# Untitled Document

Controlled quantum evolutions

and transitions

Nicola Cufaro Petroni

INFN Sezione di Bari, INFM Unità di Bari and

Dipartimento Interateneo di Fisica dell’Università e del Politecnico di Bari,

via Amendola 173, 70126 Bari (Italy)

CUFARO@BA.INFN.IT

Salvatore De Martino, Silvio De Siena and Fabrizio Illuminati

INFM Unità di Salerno,

INFN Sezione di Napoli - Gruppo collegato di Salerno and

Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università di Salerno

via S.Allende, 84081 Baronissi, Salerno (Italy)

DEMARTINO@PHYSICS.UNISA.IT, DESIENA@PHYSICS.UNISA.IT

ILLUMINATI@PHYSICS.UNISA.IT

ABSTRACT: We study the non stationary solutions of Fokker–Planck equations associated to either stationary or non stationary quantum states. In particular we discuss the stationary states of quantum systems with singular velocity fields. We introduce a technique that allows arbitrary evolutions ruled by these equations to account for controlled quantum transitions. As a first signficant application we present a detailed treatment of the transition probabilities and of the controlling time–dependent potentials associated to the transitions between the stationary, the coherent, and the squeezed states of the harmonic oscillator.

1. Introduction In a few recent papers  the analogy between diffusive classical systems and quantum systems has been reconsidered from the standpoint of the stochastic simulation of quantum mechanics , ,  and particular attention has been devoted there to the evolution of the classical systems associated to a quantum wave function when the conditions imposed by the stochastic variational principle are not satisfied (non extremal processes). The problem studied in those papers was the convergence of an arbitrary evolving probability distribution, solution of the Fokker–Planck equation, toward a suitable quantum distribution. In  it was pointed out that, while the correct convergence is achieved for a few quantum examples, these results cannot be considered general as shown in some counterexamples: in fact not only for particular non stationary wave functions (as for a minimal uncertainty packet), but also for stationary states with nodes one does not recover in a straightforward way the correct quantum asymptotic behaviour. For stationary states with nodes the problem is that the corresponding velocity field to consider in the Fokker–Planck equation shows singularities at the locations of the nodes of the wave function. These singularities effectively separate the available interval of the configurational variables into non communicating sectors which trap any amount of probability initially attributed and make the system non ergodic.

In a more recent paper  it has been shown that for transitive systems with stationary velocity fields (as, for example, a stationary state without nodes) we always have an exponential convergence to the correct quantum probability distribution associated to the extremal process, even if we initially start from an arbitrary non extremal process. These results can also be extended to an arbitrary stationary state if we separately consider the process as confined in every region of the configuration space between two subsequent nodes.

In the same paper  it has been further remarked that while the non extremal processes should be considered virtual, as the non extremal trajectories of classical Lagrangian mechanics, they can however become physical, real solutions if we suitably modify the potential in the Schrödinger equation. The interest of this remark lies not so much in the fact that non extremal processes are exactly what is lacking in quantum mechanics in order to interpret it as a totally classical theory of stochastic processes (for example in order to have a classical picture of a double slit experiment ), but rather in the much more interesting possibility of engineering and controlling physically realizable evolutions of quantum states. This observation would be of great relevance, for instance to the study and the description of (a) transitions between quantum states (b) possible models for quantum measurements  and (c) control of the dynamics of quantum–like systems (for instance charged beams in particle accelerators) .

In particular, case (c) is being studied in the framework of Nelson stochastic mechanics which is an independent and self–consistent reformulation of quantum mechanics ,  and can be applied in other areas of physical phenomenology. For instance it can usefully account for systems not completely described by the quantum formalism, but whose evolution is however strongly influenced by quantum fluctuations, i.e. the so–called mesoscopic or quantum–like systems. This behaviour characterizes, for example, the beam dynamics in particle accelerators and there is evidence that it can be described by the stochastic formalism of Nelson diffusions ,  since in these quantum–like systems, trajectories and transition probabilities acquire a clear physical meaning, at variance with the case of quantum mechanics.

On the other hand, quantum behaviours can be simulated by means of classical stochastic processes in a by now well defined and established framework . A stochastic variational principle provides a foundation for that, in close analogy with classical mechanics and field theory . In this scheme the deterministic trajectories of classical mechanics are replaced by the random trajectories of diffusion processes in configuration space. The programming equations derived from the stochastic variational principle are formally identical to the equations of the Madelung fluid , the hydrodynamical equivalent of Schrödinger equation . On this basis, it is possible to develop a model whose phenomenological predictions coincide with those of quantum mechanics for all the experimentally measurable quantities. Within this interpretative code stochastic mechanics is nothing but a quantization procedure, different from the canonical one only formally, but completely equivalent from the point of view of the physical consequences: a probabilistic simulation of quantum mechanics, providing a bridge between this fundamental physical theory and stochastic differential calculus. However, it is well known that the central objects in the theory of classical stochastic processes, namely the transition probability densities, seldom play any observable role in stochastic mechanics and must be considered as a sort of gauge variables. Several generalizations of Nelson stochastic quantization have been recently proposed to allow for the observability of the transition probabilities: for instance, stochastic mechanics could be modified by means of non constant diffusion coefficients ; alternatively, it has been suggested that the stochastic evolution might be modified during the measurement process .

The aim of the present paper is instead to show how the transition probabilities associated to Nelson diffusion processes can play a very useful role in standard quantum mechanics, in particular with regard to describing and engineering the dynamics of suitably controlled quantum evolutions and transitions. More precisely, we consider the following problem in the theory of quantum control: given an initial probability distribution $`\rho _i`$ associated to an arbitrarily assigned quantum state $`\psi _i`$, we study its time evolution with the drift associated to another arbitrarily assigned quantum state $`\psi _f`$, to determine the controlling time–dependent potential $`V_c(x,t)`$ such that, I) at any instant of time the evolving probability distribution is that associated to the wave function solution of the Schrödinger equation in the potential $`V_c(x,t)`$, and that, II) asymptotically in time the evolving distribution converges to the distribution $`\rho _f`$ associated to $`\psi _f`$.

After introducing the formalism of Nelson stochastic mechanics to describe quantum evolutions in Sections 2 and 3, we provide in Sections 3 and 4 a self–contained review of the Sturm–Liouville problem for the Fokker–Planck equation and the techniques of solution for the Nelson diffusions associated both to nonstationary and stationary quantum states. In Section 5 we discuss in detail the example of the harmonic oscillator, explicitely solving for the transition probability densities of the ground and of the low lying excited states. Sections 6, 7 and 8 are devoted to the study and the solution of the problem outlined above, discussing the potentials associated to the definition of controlled quantum evolution, and modelling transitions. Two explicit examples are studied in detail: the controlled transition between the invariant probability densities associated to the ground and the first excited state of the harmonic oscillator, and the controlled evolution between pairs of coherent or squeezed wave packets. In these cases the problem can be solved completely, yielding the explicit analytic form of the evolving transition probabilities and of the evolving controlling potentials at all times. Finally, in Section 9 we present our conclusions and discuss possible future extensions and applications of the technique introduced in the present paper, with regard to the discussion of anharmonic quantum and quantum–like systems, the role of instabilities in the initial conditions, and the implementation of optimization procedures.

