arxiv:quant-ph/ v2 25 Jun 2007

arXiv:quant-ph/0603082v2 25 Jun 2007

the quantum-to- lassi al transition J.K. Korbi z

1,2∗

and M. Lewenstein

2,1

1

Institut für Theoretis he Physik, Universität Hannover, D-30167 Hannover, Germany

2

ICREA and ICFOInstitut de Cièn ies Fotòniques, MediterraneanTe hnology Park, 08860 Castelldefels (Bar elona),Spain

Abstra t

We sket h a group-theoreti al framework, based on the Heisenberg-Weyl group, en- ompassing both quantum and lassi al statisti al des riptions of un onstrained, non-relativisti me hani al systems. We redene in group-theoreti al terms a kinemati al arena and a spa e of statisti al statesof a system, a hieving a unied quantum- lassi al languageand anelegantversionofthequantum-to- lassi al transition. Webrieydis uss thestru ture ofobservables and dynami swithin our framework.

1 Introdu tion.

Sin etheseminal worksofWeyl [1℄and Wigner[2 ℄,thefundamental roleofgrouptheory inquantum me hani s hasbe ome an establishedfa t. The aimof thepresent workis to remark that it is possible to redene, using solely group-theoreti al notions, the mathe-mati al representations of kinemati al arena and state-spa e innon-relativisti quantum me hani s,su hthati)auniedlanguageforquantumand lassi alstatisti aldes riptions isobtained;ii)thereisanatural transitionme hanism,leading fromamoregeneri quan-tum state-spa e to a lassi al one. The latter is a mathemati ally pre ise formulation of the lassi allimit ofquantumtheoryat thelevelofstatisti aldes riptions. It onstitutes themain resultofour paper. Sin e theliteratureon thesubje tisenormous, let us state it learly thatour work is neithermeant to be an overview of thequantization methods, nor even anoverviewof various realisationsof lassi allimits ofquantum me hani s. For thatsee, e.g.,Refs. [3,4℄and the referen es therein.

In lassi al physi s, statisti al des ription of me hani al systems is given in terms of probability measures

µ

on a phase spa e

Γ

. On the other hand, in quantum me hani s, statisti al properties are en oded into density matri es

̺

a ting on a Hilbert spa e

H

. A natural question arises how to onne t these two su h seemingly dierent formalisms through a sort of a quantum-to- lassi al transition. Obviously, su h a transition must exists,asindire tly proven bynumerousexamplesandmore or lessheuristi alarguments withinallpossibleapproa hestoquantumtheory. Thequestionisratherhowtowriteitin a lear,pre isemannerinahopetoshedsomelightonhowthe lassi alworldappears. One strategy,whi hweadoptinthiswork,isrsttotrytonda ommontheoreti alframework forbothquantumand lassi altheoriesandthensear hforatransitionme hanismwithin this framework. Thestandard realizationof su h approa h is to useWigner [5℄ or Moyal fun tions [6℄, asso iating with every density matrix

̺

a phase-spa e pseudo-probability distribution

W

̺

and a orresponding pseudo- hara teristi fun tion

χ

̺

respe tively (e.g. Ref. [7 ℄ ontains a modern exposition). However, itis a well knownfa t [5, 7℄that both

W

̺

and

χ

̺

fail to satisfy the positivity onditions that possess their lassi al analogs. Moreover, there seems to be no dire t relation between positivity of Wigner or Moyal fun tionsand lassi al behaviour ofdensitymatri es. Whetherthisisadrawba kor not

∗

isperhapsa matterof taste,but let usassume thatitis.

The aimofour work isto point outthat su haunied languagewitha learly visible quantum-to- lassi al transition me hanism is a hieved if instead of working with den-sitymatri es andprobability measures one performs(generalized) Fourier transform and workswith(generalized) hara teristi fun tions. Thestru ture,whi hemergesaftersu h Fourier transformisuniversalinbothquantumand lassi al ases it onsistsofa ertain group

G

,servingasa sortof kinemati alarena (insteadofa phasespa e

Γ

or aHilbert spa e

H

) and a set of normalized, positive-denite fun tions

φ

, representing statisti al states. Re all[8℄thata omplexfun tion

φ

onagroup

G

withaHaarmeasured

g

is alled positive-denite ifitis bounded, ontinuous,and satises:

ZZ

d

g

d

hf (g)φ(g

−1

_{h)f (h) ≥ 0}

for any

f ∈ L

1

_(G);

(1) by normalization wemean herethat:

φ(e) = 1.

(2)

Inthe asewhen

G = R

n

,Eqs. (1 )and(2)representfamiliarpropertiesofa hara teristi fun tionofa lassi alprobabilitydistribution

µ

on

R

n

[9℄. Asweshallshowinthesequel, when

G

is non-Abelian,

φ

an still be viewed as a hara teristi fun tion, whi h we all non- ommutative hara teristi fun tion, but of a quantum probability distribution

̺

. Andthisispre iselythedieren ebetween lassi alandquantumstatisti sintheemerging formalisminquantum asegroup

G

isne essarilynon- ommutative, whereasin lassi al aseit isAbelian.

In order to avoid the need for performing Fourier transform forth and ba kand thus a hieve some,at leastformal, on eptualsimpli ity,we proposeto make one step further and postulate that a suitable group

G

together with a (sub)set of normalized, positive-denite fun tions

φ

should be taken as a basis of statisti al des ription of me hani al systems,both lassi al and quantum. Thus, the hange of on epts we propose to exam-ine is the following: i) as the kinemati al arena of the statisti s we onsider a ertain group

G

, alledkinemati al group, together withits irredu ibleunitaryrepresentations; ii) asmathemati al representatives ofstatisti alstatesof thesystemwe onsider normal-ized, positive-denite fun tions on

G

. We show that su h a unied formalism is indeed equivalent to the standard ones, upon a orre t hoi e of

G

.

