text:
# Bicategories of operator algebras and Poisson manifolds

## 1. Introduction

One of the achievements of Doplicher and Roberts has been to introduce monoidal categories into quantum field theory; indeed, their work provides the most convincing example of categorical thinking in physics by a long shot. Since a monoidal category is nothing but a bicategory with one object, it seems an appropriate tribute to describe a number of more general bicategories with proven relevance to physics.

In a bicategory  (alternatively called a weak 2-category, which is a special case of a weak $`n`$-category ), each space of arrows between two fixed objects is itself a category, so that there is a notion of isomorphisms of such arrows. To distinguish the arrows between objects in a bicategory from the arrows in each category of arrows, the former arrows are called horizontal, the latter vertical. Now, horizontal composition of arrows is merely associative up to isomorphism, and the horizontal composition of an arrow with a local unit arrow is merely isomorphic to the given arrow, rather than equal to it, as in a category.

Our examples of bicategories originated in the theory of constrained quantization , relating classical and quantum physics in an intriguing way. In the order: Objects, horizontal arrows, composition operation, unit arrows (as in: Rings, bimodules, algebraic bimodule tensor product, canonical bimodule over a ring), these examples are

1. $`C^{}`$-algebras, Hilbert ($`C^{}`$) bimodules , Rieffel’s tensor product , canonical Hilbert bimodule;
2. von Neumann algebras, correspondences , Connes’s tensor product , standard form ;
3. Lie groupoids , regular bibundles , Hilsum–Skandalis tensor product , canonical bibundle;
4. Symplectic groupoids , regular  symplectic bibundles , Hilsum–Skandalis–Xu tensor product , canonical symplectic bibundle;
5. Integrable Poisson manifolds , regular  symplectic bimodules (dual pairs) , Xu’s tensor product , s-connected and s-simply connected symplectic groupoid.

In the literature one finds notions of Morita equivalence for each of these cases (see , respectively). It is gratifying that all these definitions may be derived from a single notion, namely isomorphism of objects in the pertinent bicategory.

The plan is as follows: we first recall the notion of a bicategory, then briefly discuss rings as a warmup, and subsequently explain each of the above cases in some detail, including the pertinent Morita theory.

Acknowledgements The author is indebted to M. Müger and I. Moerdijk for drawing his attention to bicategories.

## 2. Bicategories

Our notation for (bi)categories (including groupoids) will be that $`C`$ denotes a (bi)category as a whole, whose class of objects is $`C_0`$, and whose class of arrows is $`C_1`$. For $`a,bC_0`$, the Hom-space $`(a,b)C_1`$ stands for the collection of arrows from $`b`$ to $`a`$, so that composition of arrows is a map from $`(a,b)\times (b,c)`$ to $`(a,c)`$. A functor $`F:CD`$ decomposes as $`F_0:C_0D_0`$ and $`F_1:C_1D_1`$, subject to the usual axioms. The unit arrow associated to an object $`aC_0`$ is denoted $`1_a(a,a)`$.

Categories can sometimes be “enriched” so as to become 2-categories. Although we will not encounter this precise structure, 2-categories are a special case of bicategories, which is easier to explain, and may serve as a warmup for the latter. The following material comes straight from ; also see  for an enthusiastic account, with generalizations to $`n`$-categories.

###### Definition 2.1.

A 2-category is a category $`C`$ for which each class of arrows $`(a,b)`$, $`a,bC_0`$, is itself a category, such that

1. The map $`(a,b)\times (b,c)(a,c)`$ given by composition of arrows in $`C_1`$ is the 0-component of a functor (where the left-hand side is the Cartesian product of two categories; Mac Lane  then speaks of a bifunctor);
2. For each $`aC_0`$, the map $`U_a:11_a`$ is the 0-component of a functor from the trivial (or terminal) category $`T`$ (with one object and one arrow) to $`(a,a)`$.

These axioms simply mean that the given maps can be extended to well-behaved maps between “arrows between arrows”. The first motivating example of a 2-category is the category of all categories, with functors as arrows, and natural transformations as arrows between arrows. The second is the category of topological spaces, with continuous maps as arrows, and homotopies as arrows between arrows.

In the context of this paper, the category of rings with homomorphisms as arrows should be seen as a 2-category, with intertwiners as arrows between arrows. $`C^{}`$-algebras and von Neumann algebras with (normal) $`^{}`$-homomorphisms, and Lie groupoids with smooth functors provide further examples.

Bicategories generalize 2-categories, as follows.

###### Definition 2.2.

A bicategory (or weak 2-category) $`C`$ consists of

* A class of objects $`C_0`$;
* A category $`(a,b)`$ for each pair $`(a,b)C_0\times C_0`$;
* A (bi)functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{a,b,c}:(a,b)\times (b,c)(a,c)`$ for each triple $`(a,b,c)`$;
* A functor $`U_a:T(a,a)`$, $`U_a(1)=1_a`$, for each $`aC_0`$,

such that

1. The functors $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{a,c,d}\mathrm{\Phi }_{a,b,c}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{a,b,d}\mathrm{\Phi }_{b,c,d}`$ from $`(a,b)\times (b,c)\times (c,d)`$ to $`(a,d)`$ are naturally isomorphic;
2. The functors $`ff1_b`$ (where $`f(a,b)`$) and $`\text{id}_{(a,b)}`$ from $`(a,b)`$ to itself are naturally isomorphic;
3. The functors $`1_aff`$ and $`\text{id}_{(a,b)}`$ from $`(a,b)`$ to itself are naturally isomorphic,

subject to coherence laws stated on p. 282 of  (these laws lead to consistency of various orders of bracketing).

A 2-category is a bicategory in which the natural isomorphisms in the above definition are the identity. Many examples of genuine bicategories will be given in what follows. The bifunctors $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are sometimes said to define the “horizontal” composition of arrows, in contradistinction to the “vertical” composition of arrows in each of the categories $`(a,b)`$.

Since the theory of Morita equivalence will involve isomorphism of objects in a bicategory, we should point out that this notion is weaker than in a category.

###### Definition 2.3.

Two objects $`a,b`$ in a bicategory are isomorphic, written $`ab`$, when there exist arrows $`f(a,b)`$ and $`g(b,a)`$ such that $`fg1_a`$ (isomorphism in the usual sense as objects in the category $`(a,a)`$) and $`gf1_b`$ in $`(b,b)`$.

## 3. Rings

The following theorem is already mentioned (as an example) in .

###### Theorem 3.1.

For any two rings $`R,S`$, let $`(R,S)`$ be the collection of all bimodules $`RMS`$, seen as the class of objects of a category, whose arrows are $`R`$-$`S`$ linear maps.

The collection of all rings as objects, bimodules as arrows, (horizontal) composition $`(R,S)\times (S,T)(R,T)`$ given by $`_S`$, and the unit arrow $`1_S`$ in $`(S,S)`$ given by the canonical bimodule $`SSS`$, is a bicategory \[Rings\].

One looks at bimodules as generalized homomorphisms. The precise connection between bimodules and ordinary homomorphisms is as follows.

###### Remark 3.2.

Given a (unital) homomorphism $`\rho :RS`$, one constructs a bimodule $`RSS`$ by $`r(s)=\rho (r)s`$ and $`(s)t=st`$. We write this as $`R\stackrel{\rho }{}SS`$.

The identity map on objects and the map

$$R\stackrel{\rho }{}SR\stackrel{\rho }{}SS$$

on arrows is a contravariant functor from the category of rings with homomorphisms as arrows into the bicategory \[Rings\].

See  for the notion of a functor between two bicategories; we here look at the domain of the embedding functor as a 2-category (cf. the preceding section). The direction of arrows is reversed, since in \[Rings\], a bimodule $`RMS`$ is an arrow from $`S`$ to $`R`$. This could be remedied by mapping a homomorphism $`\rho :RS`$ to the bimodule $`SS\stackrel{\rho }{}R`$, but this construction does not work for $`C^{}`$-algebras.

Morita’s theorems give a necessary and sufficient condition for the representation categories of two rings to be equivalent.

###### Definition 3.3.

The representation category $`\text{Rep}(R)`$ of a ring $`R`$ has left $`R`$-modules as objects, and $`R`$-module maps as arrows (that is, given two $`R`$-modules $`M`$, $`N`$, elements of $`(N,M)`$ of arrows are homomorphisms from $`M`$ to $`N`$ as abelian groups that commute with the $`R`$-action).

In the present language, Morita theory starts as follows.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Two rings are isomorphic objects in the bicategory \[Rings\] iff they have equivalent representation categories (where the equivalence functor is required to be additive).

###### Remark 3.5.

The first condition is explained in Definition 2.3. To be concrete, it here means that there exists an arrow in $`(R,S)`$ (that is, a bimodule $`RMS`$) that is invertible up to isomorphism. Such an $`M`$ is often called an $`R`$-$`S`$ equivalence bimodule. In other words, there should, in addition, exist an arrow $`SM^1R`$ in $`(S,R)`$, such that

$`SM^1_RMS`$ $``$ $`SSS;`$
$`RM_SM^1R`$ $``$ $`RRR.`$
Here the first $``$ stands for isomorphism in the category $`(S,S)`$, whereas the second denotes isomorphism in $`(R,R)`$. The first condition simply means that the composition of the two given bimodules, seen as arrows, is isomorphic to the unit arrow in $`(S,S)`$, etc.

###### Proof.

The idea of the proof in the “$``$” direction is as follows. One constructs a functor $`G:\text{Rep}(S)\text{Rep}(R)`$ by taking tensor products: on objects one has $`G_0(L)=M_SL\text{Rep}(R)_0`$ for $`L\text{Rep}(S)_0`$, and on arrows one puts, in obvious notation, $`G_1(f)=\mathrm{id}_Sf`$. To go in the opposite direction, one repeats the above procedure, in defining a functor $`F:\text{Rep}(R)\text{Rep}(S)`$ by means of $`F_0(N)=M^1_RN`$, etc. Using Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3.5, it easily follows that $`FG\text{id}_{\text{Rep}(S)}`$ and $`GF\text{id}_{\text{Rep}(R)}`$.

In the “$``$” direction, one constructs $`M`$, given an equivalence functor $`G:\text{Rep}(S)\text{Rep}(R)`$, by putting $`M=G_0(1_S)`$. The left $`S`$ action on $`S`$ is turned into a left $`R`$ action on $`M`$ by definition of $`G_0`$, and the right $`S`$ action on $`S`$ is turned into a right $`S`$ action on $`M`$ through $`G_1`$, since $`S^{\text{op}}(S,S)\text{Rep}(S)_1`$. Thus $`M(R,S)`$. Similarly, define $`F_0(1_R)(S,R)`$. The definition of equivalence of categories then trivially implies that the isomorphisms in Remark 3.5 hold, with $`M^1=F_0(1_R)`$. For details, cf. no. 12.13 in .

$`\mathrm{}`$

The first part of this proof generalizes to all other classes of mathematical objects we study in this paper. The second part, on the other hand, only generalizes when the analogues of the identity arrows $`1_R`$ lie in the representation category under consideration, and when there is enough functoriality around to turn the analogues of $`F_0(1_R)`$ into a bimodule of the desired sort. These two conditions are met in the case of von Neumann algebras; in all other cases one has to adapt the setting. In this light, the following comment is relevant.

