ISSN 1063-7788, Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2008, Vol. 71, No. 5, pp. 884–891.

c Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2008.

ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS

Nonlinear Quantum Mechanics: Results and Open Questions*

G. A. Goldin∗∗
Departments of Mathematics and Physics, Rutgers University, Busch Campus, NJ, USA
Received August 10, 2007

Abstract—About 15 years ago, we (Heinz-Dietrich Doebner and I) proposed a special type of nonlinear
modification of the usual Schrödinger time-evolution equation in quantum mechanics. Our equation was
motivated by certain unitary representations of the group of diffeomorphisms of physical space, in the
framework of either nonrelativistic local current algebra or quantum Borel kinematics. Subsequently,
we developed this and related approaches to nonlinearity in quantum mechanics considerably further, to
incorporate theories of measurement, groups of nonlinear gauge transformations, symmetry and invariance
properties, unification of a large family of nonlinear perturbations, and possible physical contexts for
quantum nonlinearity. Some of our results and highlights of some open questions are summarized.
PACS numbers: 03.65.-w
DOI: 10.1134/S1063778808050177

I would like to dedicate this paper to my friend

and collaborator, Professor H.-D. Doebner,
on the occasion of his 75th birthday

1. INTRODUCTION [Jop (g1 ), Jop (g2 )] = −i
Jop ([g1 , g2 ]).

Beginning in the late 1980s, H.-D. Doebner and
I sought to interpret quantum-mechanically a cer-
tain class of unitary representations of the diffeomor-
phism group of physical space. We did not expect then
to be drawn into a nonlinear modification of quan-
tum mechanics. On the contrary, our tacit assump-
tion that quantum theory must be linear—which, in
line with conventional thinking, we abandoned only
reluctantly—proved to be the main obstacle to finding
the interpretation we sought. When we had the idea of
relinquishing that assumption, we found that the rep-
resentations led immediately to a family of derivative
nonlinear Schrödinger equations and a natural inter-
pretation of these equations as describing quantum
systems with dissipation [1–3].
Let us review these early ideas briefly. The infinite-
dimensional Lie algebra of density and current oper-
ators, also known as nonrelativistic, equal-time local
current algebra, is specified at arbitrary time t by the
brackets
[ρop (f1 ), ρop (f2 )] = 0, (1)
[ρop (f ), Jop (g)] = i
ρop (g · ∇f ),
Here, ρop and Jop are self-adjoint operator-valued
distributions, indexed, respectively, by functions and
vector fields. The arguments f , f1 , f2 are real-valued,
compactly supported C ∞ functions on Rn , the phys-
ical space of the theory, while g, g1 , g2 denote com-
pactly supported C ∞ vector fields on Rn , and the
bracket [g1 , g2 ] = g1 · ∇g2 − g2 · ∇g1 is the usual
Lie bracket of vector fields [4–7]. The correspond-
ing group (obtained by exponentiating the current
commutators) is the natural semidirect product of
the additive group of scalar functions and the group
of compactly supported diffeomorphisms of Rn . This
group is easily understood as describing the local
symmetry of physical space.
Making use of the usual notation for operator-
valued distributions, one may also write


ρop (f ) = ρop (x)f (x)dnx, (2)
Rn


Jop (g) = Jop (x) · g(x)dn x.
Rn

∗
The text was submitted by the authors in English. Nonrelativistic local current algebra is an oper-
∗∗
E-mail: geraldgoldin@dimacs.rutgers.edu ator theoretic approach to the understanding and

884
 NONLINEAR QUANTUM MECHANICS 885

classification of quantum-mechanical systems, based one has the standard expressions for time-dependent
on self-adjoint representations satisfying the com- quantum probability density and flux in the
mutator algebra of Eqs. (1), or (alternatively) based Schrödinger representation,
on the unitary representations of the correspond-

ing group. The inequivalent representations describe ρ = ψψ, j := jD=0 = [ψ∇ψ − (∇ψ)ψ]. (5)
a wide variety of distinct quantum systems; for a 2mi
self-contained introduction and recent review, see [8]. But for D arbitrary, one has jD = j − D∇ ∇(ψψ).
Quantum Borel kinematics, on the other hand, is an
The continuity equation may be understood as
approach to quantization that is based on an algebra
a kinematical constraint on the dynamics of a sys-
of scalar functions and vector fields on the config-
uration space of a system, rather than the physical tem whose kinematical properties are described by
space within which the system moves [7]. In the means of representation of Eqs. (1). Imposing it on ρ
case of a single point particle in Rn , the physical and jD , i.e., requiring ∂t ρ = −∇ · jD , we obtain a
space (Rn ) and the configuration space (one-point Fokker–Planck-type equation,
subsets of Rn ) can be identified, so that both perspec- ∂t ρ = −∇ · j + D∇2 ρ, (6)
tives lead to the study of the 1-particle representa-
tions of Eqs. (1). where ρ and j are given by Eq. (5). But unless D = 0,
The usual 1-particle representation at time t may there is no linear time-evolution equation for ψ that
be written satisfies this constraint.
ρop (f )ψ(x1 , t) = mf (x1 )ψ(x1 , t), (3) Allowing nonlinearity, H.-D. Doebner and I ob-
tained (easily) from Eq. (6) a family of nonlinear

Schrödinger equations with an extra term, in which
Jop (g)ψ(x1 , t) = {g(x1 ) · ∇x1 ψ(x1 , t) the purely imaginary functional i
(D/2)∇2 ρ/ρ mul-
2i
+ ∇x1 · [g(x1 )ψ(x1 , t)]}, tiplies ψ on the right-hand side. The form of the non-
linearity given in this term is required by the current
where x1 is the particle coordinate, ψ(x1 , t) is a algebra representation. Then, having been forced to
square-integrable function of x1 that may also be abandon the assumption of linearity in the quantum
written as ψt (x1 ), and m is the mass of the parti- time evolution, there remained no principle ruling out
cle. Note that, if the test function f (x1 ) comes to the presence of additional, real nonlinear functionals
approximate the Dirac distribution δ(n) (x1 − x) multiplying ψ. We limited these functionals to homo-
for a fixed point x ∈ Rn , then the expectation value geneous rational expressions with no more than two
(ψt , ρop (f )ψt ) approaches m|ψ(x, t)|2 , the mass derivatives in the numerator only. To express them in
terms of ψ, it is useful to define a current without

times the usual spatial probability density; i.e.,
(ψt , ρop (x)ψt ) = m|ψ(x, t)|2 . And similarly, if g(x1 ) or m. Setting ĵ = (m/
)j, so that
comes to approximate a constant vector field in the 1
ρ = ψψ, ĵ = [ψ∇ψ − (∇ψ)ψ], (7)
direction of the jth spatial coordinate xj , then Jop (g) 2i
approaches the differential operator −i
∂/∂xj , which we define the real functionals Rj [ψ], j = 1, . . . , 5, by
is just the jth component of the usual momentum
operator acting on a domain in the Hilbert space ∇ · ĵ ∇2 ρ ĵ2
R1 := , R2 := , R3 := , (8)
L2dn x (Rn ). Thus we recover standard 1-particle ρ ρ ρ2
quantum mechanics.
But there exists a parametrized family of unitarily ĵ · ∇ρ (∇ρ)2
R4 := , R5 := .
inequivalent representations of Eqs. (1), describing ρ2 ρ2
(in principle) physically distinct quantum theories of
the particle [9, 10]. For D ∈ R, consider The relevant family of nonlinear Schrödinger equa-
tions, at this stage of the development, becomes
D
Jop (g) = Jop (g) + Dρop (∇ · g). (4)
∂ψ i
i
= H0 ψ +
DR2 [ψ]ψ (9)
Here, D has the dimensionality of a diffusion co- ∂t 2
efficient, while the distributions ρop and Jop D also

satisfy Eqs. (1). To interpret these representations, 

5
+
Dj Rj [ψ]ψ,
let us take expectation values at time t, defin-
j=1
ing the mass-density expectation value mρ(x, t) =
(ψt , ρop (x)ψt ) and the momentum-density expecta- where D and Dj (j = 1, . . . , 5) are diffusion coeffi-
tion value mjD (x, t) = (ψt , JD
op (x)ψt ). When D = 0, cients whose values may be chosen independently.

PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI Vol. 71 No. 5 2008

886
Here, H0 is the usual linear Hamiltonian operator,
1 tion postulate”); (v) the assumption that mixed states
H0 ψ = [−i
∇ − qA(x, t)]2 ψ (10)
2m
+ [V + qΦ(x, t)]ψ,
for a particle of charge q in the presence of the external
electromagnetic potential (Φ, A), where we have in-
cluded for generality any nonelectromagnetic poten-
tial V (x, t).
Special cases of Eq. (9) include many different
nonlinear modifications of quantum mechanics that
have been suggested independently by other re-
searchers [11–17]. Typically, these have been “put
in by hand,” without any special, fundamental mo-
tivation for the nonlinearity, apart from the desirable
properties of homogeneity and/or separability. Such
modifications generally do not included the local,
purely imaginary nonlinear functional multiplying ψ
in Eq. (9).
The form of Eq. (9) seemed to suggest that the
nonlinear terms should be regarded as (presum-
ably quite small) perturbations of the usual, linear
Schrödinger equation. Each nonlinear term would
then have its own physical meaning, and the mag-
nitude of each diffusion coefficient—in each case, a
new physical constant—would govern the size of the
effect described by the corresponding term. This was
the initial point of view that H.-D. Doebner and I
took, but it proved to be incorrect. Nonlinear time
evolution requires a modified theory of measurement,
which entails modification of other ways in which the
assumption of linearity enters conventional quantum
mechanics.
2. NONLINEAR GAUGE
TRANSFORMATIONS
An earlier article characterized at least six dis-
tinct, partially independent assumptions of linearity in
conventional quantum mechanics [18]. In abbreviated
form, these are: (i) the assumption that the space of
pure states forms a linear space H equipped with an
inner product and the time-evolution operator acts
linearly on that space; (ii) the assumption that ob-
servables are described by linear, self-adjoint op-
erators on H, with the spectrum of such an operator
being the set of possible real-valued outcomes of
the corresponding observation; (iii) the assumption
that gauge transformations (which leave invariant the
outcomes of measurements) act on the space of states
as linear, unitary operators; (iv) the assumption that
immediately upon the performance of a measurement,
the initial state for the subsequent time evolution
is obtained by applying to the state vector a linear
orthogonal projection operator onto the subspace
of states corresponding to the observed value or value
GOLDIN
interval of the outcome of the measurement (“projec-
are described by density matrices, which are formed
from linear combinations of linear projectors onto
pure states; and (vi) the assumption that the space of
pure states for a composite system is the tensor prod-
uct of the spaces of pure states for its components,
and the operators for the corresponding observables
are obtained by linear extension to the tensor product
space.
Each of these assumptions could be the topic of
a lengthy discourse. We shall not discuss all of them
here, but focus now on how it is necessary to modify
the third one. Many theorists have argued that any
quantum-mechanical observation of a particle sys-
tem reduces ultimately to a sequence of positional
measurements at different times, with the possible
imposition of external force fields between positional
measurements [19]. In 1974, Mielnik [20] used this
idea to propose a theory of measurement for nonlinear
variations of quantum mechanics. This view means
that the physics can be invariant under transforma-
tions of the wave function that leave the probability
density ψψ in configuration space unchanged (for all
values of t).
For simplicity consider the case of a single quan-
tum particle and set ψ = R exp[iS], where the mod-
ulus R ≥ 0 and the argument S are real-valued
(measurable) functions. Then ρ = R2 and
j = (
/m)R2 ∇S. The usual, unitary gauge trans-
formations of quantum mechanics transform ψ to
ψ  = R exp[iS  ], where R = R, but S  = S + θ(x, t).
The transformations not only leave the outcomes
of positional measurements invariant, but also are
strictly local in space and time. Then ρ = ρ, while
j = j + (
/m)R2 ∇θ. That is, while ρ is gauge
invariant, j is not. If ψ satisfies the usual linear
Schrödinger equation in the absence of a vector
potential, i.e., i
∂t ψ = −(
2 /2m)∇2 ψ + V ψ, then ψ 
satisfies i
∂t ψ  = (
2 /2m)[−i∇ − gradθ]2 ψ  + [V −

θ̇]ψ  . This fact is sometimes used to motivate the
“minimal coupling” of the external electromagnetic
potentials A and Φ and with the Schrödinger equation
given by Eq. (10). And if we begin with Eq. (10),
we have that ψ  satisfies the transformed equation
obtained by substituting the gauge-transformed po-
tentials: A = A + (
/q)gradθ, and Φ = Φ − (
/q)θ̇.
The gauge-invariant current is Jgi = j − (q/m)ρA,
with ∂t ρ = −∇ · Jgi . Likewise the physical fields
B = ∇ × A and E = −∇Φ − ∂t A are gauge in-
variant. These standard facts establish the pattern
for introducing nonlinear gauge transformations in
the context of our class of nonlinear Schrödinger
equations.
PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI Vol. 71 No. 5 2008
 NONLINEAR QUANTUM MECHANICS 887

Abandoning the usual assumption that gauge A2 (x, t) · ĵ

transformations act linearly, Doebner and I intro- + + α1 ln ρ + α2 S,
ρ
duced a group of nonlinear transformations that are
strictly local in space and time, that obey a certain where as above S is arg[ψ] and where ν1 , ν2 , µ1 , . . . ,
separation property for product states (see also [21]), µ5 , α1 , and α2 are real coefficients (that may be, in
and that leave our class of equations invariant (as a general, time-dependent). Using Eq. (13), one recov-
class) [22–24]. Let γ and Λ be continuously differ- ers Eq. (9) from Eq. (14) by making the substitutions
entiable, real-valued functions of t, Λ = 0, and let θ
1 q
be a continuously differentiable, real-valued function ν1 = − , ν2 = D, A= A, (15)
2m 2 2m
of x and t. Define N(γ,Λ,θ) to act on the space of
single-particle wave functions by ψ  = N(γ,Λ,θ) [ψ],