Thekinemati algroupofourapproa hshouldnotbe onfusedwithagroup of symme-try transformations of neither kinemati s nor dynami s of the theory (for an alternative programme forquantum theory,where

G

istaken tobea group ofdynami alsymmetries see Ref. [10 ℄). Its role is rather to serve as a ba kground for statisti s (just like lassi- al phase spa e

Γ

or Hilbert spa e

H

), en oding statisti al properties of the systemin a properway. For example, aswe show inthis work, inthe ase of un onstrained me han-i al systems (parti les) with

n

degrees of freedom the right kinemati al group turns out to be theHeisenberg-Weyl group

H

n

[1, 8,11℄. Intuitively,this an be understoodinthe followingway: sin einthestandardformulationofquantumme hani s

H

n

isarealization ofHeisenbergun ertaintyprin iples,itturnsoutthatitisthisinformation thatisenough to re-produ e quantumstatisti s. Hen e, we invertthe usualrole oftheHeisenberg-Weyl group and instead of treating it as a mere onsequen e of the un ertainty prin iples, we proposetolookatitasthesour eofthelatter. Inthissenseourapproa hbearssome sim-ilarities to Klein'sErlangen programmeas we shall see inthe sequel kinemati algroup determines onvexgeometry of statisti alstates. However, letus stress againthat,unlike inErlangen programme,our kinemati algroup is not agroup of symmetries.

loselyresembles Weyl quantization[1℄. The dieren eisthat insteadofquantizing fun -tions on the lassi al phasespa e

Γ = R

2n

,whi h an beviewed asanAbelian group,we quantizefun tionsonthenon-Abeliangroup

H

n

≃ R×Γ

. Thisseeminglysubtledieren e produ es,aswewillshow,someinteresting hanges. Forexample,theHilbertspa e stru -ture of quantum theory does not have to be fully and independently postulated, but to some extent followsnaturally from the onsideration ofirredu iblerepresentationsof

H

n

, ifthelatteristreated asafundamentalentryoftheformalism. Se ond,andperhapsmore importantly, one learly sees how the lassi al statisti al state-spa e naturally emerges fromthequantumone as

H

n

ollapsesto one ofitsAbelian subgroups. Thus,theessen e of quantum-to- lassi al transition in our framework is the restoration of ommutativity of the kinemati al group. In the ontext of more modern versions of quantum theory, our formalism is losely related to the algebrai approa h (see e.g. Ref. [12 ℄ for a deep expositionandRef. [4℄forthelatesttrends)and,infa t, anbeviewedasa on rete, but rather non-standard, realizationof thelatter.

Finally,letusmentionthatinphysi al literature,thegroup-theoreti alformalismthat we develop in the present paper was in fa t initiated by Gu in Ref. [13℄. Espe ially in the ontext of providing a more oherent, as ompared to the standard Wigner and Moyal fun tions, way of des ribing both quantum and lassi al statisti s. However, Gu didnotfullyperformthereformulationofthetheoryand on entratedmostlyonpra ti al problems, treating non- ommutative hara teristi fun tions rather asse ondary obje ts withrespe tto theusual densitymatri es. Neitherdid he examine therepresentation of observables andthe lassi al limit(on the level ofkinemati s)intheresulting formalism. In the present work we expli itly arry over thementioned on eptual hange and treat from the beginning non- ommutative hara teristi fun tions as primary obje ts of the theory,while densitymatri esor probabilitymeasures asse ondary.

The plan of the work is the following: in Se tion 2 we re all the basi properties of theHeisenberg-Weyl group. InSe tion 3 we developthe group-theoreti alformalism and present our version of the quantum-to- lassi al transition. In Se tion 4 we sket h the group-theoreti al representation of observables and briey omment on the dynami s in our s heme. Then, in Se tion 5, we show with two physi al examples how the lassi al transitionin our language worksinpra ti e. It should be kept in mindhowever thatthe obje tive ofthis workis notto develop pra ti almethods of al ulating lassi al limitsof density matri es, but rather to put quantum-to- lassi al transition in a mathemati ally rigorousform. The on ludingremarksaregathered inSe tion 6 .

2 Heisenberg-Weyl group

Thebasi obje tofourstudywillbetheHeisenberg-Weylgroup

H

n

,where

n

isthenumber of degrees of freedom of the onsidered me hani al system. Thus, at this moment we x thekinemati algroup:

G = H

n

. Thegroup

H

n

anbeidentiedwithaspa e

R

×R

n

_×R

n

, equipped withthefollowing multipli ation law:

(s, η, ξ) · (s

′

, η

′

, ξ

′

) :=



s + s

′

+

1

2

ω[(η, ξ), (η

′

_{, ξ}

′

_{)], η + η}

′

_{, ξ + ξ}

′



_,

(3) where

(s, η, ξ)

arethe oordinatesand:

ω =



0 −1

1

0



.

(4)

In thesequel we will inter hangeably denote group elements by

g, h, . . .

or by the orre-sponding oordinates. TheHaar measured

g

on

H

n

isjust d

s

d

n

_ξ

d

n

_η

tationsof

H

n

. Theyare hara terized bytheStone-von NeumannTheorem(see e.g. Refs [8 , 11℄). Let us briey re all their stru ture. There is a family of innite-dimensional representations

T

λ

,

R

∋ λ 6= 0

:

T

λ

_{(s, η, ξ) =}

e

−

i

λs

exp

h

i

λ

(η

j

q

ˆ

j

− ξ

j

p

ˆ

j

)

i

(5) (throughout the work the repeated indi esaresummed over), where theself-adjoint gen-erators

q, ˆ

ˆ

p

satisfyon the ommon domain:

[ ˆ

q

j

, ˆ

p

k

] =

i

λδ

jk

,

(6)

and afamily ofone-dimensional representations

T

0

q,p

,labelled bypoints

(q, p) ∈ R

2n

:

T

_q,p

0

(s, η, ξ) :=

e i

(η

j

q

j

−ξ

j

p

j

)

.

