text:
# A unified (classical-quantum-statistical) formalism for continuous spectrum systems.

## I Introduction.

Systems with continuous spectrum have been studied at the classical, quantum, and statistical level. In papers , , and  we have contributed to this research. Precisely, based on the ideas of van Hove  we have introduced a method to deal with these systems, that we have successfully used to treat decaying phenomena, statistical mechanics problems and to find the classical limit of quantum systems . In this paper, using the same technique, we would like to present a panoramic version of the different ”limits”***Usually the relations between physical levels are called ”limits”, even though only in some cases they are just simple mathematical limits. between physical levels. We will see that we can use our method (complemented by other ideas) as a unified formalism that allows to go from one level to the other. Even if some features of the problem are well known from a long time we believe that a unified treatment of these matters, like ours, was missing. Furthermore, most probably, it will be quite useful. Essentially we believed it is useful to see how the interplay of classical and quantum concepts can be used to solve problems.

So let us begin looking at the whole panorama. Physics studies two kind of systems:

A.- Individual systems, like particles or single physical systems. This is the case in classical mechanics, electromagnetism, special, and general relativity.

B.-Statistical systems, like ensembles or sets with many copies of a single physical system. This is the case in quantum mechanics, statistical (classical or quantum) mechanics, thermodynamics, and quantum field theory.

In category A the limits between different levels are simple and well known:

A$`{}_{1}{}^{}.`$ We can go from general relativity to special relativity if we consider just flat space-times.

A$`{}_{2}{}^{}.`$ In the ”classical limit” ($`\beta =\frac{v}{c}0`$) special relativity becomes classical mechanics.

The limit between the two categories, e. g.: of statistical mechanics towards classical mechanics is produced by the phenomenon of localization that we have study in paper , where the necessary conditions under which this phenomenon take place (localizing potential, adequate initial conditions, etc.) are given for some examplesThe study of the localization phenomena is a deep and complicated subject, since in its classical version is related with the problem of the ”limit circle” (see , cap II). This is one of the problems that Hilbert listed for the XX century mathematicians and it remains still unsolved.. So we will just make a short comment of this problem in the paper.

In category B the limits are much more involved and will be considered in this paper. So it is organized as follows:

B$`{}_{1}{}^{}.`$ The thermalization of a quantum system is considered in section II. We will study it in two steps:

B$`{}_{1.1}{}^{}.`$A first step is decoherence (section II.A). This section, as section III, it is a brief resume of ref.  included in the paper for the sake of completeness. The conditions under which the evolution of the quantum system decohere (more than one bound state, small decoherence time, etc.) are listed in the just quoted paper

B$`{}_{1.2}{}^{}.`$We will see how we can obtain a KMS equilibrium after decoherence (section II.B).

B$`{}_{2}{}^{}.`$ The quantum to classical statistical mechanic limit is studied in section III. .

B3.- The statistical classical mechanics relation with the theory of dynamical system and with thermodynamics will be considered in two steps in section IV:

B$`{}_{3.1}{}^{}.`$ In the first step the classical statistical system is considered as dynamical one. Then the micro-canonical ensembles appear as a consequence of dynamical systems theorems (section IV.A).

B3.2.- Finally, in the second step, the canonical ensembles and thermodynamic are introduced (section IV.B).

Other limit can be obtained combining those above. Knowing all these matters we can foresee the final fate of a quantum system (to remain a quantum one, or a classical one, or to end in thermodynamical equilibrium, etc.).

Section V is devoted to the localization problem (namely the $`BA`$ limit).

We will state our conclusion in section VI.

## II Quantum to statistical limit.

We will demonstrate that for a wide set of quantum systems non-diagonal density operators can be considered as the transient phase while diagonal density operators is the final regime and a permanent stateThe arguments of this section are fully developed in paper , where the philosophy of the method is explained at large.. We will find a basis where exact density operators decoherence appears for these final states . Then we will see how the quantum systems thermalize.

### A Decoherence.

#### 1 Decoherence in the energy.

Let us consider a closed and isolated quantum system with $`N+1`$ dynamical variables and a Hamiltonian endowed with a continuous spectrum and just one bounded ground state. So the discrete part of the spectrum of $`H`$ has only one value $`\omega _0<0`$ §§§The case of many bound states is considered in paper . Here we consider the case with only one bound state because in this case the system usually decoheres. and the continuous spectrum is, let say, $`0\omega <\mathrm{}.`$ Let us assume that it is possible to diagonalize the Hamiltonian $`H`$, together with $`N`$ observables $`O_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N)`$. The operators ($`H`$, $`O_1`$,…,$`O_N`$) form a complete set of commuting observables (CSCO). For simplicity we also assume a discrete spectrum for the $`N`$ observables $`O_i`$. Therefore we write

$$H=\omega _0\underset{m}{}|\omega _0,m\omega _0,m|+_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega \underset{m}{}|\omega ,m\omega ,m|d\omega $$
(1)
where $`\omega _0<0`$ is the energy of the ground state, and $`m\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_N\}`$ labels a set of discrete indexes which are the eigenvalues of the observables $`O_1`$,…,$`O_N`$. $`\{|\omega _0,m,|\omega ,m\}`$ is a basis of simultaneous generalized eigenvectors of the CSCO:

$`H|\omega _0,m`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0|\omega _0,m,H|\omega ,m=\omega |\omega ,m,`$
$`O_i|\omega _0,m`$ $`=`$ $`m_i|\omega _0,m,O_i|\omega ,m=m_i|\omega ,m.`$
As at the statistical quantum level we only measure mean values of observables Other quantum measurements imply a limit from category B to category A (cf. ) which is outside the scope of this paper. let us define the observables we will use. The most general observable that we are going to consider in our model reads:

$`O`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}O(\omega _0)_{mm^{}}|\omega _0,m\omega _0,m^{}|+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega O(\omega )_{mm^{}}|\omega ,m\omega ,m^{}|+`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega O(\omega ,\omega _0)_{mm^{}}|\omega ,m\omega _0,m^{}|+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega ^{}O(\omega _0,\omega ^{})_{mm^{}}|\omega _0,m\omega ^{},m^{}|+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega 𝑑\omega ^{}O(\omega ,\omega ^{})_{mm^{}}|\omega ,m\omega ^{},m^{}|,`$
where $`O^{}=O`$ and $`O(\omega )_{mm^{}}`$, $`O(\omega ,\omega _0)_{mm^{}}`$, $`O(\omega _0,\omega )_{mm^{}}`$ and $`O(\omega ,\omega ^{})_{mm^{}}`$ are ordinary functions of the real variables $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$(these functions must have some mathematical properties in order to develop the theory; these properties are listed in paper ). We will say that these observables belong to a space $`𝒪`$ (which is contained in the algebra studied in ). This space has the basis $`\{|\omega _0,mm^{})`$, $`|\omega ,mm^{})`$, $`|\omega \omega _0,mm^{})`$, $`|\omega _0\omega ^{},mm^{})`$, $`|\omega \omega ^{},mm^{})\}`$:

$`|\omega _0,mm^{})|\omega _0,m\omega _0,m^{}|,|\omega ,mm^{})|\omega ,m\omega ,m^{}|,`$

$$|\omega \omega _0,mm^{})|\omega ,m\omega _0,m^{}|,|\omega _0\omega ^{},mm^{})|\omega _0,m\omega ^{},m^{}|,$$
(6)
$`|\omega \omega ^{},mm^{})|\omega ,m\omega ^{},m^{}|`$

The quantum states $`\rho `$ are measured by the observables just defined, computing the mean values of these observable in the quantum states, i. e. in the usual notation: $`O_\rho =Tr(\rho ^{}O).`$ We can consider that mean values are the more primitive objects of quantum theory . These mean values, generalized as in paper , can be considered as linear functionals $`\rho `$ (mapping the vectors $`O`$ on the real numbers), that we can call $`(\rho |O)`$ (see also ). Then $`\rho 𝒮𝒪^{^{}},`$ where $`𝒮`$ is a convenient convex set contained in $`𝒪^{^{}}`$, the space of linear functionals over $`𝒪`$ , We can choose more general $`𝒪`$ but the one we have defined is enough for our purpose.. The basis of $`𝒪^{}`$ (that can also be considered as the co-basis of $`𝒪)`$ is $`\{(\omega _0,mm^{}|`$, $`(\omega ,mm^{}|`$, $`(\omega \omega _0,mm^{}|`$, $`(\omega _0\omega ^{},mm^{}|`$, $`(\omega \omega ^{},mm^{}|\}`$ defined as functionals by the equations:

$`(\omega _0,mm^{}|\omega _0,nn^{})=\delta _{mn}\delta _{m^{}n^{}},(\omega ,mm^{}|\eta ,nn^{})=\delta (\omega \eta )\delta _{mn}\delta _{m^{}n^{}},`$

$`(\omega \omega _0,mm^{}|\eta \omega _0,nn^{})=\delta (\omega \eta )\delta _{mn}\delta _{m^{}n^{}},`$

$`(\omega _0\omega ^{},mm^{}|\omega _0\eta ^{},nn^{})=\delta (\omega ^{}\eta ^{})\delta _{mn}\delta _{m^{}n^{}},`$

$$(\omega \omega ^{},mm^{}|\eta \eta ^{},nn^{})=\delta (\omega \eta )\delta (\omega ^{}\eta ^{})\delta _{mn}\delta _{m^{}n^{}}.$$
(7)
and all other $`(.|.)`$ are zero. Then, a generic quantum state reads:

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}\overline{\rho (\omega _0)}_{mm^{}}(\omega _0,mm^{}|+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega \overline{\rho (\omega )}_{mm^{}}(\omega ,mm^{}|+`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega \overline{\rho (\omega ,\omega _0)}_{mm^{}}(\omega \omega _0,mm^{}|+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega ^{}\overline{\rho (\omega _0,\omega ^{})}_{mm^{}}(\omega _0\omega ^{},mm^{}|+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega ^{}\overline{\rho (\omega ,\omega ^{})}_{mm^{}}(\omega \omega ^{},mm^{}|`$
where

$`\overline{\rho (\omega ,\omega _0)}_{mm^{}}=\rho (\omega _0,\omega )_{m^{}m},\overline{\rho (\omega ,\omega ^{})}_{mm^{}}=\rho (\omega ^{},\omega )_{m^{}m},`$

and $`\overline{\rho (\omega _0)}_{mm}`$ and $`\overline{\rho (\omega )}_{mm}`$ are real and non negative satisfying the total probability condition

$$(\rho |I)=\underset{m}{}\rho (\omega _0)_{mm}+\underset{m}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \rho (\omega )_{mm}=1,$$
(12)
where $`I=_m|\omega _0,m\omega _0,m|+_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega _m|\omega ,m\omega ,m|`$ is the identity operator in $`𝒪`$. Eq. (12) is the extension to state functionals of the usual condition $`Tr\rho ^{}=1`$, used when $`\rho `$ is a density operator. Thus, from now on, $`Tr\rho (\rho |I).`$

