text:
# Quintessence or Phoenix?

## I Introduction

*… l’araba fenice*

*Che vi sia, ciascun lo dice*

*Dove sia, nessun lo sa****”… Everybody says//The phoenix is there,//But no one knows where”, in “Così fan tutte”, by L. da Ponte.

In the history of cosmology there are many cases of Arabic phoenixes. The metaphor applies particularly well to the cosmological constant, which seems to resurrect out of its ashes and challenges any interpretation since almost one century . In its last resurrection (that is, quintessence ), it poses the problems of determining the state equation of the peculiar quintessential fluid and/or the right potential of the associated scalar field.

In this paper we want to investigate some subtleties in the socalled ‘reconstruction of the state equation’ on the basis of observational data, showing that it is probably impossible to determine the state equation and even the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$ only on the basis of pure observations. In other words: you cannot find the phoenix if you have no idea about its face.

The starting idea came from a paper by A.A. Sen and S. Sethi , in which they propose an ansatz for the Hubble parameter as a function of $`t`$ and a suitable parameter $`\beta `$. They find that it is possible to obtain a good agreement with present data on SNIa for a certain range of values of $`\beta `$. A particular choice allows then the exact evaluation of the scalar field potential. The surprise is that the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$ is obtained in terms of an integration constant. This means that the theory fits the data for any arbitrary value of this parameter!

Another result in this direction is due to I. Wasserman . He finds that the usual expression for $`H(z)`$, in the case of presence of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term plus dust, can be analitically derived from a quintessence potential with an independent choice for the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$.

In Sec. 2 of this paper we generalize these results, showing that they do not depend on the particular ansatz, so that any empiric evaluation of the state equation must be supplied with a value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$, obtained by independent observations.

In Sec. 3 we show that also in the ideal situation of almost infinite precision in observational data, the reconstruction of the state equation could be impossible.

In Sec. 4 we consider three exactly integrable models, one found by us , and those studied by Sen and Sethi  and Wasserman , showing that they all can perfectly mimic a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term model.

In Sec. 5 discussion and conclusions are given.

## II Reconstruction of the state equation

Let us consider a spatially flat universe, minimally coupled with a scalar field, and adopt the conventions $`8\pi G=1`$, $`c=1`$, $`a_0=1`$, $`H_0=1`$, where $`a_0`$ is the present day scale factor, and $`H_0`$ is the value of the Hubble constant (in appropriate units). This can be done without any loss of generality.

Starting from the Friedman and Klein-Gordon equations

$$3H^2=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi }^2+V(\phi )+3\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}a^3,$$
(1)
$$\ddot{\phi }+3H\dot{\phi }+\frac{dV}{d\phi }=0,$$
(2)
it is possible (differentiating Eq.(1) and with easy algebraic manipulation) to derive

$`\dot{\phi }^2`$ $`=2\dot{H}3\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}a^3,`$ (3)
$`\phi `$ $`={\displaystyle \sqrt{2\dot{H}3\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}a^3}𝑑t},`$ (4)
$`V`$ $`=3H^2+\dot{H}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}a^3.`$ (5)
The last two equations give a parametric expression for $`V(\phi )`$, once an ansatz for $`a(t)`$, or $`H(t)`$, is given. The point is that also a value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$ should be supplied.

The situation is complicated by the fact that the ansatz contains parameters whose link with observations could be rather difficult to find, if not impossible. Thus, we prefer to illustrate a situation nearer to the observational strategy.

Assume that it is possible to observe an enormous number of type Ia supernovae with extreme precision, so that it is possible to construct an empirical function for the luminosity distance versus the redshift (this is in fact what is really measured in the supernovae experiments), say $`d_L(z)`$. *It will contain some numerical coefficients whose physical interpretation could be difficult or even impossible.* (In the case of time dependence, on the contrary, the physical meaning of the parameters is usually clear.)

From $`d_L(z)`$ it is possible to derive $`H(z)`$. With our normalization, the definition of $`d_L(z)`$ is

$$d_L(z)=(1+z)_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{H(z^{})},$$
(6)
which gives

$$H(z)=\frac{(1+z)^2}{(1+z)d_L^{}(z)d_L(z)}.$$
(7)
Here and below, prime stands for derivation with respect to $`z`$. From Eqs.(4) and (5), it is now possible to write

$`\phi (z)`$ $`={\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{2H^{}}{H(1+z)}\frac{3\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}(1+z)}{H^2}}},`$ (8)
$`V(z)`$ $`=3H^2HH^{}(1+z){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}(1+z)^3,`$ (9)
which now allow to obtain $`V(\phi )`$ starting from $`d_L(z)`$ (we give an example below). But the most interesting result is the expression of the state equation versus the redshift

$$w=\frac{2HH^{}(1+z)3H^2}{3H^23\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}(1+z)^3}.$$
(10)
It is then clear that the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$ must be supplied independently, and that the model obtained works perfectly with any value!

## III But things stay even worse!

The situation is, however, complicated by other subtleties. Let us illustrate it with an example, which should also make clearer the previous arguments.

Let us take as fiducial model a simple $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term model, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}=0.3`$ (which is of course irrelevant and is taken in homage to current fashion). It is then easy to produce a data set of 200 points for $`d_L(z)`$ , in the range $`z=0÷2`$. The precision is that of numerical integration of the MATHEMATICA algorithm, i.e., practically infinite. Assume also that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$ has been determined independently, again with almost infinite precision.

Now we find an empirical $`d_L(z)`$ as a quartic polynomial, by means of a best fit. Having set $`H_0=1`$, we keep fixed the first coefficient and get

$$d_{Lfit}(z)=z+0.760z^20.257z^3+0.040z^4.$$
(11)
The fractional difference with the data set is $`<0.002`$.

If we find $`w(z)`$ according to Eq. (11), and with the correct value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}=0.3`$, we obtain the plot in Fig. 1. It is clear at a first glance that $`w`$ is far from being constant, but the real problem is that the values $`w<1`$ are absurd (in this context). Indeed, they imply $`\dot{\phi }^2<0`$ and are of course an artifact of the procedure; this could be interpreted as a signal of something being wrong.

But we have also to remember that the value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}=0.3`$ is supposed to come from independent observations. We know that the precision of such observations is presently very low, and we can figure out that, also in the ideal situation here examined, it is well possible to consider a slightly different value of $`0.28`$. In this case we have no problems up to $`z1.7`$ (see Fig. 2), and it is possible to ‘reconstruct’ a potential like that in Fig. 3, which looks nice but, of course, has nothing to do with the starting point of our analysis. The situation is not substantially changed even if we go up to a $`7`$th-degree polinomial as best fit.

The last desperate trial is to use, instead of the best fit, an interpolation of the data set. In this case all is made with the internal precision of MATHEMATICA (16 digits) and gives for $`w`$ the plot in Fig. 4, and only at this level it is clear that the variations are due to numerical computation.

## IV May a portrait of the phoenix be of help?

A possible objection to the argument of Sec. 3 is that an empirical polynomial is a very crude assumption, and that we should try with specific models. In this case the infinite amount of possibilities poses some problems of choice. We present here three possible models, which have the nice property of being exact solution of the equations, so that all the considerations are very clear and no approximation error can be invoked.

The first model is given by a potential already studied by us (but see also ), which shows a simple exponential dependence on $`\phi `$

$$V=V_0\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\phi ).$$
(12)
For the details of the procedure for finding the solution and for the subsequent discussion on its properties, see . Here we limit ourselves to present the expression of $`H(t)`$ and $`z(t)`$, adapted to our normalizations

$`H(t)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(1+2t^2)(t_0+t_0^3)}{t(1+t^2)(1+2t_0^2)}},`$ (13)
$`z(t)`$ $`=\sqrt[3]{{\displaystyle \frac{t^2(1+t^2)}{t_0^2(1+t_0^2)}}}1.`$ (14)
The variable $`t`$ could be eliminated, in order to have $`H(z)`$ explicitly, but there is no need of doing this, and everything can be made by treating Eqs. (13) and (14) as defining a parametric dependence. The only parameter is $`t_0`$, which is linked to the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$, by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}=\frac{1+t_0^2}{(1+2t_0^2)^2}.$$
(15)
This model has been tested  with the currently available data on SNIa  and on peculiar velocities , and seems to indicate a value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$ much lower than the usually indicated one, but there is no definite evidence for this. In any case a range like $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}=0.15÷0.30`$, is fully compatible.

We now compare the results of this model with the fiducial $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term, in the *ideal* case. It should be clear that there is no reason why the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$ should be the same in the two cases: it is a free parameter of the theory, which has to be adapted to data, and the results can be very different. If we set $`t_0=1`$, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}=0.22`$, and compare $`d_L(z)`$, from Eqs.(13) and (14) with the above fiducial model, we obtain for the fractional difference an agreement up to $`2\%`$.

In this case, the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$ is an important element of the model, and the fact that it is significantly different in the two cases means that an independent measure would be of great help in distinguish them. The problem is in the very poor accuracy of this kind of determination, but we do not want to examine observational technicalities in this paper.

Let us instead present a case in which the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$ is unpredictable, as announced before. In  Sen and Sethi present an ansatz which, adapted to our normalizations, has the form

$$H(z)=\mathrm{tanh}(1)\sqrt{1+\frac{(1+z)^{2/\beta }}{\mathrm{sinh}(1)^2}},$$
(16)
where $`\beta `$ is a parameter which has to be adjusted from data. They find as best fit value for current data $`\beta =0.81`$, but $`\beta =2/3`$ is still compatible, and has the advantage of leading to an analytic expression for the potential

$$V(\phi )=\frac{A^2}{8}(\mathrm{exp}(2B\phi )+\mathrm{exp}(2B\phi ))+V_0,$$
(17)
where $`A`$ is an arbitrary integration constant and, with our normalization,

$$B=\frac{3}{2A\mathrm{coth}(1)},V_0=3\mathrm{tanh}(1)^2\frac{A^2}{4}.$$
(18)
The interesting fact is that $`A`$ is correlated to the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$ by the relation

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}=\frac{43A^2}{\mathrm{sinh}(1)^2},$$
(19)
so that any value is allowed, provided that $`d_L(z)`$ derived from Eq.(16) fits the data. It is important to note that the special value of $`\beta =2/3`$ only gives analytic evaluation, but any value can be used, leading to a situation similar to that in Sec. 2, but with a much more reasonable ansatz for $`H`$. Assuming for simplicity $`\beta =2/3`$, we can easily show that this model mimics a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term one. In this case, since no free parameter is left, we have to change the value in the fiducial model. Taking $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{?}`$, we again obtain a fractional difference less than $`2\%`$. We see that also in this case an independent estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$ would be of help, but only if we stick to a particular value of $`\beta `$.

Still more interesting is the situation illustrated by Wasserman in , where the match of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term model with a quintessence model is analitically exact, and yet the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$ is arbitrary. It is also interesting that the potential found in this paper is of the same type as in Eq. (17).

## V Conclusions

As said in the introduction, if you want to catch the phoenix, you must have an idea of its aspect. The arguments of Sec.4 show that this could be not enough. Assuming that the ‘real’ situation is the presence of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term, there is an infinite host of ‘reasonable’ quintessence models, with unpredictable values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$. The theoretical reasons for this are well explained by Maor and colleagues .

Is it then a black cow in a dark night? May be not completely. A feature which all these models share is that they are all totally empiric, i.e., skillful guesses, and are based on (and/or fit) observations without not so many definite ideas of the precise physical mechanism behind the proposed potential.

