text:
# Ghost condensates in Yang-Mills theories in the Landau gauge

## 1 Introduction

The understanding of the nonperturbative effects which govern the infrared behavior of Yang-Mills theory is one of the most challenging issues in quantum field theory. Lattice results have provided evidences of the fact that the infrared regime of the theory is very different from the ultraviolet one, as expected by the asymptotic freedom. Simulations of the gluon propagator in the Landau gauge  and in the maximal Abelian gauge  display an infrared behavior compatible with the existence of a mass gap. Attempts to explain this behavior in the continuum have been given by taking into account Gribov’s ambiguities and by using the Schwinger-Dyson equations, see for instance refs. for recent work on the subject. Nonperturbative effects are also at the origin of the existence of the quark condensate $`\overline{q}q`$, responsible for the spontaneous breaking of the chiral symmetry, and of the pure gluon condensate $`\alpha F^2`$.

Recently, much effort has been devoted to the study of condensates of dimension two built up with gauge fields and Faddeev-Popov ghosts. For instance, the gauge condensate $`A^2`$has a physical meaning in the Landau gauge . It plays a pivotal role in order to account for the discrepancy recently observed between the expected behavior of perturbation theory and the lattice results of the two and three point functions in the Landau gauge . An effective potential for this condensate has been obtained in  by using the local composite operators (LCO) technique . This result shows that the vacuum of pure Yang-Mills theory favors a nonvanishing value of this condensate, which gives rise to a mass term for the gluons while contributing to the dimension four condensate $`\alpha F^2`$ through the trace anomaly. Furthermore, as shown in the case of the compact QED in 3D, the condensate $`A^2`$ turns out to have a topological meaning , being argued to be suitable for detecting the presence of monopole configurations. A discussion of the relevance of $`A^2`$ for confinement may be found in .

In addition to the gauge condensate $`A^2`$, the ghost-antighost condensates $`\overline{c}c`$, $`cc`$ and $`\overline{c}\overline{c}`$ have also received great attention  in the context of the maximal Abelian gauge. This gauge, introduced in , has provided evidences for monopoles condensation as well as for the Abelian dominance hypothesis , which are key ingredients for the dual superconductivity mechanism of color confinement . An important point to be noted here is that the maximal Abelian gauge is nonlinear. As a consequence, a quartic ghost interaction term must be necessarily included for renormalizability . This term gives rise to a nontrivial vacuum, corresponding to the existence of the aforementioned ghost condensates, which display rather interesting features. They modify the behavior of the ghost propagator in the infrared region  and lower the vacuum energy density, being interpreted as a low-energy manifestation of the trace anomaly . Furthermore, $`\overline{c}c`$ is believed to be part of a more general dimension two condensate, namely $`\left(\frac{1}{2}AA\xi c\overline{c}\right)`$, where $`\xi `$ denotes the gauge parameter of the maximal Abelian gauge. This condensate has been proposed in  due to the property of being on-shell BRST invariant, and it is expected to provide effective masses for both off-diagonal gauge and ghost fields , thus playing an important role for the Abelian dominance. It is worth remarking that the ghost condensates do not show up only in the maximal Abelian gauge, being present indeed in other nonlinear gauges as, for instance the so called Curci-Ferrari gauge . Also, the effective potential for the ghost-gluon condensate $`\left(\frac{1}{2}AA\xi c\overline{c}\right)`$ in this gauge has recently been obtained .

The aim of this work is to analyze the ghost condensates in the Landau gauge. Although in this gauge there is no quartic ghost interaction, these condensates can be studied by means of the LCO technique, as improved by . In particular, by combining the LCO technique with the BRST algebraic renormalization , we shall be able to obtain the effective potential for $`cc`$ and $`\overline{c}\overline{c}`$. This result may signal a deeper physical meaning of these condensates.

The LCO formalism allows to obtain in a consistent way the effective potential for local composite operators. The method consists of introducing in the starting action the set of local composite operators to be studied coupled to suitable external sources. However, one has to be sure that all needed counterterms have been included. This requires the introduction of counterterms quadratic in the external sources. As shown in , these quadratic terms can be dealt with by introducing a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation allowing to obtain a renormalizable effective potential which is linear in the external sources, being thus compatible with the density energy interpretation of the effective potential. The method has already been successfully applied to the Gross-Neveu model  and to the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ and Coleman-Weinberg models . In the latter case, a manifest gauge invariant two-loop effective potential has been obtained, according to the Nielsen identities.

It is worth underlining here that the LCO technique can be combined with the BRST algebraic renormalization  in order to obtain all needed counterterms. The algebraic renormalization allows indeed to write down a suitable set of Ward identities which determine, to all orders of perturbation theory, the most general counterterm depending on the fields and external sources needed for the renormalizability of a given set of local composite operators.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.2 we give a brief review of the LCO technique in the case of the condensate $`A^2`$ for Yang-Mills in the Landau gauge. This example will allow us to show how the algebraic renormalization can be combined with the LCO method to provide a very powerful framework for the analysis of the effective potential. Sect.3 is devoted to the study of the ghost condensates $`cc`$ and $`\overline{c}\overline{c}.`$In Sect.4 we present the conclusions.

## 2 The LCO technique for the gauge condensate $`A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}`$

Let us begin with a brief review of the LCO technique  in the case of the evaluation of the effective potential for the gauge condensate $`A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}`$ in the Landau gauge . It is known that we can give a meaning to the local composite operator $`A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}`$ in the Landau gauge. Indeed, due to the transversality condition $`_\mu A^{\mu a}=0`$, the integrated mass dimension two operator $`d^4xA_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}`$ is gauge invariant. It makes sense therefore to look at the condensate $`A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}`$ in the Landau gauge.

In order to evaluate the effective potential for $`A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}`$ we introduce it in the starting action by means of an external source $`j(x)`$ of ghost number zero and dimension two , namely

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}+S_{\mathrm{gf}}+d^4x\frac{1}{2}jA_\mu ^aA^{\mu a},$$
(1)
where

$`S_{\mathrm{YM}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4xF^{a\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^a},`$ (2)
$`S_{\mathrm{gf}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left(b^a_\mu A^{\mu a}+\overline{c}^a^\mu \left(D_\mu c\right)^a\right)},`$
and

$`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+gf^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c,`$ (3)
$`\left(D_\mu c\right)^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu c^a+gf^{abc}A_\mu ^bc^c.`$
As it is well known, the gauge fixed action $`\left(S_{\mathrm{YM}}+S_{\mathrm{gf}}\right)`$ is left invariant by the BRST nilpotent transformations

$`sA_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`\left(D_\mu c\right)^a,sc^a={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}c^bc^c,`$ (4)
$`s\overline{c}^a`$ $`=`$ $`b^a,sb^a=0.`$
However, before starting the computation, one has to be sure that the action $`\left(\text{1}\right)`$ contains all needed counterterms. In other words we have to start with the most general action compatible with the invariances of the model and with the power-counting. Observe also that expression $`\left(\text{1}\right)`$ with the inclusion of the coupling $`jA^2`$ is renormalizable by power-counting. The search for the most general action is easily handled by using the algebraic renormalization . This will be the task of the next section.

### 2.1 BRST characterization of the most general counterterm

In order to characterize the most general action, including all needed counterterms, we proceed by introducing a BRST doublet  of external sources $`(j(x),\lambda (x))`$, according to

$$s\lambda =j,sj=0,$$
(5)
where $`\lambda `$ is an external source of dimension one and ghost number -1.

|  | $`j`$ | $`\lambda `$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Gh. number | 0 | -1 |
| Dimension | 2 | 1 |

It is apparent then that the quantity

$$S_{\mathrm{LCO}}=sd^4x\left(\lambda \frac{A^2}{2}+\frac{\varsigma }{2}\lambda j\right)=d^4x\left(\frac{1}{2}jA_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}+\lambda A_\mu ^a^\mu c^a+\frac{\varsigma }{2}j^2\right),$$
(6)
is BRST invariant. The meaning of the external source $`\lambda (x)`$ is also clear; it defines the composite operator $`A_\mu ^a^\mu c^a`$ which is the BRST variation of $`A^2/2`$. Observe also that the BRST invariance and the power-counting naturally allow for the term $`j^2=s(\lambda j)`$. According now to , the parameter $`\varsigma `$ will be fixed by demanding that it depends on the gauge coupling, namely $`\varsigma =\varsigma (g)`$. The dependence of $`\varsigma `$ from $`g`$ can be computed order by order in the loop expansion

$$\varsigma (g)=\varsigma _0+\mathrm{}\varsigma _1+\mathrm{}^2\varsigma _2+\mathrm{}$$
(7)
and is obtained from the renormalization group equations . This is a highly nontrivial requirement, which enables the LCO technique to capture nonperturbative effects . In particular, the lowest order coefficient $`\varsigma _0`$ plays a fundamental role in order to obtain a nontrivial vacuum configuration for $`A^2`$. In fact, as shown in , this coefficient is scheme independent111We are indebted to D. Dudal for many valuable discussions on this important point. and carries nonperturbative information, allowing for a nonvanishing value of $`A^2`$.

Let us turn now to write down the Ward identities which will ensure the renormalizability of the model. We begin by observing that the action $`\left(S_{\mathrm{YM}}+S_{\mathrm{gf}}+S_{\mathrm{LCO}}\right)`$ is invariant under the BRST transformations $`\left(\text{4}\right),\left(\text{5}\right)`$

$$s\left(S_{\mathrm{YM}}+S_{\mathrm{gf}}+S_{\mathrm{LCO}}\right)=0.$$
(8)
Introducing also the external BRST invariant sources $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^a,L^a)`$ coupled to the nonlinear variations of the fields $`A_\mu ^a`$and $`c^a`$

$$S_{\mathrm{ext}}=d^4x\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^{a\mu }\left(D_\mu c\right)^a+L^a\frac{g}{2}f^{abc}c^bc^c\right),$$
(9)
it turns out that the complete action

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=S_{\mathrm{YM}}+S_{\mathrm{gf}}+S_{\mathrm{LCO}}+S_{\mathrm{ext}},$$
(10)
obeys the following identities

* the Slavnov-Taylor identity

$`𝒮(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (11)
$`𝒮(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta A_\mu ^a}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \mathrm{\Omega }^{a\mu }}+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta c^a}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta L^a}+b^a\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \overline{c}^a}+j\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \lambda }\right)},`$
* the Landau gauge condition and the antighost equation

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta b^a}=_\mu A^{\mu a},\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \overline{c}^a}+^\mu \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \mathrm{\Omega }^{a\mu }}=0,$$
(12)
* the linearly broken integrated ghost equation Ward identity

$$d^4x\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta c^a}+gf^{abc}\overline{c}^b\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta b^c}\right)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^a,$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^a`$ is the classical breaking

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^a=d^4x\left(gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Omega }^{b\mu }A_\mu ^cgf^{abc}L^bc^c\right).$$
(14)
We underline that the ghost equation Ward identity $`\left(\text{13}\right)`$ is an important feature of the Landau gauge, which has allowed for an algebraic proof of several nonrenormalization results .

Let us now look at the most general counterterm depending on the external sources $`(j,\lambda ).`$ Taking into account that $`(j,\lambda )`$ form a BRST doublet, it turns out that the most general expression depending on $`(j,\lambda )`$ with ghost number zero and dimension four is

$`S_{\mathrm{LCO}}^{\mathrm{count}}`$ $`=`$ $`s{\displaystyle d^4x\left(a_1\lambda \frac{A^2}{2}+\frac{a_2}{2}\lambda j+a_3\lambda \overline{c}^ac^a\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x(a_1j{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{2}}+a_1\lambda A_\mu ^a^\mu c^a+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{2}}j^2+a_3j\overline{c}^ac^a`$
$`a_3\lambda b^ac^a+{\displaystyle \frac{a_3}{2}}\lambda \overline{c}^af^{abc}c^bc^c).`$
However, $`a_3=0`$due to the Landau ghost equation Ward identity $`\left(\text{13}\right)`$ and to the gauge fixing condition and antighost equation $`\left(\text{12}\right)`$. Thus

$$S_{\mathrm{LCO}}^{\mathrm{count}}=d^4x\left(a_1j\frac{A^2}{2}+a_1\lambda A_\mu ^a^\mu c^a+\frac{a_2}{2}j^2\right),$$
(16)
which has precisely the same form as $`S_{\mathrm{LCO}}`$. The coefficient $`a_1`$ is related to the renormalization of the source $`j`$ and therefore to the renormalization of the local operator $`A^2.`$ The coefficient $`a_2`$ can be associated to a renormalization of the parameter $`\varsigma `$. Its physical meaning is that of taking into account the divergences which appear in the correlator $`A^2(x)A^2(y)`$. Finally we observe that, as expected by BRST invariance, the renormalization of the operator $`A_\mu ^a^\mu c^a`$ is related to that of $`A^2`$. Having characterized the most general local counterterm depending on the external sources $`(j,\lambda )`$, we are now ready to evaluate the one-loop effective potential for the condensate $`A^2`$.

### 2.2 The effective potential for $`A^2`$

The first step in order to study the condensate $`A^2`$ is to analyse the generating functional $`𝒲(j).`$Setting thus to zero the external sources $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^a,L^a,\lambda ,`$we have

$$\mathrm{exp}i𝒲(j)=\left[D\phi \right]\mathrm{exp}i\left(S_{\mathrm{YM}}+S_{\mathrm{gf}}+d^4x\left(\frac{1}{2}jA_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}+\frac{\varsigma }{2}j^2\right)\right),$$
(17)
where $`\left[D\phi \right]`$ denotes integration over all quantum fields $`(A_\mu ^a,b^a,\overline{c}^a,c^a)`$. Taking the functional derivative of expression $`\left(\text{17}\right)`$ we obtain

$$\frac{\delta 𝒲(j)}{\delta j}|_{j=0}=\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}.$$
(18)
In order to deal with the term $`j^2`$ we follow , introducing a Hubbard-Stratonovich field $`\sigma `$ so that

$$\left(\frac{1}{2}jA_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}+\frac{\varsigma }{2}j^2\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{\varsigma }j+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\varsigma }}A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}\right)^2\frac{1}{8\varsigma }\left(A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}\right)^2,$$
(19)
and

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{\varsigma }j+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\varsigma }}A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}\right)^2\frac{\sigma ^2}{2g^2}+\frac{1}{g}\sigma \left(\sqrt{\varsigma }j+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\varsigma }}A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}\right).$$
(20)
As a consequence, for the functional generator $`𝒲(j)`$ we get

$$\mathrm{exp}i𝒲(j)=\left[D\phi \right]D\sigma \mathrm{exp}i\left(S(A,\sigma )+d^4x\frac{\sqrt{\varsigma }}{g}\sigma j\right),$$
(21)
with

$$S(A,\sigma )=S_{\mathrm{YM}}+S_{\mathrm{gf}}+d^4x\left(\frac{\sigma ^2}{2g^2}+\frac{\sigma }{2g\sqrt{\varsigma }}A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}\frac{1}{8\varsigma }\left(A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}\right)^2\right).$$
(22)
In particular,

$$\frac{\delta 𝒲(j)}{\delta j}|_{j=0}=\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^aA^{\mu a}=\frac{\sqrt{\varsigma }}{g}\sigma _{S(A,\sigma )}.$$
(23)
This is a very remarkable identity , stating that the condensate $`A^2`$is related to the nonvanishing expectation value of $`\sigma `$ evaluated with the new action $`S(A,\sigma )`$. Let us proceed thus with the computation of the effective potential for $`\sigma `$. We shall limit here to the one-loop order, which already displays all the nonperturbative features of the LCO technique.

### 2.3 Evaluation of the one-loop effective potential

In order to compute the effective potential for $`\sigma `$ at the one-loop order only the quadratic part of the action $`S(A,\sigma )`$ is relevant, namely

$$S^{\mathrm{quad}}(A,\sigma )=\frac{\sigma ^2}{2g^2}d^4x+\frac{1}{2}d^4xA^{a\mu }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}A^{b\nu },$$
(24)
with

$$_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=\left[\left(^2g_{\mu \nu }\left(1\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)_\mu _\nu \right)+\frac{\sigma }{g\sqrt{\varsigma }}g_{\mu \nu }\right]\delta ^{ab}=𝒜_{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ab},$$
(25)
where $`\sigma `$ is now a constant field and the limit $`\alpha 0`$ has to be taken at the end in order to implement the Landau gauge. For the one-loop effective potential we have

$$V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma )=\frac{\sigma ^2}{2g^2}\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{log}det_{\mu \nu }^{ab}.$$
(26)
From

$$det_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=\left(det𝒜_{\mu \nu }\right)^{\left(N^21\right)},$$
(27)
we have

$$V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma )=\frac{\sigma ^2}{2g^2}\frac{i\left(N^21\right)}{2}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{log}det𝒜_{\mu \nu }.$$
(28)
Making use of the dimensional regularization and recalling that

$$\mathrm{log}det𝒜_{\mu \nu }|_{\alpha 0}=(d1)\mathrm{log}\left(^2+\frac{\sigma }{g\sqrt{\varsigma }}\right)+\mathrm{const}.$$
(29)
it follows

$$V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma )=\frac{\sigma ^2}{2g^2}\frac{1}{2}\left(N^21\right)i\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}(d1)\mathrm{log}\left(k^2+\frac{\sigma }{g\sqrt{\varsigma }}\right).$$
(30)
From

$$i\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\sigma }{g\sqrt{\varsigma }}k^2\right)=\frac{1}{2\left(4\pi \right)^2}\left(\frac{\sigma }{g\sqrt{\varsigma }}\right)^2\left[\frac{1}{\epsilon }\gamma +\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\sigma }{g\sqrt{\varsigma }4\pi \mu ^2}\right]$$
(31)
the one-loop effective potential in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme is found to be

$$V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma )=\frac{\sigma ^2}{2g^2}+\mathrm{}\frac{3\left(N^21\right)}{64\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{g^2\varsigma }\right)\sigma ^2\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\sigma }{g\sqrt{\varsigma }\overline{\mu }^2}\frac{5}{6}\right),$$
(32)
where the presence of the loop expansion parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ has been made explicit. Let us now proceed with the evaluation of the first term of the series $`\left(\text{7}\right)`$. To this purpose we require that the effective potential $`V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma )`$ obeys the renormalization group equation, namely

$$\mu \frac{dV^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma )}{d\mu }=0+O(\mathrm{}^2).$$
(33)
To work out this condition the knowledge of the running of the field $`\sigma `$ is needed. This is easily achieved with the help of the relation between $`\sigma `$ and $`A^2`$ of eq.$`\left(\text{23}\right)`$, namely

$$\frac{A^2}{2}=\frac{\sqrt{\varsigma }}{g}\sigma .$$
(34)
A simple calculation gives

$$\mu _\mu \sigma =\mathrm{}\left(\gamma _{A^2}^{(1)}+\frac{\beta _g^{(1)}}{g}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta _g^{(1)}}{\varsigma _0}\frac{\varsigma _0}{g}\right)\sigma +O(\mathrm{}^2),$$
(35)
where $`\gamma _{A^2}^{(1)}`$ is the one-loop anomalous dimension of the local operator $`A^2`$ and, since $`\varsigma =\varsigma (g)`$,

$$\mu _\mu \varsigma =\beta _g\frac{\varsigma }{g}=\mathrm{}\beta _g^{(1)}\frac{\varsigma _0}{g}+O(\mathrm{}^2).$$
(36)
¿From eq.$`\left(\text{33}\right)`$ it follows that

$$\frac{1}{\varsigma _0}=\frac{16\pi ^2}{3\left(N^21\right)}\left(2\gamma _{A^2}^{(1)}+2\frac{\beta _g^{(1)}}{g}\right),$$
(37)
from which one sees that $`\varsigma _0`$ is scheme independent. The explicit value of $`\gamma _{A^2}^{(1)}`$ can be found in  and turns out to be

$$\gamma _{A^2}^{(1)}=\frac{g^2N}{16\pi ^2}\frac{35}{6}.$$
(38)
Therefore, recalling that

$$\beta _g^{(1)}=\frac{11N}{3}\frac{g^3}{16\pi ^2},$$
(39)
for $`\varsigma _0`$ one gets

$$\varsigma _0=\frac{1}{g^2}\frac{9}{13}\frac{\left(N^21\right)}{N},$$
(40)
in complete agreement with . This expression displays the nonperturbative features of the LCO method , emphasized by the presence in eq.$`\left(\text{40}\right)`$ of the factor $`1/\left(g^2N\right).`$

## 3 The ghost condensates

Having given a brief summary of the LCO technique for the evaluation of $`A^2`$, let us turn to the study of the ghost condensates. We shall consider the following local composite operators

$$f^{abc}c^bc^c\mathrm{and}f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c.$$
(41)
carrying ghost number $`2`$ and $`2,`$ respectively.

Following now the LCO procedure, we first introduce the two operators $`f^{abc}c^bc^c,f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c`$in the starting action by means of a set of external sources $`(L^a,\tau ^a,\eta ^a)`$ transforming as

$`s\eta ^a`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^a,`$ (42)
$`s\tau ^a`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`sL^a`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
The quantum numbers of $`(L^a,\tau ^a,\eta ^a)`$ are displayed in the following table

|  | $`L^a`$ | $`\tau ^a`$ | $`\eta ^a`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Gh. number | $`2`$ | $`2`$ | $`1`$ |
| Dimension | $`2`$ | $`2`$ | $`1`$ |

(43)
Notice also that the sources $`(\tau ^a,\eta ^a)`$ form a BRST doublet. Moreover, according to the algebraic renormalization, the BRST invariant source $`L^a`$ is needed to define the nonlinear variation of the ghost $`c^a`$, which is $`\left(gf^{abc}c^bc^c\right)/2`$. In the present case, the BRST invariant part of the action depending on the external sources $`(L^a,\tau ^a,\eta ^a)`$ reads

$`S_{\mathrm{LCO}}`$ $`=`$ $`s{\displaystyle d^4x\left(L^ac^a\frac{g}{2}\eta ^af^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c+\varsigma \eta ^aL^a\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left(L^a\frac{g}{2}f^{abc}c^bc^c\frac{g}{2}\tau ^af^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c+g\eta ^af^{abc}b^b\overline{c}^c+\varsigma \tau ^aL^a\right)},`$
where, as before, $`\varsigma `$ is a dimensionless parameter which will be fixed later on by demanding the compatibility with the renormalization group equations. Notice also that the presence of the term $`\tau ^aL^a`$ is allowed by the power counting. For the complete action $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we have now

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=S_{\mathrm{YM}}+S_\mathrm{m}+S_{\mathrm{gf}}+S_{\mathrm{LCO}}+S_{\mathrm{ext}},$$
(45)
where $`S_\mathrm{m}`$ stands for the fermionic matter action, which we include for completeness

$$S_\mathrm{m}=d^4x\overline{\psi }^{iI}i\gamma ^\mu (_\mu \delta ^{IJ}igA_\mu ^aT^{aIJ})\psi ^{iJ},$$
(46)
where $`T^{aIJ}`$ are the generators of $`SU(N)`$ in the fundamental representation, and $`1in_f`$ gives the number of fermions. Also, for the BRST transformations of the matter fields we have

$`s\psi ^{iI}`$ $`=`$ $`igc^aT^{aIJ}\psi ^{iJ},`$ (47)
$`s\overline{\psi }^{iI}`$ $`=`$ $`ig\overline{\psi }^{iJ}T^{aJI}c^a,`$
$`sS_\mathrm{m}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Finally, introducing external sources $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{a\mu },\overline{Y}^{iI},Y^{iI},`$ coupled to the nonlinear variations of the fields $`A_\mu ^a,`$ $`\psi ^{iI}`$ and $`\overline{\psi }^{iI}`$, the external part of the complete action $`\left(\text{45}\right)`$ reads

$$S_{\mathrm{ext}}=d^4x\left[\mathrm{\Omega }^{a\mu }\left(sA_\mu ^a\right)+\overline{Y}^{iI}\left(s\psi ^{iI}\right)+\left(s\overline{\psi }^{iI}\right)Y^{iI}\right].$$
(48)
It turns out that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is constrained by the following identities:

* the Slavnov-Taylor identity

$$𝒮(\mathrm{\Sigma })=0,$$
(49)
$`𝒮(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta A_\mu ^a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \mathrm{\Omega }^{a\mu }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \overline{\psi }^{iI}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta Y^{iI}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \overline{Y}^{iI}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \psi ^{iI}}}`$ (50)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta L^a}}\varsigma \tau ^a){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta c^a}}+b^a{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \overline{c}^a}}+\tau ^a{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \eta ^a}}].`$
* the Landau gauge condition and the antighost equation

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta b^a}=_\mu A^{\mu a}gf^{abc}\eta ^b\overline{c}^c,$$
(51)
$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \overline{c}^a}+^\mu \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \mathrm{\Omega }^{a\mu }}=gf^{abc}\tau ^b\overline{c}^cgf^{abc}\eta ^bb^c.$$
(52)
Notice that both the Landau gauge condition and the antighost equation gets modified by terms which are linear in the quantum fields, representing therefore classical breakings.
* the modified linearly broken integrated ghost equation Ward identity

$$d^4x\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta c^a}+gf^{abc}\overline{c}^b\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta b^c}+gf^{abc}\eta ^b\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \tau ^c}\right)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^a,$$
(53)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^a`$ is the classical breaking

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{cl}}^a=gd^4x\left[f^{abc}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^{b\mu }A_\mu ^cL^bc^c+\varsigma \eta ^bL^c\right)i\overline{Y}^iT^a\psi ^i+i\overline{\psi }^iT^aY^i\right]$$
(54)

Repeating now the same procedure as before, it is not difficult to prove that the complete action $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is stable with respect to radiative corrections. In other words $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the most general action compatible with the Ward identities defining the model, up to a multiplicative renormalization of the fields, sources, the gauge coupling $`g`$ and the parameter$`\varsigma `$. In particular, concerning the allowed counterterms depending on the external sources $`(L^a,\tau ^a,\eta ^a)`$, it follows that the antighost equation $`\left(\text{52}\right)`$ and the ghost Ward identity $`\left(\text{53}\right)`$ imply the absence of counterterms of the type $`L^af^{abc}c^bc^c,`$ $`\tau ^af^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c`$ and $`\eta ^af^{abc}b^b\overline{c}^c`$ . The only allowed counterterm in the external sources $`(L^a,\tau ^a,\eta ^a)`$ is given by $`\tau ^aL^a`$. This counterterm corresponds to the renormalization of the LCO parameter $`\varsigma `$, stemming from the logarithmic divergences of the vacuum correlator $`c^2(x)\overline{c}^2(y)`$.

### 3.1 The effective potential for $`f^{abc}c^bc^c`$ and $`f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c`$

We can now begin the discussion of the effective potential for the local ghost operators $`f^{abc}c^bc^c`$ and $`f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c`$. Let us start with the generating functional $`𝒲(L,\tau ).`$Setting thus to zero the external sources $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^a,\eta ^a,\overline{Y}^{iI},Y^{iI}`$ we have

$`\mathrm{exp}i𝒲(L,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left[D\phi \right]\mathrm{exp}i\left(S_{\mathrm{YM}}+S_\mathrm{m}+S_{\mathrm{gf}}\right)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}i\left[{\displaystyle d^4x\left(L^a\frac{gf^{abc}c^bc^c}{2}\tau ^a\frac{gf^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c}{2}+\varsigma \tau ^aL^a\right)}\right]`$
where $`\left[D\phi \right]`$ denotes integration over all quantum fields $`(A_\mu ^a,b^a,\overline{c}^a,c^a,\psi ^{iJ},\overline{\psi }^{iJ})`$. Taking the functional derivative of expression $`\left(\text{3.1}\right)`$ we obtain

$$\frac{\delta 𝒲(L,\tau )}{\delta L^a}|_{L,\tau =0}=\frac{g}{2}f^{abc}c^bc^c,$$
(56)
and

$$\frac{\delta 𝒲(L,\tau )}{\delta \tau ^a}|_{L,\tau =0}=\frac{g}{2}f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c.$$
(57)
In order to deal with the quadratic term $`\tau ^aL^a`$ we introduce a pair of Hubbard-Stratonovich fields $`(\sigma ^a,\overline{\sigma }^a)`$in the adjoint representation

|  | $`\sigma ^a`$ | $`\overline{\sigma }^a`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Gh. number | $`2`$ | $`2`$ |
| Dimension | $`2`$ | $`2`$ |

(58)
so that

$$L^a\frac{g}{2}f^{abc}c^bc^c\frac{g}{2}\tau ^af^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c+\varsigma \tau ^aL^a_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}$$
(59)
where

$`_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }^a}{g\sqrt{\varsigma }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}c^bc^c\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\varsigma }}{g}}\overline{\sigma }^a\tau ^a`$ (60)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^a}{g\sqrt{\varsigma }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\varsigma }}{g}}\sigma ^aL^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varsigma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}c^bc^c\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{ade}\overline{c}^d\overline{c}^e\right).`$
With the introduction of the auxiliary fields $`(\sigma ^a,\overline{\sigma }^a)`$, the generating functional $`𝒲(L,\tau )`$ becomes

$$\mathrm{exp}i𝒲(L,\tau )=\left[D\phi \right]D\sigma D\overline{\sigma }\mathrm{exp}i\left[S(A,\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })+d^4x\frac{\sqrt{\varsigma }}{g}\left(\sigma ^aL^a+\overline{\sigma }^a\tau ^a\right)\right],$$
(61)
with

$`S(A,\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`S_{\mathrm{YM}}+S_\mathrm{m}+S_{\mathrm{gf}}+{\displaystyle }d^4x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }^a}{g\sqrt{\varsigma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}c^bc^c`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^a}{g\sqrt{\varsigma }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varsigma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}c^bc^c\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{ade}\overline{c}^d\overline{c}^e\right)).`$
As in the case of the gauge condensate $`A^2,`$ differentiating $`𝒲(L,\tau )`$ with respect to $`L`$ and $`\tau ,`$ one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 𝒲(L,\tau )}{\delta L^a}}|_{L,\tau =0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\varsigma }}{g}}\sigma ^a_{S(A,\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })},`$ (63)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 𝒲(L,\tau )}{\delta \tau ^a}}|_{L,\tau =0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\varsigma }}{g}}\overline{\sigma }^a_{S(A,\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })},`$
so that

$$\sigma ^a=\frac{g^2}{2\sqrt{\varsigma }}f^{abc}c^bc^c,\overline{\sigma }^a=\frac{g^2}{2\sqrt{\varsigma }}f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c.$$
(64)
We see that the ghost condensates are related to the nonvanishing vacuum expectation value of $`\sigma ^a,\overline{\sigma }^a`$ evaluated with the effective action $`S(A,\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })`$ of equation $`\left(\text{LABEL:sasgh}\right).`$ Let us proceed thus with the evaluation of the one-loop effective potential for $`\sigma ^a,\overline{\sigma }^a`$. To this order it is sufficient to consider only the terms of the action $`\left(\text{LABEL:sasgh}\right)`$ which depend quadratically on the ghost fields $`c^a,\overline{c}^a,`$ namely

$`S_{c\overline{c}}^{\mathrm{quad}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left(\frac{1}{g^2}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+\overline{c}^a^2c^a+\frac{\overline{\sigma }^a}{2\sqrt{\varsigma }}f^{abc}c^bc^c\frac{\sigma ^a}{2\sqrt{\varsigma }}f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c\right)}`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left[\frac{1}{g^2}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{c}^a\hfill & c^a\hfill \end{array}\right)^{ab}\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{c}^b\hfill \\ c^b\hfill \end{array}\right)\right]},`$
where $`^{ab}`$ denotes the $`\left(N^21\right)\times \left(N^21\right)`$ matrix

$$^{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varsigma }}\sigma ^cf^{cab}\hfill & ^2\delta ^{ab}\hfill \\ ^2\delta ^{ab}\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{\varsigma }}\overline{\sigma }^cf^{cab}\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(69)
For the one-loop effective potential we get

$$V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })=\frac{1}{g^2}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{log}det^{ab},$$
(70)
where $`\sigma ^a,\overline{\sigma }^a`$ have to be considered constant fields. Let us focus on the case of $`SU(2).`$ In that case $`f^{abc}=\epsilon ^{abc}(\epsilon ^{123}=1)`$, and $`^{ab}`$ is a $`6\times 6`$ matrix. After a straightforward computation one has

$$V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })=\frac{1}{g^2}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+i\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}\mathrm{log}\left(\left(k^2\right)^2+\frac{\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a}{\varsigma }\right).$$
(71)
¿From

$$\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}\mathrm{log}\left(\left(k^2\right)^2+\phi ^2\right)=\frac{i}{32\pi ^2}\phi ^2\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon }2\gamma +2\mathrm{log}4\pi \mathrm{log}\frac{\phi ^2}{\mu ^4}+3\right),$$
(72)
the effective potential in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme is found to be

$$V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })=\frac{1}{g^2}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\varsigma _0}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a}{\varsigma _0\overline{\mu }^4}3\right).$$
(73)
The minimum of the effective potential $`\left(\text{73}\right)`$ is given by the condition

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}^a\overline{\sigma }_{\mathrm{min}}^a=\varsigma _0\overline{\mu }^4e^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{32\pi ^2\varsigma _0}{g^2}\right),$$
(74)
which, up to one-loop order, is physically consistent for $`\varsigma _0>0`$. Setting

$$\sigma ^a=\sigma \delta ^{a3},\overline{\sigma }^a=\overline{\sigma }\delta ^{a3},$$
(75)
we obtain

$$V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })=\frac{1}{g^2}\sigma \overline{\sigma }+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\varsigma _0}\sigma \overline{\sigma }\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}{\varsigma _0\overline{\mu }^4}3\right).$$
(76)
Let us now evaluate $`\varsigma _0`$. The first step is to obtain the running of the fields $`\sigma `$, $`\overline{\sigma }`$. This task is easily accomplished by recalling that, in the Landau gauge, the Faddeev-Popov ghosts renormalize as

$`c_b`$ $`=`$ $`Z_c^{1/2}c,`$ (77)
$`\overline{c}_b`$ $`=`$ $`Z_c^{1/2}\overline{c}`$
with

$$Z_c=Z_g^1Z_A^{1/2}$$
(78)
where

$$g_b=Z_gg,A_b=Z_A^{1/2}A.$$
(79)
where the $`g_b,`$ $`A_b,`$ $`\overline{c}_b,`$ $`c_b`$ denote the bare coupling constant and fields. From the absence  of the counterterms $`L^af^{abc}c^bc^c`$, $`\tau ^af^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c`$ it follows

$`L_bg_bc_b^2`$ $`=`$ $`Lgc^2,`$ (80)
$`\tau _bg_b\overline{c}_b^2`$ $`=`$ $`\tau g\overline{c}^2,`$
so that

$`L_b`$ $`=`$ $`Z_A^{1/2}L,\gamma _L=\gamma _A`$ (81)
$`\tau _b`$ $`=`$ $`Z_A^{1/2}L,\gamma _\tau =\gamma _A,`$
where $`\gamma _A`$ is the anomalous dimension of the gauge field $`A_\mu ^a`$. Therefore, making use of the equations $`\left(\text{64}\right)`$, for the running of $`\sigma `$, $`\overline{\sigma }`$ we find

$`\mu _\mu \sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\left(\gamma _A^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _g^{(1)}}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _g^{(1)}}{\varsigma _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varsigma _0}{g}}\right)\sigma +O(\mathrm{}^2),`$ (82)
$`\mu _\mu \overline{\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\left(\gamma _A^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _g^{(1)}}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _g^{(1)}}{\varsigma _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varsigma _0}{g}}\right)\overline{\sigma }+O(\mathrm{}^2).`$
Requiring now the renormalization group invariance of the effective potential $`V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })`$, namely

$$\mu \frac{dV^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })}{d\mu }=0+O(\mathrm{}^2),$$
(83)
for the coefficient $`\varsigma _0`$ one obtains

$$\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\varsigma _0}=\frac{2}{g^2}\gamma _A^{(1)}.$$
(84)
Finally, recalling that in the case of $`SU(2)`$

$`\beta _g^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}n_f\right){\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{16\pi ^2}},`$ (85)
$`\gamma _A^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{13}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}n_f\right){\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}},`$ (86)
it follows from $`\left(\text{86}\right)`$ that

$$\frac{1}{\varsigma _0}=\left(\frac{2n_f13}{3}\right),$$
(87)
completing therefore the evaluation of the one-loop effective potential for the ghost condensates. A few remarks are now in order.

* By combining the LCO technique with the BRST algebraic renormalization we have been able to obtain the one-loop effective potential for the ghost condensates. By construction, the effective potential $`V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })`$ obeys the renormalization group equation.
* From the equations $`\left(\text{85}\right)`$, $`\left(\text{86}\right)`$ we observe that when the number of fermions $`n_f`$ is chosen so that

$$6<n_f<11,$$
(88)
we get a positive value for $`\varsigma _0`$, while keeping $`\beta _g<0`$, so as to ensure asymptotic freedom. This result gives an evidence for the existence of these condensates. We also observe that even for $`n_f6`$ the effective potential $`V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })`$ seems to admit a nonvanishing minimum. However, in this case higher loops contributions are needed in order to obtain a deeper understanding of that minimum .
* In the present work we have considered the charged ghost polynomials $`f^{abc}c^bc^c`$ and $`f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c`$. The same procedure could have been applied to study the ghost polynomial $`f^{abc}c^b\overline{c}^c`$, which has vanishing Faddeev-Popov charge. As underlined in , these operators correspond to different channels for the ghost condensation, being related to the generators of the global symmetry $`SL(2,R)`$ present in the Landau gauge. It is worth mentioning that the existence of different channels for the ghost condensation has an analogy in superconductivity, known as the BCS222Particle-particle and hole-hole pairing. versus the Overhauser333Particle-hole pairing. effect . In the present case the Faddeev-Popov charged condensates $`f^{abc}c^bc^c`$, $`f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c`$ would correspond to the BCS channel, while $`f^{abc}c^b\overline{c}^c`$ to the Overhauser channel. Although our aim here is that of showing how to construct the effective potential for the ghost condensation in the Landau gauge, we remark that both channels could be studied simultaneously in order to decide which one has the lowest energy .
* Finally, let us give the ghost propagators in the condensed vacuum, namely

$`\overline{c}^\alpha (p)c^\beta (p)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{p^2\delta ^{\alpha \beta }}{(p^2)^2+v^4}},\alpha ,\beta =1,2`$
$`\overline{c}^3(p)c^3(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{p^2}}.`$ (89)
where

$$v^4=\frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mathrm{min}}\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}}{2\varsigma _0}$$
(90)
One see thus that the off-diagonal propagators get deeply modified in the infrared region, the ghost condensation $`\overline{\sigma }_{\mathrm{min}}\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ providing the infrared cutoff.

## 4 Conclusion

In this work the one-loop effective potential for the ghost condensates $`cc`$ and $`\overline{c}\overline{c}`$has been obtained in the Landau gauge by combining the local composite operators technique (LCO) with the BRST algebraic renormalization. Our results might signal a deeper physical meaning of these condensates, which have been proven to exist in other gauges . The existence of nonvanishing ghost condensates in the Landau gauge can also be justified by symmetry breaking considerations. Although the Landau gauge does not possess a quartic ghost self-interaction, it shares an important feature with the nonlinear gauge considered in . Both gauges display indeed a global $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry , present in $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills for any value of $`N`$. It is very interesting to point out that the $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry is also present in the maximal Abelian gauge in the case of $`SU(2)`$, as underlined by . Recent investigations have proven that $`SL(2,R)`$ is indeed present in this gauge for a generic $`SU(N)`$ . Therefore, the existence of ghost condensates in these gauges can be seen as the manifestation of a very general feature, i.e. the dynamical symmetry breaking of $`SL(2,R)`$.

As one can see from the expressions $`\left(\text{89}\right)`$, the ghost condensates modify the behavior of the propagator in the infrared region. Recent lattice simulations for the propagator in the Landau gauge are nicely reproduced by a form factor $`F(p^2)`$ whose infrared behavior is given by

$$\underset{\mu a}{}A_\mu ^a(p)A_\mu ^a(p)=\frac{F(p^2)}{p^2},$$
(91)
with

$$F(p^2)=𝒩\frac{p^2}{p^2+m_1^2}\left[\frac{1}{p^4+m_2^4}+\frac{s}{\left(\mathrm{log}\left(m_L^2+p^2\right)\right)^{13/22}}\right],$$
(92)
where $`𝒩,`$ $`s,m_1,m_2`$and $`m_L`$are fitting parameters  whose values are $`𝒩=8.113,s=0.32,m_1=0.64\mathrm{GeV},m_2=1.31\mathrm{GeV}`$and $`m_L=1.23\mathrm{GeV}`$. Although a fully theoretical analytic derivation of this behavior is still lacking, it is tempting to argue that both the gauge $`A^2`$and the ghost condensates $`cc,\overline{c}\overline{c},c\overline{c}`$ could give some useful insights in order to improve our knowledge of the infrared region. Needless to say, the gauge and the ghost propagators mix nontrivially in the Schwinger-Dyson equations for the Landau gauge.

Finally, we point out that the LCO technique can be combined with the BRST algebraic renormalization to provide a powerful framework for analysing the quantum properties of local composite operators. Particular attention will be devoted to the condensate $`\left(\frac{1}{2}AA\xi c\overline{c}\right)`$ in the maximal Abelian gauge. This condensate is BRST on-shell invariant and it is expected to provide effective masses for both off-diagonal gauge and ghost fields , a point of great relevance for the Abelian dominance.

## Acknowledgments

The Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico CNPq-Brazil, the Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Faperj) and the SR2-UERJ are acknowledged for the financial support. We are grateful to D. Dudal and to M. Picariello for fruitful discussion.


format: text

text:
# Physics of a microsystem starting from non-equilibrium quantum statistical mechanics

## 1 Introduction

The motivation of this paper is twofold: on the one side the question about foundations of quantum mechanics still catches the interest  of many scientists, mainly due to important improvements in experimental physics and to the increasing relevance of the concept of entanglement in the realm of quantum computation; on the other side there is relevant progress in the theory of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics . That a deep connection between these two apparently unrelated subjects exists should be clear if one thinks about the way Bohr discussed foundations of quantum mechanics, facing Einstein’s objections against quantum mechanics at the beginning of all questions about reality of microsystems. Let us recall that Bohr’s main concern was the very rooting of microsystems inside objectively given macroscopic reality. This point of view has been pursued further by Ludwig , who starting from a purely phenomenological macroscopic setting was able to derive and extend the formalism of quantum mechanics, giving an insight into what should be understood as reality of microsystems. In this connection also a more profound theory of measurement, with respect to which textbook measurement theory appears as a very naive idealization, has grown up and has found many applications, typically in quantum optics, by the work of many researchers . A very systematic and comprehensive account of all this is given by Holevo’s work , who contributed to all relevant steps.

Despite the formal achievements of this more realistic axiomatic structure, the basic necessity of this approach and its real effectiveness to cope successfully difficulties in the foundations of quantum mechanics is still not in tune with the general idea that only the physics of elementary particles should have a fundamental role, any compelling resorting to macrophysics being only an annoying bypass. Our attitude instead is that the consideration of macroscopic physics gives a strong motivation in favor of the first standpoint: in fact any real experiment is described and realized in terms of macrosystems. The basic tool for this is quantum field theory for confined systems: the extraction of the concept of particles and of their local interactions could be a subsequent concern, to be perhaps performed using the typical procedures of a thermodynamic limit.

Obviously our attempt can only start if a working theory of non-equilibrium macrosystems exists. In this connection the situation has improved relying on the concept of relevant variables and on the method of the non-equilibrium statistical operator . In previous papers some improvement in the foundations of this concept was proposed insisting on the ideas of confinement, isolation and preparation of a macrosystem  during some initial time interval. A rather general and tractable situation, that we called “simple dynamics”, arises if the evolution of the local relevant variables is driven by two-point Kubo correlation functions involving relevant variables and their currents at points separated by a short time interval: in other words memory contributions are assumed to be restricted to short time intervals. On the contrary if two isolated macrosystems exchange a particle during the preparation stage a possibly long living correlation between the systems arises if this particle presents a coherent independent dynamics for a suitable time interval: in the present paper just this situation is discussed.

The treatment seems to us interesting for two reasons. On one side the microphysical description can be read off from the macroscopic dynamics of the system: the initial state of the microsystem can be related to a macroscopic source, the time evolution of the microsystem is part of the dynamics of the statistical operator, the measurement of an observable for the microsystem is related to the values of relevant variables of the macrosystem; obviously all this is treated only in a very schematic way. On the other side one gains a way to face the case of long lived correlations using the dynamics of the microsystem, thus providing an example in which the difficult problem of a dynamics with memory can be treated. A final remark is now in order; in our description a microsystem unavoidably appears having a macrosystem in the background: then its time evolution is necessarily affected by the decoherence phenomenon. Our treatment gives a natural reason to decoherence, so that is does not appear as an additional feature of quantum mechanics or as a motivation to modify the theory.

The paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we introduce the statistical operator describing a system composed of two parts which are isolated from each other after the preparation procedure, but keep record of a correlation arising during the preparation time; the correction of the dynamics due to this correlation is worked out in Sect. 3 and interpreted as a microsystem produced in system 2, propagating and detected in system 1. Problems related to the dynamics of the microsystem inside a macrosystem are outlined in Sect. 4.

## 2 Separation of two isolated macrosystems and initial correlations

We rely in the following on a general theory of an isolated macroscopic system inside quantum field theory that has been proposed in previous papers  and is very close to statistical mechanics formulated in terms of the non-equilibrium statistical operator by Zubarev and more recently by Morozov and Roepke , differing only in the introduction of a “preparation procedure” which extends over a finite time interval and refers to a confined isolated system, thus avoiding in principle the thermodynamic limit at the level of foundations of macroscopic physics. According to this theory a set of relevant variables is selected, slow enough on a suitable time scale, for which the very concept of isolation can make sense, built in terms of suitable field densities. Let us take $`[T,t_0]`$ as preparation time interval, the statistical operator at time $`t_0`$ is given by

$`\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle }d\text{x}\zeta _j(\text{x},t_0)\widehat{A}_j(\text{x})+{\displaystyle \underset{j\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle }d\text{x}\gamma _{j\alpha }(\text{x}){\displaystyle _T^{t_0}}dt^{}\widehat{A}_j(\text{x},(t_0t^{}))h_{j\alpha }(t^{})`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\text{x}𝜸_{j\alpha }(\text{x})_T^{t_0}𝑑t^{}\widehat{𝐉}_j(\text{x},(t_0t^{}))h_{j\alpha }(t^{})}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle }d\text{x}\zeta _j(\text{x},T)\widehat{A}_j(\text{x},(t_0T))\},`$
with $`\zeta _j(\text{x},t_0)`$ the classical state parameters such that

$$\text{Tr}\left(\widehat{A}_j(\text{x})\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}\right)=\text{Tr}\left(\widehat{A}_j(\text{x})\widehat{w}_{\zeta (t_0)}\right),$$

where $`\widehat{w}_{\zeta (t)}`$ is the generalized Gibbs state related to the state parameters $`\zeta _j(t)`$

$$\widehat{w}_{\zeta (t)}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{j}{}𝑑\text{x}\zeta _j(\text{x},t)\widehat{A}_j(\text{x})\right\}}{\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left\{_j𝑑\text{x}\zeta _j(\text{x},t)\widehat{A}_j(\text{x})\right\}\right)}.$$

$`\widehat{A}_j(\text{x})`$ are the densities of the relevant variables, associated to the currents $`\widehat{𝐉}_j(\text{x})`$ and $`𝜸_{j\alpha }`$, $`h_{j\alpha }`$ are the parameters describing the preparation procedure. We assume for simplicity that all the field variables are built with only one underlying quantum Schrödinger field $`\widehat{\psi }(\text{x})`$, satisfying

$$[\widehat{\psi }(\text{x}),\widehat{\psi }^{}(\text{x}^{})]_\pm =\delta ^3(\text{x}\text{x}^{}).$$

In this context one can very easily formalize the idea that a macroscopic system is separated into two non interacting parts 1 and 2 corresponding to two non overlapping regions $`\omega _1`$, $`\omega _2`$. For times $`tt_0`$ let us introduce two complete sets of normal modes for both regions: $`\{u_n^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x}),\text{x}\omega _1\}`$ and $`\{u_n^{\left(2\right)}(\text{x}),\text{x}\omega _2\}`$, determined by

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Delta }_2u_n^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})+V(\text{x})u_n^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})=W_n^{\left(1\right)}u_n^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})\text{x}\omega _1,u_n^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})=0\text{x}\omega _1$$

and similarly for $`u_n^{\left(2\right)}(\text{x})`$. Finally we build the two field operators

$$\widehat{\psi }^{(1,2)}(\text{x})=\underset{n}{}\widehat{a}_n^{(1,2)}u_n^{(1,2)}(\text{x}),\text{where}[\widehat{a}_n^{(1,2)},\widehat{a}_n^{}^{(1,2)}]_\pm =\delta _{n,n^{}}$$
(2)
and the creation and destruction operators referring to the two regions $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ commute (or anticommute). Relevant variables $`\widehat{A}_j(\text{x})`$ which are generally given for the non confined fields in terms of $`\widehat{\psi }(\text{x})`$, $`\widehat{\psi }^{}(\text{x})`$ are now expressed in terms of $`\widehat{\psi }^{(1,2)}(\text{x})`$, $`\widehat{\psi }^{(1,2)}(\text{x})`$ according to $`\text{x}\omega _1`$ or $`\text{x}\omega _2`$. This seems to be the most straightforward way of partitioning the system into two non interacting parts and to represent the physical setup that is necessary for this: also different boundary conditions are conceivable, our choice represents the perfectly reflecting walls. In our point of view, putting confined systems in the foreground, boundary conditions have a very important role and unconfined field theory is only the starting point to introduce concrete descriptions. Since the Hamiltonian of a system extending on a region $`\omega `$ is given by $`\widehat{H}=_\omega d^3\text{x}\widehat{e}(\text{x})`$ one has $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}^{\left(1\right)}+\widehat{H}^{\left(2\right)}`$ where $`\widehat{H}^{\left(1\right)}`$, $`\widehat{H}^{\left(2\right)}`$ is expressed only in terms of $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(1\right)}`$, $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(1\right)}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(2\right)}`$, $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(2\right)}`$ respectively, so that $`[\widehat{H}^{\left(1\right)},\widehat{H}^{\left(2\right)}]=0`$; furthermore, since $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(1\right)}`$, $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(1\right)}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(2\right)}`$, $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(2\right)}`$ commute (or anticommute) all the relevant variables $`\widehat{A}_j(\text{x})`$ and $`\widehat{A}_j(\text{x},\tau )=e^{+\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}\tau }\widehat{A}_j(\text{x})e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}\tau }`$ have a tensor product structure:

$$_{\omega _1\omega _2}d^3\text{x}\widehat{A}_j(\text{x},\tau )\beta _j(\text{x})=_{\omega _1}d^3\text{x}\widehat{A}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x},\tau )\beta _j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})\widehat{1}^{\left(2\right)}+\widehat{1}^{\left(1\right)}_{\omega _2}d^3\text{x}\widehat{A}_j^{\left(2\right)}(\text{x},\tau )\beta _j^{\left(2\right)}(\text{x})$$

with $`\beta _j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})=\beta _j(\text{x})`$, $`\text{x}\omega _1`$, $`\beta _j^{\left(2\right)}(\text{x})=\beta _j(\text{x})`$, $`\text{x}\omega _2`$. If we assume that such a separation between system 1 and system 2 also occurs during the preparation time interval $`[T,t_0]`$, i.e., the operators $`\widehat{A}_j(\text{x},(t_0t^{}))`$ and $`\widehat{𝐉}_j(\text{x},(t_0t^{}))`$, $`t^{}[T,t_0]`$ which appear in (1) also have the structure (2), one has the factorized structure

$$\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}=\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}$$

with $`\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}`$ ($`\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}`$) having the structure (1) with region $`\omega `$ replaced by $`\omega _1`$ ($`\omega _2`$). Obviously if this situation has been obtained by a previous preparation procedure implementing the separation, one has to assume that correlations between 1 and 2 are already decayed at time $`T`$. This kind of assumption is anyway necessary to start any description of isolated systems. Now we are interested in a more sophisticated situation: during the preparation time $`[T,t_0]`$ some very particular interaction arose, which eventually we will describe as due to a microsystem coming from system 2 and effecting system 1 at times $`t>t_0`$. In this way system 2 becomes a source and system 1 a detector for the microsystem. The difference in the procedure of isolating system 1 for times $`t>t_0`$ in the two cases: already isolated from part 2 during $`[T,t_0]`$ or interacting with part 2 during $`[T,t_0]`$, has relevant consequences on the dynamics of the system; in fact in the second case the time scale of the processes happening inside the detector should be taken into account. From a formal point of view in the new situation the time dependence of the operators in (1) should be ruled by an effective Hamiltonian, which no longer has the structure (2). Now our aim is not to give a detailed description of how the source works, but to indicate key points characterizing this kind of coupling and correlation between the two systems.

At time $`t_0`$ the statistical operator $`\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}`$ should be represented as:

$$\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\{[\widehat{S}_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}+\widehat{S}_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}+\widehat{C}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}]\}}{\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{exp}\{[\widehat{S}_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}+\widehat{S}_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}+\widehat{C}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}]\}\right]}$$

where $`\widehat{C}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}`$ is the part arising from the contribution of (1) related to the preparation in the time interval $`[T,t_0]`$ where operators $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(1\right)}`$, $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(1\right)}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(2\right)}`$, $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(2\right)}`$ appear together. An expansion of $`\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}`$ with respect to $`\widehat{C}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}`$ can be given, such that the basic positivity property of $`\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}`$ is granted. Starting from the representation:

$$e^{\widehat{A}+\widehat{B}}=\left(\widehat{1}+_0^1𝑑ue^{u(\widehat{A}+\widehat{B})}\widehat{B}e^{u\widehat{A}}\right)e^{\widehat{A}}=e^{\widehat{A}}\left(\widehat{1}+_0^1𝑑ue^{u\widehat{A}}\widehat{B}e^{u(\widehat{A}+\widehat{B})}\right)$$

one has the identity:

$$e^{\widehat{A}+\widehat{B}}=e^{\frac{\widehat{A}+\widehat{B}}{2}}e^{\frac{\widehat{A}+\widehat{B}}{2}}=\left(\widehat{1}+_0^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑ue^{u(\widehat{A}+\widehat{B})}\widehat{B}e^{u\widehat{A}}\right)e^{\widehat{A}}\left(\widehat{1}+_0^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑ue^{u\widehat{A}}\widehat{B}e^{u(\widehat{A}+\widehat{B})}\right)$$

which leads to the following expansion with respect to $`\widehat{B}`$:

$$e^{\widehat{A}+\widehat{B}}=\left(\widehat{1}+_0^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑ue^{u\widehat{A}}\widehat{B}e^{u\widehat{A}}+\mathrm{}\right)e^{\widehat{A}}\left(\widehat{1}+_0^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑ue^{u\widehat{A}}\widehat{B}e^{u\widehat{A}}+\mathrm{}\right).$$

The first term of this kind of expansion gives an insight into the dynamics described by $`\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}`$, in fact setting

$$\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{S}_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\}}{\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{S}_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\}\right]},\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{S}_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\}}{\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{exp}\{\widehat{S}_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\}\right]}$$

and

$$\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}=_0^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑u(\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)})^u\widehat{C}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}(\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)})^u$$
(3)
one has:

$$\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}=\frac{\left(\widehat{1}+\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}\right)\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\left(\widehat{1}+\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}\right)}{\text{Tr}\left[\left(\widehat{1}+\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}\right)\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\left(\widehat{1}+\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}\right)\right]}.$$

Let us consider

$$\widehat{N}_1=_{\omega _1}d^3\text{x}\widehat{\psi }^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})\widehat{\psi }^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})=\underset{n}{}\widehat{a}_n^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_n^{\left(1\right)},\widehat{N}_2=_{\omega _2}d^3\text{x}\widehat{\psi }^{\left(2\right)}(\text{x})\widehat{\psi }^{\left(2\right)}(\text{x})=\underset{n}{}\widehat{a}_n^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{a}_n^{\left(2\right)}.$$

The part of the operator $`\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}`$ that will have the most important role in our treatment has the form:

$$\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}=\underset{h}{}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{}$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}`$ indicates an operator built with $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(2\right)}`$, $`\widehat{a}_n^{\left(2\right)}`$ having the role of a destruction operator in region 2, i.e.:

$$\widehat{N}_2\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}=\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}(\widehat{N}_21).$$

In fact in expression (4) only one creation operator $`\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}`$ related to the modes of system 1 appears, so that the remaining part related to system 2 must have the role of a destruction operator for the system 2, since

$$[\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)},\widehat{N}]=0,$$

and all relevant variables in this non relativistic theory must commute with $`\widehat{N}=\widehat{N}_1+\widehat{N}_2`$. Other terms would be:

$$\underset{h_1,h_2}{}\widehat{a}_{h_1}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{h_2}^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{D}_{h_1,h_2}^{\left(2\right)},\widehat{N}_2\widehat{D}_{h_1,h_2}^{\left(2\right)}=\widehat{D}_{h_1,h_2}^{\left(2\right)}(\widehat{N}_22),$$
(5)
and similar ones. These kind of contributions would simply be associated in our treatment with a “two-particle” system, or more generally a compound microsystem. Also contributions in which the role of the indexes 1 and 2 is exchanged generally arise (however not necessarily since $`\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}`$, differently from $`\widehat{C}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}`$, does not need to be self-adjoint), such terms would have a similar physical interpretation simply by interchanging the role of system 1 and system 2. However also other terms generally appear together with contribution (4), e.g.

$$\underset{h_1,h_2,k}{}\widehat{a}_{h_1}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{h_2}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_{h_1,h_2,k}^{\left(2\right)}+\underset{h_1,h_2,h_3,k_1,k_2}{}\widehat{a}_{h_1}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{h_2}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{h_3}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{k_1}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{k_2}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_{h_1,h_2,h_3,k_1,k_2}^{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{}.$$

In fact already due to the structure (3) of $`\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}`$ and the correlations among the modes $`u_n^{\left(1\right)}`$ in $`\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}`$ these terms would anyway arise in $`\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}`$. However we must expect that for meaningful preparation procedures operators $`\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}`$ generally arise whose contribution to the dynamics of relevant variables decays for time $`t>t_0+\tau `$, $`\tau `$ being a microscopic correlation time: otherwise any treatment of non-equilibrium isolated systems would be impossible. Indeed the very scope of our article is to indicate a very particular situation in which this general assumption fails. So it seems reasonable to assume that the contribution of these terms to the dynamics of relevant variables can be neglected for $`tt_0+\tau `$. Clearly this point requires further investigation. In conclusion we shall now investigate the dynamics of $`\widehat{\varrho }_t`$ for $`tt_0+\tau `$, taking simply

$$\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}=\underset{h}{}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}$$

so that

$$\widehat{\varrho }_t=\frac{𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(2\right)}[\widehat{1}+\underset{h}{}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}]\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}[\widehat{1}+\underset{k}{}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}]𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(2\right)}}{\text{Tr}\left[[\widehat{1}+_h\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}]\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}[\widehat{1}+_k\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}]\right]}$$

for $`tt_0>\tau `$. Let us stress that for all observables $`\widehat{A}=\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{A}^{\left(2\right)}`$ such that

$$[\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)},\widehat{N}_1]=0,[\widehat{A}^{\left(2\right)},\widehat{N}_2]=0,$$
(6)
and these are the only meaningful observables for systems 1 and 2, $`\widehat{\varrho }_t`$ is equivalent to the mixture

$`\widehat{\varrho }_t`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda 𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(2\right)}`$
$`+(1\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(2\right)}\underset{h}{}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\underset{k}{}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(2\right)}}{\text{Tr}\left[_h\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}_k\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}\right]}}`$
where

$$\lambda ^1=\text{Tr}\left[\underset{h}{}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\underset{k}{}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}\right].$$

In fact one has

$$\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{A}^{\left(2\right)}\underset{h}{}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\right]=0,$$

as can be seen indicating with $`|N_1,N_2,S`$ a basis of eigenstates of $`\widehat{N}_1`$, $`\widehat{N}_2`$, so that:

$`\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{A}^{\left(2\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\right]=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{N_1,N_2,S}{}}N_1,N_2,S|\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{A}^{\left(2\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}|N_1,N_2,S=0`$
since due to (6) the state

$$\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{A}^{\left(2\right)}\underset{h}{}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}|N_1,N_2,S$$

belongs to the eigenstate of $`\widehat{N}_1`$, $`\widehat{N}_2`$ corresponding to eigenvalue $`N_1+1`$, $`N_21`$. Let us comment on the physical meaning of (2). Decomposing the expectations of the relevant variables according to this mixture one can associate to the two components of the mixture different state parameters $`\zeta (t)`$, different corresponding Gibbs states and different entropies. For the dynamics of the first component of the mixture, constructing in the usual way the non-equilibrium statistical operator, it is possible to assume that a “simple dynamics” arises, i.e., the memory term in the non-equilibrium statistical operator decays within a correlation time: then the usual methods of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics apply. If we had considered terms like (5) and also terms in which the role of indexes 1 and 2 is reversed, we would still obtain $`\widehat{\varrho }_t`$ equivalent to a mixture of statistical operators corresponding to these different situations, with an obvious physical meaning. For the dynamics of the second component the typical structure of the non-equilibrium statistical operator is no longer feasible. We shall see that the dynamics of a “microsystem” becomes an important ingredient to describe what happens.

## 3 Initial correlation and the appearance of a microsystem

The dynamics of the second component of the mixture (2) is given by

$`\widehat{\varrho }_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(2\right)}\underset{h}{}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\underset{k}{}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(2\right)}}{\text{Tr}\left[_h\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}_k\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}\right]}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{h,k}{}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_t^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(2\right)}}{\text{Tr}\left[_h\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}_k\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}\right]}}.`$
According to the fact that we have chosen the term (4) to characterize the structure of $`\widehat{\text{C}}_{t_0}^{\left(12\right)}`$, we are now mainly interested in the dynamics of observables $`\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{1}^{\left(2\right)}`$, then one has:

$`\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{1}^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_t\right]=`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{h,k}{}\text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_t^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\right]\text{Tr}_{^{(2)}}\left[\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}\right]}{_{h,k}\text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\right]\text{Tr}_{^{(2)}}\left[\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}\right]}}.`$
Let us introduce the following notations:

$`w_{hk}(t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Tr}_{^{(2)}}\left[\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}\right]}{_h\text{Tr}_{^{(2)}}\left[\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\right]}}`$
$`A_{kh}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_t^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\right],`$
then (9) can be written as

$$\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{1}^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_t\right]=\underset{h,k}{}A_{kh}(t)w_{hk}(t_0)\frac{\underset{h}{}\text{Tr}_{^{(2)}}\left[\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\right]}{_{h,k}\text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\right]\text{Tr}_{^{(2)}}\left[\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}\right]}$$
(10)
and hints towards the typical structure of one-particle quantum mechanics. To $`w_{hk}(t_0)`$ the role can be given of the statistical operator at time $`t_0`$ for a one-particle system, when one takes as a basis to represent it the normal modes of system 1 in $`L^2(\omega _1)`$; $`A_{kh}(t)`$ can be seen as the representative of an observable, embodying time dependence. Obviously we will have to check this idea looking at the dynamics of the system: in this way the correlation between system 1 and system 2 should be explained in terms of a particle produced by system 2 and detected by system 1. However all this holds if the additional correlation described by the numerical factor

$$\sigma =\frac{\underset{h}{}\text{Tr}_{^{(2)}}\left[\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\right]}{_{h,k}\text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\right]\text{Tr}_{^{(2)}}\left[\widehat{D}_h^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{D}_k^{\left(2\right)}\right]}$$

can be neglected. We shall see that by rather natural assumptions this factor is practically one. In fact let us diagonalize the matrix $`w_{hk}(t_0)`$

$$w_{hk}(t_0)=\underset{\alpha }{}\lambda ^\alpha (t_0)h|\psi _0^\alpha \psi _0^\alpha |k,\lambda ^\alpha (t_0)>0,\underset{\alpha }{}\lambda ^\alpha (t_0)=1;$$

then:

$$\frac{1}{\sigma }=\underset{h,k,\alpha }{}\text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{a}_h^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\right]h|\psi _0^\alpha \psi _0^\alpha |k\lambda ^\alpha (t_0)=\underset{\alpha }{}\text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{a}_{\psi _0^\alpha }^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_0^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{\psi _0^\alpha }^{\left(1\right)}\right]\lambda ^\alpha (t_0)$$

with

$$\widehat{a}_{\psi _0^\alpha }^{\left(1\right)}=\underset{k}{}\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\psi _0^\alpha |k,$$
(11)
where $`\widehat{a}_{\psi _0^\alpha }^{\left(1\right)}`$ can be considered as the annihilation operator of a particle in the state $`_hu_h(\text{x})h|\psi _0^\alpha `$. Let us assume for the moment that the statistical operator $`w(t_0)`$ is a pure state $`w(t_0)=|\psi _0\psi _0|`$, then:

$$\frac{1}{\sigma }=\text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{\left(1\right)}\right]=1\pm \text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\right]$$

with $`\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{\left(1\right)}=_k\widehat{a}_k^{\left(1\right)}\psi _0|k`$. Taking into account that system 1 should have the role of a detection device for the microsystem it is rather natural to assume that this one-particle state $`|\psi _0`$ is very scarcely occupied, i.e.:

$$\text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}\right]1,$$
(12)
and as a consequence $`\sigma 1`$. More generally we shall assume that $`w(t_0)`$ is a mixture of one-particle states $`\{|\psi _0^\alpha \alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ that are scarcely occupied. Let us stress that it is just the skill of the experimentalist to build sources that prepare possibly pure states. In this situation (10) becomes:

$$\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{1}^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_t\right]=\underset{h,k}{}A_{kh}(t)w_{hk}(t_0)=\text{Tr}_{L^2(\omega _1)}\left[A(t)w(t_0)\right],$$

where in the last term the trace refers to the one-particle Hilbert space in which the operators $`A(t)`$, $`w(t_0)`$ are represented. Let us observe that the correspondence from $`\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}`$ to $`A(t)`$ has the following properties: $`\widehat{1}^{\left(1\right)}`$ is transferred to the identity on $`L^2(\omega _1)`$, positivity is preserved and therefore a projection valued or p.o.v. measure $`\widehat{E}^{\left(1\right)}`$ is transferred to a p.o.v. measure on $`L^2(\omega _1)`$. Let us consider a little further the dynamics of the macrosystem 1 referring to the subcollection that has to be demixed at time $`t_0+\tau `$ and described by the statistical operator (3). Let us restrict for simplicity to the case in which the source prepares a pure state $`\psi _0`$. Then one has from (10) the following expression for expectations of the observables of system 1 at a time $`t>t_0+\tau `$:

$$\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}_t=\text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\varrho }_t^{\left(1\right)}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\right]=\text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}(t)\widehat{\varrho }_t^{\left(1\right)}\right]$$

where

$$\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}(t)=\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}(t)\widehat{A}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{}(t)$$

with

$$\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}(t)=𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{}𝒰_{tt_0}^{\left(1\right)}.$$

Then one is led to a redefinition of the relevant observables for the macrosystem influenced by the microsystem

$$\widehat{A}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})\widehat{\text{A}}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})$$

$$\widehat{\text{A}}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})=\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}(t)\widehat{A}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{}(t)=\widehat{A}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})+[\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}(t),\widehat{A}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})]\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{}(t)\pm \widehat{A}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{}(t)\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}(t)$$
(13)
and one considers a new reference Gibbs state related to $`\widehat{\text{A}}_j(\text{x})`$ and the corresponding state parameters. Then one can study the dynamics of $`\widehat{\varrho }_t^{\left(1\right)}`$ writing it as a new equilibrium statistical operator for $`t>t_0+\tau `$ and a decisive simplification would occur if its dynamics should be “simple”. We can fairly well expect that this is the case. The time dependence of $`\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}(t)`$ is linked to the dynamics of the microsystem as we shall discuss in the next sections: it will even give an insight into the physics of the microsystem. Here we want to stress how the concept of microsystem was helpful to face the problem of a non simple dynamics of a macrosystem that we have here demixed into two possibly simple dynamics. Let us observe that the time dependence of the expectations of observables of system 1 is twofold: it arises once from $`\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}(t)`$ and is related to the physics of the microsystem, it arises further from $`\widehat{\varrho }_t^{\left(1\right)}`$ and is related to the general dynamics of the macrosystem; one can easily characterize variables that are scarcely effected by the microsystem. Let us consider $`\widehat{A}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})`$ such that

$$[\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}(t),\widehat{A}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})]=0,$$

furthermore one can expect that

$$\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{A}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{}(t)\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}(t)\widehat{\varrho }_t^{\left(1\right)}\right]\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{A}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})\widehat{\varrho }_t^{\left(1\right)}\right]$$

in fact it was assumed by (12) that the state $`\psi _0`$ was depleted for $`\widehat{\varrho }_{t_0}^{\left(1\right)}`$, so that this inequality should hold at time $`t=t_0`$ and one can expect that it also holds during the time evolution of the microsystem in absence of too strong interactions with the macrosystem. Then for these $`\widehat{A}_j(\text{x})`$ one has by (13)

$$\widehat{\text{A}}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})_t=\text{Tr}_{^{(1)}}\left[\widehat{A}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})\widehat{\varrho }_t^{\left(1\right)}\right]$$

and no dynamical consequence due to the microsystem arises. On the contrary if by the choice of an observable $`\widehat{A}_j^{\left(1\right)}(\text{x})`$ one meets the situation $`[\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}(t),\widehat{A}_j(\text{x})]0`$, one expects that by a suitable $`\widehat{\varrho }_{\overline{t}}^{\left(1\right)}`$ a significant macroscopic signal can arise: in this way the dynamics of the microsystem in the time interval $`[t_0,t]`$ can be tested.

## 4 Dynamics of the microsystem

Let us first make the simple assumption that the interaction of a particle created by $`\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{}`$ with the different modes of the macrosystem can be neglected, then one has immediately by (11)

$$\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{}(t)=𝒰_{tt_0}\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{}𝒰_{tt_0}^{}=𝒰_{tt_0}\underset{h}{}\widehat{a}_h^{}h|\psi _0𝒰_{tt_0}^{}=\underset{h}{}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}W_h(tt_0)}\widehat{a}_h^{}h|\psi _0=\widehat{a}_{\psi _t}^{}$$

where $`\psi _t(\text{x})=_hu_h(\text{x})e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}W_h(tt_0)}h|\psi _0`$ is a one-particle wave function, determined by the coefficients $`h|\psi _0`$ which are given by (11) and were obtained studying the source part related to system 2. $`\psi _t(\text{x})`$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation which rules the normal modes of the Schrödinger field: then one-particle quantum mechanics is extracted from the formalism. Of course this is only an approximation: the microsystem interacts with the normal modes of the macrosystem and the general problem of decoherence is now met . Let us stress how naturally this phenomenon appears: one can hardly talk about a microsystem without taking it into account. The problem of studying the dynamics of a microsystem in the present context coincides with the well-known general problem of deriving master equations. It appears here that the investigation of structures of the kind $`\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{}(t)\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}(t)`$, $`\psi _0`$ involving the normal modes of a macrosystem is a very natural starting point to derive master equations . As a consequence of interactions other modes of the system are involved. One expects that at least for $`tt_0`$ short enough a mixture of states $`\psi _t^\alpha `$ replaces the pure state $`\psi _t`$, the one-particle system associated to it being no longer isolated, such that

$$\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{a}_{\psi _t^\alpha }^{}\widehat{a}_{\psi _t^\alpha }\widehat{\varrho }_t^{\left(1\right)}\right]1;$$

then the concept makes sense of binary “collisions” between these one-particle states $`\psi _t`$ and the feeded normal modes of the system. This situation is formally the same as the case of a particle undergoing Brownian motion inside a macroscopic system; models for such a case have been recently discussed inside many-body scattering theory . Extending slightly such a situation one expects that the expression $`_\alpha \lambda ^\alpha (t)\widehat{a}_{\psi _t^\alpha }^{}\widehat{a}_{\psi _t^\alpha }`$ is obtained from $`\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}^{}\widehat{a}_{\psi _0}`$ by a linear map with a generalized Lindblad structure. Then decoherence is made explicit and related to the properties of the macroscopic system: this non Hamiltonian dynamics already spoils the universal features of the dynamics of the microsystem. At sufficiently longer times, as an increasing set of states $`\psi _t^\alpha `$ is involved, there is no more a distinction between the one-particle state and the other modes of the system. Before this happens however the quantum behavior of the microsystem had an essential role inside the dynamics of the macroscopic system.

A final comment is in order now: we have seen that one reaches aspects of quantum mechanics of a microsystem starting from a given macrosystem. However in this way only a very particular sector of the physics of the microsystem is used and explored; i.e., a particular state $`\psi _0`$ is prepared, a not too long time evolution of it is allowed, only some particular macroscopic variables can be effected by the microsystem. The one-particle Hilbert space which comes into evidence refers to the particular confinement region $`\omega _1`$. The point is that this treatment encompasses all possible macrosystems fitting in our model. Then the picture of a microsystem arises taking into account all possible settings. Finally it is an idealization that must be compatible with all of them: it is only at this stage that the usual connection of microsystem with symmetry properties makes sense. Endorsing this point of view microsystems are at the root of any local process underlying the physics of all macrosystems; the classical idea that these are structures composed of microsystems can be taken on in quantum mechanics as a meaningful model only if localization of microsystems in phase-space need not be better than inside regions of value $`\mathrm{}^3`$: then as it is well-known a phase-space density of particles, building the macrosystem, can be introduced by means of a Wigner function related to $`\widehat{\varrho }_t`$.

## Acknowledgments

L. Lanz and B. Vacchini gratefully acknowledge financial support by MURST under Cofinanziamento. B. Vacchini also acknowledges support by MURST under Progetto Giovani.