The time evolution of the quantum state $`\rho `$ reads:

$`\rho (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}\overline{\rho (\omega _0)}_{mm^{}}(\omega _0,mm^{}|+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega \overline{\rho (\omega )}_{mm^{}}(\omega ,mm^{}|+`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega \overline{\rho (\omega ,\omega _0)}_{mm^{}}e^{i(\omega \omega _0)t}(\omega \omega _0,mm^{}|+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega ^{}\overline{\rho (\omega _0,\omega ^{})}_{mm^{}}e^{i(\omega _0\omega ^{})t}(\omega _0\omega ^{},mm^{}|+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega ^{}\overline{\rho (\omega ,\omega ^{})}_{mm^{}}e^{i(\omega \omega ^{})t}(\omega \omega ^{},mm^{}|`$
As we have already said at the statistical quantum level we can only measure mean values of observables in quantum states, i. e.:

$`O_{\rho (t)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\rho (t)|O)=`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}\overline{\rho (\omega _0)}_{mm^{}}O(\omega _0)_{mm^{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \overline{\rho (\omega )}_{mm^{}}O(\omega )_{mm^{}}+`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \overline{\rho (\omega ,\omega _0)}_{mm^{}}e^{i(\omega \omega _0)t}O(\omega ,\omega _0)_{mm^{}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega ^{}\overline{\rho (\omega _0,\omega ^{})}_{mm^{}}e^{i(\omega _0\omega ^{})t}O(\omega _0,\omega ^{})_{mm^{}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega ^{}\overline{\rho (\omega ,\omega ^{})}_{mm^{}}e^{i(\omega \omega ^{})t}O(\omega ,\omega ^{})_{mm^{}},`$
Let us now consider the fate of these mean values when $`t\mathrm{},`$ using the Riemann-Lebesgue theorem we obtain the limit, for all $`O𝒪`$

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}O_{\rho (t)}=O_\rho _{}$$
(22)
where we have introduced the diagonal asymptotic or equilibrium state functional\**\**\**The three of diagonal terms of eqs. (16) or (21) disappear. This happens because we have just one bound state and would not be the case for more than one bound state.

$$\rho _{}=\underset{mm^{}}{}\overline{\rho (\omega _0)}_{mm^{}}(\omega _0,mm^{}|+\underset{mm^{}}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}d\omega \overline{\rho (\omega )}_{mm^{}}(\omega ,mm^{}|$$
(23)
Therefore, in a weak sense we have:

$$W\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho (t)=\rho _{}$$
(24)
Thus, any quantum state weakly goes to a linear combination of the energy diagonal states $`(\omega _0,mm^{}|`$ and $`(\omega ,mm^{}|`$ (the energy ”off-diagonal” states $`(\omega \omega _0,mm^{}|`$, $`(\omega _0\omega ^{},mm^{}|`$ and $`(\omega \omega ^{},mm^{}|`$ are not present in $`\rho _{}`$). This is the case if we observe and measure the system evolution with any possible observable of space $`𝒪`$ (albeit the discussion in section IV.A.3). Then, from the observational point of view, we have decoherence of the energy levels, even that, from the strong limit point of view the off-diagonal terms never vanish, they just oscillate, since we cannot directly use the Riemann-Lebesgue theorem in the operator equation (16).

#### 2 Decoherence in the other ”momentum” dynamical variables.

Having established the decoherence in the energy levels we must consider the decoherence in the other dynamical variables $`O_i`$, of the CSCO where we are working. We will call these variables ”momentum variables”. As the expression of $`\rho _{}`$ given in eq. (23) involve only the time independent components of $`\rho (t)`$, it is impossible that a different decoherence process take place to eliminate the off-diagonal terms in the remaining $`N`$ dynamical variables. Therefore, the only thing to do is to find if there is a basis where the off-diagonal components of $`\rho (\omega _0)_{mm^{}}`$ and $`\rho (\omega )_{mm^{}}`$ vanish at any time.

Let us consider the following change of basis

$$|\omega _0,r=\underset{m}{}U(\omega _0)_{mr}|\omega _0,m,|\omega ,r=\underset{m}{}U(\omega )_{mr}|\omega ,m,$$
(25)
where $`r`$ and $`m`$ are short notations for $`r\{r_1,\mathrm{},r_N\}`$ and $`m\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_N\}`$, and $`\left[U(\mathrm{\Omega })^1\right]_{mr}=\overline{U(\mathrm{\Omega })}_{rm}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes either $`\omega _0<0`$ or $`\omega ^+`$).

The new basis $`\{|\omega _0,r,|\omega ,r\}`$ verifies the generalized orthogonality conditions

$`\omega _0,r|\omega _0,r^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{rr^{}},\omega ,r|\omega ^{},r^{}=\delta (\omega \omega ^{})\delta _{rr^{}},`$
$`\omega _0,r|\omega ,r^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ,r|\omega _0,r^{}=0.`$
As $`\overline{\rho (\omega _0)}_{mm^{}}=\rho (\omega _0)_{m^{}m}`$ and $`\overline{\rho (\omega )}_{mm^{}}=\rho (\omega )_{m^{}m}`$, it is possible to choose $`U(\omega _0)`$ and $`U(\omega )`$ in such a way that the off-diagonal parts of $`\rho (\omega _0)_{rr^{}}`$ and $`\rho (\omega )_{rr^{}}`$ vanish, i.e.

$$\rho (\omega _0)_{rr^{}}=\rho _r(\omega _0)\delta _{rr^{}},\rho (\omega )_{rr^{}}=\rho _r(\omega )\delta _{rr^{}}.$$
(26)
Therefore, there is a final pointer basis for the observables given by $`\{|\omega _0,rr^{})`$, $`|\omega ,rr^{})`$, $`|\omega \omega _0,rr^{})`$, $`|\omega _0\omega ^{},rr^{})`$, $`|\omega \omega ^{},rr^{})\}`$ and defined as in eq. (6). The corresponding final pointer basis for the states $`\{(\omega _0,rr^{}|`$, $`(\omega ,rr^{}|`$, $`(\omega \omega _0,rr^{}|`$, $`(\omega _0\omega ^{},rr^{}|`$, $`(\omega \omega ^{},rr^{}|\}`$ diagonalizes the time independent part of $`\rho (t)`$ and therefore it diagonalizes the final state $`\rho _{}`$

$$\rho _{}=W\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho (t)=\underset{r}{}\rho _r(\omega _0)(\omega _0,rr|+\underset{r}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}d\omega \rho _r(\omega )(\omega ,rr|.$$
(27)
Now we can define the final exact pointer observables ††††††If we would like to just have integrals and treat all spectra as continuous we would write
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega ={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega 𝑑R_1\mathrm{}𝑑R_N\delta (r_1R_1)\mathrm{}\delta (r_NR_N)=`$
$$𝑑\omega 𝑑\mu (R)$$
(28)

$$P_i=\underset{r}{}P_r^i(\omega _0)|\omega _0,r\omega _0,r|+_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \underset{r}{}P_r^i(\omega )|\omega ,r\omega ,r|.$$
(29)
As $`H`$ and $`P_i`$ are diagonal in the basis $`\{|\omega _0,r`$, $`|\omega ,r\}`$, the set $`\{H,P_i,\mathrm{}P_N\}`$ is precisely the complete set of commuting observables (CSCO) ‡‡‡‡‡‡In usual quantum mechanical system this set is numerable. related to this basis, where $`\rho _{}`$ is diagonal in the corresponding co-basis for the states. For simplicity we define the operators $`P_i`$ such that $`P_r^i(\omega _0)=P_r^i(\omega )=r_i`$, thus

$$P_i|\omega _0,r=r_i|\omega _0,r,P_i|\omega ,r=r_i|\omega ,r.$$
(30)
Therefore $`\{|\omega _0,r`$, $`|\omega ,r\}`$ is the observers’ final pointer basis were there is a perfect decoherence in the corresponding state co-basis. Moreover the generalized states $`(\omega _0,rr|`$ and $`(\omega ,rr|`$ are constants of the motion, and therefore these exact pointer observables have a constant statistical entropy and will be ”at the top of the list” of Zurek’s ”predictability sieve” .

Therefore:

i.- Decoherence in the energy is produced by the time evolution.

ii.- Decoherence in the other dynamical variables can be seen if we choose an adequate basis, namely the final pointer basis.

Our main result is eq. (27): When $`t\mathrm{}`$ then $`\rho (t)\rho _{}`$ and in this state the dynamical variables $`H,P_1,\mathrm{},P_N`$ are well defined. Therefore the eventual conjugated variables to these momentum variables (namely: configuration variables, if they exist) are completely undefined.

In fact, calling by $`𝕃_i`$ the generator of the displacements along the eventual configuration variable conjugated to $`P_i`$, we have $`(𝕃_i\rho _{}|O)=(\rho _{}|𝕃_i^{}O)=(\rho _{}|[P_i,O])=0`$ for all $`O𝒪`$ as it can be proved by direct computation . Then $`\rho _{}`$ is homogeneous in these configuration variables.

From the preceding section we may have the feeling that the process of decoherence must be found in all the physical systems, and therefore, all of them eventually would become classical when $`\mathrm{}0`$. It is not so, this evolution only happens under certain conditions, as explained in . I. e., if there is more than one bound state or the decoherence time is infinite the system does not decohere.

### B Quantum thermalization.

#### 1 The minimally biased state.

At this point we can find the final quantum minimally biased state according to information theory . For simplicity let us just use one observable in our CSCO, the hamiltonian $`H`$ with no bound state $`\omega _0`$\**\**\**In fact, in our model $`H`$ is the only member of the CSCO with continuous spectrum, so all the problem is contained in $`H.`$. Then eq. (27) reads

$$(\rho _{}|=_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho (\omega )(\omega |d\omega $$
(31)
$`(\rho _{}|`$ has trace one, so from eq. (12) we know that

$$Tr\rho _{}=(\rho _{}|I)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho (\omega )𝑑\omega =1$$
(32)
The mean value of the energy reads

$$H_\rho _{}=(\rho _{}|H)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega \rho (\omega )𝑑\omega =E$$
(33)
If this is the only data available to obtain the minimal biased state we must maximizes the (Shannon) missing information \*†\*†\*†I. e., the continuous version of eq. (2.3) or  or eq. (5.6) of , postulating that when no information or probabilities are available we should consider the cells equally probable.

$$=[\rho _{}]=K_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho (\omega )\mathrm{log}\rho (\omega )𝑑\omega $$
(34)
contrained by eqs. (32) and (33). The solution of this variational problem is $`\rho (\omega )e^{\beta \omega }`$ so the unbiased $`(\rho _{}|`$ is

$$(\rho _{}|=Z^1_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{\beta \omega }(\omega |d\omega $$
(35)
where the constants $`Z`$ and $`\beta `$ can be computed from eqs. (32) and (33).

