format: text

text:
# Emergence of Quantum-Classical Dynamics in an Open Quantum Environment

## I Introduction

Since it is often impossible to isolate a quantum system completely from its environment, the study of open quantum dynamical systems is necessary in many circumstances. Techniques used to treat open quantum systems have been developed extensively and used in numerous applications.  Projection operator techniques  and influence functional methods  have been actively used in chemical physics in studies of electron, proton, and exciton transfer processes in the condensed phase and in biological systems.

In this paper, we investigate some of the circumstances under which an open quantum system can be described using mixed quantum-classical dynamics. Quantum-classical dynamics is used to study condensed phase many-body systems , especially in the context of methods for treating non-adiabatic dynamics . In the studies presented here, we consider a composite quantum mechanical system $`AC`$ comprising two coupled subsystems $`A`$ and $`C`$; subsystem $`C`$ is assumed to be in direct contact with a thermal quantum mechanical bath $`B`$. Systems with this structure can arise in condensed phase dynamics where certain quantum degrees of freedom ($`A`$), for example, those associated with protons or electrons, may interact directly with neighboring solvent molecules ($`C`$), which in turn interact with the rest of the solvent ($`B`$). It is interesting to determine if the composite system may be treated as mixed quantum-classical system where the dynamics of subsystem $`C`$, which is in direct contact with the heat bath, is classical in character while subsystem $`A`$ retains its quantum nature. Some aspects of the dynamics of such quantum-classical composite systems have been investigated.

In order to investigate this problem we study a simple model system where subsystem $`A`$ depends on spin degrees of freedom and subsystem $`C`$ is a single harmonic oscillator bilinearly coupled both to subsystem $`A`$ and the bath. The bath is a collection of independent harmonic oscillators. While this is a highly simplified model of the realistic systems discussed above, it does capture some essential features of real coupled systems and is amenable to detailed analysis. Due to its interaction with the bath, the dynamics of subsystem $`C`$ is dissipative and executes brownian motion. The brownian motion of a quantum particle governed by different potential functions and immersed in a thermal harmonic oscillator bath has been studied extensively by influence functional methods. The character of its dynamics is determined by the system-bath coupling and the spectral density and temperature of the bath. In the composite system we study, the dynamics of the $`C`$ subsystem oscillator is also influenced by the quantum dynamics of subsystem $`A`$. The dynamics of subsystem $`A`$ is more complicated. It is also dissipative but its energy must be transmitted through subsystem $`C`$ to the bath. Our results on the applicability of mixed quantum-classical dynamics are based on the nature of decoherence in the coupled system: when one subsystem behaves quantum mechanically and the other classically, there must be a mechanism making the former decohere slowly and the latter quickly.

The outline of this paper is as follows: In Sec. II we specify the model in detail and outline the application of the influence functional formalism to it. Although we use influence functional methods, similar results can be obtained by other methods. Section III considers the equilibration of the $`CB`$ system in the absence of $`A`$ and establishes that this composite system can be described by an effective spectral density. The emergence of mixed quantum-classical dynamics is investigated in Sec. IV. In this section we use the results developed in the previous sections, specialized to a two-level system in the strongly non-adiabatic regime where the populations change very slowly. We study the decoherence of the off-diagonal elements of the subsystem $`A`$ reduced density matrix in this regime and show under what conditions one may observe quantum-classical dynamics. The conclusions of the study are presented in Sec. V. The Appendices contain additional details of the calculations for Ohmic and super-Ohmic spectral densities.

## II General formulation

### A Composite system in a thermal bath

The composite $`ACB`$ quantum system consists of three coupled subsystems: subsystem $`A`$ is coupled directly to subsystem $`C`$, while subsystem $`C`$ is in direct contact with a thermal bath $`B`$. The $`ACB`$ system hamiltonian is,

$`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_A+\widehat{V}_{AC}+\widehat{H}_C+\widehat{V}_{CB}+\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{H}_C+\widehat{H}_B.`$ (1)
The thermal bath is taken to be a set of $`N`$ independent harmonic oscillators with frequencies $`\omega _n`$, masses $`m_n`$, and coordinates and conjugate momenta $`(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})(\widehat{q}_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{q}_N,\widehat{p}_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{p}_N)`$ so that the hamiltonian is

$`\widehat{H}_B={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}_n^2}{2m_n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_n\omega _n^2\widehat{q}_n^2).`$ (2)
Subsystem $`C`$ consists of a single harmonic oscillator with renormalized mass $`M`$ and frequency $`\omega _r`$ with coordinate and momentum operators $`(\widehat{x},\widehat{p})`$,

$`\widehat{H}_C={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2}}\omega _r^2\widehat{x}^2.`$ (3)
The interaction potential between $`C`$ and the bath is assumed to be bilinear,

$`\widehat{V}_{CB}=\widehat{x}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}c_n\widehat{q}_n,`$ (4)
where $`c_n`$ is the coupling constant to the $`n`$th oscillator. The coupling constants are related to the spectral density of the bath by,

$`J_B(\omega )\pi {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_n^2}{2m_n\omega _n}}\delta (\omega \omega _n).`$ (5)
We suppose the spectral density has the form

$$J_B(\omega )=\eta \omega ^\nu e^{\omega /\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(6)
and consider both Ohmic ($`\nu =1`$) and super-Ohmic ($`\nu =3`$) cases. A counter term $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{H}_C`$ has been added to the hamiltonian. It depends on $`c_n`$, $`m_n`$, $`\omega _n`$, $`\widehat{p}`$ and $`\widehat{x}`$ and is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{H}_c`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{x}^2/\pi \hfill & & (\nu =1)\hfill \\ \eta \mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{p}^2/M^2\pi +\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }^3\widehat{x}^2/\pi \hfill & & (\nu =3).\hfill \end{array}`$ (9)
This term is introduced to cancel the shift of the mass and frequency of the $`C`$ subsystem oscillator due to the interaction with the bath which will become divergent when the frequency cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ goes to infinity. As is customary, we consider the renormalized quantities after including a counter term as physical observables with specified values in our analysis . The hamiltonian of subsystem $`A`$, $`\widehat{H}_A(\sigma )`$, depends on spin variables $`\sigma `$ and we assume subsystem $`A`$ is bilinearly coupled to subsystem $`C`$, $`\widehat{V}_{AC}=\lambda \sigma \widehat{x}`$.

The dynamical properties of interest can be computed from the density matrix of the system at time $`t`$. In the coordinate representation $`\{x,q\}`$ of the $`C`$ subsystem and bath $`B`$, the density matrix takes the form, $`\widehat{\rho }(x,x^{},q,q^{},t)xq|\widehat{\rho }(t)|x^{}q^{}`$, which is still an operator in the $`A`$ subsystem degrees of freedom. The density matrix may be written more explicitly in integral form in terms of the propagator

$`\widehat{K}(x,q;tx_0,q_0;0)xq|e^{i\widehat{H}t/\mathrm{}}|x_0q_0,`$ (10)
as

$`\widehat{\rho }(x,x^{},q,q^{},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_0𝑑x_0^{}𝑑q_0𝑑q_0^{}\widehat{K}(x,q;tx_0,q_0;0)}`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`\widehat{\rho }(x_0,x_0^{},q_0,q_0^{},0)\widehat{K}^{}(x^{},q^{};tx_0^{},q_0^{};0).`$ (12)
We are primarily interested in the dynamics of the composite $`AC`$ subsystem under the influence of the thermal bath. In such a circumstance the reduced density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_r`$, obtained by integrating over the bath degrees of freedom, is the relevant quantity. Such a reduction is especially appropriate if the characteristic time scale for the bath is much shorter than those for the $`A`$ and $`C`$ subsystems. We assume a factorized initial condition between the $`AC`$ subsystem and the bath,

$`\widehat{\rho }(x_0,x_0^{},q_0,q_0^{},0)=\widehat{\rho }_{AC}(x_0,x_0^{},0)\rho _B(q_0,q_0^{},0),`$ (14)
and the bath is always taken to be initially in thermal equilibrium. Under these conditions the integral form of the reduced density matrix at time $`t`$ is

$`\widehat{\rho }_r(x,x^{},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_0𝑑x_0^{}\widehat{J}_r(x,x^{};tx_0,x_0^{};0)\widehat{\rho }_{AC}(x_0,x_0^{},0)},`$ (15)
where the time evolution kernel $`J_r`$ is given by

$`\widehat{J}_r(x,x^{};tx_0,x_0^{};0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑q𝑑q_0𝑑q_0^{}\widehat{K}(x,q;tx_0,q_0;0)}`$ (17)
$`\times `$ $`\rho _B(q_0,q_0^{},0)\widehat{K}^{}(x^{},q;tx_0^{},q_0^{};0).`$ (18)
Given the initial conditions discussed above, this exact expression for the reduced density matrix specifies a non-Markovian time evolution since the solution at time $`t`$ depends on its past history. Approximate Markovian evolution equations may miss essential features of the quantum/classical correspondence and tend to underestimate the loss of quantum coherence. In addition, a Markovian approximation is not generally valid for a harmonic oscillator model, except for systems with Ohmic type dissipation in the high temperature regime. Below we use influence functional methods where the exact solution is expressed as a path integral in order to deal with the nonlocal time evolution.

### B Influence functional method

The formulation of the reduced density matrix in terms of an influence functional for the composite $`ACB`$ system parallels that for spin-boson models often discussed in the literature.  Consequently the presentation of the generalization to our system will be brief. In order to write the reduced density matrix in terms of an influence functional, we first introduce a basis of spin functions with labels $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ to represent the states of the $`A`$ subsystem. In this basis we may write eq. (LABEL:DMredintegral) as,

$`\rho _r(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},x,x^{},t)={\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma _0𝑑\sigma _0^{}𝑑x_0𝑑x_0^{}}`$ (20)
$`\times J_r(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},x,x^{};t\sigma _0,\sigma _0^{},x_0,x_0^{};0)\rho _r(\sigma _0,\sigma _0^{},x_0,x_0^{},0).`$ (21)
(22)
For the factorized initial condition (14) the kernel $`J_r`$ can be written in the path integral form as

$`J_r(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},x,x^{};t\sigma _0,\sigma _0^{},x_0,x_0^{};0)=`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle _{(\sigma _0\sigma _0^{})}^{(\sigma \sigma ^{})}}𝒟\sigma 𝒟\sigma ^{}K[\sigma ]K^{}[\sigma ^{}]J_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(x,x^{};tx_0,x_0^{};0),`$ (24)
where $`K[\sigma ]`$ is a probability amplitude for subsystem $`A`$ following the path $`\sigma `$ in the absence of the subsystem $`C`$ and the environment. The evolution kernel $`J_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ for subsystem $`C`$ in the presence of external sources $`(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})`$ is

$`J_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(x,x^{};tx_0,x_0^{};0){\displaystyle _{(x_0x_0^{})}^{(xx^{})}}𝒟x𝒟x^{}e^{i𝒮[\sigma ,\sigma ^{},x,x^{}]/\mathrm{}},`$ (25)
(26)
The action $`𝒮[\sigma ,\sigma ^{},x,x^{}]`$ consists of several contributions and can be decomposed as follows:

$`𝒮[\sigma ,\sigma ^{},x,x^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`𝒮_C[x,x^{}]+𝒮_{AC}[\sigma ,\sigma ^{},x,x^{}]`$ (28)
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_C[x,x^{}]+𝒮_{IF}[x,x^{}].`$
The actions for subsystem $`C`$, plus its counter action, and the interaction between subsystems $`A`$ and $`C`$ are

$`(𝒮_C+\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_C)[x,x^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}ds({\displaystyle \frac{M_0}{2}}\dot{x}^2(s){\displaystyle \frac{M_0}{2}}\omega _0^2x^2(s)`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_0}{2}}\dot{x^{}}^2(s)+{\displaystyle \frac{M_0}{2}}\omega _0^2x^2(s)),`$
$`𝒮_{AC}[\sigma ,\sigma ^{},x,x^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s\left(x(s)\sigma (s)x^{}(s)\sigma ^{}(s)\right),`$ (31)
where, for notational convenience, we used the bare mass $`M_0`$ and bare frequency $`\omega _0`$ as $`M_0=M`$ and $`M_0\omega _0^2=M\omega _r^2+2\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }/\pi `$ for $`\nu =1`$ while $`M_0=M+2\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }/\pi `$ and $`M_0\omega _0^2=M\omega _r^2+2\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }^3/(3\pi )`$ for $`\nu =3`$.

The influence action $`𝒮_{IF}[x,x^{}]`$ accounts for the effect of the bath on $`C`$ and is given by

$`𝒮_{IF}[x,x^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^t}ds{\displaystyle _0^s}ds^{}[x(s)x^{}(s)]\times `$ (34)
$`[\alpha (ss^{})x(s^{})\alpha ^{}(ss^{})x^{}(s^{})],`$
where $`\alpha (t)`$ is a complex kernel whose real $`\alpha ^R(t)`$ and imaginary $`\alpha ^I(t)`$ parts, respectively, are given by

$`\alpha ^R(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega J_B(\omega )\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\mathrm{cos}\omega t,`$ (35)
$`\alpha ^I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega J_B(\omega )\mathrm{sin}\omega t.`$ (36)
We define new variables as $`R(x+x^{})/2`$, $`rxx^{}`$, $`\sigma _\pm \sigma \pm \sigma ^{}`$, and write the actions in these new variables as

$`𝒮_{AC}[\sigma _\pm ,R,r]={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s\left(\sigma _+(s)r(s)+2\sigma _{}(s)R(s)\right),`$ (37)
$`(𝒮_C+\mathrm{\Delta }𝒮_C)[R,r]={\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s\{M_0\dot{R}(s)\dot{r}(s)M_0\omega _0^2R(s)r(s)\},`$ (38)
$`𝒮_{IF}[R,r]=i{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}r(s)\alpha ^R(ss^{})r(s^{})`$ (39)
$`2{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}r(s)\alpha ^I(ss^{})R(s^{}).`$ (40)
### C Euler-Lagrange equations and solution

¿From eqs. (40) the Euler-Lagrange equations for $`R`$ and $`r`$ are

$`M_0\ddot{R}_c(s)+M_0\omega _0^2R_c(s)`$ $`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}\alpha ^I(ss^{})R_c(s^{})`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda \sigma _+(s),`$ (42)
$`M_0\ddot{r}_c(s)+M_0\omega _0^2r_c(s)`$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle _s^t}𝑑s^{}\alpha ^I(ss^{})r_c(s^{})`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`\lambda \sigma _{}(s).`$ (44)
The initial and final conditions for eq. (42) (eq. (44)) are $`R_0`$ and $`R_t`$ ($`r_0`$ and $`r_t`$). If we let the two independent solutions of the homogeneous part of eq. (42) (eq. (44)) be $`u_i(s)`$($`v_i(s)`$), $`i=1,2`$, with boundary conditions $`u_1(0)=1,u_1(t)=0`$, $`u_2(0)=0,u_2(t)=1`$ ($`v_1(0)=1,v_1(t)=0`$, $`v_2(0)=0,v_2(t)=1`$), the solutions of these uncoupled equations can be written as

$`R_c(s)`$ $`=`$ $`R_0u_1(s)+R_tu_2(s)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\sigma _+(g(s)),`$ (45)
$`r_c(s)`$ $`=`$ $`r_0v_1(s)+r_tv_2(s)+\mu \sigma _{}(g(s)),`$ (46)
where we have used the notation,

$`\sigma _+(g(s))`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}g_+(ss^{})\sigma _+(s^{})`$ (47)
$``$ $`u_2(s){\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s^{}g_+(ts^{})\sigma _+(s^{}),`$ (48)
$`\sigma _{}(g(s))`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}g_{}(ss^{})\sigma _{}(s^{})`$ (49)
$``$ $`v_2(s){\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s^{}g_{}(ts^{})\sigma _{}(s^{}).`$ (50)
and defined $`\mu \lambda /M`$. The solutions $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ satisfy the homogeneous part of the backward time equation (44) and are related to $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ by $`v_1(s)=u_2(ts)`$ and $`v_2(s)=u_1(ts)`$. The function $`g_+(s)`$ ($`g_{}(s)`$) also satisfies the homogeneous part of eq. (42) (eq. (44)) with boundary conditions $`g_\pm (0)=0,\dot{g}_\pm (0)=1`$.

The solutions for $`g_\pm `$ are given in Appendix A for Ohmic and super-Ohmic spectral densities. From these solutions $`u_{1,2}`$ and $`v_{1,2}`$ can be determined.

### D Reduced density matrix solution

Since the potentials in our model are harmonic, an exact evaluation of the path integral can be carried out. It is dominated by the classical solution given in eq. (46). The $`\sigma `$ dependence in eq. (46) arises from the back reaction of the $`A`$ subsystem on the $`C`$ subsystem. To separate out the contribution from this back reaction, we expand $`𝒮`$ in powers of $`\sigma `$ and write,

$`𝒮[\sigma _\pm ,R_c,r_c]`$ $`=`$ $`𝒮^{(0)}[R_c,r_c]+𝒮^{(1)}[\sigma _\pm ,R_c,r_c]+𝒮^{(2)}[\sigma _\pm ].`$ (51)
The zeroth order term in $`\sigma `$ takes the form

$`𝒮^{(0)}[R_c,r_c]`$ $`=`$ $`\left(M\dot{u}_1(t)R_0+M\dot{u}_2(t)R_t\right)r_t`$ (53)
$``$ $`\left(M\dot{u}_1(0)R_0+M\dot{u}_2(0)R_t\right)r_0`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`i(a_{11}(t)r_0^2+(a_{12}(t)+a_{21}(t))r_0r_t`$ (56)
$`+a_{22}(t)r_t^2),`$
and is an influence action for a damped harmonic oscillator. Here

$`a_{kl}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s^{}v_k(s)\alpha ^R(ss^{})v_l(s^{}),`$ (57)
for $`(k,l=1,2)`$ contains the effects of fluctuations due to the bath on subsystem $`C`$. The term linear in $`\sigma `$ is

$`𝒮^{(1)}[\sigma _\pm ,R_c,r_c]=\lambda {\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s\left(u_1(s)R_0+u_2(s)R_t\right)\sigma _{}(s)`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`i\mu r_0{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s^{}\{v_1(s)\alpha ^R(ss^{})\sigma _{}(g(s^{}))\}`$ (59)
$`+`$ $`i\mu r_t{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s^{}\{v_2(s)\alpha ^R(ss^{})\sigma _{}(g(s^{}))\}`$ (60)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda r_0}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑sv_1(s)\sigma _+(s)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda r_t}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑sv_2(s)\sigma _+(s).`$ (61)
This term arises from the interaction between subsystem $`A`$ and the bath, modulated by the trajectory of subsystem $`C`$. The quantum back reaction of subsystem $`A`$ on $`C`$ induces self-coupling in $`A`$, which is contained in the last term,

$`𝒮^{(2)}[\sigma _\pm ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \mu }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s\sigma _{}(s)\sigma _+(g(s))`$ (62)
$`+`$ $`i\mu ^2{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}\sigma _{}(g(s))\alpha ^R(ss^{})\sigma _{}(g(s^{})).`$ (63)
Using the results above, $`J_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ in eq. (26) can be written in the compact form,

$`J_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(R_t,r_t;tR_0,r_0;0)=N(t)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\right\},`$ (65)
where $`=\stackrel{}{R}^T𝐮\stackrel{}{r}+i\stackrel{}{r}^T𝐚\stackrel{}{r}+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_u^T\stackrel{}{R}+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_v^T\stackrel{}{r}+𝒮^{(2)}[\sigma _\pm ]`$ and $`N(t)`$ is a normalization factor independent of dynamical variables. In writing this equation we have introduced the notation and $`(𝐚)_{ij}=a_{ij}`$, $`\stackrel{}{R}^T=(R_0,R_t)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}^T=(r_0,r_t)`$, where $`T`$ stands for the transpose. The matrix $`𝐮`$ is defined as

$`𝐮=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_{11}& u_{12}\\ u_{21}& u_{22}\end{array}\right)M\left(\begin{array}{cc}\dot{u}_1(0)& \dot{u}_1(t)\\ \dot{u}_2(0)& \dot{u}_2(t)\end{array}\right),`$ (70)
while the vectors $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_u`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_v`$ are given by

$`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_u=\lambda \left(\begin{array}{c}\sigma _{}(u_1)\\ \sigma _{}(u_2)\end{array}\right),\stackrel{}{\sigma }_v=\lambda \left(\begin{array}{c}\sigma (v_1)\\ \sigma (v_2)\end{array}\right).`$ (75)
In eqs. (75) we have used the symbolic notation

$`\sigma _{}(u_i)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑su_i(s)\sigma _{}(s),`$ (76)
$`\sigma (v_i)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}dsv_i(s)[\sigma _+(s)/2`$ (78)
$`+{\displaystyle _0^t}ds^{}i\alpha ^R(ss^{})\sigma _{}(g(s^{}))/M],`$
for $`i=1,2`$.

Having derived the expression for $`J_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ in eq. (65), we may use it to obtain the partial Wigner transform of the reduced density matrix. The density matrix in the partial Wigner representation  over the $`C`$ subsystem degrees of freedom is defined by

$`\rho _{rW}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},R,P,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑re^{iPr/\mathrm{}}}`$ (80)
$`\times \rho _r(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},R+r/2,Rr/2,t).`$
Wigner transforming eq. (22) and using this definition we obtain

$`\rho _{rW}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},R,P,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma _0𝑑\sigma _0^{}_{(\sigma _0\sigma _0^{})}^{(\sigma \sigma ^{})}𝒟\sigma 𝒟\sigma ^{}K[\sigma ]K^{}[\sigma ^{}]}`$ (83)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑R_0𝑑P_0K_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(R,P;tR_0,P_0;0)}`$
$`\times \rho _{rW(}\sigma _0,\sigma _0^{},R_0,P_0,0),`$
where the kernel $`K_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(R,P;tR_0,P_0;0)`$ is defined by

$`K_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(R,P;tR_0,P_0;0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑r𝑑r_0e^{i(PrP_0r_0)/\mathrm{}}}`$ (85)
$`\times J_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(R,r;tR_0,r_0;0).`$
Inserting the expression for $`J_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ in eq. (65), the time evolution kernel $`K_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ for the Wigner function is given by

$`K_C^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(R_t,P_t;t`$ $``$ $`R_0,P_0;0)`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N(t)}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑r𝑑r_0e^{i(P_tr_t+P_0r_0+)/\mathrm{}}}`$ (87)
$`=`$ $`N_W(t)\mathrm{exp}[\delta \stackrel{}{X}_W^T𝐐^1\delta \stackrel{}{X}_W`$ (89)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_u^T\stackrel{}{R}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}𝒮^{(2)}[\sigma _\pm ]],`$
where $`N_W(t)=N(t)/2\mathrm{}\sqrt{|𝐚|}`$ and $`|𝐚|`$ is the determinant of $`𝐚`$. The vector $`\delta \stackrel{}{X}_W=\stackrel{}{X}_W\stackrel{}{X}`$, with

$`\stackrel{}{X}_W=\left(\begin{array}{c}R_t\\ P_t\lambda \sigma (v_2)\end{array}\right),`$ (92)
and

$`\stackrel{}{X}=\left(\begin{array}{c}R\\ P\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_{21}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_{11}& 1\\ |𝐮|& u_{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}R_0\\ P_0+\lambda \sigma (v_1)\end{array}\right).`$ (99)
The matrix $`𝐐`$ is given by

$`𝐐={\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{}}{u_{21}^2}}\times `$ (100)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_{11}& a_{12}u_{21}a_{11}u_{22}\\ a_{12}u_{21}a_{11}u_{22}& a_{11}u_{22}^22a_{12}u_{21}u_{22}+a_{22}u_{21}^2\end{array}\right).`$ (103)
(104)
In the next section we shall need $`Q_{11}`$ and the explicit expression for this matrix element is

$`Q_{11}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{\pi M^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\right)J_B(\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,t),`$ (105)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,t)`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s^{}g_+(ts)\mathrm{cos}\omega (ss^{})g_+(ts^{}).`$ (107)
(108)
These results provide the tools needed to analyze the conditions under which passage to the quantum-classical limit may be carried out. In the next sections we present explicit results for both the Ohmic and super-Ohmic bath spectral densities.