###### Remark 3.6.

An equivalence functor $`F:\text{Rep}(R)\text{Rep}(S)`$ is automatically fibered, in the following sense. For each fixed ring $`T`$, the functor $`F`$ defines an equivalence $`F_T`$ between the categories $`(R,T)`$ and $`(S,T)`$, natural in $`T`$.

Naturality here means that, for any rings $`T,T^{}`$ and homomorphisms $`\phi :TT^{}`$, one has $`\phi _S^{}F_T^{}=F_T\phi _R^{}`$, where $`\phi _R^{}:(R,T^{})(R,T)`$ is the induced functor.

In any case, the connection with the usual Morita theory is

###### Proposition 3.7.

A bimodule $`M(R,S)`$ is invertible as an arrow in \[Rings\] iff

1. $`R\text{End}_{S^{\text{op}}}(M)`$;
2. $`M`$ is finitely generated projective as an $`R`$\- and as an $`S^{\text{op}}`$-module.

In that case, the inverse may be taken as $`M^1=\text{Hom}_{S^{\text{op}}}(M,S)`$.

###### Proof.

The “$``$” claim is part of “Morita I”, cf. no. 12.10.4 in  for 1, and 12.10.2 for 2. The converse follows from nos. 12.8(c) and 4.3(c) in .

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 4. $`C^{}`$-algebras

The $`C^{}`$-algebraic analogue of a bimodule for rings is a Hilbert bimodule. This concept involves the theory of Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules, for which we refer to .

###### Definition 4.1.

An $`𝔄`$-$`𝔅`$ Hilbert bimodule, where $`𝔄`$ and $`𝔅`$ are $`C^{}`$-algebras, is a Hilbert $`C^{}`$ module $``$ over $`𝔅`$, along with a nondegenerate $`^{}`$-homomorphism of $`𝔄`$ into $`_𝔅()`$. We write $`𝔄𝔅`$.

The following example is the $`C^{}`$-algebraic version of the ring bimodule $`RRR`$.

###### Example 4.2.

A $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝔅`$ may be seen as a Hilbert bimodule $`𝔅𝔅𝔅`$ over itself, in which $`A,B_𝔅=A^{}B`$, and the left and right actions are given by left and right multiplication, respectively.

Note that the norm in $`𝔅`$ as a $`C^{}`$-algebra coincides with its norm as a Hilbert module because of the $`C^{}`$-axiom $`A^{}A=A^2`$.

The $`C^{}`$-algebraic analogue of the bimodule tensor product is the (interior) tensor product $`\widehat{}_𝔅`$ defined by Rieffel ; also see . In complete parallel with ring theory (cf. Theorem 3.1), one now has

###### Theorem 4.3.

For any two $`C^{}`$-algebras, let $`(𝔄,𝔅)`$ be the collection of all Hilbert bimodules $`𝔄𝔅`$, seen as a category, whose arrows are adjointable $`𝔄`$ linear maps (such maps are automatically bimodule maps).

With (horizontal) composition $`(𝔄,𝔅)\times (𝔅,)(𝔄,)`$ given by $`\widehat{}_𝔅`$, and unit arrow in $`(𝔅,𝔅)`$ given by $`1_𝔅=𝔅𝔅𝔅`$, the collection of all $`C^{}`$-algebras as objects, and Hilbert bimodules as arrows, forms a bicategory \[C$`^{}`$\].

Along the lines of Remark 3.2, we have

###### Remark 4.4.

An $`𝔄`$-$`𝔅`$ Hilbert bimodule may be seen as a generalization of a nondegenerate $`^{}`$-homomorphism $`\rho :𝔄𝔅`$, for given such a $`\rho `$ one constructs a Hilbert bimodule $`𝔄𝔅𝔅`$ by $`A(B)=\rho (A)B`$, and the other operations as in Example 4.2. We write $`𝔄\stackrel{\rho }{}𝔅𝔅`$.

Thus one obtains a contravariant functor from the category of $`C^{}`$-algebras with $`^{}`$-homomorphism as arrows into the bicategory \[C$`^{}`$\].

Rieffel, who launched the theory of Morita equivalence of $`C^{}`$-algebras , defined the representation category $`\text{Rep}(𝔄)`$ of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝔄`$ as follows.

###### Definition 4.5.

The representation category $`\text{Rep}(𝔄)`$ of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝔄`$ has nondegenerate representations of $`𝔄`$ on a Hilbert space as objects, and bounded linear intertwiners as arrows.

The first attempt to adapt Theorem 3.4 to $`C^{}`$-algebras now reads

###### Theorem 4.6.

If two $`C^{}`$-algebras are isomorphic objects in the bicategory \[C$`^{}`$\], then they have equivalent representation categories (in the above sense), where the equivalence functor is required to be linear and $`^{}`$-preserving on arrows.

The proof is the same as for rings, the bicategory \[C$`^{}`$\] replacing \[Rings\]. Moreover, one should regard a representation of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝔄`$ on a Hilbert space as an $`𝔄`$-$``$ Hilbert bimodule.

The $`C^{}`$-algebraic version of Proposition 3.7 is as follows.

###### Proposition 4.7.

A bimodule $`(𝔄,𝔅)`$ is invertible as an arrow in \[C$`^{}`$\], so that $`𝔄`$ and $`𝔅`$ are isomorphic in \[C$`^{}`$\], iff

1. the linear span of the range of $`,_𝔅`$ is dense in $`𝔅`$ (in other words, $`𝔅`$ is full);
2. the $`^{}`$-homomorphism of $`𝔄`$ into $`_𝔅()`$ of Definition 4.1 is an isomorphism $`𝔄𝒦_𝔅()`$. (If $`𝔄`$ has a unit, this isomorphism will be $`𝔄_𝔅()`$.)

If $`𝔄𝔅`$ is invertible, its inverse (up to isomorphism) is $`𝔅\overline{}𝔄`$, where $`\overline{}`$ is the conjugate space of $``$, on which $`𝔅`$ acts from the left by $`B:\mathrm{\Psi }B^{}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`𝔄`$ acts from the right by $`A:\mathrm{\Psi }A^{}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The $`𝔄`$-valued inner product on $`\overline{}`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi }_𝔄=\phi ^1(T_{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi }}^𝔅)`$, where $`\phi :𝔄𝒦_𝔅()`$ is the pertinent isomorphism.

Here $`𝒦_𝔅()`$ is the $`C^{}`$-algebra of “compact” operators on $``$, seen as a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module over $`𝔅`$ . Equivalent conditions are given in .

###### Proof.

This is essentially Prop. 2.3 in  (Schweizer works with the category of $`C^{}`$-algebras with equivalence classes of Hilbert bimodules as arrows, rather than with the bicategory whose arrows are the Hilbert bimodules themselves, but his proof may trivially be adapted to our situation). We are indebted to Paul Muhly for drawing our attention to this result. Muhly in addition provided a second proof in case that the algebras are unital: combine Thm. 4.3 in  with Thm. 6.2 in .

$`\mathrm{}`$

It is clear that the ring-theoretic proof of a potential “$``$” part of Theorem 4.6 cannot immediately be adapted to the present case, since the bimodule $`1_𝔄`$ is not itself an element of $`\text{Rep}(𝔄)`$. To remedy this defect, one should enlarge $`\text{Rep}(𝔄)`$ so that it contains $`𝔄`$. This has been done by Blecher  in the setting of operator spaces, operator modules, and completely bounded maps, but here we choose a different way out, suggested by Remark 3.6, and by a discussion with J. Mrčun.

###### Theorem 4.8.

Two $`C^{}`$-algebras $`𝔄,𝔅`$ are isomorphic in \[C$`^{}`$\] iff for any $`C^{}`$-algebra $``$ one has a category equivalence $`(𝔄,)(𝔅,)`$, natural in $``$.

The particular enlargement of $`\text{Rep}(𝔄)`$ therefore involves all representations of $`𝔄`$ on Hilbert modules over arbitrary $`C^{}`$-algebras $``$. This theorem may be derived from the results in ; it is an open question whether it can be proved by pure $`C^{}`$-algebraic methods.

## 5. von Neumann algebras

Although one could adapt the theory of Hilbert bimodules for $`C^{}`$-algebras so as to include normality of the actions, as in , there is a much simpler approach to bimodules for von Neumann algebras, initiated by Connes .

###### Definition 5.1.

Let $`𝔐,𝔑`$ be von Neumann algebras. An $`𝔐`$-$`𝔑`$ correspondence $`𝔐𝔑`$ is given by a Hilbert space $``$, a normal unital representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝔐`$ on $``$, and a normal unital anti-representation $`\phi `$ of $`𝔑`$ on $``$ (in other words, a normal representation of $`𝔑^{\text{op}}`$), such that $`\pi (𝔐)\phi (𝔑)^{}`$ (and hence $`\phi (𝔑)\pi (𝔐)^{}`$). The correspondence is called faithful when $`\pi `$ and $`\phi `$ are injective.

Matched correspondences may be composed using Connes’s tensor product $`_𝔑`$ .

###### Theorem 5.2.

For any two von Neumann algebras, let $`(𝔐,𝔑)`$ be the collection of all correspondences $`𝔐𝔑`$, seen as the object space of a category, whose arrows are bounded linear bimodule maps.

The collection of all von Neumann algebras as objects, and correspondences as arrows, forms a bicategory \[W$`^{}`$\] under (horizontal) composition $`_𝔑:(𝔐,𝔑)\times (𝔑,𝔓)(𝔐,𝔓)`$, and the unit arrow in $`(𝔑,𝔑)`$ given by the standard form $`𝔑L^2(𝔑)𝔑`$.

The von Neumann algebraic version of Remarks 3.2 and 4.4 holds verbatim .

The theory of Morita equivalence of von Neumann algebras was initiated by Rieffel , whose definition of strong Morita equivalence was directly adapted from the $`C^{}`$-algebraic Proposition 4.7. However, the theory of correspondences enables one to rewrite his theory in a way that practically copies the purely algebraic case of rings. In any case, one puts

###### Definition 5.3.

Let $`𝔐`$ be a von Neumann algebra. The representation category $`\text{Rep}(𝔐)`$ has normal unital representations on Hilbert spaces as objects, and bounded linear intertwiners as arrows.

The Morita theorem for von Neumann algebras then reads as follows:

###### Theorem 5.4.

Two von Neumann algebras are isomorphic objects in the bicategory \[W$`^{}`$\] iff their representation categories are equivalent (and the equivalence functor implementing $``$ is linear and $`^{}`$-preserving on arrows).

The proof is the same as for rings, replacing the bicategory \[Rings\] by \[W$`^{}`$\]. Von Neumann’s bicommutant theorem provides enough functoriality to make all steps of the ring proof to go through for von Neumann algebras.

