text:
# The Work of Laurent Lafforgue

## 1. The Langlands correspondence

A global field is either a number field, i.e. a finite extension of $``$, or a function field of characteristic $`p>0`$ for some prime number $`p`$, i.e. a finite extension of $`𝔽_p(t)`$ where $`𝔽_p`$ is the finite field with $`p`$ elements. The global fields constitute a primary object of study in number theory and arithmetic algebraic geometry.

The conjectural Langlands correspondence, which was first formulated by Robert Langlands in 1967 in a letter to André Weil, relates two fundamental objects which are naturally attached to a global field $`F`$:

– its Galois group $`Gal(\overline{F}/F)`$, where $`\overline{F}`$ is an algebraic closure of $`F`$, or more accurately its motivic Galois group of $`F`$ which is by definition the tannakian group of the tensor category of Grothendieck motives over $`F`$,

– the ring $`𝔸`$ of adèles of $`F`$, or more precisely the collection of Hilbert spaces $`L^2(G(F)\backslash G(𝔸))`$ for all reductive groups $`G`$ over $`F`$.

Roughly speaking, for any (connected) reductive group $`G`$ over $`F`$, Langlands introduced a dual group $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{L}}G=\widehat{G}Gal(\overline{F}/F)`$, the connected component $`\widehat{G}`$ of which is the complex reductive group whose roots are the co-roots of $`G`$ and vice versa. And he predicted that a large part of the spectral decomposition of the Hilbert space $`L^2(G(F)\backslash G(𝔸))`$, equipped with the action by right translations of $`G(𝔸)`$, is governed by representations of the motivic Galois group of $`F`$ with values in $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{L}}G`$.

Of special importance is the group $`G=GL_r`$, the Langlands dual of which is simply the direct product $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{L}}GL_{r}^{}=GL_r()\times Gal(\overline{F}/F)`$. Indeed, any complex reductive group $`\widehat{G}`$ may be embedded into $`GL_r()`$ for some $`r`$.

The particular case $`G=GL_1`$ of the Langlands correspondence is the abelian class field theory of Teiji Takagi and Emil Artin which was developed in the 1920s as a wide extension of the quadratic reciprocity law.

The Langlands correspondence embodies a large part of number theory, arithmetic algebraic geometry and representation theory of Lie groups. Small progress made towards this conjectural correspondence had already amazing consequences, the most striking of them being the proof of Fermat’s last theorem by Andrew Wiles. Famous conjectures, such as the Artin conjecture on $`L`$-functions and the Ramanujan-Petersson conjecture, would follow from the Langlands correspondence.

## 2. Lafforgue’s main theorem

Over number fields, the Langlands correspondence in its full generality seems still to be out of reach. Even its precise formulation is very involved. In the function field case the situation is much better. Thanks to Lafforgue, the Langlands correspondence for $`G=GL_r`$ is now completely understood.

From now on, $`F`$ is a function field of characteristic $`p>0`$. We also fix some auxiliary prime number $`\mathrm{}p`$.

As Alexandre Grothendieck showed, any algebraic variety over $`F`$ gives rise to $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representations of $`Gal(\overline{F}/F)`$ on its étale cohomology groups and the irreducible $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representations of $`Gal(\overline{F}/F)`$ are good substitutes for irreducible motives over $`F`$. Therefore, the Langlands correspondence may be nicely formulated using $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representations.

Let $`r`$ be a positive integer. On the one hand, we have the set $`𝒢_r`$ of isomorphism classes of rank $`r`$ irreducible $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representations of $`Gal(\overline{F}/F)`$ the determinant of which is of finite order. To each $`\sigma 𝒢_r`$, Grothendieck attached an Eulerian product $`L(\sigma ,s)=_xL_x(\sigma ,s)`$ over all the places $`x`$ of $`F`$, which is in fact a rational function of $`p^s`$ and which satisfies a functional equation of the form $`L(\sigma ,s)=\epsilon (\sigma ,s)L(\sigma ^{},1s)`$ where $`\sigma ^{}`$ is the contragredient representation of $`\sigma `$ and $`\epsilon (\sigma ,s)`$ is some monomial in $`p^s`$. If $`\sigma `$ is unramified at a place $`x`$, we have

$$L_x(\sigma ,s)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{1}{1z_ip^{sdeg(x)}}$$

where $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_r`$ are the Frobenius eigenvalues of $`\sigma `$ at $`x`$ and $`deg(x)`$ is the degree of the place $`x`$.

On the other hand, we have the set $`𝒜_r`$ of isomorphism classes of cuspidal automorphic representations of $`GL_r(𝔸)`$ the central character of which is of finite order. Thanks to Langlands’ theory of Eisenstein series, they are the building blocks of the spectral decomposition of $`L^2(GL_r(F)\backslash GL_r(𝔸))`$. To each $`\pi 𝒜_r`$, Roger Godement and Hervé Jacquet attached an Eulerian product $`L(\pi ,s)=_xL_x(\pi ,s)`$ over all the places $`x`$ of $`F`$, which is again a rational function of $`p^s`$, satisfying a functional equation $`L(\pi ,s)=\epsilon (\pi ,s)L(\pi ^{},1s)`$. If $`\pi `$ is unramified at a place $`x`$, we have

$$L_x(\pi ,s)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{1}{1z_ip^{sdeg(x)}}$$

where $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_r`$ are called the Hecke eigenvalues of $`\pi `$ at $`x`$.