In other words, our opinion is that the above arguments are a sort of vindication of the theory against excessive trust in the observational results. The literature is full of papers about the wonderful perspectives opened by the future observations, and for sure they will be fundamental in the resolution of the problem. But a satisfactory model can be only one which has roots in fundamental physics and interfaces with the general cosmological theory.

Another conclusion which we draw is that a precise measure of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}`$, independent of SNIa observations, could be of fundamental help (although probably not conclusive), but we cannot figure out how this goal could be reached in short time.

Despite the dramatic improvement in the observational data, which we expect in the future, the correct extension of the cosmological standard model still seems a very difficult task.

FIGURE CAPTIONS:

Fig. 1. The manifestly absurd ‘reconstructed state equation’ (see text).

Fig. 2. The state equation with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M0}=0.28`$. It is still uncorrect, but only if one knows in advance that it should be $`w=1`$.

Fig. 3. The ‘reconstructed potential’, which is of course only an artifact of the procedure, but seems reasonable.

Fig. 4. Eventually, the ‘correct’ result.


format: text

text:
# Generalized quantum Fokker-Planck, diffusion and Smoluchowski equations with true probability distribution functions

## I Introduction

A model quantum system coupled to its environment forms the standard paradigm of quantum Brownian motion. The initiation of early development of this stochastic process took place around the middle of this century . A major impetus was the discovery of laser in sixties followed by significant advancement in the field of quantum optics and laser physics in seventies where the extensive applications of nonequilibrium quantum statistical methods were made. Various nonlinear optical processes/phenomena were described with the help of operator Langevin equations, density operator methods and the associated quasi-classical distribution functions of Wigner, Glauber, Sudarshan and others centering around the quantum Markov processes . Subsequent to this early development the quantum theory of Brownian motion again emerged as a subject of immense interest in early eighties when the problem of macroscopic quantum tunneling was addressed by Leggett and others  and almost simultaneously quantum Kramers’ problem attracted serious attention of a number of workers . The method which received major appreciation in eighties and nineties in the wide community of physicists and chemists in these studies is the real time functional integral . This method has been shown to be an effective tool for treatment of quantum transition state , dissipative quantum coherence effects  as well as incoherent quantum tunneling processes  and many related problems .

Inspite of this phenomenal success it may, however, noted that compared to classical theory quantum theory of Brownian motion based on functional integrals rests on a fundamentally different footing. While the classical theory is based on the differential equations for evolution of true probability density functions of the particle executing Brownian motion, the path integral methods rely on non-canonical quantization procedure and the evaluation of quantum partition function of the particle interacting with the heat bath and one is, in general, led to the time evolution equations of quasi-probability distribution functions such as Wigner functions . The question is whether there is any natural extension of classical method to quantum domain in terms of true probability distribution functions. It is therefore worthwhile to seek for a natural extension of the classical theory of Brownian motion to quantum domain in the non-Markovian regime for arbitrary friction and temperature within the framework of a well-behaved true probabilistic description.

Our aim in this paper is thus twofold :

(i) to enquire whether there exists a quantum generalized Langevin equation (QGLE) in $`c`$-numbers whose noise correlation satisfies the quantum fluctuation-dissipation relation (FDR) but which (QGLE) at the same time is a natural analogue of its classical counterpart.

(ii) to formulate the exact quantum Fokker-Planck and diffusion equations which are valid for arbitrary temperature and friction. We also intend to look for the overdamped limit to obtain the exact quantum analogue of classical Smoluchowski equation.

Before proceeding further it is important to stress the motivation for the present scheme:

(1) As we have already pointed out that the traditional theories of quantum Brownian motion in optics  and condensed matter physics  are based on quasi-probability functions. Apart from their usual shortcomings that they may become negative or singular  in the full quantum regime when the potential is nonlinear, the quasi-probability functions are, in general, not valid for non-Markovian processes with arbitrary noise correlation. While in majority of the quantum optical situations Markovian description is sufficient, non-Markovian effects of noise correlation are strongly felt in the problem of quantum dissipation in condensed matter and chemical physics at low temperature. To include these effects even in the case of a free particle \[ see for example, Ref.  \] one has to use a suitable cut-off frequency of the heat bath to avoid intrinsic low frequency divergence. Clearly this poses serious difficulties for studying transient behavior for arbitrary noise correlation and temperature. In what follows we show that the present treatment is free from such difficulties.

(2) Our second motivation is to understand quantum-classical correspondence in the problem of Brownian motion in a transparent way. To this end we note that in the classical theory the Fokker-Planck equation with nonlinear potential contains derivatives of probability distribution functions upto second order. The equations in terms of Wigner functions on the other hand involve higher (than two) order derivatives of distribution functions in the corresponding quantum formulation . The higher derivative terms contain powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ and derivatives of potential signifying purely quantum diffusion in which quantum corrections and nonlinearity of the potential get entangled in the description of the system. Because of the occurence of higher derivatives the positivity of the distribution function is never ensured and the equation cannot be treated as a quantum analogue of classical Fokker-Planck equation. Any attempt to reduce the order of the derivatives to two amounts to a semiclassical approximation. Again there exists no systematic procedure for this reduction. Keeping in view of these problems we intend to derive exact quantum analogues \[ Eqs.(42), (47) and (50) \] of classical Fokker-Planck, diffusion and Smoluchowski equations, respectively, in terms of true probability distribution function where the equations contain derivatives of distribution functions upto second order only for which the diffusion coefficients are positive definite. Since the equations are classical looking in form but quantum mechanical in their content one can read the quantum drift and diffusion coefficients and also construct the quantum corrections due to the nonlinearity of the system systematically order by order in a straightforward way so that quantum-classical correspondance can be checked simply by taking limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ both in Markovian and in non-Markovian description. We mention in passing that in contrast to a recent treatment  of large friction limit in a similar context, the quantum Smoluchowski equation as discussed here retains its validity in the full quantum regime as $`T0`$.

(3) Since over the last two decades classical non-Markovian theories  and numerical methods of generating classical noise processes have made a significant progress , the mapping of quantum theory of Brownian motion into a classical form, as achieved here, suggests that the classical treatment can be extended to quantum domain without much difficulty. Since the present scheme describes the generation of quantum noise \[ Eqs. (10) and (11) \] as classical numbers which follow quantum fluctuation-dissipation relation it is easy to comprehend that the classical numerical techniques of generation of noise and solving stochastic Langevin equation  can be utilized in the present case in a straightforward way to solve quantum Langevin equation . The procedure is therefore much easy to implement compared to other methods like path integral Monte Carlo techniques .

In what follows we consider the standard system-reservoir model and make use of the coherent state representation of the bath oscillators to derive a GLE for quantum mechanical mean value of position of a particle in contact with a thermal bath whose quantum mechanical properties can be defined in terms of a classical-looking noise term and a canonical distribution of initial quantum mechanical mean values of the co-ordinates and momenta of the bath. This simple approach allows us to show that although the equation is essentially quantum mechanical it is amenable to a theoretical analysis in terms of the classical theory of non-Markovian dynamics .

The rest of the paper is organized as follows : The system reservoir model, the associated QGLE and the canonical distribution for the bath oscillators have been introduced in Sec. II. This is followed by a general analysis of QGLE in Sec. III and an illustration with an exponential memory kernel in Sec. IV to calculate the variances required for setting up a quantum Fokker-Planck equation and a quantum diffusion equation in sections V and VI, repectively. Section VII is devoted to quantum overdamped limit and Smoluchowski equation. The paper is summarized and concluded in Sec. VIII.

## II The quantum Generalized Langevin equation (QGLE) in $`c`$-numbers

We consider a particle in a medium. The latter is modeled as a set of harmonic oscillators with frequency $`\{\omega _i\}`$. Evolution of such a quantum open system has been studied over the last several decades under a variety of reasonable assumptions. Specifically our interest here is to develop an exact description of quantum Brownian motion within the perview of this model described by the following Hamiltonian ,

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2}+V(\widehat{x})+\underset{j}{}\left[\frac{\widehat{p}_j^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\kappa _j(\widehat{q}_j\widehat{x})^2\right].$$
(1)
Here $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ are co-ordinate and momentum operators of the particle and the set $`\{\widehat{q}_j,\widehat{p}_j\}`$ is the set of co-ordinate and momentum operators for the reservoir oscillators coupled linearly to the system through their coupling coefficients $`\kappa _j`$. The potential $`V(\widehat{x})`$ is due to the external force field for the Brownian particle. The co-ordinate and momentum operators follow the usual commutation relation \[$`\widehat{x},\widehat{p}`$\] = $`i\mathrm{}`$ and \[$`\widehat{q}_j,\widehat{p}_j`$\] = $`i\mathrm{}\delta _{ij}`$. Note that in writing down the Hamiltonian no rotating wave approximation has been used.

Eliminating the reservoir degrees of freedom in the usual way  we obtain the operator Langevin equation for the particle,

$$\ddot{\widehat{x}}(t)+_0^t𝑑t^{}\gamma (tt^{})\dot{\widehat{x}}(t^{})+V^{}(\widehat{x})=\widehat{F}(t),$$
(2)
where the noise operator $`\widehat{F}(t)`$ and the memory kernel $`\gamma (t)`$ are given by

$$\widehat{F}(t)=\underset{j}{}\left[\left\{\widehat{q}_j(0)\widehat{x}(0)\right\}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\omega _jt+\widehat{p}_j(0)\kappa _j^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\omega _jt\right]$$
(3)
and

$$\gamma (t)=\underset{j}{}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\omega _jt,$$
(4)
with $`\kappa _j=\omega _j^2`$ ( masses have been assumed to be unity ).

The Eq.(2) is an exact quantized operator Langevin equation which is now a standard textbook material  and for which the noise properties of $`\widehat{F}(t)`$ can be defined using a suitable initial canonical distribution of the bath co-ordinates and momenta. Our aim here is to replace it by an equivalent QGLE in $`c`$-numbers. Again this is not a new problem so long as one is restricted to standard quasi-probabilistic methods using, for example, Wigner functions . To address the problem of quantum non-Markovian dynamics in terms of a true probabilistic description we, however, follow a different procedure. We first carry out the quantum mechanical average of Eq.(2)

$$\ddot{\widehat{x}}(t)+_0^t𝑑t^{}\gamma (tt^{})\dot{\widehat{x}}(t^{})+V^{}(\widehat{x})=\widehat{F}(t)$$
(5)
where the average $`\mathrm{}`$ is taken over the initial product separable quantum states of the particle and the bath oscillators at $`t=0`$, $`|\varphi \{|\alpha _1|\alpha _2\mathrm{}|\alpha _N\}`$. Here $`|\varphi `$ denotes any arbitrary initial state of the particle and $`|\alpha _i`$ corresponds to the initial coherent state of the $`i`$-th bath oscillator. $`|\alpha _i`$ is given by $`|\alpha _i=\mathrm{exp}(|\alpha _i|^2/2)_{n_i=0}^{\mathrm{}}(\alpha _i^{n_i}/\sqrt{n_i!})|n_i`$, $`\alpha _i`$ being expressed in terms of the mean values of the co-ordinate and momentum of the $`i`$-th oscillator, $`\widehat{q}_i(0)=(\sqrt{\mathrm{}}/2\omega _i)(\alpha _i+\alpha _i^{})`$ and $`\widehat{p}_i(0)=i\sqrt{\mathrm{}\omega _i/2}(\alpha _i^{}\alpha _i)`$, respectively. It is important to note that $`\widehat{F}(t)`$ of Eq.(5) is a classical-like noise term which, in general, is a non-zero number because of the quantum mechanical averaging over the co-ordinate and momentum operators of the bath oscillators with respect to the initial coherent states and arbitrary initial state of the particle and is given by

$$\widehat{F}(t)=\underset{j}{}\left[\left\{\widehat{q}_j(0)\widehat{x}(0)\right\}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\omega _jt+\widehat{p}_j(0)\kappa _j^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\omega _jt\right].$$
(6)
It is convenient to rewrite the $`c`$-number equation (5) as follows ;

$$\ddot{\widehat{x}}(t)+_0^t𝑑t^{}\gamma (tt^{})\dot{\widehat{x}}(t^{})+V^{}(\widehat{x})=F(t)$$
(7)
where we let the quantum mechanical mean value $`\widehat{F}(t)=F(t)`$. We now turn to the second averaging. To realize $`F(t)`$ as an effective $`c`$-number noise we now assume that the momenta $`\widehat{p}_j(0)`$ and the shifted co-ordinates $`\{\widehat{q}_j(0)\widehat{x}(0)\}`$ of the bath oscillators are distributed according to a canonical distribution of Gaussian forms as

$$𝒫_j=𝒩\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{[\widehat{p}_j(0)^2+\kappa _j\left\{\widehat{q}_j(0)\widehat{x}(0)\right\}^2]}{2\mathrm{}\omega _j\left(\overline{n}_j+\frac{1}{2}\right)}\right\}$$
(8)
so that for any quantum mechanical mean value $`O_j(\widehat{p}_j(0),\{\widehat{q}_j(0)\widehat{x}(0)\})`$ the statistical average $`\mathrm{}_S`$ is

$`O_j_S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle O_j(\widehat{p}_j(0),\{\widehat{q}_j(0)\widehat{x}(0)\})}`$ (10)
$`\times 𝒫_j(\widehat{p}_j(0),\{\widehat{q}_j(0)\widehat{x}(0)\})d\widehat{p}_j(0)d\{\widehat{q}_j(0)\widehat{x}(0)\}.`$
Here $`\overline{n}_j`$ indicates the average thermal photon number of the $`j`$-th oscillator at temperature $`T`$ and $`\overline{n}_j=1/[\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{}\omega _j/k_BT\right)1]`$ and $`𝒩`$ is the normalization constant.

The distribution (8) and the definition of statistical average (10) imply that $`F(t)`$ must satisfy

$$F(t)_S=0$$
(11)
and

$$F(t)F(t^{})_S=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{}\kappa _j\mathrm{}\omega _j\left(\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _j}{2k_BT}\right)\mathrm{cos}\omega _j(tt^{}).$$
(12)
That is, the $`c`$-number noise $`F(t)`$ is such that it is zero centered and satisfies the standard quantum fluctuation-dissipation relation (FDR) as known in the literature  in terms of quantum statistical average of the noise operators.

To proceed further we now add the force term $`V^{}(\widehat{x})`$ on both sides of Eq.(7) and rearrange it to obtain formally

$$\ddot{X}(t)+_0^t𝑑t^{}\gamma (tt^{})\dot{X}(t^{})+V^{}(X)=F(t)+Q(X,t)$$
(13)
where we let $`\widehat{x}(t)=X(t)`$ for simple notational convenience and

$$Q(X,t)=V^{}(\widehat{x})V^{}(\widehat{x})$$
(14)
represents the quantum mechanical dispersion of the force operator $`V^{}(\widehat{x})`$ due to the system degree of freedom. Since $`Q(t)`$ is a quantum fluctuation term Eq.(13) offers a simple interpretation. This implies that the classical looking QGLE is governed by a $`c`$-number quantum noise $`F(t)`$ which originates from the quantum mechanical heat bath characterized by the properties (11) and (12) and a quantum fluctuation term $`Q(t)`$ due to the quantum nature of the system characteristic of the nonlinearity of the potential. In Sec. VII we give a recipe for calculation of $`Q(t)`$.

Summarizing the above discussions we point out that it is possible to formulate a QGLE (13) of the quantum mechanical mean value of position of a particle in a medium, provided the classical-like noise term $`F(t)`$ satisfies (11) and (12) where the ensemble average has to be carried out with the distribution (8). It is thus apparent that to realize $`F(t)`$ as a noise term we have split up the standard quantum statistical averaging procedure into a quantum mechanical mean $`\mathrm{}`$ by explicitly using an initial coherent state representation of the bath oscillators and then a statistical average $`\mathrm{}_S`$ of the quantum mechanical mean values. Two pertinent points are to be noted : First, it may be easily verified that the distribution of quantum mechanical mean values of the bath oscillators (8) reduces to classical Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution in the thermal limit, $`\mathrm{}\omega _jk_BT`$. Second, the vacuum term in the distribution (8) prevents the distribution of quantum mechanical mean values from being singular at $`T=0`$ ; or in other words the width of distribution remains finite even at absolute zero, which is a simple consequence of uncertainty principle.

## III General analysis: Damped free particle

It is now convenient to rewrite QGLE (13) of quantum mechanical mean value of position of a particle in the absence of any external force field in the form

$$\ddot{X}(t)+_0^t\gamma (tt^{})\dot{X}(t^{})𝑑t^{}=F(t)$$
(15)
$`\gamma (t)`$ is the dissipative memory kernel as given by Eq.(4) and $`F(t)`$ is the zero centered stationary noise, i.e.,

$$F(t)_S=0\mathrm{and}F(t)F(t^{})_S=C(|tt^{}|)=C(\tau )$$
(16)
where $`C(t)`$ is the correlation function which in the equilibrium state is connected to the memory kernel $`\gamma (t)`$ through FDR of the form

$$C(tt^{})=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \kappa (\omega )\varrho (\omega )\mathrm{}\omega \left(\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2k_BT}\right)\mathrm{cos}\omega (tt^{})$$
(17)
Eq.(17) is the continuum version of Eq.(12). $`\varrho (\omega )`$ denotes the density of modes of the bath oscillators. Here it is important to note that Eq.(17) is the generalized FDR valid at any arbitrary temperature $`T`$. $`\gamma (tt^{})`$ is the continuum version of Eq.(4) and is given by

$$\gamma (tt^{})=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \kappa (\omega )\varrho (\omega )\mathrm{cos}\omega (tt^{}).$$
(18)
In the high temperature limit, i.e., for $`\mathrm{}\omega k_BT`$ we arrive at the wellknown classical FDR of the second kind

$$C(tt^{})=k_BT\gamma (tt^{}).$$
(19)
The general solution of Eq.(15) is given by

$$X(t)=X(t)_S+_0^tH(t\tau )F(\tau )𝑑\tau $$
(20)
where

$$X(t)_S=X_0+V_0H(t)$$
(21)
with $`X_0=X(0)`$ and $`V_0=\dot{X}(0)`$ being the initial quantum mechanical mean values of position and velocity of the particle, respectively. $`H(t)`$ is the inverse form of the Laplace transform

$$\stackrel{~}{H}(s)=\frac{1}{s^2+s\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(s)}$$
(22)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(s)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\gamma (t)e^{st}𝑑t$$
(23)
is the Laplace transform of dissipative memory kernel $`\gamma (t)`$. The time derivative of Eq.(20) gives

$$V(t)=V(t)_S+_0^th(t\tau )F(\tau )𝑑\tau $$
(24)
where

$$V(t)_S=V_0h(t)$$
(25)
and

$$h(t)=\frac{dH(t)}{dt}.$$
(26)
Hence

$$\stackrel{~}{h}(s)=\frac{1}{s+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(s)}.$$
(27)
Before proceeding further it is important to recall the physical significance of the two function $`H(t)`$ and $`h(t)`$. It has already been assumed that the initial quantum mechanical velocity $`V_0`$ is independent of the random force $`F(t)`$,

$$V_0F(t)_S=0.$$
(28)
Thus multiplying Eqs. (20) and (24) by $`V_0`$ and using relation (28) we obtain,

$$V_0V(t)_S/V_0^2_S=h(t),$$
(29)
$$V_0(X(t)X_0)_S/V_0^2_S=H(t).$$
(30)
Hence $`H(t)`$ and $`h(t)`$ are the two relaxation functions ; $`h(t)`$ measures how the quantum mechanical mean velocity forgets its initial value and $`H(t)`$ measures how the quantum mechanical mean displacement forgets the initial velocity. As a result quantum mechanical mean velocity of the particle relaxes to a stationary state with zero statistical average of the quantum mechanical mean velocity.

Now using the symmetry property of the correlation function

$`F(t)F(t^{})_S=C(tt^{})=C(t^{}t)`$
and using the solution for $`X(t)`$ and $`V(t)`$ we obtain the following expressions of the variances,

$`\sigma _{XX}^2(t)`$ $``$ $`[X(t)X(t)_S]^2_S`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^t}H(t_1)𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{t_1}}H(t_2)C(t_1t_2)𝑑t_2,`$ (33)
$`\sigma _{VV}^2(t)`$ $``$ $`[V(t)V(t)_S]^2_S`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^t}h(t_1)𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{t_1}}h(t_2)C(t_1t_2)𝑑t_2\mathrm{and}`$ (35)
$`\sigma _{XV}^2(t)`$ $``$ $`[X(t)X(t)_S][V(t)V(t)_S]_S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\sigma }_{XX}^2(t)`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}H(t_1)𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^t}h(t_2)C(t_1t_2)𝑑t_2.`$ (37)
The above three expressions are valid for arbitrary temperature and friction and include quantum effects. However in the high temperature classical limit ( i.e., $`\mathrm{}\omega k_BT`$ ) one can derive simplified versions of the variances

$`\sigma _{XX}^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`k_BT\left[2{\displaystyle _0^t}H(t^{})𝑑t^{}H^2(t)\right],`$ (39)
$`\sigma _{VV}^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`k_BT\left[1h^2(t)\right]\mathrm{and}`$ (40)
$`\sigma _{XV}^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`k_BTH(t)[1h(t)].`$ (41)
Before closing this section we emphasize a pertinent point at this stage. The (33)-(37) are the expressions for statistical variances of the quantum mechanical mean values $`X`$ and $`V`$. These are not to be confused with the standard quantum mechanical variances which are connected through uncertainty relations.

## IV A specific example : exponentially correlated memory kernel

The very structure of $`\gamma (t)`$ given in Eq.(18) suggests that it is quite general and a further calculation requires a prior knowledge of the density of modes $`\varrho (\omega )`$ of the bath oscillators. As an specific case we consider in the continuum limit,

$$\kappa (\omega )\varrho (\omega )=\frac{2}{\pi }\frac{\gamma _0}{1+\omega ^2\tau _c^2}$$
(42)
so that $`\gamma (t)`$ takes the wellknown form,

$$\gamma (t)=\frac{\gamma _0}{\tau _c}e^{|t|/\tau _c},$$
(43)
where $`\gamma _0`$ is the damping constant and $`\tau _c`$ refers to correlation time of the noise. Once we get an explicit expression of $`\gamma (t)`$ in closed form and its Laplace transform, it is possible to make use of Eq.(22) to calculate the relaxation function $`H(t)`$, which for the present case is given by

$$H(t)=\frac{1}{\gamma _0}\left[1𝒜e^{t/2\tau _c}\mathrm{sin}(\lambda t+\alpha )\right]$$
(44)
where

$$𝒜=\frac{\gamma _0}{\lambda },\lambda =\left(\frac{\gamma _0}{\tau _c}\frac{1}{4\tau _c^2}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{and}\alpha =\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{2\lambda \tau _c}{12\gamma _0\tau _c}\right).$$
(45)
Now making use of the expressions for $`H(t)`$ and the correlation function $`C(t)`$ in Eqs.(33)-(37) we calculate explicitly after a long but straightforward algebra the time dependent expressions of the variances of the quantum mechanical mean value of position and momentum of the particle,

$$\sigma _{XX}^2(t)=\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\omega }{1+\omega ^2\tau _c^2}\left(\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2k_BT}\right)_X(\omega ,t)𝑑\omega $$
(46)
$$\sigma _{VV}^2(t)=\frac{2\gamma _0\mathrm{}}{\pi \lambda ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\omega }{1+\omega ^2\tau _c^2}\left(\mathrm{coth}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2k_BT}\right)_V(\omega ,t)𝑑\omega $$
(47)
and

$$\sigma _{XV}^2(t)=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\sigma }_{XX}^2(t)$$
(48)
In Appendix-A we provide the explicit structures of $`_X(\omega ,t)`$ and $`_V(\omega ,t)`$.

To examine the consistency of our calculation we check long time behaviour of the classical high temperature Ohmic limit of the variances $`\sigma _{XX}^2(t)`$ and $`\sigma _{VV}^2(t)`$. In this limit we have

$`\sigma _{XX}^2(t)={\displaystyle \frac{4k_BT}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\omega ^2\tau _c^2}}_X(\omega ,t)`$
Only the first term of $`_X(\omega ,t)`$ gives the long time behaviour of $`\sigma _{XX}^2(t)`$ in the Markovian limit, contribution of the rest of the terms being zero. Taking this leading order contribution we have

$`\sigma _{XX}^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4k_BT}{\pi \gamma _0}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\omega ^2\tau _c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^2}}(1\mathrm{cos}\omega t)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8k_BT}{\pi \gamma _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\omega ^2\tau _c^2}}|_{\omega =0}\right){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{1}{2}\omega t}{\omega ^2}}`$
which gives

$$\sigma _{XX}^2(t)=\frac{2k_BT}{\gamma _0}t\mathrm{for}t\mathrm{}.$$
(49)
Similarly one can show that for classical high temperature Markovian limit

$$\sigma _{VV}^2(t)=k_BT\mathrm{for}t\mathrm{}.$$
(50)
Since we are unable to evaluate analytically further the explicit time dependent structures of the variances in the general case, we take resort to numerical integration of Eqs.(46) and (47). In Figs.(1) and (2) we show the short time and long time behaviour of the variances $`\sigma _{XX}^2(t)`$ as functions of time for different values of temperature but for a fixed value of correlation time, $`\tau _c`$. It is apparent that while the short time dynamics has a simple $`t^2`$ behaviour, asymptotic dependence is linear in $`t`$ with a clear cross-over around some intermediate time. Fig.(3) exhibits the asymptotic constancy of $`\sigma _{VV}^2(t)`$ as a function of time for different temperatures. The effect of correlation time $`\tau _c`$ on the variance $`\sigma _{XX}^2(t)`$ has been examined in Fig.(4) for a fixed high temperature $`k_BT`$ = 10.0. It is interesting to note that the cross-over region gets longer for larger correlation time.

Figs.(5) and (6) illustrate the zero temperature situation. In this regime non-Markovian effects are strong which is evident from vacuum fluctuations growing in time in an oscillatory fashion at early stages for different values of correlation time as shown in Fig.(5). In Fig.(6) we show how the initial growth of variance $`\sigma _{VV}^2(t)`$ finally settles down to a constant non-thermal energy value.

## V The generalized quantum Fokker-Planck equation

We now return to our general analysis as carried out in Sec. III. To write down the Fokker-Planck description for the evolution of probability density function of quantum mechanical mean values of co-ordinate and momentum of the particle it is necessary to consider the statistical distribution of noise which we assume here to be Gaussian. For Gaussian noise processes we define the joint characteristic function in terms of the standard mean values and variances as follows ;

$$\stackrel{~}{P}(\mu ,\rho ,t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\mu X(t)_S+i\rho V(t)_S\frac{1}{2}\left\{\sigma _{XX}^2(t)\mu ^2+2\sigma _{XV}^2(t)\mu \rho +\sigma _{VV}^2(t)\rho ^2\right\}\right].$$
(51)
Using the standard procedure  we write down below the Fokker-Planck equation (FPE) obeyed by the joint probability density function $`P(X,V,t)`$ which is the inverse Fourier transform of the characteristic function :

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+V{\displaystyle \frac{}{X}}\right)P(X,V,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (t){\displaystyle \frac{}{V}}VP(X,V,t)+\phi (t){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{V^2}}P(X,V,t)`$ (53)
$`+\psi (t){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{XV}}P(X,V,t)`$
where

$`\xi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{h}(t)/h(t),`$ (55)
$`\phi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (t)\sigma _{VV}^2(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\sigma }_{VV}^2(t)\mathrm{and}`$ (56)
$`\psi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{VV}^2(t)+\xi (t)\sigma _{XV}^2(t)+\dot{\sigma }_{XV}^2(t).`$ (57)
The above FPE is the exact quantum mechanical version of the classical non-Markovian FPE and is valid at any arbitrary temperature and friction.

The decisive advantage of the present approach is again noteworthy. We have mapped the operator generalized Langevin equation into a generalized Langevin equation in $`c`$-numbers (15) and its equivalent Fokker-Planck equation (53). The present approach bypasses the earlier methods of quasi-probabilistic distribution functions employed widely in quantum optics over the decades  in a number of ways. First, unlike the quasi-probabilistic distribution functions, the probability distribution function $`P(X,V,t)`$ is valid for non-Markov processes. Second, while the corresponding characteristic functions for quasi-probabilistic distribution functions are operators, we make use of characteristic functions which are numbers. Third, as pointed out earlier the quasi-distribution functions often become negative or singular in the strong quantum domain and pose serious problems. The present approach is free from such shortcomings since the probability density function, $`P(X,V,t)`$ behaves here as a true probability function rather than a quasi-probability function.

## VI Generalized Quantum diffusion equation

In their landmark paper on classical Brownian motion Ornstein and Uhlenbeck  solved the classical Markovian FPE to find $`P(X,V,t)`$ and then in a bid to obtain Einstein’s diffusion equation tried to evaluate $`p(X,t)`$, the probability density function in configuration space by integrating over $`V`$. It was shown that it is difficult, if not impossible to obtain a differential equation for $`P(X,V_0,t)`$ from the classical Markovian FPE which for $`t1/\gamma _0`$ would become a diffusion equation. However, for the classical non-Markovian case Mazo  in late seventies addressed this problem by considering an initial Maxwellian distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(V_0)`$ of the initial velocity $`V_0`$ and then derived the exact differential equation satisfied by $`p(X,t)`$ where

$`p(X,t)={\displaystyle P(X,V_0,t)\mathrm{\Phi }(V_0)𝑑V_0}.`$
The resulting equation thus reduces to the diffusion equation for $`t1/\gamma `$. We follow Mazo’s procedure to derive an exact quantum mechanical version of the classical non-Markovian case, a differential equation which for $`t1/\gamma `$ goes over into a quantum diffusion equation. To this end we proceed as follows; from Eq.(51) for $`\rho =0`$ case we have

$`\stackrel{~}{p}(\mu ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{p}(\mu ,t)\mathrm{\Phi }(V_0)𝑑V_0}`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2\sigma _{XX}^2(t)\right)\mathrm{exp}(i\mu X_0){\displaystyle \mathrm{exp}[i\mu V_0H(t)]\mathrm{\Phi }(V_0)𝑑V_0}.`$ (59)
Here we take the initial Gaussian distribution of the quantum mechanical mean values of the velocity of the particle,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(V_0)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{V_0^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)$$
(60)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\phi (\mathrm{})/\xi (\mathrm{}).$$
(61)
It is not difficult to note that the above choice is dictated by the stationary solution of the QFPE (53), i.e., (60) satisfies (53) at equilibrium. The explicit time-dependent expressions for $`\phi (t)`$ and $`\xi (t)`$ have been given in (55) and (56). Inserting Eq.(60) in (59) and then performing the inverse Fourier transform after integration over $`V_0`$ we arrive at the following equation after little a algebra,

$$\frac{p(X,t)}{t}=D_q(t)\frac{^2p(X,t)}{X^2}.$$
(62)
This is the quantum analogue of Einstein’s diffusion equation where the explicit structure of the time-dependent quantum diffusion coefficient, $`D_q(t)`$ is given by,

$$D_q(t)=\sigma _{XV}^2(t)+\mathrm{\Delta }_0H(t)h(t).$$
(63)
The required variances, the relaxation functions and other related quantities in Eq.(63) are given in (37), (26), (22) and (61). We now discuss the limiting cases. For classical Markovian limit the variance $`\sigma _{XV}^2(t)`$ gives $`k_BT/\gamma _0`$ for $`t1/\gamma _0`$ and the second term in $`D_q(t)`$ vanishes in the long time limit, so that we recover Einstein’s diffusion coefficient in configuration space. In the low temperature, however, the quantum effects begin to dominate. It is interesting to note that based on Feynman-Vernon path integral technique , Hakim and Ambegaokar  had considered explicit quantum corrections to classical diffusion to examine the differential behavior of high and low temperature dependence in the dynamics for Leggett-Caldeira initial conditions. The non-Markovian nature of the dynamics is taken into account by considering the frequency dependence of the bath with a suitable low frequency cut-off. The transient behavior in the quantum correction to classical diffusion is therefore only observable on the timescales longer than the inverse cut-off frequency. The present treatment being exact, equipped to deal with arbitrary noise correlation at all temperatures and free from divergences does not require any such cut-off. The quantum diffusion coefficient can be followed arbitrarily from transient to the asymptotic regions. To explore the associated non-Markovian nature of the dynamics in the present case it is necessary to go over to numerical evaluation of $`D_q(t)`$. In Fig.(7) \[ compare with Fig. 1 of Ref.  \] we plot the variation of quantum diffusion coefficient $`D_q(t)`$ for several values of temperatures as a function of time for the exponential memory kernel considered in our example in Sec. IV. It is apparent that while the short time behaviour is characterized by a sharp increase followed by a maximum, the diffusion coefficient settles down to a constant value in the asymptotic limit. The short time behaviour is dominated by the second term in (63) due to the relaxation functions $`H(t)`$ and $`h(t)`$ of which the latter vanishes in the long time limit. Again the first term in (63) offers no contribution to diffusion coefficient from its classical part in the vacuum limit at $`T=0`$. The solid curve in Fig.(7) thus shows the evolution of a non-thermal diffusion coefficient of pure quantum origin.

## VII Quantum Smoluchowski equation

We now consider the diffusion of a particle in an external potential $`V(X)`$ as described by QGLE (13). In the overdamped limit we drop the inertial term $`\ddot{X}(t)`$ and the damping kernel $`\gamma (tt^{})`$ is reduced to $`\gamma _0\delta (tt^{})`$ for vanishing $`\tau _c`$ in (43). $`\gamma _0`$ is the Markovian limit of dissipation. Eq.(13) then assumes the following form

$$\dot{X}+\frac{1}{\gamma _0}[V^{}(X)Q(X,t)]=\frac{F(t)}{\gamma _0}.$$
(64)
Expressing $`V^{}(X)Q(X,t)`$ as a derivative of an effective quantum potential $`V_{quant}(X,t)`$ with respect to $`X`$, the equivalent description in terms of true probability distribution function $`p(X,t)`$ is given by

$$\frac{p(X,t)}{t}=\frac{1}{\gamma _0}\frac{}{X}\left[V_{quant}^{}(X,t)p(X,t)\right]+D_{qo}\frac{^2p}{X^2}.$$
(66)
with

$$V_{quant}^{}(X,t)=V^{}(X)Q(X,t)$$
(67)
where $`Q(X,t)`$ is defined in (13). Here $`D_{qo}`$ is the quantum diffusion coefficient in the overdamped limit which can be obtained with the help of the following definition

$$2D_{qo}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}_t^{t+\mathrm{\Delta }t}𝑑t_1_t^{t+\mathrm{\Delta }t}𝑑t_2\frac{1}{\gamma _0^2}F(t_1)F(t_2)_S.$$
(68)
Here the correlation function $`F(t_1)F(t_2)_S/\gamma _0^2`$ of the $`c`$-number quantum noise is given by Eq.(17) in the continuum limit. We then make use of Eq.(42) for vanishing $`\tau _c`$ in (68) to obtain after explicit integration

$$D_{qo}=\frac{1}{2\gamma _0}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }[2\overline{n}(\stackrel{~}{\omega })+1]$$
(69)
where the frequency $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ in (69) refers to linearized frequency of the nonlinear system . We now discuss the classical and vacuum limits of the quantum Smoluchowski equation (66). It is easy to check that in the limit $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }k_BT`$, $`D_{qo}`$ reduces to Einstein’s classical diffusion coefficient $`k_BT/\gamma _0`$. At the same time $`Q(X,t)`$ vanishes so that $`V_{quant}^{}(X,t)`$ goes over to $`V^{}(X)`$ and one recovers the usual classical Smoluchowski equation. In the opposite limit as $`T0`$, however, both quantum noise due to nonlinearity of the system and vacuum fluctuation orginating from the heat bath make significant contribution. $`D_{qo}`$ in this limit assumes the form $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }/2\gamma _0`$. In this context we refer to a recent treatment on large friction limit in quantum dissipative dynamics  to point out that the latter theory does not retain its full validity as $`T0`$ since the quantum noise of the heat bath disappears in the vacuum limit.

The second noteworthy feature about the quantum Smoluchowski equation (66) is that unlike Wigner function based equations  it does not contain higher order (higher than second) derivatives of $`p(X,t)`$. The positive definiteness of the probability distribution function is thus ensured.

It is important to emphasize at this juncture that so far as the general formulation of the theory is concerned, Eq.(66) contains quantum corrections to all orders. In this sense Eq.(66) is formally an exact quantum analogue of classical Smoluchowski equation. To make it more explicit we return to the quantum mechanics of the system in Heisenberg picture to write the operators $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ as

$$\widehat{x}(t)=\widehat{x}(t)+\delta \widehat{x}\mathrm{and}\widehat{p}(t)=\widehat{p}(t)+\delta \widehat{p}.$$
(70)
$`\widehat{x}(t)`$ and $`\widehat{p}(t)`$ are the quantities signifying quantum mechanical averages and $`\delta \widehat{x}`$ and $`\delta \widehat{p}`$ are quantum corrections. By construction $`\delta \widehat{x}`$ and $`\delta \widehat{p}`$ are zero and they obey the commutation relation \[$`\delta \widehat{x},\delta \widehat{p}`$\] = $`i\mathrm{}`$. Using (70) in $`V^{}(\widehat{x})`$ and a Taylor expansion around $`\widehat{x}`$ it is possible to express $`Q(X,t)`$ as \[ see Eq.(13) \]:

$$Q(X,t)=\underset{n2}{}\frac{1}{n!}V_{n+1}(X)\delta \widehat{x}^n(t)$$
(72)
where $`V_n(X)`$ is the $`n`$-th derivative of the potential at $`X(\widehat{x}`$). Eq.(72) suggests a simple expression for an effective potential $`V_{quant}(X,t)`$ as

$$V_{quant}(X,t)=V(X)+\underset{n2}{}\frac{1}{n!}V_n(X)\delta \widehat{x}^n(t)$$
(73)
where the classical potential $`V(X)`$ gets modified by the quantum corrections to all orders. To solve quantum Smoluchowski equation it is therefore necessary to calculate $`\delta \widehat{x}^2(t)`$, $`\delta \widehat{x}^3(t)`$, etc. To the lowest order $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\delta \widehat{x}^2`$ follow a coupled set of equations as given below

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\widehat{x}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{p}`$ (75)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\widehat{p}`$ $`=`$ $`V^{}(\widehat{x}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V^{\prime \prime \prime }(\widehat{x})\delta \widehat{x}^2`$ (76)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\delta \widehat{x}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \widehat{x}\delta \widehat{p}+\delta \widehat{p}\delta \widehat{x}`$ (77)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\delta \widehat{x}\delta \widehat{p}+\delta \widehat{p}\delta \widehat{x}`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta \widehat{p}^22V^{\prime \prime }(\widehat{x})\delta \widehat{x}^2`$ (78)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\delta \widehat{p}^2`$ $`=`$ $`V^{\prime \prime }(\widehat{x})\delta \widehat{x}\delta \widehat{p}+\delta \widehat{p}\delta \widehat{x}.`$ (79)
The above set of equations can be derived  from the Heisenberg’s equation of motion. If one is interested in the local dynamics around a point (say, at the bottom or top of the potential well), the set of equations get decoupled and it is easy to obtain simple analytic solutions of (75)-(79) for $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\delta \widehat{x}^2`$ for (72). The higher order estimates (e.g., fourth order) of the quantum corrections can be obtained from the solutions of the equations of successive higher order derived earlier by Sundaram and Milonni  or otherwise . Since the quantum corrections due to the system are calculated by different sets of equations for succesive orders, the measure of accuracy of truncation can be understood easily. It is, therefore, obvious that the present scheme provides a simple, systematic and quantitative estimate of the mean field and other decorrelation methods on the basis of quantum-classical correspondence.

## VIII Conclusions

The main purpose of this paper is to enquire whether a stochastic differential equation in $`c`$-numbers in the form of a generalized Langevin equation and its corresponding Fokker-Planck equation and diffusion equation and Smoluchowski equation in terms of true probability functions are viable for description of non-Markovian quantum Brownian motion. Based on an initial coherent state representation of bath oscillators and an equilibrium distribution of quantum mechanical mean values of their co-ordinates and momenta, which satisfy the essential properties of the associated noise of the bath degrees of freedom, we derive a QGLE for quantum mechanical mean value of the position of the particle. The main conclusions of this study are the following :

(i) Our QGLE (15) is amenable to analysis in terms of the methods developed earlier for the treatment of classical non-Markovian theory of Brownian motion.

(ii) The generalized Langevin equation (13), the corresponding Fokker-Planck equation (53) and the diffusion equation (62) and also the Smoluchowski equation (66) are the exact quantum analogues of their classical versions . The probability distribution functions as employed here bear the true notion of statistical probability rather than that of quasi-probability.

(iii) The theory of quantum Brownian motion developed here is valid for arbitrary noise correlation and temperature and is free from divergences.

(iv) The realization of noise as a classical-looking entity which satisfies quantum fluctuation-dissipation relationship (12) allows ourselves to envisage quantum Brownian motion as a natural extension of its classical conterpart. The method is based on canonical quantization procedure and makes no reference to path integral formulations.

We conclude by mentioning that the method discussed here is promising for simple differential equation based approaches  to quantum activated processes, tunneling problems as shown elsewhere , quantum ratchet  and in problems relating to the motion in periodic fields  and allied issues.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are indebted to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (C.S.I.R.), Government of India for financial support.

## A The explicit forms of $`_X(\omega ,t)`$ and $`_V(\omega ,t)`$

$`_X(\omega ,t)`$ consists of eleven terms which are given below ;

$`_X(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`_X^{(1)}(\omega ,t)+_X^{(2)}(\omega ,t)+_X^{(3)}(\omega ,t)+_X^{(4)}(\omega ,t)+_X^{(5)}(\omega ,t)`$ (A3)
$`+_X^{(6)}(\omega ,t)+_X^{(7)}(\omega ,t)+_X^{(8)}(\omega ,t)+_X^{(9)}(\omega ,t)+_X^{(10)}(\omega ,t)`$
$`+_X^{(11)}(\omega ,t).`$
The explicit structures of $`_X^{(i)}(\omega ,t)`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},11)`$ are given by

$$_X^{(1)}(\omega ,t)=\frac{1}{\gamma _0\omega ^2}(1\mathrm{cos}\omega t),$$
(A4)
$`_X^{(2)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜A_3^{(\omega )}}{\gamma _0\omega }}[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\omega t)\mathrm{cos}\alpha ]{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜A_4^{(\omega )}}{\gamma _0\omega }}[\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \omega t)\mathrm{cos}\alpha ]`$ (A6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜A_5^{(\omega )}}{\gamma _0\omega }}[\mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\omega t)\mathrm{sin}\alpha ]+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜A_6^{(\omega )}}{\gamma _0\omega }}[\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \omega t)\mathrm{sin}\alpha ],`$
$`_X^{(3)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜A_1^{(\omega )}}{2\gamma _0^2}}[e^{t/2\tau _c}\{\mathrm{sin}(\lambda t+\alpha )+2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{cos}(\lambda t+\alpha )\}`$ (A8)
$`\{\mathrm{sin}\alpha +2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{cos}\alpha \}],`$
$`_X^{(4)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜A_2^{(\omega )}}{2\gamma _0^2}}[e^{t/2\tau _c}\{\mathrm{cos}(\lambda t+\alpha )2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{sin}(\lambda t+\alpha )\}`$ (A10)
$`\{\mathrm{cos}\alpha 2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{sin}\alpha \}],`$
$`_X^{(5)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜^2A_2^{(\omega )}}{8\gamma _0^2}}[e^{t/\tau _c}\{\mathrm{sin}2(\lambda t+\alpha )+2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{cos}2(\lambda t+\alpha )\}`$ (A12)
$`\{\mathrm{sin}2\alpha +2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{cos}2\alpha \}],`$
$`_X^{(6)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜^2A_1^{(\omega )}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau _c}{2\gamma _0}}\right)[e^{t/\tau _c}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{t/\tau _c}}{4\gamma _0\tau _c}}\{2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{sin}2(\lambda t+\alpha )\mathrm{cos}2(\lambda t+\alpha )\}`$ (A14)
$`\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\gamma _0\tau _c}}(2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}],`$
$`_X^{(7)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜}{\gamma _0\omega }}[A_3^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{sin}[\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t]\mathrm{cos}[\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t])`$ (A18)
$`2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\mathrm{cos}\alpha \}`$
$`A_4^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{sin}[\alpha +(\lambda +\omega )t]\mathrm{cos}[\alpha +(\lambda +\omega )t])`$
$`2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\mathrm{cos}\alpha \}],`$
$`_X^{(8)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜^2A_3^{(\omega )}}{\gamma _0}}[A_3^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{sin}(\lambda \omega )t\mathrm{cos}(\lambda \omega )t)+1\}`$ (A21)
$`A_4^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha +(\lambda +\omega )t]\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha +(\lambda +\omega )t])`$
$`(2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}],`$
$`_X^{(9)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜^2A_4^{(\omega )}}{\gamma _0}}[A_4^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{sin}(\lambda +\omega )t\mathrm{cos}(\lambda +\omega )t)+1\}`$ (A24)
$`A_3^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t]\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t])`$
$`(2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}],`$
$`_X^{(10)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜^2A_5^{(\omega )}}{\gamma _0}}[A_4^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha +(\lambda +\omega )t]+2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha +(\lambda +\omega )t])`$ (A27)
$`(\mathrm{sin}2\alpha +2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}`$
$`+A_3^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(\mathrm{sin}(\lambda \omega )t+2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{cos}(\lambda \omega )t)2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\}]`$
and

$`_X^{(11)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜^2A_6^{(\omega )}}{\gamma _0}}[A_3^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t]+2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t])`$ (A30)
$`(\mathrm{sin}2\alpha +2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}`$
$`+A_4^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(\mathrm{sin}(\lambda +\omega )t+2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{cos}(\lambda +\omega )t)2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\}]`$
where

$`A_1^{(\omega )}=\tau _c\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+4\tau _c^2(\lambda \omega )^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+4\tau _c^2(\lambda +\omega )^2}}\right],`$ (A31)
$`A_2^{(\omega )}=2\tau _c^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \omega }{1+4\tau _c^2(\lambda \omega )^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \omega }{1+4\tau _c^2(\lambda +\omega )^2}}\right],`$ (A32)
$`A_3^{(\omega )}={\displaystyle \frac{\tau _c}{1+4\tau _c^2(\lambda \omega )^2}},A_4^{(\omega )}={\displaystyle \frac{\tau _c}{1+4\tau _c^2(\lambda +\omega )^2}},`$ (A33)
$`A_5^{(\omega )}={\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _c^2(\lambda \omega )}{1+4\tau _c^2(\lambda \omega )^2}}\mathrm{and}A_6^{(\omega )}={\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _c^2(\lambda +\omega )}{1+4\tau _c^2(\lambda +\omega )^2}}.`$ (A34)
Similarly we have

$`_V(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`_V^{(1)}(\omega ,t)+_V^{(2)}(\omega ,t)+_V^{(3)}(\omega ,t)+_V^{(4)}(\omega ,t)+_V^{(5)}(\omega ,t)`$ (A36)
$`+_V^{(6)}(\omega ,t)+_V^{(7)}(\omega ,t)`$
with

$`_V^{(1)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{A_1^{(\omega )}}{2\tau _c}}+\lambda A_2^{(\omega )})[e^{t/\tau _c}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{t/\tau _c}}{4\gamma _0\tau _c}}\{2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{sin}2(\lambda t+\alpha )\mathrm{cos}2(\lambda t+\alpha )\}`$ (A38)
$`\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\gamma _0\tau _c}}(2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}],`$
$`_V^{(2)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \tau _c}{2}}(\lambda A_1^{(\omega )}{\displaystyle \frac{A_2^{(\omega )}}{2\tau _c}})[e^{t/\tau _c}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{t/\tau _c}}{4\gamma _0\tau _c}}\{2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{sin}2(\lambda t+\alpha )\mathrm{cos}2(\lambda t+\alpha )\}`$ (A40)
$`\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\gamma _0\tau _c}}(2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}],`$
$`_V^{(3)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\gamma _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda A_1^{(\omega )}}{\tau _c}}+\lambda ^2A_2^{(\omega )}{\displaystyle \frac{A_2^{(\omega )}}{4\tau _c^2}}\right)`$ (A42)
$`\times \left[e^{t/\tau _c}\left\{\mathrm{sin}2(\lambda t+\alpha )+2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{cos}2(\lambda t+\alpha )\right\}\left\{\mathrm{sin}2\alpha +2\lambda \tau _c\mathrm{cos}2\alpha \right\}\right],`$
$`_V^{(4)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{A_3^{(\omega )}}{2\tau _c}}+\lambda A_5^{(\omega )})[{\displaystyle \frac{A_3^{(\omega )}}{2\tau _c}}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{sin}(\lambda \omega )t\mathrm{cos}(\lambda \omega )t)+1\}`$ (A48)
$`+\lambda A_3^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t]+2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t])`$
$`e^{t/2\tau _c}(\mathrm{sin}(\lambda \omega )t+2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{cos}(\lambda \omega )t)`$
$`(\mathrm{sin}2\alpha +2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{cos}2\alpha )+2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A_4^{(\omega )}}{2\tau _c}}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha +(\lambda +\omega )t]\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha +(\lambda +\omega )t])`$
$`(2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}],`$
$`_V^{(5)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{A_4^{(\omega )}}{2\tau _c}}+\lambda A_6^{(\omega )})[{\displaystyle \frac{A_4^{(\omega )}}{2\tau _c}}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{sin}(\lambda +\omega )t\mathrm{cos}(\lambda +\omega )t)+1\}`$ (A54)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A_3^{(\omega )}}{2\tau _c}}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t]\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t])`$
$`(2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}`$
$`+\lambda A_3^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t]+2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t])`$
$`(\mathrm{sin}2\alpha +2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}`$
$`\lambda A_4^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(\mathrm{sin}(\lambda +\omega )t+2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{cos}(\lambda +\omega )t)2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\}],`$
$`_V^{(6)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda A_3^{(\omega )}{\displaystyle \frac{A_5^{(\omega )}}{2\tau _c}})[{\displaystyle \frac{A_3^{(\omega )}}{2\tau _c}}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(\mathrm{sin}(\lambda \omega )t+2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{cos}(\lambda \omega )t)`$ (A61)
$`2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{A_4^{(\omega )}}{2\tau _c}}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha +(\lambda +\omega )t]+2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha +(\lambda +\omega )t])`$
$`(\mathrm{sin}2\alpha +2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}`$
$`+\lambda A_4^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha +(\lambda +\omega )t]\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha +(\lambda +\omega )t])`$
$`(2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}`$
$`+\lambda A_3^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{sin}(\lambda \omega )t\mathrm{cos}(\lambda \omega )t)+1\}]`$
and

$`_V^{(7)}(\omega ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda A_4^{(\omega )}{\displaystyle \frac{A_6^{(\omega )}}{2\tau _c}})[{\displaystyle \frac{A_3^{(\omega )}}{\tau _c}}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t]`$ (A68)
$`+2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t])(\mathrm{sin}2\alpha +2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{A_4^{(\omega )}}{\tau _c}}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(\mathrm{sin}(\lambda +\omega )t+2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{cos}(\lambda +\omega )t)`$
$`2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\}`$
$`+\lambda A_3^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{sin}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t]\mathrm{cos}[2\alpha +(\lambda \omega )t])`$
$`(2\tau _c(\lambda \omega )\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\}`$
$`+\lambda A_4^{(\omega )}\{e^{t/2\tau _c}(2\tau _c(\lambda +\omega )\mathrm{sin}(\lambda +\omega )t\mathrm{cos}(\lambda +\omega )t)+1\}].`$


text:
# High-resolution spectroscopy of QY Sge – An obscured RV Tauri variable?

## 1 Introduction

Our investigation of QY Sge (IRAS 20056+1834) was prompted by Menzies & Whitelock’s (1988) report of broad Na D emission lines in the spectrum of this G0 supergiant with a strong infrared excess. Broad Na D (and other) emission lines are seen in spectra of R Coronae Borealis stars taken at minimum light. Questions abound about the location of the broad-line emitting gas with respect to the R CrB star, and about the excitation mechanism for these lines. Insights into the formation of the broad lines may possibly be obtainable by observing other stars exhibiting similar lines, particularly, targets like QY Sge where the emission lines seem to be a permanent feature of the spectrum. It was in this spirit that we observed QY Sge at high spectral resolution.

Menzies & Whitelock observed QY Sge at 3.5Å resolution at several epochs in the late 1980s. The Na D lines were seen strongly in emission with a width of 140 km s-1 (FWHM) and at a velocity equal to the stellar absorption line velocity to within the errors of measurement ($`\pm `$ 15 km s-1). Other evidence for emission was offered: Ca ii H and K showed emission cores, Ca i 4226Å was weakly in emission, and H$`\alpha `$ was filled in by emission. Consideration of the absorption lines led to a spectral type of about G0I.

QY Sge’s infrared excess signals the presence of a thick dust cloud for which Menzies & Whitelock estimated a blackbody temperature of about 600 K. Polarimetry at optical (Trammell, Dinerstein, & Goodrich 1994) and infrared (Gledhill et al. 2001) wavelengths showed significant polarization with the degree of polarization increasing from the visual to a maximum of about 14 % in the J band and then decreasing to about 7 % in the H band and 3 % in the K band. Optical polarimetry provides an important clue to the location of the gas emitting the broad lines; the broad Na D emission lines are unpolarized although the local continuum is polarized (Trammell et al. 1994). At about the H band and to longer wavelengths, the flux is principally emission from the dust, but at wavelengths shorter than H band, the flux is photospheric radiation scattered off the surrounding dust (Menzies & Whitelock 1988). The source has not been spatially resolved.

The parallels with the R CrB stars are several – yellow supergiant, dusty circumstellar cloud, and broad emission lines – but incomplete in that QY Sge is not obviously H-deficient. The R CrB stars’ broad emission lines are seen only after a star has faded by several magnitudes. Yet, QY Sge shows the broad lines at ‘maximum’ light. This happy circumstance arises because dust dims the star but not the region emitting the broad lines. While there may be similarities of geometry and excitation between QY Sge and the R CrB stars, their evolution is likely to have differed greatly. Menzies & Whitelock (1988) discussed several possible histories for QY Sge but were unable to decide whether the star was an evolved massive star or a low mass post-AGB star. Others (Trammell et al. 1994; Gledhill et al. 2001) have assumed that QY Sge should be listed with post-AGB stars and protoplanetary nebulae.

## 2 Observations

QY Sge was observed with the McDonald Observatory’s 2.7m Harlan J. Smith telescope and its ‘2dcoudé’ cross-dispersed echelle spectrograph (Tull et al. 1995) on 1999 August 17 and 18, and 2000 June 14. The observed bandpass ran from about 3900 Å to 10000 Å with gaps beyond about 5600 Å where the echelle orders were incompletely captured on the Tektronix 2048 $`\times `$ 2048 CCD. An additional observation was obtained on 2001 July 13 using the Sandiford Cassegrain echelle spectrograph on the McDonald 2.1m Otto Struve reflector (McCarthy et al. 1993). This spectrum recorded with a Reticon CCD provided complete coverage of the interval 4500 Å to 5170 Å. Observations of a Th-Ar hollow cathode lamp provided the wavelength calibration. All spectra were obtained at a nominal spectral resolving power of 60 000. Data were reduced in the standard fashion using the IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomical Observatories, which is operated by the Association for Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract to the National Science Foundation. software package.

Spectra of $`\gamma `$ Cyg, and 89 Her were obtained also with the ‘2dcoudé’ spectrograph. Gamma Cyg is a normal F8Iab star. The spectrum of 89 Her, a warmer supergiant (spectral type F2Ib), includes sharp emission lines from low excitation levels of abundant atoms, but lacks broad emission lines.

## 3 The Absorption and Emission Line Spectrum

Inspection of QY Sge’s spectra shows three obvious components: absorption lines representative of a late-F to early-G supergiant, sharp emission lines from resonance and low excitation transitions of abundant neutral atoms, and a few broad emission lines (e.g., Na D and K i 7665 Å and 7699 Å lines).

### 3.1 The Absorption Lines

The absorption line spectrum broadly resembles that of $`\gamma `$ Cyg. A striking difference is that QY Sge’s lines are much broader. A few lines are clearly stronger in QY Sge than in $`\gamma `$ Cyg. Among these are the C i lines (Figure 1). Low excitation lines of neutral metals are also stronger in QY Sge. A spectacular example is shown in Figure 2: the Fe i at 5060.1 Å from the resonance multiplet. This and similar lines are slightly red-shifted relative to higher excitation lines (see below). A few lines are greatly weaker in QY Sge. These are lines of singly-ionized atoms such as Sc ii, Ti ii, Y ii, and Nd ii. Three examples are given in Figure 2. Line weakening does not appear to be due to overlying emission.

