- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

From equivalent Lagrangians to inequivalent open quantum system dynamics

Anirudh Gundhi*, Oliviero Angeli†, and Angelo Bassi‡

  • *Contact author: anirudh.gundhi@units.it
  • †Contact author: oliviero.angeli@phd.units.it
  • ‡Contact author: abassi@units.it
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013133 – Published 6 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/4rpx-zj2x

Abstract

Lagrangians can differ by a total derivative without altering the equations of motion, thus encoding the same physics. This is true both classically and quantum mechanically. We show, however, that in the context of open quantum systems, two Lagrangians that differ by a total derivative can lead to inequivalent reduced dynamics. While these Lagrangians are connected via unitary transformations at the level of the global system-plus-environment description, the equivalence breaks down after tracing out the environment. We argue that only those Lagrangians for which the canonical and mechanical momenta of the system coincide lead to operationally meaningful dynamics. Applying this insight to quantum electrodynamics (QED), we derive the master equation for bremsstrahlung due to an accelerated nonrelativistic electron upto second order in the interaction. The resulting reduced dynamics predicts decoherence in the position basis and closely matches the Caldeira-Leggett form, thus resolving previous discrepancies in the literature. Our findings have implications for both QED and gravitational decoherence, where similar ambiguities arise.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (57)

  1. E. Joos, H. Zeh, D. Giulini, C. Kiefer, J. Kupsch, and I. Stamatescu, Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory, Physics and Astronomy Online Library (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003).
  2. M. A. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007).
  3. E. Joos and H. D. Zeh, The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment, Z. Phys. B 59, 223 (1985).
  4. H. D. Zeh, Decoherence: Basic concepts and their interpretation, arXiv:quant-ph/9506020.
  5. B. Brezger, L. Hackermüller, S. Uttenthaler, J. Petschinka, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, Matter-wave interferometer for large molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 100404 (2002).
  6. K. Hornberger, S. Uttenthaler, B. Brezger, L. Hackermüller, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, Collisional decoherence observed in matter wave interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 160401 (2003).
  7. L. Hackermüller, S. Uttenthaler, K. Hornberger, E. Reiger, B. Brezger, A. Zeilinger, and M. Arndt, Wave nature of biomolecules and fluorofullerenes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 090408 (2003).
  8. L. Hackermüller, K. Hornberger, B. Brezger, A. Zeilinger, and M. Arndt, Decoherence of matter waves by thermal emission of radiation, Nature (London) 427, 711 (2004).
  9. J. P. Cotter, S. Eibenberger, L. Mairhofer, X. Cheng, P. Asenbaum, M. Arndt, K. Walter, S. Nimmrichter, and K. Hornberger, Coherence in the presence of absorption and heating in a molecule interferometer, Nat. Commun. 6, 7336 (2015).
  10. J. P. Cotter, C. Brand, C. Knobloch, Y. Lilach, O. Cheshnovsky, and M. Arndt, In search of multipath interference using large molecules, Sci. Adv. 3, e1602478 (2017).
  11. N. P. Bullier, A. Pontin, and P. F. Barker, Characterisation of a charged particle levitated nano-oscillator, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 53, 175302 (2020).
  12. C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero-Isart, Levitodynamics: Levitation and control of microscopic objects in vacuum, Science 374, eabg3027 (2021).
  13. J. M. H. Gosling, A. Pontin, J. H. Iacoponi, P. F. Barker, and T. S. Monteiro, Sensing directional noise baths in levitated optomechanics, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013129 (2024).
  14. R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, et al., Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit, Nature (London) 614, 676 (2023).
  15. Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. Van Den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, et al., Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature (London) 618, 500 (2023).
  16. E. P. Wigner, Review of the quantum-mechanical measurement problem, in Science, Computers, and the Information Onslaught, edited by D. M. Kerr, K. Braithwaite, N. Metropolis, D. H. Sharp, and G.-C. Rota (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1984), pp. 63–82.
  17. M. R. Gallis and G. N. Fleming, Environmental and spontaneous localization, Phys. Rev. A 42, 38 (1990).
  18. B. Vacchini, Completely positive quantum dissipation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1374 (2000).
  19. A. Caldeira and A. Leggett, Path integral approach to quantum Brownian motion, Physica A 121, 587 (1983).
  20. A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Influence of damping on quantum interference: An exactly soluble model, Phys. Rev. A 31, 1059 (1985).
  21. W. G. Unruh and W. H. Zurek, Reduction of a wave packet in quantum Brownian motion, Phys. Rev. D 40, 1071 (1989).
  22. B. L. Hu, J. P. Paz, and Y. Zhang, Quantum Brownian motion in a general environment: Exact master equation with nonlocal dissipation and colored noise, Phys. Rev. D 45, 2843 (1992).
  23. M. Tegmark, Apparent wave function collapse caused by scattering, Found. Phys. Lett. 6, 571 (1993).
