text:
# Quantum Phase Transition of Spin-2 Cold Bosons in an Optical Lattice

## I Introduction

During recent years, the superfluid-Mott insulator transition becomes a significant topic of atomic physics, which has been extensively studied in the context of 4He absorbed in the porous mediafisher . The detailed study of superfluid-Mott insulator transition becomes possible when quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a Mott insulating ground state was observed in a Bose-Einstein condensate stored in a three dimensional optical lattice potential by Greiner et al.greiner . The optical lattices used to confine cold atoms are induced by the ac Stark effect of interfering laser beams. The dynamics of the bosonic atoms in optical lattices realizes a Bose-Hubbard modeljaksch , which predicts phase transition from a superfluid(SF) to Mott insulator(MI) at low temperature with increasing the ratio of the on site interaction $`c_0`$ to the hopping matrix element $`t`$.

Besides many experimental efforts made to realize superfluid-Mott insulator transition, a large number of theoretical literatures appearedfisher ; jaksch ; oosten ; chen ; demler ; tsuchiya . Ref.oosten  made an appropriate mean-field approximation to the Hamiltonian of spinless or polarized bosons in an optical lattice to describe the zero-temperature phase transition from the superfluid to the Mott-insulating phase analytically and calculated the phase diagram. In this paper a first-order approximation to the dispersion of the density fluctuations shows that the system indeed goes from a gapped to a gapless phase.

Since trapping a Bose condensate by purely optical means is realized several years agostamper-kurn , which liberates the internal degrees of freedom of spinor Bosons that are frozen in a magnetic trap, much attention is attracted on the study of spinor Bose condensate, which has multiple components. Hoho  and Ohmi and Machidaohmi  have researched a spin-1 BEC and obtained the general theoretical frameworks respectively. Ciobanu,Yip and Hociobanu  have studied an $`F=2`$ spinor bose condenate and drawn the phase diagrams. Koashi and Ueda have obtained the exact eigenstates of spin-1 and spin-2 vertical BEC and discussed their magnetic responsekoashi ; koashi2 .

The next natural step after the detailed research of spinor bose condensates with free internal freedom is the study of the spinor multi-component BEC in a optical lattice—a new background. Demler and Zhou have studied spin-1 Bose atoms in an optical lattice and obtained several unique propertiesdemler . Ref.tsuchiya  studied the spin-1 bosons interacting antiferromagnetically in an optical lattice with the mean-field approximation method and obtained the phase diagram showing a transition from Mott insulator to superfluid, which is signed by the appearing of the superfluid order parameter i.e. the density fluctuations. But the spin-2 cold Bose atoms in an optical lattice have not been researched as yet, which is the principal task of this paper.

In this paper, we study the transition from Mott insulator to superfluid of spin-2 Bose atoms with repulsive interaction in terms of mean-field approximation method. First, ignoring the hopping term of the Hamiltonian, we get the eigenstates and eigenvalues and find the ground states of the system for different cases. Then, we consider the hopping term as a perturbation to do calculations in second order and draw the phase diagrams.

## II The model

We consider bosons with hyperfine spin $`F=2`$, such as $`{}_{}{}^{23}\mathrm{Na}`$,$`{}_{}{}^{87}\mathrm{Rb}`$ or $`{}_{}{}^{85}\mathrm{Rb}`$, in an optical lattice. Adding the external periodic potential term $`V(𝐫)=V_0(\mathrm{sin}^2kx+\mathrm{sin}^2ky+\mathrm{sin}^2kz)`$, where $`V_0`$ is a tunable amplitude and $`k`$ the wave vector of the laser light, to the Hamiltonian of spin-2 bosonsciobanu , we get the Hamiltonian of spin-2 bosons in an optical lattice in second quantized form as follows

$`H={\displaystyle }d𝐫[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha +V(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha \mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{c}_0}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{c}_1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}(F_i)_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta )^2+\overline{c}_2\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}^{}2\alpha ;2\alpha ^{}|0000|2\beta ;2\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^{}]`$ (1)
where $`m`$ is the atomic mass, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{+2},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ are the five-component field operators corresponding to the sublevels $`m_F=+2,\mathrm{},2`$ of the hyperfine state $`F=2`$, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, $`\overline{c_0}`$, $`\overline{c_1}`$ and $`\overline{c_2}`$ are related to s-wave scattering length $`a_0`$,$`a_2`$ and $`a_4`$ of the two colliding bosons with total angular momenta $`0,2`$ and $`4`$ by $`\overline{c_0}=4\pi \mathrm{}^2(3a_4+4a_2)/7m`$, $`\overline{c_1}=4\pi \mathrm{}^2(a_4a_2)/7m`$ and $`\overline{c_2}=4\pi \mathrm{}^2(3a_410a_2+7a_0)/7m`$, $`<2\alpha ;2\alpha ^{}|00>`$ and $`<00|2\beta ;2\beta ^{}>`$ are Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. $`F_\alpha (\alpha =x,y,z)`$ are $`5\times 5`$ spin matrices satisfying the commutation relation $`[F_\alpha ,F_\beta ]=\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma }F_\gamma `$.

For a single atom in the periodic potential, the energy eigenstates are Bloch states. In the tight-binding limit, we can superpose the Bloch states to get a set of Wannier functions, which are localized on an individual lattice site. Expanding the field operators in the Wannier basis and keeping only the lowest vibrational states, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha =_ib_{i\alpha }w(𝐫𝐫_i)`$, Eq.(1) reduces to the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian

$$H=t\underset{}{}b_i^{}b_j\mu \underset{i}{}\widehat{n}_i+\frac{c_0}{2}\underset{i}{}\widehat{n}_i(\widehat{n}_i1)+\frac{c_1}{2}\underset{i}{}(\widehat{𝐅}_i^26\widehat{n}_i)+\frac{2c_2}{5}\underset{i}{}\widehat{S}_{i+}\widehat{S}_i$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{𝐅}_i=b_{i\alpha }^{}𝐅_{\alpha \beta }b_{i\beta }`$, and $`\widehat{n}_i=_\alpha b_{i\alpha }^{}b_{i\alpha }`$. $`t=𝑑𝐫w_i^{}(𝐫)(\mathrm{}^2^2/2m+V(𝐫))w_j(𝐫)`$ is the hopping matrix element between adjacent sites $`i`$ and $`j`$. $`c_i`$ is on-site inter-atom interaction defined by $`c_i=\overline{c}_i𝑑𝐫|w_i(𝐫)|^4`$, where the Hubbard approximation has been used to approximate the multi-center integral as a single-center one. $`\widehat{S}_{i+}=\widehat{S}_i^{}=(b_{i0}^{})^2/2b_{i1}^{}b_{i1}^{}+b_{i2}^{}b_{i2}^{}`$, when applied to the vacuum, creates a spin-singlet “pairs”. The properties of the operators will be discussed in detail in the following section. The fourth and fifth terms in the equation are adding terms comparing with the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian of spinless or polarized bosonsjaksch . By contract with that of spin-1 bosonstsuchiya , the fifth term is an adding term and $`6\widehat{n}_i`$ in the fourth term replaces $`2\widehat{n}_i`$.

In the limit $`c_0/t\mathrm{}`$, the hopping term in the Hamiltonian can be neglected, so the Hamiltonian is reduced to a diagonal matrix with respect to sites. Omitting the site index, the singe-site Hamiltonian is

$$h_0=\mu \widehat{n}+\frac{c_0}{2}\widehat{n}(\widehat{n}1)+\frac{c_1}{2}(\widehat{𝐅}^26\widehat{n})+\frac{2c_2}{5}\widehat{S}_+\widehat{S}_{}$$
(3)
whose eigenstates and eigenvalues will be discussed in following section.

To study the quantum transition, we use the mean-field approximation to the hopping term and consider it as a perturbation. Here we introduce the superfluid order parameter $`\varphi _\alpha =<b_{i\alpha }>=\sqrt{n_{sf}}\zeta _\alpha `$, where $`n_{sf}`$ is the superfluid density and $`\zeta _\alpha `$ is a normalized spinor $`\zeta _\alpha ^{}\zeta _\alpha =1`$. The hopping term is decoupled as $`b_{i\alpha }^{}b_{j\alpha }(\varphi _\alpha b_{i\alpha }^{}+\varphi _\alpha ^{}b_{j\alpha })\varphi _\alpha ^{}\varphi _\alpha `$. So the total hopping term becomes the product of a site-independent term and the total number of the sites. We can consider only a single site because the Hamiltonian of every site is identical in the homogenous case. In the single site, the resulting mean-field version of the hopping Hamiltonian can be written as

$$h_1=zt(\varphi _\alpha b_\alpha ^{}+\varphi _\alpha ^{}b_\alpha \varphi _\alpha ^{}\varphi _\alpha )$$
(4)
where $`z`$ is the number of the nearest-neighbor sites and the site-index is omitted. So the Hamiltonian of a single site is

$$h=h_0+h_1$$
(5)
When the ratio $`c_0/t`$ is very large, we can consider $`h_1`$ as a perturbative term.

## III The energy eigenvalues and the ground states

Before perturbative calculations we should get the eigenvalues and eigenstates of Eq.(3), i.e., to sovle the equation

$$h_0\psi =\epsilon ^{(0)}\psi $$
(6)
In Eq.(3), the operaters $`\widehat{S}_+`$ and $`\widehat{S}_{}`$ satisfy the $`SU(1,1)`$ commutation relations together with $`\widehat{S}_z(2\widehat{n}+5)/4`$, namelykoashi ; koashi2 ,

$$[\widehat{S}_z,\widehat{S}_\pm ]=\pm \widehat{S}_\pm ,[\widehat{S}_+,\widehat{S}_{}]=2\widehat{S}_z$$
(7)
and the Casimir operator $`\widehat{\text{S}}^2`$ commuting with $`\widehat{S}_\pm `$ and $`\widehat{S}_z`$ reads

$$\widehat{\text{S}}^2\widehat{S}_+\widehat{S}_{}+\widehat{S}_z^2\widehat{S}_z$$
(8)
The eigenvalues of the mutual eigenstates for $`\widehat{\text{S}}^2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_z`$ are $`\{S(S1),S_z\}`$ with $`S=(2n_0+5)/4(n_0=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ and $`S_z=S+n_s(n_s=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$, which guarantees that $`\widehat{S}_+\widehat{S}_{}=\widehat{S}_z^2\widehat{S}_z\widehat{S}^2`$ is positive semidefinite. The new quantum numbers $`n_s`$ and $`n_0`$ are introduced and the operator $`S_+`$ raises $`n_s`$ by one while the relation $`n=2n_s+n_0`$ holds, where $`n`$ is the total number of bosons in a single site.

The operators $`\widehat{S}_\pm `$ commute with the spin operator $`\widehat{\text{F}}`$ and the magnetic quantum number operator $`\widehat{F}_z`$, So the energy eigenstates can be classified according to quantum numbers $`n_0`$ and $`n_s`$, total spin $`F`$, and magnetic quantum number $`F_z`$. Hence, the eigenstates $`\psi `$ are denoted as $`|n_0,n_s,F,F_z;\lambda >`$ where $`\lambda `$ labels orthonormal degenerate states. The energy eigenvalue is given by

$$\epsilon ^{(0)}=\mu n+\frac{c_0}{2}n(n1)+\frac{c_1}{2}[F(F+1)6n]+\frac{2c_2}{5}n_s(nn_s+\frac{3}{2})$$
(9)
where the relation $`n=2n_s+n_0`$ is used. So Mott states can be expressed as $`_i|n_0,n_s,F,F_z;\lambda >_i`$, where $`i`$ is lattice site index. For homogenous case, the zeroth order total energy is $`E^{(0)}=_i\epsilon ^{(0)}=N_l\epsilon ^{(0)}`$, where $`N_l`$ is the number of lattice sites.

From Ref.koashi2  we know that the energy eigenstates $`|n_0,n_s,F,F_z;\lambda >`$ can be represented as

$$(\widehat{F}_{})^{\mathrm{\Delta }F}(\widehat{A}_0^{(2)})^{n_{20}}\widehat{P}_{(n_s=0)}(b_2^{})^{n_{12}}(\widehat{A}_2^{(2)})^{n_{22}}(\widehat{A}_0^{(3)})^{n_{30}}(\widehat{A}_3^{(3)})^{n_{33}}|vac>$$
(10)
where

$`\widehat{A}_0^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{10}}}[(b_0^{})^22b_1^{}b_1^{}+2b_2^{}b_2^{}]`$ (11)
$`\widehat{A}_2^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{14}}}[2\sqrt{2}b_2^{}b_0^{}\sqrt{3}(b_1^{})^2]`$ (12)
$`\widehat{A}_0^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{210}}}[\sqrt{2}(b_0^{})^33\sqrt{2}b_1^{}b_0^{}b_1^{}+3\sqrt{3}(b_1^{})^2b_2^{}+3\sqrt{3}b_2^{}(b_1)^26\sqrt{2}b_2^{}b_0^{}b_2^{}]`$ (13)
$`\widehat{A}_3^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{20}}[(b_1^{})^3\sqrt{6}b_2^{}b_1^{}b_0^{}+2(b_2^{})^2b_1^{}]`$ (14)
$`P_{(n_s=0)}`$ is the projection onto the subspace with $`n_s=0`$; $`n_{12},n_{20},n_{22},n_{30}=0,1,2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$, $`n_{33}=0,1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=0,1,\mathrm{},2F`$ that are related to $`\{n_0,n_s,F,F_z\}`$ as

$`n_0`$ $`=`$ $`n_{12}+2n_{22}+3n_{30}+3n_{33}`$ (15)
$`n_s`$ $`=`$ $`n_{20}`$ (16)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`2n_{12}+2n_{22}+3n_{33}`$ (17)
$`F_z`$ $`=`$ $`F\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ (18)
To find the ground states of Eq.(3), we minimize its energy eigenvalue, i.e., Eq.(9). We note that there isn’t magnetic quantum number $`F_z`$ in Eq.(9), which means the eigenstates with different magnetic quantum number but the same other quantum numbers are degenerate. For simplicity, in this paper we only investigate the states with the highest magnetic quantum number, i.e. the states with $`F_z=F`$. when $`n=1`$, it is obvious that the ground state is $`|1,0,2,2;\lambda >`$, which means only one single atom with the highest magnetic quantum number for the state. For $`n2`$, it is more complicated, which will be discussed in detail as follow:

1. $`c_1>0,c_2>0`$. In this case, if $`n_s=0`$ and $`F=0`$, the energy eigenvalue has its minimum. But that is not always the case because there are some forbidden valueskoashi ; koashi2 , i.e., $`F=1,2,5,2n_01`$ are not allowed when $`n_0=3k(kZ)`$, and $`F=0,1,3,2n_01`$ are forbidden when $`n_0=3k\pm 1(kZ)`$, according to which, it is classified into three cases.