(7)

From experiment we know thatthe representation realized inNatureis

T

~

with

λ = ~

.

3 Group-theoreti al approa h

In orderto exposethe quantum-to- lassi al transitionme hanism, we adopt thestrategy that rst a suitable unied quantum- lassi al statisti al framework should be developed. Traditionally,asear hfor su haframeworkhasbeeninterpreted asasear hfor quantum analogs of lassi al probability distributions. In ase of me hani al systems one thus follows Moyal [6℄, and denes a phase-spa e hara teristi fun tion (also known as the Moyal fun tion) orrespondingto a given densitymatrix

̺

by:

χ

̺

(η, ξ) :=

tr



̺

exp

h

i

~

(η

j

q

ˆ

j

− ξ

j

p

ˆ

j

)

i

.

(8)

Onepassesthento its Fourier transformthe Wignerfun tion [5, 6℄:

W

̺

(q, p) :=

Z

d

n

_ξ

d

n

_η

(2π~)

2n

e

−

i

~

(η

j

q

j

−ξ

j

p

j

)

χ

̺

(η, ξ),

(9)

in the hope to obtain an analog of a lassi al probability distribution. However, this attemptfailsaswehavementionedintheIntrodu tion,Wignerfun tion(9 )isgeneri ally non-positiveonthe lassi alphasespa e

Γ = R

2n

. Moreover,thereseemstobenouniversal relation between positivityof

W

̺

and  lassi al behaviour ofdensity matri es: thereare densitymatri esshowing whatisgenerallya eptedasgenuinequantumbehaviour, and nevertheless possessingpositive Wignerfun tions(for example,so alled, squeezedstates [7 ℄).

There has been developed some methods to get around the above di ulty. One of them is to repla e theabstra t denitions (8) and (9)byoperational ones, i.e. involving pres ribed intera tion withan external referen e parti le. Thisallows one to onstru t a positivephase-spa eprobabilitydistribution(seee.g. Ref. [14℄). Anotherwayofprodu ing a positive phase-spa e probability distribution is to use the Glauber-Sudarshan oherent states

|αi

[15 , 11℄, and assign to ea h density matrix

̺

the Husimi fun tion, also known asthe

Q

-representation,

hα|̺ αi

(see e.g. Ref. [16℄).

In ontrast to the approa hes mentioned above, we propose, following Ref. [13 ℄, an alternative way towards the uni ation of languages of quantum and lassi al statisti s. Instead of sear hing for positive phase-spa e probability distributions for density matri- es, let us rather hange the obje t of our interest and look at the properly generalized

hara teristi fun tions. Observe thatthela kofpositivityof

W

̺

(q, p)

ismathemati ally relatedto the fa tthat hara teristi fun tion (8) generi ally is not positive-denite ( .f. Eq. (1)) on

R

2n

[17℄. Gu notedin Ref. [13℄ that if one repla es thestandard denition (8 )by,inour opinion,more logi alone:

φ

̺

(g) :=

tr



̺T

~

(g)



=

e

−

i

~

s

χ

̺

(η, ξ) ,

(10)

then su h dened fun tion

φ

is positive-denite on

H

n

and is also normalized:

φ(e) =

1

, where

e = (0, 0, 0)

is the neutral element. Hen e, as we have mentioned earlier, it possessesallthefeaturesofa lassi al hara teristi fun tionofaprobabilitydistribution. However,unlikethelatter,

φ

̺

isdenedonthenon-Abeliangroup

H

n

,ratherthanon

R

2n

. This justies the terms kinemati al group for

H

n

and non- ommutative hara teristi fun tionfor

φ

̺

. Notethatone annotstraightforwardlyapplytheusualFouriertransform to

φ

̺

,asitwasdone inEq. (9 ). RatherEq. (10)isanon- ommutative Fourier transform ofthe density matrix

̺

.

Motivatedby the above observation, we propose to examine the following alternative onstru tion of quantumstatisti sof an un onstrained me hani al system

1 :

•

treatthegroup

H

n

asthebasi entryoftheformalism,whi hsetsupthekinemati al arena;

•

takeasstatisti alstatesofthesystem(abstra tatthismoment)normalized, positive-denitefun tions

φ

on

H

n

;the setofsu h fun tionswillbedenoted by

P

1

(H

n

)

and itisa onvexsubset of the setof all ontinuous, boundedfun tions on

H

n

.

Heuristi ally, the appearan e of

H

n

rather than

Γ

may be explained as follows:

H

n

=

R

_{× R}

2n

_{≃ R × Γ}

,so we may view (to some extent)

H

n

as an extension of the lassi al phasespa e. The additional degree of freedom,labelled by

s

, per point of

Γ

an be then attributedtoquantum-me hani alphase,whi hissupportedbythemultipli ationlaw(3) andtheformofgeneri representations(5). Thisphasedegreeoffreedomisgenerally non- ompa t (it isdieomorphi to

R

), butfrom Eq. (5)we see thaton ewe workina xed representation of

H

n

,whi h we will do inwhat follows, itee tively be omes

U (1)

. This makesourformalismlooselyresembleKaluza-Kleintheory[19℄anapproa htouni ation of Maxwell and general relativitytheories. There oneextends spa e-timethrough adding (in a lo al way) a phase degree of freedom at ea h spa e-time point. By introdu ing a suitable parallel transport on this

