Introduction
The Hamilton operator of the free scalar quantum field in the Schrödinger
representation is the sum of the second variational derivative
and quadratic form of the Laplace operator
[1 ]
ℋ = ∫ ℝ 3 d 3 x ( − δ 2 δ A ( 𝒙 ) 2 + ( ∂ m A ) 2 ) . ℋ subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑥 superscript 𝛿 2 𝛿 𝐴 superscript 𝒙 2 superscript subscript 𝑚 𝐴 2 \mathscr{H}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}d^{3}x\,\bigl{(}-\frac{\delta^{2}}{\delta A(%
\boldsymbol{x})^{2}}+(\partial_{m}A)^{2}\bigr{)}. script_H = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x ( - divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_δ italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .
(1)
This operator acts on the set of two times differentiable functionals
defined on the domain of its potential term.
In order to construct the ground state of
ℋ ℋ \mathscr{H} script_H
one needs to deploy spectral representation of the quadratic form
by fixing the corresponding self-adjoint operator
L : A ( 𝒙 ) → − ∂ 2 A ( 𝒙 ) ∂ x m 2 L:\quad A(\boldsymbol{x})\to-\frac{\partial^{2}A(\boldsymbol{x})}{\partial x_{%
m}^{2}} italic_L : italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) → - divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG
and the scalar product
( f ( 𝒙 ) , g ( 𝒙 ) ) = ∫ ℝ 3 d 3 x f ( 𝒙 ) ¯ g ( 𝒙 ) , 𝑓 𝒙 𝑔 𝒙 subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑥 ¯ 𝑓 𝒙 𝑔 𝒙 (f(\boldsymbol{x}),g(\boldsymbol{x}))=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}d^{3}x\,\overline{f%
(\boldsymbol{x})}g(\boldsymbol{x}), ( italic_f ( bold_italic_x ) , italic_g ( bold_italic_x ) ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x over¯ start_ARG italic_f ( bold_italic_x ) end_ARG italic_g ( bold_italic_x ) ,
(2)
so that
𝔩 ( A ) = ∫ ℝ 3 ( ∂ m A ( 𝒙 ) ) 2 d 3 x = ( A , L A ) , A ∈ 𝒟 ( L ) . formulae-sequence 𝔩 𝐴 subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript subscript 𝑚 𝐴 𝒙 2 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑥 𝐴 𝐿 𝐴 𝐴 𝒟 𝐿 \mathfrak{l}(A)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}(\partial_{m}A(\boldsymbol{x}))^{2}\,d^{3%
}x=(A,LA),\quad A\in\mathcal{D}(L). fraktur_l ( italic_A ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x = ( italic_A , italic_L italic_A ) , italic_A ∈ caligraphic_D ( italic_L ) .
Then the functional of the ground state of
(1 )
is given by the Gaussian of the quadratic form
ω ( A ) 𝜔 𝐴 \omega(A) italic_ω ( italic_A )
corresponding to the square root of
L 𝐿 L italic_L
Ω 0 ( A ) = exp { − 1 2 ω ( A ) } = exp { − 1 2 ( A , L 1 / 2 A ) } . subscript Ω 0 𝐴 1 2 𝜔 𝐴 1 2 𝐴 superscript 𝐿 1 2 𝐴 \Omega_{0}(A)=\exp\{-\frac{1}{2}\omega(A)\}=\exp\{-\frac{1}{2}(A,L^{1/2}A)\}. roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = roman_exp { - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ω ( italic_A ) } = roman_exp { - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_A , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A ) } .
Due to the equation
1 4 ∫ ℝ 3 d 3 x ( δ δ A ( 𝒙 ) ω ( A ) ) 2 = ( L 1 / 2 A , L 1 / 2 A ) = 𝔩 ( A ) , A ∈ 𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) , formulae-sequence 1 4 subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑥 superscript 𝛿 𝛿 𝐴 𝒙 𝜔 𝐴 2 superscript 𝐿 1 2 𝐴 superscript 𝐿 1 2 𝐴 𝔩 𝐴 𝐴 𝒟 𝔩 \frac{1}{4}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}d^{3}x\,\bigl{(}\frac{\delta}{\delta A(%
\boldsymbol{x})}\omega(A)\bigr{)}^{2}=(L^{1/2}A,L^{1/2}A)=\mathfrak{l}(A),%
\quad A\in\mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}), divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x ( divide start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG start_ARG italic_δ italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) end_ARG italic_ω ( italic_A ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A ) = fraktur_l ( italic_A ) , italic_A ∈ caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) ,
(3)
the action of
ℋ ℋ \mathscr{H} script_H
on the functional
Ω 0 ( A ) subscript Ω 0 𝐴 \Omega_{0}(A) roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A )
is reduced to multiplication by the scalar
Tr L 1 / 2 Tr superscript 𝐿 1 2 \operatorname{Tr}L^{1/2} roman_Tr italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
ℋ Ω 0 ( A ) = ∫ ℝ 3 d 3 x ( − δ 2 δ A ( 𝒙 ) 2 + ( ∂ m A ) 2 ) exp { − 1 2 ω ( A ) } = = 1 2 ∫ ℝ 3 d 3 x ( δ 2 δ A ( 𝒙 ) 2 ω ( A ) ) exp { − 1 2 ω ( A ) } = ( Tr L 1 / 2 ) Ω 0 ( A ) . ℋ subscript Ω 0 𝐴 subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑥 superscript 𝛿 2 𝛿 𝐴 superscript 𝒙 2 superscript subscript 𝑚 𝐴 2 1 2 𝜔 𝐴 1 2 subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑥 superscript 𝛿 2 𝛿 𝐴 superscript 𝒙 2 𝜔 𝐴 1 2 𝜔 𝐴 Tr superscript 𝐿 1 2 subscript Ω 0 𝐴 \mathscr{H}\,\Omega_{0}(A)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}d^{3}x\,\bigl{(}-\frac{\delta^%
{2}}{\delta A(\boldsymbol{x})^{2}}+(\partial_{m}A)^{2}\bigr{)}\,\exp\{-\frac{1%
}{2}\omega(A)\}=\\
=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}d^{3}x\,\bigl{(}\frac{\delta^{2}}{\delta A(%
\boldsymbol{x})^{2}}\omega(A)\bigr{)}\,\exp\{-\frac{1}{2}\omega(A)\}=(%
\operatorname{Tr}L^{1/2})\,\Omega_{0}(A). start_ROW start_CELL script_H roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x ( - divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_δ italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) roman_exp { - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ω ( italic_A ) } = end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x ( divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_δ italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_ω ( italic_A ) ) roman_exp { - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ω ( italic_A ) } = ( roman_Tr italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) . end_CELL end_ROW
One may note that the flat integral of the product of variational derivatives in the first
term of
ℋ ℋ \mathscr{H} script_H
leads to the flat scalar product in the quadratic form
ω ( A ) 𝜔 𝐴 \omega(A) italic_ω ( italic_A )
and so there is no other option in the definition of
(2 ).
Hamiltonian
ℋ ℋ \mathscr{H} script_H
has singularities outside of the domain of the quadratic form
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) ,
that is in the region where potential term is infinite.
There is no natural measure on the space of functions to describe
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l )
as an open set which does not include boundary, but we may say
that functions with behaviour
A ( 𝒙 ) = C n | 𝒙 − 𝒙 n | 1 / 2 , 𝒙 → 𝒙 n , n = 1 , … N formulae-sequence 𝐴 𝒙 subscript 𝐶 𝑛 superscript 𝒙 subscript 𝒙 𝑛 1 2 formulae-sequence → 𝒙 subscript 𝒙 𝑛 𝑛 1 … 𝑁
A(\boldsymbol{x})=\frac{C_{n}}{|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{x}_{n}|^{1/2}},%
\quad\boldsymbol{x}\to\boldsymbol{x}_{n},\quad n=1,\ldots N italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) = divide start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | bold_italic_x - bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , bold_italic_x → bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_n = 1 , … italic_N
(4)
reside very close to
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) .
Indeed, for any
ϵ > 0 italic-ϵ 0 \epsilon>0 italic_ϵ > 0 ,
if
A ( 𝒙 ) 𝐴 𝒙 A(\boldsymbol{x}) italic_A ( bold_italic_x )
expands around
𝒙 n subscript 𝒙 𝑛 \boldsymbol{x}_{n} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
as
A ( 𝒙 ) = C n | 𝒙 − 𝒙 n | 1 / 2 − ϵ , 𝒙 → 𝒙 n , formulae-sequence 𝐴 𝒙 subscript 𝐶 𝑛 superscript 𝒙 subscript 𝒙 𝑛 1 2 italic-ϵ → 𝒙 subscript 𝒙 𝑛 A(\boldsymbol{x})=\frac{C_{n}}{|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{x}_{n}|^{1/2-%
\epsilon}},\quad\boldsymbol{x}\to\boldsymbol{x}_{n}, italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) = divide start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | bold_italic_x - bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 - italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , bold_italic_x → bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
then the integrand in
𝔩 ( A ) 𝔩 𝐴 \mathfrak{l}(A) fraktur_l ( italic_A )
has singularity of the order
( ∂ m A ( 𝒙 ) ) 2 = C n 2 | 𝒙 − 𝒙 n | 3 − 2 ϵ , 𝒙 → 𝒙 n , formulae-sequence superscript subscript 𝑚 𝐴 𝒙 2 superscript subscript 𝐶 𝑛 2 superscript 𝒙 subscript 𝒙 𝑛 3 2 italic-ϵ → 𝒙 subscript 𝒙 𝑛 (\partial_{m}A(\boldsymbol{x}))^{2}=\frac{C_{n}^{2}}{|\boldsymbol{x}-%
\boldsymbol{x}_{n}|^{3-2\epsilon}},\quad\boldsymbol{x}\to\boldsymbol{x}_{n}, ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | bold_italic_x - bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 - 2 italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , bold_italic_x → bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
and so is locally integrable in
ℝ 3 superscript ℝ 3 \mathbb{R}^{3} blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Meanwhile in the case
ϵ = 0 italic-ϵ 0 \epsilon=0 italic_ϵ = 0
the integral in the quadratic form diverges logarithmically around
𝒙 n subscript 𝒙 𝑛 \boldsymbol{x}_{n} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and the Hamiltonian
ℋ ℋ \mathscr{H} script_H
acquires singularity in the vicinity of functions with behaviour
(4 ).
As long as the domain of
ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω
is wider than
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) ,
the functional
Ω 0 ( A ) subscript Ω 0 𝐴 \Omega_{0}(A) roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A )
in the vicinity of
(4 )
is well defined and has finite boundary values.
Now let us assume that
there exists positive extension
𝔩 κ ( A ) subscript 𝔩 𝜅 𝐴 \mathfrak{l}_{\kappa}(A) fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A )
of the quadratic form
𝔩 ( A ) 𝔩 𝐴 \mathfrak{l}(A) fraktur_l ( italic_A )
to some function with the behaviour
(4 )
𝔩 κ ( A ) subscript 𝔩 𝜅 𝐴 \displaystyle\mathfrak{l}_{\kappa}(A) fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A )
= 𝔩 ( A ) , A ∈ 𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) , formulae-sequence absent 𝔩 𝐴 𝐴 𝒟 𝔩 \displaystyle=\mathfrak{l}(A),\quad A\in\mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}), = fraktur_l ( italic_A ) , italic_A ∈ caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) ,
(5)
𝔩 κ ( B ) subscript 𝔩 𝜅 𝐵 \displaystyle\mathfrak{l}_{\kappa}(B) fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B )
< ∞ , B = 𝒙 → 𝒙 n C n | 𝒙 − 𝒙 n | 1 / 2 . formulae-sequence absent superscript → 𝒙 subscript 𝒙 𝑛 𝐵 subscript 𝐶 𝑛 superscript 𝒙 subscript 𝒙 𝑛 1 2 \displaystyle<\infty,\quad B\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\boldsymbol{x}\to%
\boldsymbol{x}_{n}}}{{=}}\frac{C_{n}}{|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{x}_{n}|^{1/2%
}}. < ∞ , italic_B start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG = end_ARG start_ARG bold_italic_x → bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_RELOP divide start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | bold_italic_x - bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .
(6)
Provided that
𝔩 κ subscript 𝔩 𝜅 \mathfrak{l}_{\kappa} fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
is closed w. r. to the scalar product
(2 )
one may
construct corresponding
self-adjoint operator
L κ subscript 𝐿 𝜅 L_{\kappa} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and define its spectral decomposition
(on the extensions of closed semi-bounded quadratic forms
see [2 ] ).
Then one may substitute
ω ( A ) 𝜔 𝐴 \omega(A) italic_ω ( italic_A )
with the form of the square root of
L κ subscript 𝐿 𝜅 L_{\kappa} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and observe that the Gaussian
Ω κ ( A ) = exp { − 1 2 ω κ ( A ) } = exp { − 1 2 ( A , L κ 1 / 2 A ) } , subscript Ω 𝜅 𝐴 1 2 subscript 𝜔 𝜅 𝐴 1 2 𝐴 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 𝐴 \Omega_{\kappa}(A)=\exp\{-\frac{1}{2}\omega_{\kappa}(A)\}=\exp\{-\frac{1}{2}(A%
,L_{\kappa}^{1/2}A)\}, roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = roman_exp { - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) } = roman_exp { - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_A , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A ) } ,
(7)
also satisfies the eigenstate equation for
ℋ ℋ \mathscr{H} script_H
ℋ Ω κ ( A ) = 1 2 ∫ ℝ 3 d 3 x ( δ 2 δ A ( 𝒙 ) 2 ω κ ( A ) ) exp { − 1 2 ω κ ( A ) } = ( Tr L κ 1 / 2 ) Ω κ ( A ) , ℋ subscript Ω 𝜅 𝐴 1 2 subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑥 superscript 𝛿 2 𝛿 𝐴 superscript 𝒙 2 subscript 𝜔 𝜅 𝐴 1 2 subscript 𝜔 𝜅 𝐴 Tr superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 subscript Ω 𝜅 𝐴 \mathscr{H}\,\Omega_{\kappa}(A)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}d^{3}x\,\bigl{%
(}\frac{\delta^{2}}{\delta A(\boldsymbol{x})^{2}}\omega_{\kappa}(A)\bigr{)}\,%
\exp\{-\frac{1}{2}\omega_{\kappa}(A)\}=(\operatorname{Tr}L_{\kappa}^{1/2})\,%
\Omega_{\kappa}(A), script_H roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x ( divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_δ italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) ) roman_exp { - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) } = ( roman_Tr italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) ,
(8)
provided that the following equation holds
1 4 ∫ ℝ 3 d 3 x ( δ δ A ( 𝒙 ) ω κ ( A ) ) 2 = ( L κ 1 / 2 A , L κ 1 / 2 A ) = 𝔩 κ ( A ) = 𝔩 ( A ) , A ∈ 𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) . formulae-sequence 1 4 subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑥 superscript 𝛿 𝛿 𝐴 𝒙 subscript 𝜔 𝜅 𝐴 2 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 𝐴 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 𝐴 subscript 𝔩 𝜅 𝐴 𝔩 𝐴 𝐴 𝒟 𝔩 \frac{1}{4}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}d^{3}x\,\bigl{(}\frac{\delta}{\delta A(%
\boldsymbol{x})}\omega_{\kappa}(A)\bigr{)}^{2}=(L_{\kappa}^{1/2}A,L_{\kappa}^{%
1/2}A)=\mathfrak{l}_{\kappa}(A)=\mathfrak{l}(A),\quad A\in\mathcal{D}(%
\mathfrak{l}). divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x ( divide start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG start_ARG italic_δ italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) end_ARG italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A ) = fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = fraktur_l ( italic_A ) , italic_A ∈ caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) .
(9)
In order to verify equations
(8 )
and
(9 )
one needs to fix the set w. r. to which the variational
derivative is operating.
The form
ω ( A ) 𝜔 𝐴 \omega(A) italic_ω ( italic_A )
in
(3 )
is defined as Fourier preimage of quadratic form of multiplication
operator
and can be reconstructed
by variation w. r. to the functions from the domain
of the quadratic form
𝔩 ( A ) 𝔩 𝐴 \mathfrak{l}(A) fraktur_l ( italic_A ) .
This condition can be written as
ω | 𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) ¯ = ω , ¯ evaluated-at 𝜔 𝒟 𝔩 𝜔 \overline{\omega|_{\mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l})}}=\omega, over¯ start_ARG italic_ω | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_ω ,
where LHS is the closure of restriction of the form
ω ( A ) 𝜔 𝐴 \omega(A) italic_ω ( italic_A )
to the set
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) .