The next problem is to represent this minimal biased $`(\rho _{}|`$ as $`e^{\beta H}.`$ But an equation like $`(\rho _{}|`$=$`e^{\beta H}`$ is impossible since $`H`$ is a ”vector” (ket) and $`(\rho _{}|`$ is a ”functional” (bra). To solve this problem we must go back to eq. (32) and see that the trace of the state can be written as

$$Tr\rho _{}=(\rho |I)=(\rho |_0^{\mathrm{}}|\omega )d\omega ;|I)=_0^{\mathrm{}}|\omega )d\omega $$
(36)
Symmetrically we can define the trace of an operator $`A`$ as

$$TrA=(I|A)=_0^{\mathrm{}}(\omega |d\omega |A);(I|=_0^{\mathrm{}}(\omega |d\omega $$
(37)
We will see that this definition is completely reasonable at the end of section IV.B. Using it we can write the functional that corresponds to $`(\rho _{}|`$ as

$$w_\beta [A]=(\rho _{}|A)=\frac{(I|e^{\beta H}A)}{(I|e^{\beta H})}$$
(38)
We can immediately see that the trace of this functional is one since $`w_\beta [I]=(\rho _{}|I)=1.`$ Moreover, the last definition coincides with the one of eq. (35) since $`e^{\beta H}=e^{\beta \omega }|\omega )d\omega `$ and

$$Z=(I|e^{\beta H})=(\omega |e^{\beta \omega }|\omega ^{})𝑑\omega 𝑑\omega ^{}=e^{\beta \omega }\delta (\omega \omega ^{})𝑑\omega 𝑑\omega ^{}=e^{\beta \omega }𝑑\omega $$
(39)
Also

$$(I|e^{\beta H}A)=e^{\beta \omega }(\omega |A)𝑑\omega $$
(40)
From the two last equations it is evident that (35) coincides with (38) and we can write the minimally biased canonical final state as

$$(\rho _{}|=Z^1(I|e^{\beta H}$$
(41)
It is easy to generalize the above reasoning from $`H`$ to the CSCO $`\{H,P_i,\mathrm{}P_N\}.`$ Then we would obtain

$$(\rho _{}|=Z^1(I|e^{\beta H\gamma _1P_1\mathrm{}\gamma _NP_N}$$
(42)
that corresponds to a generalized grand-canonical ensemble.

#### 2 KMS equilibrium.

As a demonstration that $`w_\beta [A]`$ is the good equilibrium limit at temperature $`\beta ^1`$ we will prove that it satisfies the KMS condition . The time evolution of operator $`A`$ is given by

$$\alpha _t(A)=e^{iHt}Ae^{iHt}$$
(43)
( eq. (16), for the state evolution, is deduced from this equation). Then we must check the analyticity properties of

$$w_\beta [\alpha _t(A)B]=\frac{(I|e^{\beta H}\alpha _t(A)B)}{(I|e^{\beta H})}=\frac{(I|e^{\beta H}e^{iHt}Ae^{iHt}B)}{(I|e^{\beta H})}$$
(44)
We must first prove that definition (37) has the cyclic trace property. Since the algebra $`𝒪`$ is associative  we only need to demonstrate the commutativity. In fact\*‡\*‡\*‡All these probabilities naturally appear if we postulate that the characteristic algebra is a nuclear one as we will do in the rigorous treatment of the subject elsewhere.

$$Tr(AB)=(I|AB)=((\omega |d\omega |AB)=A_\omega B_\omega d\omega =(I|BA)=Tr(BA)$$
(45)
then

$$w_\beta [\alpha _t(A)B]=\frac{(I|Be^{iH(t+i\beta )}Ae^{iHt})}{(I|e^{\beta H})}=\frac{(I|Be^{\beta H}e^{\beta H}e^{iHt}Ae^{iHt}e^{\beta H})}{(I|e^{\beta H})}=w_\beta (B\alpha _{t+i\beta }(A))$$
(46)
Then calling ( eq. (V.1.7))

$`F_{A,B}^{(\beta )}(z)=w_\beta [B\alpha _z(A)]`$

$$G_{A,B}^{(\beta )}(z)=w_\beta [\alpha _z(A)B]$$
(47)
where $`z=t+i\gamma ,`$ we obtain

$$F_{A,B}^{(\beta )}(z)=\frac{(I|e^{\beta H}Be^{iHz}Ae^{iHz})}{(I|e^{\beta H})}=\frac{(I|Be^{iHt}e^{\gamma H}Ae^{iHt}e^{(\beta \gamma )H})}{(I|e^{\beta H})}$$
(48)
But from eq., (37)

$$Tre^{\beta H}=(I|e^{\beta H})=e^{\beta \omega }𝑑\omega $$
(49)
which is only convergent and for $`\beta >0.`$ Analogously, the r.h.s. of eq. (48) reads

$`{\displaystyle B(\omega ,\omega ^{})e^{i\omega ^{}t}e^{\gamma \omega ^{}}A(\omega ^{},\omega )e^{i\omega t}e^{(\beta \gamma )\omega }𝑑\omega 𝑑\omega ^{}/e^{\beta \omega }𝑑\omega }`$

Thus in order that $`F_{A,B}^{(\beta )}(z)`$ be analytic in $`z`$ these integrals must be convergent and therefore the three real parts of the exponents: $`\beta ,`$ $`\gamma `$ and, $`\beta \gamma `$ must be positive. Then the operator in (48) is analytic for

$$0<\gamma <\beta $$
(50)
Also from (46)

$$G_{A,B}^{(\beta )}(t)=F_{A,B}^{(\beta )}(t+i\beta )$$
(51)
and both functions are analytic for the $`z=t+i\gamma `$ satisfying condition (50). Therefore KMS condition is satisfied.

We have proved that the thermal equilibrium state exists in the system but we have not proved if the system spontaneously goes to this equilibrium (it ”thermalizes”) and we have not said under what conditions this phenomenon takes place. The reason is that the two powerful devises we have used: the diagonal form of hamiltonian $`H`$ and information theory allow us to reach the above conclusion but they yield to a static and already thermalized diagonal of the density matrix. To study thermalization we must consider at least two subsystems and their interaction beforeOr after diagonalization but in an indirect way as in  or  diagonalization and show how they reach the same temperature. In this case the method can be also used to show that, if the system is endowed with an adequate interaction, it naturally evolves to state (41), i. e. it ”thermalizes”. Thus the kind of interaction defines if the system thermalize or not. In fact, we have proved in paper  that the thermodynamic limit can by formalized with our method and we have developed a simple model with linear interaction (Friedrichs model) where an oscillator is thermalized by a bath for small interaction. The case of big interactions will be treated elsewhere.

Let us finally remark that a KMS state has a trivial explicit definition in a box. But in an unbounded space it was substituted by a state that satisfies KMS conditions with no explicit expression . Our method has allow us to find this explicit expression, namely (41).

## III The classical statistical limit.

In this section we will use the Wigner integrals that introduce an isomorphism between quantum observables $`O`$ and states $`\rho `$ and their classical analogues $`O^W(q,p)`$ and $`\rho ^W(q,p)`$ :

$`O^W(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda q\frac{\lambda }{2}|O|q+\frac{\lambda }{2}\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda p)}`$ (52)
$`\rho ^W(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^{N+1}}}{\displaystyle }d\lambda (\rho ||q+\lambda q\lambda |)\mathrm{exp}(2i\lambda p).`$ (53)
It is possible to prove that $`𝑑q𝑑p\rho ^W(q,p)=(\rho |I)=1`$, but in general $`\rho ^W`$ is not always non negative. It is also possible to deduce that

$$(\rho ^W|O^W)=𝑑q𝑑p\rho ^W(q,p)O^W(q,p)=(\rho |O),$$
(54)
and therefore: to the mean value in the classical space corresponds the mean value in the quantum space. Moreover, calling $`L`$ the classical Liouville operator, and $`𝕃`$ the quantum Liouville-Von Neumann operator, we have

$$L\left[\rho ^W(q,p)\right]=\left[𝕃\rho \right]^W(q,p)+O(\mathrm{}/s),$$
(55)
where $`L\rho ^W(q,p)=i\{H^W(q,p),\rho ^W(q,p)\}_{PB},`$ $`s`$ is an action with the characteristic dimension of the system, and

$$(𝕃\rho |O)=(\rho |[H,O]).$$
(56)
Finally, if $`O=O_1O_2`$, where $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ are two quantum observables, we have

$$O^W(q,p)=O_1^W(q,p)O_2^W(q,p)+O(\mathrm{}/s).$$
(57)
We will prove that the distribution function $`\rho _{}^W(q,p)`$, that corresponds to the state functional $`\rho _{}`$ via the Wigner integral is a non negative function of the classical constants of the motion, in our case ,We can prove that $`H^W(q,p)`$, $`P_1^W(q,p)`$,…, $`P_N^W(q,p)`$ are constants of the motion using Heisenberg version of Liouville equation and eq. (55). obtained from the corresponding quantum operators $`H`$, $`P_1`$,…, $`P_N`$.

From eq. (27) we have:

$$\rho _{}=W\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho (t)=\underset{r}{}\rho _r(\omega _0)(\omega _0,rr|+\underset{r}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}d\omega \rho _r(\omega )(\omega ,rr|,$$
(58)
so we must compute:

$$\rho _{\omega r}^W(q,p)\pi ^{N1}(\omega ,rr||q+\lambda q\lambda |)e^{2ip\lambda }d\lambda $$
(59)
We know from  section II. C, (or we can prove directly from eqs.(27-30)) that

$`(\omega _0,rr|H^n)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0^n,(\omega ,rr|H^n)=\omega ^n,`$ (60)
$`(\omega _0,rr|P_i^n)`$ $`=`$ $`r_i^n,(\omega ,rr|P_i^n)=r_i^n,i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ (61)
for $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ Using the relation (57) between quantum and classical products of observables and relation (54) between quantum and classical mean values, in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ (precisely when $`s\mathrm{},`$ i. e. when the dimension of the system are very large compared with $`\mathrm{})`$\*∥\*∥\*∥We will consider that we always take this limit when we refer to classical equations below. we deduce that the characteristic property of the distribution $`\rho _{\omega r}^W(q,p)`$, that corresponds to the state functional $`(\omega ,rr|`$, is\***\***\***To simplify the demonstration we will consider that all the spectra are continuous as explained in footnote 7.:

$$\rho _{\omega r}^W(q,p)[H^W(q,p)]^n𝑑q𝑑p=\omega ^n,\rho _{\omega r}^W(q,p)[P_i^W(q,p)]^n𝑑q𝑑p=r_i^n,$$
(62)
for any natural number $`n.`$ Thus $`\rho _{\omega r}^W(q,p)`$ must be the functional\*††\*††\*††Let us precisely define the $`\delta `$ of the next equation. In eq. (622) we can make the canonical transformation $`q,pQ^W,P^W`$ then it reads
$`{\displaystyle \rho _{\omega r}^W(Q_i^W,P_i^W)[P_i^W]^n𝑑Q_i^W𝑑P_i^W}=r_i^n,i=0.1,\mathrm{}N`$
Then:
$`\rho _{\omega r}^W(Q^W,P^W)=(V_Q)^1{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\delta (P_i^Wr_i)`$
where
$`V_Q={\displaystyle 𝑑Q^W}`$
is the volume of configuration space that we will consider as bounded for simplicity. Nevertheless the case $`V_Q\mathrm{}`$ can be studied with the techniques of paper . Then to prove eqs. (63) and (64) we can first write eq. (58) as
$`\rho _{}^W(q,p)={\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (R)\rho _R(\omega _0)\rho _{\omega _0R}^W(q,p)}+`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (R)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \rho _R(\omega )\rho _{\omega R}^W(q,p)}`$
where we have used eq. (28).

$$\rho _{\omega r}^W(q,p)=\delta (H^W(q,p)\omega )\delta (P_1^W(q,p)r_1)\mathrm{}\delta (P_N^W(q,p)r_N).$$
(63)
For the distribution $`\rho _{\omega _0r}^W(q,p)`$ corresponding to the state functional $`(\omega _0,rr|`$, we obtain

$$\rho _{\omega _0r}^W(q,p)=\delta (H^W(q,p)\omega _0)\delta (P_1^W(q,p)r_1)\mathrm{}\delta (P_N^W(q,p)r_N).$$
(64)
Therefore, going back to eq. (58) and since the Wigner relation is linear, we have\*‡‡\*‡‡\*‡‡We will call:
$`\rho _0(\omega ,r_1,\mathrm{},r_N)=\rho _r(\omega _0)=\rho _{r_1,\mathrm{},r_N}(\omega _0)`$
$`\rho (\omega ,r_1,\mathrm{},r_N)=\rho _r(\omega )=\rho _{r_1,\mathrm{},r_N}(\omega )`$
:

$$\rho _{}^W(q,p)=\underset{r}{}\rho _r(\omega _0)\rho _{\omega _0r}^W(q,p)+\underset{r}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \rho _r(\omega )\rho _{\omega r}^W(q,p)=$$
(65)
$`\rho _0(H^W(q,p),P_1^W(q,p),\mathrm{},P_N^W(q,p))+\rho (H^W(q,p),P_1^W(q,p),\mathrm{},P_N^W(q,p))`$

Also we obtain $`\rho _{}^W(q,p)0`$, because $`\rho _r(\omega _0)`$ and $`\rho _r(\omega )`$ are non negative.

Therefore, the classical state $`\rho _{}^W(q,p)`$ is a linear combination of the generalized classical states $`\rho _{\mathrm{\Omega }r}^W(q,p)`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is either $`\omega _0`$ or $`\omega `$), having well defined values $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`r_1`$,…, $`r_N`$ of the classical observables $`H^W(q,p)`$, $`P_1^W(q,p)`$,…, $`P_N^W(q,p)`$. The corresponding classical canonically conjugated variables are completely undefined since neither $`\rho _{\mathrm{\Omega }r}^W(q,p)`$ nor $`\rho _{}^W(q,p)`$ is a function of these variables. So we reach, in the classical case, to the same conclusion than in the quantum case (see end of subsection II.A.2). But now all the classical canonically conjugated variables $`a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_N`$ do exist since they can be found solving the corresponding Poisson brackets differential equations. We can also expand the densities given in eqs. (63-65) in terms of classical motions as shown in  in great detail. In fact, as the momenta $`H^W,P_1^W,\mathrm{},P_N^W`$, or any function of these momenta, that we will call generically $`\mathrm{\Pi },`$ are also constant of the motion, then we have $`\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Pi }=H/\alpha =0`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the classically conjugated variable to $`\mathrm{\Pi }.`$ So $`H`$ is just a function of the $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\alpha =\frac{H(\mathrm{\Pi })}{\mathrm{\Pi }}=\varpi (\mathrm{\Pi })=const.$$
(66)
so:

$$\alpha _j(t)=\varpi _j(\mathrm{\Pi })t+\alpha _j(0),j=0,1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(67)
Thus (going back to the old coordinates $`q,p`$) in the set of classical motions contained in the densities (63) and (64) the momenta $`H^W(q,p)`$, $`P_1^W(q,p)`$,…, $`P_N^W(q,p)`$, are completely defined and the origin of the corresponding motions, that we will respectively call $`a_0(0)`$, $`a_1(0)`$,…and $`a_N(0)`$, are completely undefined (since $`\rho _{}^W(q,p)`$ does not contain these variables), in such a way that the motions represented in the last equation homogeneously fill the surface where $`H^W`$, $`P_1^W`$,…, and $`P_N^W`$, have constant values. If the system is bounded and integrable (see below), these surface turns out to be the a usual torus of phase space. This is the interpretation that we give to the density (65) which is just a function of the variables $`H^W`$, $`P_1^W`$,…, $`P_N^W,`$ but it is not a function of the classical conjugated variables $`a_0`$, $`a_1`$,…, $`a_N`$. The classical motions described by eqs. (66) and (67) will be used to characterize the dynamical system in the next section. Precisely, using these motions the evolution of the $`\rho ^W,`$ close to equilibrium $`\rho _{}^W`$ can be interpreted as Frobenius-Perron operators†\*†\*†\*This is an important step towards classicality since the system has lost its quantum characteristic (e. g. totality, contextuallity and non-locality according to ) and we can resolve the classical density matrix evolution in a set of particle motions..

In conclusion.

i.- We have shown that the quantum state functional $`\rho (t)`$ evolves to a diagonal state $`\rho _{}`$.

ii.- This quantum state $`\rho _{}`$ has its corresponding classical density $`\rho _{}^W(q,p)`$.

iii.- This classical density can be decomposed in classical densities that correspond to sets of classical motions where $`H^W`$, $`P_1^W`$,…, $`P_N^W`$ remain constant. These motions have $`H^W(q,p)`$, $`P_1^W(q,p)`$,…, $`P_N^W(q,p)=const`$ and initial conditions $`a_0(0),`$ $`a_1(0),`$ $`\mathrm{},`$ $`a_N(0)`$ distributed in an homogeneous way.

iv.- From eqs. (63-65) we will obtain that††††††From now on we will forget the bound eigenvalue $`\omega _0.`$

$$\rho _{}^W(q,p)=\rho (H^W(q,p),P_1^W(q,p),\mathrm{},P_N^W(q,p))0$$
(68)
## IV Relation between Classical Statistic, Dynamical Systems and Thermodynamics .

In this section we will characterize the classical motions we have obtained in the ergodic hierarchy and we will make contact with classical thermodynamics.

### A The microcanonical ensemble.

#### 1 The notion of isolating and non-isolating constant of the motion.

The classical constants of the motion $`H^W(q,p),`$ $`P_1^W(q,p),\mathrm{},`$ $`P_N^W(q,p)`$ can be rigorously classified as , , :

i.- Global or isolating constant of the motion, that we will call $`\mathrm{"}H\mathrm{"}`$, precisely:

$$H_0^W(q,p)=H^W(q,p),\text{ }H_1^W(q,p)=P_1^W(q,p),\mathrm{},H_A^W(q,p)=P_A^W(q,p)$$
(69)
when the conditions

$$H_i^W=r_i,i=0,\mathrm{},A$$
(70)
(where $`r_0=\mathrm{\Omega })`$ define global sub manifolds (tori in the bounded case) $`(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A),`$ of phase space where the trajectories necessarily move, for each set of constants $`(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)`$†‡†‡†‡Isolating constant of the motion would be the ”simple” constant of the motion in  p. 60.. The dimension of $``$ is $`2(N+1)(A+1)=2N`$ $`A+1`$

ii.- Local or non isolating constant of the motion, that we will call:

$$J_1^W(q,p)=P_{A+1}^W(q,p),\mathrm{},J_{NA}^W(q,p)=P_N^W(q,p)$$
(71)
when the conditions

$$J_j^W=r_{j+A}j=1,..,NA$$
(72)
do not define any global sub-manifold, since they are just local †§†§†§Let us list the introduced dimension: i.-The total dimension is $`2(N+1).`$ii.-The number of the isolating constants is $`A+1.`$iii.-The number of the non isolating constant si $`NA.`$iv.-The number of configuration coordinates is $`N+1.`$v.- The dimension of $``$ is $`2NA+1`$. The $`J_j^W`$ can only be considered as local coordinates on the manifold $`(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A).`$

When $`A=N`$ we say that the system is integrable, when $`A<M`$ we say that the system is not integrable. Let us consider both cases.

#### 2 Integrable systems.

In this case all the $`P`$ are isolating constants of the motion ($`H)`$ and there are no $`J.`$ Then the situation is like the one described at the end of section III: condition (70) foliates phase space with submanifolds $`(r_0,\mathrm{},r_N),`$ labelled by the constants $`(r_0,\mathrm{},r_N).`$ This submanifold would be tori if the system is bounded. As we have already said we will only consider the bounded case†¶†¶†¶The unbounded case requires a new singular structure in the states (see ). This generalization will be studied elsewhere.. In the tori the motion of the configuration variables is given by eq. (67). In the generic case the $`\varpi _j(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ are not rationally dependant (or non-commensurable). Then the trajectories of the configuration variable fill each torus in a dense way. Therefore the motion is ergodic in each torus. Moreover, we can independently see from eq. (68) that there is a unique equilibrium state in each torus

$$\rho _{}^W(q,p)=\rho (r_0,r_1,\mathrm{},r_N)$$
(73)
which is constant in the submanifold. Therefore we have a microcanonical equilibrium in each torus.

At this point we know that there is a unique stationary equilibrium state $`\rho _{}^W(q,p)`$ $`=\rho (r_0,\mathrm{},r_N)`$ but we do not even know if the evolution converges to $`\rho _{}^W.`$ So now we will prove, using the quantum equations ( 27) or (58), that when $`t\mathrm{},`$ any $`\rho ^W\rho _{}^W`$ in a weak way.

In the quantum case we have

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}(\rho (t)|O)=(\rho _{}|O)$$
(74)
Now, quantum products can be changed into classical products according to eq. (54) so:

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}(\rho ^W(t)|O^W)=(\rho _{}^W|O^W)$$
(75)
and we have proved that:

$$W\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho ^W(t)=\rho _{}^W$$
(76)
Therefore any $`\rho ^W\rho _{}^W`$ weakly when $`t\mathrm{}.`$

#### 3 Non integrable case.

In this case not all the $`P`$ are isolating constants of the motion so there are $`H`$ and $`J.`$ Then the trajectories must be dense in a domain $`𝒟(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)`$ of dimensions $`2NA+1.`$ If not the dimensions of $`𝒟(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)`$ would be $`<2NA+1`$†∥†∥†∥We may say that $`A+1`$ tori are not broken and that $`A`$ tori are broken.. In this case a new global constant must exist and there would be $`A+2`$ global constants. But this is impossible since $`A+1`$ is the total number of these constants. It is quite clear that, as the equilibrium classical density must be globally defined in $`𝒟(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)`$ the $`J_1^W(q,p),\mathrm{},J_{NA}^W(q,p)`$ cannot be explicit variables of $`\rho _{}^W(q,p)`$†\**†\**†\**From its definition, in eq. (26) or in eq. (65), $`\rho `$ is just an ordinary function of global variables. Therefore it cannot be considered as a function defined using local coordinates., so we must just have:

$$\rho _{}^W(q,p)=\rho (H_0^W(q,p),\text{ }H_1^W(q,p),\mathrm{},H_A^W(q,p))$$
(77)
But on $`𝒟(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)`$ we have that:

$$H_0^W(q,p)=r_0=const.,\text{ }H_1^W(q,p)=r_1=const.,\mathrm{},H_A^W(q,p)=r_A=const.$$
(78)
so on $`𝒟(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)`$ it is:

$$\rho _{}^W(q,p)=\rho (r_0,\text{ }r_1,\mathrm{},r_A).$$
(79)
and we find the unique equilibrium for each $`𝒟(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)`$, namely for each set of constants $`(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A).`$ Now we can follow the reasoning of the previous section. Phase space is now foliated by submanifolds $`(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)`$ of dimension $`2NA+1.`$ The changes are that now not all the coordinates of these submanifolds are configuration variables†††††††††Regarding the configuration variables it is clear that, in the non-integrable case, none of then is a global constant of the motion, that further reduces the dimension of $``$ (or $`𝒟).`$ In fact: i.- The preserve tori satisfy an irrationality condition (, eq. (3.4.12)) so the corresponding ratios of the frequencies are irrational and the trajectories are dense in these tori. ii.- In the broken tori the trajectories are chaotic. Nevertheless, if in a particular case there is a configuration variable $`X`$ that turns out to be a global constant of the motion it can be considered among the $`\mathrm{"}H\mathrm{"}`$. Then we will work essentially in the manifold $`X=const.`$ and nothing will change., there are also momentum variables, therefore we cannot use the reasoning about the $`\varpi _j(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ not rationally related in this case. Nevertheless in each $`𝒟(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)`$ there is a unique equilibrium state (79) so using theorem 4.3 of ref.  we conclude that the motion is ergodic in $`𝒟(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A).`$ Now we can repeat the reasoning of eqs. (74) to (76) to show that the equilibrium (79) is weakly reached. Since this equilibrium is a constant we again find a microcanonical ensemble.

But, at this point we may ask ourselves why function $`\rho (H_0^W(q,p),H_1^W(q,p),\mathrm{},H_A^W(q,p)J_1^W(q,p),\mathrm{},J_{NA}^W(q,p))`$ looses its $`J`$ variables. To explain this fact we may say that really space $`𝒪`$ must contain physical measurable observables. But only the CSCO can be measured in an independent way since their observables commute. Moreover as the classical momenta $`J_1^W(q,p),\mathrm{},J_{NA}^W(q,p)`$ have an ergodic motion so it is reasonable to consider that the quantum analogues $`J_1,\mathrm{},J_{NA},`$ cannot really be measured, even at the quantum level†‡‡†‡‡†‡‡We can only measure dynamical variables when they can be considered as constants in time, at least in the period of measurement. If a constant is not global it is only constant in time in a local coordinate system, i. e. it is not really physically constant.. Then the set {$`H_0,\mathrm{},H_A\}`$ is the relevant measurable CSCO, and it is only possible to measure the $`H,H_1,\mathrm{},H_A`$. Then the isolating constant {$`H_0,\mathrm{},H_A\}`$ remains as the only characters in the quantum or classical play.

Phrased in another words the $`J`$ variables can only be diagonalized locally, while the diagonalization procedure of section II.A.2 was thought as a global one. So it is better to consider that the unitary operators $`U`$ of eq. (25) only diagonalize the indices of the $`H`$ (that we will call $`r`$) and do not diagonalize the indices of the $`J`$ (that we will call $`m).`$ Then we obtain a basis where the coordinates of the stases read ( see (26))

$$\rho (\omega )_{rmr^{}m^{}}=\rho _{rmm^{}}(\omega )\delta _{rr^{}}$$
(80)
Then eqs. (27) and (29) become

$$\rho _{}=W\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho (t)=\underset{rmm^{}}{}d\omega \rho _{rmm^{}}(\omega )(\omega ,rmrm^{}|$$
(81)
and

$$P_i=\underset{rmm^{}}{}𝑑\omega P_{rmm^{}}^i|\omega rm\omega rm^{}|,i=1,2,\mathrm{},A$$
(82)
and so on for the rest of the equations.

In order to follow this analysis we must ”trace away” the $`m`$ since the corresponding observables cannot we measured, i. e. they cannot be considered classical in a global way. Essentially we must consider the $`J`$ operators and the $`m`$ indices as inexistent in space $`𝒪`$. As $`𝒪`$ is the space of all measurable observables this fact must be considered as the following change in the observables of eq. (5)

$$O(\omega )_{rmr^{}m^{}}O(\omega )_{rr^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}$$
(83)
(we consider only the diagonal term since we are only concerned in the classical part and we neglect the $`\omega _0`$ term since we are systemically forgetting the ground state). In this way the $`m`$ index has a ”spherical symmetry” and they measure nothing. Then the relevant part of eq. (21) reads

$`O_\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{rmr^{}m^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \overline{\rho (\omega )_{rmr^{}m^{}}}O(\omega )_{rmr^{}m^{}}}={\displaystyle \underset{rmr^{}m^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \overline{\rho (\omega )_{rmr^{}m^{}}}O(\omega )_{rr^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}}=`$

$$\underset{rr^{}}{}𝑑\omega \left(\underset{m}{}\overline{\rho (\omega )_{rmr^{}m}}\right)O(\omega )_{rr^{}}$$
(84)
Calling $`_m\overline{\rho (\omega )_{rmr^{}m}}=\overline{\rho (\omega )_{rr^{}}\text{ }}`$ we obtain the ”traced” equation:

$$O_\rho =\underset{rr^{}}{}𝑑\omega \overline{\rho (\omega )_{rr^{}}\text{ }}O(\omega )_{rr^{}}$$
(85)
and the $`m`$ indices have disappeared. From now on we can work with only the $`r`$ indices $`(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)`$ and in this way the $`\rho `$ of eq. (73) becomes the $`\rho `$ of eq. (79) solving the problem.

Two comments are in order:

i.- From what we have said eq. (27) can be considered as the quantum version of the microcanonical equilibrium. Therefore the conditions to obtain decoherence are equal to those to obtain microcanonical equilibrium states. But this state will be different according to the number of $`J.`$

ii.- $`H`$ has a continuous spectrum, so this is also the case of $`𝕃.`$ (see (56). Thus, albeit the $`O(\mathrm{}/s)`$ of eq. (55), we can conclude that the classical $`L`$ has a continuous spectrum. Moreover, normally quantum corrections make discrete the classical continuous spectra, and not viceversa. Even more, the spectrum of classical Liouville operators are usually continuous. Then $`L`$, most likely, has a continuous spectrum. This is one of the characteristic properties of mixing (and therefore ergodic) systems, the spectrum of their evolution operators are continuous. This is another way to see that the flow is mixing in $`𝒟(r_0,\mathrm{},r_A)`$ , so the existence of a weak limit is natural.

### B The canonical and grand canonical ensemble.

We have proved that our system reach a microcanonical equilibrium. Then, the frequent presence of canonical equilibrium can be explained by at least three reasonings:

i.\- The thermodynamic limit. In this limit microcanonical and canonical densities coincide (see e. g. ).

ii.- Canonical subsystem of a microcanonical system. A small subsystem of a big microcanonical system (that can be considered as a thermic bath) is canonical . So, if the only isolating constant of the motion is the energy $`H,`$ we have reach to the notion of canonical equilibrium:

$$\rho _{}^We^{\beta H^W}$$
(86)
where $`\beta =T^1.`$ In the more general case of section III we would arrive to the conclusion that (cf. )

$$\rho _{}^W\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_0^W\gamma _1H_1^W\mathrm{}\gamma _AH_A^W)$$
(87)
namely generalized grand-canonical ensembles.

iii.- Information theory. If we only use unbiased distributions as in section II.B the exponential will naturally appear . Moreover our CSCO are numerable set, even if some of its observables have continuous spectrum, so we can use the formalism of the quoted paper , based on the information theory, with only one modification: to use, for the observables with continuous spectrum, the classical continuous version of Shannon $`[\rho _{}]`$ (eq. (34)). Then we will again find eqs. (86) or (87).

In all these ways we can obtain the canonical ensemble, to define temperature and to begin the development of classical thermodynamics. As at the end of section II.B.2 we can say that the system will thermalize or not according to the kind of its interaction.

We have a final verification: to relate the equations of II.B with the classical equations above.

Let us begin with the ”trace of an operator” eq. (37) in the simplified CSCO $`\{H\}`$. The classical object corresponding to $`(\omega |`$ is by eq. (63)

$$\rho _\omega ^W(q.p)=\delta (H^W(q,p)\omega )$$
(88)
so the classical object corresponding to $`(I|`$ is

$$I^W(q,p)=\delta (H^W(q,p)\omega )𝑑\omega =1$$
(89)
Therefore the classical trace of an operator corresponding to $`(I|O)`$ is

$$(I^W|O^W)=O^W(q,p)𝑑q𝑑p$$
(90)
namely the integral usually associated with the trace. Finally the classical equation corresponding to (38) reads

$$w_\beta ^W(A)=\frac{e^{\beta H^W(q,p)}A^W(q,p)𝑑q𝑑p}{e^{\beta H^W(q,p)}𝑑q𝑑p}$$
(91)
i.e. eq. (86), if we consider $`\rho _{}^W`$ as a functional of $`A`$ and for the simplified CSCO $`\{H\}.`$ In the general case the functional version of (87) would be

$$w_\beta ^W(A)=\frac{e^{\beta H^W\gamma _1H_1^W\mathrm{}\gamma _AH_A^W}A^W(q,p)𝑑q𝑑p}{e^{\beta H^W\gamma _1H_1^W\mathrm{}\gamma _AH_A^W(}𝑑q𝑑p}$$
(92)
i. e., the classical version of (42) restricted to the isolating members of the CSCO.