2. Fokker-Planck equations and quantum systems Here we will recall a few notions of stochastic mechanics in order to fix the notation. The configuration of a classical particle is promoted to a vector Markov process $`\xi (t)`$ taking values in $`𝐑^3`$. This process is characterized by a probability density $`\rho (𝐫,t)`$ and a transition probability density $`p(𝐫,t|𝐫^{},t^{})`$ and its components satisfy an Itô stochastic differential equation of the form

$$d\xi _j(t)=v_{(+)j}(\xi (t),t)dt+d\eta _j(t),$$
$`(2.1)`$   
where $`v_{(+)j}`$ are the components of the forward velocity field. However here the fields $`v_{(+)j}`$ are not given a priori, but play the role of dynamical variables and are consequently determined by imposing a specific dynamics. The noise $`\eta (t)`$ is a standard Wiener process independent of $`\xi (t)`$ and such that

$$𝐄_t\left(d\eta _j(t)\right)=0,𝐄_t\left(d\eta _j(t)d\eta _k(t)\right)=2D\delta _{jk}dt,$$
$`(2.2)`$   
where $`d\eta (t)=\eta (t+dt)\eta (t)`$ (for $`dt>0`$), $`D`$ is the diffusion coefficient, and $`𝐄_t`$ are the conditional expectations with respect to $`\xi (t)`$. In what follows, for sake of notational simplicity, we will limit ourselves to the case of one dimensional trajectories, but the results that will be obtained can be immediately generalized to any number of dimensions. We will suppose for the time being that the forces will be defined by means of purely configurational potentials, possibly time–dependent $`V(x,t)`$. A suitable definition of the Lagrangian and of the stochastic action functional for the system described by the dynamical variables $`\rho `$ and $`v_{(+)}`$ allows to select, the processes which reproduce the correct quantum dynamics , . In fact, while the probability density $`\rho (x,t)`$ satisfies, as usual, the forward Fokker–Planck equation associated to the stochastic differential equation (2.1)

$$_t\rho =D_x^2\rho _x(v_{(+)}\rho )=_x(D_x\rho v_{(+)}\rho ),$$
$`(2.3)`$   
the following choice for the Lagrangian field

$$L(x,t)=\frac{m}{2}v_{(+)}^2(x,t)+mD_xv_{(+)}(x,t)V(x,t),$$
$`(2.4)`$   
enables to define a stochastic action functional

$$𝒜=_{t_0}^{t_1}𝐄\left[L(\xi (t),t)\right]𝑑t,$$
$`(2.5)`$   
which leads, through the stationarity condition $`\delta 𝒜=0`$, to the equation

$$_tS+\frac{(_xS)^2}{2m}+V2mD^2\frac{_x^2\sqrt{\rho }}{\sqrt{\rho }}=0.$$
$`(2.6)`$   
The field $`S(x,t)`$ is defined as

$$S(x,t)=_t^{t_1}𝐄\left[L(\xi (s),s)|\xi (t)=x\right]𝑑s+𝐄\left[S_1\left(\xi (t_1)\right)|\xi (t)=x\right],$$
$`(2.7)`$   
where $`S_1()=S(,t_1)`$ is an arbitrary final condition. By introducing the function $`R(x,t)\sqrt{\rho (x,t)}`$ and the de Broglie Ansatz

$$\psi (x,t)=R(x,t)\mathrm{e}^{iS(x,t)/2mD},$$
$`(2.8)`$   
equation (2.6) takes the form

$$_tS+\frac{(_xS)^2}{2m}+V\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}mD^2\frac{_x^2R}{R}=0,$$
$`(2.9)`$   
and the complex function $`\psi `$ satisfies the Schrödinger–like equation

$$i(2mD)_t\psi =\widehat{H}\psi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}mD^2_x^2\psi +V\psi .$$
$`(2.10)`$   
If the diffusion coefficient is chosen to be

$$D=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m},$$
$`(2.11)`$   
we recover exactly the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics. Different choices of $`D`$ allow instead to describe the effective quantum–like dynamics of more general systems.

On the other hand, if we start from the (one–dimensional) Schrödinger equation (2.10) with the de Broglie Ansatz (2.8) and the diffusion coefficient (2.11), separating the real and the imaginary parts as usual in the hydrodynamical formulation , we recover equations (2.3) and (2.6) with $`\rho =R^2=|\psi |^2`$ and the forward velocity field

$$v_{(+)}(x,t)=\frac{1}{m}_xS+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}_x(\mathrm{ln}R^2).$$
$`(2.12)`$   
3. The Sturm–Liouville problem and the solutions of the Fokker–Planck equation Let us recall here (see for example ) a few generalities about the techniques of solution of the Fokker–Planck equation with $`D`$ and $`v_{(+)}`$ two time–independent continuous and differentiable functions defined for $`x[a,b]`$ and $`tt_0`$, such that $`D(x)>0`$, and $`v_{(+)}(x)`$ has no singularities in $`(a,b)`$. The Fokker–Planck equation then reads

$$_t\rho =_x^2(D\rho )_x(v_{(+)}\rho )=_x\left[_x(D\rho )v_{(+)}\rho \right].$$
$`(3.1)`$   
The conditions imposed on the probabilistic solutions are of course

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \rho (x,t)0,& a<x<b,t_0t,\hfill \\ \hfill _a^b\rho (x,t)𝑑x=1,& t_0t,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.2)`$   
and from the form of (3.1) the second condition takes the form

$$\left[_x(D\rho )v_{(+)}\rho \right]_{a,b}=0,t_0t.$$
$`(3.3)`$   
Suitable initial conditions will be added to produce the required evolution: for example the transition probability density $`p(x,t|x_0,t_0)`$ will be selected by the initial condition

$$\underset{tt_0^+}{lim}\rho (x,t)=\rho _{in}(x)=\delta (xx_0).$$
$`(3.4)`$   
It is also possible to show by direct calculation that

$$h(x)=N^1\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle [D^{}(x)v_{(+)}(x)]/D(x)𝑑x}},\left(N=_a^b\mathrm{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle [D^{}(x)v_{(+)}(x)]/D(x)𝑑x}}𝑑x\right)$$
$`(3.5)`$   
is always an invariant (time independent) solution of (3.1) satisfying the conditions (3.2) (here the prime symbol denotes differentiation). One should observe however that relation (3.1) is not in the standard self–adjoint form ; this fact notwithstanding, if we define the new function $`g(x,t)`$ by means of

$$\rho (x,t)=\sqrt{h(x)}g(x,t),$$
$`(3.6)`$   
it is easy to show that $`g(x,t)`$ obeys an equation of the form

$$_tg=g,$$
$`(3.7)`$   
where the operator $``$ acting on positive normalizable functions $`\phi (x)`$ and defined by

$$\phi =\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\left[r(x)\frac{\mathrm{d}\phi (x)}{\mathrm{d}x}\right]q(x)\phi (x),$$
$`(3.8)`$   
with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill r(x)& =D(x)>0,\hfill \\ \hfill q(x)& =\frac{\left[D^{}(x)v_{(+)}(x)\right]^2}{4D(x)}\frac{\left[D^{}(x)v_{(+)}(x)\right]^{}}{2},\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.9)`$   
is now self–adjoint. By separating the variables by means of $`g(x,t)=\gamma (t)G(x)`$ we have $`\gamma (t)=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}`$ while $`G`$ must be solution of a typical Sturm-Liouville problem associated to the equation

$$G(x)+\lambda G(x)=0,$$
$`(3.10)`$   
with the boundary conditions

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left[D^{}(a)v_{(+)}(a)\right]G(a)+2D(a)G^{}(a)=0,\hfill \\ & \left[D^{}(b)v_{(+)}(b)\right]G(b)+2D(b)G^{}(b)=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.11)`$   
It is easy to see that $`\lambda =0`$ is always an eigenvalue for the problem (3.10) with (3.11), and that the corresponding eigenfunction is $`\sqrt{h(x)}`$ as defined from (3.5).

For the differential problem (3.10) with (3.11) we have that  the simple eigenvalues $`\lambda _n`$ will constitute an infinite, monotonically increasing sequence and the corresponding eigenfunction $`G_n(x)`$ will have $`n`$ simple zeros in $`(a,b)`$. This means that $`\lambda _0=0`$, corresponding to the eigenfunction $`G_0(x)=\sqrt{h(x)}`$ which never vanishes in $`(a,b)`$, is the lowest eigenvalue, and that all the other eigenvalues are strictly positive. Moreover the eigenfunctions will form a complete orthonormal set of functions in $`L^2\left([a,b]\right)`$ . As a consequence, the general solution of equation (3.1) satisfying the conditions (3.2) will have the form

$$\rho (x,t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _nt}\sqrt{h(x)}G_n(x),$$
$`(3.12)`$   
with $`c_0=1`$ for normalization (remember that $`\lambda _0=0`$). The coefficients $`c_n`$ for a particular solution are selected by an initial condition

$$\rho (x,t_0^+)=\rho _{in}(x),$$
$`(3.13)`$   
and are then calculated from the orthonormality relations as

$$c_n=_a^b\rho _{in}(x)\frac{G_n(x)}{\sqrt{h(x)}}𝑑x.$$
$`(3.14)`$   
In particular for the transition probability density we have from (3.4) that

$$c_n=\frac{G_n(x_0)}{\sqrt{h(x_0)}}.$$
$`(3.15)`$   
Since $`\lambda _0=0`$ and $`\lambda _n>0`$ for $`n>1`$, the general solution (3.12) of (3.1) has a precise time evolution: all the exponential factors in (3.12) vanish as $`t+\mathrm{}`$ with the only exception of the term $`n=0`$ which is constant, so that exponentially fast we will always have

$$\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho (x,t)=c_0\sqrt{h(x)}G_0(x)=h(x).$$
$`(3.16)`$   
Therefore the general solution will always relax in time toward the invariant solution $`h(x)`$. As a consequence the eigenvalues $`\lambda _n`$ which solve the Sturm–Liouville problem define the physical time scales of the decay. By the structure of equations (3.7)–(3.11) we see that tuning the choice of the physical parameters that enter in the diffusion coefficient and in the forward velocity field allows for different sets of eigenvalues which define different sets of time scales. Hence, the rate of convergence can be fixed as to yield fast decay, slow decay, or even, on proper observational scales, quasi metastable behaviours, according to what kind of physical evolution between quantum states one wants to realize. This point will be further discussed and elucidated in Section 6.

4. Processes associated to stationary quantum states Let us consider now a Schrödinger equation (2.10) with a time–independent potential $`V(x)`$ which gives rise to a purely discrete spectrum and bound, normalizable states. Let us introduce the following notations for stationary states, eigenvalues and eigenfunctions:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \psi _n(x,t)& =\varphi _n(x)\mathrm{e}^{iE_nt/\mathrm{}},\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{H}\varphi _n& =\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\varphi _n^{\prime \prime }+V\varphi _n=E_n\varphi _n.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.1)`$   
Taking into account relation (2.11), the previous eigenvalue equation can also be recast in the following form

$$D\varphi _n^{\prime \prime }=\frac{VE_n}{\mathrm{}}\varphi _n.$$
$`(4.2)`$   
For these stationary states the probability densities are the time–independent, real functions

$$\rho _n(x)=|\psi _n(x,t)|^2=\varphi _n^2(x),$$
$`(4.3)`$   
while the phase and the amplitude of $`\psi _n`$ are from (2.8)

$$S_n(x,t)=E_nt,R_n(x,t)=\varphi _n(x),$$
$`(4.4)`$   
so that the associated velocity fields are from (2.12)

$$v_{(+)n}(x)=2D\frac{\varphi _n^{}(x)}{\varphi _n(x)}.$$
$`(4.5)`$   
Each $`v_{(+)n}`$ is time–independent and presents singularities in the nodes of the associated eigenfunction. Since the $`n`$–th eigenfunction of a quantum system with bound states has exactly $`n`$ simple nodes $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$, the coefficients of the Fokker-Planck equation (2.3) are not defined in these $`n`$ points and it is necessary to solve it in separate intervals by imposing the correct boundary conditions connecting the different sectors. In fact these singularities effectively separate the real axis in $`n+1`$ sub–intervals with walls impenetrable to the probability current. Hence the process will not have an unique invariant measure and will never cross the boundaries fixed by the singularities of $`v_{(+)}(x)`$: if the process starts in one of the sub–intervals, it will always remain there .

As a consequence, the normalization integral (3.2) (with $`a=\mathrm{}`$ and $`b=+\mathrm{}`$) is the sum of $`n+1`$ integrals over the sub–intervals $`[x_k,x_{k+1}]`$ with $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$ (where we understand, to unify the notation, that $`x_0=\mathrm{}`$ and $`x_{n+1}=+\mathrm{}`$). Hence for $`n1`$ equation (2.3) must be restricted in each interval $`[x_k,x_{k+1}]`$ with the integrals

$$_{x_k}^{x_{k+1}}\rho (x,t)𝑑x,$$
$`(4.6)`$   
constrained to a constant value for $`tt_0`$. This constant is not, in general, equal to one (only the sum of these $`n+1`$ integrals amounts to one) and, since the separate intervals cannot communicate, it will be fixed by the choice of the initial conditions. Therefore, due to the singularities appearing in the forward velocity fields $`v_{(+)n}`$ for $`n1`$, we deal with a Fokker–Planck problem with barriers. The boundary conditions associated to (2.3) then require the conservation of probability in each sub–interval $`[x_k,x_{k+1}]`$, i.e. the vanishing of the probability current at the end points of the interval:

$$\left[D_x\rho v_{(+)}\rho \right]_{x_k,x_{k+1}}=0,tt_0.$$
$`(4.7)`$   
To obtain a particular solution one must specify the initial conditions. In particular, we are interested in the transition probability density $`p(x,t|x_0,t_0)`$, which is singled out by the initial condition (3.4), because the asymptotic convergence in $`L^1`$ of the solutions of equation (2.3) is ruled by the asymptotic behaviour of $`p(x,t|x_0,t_0)`$ through the Chapman–Kolmogorov equation 

$$\rho (x,t)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}p(x,t|y,t_0)\rho (y,t_0^+)𝑑y.$$
$`(4.8)`$   
It is clear at this point that in every interval $`[x_k,x_{k+1}]`$ (both finite or infinite) we can write the solution of equation (2.3) along the guidelines sketched in Sect. 3. We must only keep in mind that in $`[x_k,x_{k+1}]`$ we already know the invariant, time–independent solution $`\varphi _n^2(x)`$ which is never zero inside the interval itself, with the exception of the end points $`x_k`$ and $`x_{k+1}`$. Hence, as we have seen in the general case, with the position

$$\rho (x,t)=\varphi _n(x)g(x,t),$$
$`(4.9)`$   
we can reduce (2.3) to the form

$$_tg=_ng,$$
$`(4.10)`$   
where $`_n`$ is now the self–adjoint operator defined on $`[x_k,x_{k+1}]`$ by

$$_n\phi (x)=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\left[r(x)\frac{\mathrm{d}\phi (x)}{\mathrm{d}x}\right]q_n(x)\phi (x),$$
$`(4.11)`$   
with

$$r(x)=D>0;q_n(x)=\frac{v_{(+)n}^2(x)}{4D}+\frac{v_{(+)n}^{}(x)}{2}.$$
$`(4.12)`$   
Equation (4.10) is solved by separating the variables, so that we immediately have $`\gamma (t)=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}`$ while the spatial part $`G(x)`$ of $`g`$ must be solution of

$$_nG(x)+\lambda G(x)=0,$$
$`(4.13)`$   
with the boundary conditions

$$\left[2DG^{}(x)v_{(+)n}(x)G(x)\right]_{x_k,x_{k+1}}=0.$$
$`(4.14)`$   
The general behaviour of the solutions of this Sturm–Liouville problem obtained as expansions in the system of the eigenfunctions of (4.13) has already been discussed in Section 3. In particular we deduce from (3.12) that for the stationary quantum states (more precisely, in every subinterval defined by two subsequent nodes) all the solutions of (2.3) always converge in time toward the correct quantum solution $`|\varphi _n|^2`$. As a further consequence, any quantum solution $`\varphi _n^2`$ defined on the entire interval $`(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$ will be stable under deviations from its initial condition.

5. An explicit example: the harmonic oscillator To provide an explicit evolution of the probability and the transition probability densities of stochastic mechanics, we consider in detail the example of a harmonic oscillator associated to the potential

$$V(x)=\frac{m}{2}\omega ^2x^2,$$
$`(5.1)`$   
with energy eigenvalues

$$E_n=\mathrm{}\omega \left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right),n=0,1,2\mathrm{}.$$
$`(5.2)`$   
Introducing the notation

$$\sigma _0^2=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m\omega },$$
$`(5.3)`$   
the time–independent part of the eigenfunctions (4.1) reads

$$\varphi _n(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sigma _0\sqrt{2\pi }2^nn!}}\mathrm{e}^{x^2/4\sigma _0^2}H_n\left(\frac{x}{\sigma _0\sqrt{2}}\right),$$
$`(5.4)`$   
where $`H_n`$ are the Hermite polynomials. The corresponding forward velocity fields for the lowest lying levels are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v_{(+)0}(x)& =\omega x,\hfill \\ \hfill v_{(+)1}(x)& =2\frac{\omega \sigma _0^2}{x}\omega x,\hfill \\ \hfill v_{(+)2}(x)& =4\omega \sigma _0^2\frac{x}{x^2\sigma _0^2}\omega x,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.5)`$   
with singularities in the zeros of the Hermite polynomials. When $`n=0`$ the equation (2.3) takes the form

$$_t\rho =\omega \sigma _0^2_x^2\rho +\omega x_x\rho +\omega \rho ,$$
$`(5.6)`$   
and the fundamental solution turns out to be the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck transition probability density

$$p_0(x,t|x_0,t_0)=\frac{1}{\sigma (t)\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{e}^{[x\alpha (t)]^2/2\sigma ^2(t)},(tt_0),$$
$`(5.7)`$   
where we have introduced the notation

$$\alpha (t)=x_0\mathrm{e}^{\omega (tt_0)},\sigma ^2(t)=\sigma _0^2\left[1\mathrm{e}^{2\omega (tt_0)}\right],(tt_0).$$
$`(5.8)`$   
The stationary Markov process associated to the transition probability density (5.7) is selected by the initial, invariant probability density

$$\rho _0(x)=\frac{1}{\sigma _0\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{e}^{x^2/2\sigma _0^2},$$
$`(5.9)`$   
which is also the asymptotic probability density for every other initial condition when the evolution is ruled by equation (5.6) (see ) so that the invariant distribution plays also the role of the limit distribution. Since this invariant probability density also coincides with the quantum one $`\varphi _0^2=|\psi _0|^2`$, the process associated by stochastic mechanics to the ground state of the harmonic oscillator is nothing but the stationary Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process.

For $`n1`$ the solutions of (2.3) are determined in the following way. As discussed in the previous section, one has to solve the eigenvalue problem (4.13) which can now be written as

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}G^{\prime \prime }(x)+\left(\frac{m}{2}\omega ^2x^2\mathrm{}\omega \frac{2n+1}{2}\right)G(x)=\mathrm{}\lambda G(x),$$
$`(5.10)`$   
in every interval $`[x_k,x_{k+1}]`$ between two subsequent singularities of the forward velocity fields $`v_{(+)n}`$. The boundary conditions at the end points of these intervals, deduced from (4.14) through (4.5), are

$$[\varphi _nG^{}\varphi _n^{}G]_{x_k,x_{k+1}}=0.$$
$`(5.11)`$   
Reminding that $`\varphi _n`$ (but not $`\varphi _n^{}`$) vanishes in $`x_k,x_{k+1}`$, the conditions to impose are

$$G(x_k)=G(x_{k+1})=0,$$
$`(5.12)`$   
where it is understood that for $`x_0`$ and $`x_{n+1}`$ we mean, respectively

$$\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}G(x)=0,\underset{x+\mathrm{}}{lim}G(x)=0.$$
$`(5.13)`$   
It is also useful at this point to state the eigenvalue problem in adimensional form by using the reduced eigenvalue $`\mu =\lambda /\omega `$, and the adimensional variable $`x/\sigma _0`$ which, by a slight abuse of notation, will be still denoted by $`x`$. In this way the equation (5.10) with the conditions (5.12) becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill y^{\prime \prime }(x)\left(\frac{x^2}{4}\frac{2n+1}{2}\mu \right)y(x)& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill y(x_k)=y(x_{k+1})& =0.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.14)`$   
If $`\mu _m`$ and $`y_m(x)`$ are the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of (5.14), the general solution of the corresponding Fokker–Planck equation (2.3) will be (reverting to dimensional variables)

$$\rho (x,t)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_m\mathrm{e}^{\mu _m\omega t}\varphi _n(x)y_m\left(\frac{x}{\sigma _0}\right).$$
$`(5.15)`$   
The values of the coefficients $`c_m`$ will be fixed by the initial conditions and by the obvious requirements that $`\rho (x,t)`$ must be non negative and normalized during the whole time evolution. Two linearly independent solutions of (5.14) are

$$y^{(1)}=\mathrm{e}^{x^2/4}M(\frac{\mu +n}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{x^2}{2}),y^{(2)}=x\mathrm{e}^{x^2/4}M(\frac{\mu +n1}{2},\frac{3}{2};\frac{x^2}{2}),$$
$`(5.16)`$   
where $`M(a,b;z)`$ are the confluent hypergeometric functions. The complete specification of the solutions obviusly requires the knowledge of all the eigenvalues $`\mu _m`$.

We consider first the instance $`n=1`$ ($`x_0=\mathrm{}`$, $`x_1=0`$ and $`x_2=+\mathrm{}`$), which can be completely solved . In this case equation (5.14) must be solved separately for $`x0`$ and for $`x0`$ with the boundary conditions $`y(0)=0`$ and

$$\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}y(x)=\underset{x+\mathrm{}}{lim}y(x)=0.$$
$`(5.17)`$   
A long calculation  shows that the transition probability density is now

$$p(x,t|x_0,t_0)=\frac{x}{\alpha (t)}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{[x\alpha (t)]^2/2\sigma ^2(t)}\mathrm{e}^{[x+\alpha (t)]^2/2\sigma ^2(t)}}{\sigma (t)\sqrt{2\pi }},$$
$`(5.18)`$   
where $`\alpha (t)`$ and $`\sigma ^2(t)`$ are defined in (5.8). It must be remarked however that (5.18) must be considered as restricted to $`x0`$ when $`x_0>0`$ and to $`x0`$ when $`x_0<0`$, and that only on these intervals it is suitably normalized. In order to take into account both these possibilities we can introduce the Heavyside function $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ so that for every $`x_00`$ we will have

$$p_1(x,t|x_0,t_0)=\mathrm{\Theta }(xx_0)\frac{x}{\alpha (t)}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{[x\alpha (t)]^2/2\sigma ^2(t)}\mathrm{e}^{[x+\alpha (t)]^2/2\sigma ^2(t)}}{\sigma (t)\sqrt{2\pi }}.$$
$`(5.19)`$   
¿From equation (4.8) we can deduce the evolution of every other initial probability density. In particular it can be shown that, with $`\rho _1(x)=\varphi _1^2(x)`$

$$\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}p_1(x,t|x_0,t_0)=2\mathrm{\Theta }(xx_0)\frac{x^2\mathrm{e}^{x^2/2\sigma _0^2}}{\sigma _0^3\sqrt{2\pi }}=2\mathrm{\Theta }(xx_0)\rho _1(x).$$
$`(5.20)`$   
Hence, if $`\rho (x,t_0^+)=\rho _{in}(x)`$ is the initial probability density, we have for $`t>t_0`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho (x,t)& =\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}p(x,t|y,t_0)\rho _{in}(y)𝑑y\hfill \\ & =2\varphi _1^2(x)_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }(xy)\rho _{in}(y)𝑑y=\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ;x)\rho _1(x),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.21)`$   
where we have defined the function

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ;x)=ϵ\mathrm{\Theta }(x)+(2ϵ)\mathrm{\Theta }(x);ϵ=2_0^+\mathrm{}\rho _{in}(y)𝑑y.$$
$`(5.22)`$   
When $`ϵ=1`$ (with symmetric initial probability, equally shared on the two real semi–axis) we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1;x)=1`$ and the asymptotical probability density coincides with the quantum stationary density $`\rho _1(x)=\varphi _1^2(x)`$. If on the other hand $`ϵ1`$ the asymptotic probability density has the same shape of $`\varphi _1^2(x)`$ but with different weights on the two semiaxes.