  24. P. M. V. B. Barone and A. O. Caldeira, Quantum mechanics of radiation damping, Phys. Rev. A 43, 57 (1991).
  25. C. Anastopoulos and A. Zoupas, Nonequilibrium quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 58, 105006 (1998).
  26. H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, Radiation damping and decoherence in quantum electrodynamics, in Relativistic Quantum Measurement and Decoherence, edited by H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000), pp. 31–65.
  27. A. Gundhi and A. Bassi, Motion of an electron through vacuum fluctuations, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062801 (2023).
  28. A. Gundhi and H. Ulbricht, Measuring decoherence due to quantum vacuum fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 020402 (2025).
  29. C. Kiefer, Decoherence in quantum electrodynamics and quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1658 (1992).
  30. L. H. Ford, Electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations and electron coherence, Phys. Rev. D 47, 5571 (1993).
  31. G. Baym and T. Ozawa, Two-slit diffraction with highly charged particles: Niels Bohr's consistency argument that the electromagnetic field must be quantized, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 3035 (2009).
  32. E. Santos, Objectification of classical properties induced by quantum vacuum fluctuations, Phys. Lett. A 188, 198 (1994).
  33. L. Diósi, Comments on “objectification of classical properties induced by quantum vacuum fluctuations,” Phys. Lett. A 197, 183 (1995).
  34. C. Anastopoulos, Quantum theory of nonrelativistic particles interacting with gravity, Phys. Rev. D 54, 1600 (1996).
  35. C. Anastopoulos and B. L. Hu, A master equation for gravitational decoherence: Probing the textures of spacetime, Class. Quantum Grav. 30, 165007 (2013).
  36. M. P. Blencowe, Effective field theory approach to gravitationally induced decoherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 021302 (2013).
  37. T. Oniga and C. H.-T. Wang, Quantum gravitational decoherence of light and matter, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044027 (2016).
  38. S. Kanno, J. Soda, and J. Tokuda, Noise and decoherence induced by gravitons, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044017 (2021).
  39. L. Asprea, G. Gasbarri, and A. Bassi, Gravitational decoherence: A general nonrelativistic model, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104041 (2021).
  40. M. Lagouvardos and C. Anastopoulos, Gravitational decoherence of photons, Class. Quantum Grav. 38, 115012 (2021).
  41. M. Parikh, F. Wilczek, and G. Zahariade, Signatures of the quantization of gravity at gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 104, 046021 (2021).
  42. D. Carney, V. Domcke, and N. L. Rodd, Graviton detection and the quantization of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044009 (2024).
  43. J. R. Ackerhalt and P. W. Milonni, Interaction Hamiltonian of quantum optics, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 1, 116 (1984).
  44. C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Other equivalent formulations of electrodynamics, in Photons and Atoms (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York, 1997), Chap. 4, pp. 253–359.
  45. H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, Destruction of quantum coherence through emission of bremsstrahlung, Phys. Rev. A 63, 032102 (2001).
  46. This is consistent with the previous choice of conjugate variables, since one set of commutation relations implies the other.
  47. Lagrangian and Hamiltonian approach to electrodynamics, the standard Lagrangian and the Coulomb gauge, in Photons and Atoms (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York, 1997), Chap. 2, pp. 79–168.
  48. For L′, the conjugate momentum to re is mṙe−eA⊥(re).
  49. R. Feynman and F. Vernon, Jr., The theory of a general quantum system interacting with a linear dissipative system, Ann. Phys. 24, 118 (1963).
  50. E. A. Calzetta and B.-L. B. Hu, Nonequilibrium Quantum Field Theory, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008).
  51. It is worth emphasizing that the Lagrangian (24) naturally provides the so-called counterterm VEM, which would have to be added by hand in the phenomenological models with a supraohmic bath [24].
  52. W. G. Unruh, False loss of coherence, in Relativistic Quantum Measurement and Decoherence, edited by H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000), pp. 125–140.
  53. A. Gundhi, Decoherence due to the Casimir effect? Phys. Rev. D 110, 116001 (2024).
  54. W. Greiner and J. Reinhardt, Interacting quantum fields, in Field Quantization (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996), pp. 211–268.
  55. C. Agón and A. Lawrence, Divergences in open quantum systems, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2018) 008.
  56. C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Quantum electrodynamics in the Coulomb gauge, in Photons and Atoms (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York, NY, 1997), Chap. 3, pp. 169–252.
  57. In writing p̂2(t1)→p̂2(t1)+m2x̂2δ(t1), we have adopted the asymmetric normalization ∫0∞dτδ(τ)=1. One can also work with the standard normalization ∫0∞dτδ(τ)=1/2 by writing p̂2(t1)→p̂2(t1)+2m2x̂2δ(t1).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 013133– Published 6 February, 2026
  • Received 14 August 2025
  • Accepted 28 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation