Arxiv:Quant-Ph/0105054V1 11 May 2001
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Interpretation of Quantum-Mechanical Models with Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians and Real Spectra R. Kretschmer∗ Fachbereich Physik, Universit¨at Siegen, Germany L. Szymanowski† Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at Regensburg, Germany, and Soltan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland (11 May 2001) In this paper we will address these questions. In Sec- We study the quantum-mechanical interpretation of mod- tion II we start by constructing a Hilbert space that els with non-Hermitian Hamiltonians and real spectra. We contains superpositions of eigenfunctions with realH eigen- set up a general framework for the analysis of such systems in values of a Hamiltonian H. Here the choice of a scalar terms of Hermitian Hamiltonians defined in the usual Hilbert product that provides the link to a probabilistic interpre- space L2(−∞, ∞). Special emphasis is put on the correct tation is quite arbitrary. Motivated by the approach sug- definition of the algebra of physical observables. Within this scheme we consider various examples, including the model re- gested by Bender and collaborators [2], we consider, e. g., cently introduced by Cannata et al. and the model of Hatano scalar products that are defined along complex paths. and Nelson. We remove the arbitrariness for the choice of the scalar product by demanding that the Hamiltonian is to be 03.65.-w, 03.65.Fd, 73.20.Jc interpreted as the generator of the time evolution for a closed system, and therefore has to be Hermitian in the space . This still leaves some arbitrariness for the structure ofH , but all allowed theories have a consis- I. INTRODUCTION tent quantum-mechanicalH interpretation. Next we con- sider the algebra of physical observables in the theory. Recently, models with non-Hermitian Hamiltonians We set up a canonical formulation in which the Hamil- (non-Hermiticity meant here in the sense of the space tonian is only a function of two Hermitian operators xc c L2( , )) have attracted a lot of interest. One of and p fulfilling canonical commutation relations. Such −∞ ∞ the earliest attempts to use such systems is the work operators may under some conditions have an interpreta- of Hatano and Nelson [1] where it was suggested that a tion as a position-space variable and the generator of its delocalization transition in superconductors can be de- translations, resp. One can then employ the uniqueness scribed by a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian. Next, Bender theorem by von Neumann [17] to map the space to the H and collaborators in a series of papers [2] investigated space L2. In this way, the physical interpretation is fixed some non-Hermitian, symmetric Hamiltonians, ar- uniquely. PT guing that they have real eigenvalues. This has triggered The whole construction is applied to two exactly solv- a lot of activity in this field [3–11]. able examples in Section III. The first example is a simple Despite this, some fundamental issues concerning the non-Hermitian model based on the well-known, Hermi- arXiv:quant-ph/0105054v1 11 May 2001 quantum-mechanical interpretation have only started to tian one-dimensional Coulomb problem on the real half be addressed [12–15]. In the models treated by Bender axis. Here we show that the canonical formulation does et al. it is, for example, necessary to extend the defini- not contain any new information. The second example tion of position-space wave functions to complex values is based on the model introduced by Cannata et al. [18] of the coordinate [2,16]. This means that the wave func- in which the potential is given by V (x)=e2ix/2. Here c c tions are not elements of the Hilbert space L2( , ), we also construct a canonical formulation H = H(x ,p ) −∞ ∞ so that the notion of non-Hermiticity in the sense of the with Hermitian H, but then we show that this formu- c c space L2 does not seem to be useful here. In our opinion, lation does not allow the interpretation of x and p as the physical meaning of these wave functions deserves position and momentum operators, resp., so that the in- additional study. terpretation of the model remains unclear. We end this Section with a discussion of the phenomenologically im- portant model of Hatano and Nelson [1] in the spirit of our approach. ∗E-mail: [email protected] Our concluding remarks are contained in Section IV. †E-mail: [email protected] Some technical details that are used in Section III are ex- plained in Appendix A. In Appendix B we briefly com- 1 ment on the connection between real spectra and from a unitary operator U that is defined to be an au- PT symmetric Hamiltonians. tomorphism, e. g. U : L2 L2, that respects the norm, † → −1 and therefore fulfills U = U .) Given an operator AH that is defined in , there is a corresponding operator II. GENERAL FRAMEWORK H −1 AL2 = T AHT (2.4) Suppose we have a non-Hermitian (in the usual sense of the space L ( , )) Hamiltonian H and some eigen- that is defined in L2 and fulfills 2 −∞ ∞ functions ψn(x) with real eigenvalues En, ′ ′ (ψ, AHψ )H = (Tψ,AL2 T ψ )L2 (2.5) H(x, p)ψn = Enψn , En real . (2.1) ′ for all ψ and ψ in the domain of definition of AH. ∈ H Here the operators x and p act in the usual way as mul- If one denotes the Hermitian adjoint of an operator AH ‡ tiplication by x and i times differentiation, resp., on with respect to the scalar product in by AH, − H ψn(x), and the eigenfunctions are calculated as solutions ′ ‡ ′ of the corresponding differential equation. They are not (ψ, AHψ )H = (AHψ, ψ )H , (2.6) required to be normalizable with respect to the norm one finds ψ L2 = (ψ, ψ)L2 of the Hilbert space L2( , ). k k ′ ∞ ∗ −∞′ ∞ (We use the notation (ψ, ψ ) = dx ψ (x)ψ (x) for † ‡ p L2 −∞ A = T A T −1 , (2.7) the scalar product of L .) L2 H 2 R Our aim is to set up a formulation in which we can so that, for example, A 2 is L Hermitian if AH is L 2 H interpret the superpositions of the eigenfunctions ψn Hermitian, and vice versa. quantum-mechanically. For simplicity, we will do this The equations (2.4) – (2.7) imply that theories defined only for the case of a discrete, infinite, non-degenerate in and L2 are physically indistinguishable. spectrum of H. H To start, we define the vector space = span ψ ,n = V { n 0,... of the finite superpositions of the eigenfunctions. A. Hilbert spaces with Hermitian Hamiltonian Since} eigenfunctions corresponding to different eigenval- ues are always linearly independent, the dimension of We have, up to this point, not specified the details of is infinite. Next we define a scalar product (., .)V V the scalar product in ; the construction outlined above on this space. Besides requiring the usual properties works with every scalarH product that can be defined on ((ψ,c1ϕ1 + c2ϕ2)V = c1(ψ, ϕ1)V + c2(ψ, ϕ2)V , (ψ, ϕ)V = ∗ 2 the space . But obviously not only the value of ma- (ϕ, ψ) , ψ (ψ, ψ)V > 0 for ψ = 0 and ψ V = 0 V V k kV ≡ 6 k k trix elements, but the whole structure of the space for ψ = 0), we leave this scalar product arbitrary at this depends on this choice. And although any choice allowsH point. The scalar product turns into a separable Eu- V a consistent probabilistic interpretation, we will here con- clidean space, and we can use standard theorems [17] to sider only Hilbert spaces in which the Hamiltonian is complete this space, thereby defining a separable Hilbert Hermitian. The reason is that we consider the system space . As a result, we have and H V ⊂ H described by (2.1) as a closed system. (This appears to ′ ′ ′ be an implicit assumption in most of the models treated (ψ, ψ )H = (ψ, ψ )V for all ψ, ψ . (2.2) ∈V recently.) According to a theorem by Wigner [19] the (Recall that in addition to the finite superpositions of the unitarity of the time evolution for such systems is a con- ψ , n =0,..., that make up , the Hilbert space also sequence of fundamental properties of quantum theories n V H contains all limits ψ = limn→∞ fn, fn , of Cauchy as, for example, the linearity of the time-evolution oper- sequences of vectors of .) ∈ V ator and the fact that physical states are described by The Hilbert space Vis the natural choice as the space rays λψ; λ C, ψ rather than vectors ψ. If we { ∈ ∈ H} of states for the systemH described by the Hamiltonian H, want to keep these properties, and if the Hamiltonian H because it allows a consistent probabilistic interpretation is to be interpreted as the generator of time evolution, H of the model in terms of scalar products of states. has to be Hermitian in the underlying Hilbert space . H It is well-known [17] that all infinite-dimensional, sep- In our context, it is the reality of the spectrum that arable Hilbert spaces are unitarily equivalent to the makes the construction of Hilbert spaces with Hermitian Hilbert space L ( , ). This unitary equivalence H possible. Define, for example, 2 −∞ ∞ means that an isomorphism T : L2 exists that re- spects the scalar products in bothH spaces: → (ψn, ψm)H = δnm . (2.8) ′ ′ ′ It is easy to verify that (2.8) is a well-defined scalar prod- (ψ, ψ )H = (Tψ,Tψ )L2 for all ψ, ψ . (2.3) ∈ H uct in .