1: 

2: %%%%%%%  Version 2: A Reference added. 

3: 

4: 

5: %\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Alph{section}}

6: %\renewcommand{\thesubsection}{{\subsection}}

7: \documentstyle[11pt,epsfig]{article}

8: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesubsection.\arabic{equation}}

9: \begin{document}

10: \newcommand{\lan}{\langle}

11: \newcommand{\ran}{\rangle}

12: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

13: \newcommand{\br}{\begin{eqnarray}}

14: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

15: \newcommand{\er}{\end{eqnarray}}

16: \title{

17: \hfill\parbox{4cm}{\normalsize IMSC/2001/12/55\\

18:                                cond-mat/0112439}\\       

19: \vspace{2cm}

20: On the Emergence of the Microcanonical Description

21: from a Pure State}

22: \author{N. D. Hari Dass, S. Kalyana Rama and B. Sathiapalan\\

23:  {\em  Institute of Mathematical Sciences}\\{\em Taramani }\\

24: {\em Chennai, India 600113}}                                    

25: \maketitle                                                                 

26: \begin{abstract}                                                           

27: We study, in general terms, the process by which a pure state can

28: ``self-thermalize'' and {\em appear} to be described by a

29: microcanonical density matrix.  This requires a quantum mechanical

30: version of the Gibbsian coarse graining that conceptually underlies

31: classical statistical mechanics. We introduce some extra degrees of

32: freedom that are necessary for this. Interaction between these degrees

33: and the system can be understood as a process of resonant absorption

34: and emission of ``soft quanta''. This intuitive picture allows one to

35: state a criterion for when self thermalization occurs. This paradigm

36: also provides a method for calculating the thermalization rate using

37: the usual formalism of atomic physics for calculating decay rates. We

38: contrast our prescription for coarse graining, which is somewhat

39: dynamical, with the earlier approaches that are intrinsically

40: kinematical.  An important motivation for this study is the black hole

41: information paradox.

42: \end{abstract}

43: 

44: \section{Introduction}

45: \subsection{Motivation}

46:   Understanding the principles of Statistical Mechanics from first

47: principles still remains a challenge [\cite{reichl}-\cite{Haake}] despite the monumental work by the

48: pioneers like Boltzman, Poincare etc.

49:   According to the fundamental principles of statistical mechanics

50: a macro-system starting from an arbitrary

51: initial state  eventually tends to a state of so called

52: {\it thermodynamic

53: equilibrium}.

54: Inherent in this assertion is a certain 

55: {\em irreversibility}

56: and one of the main issues has been the reconciliation

57: of this with the fact that basic dynamics is 

58: {\em reversible}.

59: In the case of Quantum Statistical Mechanics there are

60: additional complications

61: as the thermodynamic equilibrium state, which

62:  is described by a {\it mixed density matrix}

63: can never be obtained from a  {\it pure}

64: density matrix under quantum mechanical evolution which

65: is described by unitary transformations.

66: This last issue is also the crux of the so called

67: {\em Quantum Measurement Problem}.

68: Interest in these issues has recently been rekindled

69: from a most unexpected direction i.e the problems

70: of black hole entropy and of the so called black hole

71: information. In this section we briefly describe each

72: of these to bring into focus the issues we address in the rest of the paper

73: 

74: 

75: \subsection{Foundations of Quantum Statistical Mechanics}

76: 

77: The questions discussed above lead naturally to questions about the

78: basic postulate of quantum

79: statistical mechanics(QSM). The postulate is that of equal a priori probabilities for all

80: microstates in a given macrostate of definite energy. Equivalently,

81: the density matrix

82: of an ensemble whose energy lies in the range $E_0$ to $E_0+\Delta E$ is given

83: by the identity

84: matrix in the energy basis, suitably normalized as shown

85: ($N$ is the number of states in the given energy interval):

86: 

87: \be   \label{1.1}

88: \rho = {1\over N}I  \; \; \; E_0 \le E \le E_0 + \Delta E

89: \ee

90: and for $E$ not in this interval,

91: \[

92: \rho =0

93: \]

94: It is worth pointing out here that the standard

95: derivation of the microcanonical distribution 

96: can not be carried over automatically to QSM.

97: In classical statistical mechanics one derives the

98: microcanonical distribution, by maximizing the entropy:

99: \be

100: S = -k_B\int dX^N \rho(X^N) log \rho(X^N)

101: \ee

102: subject to

103: \be

104: 1= \int dX^N \rho(X^N)

105: \ee

106: In these eqns $\rho(X^N)$ is the {\em distribution 

107: function} on the {\em phase space}.

108: The result one obtains is

109: \be \rho(X^N) = const ~~~~~ E_0\le H\le E_0+\Delta E

110: \ee

111: and zero otherwise.

112: It is often stated that  for quantum systems the proof

113: is similar with the density operator replacing

114: $\rho$, the quantum mechanical density matrix

115: operator \cite{reichl}:

116: \be

117: S = -k_B tr \rho \log\rho~=-k_B\sum_n P_n\log P_n

118: \ee

119: where $P_n = \lan E,n|\rho|E,n\ran$(the fact that $\rho$

120: is a constant of motion has already

121: been used).

122: %It is stated that

123: %maximizing $S$ wrt $P_n$ yields $P_n = 1/N(E)$.

124: But for a pure state the eigenvalues of $\rho$ are $0,1$

125: (only one eigenvalue 1

126: and all

127: others 0). Hence the entropy is exactly {\it zero} 

128: and no variational principle is applicable.\\

129: 

130: It is sometimes argued that what one deals in practice

131: is not $\rho$ itself but the time-averaged $\rho$:

132: \be

133: \bar\rho(t) = {1\over 2T}\int_{t-T}^{t+T}~dt^{'} ~\rho(t^{'})

134: \ee

135: It follows trivially that

136: \be

137:  tr~\bar\rho = 1

138: \ee

139: But $tr {\bar\rho}^2\ne 1$  as can be easily shown using:

140:  $\rho(t) = e^{iHt}~~\rho(0)~~e^{-iHt}$:

141: \be

142: {\bar\rho(t)}^2 = {1\over 4T^2}\int~dt^{'}~dt^{''}~\rho(t^{'})~ \rho(t^{''})

143: \ee

144: Though $tr~{\bar\rho}^2~\ne 1$ and therefore the time 

145: averaged ${\bar\rho}$ represents a

146: mixed state,

147: $tr~{\bar\rho}^2$ is calculable in terms of the initial density matrix:

148: \be

149: tr~~{\bar\rho(t)}^2~~= \sum_{n,m}~~|\lan n|\rho(0)|m\ran |^2({\sin(\Delta E_{nm} ~~T)\over

150: (\Delta E_{nm}~~T)})^2

151: \ee

152: In fact traces of all powers of ${\bar\rho}$ are calculable

153: and found to be completely determined by the initial

154: pure density matrix and the spectrum of the Hamiltonian

155: describing the system. The important point is that all

156: these constraints have to be used in the variational

157: method and subsequently one does not get the

158: microcanonical distribution.

159: 

160: One can ask, what is the nature of a quantum mechanical

161: system that has the property that, even though we start

162: it off in a pure state, it evolves after some suitable

163: time $\tau$ to a state that {\em for all practical 

164: purposes} (which means for all observables of interest) gives the

165: {\em same expectation} values as a system described 

166: by the

167: microcanonical density matrix.

168: To mimic the situation in classical statistical mechanics

169: where we consider an initial configuration with energy

170: lying in a narrow band,

171: it is assumed that the pure state is a linear combination

172: of energy eigenstates with energy between $E_0$ and

173: $E_0+\Delta E$. We should also discuss what happens when

174: the pure state itself happens to be an energy 

175: eigenstate. We will

176: give an answer stated in terms of the properties of

177: the exact eigenfunctions of the system. 

178: This will be the main result of this paper. 

179: It seems to us that there

180: is an inbuilt dependence on the choice of

181: ``interesting'' observables which define the coarse-grained

182: microstates.

183: \subsection{Quantum Measurement Problem}

184: According to the von Neumann {\it projection postulate}, also

185: known as the '{\it collapse of the wave-function}' 

186: postulate,

187: if an observable $A$ is measured in a generic quantum 

188: state,

189: the result will be any one of the eigenvalues of $A$ 

190: and the

191: state after the measurement {\it collapses} to the 

192: corresponding

193: eigenstate. This implies a transition from the initial

194: {\it pure ensemble} characterized by

195: \be

196:  tr~ \rho = 1, tr~ \rho^2 = 1

197: \ee

198: before the measurement to a {\it mixed ensemble}

199: with

200: \be

201: tr~ \rho = 1, tr~ \rho^2\ne 1

202: \ee

203: Let us illustrate this with a simple example. Consider 

204: an ensemble of states $|\psi>$ of a two-level system 

205: on which a measurement is done whose possible outcomes 

206: are $s=\pm$ with the corresponding eigenstates 

207: $|+>,|->$.

208: As the latter span a basis for the two-level Hilbert 

209: space

210: we could expand $|\psi>$ in this basis

211: \be

212: |\psi>~=~c_+|+>~+c_-|->

213: \ee

214: The initial density matrix

215: \be

216: \rho_i=|\psi><\psi|

217: \ee

218: is {\em pure}.

219: After the measurement we have a {\it mixture} of two 

220: pure ensembles of states $|+>,|->$ with weight 

221: factors $|c_+|^2, |c_-|^2$ resulting in the 

222: final density matrix

223: \be

224: \rho_f= |c_+|^2~|+><+|~+|c_-|^2~|-><-|

225: \ee

226: It is easy to check that

227: \be

228: tr~ \rho_f = 1, tr~ \rho_f^2=(|c_+|^2)^2+(|c_-|^2)^2

229: = 1-2|c_+|^2|c_-|^2\leq 1

230: \ee

231: 

232: As  {Unitary} transformations preserve all traces

233: \be

234: \rho^{'} = U\rho U^{\dagger}\rightarrow tr~ {\rho^{'}}^n

235: = tr~ {\rho}^n

236: \ee

237: the measurement process is not describable by a unitary

238: transformation and is thus {\it irreversible}. It is as

239: if the measurement process has to be treated 

240: differently from ordinary dynamics. This is the crux 

241: of the so called {\em Quantum Measurement Problem} 

242: and one sees that once again the crucial

243: issue has arisen of pure states evolving into 

244: mixed states,

245: or more plausibly into pure states that {\em for all 

246: practical purposes} look like mixed states.

247: \subsection{Black hole evolution and AdS/CFT 

248: correspondence}

249: One of our strong motivation for this study comes 

250: from an issue related to

251:  the ``information paradox'' in black hole physics.

252: The issue is the following: Consider the quantum 

253: mechanical

254: description of black hole

255: formation. Some matter/energy in some initial state

256: described by a wave function evolves in time and at 

257: some point

258: makes a transition to a black hole state due to 

259: the attractive gravitational interaction. As per the

260: Hawking effect the black hole 

261: appears to be radiating

262: like a blackbody at its Hawking temperature. The 

263: system does not look to an external observer to be 

264: described by a pure state wave function but rather by 

265: a mixed state density matrix characterstic of a thermal

266: state. The usual argument is that this transition

267: from a pure state to a mixed state is {\it illusory} 

268: because when we include the degrees of freedom 

269: {\it inside} the black hole one recovers a pure state

270: description. Indeed string theory has given us a 

271: prescription in some situations for actually

272: counting the number

273: of microscopic states associated with a black hole 

274: which reproduces the Bekenstein entropy. Nevertheless,

275: (and this is the crucial point), while ignoring the 

276: degrees of freedom in the

277: interior of the

278: black hole can make the pure state appear mixed to 

279: the external observer,

280: this does not explain

281: why it should look {\it thermal}. In other words, 

282: when calculating the entropy

283: by counting the

284: number of states, there is an {\em implicit} 

285: assumption that the interior system

286: is a {\em mixture} of states with {\em equal} a priori

287: probabilities i.e it is ergodic and is described by a 

288: microcanonical ensemble. In

289: ordinary statistical systems

290: there is always a ``heat bath'' one usually invokes - 

291: basically the environment - that will ensure

292: this, but in the case of the black

293: hole we are describing a closed system. There is no 

294: environment or heat bath.

295: So the question is

296: how does one justify such an assumption of ergodicity 

297: for a closed system?

298: 

299: In \cite{KRBS} this problem was approached using the 

300: so called AdS/CFT correspondence \cite{maldacena,witten}. Using this

301: correspondence the gravitational problem is mapped 

302: to a Yang-Mills problem. How does a pure state with

303: some fixed energy in a Yang-Mills theory 

304: ``self-thermalize''? The solution proposed

305: was that chaos

306: would do the job. Classical Yang-Mills has already been

307: shown to be chaotic

308: \cite{Biro,Muel}. One

309: expects chaos

310: to develop and make the system ergodic. Assuming this 

311: is true quantum mechanically also,

312: this phenomenon could be mapped back to the black-hole via the same AdS/CFT correspondence.

313: 

314: While not much is known theoretically about quantum 

315: chaos in Yang-Mills theories there is

316: some experimental

317: evidence in heavy ion collisions for the formation of 

318: a quark-gluon plasma (at finite temperature).  The 

319: initial state, which is two heavy nuclei traveling

320: towards each other, is definitely described by a 

321: quantum mechanical wave function.

322: The

323: final state appears to be describable by a system

324: at finite temperature. If this happens, then it is 

325: quantum mechanical

326: ``self thermalization'' - a pure state evolves 

327: unitarily by Hamiltonian evolution

328: and after

329: a while {\em looks like} a thermal state.

330: 

331: 

332: \subsection{Criterion for a Physical System to Become 

333: Ergodic.}

334: 

335: Given that we are able to characterize the nature of 

336: eigenfunctions for a system that

337: is ergodic, we can ask when does a physical system satisfy these properties ?

338: i.e. when

339: do we expect thermalization? 

340: We will give an approximate answer to this question

341:  in this paper.

342: The centre of mass degrees of freedom are expected to look thermal

343: most of the times. The interesting question concerns the {\em internal}

344: degrees of freedom that are normally frozen to some discrete quantum states.

345: In the Yang-Mills example above, we expect

346: thermalization of quark and gluon degrees of freedom to

347: take place only when the energy density exceeds a critical density. The scale is

348: obviously set by $\Lambda _{QCD}$. Similarly in the black hole example

349:  we do not expect

350: every (zero temperature) neutron star to form a black hole and produce a non-zero

351: Hawking temperature. This is discussed further in sec. 2.6.4.

352: 

353: \subsection{Thermalization Time}

354: 

355: If a physical system is expected to become ergodic, 

356: we can ask what is the time scale over which this 

357: happens. This is also the time scale for return to 

358: equilibrium when the system is disturbed. It should of

359: course be emphasised that depending on how the system

360: is disturbed, there could be many such time scales. We 

361: will give approximate answers to such questions.

362: 

363: \subsection{Non-Quantum-Mechanical and 

364: Quantum-Mechanical Coarse Graining}

365: 

366: There have been several attempts to obtain effective 

367: thermal density matrices, or, to obtain irreversibility

368: from reversibility. All these involve (as they must 

369: indeed) some coarse graining. However, to our knowledge

370: many of these involve ad hoc prescriptions that do not

371: arise {\em naturally} in quantum theory.  For example, 

372: some invoke averaging over the time of measurement. The

373: argument is that every measurement takes a finite

374: time. Nevertheless averaging over time alone is not 

375: sufficient.

376: As described in Section 1.2 it also does not give

377: the right answer.

378: Similarly, some invoke

379: averaging over an ensemble of initial states. 

380: In quantum mechanics there is no need for any other

381: ensemble than that required by the probabilistic

382: interpretation of the quantum state. Thus averaging

383: over some distribution of initial states is generically

384: ad hoc and unwarranted. The point is that in 

385: generic situations there is no justification for such 

386: ad hoc averaging procedures.

387: Thus whatever

388: coarse graining is necessary must arise naturally 

389: within the framework of quantum mechanics.

390: We will see that invoking some unobserved

391: ``soft'' (low energy) degrees of freedom can naturally

392: accomplish the required coarse graining. An example 

393: of such degrees of freedom is

394: the ``soft'' photons of QED.

395: 

396: \subsection{Outline}

397: In Section 2 we will describe our proposal for Gibbsian

398: coarse graining in

399: quantum mechanics using

400: soft quanta. This will

401: address the criticisms of section 1.7. We will also 

402: give a physical

403: criterion for thermalisation-

404: a qualitative answer to the question of Section 1.5.

405: In Section 3 we introduce the mathematical formulation 

406: of the problem.

407: We also give a brief description of the work of 

408: von Neumann

409: and van Kampen on this subject (about which we learnt 

410: well after completing our work ). This is included 

411: mainly for completeness and comparison,

412: and is not logically required for understanding 

413: our work. In Section 4

414: we  discuss the

415: issues raised in Section 1.2 regarding the 

416: characteristics of a system that

417: can be described by quantum statistical mechanics.  

418: In Section 5

419: we look at the same question from a different 

420: perspective - that of

421: soft quanta and resonant transitions.

422: In Section 6 we will discuss a two level system

423: coupled to a continuum of soft quanta states. This will illustrate some of the ideas

424: more quantitatively. By using the quantum mechanical 

425: formalism underlying the familiar ``Fermi Golden

426: Rule'', we will see approximate irreversibility coming 

427: out of a reversible dynamics

428: and the approximate emergence of a thermal 

429: microcanonical density matrix.

430: More quantitative answers to the questions of 

431: Section 1.5,1.6 and

432: 1.7 will be given here.

433: Section 7 will summarize the results of this paper.

434: 

435: \section{Gibbsian Coarse Graining and the Importance of Soft Modes}

436: \setcounter{equation}{00}

437: 

438: \subsection{Classical Gibbsian Coarse Graining}

439: 

440: An important ingredient in classical statistical mechanics is the notion

441: of coarse graining. As was originally argued by 

442: Gibbs \cite{gibbs}, unless the microstates

443: are coarse grained, entropy will always remain 

444: constant. This is easy to see

445: - as the region of phase space( energy surface) 

446: that is occupied by the ensemble (call this

447: region $\Gamma^*$; care should be taken to distinguish

448: $\Gamma^*$ from $\Gamma$ which usually denotes the

449: {\em entire} energy surface) spreads

450: out in phase space, its shape becomes very complicated 

451: but its

452: volume remains fixed. 

453: The  entropy  is given by $S= \sum _i p_i ln \; p_i$ 

454: where $i$ labels the microstate

455: and $p_i$ is the probability that the system is 

456: in this state.

457: If microstates are taken to be 

458: points, then 

459: $p_i=1$ if the point $i$ belongs to $\Gamma^*$ and zero

460: otherwise. It is easy to see that this number is 

461: constant because it depends only on the

462: volume of $\Gamma^*$, not the shape. If, on the other 

463: hand, the microstates are taken to be

464: small boxes(but large enough to have many system points

465: within them) in phase space, then $p_i$ will be equal 

466: to the fraction of the

467: box that is inside $\Gamma^*$. In this case, it is clear that as $\Gamma^*$  

468: spreads, most of the $p_i$'s will become equal to each other and approach

469: a value between 0 and 1. Thus $S$ will increase till it reaches a maximum.

470: 

471: \subsection{Quantum Mechanical Gibbsian Coarse Graining- ``Soft Quanta''}

472: 

473: What we need is the quantum mechanical analogue  of this coarse graining.

474: It is  important that one should stay within the formalism of quantum

475: mechanics while describing this coarse graining. We propose the following scheme:

476: Let us consider our Hilbert space to be a {\em tensor}

477: product of two Hilbert spaces ${\cal H}_i$ and 

478: ${\cal H}_a$ i.e ${\cal H}={\cal H}_i\otimes{\cal H}_a$.

479: States in ${\cal H}$ are the {\em microstates} of

480: our system. $i$ are the degrees of freedom that one is 

481: physically

482: interested in and will represent the "coarse grained"

483: microstates. $a$ represents some degrees of freedom that we are not

484: interested in and possibly over which we have no control.

