One of the possible versions of quantum mechanics, known as Kuryshkin-Wodkiewicz quantum mechanics, is considered. In this version, the quantum distribution function is positive, but, as a retribution for this, the von Neumann quantization rule is replaced by a more complicated rule, in which an observed value AA is associated with a pseudodifferential operator O^(A){\hat{O}(A)}. This version is an example of a dissipative quantum system and, therefore, it was expected that the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian should have imaginary parts. However, the discrete spectrum of the Hamiltonian of a hydrogen-like atom in this theory turned out to be real-valued. In this paper, we propose the following explanation for this paradox. It is traditionally assumed that in some state ψ{\psi} the quantity AA is equal to λ{\lambda} if ψ{\psi} is an eigenfunction of the operator O^(A){\hat{O}(A)}. In this case, the variance O^((A-λ)2)ψ{\hat{O}((A-\lambda)2)\psi} is zero in the standard version of quantum mechanics, but nonzero in Kuryshkins mechanics. Therefore, it is possible to consider such a range of values and states corresponding to them for which the variance O^((A-λ)2){\hat{O}((A-\lambda)2)} is zero. The spectrum of the quadratic pencil O^(A2)-2O^(A)λ+λ2E^{\hat{O}(A2)-2\hat{O}(A)\lambda + \lambda 2 \hat{E}} is studied by the methods of perturbation theory under the assumption of small variance D^(A)=O^(A2)-O^(A)2{\hat{D}(A) = \hat{O}(A2) - \hat{O}(A) 2} of the observable AA. It is shown that in the neighborhood of the real eigenvalue λ{\lambda} of the operator O^(A){\hat{O}(A)}, there are two eigenvalues of the operator pencil, which differ in the first order of perturbation theory by ±i⟨D^⟩{\pm i \sqrt{\langle \hat{D} \rangle}}.
One of the possible versions of quantum mechanics, known as Kuryshkin-Wodkiewicz quantum mechanics, is considered. In this version, the quantum distribution function is positive, but, as a retribution for this, the von Neumann quantization rule is replaced by a more complicated rule, in which an observed value AA is associated with a pseudodifferential operator O^(A){\hat{O}(A)}. This version is an example of a dissipative quantum system and, therefore, it was expected that the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian should have imaginary parts. However, the discrete spectrum of the Hamiltonian of a hydrogen-like atom in this theory turned out to be real-valued. In this paper, we propose the following explanation for this paradox. It is traditionally assumed that in some state ψ{\psi} the quantity AA is equal to λ{\lambda} if ψ{\psi} is an eigenfunction of the operator O^(A){\hat{O}(A)}. In this case, the variance O^((A-λ)2)ψ{\hat{O}((A-\lambda)2)\psi} is zero in the standard version of quantum mechanics, but nonzero in Kuryshkins mechanics. Therefore, it is possible to consider such a range of values and states corresponding to them for which the variance O^((A-λ)2){\hat{O}((A-\lambda)2)} is zero. The spectrum of the quadratic pencil O^(A2)-2O^(A)λ+λ2E^{\hat{O}(A2)-2\hat{O}(A)\lambda + \lambda 2 \hat{E}} is studied by the methods of perturbation theory under the assumption of small variance D^(A)=O^(A2)-O^(A)2{\hat{D}(A) = \hat{O}(A2) - \hat{O}(A) 2} of the observable AA. It is shown that in the neighborhood of the real eigenvalue λ{\lambda} of the operator O^(A){\hat{O}(A)}, there are two eigenvalues of the operator pencil, which differ in the first order of perturbation theory by ±i⟨D^⟩{\pm i \sqrt{\langle \hat{D} \rangle}}.
