Viscous control of minimum uncertainty state

T. Koide∗ Instituto de F´ısica, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, C.P. 68528, 21941-972, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

A minimum uncertainty state for position and momentum is obtained in quantum viscous hydro- dynamics which is defined through the Navier-Stokes-Korteweg (NSK) equation. This state is the generalization of the coherent state and its uncertainty is given by a function of the coefficient of viscosity. The uncertainty can be smaller than the standard minimum value in , ~/2, when the coefficient of viscosity is smaller than a critical value which is similar in magnitude to the Kovtun-Son-Starinets (KSS) bound.

I. INTRODUCTION second coefficient of viscosity, respectively. The traceless symmetric stress tensor is defined by The uncertainty relation is an important feature in ij 1 j i 1 quantum physics and its comprehension requires un- E = ∂iv + ∂jv − (∇ · v) δij . ceasing improvement [1–5]. A similar relation was re- 2 D cently proposed in classical viscous hydrodynamics [6, 7]. Normally, hydrodynamics is described using the mass dis- There, the minimum uncertainty for position and mo- tribution. For the sake of comparison with quantum me- mentum of fluid elements is given by a function of the chanics, however, we use the distribution of constituent coefficient of viscosity. This suggests that the uncertainty particles of the quantum viscous fluid ρ, which is normal- of a can be controlled by viscosity. ized by the number of constituent particles N. Then the Viscosity is one of dissipative effects but there is no es- mass distribution is given by Mρ with M being the mass tablished quantum theory of dissipation. The dissipative of constituent particles. The last term on the first line is effect is introduced, for example, by the coarse-graining the gradient of the quantum potential. Ignoring the con- of environment variables using the influence functional tributions on the second line and choosing κ = ~2/(4M2), method or the projection operator method. The derived Eq. (1) agrees with Madelung’s Euler equation. It is in- dissipative equation however can describe an unphysical teresting to note that Eq. (1) is a special case of the state with negative probability [8]. See also Refs. [9– Navier-Stokes-Korteweg (NSK) equation which was pro- 16] for other approaches of quantum dissipation. At the posed to describe liquid-vapor fluids near phase transi- same time, the behavior of quantum many-body systems tions. Then the term associated with the quantum po- is approximately given by viscous fluids in heavy-ion col- tential represents the capillary action [20, 21]. lision physics [17]. The viscous effect is indeed considered The uncertainty relation for the quantum viscous fluid to be indispensable because it is believed that the coef- is derived by applying the method developed in Refs. ficient of viscosity cannot be smaller than the Kovtun- [6, 7] to Eq. (1). However, the existence of the corre- Son-Starinets (KSS) bound [18]. sponding minimum uncertainty state has not yet been As was discussed by Madelung, the Schr¨odingerequa- known. The purpose of this paper is to derive the min- tion can be expressed in the form of the Euler equation imum uncertainty state. The uncertainty of the derived with the so-called quantum potential [19]. Thus it is nat- state is a function of the coefficient of viscosity and can ural to consider that quantum viscous hydrodynamics is be smaller than the standard minimum value in quantum described by the Navier-Stokes-Fourier (NSF) equation mechanics ~/2 for a sufficiently weak viscosity. with the quantum potential term. In the D-dimensional This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, quantum Cartesian coordinate system, this equation is given by viscous hydrodynamics is formulated in the framework of the stochastic variational method [6, 7, 22–28]. In Sec. arXiv:2104.11777v1 [quant-ph] 23 Apr 2021 2√ i 1 ∇ ρ III, the uncertainty relation is derived by applying the (∂t + v · ∇)v = − ∂iV + 2κ∂i √ M ρ method in Refs. [6, 7]. The minimum uncertainty state D in quantum viscous hydrodynamics is derived in Sec. IV. 1 n  η  o 1 X − ∂ P − µ + (∇ · v) + ∂ ηEij , Section V is devoted to concluding remarks. Mρ i D Mρ j j=1 (1) II. STOCHASTIC VARIATIONAL METHOD where v, V , P , η and µ are the velocity field, the external potential, the pressure, the coefficient of viscosity and the To define the uncertainty relation in viscous systems, we formulate Eq. (1) in the stochastic variational method (SVM) [6, 7, 22–28]. As is well known, the behavior of a fluid can be described by the ensemble of fluid elements. ∗Electronic address: [email protected],[email protected] We thus consider the variation of the trajectory of a fluid 2 element in SVM. A fluid element is an abstract volume Two Fokker-Planck equations for ρ are obtained using element and constituent particles inside of it are assumed the two SDE’s independently but these are equivalent. to be thermally equilibrated. As is shown later, however, To satisfy this condition, u±(x, t) should satisfy the con- the derivation of the uncertainty relation is irrelevant to sistency condition, the assumption of the local thermal equilibrium. For the sake of simplicity, we thus identify a fluid element with a u+(x, t) = u−(x, t) + 2ν∇ ln ρ(x, t) . (5) constituent particle in the following discussion. See Ref. [7] for more details on the uncertainty relation for fluid See Ref. [7] for details. The consistency condition corre- elements. sponds to the commutation relation in quantum mechan- In SVM, the viscous and quantum potential terms are ics as discussed later. It is also noteworthy that a similar induced through the fluctuations of constituent particles. condition plays an important role in the derivation of the Then the trajectory of a constituent particle is supposed modified NSF equation called bivelocity hydrodynamics to be given by the forward stochastic differential equation [6, 7, 30–32]. (SDE), We apply SVM to the classical Lagrangian, √ M dr2 ε dbr(t) = u+(br(t), t)dt + 2νdWc(t) (dt > 0) . L (r, dr/dt) = − V − , (6) cla 2 dt ρ The second term on the right-hand side represents the noise of Brownian motion. We used (b) to denote where ε is an internal energy density given by a func- stochastic variables and dAb(t) = Ab(t + dt) − Ab(t) for tion of the particle distribution and the entropy density. an arbitrary Ab(t). The standard Wiener process is de- Applying the classical variation, this Lagrangian gives scribed by Wc(t) which satisfies the Euler equation [7]. As mentioned before, the vis- cous and quantum potential terms are induced through i j 0 E[dWc(t)] = 0 , E[dWc (t)dWc (t )] = |dt| δt t0 δij , (2) the fluctuating trajectory in SVM and hence quantum viscous hydrodynamics (1) is obtained by applying SVM where E[ ] denotes the ensemble average for the Wiener to this Lagrangian. To find the corresponding stochastic process. Note that u (r(t), t) is stochastic because of + b Lagrangian, we have to replace d/dt with D and D r(t), but u (x, t) is a smooth function. The field u (x, t) + − b + + in Eq. (6). Due to this ambiguity in the replacement, is associated with the velocity of constituent particles. we introduce two real parameters α and α . Then the SVM determines its form by applying the variational A B stochastic Lagrangian is defined by principle. The noise intensity ν controls the stochasticity of the trajectory. Lsto(r, D+r, D−r) The standard definition of velocity is not applicable b b b M  D r  ε because the left and right-hand limits of the inclination = (D r, D r)M +b − V − , (7) +b −b D r do not agree in the stochastic trajectory. To distinguish 2 −b ρ this difference, we consider the backward time evolution with of the trajectory described by the backward SDE, √  1 + α  1 + α  1 − αB  M = 2 A 2 B 4 2 . dbr(t) = u−(br(t), t)dt + 2νdWc(t) (dt < 0) , 1 αB 1  1  4 − 2 2 − αA 2 + αB where Wc(t) satisfies the same correlation properties as In the vanishing limit of ν,D± coincide with d/dt and Eq. (2) using |dt| = −dt. The field u−(x, t) is associated with the velocity backward in time. Because of this am- then the stochastic Lagrangian (7) is reduced to the cor- biguity of velocity, Nelson introduced two different time responding classical one (6) independently of αA and αB. derivatives [29]: one is the mean forward derivative D The parameters αA and αB are absorbed into the defini- + tions of κ and η as shown later in Eq. (11). and the other the mean backward derivative D−, which are defined by In the classical variation, a trajectory is entirely deter- mined for a given velocity. This is however not the case   br(t + dt) − br(t) with SVM due to the noise terms in the two SDE’s. Thus D±r(t) = lim E r(t) = u±(r(t), t) . b dt→0± dt b b only the averaged behavior of the stochastic Lagrangian (3) is optimized by variation. The action is then Here the expectation value is the conditional average for Z tf fixing br(t) and we used that br(t) is Markovian. When I [r] = dt E[L (r, D r, D r)] , (8) these are operated to a function of r(t), we find sto b sto b +b −b b ti

 2 D±f(br(t), t) = ∂t + u±(x, t) · ∇ ± ν∇ f(x, t) ,(4) with an initial time (ti) and a final time (tf ). Here, the br(t)=x initial distribution of constituent particles is omitted but where f(x, t) is an arbitrary smooth function and we used it does not affect the result of the stochastic variation. Ito’s lemma [7]. That is, D+ and D− correspond to mate- See, for example, Eq. (116) in Ref. [7]. rial derivatives along the stochastic trajectories described The variation of the stochastic trajectory is defined by 0 by the forward and backward SDE’s, respectively. br(t) −→ br (t) = br(t) + δf(br(t), t), where an infinitesimal 3 smooth function δf(x, t) satisfies δf(x, ti) = δf(x, tf ) = The symmetric matrix G is defined by 0. We further define the fluid velocity field by  κ ξ  ν2 − ν G = ξ , u+(x, t) + u−(x, t) − 1 v(x, t) = . ν 2 with the kinematic viscosity, Then the stochastic variation of Eq. (8) leads to η ξ = . D p + D p 1  2Mρ − + + − = −∇V − ∇ {P − µ(∇ · v)} ,(9) 2 ρ r(t)=x The consistency condition (5) is used in Eq. (12). b The above definitions of the standard deviations repro- Here, µ is obtained through the variation of the entropy duce the corresponding quantum-mechanical quantities density. See Sec. 5.1 in Ref. [24] for details. To derive P , as shown later in Eq. (15). ε is assumed to satisfy the local thermal equilibrium, but Using these definitions and the Cauchy-Schwarz in- this assumption does not affect the definitions of the two equality dA2cdB2c ≥ (dABc)2, the product of σ(2) and momenta, which are introduced through the Legendre xi σ(2) satisfies the inequality, transformation of the stochastic Lagrangian, pj (2) (2) ∂Lsto σxi σpj p±(x, t) = 2 , (10) ∂(D±r)  2 2 2 b br=x 2 ν λ+λ− ≥ M δij + (λ+ + λ− − λ+λ−) where the factors 2 in the definitions of p±(x, t) are intro- λ+ + λ− − λ+λ− duced for a convention to reproduce the classical result  2 2# i j ν (λ+ + λ−)(1 − λ+)(1 − λ−) in the vanishing limit of ν [6]. Note that the operations × dδx δv c + δij ξ λ+ + λ− − λ+λ− of D± to p∓(x, t) are calculated using Eq. (4). Then Eq. (9) is shown to be equivalent to Eq. (1) with the identi- (ξ2 − κ)2 = M2 δ fication, ν2 + ξ2 ij 2 κ = 2α ν2 , η = 2α (1 + 2α )νMρ . (11)  ξ2   ξ(ν2 + κ)  B A B +M2 1 + dδxiδvjc − δ , (13) ν2 ν2 + ξ2 ij

2 p 2 2 2 2 III. UNCERTAINTY RELATIONS where λ± = {1 + κ/ν ± (1 − κ/ν ) + 4ξ /ν }/2 are the eigenvalues of G. This was derived in Ref. [6] for the The emergence of the two momenta is attributed to the first time. The right-hand side becomes minimum when i j 2 2 2 non-differentiability of the stochastic trajectory. As seen dδx δv c = δijξ(ν + κ)/(ν + ξ ). This inequality reproduces the well-known result in in Eq. (9), p±(x, t) contribute to our equation of motion on an equal footing. Therefore it is natural to define the quantum mechanics by choosing standard deviation of momentum by the average of the  1  (α , α , ν) = 0, , ~ . (14) two contributions, p+(x, t) and p−(x, t). A B 2 2M We define the standard deviations of position and mo- mentum. The former is given by Then Eq. (1) (or equivalently Eq. (9)) coincides with Medelung’s Euler equation, and our uncertainty relation (2) i 2 σxi = d(δx ) c , (13) gives the Robertson-Schr¨odingerinequality, 2 2 where δf = f(x, t)−df c and we introduced the following σ(2)σ(2) ≥ ~ δ + Re[h(xi − hxi )(pj − hpj )i] . expectation value, xi pj 4 ij op op op op 1 Z In this derivation, we used that the quantum-mechanical df c = dDx ρ(x, t)f(x, t) , expectation values are expressed as N i i i i 2 (2) with N being the number of constituent particles. As hxopi = dx c , h(xop − hxopi) i = σxi , dpi c+dpi c (15) discussed above, the latter is given by the average, i + − i i 2 (2) hpopi = 2 , h(pop − hpopi) i = σpi , d(δpi )2c + d(δpi )2c where x and p are the position and momentum oper- σ(2) = + − op op pi 2 ators, respectively, and h i denotes the expectation value & 2% & 2% δpi + δpi  δpi − δpi  with a wave function. See Refs. [6, 7] for details. Note = − + + − + , that the paradox for the angular uncertainty relation is 2 2 resolved in the present approach [28]. For a quantum- mechanical uncertainty relation in different stochastic ap- where proaches, see Refs. [33, 34]. The advantage of the present  p (x, t) − p (x, t)   −ν∇ ln ρ(x, t)  approach compared to the standard operator formalism − + = 2MG .(12) p−(x, t) + p+(x, t) v(x, t) is discussed in Sec. V. 4

IV. MINIMUM UNCERTAINTY STATE IN QUANTUM VISCOUS HYDRODYNAMICS

To derive the minimum uncertainty state of the in- equality (13), we consider the one-dimensional system and assume r A 2 ρ(x) = e−A(x−x0) , v(x) = v + Bx , (16) π 0 where x0, v0, A and B are real constants. The standard (2) (2) deviations, σx and σp , are easily calculated using this state and then we find (κ − ξ2)2 σ(2)σ(2) = M2 x p ν2 + ξ2  ξ2   B ξ(ν2 + κ)2 +M2 1 + − (17). ν2 2A ν2 + ξ2

The right-hand side becomes minimum by choosing FIG. 1: The minimum uncertainty (20) is plotted as a func- B ξ(ν2 + κ) = dδxδvc = . (18) tion of Mξ/~. The dashed line represents the quantum me- 2A ν2 + ξ2 chanical minimum value 1/2. The right-hand side of Eq. (17) is nothing but that of Eq. (13) and hence our viscous minimum uncertainty state is homogenize the mass distribution. Therefore the persis- defined by Eqs. (16) and (18). tence time of the viscous minimum uncertainty state is This state is the generalization of the (standard) co- short. To see the influence of the viscous uncertainty, we herent state. As is shown in, for example, Ref. [19], ρ(x) should observe short time evolutions in small inhomoge- and v(x) for a given wave function Ψ(x) are defined by neous systems as is realized in heavy-ion collisions. See also the discussion in Sec. V. ρ(x) = |Ψ(x)|2 , v(x) = −i ~ Im[∂ ln Ψ(x)] . (19) So far we did not specify the parameter κ. We now M x choose κ = ν2 = ~2/(4M2) so that Eq. (1) coincides with At the same time, the coordinate representation of the Madelung’s Euler equation in the vanishing limits of the coherent state is given by coefficients of viscosities, η and µ. Then our minimum uncertainty obtained from Eqs. (16) and (18) is simplified  1/4 √ √ as C − 1 ( Cx−α )2 iα ( Cx−α /2) hx|αi = e 2 R e I R , π s q q (κ − ξ2)2 1 | 2 − 4M2ξ2| σ(2) σ(2) = M = ~ . (20) x p 2 2 p where√αR, αI and C are real constants and α = (αR + ν + ξ 2 ~2 + 4M2ξ2 iαI )/ 2 is the eigenvalue of the lowering operator in a quantum harmonic oscillator [35]. Substituting this into The right-hand side is controlled by ξ, and can be smaller Eq. (19), we find that ρ(x) and v(x) for the coherent state than the standard minimum value in quantum mechanics, are reproduced from Eq. (16) by choosing ~/2, for a sufficiently weak kinematic viscosity satisfying √ A = C , x = √αR , 3 0 C√ 0 < ξ < ~ . (21) ~ 2 M B = 0 , v0 = M CαI . Here B = 0 means the absence of the kinematic viscosity The behavior of the minimum uncertainty (20) is in Eq. (18). shown as a function of Mξ/~ in Fig. 1. For the sake We see that the viscous minimum uncertainty state is of comparison, the dashed line represents the quantum sensitive to the inhomogeneity of the mass distribution. mechanical minimum value. The effects induced by the Indeed, for the homogeneous distribution where A is very quantum potential term and the viscous term cancels (2) 1/2 (2) 1/2 small, B defined by Eq. (18) can be negligible and the each other out and hence the product (√σx ) (σp ) /~ viscous minimum uncertainty state is hardly distinguish- can be smaller than 1/2 for Mξ/~ < 3/2. The viscous able from the coherent state. Moreover, the viscous mini- minimum uncertainty vanishes when Mξ/~ = 1/2 which mum uncertainty state has a position-dependent velocity correspond to κ − ξ2 = 0 but this choice is forbidden, characterized by Eqs. (16) and (18) and thus expands to because κ − ξ2 ∝ det(M) but det(M) 6= 0 to define 5 the momenta through the Legendre transformation (10) polar coordinates, but the corresponding operator rep- [6, 7]. For a larger ξ, the effect of the viscous term be- resentations are not established because there is no self- comes dominant and then the number of the collisions adjoint multiplicative operator which satisfies the period- among particles (fluid elements) increases. Because the icity and the canonical commutation relation at the same non-differentiability of trajectories is enhanced by the time. See Ref. [28] and references therein. Therefore, in collisions, the viscous minimum uncertainty behaves as the discussion of the angular uncertainty relation, the an increasing function of ξ. angle operator is introduced exclusively by altering one of those conditions. By contrast, the present approach is applicable to quantize generalized coordinate systems V. CONCLUDING REMARKS without introducing additional condition [27] and the un- certainty relation in generalized coordinates is obtained [28]. We showed that there exists the minimum uncertainty In the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, state of the uncertainty relation in quantum viscous hy- the finite minimum uncertainty is attributed to the non- drodynamics. The corresponding uncertainty is a func- commutativity of operators. The corresponding quantity tion of the coefficient of viscosity and can be smaller than in SVM is given by the consistency condition (5). Using the standard minimum value in quantum mechanics, ~/2, the parameters for quantum mechanics (14), the consis- for a sufficiently weak kinematic viscosity. tency condition (5) gives We should however pay special attention to the exis- tence of such a weak kinematic viscosity. As mentioned i j i j dx p− − x p+c = ~δij . before, it is considered that the coefficient of viscosity cannot be smaller than the KSS bound [18], This remind us of the canonical commutation relation and the above equation is reexpressed as

η ~ i j i j i j j i ≥ , (22) dx p− − x p+c = (−i)hxoppop − popxopi . (23) s 4πkB To see the role of the imaginary unit, we consider the where s is the entropy density. This bound is based on time-reversal transformation. Using Eqs. (3) and (10) the ansatz of the AdS/CFT correspondence. When we with the parameters (14), we find that the two momenta suppose s ∼ kBρ, Eq. (22) reads the inequality for the are transformed as kinematic viscosity, p±(x, t) → −p∓(x, t) . 1 ξ ≥ ~ . 8π M Therefore the left-hand side of Eq. (23) is time-reversal symmetric. On the other hand, for the right-hand side Comparing this with Eq. (21), we find that the maximum to be time-reversal symmetric, the imaginary factor (−i) value of ξ in Eq. (21) is still larger than the KSS bound, should be multiplied to the commutation relation. This but the difference is only slight. This may suggest that partially explains the raison d’etre of the imaginary unit the lower bound of the coefficient of viscosity appears so in the operator formulation of quantum mechanics. that viscosity does not improve uncertainty beyond the The viscous uncertainty characterizes the motion of standard minimum value ~/2. Of course, the KSS bound fluid elements. The fluid element is an abstract volume is a conjecture and further studies are required to confirm element and thus its direct observation will be difficult. the above discussion. However, the descriptions based on hydrodynamic mod- Quantum viscous hydrodynamics (1) is reduced to the els sometimes depend on the motions of fluid elements NSF equation by setting κ = 0 and thus the state defined and thus the viscous uncertainty triggers the modifica- by Eqs. (16) and (18) describes also the minimum uncer- tion of the descriptions. Physics in relativistic heavy-ion tainty state of a classical viscous fluid. For the minimum collisions is one example [17]. The vacuum is excited value of the uncertainty for water at room temperature, by high-energy nucleus collisions and the behavior of the see the discussion in Ref. [7]. excited vacuum is approximately described by viscous In the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, the hydrodynamics. The experimentally observed particles, non-commutativity of operators leads to the uncertainty called hadrons, are assumed to be produced by the ther- relation, while the same property is reproduced from the mal radiation from each fluid element of the viscous fluid. non-differentiability of particle trajectories in the present It is known that this hydrodynamic model explains ex- approach. The operator formalism is established in vari- perimental data very well. In this model, however, we ous applications of quantum mechanics and thus one may assume that the fluid elements pass along the stream- wonder about the significance of the alternative interpre- line of the viscous fluid, but such a view is too simple. tation for the uncertainty relation. The advantage of the Our result shows that the currents of the fluid elements fluctuate around streamlines of the viscous fluid and this present approach is its applicability to generalized coor- (2) dinate systems. For example, the angle variable and the fluctuation is characterized by σp . Moreover the behav- (2) (2) angular momentum form a pair of canonical variables in ior of σp is restricted by that of σx which can reflect 6 the inhomogeneity of the matter distribution. Because fruitful discussions and comments, and acknowledges the of the lack of the above mentioned effect, the standard financial support by CNPq (303468/2018-1). A part of hydrodynamic model may underestimate the effect of the the work was developed under the project INCT-FNA spatial inhomogeneity of the excited vacuum and hence Proc. No. 464898/2014-5. the anisotropy of the hadron production. A more quan- titative analysis is left as a future work.

The author thanks J.-P. Gazeau and T. Kodama for

[1] W. Heisenberg, “Uber¨ den anschaulichen Inhalt der [17] R. Derradi de Souza, T. Koide, T. Kodama, “Hydro- quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik”, Z. dynamic approaches in relativistic heavy ion reactions”, Phys. 43, 172 (1927). Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.86, 35 (2016). [2] M. Ozawa, “Universally valid reformulation of the [18] P. K. Kovtun, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, “Viscos- Heisenberg on noise and distur- ity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from bance in measurement”, Phys. Rev. A 67, 042105 (2003). Black Hole Physics”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 111601 (2005). [3] J. Erhart, S. Sponar, G. Sulyok, G. Badurek, M. Ozawa [19] P. R. Holland, The Quantum Theory of Motion: An and Y. Hasegawa, “Experimental demonstration of a uni- Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation versally valid error–disturbance uncertainty relation in of Quantum Mechanics, (Cambridge University Press, measurements”, Nature Phys. 8, 185 (2012). Cambridge, UK, 1995). [4] M. Ringbauer, D. N. Biggerstaff, M. A. Broome, A. [20] D. J. Korteweg, “Sur la forme que prennent les equations Fedrizzi,C. Branciard and A. G. White, “Experimen- des mouvements des fluides si l’on tient compte des forces tal Joint Quantum Measurements with Minimum Uncer- capillaires causees par des variations de densite consid- tainty”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 020401(2014). erables mais connues et la theorie de la capillarit e dens [5] F. Kaneda, S.-Y. Baek, M. Ozawa and K. Edamatsu, l‘hypothese d’une variation continue de la densite”, Arch. “Experimental Test of Error-Disturbance Uncertainty Neerl. Sci. Exactes Nat. II 6, 1 (1901). Relations by Weak Measurement”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, [21] D. Bresch, M. Gisclon and I. Lacroix-Violet, “On Navier- 020402 (2014). Stokes-Korteweg and Euler-Korteweg systems: Applica- [6] T. Koide and T. Kodama, “Generalization of uncertainty tion to Quantum Fluids Models”, Arch. Rational Mech. relation for quantum and stochastic systems”, Phys. Lett. Anal. 233, 975 (2019). A 382, 1472 (2018). [22] K. Yasue, “Stochastic calculus of variation”, J. Funct. [7] G. Gon¸calves de Matos, T. Kodama and T. Koide, “Un- Anal. 41, 327 (1981). certainty relations in Hydrodynamics”, Water 12, 3263 [23] J.-C. Zambrini, “Stochastic Dynamics: A Review of (2020). Stochastic Calculus of Variations”, Int. J. THeor. Phys. [8] See, for example, R. F. O’Connell, “Wigner distribution 24, 277 (1985). function approach to dissipative problems in quantum [24] T. Koide and T. Kodama, “Navier–Stokes, mechanics with emphasis on decoherence and measure- Gross–Pitaevskii and generalized diffusion equations ment theory”, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass Opt. 5, using the stochastic variational method”, J. Phys. A: S349 (2003). Math. Gen. 45, 255204 (2012). [9] R. W. Hasse, “On the quantum mechanical treatment of [25] T. Koide, “How is an optimized path of classical mechan- dissipative systems”, J. Math. Phys. 16, 2005 (1975). ics affected by random noise?”, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 410, [10] G. Lindblad, “On the generators of quantum dynamical 012025 (2013). semigroups”, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976). [26] T. Koide, T. Kodama and K. Tsushima, “Unified descrip- [11] V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski and E. C. G. Sudarshan, tion of classical and quantum behaviours in a variational “Completely positive semigroups of N-level systems” J. principle”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 626, 012055 (2015). Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976). [27] T. Koide and T. Kodama, “Novel effect induced by space- [12] P. Caldirola, “Forze non conservative nella meccanica time curvature in quantum hydrodynamics”, Phys. Lett. quantistica”, Nuovo Cimento 18, 393 (1941). 383, 2713 (2019). [13] E. Kanai, “On the Quantization of the Dissipative Sys- [28] J.-P. Gazeau and T. Koide, “Uncertainty relation for an- tems”, Prog. Theor. Phys. 3, 440 (1948). gle from a quantum-hydrodynamical perspective”, Ann. [14] M. D. Kostin, “On the Schr¨odinger-LangevinEquation”, Phys. 416, 168159 (2020). J. Chem. Phys. 57, 3589 (1972). [29] E. Nelson, “Derivation of the Schr¨odingerEquation from [15] H.-D. Doebner and G. A. Goldin, “On a general nonlin- Newtonian Mechanics”, Phys. Rev. 150, 1079 (1966). ear Schr¨odingerequation admitting diffusion currents”, [30] H. Brenner, “Is the tracer velocity of a fluid continuum Phys. Lett. A 162, 397 (1992). equal to its mass velocity?”, Phys. Rev. E 70, 061201 [16] D. Schuch, “Nonunitary connection between explicitly (2004). time-dependent and nonlinear approaches for the descrip- [31] T. Koide, R. O. Ramos and G. S. Vicente, “Bivelocity tion of dissipative quantum systems”, Phys. Rev. A 55, Picture in the Nonrelativistic Limit of Relativistic Hy- 935 (1997). drodynamics”, Braz. J. Phys. 45, 102 (2015). 7

[32] M. H. L. Reddy, S. K. Dadzie, R. Ocone et. al., “Re- tainty Principle as an Endogenous Equilibrium Property casting Navier-Stokes equations”, J. Phys. Commun. 3, of Stochastic Optimal Control Systems in Quantum Me- 105009 (2019). chanics”, Symmetry 12, 1533 (2020). [33] F. Illuminati and L. Viola, “Stochastic Variational Ap- [35] J.-P. Gazeau, Coherent States in Quantum Physics, proach to Minimum Uncertainty States”, J. Phys. A: (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2009). Math. Gen. 28, 2953 (1995). [34] J. Lindgren and J. Liukkonen, “The Heisenberg Uncer-