text:
# Continuous-Variable Quantum Games

## Introduction

Quantum game theory was initiated by a paper of D. A. Meyer, discovering that a player can always beats his classical opponent by adopting quantum strategies. Consequently the quantization of the famous Prisoners’ Dilemma was presented by J. Eisert et al.. They showed that this game ceases to pose a dilemma if quantum strategies are allowed for. By far, investigations on multiplayer quantum games, as well as many interesting aspects on quantum games, were also presented. Recently, we investigated the role of entanglement in quantum games and found that the properties of the quantum Prisoners’ Dilemma change discontinuously when its entanglement varies. Besides the theoretical investigations, the first experimental realization of quantum games was also successfully accomplished on our NMR quantum computer.

However most of the current investigations on quantum games focus on games in which the players have finite number of strategies. In real-life society and economy, many cases should be represented by games in which the players can access to a continuous set of strategies. Thus games with a continuous set of strategies are quite familiar and are very important. Considering the intimate connection between the theory of games and the theory of quantum communication, quantization of games with continuum strategic space therefore deserves thorough investigations, for both theoretical and practical reasons.

In this paper we investigate the quantization of games with continuous strategic space. A classic instance of such games is the Cournot’s Duopoly, which is also a cornerstone of modern economics. The classical game exhibits a dilemma-like situation, i.e. the unique Nash equilibrium is inferior to the Pareto Optimal, just like in the Prisoners’ Dilemma. We give a quantum structure of Cournot’s Duopoly, and show that — in the context of this structure — the players can escape the frustrating dilemma-like situation if the structure involves a maximally entangled state. We also observe the transition of the game from purely classical to fully quantum, as the game’s entanglement increases from zero to maximum. The profits at quantum Nash equilibrium increases monotonously as the game’s entanglement increases. In the maximally entangled game, the profits at the unique Nash equilibrium is exactly the Pareto Optimal (the best result they can ever attain while maintaining the symmetry of the game), and the dilemma-like situation in the classical Cournot’s Duopoly is completely resolved. Moreover we propose a practical experimental setup for the quantum Cournot’s Duopoly, within the capability of nowadays optical technology.

## 1 Classical Cournot’s Duopoly

A duopoly is a case in which two firm monopolize the market of a certain commodity without a third competitor. In a simple scenario of Cournot’s model for this duopoly, firm $`1`$ and firm $`2`$ simultaneously decide the quantities $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$, respectively, of a homogeneous product they want to put on the market. Let $`Q`$ be the total quantity, i.e. $`Q=q_1+q_2`$, and $`P\left(Q\right)`$ the price. A formula of $`P\left(Q\right)`$ is $`P\left(Q\right)=aQ`$ for $`Qa`$ while $`P\left(Q\right)=0`$ for $`Q>a`$. This is a simple but reasonable reflection of the fact that the more product is put on the market, the less the price will be, and when the total quantity is extremely large, the product will be nearly worthless. Assume that the unit cost of producing the product is a constant $`c`$ with $`c<a`$. Then the profits can be written as

$`u_j(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`q_j\left[P\left(Q\right)c\right]`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`q_j\left[ac\left(q_1+q_2\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`q_j\left[k\left(q_1+q_2\right)\right],`$
with $`k=ac`$ being a constant and $`j=1,2`$. It is easy to find that the unique Nash equilibrium of the game is

$`q_1^{}=q_2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{k}{3}}.`$ (2)
At this equilibrium the profits are

$`u_1(q_1^{},q_2^{})=u_2(q_1^{},q_2^{})={\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{9}}.`$ (3)
However this equilibrium fails to be the optimal solution. It is easy to check that if the two firms can cooperate and restrict their quantities to

$`q_1^{}=q_2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}},`$ (4)
they can both acquire higher profits

$`u_1({\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}})=u_2({\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{k}{4}})={\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{8}}.`$ (5)
In fact, this is the highest profits they can ever attained while remaining the symmetry of the game. But they can never escape the Nash equilibrium since uniliteral deviation will decrease the individual profit. This dilemma-like situation again exhibits the conflict between individual rationality and collective rationality, just like in the classical Prisoners’ Dilemma.

## 2 Quantum Cournot’s Duopoly

We now investigate the quantization of the classical Cournot’s Duopoly. The extension of a classical game into the quantum domain is usually done by setting up a Hilbert space, assigning the possible outcomes of each classical strategy to certain quantum states. The quantum strategies are therefore operations on the quantum states, and the payoffs are read out from the final measurement. Since different classical strategies are completely distinguishable, it is then natural to require that the Hilbert space used to have at least the same number of distinguishable states as that of the different classical strategies. Therefore in the cases that the strategic space is a continuum, one needs a Hilbert space with a continuous set of orthogonal bases, i.e. the Hilbert space of a continuous-variable quantum system.

In this paper, we would like to make use of two single-mode electromagnetic fields, of which the quadrature amplitudes have a continuous set of eigenstates. Fig. 1 shows the quantum structure of the game. The game starts from state $`|vac_1|vac_2`$, which is the tensor product of two single-mode vacuum states of two electromagnetic fields. This state consequently undergoes a unitary operation $`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)`$, which is known to both firms (the meaning of $`\gamma `$ will be presented later). In order to maintain the symmetry of this game, $`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)`$ should be symmetric with respect to the interchange of the two electromagnetic fields. At this stage, the state of the game is

$`|\psi _i=\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)|vac_1|vac_2,`$ (6)
Then the two electromagnetic fields are sent to firm $`1`$ and firm $`2`$, respectively. Strategic moves of firm $`1`$ and firm $`2`$ are associated with unitary operators $`\widehat{D}_1`$ and $`\widehat{D}_2`$, respectively, which are chosen from certain strategic spaces and are obviously local operators on their individual electromagnetic fields. Having executed their moves, firm $`1`$ and firm $`2`$ forward their electromagnetic fields to the final measurement, prior to which a disentangling operation $`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)^{}`$ is carried out. Therefore the final state prior to the measurement is

$`|\psi _f=\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)^{}(\widehat{D}_1\widehat{D}_2)\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)|vac_1|vac_2.`$ (7)
It is straightforward to set the final measurement be corresponding to the observables $`\widehat{X}_j=(\widehat{a}_j^{}+\widehat{a}_j)/\sqrt{2}`$ (the “position” operators) of firm $`j`$, where $`\widehat{a}_j^{}`$ ($`\widehat{a}_j`$) is the creation (annihilation) operator of firm $`j`$’s electromagnetic field. This measurement is usually done by the homodyne measurement. In order to reduce the noise of the result (since a coherent state is not an eigenstate of the “position” operator), we shall squeeze the reference light beam in the homodyne measurement. In this paper we focus on the idea case that the reference light beam is infinitely squeezed, then the noise is reduced to zero. Let $`\stackrel{~}{x}_j`$ be the measurement result, then the individual quantity is determined by $`q_j=\stackrel{~}{x}_j`$, and hence the profit by

$`u_j^Q(\widehat{D}_1,\widehat{D}_2)=u_j(\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\stackrel{~}{x}_2),`$ (8)
where superscript “$`Q`$” denotes “quantum”.

The classical Cournot’s Duopoly should be included as a subset of the quantum structure, so that the quantum game is comparable with the original classical one. Indeed the classical game is faithfully represented as long as $`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)=\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)^{}=I`$ (the identity operators). Let $`\widehat{P}_j=i(\widehat{a}_j^{}\widehat{a}_j)/\sqrt{2}`$ be “momentum” operator of firm $`j`$’s electromagnetic field. We can see that if the players are restricted to choose their strategies from the sets

$`S_j=\{\widehat{D}_j\left(x_j\right)=\mathrm{exp}(ix_j\widehat{P}_j)|x_j[0,\mathrm{})\},\text{ }j=1,2`$ (9)
then the final state is

$`|\psi _f=(\mathrm{exp}(ix_1\widehat{P}_1)|vac_1)(\mathrm{exp}(ix_2\widehat{P}_2)|vac_2).`$ (10)
And the consequent final measurement gives the results $`q_1=x_1`$ and $`q_2=x_2`$, thus the original classical game is recovered. We hence obtain that the set $`S_j`$ is exactly the quantum analog of classical strategic space.

In the remaining part of the paper, we would like to present the “minimal” extension of the classical Cournot’s Duopoly into the quantum domain: we maintain the strategic space unexpanded ($`S_j`$ for firm $`j`$) and only extend the initial state $`|\psi _i`$ to be superposition or entangled state ($`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)I`$ and $`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)^{}I`$). The classical game is a subset of this “minimal” extension in the sense that the quantum game turns back to the original classical form when the initial state is not entangled. In this extension, if the game of non-zero entanglement exhibits any features not seen in the classical game, we can be sure that these features are completely attributed to the quantum entanglement. However it does not rule out the possibility of getting a quantum version of Cournot’s Duopoly by extending both the states and the strategic space.

The entangling operator $`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)`$ is given by

$`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)=\mathrm{exp}\{\gamma (\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2)\}=\mathrm{exp}\{i\gamma (\widehat{X}_1\widehat{P}_2+\widehat{X}_2\widehat{P}_1)\},`$ (11)
Hence the initial state is

$`|\psi _i=\mathrm{exp}\{\gamma (\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2)\}|vac_1|vac_2,`$ (12)
which is exactly the two-mode squeezed vacuum state used to teleport continuous quantum variables and to demonstrate the violation of Bell’s inequalities for continuous variable systems. $`\gamma 0`$ is known as the squeezing parameter and can be reasonably regarded as a measure of entanglement. Note that in the infinite squeezing limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, the initial state approximates the EPR state, i.e. $`lim_\gamma \mathrm{}|\psi _i=|x,x𝑑x=|\text{EPR}`$.

