This paper analyzes the structure of a specific $C^*$-algebra generated by field operators, revealing its grading by subspaces, and describes the spectral properties of operators affiliated to it, akin to N-body Hamiltonians.
Contribution
It provides a detailed structural and spectral analysis of the $C^*$-algebra generated by field operators, including a grading by subspaces and an HVZ-type theorem for spectral characterization.
Findings
01
The $C^*$-algebra is graded by finite dimensional subspaces of the symplectic space.
02
Self-adjoint operators affiliated to the algebra exhibit a many-channel structure similar to N-body Hamiltonians.
03
The essential spectrum of these operators is characterized by an HVZ-type theorem.
Abstract
We show that the C∗-algebra generated by the field operators associated to a symplectic space Ξ is graded by the semilattice of all finite dimensional subspaces of Ξ. If Ξ is finite dimensional we give a simple intrinsic description of the components of the grading, we show that the self-adjoint operators affiliated to the algebra have a many channel structure similar to that of N-body Hamiltonians, in particular their essential spectrum is described by a kind of HVZ theorem, and we point out a large class of operators affiliated to the algebra.
Equations511
∑i∈IcAi≐ norm closure of the linear sum ∑i∈IAi.
∑i∈IcAi≐ norm closure of the linear sum ∑i∈IAi.
A1A2…An≐ linear span of the products A1A2…An with Ai∈Ai
A1A2…An≐ linear span of the products A1A2…An with Ai∈Ai
ξ↦W(ξ)TW(ξ)∗ is norm continuous on finite dimensional subspaces of Ξ.
ξ↦W(ξ)TW(ξ)∗ is norm continuous on finite dimensional subspaces of Ξ.
E≐∑E∈G(Ξ)cE(E)
E≐∑E∈G(Ξ)cE(E)
Φ(O)≐C∗(ϕ(ξ)Γ(A)∣ξ∈Ξ,A∈O,∥A∥<1)
Φ(O)≐C∗(ϕ(ξ)Γ(A)∣ξ∈Ξ,A∈O,∥A∥<1)
E⊂F⇒Sp(PET)⊂Sp(PFT)∀T∈F.
E⊂F⇒Sp(PET)⊂Sp(PFT)∀T∈F.
Spess(T)=⋃H∈H(Ξ)Sp(PHT)∀T∈F.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Operator Algebra Research · Spectral Theory in Mathematical Physics · Advanced Topics in Algebra
Full text
\MakePerPage
footnote
On the structure of the field C∗-algebra
of a symplectic space and spectral analysis
of the operators affiliated to it
Vladimir Georgescu
V. Georgescu, CY
Cergy Paris Université, Laboratoire AGM, UMR 8088 CNRS, F-95000
Cergy, France
We show that the C∗-algebra generated by the field operators
associated to a symplectic space Ξ is graded by the semilattice
of all finite dimensional subspaces of Ξ. If Ξ is finite
dimensional we give a simple intrinsic description of the components
of the grading, we show that the self-adjoint operators affiliated
to the algebra have a many channel structure similar to that of
N-body Hamiltonians, in particular their essential spectrum is
described by a kind of HVZ theorem, and we point out a large class
of operators affiliated to the algebra.
The field operator algebra of a symplectic space Ξ was introduced
by D. Kastler as “the object of main interest for field theory” in
[40, §6]. Kastler constructs a C∗-algebra M involving
the twisted convolution product and the field C∗-algebra L is
mentioned as a subalgebra of interest only at the end of his paper (he
devotes just over a page to this issue).
Independently of Kastler’s work, D. Buchholz and H. Grundling
introduced the resolvent CCR algebra in [9, 10] as
an alternative of the Weyl CCR algebra with more convenient properties
[12]. Loosely speaking, if we work in a representation of
Ξ and denote ϕ(ξ) the field operator at the point
ξ∈Ξ, then the Weyl algebra is the C∗-algebra generated by
the exponentials eiϕ(ξ) while the resolvent algebra is
the C∗-algebra generated by the resolvents
Rξ=(i−ϕ(ξ))−1, where ξ runs over Ξ. On a more
abstract level, the resolvent CCR algebra is the universal
C∗-algebra generated by a family of operators
{Rξ}ξ∈Ξ satisfying certain relations suggested by the
preceding definition of these operators in a representation, cf. [10, Defs. 3.1 and 3.4]. In fact the resolvent and field
algebra are canonically isomorphic as follows from [40, Th. 23]. The resolvent algebra has been studied and used in the
treatment of quantum systems with a finite or infinite number of
degrees of freedom in a series of papers by D. Buchholz
[13, 14, 15, 16] and D. Bahns and D. Buchholz [3].
If Ξ is finite dimensional a certain class of C∗-subalgebras of
M has been pointed out in [7]: for each finite
stable under sums set S of subspaces of Ξ a C∗-subalgebra
L(S)⊂M is defined which has a structure similar to the
C∗-algebra generated by the Hamiltonians of an N-body system.
The self-adjoint operators affiliated to such subalgebras generalize
the usual N-body Hamiltonians and have a similar many channel
structure and spectral theory. In [29] the theory is extended
to infinite sets S, in particular a C∗-algebra L, called
(graded) symplectic C∗-algebra of Ξ, is associated to
the set of all subspaces of Ξ. Only after reading the paper
[10] by D. Buchholz and H. Grundling did we realise that
L is just Kastler’s field algebra, or resolvent CCR algebra. The
extension to infinite dimensional Ξ of our construction of the
symplectic C∗-algebra is easy. Thus “field algebra”, “resolvent
CCR algebra”, and “(graded) symplectic algebra” should be
considered as synonyms; we mainly use the terminology “field
algebra” for historical reasons.
We make a preliminary comment on our notations. Five C∗-algebras
(and their subalgebras) appear in our arguments: M,L, K,F,
E. But in fact M is canonically isomorphic to K and L
is canonically isomorphic to F. More precisely, M and L
are the “abstract” Kastler and field algebra (defined in
(2.6) and (2.18)) and involve the twisted
convolution product associated to symplectic space Ξ. The
C∗-algebras K,F are images of M,L constructed via a
(continuous) representation W of Ξ, see Definition
1.4 (these algebras depend on Ξ and W but we do
not indicate it in notations unless really needed). The algebra E,
called extended field C∗-algebra, is defined only in
representations of Ξ, it contains F, and is needed in the
spectral theory of particles with nonzero spin, e.g. N-body Dirac and
Pauli Hamiltonians (see §1.4 for a short presentation and
Sec. 5 for a detailed study).
Our results on the spectral analysis of the operators affiliated to
F require F∩K(H)=0, where H is the Hilbert space
on which is represented F and K(H) is the algebra of compact
operators on H. Indeed, a description of the quotient
C∗-algebra F/K(H) allows one to compute the essential
spectrum of the observables affiliated to F and to prove the
Mourre estimate with respect to convenient conjugate operators. But
F∩K(H)=0 if dimΞ=∞, hence the case of finite
dimensional symplectic spaces is important for us.
A summary of our more significative results concerning the field
algebra F may be found in the subsections 1.3–1.8
of this introduction, while in subsections 1.1 are
1.2 we recall or introduce the main notions and notations. We
mention that we are forced to use a more general notion of observable
instead of self-adjoint operator because in general images through
morphisms and strong limits of self-adjoint operators affiliated to a
C∗-algebra are not self-adjoint operators in the usual sense (e.g. they could be not densely defined).
1.1.
We first recall some functional analysis terminology and notations.
If H is a Hilbert space then B(H) is the algebra of bounded
operators on H, K(H) the ideal of compact operators, U(H)
the group of unitary operators, and 1 or 1H the identity
operator. Sp(T) and Spess(T) are the spectrum and the essential
spectrum of an operator T.
If {Ai}i∈I is a family of linear subspaces of a Banach
space A then
[TABLE]
If A1,…,An are subsets of a Banach algebra
A then
[TABLE]
By ideal of a C∗-algebra we mean a closed and self-adjoint ideal.
By morphism between ∗-algebras we mean ∗-morphism. We write
≃ for “isomorphic” and ≅ for “canonically
isomorphic”. If C is a C∗-algebra and P:C→C a
morphism such that P2=P we say that P is a projection
morphism or morphic projection. Giving a projection morphism
is equivalent to giving a direct sum decomposition C=A+I with
A a C∗-subalgebra and I an ideal; then P is the linear
projection C→A determined by the direct sum.
We say that a self-adjoint operator A with spectrum σ(A) on a
Hilbert space H is affiliated111 This is not the notion introduced by S. L. Woronowicz. to
(or with) a C∗-subalgebra C⊂B(H) if the next
equivalent conditions are satisfied:
[TABLE]
An observable affiliated to an arbitrary C∗-algebra C is
a morphism A:C0(R)→C. This notion is discussed in detail in
[1, §8.1]. A self-adjoint operator is identified with the
observable defined by its C0-functional calculus and we
usually denote θ(A) instead of A(θ) the value of A at
θ for any observable A. We will use the notation
[TABLE]
The zero morphism is an observable affiliated to C denoted
∞; this is natural because θ(∞)=0 for any
θ∈C0(R). Observables can be described in terms of
C-valued self-adjoint resolvents222 The usual terminology is “pseudo-resolvent” but this
seems excessive in our setting. the resolvent of A being the map
RA:C∖R→C with RA(z)=rz(A) where
rz(λ)=(λ−z)−1. If C is realized on a Hilbert
space H then observables may be identified with self-adjoint
operators acting in closed subspaces of H [1, §8.1.2].
For example, the Hamiltonians of N-body systems with hard core
interactions are observables affiliated to the C∗-algebra generated
by the usual N-body Hamiltonians [8] but are not self-adjoint
operators on H. And ∞ is the only operator with domain
{0}.
If C,D are C∗-algebras, P:C→D a morphism, and A
an observable affiliated to C, then P(A)≐P∘A is an
observable affiliated to D. If C,D are realised on Hilbert
spaces H,K and A is the observable associated to a
self-adjoint operator on H then quite often the observable
P(A) is not associated to a (densely defined) self-adjoint
operator on K. Since objects like P(A) appear naturally
in our arguments, we are forced to work with the more general notion
of observable instead of self-adjoint operator.
An observable A affiliated to C is strictly affiliated to
C if the linear span of the operators θ(A)T with
θ∈C0(R) and T∈C is dense in C. Then P(A)
is a (densely defined) self-adjoint operator in any non-degenerate
representations P of C [21, Pr. A.7].
In the case of observables the strong limits are interpreted as
follows: if {An}n∈N is a sequence of observables affiliated
to B(H) and s-limnAn(θ)≐A(θ) exists for any
θ∈C0(R) then A is an observable affiliated to B(H)
written A=s-limnAn. Each An could be a densely defined
self-adjoint operator without A being so (we may have A=∞).
The C∗-algebra C∗(A)generated by a set A of
observables affiliated to a C∗-algebra C is the smallest
C∗-subalgebra of C to which are affiliated all the A∈A.
If A={Ai∣i∈I} we write C∗(A)=C∗(Ai∣i∈I).
Clearly C∗(A)≡C∗({A})={θ(A)∣θ∈C0(R)}.
In terms of the resolvents RA, for any z0 not real C∗(A) is
the C∗-subalgebra generated by the operators RA(z0) with
A∈A. If A is an observable affiliated to C then C∗(A)
is the closed linear span of the operators RA(iλ) with
λ∈R∖{0}.
If A1,…,An are observables with
C∗(Ai)⋅C∗(Aj)=C∗(Aj)⋅C∗(Ai) and
AI≐C∗(Ai1)⋅C∗(Ai2)⋅…⋅C∗(Aim) for I={i1,…,im} not empty subset of
{1,…,n}, then AI is a C∗-algebra and
C∗(A1,…,An) is the closure of ∑IAI.
C∗-algebras graded by semilattices have been introduced in
[6] as a tool in the spectral theory of N-body Hamiltonians and
further studied in [1, 7, 19, 20, 21]. An exhaustive study of
these algebras may be found in Athina Mageira’s thesis
[43, 44]. In this paper we consider only semilattices consisting
of finite dimensional subspaces of real vector spaces.
If Ξ is an arbitrary real vector space the Grassmannian
G(Ξ) is the set of its finite dimensional subspaces, the
projective space P(Ξ) the set of its one dimensional subspaces,
and H(Ξ) the set of its hyperplanes. G(Ξ) is equipped
with the order relation given by inclusion: E≤F means
E⊂F. Then G(Ξ) is a lattice: for any pair of
its elements E,F their upper bound E∨F=E+F and lower bound
E∧F=E∩F exist in G(Ξ). We say that
S⊂G(Ξ) is a subsemilattice if
E,F∈S⇒E+F∈S. If X⊂Ξ is a vector
subspace then G(X) and
G⊃X(Ξ)≐{E∈G(Ξ)∣E⊃X} are
subsemilattices and also a sublattices of G(Ξ).
Let S⊂G(Ξ) a subsemilattice. A C∗-algebra C is
S-graded, or graded by S, if a family
{C(E)}E∈S of C∗-subalgebras of C is given such
that the linear sum C˚≐∑E∈SC(E) is
direct and dense in C and
[TABLE]
The algebras C(E) are called components of C. We write
C=∑E∈ScC(E) meaning that C is the closure of
the linear sum C˚. The sum ∑E∈SC(E) being
direct, for any E∈S each T∈C˚ has a unique
component T(E)∈C(E) such that T=∑ET(E).
If T is a subsemilattice with S⊂T then
an S-graded C∗-algebra is naturally T-graded.
We sometimes use similarly defined inf-graded C∗-algebras. A subset
S⊂G(Ξ) is called stable under intersections, or
∩-stable, if E,F∈S⇒E∩F∈S. Then a
C∗-algebra C is inf-graded by S if a family
{C(E)}E∈S of C∗-subalgebras of C is given such
that the sum C˚≐∑E∈SC(E) is direct and
dense in C and
C(E)C(F)⊂C(E∩F)∀E,F∈S.
1.2. Grassmann C*-algebra
The Grassmann C∗-algebraGX of a real finite
dimensional vector space X is a simple example of inf-graded
C∗-algebra which may be seen as an abelian version of the field
algebra. Indeed, besides the inf-grading by G(Ξ), it is also
the C∗-algebra generated by the linear forms on X which in this
context play the rôle of field operators. On the other hand,
Grassmann C∗-algebras also play an important rôle in the
description of the structure of the field algebra and in a generalized
N-body problem.
We denote Cb(X) the C∗-algebra of bounded continuous complex
functions on X and Cbu(X), C0(X) and Cc(X) the
subalgebras of uniformly continuous functions, functions which tend to
zero at infinity, and functions with compact support.
If Y∈G(X) then we embed C0(X/Y)⊂Cbu(X) via
φ↦φ∘πY (πY is the natural surjection
of X onto the the quotient space X/Y). In other terms, C0(X/Y)
is the set of continuous functions φ:X→C with
φ(x+y)=φ(x) for all x∈X,y∈Y and such that
φ(x)→0 when the distance from x to Y (for some norm on
X) tends to infinity.
The family of C∗-subalgebras C0(X/Y) with Y∈G(X) is
linearly independent and
[TABLE]
Then G˚X≐∑Y∈G(X)C0(X/Y) is a unital
∗-subalgebra of Cbu(X) and
[TABLE]
is a C∗-subalgebra of Cbu(X), called (abelian) Grassmann
C∗-algebra of X. Clearly GX is a C∗-algebra
inf-graded by the lattice G(X) with C0(X/Y) as components, in
particular the notation GX(Y)=C0(X/Y), which we sometimes
use, is natural.
There is an alternative description of GX, similar to
(1.13), as the C∗-algebra generated by a simple and
natural set of observables affiliated to Cbu(X). Note first that
any uniformly continuous function u:X→R may be identified with an
observable affiliated to the C∗-algebra Cbu(X), namely the
morphism C0(R)∋θ↦θ∘u∈Cbu(X); in the
natural representation of Cbu(X) on L2(X) this observable is the
operator of multiplication by u. In particular, any linear form
φ:X→R is an observable affiliated to Cbu(X), hence the
dual vector space X∗ is a space of such observables.
If Y∈G(X) let
Y⊥={φ∈X∗∣φ(x)=0}∈G(X∗).
Proposition 1.1**.**
We have GX=C∗(φ∣φ∈X∗). If
Y∈G(X) and φ1,…,φn∈X∗ then
Y=kerφ1∩⋯∩kerφn if and only if
φ1,…,φn generate Y⊥ and then
[TABLE]
The proof is an exercise in linear algebra. The C∗-algebra of the
additive group X∗ is C0(X) and C0(X)⊂GX, so the
group C∗-algebra is a component of GX. With a terminology à
la Buchholz-Grundling GX would be the resolvent group
C∗-algebra of X∗ [11].
Remark 1.2**.**
The subalgebra GX⊂Cbu(X) is stable under
translations by elements of X hence the crossed product
GX⋊X is a well defined C∗-algebra
(see the comment after Remark 4.12). We will see in
§4.3 that GX⋊X is naturally embedded in
the field algebra associated to the symplectic space T∗X=X⊕X∗ and is the C∗-algebra generated by the maximal
class of N-body type Hamiltonians on X
(Theorem 4.13 and Corollary 4.14).
Example 1.3**.**
If X=R2 let C(θ) be the set of functions
(α,β)↦u(αcosθ+βsinθ) with u∈C0(R). Then {C(θ)}0≤θ<π is a linearly
independent family of C∗-subalgebras of Cbu(X) with
C(θ1)⋅C(θ2)=C0(X) if θ1=θ2 and
GX=C+∑0≤θ<πcC(θ)+C0(X).
1.3.
A symplectic space is a real vector space Ξ equipped with a
symplectic form, i.e. a bilinear anti-symmetric map σ:Ξ2→R
which is non-degenerate in the following sense:
σ(ξ,η)=0∀η∈Ξ⇒ξ=0. If
E⊂Ξ we set
Eσ≐{ξ∈Ξ∣σ(ξ,η)=0∀η∈E}; clearly E⊂F⇒Fσ⊂Eσ. We
set (Eσ)σ=Eσσ. If E,F are finite
dimensional subspaces then Eσσ=E and
E⊂Fσ⇔F⊂Eσ. We have
∩iEiσ=(∑iEi)σ for any family of subspaces
Ei. A subspace E is isotropic if E⊂Eσ,
coisotropic if Eσ⊂E, Lagrangian if
E=Eσ, symplectic if σ is non-degenerate on it.
E∈G(Ξ) is symplectic if and only if E∩Eσ=0. If
Gs(Ξ) is the set of finite dimensional symplectic subspaces
[TABLE]
We refer to [23] for the CCR theory associated to Ξ. A
representation of Ξ on a Hilbert space H is a map
W:Ξ→U(H) such that
[TABLE]
The second condition is equivalent to the strong continuity of the
restriction of W to finite dimensional subspaces hence
∀ξ∈Ξ we may define the field operator
ϕ(ξ)≡ϕW(ξ) as the self-adjoint operator such
that W(tξ)=eitϕ(ξ)∀t∈R. We set
Rξ(z)=(ϕ(ξ)−z)−1.
If E∈G(Ξ) then M(E) is the space of bounded Borel measures
on E and L1(E) the subset of absolutely continuous measures (with
L1(0)=Cδ0 if E=0).
Definition 1.4**.**
The Kastler C∗-algebra K of Ξ in the
representation W is the norm closure in B(H) of the set of
operators W(μ)=∫EW(ξ)μ(dξ) with
E∈G(Ξ), μ∈M(E).
The field C∗-algebra F of Ξ in the representation
W is the norm closure of the set of operators W(μ) with
E∈G(Ξ) and μ∈L1(E).
Note that the definition of F given above is neither that of
Buchholz-Grundling nor that of Kastler; see Proposition
1.5 and Remark 2.12 for the equivalence of
the definitions.
If ξ∈Ξ then W(δξ)=W(ξ) where
δξ is the Dirac measure at ξ, so W(ξ)∈K; clearly
[TABLE]
F⊂K is a C∗-algebra containing the identity operator.
Since Ξ is fixed we generally do not include it in notations but
if this is necessary we write K(Ξ) and FΞ. The
algebras K,F associated to different W are canonically
isomorphic but if the specification of W or Ξ is necessary we
use the notations \prescriptWK, \prescriptWF or \prescriptWK(Ξ), \prescriptWFΞ. For
example, if Ξ is finite dimensional then by the Stone-Von Neumann
theorem one has H=H0⊗H1 and W=W0⊗1H1
for some irreducible representation W0 of Ξ on H0 hence we
have \prescriptWK=\prescriptW0K⊗1K and
\prescriptWF=\prescriptW0F⊗1H1.
Here is a description à la Buchholz and Grundling [10] of
F (see also [40, Th. 23]):
Proposition 1.5**.**
For any z∈C∖R we have
[TABLE]
Definition 1.6**.**
If E∈G(Ξ) and ξ1,…,ξn is a generating set for
E∈G(Ξ) then
[TABLE]
F(E)* is a C∗-subalgebra of F and F(0)=C.*
Clearly
C∗(ϕ(ξ))⋅C∗(ϕ(η))=C∗(ϕ(η))⋅C∗(ϕ(ξ))∀ξ,η∈Ξ so (1.16) is a
C∗-algebra.
We use the terminology of §1.1 concerning graded
C∗-algebras, but the presentation here is rather
self-contained. See §2.6 for the proofs of Theorems
1.7 and 1.10.
Theorem 1.7**.**
The set of C∗-subalgebras F(E) of F has the following
properties:
[TABLE]
In particular, the C∗-algebra F is graded by the semilattice
G(Ξ) with components F(E).
Remark 1.8**.**
Note that F(E)∩F(F)=0 if
E⊊F.
By (1.18) and (1.19) F˚ is a dense
unital ∗-subalgebra of F and we may write
[TABLE]
Since the sum in (1.19) is direct, each T∈F˚
has, for each E∈G(Ξ), a unique component T(E)∈F(E)
such that T=∑ET(E).
Remark 1.9**.**
We will see in Theorem 2.8 that the algebras
F(E) have a rather simple structure: they are isomorphic to
tensor products A⊗B with A an abelian
C∗-algebra and B isomorphic to the algebra of compact
operators on a separable Hilbert space.
**
For any S⊂G(Ξ) we set
[TABLE]
By (1.20), if S is finite then
F(S)=F˚(S). If S is a subsemilattice of
G(Ξ), meaning E,F∈S⇒E+F∈S, then F(S)
is naturally an S-graded C∗-algebra (Appendix A).
In particular, any subspace E⊂Ξ determines three
C∗-subalgebras of F:
[TABLE]
Clearly FE is a unital C∗-subalgebra and FE′ and
F⊃E are ideals of F. From (1.16)
we get a description of FE in terms of field operators:
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.10**.**
The C∗-algebra FE and the ideal FE′ satisfy
[TABLE]
The projection PE:F→FE determined by this
direct sum decomposition is a morphism and it is the unique
continuous linear map PE:F→F such that
[TABLE]
For any subspaces E,F we have
[TABLE]
With the terminology introduced in §1.1, PE is
a projection morphism of F onto FE.
1.4.
For Ξ finite dimensional and W irreducible F(E) has a simple
explicit description:
Theorem 1.11**.**
If Ξ is finite dimensional and W is irreducible then F(E)
is the set of T∈B(H) such that:
[TABLE]
This is one of our main results (proved in §3.1). The first
condition in (1.28) can be written in the following form,
that makes sens even if dimΞ=∞:
[TABLE]
If Ξ and W are arbitrary then the conditions (1.28),
the first one being written as in (1.29), define an
interesting C∗-algebra E(E) of operators on H which
contains F(E), namely the E-component of the extended
field algebraE which is graded by G(Ξ). The field
C∗-algebra F contains only functions of the fields
ϕ(ξ). If the representation W is not irreducible then many
other physically interesting observables are not affiliated to F,
e.g. the Hamiltonians involving spin interactions. The C∗-algebra
E contains F and fixes this flaw. We summarize below some
facts concerning E which will be studied in Section 5.
Theorem 1.12**.**
E(E)* is a C∗-subalgebra of B(H) such that
F(E)⊂E(E). The family of C∗-algebras
{E(E)}E∈G(Ξ) is linearly independent and
E(E)⋅E(F)⊂E(E+F).*
Definition 1.13**.**
The extended field C∗-algebra associated to the
representation W is
[TABLE]
and is a G(Ξ)-graded C∗-algebra of bounded operators on
H.
We mention three more facts concerning the relation between F and
E:
(1)
E(0)=Com(Ξ) where Com(Ξ)=ComW(Ξ) is the
commutant of the representation W, i.e. the set of T∈B(H)
such that [T,W(ξ)]=0∀ξ.
2. (2)
If W is of finite multiplicity then E(E)=F(E)⋅Com(Ξ)
and E=F⋅Com(Ξ).
3. (3)
Assume Ξ finite dimensional. Then
E(Ξ)=F(Ξ)⋅Com(Ξ) and W is of finite multiplicity if
and only if E(Ξ)=K(H).
1.5.
The G(Ξ)-graded structure of F described in Theorem
1.7 is the main tool in the study of F and its
applications. Note that it allows one to construct operators in F
in a straightforward way: for each E∈G(Ξ) choose
T(E)∈F(E) such that ∑ET(E)≐T is norm convergent;
then T∈F. Self-adjoint operators affiliated to F may be
constructed by a similar procedure, see for example Theorem
A.11 for a general abstract result, we give concrete
results later: we will see that in N-body type situations this
construction is surprisingly efficient. Note also that, by Theorem
1.11, if Ξ is finite dimensional and W is
irreducible then the conditions ensuring the appartenance
T(E)∈F(E) are quite explicit.
Theorem 1.10, which is a straightforward consequence of
Theorem 1.7, is important in the spectral analysis of the
operators in F or observables affiliated to F, see Theorem
1.16 and Sections 3 and 5 where we
prove extensions of the HVZ theorem describing the essential spectrum
of N-body Hamiltonians. We will see that if Ξ is infinite
dimensional or is finite dimensional but W is of infinite
multiplicity then F∩K(H)=0, hence if T∈F then its
essential spectrum coincides with its spectrum, so we have nothing to
say in these situations. But the relation F∩K(H)=0 has much
worse consequences: it implies that many physically interesting
Hamiltonians are not affiliated to F if dimΞ=∞. For
this reason in this paper we do not treat examples of infinite
dimensional symplectic spaces and of operators affiliated to the
corresponding field algebra. But let us make a comment on this case to
explain what is missing in F.
We consider the Fock space situation and describe a
result from [26]. Let Ξ be a complex infinite dimensional
Hilbert space and H=Γ(Ξ) the symmetric Fock space
associated to it. We keep the notation Ξ for the underlying real
vector space of Ξ equipped with the symplectic structure defined
by σ(ξ,η)=ℑ⟨ξ∣η⟩. Then F is a
C∗-algebra of operators on H which does not contain compact
operators and the usual quantum field Hamiltonians are not affiliated
to it. The problem comes from the fact that Γ(A)∈/F if A
is a bounded operator on the one particle Hilbert space Ξ. A
solution is to extend F by adding the necessary free kinetic
energies. More precisely, if O is an abelian C∗-algebra on
the Hilbert space Ξ whose strong closure does not contain compact
operators then
[TABLE]
is a C∗-algebra of operators on H which contains the compacts
and whose quotient with respect to the ideal of compact operators is
canonically embedded in O⊗Φ(O) which allows one to
describe the essential spectrum of the operators affiliated to
Φ(O). The Hamiltonians of the P(φ)2 models with a
spatial cutoff are affiliated to such algebras. The algebra
A≐Φ(C) has a remarkable property: K(H)⊂A and
A/K(H)≅A.
1.6.
From now on until the end of the introduction we assume Ξ
finite dimensional. Two finite dimensional symplectic spaces are
symplectically isomorphic hence their field algebras are isomorphic
and their realizations in irreducible representations are isomorphic.
We may describe FE and its commutant in F independently of
the graded structure of F.
Theorem 1.14**.**
*For any subspace E⊂Ξ we have
(1)FE={T∈F∣[T,W(ξ)]=0∀ξ∈Eσ},
(2)FEσ={T∈F∣[S,T]=0∀S∈FE}.*
Corollary 1.15**.**
If X∈G(Ξ) is Lagrangian then FX is a maximal abelian
subalgebra of F, i.e. if T∈F then
[S,T]=0∀S∈FX if and only if T∈FX.
The spectrum of an observable T affiliated to a C∗-algebra
C is the set Sp(T) of real λ such that
θ(T)=0 if θ∈C0(R) and θ(λ)=0.
Note that ∞ is the only observable with empty spectrum. If
H is a Hilbert space and C⊂B(H), the essential
spectrum of T is the set Spess(T) of λ such that
θ(T)∈/K(H) if θ(λ)=0. We have
[TABLE]
Indeed, if E⊂F then PE=PEPF and
PE is a morphism. The next theorem and its corollary follow
from Theorem 1.10 via Atkinson’s theorem, cf. Theorems
A.5, A.8, 3.4.
Theorem 1.16**.**
If W of finite multiplicity then
[TABLE]
Moreover, for any H∈H(Ξ) and any nonzero ξ∈Hσ we
have
[TABLE]
The definition of PHT and of the limit in (1.34)
in the case of observables is given in §1.1. The relation
(1.33) can be improved if T belongs to a graded subalgebra
of F:
Corollary 1.17**.**
Let S⊂G(Ξ) stable under sums with Ξ∈S and
Smax the set of maximal elements of S∖{Ξ}.
Then
[TABLE]
Indeed, we have ⊃ in (1.35) by
(1.32). On the other hand, if H is a hyperplane let
E∈S of maximal dimension with E⊂H. Then E is the
greatest element of S included in H hence
PET=PHT so Sp(PET)=Sp(PHT) for all
T∈F(S).
Remark 1.18**.**
The main points of the proof of
Corollary 1.17 are the relation
F(Ξ)=F(S)∩K(H) and the fact that the Theorem
1.10 gives us an explicit description of the quotient
F(S)/F(Ξ) as a C∗-subalgebra of
⨁E∈SmaxFE and of the canonical morphism
P:F(S)→F(S)/F(Ξ). From this one gets
(1.35) which is a general version of the HVZ theorem,
and also the Mourre estimate with respect to certain conjugate
operators by an extension of [1, Th. 8.4.3]. Note that
F(S)/F(Ξ) is realised on the Hilbert space
HS≐⨁E∈SmaxH and there are many
self-adjoint operators T affiliated to F(S) such that
P(T) is not a densely defined operator on HS.
1.7.
We now turn to the question of self-adjoint operators are affiliated
with the field algebra F. We consider here only the phase space
Ξ=T∗Rn, for a general framework and proofs we refer to Section
4. We will see that F is rather small and quite simple
and natural operators are not affiliated to it, but for example the
class of Hamiltonians with an N-body type structure affiliated to
F is surprisingly large. Note that two finite dimensional
symplectic spaces of the same dimension are symplectically isomorphic
hence their field algebras are isomorphic, so there is no loss of
generality in the choice Ξ=T∗Rn, but this is not natural for
some physical systems, e.g. non-relativistic N-body systems with
translation invariant potentials require different Euclidean spaces
[1, 22].
Let us consider the Euclidean space X=Rn with scalar product
⟨x,y⟩=∑i=1nxiyi. The dual space X∗ of X is
naturally identified with X but it is convenient to keep the
notation X∗ for it. We think of X as the configuration space of a
system whose phase space is Ξ≡T∗X=X⊕X∗ with the
symplectic form
[TABLE]
The Schrödinger representation [23, §4.2.1] of Ξ acts in
H=L2(X) by the rule
[TABLE]
The Fourier transform is
(Fu)(k)=(2π)−n/2∫Xe−i⟨x,k⟩u(x)dx. The
position q and momentum p (X-valued) observables are defined as
follows: if φ:X→C is a Borel function then φ(q) is
the operator of multiplication by φ in H and
φ(p)=F∗φ(q)F. Let qj be the operator of
multiplication by the j-th variable and pj=−i∂j with
∂j the derivative with respect to the j-th variable. Then
⟨x,p⟩=∑jxjpj and ⟨q,k⟩=∑jkjqj if
x,k∈X and the field operator at the point
ξ=(x,k)∈Ξ is ϕ(ξ)≐⟨q,k⟩+⟨x,p⟩.
These operators are self-adjoint if the definitions are conveniently
interpreted and the field algebra F is the C∗-algebra generated
by them. We have
[TABLE]
where (ei⟨q,k⟩f)(y)=ei⟨y,k⟩f(y) and
(ei⟨x,p⟩f)(y)=f(x+y). By Definition
1.4H is equipped with two remarkable
C∗-algebras: the Kastler algebra K and the field algebra
F. Since F−1W(x,k)F=W(k,−x) we have
[TABLE]
For T∈B(H) we have
W(ξ)∗TW(ξ)=e−i⟨x,p⟩e−i⟨q,k⟩Tei⟨q,k⟩ei⟨x,p⟩ hence the relation
(1.12), which is satisfied by any T∈K, is
equivalent to
[TABLE]
For example, if φ∈L∞(X) then
[TABLE]
But the analogous result for the field algebra seems quite remarkable
(Proposition 4.7):
Theorem 1.19**.**
φ(q)∈F⇔φ(p)∈F⇔φ∈GX.
GX is defined in (1.8). If X=R this means
φ∈C0(R)+C, hence if φ∈L∞(R) then
φ(q)∈F if and only if φ is continuous and has finite
and equal limits at ±∞.
We now give examples of simple operators affiliated or not to the
field algebra.