## V Localization.

The fate of a classical statistical system is to remain unlocalized in the phase space or to localize around a classical trajectory, in which case the system becomes classical. This fate depends in the potential acting in the system (which can be localizing potentials or not) and the initial conditions. Let us consider a classical distribution $`\rho (q,p)`$ with support of volume $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^{(N+1)}.`$ It would localize if $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^{(N+1)}0`$ when $`t\mathrm{}.`$ But this is impossible since we are dealing with an hamiltonian system where, according to Poincaré theorem, the volume of phase space remains constant. Nevertheless we see localized classical objects. This is only possible of the system corresponds to those studied in section IV. A. 3 where there is a volume $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_O^{(A+1)},`$ that corresponds to the projection of the support of $`\rho (q,p)`$ over the subspace of the observed dynamical variables $`H`$, that vanishes when $`t\mathrm{},`$ while the volume $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_U^{(NA)}`$ corresponding to the unobservable $`J`$ dynamical variables diverges when $`t\mathrm{}`$ being

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_U^{(NA)}.\mathrm{\Delta }V_O^{(A+1)}\mathrm{\Delta }V^{(N+1)}=const.$$
(93)
Therefore the subsystem of the observable variables is not hamiltonian and the Poincaré theorem is by-passed. We conclude that only non integrable system become classical and that the ”non-observability” invoked in section IV.A.3 is essential to obtain a final classical mechanical limit‡\*‡\*‡\*We will give examples of the localization phenomenon elsewhere.

## VI Conclusion.

In usual text books of thermodynamic or statistical mechanics the ergodicity of the system or the micro-canonical state are postulated. With our method we have proved these postulates for systems with evolution operator endowed with continuous spectrum only‡†‡†‡†If they decohere, namely if they satisfy the condition stated in paper .. Is this a limitation of our result? Quite on the contrary, it characterizes the systems where thermodynamic and statistical mechanics can be used: ergodic or mixing systems, being the latter one endowed with continuous evolution spectra . Of course if we work on a box the evolution operator may have a discrete spectrum and we cannot reach to this conclusion. But we know that in this case sooner or later we must expand the box to infinity. Then, either we use hand waving argument: e. g. that the distance between the values of the spectrum is very small etc., or we use the rigorous result that in the limit the spectrum is continuous, and from this fact deduce we the physical properties of the system, as we have done in this paper


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

In previous works we showed that at the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=0`$ Nilsson level the summed strengths for the various isovector dipole modes rY1t, $`[rY^1s]^\lambda `$t, and \[rY$`{}_{}{}^{1}\stackrel{}{l}]^\lambda `$t were independent of deformation, or more precisely of the valence occupancy. This is in striking contrast to the scissors mode excitation induced by the operator $`L_\pi L_\nu `$. For the latter operator, the summed strength for 12C increased by a factor of three in going from the spherical limit to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=0`$ asymptotic(oblate) limit. Likewise, the spin magnetic moment dipole strength shows a great sensitivity to deformation. The strength is quite large in the spherical limit but vanishes in the asymptotic (oblate) limit. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=1`$ strength for the stretched state in 12C will obviously depend on the details of the P3/2 and P1/2 occupancy. You cannot excite the stretched 4- state in 12C by exciting a P1/2 nucleon to the 1s-0d shell. Hence the summed strength is proportional to the P3/2 occupancy.

In this work we remove the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=0`$ restrictions and by using deformed harmonic oscillator wavefunctions in order to obtain the deformation dependence i.e. the dependence on $`\delta `$ of the above dipole modes. We will especially focus on the ’twist mode’ an M2 orbital mode which has been given a picturesque geometric description by Holzwarth et. al . The problem of separating the M2 orbital strength from the M2 spin strength has been discussed by Richter  in the context of a detailed calculation by Drozdz et. al . We shall consider also consider the mode $`[rY^1\stackrel{}{l}]^{\lambda =1}`$. Note that the operator $`[rY^1\stackrel{}{l}]^{\lambda =0}`$ is zero.

## II The calculation for 12C

We are considering the asymptotic oblate limit for 12C. The occupied states can be described by the number of quanta in the x,y, and z directions $`(N_x,N_y,N_z)`$ these are (0,0,0) (1,0,0) and (0,1,0). The wave functions are

| (0,0,0) | $`\frac{N_{(0,0,0)}}{\sqrt{b_xb_yb_z}}exp(\frac{x^2}{2b_x^2}\frac{y^2}{2b_y^2}\frac{z^2}{2b_z^2})`$ |
| --- | --- |
| (1,0,0) | $`\frac{N_{(1,0,0)}}{\sqrt{b_xb_yb_z}}\frac{x}{b_x}exp(\frac{x^2}{2b_x^2}\frac{y^2}{2b_y^2}\frac{z^2}{2b_z^2})`$ |

where
$`N_{(0,0,0)}=1/\pi ^{3/2}`$
$`N_{(1,0,0)}=2/\pi ^{3/2}`$ etc
In the above $`b_x`$ is the oscillator length parameter $`b_x^2=\mathrm{}/m\omega _x`$ e.t.c.

Except for the fact that we now use deformed oscillator wave functions the calculations proceed in the same manner as described in the previous publications

## III Previous Results

In the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=0`$ calculations we found that the summed strength for the electric dipole operator $`rY^1t_+`$ was $`4\pi SUM/b^2=27`$. For the spin dipole the sum was 20.25 which was shown to be 27 $`\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{s}`$ where of course $`\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{s}`$ = 3/4 for a single nucleon. For the orbital dipole $`[Y1\stackrel{}{l}]^\lambda t_+`$ the summed strength (including a sum over $`\lambda `$) was 48 which could be understood as the dipole value multiplied by $`\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{l}`$. For the p shell the ordinary dipole contribution is 24 and $`\stackrel{}{l}\stackrel{}{l}`$ is two - this explains the result of 48.

A further breakdown of the orbital dipole into the $`\lambda `$ components is the second work on this subject  that gave the following results both in the spherical and asymptotic (oblate) limits.

| $`\lambda `$ | $`4\pi SUM`$ |
| --- | --- |
| 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 18 |
| 2 | 30 |

For $`\lambda =0`$ the operator simply vanishes. It is proportional to $`\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{l}`$ and one does not have any component of the angular momentum along the radial direction. Note that the $`\lambda =2`$ to $`\lambda =1`$ strength is in the ratio $`(2\lambda +1)_{\lambda =2}/(2\lambda +1)_{\lambda =1}=30/18`$.

We use the results in this section as taking off points. In the next section, we introduce explicit deformation effects coming from the fact that $`\omega _x`$ and $`\omega _z`$ (or bx and bz) are different. Of course the results that we obtain should reduce to the ones in this section when the frequencies in the x, y, and z direction are taken as equal to each other.

## IV Deformed Oscillator Model with Mottelson Conditions:

We use the Mottelson conditions to get the deformation parameters for 12C. They are

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_x\omega _x=\mathrm{\Sigma }_y\omega _y=\mathrm{\Sigma }_z\omega _z$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x=Sum(N_x+1/2)`$ where for a given state Nx is the number of quanta in the x direction etc. The occupied states $`(N_x,N_y,N_z)`$ are (0,0,0) , (1,0,0), and (0,1,0) giving values of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x=10`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_y=10`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_z=6`$. This yields the correct result that $`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$ is oblate and strongly deformed. We also have

$$\mathrm{}\omega _x=\mathrm{}\omega _y=\frac{6}{10}\mathrm{}\omega _z$$
(2)
We also introduce the deformation parameter $`\delta `$ (which Bohr and Mottelson called $`\delta _{OSC}`$) defined by

$`(\mathrm{}\omega _x)^2=(\mathrm{}\omega _0(\delta ))^2(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\delta )`$ (3)
$`(\mathrm{}\omega _z)^2=(\mathrm{}\omega _0(\delta ))^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\delta )`$ (4)
The volume conservation condition is

$$\mathrm{}\omega _x\mathrm{}\omega _y\mathrm{}\omega _z=(\mathrm{}\overline{\omega _0})^3$$
(5)
which leads to

$$\mathrm{}\omega _0(\delta )=[(1+\frac{2}{3}\delta )^2(1\frac{4}{3}\delta )]^{1/6}\mathrm{}\overline{\omega _0}$$
(6)
We choose $`\mathrm{}\overline{\omega _0}`$ (which is independent of $`\delta `$) to be 15 MeV. We then get the following values

$`\mathrm{}\omega _0=15.966MeV`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{}\omega _x=12.651MeV`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{}\omega _z=21.086MeV`$ (9)
The oscillator length parameters have the following values

$`b_x^2=3.2775`$ (10)
$`b_z^2=1.9665`$ (11)
$`\overline{b_0}^2=2.7643`$ (12)
## V Discussion of Results

The results for the energies and excitation strengths for the $`\lambda =2`$ twist mode are given in Table I, and for the corresponding $`\lambda =1`$ mode in Table II. We see that the main effect of deformation on the $`\lambda =2`$ twist mode is not so much to increase the overall strength, but rather to redistribute it. It is true that when we go from the spherical limit to the asymptotic deformed limit the strength, or more precisely $`4\pi strength/\overline{b_0}^2`$ increases from 30 to 38.784, a 30 percent rise but this is small compared to the corresponding factor of three increase for the scissors mode. However, as shown in Table I, whereas in the spherical oscillator limit all the strength would be at an excitation energy of $`\mathrm{}\overline{\omega _0}=`$ 15 MeV, we now have the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=1`$ strength split into three parts at 12.651, 21.086, and 29.251 MeV. There is also some $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=3`$ strength at 46.388 MeV and 54.823 MeV. For the $`\lambda =1`$ mode there is a similar redistribution of strength, as seen in Table II.

## VI Expressions in terms of the Deformation parameter $`\delta `$

For the $`\lambda =2`$ (TWIST) mode up to second order in $`\delta `$, the values of $`4\pi /b^2`$ summed strengths for $`\delta =0.55814)`$ are for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=1`$

$$30(1\frac{2}{15}\delta +\frac{133}{360}\delta ^2)=35.685$$
(13)
and for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=3`$

$$\frac{33}{2}\delta ^2=5.140$$
(14)
Note that for $`\lambda =2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=1`$ there are terms linear in $`\delta `$ but not for $`\lambda =2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=3`$ We find that at this order the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=1`$ result is good (35.685 compared to exact value of 35.558) but for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=3`$ result we would need to consider higher order terms for such a large deformation. (5.140 compared to exact value of 3.226)

For the $`\lambda =1`$ mode up to second order in $`\delta `$ we obtain

$`18(1+35/72\delta ^2)=20.725`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{21}{2}}\delta ^2=3.271`$ (16)
In contrast to the $`\lambda =2`$ case, for $`\lambda =1`$ there are no terms linear in $`\delta `$. Again for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=1`$ the expansion is good (20.725 compared to exact value of 20.156) but for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=3`$ result we would need to consider higher order terms for such a large deformation. (3.271 compared to exact value of 2.751)

## VII Comparison with other mode - Energy Weighted Sum Rule

The twist excitation operator is $`[rY^1\stackrel{}{l}]^{\lambda =2}t`$. The scissors mode operator is $`(\stackrel{}{L_\pi }\stackrel{}{L_\nu })`$. The latter mode will not be excited unless there are open shells of both neutrons and protons. The twist mode on the other hand can be excited in a closed shell nucleus. Indeed measurements attempting to separate the orbital M2 from the spin M2 in 48Ca and 90Zr were performed by P. von Neumann-Cosel et. al.  This already indicates that the twist mode is less sensitive to deformation than the scissors mode. The scissors mode depends on deformation for its very existence. As just mentioned whereas in 12C when we go from the spherical limit to the asymptotic (oblate) limit the summed scissors mode strength increase by a factor of three whereas the twist mode strength increases by only 30 percent.