That is for any
A ∈ 𝒟 ( ω ) 𝐴 𝒟 𝜔 A\in\mathcal{D}(\omega) italic_A ∈ caligraphic_D ( italic_ω )
there exists a sequence
A n ∈ 𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) subscript 𝐴 𝑛 𝒟 𝔩 A_{n}\in\mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l )
such that
‖ A n − A ‖ L 2 ( ℝ 3 ) → n → ∞ 0 , ω ( A n − A ) → n → ∞ 0 . formulae-sequence superscript → → 𝑛 subscript norm subscript 𝐴 𝑛 𝐴 subscript 𝐿 2 superscript ℝ 3 0 superscript → → 𝑛 𝜔 subscript 𝐴 𝑛 𝐴 0 ||A_{n}-A||_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle n\to\infty}}{{\to}}%
0,\quad\omega(A_{n}-A)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle n\to\infty}}{{\to}}0. | | italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_A | | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG → end_ARG start_ARG italic_n → ∞ end_ARG end_RELOP 0 , italic_ω ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_A ) start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG → end_ARG start_ARG italic_n → ∞ end_ARG end_RELOP 0 .
Thus the same set
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l )
should be used for the variation in the eigenstate equation
(8 ),
that is we need to verify that the above closure also holds
for the quadratic form
ω κ ( A ) subscript 𝜔 𝜅 𝐴 \omega_{\kappa}(A) italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A )
ω κ | 𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) ¯ = ω κ . ¯ evaluated-at subscript 𝜔 𝜅 𝒟 𝔩 subscript 𝜔 𝜅 \overline{\omega_{\kappa}|_{\mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l})}}=\omega_{\kappa}. over¯ start_ARG italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
(10)
As we will see in what follows, proof of this equation requires
some effort and is not possible for every closable extension
𝔩 κ subscript 𝔩 𝜅 \mathfrak{l}_{\kappa} fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
of the quadratic form of the Laplace operator.
Another essential requirement of the presented construction
is the positivity of the form
𝔩 κ subscript 𝔩 𝜅 \mathfrak{l}_{\kappa} fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Otherwise the operator
L κ subscript 𝐿 𝜅 L_{\kappa} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
possesses negative eigenspace and the quadratic form
ω κ subscript 𝜔 𝜅 \omega_{\kappa} italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
goes imaginary thereon.
This in turn contradicts the self-adjointness of
ℋ ℋ \mathscr{H} script_H
and does not allow to introduce a scalar product on the set of functionals
with finite normalization for
Ω κ subscript Ω 𝜅 \Omega_{\kappa} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
The construction of solutions to the equation
of the ground state of the free quantum field by means of the extensions
of quadratic form in the potential term of the Hamiltonian was proposed in
[3 ] .
There extensions generated by
δ 𝛿 \delta italic_δ -potential
were used,
that is extensions to functions with the behaviour
A ( 𝒙 ) = C n | 𝒙 − 𝒙 n | , 𝒙 → 𝒙 𝒏 . formulae-sequence 𝐴 𝒙 subscript 𝐶 𝑛 𝒙 subscript 𝒙 𝑛 → 𝒙 subscript 𝒙 𝒏 A(\boldsymbol{x})=\frac{C_{n}}{|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{x}_{n}|},\quad%
\boldsymbol{x}\to\boldsymbol{x_{n}}. italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) = divide start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | bold_italic_x - bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | end_ARG , bold_italic_x → bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
However no proof of the possibility to reconstruct the quadratic form of
the square root by its action on
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l )
for that case is still not provided.
In this work we develop the scheme of construction of eigenfunctionals
of the free Hamiltonian by extending the quadratic form of Laplacian to
functions with behaviour
(4 ).
We will show that positive extensions require that behaviour
at least in 2 points and will derive the
admissible distance between the latter as the function of the extension
parameter.
Then we will verify that extensions in question satisfy equation
(10 ),
discuss normalization of
Ω κ subscript Ω 𝜅 \Omega_{\kappa} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and possibility to introduce eigenvalues in
(8 )
with continuous dependence on the position of sources.
That is the model can be interpreted as dynamical system, which includes
quantum field evolved by the action of the free Hamiltonian and
external sources – subject of the further quantization.
Thus we expect that presented construction can be employed in description
of renormalized asymptotically free quatum field with self-interaction
and interaction with external sources.
1 Extensions of the quadratic form
Let us turn to detailed description of extensions of the quadratic form
of the scalar Laplace operator oulined in
(5 ), (6 ).
We will work in the momentum representation
(in the space of Fourier transforms)
of fields
A ^ ( 𝒑 ) = 1 ( 2 π ) 3 / 2 ∫ ℝ 3 A ( 𝒙 ) e − i 𝒑 ⋅ 𝒙 d 3 x ^ 𝐴 𝒑 1 superscript 2 𝜋 3 2 subscript superscript ℝ 3 𝐴 𝒙 superscript 𝑒 ⋅ 𝑖 𝒑 𝒙 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑥 \hat{A}(\boldsymbol{p})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}A(%
\boldsymbol{x})e^{-i\boldsymbol{p}\cdot{\boldsymbol{x}}}\,d^{3}x over^ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG ( bold_italic_p ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i bold_italic_p ⋅ bold_italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x
and for simplicity will omit the Fourier hat in the notation of
A ( 𝒑 ) 𝐴 𝒑 A(\boldsymbol{p}) italic_A ( bold_italic_p )
and other functions.
Operator
ℋ ℋ \mathscr{H} script_H
in this representation acts in the following way
ℋ Ω 0 ( A ) = ∫ ℝ 3 d 3 p ( − δ 2 δ A ( 𝒑 ) 2 + p 2 A 2 ( 𝒑 ) ) Ω 0 ( A ) . ℋ subscript Ω 0 𝐴 subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 superscript 𝛿 2 𝛿 𝐴 superscript 𝒑 2 superscript 𝑝 2 superscript 𝐴 2 𝒑 subscript Ω 0 𝐴 \mathscr{H}\,\Omega_{0}(A)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}d^{3}p\,\bigl{(}-\frac{\delta^%
{2}}{\delta A(\boldsymbol{p})^{2}}+p^{2}A^{2}(\boldsymbol{p})\bigr{)}\,\Omega_%
{0}(A). script_H roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p ( - divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_δ italic_A ( bold_italic_p ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) ) roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) .
Quadratic forms
𝔩 ( A ) 𝔩 𝐴 \mathfrak{l}(A) fraktur_l ( italic_A )
and
ω ( A ) 𝜔 𝐴 \omega(A) italic_ω ( italic_A )
are diagonalized
𝔩 ( A ) 𝔩 𝐴 \displaystyle\mathfrak{l}(A) fraktur_l ( italic_A )
= ∫ ℝ 3 p 2 | A ( 𝒑 ) | 2 d 3 p , absent subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑝 2 superscript 𝐴 𝒑 2 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 \displaystyle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}p^{2}|A(\boldsymbol{p})|^{2}\,d^{3}p, = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_A ( bold_italic_p ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p ,
L : : 𝐿 absent \displaystyle L: italic_L :
A ( 𝒑 ) → p 2 A ( 𝒑 ) , → 𝐴 𝒑 superscript 𝑝 2 𝐴 𝒑 \displaystyle\,A(\boldsymbol{p})\to p^{2}A(\boldsymbol{p}), italic_A ( bold_italic_p ) → italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A ( bold_italic_p ) ,
ω ( A ) 𝜔 𝐴 \displaystyle\omega(A) italic_ω ( italic_A )
= ∫ ℝ 3 p | A ( 𝒑 ) | 2 d 3 p , absent subscript superscript ℝ 3 𝑝 superscript 𝐴 𝒑 2 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 \displaystyle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}p|A(\boldsymbol{p})|^{2}\,d^{3}p, = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p | italic_A ( bold_italic_p ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p ,
L 1 / 2 : : superscript 𝐿 1 2 absent \displaystyle L^{1/2}: italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT :
A ( 𝒑 ) → p A ( 𝒑 ) , → 𝐴 𝒑 𝑝 𝐴 𝒑 \displaystyle\,A(\boldsymbol{p})\to pA(\boldsymbol{p}), italic_A ( bold_italic_p ) → italic_p italic_A ( bold_italic_p ) ,
while the scalar product connecting quadratic forms with their operators
is still flat
( f ( 𝒑 ) , g ( 𝒑 ) ) = ∫ ℝ 3 d 3 p f ( 𝒑 ) ¯ g ( 𝒑 ) . 𝑓 𝒑 𝑔 𝒑 subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 ¯ 𝑓 𝒑 𝑔 𝒑 (f(\boldsymbol{p}),g(\boldsymbol{p}))=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}d^{3}p\,\overline{f%
(\boldsymbol{p})}g(\boldsymbol{p}). ( italic_f ( bold_italic_p ) , italic_g ( bold_italic_p ) ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p over¯ start_ARG italic_f ( bold_italic_p ) end_ARG italic_g ( bold_italic_p ) .
(11)
Key objects for construction of extensions of the quadratic form
𝔩 ( A ) 𝔩 𝐴 \mathfrak{l}(A) fraktur_l ( italic_A )
are the resolvent of the self-adjoint operator
L 𝐿 L italic_L
R μ = ( L − μ ) − 1 : A ( 𝒑 ) → 1 p 2 − μ A ( 𝒑 ) , μ ∈ ℂ ∖ ℝ + ∪ 0 R_{\mu}=(L-\mu)^{-1}:\quad A(\boldsymbol{p})\to\frac{1}{p^{2}-\mu}A(%
\boldsymbol{p}),\quad\mu\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\mathbb{R}^{+}\cup 0 italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_L - italic_μ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_A ( bold_italic_p ) → divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ end_ARG italic_A ( bold_italic_p ) , italic_μ ∈ blackboard_C ∖ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∪ 0
and singular potential
v ( 𝒑 ) 𝑣 𝒑 v(\boldsymbol{p}) italic_v ( bold_italic_p )
– some generalized function obeying conditions
R μ v ∈ L 2 ( ℝ 3 ) or ( R μ v , R ν v ) < ∞ subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 subscript 𝐿 2 superscript ℝ 3 or subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 𝜈 𝑣 \displaystyle R_{\mu}v\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})\text{ or }(R_{\mu}v,R_{\nu}v)<\infty italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) or ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) < ∞
(12)
( v , R ( μ ) v ) = ∫ ℝ 3 | v ( p ) | 2 p 2 − μ d 3 p = ∞ . 𝑣 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑣 𝑝 2 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 \displaystyle(v,R(\mu)v)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\frac{|v(p)|^{2}}{p^{2}-\mu}d^{3%
}p=\infty. ( italic_v , italic_R ( italic_μ ) italic_v ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG | italic_v ( italic_p ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ end_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p = ∞ .
(13)
As candidates for
v ( 𝒑 ) 𝑣 𝒑 v(\boldsymbol{p}) italic_v ( bold_italic_p )
we will consider powers of modulus of
𝒑 𝒑 \boldsymbol{p} bold_italic_p
v α ( 𝒑 ) = p α . subscript 𝑣 𝛼 𝒑 superscript 𝑝 𝛼 v_{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{p})=p^{\alpha}. italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) = italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Such potentials have distinctive singularities
in the coordinate representation
1 ( 2 π ) 3 / 2 ∫ ℝ 3 v α ( 𝒑 ) e i 𝒑 ⋅ 𝒙 d 3 p = { ( 2 π ) 3 / 2 δ ( 𝒙 ) , α = 0 , 2 3 / 2 + α Γ ( 3 + α 2 ) Γ ( − α 2 ) 1 x 3 + α , α ≠ 0 , 1 superscript 2 𝜋 3 2 subscript superscript ℝ 3 subscript 𝑣 𝛼 𝒑 superscript 𝑒 ⋅ 𝑖 𝒑 𝒙 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 cases superscript 2 𝜋 3 2 𝛿 𝒙 𝛼 0 superscript 2 3 2 𝛼 Γ 3 𝛼 2 Γ 𝛼 2 1 superscript 𝑥 3 𝛼 𝛼 0 \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}v_{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{p})e^{i%
\boldsymbol{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{x}}\,d^{3}p=\begin{cases}(2\pi)^{3/2}\delta(%
\boldsymbol{x}),&\alpha=0,\\
\frac{2^{3/2+\alpha}\Gamma(\frac{3+\alpha}{2})}{\Gamma(-\frac{\alpha}{2})}%
\frac{1}{x^{3+\alpha}},&\alpha\neq 0,\end{cases} divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i bold_italic_p ⋅ bold_italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p = { start_ROW start_CELL ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ ( bold_italic_x ) , end_CELL start_CELL italic_α = 0 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 + italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Γ ( divide start_ARG 3 + italic_α end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) end_ARG start_ARG roman_Γ ( - divide start_ARG italic_α end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) end_ARG divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 + italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , end_CELL start_CELL italic_α ≠ 0 , end_CELL end_ROW
so it makes sense to include into consideration their shifts
in coordinate space
v α , 𝒙 ( 𝒑 ) = e i 𝒑 ⋅ 𝒙 v α ( 𝒑 ) . subscript 𝑣 𝛼 𝒙
𝒑 superscript 𝑒 ⋅ 𝑖 𝒑 𝒙 subscript 𝑣 𝛼 𝒑 v_{\alpha,\boldsymbol{x}}(\boldsymbol{p})=e^{i\boldsymbol{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{x%
}}v_{\alpha}(\boldsymbol{p}). italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , bold_italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i bold_italic_p ⋅ bold_italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) .
The Birman-Krein-Vishik theory
[4 ]
describes the domain
𝒟 ( 𝔩 κ ) 𝒟 subscript 𝔩 𝜅 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}_{\kappa}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
of extensions of the quadratic form
𝔩 𝔩 \mathfrak{l} fraktur_l
as the sum of
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l )
and linear span of the vector
R μ v subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 R_{\mu}v italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v
𝒟 ( 𝔩 κ ) = 𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) ∔ { ξ R μ v } , μ ∈ ℂ ∖ ℝ + ∪ 0 , ξ ∈ ℂ . formulae-sequence 𝒟 subscript 𝔩 𝜅 ∔ 𝒟 𝔩 𝜉 subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 formulae-sequence 𝜇 ℂ superscript ℝ 0 𝜉 ℂ \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}_{\kappa})=\mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l})\dotplus\{\xi R_{%
\mu}v\},\quad\mu\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\mathbb{R}^{+}\cup 0,\quad\xi\in\mathbb{%
C}. caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) ∔ { italic_ξ italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v } , italic_μ ∈ blackboard_C ∖ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∪ 0 , italic_ξ ∈ blackboard_C .
Note that particular choice of
μ 𝜇 \mu italic_μ
is irrelevant here since
R μ 1 v − R μ 2 v = ( μ 1 − μ 2 ) R μ 1 R μ 2 v ∈ 𝒟 ( L ) , 𝒟 ( L ) ⊂ 𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) . formulae-sequence subscript 𝑅 subscript 𝜇 1 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 subscript 𝜇 2 𝑣 subscript 𝜇 1 subscript 𝜇 2 subscript 𝑅 subscript 𝜇 1 subscript 𝑅 subscript 𝜇 2 𝑣 𝒟 𝐿 𝒟 𝐿 𝒟 𝔩 R_{\mu_{1}}v-R_{\mu_{2}}v=(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})R_{\mu_{1}}R_{\mu_{2}}v\in\mathcal{%
D}(L),\quad\mathcal{D}(L)\subset\mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}). italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v - italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v = ( italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ caligraphic_D ( italic_L ) , caligraphic_D ( italic_L ) ⊂ caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) .
As shown in the work
[5 ]
if the potential
v ( 𝒑 ) 𝑣 𝒑 v(\boldsymbol{p}) italic_v ( bold_italic_p )
fails to satisfy
(13 )
then the vector
R μ v subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 R_{\mu}v italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v
belongs to the domain
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) ,
that is
𝔩 κ subscript 𝔩 𝜅 \mathfrak{l}_{\kappa} fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
changes the action of
𝔩 𝔩 \mathfrak{l} fraktur_l
and so changes the action of
ℋ ℋ \mathscr{H} script_H
which is not our goal.
In the terms of
α 𝛼 \alpha italic_α
the divergence of the integral in
(13 )
is expressed in the inequality
− 1 2 ≤ α . 1 2 𝛼 -\frac{1}{2}\leq\alpha. - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ≤ italic_α .
It is not hard to see that condition
(12 )
imposes restriction on
α 𝛼 \alpha italic_α
from the other side, namely the strict inequality
α < 1 2 . 𝛼 1 2 \alpha<\frac{1}{2}. italic_α < divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG .
Domain of the self-adjoint operator
L κ subscript 𝐿 𝜅 L_{\kappa} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
corresponding to the quadratic form
𝔩 κ subscript 𝔩 𝜅 \mathfrak{l}_{\kappa} fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
includes linear combinations of vectors
R ρ v subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 R_{\rho}v italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ,
R ρ 2 v superscript subscript 𝑅 𝜌 2 𝑣 R_{\rho}^{2}v italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v
of the following type
R ρ v + ξ ( κ , ρ ) R ρ 2 v , ρ < 0 , ξ ∈ ℂ , formulae-sequence subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 𝜉 𝜅 𝜌 superscript subscript 𝑅 𝜌 2 𝑣 𝜌
0 𝜉 ℂ R_{\rho}v+\xi(\kappa,\rho)R_{\rho}^{2}v,\quad\rho<0,\quad\xi\in\mathbb{C}, italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v + italic_ξ ( italic_κ , italic_ρ ) italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v , italic_ρ < 0 , italic_ξ ∈ blackboard_C ,
with some
ξ 𝜉 \xi italic_ξ
defined by the boundary conditions of
L κ subscript 𝐿 𝜅 L_{\kappa} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
But we will not study this domain, neither we will not study the action of
𝔩 κ subscript 𝔩 𝜅 \mathfrak{l}_{\kappa} fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
the only useful object for the construction of functions of
L κ subscript 𝐿 𝜅 L_{\kappa} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
is its resolvent given by the Krein formula
R μ κ = ( L κ − μ ) − 1 = R μ + R μ v ( R μ ¯ v , ⋅ ) κ − σ ( μ ) . superscript subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝜅 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 𝜇 1 subscript 𝑅 𝜇 subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 ¯ 𝜇 𝑣 ⋅ 𝜅 𝜎 𝜇 R_{\mu}^{\kappa}=(L_{\kappa}-\mu)^{-1}=R_{\mu}+\frac{R_{\mu}v(R_{\bar{\mu}}v,%
\,\cdot\,)}{\kappa-\sigma(\mu)}. italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_μ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v , ⋅ ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_μ ) end_ARG .
(14)
Here
σ ( μ ) 𝜎 𝜇 \sigma(\mu) italic_σ ( italic_μ )
is the Nevanlinna (Herglotz) function
[6 ] ,
defined by the equation
σ ( μ ) − σ ( ν ) = ( μ − ν ) ( R μ ¯ v , R ν v ) = ( v , ( R μ − R ν ) v ) 𝜎 𝜇 𝜎 𝜈 𝜇 𝜈 subscript 𝑅 ¯ 𝜇 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 𝜈 𝑣 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 𝜇 subscript 𝑅 𝜈 𝑣 \sigma(\mu)-\sigma(\nu)=(\mu-\nu)(R_{\bar{\mu}}v,R_{\nu}v)=(v,(R_{\mu}-R_{\nu}%
)v) italic_σ ( italic_μ ) - italic_σ ( italic_ν ) = ( italic_μ - italic_ν ) ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) = ( italic_v , ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_v )
(15)
and
κ 𝜅 \kappa italic_κ
is the real separation constant of the particular solution
which serves in
(14 )
as the extension parameter.
Note that in the case
κ = ∞ 𝜅 \kappa=\infty italic_κ = ∞
the second term in the RHS of
(14 )
vanishes and we arrive at the resolvent
R μ subscript 𝑅 𝜇 R_{\mu} italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
of
L 𝐿 L italic_L
R μ ∞ = R μ . superscript subscript 𝑅 𝜇 subscript 𝑅 𝜇 R_{\mu}^{\infty}=R_{\mu}. italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
In what follows we will restrict our consideration to potentials
v ( 𝒑 ) = v − 1 / 2 ( 𝒑 ) = 1 p 1 / 2 , 𝑣 𝒑 subscript 𝑣 1 2 𝒑 1 superscript 𝑝 1 2 v(\boldsymbol{p})=v_{-1/2}(\boldsymbol{p})=\frac{1}{p^{1/2}}, italic_v ( bold_italic_p ) = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,
such that vectors
R μ v subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 R_{\mu}v italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v
reside in the region described by
(4 ).
Indeed,
R μ v subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 R_{\mu}v italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v
in coordinate representation is given by the integral
( R μ v ) ( 𝒙 ) = 1 ( 2 π ) 3 / 2 ∫ ℝ 3 e i 𝒑 ⋅ 𝒙 d 3 p ( p 2 − μ ) p 1 / 2 = 4 π ( 2 π ) 3 / 2 x ∫ 0 ∞ sin p x p 2 − μ p 1 / 2 𝑑 p , subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 𝒙 1 superscript 2 𝜋 3 2 subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑒 ⋅ 𝑖 𝒑 𝒙 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 superscript 𝑝 1 2 4 𝜋 superscript 2 𝜋 3 2 𝑥 superscript subscript 0 𝑝 𝑥 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 superscript 𝑝 1 2 differential-d 𝑝 (R_{\mu}v)(\boldsymbol{x})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\frac{e^%
{i\boldsymbol{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{x}}\,d^{3}p}{(p^{2}-\mu)p^{1/2}}=\frac{4\pi}{%
(2\pi)^{3/2}x}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\sin px}{p^{2}-\mu}p^{1/2}\,dp, ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) ( bold_italic_x ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i bold_italic_p ⋅ bold_italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ ) italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_sin italic_p italic_x end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ end_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_p ,
which after the change of variable
s = p x 𝑠 𝑝 𝑥 s=px italic_s = italic_p italic_x
turns into
( R μ v ) ( 𝒙 ) = 4 π ( 2 π ) 3 / 2 x 1 / 2 ∫ 0 ∞ sin s s 2 − μ x 2 s 1 / 2 𝑑 s . subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 𝒙 4 𝜋 superscript 2 𝜋 3 2 superscript 𝑥 1 2 superscript subscript 0 𝑠 superscript 𝑠 2 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 superscript 𝑠 1 2 differential-d 𝑠 (R_{\mu}v)(\boldsymbol{x})=\frac{4\pi}{(2\pi)^{3/2}x^{1/2}}\int_{0}^{\infty}%
\frac{\sin s}{s^{2}-\mu x^{2}}s^{1/2}\,ds. ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) ( bold_italic_x ) = divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG ( 2 italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_sin italic_s end_ARG start_ARG italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_s .
(16)
The integral by
s 𝑠 s italic_s
converges absolutely, it is bounded for
x → 0 → 𝑥 0 x\to 0 italic_x → 0
and it is not equal to zero in this limit. Then one may conclude that
singularity of
( R μ v ) ( 𝒙 ) subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 𝒙 (R_{\mu}v)(\boldsymbol{x}) ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) ( bold_italic_x )
is defined by coefficient
x − 1 / 2 superscript 𝑥 1 2 x^{-1/2} italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
and so is described by
(4 ).
The Nevanlinna function
for
v ( 𝒑 ) = p − 1 / 2 𝑣 𝒑 superscript 𝑝 1 2 v(\boldsymbol{p})=p^{-1/2} italic_v ( bold_italic_p ) = italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
is given by the following equation
σ ( μ ) − σ ( λ ) = ∫ ℝ 3 ( 1 p 2 − μ − 1 p 2 − λ ) d 3 p p = 2 π ( ln ( − λ ) − ln ( − μ ) ) . 𝜎 𝜇 𝜎 𝜆 subscript superscript ℝ 3 1 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 1 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜆 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 𝑝 2 𝜋 𝜆 𝜇 \sigma(\mu)-\sigma(\lambda)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\bigl{(}\frac{1}{p^{2}-\mu}-%
\frac{1}{p^{2}-\lambda}\bigr{)}\frac{d^{3}p}{p}=2\pi(\ln(-\lambda)-\ln(-\mu)). italic_σ ( italic_μ ) - italic_σ ( italic_λ ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG ) divide start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG = 2 italic_π ( roman_ln ( - italic_λ ) - roman_ln ( - italic_μ ) ) .
(17)
Here we choose the main branch of the logarithm with the cut along
the negative semi-axis in such a way that RHS
is defined for all complex
μ 𝜇 \mu italic_μ and λ 𝜆 \lambda italic_λ
outside of the positive semi-axis and zero.
This yields that denominator in
(14 )
can be chosen as
κ − σ ( μ ) = 2 π ln ( − μ κ ~ ) , κ ~ > 0 , formulae-sequence 𝜅 𝜎 𝜇 2 𝜋 𝜇 ~ 𝜅 ~ 𝜅 0 \kappa-\sigma(\mu)=2\pi\ln(-\frac{\mu}{\tilde{\kappa}}),\quad\tilde{\kappa}>0, italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_μ ) = 2 italic_π roman_ln ( - divide start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG end_ARG ) , over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG > 0 ,
(18)
where
κ ~ ~ 𝜅 \tilde{\kappa} over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG
is the positive value combining dimensional constant to correctly
define the logarithm and the extension parameter
κ 𝜅 \kappa italic_κ .
It is evident that RHS of
(18 )
decreases when
μ 𝜇 \mu italic_μ
goes from
− ∞ -\infty - ∞
to zero and changes its sign for any value of
κ ~ ~ 𝜅 \tilde{\kappa} over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG .
Hence resolvent
(14 )
has a pole in the point
μ = − κ ~ 𝜇 ~ 𝜅 \mu=-\tilde{\kappa} italic_μ = - over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG
and corresponding self-adjoint operator and quadratic form possess
negative eigenspace.
This contradicts the requirement of positivity of the extension
𝔩 κ subscript 𝔩 𝜅 \mathfrak{l}_{\kappa} fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and shows that nontrivial solution of the eigenstate equation of
ℋ ℋ \mathscr{H} script_H
produced by a single localized external source does not exist.
It is worth to note that logarithmic Nevanlinna function
(17 )
and analysis of extensions of the quadratic form coincide
with the corresponding objects of the theory of singular perturbations
of 2-dimensional Laplace operator by the
δ 𝛿 \delta italic_δ -potential
described in
[7 ] .
2 Interaction with two sources
In order to fix obstacles encountered in the previous section
let us turn to a more complex singular potential.
In the original work
[8 ]
Krein equation
was derived for the interaction with multiple sources
v m ( 𝒑 ) subscript 𝑣 𝑚 𝒑 v_{m}(\boldsymbol{p}) italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p )
R μ κ = R μ + R μ v m ( κ − σ ( μ ) ) m l − 1 ( R μ ¯ v l , ⋅ ) , subscript superscript 𝑅 𝜅 𝜇 subscript 𝑅 𝜇 subscript 𝑅 𝜇 subscript 𝑣 𝑚 superscript subscript 𝜅 𝜎 𝜇 𝑚 𝑙 1 subscript 𝑅 ¯ 𝜇 subscript 𝑣 𝑙 ⋅ R^{\kappa}_{\mu}=R_{\mu}+R_{\mu}v_{m}(\kappa-\sigma(\mu))_{ml}^{-1}(R_{\bar{%
\mu}}v_{l},\,\cdot\,), italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_μ ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋅ ) ,
(19)
where
κ 𝜅 \kappa italic_κ
is a real symmetric matrix and the matrix
σ 𝜎 \sigma italic_σ
is defined by the equation
σ j k ( μ ) − σ j k ( ν ) = ( v j , ( R μ − R ν ) v k ) . subscript 𝜎 𝑗 𝑘 𝜇 subscript 𝜎 𝑗 𝑘 𝜈 subscript 𝑣 𝑗 subscript 𝑅 𝜇 subscript 𝑅 𝜈 subscript 𝑣 𝑘 \sigma_{jk}(\mu)-\sigma_{jk}(\nu)=(v_{j},(R_{\mu}-R_{\nu})v_{k}). italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_μ ) - italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ν ) = ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
(20)
In our case
it is natural to add to the resolvent the potential
v 𝒙 ( 𝒑 ) = e i 𝒑 ⋅ 𝒙 p − 1 / 2 subscript 𝑣 𝒙 𝒑 superscript 𝑒 ⋅ 𝑖 𝒑 𝒙 superscript 𝑝 1 2 v_{\boldsymbol{x}}(\boldsymbol{p})=e^{i\boldsymbol{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{x}}p^{-1%
/2} italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i bold_italic_p ⋅ bold_italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
shifted by the vector
𝒙 𝒙 \boldsymbol{x} bold_italic_x
in the coordinate space.
In order to avoid the treatment of zeros of
the matrix
κ j k − σ j k ( λ ) subscript 𝜅 𝑗 𝑘 subscript 𝜎 𝑗 𝑘 𝜆 \kappa_{jk}-\sigma_{jk}(\lambda) italic_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_λ )
one may turn to the basis
v − ( 𝒑 ) subscript 𝑣 𝒑 \displaystyle v_{-}(\boldsymbol{p}) italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p )
= 1 2 ( v ( 𝒑 ) − v 𝒙 ( 𝒑 ) ) = 1 2 p − 1 / 2 ( 1 − e i 𝒑 ⋅ 𝒙 ) , absent 1 2 𝑣 𝒑 subscript 𝑣 𝒙 𝒑 1 2 superscript 𝑝 1 2 1 superscript 𝑒 ⋅ 𝑖 𝒑 𝒙 \displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v(\boldsymbol{p})-v_{\boldsymbol{x}}(%
\boldsymbol{p}))=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}p^{-1/2}(1-e^{i\boldsymbol{p}\cdot%
\boldsymbol{x}}), = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_v ( bold_italic_p ) - italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i bold_italic_p ⋅ bold_italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,
v + ( 𝒑 ) subscript 𝑣 𝒑 \displaystyle v_{+}(\boldsymbol{p}) italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p )
= 1 2 ( v ( 𝒑 ) + v 𝒙 ( 𝒑 ) ) = 1 2 p − 1 / 2 ( 1 + e i 𝒑 ⋅ 𝒙 ) absent 1 2 𝑣 𝒑 subscript 𝑣 𝒙 𝒑 1 2 superscript 𝑝 1 2 1 superscript 𝑒 ⋅ 𝑖 𝒑 𝒙 \displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v(\boldsymbol{p})+v_{\boldsymbol{x}}(%
\boldsymbol{p}))=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}p^{-1/2}(1+e^{i\boldsymbol{p}\cdot%
\boldsymbol{x}}) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG ( italic_v ( bold_italic_p ) + italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 + italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i bold_italic_p ⋅ bold_italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
and restrict to Krein resolvents with nontrivial second term
generated by the antisymmetric potential
v − ( 𝒑 ) subscript 𝑣 𝒑 v_{-}(\boldsymbol{p}) italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p )
R μ κ = R μ + R μ v − ( R μ ¯ v − , ⋅ ) κ − σ ( μ ) . superscript subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝜅 subscript 𝑅 𝜇 subscript 𝑅 𝜇 subscript 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 ¯ 𝜇 subscript 𝑣 ⋅ 𝜅 𝜎 𝜇 R_{\mu}^{\kappa}=R_{\mu}+\frac{R_{\mu}v_{-}(R_{\bar{\mu}}v_{-},\,\cdot\,)}{%
\kappa-\sigma(\mu)}. italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋅ ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_μ ) end_ARG .
(21)
In this case by substituting
v − ( 𝒑 ) subscript 𝑣 𝒑 v_{-}(\boldsymbol{p}) italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p )
into
(15 )
we have the following equation for
σ ( μ ) 𝜎 𝜇 \sigma(\mu) italic_σ ( italic_μ )
σ ( μ ) − σ ( λ ) = ∫ ℝ 3 1 − cos ( 𝒑 ⋅ 𝒙 ) p ( 1 p 2 − μ − 1 p 2 − λ ) d 3 p = = 4 π ∫ 0 ∞ ( p − sin p x x ) ( 1 p 2 − μ − 1 p 2 − λ ) 𝑑 p . 𝜎 𝜇 𝜎 𝜆 subscript superscript ℝ 3 1 ⋅ 𝒑 𝒙 𝑝 1 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 1 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜆 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 4 𝜋 superscript subscript 0 𝑝 𝑝 𝑥 𝑥 1 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 1 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜆 differential-d 𝑝 \sigma(\mu)-\sigma(\lambda)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\frac{1-\cos(\boldsymbol{p}%
\cdot\boldsymbol{x})}{p}\bigl{(}\frac{1}{p^{2}-\mu}-\frac{1}{p^{2}-\lambda}%
\bigr{)}\,d^{3}p=\\
=4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}\bigl{(}p-\frac{\sin px}{x}\bigr{)}\bigl{(}\frac{1}{p^{2%
}-\mu}-\frac{1}{p^{2}-\lambda}\bigr{)}dp. start_ROW start_CELL italic_σ ( italic_μ ) - italic_σ ( italic_λ ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 - roman_cos ( bold_italic_p ⋅ bold_italic_x ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG ) italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p = end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = 4 italic_π ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p - divide start_ARG roman_sin italic_p italic_x end_ARG start_ARG italic_x end_ARG ) ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG ) italic_d italic_p . end_CELL end_ROW
(22)
Similarly to
(18 )
let us introduce the dimensional parameter
κ ~ ~ 𝜅 \tilde{\kappa} over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG
which includes
κ 𝜅 \kappa italic_κ
and define denominator in
(21 )
by means of the integral
σ ( μ ) − κ = 4 π ∫ 0 ∞ ( p p 2 − μ − sin p x x ( p 2 − μ ) − p p 2 + κ ~ ) 𝑑 p = = 2 π ln κ ~ − μ − 4 π ∫ 0 ∞ sin p x x d p p 2 − μ . 𝜎 𝜇 𝜅 4 𝜋 superscript subscript 0 𝑝 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 𝑝 𝑥 𝑥 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 𝑝 superscript 𝑝 2 ~ 𝜅 differential-d 𝑝 2 𝜋 ~ 𝜅 𝜇 4 𝜋 superscript subscript 0 𝑝 𝑥 𝑥 𝑑 𝑝 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 \sigma(\mu)-\kappa=4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}\bigl{(}\frac{p}{p^{2}-\mu}-\frac{\sin
px%
}{x(p^{2}-\mu)}-\frac{p}{p^{2}+\tilde{\kappa}}\bigr{)}dp=\\
=2\pi\ln\frac{\tilde{\kappa}}{-\mu}-4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\sin px}{x}%
\frac{dp}{p^{2}-\mu}. start_ROW start_CELL italic_σ ( italic_μ ) - italic_κ = 4 italic_π ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ end_ARG - divide start_ARG roman_sin italic_p italic_x end_ARG start_ARG italic_x ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ ) end_ARG - divide start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG end_ARG ) italic_d italic_p = end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = 2 italic_π roman_ln divide start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG - italic_μ end_ARG - 4 italic_π ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_sin italic_p italic_x end_ARG start_ARG italic_x end_ARG divide start_ARG italic_d italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ end_ARG . end_CELL end_ROW
(23)
This expression is valid for all
μ ∈ ℂ ∖ ℝ + ∪ 0 𝜇 ℂ superscript ℝ 0 \mu\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\mathbb{R}^{+}\cup 0 italic_μ ∈ blackboard_C ∖ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∪ 0
and satisfies equation
(22 ).
