text:
# Classical paths in systems of fermions

## I Introduction

Quantum fluctuations of physical observables can be manifest when they couple to another external system. For example, the Lamb shift in the absortion/emission lines of atoms is a direct consequence of their interaction with vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic fields. Similarly, quantum fluctuations in the energy-momentum tensor can affect the spacetime curvature and could result in dissipative effects in quantum cosmology and quantum gravity Hartle:nn ; reynaud .

The fluctuations and their dynamics can be described using the general formalism of time dependent Green functions to obtain the correlation of physical observables at different times. Some aspects of quantum fluctuations of commuting physical observables, like photon shot noise in optical systems or the Casimir force between plates, can be simulated as classical stochastic fluctuations with well defined probability distribution functions. However, it is not clear in this context to what extent it is possible to describe additional aspects of the dynamics of quantum fluctuations using classical stochastic concepts.

In bosonic systems classicality is commonly associated with highly populated coherent states that can result, for example, from high temperatures or strong particle production in cosmology. In this context issues concerning classicality and decoherence of quantum fluctuations linde ; polarski  during and after inflation, and their time evolution garriga ; bucher  were addressed. Fermionic statistics, on the contrary, prevents any state to be highly populated and, moreover, fermionic coherent states cannot be identified with classical trajectories negele , so it is generally conceded that there is no issue of classicality in quantum fluctuations of fermionic fields.

In a recent paper oaknin  we have developed a new formalism of pseudoclassical incoherent paths to describe the dynamics of quantum fluctuations. New aspects of classical behaviour, in particular classical dynamics and decoherence, emerge in this formalism associated to fluctuations of collective observables which depend on a large number of degrees of freedom, even in scarcely populated states like the vacuum (a conclusion anticipated in Halliwell:1998jf  by different means). The notion of classicality that we propose is quite different than the case which is often discussed in the literature: it is associated to collective observables rather than to a certain class of quantum states, namely coherent states. In oaknin  we elaborated these ideas for a system of weakly interacting bosons. In this paper we show that this notion of classicality is not exclusive to systems of bosons, as it also emerges associated to fluctuations of collective observables in systems with a large number of fermions.

In the new formalism quantum states can be represented, in the Heisenberg picture, as linear combinations of randomly distributed pseudoclassical paths (PCP’s) that do not interfere between themselves. We use each set of random PCP’s to define the dynamics of quantum fluctuations in that state of the system. We remark that any single PCP cannot be identified with any quantum state. Instead, a whole set of PCP’s with their corresponding probabilities to randomly happen at any time is the only formal object that can describe the dynamics of quantum fluctuations in one state of the system. On each path of a set every physical observable is assigned a time-dependent value in a way that is consistent with the commutation/anticommutation relations between quantum operators. In particular, the generalized canonical coordinates and their conjugate momentum operators get time-dependent values which obey classical equations of motion and depict a collection of harmonic oscillators with constrained initial conditions. On the other hand, we notice that these pseudoclassical time-dependent values on paths do not necessarily respect the usual algebraic relations that classical observables fulfill, as a consequence of the non-commutative relations between quantum operators.

We select collective observables which depend on a large number of bosonic or fermionic independent degrees of freedom because we realize that their time-dependent values on paths do approximately regain the usual algebraic relations between classical observables and, therefore, we can use the formalism of PCP’s to describe the dynamics of quantum fluctuations of collective observables in terms of unconstrained classical stochastic processes.

The formalism of PCP’s, for bosons or fermions, shows that we can give a description of quantum mechanical states in terms of non-interfering paths if we trade it for a non-trivial definition of the algebraic relations between the values on paths of physical observables. This formalism can help to understand the process of decoherence and the onset of classicality in quantum systems because it can be applied to closed systems without explicit reference to observers, measurement, or an environment. In some cases it may also become a useful tool for performing calculations, in particular numerical simulations.

This paper is organized in five sections. In section II we review the fundamental concepts of the formalism of PCP’s and implement them in a system with a single fermion mode. In section III we extend the formalism to a system with two non-interacting fermions, and then we generalize it to systems with any finite number of free fermions. In section IV we define collective observables and describe their dynamics in the context of a regularized QFT. Section V contains a summary of results. This paper deals basically with linear fermionic fields. A discussion of the general case of interacting fields is postponed to a forthcoming work.

## II Pseudoclassiclal paths of a single fermionic mode

In this section we present a detailed description of a system with a single fermionic mode in the new formalism of PCP’s. We will start building the set of random paths which describes the dynamics of quantum fluctuations in the vacuum state and, afterwards, will show how to build the sets of paths that describe states other than the vacuum.

The hamiltonian of the system is

$$H=\kappa \left(a^{}a\frac{1}{2}\right),$$
(1)
where the operators $`a^{}`$, $`a`$, which create and annihilate the excitations of the mode, obey anticommutation relations $`\{a^{},a\}=1`$ and $`\{a^{},a^{}\}=\{a,a\}=0`$. The last two relations imply, in particular, that $`(a^{})^2=a^2=0`$ and, therefore, the orthonormal basis of eigenstates of the hamiltonian, which linearly span the Hilbert space of the states of the system, contains only two independent vectors: $`\{|0,|1\}`$. The action of the operators $`a^{}`$, $`a`$ on this basis is given by the equations $`a|0=0`$, $`a|1=|0`$ and $`a^{}|0=|1`$, $`a^{}|1=0`$. We will fix for simplicity $`\kappa =1`$ and, therefore, $`H|0=\frac{1}{2}|0`$ and $`H|1=+\frac{1}{2}|1`$.

The operator $`a^{}`$ is the hermitic conjugate of the operator $`a`$, so that the couple of operators

$$\xi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a+a^{}),\stackrel{~}{\xi }=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(aa^{}),$$
(2)
are hermitic and obey anticommutation relations: $`\{\xi ,\xi \}=\{\stackrel{~}{\xi },\stackrel{~}{\xi }\}=1`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{\xi },\xi \}=0`$.

The action of these operators in the basis of eigenstates of the hamiltonian is summarized in the equations $`\xi |0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|1`$, $`\xi |1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }|0=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}|1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }|1=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}|0`$, and, therefore, they can be identified with Pauli matrices, $`\xi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sigma _1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sigma _2`$. Notice that $`\xi ^2=\stackrel{~}{\xi }^2=\frac{1}{2}`$.

The most general linear operator that can be defined on the Hilbert space of the single fermionic mode is a polynom of the type, $`O=\alpha _11+\alpha _2\xi +\alpha _3\stackrel{~}{\xi }+\alpha _4i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\xi `$, where the coefficients $`\alpha _j,j=1,2,3,4`$ are, in general, complex numbers. This linear set of operators is the Grassmann algebra generated by the anticommuting hermitic operators $`\xi `$,$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$. The operator $`\xi `$ (or independently, $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$) forms a complete representation of commuting observables in the Hilbert space. An operator $`O`$ is hermitic if and only if the coefficients $`\alpha _j,j=1,2,3,4`$ are all real. In particular, the hamiltonian (1) is

$$H=i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\xi $$
(3)
Our first aim is now to write the action of a generic operator $`O`$ on the vacuum state in terms of the action on the same state of some linear combination of the identity operator $`1`$ and the generator $`\xi `$. In general, it can be immediately checked that $`O|0=\left((\alpha _1\frac{1}{2}\alpha _4)1+(\alpha _2i\alpha _3)\xi \right)|0𝒫_o(1,\xi )|0`$. It is also immediate to check that the operator $`𝒫_o(1,\xi )`$ defined through this equation is unique as the identity $`\beta _11|0=\beta _2\xi |0`$ only holds if $`\beta _1=\beta _2=0`$. From the identities,

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }|0=i\xi |0,H|0=\frac{1}{2}|0,$$
(4)
we obtain, for example, that $`𝒫_{\stackrel{~}{\xi }}(1,\xi )=i\xi `$ and $`𝒫_h(1,\xi )=\frac{1}{2}1`$.

The next stage in our programme is to identify the two eigenstates of the operator $`\xi `$: $`|q_+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|1)`$ and $`|q_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1)`$, and their corresponding eigenvalues, $`\lambda _+=\frac{+1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ and $`\lambda _{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$. Then, we expand the vacuum state in the new basis: $`|0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|q_++|q_{})_{q=q_\pm }\psi (q)|q`$, with $`\psi (q_\pm )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$. The wavefunction of the vacuum in the basis of eigenstates of $`\xi `$, $`\psi (q)`$, is equally valued on each of the two disconnected points $`|q_+,|q_{}`$ of the configuration space and so the probability $`|\psi (q_\pm )|^2=(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})^2=\frac{1}{2}`$ of each of them to happen randomly.

Moreover, using the relation $`\xi |0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\xi |q_++\xi |q_{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\lambda _+|q_++\lambda _{}|q_{})`$ we can assign to the operator $`\xi `$ the classical value

$$\xi _{cl}(q_+)=\lambda _+=\frac{q_+|\xi |0}{q_+|0}=\frac{+1}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(5)
on the first point, and

$$\xi _{cl}(q_{})=\lambda _{}=\frac{q_{}|\xi |0}{q_{}|0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(6)
on the second point of the configuration space. Thus, we have defined on configuration space a random variable $`\xi _{cl}(q)`$.

Furthermore, following the identity $`O|0=𝒫_o(1,\xi )|0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(𝒫_o(1,\xi _{cl}(q_+))|q_++𝒫_o(1,\xi _{cl}(q_{}))|q_{})`$, the generic operator $`O`$ should be assigned the random variable

$$O_{cl}(q_\pm )=𝒫_o(1,\xi _{cl}(q_\pm ))=\frac{q_\pm |𝒫_o(1,\xi )|0}{q_\pm |0},$$
(7)
that gives the operator a pseudoclassical value at each point $`|q_\pm `$ of the vacuum configuration space. For example, looking at (4) we assign to the operator $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ the random variable $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(q)`$ which takes the value

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(q_+)=i\xi _{cl}(q_+)=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(8)
on the first point of the configuration space and

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(q_{})=i\xi _{cl}(q_{})=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}},$$
(9)
on the second point. Also according to (4), the free hamiltonian (3) is assigned on each of these points the constant value

$$h_{cl}(q_\pm )=\frac{1}{2}=0|H|0.$$
(10)
Let then go a step further to describe the time dependence of the random variables we have just defined. In the Heisenberg picture, time dependence of the operator $`O`$ is described by the expression $`O(t)=e^{iHt}Oe^{iHt}`$, where $`H`$ is the hamiltonian of the system. The observable $`O(t)`$ can then be associated following the same algorithm that we have described above with a new random variable $`O_{cl}(t,q_\pm )`$. Thus, each physical observable is given a time-dependent c-value at each point $`|q`$ of the configuration space, that is a path whose realization probability is $`|\psi (q)|^2`$.