Example 1.20**.**
If X=R2 the operators of
multiplication by x2, x2+y2, or x−y are clearly
affiliated to F. But that of multiplication by x2−y2 is
not affiliated to K because if θ∈Cc(R) then
θ(x2−y2) is not uniformly continuous.**
Example 1.21**.**
The limit in (1.34) is the same as r→+∞
or r→−∞, so an anisotropic behaviour is not allowed by
F. It follows that certain physically relevant Hamiltonians
are not affiliated to F, for example, the one dimensional
anisotropic Schrödinger operators. More precisely, let X=R
and H=p2+v(q) with v real locally integrable such that
[TABLE]
Then (H+i)−1∈F if and only if a+=a− because**
[TABLE]
Similarly, the anisotropic algebras
C(R)⋅C0(R∗) and
C(R)⋅C(R∗) from [31], although
natural algebras of quantum Hamiltonians, are not included in
F. The N-body Hamiltonians studied in [34] are not
affiliated to the field algebra associated to the natural X.**
Example 1.22**.**
This is similar to Example 1.21 but we perturb
p2 by a second order operator. Let v≥1 a bounded Borel
function on R satisfying (1.42). Then H=pv(q)p,
with the Sobolev space H1(R) as form domain, is affiliated
to F if and only if a+=a−.
Example 1.23**.**
For X=R the Stark Hamiltonian
H=p2+q=eip3/3qe−ip3/3 is not affiliated to
F: indeed, if T=(H+i)−1 then the second condition in
(1.40) is satisfied but not the first one, cf. [27, §4.2.7]. Also p2−q2 is not affiliated to F
by [10, Prop. 6.3].**
Example 1.24**.**
If X=R3 and b is a constant magnetic field with magnetic
vector potential a(x)=21b×x then the magnetic
Hamiltonian H0=(p−a)2 is affiliated to F. This is an easy
consequence of Theorem 1.11 because H0=∑j=13ϕ(ηj)2 with ηj∈T∗X (Remark
4.4). Theorem A.9 allows one to treat
H=(p−a)2+v with rather general a and v.
Example 1.25**.**
An example of a different nature is the generator of the
dilation group: ω=pq+qp=2pq+i is not affiliated to F
(again X=R). Indeed, in Proposition 3.11 we show
that w-lim∣r∣→∞W(rξ)∗(ω+i)−1W(rξ)=0
for all ξ∈Ξ, ξ=0 and (ω+i)−1 is not
compact, hence (ω+i)−1∈/F by Theorem
1.16. Note that p2−q2=p′q′+q′p′ where
p′=(p−q)/2,q′=(p+q)/2 satisfy [p′,q′]=−i **
1.8.
We now consider N-body Hamiltonians in the framework of
§1.7. Our purpose is to show that the class of such
Hamiltonians affiliated to F is very large.
We say that a function h:X→R is divergent if
limk→∞h(k)=+∞. Below we fix the kinetic energy
function h but we allow kinetic energy operators of the form
h(p−k) with arbitrary k∈X because the origin of the momentum
space should not play a rôle.
Proposition 1.26**.**
Let h:X→R be continuous and divergent and
T0⊂G(X). Denote T the set of intersections of
subspaces from T0 and Tσ={Yσ∣Y∈T},
which is a subsemilattice of G(Ξ). Then F(Tσ) is
the C∗-algebra generated by the self-adjoint operators
H=h(p−k)+v(q) with k∈X and real
v∈∑Y∈T0C0(X/Y).
This is a consequence of Theorem 4.13. The proposition says
that the algebras F(S) with S a subsemilattice of subspaces
of Ξ such that minS=X are generated by Hamiltonians having an
N-body type structure. A computation page 4.15 clarifies
this assertion.
Let S⊂G(Ξ) be an arbitrary subsemilattice with
minS=X and h:X→R continuous and divergent. Then h(p) is a
kinetic energy operator affiliated to F(X)=C0(X∗) and our goal
is to build self-adjoint operators H=h(p)+V affiliated to
F(S). The case of bounded operators V is easy but not without
interest if S is infinite because we do not assume that V is a
sum of components. By Proposition A.10 and Corollary
1.17 we have:
Proposition 1.27**.**
If V∈F(S) is symmetric then H=h(p)+V is affiliated to
F(S) and PEH=h(p)+PEV for all E∈S. If
Ξ∈S then
[TABLE]
Remark 1.28**.**
The maximal choice S=G⊃X is particularly
interesting, well beyond the N-body problem. We have S=Tσ
with T⊂G(X) stable under intersections and the N-body
case corresponds to finite T: then H=h(p)+∑Y∈TvY
with vY∈C0(X/Y) in the simplest case, cf. (4.27).
But if T=G(X) then H=h(p)+V and V is not just a sum of
vY. In fact, extending from finite T to G(X) is like
going from trigonometric polynomials to uniformly (Bohr) almost
periodic functions. Instead of periodic functions, i.e. functions
invariant under translations by elements of subgroups aZ, we use
functions invariant under translations by elements of vector subgroups
(subspaces) of X. Thus the self-adjoint operators affiliated to
F⊃X could be called “almost N-body Hamiltonians”,
meaning that they can be approximated, in some sense, with elementary
N-body type Hamiltonians.
In order to treat unbounded V we consider here only functions h
such that the form domain of h(p) is a Sobolev space (Theorem
4.16 is a more general but less explicit statement).
Hs≡Hs(X) is the Sobolev space of order s∈R defined
by the norm ∥u∥s=∥⟨p⟩su∥ where ⟨x⟩=(1+∣x∣2)1/2.
We have H0=H and if s≥0 then
Hs⊂H⊂H−s=(Hs)∗. If s>0 is we write
h(x)∼∣x∣2s if c′∣k∣2s≤h(k)≤c′′∣k∣2s for
some constants c′,c′′ and all large k. If h is bounded from
below this is equivalent to D(∣h(p)∣1/2=Hs. Form sums are
defined in Appendix §A.4; for the proof of the next
theorem see Theorem 4.20.
Theorem 1.29**.**
Let S⊂G(Ξ) a subsemilattice with minS=X and
h:X→R continuous with h(x)∼∣x∣2s for some s>0. Let
V:Hs→H−s symmetric such that V≥−μh(p)−ν with
μ<1,ν≥0 and
φ(p)V⟨p⟩−s∈F(S)∀φ∈Cc(R). Then the form sum H=h(p)+V is a self-adjoint
operator strictly affiliated to F(S).
The perturbations V allowed by Theorem 1.29 are much
more general than those usually considered in the standard N-body
problem even when S (hence T) is finite and even in the
two-body problem (i.e. T={0,X}). We explain this below.
If s≥0 we denote Bs(X)≐B(Hs,H−s) and say
that T∈Bs(X) is small at infinity if it verifies the
following equivalent conditions:
[TABLE]
Let B0s(X) be the closed subset of Bs(X) consisting of
small at infinity operators. For example, φ(q)∈B0(X) if
and only if φ∈L∞(X) and φ(q)∈B00(X)
means that we also have
lima→∞∫∣x−a∣∣φ(x)∣dx=0 (which explains the
conditions (1.42)).
If Y∈G(X) and Y′ is a complementary subspace of Y in X
then X=Y⊕Y′ and
[TABLE]
Let FY be the Fourier transform in L2(Y) and keep the
notation FY for FY⊗1 acting in
L2(X)=L2(Y)⊗L2(Y′). Let qY,pY be the position
and momentum observables associated to Y, so
φ(pY)=FY−1φ(qY)FY if φ:Y→C
and C0(Y∗)=FY−1C0(Y)FY (cf. §1.7 and
§4.1). If Φ:Y→B(Y′) is continuous and we
denote Φ(qY) the operator of multiplication by Φ in
L2(X)=L2(Y;L2(Y′)), then
Φ(pY)≐FY−1Φ(qY)FY.
This definition extends to functions on Y with values operators on
Sobolev spaces on Y′. For example, if VY:Y→Bs(Y′) is
continuos and VY(y):Hs(Y′)→H−s(Y′) is symmetric and
satisfies ±VY(y)≤cY⟨∣y∣+∣pY′∣⟩2s for some
constant cY and all y, then clearly
±VY(pY)≤CY⟨p⟩2s for some number CY,
hence VY(pY)∈Bs(X).
Let T⊂G(X) a finite∩-stable subset with
0,X∈T. Denote S=Tσ and Smax the set of
maximal elements of S∖{Ξ}.
Theorem 1.30**.**
For any Y∈T let Y′ a complementary subspace of Y in X
and VY a norm continuos function Y→B0s(Y′) such that
VY(y):Hs(Y′)→H−s(Y′) is symmetric and satisfies
±VY(y)≤cY⟨∣y∣+∣pY′∣⟩2s for a constant
cY and all y∈Y. Let V0=0. For E=Yσ∈S
assume that the symmetric operator
V(E)=VY(pY)∈Bs(X) satisfies:
[TABLE]
Then the form sums H=h(p)+∑EV(E) and
HE=h(p)+∑F≤EV(F) are bounded from below self-adjoint
operators, with form domain Hs, strictly affiliated to
F(S), and PEH=HE∀E∈S. Moreover, we
have
[TABLE]
We mention that the relations (1.43) and (1.44)
are HVZ type theorems for H.
Remark 1.31**.**
Let us make a formal comment on the structure of the “potentials”
VY(pY) to clarify the gain in generality compared
to potentials VY in the standard N-body problem. The usual
VY is a function of the internal variable qY′ (of
class Lu for the natural number u) while VY(pY) is an
operator depending on qY′ and on the total momentum
p=(pY,pY′).
Example 1.32**.**
The simplest case is T={0,X}, hence S={X,Ξ} and
F(S)=C0(X∗)+K(X). Then V(X)=0 hence
V=V(Ξ). Since 0σ=Ξ we have Y=0 hence Y′=X so
V:Hs→H−s must be a symmetric small at infinity
operator such that V≥−μh(p)−ν with μ<1 (the operator
V may have the same order 2s as h(p)). Then H=h(p)+V is
strictly affiliated to F(S) and
Spess(H)=h(X)=[minh,∞[.
2. Field algebra
2.1. Kastler algebra
We recall here some basic facts about Kastler’s algebra [40].
2.1.1. Measure spaces
If X is a finite dimensional real vector space we denote M(X) the
space of bounded Borel measures on X identified with the Banach
space dual of C0(X) and L1(X) the subspace of absolutely
continuous measures. If X=0≡{0} then
M(X)=L1(X)=Cδ0≡C where δ0 is the Dirac measure
at zero. If Y⊂X is a subspace then M(Y) is identified with
the closed subspace of M(X) consisting of the measures with support
in Y, so M(Y)⊂M(X) isometrically, and L1(Y)⊂M(X)
consists of measures with support in Y and whose restriction to Y
is absolutely continuous. Since the elements of L1(X) are thought
as measures not functions their norms do not depend of the choice of a
Lebesgue measure on X. S(X) is the space of Schwartz test
functions with dual the space S′(X) of tempered distributions,
hence L1(X)⊂M(X)⊂S′(X) continuously. We set
⟨u,v⟩=v(u) if u∈S(X),v∈S′(X).
2.1.2. Definition
If Ξ is a symplectic space then {M(E)}E∈G(Ξ) is a
filtered family of Banach spaces with M(E)⊂M(F) isometrically
if E⊂F so M(Ξ)=∪E∈G(Ξ)M(E) is a normed
vector space; we denote ∥⋅∥1 its norm. If E,F∈G(Ξ)
and E=F then
[TABLE]
According to Kastler, the twisted convolution algebra of Ξ
is the normed space M(Ξ) equipped with the following unital
∗-algebra structure: if μ,ν∈M(Ξ) then
∃E∈G(Ξ) such that μ,ν∈M(E) and then the
twisted convolution μ\oastν∈M(E) is defined by
[TABLE]
the unit is the Dirac measure at zero δ0, and the adjoint
measure μ∗ is defined by
[TABLE]
If Ξ is finite dimensional then Kastler [40, Th. 15] proves
that the ∗-algebra M(Ξ) has, modulo equivalence, only one
faithful irreducible representation and any faithful representation
of M(Ξ) is a multiple of this one; in particular, M(Ξ) has a
unique C∗-norm ∥⋅∥ and∥μ∥≤∥μ∥1=∫Ξ∣μ∣. The C∗-algebra completion
M(Ξ) of M(Ξ) will be called Kastler C∗-algebra of
Ξ. Moreover, by [42, Th. 8] we have a continuous embedding
[TABLE]
If Ξ is infinite dimensional we have (1.10) and Kastler’s
theorem implies
[TABLE]
hence one may define its Kastler C∗-algebra as
[TABLE]
From now on, since Ξ is fixed, we simplify the notation and set
M=M(Ξ). We keep the notations μ,ν for the elements of
M and μ\oastν for their product. Then for any
E∈G(Ξ) we have E⊂F for some F∈Gs(Ξ)
hence M(E)⊂M(F)⊂M and
[TABLE]
is a C∗-subalgebra of M and if E is symplectic M(E) is
canonically isomorphic to the Kastler algebra of E, so depends only
on the restriction of σ to E. We have (see page
2.11)
[TABLE]
For any ξ∈Ξ let δξ be the Dirac measure at ξ
thought as element δξ∈M(E)⊂M for any
E∈G(Ξ) such that ξ∈E. If ξ,η∈Ξ we clearly
have
[TABLE]
Thus δξ is a unitary element of M hence
∥δξ∥=1. Let
ξσ≐σ(⋅,ξ):Ξ→R and τξ the
translation by ξ defined by (τξf)(η)=f(η−ξ). Clearly, if E∈G(Ξ) and μ∈M(E)
[TABLE]
If f:Ξ→R we write limξ→0f(ξ)=0 if this holds for
the restriction of f to any finite dimensional subspace of Ξ.
Then by a density and continuity argument we easily get
[TABLE]
2.1.3. Representations
If we embed Ξ⊂M(Ξ) by using the map
ξ↦δξ then the representations of Ξ naturally
extend to representations of the Kastler algebra M(Ξ).
Proposition 2.2 is a simple consequence of Stone-Von
Neumann’s and Kastler’s theorems.
Remark 2.1**.**
We recall the statement Stone-Von
Neumann theorem [23, 25] because we will need several times
the notations introduced here: any finite dimensional Ξ has an
irreducible representation W0:Ξ→U(H0) and if
W:Ξ→U(H) is an arbitrary representation then there is a
Hilbert space K and a unitary operator
V:H→H0⊗K such that
VW(ξ)V∗=W0(ξ)⊗1K∀ξ∈Ξ. The
multiplicity of W is the dimension of K and the
commutant of W is the set
ComW(Ξ)={T∈B(H)∣[T,W(ξ)]=0∀ξ}.
Clearly VComW(Ξ)V∗=1H0⊗B(K).
Proposition 2.2**.**
If W:Ξ→U(H) is a representation of the symplectic space
Ξ then there is a unique C∗-algebra representation
W:M(Ξ)→B(H) such that
[TABLE]
This representation is faithful.
Proof.
First assume Ξ finite dimensional and define
W:M(Ξ)→B(H) by (2.12) with E=Ξ. We have
W(μ\oastν)=W(μ)W(ν), W(μ∗)=W(μ)∗ and
W(δξ)=W(ξ) hence W:M(Ξ)→B(H) is a unital
morphism such that ∥W(μ)∥≤∥μ∥1. To prove that this
morphism is injective we use the Stone-Von Neumann theorem with the
notations used above. From VW(ξ)V∗=W0(ξ)⊗1K we get
VW(μ)V∗=W0(μ)⊗1K hence
∥W(μ)∥=∥W0(μ)∥∀μ∈M(Ξ). Hence it suffices
to find one representation of Ξ whose associated morphism is
injective; this is the case for the regular representation
[40, Th. 5].
Since W:M(Ξ)→B(H) is a faithful representation the relation
∥μ∥0=∥W(μ)∥ defines a C∗-norm on M(Ξ) hence by
Kastler’s theorem we see that ∥W(μ)∥=∥μ∥ and this clearly
implies the statement of the theorem if Ξ is finite dimensional.
If Ξ is infinite dimensional and F∈Gs(Ξ) the
restriction W∣F is a representation of F so it extends to an
isometric representation WF:M(F)→B(H). If
F,G,H∈Gs(Ξ) and F+G⊂H then WH∣M(F)=WF
and WH∣M(G)=WG so W induces a C∗-algebra representation
M(Ξ)→B(H) that we also denote W which clearly satisfies
(2.12). Since the restriction of W to any M(F) is
isometric and M(Ξ) is the closure of the union of such
M(F), it follows that the W:M(Ξ)→B(H) is
isometric.
∎
Definition 2.3**.**
The Kastler C∗-algebra in the representation W is the
norm closure \prescriptWK(Ξ) of the set of operators W(μ) with
μ∈M(Ξ). The set \prescriptWK(Ξ) is a unital C∗-subalgebra
of B(H) and μ↦W(μ) extends to an isomorphism
W:M(Ξ)→\prescriptWK(Ξ).