485: These are the degrees that allow us to coarse grain. As an example

486: consider a gas of molecules. $i$ could be the usual microscopic degrees

487: of freedom that one

488: associates with the gas, the positions and momenta of the molecules. One

489: can also include rotational or vibrational degrees if one wants. $a$

490: can be soft photons. i.e. the molecules interact with the electro-magnetic

491: field all the time and constantly emit and absorb radiation. There are

492: very long wavelength photons of almost zero energy that one has no control

493: over. They constitute a continuum of gap-less 

494: excitations in this system.

495: They interact with the molecules but take away negligible energy. The energy

496: hyper-surface defining the microcanonical ensemble in quantum mechanics

497: always has a small but finite width.

498: We can understand this as follows: We can specify the variables $i$.

499: The $a$ variables are not in our control. We can think of $i$ as labeling

500: an energy eigenstate of the $i$ system when there is no interaction with the

501: $a$ system.  When we turn on interactions with $a$, the state $i$ is no longer

502: an energy eigenstate. It becomes a linear combination of states with energy

503: in a range

504: $\Delta E$. This is an estimate of $\Delta E$ in (\ref{1.1}).

505: The observables of interest $O$ will be assumed to be

506: functions only of $i$ and not of $a$. To be precise we assume that

507: \be \label{CG}

508: \langle i,a | O | j,b \rangle = \delta _{ab}\langle i |O|j \rangle

509: \ee

510: 

511: Thus our coarse graining will be defined by saying that these are the

512: operators of interest and it is with respect to these operators that

513:  the system looks thermal. Note that this is different from the following

514: kind of coarse graining: the observable $O$ depends on both $i$ and $a$, i.e.,

515:  $\lan  i,a| O | j,b \ran $ is not necessarily given by \ref{CG}.

516:  Nevertheless, the $a$ variables are not in our control. So we average

517:  over them in some fashion - for e.g. $ {\bar O _{ij}} = \int da db

518:  \lan i,a | O | j,b \ran p_{a,b}$. This defines a coarse graining. But

519:  this is ad hoc and definitely is not

520:  a quantum mechanical operation. We do not want this type of coarse graining.

521: %---

522: 

523: There is some arbitrariness in what we call $i$ and what we call $a$. But

524: it is crucial that the $a$ degrees are gap-less, or at least the gap

525: $\delta _a$ between two consecutive energy levels of the

526: unperturbed $a$ system should be much smaller than

527: the inverse of the time interval during which we observe the system.

528: Thus for instance, if $\delta _i =0$ for some of the 

529: $i$-states, then some of the $i$ degrees of freedom

530: could be called $a$.

531: Thus if $i$ represents a continuum of harmonic oscillators, then some subset

532: of these around zero frequency can be called the $a$ variables. Since

533: our energy resolution is always finite, these are not observables of interest.

534: 

535: \subsection{Paradigm of Discrete States Coupled to a Continuum}

536: 

537:  If  it is the case that we can describe the exact system as

538: a coupled $i$-$a$ system with $i$ being discrete and $a$ being continuous, 

539: then

540: we are familiar with this in atomic physics situations. In this situation if

541: we focus on the discrete system alone it will appear to be described by

542: a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian with complex energy eigenvalues. The width

543: $\Gamma$ represents the finite lifetime of the (excited) states. This

544:  requires

545: that we take the limit $\delta _a \rightarrow 0$. If we keep $\delta _a$

546: finite then we expect that after a finite time of O(${1\over \delta_a}$)

547: the system will look periodic. Thus the apparent irreversibility is only

548: because the time of observation is short compared to $1\over \delta _a$.

549: Conversely if we are to observe an irreversibility, as in the second law

550: of thermodynamics, it is clear that

551:  we need such soft degrees of freedom.  ``Soft'' in this context

552: means that the energy of these quanta should be less than

553: the bandwidth, $\Delta E$,

554: that defines the microcanonical system as :

555: $E_0 - \Delta E \leq E \leq E_0 +\Delta E$.

556: Thus we want $\hbar \omega < \Delta E$.

557: In all the

558: usual physical systems there are always soft quanta. So this is not an

559: issue.

560: 

561: \subsection{Heuristic Criterion for Ergodic Density Matrix}

562: 

563: However the above condition is not sufficient. Arguments in the next section

564: suggest that

565: matrix elements between $|i \rangle$ and $|j\rangle$ induced by the

566: interactions with $a$ should be much larger than $\delta _i$. This ensures that

567: an exact energy eigenstate contains a large number of different $i$ states.

568: This is not

569: always satisfied. Systems that do not satisfy this will not be ergodic.

570: In a

571: quantum system with an energy gap (particles in a box) one does not expect

572: any kind of ergodicity when the total energy of the

573: system is such that only the lowest

574: energy levels

575: are excited. \footnote{We remind the reader that we are discussing

576: closed systems and there is no heat bath.}

577: 

578: \subsection{Resonance and Soft Quanta}

579: 

580: When the energy of the soft quanta is equal to $\delta _i$, we

581: expect resonant absorption/emission to take place.  This induces the large

582: off-diagonal matrix elements between $|i\ran $ and $|j\ran$ states that

583: we referred to above.  Because of resonance, the coupling between the soft

584: quanta and the $i$ system need not be large for this to happen.

585: Furthermore we expect

586: both states $|i\ran$ and $|j\ran$ to be equally populated if the

587: probability, $P_{ij}$

588: of $|i\ran \rightarrow |j\ran$ is equal to

589: $P_{ji}$. This will be the case when the induced emission dominates the

590: spontaneous emission, which means that there should be a large number

591: of soft quanta available, i.e. the energy/degree of freedom in the $a$-system

592: should be much larger then the largest of the energy gaps $\delta _i$

593: which is $\Delta E$. 

594: Thus the criterion for thermalization is:

595: 

596: i)there should be a {\em continuum} of soft quanta

597: with energies in the range

598: $\delta _i$ to $\Delta E$. This ensures resonant transitions.

599: 

600: ii)The number of soft quanta in each mode should be $>>1$. This ensures the equality

601: of the upward and downward transitions and hence equality of

602: occupation probability.

603: 

604: 

605: In section 6 we will study

606: a quantum system where some calculations can be done perturbatively. The

607: results support the general picture.

608: 

609: \subsection{Examples:}

610: 

611: 

612: \subsubsection{$H_2$-molecules}

613: 

614: Let us turn now to some physical examples to illustrate these ideas.

615: Consider a gas of hydrogen molecules.

616: Clearly, as far as the centre of mass

617: degrees of freedom of the molecules are concerned the system is 

618: likely to be ergodic. This is again a situation where $\delta _i =0$.

619: When $\delta _i=0$ the off-diagonal elements of the full

620: Hamiltonian are clearly larger than $\delta _i$ and one expects ergodic

621: behaviour by the above arguments. The centre of mass motion

622: is in any case ergodic.

623: 

624: Let us focus our attention on the relative coordinates of the atoms

625: in one molecule and consider this as the $i$ system.

626: We would like to understand whether 

627: ``self thermalization'' can take place for this sub-system.

628: We could alternatively

629: consider all the molecules, but the interaction between the internal

630: degrees of freedom being negligible, this will just be many copies

631: of the one molecule system.  

632:  The

633: $a$ states are a subset of the degrees of freedom

634: of the rest of the gas molecules that interact with the internal degrees

635: of this molecule. We will coarse grain over these degrees

636: by considering observables that  depend only on $i$. We

637: assume that the energy exchange

638: between the internal degrees of this molecule and that of the rest of the gas

639: molecules (which includes the `$a$` degrees) is very small -

640: smaller than the resolution of our

641: experiment. It therefore makes sense to talk of the microcanonical density

642: matrix for the $i$-system.

643: Let us assume that the kinetic energies

644: of the molecules are small and all center of mass

645: degrees can be included in the $a$-system. \footnote{In a

646: realistic system it may be that these conditions are satisfied at

647: such low ``temperatures'' that the $H_2$-gas may have liquefied. But these

648: considerations can apply for any state of matter. }

649: 

650: We assume that the potential energy and the energy 

651: levels of this system

652: are as shown in figure 1. The width of the dashed line

653: represents the energy resolution $\Delta E$ that defines a microcanonical

654: system.  The energy of the soft `$a$` quanta has to be less than $\Delta E$

655: 

656: 

657: \begin{figure}[htbp]

658: \begin{center}

659: \epsfig{file=qsmfig1.eps, width= 12 cm,angle=0}

660: \vspace{ .2 in }

661: \begin{caption}

662: {In the energy range ``a'' the system is unlikely to be

663: ergodic. In ``c'' it is very likely ergodic,

664: and in ``b'' it is almost ergodic. The width of the dashed

665: line represents $\Delta E$   }

666: \end{caption}

667: \end{center}

668: \label{fig1}

669: \end{figure}

670: 

671: 

672: 

673: If the energy of the system described by the Hamiltonian for relative

674: motion is in the region shown by the dashed line marked ``a'',

675: where $\delta _i$ is fairly large compared to $\Delta E$ we do

676: not expect ergodic behaviour. We expect that if we start the molecule off

677: in a pure state, such as the ground state or first excited state,

678: it will remain there. This follows from purely energetic considerations.

679: 

680: The region marked ``c'' is a continuum

681: where the molecule has dissociated and we have atomic Hydrogen. In this

682: region $\delta _i \approx 0 << \Delta E$ and one expects ergodicity.

683: 

684: 

685: Region marked ``b'' is in between, with $\delta _i \approx \Delta E$

686: and one can expect ergodicity if

687: the off diagonal matrix elements are large compared to $\delta _i$. As long as

688: there are soft quanta that can be absorbed or emitted whose energies

689: match the energy spacings ($\delta _i$), this will be the case. The soft quanta

690: are provided by the inelastic collisions with other molecules.

691: We thus expect that even if we start

692: the system off in a pure state it will soon make transitions to the

693: numerous other states in that energy band and be effectively

694: described by a microcanonical

695: density matrix. This is what we would like to demonstrate in Sections 4,5 and 6.

696:  

697: As the above example illustrates, the centre of mass degrees

698: in a gas, for instance, typically

699: are expected to be ergodic. They correspond to the $\delta _i =0$

700: case. Classical analysis of ``billiard balls'' in certain

701: situation shows ergodicity

702: even with a small number of balls \cite{Sinai}. We need not expect

703: the quantum behaviour of this weakly interacting system to be very different.

704: 

705: 

706: The difficult question  concerns  the non-center-of-mass degrees that have

707: non-zero $\delta _i$. Are they ergodic or not?

708:  It can happen sometimes that

709:  while the center-of-mass degrees are ergodic, the

710:  non-center-of-mass degrees are in a pure state. The point we are

711: trying to make is that the value of the energy spacing $\delta _i$,

712: is a crucial

713: factor in deciding the answer.

714: 

715: 

716: 

717: \subsubsection{QCD Plasma}

718: 

719: Another example is that of heavy ion collision producing quark gluon plasma 

720: Clearly when the energy of collision is smaller than the energy gap

721: in QCD the hadrons are still usefully described by wave functions.

722: Once this gap is exceeded one can expect thermalisation. What are the soft

723: quanta here? Presumably these are soft gluons. There are some points of

724: similarity between this system and the hydrogen molecule example discussed

725: above. Deconfinement here, presumably corresponds to the dissociation of the

726: molecule there.

727: 

728: 

729: 

730: 

731: \subsubsection{Sodium Vapour}

732: 

733: 

734: Let us take another example, where again we expect to see two different

735: kinds of ergodicity. As it turns out this example has 

736: some similarity with the black hole

737: situation to be discussed later. Consider a vapour of sodium atoms. The centre of mass motion

738: of the atoms is ``gap-less'' and can be expected to be ergodic motion,

739: even at low temperatures. The electrons

740: in the atom however are described by pure state wave functions, at temperatures

741: that are low compared to electronic level spacings. Consider what happens when

742: the vapour cools down sufficiently that it forms a Sodium crystal, at some low

743: temperature. The centre of mass motion is no longer ergodic. However sodium

744: being a metal, the outer electrons are free to move around in the crystal.  

745: They

746: are now described by a Fermi gas and their motion is ergodic!

747: One can presumably associate a temperature with them.

748: The gap $\delta _i$ between electronic levels has changed from, say, a

749: few electron volts to something of the order $1\over L$ where $L$ is the

750: macroscopic size of the crystal. This is a quantum mechanical effect. Thus 

751: a phase transition in the material has introduced new gap-less excitations

752: that demonstrate ergodic behaviour, even though at a higher temperature

753: they were not ergodic (because they were confined to the interior of

754: the sodium atom)! 

755: 

756: 

757: \subsubsection{Stars and Black Holes}

758: 

759: 

760: There is a similarity between the sodium vapour example and the black hole example.

761: When matter collapses to form a star the centre of mass motion of the

762: lumps of matter once again can be assumed

763: to be ergodic and as a consequence we get a hot star.

764: (Indeed astrophysicists routinely treat this motion entirely classically

765: using classical statistical mechanics, until we get to high densities.)

766: At some point the star (if sufficiently massive)

767: cools to essentially zero temperature, undergoes

768: a phase transition and forms a black hole. At this point some other

769: internal degrees of freedom (D-branes in string theory black holes)

770:  become (presumably gap-less and) ergodic

771: and there is a temperature that can be associated with them. These are

772: like the outer electrons of the sodium atom. 

773: 

774: 

775: \subsection{Summary}

776: 

777: Let us summarize the points made in this section:

778: 

779: 1. Coarse graining is done by introducing soft quanta $a$ in addition to

780: the conventional microscopic degrees $i$. These soft modes induce transitions

781: between the $|i\rangle$. The gap $\delta _a $ must be very small compared

782: to the inverse time of observation. Also

783: the off diagonal terms in the Hamiltonian connecting different $i$ states

784: must be much larger

785: than the unperturbed gap $\delta _i$. This is necessary for the exact energy

786: eigenstates to satisfy the properties assumed in Section 3.

787: This is thus necessary for ergodicity. In the resonance picture this will automatically

788: be the case if there is a sufficient number of soft quanta with a continuum

789: of frequencies in the

790: appropriate energy range.

791: 

792: 2. The interaction with the continuum $a$ degrees of freedom,

793: induces an anti-Hermitean part to the

794: effective Hamiltonian of the $i$ system. This makes the evolution {\em look}

795: irreversible. The apparent lack of reversibility has

796: to do with treating the $a$-degrees as 

797: {\em continuous}. If a gap $\delta_a$ is introduced,

798: the recurrence time is $O({1\over\delta_a})$.

799: 

800: In section 6 

801: we will calculate, 

802: in a simplified model,

803: the time evolution

804: of the partially traced density matrix that describes the $i$ system and show

805: how it appears to evolve in time to a thermal one.

806: 

807: 

808: \section{Mathematical Formulation of the Problem and Earlier Approaches}

809: \setcounter{equation}{00}

810: 

811: In this section we give a mathematical formulation

812: of the problem we wish to address in this paper. It

813: is helpful to start with a brief recapitulation of the

814: situation in classical statistical mechanics. In

815: particular we shall follow the Gibbsian route formulated

816: on the classical phase space and even there we will

817: be concerned only with the microcanonical ensemble

818: description.

819: 

820: In such a situation one considers an isolated system

821: with its total energy in a narrow band

822: $E_0-\Delta<E<E_0+\Delta$. Under time evolution governed

823: by the dynamical equations the system moves on

824: this hyper-surface of the $6N$-dimensional phase space

825: called the "energy surface". Different regions of this

826: energy surface can be labeled by values of observables

827: other than the Hamiltonian. Generically these

828: observables are time-dependent. Further, the accuracies

829: with which these observables can be determined make it

830: meaningful to decompose the energy surface into

831: elementary cells called "phase cells" and all system

832: points within the same cell are ascribed the same value

833: for the "coarse grained" observables

834: Due to dynamics the system point moves from

835: phase space cell to phase space cell.The crux of the

836: Gibbsian statistical mechanics is the so called

837: ergodic theorem( more precisely the quasi-ergodic

838: theorem) which states that after a sufficiently long

839: time the system point passes through all the phase

840: cells and furthermore the time spent in each phase cell

841: is proportional to its volume. This immediately allows

842: one to equate the time average of observables with

843: an "ensemble average" wherein the weight factor for

844: each phase cell is its volume. As the phase cells

845: can be constructed with equal volume the ensemble

846: average can be taken with a distribution giving

847: equal weights to the different phase cells. This is the

848: microcanonical distribution. The crucial point is that

849: the time average has been replaced by an ensemble

850: average in such a way that the distribution is

851: {\em independent} of the initial state. It should be

852: emphasized that in addition to the quasi-ergodic

853: theorem one also approaches the same problem through

854: the so called H-theorem and the concomitant concept

855: of entropy.In what follows we shall only concentrate

856: on the quasi-ergodic aspects of the problem.

857: 

858: Having stated all this it is very important to

859: emphasize that a precise proof of the quasi-ergodic

860: theorem and in particular the resolution of the precise

861: role of dynamics is a very difficult problem. Both in

862: this formulation as well as in the Boltzmannian approach

863: to statistical mechanics assumptions have to be made

864: that are equivalent to the assumption of chaotic

865: behaviour.

866: \subsection{Formulation of Quantum Statistical Mechanics.}

867: Now the main question is how to formulate and prove

868: similar statements in the context of quantum mechanics.

869: The foremost difficulty here is that unlike as in

870: classical mechanics there is no concept of a phase

871: space nor of a trajectory.If classically one views

872: the phase space as the space of all possible states

873: of the classical system, the natural analog in the

874: quantum case is the Hilbert space. Already at this

875: stage many crucial differences appear; one such is

876: the fact that for even a simple system like the

877: ideal gas while the classical phase space is

878: {\em finite-dimensional} with dimension $6N$, the

879: quantum mechanical Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ is

880: the tensor product of $N$ copies of Hilbert spaces

881: ${\cal H}_i$ each of which is {\em infinite-dimensional}.

882: 

883: Let $H$ be the {\it exact} Hamiltonian of the system and let $|A\ran$

884: be the {\it exact} eigenstate with eigenvalue $E_A$. Now Consider energy

885: eigenstates such that their eigenvalues are in the range

886: $E_0-\Delta<E_A<E_0+\Delta$. Further, let the initial state of the system

887: $|\psi\ran$ be such that

888: \be \label{1}

889: |\psi\ran = \sum_A C_A^\psi |A\ran

890: \ee

891: Then

892: \be \label{2}

893: |\psi(t)\ran = \sum_A~C_A^\psi~e^{-iE_At}~|A\ran

894: \ee

895: If we denote $C_A^\psi(t)=C_A^\psi e^{-iE_At}$ it

896: is obvious that $|C_A(t)|^2$ are {\em independent}

897: of time {\em for all A}. The average energy of the

898: system at any time t is given by

899: \be \label{3}

900: \bar E(t) = \sum_A |C_A(t)|^2 E_A

901: \ee

902: >From eqn (\ref{3}) we see another principal difference

903: between the classical and quantum situations: in the

904: quantum case not only is $\bar E$ constant in time, but

905: so are all the quantities $|C_A|^2$. If we now decompose

906: $C_A(t)$ into its magnitude $r_A$ and its phase $\theta_A$

907:  we find that while $r_A$ does not change with time,

908: $\theta_A(t)=\theta_A(0)-E_At$.

909: 

910: >From this it follows that under quantum dynamics i.e

911: Schr\H{o}edinger equation, the motion of the system point

912: is {\em not over} the entire Hilbert space but over the

913: subspace defined by constant $|C_A(t)|^2$ for each $A$.

914: The motion is in fact on the $N_A$-torus spanned by

915: the angle variables $\theta_A$ where $N_A$ is the number

916: of (non-degenerate)energy eigenvalues in the interval

917: considered. Furthermore, the motion on this $N_A$-torus

918: is such that the angular velocity ${d\theta(t)\over dt}$

919: is constant in every direction and equal to $-E_A$. For

920: a macroscopic system the Hamiltonian $H$ will be

921: generically so complex that this motion will densely

922: fill the entire $N_A$-torus and because of the uniform

923: velocity in every direction the time spent by the system

924: point in any interval $[\{\theta_A\},\{\theta_A+\delta\theta_A\}]$

925:  is exactly proportional to the {\em volume}

926: of the interval. In this sense the quantum motion

927: is quasi-ergodic. The precise conditions to be fulfilled

928: by the spectrum of eigenvalues of $H$ will be discussed

929: later but it suffices to stress here that they are

930: fairly generic and unlike the classical case do not

931: require special assumptions about {\em chaos}.

