arXiv:1306.3925v1 [quant-ph] 17 Jun 2013 system usatrsm ieitra)and interval) time I some re- point after extensions. (every two curs recurrence between first distinction the the stress of re- mechanics, instances how quantum are illustrate and respectively, classical I for from spaces. theorems idea currence state basic continuous the to extends each discrete quantity in conserved that showing the length, (in case notions conserved and with of product, Appendix) inner equipped the conserved gen- spaces of dis- I volume, on works; the conserved it dynamics theorem of In go the to how to it twice. literally places eralise is place many this such case finitely one crete has intuition enter only the eventually system around will with a based system if a and that of states example many toy discretely the with beginning rence, quantum quantum and the classical of between versions. links proofs the standard obscure and version theorem, underpin- idea the elementary ning very tech- the measure-theoretic obscure can theorem nicalities classical the of foundation- Furthermore, proofs are two. in the there widely between as is differences important unfortunate, and version ally is classical classical This the both only discussed. H in but Boltzmann’s forms, exists quantum to theorem dating objection The mechanics, original theorem.[11] statistical Zermelo’s of to foundations back the in role ∗ usdi h ieaueaejs riat fcasclme- classical of artifacts dis- two just frequently that are chanics. observe been literature I have the in results, that re- cussed these recurrence point of of every basis which properties the after On interval time curs). some is (there lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic nti ae rvd nfidteteto recur- of treatment unified a provide I paper this In important an plays theorem Poincar´e recurrence The tavr btatlvl ecndfiea define can we level, abstract very a At I AMU:RCREC NFINITE IN RECURRENCE WARM-UP: II. • set A sseie by: specified as S n aesm omnsaotapiain ftecasclr classical the of mechanics. to applications statistical applicable about of o theorem comments space recurrence some state the make finite of and a versions with prove system I a way that fact the of alisations of ics lsia n unu eurneterm nauni a in theorems recurrence quantum and classical discuss I .INTRODUCTION I. states SYSTEMS eurneTerm:auie account unified a Theorems: Recurrence uniform alo olg,Uiest fOxford of University College, Balliol recurrence dynamical Dtd ue1,2013) 18, June (Dated: ai Wallace David tt wc;bcuetednmc sgvnb one-to- a by given is the dynamics map, the one because twice; the states, state many finitely of only evolution are there since Informally: rgnlsae ota otosae r apdt the to mapped are states two no state. that same so state, original U uhthat such ons ecnitrrtti nieyltrly Suppose literally. entirely that: this say interpret we can we points, a edsic,s hr utb distinct be must there so distinct, be can rgnlsae ftesaespace state its the to returns If eventually sense state. some original in time, in forward o l of all not n define and Proof recurrent. exactly is system invertible nite hoe 1 Theorem the prove easily can we Then sn ellmtto:gvnacniuu-ieevolution continuous-time a given this discrete, limitation: operator is real time no dynamics of is model this in Although U U twl vleatr1tm-tp ecnte en time a define then can We operator time-step. evolution 1 after evolve will it that is idea The ( ( · h dao eurnei hteeysae si evolves it as state, every that is recurrence of idea The − n U • • • • )= 1) + n , ∗ yaia ytmi xcl eurn ffrevery for if recurrent s exactly is system dynamical A yaia ytmi nt fissaespace state its if points. finite many finitely is contains system dynamical A yaia ytmi netbeif invertible is system dynamical A n a:ta s ffrevery for if is, that map: one preserving U neouinrule evolution An t U ) U S ∈ Let l a omn lcst o ln the Along go. to places many so has nly S ∈ ( 3 = (3) n yaiso ieradmti spaces, metric and linear on dynamics ( V crec hoe ntefoundations the in theorem ecurrence m a eetne nqeyt negative to uniquely extended be can ) e anr raigbt sgener- as both treating manner, fied U ( U hr ssome is there , S ) U uhthat such t s ( ,w a iksm rirrl hr time short arbitrarily some pick can we ), s n Fnt eurneTheorem) Recurrence (Finite = U contain · first = U ) ,U s, uteetal astruhtesame the through pass eventually must · s V U U ( U U n = ( · ( asec tt otesaeit which into state the to state each maps ( τ ) satisfying )), tt ob nee wc utb the be must twice entered be to state U m (1) n U ;then ); U t.