Theorem (i) (The Langlands Conjecture) There is a unique bijective correspondence $`\pi \sigma (\pi )`$, preserving $`L`$-functions in the sense that $`L_x(\sigma (\pi ),s)=L_x(\pi ,s)`$ for every place $`x`$, between $`𝒜_r`$ and $`𝒢_r`$.

(ii) (The Ramanujan-Petersson Conjecture) For any $`\pi 𝒜_r`$ and for any place $`x`$ of $`F`$ where $`\pi `$ is unramified, the Hecke eigenvalues $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_r^\times `$ of $`\pi `$ at $`x`$ are all of absolute value $`1`$.

(iii) (The Deligne Conjecture) Any $`\sigma 𝒢_r`$ is pure of weight zero, i.e. for any place $`x`$ of $`F`$ where $`\sigma `$ is unramified, and for any field embedding $`\iota :\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}`$, the images $`\iota (z_1),\mathrm{},\iota (z_r)`$ of the Frobenius eigenvalues of $`\sigma `$ at $`x`$ are all of absolute value $`1`$.

As I said earlier, in rank $`r=1`$, the theorem is a reformulation of the abelian class field theory in the function field case. Indeed, the reciprocity law may be viewed as an injective homomorphism with dense image

$$F^\times \backslash 𝔸^\times Gal(\overline{F}/F)^{\mathrm{ab}}$$

from the idèle class group to the maximal abelian quotient of the Galois group.

In higher ranks $`r`$, the first breakthrough was made by Vladimir Drinfeld in the 1970s. Introducing the fundamental concept of shtuka, he proved the rank $`r=2`$ case. It is a masterpiece for which, among others works, he was awarded the Fields Medal in 1990.

## 3. The strategy

The strategy that Lafforgue is following, and most of the geometric objets that he is using, are due to Drinfeld. However, the gap between the rank two case and the general case was so big that it took more than twenty years to fill it.

Lafforgue considers the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic cohomology of the moduli stack of rank $`r`$ Drinfeld shtukas (see the next section) as a representation of $`GL_r(𝔸)\times Gal(\overline{F}/F)\times Gal(\overline{F}/F)`$. By comparing the Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula (for Hecke operators twisted by powers of Frobenius endomorphisms) with the Arthur-Selberg trace formula, he tries to isolate inside this representation a subquotient which decomposes as

$$\underset{\pi 𝒜_r}{}\pi \sigma (\pi )^{}\sigma (\pi ).$$

Such a comparison of trace formulas was first made by Yasutaka Ihara in 1967 for modular curves over $``$. Since, it has been extensively used for Shimura varieties and Drinfeld modular varieties by Langlands, Robert Kottwitz and many others. There are two main difficulties to overcome to complete the comparison:

– to prove suitable cases of a combinatorial conjecture of Langlands and Diana Shelstad, which is known as the Fundamental Lemma,

– to compare the contribution of the “fixed points at infinity” in the Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula with the weighted orbital integrals of James Arthur which occur in the geometric side of the Arthur-Selberg trace formula.

For the moduli space of shtukas, the required cases of the Fundamental Lemma were proved by Drinfeld in the 1970s. So, only the second difficulty was remaining after Drinfeld had completed his proof of the rank $`2`$ case. This is precisely the problem that Lafforgue has solved after seven years of very hard work. The proof has been published in three papers totalling about 600 pages.

## 4. Drinfeld shtukas

Let $`X`$ be “the” smooth, projective and connected curve over $`𝔽_p`$ whose field of rational functions is $`F`$. It plays the role of the ring of integers of a number field. Its closed points are the places of $`F`$. For any such point $`x`$ we have the completion $`F_x`$ of $`F`$ at $`x`$ and its ring of integers $`𝒪_xF_x`$.

Let $`𝒪=_x𝒪_x𝔸`$ be the maximal compact subring of the ring of adèles. Weil showed that the double coset space

$$GL_r(F)\backslash GL_r(𝔸)/GL_r(𝒪)$$

can be naturally identified with the set of isomorphism classes of rank $`r`$ vector bundles on $`X`$.

Starting from this observation, with the goal of realizing a congruence relation between Hecke operators and Frobenius endomorphisms, Drinfeld defined a rank $`r`$ shtuka over an arbitrary field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p`$ as a diagram

$${}_{}{}^{\tau }\underset{\phi }{\overset{}{}}\stackrel{\mathrm{Hecke}}{\stackrel{}{^{\prime \prime }^{}}}$$

where $``$, $`^{}`$ and $`^{}`$ are rank $`r`$ vector bundles on the curve $`X_k`$ deduced from $`X`$ by extending the scalars to $`k`$, where $`^{}`$ is an elementary upper modification of $``$ at some $`k`$-rational point of $`X`$ which is called the pole of the shtuka, where $`^{\prime \prime }^{}`$ is an elementary lower modification of $`^{}`$ at some $`k`$-rational point of $`X`$ which is called the zero of the shtuka, and where $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }`$ is the pull-back of $``$ by the endomorphism of $`X_k`$ which is the identity on $`X`$ and the Frobenius endomorphism on $`k`$.