932: Now consider the expectation value of an observable $O$

933: in the state $|\psi(t)\ran$:

934: \be \label{4}

935: \lan\psi(t)|O|\psi(t)\ran = \sum_{A,B}~C_B^{*\psi}~

936: C_A^ \psi~e^{-i(E_A-E_B)t}~~O_{BA}

937: \ee

938: and a time-average of this expectation value over a

939: duration $T$ centred at time $\tau$

940: \br \label{5}

941: \bar O(\tau) &=& {1\over 2T}~\int_{\tau -T}^{\tau +T}~~

942: \lan\psi(t)|A|\psi(t)\ran\nonumber\\

943: & =& \sum_{B,A} C_B^{*\psi}~C_A~O_{BA}~e^{-i(E_A-E_B)\tau}

944: {\sin {(E_A-E_B)T}\over (E_A-E_B)T}

945: \er

946: Now the main problem is that this expression has an

947: explicit dependence on the parameters $C_A^\psi$ of

948: the initial state and {\em can not} be replaced by an

949: ensemble average that is {\em insensitive} to the {\it

950: initial state}. This is the {\em mathematical 

951: formulation}

952: of the problem to be solved i.e interpret quantum

953: statistical mechanics in such a way that the

954: time-average {\em does not remember} the initial state.

955: 

956: It is necessary to make more precise the notion of

957: the time-average. Note that

958: \be \label{6}

959: {\sin(ET)\over(ET)}_{T\rightarrow\infty}\rightarrow \delta(E)

960: \ee

961: The time average in eqn (\ref{5}) then becomes

962: \be \label{7}

963: \bar O(\tau) = \sum_A |C_A^\psi|^2 O_{AA}.

964: \ee

965: At this stage nothing more can be said. If we however

966: consider some special class of systems it is possible

967: to make more statements.

968: For example, Berry \cite{Berry} has conjectured

969: that for {\em classically chaotic} systems energy

970: eigenfunctions behave like Gaussian random variables.

971: More precisely consider expanding the exact energy

972: eigenstates $|A\ran$ in some {\em orthonormal basis}

973: $|I\ran$

974: \be \label{8}

975: |A\ran = \sum_I C_A^I|I\ran

976: \ee

977: Then the Berry conjecture amounts to saying that

978: $C_A^I$ are {\it independently distributed random

979: numbers}. At this stage it is sufficient to just

980: specify the {\it two-point correlation} of this

981: distribution

982: \be \label{9}

983: \lan C_A^{*I}C_B^J\ran_{ens}= {1\over N_A}\delta_{AB}

984: \delta_{IJ}

985: \ee

986: It is easy to see that eqn (\ref{9}) is compatible

987: with unitarity. Despite the apparent basis dependence

988: of this criterion, it is actually {\em basis

989: independent}.To see this let us expand $|A\ran$ in

990: another orthonormal basis $I'$

991: \be \label{10}

992: |A\ran = \sum_I' C_A^{I'}|I'\ran

993: \ee

994: with

995: \be \label{11}

996: |I'\ran = B^{I'}_I|I\ran

997: \ee

998: Then

999: \be \label{12}

1000: C_A^{I'} = \sum_I B_I^{I'}C_A^I

1001: \ee

1002: and

1003: \br \label{13}

1004: \lan C_A^{*I'}C_B^{I'}\ran_{ens}&=&\sum_{IJ}B_I^{*I'}B_J^{J'}\lan C_A^{*I}C_B^J\ran_{ens}\nonumber\\

1005: &=&{1\over N_A}\sum_{IJ}B_I^{*I'}B_J^{J'}\delta_{AB}\delta_{IJ}\nonumber\\

1006: &=&{1\over N_A}\delta_{AB}\delta_{I'J'}

1007: \er

1008: where we have made use of the unitarity of the transformation

1009: matrix $B_I^{I'}$. It should be noted that this proof works only

1010: when the bases ${I},{I'}$ etc. are not derived from the energy basis

1011: by application of {\it fixed} unitary transformations on the

1012: energy-eigenfunction basis. Now let us consider the

1013: ensemble-average of eqn (\ref{7}):

1014: \br \label{14}

1015: \lan\sum_A |C_A^\psi|^2 O_{AA}\ran_{ens}&=&\sum_{AIJ}|C_A^\psi|^2 \lan C_A^{*I} C_A^J\ran_{ens}O_{IJ}\nonumber\\

1016: &=&{1\over N_A}\sum_{AIJ}|C_A^\psi|^2\delta_{IJ}O_{IJ}\nonumber\\

1017: &=&{1\over N_A}\sum_A|C_A^\psi|^2\sum_I O_{II}\nonumber\\

1018: &=&{1\over N_A}\sum_I O_{II}

1019: \er

1020: Let us also consider the average of $O$ at a particular instant given

1021: by eqn (\ref{4}):

1022: \br \label{15}

1023: \lan\sum_{AB}C_B^{*\psi}C_A^\psi e^{-i(E_A-E_B)t} O_{BA}\ran_{ens}

1024: &=&\sum_{ABIJ}C_B^{*\psi}C_A^\psi \lan C_A^{*I}C_B^J\ran_{ens}O_{IJ}e^{-i(E_A-E_B)t}\nonumber\\

1025: &=&{1\over N_A}\sum_{ABIJ}C_B^{*\psi}C_A^\psi \delta_{AB}\delta_{IJ}e^{-i(E_A-E_B)t}O_{IJ}\nonumber\\

1026: &=&{1\over N_A}\sum_{AI}C_A^{*\psi}C_A^\psi O_{II}\nonumber\\

1027: &=&{1\over N_A}\sum_I O_{II}

1028: \er

1029: which is the same as eqn (\ref{14}). Thus in these cases the time-average

1030: is equal to the value at any given instant of time once the ensemble

1031: average is taken

1032: and in both of 

1033: them all memory

1034: of the initial state is lost. The drawback with this picture is that the

1035: equality seems to hold at arbitrary times $t$ while one should only

1036: expect it at late times. In other words there is no way to understand

1037: "thermalization times" in this picture.

1038: 

1039: For eqn (\ref{6}) to hold

1040: it actually suffices for $T >> {1\over \delta}$ where

1041: $\delta$ is the spacing between the exact energy

1042: eigenvalues. As this spacing typically decreases

1043: exponentially with the size of the system the

1044: corresponding $T$ is exponentially large in system size.

1045: {\em This is analogous to the classical case where for

1046: very very large times the Poincare recurrence theorem

1047: \cite{arnold,chandra} guarantees the equality of time

1048: and ensemble averages.}

1049: 

1050: Clearly what's important are not such astronomically large time-scales.

1051: Instead, consider the more moderate and intermediate

1052: time-scale\\ ${1\over \Delta}~< T~<< {1\over \delta}$:

1053: then one has

1054: $$

1055: {\sin(E_m-E_n)T\over(E_m-E_n)T}\simeq 1

1056: $$

1057: and consequently

1058: \be \label{16}

1059: \bar O(\tau)=\sum C^{*\psi}_B~C^\psi_A~~e^{-i(E_A-E_B)\tau}A_{BA}

1060: \ee

1061: Again if the spectrum of the Hamiltonian is

1062: sufficiently complex and there are no degeneracies, for

1063: any reasonable value of $\tau$ there will be

1064: cancelations among all the $A\ne B$ terms and one

1065: again gets back to eqn (\ref{7}). Actually for such

1066: complex systems even the average at any particular

1067: instant(except for pathologically small values of $\tau$)

1068: becomes the same as eqn (\ref{7}) and one does not

1069: even need to do any time averaging. But eqn (\ref{7})

1070: retains memory of the initial state and at this stage

1071: it is not possible to recover the basis of statistical

1072: mechanics unless one postulates additional assumptions

1073: like Berry's conjecture etc.

1074: (we will show later ways of going beyond such

1075: restrictive assumptions; that will be the main result

1076: of this paper).

1077: 

1078:  In  \cite{sred} there was a proposal to consider a different

1079: approach to this problem by assuming that observables

1080: of interest are of the type:

1081: \be \label{17}

1082:  O_{BA}~=~O_0~\delta_{BA}~~+R_{BA}

1083: \ee

1084: with $R_{BA}$ being "small".

1085: 

1086:  Now too $\lan\psi(t)|O|\psi(t)\ran$ is of the same

1087: form as eqn(\ref{7}) except for small corrections

1088: due to the $R_{BA}$ terms. Once again if we interpret

1089: this restriction in the Schr\H{o}dinger picture

1090: one would get eqn (\ref{7}) to be true at all times

1091: which does not make much sense. A possibility is to

1092: interpret $\lan\psi(t)|O|\psi(t)\ran$ as

1093: $\lan\psi|O(t)|\psi\ran$ in the Heisenberg picture

1094: and assume eqn (\ref{17}) only for late times. Even then

1095: one has to still introduce some "ensemble average"

1096: along the lines of Berry's conjecture and there seems

1097: to be no scope for addressing the issue of

1098: "thermalization time" at all. We will see later that

1099: eqn (\ref{17}) is {\em too strong} a restriction on

1100: macroscopic observables and in fact implies that in

1101: the classical limit these observables are

1102: {\em constant} on the entire energy surface.

1103: \subsection{Earlier approaches}

1104: Much after we had finished our work( to be described

1105: in detail in secs 4, 5 and 6) we came to know of the

1106: fundamental paper on this subject due to J. von Neumann

1107: \cite{JvN} through ref \cite{GOM}. Subsequently

1108: we have traced Pauli and Fierz's \cite{pauli} sequel

1109: to von Neumann's work as well as Van Kampen's

1110: formulation \cite{kampen} of the problem. There are

1111: differences between von Neumann's and Van Kampen's

1112: approaches but they are essentially similar in spirit

1113: and both give a quantum mechanical equivalent of

1114: the classical phase space cell decomposition. While

1115: von Neumann uses fairly rigorous methods to show that

1116: the time average of the expectation values of the

1117: macroscopic observables (defined suitably by him)

1118: approaches arbitrarily closely the microcanonical

1119: average( he also shows that a suitably defined entropy,

1120: different from what is known as von Neumann entropy

1121: in the literature, also approaches the entropy of

1122: the microcanonical distribution which is the quantum

1123: version of the H-theorem). Van Kampen establishes

1124: a master equation for the probability distribution

1125: for finding the system in various phase cells given the

1126: distribution at $t=0$ and argues that it has all the

1127: properties of a Markov process whence the problem

1128: becomes identical to the one in classical statistical

1129: mechanics. While in von Neumann's treatment the issue

1130: of thermalization time is not very transparent, in

1131: Van Kampen's treatment it can be handled in principle

1132: exactly as in classical statistical mechanics.

1133: 

1134: While the

1135: mathematical formalism in all three approaches have

1136: strong overlaps,

1137: our  treatment is rather different in its

1138: interpretation of coarse graining in quantum mechanics

1139: which is somewhat kinematical in origin in both

1140: von Neumann's and Van Kampen's treatments. We seek a

1141: dynamical origin for this coarse-graining. In our approach, the

1142: extra soft quanta not only play a passive role as the

1143: degrees that are coarse grained away, they directly provide

1144: the mechanism for thermalization. Thermalization takes

1145: place due to emission and absorption of these soft quanta.

1146: Furthermore in order for this thermalization to happen

1147: it is crucial that they have the properties described

1148: in Sec 2.4 and 2.5. Thus the reader will see that

1149: the setup of Section 4,

1150: where the solution to the problem of ergodicity is

1151: given in an abstract way

1152: is, perhaps not surprisingly,

1153: mathematically identical to the setup of von Neumann. 

1154: Both of them describe a quantum mechanical analogue of Gibbsian

1155: coarse graining. Section 5 and Section 6 where the soft quanta

1156: play out their role in thermalization have, no obvious

1157: counterpart in

1158: von Neumann's discussion.

1159: 

1160: We include a short description of the works of von Neumann and van Kampen

1161: for  reasons of completeness and historical accuracy.

1162: This should also provide a perspective for the whole

1163: discussion.

1164: This section is not a prerequisite for understanding

1165: the rest of this paper. For convenience we have given

1166: at appropriate places below our notation used in Section 4

1167: corresponding to each of von Neumann's symbols.

1168: 

1169: 

1170: 

1171: 

1172: \subsubsection{Quantum Statistical Mechanics of von Neumann}

1173: The three essential ingredients of this approach are

1174: i)energy-surfaces,ii)phase cells belonging to a

1175: particular energy surface and iii)micro-states spanning

1176: each phase cell.

1177: 

1178: {\bf Energy Surfaces:}The {\em exact} Hamiltonian of the system is taken to

1179: be $H$ whose spectrum is assumed to be discrete

1180: for simplicity.If $\Delta E$ is the macroscopic

1181: resolution with which energy measurements can be made,

1182: the energy levels are divided into groups of width

1183: $\Delta E$ each and the groups are labeled by

1184: $a=1,2,...$. This means that only energy levels

1185: belonging to different groups are macroscopically

1186: distinct.The energy eigenvalues are labeled

1187: $W_{\rho,a}$ with $\rho = 1,2,...,S_a$.

1188: (In Section 4 we have used $A$ to label the exact energy

1189: eigenstates. $S_a$ corresponds to $N_A$ of Section 4, 

1190: where we

1191: have restricted ourselves to one energy surface.)

1192: The eigenfunctions are labeled $\phi_{\rho,a}$. Thus

1193: $S_a$ is the number of {\em microscopic} states

1194: spanning the energy surface $a$. The projection operator

1195: corresponding to $\phi_{\rho,a}$ is denoted by

1196: ${\bf P}_{\phi_{\rho,a}}$.

1197: 

1198: {\bf Macroscopic Observables:}

1199: von Neumann considers all macroscopic observations

1200: to be simultaneous and therefore {\em all} macroscopic

1201: observables to be {\em mutually commuting}.

1202: (The word ``macroscopic'' is used here in the sense

1203: of Quantum Measurement Theory. It does {\em not}

1204: mean macroscopic in the sense of statistical mechanics

1205: (i.e. pressure, density, etc ).

1206: Indeed they correspond to {\em micro-state} variables

1207: such as the position coordinates of molecules of a gas

1208: except that {\em macroscopic measurements} can not 

1209: resolve their values within a phase cell.

1210: These observables are thus a subset of  the $O$  of Section 4).

1211: Their

1212: {\em simultaneous} eigenfunctions are denoted by

1213: $\omega_{\lambda,p},\lambda=1,2,..,s_p$ where distinct

1214: values of $p$ denote distinct values of the observables

1215: but all states with the same $p$ but different

1216: $\lambda$ have the same values for all observables.

1217: (In Section 4 we have used `$a$` for $\lambda$, and

1218: `$i$` for $p$. $s_p$ is $N_a$ of Section 4. The simultaneous eigenstates

1219: there are denoted by $| i,a \rangle$.)

1220: 

1221: The projection operator for the state

1222: $\omega_{\lambda,p}$ is denoted by

1223: ${\bf P}_{\phi_{\lambda,p}}$ and the density matrix

1224: signifying an equal mixture of $\omega_{\lambda,p}$

1225: for the same $p$ but for all possible values of

1226: $\lambda$ is denoted by

1227: \be \label{18}

1228: {1\over s_p} {\bf E}_p \equiv \sum^{s_p}_{\lambda}{\bf P}_{\omega_{\lambda,p}}

1229: \ee

1230: Eqn (\ref{18}) can be taken as the density matrix for

1231: a "phase space cell".

1232: In von Neumann's paper the explicit construction of

1233: these mutually commuting macroscopic observables is

1234: not given and the discussion not very transparent.

1235: Van Kampen treats this in a more transparent manner.

1236: Consider any observable $O$ and express it in the

1237: exact energy-eigenfunction basis

1238: \be \label{19}

1239: O=\sum_{\rho,a,\sigma,b} O_{\rho,a;\sigma,b}|\phi_{\rho,a}\ran\lan\phi_{\sigma,b}|

1240: \ee

1241: Van Kampen argues that the matrix elements of the

1242: time-dependent operator $O(t)$

1243: \be \label{20}

1244: O(t)_{\rho,a,\sigma,b}=O_{\rho,a,\sigma,b}e^{-i(W_{\rho,a}-W_{\sigma,b})}

1245: \ee

1246: are associated with {\em very rapid fluctuations}

1247: whenever $a\ne b$.Thus it makes sense to replace the

1248: microscopic operator $O$ by

1249: \be \label{21}

1250: O'=\sum_{\rho,a,\sigma,a} O_{\rho,a;\sigma,a}|\phi_{\rho,a}\ran\lan\phi_{\sigma,a}|

1251: \ee

1252: Equivalently

1253: \be \label{22}

1254: O'_{\rho,a;\sigma,b}=O_{\rho,a;\sigma,a}~\delta_{ab}

1255: \ee

1256: Van Kampen also introduces the coarse-grained energy

1257: operator to be

1258: \be \label{23}

1259: H' = \sum_a W_a \sum_\rho^{S_a}{\bf P}_{\phi_{\rho,a}}

1260: \ee

1261: Note that all the energy eigenvalues belonging to

1262: an energy-surface have been replaced by a single

1263: value $W_a$. Now it is easy to see that $H',O'$

1264: commute so they can be

1265: {\em simultaneously diagonalised}:

1266: \br \label{24}

1267: H'|\omega_{\mu,a}\ran &=& W_a|\omega_{\mu,a}\ran\nonumber\\

1268: O'|\omega_{\mu,a}\ran &=& A_{\mu,a}|\omega_{\mu,a}\ran

1269: \er

1270: He now introduces the coarse-grained observables by

1271: grouping the eigenvalues $A_{\mu,a}$ into phase cells

1272: in such a way that

1273: only those belonging to different groups(cells) can be

1274: distinguished macroscopically i.e through macroscopic

1275: measurements.Let these groupings be labeled by

1276: $\nu=1,2,...N_a$ ($N_a$ of von Neumann is $N_i$ of Section 4). Then

1277: \be \label{25}

1278: {\tilde O} = \sum_a\sum_\nu A_{\nu,a}\sum_{\lambda}^

1279: {s_{\nu,a}}{\bf P}_{\omega_{\lambda,\nu,a}}

1280: \ee

1281: Now it is clear that all such macroscopic observables

1282: commute with each other with $\omega_{\lambda,\nu,a}$

1283: as their simultaneous eigenfunctions. Furthermore,in

1284: this approach, the phase cells, labeled by $\nu,a$

1285: are neatly partitioned into disjoint sets by the

1286: energy surfaces.

1287: 

1288: It is instructive to compare this construction with

1289: von Neumann's treatment( and later with ours). von

1290: Neumann argues that any operator with a boolean

1291: spectrum( eigenvalues $0$ or $1$) is a macroscopic

1292: observable and every macroscopic observable has

1293: a spectral decomposition of the type

1294: \be \label{26}

1295: A=\sum_p c_p {\bf E}_p

1296: \ee

1297: He then considers the function $f_a(x)$ such that $f_a=1$

1298:  if $x$ belongs to the energy eigenvalues of the

1299: energy surface labeled by $a$ and $0$ otherwise. Then

1300: the operator $f_a(H)$ has eigenvalues $0,1$ and is

1301: thus a macroscopic observable. By eqn(\ref{26}) it

1302: must admit the decomposition

1303: \be \label{27}

1304: f_a(H)=\sum_p f_a^p {\bf E}_p

1305: \ee

1306: On the other hand

1307: \be \label{28}

1308: f_a(H)=\sum_{\rho=1}^{S_a}{\bf P}_{\phi_{\rho,a}}

1309: \ee

1310: As both $f_a(H)$ and ${\bf E}_p$ for every p are equal to

1311: their own squares and as the product of two distinct

1312: ${\bf E}_p$'s is zero, it follows that ${f_a^p}^2 = {f_a^p}$

1313: for every $p$ i.e $f_a^p$ is either $1$ or $0$.

