arXiv:quant-ph/9906130v9 10 Aug 1999
Structure behind Mechanics
Toshihiko Ono
†703 Shuwa Daiich Hachioji Residence,
4-2-7 Myojin-cho, Hachioji-shi, Tokyo 192-0046, Japan
Received ,1999
Abstract
This paper proposes a basic theory on physical reality, and a new foundation for quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. It does not only solve the problem of the arbitrariness on the operator ordering for the quantization procedure, but also clarifies how the classical-limit occurs. It further compares the new theory with the known quantization methods, and proposes a self-consistent interpretation for quan-tum mechanics. It also provides the internal structure inducing half-integer spin of a particle, the sense of the regularization in the quantum field theory, the quantization of a phenomenological system, the causality in quantum mechanics and the origin of the thermodynamic irreversibility under the new insight.
quant-ph/9906130: Submitted to Found. Phys.
1
INTRODUCTION
In seventeenth century, Newton constructed Newtonian mechanics based on the concept of theforceacting a body, and published ”Principia: Mathematical principles of natural philosophy” that was the first attempt to understand this world under few principles.
In eighteenth century, Lagrange’sanalytical mechanics, originated by Mautertuis’ work, built the theory of motion on an analytic basis, and replaced forces by potentials; in the next century, Hamilton completed the foundation of analytical mechanics based on the principle of least action in stead of Newton’s laws. On the other hand, Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetism required the invariance of the theory under the Lorentz transformation inconsistent with the Galilei invariance that Newtonian mechanics obeys. In the beginning of twentieth century, Einstein’s relativity improved Newtonian mechanics, and revised the self-consistency of the classical mechanics based on the concept of spacetime. On this stage, Hamiltonian mechanics was still valid not only for Newtonian mechanics but also for the Maxwell-Einstein theory, and the concept of energy and momentum played the most important role in the physics instead of force for Newtonian mechanics.
Experiments, however, indicated that microscopic systems seemed not to obey such classical mechanics as above. Almost one century has passed since Planck found his constant h; and almost three fourth since Heisenberg [1], Schr¨odinger [2] and their contemporaries constructed the basic formalism of quantum mechanics after the early days of Einstein and Bohr. The quantum mechanics based itself on the concept of wave functions instead of classical energy and momentum, or that of operators called as observables. This mechanics reconstructed the classical field theories except the general relativity. Nobody denies how quantum mechanics, especially quantum electrodynamics, succeeded in twentieth century and developed in
the form of the standard model for the quantum field theories through the process to find new particles in the nature.
Quantum mechanics, however, seems to have left some fundamental open problems on its formalism and its interpretation: the problem on the ambiguity of the operator ordering in quantum mechanics [3, 4], which is crucial to quantize the Einstein gravity, and that on the reality, which seems incompatible with the causality [5, 6, 7]. These difficulties comes from the problem how and why quantum mechanics relates itself with classical mechanics: the relationship between the quantization that constructs quantum mechanics based on classical mechanics and the classical-limit that induces classical mechanics from quantum mechanics; the incompatibility between the ontological feature of classical mechanics and the epistemological feature of quantum mechanics.
Now, this paper proposes a basic theory on physical reality, and introduces a foundation for quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, named asprotomechanics, that is motivated in the previous letter [8].1
It also attempts to revise the nonconstructive idea that the basic theory of motion is valid independently of the scale, though the quantum mechanics has once destroyed such an idea that Newtonian mechanics held in eighteenth century. The present theory supposes that a field or a particleX on four-dimensional spacetime has mutual relationship with an domainAof spacetime, whose boundary and interior represent the present and the past, respectively. It further considers that objectX has its internal-time ˜ηA(X) relative to domain
A, while domain A also has its own internal-time ˜η∗
X(A) relative to object X. Object X gains the actual
existence onAif and only if the two internal-time coincide with each other as ˜
ηA(X) = ˜ηX∗(A). (1)
This quantizes the external time passing from the past to the future, and enables the deterministic structure of the basic theory to produce the nondeterministic characteristics of quantum mechanics. The synchronic-ityη˜A,2 introduced instead of energy-momentum or wave-functions, synchronizes two intrinsic local clocks
located at different points in the space of the objects on a present surface in spacetime. The both sides of relation (1) further obey the variational principle as
δ˜ηA(X) = 0 , δ˜ηX∗(A) = 0. (2)
This relation reveals a geometric structure behind Hamiltonian mechanics based on the modified Einstein-de Broglie relation, and produces the conservation law of the emergence-frequency of a particle or a field based on the introduced quantization law of time. It finally solves the problem on the ambiguity of the operator ordering, and also gives a self-consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics as an ontological theory.
The next section explains the basic laws on reality as discussed above, and leads to the protomechanics in Section 3, that produces the conservation laws of momentum and that of emergence-frequency. Section 4 presents the dynamical construction for the introduced protomechanics by utilizing the group-theoretic method called Lie-Poisson mechanics (consultAPPENDIX B). It provides the difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics as that of theirfunction spaces: the function space of the observables for quantum mechanics includes that for classical mechanics; the dual space of the emergence-measures for quantum mechanics includes that for classical mechanics, viceversa. Section 5 and Section 6 explain how protomechanics deduces classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, respectively. In these sections, pro-tomechanics proves to include both quantum mechanics and classical mechanics; in conjunction with the result in Section 4, it clarifies how the quantization and the classical-limit occur. Section 6 additionally presents a consequent interpretation for the half-integer spin of a particle. Section 7 compares the present theory with the other known quantization methods from both the group-theoretic view point and the sta-tistical one, and further introduces an interpretation of the regularization method adopted at quantum field theories; and it will prove applicable for general phenomenological systems. On the other hand, Section
1 The author of paper [8], ”Tosch Ono,” is the same person as that of the present paper, ”Toshihiko Ono.” 2This naming of synchronicity is originated by Jung [9].
8 considers how it gives a self-consistent interpretation of reality or solves the measurement problem, and interprets the origin of thermodynamic irreversibility in the nature; and it will prove to keep causality even under an EPR-experiment. A brief statement of the conclusion immediately follows.
Let me summarize the construction of the present paper in the following diagram.
classical phenomenology
classical mechanics (5)
thermodynamics (8.3) EPR-phenomena (8.4)
continuous superselection canonical theory
quantum mechanics (6,7.1,7.2,7.4,8.1,8.2)
protomechanics (3,4) classical part: ¯h→0
laws on reality (2) regularization (7.3)
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 larger scale← more fundamental↓
* Numbers in bracket ( ) refer those of sections.
In this paper,candhdenote the speed of light and Planck’s constant, respectively. I will use Einstein’s rule in the tensor calculus for Roman indices’i, j, k∈NN and Greek indices’ν, µ∈NN, and not for Greek indices’ α, β, γ ∈ NN, and I further denote the trace (or supertrace) operation of a quantum observable
ˆ
F as hFˆi that is only one difference from the ordinary notations in quantum mechanics, where i= √−1. Consult the brief review on the differential geometry inAPPENDIX Aand that on Lie-Poisson mechanics in
APPENDIX B, which the employed notations follow. In addition, notice that the basic theory uses so-called
c-numbers, while it also utilizeq-numbersto deduce the quantum mechanics in Section 6 for the help of calculations.3
2
LAWS ON REALITY
LetM(4) represent the spacetime, being a four-dimensional orientedC∞manifold, that has the topology or
the family ˜O=OM(4) of its open subsets, the topologicalσ-algebraB(OM(4)), and the volume measurev(4) 3 Such distinction between c-numbers and q-numbers does not play an important role in the present theory.
induced from the metric onM(4).4 The space ˜M represents the space of the objects whose motion will be described. In particle theories, ˜M is identified with the space C M(4)of all the one-dimensional timelike manifolds or curves inM(4); in field theories, the space Ψ M(4), Vof the Z
2-graded fields overM(4) such
that ψ(4)
∈ Ψ M(4), Vis a mapping ψ(4) : M(4)
→V for a Lie group or vector space V. The mapping ι : ˜M → O˜ determines the domain ι(X) where an object X is defined. In particle theories, mapping ι is the identity mapping such that ι(l) = l ⊂ M(4); and, in field theories, it gives the support of ψ(4):
ι ψ(4)=supp ψ(4)⊂M(4).
Now, let us consider the relationship between spaces ˜M and ˜O, by introducing the internal-time that has one-dimensional cyclic freedomS1. For an domainA
∈O˜, thesynchronicityrelative toAis the mapping ˜
ηA: ˜M →S1that determines the internal-time ˜ηA(X)∈S1 of every objectX∈M˜ relative toA. Law 1 There exists the synchronicityη˜A: ˜M →S1 relative to A∈O˜, that has an action SA: ˜M →R:
˜
ηA(X) =e−iSA(X). (3)
Action SA satisfies the σ-additivity for disjoint sets {Aα}α∈Λ
M(4) and ensemble {Xβ}β∈ΛM(4) such that
Aα∩Aα′ =∅ whenα6=α′ and that ι(Xβ)∩ι(Xβ′) =∅ whenβ 6=β′:
S∪αAα X β Xβ =X α,β SAα(Xβ), (4) or, equivalently, ˜ η∪αAα X β Xβ =Y α,β ˜ ηAα(Xβ). (5)
For particle theories, a one-dimensional submanifold or a curvel⊂M(4)represents the nonrelativistic motion
for a particle such that (t, x(t)) ∈l for t ∈ T, where M(4) is Newtonian spacetime M(4) = T
×M(3) for
Newtonian timeT ⊂Rand three-dimensional Euclidean spaceM(3); thereby, it has the following action for
the ordinary LagrangianL:T M →R:
SA(l) = ¯h−1 Z l∩A dt L x(t),dx(t) dt , (6)
where ¯h =h/4π or = ¯h/2 for Planck’s constant h (¯h= h/2π). The relativistic motion of a free particle whose mass ismhas the following action for the proper-timeτ ∈R:
SA(l) = ¯h−1
Z
l∩A
dτ mc2. (7)
For field theories, field variableX =ψ(4) over spacetimeM(4) has the following action for the Lagrangian
densityL: SA ψ(4)= 1 ¯ hc Z A dv(4)(y) Lψ(4)(y), dψ(4)(y), (8)
wherev(4) is the volume measure ofM(4). In the standard field theory,ψ(4) is a set ofZ
2-graded fields over
spacetime M(4), the Dirac field for fermions, the Yang-Mills field for gauge bosons and other field under
consideration. It can further include the metric tensor for Einstein gravity, whereL=LM+LG+ Λ to add
LagrangianLG of the gravity and the cosmological term Λ∈Rto LagrangianLM of the matter:
LG =− c
4
16πGR, (9)
where R is the scalar curvature for the metric g on ˜M and G is the Newton’s constant of gravity. Total LagrangianLshould be the standard Lagrangian density invariant under Lorentz transformations in special relativity or under general coordinate transformations in general relativity.