## III Thermalization of quantum brownian motion

Whether a linear or nonlinear system interacting with a bath will eventually reach thermal equilibrium or not is one of the fundamental issues in statistical mechanics. For a linear quantum brownian motion, from a general class of initial conditions, the state of C is considered to reach asymptotically the gaussian form. In this section, first we will show that the C subsystem evolution starting from an arbitrary initial condition possesses an asymptotic limit. We then study the influence of such a thermalized quantum system on A. For our analysis, we shall need the results for a system composed of the particle $`C`$ and the thermal bath $`B`$ in the absence of $`A`$. In this case eq. (83) takes the form,

$`\rho _{rW}(R_t,P_t,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑R_0𝑑P_0K_C(R_t,P_t;tR_0,P_0;0)}`$ (110)
$`\times \rho _{rW}(R_0,P_0,0),`$
In the absence of subsystem $`A`$, from eq. (89) the time evolution kernel for the Wigner function is

$`K_C(R_t,P_t;tR_0,P_0;0)`$ $`=`$ $`N_W(t)\mathrm{exp}[\delta \stackrel{}{X}_W^T𝐐^1\delta \stackrel{}{X}_W],`$ (111)
where $`\stackrel{}{X}_W^T=(R,P)`$ and

$`\stackrel{}{X}=\left(\begin{array}{c}R\\ P\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_{21}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_{11}& 1\\ |𝐮|& u_{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}R_0\\ P_0\end{array}\right).`$ (119)
For a harmonic potential, as a result of the Ehrenfest theorem, the center phase space coordinate $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ of this distribution function follows a classical trajectory and will decay because of energy dissipation into the bath. Using the exact expressions for the matrix elements of $`𝐮`$, obtained from the formulas given in Appendix A, one may show that $`\stackrel{}{X}`$ vanishes in the long time limit for both Ohmic and super-Ohmic baths. As a result, in both cases, for times long compared to the characteristic relaxation time for this decay, the time evolution kernel reduces to

$`K_C(R_t,P_t;tR_0,P_0;0)`$ $``$ $`N_W(t)\mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{}{X}_W^T𝐐^1\stackrel{}{X}_W],`$ (120)
$``$ $`K_C(R_t,P_t;t)`$ (121)
which is independent of $`R_0`$ and $`P_0`$. Consequently, eq. (110) reduces to

$`\rho _{rW}(R_t,P_t,t)=K_C(R_t,P_t;t);`$ (122)
thus, for an arbitrary initial condition, the Wigner transformed reduced density matrix is uniquely determined by the time evolution kernel $`K_C`$. Furthermore, the off-diagonal elements of $`𝐐`$ vanish in this limit and we obtain a Gaussian form for the density matrix whose widths are uniquely specified and given by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }R)^2=Q_{11}/2`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }P)^2=Q_{22}/2`$. The width $`(\mathrm{\Delta }R)^2(\mathrm{})`$ can be obtained from eq. (LABEL:Q11) as

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }R)^2(\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi M^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\right)J_B(\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,\mathrm{}),`$ (123)
We show in Appendix A for the Ohmic case and for the weak coupling limit of the super-Ohmic case, that $`J_B(\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,\mathrm{})=M^2\chi _C^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$, where

$`\chi _C^{\prime \prime }(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \gamma ^{}(\omega )}{(\omega _r^2\omega ^2+\omega \gamma ^{\prime \prime }(\omega ))^2+\omega ^2\gamma ^2(\omega )}},`$ (125)
is the dynamical susceptibility for $`C`$. For the spectral density defined in eq. (5), the explicit form of the frequency dependent dissipation coefficient $`\gamma (\omega )`$ is given by

$`M\gamma (\omega )`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cccc}\eta \hfill & (\nu =1)\hfill & & \\ \eta \omega ^2\hfill & (\nu =3)\hfill & & \end{array}`$ (128)
in the limit of a large cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ was absorbed in the mass renormalization for the $`\nu =3`$ case. Consequently, we may write $`(\mathrm{\Delta }R)^2(\mathrm{})`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2R(\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\right)\chi _C^{\prime \prime }(\omega ).`$ (129)
Equation (129) is a statement of the fluctuation-dissipation relation . The form in eq. (129) suggests that the combined system $`CB`$ is now in thermal equilibrium with spectrum specified by $`\chi _C^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ but the system $`C`$ itself is not in equilibrium. The fluctuation-dissipation relation is violated at finite $`t`$ while the system is still far from equilibrium and holds only asymptotically. This result generalizes the result previously obtained by Caldeira and Leggett for an Ohmic bath.

When the $`CB`$ system is in thermal equilibrium, we show in Appendix B using linear response theory that $`J_{CB}(\omega )=\lambda ^2\chi _C^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$: the effective spectral density is proportional to the dynamical susceptibility of the $`C`$ system. If we use the relation

$`J_B(\omega )=M\omega \gamma ^{}(\omega ),`$ (130)
for the bath spectral density assumed in eq. (5), we see that the effective spectral density in the combined system $`CB`$ can be written as

$`J_{CB}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2J_B(\omega )}{M^2(\omega _r^2\omega ^2+\omega \gamma ^{\prime \prime }(\omega ))^2+J_B^2(\omega )}}.`$ (131)
This relation can also be obtained by solving the classical equations of motion as suggested earlier  owing to the linear coupling assumed between the $`C`$ system and the bath.

## IV Emergence of quantum-classical dynamics via decoherence

The investigation of the emergence of quantum-classical dynamics presented here will be restricted to cases where the dynamics of subsystem $`A`$ occurs on time scales which are very long compared to those that characterize subsystem $`C`$. We suppose that subsystem $`A`$ is a two-level system with $`\sigma =\pm 1`$ and focus on the extreme non-adiabatic regime where the population dynamics of subsystem $`A`$ is essentially frozen on the time scales of interest so that $`\rho _A(1,1,t)=\rho _A(1,1,0),\rho _A(1,1,t)=\rho _A(1,1,0)`$. We further assume that subsystems $`A`$ and $`C`$ are decoupled initially and use the factorized initial condition,

$`\widehat{\rho }_{AC}(x_0,x_0^{},0)=\widehat{\rho }_A(0)\rho _C(x_0,x_0^{},0).`$ (132)
This is a reasonable assumption if they are weakly coupled.

### A Decoherence in $`A`$ interacting with an equilibrium $`CB`$ bath

If the interaction between the $`A`$ system and the combined system $`CB`$ is turned on after an equilibrium state is reached, the effect of $`CB`$ on $`A`$ is given simply by the harmonic bath directly coupled to the $`A`$ subsystem but with its spectrum characterized by the effective spectral density. Under these conditions, the off-diagonal part of the density matrix can be obtained from eq. (22) by dropping the dependence on $`(x,x^{})`$, omitting the integrals over spin variables and by making the variable replacements $`x\sigma `$ and $`J_BJ_{CB}`$ in eq. (34) for the influence functional. We find,

$`\rho _A(1,1,t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{D_A^{(0)}(t)}\rho _A(1,1,0),`$ (133)
where $`D_A^{(0)}(t)`$ is a decoherence factor for A and is defined as

$`D_A^{(0)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega J_{CB}(\omega )\mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\right)`$ (135)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)}{\omega ^2}}\right).`$
Thus, as mentioned above, the dynamics of the composite system is equivalent to that of a two-level spin-boson system coupled to a harmonic bath, with an effective spectral density.

Using these results we may examine the coherence in $`A`$ under the influence of the effective bath $`CB`$ and the coherence of $`A`$ under the influence of the bath $`B`$ separately. In Figs. 1(a) and (b), the off-diagonal part of the density matrix of subsystem $`A`$ is plotted for an Ohmic environment.

The solid line corresponds to our system while the dashed line is the ordinary spin boson model without $`C`$. The time evolution of $`\rho _A(1,1,t)`$ for the ordinary ordinary spin boson model is characterized by (1) an initial period where subsystem $`A`$ system has not yet felt the existence of the environment and its coherence is maintained; (2) a quantum regime for $`t>1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ where the system begins to interact with the vacuum fluctuations of the environment and, finally, (3) a thermal regime for $`t>\mathrm{}\beta `$ where the effects of thermal fluctuations on subsystem $`A`$ have set in. For $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }<t<\mathrm{}\beta `$, only vacuum fluctuations interact with the system.

By contrast, the existence of the intermediate subsystem $`C`$ changes the evolution of $`\rho _A(1,1,t)`$ significantly. Subsystem $`C`$ is characterized by its harmonic oscillator frequency and mass. Fluctuations originating in the bath $`B`$ are modulated by $`C`$ through these parameters. For a large mass $`M`$, the effective modes of the combined $`CB`$ system are concentrated in the neighborhood of $`\omega _r`$ and the decoherence behavior of subsystem $`A`$ is governed by these modes. Therefore, after the initial period, decoherence will begin to occur at $`t1/\omega _r`$.

Although some systems are approximately characterized by an Ohmic spectral density, generic systems will have non-Ohmic spectral densities. The density of states typically varies as $`\omega ^\nu `$ with $`\nu `$ depending on the spatial dimension $`D`$. We consider the 3D super-Ohmic case with $`\nu =3`$. Such an environment is relevant for the study of polarons, macroscopic magnetization tunneling in crystals, and radiation damping of atoms . A super-Ohmic environment affects subsystem $`A`$ evolution on short time scales more significantly than an Ohmic environment. A sub-Ohmic environment induces non-trivial long time behavior. Results for the super-Ohmic case with $`\nu =3`$ are shown in Figs. 2 (a) and (b).