Detailed calculation gives

$`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)^{}\widehat{D}_1\left(x_1\right)\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{ix_1(\widehat{P}_1\mathrm{cosh}\gamma +\widehat{P}_2\mathrm{sinh}\gamma )\},`$
$`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)^{}\widehat{D}_2\left(x_2\right)\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{ix_2(\widehat{P}_2\mathrm{cosh}\gamma +\widehat{P}_1\mathrm{sinh}\gamma )\}.`$
Therefore

$`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)^{}[\widehat{D}_1\left(x_1\right)\widehat{D}_2\left(x_2\right)]\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{i(x_1\mathrm{cosh}\gamma +x_2\mathrm{sinh}\gamma )\widehat{P}_1\}\mathrm{exp}\{i(x_2\mathrm{cosh}\gamma +x_1\mathrm{sinh}\gamma )\widehat{P}_2\}.`$
From this we obtain the final state

$`|\psi _f`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{i(x_1\mathrm{cosh}\gamma +x_2\mathrm{sinh}\gamma )\widehat{P}_1\}|vac_1`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{exp}\{i(x_2\mathrm{cosh}\gamma +x_1\mathrm{sinh}\gamma )\widehat{P}_2\}|vac_2.`$
The final measurement gives the respective quantities of the two firms

$`q_1`$ $`=`$ $`x_1\mathrm{cosh}\gamma +x_2\mathrm{sinh}\gamma ,`$
$`q_2`$ $`=`$ $`x_2\mathrm{cosh}\gamma +x_1\mathrm{sinh}\gamma .`$
For convenience, we directly denote the strategy in the quantum game by $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ when the strategies are $`\widehat{D}_1\left(x_1\right)`$ and $`\widehat{D}_2\left(x_2\right)`$, respectively. Referring equation (1) the quantum profits for them are

$`u_1^Q(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`u_1(q_1,q_2)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(x_1\mathrm{cosh}\gamma +x_2\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \right)\times \left[ke^\gamma \left(x_1+x_2\right)\right],`$
$`u_2^Q(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`u_2(q_1,q_2)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\left(x_2\mathrm{cosh}\gamma +x_1\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \right)\times \left[ke^\gamma \left(x_1+x_2\right)\right].`$
Solving the Nash equilibrium gives the unique one

$`x_1^{}=x_2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{k\mathrm{cosh}\gamma }{1+2e^{2\gamma }}}\text{.}`$ (15)
And the profits at this equilibrium are

$`u_1^Q(x_1^{},x_2^{})=u_2^Q(x_1^{},x_2^{})={\displaystyle \frac{k^2e^\gamma \mathrm{cosh}\gamma }{(3\mathrm{cosh}\gamma +\mathrm{sinh}\gamma )^2}}\text{.}`$ (16)
It would be interesting to review how the profits at Nash equilibrium vary with respect to the measure of entanglement $`\gamma `$, as depicted in Fig. 2. It shows that the more entangled the game’s state is, the higher profits the two firms can obtain. When the game is not entangled, i.e. $`\gamma =0`$, the quantum game goes back to the original classical form. However in maximally entangled game, i.e. in the infinite squeezing limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, the initial state $`|\psi _i|\text{EPR}`$ and $`u_1^Q(x_1^{},x_2^{})=u_2^Q(x_1^{},x_2^{})k^2/8`$, which is the best situation the two firms can ever achieve. This novel feature indicates that the original Einstein-Podolksy-Rosen state enables the two firms to best cooperate and therefore to be best rewarded, and the dilemma-like situation in the classical game is completely removed.

The alert reader may argue that the quantum structure proposed here can be simulated purely classically. For instance, firm $`1`$ and firm $`2`$ may each communicate their choice ($`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$) to the judge using ordinary telephone lines. The judge then computes the payoffs according to equation (14). However this implementation loses comparability with the original game, because once the judge has to change the payoff functions according to $`\gamma `$, at the same time he changes the game itself, since in the original game the payoffs are always given by the same procedure. Yet the quantum structure maintains the comparability since the payoff are given by the same procedure independent of $`\gamma `$: measuring the quadrature amplitudes, taking the results as quantities, and calculating the profits according to the classical payoff functions (in equation (1)). Further, any classical “simulation” maintaining the comparability should have to introduce direct interaction between strategies of the players (firms), because the final quantity of a single firm should contain the strategy of its opponent (see equation (14)). This direct interaction, however, is prohibited since the game is a static one. While in the quantum structure the entanglement provides an “invisible channel” for the two firms to affect each other, rather than to directly interact.

## 3 Experimental Setup

So far all the investigations are in theory, we now want to construct a practical setup of the quantum Cournot’s Duopoly, based on feasible optical experiments. The setup is shown in Fig. 3. BS1, BS2 and BS3 are beam splitters. The operator of a beam splitter is

$`\widehat{B}(\theta ,\varphi )=\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2e^{i\varphi }\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^{}e^{i\varphi })\}\text{,}`$ (17)
with the amplitude reflection and transmission coefficients $`t=\mathrm{cos}\theta /2`$ and $`r=\mathrm{sin}\theta /2`$, and $`\varphi `$ being the phase difference between the reflected and transmitted fields. Here we set

$`\text{BS}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\text{BS}_2=\widehat{B}(\pi /2,3\pi /2),`$
$`\text{BS}_3`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{B}(\pi /2,\pi /2)=\text{BS}_2^{}.`$
$`\widehat{S}\left(\gamma \right)=\mathrm{exp}\{i\gamma (\widehat{a}^2+\widehat{a}^2)/2\}`$ is squeezing operator, which can be implemented by parametric down-conversion inside a nonlinear crystal. Detailed calculation yields that

$`\text{BS}_1e^{i\frac{\gamma }{2}(\widehat{a}_1^2+\widehat{a}_1^2)}e^{i\frac{\gamma }{2}(\widehat{a}_2^2+\widehat{a}_2^2)}|vac|vac`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\gamma (\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2)}|vac|vac\text{,}`$
$`\text{BS}_3e^{i\frac{\gamma }{2}(\widehat{a}_1^2+\widehat{a}_1^2)}e^{i\frac{\gamma }{2}(\widehat{a}_2^2+\widehat{a}_2^2)}\text{BS}_2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\gamma (\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2)}\text{.}`$ (18)
Therefore the operations of $`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)`$ and $`\widehat{J}\left(\gamma \right)^{}`$ are constructed.$`\widehat{D}_1(x_1)`$ and $`\widehat{D}_2(x_2)`$ can be realized by simple phase-space displacements on each single electromagnetic field. The setup in Fig. 3 hence faithfully represents the quantum structure in Fig. 1.

## 4 Conclusion

We investigate the quantization of games with continuum strategic space, making use of continuous-variable quantum systems. For the particular case of Cournot’s Duopoly, we construct a quantum structure of it, and proposed the extension from classical to quantum, which we refer to be “minimal”. The classical game is shown to be a subset of the quantum game, and therefore they can be compared in an unbiased manner. We observed novel features in the quantum Cournot’s Duopoly, which are completely due to quantum entanglement. In the quantum game two firms virtually cooperate even though they still behave selfishly. This virtual cooperation, as well as the profits, increases as the entanglement increases. For the maximal entanglement limit, the initial state is precisely the original Einstein-Podolksy-Rosen state, and enables the two firms to cooperate best and to be best rewarded. Further we proposed a feasible experimental scheme to demonstrate the quantum Cournot’s Duopoly, showing the game’s procedure of preparing initial states, executing strategic moves and reading out payoffs (profits). This scheme is within the capability of current optical technology, and could be implemented indeed.

We thank Z. B. Chen for helpful discussion. This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 10075041), the National Fundamental Research Program (2001CB309300), and the ASTAR Grant No. 012-104-0040.


format: text

text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

The quantum mechanical description of the motion of charged particles in a magnetic field is a classic application of the theory, having given rise to some of its most striking results. Among them, the seminal analysis by Dirac , of the motion in the field of a magnetic monopole, continues to inspire decades after its inception, and motivates the study of similar quantum systems that share the characteristic of providing insights into the fundamentals without too much distraction by analytical complexity. Such systems are invaluable pedagogically, as they furnish a manageable, yet captivating testing ground of the fundamentals of the theory.

The problem of the motion of a non-relativistic quantum particle in a plane, in the presence of a perpendicular homogeneous magnetic field is presented in several textbooks (see, e.g.) — nevertheless, it seems to be the only standard example of this type available. The main purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the fact that the analogous problem for the cylinder is also manageable, even when augmented to include a spin 1/2. In this latter case, we also show how the use of the creation and anihilation operator machinery greatly simplifies the perturbative analysis of the problem, in comparison to the standard textbook procedure.

Despite the simplicity of the problem and it being an obvious variation on the monopole theme, we have not been able to find a treatment in the literature. The motion of a spin-1/2 particle in the field of a magnetic monopole has been studied in detail, both in the non-relativistic  and relativistic  cases. Symmetry aspects of the problem have also been considered extensively (see, e.g.), with the discovery of an underlying supersymmetry among the most notable results . On the other hand, quantum spinless particles moving on curves or surfaces have been extensively studied (see, e.g.,  and references therein) with a general discussion of the effects of a vector potential given in . It is our hope that the use of the above simple system will enhance the exposition of this fascinating part of the theory. It should also be of interest in practical applications, such as constrained quantum mechanics and carbon nanotube physics.

Consider a classical charged particle, constrained to move on the surface of an infinite cylinder, in the presence of a radial magnetic field,

$$\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{r})=B_0\frac{a}{\rho }\widehat{\rho },$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is the radius of the cylinder and $`B_0`$ is the field strength on its surface111Such a radial field can be thought to be produced by a homogeneous linear magnetic charge density, or, more realistically, in the exterior of a solenoid of radius $`R`$, $`R<a`$, placed along the axis of the cylinder and carrying surface current density $`\stackrel{}{J}=\frac{2B_0a}{\mu _0R^2}z\widehat{\varphi }`$.. The equations of motion for the particle are

$$m\dot{v}_z=qB_0v_\varphi ,m\dot{v}_\varphi =qB_0v_z,$$
(2)
where $`m`$, $`q`$ are the mass and charge of the particle respectively and $`\{\widehat{\rho },\widehat{\varphi },\widehat{z}\}`$ is a right-handed basis. The solutions to (2) are two simultaneous oscillations: the momentum $`p_z`$ of the particle oscillates like, say, $`\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$ (with $`\omega =qB_0/mc`$) while its angular momentum along the $`z`$-axis oscillates like $`\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)`$. Thus, the particle’s kinetic energy oscillates between a linear and a rotational form, becoming, for example, purely rotational at the turning points of the oscillation along $`z`$.

We study, in this paper, the quantum mechanical version of the above problem, adding, at a later stage, a spin-1/2 to the particle. The treatment of the spinless case, contained in Sect. 2, is exact — the problem separates and reduces to an infinite collection of harmonic oscillators along $`z`$. We find, nevertheless, the resulting quantum system particularly rich and with surprising properties — it functions, for example, as a quantum Fourier transformer with convenient visual output (see Sec. 2.2). The addition of spin is treated perturbatively in Sect. 3, with a non-conventional method that greatly simplifies the calculations. We are able to give recursion relations for the corrections to the wavefunctions and the energy to all orders, for all unperturbed eigenstates, and apply the results to compute second-order corrections to the ground state. Several plots highlight the findings. We also make available on the web several three-dimensional color animations of the time evolution of the wavefunction, with or without spin, and corresponding to various initial conditions. An appendix shows how the standard perturbation theory treatment of the problem reproduces, albeit laboriously, our first order results.

## 2 The Spinless Case

### 2.1 The spectrum

The magnetic field of Eq. (1) can be obtained, in the vicinity of the surface of the cylinder, from the vector potential

$$\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r})=B_0\frac{a}{\rho }z\widehat{\varphi }.$$
(3)
The Hamiltonian for a quantum spinless particle constrained to move on the surface of the cylinder is given by

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}(\stackrel{}{p}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{c}}\stackrel{}{A})^2`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}_\varphi ^2+_z^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2B_0^2}{2mc^2}}z^2i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}qB_0}{mca}}z_\varphi .`$
The wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{i\mathrm{}\varphi }Z(z)`$ is an eigenfunction of $`\widehat{H}`$, with eigenvalue $`E`$, provided $`Z(z)`$ satisfies (primes denote differentiation w.r.t. $`z`$)

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}Z^{\prime \prime }(z)+\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2(z+\mathrm{}b)^2Z(z)=EZ(z),$$
(5)
where we have set

$$\omega =\frac{qB_0}{mc},b=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{qB_0a},$$
(6)
and, in what follows, we take $`\mathrm{}=m=\omega =1`$. This is the equation for a simple harmonic oscillator (SHO), centered at $`z=\mathrm{}b`$. We conclude that, for each integer value of $`\mathrm{}`$, one obtains a copy of the usual SHO spectrum, centered at $`z=\mathrm{}b`$, i.e., the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of $`\widehat{H}`$ are given by

$$\varphi ,z|n,\mathrm{}=N_nH_n(z+\mathrm{}b)e^{(z+\mathrm{}b)^2/2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{i\mathrm{}\varphi },E_{\mathrm{},n}E_n=n+\frac{1}{2},N_n(2^nn!\sqrt{\pi })^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(7)
where $`|n,\mathrm{}`$ denote the corresponding eigenkets ($`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$; $`\mathrm{}`$) and $`H_n(z)`$ are the Hermite polynomials.

### 2.2 A quantum Fourier transformer

Suppose that the wavefunction of the particle, at $`t=0`$, is given by222We use the notation $`\varphi ,z|n,\mathrm{},m=N_nH_n(z+\mathrm{}b)e^{(z+\mathrm{}b)^2/2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{im\varphi }`$ (not to be confused, hopefully, with the standard spherical symmetry notation)— these wavefunctions are eigenfunctions of $`\widehat{H}`$ only when $`m=\mathrm{}`$, in which case they will be denoted by $`|n,\mathrm{}`$, as above.

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi ,z,t=0)\varphi ,z|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{}=N_0e^{z^2/2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{i\mathrm{}\varphi }.$$
(8)
If $`\mathrm{}=0`$, we have one of the infinitely many ground states of the system and the time evolution is by a phase factor. Consider now the case $`\mathrm{}0`$. Then the $`z`$-part “sees” a quadratic potential centered at $`z=\mathrm{}b`$ but the initial wavefunction is a gaussian centered at the origin. This is a coherent state and its time evolution is an oscillation around $`z=\mathrm{}b`$, with the frequency $`\omega =1`$ of the oscillator,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi ,z,t)=N_0e^{it/2}e^{i(z+\mathrm{}b)\mathrm{}b\mathrm{sin}t}e^{(z+\mathrm{}b(1\mathrm{cos}t))^2/2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{i\mathrm{}\varphi }.$$
(9)
Notice that a physically irrelevant global phase factor $`e^{i\mathrm{}^2b^2/4\mathrm{sin}2t}`$ has been omitted from the above expression. We may now exploit linearity to write down the time evolution of a gaussian (in $`z`$), centered at the origin, with arbitrary $`\varphi `$-dependence,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,z,t=0)=N_0e^{z^2/2}f(\varphi ).$$
(10)
Writing

$$f(\varphi )=\underset{\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_{\mathrm{}}e^{i\mathrm{}\varphi },$$
(11)
we obtain,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,z,t)=\underset{\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{}}(\varphi ,z,t),$$
(12)
i.e., each Fourier mode of $`f(\varphi )`$ gives rise to a gaussian in $`z`$, oscillating like a coherent state around $`z=\mathrm{}b`$ with frequency $`\omega =1`$. Taking $`b1`$, so that the various gaussians separate after half a period, converts the system to a quantum Fourier transformer with convenient visual output: looking at the wavefunction at time $`t=\pi `$ (a half-period), one sees the above gaussians at the (second) turning point of their oscillation, at $`z=2\mathrm{}b`$, with their amplitudes proportional to the Fourier amplitudes $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$.

In Fig. 1, we plot several frames of the time evolution of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, when $`f(\varphi )=\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ — the last frame, at $`t=\pi `$, clearly displays the Fourier content of $`f`$. Fig. 2 corresponds to the initial wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,z,t=0)e^{z^2/2}(1+e^{i\varphi }+1.5e^{i2\varphi }+e^{i3\varphi })`$.

## 3 The Spin-1/2 Case

### 3.1 Separation of variables

For a spin-1/2 particle, the wavefunction has two components, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+(\varphi ,z)`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(\varphi ,z)`$, which we arrange in a column vector. The spin interacts with the magnetic field via $`\widehat{H}_{\text{int}}=\lambda \stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{B}`$, which, for the field given in (1) becomes

$$\widehat{H}_{\text{int}}=\frac{1}{2}\lambda B_0\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{i\varphi }\\ e^{i\varphi }& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(13)
In order to achieve separation of variables now, we need to take

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_+(\varphi ,z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{i\mathrm{}\varphi }Z_+(z),\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(\varphi ,z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{i(\mathrm{}+1)\varphi }Z_{}(z).$$
(14)
The resulting equation for the $`Z`$’s is

$`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{}}Z_+(z)+ϵZ_{}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`EZ_+(z)`$
$`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{}+1}Z_{}(z)+ϵZ_+(z)`$ $`=`$ $`EZ_{}(z),`$ (15)
where $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a SHO hamiltonian centered at $`z=\mathrm{}b`$,

$$\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2}_z^2+\frac{1}{2}(z+\mathrm{}b)^2,$$
(16)
and $`ϵ\mathrm{}\lambda B_0/2`$. We see that the problem reduces to that of two SHO’s, a distance $`b`$ apart, coupled by the $`ϵ`$ terms in (3.1). Our task is to solve (3.1) perturbatively in $`ϵ`$. Once the solutions are known, to a certain order in $`ϵ`$, we can form the spinor

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,z)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_+(\varphi ,z)\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{}(\varphi ,z)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{i\mathrm{}\varphi }Z_+(z)\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{i(\mathrm{}+1)\varphi }Z_+(z)\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
from which the probability density and spin direction can be extracted as

$$\rho =\sqrt{|Z_+|^2+|Z_{}|^2},\alpha =2\mathrm{arctan}\frac{|Z_{}|}{|Z_+|},\beta =\text{Im}(\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_+}),$$
(18)
where the spin direction $`\widehat{n}`$ is given by $`\widehat{n}=(\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta ,\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\beta ,\mathrm{cos}\alpha )`$, in Cartesian coordinates. The solutions of (3.1) have no relative (complex) phase and can be taken real. Then, on the $`\varphi =0`$ plane, the spin lies in the $`xz`$ plane. The extra $`e^{i\varphi }`$ factor in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ guarantees that when we change our position on the cylinder by $`\varphi `$, the spin also rotates by the same angle and its direction is therefore obtained by revolution of the $`\varphi =0`$ configuration, in other words, $`\beta =\varphi `$ in (18). These remarks are of course valid only for the energy eigenstates — the time evolution of general states results in the spin pointing outside of the radial plane as well, even if they start within it.

### 3.2 Perturbative solution

One may treat the system of the two coupled differential equations in (3.1) by standard perturbation theory methods — we give the first-order analysis along these lines in the appendix. It is instructive though, as well as much more efficient, to exploit the SHO machinery of raising and lowering operators. We begin by transforming (3.1) into a single differential-difference equation. Indeed, it is clear from the symmetry of these equations that the solutions can be taken to satisfy $`Z_{}(z)=\pm Z_+(zb)`$ — we will refer to the two possibilities as symmetric and antisymmetric respectively. Taking $`\mathrm{}=0`$ and restricting to the symmetric case, the first of (3.1) becomes

$$\widehat{H}_0Z_{\text{s}+}(z)+ϵZ_{\text{s}+}(zb)=EZ_{\text{s}+}(z).$$
(19)
We now write $`\widehat{H}_0=a^{}a+\frac{1}{2}`$ and introduce the ket whose wavefunction is $`Z_{\text{s}+}(z)`$,

$$Z_{\text{s}+}(z)=z|Z_{\text{s}+},|Z_{\text{s}+}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n(a^{})^n|0_0f(a^{})|0_0,$$
(20)
where $`|0_0`$ is the ground state for $`\mathrm{}`$ equal to zero (i.e., centered at the origin) and $`f(a^{})`$ is defined by the last equation — the idea is that any ket can be obtained by some function of $`a^{}`$ applied to the ground state. The wavefunction $`Z_{\text{s}+}(zb)`$ is obtained from $`Z_{\text{s}+}(z)`$ by first reflecting around the origin and then effecting the translation $`zz+b`$. Reflecting around the origin an eigenfunction of $`\widehat{H}_0`$ introduces a sign given by the parity of the state, which shows that the reflected state is produced by $`f(a^{})`$ applied to the ground state. The reflected and translated state then is given by

$`T_bf(a^{})|0_0`$ $`=`$ $`e^{b^2/4}e^{\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}a^{}}e^{\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}a}f(a^{})|0_0`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`e^{b^2/4}e^{\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}a^{}}f(a^{}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}})|0_0,`$
which brings (19) into the form

$$(a^{}a+\frac{1}{2})f(a^{})|0_0+ϵe^{b^2/4}e^{\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}a^{}}f(a^{}\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}})|0_0=Ef(a^{})|0_0.$$
(22)
Noting that the $`aa^{}`$ commutation relations are identical to the $`_xx`$ ones, we may infer a differential - difference equation for the function $`f(x)`$,

$$xf^{}(x)+\frac{1}{2}f(x)+ϵe^{b^2/4}e^{\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}x}f(x\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}})=Ef(x).$$
(23)
We now specify to the case where the unperturbed state is the $`n`$-th excited state of the SHO. The perturbed state will be denoted by $`f_n(a^{})|0_0`$, with energy $`E_n`$, where

$$f_n(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_n^{(k)}(x)ϵ^k,E_n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_n^{(k)}ϵ^k.$$
(24)
Notice that

$$f_n^{(0)}(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}x^n,E_n^{(0)}=n+\frac{1}{2}.$$
(25)
Substituting these expansions in (23) we obtain

$`x_xf_n^{(k)}(x)nf_n^{(k)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{b^2/4}e^{\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}x}f_n^{(k1)}(x{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}}E_n^{(k)}x^n`$ (26)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}E_n^{(km)}f_n^{(m)}(x),`$
where we separated the $`m=0`$, $`k`$ terms in the sum on the r.h.s. and used (25). Notice that the r.h.s. above only contains $`f_n^{(m)}`$ with $`m<k`$, so (26) can be used recursively to determine any $`f_n^{(k)}(x)`$.

The requirement that the perturbed eigenket be normalized implies that the corrections, order by order in $`ϵ`$, have to be orthogonal to the unperturbed eigenket $`|n_0`$. This in turn implies that, for $`k>0`$, the coefficient of $`x^n`$ in $`f_n^{(k)}(x)`$ must vanish. Then so does the coefficient of $`x^n`$ in $`x_xf_n^{(k)}(x)`$. Using this information, we can extract the coefficient of $`x^n`$ on both sides of (26) — the resulting equation fixes recursively the energy corrections $`E_n^{(k)}`$,

$$E_n^{(k)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}e^{b^2/4}\underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{r}\right)\left(\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^{nr}(_x^rf_n^{(k1)})(\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}).$$
(27)
This is an appropriate point to comment on the antisymmetric solutions. The difference in this case is that the $`ϵ`$ term in (23) appears with a minus sign. Since this is the only place where $`ϵ`$ appears explicitly, we conclude that one gets the antisymmetric solutions from the symmetric ones by the substitution $`ϵϵ`$. As we will see later on, symmetric solutions have their spin parallel, more or less, with the magnetic field while antisymmetric ones have it antiparallel. Since $`ϵ`$ is proportional to the magnetic moment of the particle, the above statement about the relation between the two kinds of solutions essentially says that the symmetric solution for a particle coincides with the antisymmetric solution for the same particle but with the opposite magnetic moment.

### 3.3 Corrections to the ground state

For $`n=0`$, Eqs. (26), (27) simplify considerably,

$`x_xf_0^{(k)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{b^2/4}e^{\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}x}f_0^{(k1)}(x{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}})+E_0^{(k)}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}E_0^{(km)}f_0^{(m)}(x)`$ (28)
$`E_0^{(k)}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{b^2/4}f_0^{(k1)}({\displaystyle \frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}}).`$ (29)
The unitarity argument given above implies in this case that $`f_0^{(k)}(0)=0`$, for all $`k`$ greater than zero — this fixes the lower integration limit in the solution of (28) equal to zero. The change of variable $`x_k^{}xs_k`$ and the substitution of (29) finally give

$$f_0^{(k)}(x)=e^{b^2/4}_0^1\frac{ds_k}{s_k}\left\{f_0^{(k1)}(\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}})e^{\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}xs_k}f_0^{(k1)}(xs_k\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}})+\underset{m=1}{\overset{k1}{}}f_0^{(km1)}(\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}})f_0^{(m)}(xs_k)\right\}.$$
(30)
Notice that the (apparent) pole of the integrand at $`s_k=0`$ cancels out.

We look in some detail now at the wavefunctions and resulting spin configurations, including up to quadratic corrections. For the first three $`f^{(k)}`$, Eqs. (25), (30) give

$`f_0^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (31)
$`f_0^{(1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{b^2/4}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_1}{s_1}}\left(1e^{\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}xs_1}\right)`$ (32)
$`f_0^{(2)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{b^2/2}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_2ds_1}{s_2s_1}}\left\{2e^{b^2s_1/2}e^{\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}xs_2}+e^{\frac{b^2}{2}s_1}e^{\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}s_2(1s_1)x}e^{\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}s_2s_1x}\right\},`$ (33)
while for the corresponding energy corrections we get

$$E_0^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2},E_0^{(1)}=e^{b^2/4},E_0^{(2)}=e^{b^2/2}_0^1\frac{ds_1}{s_1}\left(1e^{\frac{b^2}{2}s_1}\right).$$
(34)
Applying the above $`f`$’s to the ground state and projecting onto the position eigenket $`|z`$ we find the wavefunctions

$`Z_+^{(0)}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`N_0e^{z^2/2}`$ (35)
$`Z_+^{(1)}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`N_0e^{b^2/4}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_1}{s_1}}\left(e^{z^2/2}e^{b^2s_1^2/4}e^{(z+bs_1)^2/2}\right)`$ (36)
$`Z_+^{(2)}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`N_0e^{b^2/2}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_2ds_1}{s_2s_1}}\{(2e^{b^2/2s_1})e^{z^2/2}e^{b^2s_2^2/4}e^{(z+bs_2)^2/2}`$ (37)
$`+e^{b^2s_1/2+b^2s_2^2(1s_1)^2/4}e^{(z+bs_2(1s_1))^2/2}e^{b^2s_2^2s_1^2/4}e^{(z+bs_2s_1)^2/2}\}.`$
In terms of these, the symmetric solution for the spinor has components (we ommit an overall normalization factor)

$$Z_{\text{s}+}(z)=Z_+^{(0)}(z)+ϵZ_+^{(1)}(z)+ϵ^2Z_+^{(2)}(z),Z_\text{s}(z)=Z_{\text{s}+}(zb)$$
(38)
and energy

$$E_{\text{s}0}=E_0^{(0)}+ϵE_0^{(1)}+ϵ^2E_0^{(2)},$$
(39)
while the antisymmetric solution is given by

$$Z_{\text{a}+}(z)=Z_+^{(0)}(z)+ϵZ_+^{(1)}(z)ϵ^2Z_+^{(2)}(z),Z_\text{a}(z)=Z_{\text{a}+}(zb)$$
(40)
with energy

$$E_{\text{a}0}=E_0^{(0)}ϵE_0^{(1)}+ϵ^2E_0^{(2)}.$$
(41)
Plots of $`Z_\pm `$, for both cases, as well as the corresponding spin configurations, are given in Figs. 3, 4. Notice that the effect of the perturbation is small, despite a rather large value of $`ϵ`$. This can be traced to the fact that the parameter values used give rise to a small overlap of two neighboring gaussians. As a result, the range of validity of our perturbative results is considerable larger that the standard $`ϵ1`$.

### 3.4 A two-state system

Consider a state that, at $`t=0`$, is the sum of the symmetric and antisymmetric $`n=0`$ states found above, for, say, $`\mathrm{}=0`$. The spin-down component of this state is of order 1 while the spin-up component is of order $`ϵ`$. Roughly speaking, the particle is localized at $`z=b`$ and its spin points along the negative $`z`$-axis. Then the standard two-state system analysis shows that the amplitudes to be in the spin-up and spin-down states at later times behave like $`i\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)`$ respectively, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ’s expansion in powers of $`ϵ`$ starts with $`ϵE_0^{(1)}/2`$. The spin precesses in the tangent plane to the cylinder (i.e., perpendicularly to the magnetic field) while the particle oscillates from $`b`$ to zero and back.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

We have studied the problem of the motion of a spin-1/2 particle on a cylinder, in the presence of a radial magnetic field. A non-standard perturbative analysis, applicable to any perturbation of the harmonic ascillator, led to a recursion relation for the wavefunction and energy corrections, Eqs. (26) and (27) respectively, with explicit results for the ground state in Eqs. (34) – (37) and Figures 3, 4. It is worth emphasizing that the radial magnetic field of the problem can be approximated in the laboratory, as pointed out in the first footnote.

We end with a comment on the form of the unperturbed hamiltonian used, Eq. (4). When dealing with the motion of a quantum particle on a surface, one can use a 3-D Laplacian in the hamiltonian and constrain the motion of the particle on the surface using a steep confining potential in the radial direction. It is well known that, in this approach, which seems to be the one appropriate for practical applications, there is an induced potential for the motion along the surface, proportional to the square of the difference between the two principal curvatures of the surface (see, e.g. and references therein). In our case, this is a constant which only shifts the energy eigenvalues. Nevertheless, an obvious extension of our problem here would be the study of the motion on the surface of a slightly curved cylinder, in which case the above mentioned induced potential would have to be taken into account.

## Appendix A First Order Corrections to the Ground State: the Standard Treatment

We outline here the standard first order perturbative analysis of the problem, deriving the corrections to the ground state. Given that the zeroth order spectrum is degenerate, we need to first diagonalize the interaction hamiltonian in each degenerate subspace. One easily sees that the interaction only connects the pairs of eigenstates $`|n,\mathrm{},+`$, $`|n,\mathrm{}+1,`$. The appropriate zeroth order basis is given by the symmetric and antisymmetric linear combinations

$`|n_{\mathrm{}}^\text{s}|n_{\mathrm{}}^\text{0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|n,\mathrm{},++|n,\mathrm{}+1,)`$
$`|n_{\mathrm{}}^\text{a}|n_{\mathrm{}}^\text{1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|n,\mathrm{},++|n,\mathrm{}+1,).`$ (42)
Notice that we use the label $`\mathrm{}`$ for states that are equally localized at $`\mathrm{}b`$ and $`(\mathrm{}+1)b`$. The reason for renaming the states with numerical superscripts, instead of letters, will become apparent below. The expectation value of $`H_{\text{int}}`$ in these states reproduces our result (34) for the first order correction to the energy. It is interesting to see how the first order correction to the wavefunction, conventionally given by an infinite sum, is brought into the closed form (36). The matrix elements of $`H_{\text{int}}`$ in the above basis are

$`n_{\mathrm{}}^0|H_{\text{int}}|m_{\mathrm{}^{}}^0`$ $`=`$ $`ϵn_{\mathrm{}}|m_{\mathrm{}+1}\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}\delta _{\stackrel{~}{n}\stackrel{~}{m}}`$
$`n_{\mathrm{}}^0|H_{\text{int}}|m_{\mathrm{}^{}}^1`$ $`=`$ $`ϵn_{\mathrm{}}|m_{\mathrm{}+1}\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}\delta _{\stackrel{~}{n},\stackrel{~}{m}+1}`$
$`n_{\mathrm{}}^1|H_{\text{int}}|m_{\mathrm{}^{}}^1`$ $`=`$ $`ϵn_{\mathrm{}}|m_{\mathrm{}+1}\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}\delta _{\stackrel{~}{n}\stackrel{~}{m}},`$ (43)
where $`n_{\mathrm{}}|m_{\mathrm{}+1}`$ is the overlap between SHO eigenstates $`|n`$, $`|m`$, at a distance $`b`$ apart and $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ is the parity of $`n`$. Specifying to the symmetric ground state and taking $`\mathrm{}=0`$, we find the first order correction

$$|0_0^0^{(1)}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{0_0|k_1}{k}|k_0^{\stackrel{~}{k}}.$$
(44)
We see that only states with $`\mathrm{}=0`$ contribute. Furthermore, when $`k`$ is even, only the symmetric state contributes while for $`k`$ odd, only the antisymmetric one does. Using the fact that

$$0_0|k_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{k!}}(\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}})^ke^{\frac{b^2}{4}},$$
(45)
we find for the spin-up component of the correction

$$|0_0^0,+^{(1)}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{k\sqrt{k!}}\left(\frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^ke^{\frac{b^2}{4}}|k,$$
(46)
which implies

$`b{\displaystyle \frac{}{b}}\left(e^{\frac{b^2}{4}}|0_0^0,+^{(1)}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{\sqrt{k!}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)^k|k`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`e^{\frac{b^2}{4}}\left(|0_1|0_0\right).`$
Integrating back w.r.t. $`b`$ and changing integration variable we recover our earlier result (32) (similarly for the spin-down component).