Rieffel’s original Morita theorem for von Neumann algebras was based on his own definition of strong Morita equivalence (Def. 7.5 in ), which is equivalent to isomorphism in \[W$`^{}`$\] by the following analogue of Propositions 3.7 and 4.7:

###### Proposition 5.5.

Two von Neumann algebras $`𝔐,𝔑`$ are isomorphic in \[W$`^{}`$\] iff there exists a faithful correspondence $`𝔐𝔑`$ for which $`𝔐^{}𝔑^{\text{op}}`$ (and hence $`(𝔑^{\text{op}})^{}𝔐`$).

In that case, the inverse correspondence is $`𝔑\overline{}𝔐`$, where $`\overline{}`$ is the conjugate of $``$, and left and right actions are swapped using the involution on $`𝔑`$ and $`𝔐`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from a combination of Theorem 4.3 above with Thms. 7.9 and 8.15 in  and Theorem 2.2 in . A direct proof would be desirable.

$`\mathrm{}`$

The von Neumann algebraic version of Remark 3.6 holds verbatim.

## 6. Lie groupoids

As for general categories, our generic notation for groupoids is that $`G_0`$ is the base space of a groupoid $`G`$, with source and target maps $`s,t:G_1G_0`$, multiplication $`m:G_2G_1`$ (where $`G_2=G_1_{G_0}^{s,t}G_1`$), inversion $`I:G_1G_1`$, and object inclusion $`\iota :G_0G_1`$ (this inclusion map will often be taken for granted, in that $`G_0`$ is seen as a subspace of $`G_1`$).

A Lie groupoid is a groupoid for which $`G_1`$ and $`G_0`$ are manifolds, $`s`$ and $`t`$ are surjective submersions, and $`m`$ and $`I`$ are smooth. It follows that $`\iota `$ is an immersion, that $`I`$ is a diffeomorphism, that $`G_2`$ is a closed submanifold of $`G_1\times G_1`$, and that for each $`qG_0`$ the fibers $`s^1(q)`$ and $`t^1(q)`$ are submanifolds of $`G_1`$. References on Lie groupoids that are relevant to the themes in this paper include .

The following notion will be important in what follows: A Lie groupoid (or, more generally, a topological groupoid) is called s-(simply) connected if the fibers of $`s:G_1G_0`$ are (simply) connected.

We now define actions  and bimodules  for Lie groupoids.

###### Definition 6.1.

1. Let $`G`$ be a Lie groupoid and let $`M\stackrel{\tau }{}G_0`$ be smooth. A left $`G`$ action on $`M`$ (more precisely, on $`\tau `$) is a smooth map $`(x,m)xm`$ from $`G_{G_0}^{s,\tau }M`$ to $`M`$ (i.e., one has $`s(x)=\tau (m)`$), such that $`\tau (xm)=t(x)`$, $`xm=m`$ for all $`xG_0`$, and $`x(ym)=(xy)m`$ whenever $`s(y)=\tau (m)`$ and $`t(y)=s(x)`$.
2. A right action of a Lie groupoid $`H`$ on $`M\stackrel{\sigma }{}H_0`$ is a smooth map $`(m,h)mh`$ from $`M_{H_0}^{t,\tau }H`$ to $`M`$ that satisfies $`\sigma (mh)=s(h)`$, $`mh=m`$ for all $`hH_0`$, and $`(mh)k=m(hk)`$ whenever $`\sigma (m)=t(h)`$ and $`t(k)=s(h)`$.
3. A $`G`$-$`H`$ bibundle $`M`$ carries a left $`G`$ action as well as a right $`H`$ action that commute. That is, one has $`\tau (mh)=\tau (m)`$, $`\sigma (xm)=\sigma (m)`$, and $`(xm)h=x(mh)`$ for all $`(m,h)MH`$ and $`(x,m)GM`$. On occasion, we simply write $`GMH`$.

The maps $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ will sometimes be called the base maps of the given actions.

In the purely algebraic case, one may form a tensor product between two matched groupoid bibundles $`GMH`$ and $`HNK`$, as follows. The pullback $`M_HN`$ carries a diagonal right $`H`$ action, given by $`h:(m,n)(mh,h^1n)`$ (defined as appropriate). The tensor product over $`H`$ is then simply the orbit space

$$M_HN=(M_HN)/H,$$

seen as a $`G`$-$`K`$ bibundle under the obvious maps. We name this tensor product after Hilsum–Skandalis . In the smooth case, one needs further assumptions for this construction to work.

###### Definition 6.2.

A (left) $`G`$ bundle $`M`$ over a manifold $`X`$ consists of a (left) $`G`$ action on $`M`$ and a smooth map $`\pi :MX`$ that is invariant under the $`G`$ action. Similarly for right actions.

A (left) $`G`$ bundle $`M`$ over $`X`$ is called principal when $`\pi `$ is a surjective submersion and the map from $`G_1_{G_0}^{s,\tau }MM_XM`$ given by $`(x,m)(xm,m)`$ is a diffeomorphism. In other words, the action is free (in that $`xm=m`$ iff $`xG_0`$) and transitive along the fibers of $`\pi `$, and one has $`G\backslash MX`$ through $`\pi `$.

A $`G`$-$`H`$ bibundle $`M`$ is called left principal when it is principal for the $`G`$ action with respect to $`X=H_0`$ and $`\pi =\sigma `$. Similarly, it is called right principal when it is principal for the $`H`$ action with respect to $`X=G_0`$ and $`\pi =\tau `$.

A $`G`$-$`H`$ bibundle $`M`$ is called regular when it is left principal and the right $`H`$ action is proper (in that the map $`(m,h)(m,mh)`$ from $`M_{H_0}H`$ to $`M\times M`$ is proper).

The definition of a principal bundle is taken from ; it is different from the one in .

Now, if two Lie groupoid bibundles $`GMH`$ and $`HNK`$ are both regular, then the tensor product $`M_HN`$ is a manifold, and is even a $`G`$-$`K`$ bibundle. For the surjectivity of $`\sigma :MH_0`$ implies that $`M_{H_0}N`$ is a submanifold of $`M\times N`$, and the freeness of the $`H`$ action on $`N`$ with the properness of the $`H`$ action on $`M`$ implies that the diagonal $`H`$ action on $`M_{H_0}N`$ is free and proper, so that the quotient space $`M_HN`$ is a manifold.

To explain the unit objects in the bicategory \[LG\] to be defined shortly, first note the following .

###### Remark 6.3.

A homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }:GH`$ is a smooth functor (in that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ are smooth). Such a functor defines a $`G`$-$`H`$ bibundle with total space $`M=G_0_{H_0}^{\mathrm{\Psi }_0,t}H`$, base maps $`pr_1:MG_0`$ and $`s_2:MH_0`$, a left $`G`$ action inherited from the obvious $`G`$ action $`G_{G_0}^{s,\text{id}}G_0G_0`$, and the right $`H`$ action is given by multiplication. Here $`pr_1`$ is projection onto the first coordinate, and $`s_2`$ is essentially the source projection of $`H`$.

A special case is provided by $`H=G`$ and the identity functor $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{id}:GG`$, leading to the canonical $`G`$-$`G`$ bibundle $`G`$. This arises from the general case by the isomorphism $`G_{G_0}^{t,\text{id}}G_0G`$, $`(x,q)x`$, and may be seen as the groupoid version $`1_G`$ of the ring bimodule $`RRR`$, or of the standard form of a von Neumann algebra.

Thus one obtains a version of Theorem 3.1 for Lie groupoids:

###### Theorem 6.4.

For any two Lie groupoids, let $`(G,H)`$ be the collection of all regular $`G`$-$`H`$ bibundles, seen as the object space of a category, in which an arrow from $`M`$ to $`N`$ is a smooth map that intertwines the maps $`MG_0`$, $`MH_0`$ with the maps $`NG_0`$, $`NH_0`$, and in addition intertwines the $`G`$ and $`H`$ actions (the latter condition is well defined because of the former).

Then the collection of all Lie groupoids as objects, regular bibundles as arrows, (horizontal) composition $`(G,H)\times (H,K)(G,K)`$ given by the Hilsum–Skandalis tensor product $`_H`$, and the unit arrow $`1_H`$ in $`(H,H)`$ as defined above, is a bicategory \[LG\].

This theorem was inspired by , where the case of topological groupoids is discussed in the setting of ordinary categories, so that one works with equivalence classes of the bimodules in question. Dropping our right properness assumption, such classes are sometimes called Hilsum–Skandalis maps, following their introduction in the special case of groupoids defined by foliations . Also cf. .

Remark 6.3 leads to a satisfactory groupoid counterpart of Remarks 3.2 and 4.4, which we leave to the reader to spell out.

We now write down the Lie groupoid counterpart of Definition 3.3.

###### Definition 6.5.

The objects of the representation category $`\text{Rep}(G)`$ of a Lie groupoid $`G`$ are left $`G`$ actions on smooth maps $`M\stackrel{\tau }{}G_0`$. The space of arrows $`(N,M)`$ between a representation on $`M\stackrel{\tau }{}G_0`$ and one on $`N\stackrel{\sigma }{}G_0`$ consists of all smooth maps $`\phi :MN`$ that satisfy $`\sigma \phi =\tau `$ and intertwine the $`G`$ action.

As in Theorem 3.4, we now have

###### Theorem 6.6.

If two Lie groupoids are isomorphic objects in the bicategory \[LG\], then their representation categories are equivalent.

The proof is literally the same as for rings, the bicategory \[LG\] replacing \[Rings\].

As pointed out by I. Moerdijk, a “$``$” Morita theorem is possible along the lines of Remark 3.6. The equivalence functor $`\text{Rep}(G)\text{Rep}(H)`$ provided by an isomorphism $`GH`$ automatically induces equivalence functors $`(G,K)(H,K)`$, natural in $`K`$. Unlike the case of rings and von Neumann algebras, this property is not shared by arbitrary equivalence functors, which is the reason why there is no “$``$” implication in Theorem 6.6. One then has the following statement: two (Lie) groupoids $`G,H`$ are strongly Morita equivalent iff for all $`K`$ there exist equivalences $`(G,K)(H,K)`$, natural in $`K`$. (It is, in fact, only necessary to have such equivalences for a small class of $`G`$-$`K`$ bibundles, namely those in which $`K`$ is the trivial groupoid over itself, acting trivially on the middle space.)

###### Proposition 6.7.

Two Lie groupoids $`G,H`$ are isomorphic objects in the bicategory \[LG\] iff there exists a $`G`$-$`H`$ bibundle $`M`$ with the additional properties:

1. $`M`$ is left and right principal;
2. The $`G`$ and $`H`$ actions are proper.

In that case, an inverse of $`GMH`$ is the bibundle $`H\overline{M}G`$, where $`\overline{M}`$ is $`M`$ as a manifold, seen as a $`H`$-$`G`$ bibundle with the same base maps, and left and right actions interchanged using the inverse in $`G`$ and $`H`$.

This reproduces the definition of Morita equivalence for (Lie) groupoids given in . Other definitions that are in use are equivalent to this one; see, e.g., , and refs. therein.

###### Proof.

The second part of the proposition, which at the same time proves the “$``$” claim in the first part, is proved by the argument following Def. 2.1 in .

For the “$``$” claim in the first part, we are given a regular bibundle $`GMH`$, with regular inverse $`HM^1G`$. This leads to two isomorphisms, as displayed in Remark 3.5 for rings. From $`M_HM^1G`$ as $`G`$-$`G`$ bibundles we infer that the left $`G`$ action on $`M_HM^1`$ is proper (since the canonical left $`G`$ action on $`G`$ is), which by reductio ad absurdum implies that the left $`G`$ action on $`M`$ is proper. Since the target projection $`t:G_1G_0`$ is a surjective submersion, so is the map $`M_HMG_0`$, and therefore $`\tau :MG_0`$ must be a surjective submersion as well. In similar vein, the isomorphism $`M^1_GMH`$ as $`H`$-$`H`$ bibundles implies that the right $`H`$ action on $`M`$ is free and transitive on the $`\tau `$-fibers. Together with the assumed regularity of the bibundle $`GMH`$, we have now proved both conditions in the proposition.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 7. Symplectic groupoids

We now specialize to symplectic groupoids, which will be crucial for a bicategorical understanding of Poisson manifolds, and are of interest in themselves. Our basic references are .

###### Definition 7.1.

A symplectic groupoid is a Lie groupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is a symplectic manifold, with the property that the graph of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a Lagrangian submanifold of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$.

The notion of a bibundle for symplectic groupoids is an adaptation of Definition 6.1, now also involving the idea of a symplectic groupoid action .

###### Definition 7.2.

An action of a symplectic groupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a symplectic manifold $`S`$ is called symplectic when the graph of the action in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\times S\times S^{}`$ is Lagrangian.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be symplectic groupoids. A (regular) symplectic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ bibundle consists of a symplectic space $`S`$ that is a (regular) bibundle as in Definition 6.1, with the additional requirement that the two groupoid actions be symplectic.

The tensor product of two matched regular bibundles for symplectic groupoids is then defined exactly as in the general (non-symplectic) case. Hence we obtain a symplectic version of Theorem 6.4:

###### Theorem 7.3.

For any two symplectic groupoids $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, let $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be the collection of all regular symplectic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ bibundles, seen as the class of objects of a category, with arrows as described in Proposition 6.4, with the additional requirement that the maps preserve the symplectic form.

Then the collection of all symplectic groupoids as objects, regular symplectic bibundles as arrows, (horizontal) composition $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Sigma })\times (\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{{\rm Y}})(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$ given by $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and the unit arrow $`1_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ given by the canonical bibundle over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is a bicategory \[SG\].

The discussion of Morita equivalence for symplectic groupoid is an obvious adaptation of the Lie groupoid case.

###### Definition 7.4.

The objects of the representation category $`\text{Rep}^s(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of a symplectic groupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are symplectic left $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ actions on smooth maps $`\tau :S\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, where $`S`$ is symplectic. The space of arrows is as in Definition 6.5, with the additional requirement that $`\phi `$ be a complete Poisson map (cf. the next section).

It should be mentioned that $`\tau `$ is necessarily a complete Poisson map . As in Theorem 6.6, we again have

###### Theorem 7.5.

If two symplectic groupoids are isomorphic in \[SG\], then their representation categories $`\text{Rep}^s()`$ are equivalent.

Xu’s original Morita theorem for symplectic groupoids  is now equivalent to the following statement, which is proved like Proposition 6.7.

###### Proposition 7.6.

Two symplectic groupoids $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are isomorphic in \[SG\] iff as Lie groupoids they satisfy the condition stated in Proposition 6.7, with the additional requirement that the middle space $`M=S`$ is symplectic, and that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ actions are symplectic (see Definition 7.2).

In that case, an inverse bibundle is $`S^{}`$, seen as a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ bibundle by interchanging left and right actions through the groupoid inverse.

## 8. Poisson manifolds

Poisson algebras are the classical analogues of $`C^{}`$-algebras and von Neumann algebras; see, e.g., .

###### Definition 8.1.

A Poisson algebra is a commutative associative algebra $`A`$ (over $``$ or $``$) endowed with a Lie bracket $`\{,\}`$ such that each $`fA`$ defines a derivation $`X_f`$ on $`A`$ (as a commutative algebra) by $`X_f(g)=\{f,g\}`$. In other words, the Leibniz rule $`\{f,gh\}=\{f,g\}h+g\{f,h\}`$ holds.

A Poisson manifold is a manifold $`P`$ with a Lie bracket on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$ such that the latter becomes a Poisson algebra under pointwise multiplication.

We write $`P^{}`$ for $`P`$ with minus a given Poisson bracket. Not all Poisson algebras are of the form $`A=C^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$ (think of singular reduction), but we specialize to this case. The derivation $`X_f`$ then corresponds to a vector field on $`P`$, called the Hamiltonian vector field of $`f`$. If the span of all $`X_f`$ (at each point) is $`TP`$, then $`P`$ is symplectic.

The classical counterpart of a Hilbert bimodule or a correspondence is a symplectic bimodule. First, recall that a Poisson map $`q:SQ`$ between Poisson manifolds is a smooth map whose pullback $`q^{}:C^{\mathrm{}}(Q)C^{\mathrm{}}(S)`$ is a homomorphism of Poisson algebra. A Poisson map $`q`$, or rather its pullback $`q^{}`$, defines a pair of maps. The first of these, $`q_c^{}`$, defines $`C^{\mathrm{}}(S)`$ as a module for $`C^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ as a commutative algebra through $`q_c^{}(f)g=(q^{}f)g`$. The second, $`q_L^{}`$, maps $`C^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ into the Lie algebra $`\text{Der}(C^{\mathrm{}}(S))`$ of derivations of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(S)`$ through $`q_L^{}(f)=X_{q^{}f}`$, or, in other words, $`q_L^{}(f)g=\{q^{}f,g\}`$. This map is a Lie algebra homomorphism by definition of a Poisson map.

A Poisson map $`q:SQ`$ is called complete when, for every $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ with complete Hamiltonian flow, the Hamiltonian flow of $`q^{}f`$ on $`S`$ is complete as well (that is, defined for all times). Requiring a Poisson map to be complete is a classical analogue of the self-adjointness condition on a representation of a $`C^{}`$-algebra . The following definition goes back to Weinstein  and Karasev .

###### Definition 8.2.

A symplectic bimodule $`QSP`$ consists of a symplectic manifold $`S`$, Poisson manifolds $`Q`$ and $`P`$, and complete Poisson maps $`q:SQ`$ and $`p:SP^{}`$, such that $`\{q^{}f,p^{}g\}=0`$ for all $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ and $`gC^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$.

In order to give a bicategorical description of Poisson manifolds, we need to explain the connection between Poisson manifolds and symplectic groupoids. The compatibility condition in Definition 7.1 expresses the idea that groupoid multiplication should be a Poisson map. This has the following consequence .

###### Proposition 8.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a symplectic groupoid. There exists a unique Poisson structure on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ such that $`t`$ is a complete Poisson map and $`s`$ is a complete anti-Poisson map. Hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\stackrel{t}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{s}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is a symplectic bimodule.

The objects in the bicategory \[Poisson\] will be of the following form .

###### Definition 8.4.

A Poisson manifold $`P`$ is called integrable when there exists an $`s`$-connected and $`s`$-simply connected symplectic groupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ over $`P`$ (so that $`P`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)_0`$ as a Poisson manifold).

It can be shown that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ is unique up to isomorphism (see Thm. 3.21 in ). Running ahead of the Morita theory for Poisson manifolds, we here need

###### Definition 8.5.

The representation category $`\text{Rep}(P)`$ of a Poisson manifold has complete Poisson maps $`q:SP`$, where $`S`$ is some symplectic space, as objects, and complete Poisson maps $`\phi :S_1S_2`$, where $`q_2\phi =q_1`$, as arrows.

This definition goes back to Weinstein (see, e.g., ), although we use a more straightforward choice of arrows. In any case, one now has the following extraordinary relationship between Poisson manifolds and symplectic groupoids.

###### Theorem 8.6.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ and $`P`$ are related as in Definition 8.4, then the categories $`\text{Rep}^s(\mathrm{\Gamma }(P))`$ and $`\text{Rep}(P)`$ are equivalent.

This theorem is independently due to Dazord and Xu ; key ingredients of the proof already appeared in .

###### Corollary 8.7.

1. Let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be integrable Poisson manifolds, with associated s-connected and s-simply connected symplectic groupoids $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)`$; cf. Definition 8.4.

There is a natural bijective correspondence between symplectic bimodules $`QSP`$ and symplectic bibundles $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)S\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$.
2. Let $`R`$ be a third integrable Poisson manifold, with associated s-connected and s-simply connected symplectic groupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$, and let $`QS_1P`$ and $`PS_2R`$ be symplectic bimodules.

The Hilsum–Skandalis tensor product $`S_1_{\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)}S_2`$ of the associated symplectic bibundles $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)S_1\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)S_2\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)`$ is a $`Q`$-$`R`$ symplectic bimodule.

This follows from Theorem 8.6. In the setting of Poisson manifolds and symplectic groupoids, the Hilsum–Skandalis tensor product was introduced by Xu ; also cf. . It may alternatively be described without groupoids using the special symplectic reduction procedure of , in which case we write it as $`S_1_PS_2`$ ($`=S_1_{\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)}S_2`$). This remark provides the connection between the mathematical structures in this paper and the physics of constrained dynamical systems.

In the following theorem, given two $`Q`$-$`P`$ symplectic bimodules $`Q\stackrel{q_i}{}S_i\stackrel{p_i}{}P`$ for $`i=1,2`$ we say that a smooth map $`\phi :S_1S_2`$ is a $`Q`$-$`P`$ map when $`q_2\phi =q_1`$ and $`p_2\phi =p_1`$. Also, we call a $`Q`$-$`P`$ symplectic bimodule regular when the associated $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)`$-$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ symplectic bibundle is regular (cf. Corollary 8.7.1).

###### Theorem 8.8.

For any two integrable Poisson manifolds, let $`(P,Q)`$ consist of all regular symplectic bimodules $`PSQ`$. The class $`(Q,P)`$ consists of the objects of a category, whose arrows are complete $`Q`$-$`P`$ Poisson maps

Then the class of all integrable Poisson manifolds as objects, regular symplectic bimodules as arrows, (horizontal) composition of arrows $`(Q,P)\times (P,R)(Q,R)`$ given by the Hilsum–Skandalis–Xu tensor product as in Corollary 8.7, and the unit arrow $`1_P(P,P)`$ given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$, forms a bicategory \[Poisson\].

###### Proof.

This follows from Theorem 7.3 and Corollary 8.7.

$`\mathrm{}`$

It would be desirable to translate the stated conditions on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)`$ actions into conditions on the maps $`p`$ and $`q`$.

The Poisson analogue of Remarks 3.2, 4.4, etc. is as follows:

###### Remark 8.9.

A complete Poisson map $`\rho :PQ`$ defines a symplectic bimodule $`Q\stackrel{\rho }{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)P`$, so that a symplectic bimodule may be seen as a generalized Poisson map. The identity map on objects and the map

$$P\stackrel{\rho }{}QQ\stackrel{\rho }{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)P$$

on arrows is a covariant functor from the category of Poisson manifolds with Poisson maps as arrows into the bicategory \[Poisson\].

The theory of Morita equivalence of Poisson manifolds was initiated by Xu , and may now be reformulated as follows.

###### Theorem 8.10.

If two integrable Poisson manifolds are isomorphic objects in the bicategory \[Poisson\], then their representation categories are equivalent.

This is proved as for rings. Interestingly, one has

###### Proposition 8.11.

A Poisson manifold $`P`$ is integrable iff it is Morita equivalent to itself.

Xu’s original definition of Morita equivalent of Poisson manifolds  now becomes an inference.

###### Proposition 8.12.

The following statements are equivalent:

1. Two integrable Poisson manifolds $`P,Q`$ are isomorphic objects in \[Poisson\].
2. There is a symplectic bimodule $`QSP`$ with the following additional properties:

1. The maps $`p:SP`$ and $`q:SQ`$ are surjective submersions;
    2. The level sets of $`p`$ and $`q`$ are connected and simply connected;
    3. The foliations of $`S`$ defined by the levels of $`p`$ and $`q`$ are mutually symplectically orthogonal (in that the tangent bundles to these foliations are each other’s symplectic orthogonal complement).
3. The symplectic groupoids $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)`$ are Morita equivalent.

In that case, an inverse of $`QSP`$ is $`PS^{}Q`$, with the same maps.

###### Proof.

The equivalence of 2 and 3 is Thm. 3.2 in .

By Theorem 7.6, statement 3 is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ in \[SG\], which by Definition 2.3 means that there is an invertible bibundle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Q)S\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ in \[SG\]. By Corollary 8.7 this is equivalent to the invertibility of the associated symplectic bimodule $`QSP`$ in \[Poisson\], which by Definition 2.3 is statement 1.

$`\mathrm{}`$


format: text

text:
# Decoherence within a single atom

\[

## Abstract

An ”almost diagonal” reduced density matrix (in coordinate representation) is usually a result of environment induced decoherence and is considered the sign of classical behavior. We point out that the proton of a ground state hydrogen atom can possess such a density matrix. This example demonstrates that the ”almost diagonal” structure may derive from an interaction with a low number of degrees of freedom which play the role of the environment. We also show that decoherence effects in our example can only be observed if the interaction with the measuring device is significantly faster than the interaction with the environment (the electron). In the opposite case, when the interaction with the environment is significant during the measurement process, coherence is maintained. Finally, we propose a neutron scattering experiment on cold He atoms to observe decoherence which shows up as an additional positive contribution to the differential scattering cross section. This contribution is inversely proportional to the bombarding energy.

\]

Decoherence is a remarkable quantum phenomenon which plays a central role in the (not yet fully understood) emergence of classical properties. It is also a practically important effect in quantum optics, atomic physics and mesoscopic systems. Therefore, it can be of interest to discuss some of its less known aspects. In the present paper we show on a simple example that contrary to the common belief,

1. an ”almost diagonal” (in coordinate representation) density matrix may be the result of an interaction with only a few degrees of freedom
2. an ”almost diagonal” density matrix does not necessarily imply the loss of coherence
3. interaction may maintain rather than destroy coherence.

We also discuss the conditions when and how decoherence can be observed.

Our primary example is a single ground state hydrogen atom. Later we shall also consider the case of a helium atom.

The wave function of a freely moving hydrogen atom in the ground state may be written in coordinate representation in the product form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_e)=\psi (\stackrel{}{R})\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r})`$ (1)
where

$`\stackrel{}{R}={\displaystyle \frac{m_p\stackrel{}{r}_p+m_e\stackrel{}{r}_e}{m_p+m_e}}`$ (2)
stands for the coordinates of the center of mass and

$`\stackrel{}{r}=\stackrel{}{r}_e\stackrel{}{r}_p`$ (3)
for the relative coordinates. The vectors $`\stackrel{}{r}_p`$, $`\stackrel{}{r}_e`$ refer to the position of the proton and that of the electron, respectively, while $`m_p`$ and $`m_e`$ are the corresponding masses. In Eq.(1)

$`\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi a_B^3}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{a_B}}\right)`$ (4)
is the ground state of the hydrogen atom, where $`a_B=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m_ee^2}=0.529\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}`$ stands for the Bohr radius. As the Schrödinger equation of the hydrogen atom separates in the $`\stackrel{}{R}`$, $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ coordinates, the time evolution of the center of mass wave function does not influence the state $`\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r})`$, and the product form (1) persists. Nevertheless, when expressing the total wave function in the original coordinates $`\stackrel{}{r}_p`$, $`\stackrel{}{r}_e`$, the state of the hydrogen atom is not of a product form, instead, it is an entangled state. Indeed, both $`\psi (\stackrel{}{R})`$ and $`\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r})`$ depend on both $`\stackrel{}{r}_p`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_e`$. For simplicity suppose that $`\mathrm{\Delta }Pa_B/\mathrm{}m_p/m_e`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ standing for the momentum uncertainty of the center of mass), or, equivalently, that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m_ea_B}}v_e2\times 10^6{\displaystyle \frac{m}{s}}`$ (5)
($`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ being the velocity uncertainty of the center of mass and $`v_e`$ standing for the velocity of the electron), then $`\psi (\stackrel{}{R})\psi (\stackrel{}{r}_p)`$, and we arrive at the Born-Oppenheimer approximation

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_e)=\psi (\stackrel{}{r}_p)\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r}_e\stackrel{}{r}_p)`$ (6)
Entanglement implies that the proton is not in a pure state, i.e., its density matrix $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{})`$ is not a single projector. Indeed, using expression (6) we get

$`\rho (\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{})={\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{r}_e\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_e)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{},\stackrel{}{r}_e)}`$ (7)
$`=\psi (\stackrel{}{r}_p)\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{})\left(1+s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}s^2\right)\mathrm{e}^s`$ (8)
where $`s=|\stackrel{}{r}_p\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{}|/a_B`$. Provided that the width of the center of mass wave function is much larger than the Bohr radius, the reduced density matrix (8) is ”almost diagonal”, i.e., its width (which is approximately $`2a_B`$) is much smaller than its length along the diagonal. The condition for this is $`\mathrm{\Delta }Pa_B/\mathrm{}1`$, or

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m_pa_B}}10^3{\displaystyle \frac{m}{s}}.`$ (9)
It is a much stronger condition than that of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (cf. Eq.(5)). Let us emphasize that the ”almost diagonal” structure in this example is due to the interaction with a single electron.

An ”almost diagonal” density matrix (in coordinate representation) is usually a result of ”environment induced decoherence” and is considered the sign of classical behavior. In the present paper we consider the validity of this expectation and discuss the physical meaning of density matrices like (8).

It is of worth mentioning that we do not need to rely upon the Born-Oppenheimer approximation in order to arrive at an ”almost diagonal” density matrix. That approximation is only convenient because it allows one to perform the integration in Eq.(7) explicitly, independently of the actual form of the center of mass wave function. More generally, Eqs.(1), (7) imply

$`\left|\rho _p(\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{})\right|\left(\underset{\stackrel{}{R}}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\psi (\stackrel{}{R})\right|^2\right)\left(1+s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}s^2\right)\mathrm{e}^s`$ (10)
This inequality shows that the offdiagonal matrix elements of the reduced density matrix decay at least exponentially when increasing $`s=|\stackrel{}{r}_p\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{}|/a_B`$.

As an example, suppose that

$`\psi (\stackrel{}{R})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \delta ^2)^{\frac{3}{4}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1+i\frac{\mathrm{}t}{2M\delta ^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}}\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{P_0^2t}{2M\mathrm{}}}`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{R}_0\frac{\stackrel{}{P}_0}{M}t)^2}{4\delta ^2\left(1+i\frac{\mathrm{}t}{2M\delta ^2}\right)}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{P}_0(\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{R}_0)}{\mathrm{}}})`$ (12)
where $`M=m_p+m_em_p`$. Eq. (12) describes a Gaussian wave packet moving in free space. If condition (5) does not hold, the integral in Eq.(7) cannot be expressed in a closed analytical form. Assuming the validity of (5), however, we obtain Eq.(8). We get a narrow density matrix (an ”almost diagonal” one) if $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=\sqrt{\delta ^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{}t}{2M\delta }\right)^2}a_B`$.

The deviation of the reduced density matrix of the proton from the pure state can be characterized by $`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\rho }_p^2`$. It is unity for a pure state and less than unity (but positive) for a mixed state. Using Eqs.(12), (5) we have

$`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\rho }_p^2={\displaystyle \frac{z^3}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ss^2\left(1+s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}s^2\right)^2`$ (13)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(2s{\displaystyle \frac{s^2z^2}{4}}\right)`$ (14)
where

$`z={\displaystyle \frac{a_B}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}={\displaystyle \frac{a_B}{\sqrt{\delta ^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{}t}{2M\delta }\right)^2}}}`$ (15)
It is easy to see that in case of an ”almost diagonal” density matrix (i.e., when $`z1`$) $`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\rho }_p^2`$ is much smaller than one (in fact, it goes to zero with $`z`$ as $`z^3`$), while in the other extreme of very large $`z`$ it approaches unity, which corresponds to a pure state.

As it is well known, a reduced density matrix gives all the possible information about the results of measurements done on the corresponding subsystem. Let us emphasize that such measurements are assumed to be infinitely fast, so that they give a snapshot about the state of the subsystem. It is obvious that coordinate measurements do not reveal the structure of the density matrix, as the probability distribution of the coordinates are given by the diagonal elements $`\rho _p(\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_p)`$ which is independent of the decay of the offdiagonal elements. Note that in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (cf. Eq.(6)) $`\rho _p(\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_p)=|\psi (\stackrel{}{r}_p)|^2`$, which is completely independent of the interaction between the proton and the electron. In contrast, momentum measurements are sensitive for the behavior of the offdiagonal elements of the reduced density matrix in coordinate respresentation. The probability distribution of the momentum is determined by the diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix in momentum representation, i.e., by

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_p(\stackrel{}{p}_p,\stackrel{}{p}_p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{r}_pd^3\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{}\rho _p(\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{})}`$ (16)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{}{p}_p(\stackrel{}{r}_p\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{})\right)`$ (17)
Introducing coordinates parallel and perpendicular to the diagonal of the reduced density matrix (in coordinate representation), i.e.,

$`\stackrel{}{r}_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{}{r}_p+\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{})`$ (18)
$`\stackrel{}{r}_{}=\stackrel{}{r}_p\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{}`$ (19)
we may write

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_p(\stackrel{}{p}_p,\stackrel{}{p}_p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}{\displaystyle }d^3\stackrel{}{r}_{}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{}{p}_p\stackrel{}{r}_{}))`$ (20)
$`\times {\displaystyle }d^3\stackrel{}{r}_{}\rho _p(\stackrel{}{r}_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{r}_{},\stackrel{}{r}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{r}_{})`$ (21)
This last expression shows that the momentum distribution is proportional to the Fourier transform of the offdiagonal elements of the density matrix in coordinate representation, after having averaged them along the diagonal. Obviously, the narrower the density matrix (in coordinate representation) becomes, the broader the momentum distribution will be. Using the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (6) and the explicit expression (12), we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_p(\stackrel{}{p}_p,\stackrel{}{p}_p)={\displaystyle \frac{a_B^3}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ss\mathrm{sin}(qs)`$ (22)
$`\times \left(1+s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}s^2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{s^2z_0^2}{8}}\right)`$ (23)
where $`q=|\stackrel{}{p}_p\stackrel{}{P}_0|a_B/\mathrm{}`$ and $`z_0=a_B/\delta `$. Note that the momentum distribution is independent of the time, which is a natural consequence of the fact that momentum (unlike coordinates) is now a conserved quantity.

It is instructive to evaluate expression (23) in two extreme situations: for $`a_B\delta `$ and $`a_B\delta `$. The former case corresponds to a pure state of the proton, while in the latter case one has an ”almost diagonal” mixed state. For $`a_B\delta `$ we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_p(\stackrel{}{p}_p,\stackrel{}{p}_p)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3}{\mathrm{}^3}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{P_0})^2\delta ^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right)`$ (24)
It coincides with the momentum distribution of the center of mass, and is independent of the electronic motion. In the opposite case (which is our case of interest), for $`a_B\delta `$ we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_p(\stackrel{}{p}_p,\stackrel{}{p}_p)={\displaystyle \frac{8a_B^3}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+q^2)^4}}`$ (25)
This coincides with the momentum distribution of the atomic electron (if $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is identified with the momentum of the electron times $`a_B/\mathrm{}`$) and is independent of the center of mass motion. Let us emphasize that it is the momentum distribution of the proton, and the above coincidence is a consequence of momentum conservation and that the variance of the total momentum is negligible. Obviously, the width of distribution (25) is $`\mathrm{}/a_B`$, much larger than $`\mathrm{}/\delta `$, the momentum uncertainty corresponding to the state (12). This broadening marks the “almost diagonal” structure of $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{})`$. Below we shall point out that this sign of decoherence also shows up in neutron scattering cross sections which are experimentally more accessible.

The above discussion raises the obvious question how one can then observe diffraction with atomic beams , why interference is not destroyed by decoherence. In a typical diffraction experiment done with atoms the condition of “almost diagonal” structure of $`\rho (\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_p\text{ }^{})`$, Eq.(9) is indeed fulfilled. The essential point of the explanation is that the density matrix which characterizes a subsystem (in our case the proton) refers to instantaneous (infinitely fast) measurements. This means that one can observe decoherence effects in a measurement done on the proton if during the interaction between the proton and the measuring device the state of the electron does not change significantly. As an estimate, one may compare the momentum actually gained by the electron from the proton during the measurement to the momentum change of the electron that would take place if the electron followed the proton instantaneously (as in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation). One can also tell that decoherence effects become observable if the measurement is so fast that the Born-Oppenheimer approximation for the electronic motion fails. Later we shall express the condition in a concrete situation quantitatively. The condition of observing decoherence is obviously not fulfilled in a diffraction experiment: the time of the measurement here is the time of flight between the grid and the screen. During this time the interaction between the proton and the electron maintains the form (1) of the state of the atom, i.e., the Born-Oppenheimer approximation is valid all the time. For definiteness, let us consider a two slit experiment where the distance between the slits is much larger than $`a_B`$ but smaller than $`\delta `$. Be $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{R},t)`$ and $`\beta (\stackrel{}{R},t)`$ outgoing waves emerging from the first and the second slit, respectively. Then the center of mass wave function can be written as

$`\psi (\stackrel{}{R},t)=a\alpha (\stackrel{}{R},t)+b\beta (\stackrel{}{R},t),`$ (26)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the probability amplitudes that the atom goes through the first and the second slit, respectively. Eq.(1) remains valid until the atom reaches the screen, thus Eq.(26) is also valid during the time of flight. Initially, at the instant of time when the atom has passed through the slits $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{R},t)`$ and $`\beta (\stackrel{}{R},t)`$ are still narrow, separated wave packets, but later on they broaden and overlap. At the (only approximately determined) time instant $`t_0`$ when the atom hits the screen Eqs.(1)-(8) are still valid, thus we get for the probability distribution $`P(\stackrel{}{r}_p)`$ of finding the proton near a given point $`\stackrel{}{r}_p`$ the expression

$`P(\stackrel{}{r}_p)=|a\alpha (\stackrel{}{r}_p,t_0)+b\beta (\stackrel{}{r}_p,t_0)|^2.`$ (27)
This includes interference terms, too. Thus we see that despite of the ”almost diagonal” density matrix (which has had such form already initially) coherence is not destroyed. Paradoxically, this is due to the same interaction (Coulomb attraction between the electron and the proton) which is responsible for the ”almost diagonal” structure of the density matrix.

In order to shed more light on the situation, let us consider what we would get if the interaction between the electron and the proton were turned off when the atom had passed through the slits. This can be done in principle even experimentally by making use of the fact that during fast electronic processes the nucleus remains “frozen”. In molecular physics this is called the Franck-Condon principle. If the atom is irradiated by a suitable ultraviolet laser beam, it can be ionized. This is a fast process which practically does not influence the position and motion of the proton, but eliminates the interaction between the proton and the electron. In order to see the consequences let us express the initial state $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_e,t=0)`$ (i.e., still before the ionization) in the Schmidt (or biorthogonal) representation, i.e., as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r}_p,\stackrel{}{r}_e,t=0)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}c_j\chi _j(\stackrel{}{r}_p)\xi _j(\stackrel{}{r}_e)`$ (28)
$`a\alpha (\stackrel{}{r}_p,t=0)\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r}_e\stackrel{}{r}_{s1})`$ (29)
$`+b\beta (\stackrel{}{r}_p,t=0)\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r}_e\stackrel{}{r}_{s2}).`$ (30)
Here $`\stackrel{}{r}_{s1}`$, $`\stackrel{}{r}_{s2}`$ stand for the slit positions, $`\chi _j(\stackrel{}{r}_p)`$-s (i.e., $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{r}_p,t=0)`$ and $`\beta (\stackrel{}{r}_p,t=0)`$) are the eigenstates of the reduced density matrix of the proton, while $`\xi _j(\stackrel{}{r}_e)`$-s (i.e., $`\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r}_e\stackrel{}{r}_{s1})`$ and $`\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r}_e\stackrel{}{r}_{s2})`$) are the eigenstates of the reduced density matrix of the electron. The approximate orthogonality of $`\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r}_e\stackrel{}{r}_{s1})`$ and $`\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r}_e\stackrel{}{r}_{s2})`$ follows because $`|\stackrel{}{r}_{s1}\stackrel{}{r}_{s2}|a_B`$. During and after the ionization process the states of the electron-photon system evolve in time unitarily. The states $`\chi _j(\stackrel{}{r}_p)`$ of the proton have a separate unitary time evolution. Therefore, we have

$`P(\stackrel{}{r}_p)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|c_j|^2\left|\left(\widehat{U}_{t_0}\phi _j\right)(\stackrel{}{r}_p)\right|^2`$ (31)
$`|a|^2|\alpha (\stackrel{}{r}_p,t_0)|^2+|b|^2|\beta (\stackrel{}{r}_p,t_0)|^2,`$ (32)
i.e., interference terms are absent. It can also be understood as a consequence of the fact that the ”which way” information after the ionization can be obtained by measuring the electron without disturbing the proton.

In the presence of the interaction, however, interference and coherence is restored. In that case, of course, separate unitary time evolutions for the proton and the electron do not exist, instead, they move together and the atom behaves (in free space or in slowly varying potentials) as a single unit.

Let us return now to the question how one could observe experimentally the consequences of the ”almost diagonal” density matrix (8). As mentioned above, decoherence effects emerge if during the measurement done on the proton the interaction between the electron and the proton is negligible. One possibility, namely, photoionization behind the slit has already been mentioned. In this case the duration of the measurement is unchanged, but the electron-proton interaction is ”turned off”. Another possibility is to perform a very fast measurement on the proton. Below we suggest such an experiment.

Let us consider low energy (a few eV-s) neutron scattering at a helium atom, prepared in a state where the width of the center of mass wave function is much larger than the atomic size. Low energy neutrons interact with the nucleus through a contact potential

$`g\delta (\stackrel{}{r}_n\stackrel{}{r}_\alpha )`$ (33)
where $`g=2\pi \mathrm{}^2a/\mu `$, $`a`$ standing for the scattering length and $`\mu `$ being the reduced mass of the neutron-nucleus system. There is also an interaction between the magnetic moments of the neutron and the electron, however, in case of the helium atom the contributions of the two electrons to the magnetic scattering cancel each other, provided that an inelastic scattering (excitation of the electrons to higher levels) is energetically not possible. This is why we need helium for this experiment rather than hydrogen.

The condition for observing decoherence is that during the interaction time $`d/v`$ ($`d`$ standing for the nucleus size and $`v`$ for the neutron velocity) the momentum transferred to the electron

$$\frac{d}{v}\frac{1}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{2q^2}{a_B^2}\frac{m_ev_e^2}{v}\frac{d}{a_B}$$

is much less than the total change of the momentum of the electrons well after the collision, $`2m_ev`$. (As before, $`m_e`$ and $`v_e`$ stand for the electron mass and velocity, respectively.) Thus the condition is

$`v\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{d}{a_B}}}v_e4\times 10^3{\displaystyle \frac{m}{s}}`$ (34)
In other terms, the bombarding neutron energy must be much larger than $`0.08eV`$. This ensures that the electron-$`\alpha `$ interaction is negligible during the neutron-$`\alpha `$ collision.

The suggested measurement is just a measurement of the differential scattering cross section of the neutron-helium collision (the neutron is detected) under the conditions described above. We also assume that the incoming neutron can be described by a plane wave in a satisfactory manner. First order time dependent perturbation theory gives a suitable approximation for the wave function of the whole system, then we calculate the probability of observing an outcoming neutron at a given angle with arbitrary momentum. Thus we get for the differential scattering cross section the formula (in laboratory frame)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}={\displaystyle \frac{m_ng^2}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3k}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k^{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{y}_{}k^2}`$ (35)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2k^2}{2m_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})^2}{2M_\alpha }}\right)\tau \right]`$ (36)
$`\times \rho (\stackrel{}{y}_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2M_\alpha }}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})\tau ,\stackrel{}{y}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2M_\alpha }}(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})\tau )`$ (37)
Here $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, $`\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$ stand for the wave vectors of the incoming and the scattered neutrons, respectively. The explicit appearence of the density matrix of the $`\alpha `$ particle is just a sign of decoherence, which in turn is a consequence of the negligible interaction between the nucleus and the electrons during the collision. In order to calculate the density matrix of the nucleus of the helium atom we again apply the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (6) where instead of the one-electron wave function we have a two-electron wave function. For the ground state we use the hidrogen-like wave function

$`\phi _0(\stackrel{}{r_1},\stackrel{}{r_2},\sigma _1,\sigma _2)={\displaystyle \frac{Z^3}{\pi a_B^3}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z^{}}{a_B}}(r_1+r_2)\right)`$ (38)
$`\times \chi ^0(\sigma _1,\sigma _2).`$ (39)
Here $`Z^{}=\frac{27}{16}`$ is the effective atomic number and $`\chi ^0(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)`$ stands for the singlet spin function. Using Eq.(39) we get for the density matrix of the nucleus

$`\rho (\stackrel{}{r}_\alpha ,\stackrel{}{r}_\alpha \text{ }^{})=\psi (\stackrel{}{r}_\alpha )\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_\alpha \text{ }^{})\left(1+s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}s^2\right)^2\mathrm{e}^{2s}`$ (40)
where $`s=Z^{}|\stackrel{}{r}_\alpha \stackrel{}{r}_\alpha \text{ }^{}|/a_B`$.

Inserting Eqs.(40) and (12) into Eq.(37) we get (if $`P_0=0`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}={\displaystyle \frac{m_ng^2}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3k}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k^{}k^2`$ (41)
$`\times \mathrm{e}^{2\kappa |\tau |}\left(1+\kappa |\tau |+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\kappa ^2\tau ^2\right)^2`$ (42)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2k^2}{2m_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{})^2}{2m_\alpha }}\right)\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}z_0^2\kappa ^2\tau ^2\right]`$ (43)
where

$`\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m_\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}^{}|}{a_B}}Z^{}`$ (44)
Finally, by doing the integrations in the limit $`a_B\delta `$ and

$`q=ka_B={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2m_nE_n}}{\mathrm{}}}a_B1`$ (45)
(note that Eq.(34) implies $`q3.4`$) we have (by taking $`m_\alpha =4m_n`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}={\displaystyle \frac{m_n^2g^2}{25\pi ^2\mathrm{}^4}}f(\vartheta )\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{h(\vartheta )}{q^2}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^4}}\right)\right).`$ (46)
where

$$f(\vartheta )=\frac{\left(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta +\sqrt{15+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta }\right)^2}{\sqrt{15+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta }}$$
(47)
and

$`h(\vartheta )={\displaystyle \frac{6075}{64}}{\displaystyle \frac{3+5\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta }{\left(15+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta \right)^2\left(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta +\sqrt{15+\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta }\right)^2}}.`$ (48)
Note that Eq.(46) is given in laboratory frame and the angular dependence (47) of the leading order corresponds just to isotropic scattering in the center of mass frame. Decoherence shows up as an anomalous contribution to the differential scattering cross section that is inversely proportional to the bombarding energy. This contribution is always positive and has maxima at $`\vartheta =0`$ and $`\vartheta =\pi `$. At $`E_n=1eV`$ these maxima are $`h(0)/q^2=8.2\times 10^4`$ and $`h(\pi )/q^2=2.27\times 10^3`$.

In conclusion we add that other kinds of interactions (e.g., electron-photon or gravitational) may also result in an almost diagonal reduced density matrix. Again, one has to be careful in interpreting it as a loss of coherence. A more detailed discussion of these questions will be presented elsewhere.

Acknowledgement

One of the authors (Gy.B.) is indebted to T.Geszti for an enlightening discussion. This work has been partially supported by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences under Grant No. OTKA T 029752 and the János Bolyai Research Fellowship.


text:
# Path-integral formulation of stochastic processes for exclusive particle systems

## Abstract

We present a systematic formalism to derive a path-integral formulation for hard-core particle systems far from equilibrium. Writing the master equation for a stochastic process of the system in terms of the annihilation and creation operators with mixed commutation relations, we find the Kramers-Moyal coefficients for the corresponding Fokker-Planck equation (FPE), and the stochastic differential equation (SDE) is derived by connecting these coefficients in the FPE to those in the SDE. Finally, the SDE is mapped onto a field theory using the path integral, giving the field-theoretic action, which may be analyzed by the renormalization group method. We apply this formalism to a two-species reaction-diffusion system with drift, finding a universal decay expoent for the long-time behavior of the average concentration of particles in arbitrary dimension.

In recent years, nonequilibrium phenomena such as nonequilibrium phase transitions, bifurcations, and synergetics have attracted much attention, not only because of their connections to a variety of important physical problems (pattern formation, morphogenesis, self-organization, etc.), but also because of the analytic challenge due to lack of a general formalism for nonequilibrium systems, in contrast to equilibrium statistical mechanics, which has well-established concepts and tools. In pursuit of a general formalism, statistical physicists have investigated nonequilibrium phase transitions in lattice models over the last decade. As lattice models have played a central role in equilibrium statistical mechanics, they will also be important in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics. In particular, theoretical analysis of reaction-diffusion systems where both diffusion and reaction take place on the lattice is relevant to the understanding of a wide class of nonequilibrium phenomena in nature. It has long been recognized that the mean-field rate equations are not applicable to reaction-diffusion systems in low dimensions. After Doi and others introduced the field-theoretic method using the bosonic coherent state path integral, Lee and Cardy using the renormalization group (RG) approach have improved on this method in the description of the anomalous kinetics in these systems. Assuming the systems are in the low density regime, Lee and Cardy rewrite the master equation for the Markov process as the bosonic Hamiltonian . The Hamiltonian in turn can be mapped onto field theory and analyzed by the renormalization group method in arbitrary dimensions. For simple models such as $`A+A\mathrm{}`$ and $`A+B\mathrm{}`$, this bosonic field-thoeretic method provided the correct time dependence for the density decay in low dimensions.

Despite the successes achieved by the bosonic field theory for reaction-diffusion systems, there are still many open problems. Driven reaction-diffusion systems, multi-species adsorption models, and epidemic models are some examples to which the bosonic field theory cannot be applied since the steady states of these systems cannot be assumed to be in a low density regime. In these systems, the hard-core property of the particles is important and the bosonic approach fails. In response to these challenges, there have been many attempts to take the hard-core property into account. Brunel et al. and Bares and Mobilia formulated fermionic field theories for a single-species reaction-diffusion process confined to one space dimension. However, these fermionic field theories are very hard to extend in practice to higher spatial dimensions or to multispecies processes.

We have focused on the extensibility of the field theory to multispecies processes and to higher spatial dimensions including the hard-core exclusion property of particles. In this paper, we present a systematic formalism to derive the field theory for hard-core particles and apply this method to a two-species driven reaction-diffusion (DRD) system in arbitrary spatial dimension. In the two-species DRD system, each particle attempts moves to the right and to the left with different hopping rates, and the attempt is successful only if the particle lands on an unoccupied site. If the particle lands on a site occupied by a same-species particle, the hopping attempt is rejected, but if it lands on a site occupied by an opposite-species particle, the $`A+B\mathrm{}`$ reaction occurs and both particles disappear. For this system, one might expect the long-time kinetics to be the same as that of $`A+B\mathrm{}`$ with isotropic diffusion, by a Galilean transformation, and the density should decay in time as $`t^{d/4}`$ for $`d4`$ and as $`t^1`$ for $`d4`$. However, some extensive numerical simulations by Janowsky and Ispolatov et al. indicate that the density decays as $`t^{1/3}`$ asymptotically in one dimension, and others by ben-Avraham et al. are inconclusive concerning the exponent of the density decay. Consequently, to study this system analytically, the hard-core property of the particles should be incorporated properly into the field theory. Our general formalism provides a systematic method to derive the field theory for this system and with the application of the renormalization group derives the long-time behavior as predicted by Janowsky and Ispolatov et al. for density decay as $`t^{1/3}`$ in one dimension.

In general, the dynamics of a stochastic particle system is described by a master equation governing the time evolution of the probability $`P(𝒞;t)`$ for the system to be in a given microscopic configuration $`𝒞`$ at time $`t`$. For a multispecies reaction-diffusion system with hard-core particles, the microscopic configuration $`𝒞`$ is represented by the set of the particle numbers of each species at each lattice site; $`𝒞=\{n_i^\alpha \}`$ where the greek index $`\alpha `$ stands for the particle species, the latin index $`i`$ runs over all lattice sites in arbitrary spatial dimension, and $`n_i^\alpha `$ is restricted to $`0`$ or $`1`$. Introducing the annihilation and creation operators satisfying the mixed commutation relations

$$\{a_i^\alpha ,a_i^\alpha \}=1\underset{\gamma \alpha }{}a_i^\gamma a_i^\gamma ,a_i^\alpha a_i^\beta =a_i^\alpha a_i^\beta =0,$$
(1)
$$[a_i^\alpha ,a_j^\beta ]=[a_i^\alpha ,a_j^\beta ]=[a_i^\alpha ,a_j^\beta ]=0\mathrm{for}ij,$$
(2)
and defining the state vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi };t_𝒞P(𝒞;t)|𝒞`$, the master equation can be written as a Schrödinger-like equation,

$$\frac{}{t}|\mathrm{\Psi };t=|\mathrm{\Psi };t,$$
(3)
where $``$ is an evolution operator, often called a Hamiltonian, expressed in terms of $`a`$’s and $`a^{}`$’s. The formal solution for the initial condition $`|\mathrm{\Psi };0`$ is, straightforwardly, $`|\mathrm{\Psi };t=e^t|\mathrm{\Psi };0`$, and the average of any quantity $`f`$ may be expressed as

$$f(t)\underset{\{n_i^\alpha \}}{}f(\{n_i^\alpha \})P(\{n_i^\alpha \};t)=|\widehat{f}e^t|\mathrm{\Psi };0,$$
(4)
where $`|`$ is the projection state defined as the sum of all possible microscopic states, i.e., $`|_{\{n_i^\alpha \}}\{n_i^\alpha \}|`$. For a given observable $`f(\{n_i^\alpha \})`$, we find the corresponding operator $`\widehat{f}`$ by replacing the variables $`n_i^\alpha `$ by the operator $`a_i^\alpha a_i^\alpha `$. In what follows, we shall be mainly interested in averages of particle numbers($`\widehat{f}=a_i^\alpha a_i^\alpha `$) at site $`i`$ and their two-point correlation functions ($`\widehat{f}=a_i^\alpha a_i^\alpha a_j^\beta a_j^\beta `$). The time derivative of Eq.(4) is formally found to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}f(t)=|\widehat{f}|\mathrm{\Psi }_t=[,\widehat{f}],`$ (5)
where we used the probability conservation condition $`|=0`$. Since the Hamiltonian describes a stochastic process, in general $``$ is not Hermitian. Thus, $`[,\widehat{f}]`$ will have creation and annihilation operators that do not form number operators. However, the projection state $`|`$ acting on $`[,\widehat{f}]`$ makes it possible to express the right-hand side of Eq. (5) only with number operators. Using the identity from the property of the projection state

$$|(a_i^\beta +\underset{\alpha }{}a_i^\alpha )=|$$
(6)
for any $`\beta `$, we eliminate all the creation operators in Eq. (5), and any annihilation operator can be interpreted as a number operator because $`|a_i^\beta a_i^\beta =|(1_\alpha a_i^\alpha )a_i^\beta =|a_i^\beta .`$

Since the Kramers-Moyal coefficients $`C_i^\alpha `$, $`C_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }`$ in the Fokker-Planck equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho _i^\alpha }}[C_i^\alpha (\{\rho \})P]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\rho _i^\alpha \rho _j^\beta }}[C_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }(\{\rho \})P]`$ (7)
are related to the time evolution of the one-point and two-point correlation functions of the number operator

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _i^\alpha =C_i^\alpha ,\frac{d}{dt}\rho _i^\alpha \rho _j^\beta =\rho _i^\alpha C_j^\beta +\rho _j^\beta C_i^\alpha +C_{ij}^{\alpha \beta },$$
(8)
we find the Kramers-Moyal coefficients in terms of the annihilation and creation operators

$$C_i^\alpha =[,a_i^\alpha a_i^\alpha ],C_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }=[a_i^\alpha a_i^\alpha ,[,a_j^\beta a_j^\beta ]],$$
(9)
by interpreting the number operator as a density of particles.

