The present collection of papers is devoted to a rather new and very controversial topic, the so-called “quantum chaos”. Some researchers see nothing essentially new at all in this phenomenon (apart from a number of various examples and models), and they have good reason to believe so. Indeed, the problems in this field all belong to the traditional, “old-fashion”, and rather “simple” quantum mechanics of finite-dimensional systems with a given interaction and no quantized fields. Nevertheless, many, including ourselves, consider quantum chaos to be a new discovery, though in an old field, of a great importance for fundamental physics. To understand this, the phenomenon of quantum chaos should be put into its proper perspective in recent developments in physics. The central point of this perspective is the conception of dynamical chaos (also a rather new topic) in classical mechanics (for a good review see, e.g., Refs.[l-3]). Thus before discussing the current understanding of quantum chaos we need briefly to describe classical dynamical chaos
The present collection of papers is devoted to a rather new and very controversial topic, the so-called “quantum chaos”. Some researchers see nothing essentially new at all in this phenomenon (apart from a number of various examples and models), and they have good reason to believe so. Indeed, the problems in this field all belong to the traditional, “old-fashion”, and rather “simple” quantum mechanics of finite-dimensional systems with a given interaction and no quantized fields. Nevertheless, many, including ourselves, consider quantum chaos to be a new discovery, though in an old field, of a great importance for fundamental physics. To understand this, the phenomenon of quantum chaos should be put into its proper perspective in recent developments in physics. The central point of this perspective is the conception of dynamical chaos (also a rather new topic) in classical mechanics (for a good review see, e.g., Refs.[l-3]). Thus before discussing the current understanding of quantum chaos we need briefly to describe classical dynamical chaos
Abstract Quantum Chaos has been investigated for about a half century. It is an old yet vigorous interdisciplinary field with new concepts and interesting topics emerging constantly. Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in quantum chaos in relativistic quantum systems, leading to the still developing field of relativistic quantum chaos . The purpose of this paper is not to provide a thorough review of this area, but rather to outline the basics and introduce the key concepts and methods in a concise way. A few representative topics are discussed, which may help the readers to quickly grasp the essentials of relativistic quantum chaos. A brief overview of the general topics in quantum chaos has also been provided with rich references.
Quantum Chaos provides a comprehensive overview of our understanding of chaotic behaviour in a wide variety of quantum and semiclassical systems, and describes both experimental and theoretical investigations. A general introduction sets out the main features of chaos in quantum systems. Thereafter, in an authoritative collection of papers, prominent scientists put forward their particular interpretations of quantum chaos, with reference to a broad range of interesting physical systems. As yet, there is no universally accepted definition of quantum chaos. However, by dealing with such a wide range of topics from different branches of physics, this book provides an overview of this rapidly expanding field, and will be of great interest to graduate students and researchers in many areas of physics and chemistry.
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.
Einstein (1917) appreciated early on that within the “old” pre-1925/26 quantum mechanics absence of integrability is a serious obstacle for the quantization of classical systems. Therefore, in retrospect not surprisingly, the quantization problem was not adequately solved until the advent of the “new” quantum mechanics by Heisenberg, Born, Jordan and Schrödinger. The new quantum mechanics did not rely at all on the notion of classical paths, and this way, unwittingly, sidestepped the chaos problem. Within the framework of the new theory, any classical system can be quantized, including classically chaotic systems. But while the quantization of integrable systems is straightforward, the quantization of classically chaotic systems, even today, presents a formidable technical challenge. This is especially true for quantization in the semiclassical regime, where the quantum numbers involved are large. In fact, efficient semiclassical quantization rules for chaotic systems were not known until Gutzwiller (1971, 1990) intoduced periodic orbit expansions. Gutzwiller's method is discussed in Section 4.1.3 below. It is important to emphasize here that the existence of chaos in certain classical systems in no way introduces conceptual problems into the framework of modern quantum theory, although, let it be emphasized again, chaos came back with a vengeance from the “old” days of quantum mechanics. Even given all the modern day computer power accessible to the “practitioner” of quantum mechanics, chaos is the ultimate reason for the slow progress in the numerical computation of even moderately excited states in such important, but chaotic problems as the helium atom.
Does quantum chaos exist?If it exists, what is it?If it does not, what was it supposed to have been?Why should we associate chaos with a "third revolution in physics" if it fails to be expressible in terms of quantum mechanics, our most fundamental theory of physical reality?Is there something wrong with quantum mechanics?Or is chaos merely a mathematical construct relevant only for models in classical mechanics?Is the human mind doomed to interpret and understand quantum mechanics in classical terms?The list of unanswered questions in quantum chaos research itself shows symptoms of the phenomenon it attempts to grasp. 1 How do we recognize classical Hamiltonian chaos?We have dealt with this question in our two previous columns.2,3 In Part I we discussed the implications of integrability and non-integrability for the phase-space trajectories of classical Hamiltonian systems with two degrees of freedom.We described the method of Poincaré surfaces of section as a convenient and striking discriminant between the two possibilities.In Part II we searched for an alternate mode of representation for classical Hamiltonian systems, a mode that is an equally powerful indicator of chaos, but one that can be more directly translated into quantum mechanics than the Poincaré map.We proposed a representation based on the construction of classical invariants via time averages of dynamical variables, a representation that can be employed under very general circumstances including integrable and nonintegrable models.In this column we shall construct quantum invariants, demonstrate the impact of non-integrability on these quantities, and discuss their properties in relation to their classical counterparts.In a future column we intend to introduce quantum Poincaré surfaces of section for stationary states and bring full circle our survey of quantum and classical Hamiltonian chaos.Consider a quantized integrable model.Its eigenstates are labeled by quantum numbers.There are as many quantum numbers as there are degrees of freedom.Each quantum number represents a quantized action.In the still evolving language of quantum chaos, quantum numbers are said to have been "lost" in the transition from a quantum system whose classical counterpart is integrable to one whose counterpart is chaotic.The broken, or lost, tori of classical chaos become lost quantum numbers of quantum chaos.As we shall see, the loss of quantum numbers is vividly mirrored in the behavior of the quantum invariants.We begin by describing the construction of the quantum invariants for a
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.