5

-dimensional spa e and postulating an analog of Einstein equations one thenre overs oupled gravitational and Maxwell elds. Of ourse theanalogyisonlydistant,aswearenot introdu ingaparalleltransportonourextended phase spa e, but rather the groupstru ture ( f. Eq. (3)). The motivation for the hoi e of states is more straightforwardin both in lassi al and quantum ases hara teristi fun tionspossessthe same features,provided theyareproperlydened throughEq. (10 ). However,the whole

P

1

(H

n

)

turnsout tobetoolarge. Thishappensbe auseageneri

φ ∈ P

1

(H

n

)

ontains ontributions fromallpossiblerepresentationsof

H

n

,whileweknow that only one of them is realized in Nature. To identify the set of physi ally relevant stateswithin

P

1

(H

n

)

andre overthestandarddensitymatrixformalism,weuse Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) onstru tion (see e.g. Ref. [8℄). Although this is thefundamental toolinalgebrai approa hestoquantumtheory,notethathereweareusingitinadierent manner. In parti ular, we are not starting from a

C

∗

-algebra of observables, but rather from the kinemati al group [20℄. Using theGNS onstru tion we an uniquely (up to a unitary transformation) assign to ea h abstra t state

φ ∈ P

1

(H

n

)

a triple

(H

φ

, π

φ

, v

φ

)

, where

π

φ

isarepresentation of

H

n

a ting inaHilbertspa e

H

φ

,

v

φ

isa normalized y li 1

φ(g) = hv

φ

|π

φ

(g) v

φ

i .

(11)

The representation

π

φ

is generi ally redu ible. It is irredu ible if and only if

φ

is an extreme point ofthe state-spa e

P

1

(H

n

)

. Su h stateswill be alledpure. Motivated by the ommutation relations (6), we all physi al statesthose abstra t states,for whi h

π

φ

isa ountable multipleof

T

~

:

π

φ

=

L

i

T

~

,

H

φ

=

L

i

H

~

,sin e then:

φ(g) = hv

φ

|

M

i

T

~

(g)v

φ

i =

X

i

hv

i

|T

~

(g)v

i

i =

tr

[

̺

e

φ

T

~

(g)],

(12)

where

v

i

'sarethe omponentsof

v

φ

inea h opyof

H

~

,and:

e

̺

φ

:=

X

i

p

i



 v

i

||v

i

||

 v

i

||v

i

||



 , p

i

:= ||v

i

||

2

,

X

i

p

i

= ||v

φ

||

2

= 1 .

(13)

Hen e, to ea h physi al state

φ

we may assign a positive tra e- lass operator

̺

e

φ

in

H

~

, representing

φ

. FromEqs. (5 )and (12)weinferthatphysi alstatesareofaspe ialform:

φ(s, η, ξ) =

e

−

i

~

s

χ(η, ξ),

(14)

where

χ

issimplythe standard hara teristi fun tion (8)of

̺

e

φ

.

The onverse alsoholds, i.e. ea h abstra tstate

φ

of theform(14 ) isphysi al andwe an uniquely assignto it a densitymatrix

̺

φ

. Thishas been infa t proven in Ref. [13℄. Theoperator

̺

φ

isdened asfollows:

̺

φ

:=

Z

2π

~

0

d

s

(2π)

2

Z

d

n

_ξ

d

n

_η

(2π~)

n−1

φ(g) T

~

(g)

†

,

(15)

(providedtheaboveintegralexistsinthesenseofmatrixelements,forwhi hitissu ient that

χ ∈ L

1

_(R

2n

₎

). Sin e tr



exp

h

i

~

(η

j

q

ˆ

j

− ξ

j

p

ˆ

j

)

i

= (2π~)

n

δ

n

(ξ)δ

n

(η)

,wehave that:

φ

̺

φ

(g) =

tr



̺

φ

T

~

(g)



= φ(g),

(16)

and hen e formula (15 ) an be viewed asthe inverse, withrespe t to the denition(10 ), non- ommutative Fourier transform. From Eq. (16) and the uniqueness of the GNS onstru tion, it then follows that

̺

φ

is thesame (up to unitary rotation) as the density matrix

̺

e

φ

fromEq. (12 ). The representation (11)is re overedbyspe trallyde omposing

̺

φ

andthengoingba kfromEq. (12)toEq. (11). Moreover,ifwelookfromthestandard formalism point of view, then we also have

̺

φ

̺

= ̺

(sin e matrix elements of

T

λ

satisfy orthonormalityrelationslikematrixelementsofanirredu iblerepresentationofa ompa t group; seeRef. [13 ℄).

Hen e, physi allyrelevantstatesarefaithfullyrepresentedbyfun tions

φ ∈ P

1

(H

n

)

of theform (14 )

2

. Please notethat restri tion to the above form does not break anygroup symmetry, sin e thekinemati al group

H

n

is not supposed to a t on the abstra t state-spa e

P

1

(H

n

)

as a group of symmetries. This spe i form only xes therepresentation appearing inthe GNS onstru tion to the physi ally relevant one with

λ = ~

. Fromnow onwewill assumethatwe workonly withthephysi al states. Wehavethus a hievedthe desiredreformulationofthestandardtheory. Densitymatri esarenowse ondaryobje ts, 2

Infa t, forestablishingthis orresponden ewe ouldhave usedonly theformulas (10) and (15), but the GNS onstru tionismoregeneralit anbe arriedoutonanarbitrarylo ally ompa tgroup.

group through Eq. (15 ) (or the GNS onstru tion). We stress that we are dealing here with quantum statisti s only, as the notion of the linear superposition seems not to be easily visibleinthe group-theoreti al language. Neverthelessthelinearstru ture pertains inourformalismthroughtheGNS onstru tion. Itisthenaninteresting questionweather some modi ation of the group-theoreti al framework an be used for onstru tion of a non-linear generalization ofquantumme hani s.