(r oeformally: more (or, etc. , ( + U N − n ,U s, ( m ( sfollows: as ) m U n t ebr.Te o n given any for Then members. = ) ) ) = ) hc maps which , s (2) s n Then . . U s s  ,...U . . . s, ( > U Fo hsi olw that follows it this (From . n ( = ) U uhthat such 0 n ( ) s n U df S s S ∈ ( + ( N U V m = m a ntl many finitely has 1 = (1) ) ( ). S s nτ ,m n, hr saunique a is there = ) U oitself. to U ( ). − U U saone-to- a is with n U ( ( U ) n n , U 1 = (1) s ) U ) n fi- Any n U ( s m < n n 2 = (2) ( while ) = m s U )). s = s S . τ , , 2

Note that both requirements are needed. If the system as a dynamical system equipped with a measure in this is not finite, it can continue exploring new states forever; way. We can now use this notion to define an appropriate if it is not invertible, it can get stuck at some state or set generalisation of recurrence. of states and never get out again. A measureable dynamical system is recurrent in Now consider the space ( ) of all maps from to • itself. Given some evolutionU operatorS U, we can defineS a volume iff for any measureable S , the set T S of points in S that do not eventually⊂ S re-enter function LU from ( ) to itself by U S S ⊂under dynamical evolution has measure zero. L (V )= U V. (1) U · To put this more informally: pick any state, and choose any non-zero-volume region containing that state. If the Formally, we can regard ( ) as a state space, and LU as an evolution operator onU thatS state space, so as to create system is recurrent in volume, virtually all points in that a new dynamical system. If is finite, so is ( ) (there region will eventually return to it — “virtually” in the are N N maps from an N-memberS set to itself);U S if U is sense that the set of those which do not has measure zero. −1 By taking the region arbitrarily small, we can ensure that invertible, so is LU (LU −1 LU (V ) = U U V = V ). So in fact, this dynamical· system is also recurrent.· · In (in some sense) almost all states arbitrarily close to our particular, if 1 is the identity map, then there exists some original state will return arbitrarily close to it. n such that To prove recurrence in volume, we need assumptions analogous to finiteness and invertibility. They are: (L )n(1) U(n) 1= U(n)=1. (2) U ≡ · A measureable dynamical system is finite in mea- • sure iff µ( ) < . But if U(n) = 1, then U(n)s = s for all s : that is, S ∞ there is some fixed time n such that after n∈time-steps, S A measureable dynamical system is volume- every state has been time-evolved back to itself Let us • preserving iff µ(U(S)) = µ(S) for all measureable call this stronger property uniform recurrence: formally, S. a dynamical system is uniformly exactly recurrent if for some fixed n> 0, all states s satisfy U(n)s = s. We can then prove the We have now proved the ∈ S Theorem 3 (Volume Recurrence Theorem) Any Theorem 2 (Finite Uniform Recurrence Theo- measureable dynamical system that is finite and volume- rem) Any finite invertible system is uniformly exactly preserving is recurrent in volume. recurrent. Proof Pick a measureable subset S , and let T S In essence, all recurrence results we will consider have be the set of points in S that never return⊂ S to S, i. e.⊂ the this form: recurrence occurs just because the system only points s which satisfy U(n)s / S for all n > 0. has so many places to go, and runs out of them, and be- ∈ S ∈ Now define Tn = U(n)T . Since the dynamics is measure- cause its one-to-one dynamics means that this can only preserving, for any n,m (with nsubsets of . (Informally, a mea- finite in measure, so (ii) is the only possibility.  