µ1 = D1 , µ2 = − + D2 , µ3 = + D3 ,
with ψ  given by 4m 2m


R = R, S  = ΛS + γ ln R + θ. (11) µ4 = D4 , µ5 = + D5 ,
8m
Notice that if R = 0 then R = 0; at such points, 1 q2
both S and S  are undefined. But notice also that U = [V + qΦ] + A2 ,

2m

if S is modified by adding 2πn, where n is an integer, q
then ψ is unchanged at that point, while ψ  is not A1 = 0, A2 = − A, α1 = α2 = 0.
m
uniquely defined (since Λ need not be an integer).
Now let us consider what happens under nonlinear
Thus Eqs. (11) do not specify ψ  uniquely, even up
gauge transformation. We have
to an overall phase, unless (for example) some addi-
tional continuity property is assumed. Nevertheless, ρ = ψ  ψ  = ρ, (16)
we shall see shortly that as a transformation on our
class of nonlinear Schrödinger equations, N(γ,Λ,θ) is 1  γ
ĵ = [ψ ∇ψ  − (∇ψ  )ψ  ] = Λĵ + ∇ρ + ρ∇θ.
in fact well-defined. 2i 2
From Eq. (11), we obtain the semidirect product If ψ solves Eq. (14) with certain coefficients and ex-
group law for nonlinear gauge transformations, ternal fields, then ψ  obtained from (11) solves the
N(Λ1 ,γ1 ,θ1 ) N(Λ2 ,γ2 ,θ2 ) (12) same equation with transformed coefficients and ex-
ternal fields. The new coefficients are
= N(Λ1 Λ2 ,γ1 +Λ1 γ2 ,θ1 +Λ1 θ2 ) . ν1 γ
ν1 = , ν2 = − ν1 + ν2 , (17)
In order to determine how N(γ,Λ,θ) transforms nonlin- Λ 2Λ
γ
ear Schrödinger equations in our class, it is helpful to µ1 = − ν1 + µ1 ,
expand Eq. (9)—including the linear term—entirely Λ
γ 2 γ
in terms of the basis functions Rj . We make use of µ2 = ν1 − γν2 − µ1 + Λµ2 ,
the identity 2Λ 2
 µ3
∇2 ψ 1 1 µ3 = ,
= iR1 [ψ] + R2 [ψ] − R3 [ψ] − R5 [ψ] (13) Λ
ψ 2 4 γ γ2 γ
µ4 = − µ3 + µ4 , µ5 = µ3 − µ4 + Λµ5 ,
and work within the following general class of non- Λ  4Λ  2
linear Schrödinger equations, which includes some γ 1 Λ̇ Λ̇
additional terms that are quite natural [23]. Let the α1 = Λα1 − α2 + γ − γ̇ , α2 = α2 − ,
2 2 Λ Λ
real-valued external field U (x, t) be a (sufficiently
smooth) scalar function, and let A(x, t), A1 (x, t), so that we have a well-defined representation of the
and A2 (x, t) be distinct (sufficiently smooth) real- group of nonlinear gauge transformations on the lin-
valued vector fields. We consider the family of non- ear space of coefficients. The transformed vector and
linear Schrödinger equations, scalar fields are
⎡ ⎤ ν1
ψ̇ 2
∇ · (A(x, t)ρ) ⎦ A = A − ∇θ, (18)
i = i⎣ νj Rj [ψ] + (14) Λ
ψ ρ
j=1 γ
A1 = ΛA1 − γA − A2