1314: Relabeling all those $p$'s for which$f_a^p=1$ by

1315: $\nu,a$ we have

1316: \be \label{29}

1317: \sum_\rho^{S_a} {\bf P}_{\phi_{\rho,a}} = \sum_\nu^{N_a} {\bf E}_{\nu,a}

1318: \ee

1319: i.e we again have a unique partitioning of all the

1320: phase cells among the energy surfaces. The equivalent 

1321: of this in our approach is given by the construction in sec. 4.1.

1322: 

1323: {\bf Microcanonical ensemble:}\\

1324: We briefly sketch JvN's proof showing the asymptotic

1325: equivalence of the time averaged expectation value and

1326: the microcanonical average.

1327: We denote the operator occurring in eqn (\ref{29}) by

1328: $\Delta_a$. It is then clear that

1329: ${1\over S_a}\Delta_a$ is the density matrix for

1330: an equal mixture of energy eigenstates belonging

1331: to the energy surface $a$ and as such represents

1332: the density matrix for the microcanonical ensemble associated

1333: with that energy surface. If the initial state $\psi$ is such that

1334: $(\Delta_a\psi,\psi)$ is nonzero for several values of $a$, one

1335: should consider a mixture of microcanonical ensembles for each $a$

1336: with weight factor $(\Delta_a\psi,\psi)$(this is the probability

1337: of finding the system in the energy surface $a$). Thus the microcanonical

1338: density matrix in the general case is

1339: \be \label{30}

1340: U_\psi = \sum_{a=1}^\infty {(\Delta_a\psi,\psi)\over S_a}\Delta_a

1341: \ee

1342: In our treatment later on we shall consider only one energy surface.

1343: 

1344: {\bf Quantum Ergodicity}

1345: 

1346: Next JvN considers the system to be initially in a state

1347: \be \label{3.2.31}

1348: |\psi\ran = \sum_{a=1}^\infty\sum_{\rho=1}^{S_a} r_{\rho,a}e^{i\alpha_{\rho,a}}

1349: |\phi_{\rho,a}\ran ~~~~(r_{\rho,a}\geq 0,0\leq\alpha_{\rho,a}< 2\pi)

1350: \ee

1351: then

1352: \be \label{3.2.32}

1353: |\psi(t)\ran = \sum_{a=1}^\infty\sum_{\rho=1}^{S_a}r_{\rho,a}e^{-i({2\pi\over h}

1354: W_{\rho,a}t-\alpha_{\rho,a})}

1355: \ee

1356: Introducing the abbreviations

1357: \be \label{3.2.33}

1358: x_{\nu,a}=({\bf E}_{\nu,a}\psi(t),\psi(t))~~~~u_a=(\Delta_a\psi(t),\psi(t))=(\Delta_a\psi,\psi)

1359: \ee

1360: one considers a macroscopic observable $A$

1361: \be \label{3.2.34}

1362: A=\sum_{a=1}^\infty\sum_{\nu=1}^{N_a}~\eta_{\nu,a}{\bf E}_{\nu,a}

1363: \ee

1364: The expectation value of $A$ in the state $\psi(t)$ is then

1365: \be \label{35}

1366: E_A(\psi(t))=(A\psi(t),\psi(t))= \sum_{a=1}^\infty\sum_{\nu=1}^{N_a

1367: } \eta_{\nu,a}({\bf E}_{\nu,a}\psi(t),\psi(t))

1368: =\sum_{a=1}^\infty\sum_{\nu=N_a}\eta_{\nu,a}x_{\nu,a}

1369: \ee

1370: while the microcanonical average is

1371: \br \label{36}

1372: E_A(U_\psi)=Tr AU_\psi &=&Tr(\sum_{a=1}^\infty\sum_{\nu=1}^{N_a}\eta_{\nu,a}{\bf E}_{\nu,a}

1373: \sum_{a'=1}^\infty\sum_{\nu'=1}^{N_{a'}}{u_{a'}\over S_{a'}}{\bf E}_{\nu',a'})\nonumber\\

1374: &=&\sum_{a=1}^\infty\sum_{\nu=1}^{N_a}\eta_{\nu,a}{u_a s_{\nu,a}\over

1375:  S_a}

1376: \er

1377: On using the eqn (\ref{36}) and Schwarz's inequality JvN finally obtains

1378: \be \label{37}

1379: (E_A(\psi(t))-E_A(U_\psi))^2\leq {\bar \eta}^2\sum_{a=1}^\infty\sum_{\nu=1}^{N_a}

1380: {S_a\over s_{\nu,a}u_a}[x_{\nu,a}-{s_{\nu,a}u_a\over S_a}]^2

1381: \ee

1382: where

1383: \be \label{38}

1384: {\bar \eta}^2 = \sum_{a=1}^\infty\sum_{\nu=1}^{N_a}{s_{\nu,a}u_a\over S_a}\eta_{\nu,a}

1385: \ee

1386: JvN finally establishes that the time average of the lhs of eqn (\ref{37})

1387: is bounded by ${\bar \eta}^2 max_a\{{2N_a\over S_a}\}$.

1388: \subsubsection{Van Kampen's approach}

1389: Van Kampen expands the initial state $\psi$ not in terms

1390: of the exact eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian but

1391: in terms of the simultaneous eigenstates

1392: $\omega_{\lambda,\nu,a}$ of the coarse grained

1393: observables( we are retaining the notation of JvN):

1394: \be \label{39}

1395: |\psi\ran = \sum_{\lambda,\nu,a} b_{\lambda,\nu,a}|\omega_{\lambda,\nu,a} \ran

1396: \ee

1397: The probability of finding the system in the phase cell

1398: $\nu,a$ is given by

1399: \be \label{40}

1400: P_{\nu,a}=\sum_{\lambda=1}^{s_{\nu,a}}|b_{\lambda,\nu,a}|^2

1401: \ee

1402: The time dependence of the state is given by

1403: \be \label{41}

1404: |\psi(t)\ran = \sum_{\lambda,\nu,a}b_{\lambda,\nu,a}(t)|\omega_{\lambda,\nu,a}\ran

1405: \ee

1406: where

1407: \be \label{42}

1408: b_{\lambda,\nu,a}(t)=\sum_{\lambda',\nu',a'}\lan \omega_{\lambda,\nu,a}|U(t)|\omega_{\lambda',\nu',a'}\ran

1409: \ee

1410: and $U(t)$ is the time-evolution operator. The

1411: probability of finding the system in the phase cell $\nu,a$ at time $t$ is given by

1412: \be \label{43}

1413: P_{\nu,a}(t) = \sum_{\stackrel{\lambda',\nu',a'}{\lambda'',\nu'',a''}}

1414: \sum_{\lambda}\lan\omega_{\lambda,\nu,a}|U(t)|\omega_{\lambda',\nu',a'}\ran

1415: \lan \omega_{\lambda,\nu,a}|U(t)|\omega_{\lambda'',\nu'',a''}\ran^*

1416: b_{\lambda',\nu',a'}(0)b^*_{\lambda'',\nu'',a''}(0)

1417: \ee

1418: Invoking the argument that the summation consists of many wildly fluctuating

1419: terms and all the non-negative terms cancel i.e only surviving terms are

1420: ${\nu',a'}={\nu'',a''}$ and $\lambda'=\lambda''$.This reduces eqn(\ref{41})

1421: to

1422: \be \label{44}

1423: P_{\nu,a}(t)=\sum_{\nu',a'}\sum_{\lambda'}\sum_{\lambda}

1424: |\lan\omega_{\lambda,\nu,a}|U(t)|\omega_{\lambda',\nu',a'}\ran|^2 |b_{\lambda',\nu',a'}(0)|^2

1425: \ee

1426: Van Kampen further argues that in a sum of type

1427: $$

1428: \sum_i\alpha_i\beta_i

1429: $$

1430: where both $\alpha_i,\beta_i$ are {\it rapidly fluctuating} but {\it positive}

1431: it is a good approximation to evaluate the sum as

1432: $$

1433: {1\over G}\sum_i\alpha_i\sum_i\beta_i

1434: $$

1435: With this approximation eqn (\ref{44}) becomes

1436: \be \label{45}

1437: P_{\nu,a}(t) = \sum_{\nu',a'}{1\over s_{\nu,a}}

1438: \sum_{\lambda,\lambda'}

1439: |\lan\omega_{\lambda,\nu,a}|U(t)|\omega_{\lambda',\nu',a'}\ran|^2

1440: P_{\nu',a'}(0)

1441: \ee

1442: With the definition

1443: \be \label{46}

1444: T_t(\nu,a|\nu',a') {\stackrel {def}{=}}

1445: {1\over s_{\nu,a}}\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'}

1446: |\lan\omega_{\lambda,\nu,a}|U(t)|\omega_{\lambda',\nu',a'}\ran|^2

1447: \ee

1448: eqn (\ref{45}) can be recast as

1449: \be \label{47}

1450: P_{\nu,a}(t) = \sum_{\nu',a'}T_t(\nu,a|\nu',a') P_{\nu',a'}(0)

1451: \ee

1452: As there is nothing special about the instant $t=0$ it follows that

1453: \be \label{48}

1454: P_{\nu,a}(t_1+t_2) = \sum_{\nu',a'}T_{t_2}(\nu,a|\nu',a') P_{\nu',a'}(t_1)

1455: \ee

1456: Equivalently

1457: \be \label{49}

1458: T_{t_1+t_2}(\nu,a|\nu',a')=\sum_{\nu'',a''} T_{t_2}(\nu,a|\nu'',a'')T_{t_1}

1459: (\nu'',a''|\nu',a')

1460: \ee

1461: Along with the obvious properties of $T_t(\nu,a|\nu',a')$

1462: \be \label{50}

1463: T_0(\nu,a|\nu',a')=\delta_{\nu,a;\nu',a'};~~~T_t(\nu,a|\nu',a')\geq 0;~~~

1464: \sum_{\nu,a}T_t(\nu,a|\nu',a')=1

1465: \ee

1466: which follow

1467: from the orthogonality of $|\omega_{\lambda,\nu,a}\ran,|\omega_{\mu,\nu',a'}\ran$

1468: for distinct $\{\nu,a\},\{\nu',a'\}$ and the {\em unitarity} of $U(t)$, one

1469: concludes that $T_t$ is a {\em Markov Process}. One knows from the

1470: Frobenius-Perron theorem that there is always an equilibrium distribution

1471: $P^{eq}_{\nu,a}$. From the spectrum of the operator $T(\nu,a|\nu',a')$ one

1472: can also deduce the {\em thermalization times}.

1473: 

1474: Before concluding this section it is instructive to derive the so called

1475: Master equation. For this one solves for $T_{\Delta t}$ as

1476: \be \label{51}

1477: T_{\Delta t}(\nu,a|\nu',a')=\delta_{\nu,a;\nu',a'}\{1-\Delta t\sum_{\nu'',a''}

1478: W_{\nu'',a'';\nu,a}\}+\Delta t W_{\nu,a;\nu',a'}

1479: \ee

1480: Then one gets the differential form of the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation

1481: \be \label{52}

1482: {\partial\over \partial t}T_t(\nu,a|\nu',a')=

1483: \sum_{\nu'',a''} W_{\nu,a;\nu'',a''}T_t(\nu'',a''|\nu',a')-W_{\nu'',a'';\nu,a}

1484: T_t(\nu,a|\nu',a")

1485: \ee

1486: This can be recast in terms of $P_{\nu,a}(t)$ as

1487: \be \label{53}

1488: {d\over dt}P_{\nu,a}(t)=\sum_{\nu',a'}\{W_{\nu,a;\nu',a'}P_{\nu',a'}

1489: -W_{\nu',a';\nu,a}P_{\nu,a}(t)\}

1490: \ee

1491: which is the {\em master equation}.

1492: \section {Quantum coarse graining and emergence of the microcanonical

1493: ensemble.}

1494: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1495: 

1496: As we have stated already the major conceptual problem in Quantum statistical

1497:  mechanics

1498: is that of understanding how a quantum state initially described by a pure 

1499: density

1500: matrix can ever resemble the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which is

1501: clearly

1502: described by a mixed density matrix.

1503: \subsection{Coarse graining}

1504: As was clearly stressed by Gibbs \cite{gibbs} long ago, coarse graining is 

1505: essential to understanding

1506: even the most basic features of classical statistical mechanics. We now introduce

1507: our proposal

1508: for a {\em quantum coarse graining} and show subsequently that the microcanonical

1509: distribution then follows for a large class of systems.

1510: 

1511: We consider two types of mutually commuting variables $I,{\cal A}$ and their

1512: simultaneous eigenstates

1513: $|i,a\ran $. Later on we will define $|i,a\ran $ only in the {\em subspace spanning the

1514: states

1515: relevant for the microcanonical ensemble}. The $i$ will eventually correspond to

1516: the labels of the usual micro-states entering

1517: the description of the statistical system and the precise nature of $a$ are not

1518: specified

1519: at present. Alternately one can think of $|i,a\ran $ as the labeling of micro-states on

1520: the fine scale and

1521: $|i\ran $ as the labeling of the micro-states at the coarse grained level.

1522: 

1523: It is assumed that to a very good approximation the 

1524: ${\cal A}$ variables couple

1525: {\em weakly}

1526: to the $I$-variables in the total Hamiltonian i.e

1527: \be \label{4.1}

1528: H_{tot}=H^{(i)}+H^{(a)}+\lambda~~H^{(i,a)}

1529: \ee

1530: with $\lambda$ very small. Let $|A^*\ran $ be the eigenstates of $H^{(i)}$ {\bf that

1531: lie in

1532: the range $E_0-\Delta E<E_0+\Delta$}. We then form the

1533: matrix $I^*_{AB} = \lan B^*|I|A^*\ran $ which is $N_i\times N_i$. Now let $|i\ran $ be the

1534: eigenstates of

1535: $I^*$ and let $|i,a\ran= |i\ran \otimes|a\ran $ where $|a\ran $ are the eigenstates of $\cal A$

1536: and let

1537: us also assume that there are $N_a$ such states. (A special choice

1538: could be $I=H^{(i)}$, in which case $|i\rangle = |A^* \rangle $.)

1539: 

1540: The important point is that the $N_i\times N_a$ states $|i,a\ran $ continue to form a

1541: basis in terms of

1542: which all the exact energy eigenstates in the microcanonical band can still be

1543: expanded. It is

1544: of course important to state that even a small perturbation characterized by

1545: $\lambda$ can completely

1546: alter the nature of the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $H$ because of the exponential

1547: crowding of the "unperturbed" states but the {\em number} of eigenstates remains

1548: unchanged.

1549: The parameters of the microcanonical band $E_0,\Delta$ are also most likely

1550: affected by

1551: the perturbation, but as we shall never need their precise values it does not matter

1552: for the ensuing discussion.

1553: 

1554: We shall only consider those observables that are {\em insensitive} to the $a$

1555: labels i.e $\lan i,a|O|j,b\ran

1556: =O_{ij}\delta_{ab}$. This is in keeping with the spirit of

1557: coarse graining described in Section 2.2.

1558: 

1559: \subsection{Some preliminaries}

1560: Consider some arbitrary state in the subspace we have considered

1561: \be \label{4.2}

1562: |\psi\ran =\sum C^{\psi}_A |A\ran

1563: \ee

1564: where now $|A\ran $ are the {\em exact} energy eigenstates of the system.

1565: Further, let

1566: \be \label{4.3}

1567: |A\ran  = \sum_{i,a}~~C_{A}^{*ia}~~|i,a\ran

1568: \ee

1569: with the inverse expansion

1570: \be \label{4.4}

1571: |i,a\ran  = \sum_A~~C^{ia}_A~~|A\ran

1572: \ee

1573: 

1574: The coefficients $C_A^{ia}$ satisfy the following unitarity conditions:

1575: \be \label{4.5}

1576: \sum_A C_A^{*ia}~C_A^{i'a'}=\delta_{ii'}\delta_{aa'}~~~~~~\sum_{ia} C_A^{ia}C_{A'}^{*ia}=\delta_{AA'}

1577: \ee

1578: 

1579: 

1580: In terms of these definitions we can rewrite

1581: \be \label{4.6}

1582: \lan \psi|O|\psi\ran  = \sum_{A,B}~~C^{*\psi}_B~~C^{\psi}_A~~\lan B|O|A\ran

1583: \ee

1584: as

1585: \be \label{4.7}

1586: O_{\psi\psi}~~=~~\sum_{a,ij}~\sum_{A,B}~C^{*\psi}_B~~C^{\psi}_A~~

1587: C_{A}^{*ia} ~ C_{B}^{ja} O_{ij}

1588: \ee

1589: Now introduce

1590: \be \label{4.8}

1591: \sum_a C_{A}^{ja} C_{B}^{*ka}=~~\delta_{jk}~~\delta_{AB}~~P^j_A+R^{jk}_{AB}

1592: \ee

1593: This is to be understood as a {\em diagonal $+$ off-diagonal} split in

1594:  the sense

1595: that by

1596: definition

1597: \be \label{4.9}

1598: P^j_A~~=~~\sum_b C_{A}^{jb}~C_{A}^{*jb}

1599: \ee

1600: Consequently

1601: \be \label{4.10}

1602: R^{kk}_{AA}=0

1603: \ee

1604: (No sum on indices.)

1605: We need to prove a few important properties of $P$ and $R$. Let $A\ne B$;

1606:  putting $j=k$ and

1607: summing over j one gets

1608: \be \label{4.11}

1609: \sum_k R^{kk}_{AB} = 0

1610: \ee

1611: Therefore

1612: \be \label{4.12}

1613: \sum_k R^{kk}_{AB}=0

1614: \ee

1615: always. Further,

1616: \be \label{4.13}

1617: \sum_k~~P^k_A~~=1  ~and ~~ also~ \sum_A P^k_A=N_a

1618: \ee

1619: as follow from the unitarity eqn (\ref{4.5}).  Likewise by putting $A=B$ and summing

1620: over $A$ one gets

1621: \be \label{4.14}

1622: \sum_A~~R^{kj}_{AA}=0

1623: \ee

1624: 

1625: 

1626: \subsection{Emergence of the microcanonical distribution}

1627: Let us consider a pure quantum state which at $t=0$ is given by

1628: \be \label{4.15}

1629: |t=0\ran ~=~|\psi\ran ~=~\sum_A~~C^{\psi}_A~~|A\ran

1630: \ee

1631: Now it is straightforward to show that

1632: \be \label{4.16}

1633: \lan \psi(t)|O|\psi(t)\ran ~~=~~\sum_{A,j}~~C^{*\psi}_A~~C^{\psi}_A~~P^j_A~~O_{jj}+

1634: \sum_{ABjk}~~C^{*\psi}_B~C^{\psi}_A~E^{-i(E_A-E_B)t}~~R^{kj}_{AB}~O_{jk}

1635: \ee

1636: Separating out the $A=B$ contribution in the second term one finds

1637: \br  \label{4.17}

1638: \lan \psi(t)|O|\psi(t)\ran ~~=~~& &\sum_{A,j}~~C^{*\psi}_A~~C^{\psi}_A~~P^j_A~~O_{jj}

1639:  +\sum_A~~C^{*\psi}_A~C^{\psi}_A\sum_{jk} R^{kj}_{AA}~O_{jk}\nonumber\\

1640: &+& \sum_{A\ne B}~~\sum_{jk}C^{*\psi}_B~

1641: C^{\psi}_A~E^{-i(E_A-E_B)t}~~R^{kj}_{AB}~O_{jk}

1642: \er

1643: 

1644: We can further exploit the redundancy introduced by $a$ states by

1645: defining an equivalence class of states as follows:

1646: define the unitary operator $U^{\alpha}$ by

1647: \be \label{4.18}

1648: U^{\alpha}|a\ran = \sum _b U^{\alpha}_{ab}|b\ran

1649: \ee

1650: which is some unitary transformation on $|a\ran$ space. Clearly

1651: it does not affect the expectation values of our observables of interest, $O$,

1652: since $O$ is insensitive to $a$. Thus if

1653: \be \label{4.19}

1654: U^{\alpha}|\psi(t) \ran = |\psi ^{\alpha}(t)\ran

1655: \ee

1656: we have:

1657: \be \label{4.20}

1658: \lan \psi ^{\alpha}(t)|O|\psi ^{\alpha}(t) \ran = \lan \psi(t) |O|\psi(t) \ran

1659: \ee

1660: Consequently

1661: \be \label{4.21}

1662: \lan \psi (t) |O|\psi (t) \ran = {1\over N_{\alpha}}\sum _{\alpha}

1663: \lan \psi ^{\alpha} (t) |O|\psi ^{\alpha}(t) \ran

1664: \ee

1665: Here $N_{\alpha}$ is the number of such $U$ matrices. This is up to us and we

1666: can choose these matrices to satisfy

1667: \be   \label{4.22}

1668: \sum _{\alpha}U^{\alpha}_{ac} U^{* \alpha}_{bd}= \mu \delta _{ab}

1669: \delta _{cd}

1670: \ee

1671: If we multiply by $\delta _{ab}$ and sum over $a,b$, we get, using the

1672: unitarity of the matrix,

1673: \[

1674: \sum _\alpha \delta _{cd} = \mu N_a \delta _{cd}

1675: \]

1676: This gives $N_\alpha = \mu N_a$.  The conditions (\ref{4.22}) are

1677: $N_a^4$ conditions on $N_\alpha N_a^2$ variables. Thus we need $N_\alpha = N_a^2$ at least. So we take $N_\alpha = N_a^2$ which gives $\mu = N_a$.

