The interaction of an isolated state |Theta> with a known infinite-dimensional quantum system S-infinity(b) containing multiple eigenvalue bands is considered. An example is the interaction of an isolated molecular state with the electromagnetic field. This problem is the main subject of spectroscopy. Another example is the interaction of an isolated molecular state of a molecule situated on the surface of a solid with this solid. This is the subject of the surface state physics. Such problems are usually treated within the formalism of the perturbation expansion. Recently a new mathematical method for the treatment of such problems was suggested. This method produces correct solution of the combined system, however strong the interaction between the state |Theta> and the system S-infinity(b). Key quantities in this method are characteristic functions f(v)(epsilon) and functions omega(v)(epsilon). Functions f(v)(epsilon) are constructed from the quantities describing unperturbed system S-infinity(b) and from the known interaction of this system with the state |Theta>. Functions omega(v)(epsilon) are then expressed in terms of the characteristic functions f(v)(epsilon). An important mathematical problem is the calculation of the functions omega(v)(epsilon), once functions f(v)(epsilon) are known. A general mathematical solution to this problem is obtained for the case when characteristic functions f(v)(epsilon) are polynomials. Since each function which is continuous in a finite interval can be approximated (to any desired degree of accuracy) with some polynomial, this solution presents an important mathematical tool for the practical application of the suggested method. Obtained results are illustrated with few model examples of the interaction of an isolated state with an infinite quantum system.
The interaction of an isolated state |Theta> with a known infinite-dimensional quantum system S-infinity(b) containing multiple eigenvalue bands is considered. An example is the interaction of an isolated molecular state with the electromagnetic field. This problem is the main subject of spectroscopy. Another example is the interaction of an isolated molecular state of a molecule situated on the surface of a solid with this solid. This is the subject of the surface state physics. Such problems are usually treated within the formalism of the perturbation expansion. Recently a new mathematical method for the treatment of such problems was suggested. This method produces correct solution of the combined system, however strong the interaction between the state |Theta> and the system S-infinity(b). Key quantities in this method are characteristic functions f(v)(epsilon) and functions omega(v)(epsilon). Functions f(v)(epsilon) are constructed from the quantities describing unperturbed system S-infinity(b) and from the known interaction of this system with the state |Theta>. Functions omega(v)(epsilon) are then expressed in terms of the characteristic functions f(v)(epsilon). An important mathematical problem is the calculation of the functions omega(v)(epsilon), once functions f(v)(epsilon) are known. A general mathematical solution to this problem is obtained for the case when characteristic functions f(v)(epsilon) are polynomials. Since each function which is continuous in a finite interval can be approximated (to any desired degree of accuracy) with some polynomial, this solution presents an important mathematical tool for the practical application of the suggested method. Obtained results are illustrated with few model examples of the interaction of an isolated state with an infinite quantum system.
A new approach to the eigenvalue problem in quantum mechanics is proposed. This approach is based on three propositions: 1) a perturbation theory which does not require knowledge of the entire eigenvalue spectrum of the unperturbed problem and which uses a nonlinearization procedure (leaving some latitude in the choice of a zeroth order approximation); 2) a relationship between the perturbation theory and a variational principle, namely that any variational calculation is none other than the first two terms of some nontrivial perturbation theory which, when developed further, can reveal the accuracy of the variational calculations and can refine them by an iterative procedure; 3) Dyson's argument, which serves as a criterion for the reasonableness of the choice of a zeroth order approximation (the unperturbed problem). The realization of this perturbation theory in a k-dimensional space is equivalent to the solution of a k-dimensional electrostatic problem with a variable dielectric permittivity. In the one-dimensional case and in cases which reduce to the one-dimensional case, all the corrections are written in quadratures. It is shown that the construction of an ordinary perturbation theory (in which the zeroth order approximation is an exactly solvable problem) within the framework of this perturbation theory is a purely algebraic procedure, which reduces to the solution of some simple recurrence relations. An approximation analogous to the leading logarithmic approximation of quantum field theory is constructed. Some standard problems of quantum mechanics—the anharmonic oscillator, the Zeeman effect, and the Stark effect—are treated as examples. It is shown that this new approach makes it possible to develop systematically a theory for strong coupling and large perturbations.
