# Quantum Mechanics of Extended Objects

## I Introduction

The representation of a particle as an idealized point has long been used in physics. In fact, this representation is central to classical mechanics and serves us well even in quantum mechanics. In this paper we adopt a viewpoint in which the finite extent or fuzziness of a particle is taken into consideration thereby treating the particle as an extended object. Such a treatment becomes important and necessary when the confines of the quantum system in which the particle is placed becomes comparable to the finite extent of the particle. The finite extent or fuzziness of a particle is quantified via its Compton wavelength which can be defined as the lower limit on how well a particle can be localized. In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, the lower limit is zero since we admit position eigenkets $`|x`$. But in reality, as we try to locate the particle with greater accuracy we use more energetic probes, say photons to be specific. To locate a particle to some $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ we need a photon of momentum

$$\mathrm{\Delta }p\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}.$$
(1)   
The corresponding energy of the photon is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E\frac{\mathrm{}c}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}.$$
(2)   
If this energy exceeds twice the rest energy of the particle, relativity allows the production of a particle-antiparticle pair in the measurement process. So we demand

$$\frac{\mathrm{}c}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}2mc^2\text{or}\mathrm{\Delta }x\frac{\mathrm{}}{2mc}\frac{\mathrm{}}{mc}.$$
(3)   
Any attempt to further localize the particle will lead to pair creation and we will have three (or more) particles instead of the one we started to locate. Therefore, the Compton wavelength of a particle measures the distance over which quantum effects can persist The point particle approximation used in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics suffices to describe the dynamics since the confines of the quantum systems under consideration are much larger than the finite extent of the confined particles. For example, in the analysis of the hydrogen atom, the fuzziness or the size of the electron is $`\alpha `$ times smaller than the size of the atom $`a_0`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{}/mc}{a_0}=\alpha \frac{1}{137}.$$
(4)   
Thus, in the case of the hydrogen atom and in general, for the quantum theory of atoms, the quantum mechanics of point particles gives an accurate description.

In this paper we develop the Hilbert space representation theory of the quantum mechanics of extended objects. We use this representation to demonstrate the quantization of spacetime following which we analyze two paradigm examples: fuzzy harmonic oscillator and the Yukawa potential. In the second example, the quantum mechanics of extended objects enables us to predict the phenomenological coupling constant of the $`\omega `$ meson as well as the radius of the repulsive nucleon core.

## II Quantum Mechanics of Extended Objects

We have established the necessity for taking into consideration the nonzero size of a particle. In order to incorporate the fuzziness or size of a particle into our dynamics we introduce the following representation for position and momentum in one dimension in units where $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$. For position space,

$`X_f`$ $`=`$ $`(Xe^{P^2/m^2})(xe^{P^2/m^2})`$ (5)   
$`P`$ $``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}`$ (6)   
$`[X_f,P]`$ $`=`$ $`ie^{P^2/m^2},`$ (7)   
and for momentum space,

$`X_f`$ $`=`$ $`e^{P^2/2m^2}Xe^{P^2/2m^2}ie^{P^2/2m^2}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp}}e^{P^2/2m^2}`$ (8)   
$`P`$ $``$ $`p`$ (9)   
$`[X_f,P]`$ $`=`$ $`ie^{p^2/m^2}.`$ (10)   
where $`(AB)(AB+BA)/2`$. Symmetrization has also been employed in the momentum space representation in order to preserve the Hermiticity of the noncommuting fuzzy position operator $`X_f`$. In contradistinction to the quantum mechanics of point particles where the position operator has a smooth coordinate representation consisting of a sequence of points, the fuzzy position operator is convolved with a Gaussian in momentum space which has as its width the Compton wavelength $`1/m`$. The convolution with the Gaussian has the effect of smearing out these points and in the limit as the Compton wavelength vanishes we recover the standard operator assignments of ordinary quantum mechanics. For simplicity, consider the effect of the fuzzy position operator $`X_f`$ on an acceptable wavefunction in position space, that is, one which is square integrable and has the right behavior at infinity:

$`X_f\psi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`(xe^{P^2/m^2})\psi (x)`$ (11)   
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4\sqrt{\pi }}}\left[{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda xe^{iP\lambda m^2\lambda ^2/4}\psi (x)+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda e^{iP\lambda m^2\lambda ^2/4}[x\psi (x)]\right]`$ (12)   
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda (x+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}})\psi (x+\lambda )e^{m^2\lambda ^2/4}.`$ (13)   
The translation of $`\psi (x)`$ by $`\lambda `$ and the subsequent integration over all possible values of $`\lambda `$ weighted by a Gaussian measure has the effect of smearing out the position. The commutation relation obeyed by $`X_f`$ and $`P`$ is manifestly noncanonical and does not depend on the representation. A direct consequence of this commutation relation is the uncertainty relation.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }X_f\mathrm{\Delta }P\frac{1}{2}|e^{P^2/m^2}|.$$
(14)   
Now, for any two observables $`A`$ and $`B`$ which satisfy $`[A,B]|\psi =0`$ for some nontrivial $`|\psi `$, with uncertainties $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ such that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }A/A|1`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }B/B|1`$, we have the relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }((AB))=A\mathrm{\Delta }B+B\mathrm{\Delta }A,$$
(15)   
where again $`(AB)(AB+BA)/2`$. The special case $`[A,B]=0`$ corresponds to compatible variables. We observe that whenever simultaneous eigenkets exist