If we consider the higher excited states, the Sturm–Liouville problem (5.14) must be solved numerically in each sub–interval. For instance, in the case $`n=2`$ we have $`x_0=\mathrm{}`$, $`x_1=1`$, $`x_2=1`$ and $`x_3=+\mathrm{}`$. Considering in particular the sub–interval $`[1,1]`$, it can be shown that beyond $`\mu _0=0`$ the first few eigenvalues are determined as the first possible values such that

$$M(\frac{\mu +1}{2},\frac{3}{2};\frac{1}{2})=0.$$
$`(5.23)`$   
This gives $`\mu _17.44`$, $`\mu _237.06`$, $`\mu _386.41`$.

6. Controlled evolutions In this Section we move on to implement the program outlined in the introduction, that is to exploit the transition probabilities of Nelson stochastic mechanics to model controlled quantum evolutions to arbitrarily assigned final quantum states. We start by observing that to every solution $`\rho (x,t)`$ of the Fokker–Planck equation (3.1), with a given $`v_{(+)}(x,t)`$ and constant diffusion coefficient (2.11), we can always associate the wave function of a quantum system. To this end, it is sufficient to introduce a suitable time–dependent potential.

Let us take a solution $`\rho (x,t)`$ of the Fokker–Planck equation (3.1), with a given $`v_{(+)}(x,t)`$ and a constant diffusion coefficient $`D`$: introduce the functions $`R(x,t)`$ and $`W(x,t)`$ from

$$\rho (x,t)=R^2(x,t),v_{(+)}(x,t)=_xW(x,t),$$
$`(6.1)`$   
and remind from (2.12) that the relation

$$mv_{(+)}=_xS+\mathrm{}\frac{_xR}{R}=_xS+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{_x\rho }{\rho }=_x\left(S+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\right)$$
$`(6.2)`$   
must hold, where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is an adimensional function (argument of a logarithm) obtained from the probability density $`\rho `$ by means of a suitable and arbitrary dimensional multiplicative constant. If we now impose that the function $`S(x,t)`$ must be the phase of a wave function as in (2.8), we immediately obtain from (6.1) and (6.2) the equation

$$S(x,t)=mW(x,t)\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)\theta (t),$$
$`(6.3)`$   
which allows to determine $`S`$ from $`\rho `$ and $`v_{(+)}`$ (namely $`W`$) up to an additive arbitrary function of time $`\theta (t)`$. However, in order that the wave function (2.8) with $`R`$ and $`S`$ given above be a solution of a Schrödinger problem in quantum mechanics, we must also make sure that the Hamilton–Jacobi–Madelung equation (2.9) is satisfied. Since $`S`$ and $`R`$ are now fixed, equation (2.9) must be considered as a relation (constraint) defining the controlling potential $`V_c`$, which, after straightforward calculations, yields

$$V_c(x,t)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m}_x^2\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\rho }+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left(_t\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\rho }+v_{(+)}_x\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\right)\frac{mv_{(+)}^2}{2}m_tW+\dot{\theta }.$$
$`(6.4)`$   
Of course if we start with a quantum wave function $`\psi (x,t)`$ associated to a given time–independent potential $`V(x)`$ and we select as a solution of (2.3) exactly $`\rho =|\psi |^2`$, then the formula (6.4) always yields back the given potential, as it should. This can be explicitly seen (to become familiar with this kind of approach) in the examples of the ground state and the first excited state of the harmonic oscillator potential (5.1), by choosing respectively in equation (6.4) $`\theta (t)=\mathrm{}\omega t/2`$ and $`\theta (t)=3\mathrm{}\omega t/2`$, which amounts to suitably fix the zero of the potential energy.

On the other hand the nonstationary fundamental solution (5.7) associated to the velocity field $`v_{(+)0}(x)`$ of (5.5) for the case $`n=0`$ (we put $`t_0=0`$ to simplify the notation) does not correspond to a quantum wave function of the harmonic oscillator whatsoever. However it is easy to show that, by choosing

$$\dot{\theta }(t)=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}\left(\frac{2\sigma _0^2}{\sigma ^2(t)}1\right)=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{tanh}\omega t}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2},(t+\mathrm{}),$$
$`(6.5)`$   
and the time–dependent controlling potential

$$V_c(x,t)=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}\left[\frac{x\alpha (t)}{\sigma (t)}\right]^2\frac{\sigma _0^2}{\sigma ^2(t)}\frac{m\omega ^2x^2}{2}\frac{m\omega ^2x^2}{2},(t+\mathrm{}),$$
$`(6.6)`$   
with $`\alpha (t)`$, $`\sigma (t)`$ and $`\sigma _0`$ defined in equations (5.8) and (5.3), we can define a quantum state, i.e. a wave function $`\psi _c(x,t)`$ solution of the Schrödinger equation in the potential (6.6). At the same time $`\psi _c`$ is associated to the transition probability density of the form (5.7) which is its modulus squared. Of course the fact that for $`t+\mathrm{}`$ we recover the harmonic potential is connected to the already remarked fact that the usual quantum probability density is also the limit distribution for every initial condition and in particular also for the evolution (5.7). In the case $`n=1`$, with the $`v_{(+)1}(x)`$ as given by equation(5.5) and the transition probability density (5.19), we define

$$T(x)=\frac{x}{\mathrm{tanh}x},$$
$`(6.7)`$   
and then we choose

$$\dot{\theta }(t)=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}\left(\frac{4\sigma _0^2}{\sigma ^2(t)}\frac{2\sigma _0^2\alpha ^2(t)}{\sigma ^4(t)}1\right)\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}\omega ,(t+\mathrm{}),$$
$`(6.8)`$   
so that we have the following time–dependent controlling potential (for every $`x0`$):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V_c(x,t)& =\frac{m\omega ^2x^2}{2}\left(\frac{2\sigma _0^4}{\sigma ^4}1\right)+\mathrm{}\omega \left[1\frac{\sigma _0^2}{\sigma ^2}T\left(\frac{x\alpha }{\sigma ^2}\right)\right]\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4mx^2}\left[1T\left(\frac{x\alpha }{\sigma ^2}\right)\right]\hfill \\ & \frac{m\omega ^2x^2}{2},(t+\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(6.9)`$   
The limit $`t+\mathrm{}`$ must be obviously intended in a physical sense, i.e. for times much longer than $`\lambda _1^1`$, the largest characteristic time of decay in the expansion (3.12). In this particular case $`\lambda _1=\omega `$. In fact here too the asymptotic potential is the usual one of the harmonic oscillator, but it must be considered separately on the positive and on the negative $`x`$ semiaxis, since in the point $`x=0`$ a singular behaviour would show up when $`t0`$. This means that, also if asymptotically we recover the right potential, it will be associated with a new boundary condition in $`x=0`$ since the system must be confined on one of the two semiaxes.

7. Modelling transitions Given any couple $`(\rho ,v_{(+)})`$ associated to a Fokker–Planck equation, the possibility of promoting it to a solution of a Schrödinger problem by a suitable controlling potential $`V_c(x,t)`$ enables to model quantum evolutions driving, for instance, the probability density of a given quantum stationary state to another (decays and excitations). Moreover, an immediate generalization of this scheme might open the way to modelling evolutions from a given, arbitrary quantum state to an eigenfunction of a given observable. Besides other applications, this is something which could become a starting point for building simple models of the measurement process, where one tries to dynamically describe the wave packet collapse . As a first example let us consider the transition between the invariant probability densities associated to the ground and the first excited state of the harmonic oscillator potential (5.1):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \rho _0(x)& =\varphi _0^2(x)=\frac{1}{\sigma _0\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{e}^{x^2/2\sigma _0^2},\hfill \\ \hfill \rho _1(x)& =\varphi _1^2(x)=\frac{x^2}{\sigma _0^3\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{e}^{x^2/2\sigma _0^2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(7.1)`$   
If we choose to describe the decay $`\varphi _1\varphi _0`$ we may exploit the Chapman–Kolmogorov equation (4.8) with the transition probability density (5.7), and the initial probability density $`\rho _1(x)`$. An elementary integration shows in this case that the resulting evolution takes the form ($`t_0=0`$)

$$\rho _{10}(x,t)=\beta ^2(t)\rho _0(x)+\gamma ^2(t)\rho _1(x),$$
$`(7.2)`$   
where