Abstract Consider a free Schrödinger particle inside an interval with walls characterized by the Dirichlet boundary condition. Choose a parabola as the normalized state of the particle that satisfies this boundary condition. To calculate the variance of the Hamiltonian in that state, one needs to calculate the mean value of the Hamiltonian and that of its square. If one uses the standard formula to calculate these mean values, one obtains both results without difficulty, but the variance unexpectedly takes an imaginary value. If one uses the same expression to calculate these mean values but first writes the Hamiltonian and its square in terms of their respective eigenfunctions and eigenvalues, one obtains the same result as above for the mean value of the Hamiltonian but a different value for its square (in fact, it is not zero); hence, the variance takes an acceptable value. From whence do these contradictory results arise? The latter paradox has been presented in the literature as an example of a problem that can only be properly solved by making use of certain fundamental concepts within the general theory of linear operators in Hilbert spaces. Here, we carefully review those concepts and apply them in a detailed way to resolve the paradox. Our results are formulated within the natural framework of wave mechanics, and to avoid inconveniences that the use of Dirac’s symbolic formalism could bring, we avoid the use of that formalism throughout the article. In addition, we obtain a resolution of the paradox in an entirely formal way without addressing the restrictions imposed by the domains of the operators involved. We think that the content of this paper will be useful to undergraduate and graduate students as well as to their instructors.
With a view to obtaining further insight into the nature of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of a stationary state one-dimensional Schrödinger equation corresponding to a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H ( x , p ) we investigate the ground-state solutions for a variety of potentials within the framework of an extended complex phase space characterized by x = x 1 + i p 2 , p = p 1 + i x 2 , where ( x 1 , p 1 ) and ( x 2 , p 2 ) are real and considered as canonical pairs. The analyticity property of the eigenfunction alone is found sufficient to throw light on the nature of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions for different systems. It is noted that the imaginary part of the eigenvalue, E i , turns out to be zero for all potentials V ( x ) with real couplings whereas it turns out to be nonzero for the case when the couplings are complex. The prescription is also extended to study the excited states. The problems related to the normalization of the eigenfunction and the boundary conditions to be used within this framework are also discussed.
Among numerous approaches to probabilistic interpretation of conventional quantum mechanics (CQM), the closest to N. Bohr’s idea of the correspondence principle is the Blokhintzev-Terletsky approach of the quantum distribution function (QDF) on the coordinate-momentum ( q , p ) phase space. The detailed investigation of this approach has led to the correspondence rule of V.V. Kuryshkin parametrically dependent on a set of auxiliary functions. According to investigations of numerous authors, the existence and the explicit form of QDF depends on the correspondence rule between classical functions A ( q , p ) and quantum operator A . At the same time, the QDF corresponding to all known quantization rules turns out to be alternating in sign or overly complex valued. Finally nonexistence of nonnegative QDF in CQM was proved. On the other hand, from this follows the possibility to construct quantum mechanics where a nonnegative QDF exists. We consider a certain set of auxiliary functions to construct explicit expressions for operators O ( H ) for the hydrogen atom. Naturally, these operators differ from the related operator Ĥ in CQM, so that spherical coordinates are no longer separable for a hydrogen-like atom in quantum mechanics with nonnegative QDF.