By inspection, $`\gamma `$ Cyg’s lines are sharper than those in QY Sge. To facilitate a direct comparison of the spectra, we have broadened $`\gamma `$ Cyg’s spectrum to match that of QY Sge. Assuming that a standard profile for a rigidly rotating star suffices, we find that a projected velocity $`v\mathrm{sin}i=30\pm `$ 5 km s-1 equalizes the line widths in the two spectra. This exercise should not be taken to imply that rotational line broadening is necessarily responsible for QY Sge’s broader lines. The difference cannot be attributed to a higher microturbulence in QY Sge’s atmosphere (see below). Alternatively, if macroturbulence is invoked, the motions in QY Sge are highly supersonic, an improbable scenario. As we discuss below, the broadening is plausibly attributed to the receipt of photons not directly from the star but after scattering off moving dust grains in the stellar wind.

The radial velocity was measured from a set of unblended absorption lines. For the ‘2dcoudé’ spectra about 150 lines were measured. Fewer lines - about 30 - were selected from the Sandiford spectrum. The radial velocities are -21 $`\pm `$ 1.5 km s-1 for 1999 August 17 and 18, -23 $`\pm `$ 1.5 km s-1 for 2000 June 14, and -9.1 $`\pm `$ -2.2 km s-1 for 2001 July 13. The star is obviously a velocity variable which is not surprising for such a luminous star. At this time, the systemic velocity is unknown.

Low excitation Fe i and other lines show a more positive velocity by about 7 to 9 km s-1. While the equivalent widths of the higher excitation lines agree well with those of the lines in $`\gamma `$ Cyg, the low excitation lines with the more positive velocity are stronger in QY Sge than in $`\gamma `$ Cyg. This difference rules out emission line contamination of QY Sge’s low excitation lines. These measurements refer to spectra taken in 1999 and 2000.

### 3.2 Sharp Emission Lines

The most prominent of the sharp emission lines are the Na D and K i resonance lines (Figure 3). Weaker lines are scattered across the bandpass. These low excitation lines are less common than in the spectrum of 89 Her, and also broader than their 89 Her counterparts. Among the weaker lines are the Fe i lines of multiplet RMT(12) of which an example is shown in Figure 4.

The radial velocity of the emission peak for the strongest lines is -21 km s-1 from the Na D lines, -24 km s-1 from the K i lines, and -24 km s-1 from the Ca ii H line. These results are from the 1999 August spectrum but the 2000 June spectrum gives similar results. The peak velocity is essentially equal to the absorption line velocity given above. This may be a coincidence because it appears that these strong emission lines are flanked by absorption, a suspicion reinforced by the fact that the widths (7 km s-1) of the emission lines are much smaller than those (26 km s-1) of weaker lines.

The weak emission lines of Fe i \- RMT(12) and RMT(13) - are at a velocity of about -14 km s-1, which is the velocity of the absorption lines from the same low excitation levels. and red-shifted by about 7 km s-1 with respect to the absorption line velocity measured from higher excitation lines. These emission lines are broad (FWHM $``$ 26 km s-1) relative to their counterparts in 89 Her. The upper levels of the absorption lines of Fe i RMT(1) serve as the upper level of the emission lines from Fe i RMT(12). Similarly, the upper level for Fe i RMT(2) seen in absorption feeds Fe i RMT(13) seen in emission; iron atoms from low lying states are absorbing photons and feeding them into other lines sharing the upper state. All of these measurements refer to the 1999 and 2000 spectra.

### 3.3 Broad Emission Lines

What drew us to study QY Sge was the report of broad emission lines. The most prominent are the Na D lines which include a sharp line (Figure 3). This Figure also shows the K i resonance lines where the broad component is present but less prominent relative to the sharp emission component than in the Na D lines. Broad emission is weakly present in the Ca ii H line. Figure 5 compares the Na D profiles of QY Sge with profiles for three other stars: R CrB at minimum light, 89 Her, and the normal supergiant $`\gamma `$ Cyg. Gamma Cyg shows the photospheric Na D profile with two weak blue-shifted absorption lines in the line cores; these are possibly interstellar components. For 89 Her, the photospheric Na D absorption lines appear partly filled in with emission, and complex blue-shifted absorption present at about 2 Å from the deep absorption core is probably of circumstellar origin. Very weak emission may be present in the red wing of the D2 line. Broad emission in addition to sharp emission is seen in QY Sge and R CrB. For R CrB the broad emission of the red wing of D2 overlaps the blue wing of D1, but D1 and D2 are well resolved for QY Sge. The intrinsic profile of the broad lines in QY Sge is probably that of a single peak, but the superposition of the sharp emission and accompanying absorption creates the appearance of a broad emission split into a blue and red component of approximately equal intensity. A part of the central absorption may be contributed by the photospheric line. The D1/D2 flux ratio is slightly less than the value of two expected for optically thin lines.

QY Sge’s broad emissions are approximately centred on the stellar velocity. Average velocity of the blue and red peaks is -24 km s-1 for the Ca ii K line, and -27 km s-1 for D2, and -29 km s-1 for D1 from the 1999 August spectrum for which the systemic velocity was -21 km s-1. The separation of the blue and red peaks is about 130 km s-1. The base widths of the lines are about 270 km s-1. Emission in H$`\alpha `$ may be related to these broad emissions: the P Cygni profile at H$`\alpha `$ has red emission extending to -100 km s-1 from the photospheric velocity.

## 4 An Abundance Analysis

Although it is recognized that QY Sge’s photosphere may have an unusual construction, it is useful to search for large abundance anomalies. Quite obviously, the low excitation lines and lines contaminated by overlying emission should be excluded from the abundance analysis. In particular, we excluded resonance lines and lines which appear in emission in 89 Her. A standard LTE model atmosphere-based analysis was undertaken. Models were taken from Kurucz’s grid (http://cfaku5.harvard.edu), and the current version of MOOG (Sneden 1973) was used to predict equivalent widths.

Usual procedures were used to determine the defining parameters: the effective temperature Teff,the surface gravity $`\mathrm{log}g`$, the iron abundance \[Fe/H\], and the microturbulence $`\xi _t`$. A collection of unblended Fe i lines was used to determine Teff and $`\xi _t`$. Then, a set of Fe ii lines with the Fe i lines and the assumption of ionization equilibrium gave $`\mathrm{log}g`$. We obtained T$`{}_{\mathrm{eff}}{}^{}=5850\pm 200`$ K, $`\mathrm{log}g=0.7\pm 0.25`$ in cgs units, $`\xi _t=4.5\pm 0.5`$ km s-1, and \[Fe/H\] $`=0.4\pm 0.1`$. These values are quite similar to those found for $`\gamma `$ Cyg by Luck & Lambert (1981): Teff = 6100 K, $`\mathrm{log}g=0.5`$, $`\xi _t`$ = 3.5 km s-1, and \[Fe/H\] = +0.1, which is not a surprise given the similarity in the spectra of the two supergiants.

There is no evidence that QY Sge is hydrogen deficient. Paschen lines appear in QY Sge with strengths similar to those of the lines in $`\gamma `$ Cyg. The H$`\alpha `$ profile has a central absorption strength comparable to that of the photospheric line in $`\gamma `$ Cyg. Furthermore, as noted below, the C i and CH lines return the same carbon abundance.

Derived abundances are given in Table 1 as $`\mathrm{log}ϵ`$(X) on the scale $`\mathrm{log}ϵ`$(H) = 12, \[X/H\], and \[X/Fe\]. The tabulated uncertainties are derived from the line-to-line scatter; standard error is smaller by $`\sqrt{\mathrm{N}}`$. Uncertainties arising from the errors in the model atmosphere parameters are less than about $`\pm `$ 0.2 dex. The fact that the absorption lines are broad introduces an above average uncertainty in measurements of the equivalent widths.

Carbon and nitrogen are overabundant. The selection of C i and N i lines avoids very strong lines. As a check on our analysis, we analysed the C i lines in our spectrum of $`\gamma `$ Cyg obtaining the same abundance as Luck & Lambert (1981). There are CH lines in the spectrum of QY Sge. Analysis of these lines returned the carbon abundance in Table 1. The oxygen abundance is best determined from the \[O i\] lines; the 6363 Å line is present and useful despite mild contamination from the telluric emission line. The star’s photosphere is O-rich not C-rich. Sodium’s overabundance is based on four low excitation lines. The Na i lines are clearly stronger than in $`\gamma `$ Cyg. This is also the case for the high-excitation S i lines.

For the underabundant elements (Sc, Ti, Y, Zr, and Ce), the lines are obviously weaker than their counterparts in $`\gamma `$ Cyg. The selected lines do not appear in emission in 89 Her where emission lines are more numerous. It is striking that the heavy elements have unusual relative abundances: Y, Zr, and Ce represented by weak lines are underabundant by about 1 dex but Ba and Eu show approximately solar abundances. This anomaly we explain below. Although the Ba abundance is derived from the weakest of the observed lines, namely the 5853 Å line with an equivalent width of 288 mÅ, the Ba abundance is quite sensitive to the assumed microturbulence. The Y, Zr, Ce, and Eu abundances are insensitive to the microturbulence.

These abundance anomalies are reminiscent of a pattern exhibited by the warmer RV Tauri variables whose photospheres are depleted in those elements which are the first to condense into grains as gas cools. Giridhar, Lambert, & Gonzalez (2000), who discuss abundances derived for a sample of RV Tauri variables, show that the abundance anomalies are present only in the warmer stars. QY Sge’s Teff and $`\mathrm{log}g`$ place it among the affected variables, as Figure 6 shows. One may suppose that the report of photometric variations on a characteristic time-scale of 50 days (Menzies & Whitelock 1988) is a sign that QY Sge is a RV Tauri variable. The infrared excess of QY Sge is only slightly more extreme than that of the extreme case - AR Pup - included by Giridhar et al. in their discussion of infrared excesses: QY Sge has the infrared colours J-K = 2.9 and K-L = 2.6 (Menzies & Whitelock 1988) compared to AR Pup’s J-K = 2.6 and K-L = 2.1. Abundance anomalies are more severe for AR Pup than for QY Sge but Giridhar et al. note that these anomalies do not correlate well with the infrared excesses.

