As discussed in the previous chapter, the poles of the S-matrix are identified with discrete eigenvalues of the time-independent Schrödinger equation, where the asymptotes of the corresponding eigenfunctions are either purely outgoing waves or purely incoming waves. More specifically, the bound and decay resonance poles are obtained by imposing the outgoing boundary conditions on the solutions of the time-independent Schrödinger equation, while the anti-bound and virtual states (sometimes referred to as capture resonances) are associated with the solutions obtained under the requirement of the incoming boundary conditions. Except for the bound states, all other poles of the S-matrix are associated with exponentially divergent wavefunctions which by definition do not belong to the Hilbert space of conventional Hermitian quantum mechanics. This fact represents a major difficulty for the development of a non-Hermitian quantum mechanical formalism. Consequently, one may wonder, for example, how to properly define an inner product in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics (NHQM) if the wavefunctions diverge asymptotically. We recall in this context that the concept of an inner product constitutes a fundamental building block of standard (Hermitian) quantum mechanics (QM), by means of which one defines the quantum mechanical expectation values of physically observable quantities over the quantum states under consideration. An inner product for NHQM is necessary in order to accommodate the tools of conventional QM. Furthermore, one might anticipate that an appropriate NHQM inner product would also facilitate practical numerical calculation of the S-matrix poles for those cases where the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian do not possess an analytical closed form expression (unlike the cases studied in the previous chapter).
As discussed in the previous chapter, the poles of the S-matrix are identified with discrete eigenvalues of the time-independent Schrödinger equation, where the asymptotes of the corresponding eigenfunctions are either purely outgoing waves or purely incoming waves. More specifically, the bound and decay resonance poles are obtained by imposing the outgoing boundary conditions on the solutions of the time-independent Schrödinger equation, while the anti-bound and virtual states (sometimes referred to as capture resonances) are associated with the solutions obtained under the requirement of the incoming boundary conditions. Except for the bound states, all other poles of the S-matrix are associated with exponentially divergent wavefunctions which by definition do not belong to the Hilbert space of conventional Hermitian quantum mechanics. This fact represents a major difficulty for the development of a non-Hermitian quantum mechanical formalism. Consequently, one may wonder, for example, how to properly define an inner product in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics (NHQM) if the wavefunctions diverge asymptotically. We recall in this context that the concept of an inner product constitutes a fundamental building block of standard (Hermitian) quantum mechanics (QM), by means of which one defines the quantum mechanical expectation values of physically observable quantities over the quantum states under consideration. An inner product for NHQM is necessary in order to accommodate the tools of conventional QM. Furthermore, one might anticipate that an appropriate NHQM inner product would also facilitate practical numerical calculation of the S-matrix poles for those cases where the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian do not possess an analytical closed form expression (unlike the cases studied in the previous chapter).
The Hermitian properties of the Hamiltonian are related not only to the operator itself but also to the functions on which it acts. Hermitian Hamiltonians operate on functions in the L 2 Hilbert space which correspond to boundary conditions which vanish at infinity. In this chapter, in order to move into the non-Hermitian domain, we will impose on the solutions to the time-independent Schrödinger equation (TISE) different boundary conditions which lead to solutions which can be associated with different types of the complex poles of the scattering matrix. These solutions will contain information which was not available within the scope of functions in L 2 . By imposing outgoing boundary conditions on the eigenfunctions of the timeindependent Hamiltonian complex eigenvalues, E res = ε − (i/2)Г, are obtained. These complex energies are associated with decaying resonance states which were discussed in the previous two chapters. The bound states (if they exist) appear as real eigenvalues since they result from exactly such outgoing boundary conditions which appear under the threshold energy. When incoming boundary conditions are imposed two kind of solution are obtained. One type of solution is the complex conjugates of the decay resonance solutions mentioned above. In scattering theory text books (see Taylor for example) the physical resonance solutions are associated with the poles of the scattering matrix which are embedded in the lower half of the complex energy plane. However, in nuclear physics the complex poles embedded in the upper half of the complex energy plane, so-called virtual states , are denoted as capture resonances .
This chapter deals with the time-independent Schrödinger equation. The introduction of complex ‘Hamiltonians’ is essential for treating resonances that are inherently different from genuine (physical) bound states. True square-integrable bound-state eigenvectors are associated with discrete negative eigenenergies and Hermitean Hamiltonians. Resonant states are also square-integrable, but they are linked to complex energies with positive real parts that belong to a continuum. The concept of the absorbing boundary condition comes to rescue the situation via the introduction of complex ‘Hamiltonians’ with normalizable scattering wavefunctions as proper physical states. A method which can provide an adequate spectral representation of the total Green operator or resolvent G^(ω) would be one of the key inputs into an invaluable practical quantum-mechanical theory for scattering (E = 0) and spectroscopy (E < 0).