In particular, the time evolution of the operators $`\xi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ is described by the expressions

$$\xi (t)=e^{iHt}\xi e^{iHt}=cos(t)\xi sin(t)\stackrel{~}{\xi }$$
(11)
$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }(t)=e^{iHt}\stackrel{~}{\xi }e^{iHt}=sin(t)\xi +cos(t)\stackrel{~}{\xi },$$
(12)
which solve the differential equations

$$\frac{d\xi (t)}{dt}=\stackrel{~}{\xi }(t),\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\xi }(t)}{dt}=\xi (t).$$
(13)
On the vacuum state $`|0`$ these equations imply (see (4))

$$\xi (t)|0=e^{it}\xi |0,\stackrel{~}{\xi }(t)|0=ie^{it}\xi |0,$$
(14)
which, according to our formalism, mean that in the ground state $`|0`$ the time-dependent classical values of this pair of operators on each of the two paths $`|q_\pm `$ are $`\xi _{cl}(t,q_\pm )=e^{it}\xi _{cl}(q_\pm )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(t,q_\pm )=ie^{it}\xi _{cl}(q_\pm )`$. They obey the classical equations of an harmonic oscillation

$$\frac{d\xi _{cl}(t;q_\pm )}{dt}=\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(t;q_\pm ),\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(t;q_\pm )}{dt}=\xi _{cl}(t;q_\pm ),$$
(15)
with initial conditions fixed by (5 and 8) on the first path, and (6 and 9) on the second path. The operator $`i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\xi `$ commutes with the hamiltonian so it does not change with time and, therefore, neither its classical value (10) on each path does.

The formalism of PCP’s can be extended to describe any other state in the Hilbert space of the single fermionic mode. Consider, for example, the normalized state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=cos(\theta )|0+sin(\theta )e^{i\varphi }|1`$ and let expand it in the basis $`\{|q_\pm \}`$ of eigenstates of the generator $`\xi `$:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left((cos(\theta )+sin(\theta )e^{i\varphi })|q_++(cos(\theta )sin(\theta )e^{i\varphi })|q_{}\right).$$
(16)
On each of the two points $`|q_\pm `$ in the configuration space the random variable $`\xi _{cl}(q_\pm )`$ takes the value $`\frac{q_\pm |\xi |\mathrm{\Psi }}{q_\pm |\mathrm{\Psi }}=\frac{\pm 1}{\sqrt{2}}`$, identical to those specified by eq. (5) and (6). In order to obtain in the new quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the random variable which corresponds to the generic operator $`O`$ we must find in the linear subspace spanned by the identity operator $`1`$ and the generator $`\xi `$ the operator $`𝒫_o^\psi (1,\xi )`$ such that

$$O|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒫_o^\psi (1,\xi )|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(17)
This can be done through the following three steps: 1) we write the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as a linear combination of the operators $`1`$ and $`\xi `$ acting on the vacuum: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(cos(\theta )1+\sqrt{2}sin(\theta )e^{i\varphi }\xi \right)|0`$; 2) now, use the rules that we have stated before in this section in order to obtain the action of the operator $`O`$ on the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in terms of the action of some new linear combination of the operators $`1`$ and $`\xi `$ on the vacuum state: $`O|\mathrm{\Psi }=O\left(cos(\theta )+\sqrt{2}sin(\theta )e^{i\varphi }\xi \right)|0=𝒢(1,\xi )|0`$; 3) note that the relation introduced in step 1) can be inverted into the relation $`|0=\frac{1}{cos^2(\theta )sin^2(\theta )e^{2i\varphi }}\left(cos(\theta )\sqrt{2}sin(\theta )e^{i\varphi }\xi \right)|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, which is then introduced in the expression that we obtained from step 2) in order to get, as desired, the action of operator $`O`$ on state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in terms of the action of some linear combination $`𝒫_o^\psi (1,\xi )`$ of the operators $`1`$ and $`\xi `$ on such quantum state. The three described steps of this algorithm are well and uniquely defined, so the operator $`𝒫_o^\psi (1,\xi )`$ is unique for each operator $`O`$.

In particular, for the operator $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ we obtain the identity

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{i}{cos^2(\theta )sin^2(\theta )e^{2i\varphi }}(\sqrt{2}sin(\theta )cos(\theta )e^{i\varphi }(cos^2(\theta )+sin^2(\theta )e^{2i\varphi })\xi )|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(18)
which means that this operator is assigned, when the system is in the quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the random variable $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }(q_\pm )=\frac{q_\pm |\stackrel{~}{\xi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}{q_\pm |\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ whose value at each point of the configuration space is:

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(q_\pm )=\frac{i}{cos^2(\theta )sin^2(\theta )e^{2i\varphi }}(\sqrt{2}sin(\theta )cos(\theta )e^{i\varphi }(cos^2(\theta )+sin^2(\theta )e^{2i\varphi })\xi _{cl}(q_\pm )).$$
(19)
The dynamical equations (13), when applied on the quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$,

$$\frac{d\xi (t)|\mathrm{\Psi }}{dt}=\stackrel{~}{\xi }(t)|\mathrm{\Psi },\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\xi }(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }}{dt}=\xi (t)|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(20)
enforce that classical values of the operators $`\xi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ on each pseudoclassical path of the random set that describes the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ still evolve according to classical equations of motion (15). Initial conditions are now fixed on each path by (5) and (6), respectively, for $`\xi _{cl}(t=0)`$ and (19) for $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(t=0)`$, instead of (8), (9). In general, the state of the system $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ fixes only the initial conditions for its set of PCP’s, while the dynamics of these paths subsequently follows classical equations.

The action of the hamiltonian (3) on the quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be expressed, using (18), as

$$H|\psi =i\xi \stackrel{~}{\xi }|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{cos^2(\theta )sin^2(\theta )e^{2i\varphi }}(\sqrt{2}sin(\theta )cos(\theta )e^{i\varphi }\xi (cos^2(\theta )+sin^2(\theta )e^{2i\varphi })/2)|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(21)
which implies that the two paths of the set that describes quantum fluctuations in the generic state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ do not necessarily have the same energy, but

$$h_{cl}(q_\pm )=\frac{1}{cos^2(\theta )sin^2(\theta )e^{2i\varphi }}(\sqrt{2}sin(\theta )cos(\theta )e^{i\varphi }\xi _{cl}(q_\pm )(cos^2(\theta )+sin^2(\theta )e^{2i\varphi })/2).$$
(22)
The two pseudoclassical paths either are no longer equally probable as can be seen from equation (16): when the system is in the quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the probability of the point $`|q_+`$ to happen randomly is $`|\psi (q_+)|^2=\frac{1}{2}|cos(\theta )+sin(\theta )e^{i\varphi }|^2`$, while the probability of the point $`|q_{}`$ is $`|\psi (q_{})|^2=\frac{1}{2}|cos(\theta )sin(\theta )e^{i\varphi }|^2`$.

Notice that although expressions (19) and (22) are ill-defined at the event $`|q_{}`$ when $`e^{i\varphi }=\pm 1`$ and $`sin(\theta )=\pm cos(\theta )`$, the probability of such event to happen randomly is zero, while the other event $`|q_+`$, then, should have an absolute probability equal to 1 to happen. If we consider this case as a limiting case when $`\theta +\frac{\pi }{4},+\frac{5\pi }{4}`$ we can see that event $`|q_{}`$ becomes less and less probable, but the corresponding values for the variables $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(q_{})`$ and $`h_{cl}(q_{})`$ grow towards infinity. In the case of the latter variable the probability of the event decreases faster than the divergence of the variable, so that this event contributes and infinitesimal amount to the average or expected value of the classical value $`h_{cl}`$ over the set of paths. On the contrary, the divergence in the expression for the former variable grows fast enough to contribute a finite amount of half the value of its total average $`<\stackrel{~}{\xi }>`$ over paths, even though the event has a tiny probability to happen. The situation is similar for the event $`|q_+`$ when $`e^{i\varphi }=\pm 1`$ and $`sin(\theta )=cos(\theta )`$.

Let us add that although $`\xi _{cl}(t,q_\pm )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(t,q_\pm )`$ obey classical equation of an harmonic oscillation, the energy of the PCP, as defined by equation (22), is not necessarily equal to $`\frac{1}{2}((\xi _{cl})^2+(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl})^2)`$.

We will finish this section with two results that were already noticed in oaknin  but we remind them here for their relevance in the discusion of the next sections. The first result:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }|O|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }|𝒫_o^\psi (1,\xi )|\mathrm{\Psi }=O_{cl}(q_+)|\psi (q_+)|^2+O_{cl}(q_{})|\psi (q_{})|^2=<O_{cl}>_{PCP},$$
(23)
means not only that the average of pseudoclassical values of the observable $`O`$ over the whole set or ensemble of random PCP’s that describes the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is equal to the average value of the operator $`O`$ in this state, but it also means that PCP’s do not interfere between themselves.

The second result on PCP’s that we want to bring to attention is related to the second momentum of the distribution of pseudoclassical values of the generic operator $`O`$ over the ensemble of random paths:

$$<(O^{}O)_{cl}>_{PCP}=\mathrm{\Psi }|O^{}O|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }|(𝒫_o^\psi (1,\xi ))^{}𝒫_o^\psi (1,\xi )|\mathrm{\Psi }=<O_{cl}^{}O_{cl}>_{PCP}.$$
(24)
It means that the average on PCP’s of pseudoclassical values for the operator $`O^{}O`$ is equal to the second momentum of the distribution of $`O_{cl}`$ over the paths. Although this equation holds in average for any operator $`O`$ it does not necessarily hold on each one of the paths as can be readily seen, for instance, from equation (19): while $`(\stackrel{~}{\xi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\xi })_{cl}=(\stackrel{~}{\xi }^2)_{cl}=\frac{1}{2}`$, we find after some algebra that $`(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl})^{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl})=\frac{\left(1+\frac{1}{2}sin^2(2\theta )\left(1+cos(2\varphi )\right)2sin(2\theta )\left(cos^2(\theta )cos(\varphi )+sin^2(\theta )cos(3\varphi )\right)\right)}{2\left(1\frac{1}{2}sin^2(2\theta )\left(1+cos(2\varphi )\right)\right)}`$, where the $``$ sign in the numerator stands for the value of the random variable at $`|q_+`$ and $`|q_{}`$, respectively. Only after averaging these two possible values with their corresponding probabilities we recover the identity (24). This is the reason why we call these paths pseudoclassical paths: although they obey classical equations of motion, the values on paths of physical observables which do not commute with the representation of commuting observables we have chosen (in this example, the operator $`\xi `$) do not fulfill the usual algebraic relations between classical observables. Or stated in other words, $`(O^{}O)_{cl}(O_{cl})^{}(O_{cl})`$ is not necessarily zero on each one of the paths, neither even on any of them. This is a consequence of the non-commutative relations between operators in the algebra of quantum observables. We will return to discuss this aspect of the formalism at the end of next section when we will introduce collective observables and show that classical algebraic relations are naturally recovered for this kind of operators.

## III PseudoClassiclal Paths in a system of many fermions

In this section we discuss how to extend the formalism of pseudoclassical paths to systems that contain more than one fermion mode, for example a fermionic quantum field. The basic ideas are the same that we have already presented in the previous section, but there are now some subtleties related to the anticommutation relations between operators associated to different fermionic modes that we would like to notice. We will start, for the sake of simplicity, with a system with two free fermions whose hamiltonian is:

$$H=\kappa _a\left(a^{}a\frac{1}{2}\right)+\kappa _b\left(b^{}b\frac{1}{2}\right)=H_a+H_b.$$
(25)
The operators $`a^{}`$,$`a`$ create and annihilate excitations of a first fermion mode, and $`b^{}`$,$`b`$ create and annihilate excitations of a second fermion mode. They obey anticommutation relations $`\{a^{},a\}=\{b^{},b\}=1`$, and the anticommutator between any other pair of these operators is equal to zero. In particular, those relations imply that $`(a^{})^2=a^2=(b^{})^2=b^2=0`$ and, moreover, the operations that create or annihilate excitations of the first fermionic mode anticommute, instead of commuting, with the operations that create or annihilate excitations of the second fermionic mode.

The basis of eigenstates of the hamiltonian (25) can be obtained applying the creation operators $`a^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ on the vacuum state $`|0;0`$. The anticommutation relations between the operators guarantee that the Fock space they generate contains only antisymmetric vectors:

$$|0;0|1;0a^{}|0;0|0;1b^{}|0;0|1;1a^{}b^{}|0;0.$$
(26)
Their corresponding eigenvalues can be read of the equalities

$`H|0;0={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _a+\kappa _b}{2}}|0;0H|1;0=+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _a\kappa _b}{2}}|1;0`$ (27)
$`H|0;1={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _a\kappa _b}{2}}|0;1H|1;1=+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _a+\kappa _b}{2}}|1;1`$ . (28)
The operators $`a^{},b^{}`$ are the hermitic conjugates of $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively, so we can define two couples of hermitic linear combinations of them: the hermitic operators $`\xi `$,$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ introduced in (2), together with the couple

$$\zeta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(b+b^{}),\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(bb^{}).$$
(29)
These four operators anticommute each other:

$$\{\xi ,\stackrel{~}{\xi }\}=\{\xi ,\zeta \}=\{\xi ,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }\}=\{\stackrel{~}{\xi },\zeta \}=\{\stackrel{~}{\xi },\stackrel{~}{\zeta }\}=\{\zeta ,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }\}=0,$$
(30)
and each one is proportional to the identity operator when it is multiplied by itself, $`\xi ^2=\stackrel{~}{\xi }^2=\zeta ^2=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^2=\frac{1}{2}`$. They generate the Grassmann algebra of linear operators defined on the Hilbert space spanned by (26).

The two components $`H_a`$ and $`H_b`$ of the hamiltonian (25) can be expressed in terms of the new operators as $`H_a=\kappa _a(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\xi )`$ and $`H_b=\kappa _b(i\stackrel{~}{\zeta }\zeta )`$, which commute each other $`[H_a,H_b]=0`$. Therefore, $`e^{iHt}=e^{i(H_a+H_b)t}=e^{iH_at}e^{iH_bt}`$, and

$$\xi (t)=e^{iHt}\xi e^{iHt}=e^{iH_at}\xi e^{iH_at},$$
(31)
while

$$\zeta (t)=e^{iHt}\zeta e^{iHt}=e^{iH_bt}\zeta e^{iH_bt}.$$
(32)
Similar expressions are obtained for $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(t)`$ and they imply

$$\frac{d\xi (t)}{dt}=\kappa _a\stackrel{~}{\xi }(t),\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\xi }(t)}{dt}=\kappa _a\xi (t)$$
(33)
$$\frac{d\zeta (t)}{dt}=\kappa _b\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(t),\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(t)}{dt}=\kappa _b\zeta (t).$$
(34)
In order to build the set of PCP’s which describes a generic quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of this system we need to choose a complete representation of commuting observables. The operators $`\xi `$ and $`\zeta `$ do not commute each other and, therefore, are not eligible as such a representation. Instead we use the pair of hermitic operators $`\xi `$ and $`i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta `$ that, according to (30), do commute each other.

So we expand the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=_q\psi (q)|q`$ in the basis of common eigenstates $`|q`$ to the complete representation of commuting observables that we have chosen. We know from the discussion of the previous section that each of these eigenstates is actually promoted to one PCP, whose probability to happen at any time is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(q)|^2`$. Each observable of our representation is naturally given as its classical value at each of these eigenstates its own eigenvalue on it and then, exploiting identities of the kind $`O(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒫_o^\psi (1,\xi ,i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta ;t)|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, any other physical observable $`O`$ is also assigned a time-dependent value on each of them:

$$O_{cl}(t;q)=𝒫_o^\psi (t;1,\xi _{cl}(q),(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )_{cl}(q)).$$
(35)
We can see from this last expression that whatever the quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is, equations (33) and (34) enforce when they are applied on such state (see eq. (20)) that the two couples of observables $`\xi `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ and $`\zeta `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$ will be assigned following this formalism time-dependent values that obey classical equations of two decoupled harmonic oscillators,

$$\frac{d\xi _{cl}(t,q)}{dt}=\kappa _a\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(t,q),\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(t,q)}{dt}=\kappa _a\xi _{cl}(t,q)$$
(36)
$$\frac{d\zeta _{cl}(t,q)}{dt}=\kappa _b\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{cl}(t,q),\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{cl}(t,q)}{dt}=\kappa _b\zeta _{cl}(t,q),$$
(37)
on each PCP, generically labeled as $`|q`$, of the random set which describes that state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

As an example we will explicitly construct here the set of PCP’s that describes the vacuum state $`|0;0`$ of this system. The generalization to other states is straightforward following the three-steps algorithm discussed in the previous section and we will only outline how to apply it to the two-fermions system.

The first stage then is to find the way to express the action on the vacuum state $`|0;0`$ of any operator $`O`$ in the Grassmann algebra generated by $`\xi `$,$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$, $`\zeta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$ in terms of the action on the same state of some linear combination of the set of operators generated by the complete representation of commuting observables, $`\xi `$ and $`i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta `$:

$$O|0;0=(\alpha _11+\alpha _2\xi +\alpha _3(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )+\alpha _4\xi (i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta ))|0;0𝒫_o(1,\xi ,i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )|0;0.$$
(38)
The operator $`𝒫_o(1,\xi ,i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )`$ defined by this expression is unique because the action of the identity operator $`1`$ on the vacuum does not excite any mode, the action of the operator $`\xi `$ excites the mode $`|1;0`$, the action of the operator $`(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )`$ excites $`|1;1`$ and the action of $`(i\xi \stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )`$ excites $`|0;1`$. Therefore, the only linear combination of these four operators which can give the number zero when acting on the vacuum is the trivial combination.

For example, we already know that $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }|0;0=i\xi |0;0`$ because of the identity $`a|0;0=0`$. A little more tricky is the way we describe the action of the operator $`\zeta `$ on the vacuum. We first note that $`\zeta =2\stackrel{~}{\xi }(\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )=2(\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$. Therefore, $`\zeta |0;0=2(\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )\stackrel{~}{\xi }|0;0`$, and subtituting in this expression the previous result we get $`\zeta |0;0=2(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )\xi |0;0=2\xi (i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )|0;0`$. Now, using the identity $`b|0;0=0`$, we get $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }|0;0=i\zeta |0;0=2i\xi (i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )|0;0`$. Using the anticommutation relations between the generators of the Grassmann algebra we can write down similar expression for any other operator $`O`$.

The next stage is to obtain the basis of common eigenvectors to the complete representation of commuting observables we have chosen,$`\xi `$ and $`(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )`$:

$$|q_+;q_+\frac{1}{2}\left((|0;0+|1;0)+(|0;1+|1;1)\right)$$
(39)
$$|q_+;q_{}\frac{1}{2}\left((|0;0+|1;0)(|0;1+|1;1)\right)$$
(40)
$$|q_{};q_+\frac{1}{2}\left((|0;0|1;0)(|0;1|1;1)\right)$$
(41)
$$|q_{};q_{}\frac{1}{2}\left((|0;0|1;0)+(|0;1|1;1)\right),$$
(42)
and their corresponding eigenvalues,

$$\xi |q_+;q_+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|q_+;q_+i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta |q_+;q_+=+\frac{1}{2}|q_+;q_+$$
(43)
$$\xi |q_+;q_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|q_+;q_{}i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta |q_+;q_{}=\frac{1}{2}|q_+;q_{}$$
(44)
$$\xi |q_{};q_+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|q_{};q_+i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta |q_{};q_+=+\frac{1}{2}|q_{};q_+$$
(45)
$$\xi |q_{};q_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|q_{};q_{}i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta |q_{};q_{}=\frac{1}{2}|q_{};q_{}.$$
(46)
In the new basis (39)-(42) the vacuum state can be expanded as

$$|0;0=\frac{1}{2}\left(|q_+;q_++|q_+;q_{}+|q_{};q_++|q_{};q_{}\right)\underset{q_\pm ^a,q_\pm ^b}{}\psi (q_\pm ^a,q_\pm ^b)|q_\pm ^a;q_\pm ^b.$$
(47)
The configuration space of this system has four disconnected points, each one of them has, when the system is in its vacuum, a probability $`|\psi (q)|^2=\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2`$ to happen randomly.