Abundance anomalies among the warm RV Tauri variables (Preston types RV B) are fairly well correlated with the condensation temperature ($`T_{cond}`$) computed for equilibrium cooling of a solar composition gas at low pressure; the severest underabundances are found for those elements expected to condense out at the highest temperatures. The temperature Tcond is that at which 50 % of the element has condensed into solids. We take estimates of Tcond from Lodders & Fegley (1998) and Wasson (1985). For several elements, the former reference gives the temperature at which a compound starts forming. In such cases, we have referred to Wasson for the temperature at a pressure of 10-4 bar at which 50 % of the element is in solid compounds. Of course, QY Sge’s present atmosphere has a decidely non-solar composition but a key influence on condensation of solids is where the C/O ratio is placed with respect to the critical value C/O =1. QY Sge has and presumably has had a C/O ratio of less than one, and, therefore, the assumption of a solar mix is likely to be a valid approximation. Figure 7 shows QY Sge’s \[X/H\] from Table 1 plotted against Tcond. There is a clear tendency for the elements of highest Tcond to be underabundant relative to those of low Tcond. Carbon and nitrogen should be discounted because they may have been altered in the course of the star’s evolution. Oxygen and sodium may also have been enriched. The initial metallicity of the star as indicated by sulphur and zinc is close to solar. It is notable that, in this case and unlike a majority of the RV B variables, iron and other elements are only slightly, if at all, depleted. The severe depletions are restricted to Sc, Ti, and three heavy elements. The scatter at a fixed Tcond is similar to that for well observed RV Tauri RV B variables. There is a reasonable correlation between the abundances \[X/H\] and the depletions measured for the cold interstellar diffuse clouds projected in front of $`\zeta `$ Oph. This is shown in Figure 8 where the data for $`\zeta `$ Oph are taken from Savage & Sembach (1996). As noted above, nitrogen should be discounted because it may be enriched in QY Sge. Scandium and the heavy elements are not plotted for lack of estimates for $`\zeta `$ Oph. Aluminium probably falls on the general trend: our estimate is consistent with Morton’s (1985) result for $`\zeta `$ Oph of \[X/H\] of -3.1 to -3.4. For QY Sge, the heavy elements Y to Eu fit the trend with Tcond quite well: Ba and Eu with T$`{}_{\mathrm{cond}}{}^{}1200`$ K have approximately solar abundances but Y, Zr, and Ce with higher Tcond are underabundant. There is no evidence from Figure 7 that QY Sge is enriched in the $`s`$-process elements but this too is a common property of the RV Tauri variables.

Given the abundance anomalies, we suppose that, as in the warmer RV Tauri variables, dust condenses in QY Sge’s environs and is expelled by radiation pressure. Not all the remaining gas is dragged away with the grains. Some of the gas is able to return to the star. If this winnowing of dust from gas is maintained for a long period, and, if mixing between the photosphere and the envelope is suppressed, the photosphere assumes the composition of the returning gas. QY Sge which certainly now maintains a nearby reservoir of dust appears to have a photosphere reduced in condensible elements. At the same time, the photosphere has approximately normal abundances of elements like Si, Mg, and Fe which should be principal constituents of the circumstellar dust. From Figure 7 we infer a dust temperature of about 1400 K for the regions of effective winnowing. This temperature is considerably hotter than the 600 K inferred from the infrared excesss so that the effective regions are probably interior to the exterior of the thick dusty layers obscuring our direct view of the star.

## 5 The Circumstellar Environment

Our observations provide several novel results to complement those presented by Menzies & Whitelock (1988) from low resolution spectra and photometry. Their data led them to propose a model of ‘an extremely non-uniform circumstellar shell’ heated by starlight. In extending this idea, we must account for the characteristics of the three distinct spectroscopic components:

* The unusually broad photospheric absorption lines. The breadth is presumed to arise from Doppler shifts imposed by scattering off moving dust grains.
* The sharp emission lines and the absorption lines of the pumping resonance lines. The fact that absorption and emission lines occur at the same radial velocity would suggest that the emitting and absorbing volumes are coincident and along the line of sight from the scattering surface to the observer.
* The broad emission in the resonance lines of Na D, K i, Ca i and ii. Lack of polarization of the broad Na D emission lines implies that the emitted photons are not scattered from the surface contributing the photospheric spectrum. Trammell et al. (1994) in their polarization measurements did not resolve the Na D emission into its broad and sharp components, but we assume that because the lion’s share of the equivalent width was most probably contributed by the broad component that it is unpolarized; the sharp component may also be unpolarized. We assume too that the weaker broad lines are also umpolarized.

Adapting a geometry now recognized as not uncommon for the outer regions of post-AGB stars and planetary nebulae, we place the bulk of the dust in an equatorial torus with its inner edge close to the star, a requirement set by the derived black body dust temperature. Along the line of sight to the star, the dust is so very optically thick that directly transmitted photospheric light contributes a negligible fraction to the observed optical spectrum. If the line of sight is inclined slightly to the plane of the torus, the rear of the torus’ inner edge will be visible but not the star (Figure 9). In our picture, there is bipolar flow of gas from the star. It seems likely that the present wind from the 6000 K star contains little or no dust. The dusty torus may be leftover from the star’s earlier life as a mass-losing AGB star. There is evidence that even more evolved (i.e., hotter) post-AGB stars with strong infrared excesses are members of binary systems, e.g., 89 Her (Walters et al. 1993), and HR 4049 (Bakker et al. 1998). The geometry recalls that proposed for VY CMa, a mass-losing M supergiant, by Herbig (1969, 1970).

Qualitatively, the origins of the three distinct spectroscopic features may be placed as follows:

* The rear of the inner edge of the dusty torus is assumed primarily responsible for scattering the photospheric spectrum toward the observer. On the assumption that the dust is approximately in Keplerian motion, the line broadening will result from the Doppler shifts imposed by scattering over an extended part of the inner edge. The net Doppler shift should be close to zero.
* Gas near the star between the observer and the torus’ inner edge is exposed to starlight. This gas should be at a low density such that most atoms and ions will be in their ground states. These atoms may be excited to give the sharp emission lines by photons received directly from the star or indirectly by photons scattered off the torus. Presumably the former are more numerous. In this case, the profile of the sharp emission line is set by the wind velocity (assumed radial), the opening angle of the bipolar flow, and the angle of inclination of the torus to the line of sight. A resonance line seen in absorption in the spectrum of the scattered light from the torus’ inner edge will show the same spread in Doppler shifts as a sharp emission line. To within the measurement errors, the sharp emission and their exciting absorption lines do have the same width. Additional absorption in resonance lines may occur in the path between the star and the point of scattering off the torus. This absorption component will be Doppler-shifted to the blue relative to the scattered stellar light, and the accompanying emission, if visible to the observer, will be red-shifted.
* Broad resonance emission lines are assigned to resonance fluorescence by stellar photons interacting with atoms in the bipolar flow. If the torus is of large radius, the emission from the receding half of the bipolar flow will be occulted, and the observed emission line will show a small net blue-shift with a magnitude dependent on the wind velocity, and the tilt between the axis of the bipolar flow and the line of sight. According to Figure 9, an emission line’s width will depend on the same factors; emitting gas far from the torus will have line of sight velocities from approximately $`v_w^g\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ to $`+v_w^g\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`v_w^g`$ is the velocity of the gas at that radial distance from the star, and $`2\theta `$ is the angle subtended at the star by the inner edge of the torus. The observed line width implies a wind velocity of about 100 - 150 km s-1. Since the torus is here considered to be the polarizing source for the scattered photospheric spectrum, the Na D and other broad emission lines will be polarized differently and probably to a significantly smaller degree.

The model makes qualitative predictions about velocity shifts relative to the systemic stellar velocity. At this time, too few observations of the stellar absorption lines are available to determine the systemic velocity. Measured velocities are also affected by possible changes in the net velocity imposed by the scattering surface. It should be noted that the model does not explain readily why the emission lines are either sharp or broad. This is particularly an issue for the broad lines which are obviously accompanied by a sharp line (Figure 3). Our model supposes both lines are formed in the bipolar flow. It seems necessary to invoke a sharp transition from a slow to a high velocity wind but this should occur without a large change in physical conditions of the gas; the sharp lines are formed below the transition point and the broad lines above.

## 6 Concluding Remarks

QY Sge is here identified as descended from a luminous red giant on either the higher reaches of the red giant branch (RGB) prior to helium ignition or the AGB. Assuming a mass of about 1$`M_{}`$, QY Sge’s Teff and $`\mathrm{log}g`$ correspond to a luminosity $`L10^4L_{}`$. This is achieved by a star near the tip of the RGB or at a quite advanced along the AGB (Figure 6). Carbon enrichment of the surface following the expected depletion resulting from the first dredge-up early on the RGB could possibly have occurred during the He-core flash at the tip of the RGB but more likely is a result of the third dredge-up early on the AGB; the star evolved away from the AGB before the $`s`$-process manufactured heavy elements in large quantities in the He-shell.

QY Sge is likely quite distant from the Sun. Menzies & Whitelock used the apparent bolometric magnitude from the flux curve in combination with assumed absolute bolometric magnitudes to arrive at a distance. For example, adopting their $`m_{\mathrm{bol}}8.5`$ and including a small bolometric correction, our luminosity estimate puts the distance to QY Sge at about 3 kpc. This is an upper limit because the dust cannot block all of the stellar radiation, and, furthermore, the optical fluxes depend on the efficiency of the scattering of light by the less dusty regions. Interstellar absorption is small. Menzies & Whitelock estimated $`A_V1.2`$ mag from the B - V and the intrinsic colours of a G0I star, and noted that reddening maps suggest $`A_V2`$ for distances greater than about 600 pc. An independent estimate of reddening is possible from our detection of the diffuse interstellar band at 6284 Å. The band’s equivalent width of 461 mÅ with a calibration offered by Somerville (1995) gives $`E(BV)`$ 0.40, or $`A_V1.2`$. Circumstellar absorption for the direct light from the star is substantial; we estimate about 6 magnitudes for the visual from comparison of the infrared (I,J,H) colours with the colours of unreddened G supergiants.

QY Sge, as noted above, shares Teff, $`\mathrm{log}g`$, and abundance anomalies with the RV Tauri variables. This association suggests that stars may commonly depart the AGB due to severe mass loss and that QY Sge is not the result of freak circumstances. A link with the RV Tauri variables recalls the suggestion that all RV Tauri variables belong to binary systems with substantial circumbinary dusty disks (Van Winckel et al. 1999). In addition, QY Sge has many similarities with 89 Her, a spectroscopic binary with a very low mass companion to the post-AGB primary: similar H$`\alpha `$ profiles, similar sharp low excitation emission lines of neutral metals, and a considerable infrared excess (Walters et al. 1993). There is one prominent difference between the pair: 89 Her shows a blue-shifted high velocity absorption at Na D in place of QY Sge’s broad emission lines, but, according to our model, QY Sge would show such absorption if seen pole-on.

Further photometric and spectroscopic observations are desirable to investigate whether QY Sge is a RV Tauri variable and/or a spectroscopic binary. At present, we cannot guess the systemic velocity. Higher quality spectra would be useful in order to effect line profile comparisons of emission and absorption lines for the low excitation transitions. Inflow of gas onto the star may be occurring in order to sustain the abundance anomalies (Figure 7). Is gas from the inner edge of the torus falling onto the star? If so, high-resolution high S/N spectra around key resonance lines may reveal the infalling gas in the spectrum of the light scattered off the torus’ inner edge. This would be the first detection of such a gas stream in stars affected bya winnowing of gas from dust.

Our attention was drawn to QY Sge by the report of broad Na D emission lines. Very few stars show such lines in their spectra. Apart from the R CrB stars observed in deep minimum, QY Sge may have very few cousins; we noted VY CMa and Lloyd Evans (1997) mentions IRAS 13258-8103 as having strong Na D emission. The geometry of the circumstellar material suggested for QY Sge may be a common one. Menzies & Whitelock point out that, if viewed from another angle, QY Sge would be observed as a normal supergiant with a relatively weak infrared excess. ‘Perspective effects’ give QY Sge its prominent infrared excess and strong broad emission lines. This geometry would in principle account for the lines in the R CrB stars but they also show high-excitation He i (and other) lines.

## 7 Acknowledgements

We thank Gajendra Pandey, Eswar Reddy, and David Yong for observing QY Sge at our request, Sunetra Giridhar for providing Figure 6, and Melody Lambert for designing Figure 9. This research has been supported in part by the US National Science Foundation (grant AST 9618414).