Drinfeld proved that the above shtukas are the $`k`$-rational points of an algebraic stack over $`𝔽_p`$ which is equipped with a projection onto $`X\times X`$ given by the pole and the zero. More generally, he introduced level structures on rank $`r`$ shtukas and he constructed an algebraic stack $`Sht_r`$ parametrizing rank $`r`$ shtukas equipped with a compatible system of level structures. This last algebraic stack is endowed with an algebraic action of $`GL_r(𝔸)`$ through the Hecke operators.

## 5. Iterated shtukas

The geometry at infinity of the moduli stack $`Sht_r`$ is amazingly complicated. The algebraic stack $`Sht_r`$ is not of finite type and one needs to truncate it to obtain manageable geometric objects. Bounding the Harder-Narasimhan polygon of a shtuka, Lafforgue defines a family of open substacks $`(Sht_r^P)_P`$ which are all of finite type and whose union is the whole moduli stack. But in doing so, he loses the action of the Hecke operators which do not stabilize those open substacks.

In order to recover the action of the Hecke operators, Lafforgue enlarges $`Sht_r`$ by allowing specific degenerations of shtukas that he has called iterated shtukas.

More precisely, Lafforgue lets the isomorphism $`\phi :{}_{}{}^{\tau }\stackrel{}{}^{\prime \prime }`$ appearing in the definition of a shtuka, degenerate to a complete homomorphism $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }^{\prime \prime }`$, i.e. a continuous family of complete homomorphisms between the stalks of the vector bundles $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }`$ and $`^{\prime \prime }`$.

Let me recall that a complete homomorphism $`VW`$ between two vector spaces of the same dimension $`r`$ is a point of the partial compactification $`\mathrm{H}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{om}}(V,W)`$ of $`Isom(V,W)`$ which is obtained by successively blowing up the quasi-affine variety $`Hom(V,W)\{0\}`$ along its closed subsets

$$\{fHom(V,W)\{0\}rank(f)i\}$$

for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r1`$. If $`V=W`$ is the standard vector space of dimension $`r`$, the quotient of $`\mathrm{H}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{om}}(V,W)`$ by the action of the homotheties is the Procesi-De Concini compactification of $`PGL_r`$.

In particular, Lafforgue obtains a smooth compactification, with a normal crossing divisor at infinity, of any truncated moduli stack of shtukas without level structure.

## 6. One key of the proof

Lafforgue proves his main theorem by an elaborate induction on $`r`$. Compared to Drinfeld’s proof of the rank $`2`$ case, a very simple but crucial novelty in Lafforgue’s proof is the distinction in the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic cohomology of $`Sht_r`$ between the $`r`$-negligible part (the part where all the irreducible constituents as Galois modules are of dimension $`<r`$) and the $`r`$-essential part (the rest). Lafforgue shows that the difference between the cohomology of $`Sht_r`$ and the cohomology of any truncated stack $`Sht_r^P`$ is $`r`$-negligible. He also shows that the cohomology of the boundary of $`Sht_r^P`$ is $`r`$-negligible. Therefore, the $`r`$-essential part, which is defined purely by considering the Galois action and which is naturally endowed with an action of the Hecke operators, occurs in the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic cohomology of any truncated moduli stack $`Sht_r^P`$ and also in their compactifications.

At this point, Lafforgue makes an extensive use of the proofs by Richard Pink and Kazuhiro Fujiwara of a conjecture of Deligne on the Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula.

## 7. Compactification of thin Schubert cells

In proving the Langlands conjecture for functions fields, Lafforgue tried to construct nice compactifications of the truncated moduli stacks of shtukas with arbitrary level structures. A natural way to do that is to start with some nice compactifications of the quotients of $`PGL_r^{n+1}/PGL_r`$ for all integers $`n1`$, and to apply a procedure similar to the one which leads to iterated shtukas.

Lafforgue constructed natural compactifications of $`PGL_r^{n+1}/PGL_r`$. In fact, he remarked that $`PGL_r^{n+1}/PGL_r`$ is the quotient of $`GL_r^{n+1}/GL_r`$ by the obvious free action of the torus $`𝔾_\mathrm{m}^{n+1}/𝔾_\mathrm{m}`$ and that $`GL_r^{n+1}/GL_r`$ may be viewed as a thin Schubert cell in the Grassmannian variety of $`r`$-planes in a $`r(n+1)`$-dimensional vector space. And, more generally, he constructed natural compactifications of all similar quotients of thin Schubert cells in the Grassmannian variety of $`r`$-planes in a finite-dimensional vector space.

Let me recall that thin Schubert cells are by definition intersections of Schubert varieties and that Israel Gelfand, Mark Goresky, Robert MacPherson and Vera Serganova constructed natural bijections between thin Schubert cells, matroids and certain convex polyhedra which are called polytope matroids.