1678: 

1679: It should be noted that eqn (\ref{4.21}) is valid {\em only at a particular

1680: instant $t$} as it can be valid for {\em all $t$} only if $U$ commutes

1681: with the microscopic Hamiltonian $H$. We can think of $|\psi^{\alpha}(t)\ran$

1682: as time evolved (after $t$) from some state $|\psi^{\alpha}\ran$. In other

1683: words

1684: \be \label{4.23}

1685: |\psi^{\alpha}(t)\ran=e^{-iHt}|\psi^{\alpha}\ran

1686: \ee

1687: Again eqn (\ref{4.22}) is only valid for time $t$. Actually $|\psi^{\alpha}\ran$

1688: explicitly depends on $t$ unless $[U,H]=0$.

1689: Let

1690: \be \label{4.24}

1691: |\psi^{\alpha}\ran=\sum_A C_A^{\psi^{\alpha}}|A\ran

1692: \ee

1693: Then eqn(\ref{4.21}) implies

1694: \be \label{4.25}

1695: \sum_A C_A^{\psi^{\alpha}} e^{-iE_At}|A\ran=U_{\alpha}\sum_B C_B^{\psi}e^{-iE_Bt}|B\ran

1696: \ee

1697: Fromthis it follows that

1698: \be \label{4.26}

1699: C_A^{\psi^{\alpha}}=\sum_B e^{i(E_A-E_B)t}\lan A|U_{\alpha}|B\ran C_B^{\psi}

1700: \ee

1701: Let us evaluate $\lan A|U_{\alpha}|B\ran$ now:

1702: \br \label{4.27}

1703: \lan A|U_{\alpha}|B\ran &=& \sum_{ijab} C_B^{*jb}C_A^{ia}\lan ia|U_{\alpha}| jb \ran \nonumber\\

1704: &=&\sum_{iab} C_B^{*ib} C_A^{ia} U_{\alpha}^{ba}

1705: \er

1706: Thus

1707: \be \label{4.28}

1708: C_A^{\psi^{\alpha}}=\sum_{Biaa'} e^{i(E_A-E_B)t} C_B^{*ia'} C_A^{ia} U_{\alpha}^{a'a} C_B^{\psi}

1709: \ee

1710: On introducing

1711: \be \label{4.29}

1712: |\psi(t)\ran = \sum_{ia} D_{ia}^{\psi}(t)|ia\ran

1713: \ee

1714: it is easy to see that

1715: \be \label{4.30}

1716: D_{ia}^{\psi}(t)=\sum_B C_B^{*ia} C_B^{\psi} e^{-iE_Bt}

1717: \ee

1718: hence

1719: \be \label{4.31}

1720: C_A^{\psi^{\alpha}}=\sum_{iaa'} e^{iE_At} C_A^{ia} D_{ia'}^{\psi}(t) U_{\alpha}^{a'a}

1721: \ee

1722: 

1723: We now use all this in equation (\ref{4.21}).

1724: \be \label{4.32}

1725: {1\over N_{\alpha}}\sum _{\alpha}

1726: \lan \psi ^{\alpha} (t) |O|\psi ^{\alpha}(t) \ran

1727: = {1\over N_\alpha}\sum_{\alpha ABkle} C^{*\psi ^\alpha}_B

1728: C^{\psi ^\alpha}_A C^{*ke}_AC^{le}_B O_{kl}e^{-i(E_A-E_B)t}

1729: \ee

1730: On using eqn (\ref{4.31})

1731: \br \label{4.33}

1732: e^{-i(E_A-E_B)t}\sum_{\alpha} C_B^{*\psi^\alpha}C_A^{\psi^\alpha}

1733: &=&\sum_{ijacbd} D^\psi _{ic}(t)D^{*\psi}_{jd}(t)\sum _\alpha

1734: U_\alpha ^{ca}U_{*\alpha}^{db} C_A^{ia}C^{*jb}_B\nonumber\\

1735: &=&\mu\sum_{ijac} D^\psi _{ic}(t)D^{*\psi}_{jc}(t) C_A^{ia}C^{*ja}_B\nonumber\\

1736: &=&\mu\sum_{ijc} D^\psi _{ic}D^{*\psi}_{jc}[P_A^i\delta_{AB}\delta_{ij}+R_{AB}^{ij}]  

1737: \er

1738: where we have made use of eqn(\ref{4.30}) and eqn(\ref{4.8}).

1739: Plug this into (\ref{4.32}) to get

1740: \be \label{4.34}

1741: {\mu\over N_\alpha} \sum_{ijklcAB}D^\psi _{ic}(t)D^{*\psi}_{jc}(t)~[P_A^i \delta _{AB}\delta _{ij}+ R_{AB}^{ij}]

1742: [P_A^k\delta _{AB}\delta _{kl}+ R_{BA}^{lk}]O_{kl}

1743: \ee

1744: %Once again all indices are summed over.

1745: 

1746: We expand to get

1747: \[

1748: {1\over N_a}\sum_A [ D^\psi _{ic}D^{*\psi}_{ic}P_A^iP_A^kO_{kk}+

1749: D^\psi _{ic}D^{*\psi}_{jc}R_{AA}^{ij}P_A^kO_{kk} + D^\psi _{ic}D^{*\psi}_{ic}

1750: P_A^i R_{AA}^{kl}O_{kl}]

1751: \]

1752: \be \label{4.35}

1753: +{1\over N_a}\sum_{A\ne B}D^\psi _{ic}D^{*\psi}_{jc}R_{AB}^{ij}R_{AB}^{kl}O_{kl}

1754: \ee

1755: Summation over all other indices as well as the time dependence of

1756: $D^\psi_{ia}$'s is understood.

1757: 

1758: If $P^j_A$  are such that there is a {\em very weak}

1759: dependence on either $j$ or $A$, we can draw

1760: the following additional conclusions:

1761: \be \label{4.37}

1762: P^j_A~=~{1\over N_i}

1763: \ee

1764: This follows from eqn(\ref{4.13})

1765: 

1766: The following is one of the ways of realising eqn (\ref{4.37}): $C_A^{ia}C_A^{*ia}$

1767: is the overlap between $|i,a\ran$ and $|A\ran$ states. If a state

1768: $|i,a\ran$ has equal amounts of $|A\ran$ states then  $C_A^{ia}C_A^{*ia}$

1769: will be more or less independent of $A$. This is equivalent to saying that

1770:  the perturbation $H^{i,a}$ ``thoroughly mixes'' up the eigenstates.

1771: Of course in

1772: general if we plot  $C_A^{ia}C_A^{*ia}$ as a function of $A$,

1773: while we expect it to be independent of $A$ on the average over a range,

1774:  we also

1775: expect the plot to be full of spikes and  dips.

1776: The sum over $a$ smoothes out these fluctuations and should

1777: produce a smooth constant function.

1778: This is similar in spirit to the Berry conjecture 

1779: though much weaker than it. 

1780: 

1781: On noting that $\sum_A R_{AA}^{ij}=0$, the final result for

1782: $\lan\psi(t)|O|\psi(t)\ran$ is

1783: 

1784: \be \label{4.38}

1785: \lan \psi(t)|O|\psi(t)\ran ~~~~{1\over N_i}~~\sum_j~~O_{jj}

1786: +{1\over N_a}\sum _{i,j,k,l,c,A\ne B}D^\psi _{ic}(t)D^{*\psi}_{jc}(t)R_{AB}^{ij}R_{AB}^{kl}O_{kl}

1787: \ee

1788: 

1789: We have used the fact that the sum over $A$ gives a factor of $N_aN_i$

1790: in the first term.  Note that the time dependent part has an explicit

1791: $1\over N_a$ in front.

1792: 

1793: It is imperative to show that the second term is

1794: negligibly small compared to the first if we are to

1795: demonstrate the emergence of the microcanonical

1796: ensemble.

1797: The spectrum of the Hamiltonian for a typical macro-system will be so

1798: complex that the second term

1799: will go to $0$ for large times. Then we have our desired result.

1800: 

1801: It is also important to know how fast the second term

1802: vanishes and for this purpose some estimation of the

1803: magnitude of the second term is important.

1804: 

1805: When the expansion coefficients $C_A^{ia}$ are

1806: identically distributed independent random variables

1807: such an estimation can be carried out quite accurately.

1808: In accordance with general ideas

1809: expressed in \cite{Berry,sred}, such a

1810: circumstance could arise when the quantum system is

1811: {\em classically chaotic}.

1812: The nature of the eigenstates then

1813: is such that at high enough energies, all eigenstates 

1814: look more or less the same. But it should be emphasised that our 

1815: approach does not really require any strong

1816: statement like this but only the weaker statement of eqn (\ref{4.38}).

1817: 

1818: The assumption about wildly fluctuating phases

1819: allows us to estimate the magnitude of $R_{AB}^{ij}$. The magnitude

1820: of any given $C_A^{ia}$ can be estimated to be

1821: $1\over \sqrt {N_iN_a}$.

1822: Thus $R_{AB}^{ij}$ is a sum of $N_a$ terms each of magnitude

1823: $1\over N_i N_a$ and random phase. Thus we expect it to be $O({{\sqrt N_a }

1824: \over N_a N_i})\approx {1\over N_i \sqrt N_a }$. Also $P_A^i \approx {1\over

1825: N_i}$.  The off diagonal part  thus has an extra factor of

1826: $1\over \sqrt N_a$ relative to the diagonal part. 

1827: 

1828: 

1829: We can similarly estimate the off-diagonal part in (\ref{4.38}).

1830: We have

1831: \[

1832: \lan \psi(t)| O | \psi (t)\ran =

1833: \sum _{j,k.A,B,b} C_A^{*\psi}C_B^{\psi}C_A^{jb}C_B^{*kb}e^{-i(E_B-E_A)t}O_{jk}

1834: \]

1835: 

1836: The off diagonal part is when $A \ne B$. There are $\approx N_A^2$ such terms,

1837: each having magnitude $1\over {N_A^2}$. Using the random phase approximation

1838: and including the sum over $j,k,b$ we get

1839: $ \approx {1\over N_A^2}N_A N_i \sqrt N_a = {1\over \sqrt N_a}$.

1840: This is as expected since the averaging over $N_a$ fine grained

1841: micro-states is expected to produce just such a suppression. Indeed,

1842: this was the motivation for introducing the $a$ 

1843: variables. This also agrees with v. Neumann's estimates

1844: on noting that his ${N_a\over S_a}$ is our $N_a$.

1845: 

1846: The time-dependent term is nevertheless very important

1847: for determining the

1848: {\em thermalization time}. Thus we have the result that to a very good

1849: accuracy (of order $1\over N_a^{1/2}$), the effective density

1850: matrix for large times

1851: is given by

1852: \be \label{4.39}

1853: \rho~~= {1\over N_i}\sum_i~|i\ran \lan i|~~=~~{1\over N_A}~~\sum_A~~|A\ran

1854: \lan A|

1855: \ee

1856: 

1857: It should be noted that the emergence of the microcanonical distribution is

1858: happening for

1859: non-trivial systems. This can be seen by examining 

1860: eqns (\ref{4.16}-\ref{4.17}) at $t=0$ where

1861:  there is no

1862: trace of the microcanonical distribution anywhere.

1863: 

1864: In section 6 we will calculate the leading order time dependent

1865: correction in a simple example that confirms the above expectations.

1866: 

1867: 

1868: One should also ask what happens if we start off the system in an exact

1869: energy eiegenstate. In that case we get for the expectation value

1870: of $O$

1871: \be \label{4.40}

1872: \lan \psi (t) | O \psi (t) \ran = \sum _i p_A ^i O_{ii} +

1873: \sum _{ij}R_{AA}^{ij}O_{ij}

1874: \ee

1875: 

1876: Note that if $O$ is a reasonable observable we should find

1877: that $\lan i| O^2|i\ran - \lan i|O|i\ran^2 < \lan i|O|i\ran ^2$.

1878: This means that $\sum _j O_{ij}O_{ji} \approx O_{ii}^2$. Thus

1879: one expects ${O_{ii}\over O_{ij}} \approx \sqrt N_j$ if we assume

1880: random phases or ${O_{ii}\over O_{ij}} \approx  N_j$ if they add in phase.

1881: If we now take into account this relative magnitudes

1882: of $O_{ij}$ versus $O_{ii}$, one gets that the off diagonal term is suppressed

1883: by a factor between $\sqrt{N_aN_i}$ and ${\sqrt {N_a}} N_i$. If $N_a$ is

1884: sufficiently large this could mean that for such systems even

1885: if the system starts of in an exact energy eigenstate it can be described

1886: by the microcanonical distribution. 

1887: 

1888: \section{Soft Quanta and the Resonance Picture}

1889: \setcounter{equation}{00}

1890: 

1891: In this section we will attempt to describe the general

1892: phenomenon of thermalisation in slightly different terms. Instead

1893: of working with the full Hamiltonian of the $i$ and $a$ system

1894: and the exact eigenstates, let us consider the same system from the point

1895: of view of time dependent perturbation theory. We think of the

1896: $i$ system as an atom with discrete states and the $a$ system as

1897: a collection of harmonic oscillators describing long wavelength

1898: photons.

1899: 

1900: As a first step let us treat the electro-magnetic field

1901: classically and let us think of the atom as a two level system. We are

1902: familiar with this ``NMR'' type of situation. When the electro-magnetic

1903: RF-pulse is the right frequency, we have resonant absorption

1904: and emission of photons. As we apply the RF pulse we expect the

1905: two level system to oscillate between the two states at the Bohr frequency

1906: and on the average there is equal probability to be in either

1907: of the two states. This happens even when the coupling is very weak.

1908: In terms of time independent perturbation theory (in the NMR case,

1909:  we can go to the rotating frame and make the problem

1910: time independent) the off diagonal terms are very large, close to

1911:  resonance,

1912: compared to the energy splitting. Thus the energy eigenstates have

1913: equal amounts of up and down spin states.

1914: 

1915: This physical intuition can be applied to our problem. First

1916: of all the electro-magnetic field has to be treated quantum mechanically.

1917: Thus there is spontaneous emission in addition to induced emission

1918: and absorption. If the strength of the electro-magnetic field

1919: is large then this can be neglected. In oscillator language,

1920: the field oscillators should be excited to a high enough quantum number.

1921: 

1922: Secondly, and more importantly we have a continuum of oscillators,

1923: both for emission and absorption. Here again we can apply our

1924: intuition from atomic physics. The effect of the continuum on the

1925: discrete state is to introduce an anti-Hermitian term in the effective

1926: Hamiltonian that gives the discrete states an imaginary ``width''.

1927: This makes the time evolution non-unitary and gives the states

1928: a lifetime by making the wave function decay. Similar mathematical

1929: manipulations can be done for the traced density matrix calculation to

1930: show within a perturbative approach that the off diagonal terms decay with time

1931: and the diagonal terms tend

1932: to become equal. The decay of the off diagonal terms was explained

1933: in Section 3 as being due to random phase cancelation. 

1934: Here we

1935: give arguments for seeing this more explicitly. Just as

1936: in the usual atomic physics calculation, the

1937: excited state decays by emission of energy in the form of a photon, similarly

1938: the off diagonal terms also decay as the photon is emitted and

1939: absorbed repeatedly. Just as the photon escapes

1940: in an apparently irreversible way into the continuum,

1941: never to return

1942: (in the limit of the Poincare recurrence time $\rightarrow \infty$),

1943:  so do the correlations escape irreversibly into the

1944: continuum. \footnote{In the AdS/CFT correspondence, this continuum

1945: of soft photons represents the far infrared of the CFT. In the

1946: bulk, this would be the region in the interior of the black hole.

1947: The irreversibility described above is the irreversibility of the black

1948: hole horizon. This was discussed in \cite{KRBS}}.

1949: 

1950: This language is also suitable for explaining intuitively why the

1951: traced matrix has equal diagonal terms. When the number

1952: density of soft quanta is large, then the probability,

1953: $P_{ij}$, of transition from $i$ to $j$ is equal to the reverse.

1954: We expect that the change in the $i$'th diagonal term in the

1955: density matrix is proportional to $P_j P_{ji}-P_i P_{ij}$.

1956: When $P_{ij}=P_{ji}$, this will stop changing only when

1957: $P_i=P_j$. This does not

1958: constitute a proof that the system will go toward equilibrium in

1959: general. But it allows us to intuitively understand a criterion

1960: for the emergence of microcanonical distribution. The main requirements are thus

1961: two:

1962: 

1963: i) There should be a continuum of soft excitations with energies

1964: containing the range of $\delta _i $ to $\Delta E$ in order for

1965: resonant absorption and emission to take place.

1966: In particular if $\delta _i > \Delta E$ there will not be

1967: any ergodization.

1968: 

1969: ii)The number of these should be large. We expect this number to be

1970: proportional to $E_{\gamma}\over {\hbar \omega}$, where $E_\gamma$

1971: is the total energy in soft quanta. Since $\hbar \omega \le \Delta E$,

1972: we have $E_\gamma >> \Delta E$. Also one expects $E >> E_\gamma$.

1973: Thus $E >> \Delta E$, as expected.

1974: 

1975: If we have a large number of

1976: hard photons as well, i.e. those with frequency larger than

1977: $\Delta E$, one would have to include them in the

1978: $i$-system. Otherwise the microcanonical description would not

1979: be a good approximation.

1980: 

1981: 

1982: While the discussion in Section 4 is completely general, it

1983: is somewhat abstract.

1984: The picture

1985: in this section is more intuitive. We can use this picture

1986: to attempt an answer to the question of when, in a given

1987: system, one can expect self thermalization. The difficult

1988: part presumably, is to identify the $i$ and $a$ variables

1989: unambiguously.

1990: \section{Two Discrete States Coupled to a Continuum}

1991: \setcounter{equation}{00}

1992: 

1993: The $|i\rangle \otimes |a\rangle$ system can be thought of as being composed

1994: of an atom coupled to the electro-magnetic field. This is denoted schematically

1995: in Figure 1 below. What is shown are the energy levels of the uncoupled

1996: system or equivalently, the situation where the coupling constant is

1997: set to zero. When the interaction is turned on we expect the energy

1998: levels of the atom to get broadened.

1999: 

2000: \begin{figure}[htbp]

2001: \begin{center}

2002: \epsfig{file=qsm.eps, width= 12 cm,angle=0}

2003: \vspace{ .2 in }

2004: \begin{caption}

2005: {Discrete states coupled to a continuum}

2006: \end{caption}

2007: \end{center}

2008: \label{fig2}

2009: \end{figure}

2010: 

2011: \subsection{Relaxation of Density Matrix - Thermalization}

2012: 

2013: We make the approximation namely that the $i$ system has only

2014: two states, $|0\rangle $ and $|1\rangle$. 

