Isometric operators- spectrum preserving?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the properties of Moller operators, which are isometric but not necessarily unitary in infinite-dimensional spaces. It is questioned whether the spectrum of the free Hamiltonian H_0 coincides with the energies of the non-bound states of the interacting Hamiltonian H, a common assumption in scattering theory. Some participants suggest that while this assumption seems reasonable, it remains an assumption, particularly in cases where mass renormalization is finite. A demonstration of the partial equivalence of the spectra is proposed, showing that the image of an eigenstate under a Moller operator retains its eigenvalue. However, concerns are raised about the implications of this setup, particularly regarding the treatment of bound states.
muppet
Messages
602
Reaction score
1
Hi all,
I'm working on Taylor's text on scattering (a reference from Peskin and Schroeder). They define the Moller operators \Omega which are isometric, satisfying
\Omega^{\dagger}\Omega=1
This is not necessarily the same as unitary in an infinite dimensional space, the difference being that an infinite dimensional space can be mapped isometrically onto a proper subset of itself, so that state vectors exist for which \Omega^{-1} is undefined. On states in the range of \Omega
\Omega^{\dagger}=\Omega^{-1};
for states outside of this range, \Omega^{\dagger}=0.

They show that
\Omega^{\dagger}H\Omega=H_0
where H is an interacting hamiltonian and H_0 its kinetic term. They argue that if Omega were unitary then H and H_0 would have to have the same spectra; only in the case where H has no bound states is Omega unitary, and the spectra coincide.

My question is: is it true that the spectrum of H_0 coincides with the energies of the non-bound states of H? This assumption is usually made in other treatments of scattering I've seen, and it seems a reasonable conclusion, but it's striking that the author belabours the non-unitarity of Omega rather than explains the reasoning behind what's taken as a given in other accounts, and the book is very careful to point out that other plausible statements can be wrong (for example, the Moller operators are non-unitary even though they are defined as the limit of a product of unitary operators, and the calculus of limits theorem doesn't hold for operators apparently, which is also something I'd like to understand better).

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
is it true that the spectrum of H_0 coincides with the energies of the non-bound states of H?
I think you're right that this is a reasonable assumption but definitely an assumption. For example in a field theory in which the mass renormalization is finite, the space of continuum states of H and H0 would be different.
 
Thanks for your reply.
I think it may actually be possible to demonstrate the partial equivalence of the spectra,
Let
H|\psi\rangle =E|\psi\rangle
and
\Omega|\phi\rangle=|\psi\rangle
Then
H|\psi\rangle=H\Omega|\phi\rangle=E\Omega|\phi \rangle
Acting on the left with \Omega^{\dagger} we then have
\Omega^{\dagger} H \Omega|\phi\rangle =H_0|\phi\rangle=E\Omega^{\dagger}\Omega|\phi \rangle =E|\phi\rangle
Therefore
H_0|\phi\rangle =E|\phi\rangle
i.e. the image of an eigenstate of the free hamiltonian under a Moller operator is an eigenstate of the full hamiltonian with the same eigenvalue.

Thinking about this setup a little more, however, it seems that taking the adjoint of
\Omega^{\dagger}H\Omega=H_0
implies that the free hamiltonian should annihilate the bound states, which seems highly suspect... any thoughts?
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
13K