Furthermore, for an objectX ∈M˜, thesynchronicityrelative toX is the mapping ˜η∗
X: ˜O →S1 that
determines the internal-time ˜η∗
X(A) of every domainA∈O˜ relative to X. Law 2 There exists the synchronicityη˜∗
X: ˜O →S1 relative to X∈M˜, that has an action SX∗ : ˜O →R:
˜
η∗X(A) =e−iS
∗
X(A). (10)
FunctionS∗
X satisfies the σ-additivity for disjoint sets {Aα}α∈ΛM(4) and ensemble {Xβ}β∈ΛM(4) such that
Aα∩Aα′ =∅ whenα6=α′ and that ι(Xβ)∩ι(Xβ′) =∅ whenβ 6=β′:
SP∗ βXβ (∪αAα) = X α,β SX∗β(Aα), (11) or, equivalently, ˜ η∗∪αXβ(∪αAα) = Y α,β ˜ ηX∗β(Aα). (12)
Let us introduce the mapping ˜sA(˜η) : ˜M →S1 that relates synchronicities ˜η∗X and ˜ηA:
˜
ηX∗(A) = ˜ηA(X)·˜sA(˜η) (X), (13)
and call it theshadowof A∈O˜ on ˜M. It has a functionRA(˜η) such that
˜
sA(˜η) (X) =e−iRA(˜η)(X). (14)
There is also the mapping ˜s∗
X(˜η∗) :O →S1such that
˜
η∗X(A)·˜s∗X(˜η∗) (A) = ˜ηA(X). (15)
Let us call mapping ˜s∗
X as theshadow ofX ∈M˜ on ˜O.
The following law supplies the condition that objectX ∈M˜ has the actual existence on domainA∈O˜.
Law 3 ObjectX ∈M˜ and domainA∈O˜have actual existence when they satisfy the compatibility condition:
˜
ηX∗(A) = ˜ηA(X). (16)
Compatibility (16) requires the following quantization condition: ˜
or equivalently,
˜
s∗X(˜η∗) (A) = 1, (18)
which quantizes spacetimeM(4) for an objectX
∈M˜. If abstracting a certain objectX ∈M˜, then it allows every domain A ∈ O˜ satisfying (17). If determining a certain domain A, then it allows every object X satisfying (17) to the contrary.
Let us further consider the set DX
A(M) of all the C∞ diffeomorphisms onM such that every element
ϕ∈DX
A(M) satisfiesϕ(x) =xfor anyx6∈A∩ι(X). Every elementϕ∈DXA(M) has its adjointϕ∗: ˜M →M˜
such that
˜
ηA(ϕ∗X) = ˜ηϕ(A)(X) , η˜X(ϕ(A)) = ˜ηϕ∗X(A) . (19)
Adjoint ϕ∗ is the inverseϕ−1 in particle theories or the pull-back ϕ∗ in field theories. For every variation
ϕǫ∈DXA(M) differentiable by parameterǫ∈Rsuch that
lim ǫ→0 dϕǫ dǫ ◦ϕ −1 ǫ =u∈X(M), (20)
let us define the variation of synchronicities as follows:
D i˜ηA(X)−1δ˜ηA(X), u E = i˜ηA(X)−1 d dǫ ǫ=0 ˜ ηA(ϕ∗ǫX) = i˜ηA(X)−1 d dǫ ǫ=0η˜ϕǫ(A)(X) , (21) D i˜ηX∗ (A) −1 δη˜∗X(A), u E = i˜η∗X(A) −1 d dǫ ǫ=0η˜∗X(ϕǫ(A)) = i˜η∗X(A) −1 d dǫ ǫ=0η˜∗ϕ∗ ǫX(A) , (22)
where h , i: Λ1(M)×X(M)→R is the natural pairing between a 1-form and a vector field on M. It
obeys the following law.
Law 4 ObjectX ∈M˜ and domainA∈O˜ satisfy the variational principle:
δ˜ηA(X) = 0 , δ˜η∗X(A) = 0. (23)
Thus, Law 4 keeps Law 3 under the above variation. The relations of (23) for the synchronicities also satisfy the following relations for the shadows:
δ˜sA(˜η) (X) = 0 , δ˜s∗X(˜η∗) (A) = 0. (24)
The first equation of (23) and that of (24) prove the equations of motion in the next section.
Now, we will consider the mapping P : T → O˜ for the external-time T ⊂ R and a subset ˜MP ⊂M˜.
DomainP(t) and its boundary∂P(t) =P(t)\ P(t) represent thepast and thepresentat timet∈T, where Ais the closure ofA∈O˜; and it satisfies the following conditions.
1. (Ordering) For everyX ∈M˜P,t1< t2∈T ⇒ P(t1)∩ι(X)⊂ P(t2)∩ι(X).
2. (Causality) For everyX ∈M˜P, the present∂P(t)∩ι(X) is a spacelike hypersurface inM(4) for every
The uncertainty on the future reflects the fact that X and X′ ∈ M˜P having the different futures are
indistinguishable in the following sense for a pastP(t): ˜
ηP(t)(X) = ˜ηP(t)(X′). (25)
On the other hand, the uncertainty on the far place beyond the basic domainι(X)⊂M(4) of an objectX
represents thatP(t) andP(t)′, satisfying
P(t)∩ι(X) =P(t)′
∩ι(X), are indistinguishable in the following sense:
˜
η∗X(P(t)) = ˜ηX∗ (P(t)′). (26)
ObjectX emerges into the world at timet∈T when it satisfies ˜
sP(t)(˜η) (X) = 1. (27)
This condition of the emergence descretizes the time in Whitehead’s philosophy [12] discussed in Section 8.
3
Foundation of Protomechanics
Let us consider the development of present∂P(t) for timeT = (ti, tf)⊂R. Assume that present∂P(t) is
diffeomorphic to a three dimensional manifoldM(3) by a diffeomorphismσ
t:M(3)→∂P(t) for everyt∈T.
It induce a corresponding mapping ˜σt: ˜MP →M for the spaceM that is three-dimensional physical space
M(3) for particle theories or the space M = Ψ(M(3), V) of all the C∞-fields over M(3) for field theories.
For particle theories, mapping ˜σt is defined as ˜σt(l) =σt−1 l∩σt(M(3))for a curvel ∈ C(M(4)). For field
theories, it is defined as ˜σt(ψ(4)) =ψ(4)◦σtfor a fieldψ(4) ∈M(4).
For mathematical simplicity, let us assume that spaceM is aC∞manifold endowed with an appropriate
topology and the induced topologicalσ-algebra.5 To add a one-dimensional cyclic freedomS1at each point
ofM introduces the trivialS1-fiber bundleE(M) overM.6 FiberS1represents theinternal-timeintroduced
in the previous section, being an intrinsic clock of a particle or a field, which is located at every point onM. For the canonical projections ˆπ:E(M)→M andπ:T∗M
→M, let us define thealmost global sectionand
almost 1-form as generalization of that ofglobal sectionas follows. Let us denote the space Γ [E(M)] of all theC∞sections ofE(M), where a section ˜ηofE(M) is a one-to-one mapping ˜η: ˜M
\A→E(M) satisfying ˆ
π◦η˜=id..
For past P(t) such that ∂P(t) = σt(M(3)), section ηt ∈ Γ [E(M)] has a synchronicity ˜ηP(t) such that
every initial positionx0∈M has an objectX∈M˜P satisfying the following relation forxt= ˜σt(X):
ηt(xt) = ˜ηP(t)(X). (28)
We will also callηt as the synchronicity overM. To introduce the LagrangianLT Mt :T M →Ras
SP(tf)(X) = ¯h −1Z tf ti dt LT Mt xt, dxt dt (29) leads to the following equation of motion:
d dtηt(xt) =−ih¯ −1LT M t xt, dxt dt ηt(xt). (30)
5 M is assumed as an ILH-manifold modeled by the Hilbert space endowed with an inverse-limit topology (consult [10]). 6The introduced freedom wouldnotrepresent what is corresponding to thelocal clockin Weyl’s sense or thefifth-dimension in Kaluza’s sense [11] for the four-dimensional spacetime M(4). To consider such freedom, M(4) would be extended to the principal fiber-bundle overM(4)with aN-dimensional special unitary groupSU(N).
This equation characterizes the meaning of the Lagrangian as the speed of the internal-time. Since relation (30) is valid for every initial conditions of positionxt ∈M, it determines the time-development of present
ηtin the following way for the Lie derivativeLvt by the vector fieldvt∈X(M) such thatvt(xt) = dxt
dt.