5
∇ · (A1 (x, t)ρ) γ 2

+ µj Rj [ψ] + U (x, t) + γ
ρ + ν1 − µ1 + µ3 − µ4 ∇θ,
j=1 Λ Λ

PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI Vol. 71 No. 5 2008

888
2µ3
A2 = A2 − ∇θ,
Λ mations we introduced, provide an important unifica-
 
 Λ̇ µ3
U = ΛU − θ̇ + − α2 θ + [∇θ]2
Λ Λ
γ
γ
+ µ4 − µ3 ∇2 θ + ∇ · A2 − A2 · ∇θ.
Λ 2
We remark that permitting γ and Λ in (11) to
be time-dependent has implied now that νj , µj ,
and αj in Eq. (14) should likewise be allowed to
be time-dependent, so that the class of nonlin-
ear Schrödinger equations remains invariant under
Eqs. (17). We remark also that the αj must be allowed
to assume nonzero values, since even if we begin with
α1 = 0 and α2 = 0, Eqs. (17) can result in nonzero
values for the αj . Similarly, we note that in Eq. (14) a
nonzero value for the field A1 , and a general value for
the field A2 in relation to A, are required by (18).
Some of these new features come about solely
from the allowed nonlinearity of the gauge trans-
formations. If we begin with the linear Schrödinger
equation, where from (15) we have ν2 = µ1 = µ4 =
α1 = α2 = 0, µ3 = −ν1 , A1 = 0, and A2 = −2A,
these conditions are preserved by the subgroup
of linear gauge transformations (where γ = 0 and
Λ = 1). But allowing general, time-dependent non-
linear gauge transformations to act on the linear
Schrödinger equation introduces nonzero values
for ν2 , µ1 , µ4 , α1 , α2 , and A1 . Relaxation of the
condition µ3 = −ν1 is not required by gauge trans-
formations; it originates with the construction of the
general nonlinear Schrödinger equation; then gauge
transformation leads to relaxation of the condition
A2 = −2A. But of course, nonlinear gauge trans-
formations do not change the physics! The subclass
of Eq. (14) that is linearizable by means of nonlinear
gauge transformations is physically equivalent to
ordinary quantum mechanics. This fact alone demon-
strates that our descriptions of quantum mechanics
need not be linear, and we are provided with a class of
counterexamples to the more sweeping claims to the
contrary.
As noted above, many of the terms in Eq. (9),
which is generalized by Eq. (14), have been previ-
ously introduced. In addition, the term with coefficient
α1 was proposed by Bialynicki-Birula and Myciels-
ki [25]. The term with coefficient α2 was considered by
Kostin [26]. Haag and Bannier [27] considered non-
linear Schrödinger equations with arbitrary values of
A2 ; but to the best of my knowledge the external field
A1 was first introduced in my 1997 article [23]. In
short Eq. (14), the general version of the equation
that Doebner and I derived from representations of
local current algebra and quantum Borel kinematics,
GOLDIN
together with the group of nonlinear gauge transfor-
tion and generalization of many versions of nonlinear
quantum mechanics that have been considered over
the years.
3. GAUGE-INVARIANT NONLINEAR
QUANTUM MECHANICS
As we have seen, neither the coefficients nor the
external fields nor many of the nonlinear functionals
that occur in Eq. (14) are gauge invariant. We next
summarize a complete set of gauge-invariant quanti-
ties and describe the nonlinear quantum mechanics
of a single particle in terms of these. The resulting
equations of motion generalize the usual “hydrody-
namical” version of quantum mechanics and allow us
to see where the dissipative effects enter.
We already have the gauge invariance of ρ. The
gauge-invariant current Jgi , entering the continuity
equation ρ̇ = −∇ · Jgi , is given by
Jgi = −2ν1 ĵ − 2ν2 ∇ρ − 2ρA. (19)
Of course this reduces in the linear case to the usual
gauge-invariant current j − (q/m)ρA. The gauge in-
variance of Jgi also means that assuming all mea-
surements to be reducible to a succession of posi-
tional measurements is unnecessarily restrictive—it
is sufficient that all measurements be expressible us-
ing gauge-invariant quantities, including ρ, Jgi , and
the gauge-invariant fields of force defined below. We
also have gauge-invariant parameters
1
τ 1 = ν2 − µ 1 , τ 2 = ν1 µ 2 − ν2 µ 1 , (20)
2
µ3 µ3
τ3 = , τ 4 = µ4 − µ1 ,
ν1 ν1
2 µ3
τ 5 = ν1 µ 5 − ν2 µ 4 + ν2 ,
ν1
ν̇1 ν̇1
β1 = ν1 α1 − ν2 α2 + ν2 − ν̇2 , β2 = α2 − .
ν1 ν1
Doebner and I discussed the physical meaning of
some of these parameters [22]; in particular,
τ1 = 0, τ4 = 0, or β2 = 0 violates time-reversal
invariance, while τ3 = − 1 or τ4 = 0 breaks Galilean
invariance. The linearizable case (equivalent to or-
dinary quantum mechanics) occurs when τ1 = τ4 =
β1 = β2 = 0, τ3 = −1, and τ5 = −τ2 /2. The gauge-
invariant parameter β2 , which is most closely related
to Kostin’s nonlinear term, has a natural interpreta-
tion as a coefficient of friction, as we shall see in one
of the equations of motion below [28].
Now it is no longer permissible simply to iden-
tify the gauge-dependent coefficient −ν1 with the
gauge-independent, observable constant
/2m.
PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI Vol. 71 No. 5 2008
 NONLINEAR QUANTUM MECHANICS 889