## Acknowledgments

The first author (C. C.) would like to acknowledge partial support from CONACyT projects 32307-E, 41208-F, and DGAPA-UNAM projects IN 119792, IN 114302.


text:
# Quantum description of classical apparatus: Zeno effect and decoherence

## I Introduction

The description of a measurement process has been a topic debated from the early development of quantum mechanics neu ; whee . Nevertheless, the understanding of quantum-mechanical measurements has not been achieved yet. The main problem is still the nature of the projection postulate neu , according to which the wave-function of the observed system is projected onto an eigenstate of the observable under consideration. During recent years the measurement problem received a great deal of attention due to exiting opportunities offered by developments in experimental techniques of optics and mesoscopic structures. The problem also has close connections to the rapidly growing fields of quantum cryptography and quantum computing.

One of the most striking problems, directly related to the projection postulate, is the so-called “Zeno paradox” (or “Zeno effect”), which suggests that frequent or continuous observations can inhibit (or slow down) the decay an unstable quantum system zeno . During the last two decades the Zeno effect has become a topic of great interest. It has been discussed in the areas of radioactive decay panov1 , polarized light r1 , physics of atoms r2 ; r3 , neutron physics r4 , quantum optics r5 , mesoscopic physics gur1 ; hacken  and even in cognitive science atm . Recently, it was proposed that under some conditions repeated observations could accelerate the average transition rate of a quantum system, so called the anti-Zeno effect gur1 ; r6 ; az1 . This effect has been further analyzed in Refs. kof ; eg1 ; facchi ; evers .

The Zeno paradox was originally introduced as an effect of continuous observation of an unstable state. Consider for instance a particle localized initially in a potential well, which decays to the continuum via tunneling through the barrier, Fig. 1. It is well-known that the probability of finding the particle inside the well (the probability of survival) drops down exponentially, $`P_0(t)=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}`$. For small $`t`$, however, $`P_0(t)=1at^2`$ zeno ; per . Indeed, the probability of survival is

$$P_0(t)=|\mathrm{\Phi }_0|e^{iHt/\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0|^2=1(\mathrm{\Delta }H)^2t^2/\mathrm{}^2+\mathrm{}$$
(1)
where $`(\mathrm{\Delta }H)^2=\mathrm{\Phi }_0|H^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\mathrm{\Phi }_0|H|\mathrm{\Phi }_0)^2`$.

Fig. 1. Continuous monitoring of an unstable system decay to continuum.

Let us assume that a particle inside the well is continuously monitored (by the “eye”, shown in Fig. 1). This process can be viewed as $`n`$ discrete measurements, where each one takes some small measurement time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Then after the first measurement one finds the particle inside the well with a probability $`P_0(\mathrm{\Delta }t)=1a(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2`$. According to the projection postulate neu , the measurement projects the system into the state which is actually observed. As a result the system continues its evolution with the new initial conditions. Hence, after $`n`$ consecutive measurements the probability of finding the system undecayed at time $`t=n\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is

$$P_0(n\mathrm{\Delta }t)=[1a(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2]^n,$$
(2)
Taking the limit of continuous monitoring, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$ and $`n\mathrm{}`$, where $`t`$=const, one finds

$$P_0(t)=[1a(\mathrm{\Delta }t)^2]^{t/\mathrm{\Delta }t}1a(\mathrm{\Delta }t)t1\text{for}\mathrm{\Delta }t0.$$
(3)
Therefore the continuously observed system cannot decay.

The Zeno paradox in quantum mechanics is still not so famous as the EPR or the Schrödinger cat paradoxes. Yet, the Zeno paradox represents a real dynamical effect of the projection postulate and not only an interpretation problem of Quantum Mechanics with no experimental consequences bal . For a proper understanding of the Zeno paradox and therefore a role of the projection postulate in quantum mechanics, it is absolutely necessary to include the measurement device in the Schrödinger equation for the entire system. In this case quantum-mechanical description of the measurement device would allow us to study thoroughly the measurement process without explicit use of the projection postulate. The main difficulty with such an approach, however, is that the measurement device is a macroscopic system and therefore its quantum mechanical analysis is very complicated. For this reason one would expect that mesoscopic systems, which are between the microscopic and macroscopic scales, would be very useful for this investigation imry .

In the following we concentrate on measurements of quantum dots in a two-dimensional electron gas. As a generic example of the measurement device (detector) we consider a point contact (tunneling junction) created electrostatically by two electrodes. This junction separates two reservoirs, Fig. 2a, which are filled up to their Fermi levels $`\mu _L`$ and $`\mu _R`$, respectively, with $`\mu _L>\mu _R`$. As a result, a macroscopic current $`I`$ flows through the point contact, as shown schematically in Fig. 2b, where the point contact is represented by a potential barrier.

Fig. 2. (a) Point-contact in a two-dimensional electron gas and (b) its schematic representation. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}`$ is the coupling between the levels $`E_l`$ and $`E_r`$ in the left and the right reservoirs, and $`n`$ denotes the number of electrons arriving the right reservoir by time $`t`$.

The electron current $`I`$ flowing though the point-contact is very sensitive to nearby electrostatic fields that modulate the size of the opening. Thus, one can use the point contact as a detector to monitor the charging of a quantum dot. For instance, it can be used for monitoring a single electron in a coupled-dot (electrostatic q-bit), Fig. 3. Indeed, if the electron occupies the lower dot, located far away from the point contact (Fig. 3a), its electric field does not affect the conductivity of the point contact. However, if the electron occupies the upper dot, close to the point-contact, its electrostatic field diminishes the conductivity of the point contact. As a result the point-contact current decreases, $`I_2<I_1`$ (Fig. 3b). Thus, by observing a variation of the detector current one can monitor the electron’s transitions between the dots.

In a similar way, by using the point-contact detector one can investigate the influence of measurement on the decay of an unstable system. An appropriate setup is shown in Fig. 4. Here the point-contact detector is placed near the quantum dot, opening into the continuum. Again, the detector current increases when the electron leaves the quantum dot.

Fig. 3. Point-contact as an electrostatic detector of an electron in a coupled quantum dot. The detector current decreases upon transition of the electron from the lower to the upper dot.

It should be pointed out that although a quantum point contact has successfully been used as a “Which Path Detector” in different types of experiments (for instance in measurements of quantum interference Buks ; sprin ) measurements of a “single electron” using the point-contact detector, as in Figs. 3 and 4, have not been achieved. Nevertheless, the rapid progress of nano-technology should make such measurements feasible in the near future.

## II Quantum description of the detector

Let us consider the point-contact detector and the measured electron (Figs. 3,4) as one quantum system described by the Schrödinger equation. The point-contact detector, however, represents a macroscopic system and therefore it should exhibit classical behavior. This is an essential condition for a “measurement” device. Now we demonstrate how such a classicality of the point-contact detector emerges from the Schrödinger equation.

Fig. 4. Point-contact monitors of the electron in a quantum dot. The detector current increases whenever the electron escapes to the continuum. Here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}`$ denotes the coupling between the left and right reservoirs, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$ is the coupling between the dot and the continuum.

Consider first the point-contact alone, Fig. 2a, as described by the following tunneling Hamiltonian

$$_{PC}=\underset{l}{}E_la_l^{}a_l+\underset{r}{}E_ra_r^{}a_r+\underset{l,r}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}(a_l^{}a_r+a_r^{}a_l),$$
(4)
where $`a_l^{}(a_l)`$ and $`a_r^{}(a_r)`$ are the creation (annihilation) operators in the left and the right reservoirs, respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}`$ is the hopping amplitude between the states $`E_l`$ and $`E_r`$ in the right and the left reservoirs. (We choose the gauge where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}`$ is real).

We assume that all the levels in the emitter (left) and the collector (right) are initially filled up to their Fermi energies $`\mu _L`$ and $`\mu _R`$ respectively. We shall call this the “vacuum” state, $`|0`$. The Hamiltonian Eq. (4) requires the vacuum state $`|0`$ to decay exponentially to a continuum state having the form: $`a_r^{}a_l|0`$ with an electron in the collector reservoir and a hole in the emitter reservoir; $`a_r^{}a_r^{}^{}a_la_l^{}|0`$ with two electrons in the collector reservoir and two holes in the emitter reservoir, and so on. In order to treat such a system one usually uses the Keldysh non-equilibrium Green’s function technique kel . Here we use a different, simpler and more transparent technique developed by us in Ref. gp . It consists of reduction of the Schrödinger equation to Bloch-type rate equations for the density matrix obtained by integrating over the reservoir states. Such a procedure is described below, and can be carried out in the strong nonequilibrium limit without any stochastic assumptions.

