By now the “chaos revolution” has reached nearly every branch of the natural sciences. In fact, chaos is everywhere. To name but a few examples, we talk about chaotic weather patterns, chaotic chemical reactions and the chaotic evolution of insect populations. Atomic and molecular physics are no exceptions. At first glance this is surprising since atoms and molecules are well described by the linear laws of quantum mechanics, while an essential ingredient of chaos is nonlinearity in the dynamic equations. Thus, chaos and atomic physics seem to have little to do with each other. But recently, atomic and molecular physicists have pushed the limits of their experiments to such high quantum numbers that it starts to make sense, in the spirit of Bohr's correspondence principle, to compare the results of atomic physics experiments with the predictions of classical mechanics, which, for the most part, show complexity and chaos. The most striking observation in recent years has been that quantum systems seem to “know” whether their classical counterparts display regular or chaotic motion. This fact can be understood intuitively on the basis of Feynman's version of quantum mechanics. In 1948 Feynman showed that quantum mechanics can be formulated on the basis of classical mechanics with the help of path integrals. Therefore it is expected that the quantum mechanics of an atom or molecule is profoundly influenced, but of course not completely determined, by the qualitative behaviour of its underlying classical mechanics.
By now the “chaos revolution” has reached nearly every branch of the natural sciences. In fact, chaos is everywhere. To name but a few examples, we talk about chaotic weather patterns, chaotic chemical reactions and the chaotic evolution of insect populations. Atomic and molecular physics are no exceptions. At first glance this is surprising since atoms and molecules are well described by the linear laws of quantum mechanics, while an essential ingredient of chaos is nonlinearity in the dynamic equations. Thus, chaos and atomic physics seem to have little to do with each other. But recently, atomic and molecular physicists have pushed the limits of their experiments to such high quantum numbers that it starts to make sense, in the spirit of Bohr's correspondence principle, to compare the results of atomic physics experiments with the predictions of classical mechanics, which, for the most part, show complexity and chaos. The most striking observation in recent years has been that quantum systems seem to “know” whether their classical counterparts display regular or chaotic motion. This fact can be understood intuitively on the basis of Feynman's version of quantum mechanics. In 1948 Feynman showed that quantum mechanics can be formulated on the basis of classical mechanics with the help of path integrals. Therefore it is expected that the quantum mechanics of an atom or molecule is profoundly influenced, but of course not completely determined, by the qualitative behaviour of its underlying classical mechanics.
From the very beginning classical nonlinear dynamics has enjoyed much popularity even among the noneducated public as is documented by numerous articles in well-renowned magazines, including nonscientific papers. For its nonclassical counterpart, the quantum mechanics of chaotic systems, termed in short ‘quantum chaos’, the situation is completely different. It has always been considered as a more or less mysterious topic, reserved to a small exclusive circle of theoreticians. Whereas the applicability of classical nonlinear dynamics to daily life is comprehensible for a complete outsider, quantum chaos, on the other hand, seems to be of no practical relevance at all. Moreover, in classical nonlinear dynamics the theory is supported by numerous experiments, mainly in hydrodynamics and laser physics, whereas quantum chaos at first sight seems to be the exclusive domain of theoreticians. In the beginning the only experimental contributions came from nuclear physics [Por65]. This preponderance of theory seems to have suppressed any experimental effort for nearly two decades. The situation gradually changed in the middle of the eighties, since when numerous experiments have been performed. An introductory presentation also suited to the experimentalist with no or only little basic knowledge is still missing. It is the intention of this monograph to demonstrate that there is no reason to be afraid of quantum chaos. The underlying ideas are very simple. It is essentially the mathematical apparatus that makes things difficult and often tends to obscure the physical background.
The relationship between chaos and quantum mechanics has been somewhat uneasy--even stormy, in the minds of some people. However, much of the confusion may stem from inappropriate comparisons using formal analyses. In contrast, our starting point here is that a complete dynamical description requires a full understanding of the evolution of measured systems, necessary to explain actual experimental results. This is of course true, both classically and quantum mechanically. Because the evolution of the physical state is now conditioned on measurement results, the dynamics of such systems is intrinsically nonlinear even at the level of distribution functions. Due to this feature, the physically more complete treatment reveals the existence of dynamical regimes--such as chaos--that have no direct counterpart in the linear (unobserved) case. Moreover, this treatment allows for understanding how an effective classical behavior can result from the dynamics of an observed quantum system, both at the level of trajectories as well as distribution functions. Finally, we have the striking prediction that time-series from measured quantum systems can be chaotic far from the classical regime, with Lyapunov exponents differing from their classical values. These predictions can be tested in next-generation experiments.
Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It underlies our very detailed understanding of atomic physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and the many technologies to which physical systems in these regimes give rise. Additionally, relativistic quantum mechanics is the basis for the standard model of elementary particles, which very successfully gives a partial unification of the forces operating at the atomic, nuclear, and subnuclear levels. However, from its inception the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the fact that “quantum measurements” in the orthodox formulation appear to require the intervention of non-quantum mechanical “classical systems,” have led to speculations by many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science that quantum mechanics may be incomplete. Among the Founding Fathers of quantum theory, Einstein and Schrödinger were both of the opinion that quantum mechanics is in some way unsatisfactory, and this view has been amplified in more recent profound work of John Bell, among others. In an opposing camp, many others in the physics, mathematics, and philosophy communities have attempted to provide an interpretational foundation in which quantum mechanics remains a complete and self-contained system. Among the Founding Fathers, Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg maintained that quantum mechanics is a complete system, and a number of recent proposals have been made to improve upon or to provide alternatives to their “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The debate continues, and has spawned an enormous literature.
When the revolutionary conceptual structure for the description of the physical world which we know as quantum mechanics was first formulated nearly 90 years ago, and its predictions tested in the laboratory, most of the experiments in question were on systems which were both very well characterized and reasonably well isolated from their environments, such as single electrons and atoms, small molecules and near-perfect crystalline solids. While from the very start most physicists have taken it for granted that the formalism of quantum mechanics, when combined with appropriate system-specific information, can “in principle” account for all phenomena occurring in the physical world, including those usually regarded as the subject-matter of biology, until quite recently the overwhelmingly majority opinion has been that in a biological context the role of quantum theory is confined to elucidating the equilibrium structures of the relevant molecules and their reaction processes, and that subtle phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, of which we can now routinely exhibit spectacular effects at the level of a few well-isolated photons or atoms, play at most a very indirect role in any phenomena of biological interest. A major reason conventionally given for this view has been that biological systems, at least working ones, are by their very nature “warm and wet” – a phrase which in the physicist's lexicon translates to “prone to massive decoherence”; it looks as though any interesting superposition, say of different energy eigenstates of one's system, would be rapidly decohered by the ever-present, and usually microscopically very complex, environment.
The relation between determinism and predictability is the central issue in the study of 'deterministic chaos'. Much knowledge has been accumulated in the past 10 years about the chaotic dynamics of macroscopic (classical) systems. Our intention is to examine the implications of chaos in the microscopic quantum world – in other words, how to reconcile the correspondence principle with the inherent uncertainties which reflect the wave nature of quantum dynamics. Some rather surprising and counterintuitive results emerge from this effort which bear an intriguing similarity to a phenomenon associated with electric conductivity in disordered solids, namely 'Anderson localisation'. It is very rewarding that these developments do not remain in the lofty realms of abstract theoretical physics. Indeed, recent atomic physics experiments demonstrate clearly that chaos is relevant to the microscopic world. In particular, such experiments emphasise the urgent need to clarify the genuine quantum mechanism which imposes severe limitations on quantum dynamics, and renders it so very different from its classical counterpart.
The influence of quantum chaos on small atomic systems is reviewed. It now seems clear that chaos in the usually understood sense (e.g. exponential sensitivity to perturbations) is not found in isolated quantum systems. However, there are phenomena which appear only when the corresponding classical system is chaotic. The stability of the classical dynamics, in other words whether it is regular or chaotic, has a profound effect on the character of the corresponding quantum spectrum and wavefunctions.