Lvtηt(x) =−ih¯ −1LT M
t (x, vt(x))ηt(x) (31)
In addition, Law 4 proves the Euler-Lagrange equation: ∂LT M t ∂xj (xt,x˙t)− d dt ∂LT M t ∂x˙j (xt,x˙t) = 0, (32) which leads to dLT M t (x, vt(x))− Lvt ∂LT M t ∂v (x, vt(x)) = 0. (33) Let us now consider the mappingp: Γ[E(M)]→Λ1(M) satisfying the following relation:
p(ηt) =−i¯hηt−1dηt, (34)
which is themodified Einstein-de Broglie relationp=h/λfor Planck’s constanth= 2π¯hand wave number λin quantum mechanics. If the HamiltonianHtis defined as
Ht=i¯hηt−1
∂ηt
∂t , (35)
condition (31) satisfies the following relation:
Ht(x) =vt(x)·p(ηt) (x)−LT Mt (x, vt(x)). (36)
Euler-Lagrange equation (33) leads to the following relation by definition (28): p(ηt) (x) =
∂LT M t
∂v (x, vt(x)). (37)
Thus, relation (36) gives the Legendre transformation and introduces HamiltonianHT∗M
t as the function on
cotangent spaceT∗M such that
Ht(x) =HT
∗M
t (x, p(ηt) (x)). (38)
This satisfies the first equation of Hamilton’s canonical equations of motion: vt(x) = ∂HT∗M t ∂p (x, p(ηt) (x)). (39) Solvability∂ ∂t, d
= 0 further leads to the second equation of Hamilton’s canonical equations of motion: ∂
∂tp(ηt) (x) =−dH
T∗M
t (x, p(ηt) (x)), (40)
which is equivalent to equation (33) of motion under condition (37). If LagrangianLT M
t satisfies
∂LT M t
∂t = 0, (41)
then equation set (39) and (40) proves the conservation of energy:
LvtH T∗M
On the other hand, section st(ηt) ∈Γ [E(M)] has the shadow ˜sP(t)(˜η) such that every initial position
x0∈M has an objectX ∈M˜P satisfying the following relation:
st(ηt)(xt) = ˜sP(t)(˜η) (X). (43)
Condition (27) of emergence or quantization now has the following form:
st(ηt) (xt) = 1, (44)
when synchronicityηtcomes across the synchronicity ηt∗=ηt·st(ηt) at positionxt∈M. We will also call
st(ηt) as the shadow overM. Let us introduce the functionTt(ηt)T M :T M →Ras
RP(t)(˜η) (X) = ¯h−1 Z t ti dt Tt(ηt)T M xt, dxt dt , (45)
which leads to the following equation: d dtst(ηt)(xt) =−i¯h −1T t(ηt)T M xt,dxt dt st(ηt)(xt). (46)
Since relation (46) is valid for every initial conditions of positionxt∈M, it determines the time-development
of shadow st(ηt) in the following way for the Lie derivative Lvt by the vector field vt ∈ X(M) such that
vt(xt) = dxdtt.
Lvtst(ηt)(x) =−i¯h −1T
t(ηt)T M(x, vt(x))st(ηt)(x). (47)
Law 4 proves the Euler-Lagrange equation: ∂TT M t (ηt) ∂xj (xt,x˙t)− d dt ∂TT M t (ηt) ∂x˙j (xt,x˙t) = 0, (48) which leads to dTtT M(ηt) (x, vt(x))− Lvt ∂TT M t (ηt) ∂v (x, vt(x)) = 0. (49) In stead of Hamiltonian for the synchronicity, we will consider the emergence-frequencyft(ηt) :M →R
such that
2π¯hft(ηt) =i¯hst(ηt)−1∂st(ηt)
∂t , (50)
which represents the frequency that a particle or a field emerges into the world. Condition (47) satisfies the following relation:
2π¯hft(ηt) (x) =vt(x)·p(st(ηt)) (x)−Tt(ηt)T M(x, vt(x)). (51)
Euler-Lagrange equation (49) leads to the following relation by definition (45): p(st(ηt)) (x) =
∂Tt(ηt)T M
∂v (x, vt(x)). (52)
Thus, relation (51) is the Legendre transformation such that emergence-frequencyft(ηt) has the following
functionFt(ηt)T ∗M onT∗M: Ft(ηt)T ∗M (x, p(st(ηt)) (x)). (53)
Relation (51) and solvability∂ ∂t, d
= 0 leads to the equations of motion: vt(x) = ∂Ft(ηt)T ∗M ∂p (x, p(st(ηt)) (x)), (54) ∂ ∂tp(st(ηt)) (x) = −dFt(ηt) T∗M (x, p(st(ηt)) (x)), (55)
which is equivalent to equation (49) of motion under condition (52), and that must be compatible with the equations (39) and (40) of motion. Assume
∂Tt(ηt)T M
∂t = 0, (56)
then equation set (54) and (55) proves the conservation of emergence-frequency:
Lvtft(ηt) = 0. (57)
Notice that emergence-frequency ft(ηt) can be negative as well as positive, and that it would make the
central part of the square amplitude of the wave function in quantum mechanics.
In addition, the probability measure ˜ν on ˜MP induces the probability measure νt onM at time t∈T
such that
νt◦σ˜t= ˜ν, (58)
that represents the ignorance of the initial position inM; thereby it satisfies the conservation law: d
dtdνt(xt) = 0, (59)
wherext= ˜σt(X). This relation can be described by using the Lie derivativeLvt as
Lvtdνt= 0. (60)
Define theemergence measureµt(ηt) as the product of the probability measure with the emergence-frequency:
dµt(ηt) =dνt·ft(ηt). (61)
Thus, we will obtain the following equation of motion for emergence measuredµt(ηt):
Lvtdµt(ηt) = 0. (62)
We can summarize the obtained mechanics or protomechanics based on equations (31) and (62) of motion with relations (36) and (39) in the following theorem that this section proved.
Theorem 1 (Protomechanics) Hamiltonian HT∗M
t : T∗M →R defines the velocity field vt ∈ X(M) and
LagrangianLT M t :T M →Ras follows: vt = ∂HT∗M t ∂p (p(ηt)) (63) LT Mt (x, v(x)) = v(x)·p(ηt) (x)−HT ∗M t (x, p(ηt) (x)), (64)
where mappingp: Γ[E(M)]→Λ1(M)satisfies the modified Einstein-de Broglie relation:
p(ηt) =−i¯hηt−1dηt. (65)
The equation of motion is the set of the following equations: Lvtηt(x) = −i¯h
−1LT M
t (x, vt(x))ηt(x), (66)
Lvtdµt(ηt) = 0. (67)
4
DYNAMICAL CONSTRUCTION OF PROTOMECHANICS
Let us express the introduced protomechanics in the statistical way for the ensemble of all the synchronicities, and construct the dynamical description for the collective motion of the sections ofE(M).
4.1
Description of Statistical-State
The derivative operator D = ¯hdxj∂
j : T0m(M) → T0m+1(M) (m ∈ N) for the space T0n(M) of all the
(0, n)-tensors onM can be described as Dnp(x) = ¯hn n Y k=1 ∂jkpj(x) ! dxj ⊗ ⊗n k=1dxjk . (68)
By utilizing this derivative operatorD, the following Banach norm endows the space Γ [E(M)] of all theC∞
sections ofE(M) with a norm topology for the familyOΓ(E(M)) of the induced open balls:
kp(η)k= sup M X κ∈Z≥0 ¯ hκ|Dκp(η)(x)|g, (69)
where the metric (2,0)-tensorg=gij∂
i⊗∂j ∈T02(M) on M gives |Dκp(x)|g= ¯h κ v u u tgij κ Y k=1 gikjk(∂i kp(η)i) (∂jkp(η)j) (x). (70)
In terms of the corresponding norm topology on Λ1(M),7we can consider the spaceC∞ Λ1(M), C∞(M)
of all theC∞-differentiable mapping from Λ1(M) toC∞(M) =C∞(M,R) and the subspaces of the space
C(Γ[E(M)]) such that
C(Γ [E(M)]) =p∗F : Γ [E(M)]
→C∞(M)
|F∈C∞ Λ1(M), C∞(M) . (71)
Classical mechanics requires the local dependence on the momentum for functionals, while quantum mechan-ics needs the wider class of functions that depends on their derivatives. The space of the classical functionals and that of the quantum functionals are defined as
Ccl(Γ [E(M)]) =
n
p∗F∈C(Γ [E(M)]) p∗F(η) (x) =FT∗M(x, p(η)(x)) o (72) Cq (Γ [E(M)]) = p∗F ∈C(Γ [E(M)]) p∗F(η) (x) =FQ(x, p(η)(x), ..., Dnp(η)(x), ...) , (73)
and related with each other as
Ccl(Γ [E(M)])⊂Cq(Γ [E(M)])⊂C(Γ [E(M)]). (74)
In other words, the classical-limit indicates the limit of ¯h→0 with fixing|p(η)(x)|finite at everyx∈M, or what the characteristic length [x] and momentum [p] such that x/[x]≈1 andp/[p]≈1 satisfies
[p]−n−1Dnp(η)(x)≪1. (75) In addition, then-th semi-classical system can have the following functional space:
Cn+1(Γ [E(M)]) ={p∗F ∈C(Γ [E(M)]) |p∗F(η) (x) =F<n>(x, p(η)(x), ..., Dnp(η)(x)) }. (76)
Thus, there is the increasing series of subsets as
C1(Γ [E(M)])...⊂Cn(Γ [E(M)])...⊂C∞(Γ [E(M)])⊂C(Γ [E(M)]), (77)
7 Assume here that Λ1(M) has the Banach norm such thatkpk= sup
M
P
κ∈Z≥0|D
κp(x)|
whereF<1>=Fcl andF<∞> =Fq:
C1 (Γ [E(M)]) = Ccl(Γ [E(M)]) (78)
C∞(Γ [E(M)]) = Cq (Γ [E(M)]). (79)
On the other hand, the emergence-measureµ(η) has the Radon measure ˜µ(η) for sectionη ∈Γ[E(M)] such that ˜ µ(η) (F(p(η))) = Z M dµ(η)(x)F(p(η)) (x). (80) The introduced norm topology on Γ (E(M)) induces the topologicalσ-algebraB OΓ(E(M)); thereby
mani-fold Γ (E(M)) becomes a measure space having the probability measureMsuch that
M(Γ (E(M))) = 1. (81)
For a subset Cn(Γ (E(M))) ⊂ C(Γ (E(M))), an element ¯µ ∈ Cn(Γ (E(M)))∗ is a linear functional ¯µ :
Cn(Γ [E(M)])→Rsuch that
¯ µ(p∗F) = Z Γ[E(M)] dM(η) ˜µ(η) (F(p(η))) (82) = Z Γ[E(M)] dM(η) Z M dv(x)ρ(η) (x)F(p(η)) (x), (83) where dµ(η) =dv ρ(η). Let us call mapping ρ: Γ[E(M)]→C∞(M) as the emergence-density. The dual
spaces make an decreasing series of subsets (consult [13] in the definition of the Gelfand triplet):
C1(Γ [E(M)])∗⊃...Cn(Γ [E(M)])∗⊃...C∞(Γ [E(M)])∗⊃C(Γ [E(M)])∗. (84)
Thus, relation (74) requires the opposite sequence for the dual spaces:
Ccl(Γ (E(M)))∗⊃Cq(Γ (E(M)))∗⊃C(Γ (E(M)))∗. (85)
Let us summarize how the present theory includes both quantum mechanics and classical mechanics in the following diagram, though leaving detail considerations for Section 5 and Section 6, respectively.