For the super-Ohmic high dimensional environment, the vacuum fluctuations play a more significant role than for an Ohmic environment, reflecting the fact that there are larger number of high frequency modes in the higher dimensional environment. The same effect is also responsible for the large difference in the behavior of correlation functions of the system in quantum and classical baths when the bath is super-Ohmic. The dynamics of $`A`$ in the presence of the intermediate subsystem $`C`$ is worth noting. For the present choice of parameters, $`\rho _A(1,1,t)`$ asymptotically reaches a non-zero value indicating that quantum coherence in the $`A`$ system will never be lost completely. The origin of this behavior can be understood in terms of the time-dependence of the diffusion coefficient (See Ref. ). System $`C`$ initially executes brownian motion with a time-dependent diffusion coefficient as a result of the non-Markovian time evolution of the reduced density matrix. This time-dependent diffusion coefficient of $`C`$, which also determines the decoherence rate, exhibits a rapid increase at early times $`t>1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and then asymptotically vanishes. This initial increase can be large enough to wash away the quantum coherence of $`C`$ directly coupled to the bath. Owing to the modulation effect from $`C`$, these high frequency modes are filtered out and do not directly affect $`A`$ if $`\omega _r<<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The late time value of the diffusion coefficient is too small to eliminate the quantum coherence from subsystem $`A`$ completely. Hence, the non-Markonvian nature of the density matrix evolution for the super-Ohmic case is responsible for the significant difference in the dynamics of coherence between the $`A`$ and $`C`$ subsystems.

### B Decoherence in $`A`$ for arbitrary $`C`$ initial conditions

Thus far we have considered only the asymptotic limit where $`CB`$ has reached equilibrium and the fluctuation-dissipation relation holds. It is interesting to consider the coherence of $`A`$ under the influence of intrinsic dynamics of $`C`$ starting from arbitrary $`C`$ initial conditions. As an example of this situation, we assume that $`C`$ is initially in a gaussian coherent state given by the wave function,

$`\psi _{\overline{x}\overline{p}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\pi ϵ^2)^{1/4}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(x\overline{x})^2}{2ϵ^2}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{p}x}{\mathrm{}}}\right],`$ (136)
with width $`ϵ=1/\sqrt{\omega _r}`$ where $`\overline{x}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ are parameters. The $`C`$ subsystem density matrix at the initial time is then given by

$`\rho _C(x_0,x_0^{},0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi ϵ^2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(R_0\overline{x})^2}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^2}{4ϵ^2}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{p}r_0}{\mathrm{}}}\right].`$ (137)
We may now use this expression for $`\rho _C(x_0,x_0^{},0)`$ in the factorized initial condition for $`AC`$ given in eq. (132). The off-diagonal element of reduced density matrix for subsystem $`A`$ in the non-adiabatic limit can then be determined from eqs. (22) and (24) for $`\rho _r(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},x,x^{},t)`$ for $`AC`$ by integrating over the $`C`$ variables. The result is,

$`\rho _A(1,1,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dxdx^{}[{\displaystyle }dx_0dx_0^{}`$ (141)
$`\times J_C^{1,1}(x,x^{},t|x_0,x_0^{},0)\rho _C(x_0,x_0^{},0)]`$
$`\times \rho _A(1,1,0).`$
Changing integration variables $`(x,x^{})(R,r)`$ and $`(x_0,x_0^{})(R_0,r_0)`$ and using eq. (65) for $`J_C^{1,1}(R,r,t|R_0,r_0,0)`$ we may write this as

$`\rho _A(1,1,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dRdr[{\displaystyle }dR_0dr_0`$ (144)
$`\times N(t)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\right\}\rho _C(R_0,r_0,0)]`$
$`\times \rho _A(1,1,0).`$
Making use of the expression for $``$ evaluated for $`\sigma =1`$ and $`\sigma ^{}=1`$ and carrying out the integrations we find,

$`\rho _A(1,1,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _A(1,1,0)e^{D_A(t)}`$ (147)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}(f_R(t)\overline{x}+f_P(t)\overline{p})\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}(f_R^2(t)/M\omega _r+f_P^2(t)M\omega _r)\right],`$
where

$`f_R(t)=\lambda {\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{u_{11}(s)}{u_{21}(s)}},f_P(t)=\lambda {\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_{21}(s)}}`$ (149)
and

$`D_A(t)={\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda ^2}{\pi \mathrm{}M^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega J_B(\omega )\mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_A(\omega ,t).`$ (150)
(151)
The explicit expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A(\omega ,t)`$ can be computed from the solutions presented in Appendix A by a lengthy but straightforward calculation. We find,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_A(\omega ,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2\omega ^2)^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\omega ^2}}[2{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)}{\omega ^2}}`$ (152)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)}{\omega }}`$ (153)
$`\times \left(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }(1e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t))\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\right)`$ (154)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)}{\omega }}`$ (155)
$`\times \left(2\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }(1e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t))+(\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\right)`$ (156)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Omega }_r^4}}\{(\omega ^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)\mathrm{\Omega }^2(1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t})^2`$ (157)
$`2\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\omega ^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }^22\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right)`$ (158)
$`\times (1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t})\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}`$ (159)
$`+(\omega ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+(\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)^2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Omega }t)e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\}].`$ (160)
Equations (LABEL:DMAnonadiabatic\_offdiag)-(160) are our main results. The first term in eq. (LABEL:DMAnonadiabatic\_offdiag) is the initial condition for $`A`$, the second term accounts for the decoherence arising from thermal fluctuations of the bath mediated by $`C`$. The third term arises from the initial condition for $`C`$ and the last term is responsible for the decoherence of $`A`$ due to the averaged damped oscillatory motion of $`C`$.

The modulus of the off-diagonal reduced density matrix element for $`A`$ is shown in Figs. 3(a) and (b) as a function of time. The solid line shows the second term eq. (LABEL:DMAnonadiabatic\_offdiag), $`Se^{D_A(t)}`$, which gives the decoherence due to the quantum-back-reaction-induced self-interaction of subsystem $`A`$. The dashed line shows the last term, $`L\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(f_R^2(t)/M\omega _r+f_P^2(t)M\omega _r)\right]`$, the decoherence due to the motion of $`C`$. The latter effect is not strong enough to eliminate coherence of $`A`$ completely. Since, initially, the CB is far from equilibrium, those modes that affect A are not necessarily near resonant modes around $`\omega _r`$. Consequently, the decoherence of A is more rapid in this case than in the case of evolution from the thermal equilibrium initial condition studied in Sec. IV. A. This tendency is more evident in a super-Ohmic bath than in an Ohmic bath. With generic initial conditions for $`C`$, A is under the influence of the nonequilibrium bath $`CB`$, which is no longer equivalent to the effective thermal bath with the spectral density $`J_{CB}`$.

Now let us consider the situation where the decoherence of $`C`$ is fast and that of $`A`$ is slow. This may occur at high temperatures and for weak coupling between $`A`$ and $`C`$. In such a case, the back reaction from $`A`$ on $`C`$ may be neglected. In this circumstance, we may consider the decoherence of $`C`$ in the absence of $`A`$. Quantum brownian motion and decoherence of a damped harmonic oscillator has been studied previously . Using the result in eq. (3.9) of Ref. , the reduced density matrix may be approximated by,

$`\rho _r(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},x,x^{},t)e^{(xx^{})^2D_C(t)}\rho _r(\sigma ,\sigma ^{},x,x^{},0),`$ (161)
where $`D_C(t)=_0^t𝑑s_0^s𝑑s^{}\alpha ^R(s^{})\mathrm{cos}\omega _rs^{}`$ is the decoherence factor for $`C`$.

In Fig. 4, the decoherence factors for $`A`$ and $`C`$ are plotted. For an Ohmic bath (Fig. 4(a)), initially, the quantum coherence is lost faster $`C`$ than in $`A`$; hence, the $`A`$ subsystem behaves more quantum mechanically than the $`C`$ subsystem during this initial period. Figure 4(a) shows that there is a crossover and for longer times, $`t>1/\omega _r`$, subsystem $`A`$ experiences stronger decoherence than $`C`$. The decoherence factor for $`C`$ varies linearly with $`t`$ indicating that the dynamics of $`C`$ asymptotically approaches Markovian evolution in the high temperature Ohmic bath. For a super-Ohmic bath (Fig. 4(b)), a substantial portion of the quantum coherence in $`C`$ is lost during the initial period due to large fluctuations coming from the bath, while $`A`$ retains quantum coherence for a long time. The dynamics of the coupled system can be approximated by mixed quantum-classical evolution for long times after the short transient period.

## V Conclusion

An appreciation of the conditions under which a quantum mechanical system may be approximated as a quantum-classical system is essential in many applications to the dynamics of many-body systems. Adopting an open quantum system point of view has provided a natural way to explore this issue based on the decoherence of the superposition of quantum states into a statistical mixture under the influence of the environment . Indeed, considerations of decoherence have played an important role in discussions of schemes for the simulation of condensed phase systems.

Using influence functional methods, we have shown for our simple model system that the decoherence time scales that characterize the $`A`$ and $`C`$ subsystems can differ significantly. In particular, in the limit of nonadiabatic dynamics we have identified the following three regimes: (1) the full quantum regime where both the $`A`$ and $`C`$ subsystems behave quantum mechanically; (2) the quantum-classical regime where subsystem $`A`$ maintains coherence owing to its indirect coupling to the bath, while $`C`$ has lost its coherence and behaves effectively classically; (3) the classical regime where the quantum coherence of both the $`A`$ and $`C`$ subsystems has been lost and the composite $`AC`$ subsystem exhibits effectively classical dynamics. The different roles that the environment plays in its effect on two subsystems is responsible for the separation of decoherence time scales.

We also saw that a different choice of initial conditions will modify above picture. When the initial condition for $`C`$ is chosen to be a pure gaussian coherent state, $`CB`$ can no longer be considered to be a thermal bath and the coherence of $`A`$ will be lost in a shorter time scale than times given by the inverse characteristic frequency of $`C`$.

Quantum/classical correspondence in nonlinear systems, in particular, in chaotic systems, has many nontrivial features. The quantum open system approach adopted in this paper can also shed light on this problem. While the model system studied here is very simple and the extreme non-adiabatic regime is only one limiting case to consider, our results nevertheless have provided some insight into the emergence of quantum-classical dynamics and should be useful in the study of the quantum dynamics of more complex systems.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Acknowledgment is made to the donors of The Petroleum Research Fund, administered by the ACS, for partial support of this research.

## A Solutions of equations of motion

In this Appendix we give some details of the solutions of the equations of motion discussed in Sec. II C which are used in the calculations presented in Sec. IV. We require the functions $`u_{1,2}(s)`$ (and $`v_{1,2}(s)`$) which are the solutions of the homogeneous parts of the Euler-Lagrange equations (42) and (44). These functions can be found if $`g_\pm (s)`$, which are also solutions of the homogeneous parts eqs. (42) and (44), are known, since

$`u_1(s)=\dot{g}_+(s){\displaystyle \frac{g_+(s)}{g_+(t)}}\dot{g}_+(t),u_2(s)={\displaystyle \frac{g_+(s)}{g_+(t)}},`$ (A1)
in order to satisfy the boundary conditions on these functions. Using the spectral density for an Ohmic bath, the equation that $`g_\pm (s)`$ satisfies is

$`\ddot{g}_\pm (s)\pm 2\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{g}_\pm (s)+\omega _r^2g_\pm (s)=0.`$ (A2)
The solution of eq. (A2) is

$`g_\pm (s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }s}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }s},`$ (A3)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2\omega _r^2\gamma ^2`$.

