Inverse spectral problem in QM

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zetafunction
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Qm
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inverse spectral problem in quantum mechanics, specifically the challenge of deducing the potential V(x) from known energy eigenvalues. Participants explore theoretical implications, mathematical frameworks, and the limitations of current understanding in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether knowing the spectrum allows for the deduction of the potential V(x), suggesting a connection to the v-representability problem.
  • Another participant asserts that knowing energy eigenvalues alone is insufficient to restore the Hamiltonian, emphasizing the necessity of knowing all eigenfunctions.
  • A later reply reiterates that two different Hamiltonians can share the same energy spectra if related by a unitary transformation, complicating the identification of V(x).
  • One participant proposes that a unitary operator commuting with momentum could yield a transformed Hamiltonian that includes a potential dependent on both position and momentum, challenging the conventional view.
  • Another participant notes that a potential V(x,p) depending on momentum is uncommon in physics, suggesting that modifications to classical laws would be necessary.
  • There is mention of the WKB approximation as a potential method to relate eigenfunctions to the spectrum, although it is acknowledged that generally only spectral information is available.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the feasibility of deducing the potential V(x) from the spectrum alone, with multiple competing views on the necessity of eigenfunctions and the implications of unitary transformations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the completeness of eigenfunctions and the potential forms considered, as well as unresolved mathematical steps regarding the relationship between eigenvalues and potentials.

zetafunction
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
I have taken QM , and i find it very interesting but my question is , we have the Hamiltonian eigenvalue problem

[tex]i \partial _t \Psi (x,t) = \lambda _n \Psi (x,t)=(p^2+V(x))\Psi(x,t)[/tex]

of course in general, we know the potential V(x) but my question is the inverse, if we knew how the spectrum is or for example the (approximate) value of [tex]\sum_n e^{it \lambda _n}[/tex]

for example for Harmonic oscillator since all energies are lineal we know that

[tex]\sum_n e^{it \lambda _n}=(1-exp(it/2))^{-1}[/tex] from this could we deduce that V(x) is a quadratic potential x*x
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think you can (although I can't be bothered to try and prove it mathematically.. might be related to the v-representability problem though.).

If you knew the eigenfunctions, then you could expand the potential on some basis and then treat it as a minimization problem. (an 'inverse Ritz variational method' if you like)
 
Knowing energy eigenvalues is not sufficient to restore the Hamiltonian. As alxm said, you need to know all eigenfunctions too.

Two different Hamiltonians [tex]H[/tex] and [tex]H' = UHU^{-1}[/tex] have exactly the same energy spectra if [tex]U[/tex] is any unitary operator.
 
meopemuk said:
Knowing energy eigenvalues is not sufficient to restore the Hamiltonian. As alxm said, you need to know all eigenfunctions too.

Two different Hamiltonians [tex]H[/tex] and [tex]H' = UHU^{-1}[/tex] have exactly the same energy spectra if [tex]U[/tex] is any unitary operator.

But H' would be most probable not of the form [tex]H' = \Delta + V(x)[/tex], so that this simple consideration is not sufficient to answer the question if it is possible to identify V(x).

It is not possible, and I have used this as an argument against many worlds, see http://arxiv.or/abs/arXiv:0901.3262" and the references therein.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilja said:
But H' would be most probable not of the form [tex]H' = \Delta + V(x)[/tex], so that this simple consideration is not sufficient to answer the question if it is possible to identify V(x).
QUOTE]

If you choose a unitary operator [tex]U[/tex] commuting with momentum, then the transformed Hamiltonian is of the form [tex]H' = \Delta + V(x,p)[/tex]. I don't see anything wrong with having potential V that depends on both position and momentum of the particle.
 
Last edited:
a potential [tex]V(x,p)[/tex] that depend on momentum is not common in physics since you should modifie Newton law or E-L equation

the idea is that sometimes you only known the spectrum but not the Eigenfunctions , perhaps using WKB approximation , you would know that eigenfunctions depend on the potential [tex]\Psi (x) = exp (i \oint (E-V(x))^{1/2})[/tex]

but in general you only have information about the espectrum
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K