2015: Furthermore we will assume that the continuum degrees are those

2016: of a continuum

2017: of harmonic oscillators. Harmonic oscillators

2018: are easy to analyze and also representative of the real

2019: situation where we expect $a$ degrees to be soft quanta. 

2020: The frequencies

2021: of the harmonic oscillators are assumed to start at zero and form a continuum.

2022: In practice we just need the discrete spacing to be very small

2023: compared to the (inverse) time scales of interest. So if $\omega$ denotes 

2024: the frequency of the oscillators,

2025: ${1\over \delta E_a} = {1\over \delta \omega} >> T$. On the other hand

2026: $T$ should be large enough that the system has time to thermalize.

2027: In the previous section we saw that this time scale was set by $\gamma$.

2028: Thus $\gamma T > 1$ and so $\delta \omega << \gamma$. $\gamma$

2029: in turn is fixed by the matrix elements $\langle 1,0|V|0,a\rangle$.

2030: Thus here also we require that the off diagonal terms generated by

2031:  the interaction with the $a$ degrees of freedom must not be too small -

2032: this is expected whenever one has a resonance situation , i.e.

2033: $\hbar \omega = \Delta E$.

2034: 

2035: To do the calculation we will use the technique of influence

2036: functionals due to Feynman and Hibbs \cite{feyn}.

2037: 

2038: Following \cite{feyn} we let 

2039: $q$ be the coordinates of the $i$ system 

2040: \footnote{Though the $q$-system is actually a two level

2041: system, we have adopted a notation wherein the $q$-variables look continuous. The path integrals over $q$ are

2042: to be understood as appropriate matrix elements in the

2043: two level system.}

2044: and $Q$ that of the $a$ system. If the system starts

2045: off at time $t=0$ in the state $\Psi (q_i,Q_i,0)$, then the

2046: density matrix at time $t=T$ is given by (The subscript $i$ stands for

2047: `initial', and $f$ for `final')

2048: 

2049: \[

2050: \rho (q_f,q'_f,Q_f,Q'_f;T)=

2051: \int ...\int dq_i dq'_i dQ_i dQ'_i

2052: {\cal D} q(t){\cal D}q'(t) {\cal D}Q(t) {\cal D} Q'(t)

2053: \]

2054: \be

2055: e^{i[S(q)-S(q')] + i[S(Q)-S(Q')] +i[S_{int}(Q,q)-S_{int}(Q',q')]}

2056: \Psi (q_i, Q_i,0)\Psi ^* (q'_i,Q'_i,0)

2057: \ee

2058: 

2059: with boundary conditions:

2060: \[

2061: q(0)=q_i , q(T)=q_f , Q(0)=Q_i, Q(T)=Q_f

2062: \]

2063: \be

2064: q'(0)=q'_i , q'(T)=q'_f , Q'(0)=Q'_i, Q'(T)=Q'_f

2065: \ee

2066: The action $S(q)$ for the $i$-system will not be specified. However we will

2067: assume, as stated before that there are only two discrete states

2068: $|0\rangle , |1 \rangle$. We will further make the simplifying 

2069: assumption that $\langle 0 | q |0\rangle =\langle 1 | q |1\rangle =0$

2070: and that $\langle 0 | q |1\rangle \ne 0$.

2071: 

2072: The $a$-system is a harmonic oscillator. Actually it is an infinite number

2073: of harmonic oscillators, so in fact there should be an infinite number

2074: of $Q$ variables. For transparency of presentation 

2075: we first consider just one of them. As they are

2076: independent the generalization to arbitrary numbers

2077: or even a continuum is easy.

2078: 

2079: The wave function, $\Psi (q_i,Q_i,0)$, is assumed to factorize as

2080: \be

2081: \Psi (q_i,Q_i,0)= \phi _I (q_i)\chi _a (Q_i)

2082: \ee

2083: 

2084: Here

2085: \be

2086: |\phi _I\rangle = \alpha |0\rangle + \beta |1 \rangle

2087: \ee

2088: with  $ |\alpha |^2 + |\beta |^2 =1$. Let us first consider the case

2089: \be

2090: \chi (Q) \approx e^{-{Q^2\over 2 \omega}}

2091: \ee

2092: 

2093: which is the ground state of a harmonic oscillator of frequency $\omega$.  Furthermore

2094: we take $S_{int}(q,Q) \approx C\int dt q(t)Q(t)$.

2095: 

2096: We are interested in the density matrix traced over the $Q$ variables:

2097: \[

2098: \int dQ_f \rho (q_f,q'_f,Q_f,Q_f,T) \equiv \rho _Q(q_f,q_f',T)

2099: \]

2100: If we imagine doing all the $Q,Q'$ integrals we get an expression of the form

2101: \be   \label{rho}

2102: \rho _Q(q_f,q'_f,T)= \int ...\int dq_i dq'_i {\cal D} q(t){\cal D}q'(t)

2103: e^{i[S(q)-S(q')]}\phi _I(q_i)\phi ^*_I(q'_i)F(q,q').

2104: \ee

2105: 

2106: Here $F(q,q')$ is the result of doing all the $Q$ integrals and incorporates

2107: the entire effect of the $Q$-system, called 

2108: {\em environment} by Feynman and Hibbs, on the 

2109: $q$-system. This is the influence functional.

2110: For the special case of quadratic $S(Q)$ and bilinear $S_{int}(q,Q)$ it has been

2111: shown in \cite{feyn} that it has the form,

2112: \be   \label{IF1}

2113: F(q,q')=e^{-\int \int dt dt' [q(t)-q'(t)][\alpha (t,t')q(t')-\alpha ^* (t,t')q'(t')]}

2114: \ee

2115: 

2116: For a harmonic oscillator of frequency $\omega $,

2117: in its {\em ground state}

2118: we have $\alpha (t,t')= \alpha (t-t')$ and

2119: also

2120: \be   \label{alpha}

2121: \int d\tau e^{-i\nu \tau }\alpha (\tau )

2122: \equiv a(\nu ) \approx {C\over \omega ^2}\delta (\nu +\omega )

2123: \ee

2124: This is what Feynman and Hibbs call a

2125: {\it cold-environment} and for such a situations

2126: transitions pumping energy into the system are unlikely.

2127: 

2128: When we have a continuum of oscillators we simply have to integrate this

2129: expression (\ref{alpha}) over $\omega$.

2130: We thus insert (\ref{IF1}) into (\ref{rho}) and evaluate it perturbatively.  

2131: 

2132: \subsubsection{Zeroth Order}

2133: 

2134: \br

2135: \rho _{00}= \int dq_f dq_f' \phi _0^*(q_f)\phi _0 (q_f')\rho_Q(q_f,q'_f,T)\nonumber \\

2136: \rho _{10}= \int dq_f dq_f' \phi _1^*(q_f)\phi _0 (q_f')\rho_Q(q_f,q'_f,T)

2137: \er

2138: and so on.

2139: Thus

2140: \be

2141: \lan 0 |\rho |0\ran = 

2142: \lan 0 | e^{-iHT}(\alpha |0\ran + \beta |1\ran )(\lan 0|\alpha ^* + \lan 1|\beta ^* )

2143: e^{iHT}|0\ran = |\alpha |^2

2144: \ee

2145: \be

2146: \lan 1 |\rho |1\ran = |\beta |^2

2147: \ee

2148: \be

2149: \lan 1 |\rho |0\ran = 

2150: \lan 1 | e^{-iHT}(\alpha |0\ran + \beta |1\ran )(\lan 0|\alpha ^* + \lan 1|=

2151: \beta ^* )

2152: e^{iHT}|0\ran = \alpha ^* \beta e^{-i(E_1-E_0)T}

2153: \ee

2154: \be

2155: \lan 0 |\rho |1\ran = \alpha \beta ^* e^{+i(E_1-E_0)T}

2156: \ee

2157: 

2158: 

2159: \subsubsection{First Order}

2160:  We now go to the next order. We bring down one power of $\alpha (t,t')$.

2161: 

2162: We write it as the sum of four terms:

2163: \[

2164: \delta \rho _{Qj0}(T)=

2165: -\int \int dq_f dq'_f \phi ^* _j(q_f)\phi _0 (q_f') \int {\cal D}q(t){\cal =

2166: D}q'(t)

2167: \int dq_i \int dq'_i

2168: \]

2169: \be   \label{drho}

2170: e^{i[S(q)-S(q')]}[a+b+c+d]\phi _I (q_i)\phi _I^*(q'_i)

2171: \ee

2172: 

2173: where the subscript $j$ on $\phi$ can be  $0,1$ and

2174: \br

2175: a &=& \int dt \int dt' q(t)q(t')\alpha (t,t') \nonumber \\

2176: b &=& -\int dt \int dt' q'(t)q(t')\alpha (t,t') \nonumber \\

2177: c &=& -\int dt \int dt' q(t)q'(t')\alpha ^*(t,t') \nonumber \\

2178: d &=& \int dt \int dt' q'(t)q(t')\alpha ^*(t,t')

2179: \er

2180: 

2181: The calculations are done in the appendix. Here we will simply give the result.

2182: 

2183: We get for the first order correction to $\rho _{00}$ the following:

2184: \be   \label{31}

2185: \delta \rho _{Q00}(T)= -T\{ |\alpha |^2 [2a_R(\Delta E) + 2 a_R(-\Delta E)]-

2186: 2a_R(-\Delta E) \}|\lan 0 |q|1\ran |^2

2187: \ee

2188:  where $\Delta E = E_1-E_0$, and

2189: 

2190:  Let us first assume that $\Delta E >0$. Using (\ref{alpha}), which says that

2191: $a_R(\Delta E )=0$, we find

2192: \be   \label{32}

2193: \delta \rho_{Q00}(T) = -T[(|\alpha |^2 -1)2a_R(-\Delta E )]|\lan 0|q|1\ran |^2

2194: \ee

2195: This goes to zero when $|\alpha | \rightarrow 1$.

2196: 

2197: If $\Delta E <0$ we get

2198: \be   \label{33}

2199: \delta \rho _{Q00}(T)= -T |\alpha |^2 2 a_R(\Delta E )|\lan 0|q|1\ran |^2

2200: \ee

2201: 

2202: When $E_1 > E_0$ one expects the system to decay to its lower energy state

2203: $|0\ran$ with the emission of a soft quanta. The decay stops when the

2204: probability of occupation of the lower energy state is one. Also as (\ref{32})

2205: shows $\delta \rho$ is increasing with time as it should be.

2206: Thus one expects $\beta (T) \approx \beta (0) e^{-\gamma T}$.  So

2207: $|\alpha (T)|^2 = 1- |\beta (T)|^2 \approx |\alpha (0)| ^2 +|\beta (0)|^2

2208: 2\gamma T$.  Thus $\delta \rho \approx |\beta (0)|^2 2\gamma T$. This agrees

2209: with (\ref{32}) for $\gamma = a_R(-\Delta E)|\lan 0|q|1\ran |^2$.

2210: 

2211: 

2212: 

2213: Similarly when $E_0>E_1$, the probability of occupation of $E_0$

2214: decreases with time as $|\alpha (T)|^2 \approx |\alpha (0)|^2 e^{-2\gamma T}

2215: $ and so $\delta \rho \approx -|\alpha (0)|^2 2\gamma T$ as

2216: shown by (\ref{33}).

2217: 

2218: 

2219: Similarly we can look at the off diagonal terms

2220: \[

2221: \delta \rho_{Q10} = -T \alpha ^* \beta e^{-i(E_1-E_0)T}|\lan 0|q|1\ran |^2

2222: [a(-\Delta E) + a(\Delta E)^*]+

2223: \]

2224: \be   \label{34}

2225: [\int _0^Td\tau e^{-i(E_1-E_0)\tau}] \alpha \beta ^* e^{-i(E_1-E_0)T}

2226: (\lan 1 |q |0\ran )^2 [a(0) + a(0)^*]

2227: \ee

2228: 

2229: 

2230: If $\Delta E \ne 0$, the integral over $\tau$ in the second term of

2231: (\ref{34}) is vanishingly small relative to the first term. We are left with

2232: \be \label{6.20}

2233: \delta {\rho}_{Q10} = -T \alpha ^*\beta e^{-i(E_1-E_0)T}|\lan 0|q|1\ran |^2

2234: [a(\Delta E)^* + a(-\Delta E )]

2235: \ee

2236: This is also as expected because the product $\alpha (T) \beta (T)$

2237: decays as $e^{-\gamma T}$ (one of the terms decays and the other goes

2238: to 1).

2239: 

2240: 

2241: While all this is

2242: as expected, this does not really demonstrate the De-coherence that we

2243: are after. In order to demonstrate decoherence we must show that

2244: the off diagonal terms decay even when the diagonal terms do not.

2245: In order to obtain a situation where the probabilities of occupation

2246: of the states $|0\ran ,|1\ran$, are equal, one must have the external

2247: oscillators in excited states as well so that the system can absorb soft

2248: quanta.

2249: An easy route would be to let the two states be exactly

2250: degenerate so that energy conservation allows transitions

2251: in either direction. But in such a situation it is always

2252: possible to find orthonormal linear combinations of the two

2253: states in which the the operator $q$ is {\it diagonal}. It is

2254: then a simple exercise to show that in this basis the diagonal

2255: elements of the density matrix do not change at all. Even on

2256: physical grounds exact degeneracy is unreasonable to assume.

2257: What is more reasonable is to consider a situation

2258: in which $\Delta E\ne 0$ but "small" compared to some

2259: relevant energy scale

2260: in the problem. Nevertheless, we need to calculate influence

2261: functionals for situations where the system can both absorb

2262: and give energy to the quantum environment. The influence

2263: functional calculated in Feynman and Hibbs for the case where

2264: all the environment oscillators are in the ground state will

2265: not suffice. While the generic case of the environment

2266: oscillators in arbitrary excited states is too difficult to

2267: handle, the influence function for the case where the

2268: environment states are {\it coherent states} or {\it number states}

2269: can be

2270: explicitly evaluated and this suffices for our purpose.

2271: 

2272: A partial form of this result is already available in Feynman

2273: and Hibbs (see eqn 8.141). They considered the amplitude

2274: $f(b,a)$

2275: that a {\it forced} harmonic oscillator goes from state

2276: $f$ to state $g$ where

2277: \be

2278: f(x)~=~({M\omega\over \pi\hbar})^{1\over 4}

2279: ~e^{-({M\omega\over \pi\hbar})(x-a)^2}~~~~~~~~

2280: g(x)~=~({M\omega\over \pi\hbar})^{1\over 4}

2281: ~e^{-({M\omega\over \pi\hbar})(x-b)^2}

2282: \ee

2283: Their explicit expression for $f(b,a)$ is

2284: \be

2285: f(b,a)~=~A~e^{[-{M\omega\over 4\hbar}(a^2+b^2-2ab~e^{-i\omega T})+

2286: i({M\omega\over 2\hbar})^{1\over 2}

2287: (a\eta+b\eta^*e^{-i\omega T})]}

2288: \ee

2289: where

2290: \be

2291: A~=~e^{-i\omega T/2}

2292: ~e^{

2293: -{1\over 2M\omega\hbar} \int_0^T~\int_0^t~\gamma(t)\gamma(s)

2294: e^{-i\omega(t-s)}

2295: }

2296: \ee

2297: Of course, the states $f(x),g(x)$ are {\em coherent states}

2298: of the harmonic oscillator but with {\em real} parameters.

2299: It suffices, for our purposes, to generalise this result to the case where $f(x)$ is a coherent state with {\it complex}

2300: parameter $\xi$ while leaving $b$ still real. The

2301: corresponding results  are

2302: \be

2303: f(x)~=~({M\omega\over \pi\hbar})^{1\over 4}

2304: ~e^{{\xi^2\over 2}-{|\xi|^2\over 2}}

2305: ~e^{-({M\omega\over \pi\hbar})(x-\sqrt{{2\hbar\over M\omega}}~\xi)^2}~~~~~~~~

2306: \ee

2307: where we have followed the Pancharatnam convention for phases.

2308: \be

2309: f(b,\xi)~=~{\cal A}~e^{[-{M\omega\over 4\hbar}(

2310: {2\hbar\over M\omega}

2311: \xi^2+b^2-2

2312: \sqrt{{2\hbar\over M\omega}}

2313: \xi b~e^{-i\omega T})+

2314: i({M\omega\over 2\hbar})^{1\over 2}

2315: (

2316: \sqrt{{2\hbar\over M\omega}}

2317: \xi\eta+b\eta^*e^{-i\omega T})]}

2318: \ee

2319: where

2320: \be

2321: {\cal A}~=~e^{{\xi^2\over 2}-{|\xi|^2\over 2}}

2322: ~e^{-i\omega T/2}

2323: ~e^{

2324: -{1\over 2M\omega\hbar} \int_0^T~\int_0^t~\gamma(t)\gamma(s)

2325: e^{-i\omega(t-s)}

2326: }

2327: \ee

2328: Now it is easily seen that $G_{0\xi},G_{m\xi}$

2329: where

2330: $G_{fi}$ is the amplitude that the oscillator initially

2331: in state $i$ is found in state $f$ at time T, are given

2332: by

2333: \be

2334: G_{0\xi}=~e^{-{|\xi|^2\over 2}+i\xi\eta}

2335: ~e^{

2336: -{1\over 2M\omega\hbar} \int_0^T~\int_0^t~\gamma(t)\gamma(s)

2337: e^{-i\omega(t-s)}

2338: }

2339: \ee

2340: and

2341: \be

2342: G_{m\xi}=~{1\over {\sqrt{m!}}}~G_{0\xi}~(\xi+i\eta^*)^m

2343: \ee

2344: Finally the influence functional is given by

2345: \be

2346: F[q,q^{\prime}]~=~\sum_m~G_{m\xi}{G^{\prime}_{m\xi}}^*

2347: \ee

2348: The final result can be expressed as

2349: \be

2350: F_{\xi}[q,q^{\prime}]~~e^{i\xi(\eta-\eta^{\prime})+i\xi^*(\eta^*-{\eta^{\prime}}^*)}

2351: ~F_0[q,q^{\prime}]

2352: \ee

2353: where $F_0$ is the influence functional for the case

2354: where the environment oscillators are in the ground

2355: state.

2356: 

2357: Thus the environmental coherent states produce an

2358: additional influence functional whose exponent is a

2359: linear functional of $q$. However, to the degree of

2360: accuracy needed for our perturbative calculations

2361: we can translate this into an effective quadratic

2362: functional by expanding the additional term to second

2363: order i.e

2364: $$

2365: -{1\over 4M^2\omega}[\xi^2~(\eta-\eta^{\prime})^2

2366: +{\xi^*}^2~(\eta^*-{\eta^{\prime}}^8)^2

2367: +2|\xi|^2~|(\eta-\eta^{\prime})|^2]

2368: $$

2369: It is sufficient to look at terms of the type

2370: $$

2371: \int_0^T~dt\int_0^t~ds \Delta a(t,s) q(t) q(s)

2372: $$

2373: to determine the {\em one complex function} $\Delta a(t,s)$

2374: that determines the additional effective influence functional.

2375: After some algebra it follows that

2376: \be

2377: \Delta a(t,s)~=~{C^2\over 4M^2\omega}~

2378: [2\xi^2 e^{-i\omega(t+s)}+2{\xi^*}^2 e^{i\omega(t+s)}+

2379: 2|\xi|^2 (e^{i\omega (t-s)}+e^{-i\omega(t-s)}]

2380: \ee

2381: Unlike the case of the environment oscillators in the

2382: ground state the complex function is not a function of

2383: $t-s$ alone but it turns out that the parts of $a(t,s)$

2384: that are functions of $t+s$ do not contribute to the

2385: transition rates as the integrations over $s,t$ produce

2386: mutually exclusive delta functions and one is

2387: effectively left with

2388: \be \label{6.32}

2389: \Delta a_{eff}(t,s)~=~{C^2\over 4M^2\omega}~

2390: 2|\xi|^2 [(e^{i\omega (t-s)}+e^{-i\omega(t-s)}]

2391: \ee

2392: Thus when the environmental oscillators are in  coherent

2393: states we have a mixture of a {\it cold-environment}

2394: whose strength is {\em independent} of the coherent

2395: state parameter $\xi$ and a {\it classical noise}

2396: environment with $a_R(\nu)=a_R(-\nu)$. Further $a_R(\nu)$ is

2397:  directly proportional to the level of excitation

2398: of the coherent states. It should be

2399: emphasised that any environment can be represented

2400: as a mixture of a cold environment and a classical

2401: noise environment. But what is special about the

2402: coherent state case is that the cold component is

2403: {\em independent} of the level of excitation of the coherent states.