Cq(Γ) Ccl(Γ) Cq(Γ)∗ Ccl(Γ)∗. ←−dual−→ ←−dual−→ ↑ classical-limit | ↑ classical-limit | | quantization ↓ | quantization ↓
4.2
Description of Time-Development
The groupD(M) of all theC∞-diffeomorphisms ofM and the abelian groupC∞(M) of all theC∞-functions
onM construct the semidirect product S(M) =D(M)×semi.C∞(M) of D(M) withC∞(M), and define
the multiplication·between Φ1= (ϕ1, s1) and Φ2= (ϕ2, s2)∈S(M) as
Φ1·Φ2= (ϕ1◦ϕ2,(ϕ∗2s1)·s2), (86)
for the pullback ϕ∗ by ϕ ∈ D(M). The Lie algebra s(M) of S(M) has the Lie bracket such that, for
V1= (v1, U1) andV2= (v2, U2)∈s(M),
[V1, V2] = ([v1, v2], v1U2−v2U1+ [U1, U2]) ; (87)
and its dual spaces(M)∗is defined by natural pairing
h, i. Lie groupS(M) now acts on everyC∞section
ofE(M) (consultAPPENDIX B). We shall further introduce the groupQ(M) =M ap(Γ [E(M)], S(M)) of all the mapping from Γ [E(M)] intoS(M), that has the Lie algebraq(M) =M ap(Γ [E(M)], s(M)) and its dual spaceq(M)∗=M ap(Γ [E(M)], s(M)∗).
To investigate the group structure of the system considered, let us further define the emergence-momentum
J ∈q(M)∗ as follows:
J (η) =dM(η) (˜µ(η)⊗p(η),µ˜(η)). (88) Thus, the functionalF:q(M)∗→Rcan always be defined as
F(J) = ¯µ(p∗F). (89) On the other hand, the derivative DρF(p) can be introduced as follows excepting the point where the
distributionρbecomes zero:
DρF(p) (x) = X (n1,...,nN)∈NN 1 ρ(x) N Y i (−∂i)ni ρ(x)p(x) ∂F ∂nQNi ∂ni i pj o ∂j. (90)
Then, operator ˆF(η) = ∂∂FJ (J(η)) is defined as d dǫ ǫ=0F(J +ǫK) = D K,FˆE, (91) i.e., ˆ F(η) = Dρ(η)F(p(η)),−p(η)· Dρ(η)F(p(η)) +F(p(η)) ; (92)
thereby, the following null-lagrangian relation can be obtained:
F(J) =hJ,Fˆi. (93)
Let us consider the time-development of the section ητ
t(η) ∈ Γ[E(M)] such that the labeling time τ
satisfiesητ
τ(η) =η. It has the momentumpτt(η) =−i¯hηtτ(η)−1dηtτ(η) and the emergence-measureµτt(η) such
that dM(η) ˜µτt(η) =dM(ητt(η)) ˜µt(ητt(η)) : (94) ¯ µt(p∗Ft) = Z Γ[E(M)] dM(η) ˜µt(η) (p∗Ft(η)) (95) = Z Γ[E(M)] dM(η) ˜µτt(η) (p∗F(ητt(η))) (96) = Z Γ[E(M)] dM(η) Z M dv(x)ρτt(η)(x)Ft(pτt(η)) (x). (97)
The introduced labeling timeτ can always be chosen such thatητt(η) does not have any singularity within
a short time for everyη∈Γ [E(M)]. The emergence-momentumJτ
t ∈q(M) ∗ such that Jτ t(η) = Jt(ητt(η)) (98) = dM(ηtτ(η)) (˜µt(ηtτ(η))⊗pτt(η),µ˜t(ητt(η))) (99) = dM(η) (˜µτt (η)⊗pτt(η),µ˜τt(η)) (100)
satisfies the following relation for the functionalFt:q(M)∗→R:
Ft(Jtτ) =µt(p∗Ft), (101)
whose value is independent of labeling timeτ. The operator ˆFτ
t =∂∂FJt(Jtτ) is defined as d dǫ ǫ=0Ft(Jtτ+ǫK) = D K,Fˆtτ E , (102) i.e., ˆ Ftτ = Dρτ t(η)Ft(p τ t(η)),−pτt(η)· Dρτ t(η)Ft(p τ t(η)) +Ft(pτt(η)) . (103)
Thus, the following null-lagrangian relation can be obtained:
Ft(Jtτ) =hJtτ,Fˆtτi, (104)
while the normalization condition has the following expression:
I(Jtτ) = 1 f or I(Jtτ) =
Z
Γ[E(M)]
dM(η)µt(η)(M). (105)
Theorem 2 For Hamiltonian operatorHˆτ
t =∂∂HJt (Jtτ)∈q(M)corresponding to Hamiltonianp∗Ht(η) (x) =
HT∗M
t (x, p(η)), equations (31) and (62) of motion becomes Lie-Poisson equation
∂Jτ t ∂t =ad ∗ ˆ Hτ tJ τ t , (106)
which can be expressed as
∂ ∂tρ τ t(η)(x) =−√ −1 ∂j ∂HT∗M t ∂ pj (x, p τ t(η) (x))ρτt(η)(x)√ , (107) ∂ ∂t(ρ τ t(η)(x)pτtk(η)(x)) = −√− 1 ∂j ∂HT∗M t ∂ pj (x, pτt(η) (x))ρτt(η)(x)pτtk(η)(x)√ −ρτt(η)(x)pτtj(η)(x)∂k∂H T∗M t ∂ pj (x, pτt(η) (x)) +ρτt(η)(x)∂k pτt(η)(x)· ∂HT∗M t ∂ p (x, p τ t(η) (x))−HT ∗M t (x, pτt(η)(x)) . (108)
Proof. Lie-Poisson equation (106) is calculated forDHτ
t(η) =Dρτ t(η)Ht(p τ t(η))as follows: ∂ ∂tρ τ t(η)(x) =−√ −1 ∂j DjHtτ(η)(x)ρτt(η)(x)√ , (109)
∂ ∂t(ρ τ t(η)(x)pτtk(η)(x)) = −√− 1 ∂j DjHtτ(η)(x)ρτt(η)(x)pτtk(η)(x)√ −ρτt(η)(x)pτtj(η)(x)∂kDjHtτ(η)(x) +ρtτ(η)(x)∂k(pτt(η)(x)· DHtτ(η)(x)−Ht(pτt(η)) (x)), (110) wheredv=dx1 ∧...dxN √and√=pdet
|gjk|for the local coordinatex= x1, x2, ..., xN. Second equation
(110) can be rewritten in conjunction with the conservation (109) of the emergence-density as
∂ ∂tp τ tk(η)(x) +DjHtτ(η)(x)∂jpτtk(η)(x) +ptjτ(η)(x)∂kDjHtτ(η)(x) =∂kLτt(η)(x), (111) where Lτ t(η)(x) =pτt(η)(x)· DHtτ(η)(x)−Ht(pτt(η)) (x), (112)
or, by using Lie derivatives,
LDHτ t(η) p
τ
t(η) =dLτt(η). (113)
Thus, we can obtain the equation of motion in the following simpler form by using Lie derivatives: LDHτ t(η) η τ t = −i¯hLτt(η)ηtτ (114) LDHτ t(η) ρ τ t(η)dv = 0, (115)
which is equivalent to the equations (31) and (62) when p∗H
t(η) (x) =HT
∗
M
t (x, p(η))
Equation (106) will prove in the following two sections to include the Schr¨odinger equation in canonical quantum mechanics and the classical Liouville equations in classical mechanics.
ForUτ t ∈Q(M) such that ∂Uτ t ∂t ◦(U τ t) −1 = ˆHτ
t(η)∈q(M), let us introduce the following operators:
˜ Htτ(η) =Ad−Uτ1 t ˆ Htτ(η) = ˆHtτ(η) , and F˜tτ(η) =Ad−Uτ1 t ˆ Ftτ(η). (116)
It satisfies the following theorem.
Theorem 3 Lie-Poisson equation (106) is equivalent to the following equation:
∂ ∂tF˜ τ t = h ˜ Htτ,F˜tτ i + g ∂Fτ t ∂t . (117)
Proof. Equation (106) of motion concludes the following equation:
∂Jτ t ∂t ,Fˆ τ t =Dad∗Hˆτ tJ τ t,Fˆtτ E . (118)
The left hand side can be calculated as
L.H.S. = d dtFt(J τ t)− ∂Ft ∂t (J τ t) (119) = ∂ ∂tAd ∗ Uτ tJ τ τ ,Fˆτ t − * Ad∗ Uτ tJ τ τ, ˆ ∂Fτ t ∂t + (120) = Jττ, ∂ ∂tF˜ τ t − * Jττ, ˜ ∂Fτ t ∂t + ; (121)
and the right hand side becomes R.H.S. = Dad∗Hˆτ tAd ∗ Uτ tJ τ t ,Fˆtτ E (122) = DAd∗ Uτ tad ∗ ˜ Hτ tJ τ t ,Fˆtτ E (123) = DJτ t, h ˜ Hτ t,F˜tτ iE . (124)
Thus, we can obtain this theorem.
The general theory for Lie-Poisson systems certificates that, if a group action of Lie groupQ(M) keeps the HamiltonianHt:q(M)∗→Rinvariant, there exists an invariant charge functional Q: Γ [E(M)]→C(M)
and the induced functionQ:q(M)∗
→Rsuch that h ˆ Ht,Qˆ i = 0, (125) where ˆQis expressed as ˆ Q= Dρ(η)Q(p(η)),−p(η)· Dρ(η)Q(p(η)) +Q(p(η)). (126)
5
DEDUCTION OF CLASSICAL MECHANICS
In classical Hamiltonian mechanics, the state of a particle on manifoldM can be represented as a position in the cotangent bundleT∗M. In this section, we will reproduce the classical equation of motion from the
general theory presented in the previous section. Let us here concentrate ourselves on the case whereM is N-dimensional manifold for simplicity, though the discussion below would still be valid if substituting an appropriate Hilbert space whenM is infinite-dimensional ILH-manifold[10].
5.1
Description of Statistical State
Now, we must be concentrated on the case where the physical functional F ∈ C∞ Λ1(M), C∞(M) does notdepend on the derivatives of theC∞ 1-formp(η)
∈Λ1(M) induced fromη
∈Γ [E(M)], then it has the following expression:
p∗F(η) (x) =FT∗M(x, p(η) (x)). (127) Let us choose a coordinate system (Uα,xα)α∈ΛM for a covering{Uα}α∈ΛM overM, i.e.,M =Sα∈ΛMUα.
Let us further choose a reference setU ⊂Uαsuch thatv(U)6= 0 and consider the set ΓUk[E(M)] of theC∞
sections ofE(M) having corresponding momentump(η) the supremum of whose every componentpj(η) in
U becomes the valuekj fork= (k1, ..., kN)∈RN:8
ΓUk[E(M)] = η∈Γ [E(M)] supU pj(η) (x) = ¯hkj . (128)
Thus, every section η ∈ Γ [E(M)] has some k ∈ RN such that η = η[k] ∈ ΓUk[E(M)]. Notice that
ΓUk[E(M)] can be identified with ΓU′k[E(M)] for every two reference setsU andU′ ∈M, since there exists
a diffeomorphismϕsatisfyingϕ(U) =U′; thereby, we will simply denote Γ
Uk[E(M)] as Γk[E(M)].
On the other hand, let us consider the spaceL(T∗M) of all the Lagrange foliations, i.e., every element
¯
p∈L(T∗M) is a mapping ¯p:RN
→Λ1(M) such that eachq
∈T∗M has a uniquek ∈RN as q= ¯p[k] (π(q)). (129) 8 To substitute Γ U k[E(M)] = η∈Γ [E(M)] R
Udv(x)pj(η) (x) =kjv(U) for definition (128) also induces the similar
For every ¯p= p◦η¯ ∈ L(T∗M) such that ¯η[k] ∈ Γk[E(M)], it is possible to separate an element η[k] ∈
Γk[E(M)] for aξ∈Γ0[E(M)] as
η[k] = ¯η[k]·ξ, (130)
or to separate momentump(η[k]) as
p(η[k]) = ¯p[k] +p(ξ) ; (131) thereby, we can express the emergence-densityρ: Γ[E(M)]→C∞(M) in the following form for the function
̺(ξ)∈C∞(T∗M,R) on T∗M:
ρ(η[k]) (x)√=̺(ξ) (x, p(η[k]) (x)). (132) We call the set B[E(M)] = Γ0[E(M)] the back ground of L(T∗M). For the Jacobian-determinant
σ[k] = det∂p¯τti[k] ∂kj
, we will define the measure N on B[E(M)] for the σ-algebra induced from that of Γ [E(M)]:
dM(η[k]) dv(x) =dNkdN(ξ)dv(x)σ[k](x). (133) For separation (131), the Radon measure ˜µ(η) induces the measureωN onT∗M in the following lemma such
thatωN =φ Uα∗d Nx ∧dNkfordNx=dx1 ∧...dxN anddNk=dk1 ∧...dkN. Lemma 1 The following relation holds:
¯ µ(p∗F) = Z T∗M ωN(q) ρT∗M(q)FT∗M(q), (134) where ρT∗M(q) = Z B[E(M)] dN(ξ) ̺(ξ) (q). (135)
Proof. The direct calculation based on separation (131) shows
¯ µ(p∗F) = Z Γ[E(M)] dM(η) ˜µ(η) (p∗F(η)) = Z Γ[E(M)] dM(η[k]) Z M dv(x)̺(ξ) (x, p(η[k]) (x))FT∗M(x, p(η[k]) (x)) = Z RN dNk Z B[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z M dv(x)σ[k](x) ×̺(ξ) (x, p(η[k]) (x))FT∗M(x, p(η[k]) (x)) = Z RN dNk Z B[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z M dv(x)σ[k](x) ×̺(ξ) (x,p[k](x) +¯ p(ξ) (x))FT∗M (x,p[k](x) +¯ p(ξ) (x)) (136) = Z B[E(M)] dN(ξ) X α∈ΛM Z φUα(Aα) dNk ∧dNx φ∗ Uα̺(ξ) (x, k)φ ∗ UαF T∗M (x, k) = Z B[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z T∗M ωN(q) ̺(ξ) (q)FT∗M(q), (137) whereT∗M =S
α∈ΛMAα is the disjoint union of Aα ∈ B(OT∗M) such that (1) π(Aα)⊂Uα and that (2)
Aα∩Aβ =∅ for α6=β ∈ΛM (consult APPENDIX A).
If defining the probability function ρT∗M :T∗M →R such that
ρT∗M
(q) =
Z
B[E(M)]
dN(ξ) ̺(ξ) (q), (138)
5.2
Description of Time-Development
Let us consider the time-development of the functional ¯µt:C1(Γ (M), C(M))→Rfor pτt(η[k]) = ¯pτt[k] +
p(ξ). For the Jacobian-determinantστ
t[k] =det
∂p¯τ
ti[k] ∂kj
, the following relation holds: ¯ µt(p∗Ft) = Z T∗M ωN(q)ρTt∗M(q)FT ∗M (q) (139) = Z RN dNk Z M dv(x) ¯ρτt[k](x)FT ∗M (x,p¯τt[k](x)), (140) where ¯ ρτt[k](x)√=στt[k](x)ρT ∗M (x,p¯τt[k](x)). (141) The Jacobian-determinantστ
t[k] satisfies the following relation:
dM(ηtτ(η))
dM(η) = σtτ[k]
σ[k] . (142)
Thus, we can define the reduced emergence-momentum ¯Jt∈q¯(M)∗=q(M)∗/B[E(M)] as follows:
¯
Jt(¯η[k]) = dNk ∧dvρ¯τt[k]⊗p¯τt[k], dNk ∧dv ρ¯τt[k]
; (143)
and we can define the functional ¯Ft∈C∞ q¯(M)∗,Ras
¯ Ft J¯t = µ¯t(p∗Ft) (144) = Z RN dNk Z M dv(x) ¯ρτt[k](x)FT ∗M t (x,p¯τt[k](x)), (145)
which is independent of labeling timeτ. Then, the operator ˆFcl
t = ∂ ¯ Ft ∂J¯ J¯t satisfies ˆ Ftcl= ∂FT∗M t ∂p (x,p¯ τ t[k](x)),−LF T∗M t x,∂F T∗M t ∂p (x,p¯ τ t[k](x)) , (146) where LFT ∗M t x,∂F T∗M t ∂p (x, p) =p·∂F T∗M t ∂p (x, p)−F T∗M t (x, p) (147)
is the Lagrangian if function Ft is Hamiltonian Ht. Thus, the following null-lagrangian relation can be
obtained:9
¯
Ft J¯t=hJ¯t,Fˆtcli. (148)
Besides, the normalization condition becomes ¯ I J¯t= 1 f or I¯ J¯t= Z RN dNk Z M dv(x) ¯ρτ t[k](x). (149)
Theorem 4 For Hamiltonian operatorHˆt= ∂∂HJ¯t J¯t∈q¯(M), the equation of motion becomes Lie-Poisson
equation: ∂J¯t ∂t =ad ∗ ˆ Hcl t ¯ Jt, (150)
9 The Lagrangian corresponding to this Lie-Poisson system ishJ¯t,Hˆcl
t i − Ht J¯t, while the usual Lagrangian isLH T∗M
that is calculated as follows: ∂ ∂tρ¯ τ t[k](x) =−√− 1 ∂j ∂HT∗M t ∂pj (x,p¯τt[k](x)) ¯ρτt[k](x)√ , (151) ∂ ∂t(¯ρ τ t[k](x)¯pτtk[k](x)) = −√− 1 ∂j ∂HT∗M t ∂pj (x,p¯τt[k](x)) ¯ρτt[k](x)¯pτtk[k](x)√ −ρ¯τt[k](x)¯pτtj[k](x)∂k ∂HT∗M t ∂pj (x,p¯τt[k](x)) + ¯ρτ t[k](x)∂kLH T∗M t (x,p¯τ t[k](x)). (152)
Proof. The above equation can be obtained from the integration of general equations (109) and (110) on the spaceΓU0; thereby, it proves the reduced equation from original Lie-Poisson equation (106).
As a most important result, the following theorem shows that Lie-Poisson equation (150), or the set of equations (151) and (152), actually represents the classical Liouville equation.
