2022
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2201.10205
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Self-adjoint extension schemes and modern applications to quantum Hamiltonians

Abstract: In particular, we are indebted to S. Albeverio, for his overall support and scientific advice, being indeed one of the world's leading figures, among many other fields, in the area of self-adjoint solvable models in quantum mechanics.Last, we gratefully acknowledge the support of the Italian National Institute for Higher Mathematics (INdAM), the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 110 publications
(219 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Looking for self-adjoint extensions of H min is equivalent to looking for selfadjoint extensions of the massless problem (as their difference is a bounded operator). The latter can be conveniently expressed in the unitary equivalent form of a direct sum (Proposition 2.1) which can be exploited for the computation of deficiency indices (see [28,Section 1.6]). From Proposition 2.3 we know that the deficiency indices of h ν,k are Using the characterisation of Proposition 2.4 one completes the proof of (i).…”
Section: Proof Of Proposition 23 Let Us Denote By H *mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Looking for self-adjoint extensions of H min is equivalent to looking for selfadjoint extensions of the massless problem (as their difference is a bounded operator). The latter can be conveniently expressed in the unitary equivalent form of a direct sum (Proposition 2.1) which can be exploited for the computation of deficiency indices (see [28,Section 1.6]). From Proposition 2.3 we know that the deficiency indices of h ν,k are Using the characterisation of Proposition 2.4 one completes the proof of (i).…”
Section: Proof Of Proposition 23 Let Us Denote By H *mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This means that a further threebody boundary condition is required, corresponding to a sort of three-body force acting between the particles. The three-body boundary condition introduced in [18] (see also the recent papers [13,17] and the references therein) leads to a Hamiltonian unbounded from below which is unsatisfactory from the physical point of view. Such instability property is known as Thomas effect and it is due to the fact that the interaction becomes too singular when all the three particles are close to each other (we just recall that the situation is rather different for systems made of two species of fermions, see, e.g., [8,9], [20][21][22]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, in dimension three for n = 3 it is known ( [15], see also [16]) that the same procedure leads to a symmetric but non s.a. operator and that all its s.a. extensions are unbounded from below. Such instability property is known as Thomas effect and it is due to the fact that the interaction becomes too singular when all the three particles are close to each other (see also the recent papers [14], [9] and the references therein). The Hamiltonian defined in [15] is therefore unsatisfactory from the physical point of view and the construction of other physically reasonable n-body Hamiltonians…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%