Probabilistic hysteresis from a quantum-phase-space perspective (A6)

Ralf BĂĽrkle and James R Anglin:

Phys. Rev. A, 102, 052212 (2020)

🔓 arXiv:2006.00543 (2020)

Probabilistic hysteresis is a manifestation of irreversibility in a small dissipationless classical system [R. Bürkle et al., Sci. Rep. 9, 14169 (2019)]: After a slow cyclic sweep of a control parameter, the probability that an initial microcanonical ensemble returns to the neighborhood of its initial energy is significantly below one. A similar phenomenon has recently been confirmed in a corresponding quantum system, when the particle number N is not too small. Quantum-classical correspondence has been found to be nontrivial in this case however; the rate at which the control parameter changes must not be extremely slow and the initial distribution of energies must not be too narrow. In this paper we directly compare the quantum and classical forms of probabilistic hysteresis by making use of the Husimi quantum-phase-space formalism. In particular, we demonstrate that the classical ergodization mechanism, which is a key ingredient in classical probabilistic hysteresis, can lead to a breakdown of quantum-classical correspondence rather than to quantum ergodization. Such quantum failure of ergodization leads to strong quantum effects on the long-term evolution even when the quantum corrections in the equations of motion, which are proportional to 1/N, would naively seem to be small. We also show, however, that quantum ergodization can be restored by averaging over energies, so that for not-too-narrow initial energy width and not-too-slow parameter change the classical results are recovered after all at large N. Finally, we show that the formal incommutability of the classical and adiabatic limits in our system, which is responsible for the breakdown of quantum-classical correspondence in the quasistatic limit, is due to macroscopic quantum tunneling through a large energetic barrier. This explains the extremely slow sweep rates needed to reach the quantum adiabatic limit that were reported in our previous work. The formal incommutability therefore has no consequences for any realistically slow sweeps unless N is quite small (N≲20).