It remains a difficult task to establish contact between the rigorous quantum theory built on sound foundations by Birkhoff and von Neumann and others and the models usually used to describe resonances. A theorem is proved which gives a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of solutions of formal perturbation and kindred equations in atomic physics and establishes certain uniqueness properties of solutions which exist. In another theorem it is proved that whenever a state vector belonging to a point eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian is perturbed, one has the phenomenon of spectral concentration and it is possible that in cases where the resulting spectral concentration does not constitute a point eigenvalue of the perturbed Hamiltonian, one has the phenomenon which probably corresponds to a resonance. It is shown that in the autoionising 2s2p 1.3 P states of helium, a solution of the formal perturbation equations exists in the underlying Hilbert space only in the zero order, though a formal solution which is outside the underlying Hilbert space exists and belongs to the space of distributions on a subset of the Hilbert space. It is also shown that in cases where a complex eigenvalue is obtained by interfering with a self-adjoint operator, the phenomenon is not related to deficiency indices. The mathematical background of the work of Sharma and Bowtell (1975) has been examined and some progress has been made towards finding the rigorous mathematical framework in which the theory should find a proper formulation.
It remains a difficult task to establish contact between the rigorous quantum theory built on sound foundations by Birkhoff and von Neumann and others and the models usually used to describe resonances. A theorem is proved which gives a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of solutions of formal perturbation and kindred equations in atomic physics and establishes certain uniqueness properties of solutions which exist. In another theorem it is proved that whenever a state vector belonging to a point eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian is perturbed, one has the phenomenon of spectral concentration and it is possible that in cases where the resulting spectral concentration does not constitute a point eigenvalue of the perturbed Hamiltonian, one has the phenomenon which probably corresponds to a resonance. It is shown that in the autoionising 2s2p 1.3 P states of helium, a solution of the formal perturbation equations exists in the underlying Hilbert space only in the zero order, though a formal solution which is outside the underlying Hilbert space exists and belongs to the space of distributions on a subset of the Hilbert space. It is also shown that in cases where a complex eigenvalue is obtained by interfering with a self-adjoint operator, the phenomenon is not related to deficiency indices. The mathematical background of the work of Sharma and Bowtell (1975) has been examined and some progress has been made towards finding the rigorous mathematical framework in which the theory should find a proper formulation.
Although• quantum mechanics has achieved great success in the explanation of physical phenomena, the mathematics used in quantum mechanics is not rigorous.Unrigorous treatments occur in the case of continuous spectrum.In a Hilbert • space, let A be a self-adjoint operator.When we define the eigenvalue and the eigenelement by the ' ' relation Af=J.f, (1) ' ' h d -. -f(q)=).f(q)2m dq has solutions 2,ri f(q)=ce"Aq for any ;.., But these are not quadratically integrable.E. Hellinger and H. Weyi< 0 have already investigated the problem of continuous spectrum and introduced the " eigendifferential."But they are concerned with a special problem, i. e. bounded quadratic forms and solutions of differential equation.In respect of generality, they do not satisfy.< 2 > E. Fues< 3 > and some other writers<" have used this conception " eigendifferential " in quantum mechanics.But the treatments are either complicated or not rigorous.J. v. Neumann< 5 > has proved that in Hilbert space, for any selfadjoint operator A, there exists a resolution of identity E(;..) such that Af= J:and he has applied this theory to quantum mechanics.Although his theory gave a rigorous mathematical foundation to quantum mechanics, it did not give any interpretation to the representation theory of Dirac's form.Recently I investigated the "theory of vector-valued set functions."This theory removes the difficulties in the treatement of continuous spectrum, and gives a rigorous interpretation to the representation theory.< 5 > The vector-valued set function q(U) is a function of set U, and its functional value is an element (vector) in the Hilbert ,space, (1) E. Hellinger [l], 231-271.H. Weyl [1], 238-251.(2) T. Carlemann used this conception "eigendifferential" in the treatise of singular integral equations.Cf.T. Carlemann [1].(3) E. Fues [1], 295-303.(4) For example, L. de Broglie [2], 140-159.(5) J. v. Neumann [1], 53-121.(6) F. Maeda [2], [5], [6].A summary of the theory of vector-valued set functions is given in the first part Qf the present paper.(1) G. Temple has formulated a principle of quantum theory in which projective operators are given priority over self-adjoint operators.(C(.G. Temple [1)).But. the .whole discussion differs from that of my present paper.