Remark 2.4**.**
By Proposition 2.2, if
W1,W2 are representations of Ξ then the algebras
\prescriptW1K(Ξ) and \prescriptW2K(Ξ) are canonically
isomorphic in the following sense: there is a unique morphism
\prescriptW1K(Ξ)→\prescriptW2K(Ξ) which sends W1(ξ) into
W2(ξ) for all ξ∈Ξ. For this reason*
we drop the superscript W and write K(Ξ) or just K
unless W plays a role.*
Remark 2.5**.**
If dimΞ<∞ then \prescriptWK(Ξ)≅\prescriptW0K⊗1K with the notations of Remark
2.1.**
2.1.4. C*-norm on L1
If E∈G(Ξ) is not symplectic the C∗-algebra M(E) is
defined in (2.7) but the C∗-norm on M(E) is not
unique, it depends on the embedding of E in Ξ. But the situation
is better if we replace M(E) by L1(E): there is a unique
C∗-norm on L1(E) without non-degeneracy condition on
σ. This is interesting since it may be used to construct the
field algebra without referring to Kastler algebra (cf. comment
after (2.15)).
Theorem 2.6**.**
Let Ξ be a finite dimensional real vector space equipped with a
Lebesgue measure and a bilinear anti-symmetric form
σ:Ξ×Ξ→R. Equip L1(Ξ) with the Banach
∗-algebra structure defined by the involution
f∗(ξ)=fˉ(−ξ) and the twisted convolution
[TABLE]
Then there is a unique C∗-norm on L1(Ξ) (also independent of
the chosen measure dη).
Proof.
If σ is non-degenerate the assertion follows from Stone-Von
Neumann theorem and if σ=0 then this holds for arbitrary
locally compact abelian groups, cf. [5, p. 224].
We will need the following theorem of B.A. Barnes [4, Thm. 5.5]. Recall that a Banach ∗-algebra A is postliminal if
its enveloping C∗-algebra A~ is postliminal, i.e. the
range of each irreducible representation of A~ contains a
nonzero compact operator (then it will contain all compact
operators) [24, §4.1.10 and Theorem 9.1]. The theorem says
that if A,B are postliminal Banach ∗-algebras and have
unique C∗-norms, then the algebraic tensor product
A⊗B has a unique C∗-norm. Note that the convolution
algebra of an amenable group can have several distinct C∗-norms
[4, p. 1].
Let
Ξσ={ξ∈Ξ∣σ(ξ,η)=0∀η∈Ξ} and Θ a subspace supplementary to Ξσ in
Ξ, so Ξ=Ξσ⊕Θ. Note that σ=0 on
Ξσ. The restriction of σ to Θ is
non-degenerate because if ξ∈Θ and σ(ξ,η)=0
for all η∈Θ then σ(ξ,η)=0 for all
η∈Ξ hence ξ∈Ξσ so ξ=0. Thus Θ is
a symplectic space when equipped with σ∣Θ2.
We have L1(Ξ)=L1(Ξσ)⊗^L1(Θ) where
⊗^ denote the projective tensor product. It is clear that
this equality holds at the Banach ∗-algebra level if we equip
L1(Ξ) with the twisted convolution product (2.13),
L1(Ξσ) with the usual convolution product, and
L1(Θ) with the twisted convolution associated to its
symplectic form σ∣Θ2.
We apply now Barnes’ theorem to the algebraic tensor product
L1(Ξ)=L1(Ξσ)⊗L1(Θ). The C∗-envelop of
L1(Ξσ) is the abelian algebra of C0 functions on the
dual of Ξσ, hence is postliminal. Moreover, as we noticed
at the beginning of the proof, there is only one C∗-norm on
L1(Ξσ). On the other hand, the Stone-Von Neumann theorem
applied to the symplectic space Θ implies that the
C∗-envelop of L1(Θ) is the C∗-algebra of compact
operators on the Hilbert space of the unique (modulo unitary
equivalence) irreducible representation of Θ, hence
L1(Θ) is postliminal and has a unique C∗-norm. Thus
there is a unique C∗-norm on L1(Ξσ)⊗L1(Θ)
hence on its projective completion L1(Ξ).
∎
2.2. Components of the field algebra
Let Ξ be a symplectic space. If E∈G(Ξ) then L1(E) is
an ideal of M(E) so its closure in M(E) is a C∗-subalgebra
and an ideal of M(E) that we denote
so we could use Mageira’s reconstruction theorem [43, Th. 2.2] to define the field algebra independently of the Kastler
algebra. However, viewing it as a subalgebra of M(Ξ) could be
useful for further developments, e.g. for the treatment of anisotropic
operators mentioned in Example 1.21. In this
subsection we study the structure of the algebras L(E).
If dimΞ<∞ we have a simple intrinsic description of
L(E):
Theorem 2.7**.**
If Ξ is finite dimensional then L(E) is the set of
μ∈M such that
[TABLE]
This is a corollary of Theorem 1.11 which is a much
deeper fact because it does not involve a condition like μ∈M
where M is a “complicated” algebra.
We call center of E∈G(Ξ) the space
Ec=E∩Eσ={ξ∈E∣σ(ξ,η)=0∀η∈E}. Clearly E/Ec is naturally a symplectic
space, so the C∗-algebra L(E/Ec) is well defined. E is
symplectic if and only if Ec=0, E is isotropic if and only if
Ec=E, and E is coisotropic if and only if Ec=Eσ.
If E∗ is the dual of E then
Ξ∋ξ↦ξσ∣E∈E∗ is surjective with kernel
Eσ hence we may identify E∗=Ξ/Eσ. Thus if Ξ is
finite dimensional C0(E∗)⊂Cbu(Ξ)⊂S′(Ξ).
A C∗-algebra A is called elementary if it is isomorphic
to the C∗-algebra of compact operators on a separable Hilbert
space. The C∗-tensor products at (3) and (4)
below are unambiguously defined, both factors being nuclear algebras.
Theorem 2.8**.**
*Let E be a finite dimensional subspace of Ξ.
(1)E is isotropic if and only L(E) is abelian and
then L(E)≅C0(E∗).
(2)E is symplectic if and only if L(E) is
elementary.
(3)L(E)≃L(Ec)⊗L(E/Ec).
(4) If E is coisotropic then
L(E)≃L(Eσ)⊗L(E/Eσ).
(5)L(E) is unital if and only if E=0 and then L(0)=C.*
Proof.
L(E) is abelian if and only μ\oastν=ν\oastμ∀μ,ν∈L1(E) which by (2.2) means
[TABLE]
Integrating over ξ we then get
[TABLE]
hence
e−2iσ(ξ,η)−e2iσ(ξ,η)=0∀ξ,η∈E which
clearly is equivalent to σ∣E2=0.
We now describe the canonical isomorphism L(E)≅C0(E∗) for
isotropic E. Then for μ,ν∈L1(E) the twisted convolution
product μ\oastν coincides with the ordinary convolution product
μ⋆ν. Thus L1(E) is the usual Banach ∗-algebra
associated to the convolution product on E whose enveloping
C∗-algebra is identified with C0(E∗) via a Fourier
transformation. We still need to show that the norm induced by
M(Ξ) on L1(E) coincides with the norm induced by the
enveloping C∗-algebra. But this follows from the fact that for an
arbitrary locally compact abelian group E there is only one
C∗-norm on the convolution algebra L1(E) [5, p. 224].
This proves (1).
If E is symplectic then by definition L(E) is the completion of
the twisted convolution algebra L1(E) in M(E). If W is an
irreducible representation of E then from Proposition
2.2 and the Stone-Von Neumann theorem it follows that
L(E) is isomorphic to the C∗-algebra generated by the operators
W(μ)=∫EW(ξ)μ(dξ) with μ∈L1(E), which is the
C∗-algebra of compact operators on the Hilbert space of the
representation (obvious in the Schrödinger representation).
Reciprocally, if E is not symplectic then Ec=0 hence
L(E) is not elementary by (3).
Assertion (3) follows from Theorem 2.6 and its proof. If
F is a subspace supplementary to Ec in E, so
E=Ec⊕F, then L1(E)=L1(Ec)⊗^L1(F)
projective tensor product of the usual convolution algebra
L1(Ec) with the twisted convolution algebra L1(F) defined by
the symplectic structure of F. By the uniqueness of the C∗-norms
of these algebras and [4, Thm. 5.5] we get
L(E)=L(Ec)⊗L(F) which is the uniquely defined
C∗-tensor product. This proves (3). Finally, (4) is a particular
case of (3) and (5) is true because by the preceding description the
algebras L(E) with E=0 cannot have unit.
∎
2.3. Field algebra
The set of C∗-subalgebras L(E) of M has some remarkable
properties summarised in the next theorem. If A1,…,An are
subsets of M then A1\oast…\oastAn is the linear span
of the products μ1\oast…\oastμn with μi∈Ai and
A1\oast˙…\oast˙An its closure.
Theorem 2.9**.**
(1)* The family of linear subspaces L(E) of M is linearly
independent.
(2) If E,F∈G(Ξ) and μ∈L(E),ν∈L(F) then
μ\oastν∈L(E+F).
(3)L(E)\oast˙L(F)=L(E+F).
(4) If S⊂G(Ξ) is finite then
∑E∈SL(E) is norm closed.*
From (1) and (2) it follows that the linear subspace generated by the
L(E), denoted
[TABLE]
is a unital ∗-subalgebra of M hence its closure is a unital
C∗-subalgebra. The sum in (2.17) is direct hence if
μ∈L˚ its component in L(E) is uniquely determined;
we denote it μ(E), so that μ=∑Eμ(E).
Definition 2.10**.**
The field C∗-algebraL≡LΞ of Ξ is the
closure of L˚:
[TABLE]
Parts (1) and (2) of Theorem 2.9 and the preceding
definition say that L is equipped with a G(Ξ)-graded
C∗-algebra structure with components L(E).
In the rest of this section we prove Theorem 2.9. Note
that
[TABLE]
Indeed, it suffices to show that μ\oastν=ν\oastμ if
μ∈M(E) and ν∈M(F). If G∈Gs(Ξ) with
E+F⊂G and f∈C0(G) then by (2.2)
[TABLE]
because σ(ξ,η)=0 if ξ∈E,η∈F and we have the
same formula for ν\oastμ.
Lemma 2.11**.**
If Ξ is finite dimensional,
μ=∑E∈G(Ξ)μ(E)∈L˚, and ξ∈Ξ,
then
[TABLE]
Proof.
We have
[TABLE]
Indeed, (2.10) ensures this for μ∈M(Ξ) and
then the relation extends to any μ∈S′(Ξ) by continuity
and density of M(ξ) in S′(Ξ); then we use the embedding
M(Ξ)⊂S′(Ξ).
Now let E be a subspace of Ξ and μ∈L(E). From
(2.19) and (2.9) we get
[TABLE]
On the other hand, as weak limit in S′(Ξ) we have
[TABLE]
For the proof, note that, by the last relation in
(2.10) and a density and continuity argument, for any
μ,ν∈M(Ξ) we have
[TABLE]
hence, since L(E) is the norm closure of L1(E) in M(Ξ),
it suffices to prove (2.23) for μ∈L1(E). If
ξ∈/Eσ then ξσ∣E is a nonzero linear form on
E hence by (2.21) if θ∈S(Ξ)
[TABLE]
tends to zero as r→∞ by the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma. This
proves (2.20).
∎
We prove (1) of the Theorem 2.9, i.e. if μ(E)∈L(E)∀E∈S= finite, then
[TABLE]
Since there is a finite dimensional symplectic subspace of Ξ
containing all the subspaces E∈S, it suffices to show this under
the assumption that Ξ is finite dimensional. For any ξ∈Ξ
we will have
[TABLE]
Fix F∈S and consider the spaces E∈S such that
E⊂F. For such E we have Fσ⊂Eσ
hence Eσ∩Fσ is a strict subspace of Fσ, so
we may choose ξ∈Fσ which does not belong to any of these
subspaces, hence ξ∈/Eσ if E⊂F. On the other
hand, if E⊂F then ξ∈Fσ⊂Eσ. Thus
from (2.22) and (2.23) we get
[TABLE]
If F is minimal in S we get μF=0. Then if S1 is the
set of E∈S which are not minimal, we get
∑E∈S1μ(E)=0. By repeating the above argument for
S1 we get μF=0 for all F minimal in S1, etc. This
proves part (1) of the theorem
For the proof of (2) of Theorem 2.9 we may assume Ξ
finite dimensional, cf. (1.10). If μ∈M(E) and
ν∈M(F) then \mboxsupp(μ\oastν)⊂E+F because if
f∈C0(Ξ) has support disjoint from E+F then the right hand
side of (2.2) is equal to zero. Thus
M(E)\oast˙M(F)⊂M(E+F), in particular we have
(2.8). Alternatively, we may use
∣μ\oastν∣≤∣μ∣⋆∣ν∣, where ⋆ is the ordinary
convolution operation of measures, and the following known fact: if
μ,ν are positive bounded measures on Ξ then
\mboxsupp(μ⋆ν) is included in the closure of
\mboxsuppμ+\mboxsuppν.
Now we prove that μ\oastν∈L1(E+F) if
μ∈L1(E),ν∈L1(F). By the preceding comments, it suffices
to prove that μ⋆ν∈L1(E+F) if μ,ν are positive
measures in L1(E) and L1(F) respectively. Denote
μ⊗ν the product measure on E⊕F. This is clearly an
absolutely continuous positive bounded measure on E⊕F and if
we denote S:E⊕F→E+F the sum operation
S(ξ,η)=ξ+η then μ⋆ν is the bounded positive
measure on E+F defined by
(μ⋆ν)(A)=(μ⊗ν)(S−1(A)) for any Borel set
A⊂E+F. We have to show that this measure is absolutely
continuous. But S is a linear surjective map, hence if
N⊂E+F is of measure zero then S−1(N) is of measure
zero. Indeed, if G is a subspace of E⊕F supplementary to
kerS then S:G→E+F is a linear bijective map, so
M=S−1(N)∩G is of measure zero and S−1(N)=G⊕kerS
is also of measure zero by Fubini theorem.
Thus we have L(E)\oastL(F)⊂L(E+F) and for the proof of
(3) of Theorem 2.9 it remains to show that
L(E)\oastL(F) is dense in L(E+F). For this it suffices to
show that the only function f∈L∞(E+F) such that
∫f(ξ)(μ\oastν)(dξ)=0 for all μ∈L1(E) and
ν∈L1(F) is f=0. More explicitly, this condition means
[TABLE]
where dξ,dη are the Euclidean measures associated to some
scalar products on E,F respectively. For ξ0∈E,
η0∈F, and r>0 real let us take above μ equal to the
characteristic function of the ball ∣ξ−ξ0∣<r in E divided by
its volume BE(r) and ν the similarly defined function on
F. Then we get
[TABLE]
By the Lebesgue differentiation theorem, the limit as r→0 of the
left hand side above is equal to
e−2iσ(ξ0,η0)f(ξ0+η0) for almost
every ξ0∈E,η0∈F. Thus f=0.
This finishes the proof of (3). By (1), (2) and (2.18) L
is a G(Ξ)-graded C∗-algebra hence (4) is true by (1) of
Lemma A.1. This finishes the proof of the theorem.
Remark 2.12**.**
From Theorems 2.9
and 2.8 it follows that for each L∈P(Ξ) we
have an abelian C∗-subalgebra L(L) of L with
L(L)≅C0(L)≃C0(R) such that the family of
subspaces {L(L)}L∈P(Ξ) is linearly independent and
generates L. In other terms, the linear sum
I=∑L∈P(Ξ)L(L)⊂L is direct and the
C∗-algebra generated by I is L. Thus L is the field
C∗-algebra introduced by Kastler in [40, §6].
Remark 2.13**.**
By Theorem 2.8 the algebras L(E) have a
rather simple structure: they are isomorphic to C∗-algebras of
the form A⊗B with A an abelian C∗-algebra and
B an elementary C∗-algebra. This and [43, Prop. 4.2]
imply for example that L is a nuclear
C∗-algebra. This has been proved before in [13, Th. 3.8] by other techniques.**
2.4. Projection morphisms
For any subset S⊂G(Ξ) we set
[TABLE]
By Theorem 2.9 if S is a subsemilattice of
G(Ξ) then L˚(S) is a ∗-subalgebra and
L(S) an S-graded C∗-subalgebra of L. If S is
finite then L(S)=L˚(S) is a C∗-subalgebra of
L if and only if S is a subsemilattice of G(Ξ), by
Lemma A.1 and Theorem 2.9-(3).
The linear direct sum decomposition
L˚=∑E∈G(Ξ)L(E) gives us a linear projection
P˚(S):L˚→L˚(S) for any
S. Then
P˚(E)=P˚({E}):L˚→L(E) is the
linear projection determined by the direct sum decomposition and
P˚(S)=∑E∈SP˚(E). If
P˚(S) extends to a continuous map L→L(S)
we denote P(S) the extension, this will be a projection
of L onto the subspace L(S).
