)prob(B)`$ for statistically independent systems. The analogy of $`S_2`$ as probability is also consistent with the normalization $`0S_21`$.

3. Subadditivity. If the subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$ are not independent, the Wigner function cannot be factored as in Eq. (21). The Wigner function of each subsystem is then defined by integrating over the other system’s variables, for instance

$$W_A(x_A,p_A)=W(x_A,p_A,x_B,p_B)𝑑x_B𝑑p_B,$$
(25)
and similarly for $`W_B`$. For the Boltzmann-Von Neumann entropy, one can prove that $`S[W]S[W_A]+S[W_B]`$, and the equality sign holds when the two subsystems are independent . This means that the total system $`AB`$ contains more information than the sum of its parts $``$ which is natural, since the two subsystems are correlated. However, no such relation can be proven for $`S_2`$ : this entropy is therefore not subadditive. Note that this fact is consistent with the analogy of $`S_2`$ as probability given by Eq. (24). Indeed, when the subsets $`A`$ and $`B`$ are not independent, the probability of their intersection $`prob(AB)`$ can be either smaller or larger than the product $`prob(A)prob(B)`$, corresponding to either negative or positive correlation.

4. Microcanonical Ensemble. We want to extremize the entropy $`S_2`$ with the constraint $`W𝑑x𝑑p=1`$. Using Lagrange multipliers, it is easy to show that the entropy is maximum when $`W=\mathrm{const}.=\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$ within a phase space region of volume (area) equal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`W=0`$ elsewhere. In this case the entropy is

$$S_2=1\frac{h}{\mathrm{\Omega }},(h=2\pi \mathrm{}).$$
(26)
This is the analog of Boltzmann’s formula, Eq. (1), when the appropriate additive constant is used, i.e. $`S_\mathrm{B}=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Omega }/h)`$. For both expressions, $`S=0`$ when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=h`$ (minimum uncertainty), and the entropy becomes negative when $`\mathrm{\Omega }<h`$, i.e. when the uncertainty relation is violated. In limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$, $`S_2`$ is bounded, and tends to unity (least information). With this notation, information $`I=1S_2`$ is just the inverse of the number of available microstates $`\mathrm{\Omega }/h`$.

5. Canonical Ensemble. We now extremize $`S_2`$ with the constraints $`W𝑑x𝑑p=1`$ and $`WE𝑑x𝑑p=U`$, where $`E(x,p)=p^2/2m+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$, and $`U`$ is the average energy. Again using Lagrange multipliers, we find the following equilibrium distribution

$$\begin{array}{cc}W_{\mathrm{eq}}(x,p)=Z^1[1\beta E(x,p)],\hfill & \beta E<1\hfill \\ W_{\mathrm{eq}}(x,p)=0,\hfill & \beta E1\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
where $`\beta `$ is the Lagrange multiplier corresponding to the energy constraint, and can be interpreted in the usual fashion as the inverse temperature $`\beta =1/T`$; $`Z`$ is a normalization constant. For energies such that $`\beta E1`$, Eq. (27) becomes identical with the standard exponential Boltzmann factor $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta E)`$. Since $`W_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is a linear function of the energy, we have been forced to introduce a cut-off, otherwise $`W_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ would diverge for large values of $`E`$. Physically, this means that states with energy $`E>T`$ are forbidden at equilibrium. Note the difference with standard thermodynamics, where such states are highly improbable (because Boltzmann’s factor decreases exponentially), but not forbidden in principle.

An interesting fact is that Eq. (27) is a stationary solution of the Wigner equation (7) $``$ indeed, we are aware of no other stationary solution which is also a function of the energy $`E(x,p)`$ alone. This is easy to prove when the right-hand side of Eq. (7) is written as

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n\frac{^{2n+1}\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^{2n+1}}\frac{^{2n+1}W}{p^{2n+1}},$$

where the $`c_n`$ are constants. The $`n=0`$ term yields the classical part of Wigner’s equation, whereas all other terms do not provide any contribution, since $`W_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is quadratic in $`p`$. Moreover, since $`W_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is a function of the energy alone, it is a stationary solution of the classical Liouville equation, so that we have finally $`W_{\mathrm{eq}}/t=0`$. The fact that maximizing the entropy $`S_2`$ naturally yields a Wigner function which is both stationary and a function of the energy alone is in itself remarkable. At the present stage, it is premature to make any statement about the role of $`W_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, but the subject certainly deserves further attention. For example, it would be interesting to know if, and under what constraints, $`W_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ can act as an attractor in a relaxation process.

IV. Smoothed Wigner Functions

The Wigner function cannot be interpreted as a genuine probability distribution because it almost always takes negative values. The only pure state whose Wigner function is positive is given by the minimum uncertainty Gaussian wavepacket :

$$\psi (x)=(2\pi )^{1/4}\sigma ^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(x^2/4\sigma ^2),$$
(28)
whose Wigner function is also Gaussian

$$G(x,p)=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x^2}{2\sigma ^2}\frac{2p^2\sigma ^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right).$$
(29)
A possible way to obtain a positive distribution is to smooth a pure Wigner function $`W(x,p)`$ using a kernel $`K(x,p)`$ which is itself a Wigner function correponding to a pure state . The smoothing operation is represented mathematically by a convolution in phase space. The smoothed Wigner function $`\overline{W}(x,p)`$

$$\overline{W}(x,p)=W(x^{},p^{})K(xx^{},pp^{})𝑑x^{}𝑑p^{}WK,$$
(30)
is then positive and normalized to unity, so that it can be interpreted as a probability distribution.

In the past, the most common choice of the smoothing kernel has been the minimum uncertainty Gaussian $`G(x,p)`$, as given in Eq. (29) . The resulting smoothed Wigner function is sometimes referred to as the Husimi function. This choice is however quite arbitrary, and no argument has ever been proposed, to our knowledge, in order to justify its privileged status. We shall now prove that smoothing with a Gaussian kernel does have some special properties, and should therefore be regarded as the correct way to obtain positive smoothed Wigner functions. In particular, it will be shown that, when the smoothing is performed with a Gaussian kernel, the result is still an admissible Wigner function.

First of all, we need a precise definition of an admissible Wigner function. Of course, not all functions of the phase space variables are admissible: for example, those functions which violate the uncertainty principle are clearly not admissible. Functions that can be constructed by summing orthogonal pure states, such as $`W=_i\alpha _iW_i`$, are not admissible if some of the $`\alpha _i`$ are negative : this was the example analyzed in Sec. IV. Our definition of an admissible Wigner function is rather standard , and is based on the density matrix formalism. According to standard quantum theory, a density matrix $`\rho `$ must satisfy three properties in order to describe a quantum mixed state : (1) it must have unit trace $`\mathrm{Tr}\rho =1`$; (2) it must be Hermitian $`\rho (x,y)=\rho ^{}(y,x)`$; and (3) its eigenvalues must be non-negative. While the first two properties are easy to verify, the third is much harder to test, since one would need to diagonalize $`\rho `$ in order to compute its eigenvalues. Property (3) can also be expressed in the following way :

$$\psi (x)\rho (x,y)\psi ^{}(y)𝑑x𝑑y0,\psi ,$$
(31)
where the inequality must hold for all wavefunctions $`\psi `$. This makes it even more apparent that Property (3) cannot be used as an operational test.

Now, the previous properties can be transposed to Wigner functions by making use of the definition, Eq. (5). In particular we would like to know whether the smoothed Wigner function $`\overline{W}`$ is in general admissible or not. Properties (1) and (2) simply require that $`\overline{W}`$ be real and normalized to unity. Property (3) can be written in the following form

$$\overline{W}(x,p)F(x,p)𝑑x𝑑p0,F(x,p)=\mathrm{pure}\mathrm{state}.$$
(32)
The equivalence between Eqs. (31) and (32) can be verified by noting that $`\overline{W}`$ and $`F`$ are the Wigner transform of, respectively, $`\rho `$ and $`\psi `$, as defined in Eqs. (5-6). It is clear that, in order to check the admissibilty of $`\overline{W}(x,p)`$, one should perform an infinite number of integrals involving test Wigner functions $`F(x,p)`$ that represent pure states. However, Eq. (32) can be used to prove that smoothing with a Gaussian kernel yields a smoothed Wigner function which is itself admissible.