$$\beta ^2(t)=1\mathrm{e}^{2\omega t},\gamma (t)=\mathrm{e}^{\omega t}.$$
$`(7.3)`$   
Recalling $`v_{(+)0}(x)`$ as given in (5.5) and the evolving probability density (7.2), and inserting them in equation (6.4) we obtain the following form of the controlling potential:

$$V_c(x,t)=\frac{m\omega ^2x^2}{2}2\mathrm{}\omega U(x/\sigma _0;\beta /\gamma ),$$
$`(7.4)`$   
where

$$U(x;b)=\frac{x^4+b^2x^2b^2}{(b^2+x^2)^2}.$$
$`(7.5)`$   
The parameter

$$b^2(t)=\frac{\beta ^2(t)}{\gamma ^2(t)}=\mathrm{e}^{2\omega t}1$$
$`(7.6)`$   
is such that $`b^2(0^+)=0`$ and $`b^2(+\mathrm{})=+\mathrm{}`$. Thus $`U`$ goes to zero as $`t+\mathrm{}`$ for any $`x`$, and as $`t0^+`$ is 1 for every $`x`$, except for a negative singularity in $`x=0`$. As a consequence, while for $`t+\mathrm{}`$ the controlling potential (7.4) simply tends to the potential (5.1), for $`t0^+`$ it presents an unessential shift of $`2\mathrm{}\omega `$ in the zeroth level, and a deep negative singularity in $`x=0`$.

The singular behaviour of the controlling potential at the initial time of the evolution is a problem connected to the proper definition of the phase function $`S`$. In fact, from (6.3) we have:

$$S(x,t)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\beta ^2(t)+\frac{x^2}{\sigma _0^2}\gamma ^2(t)\right]\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}t,$$
$`(7.7)`$   
so that in particular we have

$$S(x,0^+)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{x^2}{\sigma _0^2}.$$
$`(7.8)`$   
We would instead have expected that initially the phase be independent of $`x`$ as for every stationary wave function. This means that in the constructed evolution $`S(x,t)`$ presents a discontinuous behaviour for $`t0^+`$. The problem arises here from the fact that we initially have a stationary state characterized by a probability density $`\rho _1(x)`$ and a velocity field $`v_{(+)1}(x)`$, and then suddenly, in order to activate the decay, we impose to the same $`\rho _1`$ to be embedded in a different velocity field $`v_{(+)0}(x)`$ which drags it toward a new stationary $`\rho _0(x)`$. This discontinuous change from $`v_{(+)1}`$ to $`v_{(+)0}`$ is of course responsible for the remarked discontinuous change in the phase of the wave function. We have therefore modelled a transition which starts with a sudden, discontinuous kick. To construct a transition that evolves smoothly also for $`t0^+`$ we should take into account a continuous and smooth modification of the initial velocity field into the final one. This requirement compels us to consider a new class of Fokker–Planck equations with time–dependent forward velocity fields $`v_{(+)}(x,t)`$. In particular, to achieve the proposed smooth controlled decay between two stationary states of the harmonic oscillator, we should solve an evolution equation with a continuous velocity field $`v_{(+)}(x,t)`$ which evolves smoothly from $`v_{(+)1}(x)`$ to $`v_{(+)0}(x)`$. Clearly, the smoothing procedure can be realized in several different ways and the selection must be dictated by the actual physical requirements and outputs one is interested in. A suitable smoothing for our transitions which leads to manageable equations still has to be found; however in the following Section we will study a problem in which the smoothness of the evolution is a priori granted.

8. Smooth transitions: coherent and squeezed wave packets As anticipated at the end of the previous Section we will now consider an instance of controlled evolution that does not require an extra smoothing procedure for the driving velocity field, i.e. the transition between pairs of coherent wave packets. In particular we will consider both the transition from a coherent oscillating packet (coherent state) to the ground state of the same harmonic oscillator, and a dynamical procedure of squeezing a coherent wave packet.

To this end we will recall a simple result  which indicates how to find the solutions of a particular class of evolution equations (2.3) which includes the situation of our proposed examples. If the velocity field of the evolution equation (2.3) has the linear form

$$v_{(+)}(x,t)=A(t)+B(t)x$$
$`(8.1)`$   
with $`A(t)`$ and $`B(t)`$ continuous functions of time, then there are always solutions of the Fokker-Planck equation in the normal form $`𝒩(\mu (t),\nu (t))`$, where $`\mu (t)`$ and $`\nu (t)`$ are solutions of the differential equations

$$\dot{\mu }(t)B(t)\mu (t)=A(t);\dot{\nu }(t)2B(t)\nu (t)=2D$$
$`(8.2)`$   
with suitable initial conditions. The first case that we consider is the coherent wave packet with a certain initial displacement $`a`$:

$$\psi (x,t)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \sigma _0^2}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(xa\mathrm{cos}\omega t)^2}{4\sigma _0^2}i\left(\frac{4ax\mathrm{sin}\omega ta^2\mathrm{sin}2\omega t}{8\sigma _0^2}+\frac{\omega t}{2}\right)\right],$$
$`(8.3)`$   
whose forward velocity field reads

$$v_{(+)}(x,t)=a\omega (\mathrm{cos}\omega t\mathrm{sin}\omega t)\omega x.$$
$`(8.4)`$   
The field (8.4) is of the required form (8.1) with $`A(t)=a\omega (\mathrm{cos}\omega t\mathrm{sin}\omega t)`$ and $`B(t)=\omega `$, while the configurational probability density is

$$\rho (x,t)=|\psi (x,t)|^2=\rho _0(xa\mathrm{cos}\omega t),$$
$`(8.5)`$   
with $`\rho _0`$ is the one of the ground state of the harmonic oscillator given by (7.1). It is easy to show that when $`B(t)=\omega `$, as in the case of the wave packets we are considering, there are coherent solutions of (2.3) with $`\nu (t)=\sigma _0^2`$ of the form $`𝒩(\mu (t),\sigma _0^2)`$, i.e. of the form

$$\rho (x,t)=\rho _0\left(x\mu (t)\right).$$
$`(8.6)`$   
Now the time evolution of such coherent solutions can be determined in one step, without implementing the two–step procedure of first calculating the transition probability density and then, through the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation, the evolution of an arbitrary initial probability density. On the other hand if we compare (5.5) and (8.4) we see that the difference between $`v_{(+)0}`$ and $`v_{(+)}`$ consists in the first, time–dependent term of the latter; hence it is natural to consider the problem of solving the evolution equation (2.3) with a velocity field of the type

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v_{(+)}(x,t)& =A(t)\omega x,\hfill \\ \hfill A(t)& =a\omega (\mathrm{cos}\omega t\mathrm{sin}\omega t)F(t),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(8.7)`$   
where $`F(t)`$ is an arbitrary function varying smoothly between 1 and 0, or viceversa. In this case the evolution equation (2.3) still has coherent solutions of the form (8.6) with a $`\mu (t)`$ dependent on our choice of $`F(t)`$ through equation (8.2).

A completely smooth transition from the coherent, oscillating wave function (8..3) to the ground state $`\varphi _0`$ (5.4) of the harmonic oscillator can now be achieved for example by means of the following choice of the function $`F(t)`$:

$$F(t)=1\left(1\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Omega }t}\right)^N=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}(1)^{k+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{k}\right)\mathrm{e}^{\omega _kt},$$
$`(8.8)`$   
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{\mathrm{ln}N}{\tau },\omega _k=k\mathrm{\Omega };\tau >0,N2.$$
$`(8.9)`$   
In fact, a function $`F(t)`$ of this form goes monotonically from $`F(0)=1`$ to $`F(+\mathrm{})=0`$ with a flex point in $`\tau `$ (which can be considered as the arbitrary instant of the transition) where its derivative $`F^{}(\tau )`$ is negative and grows, in absolute value, logarithmically with $`N`$. The condition that the exponent $`N2`$ also guarantees that $`F^{}(0)=0`$, and hence that the controlling potential $`V_c(x,t)`$ given in equation (6.4) will continuously start at $`t=0`$ from the harmonic oscillator potential (5.1), and asymptotically come back to it for $`t+\mathrm{}`$. Finally, the phase function $`S(x,t)`$ will too change continuously from that of $`\psi `$ given in (8.3) to that of the harmonic oscillator ground state $`\psi _0`$. A long calculation yields the explicit form of the controlling potential:

$$V_c(x,t)=m\omega ^2\frac{x^2}{2}m\omega ax\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}(1)^{k+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{k}\right)\left[U_k(t)\omega _k\mathrm{e}^{\omega _kt}W_k\omega \mathrm{e}^{\omega t}\right],$$
$`(8.10)`$   
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_k(t)& =\mathrm{sin}\omega t+\frac{2\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}\omega t\omega _k^2\mathrm{cos}\omega t}{(\omega _k\omega )^2+\omega ^2},\hfill \\ \hfill W_k& =1+\frac{2\omega ^2\omega _k^2}{(\omega _k\omega )^2+\omega ^2}=\sqrt{2}U_k\left(\frac{\pi }{4\omega }\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(8.11)`$   
The parameters $`\tau `$ and $`N`$, apart the constraints (8.9), are free and can be fixed by the particular form of the transition that we want to implement, according to what specific physical situations we are interested in. Finally we remark that, in a harmonic oscillator, the transition between a coherent, oscillating wave packet and the ground state is a transition between a (Poisson) superposition of all the energy eigenstates to just one energy eigenstate: an outcome which is similar to that of an energy measurement, but for the important difference that here the result (the energy eigenstate) is deterministically controlled by a time–dependent potential. The controlled transition that we have constructed does not produce mixtures, but pure states (eigenstates) and may be considered a dynamical model for one of the branches of a measurement leading to a selected eigenvalue and eigenstate. 

Until now we have considered transitions between gaussian wave packets with constant width. However it is also of great interest to discuss the case of controlling potentials able to produce a wave–packet evolution with variable width: a kind of controlled squeezing of the wave–packet. This could be very useful in such instances as the shaping of the Gaussian output in the manufacturing of molecular reactions, or in the design of focusing devices for beams in particle accelerators, in which the width of the bunch must be properly squeezed. We will discuss now a simple case which shows also that, in the particular conditions chosen, it is also possible to avoid the integration of the differential equations (8.2).

Let us remember that when the forward velocity field has the form (8.1) the Fokker-Planck equation (2.3) always possesses Gaussian solutions of the form

$$\rho (x,t)=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{[x\mu (t)]^2/2\nu (t)}}{\sqrt{2\pi \nu (t)}},$$
$`(8.12)`$   
if $`\mu (t)`$ and $`\nu (t)`$ are solutions of (8.2). We plan now to describe evolutions of the quantum state (2.8) such that I) both $`V_c(x,t)`$ and $`S(x,t)`$ be continuous and regular at every instant, and II) the variance $`\nu (t)`$ satisfy the relations

$$\nu (\mathrm{})=\sigma _0^2,\nu (+\mathrm{})=\sigma _1^2.$$
$`(8.13)`$   
In practice this means that, if for example we require for the sake of simplicity $`\mu (t)=0`$ at every time, we will describe a transition from the ground state of an harmonic oscillator with frequency $`\omega _0=D/\sigma _0^2`$ to the ground state of another harmonic oscillator with frequency $`\omega _1=D/\sigma _1^2`$. It is convenient to remark here that this very simple transition cannot be achieved by means of an arbitrary time–dependent potential $`V_c(x,t)`$, given that it goes from $`m\omega _0^2x^2/2`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$ to $`m\omega _1^2x^2/2`$ for $`t+\mathrm{}`$. The intermediate evolution, indeed, when not suitably designed, would introduce components of every other energy eigenstate of the final harmonic oscillator which will not, in general, asymptotically disappear.

Let us recall here that the relevant quantities are the phase function

$$S(x,t)=mW(x,t)mD\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)\theta (t)$$
$`(8.14)`$   
(where $`\theta (t)`$ is arbitrary and, from (6.1) and (8.1), $`W(x,t)=A(t)x+B(t)x^2/2`$), and the controlling potential

$$V_c(x,t)=mD^2_x^2\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\rho }+mD\left(_t\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\rho }+v_{(+)}_x\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\right)\frac{mv_{(+)}^2}{2}m_tW+\dot{\theta }.$$
$`(8.15)`$   
Both these two functions are determined from the knowledge of forward velocity field $`v_{(+)}(x,t)`$ and of the adimensional density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)=\sigma _0\rho (x,t)`$. However in this coherent evolution it will not be necessary to integrate the differential equations (8.2) to obtain an explicit form of $`S`$ and $`V_c`$. Indeed, since $`A(t)`$, $`B(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}\rho (x,t)`$ can be expressed through (8.2) in terms of $`\mu (t)`$, $`\nu (t)`$, $`\dot{\mu }(t)`$, $`\dot{\nu }(t)`$ and $`D`$, it is a straightforward matter to show that the phase is of the general form

$$S(x,t)=\frac{m}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }(t)x^22U(t)x+\mathrm{\Delta }(t)\right],$$
$`(8.16)`$   
with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Omega }(t)& =\frac{\dot{\nu }(t)}{2\nu (t)},\hfill \\ \hfill U(t)& =\frac{\mu (t)\dot{\nu }(t)2\nu (t)\dot{\mu }(t)}{2\nu (t)},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(t)& =D\frac{\mu ^2(t)}{\nu (t)}+D\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\pi \nu (t)}{\sigma _0^2}\frac{2\theta (t)}{m},\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(8.17)`$   
while the controlling potential reads

$$V_c(x,t)=\frac{m}{2}\left[\omega ^2(t)x^22a(t)x+c(t)\right],$$
$`(8.18)`$   
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \omega ^2(t)& =\frac{4D^22\nu (t)\ddot{\nu }(t)+\dot{\nu }^2(t)}{4\nu ^2(t)},\hfill \\ \hfill a(t)& =\frac{4D^2\mu (t)+4\nu ^2(t)\ddot{\mu }(t)2\mu (t)\nu (t)\ddot{\nu }(t)+\mu (t)\dot{\nu }^2(t)}{4\nu ^2(t)},\hfill \\ \hfill c(t)& =\frac{8D^2\mu ^2(t)4D\nu (t)\dot{\nu }(t)8D^2\nu (t)\left(2\nu (t)\dot{\mu }(t)\mu (t)\dot{\nu }(t)+2D\mu (t)\right)}{4\nu ^2(t)}+\frac{2\dot{\theta }(t)}{m}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(8.19)`$   
We can simplify our notation by imposing that $`\mu (t)=0`$ (and hence $`\dot{\mu }(t)=\ddot{\mu }(t)=0`$) for every $`t`$, obtaining

$$S(x,t)=\frac{m}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }(t)x^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(t)\right],$$
$`(8.20)`$   
with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Omega }(t)& =\frac{\dot{\nu }(t)}{2\nu (t)},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(t)& =D\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\pi \nu (t)}{\sigma _0^2}\frac{2\theta (t)}{m}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(8.21)`$   
The controlling potential too reduces to

$$V_c(x,t)=\frac{m}{2}\left[\omega ^2(t)x^2+c(t)\right],$$
$`(8.22)`$   
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \omega ^2(t)& =\frac{4D^22\nu (t)\ddot{\nu }(t)+\dot{\nu }^2(t)}{4\nu ^2(t)},\hfill \\ \hfill c(t)& =\frac{2\dot{\theta }(t)}{m}D\frac{\nu (t)\dot{\nu }(t)+2D\nu (t)}{\nu ^2(t)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(8.23)`$   
Hence the evolution is completely defined, through the four functions $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$, $`\omega ^2(t)`$ and $`c(t)`$, by $`\theta (t)`$ and $`\nu (t)`$. It is expedient in particular to choose

$$\theta (t)=\frac{mD}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\pi \nu (t)}{\sigma _0^2}+\frac{mD^2t}{\nu (t)}.$$
$`(8.24)`$   
In this way

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=\frac{2D^2t}{\nu (t)},$$
$`(8.25)`$   
because from (8.13) we have $`\dot{\nu }(\pm \mathrm{})=0`$ so that (see (8.20)):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S(x,t)& \frac{mD^2t}{\sigma _0^2},t\mathrm{},\hfill \\ \hfill S(x,t)& \frac{mD^2t}{\sigma _1^2},t+\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(8.26)`$   
This was to be expected from the fact that $`mD^2/\sigma _0^2=\mathrm{}\omega _0/2`$ and $`mD^2/\sigma _1^2=\mathrm{}\omega _1/2`$ are the energy eigenvalues of the ground states of the two harmonic oscillators. Moreover from the choice (8.24) also follows that $`c^2(\pm \mathrm{})=0`$ so that the controlling potential (8.22) will show no asymptotical extra terms with respect to the initial and final harmonic potentials.

