text:
# Quantum limits to dynamical evolution

## I Quantum speed limit

Since the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is the generator of the dynamical evolution and defines the energy of a system, one expects that the energy characteristics of a state are closely linked to the characteristic times of its dynamics. In particular, we are interested on how the mean energy $`E`$ and the spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ relate to the maximum “speed” the system can sustain in moving away from its initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

Take the energy basis expansion of the initial state

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}c_n|n,`$ (1)
which has average energy $`E=\mathrm{\Psi }|H|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Psi }|(HE)^2|\mathrm{\Psi }}`$. To characterizes the departure of the system from $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ we can use the fidelity

$`P(t)=|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|^2=|{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|c_n|^2e^{iE_nt/\mathrm{}}|^2,`$ (2)
where $`E_n`$ is the energy eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ relative to $`|n`$. The quantity $`P(t)`$ is the overlap between the time evolved state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ and the initial state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. A measure of “speed of the dynamical evolution” is obtained by analyzing how fast $`P(t)`$ changes in time: e.g. given a value $`ϵ[0,1]`$, how long do we have to wait before the state “rotates” by an amount $`ϵ`$, i.e. before $`P(t)=ϵ`$? Assuming (without loss of generality) zero ground-state energy eigenvalue, it is possible to prove that the minimum time at which this happens is bounded by the quantity

$`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)\mathrm{max}(\alpha (ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{2E}},\beta (ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }E}}),`$ (3)
where $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ and $`\beta (ϵ)`$ are the functions plotted in Fig. 1. Of course for $`ϵ=1`$ this quantity is equal to zero: in fact, no time has to pass to obtain $`P(t)=1`$. On the other hand, since for $`ϵ=0`$ we have $`\alpha (ϵ)=\beta (ϵ)=1`$, Eq. (3) reduces to the quantum speed limit time that was defined in role ; margolus ,

$`𝒯_0(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)\mathrm{max}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{2E}},{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }E}}),`$ (4)
which gives the minimum time it takes for a system to evolve to an orthogonal configuration. In the remainder of the paper, however, with ‘quantum speed limit time’ we will refer to the generalized version $`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ of Eq. (3).

The detailed derivation of Eq. (3) is given in App. A. Here we only give a general idea of the procedure. The quantity $`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ is composed of two contributions. The first contribution relates the speed of the dynamical evolution to the average energy $`E`$ through the function $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ and it extends the Margolus-Levitin theorem margolus . It provides the value of $`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ in what we will refer to as the Margolus-Levitin regime, i.e. when $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E\beta (ϵ)/\alpha (ϵ)`$. The function $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ is derived by introducing two functions $`\alpha _\text{¡}(ϵ)`$ and $`\alpha _\text{¿}(ϵ)`$ such that $`\alpha _\text{¡}(ϵ)\alpha (ϵ)\alpha _\text{¿}(ϵ)`$. The first one is obtained by analyzing directly the condition $`P(t)=ϵ`$ and using a class of inequalities that maximizes sines and cosines with linear functions. The second one is obtained by studying the time evolution of a class of “fast” two level states. This procedure does not allow one to obtain an explicit analytical expression for $`\alpha (ϵ)`$, however the two bounding functions $`\alpha _<`$ and $`\alpha _>`$ can be shown numerically to coincide giving an estimate of $`\alpha (ϵ)`$. The second contribution to $`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ relates the speed of the dynamical evolution to the spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ by means of the function

$`\beta (ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{arccos}(\sqrt{ϵ}).`$ (5)
This term provides the value of $`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ in what we will refer to as the Heisenberg regime, i.e. when $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E\beta (ϵ)/\alpha (ϵ)`$. Equation (5) was previously proven in bata ; uncer  by employing the general form of the uncertainty relations. However, for the sake of completeness, in App. A we have rederived the value of $`\beta (ϵ)`$ starting directly from the expression (2) of $`P(t)`$.

Given $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, the quantum speed limit defines a forbidden evolution regime where the probability $`P(t)`$ is not allowed to enter. In fact, for $`0t𝒯_0(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$, Eq. (3) implies

$`P(t)\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2Et}{\pi \mathrm{}}}\right),\beta ^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }Et}{\pi \mathrm{}}}\right)\},`$ (6)
where $`\alpha ^1`$ and $`\beta ^1`$ are the inverse functions of $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ and $`\beta (ϵ)`$ respectively. This regime is shown on Fig. 2, where an example of $`P(t)`$ trajectory is plotted. By introducing the Margolus-Levitin type contribution (i.e. the term dependent on $`E`$), Eq. (6) generalizes the previous bounds for $`P(t)`$ uncer ; bata . Notice that, since the contribution dependent on $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ to Eq. (6) exhibits a null derivative in $`t=0`$, it always provides a non-trivial bound to $`P(t)`$. On the other hand, since the contribution dependent on $`E`$ exhibits a negative slope in $`t=0`$, it does not provide an achievable bound when $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE`$. For the same reason, the bound (52) on the first derivative of $`P(t)`$ is not modified by the presence of the Margolus-Levitin type contribution of Eq. (6): $`|dP(t)/dt|`$ is limited only by the energy spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$.

### I.1 Quantum speed limit time for mixed states

Up to now we have focused on pure states of the system. What happens when the system is in a mixture $`\varrho `$? We will show that the notion of quantum speed limit bound (3) can be extended to the density matrices in the sense that $`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ gives the lower bound to the time it takes for a state $`\varrho `$ with energy $`E`$ and spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ to evolve to a configuration $`\varrho (t)`$ such that

$`F(\varrho ,\varrho (t))=ϵ,`$ (7)
where $`F(\varrho ,\varrho ^{})\left\{\text{Tr}\left[\sqrt{\sqrt{\varrho }\varrho ^{}\sqrt{\varrho }}\right]\right\}^2`$ is the fidelity introduced in fidelity .

To prove the above statement, first of all notice that in the case of pure states, the fidelity reduces to the probability $`P(t)`$ of Eq. (2) and the definition (7) reduces to the quantum speed limit bound given in the previous section. More generally, consider a generic decomposition of $`\varrho `$,

$`\varrho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}p_n|\varphi _n\varphi _n|,`$ (8)
where $`p_n>0`$, $`_np_n=1`$ and $`\{|\varphi _n\}`$ is a set of non-necessarily orthogonal pure states. The fidelity $`F`$ has been shown fidelity ; chuang  to satisfy the property

$`F(\varrho ,\varrho (t))=\underset{|\chi ,|\chi ^{}}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{|\chi |\chi ^{}|^2\right\},`$ (9)
where $`|\chi `$ and $`|\chi ^{}`$ are purifications of $`\varrho `$ and $`\varrho (t)`$ respectively, such as the states

$`|\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\sqrt{p_n}|\varphi _n|\xi _n`$ (10)
$`|\chi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\sqrt{p_n}|\varphi _n(t)|\xi _n^{},`$ (11)
with $`\{|\xi _n\}`$, $`\{|\xi _n^{}\}`$ being two orthonormal sets of an ancillary system. Choosing $`|\xi _n^{}=|\xi _n`$ for all $`n`$ and assuming that they are all eigenstates of the ground level of the ancillary system, $`|\chi ^{}`$ becomes the time evolved of $`|\chi `$ (i.e. $`|\chi ^{}=|\chi (t)`$) and Eq. (9) implies that the fidelity is bounded by

$`F(\varrho ,\varrho (t))|\chi |\chi (t)|^2.`$ (12)
Since the pure state $`|\chi `$ has the same energy $`E`$ and energy spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ of $`\varrho `$, it can rotate by a quantity $`ϵ`$ in a time not smaller than $`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$, as shown in the previous section. This, along with inequality (12) proves that the minimum time $`t`$ for which $`F(\varrho ,\varrho (t))=ϵ`$ is bounded by the quantity $`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$, as stated in (7). Notice, finally, that for $`ϵ=0`$ we reobtain all the results that were given in role , since in this case the condition (7) is equivalent to the condition Tr$`[\varrho (t)\varrho ]=0`$ that was employed there counter .