For $`n=1`$ and arbitrary $`r`$, Lafforgue’s compactification of $`PGL_r^2/PGL_r`$ coincides with the Procesi-De Concini compactification of $`PGL_r`$. It is smooth with a normal crossing divisor at infinity.

For $`n=2`$ and arbitrary $`r`$, Lafforgue proves that his compactification of $`PGL_r^3/PGL_r`$ is smooth over a toric stack, and thus can be desingularized.

For $`n3`$ and $`r3`$, the geometry of Lafforgue’s compactifications is rather mysterious and not completely understood.

Gerd Faltings linked the search of good local models for Shimura varieties in bad characteristics to the search of smooth compactifications of $`G^{n+1}/G`$ for a reductive group $`G`$. He gave another construction of Lafforgue’s compactifications of $`PGL_r^{n+1}/PGL_r`$ and he succeeded in proving that Lafforgue’s compactification of $`PGL_r^{n+1}/PGL_r`$ is smooth for $`r=2`$ and arbitrary $`n`$.

## 8. Conclusion

I hope that I gave you some idea of the depth and the technical strength of Lafforgue’s work on the Langlands correspondence for which we are now honoring him with the Fields Medal.

Laurent Lafforgue

I.H.É.S., Bures-sur-Yvette, France

Né le 6 novembre 1966 à Antony (Hauts-de-Seine), France

Nationalité française

| 1986–1990 | Élève à l’École Normale Supérieure de Paris |
| --- | --- |
| 1988–1991 | Étudiant en géométrie algébrique (et en théorie d’Arakelov avec Christophe Soulé) |
| 1990–1991
puis
1992–2000 | Chargé de recherche au C.N.R.S. dans l’équipe “Arithmétique et Géométrie Algébrique” de l’Université Paris-Sud |
| 1991–1992 | Service militaire à l’École Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr-Coëtquidan |
| 1993–1994 | Thèse sur les $`D`$-chtoucas de Drinfeld sous la direction de Gérard Laumon |
| 1994–2000 | Suite de l’étude des chtoucas |
| 2000 | Professeur à l’Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques |

L. Lafforgue (left) and G. Laumon


format: text

text:
# Dynamical disappearance of superposition states in the thermodynamic limit

## 1 Introduction

Recent experimental findings in mesoscopic devices  seem to suggest that, at very low temperatures, some kind of mechanism is producing decoherence . These same experiments seems to prove that this mechanism is intrinsic to the device. So, it is become demanding to understand a way to describe decoherence at zero temperature .

Zero temperature decoherence in the framework of dissipative quantum systems has been devised in . A general description of these kind of quantum systems can be found in . In this paper we want to describe another approach to decoherence, that is, decoherence produced by the unitary evolution in the thermodynamic limit . This is non dissipative decoherence, a first theory of which has been given in  where time is considered as a stochastic variable. Besides, in mesoscopic physics, some examples of non dissipative decoherence were also given in .

Some recent approaches rely on vacuum fluctuations to generate such kind of decoherence  and, in mesoscopic devices it appears that electron-electron interaction plays the dominant role. But, again these approaches can be leaded back to dissipative quantum systems.

Non-dissipative decoherence can play a major role as it can make quantum theory self-contained without requiring arbitrary separation between a bath and a system. Here we demand that some systems, in the thermodynamics limit, develop classical behavior. When such systems interact with other quantum systems, decoherence indeed appears. The evolution is anyhow unitary.

The foundation for this kind of view of decoherence is given by the formal analogy between the time evolution operator of quantum mechanics written as $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{Ht}{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ and the density matrix of a system being at equilibrium $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta H\right)`$. In the latter case the thermodynamic limit has a precise meaning recovering standard thermodynamic . Here we will show that, in the case of quantum evolution, one can get classical states when the system is properly prepared at the initial time . Then, when such a system interacts with another quantum system, decoherence can develop. Such classical states are characterized by having the system following exactly the classical equations of motion, for given observables, without any significant deviation due to quantum fluctuations, in agreement with the Ehrenfest’s theorem.

It is interesting to note that a recent experiment by Haroche and coworkers , aimed at realizing a conceptual experiment on complementarity due to Bohr, proves the appearance of classicality in the limit of increasing photons in a cavity. The states they have produced are those theoretically predicted, in a pioneering work on the Jaynes-Cummings model in the limit of a large number of photons, by Gea-Banacloche . In this latter work, the question of the collapse of the wave function is properly discussed in a similar context as ours, appearing as a first hint toward the appearance of decoherence in the thermodynamic limit.

In this paper we want to limit our analysis to the particular case of a single radiation mode interacting with $`N`$ two-level systems. So, by studying the thermodynamic limit, we prove that, in the strong coupling limit and with the two-level systems properly prepared, decoherence develops destroying superposition states that are taken initially for the field mode, driving the system toward a coherent state describing a classical field. Then, by computing higher order corrections, using perturbation theory, we will be able to show how these terms are negligible small in the thermodynamic limit, so that, the leading order term tends to become an exact solution in the same limit. This seems a clear example of dynamical collpse of the wave function obtained solving perturbatively the Schrödinger equation.

The paper has the following structure. In sec 2 we introduce the quantum model that we want to analyze. In sec.3 we show how the appearance of classical states indeed happens for an ensemble of two-level systems. In sec.4 we give the leading order solution of the model in the strong coupling regime proving that, given a superposition of states, being Fock or coherent states, the system is driven toward a coherent state describing a classical radiation field. In sec.5 we evaluate the higher order corrections to the leading order solution to show that, in the thermodynamic limit, our result does not change but rather tends to be an exact solution. Finally, in sec.6 we give the conclusions with a brief discussion.

## 2 The model: two-level atoms interacting with a single radiation mode

Our aim is to discuss how decoherence can appear as a dynamical effect, in the limit of a very large number of systems (thermodynamic limit). It is a well-known matter  that a single two-level atom under the effect of an increasing number of radiation modes changes its behavior from coherent Rabi oscillations to spontaneous emission, a typical decoherent effect.

Here, we reverse the situation by leaving a single radiation mode interacting with an ensemble of two-level atoms. The Hamiltonian of a single radiation mode interacting with a two-level atom is given by

$$H=\omega a^{}a+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\sigma _z+g\sigma _x(a+a^{})$$
(1)
being $`\omega `$ the frequency of the radiation mode, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the separation between the levels of the atom, $`g`$ the coupling between the radiation and the matter, $`\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _z`$ the Pauli matrices and $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ the annihilation and creation operators of the radiation mode. In a recent experiment on a small Josephson-junction circuit irradiated with microwaves, the strong coupling regime for this Hamiltonian has been obtained describing Rabi oscillations as theoretically described in . So, the strong coupling regime has been practically realized in this physical situation.

This model can be easily generalized to an ensemble of $`N`$ two-level atoms as

$$H=\omega a^{}a+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\sigma _{zi}+g\sigma _{xi}(a+a^{})\right]$$
(2)
and again we consider the strong coupling regime as, in this case, decoherence is produced dynamically by unitary evolution in the thermodynamic limit. This model has been recently studied, in a similar context, in Ref.. It can be realized by an array of Josephson-junction circuits, irradiated by microwaves, working as qubits for quantum computer.

Let us note, at this point, that having our Hamiltonian the form

$$H=H_{system}+H_{bath}+H_{systembath},$$
(3)
we are neglecting $`H_{bath}`$, that is, a dual situation with respect to the one considered by Haake and coworkers  that neglect $`H_{system}`$. But, while they describe dissipative decoherence, we aim to show, using perturbation theory, that decoherence is produced dynamically in the thermodynamic limit.

## 3 Classical states by unitary evolution and thermodynamic limit

In this section we want to limit our study to the Hamiltonian of the ensemble of two-level atoms

$$H_0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\sigma _{zi}$$
(4)
and we prove the following result :

For a proper set of initial conditions, the ensemble of two-level atoms evolves in time classically with respect to the variables $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x=_{i=1}^N\sigma _{xi}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_y=_{i=1}^N\sigma _{yi}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_z=_{i=1}^N\sigma _{zi}`$, in the thermodynamic limit.

We want to emphasize that the system does not decohere but evolves in time washing out the quantum fluctuations in the thermodynamic limit. Besides, the system must be properly prepared as we cannot claim that when the system is in an eigenstate of $`H_0`$, behaves classically.

To prove our result, we consider the following initial state

$$|\psi (0)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(a_i|_i+b_i|_i\right)$$
(5)
with $`|a_i|^2+|b_i|^2=1`$. The set of coefficients $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ must be chosen in such a way that $`|\psi (0)`$ is not in an eigenstate of $`H_0`$. The time evolution is determined through

$$U_0(t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}[e^{it\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}|_i{}_{i}{}^{}|+e^{it\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}|_{i}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}|]$$
(6)
giving

$$|\psi (t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(a_ie^{it\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}|_i+b_ie^{it\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}|_i).$$
(7)
The average values are given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_x=\psi (t)|\mathrm{\Sigma }_x|\psi (t)=N(\xi _H\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+\xi _H^{}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }t))$$
(8)
being $`\xi _H=_{i=1}^N(a_i^{}b_i+a_ib_i^{})/N`$ and $`\xi _H^{}=i_{i=1}^N(a_i^{}b_ia_ib_i^{})/N`$, numbers of order of unity. In the same way one has

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_x^2=\psi (t)|\mathrm{\Sigma }_x^2|\psi (t)=N\left[1\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(a_i^{}b_ie^{i\mathrm{\Delta }t}+b_i^{}a_ie^{i\mathrm{\Delta }t})^2\right]+N^2(\xi _H\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)+\xi _H^{}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }t))^2$$
(9)
so that, one gets finally that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_x)^2N`$ and the mean values are overwhelming large with respect to quantum fluctuations in the thermodynamic limit. A similar argument runs for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_z`$ components. This means in turn that the classical equations of motion from the Ehrenfest theorem

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_x`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_y`$ (10)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_y`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_x`$
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_z`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
are obeyed without any significant deviation due to quantum fluctuations in the limit of very large $`N`$. This proves our assertion.