Let us study the RHS of
(23 )
on the negative semi-axis.
Its second term is a function of the product
μ x 2 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 \mu x^{2} italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
and for
μ → − ∞ → 𝜇 \mu\to-\infty italic_μ → - ∞
it has the following expansion
J ( μ x 2 ) = 4 π ∫ 0 ∞ sin p x x d p p 2 − μ = μ x 2 → − ∞ − 4 π μ x 2 + 8 π μ 2 x 4 + 𝒪 ( 1 μ 3 x 6 ) . J 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 4 𝜋 superscript subscript 0 𝑝 𝑥 𝑥 𝑑 𝑝 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 superscript → 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 4 𝜋 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 8 𝜋 superscript 𝜇 2 superscript 𝑥 4 𝒪 1 superscript 𝜇 3 superscript 𝑥 6 \mathrm{J}(\mu x^{2})=4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\sin px}{x}\frac{dp}{p^{2}-%
\mu}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\mu x^{2}\to-\infty}}{{=}}-\frac{4\pi}{\mu x^{2}}+%
\frac{8\pi}{\mu^{2}x^{4}}+\mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{\mu^{3}x^{6}}). roman_J ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 4 italic_π ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_sin italic_p italic_x end_ARG start_ARG italic_x end_ARG divide start_ARG italic_d italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ end_ARG start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG = end_ARG start_ARG italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → - ∞ end_ARG end_RELOP - divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG 8 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_μ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + caligraphic_O ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_μ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) .
(24)
Thus the whole sum
(23 )
goes logarithmically to
− ∞ -\infty - ∞
σ ( μ ) − κ = 2 π ln κ ~ − μ + 4 π μ x 2 + 𝒪 ( μ − 2 ) → − ∞ , μ → − ∞ . formulae-sequence 𝜎 𝜇 𝜅 2 𝜋 ~ 𝜅 𝜇 4 𝜋 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 𝒪 superscript 𝜇 2 → → 𝜇 \sigma(\mu)-\kappa=2\pi\ln\frac{\tilde{\kappa}}{-\mu}+\frac{4\pi}{\mu x^{2}}+%
\mathcal{O}(\mu^{-2})\to-\infty,\quad\mu\to-\infty. italic_σ ( italic_μ ) - italic_κ = 2 italic_π roman_ln divide start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG - italic_μ end_ARG + divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + caligraphic_O ( italic_μ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) → - ∞ , italic_μ → - ∞ .
Derivative of the function
σ ( μ ) 𝜎 𝜇 \sigma(\mu) italic_σ ( italic_μ )
for
μ < 0 𝜇 0 \mu<0 italic_μ < 0
is strictly positive
σ ′ ( μ ) = 4 π ∫ 0 ∞ ( p − sin p x x ) d p ( p 2 − μ ) 2 > 0 , superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝜇 4 𝜋 superscript subscript 0 𝑝 𝑝 𝑥 𝑥 𝑑 𝑝 superscript superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 2 0 \sigma^{\prime}(\mu)=4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}\bigl{(}p-\frac{\sin px}{x}\bigr{)}%
\frac{dp}{(p^{2}-\mu)^{2}}>0, italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_μ ) = 4 italic_π ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p - divide start_ARG roman_sin italic_p italic_x end_ARG start_ARG italic_x end_ARG ) divide start_ARG italic_d italic_p end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG > 0 ,
(25)
which means that
σ ( μ ) 𝜎 𝜇 \sigma(\mu) italic_σ ( italic_μ )
monotonously increases with the increase of
μ 𝜇 \mu italic_μ .
In order to calculate the value
σ ( 0 ) 𝜎 0 \sigma(0) italic_σ ( 0 )
let us write the integral
J ( μ x 2 ) J 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 \mathrm{J}(\mu x^{2}) roman_J ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
for finite
μ 𝜇 \mu italic_μ ,
x 𝑥 x italic_x
in the terms of the integral sine and cosine
4 π ∫ 0 ∞ sin p x x d p p 2 − μ = 4 π μ x 4 𝜋 superscript subscript 0 𝑝 𝑥 𝑥 𝑑 𝑝 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 4 𝜋 𝜇 𝑥 \displaystyle 4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\sin px}{x}\frac{dp}{p^{2}-\mu}=\frac%
{4\pi}{\sqrt{\mu}x} 4 italic_π ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_sin italic_p italic_x end_ARG start_ARG italic_x end_ARG divide start_ARG italic_d italic_p end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ end_ARG = divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG italic_x end_ARG
( cos μ x Si μ x − sin μ x Ci μ x ) = 𝜇 𝑥 Si 𝜇 𝑥 𝜇 𝑥 Ci 𝜇 𝑥 absent \displaystyle\bigl{(}\cos\sqrt{\mu}x\,\operatorname{Si}\sqrt{\mu}x-\sin\sqrt{%
\mu}x\,\operatorname{Ci}\sqrt{\mu}x\bigr{)}= ( roman_cos square-root start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG italic_x roman_Si square-root start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG italic_x - roman_sin square-root start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG italic_x roman_Ci square-root start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG italic_x ) =
(26)
= μ x 2 → 0 4 π ( 1 − 𝜸 − 1 2 ln ( − μ x 2 ) + 𝒪 ( μ x 2 ) ) . superscript → 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 0 absent 4 𝜋 1 𝜸 1 2 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 𝒪 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 \displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\mu x^{2}\to 0}}{{=}}4\pi(1-\boldsymbol{%
\gamma}-\frac{1}{2}\ln(-\mu x^{2})+\mathcal{O}(\mu x^{2})). start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG = end_ARG start_ARG italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → 0 end_ARG end_RELOP 4 italic_π ( 1 - bold_italic_γ - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_ln ( - italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + caligraphic_O ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) .
(27)
Here
Si ( μ x ) Si 𝜇 𝑥 \operatorname{Si}(\sqrt{\mu}x) roman_Si ( square-root start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG italic_x )
and
Ci ( μ x ) Ci 𝜇 𝑥 \operatorname{Ci}(\sqrt{\mu}x) roman_Ci ( square-root start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG italic_x )
with non-conventional integration constant are defined as
Si ( μ x ) = ∫ 0 μ x sin t t 𝑑 t , Si 𝜇 𝑥 superscript subscript 0 𝜇 𝑥 𝑡 𝑡 differential-d 𝑡 \displaystyle\operatorname{Si}(\sqrt{\mu}x)=\int_{0}^{\sqrt{\mu}x}\frac{\sin t%
}{t}dt, roman_Si ( square-root start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG italic_x ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_sin italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_d italic_t ,
(28)
Ci ( μ x ) = 𝜸 + 1 2 ln ( − μ x 2 ) − ∫ 0 μ x 1 − cos t t 𝑑 t , Ci 𝜇 𝑥 𝜸 1 2 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 superscript subscript 0 𝜇 𝑥 1 𝑡 𝑡 differential-d 𝑡 \displaystyle\operatorname{Ci}(\sqrt{\mu}x)=\boldsymbol{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2}\ln%
(-\mu x^{2})-\int_{0}^{\sqrt{\mu}x}\frac{1-\cos t}{t}dt, roman_Ci ( square-root start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG italic_x ) = bold_italic_γ + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_ln ( - italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG italic_x end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 - roman_cos italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG italic_d italic_t ,
(29)
and
𝜸 𝜸 \boldsymbol{\gamma} bold_italic_γ
is the Euler constant.
One may note that RHS in
(26 )
includes only Taylor-expandable even functions and the logarithm.
That is branching by
μ 𝜇 \mu italic_μ
in
(26 )
is defined solely by the logarithm from the integral cosine
(29 ).
Substituting
(27 )
into
(23 )
one derives the following expansion for
σ ( μ ) − κ 𝜎 𝜇 𝜅 \sigma(\mu)-\kappa italic_σ ( italic_μ ) - italic_κ
σ ( μ ) − κ = 2 π ln κ ~ x 2 + 4 π ( 𝜸 − 1 ) + ln ( − μ x 2 ) 𝒪 ( μ x 2 ) , μ → 0 . formulae-sequence 𝜎 𝜇 𝜅 2 𝜋 ~ 𝜅 superscript 𝑥 2 4 𝜋 𝜸 1 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 𝒪 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 → 𝜇 0 \sigma(\mu)-\kappa=2\pi\ln\tilde{\kappa}x^{2}+4\pi(\boldsymbol{\gamma}-1)+\ln(%
-\mu x^{2})\mathcal{O}(\mu x^{2}),\quad\mu\to 0. italic_σ ( italic_μ ) - italic_κ = 2 italic_π roman_ln over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 4 italic_π ( bold_italic_γ - 1 ) + roman_ln ( - italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) caligraphic_O ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_μ → 0 .
(30)
This equation shows that we can always choose
κ ~ ~ 𝜅 \tilde{\kappa} over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG
in such a way that RHS of
(30 )
is negative when
μ 𝜇 \mu italic_μ
tends to zero.
The latter means, due to the positivity of derivative
(25 ),
that
σ ( μ ) − κ 𝜎 𝜇 𝜅 \sigma(\mu)-\kappa italic_σ ( italic_μ ) - italic_κ
does not turn to zero on the negative semi-axis and that for such
κ ~ ~ 𝜅 \tilde{\kappa} over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG
resolvent
(21 )
defines positive operator
L κ subscript 𝐿 𝜅 L_{\kappa} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and thus real-valued quadratic form
ω κ ( A ) subscript 𝜔 𝜅 𝐴 \omega_{\kappa}(A) italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) .
Figure 1: Functions σ ( μ , x ) 𝜎 𝜇 𝑥 \sigma(\mu,x) italic_σ ( italic_μ , italic_x ) , σ ( μ , x b ) 𝜎 𝜇 subscript 𝑥 b \sigma(\mu,x_{\mathrm{b}}) italic_σ ( italic_μ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) compared
to 2 π ln κ ~ − μ 2 𝜋 ~ 𝜅 𝜇 2\pi\ln\frac{\tilde{\kappa}}{-\mu} 2 italic_π roman_ln divide start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG - italic_μ end_ARG
Let us look at
(30 )
from another side. Suppose that for chosen values of
κ ~ ~ 𝜅 \tilde{\kappa} over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG and
x 𝑥 x italic_x
the limit of RHS in
(30 )
is negative and we can correctly define the functional
Ω κ ( A ) subscript Ω 𝜅 𝐴 \Omega_{\kappa}(A) roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) .
When increasing the distance
x 𝑥 x italic_x
the limit of RHS of
(30 )
is increasing as well and for some boundary
x = x b 𝑥 subscript 𝑥 b x=x_{\mathrm{b}} italic_x = italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
it turns to zero (see Fig. 1 )
σ ( μ , x b ) | μ = 0 − κ = 0 . evaluated-at 𝜎 𝜇 subscript 𝑥 b 𝜇 0 𝜅 0 \sigma(\mu,x_{\mathrm{b}})|_{\mu=0}-\kappa=0. italic_σ ( italic_μ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_κ = 0 .
For
x > x b 𝑥 subscript 𝑥 b x>x_{\mathrm{b}} italic_x > italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
the function
σ ( μ , x ) − κ 𝜎 𝜇 𝑥 𝜅 \sigma(\mu,x)-\kappa italic_σ ( italic_μ , italic_x ) - italic_κ
changes its sign through zero in the interval
− ∞ < μ < 0 𝜇 0 -\infty<\mu<0 - ∞ < italic_μ < 0
and the corresponding self-adjoint operator
L κ subscript 𝐿 𝜅 L_{\kappa} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
possesses negative eigenvalue.
That is for any chosen extension parameter
κ ~ ~ 𝜅 \tilde{\kappa} over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG
admissible relative positions of sources always exist
and are always limited by the sphere with radius proportional to
inverse square root of
κ ~ ~ 𝜅 \tilde{\kappa} over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG .
3 Electromagnetic field
Quantum Hamiltonian of the free electromagnetic field in the Coulomb gauge
acts as the following operator
[1 ]
ℋ = ∫ ℝ 3 d 3 p ( − δ δ A l ( 𝒑 ) 2 P l j ⊥ δ δ A j ( 𝒑 ) 2 + p 2 A l 2 ( 𝒑 ) ) , ℋ subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 𝛿 𝛿 subscript 𝐴 𝑙 superscript 𝒑 2 superscript subscript 𝑃 𝑙 𝑗 bottom 𝛿 𝛿 subscript 𝐴 𝑗 superscript 𝒑 2 superscript 𝑝 2 superscript subscript 𝐴 𝑙 2 𝒑 \mathscr{H}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}d^{3}p\,\bigl{(}-\frac{\delta}{\delta A_{l}(%
\boldsymbol{p})^{2}}P_{lj}^{\bot}\frac{\delta}{\delta A_{j}(\boldsymbol{p})^{2%
}}+p^{2}A_{l}^{2}(\boldsymbol{p})\bigr{)}, script_H = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p ( - divide start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG start_ARG italic_δ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG start_ARG italic_δ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) ) ,
(31)
where
P l j ⊥ superscript subscript 𝑃 𝑙 𝑗 bottom P_{lj}^{\bot} italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
is the projector to the transverse (solenoidal) component
P l j ⊥ = δ l j − p l p j p 2 . superscript subscript 𝑃 𝑙 𝑗 bottom subscript 𝛿 𝑙 𝑗 subscript 𝑝 𝑙 subscript 𝑝 𝑗 superscript 𝑝 2 P_{lj}^{\bot}=\delta_{lj}-\frac{p_{l}p_{j}}{p^{2}}. italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .
Corresponding functional of the ground state
differs from its scalae counterpart
only by summation in the quadratic form
ω ( A ) 𝜔 𝐴 \omega(A) italic_ω ( italic_A )
Ω 0 ( A ) = exp { − 1 2 ω ( A ) } , ω ( A ) = ∫ ℝ 3 p A l 2 ( 𝒑 ) d 3 p , formulae-sequence subscript Ω 0 𝐴 1 2 𝜔 𝐴 𝜔 𝐴 subscript superscript ℝ 3 𝑝 superscript subscript 𝐴 𝑙 2 𝒑 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 \Omega_{0}(A)=\exp\{-\frac{1}{2}\omega(A)\},\quad\omega(A)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3%
}}pA_{l}^{2}(\boldsymbol{p})\,d^{3}p, roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = roman_exp { - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ω ( italic_A ) } , italic_ω ( italic_A ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p ,
provided that
A l ( p ) subscript 𝐴 𝑙 𝑝 A_{l}(p) italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p )
is transverse
p l A l ( 𝒑 ) = 0 . subscript 𝑝 𝑙 subscript 𝐴 𝑙 𝒑 0 p_{l}A_{l}(\boldsymbol{p})=0. italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) = 0 .