Using the spectral density for a super-Ohmic bath with $`\nu =3`$, the equations of motion for $`g_\pm (s)`$ can be written as

$$\ddot{g}_\pm (s)+\omega _r^2g_\pm (s)2\gamma \underset{\pm }{\overset{\mathrm{}}{g}}(s)=0.$$
(A4)
Thus, the equation of motion has the form of the Abraham-Lorentz equation . This equation is an approximation to the full equation of motion with non-local time dependence. As in the electromagnetic field case, only the physically relevant roots of the characteristic equation must be retained. These are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\pm i\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\gamma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}1\right),\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{6\gamma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}\right)`$ (A5)
where

$`D=2\left(1+54(\gamma \omega _r)^2+\sqrt{108}\gamma \omega _r\sqrt{27(\gamma \omega _r)^2+1}\right)^{1/3}.`$ (A6)
Retaining the physically relevant roots of the characteristic equation, the solution for $`g_\pm (s)`$ for the super-Ohmic case has the same form as eq. (A3) but with the above values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In the weak coupling limit that we consider in our calculations, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma \omega _r^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _r^2`$.

In our model, eq. (A4) can be reduced to a second order ordinary differential equation by differentiating the homogeneous part of the Euler-Lagrange equations with respect to time as

$$\underset{\pm }{\overset{\mathrm{}}{g}}(s)=\omega _r^2\dot{g}_\pm (s)+𝒪(\gamma ),$$
(A7)
which may be substituted into eq. (A4) to give (A2) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma \omega _r^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega _r`$ in the leading order approximation as indicated above. Although one can improve the approximation leading to eq. (A2) for the super-Ohmic case to arbitrary higher order in $`\gamma `$, we restrict our study to the leading order in this parameter.

Since the $`u_{1,2}`$ and $`v_{1,2}`$ solutions are now known, we have all the information needed to compute the various quantities necessary to obtain the numerical results. In particular, the expression for the matrix elements of $`𝐚`$ in eq. (57) for a general environment can be found. (See Refs.  for an Ohmic bath.) In our computations, we need $`a_{11}(t)`$ which has the form,

$`a_{11}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi g_+^2(t)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega J_B(\omega )\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,t),`$ (A8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,t)`$ was defined in eq. (108). The evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,t)`$ is straightforward and leads to,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2\omega ^2)^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\omega ^2}}[2\mathrm{\Omega }^2+e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}`$ (A9)
$`\times [2\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)\{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\omega _+\omega _{})\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)2\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)\}`$ (A10)
$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\omega _{}^2)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _+t)(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\omega _+^2)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _{}t)]`$ (A11)
$`+e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2+\omega ^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }t)`$ (A12)
$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\omega _+\omega _{})\mathrm{cos}(2\mathrm{\Omega }t)\}]`$ (A13)
where $`\omega _\pm \omega \pm \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. Using this result, in the asymptotic limit we obtain,

$`J_B(\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{2M\gamma \omega }{(\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2\omega ^2)^2+4\gamma ^2\omega ^2}\hfill & (\nu =1)\hfill & & \\ \frac{2M\gamma \omega ^3}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2\omega ^2)^2+4\gamma ^2\omega ^6}\hfill & (\nu =3)\hfill & .\hfill & \end{array}`$ (A16)
In writing this equation, we used the fact that the distribution $`J_B(\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,\mathrm{})`$ is highly peaked around $`\omega _r`$ for small $`\gamma `$.

Similarly, for long times we may write the elements of $`𝐚`$ as,

$`a_{11}(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }t}}{2\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Omega }t}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega J_B(\omega )\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,\mathrm{})`$ (A17)
$`a_{12}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{21}(t){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}}{2\pi \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega J_B(\omega )\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}`$ (A18)
$`(`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cot}(\mathrm{\Omega }s))\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,\mathrm{})`$ (A19)
$`a_{22}(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega J_B(\omega )\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{2}}`$ (A20)
$`\{`$ $`\omega ^2`$ $`+(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cot}(\mathrm{\Omega }s))^2\}\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega ,\mathrm{}).`$ (A21)
Using these results we can compute the asymptotic properties of $`𝐐`$ needed in the calculations presented in the text.

## B Effective spectral density

In this Appendix we derive the relation between the effective spectral density for the $`CB`$ system and the dynamical susceptibility of subsystem $`C`$ using an argument that by-passes the actual diagonalization procedure. A similar argument is given in Refs. . From the Hamiltonian given in eq. (1), we can write the equation of motion for $`C`$ with a harmonic potential in the form,

$`x(\omega )=\chi _C(\omega )F_C(\omega )`$ (B1)
in the complex Fourier representation with a susceptibility function $`\chi _C(\omega )`$. The force $`F_C(\omega )=V_{AC}(\omega )/x=\lambda \sigma (\omega )`$ is the external force from subsystem $`A`$ acting on $`C`$. On the other hand, the equation of motion for subsystem $`A`$ gives

$`m_A\omega ^2\sigma (\omega )\lambda x(\omega )=F_A(\omega )`$ (B2)
with $`F_A(\omega )=V_A(\sigma )/\sigma `$. Here we assumed $`H_A`$ has the form $`p_A^2/2m_A+V_A(\sigma )`$ for simplicity. Our argument does not depend on the form of $`H_A`$ as clear from the context. Combining with eq. (B1), we have

$`\left[m_A\omega ^2\lambda ^2\chi _C(\omega )\right]\sigma (\omega )=F_A(\omega ).`$ (B3)
Now, suppose we have already diagonalized last three terms of eq. (1) and replaced them with $`N+1`$ \- harmonic oscillators,

$`H_C+V_{CB}+H_BH_B^{}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{p_n^{}_{}{}^{}2}{2m_n^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_n^{}\omega _n^{}_{}{}^{}2q_n^{}_{}{}^{}2}{2}}).`$ (B4)
We write the interaction term $`V_{AC}`$ in terms of new coordinates $`q_n^{}`$

$`V_{AC}V_{AB}^{}=\sigma {\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}c_n^{}q_n^{}.`$ (B5)
Assuming that the system described by the Hamiltonian in eq. (1) reaches thermal equilibrium in the asymptotic limit, we can replace the effect of the combined system $`CB`$ by the equivalent thermal bath $`H_B^{}`$ at the same temperature. Although this diagonalization procedure is straightforward, for our purpose, we only need the form of the equation of motion for $`\sigma `$ expressed by the dissipation coefficient $`\gamma _{CB}(\omega )`$ for the effective bath eq. (B4),

$`\left[m_A\omega ^2im_A\omega \gamma _{CB}(\omega )\right]\sigma (\omega )=F_A(\omega ).`$ (B6)
Comparing the above with eq. (B3) we have

$`\lambda ^2\chi _C(\omega )=im_A\omega \gamma _{CB}(\omega ).`$ (B7)
Recall that the spectral density is related to the dissipation coefficient by

$`J_{CB}(\omega )=m_A\omega \gamma _{CB}^{}(\omega ),`$ (B8)
for real $`\omega `$. From this the desired relation follows:

$`J_{CB}(\omega )=\lambda ^2\chi _C^{\prime \prime }(\omega ).`$ (B9)


text:
# Realization of quantum operations on photonic qubits by linear optics and post-selection

## 1 Introduction

Conventionally, the unitary transformations representing controlled quantum gates are implemented by appropriate interactions between physical systems. These interactions should be non-dissipative and involve only the four level Hilbert space of the two interacting qubits. If photonic qubits are realized using the polarization states of individual photons, such an interaction requires a Kerr nonlinearity strong enough to cause a phase change of $`\pi `$ per photon in the controlling mode, while all interactions with modes other than the two well-defined polarization modes of each photon must be suppressed. However, the suppression of all absorption and scattering processes in the presence of a strong Kerr nonlinearity is very difficult to achieve and requires the development of highly sophisticated new technologies. The implementation of controlled interactions between photonic qubits has therefore been a major obstacle to the realization of quantum computation using photonic qubits.

To overcome this obstacle, Knill, Laflamme and Milburn have proposed an alternative scheme for quantum computation using photonic qubits . This alternative scheme is based on the insight that the necessary unitary transforms needed for controlled gate operations can also be obtained from a subspace of a total unitary transformation in a much larger Hilbert space. Although the selection of such a subspace corresponds to a limited probability of success for the gate operation, this problem can be compensated by applying various error correction strategies. In optics, this alternative realization of controlled gate operations is especially promising because it allows an implementation of photon-photon interactions using only linear optical elements. In particular, the selection of appropriate subspaces in both the input and the output of a conventional beam splitter is sufficient to obtain basic nonlinear interactions between photons.

## 2 Properties of the post-selected beam splitter

The action of a beam splitter of reflectivity $`R`$ on the two input modes given by the operators $`\widehat{a}_1`$ and $`\widehat{a}_2`$ can be described by a unitary transformation $`\widehat{U}_R`$ with the property

$`\widehat{U}_R\widehat{a}_1\widehat{U}_R^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{R}\widehat{a}_1+i\sqrt{1R}\widehat{a}_2`$
$`\widehat{U}_R\widehat{a}_1\widehat{U}_R^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{1R}\widehat{a}_1+\sqrt{R}\widehat{a}_2.`$ (1)
While the total number of photons is a conserved quantity of this operation, photons are exchanged between mode 1 and mode 2, so that most of the output results change the photon numbers in the modes. However, the concept of photonic qubits is based on the assumption that the photons can be kept in separate modes. Therefore, the distribution of photons at the beam splitter must be controlled by post-selecting only those output results that conserve the photon number distribution. Since the beam splitter automatically conserves the total photon number, it is sufficient to ensure that the photon number on only one side of the beam splitter does not change. This strategy can be implemented by injecting a photon number state $`n_2`$ in mode 2 and detecting the same output photon number $`n_2`$ in the output of mode 2. Figure 1 illustrates this basic concept.

For the most simple case of a vacuum input and no photon in the detector output ($`n_2=0`$), this device causes a linear attenuation of the input amplitudes, as given by the effective operator elements

$$n_1;0\widehat{U}_Rn_1;0=n_1\widehat{S}_{00}n_1=\left(\sqrt{R}\right)^{n_1}.$$
(2)
This non-unitary beam splitter operation can be used to compensate amplitude differences between the photon number states of mode 1. However, the most important result is obtained for a single photon input and a single photon detection ($`n_2=1`$). This device produces a nonlinear effect given by the effective operator elements

$`n_1;1\widehat{U}_Rn_1;1=n_1\widehat{S}_{11}n_1`$ (3)
$`=\left(\sqrt{R}\right)^{n_11}\left(R(1R)n_1\right).`$
This matrix element is positive for all $`n_1<R/(1R)`$ and negative for all $`n_1>R/(1R)`$. Therefore, equation (3) describes a nonlinear phase change of $`\pi `$ at an intensity of $`R/(1R)`$ photons. In particular, a nearly unitary result is obtained in the subspace of $`n_12`$ for $`R=1/4`$, where

$`\widehat{S}_{11}(R=1/4)0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}0`$
$`\widehat{S}_{11}(R=1/4)1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}1`$
$`\widehat{S}_{11}(R=1/4)2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}2.`$ (4)
Both the original scheme proposed by Knill, Laflamme and Milburn  and the simplified proposal of Ralph, White, Munro and Milburn  use reflectivities close to $`R=1/4`$ to realize their basic nonlinearity. By choosing a reflectivity slightly higher than $`1/4`$, the two proposals accomplish a gradual increase in the output amplitude from zero photons to two photons. This increase can then be compensated by linear attenuation. In the proposal of Ralph et al. , this is done by using the linear attenuation of the vacuum beam splitter given in equation (2) to compensate an effective linear amplification obtained from the single photon operation of equation (3).

While the basic operation of the beam splitter thus allows the realization of well defined nonlinear interactions between photons, the overall effort required to adjust the amplitudes of the output is still significant. Therefore, it may be worthwhile to consider applications where this kind of adjustment is less critical.

## 3 Nonlinear filter operation

Instead of compensating the amplitude differences between the photon number states caused by the different matrix elements of $`\widehat{S}_{11}`$, the nonlinear features of these amplitude differences may be exploited directly in order to filter out specific components of the multi photon quantum state . The most fundamental quantum filter is then obtained by the beam splitter with reflectivity $`R=1/2`$ \- the standard type of beam splitter used in most quantum optics experiments. Its post-selection properties are given by

$`\widehat{S}_{11}(R=1/2)0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}0`$
$`\widehat{S}_{11}(R=1/2)1`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\widehat{S}_{11}(R=1/2)2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}2.`$ (5)
This operation eliminates only the one photon component of the input. Both the vacuum and the two photon component can pass this filter without any loss of quantum coherence.

In order to apply this filtering process to photonic qubits, it is necessary to temporarily transfer the photons of one polarization component of each qubit to the same optical mode. This is usually accomplished by reversible photon bunching in a Mach-Zender geometry. Specifically, we can apply the reversible transformation of an additional pair of beam splitters with reflectivity $`1/2`$ to realize the following operation on a two mode input:

$`\widehat{U}_{1/2}(1,2)\left(\widehat{S}_{11}\left(1\right)\widehat{S}_{11}\left(2\right)\right)\widehat{U}_{1/2}(1,2)1;1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}1;1`$
$`\widehat{U}_{1/2}(1,2)\left(\widehat{S}_{11}\left(1\right)\widehat{S}_{11}\left(2\right)\right)\widehat{U}_{1/2}(1,2)0;1`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\widehat{U}_{1/2}(1,2)\left(\widehat{S}_{11}\left(1\right)\widehat{S}_{11}\left(2\right)\right)\widehat{U}_{1/2}(1,2)1;0`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\widehat{U}_{1/2}(1,2)\left(\widehat{S}_{11}\left(1\right)\widehat{S}_{11}\left(2\right)\right)\widehat{U}_{1/2}(1,2)0;0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}0;0.`$
This operation conserves the photon number in both input modes without requiring measurements on the output of the two modes. By applying this operation e.g. to the $`H`$ polarized components of two photonic qubits, it is then possible to realize a filter that removes the $`H;V`$ and $`V;H`$ components while preserving coherence between $`H;H`$ and $`V;V`$. The complete setup is shown in figure 2. By introducing an additional attenuation in the vertically polarized path and by reversing the nonlinear phase shift for the horizontally polarized components, the total filter effect of this setup becomes

$$\widehat{S}_{\text{filter}}=\frac{1}{4}\left(H;HH;H+V;VV;V\right).$$
(7)
The successful operation of this filter corresponds to a quantum nondemolition measurement of the relative alignment of $`HV`$ polarization. This measurement is not sensitive to any local polarization properties. The filter can therefore produce a variety of entangled output states . Perhaps the most striking illustration of these nonlocal filter properties is the action on a product state of a right circular polarized photon and a left circular polarized photon,

$`\widehat{S}_{\text{filter}}R;L=`$ (8)
$`\widehat{S}_{\text{filter}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(H+iV\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(HiV\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(H;H+V;V)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(R;L+L;R).`$
The filter can thus be used to entangle photons originating from separate and independent sources.

While the quantum gates proposed in  and the quantum filter presented here and in  allow a reliable implementation of all possible quantum operations, their main disadvantage is that they require not only a large number of beam splitters, but also an additional photon input of one extra photon per photonic qubit, as well as a reliable detector to monitor the post-selection requirement. This effort is necessary so that the post-selection condition can be imposed without requiring any measurements in the output. However, more simple realizations of nonlinear interactions between photonic qubits are possible if the post selection ensuring the presence of exactly one photon in each qubit is performed in the output instead.

## 4 Phase gate without additional input photons

If post-selection in the output is allowed, it is possible to use both sides of the beam splitter to realize an interaction between photons in modes 1 and 2. If each mode has zero or one photon, the matrix elements for the post-selected interaction are given by

$`0;0\widehat{U}_R0;0`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`0;1\widehat{U}_R0;1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{R}`$
$`1;0\widehat{U}_R1;0`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{R}`$
$`1;1\widehat{U}_R1;1`$ $`=`$ $`2R1.`$ (9)
This diagonal four by four matrix already describes the basic function of a phase gate since the two photon term is an interference between mutual reflection and mutual transmission of the indistinguishable photons. By choosing a reflectivity of $`R=1/3`$, the non-unitary amplitude factors correspond to a linear attenuation,

$`0;0\widehat{U}_{1/3}0;0`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`0;1\widehat{U}_{1/3}0;1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1/3}`$
$`1;0\widehat{U}_{1/3}1;0`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1/3}`$
$`1;1\widehat{U}_{1/3}1;1`$ $`=`$ $`1/3.`$ (10)
The total setup for a pair of photonic qubits is then obtained by applying (4) to one of the polarization components of each input qubit. This very compact and symmetric setup is illustrated in figure 3.

Its function is described by the operator $`\widehat{S}_{\text{qpg}}`$ with

$`\widehat{S}_{\text{qpg}}V;V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}V;V`$
$`\widehat{S}_{\text{qpg}}V;H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}V;H`$
$`\widehat{S}_{\text{qpg}}H;V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}H;V`$
$`\widehat{S}_{\text{qpg}}H;H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}H;H.`$ (11)
Since this quantum gate requires no additional photon sources or photon detectors, it appears to be a most promising candidate for the realization of networks for multi-qubit operations.

## 5 Conclusions

As the examples given above clearly demonstrate, post-selection methods can be very useful in realizing quantum operations that are difficult to obtained from a direct physical interaction in a dissipation free environment. Instead of controlling the Hamiltonian, post-selection applies the dynamics of quantum measurement to realize the desired coherent interactions. It is then possible to employ the same technologies originally developed for an improvement of measurement precision to the evolution of the quantum state. In optics, this method can be applied to solve the problem of realizing strong nonlinear interactions between individual photons. As shown above, the nonlinearity necessary for such interactions is already present in the photon number conserving subspace of a conventional beam splitter. This nonlinearity can be post-selected by reliably controlling the photon numbers in both the input and the output. Effectively, the nonlinearity is implemented by precise photon counting measurements. Using recently developed photon detection technologies , it should then be possible to perform arbitrary quantum operations on photonic qubits with only moderate rates of error.


text:
# Quasiorders on topological categories

## 1. Introduction and the Main Result

Let $``$ be a class of morphisms of a category $`𝒦`$ containing all isomorphisms and closed with respect to the composition. Then $``$ determines a quasiorder $``$ on the class of objects of $`𝒦`$ by the rule

$$\begin{array}{c}XY\text{if and only if there exists}m\hfill \\ \text{with the domain }X\text{ and the codomain }Y\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

An $``$-representation of a quasiordered set $`(Q,)`$ in $`𝒦`$ is any collection $`X=\{X(q):qQ\}`$ of non-isomorphic objects of $`𝒦`$ such that, for every $`q,q^{}Q`$,

$$qq^{}\text{ if and only if }X(q)X(q^{}).$$

Which quasiordered sets have $``$-representations in which categories $`𝒦`$ for which classes $``$? In topology, this investigation with $``$ being the class of all homeomorphic embeddings has rather long tradition. In 1926, C. Kuratowski and W. Sierpiński proved (see ) that the antichain of the cardinality $`2^𝔠`$ and the ordinal $`𝔠^+`$ have such representations within the category of all subspaces of the real line $``$. In 1993, P.T. Matthews and T.B.M. McMaster refreshed this field of problems and proved (see ) that every partially ordered set of the cardinality $`𝔠`$ has such representation. In 1999, A.E. McCluskey, T.B.M. McMaster and W.S. Watson proved (see ) that the set $`(\mathrm{exp},)`$ of all subsets of the real line $``$ ordered by the inclusion also has such a representation, i.e. a representation by subspaces of $``$ with respect to the embeddability. Since $`(\mathrm{exp},)`$ contains an antichain of the cardinality $`2^𝔠`$, their result implies the first result of C. Kuratowski and W. Sierpiński. Analogously it implies the previous result of P.T. Matthews and T.B.M. McMaster because $`(\mathrm{exp},)`$ contains an isomorphic copy of any partially ordered set of cardinality at most $`𝔠`$. The authors of  also announced that they have a counterexample consistent with ZFC to the statement that every partially ordered set of the cardinality $`2^𝔠`$ can be represented by subspaces of $``$ with respect to the embeddability. In , A.E. McCluskey and T.B.M. McMaster generalized the construction of  and they proved that, for any infinite cardinal numbers $`𝔞,𝔟`$ such that $`𝔟^𝔞=𝔟`$, every partially ordered set $`(P,)`$ with $`|P|𝔟`$ has a representation (with respect to the embeddability) by subsets of every $`T_3`$-space $`X`$ containing a dense subset $`D`$ with $`|D|𝔞`$ whenever every non-empty open set of $`X`$ has the cardinality $`𝔟`$. Moreover, if $`X`$ admits a homeomorphism into itself such that every $`xX`$ has an infinite orbit, then every quasiordered set obtained from a partially ordered set $`(P,)`$ with $`|P|𝔟`$ by splitting every $`pP`$ into $`2^𝔟`$ mutually comparable points has also such a representation.

Given a cardinal number $`\alpha `$, A.E. McCluskey and T.B.M. McMaster also present (in ) a construction of a $`T_0`$-space $`X`$ with $`|X|=\delta (\alpha )`$ such that every quasiordered set $`(Q,)`$ with $`|Q|\alpha `$ has a representation by subsets of $`X`$ (with respect to the embeddability), where $`\delta (\alpha )`$ is the smallest cardinal number $`\delta `$ such that there exist $`\alpha `$ distinct cardinal numbers $`\gamma `$ (not necessarily infinite) smaller than $`\delta `$. If $`\alpha =\mathrm{}_0`$, then $`\delta (\alpha )=\mathrm{}_0`$; hence there exists a countable $`T_0`$-space $`X`$ such that every countable quasiordered set has a representation (with respect to the embeddability) by subsets of $`X`$. For $`\alpha `$ uncountable, the size of $`X`$ is rather high. The statement below offers a stronger result for any $`\alpha 𝔠`$.

For every cardinal number $`\alpha 𝔠`$ there exists a metrizable space $`X`$ with $`|X|=\alpha `$ such that every quasiordered set $`(Q,)`$ with $`|Q|\alpha `$ has an $``$-representation by retracts of $`X`$ whenever

1. $``$ consists of one-to-one continuous maps and it contains all coproduct injections (= homeomorphic embeddings onto clopen subspaces) or
2. $``$ consists of continuous surjections and it contains all product projections.

The claim (1) implies e.g. the representability of every quasiordered set $`(Q,)`$ with $`|Q|\alpha `$ by retracts of $`X`$ with respect to the embeddability or the embeddability onto closed subspaces or onto retracts or onto clopen subspaces. The claim (2) implies the representability e.g. by being continuous image or a quotient or a continuous open image or a factor in a product. Here we prove a result much stronger than (1) above, namely the following.

