Remind me where to find a proof of a spectral theorem for RHS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fredrik
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theorem
Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
10,876
Reaction score
423
I know I've seen a very short article (3-5 pages) with a proof of a spectral theorem for rigged Hilbert spaces, written for people who already know the usual spectral theorems, by some guy who I think had a muslim name. Anyone know what I'm talking about? It's been posted here before, almost certainly more than once, but I just spent 20 minutes trying to find it here and on my computer, so I think it's time to just ask.

No need to hurry to get me an answer right away. I'm not even going to read it right away. I'm just making a to-do list about things I'd like to understand better, and I want to put this article on the list.

(I think I may even have asked this question before, LOL).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can always try Gelfand-Vilenkin's Generalized functions, Volume 4. However, the proof there has a mistake, which is not easily solved (but can be solved).
My favorite book is "Methods of Hilbert spaces" by Maurin. It states the proof in a different form than Gelfand-Vilenkin, and a form that I think is more useful. Than again, he doesn't explicitely say anything about RHS (he obviously does use the concept though). Other than that, the book really covers a lot of nice things about Hilbert spaces. I don't understand why the book is not more popular.
 
Thanks micro. I'll make a note of those books before I forget them too. It's interesting to hear that you liked Maurin's book. One of the reasons why I haven't checked it out is that I found a negative review about it, that complained about the presentation, inconsistencies in notation, and even some incorrect statements. Link.

I still suspect that the short article I've seen is the best place to study the theorem and its proof. I just wish I could remember. I hope that Strangrep or dextercioby does.
 
I found the document I had in mind. It's a 5-page pdf document with the title "Generalized eigenfunctions" written by a guy named Mustafa Kesir. Some other guy named Christopher King has a copy on his web page: http://mathserver.neu.edu/~king_chris/GenEf.pdf.
 
I remember saying sometimes in the past that Kesir almost copy-pasted in his work one of the appendices of Berezin & Shubin's 'Schrödinger equation' which had been based on Berezanskii's work and book in the 1960's.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top