In order to do so, let us plug Eq. (30) into the left hand-side of Eq. (32). We obtain ($`W`$ is the original Wigner function, $`K`$ is the smoothing kernel, and $`F`$ is the test function: all three represent pure states)

$$\begin{array}{cc}W(xx^{},pp^{})F(x,p)K(x^{},p^{})𝑑x^{}𝑑p^{}𝑑x𝑑p\hfill & \\ =K(x^{},p^{})𝑑x^{}𝑑p^{}W_1(xx^{},pp^{})F(x,p)𝑑x𝑑p\hfill & \\ =K(x^{},p^{})[W_1F](x^{},p^{})𝑑x^{}𝑑p^{},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(33)
where $`W_1(x,p)=W(x,p)`$ is the Wigner function corresponding to the wavefunction $`\psi (x)`$ \[whereas $`W`$ corresponds to $`\psi (x)`$\]. The term $`W_1F`$ is certainly a positive function, since it is the convolution product of two Wigner functions. It follows that a sufficient condition for Eq. (32) to be satisfied is that $`K(x,p)`$ be positive. But the only pure state Wigner function which is also positive is the Gaussian $`G(x,p)`$ \[Eq. (29)\]. This proves that, when the smoothing kernel is Gaussian, the inequality given in Eq. (32) is verified, and the smoothed Wigner function $`\overline{W}(x,p)`$ is therefore admissible. In this case, the density matrix $`\overline{\rho }`$ corresponding to $`\overline{W}`$ can be written as

$$\overline{\rho }(x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma }W(q,p)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(xq)^2}{4\sigma ^2}+\frac{ipx}{\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(yq)^2}{4\sigma ^2}\frac{ipy}{\mathrm{}}\right)𝑑q𝑑p.$$
(34)
The previous result can be easily checked by computing the Wigner function $`\overline{W}`$ associated to $`\overline{\rho }`$ via Eq. (5), and realizing that it can be written as $`\overline{W}=WG`$. Equation (34) expresses the density matrix as a continuous sum of localized states in phase space (‘coherent states’ ). Note that the coefficients in this sum \[i.e. $`W(x,p)`$ itself\] are not necessarily positive numbers. The reason for this is that the set of coherent states is ‘overcomplete’, meaning that the representation of an arbitrary quantum state in terms of coherent states is not unique. However, thanks to the previous theorem, we know that a diagonal representation of $`\overline{\rho }`$ with non-negative coefficients does exist, although we are not generally able to construct it explicitly.

So far we have proven that smoothing with a Gaussian kernel yields a function $`\overline{W}`$ which is itself an admissible Wigner function. Nothing definite can be said when the smoothing is performed using a different kernel. However, we are able to produce a counterexample, i.e. a pure state Wigner function which, after smoothing with a non-Gaussian kernel, does not satisfy Eq. (32), and is therefore not admissible. Let us consider the wavefunction

$$\psi (x)=2(2/\pi )^{1/4}x\mathrm{exp}(x^2),$$
(35)
and call $`W(x,p)`$ its Wigner transform. Now we smooth $`W`$ using as kernel $`W`$ itself:

$$\overline{W}=WW.$$
(36)
In order to be an admissible Wigner function, $`\overline{W}`$ must satisfy Eq. (32) for every test function $`F`$. Let us use as test function once again $`W`$ itself, and compute the integral in Eq. (32). We obtain (details are in the Appendix)

$$\overline{W}(x,p)W(x,p)𝑑x𝑑p=\frac{1}{27\pi \mathrm{}}<0.$$
(37)
This result shows that not all ways of smoothing Wigner functions are equivalent: only by smoothing with a Gaussian kernel we are certain to obtain a function which is positive and also represents an admissible quantum state (i.e. a state defined by a density matrix with real non-negative eigenvalues).

Furthermore, Eq. (33) suggests another way to construct a phase space distribution which is both positive and admissible \[satisfying Eq. (32)\]. Let us take for $`W(x,p)`$ an arbitrary positive function of phase space variables, and smooth it with a Gaussian kernel $`G(x,p)`$: $`\overline{W}=WG`$. We want to prove that $`\overline{W}`$ is admissible. Equation (32) yields (using the fact that $`G`$ is even)

$$\begin{array}{cc}W(xx^{},pp^{})F(x,p)G(x^{},p^{})𝑑x^{}𝑑p^{}𝑑x𝑑p\hfill & \\ =W(x^{},p^{})𝑑x^{}𝑑p^{}G(x^{}x,p^{}p)F(x,p)𝑑x𝑑p\hfill & \\ =W(x^{},p^{})[GF](x^{},p^{})𝑑x^{}𝑑p^{}>0.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(38)
The result follows from the fact that the convolution product is positive, since both $`F`$ and $`G`$ are pure state Wigner functions, and $`W>0`$ because we chose it to be so. This proves that $`\overline{W}(x,p)`$ is an admissible Wigner function, and is also positive, since it is the convolution product of two positive functions. The density matrix corresponding to $`\overline{W}`$ is again $`\overline{\rho }`$, as given by Eq. (34). Physically, the smoothed function $`\overline{W}=WG`$ can be interpreted as the admissible quantum state which best approximates the classical state $`W`$ for a given value of $`\mathrm{}`$.

To conclude this Section, we restate the two main results that have been obtained here. We have shown two possible ways to construct a phase space distribution which is both positive and an admissible quantum state. This can be performed (a) by smoothing a pure state Wigner function with a Gaussian kernel, or (b) by smoothing an arbitrary (but positive) function of phase space variables, again with a Gaussian kernel. Therefore, the Gaussian function $`G(x,p)`$ given in Eq. (29) has a privileged status as a smoothing kernel. Note, however, that $`G`$ is not unique, since it depends on the parameter $`\sigma `$.

Although such results were derived for a pure state Wigner function, they can easily be generalized to mixtures. It follows that, when smoothing several times with a Gaussian kernel, we still remain within the class of admissible Wigner functions. This class is therefore closed with respect to this particular operation.

V. Entropy and Smoothed Wigner Functions

The smoothing operation has the effect of erasing some of the correlations in the phase space. We expect therefore that smoothing should increase the entropy. This is not difficult to prove. In order to do this, we need to define the double Fourier transform of a Wigner function $`W(x,p)`$

$$W(k,\lambda )=W(x,p)\mathrm{exp}(ikxi\lambda p)𝑑x𝑑p.$$
(39)
By means of Eqs. (6) and (39), one obtains for a pure state

$$W(k,\lambda )=\psi \left(x\frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{2}\right)\psi ^{}\left(x+\frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{2}\right)\mathrm{exp}(ikx)𝑑x.$$
(40)
We can then easily prove the following Lemma

$$|W(k,\lambda )|^2\psi \left(x\frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{2}\right)𝑑x^2\psi ^{}\left(x+\frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{2}\right)𝑑x^2=1,$$
(41)
where use has been made of Schwartz’s inequality.

Now, let us take an arbitrary Wigner function $`W(x,p)`$ and smooth it with a kernel $`K(x,p)`$ which is a pure state: $`\overline{W}(x,p)=W(x,p)K(x,p)`$. In Fourier space we have : $`\overline{W}(k,\lambda )=W(k,\lambda )K(k,\lambda )`$. The quantum information $`I[\overline{W}]=2\pi \mathrm{}\overline{W}^2𝑑x𝑑p`$ relative to $`\overline{W}`$ satisfies the inequalities

$$\begin{array}{cc}I[\overline{W}]=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }|\overline{W}(k,\lambda )|^2𝑑k𝑑\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }|W(k,\lambda )|^2|K(k,\lambda )|^2𝑑k𝑑\lambda \hfill & \\ \mathrm{max}|K(k,\lambda )|^2\times \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }|W(k,\lambda )|^2𝑑k𝑑\lambda \hfill & \\ =\mathrm{max}|K(k,\lambda )|^2\times 2\pi \mathrm{}W^2𝑑x𝑑p2\pi \mathrm{}W^2𝑑x𝑑p=I[W],\hfill & \end{array}$$
(42)
where we have used the previous Lemma \[Eq. (41)\] for $`K`$, as well as Parseval’s identity in the form

$$W^2(x,p)𝑑x𝑑p=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}|W(k,\lambda )|^2𝑑k𝑑\lambda .$$
(43)
Equation (42) implies that

$$S_2[\overline{W}]S_2[W],$$
(44)
i.e. the smoothing operation has increased the entropy. Note that, in order to obtain this result, the smoothing kernel needs not be a Gaussian.

Now we turn to the case where the smoothing kernel is indeed Gaussian. In this case, a relatively simple expression for $`I[\overline{W}]`$ can be obtained. The double Fourier transform of the Gaussian defined in Eq. (29) is

$$G(k,\lambda )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{k^2\sigma ^2}{2}\frac{\lambda ^2\mathrm{}^2}{8\sigma ^2}\right).$$
(45)
The Fourier transform of the Wigner function $`W`$ to be smoothed is given by Eq. (40). Let us compute the information :

$$I[\overline{W}]=2\pi \mathrm{}\overline{W}^2𝑑x𝑑p=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }|W(k,\lambda )|^2|G(k,\lambda )|^2𝑑k𝑑\lambda .$$
(46)
Expressing $`W`$ and $`G`$ by means of Eqs. (40),(45) one obtains, after some algebra

$$I[\overline{W}]=\frac{1}{2\sigma \sqrt{\pi }}\psi (x\frac{\lambda }{2})\psi ^{}(x+\frac{\lambda }{2})\psi (x^{}+\frac{\lambda }{2})\times $$

$$\psi ^{}\left(x^{}\frac{\lambda }{2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2+(xx^{})^2}{4\sigma ^2}\right)dxdx^{}d\lambda .$$
(47)
We now change the integration variables, using the following unitary transformation

$$\begin{array}{cc}x=\hfill & \frac{1}{2}w+\frac{1}{2}y+\frac{1}{2}z\hfill \\ x^{}=\hfill & \frac{1}{2}w\frac{1}{2}y\frac{1}{2}z\hfill \\ \lambda =\hfill & y+z.\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
After some algebra, the following result is obtained

$$I[\overline{W}]=\frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{\pi }}𝑑w\psi (w+y)\psi (wy)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{y^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right)𝑑y^2,$$
(49)
which expresses the quantum information in terms of the wavefunction $`\psi `$ corresponding to the unsmoothed Wigner function $`W`$. Equation (49) may be usefully employed to monitor the time evolution of the entropy in a numerical simulation: $`\psi (x,t)`$ would then evolve according to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation.