We next compare the twist mode to the ordinary dipole mode $`rY^1t`$. For the latter mode even with deformation there will be no $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=3`$ excitation for our simple deformed oscillator hamiltonian $`P^2+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _xx^2+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _yy^2+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _zz^2`$. This is because the dipole operator components are basically x, y, and z and as such can only excite one quantum.

Whereas in the case of axial symmetry the twist mode is split into three $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=1`$ parts and two $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=3`$ parts, the ordinary dipole is split only into two parts at excitation energies of $`\mathrm{}\omega _x`$ and $`\mathrm{}\omega _z`$, with twice the strength in the former.

The energy weighted strength for the ordinary dipole does not change as we go from spherical to the asymptotic (oblate) limit. This is because the dipole operator components x, y, and z commute with the potential energy term $`\frac{1}{2}m\omega _xx^2+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _yy^2+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _zz^2`$. Furthermore the ordinary strength does not change either. We can see this by the fact that the ordinary strength is proportional to $`\frac{1}{\omega _x}+\frac{1}{\omega _y}+\frac{1}{\omega _z}`$. When we calculate the EWSR we get rid of these energy factors.

The Energy Weighted Strengths for the twist mode and corresponding $`\lambda =1`$ mode on the other hand are much greater in the deformed limit than in the spherical limit. For $`\lambda =2`$ the corresponding values are 854.136 MeV and 450 MeV, while for $`\lambda =1`$ they are 516.622 MeV and 270 MeV. The reason for this is that the operator $`[rY^1\stackrel{}{l}]^\lambda `$ does not commute with the potential energy terms unless all three frequencies $`\omega _x`$, $`\omega _y`$, and $`\omega _z`$ are the same.

This work was supported by the U.S. Dept. of Energy under Grant No. DF-FG02-95ER-40940

References

1. G. Holzwarth and G. Eckart, Z. Phys. A283 (1977) 219; Nucl. Phys. A 325 (1979) 1
2. A Richter, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 44 (2000) 3
3. S. Drozdz, S.Nishizaki, J. Speth and J Wambach, Phys. Rep. 197 (1990) 1
4. L. Zamick and N. Auerbach, Nuclear Physics A 658, (1999) 285
5. S.J.Q. Robinson, L Zamick, A. Mekjian, and N. Auerbach Phys. Rev C62,(2000) 017302
6. P. von Neumann-Cosel et. al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 1105


text:
# Magnetoresistance induced by low-field control of phase separation in La0.5Ca0.5MnO3

## I Introduction

The hole-doped rare-earth manganites L1-xAxMnO3, where L is a lanthanide and A a divalent alkaline earth, display a wide variety of spin, charge, and orbital states. The close interplay between them gives rise to different electronic, magnetic and structural phases, such as paramagnetic insulator (PI), ferromagnetic metallic (FMM) or charge ordered antiferromagnetic insulator (COAF) phases. ,. That interrelation leads to many unusual physical properties, of which the negative magnetoresistance (MR) effect is perhaps the most spectacular one.
The MR effect has been extensively studied,  and it has been associated, in general, to a magnetic transition. In particular, the MR of a homogeneous and single crystalline system displaying a PI to FMM transition shows a peak close to the transition temperature TC. This was explained on the basis of the double-exchange mechanism, as the result of the thermally induced spin disorder suppression by an external magnetic field, with the consequent shift in TC. Far below TC the magnetic field has no influence in the (homogeneous) state of the system, and the MR is negligible below T/T$`{}_{C}{}^{}<`$ 1/2. For granular manganites, instead, the effect of the magnetic field is appreciable even at very low temperatures, due to the role played by intergrain barriers. A similar scenario accounts for homogeneous systems showing a FMM-COAF transition. In this case, the presence of a low magnetic field can only introduce a little shift in Tco, with a consequent peak in MR; neither single crystals nor granular materials show an appreciable value of the MR far below Tco. However, at fields high enough to induce the COAF-FMM transition (or to suppress the FMM-COAF one) the MR can achieve high values in a wide temperature range below Tco.
The above described scenario has now a novel and unexpected ingredient: the fact that the low temperature state of some of the manganites consists of coexisting ferromagnetic (FM) and COAF phases has introduced new degrees of freedom into the problem. In this context, the physical properties of the system are strongly dependent on the fraction of the FM phase and its spatial distribution (percolative or not) to account for transport behavior.
Despite the fact that the reason for the existence of the phase separated (PS) state is not yet well understood, theoretical and experimental  results agree that the competition between different phases, which is resolved in a short length scale, is very sensitive to the particular kind of disorder in the compound: site A disorder in La5/8-yPryCa3/8MnO3, site B disorder in Nd0.5Ca0.5Mn0.98Cr0.02O3 and Pr0.5Ca0.5Mn1-xCrxO3,  grain size effects in La0.5Ca0.5MnO3, or intra-granular strain in Pr0.7Ca0.3MnO3. The conduction through percolative paths of the FM phase in PS systems has opened a new scenario for the MR effect. The fourfold orders of magnitude in the drop of the resistivity below 100 K found in La5/8-yPryCa3/8MnO3 under a magnetic field as low as 0.4 T is far away from typical values of the low field MR in homogeneous systems. The role played by the magnetic field in this phenomena was interpreted as related to the interplay between the percolative nature of the phase separation and the domain alignment mechanism, since the field was considered too low to modify the coexisting phase balance.
Crucial effects of the magnetic field on PS systems suggesting a different interpretation were recently reported. In La0.7Ca0.3MnO3 scanning tunneling microscopy experiments gave direct evidence of changes of the FM fraction by the applied magnetic field for temperatures just below TC. In Nd0.5Ca0.5Mn0.98Cr0.02O3, it has been shown that the low temperature fraction of the FM phase is highly dependent on the magnetic field $`H_{ann}`$ under which the system is cooled (annealing field): a non-percolative-percolative transition is induced for H$`{}_{ann}{}^{}`$ 2 T, with the consequent changes of several orders of magnitude in the resistivity. That transition can be only accounted for by the change of the FM fraction $`f`$ induced by the magnetic field, a fact also reflected in the linear $`H_{ann}`$ dependence of the low temperature magnetization M.
The effects of applying moderate magnetic fields (H $``$ 5 T) has been also studied in other PS compounds. It has been shown that a magnetic field of 6 T produces the melting of the CO phase in Nd0.5Sr0.5MnO3, inducing a structural transition and rendering the material FMM mostly.  The possibility of controlling the relative phase fractions with magnetic fields was also claimed in Ref . They have shown that different FM fractions can be tuned as a function of H in 18O rich samples of (La0.25Pr0.25)0.7Ca0.3MnO3 when H exceeds a temperature dependent value Hc of a few teslas. Specific heat measurements on charge ordered compounds Pr1-xCaxMnO3(0.3$`x0.5`$) reveals also that a magnetic field H=8.5 T is able to modify the relative phase fractions.

The gap existing between the magnitude of the magnetic field used in the low field MR work (0.4 T), , and those needed for inducing changes in the relative fractions of the coexisting phases ($`>2`$ T) ,, seems to enforce the idea of two different mechanisms to explain the MR effects in PS systems: domain alignment effect at low fields (under 1 tesla), the fraction change at moderate ones.

The aim of this paper is to give some insight into this subject by analyzing the simple idea that even when applying a low magnetic field in a field-cooled experiment it is possible to affect the fraction of the coexisting phases, a process we call field-induced fraction enlargement. We have performed MR measurements on La0.5Ca0.5MnO3, a suitable compound for studying PS effects due to its PI-FM-COAF phase transitions sequence  and the coexistence of the COAF phase with nanodomains of the FM one below T$`{}_{co}{}^{}`$ 150 K (on cooling). As we previously reported,  changing the grain size through consecutive thermal treatments allow us to control the fraction of FM and COAF phases. This fact opens the possibility for studying the magnetic field effects for different FM fractions below Tco. The measurements were performed with low magnetic fields, in a way that we claim the two effects, alignment (suppression of thermal disorder, intergranular coupling, domain orientation) on one hand, and field-induced fraction enlargement on the other one, are clearly distinguished. Doing this, we could establish the relevance of the fraction enlargement mechanism over the magnetic domain alignment in percolative PS systems at low field. With this result in hands, we analyze the general issue of MR in PS systems, and show that the relation between MR and the FM fraction can be accounted for within this framework with a simple model of conduction by a binary mixture.

## II Experimental

Polycrystalline samples were obtained by a citrate/nitrate decomposition method as described in Ref. . Powder x-ray diffraction was used to check the phase purity; unit cell dimensions and structural parameters were analyzed using the Rietveld method. Four probe resistivity measurements were performed in the temperature range 30-300 K on polycrystalline pellets previously pressed and sintered. The two samples used in this work are those labeled C and EII in Ref. ; the FM fractions were determined through magnetization measurements following the procedure explained there.

## III Results

In Fig. 1 we show the resistivity ($`\rho `$)curves for the two samples under study as a function of temperature. Sample I, with 55$`\%`$ of FM phase at low temperatures, displays a metallic behavior below 80 K, indicating the existence of percolative paths of the FM phase. In sample II, with 9$`\%`$ of FM phase at low temperatures and an insulating behavior, no signal of transport percolation was found down to 40 K, were its resistance exceeded our instrumental detection limit. In Fig. 2a we sketch two curves showing the magnetoresistance MR = \[$`\rho (0)\rho (H)]/\rho (H)`$ of sample I, with each result corresponding to a particular measurement process. In the first procedure, hereafter referred to as field-cooled (FC) mode, the low field (H = 0.65 T) was applied throughout the thermal cycle as the sample is cooled. In the second one, the field was turned on and turned off periodically (TOTO mode) while cooling the sample; the data points were obtained after the field was fully established in each step. These procedures were used with the aim of distinguishing the two above mentioned mechanisms involved in the field dependence of the resistivity: the alignment and the field-induced fraction enlargement effects.

If the local free energy describing the FM and COAF states is adequately accounted for by a double-well potential with almost identical minimums, the main idea is that a low magnetic field can, in the FC mode, prevent the formation of otherwise COAF regions. In this case both mechanisms are expected to be present in the FC mode, and this fact would be reflected by the MR. On the other hand, if a low magnetic field is applied after the fraction of the phases was established, the energy barrier between the wells would prevent the change of the populations if the field is applied for a short time. Therefore the only effect in the resistivity would be related to domain orientation. Following this argument, we have taken a period of 60 seconds for the switching off the field in the TOTO mode, which is short compared with relaxation times observed through similar processes in another PS system, and also confirmed by careful relaxation experiments performed on our samples.

Comparing the temperature dependence of the obtained MRs measured on cooling with the different procedures on sample I, plotted in Fig. 2a, we can see that both MR have their onset around TC, and the curves increase close together with decreasing temperature down to T$``$ 200 K. Bellow this temperature both curves depart. Remarkably, this temperature is close to that at which the onset of a structural phase separation has been reported.  The TOTO curve has a peak near TC, and below Tco increases almost linearly towards a low temperature value of 0.25, resembling the behavior of an homogeneous granular FMM compound. On the other hand the FC curve rises steeply below TC, reaches a peak (MR=0.75) around Tco, and also increases almost linearly towards a low temperature value as high as 1.2.
The different response of the compound to the magnetic field regarding the way it was applied gives us a starting point for the understanding of the MR effect in PS systems. When the role of the magnetic field is only that of magnetic moments alignment, as in the TOTO mode, the MR of a PS compound is, irrespective of its PS nature, the same as that of an homogeneous FMM one, due to the intensive character of the MR. The split of the curves when the compound becomes unstable against phase separation and the large values of the MR in the FC mode point to the fact that the low magnetic field is able to modify the relative volumes of the coexisting phases when applied throughout the thermal cycle. In this situation the resistivities with and without applied field correspond to media with different amount of FM phases, which is a distinctive feature that can only be obtained in PS systems.
In order to support the above described scenario we have measured the MR in the FC and TOTO modes on sample II (Fig. 2b). This sample is just below the percolation threshold of the FM phase, as the lack of metallic behavior at low temperatures indicates (see Fig.1). The MR in the TOTO mode goes to zero for low temperatures, as expected in a non-percolative sample. However, the applied low field in the FC mode induces an increase of the fraction of the FM phase, leading to its percolation, with the consequent change of more than two orders of magnitude in resistivity below 60 K. Thus, the low field plays an unbalancing role in the FC mode, inducing a qualitative change, from non-percolative to percolative transport, giving the colossal values of the MR displayed in Fig. 2b. It is also worth noting that the differences found in the MR figures obtained by the FC mode for samples I and II seem to follow a definite relation among the FM fractions and the MR values: high MR are obtained when the sample has a low FM content.

## IV Discussion

The presented results point to the fact that field-induced enlargement of the FM phase is responsible for the observed low-field MR in this PS perovskite. In the discussion that follows we show that this fact is a suitable candidate to give an explanation for the relation between MR and FM fraction at a given temperature. We also show that within this framework it is possible to account for the MR values at the insulator-metal transition temperature (Tim) in the prototypical PS system La5/8-yPryCa3/8MnO3, an experimental observation not yet properly understood.
To do this we use as main framework the General Effective Medium theory, which describes the resistivity $`\rho _e`$ of a binary mixture through the relation

$$f\frac{(\rho _e^{1/t}\rho _{FM}^{1/t})}{(\rho _e^{1/t}+A_c\rho _{FM}^{1/t})}+(1f)\frac{(\rho _e^{1/t}\rho _{co}^{1/t})}{(\rho _e^{1/t}+A_c\rho _{co}^{1/t})}=0$$
(1)
where $`\rho _{FM}`$ and $`\rho _{co}`$ are, respectively, the resistivities of homogeneous FM and CO phases, explicitly including their particular field and temperature dependence and granular effects, $`t`$ is the critical exponent (we assume $`t`$ = 2), $`f`$ is the fraction of the FM phase, and $`A_c=1/f_c1`$, where $`f_c`$ is the critical percolative fraction of the FM phase.
Through Eq. 1 we can obtain an expression for the MR of a PS system in terms of the resistivities of the constitutive mediums and the corresponding FM fraction $`f`$, under the assumption that the magnetic field induces small changes in $`f`$. As $`\rho _{FM}`$, $`\rho _{co}`$ and $`f`$ are, in general, temperature and field dependent, we obtain an intricate dependence of the MR with the external parameters. An important simplification can be introduced by neglecting the dependence of $`\rho _{FM}`$ with the magnetic field (the MR arising from that dependence is, at most, 10$`\%`$ for low fields at Tco, as shown by the TOTO curves of Fig. 2). With this approximation, the calculated MR is defined by the ratio of the resistivities of the sample when the FM fraction is changed by $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$, so that

$$MR=\frac{\rho _e(f,\rho _{co}/\rho _{FM})}{\rho _e(f+\mathrm{\Delta }f,\rho _{co}/\rho _{FM})}1$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ is the actual field-induced fraction enlargement value. It is worth noting that Eq. (2) is, in some sense, a generalization of the MR concept, as it describes a MR obtained between resistivity curves at fields $`H`$ and $`H+\mathrm{\Delta }H`$, where in this case the FM fraction enlargement effect is induced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$.
We may now compare the predictions arising from this simplified model with the experimental results of the MR of two prototypical PS compounds: La0.5Ca0.5MnO3 and La5/8-yPryCa3/8MnO3. As a distinctive feature, in the case of La0.5Ca0.5MnO3 we can study the MR in samples with different values of $`f`$ at a constant temperature, for instance, the temperature at which the MR peaks. In this case the value of $`\rho _{co}/\rho _{FM}`$ is fixed, and the only unknown parameter is the field dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$. In order to gain some insight into the relation between $`f`$ and $`H`$ we have measured the resistivity of samples I and II for several magnetic fields $`H`$ in the FC mode, between 0 and 0.8 T, and calculated the MR at the peak temperature, T$``$ 150 K, for all the intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ between these fields. With this procedure we obtain the MR for different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$. The zero field data was ruled out in order to partially exclude the neglected field effect on $`\rho _{FM}`$. The results are shown in Fig. 3a. The calculated curves were obtained following the experimental results of Ref. , assuming a linear relation between $`f`$ and $`H`$, i.e., $`f=f_0+\alpha _fH`$, where $`f_0`$ is the zero field FM fraction and $`\alpha _f`$ a field-independent factor, hereafter referred to as the fraction expansion coefficient. We have taken the value $`\rho _{co}/\rho _{FM}`$ =1000 and the zero field FM fraction of the samples I and II from Ref. . The only free parameter for the adjustment of the experimental results is $`\alpha _f`$. The $`\alpha _f`$ values obtained, 0.20 and 0.11 T-1 for samples I and II respectively, indicate a small dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ with the initial FM fraction $`f_0`$. The agreement between the experimental data and calculated curves reveals that the simplified model we are dealing with is able to account for the relation between the MR and FM fraction at a constant temperature, giving a quantitative basis for the understanding of the MR effect in PS systems.
In order to obtain an additional insight on the results that are expected for PS systems in the fraction enlargement scenario, we have used Eq. 2 to describe the MR effect occurring in La5/8-yPryCa3/8MnO3, a compound with a very distinct behavior. In this system, and as a function of y, a sharp change in the insulator-metal transition temperature Tim is obtained in the $`y`$ region near 0.3. In the high $`y`$ region, a net separation between Tim and TC can be observed. Below TC the state of the system is characterized by the coexistence of isolated FM clusters embedded in charge ordered regions. Unlike what happens in La0.5Ca0.5MnO3, in the Pr based compound the FM fraction increases as the temperature decreases below 80 K, and the insulator-metal transition is achieved when the fraction of the FM phase reaches the percolation threshold. As $`y`$ approaches 0.41 from bellow, Tim is lower and the maximum of the MR curve is higher. We have studied the MR obtained by Eq. 2 as a function of the percolation temperature Tim by varying the relation $`\rho _{co}/\rho _{FM}`$, which is a monotonous function of Tim. The analytical description of this situation can be done within the following scheme: a) At Tim the FM fraction is close to $`f_c`$=0.17, and is fixed by definition for all samples; b) the temperature Tim enters in the calculations through the ratio $`\rho _{co}/\rho _{FM}`$, which can change several orders of magnitude as a function of temperature; c) at Tim the fraction enlargement $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ is the same for all samples, and it is only determined by the value of the magnetic field. In Fig 3b we show the results corresponding to the MR values at Tim of different samples obtained from resistivity curves measured with $`H`$ = 0 and 0.4 T. The raw experimental data was extracted from Refs.  and , and the MR calculated as a function of $`(\rho _{co}/\rho _{FM})^{1/2}`$. The calculations were made taking into account that the maximum of the MR in Eq. 2 is obtained, for a fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$, when $`f=f_c\mathrm{\Delta }f/2`$. The only free parameter in the calculations is $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ , which was found equal to 0.054; this corresponds to a value of $`\alpha _f0.13`$ T-1, although the relevance of this coefficient is not proved in La5/8-yPryCa3/8MnO3 compounds. The main fact to be noted is that only one parameter is sufficient to account for the MR at Tim through several orders of magnitude, the huge changes of MR being a consequence of the variation of the $`\rho _{co}/\rho _{FM}`$ ratio as the percolation temperatures change. This can be taken as a clear indication on behalf of the role played by the magnetic field in PS systems.

## V Concluding Remarks

We have shown some important aspects concerning the effects of magnetic fields in PS systems. On one hand, we have presented evidence that even a low magnetic field has the capability of modifying the volume fractions of the coexisting phases in a field-cooling process. This effect seems to be the one that drives the colossal magnetoresistance observed in these systems. On the other hand we have shown that the response of the system is highly dependent on the way in which the magnetic field is applied. The fact that the large values of MR are obtained only in FC experiments put strong restrictions to the use of PS systems in practical applications: magnetic devices taking advantage of the MR effect are actually exposed to processes like our magnetic field turn-on-turn-off experiment. In such a case, the MR response of the PS compound will be rather similar to that obtained in an homogeneous FM system, i.e., displaying values far away from being considered ”colossal”. Another interesting point related to the measurement methods we dealt with is the fact that, combining them, we can determine the onset temperature at which a system gets into the phase separated state.
Finally, using the fraction enlargement picture we have been able to account for the relation between the FM volume fraction and the MR in La0.5Ca0.5MnO3, and between MR and Tim in La5/8-yPryCa3/8MnO3. In this scenario the fraction expansion coefficient $`\alpha _f`$ appears as the main parameter to characterize the PS systems, as it governs the interrelation between transport properties and magnetic fields. The interesting question arising from the last point is related to the dependence of $`\alpha _f`$ with some physical parameters, namely, $`f`$, $`H`$ and T. We obtained only partial information about that dependence in the PS systems mentioned here, although the similar values of $`\alpha _f`$ found in all them, with very different conditions with respect to $`f`$, $`H`$ and T, give some confidence on the physical entity of $`\alpha _f`$. Further experimental and theoretical work is indeed needed to corroborate this point.

We thank Dr. Ruben Weht for his fruitful comments.
\+ also at EcyT, Universidad Nacional de Gral. San Martín, San Martín, Argentina.
++ also at CIC, CONICET, Argentina.