Theorem 5 Lie-Poisson equation (150) is equivalent to the classical Liouville equation for the probability density function (PDF) ρT∗M
t ∈C∞(T∗M,R)of a particle on cotangent space T∗M:
∂ ∂tρ T∗M t ={ρT ∗M t , HT ∗M }, (153)
where the Poisson bracket { , } is defined for every A,B∈C∞(M)as {A, B}= ∂A ∂pj ∂B ∂xj − ∂B ∂pj ∂A ∂xj. (154)
Proof. Classical equation (153) is equivalent to the canonical equations of motion through the local expression such thatφUα(qt) = (xt, pt)for the bundle mapping φUα:π
−1(U α)→Uα×RN: dpjt dt =− ∂HT∗M ∂xj (xt, pt) dxjt dt = ∂HT∗M ∂pj (xt, pt). (155)
If qt= (xt,p¯τt[k](xt))satisfies canonical equations of motion (155), the above equation of motion induces
∂p¯τ tk ∂t [k](x) =− ∂HT∗M ∂xk (x,p¯ τ t[k](x))− ∂HT∗M ∂pj (x,p¯ τ t[k](x))∂jp¯τtk[k](x), (156)
then relation (141) satisfies the following equation:
∂ ∂tρ¯ τ t[k](x) = √− 1 ∂j στt[k](x) ∂HT∗M ∂pj (x,p¯τt[k](x)) ρTt∗M(x,p¯τt[k](x)) +√−1στt[k](x) ∂ρT∗M t ∂t (x,p¯ τ t[k](x)) −√−1σtτ[k](x) ∂HT∗M ∂xj (x,p¯ τ t[k](x)) ∂ρT∗M t ∂pj (x,p¯ τ t[k](x)) −√−1σtτ[k](x) ∂HT∗M ∂pj (x,p¯τt[k](x)) ×∂jp¯tk[k](x)∂ρ T∗M t ∂pk (x,p¯ τ t[k](x)) = −√−1∂j ∂HT∗M ∂pj (x,p¯τ t[k](x))ρτt[k](x)√ . (157)
Equations (156) and (157) lead to the following equation: ∂ ∂t{ρ¯ τ t[k](x)¯pτtk[k](x)} = −p¯tk[k](x)√−1∂j ∂HT∗M ∂pj (x,p¯τ t[k](x)) ¯ρτt[k](x)√ −ρ¯τt[k](x) ∂HT∗M ∂xk (x,p¯ τ t[k](x)) −ρ¯τt[k](x) ∂HT∗M ∂pj (x,p¯τt[k](x))∂jp¯τtk[k](x) = −√−1∂j ∂HT∗M ∂pj (x,p¯τt[k](x)) ¯ρτt[k](x)¯pτtk[k](x)√ −ρ¯τt[k](x) ¯ pτtj[k](x)∂k ∂HT∗M ∂pj (x,p¯τt[k](x)) +∂kLH(x,p¯τt[k](x)) . (158)
Equations (157) and (158) are equivalent to equations (151) and (152); thereby, canonical equation (153) is equivalent to Lie-Poisson equation (150).
The above discussion has a special example of the following Hamiltonian:
HtT∗M(x, p) =gij(x) (pi+Ai) (pj+Aj) +U(x), (159)
where corresponding Hamiltonian operator ˆHtis calculated as
ˆ
Ht[k] = gji(¯pti[k] +Ai)∂j,−gjip¯tj[k]¯pti[k] +gjiAjAi+U; (160)
thereby, equation (150) is described for special Hamiltonian (159) as ∂ ∂t ρ¯ τ t[k](x)¯pτtj[k](x) = −√−1∂igik(x) (¯pτtk[k](x) +Ak(x)) ¯ρτt[k](x)¯pτtj[k](x)√ −ρ¯τt[k](x) ∂jgik(x)p¯τti[k](x)¯pτtk[k](x) − ∂jgik(x)Ak(x)ρ¯τt[k](x)¯pτti[k](x) −ρ¯τt[k](x)∂jU(x) +gik(x)Ai(x)Ak(x) , (161) ∂ ∂tρ¯ τ t[k](x) =− √−1 ∂igik(x) (¯ptk[k](x) +Ak(x)) ¯ρτt[k](x) √ . (162)
For ¯Ut∈Q¯(M) such that ∂
¯
Ut ∂t ◦U¯
−1
t = ˆHtcl∈q¯(M), let us introduce operators
˜
Htcl= Ad−U¯t1Hˆtcl, (163)
˜
Ftcl= Ad−U¯t1Fˆtcl, (164)
which induces the following equation equivalent to equation (150): ∂ ∂tF˜ cl t = h ˜ Htcl,F˜tcl i + g ∂Ft ∂t cl . (165)
This expression of the equations of motion coincides with the following Poisson equation because of Theorem 5: d dtF T∗M t = n HtT∗M, FT ∗M t o +∂F T∗M t ∂t . (166)
As discussed in Section 3, if a group action of Lie groupQ(M) keeps the Hamiltonian ¯Ht : ¯q(M)∗ → R invariant, there exists an invariant charge function QT∗M ∈ C∞(T∗M) and the induced function ¯Q : ¯ q(M)∗ →Rsuch that h ˆ Htcl,Qˆcl i = 0, (167) where ˆQcl is expressed as ˆ Qcl= ∂QT∗M ∂p (x,p¯ τ t[k](x)),−p(η)· ∂QT∗M ∂p (x,p¯ τ t[k](x)) +QT ∗M (x,p¯τt[k](x)) . (168) Relation (167) is equivalent to the following convolution relation:
n
HtT∗M, QT
∗Mo
= 0. (169)
In the argument so far on the dynamical construction of classical mechanics, the introduced infinite-dimensional freedom of the backgroundB[E(M)] seems to be redundant, while they appear as a natural consequence of the general theory on protomechanics discussed in the previous section. In fact, it is really true that one can directly induce classical mechanics as the dynamics of the Lagrange foliations of T∗M
in L(T∗M). In the next section, however, it is observed that we will encounter difficulties without those
freedom if moving onto the dynamical construction of quantum mechanics.
6
DEDUCTION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS
In canonical quantum mechanics, the state of a particle on manifoldM can be represented as a position in the Hilbert spaceH(M) of all theL2-functions overM. In this section, we will reproduce the quantum
equation of motion from the general theory presented in Section 4. Let us here concentrate ourselves on the case where M is N-dimensional manifold for simplicity, though the discussion below is still valid if substituting an appropriate Hilbert space whenM is infinite-dimensional ILH-manifold[10].
6.1
Description of Statistical-State
Now, we must be concentrated on the case where the physical functionalF ∈C∞ Λ1(M), C∞(M)depends
on the derivatives of the 1-form p(η) ∈ Λ1(M) induced from η
∈ Γ [E(M)], then it has the following expression:
p∗F(η) (x) =FQ(x, p(η) (x), Dp(η) (x), ..., Dnp(η) (x), ...). (170)
Let us assume thatM has a finite coveringM =Sα∈ΛMUα for the mathematical simplicity such that
ΛM ={1,2, ...,Λ} for some Λ∈R, and choose a coordinate system (Uα,xα)α∈ΛM. Let us further choose a
reference setU ⊂Uα such thatv(U)6= 0 and consider the set ΓUk¯h [E(M)] of the C∞sections of E(M) for
k= (k1, ..., kN)∈RN such that10 Γh¯Uk[E(M)] = η∈Γ [E(M)] supU pj(η) (x) = ¯hkj . (171)
As in classical mechanics, we will simply denote Γ¯h
Uk[E(M)] as Γ¯hk[E(M)], since Γ¯hUk[E(M)] can be identified
with Γ¯h
U′k[E(M)] for every two reference sets U andU′⊂M.
For every ¯p=p◦η¯∈L(T∗M) such that ¯η[k] ∈Γ¯h
k[E(M)], it is further possible to separate an element
η[k]∈Γ¯h
k[E(M)] for aξ∈Γ¯h0[E(M)] as
η[k] = ¯η[k]·ξ, (172)
10As in classical mechanics, to substitute Γ¯h
U k[E(M)] =
η∈Γ [E(M)] R
Udv(x)pj(x) = ¯hkjv(U) for definition (171)
or to separate momentump(η[k]) as
p(η[k]) = ¯p[k] +p(ξ). (173) The emergence density ρ(η[k]) can have the same expression as the classical one (132) for the function ̺(ξ)∈C∞(T∗M,R) on T∗M sinceC
q(Γ)∗⊂Ccl(Γ)∗:
ρ(η[k]) (x)√=̺(ξ) (x, p(η[k]) (x)), (174) which has only the restricted values if compared with the classical emergence density; it sometimes causes the discrete spectra of the wave-function in canonical quantum mechanics. We call the set Bh¯[E(M)] =
Γ¯h
0[E(M)] as theback groundofL(T∗M) for quantum mechanics. For the measureN onB¯h[E(M)] for
theσ-algebra induced from that of Γ [E(M)]:
dM(η[k]) dv(x) =dNkdN(ξ)dv(x)σ[k](x). (175) Let us next consider the disjoint unionM =Sα∈ΛMAα forAα∈ B OE(M)
such that (1) π(Aα)⊂Uα
and that (2)Aα∩Aβ=∅ forα=6 β ∈ΛM (consult APPENDIX A). Thus, every sectionη∈Γ [E(M)] has
somek∈RN such thatη =η[k]∈Γ¯h
k[E(M)]; and, it will be separated into the product of aξ∈B¯h[E(M)]
and the fixed ¯η[k] =e2i{kjxj+ζ}∈Γ
k[E(M)] that induces one of the Lagrange foliation ¯p=p◦η¯∈L(T∗M):
η[k] = X α∈Aα χAα·e 2i{kjxj+ζ} ·ξ (176) = Y α∈Aα e2i{kjxj+ζ}·ξ χAα , (177)
where the test functionχAα:M →Rsatisfies
χAα(x) = 1 0 at x∈Aα at x /∈Aα (178)
and has the projection propertyχ2
Aα=χAα.