Rather, we should write
/m in terms of gauge- equation. It is useful that under nonlinear gauge
invariant parameters. In [22], we noted that in the transformation, we have
linearizable case, τ2 corresponds to the observed
ν1 ν1 Λ̇
value of
2 /8m2 . Then one can take the classical Û  = Û + θ̇ + α2 θ − ν1 2 θ. (25)
limit of our nonlinear quantum mechanics in a gauge- Λ Λ Λ
invariant way, by letting τ2 → 0. But this still leaves We also have two new gauge-invariant vector fields,
open the question of what formula to use for
/m
in the general case. In a more recent work, Doebner Agi
1 = ν1 A1 (26)

and I considered the relationship between the energy
levels of stationary states of our nonlinear equation
with a spherically symmetric potential and the energy
levels of the corresponding linear Schrödinger equa-
tion [29]. We proposed the formula

2 τ22
= − , (21)
4m2 τ3 (τ2 + τ5 )
which reduces to 2τ2 when (as in the linearizable
case) τ3 = −1 and τ5 = −τ2 /2; the classical limit still
corresponds to τ2 → 0. Noting that for a stationary
state having angular frequency ω the combination
ν1 ω is gauge invariant, we further proposed that its
energy be given by the formula
2mν1 ω
E= , (22)
τ3
which reduces to
ω when (as in the linear case)
ν1 = −
/2m and τ3 = −1.
Our motivation for these choices is the surprising
fact that when we make them, the energy levels of
the stationary states of our nonlinear equation with a
spherically symmetric potential, as well as the energy
of plane-wave solutions to the free equation, are un-
changed from the corresponding energy levels of the
corresponding linear Schrödinger equation. Sensitive
spectral measurements might thus not be able to
detect even a large nonlinearity. However, we do not
at present have an independent justification for these
choices, as opposed to other possible gauge-invariant
expressions that reduce to the correct answer in linear
quantum mechanics. This is one of the “open ques-
tions” to which the title refers.
As described in [28], we also write gauge-invariant
fields; see also [30]. We have the external magnetic
induction B and electric field E, given by
q Jgi /ρ, where the latter has the interpretation of a
B = ∇×A = B, (23)
2m
∂A 1 q
E = −∇Û − − β2 A = − ∇V + E,
2ν2 µ3
+ − µ 1 − µ 4 A − ν2 A 2 ,
ν1
ν1
Agi
2 = A2 − A.
2µ3
An important consequence of this analysis is that
the formula for E in terms of Φ and A has been
modified from its usual form to include an extra term,
whose source is in Kostin’s nonlinearity:
∂A
E = −∇Φ − − β2 A. (27)
∂t
This extra term is unavoidable. If we omit it from
Eq. (23), we lose the gauge invariance of E. But now,
Maxwell’s equations must also be modified. Combin-
ing B = ∇ × A with Eq. (27), we have
∇×E=−
∂B
− β2 B, ∇ · B = 0. (28)
∂t
Note that the second of these equations is still con-
sistent with the first. Suppose β2 is a constant, inde-
pendent of t. If E0 (x, t), B0 (x, t) satisfy the original
Maxwell equations (with β2 = 0), then fields satisfy-
ing (28) are given by
E = E0 e−β2 t , B = B0 e−β2 t . (29)
But nonlinear quantum mechanics alone does not
specify the remaining two Maxwell equations. A more
extensive discussion of possibilities associated with
this modification is included in [30].
Finally, we shall write the fully gauge-invariant
dynamical equations for the gauge-invariant (hydro-
dynamical) variables, describing the entire class of
nonlinear quantum theories embodied in Eq. (14).
The gauge-invariant variables of interest are ρ and
gauge-invariant velocity field. The gauge-invariant
magnetic induction may then be interpreted as a vor-
ticity field, as
∂t 2m 2m  gi 
where J q
∇× = −2B = B. (30)
Û = −ν1 U − τ3 A2 (24) ρ m
− (τ4 − 2τ1 τ3 )∇ · A + A · A2 − ν2 ∇ · A2 . The dynamical equations are the continuity equation,
Thus Û is identified with (1/2m)(V + qΦ), which ∂ρgi
= −∇ · Jgi , (31)
may be verified directly for the linear Schrödinger ∂t

PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI Vol. 71 No. 5 2008

890 GOLDIN

together with the equation for the time derivative of 4. OPEN QUESTIONS
the velocity field, Nonlinear quantum mechanics remains a fasci-
 
 gi 
∂ Jgi J nating if highly speculative endeavor, of philosophical
= ∇ 2τ1 ∇ · (32) as well as physical interest. We have demonstrated
∂t ρ ρ
that the conventional, axiomatic assumption of lin-
 gi 2  earity is too strong, as there exists a class of nonlinear
∇2 ρ 1 J
+ 2τ2 + τ3 quantum theories physically equivalent to ordinary
ρ 2 ρ quantum mechanics via nonlinear gauge transforma-

tion. Even if the quantum mechanics of nature turns
+ ∇ (2τ1 [1 + τ3 ] − τ4 ) out to belong to this “linearizable” class, there is value
in the construction of essentially nonlinear quantum
   theories—they are needed so that we can meaning-
Jgi ∇ρ (∇ρ)2 fully ask the question of why quantum mechanics
× · + 2τ5
ρ ρ ρ2 should be linear, seeking a principle more fundamen-

tal than linearity that distinguishes quantum theories
∇ · (Agi1 ρ) that are linearizable from those that are not.
+∇ 2
ρ In the preceding discussion, we have made refer-
 gi   ence to some specific open questions. One of these
gi J is the matter of writing a general, gauge-invariant
− 2τ3 A2 · + 2β1 ln ρ expression for the energy of a quantum state that
ρ
 gi  applies for arbitrary values of the gauge-invariant
J 1 q parameters and potentials. A related question is that
− β2 − ∇V + E.
ρ m m of justifying the general, gauge-invariant expression
for the observed value of
/m. Some progress has
In nonlinear quantum mechanics, we should prop-
been made in addressing the initial-value problem for
erly discuss the “expected value” of an observation
our general nonlinear Schrödinger equation [31] and
(a probabilistic average over positional space) rather
in writing global solutions for particular potentials;
than the “expectation value” of an observable (an
but the full generalization to nonlinear time-evolution
inner product of a self-adjoint operator in a linear
operators of the theory of densely defined unbounded
space). Let us write expressions for the (gauge-
self-adjoint operators in Hilbert space remains, as
invariant) expected values of the position, velocity,
far as I know, to be accomplished. We have also
and acceleration of the quantum particle. Each is, of
alluded to the question of the most general nonlin-
course, a function of the time t. We obtain

ear Schrödinger–Maxwell electrodynamics. Another
x = xρ(x)dx, (33) avenue of ongoing research by Doebner and his col-
laborators is the generalization to particles with spin

 gi 
and to relativistic systems.
dx J
v = = ρ dx = Jgi (x)dx, But the most fundamental open question, in my
dt ρ

opinion, pertains to the relation between nonlinear
dv quantum time evolutions and local causality. We have
a = = ρ mentioned that the extension of a set of 1-particle
dt