The mainbenetof thepresented reformulation lies,inour eyes,inthatit provides a naturaltransitiontothe regime

~

= 0

,inwhi h onere overs lassi alstatisti s. Indeed, if wea eptthatwhatisexperimentallyavailablearedensitymatri es(forexamplethrough thestatetomography te hnique), thenweareledto study theirredu ible representations of thekinemati al groupin the ase

~

= 0

. As an be seenfrom Eq. (7), theirredu ible representations of

H

n

be ome inthis regime ee tively the irredu ible representations of the Abelian fa tor-group

H

n

/{(s, 0, 0); s ∈ R} = R

2n

, parametrized by

(η, ξ)

. Thus the phase degree ollapses and the kinemati al group turns into the lassi al phase spa e. Hen e, thestates that we are naturally led to onsider are now fun tions from

P

1

(R

2n

₎

. We do not have to worry about xing theright,physi al representation, like inEq. (14 ), asitisalreadyxedbysetting

~

= 0

thesearetherepresentations(7). The ru ialpoint isthatBo hner's Theorem[8℄statesthatthefun tionsfrom

P

1

(R

2n

₎

areinanone-to-one orresponden e with Borel probability measures on the dual group

R

d

2n

, isomorphi to

R

2n

[8℄. The duality

h·, ·i

isprovided by the representation

T

0

q,p

itself:

h(q, p), (η, ξ)i :=

T

q,p

0

(η, ξ)

,

(q, p) ∈ d

R

2n

. Thus, in the lassi al regime our states, i.e. fun tions

φ ∈

P

1

(R

2n

)

, anbeuniquelyidentied withBorelprobabilitymeasures

µ

φ

on

R

d

2n

_{⋍ R}

2n

and the latter spa e plays therole of the lassi al phase spa e of the system (at least inthe ontext of statisti al des ription). Asa result, we re over lassi al statisti al des ription ofthesystem.

In the ase that

φ ∈ P

1

(R

2n

₎

is also in

L

1

_(R

2n

₎

, or if we allow for distributions, we an expli itlyre over

µ

φ

through theanalog ofthe integral (15), whi hnowbe omesthe usualFourier transform(we only manuallyadjustthe onstant multiplyingthemeasure):

d

µ

φ

= ˆ

φ(q, p)

d

n

_q

d

n

_p

_,

(17)

ˆ

φ(q, p) :=

Z

d

n

_ξ

d

n

_η

(2π)

2n

φ(η, ξ) T

0

q,p

(g)

†

=

Z

d

n

_ξ

d

n

_η

(2π)

2n

φ(η, ξ)

e

−

i

(η

j

q

j

−ξ

j

p

j

)

,

(18)

and

φ

ˆ

isa lassi alprobabilitydensity inthephase-spa e.

Whenappliedto ompositesystems,theabovereasoningrevealsoneinterestingaspe t ofquantumentanglement(seee.g. Ref. [21 ℄foranintrodu tionintothesubje t). Namely, when passing to the lassi al regime, the underlying kinemati al group be omes Abelian and the orresponding lassi al statesloosetheabilityto getentangled,sin e probability measures on Cartesian produ ts an always be represented as suitable limits of onvex ombinations of produ tmeasures. Hen e, the very existen e of quantum entanglement may be linked, within our formalism, to the non-Abelian hara ter of the kinemati al group. More detailed study of the onne tion between group-theoreti al methods and entanglement is dis ussedelsewhere [22 ℄.

4 Remarks on observables and dynami s

In this Se tion we briey remark on the representation of observables and dynami s in our group-theoreti al language. We will not be very detailed and mathemati ally stri t here, but rather present a general outline. The easiest observables to dealwithare those

are given by omplex ontinuous fun tions

F

from

L

1

_(S

n

)

,

S

n

:= [0, 2π/~] × R

2n

_{⊂ H}

n

, satisfying:

F (g

−1

) = F (g).

(19)

Themean value of

F

ina state

φ

isdened as:

hF i

φ

:=

Z

S

n

d

g φ(g)F (g) ,

(20)

where we have res aled

dg

sothat it isnow equal to

dg =



(2π)

2

(2π~)

n−1



−1

d

s

d

n

_ξ

d

n

_η

. Theintegral(20 )iswelldened duetothe boundedness of

φ

. Toestablishthe onne tion with the standard representation of an observable (for the onne tion to the algebrai approa h seeremark [20 ℄), note that to ea h su h

F

we an assign a hermitian operator

A

F

byaformulaanalogous to Eq. (15):

A

F

:=

Z

S

n

d

gF (g)T

~

(g).

(21)

The above integral exists, in the sense of matrix elements, as

F ∈ L

1

_(S

n

)

. Onthe other hand,toea htra e- lassobservable

A

we anassigna ontinuousfun tion

F

A

byananalog ofEq. (10):

F

A

(g) :=

tr

[AT

~

(g)

†

].

(22)

Using the same arguments as in the ase of density matri es, one an easily show that

F

A

F

= F

and

A

F

A

= A

,thus establishingthe orresponden ebetween tra e- lass observ-ables andfun tionssatisfying Eq. (19).

In the ase ofobservables not representable bytra e- lass operators, one hasto allow for distributions. We willnot investigate herewhi h exa tlydistribution spa eone needs to onsiderinorderto overallrelevantobservables,butonlywritedownthedistributions

F

q

j

and

F

p

j

representing the generators

q

j

and

p

j

:

F

q

j

(s, η, ξ) =

i

~

(2π~)

n

exp

h

i

~

s −

η

2

_j

4~

i

δ

n

(ξ) δ(η

1

) . . . ∂

η

j

δ(η

j

) . . . δ(η

n

)

(23)

F

p

j

(s, η, ξ) = −

i

~

(2π~)

n

exp

h

i

~

s −

ξ

_j

2

4~

i

δ

n

(η) δ(ξ

1

) . . . ∂

ξ

j

δ(ξ

j

) . . . δ(ξ

n

).