#### Mixed states that reach the bound

Before concluding the section, let us analyze under which conditions a mixed state can reach the quantum speed limit. Assume that the state $`\varrho `$ of energy $`E`$ and spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ achieves the bound for a value $`ϵ`$, i.e.

$`F(\varrho ,\varrho \left(𝒯_ϵ\right))=ϵ,`$ (13)
where the dependence on $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ has been dropped for ease of notation. Define the quantity $`ϵ_n|\varphi _n|\varphi _n(𝒯_ϵ)|^2`$, which measures the rotation of the $`n`$-th component of the mixture (8) at time $`𝒯_ϵ`$. Applying quantum speed limit considerations to the state $`|\varphi _n`$, one finds

$`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)𝒯_{ϵ_n}(_n,\mathrm{\Delta }_n),`$ (14)
where $`_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ are the energy and the spread of the state $`|\varphi _n`$. Now, among all possible purifications of the form (10) and (11) choose one such that $`\xi _n|\xi _m^{}=\delta _{nm}e^{i\phi _{nm}}`$, where $`\phi _{nm}=\mathrm{arg}[\varphi _n|\varphi _m(𝒯_ϵ)]`$. From Eqs. (9) and (13), it follows that

$`ϵ|{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}p_n|\varphi _n|\varphi _n(𝒯_ϵ)||^2=\left({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}p_n\sqrt{ϵ_n}\right)^2\overline{ϵ},`$ (15)
$`𝒯_{\overline{ϵ}}(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E),`$ (16)
where in (16) we employed the fact that $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ and $`\beta (ϵ)`$ are strictly decreasing functions. Combining Eqs. (14) and (16), we find that, for all $`n`$,

$`𝒯_{\overline{ϵ}}(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)𝒯_{ϵ_n}(_n,\mathrm{\Delta }_n).`$ (17)
Consider first the Margolus-Levitin regime, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E\beta (\overline{ϵ})/\alpha (\overline{ϵ})`$. From Eq. (17) it follows that

$`\alpha (\overline{ϵ}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{2E}}\alpha (ϵ_n){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{2_n}}.`$ (18)
Since the energy of the state $`\varrho `$ is $`E=_np_n_n`$, Eq. (18) implies

$`\alpha (\overline{ϵ}){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}p_n\alpha (ϵ_n).`$ (19)
Analogously, in the Heisenberg regime, i.e. when $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E\beta (\overline{ϵ})/\alpha (\overline{ϵ})`$, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^2=_np_n[\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2+(E_n)^2]`$, one obtains

$`\beta ^2(\overline{ϵ}){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}p_n\beta ^2(ϵ_n).`$ (20)
The inequalities (19) and (20) must be satisfied if $`\varrho `$ reaches the quantum speed limit. Since both $`\alpha (ϵ^2)`$ and $`\beta ^2(ϵ^2)`$ are strictly convex functions (see Eqs. (54) and (55) of App. A.3), such conditions can be fulfilled only when the equalities hold: this happens if $`ϵ_n=ϵ`$ for all $`n`$ and if the equality holds also in (14). This shows that the fastest states $`\varrho `$ are mixture composed by pure states $`|\varphi _n`$ that all achieve the quantum speed limit bound for the same $`ϵ`$ at the same time.

## II Entangled dynamics

In a preceding paper role , we analyzed the role of entanglement in achieving the quantum speed limit bound (4) for composite systems. We found that quantum correlations among the subsystem allow the state of the system to evolve to an orthogonal configuration faster if the energy resources are not devoted to a single subsystem. Here we analyze the generalized bound (3) and show that the same result holds even when we do not require the initial and final states to be orthogonal. Quantum correlations among subsystems allow the state of the system to rotate in Hilbert space faster if the energy resources are not devoted to a single subsystem.

In the following we consider the case of a composite system with $`M`$ independent components. Its Hamiltonian is given by $`H=_kH_k`$, where $`H_k`$ is the free Hamiltonian of the $`k`$-th subsystem. Since the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is assumed to have zero ground state, we will redefine all the $`H_k`$ to have zero ground states without loss of generality. We will start analyzing the case of pure states, postponing the case of non-pure states.

### II.1 Pure states

Consider a composite system of $`M`$ non-interacting parts in the initial pure separable state

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }=|\psi _1_1\mathrm{}|\psi _M_M,`$ (21)
which has energy and energy spread

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}E_k,`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }E_k^2\right)^{1/2},`$ (23)
where $`E_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_k`$ are the energy and the spread of the state $`|\psi _k_k`$ of the $`k`$-th subsystem nota . The state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ reaches the quantum speed limit if, for some value of $`ϵ`$, the following identity applies,

$`P\left(𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)\right)=ϵ,`$ (24)
where $`P(t)`$ is the probability (2) of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ is the quantum speed limit time of Eq. (3). For a separable state, the quantity $`P(t)`$ is given by

$`P(t)=P_1(t)\mathrm{}P_M(t),`$ (25)
where $`P_k(t)=|_k\psi _k|\psi _k(t)_k|^2`$ is the overlap of the state of the $`k`$-th subsystem at time $`t`$ with its initial value. Defining $`ϵ_k=P_k(𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E))`$ and using Eq. (25), the condition (24) can be rewritten as

$`ϵ=ϵ_1\mathrm{}ϵ_M.`$ (26)
Moreover, applying the quantum speed limit relation (3) to the $`k`$-th subsystem, one finds that

$`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)𝒯_{ϵ_k}(E_k,\mathrm{\Delta }E_k).`$ (27)
Consider first the Margolus-Levitin regime, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E\beta (ϵ)/\alpha (ϵ)`$. In this case, Eq. (27) and the definitions of $`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ and $`𝒯_{ϵ_k}(E_k,\mathrm{\Delta }E_k)`$ imply

$`\alpha (ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{2E}}\alpha (ϵ_k){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{2E_k}},`$ (28)
and hence, using the expression (22) of the total energy of the system,

$`\alpha (ϵ){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\alpha (ϵ_k).`$ (29)
Analogously, in the Heisenberg regime Eq. (27) implies

$`\beta (ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }E}}\beta (ϵ_k){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }E_k}},`$ (30)
and hence

$`\beta ^2(ϵ){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\beta ^2(ϵ_k).`$ (31)
A necessary condition for the separable state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to reach the quantum speed limit is that there exists a set of $`ϵ_k`$ that satisfy at least one of the two inequalities (29) or (31) under the constraint (26). According to the strict subadditivity of $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ and $`\beta ^2(ϵ)`$ (see Eqs. (56) and (57) of appendix A.3), the relations (29) and (31) can be satisfied only when the equality holds: this happens if there exists a $`k`$ (say $`k^{}`$) such that $`ϵ_k^{}=ϵ`$ and $`ϵ_k=1`$ for $`kk^{}`$. Such a solution corresponds to the case in which all the energy resources are devoted to the $`k^{}`$-th subsystem. In fact, for $`k=k^{}`$, the relations (28) and (30) imply

$`E_k^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (ϵ_k^{})}{\alpha (ϵ)}}E=E`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_k^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (ϵ_k^{})}{\beta (ϵ)}}\mathrm{\Delta }E=\mathrm{\Delta }E,`$ (33)
where Eq. (32) holds in the Margolus-Levitin regime, while Eq. (33) holds in the Heisenberg regime. Equation (32) and the form (22) of $`E`$ require that $`E_k^{}=E`$ and $`E_k=0`$ for $`kk^{}`$ nota . Since $`H_k`$ have all zero ground state energy, this also implies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_k^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_k=0`$ for $`kk^{}`$. On the other hand, Eq. (33) and the form (23) of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ require that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_k^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_k=0`$ for $`kk^{}`$.

In conclusion, the only states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the form (21) that can reach the quantum speed limit (3) for some value of $`ϵ`$ are those in which all the energy spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is carried by the single subsystem $`k^{}`$. The other subsystems are in eigenstates of their Hamiltonians $`H_k`$. Moreover, if the system is in the Margolus-Levitin regime, then $`k^{}`$ carries also all the mean energy $`E`$, the other subsystems being in their ground states. From the dynamical point of view, this means that $`k^{}`$ is the only subsystem that rotates in the Hilbert space, while all the others do not evolve.