2404: This will be crucial for us later on.

2405: 

2406: In the number state case, there are no $t+s$ terms to begin

2407: with (as shown on the Appendix) and one obtains (\ref{C28})

2408: directly - this is (\ref{6.32}) with $|\xi |^2 $

2409: replaced by $m$, the excitation number of the oscillator.

2410: 

2411: If we use (\ref{C28}) (or (\ref{6.32})), with large $m$

2412: or $|\xi |^2$, we can neglect the cold term in the

2413: influence functional. In this case $a_R(\Delta E)=

2414: a_R (-\Delta E)$, and both are non-zero. Then we

2415: see from (\ref{6.20}) that

2416: \[

2417: \delta \rho _{Q00} = -T (2 |\alpha | ^2 -1) |\lan 0|q|1\ran|^2 2a_R(\Delta E)

2418: \]

2419: \[

2420: \delta \rho _{Q01}= -T \underbrace

2421: {\alpha ^* \beta e^{-i\Delta E T}}_{\rho _{Q01}}|\lan 0 |q|1\ran|^2

2422: 2a_R(\Delta E)

2423: \]

2424: \be \label{6.33}

2425: \approx ~\rho _{Q01}(e^{-\gamma T}-1)

2426: \ee

2427: Thus in this approximation

2428: even when $|\alpha |^2={1\over2}$, $\delta \rho _{Q01}\ne 0$.

2429: Equation (\ref{6.33}), if our extrapolation from the linear term

2430: to the full exponential is correct, demonstrates decoherence. To actually

2431:  prove decoherence

2432: one would have get a more complete solution. Presumably this can be done numerically

2433: in some cases.

2434: 

2435: 

2436: Thus we have evidence for  decoherence in an explicit calculation in

2437: this simplified model. The crucial point here is the appearance

2438: of the imaginary term due to ``absorption of a soft quanta by the

2439: environment''. We have put the quotation marks because this is really

2440: just a convenient trick. We have made a division into two sets of variables

2441: $i$ and $a$ with the requirement that $a$ should have a continuous spectrum

2442: We called these ``soft quanta''. Then we showed that the same mathematical

2443: manipulations that give rise to an imaginary part to the energy of a

2444: discrete state can be used here to show that the off-diagonal terms of the 

2445: density matrix decay.

2446: 

2447: We should also check that the conditions set forth at the end

2448: of the last section are indeed satisfied. $\delta _a$ is zero for this

2449: calculation.

2450: Due to resonance, the off-diagonal terms are large.

2451: Thus both conditions

2452: are satisfied. While we

2453: have not {\em proved} even in a non-rigourous way,

2454: the existence of the phenomenon of self thermalization,

2455: the calculations done here do make plausible the physical ideas of section

2456: 2 and also buttress the intuitive random phase arguments

2457: about the off diagonal terms of the density matrix

2458: decaying in time, that were made in section 3.

2459: 

2460: \section{Conclusions}

2461: 

2462: In this paper we have attempted to provide a physical picture

2463: of the process of self thermalization, by which a pure state

2464: can appear thermal if studied with coarse resolution. This phenomenon

2465: underlies the validity of the microcanonical ensemble in quantum statistical

2466: mechanics. It also has applications in the black hole information

2467: paradox.

2468: 

2469: We have presented an intuitive

2470: physical picture along with a mathematical formulation

2471: of the process. The principal new ingredient was the introduction

2472: of dynamical ``soft quanta'' that are not included in the

2473: microstate descriptions. They are

2474: coarse grained away and

2475: in the process, remove correlations between the (coarse grained) microstates.

2476: Thus they not only provide the quantum analogue of the Gibbsian coarse

2477: graining of microstates (Section 4), they also thermalize the system

2478: by resonant absorpton and emission (Section 5,6). Mathematically

2479: this is identical to the appaearance of an imaginary part in the

2480: energy of an excited state when it couples to a continuum.

2481: This also provides a  way to calculate the thermalization rate.

2482: A first order perturbation calculation (Section 6) supports this picture.  

2483: 

2484: It would be interesting to apply this picture to some interesting

2485: systems in a quantitative way. This would be a test of the correctness

2486: of these ideas.

2487: 

2488: \noindent

2489: {\bf Acknowledgements}\\ We would like to thank Balram

2490: Rai and

2491: R. Shankar for discussions.

2492: 

2493: 

2494: 

2495: \appendix

2496: 

2497: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Alph{section}}

2498: %\renewcommand{\thesubsection}{{\subsection}}

2499: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

2500: 

2501: \section{Appendix: Density Matrix Calculation}

2502: \label{appena}

2503: \setcounter{equation}{0}

2504: In this appendix we derive (\ref{31}) and (\ref{34}) starting from (\ref{drho}).

2505: 

2506: 

2507: We will first work out in detail the contribution of the perturbation labelled

2508: `$a$'.

2509: 

2510: The $q$ and $q'$ integrals can be done separately. Let us denote by

2511: $A_j$ the $q$ integral and by $A'$ ($A''$ does not depend on $j$) the $q'$ integral.

2512: Thus

2513: \[

2514: A_j=\int dq_f \phi ^*_j (q_f){\cal D}q e^{iS(q)}\int dq_iq(t)q(t')\phi _I(q_i)

2515: \]

2516: \[

2517: A'= \int dq'_f \phi _0(q'_f){\cal D}q'(t) e^{-iS(q')}dq'_i \phi _I^*(q'_i)

2518: \]

2519: \be

2520: \delta \rho _{Qj0}(T) = \int _0^T dt\int _0^T dt' \alpha (t,t') A_j A'

2521: \ee 

2522: 

2523:  

2524: {$\bf A_j:$}

2525: 

2526: \[

2527: A_j=\int dq_f \int dq_i \phi ^* _j (q_f)\int {\cal D}q e^{iS(q)}q(t)q(t')

2528: \phi _I(q_i)

2529: \]

2530: \[

2531:  =

2532: \sum _{m=0,1}

2533: \lan j|e^{-iH(T-t)}q|m\ran e^{-iH(t-t')}\lan m|qe^{-iHt'}

2534: (\alpha |0\ran +\beta |1\ran )  

2535: \]

2536: 

2537: If $j=0$ we get

2538: \[

2539: A_0 =

2540: \lan 0 |e^{-i(E_0(T-t)} q | 1 \ran e^{-iE_1(t-t')}\lan 1 | qe^{-iE_0t'} \alpha |0\ran

2541: \]

2542: \be

2543: =e^{-iE_0T}e^{-i(E_1-E_0)(t-t')}\lan 0 |q|1\ran \lan 1 | q | 0 \ran \alpha

2544: \ee

2545: 

2546: If $j=1$ we get

2547: 

2548: \[

2549: A_1 = \lan 1 | e^{-iE_1(T-t)}q | 0\ran e^{-iE_0(t-t')}\lan 0| qe^{-iE_1t'}\beta |1\ran

2550: \]

2551: \be

2552: = e^{-iE_1T}e^{-i(E_0-E_1)(t-t')}\lan 1|q |0 \ran \lan 0 | q | 1 \ran \beta

2553: \ee

2554: 

2555: {$\bf A':$}

2556: 

2557: \[

2558: A'=[ \int dq'_f {\cal D} q'(t) dq'_i \phi _I (q'_i)e^{iS(q')}\phi _i^*(q'_f)]^*

2559: \]

2560: \be

2561: =

2562: [\lan 0 | e^{-iHT}(\alpha | 0 \ran + \beta | 1 \ran ) ] ^*

2563: =\alpha ^* e^{iE_0T}

2564: \ee

2565: 

2566: 

2567: Combining all the above we get the contribution due to the perturbation

2568: $a$.

2569: :  

2570: 

2571: \[

2572: \delta \rho _{Q00}(T)= |\alpha |^2 \int _0^Tdt \int _0^T

2573: dt' e^{-i(E_1-E_0)(t-t')}\alpha (t-t')

2574: |\lan 1 |q|0\ran |^2

2575: \]

2576: \be

2577: = T |\alpha |^2 |\lan 1 |q|0\ran |^2 a(E_1-E_0)

2578: \ee

2579: 

2580: and

2581: 

2582: 

2583: \[

2584: \delta \rho _{Q10}(T) = \alpha ^* \beta e^{-i(E_1-E_0)T}\int _0^T dt

2585: \int _0^T dt'

2586: e^{-i(E_0-E_1)(t-t')} \alpha (t-t') |\lan 1 |q|0\ran |^2

2587: \]

2588: \be

2589: =

2590: T \alpha ^* \beta |\lan 1 |q|0\ran |^2 a(E_0-E_1)e^{-i(E_1-E_0)T}

2591: \ee

2592: 

2593: We can similarly calculate the contribution from the other ones.

2594: 

2595: 

2596: \noindent

2597: {$\bf B_j:$}

2598: 

2599: \[

2600: B_0= \lan 0|e^{-iH(T-t')}q|m\ran e^{-iE_mt'}\lan m

2601:  |(\alpha |0\ran + \beta |1\ran )

2602: \]

2603: \be

2604: = \beta e^{-iE_0T}e^{-i(E_1-E_0)t'}\lan 0 | q| 1 \ran

2605: \ee

2606: 

2607: 

2608: \[

2609: B_1=\lan 1|e^{-iH(T-t')}q|m\ran e^{-iE_mt'}\lan m | (\alpha

2610: | 0 \ran + \beta | 1 \ran )

2611: \]

2612: \be

2613: = \alpha e^{-iE_1T}e^{-i(E_0-E_1)t'}\lan 1 | q|0 \ran

2614: \ee

2615: $\bf B':$

2616: 

2617: \[

2618: B'=[ \int dq'_f \phi _i^*(q'_f){\cal D} q'(t) dq'_i e^{iS(q')}\phi _I (q'_i)]^*

2619: \]

2620: \[

2621: = [\lan 0 | e^{-iH(T-t)}q'|m\ran e^{-iE_m t}\lan m|

2622: (\alpha |0 \ran + \beta | 1 \ran )]^* 

2623: \]

2624: \be

2625: = \beta ^* e^{+iE_0T}\lan 1 | q | 0 \ran e^{-i(E_0-E_1)t}

2626: \ee

2627: 

2628: Combining the above

2629: 

2630: \be

2631: \delta \rho _{Q00}= T|\beta |^2 |\lan 0 |q|1\ran |^2 a(E_0-E_1)

2632: \ee

2633: and

2634: \be

2635: \delta \rho _{Q10}=[\int _0^T d\tau

2636: e^{-i(E_0-E_1)\tau}]

2637: \alpha \beta ^*e^{-i(E_1-E_0)T}(\lan 1 | q | 0 \ran )^2  a(0)

2638: \ee

2639: 

2640: (Note that the factor inside the square brackets replaces the factor

2641: $T$ that appeared in previous terms.)

2642: 

2643: 

2644: $\bf C_j:$

2645: 

2646: \[

2647: C_0 = \lan 0| e^{-iH(T-t)}q|m\ran e^{-iE_mt}\lan m | (\alpha |0\ran + \beta

2648: |1 \ran )

2649: \]

2650: \be

2651: = \beta e^{-iE_0 T}e^{-i(E_1-E_0)t}\lan 0 | q | 1\ran

2652: \ee

2653: 

2654: \[

2655: C_1= \lan 1 | e^{-iH(T-t)}q|m\ran e^{-iE_mt}\lan m | (\alpha |0\ran + \beta

2656: |1 \ran )

2657: \]

2658: \be

2659: =\alpha e^{-iE_1 T}e^{-i(E_0-E_1)t}\lan 1| q | 0\ran

2660: \ee

2661: 

2662: $\bf C':$

2663: 

2664: \[

2665: C'= [ \int dq'_f \phi _i^*(q'_f){\cal D} q'(t') dq'_i e^{iS(q')}

2666: \phi _I (q'_i)]^*

2667: \]

2668: \[

2669: = [\lan 0 | e^{-iH(T-t')}q'|m\ran e^{-iE_m t'}\lan m|

2670: (\alpha |0 \ran + \beta | 1 \ran )]^* 

2671: \]

2672: \be

2673: =\beta ^*  e^{+iE_0 T}e^{-i(E_0-E_1)t'}\lan 1| q | 0\ran

2674: \ee

2675: 

2676: Combining:

2677: \be

2678: \delta \rho _{Q00}= T |\beta |^2  |\lan 0 | q | 1 \ran |^2 [a(E_0-E_1)]^*

2679: \ee

2680: 

2681: \be

2682: \delta \rho _{Q10}=[\int _0^T d\tau

2683: e^{-i(E_0-E_1)\tau}]

2684: \alpha \beta ^*e^{-i(E_1-E_0)T}(\lan 1 | q | 0 \ran )^2  a^*(0)

2685: \ee

2686: 

2687: 

2688: $\bf D_j:$

2689: 

2690: \be

2691: D_0= \lan 0|e^{-iHT}(\alpha |0\ran + \beta

2692: |1 \ran )

2693: =\alpha e^{-iE_0T}

2694: \ee

2695: \be

2696: D_1= \lan 1|e^{-iHT}(\alpha |0\ran + \beta

2697: |1 \ran )

2698: =\beta e^{-iE_1T}

2699: \ee

2700: 

2701: 

2702: 

2703: $\bf D':$

2704: \[

2705: D'=

2706: [ \int dq'_f \phi _i^*(q'_f){\cal D}q'(t) q'(t') dq'_i e^{iS(q')}

2707: \phi _I (q'_i)]^*

2708: \]

2709: \[

2710: = [\lan 0 | e^{-iH(T-t)}q'|m\ran e^{-iE_m (t-t')}\lan m|q e^{-iHt'}

2711: (\alpha |0 \ran + \beta | 1 \ran )]^* 

2712: \]

2713: \be

2714: = \alpha ^* e^{iE_0T}e^{-i(E_0-E_1)(t-t')}|\lan 0|q |1\ran |^2

2715: \ee

2716: 

2717: 

2718: Combining:

2719: \be

2720: \delta \rho _{Q00}= T |\alpha |^2  |\lan 0 | q | 1 \ran |^2 [a(E_1-E_0)]^*

2721: \ee

2722: 

2723: \be

2724: \delta \rho_{Q10}=

2725: T \alpha ^* \beta |\lan 1 |q|0\ran |^2 [a(E_1-E_0)]^*e^{-i(E_1-E_0)T}

2726: \ee

2727: 

2728: 

2729: If we add up all the contributions

2730: $a+b+c+d$ we get the expressions (\ref{31}) and

2731: (\ref{34}).

2732: 

2733: \section{Appendix: Influence Functional Calculation}

2734: \label{appenb}

2735: \setcounter{equation}{0}

2736: 

2737: In this Appendix we will derive the influence functional for the

2738: cases when the "external" oscillators are either in coherent

2739: states or in  number eigenstates.

2740: 

2741: We start with the kernel $K(Q_f,Q_i,Cq)$ for a forced

2742: harmonic oscillator forced with $f(t)=Cq(t)$ given by

2743: \be

2744: K= \underbrace {{\sqrt {M\omega \over 2\pi i \hbar sin ~ \omega T }}}_N e^{{i\over\hbar}

2745: S_{cl}(Q_f,Q_i,Cq)}

2746: \ee

2747: As shown in \cite{feyn} $S_{cl}$ is given by,

2748: \br

2749: S_{cl}&=& {M\omega\over 2 sin ~ \omega T}[cos ~\omega T (Q_f^2+Q_i^2)

2750: -2Q_fQ_i\nonumber\\

2751: &+&

2752: {2Q_fC\over M\omega} \int _0^T q(t) sin ~ \omega t ~dt +

2753: {2Q_iC\over M\omega} \int _0^T q(t)sin ~ \omega (T-t)~dt\nonumber\\

2754: &-&{C^2\over M^2\omega^2} \int _0^T\int _0^t q(t)q(s)sin ~\omega (T-t) 

2755: sin~ \omega s ~ds ~dt ]

2756: \er

2757: 

2758: We need to calculate the following quantity:

2759: \be \label{IF}

2760: \int dQ_f dQ_i dQ'_i |N|^2 e^{{i\over\hbar}[S_{cl}(Q_f,Q_i,Cq) -S_{cl}(Q_f,Q'_i,Cq')}

2761: \psi (Q_i) \psi ^* (Q_i')

2762: \ee

2763: The $Q$ oscillator starts off at time $t=0$ in a state $\psi$. The density matrix at time $T$ is then traced over the coordinates of

2764: the $Q$ oscillator.  For $\psi (Q_i)$ we use the coherent states.

2765: Thus we use

2766: \be

2767: f(x)~=~({M\omega\over 2\hbar})^{1\over 4}

2768: ~e^{{\xi^2\over 2}-{|\xi|^2\over 2}}

2769: ~e^{-({M\omega\over 2\hbar})(x-\sqrt{{2\hbar\over M\omega}}~\xi)^2}~~~~~~~~

2770: \ee

2771: where we have followed the Pancharatnam convention for phases.

2772: It should be noted that eqn (B.3) straightaway gives the

2773: influence functional. The method followed in \cite{feyn} is

2774: needlessly circuitous. After obtaining the {\em nonperturbative}

2775: expression for the coherent case influence functional which

2776: will be shown to have a part {\it linear} in $q(t),q^{\prime}(t)$,

2777: we will introduce an effective influence functional quadratic

2778: in $q(t),q^{\prime}(t)$ that is obtained perturbatively. We will

2779: obtain expressions for this effective influence functional

2780: both for the {\em coherent states} as well as for the {\em number states}.

2781: 

2782: The $Q$-dependent terms in the integrand in (\ref{IF}) can be written as

2783: \be

2784: e^{-{1\over 2} [A Q_f^2 + BQ_i^2 + C{Q'}_i^2 +2DQ_fQ_i +2EQ_fQ'_i ]

2785: + FQ_f + GQ_i + HQ'_i }

2786: \ee

2787: with

2788: \be

2789: A=0, ~~B=-{M\omega\over \hbar \sin {\omega T}}ie^{i\omega T}, ~~C=B^*,

2790: \ee

2791: \be

2792: D= {iM\omega\over \hbar\sin {\omega T}}~~,~~

2793: E=D^*

2794: \ee

2795: \be

2796: F= {iC\over \hbar\sin { \omega T}} \int _0^T (q-q') \sin {\omega t} ~dt,

2797: \ee

2798: \be

2799: G= {iC\over \hbar\sin { \omega T}} \int _0^T q sin ~ \omega (T-t) ~

2800: dt~+~\sqrt{{2M\omega\over\hbar}}\xi

2801: \ee

2802: \be

2803: H= {-iC\over \hbar\sin { \omega T}} \int _0^T q^{\prime} sin ~ \omega (T-t) ~

2804: dt~+~\sqrt{{2M\omega\over\hbar}}\xi^*

2805: \ee

2806: 

2807: The result of doing the Gaussian integral is

2808: \be

2809: \sqrt{{(2\pi)^3\over 2}({\hbar\over M\omega})^3 sin^2 ~\omega T}~~

2810: e^{{\hbar\over 4M\omega}[F^2 + (G+H)^2 + e^{-i\omega T}2FG + e^{i\omega T}2FH]}

2811: \ee

2812: The overall normalisation factor is

2813: \br

2814: {\cal N}&=&|N|^2~

2815: \sqrt{{(2\pi)^3\over 2}({\hbar\over M\omega})^3 sin^2 ~\omega T}~~

2816: ({M\omega\over \pi\hbar})^{1/2}~

2817: e^{\xi^2/2+{\xi^*}^2/2-|\xi|^2}\nonumber\\

2818: &=&

2819: e^{\xi^2/2+{\xi^*}^2/2-|\xi|^2}

2820: \er

2821:  Thus the final result is

2822: \br

2823: &~&{\cal N} exp \{{\hbar\over 4M\omega}[F^2 + (G+H)^2 + e^{-i\omega T}2FG +

2824:  e^{i\omega T}2FH] \nonumber\\

2825: &-&{i\over \hbar\sin{\omega T}}{C^2\over M\omega} \int _0^T\int _0^t q(t)q(s)sin ~\omega (T-t)

2826: sin ~\omega s ~ds ~dt \nonumber\\

2827: &+&{i\over \hbar\sin{\omega T}}{C^2\over M\omega} \int _0^T\int _0^t q'(t)q'(s)sin ~\omega (T-t)

2828: sin ~\omega s ~ds ~dt \}

2829: \er

2830: 

2831: As shown in \cite{feyn} the influence functional for this class

2832: of problems has the general form

2833: \be

2834: F(q,q^{\prime})=\int _0^T \int _0^t [q(t)-q'(t)][a(t,s)q(s) - a ^*(t,s)q'(s)]

2835: ~dt~ds

2836: \ee

2837: Thus we can extract $a(t,s)$ from the $q(t)q(s)$ terms.