Finally, we show that a more stringent bound than the one expressed by Eq. (44) can be obtained when the smoothing kernel is Gaussian. By using again Schwartz’s inequality, we have from Eq. (49)

$$I[\overline{W}]\frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{\pi }}𝑑w𝑑y\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{y^2}{\sigma ^2}\right)𝑑y^{}\psi (w+y^{})\psi (wy^{})^2$$

$$=𝑑w𝑑y^{}\psi (w+y^{})\psi (wy^{})^2=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(50)
In terms of the entropy, this becomes

$$S_2[\overline{W}]\frac{1}{2},$$
(51)
a result that is valid when smoothing a pure Wigner function with a Gaussian kernel. Note that we still have some freedom in the choice of the kernel, since the width $`\sigma `$ of the Gaussian in Eq. (29) is still unspecified. It would be interesting, for example, to know which value of $`\sigma `$ minimizes the entropy $`S_2[\overline{W}]`$, within the bounds given by Eq. (51). We have not been able to obtain a general result, but some indication can be obtained from the following example. Let us suppose that the function $`W`$ to be smoothed is also a Gaussian, as in Eq. (29), but with spatial variance $`\mu `$ instead of $`\sigma `$. The smoothed Wigner function is then

$$\overline{W}(x,p)=WG=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_x\mathrm{\Sigma }_p}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x^2}{2\mathrm{\Sigma }_x^2}\frac{p^2}{2\mathrm{\Sigma }_p^2}\right),$$
(52)
with

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_x^2=\sigma ^2+\mu ^2;\mathrm{\Sigma }_p^2=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma ^2}+\frac{1}{\mu ^2}\right).$$

The information corresponding to $`\overline{W}`$ is

$$I[\overline{W}]=2\pi \mathrm{}\overline{W}^2𝑑x𝑑p=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{\Sigma }_x\mathrm{\Sigma }_p}.$$
(53)
After some algebra, one obtains the following expression

$$I[\overline{W}]=I(z)=\frac{z}{1+z^2},$$
(54)
where $`z=\sigma /\mu `$. The function $`I(z)`$ attains its maximum for $`z=1`$, i.e. when $`\sigma =\mu `$, and the kernel has the same variance as the Wigner function to be smoothed. In this case, $`S_2[\overline{W}]=1/2`$, which represents the lower bound of Eq. (51). We could conjecture, although we do not have a formal proof, that this is the general result : the minimum entropy increase due to smoothing with a Gaussian kernel is attained when the width of the kernel is close to the width of the function to be smoothed.

Another interesting example is provided by the harmonic oscillator, whose Hamiltonian is

$$H(x,p)=\frac{p^2}{2m}+m\omega ^2\frac{x^2}{2}.$$
(55)
The eigenstates can be expressed in terms of Hermite polynomials $`H_n(\xi )`$ ($`H_0=1,H_1=2\xi ,H_2=4\xi ^22,\mathrm{}`$)

$$\psi _n(x)=(2^nn!)^{1/2}\left(\frac{m\omega }{\mathrm{}\pi }\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m\omega x^2}{2\mathrm{}}\right)H_n(x\sqrt{m\omega /\mathrm{}}).$$
(56)
The corresponding Wigner functions are

$$W_n(x,p)=\frac{(1)^n}{\pi \mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2H}{\mathrm{}\omega }\right)L_n\left(\frac{4H}{\mathrm{}\omega }\right),$$
(57)
where $`H(x,p)`$ is the Hamiltonian, and the $`L_n(\xi )`$ are Legendre polynomials ($`L_0=1,L_1=1\xi ,L_2=12\xi +\xi ^2/2,\mathrm{}`$). We now smooth such Wigner functions with a Gaussian kernel, and find

$$\overline{W}_n(x,p)=(2\pi \mathrm{}n!)^1(H/\mathrm{}\omega )^n\mathrm{exp}(H/\mathrm{}\omega ).$$
(58)
Note that this relatively simple result for $`\overline{W}_n`$ is obtained only in the case when the square variance of the smoothing kernel \[see Eq. (29)\] is $`\sigma ^2=\mathrm{}/2m\omega `$; in all other cases the smoothed Wigner function is not a function of the energy only. We are now in a position to compute the information $`I[\overline{W}_n]\overline{I}_n=2\pi \mathrm{}\overline{W}_n^2𝑑x𝑑p`$. Let us first change to polar coordinates $`(r,\theta )`$ in the phase space

$$\frac{p^2}{m}+m\omega ^2x^2=\mathrm{}\omega r^2,dxdp=\mathrm{}rdrd\theta .$$
(59)
One obtains, after integration over $`\theta `$

$$\overline{I}_n=(n!)^2_0^{\mathrm{}}(r^2/2)^{2n}\mathrm{exp}(r^2)r𝑑r,$$
(60)
and finally, changing variable again $`z=r^2/2`$

$$\overline{I}_n=(n!)^2_0^{\mathrm{}}z^{2n}\mathrm{exp}(2z)𝑑z=\frac{(2n)!}{2^{2n+1}(n!)^2}.$$
(61)
We first note that $`\overline{I}_0=1/2`$, in agreement with previous results, since the ground state of the harmonic oscillator is a Gaussian, and we are smoothing with another Gaussian of identical width. It can also be shown that $`\overline{I}_n`$ is a decreasing function of $`n`$. The asymptotic expansion (for $`n1`$) is obtained by taking the logarithm of Eq. (61) and making use of Stirling’s formula

$$\mathrm{ln}X!X\mathrm{ln}XX+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}X(X1),$$

which yields

$$\overline{I}_nn^{1/2}.$$
(62)
In terms of the entropy, we have in summary

$$\begin{array}{cc}S_2[\overline{W}_0]=1/2\hfill & \\ S_2[\overline{W}_{n+1}]>S_2[\overline{W}_n]\hfill & \\ lim_n\mathrm{}S_2[\overline{W}_n]=1.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(63)
The latter results means that the entropy increase is larger when smoothing a semi-classical state. Asymptotically, the entropy of the smoothed Wigner function approaches unity. On the other hand, when smoothing a ‘fully quantum’ state (i.e. a state with small quantum numbers), the entropy increase is moderate. Although these results were obtained for the special case of the harmonic oscillator, we are confident that they remain qualitatively correct for other (classically integrable) Hamiltonians.

VI. Discussion

In this paper we have presented several results related to a new definition of quantum entropy, denoted $`S_2`$. Although it has already been used in the past in the framework of the density matrix formalism, such entropy becomes particularly interesting when applied to Wigner functions. It is then possible to show that $`S_2`$ possesses a number of interesting properties $``$ most importantly, for example, it is an invariant for the Wigner equation, which governs the evolution of Wigner functions. $`S_2`$ is related to the Tsallis entropy, although the latter is usually defined for a discrete set of probabilities, rather than for a continuous distribution. An advantage of this entropy, compared to the quantum Von Neumann entropy, is that the Wigner function is all that one needs to compute $`S_2`$. No knowledge of the density matrix is required, neither does it need to be diagonalized, as is the case for the Von Neumann entropy.

The standard properties of entropy (concavity, additivity, sub-additivity) have been examined. This has revealed some interesting facts, which would require further investigations. For instance, it has been proven that $`S_2`$ (unlike ordinary entropy) behaves like a probabilty with respect to additivity properties, which is also consistent with the normalization $`0S_21`$. Secondly, the analysis of the canonical ensemble has enabled us to derive a Wigner function $`W_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ that maximizes the entropy under certain constraints. $`W_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ turns out to be both a function of the energy alone and a stationary solution of the Wigner equation. The relevance of $`W_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is still unclear, but one could reasonably conjecture that it plays a role in some relaxation processes. Numerical experiments could clarify this point.