In the previous chapters, we have solved a series of problems that all have an exact solution. However, there are only a select few problems in quantum mechanics that provide exact analytical solutions. Those problems that can be solved exactly are the free particle, the one-dimensional barrier potential, the finite and the infinite square wells, the infinite triangular well, the harmonic oscillator, and the hydrogen atom, including both its nonrelativistic and relativistic solutions. However, there are many problems different from the above-mentioned few as well as problems that cannot be approximated by these solutions. What happens then if we want to solve a different problem, such as the helium atom or the hydrogen atom in an applied electric field? To solve these problems it is necessary to use approximation techniques. In this chapter, we consider some of these techniques, the most important being the time-independent and the time-dependent perturbation theories. We begin with a discussion of time-independent disturbances in a nondegenerate system. Time-independent Perturbation Theory: The Nondegenerate Case We seek to determine the solution to a problem in which a small disturbance is applied to an otherwise determinable system. Perturbation theory is used most often in cases for which the solution to the undisturbed (unperturbed) system is known and the perturbation is small. For example, perturbation theory is useful in solving for the energy levels in a hydrogen atom in the presence of a small external electric field.
We generalize a recently developed perturbation approach [F. M. Fern\'andez and E. A. Castro, Phys. Rev. A 46, 7288 (1992)], extending its applicability to a wider variety of separable quantum-mechanical problems. As an illustrative example, we consider a particle in a one-dimensional box with a finite potential wall perturbed by a linear potential and obtain the perturbation corrections to the wave function and energy of an arbitrary state in terms of the corresponding unperturbed quantities.
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'.
Abstract In a previous paper the theory of perturbations was discussed for system which possess only discrete spectra. The theory is now extended to systems with both discrete and continuous spectra, and in addition a slightly more general method of perturbation is considered. The Hamiltonian H of the perturbed systems is split up into three parts H0, H1, H2 (t), two of which can be chosen arbitrarily. The solutions of the perturbed problem can then be worked out in terms of the characteristic functions corresponding to the Hamiltonian H0 + H2 (T), where T is any arbitrary fixed time. In general, however, the series of perturbations does not converge, and different modes of splitting up the Hamiltonian will lead to different formal results. The perturbation theory does usually give the correct physical results, and it is therefore necessary to give some explanation of how this happens. In (I) the asymptotic nature of certain solutions was emphasised, but this does not extend to the more general systems treated here. It is suggested that the usual boundary conditions do not give an adequate description of any but the simplest atomic problems, and that more detailed restrictions, determined by the experimental conditions, ought to be substituted. As this is impossible in practice, an alternative method is to regard the motion as a perturbation on that Hamiltonian H0 + H2 (T) which most nearly corresponds to the experimental conditions. (For example, we may regard an electron as free or bound according as the experiment determines the number of free or bound electrons respectively, whereas in the usual theory the initial Hamiltonian is taken as fundamental.) This criterion, together with the initial conditions, suffices to fix the division of H into the three parts H0, H1, H2 (t) which at first were chosen arbitrarily. The formal solution can be worked out on this basis, and it is then assumed that this solution is asymptotic to the one which would be obtained if the full boundary conditions were used. This suggestion is in accordance with the fact that a hydrogen atom in an electric field gives rise not only to the usual Stark effect, but also to an ionisation effect. In § 2 the perturbation equation are derived in a slightly more general form than has previously been given. The theories of Born,* Dirac and Oppenheimer are particular cases of that given here, and are obtained by particular choices of H0, H1, H2 (t). To obtain Born’s theory we take H1 = 0, and for Oppenheimer’s we take H2 (t) = H2 (T) and T = 0. In Dirac’s theory we have H1 = 0, H2 (0) = 0 and T = 0. Each of these theories is appropriate for the solution of special problems, but the more general method of this paper is required for the full discussion of the perturbation theory.