A relevant question that can be asked with this result is if such a model, with this kind of initial state, can produce decoherence interacting with other quantum systems. We will answer this question in the next sections.

## 4 Decoherence generated by unitary evolution: Leading order solution

We want to show as, an ensemble of two-level atoms, strongly interacting with a single radiation mode, produces decoherence dynamically in the thermodynamic limit. For our aim, we start initially with a macroscopic quantum superposition state (generally known in literature as a Scrhödinger cat states) given by

$$|\psi (0)=𝒩(|\alpha e^{i\varphi }+|\alpha e^{i\varphi })|\chi $$
(11)
being $`|\chi `$ the contribution of the two-level atoms to be specified further, $`\alpha `$ a real number, $`\varphi `$ a phase and $`𝒩`$ a normalization factor given by

$$𝒩^2=\frac{1}{2+2\mathrm{cos}[\alpha ^2\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )]\mathrm{exp}(2\alpha ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )},$$
(12)
accounting for the nonorthogonality of the two coherent states.

Then, we consider the strong coupling regime of the Hamiltonian (2) as done in Ref. by assuming as an unperturbed Hamiltonian

$$H_u=\omega a^{}a+g\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _{xi}(a+a^{}).$$
(13)
We can compute the unitary evolution operator by treating formally $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_x=_{i=1}^N\sigma _{xi}`$ as a c-number obtaining

$$U_F(t)=e^{i\widehat{\xi }(t)}e^{i\omega a^{}at}\mathrm{exp}[\widehat{\beta }(t)a^{}\widehat{\beta }(t)^{}a],$$
(14)
being

$$\widehat{\xi }(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_x^2g^2}{\omega ^2}(\omega t\mathrm{sin}(\omega t))$$
(15)
and

$$\widehat{\beta }(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_xg}{\omega }(1e^{i\omega t})$$
(16)
operators for the ensemble of two-level atoms.

At this stage, we choose a simplified form of the initial state (5) by simply taking the eigenstate $`|1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+|)`$ of $`\sigma _x`$, with eigenvalue $`1`$, for each atom in the ensemble, so

$$|\chi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}|1_i.$$
(17)
This kind of “ferromagnetic” state simplifies the computation giving us at the leading order in the strong coupling perturbation series

$$|\psi (t)U_F(t)|\psi (0)=e^{i\xi (t)}𝒩(e^{i\varphi _1(t)}|\beta (t)e^{i\omega t}+\alpha e^{i\varphi i\omega t}+e^{i\varphi _2(t)}|\beta (t)e^{i\omega t}+\alpha e^{i\varphi i\omega t})|\chi .$$
(18)
We have used the property of the displacement operator for coherent states so to yield

$$\xi (t)=\frac{N^2g^2}{\omega ^2}(\omega t\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)),$$
(19)
$$\beta (t)=\frac{Ng}{\omega }(1e^{i\omega t})$$
(20)
and

$$\varphi _1(t)=i\frac{\alpha }{2}[\beta (t)e^{i\varphi }\beta ^{}(t)e^{i\varphi }],$$
(21)
$$\varphi _2(t)=i\frac{\alpha }{2}[\beta (t)e^{i\varphi }\beta ^{}(t)e^{i\varphi }],$$
(22)
with the phases $`\varphi _1(t)`$ and $`\varphi _2(t)`$ generated by the multiplication of two displacement operators. Then, it is straightforward to impose the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, keeping $`\alpha `$ fixed, to verify that the macroscopic quantum superposition state is driven to the classical state $`|\beta (t)e^{i\omega t}`$, proving our assertion. The system decoheres removing the superposition of the states. This state describes a classical radiation field as we are in the thermodynamic limit and so, the quantum fluctuations can be neglected with respect to the mean value .

One may ask if this is true decoherence. Actually, looking at the state (18) it appears as if we have just displaced the initial coherent state and it seems that the quantum effects are all there yet and we have not disposed of them as normally happens by a true decoherent model. We prove now, by computing the Wigner function of the state (18), that, in the thermodynamic limit, quantum effects are washed away and decoherence is recovered. Indeed, it is straightforward to obtain just for the interference term containing negativity and oscillations as

$`W_{INT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(x+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}Ng}{\omega }}(1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t))\sqrt{2}\alpha \mathrm{cos}(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)\right)^2\right]`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(p+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}Ng}{\omega }}\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)+\sqrt{2}\alpha \mathrm{cos}(\varphi )\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)\right)^2\right]`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left[2\sqrt{2}\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\varphi )\left(p\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)x\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)\right)+\alpha ^2\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )+8\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{Ng}{\omega }}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )(1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t))\right].`$
It is easily realized that it depends also on time that appears in strongly oscillating terms like $`\mathrm{cos}\left(8\alpha \frac{Ng}{\omega }(1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t))\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\left(8\alpha \frac{Ng}{\omega }(1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t))\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )\right)`$ and a sense should be attached to such terms in the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, this is mathematically possible and such terms can be assumed to be zero in such a limit, e.g. in the sense of Abel or Euler . A physical meaning should be attached to the oscillating part taken to be zero in the thermodynamic limit. Indeed, One can see that the time scale of variation of the oscillating part becomes even more smaller as $`N`$ increases. This means that one could reach, in principle, oscillations on a time scale of the Planck time but one should expect that an average in time happens largely before this can happen. This is the question of the singular limits that are at the foundations of the theory of decoherence as pointed out by Berry. So, the interference term can be neglected and true decoherence happens. This point of view has also been emphasized in Ref.  for a spin interacting with a spin bath. So, we recognize commonality between these models and the limit in the Abel or Euler sense translates into an average in time.

We want to verify if this same effect happens for a superposition of number Fock states. So, we consider an initial state given by

$$|\psi (0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|k)|\chi $$
(24)
being $`k`$ an integer, yielding

$$|\psi (t)U_F(t)|\psi (0)=e^{i\xi (t)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|\beta (t)e^{i\omega t}+e^{ik\omega t}|k,\beta (t)e^{i\omega t}\right)|\chi $$
(25)
being

$$|k,\beta (t)e^{i\omega t}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|nn|D[\beta (t)e^{i\omega t}]|k$$
(26)
a displaced number state . From Ref. we derive the following formulas

$$n|D[\alpha ]|k=\left(\frac{k!}{n!}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^{(nk)}e^{\frac{|\alpha |^2}{2}}L_k^{(nk)}(|\alpha |^2)$$
(27)
for $`nk`$, otherwise one has

$$n|D[\alpha ]|k=\left(\frac{n!}{k!}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}(\alpha ^{})^{(kn)}e^{\frac{|\alpha |^2}{2}}L_n^{(kn)}(|\alpha |^2)$$
(28)
being $`L_n^k(x)`$ the associated Laguerre polynomials . We put

$$\beta ^{}(t)=\beta (t)e^{i\omega t}$$
(29)
and then rewrite eq.(25) as

$`|\psi (t)`$ $``$ $`e^{i\xi (t)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\beta ^{}(t)+`$
$`e^{ik\omega t}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}|n\left({\displaystyle \frac{n!}{k!}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}[\beta ^{}(t)]^{(kn)}e^{\frac{|\beta ^{}(t)|^2}{2}}L_n^{(kn)}(|\beta ^{}(t)|^2)+`$
$`e^{ik\omega t}{\displaystyle \underset{n=k}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|n\left({\displaystyle \frac{k!}{n!}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}[\beta ^{}(t)]^{(nk)}e^{\frac{|\beta ^{}(t)|^2}{2}}L_k^{(nk)}(|\beta ^{}(t)|^2))|\chi .`$
In the thermodynamic limit we can take $`\beta ^{}(t)`$ to become increasingly large being proportional to $`N`$. So, we can approximate the associated Laguerre polynomials as $`L_n^k(x)\frac{(x)^n}{n!}`$ for $`x\mathrm{}`$ and substituting into eq.(4) one gets

$$|\psi (t)e^{i\xi (t)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|\beta ^{}(t)+e^{ik\omega t}\frac{[\beta ^{}(t)]^k}{\sqrt{k!}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|n\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}[\beta ^{}(t)]^ne^{\frac{|\beta ^{}(t)|^2}{2}}\right)|\chi $$
(31)
and it is not difficult to recognize the second term on the r.h.s. being again the coherent state $`|\beta ^{}(t)`$. Then, the radiation field is driven again toward a coherent state describing a classical field, the initial superposition state being washed out in the thermodynamic limit.

In both cases we are left with corrections to the normalization factor due to the approximations we have introduced. They will not play any role when the average values are computed as we have applied a limit procedure on the wave function implying a recomputation of the normalization factor.

## 5 Decoherence generated by unitary evolution: Higher order corrections

In this section our aim will be to compute higher order corrections to the results in sec.4 to prove that indeed, these corrections do not modifiy our argument in the given approximations.

The dual Dyson series can be formally written as

$$U(t)=U_F(t)T\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}U_F^{}(t^{})H_0U_F(t^{})\right)$$
(32)
being $`T`$ the time ordering operator, giving at the first order

$$U^{(1)}(t)=iU_F(t)_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}U_F^{}(t^{})H_0U_F(t^{})$$
(33)
and, for the second order

$$U^{(2)}(t)=U_F(t)_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}U_F^{}(t^{})H_0U_F(t^{})_{t_0}^t^{}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }U_F^{}(t^{\prime \prime })H_0U_F(t^{\prime \prime }).$$
(34)
Our aim is to evaluate both the contributions. The first order solution has been put forward, firstly, in Ref.. We introduce a quite general way to evaluate higher order corrections by introducing the reduced unitary evolution as

$$U_{R\chi }(t)=\chi |U(t)|\chi .$$
(35)
We consider only the transitions with the spin bath untouched, the most relevant for our analysis. We will justify a posteriori this definition. This describes an unitary evolution for the radiation field. As we have seen in Sec.4, the unitary evolution, at the leading order, produces the disappearance of superposition states in the thermodynamic limit. This effect, also true for the reduced unitary evolution, disappears for all the other orthogonal states of the spin bath that appear during the evolution.

Indeed, by eq.(33) the first order gives

$$ie^{i\frac{(N2)^2g^2}{\omega ^2}(\omega t\mathrm{sin}(\omega t))}e^{i\omega a^{}at}e^{\frac{N2}{N}[\beta (t)a^{}\beta (t)^{}a]}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}_0^t𝑑t^{}e^{4i(N1)\frac{g^2}{\omega ^2}(\omega t^{}\mathrm{sin}(\omega t^{}))}e^{\alpha (t^{})a^{}\alpha (t^{})^{}a}|\widehat{\chi }^{}$$
(36)
with

$$\alpha (t)=\frac{2\beta (t)}{N},$$
(37)
not dependent on $`N`$. But the first order correction modifies the spin bath state as

$$|\widehat{\chi }^{}=|1_1|1_2\mathrm{}|1_N+|1_1|1_2\mathrm{}|1_N+\mathrm{}+|1_1|1_2\mathrm{}|1_N,$$
(38)
that is a non normalized state orthogonal to $`|\chi `$. We normalize this state by multiplying it by the factor $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}`$ and call it $`|\chi ^{}`$. The conclusion is that the first order term is zero and does not contribute to the reduced unitary evolution. But, if we want to know the reduced unitary evolution with respect to the state $`|\chi ^{}`$ we can see that now is the leading order that does not contribute being zero, and we have

$`U_{R\chi ^{}}^{(1)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi ^{}|U^{(1)}(t)|\chi =`$
$`ie^{i\frac{(N2)^2g^2}{\omega ^2}(\omega t\mathrm{sin}(\omega t))}e^{i\omega a^{}at}e^{\frac{N2}{N}[\beta (t)a^{}\beta (t)^{}a]}\sqrt{N}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}e^{4i(N1)\frac{g^2}{\omega ^2}(\omega t^{}\mathrm{sin}(\omega t^{}))}e^{\alpha (t^{})a^{}\alpha (t^{})^{}a}.`$
This term, in the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, has the integral wildly oscillating and giving a contribution proportional to $`\frac{1}{N}`$. So, this term that modifies the unitary evolution as due to a modified state of the spin bath, can be safely neglected in the thermodynamic limit, being $`O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\right)`$. This proves a posteriori, as promised, our statement on the relevance of the reduced unitary evolution just with respect to the state $`|\chi `$. Other non orthogonal states appear at higher orders, as we will see, but their contribution is even more smaller in the thermodynamic limit.

We can now evaluate the second order contribution to the reduced unitary evolution that is given by

$`U_{R\chi }^{(2)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi |U^{(2)}(t)|\chi =`$
$``$ $`e^{i\frac{N^2g^2}{\omega ^2}(\omega t\mathrm{sin}(\omega t))}e^{i\omega a^{}at}e^{\beta (t)a^{}\beta (t)^{}a}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^t}dt^{}e^{4i(N1)\frac{g^2}{\omega ^2}(\omega t^{}\mathrm{sin}(\omega t^{}))}e^{\alpha (t^{})a^{}+\alpha (t^{})^{}a}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _0^t^{}}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }e^{4i(N1)\frac{g^2}{\omega ^2}(\omega t^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{sin}(\omega t^{\prime \prime }))}e^{\alpha (t^{\prime \prime })a^{}\alpha (t^{\prime \prime })^{}a}`$
and we have two wildly oscillating integrals. Again we can estimate this term, in the thermodynamic limit, as being $`O\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)`$ and then, it is even much faster in going to zero with respect to the first order term. This proves our assertion that, in the thermodynamic limit, the unitary evolution is able to wash out quantum superposition states, if the initial state of the spin bath is properly set. Besides, we point out that also the second order term of the Dyson series changes the state of the spin bath due to the product of $`H_0`$ terms. We do not report this modified state here as not essential for our discussion.

The main conclusion of this section is that, in the thermodynamic limit, the leading order unitary evolution tends to an exact solution of the Schrödinger equation. This solution, in the same limit, can produce decoherence washing out quantum superposition states.

## 6 Discussion and Conclusions

We have showed that a single radiation mode, interacting with an ensemble of two-level systems, can undergo decoherence during its unitary evolution. The proof is obtained using perturbation theory and assuming strong coupling between the field and the ensemble of two-level systems. At the leading order, the unitary evolution washes out superposition states when the thermodynamic limit is taken and the ensemble of two-level systems is properly initially prepared. The proof is given both for a macroscopic quantum superposition state and for a superposition of Fock states. Higher order corrections till second order are then computed, proving that the leading order solution tends to be an exact one in the thermodynamic limit. So, the classical radiation field is an attracting solution when a radiation mode interacts with a very large ensemble of two-level atoms. It is interesting to note that this solution of our model seems to be a genuine example of dynamical collapse of the wave function.

This result opens up the possibility to prove a quite general result. That is, when $`N`$ non interacting particles can realize classical evolution of observables, one may ask if, interacting with such a system and assuming the proper initial state, such an effect of decoherence may be an ubiquitous one. Indeed, our approach proves to be a useful extension of the formal analogy between statistical physics and quantum mechanics.

## Acknowledgement

I have to thank Kazuyuki Fujii for many comments that showed to be useful to improve the paper.