2838: Calculationally it is easier to look at the $q(t)q^{\prime}(s)$

2839: terms to get $a(t,s)$ as the terms in $S_{cl}$ that are quadratic in $q(t)$ do not contribute. We find for the $\alpha$

2840: independent part of the $q(t)q(s)$ term the following sum of

2841: four terms(an overall factor of ${C^2\over M\omega}$ has

2842: been suppressed for the moment):

2843: 

2844: \[

2845: -{1\over2 sin ^2 ~\omega T} \int _0^T \int _0^t q(t)q(s)sin ~\omega t

2846: sin ~\omega s

2847: \]

2848: \[

2849: -{1\over2 sin ^2 ~\omega T} \int _0^T \int _0^t q(t)q(s)sin ~\omega (T-t)

2850: sin ~\omega (T-s)

2851: \]

2852: \[

2853: -{e^{\i\omega T}\over 2sin^2 ~\omega T}\int _0^T \int _0^t q(t)q(s)

2854: [sin~\omega t sin ~\omega (T-s) +sin~\omega s sin ~\omega (T-t) ]

2855: \]

2856: \be

2857: -{i\over sin ~\omega T}\int _0^T \int _0^t q(t)q(s)sin~\omega (T-t)

2858: sin ~\omega s

2859: \ee

2860: 

2861: These can be rewritten as functions of $t-s$ and $t+s$.

2862: The $t-s$ terms are(after restoring all factors)

2863: \br

2864: &-&{C^2\over M\omega}{1\over 4 sin ^2 ~\omega T}[2cos ~\omega (t-s)

2865: -{e^{-i\omega T}} cos ~\omega (T-s+t)\nonumber\\

2866: &-&{e^{-i\omega T}} cos ~\omega (T-t+s)

2867: -2i\sin{\omega T}cos ~\omega (T-t+s)]

2868: \er

2869: They add up to

2870: \be \label{GS}

2871: -{C^2\over M\omega}[{cos ~\omega (t-s)\over 2} + i {sin ~\omega (t-s)\over 2}]

2872: = -{C^2\over 2M\omega}e^{i\omega (t-s)}

2873: \ee

2874: This is the influence functional when the $Q$-oscillator is in

2875: its ground state \cite{feyn}.

2876: We also have to check that the $t+s$ terms

2877: are zero

2878: The $t+s$ terms are

2879: \br

2880: &~&{1\over 4 sin ^2~ \omega T}cos ~\omega (t+s) +

2881: {1\over 4 sin ^2~ \omega T}cos ~\omega (2T-t-s)\nonumber\\

2882: &~&{ie^{-i\omega T}\over 2 sin^2 ~ \omega T }cos~ \omega (T-s-t)-

2883: {i\over 2sin \omega T}cos \omega (T-t-s)

2884: \er

2885: 

2886: They can be seen to add up to zero.

2887: 

2888: Now we turn to the $\xi$-dependent terms.First let

2889: us look at the terms quadratic in $\xi$:

2890: \[

2891: {\hbar\over 4M\omega}[({2M\omega\over\hbar})(\xi+\xi^*)^2]={1\over 2}(\xi+\xi^*)^2

2892: \]

2893: the exponential of which exactly cancels the factor ${\cal N}$.

2894: 

2895: \be \label{ES}

2896: \ee

2897: 

2898: Now we look at the terms linear in $\xi$:

2899: \[

2900: {\hbar\over 4M\omega}[2F\sqrt{{2M\omega\over\hbar}}

2901: (\xi e^{-i\omega T}+\xi^* e^{i\omega T})+

2902: 2\sqrt{{2M\omega\over\hbar}}(\xi+\xi^*)

2903: {iC\over\hbar \sin{\omega T}}\int_0^T \sin{\omega(T-t)}

2904: (q-q^{\prime})]

2905: \]

2906: On using the expression for $F$ and some rearrangement

2907: it is easy to see that this equals

2908: \be

2909: {iC\over\hbar}\sqrt{{\hbar\over 2M\omega}}\int_0^Tdt~

2910: (q(t)-q^{\prime}(t))

2911: (\xi e^{-i\omega T}+\xi^* e^{i\omega T})

2912: \ee

2913: which can be reexpressed as

2914: \be

2915: iC\xi(\eta -\eta^{\prime})+iC\xi^*(\eta^*-{\eta^{\prime}}^*)

2916: \ee

2917: where

2918: \be \label{eta}

2919: \eta = \sqrt{{1\over 2M\omega\hbar}}\int_0^Tdt~q(t)e^{-i\omega t}

2920: \ee

2921: We can thus express the influence functional for the

2922: case when the $Q$-oscillator is in the coherent state

2923: as

2924: \be

2925: F_{\xi}(q,q^{\prime})=F_0(q,q^{\prime})~e^

2926: {iC\xi(\eta -\eta^{\prime})+iC\xi^*(\eta^*-{\eta^{\prime}}^*)}

2927: \ee

2928: with $\eta$ given by eqn (\ref{eta}).

2929: Within perturbation

2930: theory we can expand the exponential of the linear

2931: functional in $q,q^{\prime}$.It turns out that the

2932: linear term does not contribute and the quadratic

2933: terms are:

2934: $$

2935: -{1\over 4M^2\omega}[\xi^2~(\eta-\eta^{\prime})^2

2936: +{\xi^*}^2~(\eta^*-{\eta^{\prime}}^8)^2

2937: +2|\xi|^2~|(\eta-\eta^{\prime})|^2]

2938: $$

2939: It is sufficient to look at terms of the type

2940: $$

2941: \int_0^T~dt\int_0^t~ds {\Delta a(t,s)}_{coh} q(t) q(s)

2942: $$

2943: to determine the {\em one complex function}

2944: ${\Delta a(t,s)}_{coh}$

2945: that determines the additional effective influence functional.

2946: After some algebra it follows that

2947: \be

2948: {\Delta a(t,s)}_{coh}~=~{C^2\over 4M^2\omega}~

2949: [2\xi^2 e^{-i\omega(t+s)}+2{\xi^*}^2 e^{i\omega(t+s)}+

2950: 2|\xi|^2 (e^{i\omega (t-s)}+e^{-i\omega(t-s)}]

2951: \ee

2952: Now we turn to the evaluation of the effective influence

2953: functional when the $Q$-oscillators are in the $m$-th

2954: number state $|m\ran $. For this we recall the

2955: expansion of the coherent state $|\xi\ran$ in terms

2956: of the number states:

2957: \be

2958: |\xi\ran=e^{-|\xi|^2/2}\sum_n~{\xi^n\over \sqrt{n!}}|n\ran

2959: \ee

2960: Thus

2961: \be

2962: F_{\xi}(q,q^{\prime})=e^{-|\xi|^2}\sum_{n,m}

2963: {\xi^n\over\sqrt{n!}}{{\xi^*}^m\over \sqrt{m!}}~

2964: F_{m,n}(q,q^{\prime})

2965: \ee

2966: Therefore to get the influence functional(in the

2967: perturbative sense described above) for the case in

2968: which the $Q$-oscillators are in the state $|m\ran$

2969: one has to expand $e^{|\xi|^2}~F_{\xi}$ in

2970: powers  of $|\xi|^2$(and quadratic in $q(t)$

2971: and pick the coefficient of

2972: $|\xi|^{2m}$.The $m$-th term of the expansion is

2973: \be

2974: {|\xi|^{2m}\over m!}~a_0(t,s)

2975: +

2976: {|\xi|^{2(m-1)}\over (m-1)!}~ C^2 |\eta|^2

2977: \ee

2978: It is elementary to show that

2979: \be \label{C28}

2980: a_m(t,s)=a_0(t,s)+m{C^2\over M\omega}(e^{i\omega(t-s)}

2981: +e^{-i\omega(t-s)})

2982: \ee

2983: 

2984: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

2985: 

2986: 

2987: \bibitem{KRBS} S. Kalyana Rama and B. Sathiapalan,

2988: {\em On the Role of Chaos in the AdS/CFT Connection}

2989: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14 (1999) 2635, hep-th/9905219.

2990: 

2991: \bibitem{maldacena} J. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.

2992: {\bf 2}(1998), hep-th/9711200.

2993: 

2994: \bibitem{witten} E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.

2995: {\bf 2}(1998), hep-th/9802150.

2996: 

2997: \bibitem{reichl} L.E. Reichl, "A Modern Course in 

2998: Statistical Physics", University of Texas Press, 

2999: Austin, p.241.

3000: 

3001: \bibitem{Sinai} Ya. G. Sinai in the {\it The Boltzmann

3002: Equation},ed. E.G.D. Cohen and W. Thirring(Springer-

3003: Verlag, Vienna, 1973).

3004: 

3005: \bibitem{ehren} Paul and Tatiana Ehrenfest,{\it The

3006: Conceptual Foundations of the Statistical Approach

3007: in Mechanics},Cornell University Press,Ithaca,New

3008: York,1959.

3009: 

3010: \bibitem{gibbs}J.W. Gibbs,"Elementary Principles in

3011: Statistical Mechanics", Dover Edition, 1960.

3012: \bibitem{arnold}V.I. Arnold, "Mathematical Foundations

3013: of Classical Mechanics", Springer-Verlag,1980, p.71.

3014: 

3015: \bibitem{chandra}S. Chandrasekhar, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 15} 1(1943).

3016: 

3017: \bibitem{JvN}J.v. Neumann, Zeitschrift fur Physik,

3018: {\bf 57}, 30, 1929.

3019: 

3020: \bibitem{pauli}Sommerfeld Festschrift(Leipzig 1928)

3021: p.30; W. Pauli and M. Fierz, Zeits. Phys.{\bf 106}

3022: 572{1937}.

3023: 

3024: \bibitem{kampen}N.G. Van Kampen {\it Fundamental 

3025: Problems in Statistical Mechanics of Irreversible

3026: Processes} in {\it Fundamental Problems in Statistical

3027: Mechanics}, ed.E.G.D. Cohen,North-Holland Publishing Company,1962.

3028: 

3029: \bibitem{Biro}T. S. Biro, S. G. Matinyan and B. Mueller,

3030: ``Chaos and Gauge Field Theory'', (1994),World Scientific, Singapore ;

3031:  T. S. Biro, C. Gong and B. Mueller, Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 1260,

3032: hep-ph/940932.

3033: 

3034: \bibitem{Muel} B. Mueller and A. Trayanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992) 3387 ;

3035: T.S.Biro, M. Feurstein, H. Markum, hep-lat/9711002.

3036: 

3037: \bibitem{F1}

3038: V.V.Flambaum and F.M.Izrailev,

3039: {\em Time dependence of occupation numbers and thermalization

3040: time in closed chaotic many-body systems},

3041: quant-ph/0108109.

3042: 

3043: \bibitem{FI2}

3044: V.V.Flambaum and F.M.Izrailev,

3045: {\em Entropy production and wave packet dynamics in

3046: the Fock space of closed chaotic many-body systems},

3047: quant-ph/0103129.

3048: 

3049: \bibitem{I}

3050: F.M.Izrailev,

3051: {\em Quantum Chaos and Thermalization for Interacting Particles},

3052: lectures given in the CXLIII Course "New Directions

3053: in Quantum Chaos" on the International School of

3054: Physics "Enrico Fermi"; Varenna, Italy, July 1999;

3055: to be published in Proceedings;

3056: cond-mat/9911297.

3057: 

3058: \bibitem{CIK}

3059: Doron Cohen, Felix M. Izrailev, and Tsampikos Kottos,

3060: {\em Wavepacket dynamics in energy space, RMT and

3061: quantum-classical correspondence},

3062: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84} (2000) 2052;

3063: chao-dyn/9909015.

3064: 

3065: \bibitem{FGGP}

3066: V. V. Flambaum, A. A. Gribakina, G. F. Gribakin, and

3067: I. V. Ponomarev,

3068: {\em Interaction-Driven Equilibrium and Statistical Laws

3069: in Small Systems. The Cerium Atom},

3070: Phys. Rev. {\bf E 57} (1998) 4933;

3071: cond-mat/9711213.

3072: 

3073: \bibitem{BGIC}

3074: F.Borgonovi, I.Guarneri, F.M.Izrailev, and G.Casati,

3075: {\em Chaos and Thermalization in a Dynamical Model of

3076: Two Interacting Particles},

3077: chao-dyn/9711005.

3078: 

3079: \bibitem{FI3}

3080: V.V. Flambaum and F.M. Izrailev,

3081: {\em Distribution of occupation numbers in finite

3082: Fermi-systems and role of interaction in chaos

3083: and thermalization},

3084: Phys. Rev. {\bf E 55} (1997) R13; 

3085: cond-mat/9610178.

3086: 

3087: \bibitem{GOM}

3088: Jochen Gemmer, Alexander Otte, and Guenter Mahler,

3089: {\em Quantum Approach to a Derivation of the Second

3090: Law of Thermodynamics},

3091: quant-ph/0101140.

3092: 

3093: \bibitem{S}

3094: D. L. Shepelyansky,

3095: {\em Quantum Chaos \& Quantum Computers},

3096: Physica Scripta {\bf T90} (2001) 112;

3097: quant-ph/0006073. 

3098: 

3099: \bibitem{GS}

3100: B. Georgeot and D. L. Shepelyansky,

3101: {\em Emergence of Quantum Chaos in Quantum Computer Core

3102: and How to Manage It},

3103: quant-ph/0005015.

3104: 

3105: \bibitem{JS}

3106: Ph. Jacquod and D. L. Shepelyansky,

3107: {\em Emergence of quantum chaos in finite interacting

3108: Fermi systems},

3109: cond-mat/9706040.

3110: 

3111: \bibitem{LMI1}

3112: G. A. Luna-Acosta and J. A. Mendez-Bermudez, F. M. Izrailev,

3113: {\em Periodic Chaotic Billiards: Quantum-Classical

3114: Correspondence in Energy Space},

3115: Phys. Rev. {\bf E 64} (2001) 036206;

3116: cond-mat/0105108. 

3117: 

3118: \bibitem{LMI2}

3119: G. A. Luna-Acosta, J. A. Mendez-Bermudez, and F. M. Izrailev,

3120: {\em Quantum-classical correspondence for local density of

3121: states and eigenfunctions of a chaotic periodic billiard},

3122: Phys. Lett. {\bf A 274} (2000) 192-199;

3123: nlin.CD/0002044.

3124: 

3125: \bibitem{MS}

3126: B. Mehlig and M. Santer,

3127: {\em Universal eigenvector statistics in a quantum

3128: scattering ensemble},

3129: cond-mat/0012025.

3130: 

3131: \bibitem{P}

3132: Don N. Page,

3133: {\em Average Entropy of a Subsystem},

3134: Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 71} (1993) 1291;

3135: gr-qc/9305007.

3136: 

3137: \bibitem{SS}

3138: Siddhartha Sen,

3139: {\em Average Entropy of a Subsystem},

3140: Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 77} (1996) 1;

3141: hep-th/9601132.

3142: 

3143: \bibitem{sred}

3144: Mark Srednicki,

3145: {\em The approach to thermal equilibrium in quantized

3146: chaotic systems},

3147: J. Phys. {\bf A 32} (1999) 1163, 

3148: cond-mat/9809360;

3149: {\em Thermal Fluctuations in Quantized Chaotic Systems},

3150: J.Phys. {\bf A 29} (1996) L75,

3151: chao-dyn/9511001;

3152: {\em Does Quantum Chaos Explain Quantum Statistical Mechanics?},

3153: cond-mat/9410046;

3154: {\em Quantum Chaos and Statistical Mechanics},

3155: talk given at the Conference on Fundamental Problems

3156: in Quantum Theory, Baltimore,

3157: cond-mat/9406056;

3158: {\em Chaos and Quantum Thermalization},

3159: Phys. Rev. {\bf E 50} (1994) 888,

3160: cond-mat/9403051.

3161: 

3162: \bibitem{Berry}

3163: M. V. Berry,

3164: J. Phys. {\bf A 10} (1977) 2083;

3165: In Les Houches XXXVI,

3166: {\em Chaotic Behaviour of Deterministic Systems},

3167: Edited by G. Iooss, R. H. G. Helleman, and R. Stora,

3168: North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983;

3169: In Les Houches LII,

3170: {\em Chaos and Quantum Physics},

3171: Edited by M. -J. Giannoni, A. Voros, and J. Zinn-Justin,

3172: North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991.

3173: 

3174: \bibitem{Sinha}

3175: Supurna Sinha,

3176: {\em Decoherence at Absolute Zero}, 

3177: Phys. Lett. A 228 (1997) 1. 

3178: 

3179: 

3180: \bibitem{G}

3181: M. C. Gutzwiller,

3182: {\em Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics},

3183: Springer-Verlag (1990).

3184: 

3185: \bibitem{HS}

3186: H. J. Stockmann,

3187: {\em Quantum Chaos, an Introduction},

3188: Cambridge University Press (1999).

3189: 

3190: 

3191: 

3192: \bibitem{Haake}

3193: F. Haake,

3194: {\em Quantum Signatures of Chaos},

3195: Springer Series in Synergetics, 54,

3196: Springer-Verlag (2000), Second edition.

3197: 

3198: \bibitem{feyn}

3199: R. P. Feynman and A.R. Hibbs,"Quantum Mechanics and 

3200: Path Integrals",McGraw-Hill Publishers,1965.

3201: 

3202: \end{thebibliography}

3203: 

3204: \end{document}

3205: 

3206: 

3207: 

3208: 

3209: 

3210: 

3211: 

3212: 

3213: \\

3214: Title: On the Emergence of the Microcanonical Description

3215: from a Pure State

3216: Authors: N. D. Hari Dass, S. Kalyana Rama and B. Sathiapalan 

3217: Cooments: 58 pages, 2 figures. A reference added. 

3218: Report-no: IMSc/2001/12/55

3219: Subj-class: Statistical Mechanics 

3220: \\

3221: We study, in general terms, the process by which a pure state can

3222: ``self-thermalize'' and {\em appear} to be described by a

3223: microcanonical density matrix.  This requires a quantum mechanical

3224: version of the Gibbsian coarse graining that conceptually underlies

3225: classical statistical mechanics. We introduce some extra degrees of

3226: freedom that are necessary for this. Interaction between these degrees

3227: and the system can be understood as a process of resonant absorption

3228: and emission of ``soft quanta''. This intuitive picture allows one to

3229: state a criterion for when self thermalization occurs. This paradigm

3230: also provides a method for calculating the thermalization rate using

3231: the usual formalism of atomic physics for calculating decay rates. We

3232: contrast our prescription for coarse graining, which is somewhat

3233: dynamical, with the earlier approaches that are intrinsically

3234: kinematical.  An important motivation for this study is the black hole

3235: information paradox.

3236: \\

3237: 

3238: