You are on page 1of 13

Acknowledgments

This set of lecture notes accompanies Frederic Schullers course on Quantum Theory, taught
in the summer of 2015 at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universitt Erlangen-Nrnberg as part
of the Elite Graduate Programme.
The entire course is hosted on YouTube at the following address:

www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPH7f_7ZlzxQVx5jRjbfRGEzWY_upS5K6

These lecture notes are not endorsed by Dr. Schuller or the University.
While I have tried to correct typos and errors made during the lectures (some helpfully
pointed out by YouTube commenters), I have also taken the liberty to add and/or modify
some of the material at various points in the notes. Any errors that may result from this
are, of course, mine.
If you have any comments regarding these notes, feel free to get in touch. Visit my
blog for the most up to date version of these notes

http://mathswithphysics.blogspot.com

My gratitude goes to Dr. Schuller for lecturing this course and for making it available
on YouTube.

Simon Rea
Contents

8 Spectra and perturbation theory 1


8.1 Resolvent map and spectrum 1
8.2 The spectrum of a self-adjoint operator 2
8.3 Perturbation theory for point spectra of self-adjoint operators 3

Further readings 9

Alphabetical Index 11

i
8 Spectra and perturbation theory
We will now focus on the spectra of operators and on the decomposition of the spectra of
self-adjoint operators. The significance of spectra is that the axioms of quantum mechanics
prescribe that the possible measurement values of an observable (which is, in particular, a
self-adjoint operator) are those in the so-called spectrum of the operator.
A common task in almost any quantum mechanical problem that you might wish to
solve is to determine the spectrum of some observable. This is usually the Hamiltonian,
or energy operator, since the time evolution of a quantum system is governed by the expo-
nential of the Hamiltonian, which is more practically determined by first determining its
spectrum.
More often than not, it is not possible to determine the spectrum of an operator exactly
(i.e. analytically). One then resorts to perturbation theory which consists in expressing the
operator whose spectrum we want to determine as the sum of an operator whose spectrum
can be determined analytically and another whose contribution is small in some sense to
be made precise.

8.1 Resolvent map and spectrum


Definition. The resolvent map of an operator A is the map
RA : (A) L(H)
z 7 (A z)1 ,
where L(H) L(H, H) and (A) is the resolvent set of A, defined as
(A) := {z C | (A z)1 L(H)}.
Remark 8.1 . Checking whether a complex number z belongs to (A) may seem like a daunt-
ing task and, in general, it is. However, we will almost exclusively be interested in closed
operators, and the closed graph theorem states that if A is closed, then (A z)1 L(H)
if, and only if, A z is bijective.
Definition. The spectrum of an operator A is (A) := C \ (A).
Definition. A complex number C is said to be an eigenvalue of A : DA H if
DA \ {0} : A = .
Such an element is called an eigenvector of A associated to the eigenvalue .
Corollary 8.2. Let C be an eigenvalue of A. Then, (A).
Proof. If is an eigenvalue of A, then there exists DA \ {0} such that A = , i.e.
(A ) = 0.
Thus, ker(A ) and hence, since 6= 0, we have
ker(A ) 6= {0}.
This means that A is not injective, hence not invertible and thus,
/ (A). Then, by
definition, (A).

1
Remark 8.3 . If H is finite-dimensional, then the converse of the above corollary holds ad
hence, the spectrum coincides with the set of eigenvalues. However, in infinite-dimensional
spaces, the spectrum of an operator contains more than just the eigenvalues of the operator.

8.2 The spectrum of a self-adjoint operator


Recall that a self-adjoint operator is necessarily closed since A = A implies A = A .
While the following refinement of the notion of spectrum can be made in greater generality,
we will primarily be interested in the case of self-adjoint operators.

Definition. Let A be a self-adjoint operator. Then, we define

(i) the pure point spectrum of A

pp (A) := {z C | ran(A z) = ran(A z) 6= H}

(ii) the point embedded in continuum spectrum of A

pec (A) := {z C | ran(A z) 6= ran(A z) 6= H}

(iii) the purely continuous spectrum of A

pc (A) := {z C | ran(A z) 6= ran(A z) = H}.

These form a partition of (A), i.e. they are pairwise disjoint and their union is (A).

Definition. Let A be a self-adjoint operator. Then, we further define

(i) the point spectrum of A

p (A) := pp (A) pec (A) = {z C | ran(A z) 6= H}

(ii) the continuous spectrum of A

c (A) := pec (A) pc (A) = {z C | ran(A z) 6= ran(A z)}.

Clearly, p (A) c (A) = (A) but, since p (A) c (A) = pec (A) is not necessarily
empty, the point and continuous spectra do not form a partition of the spectrum in general.

Lemma 8.4. Let A be self-adjoint and let be an eigenvalue of A. Then, R.

Proof. Let DA \ {0} be an eigenvector of A associated to . By self-adjointness of A,

h|i = h|i = h|Ai = hA|i = h|i = h|i.

Thus, we have
( )h|i = 0
and since 6= 0, it follows that = . That is, R.

2
Theorem 8.5. If A is a self-adjoint operator, then the elements of p (A) are precisely the
eigenvalues of A.

Proof. () Suppose that is an eigenvalue of A. Then, by self-adjointness of A,

6 ker(A ) = ker(A ) = ker((A ) ) = ran(A ) = ran(A ) ,


{0} =

where we made use of our previous lemma. Hence, we have

ran(A ) = ran(A ) 6= {0} = H

and thus, p (A).

() We now need to show that if p (A), then is an eigenvalue of A. By contraposi-


tion, suppose that C is not an eigenvalue of A. Note that if is real, then =
while if is not real, then is not real. Hence, if is not an eigenvalue of A, then
neither is . Therefore, there exists no non-zero in DA such that A = . Thus,
we have

{0} = ker(A ) = ker(A ) = ker((A ) ) = ran(A )

and hence
ran(A ) = ran(A ) = {0} = H.
Therefore,
/ p (A).

Remark 8.6 . The contrapositive of the statement P Q is the statement Q P , where


the symbol denotes logical negation. A statement and its contrapositive are logically
equivalent and proof by contraposition simply means proof of the contrapositive.

8.3 Perturbation theory for point spectra of self-adjoint operators


Before we move on to perturbation theory, we will need some preliminary definitions. First,
note that if and are both eigenvectors of an operator A associated to some eigenvalue
, then, for any z C, the vector z + is either zero or it is again an eigenvector of A
associated to .

Definition. Let A be an operator and let be an eigenvalue of A.

(i) The eigenspace of A associated to is

EigA () := { DA | A = }.

(ii) The eigenvalue is said to be non-degenerate if dim EigA () = 1, and degenerate if


dim EigA () > 1.

(iii) The degeneracy of is dim EigA ().

Remark 8.7 . Of course, it is possible that dim EigA () = in general. However, in this
section, we will only consider operators whose eigenspaces are finite-dimensional.

3
Lemma 8.8. Eigenvectors associated to distinct eigenvalues of a self-adjoint operator are
orthogonal.

Proof. Let , 0 be distinct eigenvalues of a self-adjoint operator A and let , DA \ {0}


be eigenvectors associated to and 0 , respectively. As A is self-adjoint, we already know
that , 0 R. Then, note that

( 0 )h|i = h|i 0 h|i


= h|i h|0 i
= hA|i h|Ai
= h|Ai h|Ai
= 0.

Since 0 6= 0, we must have h|i = 0.

A. Unperturbed spectrum
Let H0 be a self-adjoint operator whose eigenvalues and eigenvectors are known and satisfy

H0 en = hn en ,

where

the index n varies either over N or some finite range 1, 2, . . . , N

the real numbers hn are the eigenvalues of H0

the index varies over the range 1, 2, . . . , d(n), with d(n) := dim EigH0 (hn )

for each fixed n, the set


{en DH0 | 1 d(n)}
is a linearly independent subset (in fact, a Hamel basis) of EigH0 (hn ).

Note that, since we are assuming that all eigenspaces of H0 are finite-dimensional, EigH0 (hn )
is a sub-Hilbert space of H and hence, for each fixed n, we can choose the en so that

hen |en i = .

In fact, thanks to our previous lemma, we can choose the eigenvectors of H0 so that

hen |em i = nm .

Let W : DH0 H be a not necessarily self-adjoint operator. Let (, ) R and


consider the real one-parameter family of operators {H | (, )}, where

H := H0 + W.

Further assume that H is self-adjoint for all (, ). Recall, however, that this
assumption does not force W to be self-adjoint.

4
We seek to understand the eigenvalue equation for H ,

H en () = hn ()en (),

by exploiting the fact that it coincides with the eigenvalue equation for H0 when = 0.
In particular, we will be interested in the lifting of the degeneracy of hn (for some fixed
n) once the perturbation W is switched on, i.e. when 6= 0. Indeed, it is possible, for
instance, that while the two eigenvectors en1 and en2 are associated to the same (degenerate)
eigenvalue hn of H0 , the perturbed eigenvectors en1 () and en2 () may be associated to
different eigenvalues of H . Hence the reason why added a -index to the eigenvalue in the
above equation. Of course, when = 0, we have hn () = hn for all .

B. Formal power series ansatz1


In order to determine hn () and en (), we make, for both, the following ansatz
(1) (2)
hn () =: hn + n + 2 n + O(3 )
(1) (2)
en () =: en + n + 2 n + O(3 ),
(1) (2) (1) (2)
where n , n R and n , n DH0 .

Remark 8.9 . Recall that the Big O notation is defined as follows. If f and g are functions
I R R and a I, then we write

f (x) = O(g(x)) as x a

to mean
k, M > 0 : x I : 0 < |x a| < k |f (x)| < M |g(x)|.
The qualifier as x a can be omitted when the value of a is clear from the context. In
our expressions above, we obviously have as 0.

C. Fixing phase and normalisation of perturbed eigenvectors


Eigenvectors in a complex vector space are only defined up to a complex scalar or, alterna-
tively, up to phase and magnitude. Hence, we impose the following conditions relating the
perturbed eigenvalues and eigenvectors to the unperturbed ones.
We require, for all (, ), all n and all ,

(i) Imhen |en ()i = 0

(ii) ken ()k2 = 1.

Inserting the formal power series ansatz into these conditions yields
(k)
(i) Imhen |n i = 0 for k = 1, 2, . . .
(1) (2) (1) 
(ii) 0 = 2 Rehen |n i + 2 2 Rehen |n i + kn k2 + O(3 ).
1
German for educated guess.

5
Since (ii) holds for all (, ), we must have
(1) (2) (1)
Rehen |n i = 0, 2 Rehen |n i + kn k2 = 0.
(1) (2)
Since we know from (i) that Imhen |n i = 0 and Imhen |n i = 0, we can conclude
(1) (2) (1)
hen |n i = 0, hen |n i = 12 kn k2 .
(1)
That is, n is orthogonal to en and
(2) (1)
n = 21 kn k2 en + e

for some e span({en }) .

D. Order-by-order decomposition of the perturbed eigenvalue problem


Let us insert our formal power series ansatz into the perturbed eigenvalue equation. On
the left-hand side, we find
(1) (2)
H en () = (H0 + W )(en + n + 2 n + O(3 ))
(1) (1) (2)
= H0 en + (W en + H0 n ) + 2 (W n + H0 n ) + O(3 ),

while, on the right-hand side, we have


(1) (2) (1) (2)
hn ()en () = (hn + n + 2 n + O(3 ))(en + n + 2 n + O(3 ))
(1) (1) (2) (1) (1) (2)
= hn en + (hn n + n en ) + 2 (hn n + n n + n en ) + O(3 ).

Comparing terms order-by-order yields

(H0 hn )en = 0
(1) (1)
(H0 hn )n = (W n )en
(2) (1) (1) (2)
(H0 hn )n = (W n )n + n en .

Of course, one may continue this expansion up to the desired order. Note that the zeroth
order equation is just our unperturbed eigenvalue equation.

E. First-order correction
To extract information from the first-order equation, let us project both sides onto the
unperturbed eigenvectors en (i.e. apply hen | i to both sides). This yields
(1) (1)
hen |(H0 hn )n i = hen |(W n )en i.

By self-adjointness of H0 , we have
(1) (1) (1)
hen |(H0 hn )n i = h(H0 hn ) en |n i = h(H0 hn )en |n i = 0.

Therefore,
(1) (1)
0 = hen |W en i + hen |n en i = hen |W en i + n

6
and thus, the first-order eigenvalue correction is
(1)
n = hen |W en i.

Note that the right-hand side of the first-order equation is now completely known and
(1)
hence, if H0 hn were invertible, we could determine n immediately. However, this is only
possible if the unperturbed eigenvalue hn is non-degenerate. More generally, we proceed as
follows. Let E := EigH0 (hn ). Then, we can rewrite the right-hand side of the first-order
equation as
(1) (1)
(W n )en = idH (W n )en
(1)
= (PE + PE )(W n )en
d(n)
(1) (1)
X
= hen |(W n )en ien PE W en + n PE en
=1
= PE W en
(1)
so that we have (H0 hn )n E . Note that the operator

PE (H0 hn ) : E E

is invertible. Hence, the equation


(1)
PE (H0 hn )PE n = PE W en

is solved by
(1)
PE n = PE (H0 hn )1 PE W en .
(1)
The full eigenvector correction n is given by
d(n)
(1) (1)
X
idH n = (PE + PE )n = c en PE (H0 hn )1 PE W en ,
=1

where the coefficients c cannot be fully determined at this order in the perturbation.
What we do know is that our previous fixing of the phase and normalisation of the perturbed
(1)
eigenvectors implies that n is orthogonal to en , and hence we must have c = 0.

F. Second-order eigenvalue correction


Here we will content ourselves with calculating the second-order correction to the eigen-
values only, since that is the physically interesting formula. As before, we proceed by
projecting both sides of the second-order equation onto an unperturbed eigenvector, this
time specifically en . We find

(2) (1) (1) (1) (2)


hen |(H0 hn )n i = hen |W n i n hen |n i + n hen |en i.
Noting, as before, that
(2)
hen |(H0 hn )n i = 0

7
(1)
and recalling that hen |n i = 0 and hen |en i = 1, we have
(2) (1)
n = hen |W n i.
(1)
Plugging in our previous expression for n yields
 d(n) 
(2)
X
1

n = en W
c en W PE (H0 hn ) PE W en
=1
d(n)
X
= c hen |W en i hen |W PE (H0 hn )1 PE W en i
=1
d(n)
(1)
X
= c n hen |W PE (H0 hn )1 PE W en i
=1
= hen |W PE (H0 hn )1 PE W en i

since c = 0. One can show that the eigenvectors of H0 (or any other self-adjoint operator)
form an orthonormal basis of H. In particular, this implies than we can decompose the
identity operator on H as
d(n)
X X
idH = hen | ien .
n=1 =1

(2)
By inserting this appropriately into our previous expression for n , we obtain

d(m)
X |hem |W en i|
(2)
X
n = .
hm hn
m=1 =1
m6=n

Putting everything together, we have the following second-order expansion of the perturbed
eigenvalues
(1) (2)
hn () = hn + n + 2 n + O(3 )
d(m)
X X |hem |W en i|
2
= hn + hen |W en i + O(3 ).
hm hn
m=1 =1
m6=n

Remark 8.10 . Note that, while the first-order correction to the perturbed n eigenvalue
only depends on the unperturbed n eigenvalue and eigenvector, the second-order correction
draws information from all the unperturbed eigenvalues and eigenvectors. Hence, if we try
to approximate a relativistic system as a perturbation of a non-relativistic system, then the
second-order corrections may be unreliable.

8
Further readings

Mathematical quantum mechanics


Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development (Second edition), World
Scientific 2014

Faddeev, Yakubovskii, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics for Mathematics Students,


American Mathematical Society 2009

Folland, Quantum Field Theory: A Tourist Guide for Mathematicians, American


Mathematical Society 2008

Gieres, Mathematical surprises and Diracs formalism in quantum mechanics


https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907069

Hall, Quantum Theory for Mathematicians, Springer 2013

Mackey, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Dover Publications 2004

Moretti, Spectral Theory and Quantum Mechanics: With an Introduction to the Al-
gebraic Formulation, Springer 2013

Parthasarathy, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Hindustan Book


Agency 2005

Strocchi, An Introduction to the Mathematical Structure of Quantum Mechanics: A


Short Course for Mathematicians, World Scientific 2008

Takhtajan, Quantum Mechanics for Mathematicians, American Mathematical Society


2008

Linear Algebra
Friedberg, Insel, Spence, Linear Algebra (4th Edition), Pearson 2002

Jnich, Linear algebra, Springer 1994

Lang, Linear Algebra (Third edition), Springer 1987

Shakarchi, Solutions Manual for Langs Linear Algebra, Springer 1996

Topology
Adamson, A General Topology Workbook, Birkhuser 1995

Kalajdzievski, An Illustrated Introduction to Topology and Homotopy, CRC Press 2015

Munkres, Topology (Second edition), Pearson 2014

9
Functional analysis
Aliprantis, Burkinshaw, Principles of Real Analysis (Third Edition), Academic Press
1998

Aliprantis, Burkinshaw, Problems in Real Analysis: A Workbook with Solutions, Aca-


demic Press 1998

Day, Normed Linear Spaces, Springer 1973

Halmos, A Hilbert Space Problem Book, Springer 1982

Hunter, Nachtergaele, Applied Analysis, World Scientific, 2001

Kadison, Ringrose, Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras. Volumes I-II,


American Mathematical Society 1997

Rynne, Youngson, Linear Functional Analysis (Second Edition), Springer 2008

Measure theory and Integration


Bartle, A Modern Theory of Integration, American Mathematical Society 2001

Bartle, Solutions Manual to A Modern Theory of Integration, American Mathematical


Society 2001

Halmos, Measure Theory, Springer 1982

Nelson, A User-friendly Introduction to Lebesgue Measure and Integration, American


Mathematical Society 2015

Rana, An Introduction to Measure and Integration, American Mathematical Society


2002

10
Alphabetical Index

C eigenvector 1
continuous spectrum 2
contrapositive 3 P
point spectrum 2
D
degeneracy 3 R
resolvent map 1
E
eigenspace 3 S
eigenvalue 1 spectrum 1

You might also like