$`AB`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑a𝑑bP(ab)ab}={\displaystyle 𝑑a𝑑bP(a)P(b)ab}`$ (16)   
$`=`$ $`AB`$ (17)   
where $`P(ab)=|ab|\psi |^2`$ and the proof of Eq. (15) follows. In our case,

$$[X,e^{P^2/m^2}]|\psi =0\text{ only if }|\psi =\mathrm{constant}.$$
(18)   
Hence, there exists at least one nontrivial simultaneous eigenket for which $`[X,e^{P^2/m^2}]`$ has a zero eigenvalue. We can always choose this eigenket to establish the validity of Eq. (15) for our operators $`X`$ and $`e^{P^2/m^2}`$ along the lines shown above. As a consequence, we obtain the modified uncertainty principle (reinserting $`\mathrm{}`$ for clarity)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }X\mathrm{\Delta }P\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}+\frac{2XP}{m^2}(\mathrm{\Delta }P)^2.$$
(19)   
The uncertainty product goes up because of the fuzziness we have introduced in the position. Consequently, there exists a minimal uncertainty in position given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }X_0=\frac{2}{m}\sqrt{XP\mathrm{}}.$$
(20)   
The existence of minimal uncertainties and their consequences for structure were first examined by Kempf, albeit, in a different context . We note that the product $`XP`$ is in general nonnegative. It can be made negative by moving the center of coordinates but this would imply that the Hamiltonian of the underlying system is translationally invariant such as the free particle or the particle in a box (for bound systems $`P=0`$). For all such systems the Hamiltonian does not depend on the position (or fuzzy position) and incorporating the fuzziness of the particle into our quantum description is irrelevant to the dynamics. Hence, the Compton wavelength can be set to zero in such cases which is the correspondence limit with ordinary quantum mechanics. If we view the uncertainty product as a measure of the cell volume of phase space we observe that quantized phase acquires an added fuzziness and the cell volume no longer has a uniform value equal to the Planck constant. Fuzzy phase space has a direct implication for the quantization of spacetime as we will demonstrate in section V.

In view of the special theory of relativity, particles are actually located at spacetime points. The introduction of smearing in the spatial direction demands that we introduce fuzziness in the time direction, otherwise, the instantaneous annihilation of a particle of finite extent would violate causality. As was the case with the fuzzy position the smearing is achieved by convolving the time coordinate with a Gaussian in the zeroth component of the momentum operator (the Hamiltonian) giving rise to

$`T_f`$ $`=`$ $`(Te^{H^2/m^2})(te^{H^2/m^2})`$ (21)   
$`H`$ $``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}.`$ (22)   
We observe that in our representation we choose to view time as an operator on the same footing as the position operator. This is in keeping with the modern unified view of spacetime and is further evidenced when we discuss the nontrivial commutation relations between the 4-positions. The smeared time operator $`T_f`$ reverts to its smooth time coordinate representation in the limit as the characteristic times of the quantum system become much longer than the flight time of the particle. The time of flight of a particle is defined as the time it takes to traverse a distance of the Compton wavelength at the maximally allowable speed c. Due to the fuzziness we have introduced in the time direction the energy-time uncertainty principle gets modified in a manner analogous to the phase space uncertainty product giving rise to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H\mathrm{\Delta }T\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}+\frac{2HT}{m^2}(\mathrm{\Delta }H)^2.$$
(23)   
This relation implies a minimal uncertainty in time given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_0=\frac{2}{m}\sqrt{HT\mathrm{}}$$
(24)   
which is expected since the time operator has been smeared out. The product $`HT`$ is in general non-negative. It can be made negative by moving the center of the time coordinate but this would imply that the Hamiltonian of the underlying system obeys time translational invariance. For all such systems the Hamiltonian is time independent and incorporating the time smearing into our quantum description is irrelevant to the dynamics. Hence, the Compton wavelength can be set to zero in such cases which is the correspondence limit with ordinary quantum mechanics. Thus, by introducing these self-adjoint operator representations for position and time we are able to quantify and characterize the finite extent of a particle. We now proceed to formulate the Hilbert space representation theory of these operators.