###### Theorem.

For every cardinal number $`\alpha 𝔠`$, there exists a metrizable space $`X`$ with $`|X|=\alpha `$ such that, for every pair $`_1`$, $`_2`$ of quasiorders on a set $`Q`$ with $`|Q|\alpha `$ satisfying the implication

$$q_1q^{}q_2q^{},$$

there exists a system $`\{X(q):qQ\}`$ of non-homeomorphic clopen subsets of $`X`$ with the following properties:

1. $`q_1q^{}`$ if and only if $`X(q)`$ is homeomorphic to a clopen subset of $`X(q^{})`$,
2. $`q_2q^{}`$ implies that $`X(q)`$ is homeomorphic to a closed subset of $`X(q^{})`$ and
3. $`\neg (q_2q^{})`$ implies that there is no one-to-one continuous map of $`X(q)`$ into $`X(q^{})`$.

The proof of this theorem is presented in the part II of the present paper. Inspecting the proof, one can see that none of the spaces $`X(q)`$ has an isolated point. Hence if one adds $`\alpha `$ isolated points to every $`X(q)`$ (and also to the space $`X`$), she (he) gets the following result:

For every cardinal number $`\alpha 𝔠`$ there exists a metrizable space $`X`$ with $`|X|=\alpha `$ such that every quasiordered set $`(Q,)`$ with $`|Q|\alpha `$ has an $``$-representation by clopen subspaces of $`X`$ whenever $``$ is the class of all continuous bijections.

We do not present here the proof of the above claim (2) and of its stronger variant concerning simultaneous representation of a pair $`_1`$, $`_2`$ of quasiorders by product projections and continuous surjections. The proof will appear elsewhere.

Finally, let us refresh here some results which have applications in the present field of problems. In , J. Adámek and V. Koubek introduced a sum-productive representation of a partially ordered commutative semigroups as follows: If $`(S,,)`$ is a partially ordered commutative semigroup (i.e. if $`(S,)`$ is a commutative semigroup and $``$ is a partial order on $`S`$ such that

$$(ab)\text{and}(a^{}b^{})aa^{}bb^{}),$$

then its sum-productive representation in a category $`𝒦`$ is any collection $`\{X(s):sS\}`$ of objects of $`𝒦`$ such that

* $`X(ss^{})`$ is always isomorphic to the product $`X(s)\times X(s^{})`$ and
* $`ss^{}`$ if and only if $`X(s)`$ is isomorphic to a summand of $`X(s^{})`$ (i.e. $`X(s^{})`$ is a coproduct of $`X(s)`$ and an object of $`𝒦`$).

In , J. Vinárek proved that every partially ordered commutative semigroup has a sum-productive representation in the category of all metric zero-dimensional spaces. Every partially ordered set $`(P,)`$ can be enlarged to a partially ordered set $`(S,)`$ in which every pair of elements has an infimum. Putting $`pp^{}=inf\{p,p^{}\}`$, one gets the partially ordered commutative semigroup $`(S,,)`$ and the Vinárek’s result can be applied. Hence

every partially ordered set has a representation by zero-dimensional metrizable spaces with respect to the embeddability onto clopen subspaces.

In , sum-productive representations in the category of all $`F_{\sigma \delta }`$-and-$`G_{\sigma \delta }`$ subspaces of the Cantor discontinuum are examined. Omitting the product forming again, we get the result that

if $``$ is a countable set, then $`(\mathrm{exp},)`$ has a representation by $`F_{\sigma \delta }`$ and $`G_{\sigma \delta }`$ subspaces of the Cantor discontinuum with respect to the embeddability onto clopen subspaces.

These scattered results are surrounded by many unsolved questions, such as: which quasiordered sets can be represented by metrizable zero-dimensional spaces or by closed or Borelian or all subsets of the real line with respect to the embeddability onto clopen subspaces or onto Borelian subspaces or onto closed subspaces or onto retracts; and many others.

## 2. Proof of the Theorem

Let $`\alpha 𝔠`$ be given. Let $`Q`$ be a set with $`|Q|=\alpha `$. In the part A of the proof, we suppose that we have sets $`S^{(1)},\mathrm{},S^{(4)}`$ of metrizable spaces of cardinality $`\alpha `$ with the five properties below and we prove Theorem using such sets. In the part B, we prove that such sets $`S^{(1)},\mathrm{},S^{(4)}`$ really do exist.

### Part A

#### a

Thus, let us suppose that $`S^{(1)},\mathrm{},S^{(4)}`$ are sets of metrizable spaces with $`|S^{(i)}|=\alpha `$ and $`|Y|=\alpha `$ for every $`YS^{(i)}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$, such that the statements (1)–(5) below are satisfied:

1. $`S^{(1)}=\{A_q,B_q:qQ\}`$ are spaces such that, for every $`qQ`$, $`A_q`$ is homeomorphic to a clopen subspace of $`B_q`$ and $`B_q`$ is homeomorphic to a closed subspace but to no clopen subspace of $`A_q`$; moreover, if $`qq^{}`$, there exists no continuous one-to-one map of any $`A_q,B_q`$ into any $`A_q^{},B_q^{}`$;
2. $`S^{(2)}=\{D_q,E_q:qQ\}`$ are such that $`D_q`$ is homeomorphic to a closed subspace of $`E_q`$ and $`E_q`$ is homeomorphic to a closed subspace of $`D_q`$ but there exists no homeomorphism of $`D_q`$ onto a clopen subspace of $`E_q`$ and no homeomorphism of $`E_q`$ onto a clopen subspace of $`D_q`$; moreover, if $`qq^{}`$, then there exists no continuous one-to-one map of any $`D_q,E_q`$ into any $`D_q^{},E_q^{}`$;
3. $`S^{(3)}=\{M_q,N_q:qQ\}`$ are spaces such that $`M_q`$ is homeomorphic to a clopen subspace of $`N_q`$ and $`N_q`$ is homeomorphic to a closed subspace but to no clopen subspace of $`M_q`$ (i.e. they are mutually situated as $`A_q`$ and $`B_q`$ in (1)); moreover, if $`qq^{}`$, there exists no continuous one-to-one map of any $`M_q,N_q`$ into any $`M_q^{},N_q^{}`$;
4. $`S^{(4)}=\{G_q,H_q:qQ\}`$ are spaces such that $`G_q`$ is homeomorphic to a clopen subspace of $`H_q`$ and $`H_q`$ is homeomorphic to a clopen subspace of $`G_q`$ but $`G_q`$ is not homeomorphic to $`H_q`$; moreover, if $`qq^{}`$, there exists no continuous one-to-one map of any $`G_q,H_q`$ into any $`G_q^{},H_q^{}`$;
5. if $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},4`$, $`ij`$, $`ZS^{(i)}`$, $`YS^{(j)}`$, then there exists no continuous one-to-one map of $`Z`$ into $`Y`$.

We put

$$X=\underset{qQ}{}(A_qB_q(D_q\times \omega )(E_q\times \omega )M_qN_qG_q)$$

where $``$ and $`{\displaystyle }`$ denote the coproduct (= disjoint union as clopen subspaces) and $`\omega `$ is a countable discrete space (i.e. $`D_q\times \omega `$ is a coproduct of countably many copies of $`D_q`$ and analogously for $`E_q`$).

Hence $`X`$ is a metrizable space and $`|X|=\alpha `$. We show that $`X`$ has all the required properties. In the reasoning below, we shall frequently use the statement (5) without mentioning it.

#### b

Let $`(Q,_1,_2)`$ be a set with two quasiorders $`_1,_2`$ such that

$$q_1q^{}q_2q^{}.$$

To begin with, let us suppose, moreover, that $`_1`$ is a partial order, i.e.

(2.1)
$$(q_1q^{})\text{and}(q^{}_1q)q=q^{}$$

(this requirement will be removed at the end of part A of the proof).

By means of $`S^{(1)}`$$`S^{(3)}`$, we construct a system $`\{X(q):qQ\}`$ of clopen subspaces of $`X`$ such that

* $`q_1q^{}`$ if and only if $`X(q)`$ is homeomorphic to a clopen subset of $`X(q^{})`$,
* $`q_2q^{}`$ if and only if $`X(q)`$ is homeomorphic to a closed subset of $`X(q^{})`$ and
* if $`\neg (q_2q^{})`$, then there is no continuous one-to-one map of $`X(q)`$ into $`X(q^{})`$.

First, let us define $`<`$ by the rule

$$q<q^{}\text{if and only if}(q_1q^{})\text{and}(\neg (q^{}_1q))\text{and}(q^{}_2q),$$

and $`qq^{}`$ denotes $`q<q^{}`$ or $`q=q^{}`$. (By (2.1), $``$ is a partial order.) Let $`𝒞`$ be the system of all components of $``$ (i.e. $`q,q^{}C𝒞`$ if and only if there exist $`q_0,\mathrm{},q_n`$ in $`Q`$ such that $`q=q_0q_1q_2\mathrm{}q_n=q^{}`$).

For every $`qC𝒞`$ put

$$\begin{array}{c}S_q^{(1)}=\{B_q^{}:q^{}q\}\{A_q^{}:q^{}C\text{ and }\neg (q^{}q)\},\hfill \\ X_q^{(1)}=S_q^{(1)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Moreover, let us denote

$$\begin{array}{c}B_C=\{B_q:qC\},\hfill \\ D_C=\{D_q\times \omega :qC\},\hfill \\ E_C=\{E_q\times \omega :qC\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Observation.

If $`qC`$ and $`q^{}C^{}`$ with $`C,C^{}𝒞`$, $`CC^{}`$, then there exists no continuous one-to-one map of $`X_q^{(1)}`$ into $`X_q^{}^{(1)}`$. If $`q,q^{}C`$, then $`q<q^{}`$ if and only if $`X_q^{(1)}`$ is homeomorphic to a clopen subspace of $`X_q^{}^{(1)}`$ and $`X_q^{}^{(1)}`$ is homeomorphic to a closed but not to any clopen subspace of $`X_q^{(1)}`$.

#### c

On $`Q`$, let us define $`qRq^{}`$ if and only if either

$$\begin{array}{c}q<q^{}\text{or}\hfill \\ q_2q^{}\text{and}q^{}_2q\text{but neither}q_1q^{}\text{nor}q^{}_1q.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $``$ be the transitive envelope of $`R`$, and let $``$ mean $``$ or $`=`$. Then $``$ is a quasiorder on $`Q`$; let $``$ be the system of all its components. Clearly, each $`C𝒞`$ is a subset of precisely one $`L`$. For every $`qC𝒞`$, $`CL`$, put

$$\begin{array}{c}S_q^{(2)}=S_q^{(1)}\underset{C^{}𝒞,CC^{}L}{}(B_C^{}E_C^{}D_C^{})E_C;\hfill \\ X_q^{(2)}=S_q^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Observation.

If $`q,q^{}C𝒞`$, $`qq^{}`$, then $`S_q^{(2)}`$ differs from $`S_q^{(1)}`$ by the same summand

$$\underset{C^{}𝒞,CC^{}L}{}(B_C^{}E_C^{}D_C^{})E_C$$

as $`S_q^{}^{(2)}`$ differs from $`S_q^{}^{(1)}`$. Hence $`X_q^{(2)}`$ and $`X_q^{}^{(2)}`$ are in the same relations as $`X_q^{(1)}`$ and $`X_q^{}^{(1)}`$. If $`C,C^{}𝒞`$, $`CC^{}`$ and both $`C,C^{}`$ are subsets of $`L`$, $`qC`$, $`q^{}C^{}`$, then $`X_q`$ is homeomorphic to a closed subspace but not to any clopen subspace of $`X_q^{}`$ and vice versa. This is because $`(E_CD_CE_C^{})`$ is homeomorphic to a closed (but not to any clopen!) subspace of $`(E_C^{}D_C^{}E_C)`$, by (2) (and $`(S_q^{(1)}B_C^{})`$ is homeomorphic to a closed subspace of $`(S_q^{}^{(1)}B_C)`$, by (1)).