An ”unpleasant” property of $`S_2`$ is that, keeping the Wigner function fixed, and letting Planck’s constant go to zero, one obtains $`S_2=1`$. Thus it would seem that all classical states have unit entropy. The point is that this is not the correct procedure to obtain a classical state: indeed, if the original Wigner function is negative somewhere, we would obtain a classical state with a non-positive probability distribution, which is of course meaningless. The correct procedure is instead to smooth the Wigner function $`W`$ with an appropriate kernel, which must also be a Wigner function in order to ensure positivity. A crucial point, however, is that the smoothed Wigner function $`\overline{W}`$ should be itself an admissible quantum state, i.e. one that can be described by a density matrix with non-negative eigenvalues. We have been able to prove that, when smoothing with a minimum uncertainty Gaussian packet, the result is always admissible $``$ although this is not necessarily the case when smoothing with another Wigner function. This is, to our knowledge, the first rigorous argument showing that Gaussian smoothing possesses some privileged status.

It has also been proven that smoothing increases the entropy: in particular, when smoothing a pure state with a Gaussian kernel, one has $`S_2[\overline{W}]1/2`$. It would be interesting to know how to minimize $`S_2[\overline{W}]`$. This could be done by varying the width $`\sigma `$ of the Gaussian kernel, which is still a free parameter. Although we are not able to derive a rigorous risult, we have conjectured (and shown explicitly on a particular example) that $`S_2[\overline{W}]`$ is minimum when the width of the Gaussian kernel is close to the width of the Wigner function to be smoothed. This would not be unreasonable from the information point of view : it would mean that we can minimize the entropy increase if we have some prior knowledge of the function to be smoothed.

As a further example, we have computed the entropy of the (smoothed) stationary states of the harmonic oscillator. It was shown that $`S_2`$ increases with quantum number, therefore semi-classical states yield a larger entropy increase. Again, we have conjectured that this behavior is universal (at least for confining and classically integrable Hamiltonians), and not specific to the harmonic oscillator. We are rather confident that our conjecture is correct since the larger entropy increase for semi-classical states is mainly due to the fact that their Wigner function displays short-wavelength oscillations in the phase space, which are easily erased by the smoothing procedure.

It would be interesting to know how the previous results generalizes to classically non-integrable Hamiltonians. For the harmonic oscillator, it was found that the information of the smoothed stationary states behaves as $`\overline{I}_nn^{1/2}`$. Although the exponent $`1/2`$ might be specific to the harmonic oscillator, a polynomial law may be universal for the class of integrable Hamilationans. On the other hand, one could conjecture that, for non-integrable Hamiltonians, the decrease is faster, perhaps exponential.

From the physical point of view, this result means that semi-classical states are highly unstable under generic perturbations (amongst which smoothing is a relevant example). This is reminiscent of the so-called ‘predictability sieve’, a concept introduced by W.H. Zurek and co-workers  in the more general framework of decoherence . Zurek et al.  construct a model for the interaction of a quantum system with an environment at thermodynamic equilibrium, and compute the rate at which initially pure states deteriorate into mixtures by coupling with the environment. This process is known as decoherence. Subsequently, they look for the set of states which are least prone to deterioration, and find that such states are those which yield the minimum entropy increase. By estimating the entropy production, they obtain that the minimum-entropy increase is attained for the ground state of the harmonic oscillator, i.e. a minimum uncertainty Gaussian wavepacket. This coincides with our results of Sec. V.

The main difference from our approach is that W.H. Zurek and co-workers  analyze a dynamical situation, while in our case the entropy-producing effect is the smoothing, which is a static process. Since both cases appear to give the same result, it is reasonable to conjecture that smoothing may represent a (simplified) model for the interaction of a quantum system with an open environment. The price to pay for our approach is that we do not have a first-principle based derivation of such an interaction. The advantage is that the model is simple enough to obtain a number of rigorous results.

These considerations may shed some new light on the semi-classical limit. We distinguish two kinds of pure quantum states: fully quantum (FQ) states $`W_{\mathrm{FQ}}`$ (with low quantum numbers), and semi-classical (SC) states $`W_{\mathrm{SC}}`$ (with large quantum numbers). For both $`S_2=0`$, i.e. they contain the same amount of information. However, after the smoothing, one obtains $`S_2[\overline{W}_{\mathrm{FQ}}]1/2`$ and $`S_2[\overline{W}_{\mathrm{SC}}]1`$, i.e. the smoothed FQ state contains more information than the smoothed SC state. In other words, although both original states contain the same information, this is of different ‘quality’: robust for the FQ state, and highly prone to deterioration for the SC state. It is not surprising, therefore, that coupling to an environment has the effect of erasing such information less easily in the former case than in the latter. These results could open new avenues for further research, particularly with computer experiments , to investigate the dynamical behavior of the entropy defined in this paper.

Appendix

We want to prove the result of Eq. (37). Let us use the identity

$$f(x,p)g(x,p)𝑑x𝑑p=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}f(k,\lambda )g^{}(k,\lambda )𝑑k𝑑\lambda ,$$

with $`f=\overline{W}`$ and $`g=W`$. Since $`\overline{W}(x,p)=WW`$, the double Fourier transform of $`\overline{W}`$ is $`W^2(k,\lambda )`$. In addition, it will turn out that $`W(k,\lambda )`$ is real for the case under consideration here. Therefore, by making use of the previous identity, the left-hand side of Eq. (37) becomes

$$\overline{W}(x,p)W(x,p)𝑑x𝑑p=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}W^3(k,\lambda )𝑑k𝑑\lambda .$$

The double Fourier transform $`W(k,\lambda )`$ is given by Eq. (40). For our example, the wavefunction is the one of Eq. (35), and we obtain

$$W(k,\lambda )=4\sqrt{2/\pi }\mathrm{exp}(\lambda ^2\mathrm{}^2/2)\left(x^2\frac{\lambda ^2\mathrm{}^2}{4}\right)\mathrm{exp}(2x^2)\mathrm{exp}(ikx)𝑑x.$$

Now, by using the following integrals

$$\mathrm{exp}(2x^2)\mathrm{exp}(ikx)𝑑x=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{exp}(k^2/8)$$

$$x^2\mathrm{exp}(2x^2)\mathrm{exp}(ikx)𝑑x=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{8}}(1\frac{k^2}{4})\mathrm{exp}(k^2/8),$$

we obtain, after some straightforward algebra

$$W(k,\lambda )=\left(1\frac{k^2}{4}\lambda ^2\mathrm{}^2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2\mathrm{}^2}{2}\frac{k^2}{8}\right).$$

We are now ready to compute the integral $`W^3𝑑k𝑑\lambda `$. Let us change integration variables $`(k,\lambda )(r,\phi )`$

$$r^2=\frac{k^2}{4}+\lambda ^2\mathrm{}^2;rdrd\phi =\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}d\lambda dk.$$

After integration over $`\phi `$, one obtains

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}W^3𝑑k𝑑\lambda =\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}(1r^2)^3\mathrm{exp}(\frac{3}{2}r^2)r𝑑r.$$

Changing the integration variable to $`y=r^2`$ and using integrals of the type

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}y^n\mathrm{exp}(ay)𝑑y=\frac{n!}{a^{n+1}},$$

it is obtained

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}W^3𝑑k𝑑\lambda =\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}(1y)^3\mathrm{exp}(\frac{3}{2}y)𝑑y=\frac{4\pi }{27\mathrm{}},$$

which, once divided by $`4\pi ^2`$, yields the result of Eq. (37).


format: text

text:
# First electron beam polarization measurements with a Compton polarimeter at Jefferson Laboratory

## I Introduction

Nuclear physics experiments using a polarized electron beam require an accurate knowledge of the beam polarization. However, polarization measurements often account for the main systematic uncertainty for such experiments. The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF), located at Jefferson Laboratory (JLab), is equipped with three types of beam polarimeters. A Mott polarimeter, limited to low energy (few MeV), is available at the injector, while Møller polarimetry is used at low currents (few $`\mu `$A) in all three experimental halls. The main limitation of both techniques is their invasive character due to the solid target (Au and Fe, respectively) used, preventing beam polarization measurements simultaneous to running an experiment. Moreover, neither of these instruments is capable of operating in the energy and/or current regime delivered at JLab. In contrast, Compton polarimetry, which uses elastic scattering of electrons off photons, is a non-invasive technique. Indeed, the interaction of the electron beam with the ”photon target” does not affect the properties of the beam so that the beam polarization can be measured upstream of the experimental target simultaneously with running the experiment. The applicability of Compton polarimetry has been demonstrated at high-current ($`>`$ 20 mA) storage rings (NIKHEF , HERA ) and at high-energy ($`>`$ 50 GeV) colliders (SLAC , LEP ). However, at the CEBAF beam conditions (energy of several GeV, current of up to 100 $`\mu `$A) the Compton cross section asymmetry is reduced to a few percent, which makes Compton polarimetry extremely challenging.

A pioneering technique was selected to increase the Compton interaction rate such that a 1% statistical error measurement could be achieved within an hour: an optical Fabry-Perot type cavity fed by an infrared photon source. The Compton luminosity has been enhanced further by minimizing the crossing angle between the electron and the photon beams, which required setting the cavity mirrors only 5 mm away from the electron beam. This unique configuration allows measurements of the electron beam polarization at moderate beam energies ($`>`$ 1 GeV) and currents ($`>`$ 10 $`\mu `$A). The Fabry-Perot cavity , comprising two identical high- reflectivity mirrors, amplifies the photon density at the Compton Interaction Point (CIP) with a nominal gain of 7000. The initial laser beam (NdYAG, 300 mW, 1064 nm) is locked on the resonant frequency of the cavity through an electronic feedback loop . The optical cavity, enclosed in the beam pipe, is located at the center of a magnetic chicane (16 m long), consisting of 4 identical dipoles. The chicane separates the scattered electrons and photons and redirects the primary electron beam unchanged in polarization and direction to the Hall A beam line. The backscattered photons are detected in a matrix of 25 PbWO4 crystals , which are read out by PMT’s. The PMT output signal is amplified and integrated before being sent to ADC’s. This article reports on the first polarization measurements performed during the second part of the data taking of HAPPEX experiment  (July 1999) with the Hall A Compton polarimeter at an electron energy of 3.3 GeV and an average current of 40 $`\mu `$A.

## II Towards a polarization measurement

For the HAPPEX experiment CEBAF produced a longitudinally polarized electron beam with its helicity flipped at 30 Hz. This reversal induces an asymmetry, $`A_{exp}=\frac{N^+N^{}}{N^++N^{}}`$, in the Compton scattering events $`N^\pm `$ detected at opposite helicity. In the following, the events are defined as count rates normalized to the electron beam intensity within the polarization window. The electron beam polarization is extracted from this asymmetry via

$$P_e=\frac{A_{exp}}{P_\gamma A_{th}},$$
(1)
where $`P_\gamma `$ denotes the polarization of the photon beam and $`A_{th}`$ the analyzing power. The measured raw asymmetry $`A_{raw}`$ has to be corrected for dilution due to the background-over-signal ratio $`\frac{B}{S}`$, for the background asymmetry $`A_B`$ and for any helicity-correlated luminosity asymmetries $`A_F`$, so that $`A_{exp}`$ can be written to first order as

$$A_{exp}=\left(1+\frac{B}{S}\right)A_{raw}\frac{B}{S}A_B+A_F.$$
(2)
The polarization of the photon beam can be reversed with a rotatable quarter-wave plate, allowing asymmetry measurements for both photon states, $`A_{raw}^{(R,L)}`$. The average asymmetry is calculated as

$$A_{exp}=\frac{\omega _RA_{raw}^R\omega _LA_{raw}^L}{\omega _R+\omega _L},$$
(3)
where $`\omega _{R,L}`$ denote the statistical weights of the raw asymmetry for each photon beam polarization. Assuming that the beam parameters remain constant over the polarization reversal and that $`\omega _R\omega _L`$, false asymmetries cancel out such that

$`A_{exp}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_{raw}^RA_{raw}^L}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{S}}).`$ (4)
## III Data taking and event preselection

Before starting data taking, the electron beam orbit and its focus in the central part of the chicane have to be optimized to reduce the background rate observed in the photon detector which was generated by a halo of the electron beam scraping on the Fabry-Perot mirror ports . The vertical position of the electron beam was adjusted until the overlap between the electron and the photon beam was maximized at the CIP. This was achieved by measuring the count rate in the photon detector while adjusting the field of the chicane dipoles. Because of a slow drift of the electron beam, its position had to be readjusted every couple of hours to minimize systematic effects (cf section IV). Polarimetry data were accumulated continuously while running the HAPPEX experiment. Each one hour run consisted of five pairs of signal - with the cavity resonant (cavity ON) - and background - when the cavity was intentionally unlocked (cavity OFF), approximatively one third of the time - runs. Signal and background events were recorded for alternating values of the photon beam polarization inside the cavity. With an average power of 1200 W inside the cavity, the count rate observed in the photon detector was $``$ 90 kHz and the background rate of the order of 16 kHz.

For the data presented here, only the central crystal was used in the backscattered photon detection. The electronics was triggered when the amplitude of a signal recorded in the PMT coupled to that central crystal exceeded a preset threshold value. The state (Cavity ON/Cavity OFF) of a recorded event is determined by the photon beam diagnostics outside the cavity and by the cavity-locking feedback parameters . The first event selection imposed a minimum current of 5 $`\mu `$A and variations smaller than 3 $`\mu `$A within each run as well as minor cuts to account for malfunctions of the experimental setup. The modulation of the electron beam position and energy  imposed by the HAPPEX experiment induced a significant loss of events ($``$ 36 %) in limiting systematic effects (cf section IV).

## IV Experimental asymmetry

The raw asymmetry normalized to the electron beam intensity, $`A_{raw}`$, is determined at 30 Hz for each pair of opposite electron helicity states. Averaging all pairs for both photon polarizations yields the mean raw asymmetry (eq. 3) The mean rates with cavity ON ($`r^1`$) and cavity OFF ($`r^0`$) are obtained by averaging over both electron and both photon states within each run. The dilution factor of the asymmetry is thus $`(1+\frac{B}{S})=\frac{r^1}{r^1r^0}`$. The average signal and background rates were respectively about 1.9 and 0.4 kHz/$`\mu `$A. The experimental asymmetry of about $`0.013`$ was determined with a relative statistical accuracy $``$ 1.4% within an hour. Fluctuations of the signal over background ratio $`\frac{B}{S}`$ and of the statistical precison of the background asymmetry estimation $`A_B`$ within a run account for a small contribution to the error budget (cf table I).

Any correlation between the Compton scattering luminosity and the electron helicity induces a false asymmetry which adds to the physical asymmetry (eq. 2). For each pair $`i`$ of opposite electron helicity, a systematic difference of the transverse electron beam position or angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_i=\frac{p_i^+p_i^{}}{2}`$ ($`p_i=x,y,\theta _x,\theta _y`$) gives rise to an asymmetry

$$A_p^i=\frac{1}{r^i(p=p_i)}\frac{r^i}{p}|_i\mathrm{\Delta }p_i,\text{with}r^i=\frac{N_i}{t_iI_i}.$$
(5)
The two beams, crossing in the horizontal plane, each have a transverse size of $``$ 100 $`\mu `$m. The Compton luminosity is therefore highly sensitive to the vertical position of the electron beam (fig. 1), of the order of 0.2%/$`\mu `$m. Thus, a systematic position difference of $``$ 100 nm would generate a false asymmetry of 0.02%, corresponding to $``$ 1.5% of the experimental asymmetry. To minmize the systematic error, the second event selection accepts only data lying within 50 $`\mu `$m from the luminosity optimum. Again, averaging over the two helicity states of the photon beam cancels this contribution if the beam properties remain stable over the duration of the run. However, a slow drift of the beam parameters induces a change in the count rate sensitivity. The asymmetry induced by a difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_i`$ can therefore be different for the two photon states, thus creating a residual false asymmetry. This residual contribution is estimated by calculating $`A_p^i`$ for each pair and summing over the four positions and angles. Averaging over all pairs is done using the statistical weights of the experimental asymmetry. Helicity-correlated false asymmetries represent on average 1.2% of the experimental asymmetry and remain its main source of systematic error (cf table I).

## V Photon beam polarization

The photon beam polarization can not be measured at the CIP during the experiment since any instrument placed in the photon beam interrupts the build-up process. Instead, the polarization at the exit of the cavity was monitored on-line during data taking. Absolute polarization measurements were performed at the CIP and at the exit of cavity during maintenance periods when the cavity is removed. These measurements allow to model the transfer function of the light from the CIP to the outside detectors, which then result in an evaluation of the photon beam polarization during the experiment . The polarization is found to be $`P_\gamma ^{R,L}=\pm 99.3_{1.1}^{+0.7}\%`$, for both right- and left-handed photons.

## VI Analyzing Power

The Compton scattering cross section has to be convoluted with the response function of the calorimeter:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{smeared}^\pm }{dk_r^{}}}={\displaystyle _o^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _c^\pm }{dk^{}}}g(k^{}k_r^{})𝑑k^{}`$

where $`k^{}`$ is the backscattered photon energy, $`k_r^{}`$ is the energy deposited in the calorimeter, $`\frac{d\sigma _c^\pm }{dk^{}}`$ is the helicity-dependent Compton cross section and $`g(k^{})`$ is the response function of the calorimeter. The latter is assumed to be gaussian with a width $`\sigma _{res}(k^{})=ab/\sqrt{k^{}}c/k^{}`$ where $`(a,b,c)`$ are fitted to the data. The observed energy spectrum (fig. 2) has a finite width at the threshold. This can be due either to the fact that the threshold level itself oscillates or to the fact that a given charge can correspond to different voltage amplitudes at the discriminator level. To take this into account the threshold is modelled using an error function $`p(k_s^{},k_r^{})=erf(\frac{k_r^{}k_s^{}}{\sigma _s})`$ in which $`\sigma _s`$ is fitted to the data. Hence, the observed count rate can be expressed as :

$`N^\pm (k_s^{})=\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}p(k_s^{},k_r^{}){\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{smeared}^\pm }{dk_r^{}}}𝑑k_r^{}`$

where $``$ is the interaction luminosity. An example of a measured energy spectrum and a fit using the procedure described in this section is shown in fig. 2. Finally, the analyzing power of the polarimeter can be calculated:

$`A_{th}={\displaystyle \frac{N^+(k_s^{})N^{}(k_s^{})}{N^+(k_s^{})+N^{}(k_s^{})}}`$

and is of the order of 1.7 %. In calculating the energy spectrum, the raw ADC spectrum had to be corrected for non-linearities in the electronics, resulting in a systematic error of 1 %. Another 1 % comes from the uncertainty in the calibration which is performed by fitting the Compton edge. Variations of the parameter $`a,b,c,k_s^{},\sigma _s`$ around the fitted values where used to estimate the systematic error associated with our imperfect modelling of the calorimeter response. This contributes 1.9% to the systematic error which is mainly due to the high sensitivity of the analyzing power to the value of the threshold ($``$ 1%/MeV around 30 MeV). This represents the main source of systematics in our measurement (cf table I).