## III Hilbert Space Representation

The fuzzy position operator $`X_f`$ and the momentum operator P satisfy the uncertainty relation Eq. (14). This relation does not imply a minimal uncertainty in the fuzzy position or the momentum. As a consequence, the eigenstates of the self-adjoint fuzzy position and momentum operators can be approximated to arbitrary precision by sequences $`|\psi _n`$ of physical states of increasing localization in position or momentum space:

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }X_{f_{|\psi _n}}=0\text{or}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }P_{|\psi _n}=0.$$
(25)   
Hence, the fuzzy position and momentum operators admit a continuous position or momentum space representation in the Hilbert space. Since the momentum operator is identical to the one used in ordinary quantum mechanics it has the usual orthogonal plane wave eigenstates. The eigenvalue problem of the fuzzy position operator

$$X_f\psi =\lambda \psi $$
(26)   
can be written in the momentum basis (which we choose for convenience) as

$$e^{p^2/2m^2}\frac{d}{dp}(e^{p^2/2m^2}\psi )=i\lambda \psi .$$
(27)   
Defining the function $`\varphi =e^{p^2/m^2}\psi `$ and introducing the measure transformation $`dr=e^{p^2/m^2}dp`$ we obtain the eigensolutions as

$$\psi (p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{p^2/2m^2+i\lambda r},$$
(28)   
where freedom in scale has been used to normalize the solution. The eigenfunctions are orthogonal with respect to the transformed measure $`L^2(e^{p^2/m^2}dr)`$ because

$$\psi _\lambda (p)|\psi _\lambda ^{}(p)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{i(\lambda \lambda ^{})r}𝑑r=\delta (\lambda \lambda ^{}).$$
(29)   
The inner product $`\psi _\lambda (p)|\psi _\lambda ^{}(p)`$ is divergent in the space $`L^2(dp)`$ but is equal to the Dirac delta function in the space $`L^2(e^{p^2/m^2}dr)`$. As $`p`$ ranges from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ the volume element $`dp`$, under the measure transformation, is squeezed into a Gaussian width times the line element $`dr`$, and consequently the orthogonality of the fuzzy position eigenstates is preserved. We note that had we tried to construct the formal position eigenstates (eigenstates of $`X`$) we would have had to sacrifice orthogonality due to the appearance of the minimal uncertainty in position. The eigenfunctions of the fuzzy position operator in the position representation will be Fourier transforms of the eigensolutions in the momentum representation since the Fourier transform of an $`L^2`$ function will be an $`L^2`$ function in the same measure.

## IV Translational and Rotational Invariance

We will now examine the behavior of the quantum mechanics of extended objects under translations and rotations and solve the eigenvalue problem of fuzzy angular momentum.

### A Translational Invariance

Under a translation of the coordinate $`xx+ϵ`$ we have the fuzzy translation

$`X_f`$ $``$ $`X_f+ϵe^{P^2/m^2},`$ (30)   
$`P`$ $``$ $`P.`$ (31)   
In the passive transformation picture

$`T^{}(ϵ)X_fT(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`X_f+ϵe^{P^2/m^2},`$ (32)   
$`T^{}(ϵ)PT(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`P,`$ (33)   
where $`T(ϵ)`$ is the translation operator which translates the state $`|\psi `$. Expanding $`T(ϵ)`$ to first order and feeding into Eq. (32)we obtain

$$[X_f,G]=ie^{P^2/m^2},$$
(34)   
where $`G`$ is the generator of infinitesimal translations. Thus, the momentum is still the generator of fuzzy spatial translations and analogously, we find that the Hamiltonian is the generator of fuzzy time translations. Since these are the same generators as found in ordinary quantum mechanics, we can conclude by similar reasoning and by Ehrenfest’s theorem that fuzzy space (time) translational invariance will ensure the time independence of the momentum (Hamiltonian).

### B Rotational Invariance

Let us denote the operator that rotates two-dimensional vectors by $`R(\varphi _0\widehat{k})`$ for a rotation by $`\varphi _0`$ about the z-axis. Let $`U[R]`$ be the operator associated with this rotation. For an infinitesimal rotation $`ϵ_z\widehat{k}`$ we set

$$U[R]=Iiϵ_zL_{f_z},$$
(35)   
where $`L_{f_z}`$ is the generator of fuzzy rotations. We can determine $`L_{f_z}=X_fP_yY_fP_x`$ by feeding this $`U[R]`$ into the passive transformation equations for an infinitesimal rotation:

$$U^{}[R]X_fU[R]=X_fY_fϵ_z,$$
(36)   
and so on. $`L_{f_z}`$ is conserved in a problem with rotational invariance: if

$$U^{}[R]H(X_f,P_x;Y_f,P_y)U[R]=H(X_f,P_x;Y_f,P_y)$$
(37)   
it follows (by choosing an infinitesimal rotation) that

$$[L_{f_z},H]=0\text{or}\dot{L}_{f_z}=0$$
(38)   
by Ehrenfest’s theorem.

### C The eigenvalue problem of $`L_{f_z}`$

In the momentum basis the two dimensional fuzzy angular momentum operator can be written as

$$L_{f_z}e^{p^2/2m^2}(i\frac{}{_{p_x}}e^{p^2/2m^2}p_yi\frac{}{_{p_y}}e^{p^2/2m^2}p_x),$$
(39)   
where $`p^2=p_x^2+p_y^2`$. This is the correct generalization of the smeared position operator to higher dimensions (in this case two) as can be seen by letting $`X_f`$ act on a wavefunction in two dimensions. We can further simplify the derivatives in $`L_{f_z}`$ and switch to polar coordinates to obtain

$$L_{f_z}ie^{p^2/2m^2}\frac{}{_{p_\varphi }}e^{p^2/2m^2}.$$
(40)   
The eigenvalue problem of $`L_{f_z}`$,

$$L_{f_z}\psi (p_\rho ,p_\varphi )=l_{f_z}\psi (p_\rho ,p_\varphi ),$$
(41)   
can be written in the momentum basis as

$$ie^{p^2/2m^2}\frac{}{_{p_\varphi }}(\psi e^{p^2/2m^2})=l_{f_z}\psi .$$
(42)   
Defining $`\varphi =\psi e^{p^2/m^2}`$ and using the transformed measure,

$$dp_\varphi =\frac{1}{2\pi }[\frac{\sqrt{\pi }m}{2i}erf(2\pi i)]e^{p_\varphi ^2/m^2}dr$$
(43)   
we arrive at

$$\psi (p_\rho ,p_\varphi )e^{il_{f_z}e^{p_\rho ^2/m^2}r+p^2/2m^2},$$
(44)   
where the numerical factor in the measure transformation has been chosen so that as $`p_\varphi `$ ranges from 0 to $`2\pi `$, $`r`$ also ranges from 0 to $`2\pi `$. The eigenfunctions are orthogonal with respect to the transformed measure $`L^2(e^{p_\varphi ^2/m^2}p_\rho dp_\rho dr)`$ where the numerical factor has been suppressed. We observe that $`l_{f_z}`$ seems to be arbitrary and even complex since the range of $`r`$ is restricted. The fact that complex eigenvalues enter the solution signals that we are overlooking the Hermiticity constraint. Imposing this condition we have

$$\psi _1|L_{f_z}|\psi _2=\psi _2|L_{f_z}|\psi _1^{},$$
(45)   
which becomes in the momentum basis

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}_0^{2\pi }\varphi _1^{}(i\frac{}{_{p_\varphi }})\varphi _2p_\rho 𝑑p_\rho 𝑑p_\varphi =\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}_0^{2\pi }\varphi _2^{}(i\frac{}{_{p_\varphi }})\varphi _1p_\rho 𝑑p_\rho 𝑑p_\varphi \right]^{},$$
(46)   
where $`\varphi =\psi e^{p^2/2m^2}`$. If this requirement is to be satisfied by all $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, one can show (by integrating by parts) that it is enough if each $`\varphi (p_\rho ,p_\varphi )`$ obeys

$$\varphi (p_\rho ,0)=\varphi (p_\rho ,2\pi ).$$
(47)   
If we impose this constraint on the $`L_{f_z}`$ eigenfunctions we find that the eigenvalues $`l_{f_z}`$ have to obey the following relation

$$l_{f_z}=e^{p_\rho ^2/m^2}k,$$
(48)   
where $`k`$ is an integer. The fuzzy angular momentum is equal to an integral multiple of $`\mathrm{}`$ times a smearing factor. This is an example of smeared or fuzzy quantization and as the Compton wavelength vanishes we regain the usual relation for ordinary quantized angular momentum.

## V Quantization of Spacetime

The raised phase space uncertainty product which we have discussed before implies that phase space acquires an added fuzziness due to the smearing of the position operator. By considering the algebra of smooth functions over fuzzy phase space generated by fuzzy positions and momenta, and by using the Gel’fand and Naimark reconstruction theorem one can recover all information about the underlying space. However, since we already know the mathematical form of the fuzzy position operator, we use a more simple approach and directly construct the nontrivial commutators between the fuzzy positions. In the momentum basis the commutator between fuzzy positions in 4-dimensional spacetime is

$$[X_{f_\mu },X_{f_\nu }]=e^{p^2/2m^2}(_{p_\mu }e^{p^2/m^2}_{p_\nu }_{p_\nu }e^{p^2/m^2}_{p_\mu })e^{p^2/2m^2}.$$
(49)   
The derivative terms can be further simplified and introducing $`X_\mu i_{p_\mu }`$ and $`Pp`$ we obtain

$$[X_{f_\mu },X_{f_\nu }]=\frac{i}{m^2}e^{P^2/2m^2}(P_\nu X_\mu P_\mu X_\nu )e^{P^2/2m^2}.$$
(50)   
The nontrivial commutation relation between the fuzzy positions implies that fuzzy spacetime is quantized. When the confines are much larger than the Compton wavelength, that is, when we are viewing a larger patch of spacetime, $`p^2/m^21`$, and the Gaussian (smearing) factors in Eq. (50) become negligible. In this limit $`X_{f_\mu }X_\mu `$, and we obtain

$$[X_{f_\mu },X_{f_\nu }][X_\mu ,X_\nu ]=\frac{i}{m^2}(P_\nu X_\mu P_\mu X_\nu ).$$
(51)   
Thus, as long as the Compton wavelength is nonzero, the ordinary 4-positions also exhibit a nontrivial commutation relation given by Eq. (51).This result is identical to the one obtained by Snyder in 1947. In his paper Snyder demonstrates that the assumption of Lorentz covariance does not exclude a quantized spacetime which he develops by defining the 4-positions in terms of the homogenous (projective) coordinates of a De Sitter space. In the limit as the natural unit of length (the Compton wavelength) vanishes our quantized spacetime changes to the ordinary continuous spacetime and the commutators revert to their standard values. Therefore, our formulation of the quantum mechanics of extended objects implies that spacetime is quantized and that it has a Lorentz covariant structure.

## VI Fuzzy (extended object) Harmonic Oscillator

Before we study the quantum mechanical fuzzy harmonic oscillator let us understand the classical analog of such an oscillator. Classically, we can model an extended object as a point mass connected to a nonlinear spring of stiffness constant, say $`k_1`$. When this spring-mass system is connected to another linear spring of stiffness constant, say $`k_2`$ we essentially have a classical, one dimensional, extended object oscillator. When the wavelength of oscillation is small compared to the size of the extended object (in this case the length of the nonlinear spring of stiffness constant $`k_1`$) the oscillator will exhibit harmonic behavior since the small oscillations do not disturb the configuration of the extended object. As the wavelength of oscillation becomes comparable to the size of the extended object, anharmonic vibrations set in. Again, as the wavelength of oscillation becomes much larger than the size of the extended object, the point particle approximation becomes tenable and harmonic vibrations are recovered. We would expect the quantum version of the extended object oscillator to exhibit similar behavior albeit with quantized energy levels. In the first regime, when the wavelength of oscillation is small compared to the size of the extended object, since small oscillations do not disturb the configuration of the extended object to any appreciable extent we will obtain the usual quantized energy levels of the simple harmonic oscillator. It is in the second and third regimes where we would need to apply the quantum mechanics of extended objects. The Hamiltonian for a one dimensional fuzzy harmonic oscillator can be written as

$$H=\frac{P^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2X_f^2.$$
(52)   
Introducing the operator representation for the fuzzy position and momentum in the momentum basis and simplifying terms, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2\left[\frac{d^2\varphi }{dp^2}(\frac{p^2}{m^4}\frac{1}{m^2})\varphi \right]=(\frac{p^2}{2m}E)e^{2p^2/m^2}\varphi ,$$
(53)   
where $`\varphi =e^{p^2/m^2}\psi `$, $`H\psi =E\psi `$, and $`\varphi `$ lies in $`L^2(dp)`$. When the wavelength of oscillation (the confines) is large compared to the size of the extended object, $`p^2/m^21`$, in which case we can approximate $`e^{2p^2/m^2}1+2p^2/m^2`$. In this approximation Eq. (53) can be rewritten as:

$$\frac{d^2\varphi }{dp^2}+2m(\stackrel{~}{E}\frac{1}{2}m\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\varphi =0,$$
(54)   
where

$`2m\stackrel{~}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2E}{m\omega ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}},`$ (55)   
$`m^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4E}{m^3\omega ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2\omega ^2}}.`$ (56)   
This is simply the differential equation for a simple harmonic oscillator in terms of the dummy energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ and frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For well behaved solutions we require the quantization condition

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_n=(n+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Omega },n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(57)   
Re-expressing this relation in terms of the physical energy $`E`$ and frequency $`\omega `$ and retaining terms up to $`o(\mathrm{}^2)`$, we obtain

$$E_n=(n+\frac{1}{2})\omega \frac{\omega ^2}{2m},n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(58)   
As we would expect, the fuzzy particle exhibits harmonic behavior when the wavelength of oscillation is large compared to the size of the particle. In this approximation, the eigenvalue spectrum of the fuzzy harmonic oscillator is equivalent to the spectrum of a displaced simple harmonic oscillator. The shift in the energy spectrum can be understood by observing that in the classical spring-mass model, the extended object (the nonlinear spring) would undergo compression due to the oscillations of the linear spring thereby displacing the equilibrium position. The quantum counterpart exhibits the same behavior and when $`\omega m`$ in Eq. (58), that is, when the point particle approximation becomes tenable we obtain the eigenspectrum of the simple harmonic oscillator. In the classical analog this would mean that, at sufficiently large oscillation wavelengths the compression of the nonlinear spring becomes insignificant. Retaining terms up to $`o(\mathrm{}^2)`$, the eigenfunctions of the harmonic oscillator in this approximation are given by:

$$\psi (p)e^{p^2/m^2(1\frac{m}{2\omega })}H_n[\sqrt{(m\omega )^1}p],$$
(59)   
where $`H_n`$ are the Hermite polynomials. Since $`\psi `$ lies in $`L^2(e^{2p^2/m^2}dp)`$, the eigenfunctions will be normalizable. By inserting these approximate solutions into the exact differential equation Eq. (53) we find that they do not differ by derivative terms and hence they are close in some sense to the exact solutions.

If we include higher values of momenta in our approximation and write $`e^{2p^2/m^2}1+2p^2/m^2+2p^4/m^4,`$ we obtain the differential equation

$$\frac{d^2\varphi }{dp^2}+2m(\frac{\alpha }{2m}\frac{\beta }{2m}p^2\frac{\gamma }{2m}p^4)\varphi =0,$$
(60)   
where

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2E}{m\omega ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}},`$ (61)   
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4E}{m^3\omega ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2\omega ^2}},`$ (62)   
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m^4\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4E}{m^5\omega ^2}}.`$ (63)   
This is the differential equation for an anharmonic oscillator. As we would expect when higher momentum values become important or equivalently as the wavelength of oscillation becomes comparable to the size of the fuzzy particle, anharmonic vibrations set in. We can compute the eigenspectrum of the anharmonic oscillator using perturbation theory. We note that the perturbation expansion breaks down for some large enough $`n`$. Retaining terms up to $`o(\mathrm{}^2)`$ the eigenspectrum is found to be

$$E_n=(n+\frac{1}{2})\omega \frac{\omega ^2}{2m}+\frac{3\omega ^2}{4m}(1+2n+2n^2),n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(64)   
Figure 1 shows a plot of the first two anharmonic oscillator eigenfunctions. For comparison the first two harmonic oscillator eigenfunctions are also shown. The anharmonic oscillator eigenfunctions have a steeper slope because the particle is placed in a stronger potential as compared to the harmonic oscillator potential. If we include even higher values of momenta in our approximation we find that the anharmonicity increases and in the limit of large quantum numbers our quantum descriptions pass smoothly to their classical counterparts. Therefore, the quantum mechanics of extended objects provides a description of the fuzzy harmonic oscillator which augments our classical intuition. Such a description could be useful when we study harmonic excitations of quasiparticles which cannot be localized to arbitrary precision. The quantum mechanics of extended objects can also be used to describe compound particles such as baryons or mesons in situations where their nonzero size matters but the details of the internal structure do not contribute. One such situation is the description of the nucleon-nucleon interaction at very short distances which we proceed to examine.

## VII The Yukawa Potential

At present the physics of the nucleon-nucleon interaction can be divided into three major regions

1. The long-distance region $`r2`$ fm $`1.5m_\pi ^1`$ where one-pion exchange dominates and the quantitative behavior of the potential is very well established;
2. The intermediate region $`0.8`$ fm $`r2`$ fm where the dynamical contributions from two-pion exchange (effective boson exchange) compete with or exceed the one-pion exchange potential;
3. The inner region $`r0.8`$ fm has a complicated dynamics not readily accessible to a quantitative theoretical description. This region is expected to be influenced by heavy mesons and or by quark/gluon degrees of freedom. It is usually approached in a phenomenological way.

Moreover, the inner region contains a repulsive hard core of radius $`0.6`$ fm which was first proposed by Jastrow in 1951 in order to fit nucleon-nucleon scattering data. The presence of a repulsive nucleon core is necessary to explain the saturation of nuclear forces. This short range and repulsive nucleon force is believed to be mediated by an $`\omega `$ meson of mass $`782`$ MeV and the intermediate range attractive nucleon force is mediated by a $`\sigma `$ meson (effective boson) of mass $`550`$ MeV. Once the masses are fixed, the coupling constants which measure the strength of the coupling between a meson and a baryon are chosen to reproduce nucleon-nucleon scattering phase shifts and deuteron properties. These phenomenological coupling constants are found to be $`g_\omega ^2/4\pi =10.83`$ and $`g_\sigma ^2/4\pi =7.303`$. It is our objective to theoretically determine the radius of the repulsive nucleon core and to reproduce the phenomenological $`\omega `$ meson coupling constant using the quantum mechanics of extended objects which becomes relevant to the dynamics in the inner region due to the finite extent of the nucleon.

In order to reproduce consistent results we will focus attention on the bound state nucleon-nucleon interaction, namely, the deuteron. The deuterium nucleus ($`A=2,Z=N=1`$) is a bound state of the neutron-proton system, into which it may be disintegrated by irradiation with $`\gamma `$ rays of energy above the binding energy of $`2.226`$ MeV. The ground state of the deuteron is a triplet $`S`$ state and it has no excited states. The force between the proton and the neutron can be described in good approximation by a potential energy function of the form

$$V(r)=V_0\frac{e^{r/r_0}}{r/r_0}.$$
(65)   
This is the well known Yukawa potential and is central to the mesonic theory of nuclear forces. The range of the force $`r_0`$ is equal to $`1/\mu `$, where $`\mu `$ is the mass of the associated meson and the strength $`V_0`$, or depth of the potential well is connected with the strength of the coupling between the meson and the nucleon field. In the center-of-mass coordinates the Hamiltonian for the $`S`$ state of the deuteron is

$$H=\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(r),$$
(66)   
where $`m`$ is the reduced mass of the deuteron and $`r`$ determines the neutron-proton separation. For ease of comparison with the quantum mechanics of extended objects in which the momentum basis is more convenient, we can transcribe the Hamiltonian to the momentum basis by virtue of the exchange transformation

$$rpr_0^2,\mathrm{and}pr/r_0^2.$$
(67)   
The exchange transformation is a canonical transformation and does not affect the dynamics. The Hamiltonian in the momentum basis is

$$H=\frac{r^2}{2mr_0^4}+V(p),$$
(68)   
where $`𝐫i_𝐩`$ is the position operator and $`V(p)=V_0e^{pr_0}/pr_0`$. The binding energy $`E_0=2.226`$ MeV can be estimated by means of the variational principle using the simple trial wavefunction

$$\psi (p)=e^{\alpha pr_0},$$
(69)   
in which we treat $`\alpha `$ as a variable parameter. Our choice of the trial wavefunction is motivated by the fact that we expect the ground state wavefunction to have no angular momentum, no nodes, and for $`p\psi (p)`$ to vanish as $`p\mathrm{}`$ as required for bound states. The variational method determines the energy as

$$E=\frac{\psi |H|\psi }{\psi |\psi }.$$
(70)   
The energy $`E`$ serves as an upper bound on the ground state energy $`E_0`$. If we substitute $`E_0=2.226`$ MeV for $`E`$ we can perform an approximate calculation of the relation between $`V_0`$ and $`r_0`$ (range-depth relation) that must hold if the potential function $`V(p)`$ is to give the value $`E_0=2.226`$ MeV for the binding energy. Figure $`2`$ shows a plot of the range-depth relation for the Yukawa potential (deuteron) as determine by this method. By comparing the values of $`V_0`$ for various values of $`r_0`$ with the results of an exact calculation using numerical integration we are able to estimate the accuracy of our approximate result. The approximate result is within a few percent of the exact result and the error decreases with increasing $`r_0`$. Therefore, our choice of the trial wavefunction is justified.

Let us now analyze the same potential problem using the quantum mechanics of extended objects. In the momentum basis the fuzzy Hamiltonian for the $`S`$ state of the deuteron is

$$H=\frac{r_f^2}{2mr_0^4}+V(p),$$
(71)   
where

$$𝐫_fie^{p^2/2m^2}_𝐩e^{p^2/2m^2}$$
(72)   
is the fuzzy position operator which now determines the neutron-proton separation. Figure $`3`$ shows a plot of the $`S`$ state eigenfunctions as a function of momentum for $`r_0=1.43`$ fm, which correspond to a $`\pi `$ meson of mass $`139.6`$ MeV, and for $`r_0=0.3596`$ fm, which corresponds to a $`\sigma `$ meson of mass $`550`$ MeV. The eigenfunctions obtained from ordinary quantum mechanics are also shown for comparison. The eigenfunctions obtained from the quantum mechanics of extended objects are pushed out in comparison to the usual eigenfunctions implying that there is a repulsive component to the potential which has the effect of pushing out the eigenfunctions as at the edge of an infinite well (compare with figure 1). By examining the plots of $`\varphi (p)=e^{p^2/m^2}\psi (p)`$ (figure 4 shows one such plot for $`r_0=1.43`$ fm) where $`\psi (p)`$ are the eigenfunctions obtained from the quantum mechanics of extended objects, we observe that $`\varphi (p)`$ lies in $`L^2(d^3p)`$. Therefore, the eigenfunctions obtained from the extended object analysis are normalizable with respect to $`L^2(e^{2p^2/m^2}d^3p)`$. This motivates us to choose as our trial wavefunction

$$\psi (p)=e^{p^2/m^2\alpha pr_0}.$$
(73)   
The normalizability criterion in this measure ensures that

$$e^{p^2/m^2}p\psi (p)0\text{ as }p\mathrm{}$$
(74)   
as required for bound states (and as is the case with our trial wavefunction). Furthermore, when the confines are large ($`p^2/m^21`$), $`\psi (p)`$ in Eq. (73) passes smoothly into the trial wavefunction we had used when we applied ordinary quantum mechanics and which had yielded an accurate range-depth relation. Hence, our choice of the trial wavefunction is justified and with the given volume element we can determine the approximate range-depth relation that must hold if the potential function $`V(p)`$ is to give the value $`E_0=2.226`$ MeV for the binding energy. Numerical calculations performed in Mathematica reveal the range-depth relation shown in figure 5. The strength of the potential or depth of the well $`V_0^{}`$ in figure 5 is lower than the strength of the potential $`V_0`$ obtained from ordinary quantum mechanics (figure 2) particularly for smaller values of $`r_0`$. The existence of a repulsive component to the potential which we have already observed from a plot of the eigenfunctions shown in figure 3 is verified. Moreover, the depth of the well $`V_0^{}`$ in figure 5 is negative for $`r_00.563`$ fm. This implies the existence of a repulsive nucleon core with a radius $`r_c=0.563`$ fm, which is consistent with the phenomenologically obtained value of $`0.6`$ fm.

Let us model the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction by a potential of the form

$$V(r)=V_0\frac{e^{r/r_0}}{r/r_0}+V_1\frac{e^{r/r_1}}{r/r_1},$$
(75)   
where $`r_0=0.3596`$ fm corresponding to $`\sigma `$ meson exchange (attraction)and $`r_1=0.2529`$ fm corresponding to $`\omega `$ meson exchange (repulsion). This potential describes the main qualitative features of the nucleon-nucleon interaction: a short range repulsion between baryons coming from $`\omega `$ exchange and an intermediate range attraction coming from $`\sigma `$ exchange. The repulsive component of the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction must be held accountable for the drop in the well depth from $`V_0`$ to $`V_0^{}`$, which is observed at $`r_0=0.3596`$ fm. Since the $`\omega `$ exchange occurs at a range of $`r_1=0.2529`$ fm we require that

$$V(r=r_1)=V_0^{}\frac{e^{r_1/r_0}}{r_1/r_0}.$$
(76)   
The quantities $`V_0=660.77`$ MeV and $`V_0^{}=81.0`$ MeV can be computed numerically or can be read from figures 2 and 5. A simple calculation yields the strength of the repulsive potential as $`V_1=1419.07`$ MeV. Figure 6 shows a plot of the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction. The potential is attractive at large distances and repulsive for small $`r`$. In terms of the coupling constants we can rewrite the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction as

$$V(r)=\frac{g_\sigma ^2}{4\pi }\frac{e^{r/r_0}}{r}+\frac{g_\omega ^2}{4\pi }\frac{e^{r/r_1}}{r}.$$
(77)   
Comparison with Eq. (75) yields $`g_\sigma ^2/4\pi =1.20`$ and $`g_\omega ^2/4\pi =1.815`$. Note that we are working in units with $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$. These theoretically obtained values of the coupling constants will differ from the phenomenological coupling constants because in our simple Yukawa model of the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction we have neglected important tensor interactions and spin-orbit terms which contribute to the form of the potential. However, the ratio of the theoretical coupling constants $`g_\omega ^2/g_\sigma ^2=1.512`$ which compares the relative strength of the repulsive coupling and the attractive coupling must be equal to the ratio of the phenomenologically determined coupling constants $`g_{\omega _p}^2/g_{\sigma _p}^2`$ in order for our simple Yukawa model to successfully describe the effective nucleon-nucleon interaction and to ensure the stability of the deuteron. Using the value $`g_{\sigma _p}^2/4\pi =7.303`$ and multiplying by the ratio 1.512 we obtain the value of the phenomenological coupling constant of the $`\omega `$ meson as $`g_{\omega _p}^2/4\pi =11.03`$. This value of the coupling constant differs by $`1.85`$ percent from the value obtained from fitting the nucleon-nucleon scattering phase shifts and deuteron properties which is equal to $`10.83`$. Therefore, the quantum mechanics of extended objects leads us to values of the $`\omega `$ meson coupling constant and of the repulsive core radius which are consistent with the phenomenologically obtained values.

## VIII Conclusion

In this paper we have developed the Hilbert space representation theory of the quantum mechanics of extended objects and applied it to the fuzzy harmonic oscillator and the Yukawa potential. The results of the fuzzy harmonic oscillator are consistent with our classical intuition and in the case of the Yukawa potential we obtain accurate theoretical predictions of the hitherto phenomenologically obtained nucleon core radius and the $`\omega `$ meson coupling constant. In an age of increasing miniaturization, it is conceivable that as the confines of various quantum systems become comparable to the finite extent of the confined particles, the quantum mechanics of extended objects will play an important role in determining the dynamics. Furthermore, the infinite dimensional generalization of the quantum mechanics of extended objects, namely, the quantum field theory of extended objects needs to be understood. Since the ubiquitous and troublesome vertex in quantum field theory is effectively smeared out in such a treatment, it is possible that the problem of nonrenormalizable quantum field theories can be rendered tractable. The author is pursuing investigations in this direction.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank E.C.G. Sudarshan and L. Sadun for insightful discussions. I would also like to thank R. Zgadzaj for helping me with the numerical calculations in Mathematica.