After a fairly rigorous mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics based on transformation theory by Dirac in which he cast Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and Schrodinger’s wave mechanics on a common operator theoretic setting and successfully explained their equivalence, it was John Von Neumann in monumental treatise “Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics” who proved the spectral theorem for all self adjoint operators in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space and thereby cast the masterly work of Dirac “The principles of quantum mechanics“ in a way that even pure mathematicians were able to understand. Dirac in his book had also indicated the work of Jordan and Heisenberg on quantum scattering theory but without the modern method of wave operators. Lippmann and Schwinger gave a more rigorous discussion of scattering theory via the introduction of free particle states and scattered states. Actually, free particle states are not square integrable and hence cannot strictly be termed as states. However by the use of wave operators the equations of Lippmann and Schwinger could be made rigorous using the setting of the continuous spectrum of a self-adjoint opearator introduced by Von Neumann, Crucial to this development is the notion of the domain of definition of an unbounded operator. This leads to the fact that the wave operators that appear in scattering theory are not defined on all vectors but usually on those vectors that belong to the continuous spectrum of the free particle Hamiltonian. Today scattering theory is a well developed subject and the interested reader can get a good grasp of this subject from the books 1 Tosio Kato, “Perturbation theory for linear operators”, Springer. 2 Werner O. Amrein, “Hilbert space methods in quantum mechanics”, CRC press, 2012.
The problem of decaying states and resonances is examined within the framework of scattering theory in a rigged Hilbert space formalism. The stationary free,’’in,’’ and ’’out’’ eigenvectors of formal scattering theory, which have a rigorous setting in rigged Hilbert space, are considered to be analytic functions of the energy eigenvalue. The value of these analytic functions at any point of regularity, real or complex, is an eigenvector with eigenvalue equal to the position of the point. The poles of the eigenvector families give origin to other eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian: the singularities of the ’’out’’ eigenvector family are the same as those of the continued S matrix, so that resonances are seen as eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian with eigenvalue equal to their location in the complex energy plane. Cauchy theorem then provides for expansions in terms of ’’complete’’ sets of eigenvectors with complex eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian. Applying such expansions to the survival amplitude of a decaying state, one finds that resonances give discrete contributions with purely exponential time behavior; the background is of course present, but explicitly separated. The resolvent of the Hamiltonian, restricted to the nuclear space appearing in the rigged Hilbert space, can be continued across the absolutely continuous spectrum; the singularities of the continuation are the same as those of the ’’out’’ eigenvectors. The free, ’’in’’ and ’’out’’ eigenvectors with complex eigenvalues and those corresponding to resonances can be approximated by physical vectors in the Hilbert space, as plane waves can. The need for having some further physical information in addition to the specification of the total Hamiltonian is apparent in the proposed framework. The formalism is applied to the Lee–Friedrichs model and to the scattering of a spinless particle by a local central potential.