Hence $`\{X_q^{(2)}:qL\}`$ is such that

$`q_1q^{}`$ if and only if $`X_q^{(2)}`$ is homeomorphic to a clopen subset of $`X_q^{}^{(2)}`$
and

$`q_2q^{}`$ if and only if $`X_q^{(2)}`$ is homeomorphic to a closed subset of $`X_q^{}^{(2)}`$.
(For every $`q,q^{}L`$, we have $`q_2q^{}`$ and $`q^{}_2q`$, of course.) Moreover, if $`L,L^{}`$, $`LL^{}`$, $`qL`$, $`q^{}L^{}`$, then there exists no one-to-one continuous map of $`X(q)`$ into $`X(q^{})`$ and vice versa. Let us denote

$$S_L^{(2)}=\{B_CE_CD_C:C𝒞,CL\}.$$

#### d

On $`Q`$, let us define $`q\dot{R}q^{}`$ if and only if either

$$\begin{array}{c}qq^{}\text{or}\hfill \\ qq^{},q_1q^{}\text{or}\hfill \\ qq^{},q_2q^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\dot{}`$ be the transitive envelope of $`\dot{R}`$, and let $`\dot{}`$ mean $`\dot{}`$ or $`=`$. Let $`𝒯`$ be the system of all components of the quasiorder $`\dot{}`$. Every $`L`$ is a subset of precisely one $`T𝒯`$. If $`L,L^{}`$, $`LL^{}`$, $`qL`$, $`q^{}L^{}`$ and $`q_2q^{}`$, then for no $`\overline{q}L`$, $`\overline{q}^{}L^{}`$ is $`\overline{q}^{}_2\overline{q}`$ because $`LL^{}`$. Hence in fact, $`\dot{}`$ determines a partial order on the components in $``$, let us denote it also by $`\dot{}`$. For every $`L`$ define

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_q^{(2)}=\underset{L^{}\dot{}L}{}\stackrel{~}{S}_L^{}^{(2)}$$

and for $`qL`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{S}_q^{(2)}=S_q^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{S}_L^{(2)},\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{X}_q^{(2)}=\stackrel{~}{S}_q^{(2)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`qL,q^{}L^{}`$ and $`L,L^{}`$ are components of $``$ incomparable in the partial order $`\dot{}`$, then there is no continuous one-to-one map of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_q^{(2)}`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{X}_q^{}^{(2)}`$ and vice versa. If $`q,q^{}L`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{X}_q^{(2)}`$ is in the same position with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{X}_q^{}^{(2)}`$ as $`X_q^{(2)}`$ to $`X_q^{}^{(2)}`$. If $`q^{}L^{}\dot{}Lq`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{X}_q^{}^{(2)}`$ is homeomorphic to a clopen subspace of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_q^{(2)}`$ and there exists no continuous one-to-one map of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_q^{(2)}`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{X}_q^{}^{(2)}`$. This is what we need whenever $`q^{}_1q`$. However, if $`q^{}_2q`$ and $`\neg (q^{}_1q)`$, we still have to modify the systems $`\stackrel{~}{S}_q^{(2)}`$ and the spaces $`\stackrel{~}{X}_q^{(2)}`$ by means of the spaces in $`S^{(3)}`$ in (3). For $`qL`$, we put

$$\begin{array}{c}S_q^{(3)}=\stackrel{~}{S}_q^{(2)}\{N_q^{}:q^{}T\text{ and }q^{}_1q\}\{M_q^{}:q^{}T\text{ and }\neg (q^{}_1q)\};\hfill \\ X(q)=S_q^{(3)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

First, we outline why these “new summands” do not destroy the mutual position of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{q_1}^{(2)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{q_2}^{(2)}`$ whenever $`q_1,q_2LT`$:

* $`q_1_1q_2`$: if $`N_q^{}S_{q_1}^{(3)}`$, i.e. $`q^{}_1q_1`$, we get $`q^{}_1q_2`$ so that $`N_q^{}S_{q_2}^{(3)}`$; since $`S_{q_2}^{(3)}`$ always contains either $`M_q^{}`$ or $`N_q^{}`$, the case $`M_q^{}S_{q_1}^{(3)}`$ is clear.
* $`q_1_2q_2`$: if $`N_q^{}S_{q_1}^{(3)}`$, i.e. $`q^{}_1q_1`$, then either $`q^{}_1q_2`$ hence $`N_q^{}S_{q_2}^{(3)}`$, or $`\neg (q^{}_1q_2)`$ hence $`M_q^{}S_{q_2}^{(3)}`$; but $`N_q^{}`$ is homeomorphic to a closed subspace of $`M_q^{}`$.

No other case for $`q_1,q_2L`$ is possible (if $`\neg (q_1q_2)`$ for $`q_1,q_2L`$, then already $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{q_1}^{(2)}`$ is not homeomorphic to a clopen subspace of $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{q_2}^{(2)}`$).

Next we show that the system $`\{X(q):qQ\}`$ has all the required properties.

Let $`q_1,q_2Q`$. If $`q_1,q_2L`$, we have just proved it. If $`q_1T,q_2T^{}`$ where $`T,T^{}`$ are distinct elements of $`𝒯`$ (i.e. distinct components of the quasiorder $`\dot{}`$), then there is no continuous one-to-one map of $`X(q_1)`$ into $`X(q_2)`$ or vice versa. But this precisely corresponds to the fact that $`\neg (q_1_2q_2)`$ and $`\neg (q_2_2q_1)`$. The remaining case is that $`q_1,q_2`$ are in distinct components $`L_1,L_2`$ of $``$ but both $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are subsets of a component $`T𝒯`$. We discuss the following cases:

* $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are incomparable in the partial order $`\dot{}`$: then there exists no one-to-one continuous map of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{q_1}^{(2)}`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{q_2}^{(2)}`$ and adding any summands $`M_q^{},N_q^{}`$ cannot change this situation; hence there exists no continuous one-to-one map of $`X(q_1)`$ into $`X(q_2)`$ or vice versa.
* let $`L_1\dot{}L_2`$: hence $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{q_1}^{(2)}`$ is homeomorphic to a clopen subspace of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{q_2}^{(2)}`$ and there exists no one-to-one continuous map of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{q_2}^{(2)}`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{q_1}^{(2)}`$, adding of any summands $`M_q^{},N_q^{}`$ cannot change the latter fact; since $`\neg (q_2_2q_1)`$, this is precisely what we need. Thus we have to discuss the cases $`q_1_1q_2`$ and $`q_1_2q_2`$. However the reasoning is precisely the same as in the above discussed cases when $`q_1,q_2L`$ and $`q_1_1q_2`$ or $`q_1_2q_2`$.

#### e

Finally, we have to remove the condition (2.1): If $`_1`$ is a quasiorder, we use the standard trick that we define an equivalence on $`Q`$ by the rule

$$qq^{}\text{ if and only if }q_1q^{}\text{ and }q^{}_1q.$$

Then $`_1`$ determines a partial order and $`_2`$ a quasiorder on the set $`Q/`$; let us denote them by $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ as well. For every $`[q]Q/`$, we construct $`S_{[q]}^{(3)}`$ and $`X_{[q]}^{(3)}=S_{[q]}^{(3)}`$ as described and, for $`q[q]`$, we put

$$S_q^{(3)}=S_{[q]}^{(3)}\{G_q^{}:q^{}Q\{q\}\}\{H_q\}$$

where $`G_q^{},H_q`$ are from $`S^{(4)}`$, i.e. they satisfy the condition (4). Then, for $`X_q=S_q^{(3)}`$, the system $`\{X_q:qQ\}`$ has all the required properties.

### Part B

####

To finish the proof, it remains to show that the systems $`S^{(1)},\mathrm{},S^{(4)}`$ with the properties (1)–(5) do exist. For this, we use the fact (see ) that for every $`\alpha 𝔠`$ there exists a system $`𝕊`$ of metrizable spaces of the cardinality $`\alpha `$ such that for every $`Y,Z𝕊`$ and every continuous map $`f:YZ`$, either $`f`$ is constant or $`Y=Z`$ and $`f`$ is the identity, and the system $`𝕊`$ itself is large enough: for our purpose it suffices $`|𝕊|=\alpha `$ (although, as shown in , such $`𝕊`$ with $`|𝕊|=2^\alpha `$ does exist). Let

$$\{A_q^{},D_q^{},E_q^{},M_q^{},G_q^{}:qQ\}$$

be a subsytem of $`𝕊`$.

1. Choose two distinct points, say $`a_q,b_q`$, in the space $`A_q^{}`$ and, in the space $`A_q^{}\times \omega `$, identify $`(b_q,n)`$ with $`(a_q,n+1)`$. The obtained space is $`A_q`$, then $`B_q=A_q^{}A_q`$. Clearly, $`S^{(1)}=\{A_q,B_q:qQ\}`$ satisfies (1).
2. Choose two distinct points, say $`d_q^{(1)},d_q^{(2)}`$ in $`D_q^{}`$ and $`e_q^{(1)},e_q^{(2)}`$ in $`E_q^{}`$; in $`D_q^{}\times \omega `$, identify $`(d_q^{(2)},n)`$ with $`(d_q^{(1)},n+1)`$ and denote $`\stackrel{~}{D}_q`$ the obtained space; analogously define $`\stackrel{~}{E}_q`$; then put

$$\begin{array}{c}D_q=D_q^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_q\stackrel{~}{E}_q\hfill \\ E_q=E_q^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_q\stackrel{~}{E}_q\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`S^{(2)}=\{D_q,E_q:qQ\}`$ satisfies (2).
3. The spaces $`M_q`$ and $`N_q`$ are constructed from $`M_q^{}`$ as $`A_q`$ and $`B_q`$ from $`A_q^{}`$ in (1). Then $`S^{(3)}=\{M_q,N_q:qQ\}`$ satisfies (3).
4. Let $`K`$ be a closed subset of the Cantor discontinuum such that $`K`$ is homeomorphic to $`KKK`$ but not to $`KK`$. Such a space was constructed in . Put $`G_q=K\times G_q^{}`$ and $`H_q=(KK)\times G_q^{}`$. Since $`K`$ is zero-dimensional while $`G_q^{}`$ is connected and every continuous map of $`G_q^{}`$ into itself is either the identity or a constant, every continuous one-to-one map $`f:G_qH_q`$ sends every $`K\times \{a\}`$ into $`(KK)\times \{a\}`$ for an arbitrary $`aG_q^{}`$. Since $`K`$ and $`KK`$ are non-homeomorphic, the space $`G_q`$ is not homeomorphic to $`H_q`$. However $`G_q`$ is homeomorphic to a clopen subspace of $`H_q`$ and vice versa.
5. The system $`S^{(1)}S^{(2)}S^{(3)}S^{(4)}`$ satisfies (5) because

$$\{A_q^{},D_q^{},E_q^{},M_q^{},N_q^{},G_q^{}:qQ\}𝕊,$$

evidently.