Nonlocal-looking equations can make nonlinear quantum dynamics local

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 57, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 4122-4129

  Czachor, Marek ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GDA SK   (Poland)

^b CLAUSTHAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000914322     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.57.4122     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. E. M. Wright, D. F. Walls, and J. C. Garrison, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2158 (1996); PRLTAO
2. Phys. Rev. Lett.S. Stringari, 77, 2360 (1996);
3. Phys. Rev. Lett.T.-L. Ho and V. B. Shenoy, 77, 3276 (1996);
4. Phys. Rev. Lett.J. Javanainen and M. Wilkens, 78, 4675 (1997);
5. Phys. Rev. Lett.M. J. Holland et al, 78, 3801 (1997);
6. Phys. Rev. Lett.A. Smerzi and S. Fantoni, 78, 3589 (1997);
7. Phys. Rev. Lett.B. D. Esry et al, 78, 3594 (1997);
8. Phys. Rev. Lett.R. J. Ballagh, K. Burnett, and T. F. Scott, 78, 1607 (1997).
9. I. Białynicki-Birula and J. Mycielski, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 100, 62 (1976).APNYA6
10. R. Haag and U. Bannier, Commun. Math. Phys. 60, 1 (1978).CMPHAY
11. S. Weinberg, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 194, 336 (1989).APNYA6
12. The notion of weak and strong separability was investigated by Goldin and Svetlichny [G. A. Goldin (private communication)] and discussed in G. A. Goldin (unpublished).
13. H.-D. Doebner and G. A. Goldin, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3764 (1996).PLRAAN
14. H.-D. Doebner and G. A. Goldin, Phys. Lett. A 162, 397 (1992); PYLAAG
15. H.-D. DoebnerG. A. GoldinJ. Phys. A 27, 1771 (1994);
16. G. A. Goldin, Nonlinear Math. Phys.4, 7 (1997); ZZZZZZ
17. P. Nattermann, Rep. Math. Phys. 36, 387 (1995); RMHPBE
18. P. Nattermann and R. Zhdanov, J. Phys. A 29, 2869 (1996); JPHAC5
19. P. Nattermann and W. Scherer, in Nonlinear, Deformed, and Irreversible Quantum Systems, edited by V. K. Dobrev, and P. Nattermann, H.-D. Doebner (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995), p. 188;
20. P. Nattermann, in Group21: Physical Applications and Mathematical Aspects of Geometry, Groups, and Algebras, edited by W. Scherer, and P. Nattermann, H.-D. Doebner (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997), Vol. 1, p. 428;
21. P. Nattermann, in Symmetry in Science IX, edited by B. Gruber (Plenum, New York, 1997).
22. N. Gisin, Helv. Phys. Acta 62, 363 (1989).HPACAK
23. N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A 143, 1 (1990).PYLAAG
24. M. Czachor, Found. Phys. Lett. 4, 351 (1991).FPLEET
25. G. A. Goldin and G. Svetlichny, J. Math. Phys. 35, 3322 (1994).JMAPAQ
26. J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 397 (1991).PRLTAO
27. T. F. Jordan, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 225, 83 (1993).APNYA6
28. M. Czachor, Phys. Lett. A 225, 1 (1997).PYLAAG
29. H.-D. Doebner, G. A. Goldin, and P. Nattermann, in Quantization, Coherent States, and Complex Structures, edited by J.-P. Antoine et al. (Plenum, New York, 1995), p. 27.
30. W. Lücke and P. Nattermann, e-print quant-ph/9707055.
31. R. Werner (unpublished).
32. Density matrices can, of course, evolve in a nonlinear way. A spectacular example of a nonlinear evolution of a density matrix is the interference in a Bose-Einstein condensate. It is known that the interference fringes recently observed by Andrews et al. and Mewes et al. 1920 are well approximated by a nonlinear (Formula presented) Schrödinger equation. The atomic clouds in a trap cannot be in a pure state because the atoms are highly entangled with laser photons.
33. M. R. Andrews et al, Science 275, 637 (1997).SCIEAS
34. M.-O. Mewes et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582 (1997).PRLTAO
35. For technical reasons I restrict my analysis to nondissipative equations since inclusion of imaginary terms in Hamiltonians does not allow for an immediate application of the triple bracket results. This does not mean that such an extension is impossible.
36. This nonlinearity results from a (Formula presented) limit of a (Formula presented)-deformed Schrödinger equation; cf. R. Twarock, Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Clausthal, 1997 (unpublished).
37. M. Czachor and M. Kuna, Phys. Rev. A.
38. M. Czachor and M. Kuna, in Group21: Physical Applications and Mathematical Aspects of Geometry, Groups, and Algebras (Ref. 7), p. 451.
39. A general result guarantees that (Formula presented) is time independent and a Casimir invariant. This means, in particular, that the triple-bracket dynamics preserves the purity of states 1428.
40. I. Białynicki-Birula and P. J. Morrison, Phys. Lett. A 158, 453 (1991).PYLAAG
41. P. Bóna, Comenius University Report No. Ph10-91, 1991 (unpublished).
42. M. Czachor and M. Marciniak, Phys. Lett. A 239, 353 (1998).PYLAAG
43. This appears to be in conflict with the analysis given in 2 where, assuming (Formula presented) and weak separability, it was concluded that (Formula presented). There is no contradiction, however. Take (Formula presented). According to our general scheme the two-particle nonlinearity is (Formula presented), as expected. In 2 it was assumed that the two-particle nonlinearity is (Formula presented).
44. W. Lücke, in Nonlinear, Deformed, and Irreversible Quantum Systems (Ref. 7), p. 140.
45. B. Mielnik, Commun. Math. Phys. 9, 55 (1968); CMPHAY
46. Commun. Math. Phys.B. Mielnik15, 1 (1969);
47. Commun. Math. Phys.B. Mielnik37, 221 (1974).