In order to completely specify the controlled evolution we are now left with the determination of the form of $`\nu (t)`$. If $`b=\sigma _1/\sigma _0`$, then take

$$\nu (t)=\sigma _0^2\left(\frac{b+\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau }}{1+\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau }}\right)^2,(\tau >0),$$
$`(8.27)`$   
so that the transition happens around the instant $`t=0`$ and $`\tau `$ controls its velocity. We thus obtain the explicit expressions for the four functions (8.21) and (8.23):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Omega }(t)& =\frac{b1}{\tau }\frac{\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau }}{(b+\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau })(1+\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau })},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(t)& =\frac{2D^2t}{\sigma _0^2}\left(\frac{1+\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau }}{b+\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau }}\right)^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \omega ^2(t)& =\frac{D^2}{\sigma _0^4}\left(\frac{1+\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau }}{b+\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau }}\right)^4+\frac{b1}{\tau ^2}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau }(1\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau })}{(1+\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau })^2(b+\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau })},\hfill \\ \hfill c(t)& =\frac{4D^2(b1)}{\sigma _0^2}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau }(1+\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau })}{(b+\mathrm{e}^{t/\tau })^3}\frac{t}{\tau }.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(8.28)`$   
Their form is displayed in the Figures 1–4, where to fix an example we have chosen the values $`\tau =1`$, $`b=2`$, $`\omega _0=1`$ and $`\sigma _0=1`$. As it can be seen in this case the behaviour of the potential time–dependent parameters is not trivial even for the very simple squeezing of a static gaussian wave packet from a given variance to another. How to precisely follow this time dependence in a stable way will be the argument of a forthcoming paper, as discussed in the next section.

9. Conclusions and outlook

We have shown how to treat the typical inverse problem in quantum control, i.e. that of determining a controlling potential for a given quantum evolution, in the framework of Nelson stochastic mechanics. In this way we have been able to determine the general characteristics of controlled evolutions between assigned initial and final quantum states. The techniques of solution and the relation between the transition probabilities, phase functions and controlling potentials have been discussed on general grounds. Detailed, explicit calculations have also been shown in the paradigmatic test arena provided by the harmonic oscillator.

Further extensions of the method outlined in the present paper are currently under study. One immediate application to be faced is the generalization of the analysis performed for the harmonic oscillator to anharmonic systems. The difficulty to be faced on the way toward this aim is that one is in general forced to deal with approximate quantum wave functions, as in the case of the quartic oscillator. Therefore the controlled evolution must be supplemented by a suitable feedback mechanism ensuring that the error initially made in choosing a certain initial approximate state does not grow during the controlled time evolution. One extremely interesting application would be the description of a controlled evolution driving initial approximate quantum states of anharmonic systems to stable wave packets generalizations of the coherent states of the harmonic oscillator . Besides the obvious interest in several areas of quantum phenomenology, the above is also of great potential interest in discussing the control and the reduction of aberrations in quantum–like systems, i.e. deviations from the harmonic evolution that are detected in systems like charged beams in particle accelerators.

Another very interesting future line of research that has been left virtually unexplored in the present paper is the introduction of optimization procedures. We have barely touched upon this problem when discussing the smoothing of the controlled transitions. Optimization of suitable functionals, chosen according to the kind of physical evolution one needs or desires to manufacture, would provide a powerful criterion of selection among the different possible smoothed evolutions. Instances of functionals to be optimized during the controlled dynamics that come naturally to mind are the uncertainty products of conjugate observables (to be optimized to a relative minimum under the constraint of Schrödinger dynamics ), or the relative entropy between the initial and final states. But many more can be imagined and devised, according to the nature of the physical problem considered.

One last, but important consideration is in order. When we implement a controlled evolution by means of a suitable controlling potential we must also bear in mind that in practice small deviations away from the designed potential and from the desired wave function are always possible. In general such deviations are not subsequently reabsorbed but rather tend to drag the state away from the required evolution. Hence to really control these quantum evolutions it will be very important to study their stability under small deviations and perturbations: this is of crucial importance from the standpoint of confronting the formal, theoretical scheme with the practical applications. Work is currently in progress in all the above mentioned extensions of the present research, and we plan to soon report on it.

REFERENCES

 Cufaro Petroni N and Guerra F 1995 Found. Phys. 25 297

Cufaro Petroni N 1995 Asymptotic behaviour of densities for Nelson processes, in Quantum communications and measurement, ed V P Belavkin et al (New York: Plenum Press)

Cufaro Petroni N, De Martino S and De Siena S 1997 Non equilibrium densities of Nelson processes, in New perspectives in the physics of mesoscopic systems, ed S De Martino et al (Singapore: World Scientific)

 Nelson E 1966 Phys. Rev. 150 1079

Nelson E 1967 Dynamical Theories of Brownian Motion (Princeton: Princeton U.P.)

Nelson E 1985 Quantum Fluctuations (Princeton: Princeton U.P.)

Guerra F 1981 Phys. Rep. 77 263

Blanchard Ph, Combe Ph and Zheng W 1987 Mathematical and physical aspects of stochastic mechanics (Berlin: Springer–Verlag)

 Guerra F and Morato L M 1983 Phys. Rev. D 27 1774

Guerra F and Marra R 1983 Phys. Rev. D 28 1916

Guerra F and Marra R 1984 Phys. Rev. D 29 1647

Morato L M 1985 Phys. Rev. D 31 1982

Loffredo M I and Morato L M 1989 J. Math. Phys. 30 354

 Bohm D and Vigier J P 1954 Phys. Rev. 96 208

 Cufaro Petroni N, De Martino S and De Siena S 1998 Phys. Lett. A 245 1

 Cufaro Petroni N 1989 Phys. Lett. A 141 370

Cufaro Petroni N 1991 Phys. Lett. A 160 107

Cufaro Petroni N and Vigier J P 1992 Found. Phys. 22 1

 Cufaro Petroni N, De Martino S, De Siena S and Illuminati F 1998 A stochastic model for the semiclassical collective dynamics of charged beams in partcle accelerators, in 15th ICFA Advanced Beam Dynamics Workshop (Monterey, California, US)

Cufaro Petroni N, De Martino S, De Siena S, Fedele R, Illuminati F and Tzenov S 1998 Stochastic control of beam dynamics, in EPAC’98 Conference (Stockholm, Sweden)

 Madelung E 1926 Z.Physik 40 332

de Broglie L 1926 C.R.Acad.Sci.Paris 183 447

 Bohm D 1952 Phys.Rev. 85 166, 180

Cufaro Petroni N, Dewdney C, Holland P, Kyprianidis T and Vigier J P 1985 Phys.Rev. D 32 1375

 Guerra F 1997 The problem of the physical interpretation of Nelson stochastic mechanics as a model for quantum mechanics, in New perspectives in the physics of mesoscopic systems ed S De Martino et al (Singapore: World Scientific)

 Risken H 1989 The Fokker-Planck equation (Berlin: Springer)

 Tricomi F 1948 Equazioni differenziali (Torino: Einaudi)

 Tricomi F 1985 Integral equations (New York: Dover)

 Albeverio S and Høgh-Krohn R 1974 J.Math.Phys. 15 1745

 De Martino S, De Siena S and Illuminati F 1997 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 30 4117

 Illuminati F and Viola L 1995 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 28 2953

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ in the phase function $`S(x,t)`$.

Figure 2. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ in the phase function $`S(x,t)`$.

Figure 3. The parameter $`\omega ^2(t)`$ in the potential $`V_c(x,t)`$.

Figure 4. The parameter $`c(t)`$ in the potential $`V_c(x,t)`$.