sure µ is a rule that associates to aS subset S a value µ(S) which is a nonnegative real number or ⊂, Ssuch that How can we define a volume-based version of uniform the volume of a union of disjoint sets is the sum∞ of the vol- recurrence? It’s not entirely clear, but it’s moot in any umes of the individual sets and the volume of the empty case, because no such result is true. Consider, for in- set is zero; for a more formal definition, see [6]. Not all stance, the following dynamical system: the state space subsets can be assigned a measure (there are pathologi- is a cylinder of radius 1 and height 1, so that states are cal ‘non-measureable’ sets) but any remotely simple set is labelled by pairs (z,θ) with z [0, 1] and θ [0, 2π). measureable.) We define a measureable dynamical system If the dynamical rule is (z,θ) ∈ (z, [θ + z] modulo∈ 2π) → 3

(i.e., if it rotates each point an amount proportional to where V is bounded below, Cij is positive definite, and z) then the ordinary volume of this cylinder provides a the positions are confined to a finite region. Then the preserved measure, so that the system is a finite, invert- momenta will also be confined to a finite region for given ible, measure-preserving dynamical system. The volume energy, and the Poincar´erecurrence theorem will hold. recurrence theorem holds, and indeed this is easy to see (For a case where the positions are not confined, consider informally: for any z, and any ǫ, we can find n so that a particle moving freely in empty space (clearly this will nz is within ǫ of being an integer multiple of 2π. not recur); for a case where V is not bounded below, If the system were uniformly recurrent, though, we consider Newtonian gravity.) would expect (e.g.) the line of points (z, 0) for arbitrary z to return arbitrarily close to itself. But it’s clear that this won’t happen: the line will wind more and more V. RECURRENCE IN LINEAR DYNAMICAL tightly around the cylinder, and never unwind. THEORIES To get further mathematical insight into why this hap- pens, consider that the space of measure-preserving func- We say that a dynamical theory is linear if its state tions on a (non-finite) space is typically very large — so space is some subspace of an inner product space (whose large, in fact, that there is no natural way to define a inner product we write , ). Provided the space is of volume measure on it. So the analogue of our finite-case some finite dimension Nh·, we·i can use this inner product strategy, where we considered the space of maps itself as to define a volume on the space, informally[14] just by a dynamical system, will not work in this case. defining the volume of a cube of side λ as λN . Also given We will shortly see that there are alternative (and the inner product, we can define the distance d(x, y) be- physically more relevant) generalisations of recurrence in tween two states x, y as the length of the vector between which uniform recurrence does hold. Firstly, though, we them: that is, d(x, y) = x y, x y . This function should stop and consider the most important application is sometimes called the metrich −. − i of volume recurrence. We now define a linearp dynamical theory as bounded if for some fixed D, d(s,t) < D for all • IV. APPLICATION: CLASSICAL MECHANICS states s,t. inner-product-preserving if for all states s,t, Classical mechanics in the Hamiltonian formalism (for • U(s),U(t) = s,t . given time-step τ, and assuming finitely many degrees of h i h i freedom) is a dynamical system: the state space is phase We then have space, the evolution rule is evolution for time τ under Theorem 5 Hamilton’s equations, and the volume is given by[12] (Linear recurrence theorem, prelimi- nary form) Any linear dynamical theory which is finite- 1 n dimensional, bounded, invertible and inner-product- µ(V )= dq dp1 dq dpn (3) V ··· preserving is recurrent in volume with respect to the vol- Z ume function defined by the inner product. By Liouville’s theorem, this is conserved under Hamilto- nian evolution; as such, classical mechanics is an invert- Proof If the system is inner-product-preserving, its dy- ible, measure-preserving, measureable dynamical system. namics preserves the volume measure. If the system is It is not a finite system (phase space, in general, has bounded, (say, with d(s,t) norm Theorem 4 (Poincar´e recurrence theorem) For 1), this result applies in particular to finite-dimensional any classical-mechanical system with finite-dimensional quantum systems, and indeed can be extended to infinite- phase space, if the subset of phase space with energies dimensional ones under certain conditions (as we will lying in some band (E, E + δE) has finite Liouville vol- see). But this route to quantum recurrence, although ume then the restriction of the dynamics to that subset it has the virtue of hewing closely to the classical model, is recurrent in volume. understates the strength of recurrence that actually oc- As an important example of this, consider a system whose curs in quantum theory — essentially because preserva- Hamiltonian has the form tion of an inner product is a much stronger condition than preservation of a volume. 1 n ij 1 n H(q ,p1,...q ,pn)= C pipj + V (q ,...q ), (4) Indeed, the mere presence of an inner product allows i,j us to define an alternative concept of recurrence: we can X 4 consider a system to be recurrent if any state returns Any norm-preserving V satisfies V, V = Tr(V †V ) = arbitrarily close to its starting point with respect to this Tr(1) = N, so that the set of allh suchiU is a bounded metric. More precisely, subset of ( ). If we define a dynamics on that set by U V A linear dynamical system is recurrent in metric L (V )= UV (7) • U iff for any state s, and any ǫ> 0, there is some ns such that d(U(ns)s,s) <ǫ. then we can readily verify that it is norm-preserving. Ap- plying our existing result tells us that this dynamics is A linear dynamical system is uniformly recurrent ′ • recurrent in metric, and so for any ǫ , there is some n in metric iff for any ǫ > 0, there is some n such such that ǫ′ > Tr((U(n) 1,U(n) 1). that for all states s, d(U(n)s,s) <ǫ. Now, for any operator− A −and any vector v, Tr(A†A) v, v Av, Av. And because the original state We can then prove a stronger result: space ish bounded,i ≥ h there is some D such that s,s < D ′ 2 h i Theorem 6 (Linear recurrence theorem) Any linear for any state s. So if we take ǫ = ǫ /D, we have dynamical theory which is finite-dimensional, bounded, ǫ2 > Tr(U(n) 1,U(n) 1)D> Tr(U(n) 1,U(n) 1) s,s and inner-product-preserving is uniformly recurrent in − − − − h i metric. U(n)s s,U(n)s s = d(U(n)s,s)2. (8) Proof We begin by proving ordinary recurrence. Sup- ≥ h − − i pose that the dynamical theory has a state space that  is a subset of an N-dimensional vector space , andS pick V some orthonormal set of vectors v1,...vn. For any N- In fact, the result rests only on the existence of a pre- tuple of real[15] numbers x1,...xn, and any ǫ > 0, we served distance function, and on the fact that the space can construct the ball can be covered, for any ǫ, with finitely many balls of ra- dius ǫ. (This latter property is called total boundedness in 1 n i Bǫ(x ,...x )= x : d(x, x vi) < ǫ/2 . (5) the theory of metric spaces.) Since the details are mildly { ∈V } i fiddly, I postpone them to the appendix. X If is the set of such balls defined by N-tuples B n1ǫ/2√N,...nN ǫ/2√N for arbitrary (positive or nega- VI. APPLICATION: QUANTUM MECHANICS tive) integers n1,...nN , it is easy to verify that (i) every point in is in some element of ; In the quantum theory of pure states, quantum states V B are taken to be vectors of norm 1; in the theory of mixed (ii) if is bounded, there is some finite subset states, they are taken to be self-adjoint operators of trace S B1,...B such that every point in is in one of 1 all of whose eigenvalues are nonnegative. In both cases M V the Bi. the states form a bounded subset of a linear space. So whenever the quantum theory’s Hilbert space is finite- Now pick an arbitrary state s, and consider its dynamical dimensional, the dynamics are uniformly recurrent. evolutes In many cases of physical interest, though, we take the Hilbert space to be infinite-dimensional. In some U(1)s, U(2)s, . . . . cases the recurrence theorem can be extended to these situations also. Specifically, we can prove the Each one must lie in (at least) one of the Bi (we can pick one arbitrarily if it lies in more than one) and so, since Theorem 7 (Quantum recurrence theorem) Given there are only finitely many of the Bi, we must be able a quantum system with