Next we consider how we write down the stochastic differential equation when the Fokker-Planck equation is known. Recalling the reverse problem, a stochastic differential equation

$$\dot{\rho _i^\alpha }=h_i^\alpha (\{\rho \})+g_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }(\{\rho \})\xi _j^\beta (t)$$
(10)
with $`\xi _i^\alpha (t)\xi _j^\beta (t^{})=\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\delta _{ij}\delta (tt^{})`$ can be connected to the Fokker-Planck equation with the coefficient functions $`C_i^\alpha (\{\rho \})=h_i^\alpha `$ and $`C_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }(\{\rho \})=g_{ik}^{\alpha \gamma }g_{jk}^{\beta \gamma }`$ in the Itô interpretation.

Representing the stochastic differential equation in the path-integral formulation, the generating functional $`Z`$ of correlation functions can be written as $`Z=𝒟\rho 𝒟\stackrel{~}{\rho }e^S`$ with the action

$`S={\displaystyle 𝑑t\left(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_i(t)(_t\rho _i(t)C_i)\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_i(t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j(t)C_{ij}\right)}.`$ (11)
The response field $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ has been introduced as the conjugate field to the Langevin force. After performing a suitable continuum limit for the action, we obtain the continuum field description for microscopic discrete models. Thus, by mapping the stochastic differential equation derived from the Fokker-Planck equation into the path-integral formalism, we obtain a field-theoretic action describing the stochastic process, which in turn may be examined by RG analysis.

Now we apply our formalism to reaction-diffusion systems. As the paradigmatic example, we consider the asymmetric diffusion process with $`A+B\mathrm{}`$ reaction in $`d`$-dimensional space. The diffusion constant for an $`A(B)`$ particle is $`D^A(D^B)`$ and along the direction of the driving force (say, the “parallel” direction) the diffusion is asymmetric with the drift rate $`v_A/2(v_B/2)`$ for an $`A(B)`$ particle. The reaction occurs with rate $`\lambda /2d`$ when two different species occupy the nearest neighbor sites in a $`d`$ dimensional hypercubic lattice. The Hamiltonian generating the time evolution of the system is found to be $`=_\stackrel{}{n}\left[_\stackrel{}{n}^{\mathrm{dif}}+_\stackrel{}{n}^{\mathrm{dr}}+_\stackrel{}{n}^{\mathrm{re}}\right]`$ with ($`\stackrel{}{e}_i`$ is the unit vector along the direction $`i`$)

$`_\stackrel{}{n}^{\mathrm{dif}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}[D^A(a_\stackrel{}{n}a_{\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{e}_i}^{}+a_\stackrel{}{n}^{}a_{\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{e}_i})`$ (13)
$`+D^B(b_\stackrel{}{n}b_{\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{e}_i}^{}+b_\stackrel{}{n}^{}b_{\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{e}_i})],`$
$`_\stackrel{}{n}^{\mathrm{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_A}{2}}\left(a_\stackrel{}{n}a_{\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{e}_{}}^{}a_\stackrel{}{n}^{}a_{\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{e}_{}}\right)`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_B}{2}}\left(b_\stackrel{}{n}b_{\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{e}_{}}^{}b_\stackrel{}{n}^{}b_{\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{e}_{}}\right),`$
$`_\stackrel{}{n}^{\mathrm{re}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2d}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}\left(a_\stackrel{}{n}b_{\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{e}_i}+b_\stackrel{}{n}a_{\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{e}_i}\right),`$ (16)
where we left out the diagonal terms because they give no contribution to the commutation relations. Following the steps given above, we find the field-theoretic action for the system after taking the continuum limit.

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dtd\stackrel{}{x}(\stackrel{~}{a}(_tD^A^2)a+\stackrel{~}{b}(_tD^B^2)b`$ (17)
$``$ $`2v_Aa(\rho _mab)_{}\stackrel{~}{a}2v_Bb(\rho _mab)_{}\stackrel{~}{b}`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`M^A(\stackrel{~}{a})^2a(\rho _mab)+M^B(\stackrel{~}{b})^2b(\rho _mab)`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}[2(\stackrel{~}{a}+\stackrel{~}{b})(\stackrel{~}{a}+\stackrel{~}{b})^2]ab),`$ (20)
in terms of the density fields $`(a,b)`$ of each species and the conjugate response fields $`(\stackrel{~}{a},\stackrel{~}{b})`$. The hard-core property of particles is manifest in the action and $`\rho _m`$ is the density cutoff due to the hard-core property. Since the densities are restricted to $`a,b0`$, we shift the fields by $`\alpha =2a\rho _m`$, $`\beta =2b\rho _m`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\stackrel{~}{a}1`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\stackrel{~}{b}1`$, in order to apply a perturbative RG analysis. Skipping all the irrelevant terms, we get the reduced action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dtd\stackrel{}{x}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(_tD^2)\alpha +\stackrel{~}{\beta }(_tD^2)\beta `$ (21)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{2}}\alpha ^2_{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{v}{2}}\beta ^2_{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }+M\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+M\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ (22)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}[(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+\stackrel{~}{\beta })^2+2(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+\stackrel{~}{\beta })](\rho _m+\alpha )(\rho _m+\beta ))`$ (23)
in the case of $`D^A=D^B=D`$, $`v_A=v_B=v`$, and $`M^A=M^B=M`$ with $`D(M)^2=D_{}(M_{})_{}^2+D_{}(M_{})_{}^2`$. From power counting with shifted fields, we find the upper critical dimension $`d_c=2`$. The scaling dimension of the coupling constant $`v`$ indicates that the drift term is effective only for fewer than two dimensions, and for $`d2`$ the action becomes equivalent to the action derived by Lee and Cardy using the bosonic approach for the symmetric reaction-diffusion system $`A+B\mathrm{}`$ without drift.

We use the Wilson RG method to analyze the long-time kinetics of the action. The flow equations in $`d=2\epsilon `$ dimensions, to one loop-order, are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dD_{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`(z2)D_{},{\displaystyle \frac{dM_{}}{dl}}=(z2)M_{},`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dD_{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`(z2)D_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{D_{}}{8}}\left(3+{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{D_{}}}\right)g,`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dM_{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`(z2)M_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{16}}\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{D_{}}}+2+3{\displaystyle \frac{D_{}}{M_{}}}\right),`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`(zd)\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{4\pi \sqrt{D_{}D_{}}}},{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{dl}}=\left(z1{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}\right)v,`$ (27)
where $`g=v^2/4\pi D_{}^{3/2}D_{}^{1/2}`$. The Feynman diagrams that contribute to these equations are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

The dynamical exponent is given by $`z=2`$, leaving $`D_{}`$ and $`M_{}`$ unchanged under the RG flow. The flow equations for $`D_{}`$ and $`M_{}`$ have the same contribution and the ratio $`D_{}/M_{}`$ remains constant $`(=1)`$. The reaction rate $`\lambda `$ is renormalized only by the $`\lambda `$ terms, not the drift term. Combining the flow equations for $`D_{}`$, $`D_{}`$, and $`v`$, we find the flow equation for the expansion parameter $`g`$:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}g}{dl}=(2d)\frac{3}{4}g.$$
(28)
For $`d>d_c=2`$ we find an infrared stable fixed point $`g^{}=0`$, and in a region of attraction, $`D_{}`$ and $`M_{}`$ remain constant. The scaling form of the average concentration of $`A`$ and $`B`$ particles \[$`c(t)c_A(t)=c_B(t)`$\]

$$c(t)=e^d\mathrm{}\left(\frac{n_0(\mathrm{})}{8\pi ^2D_{}(\mathrm{})^{1/2}D_{}(\mathrm{})^{(d1)/2}t(\mathrm{})^{d/2}}\right)^{1/2},$$
(29)
gives $`c(t)t^{d/4}`$ using the time flow equation $`t(\mathrm{})=te^{_0^{\mathrm{}}z(\mathrm{})𝑑\mathrm{}}`$. Below the critical dimension $`d_c`$, there exists a nontrivial infrared stable fixed point at $`g^{}=\frac{4}{3}\epsilon `$, and near this point $`D_{}`$ and $`M_{}`$ flow as $`e^{2ϵ\mathrm{}/3}`$. Thus, the average concentration behaves as

$$c(t)t^{(d+1)/6}.$$
(30)
In summary, we have presented a systematic formalism to derive the field-theoretic action for systems of hard-core particles. Starting from the master equation for a stochastic process of the system, we have constructed the Fokker-Planck equation by introducing annihilation and creation operators with mixed commutation relations. This Fokker-Planck equation is connected to the stochastic differential equation by identifying the coefficient functions in the Itô interpretation. Finally, the stochastic differential equation is mapped onto field theory using the path integral, giving the field-theoretic action to be analyzed by the RG method.

Although there have been many attempts to incorporate the hard-core property of particles into field theory, our formalism has a very important advantage over other attempts. Our formalism can be applied to multispecies systems in arbitrary spatial dimension. As a paradigmatic example, we have applied our formalism to the $`A+B\mathrm{}`$ reaction-diffusion system with drift. Following straightforward steps to obtain the action and applying the momentum-shell RG method, we have calculated the long-time behavior for the average concentration of particles. Power counting shows that the upper critical dimension is $`d_c=2`$, and the drift term affects the RG flow only for fewer than two dimensions. Thus, for $`d2`$, the hard-core action behaves the same as the bosonic action derived by Lee and Cardy. The average concentration behaves as $`t^1`$ for $`d4`$ and $`t^{d/4}`$ for $`4d2`$ in the long-time limits. Below the critical dimension, the drift term moves the stable fixed point to the non-trivial one and the average concentration behaves as $`t^{(d+1)/6}`$ for $`d2`$. These results agree with the simulation results by Janowsky and the scaling arguments by Ispolatov et al.

As mentioned before, our formalism has merit in extension to multispecies and to higher spatial dimensions. Also, it is necessary to use this formalism, not the bosonic formalism, when the system has nonvanishing concentrations in the steady states. The three-species reaction-diffusion system and some other systems having nonvanishing steady states are under investigation using this formalism.

This research was supported by the KOSEF through Grand No. 981-0202-008-2.