Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Self-Adjointness and the Renormalization of Singular Potentials

Sarang Gopalakrishnan, William Loinaz

Published Jan 1, 2006• 12 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Schrodinger operators with very singular potentials fail to produce reasonable spectra, because the usual boundary conditions are insufficient to make them self-adjoint. If one regularizes a singular potential at a length , the bound state energies diverge as → 0. A meaningful spectrum can be restored by picking a self-adjoint extension of the operator, by renormalizing the theory, or by allowing nonunitary time evolution. We show that renormalizations of the 1/r potential fall into two classes: those that are asymptotically equivalent to self-adjoint extensions, and those that reduce to treatments of delta functions. We also apply the apparatus of self-adjoint extensions and renormalization to clarify aspects of anomalous symmetry breaking, supersymmetric quantum mechanics, and one-dimensional quantum mechanics. Lines composed upon reading a thesis abstract by S. Gopalakrishnan Think a moment, dear reader, of that long-legged fly, The sprung meniscus underfoot, And what asymptotes invisible to well-trained eyes Still break the surface at its root. How a singular potential picks tight-bounded energy Apart till it no longer recognizes Its own mirrored face, its extensions, or symmetry; Unless one cautiously renormalizes. You have tried in these pensive pages to show the stuff Such theory’s made of, its quiddity When logic is applied to the diamond rough, And quantum notes ring purely. May Apollo’s clarity pierce through your reasoning And self-adjointed truth and fact Elevate your thought to that sense so pleasing When truth recovers nature’s pact.

Related papers

Self-Adjoint Extension Approach for Singular Hamiltonians in (2 + 1) Dimensions

Vinícius Salem, Ramon F. Costa, Edilberto Oliveira Silva +1 more

In this work, we review two methods used to approach singular Hamiltonians in (2+1) dimensions. Both methods are based on the self-adjoint extension approach. It is very common to find singular Hamiltonians in quantum mechanics, especially in quantum systems in the presence of topological defects, which are usually modelled by point interactions. In general, it is possible to apply some kind of regularization procedure, as the vanishing of the wave function at the location of the singularity, ensuring that the wave function is square integrable and then can be associated with a physical state. However, an analysis based on the self-adjoint extension approach can lead to more general boundary conditions that still gives acceptable physical states. We exemplify the methods by exploring the bound and scattering scenarios of a spin 1/2 charged particle with an anomalous magnetic moment in the Aharonov-Bohm potential in the conical space.

arXiv:1910.07105•Frontiers in Physics•Nov 6, 2019•6 citations

Quantum mechanics of the 1∕x2 potential

Andrew M. Essin, David J. Griffiths

In quantum mechanics a localized attractive potential typically supports a (possibly infinite) set of bound states, characterized by a discrete spectrum of allowed energies, together with a continuum of scattering states, characterized (in one dimension) by an energy-dependent phase shift. The 1∕x2 potential on 0<x<∞ confounds all of our intuitions and expectations. Resolving its paradoxes requires sophisticated theoretical machinery: regularization, renormalization, anomalous symmetry-breaking, and self-adjoint extensions. Our goal is to introduce the essential ideas at a level accessible to advanced undergraduates.

American Journal of Physics•Jan 17, 2006•165 citations

Self-adjointness and spontaneously broken symmetry

ANTON Z. CAPRI

The notion of self-adjointness as distinct from Hermiticity is usually avoided in elementary quantum mechanics courses due to a feeling that it has nothing to do with physics or else is too mathematical. This is definitely not the case, and we use the model of a free particle restricted to motion on a line over a finite interval, to demonstrate this. For such a particle, there is one-parameter infinity of self-adjoint extensions of the momentum operator. We use one of these, corresponding to ’’antiperiodic’’ boundary conditions, to show that physical phenomena different from the usual case (periodic boundary conditions) occur. In fact, in this case, we have a model displaying many of the properties of spontaneously broken symmetry.