The latter condition ensures that linear functional (1-form)
δ ω ( A ) δ A l ( 𝒑 ) 𝛿 𝜔 𝐴 𝛿 subscript 𝐴 𝑙 𝒑 \frac{\delta\omega(A)}{\delta A_{l}(\boldsymbol{p})} divide start_ARG italic_δ italic_ω ( italic_A ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_δ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) end_ARG
is transverse w. r. to variables
( 𝒑 , l ) 𝒑 𝑙 (\boldsymbol{p},l) ( bold_italic_p , italic_l )
and that the projector
P l j ⊥ superscript subscript 𝑃 𝑙 𝑗 bottom P_{lj}^{\bot} italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
in the middle of
(31 )
acts as unity when
ℋ ℋ \mathscr{H} script_H
is applied to
Ω 0 ( A ) subscript Ω 0 𝐴 \Omega_{0}(A) roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) .
In order to construct closed positive extensions of the quadratic form
𝔩 ( A ) = ∫ ℝ 3 p 2 A l 2 ( 𝒑 ) d 3 p 𝔩 𝐴 subscript superscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑝 2 superscript subscript 𝐴 𝑙 2 𝒑 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 \mathfrak{l}(A)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}p^{2}A_{l}^{2}(\boldsymbol{p})\,d^{3}p fraktur_l ( italic_A ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p
from the second term of
(31 )
let us consider the following set (in the index
j 𝑗 j italic_j )
of transverse (in the index
l 𝑙 l italic_l )
vector singular potentials
v l , 𝒙 n j ( 𝒑 ) = e i 𝒑 ⋅ 𝒙 n p 1 / 2 ( δ l j − p l p j p 2 ) = e i 𝒑 ⋅ 𝒙 n p 1 / 2 P l j ⊥ . superscript subscript 𝑣 𝑙 subscript 𝒙 𝑛
𝑗 𝒑 superscript 𝑒 ⋅ 𝑖 𝒑 subscript 𝒙 𝑛 superscript 𝑝 1 2 subscript 𝛿 𝑙 𝑗 subscript 𝑝 𝑙 subscript 𝑝 𝑗 superscript 𝑝 2 superscript 𝑒 ⋅ 𝑖 𝒑 subscript 𝒙 𝑛 superscript 𝑝 1 2 superscript subscript 𝑃 𝑙 𝑗 bottom v_{l,\boldsymbol{x}_{n}}^{j}(\boldsymbol{p})=\frac{e^{i\boldsymbol{p}\cdot%
\boldsymbol{x}_{n}}}{p^{1/2}}\bigl{(}\delta_{lj}-\frac{p_{l}p_{j}}{p^{2}}\bigr%
{)}=\frac{e^{i\boldsymbol{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{x}_{n}}}{p^{1/2}}P_{lj}^{\bot}. italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) = divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i bold_italic_p ⋅ bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) = divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i bold_italic_p ⋅ bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
There are 3 potentials
j = 1 , 2 , 3 𝑗 1 2 3
j=1,2,3 italic_j = 1 , 2 , 3
attached to each point which,
according to
[9 ] ,
generate
6 × 6 6 6 6\times 6 6 × 6
matrix of the denominator of resolvent
(19 )
σ n j m k ( μ ) = ( 4 π 3 δ j k ln κ ~ − μ δ j k ( J − 2 σ ˙ ) − x j x k x 2 ( J − 6 σ ˙ ) δ j k ( J − 2 σ ˙ ) − x j x k x 2 ( J − 6 σ ˙ ) 4 π 3 δ j k ln κ ~ − μ ) , superscript subscript 𝜎 𝑛 𝑗 𝑚 𝑘 𝜇 matrix 4 𝜋 3 subscript 𝛿 𝑗 𝑘 ~ 𝜅 𝜇 subscript 𝛿 𝑗 𝑘 J 2 ˙ 𝜎 subscript 𝑥 𝑗 subscript 𝑥 𝑘 superscript 𝑥 2 J 6 ˙ 𝜎 subscript 𝛿 𝑗 𝑘 J 2 ˙ 𝜎 subscript 𝑥 𝑗 subscript 𝑥 𝑘 superscript 𝑥 2 J 6 ˙ 𝜎 4 𝜋 3 subscript 𝛿 𝑗 𝑘 ~ 𝜅 𝜇 \sigma_{nj}^{mk}(\mu)=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{4\pi}{3}\delta_{jk}\ln\frac{\tilde{%
\kappa}}{-\mu}&\delta_{jk}(\mathrm{J}-2\dot{\sigma})-\frac{x_{j}x_{k}}{x^{2}}(%
\mathrm{J}-6\dot{\sigma})\\
\delta_{jk}(\mathrm{J}-2\dot{\sigma})-\frac{x_{j}x_{k}}{x^{2}}(\mathrm{J}-6%
\dot{\sigma})&\frac{4\pi}{3}\delta_{jk}\ln\frac{\tilde{\kappa}}{-\mu}\end{%
pmatrix}, italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_μ ) = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ln divide start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG - italic_μ end_ARG end_CELL start_CELL italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_J - 2 over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( roman_J - 6 over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_J - 2 over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( roman_J - 6 over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG ) end_CELL start_CELL divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ln divide start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG - italic_μ end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) ,
(32)
where
m , n = 1 , 2 formulae-sequence 𝑚 𝑛
1 2 m,n=1,2 italic_m , italic_n = 1 , 2 ;
x j subscript 𝑥 𝑗 x_{j} italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and
x k subscript 𝑥 𝑘 x_{k} italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
are
j 𝑗 j italic_j -th and
k 𝑘 k italic_k -th
coordinates of the vector
𝒙 = 𝒙 2 − 𝒙 1 𝒙 subscript 𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}=\boldsymbol{x}_{2}-\boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x = bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and we use the notation
σ ˙ ˙ 𝜎 \dot{\sigma} over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG
for dimensionless derivative of
(23 )
σ ˙ ( μ x 2 ) = 1 x 2 ∂ ∂ μ σ ( μ , x ) = − 2 π μ x 2 − J ′ ( μ x 2 ) . ˙ 𝜎 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 1 superscript 𝑥 2 𝜇 𝜎 𝜇 𝑥 2 𝜋 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 superscript J ′ 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 \dot{\sigma}(\mu x^{2})=\frac{1}{x^{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}\sigma(\mu,%
x)=-\frac{2\pi}{\mu x^{2}}-\mathrm{J}^{\prime}(\mu x^{2}). over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_μ end_ARG italic_σ ( italic_μ , italic_x ) = - divide start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - roman_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .
Matrix
σ n j m k ( μ ) superscript subscript 𝜎 𝑛 𝑗 𝑚 𝑘 𝜇 \sigma_{nj}^{mk}(\mu) italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_μ )
satisfies equation
(20 )
with off-diagonal separation constants set to zero
σ n j m k ( μ ) − σ n j m k ( ν ) = ∫ ℝ 3 v l , 𝒙 n j ( 𝒑 ) ¯ ( 1 p 2 − μ − 1 p 2 − λ ) v l , 𝒙 m k ( 𝒑 ) d 3 p . superscript subscript 𝜎 𝑛 𝑗 𝑚 𝑘 𝜇 superscript subscript 𝜎 𝑛 𝑗 𝑚 𝑘 𝜈 subscript superscript ℝ 3 ¯ superscript subscript 𝑣 𝑙 subscript 𝒙 𝑛
𝑗 𝒑 1 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜇 1 superscript 𝑝 2 𝜆 superscript subscript 𝑣 𝑙 subscript 𝒙 𝑚
𝑘 𝒑 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 \sigma_{nj}^{mk}(\mu)-\sigma_{nj}^{mk}(\nu)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\overline{v_{%
l,\boldsymbol{x}_{n}}^{j}(\boldsymbol{p})}\bigl{(}\frac{1}{p^{2}-\mu}-\frac{1}%
{p^{2}-\lambda}\bigr{)}v_{l,\boldsymbol{x}_{m}}^{k}(\boldsymbol{p})\,d^{3}p. italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_μ ) - italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ν ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) end_ARG ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_μ end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG ) italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p .
Provided that all diagonal constants
κ ~ ~ 𝜅 \tilde{\kappa} over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG
are equal,
this matrix can be diagonalized simultaneously for all
μ 𝜇 \mu italic_μ
by changing the basis to the set
of normalized vectors proportional to
( 𝒙 𝒙 ) , ( 𝒙 1 ⊥ 𝒙 1 ⊥ ) , ( 𝒙 2 ⊥ 𝒙 2 ⊥ ) , ( 𝒙 − 𝒙 ) , ( 𝒙 1 ⊥ − 𝒙 1 ⊥ ) , ( 𝒙 2 ⊥ − 𝒙 2 ⊥ ) , matrix 𝒙 𝒙 matrix superscript subscript 𝒙 1 bottom superscript subscript 𝒙 1 bottom matrix superscript subscript 𝒙 2 bottom superscript subscript 𝒙 2 bottom matrix 𝒙 𝒙 matrix superscript subscript 𝒙 1 bottom superscript subscript 𝒙 1 bottom matrix superscript subscript 𝒙 2 bottom superscript subscript 𝒙 2 bottom
\begin{pmatrix}\boldsymbol{x}\\
\boldsymbol{x}\end{pmatrix},\quad\begin{pmatrix}\boldsymbol{x}_{1}^{\bot}\\
\boldsymbol{x}_{1}^{\bot}\end{pmatrix},\quad\begin{pmatrix}\boldsymbol{x}_{2}^%
{\bot}\\
\boldsymbol{x}_{2}^{\bot}\end{pmatrix},\quad\begin{pmatrix}\boldsymbol{x}\\
-\boldsymbol{x}\end{pmatrix},\quad\begin{pmatrix}\boldsymbol{x}_{1}^{\bot}\\
-\boldsymbol{x}_{1}^{\bot}\end{pmatrix},\quad\begin{pmatrix}\boldsymbol{x}_{2}%
^{\bot}\\
-\boldsymbol{x}_{2}^{\bot}\end{pmatrix}, ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_italic_x end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL bold_italic_x end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) , ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) , ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) , ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_italic_x end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - bold_italic_x end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) , ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) , ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) ,
(33)
where 3-dimensional vectors
𝒙 1 ⊥ superscript subscript 𝒙 1 bottom \boldsymbol{x}_{1}^{\bot} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
and
𝒙 2 ⊥ superscript subscript 𝒙 2 bottom \boldsymbol{x}_{2}^{\bot} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
are orthogonal to
𝒙 𝒙 \boldsymbol{x} bold_italic_x
and to each other.
Indeed, vector
𝒙 𝒙 \boldsymbol{x} bold_italic_x
is eigenvector for all elements of
(32 ),
vectors
𝒙 1 , 2 ⊥ superscript subscript 𝒙 1 2
bottom \boldsymbol{x}_{1,2}^{\bot} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
are eigenvectors for diagonal elements
and for the first terms in off-diagonal ones,
but they are annihilated by the second terms.
Taking the quadratic form of
(32 )
on normalized vectors
(33 )
we have the following Nevanlinna functions
σ ∥ + superscript subscript 𝜎 parallel-to \displaystyle\sigma_{\shortparallel}^{+} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= 4 π 3 ln κ ~ − μ + 4 σ ˙ ( μ x 2 ) , absent 4 𝜋 3 ~ 𝜅 𝜇 4 ˙ 𝜎 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 \displaystyle=\frac{4\pi}{3}\ln\frac{\tilde{\kappa}}{-\mu}+4\dot{\sigma}(\mu x%
^{2}), = divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG roman_ln divide start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG - italic_μ end_ARG + 4 over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,
σ ⊥ 1 , 2 + superscript subscript 𝜎 subscript bottom 1 2
\displaystyle\sigma_{\bot_{1,2}}^{+} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= 4 π 3 ln κ ~ − μ + J ( μ x 2 ) − 2 σ ˙ ( μ x 2 ) , absent 4 𝜋 3 ~ 𝜅 𝜇 J 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 2 ˙ 𝜎 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 \displaystyle=\frac{4\pi}{3}\ln\frac{\tilde{\kappa}}{-\mu}+\mathrm{J}(\mu x^{2%
})-2\dot{\sigma}(\mu x^{2}), = divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG roman_ln divide start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG - italic_μ end_ARG + roman_J ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 2 over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,
(34)
σ ∥ − superscript subscript 𝜎 parallel-to \displaystyle\sigma_{\shortparallel}^{-} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= 4 π 3 ln κ ~ − μ − 4 σ ˙ ( μ x 2 ) , absent 4 𝜋 3 ~ 𝜅 𝜇 4 ˙ 𝜎 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 \displaystyle=\frac{4\pi}{3}\ln\frac{\tilde{\kappa}}{-\mu}-4\dot{\sigma}(\mu x%
^{2}), = divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG roman_ln divide start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG - italic_μ end_ARG - 4 over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,
σ ⊥ 1 , 2 − superscript subscript 𝜎 subscript bottom 1 2
\displaystyle\sigma_{\bot_{1,2}}^{-} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= 4 π 3 ln κ ~ − μ − J ( μ x 2 ) + 2 σ ˙ ( μ x 2 ) . absent 4 𝜋 3 ~ 𝜅 𝜇 J 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 2 ˙ 𝜎 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 \displaystyle=\frac{4\pi}{3}\ln\frac{\tilde{\kappa}}{-\mu}-\mathrm{J}(\mu x^{2%
})+2\dot{\sigma}(\mu x^{2}). = divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG roman_ln divide start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG - italic_μ end_ARG - roman_J ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 2 over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .
(35)
Calculation of higher terms in the expansion
(27 )
gives us the expansion of
σ ˙ ( μ x 2 ) ˙ 𝜎 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 \dot{\sigma}(\mu x^{2}) over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
for small argument
σ ˙ ( μ x 2 ) = − 2 π ( 1 6 ln ( − μ x 2 ) + 𝜸 6 − 2 9 + ln ( − μ x 2 ) 𝒪 ( μ x 2 ) ) . ˙ 𝜎 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 2 𝜋 1 6 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 𝜸 6 2 9 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 𝒪 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 \dot{\sigma}(\mu x^{2})=-2\pi(\frac{1}{6}\ln(-\mu x^{2})+\frac{\boldsymbol{%
\gamma}}{6}-\frac{2}{9}+\ln(-\mu x^{2})\mathcal{O}(\mu x^{2})). over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = - 2 italic_π ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 6 end_ARG roman_ln ( - italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + divide start_ARG bold_italic_γ end_ARG start_ARG 6 end_ARG - divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG 9 end_ARG + roman_ln ( - italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) caligraphic_O ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) .
As long as for
μ → − ∞ → 𝜇 \mu\to-\infty italic_μ → - ∞
the value of
σ ˙ ( μ x 2 ) ˙ 𝜎 𝜇 superscript 𝑥 2 \dot{\sigma}(\mu x^{2}) over˙ start_ARG italic_σ end_ARG ( italic_μ italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
tends to zero, one may conclude that out of 6 functions
(34 ),
(35 )
only antisymmetric ones, namely
σ ∥ − superscript subscript 𝜎 parallel-to \sigma_{\shortparallel}^{-} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
and 2 functions
σ ⊥ − superscript subscript 𝜎 bottom \sigma_{\bot}^{-} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊥ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
are upper-bounded for
− ∞ < μ < 0 𝜇 0 -\infty<\mu<0 - ∞ < italic_μ < 0
and become zeroless for corresponding values of
κ ~ ~ 𝜅 \tilde{\kappa} over~ start_ARG italic_κ end_ARG .
We would like to note that matrix similar to
(32 )
corresponding to 3 or more localized potentials can hardly be
simultaneously diagonalized for all
μ 𝜇 \mu italic_μ
for general set of distances even in the scalar case.
Hence separation of the subspace of positive extensions of the form
𝔩 ( A ) 𝔩 𝐴 \mathfrak{l}(A) fraktur_l ( italic_A )
may become an untrivial problem for multiple-potential interaction.
5 Reconstruction of the quadratic form of
L κ 1 / 2 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 L_{\kappa}^{1/2} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
As was stated in the Introduction in order to construct
eigenfunctionals of operation
ℋ ℋ \mathscr{H} script_H
one need to prove that the positive quadratic form of
L κ 1 / 2 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 L_{\kappa}^{1/2} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
can be reconstructed by its action on the set
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l )
everywhere dense in the space
L 2 ( ℝ 3 ) subscript 𝐿 2 superscript ℝ 3 L_{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .
Let the function
A ( 𝒑 ) 𝐴 𝒑 A(\boldsymbol{p}) italic_A ( bold_italic_p )
to be from
𝒟 ( ω κ ) 𝒟 subscript 𝜔 𝜅 \mathcal{D}(\omega_{\kappa}) caligraphic_D ( italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
then there exists a sequence
A n ∈ 𝒟 ( L κ 1 / 2 ) subscript 𝐴 𝑛 𝒟 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 A_{n}\in\mathcal{D}(L_{\kappa}^{1/2}) italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_D ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
converging to
A 𝐴 A italic_A
in the norm induced by the form
ω κ subscript 𝜔 𝜅 \omega_{\kappa} italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
‖ A − A n ‖ L 2 ( ℝ 3 ) → 0 , ω κ ( A − A n ) → 0 , n → ∞ . formulae-sequence → subscript norm 𝐴 subscript 𝐴 𝑛 subscript 𝐿 2 superscript ℝ 3 0 formulae-sequence → subscript 𝜔 𝜅 𝐴 subscript 𝐴 𝑛 0 → 𝑛 ||A-A_{n}||_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}\to 0,\quad\omega_{\kappa}(A-A_{n})\to 0,%
\quad n\to\infty. | | italic_A - italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 , italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A - italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) → 0 , italic_n → ∞ .
Thus it is sufficient to prove that any function
A n ( p ) subscript 𝐴 𝑛 𝑝 A_{n}(p) italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) from
𝒟 ( L κ 1 / 2 ) 𝒟 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 \mathcal{D}(L_{\kappa}^{1/2}) caligraphic_D ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
can be approximated in the norm of
ω κ subscript 𝜔 𝜅 \omega_{\kappa} italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
by functions from
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) .
If
A n subscript 𝐴 𝑛 A_{n} italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
belongs to
𝒟 ( L κ 1 / 2 ) 𝒟 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 \mathcal{D}(L_{\kappa}^{1/2}) caligraphic_D ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
then it belongs to the domain of quadratic form
𝔩 κ subscript 𝔩 𝜅 \mathfrak{l}_{\kappa} fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
of the operator
L κ subscript 𝐿 𝜅 L_{\kappa} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
𝔩 κ ( A n ) = ( L κ 1 / 2 A n , L κ 1 / 2 A n ) < ∞ . subscript 𝔩 𝜅 subscript 𝐴 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 subscript 𝐴 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 subscript 𝐴 𝑛 \mathfrak{l}_{\kappa}(A_{n})=(L_{\kappa}^{1/2}A_{n},L_{\kappa}^{1/2}A_{n})<\infty. fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) < ∞ .
As long as
𝒟 ( 𝔩 κ ) 𝒟 subscript 𝔩 𝜅 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}_{\kappa}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
is the direct sum of
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l )
and the linear span of some vector
R ρ v subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 R_{\rho}v italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ,
ρ < 0 𝜌 0 \rho<0 italic_ρ < 0 ,
then this
A n subscript 𝐴 𝑛 A_{n} italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
can be uniquely decomposed into the sum
A n = a n + χ n R ρ v , a n ∈ 𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) , χ n ∈ ℂ , ρ < 0 . formulae-sequence subscript 𝐴 𝑛 subscript 𝑎 𝑛 subscript 𝜒 𝑛 subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 formulae-sequence subscript 𝑎 𝑛 𝒟 𝔩 formulae-sequence subscript 𝜒 𝑛 ℂ 𝜌 0 A_{n}=a_{n}+\chi_{n}R_{\rho}v,\quad a_{n}\in\mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}),\quad%
\chi_{n}\in\mathbb{C},\quad\rho<0. italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) , italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_C , italic_ρ < 0 .
Thus it is sufficient to show that function
R ρ v subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 R_{\rho}v italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v
can be approximated by functions from
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l )
in the norm of quadratic form
ω κ subscript 𝜔 𝜅 \omega_{\kappa} italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
In order to verify the above proposition let us use expression
(36 )
for the operator
L κ 1 / 2 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 L_{\kappa}^{1/2} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
and write down its quadratic form
ω κ ( R ρ v ) = ω ( R ρ v ) + 1 2 π i ∫ 0 ∞ ( ( R ρ v , R λ + i 0 v ) ( R λ − i 0 v , R ρ v ) κ − σ ( λ + i 0 ) − − ( R ρ v , R λ − i 0 v ) ( R λ + i 0 v , R ρ v ) κ − σ ( λ − i 0 ) ) λ 1 / 2 d λ . subscript 𝜔 𝜅 subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 𝜔 subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 1 2 𝜋 𝑖 superscript subscript 0 subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 superscript 𝜆 1 2 𝑑 𝜆 \omega_{\kappa}(R_{\rho}v)=\omega(R_{\rho}v)+\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{0}^{\infty}%
\bigl{(}\frac{(R_{\rho}v,R_{\lambda+i0}v)(R_{\lambda-i0}v,R_{\rho}v)}{\kappa-%
\sigma(\lambda+i0)}-\\
-\frac{(R_{\rho}v,R_{\lambda-i0}v)(R_{\lambda+i0}v,R_{\rho}v)}{\kappa-\sigma(%
\lambda-i0)}\bigr{)}\lambda^{1/2}\,d\lambda. start_ROW start_CELL italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) = italic_ω ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ + italic_i 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ - italic_i 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) end_ARG - end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - divide start_ARG ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ - italic_i 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ + italic_i 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) end_ARG ) italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_λ . end_CELL end_ROW
(41)
Now using
(15 )
each quotient here can be transformed into
( R ρ v , R λ ± i 0 v ) ( R λ ∓ i 0 v , R ρ v ) κ − σ ( λ ± i 0 ) = ( σ ( λ ± i 0 ) − σ ( ρ ) ) 2 ( λ ± i 0 − ρ ) 2 ( κ − σ ( λ ± i 0 ) ) = = 2 σ ( ρ ) − κ − σ ( λ ± i 0 ) ( λ ± i 0 − ρ ) 2 + ( κ − σ ( ρ ) ) 2 ( λ ± i 0 − ρ ) 2 ( κ − σ ( λ ± i 0 ) ) , subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 plus-or-minus 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 minus-or-plus 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 𝜅 𝜎 plus-or-minus 𝜆 𝑖 0 superscript 𝜎 plus-or-minus 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜎 𝜌 2 superscript plus-or-minus 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜌 2 𝜅 𝜎 plus-or-minus 𝜆 𝑖 0 2 𝜎 𝜌 𝜅 𝜎 plus-or-minus 𝜆 𝑖 0 superscript plus-or-minus 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜌 2 superscript 𝜅 𝜎 𝜌 2 superscript plus-or-minus 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜌 2 𝜅 𝜎 plus-or-minus 𝜆 𝑖 0 \frac{(R_{\rho}v,R_{\lambda\pm i0}v)(R_{\lambda\mp i0}v,R_{\rho}v)}{\kappa-%
\sigma(\lambda\pm i0)}=\frac{(\sigma(\lambda\pm i0)-\sigma(\rho))^{2}}{(%
\lambda\pm i0-\rho)^{2}(\kappa-\sigma(\lambda\pm i0))}=\\
=\frac{2\sigma(\rho)-\kappa-\sigma(\lambda\pm i0)}{(\lambda\pm i0-\rho)^{2}}+%
\frac{(\kappa-\sigma(\rho))^{2}}{(\lambda\pm i0-\rho)^{2}(\kappa-\sigma(%
\lambda\pm i0))}, start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ ± italic_i 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ ∓ italic_i 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ ± italic_i 0 ) end_ARG = divide start_ARG ( italic_σ ( italic_λ ± italic_i 0 ) - italic_σ ( italic_ρ ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ ± italic_i 0 - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ ± italic_i 0 ) ) end_ARG = end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = divide start_ARG 2 italic_σ ( italic_ρ ) - italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ ± italic_i 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ ± italic_i 0 - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_ρ ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ ± italic_i 0 - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ ± italic_i 0 ) ) end_ARG , end_CELL end_ROW
and finally,
up to some vanishing terms proportional to
i 0 𝑖 0 i0 italic_i 0 ,
we have
ω κ ( R ρ v ) = 4 π ∫ 0 ∞ p 2 d p ( p 2 − ρ ) 2 − 1 2 π i ∫ 0 ∞ σ ( λ + i 0 ) − σ ( λ − i 0 ) ( λ − ρ ) 2 λ 1 / 2 𝑑 λ + 1 2 π i ( κ − σ ( ρ ) ) 2 ∫ 0 ∞ σ ( λ + i 0 ) − σ ( λ − i 0 ) ( λ − ρ ) 2 ( κ − σ ( λ + i 0 ) ) ( κ − σ ( λ − i 0 ) ) λ 1 / 2 𝑑 λ . subscript 𝜔 𝜅 subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 4 𝜋 superscript subscript 0 superscript 𝑝 2 𝑑 𝑝 superscript superscript 𝑝 2 𝜌 2 1 2 𝜋 𝑖 superscript subscript 0 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 superscript 𝜆 𝜌 2 superscript 𝜆 1 2 differential-d 𝜆 1 2 𝜋 𝑖 superscript 𝜅 𝜎 𝜌 2 superscript subscript 0 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 superscript 𝜆 𝜌 2 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 superscript 𝜆 1 2 differential-d 𝜆 \omega_{\kappa}(R_{\rho}v)=4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{p^{2}\,dp}{(p^{2}-\rho)^%
{2}}-\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\sigma(\lambda+i0)-\sigma(\lambda-%
i0)}{(\lambda-\rho)^{2}}\lambda^{1/2}d\lambda\\
+\frac{1}{2\pi i}(\kappa-\sigma(\rho))^{2}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\sigma(%
\lambda+i0)-\sigma(\lambda-i0)}{(\lambda-\rho)^{2}(\kappa-\sigma(\lambda+i0))(%
\kappa-\sigma(\lambda-i0))}\lambda^{1/2}d\lambda. start_ROW start_CELL italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) = 4 italic_π ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_p end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_σ ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) - italic_σ ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_λ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_ρ ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_σ ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) - italic_σ ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) ) ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) ) end_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_λ . end_CELL end_ROW
(42)
The modulus of the gap of
σ ( λ ) 𝜎 𝜆 \sigma(\lambda) italic_σ ( italic_λ )
calculated in
(38 )
is limited, thus all three integrals in
(42 )
converge absolutely.
Then in order to approximate
R ρ v subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 R_{\rho}v italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v
by the function
( Λ + ρ ) R − Λ R ρ v ∈ 𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) Λ 𝜌 subscript 𝑅 Λ subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 𝒟 𝔩 (\Lambda+\rho)R_{-\Lambda}R_{\rho}v\in\mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) ( roman_Λ + italic_ρ ) italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l )
one may use the following limit in the norm
L 2 ( ℝ 3 ) subscript 𝐿 2 superscript ℝ 3 L_{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
R ρ v − ( Λ + ρ ) R − Λ R ρ v = R − Λ v = 1 ( p 2 + Λ ) p 1 / 2 → L 2 ( ℝ 3 ) 0 , Λ → ∞ . formulae-sequence subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 Λ 𝜌 subscript 𝑅 Λ subscript 𝑅 𝜌 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 Λ 𝑣 1 superscript 𝑝 2 Λ superscript 𝑝 1 2 superscript → subscript 𝐿 2 superscript ℝ 3 0 → Λ R_{\rho}v-(\Lambda+\rho)R_{-\Lambda}R_{\rho}v=R_{-\Lambda}v=\frac{1}{(p^{2}+%
\Lambda)p^{1/2}}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle L_{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}{{\to}}0,\quad%
\Lambda\to\infty. italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v - ( roman_Λ + italic_ρ ) italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v = italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + roman_Λ ) italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG → end_ARG start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG end_RELOP 0 , roman_Λ → ∞ .
The same limit is valid in the norm of the form
ω 𝜔 \omega italic_ω
ω ( R − Λ v ) = ∫ ℝ 3 d 3 p ( p 2 + Λ ) 2 → 0 , Λ → ∞ , formulae-sequence 𝜔 subscript 𝑅 Λ 𝑣 subscript subscript ℝ 3 superscript 𝑑 3 𝑝 superscript superscript 𝑝 2 Λ 2 → 0 → Λ \omega(R_{-\Lambda}v)=\int_{\mathbb{R}_{3}}\frac{d^{3}p}{(p^{2}+\Lambda)^{2}}%
\to 0,\quad\Lambda\to\infty, italic_ω ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + roman_Λ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG → 0 , roman_Λ → ∞ ,
thus in order to prove that
ω κ ( R − Λ v ) → 0 , Λ → ∞ , formulae-sequence → subscript 𝜔 𝜅 subscript 𝑅 Λ 𝑣 0 → Λ \omega_{\kappa}(R_{-\Lambda}v)\to 0,\quad\Lambda\to\infty, italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) → 0 , roman_Λ → ∞ ,
one needs to show that the second and the third terms in
(42 ),
after the substitution of
ρ 𝜌 \rho italic_ρ
with
− Λ Λ -\Lambda - roman_Λ ,
tend to zero for
Λ → ∞ → Λ \Lambda\to\infty roman_Λ → ∞ .
By the change of variable
λ ~ = λ / Λ ~ 𝜆 𝜆 Λ \tilde{\lambda}=\lambda/\Lambda over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG = italic_λ / roman_Λ
those terms can be rewritten as
− 1 2 π i Λ 1 / 2 ∫ 0 ∞ σ ( λ ~ Λ + i 0 ) − σ ( λ ~ Λ − i 0 ) ( λ ~ + 1 ) 2 λ ~ 1 / 2 𝑑 λ ~ 1 2 𝜋 𝑖 superscript Λ 1 2 superscript subscript 0 𝜎 ~ 𝜆 Λ 𝑖 0 𝜎 ~ 𝜆 Λ 𝑖 0 superscript ~ 𝜆 1 2 superscript ~ 𝜆 1 2 differential-d ~ 𝜆 \displaystyle-\frac{1}{2\pi i\Lambda^{1/2}}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\sigma(%
\tilde{\lambda}\Lambda+i0)-\sigma(\tilde{\lambda}\Lambda-i0)}{(\tilde{\lambda}%
+1)^{2}}\tilde{\lambda}^{1/2}d\tilde{\lambda} - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i roman_Λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_σ ( over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG roman_Λ + italic_i 0 ) - italic_σ ( over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG roman_Λ - italic_i 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG ( over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG + 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG
(43)
( κ − σ ( − Λ ) ) 2 2 π i Λ 1 / 2 ∫ 0 ∞ σ ( λ ~ Λ + i 0 ) − σ ( λ ~ Λ − i 0 ) ( λ ~ + 1 ) 2 ( κ − σ ( λ ~ Λ + i 0 ) ) ( κ − σ ( λ ~ Λ − i 0 ) ) λ ~ 1 / 2 𝑑 λ ~ , superscript 𝜅 𝜎 Λ 2 2 𝜋 𝑖 superscript Λ 1 2 superscript subscript 0 𝜎 ~ 𝜆 Λ 𝑖 0 𝜎 ~ 𝜆 Λ 𝑖 0 superscript ~ 𝜆 1 2 𝜅 𝜎 ~ 𝜆 Λ 𝑖 0 𝜅 𝜎 ~ 𝜆 Λ 𝑖 0 superscript ~ 𝜆 1 2 differential-d ~ 𝜆 \displaystyle\frac{(\kappa-\sigma(-\Lambda))^{2}}{2\pi i\Lambda^{1/2}}\int_{0}%
^{\infty}\frac{\sigma(\tilde{\lambda}\Lambda+i0)-\sigma(\tilde{\lambda}\Lambda%
-i0)}{(\tilde{\lambda}+1)^{2}(\kappa-\sigma(\tilde{\lambda}\Lambda+i0))(\kappa%
-\sigma(\tilde{\lambda}\Lambda-i0))}\tilde{\lambda}^{1/2}d\tilde{\lambda}, divide start_ARG ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( - roman_Λ ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i roman_Λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_σ ( over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG roman_Λ + italic_i 0 ) - italic_σ ( over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG roman_Λ - italic_i 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG ( over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG + 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG roman_Λ + italic_i 0 ) ) ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG roman_Λ - italic_i 0 ) ) end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d over~ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG ,
(44)
correspondingly.
Here both integrals converge absolutely and due to the limited gap of
σ ( λ ) 𝜎 𝜆 \sigma(\lambda) italic_σ ( italic_λ )
their values are bounded from above for any
Λ Λ \Lambda roman_Λ .
Taking into account coefficients
Λ − 1 / 2 superscript Λ 1 2 \Lambda^{-1/2} roman_Λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
one may conclude that
(43 ),
(44 )
and the whole quadratic form
ω κ ( R − Λ v ) subscript 𝜔 𝜅 subscript 𝑅 Λ 𝑣 \omega_{\kappa}(R_{-\Lambda}v) italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_Λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v )
tend to zero for
Λ → ∞ → Λ \Lambda\to\infty roman_Λ → ∞ .
Summarizing the above we have shown that the quadratic form of the operator
L κ 1 / 2 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 L_{\kappa}^{1/2} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
can be reconstructed by its action on the set
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) .
The same proof is valid for quadratic forms of square roots of
positive extenstions of the transverse Laplace operator,
one just needs to use corresponding potential
v 𝑣 v italic_v
and equations
(39 ),
(40 )
instead of
(38 ).
We would like to notice that similar construction does not work
for extensions of the quadratic form of Laplacian generated by
the interaction with
δ 𝛿 \delta italic_δ -potential.
In this case corresponding quadratic form
(42 )
and expressions
(43 ),
(44 )
are dimensionless
and counterpart of the last integral does not tend to zero for
Λ → ∞ → Λ \Lambda\to\infty roman_Λ → ∞ .
That is we may assume that the closure of the quadratic form
ω κ subscript 𝜔 𝜅 \omega_{\kappa} italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
acting on the set
𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) 𝒟 𝔩 \mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l}) caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l )
represents a restriction
of the form
ω κ subscript 𝜔 𝜅 \omega_{\kappa} italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
ω κ | 𝒟 ( 𝔩 ) ¯ = ω ~ κ ⊂ ω κ ω ~ κ ≠ ω κ . formulae-sequence ¯ evaluated-at subscript 𝜔 𝜅 𝒟 𝔩 subscript ~ 𝜔 𝜅 subscript 𝜔 𝜅 subscript ~ 𝜔 𝜅 subscript 𝜔 𝜅 \overline{\omega_{\kappa}|_{\mathcal{D}(\mathfrak{l})}}=\tilde{\omega}_{\kappa%
}\subset\omega_{\kappa}\quad\tilde{\omega}_{\kappa}\neq\omega_{\kappa}. over¯ start_ARG italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_D ( fraktur_l ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = over~ start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊂ italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_ω end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
This restriction corresponds to a self-adjoint operator different from
L κ 1 / 2 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 L_{\kappa}^{1/2} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
such that quadratic form of its square is not an extension of the
quadratic form of Laplacian. And this means that equation
(9 )
is not valid for quadratic forms extended by means of the interaction with
δ 𝛿 \delta italic_δ -potential.
6 Eigenstates normalization and eigenvalues
Further development of Gaussians
Ω κ subscript Ω 𝜅 \Omega_{\kappa} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
involves introduction of the scalar product and in particular
investigation of the possibility to normalize the functionals
with respect to the ground state of the free theory
Ω 0 subscript Ω 0 \Omega_{0} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Such a normalization can be performed by means of the functional
integration, the result is proportional to
⟨ Ω κ | Ω κ ⟩ ⟨ Ω 0 | Ω 0 ⟩ = ∫ exp { − ω κ ( A ) } ∏ 𝒙 δ A ( 𝒙 ) ∫ exp { − ω ( A ) } ∏ 𝒙 δ A ( 𝒙 ) = exp { 1 8 Tr ( ln L − ln L κ ) } . inner-product subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript Ω 𝜅 inner-product subscript Ω 0 subscript Ω 0 subscript 𝜔 𝜅 𝐴 subscript product 𝒙 𝛿 𝐴 𝒙 𝜔 𝐴 subscript product 𝒙 𝛿 𝐴 𝒙 1 8 Tr 𝐿 subscript 𝐿 𝜅 \frac{\langle\Omega_{\kappa}|\Omega_{\kappa}\rangle}{\langle\Omega_{0}|\Omega_%
{0}\rangle}=\frac{\int\exp\{-\omega_{\kappa}(A)\}\,\prod_{\boldsymbol{x}}%
\delta A(\boldsymbol{x})}{\int\exp\{-\omega(A)\}\,\prod_{\boldsymbol{x}}\delta
A%
(\boldsymbol{x})}=\exp\{\frac{1}{8}\operatorname{Tr}(\ln L-\ln L_{\kappa})\}. divide start_ARG ⟨ roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ end_ARG start_ARG ⟨ roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ end_ARG = divide start_ARG ∫ roman_exp { - italic_ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) } ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) end_ARG start_ARG ∫ roman_exp { - italic_ω ( italic_A ) } ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ italic_A ( bold_italic_x ) end_ARG = roman_exp { divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG roman_Tr ( roman_ln italic_L - roman_ln italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) } .
Using the equation
( R μ ¯ v , R μ v ) = ∂ ∂ μ ( v , R μ v ) = σ ′ ( μ ) , subscript 𝑅 ¯ 𝜇 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 𝜇 𝑣 subscript 𝑅 𝜇 𝑣 superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝜇 (R_{\bar{\mu}}v,R_{\mu}v)=\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}(v,R_{\mu}v)=\sigma^{%
\prime}(\mu), ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_μ end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) = divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_μ end_ARG ( italic_v , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ) = italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_μ ) ,
derived by differentiation of
(15 ),
it is not hard to see,
from the representation of logarithm similar to
(36 ),
that the trace of the difference of logarithms can
be written as the following expression
Tr ( ln L κ − ln L ) = 1 2 π i ∫ 0 ∞ ( σ ′ ( λ + i 0 ) κ − σ ( λ + i 0 ) − σ ′ ( λ − i 0 ) κ − σ ( λ − i 0 ) ) ln λ d λ . Tr subscript 𝐿 𝜅 𝐿 1 2 𝜋 𝑖 superscript subscript 0 superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜆 𝑑 𝜆 \operatorname{Tr}(\ln L_{\kappa}-\ln L)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{0}^{\infty}\bigl%
{(}\frac{\sigma^{\prime}(\lambda+i0)}{\kappa-\sigma(\lambda+i0)}-\frac{\sigma^%
{\prime}(\lambda-i0)}{\kappa-\sigma(\lambda-i0)}\bigr{)}\ln\lambda\,d\lambda. roman_Tr ( roman_ln italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_ln italic_L ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) end_ARG - divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) end_ARG ) roman_ln italic_λ italic_d italic_λ .
(45)
The latter can be further estimated as the integral
Tr ( ln L κ − ln L ) ∼ ∼ 1 2 π i ∫ 0 ∞ σ ( λ + i 0 ) − σ ( λ − i 0 ) ( κ − σ ( λ + i 0 ) ) ( κ − σ ( λ − i 0 ) ) σ ln ′ ( λ ) ln λ d λ ∼ − ∫ C ∞ d λ λ ln λ , similar-to Tr subscript 𝐿 𝜅 𝐿 1 2 𝜋 𝑖 superscript subscript 0 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 subscript superscript 𝜎 ′ ln 𝜆 𝜆 𝑑 𝜆 similar-to superscript subscript 𝐶 𝑑 𝜆 𝜆 𝜆 \operatorname{Tr}(\ln L_{\kappa}-\ln L)\sim\\
\sim\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\sigma(\lambda+i0)-\sigma(\lambda-i%
0)}{(\kappa-\sigma(\lambda+i0))(\kappa-\sigma(\lambda-i0))}\sigma^{\prime}_{%
\text{ln}}(\lambda)\ln\lambda\,d\lambda\sim-\int_{C}^{\infty}\frac{d\lambda}{%
\lambda\ln\lambda}, start_ROW start_CELL roman_Tr ( roman_ln italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_ln italic_L ) ∼ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ∼ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_σ ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) - italic_σ ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) ) ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) ) end_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ln end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_λ ) roman_ln italic_λ italic_d italic_λ ∼ - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_d italic_λ end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ roman_ln italic_λ end_ARG , end_CELL end_ROW
(46)
which diverges as dilogarithm of the upper limit.
Here
σ ln ′ ( λ ) subscript superscript 𝜎 ′ ln 𝜆 \sigma^{\prime}_{\text{ln}}(\lambda) italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ln end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_λ )
is the term of
σ ′ ( λ ) superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝜆 \sigma^{\prime}(\lambda) italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ )
stemming from the logarithm in
σ ( λ ) 𝜎 𝜆 \sigma(\lambda) italic_σ ( italic_λ ) –
it is the first term in the exression
∂ σ ∂ λ = − 2 π λ + 2 π λ 3 / 2 x ( cos λ x Si λ x − sin λ x Ci λ x ) + + 2 π λ ( sin λ x Si λ x − cos λ x Ci λ x ) 𝜎 𝜆 2 𝜋 𝜆 2 𝜋 superscript 𝜆 3 2 𝑥 𝜆 𝑥 Si 𝜆 𝑥 𝜆 𝑥 Ci 𝜆 𝑥 2 𝜋 𝜆 𝜆 𝑥 Si 𝜆 𝑥 𝜆 𝑥 Ci 𝜆 𝑥 \frac{\partial\sigma}{\partial\lambda}=-\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}+\frac{2\pi}{%
\lambda^{3/2}x}(\cos\sqrt{\lambda}x\operatorname{Si}\sqrt{\lambda}x-\sin\sqrt{%
\lambda}x\operatorname{Ci}\sqrt{\lambda}x)+\\
+\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}(\sin\sqrt{\lambda}x\operatorname{Si}\sqrt{\lambda}x-\cos%
\sqrt{\lambda}x\operatorname{Ci}\sqrt{\lambda}x) start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG ∂ italic_σ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG = - divide start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG + divide start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_ARG ( roman_cos square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x roman_Si square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x - roman_sin square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x roman_Ci square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x ) + end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + divide start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG ( roman_sin square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x roman_Si square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x - roman_cos square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x roman_Ci square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x ) end_CELL end_ROW
(47)
for
σ ( λ ) 𝜎 𝜆 \sigma(\lambda) italic_σ ( italic_λ )
from
(23 ) or the first term in the expression
∂ σ ∥ − ∂ λ = − 4 π 3 λ − 12 π λ 2 x 2 + ( 12 π λ 5 / 2 x 3 − 4 π λ 3 / 2 x ) ( cos λ x Si λ x − sin λ x Ci λ x ) + 12 π λ 2 x 2 ( sin λ x Si λ x + cos λ x Ci λ x ) , superscript subscript 𝜎 parallel-to 𝜆 4 𝜋 3 𝜆 12 𝜋 superscript 𝜆 2 superscript 𝑥 2 12 𝜋 superscript 𝜆 5 2 superscript 𝑥 3 4 𝜋 superscript 𝜆 3 2 𝑥 𝜆 𝑥 Si 𝜆 𝑥 𝜆 𝑥 Ci 𝜆 𝑥 12 𝜋 superscript 𝜆 2 superscript 𝑥 2 𝜆 𝑥 Si 𝜆 𝑥 𝜆 𝑥 Ci 𝜆 𝑥 \frac{\partial\sigma_{\shortparallel}^{-}}{\partial\lambda}=-\frac{4\pi}{3%
\lambda}-\frac{12\pi}{\lambda^{2}x^{2}}+\bigl{(}\frac{12\pi}{\lambda^{5/2}x^{3%
}}-\frac{4\pi}{\lambda^{3/2}x}\bigr{)}\bigl{(}\cos\sqrt{\lambda}x\operatorname%
{Si}\sqrt{\lambda}x-\sin\sqrt{\lambda}x\operatorname{Ci}\sqrt{\lambda}x\bigr{)%
}\\
+\frac{12\pi}{\lambda^{2}x^{2}}\bigl{(}\sin\sqrt{\lambda}x\operatorname{Si}%
\sqrt{\lambda}x+\cos\sqrt{\lambda}x\operatorname{Ci}\sqrt{\lambda}x\bigr{)}, start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG ∂ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG = - divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG 3 italic_λ end_ARG - divide start_ARG 12 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + ( divide start_ARG 12 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - divide start_ARG 4 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x end_ARG ) ( roman_cos square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x roman_Si square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x - roman_sin square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x roman_Ci square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL + divide start_ARG 12 italic_π end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( roman_sin square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x roman_Si square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x + roman_cos square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x roman_Ci square-root start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG italic_x ) , end_CELL end_ROW
(48)
for
σ ∥ − ( λ ) superscript subscript 𝜎 parallel-to 𝜆 \sigma_{\shortparallel}^{-}(\lambda) italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ )
from
(35 ).
Further one may note that contributions to
(45 )
from other terms of derivatives
(47 ),
(48 )
are finite and that the infinity of
(46 )
is eliminated when substracting traces of logarithms of
L κ subscript 𝐿 𝜅 L_{\kappa} italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
for sufficiently close pairs
𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 2 \boldsymbol{x}_{2} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and
𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 3 \boldsymbol{x}_{3} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 4 subscript 𝒙 4 \boldsymbol{x}_{4} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
| Tr ln L κ ; 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 − Tr ln L κ ; 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 | < ∞ . Tr subscript 𝐿 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
Tr subscript 𝐿 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
|\operatorname{Tr}\ln L_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}-%
\operatorname{Tr}\ln L_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}}|<\infty. | roman_Tr roman_ln italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_Tr roman_ln italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | < ∞ .
Infinitesimal version of this statement also holds, that is the derivative
∂ Tr ln L κ ; 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 ∂ x = 1 2 π i ∫ 0 ∞ ( ( ∂ x ∂ λ σ κ − σ | λ + i 0 − ∂ x ∂ λ σ κ − σ | λ − i 0 ) − − ( ∂ x σ ∂ λ σ ( κ − σ ) 2 | λ + i 0 − ∂ x σ ∂ λ σ ( κ − σ ) 2 | λ − i 0 ) ) ln λ d λ Tr subscript 𝐿 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
𝑥 1 2 𝜋 𝑖 superscript subscript 0 evaluated-at subscript 𝑥 subscript 𝜆 𝜎 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 evaluated-at subscript 𝑥 subscript 𝜆 𝜎 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 evaluated-at subscript 𝑥 𝜎 subscript 𝜆 𝜎 superscript 𝜅 𝜎 2 𝜆 𝑖 0 evaluated-at subscript 𝑥 𝜎 subscript 𝜆 𝜎 superscript 𝜅 𝜎 2 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜆 𝑑 𝜆 \frac{\partial\operatorname{Tr}\ln L_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}%
_{2}}}{\partial x}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{0}^{\infty}\Bigl{(}\bigl{(}\frac{%
\partial_{x}\partial_{\lambda}\sigma}{\kappa-\sigma}\bigr{|}_{\lambda+i0}-%
\frac{\partial_{x}\partial_{\lambda}\sigma}{\kappa-\sigma}\bigr{|}_{\lambda-i0%
}\bigr{)}-\\
-\bigl{(}\frac{\partial_{x}\sigma\partial_{\lambda}\sigma}{(\kappa-\sigma)^{2}%
}\bigr{|}_{\lambda+i0}-\frac{\partial_{x}\sigma\partial_{\lambda}\sigma}{(%
\kappa-\sigma)^{2}}|_{\lambda-i0}\bigr{)}\Bigr{)}\ln\lambda\,d\lambda start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG ∂ roman_Tr roman_ln italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_x end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ( divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ + italic_i 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ - italic_i 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - ( divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_κ - italic_σ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ + italic_i 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_κ - italic_σ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ - italic_i 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) roman_ln italic_λ italic_d italic_λ end_CELL end_ROW
(49)
is finite. This finiteness can be directly verified for
σ ∥ − ( λ ) superscript subscript 𝜎 parallel-to 𝜆 \sigma_{\shortparallel}^{-}(\lambda) italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ ) ,
but for other discsussed Nevanlinna functions some integration by part
is required in
(45 )
before applying derivative w. r. to
x 𝑥 x italic_x .
One can also note that denominators in
(45 )
and
(49 )
κ − σ ( λ ± i 0 ) 𝜅 𝜎 plus-or-minus 𝜆 𝑖 0 \kappa-\sigma(\lambda\pm i0) italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ ± italic_i 0 )
have zeros at
λ = 0 𝜆 0 \lambda=0 italic_λ = 0
for the distance
| 𝒙 2 − 𝒙 1 | subscript 𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 1 |\boldsymbol{x}_{2}-\boldsymbol{x}_{1}| | bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT |
tending to the limit
x b subscript 𝑥 b x_{\mathrm{b}} italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
imposed by
κ 𝜅 \kappa italic_κ
(sketch in Fig.
1
is valid for all discussed Nevanlinna functions).
This results in the infinite growth of the norm
of the eigenstate corresponding to
𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 2 \boldsymbol{x}_{2} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
such that
| 𝒙 2 − 𝒙 1 | = x b subscript 𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝑥 𝑏 |\boldsymbol{x}_{2}-\boldsymbol{x}_{1}|=x_{b} | bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
⟨ Ω κ , x b | Ω κ , x b ⟩ ⟨ Ω κ , x | Ω κ , x ⟩ = 1 4 Tr ( ln L κ , x − ln L κ , x b ) ∼ 1 4 ∫ 0 C d λ λ ln 2 λ . inner-product subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝑥 b
subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝑥 b
inner-product subscript Ω 𝜅 𝑥
subscript Ω 𝜅 𝑥
1 4 Tr subscript 𝐿 𝜅 𝑥
subscript 𝐿 𝜅 subscript 𝑥 b
similar-to 1 4 superscript subscript 0 𝐶 𝑑 𝜆 𝜆 superscript 2 𝜆 \frac{\langle\Omega_{\kappa,x_{\mathrm{b}}}|\Omega_{\kappa,x_{\mathrm{b}}}%
\rangle}{\langle\Omega_{\kappa,x}|\Omega_{\kappa,x}\rangle}=\frac{1}{4}%
\operatorname{Tr}(\ln L_{\kappa,x}-\ln L_{\kappa,x_{\mathrm{b}}})\sim\frac{1}{%
4}\int_{0}^{C}\frac{d\lambda}{\lambda\ln^{2}\lambda}. divide start_ARG ⟨ roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ end_ARG start_ARG ⟨ roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ , italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ , italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG roman_Tr ( roman_ln italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ , italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_ln italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∼ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_C end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_d italic_λ end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ roman_ln start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_ARG .
The above considerations show that constructed eigenstates of
the free Hamiltonian for sufficiently close pairs
𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 2 \boldsymbol{x}_{2} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and
𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 3 \boldsymbol{x}_{3} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 4 subscript 𝒙 4 \boldsymbol{x}_{4} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
reside in their own 2-point functional space
H 2 subscript 𝐻 2 H_{2} italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
not connected to the space
H 0 subscript 𝐻 0 H_{0} italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
generated by excitations of
Ω 0 subscript Ω 0 \Omega_{0} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
The space
H 2 subscript 𝐻 2 H_{2} italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
can be represented as Hilbert space with basis of
excitations of Gaussian
Ω κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
with elements of the form
Ω ( A ) = ∑ n , 𝒑 1 , … 𝒑 n ψ ( 𝒑 1 , … 𝒑 n ) Ψ κ † ( 𝒑 1 ) … Ψ κ † ( 𝒑 n ) Ω κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 ( A ) , Ω 𝐴 subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝒑 1 … subscript 𝒑 𝑛
𝜓 subscript 𝒑 1 … subscript 𝒑 𝑛 superscript subscript Ψ 𝜅 † subscript 𝒑 1 … superscript subscript Ψ 𝜅 † subscript 𝒑 𝑛 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
𝐴 \Omega(A)=\sum_{n,\boldsymbol{p}_{1},\ldots\boldsymbol{p}_{n}}\psi(\boldsymbol%
{p}_{1},\ldots\boldsymbol{p}_{n})\Psi_{\kappa}^{{\dagger}}(\boldsymbol{p}_{1})%
\dots\Psi_{\kappa}^{{\dagger}}(\boldsymbol{p}_{n})\,\Omega_{\kappa}^{%
\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}(A), roman_Ω ( italic_A ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ ( bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) … roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) ,
(50)
where
Ψ κ † ( 𝒑 ) superscript subscript Ψ 𝜅 † 𝒑 \Psi_{\kappa}^{{\dagger}}(\boldsymbol{p}) roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p )
are creation operators depending on
𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 2 \boldsymbol{x}_{2} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
Ψ κ ; 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 † ( 𝒑 ) = L κ ; 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 1 / 2 A − i δ δ A ( 𝒑 ) . superscript subscript Ψ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
† 𝒑 superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
1 2 𝐴 𝑖 𝛿 𝛿 𝐴 𝒑 \Psi_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}^{{\dagger}}(\boldsymbol{p}%
)=L_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}^{1/2}A-\frac{i\delta}{%
\delta A(\boldsymbol{p})}. roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p ) = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A - divide start_ARG italic_i italic_δ end_ARG start_ARG italic_δ italic_A ( bold_italic_p ) end_ARG .
At the same time functionals
Ω κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
and
Ω κ 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
have different behaviour in the vicinity of functions
with expansion
(4 )
in pairs of points
𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 2 \boldsymbol{x}_{2} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and
𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 3 \boldsymbol{x}_{3} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 4 subscript 𝒙 4 \boldsymbol{x}_{4} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Thus they corrspond to different self-adjoint
operators in the same Hilbert space
H 2 subscript 𝐻 2 H_{2} italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
denote them as
ℋ κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 superscript subscript ℋ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
\mathscr{H}_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}} script_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
and
ℋ κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 superscript subscript ℋ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
\mathscr{H}_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}} script_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
These operators are defined on different domains for non-coinciding pairs
𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 2 \boldsymbol{x}_{2} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and
𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 3 \boldsymbol{x}_{3} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 4 subscript 𝒙 4 \boldsymbol{x}_{4} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
so that the action of
ℋ κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 superscript subscript ℋ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
\mathscr{H}_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}} script_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
is not defined on
Ω κ 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
and vice versa.
But it turns out that it is
possible to construct a model including as dynamical variables
not only the field
A ( 𝒑 ) 𝐴 𝒑 A(\boldsymbol{p}) italic_A ( bold_italic_p )
but also centers of external sources
𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and
𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 2 \boldsymbol{x}_{2} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
For this one need to define action of
ℋ κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 superscript subscript ℋ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
\mathscr{H}_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}} script_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
at least on functionals generated by excitations of
Ω κ 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
for sufficiently close pairs
𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 2 \boldsymbol{x}_{2} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and
𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 3 \boldsymbol{x}_{3} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 4 subscript 𝒙 4 \boldsymbol{x}_{4} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
We cannot identify the action
ℋ κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 Ω κ 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 superscript subscript ℋ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
\mathscr{H}_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}\Omega_{\kappa}^{%
\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}} script_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
with an element of the Hilbert space,
as long as appearance of “additional”
eigenfunctional contradicts the completeness
of the set of excitations of
Ω κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
from the decomposion
(50 ).
But we can expand
Ω κ 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
via ecxitations of
Ω κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
and calculate the action of
ℋ κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 superscript subscript ℋ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
\mathscr{H}_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}} script_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
in the term by term way
ℋ κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 Ω κ 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 = ∑ n , 𝒑 1 , … 𝒑 n ψ ( 𝒑 1 , … 𝒑 n ) ℋ κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 Ψ κ † ( 𝒑 1 ) … Ψ κ † ( 𝒑 n ) Ω κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 ( A ) , superscript subscript ℋ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝒑 1 … subscript 𝒑 𝑛
𝜓 subscript 𝒑 1 … subscript 𝒑 𝑛 superscript subscript ℋ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
superscript subscript Ψ 𝜅 † subscript 𝒑 1 … superscript subscript Ψ 𝜅 † subscript 𝒑 𝑛 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
𝐴 \mathscr{H}_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}\Omega_{\kappa}^{%
\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}}=\sum_{n,\boldsymbol{p}_{1},\ldots%
\boldsymbol{p}_{n}}\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_{1},\ldots\boldsymbol{p}_{n})\mathscr{H%
}_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}\Psi_{\kappa}^{{\dagger}}(%
\boldsymbol{p}_{1})\dots\Psi_{\kappa}^{{\dagger}}(\boldsymbol{p}_{n})\,\Omega_%
{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}(A), script_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ ( bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) script_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) … roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) ,
(51)
and then use the result to define expectation (quadratic form)
⟨ Ω κ 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 | ℋ κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 | Ω κ 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 ⟩ , quantum-operator-product superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
superscript subscript ℋ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
\langle\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}}|\mathscr{H}_{%
\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}|\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x%
}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}}\rangle, ⟨ roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | script_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ,
(52)
which should be finite.
To justify this assumption one can remind the finite-dimensional theory
of singular perturbations of differential operators
[10 ] .
There different perturbations of the same operator act in different spaces
but the scalar product like
(52 )
is well defined.
That is we can fix some functional
Ω ( A ) Ω 𝐴 \Omega(A) roman_Ω ( italic_A )
and then using different expansions
Ω ( A ) Ω 𝐴 \displaystyle\Omega(A) roman_Ω ( italic_A )
= ∑ n , 𝒑 1 , … 𝒑 n ψ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 ( 𝒑 1 , … 𝒑 n ) Ψ κ ; 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 † ( 𝒑 1 ) … Ψ κ ; 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 † ( 𝒑 n ) Ω κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 ( A ) = absent subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝒑 1 … subscript 𝒑 𝑛
subscript 𝜓 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
subscript 𝒑 1 … subscript 𝒑 𝑛 superscript subscript Ψ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
† subscript 𝒑 1 … superscript subscript Ψ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
† subscript 𝒑 𝑛 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
𝐴 absent \displaystyle=\sum_{n,\boldsymbol{p}_{1},\ldots\boldsymbol{p}_{n}}\psi_{%
\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}(\boldsymbol{p}_{1},\ldots\boldsymbol{p}%
_{n})\Psi_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}^{{\dagger}}(%
\boldsymbol{p}_{1})\dots\Psi_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}^{{%
\dagger}}(\boldsymbol{p}_{n})\,\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol%
{x}_{2}}(A)= = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) … roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) =
= ∑ n , 𝒑 1 , … 𝒑 n ψ 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 ( 𝒑 1 , … 𝒑 n ) Ψ κ ; 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 † ( 𝒑 1 ) … Ψ κ ; 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 † ( 𝒑 n ) Ω κ 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 ( A ) absent subscript 𝑛 subscript 𝒑 1 … subscript 𝒑 𝑛
subscript 𝜓 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
subscript 𝒑 1 … subscript 𝒑 𝑛 superscript subscript Ψ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
† subscript 𝒑 1 … superscript subscript Ψ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
† subscript 𝒑 𝑛 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
𝐴 \displaystyle=\sum_{n,\boldsymbol{p}_{1},\ldots\boldsymbol{p}_{n}}\psi_{%
\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}}(\boldsymbol{p}_{1},\ldots\boldsymbol{p}%
_{n})\Psi_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}}^{{\dagger}}(%
\boldsymbol{p}_{1})\dots\Psi_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}}^{{%
\dagger}}(\boldsymbol{p}_{n})\,\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol%
{x}_{4}}(A) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n , bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) … roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A )
define on it actions of operators
ℋ κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 superscript subscript ℋ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
\mathscr{H}_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}} script_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
with varying position of centers of external sources
𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 2 \boldsymbol{x}_{2} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and further calculate expectation values
⟨ Ω | ℋ κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 | Ω ⟩ quantum-operator-product Ω superscript subscript ℋ 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
Ω \langle\Omega|\mathscr{H}_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}|\Omega\rangle ⟨ roman_Ω | script_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | roman_Ω ⟩ .
Important condition for such calculations is the possibility to
uniformly define eigenvalues
Tr L κ ; 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 1 / 2 Tr superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
1 2 \operatorname{Tr}L_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}^{1/2} roman_Tr italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
of functionals
Ω κ 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 superscript subscript Ω 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
\Omega_{\kappa}^{\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}} roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
from equation
(8 )
for different pairs
𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 2 \boldsymbol{x}_{2} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Spectral integral for the difference of traces
Tr L κ 1 / 2 − Tr L 1 / 2 Tr superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 Tr superscript 𝐿 1 2 \operatorname{Tr}L_{\kappa}^{1/2}-\operatorname{Tr}L^{1/2} roman_Tr italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - roman_Tr italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
diverges even worse than
(45 )
Tr ( L κ 1 / 2 − L 1 / 2 ) = 1 2 π i ∫ 0 ∞ ( σ ′ ( λ + i 0 ) κ − σ ( λ + i 0 ) − σ ′ ( λ − i 0 ) κ − σ ( λ − i 0 ) ) λ 1 / 2 𝑑 λ ∼ ∼ 1 2 π i ∫ 0 ∞ ( σ ( λ + i 0 ) − σ ( λ − i 0 ) ) σ ln ′ ( λ ) λ 1 / 2 ( κ − σ ( λ + i 0 ) ) ( κ − σ ( λ − i 0 ) ) 𝑑 λ ∼ − ∫ 0 ∞ d λ λ 1 / 2 ln 2 λ . Tr superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 1 2 superscript 𝐿 1 2 1 2 𝜋 𝑖 superscript subscript 0 superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 superscript 𝜎 ′ 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 superscript 𝜆 1 2 differential-d 𝜆 similar-to 1 2 𝜋 𝑖 superscript subscript 0 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 subscript superscript 𝜎 ′ ln 𝜆 superscript 𝜆 1 2 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 differential-d 𝜆 similar-to superscript subscript 0 𝑑 𝜆 superscript 𝜆 1 2 superscript 2 𝜆 \operatorname{Tr}(L_{\kappa}^{1/2}-L^{1/2})=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{0}^{\infty}%
\bigl{(}\frac{\sigma^{\prime}(\lambda+i0)}{\kappa-\sigma(\lambda+i0)}-\frac{%
\sigma^{\prime}(\lambda-i0)}{\kappa-\sigma(\lambda-i0)}\bigr{)}\lambda^{1/2}\,%
d\lambda\sim\\
\sim\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{(\sigma(\lambda+i0)-\sigma(\lambda-%
i0))\sigma^{\prime}_{\text{ln}}(\lambda)\lambda^{1/2}}{(\kappa-\sigma(\lambda+%
i0))(\kappa-\sigma(\lambda-i0))}\,d\lambda\sim-\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{d\lambda%
}{\lambda^{1/2}\ln^{2}\lambda}. start_ROW start_CELL roman_Tr ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) end_ARG - divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) end_ARG ) italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_λ ∼ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ∼ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( italic_σ ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) - italic_σ ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) ) italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ln end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_λ ) italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) ) ( italic_κ - italic_σ ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) ) end_ARG italic_d italic_λ ∼ - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_d italic_λ end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ln start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_ARG . end_CELL end_ROW
(53)
However the derivative of this integral w. r. to
the distance between
𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
and
𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 2 \boldsymbol{x}_{2} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
∂ Tr L κ ; 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 1 / 2 ∂ x = 1 2 π i ∫ 0 ∞ ( ( ∂ x ∂ λ σ κ − σ ( λ + i 0 ) − ∂ x ∂ λ σ κ − σ ( λ − i 0 ) ) − − ( ∂ x σ ∂ λ σ ( κ − σ ) 2 ( λ + i 0 ) − ∂ x σ ∂ λ σ ( κ − σ ) 2 ( λ − i 0 ) ) ) λ 1 / 2 d λ Tr superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
1 2 𝑥 1 2 𝜋 𝑖 superscript subscript 0 subscript 𝑥 subscript 𝜆 𝜎 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 subscript 𝑥 subscript 𝜆 𝜎 𝜅 𝜎 𝜆 𝑖 0 subscript 𝑥 𝜎 subscript 𝜆 𝜎 superscript 𝜅 𝜎 2 𝜆 𝑖 0 subscript 𝑥 𝜎 subscript 𝜆 𝜎 superscript 𝜅 𝜎 2 𝜆 𝑖 0 superscript 𝜆 1 2 𝑑 𝜆 \frac{\partial\operatorname{Tr}L_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}%
}^{1/2}}{\partial x}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{0}^{\infty}\Bigl{(}\bigl{(}\frac{%
\partial_{x}\partial_{\lambda}\sigma}{\kappa-\sigma}(\lambda+i0)-\frac{%
\partial_{x}\partial_{\lambda}\sigma}{\kappa-\sigma}(\lambda-i0)\bigr{)}-\\
-\bigl{(}\frac{\partial_{x}\sigma\partial_{\lambda}\sigma}{(\kappa-\sigma)^{2}%
}(\lambda+i0)-\frac{\partial_{x}\sigma\partial_{\lambda}\sigma}{(\kappa-\sigma%
)^{2}}(\lambda-i0)\bigr{)}\Bigr{)}\lambda^{1/2}\,d\lambda start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG ∂ roman_Tr italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_x end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ( divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ end_ARG ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) - divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_ARG start_ARG italic_κ - italic_σ end_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) ) - end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - ( divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_κ - italic_σ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_λ + italic_i 0 ) - divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_κ - italic_σ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_i 0 ) ) ) italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_λ end_CELL end_ROW
(54)
as well as the difference
Tr L κ ; 𝒙 1 , 𝒙 2 1 / 2 − Tr L κ ; 𝒙 3 , 𝒙 4 1 / 2 Tr superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 2
1 2 Tr superscript subscript 𝐿 𝜅 subscript 𝒙 3 subscript 𝒙 4
1 2 \operatorname{Tr}L_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{1},\boldsymbol{x}_{2}}^{1/2}-%
\operatorname{Tr}L_{\kappa;\boldsymbol{x}_{3},\boldsymbol{x}_{4}}^{1/2} roman_Tr italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - roman_Tr italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_κ ; bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
are finite.
Here considerations
that were used for traces of logarithms also work.
That is only the first terms
from
(47 )
and
(48 )
bring divergency to
(53 ),
and the latter is generated by the constant in the gap
(38 ),
(39 ) or
(40 )
and in this way it does not depend on
𝒙 1 subscript 𝒙 1 \boldsymbol{x}_{1} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and
𝒙 2 subscript 𝒙 2 \boldsymbol{x}_{2} bold_italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Another noticable property of divergency
(53 )
is that it is negative and hence
it forms infinitely deep potential well,
which separates space of functionals of this model from functionals
of the free field.