(24) Higher order polynomials in

q

j

and

p

j

are proportional to higher order derivatives of Dira 'sdelta.

AswehavementionedintheIntrodu tion,theabovepro edureofre overingstandard formalismfromthegroup-theoreti alone loselyresemblesWeylquantization. Verybriey, Weylproposedtoassignwithea hFourier-representable fun tion

F

onthe lassi alphase spa e

Γ

F (q, p) =

Z

d

n

_ξ

d

n

_{η ˆ}

_{F (η, ξ)}

e i

~

(η

j

q

j

−ξ

j

p

j

)

(25) an operator

A

W eyl

_F

:=

Z

d

n

_ξ

d

n

_{η ˆ}

_{F (η, ξ)}

e i

~

(η

j

ˆ

q

j

−ξ

j

p

ˆ

j

)

(26) A omparison of Eq. (26 ) withEqs. (21 ) and (15) shows that we basi ally substitute

Γ

with

H

n

inthe original Weyl formalism. Aswe have showninthepre edingSe tion, this substitution leadsto some on retebenets.

takesaformofadierentialequationimposedonapath

t 7→ φ

t

,whi hshouldbeequivalent to the von Neumann equation for the orresponding density matrix

̺

t

. In fa t, this equationwas derived andanalyzed inRef. [13℄and we merely quote ithere:

i

~

∂φ

t

∂t

=

h

H



−

i

~

∂

η

+

1

2

ξ,

i

~

∂

ξ

+

1

2

η



− H



−

i

~

∂

η

−

1

2

ξ,

i

~

∂

ξ

−

1

2

η

i

φ

t

,

(27)

where

H(q, p)

is the Hamiltonian, whi h for simpli ity we assume to be of the form

H(q, p) = T (p) + V (q)

with

T

and

V

analyti al. Notethatdue totheproperty(14 ), Eq. (27 )is, modulothephasefa tor,justthequantumLiouvilleequation [7 ℄,butimposedon the hara teristi fun tion

χ(η, ξ)

ratherthan on theWignerfun tion

W (q, p)

.

In the lassi al limit,as we have argued before, thekinemati al group ee tively ol-lapses to the lassi al phase spa e

Γ = R

2n

and observables be ome fun tions(or distri-butions)on

Γ

. The ondition (19)now reads:

F (−η, −ξ) = F (η, ξ),

(28)

and fromEqs. (21)and (7 )we obtain that:

A

F

(q, p) =

Z

d

n

_ξ

d

n

_η

(2π)

2n

F (η, ξ)

e

−

i

(η

j

q

j

−ξ

j

p

j

)

.

(29)

Thus,observables orrespondnowto real(be auseofthe ondition(28 ))fun tionsonthe phase-spa e

R

d

2n

. Using Eqs. (17), (18 ), and (29 ) thestate average (20 ) be omessimply theaverage of

A

F

(q, p)

withrespe tto themeasure

µ

φ

,dened by thestate in question

φ

:

hF i

φ

=

Z

d

n

_ξ

d

n

_η

(2π)

2n

F (η, ξ) φ(η, ξ) =

Z

d

µ

φ

(q, p)A

F

(q, p).

(30)

To omplete the pi ture, note that the lassi al limit of the dynami al law (27) for

H(q, p) = p

2

/2m + V (q)

reprodu es (upon res aling of

η, ξ

- see the next Se tion) the lassi al Liouvilleequation [13 ℄.

5 Examples of lassi al limits

Herewebrieyshowwithtwophysi alexampleshowthepro edureofmoving to lassi al regime

~

= 0

worksinpra ti e. However,let usstress againthat itisnot thegoalof this work to develop another tool for studying lassi al limits of quantum states, but rather to examine how the formalism of non- ommutative hara teristi fun tions leads to the more oherent quantum- lassi al language and the natural des ription of lassi al limit of quantum statisti s. Sin e on rete examples of physi ally interesting states has been available to us interms of densitymatri es

̺

anyway,we have to start fromthem. From this perspe tive, our approa h obviously brings nothing newto thestandard methods of Wigner and Moyalfun tions, as an itbe seen from Eq. (14). Thus, we repeat thatthe main goalofthe present work is on eptual ratherthan pra ti al.

Thepres ription for taking lassi al limitsisrather simple: usethebasi formula(10) to al ulate

φ

̺

for a given matrix

̺

[13℄. Next, he k ifthere exists, in the distributive sense,alimit

lim

~

→0

φ

̺

(pointlimitsaretoorestri tive). Ifastate

φ

istopossessa lassi al limitatall,wenaturallyexpe tthat

lim

~

→0

φ

∈ P

1

(R

2n

)

,orinotherwords

lim

~

→0

φ

(17 -18) to retrieve the orresponding probability measure. If not, i.e.

lim

~

→0

φ

does not exists,or isnotin

P

1

(R

2n

₎

,thenthe stateinquestion doesnot possessthe lassi allimit. Toillustratethepro edure, letusrst onsider onvexmixturesof oherent states,i.e. densityoperators

̺

withapositive Glauber-Sudarshan

P

-representation [15℄:

̺ =

Z

R

2

d

µ(α, α)|αihα|,

(31) where

α :=

1

√

2~

(q +

i

p)

and

µ

is a probability measure on the lassi al phase-spa e

R

2

. We stress thatwe onsider oherent statesherepurely kinemati aly, withoutanyexpli it or impli it relation to the dynami s. They aredened as theisotropi statesminimizing theHeisenbergun ertaintyrelations,arisingfromEq. (6)andtheirparti ularimportan e for quadrati Hamiltonians doesnot on ern us here.

Substituting Eq. (31 )into Eq. (10)we obtain:

φ

̺

(s, η, ξ) =

Z

d

µ(q, p)

e

−

i

~

s

exp

h

−

1

4~

(ξ

2

_{+ η}

2

_{) +}

i

~

(qη − pξ)

i

.

(32)

At a rst glan e, the last term in the integrand in Eq. (32) does not seem to possess any meaningful distributive limit when

~

→ 0

. That would be quite ounterintuitive, as the matri es of the form (31) show a lassi al-like behaviour: for example the averages of normally ordered observables are equal to the phase-spa e averages with respe t to

µ

. However, note that the parameters

η, ξ

are just some arbitrary oordinates on the Heisenberg-Weylgroupandwearefreetore-s alethem. A tually,thespe i formofthe operator

T

~

inEq. (5)wasmotivatedbythephysi al dimensionalanalysis(theargument oftheexponentialfun tionshouldbephysi allydimensionless)andinordertore overthe groupmultipli ationlaw(3)onehastore-s ale

η, ξ

by

~

. Fromanotherpoint ofview,this res aling issuggested bytheWigner fun tion(9 ), whi h an be rewrittenasfollows:

W

̺

(q, p) =

Z

d

n

_ξ

d

n

_η

(2π)

2n

e

−

i

(η

j

q

j

−ξ

j

p

j

)

χ

̺

(~η, ~ξ).

(33)

Ifwe a ept the above arguments, we areledto onsider:

lim

~

_→0

φ(s, ~η, ~ξ)

(34) instead of

lim

~

→0

φ(s, η, ξ)

as the proper lassi al limit ( ompare to the methods of Ref. [16 ℄). Then fromEq. (32 )we obtain that:

φ

̺

(s, ~η, ~ξ) −−−→

~

_→0

µ(η, ξ) :=

ˆ

Z

d

µ(q, p)

e i

(qη−pξ)

.

(35)

By Bo hner's Theorem (or by an easy dire t inspe tion)

µ ∈ P

ˆ

1

(R

2

₎

and obviously the orrespondingprobability measureisjust themeasure

µ

itself.

As the next example let us onsider the Fo k states

|mi

:

̺ = |mihm|

. Again, we onsiderthem justaskinemati alexamples. FromEq. (10 )we obtain that:

φ

̺

(s, η, ξ) =

e

−

i

~

s

e

−

_4~

1

(ξ

2

_+η

2

₎

L

m

h 1

2~

(ξ

2

_{+ η}

2

₎

i

_,

(36) where

L

m

(x) = m!

P

m

k=0

(−1)

k

x

k

/[(m − k)!(k!)

2

]

is the

m

-th orderLaguerre polynomial. Justforillustration'ssake,wewill onsideredherearatheruninterestinglimit

~

→ 0

ofthe xedFo kstate

m =

onst. Obviously, this limitdoesnot have mu h physi al sense, but fromapurely formalpoint ofviewtheve tors

|mi

arelegitimatestatesinthekinemati al

spa e

L

2

_(R)

and it is a legitimate question to ask what are their lassi al limits. Using thepres ription (34)we obtainthat:

φ

̺

(s, ~η, ~ξ) −−−→

~

_→0

1,

(37) whi h is triviallya fun tion from

P

1

(R

2

₎

. Hen e, after performing theFourier transform of (37 ), allthe matri es

|mihm|

aremapped inthe lassi allimit to thesame probability measure

δ(q)δ(p)

. Of ourse,onewouldexpe tthatfromtheformoftheenergyspe trum ofaharmoni os illator,but aswe saidbefore, we onsiderthelimit(37 )only asaformal exer ise. The physi ally sensible lassi al limit of the Fo k states is given by

~

→ 0

,

m → ∞

,

~

m =

onst . In this limit one indeed re overs the lassi al mi ro anoni al distribution fun tion of the harmoni os illator, as it was proven in Ref. [23 ℄ using the loselyrelatedmethodof Wignerfun tions.

6 Con luding remarks

The next logi al step would be to try to apply the developed formalism to systems with ompa t kinemati al groups, like, for example, spin systems with

G = SU (2)

. The goal would be to des ribe the well known heuristi pres ription:

~

→ 0

,

j → ∞

,

j~ =

onst, where

j

labels the irredu ible representations of

SU (2)

, within the presented group-theoreti alformalism. Oneproblemimmediatelyarises: the orresponding lassi al phase-spa e is asphere

S

2

[11 ℄ and Bo hner's Theorem, ru ial to our approa h, holdsonly for Abelian groups. Thus, it is not so obvious what me hanism would allow one to re over lassi al statisti sinthis ase. This isthesubje t ofour further resear h (foran alterna-tive approa h using o-adjoint orbitsmethod seee.g. Ref. [24 ℄;for another one based on non- ommutative spheresseee.g. Ref. [25℄).

Anotherpointisthatatthisstageourapproa hla ksa learoperationalmeaningofthe mathemati al on epts involved. Perhaps themost operationally avouredreformulation of quantum theoryis the one given bythe quantum logi and orthomodular latti es (see Refs. [26,27℄foranintrodu tion),asitoperatesdire tlywiththeprobabilitiesofout omes of (idealized) measurements. It also very oherently in orporates lassi al and quantum statisti swithin a ommonlanguage. However, it omes withitsownsetofproblems: the justi ationfortheuseofHilbertspa esforbuildingthelatti eandtheapparent la kofa lear quantum-to- lassi altransitionme hanismwithintheformalism. Notethatanother problem: the justi ation for the latti e orthomodularity, was solved only very re ently by Grinbaum[28℄,using information-theoreti alarguments.

Summarizing, our workpresents analternative to thestandard aswell asto the alge-brai andlatti e approa hesto quantumstatisti s. Itin orporates anelegant formofthe quantum-to- lassi al transition. Bythelatterwemeana learme hanismofshowinghow the lassi al state-spa edire tlyarises fromthe quantum one.

We would like to thank V. Cappellini, J. Derezi«ski, J. Kijowski, A. Kossakowski, B. Mielnik, J. Naudts, K. Z y zkowski

˙

and espe ially M. Ku± and M. Przanowski for dis- ussions, and the Deuts he Fors hungsgemeins haft (SFB 407, 436 POL), ESF PESC QUDEDIS,EU IPProgramme SCALA,andMEC(Spanish Goverment) under ontra t FIS2005-04627 andConsolider-Ingenio 2010 QOIT for thenan ial support.

Referen es

[1℄ H. Weyl, Gruppentheorie und Quantenme hanik (S. Hirzel, Lepzig 1928); English translation: Theory of Groupsand Quantum Me hani s (Dover, New York1950).

Atomspektren (F. Vieweg und Sohn,Brauns hweig 1931); English translationGroup Theory and its Appli ation to the Quantum Me hani s of Atomi Spe tra, expanded and improved ed. (A ademi Press, NewYork 1959).

[3℄ R.F. Werner, quant-ph/9504016.

[4℄ N.P.Landsman inHandbook ofPhilosophy of S ien e, Vol 2: Philosophy of Physi s, J.Buttereld and J.Earman eds. (North Holland,Amsterdam2006).

[5℄ E. Wigner, Phys. Rev.40, 749 (1932).

[6℄ J.E. Moyal, Pro .Camb.Phil. So .45,99 (1949).

[7℄ W. P.S hlei h,Quantum Opti s in Phase Spa e (Wiley-VCH, Berlin 2001).

[8℄ G.Folland,ACourseinAbstra tHarmoni Analysis(CRCPress,Bo aRaton1995). [9℄ M. Abramowitz and I. Stegun (Eds.), Handbook of Mathemati al Fun tions (Dover,

New York, 1965).

[10℄ B. Mielnik,Commun.Math. Phys.37, 221 (1974).

[11℄ A.Perelomov, Generalized CoherentStates andTheirAppli ations (Springer,Berlin, 1986).

[12℄ R.Haag,Lo al Quantum Physi s: Fields, Parti les, Algebras, 2nd.rev.andenlarged ed.(Springer Verlag, Berlin1996).

[13℄ Y.Gu, Phys. Rev.A 32, 1310 (1985).

[14℄ K. Wódkiewi z, Phys. Rev.Lett. 52, 1064 (1984).

[15℄ E. C. G.Sudarshan, Phys.Rev.Lett. 10, 277(1963); R.J. Glauber,Phys.Rev.131, 2766 (1963).

[16℄ D.M. Davidovi¢ and D.Lalovi¢, J.Phys. A31, 2281 (1998). [17℄ It onlysatisesa modied, twisted ondition:

ZZ

d

n

_ξ

d

n

_η

d

n

_ξ

′

d

n

_η

′

_{f (η, ξ)}

e

−

i

2~

ω[(η,ξ),(η

′

,ξ

′

)]

χ

_̺

(η

′

− η, ξ

′

− ξ)f (η

′

, ξ

′

) ≥ 0,

whi h has been studied e.g. inT Brö ker and R. F. Werner, J. Math. Phys. 36, 62 (1995).

[18℄ J.Naudtsand M. Kuna,J.Phys.A34, 9265(2001); J.Naudts in: QuantumTheory And Symmetries, Pro eedings of the2ndInternational Symposium,eds.E. Kapu± ik, A.Horzela(World S ienti ,Singapore 2002).

[19℄ T. Kaluza, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) K1, 966 (1921). O. Klein,Z. Phys.37, 895 (1926).

[20℄ However, our approa h an be re asted in a

C

∗

-algebrai language: for a lo ally ompa t kinemati algroup

G

,the onvolution algebra

L

1

_(G)

an be equipped with a suitable norm turning it (after ompletion) into a

C

∗

-algebra

C

∗

_(G)

(see e.g. J. Dixmier,

C

∗

Algebras, (North Holland, Amsterdam 1982, or Ref. [8℄). Then, ea h

φ ∈ P

1

(G)

denes (after suitablemanipulations) a positivenormalized fun tional on

C

∗

_(G)

, soit isa state inthe algebrai terminology.In thisreformulation, therole of the (usually abstra t)

C

∗

-algebra of observables is played by the group

C

∗

-algebra

C

∗

_(G)

.

[21℄ R.F.Werner,Phys.Rev. A40,4277(1989); M.Lewenstein,D.Bruss,J.I.Cira , B. Kraus,M. Ku±,J.Samsonowi z, A.Sanpera,and R.Tarra h,J.Mod.Opt. 47, 2841 (2000).

[23℄ N.Ripamonti, J.Phys.A29, 5137 (1996).

[24℄ S.Gnutzmann and M. Ku±,J.Phys. A31, 9871 (1998).

[25℄ J.Madore,Class.Quant.Grav.9,69(1992);C.S.Chu,J.Madore,andH.Steina ker, JHEP 0108, 038(2001); A.P.Bala handran, B.P.Dolan,J. Lee,X.Martin,and D. O'Connor, J.Geom.Phys.43, 184 (2002).

[26℄ G. Ma key, The mathemati al foundations of quantum me hani s (Benjamin, New York1963).

[27℄ E. G. Beltrametti, G. Cassinelli, The logi of quantum me hani s (Addison-Wesley, Massa husetts 1981).