Hamiltonian H, if the set of to find n,m (n 0), − − b metric. (i) The dynamics are recurrent in metric; We prove uniform recurrence by the same trick used in b the finite case: we construe the space of evolution opera- (ii) For any E, the restriction of the dynamics to states tors as a dynamical system in its own right. Specifically: of expected energy < E is uniformly recurrent in consider the space ( ) of linear transformations of . metric. This too is a vectorU space,V and it can be equipped withV an inner product as follows: Proof To begin with, let the energy eigenstates be given by ϕi , with H ϕi = Ei ϕi , and with the energies in U, V = Tr(U †V ). (6) increasing| i order,| soi that if| ii > j, E E . (That they h i i ≥ j b 5 can be so listed is a consequence of (a)-(c).) Write for Since λ was chosen arbitrarily, we can in particular HN the Hilbert space spanned by states ϕ1 ,... ϕ ; this choose N so that {| i | N i} space has dimension N. U leaves N invariant and so defines a dynamics on it; since His finite-dimensional, d( ψ , ψN ) < ǫ/3. (18) HN | i | i this dynamics is uniformlyb recurrent. (In other words, all states with expected energy below Next, note that any given state can be expressed as ∞ E are within distance ǫ/3 of N ). Since the dynam- a sum of energy eigenstates: ψ = i αi ϕi , where H ∞ 2 | i | i ics are uniformly recurrent on N , we can find m such i αi = 1. We can usefully define the partial sums H | | N P that for all states ψ , d(U(m) ψN , ψN ) < ǫ/3. Re- ψ = α ϕ (that is, as the projection of ψ onto | i | i | i P| N i i i | ii | i peating the argument in the proof of (i) tells us that , so that ψ ψ = N α N . Using the linear space  N P N i i d(U(m) ψ , ψ ) <ǫ. b definitionH ofh distance,| i we can| readily| calculate | i | i P Whenb will this somewhat abstract condition be re- N ∞ alised? On heuristic grounds we would expect it to hold 2 2 d( ψ , ψ )= 2 1 αi = 2 αi . in nonrelativistic QM whenever the system is spatially | i | iN v − | | v | | u i=0 ! u i=N+1 bounded and has a potential bounded below: in this sit- u X u X t t uation, a solution to the Schr¨odinger equation can only To prove (i), pick ǫ > 0. There will exist some N have discretely many nodes, and any increase in nodes such that d( ψ , ψN ) < ǫ/3. Since the dynamics on increases the average curvature of the solution and so are recurrent,| i | therei will also exist m such that the kinetic energy. In fact this can be formally proved HN d(U(m) ψN , ψN ) < ǫ/3. By the triangle inequality, in functional analysis (see [3, p.1330]). More generally, | i | i [1] has advanced arguments to the effect that even in quantum field theory, there are only finitely many en- b d(U(m) ψ , ψ ) < d(U(m) ψ , U(m) ψN ) | i | i | i | i ergy eigenstates of any spatially bounded theory below a b b b given total energy. + d(U(m) ψN , ψN )+ d( ψN , ψ ). (9) If the theory is not spatially bounded, the spectrum | i | i | i | i may be continuous, and there is no guarantee of recur- Since U preservesb Hilbert-space distance, the first and rence, just as in the classical case (the free particle is a third terms are equal, and each is less than ǫ/3; the result trivial counterexample). now follows.b To prove (ii), assume that all the energy eigenvalues are nonnegative (if this is not the case, we can just add a VII. ANOTHER ROUTE TO LINEAR RECURRENCE constant to H without affecting the dynamics) and that there are eigenvalues of arbitrarily high energy (if not, The above argument is not in fact how the quantum then by (b) andb (c), the system is finite-dimensional and so already known to be uniformly recurrent). Now pick recurrence theorem was originally proved. In this section E > 0. For any λ > 0, there will exist some energy I sketch the standard proof, which has the advantage of making more transparent the way in which recurrence eigenvalue EN with EN > E/λ. For any given state ψ with expected energy < E, we can decompose it as actually plays out, at the cost of blurring the continuity | i with the classical and discrete cases. ψ = ψN + δψ , and we have | i | i | i Firstly, suppose that the system’s Hilbert space is E ψ H ψ (10) finite-dimensional, and that the Hamiltonian has eigen- ≥ h | | i values E1,...EN and eigenstates ϕ1 ,... ϕN . Then = ψN H ψN + δψ H δψ (11) any state ψ may be expanded in| energyi | eigenstates,i h b| | i h | | i | i δψ H δψ (12) and we have ≥ h | b| i b ∞ N 2 = E α (13) −iEit b i i U(t) ψ = exp( iHt) ψ = αie ϕi . (19) = +1 | | | i − | i | i i N i=1 X ∞ X 2 b b EN αi (14) Now suppose that all of the energy eigenvalues E1,...EN ≥ = +1 | | are rational numbers. Then for some time t, Eit =2niπ i XN ∞ for some integers ni. It follows that U(t) ψ = ψ : that > (E/λ) α 2 (15) is, the theory is uniformly recurrent. | i | i | i| i=N+1 But any real number is arbitrarilyb well approximated X (16) by a rational number! So this suggests that this result ought to hold (to an arbitrarily good approximation) for Rearranging, arbitrary E1,...EN . This leads us to the theory of al- most periodic functions, and outside the scope of this ar- 2λ > d( ψ , ψ )2. (17) ticle. But an elementary sketch proof (using our existing | i | N i 6 recurrence results!) would go as follows: for given τ, the (To be fair, at least the second point is sometimes effect of U(τ) is to increase the phase of the ith eigenstate noted. [8], in particular, notes (pp.200-1) that the Gibb- by Eiτ. These phases take values between 0 and 2π; that sian approach does indeed fail in finite-volume quantum is, the set of all phases lives on an N-dimensional torus. systems. But he suggests that the solution is to go If we define a distance or volume function on that torus to the thermodynamic limit: that is, to infinite-volume in the usual way, we can see that these phase increases (but finite-density) systems. However, there is no reason preserve both. Applying the volume or metric versions of to expect even non-uniform recurrence to apply in that the recurrence theorem then tells us that to any degree context, and indeed, a move to the infinite-volume case of approximation, and for some N, applying the phase would have saved classical Boltzmannian statistical me- rotation N times gets us back where we started to that chanics from any problem of recurrence. So it is hard to degree of approximation. (This argument essentially fol- see what is really intended here.) lows [7].) It is interesting to ask just what features of classical mechanics really prevent uniform recurrence. On possi- bility is the absence of a dynamically conserved distance VIII. TWO ARTEFACTS OF CLASSICAL function (let alone a dynamically preserved linear struc- MECHANICS ture) on phase space. Classical dynamics preserves size but not shape[17] and so allows a wider variety of possible In the literature on the foundations of statistical me- dynamics. chanics, two subtleties of the classical (Poincar´e) recur- However, the space of probability distributions over rence theorem are often stressed:[16] phase space does have a linear structure, and the dynam- ics on that space is likewise linear: the Liouville equation, 1. Although the theorem establishes (roughly) that ρ˙ = ρ,H , is a linear differential equation. Further- the states that do not recur have collective measure more,{ if we} restrict our attention to a finite-volume re- zero, nothing rules out the existence of anomalous gion of phase space and define an inner product on the states that never recur. space of density operators by 2. The theorem establishes recurrence, but not uni- ρ, σ = dxρ(x)σ(x) (20) form recurrence. h i Z The first point (often called the ‘problem of measure (where the integral is taken with respect to Liouville mea- zero’), and its cousin in the theory of ergodicity, poses sure) then it is easy to show that this inner product is a supposed problem to any attempt to give a dynamical preserved by the Liouville equation. In this case, the justification to the standard measures used in statistical reason that classical dynamics fails to abide by the lin- mechanics: only by making measure-theoretic assump- ear recurrence theorem is that the distribution space is tions can we even get the recurrence theorem to tell us infinite-dimensional, even if phase space has finite vol- about actual systems. The second point is advanced as a ume: distributions can have structure on arbitrarily short supposed justification for the move from the Boltzman- scales. nian description of thermodynamical systems as repre- Formally, quantum theory can also be done on the sented by phase-space points, to the Gibbsian description space of phase-space distributions: the Wigner function which represents them by phase-space distributions. The formalism[18] maps each quantum state to a real func- idea here is that recurrence poses a threat to the mono- tion on phase space (with the proviso that such functions tonicity of entropy increase — but if entropy is a function are not reliably nonnegative) and the resultant mapping of distributions rather than individual states, there is no of the Schr¨odinger equation — the Moyal equation — objection to its increasing indefinitely. is equal to Liouville’s equation to leading order in ~. I make no comment on the conceptual status of these But Winger functions of a given energy cannot vary on concerns — but we can see that technically speaking, arbitrarily short lengthscales, essentially because of the they rely on features of classical dynamics which do not uncertainty principle. We can again see the infinite di- occur in quantum theory. The quantum recurrence theo- mensionality of the space of classical distributions as an rem demonstrates uniform recurrence, and it tells us that artefact of classical physics. all states return arbitrarily close to their starting point. So insofar as a given classical system fails to demonstrate these features, all we can learn is that the classical de- scription must at some point fail to be a good approx- IX. CONCLUSION imation to any underlying quantum system. And since our only (non-historical) reason to describe a system via Systems undergo recurrence, essentially, because there classical dynamics is because it is assumed to be a good are only so many places they can go, and eventually they approximation to some underlying quantum dynamics, have to go back on themselves, and because if they have these subtleties can be dismissed as classical artefacts, 1:1 dynamics, the only way they can do this is by re- without conceptual significance. turning to their starting point. Generalising this to state 7 spaces with infinitely many states can be done via a con- To extend this to uniform recurrence, we can use the served volume, or a conserved inner product, or a con- usual trick of applying recurrence to dynamics on the served metric. The first of these is most commonly seen, space of metric-preserving maps. To do so, we need to and applies to classical mechanics; the others, however, make this space into a totally bounded metric space. are more powerful, implying exceptionless, uniform re- To do so, first note that a totally bounded space is currence, and are applicable to quantum mechanics. The also bounded: that is, for some D > 0, d(x, y) < D relative weakness of the classical recurrence theorem is for all x and y. (If the balls of radius (say) 1 around therefore a curiosity rather than a point of conceptual x1 ...xN contain all points in the space, then for some ′ ′ significance. D > 0 and all i, j, d(xi, xj )

3. d(x,y,z) d(x, y)+ d(y,z) (the triangle inequal- Proof Pick ǫ> 0, and pick x1 ...xN , y1,...yM ity). ≤ such that ∈ S ∈ T

(A metric space satisfies in addition that if d(x, y)=0 Bǫ/4(x1) Bǫ/4(xN )= then x = y, but we will not need this condition.) A ∪···∪ S metric dynamical theory is then just a dynamical theory whose state space is equipped with a metric. Bǫ/4(y1) Bǫ/4(yM )= . We now repeat some of the definitions used for linear ∪···∪ T spaces: Now let Π be the set of functions from x1,...xN to { } y1,...yM , and for each π Π, define Fπ ( , ) Given a point x, and ǫ > 0, the ball of radius ǫ, to{ be the} set of metric-preserving∈ functions∈ such U S thatT • Bǫ(x) is the set y : d(x, y) <ǫ . f(x ) B 4(π(x )) for each i. Suppose f and g are both { ∈ S } i ∈ ǫ/ i elements of some Fπ, and that x Bǫ/4(π(xj )). Then by A premetric space is totally bounded if for any ∈ • the triangle inequality, ǫ> 0, there are finitely many points x1,...xN such that d (f(x),g(x)) d (f(x),f(x ))+ T ≤ T i B (x1) B (x )= . ǫ ∪···∪ ǫ N S dT (f(xi), π(xi)) + dT (π(xi),g(xi)) + dT (g(xi),g(x)). A map U : is metric-preserving if for any (21) • S → S x, y , d(x, y)= d(U(x),U(y)). Since f and g are metric-preserving, dT (f(x),f(xi)) = ∈ S d (x, x ) < ǫ/4; since f F , d (f(x ), π(x )) < ǫ/4; the S i ∈ π T i i The proof that any metric-preserving evolution map is same holds for g. So we conclude that dT (f(x),g(x)) <ǫ. recurrent in metric proceeds the same way as for linear Now for each non-empty F , pick an arbitrary f F . π π ∈ π spaces: Fπ Bǫ(fπ), so it follows that the union of all the Bǫ(fπ) is ⊂( , ). Since there are only finitely many of these, Theorem 8 (Metric recurrence theorem) Any met- (U,S )T is totally bounded. ric dynamical theory which is totally bounded and metric- U S T preserving is recurrent in metric. In particular, ( , ) is totally bounded. The dy- U S S namics defined by LU (f) = U f is a metric-preserving Proof Fix ǫ> 0 and x (where is the state space), evolution on this space, and so· by theorem 8, for any ∈ S S and let x1,...xN be such that the union of the Bǫ/2(xi) ǫ we can find n such that d(U(n)1, 1) < ǫ, and hence { } is . Since there are only finitely many xi, we can dS(U(n)x, x) <ǫ for any x. That is, we have proved findS n,m(n

For readers more familiar with the topological notion of the space) and so, as a corollary of theorem 8, any metric- compactness, note that any compact metric space is to- preserving dynamical theory with a compact state space tally bounded[19] (for given ǫ > 0, consider the open is uniformly recurrent in metric. cover consisting of balls of radius ǫ around every point in

[1] Bekenstein, J. (1981). Universal upper bound of the [12] More formally, this is the volume defined by the symplec- ∧ ···∧ entropy-to-energy ratio for bounded systems. Physical tic structure ω on phase space: µ(V )= RV ω ω ω, Review D 23, 287–298. where ω ∧ ω ···∧ ω is the n-fold exterior product of ω [2] Brown, H. R., W. Myrvold, and J. Uffink (2009). Boltz- with itself. mann’s H-theorem, its discontents, and the birth of sta- [13] With only slightly more care, we can prove a version of tistical mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of the recurrence theorem that applies if any given energy Modern Physics 40, 174–191. hypersurface is finite in volume. However, as there can [3] Dunford, N. and J. Schwartz (1988). Linear Operators be no physically interesting distinction between the two Part II: Spectral Theory. John Wil. cases, even this slight increase in care seems unnecessary. [4] Hillery, M., R. F. O’Connell, M. O. Scully, and E. P. [14] Formally (at least if the state space is an open subset of Wigner (1984). Distribution functions in physics: Fun- the inner product space) pick an orthonormal basis; use damentals. Physics Reports 106, 121–167. this basis to identify the state space with a subset of RN ; [5] Moyal, J. E. (1949). Quantum mechanics as a statisti- use this identification to carry the Lebesgue measure over cal theory. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge to the state space. Philosophical Society 45, 99–124. [15] We’re not really assuming that the space is a real rather [6] Rudin, W. (1987). Real and Complex Analysis (3rd ed.). than complex space here; an N-dimensional complex vec- New York: MgGraw-Hill. tor space is also a 2N-dimensional real vector space. [7] Schulman, L. (1978). Note on the quantum recurrence [16] See, e. g. , [8, pp.182–7,199–202], and references therein. theorem. Physical Review A 18, 2379–2380. [17] That is not to say that it preserves only size: by no means [8] Sklar, L. (1993). Physics and Chance: Philosophical Is- are all volume-preserving maps symplectic maps. sues in the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics. Cam- [18] The Wigner function was first introduced in [10] and ex- bridge: Cambridge University Press. plored further by [5]; see Hillery et al 1984 for a review [9] Sutherland, W. (1975). Introduction to Metric and Topo- of its properties. logical Spaces. Oxford Univer. [19] The converse is not true, but any complete totally [10] Wigner, E. (1932). On the quantum correction for ther- bounded metric space is compact. For an elementary modynamic equilibrium. Physical Review 40, 749–759. proof, see [9, p.141]. [11] See [2], and references therein