The classical values at each point of the configuration space of the operators that form our complete representation of commuting observables can be obtained directly from (43)-(46). For example, $`\xi _{cl}(q_+,q_+)=\frac{q_+;q_+|\xi |0;0}{q_+;q_+|0;0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ and $`(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )_{cl}(q_+;q_+)=\frac{q_+;q_+|i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta |0;0}{q_+;q_+|0;0}=\frac{1}{2}`$. Similarly, we define their classical values in the other three points of the configuration space.

Now we can benefit from identity (38) in order to assign to any other operator $`O`$ its classical value at each point of the configuration space: $`O_{cl}(q_\pm ,q_\pm )=𝒫_o(1,\xi _{cl}(q_\pm ,q_\pm ),(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )_{cl}(q_\pm ,q_\pm ))=\frac{q_\pm ;q_\pm |O|0;0}{q_\pm ;q_\pm |0;0}`$. For example, $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{cl}(q_\pm ;q_\pm )=i\xi _{cl}(q_\pm ;q_\pm )`$. Of course, $`(i\xi \stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )_{cl}(q_\pm ;q_\pm )=\xi _{cl}(q_\pm ;q_\pm )(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )_{cl}(q_\pm ;q_\pm )`$, because the two operators of our representation commute each other. Then, $`\zeta _{cl}(q_\pm ;q_\pm )=2(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )_{cl}(q_\pm ;q_\pm )\xi _{cl}(q_\pm ;q_\pm )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{cl}(q_\pm ;q_\pm )=i\zeta _{cl}(q_\pm ;q_\pm )`$. The dependence on time of these random variables can now be obtained from the equations of motion (36), (37).

Once we have stated the rules to define the random variables on configuration space associated to each operator we can pick $`\xi _{cl}`$ and $`\zeta _{cl}`$ as the two independent variables, noticing then that $`(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )_{cl}=\frac{1}{2}\zeta _{cl}/\xi _{cl}`$. In the vacuum the four equally probable random events in the configuration space correspond to the four possibilities: $`\xi _{cl}=\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$, $`\zeta _{cl}=\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$.

The whole formalism can be repeated for any quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ other than the vacuum. First, we need to expand the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the basis (39)-(42): $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi (+;+)|q_+;q_++\psi (+;)|q_+;q_{}+\psi (;+)|q_{};q_++\psi (;)|q_{};q_{}`$. Each PCP correspond to one of the points $`|q_\pm ^a;q_\pm ^b`$ in the configuration space and its probability to happen randomly is equal to the modulus squared of the amplitude of the wavefunction, $`|q|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$. The four events are no longer necessarily equally probable, but the classical values on each of them of the random variables assigned to the operators that form our complete representation of commuting observables are still given by their corresponding eigenvalues (43)-(46). Then, the action of the operator $`O(t)`$ on the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is written as the action on the vacuum of some operator $`𝒢(t;1,\xi ,i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )`$: $`O(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }=(\chi _{0;0}(t)1+\chi _{1;0}(t)\xi +\chi _{1;1}(t)(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )+\chi _{0;1}(t)\xi (i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta ))|0;0𝒢(t;1,\xi ,i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )|0;0`$. This step is always possible and uniquely defined because the action on the vacuum of each one of the four operators $`1`$,$`\xi `$,$`(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )`$ and $`\xi (i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta ))`$ excites a different mode in the basis (26) of eigenstates of the hamiltonian (25). Finally, the relation between the states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`|0;0`$ is inverted $`|0;0=𝒥(1,\xi ,i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and introduced in the previous expression to get the desired result: $`O(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒢(t;1,\xi ,i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )𝒥(1,\xi ,i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒫_o^\psi (t;1,\xi ,i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. This last expression can be used to define the classical value of the operator $`O`$ in $`|q`$ when the quantum system is described in its state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as $`O_{cl}(t;q)=𝒫_o^\psi (t;1,\xi _{cl}(q),(i\stackrel{~}{\xi }\zeta )_{cl}(q))`$.

We see that although each PCP corresponds to one of the eigenstates $`|q_\pm ;q_\pm `$, the way how we actually define the classical values of physical observables explicitly depends on the quantum state of the system $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Therefore, the PCP cannot be identified with the quantum state described by the eigenstate $`|q`$. Instead the whole set of four random PCP’s, which according to (33)-(34) should still obey classical equation of motion, does describe the dynamics of the system in its quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The state of the system, therefore, enters this description by: first, fixing the different probabilities of each of the four points of the configuration space; second, defining the initial conditions on the set of classical equations (33)-(34) for each of the PCP’s; third, defining the algebraic relations between the values of different physical observables on each PCP.

The formalism can now be straightforward generalized to a fermionic system containing many modes. We define a couple of hermitic operators $`\xi _l`$,$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_l`$ associated to each one of these modes. The integer index $`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ labels the different modes. The set of operators $`\xi _0`$, $`i\stackrel{~}{\xi }_0\xi _1`$, $`i\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1\xi _2`$,… forms a complete representation of commuting observables and the Hilbert space of the states of the system can be linearly spanned in the basis of common eigenstates to all the operators in this representation. Each common eigenstate can be labeled by a sequence of $`+`$ or $``$ signs (for example, $`|+,+,,+,,,,\mathrm{}`$) each input corresponding to one of the fermionic modes. In total, $`2^𝒩`$ different eigenstates, where $`𝒩`$ is the number of different modes. A $`+`$ sign in the zeroth position corresponds to an eigenstate with eigenvalue $`\frac{+1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ for the operator $`\xi _0`$. Inversely, a $``$ sign correspond to an state with eigenvalue $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ for this operator. And similarly, a $`\pm `$ sign in the $`l`$-th position corresponds to an state with eigenvalue $`\frac{\pm 1}{2}`$ for the operator $`i\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{l1}\xi _l`$, $`l1`$. In the quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=_{q_\pm ^{(n)}}\psi (q_\pm ^{(n)})|q_\pm ^{(n)}`$ each of the $`2^𝒩`$ random pseudoclassical paths $`|q`$ which describe the system has a probability $`|\psi (q)|^2`$ to happen. In the vacuum all the paths are equally probable and, therefore, this probability is $`1/2^𝒩`$.

Let us now turn back to equations (23) and (24), which describe the statistical behaviour of the random variables over the ensemble of PCP’s. They relate the first and second momentum of the random variable $`O_{cl}`$ to the expected values of the operator $`O`$ and $`O^{}O`$, respectively. The proof of these equations that we gave in the previous section also proves the assertions for systems with many fermionic modes. We noticed then that (24) holds only on average over the whole ensemble of PCP’s but does not necessarily hold on each specific PCP and understood that, as a consequence of the non-commutative relations between quantum operators, the usual algebraic relations between classical observables are not necessarily fulfilled by the time-dependent values $`O_{cl}(t)`$ defined on the non-interfering paths. There are, nevertheless, a certain class of operators, which we call ”collective” operators for reasons that will become clear in the next section, for which $`(O^{}O)_{cl}(O_{cl})^{}O_{cl}0`$ not only in the average sense of equation (24), but under the stronger requirement that

$$\sigma _O\left[<\left((O^{}O)_{cl}(O_{cl})^{}O_{cl}\right)^2>_{PCP}\right]^{1/2}<(O_{cl})^{}O_{cl}>_{PCP}.$$
(48)
In this sense $`(O^{}O)_{cl}(O_{cl})^{}O_{cl}`$ on each PCP independently of the quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ that they describe and we can conclude that values on paths of collective observables approximately recover the usual algebraic relations between classical observables. This condition is naturally satisfied for some operators which depend on the dynamics of many modes because for these operators the random variable $`(O^{}O)_{cl}(O_{cl})^{}O_{cl}`$ can be expressed as a quadratic function of many other independent random variables associated to individual modes and, according to the central limit theorem, condition (48) is satisfied. Moreover, higher statistical moments of the collective random variable are highly suppressed.

## IV PCP’s in fermionic field theories

We are now ready to develop the formalism of PCP’s for the Dirac theory of free spinors. We consider a single fermionic field $`\psi (x)`$ in Minkowski space-time, whose lagrangian density is <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1we use units in which $`\mathrm{}=1`$, $`c=1`$.

$$=\overline{\psi }\left(i_\mu \gamma ^\mu M\right)\psi ,$$
(49)
where $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are $`4`$D Clifford matrices and $`M`$ is the mass of the spinor field. The hamiltonian of the system is:

$$=d^3\stackrel{}{x}\overline{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})\left(i\gamma ^j_j+M\right)\psi (\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(50)
In order to regularize the theory in the infrared limit we impose periodic boundary conditions on the large three-dimensional box $`[0,X]\times [0,X]\times [0,X]`$. The spinor field $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ and its conjugate $`\overline{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{x})\gamma ^0`$ can then be expanded in a discrete series of Fourier modes:

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{x})=\underset{n_1,n_2,n_3=N}{\overset{+N}{}}\frac{1}{X^{3/2}}\underset{s}{}\left(a_\stackrel{}{n}^su_\stackrel{}{n}^se^{+2\pi i\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{x}/X}+b_\stackrel{}{n}^sv_\stackrel{}{n}^se^{2\pi i\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{x}/X}\right),$$
(51)
$$\overline{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})=\underset{n_1,n_2,n_3=N}{\overset{+N}{}}\frac{1}{X^{3/2}}\underset{s}{}\left(a_\stackrel{}{n}^s\overline{u}_\stackrel{}{n}^se^{2\pi i\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{x}/X}+b_\stackrel{}{n}^s\overline{v}_\stackrel{}{n}^se^{+2\pi i\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{x}/X}\right).$$
(52)
The index $`s`$ takes two possible values which correspond to two possible helicity orientations for the fermionic mode labeled by the index $`\stackrel{}{n}(n_1,n_2,n_3)`$. The infinite series of Fourier modes has been cut by the ultraviolet regulator $`N/X`$. The operators $`a_\stackrel{}{n}^s`$, $`b_\stackrel{}{n}^s`$ and their hermitic conjugates $`a_\stackrel{}{n}^s`$, $`b_\stackrel{}{n}^s`$ obey canonical anticommutation relation: $`\{a_\stackrel{}{n}^s,a_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}\}=\{b_\stackrel{}{n}^s,b_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}\}=\delta ^{ss^{}}\delta _{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{m}}`$ and any other anticommutator between these operators is equal to zero. They create and annihilate quanta of the fermion and its antifermion, respectively. The Dirac spinors $`u_\stackrel{}{n}^{s=\pm }`$ are two linearly independent solutions to the equation $`\left[i\gamma ^j_j+M\right]u_\stackrel{}{n}^se^{+2\pi i\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{x}/X}=\kappa _\stackrel{}{n}\gamma ^0u_\stackrel{}{n}^se^{+2\pi i\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{x}/X}`$, while $`v_\stackrel{}{n}^{s=\pm }`$ solve the equation $`\left[i\gamma ^j_j+M\right]v_\stackrel{}{n}^se^{2\pi i\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{x}/X}=\kappa _\stackrel{}{n}\gamma ^0v_\stackrel{}{n}^se^{2\pi i\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{x}/X}`$, where $`\kappa _\stackrel{}{n}=\left[|\frac{2\pi \stackrel{}{n}}{X}|^2+M^2\right]^{1/2}`$. They obey orthogonality relations of the kind $`u_\stackrel{}{n}^sv_\stackrel{}{n}^s^{}=v_\stackrel{}{n}^su_\stackrel{}{n}^s^{}=0`$ and are normalized such that $`u_\stackrel{}{n}^su_\stackrel{}{n}^s^{}=v_\stackrel{}{n}^sv_\stackrel{}{n}^s^{}=\delta ^{ss^{}}`$.

Once we put (51) and (52) into (50) we obtain the following expression for the hamiltonian of the system

$$=\underset{\stackrel{}{n},s}{}\kappa _\stackrel{}{n}\left((a_\stackrel{}{n}^sa_\stackrel{}{n}^s\frac{1}{2})+(b_\stackrel{}{n}^sb_\stackrel{}{n}^s\frac{1}{2})\right),$$
(53)
which describes a collection of free fermionic modes.

We introduce for each mode, labeled by the pair of indexes $`s,\stackrel{}{n}`$, a couple of hermitic operators $`\xi _\stackrel{}{n}^s`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\stackrel{}{n}^s`$ as we did in the previous section. The task of choosing a complete representation of commuting observables is much simplified after having regularized the theory in the IR and UV: then we have a large but finite number of fermionic modes that we can order in a sequence. The set of hermitic operators $`\xi _0`$, $`i\stackrel{~}{\xi }_0\xi _1`$,$`i\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1\xi _2`$, …forms a complete representation of commuting observables and we can expand any quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the system in the basis of common eigenstates $`|q`$ to the operators in this representation.

Following the formalism that we have developed in the two previous sections we can give to each physical observable $`O(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ a ”classical” value $`O_{cl}(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ at each of these common eigenstates $`|q`$, which are so promoted to describe space-time dependent pseudoclassical field configurations (PCFC’s) whose probabilities to randomly happen are, again, given by $`|q|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$. We remark again that although each PCFC corresponds to a certain eigenstate $`|q`$, the way how we actually assign classical values to the physical observables, exploiting identities like (17), explicitly depends on the quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the system and, therefore, the path cannot be identified with the quantum state described by $`|q`$.

The state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the quantum field is then represented as a linear combination of randomly distributed PCFC’s. Each field operator, in particular $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ and its conjugate $`\overline{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$, is assigned a time-dependent value on each of these paths. The operator equation

$$\left[i_\mu \gamma ^\mu M\right]\psi (t,\stackrel{}{x})=0,$$
(54)
and its hermitic conjugate

$$\overline{\psi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})\left[i_\mu \gamma ^\mu +M\right]=0,$$
(55)
when are applied on the quantum state of the system

$$\left[i_\mu \gamma ^\mu M\right]\psi (t,\stackrel{}{x})|\mathrm{\Psi }=0,\overline{\psi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})\left[i_\mu \gamma ^\mu +M\right]|\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(56)
guarantee that on each of the random PCFC’s in the set that describes the quantum state the classical values $`\psi (t,\stackrel{}{x})_{cl}`$ and $`\overline{\psi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})_{cl}`$ obey classical equations of motion:

$$\left[i_\mu \gamma ^\mu M\right]\psi (t,\stackrel{}{x})_{cl}=0,\overline{\psi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})_{cl}\left[i_\mu \gamma ^\mu +M\right]=0.$$
(57)
On the other hand, the initial conditions on each of the PCFC in the set that describes the state, as well as their probabilities to randomly happen, are different for each quantum state of the system, as we have discussed in the previous sections. Let us remark that $`(\overline{\psi })_{cl}=(\psi ^{}\gamma ^0)_{cl}`$ is determined from the action of the operator on the ket-state $`\overline{\psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and, therefore, is not equal to $`(\psi _{cl})^{}\gamma ^0`$ which results from its action on the bra-state $`\mathrm{\Psi }|\overline{\psi }`$.

We can now consider the addition of a linear interaction term to the quantum field free theory that we are discussing. If the coupling is weak enough we can work in perturbation theory. Then, the Hilbert space of states can still be built as the Fock space of free quanta and the algebra of the quantum operators is not altered. So, the whole formalism of PCFC’s can be repeated. Now there is a new interacting term that appears in the hamiltonian of the system and modify the dynamics of the quantum operators, $`O(t)=e^{i(H_0+\lambda H_{int})t}Oe^{i(H_0+\lambda H_{int})t}`$, in the Heisenberg picture. In consequence, it also modifies the time-dependent values of the field operators on each PCFC. We can see from the operator equations (54) and (55) that $`\psi (t,\stackrel{}{x})_{cl}`$ and $`\overline{\psi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})_{cl}`$ will still obey exactly classical equations of motion because the term added to the equations is linear in the operators $`\psi (t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ and $`\overline{\psi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$.

As a simple example, we can add a Yukawa coupling term to the lagrangian (49). This interaction adds a new term to the operator equation:

$$\left[i_\mu \gamma ^\mu M\right]\psi (t,\stackrel{}{x})+g\varphi (t,\stackrel{}{x})\psi (t,\stackrel{}{x})=0.$$
(58)
This equation implies, when it is applied on the quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, that the dynamics of the pseudoclassical values on its PCFC’s gets modified:

$$\left[i_\mu \gamma ^\mu M\right]\psi (t,\stackrel{}{x})_{cl}+g\varphi (t,\stackrel{}{x})_{cl}\psi (t,\stackrel{}{x})_{cl}=0$$
(59)
and a similar equation can be obtained for $`(\overline{\psi })_{cl}`$. In the new term we have made use of the identity $`(\varphi \psi )_{cl}=(\varphi )_{cl}(\psi )_{cl}`$, which can be easily proved because in a weakly interacting theory the operators $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ act on different sectors of the Hilbert space, and have taken advantage of the linearity of (58) in the fermion field operator. The interaction term does not modify the initial conditions to be fixed on the PCFC’s that describe the quantum state, which depend only on the relations between operators when they act on the quantum state. Neither it does modify the random probability of each path. A discussion of, in general, non-linear interactions will be presented in a forthcoming work.

In the picture that we have presented quantum states of fermionic fields are represented as linear combination of randomly distributed paths that obey classical Dirac equations and do not interfere between themselves. The formalism is reminiscent of the consistent histories approach of Gell-Mann and Hartle GMH , wherein the Feynman paths Feynmann  which contribute to a certain process are grouped into equivalence classes or non-detailed histories that are approximately incoherent. On the contrary, in the formalism that we have developed the random paths do not interfere at all and obey ”deterministic” equations of motion at the price of redefining the algebraic relations between the values on paths of physical observables.

We can use this formalism of PCFC’s to describe quantum fluctuations of fermionic fields in terms of pseudoclassical stochastic proccesses. In particular, we can use it to describe local fluctuations of globally conserved numbers using classical concepts. We present here two examples that could be interesting: local fluctuations of the energy and fermion number in a finite volume $`V`$ contained in the whole box $`[0,X]^3`$ and parametrically larger than the UV cutoff that we have introduced.

The operator $`_V=_Vd^3\stackrel{}{x}\overline{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})\left(i\gamma ^j_j+M\right)\psi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ which describes the energy contained in the finite volume $`V`$ was already introduced in eichler  and discussed in oaknin  in the context of a bosonic field theory. Similarly the fermion number contained in the same volume is described by the operator $`_V=_Vd^3\stackrel{}{x}\overline{\psi }(\stackrel{}{x})\gamma ^0\psi (\stackrel{}{x})`$.

If we want to find the ”classical” expressions for these two operators in the set of PCFC’s that describe a generic quantum field theoretic state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ we would need to write the action on this state of each of the operators in terms of the action on the same state of some function of the operators in a complete representation of communting observables. We have done this excersise in previous sections and, therefore, we will present here a different approach that will shortcut the way towards this aim and will give us a different perspective on PCFC’s.

We know from equation (24) that

$`<(_V(t))_{cl}>_{PCFC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V}d^3\stackrel{}{x}<(\overline{\psi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})\left(i\gamma ^j_j+M\right)\psi (t,\stackrel{}{x}))_{cl}>_{PCFC}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V}d^3\stackrel{}{x}<(\psi _{cl}(t,\stackrel{}{x}))^{}\gamma ^0\left(i\gamma ^j_j+M\right)\psi _{cl}(t,\stackrel{}{x})>_{PCFC},`$
and similarly

$`<(_V(t))_{cl}>_{PCFC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V}d^3\stackrel{}{x}<(\overline{\psi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})\gamma ^0\psi (t,\stackrel{}{x}))_{cl}>_{PCFC}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V}d^3\stackrel{}{x}<(\psi _{cl}(t,\stackrel{}{x}))^{}\psi _{cl}(t,\stackrel{}{x})>_{PCFC}.`$
Although these equations hold only on average over the whole ensemble of PCFC’s and not necessarily on each of them, we gave in (48) a condition that ensures that

$$(_V(t))_{cl}_Vd^3\stackrel{}{x}(\psi _{cl}(t,\stackrel{}{x}))^{}\gamma ^0\left(i\gamma ^j_j+M\right)\psi _{cl}(t,\stackrel{}{x}),$$
(60)
and

$$(_V(t))_{cl}_Vd^3\stackrel{}{x}(\psi _{cl}(t,\stackrel{}{x}))^{}\psi _{cl}(t,\stackrel{}{x}),$$
(61)
on each PCFC, if the random variables $`\left[(_V)_{cl}_Vd^3\stackrel{}{x}(\psi _{cl}(\stackrel{}{x}))^{}\gamma ^0\left(i\gamma ^j_j+M\right)\psi _{cl}(\stackrel{}{x})\right]`$ and $`\left[(_V)_{cl}_Vd^3\stackrel{}{x}(\psi _{cl}(\stackrel{}{x}))^{}\psi _{cl}(\stackrel{}{x})\right]`$ are quadratic in many independent random variables. We called this kind of observables collective observables and will show below that these two operators are in fact ”collective” operators, but for now let us just assume it to get to some conclussions:

a) We can describe the dynamics on paths of ”collective” observables like (60) and (61) in terms of classical stochastic concepts, from the classical Dirac equations (57) or (59) that $`\psi _{cl}(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ obeys. Only the initial conditions and the actual distribution of paths are constrained by the quantum state of the system $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

b) Then, the time correlation function of any operator can be defined on each PCFC as usual in statistichal mechanics landau , $`f_o(t_1t_2)=(O_{cl}(t_1))^{}O_{cl}(t_2)(O_{cl}(t_2))^{}O_{cl}(t_1)`$, and the lifetime of the fluctuation is defined as the inverse width of its Fourier transform. We proved in oaknin  that the average over the ensemble of PCFC’s coincides, as it should do, with the usual definition of the time scale of quantum fluctuations.

We will conclude this section giving a formal proof that justifies (60) and (61). Let start introducing the Fourier expansions (51) and (52) in the expressions for the operators $`_V`$ and $`_V`$. Their classical values on paths can then be expressed as <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2We have included all the dependence on the geometry of the volume $`V`$ inside the spatial integrals $`F(\stackrel{}{k},X)=_Vd^3x\frac{1}{X^3}exp\left(2\pi i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}/X\right)`$, that can be analytically computed for simple geometries. If $`V=[0,X]^3`$ is the whole box, $`F(\stackrel{}{k},X)=0`$ except for $`F(\stackrel{}{k}=0,X)=1`$.:

$$(_V)_{cl}=\underset{\stackrel{}{n},\stackrel{}{m}}{}\underset{s,s^{}}{}\kappa _\stackrel{}{m}\left[(a_\stackrel{}{n}^s\overline{u}_\stackrel{}{n}^s+b_\stackrel{}{n}^s\overline{v}_\stackrel{}{n}^s)(a_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}\gamma ^0u_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}b_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}\gamma ^0v_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{})\right]_{cl}F(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{m},X),$$
(62)
$$(_V)_{cl}=\underset{\stackrel{}{n},\stackrel{}{m}}{}\underset{s,s^{}}{}\left[(a_\stackrel{}{n}^s\overline{u}_\stackrel{}{n}^s+b_\stackrel{}{n}^s\overline{v}_\stackrel{}{n}^s)(a_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}\gamma ^0u_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}+b_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}\gamma ^0v_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{})\right]_{cl}F(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{m},X).$$
(63)
On the other hand the approximate expressions (60),(61) can be expressed using the same Fourier expansions as:

$$(_V)_{cl}^{\mathrm{𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑥}}=\underset{\stackrel{}{n},\stackrel{}{m}}{}\underset{s,s^{}}{}\kappa _\stackrel{}{m}\left[([a_\stackrel{}{n}^s]_{cl}^{}\overline{u}_\stackrel{}{n}^s+[b_\stackrel{}{n}^s^{}]_{cl}^{}\overline{v}_\stackrel{}{n}^s)([a_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}]_{cl}\gamma ^0u_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}[b_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}]_{cl}\gamma ^0v_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{})\right]F(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{m},X),$$
(64)
$$(_V)_{cl}^{\mathrm{𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑥}}=\underset{\stackrel{}{n},\stackrel{}{m}}{}\underset{s,s^{}}{}\left[([a_\stackrel{}{n}^s]_{cl}^{}\overline{u}_\stackrel{}{n}^s+[b_\stackrel{}{n}^s]_{cl}^{}\overline{v}_\stackrel{}{n}^s)([a_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}]_{cl}\gamma ^0u_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}+[b_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}]_{cl}\gamma ^0v_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{})\right]F(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{m},X).$$
(65)
We need to prove that $`(_V)_{cl}(_V)_{cl}^{\mathrm{𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑥}}`$ and $`(_V)_{cl}(_V)_{cl}^{\mathrm{𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑥}}`$ are bilinear in the random variables associated to the single modes. Comparing both expressions we can see that it is enough to prove that expressions of the kind $`[a_\stackrel{}{n}^sa_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}]_{cl}[a_\stackrel{}{n}^s]_{cl}^{}[a_\stackrel{}{m}^s^{}]_{cl}`$, which involve only two different fermion modes are bilinear. We know from (38) that they are.

## V Summary

We have extended to systems of fermions the formalism of pseudoclassical paths that we recently developed for systems of weakly interacting bosons and have shown that fermionic quantum states can also be represented in the Heisenberg picture as linear combinations of randomly distributed paths which do not interfere between themselves. Every physical observable was assigned a time-dependent value on each path in a way that respects the anticommutation relations between fermionic operators and, in consequence, these values on paths do not neccesarily respect the usual algebraic relations between classical observables. Each path depicts a collection of pseudoclassical harmonic oscillators with constrained initial conditions.

We used these paths to define the dynamics of quantum fluctuations in systems of fermions without reference to an environment or any additional external system. Then, we selected ”collective” observables which depend on many fermionic degrees of freedom and found that, as we found in oaknin  for collective operators which depend on many bosonic modes, their values on PCP’s do approximately fulfill the usual algebraic relations between classical observables and, therefore, the dynamics of these collective fluctuations can be described in terms of unconstrained classical stochastic processes.

In this setup, we showed that quantum fluctuations of fermionic fields obey classical Dirac equations and described the dynamics of local fluctuations of globally conserved fermion numbers.

## VI Acknowledgments

I thank R. Brustein for his help and for encouraging me to write this paper, which broaden the ideas already presented in oaknin . I warmly acknowledge many useful discussions with J. Oaknin . This work was partly supported by the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


format: text

text:
# REFERENCES

Spin and energy transfer in nanocrystals without transport of charge

A. O. Govorov

Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701, USA

ABSTRACT

We describe a mechanism of spin transfer between individual quantum dots that does not involve tunneling. Incident circularly-polarized photons create inter-band excitons with non-zero electron spin in the first quantum dot. When the quantum-dot pair is properly designed, this excitation can be transferred to the neighboring dot via the Coulomb interaction with either conservation or flipping of the electron spin. The second dot can radiate circularly-polarized photons at lower energy. Selection rules for spin transfer are determined by the resonant conditions and by the strong spin-orbit interaction in the valence band of nanocrystals. Coulomb-induced energy and spin transfer in pairs and chains of dots can become very efficient under resonant conditions. The electron can preserve its spin orientation even in randomly-oriented nanocrystals.

Manipulation of spins in nanostructures is presently attracting a tremendous amount of interest . Since spins in solids have relatively long lifetimes, they can be exploited as qubits - basic elements of quantum computer . Spin-polarized states of electrons in crystals can be generated optically , by driving current through spin-dependent barriers, or by injecting electrons from ferromagnetic materials . In most cases, spin transport across a crystal occurs either via tunneling or injection. This would not be the case for so-called colloidal quantum dots (QDs), where individual nanocrystals strongly confine carriers and do not permit efficient tunnel coupling . However, instead of direct tunnel coupling, the colloidal QDs permit long-range Coulomb-induced transfer of optically-excited excitons . Such transport has been observed in several recent experiments and is often referred to as Förster energy transfer . Theoretically, Förster-like transfer in nanocrystals has been discussed in connection with exciton dynamics in QD arrays and quantum computing

Here we develop a theory of electron spin transfer between individual nanocrystals without tunneling, involving optically-excited excitons and the Coulomb interaction. So far, spin transport in nanostructures has been considered almost exclusively in relation to direct transport of charge . Since the spin orientation in the conduction band of semiconductors can be efficiently created with the circularly-polarized light pumping , it is interesting to study a possibility of spin transfer between individual dots without transfer of charge. In such a transfer process, the optical and spin selection rules would be dictated by the strong spin-orbit interaction in the valence band. The typical experimental scheme related to Förster transport involves pairs of quantum dots with different sizes (fig. 1a-c). An incident photon creates an exciton in the small dot 1 with a larger optical gap (fig. 1a-c). Then, the exciton is transferred via the Förster-like mechanism into the large dot 2 with a smaller optical gap. Due to fast energy relaxation in the dot 2, the exciton becomes trapped and contribute to the photoluminescence (PL) at the dot-2 energy. If electrons in the dot 1 are created by circularly-polarized light, they become spin-polarized due to the spin-orbit interaction in the valence band . Here we will focus on dynamics of excitons generated by circularly-polarized photons and develop principles for electron-spin transport in QD pairs without tunneling. We will show that the spin orientation can be efficiently transported between QDs via the Coulomb interaction. This becomes possible thanks to the strong spin-orbit interaction in the valence bands of QDs. The spin-transfer selection rules strongly depend on geometry and resonance conditions. In the resonance regime, the transfer can lead to either conservation or flipping of spin.

Pairs of semiconductor QDs can be grown by using self-organization technology . In such stacked QDs, sizes of dots and inter-dot separation are well controlled. Another method to fabricate a system with QD pairs is colloidal synthesis . In a solid of colloidal QDs with two distinct sizes, QD pairs are randomly oriented . In monolayers of QDs (fig. 3a), the orientation of pairs is directional . Another possibility to avoid a randomness is to study a single QD pair bound to a surface .

In what follows, we will use several simplifications related to the time scales. In particular, we will assume that $`\tau _{espin},\tau _{exc}\tau _{energy},\tau _{hspin}`$, where $`\tau _{exc}`$ is the exciton lifetime in a single QD related to radiational and non-radiational transitions, $`\tau _{energy}`$ is the energy relaxation time of excitons within a dot, and $`\tau _{espin}`$ is the electron spin lifetime, and $`\tau _{hspin}`$ is the momentum relaxation time of holes. In other words, we suppose: (1) fast intra-dot relaxation of angular momentum of holes and (2) fast energy relaxation to the ground state in the dots.

Disk-shaped dots with a cubic lattice. First we consider a pair of oblate (disk-shaped) quantum dots (fig. 1) with dimensions $`a_ib_i`$, where $`a_i`$ is the QD size in the $`z`$-direction, $`b_i`$ is the in-plane diameter, and $`i`$ is the dot index ($`i=1,2`$). For simplicity, we assume that the QD potential has infinite walls. In such a model, a single QD is quasi-two-dimensional (2D) and its valence-band structure is similar to that in a 2D quantum well . To find the wave functions, we first quantize the motion of heavy and light holes in the z-direction; it provides us with the Bloch functions. Then we can introduce weak quantization in the $`xy`$ plane involving effective masses of holes. The wave functions in the conduction and valence bands for the dots 1 and 2 take a form:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{e,(),n,l}=u_{()}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,l}^{(i)}(r_{||},z),\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{hh,\pm 3/2,n,l}=u_{\pm 3/2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,l}^{(i)}(r_{||},z),\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{lh,\pm 1/2,n.l}=u_{\pm 1/2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,l}^{(i)}(r_{||},z),`$ (1)
where $`i=1,2`$ and $`𝐫_{||}=(x,y)`$; $`u_{()}`$, $`u_{\pm 3/2}`$, and $`u_{\pm 1/2}`$ are the Bloch functions of electrons, heavy holes ($`hh`$) and light holes ($`lh`$), respectively; $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,l}^{(i)}(r_{||},z)=f_0^{(i)}(z)R_{n,l}^{(i)}(r_{||})`$ are the envelope functions, where the $`f_0^{(i)}(z)`$ is the ground-state function for the motion in the $`z`$-direction, $`R_{n,l}^{(i)}(r_{||})`$ are Bessel’s functions describing the in-plane motion, and $`(n,l)`$ are the radial and azimuthal quantum numbers of in-plane motion, respectively; $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`l=0,1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$. In our simplified approach all types of carriers are described with the same set of envelope wave functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,l}(r_{||},z)`$.

In the geometry shown in fig. 1, the optical operator for the exciton in the dot 1 can be written as follows: $`\widehat{V}_{1,+}^{opt}=𝐞_1\widehat{𝐩}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)\widehat{p}_x+i\widehat{p}_y+\mathrm{sin}(\theta _1)\widehat{p}_z`$, where $`\widehat{𝐩}`$ and $`𝐞_1`$ are the momentum operator and polarization vector, respectively. Using this operator, the probability of inter-band optical transitions for the dot 1 takes a form $`P_1^{s,\mu }=|<\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{s,n,l}|\widehat{V}_{1,+}^{opt}|\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{\mu ,n,l}>|^2`$, where $`s=()`$ and $`\mu =\pm 3/2,\pm 1/2`$. Emission of the dot 2 is described in a similar way with the operator $`\widehat{V}_{2_\pm }^{opt}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)\widehat{p}_x\pm i\widehat{p}_y\mathrm{sin}(\theta _2)\widehat{p}_z`$, where signs $`\pm `$ relate to the different polarizations of the secondary photon ($`\mathrm{}`$). For simplicity, we consider the case when the linear momenta of both photons lie in the $`xz`$ plane.

The inter-dot transfer is described by the Coulomb operator which can be expanded into an infinite series of multipole terms. However, it is natural to assume that the dipole-dipole interaction will provide the leading term,

$`\widehat{V}_{Coul}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{ϵR^3}}(𝐫_1𝐫_23z_1z_2),`$ (2)
where $`𝐫_{1(2)}`$ are the radius vectors related to the dots (fig. 1a), $`ϵ`$ is the averaged dielectric constant, and $`R`$ is the distance between the dots. Below, we will generalize our results including multipole interactions. The Förster-like probability of inter-dot transition takes the form

$`W_{\beta _1}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta _2}{}}|<\beta _1|\widehat{V}_{Coul}|\beta _2>|^2\delta (E_{\beta _1}E_{\beta _2}),`$ (3)
where the indices $`\beta _{1(2)}`$ denote the exciton states in the dots: $`\beta _1=(s_1,\mu _1,n_1,l_1)`$ and $`\beta _2=(\mu _2,s_2,n_2,l_2)`$. Because of fast intra-dot energy relaxation, the function $`|\beta _1>`$ in eq. 3 describes the ground-state exciton in the dot 1 with $`s_1=,`$ and $`\mu _1=\pm 3/2`$, and $`(n_1,l_1)=(1,0)`$. In the spirit of the Förster theory the delta function in eq. 3 should be replaced by the spectral overlap integral $`J_{\beta _1,\beta _2}=\rho _{\beta _1}(E)\rho _{\beta _2}(E)𝑑E`$ which involves normalized line shapes $`\rho _{\beta _i}(E)=\pi ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta _i}/[(EE_{\beta _i})^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta _i}^2]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta _i}`$ is the homogeneous broadening of the exciton $`\beta _i`$. Lorentzians were utilized for simplicity.

By using eqs. 1-3, we now compute the mean spin in the dots and the degree of polarization of secondary photons. To be specific, we consider the resonant dipole-allowed absorption process of incident photon in the dot 1 that involves a heavy-hole level (fig. 1b); in other words, the incident-photon energy is taken below the first inter-band transition related to the light hole. The mean $`z`$-component of electron spin polarization in the dot 1 is determined by the probabilities $`P_1^{s,\mu }`$ and is equal to $`S_1=(P_1^{}P_1^{})/(P_1^{}+P_1^{})=2\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)/[\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)^2+1]`$, where $`P_i^{()}|P_{cv}|^2(cos(\theta _1)1)^2`$ is the probability of the electron being in the state $`()`$ and $`P_{cv}=<S|\widehat{p}_x|X>`$ is the inter-band optical matrix element. In the optical matrix elements, the operator $`\widehat{𝐩}`$ was involved only in the integrals with the Bloch functions. For the next step, we calculate the Coulomb matrix elements under resonance conditions. In the regime of inter-dot resonance, the ground-state exciton energy of the dot 1 is equal to the energy of excited dipole-active exciton in the dot 2. The latter state can be composed of either heavy-hole or light-hole. We start with the resonance between heavy-hole states in the dots (fig. 1b). The probability to create the exciton with $`s_2=`$ in the dot 2 is given by $`P_2^{}=(1/2)P_1^{}W_{\beta _1\beta _2}=P_1^{}w_0J_{\beta _1,\beta _2}/2`$, where $`\beta _1=(,3/2,1,0)`$ and $`\beta _2=(,3/2,n_2,l_2)`$; the factor $`1/2`$ is the probability to find the heavy hole in either state ($`\pm 3/2`$) in the dot 1; this is due to fast momentum relaxation of holes. Besides, $`W_{\beta _1\beta _2}`$ is the probability of Förster-like transfer between the states $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$. A coefficient $`w_0=2\pi d_0^4(e^4/ϵ^2R^6\mathrm{})`$, where $`d_0=<X|x|S>`$ is the atomic dipole moment. For the spin $``$ we have a similar equation, $`P_2^{}=P_1^{}w_0J_{\beta _1,\beta _2}/2`$. Again, the operator $`𝐫`$ was involved only in the integrals with the Bloch functions. The spin polarization of the dot II is given by

$`S_2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{P_2^{}P_2^{}}{P_2^{}+P_2^{}}}=S_1={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)}{[\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)^2+1]}}.`$ (4)
If $`\theta _1=0`$, the system has axial symmetry, the transfer process conserves the total momentum, and therefore $`S_2^{}=1`$. Thus, Förster transport preserves the spin polarization in the regime of inter-dot resonance between heavy-hole levels. Now we assume that the parameters of dots are chosen to satisfy the condition of inter-dot resonance between heavy and light holes (fig. 1c). It is easy to see that Coulomb transfer results in the spin flipping. For example the probability $`P_2^{}`$ is now expressed via $`P_1^{}`$: $`P_2^{}=(1/2)P_1^{}W_{\beta _1\beta _2}=P_1^{}w_0J_{\beta _1,\beta _2}/6`$, where $`\beta _2=(,1/2,n_2,l_2)`$. Similarly, $`P_2^{}=P_1^{}w_0J_{\beta _1,\beta _2}/6`$. Thus, we obtain the effect of spin flipping:

$`S_2^{\prime \prime }=S_1.`$ (5)
So far, we considered strongly resonant conditions. In the general case, the mean spin in the dot 2 is calculated as

$`S_2={\displaystyle \frac{_{\beta _1,\beta _2}P_2^{}(\beta _1\beta _2)P_2^{}(\beta _1\beta _2)}{_{\beta _1,\beta _2}P_2^{}(\beta _1\beta _2)+P_2^{}(\beta _1\beta _2)}},`$ (6)
where the summation involves all pairs of states; the index $`\beta _1`$ is related to the $`hh`$ ground state of the dot 1: $`\beta _1=((),\pm 3/2,1,0)`$. The degree of circular polarization of secondary photons at the dot-2 ground-exciton energy is now written as

$`P_{circ}={\displaystyle \frac{I_+I_{}}{I_++I_{}}}=S_2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)}{[\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)^2+1]}},`$ (7)
where $`I_\pm `$ are the light intensities given by $`I_+=P_2^{}P_+()+P_2^{}P_+()`$ and $`I_{}=P_2^{}P_{}()+P_2^{}P_{}()`$. Here, the optical transition rate $`P_\sigma (s)`$ describes the emission process in which an electron with the spin $`s`$ in the dot 2 creates a photon with the circular polarization $`\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ can be $`+`$ or $``$. The degree of circular polarization (7) strongly depends on the resonance conditions between the QDs (fig. 2a). If $`\theta _{1(2)}=0`$, the system has axial symmetry and the electron spin is either conserved or flipped in the resonant-transfer process (fig. 2a). The latter comes from the conservation of the total angular momentum in the Coulomb matrix elements. Besides, the rate of exciton transfer, $`1/\tau _{trans}=W_{\beta _1}`$, is strongly enhanced under the inter-dot resonance conditions (fig. 2b). Note that the total angular momentum is not conserved in the three-step process shown in figs. 1b,c because of fast relaxation of angular momentum for the hole.

Spherical quantum dots with a cubic lattice.  In sherical dots, symmetry of a single QD is high and both heavy and light holes will contribute to the transfer rate for the given inter-dot resonance. The multi-component wave functions for the holes in a model with infinite walls are well known ,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^M={\displaystyle \underset{l,m,\mu }{}}C_{l,m,\mu ,M}R_l^{(i)}(r)Y_{lm}^{(i)}(\mathrm{\Omega })u_\mu .`$ (8)
Here $`i`$ is the QD number ($`i=1,2`$), $`M`$ is the $`z`$-component of total angular momentum, $`Y_{lm}^{(i)}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are spherical harmonic functions, $`R_l^{(i)}(r)`$ are functions of radial motion , and $`\mu =\pm 1/2,\pm 3/2`$. Calculation of the spin orientation in the dots 1 and 2 is straightforward. The mean $`z`$-components of spin in dots are written as $`S_1=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)/2`$ and $`S_2=S_1/2`$. The degree of circular polarization of emitted light takes a form $`P_{circ}=S_2\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)/2=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)/8`$. At the angles $`\theta _{1(2)}=0`$, the polarization of emitted light is maximal and equal to $`P_{circ}=1/8`$. The degree of polarization, $`1/8`$, appears as a result of the three-step process. According to the theory of spin orientation in 3D crystals, the degree of polarization in the two-step process is $`1/4`$ . Since the band structure of cubic spherical dots is isotropic, electron spin transfer does not depend on the type of inter-dot resonance and the electron spin is not flipped.

Oblate quantum dots with cubic and wurtzite lattices. Quantum dots can be anisotropic due to both shape and crystal lattice. Such anisotropy strongly affects the valence band structure giving rise to splitting between heavy- and light-hole levels. In nearly spherical crystals, anisotropy can be taken into account with perturbation theory . The 4-fold degeneracy of the hole states is split into two 2-fold degenerate states. The splitting can be written as $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{cr}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{shape}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{cr}`$ is the crystal field splitting in a hexagonal lattice (like in CdSe) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{shape}`$ is the splitting due to the shape. The Kramers doublet of hole states has the quantum numbers $`|M|=1/2`$ and $`|M|=3/2`$. First, we consider two oblate dots forming a molecule with axial symmetry. In such a molecule, $`𝐜_1𝐜_2𝐳`$, where $`𝐜_{1(2)}`$ are the symmetry axes of dots (fig. 3 b). To be more specific, we assume that the ground state of holes have the angular momenta $`|M|=3/2`$, like in the dots based on InP. Using the wave functions (8) it is easy to show that all results for disk-shaped QDs hold in the case of oblate dots with $`𝐜_1𝐜_2𝐳`$.

Randomly-oriented QD pairs. It is natural to suppose that the randomness of nanocrystal axes in a QD solid will change the spin transfer rates. To calculate the spin transport rates in a pair of arbitrary-oriented dots, one can use the matrices of rotation for spin and spatial functions  and introduce Eulerian angles for the dots, $`\varphi _i^{(1)},\varphi _i^{(2)},\varphi _i^{(3)}`$, where $`i=1,2`$ (fig. 3b). By using the matrices of rotation, the coordinate system $`(x,y,z)`$ is transformed into the systems $`(x_i^{},y_i^{},z_i^{})`$ where individual dots have symmetry of oblate ellipsoids. The spin transfer probabilities for oblate dots depend only on the angles $`\varphi _i^{(1)}`$ and $`\varphi _i^{(2)}`$. Under resonance conditions the mean spins in the dots are connected by equation

$`S_2=S_1{\displaystyle \frac{W_aW_b}{W_a+W_b}},`$ (9)
where $`W_a=W_{}=W_{}`$ and $`W_b=W_{}=W_{}`$. The coefficients $`W_{a(b)}`$ describe probabilities of inter-dot transitions with conservation (flipping) of spin and are complicated functions of $`\varphi _i^{(1)}`$ and $`\varphi _i^{(2)}`$. In a system with randomly-oriented molecules, spin transfer does not vanish; it can seen by calculating averaged probabilities $`\overline{W}=<W>_{\varphi _1^{(1)},\varphi _1^{(2)},\varphi _2^{(1)},\varphi _2^{(2)}}`$ and spins $`\overline{S}_i=<S_i>_{\varphi _1^{(1)},\varphi _1^{(2)},\varphi _2^{(1)},\varphi _2^{(2)}}`$. The ratio between averaged probabilities $`\overline{W}_a/\overline{W}_b`$ depend on the type of inter-dot resonance: $`\overline{W}_a/\overline{W}_b=1.61`$ for the $`hhhh`$ resonance and $`\overline{W}_a/\overline{W}_b=1/1.61`$ for the resonance between $`hh`$ and $`lh`$ states. Thus, the $`hhhh`$ transfer conserves partially the spin orientation, whereas the $`hhlh`$ inter-dot coupling leads to the flipping of spin. For the case shown in fig. 3b, $`\theta _1=\theta _2=0`$ and the calculated mean spin in the dot 1 is given by $`\overline{S}_1=0.586`$. The dot-2 spin becomes $`\overline{S}_2=0.22`$ and $`0.22`$ in the case of $`hhhh`$ and $`hhlh`$ resonances, respectively. Experimentally, the spin orientation in the dot 2 can be observed by measuring the degree of circular polarization of secondary photons. We find that $`\overline{P}_{circ}^{hhhh}=0.13`$ and $`\overline{P}_{circ}^{hhlh}=0.25`$.

Quantum-dot chains. If cylindrical dots form an ideally-oriented chain (like in self-assembled monolayers, fig. 3a) and all of the dots are under resonance conditions, the spin can be transferred along the chain without losses, $`S_N=\pm S_1`$, where $`S_1`$ and $`S_N`$ are the mean spins in the first and $`N^{th}`$ dots, respectively (fig. 3c). The sing $`\pm `$ in the above relation depends on the types of inter-dot resonances. If an ideal chain is formed of spherical dots, the transferred spin rapidly decreases with the number of dots, $`S_N=S_1/2^N`$. In disordered chains, there is an additional mechanism of spin randomization. For oblate crystals with randomly-oriented axes and under inter-dot resonance conditions, we can estimate the decay of spin using averaged probabilities, $`\overline{W}_{a,b}`$. This leads to $`S_N0.2^NS_1`$.

The dipole-dipole interaction (2) provides the main contribution to the transfer rate. At the same time, the higher multipole terms of the Coulomb operator can certainly affect the magnitude of transfer rate and lead to additional inter-dot resonances which should be consistent with symmetry. However, the spin-transfer selection rules established above will hold beyond the dipole-dipole approximation because these rules come from axial symmetry in a QD pair. Specifically, the $`hhhh`$ and $`hhlh`$ inter-dot resonances will result in conservation and flipping of spin, respectively.

Experimentally, the most preferable systems to observe spin transport are the system with QD monolayres  or a single QD pair  on a surface. In the first case, all QD pairs have the same orientation of the molecular axis $`𝐑`$ (fig. 3a). If QDs are spherical, the spin polarization in the dots 2 will be $`S_1/2`$. In the case of oblate QDs with randomly-oriented QD axes, the spin orientation will remain non-zero under inter-dot resonance conditions. Another suitable system is a single QD molecule bound to a surface which can be studied by available methods of single-dot spectroscopy .

Another important issue related to exciton transport is the strength of dipole transitions. In this paper, we assumed that the ground-state excitons in dots are optically active. This would not be the case for CdSe dots where a strong inter-band exchange interaction splits exciton levels. The resulting exciton ground state turns to be dark. Our results are fully applicable to the QDs with optically-active excitons. For example, excitons in the ground state are optically-active in InP nanocrystals where the exchange interaction is weak . In addition, the exciton ground states are optically active in self-assembled QDs . Such self-assembled QDs are usually lens-shaped. The case with optically-inactive ground states of excitons should be considered specially. In addition, we considered excitons within the single-particle approximation ignoring the intra-dot Coulomb interaction. This approximation is justified for our dot parameters since the typical energy of in-plane quantization is greater than the intra-dot Coulomb interaction .

A moderate magnetic field can favor the observation of spin transport because it induces the spin-splitting and strongly enlarges the degree of circular polarization of emitted light in QDs . In the system with monolayers, the magnetic field can be applied parallel to the molecular axis $`𝐑`$. To observe spin transfer between QDs, one should have a sufficiently long spin-relaxation time. The spin-relaxation times found in experiments on the bulk semiconductors and QDs range from $`100ps`$ to $`100\mu s`$ . The exciton-transfer times in nanocrystals, recently measured in refs. , are in the range from $`700ps`$ to $`10ns`$. This tells us that suitable conditions to observe spin transport of electrons can be found experimentally. By analyzing the rate equations, one can see that the mean spin in the dot 2 depends mostly on the ratio $`\tau _{trans}/\tau _{espin}`$, where $`\tau _{espin}`$ is the spin relaxation time for the electron and $`\tau _{trans}`$ is the inter-dot transfer time of excitons. At the same time, the emission intensity of the dot-2 is determined by the ratio $`\tau _{trans}/\tau _{exc}`$. Spin and energy transfers become efficient if $`\tau _{trans}\tau _{espin}`$ and $`\tau _{trans}\tau _{exc}`$, respectively. The latter was satisfied in recent experiments .

The rate of energy transfer between QDs can strongly depend on temperature and resonance conditions. We now assume that the QD pair is designed to satisfy the resonant condition, $`E_1^0=E_2^{exc}`$, where $`E_1^0`$ is the ground-state energy of exciton in the dot 1 and $`E_2^{exc}`$ is related to the excited exciton state in the dot 2. In the case of $`hhhh`$ inter-dot resonance, the transfer time can be estimated as $`\tau _{trans}=1/(w_0J)`$. Here we will use the parameters of InP: $`d_0=6\AA `$ and $`ϵ=12.6`$. At low temperatures, homogeneous broadenings of excitons are relatively small and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{exc}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{exc}`$ are the broadenings of exciton levels in the dots 1 and 2, respectively. We obtain $`\tau _{trans}120ps`$ taking parameters $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^0=1meV`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{exc}=5meV`$, and $`R=70\AA `$. At room temperature, we find $`\tau _{trans}1ns`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{exc}20meV`$.

To calculate the spin orientation in nanosrystals, we assumed that the time of momentum relaxation for the holes is much shorter that the spin-relaxation time for the electrons. This relation is typical for experiments. The momentum relaxation time of holes in solids and nanostructures is often short due to strong $`hhlh`$ mixing in the valence band and relatively weak quantization of energy levels of holes .

To conclude, we have studied spin transfer in nanocrystals which does not involve transport of charge. It has been demonstrated that the spins can be efficiently transferred between quantum dots via the Coulomb interaction. In the transfer process the electron spin can be conserved or flipped. The transferred spin polarization survives even in randomly-oriented QD pairs and chains.

The author acknowledges Garnett Bryant for helpful discussions on optical properties of quantum dots. This work was supported by the Condensed Matter and Surface Science Program at Ohio University and by the Volkswagen Foundation.