#### A simple example: separable vs. entangled state

The gap between entangled states and non entangled ones is particularly evident is the case in which the energy resources are homogeneously distributed among all subsystems, i.e. when $`E_k=E/M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_k=\mathrm{\Delta }E/\sqrt{M}`$ for all $`k`$. For the sake of simplicity we analyze an example in which all the subsystems are in the same state $`|\psi _k_k=|\psi _k`$. In this case the minimum time $`t_ϵ`$ for which the global state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_s=|\psi _1\mathrm{}|\psi _M`$ rotates by a quantity $`ϵ`$ is given by the minimum time it takes for each subsystem to rotate by a quantity $`ϵ^{1/M}`$. Applying the quantum speed limit (3) to each subsystem, one obtains that $`t_ϵ𝒯_{ϵ^{1/M}}(E/M,\mathrm{\Delta }E/\sqrt{M})`$. The ratio $`R(ϵ)`$ between $`t_ϵ`$ and $`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$, i.e.

$`R(ϵ)\mathrm{min}(M{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (ϵ^{1/M})}{\alpha (ϵ)}},\sqrt{M}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (ϵ^{1/M})}{\beta (ϵ)}}),`$ (34)
shows how much slower the separable state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_s`$ is in comparison with the maximum speed allowed for a system of the same energetic resources of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_s`$ (see Fig. 3). From the subadditivity properties (56) and (57), it follows that $`R(ϵ)1`$. In particular, for $`ϵ=0`$, $`R(ϵ)`$ is always greater than $`\sqrt{M}`$, as discussed in role .

Consider now the following family of entangled states

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\xi =\sqrt{1\xi ^2}|0_1\mathrm{}|0_M+\xi |E_0_1\mathrm{}|E_0_M,`$ (35)
where $`\xi [0,1]`$ and $`|0`$ and $`|E_0`$ are eigenstates of the Hamiltonian of energy $`0`$ and $`E_0>0`$ respectively. The state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\xi `$ represents an homogeneous configuration where each subsystem has energy $`\xi ^2E_0`$ and spread $`\xi ^2\sqrt{1\xi ^2}E_0`$. However, unlike the separable state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_s`$ discussed before, for a suitable choice of the parameter $`\xi `$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\xi `$ achieves the quantum speed limit bound, as can be shown by comparison with the state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_\xi `$ of Eq. (47) in App. A.1.

Proving that homogeneous separable states cannot exhibit speedup while at least one homogeneous entangled case that exhibits speedup exists, we have shown that entanglement is a fundamental resource in this context.

### II.2 Entangled dynamics for mixed states

In this section we generalize the results of the previous section to mixed states.

The most general separable state of $`M`$ subsystems has the form

$`\varrho ={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}p_n|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}|,`$ (36)
where $`p_n>0`$, $`_np_n=1`$, and

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}=|\psi _1^{(n)}_1\mathrm{}|\psi _M^{(n)}_M,`$ (37)
with $`|\psi _k^{(n)}_k`$ a state of the $`k`$-th subsystem. As discussed in Sect. I.1, $`𝒯_ϵ(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ is the minimum time it takes for the state $`\varrho `$ to reach a configuration $`\varrho (t)`$ with fidelity $`ϵ`$. Moreover, we already know that the state $`\varrho `$ will reach the quantum speed limit bound for mixed states of Eq. (7) only if all the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}`$ rotate by an amount $`ϵ`$ in the time $`𝒯_ϵ(_n,\mathrm{\Delta }_n)`$, given $`_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ the energy and energy spread of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}`$. Since $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}`$ is a separable pure state, from the previous section it follows that this is possible only if there exist a subsystem (say the $`k_n`$-th) that possesses all the energy resources. This means that the only separable states $`\varrho `$ that reach the bound (7) are those for which for any statistical realization $`n`$ of the mixture (36), a single subsystem evolves to an orthogonal configuration at its own maximum speed limit time (which coincides with $`𝒯(E,\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ of the whole system). All the other subsystems do not evolve. Since the above derivation applies for any expansion $`p_n`$, one can say that in each experimental run only one of the subsystems evolves. This is essentially the same result that was obtained in role , although here we considered the more general case of $`ϵ0`$.

## III Conclusion

In this paper we have generalized the definition of quantum speed limit time margolus ; role  to take into account the case in which the system does not evolve to an orthogonal state. We have used the fidelity $`F(\varrho ,\varrho (t))`$ of fidelity  as a measure of the “distance” between the initial and the final states. In this context we have analyzed the role of quantum correlations among subsystems in a composite system. As a result we have shown that entanglement is a fundamental resource to achieve a speedup in the dynamical evolution in a composite system. In fact, the only separable states that can achieve the quantum speed limit bound are those where only one subsystem at a time is evolving, while the others are stationary.

## Appendix A

In Sects. A.1 and A.2 we derive the form of the functions $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ and $`\beta (ϵ)`$ respectively. In Sect. A.3 we study these two functions giving some mathematical properties that are used in the paper.

### A.1 Derivation of $`\alpha (ϵ)`$.

In order to determine $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ we will: i) give a lower bound for it; ii) give an upper bound for it; iii) show numerically that these two bounds coincide, thus providing an estimation of $`\alpha (ϵ)`$.

i) A lower bound for $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ can be obtained by observing that if $`P(t)=ϵ`$, then $`\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\sqrt{ϵ}e^{i\theta }`$, i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|c_n|^2\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{E_nt}{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{ϵ}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|c_n|^2\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{E_nt}{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{ϵ}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,`$ (38)
with $`\theta [0,2\pi ]`$. Consider now the following class of inequalities for $`q0`$:

$`\mathrm{cos}x+q\mathrm{sin}x1ax,`$ (39)
which is valid for $`x0`$ and where $`a`$ is a function of $`q`$ defined implicitly by the set of equations

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}a& =& {\displaystyle \frac{y+\sqrt{y^2(1+q^2)+q^2}}{1+y^2}}\hfill \\ & & \\ \mathrm{sin}y& =& {\displaystyle \frac{a(1qy)+q}{1+q^2}},\hfill \end{array}`$ (43)
for $`y[\pi \mathrm{arctan}(1/q),\pi +\mathrm{arctan}(q)]`$. The inequality (39) is obtained by bounding the term on the left with the linear function that is tangent to it and is equal to 1 for $`x=0`$, as shown in Fig. 4.

Since we assumed zero ground state energy, all the energy levels are positive and we can replace $`x`$ with $`E_nt/\mathrm{}`$ in Eq. (39). Summing on $`n`$ and employing Eq. (38), we obtain the inequality

$`\sqrt{ϵ}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta q\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)1a{\displaystyle \frac{Et}{\mathrm{}}}.`$ (44)
From the definition of $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ introduced in Eq. (3), this implies

$`\alpha (ϵ)[1\sqrt{ϵ}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta q\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)]{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi a}}.`$ (45)
Since, for a given value of $`\theta `$, Eq. (45) must be valid for all $`q0`$, then the following lower bound for $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ can be obtained

$`\alpha (ϵ)\alpha _\text{¡}(ϵ)`$
$`\underset{\theta }{\mathrm{min}}\left\{\underset{q}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{[1\sqrt{ϵ}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta q\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)]{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi a}}\right\}\right\}.`$ (46)
ii) To provide an upper bound for $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ consider the following family of two-level states,

$`|\mathrm{\Omega }_\xi =\sqrt{1\xi ^2}|0+\xi |E_0,`$ (47)
where $`\xi [0,1]`$, and $`|0`$ and $`|E_0`$ are eigenstates of the Hamiltonian of energy $`0`$ and $`E_0`$ respectively. The state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_\xi `$ has average energy $`E=\xi ^2E_0`$ and energy spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\xi \sqrt{1\xi ^2}E_0`$. Solving the dynamical evolution of the state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_\xi `$, one can show that the first time $`t`$ for which $`P(t)=ϵ`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Et}{\mathrm{}}}=\xi ^2\mathrm{arccos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ1+2\xi ^2(1\xi ^2)}{2\xi ^2(1\xi ^2)}}\right].`$ (48)
Minimizing over $`\xi `$ the right term of Eq. (48) gives the following upper bound for $`\alpha (ϵ)`$, i.e.

$`\alpha (ϵ)\alpha _\text{¿}(ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}z\mathrm{arccos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ1+2z(1z)}{2z(1z)}}\right],`$ (49)
where the $`z`$ is a function of $`ϵ`$ defined implicitly by

$`\mathrm{arccos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ1+2z(1z)}{2z(1z)}}\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{12z}{1z}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ}{ϵ1+4z(1z)}}}.`$ (50)
iii) The obvious difficulty in deriving the explicit analitic form of the bounds $`\alpha _\text{¡}(ϵ)`$ and $`\alpha _\text{¿}(ϵ)`$ defined in (46) and (49), can be overcome by performing a numerical study of these two conditions. We will show that $`\alpha _<(ϵ)=\alpha _>(ϵ)`$, thus giving an estimate of $`\alpha (ϵ)`$.

In order to numerically estimate $`\alpha _>(ϵ)`$ one has to solve Eq. (50). Using a bisection algorithm, it is simple to get a machine-precision accurate solution very rapidly for all values of $`ϵ`$. On the other hand, the estimate of $`\alpha _<(ϵ)`$ requires greater care, since two different parameters —$`q`$ and $`\theta `$ of Eq. (46)— are present in its definition. For each value of $`ϵ`$ it is necessary to calculate the term on the right of Eq. (45) on a bidimensional grid of values of $`q`$ and $`\theta `$ and find for each $`\theta `$ the maximum on $`q`$. The value of $`\alpha _<(ϵ)`$ is calculated by choosing the minimum among these maxima. Of course this procedure is biased, since it depends on the grid spacings $`\delta q`$ and $`\delta \theta `$. In order to remove the bias in the calculation result, one can repeat the whole procedure for different values of the grid spacing and then extrapolate the result for the spacings $`\delta q`$ and $`\delta \theta `$ tending to zero. We have used a least square linear interpolation, where $`\chi ^2`$ minimization allows also to recover an “error bar” that measures how well the linear interpolation works for each value of $`ϵ`$. The error bar has no statistical meaning: it simply gives an idea of how well the linear extrapolation for $`\delta \theta 0`$ works for the value of $`ϵ`$ under consideration. It can be used also to give a “confidence interval” for the obtained result. The $`\delta q0`$ extrapolation error has been found negligible in all cases, meaning that a linear extrapolation is well suited. To reduce aliasing problems, instead of using an equispaced grid, it is preferable to adopt a random grid of values of $`q`$ and $`\theta `$ uniformly distributed so that the average distance between distinct values is $`\delta q`$ and $`\delta \theta `$ respectively.

The extrapolated value of $`\alpha _<(ϵ)`$ with its error bars is compared with the calculated value of $`\alpha _>(ϵ)`$ in Fig. 5. Machine-precision accuracy is rapidly attainable in the calculation of $`\alpha _>(ϵ)`$ and we have considered it as unaffected by error. Since the values of $`\alpha _>(ϵ)`$ and $`\alpha _<(ϵ)`$ are compatible for arbitrary values of $`ϵ`$ we can conclude that the two functions coincide and are thus both equal to $`\alpha (ϵ)`$. This allows to give the numerical estimations of this function that have been used throughout the paper. Notice, however, that $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ is roughly approximated (up to a few percent error) by the function $`\beta ^2(ϵ)`$ as can be seen from Fig. 1.

### A.2 Derivation of $`\beta (ϵ)`$.

The function $`\beta (ϵ)`$ can be derived starting from Eq. (2) by the following chain of relations:

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}P(t)\right|`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}|c_n|^2|c_m|^2(E_nE)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_nE_m}{\mathrm{}}}t\right)\right|{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}|c_n|^2|c_m|^2(E_nE)e^{i(E_nE_m)t/\mathrm{}}\right|`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|c_n|^2(E_nE)\left({\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}|c_m|^2e^{i(E_nE_m)t/\mathrm{}}P(t)\right)\right|,`$
where the last identity has been obtained adding a zero term to the sum on $`n`$. Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to Eq. (51), we find

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}P(t)\right|{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{P(t)[1P(t)]},`$ (52)
which for $`0t\pi \mathrm{}/(2\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ implies bata ; uncer

$`P(t)\mathrm{cos}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\mathrm{}}}t\right).`$ (53)
This means that the smallest time $`t`$ for which $`P(t)=ϵ`$ is bounded by the quantity $`\beta (ϵ)\pi \mathrm{}/(2\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ with $`\beta (ϵ)`$ defined in (5). Notice that the bound (53) is achievable since, for example, the state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_{\xi =1/\sqrt{2}}`$ of Eq. (47) reaches it.

### A.3 Mathematical properties of $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ and $`\beta (ϵ)`$

Both $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ and $`\beta (ϵ)`$ are strictly decreasing functions (see Fig. 1). Moreover they satisfy the following constraints:

1. The functions $`\alpha (ϵ^2)`$ and $`\beta ^2(ϵ^2)`$ are strictly convex, i.e. for $`ϵ_n[0,1]`$,

$`\alpha \left(\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_nϵ_n\right)^2\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_n\alpha (ϵ_n^2),`$ (54)
$`\beta ^2\left(\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_nϵ_n\right)^2\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_n\beta ^2(ϵ_n^2),`$ (55)
where $`p_n>0`$ and $`_np_n=1`$. The identity in (54) and (56) holds only if $`ϵ_n=ϵ_n^{}`$ for all $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$.
2. The functions $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ and $`\beta ^2(ϵ)`$ are strictly subadditive, i.e. for $`ϵ_k[0,1]`$,

$`\alpha \left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}ϵ_k\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha (ϵ_k),`$ (56)
$`\beta ^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}ϵ_k\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\beta ^2(ϵ_k),`$ (57)
with the identity holding only when there exists a $`k`$ (say $`k^{}`$) such that $`ϵ_k=1`$ for all $`kk^{}`$.

To prove these properties, one can discuss the case of $`N=2`$ and then extend it by induction to arbitrary $`N`$. When referred to $`\beta (ϵ)`$, both propertires can be analitically proved using its definition (5). For $`\alpha (ϵ)`$ we must instead resort to numerical verification (e.g. see Fig. 6 and 7).

This work was funded by the ARDA, NRO, and by ARO under a MURI program.


format: text

text:
# SUSX-TH/02-022 hep-th/0210026 Moving Five-Branes and Cosmology 11footnote 1Based on a talk given at the 1st International Conference on String Phenomenology, Oxford, 6-11 Jul 2002.

## 1 Introduction

If string/M-theory is the correct fundamental theory of nature time-evolution of branes is likely to have played an important role in the history of the early universe. In this talk, I will review several aspects of this early universe brane dynamics in the context of strongly-coupled heterotic string-theory. This theory can be formulated as 11-dimensional supergravity on the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$ coupled to two 10-dimensional $`E_8`$ super-Yang-Mills multiplets localised on the two orbifold fixed planes (or boundaries) . Upon compactification on a Calabi-Yau three-fold one arrives at a five-dimensional $`N=1`$ supergravity theory on $`S^1/Z_2`$ where the now four-dimensional boundaries carry $`N=1`$ gauge-theories which originate from the 10-dimensional Yang-Mills theories . Further, M-theory five-branes can be included in this compactification. They wrap two-cycles within the internal Calabi-Yau space and, hence, appear as three-branes from the viewpoint of the effective five-dimensional theory. It is the dynamics of these M five-branes/three-branes which we are going to focus on in the following.

It should be stressed that our approach to early universe cosmology has the virtue of being embedded in a meaningful and successful environment for particle phenomenology from M-theory. Specifically, one can construct models within the class of compactifications described above which lead to phenomenologically promising theories close to the standard model of particle physics located on one of the boundaries .

The plan of this talk is as follows. To set the scene, I will present the effective five- and four-dimensional theories of heterotic M-theory including three-branes in their minimal versions. The status and interpretation of these effective theories as well as their general implications for three-brane dynamics will be reviewed. Subsequently, specific classes of solutions, both in four and five dimensions, describing simple three-brane evolution will be presented. Finally, we will discuss a new approach to brane-dynamics where three-branes are modelled as topological defects (kinks) of a bulk scalar field theory. Within this approach, more complicated brane evolution can be analysed by studying the dynamics of the modelling bulk scalar field. Particularly, what amounts to topology-changing transitions of the original M-theory action can be explicitly described by certain transitions within this bulk scalar field theory.

## 2 Effective actions in five and four dimensions

The five-dimensional effective action for heterotic M-theory is given by a specific $`D=5`$, $`N=1`$ gauged supergravity in the bulk coupled to four-dimensional $`N=1`$ gauge theories on the boundaries and the three-branes. In its minimal version there are two bulk supermultiplets, namely the supergravity multiplet containing the metric, the gravi-photon and the gravitini and the universal hypermultiplet containing the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ along with three pseudo-scalar partners and the associated fermions. On the boundaries $`M_4^i`$, where $`i=1,2`$, one obtains $`N=1`$ gauge theories with gauge groups $`G_iE_8`$ and chiral matter fields transforming under $`G_i`$. The details of this boundary field content depend on the compactification from eleven to five dimensions which is the main subject of particle physics model building in heterotic M-theory. Each three-brane $`M_4^3`$ (and its $`Z_2`$ mirror $`\stackrel{~}{M}_4^3`$) carries on its world-volume a universal chiral multiplet containing the field $`Y`$, specifying the three-brane position in the transverse space, along with an axionic partner and $`U(1)`$ vector multiplets. The number of these vector multiplets is given by the genus $`g`$ of the curve wrapped by the M five-brane.

The effective action for these fields  can be consistently truncated to an even simpler version containing the metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ and the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as the only bulk fields and the embedding coordinates $`X^\alpha =X^\alpha (\sigma ^\mu )`$ as the only brane fields. For a single three-brane, the associated effective action is then given by

$`S_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _5^2}}\{{\displaystyle _{M_5}}\sqrt{g}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha ^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}]`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle _{M_4^1}}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\alpha _1e^\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle _{M_4^2}}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\alpha _2e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{M_4^3\stackrel{~}{M}_4^3}}\sqrt{\gamma }\alpha _3e^\mathrm{\Phi }\}.`$
where $`\alpha _i=\sigma \beta _i`$, $`\beta _i𝐙`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ are the charges on the boundaries and the three-brane quantised in units of $`\sigma `$. These charges satisfy the cohomology condition

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _i=0.$$
(2)
The gauge-charge $`\alpha `$ is defined as a sum of step-functions

$$\alpha =\alpha _1\theta (M_4^1)+\alpha _2\theta (M_4^2)+\alpha _3\left(\theta (M_4^3)+\theta (\stackrel{~}{M}_4^3)\right).$$
(3)
Note that two actions of the above type with two different sets of charges $`\alpha _i`$ correspond to topologically different M-theory compactifications.

The four-dimensional effective action obtained from (1) by compactifying on the orbifold is given by

$$S_4=\frac{1}{2\kappa _P^2}_{M_4}\sqrt{g_4}\left[\frac{1}{2}R_4+\frac{1}{4}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +\frac{3}{4}_\mu \beta ^\mu \beta +\frac{q_3}{2}e^{\beta \varphi }_\mu z^\mu z\right]$$
(4)
where $`q_3=\pi \rho \alpha _3`$. Here, the field $`\varphi `$, as the zero mode of the five-dimensional dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ measures the Calabi-Yau size, while the field $`\beta `$ originates from the $`(55)`$ component of the metric and measures the orbifold size. Finally, the field $`z`$ specifies the three-brane position and is normalised so that $`z[0,1]`$ with $`z=0,1`$ corresponding to the two boundaries. This effective action can be obtained from the Kähler potential

$$K=\mathrm{ln}\left(S+\overline{S}q_3\frac{(Z+\overline{Z})^2}{T+\overline{T}}\right)3\mathrm{ln}\left(T+\overline{T}\right),$$
(5)
by truncating off the axionic fields contained in the chiral superfields $`S\varphi `$, $`T\beta `$ and $`Zz`$. Perturbatively, these moduli superfields are flat directions but one expects non-perturbative contributions to their superpotential from a number of sources . Assuming the axions can still be integrated out, these contributions can be included by adding a suitable potential $`V=V(\varphi ,\beta ,z)`$ to the above action. Note that this potential will be a function of all three fields rather than $`z`$ alone. It is quite clear even from the free action (4) that three-brane evolution in a static geometry (that is, for constant $`\varphi `$ and $`\beta `$) is not possible. For this reason, the above action (possibly with a potential) represents the minimal system in which heterotic moving-brane cosmology can be discussed in a meaningful way.

## 3 Cosmological solutions with a moving three-brane

The most general cosmological solutions of (4) with flat spatial sections  show a number of interesting generic features. Asymptotically at early and late time, both in the negative and positive time branch, the three-brane is practically at rest while the dilaton $`\varphi `$ and the T-modulus $`\beta `$ evolve according to a standard rolling radii solution. However, the early and late rolling radii solutions are generally different. Interpolation between these rolling radii solutions is achieved at intermediate time due to non-trivial evolution of the three-brane. It turns out that not all rolling radii solutions can be approached asymptotically but only those for which the strong-coupling expansion parameter

$$ϵe^{\beta \varphi }$$
(6)
diverges at early and late time. The brane-evolution, therefore, drives the system to strong coupling asymptotically. This is a direct consequence of the nontrivial kinetic term for $`z`$ in the action (4) and it is a feature that one would have missed had one - inconsistently - studied the brane-evolution in a static geometry.

Further, for all solutions the three-brane moves for a finite coordinate distance only. As a consequence, the brane may or may not collide with one of the boundaries, depending on initial conditions. The negative-time branch of these solution constitutes the correct starting point for moving-brane pre-big-bang cosmology which may terminate in a brane collision. Whether or not this collision will turn pre-big-bang contraction of the universe into expansion, thereby generating a “graceful exit”, must currently be viewed as an open problem.

The five-dimensional origin of these four-dimensional moving brane solution is not known at present except for a number of special cases. There are two four-dimensional solutions with $`ϵ=`$ const which can be directly lifted to five dimensions . A less trivial example of a five-dimensional moving brane solution which reduces to one of the above $`D=4`$ solutions in a specific limit only has been found more recently .

## 4 Modelling three-branes with kinks

Studying more complicated dynamics of three-branes, such as brane-brane or brane-boundary collision, requires a more microscopic understanding of M-theory which is currently out of reach. However, these processes can be studied in the context of a toy model where the three-branes are replaced by smooth kink solutions of a bulk scalar field theory. The following action  for this toy model, replacing the M-theory action (1),

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _5^2}}\{{\displaystyle _{M_5}}\sqrt{g}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \chi ^\alpha \chi +V(\mathrm{\Phi },\chi )]`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle _{M_4^1}}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}W{\displaystyle _{M_4^2}}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}W\}.`$
has been proposed recently. Here, the potential $`V`$ is obtained from a “superpotential” $`W=e^\mathrm{\Phi }w(\chi )`$ by

$$V=\frac{1}{3}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}w^2+\frac{1}{2}e^\mathrm{\Phi }U,U=\left(\frac{dw}{d\chi }\right)^2.$$
(8)
The potential $`U`$ for the new bulk field $`\chi `$ is required to be periodic with period $`v`$, that is $`U(\chi +v)=U(\chi )`$ and to have minima for all $`\chi =nv`$, where $`n𝐙`$, with $`U(nv)=0`$. These conditions can be easily translated into conditions on the function $`w(\chi )=_0^\chi 𝑑\stackrel{~}{\chi }\sqrt{U(\stackrel{~}{\chi })}`$ which specifies the superpotential. An example for $`U`$ is provided by the sine-Gordon potential

$$U=m^2\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi \chi }{v}\right)\right],$$
(9)
although the specific form of the potential is largely irrelevant for the subsequent discussion as long as the above general properties are satisfied.

How does (7) relate to the original M-theory action (1)? Consider first a situation where the field $`\chi `$ is constant throughout space-time and is located in the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ minimum of $`U`$, that is, $`\chi =nv`$. Eq. (7) then reduces to the M-theory action (1) without a three-brane, corresponding to a charge configuration

$$(\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3)=(n,n,0),$$
(10)
if the identification $`\sigma =w(v)`$ is being used.

The equations of motion derived from the action (7) have Bogomol’nyi-type first integrals. These first order equations can be used to obtain a BPS single-kink solution which interpolates between $`\chi =nv`$ on the first boundary and $`\chi =(n+1)v`$ on the second boundary. In a thin-kink approximation the $`3+1`$–dimensional surface defined by the core of the kink can be described by a Nambu-Goto action and can, therefore, be identified with the three-brane in Eq. (1). Hence, in the background of a single kink, the action (7) reduces to the M-theory action with a single-charged three-brane, corresponding to charges

$$(\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3)=(n,(n+1),1).$$
(11)
Note that different configurations of the scalar field $`\chi `$ in the defect model correspond to topologically distinct M-theory models. It has been shown  that a collision of a kink with a boundary generically leads to a transition between a vacuum state (11) with a single-charged three-brane and a vacuum state (10) without a three-brane. Topological transitions on the M-theory side can, therefore, be modelled by simple scalar field dynamics using the action (7). This opens up the possibility of modelling the evolution of more complicated configurations such as networks of three-branes in the early universe.

## Acknowledgements

The author is supported by a PPARC Advanced Fellowship.


text:
# DERIVATION OF THE BLACKBODY RADIATION SPECTRUM FROM A NATURAL MAXIMUM-ENTROPY PRINCIPLE INVOLVING CASIMIR ENERGIES AND ZERO-POINT RADIATION

## I INTRODUCTION

A thermodynamic system described by a known Lagrangian has well-defined restrictions on its adiabatic curves following from the first law of thermodynamics. However, the mechanical Lagrangian does not give the full thermodynamic behavior because it does not determine the thermodynamic entropy. Rather, some additional idea of order, of uniformity, is required for the determination of the entropy function. The assumptions of statistical mechanics regarding equally-probable units provide the idea of uniformity needed to derive the entropy function. Sometimes the idea of uniformity is regarded as immediately evident or natural. For example, in the classical statistical mechanics of particles in a box, it is natural to assume that the situation of maximum uniformity, maximum entropy, corresponds to a uniform spatial distribution for particles in the box. In this article, we propose that there is a similar natural choice for maximum entropy for blackbody radiation in connection with Casimir energies and zero-point radiation; this natural choice leads to the Planck spectrum.

Blackbody radiation is a fundamental thermodynamics system which holds a special place in the history of physics as the beginning point of quantum theory. In the nineteenth century, Boltzmann used Maxwell’s connection between radiation pressure and energy density, together with the assumption that the energy density depended upon temperature alone, to derive Stefan’s law connecting total energy density and temperature. Wien used adiabatic compression and Maxwell’s theory to obtain the displacement law corresponding to the condition on the adiabatic curves for a harmonic oscillator thermodynamic system. However, determination of the full blackbody radiation spectrum seemed to confound classical analysis because no natural entropy analysis seemed possible. Today, the blackbody spectrum is regarded as comprehensible only in terms of energy quanta which are outside of classical theory.

However, in connection with random radiation, twentieth century physics contributed two important ideas, zero-point energy and Casimir forces, which raise new possibilities for recognizing a natural entropy function for thermal radiation. Zero-point energy is random energy which is present even at zero temperature. Thermodynamics allows the possibility of zero-point energy and experimental evidence such as van der Waals forces requires its existence. Casimir forces and energies are those which arise due to the discrete, classical normal modes structure of a system. In total contrast to particles, waves are influenced in the interior of a volume by the presence of boundary conditions at the walls. Thus if a thin conducting partition is introduced into a conducting-walled box, then the energy of the system is changed due to the new boundary conditions at the conducting partition.

Casimir energies serve to couple total electromagnetic radiation energy to the specific spectrum of random radiation. Thus if we consider a collection of conducting-walled containers, each with a partition at a different location, and each box having random radiation at the same temperature, then each of these boxes will have a different (average) thermal energy. And different assumed spectral distributions for thermal radiation will lead to different distributions of energies among the partitioned boxes. Now maximum entropy naturally suggests uniformity. It seems natural to suggest that maximum entropy corresponds to the least variation of energy among the partitioned boxes. We will find that, in the presence of zero-point radiation to prevent an ”ultra-violet catastrophe,” this natural entropy idea leads to the Planck spectrum for thermal radiation.

## II THERMODYNAMICS OF WAVES IN A ONE-DIMENSIONAL BOX

Although the calculations to be described below can be carried through for electromagnetic waves in a three-dimensional box, we will consider a thermodynamic wave system in one spatial dimension rather than in three because the mathematics is distinctly simpler while the physical ideas are unchanged. Thus we can imagine one-dimensional thermodynamic wave systems consisting of waves on a string, or of electromagnetic waves which are required to move between two conducting walls with wave vectors $`𝐤`$ which are always perpendicular to the walls.

Systems satisfying the wave equation in a container with conducting walls can be described in terms of normal modes of oscillation, each of which corresponds to a harmonic oscillator system with Lagrangian

$$L(q_\lambda ,\dot{q}_\lambda )=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\lambda (1/2)(\dot{q}_\lambda ^2\omega _n^2q_\lambda ^2)$$
(1)
where the $`q_\lambda `$ are the amplitudes of the normal modes. For waves in one spatial dimension inside a box of length $`L`$, the normal modes can be labeled by a single integer index $`n`$ where the associated frequency $`\omega _n`$ is given by $`\omega _n=cn\pi /L`$, $`n=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$, where $`c`$ is the speed of the waves. Wien’s displacement law, which follows from the application of the laws of thermodynamics to a harmonic oscillator system, tells us that the energy $`𝒰`$ of a normal mode at frequency $`\omega `$ and temperature $`T`$ is given by

$$𝒰(\omega ,T)=\omega \varphi ^{}(\omega /T)$$
(2)
where $`\varphi ^{}`$ is a function of the single variable $`\omega /T`$.

Wien’s displacement law allows two limits which make the energy $`𝒰`$ independent of one of its variables. Thus if $`\varphi ^{}const`$ when $`\omega /T>>1`$, then $`𝒰`$ depends upon $`\omega `$ alone. This corresponds to temperature-independent zero-point radiation

$$𝒰𝒰_{zp}(\omega )=(1/2)\mathrm{}\omega \text{ for }\omega /T>>1$$
(3)
where the constant $`\mathrm{}`$ must be chosen to have the value of Planck’s constant in order to fit with van der Waals forces. On the other hand, if $`\varphi ^{}const/(\omega /T)`$, when $`\omega /T<<1`$, then $`𝒰`$ depends upon $`T`$ alone. This corresponds to the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum

$$𝒰𝒰_{RJ}(\omega )=k_BT\text{ for }\omega /T<<1$$
(4)
which holds at low frequencies with $`k_B`$ as Boltzmann’s constant.

Since we are not interested in numerical calculations of thermodynamic quantities, we will use natural units where $`\mathrm{}=1`$ so that frequency is measured in energy units, and $`k_B=1`$ so that temperature is measured in energy units and entropy is a pure number,

$$𝒰_{zp}(\omega )=(1/2)\omega \text{ and }𝒰_{RJ}(\omega )=T$$
(5)
It is convenient to introduce the thermal energy $`𝒰_T(\omega ,T)`$ of a mode of frequency $`\omega `$ as the mode energy above the zero-point energy

$$𝒰_T(\omega ,T)=𝒰(\omega ,T)𝒰_{zp}(\omega )$$
(6)
Although the total energy $`𝒰`$ is related to forces, only the thermal energy $`𝒰_T`$ influences the entropy.

The total thermal radiation energy $`U_T`$ in a box of length $`L`$ is given by the sum over the thermal energies $`𝒰_T`$ of the modes of frequencies $`\omega _n=n\pi c/L`$ for integer $`n.`$ We consider only the thermal energy $`𝒰_T`$ since thermodynamics requires that $`U_T`$ is a finite quantity when summed over all normal modes. In contrast, use of the modes’ total energies $`𝒰`$ or zero-point energies $`𝒰_{zp}`$ will give a divergence in the sum over (infinitely many) high-frequency modes. In a one-dimensional box which is so large that the discrete sum over normal modes can be replaced by an integral, we can use (2) to obtain the total thermal energy $`U_T(L,T)`$ in the form

$$U_T(L,T)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒰_T(\frac{n\pi c}{L},T)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{n\pi c}{L}\left[\varphi ^{}(\frac{n\pi c}{LT})\frac{1}{2}\right]$$

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑n\frac{n\pi c}{L}\left[\varphi ^{}(\frac{n\pi c}{LT})\frac{1}{2}\right]=\frac{L}{c\pi }T^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zz\left[\varphi ^{}(z)\frac{1}{2}\right]$$
(7)
for one space dimension. This is just the Stefan-Boltzmann result appropriate for one space dimension. In the case of waves in three spatial dimensions, the frequencies of the normal modes $`\omega _{lmn}`$ would be labeled by three integer indices and the same procedure would lead to a $`T^4`$ temperature dependence for a large container.

## III NORMAL MODE STRUCTURE AND CASIMIR FORCES

The Stefan-Boltzmann law in (7) gives the temperature dependence of the total thermal energy but provides no information regarding the spectrum of thermal radiation. Now in obtaining Eq.(7), we took the limit of a large box $`L`$ and so replaced the sum over normal modes by an integral. However, by going to the continuum limit, we lost the information which might be available in the discrete spectrum of the normal modes. It was Casimir who saw the possibility of new forces and energies linked to this discreteness of the classical normal mode structure. The most famous example of such forces is the original Casimir calculation of the force between conducting parallel plates arising from electromagnetic zero-point radiation. Casimir worked specifically with zero-point fields; however, the idea is not limited to zero-point radiation. Any spectrum of random classical radiation will lead to Casimir energies associated with the discrete classical normal mode structure of a container. Indeed, every thermodynamic variable (energy, entropy, free energy, force) will depend upon the normal modes structure.

It should be emphasized how totally different this classical wave situation is from the classical particle situation of ideal gas particles in a box. Thus if a box with reflecting walls is filled with ideal gas particles at temperature $`T`$, then the introduction of a thin reflecting partition does not change the system energy and does not involved any average force on the partition. In total contrast, the introduction of a conducting partition into a conducting-walled box of thermal radiation leads to a change in the normal mode structure and hence both to position-dependent energy changes (Casimir energies) and to average forces on the partition (Casimir forces). These Casimir energies and forces will depend upon the precise spectrum of random radiation and upon the precise location of the partition. In this article we note that the Planck spectrum for thermal radiation equilibrium can be obtained from a natural maximum-entropy principle for the Casimir energy changes associated with the placement of partitions in boxes of radiation.

## IV CHANGE IN CASIMIR ENERGY DUE TO A PARTITION

We now consider a one-dimensional box of length $`L`$ and calculate the change of radiation energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }U(x,L,T)`$ with position $`x`$ for a partition which is located a distance $`x`$ from the left-hand end of the box, $`0xL`$. The energy of each normal mode of frequency $`\omega _n`$ is given by $`𝒰(\omega _n,T)`$. The partition changes the normal mode frequencies and so produces a position-dependent energy change $`\mathrm{\Delta }U(x,L,T)`$ which is a Casimir energy. We will calculate the Casimir energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }U(x,L,T)`$ as the change in the system energy when the partition is placed a distance $`x`$ from the left-hand wall compared to when the partition is placed at $`x=L/2`$ in the middle of the box,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U(x,L,T)=\{U(x,T)+U(Lx),T\}\left\{U(L/2,T)+U(L/2,T)\right\}$$

$$=\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒰(\frac{cn\pi }{x},T)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒰(\frac{cn\pi }{Lx},T)\right\}2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒰(\frac{cn\pi }{L/2},T)$$
(8)
## V CASIMIR ENERGY FOR THE ZERO-POINT SPECTRUM

Equation (8) for the Casimir energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }U(x,L,T)`$ of a box has been expressed as a sum over the total energy of each normal mode. Before we can discuss a maximum entropy principle involving this energy, we must know that it is well-defined. We have already noted that the sum over the thermal energy $`𝒰_T(\omega ,T)`$ of the modes represents the total thermal energy $`U_T`$ and is finite, while the sum including the zero-point energy $`𝒰_{zp}(\omega )`$ is divergent. However, the Casimir energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }U(x,L,T)`$ in (8) can be defined as a limit and is finite. We recall that, in contrast to an ideal system, any physical wave system (such as a string with clamped ends or else electromagnetic fields in a region bounded by good conductors) will not enforce the normal mode structure at very high frequencies (short wavelengths). Thus it is natural to introduce a smooth cut-off $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega /c)`$ related to frequency $`\omega =ck`$

$$U(L,T,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒰(\omega _n,T)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\omega _n/c)$$
(9)
Next we carry out the subtractions corresponding to (8) to obtain the Casimir energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }U(x,L,T,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, and then allow the no-cut-off limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$. Although here we will work with an exponential cut-off because it is easy to sum the geometric series, the result is very general; any smooth cut-off function dependent on frequency alone will give the same result.

In this fashion, we can calculate the Casimir energy for the zero-point radiation spectrum in (5),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_{zp}(x,L)=lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{2}\frac{cn\pi }{x}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{n\pi }{x})+$$

$$+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{2}\frac{cn\pi }{Lx}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{n\pi }{Lx})2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{2}\frac{cn\pi }{L/2}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{n\pi }{L/2})\}$$

$$=lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}\left\{\frac{c}{2}\frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi /x]1}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi /(Lx)]1}2\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi /(L/2)]1}\right]\right\}$$

$$=lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}\{[\frac{cx}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\pi }\frac{c\pi }{24x}+(\mathrm{\Lambda })]+[\frac{c(Lx)}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\pi }\frac{c\pi }{24(Lx)}+(\mathrm{\Lambda })]$$

$$2[\frac{c(L/2)}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\pi }\frac{c\pi }{24(L/2)}+(\mathrm{\Lambda })]\}=\frac{c\pi }{24}(\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{Lx}\frac{2}{L/2})$$
(10)
Thus we obtain the change in zero-point energy associated with the position $`x`$ of the partition,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_{zp}(x,L)=\frac{c\pi }{24}\left(\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{Lx}\frac{2}{L/2}\right)$$
(11)
The total Casimir energy at finite temperature $`T`$ then involves

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U(x,L,T)=\mathrm{\Delta }U_T(x,L,T)+\mathrm{\Delta }U_{zp}(x,L)$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }U`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_T`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{zp}`$ are formed from the respective mode energies $`𝒰`$, $`𝒰_T`$, and $`𝒰_{zp}`$. From the result (11) for zero-point energy, we see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }U(x,L,T)`$ is finite for any spectrum $`𝒰_T`$ of thermal radiation which has finite total energy $`U_T`$.

## VI MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRINCIPLE FOR THERMAL RADIATION

Suppose now that we consider a collection of conducting-walled boxes of length $`L`$ which differ only in the placement of the partition. Our ideas of uniformity suggest that the collection should have the partitions distributed uniformly in $`x`$ along the open interval $`(0,L)`$. If each of these boxes contained thermal radiation at the same temperature $`T`$, then they would still differ in their total energies because of the presence of the partitions at different locations and the associated difference in Casimir energies. We notice how strikingly different this is from the situation which is usually described in thermodynamics texts where we are dealing with ideal gas particles in a box. For ideal gas particles in a box, the insertion of a thin partition into the equilibrium situation would not change the total energy or the entropy for the box; each box would have the same energy. Yet in our situation of thermal radiation, the boxes each have the same temperature yet each has a different energy. The natural situation of maximum entropy corresponds to maximum uniformity of energy among the boxes.

In order to turn this natural-maximum-entropy idea into a numerical criterion, we must turn back to Wien’s displacement theorem to note the allowed functional form for $`𝒰_T(\omega ,T)`$ and to fix the connection between the possible radiation spectra and temperature. We have already indicated that the thermodynamics associated with the Wien displacement theorem gives thermal radiation $`𝒰𝒰_{RJ}(\omega )=T`$ for $`\omega /T<<1`$. Thus the temperature of the random radiation fixes the low-frequency limit of $`𝒰_T(\omega ,T)`$. Furthermore, the thermal energy of each normal mode must be non-negative $`𝒰_T(\omega ,T)0`$, and the total thermal energy must be finite. These criteria can be met by any distribution of normal mode thermal energies

$$𝒰_T(\omega ,T)=Tf(\omega /T)$$
(13)
where $`f`$ is an arbitrary function satisfying

$$f(0)=1\text{}f(x)0\text{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xf(x)<\mathrm{}$$
(14)
If we calculate the Casimir energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }U(x,L,T)`$ in (8) using (11) and (12) with any function $`f`$ satisfying the criteria of (14), then the departure $`I`$ from a uniform energy among the partitioned boxes is given by

$$I=\underset{i}{}\left|\mathrm{\Delta }U(x_i,L,T)\right|$$
(15)
where the sum is over the uniformly-distributed partition locations $`x_i`$. Since the Casimir energy vanishes for the partition at $`x=L/2`$ and is symmetric about this point, this sum allows an immediate conversion to an equivalent integral

$$I=_{x=\delta }^{x=L/2}𝑑x|\mathrm{\Delta }U(x,L,T)|$$
(16)
where $`\delta `$ is a small cut-off distance which is much less than any other length in the situation, $`0<\delta <<min(L,c/T)`$. The need for such a cut-off arises because of the divergence of the zero-point Casimir energy at small distances. The natural maximum-entropy principle states that nature will choose the function $`f(x)`$ satisfying the criteria in (14) which makes the integral $`I`$ in(16) a minimum.

## VII CASIMIR ENERGIES FOR VARIOUS RADIATION SPECTRA

In one spatial dimension, it is quick to evaluate the Casimir energies for various monotonic spectral functions $`𝒰(\omega ,T)`$ on a home computer. One separates out the divergent zero-point energy contribution corresponding to (11) and then evaluates the thermal contribution to the Casimir energy for any assumed thermal spectrum $`𝒰_T(\omega ,T)=Tf(\omega /T)`$ meeting the criteria of (14). The total Casimir energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }U(x,L,T)`$ is the sum of the thermal and zero-point contributions.

For all spectra $`𝒰_T(\omega ,T)`$ satisfying the required conditions (14), we can calculate the test integral given in Eq.(16). The spectrum providing the smallest value for the integral appears to be the Planck spectrum with zero-point radiation

$$𝒰_{Pzp}(\omega ,T)=\frac{1}{2}\omega \mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\omega }{T}\right)=\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{exp}(\omega /T)1}+\frac{1}{2}\omega $$
(17)
Indeed, we may use the Planck form (or other functional forms) in a variational calculation to obtain the parameters which give the smallest value to the test integral for the given functional form. Thus the Planck form for the thermal part of the radiation at frequency $`\omega `$ can be written as

$$𝒰_{PT}(\omega ,T)=𝒰_P(\omega ,T)\frac{1}{2}\omega =\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{exp}(\omega /T)1}$$
(18)
We can introduce parameters $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ into a generalization of this form giving an energy spectrum including zero-point energy as

$$𝒰_{C_1C_2}(\omega ,T)=\frac{C_1\omega \mathrm{exp}[C_2(\omega /T)]}{1\mathrm{exp}[C_1(\omega /T)]}+(1/2)\omega $$
(19)
For all positive parameters $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, this spectrum goes over to energy equipartition in the limit $`\omega 0`$ and goes over to zero-point energy at high frequency while giving finite total thermal radiation energy. Accordingly we can search for the the values of $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ which make the test integral (16) a minimum. Numerical calculation shows that the minimum value for the test integral is achieved when $`C_1=C_2=1`$, corresponding to exactly the Planck spectrum (17).

Indeed, of all the functional forms tested numerically, the Planck spectrum gave the smallest value of the test integral. We conjecture that analytic calculation would show that this spectrum provides the minimum for this integral, and hence in this sense provides the smallest Casimir energies and greatest uniformity in the presence of zero-point radiation.

## VIII CASIMIR ENERGY FOR THE RAYLEIGH-JEANS SPECTRUM

In the current textbook accounts of blackbody radiation, zero-point radiation is not considered, and the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum is said to be the spectrum predicted by classical physics. It therefore seems of interest to calculate the Casimir energies associated with the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum in (5). This spectrum is simple enough to allow analytic calculation of the Casimir energies. We again make use of a high frequency cut-off just as in the case of the zero-point spectrum, and calculate

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_{RJ}(x,L,T)=$$

$$=lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}T\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{n\pi }{x}\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}T\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{n\pi }{Lx}\right)2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}T\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{n\pi }{L/2}\right)\right\}$$

$$=lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}\left\{\frac{T}{\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi /x]1}+\frac{T}{\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi /(Lx)]1}2\frac{T}{\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi /(L/2)]1}\right\}$$

$$=lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}\{T[\frac{x}{\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi }\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{12x}\mathrm{}]+T[\frac{Lx}{\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi }\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{12(Lx)}\mathrm{}]+$$

$$2T[\frac{L/2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi }\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{12(L/2)}\mathrm{}]\}=0$$
(20)
Thus we find that the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum gives no Casimir energy changes at all. Indeed, the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum is the unique spectrum which produces no Casimir energy changes associated with the placement of the Casimir partition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{RJ}(x,L,T)=0`$.

## IX ’ULTRA-VIOLET CATASTROPHE’ WITHOUT ZERO-POINT RADIATION

We should emphasize that our maximum entropy principle indeed requires the presence of the zero-point radiation energy. If no zero-point energy were present, then we would still require that the thermal spectrum give energy equipartition at low frequency and go to zero at high frequency so as to give a finite energy density for thermal radiation. For this case, the thermal energy would be the total energy used in (16). However, there would be no natural high-frequency limit. If we tried a smooth spectrum such as that suggested by Rayleigh $`𝒰_{RT}(\omega ,T)=T\mathrm{exp}[C(\omega /T)]`$ with an adjustable parameter $`C`$ but without zero-point energy, then we would find that the test integral given in Eq.(16) decreases as the parameter $`C`$ decreases, bringing the spectrum ever closer to the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum, in which limit the integral vanishes $`I=0`$ and there are no Casimir energy changes. The absence of any natural cut-off frequency represents behavior reminiscent of the ”ultraviolet catastrophe” emphasized by Einstein and named by Ehrenfest in 1911. What prevents the catastrophic shift of thermal radiation to ever-higher frequencies is precisely the presence of zero-point radiation.

## X CONCLUDING SUMMARY

In this analysis, we have treated the thermodynamics of waves in one spatial dimension. However, the ideas can be carried over to electromagnetic waves in three spatial dimensions. Although the Wien displacement theorem reflects the information from adiabatic energy changes of the known harmonic oscillator Lagrangian for the electromagnetic modes of thermal radiation, the entropy associated with each mode is undetermined. Traditional classical physics does not find it possible to recognize a situation of natural maximum uniformity, of maximum entropy. However, the use of Casimir energies, which connect different radiation spectra to different total radiation energies in a partitioned box, allows one to find a situation of natural maximum entropy. In the absence of zero-point radiation, the entropy principle recovers only the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum. In the presence of zero-point radiation, numerical calculation indicates that the spectrum of maximum entropy is the Planck spectrum.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to thank Professor Daniel C. Cole for his kind invitation to present a talk on historical aspects of the Casimir model of the electron at the Seventh International Conference on Squeezed States and Uncertainty Relations held at Boston University during June 2001. The beginnings of this work arose out of communications with Professor Cole.