0
$\begingroup$

I am coming up with that question as I simply cannot satisfy myself with the frustrating fear that it might not be possible to show that a Hamiltonian corresponding to a particle in a box with periodic boundary conditions has pure-point spectrum and that most of its eigenvalues have finite-dimensional eigenspaces.

Particle confined in a box with periodic boundary conditions

So let us be clear about the setup of the problem. Suppose we have a particle which is confined to a box which is subject to periodic boundary conditions. Inside the box, we have a potential which also satisfies the periodic boundary conditions. So we simply have a single-particle Hamiltonian $$ H = \frac{\mathbf p^2}{2 m} + V(\mathbf r) ,$$ where $V(\mathbf r)$ as above mentioned satisfies the periodic boundary conditions and where we are lurking for a solution $\psi(\mathbf r)$ which also satisfies the periodic boundary conditions.

Clearly, we all know the standard example of a rectangular box containing a free particle (no potential). We all know the solutions and due to the boundary conditions can convince ourselves that the spectrum of the Hamiltonian $\sigma(H)$ is indeed pure-pont spectrum. Taking a look at a particular eigenvalue $E \in \sigma(H)$, we will also quickly notice that the corresponding eigenspace $\mathcal H_E$ is finite-dimensional.

This all seems to be perfectly intuitive. Now, however, what happens when allowing for an arbitrary but bounded potential $V(\mathbf r)$?

Intuition proposes that nothing should have changed with respect to the pure-point nature of the spectrum $\sigma(H)$ and the corresponding dimensionality of the eigenspaces $\mathcal H_E$.

Yet it remains to be proven, if it indeed is the case, which I am not sure of.

Thoughts so far:

I am aware of a Theorem for self-adjoint, bounded, compact operators which looks pretty much like what one would like to end up with as a result.

(Spectral theorem for compact operators). Suppose the operator $K$ is self-adjoint and compact. Then the spectrum of $K$ consists of an at most countable number of eigenvalues which can only cluster at $0$. Moreover, the eigenspace to each nonzero eigenvalue is finite dimensional [...]

  • Theorem 6.6, Gerald Teschl, Mathematical Methods in Quantum Mechanics

However in general compact operators seem to be quite rarely encountered in general quantum mechanics.

Nonetheless, my hope was based on $H$ potentially being a compact operator due to the restriction to a box with period boundary conditions.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What do you mean by $H$ being compact? That it has a bounded spectrum? Also, have you considered that the periodic boundary conditions force the momentum operator to take discrete values, regardless of the form of $V(\mathbf{r})$? Because, assuming $V(\mathbf{r})$ is bounded from above and below, you can use perturbation theory to transition from the $V=0$ case using standard techniques. $\endgroup$
    – Sean E. Lake
    Commented Mar 12, 2018 at 18:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Try to show that H has a compact resolvent . $\endgroup$
    – jjcale
    Commented Mar 12, 2018 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ @SeanE.Lake I see, quite an interesting about perturbation theory. How would one argue in that case exactly, like slowly turning up on the potential? I am a bit confused as without box this appears a bit tricky to me, as switching on a infinitesimal periodic potential in that case would lead immediately to band gapps for instance, I suppose...? $\endgroup$
    – Lars D.
    Commented Mar 13, 2018 at 1:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LarsD. As long as $-\infty<V_{\mathrm{min}} \le V(\mathbf{r}) \le V_{\mathrm{max}}<\infty$ you can introduce a parameter in front $V$, say $\lambda$, that guarantees the shift in eigenvalues and eigenvectors is actually infinitesimal, and therefore continuous. The only wrinkle I can see is going to be related to getting the degenerate perturbation theory right. $\endgroup$
    – Sean E. Lake
    Commented Mar 13, 2018 at 1:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Lars D. From the spectral decomposition of normal operators (see e.g. Rudin, functional analysis, chapter 13) it follows that H and its resolvent have the same eigenvectors and there functional dependency carries over to the spectrum, i.e. $\sigma((z-H)^{-1} ) = (z - \sigma(H))^{-1}$ $\endgroup$
    – jjcale
    Commented Mar 13, 2018 at 21:25

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

Your hamiltonian is not compact as it has an unbounded spectrum. It is true, however, that the inverse (i.e. the Green function or resolvent) of a Schroedinger Hamiltonian in a finite box and with a bounded potential is a compact operator. I'm not sure where I learned this though...

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ That's equivalent to the spectrum being gapped no? $\endgroup$
    – Ryan Thorngren
    Commented Mar 12, 2018 at 20:12
  • $\begingroup$ Hah, you're right. That point about unbounded spectrum was actually on my mind some days ago but apparently I forgot. :P The information you provided helps me already quite a bit. I assume you however cannot recall right now where you learnt that from? xD $\endgroup$
    – Lars D.
    Commented Mar 13, 2018 at 1:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Lars D. Probably by browsing Read and Simon "Analysis of Operators". I never read that book thoroughly though. $\endgroup$
    – mike stone
    Commented Mar 13, 2018 at 13:28
  • $\begingroup$ @mikestone I got the book and actually found a Theorem about box-systems that states what I would like to prove. I still lack the basis to thoroughly understand the line of argumentation but will spend the next days struggling with it. Thank you for the reference, it's much appreciated. :) $\endgroup$
    – Lars D.
    Commented Mar 14, 2018 at 1:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.