<p>Consider a non-relativistic quantum particle with wave function inside a region <InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11040_2025_9521_Article_IEq1.gif" Format="GIF" Height="17" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="52" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\Omega \subset \mathbb {R}^3\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mi> <mo>⊂</mo> <msup> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="double-struck">R</mi> </mrow> <mn>3</mn> </msup> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>, and suppose that detectors are placed along the boundary <InlineEquation ID="IEq2"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11040_2025_9521_Article_IEq2.gif" Format="GIF" Height="14" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="23" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\partial \Omega \)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>∂</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mi> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>. The question how to compute the probability distribution of the time at which the detector surface registers the particle boils down to finding a reasonable mathematical definition of an ideal detecting surface; a particularly convincing definition, called the <i>absorbing boundary rule</i>, involves a time evolution for the particle’s wave function <InlineEquation ID="IEq3"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11040_2025_9521_Article_IEq3.gif" Format="GIF" Height="17" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="17" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\psi \)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mi>ψ</mi> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> expressed by a Schrödinger equation in <InlineEquation ID="IEq4"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11040_2025_9521_Article_IEq4.gif" Format="GIF" Height="14" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="13" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\Omega \)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mi> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> together with an “absorbing” boundary condition on <InlineEquation ID="IEq5"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11040_2025_9521_Article_IEq2.gif" Format="GIF" Height="14" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="23" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\partial \Omega \)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>∂</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mi> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> first considered by Werner in 1987, viz., <InlineEquation ID="IEq6"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11040_2025_9521_Article_IEq6.gif" Format="GIF" Height="19" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="103" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\partial \psi /\partial n=i\kappa \psi \)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>∂</mi> <mi>ψ</mi> <mo stretchy="false">/</mo> <mi>∂</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mi>i</mi> <mi>κ</mi> <mi>ψ</mi> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> with <InlineEquation ID="IEq7"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11040_2025_9521_Article_IEq7.gif" Format="GIF" Height="13" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="42" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\kappa &gt;0\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>κ</mi> <mo>&gt;</mo> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> and <InlineEquation ID="IEq8"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11040_2025_9521_Article_IEq8.gif" Format="GIF" Height="19" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="42" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\partial /\partial n\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mi>∂</mi> <mo stretchy="false">/</mo> <mi>∂</mi> <mi>n</mi> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> the normal derivative. We provide here a discussion of the rigorous mathematical foundation of this rule. First, for the viability of the rule it plays a crucial role that these two equations together uniquely define the time evolution of <InlineEquation ID="IEq9"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="11040_2025_9521_Article_IEq3.gif" Format="GIF" Height="17" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="17" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\psi \)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mi>ψ</mi> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>; we point out here how, under some technical assumptions on the regularity (i.e., smoothness) of the detecting surface, the Lumer-Phillips theorem implies that the time evolution is well defined and given by a contraction semigroup. Second, we show that the collapse required for the <i>N</i>-particle version of the problem is well defined. We also prove that the joint distribution of the detection times and places, according to the absorbing boundary rule, is governed by a positive-operator-valued measure.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Existence of Schrödinger Evolution with Absorbing Boundary Condition

  • Lawrence Frolov,
  • Stefan Teufel,
  • Roderich Tumulka

摘要

Consider a non-relativistic quantum particle with wave function inside a region \(\Omega \subset \mathbb {R}^3\) Ω R 3 , and suppose that detectors are placed along the boundary \(\partial \Omega \) Ω . The question how to compute the probability distribution of the time at which the detector surface registers the particle boils down to finding a reasonable mathematical definition of an ideal detecting surface; a particularly convincing definition, called the absorbing boundary rule, involves a time evolution for the particle’s wave function \(\psi \) ψ expressed by a Schrödinger equation in \(\Omega \) Ω together with an “absorbing” boundary condition on \(\partial \Omega \) Ω first considered by Werner in 1987, viz., \(\partial \psi /\partial n=i\kappa \psi \) ψ / n = i κ ψ with \(\kappa >0\) κ > 0 and \(\partial /\partial n\) / n the normal derivative. We provide here a discussion of the rigorous mathematical foundation of this rule. First, for the viability of the rule it plays a crucial role that these two equations together uniquely define the time evolution of \(\psi \) ψ ; we point out here how, under some technical assumptions on the regularity (i.e., smoothness) of the detecting surface, the Lumer-Phillips theorem implies that the time evolution is well defined and given by a contraction semigroup. Second, we show that the collapse required for the N-particle version of the problem is well defined. We also prove that the joint distribution of the detection times and places, according to the absorbing boundary rule, is governed by a positive-operator-valued measure.