If defining thewindow mapping χ∗
Aα:C
∞(M)→L1 RNfor any f ∈C∞(M) such that
χ∗Aαf(x) = ϕ∗ αf(x) 0 at x∈ϕα(Aα) at x∈/ϕα(Aα), (179)
we canlocallytransform the functionρ[k] (ξ) =σ[k]ρ(η[k])√into Fourier coefficients as follows: χ∗Aαρ[k] (ξ) (x) = Z RN dNk′ ̺˜α(ξ) 2k+k′ 2 , 2k−k′ 2 eik′xj , (180)
where introduced function ˜̺αshould satisfies
˜
̺α(ξ) (k, k′)∗= ˜̺α(ξ) (k′, k), (181)
for the valueρ[k] (ξ) (x) is real at everyx∈M; thereby, the collective expression gives ρ[k] (ξ) = X α∈Aα χAα· Z RN dNk′ ̺˜α(ξ) 2k+k′ 2 , 2k−k′ 2 eik′xj (182) = Z RN dNk′ ̺˜(ξ) 2k+k′ 2 , 2k−k′ 2 ·η k−k ′ 2 −1 2 η k+k ′ 2 1 2 , (183)
where ˜ ̺(ξ) 2k+k′ 2 , 2k−k′ 2 = Y α∈Aα ˜ ̺α(ξ) 2k+k′ 2 , 2k−k′ 2 χAα . (184)
Let us introduce the ketvector|kiand bravectorhk|such that
|ki= Y
α∈ΛM
|k, αi , hk|= Y
α∈ΛM
hk, α|, (185)
where the local vectors|k, αiandhk, α|satisfy
hx|k, αi=e2i{kjxj+ζ}χAα√−12 , hk, α|xi=e2i{−kjxj+ζ}χAα√−12. (186)
We can define the Hilbert spaceH(M) of all the vectors that can be expressed as a linear combination of vectors{|ki}k∈R. Now, let us construct thedensity matrixin the following definition.
Definition 1 The density matrixρˆis an operator such that
ˆ ρ = Z B¯h[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z RN dNn Z RN dNn′ ̺(ξ) (n, n˜ ′) ξ12|ni hn′|ξ− 1 2 (187) = Z B¯h[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z RN dNk ρ[k] (ξ)ˆ , (188) where ˆ ρ[k] (ξ) = Z RN dNk′ ̺(ξ)˜ k+k ′ 2, k− k′ 2 ξ12 k+k ′ 2 k− k′ 2 ξ− 1 2. (189)
LetO(M) be the set of all the hermite operators acting on Hilbert spaceH(M), which has the bracket
h i:O(M)→Rfor every hermite operator ˆFsuch that
D ˆ FE= Z RN dNk Z M dv(x) DxFˆxE. (190) SetO(M) becomes the algebra with the product, scalar product and addition; thereby, we can consider the commutation and the anticommutaion between operators ˆA, ˆB∈ O(M):
h ˆ A,Bˆi ± = ˆA ˆ B±BˆAˆ. (191)
Consider the momentum operator ˆpthat satisfies the following relation for any|ψi ∈ H(M):
hx|pˆ|ψi=−iDhx|ψi, (192) whereD= ¯hdxj∂
jis the derivative operator (68). Further, the function operator ˆf induced from the function
f ∈C∞(M) is an operator that satisfies the following relation for any
|ψi ∈ H(M):
D
xˆfψE=f(x)hx|ψi. (193) The following commutation relation holds:
h ˆ pj,ˆfi −= ¯ h i∂cjf. (194)
Definition 2 The hermite operatorFˆ is called anobservable, if it can be represented as the polynomial of the momentum operatorspˆweighted with function operatorsˆfnj independent of ksuch that
ˆ F= ∞ X n=0 h ˆ fnj,pˆnji +. (195)
The following lemma shows that everyobservablehas its own physical functional.
Lemma 2 Every observable Fˆ has a corresponding functionalF : Γ[E]→C∞(M):
¯
µ(p∗F) =DρˆFˆE. (196) Proof. There are corresponding functionalsgnlj : Λ1(M)
→C(M)(l∈ {1,2, ..., n}) such that ˆ ρ hˆfnj,pˆnji + = Z Bh¯[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z RN dNn Z RN dNn′ ̺(ξ) (n, n˜ ′) n′ ξ− 1 2 h ˆ fnj,pˆnji + ξ 1 2 n = Z Bh¯[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z RN dNk Z RN dNk′ × X α∈ΛM Z Uα dNx̺(ξ)˜ k−k ′ 2, k+ k′ 2 eik′jx j ( n X l=0 gnlj (p(η[k])) (x)kj′l ) = Z Bh¯[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z RN dNk Z RN dNk′ × X α∈ΛM Z Uα dNx̺(ξ)˜ k−k ′ 2, k+ k′ 2 eik′ jxj (Xn l=0 −¯h ∂ ∂xj l gjnl(p(η[k])) (x) ) = Z Bh¯[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z RN dNk Z M dv(x)ρ(η[k]) (x)p∗Fjn(η[k]) (x) = Z Γ[E(M)] dM(η) Z M dv(x) ρ(η)(x)p∗Fjn(η)(x) = µ p¯ ∗Fjn . (197) where p∗Fjn(η[k]) (x) = n X l=0 ( −¯h ∂ ∂xj l gnlj (p(η[k])) (x) ) . (198)
6.2
Description of Time-Development
Now, we can describe aηtτ(η[k])∈ΓUk[E(M)] as
ητt (η[k]) = X α∈Aα χAα·e 2i{kαjxj+ζtτ[k]}·ξ (199) = Y α∈Aα e2i{kαjxj+ζtτ[k]}·ξ χAα , (200)
where the functionζτ
t[k]∈C∞(M) labeled bylabeling timeτ≤t∈Rsatisfies
thereby, the momentumpτt(η[k]) = ¯pτt[k] +p(ξ)∈Λ1(M) for ¯pτt =pτt◦η¯∈L(T∗M) satisfies the Einstein-de Broglie relation:11 ¯ pτ t[k] =−i ¯ h 2η¯ τ t[k]−1d¯ηtτ[k]. (202)
The density operator ˆρτ
t[k] (ξ) is introduced as ˆ ρτt[k] (ξ) = Z RN dNk′ ̺˜τt(ξ) k+k ′ 2, k− k′ 2 ξ12 k+k ′ 2 k− k′ 2 ξ− 1 2, (203)
which satisfies the following lemma.
Lemma 3 ˆ ρt= Z ΓU dN(ξ) Z RN dNk Utτ[k]ˆρτt[k] (ξ)Utτ[k]−1, (204) where Utτ[k] =ei{ζ τ t[k]−ζ}. (205)
Proof. The direct calculation shows for the observableFˆtcorresponding to every functionalF
D ˆ ρt Fˆt E = µ¯t(p∗Ft) = Z Γ[E(M)] dM(η) Z M dv ρτt(η) (x)p∗Ft(ητt(η)) = Z B[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z RN dNk Z M dv(x)ρτt[k] (ξ) (x)p∗F(ητt[k]) (x) = Z B[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z RN dNk Z M dv(x)ρτt[k] (ξ) (x)p∗F η[k]·ei{ζτt[k]−ζ}. (x) = Z B[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z RN dNk Z M dv(x) x 12 h Utτ[k]ˆρτt[k] (ξ)Utτ[k]−1 , Fˆt i + x = *(Z B[E(M)] dN(ξ) Z RN dNk Utτ[k]ˆρτt[k] (ξ)Utτ[k]−1 ) ˆ Ft + . (206)
Relation (204) represents relation (94): ˜ µt(η) = dM(η) dM ηtτ −1(η) ·µ˜τt ητt −1(η) . (207) Emergence-momentumJτ
t =J(ηtτ)∈q(M)∗ has the following expression:
Jtτ = dNkdN(ξ)dv (ρτt[k] (ξ)pτt(η[k]), ρτt[k] (ξ)) (208) = dN(ξ)dNk ∧dv 1 2 x[ˆρτ t[k] (ξ),pˆτt[k]]+ x , hx|ρˆτ t[k] (ξ)|xi , (209)
where the momentum operator ˆpτt[k] satisfies ˆ
pτt[k] =Utτ[k]−1pˆ Utτ[k]. (210)
The following calculus of the fourier basis for 2kj =nj+mj justifies expression (209): e−i{njxj+ζtτ[k]}de+i{mjxj+ζτt[k]}−e+i{mjxj+ζtτ[k]}de−i{njxj+ζtτ[k]}= e−i{njxj+ζtτ[k]}d n e+i{(mj+nj)xj+2ζtτ[k]}·e−i{njxj+ζτt[k]} o −e+i{mjxj+ζtτ[k]}de−i{njxj+ζtτ[k]}= e−i(nj−mj)xj ·e−i{(nj+mj)xj+2ζtτ[k]}de+i{(nj+mj)xj+2ζtτ[k]}. (211)
For Hamiltonian operator ˆHτ
t = ∂∂HJ¯t J¯
τ t
∈q(M), the equation of motion is the Lie-Poisson equation ∂Jτ t ∂t =ad ∗ ˆ HtJ τ t , (212)
that is calculated as follows: ∂ ∂tρ τ t[k] (ξ) (x) =−√− 1 ∂j ∂HT∗M t ∂pj (x, pτt(η[k]) (x))ρτt[k] (ξ) (x)√ , (213) ∂ ∂t(ρ τ t[k] (ξ) (x)pτtk(η[k]) (x)) = −√− 1 ∂j ∂HT∗M t ∂pj (x, pτt(η[k]) (x))ρτt[k] (ξ) (x)pτtk(η[k]) (x)√ −ρτ t[k] (ξ) (x)pτtj(η[k]) (x)∂k ∂HT∗M t ∂pj (x, pτ t(η[k]) (x)) +ρτt[k] (ξ) (x)∂kLH T∗M t (x, pτ t(η[k]) (x)). (214)
Notice that the above expression is still valid even if HamiltonianHT∗M
t has the ambiguity of the operator
ordering such as that for the Einstein gravity.