 gi 2  gi   
1 J J q ∂ Jgi
× ∇ + × B+ dx.
2 ρ ρ m ∂t ρ
In Eqs. (32), (33), the laws of force describing the
interaction of the charged particle with the external
E and B fields are unchanged from those in linear
quantum mechanics.
Taking β2 > 0 in Eq. (32), we understand its in-
terpretation as a gauge-invariant coefficient of fric-
tion, since it governs the magnitude of the term in
∂t (Jgi /ρ) that is proportional to Jgi /ρ. This also ex-
plains why the modified Maxwell equations are no
longer relativistic—a preferred frame of reference has
been established (perhaps, the frame of the universe)
by introducing a velocity-dependent frictional force.
nonlinear time evolutions to a many-particle system
is not unique [21]. Some time ago, Lücke [32] demon-
strated that if we assume the most straightforward
such extension for particles obeying Eq. (9), local
causality is violated except in the linearizable case—
in the sense that the positional probability distribution
of a distant particle can change instantaneously as
a result of a nearby change in the applied potential.
But to my knowledge, the generality of this result
is not yet established—can it be proven to apply to
all extensions of nonlinear time evolutions to mul-
tiparticle systems (in which case we would arrive at
a deeper understanding of the logical link between
local causality and linearity), or does it allow for the
existence of a method of extension that respects lo-
cal causality? It is also unclear as to whether this
PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI Vol. 71 No. 5 2008
 NONLINEAR QUANTUM MECHANICS
constitutes a fundamental objection to nonlinearity in
quantum mechanics, or whether, as Svetlichny [33]
has suggested, it might (for example) point us in the
direction of nonlinearities that become important at
Planck scales.
Answers to these questions could help point the
way to a new set of experiments measuring devia-
tions, if any, from linearity in quantum mechanics, or
should be establishing upper bounds to their magni-
tudes.
I would like to thank the organizers of the
SYMPHYS XII Conference in Yerevan, July 2006,
for the opportunity to present this work.
REFERENCES
1. H.-D. Doebner and G. A. Goldin, Phys. Lett. A 162,
397 (1992).
2. G. A. Goldin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 6, 1905 (1992).
3. H.-D. Doebner and G. A. Goldin, J. Phys. A 27, 1771
(1994).
4. R. Dashen and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Rev. 165, 1867
(1968).
5. G. A. Goldin and D. H. Sharp, Lect. Notes Phys. 6,
300 (1970).
6. G. A. Goldin, J. Math. Phys. 12, 462 (1971).
7. H.-D. Doebner and J. Tolar, in Symposium on Sym-
metries in Science, Ed. by B. Gruber and R. S. Mill-
man (Plenum, New York, 1980), p. 475.
8. G. A. Goldin, in Contemporary Problems in Mathe-
matical Physics: Proceedings of the Third Inter-
national Conference, Cotonou, Benin, 2003, Ed. by
J. Govaerts, M. N. Hounkonnou, and A. Z. Msezane,
(World Sci., Singapore, 2004), p. 3.
9. G. A. Goldin, R. Menikoff, and D. H. Sharp, in
Measure Theory and Its Applications, Ed. by
G. A. Goldin and R. F. Wheeler (DeKalb, IL, Northern
Illinois Univ. Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, 1981),
p. 207.
10. B. Angermann, H.-D. Doebner, and J. Tolar, Lecture
Notes Math. 1037, 171 (1983).
11. T. Kibble, Commun. Math. Phys. 64, 73 (1978).
12. F. Guerra and M. Pusterla, Lett. Nuovo Cimento. 34,
351 (1982).
13. D. Schuch, K.-M. Chung, and H. Hartmann,
J. Math. Phys. 24, 1652 (1983).
PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI Vol. 71 No. 5 2008
891
14. L. Stenflo, M. Y. Yu, and P. K. Shukla, Phys. Scr. 40,
257 (1989).
15. P. C. Sabatier, Inverse Probl. 6, L47 (1990).
16. B. A. Malomed and L. Stenflo, J. Phys. A 24, L1149
(1991).
17. G. Auberson and P. C. Sabatier, J. Math. Phys. 35,
4028 (1994).
18. G. A. Goldin, in Trends in Quantum Mecha-
nics: Proceedings of the International Sympo-
sium, Goslar, Germany, 1998, Ed. by H.-D. Doeb-
ner, S. T. Ali, M. Keyl, and R. F. Werner (World Sci.,
Singapore, 2000), p. 227.
19. R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs, Quantum Mecha-
nics and Path Integrals (McGraw-Hill, New York,
1965).
20. B. Mielnik, Commun. Math. Phys. 37, 221 (1974).
21. G. A. Goldin and G. Svetlichny, J. Math. Phys. 35,
3322 (1994).
22. H.-D. Doebner and G. A. Goldin, Phys. Rev. A 54,
3764 (1996).
23. G. A. Goldin, Nonlinear Math. Phys. 4, 6 (1997).
24. H.-D. Doebner, G. A. Goldin, and P. Nattermann,
J. Math. Phys. 40, 49 (1999).
25. I. Bialynicki-Birula and J. Mycielski, Ann. Phys.
(N.Y.) 100, 62 (1976).
26. M. D. Kostin, J. Chem. Phys. 57, 3589 (1972).
27. R. Haag and U. Bannier, Commun. Math. Phys. 60,
1 (1978).
28. G. A. Goldin, in Quantum Theory and Symme-
tries, Proceedings of the International Sympo-
sium, Goslar, Germany, 1999, Ed. by H.-D. Doeb-
ner, V. K. Dobrev, J.-D. Hennig, and W. Lücke (World
Sci., Singapore, 2000), p. 111.
29. H.-D. Doebner and G. A. Goldin, in Group Theore-
tical Methods in Physics, Proceedings of the XXV
International Colloquium, Cocoyoc, Mexico, 2004,
Ed. by G. S. Pogosyan, L. E. Vicent, and K. B. Wolf
(Institute of Physics, Bristol, 2005).
30. G. A. Ascoli and G. A. Goldin, phys/0610020v2.
31. H. Teismann, in Physical Applications and Math-
ematical Aspects of Geometry, Groups and Al-
gebras, Ed. by H.-D. Doebner, P. Nattermann, and
W. Scherer (World Sci., Singapore, 1997), p. 433.
32. W. Lücke, quant-ph/9710033v2.
33. G. Svetlichny, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 44, 2051 (2005).