## VII Results and conclusions

We have measured for the first time the JLab electron beam polarization at an electron energy of 3.3 GeV and an average current of 40 $`\mu `$A. The 40 measurements of the electron beam polarization, which was of the order of 70% , are displayed in fig. 3. The average error budget for these data is given in table I. These results are in good agreement with the measurements performed with the Hall A Møller polarimeter . Moreover, the Compton polarimeter provides a relative monitoring of the polarization with an error of 2% due to the absence of correlations between consecutive runs in the systematic errors associated with the photon detector ($`A_{th}`$) and with the photon polarization ($`P_\gamma `$). These results show that the instrument presented here is indeed capable of producing a fast and accurate polarization measurement. The challenging conditions of JLab (100 $`\mu `$A, few GeV) have been succesfully adressed with a low-power laser coupled to a Fabry-Perot cavity. Moreover, the level of systematic uncertainties reached in these first measurements, is encouraging for forth-coming achievements. Several hardware improvements have been added to the setup since then: new front-end electronic cards, feed-back on the electron beam position and a detector for the scattered electron, consisting of 4 planes of 48 micro-strips. Data taken during recent experiments   are being analyzed and are expected to reach a 2% total error at 4.5 GeV and 100 $`\mu A`$.

## VIII Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Ed Folts and Jack Segal for their constant help and support, as well as the Hall A staff, the HAPPEX and Hall A collaboration and the Accelerator Operations group. This work was supported by the French Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA) and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS/IN2P3). The Southern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility for the US Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-84ER40150.


text:
# Stability of quantum states of finite macroscopic systems against classical noises, perturbations from environments, and local measurements

\[

## Abstract

We study the stability of quantum states of macroscopic systems of finite volume $`V`$, against weak classical noises (WCNs), weak perturbations from environments (WPEs), and local measurements (LMs). We say that a pure state is ‘fragile’ if its decoherence rate is anomalously great, and ‘stable against LMs’ if the result of a LM is not affected by another LM at a distant point. By making full use of the locality and huge degrees of freedom, we show the following: (i) If square fluctuation of every additive operator is $`O(V)`$ or less for a pure state, then it is not fragile in any WCNs or WPEs. (ii) If square fluctuations of some additive operators are $`O(V^2)`$ for a pure state, then it is fragile in some WCNs or WPEs. (iii) If a state (pure or mixed) has the ‘cluster property,’ then it is stable against LMs, and vice versa. These results have many applications, among which we discuss the mechanism of symmetry breaking in finite systems.

\]

The stability of quantum states of macroscopic systems, which are subject to weak classical noises (WCNs) or weak perturbations from environments (WPEs), have been studied in many fields of physics as the decoherence problem . However, most previous studies assumed that the principal system was describable by a small number of collective coordinates. Although such models might be applicable to some systems, applicability to general systems is questionable. As a result of the use of such models, the results depended strongly on the choices of the coordinates and the form of the interaction $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$ between the principal system and a noise or an environment . For example, a robust state for some $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$ can become a fragile state for another $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$. However, macroscopic physics and experiences strongly indicate that a more universal result should be drawn.

In this paper, we study the stability of quantum states of finite macroscopic systems against WCNs and WPEs. We also propose a new criterion of stability; the stability against local measurements (LMs). We study these stabilities using a general model with a macroscopic number of degrees of freedom $`N`$. In addition to the fact that $`N`$ is huge, we make full use of the locality  — ‘additive’ observables must be the sum of local observables over a macroscopic region, the interaction $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$ must be local, and measurement must be local. By noticing these points, we derive general and universal results. Among many applications of the present theory, we discuss the mechanism of symmetry breaking in finite systems.

Macroscopic quantum systems: As usual, we are only interested in phenomena in some energy range $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and describe the system by an effective theory which correctly describes the system only in $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. For a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, let $``$ be the number of many-body quantum states in that energy range. Then,

$`N\mathrm{ln}`$

is the degrees of freedom of the effective theory. Note that $`N`$ can become a small number even for a system of many degrees of freedom when, e.g., a non-negligible energy gap exists in $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, as in the cases of a heavy atom at a meV or lower energy range and SQUID systems at low temperatures. We here exclude such systems, because they are essentially systems of small degrees of freedom. Namely, we say that a system is macroscopic (for a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$) only when its $`N`$ is a macroscopic number. We further assume that the system extends homogeneously  over a volume $`V`$, and that boundary effects are negligible. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ sets a minimum length scale $`\mathrm{}`$,

$`VN\mathrm{}^d`$

in $`d`$ dimension. We therefore say that $`V`$ is also macroscopic. We study the stability of states of such a macroscopic system, when it is subject to WCNs, WPEs, and LMs. The Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ of the system can be a general one which has only short-range interactions.

Measures of the correlations between distant points: As we shall show later, correlations between distant points are important. As a measure of the correlations, we first consider the cluster property (CP). In infinite systems, a quantum state is said to have the CP if

$`\delta \widehat{a}(x)\delta \widehat{b}(y)0\text{ as }|xy|\mathrm{}`$

for every local operators $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ and $`\widehat{b}(y)`$ at $`x`$ and $`y`$, respectively, where $`\delta \widehat{a}(x)\widehat{a}(x)\widehat{a}(x)`$ and $`\delta \widehat{b}(y)\widehat{b}(y)\widehat{b}(y)`$ . Here, by a local operator at $`x`$ we mean a finite-order polynomial of field operators and their finite-order derivatives at position $`x`$ . We generalize the concept of the CP to the case of finite systems as follows. For a small positive number $`ϵ`$, we define a region $`\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ,x)`$ by its complement $`\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ,x)^c`$, which is the region of $`y`$ in which

$$\left|\delta \widehat{a}(x)\delta \widehat{b}(y)\right|ϵ\sqrt{\delta \widehat{a}^{}(x)\delta \widehat{a}(x)\delta \widehat{b}^{}(y)\delta \widehat{b}(y)}$$
(1)
for every local operators $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ and $`\widehat{b}(y)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ)sup_x|\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ,x)|`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ,x)|`$ denotes the size of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ,x)`$. Intuitively, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ)`$ is the size of the region outside which correlations of every local operators becomes negligible. We consider a sequence of homogeneous  systems with various values of $`V`$ and associated states, where the shapes of $`V`$’s are similar to each other. (For example, the ground states of many particles in spherical boxes with various sizes, with the same particle density.) We say that the states (for large $`V`$) of the sequence have the CP if $`\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ)`$ for any $`ϵ>0`$ becomes independent of $`V`$ for a sufficiently large $`V`$. This means that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ)V`$ if one takes $`V`$ large enough. Note that a small number of Bell pairs do not destroy the CP: the lack of the CP means a macroscopic entanglement.

As a second measure, we consider fluctuations of additive quantities. A physical quantity $`A`$ is ‘additive’ if

$`A=A^{(1)}+A^{(2)}`$

when we regard the system as a composite system of subsystems 1 and 2. Thermodynamics assumes that any states in a pure phase satisfies $`(\delta A)^2=o(V^2)`$ for every additive quantity. In particular, if a state of (quantum or classical) system satisfies

$`(\delta A)^2O(V)`$

for every additive quantity, we call it a ‘normally-fluctuating state’ (NFS). In finite quantum systems, on the other hand, there exist pure states for which some of additive operators have anomalously-large fluctuations;

$`(\delta \widehat{A})^2=O(V^2).`$

We call such a pure state an ‘anomalously-fluctuating state’ (AFS). The locality requires that additive operators of quantum systems must have the following form:

$`\widehat{A}={\displaystyle \underset{xV}{}}\widehat{a}(x),`$

where $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ denotes a local operator at $`x`$. It is easy to show that an AFS does not have the CP, hence is entangled macroscopically. For infinite quantum systems, there is a well-known theorem: Any pure state has the CP . Therefore, AFSs converge (in the weak topology) into mixed states as $`V\mathrm{}`$, although they are pure states in finite systems . Since AFSs are such unusual states, they are expected to be unstable in some sense. We now clarify in what sense, how, and why unstable.

Fragility: We say a quantum state is ‘fragile’ if its decoherence rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (see Eq. (3)) behaves as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }KV^{1+\delta },`$

where $`K`$ is a function of microscopic parameters, and $`\delta `$ is a positive constant. To understand the meaning of the fragility, consider first the non-fragile case where $`\delta =0`$. In this case, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/V`$ is independent of $`V`$. This is a normal situation in the sense that the total decoherence rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is basically the sum of local decoherence rates, which are determined only by microscopic parameters. On the other hand, the case $`\delta >0`$ is an anomalous situation in which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/VKV^\delta `$. Note that this can be very large even when $`K`$ is small, because, by definition, a macroscopic volume is huge. This means that a fragile quantum state decoheres due to a noise or environment at an anomalously great rate, even when the coupling constant between the system and the noise or environment is small.

Fragility under WCN: The point of the present theory is the locality . For the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$ of the interaction with a classical noise, the locality requires that it should be the sum of local interactions ;

$$\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}=\lambda \underset{xV}{}f(x,t)\widehat{a}(x).$$
(2)
Here, $`\lambda `$ is a small positive constant, $`f(x,t)`$ is a random classical noise field with vanishing average $`\overline{f(x,t)}=0`$, and $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ is a local operator at $`x`$. We assume that $`\overline{f(x,t)f(x^{},t^{})}`$ depends only on $`xx^{}`$ and $`tt^{}`$, and that its correlation time $`\tau _\mathrm{c}1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . We denote the spectral intensity of $`f`$ by $`g(k,\omega )`$ , which is positive by definition. A pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ at $`t=0`$ evolves for $`t>0`$ by the total Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}+\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$, and the density operator is given by

$`\widehat{\rho }(t)\overline{|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|}.`$

Since we are interested in the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the initial state, we study an early time stage $`\tau _\mathrm{c}t1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as the increase rate of the $`\alpha `$-entropy of $`\alpha =2`$ in this time region;

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{Tr}[\widehat{\rho }(t)^2]|_{\tau _\mathrm{c}t1/\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(3)
Even when $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}=0`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ generally evolves by $`\widehat{H}`$. Since we are interested in the instability induced by $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$, we consider states which do not evolve by $`\widehat{H}`$ in this time region, i.e., $`\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{H}t)|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{H}t)|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for such $`t`$. (However, see .) Moreover, since we are interested in the case of weak noise, we evaluate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`O(\lambda ^2)`$. By dropping non-dissipative contributions from $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$, because they can be absorbed in $`\widehat{H}`$ as renormalization terms, we find

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $``$ $`\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \underset{k,n}{}}g(k,\widehat{H}\omega _n)|n|\delta \widehat{A}_k|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$
$``$ $`\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}g(k){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|n|\delta \widehat{A}_k|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2,`$
where we have defined $`g(k)`$ by the last equality. Here, $`|n`$ is an eigenstate of $`\widehat{H}`$, with eigenenergy $`\omega _n`$ (which may be degenerate), and $`\delta \widehat{A}_k\widehat{A}_k\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{A}_k|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where

$`\widehat{A}_k{\displaystyle \underset{xV}{}}\widehat{a}(x)e^{ikx}.`$

Since $`g(k,\widehat{H}\omega _n)`$ and $`|n|\delta \widehat{A}_k|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ are both positive, $`g(k)`$ may be interpreted as a typical (average) value of $`g(k,\widehat{H}\omega _n)`$ for relevant $`n`$’s. This interpretation would be good at least for the $`V`$ dependence, which is of our primary interest. We then obtain the simple formula;

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda ^2\underset{k}{}g(k)\mathrm{\Psi }|\delta \widehat{A}_k^{}\delta \widehat{A}_k|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(4)
Note that $`\widehat{A}_k`$ is an additive operator because $`\widehat{a}(x)e^{ikx}`$ is a local operator. When $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ is a spin operator, e.g., $`\widehat{A}_k`$ for $`k=\pi /\mathrm{}`$ is the staggered magnetization.

When $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an NFS, $`\mathrm{\Psi }|\delta \widehat{A}_k^{}\delta \widehat{A}_k|\mathrm{\Psi }O(V)`$ for any $`\widehat{A}_k`$, hence

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda ^2O(V){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}g(k).`$

Since

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}g(k,\omega _n\omega _n^{})={\displaystyle \overline{f(x,t)f(x,0)}e^{i(\omega _n\omega _n^{})t}𝑑t}`$

does not depend on $`V`$, neither $`_kg(k)`$ does. We thus find that NFSs are not fragile in any WCN. When $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an AFS, on the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Psi }|\delta \widehat{A}_k^{}\delta \widehat{A}_k|\mathrm{\Psi }=O(V^2)`$ for some $`\widehat{A}_k`$, i.e., for some $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ and some $`k=k_0`$. Hence, if $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$ has a term that is composed of such $`\widehat{a}(x)`$’s, then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda ^2O(V^2)g(k_0)+\lambda ^2O(V)\underset{kk_0}{}g(k),$$
(5)
and the AFS becomes fragile if $`g(k_0)=O(V^{1+\delta })`$, where $`\delta >0`$. Therefore, an AFS is fragile in some WCN.

Fragility under WPE: The physical realities of noises are perturbations from environments. We obtain similar results for WPEs. From the locality, the interaction with an environment should be the sum of local interactions ;

$`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}=\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{xV}{}}\widehat{f}(x)\widehat{a}(x).`$

Here, $`\widehat{f}(x)`$ and $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ are local operators at $`x`$ of an environment and the principal system, respectively. For $`\widehat{f}(x,t)_\mathrm{E}`$ and $`\widehat{f}(x,t)\widehat{f}(x^{},t^{})_\mathrm{E}`$ (in the interaction picture), where $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{E}`$ denotes the expectation value for the state $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{E}`$ of the environment E, we assume the same properties as $`\overline{f(x,t)}`$ and $`\overline{f(x,t)f(x^{},t^{})}`$, respectively, of the WCN. The total Hamiltonian is

$`\widehat{H}+\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}+\widehat{H}_\mathrm{E},`$

where $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{E}`$ is the Hamiltonian of E. Taking the initial state $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}(0)`$ as the product state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{E}`$, we evaluate the reduced density operator

$`\widehat{\rho }(t)\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{E}[\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{total}}(t)].`$

We then obtain the same result (4), where $`g(k,\omega )`$ is now the spectral intensity derived from $`\widehat{f}(x,t)\widehat{f}(x^{},t^{})_\mathrm{E}`$. Therefore, NFSs are not fragile under any WPE, while AFS are fragile under some WPE .

Summary of fragility: We have shown that NFSs are not fragile in any WCNs or WPEs. This should be contrasted with the results of most previous works, according to which a state could be either fragile or robust depending on the form of $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$ . Note that our results concern an approximate stability (i.e., non-fragility) against all possible WCNs or WPEs and $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$’s, whereas most previous works studied the exact stability against particular ones. We think that the former is more important in macroscopic systems because many types of WCNs or WPEs and $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$’s would coexist in real systems, and the exact stability against some of them could not exclude fragility to another. Regarding AFSs, on the other hand, our results show only that they are fragile in some WCN or WPE. In other words, for any AFS it is always possible to construct a noise (or an environment) and a weak local interaction with it in such a way that the AFS becomes fragile. These results do not guarantee the existence of the relevant noise (or an environment) and the relevant interaction in real physical systems. Since there is no theory that is general enough on WCNs or WPEs at present, we cannot draw a definite conclusion on whether AFSs are always fragile in real physical systems. It rather seems that, as we will discuss later, there may be some cases where some AFSs are non-fragile, in contradiction to naive expectations. This motivates us to explore the following new stability.

Stability against LMs: Suppose that one performs an ideal (von Neumann) measurement of a local observable $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ at $`t=t_a`$ for a state $`\widehat{\rho }`$ (pure or mixed) of a macroscopic system, and obtains a value $`a`$ with a finite probability $`P(a)0`$. Subsequently, one measures another local observable $`\widehat{b}(y)`$ at a later time $`t_b`$ , and obtains a value $`b`$. Let $`P(b;a)`$ be the probability that $`b`$ is obtained at $`t_b`$ under the condition that $`a`$ was obtained at $`t_a`$. On the other hand, one can measure $`\widehat{b}(y)`$ at $`t=t_b`$ without performing the measurement of $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ at $`t_a`$. Let $`P(b)`$ be the probability distribution of $`b`$ in this case. We say $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is ‘stable against local measurements’ if for any $`\epsilon >0`$

$$\left|P(b;a)P(b)\right|\epsilon \text{for sufficiently large }|xy|\text{,}$$
(6)
for any local operators $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ and $`\widehat{b}(y)`$ and their eigenvalues $`a`$ and $`b`$ such that $`P(a)\epsilon `$. For the simplest case $`t_bt_a`$, we obtain the simple theorem: If $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is stable against LMs then it has the CP, and that any state which has the CP is stable against LMs. It follows, e.g., that any AFS is unstable against LMs.

To prove this theorem, we use the spectral decomposition ;

$`\widehat{a}(x)={\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}a\widehat{𝒫}_a(x),`$

and similarly for $`\widehat{b}(y)`$. Here, $`\widehat{𝒫}_a(x)`$ denotes the projection operator corresponding to an eigenvalue $`a`$ of $`\widehat{a}(x)`$. Note that $`[\widehat{𝒫}_a(x),\widehat{𝒫}_b(y)]=0`$ for $`t_bt_a`$. Since we are considering an effective theory in a finite energy range, we assume that ultraviolet divergences are absent: e.g., for any positive integer $`m`$,

$`\widehat{a}(x)^m=\text{finite}`$

for any local operator $`\widehat{a}(x)`$. For $`t_bt_a`$, both $`|P(b;a)P(b)|\epsilon `$ and $`|P(a;b)P(a)|\epsilon `$ are satisfied if $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is stable against LMs. Expressing the probabilities by the projection operators, we obtain

$`\left|\mathrm{Tr}[\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝒫}_a(x)\widehat{𝒫}_b(y)]\mathrm{Tr}[\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝒫}_a(x)]\mathrm{Tr}[\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝒫}_b(y)]\right|`$
$`\epsilon \mathrm{min}(P(a),P(b))`$
for $`P(a),P(b)\epsilon `$. Multiplying this equation by $`|ab|`$, and summing over $`a`$ and $`b`$ such that $`P(a),P(b)\epsilon `$, we obtain

$`\left|\delta \widehat{a}_\epsilon (x)\delta \widehat{b}_\epsilon (y)\right|\epsilon K.`$

Here, $`K`$ is a finite positive number, which does not depend on $`|xy|`$, and $`\widehat{a}_\epsilon (x)_a^{}a\widehat{𝒫}_a(x),`$ where $`_a^{}`$ denotes the summation over $`a`$ such that $`P(a)\epsilon `$, and similarly for $`\widehat{b}_\epsilon (y)`$. By letting $`\epsilon 0`$ (thus increasing $`|xy|`$ accordingly), we obtain

$`|\delta \widehat{a}_\epsilon (x)\delta \widehat{b}_\epsilon (y)||\delta \widehat{a}(x)\delta \widehat{b}(y)|0.`$

It is easy to show the CP from this. To prove the inverse, we take $`\widehat{a}(x)=\widehat{𝒫}_a(x)`$, $`\widehat{b}(y)=\widehat{𝒫}_b(y)`$. Then, from (1),

$`|\delta \widehat{𝒫}_a(x)\delta \widehat{𝒫}_b(y)|`$ $``$ $`ϵ\sqrt{P(a)(1P(a))P(b)(1P(b))}`$
$``$ $`ϵ\sqrt{P(a)P(b)}`$
for sufficiently large $`|xy|`$. Dividing this by $`P(a)`$ yields

$`|P(b;a)P(b)|ϵ\sqrt{P(b)/P(a)}ϵ\sqrt{1/P(a)}\sqrt{ϵ}`$

for $`P(a)ϵ`$ (hence, also for $`P(a)\sqrt{ϵ}`$). We thus obtain the stability against LMs.

Applications: The above results have many applications, including quantum computers with many qubits , and non-equilibrium statistical physics. We here discuss the mechanism of symmetry breaking in finite systems, which has been a long-standing question for the following reasons. Consider a finite system that will exhibit a symmetry breaking if $`V`$ goes to infinity. Let $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_V`$ be a state that approaches, as $`V\mathrm{}`$, a symmetry-breaking vacuum $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the infinite system, in the sense that

$`\underset{V\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Psi }_V|\widehat{a}(x)|\mathrm{\Psi }_V=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{}}|\widehat{a}(x)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{}}`$

for any local operator $`\widehat{a}(x)`$. We call $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_V`$ for large $`V`$ a pure-phase vacuum. It has a macroscopic value

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_V|\widehat{M}|\mathrm{\Psi }_V=O(V)`$

of an additive order parameter $`\widehat{M}`$. In a mean-field approximation, pure-phase vacua have the lowest energy. However, it is always possible (see the example below) to construct a pure state(s) that does not break the symmetry, $`\widehat{M}=0`$, and has an equal or lower energy than pure-phase vacua . Although such states cannot be pure in infinite systems, they can be pure in finite systems . When $`[\widehat{H},\widehat{M}]0`$, in particular, the exact lowest-energy state is generally such a symmetric ground state . To lower the energy of a pure-phase vacuum, a symmetry-breaking field is necessary. However, an appropriate symmetry-breaking field would not always exist in real physical systems. For example, the symmetry-breaking field for antiferromagnets is a static staggered magnetic field, which alters its direction at the period exactly twice the lattice constant. It seems quite unlikely that such a field would always exist in laboratories.

Our results suggest the following new mechanisms of symmetry breaking in finite systems. From the well-known theorem mentioned earlier, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{}}`$ has the CP. Since $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_V`$ approaches $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{}}`$, it also has the CP for large $`V`$. Hence, pure-phase vacua are not AFSs. On the other hand, $`\delta \widehat{M}^2=O(V^2)`$ for the symmetric ground state because it is composed primarily of a superposition of pure-phase vacua with different values of $`\widehat{M}`$ . Namely, the symmetric ground state is an AFS, and thus is fragile in some WCN or WPE. Therefore, we expect that a pure-phase vacuum would be realized much more easily than the symmetric ground state. This mechanism may be called “environment-induced symmetry breaking,” a special case of which was discussed for interacting many-bosons . For general systems, however, there is one delicate point: $`g(k_0)`$ of the relevant WCN or WPE might be $`O(1/V)`$ in some of real systems . Then, Eq. (5) yields $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=O(V)`$, and the symmetric ground state becomes non-fragile. In such a case, we must consider the stability against LMs: Even when the symmetric ground state is somehow realized at some time, it is changed into another state when one measures (or, ‘looks’ at) a relevant observable that is localized within only a tiny part of the system. Such drastic changes continue by repeating measurements of relevant observables, until the state becomes a pure-phase vacuum and the symmetry is broken. This mechanism may be called “measurement-induced symmetry breaking.” We conjecture (and confirmed in several examples) that the number of LMs necessary for reducing an AFS to an NFS would be much less than $`N`$.

For example, if we regard the spins of the antiferromagnetic Ising model as quantum spins, the pure-phase vacua are the Néel states,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ $``$ $`|\mathrm{},`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ $``$ $`|\mathrm{},`$
for which the staggered magnetization

$`\widehat{M}_\pi {\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}e^{i\pi x/\mathrm{}}\widehat{\sigma }_z(x)`$

is the order parameter;

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm |\widehat{M}_\pi |\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm =\pm V.`$

On the other hand,

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }(|\mathrm{\Psi }_++|\mathrm{\Psi }_{})/\sqrt{2}`$

is an symmetric ground state. (In this simple model, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is degenerate with $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm `$. In more general models, the symmetric ground state is often the unique ground state .) It is an AFS because $`\mathrm{\Phi }|\widehat{\delta }M_\pi ^2|\mathrm{\Phi }=V^2`$. According to our results, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm `$ are stable against LMs. For example, after measurement of $`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$ of the first spin, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ reduces to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|+|)|\mathrm{}\text{when }\sigma _x=+1,`$

or

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(||)|\mathrm{}\text{when }\sigma _x=1.`$

Hence, the result of subsequent measurement of any spin operator at a distant point is not affected at all by the first measurement. In contrast, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are unstable against LMs, i.e., against measurement of some local spin operator. Namely, if the initial state is $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$, it is drastically altered by a measurement of only a tiny part of the system. For example, by measurement of $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ of the first spin, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ reduces to either

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_+\text{when }\sigma _z=+1,`$

or

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\text{when }\sigma _z=1.`$

Hence, the results of subsequent measurements at distant points are drastically altered depending on the result of the first measurement. Note that the symmetric ground state turns into a pure-phase vacuum after the LM, and the symmetry is then broken. After that, the state alters only slightly by subsequent LMs, and the symmetry remains broken, because $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm `$ are stable against LMs. This may be the most general mechanism of symmetry breaking in finite systems.

In summary, we study the stabilities of quantum states of finite macroscopic systems, against weak classical noises, weak perturbations from environments, and local measurements. It is found that these stabilities are closely related to the cluster property (which describes the strength of spatial correlations of fluctuations of local observables) and fluctuations of additive operators (which are given by the sum of local operators over a macroscopic region). Note that the stabilities are defined as dynamical properties of an open system, whereas the cluster property and fluctuations of additive operators are defined as static properties of a closed system. Hence, it is non-trivial — may be surprising — that they are closely related to each other.

We thank I. Ojima, M. Ueda, H. Tasaki, and A. Ukena for discussions. This work is partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research.