To elucidate the relationship between the present theory and canonical quantum mechanics, we will concentrate on the case of the canonical Hamiltonian having the following form:
HT∗M t (x, p) = 1 2h ij(p i+Ati) (pj+Atj) +Ut(x), (215)
wheredhij = 0. Notice that almost all the canonical quantum theory including the standard model of the
quantum field theory, that have empirically been well-established, really belong to this class of Hamiltonian systems. For Hamiltonian (215), we will define the Hamiltonian operator ˆHtas
ˆ Ht= 1 2(ˆpi+Ati)h ij(ˆp j+Atj) +Ut, (216) orhx|Hˆt|ψi=Hthx|ψiwhere Ht= 1 2(−i¯h∂i+Ati(x))h ij( −i¯h∂j+Atj(x)) +Ut(x). (217)
Lemma 4 Lie-Poisson equation (212) for Hamiltonian (215) induces the following equation:
i¯h∂ ∂thx|ρˆ τ t[k] (ξ)|xi = − x h ˆ ρτ t[k] (ξ),Hˆτt[k] i − x (218) i¯h∂ ∂t x 12[ˆρ τ t[k] (ξ),pˆτt[k]]+ x = − * x 1 2 h ˆ ρτt[k] (ξ) , Hˆτt[k] i − , pˆ τ t[k] + x + . (219)
Proof. If we define the operators: ˆ H(0) = 1 2h ijpˆτ ti[k]ˆpτtj[k] i¯h (220) ˆ H(1) = 1 2{Aˆih ijpˆτ tj[k] + ˆpτti[k]hijAˆj} i¯h (221) ˆ H(2) = ˆ U+1 2h ijAˆ iAˆj i¯h, (222)
then Hamiltonian operatorHtˆ can be represented as
ˆ
Ht
.
i¯h = Hˆ(0)+ ˆH(1)+ ˆH(2). (223)
Thus, for density operatorρˆτt[k] (ξ)defined as equation (203),
−1 2i¯h * x h ˆ ρτt[k] (ξ) , Hˆτt[k] i − , pˆ τ t[k] + x + =term(1) ˆ H(0) +term(1) ˆ H(1) +term(1) ˆ H(2) , (224) where term(1) ˆ H(0) = −1 2i¯h * x 1 2 h ˆ ρτt[k] (ξ) , Hˆ(0) i − , pˆ τ t[k] + x + term(1) ˆ H(1) = −1 2i¯h * x 1 2 h ˆ ρτ t[k] (ξ) , Hˆ(1) i − , pˆ τ t[k] + x + term(1) ˆ H(2) = −1 2i¯h * x 1 2 h ˆ ρτt[k] (ξ) , Hˆ(2) i − , pˆ τ t[k] + x + .
First term results
term(1) ˆ H(0) = −∂jhijpti(η[k])ρτt[k] (ξ)ptk(η[k]) dxk (225)
from the following computations:
D x pˆτtk[k] ˆρτt[k] (ξ) ˆH(0) xE = 1 2 Z RN dNk′ ρ˜τt(ξ) k+k ′ 2, k− k′ 2 eik′·x (226) ptk(η[k]) + ¯hk ′ k 2 hij pti(η[k])−¯hk ′ i 2 ptj(η[k])−¯h k′ j 2 (227) +i¯h ptk(η[k]) + ¯hk ′ k 2 hij∂j pti(η[k])−¯hk ′ i 2 ; (228) D x Hˆ(0) ρˆτt[k] (ξ) ˆpτtk[k] xE = 1 2 Z RN dNk′ ρ˜τt(ξ) k+k ′ 2, k− k′ 2 eik′·x (229) ptk(η[k])−¯hk ′ k 2 hij pti(η[k]) + ¯hk ′ i 2 ptj(η[k]) + ¯h k′ j 2 (230) −i¯h ptk(η[k])−¯hk ′ k 2 hij∂j pti(η[k]) + ¯hk ′ i 2 ; (231)
D x ρˆτt[k] (ξ) ˆH(0) pˆτtk[k] xE = 1 2 Z RN dNk′ ρ˜τt(ξ) k+k ′ 2, k− k′ 2 eik′·x (232) ptk(η[k])−¯h k′ k 2 hij pti(η[k])−¯h k′ i 2 ptj(η[k])−¯h k′ j 2 (233) +i¯h ptk(η[k])−¯h k′ k 2 hij∂i ptj(η[k])−¯h k′ j 2 (234) −¯h2hij∂k∂i ptj(η[k])−¯h k′ j 2 (235) +i¯h hij∂k pti(η[k])−¯hk ′ i 2 ptj(η[k])−¯h k′ j 2 ; (236) D x pˆτtk[k] ˆH(0) ρˆτt[k] (ξ) xE = 1 2 Z RN dNk′ ρ˜τt(ξ) k+k ′ 2, k− k′ 2 eik′·x (237) + ptk(η[k]) + ¯hk ′ k 2 hij pti(η[k]) + ¯hk ′ i 2 ptj(η[k]) + ¯h k′ j 2 (238) −i¯h ptk(η[k]) + ¯h k′ k 2 hij∂i ptj(η[k]) + ¯h k′ j 2 (239) −¯h2hij∂k∂i ptj(η[k]) + ¯h k′ j 2 (240) −i¯h hij∂k pti(η[k]) + ¯h k′ i 2 ptj(η[k]) + ¯h kj′ 2 . (241) Further, term(1) ˆ H(1) = −∂i hijAjρτt[k] (ξ)ptk(η[k]) +ρτt[k] (ξ) ∂khijAjpti(η[k]) dxk; (242) term(1) ˆ H(2) = −ρτ t[k] (ξ)∂k U+1 2h ijA iAj dxk. (243)
Thus, second equation (219) in this lemma becomes
∂ ∂t{ρ τ t[k] (ξ)ptk(η[k])} = −∂jhij(pti(η[k]) +Aj)ρτt[k] (ξ)ptk(η[k]) (244) +ρτt[k] (ξ)ptj(η[k]) ∂khijAi (245) −ρτt[k] (ξ)∂k U+1 2h ijA iAj , (246)
which is equivalent to equation (214) for Hamiltonian (215). On the other hand,
−1 i¯h x h ˆ ρτt[k] (ξ) , Hˆτt[k] i − x =term(2) ˆ H(0) +term(2) ˆ H(1) +term(2) ˆ H(2) , (247) where term(2) ˆ H(0) = −1 i¯h x h ˆ ρτt[k] (ξ) , Hˆ(0) i − x
term(2) ˆ H(1) = −1 i¯h x h ˆ ρτt[k] (ξ) , Hˆ(1) i − x term(2) ˆ H(2) = −1 i¯h x h ˆ ρτt[k] (ξ) , Hˆ(2) i − x .
Each term can be calculated as follows:
term(2) ˆ H(0) = −1 2i¯h Z RN dNk′ ρ˜τ t(ξ) k+k ′ 2, k− k′ 2 eik′·x (248) hij pti(η[k])−¯h k′ i 2 ptj(η[k])−¯h k′ j 2 (249) +i¯hhij∂j pti(η[k])−¯h k′ i 2 (250) −hij pti(η[k]) + ¯h k′ i 2 ptj(η[k]) + ¯h k′ j 2 (251) −i¯hhij∂j pti(η[k])−¯h k′ i 2 (252) = −∂j ρτt[k] (ξ)hijpti(η[k]) (253) term(2) ˆ H(1) = −∂ihij(Ajρτt[k] (ξ)) ; term(2) ˆ H(2) = 0. (254)
Thus, first equation (219) in this lemma becomes
∂ ∂tρ
τ
t[k] (ξ) =−∂jhij(pti(η[k]) +Aj)ρτt[k] (ξ) , (255)
which is equivalent to equation (213) for Hamiltonian (215).
Therefore, Lie-Poisson equation (212) proved to be equivalent to the equation set (218) and (219) in this lemma.
The above lemma leads us to one of the main theorem in the present paper, declaring that Lie-Poisson equation (212) for Hamiltonian (215) is equivalent to the quantum Liouville equation.
Theorem 6 Lie-Poisson equation (212) for Hamiltonian (215) is equivalent to the following quantum Li-ouville equation: ∂ ∂tρˆt= h ˆ ρt,Hˆ i −/(−i¯h). (256)
Proof. The following computation proves this theorem based on the previous lemma:
∂ ∂t D ˆ ρt Ftˆ E = ∂ ∂t D ˆ ρτt Ftˆ E = Z ΓU dN(ξ) Z RN dNkZ M dv(x)× nD xFˆτt[k] ˆρτt[k] (ξ) ˆHτt[k] xE−DxHˆτt[k] ˆρτt[k] (ξ) ˆFτt[k] xE +hx| ρˆτt[k] (ξ) |xi ∂pτ t[k](x) ∂t · DFt(η τ t[k]) (x)
+hx| ρˆτt[k] |xip∗ ∂Ft ∂t (η τ t[k]) (x) = Z ΓU dN(ξ) Z RN dNk Z M dv(x)× x h ˆ ρτt[k] (ξ),Hˆτt[k] i − x p∗Ft(ητt[k]) (x) + ∂ ∂t x 12[ ˆρτt[k] (ξ) ,pˆτt[k]]+ x · DFt(ηtτ[k]) (x) − x ∂ρˆ τ t[k] (ξ) ∂t x pτt[k](x)· DFt(ητt[k]) (x) +hx| ρˆτt[k] |xip∗ ∂Ft ∂t (η τ t[k]) (x) = Z ΓU dN(ξ) Z RN dNkZ M dv(x)× (* x 1 2[ ˆρ τ t[k] (ξ) ,pˆτt[k]]+ , Hˆ τ t[k] − x + · DFt(ητt[k]) (x) x h ˆ ρτt[k] (ξ) , Hˆτt[k] i − x {p∗Ft(ητt[k]) (x)−pτt[k](x)· DFt(ηtτ[k]) (x)} +hx| ρˆτt[k] |xip∗ ∂Ft