1. For $`n=3k(kZ)`$, $`|n,0,0,0;\lambda >`$ with $`n_s=0`$ and $`F=0`$ simultaneously, which is not within forbidden values, is the ground state
    2. For $`n=3k1(kZ)`$, the state with $`n_s=0`$ and $`F=0`$ simultaneously is not allowed. If $`n_s=0`$, the lowest allowed value of total spin $`F`$ is $`2`$. $`F=0`$ is not forbidden when $`n_0`$ is $`3k(kZ)`$. $`n_s=1`$, due to the relation $`n=2n_s+n_0`$, is the lowest value satisfying the condition. So the state with $`n_s=1`$ and $`F=0`$ is a possible ground state. There is competition between the third term and the fourth term in Eq.(9),i.e., competition between contributions of total spin and singlet “pairs” to eigenenergy. Comparing both eigenenergies for the two cases $`F=0,n_s=1`$ and $`F=2,n_s=0`$, we get the ground state, (i)$`|n2,1,0,0;\lambda >`$ for $`c_1>c_2(2n+1)/15`$ and (ii) $`|n,0,2,2;\lambda >`$ for $`c_1<c_2(2n+1)/15`$.
    3. For $`n=3k+1(kZ)`$, it is similar to last case that there is competition between contributions of total spin and the singlet “pair” to eigenenergy in this case. But there is a difference between the two cases in that if $`F=0`$, $`n_s`$ is at least $`2`$. Therefore, the ground state is (i)$`|n4,0,2,2;\lambda >`$ for $`c_1>2c_2(2n1)/15`$; (ii) $`|n,0,2,2;\lambda >`$ for $`c_1<2c_2(2n1)/15`$, which is obtained by comparing the eigenenergy of these states.
2. $`c_1>0,c_2<0`$. In this case, the eigenenergy is the lowest when $`F`$ is at the lowest value and $`n_s`$ at the highest value. There is a state with $`F=0`$ and $`n_s=n/2`$ when $`n`$ is even, but there is not when $`n`$ is odd. So, when $`n`$ is different, there are two cases as follow:

1. When $`n`$ is even, the ground state is $`|n,n/2,0,0;\lambda >`$
    2. When $`n`$ is odd, $`n_s`$ has the highest value $`(n1)/2`$. But $`F`$ is not zero when $`n_s=(n1)/2`$. Alternatively, there is another case that $`F=0`$ and $`n_s=(n3)/2`$. In the two cases, the state that has lower eigenenergy is the ground state. Hence, the ground state is (i) $`|1,(n1)/2,2,2;\lambda >`$ for $`c_1<7|c_2|/15`$; (ii) $`|3,(n3)/2,0,0;\lambda >`$ for $`c_1>7|c_2|/15`$.
3. For $`c_1<0,c_2>0`$, the eigenstate with $`F=2n`$ and $`n_s=0`$, which has the lowest eigenenergy, is the ground state. So the ground state is $`|n,0,2n,2n;\lambda >`$.
4. For $`c_1<0,c_2<0`$, to get the ground state, we minimize Eq.(9). If we skip over the fact for the moment that the singlet “pair” number $`n_s`$ is an integer, then the condition to minimize the energy function is given by

$$n_s=\frac{10c_1(4n+1)c_2(2n+3)}{80c_14c_2}$$
(19)
because of the fact that the singlet “pair” number must be an integer, we write $`n_s`$ in terms of the closet integer number $`n_s^0`$ and the decimal part, i.e. $`n_s=n_s^0+\alpha `$, where the number $`\alpha `$ satisfy $`1/2<\alpha <1/2`$, which can be rewritten as,

$$n_s^0\frac{1}{2}<\frac{10c_1(4n+1)c_2(2n+3)}{80c_14c_2}<n_s^0+\frac{1}{2}$$
(20)
1. Because the singlet “pair” number isn’t negative, for $`n_s^0<0`$, $`n_s`$ must be zero. Hence, in this case, the ground state is $`|n,0,2n,2n;\lambda >`$.
    2. $`0<n_s^0<\frac{n}{2}`$. In this case, the eigenenergy is lower when the singlet “pair” number is $`n_s^0`$ than any other integer. So the ground state is $`|n2n_s^0,n_s,2n4n_s^0,2n4n_s^0;\lambda >`$.
    3. For $`n_s^0>\frac{n}{2}`$, the singlet “pair” number takes the highest value as it can. With different total bosons number, there are two cases as follow: (i)when $`n`$ is even, the ground state is $`|0,n/2,0,0;\lambda >`$; (ii)when $`n`$ is odd, the ground state is $`|1,n/2,2,2;\lambda >`$.

## IV The superfluid-Mott insulator transition

In this section, we consider the hopping term and calculate the first and second order corrections to the ground energy. Although the eigenstates, among whose quantum numbers only magnetic quantum number is different, are degenerate, we can do perturbative calculations regarding the degenerate states as nondegenerate ones for the off-diagonal hopping matrix elements between states with the same Boson number $`n`$ are zero, i.e., $`<n_0,n_s,F,F_z;\lambda |h_1|n_0,n_s,F,F_z^{};\lambda >=0`$, when $`F_zF_z^{}`$ . Therefore, the first and second order corrections to ground energy are expressed as follow

$$\epsilon _g^{(1)}=<g|h_1|g>=zt\underset{\alpha }{}\varphi _\alpha ^{}\varphi _\alpha \alpha =2,\mathrm{},2$$
(21)
$$\epsilon _g^{(2)}=\underset{ng}{}\frac{|<g|h_1|n>|^2}{\epsilon _g^{(0)}\epsilon _n^{(0)}}=\underset{ng}{}\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{z^2t^2|<g|b_\alpha +b_\alpha ^{}|n>|^2\varphi _\alpha ^{}\varphi _\alpha }{\epsilon _g^{(0)}\epsilon _n^{(0)}}\alpha =2,\mathrm{},2$$
(22)
The ground energy modified by adding the first and second order corrections becomes

$$\epsilon _g=\epsilon _g^{(0)}+\epsilon _g^{(1)}+\epsilon _g^{(2)}=\epsilon _g^{(0)}+zt\underset{\alpha }{}A_\alpha (n,\overline{\mu },\overline{c}_0,\overline{c}_1,\overline{c}_2)\varphi _\alpha ^{}\varphi _\alpha \alpha =2,\mathrm{},2$$
(23)
where $`A_\alpha (n,\overline{\mu },\overline{c}_0,\overline{c}_1,\overline{c}_2)`$ is related to the first and second order corrections of the spin component with magnetic quantum number $`\alpha `$ to zero-order ground energy. It depends on $`n`$, $`\overline{\mu }`$, $`\overline{c}_0`$,$`\overline{c}_1`$ and $`\overline{c}_2`$, where $`\overline{\mu }=\mu /zt,\overline{c}_0=c_0/zt,\overline{c}_1=c_1/zt,\overline{c}_2=c_2/zt`$. Minimizing the ground energy function (23) modified in second order, we find that $`\varphi _\alpha =0`$ when $`A_\alpha (n,\overline{\mu },\overline{c}_0,\overline{c}_1,\overline{c}_2)>0`$ and that $`\varphi _\alpha 0`$ when $`A_\alpha (n,\overline{\mu },\overline{c}_0,\overline{c}_1,\overline{c}_2)<0`$. This means that $`A_\alpha (n,\overline{\mu },\overline{c}_0,\overline{c}_1,\overline{c}_2)=0`$ signifies the boundary between the superfluid and the Mott insulator phases of the spin component with magnetic quantum number $`\alpha `$.

Equiping the perturbative calculations we can draw phase diagrams. The phase diagrams show that there is a phase transition from Mott insulator with integer number bosons to superfluid when the ratio $`c_0/t`$ is decreased to a critical value. In the zeroth order, i.e., neglecting the hopping term, the ground state is Mott state in which the occupation number per site is pined at integer $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, corresponding to a commensurate filling of the lattice. Different Mott ground states maybe contain different spin components. For example, there is only spin component with Zeeman level $`m=2`$ when occupation number per site $`n=1`$; spin components with $`m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2`$ for Mott state $`_i(\widehat{A}_0^{(2)}|0>)_i`$ and spin components with $`m=0,1,2`$ for $`_i(\widehat{A}_2^{(2)}|0>)_i`$. It is easy to realize that only one superfluid component appears when lowering the ratio $`c_0/t`$ for the initial Mott ground state containing only one spin component such as the case $`n=1`$ in Fig.1-6 and $`n=1,2,3`$ in Fig.5. For the Mott ground states containing multiple spin components, when lowering the ratio $`c_0/t`$, multiple superfluid components appear. The phase boundaries between superfluid and Mott insulator phase for different spin components are identical for some Mott ground states such as $`n=2`$ in Fig.1,3,4,6. and $`n=3`$ in Fig.1,2,4, and different for some Mott ground states such as $`n=2`$ in Fig.2 and $`n=3`$ in Fig.3,6.

We find that the position of phase boundary is related to average occupation number of spin component in the initial Mott ground state, i.e., the larger the average occupation number of spin component per site is, the easier the transition from Mott insulator to superfluid phase. For example, in Fig.1, the average occupation numbers of spin component with Zeeman level $`m=2`$ are 1, 2/5 and 3/5 per site for $`n=1,2,3`$ Mott ground states respectively, and the minimum critical value of $`c_0`$ are $`5.42zt`$, $`2.76zt`$ and $`3.54zt`$ for $`n=1,2,3`$ Mott states. We can arrive at the same result by analyzing other figures.

## V Conclusion

In this paper, we have investigated the quantum phase transition from Mott insulator to superfluid phase of spin-2 cold bosons at zero temperature. First, we diagonalized the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian without hopping term and got the eigenvalue and ground states. Then taking the hopping term as a perturbation we calculated the first and second order corrections and drawn the phase diagrams, which show that there is a phase transition from Mott insulator with integer number bosons at each site to superfluid phase when the ratio $`c_0/t`$ is decreased to a critical value. Different Mott ground states maybe contain different spin components. For some Mott ground states, the different spin components appear at different moment in superfluid phase when lowering the ratio $`c_0/t`$. The position of phase boundary is related to average occupation number of spin component in the initial Mott ground state.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is in part supported by NSF of China No.A0124015.


format: text

text:
# Noncommutative quantum mechanics and Bohm’s ontological interpretation

## I Introduction

The natural appearance of noncommutativity of the canonical type in string theory 1  has been motivating an intensive investigation of its implications for quantum field theory and quantum mechanics 2 ; 3 . The theoretical relevance of this new and growing branch of physics was soon recognized, since it gives us the opportunity to understand very interesting phenomena. Among them are nonlocality and IR-UV mixing 5 , new physics at very short distances 3 ; 6 , and the possible implications of Lorentz violation 7 . From the experimental point of view, a great deal of effort has been devoted to the search for evidence of possible manifestations of noncommutative effects in cosmology and high-energy and low-energy experiments 8 . Noncommutative quantum mechanics (NCQM) has also been an issue of great interest (see, e.g., 8.5 -9 ). In addition to its possible phenomenological relevance 8.7 , the study of NCQM is motivated by the opportunity it gives us to understand problems that are present in noncommutative quantum field theory (NCQFT), and perhaps in string theory, in a framework easy to handle 8.8 -9 .

In previous work 9 , a new interpretation for the canonical commutation relation consideration,

$$[\widehat{X}^\mu ,\widehat{X}^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
was proposed. According to the point of view exposed there, it is possible to interpret the commutation relation (1) as a property of the particle coordinate observables, rather than of the spacetime coordinates. This fact was shown to have implications for the way of performing the calculations of NCQFT and enforced a reinterpretation of the meaning of the wave function in NCQM.

The aim of this work is to investigate the possibility of developing a Bohmian interpretation 9.3  for NCQM. We shall benefit from the ideas presented in 9  to develop a deterministic theory of hidden variables that exhibit canonical noncommutativity (1) between the particle position observables. Presently, there are several motivations for the reconsideration of hidden-variable theories (see, e.g., 9.4 ). We are now sure that the Copenhagen interpretation is not the unique framework where quantum phenomena can be described. Many theoreticians consider it more as a provisory set of rules than as the fundamental theory of quantum physics. Alternative points of view have been proposed that claim to solve some alleged difficulties of the Copenhagen interpretation 17 .

It is a result of Bell 17 ; 16.5  that any hidden-variables model that leads to the same results predicted by quantum theory must itself be nonlocal.111Recently it was argued by t’Hooft 9.4  that this result is not valid at the Planck scale. The theories under consideration in this work do not include such a possibility, since the scales considered here are larger than the Plankian one. Historically, the possibility that a measurement process at one point can have an immediate effect at a point separated in space was uncomfortable for physicists, and totally abhorrent to Einstein in particular 16.5 . For long time, local models were by far the preferred ones, but nowadays there is no fundamental reason for that. Noncommutative theories, as well as string theory, have been shown not to be local, at least in the usual sense 5 ; 17.5 . Thus, as long as one considers a noncommutative theory, the (historical) objection against hidden-variables models for their nonlocal character is clearly senseless. In reality, the study of noncommutative theories using hidden variables is strongly motivated by the detailed information such a description can provide us if compared to the one of the Copenhagen interpretation. Currently, however, there is a lack of investigation in this direction, and we are aware of just one work combining noncommutative geometry with a hidden-variables model 9.5 , where stochastic quantization is employed.

Among the hidden-variables theories, the Bohmian one occupies a distinguished position. It has been an object of intensive investigation and application in a wide range of branches of physics, like quantum field theory 11 , the phenomenology of high-energy physics 12 , condensed matter and atomic-molecular physics 14 , among others 15 . The enormous resurgence of interest in the Bohmian interpretation comes from multiple directions. From the experimental point of view, the possibility is under consideration of testing the limits and discussing the foundations of quantum theory in the realm of condensed matter and atomic-molecular physics 16 ; 16.5 . Techniques using ion traps may allow information on the behavior of individual particles to be obtained 16.5 . This makes the Bohmian formulation using particle trajectories especially attractive for investigation, since it allows the description of individual systems. Moreover, the applicability of this interpretation transcends the discussion of the foundations of quantum theory, since the Bohmian formalism can be adopted for “non-Bohmian” physicists as a tool to get intuition about the nature of quantum phenomena by the detailed description of the underlying dynamics it provides (see, e.g., 14 ). In the theoretical framework, there is a large number of phenomena that do not fit comfortably within the standard operator quantum formalism of the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. Among them, we quote dwell and tunneling times 18 , escape times and escape positions 19 , and scattering theory 20 . They are easily handled by Bohm’s ontological approach 20.5 .

The main motivation to develop a Bohmian interpretation for NCQM in this work is the variety of evidence indicating that noncommutativity must, in some way, be related to a quantum theory of gravitation (see, e.g., 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 22.5 ); consequently, it may have implications for quantum cosmology 20.7 . The inadequacy of the application of the Copenhagen interpretation for quantum cosmology has been stressed for a long time by many prominent physicists, like Feynman 23  (a review of the subject may be found in 23.2 ). As an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, the Bohmian one is employed in several works of quantum cosmology (see 23.5  and references therein). Thus, it is important to investigate, having in mind future applications for this area, if canonical noncommutativity is compatible with the Bohmian interpretation of quantum theory.

The organization of this work is the following. In Sec. II, we summarize the essential concepts of NCQM and develop Bohmian noncommutative quantum mechanics (BNCQM). After an informal presentation of the construction of the theory of motion, we formalize it in a simple and compact form. An application of the theory for the noncommutative harmonic oscillator is presented in Sec. III. Finally, in Sec.IV, we end up with a general discussion and a summary of the main results.

## II Bohmian Interpretation for NCQM

### II.1 Background on NCQM

The essential NCQM necessary for this work (for details see 9 ) is summarized in what follows. According to the Weyl quantization procedure 2 ; 3 , the realization of the commutation relation (1) between position observables is given by the Moyal star product defined as below:

$`\left(fg\right)(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^n}}{\displaystyle d^nkd^npe^{i(k_\mu +p_\mu )x^\mu \frac{i}{2}k_\mu \theta ^{\mu \nu }p_\nu }f(k)g(p)}`$
$`=e^{\left(\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{}{\xi ^\mu }\frac{}{\eta ^\nu }\right)}f(x+\xi )g(x+\eta )_{\xi =\eta =0}.`$ (2)
The commutative coordinates $`x^i`$ are called the Weyl symbols of position operators $`\widehat{X}^i`$, and, if the interpretation for canonical noncommutativity of 9  is adopted, they can be considered as spacetime coordinates. In this work we shall assume that $`\theta ^{oi}=0`$. The Hilbert space of states of NCQM can consistently be taken as the same as in the commutative quantum mechanics, and the noncommutative Schrödinger equation is given by

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)}{t}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)+V(x^i)\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)+V\left(x^i+i{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2}}_j\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t).`$ (3)
The operators

$$\widehat{X}^i=x^i+\frac{i\theta ^{ij}_j}{2}$$
(4)
are the observables that correspond to the physical positions of the particles, and $`x^i`$ are the associated canonical coordinates.222An intuition about the meaning of these coordinates may be found in the dipole picture 9 ; 35 . For the case of NCQM, it would consist in considering that, instead of a particle, the elementary object of the theory is a “half dipole” whose extent is proportional to its canonical momentum, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^i=\theta ^{ij}p_j/2\mathrm{}`$. One of its end points carries its mass and is responsible for its interactions. The other extreme is empty. According to this intuitive view, the change of variables $`X^i=x^i\theta ^{ij}p_j/2\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to a change of coordinates of the interacting extreme of the dipole $`X^i`$, where the corresponding physical particle is located, to its empty one $`x^i`$. However, since $`x^i`$ is not an interacting extremum, we are adopting the point particle interpretation as preferential. Methodologically, the NCQM formulated with Eqs. (3) and (4) can be considered as the “usual” quantum mechanics with a Hamiltonian not quadratic in momenta and “unusual” position operators defined in Eq. (4). From this point of view, the BNCQM developed below can be considered as an extension of the usual Bohmian quantum mechanics along the same lines.

Since the $`\widehat{X}^i`$ do not commute and satisfy the relation (1), the particles cannot be localized in a measurement process. Any attempt to localize the particles must obey the uncertainty relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }X^i\mathrm{\Delta }X^j\left|\theta ^{ij}\right|/2.$$
(5)
The expression for the definition of probability density $`\rho (x^i,t)=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right|^2`$ has a meaning that differs from that of ordinary quantum mechanics. The quantity$`\rho (x^i,t)d^3x`$ must be interpreted as the probability that the system is found in a configuration such that the canonical coordinate of the particle is contained in a volume $`d^3x`$ around the point $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ at time $`t`$. Computation of the expected values can be done in a similar way as in the usual formalism. Given an arbitrary physical observable, characterized by a Hermitian operator $`\widehat{A}(\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{p}^i)`$ \[this naturally includes $`\widehat{A}(\widehat{X}^i(\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{p}^i),\widehat{p}^i)`$\], its expected value is defined as

$$\widehat{A}_t=d^3x\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x^i,t)\widehat{A}(x^i,i\mathrm{}_i)\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t).$$
(6)
A Hamilton-Jacobi formalism for NCQM is found by writing the wave function in its polar form $`\mathrm{\Psi }=Re^{iS/\mathrm{}}`$, replacing it in Eq. (3), and spliting its real and imaginary parts. For the real part, we obtain

$$\frac{S}{t}+\frac{\left(S\right)^2}{2m}+V+V_{nc}+Q_K+Q_I=0.$$
(7)
The three new potential terms are defined as

$$V_{nc}=V\left(x^i\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2\mathrm{}}_jS\right)V\left(x^i\right),$$
(8)
$$Q_K=\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\left(S\right)^2\right)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2R}{R},$$
(9)
and

$$Q_I=\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{V\left[x^i+(i\theta ^{ij}/2)_j\right]\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)V\left(x^i\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2\mathrm{}}_jS\right).$$
(10)
$`V_{nc}`$ is the potential that accounts for the noncommutative classical interactions, while $`Q_K`$ and $`Q_I`$ account for the quantum effects. The noncommutative contributions contained in the latter two can be split out by defining

$$Q_{nc}=Q_K+Q_IQ_c\text{,}$$
(11)
where

$$Q_c=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2R_c}{R_c}\text{ , }R_c=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_c}.$$
(12)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_c`$ is the wave function obtained from the commutative Schrödinger equation containing the usual potential $`V(x^i)`$, that is, the equation obtained by setting $`\theta ^{ij}=0`$ in Eq. (3) before solving it. The imaginary part of the Schrödinger equation, which yields the differential probability conservation law,

$$\frac{R^2}{t}+\left(R^2\frac{S}{m}\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta =0,$$
(13)
where333It is easy to see that the Liouville equation, $`\widehat{\rho }/t+\left(i/\mathrm{}\right)[\widehat{\rho },\widehat{H}]=0`$ when written in the space coordinate representation acquires the form of Eq. (13).

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta =\frac{2R}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Im}\left[e^{iS/\mathrm{}}V\left(Re^{iS/\mathrm{}}\right)\right].$$
(14)
By integrating Eq. (13) over the space we find

$$\frac{d}{dt}R^2d^3x=0,$$
(15)
since

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta d^3x=0,$$
(16)
and $`R^2`$ vanishes at infinity.

### II.2 Constructing the ontological theory of motion

The formalism to be presented from now on is along the same line as the one adopted by Bohm and followers (see for example 25 ; 21 ). Before developing the BNCQM, we briefly summarize the essential ideas that lie behind the Bohmian interpretation.

The Bohmian approach to quantum theory is founded on the assumption that the complete characterization of a quantum system cannot be provided by a wave function alone. For the description of individual processes, which are not statistical in character, an objective view of matter is adopted. In order to reconcile the notion of objective reality with the known results from quantum theory, an individual physical system is assumed to be composed of a wave propagating with a particle. The particle moves under the guidance of the wave, which satisfies the ordinary Schrödinger equation and contains the information on how the energy of the particle must be directed.

As in the commutative counterpart, in the formulation of BNCQM we shall assume the system as composed of a wave function and a point particle. Contrary to the commutative case, however, in BNCQM the position observables satisfy the relation (1), and the wave function satisfies the noncommutative Schrödinger equation (3). Having the equation for the evolution of the guiding wave $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, one still has to determine the particle motion. In principle, there is an arbitrariness in this procedure. However, necessary conditions for the theory to be capable of reproducing the same statistical results as the standard interpretation of NCQM constrain the admissible form for the functions $`X^i(t)`$ that describe the particle motion. Notice that the wave function is valued on canonical coordinates. Therefore, the use of these coordinates in intermediary calculations to determine the $`X^i(t)`$’s is unavoidable. Before determining the procedure to find these functions, we must define the rules for the computation of expectation values in BNCQM.

With an arbitrary physical observable, characterized by a Hermitian operator $`\widehat{A}(\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{p}^i)`$, it is possible to associate a function $`𝒜(x^i,t)`$, the “local expectation value” of $`\widehat{A}`$ 22 , which when averaged over the ensemble of density $`\rho (x^i,t)=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right|^2`$ gives the same expectation value obtained by the standard operatorial formalism. It is natural to define the ensemble average by

$$\widehat{A}_t=\rho (x^i,t)𝒜(x^i,t)d^3x.$$
(17)
For Eq. (17) to agree with Eq. (6), $`𝒜(x^i,t)`$ must be defined as444Our notation differs from that of Holland 22  who denotes local expectation value of $`\widehat{A}`$ by $`A(x^i,t).`$

$$𝒜(x^i,t)=\frac{\mathrm{Re}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x^i,t)\widehat{A}(x^i,i\mathrm{}_i)\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right]}{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x^i,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)}=A(x^i,t)+𝒬_A(x^i,t),$$
(18)
where the real value was taken to account for the hermiticity of $`\widehat{A}(\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{p}^i)`$ and $`A(x^i,t)=`$ $`A[x^i,p^i=^iS(x^i,t)]`$, that is, a function obtained from $`\widehat{A}(\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{p}^i)`$ by replacing $`\widehat{x}^ix^i,\widehat{p}^i^iS(x^i,t)`$. $`𝒬_A`$ is defined by

$$𝒬_A=\mathrm{Re}\left[\frac{\widehat{A}(x^i,i\mathrm{}_i)\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)}\right]A(x^i,t)$$
(19)
and is the quantum potential that accompanies $`A(x^i,t)`$ (for details of the procedure to identify quantum effects, see, e.g., 9 ). From Eq. (18) we find that the local expectation value of Eq. (4) is

$$X^i=x^i\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2\mathrm{}}_jS(x^i,t).$$
(20)
The strategy to find the $`X^i(t)`$’s now becomes clear. The relevant information for particle motion can be extracted from the guiding wave $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)`$ by first computing the associated canonical position tracks $`x^i(t)`$, and then evaluating Eq. (20) at $`x^i=x^i(t)`$. In order to find a good equation for the $`x^i(t)`$’s, it is interesting to consider the Heisenberg formulation and the equations of motion for the observables (see, for example, 8.96 ). For the variables $`\widehat{x}^i`$ they are given by

$$\frac{d\widehat{x}_H^i}{dt}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\widehat{x}_H^i,\widehat{H}]=\frac{\widehat{p}_H^i}{m}+\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{\widehat{V}(\widehat{X}_H^i)}{\widehat{X}_H^j}.$$
(21)
By passing the right-hand side (RHS) of Eq. (21) to the Schrödinger picture it is possible to define the velocity operators

$$\widehat{v}^i=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{H}]=\frac{\widehat{p}^i}{m}+\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{\widehat{V}(\widehat{X})}{\widehat{X}^j}.$$
(22)
The differential equation for the canonical positions $`x^i(t)`$ is found by identifying $`dx^i(t)/dt`$ with the local expectation value555The relevance of this procedure for the determination of the equation of motion will be clearer in the next subsection. of $`\widehat{v}^i:`$

$$\frac{dx^i(t)}{dt}=\left[\frac{^iS(x^i,t)}{m}+\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{V(X^i)}{X^j}+\frac{𝒬^i}{2}\right]|_{x^i=x^i(t)},$$
(23)
where $`X^i`$ is given in Eq. (20), $`S(x^i,t)`$ is the phase of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and

$$𝒬^i=\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{\left(\theta ^{ij}/\mathrm{}\right)\left[\widehat{V}(\widehat{X}^i)/\widehat{X}^j\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)}\right)\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{\mathrm{}}\frac{V(X^i)}{X^j}.$$
(24)
The potentials $`𝒬^i`$ account for quantum effects coming from derivatives of order 2 and higher contained in $`\widehat{V}(\widehat{X}^i)/\widehat{X}^j`$.

Once the $`x^i(t)`$ are known, the particle trajectories are given by

$$X^i(t)=x^i(t)\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2\mathrm{}}_jS(x^i(t),t).$$
(25)
One important property of Eq. (25) is that the particles’ positions are not defined on nodal regions of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where $`S`$ is undefined. Thus, the particles cannot run through these regions. An interesting consequence of this property is that, although the wave function is valued on the canonical position variables, its vanishing can be adopted as a boundary condition, implying that the particles do not run through a region. This is a nontrivial conclusion, since, as stressed before, $`\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right|^2d^3x`$ refers to the canonical variables, and thus does not represent the probability that the particles are in the volume $`d^3x`$ around the point $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ at time $`t`$. Indeed, it must exclusively be attributed to the fact that the particles, in the theory under consideration, are objective and their trajectories are given by Eq. (25). Had one considered, for example, the problem of how to apply boundary conditions in NCQM to calculate the energy levels of a particle in an infinite square well potential from the point of view of the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, there would be no preferred answer.

The difficulty of introducing well-defined lines with boundary conditions in noncommutative theories was previously stressed in 27.3 . In that context, noncommutativity was considered as an intrinsic property of the spacetime. Part of the difficulty in conceiving boundary conditions on well-defined lines is automatically removed if the interpretation for the noncommutativity proposed in 9  is adopted, since the spacetime in that work is assumed to be pointwise. For the determination of the appropriate boundary condition for the particles not to run through a region in NCQM, the Bohmian approach is hereby providing the unambiguous prescription one would request.

We close this subsection by commenting how the uncertainty (5) can be understood in the Bohmian interpretation. In the ordinary de Broglie-Bohm theory, the impossibility of simultaneously determining the position and momentum of a particle is attributed to the perturbation introduced on $`p^i=^iS`$ by the evolution of the wave function during the measurement process 22 . The uncertainty (5) is generated by a similar mechanism, since the $`X^i`$’s contain $`^iS`$ in their definition. Notice that, contrary to the ordinary de Broglie-Bohm theory, where the initial particle positions can be perfectly known in measurement (by paying the price of disturbing the system and modifying the wave function), the initial positions of the particles in BNCQM are experimentally undeterminable.

### II.3 The basic postulates

In the previous subsection, we proposed an objective quantum theory of motion for NCQM. Let us now summarize the complete theory in a formal structure. This is done with the help of the following postulates.

(1) The spacetime is commutative and has a pointwise manifold structure with canonical coordinates $`x^i`$. The observables corresponding to operators of position coordinates $`\widehat{X}^i`$ of particles satisfy the commutation relation

$$[\widehat{X}^i,\widehat{X}^j]=i\theta ^{ij}.$$
(26)
The position observables can be represented in the coordinate space as $`\widehat{X}^i=x^i+i\theta ^{ij}_j/2`$, and the $`x^i`$ are canonical coordinates associated with the particle.

(2) A quantum system is composed of a point particle and a wave $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The particle moves in spacetime under the guidance of the wave, which satisfies the Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)}{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)+V(\widehat{X}^i)\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t).$$
(27)
(3) The particle moves along the trajectory

$$X^i(t)=x^i(t)\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2\mathrm{}}_jS(x^i(t),t)$$
(28)
independent of observation, where $`S`$ is the phase of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the $`x^i(t)`$ describe the canonical position trajectories, which are found by solving

$$\frac{dx^i(t)}{dt}=\left[\frac{^iS(\stackrel{}{x},t)}{m}+\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{V(X^i)}{X^j}+\frac{𝒬^i}{2}\right]|_{x^i=x^i(t)}\text{.}$$
(29)
To find the path followed by a particle, one must specify its initial canonical position $`x^i\left(0\right)`$, solve Eq. (29), and then obtain the physical path via Eq. (28).

The three postulates presented above constitute on their own a consistent theory of motion. However, the theory presented is intended to be a finer view of quantum mechanics, able to give a detailed description of the individual physical processes and provide the same statistical predictions. In ordinary commutative Bohmian mechanics, in order to reproduce the statistical predictions of the Copenhagen interpretation, the additional requirement that, at a certain instant of time $`t_0`$, $`\rho (x^i,t_0)=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x},t_0)\right|^2`$ is imposed. This assumption and the equivariance 27  of the probability distribution $`\rho `$ assure that $`\rho (x^i,t)=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right|^2`$ for all $`t.`$ A distribution $`\rho (x^i,t)=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right|^2`$ is said to be equivariant if it retains its form as a functional of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)`$ under evolution of the ensemble particles satisfying $`\dot{x}^i(t)=f^i(x^j,t)`$. In other words, equivariance is achieved if, departing from an ensemble of physical systems, each one containing a single particle, whose associated canonical probability density at initial time $`t_0`$ is given by $`\rho (x^i,t_0)=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t_0)\right|^2,`$ and evolving according to $`\dot{x}^i(t)=f^i(x^j,t)`$, then$`\rho (x^i,t)=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right|^2`$ for all $`t.`$ In such a case the probability distribution $`\rho (x^i,t)`$ satisfies the transport equation

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\frac{(\rho \dot{x}^i)}{x^i}=0.$$
(30)
In ordinary commutative quantum mechanics the equivariance property is satisfied thanks to the equality $`\dot{x}^i(t)=J^i/\rho `$ 27 , which is a consequence of the identification between $`\dot{x}^i(t)`$ and the local expectation value of the $`\widehat{v}^i`$. In the BNCQM proposed in this work, the same identification is valid. However, this is not sufficient to guarantee equivariance in all cases. This is rendered evident by computing the canonical probability current $`J^i(x^i,t)`$, which is defined by 28

$$J^i(x^i,t)=\mathrm{Re}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x^i,t)\widehat{v}\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right]=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right|^2\left[\frac{^iS(\stackrel{}{x},t)}{m}+\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{V(X^i)}{X^j}+\frac{𝒬^i}{2}\right]=\rho \dot{x}^i,$$
(31)
and regrouping the terms in Eq. (13) in such a way that the canonical probability flux (31) appears explicitly,666The notion of conserved current in noncommutative theories is little different from the one in commutative theories, as was pointed out in 25.7 , in the context of field theory. From the global $`U(1)`$ symmetry of the noncommutative Schrödinger Lagrangian, the maximum that can be said is that $`\rho /t+J^i(x^i,t)/x^i+F_\theta =0`$, where $`F_\theta `$ is some function containing the Moyal product and that satisfies $`d^3xF_\theta =0.`$ obtaining

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\frac{(\rho \dot{x}^i)}{x^i}\frac{}{x^i}\left[\rho \left(\frac{\theta ^{ij}}{2\mathrm{}}\frac{V(X^i)}{X^j}+\frac{𝒬^i}{2}\right)\right]+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta =0.$$
(32)
For equivariance to occur, an additional condition that the sum of the last two terms in the RHS of Eq. (32) vanishes is required. When $`V(X^i)`$ is a linear or quadratic function, as in the application problem of the next section, such a condition is trivially satisfied,777This is easily seen by substituting Eq. (4) in Eq. (27), regrouping the terms, and noticing that in these cases $`\widehat{H}`$ is reduced to a “familiar” Hamiltonian quadratic in the canonical momenta, as occurs in commutative quantum mechanics. The noncommutative effects, however, are still present, as we shall show in the next section. and thus $`\rho (x^i,t)=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x^i,t)\right|^2`$ is certainly equivariant. The same may also occur for special states when other potentials are considered in (27), but it is not a general property of (32). We shall return to this point in the final discussion.

## III Bohmian Noncommutative Harmonic Oscillator

Here, we show a simple application of the BNCQM for the analysis of a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator. We shall follow the approach previously discussed in 9 . Other relevant work on the noncommutative harmonic oscillator may be found in 8.95 . In two dimensions, (1) is reduced to

$$[\widehat{X}^\mu ,\widehat{X}^\nu ]=i\theta ϵ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(33)
The position observables of the particles can therefore be represented by $`\widehat{X}^i=x^i\theta ϵ^{ij}\widehat{p}_j/2\mathrm{}`$, and the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian is written as

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}\left(\widehat{p}_x^2+\widehat{p}_y^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}mw^2\left[\left(x\frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}\widehat{p}_y\right)^2+\left(y+\frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}\widehat{p}_x\right)^2\right],$$
(34)
where $`m`$ and $`w`$ are the mass and frequency of the associated commutative oscillator, respectively.

The corresponding Schrödinger equation in polar coordinates is

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_\theta (r,\phi ,t)}{t}}`$ $`=H_\theta \mathrm{\Psi }_\theta (r,\phi ,t)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}}\right)^2\right]\left(_r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}_\phi ^2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_\theta (r,\phi ,t)`$ (35)
$`+\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\theta w^2_\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}w^2r^2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_\theta (r,\phi ,t),`$
whose solution is 9

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\theta (r,\phi ,t)=\left(1\right)^n\sqrt{\frac{n!\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}{\pi \left(n+\left|\alpha \right|\right)!}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2}{2}\right)\left(\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}r\right)^{\left|\alpha \right|}L_{n,\theta }^{^{\left|\alpha \right|}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2\right)e^{i\alpha \phi iEt/\mathrm{}},$$
(36)
where $`L_{n,\theta }^{^{\left|\alpha \right|}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2\right)`$ are the associated Laguerre polynomials

$$L_{n,\theta }^{^{\left|\alpha \right|}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2\right)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{𝑛}{}}\left(1\right)^l\left(\begin{array}{c}n+\left|\alpha \right|\\ nl\end{array}\right)\frac{\left(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2\right)^l}{l!},\text{ }\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^2=\frac{\left(mw/\mathrm{}\right)^2}{1+\left(mw\theta /2\mathrm{}\right)^2},$$
(37)
$`n=0,1,2,`$… is the principal quantum number, and $`\alpha =0,\pm 1,\pm 2,`$… is the canonical angular momentum quantum number.

The energy levels are given by

$$E_{n,\alpha ,\theta }=2\mathrm{}w\left[1+\left(\frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\left(n+\frac{\left|\alpha \right|+1}{2}\right)\frac{m\theta w^2\alpha }{2}.$$
(38)
Notice that, due to the noncommutative effects, the degeneracy of the energy levels corresponding to the right- and left-handed polarizations for the same $`n`$ is removed. When the noncommutativity (1) is assumed as originating from the action of a strong background field, like the Neveu-Schwartz field in the stringy context 1 , or a magnetic field when a condensed matter system is projected onto its lowest Landau level, the lifting of the degeneracy can be intuitively understood as the consequence of a chirality introduced by the background field.

For simplicity, let us consider the state where $`n=1`$. In this state, Eq. (36) is simplified to

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\theta (r,\phi ,t)=\sqrt{\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}{\pi \left|\alpha \right|!}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2}{2}\right)\left(\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}r\right)^{\left|\alpha \right|}\left(1+\left|\alpha \right|\stackrel{~}{\zeta }r^2\right)e^{i\alpha \phi iEt/\mathrm{}},$$
(39)
and the corresponding $`V,V_{nc},`$ $`Q_c,`$ $`Q_{nc},`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta `$ are

$`V`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mw^2r^2,`$
$`V_{nc}`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2}{2mr^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m\theta w^2\alpha }{2}},`$
$`Q_c`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mw^2r^2+\mathrm{}w\left(\left|\alpha \right|+3\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2}{2mr^2}},`$ (40)
$`Q_{nc}`$ $`=\left[\sqrt{1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}}\right)^2}1\right]\mathrm{}w\left(\left|\alpha \right|+3\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{mw\theta }{2\mathrm{}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{}^2}{2mr^2}},`$
$`𝒬^i`$ $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta =0.`$
The canonical trajectories are found by solving the equations

$$\frac{dx}{dt}=\frac{1}{m}\frac{S}{x}+\frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}mw^2\left(y+\frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}\frac{S}{x}\right)\text{}\frac{dy}{dt}=\frac{1}{m}\frac{S}{y}\frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}mw^2\left(x\frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}\frac{S}{y}\right).$$
(41)
Changing into polar coordinates and substituting $`S=\alpha \mathrm{}\phi Et`$ in Eq. (41), we find

$$\frac{dr}{dt}=0\text{}\frac{d\phi }{dt}=\frac{\mathrm{}\alpha }{mr^2}+\frac{mw^2\theta ^2\alpha }{4\mathrm{}r^2}\frac{mw^2\theta }{2\mathrm{}},$$
(42)
whose solutions are

$$r=r_0\text{}\phi =\phi _0+w_\theta t\text{}w_\theta =\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\alpha }{mr^2}+\frac{mw^2\theta ^2\alpha }{4\mathrm{}r^2}\frac{mw^2\theta }{2\mathrm{}}\right).$$
(43)
The physical radius and angle are

$`R(t)`$ $`=\sqrt{X^2(t)+Y^2(t)}=\left[\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{y}}\right)^2+\left(y+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{x}}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}`$
$`=r_0\left|1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \theta }{2r_0^2}}\right|=R_0`$ (44)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{Y(t)}{X(t)}\right]=\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{y(t)}{x(t)}\right]=\phi \left(t\right).$$
(45)
The velocity of the particles is tangential to their circular orbits, being given by

$$\left|𝐕\left(t\right)\right|=\sqrt{\dot{X}^2(t)+\dot{Y}^2(t)}=R_0\left|\dot{\phi }\right|=R_0\left|w_\theta \right|.$$
(46)
As expected, the particle trajectories are circles. Contrary to the commutative case, however, the absolute value of the tangential velocity $`\left|𝐕\left(t\right)\right|`$ is not the same for both the right- and left-polarized states. This is due to a difference in the angular velocity $`w_\theta `$ and in the radius $`R_0`$ of their corresponding orbits. While the orbits associated with the right-handed excitations have the energy levels shifted downward, and their velocities and radii reduced with respect to the commutative ones, the left-handed excitations have their energy levels shifted upward, and move with larger velocities and radii. Notice from Eq. (46) that, when the system is in the lowest-energy state, characterized by $`\alpha =0`$, the particle is still moving,888This is not the source of any inconsistency. Since $`\alpha `$ is a quantum number related to the canonical position variables, it is not directly connected to the physical angular momentum. unless $`R_0=0.`$ Such a motion is absent in ordinary Bohmian theory and originates from a noncommutative term contained in $`w_\theta `$.

From Eq. (40), it is possible to see that the condition $`V_{nc}+Q_{nc}0`$ is satisfied if $`\theta 2\mathrm{}/mw`$, as shown in 9 . In that work, there was also an assumption that $`\theta `$ should be sufficiently small in order that Eq. (5) could not be directly verified by experimentation. The length scales considered until now, therefore, were assumed to be many times larger than that of $`\sqrt{\theta },`$ which is the characteristic length of noncommutativity. On scales of $`\sqrt{\theta }`$ order or smaller, noncommutativity effects associated with Eq. (5) are expected to drastically modify the behavior of the system 3 ; 6 . Let us ignore, for the time being, the previous assumption on the dimensions of our system, and allow the noncommutative harmonic oscillator to live at arbitrarily small length scales, or, equivalently, allow $`\theta `$ to assume a large value. In this case, it is interesting to consider the individual behavior of $`V_{nc}`$ and $`Q_{nc}`$. To study the oscillator orbits, we compare the behavior of the variable$`R,`$ which describes its physical radius, with that of the canonical variable $`r`$. A plot of $`R(r)`$ is found in Fig. 1 for the cases where $`\alpha \theta =1`$ and $`\alpha \theta =1`$.

FIG. 1. The typical behavior of the radius of the oscillator orbit, $`R(r),`$ for $`\alpha >0`$ (thick line) and $`\alpha <0`$ (thin line) illustrated for the cases where $`\alpha \theta =1`$ and $`\alpha \theta =1`$.

From Fig. 1 we can see that, when the scale of the system is sufficiently large as compared to $`\sqrt{\left|\alpha \theta \right|}`$, the distinction between $`r`$ and $`R`$ is not relevant. However, for length scales around $`\sqrt{\left|\alpha \theta \right|}`$, the distinction between $`R`$ and $`r`$ begins to become important, since these variables can differ by a large amount. The asymmetry between the states for which $`\alpha >0`$ and $`\alpha <0`$ is also important at these scales. If $`\alpha >0,`$ there is a specific orbit radius in which canonical and physical coordinates are completely identified, corresponding to the point where the straight line $`R=r`$ crosses the $`\alpha >0`$ thick line. From Eq. (44), it is easy to see that this point is $`r_0=\sqrt{\alpha \theta }/2`$. By substituting this value for $`r`$ in Eq. (40), one finds $`V_{nc}=0`$. Since $`Q_{nc}0,`$ one still has noncommutative effects in the corresponding orbit, but they have a genuinely quantum nature. The minimum value allowed for $`R_0`$ occurs when $`r_0=\sqrt{\left|\alpha \theta \right|/2},`$ for both $`\alpha >0`$ and $`\alpha <0`$ states. Its value is$`R_{0M}=0`$ for $`\alpha >0`$, and $`R_{0M}=\sqrt{2\left|\alpha \theta \right|}`$ for $`\alpha <0`$.

There is an interesting property of the noncommutative harmonic oscillator that is rendered evident by its Bohmian description. Observe in Fig. 1 that, for each value of$`R,`$ there correspond two values of $`r`$, one smaller than $`\sqrt{\left|\alpha \theta \right|/2}`$ and the other larger. The smallest values of $`r`$ contained in the interval $`(0,`$ $`\sqrt{\left|\alpha \theta \right|/2})`$ have as their partners exactly the largest ones in the interval $`(\sqrt{\left|\alpha \theta \right|/2},\mathrm{})`$. In the ordinary commutative Bohmian interpretation, there is a contextual character in the information provided by the wave function to guide the particle motion (for details see, for example, 22 ). The information for the particle to move, however, is extracted by the particle from the part of the wave function that is spread over the spatial points which cover the particle position and a small neighborhood around it. What we find in the noncommutative Bohmian harmonic oscillator is a new and interesting property, over and above the contextuality of ordinary Bohmian mechanics. For the case where the system has a large physical radius, it may be receiving information from part of the wave function that is concentrated in a small region far beyond the position where the particle is located. This property is similar to the IR-UV mixing that occurs in field theory 5  and is a manifestation of the specific kind of nonlocality found in NCQM due to the “shift” in the interaction point in Eq. (3).

## IV Discussion and Outlook

In this work we carried out an investigation of the possibility of developing a Bohmian interpretation for NCQM. The theory was proposed to be based on a commutative spacetime containing point particles, whose position observables should satisfy the canonical relation (1). Such a realization of noncommutativity only between particle position observables means that, although the particles are point like, their complete localization in a process of measurement is forbidden by the disturbances caused by the measurement apparatus interacting with the quantum system. The intrinsic uncertainty of the particle localization during a measurement process must be faced on the same footing as the one forbidding the simultaneous determination of the momentum and the position of the particle in ordinary Bohmian theory.

In the manner it was constructed, BNCQM was conceived to reproduce the same statistical predictions of NCQM in the Copenhagen interpretation with a continuous evolution law for particle motion. As a result of our investigation of the possibility for this to occur, we found that, when linear and quadratic potentials are considered in the Hamiltonian, the theory in its present form is certainly statistically equivalent to NCQM in the Copenhagen interpretation. The same may also occur for other specific potential terms or physical states where Eqs. (30) and (32) do match. When this is not the case, for the theories’ predictions to agree, it is necessary to modify the particle evolution law. One interesting way this may be done is by considering a “hybrid” evolution law constituted of a continuous part governed by a differential equation added to a stochastic piece, which allows the particles to jump, along the lines adopted in 40 . Equation (32) in this case should be understood as a probability transport equation of a piecewise-deterministic jump process.

Among the physical systems of interest where BNCQM with a continuous particle motion is able to reproduce the Copenhagen interpretation results is the harmonic oscillator. Although very specific, the harmonic potential is of great relevance for physics, which justifies the enormous variety of work on NCQM devoted to it (see 8.95  and references therein). Indeed, in this work, the harmonic oscillator proved to be useful to illustrate essential properties of NCQM in the spirit of the Bohmian interpretation. In its fine description of the harmonic oscillator, BNCQM revealed the interesting possibility that the small-scale physics can influence the large-scale phenomena in the quantum-mechanical context, in close similarity to the IR-UV mixing that appears in field theory. Another important contribution of the Bohmian interpretation comes from its capability to give well-defined predictions in situations where the Copenhagen interpretation is vague, as discussed in Sec. III.

An interesting environment where the predictions of the Bohmian interpretation may be confronted in future with experimentation is that of quantum cosmology. Recently, noncommutativity at early times of the universe was introduced by deforming the commutation relation among the minisuperspace variables in a cosmological model based on the Kantowski-Sachs metric 20.7 , originating a noncommutative Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Since in the formalism of minisuperspace the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is essentially quantum mechanical, the application of the Bohmian interpretation developed in this work for models like the one of 20.7  is almost immediate 41 . It may reveal unknown features or unexpected results, since it will allow a description of the primordial quantum universe following a well-defined “trajectory” in minisuperpace. In the case of conceiving a quantum cosmology based on the canonical noncommutativity of the spatial coordinates (1), for example, the ideas presented in this work may also be a good starting point.

Since the ontological interpretations have variants and are still under construction, this work should not be considered a closed structure. Many of the rules stated here are open and may be subject to reformulation after further discussion. In addition to the interesting possibility for a Bohmian description with stochastic particle jumps to shed light on the interpretation of all terms in Eq. (32), which compels us to carry on an extension of the theory presented here, there are many open questions to be exploited in the formulation. Among them, we quote the extension of the theory to incorporate a many-body approach, where some care must be taken when considering charged particles 8.8 , for example.

## Acknowledgments

The authors are greatly indebted to José Helaÿel-Neto and Roderich Tumulka for relevant comments and for all the corrections to earlier versions of the manuscript. They also acknowledge José Acacio de Barros for useful discussions highlighting important aspects of the Bohmian interpretation. This work was financially supported by CAPES and CNPq.