Let us consider the many-body wave function describing the point-contact detector. It can be written in the occupation number representation as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\left[b_0(t)+\underset{l,r}{}b_{lr}(t)a_r^{}a_l+\underset{l<l^{},r<r^{}}{}b_{ll^{}rr^{}}(t)a_r^{}a_r^{}^{}a_la_l^{}+\mathrm{}\right]|0,$$
(5)
where $`b(t)`$ are the time-dependent probability amplitudes for finding the system in the corresponding states given the initial condition $`b_0(0)=1`$, with all the other $`b(0)`$’s being zeros. In order to find these amplitudes we substitute Eq. (5) into the Schrödinger equation $`i|\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(t)=_{PC}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$. As a result we obtain an infinite system of linear differential equations for the amplitudes $`b(t)`$, which completely determines the quantum behavior of the point contact. It is useful to use the Laplace transform, $`\stackrel{~}{b}(E)=_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{iEt}b(t)𝑑t`$, so that these differential equations become the following algebraic coupled equations for the amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{b}(E)`$

$`E\stackrel{~}{b}_0(E){\displaystyle \underset{l,r}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}(E)=i`$ (6a)
$`(`$ $`E+E_lE_r)\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}(E)\mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}\stackrel{~}{b}_0(E){\displaystyle }_{l^{},r^{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{l^{}r^{}}\stackrel{~}{b}_{ll^{}rr^{}}(E)=0`$
$`(`$ $`E+E_l+E_l^{}E_rE_r^{})\stackrel{~}{b}_{ll^{}rr^{}}(E)\mathrm{\Omega }_{l^{}r^{}}\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}(E)+\mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}\stackrel{~}{b}_{l^{}r^{}}(E)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l^{\prime \prime },r^{\prime \prime }}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{l^{\prime \prime }r^{\prime \prime }}\stackrel{~}{b}_{ll^{}l^{\prime \prime }rr^{}r^{\prime \prime }}(E)=0`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
Eqs. (6) can be substantially simplified by replacing the amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ in the term $`\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{b}`$ of each of the equations by its expression obtained from the subsequent equation gp . For example, substituting $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}(E)`$ from Eq. (6) into Eq. (6a), one obtains

$$\left[E\underset{l,r}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{E+E_lE_r}\right]\stackrel{~}{b}_0(E)\underset{ll^{},rr^{}}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{E+E_lE_r}\stackrel{~}{b}_{ll^{}rr^{}}(E)=i,$$
(7)
where we assumed that the hopping amplitudes are weakly dependent functions on the energies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}\mathrm{\Omega }(E_l,E_r)=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Since the states in the reservoirs are very dense (essential a continuum), one can replace the sums over $`l`$ and $`r`$ by integrals, for instance $`_{l,r}\rho _L(E_l)\rho _R(E_r)𝑑E_l𝑑E_r`$, where $`\rho _{L,R}`$ are the densities of states in the emitter and collector. Then the first sum in Eq. (7) becomes an integral which can be split into the sum of its singular and principal value parts. The singular part yields $`i\pi \mathrm{\Omega }^2\rho _L\rho _RV_d`$, and the principal part is merely absorbed into a redefinition of the energy levels. The second sum in Eq. (7) can be neglected. Indeed, by replacing $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{ll^{}rr^{}}(E)\stackrel{~}{b}(E,E_l,E_l^{},E_r,E_r^{})`$ and the sums by the integrals we find that the integrand has the poles on the same sides of the integration contours. It means that the corresponding integral vanishes for infinite integration limits. This corresponds to strongly non-equilibrium limit, $`V_d/\mathrm{\Omega }^2\rho \mathrm{}`$.

Applying analogous considerations to the other equations of the system (6), we finally arrive at the following set of equations:

$`(E+iD/2)\stackrel{~}{b}_0(E)=i`$ (8a)
$`(E+E_lE_r+iD/2)\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}(E)\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{b}_0(E)=0`$ (8b)
$`(E+E_l+E_l^{}E_rE_r^{}+iD/2)\stackrel{~}{b}_{ll^{}rr^{}}(E)\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}(E)+\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{b}_{l^{}r^{}}(E)=0,`$ (8c)
$`\mathrm{}`$
where $`D=2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }^2\rho _L\rho _RV_d`$.

### II.1 Rate equations

Eqs. (8) can be transformed to differential equations for the reduced density matrix $`\sigma ^{(nn^{})}(t)`$ of electrons in the right reservoir (collector). This density matrix is directly related to the amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{b}(t)`$. For instance the diagonal density-matrix elements

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$
are the probabilities of finding $`0`$, $`1`$, etc. electrons in the collector. The corresponding off-diagonal matrix elements (coherences)

$$\sigma ^{(01)}(t)=\underset{l,r}{}b_0(t)b_{lr}^{}(t),\sigma ^{(12)}(t)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l<l^{}}{r<r^{}}}{}b_{lr}(t)b_{ll^{},rr^{}}^{}(t),\mathrm{}$$
(9)
have no classical equivalent and describe electrons in the linear superposition of the states in different reservoirs.

Let us rewrite $`\sigma ^{(nn^{})}(t)`$ in terms of the amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{b}(E)`$ via the inverse Laplace transform

$$\sigma ^{(n,n^{})}(t)=\underset{l\mathrm{},r\mathrm{}}{}\frac{dEdE^{}}{4\pi ^2}\stackrel{~}{b}_{\underset{n}{\underset{}{l\mathrm{}}}\underset{n}{\underset{}{r\mathrm{}}}}(E)\stackrel{~}{b}_{\underset{n^{}}{\underset{}{l\mathrm{}}}\underset{n^{}}{\underset{}{r\mathrm{}}}}^{}(E^{})e^{i(E^{}E)t}$$
(10)
Using Eq. (10) one can transform Eqs. (8) directly into equations for $`\sigma ^{(n,n^{})}(t)`$ (c.f. gur1 ; gp ). For instance, consider Eq. (8b) for the amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}(E)`$. Multiplying this equation by $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}^{}(E^{})`$ and subtracting the same equation for $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}^{}(E^{})`$ multiplied by $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}(E)`$ we obtain

$$(E^{}EiD)\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}(E)\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}^{}(E^{})\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}(E)\stackrel{~}{b}_0^{}(E^{})\stackrel{~}{b}_{lr}^{}(E^{})\stackrel{~}{b}_0(E)\right]=0.$$
(11)
Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (10) we find

$$\dot{\sigma }^{(1,1)}(t)=D\sigma ^{(1,1)}(t)i\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\sigma ^{0,1)}(t)\sigma ^{(1,0)}(t)\right]$$
(12)
A similar procedure can be performed for all other equations (8). As a result we arrive at the following system of equations for the density matrix $`\sigma ^{(n,n^{})}`$

$`\dot{\sigma }^{(n,n)}(t)=D\sigma ^{(n,n)}(t)i\mathrm{\Omega }\left[\sigma ^{(n1,n)}(t)\sigma ^{(n,n1)}(t)\right]`$ (13a)
$`\sigma ^{(n1,n)}(t)=i(D/\mathrm{\Omega })\sigma ^{(n1,n1)}(t)`$ (13b)
Substituting Eq. (13b) into Eq. (13a) we find a linear differential equation for the probabilities only

$$\frac{d}{dt}\sigma ^{(n,n)}(t)=D\sigma ^{(n,n)}(t)+D\sigma ^{(n1,n1)}(t),$$
(14)
where $`D=2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }^2\rho _L\rho _R(\mu _L\mu _R)`$ is the rate of electrons arriving in the right reservoir.

Equation (14)is a classical rate equation. On the other hand it was obtained from the Schrödinger equation entirely in the framework of Quantum Mechanics. No Markov approximations have been used in its derivation. It is important to note that this classical limit of the Schrödinger equation does not require the vanishing of the nondiagonal density-matrix elements (coherences), as follows from Eq. (13b). The transition from quantum to classical description is provided by a decoupling of coherences from probabilities in the equation of motion, Eq. (14).

Equation (14) can easily be solved for the initial condition $`\sigma ^{(n,n)}(0)=\delta _{n0}`$. One finds the Poisson distribution

$$\sigma ^{(n,n)}(t)=\frac{(Dt)^n}{n!}e^{Dt}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi Dt}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(Dtn)^2}{2Dt}\right]$$
(15)
Thus the average electric current flowing into the right reservoir is $`I=e<n>/t=eD`$.

## III Measurement of the decay time

Consider now the measurement of the Zeno effect for decay into the continuum using a point-contact detector, as in Fig. 4. The tunneling Hamiltonian describing the entire system consists of three parts eg ; eg1 :

$$=_{PC}+_{QD}+_{int}.$$
(16)
The first term describes tunneling through the point-contact detector, Eq. (4). The second term describes the quantum dot coupled to the continuum.

$$_{QD}=E_0c_0^{}c_0+\underset{\alpha }{}E_\alpha c_\alpha ^{}c_\alpha +\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (c_\alpha ^{}c_0+c_0^{}c_\alpha )$$
(17)
Here the operators $`c_0^{}(c_0)`$ and $`c_\alpha ^{}(c_\alpha )`$ create (annihilate) an electron inside the dot or in the continuum, respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$ is the corresponding coupling between these states.

The last term describes the interaction of the detector with the electron in the quantum dot,

$$_{int}=\underset{l,r}{}\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}c_0^{}c_0(a_l^{}a_r+a_r^{}a_l).$$
(18)
This term modulates the detector current. That is whenever the electron occupies the dot, i.e. $`c_0^{}c_01`$, the coupling between the states $`E_{l,r}`$ of the detector decreases $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}<\mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}`$. In this case the detector current becomes $`I^{}=eD^{}`$, where $`D^{}=2\pi (\mathrm{\Omega }\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{lr})^2\rho _L\rho _R(\mu _L\mu _R)`$.

### III.1 Dynamics of an unstable system

Consider first the decay of an electron into the continuum with no interaction with the point-contact detector, $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}=0`$. In this case the electron evolution is determined only by $`_{QD}`$, Eq. (17). This Hamiltonian is essentially equivalent to that of the Lee model. The latter reproduces an exponential decay for homogeneous reservoirs and a constant coupling $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$, without any Markovian approximations pfeifer . Let us demonstrate this result by solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation $`i_t|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=_{QD}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$. The electron wave function can be written in the most general way as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\left[b_0(t)c_0^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}b_\alpha (t)c_\alpha ^{}\right]|0,`$ (19)
where $`b_{0,\alpha }(t)`$ are the time-dependent probability amplitudes for finding the electron inside the dot or in the reservoir in the state $`E_\alpha `$. The initial condition is $`b_0(0)=1`$ and $`b_\alpha (0)=0`$. Performing the Laplace transform, $`b(t)\stackrel{~}{b}(E)`$, we easily find that the Schrödinger equation can be written as

$`(EE_0)\stackrel{~}{b}_0(E){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha \stackrel{~}{b}_\alpha =i,`$ (20a)
$`(EE_\alpha )\stackrel{~}{b}_\alpha (E)\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha \stackrel{~}{b}_0(E)=0.`$ (20b)
In order to solve these equations we replace the amplitude $`\stackrel{~}{b}_\alpha `$ in Eq. (20a) by its expression obtained from Eq. (20b). One then obtains

$$\left[EE_0\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^2}{EE_\alpha }\right]\stackrel{~}{b}_0(E)=i.$$
(21)
Since the states in the reservoir are very dense, one can replace the sum over $`\alpha `$ by an integral over $`E_\alpha `$.

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^2}{EE_\alpha }=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2(E_\alpha )\rho (E_\alpha )}{EE_\alpha }𝑑E_\alpha ,$$
(22)
where $`\rho (E_\alpha )`$ is the density of states in the reservoir. To evaluate this integral, we can split the integral into its principal and singular parts, $`i\delta (EE_\alpha )`$. As a result the original Schrödinger equation (20) is reduced to

$`\left[EE_0\mathrm{\Delta }(E)+i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)}{2}}\right]\stackrel{~}{b}_0(E)=i,`$ (23a)
$`\left(EE_\alpha \right)\stackrel{~}{b}_\alpha (E)\mathrm{\Omega }(E_\alpha )\stackrel{~}{b}_0(E)=0,`$ (23b)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)=2\pi \rho (E)\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^2(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)`$ is the energy-shift due to the principal part of the integral.

Let us assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^2(E_\alpha )\rho (E_\alpha )`$ is weakly dependent on the energy $`E_\alpha `$. As a result the width becomes a constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and the energy shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)`$ tends to zero. Using Eqs. (23) and the inverse Laplace transform one obtains the occupation probabilities of the levels $`E_0`$ and $`E_\alpha `$ gur . Yet, Eqs. (23) are not convenient if we wish to include the effects of a measurement (or of an environment) on the electron behavior. These effects can be determined in a natural way only in terms of the density matrix. For this reason we transform Eqs. (23) into equations for the density matrix $`\sigma _{ij}(t)b_i(t)b_j^{}(t)`$. The latter is directly related to the amplitudes $`\stackrel{~}{b}(E)`$ via the inverse Laplace transform, Eq. (10). One finds

$`\dot{\sigma }_{00}(t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\sigma _{00}(t),`$ (24a)
$`\dot{\sigma }_{\alpha \alpha }(t)=i\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (\sigma _{\alpha 0}(t)\sigma _{0\alpha }(t))`$ (24b)
$`\dot{\sigma }_{\alpha 0}(t)=iϵ_{0\alpha }\sigma _{\alpha 0}(t)i\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha \sigma _{00}(t){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{2}}\sigma _{\alpha 0}(t),`$ (24c)
with $`ϵ_{0\alpha }=E_0E_\alpha `$ and $`\sigma _{0\alpha }=\sigma _{\alpha 0}^{}`$. Here $`\sigma _{00}(t)`$ and $`\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }(t)`$ are the probabilities of finding the electron in the dot or in the continuum at the level $`E_\alpha `$, respectively. The off-diagonal density-matrix elements $`\sigma _{\alpha 0}(t)`$ (coherences) describe the electron in a linear superposition. These matrix elements decrease exponentially due to the last term in Eq. (24c), generated by decay into the continuum.

Eqs. (24) represent a generalization of the optical Bloch equations describing quantum transitions between two isolated levels bloch ; gp  to transitions between one isolated level and the continuum eg ; eg1 ; eg2 . In this case the coherence term $`\sigma _{\alpha 0}`$ is coupled to the corresponding probability term $`\sigma _{00}`$, but not with that of the continuum spectrum $`\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }`$, as one would expect for usual optical Bloch equations.

Solving Eqs. (24) we find the following expressions for the occupation probabilities, $`\sigma _{00}`$ and $`\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }`$, of the levels $`E_0`$ and $`E_\alpha `$, respectively gur :

$`\sigma _{00}(t)=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0t},`$ (25a)
$`\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^2}{(E_\alpha E_0)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/2)^2}}\left[12\mathrm{cos}[(E_\alpha E_0)t]e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0t/2}+e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0t}\right]`$ (25b)
Notice that the line shape, $`P(E_\alpha )\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }(t\mathrm{})\rho `$, given by Eq. (25b) is the standard Lorentzian distribution,

$$P(E_\alpha )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/(2\pi )}{(E_\alpha E_0)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/2)^2},$$
(26)
with the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ corresponding to the inverse life-time of the quasi-stationary state, Eq. (25a).

### III.2 Continuous measurement of an unstable system.

Now we introduce the coupling with the point-contact detector, $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}0`$. The many-body wave function describing the entire system can be written in the same way as Eq. (5)

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\left[b_0(t)c_0^{}+\underset{l,r}{}b_{lr}(t)a_r^{}a_lc_0^{}+\underset{\alpha }{}b_\alpha (t)c_\alpha ^{}c_0+\underset{\alpha ,l,r}{}b_{\alpha lr}(t)a_r^{}c_\alpha ^{}a_lc_0+\mathrm{}\right]|0$$
(27)
where $`b(t)`$ are the time-dependent probability amplitudes for finding the system in the corresponding states, given the initial condition $`b_0(0)=1`$ with all other $`b(0)`$’s equal to zero. These amplitudes are obtained from the Schrödinger equation $`i|\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(t)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$, where $``$ is given by Eq. (16). Using the same technique as in the previous case, Eqs. (14) and (24), the Schrödinger equation for the amplitudes $`b(t)`$ is reduced to quantum rate equations for the reduced density matrix $`\sigma _{ij}^{nn}(t)\sigma _{ij}^n(t)`$ by integration over the reservoir states of the detector. One finds eg ; eg1

$`\dot{\sigma }_{00}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }+D^{})\sigma _{00}^{(n)}+D^{}\sigma _{00}^{(n1)}`$
$`\dot{\sigma }_{\alpha \alpha }^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`D\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }^{(n)}+D\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }^{(n1)}+i\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (\sigma _{0\alpha }^{(n)}\sigma _{\alpha 0}^{(n)})`$
$`\dot{\sigma }_{\alpha 0}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`i(E_0E_\alpha )\sigma _{\alpha 0}^{(n)}i\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha \sigma _{00}^{(n)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+D+D^{}}{2}}\sigma _{\alpha 0}^{(n)}+\sqrt{DD^{}}\sigma _{\alpha 0}^{(n1)},`$ (28a)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=2\pi \rho (E_0)\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^2(E_0)`$ corresponds to the inverse lifetime of the quasi-stationary state, Eq. (25a). The index $`n`$ denotes the number of electrons arriving the left reservoir by time $`t`$ and the indices $`i,j=0,\alpha `$ denote the state of the observed electron. One finds that only the density-matrix elements diagonal in $`n`$ enter into the rate equations, similar to Eq. (14). However, we are not integrating over the final states of the escaped electron. As a result the off-diagonal terms, describing the superposition of the electron in the dot and in the continuum, enter the rate equations (c.f. Eqs. (24)).

The density matrix $`\sigma _{ij}^{(n)}(t)`$ given by Eqs. (28) describes both the detector and the escaped electron. Indeed the probability of finding $`n`$ electrons in the collector, $`\sigma ^{(n)}(t)`$, is obtained by tracing over the escaped electron variables

$$\sigma ^{(n)}(t)=\sigma _{00}^{(n)}(t)+\underset{\alpha }{}\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }^{(n)}(t)$$
(29)
The average detector current is therefore

$$<I(t)>=e\underset{n}{}n\dot{\sigma }^{(n)}(t)=eD^{}\sigma _{00}(t)+eD[1\sigma _{00}(t)],$$
(30)
where $`\sigma _{00}(t)=_n\sigma _{00}^{(n)}(t)`$ is the probability of finding the electron inside the dot. The latter is obtained by tracing over the detector variables in the total density matrix: $`\sigma _{ij}(t)=_n\sigma _{ij}^{(n)}(t)`$. One easily finds from Eqs. (28) that

$`\dot{\sigma }_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\sigma _{00}`$ (31a)
$`\dot{\sigma }_{\alpha \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (\sigma _{\alpha 0}\sigma _{0\alpha })`$ (31b)
$`\dot{\sigma }_{\alpha 0}`$ $`=`$ $`i(E_0E_\alpha )\sigma _{\alpha 0}i\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha \sigma _{00}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}{2}}\sigma _{\alpha 0},`$ (31c)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d=(\sqrt{D}\sqrt{D^{}})^2`$ is the decoherence rate generated by the detector, in addition to the “intrinsic” decoherence rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ generated by tunneling. Here we would like to point out the important distinction between these two different origins of decoherence. Tunneling into an infinite continuum is the only intrinsically irreversible process encountered in ordinary quantum mechanics. On the other hand $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ is related to the “effective” irreversibility that occurs when a simple quantum system is coupled to a macroscopic measurement apparatus, averaged over unobservable degrees of freedom.

Equation (30) displays a direct connection between the averaged detector current and the probability of finding the electron inside the dot. Its escape to the continuum results in an increase of the detector current at $`t=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, as shown in Fig. 5. Therefore the continuous measurement process is completely described by the rate equations (28).

Comparing Eqs. (31) with Eqs. (24) we find that the decay rate is not modified by the detector. Indeed, the probability of finding the electron inside the dot drops down with the same exponential, $`\sigma _{00}(t)=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0t)`$, as in the noninteracting case ($`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{lr}=0`$). Therefore no Zeno effect can be observed in the exponential decay of an unstable system.

Fig. 5. The average detector current as a function of time.

Nevertheless, the influence of the measurement can be seen in the last term of Eq. (31c), which constitutes an additional decoherence rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ generated by the detector. This affects the energy spectrum of the tunneling electron, given by $`P(E_\alpha )=\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }(t\mathrm{})`$. Indeed, on solving Eqs. (31b), (31c) in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ we obtain

$$P(E_\alpha )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}{(E_\alpha E_0)^2+\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d)^2}{4}}$$
(32)
Comparing with Eq. (26) one finds that the measurement results in a broadening of the line width, which becomes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$.

To understand these results, one might think of the following argument. Due to the measurement, the energy level $`E_0`$ suffers an additional broadening of the order of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$. However, this broadening does not affect the decay rate of the electron $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, since the exact value of $`E_0`$ relative to $`E_\alpha `$ is irrelevant to the decay process. In contrast, the probability distribution $`P(E_\alpha )`$ is affected because it does depend on the position of $`E_0`$ relative to $`E_\alpha `$, as can be seen in Eq. (32).