The representation of physical observables by Hermitian linear operators was postulated assuming that an expectation value, defined by Eqs.(2.11) and (2.12) , is associated with any observable A measured in a quantum state Ψ of a dynamical system. In view of measurement uncertainties, defined by the dispersion: ( Δ A ) 2 = 〈 A 2 〉 − 〈 A 〉 2 = 〈 ( A − 〈 A 〉 ) 2 〉 = 〈 ( δ A ) 2 〉 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_1_B.tif"/> the expectation value 〈 A 〉 is taken in a state Ψ if and only if (Δ Α ) 2 vanishes. It is convenient to introduce the deviation operator: 3.1 δ  =  − 〈 A 〉 Î https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_2_B.tif"/> such that the condition of a vanishing dispersion for the observable A in a given state Ψ reads: 〈 Ψ |( δ  ) 2 Ψ 〉 = 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_3_B.tif"/> Because δ is a Hermitian operator, we can also write: 〈 δ Â Ψ | δ Â Ψ 〉 = | δ Â Ψ | 2 = 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_4_B.tif"/> which means that the norm of δ Â Ψ is zero and this implies that we have a null function δ Â Ψ = 0. In other words: 3.2 Â Ψ = 〈 A 〉 Ψ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_5_B.tif"/> It follows that the state function Ψ where a definite expectation value 〈 A 〉 of the observable A is observed, should be a solution of Eq.(3.2) rather than an arbitrary 112 function. The action of the operator  on Ψ has to be simply that of rescaling. All the state functions which are solutions of Eq.(3.2) are called eigenfunctions of  , and the constant factor 〈 A 〉 is said to be the corresponding eigenvalue. Hence we have shown that if ((δ  ) 2 ) = 0, the state function should be an eigenfunction of  , which means that a physical observable only takes definite values in states represented by eigenfunctions of the associated quantum operator. Conversely, given a quantum operator  one can systematically determine all its eigenvalues and eigenfunctions, which are solutions of the so-called eigenvalue equation: 3.3 Â Ψ = λ Ψ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_6_B.tif"/> It is visible that the eigenvalue equation fixes the eigenfunctions only up to an overall scale factor, which may always be chosen such that the eigenfunctions be considered normalized. Then, in view of Eq.(2.11) , Eq.(3.3) gives: 〈  〉 = ∫ − ∞ ∞ Ψ * Â Ψ d x = λ ∫ − ∞ ∞ Ψ * Ψ d x = λ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_7_B.tif"/> If we further apply the operator  to Eq.(3.3) , we obtain  2 Ψ = λ 2 Ψ and this leads to: 〈  2 〉 = ∫ − ∞ ∞ Ψ *  2 Ψ d x = λ 2 ∫ − ∞ ∞ Ψ * Ψ d x = λ 2 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_8_B.tif"/> It follows that: ( Δ A ) 2 = 〈  2 〉 − 〈  〉 2 = 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_9_B.tif"/> and this shows that the dispersion vanishes if a physical observable is measured in states represented by eigenfunctions of the associated operator.
For quantum bound states, classical style probabilities P(p)=a(p)a(p) and P(x)=W(x)W(x) [where W(x)= the wavefunction = Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx)] exist. These are real and normalized to one, but unusually, they separate p and x completely. For example, P(p) is the probability to find a momentum p anywhere in the system - no information about x is known. This seems to suggest that the P(p/x) is not defined in a classical sense. (Similar arguments hold for P(x).) We have argued in a previous note (1), that due to a lack of time reversal balance, there is no clear classical notion of P(p/x) in quantum mechanics while in classical statistical mechanics, there is a time reversal balance of two-body collisions and so P(p/x) is well-defined. In particular, a momentum p collides with a pj to form another momentum pk. There is ambiguity if p is changing, but if at the same time a pk is changing (colliding) back into a p at x, then the ambiguity is removed. In quantum mechanics, the ambiguity is not removed at x, but one may discern one p state from another throughout the entire x space. This suggests orthonormal probabilities e.g. say exp(ip1 x) and exp(i p2 x). These exp(i p x) probabilities comprise the wavefunction which is linked to P(p/x) = a(p) exp(ipx)/W(x), but although Sum over p P(p/x)=1, P(p/x) is complex with the real and complex portions taking on positive and negative values. Nevertheless, it is W(x) which is the solution of the Schrodinger (and other) equations. It is known that solutions Wn(x) of the Schrodinger equation have discrete En (energy) values. It is possible to have [H, Operator]=0 and possibly to have H written in terms of this operator. In such a case, Wn(x) might be both an eigenfunction of H and the Operator. Alternatively, a linear combination of Operator eigenfunctions may be used. If En is discrete, one may expect the operator eigenfunctions to also be discrete, leading to quantization of the Operator eigenvalues. In some cases, one may have two operators which commute with H, e.g. LL and Lz (related to angular momentum). Lz eigenfunctions might not be linked to H so one might ask why Lz should be quantized. Another H, however, may distinguish between Lz eigenfunctions and so they also have discrete eigenvalues. In this note, we try to consider why one should have orthonormal eigenfunctions of these commuting operators which make up the wavefunction and try to interpret their physical meaning.
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.