American Journal of Physics•Sep 1, 1977•28 citations

Self-adjoint extensions and spectral analysis in the generalized Kratzer problem

Mario Cesar Baldiotti, Dmitri M Gitman, Igor Viktorovich Tyutin +1 more

We present a mathematically rigorous quantum-mechanical treatment of a one-dimensional non-relativistic motion of a particle in the potential field , For g 2 >0 and g 1 <0, the potential is known as the Kratzer potential V K ( x ) and is usually used to describe molecular energy and structure, interactions between different molecules and interactions between non-bonded atoms. We construct all self-adjoint Schrödinger operators with the potential V ( x ) and represent rigorous solutions of the corresponding spectral problems. Solving the first part of the problem, we use a method of specifying self-adjoint extensions by (asymptotic) self-adjoint boundary conditions. Solving spectral problems, we follow Krein's method of guiding functionals. This work is a continuation of our previous works devoted to the Coulomb, Calogero and Aharonov–Bohm potentials.

arXiv:1009.4903•Physica Scripta•May 25, 2011•11 citations

Singular interactions in quantum mechanics: solvable models

Gianfausto Dell’Antonio, Pavel Exner, Vladimir A. Geyler

This issue comprises two dozen research papers which are all in one sense or another devoted to models in which the interaction is singular and sharply localized; a typical example is a quantum particle interacting with a family of δ-type potentials. Such an idealization usually makes analysis of their properties considerably easier, sometimes allowing us to reduce it to a simple algebraic problem—this is why one speaks about solvable models. The subject can be traced back to the early days of quantum mechanics; however, the progress in this field was slow and uneven until the 1960s, mostly because singular interactions are often difficult to deal with mathematically and intuitive arguments do not work. After overcoming the initial difficulties the `classical' theory of point interactions was developed, and finally summarized in 1988 in a monograph by Albeverio, Gesztesy, Høegh-Krohn, and Holden, which you will find quoted in numerous places within this issue. A reliable way to judge theories is to observe the progress they make within one or two decades. In this case there is no doubt that the field has witnessed a continuous development and covered areas which nobody had thought of when the subject first emerged. The reader may see it in the second edition of the aforementioned book which was published by AMS Chelsea only recently and contained a brief survey of these new achievements. It is no coincidence that this topical issue appears at the same time; it has been conceived as its counterpart and a forum at which fresh results in the field can demonstrated. Let us briefly survey the contents of the issue. While the papers included have in common the basic subject, they represent a broad spectrum philosophically as well as technically, and any attempt to classify them is somewhat futile. Nevertheless, we will divide them into a few groups. The first comprises contributions directly related to the usual point-interaction ideology. M Correggi and one of the editors study a toy model of a decay under the influence of a time-periodic δ potential. E Demiralp describes the spectrum of a spherical harmonic oscillator amended with a concentric family of δ-shell interactions. Another of the editors presents an isoperimetric problem for point interactions arranged at vertices of a polygon. W Huddell and R Hughes show how singular perturbations of a one-dimensional Dirac operator can be approximated by regular potentials, and J Brasche constructs a family of Hamiltonians in which the singular interaction has a more complicated support, namely a Brownian path. Finally, B Pavlov and I Antoniou apply the singular perturbation technique to another classical Hamiltonian, that of a generalized Friedrichs model; no matter that the unperturbed observable is called momentum in their paper. The three papers in the following group are distinguished by the fact that they consider systems which are fully or partially periodic. F Bentosela and M Tater analyse scattering on a crystalline `slab' modelled by point interactions distributed periodically on a finite number of parallel plates. E de Prunelé studies evolution of wavepackets in crystal models of different geometries, and M Avdonin et al discuss a simple model of a spin-dependent scattering on a one-dimensional array of quantum dots. The next group of papers is devoted to a topic which was untouched at the time of the aforementioned first edition, namely quantum graphs, which became a subject of interest after numerous applications of such systems to semiconductor, carbon and other nanostructures. Most contributions here deal with the `usual' model in which the Hamiltonian is a Schrödinger operator supported by the graph. P Kuchment describes spectral properties of such graphs, in particular periodic ones and those with decorations. S Albeverio and K Pankrashkin present a modification of Krein's formula which is suitable for constructing Hamiltonians of quantum graphs using boundary conditions at vertices directly. Two papers are devoted to inverse problems in this context: M Harmer studies inverse scattering for the matrix Schrödinger operator on the halfline with applications to star graphs, while P Kurasov and M Nowaczyk give a mathematically rigorous version of the known Gutkin–Smilansky result on the inverse spectral problem. The paper by O Post contributes to the question of how graphs can be approximated by more realistic `fat' graphs, and describes a class leading to disconnected quantum graphs. Finally, S Kondej and one of the editors study scattering in the context of `leaky' graphs which takes quantum tunnelling into account. While most results in this field describe one-particle Hamiltonians, more complicated systems have also been studied. In this issue we have three examples. C Cacciapuito, R Carlone, and R Figari discuss decoherence in a simple model of two particles, one heavy and one light, interacting through a δ potential; they give a rigorous meaning to a formula derived by Joos and Zeh. A related model by R Figari and A Teta is used to describe ionization. M Hallnäs, E Langmann, and C Paufler treat a true N -body situation, namely a model of one-dimensional gas of distinguishable particles interacting through generalized point interactions; they write the Bethe ansatz and present the solution of a particular case. The last group is a collection of contributions which in one sense or another are outside quantum mechanics, either modifying its postulates or applying it to a different physical situation. The latter applies to the paper of D Noja and A Posilicano in which they study nonlinear wave equations with point perturbations and show the existence of a solution to the Cauchy problem. F Coutinho et al discuss one-dimensional point interactions with energy-dependent coupling constant, S Albeverio and S Kuzhel examine a class of point interactions which are not symmetric but P-symmetric, where P is the parity operator, and M Znojil and V Jakubský consider a `double-well' PT-symmetric model with two δ interactions with an imaginary coupling. The last two papers present mathematical constructions. Yu Shondin demonstrates a way to define an interaction more singular than the usual δ potentials obtained by means of self-adjoint extensions, and V Koshmanenko presents a construction of strongly singular perturbations leading to rather unusual `Hamiltonians'.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•May 18, 2005•6 citations

Self-adjoint extensions of operators and the teaching of quantum mechanics

Guy Bonneau, Jacques Faraut, Galliano Valent A

For the example of the infinite well potential, we point out some paradoxes which are solved by a careful analysis of what is a truly self-adjoint operator. We then describe the self-adjoint extensions and their spectra for the momentum and the Hamiltonian operators in different settings. Additional physical requirements such as parity, time reversal, and positivity are used to restrict the large class of self-adjoint extensions of the Hamiltonian.

arXiv:quant-ph/0103153•American Journal of Physics•Mar 1, 2001•313 citations
Schrodinger operators with very singular potentials fail to produce reasonable spectra, because the usual boundary conditions are insufficient to make them self-adjoint. If one regularizes a singular potential at a length , the bound state energies diverge as → 0. A meaningful spectrum can be restored by picking a self-adjoint extension of the operator, by renormalizing the theory, or by allowing nonunitary time evolution. We show that renormalizations of the 1/r potential fall into two classes: those that are asymptotically equivalent to self-adjoint extensions, and those that reduce to treatments of delta functions. We also apply the apparatus of self-adjoint extensions and renormalization to clarify aspects of anomalous symmetry breaking, supersymmetric quantum mechanics, and one-dimensional quantum mechanics. Lines composed upon reading a thesis abstract by S. Gopalakrishnan Think a moment, dear reader, of that long-legged fly, The sprung meniscus underfoot, And what asymptotes invisible to well-trained eyes Still break the surface at its root. How a singular potential picks tight-bounded energy Apart till it no longer recognizes Its own mirrored face, its extensions, or symmetry; Unless one cautiously renormalizes. You have tried in these pensive pages to show the stuff Such theory’s made of, its quiddity When logic is applied to the diamond rough, And quantum notes ring purely. May Apollo’s clarity pierce through your reasoning And self-adjointed truth and fact Elevate your thought to that sense so pleasing When truth recovers nature’s pact.
In this work, we review two methods used to approach singular Hamiltonians in (2+1) dimensions. Both methods are based on the self-adjoint extension approach. It is very common to find singular Hamiltonians in quantum mechanics, especially in quantum systems in the presence of topological defects, which are usually modelled by point interactions. In general, it is possible to apply some kind of regularization procedure, as the vanishing of the wave function at the location of the singularity, ensuring that the wave function is square integrable and then can be associated with a physical state. However, an analysis based on the self-adjoint extension approach can lead to more general boundary conditions that still gives acceptable physical states. We exemplify the methods by exploring the bound and scattering scenarios of a spin 1/2 charged particle with an anomalous magnetic moment in the Aharonov-Bohm potential in the conical space.
In quantum mechanics a localized attractive potential typically supports a (possibly infinite) set of bound states, characterized by a discrete spectrum of allowed energies, together with a continuum of scattering states, characterized (in one dimension) by an energy-dependent phase shift. The 1∕x2 potential on 0<x<∞ confounds all of our intuitions and expectations. Resolving its paradoxes requires sophisticated theoretical machinery: regularization, renormalization, anomalous symmetry-breaking, and self-adjoint extensions. Our goal is to introduce the essential ideas at a level accessible to advanced undergraduates.
The notion of self-adjointness as distinct from Hermiticity is usually avoided in elementary quantum mechanics courses due to a feeling that it has nothing to do with physics or else is too mathematical. This is definitely not the case, and we use the model of a free particle restricted to motion on a line over a finite interval, to demonstrate this. For such a particle, there is one-parameter infinity of self-adjoint extensions of the momentum operator. We use one of these, corresponding to ’’antiperiodic’’ boundary conditions, to show that physical phenomena different from the usual case (periodic boundary conditions) occur. In fact, in this case, we have a model displaying many of the properties of spontaneously broken symmetry.
We present a mathematically rigorous quantum-mechanical treatment of a one-dimensional non-relativistic motion of a particle in the potential field , For g 2 >0 and g 1 <0, the potential is known as the Kratzer potential V K ( x ) and is usually used to describe molecular energy and structure, interactions between different molecules and interactions between non-bonded atoms. We construct all self-adjoint Schrödinger operators with the potential V ( x ) and represent rigorous solutions of the corresponding spectral problems. Solving the first part of the problem, we use a method of specifying self-adjoint extensions by (asymptotic) self-adjoint boundary conditions. Solving spectral problems, we follow Krein's method of guiding functionals. This work is a continuation of our previous works devoted to the Coulomb, Calogero and Aharonov–Bohm potentials.
This issue comprises two dozen research papers which are all in one sense or another devoted to models in which the interaction is singular and sharply localized; a typical example is a quantum particle interacting with a family of δ-type potentials. Such an idealization usually makes analysis of their properties considerably easier, sometimes allowing us to reduce it to a simple algebraic problem—this is why one speaks about solvable models. The subject can be traced back to the early days of quantum mechanics; however, the progress in this field was slow and uneven until the 1960s, mostly because singular interactions are often difficult to deal with mathematically and intuitive arguments do not work. After overcoming the initial difficulties the `classical' theory of point interactions was developed, and finally summarized in 1988 in a monograph by Albeverio, Gesztesy, Høegh-Krohn, and Holden, which you will find quoted in numerous places within this issue. A reliable way to judge theories is to observe the progress they make within one or two decades. In this case there is no doubt that the field has witnessed a continuous development and covered areas which nobody had thought of when the subject first emerged. The reader may see it in the second edition of the aforementioned book which was published by AMS Chelsea only recently and contained a brief survey of these new achievements. It is no coincidence that this topical issue appears at the same time; it has been conceived as its counterpart and a forum at which fresh results in the field can demonstrated. Let us briefly survey the contents of the issue. While the papers included have in common the basic subject, they represent a broad spectrum philosophically as well as technically, and any attempt to classify them is somewhat futile. Nevertheless, we will divide them into a few groups. The first comprises contributions directly related to the usual point-interaction ideology. M Correggi and one of the editors study a toy model of a decay under the influence of a time-periodic δ potential. E Demiralp describes the spectrum of a spherical harmonic oscillator amended with a concentric family of δ-shell interactions. Another of the editors presents an isoperimetric problem for point interactions arranged at vertices of a polygon. W Huddell and R Hughes show how singular perturbations of a one-dimensional Dirac operator can be approximated by regular potentials, and J Brasche constructs a family of Hamiltonians in which the singular interaction has a more complicated support, namely a Brownian path. Finally, B Pavlov and I Antoniou apply the singular perturbation technique to another classical Hamiltonian, that of a generalized Friedrichs model; no matter that the unperturbed observable is called momentum in their paper. The three papers in the following group are distinguished by the fact that they consider systems which are fully or partially periodic. F Bentosela and M Tater analyse scattering on a crystalline `slab' modelled by point interactions distributed periodically on a finite number of parallel plates. E de Prunelé studies evolution of wavepackets in crystal models of different geometries, and M Avdonin et al discuss a simple model of a spin-dependent scattering on a one-dimensional array of quantum dots. The next group of papers is devoted to a topic which was untouched at the time of the aforementioned first edition, namely quantum graphs, which became a subject of interest after numerous applications of such systems to semiconductor, carbon and other nanostructures. Most contributions here deal with the `usual' model in which the Hamiltonian is a Schrödinger operator supported by the graph. P Kuchment describes spectral properties of such graphs, in particular periodic ones and those with decorations. S Albeverio and K Pankrashkin present a modification of Krein's formula which is suitable for constructing Hamiltonians of quantum graphs using boundary conditions at vertices directly. Two papers are devoted to inverse problems in this context: M Harmer studies inverse scattering for the matrix Schrödinger operator on the halfline with applications to star graphs, while P Kurasov and M Nowaczyk give a mathematically rigorous version of the known Gutkin–Smilansky result on the inverse spectral problem. The paper by O Post contributes to the question of how graphs can be approximated by more realistic `fat' graphs, and describes a class leading to disconnected quantum graphs. Finally, S Kondej and one of the editors study scattering in the context of `leaky' graphs which takes quantum tunnelling into account. While most results in this field describe one-particle Hamiltonians, more complicated systems have also been studied. In this issue we have three examples. C Cacciapuito, R Carlone, and R Figari discuss decoherence in a simple model of two particles, one heavy and one light, interacting through a δ potential; they give a rigorous meaning to a formula derived by Joos and Zeh. A related model by R Figari and A Teta is used to describe ionization. M Hallnäs, E Langmann, and C Paufler treat a true N -body situation, namely a model of one-dimensional gas of distinguishable particles interacting through generalized point interactions; they write the Bethe ansatz and present the solution of a particular case. The last group is a collection of contributions which in one sense or another are outside quantum mechanics, either modifying its postulates or applying it to a different physical situation. The latter applies to the paper of D Noja and A Posilicano in which they study nonlinear wave equations with point perturbations and show the existence of a solution to the Cauchy problem. F Coutinho et al discuss one-dimensional point interactions with energy-dependent coupling constant, S Albeverio and S Kuzhel examine a class of point interactions which are not symmetric but P-symmetric, where P is the parity operator, and M Znojil and V Jakubský consider a `double-well' PT-symmetric model with two δ interactions with an imaginary coupling. The last two papers present mathematical constructions. Yu Shondin demonstrates a way to define an interaction more singular than the usual δ potentials obtained by means of self-adjoint extensions, and V Koshmanenko presents a construction of strongly singular perturbations leading to rather unusual `Hamiltonians'.