The aim of this chapter is to present (in a compact way) the fundamentals of conventional quantum theory. We select the for- mulation of QM as an axiomatic theory in the complete accordance with the Hilbert’s program on axiomatization of physical theories. We remark that the first step toward the present formulation of QM was done in the seminal work of Hilbert, Nordheim, and von Neumann [112]. This work was substantially extended, completed, and clarified in the book of von Neumann [296]. Another version of the rigorous mathematical approach to QM was presented in the book of Dirac [74]. From the mathematical viewpoint, the main difference between the approaches of von Neumann and Dirac is that the first one is based on the theory of self-adjoint operators in complex Hilbert space and the second one is based on the theory of self-adjoint operators acting (by using the modern mathematical terminology) in rigged Hilbert spaces. This theory operates with generalized eigenvectors belonging to the spaces of distributions. Although the von Neumann’s formalization of QM became dominant in quantum mathematical physics, the Dirac’s formalization is widely used in the works on the physical level of rigorousness. Moreover, the Dirac’s terminology, bra-and ket- vectors, became the standard for quantum information theory. However, since quantum information is based on the castrated version of QM, namely, QM in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, the so-called n-qubit spaces, the basic tool of the Dirac’s formalism, usage of generalized eigenvectors, is useless (since in the finite- dimensional case everything is reduced to manipulation with matrices). During the last 80 years, there were written hundreds of books on QM enlightening its foundational aspects. Unfortunately, the majority of these writings advertise exotic (and some of them really esoteric) views on QM and, in particular, on interpretation of the wave function. They are full of such terms as the collapse of the wave function, quantumnonlocality, manyworlds, thewave function of universe, the preparation of Schro¨dinger cats, influence of the future on the past, quantum teleportation. Of course, manipulations with such terminology create an atmosphere of mystery and a feeling that something unusual and impossible can happen. And this atmosphere plays a positive role in attracting young people to QM and especially to quantum foundations.
The purpose of the paper is to study the foundations of the main axioms of Quantum Mechanics. From a general study of the mathematical properties of the models used in Physics to represent systems, we prove that the states of a system can be represented in a Hilbert space, that a self-adjoint operator is associated to any observable, that the result of a measure must be the eigen value of the operator and appear with the usual probability. Furthermore an equivalent of the Wigner's theorem holds, which leads to the Schr{ö}dinger equation. These results are based on well known mathematics, and do not involve any specific hypothesis in Physics. They validate and explain the methods currently used, which are made simpler and safer, and open new developments. In the third edition of this paper developments have been added about the estimation of physical anomalies.
Quantum theory is the soul of contemporary physics. It was discovered in an adventurous way, under the urge to solve the puzzles posed by atomic spectra and blackbody radiation. But after its invention, it immediately became clear that it was not just a theory of specific physical systems: it was rather a new language of universal applicability. Already in 1928, the theory had received solid mathematical foundations by Hilbert, von Neumann, and Nordheim, and this work was brought to completion in the monumental work of von Neumann, in the form that we still study nowadays. The theory is extraordinarily successful, and its predictions have been confirmed to an astonishing level of precision in a large spectrum of experiments. However, almost 90 years after von Neumann's book, quantum theory remains mysterious. Its mathematical formulation – based on Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators – is far from having an intuitive interpretation. The association of physical systems to Hilbert spaces whose unit vectors represent pure states, the representation of transformations by unitary operators and of observables by self-adjoint operators – all such postulates look artificial and ad hoc . A slightly more operational approach is provided by the C * -algebraic formulation of quantum theory – still, this formulation relies on the assumption that observables form an algebra , where the physical meanings of the multiplication and the sum are far from clear. In short, the postulates of quantum theory impose mathematical structures without providing any simple reason for this choice: the mathematics of Hilbert spaces is adopted as a magic blackbox that “works well” at producing experimental predictions. However, in a satisfactory axiomatization of a physical theory the mathematical structures should emerge as a consequence of postulates that have a direct physical interpretation. By this we mean postulates referring, e.g., to primitive notions like physical system, measurement, or process, rather than notions like, e.g., Hilbert space, C * -algebra, unit vector, or selfadjoint operator. The crucial question thus remains unanswered: why quantum theory? Which are the principles at the basis of the theory? A case that is often invoked in contrast is that of Special Relativity theory, which directly follows from the simple understandable principle of relativity.