<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Azimuth]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[John Baez]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/author/johncarlosbaez/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Quantum Techniques for Reaction&nbsp;Networks]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Fans of the <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/networks/">network theory</a> series might like to look at this paper:</p>
<p>&bull; John Baez, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3451">Quantum techniques for reaction networks</a>.</p>
<p>and I would certainly appreciate comments and corrections. </p>
<p>This paper tackles a basic question we never got around to discussing: how the <i>probabilistic</i> description of a system where bunches of things randomly interact and turn into other bunches of things can reduce to a <i>deterministic</i> description in the limit where there are lots of things!</p>
<p>Mathematically, such systems are given by &#8216;stochastic Petri nets&#8217;, or if you prefer, &#8216;stochastic reaction networks&#8217;.   These are just two equivalent pictures of the same thing.  For example, we could describe some chemical reactions using this Petri net:</p>
<div align="center"><img width="450" src="https://i1.wp.com/math.ucr.edu/home/baez/networks/pictures/chemistryNetBasicA.png" /></div>
<p>but chemists would use this reaction network:</p>
<div align="center">
C + O<sub>2</sub> &rarr; CO<sub>2</sub><br />
CO<sub>2</sub> + NaOH &rarr; NaHCO<sub>3</sub><br />
NaHCO<sub>3</sub> + HCl &rarr; H<sub>2</sub>O + NaCl + CO<sub>2</sub>
</div>
<p>Making either of them &#8216;stochastic&#8217; merely means that we specify a &#8216;rate constant&#8217; for each reaction, saying how probable it is.</p>
<p>For any such system we get a &#8216;master equation&#8217; describing how the probability of having any number of things of each kind changes with time.  In the class I taught on this last quarter, the students and I figured out how to derive from this an equation saying how the <i>expected</i> number of things of each kind changes with time.  Later I figured out a much slicker argument&#8230; but either way, we get this result:</p>
<p><b>Theorem.</b> For any stochastic reaction network and any stochastic state <img src='https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CPsi%28t%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0' alt='&#92;Psi(t)' title='&#92;Psi(t)' class='latex' /> evolving in time according to the master equation, then</p>
<p><img src='https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cdisplaystyle%7B+%5Cfrac%7Bd%7D%7Bdt%7D+%5Clangle+N+%5CPsi%28t%29+%5Crangle+%7D+%3D++%5Cdisplaystyle%7B%5Csum_%7B%5Ctau+%5Cin+T%7D%7D+%5C%2C+r%28%5Ctau%29+%5C%2C++%28s%28%5Ctau%29+-+t%28%5Ctau%29%29+%5C%3B++%5Cleft%5Clangle+N%5E%7B%5Cunderline%7Bs%28%5Ctau%29%7D%7D%5C%2C+%5CPsi%28t%29+%5Cright%5Crangle+&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0' alt='&#92;displaystyle{ &#92;frac{d}{dt} &#92;langle N &#92;Psi(t) &#92;rangle } =  &#92;displaystyle{&#92;sum_{&#92;tau &#92;in T}} &#92;, r(&#92;tau) &#92;,  (s(&#92;tau) - t(&#92;tau)) &#92;;  &#92;left&#92;langle N^{&#92;underline{s(&#92;tau)}}&#92;, &#92;Psi(t) &#92;right&#92;rangle ' title='&#92;displaystyle{ &#92;frac{d}{dt} &#92;langle N &#92;Psi(t) &#92;rangle } =  &#92;displaystyle{&#92;sum_{&#92;tau &#92;in T}} &#92;, r(&#92;tau) &#92;,  (s(&#92;tau) - t(&#92;tau)) &#92;;  &#92;left&#92;langle N^{&#92;underline{s(&#92;tau)}}&#92;, &#92;Psi(t) &#92;right&#92;rangle ' class='latex' /></p>
<p>assuming the derivative exists.</p>
<p>Of course this will make no sense yet if you haven&#8217;t been following the network theory series!   But I explain all the notation in the paper, so don&#8217;t be scared.  The main point is that <img src='https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Clangle+N+%5CPsi%28t%29+%5Crangle&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0' alt='&#92;langle N &#92;Psi(t) &#92;rangle' title='&#92;langle N &#92;Psi(t) &#92;rangle' class='latex' /> is a vector listing the expected number of things of each kind at time <img src='https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=t.&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0' alt='t.' title='t.' class='latex' />  The equation above says how this changes with time&#8230; but it closely resembles the &#8216;rate equation&#8217;, which describes the evolution of chemical systems in a <i>deterministic</i> way. </p>
<p>And indeed, the next big theorem says that the master equation actually <i>implies</i> the rate equation when the probability of having various numbers of things of each kind is given by a product of independent Poisson distributions.  In this case <img src='https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CPsi%28t%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0' alt='&#92;Psi(t)' title='&#92;Psi(t)' class='latex' /> is what people in quantum physics call a &#8216;coherent state&#8217;.  So:</p>
<p><b>Theorem.</b>  Given any stochastic reaction network, let<br />
<img src='https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CPsi%28t%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0' alt='&#92;Psi(t)' title='&#92;Psi(t)' class='latex' /> be a mixed state evolving in time according to the master equation.  If <img src='https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CPsi%28t%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0' alt='&#92;Psi(t)' title='&#92;Psi(t)' class='latex' /> is a coherent state when <img src='https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=t+%3D+t_0%2C&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0' alt='t = t_0,' title='t = t_0,' class='latex' /> then <img src='https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Clangle+N+%5CPsi%28t%29+%5Crangle+&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0' alt='&#92;langle N &#92;Psi(t) &#92;rangle ' title='&#92;langle N &#92;Psi(t) &#92;rangle ' class='latex' /> obeys the rate equation when <img src='https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=t+%3D+t_0.&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0' alt='t = t_0.' title='t = t_0.' class='latex' /></p>
<p>In most cases, this only applies exactly at one moment of time: later <img src='https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CPsi%28t%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0' alt='&#92;Psi(t)' title='&#92;Psi(t)' class='latex' /> will cease to be a coherent state.  Then we must resort to the previous theorem to see how the expected number of things of each kind changes with time.</p>
<p>But sometimes our state <img src='https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5CPsi%28t%29&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0' alt='&#92;Psi(t)' title='&#92;Psi(t)' class='latex' /> will stay coherent forever! For one case where this happens, see the companion paper, which I blogged about <a href="https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/quantum-techniques-for-chemical-reaction-networks/">a little while ago</a>:</p>
<p>&bull; John Baez and Brendan Fong, <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ACK.pdf">Quantum techniques for studying equilibrium in reaction networks</a>.</p>
<p>We wrote this first, but logically it comes <i>after</i> the one I just finished now!  </p>
<p>All this material will get folded into the <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/networks">book</a> I&#8217;m writing with Jacob Biamonte.  There are just a few remaining loose ends that need to be tied up.</p>
]]></html><thumbnail_url><![CDATA[https://i1.wp.com/math.ucr.edu/home/baez/networks/pictures/chemistryNetBasicA.png?fit=440%2C330]]></thumbnail_url><thumbnail_height><![CDATA[150]]></thumbnail_height><thumbnail_width><![CDATA[440]]></thumbnail_width></oembed>