Although our result has been proved for a specific detector, we expect it to be valid for the general case, provided that the density of states $`\rho `$ and the transition amplitude $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$ for the observed electron vary slowly with energy. This condition is sufficient to ensure a pure exponential decay of the state $`E_0`$ pfeifer . On the other hand, if the product $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^2\rho (E_\alpha )`$ depends sharply on energy $`E_\alpha `$, it yields strong $`E`$-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Eqs. (23). This would result in a deviation from a pure exponential decay and consequently to the Zeno effect in the case of continuous measurement.

## IV Nonuniform density of state and Zeno effect.

Consider the electron escape to the reservoir, Fig. 4, where the density of the reservoir states $`\rho (E_\alpha )`$ does depend on the energy. For the definiteness we take a Lorentzian form of the density of states

$$\rho (E_\alpha )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1/2\pi }{(E_\alpha E_1)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^2/4}$$
(33)
One can demonstrate eg1  that such a system can be mapped onto that shown in Fig. 6, where the Lorentzian states are represented by a resonance cavity coupled to the quantum dot and the reservoir.

Fig. 6. A point-contact detector near a quantum dot coupled with a resonance cavity.

Using the same treatment as in the previous section and summing over the states $`n`$ of the detector one arrives at the following rate equations for the electron density matrix $`\sigma _{ij}(t)=_n\sigma _{ij}^{(n)}(t)`$,

$`\dot{\sigma }_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (\sigma _{01}\sigma _{10})`$ (34a)
$`\dot{\sigma }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\sigma _{11}+i\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (\sigma _{10}\sigma _{01})`$ (34b)
$`\dot{\sigma }_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{10}\sigma _{01}+i\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (\sigma _{00}\sigma _{11}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}{2}}\sigma _{01}`$ (34c)
$`\dot{\sigma }_{\alpha \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (\sigma _{\alpha 0}\sigma _{0\alpha })`$ (34d)
$`\dot{\sigma }_{0\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{\alpha 0}\sigma _{0\alpha }+i\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (\sigma _{00}\sigma _{1\alpha }){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}{2}}\sigma _{0\alpha }`$ (34e)
$`\dot{\sigma }_{1\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{\alpha 1}\sigma _{1\alpha }+i\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha (\sigma _{10}\sigma _{0\alpha }){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}{2}}\sigma _{1\alpha },`$ (34f)
where the index “1” relates to the cavity state ($`E_1`$) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d=(\sqrt{D}\sqrt{D^{}})^2`$ is the decoherence rate generated by the detector.

Consider first the case of no measurement, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d=0`$. Solving Eqs. (34) we find that the decay is not a pure exponential one eg1 . In particular, the probability of finding the electron in the initial state for small $`t`$ is $`\sigma _{00}(t)=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^2t^2`$, in contrast with Eq. (25a). This second-order dependence of $`\sigma _{00}`$ on $`t`$ is due to the fact that decoupling it from the off-diagonal $`\sigma _{01}`$ results in a second-order differential equation. Note that the absence of a term linear in $`t`$ in $`\sigma _{00}(t)`$ is a prerequisite for the Zeno effect. However, at large values of $`t`$ the decay becomes an exponential one, i.e.

$$\sigma _{00}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}t\right)\text{for}t1/\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha .$$
(35)
Consider now the case of measurement, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d0`$. Solving Eqs. (34) for $`t\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^1`$ we discover that the probability of finding the electron inside the dot, $`\sigma _{11}(t)`$, drops down exponentially as

$$\sigma _{00}(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d)\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^2}{4(E_1E_0)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d)^2}t\right)\text{for}t1/\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha .$$
(36)
Let us compare Eq. (36) with Eq. (35). We see that the decay rate decreases with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$ (Zeno effect) in the presence of the detector, but only for aligned levels, $`|E_0E_1|\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$. If, however, the levels $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$ are not aligned, $`|E_0E_1|\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$, we find that the decay rate increases (the anti-Zeno effect gur1 ; r6 ; az1 ; kof ; eg1 ; facchi ; evers ). Such an increase of the decay rate due to the measurement is shown in Fig. 7a for $`E_1E_0=10\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$. However, for very short times we always observe the decrease of the decay rate i.e. the Zeno effect even for misaligned levels, as shown in Fig. 7b eg1 . Thus the anti-Zeno effect discussed recently in the literature represents an increase in the “average” transition rate. For small enough $`t`$, however, no anti-Zeno effect can be found.

Fig. 7. (a) The probability of finding the electron inside the quantum dot at the level $`E_0`$ where $`E_1E_0=10\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$. The solid line corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d=0`$ (no measurement) while the dashed line, which displays the anti-Zeno effect, corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_d=10\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$. (b) The same for small $`t`$, where the dashed line displays the Zeno effect.

The Zeno and anti-Zeno effects described above can be interpreted in terms of broadening of the level $`E_0`$ induced by the detector. One expects that this broadening would always lead to spreading of the energy distribution. On the other hand, its influence on the decay rate depends whether the levels $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$ are in resonance or not. If $`E_0=E_1`$ the broadening of the level $`E_0`$ destroys the resonant-tunneling condition, so that the decay into continuum slows down. If on the other hand $`E_0E_1`$, the same broadening would effectively diminish the levels displacement (c.f. with luis ). As a result, the decay rate should increase. Yet, such qualitative arguments do not work at very short times, since the decay rate slows down even for $`E_0E_1`$, as in Fig. 7b., except in the case of a flat density of states, for which the decay rate is not affected by measurement.

## V Origin of the wave-function collapse.

We demonstrated in this paper that the inclusion of a measurement device in the Schrödinger equation made it possible to describe the measurement process without explicit use of the projection postulate (the wave-function collapse). Even the Zeno effect is described in terms of the decoherence generated by a macroscopic detector. Thus one might assume that wave-function collapse is a redundant assumption and can be avoided by including the detector in the Schrödinger equation for an entire system. Yet this is not the case: wave-function collapse is the indispensable component of Quantum Mechanics.

Let us explain this point again taking the point-contact detector in Fig. 2 as an example. We demonstrated above how tracing over the quantum dot subsystem reduces the Schrödinger equation describing such a detector to the classical rate equations Eq. (14),

$$\dot{P}_n(t)=DP_n(t)+DP_{n1}(t),$$
(37)
where $`P_n(t)\sigma ^{(n,n)}(t)`$ is the probability of finding $`n`$ electrons in the right reservoir by time $`t`$. Solving these equations for the initial conditions $`P_n(0)=\delta _{n0}`$, we obtain a Poisson distribution for $`P_n(t)`$, Eq. (15). Consider for simplicity the case of $`t1/D`$. Then $`P_n(t)`$ can be written as

$$P_n(t)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi Dt}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(Dtn)^2}{2Dt}\right].$$
(38)
Let us assume that the detector displays $`N_1`$ electrons at $`t=t_1`$, and the corresponding information is directly available to the observer. One can ask whether such an information affects the distribution function $`P_n(t)`$, Eq. (38). Simple arguments show that it does. Indeed, Eq. (37) represents classical rate equation and therefore it obeys Bayes principle bye , as any probabilistic description. This implies that one has to solve Eq. (37) with the new initial condition, determined by the information obtained by the observer. One obtains gur3

$$P_n(t)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi D(tt_1)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(Dtn+\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2}{2D(tt_1)}\right]$$
(39)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=N_1Dt_1`$. Obviously, this distribution is different from that given by Eq. (38): it has a narrower width, but the same group velocity. This result is not surprising, since the probabilistic description of classical systems is not a complete one. The measurement improves our knowledge of the system, so the statistical uncertainty diminishes.

The above arguments must also be applicable to Eq. (37) considered as a pure quantum mechanical equation. Indeed, Eq. (37) has been obtained directly from the Schrödinger equation in the limit of high bias voltage and without any use of the Markov-type anzatz. Thus the Schrödinger evolution must be subject to Bayes principle too. As a matter of fact, Bayes principle, extended to the off-diagonal density-matrix elements, is essentially equivalent to wave function collapse kor .

Despite the importance of the Bayes principle in any probabilistic description, it does not appear in standard calculations of Quantum Mechanics, since the latter does not predict individual events but only ensemble averages of observables and their correlations. This allowed us to avoid explicit use of the projection postulate in the above evaluations of the detector average current and the measured electron distributions.

Now it would be interesting to compare our result for the Zeno effect with alternative predictions involving the projection postulate. On first sight some of our results contradict such predictions. For instance, we predict that continuous measurement does not affect the decay rate for a flat density of final states, contrary to the the projection postulate arguments leading to the Zeno effect, Eq.(3). However, for a flat density of states and infinite reservoirs, the expansion (1) is not applicable due to a discontinuity in the derivative $`\dot{P}_0(t)`$ at $`t=0`$. In this case the probability of survival drops linearly with $`t`$ for small $`t`$, and no Zeno effect is expected from the projection postulate argument. For a nonuniform distribution, however, we obtain a decrease of the decay rate for small $`t`$, as shown in Fig. 7b.

In any case, such a comparison of standard quantum mechanical calculations with those involving the projection postulate is far from being completed. For a proper understanding of the measurement process we need to extend our quantum description of the detector to a chain of measurement devices representing the von Neumann hierarchy neu  (a system “measured” by another system etc). Only then one can properly investigate a possible dynamical role of the projection postulate in Quantum Mechanics. We believe that our quantum rate equations, described in this paper, represent the proper tool for the realization of this program.

## VI Summary

In this paper we have proposed Bloch-type rate equations as a very useful approach to the quantum mechanical treatment of measurement devices. These quantum rate equations were derived from the microscopic Schrödinger equation without any stochastic assumptions.

First we applied this approach to a quantum mechanical treatment of the point-contact detector. The latter represented a generic example of a measurement device for the continuous monitoring of an unstable system. We found that the transition to the classical regime of the detector takes place due to decoupling of the nondiagonal density-matrix elements from the equations of motion for the diagonal. The latter does not require the vanishing of these terms.

Then we used the same approach for a description of a larger system consisting of an observed electron which escapes into continuum together with the point-contact detector. The decoherence mechanism is clearly displayed in the resulting rate equations, where the corresponding decoherence rate is determined by the averaged detector outcome.

With respect to Zeno effect, we found that the measurement would not affect the decay rate of an unstable system, providing that the density of final states is a flat one and the reservoir is infinite. If this is not the case, we predict either Zeno or anti-Zeno effects, except for the short-time behavior where only the Zeno effect is found.

All our results were obtained without explicit use of the projection postulate. Nevertheless, the latter cannot be discarded in Quantum Mechanics, as we demonstrated using the example of point-contact detector evolution. We have also shown that our quantum mechanical predictions for the decay rate measurements are not in contradiction with the projection postulate argument, although a more detailed analysis is needed.