This chapter is divided into several sections which together represent one of the fundamental concepts in the non-Hermitian formalism of quantum mechanics (NH QM). First we discuss the need to replace the inner product used in the standard (Hermitian) formalism of quantum mechanics by another construct which was termed the c-product by Moiseyev, Certain and Weinhold in 1978. Unlike the standard situation where the eigenfunctions (eigenvectors) of an Hermitian operator (matrix) form a complete set which can be used to expand a wavepacket which describes the system at a given time, in NH QM it might happen that the eigenfunctions make up an incomplete set since several (usually two) eigenfunctions (eigenvectors) coalesce to generate a self-orthogonal state. We need completeness and closure relations in order to develop, for example, perturbation theory and scattering theories for non-Hermitian Hamiltonians and in order to be able to solve the Schrödinger equation by numerical methods. Therefore, the second section of this chapter is devoted to the completeness of the spectrum in NH QM. Other aspects of the non-Hermitian formalism which stem from this issue deal with the advantages of using a non-Hermitian formalism for a time-dependent description of a decaying system as well as its application to time-periodic systems. Accordingly, the discussion in one of the sections will encompass the propagation of wavepackets in non-Hermitian quantum mechanics whereas another will elaborate on the benefits of the formalism for the description of the interaction of matter with intense laser radiation.
There is a notational discrepancy in how mathematicians and physicists treat Hilbert spaces. In physics, one often works with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces treated as ℂ n , and hence wants to write the Hermitian inner product as (x, y) = x ∗ y. This definition dictates the use of a Hermitian inner product that is antilinear in the first argument, the convention followed, for example, in Reed & Simon [246]. This is also the choice adopted in Dirac’s bracket notation, whose usage in quantum mechanics is very widespread. Our notation is chosen to extend-as closely as possible-the traditional notation of standard finite-dimensional matrix algebra to arbitrary complex inner product spaces and associated linear operators. In matrix algebra, column vectors and the corresponding matrices with one column are identical objects, row vectors are the linear functionals, and the adjoint is the conjugate transpose. For example, ℍ = ℍ × = ℂ n is the space of column vectors of size n, the dual space ℍ ∗ is the space of row vectors of size n, and the operator product ϕ ∗ ψ of a row vector ϕ ∗ and a column vector ψ is the standard Hermitian inner product of the column vectors ϕ and ψ. We use Greek lower case letters to write vectors, thus emphasizing their intended use as quantum state vectors in quantum mechanics. On the other hand, mathematicians working on reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces use an inner product (x, y) antilinear in the second argument, related to the physicist’s inner product (x, y) by (x, y) =( ). This is the convention followed, for example, in Rudin [252]. Although the two ways of defining the inner product lead to fully equivalent theories, all details look a bit different, a fact that has to be taken into account when reading the literature on the subject. For example, in the description based on the physical tradition, it is preferable to work with the antidual space in place of the dual space used in the mathematical tradition. In functional analysis, linear operators in Hilbert spaces are usually considered each with their own domain. But many computations in quantum mechanics require the consideration of algebras of operators with a common domain. The latter is a Euclidean space, a dense subspace of a Hilbert space. This space and its antidual play in many respects a more basic role in quantum physics than the Hilbert space itself. Therefore, and to avoid possible confusion caused by the different traditions, we give in the present chapter a self-contained introduction to Euclidean spaces and their associated spaces. All proofs are carried out in detail.
The postulates of quantum mechanics associate the time-evolution of a system with its time-dependent Schrödinger equation. We start by examining different solutions to this equation for a particle, represented in terms of a Gaussian wave packet, in different scenarios: free, scattered from a potential energy barrier, or trapped in a potential energy well. In some cases, we encounter stationary solutions, in which the probability density does not change in time (a standing wave). These solutions are identified as eigenfunctions of a system Hamiltonian. The properties of the Hamiltonian as a Hermitian operator are introduced, and particularly, the fact that its proper eigenfunctions can compose an orthonormal set, and that the corresponding eigenvalues are real-valued. Learning that all operators that relate to measurables are Hermitian, and that their eigenvalues relate to the measured values, we conclude that the eigenvalues of the energy operator (Hamiltonian) are the energy levels of the quantum system.
This chapter develops a basic working knowledge of operators — objects central to quantum mechanics. The fact that quantum operators are linear determines how they may be manipulated, so linearity forms the chapter's first topic. The adjoint of an operator is then introduced. This provides the basis for Hermitian or self-adjoint operators, which are discussed for both discrete eigenvalue systems and wavefunctions. Projection operators, which ‘project out’ a certain part of a quantum state, are then introduced. These form the basis for the identity operator — a sum over projection operators — which changes the representation in which a state is expressed without changing the state itself. Finally, unitary operators are briefly discussed, including the defining unitarity condition, the fact that such operators preserve inner products, and their physical meaning as effecting transformations in space and time. Unitary operators are discussed in greater detail in Appendix D.