Any subspace E⊂Ξ determines three subsemilattices of
interest defined as in (A.1) and the corresponding
C∗-subalgebras will be denoted
LE,LE′,L⊃E. Thus
[TABLE]
Clearly LE is a unital C∗-subalgebra of L graded by
G(E) and LE′ and L⊃E are ideals graded
by the obvious subsemilattices. From Theorem A.2 and
Proposition A.3 we get:
(1)
L=LE+LE′ and LE∩LE′=0.
2. (2)
The projection PE:L→LE determined by
the preceding direct sum decomposition is a morphism such that
μ=∑Fμ(F)∈L˚⇒PEμ=∑F⊂Eμ(F).
3. (3)
LE∩F=LE∩LFandPE∩F=PEPF=PFPE.
Thus PE is a projection morphism of L onto its
subalgebra LE.
Remark 2.14**.**
In particular, L has many
ideals, fact established in [13] by different
techniques. L has many other ideals, e.g. L(J) is an
ideal if J⊂G(Ξ) satisfies E∈J,F⊃E⇒F∈J. If
Jk={E∈G(Ξ)∣dimE≥k} we get a sequence of
ideals L(k)≐L(Jk) such that L(0)=L and
L(k)⊃L(k+1).
Remark 2.15**.**
If E=0 then L0=L(0)=C and
P0:L→C is a projection morphism and a trace because
P0(μ\oastν)=P0(μ)P0(ν)=P0(ν\oastμ).
Let
LEcom={ν∈L∣ν\oastμ=μ\oastν∀μ∈LE}. From Theorem 2.36 we get:
Proposition 2.16**.**
If Ξ is finite dimensional then for any subspace E⊂Ξ:
[TABLE]
We mention a consequence of Lemma 2.11 which says that, if
Ξ is finite dimensional, the projection morphism PE
associated to a hyperplane E may be thought as a “translation at
infinity” in a direction σ-orthogonal to E. In
Proposition 2.34 we prove a similar result in a
representation F of L for Ξ of any dimension. If
ξ∈Ξ we set ξσ≐(Rξ)σ, hence we have
ξ∈Fσ⇔F⊂ξσ. Any hyperplane
E⊂Ξ is of the form E=ξσ with
ξ∈Eσ∖{0}.
Proposition 2.17**.**
If Ξ is finite dimensional, ξ∈Ξ∖{0}, and
E=ξσ, then ∀μ∈L
[TABLE]
We now extend this interpretation of PE to the case when E is
not a hyperplane. Note that by Lemma A.1-(3) any
μ∈L belongs to some L(S) with S a countable
subsemilattice.
Proposition 2.18**.**
Assume Ξ finite dimensional and let E∈G(Ξ) and
S⊂G(Ξ) a countable subsemilattice. Then there is
ξ∈Eσ such that ξ∈/Fσ if
F∈S,F⊂E, and for any such ξ and any
μ∈L(S)
[TABLE]
Proof.
If F⊂E then Eσ⊂Fσ hence
Eσ∩Fσ is a strict subspace of Eσ which
cannot be a countable union of strict subspaces so ξ exists and
is not zero. Then it suffices to consider μ∈L˚(S)
hence μ=∑F∈Sμ(F) with only a finite number of
nonzero terms hence PEμ=∑F⊂Eμ(F). On the other
hand
[TABLE]
and if r→∞ then each term in the last sum tends to zero by
Lemma 2.11.
∎
2.5. Field observables
Our purpose here is to give a description of the field algebra in
terms of fields thus making the link with the Buchholz-Grundling
approach. We define the field operators at an abstract level as
observables affiliated to L and express the components L(E)
and the subalgebras LE in terms of the fields.
2.5.1. Fourier algebra and observables
Observables affiliated to a C∗-algebra C may be described by
using ∗-subalgebras A of C0(R) such that any morphism
A→C extends uniquely to a morphism on C0(R). For example,
the algebra of continuous rational functions of degree <0 has this
property and gives the description of observables in terms of
self-adjoint resolvents. Here we show that the Fourier algebra allows
one to define observables as generators of unitary groups in the
multiplier algebra of C.
More generally, if X is a locally compact abelian group, we
construct X-valued observables affiliated to C, i.e. morphisms
ϕ:A(X)→C, by using the Fourier algebra of X. Let X∗ be
the space of characters of X equipped with a Haar measure
dχ. We define the Fourier transformation by the condition
θ(x)=∫X∗χ(x)θ^(χ)dχ. The set of
Fourier transforms of integrable functions on X∗ is a dense stable
under conjugation and translations subalgebra of C0(X) which, when
equipped with the norm ∥θ∥=∥θ^∥L1(X∗), becomes
a Banach ∗-algebra A(X) continuously embedded into C0(X)
called Fourier algebra of X.
Proposition 2.19**.**
If C is a C∗-algebra and ϕ:A(X)→C is a
morphism then ϕ has a unique extension to a morphism
C0(X)→C.
Proof.
Since any homomorphism from a Banach algebra into a C∗-algebra is
continuous [18, Prop. 4.2], the morphism ϕ:A(X)→C
is continuous. We may assume that C is commutative. If Y is
the spectrum of C then Y is a locally compact space,
C≃C0(Y), so ϕ:A(X)→C0(Y) is a continuous
morphism. If y∈Y then the map θ↦ϕ(θ)(y)
is clearly a character of A(X). By [37, Cor. 23.7] the
spectrum of A(X) can be identified with X with the help of the
evaluation characters θ↦θ(x), hence there is a
unique x=u(y)∈X such that ϕ(θ)(y)=θ(u(y)). Thus
we get a function u:Y→X such that ϕ(θ)=θ∘u
hence ∥ϕ(θ)∥≤supx∣θ(x)∣=∥θ∥C0(X).
∎
Assume that I is an essential ideal of a unital C∗-algebra
C and equip C with the strict topology defined by the
family of seminorms ∥S∥J=∥SJ∥+∥JS∥ where J runs over I.
If U={Ut}t∈R is a one parameter group of unitary elements
of C then the continuity of the map t↦Ut∈C in the
strict topology is equivalent to the norm continuity of
t↦UtJ for any J∈I; if this is satisfied we say that
U is strictly continuous. Then, by Proposition
2.19, we may define an observable A affiliated to
C by requiring θ(A)=∫θ^(t)Utdt if
θ∈A(R) the integral being taken in the strict topology.
We say that A is the infinitesimal generator of U and we
write Ut=eitA. We reformulate these remarks as a
proposition and give an alternative proof in terms of double
centralizers.
Proposition 2.20**.**
Assume that I is an essential ideal of the unital C∗-algebra
C and {Ut}t∈R is a group of unitary elements of C
such that t↦UtJ is norm continuous for any J∈I. Then
{Ut}t∈R has an infinitesimal generator affiliated to
C.
Proof.
For each θ∈A(R) we define continuous maps
Lθ,Rθ:I→I by
[TABLE]
Clearly the pair (Lθ,Rθ) is a double centralizer of
the C∗-algebra I [45, p. 38], e.g. J1Lθ(J2)=Rθ(J1)J2, hence it is an element of the
multiplier algebra of I which is C because I is an
essential ideal of C. Thus there is an element
θ(A)∈C, formally equal to ∫θˇ(t)Utdt,
such that Lθ(J)=θ(A)J and Rθ(J)=Jθ(A). It
is easy to check that θ↦θ(A) is a morphism
[45, p. 39] hence by Proposition 2.19 this map
defines a self-adjoint operator A affiliated to C.
∎
2.5.2. Field observables
Now we go back to our framework. We need two simple facts.
Lemma 2.21**.**
If E∈Gs(Ξ) then L(E) is an essential ideal of
M(E).
If E∈Gs(Ξ) then the strict topology on M(E) is
that associated to L(E).
Lemma 2.22**.**
If ξ∈E∈Gs(Ξ) then the family
{δtξ}t∈R is a strictly continuous one parameter
group of unitary elements in M(E).
Both lemmas are easily proven. Thanks to Lemma 2.22 and
Proposition 2.20 we may now define the fields as
observables affiliated to the Kastler algebra M(Ξ).
Definition 2.23**.**
The field observable ϕ(ξ) at the point ξ∈Ξ is the
infinitesimal generator of the one parameter group
{δtξ}t∈R of unitary elements in M(Ξ).
ϕ(ξ) is affiliated to any C∗-algebra M(E) such that
ξ∈E∈Gs(Ξ) and a priori it could depend on E, so
should be denoted ϕE(ξ). But if E⊂F∈Gs(Ξ)
then clearly ϕF(ξ)=ϕE(ξ) and then by (1.10)
ϕE(ξ) is independent of E so we may denote it ϕ(ξ).
This is the observable affiliated to M(Ξ) defined by
θ(ϕ(ξ))=∫Rθ^(t)δtξdt for all
θ∈A(R).
Theorem 2.24**.**
(1)* The C∗-algebra generated by ϕ(ξ) is
C∗(ϕ(ξ))=L(Rξ).
(2) If {ξ1,…,ξn} is a generating set for the
subspace E∈G(Ξ) then*
[TABLE]
(3)* If E⊂Ξ is an arbitrary subspace then*
[TABLE]
Proof.
The assertion (1) is trivial if ξ=0, so let ξ=0. If
θ∈A(R) then
θ(ϕ(ξ))=∫θ^(t)δtξdt is a
measure on the line Rξ acting as follows:
∫fθ(ϕ(ξ))=∫Rθ^(t)f(tξ)dt if
f∈C0(Rξ). Thus θ(ϕ(ξ)) is absolutely
continuous, i.e. belongs to L1(Rξ)⊂L(Rξ). It is
clear that the C∗-algebra generated by ϕ(ξ) is the closure
in L(Rξ) of the set of elements θ(ϕ(ξ)) with
θ∈A(R), or this set is clearly dense in L1(Rξ)
which in turn is dense in L(Rξ). This finishes the proof of
(1). Then (1) and (3) of Theorem 2.9 imply (2). Finally,
(3) is an easy consequence of the definition (2.27).
∎
We adopt (2.32) as definition of LEfor any
subsetE⊂Ξ. Clearly E⊂F⇒LE⊂LF. We have L∅=0, L0=C (because
ϕ(0)=0), and if E={ξ} with ξ=0 then
LE=C∗(ϕ(ξ)) which is not unital. Below we say that two
vectors are collinear if they generate the same subspace; so [math] is
not colinear with any nonzero vector.
Proposition 2.25**.**
Let E⊂Ξ a finite set and E the set of
linear subspaces generated by the subsets of E; then
LE=∑F∈EL(F). If ξ∈Ξ then ϕ(ξ) is
affiliated to LE if and only if ξ is collinear with some
η∈E.
Proof.
By (4) of Theorem 2.9 the sum ∑F∈EL(F)
is a closed linear subspace of L. If F′,F′′∈E are
generated by the subsets f′,f′′ of E then F′+F′′ is generated
by the subset f′∪f′′ hence belongs to E and
∑F∈EL(F) is a C∗-algebra by (3) of Theorem
2.9. LE is the C∗-algebra generated by the
operators ϕ(ξ) with ξ∈E and if
ξ1,…,ξn∈E generate the subspace F and
u1,…,un∈C0(R) then
u1(ϕ(ξ1))\oast…\oastun(ϕ(ξn)) belongs to
L(F) by (2.31) hence
LE⊂∑F∈EL(F). We have equality here because
L(F)⊂LE by the same argument. The last assertion
follows from Theorem 2.9-(1).
∎
Remark 2.26**.**
In particular, if ξ,η∈Ξ are linearly independent and
ζ∈Ξ is not collinear with any of them, then the operator
ϕ(ζ) is not affiliated to
C∗(ϕ(ξ),ϕ(η)).
Note also that if dimE>1 then
LE is not generated by a finite set of operators ϕ(ξ)
hence the definitions (1.3) and (3.32) in [33] are
wrong, but this does not play any role in later arguments there,
it suffices to change the quoted relations in
ΦE=C∗(ϕ(ξ)∣ξ∈E). **
2.6. Field algebra in a representation
Here we describe Hilbert space realizations of the abstract field
algebra L obtained via representations W of Ξ. We define
them by transporting L with the help of the C∗-isomorphism
W:M(Ξ)→\prescriptWK(Ξ).
In Definition 2.23 we introduced the “abstract” field
operator ϕ(ξ) as an observable affiliated to M(Ξ). On the
other hand, in §1.3 we defined the field operator
ϕW(ξ) as a self-adjoint operator on the Hilbert space
H. These two operators are related by the algebraic representation
W of Proposition 2.2: indeed, if we take
μ=δtξ in (2.12) we get
W(δtξ)=W(tξ) which implies
W(ϕ(ξ))=ϕW(ξ). Thus the image of the “abstract”
field operator ϕ(ξ) through the C∗-algebra representation
W is the field operator ϕW(ξ). If there is no risk of
confusion, we identify these operators
ϕW(ξ)≡ϕ(ξ).
In the next definition we use Proposition 2.2 and Theorem
2.24 which gives a description à la Buchholz-Grundling
of the field algebra and its components in the representation W.
Definition 2.27**.**
*Let W be a representation of Ξ on the Hilbert space
H.
(1) The field C∗-algebra F
of Ξ in the representation W is the norm closure of the set
of operators W(μ) with μ∈L1(E) for some E∈G(Ξ).
We have F=C∗(ϕ(ξ)∣ξ∈Ξ).
(2) If E⊂Ξ is any linear subspace then
FE is the norm closure of the set of operators W(μ) with
μ∈L1(F) for some F∈G(E). We have
FE=C∗(ϕ(ξ)∣ξ∈E).
(3) If E∈G(Ξ) then the norm closure of the set of
operators W(μ) with μ∈L1(E) is a C∗-algebra
F(E).
If {ξ1,…,ξn} is a generating set for E then*
[TABLE]
(2.33) follows from Theorem 2.24 and implies
the last assertions of (1) and (2). As in the purely algebraic
framework we call the algebras F(E)components of F.
Clearly
[TABLE]
Remark 2.28**.**
The spaces F,FE,F(E)
from Definition 2.27 depend of Ξ and W but in
general we do not specify this explicitly unless this is necessary
and then we use the notations
\prescriptWFΞ,\prescriptWFEΞ,\prescriptWFΞ(E) or just
FΞ,FEΞ,FΞ(E). The last three simpler
notations are justified by Proposition 2.30. If
Ξ is clear from the context we set F=FΞ,
etc.
Remark 2.29**.**
The restriction of W to a symplectic subspace E⊂Ξ
is a representation of E on H still denoted W. If F is a
symplectic subspace and E⊂F then
\prescriptWFE⊂\prescriptWFF and (1.10) implies
\prescriptWFΞ=∪E∈Gs(Ξ)\prescriptWFE, where
∪ denotes the closure of the union.**
Below, the relation Φ(ϕ1(ξ))=ϕ2(ξ) means
\Phi\big{(}u(\phi_{1}(\xi))\big{)}=u(\phi_{2}(\xi))∀u∈C0(R)
and is equivalent to Φ(R1(ξ))=R2(ξ) with
Rk(ξ)=(ϕk(ξ)−i)−1.
Proposition 2.30**.**
The algebras \prescriptW1FΞ and
\prescriptW2FΞ associated to two
representations W1,W2 of Ξ are canonically isomorphic in the
following sense: if ϕk(ξ) are the field operators in the
representation Wk, then there is a unique morphism
Φ:\prescriptW1FΞ→\prescriptW2FΞ such that
Φ(ϕ1(ξ))=ϕ2(ξ) for all ξ∈Ξ; this morphism
is an isomorphism.
Proof.
Assume first Ξ finite dimensional and let W0:Ξ→U(H0)
an irreducible representation and W:Ξ→U(H) an arbitrary
representation. By the Stone-Von Neumann theorem and with the
notations of Remark 2.1 we have
[TABLE]
for any ξ1,…,ξn∈Ξ and u1,…,un∈C0(R). The
map A↦V−1(A⊗1K)V is a morphism
B(H0)→B(H) and, by the preceding relation, its restriction
to \prescriptW0FΞ is an isomorphism
Φ:\prescriptW0FΞ→\prescriptWFΞ which
satisfies Φ(ϕ0(ξ))=ϕ(ξ) for all ξ∈Ξ and is
uniquely determined by this relation. If Ξ is infinite
dimensional for each E∈Gs(Ξ) we have a canonical isomorphism
ΦE:\prescriptW1FE→\prescriptW2FE and by uniqueness
ΦF∣FEW1=ΦE if E,F∈Gs(Ξ) and
E⊂F. Then we use Remark 2.29.
∎
Remark 2.31**.**
If dimΞ<∞ then by the Stone-Von Neumann theorem
\prescriptWFΞ≅\prescriptW0FΞ⊗1K and \prescriptWFΞ(Ξ)≅K(H0)⊗1K
with the notations of Remark 2.1.
In the next proposition we describe some simple properties of the
algebras F(E).
Proposition 2.32**.**
Let E,F be finite dimensional subspaces of Ξ.
(a)
F(E)* is a non-degenerate C∗-subalgebra of
B(H).*
2. (b)
F(0)=C* and this is the only F(E) which
is unital.*
3. (c)
F(E)* is abelian if and only if E is
isotropic and then F(E)≅C0(E∗).*
4. (d)
If S∈F(E) and ξ∈Eσ then
SW(ξ)=W(ξ)S.
5. (e)
If S∈F(E) and T∈FEσ then ST=TS.
Proof.
Let λE be a Lebesgue measure on E and ρ an
integrable function on E with ∫EρλE=1. Then for
ξ∈E and ε>0 consider the function
ρξε(η)=ε−nρ((η−ξ)/ε), where n=dimE, and let
μξε(dη)=ρξε(η)λE(dη). Then we have
[TABLE]
hence
[TABLE]
For example s-limε→0W(μ0ε)=1, which
implies property (a). The first assertion of (b) is obvious and the
second follows from F(E)∩F(F)=0 if E=F. If F(E)
is abelian then W(μ)W(ν)=W(ν)W(μ) for all
μ,ν∈L1(E). By taking μ=μξε and
ν=μηε with ξ,η∈E and making
ε→0 we get W(ξ)W(η)=W(η)W(ξ) and thus
(e−iσ(ξ,η)−1)W(η)W(ξ)=0 hence
e−iσ(ξ,η)=1 for all ξ,η∈E, so E is
isotropic. The converse assertion is obvious and the isomorphism
with C0(E∗) is discussed in Theorem 2.8. The
assertions (d) and (e) are obvious.
∎
Clearly Theorem 2.9 implies Theorem 1.7 and
Theorem 1.10 is a consequence of Theorem A.2 and
Proposition A.3.
We now show that certain projections PE may be thought as
“translations at infinity”.
Lemma 2.33**.**
If F∈G(Ξ), ξ∈/Fσ, and T∈F(F) then
s-limr→∞TW(rξ)=0
Proof.
We have to prove limr→∞∥TW(rξ)f∥=0∀f∈H. We may assume Ξ finite dimensional, if not
we replace it by a finite dimensional symplectic subspace of Ξ
containing F and ξ. Then it suffices to consider T=W(μ)
with μ∈L1(F). If ν=μ∗\oastμ then
The function θ≐σ(ξ,⋅)∣F is a nonzero linear
form on F and the integral above is of the form
∫Feirθ(η)u(η)dη with u∈L1(F) and
if r→∞ such an integral tends to zero by the Riemann-Lebesgue
lemma, which finishes the proof
∎
Proposition 2.34**.**
Let ξ∈Ξ∖{0} and E=ξσ. Then for any
T∈F
[TABLE]
Proof.
PE is continuous so it suffices to prove
(2.36) for T∈F˚ and for this it suffices
to consider the case T∈F(F) for some F∈G(Ξ). By (d)
of Proposition 2.32 for F⊂E we have
TW(rξ)=W(rξ)T∀r∈R hence
s-limr→∞W(rξ)∗TW(rξ)=S. If
F⊂E=ξσ then ξ∈/Fσ hence from Lemma
2.33 we get
s-limr→∞W(rξ)∗TW(rξ)=0.
∎
The following proposition is proved by an argument similar to that of
Proposition 2.18; the last assertion is a consequence of
Lemma A.1-(3).
Proposition 2.35**.**
Let Ξ be finite dimensional, E∈G(Ξ), and
S⊂G(Ξ) a countable subsemilattice. Then
∃ξ∈Eσ such that ξ∈/Fσ if
F∈S,F⊂E, and for any such ξ
[TABLE]
In particular, for any T∈F and E∈G(Ξ) there is
ξ∈Eσ such that
[TABLE]
The next result improves for finite dimensional Ξ the statements
(d) and (e) of Proposition 2.32. If A⊂F
then Acom≐{A∈F∣[A,B]=0∀B∈A} is its
commutant in F.
Theorem 2.36**.**
If Ξ is finite dimensional then for any subspace E⊂Ξ
we have
[TABLE]
In particular FEcom≡(FE)com=FEσ
and
[TABLE]
Proof.
If T∈FE then [T,W(ξ)]=0∀ξ∈Eσ by
Proposition 2.32-(d). Reciprocally, assume that T
has the last property. Then by the last assertion of Proposition
2.35 we get PET=T which is equivalent to
T∈FE. This proves the first equality in
(2.39). To prove the second, note that by Definition
2.27-(2) FE is the C∗-algebras generated by
the u(ϕ(ξ)) with u∈C0(R) and ξ∈E hence
T∈FEcom if and only if [T,u(ϕ(ξ))]=0 for all such
u and ξ and this in turn is equivalent to
[T,eiϕ(ξ)]=0 for all ξ∈E.
∎
Corollary 2.37**.**
If X is a Lagrangian subspace of Ξ then FXcom=FX.
An explicit description of the algebra FX is given in Proposition
4.5.
We mention a fact which allows one to consider crossed products
of graded C∗-subalgebras F(S) by the action of finite
dimensional subspaces of Ξ.
Proposition 2.38**.**
(1)* If S⊂G(Ξ) then
W(ξ)∗F(S)W(ξ)=F(S)∀ξ∈Ξ.
(2)∀ξ∈Ξ the map T↦W∗(ξ)TW(ξ) is an
automorphism of F and for any T∈F the map
ξ↦W∗(ξ)TW(ξ)∈F is norm continuous on finite
dimensional subspaces of Ξ.*
Proof.
We have W(ξ)∗W(η)W(ξ)=eiσ(ξ,η)W(η)
hence if E∈G(Ξ) and μ∈L1(E)
[TABLE]
which clearly implies (1) from which it follows that
W(ξ)∗FW(ξ)=F hence the first part of (2). Then the
relation above implies
[TABLE]
hence ξ↦W(ξ)∗W(μ)W(ξ)∈B(H) is norm continuous
on finite dimensional subspaces of Ξ which implies the last part
of (2) by a density argument.
∎
3. Finite dimensional symplectic spaces
3.1. Intrinsic description of
F(E)
This subsection is devoted to the proof Theorem 1.11. We
use the first characterization of F(E) from Definition
2.27, so F(E) is the norm closure in B(H) of the
set of operators W(f)=∫EW(ξ)f(ξ)dξ with f∈L1(E).
We denote E(E) the set of operators T satisfying the three
conditions (1.28). Clearly E(E) is a C∗-algebra and
we have to prove F(E)=E(E). This is easy in two cases. First,
if E=0, then Eσ=Ξ hence E(0)=C because W is
irreducible, so this case is trivial. The second case is E=Ξ: then
Eσ=0 so E(Ξ)=K(H)=F(Ξ) by the Kolmogorov-Riesz
and Stone-Von Neumann theorems (or see Theorem 3.4).
It is easy to show that F(E)⊂E(E) (cf. Proposition
5.3) so Theorem 1.11 is equivalent to
[TABLE]
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of this fact for
E=0,Ξ.
3.1.1.
For this we need to go beyond measures and define the operators
W(μ) for μ temperate distributions on Ξ. This Weyl
pseudo-differential calculus requires some supplementary formalism, we
refer to [25] for details.
Let S(Ξ) be the space of Schwartz test functions on Ξ and
S′(Ξ) its dual, the space of tempered distributions. If
μ∈S′(Ξ) and f∈S(Ξ) the value μ(f) of μ at
f is denoted ⟨f,μ⟩ but we also write this as
∫Ξf(ξ)μ(ξ)dξ, which is often a convenient abuse of
notation. We set ⟨f∣μ⟩=⟨fˉ,μ⟩. We have
continuous linear embeddings
S(Ξ)⊂L2(Ξ)⊂S′(Ξ). By (2.4) we
also have F⊂K⊂S′(Ξ).
Although the twisted convolution product defined on M(Ξ) cannot be
extended to S′(Ξ), it is possible to define μ\oastν for
μ,ν∈S′(Ξ) if one of them has compact support (as in the
case of the usual convolution). And the relations (2.10)
remain valid for μ∈S′(Ξ).
The map ξ↦ξσ=σ(⋅,ξ) is a linear
isomorphism Ξ→Ξ∗ hence the Fourier transform of a
distribution on Ξ is naturally identified with a distribution on
Ξ. More precisely, Ξ is equipped with the symplectic measure
dξ and the Fourier measure \mathchar22dξ=(2π)−ndξ; then the
symplectic Fourier transform of μ∈L1(Ξ) is
[TABLE]
The map Fσ:S(Ξ)→S(Ξ) satisfies
Fσ2=1 hence is a homeomorphism and extends to a
self-adjoint unitary operator in L2(Ξ) and to a homeomorphism in
S′(Ξ).
For any linear subspace E⊂Ξ we choose and fix a Lebesgue
measure λE or dEξ on E. We think of λE as a
distribution on Ξ, namely
[TABLE]
According to the conventions from §2.1.1 we embed
isometrically L1(E)⊂M(E) hence if μ is an absolutely
continuous measure on E of the form μ(dξ)=f(ξ)dEξ then
we may use both notations W(μ) and W(f).
We could continue to work with an arbitrary irreducible representation
of Ξ but it is simpler, and there is no loss of generality, if we
assume that W is the Schrödinger representation associated to a
Lagrangian decomposition Ξ=X⊕X∗ (we use the notations of
§4.1). Clearly then if f,g∈S(X) then the map
ξ↦⟨f∣W(ξ)g⟩ belongs to S(Ξ) so if
μ∈S′(Ξ) we can define W(μ)=∫Wμ as a continuous
linear operator S(X)→S′(X) by setting
[TABLE]
We get a map S′(Ξ)∋μ↦W(μ)∈B(S(X),S′(X))
which is bijective [25, Th. 1.30]. We denote T↦T#
its inverse map, hence T=W(μ)⇔μ=T#. Since
H=L2(X) we have B(H)⊂B(S(X),S′(X)) hence to
each T∈B(H) is associated T#∈S′(Ξ).
We mention that if ν∈S′(Ξ) is compactly supported then
W(ν) leaves S(X) invariant and extends to a continuous
operator on S′(X). And then the relation
W(μ\oastν)=W(μ)W(ν) remains valid for any
μ∈S′(Ξ).
3.1.2.
We now start the proof of (3.1). First note the following
fact.
Lemma 3.1**.**
If T∈B(H) and [W(ξ),T]=0 for all ξ∈Eσ then
\mboxsuppT#⊂E.
Proof.
Denote T#≡μ∈S′(Ξ). Then T=W(μ) and by
(2.10) we have
[TABLE]
Since W:S′(Ξ)→B(S(X),S′(X)) is bijective,
we get (eiξσ−1)μ=0∀ξ∈Eσ.
Let now η∘∈/E. Then there is a ξ∘∈Eσ
such that eiσ(η∘,ξ∘)=1. So there is
a compact neighborhood V of η∘ such that
eiσ(η,ξ∘)−1=0 for all η∈V. If
θ∈Cc∞(V) then
φ≐θ/(eiξσ∘−1)∈Cc∞(V) so by the previous computation
θμ=φ(eiξσ∘−1)μ=0. It follows that
η∘∈/\mboxsuppμ.
∎
We construct now a regularization of T∈B(H).
Let θ∈L1(Ξ) with ∫Ξθ(ξ)\mathchar22dξ=1,
denote θε(ξ)=ε−2nθ(ξ/ε) with
2n=dimΞ, and define for ε>0
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.2**.**
(i)*
If limξ→0∥[W(ξ),T]∥=0 then
limε→0∥Tε−T∥=0.
(ii)
If T∈E(E) then Tε∈E(E) for all
ε>0.
(iii) If θ∈S(Ξ), then
Tε#≡(Tε)#=θεT#.*
Proof.
Clearly
[TABLE]
which tends to zero as ε→0 under the condition of (i).
For (ii), notice first that Tε satisfies (i) of Definition
5.1 (for all T∈B(H)). Moreover, since
T∈E(E), for all η∈Eσ
[TABLE]
thus (ii) of Definition 5.1 is valid for Tε
too. Finally, if η∈E then
[TABLE]
which tends to zero if η→0. Thus Tε∈E(E).
Assume now θ∈S(Ξ) and let us compute
Tε#. If T#=μ and f,g∈S(X), since the
operators W(ξ) leave S(X) invariant, one has (as in the
proof of Lemma 3.1):
[TABLE]
For the proof of the third equality above, note that it suffices to
show it for a set of μ which is dense in S′(Ξ), e.g. for μ∈S(Ξ); in this case the equality is easy to
justify. Anyway, since W is bijective we get
Tε#=θεμ.
∎
Let us choose θ such that
θ∈Cc∞(Ξ). Then if T∈E(E), due to
Lemma 3.1 and (ii) and (iii) of Lemma 3.2, the
distribution Tε# has compact support included in E.
And by (i) of Lemma 3.2 we have
limε→0Tε=T in norm. Thus for the proof of
(3.1) it suffices to show that any operator of the form
Tε is norm limit of operators W(μ) with
μ∈L1(E).
3.1.3.
Thus from now on we assume that T∈E(E) and T# is a
distribution on Ξ whose support is a compact subset of E. But we
may simplify the problem still further as follows.
Let ρ∈Cc∞(E) with ρ≥0 and
∫Eρ(η)dEη=1; for ε>0 set
ρε(η)=ε−mρ(η/ε) where m=dimE. Then W(ρε)∈E(E) by Proposition 5.3
hence W(ρε)T∈E(E), and it is easy to check that T
is the norm limit of the operators W(ρε)T (Lemma
5.5-(ii)). Thus it suffices to prove that such products are
norm limit of operators W(μ) with μ∈L1(E).
Let ρ∈Cc∞(E) identified with the measure
ρλE. Then
[TABLE]
where ρ\oastT# makes sense because both ρ and T#
are compactly supported distributions. Our purpose is to show
[TABLE]
and this clearly finishes the proof of the theorem.
We begin by proving that the twisted convolution ρ\oastT#
also has compact support contained in E, and we also deduce precise
information about its structure. Let E′ be a vector subspace of
Ξ, supplementary to E. Since T# is a distribution whose
compact support is contained in E, we may use [38, Th. 2.3.5] to get a representation of T# as a finite sum
[TABLE]
Here the tensor product refers to the identification
Ξ=E×E′, uα are compactly supported distributions
on E, and ∂E′αδ are derivatives of the
Dirac measure at zero in directions of E′. Then by [46, Th. 6.27] we may write each uα as a finite sum of derivatives
(in the directions of E) of continuous functions with compact
support on E so T# is a finite sum
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.3**.**
There is a finite family {wα}∣α∣≤k of
functions in Cc∞(E) such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
We will give a representation of the form (3.7) for each
term of the sum in (3.6), then we obtain
(3.7) by adding these representations. We simplify the
writing and set v=vαβ and
T#=∂Eβv⊗∂E′αδ with v∈Cc(E). If
θ∈Cc∞(Ξ) then, by (2.2) and
with the abuse of notation mentioned in §3.1.1, the action
of the distribution ρ\oastT# on θ is
[TABLE]
If η∈Ξ we denote by y and y′ its components in E and
E′ respectively. Then T# may be written
T#(η)≡∂yβv(y)∂y′αδ(y′)=v(β)(y)δ(α)(y′)
which of course is slightly formal and must be interpreted in the
sense of distributions. Anyway, the action of the distribution
T# on e2iξσθ(ξ+⋅) is given
by
[TABLE]
for some polynomials φα−γ(ξ) coming from the
derivatives of order α−γ of
e2iσ(y′,ξ) with respect to y′ at y′=0.
Then we get
[TABLE]
By taking into account the relation
[TABLE]
and since
∂yλ[∂y′γθ(ξ+y+y′)]y′=0=∂ξλ[∂y′γθ(ξ+y+y′)]y′=0
we get
[TABLE]
Now it is clear that there is a finite number of functions
wγ∈Cc∞(E) such that
[TABLE]
From Lemma 3.3 we see that (3.5) holds if we may
take k=0 in the representation (3.7) of
ρ\oastT#. So the proof of the Theorem 1.11 is
finished once we show that the operator W(ρ\oastT#) is
bounded if and only if k=0. Before starting this last step of
the proof, we describe a direct sum decomposition of the symplectic
space Ξ determined by E.
3.1.4.
Recall that the center of E is Ec≐E∩Eσ and
set Eˉ:=E+Eσ. A subspace is symplectic if its center
reduces to [math]. Since Ξ is finite dimensional, by using
Eσσ=E it is easy to see that
Ec=Eσc=Eˉc=Eˉσ and
Eˉ=Ecσ=Ec=Eσ. In
what follows, we shall denote by ⊕σ and ⊕ the
symplectic (respectively vector) direct sum, and by ⊥ the
symplectic orthogonality between elements of Ξ. Let now
G⊂E such that E=G⊕Ec and
F⊂Eσ such that Eσ=F⊕Ec. Then
G* and F are symplectic*: indeed, suppose ξ∈G and
ξ⊥G; then Ec⊂Eσ shows that
ξ⊥Ec, so ξ⊥(G+Ec), thus
ξ∈Eσ, which means that
ξ∈E∩Eσ=Ec; then G∩Ec=0 shows
ξ=0. Hence H≡G⊕σFis a symplectic subspace
too, and we have Eˉ=H⊕σEc. For, if
ξ∈H∩Ec then there are ξG∈G and
ξF∈F such that
ξG=ξ−ξF∈Eσ−Eσ=Eσ which shows that
ξG⊥G⊂E. Since G is symplectic,
ξG=0 and the same holds for ξF. On the other
hand,
H+Ec=G+F+Ec=(G+Ec)+(F+Ec)=E+Eσ=Eˉ. Further, remark that Hσ* is
also a symplectic space and Ec is a Lagrangian subspace of
Hσ*. Indeed, Ec⊥H thus
Ec⊂Hσ and is isotropic. If it where not maximal,
there would exist some ξ∈Hσ∖Ec with
ξ⊥Ec. Thus ξ⊥(Ec+H)=Eˉ,
i.e. ξ∈Eˉσ=Ec, which is absurd.
Now let K be a Lagrangian subspace of Hσ such that
Hσ=Ec⊕K (this will be a Lagrangian decomposition
of the symplectic space Hσ).
Then Ξ splits as
[TABLE]
3.1.5.
Let us go back now to the proof of the fact that W(ρ\oastT#)
is bounded only if k=0. Note that we may take E′=F⊕K. Any
ξ∈Ξ may be uniquely written as
ξ=η+ζF+ζK with η∈E,
ζF∈F and ζK∈K. In the next formulas
we abbreviate λE(dη)=dη,
λF(dζF)=dζF and
λK(dζK)=dζK. Then, by
(3.3) and (3.7),
[TABLE]
which can be further developed as follows:
[TABLE]
We have used the relations F⊥K, hence
W(ζF+ζK)=W(ζF)W(ζK), and F⊥E, hence
σ(η,ζF)=0. Further, we took into account that
the derivatives with respect to ζK at ζK=0
of e2iσ(ζK,η) are polynomial
functions of η∈E and wα∈Cc∞(E),
thus there are wαβ∈Cc∞(E) such that the
last equality be true with W(wαβ)=∫EW(η)wαβ(η)dη.
Let F=Ω⊕Ω∗ and G=Γ⊕Γ∗ be some
Lagrangian decompositions of the symplectic subspaces F and G.
Thus we get a decomposition
[TABLE]
each of the three parentheses being a symplectic space equipped with a
Lagrangian decomposition. We also have
E=(Γ⊕Γ∗)⊕σEc. Then
[∂FαW(ζF)]ζF=0≡ϕα(qΩ,pΩ) and
[∂KβW(ζK)]ζK=0≡ψβ(pEc) with ϕα and
ψβ polynomial functions of degrees ∣α∣ and ∣β∣
respectively and q,p are the position and momentum observables
associated to the space in the index. Observe that the notation
pEc is justified by the identification
(Ec)∗=K. Moreover, the operators W(μαβ) can
be written in the form
ωαβ(qΓ,pΓ,qEc)
for some smooth function ωαβ, expression which can
be rigorously interpreted in terms of the Weyl calculus (this fact,
however, does not play any role in what follows). Thus we have
[TABLE]
and we have to prove that if this operator is bounded then necessarily
k=0.
From now on we may assume that we work in the Schrödinger
representation associated to X=Ω⊕Λ, where
Λ=Γ⊕Ec. Then our Hilbert space factorizes as
H=L2(Ω)⊗L2(Λ) and, if we denote
ϕα(qΩ,pΩ) by Sα and
∑βψβ(pEc)ωαβ(qΓ,pΓ,qEc)
by Tα we have
W(ρ\oastT#)=∑∣α∣≤kSα⊗Tα.
We show first that Sα∈B(L2(Ω)) for all α; in
fact they are complex multiples of the identity operator on
L2(Ω).
Notice that Tα∈B(S(Λ)) and that we may
assume that the family
{Tα}∣α∣≤k is linearly independent in
B(S(Λ)).
Let T denote the vector space of operators
L:S(Λ)→S(Λ)
of the form L=∑i∣ui⟩⟨vi∣ (finite sum), with
ui,vi∈S(Λ).
Then we may realize T as a space of linear forms on
B(S(Λ)) by defining
B(S(Λ))∋T↦Tr(LT)=∑i⟨vi∣Tui⟩. Notice that
T is a subspace of the dual of B(S(Λ))
which separates the points
(for, if Tr(LT)=Tr(LT′) for all L∈T, then
⟨u,(T−T′)v∣=⟩0 for all u,v∈S(Λ)).
It follows that we may find a finite family of operators
{Lα}∈T such that
[TABLE]
Indeed, if V is the finite dimensional vector subspace
generated by the family {Tα} (which is a basis in it) we may
find a basis {Ψα} in the dual space V′ such
that Ψα(Tβ)=δαβ. Thus we are
reduced to prove that for each Ψ∈V′ we may find
L∈T such that Ψ(T)=Tr(LT) for all T∈V,
i.e. that the mapping
T∋L↦Tr(L⋅)∣V∈V′ is surjective. Equivalently, the dual mapping
V≡V′′∋T↦Tr(⋅T)∈T′ has to be injective. But this is true, since T
separates points.
Let now Lα=∑i∣uαi⟩⟨vαi∣ with
uαi,vαi∈S(Λ) and, for
u,v∈S(Ω), let us compute
[TABLE]
Since W(ρ\oastT#) is supposed bounded, this shows that all
Sα are bounded. But Sα are polynomials
ϕα(qΩ,pΩ), so these
polynomials have to be of degree zero, i.e. ϕα are complex
numbers.
Now we can write
W(ρ\oastT#)=1⊗∑αϕαTα. Thus
it remains to show that if an operator of the form
B=∑βψβ(pEc)W(μβ) is
bounded in L2(Λ), then the polynomials ψβ are
constants. By rearranging the sum we can assume that
B=∑γpEcγW(μγ) (a basis in
Ec has been chosen). Let a=λζ, with
λ∈R and ζ∈Ec and for any
u,v∈S(Λ), denote
ua=exp[i⟨qEc,a⟩]u and
va=exp[i⟨qEc,a⟩]v. Then
∣⟨ua∣Bva⟩∣≤C∥u∥∥v∥, and on the other hand
[TABLE]
By taking λ→∞ we see that we must have
∑∣γ∣=mζγ⟨u∣W(μγ)v⟩=0 for all
ζ∈Ec if m≥1. But this implies
⟨u∣W(μγ)v⟩=0 for all ∣γ∣≥1 by a
standard argument. This ends the proof of Theorem 1.11.
3.2. The ideal
F(Ξ)
Recall that L1(Ξ) is a Banach ∗-algebra for the twisted
convolution and the definition W(f)=∫ΞW(ξ)f(ξ)dξ
extends W to an injective morphism W:L1(Ξ)→B(H).
Then F(Ξ) is the norm closure in B(H) of the set of such
W(f), hence is a C∗-algebra of operators on H and is the
smallest graded ideal of F. By Definition 2.27, if
{ξ1,…,ξn} is a generating set for Ξ then
[TABLE]
The commutant algebra Com(Ξ) and the multiplicity of W are
introduced in the Remark 2.1. We use the following
convention: if T∈B(H) and the symbol T(∗) appears in a
relation, then that relation has to be satisfied both by T and by
T∗. Note that the assertion (a) below is a version of the
Kolmogorov-Riesz compactness criterion.
Theorem 3.4**.**
Let W be a representation of a finite dimensional symplectic space
Ξ.
(1)
F(Ξ)⋅Com(Ξ)={T∈B(H)∣limξ→0∥(W(ξ)−1)T(∗)∥=0}.
(2)
W* is irreducible
⇔F(Ξ)=K(H)⇔K(Ξ)⊃K(H) and then*
[TABLE]
(3)
W* is of finite multiplicity
⇔F(Ξ)⊂K(H)⇔F(Ξ)⋅Com(Ξ)=K(H); then*
(a)
J⊂H* is relatively compact
⇔limξ→0suph∈K∥(W(ξ)−1)h∥=0;*
(b)
T∈B(H)* is compact ⇔limξ→0∥(W(ξ)−1)T∥=0.*
(4)
W* is of infinite multiplicity if and only if
K(Ξ)∩K(H)=0.*
Proof.
By the Stone-Von Neumann theorem we may assume H=H0⊗K
with K finite dimensional and W(ξ)=W0(ξ)⊗1 with
W0 is an irreducible representation of Ξ on H0.
We first discuss (2). If W is irreducible then F(Ξ)=K(H)
by a simple argument in the Schrödinger representation and this
implies K(H)⊂K(Ξ). On the other hand, if W is not
irreducible we cannot have K(H)⊂K(Ξ). Indeed, if
dimK>1 then an operator of the form K⊗F with
K∈B(H0) and F∈B(K) of rank one is compact on H
but does not belong to K(Ξ). Then (3.9) follows
from [28, Corollary 3.5].
From KW(Ξ)=KW0(Ξ)⊗1K (4). And
FW(Ξ)=K(H0)⊗1K hence W is of finite
multiplicity if and only if FW(Ξ)⊂K(H) which
proves the first assertion of (3).
Next we prove (1). It is easy to see that ComW(Ξ) coincides
with the commutant FW(Ξ)′ of the algebra FW(Ξ)
(cf. the argument which proves (a) of Proposition
2.32). On the other hand, the commutant of
K(H0)⊗1K coincides with the commutant of its weak
closure, which is B(H0)⊗1K, and by the
commutation theorem for tensor products the commutant of the last
algebra is 1H0⊗B(K). Thus
ComW(Ξ)=1H0⊗B(K) hence
[TABLE]
where the last tensor product is the spatial tensor product of the
C∗-algebras K(H0) and B(K). Now the assertion (1) of
the theorem follows from [28, Th. 3.8].
If W is of finite multiplicity then B(K)=K(K) hence
Com(Ξ)=1H0⊗K(K) and thus
F(Ξ)⋅Com(Ξ)=K(H0)⊗K(K)=K(H). Thus due
to (1) an operator T∈B(H) is compact if and only if
limξ→0∥(W(ξ)−1)T(∗)∥=0. But we have to eliminate
the condition on T∗ in order to get the assertion (b) of (3).
The implications ⇒ in (a) and (b) of (3) are clear for
any W because W is strongly continuous. Now we prove the
implications ⇐ assuming (a) is known in the irreducible
case.
Assume W of finite multiplicity and let {e1,…,en} an
orthonormal basis in the finite dimensional Hilbert space
K. Then any h∈H can be uniquely written as
h=∑ihi⊗ei with hi∈H0 and
∥h∥2=∑i∥hi∥2 hence
∥(W(ξ)−1))h∥2=∑i∥(W0(ξ)−1)hi∥2 Let
J⊂H and Ji={hi∣h∈J}⊂H0. If
limξ→0suph∈J∥(W(ξ)−1)h∥=0 then we have
limξ→0suphi∈Ji∥(W0(ξ)−1)hi∥=0. Since part
(a) of (3) is true in the case of irreducible representations, it
follows that Ji is relatively compact in H0. Hence each
Ji⊗ei is relatively compact in H so
J⊂∑iJi⊗ei is relatively compact because a
finite sum of relatively compact sets is relatively compact. This
finishes the proof of part (a) of (3) for an arbitrary W of finite
multiplicity. Part (a) of (3) is an immediate consequence: if
T∈B(H) and limξ→0∥(W(ξ)−1)T∥=0 then
limξ→0sup∥h∥≤1∥(W(ξ)−1)Th∥=0 hence the set
{Th∣∥h∥≤1} is relatively compact which means that T
is compact.
Finally, assume W is irreducible. If J is bounded then part
(a) of (3) follows from [28, Theorem 3.4]. In order to
eliminate the boundedness condition we use an improved
Kolmogorov-Riesz criterion [47, 36]. We may assume that Ξ
is the phase space associated to a configuration space X and that
W is the corresponding Schrödinger representation. Equip X
with an Euclidean structure and denote χr is the
characteristic function of the region ∣x∣>r. We prove first that
the condition limξ→0supu∈J∥W(ξ)h−h∥=0 implies
∥χr(q)h∥→0 as r→∞ uniformly in h∈J. This
follows from the following more precise estimate which is of some
independent interest: there is a number c depending only on
dimX such that for any r>0
[TABLE]
To prove it note that for any ε>0 we have
[TABLE]
In order to estimate the last integral for a fixed x we identify
X=Rd with the help of an orthonormal basis e1,…,ed such
that x=∣x∣e1. If we set a1=s and (a2,…,ad)=t then the
ball ∣a∣≤ε is described by the conditions
−ε≤s≤ε and t2≤ε2−s2,
hence there are numbers C′,C′′ depending only on d such that
[TABLE]
Then we get
[TABLE]
If ε∣x∣>4 then the last parenthesis is >1/2. Thus
there is a number C depending only on the dimension of X such
that for any ε>0 and any h∈H
[TABLE]
This estimate is better than (3.10). Now the assertion (a)
follows from [36, Theorem 1].
∎
3.3. HVZ theorem
The original HVZ theorem, due to Hunziker, Van Winter and Zhislin,
gives a description of the essential spectrum of a non-relativistic
N-body Hamiltonian in terms of the spectra of its internal
hamiltonians [1, 17, 22]. Proposition 8.4.2 from [1] is
an abstract version of this theorem valid for C∗-algebras graded by
finite semilattices that is very easy to prove and covers the usual
versions of the theorem, see §9.4 and Ch. 10 of [1]. Our
results here cover all the observables affiliated to the field
algebra.
We begin with an abstract C∗-algebra versions of the HVZ theorem
which follows from Theorems A.5 and A.8. Since
Ξ is finite dimensional L(Ξ) is an ideal of L and if
μ∈L its L-essential spectrum L-Spess(μ) is
defined by (A.6). In a finite multiplicity representation of
Ξ this is the essential spectrum of the operator corresponding to
μ.
Theorem 3.5**.**
The map L→⨁E∈H(Ξ)LE defined by
\mu\mapsto\big{(}\mathcal{P}_{\scriptscriptstyle E}\mu\big{)}_{E\in\mathbb{H}(\Xi)} is a morphism with
kernel L(Ξ) which gives an embedding
L/L(Ξ)↪⨁E∈H(Ξ)LE. For
any μ∈L the set {PEμ∣E∈H(Ξ)} is
compact in L and
[TABLE]
Let S⊂G(Ξ) a subsemilattice containing Ξ and
Smax the set of maximal elements of S∖{Ξ}.
If μ∈L(S) then
[TABLE]
If S is a countable set then PE is expressed in terms of
translations at infinity as in (2.30).
We give now a Hilbert space version of these algebraic results.
Lemma 3.6**.**
(1) If dimΞ<∞ and W is of finite multiplicity then
F(Ξ)=F∩K(H).
(2) If dimΞ<∞ and W is of infinite multiplicity or
dimΞ=∞ then F∩K(H)=0.*
Proof.
If W is a representation of an arbitrary symplectic space and if
ξ=0 the spectrum of ϕ(ξ) is equal to R and purely
absolutely continuous, hence
[TABLE]
Thus if T∈F is compact then s-limr→∞TW(rξ)=0∀ξ=0 hence PET=0 with the notations of
Proposition 2.34. If dimΞ<∞ we get
PET=0 for any hyperplane E and then Theorem 3.5
implies T∈F(Ξ). Thus F∩K(H)⊂F(Ξ) and if
W of finite multiplicity then the inverse inclusion is true by
Theorem 3.4. If W is of infinite multiplicity then
F∩K(H)=0 by Remark 2.31.
Now assume dimΞ=∞ and let T∈F∩K(H). Then
PET=0 if E=ξσ with ξ=0 by the argument at the
beginning of this proof. If ε>0 there is F∈G(Ξ)
and S∈FF such that ∥S−T∥<ε. If
ξ∈Fσ is nonzero then F⊂ξσ=E hence
PES=S and PET=0 so ∥S∥<ε hence
∥T∥<2ε. Since ε is arbitrary we get
T=0.
∎
Proposition 3.7**.**
If Ξ is infinite dimensional or if Ξ is finite dimensional
and W is of infinite multiplicity then F∩K(H)=0, hence
Spess(T)=Sp(T) if T∈F.
This is a consequence of (A.8) and Lemma 3.6.
Then we have a general HVZ type theorem:
Theorem 3.8**.**
Assume Ξ finite dimensional and W of finite multiplicity. If
T∈F then
[TABLE]
Moreover, for any E∈H(Ξ) and any nonzero ξ∈Eσ we
have
[TABLE]
Proof.
We will deduce this from Theorem 3.5 by taking into
account the canonical isomorphisms between the algebras L and
F. For any operator T∈F let us denote Ξ-Spess(T) the spectrum of the image of T in the quotient
algebra F/F(Ξ). Then (3.12) give us
[TABLE]
Taking into account Proposition 2.34, it remains only
to prove that \text{\small\Xi-}\mathrm{Sp_{ess}}(T) coincides with the
essential spectrum of T in the Hilbert space sense. But (1) of
Lemma 3.6 implies that F/F(Ξ) is the image of
F in the Calkin algebra.
∎
The next result is an immediate consequence of Theorem 3.5
(by the same argument as above). In the simple case when S is
finite this is a generalisation of the usual N-body HVZ theorem,
cf. Ch. 10, §9.4 and Proposition 8.4.2 in [1].
Theorem 3.9**.**
Let Ξ be finite dimensional and W of finite multiplicity.If
S⊂G(Ξ) is a subsemilattice containing Ξ and
Smax the set of maximal elements of S∖{Ξ},
then
[TABLE]
One may use Theorem 3.8 to show that some operators are not
affiliated to F. Note first the following consequence of
(3.16).
Corollary 3.10**.**
Assume Ξ finite dimensional and W of finite multiplicity. Then
if T∈F we have s-limr→∞W(rξ)∗TW(rξ)=0∀ξ=0 if and only if T is a compact.
From this it follows that the generator of the dilation group
associated to a Lagrangian decomposition of Ξ is a self-adjoint
operator not affiliated to F. We prove this for dimΞ=2, the
general case is similar. We may assume Ξ=T∗R and we work in the
Schrödinger representation on H=L2(R). Then (qp+pq)/2 is
essentially self-adjoint on Cc∞(R) and its closure is a
self-adjoint operator ω such that
(eitωf)(x)=et/2f(etx), so ω is the
generator of the dilation group on H. Clearly
eitωqe−itω=etq and
eitωpe−itω=e−tp and the field
operators are of the form aq+bp with a,b∈R hence
eitωFe−itω=F∀t∈R and the
dilations induce a group of automorphisms of F.
Proposition 3.11**.**
The self-adjoint operator ω is not affiliated to F.
Proof.
We will prove that
[TABLE]
If ω is affiliated to F then
(ω+i)−1∈F. Then by (3.19) and Corollary
3.10 the operator (ω+i)−1 is compact which is
impossible because the spectrum of ω is purely absolutely
continuous. It remains to prove (3.19). Note that
[TABLE]
Indeed, since
i(ω+i)−1=∫0∞eitω−tdt
this follows by a change of variables in
[TABLE]
Now let ξ=(x,k). Then
[TABLE]
hence
[TABLE]
Let us denote Ir the last integral over y. Then
[TABLE]
We have to show that
⟨W(rξ)g∣i(ω+i)−1W(rξ)f⟩→0 if
r→∞ for any f,g∈L2(R). Clearly it suffices to assume
f,g continuous with compact support and then, by the preceding
estimate and the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, it suffices
to prove that Ir→0 for any λ>1. Since ξ=0, if
x=0 then k=0 then Ir→0 by the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma. If
x=0 and r is large enough then
gˉ(y)f(λy+(1−λ)rx)=0∀y hence
Ir=0. This proves the assertion.
∎
4. Subalgebras of F and
Hamiltonians affiliated to them
4.1. Half-Lagrangian decompositions and magnetic
fields
The decompositions of a symplectic space considered here and the
representations associated to them will enable us to describe rather
explicitly certain subalgebras of interest of F.
Let X be a finite dimensional real vector space, X∗ its dual, and
⟨⋅,⋅⟩:X×X∗→R the duality form. Then the
Fourier transform333 This definition and that of the scalar product in L2(X)
require the choice of a Lebesgue measure dx on X but the
choice is irrelevant in the construction of the observables and
algebras of interest.
(Fu)(k)=∫Xe−i⟨x,k⟩u(x)dx induces an
isomorphism of L2(X) onto L2(X∗). The position and
momentum observablesq and p are defined as follows: if
φ and ψ are (equivalences classes of) complex Borel
functions on X and X∗ then φ(q)=Mφ and
ψ(p)=F−1MψF where Mφ and Mψ are the
operators of multiplication by φ in L2(X) and by ψ in
L2(X∗). We set
[TABLE]
and identify functions φ∈L∞(X),ψ∈L∞(X∗)
with operators φ(q),ψ(p)∈B(X), so
[TABLE]
If X is an Euclidean space X∗ is identified with X as usual but
the spaces L∞(X) and L∞(X∗) are different when viewed
as subspaces of B(X): the first one is the space of φ(q)
while the second is the space of φ(p) with
φ∈L∞(X). Or L∞(X∗)=F−1L∞(X)F.
If k∈X∗ and x∈X let ⟨q,k⟩=φ(q) with
φ=⟨⋅,k⟩ and ⟨x,p⟩=ψ(p) with
ψ=⟨x,⋅⟩. These are self-adjoint operators on H
such that [k(q),x(p)]=i⟨x,k⟩ and
[TABLE]
The phase space of X is the cotangent space
T∗X=X⊕X∗ equipped with the symplectic form
σ(ξ,η)=⟨y,k⟩−⟨x,l⟩ if ξ=x+k,η=y+l
with x,y∈X and k,l∈X∗, cf. [39, §21.1]. A simple
modification of this symplectic form allows us to introduce constant
magnetic fields into the formalism and so to treat N-body systems
which interact with an external asymptotically constant magnetic field
(we refer to [35] for a detailed study of such systems). The
constant magnetic field may be interpreted as a bilinear
anti-symmetric form β:X×X→R and then clearly the next
relation defines a symplectic form on T∗X:
[TABLE]
In physical terms X is the configuration space of a system, T∗X
is its phase space, and β represents an external constant
magnetic field. A C∗-algebraic approach to these questions,
including non constant magnetic fields, was proposed in [29].
We reconsider this construction in the symplectic setting. A finite
dimensional symplectic space Ξ is even dimensional, say
dimΞ=2n, and if
E,F are subspaces of Ξ:
(1) an isotropic E is Lagrangian if and only if dimE=n;
(2) {E∣E is Lagrangian} is a
smooth submanifold of G(Ξ) of dimension n(n+1)/2;
(3) E is isotropic (coisotropic) ⇔E is
contained in (contains) a Lagrangian subspace;
(4) dimE=n⇒ there is a Lagrangian F such that
Ξ=E⊕F;
(5) E is symplectic ⇔Eσ is symplectic
⇔Ξ=E+Eσ⇔Ξ=E⊕Eσ.
Definition 4.1**.**
A half-Lagrangian decomposition of Ξ is a couple
(X,X∗) of subspaces of Ξ such that dimX=dimΞ/2, X∗
is Lagrangian, and X∩X∗=0. If X is also Lagrangian
we call (X,X∗) a Lagrangian decomposition.
Under the conditions of the definition we have Ξ=X⊕X∗ and
we usually say that Ξ=X⊕X∗ is a half-Lagrangian or
Lagrangian decomposition of Ξ. Let β be the bilinear
anti-symmetric form on X defined by the restriction
β=σ∣X×X. If ξ,η∈Ξ and ξ=x+k,η=y+l
are their decompositions in X⊕X∗ and since X∗ is isotropic
[TABLE]
A half-Lagrangian decomposition is Lagrangian if and only if
β=0.
Since X∗ is isotropic the map k∋X∗↦σ(k,⋅) is
an injective, hence bijective, map of X∗ onto the dual of X and
we will identify these spaces by setting
[TABLE]
Then (4.5) becomes (4.4). So the choice of a
half-Lagrangian decomposition amounts to choosing the configuration
space X of a system in an external constant magnetic field
β. The decomposition is Lagrangian if and only if the magnetic
field is zero.
If W is any representation of Ξ on a Hilbert space H, for
x∈X,k∈X∗ and we set
The Schrödinger representation associated to the preceding
half-Lagrangian decomposition is the irreducible representation of
Ξ acting in H=L2(X) as follows:
[TABLE]
Clearly this may be rewritten as
[TABLE]
From [φ(q),⟨x,p⟩]=i(xφ′)(q) if φ is
C1 and xφ′ its derivative in the direction x, we get
[TABLE]
in particular [⟨x,p⟩,β(x,q)]=iβ(x,x)=0. Thus, in
terms of (4.7), we have
[TABLE]
Moreover, the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula gives
[TABLE]
Here ϕ(ξ) is the field operator at the point
ξ=x+k∈Ξ.
We keep the notation β for the map
X∋z↦β(⋅,z)∈X∗; this is the unique linear map
β:X→X∗ such that β(x,y)=⟨x,βy⟩ for all
x,y∈X. Then β∗:X∗∗=X→X∗ and the anti-symmetry of
the bilinear form β is equivalent to β∗=−β. Clearly
β(x,q)=⟨x,βq⟩ where βq is the map X→X∗
defined by (βq)(y)=βy=β(⋅,y). Thus, if we set
pβ=p+21βq, then the field operator may be written
ϕ(ξ)=⟨q,k⟩+⟨x,pβ⟩.
We will now prove that the Hamiltonian of a non-relativistic system of
particles in a constant magnetic field is affiliated to F. With
the help of the perturbative criterion of Theorem A.11 one
may then show that Hamiltonians of N-body systems with singular
n-body interactions (1≤n≤N) and asymptotically constant
external magnetic fields are affiliated to F. The arguments are
similar to those of §4.3 but we do not develop this topic
(this could be done along the lines of [29, §4]). The next
lemma is valid in any irreducible representation of a finite
dimensional symplectic space Ξ.
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let η={η1,…,ηn}
be a generating set for the subspace E∈G(Ξ). Then the form
sum Δη=∑k=1nϕ(ηk)2 is a self-adjoint
operator affiliated to F(E).
Proof.
We show that T=(Δη+1)−1∈F(E) by checking the three
conditions of Theorem 1.11. Note that the form domain
of Δη is K=⋂kdom(ϕ(ek)). We embed as
usual K⊂H=H∗⊂K∗. By (1.11) the
operators W(ξ) leave invariant K so extend to bounded
operators in K∗. Below we consider T as an operator
H→K and K∗→H (by taking adjoints) and
Δη as operator K→K∗. Clearly
[W(ξ),T]=T[Δη,W(ξ)]T and
[TABLE]
If ξ∈Eσ the last term is zero, so the last condition of
Theorem 1.11 is satisfied. Then
[TABLE]
hence the first condition of Theorem 1.11 is satisfied
too. Now observe that if ξ=∑k=1nξk an induction
argument gives
[TABLE]
If ξ∈E then we can write it as ξ=∑tkηk with real
tk. By using the preceding formula we see that in order to prove
the second condition of Theorem 1.11 it suffices to
show that ∥[W(tηk)−1]T∥→0 when t→0 for
each k. But
[TABLE]
so the assertion follows immediately from the estimate
ϕ(ηk)2≤Δη.
∎
The case of interest here is E=X; recall that Ξ=X⊕X∗ is a
half-Lagrangian decomposition. If η is a basis of X then
Δη is the “free” Hamiltonian of a system with configuration
space X in the constant magnetic field β=σ∣X×X. More general such “free” Hamiltonians are the self-adjoint
operators affiliated to the C∗-algebra F(X) which, by
(4.7) and (4.13), is the norm closure in
B(X) of the set of operators
[TABLE]
We could write this as u^(pβ) and think of the elements of
F(X) as functions of class C0 of pβ, but this is rather
formal because the components of the vector-operator pβ do not
commute: if β=0 then {Wxp}x∈X is only a
projective representation of X, cf. (4.8).
Example 4.3**.**
The simplest physically
interesting example is a non-relativistic particle with
configuration space X=R3 interacting with the constant
magnetic field b∈X. If x,y∈X let x×y be their
cross product and define the bilinear anti-symmetric form
β:X×X→R by β(x,y)=⟨x×y,b⟩. The
symplectic space will be the phase space Ξ=X⊕X equipped
with the symplectic form (4.4), i.e.
[TABLE]
Since
β(x,y)=⟨x×y,b⟩=⟨x,y×b⟩ we
get βq=q×b hence pβ=p+21q×b.
From (4.14) we get for ξ=(e,0)≡e∈X
[TABLE]
If e1,e2,e3 the natural basis
of X=R3 then ⟨ej,q×b⟩=(q×b)j and
[TABLE]
hence ϕ(ej)=pj+21(qkbl−qlbk) with usual notation
rules. Then
[TABLE]
Recall that the vector field a:X→X defined by
a(x)=21b×x=−21x×b is the magnetic
vector potential, i.e. ∇×a=b. Thus pβ=p−a and
[TABLE]
which is the Hamiltonian of a non-relativistic particle with mass
2 and charge 1 interacting with the constant magnetic field
b∈X. Also H=pβ2 with the usual rule that the
square of pβ is the sum of the squares of its components
(pβ is the magnetic momentum).
Remark 4.4**.**
In the preceding example we worked with the cotangent space
T∗X=X⊕X but modified its symplectic form, cf. (4.15). Since the field algebras associated to
symplectic spaces of dimension 6 are isomorphic, we should be
able to work in T∗X with the standard symplectic form
(1.36) (i.e. (4.4) with β replaced by
[math]) and this is indeed possible. Now the field operator at the
point ξ=(x,k) is ϕ(x,k)=⟨q,k⟩+⟨x,p⟩. We
take ηj=(21b×ej,ej)∈T∗X with j=1,2,3 and
denote E the subspace they generate. Clearly
ϕ(ηj)=pj+21(qkbl−qlbk) which are the same
operators as in Example 4.3 hence
H=∑j=13ϕ(ηj)2=(p−a)2 as before but this time
H is affiliated to F(E).
4.2. Subalgebras of
F
The following examples of C∗-subalgebras of the field algebra play
a role in a generalized version of the N-body problem. By Remark
2.31 it suffices to work in an irreducible representation
of Ξ. The symplectic space is finite dimensional and the
subalgebras that we construct depend on a Lagrangian decomposition
Ξ=X⊕X∗ of Ξ, cf. Definition 4.1. By
assertions (2) and (4) in §4.1 there are infinitely many
such choices and the algebras constructed below depend on the
choices.
We fix a Lagrangian decomposition Ξ=T∗X and we work in the
Schrödinger representation associated to it, see §4.1 for
framework and notations of. Thus H=L2(X), the field operator at
the point ξ=(x,k) is ϕ(ξ)=⟨x,p⟩+⟨q,k⟩, and
the C∗-algebra generated by these operators is the field algebra
F⊂B(X)=B(L2(X)).
Recall that by (4.2) we identify Cbu(X) and Cbu(X∗)
with the C∗-subalgebras of B(X) consisting of the operators
φ(q) and ψ(p) respectively, with φ∈Cbu(X) and
ψ∈Cbu(X∗).
If Y∈G(X) then C0(X/Y)⊂Cbu(X) as in §1.2.
If Z∈G(X∗) then we also have C0(Z∗)⊂Cbu(X) because
Z∗=X/Z⊥ with
Z⊥={x∈X∣⟨x,k⟩=0∀k∈Z}. Thus
[TABLE]
On the other hand, if
Y⊥={k∈X∗∣⟨x,k⟩=0∀x∈Y} then
Y∗=X∗/Y⊥. Hence
[TABLE]
The Grassmann C∗-algebras GX and GX∗ defined
in (1.8) are embedded in B(X) as above.
We may now give “explicit” descriptions of some components of F.
Proposition 4.5**.**
If Y∈G(X) and Z∈G(X∗) then
[TABLE]
In particular F(X)=C0(X∗), F(X∗)=C0(X), and for any
Y⊂X
[TABLE]
Moreover
[TABLE]
Proof.
F(Y) is the norm closure of the set of operators
W(μ)=∫YW(y)u(y)dy with u∈L1(Y), cf. Definition
2.27. Then (4.11) gives
W(μ)=∫Ye2i⟨y,p⟩u(y)dy=cu^(p) where c is a constant depending on the definition
of the Fourier transform. Since
u^∈C0(Y∗)⊂Cbu(X∗) we get F(Y)=C0(Y∗). By
the same definition and with the notation (1.3) we
have
F(Y)=C∗(⟨y1,p⟩)⋅C∗(⟨y2,p⟩)⋅…⋅C∗(⟨yn,p⟩) where y1,…,yn is a
basis of Y, which gives a second proof of the same result. If
Z⊂X∗ the computation of F(Z) is similar: if we take
ξ=(x,k)=(0,z) in (4.11) we get
W(ξ)=ei⟨q,z⟩ hence if u∈L1(Y) then
W(μ)=∫Yei⟨q,z⟩u(y)dy=cu^(q) where
u^∈C0(Z∗) and Z∗=X/Z⊥, cf. the comments before
the statement of the proposition. Then by using (1.18)
and we get
[TABLE]
The first relation in (4.19) follows from the second
one in (4.18) by taking Z=Y⊥ since
(Y⊥)⊥=Y. The second relation in (4.19) is a
consequence of the third one in (4.18) since
Yσ=X+Y⊥ but it is instructive to give a direct proof.
F(Yσ) is the closure of the set of operators
W(μ)=∫YσW(ξ)μ(dξ) with
μ∈L1(Yσ). If
μ(ξ)=e2i⟨x,k⟩u(x)v(k) with
u∈Cc(X) and v∈Cc(Y⊥) then by (4.11)
[TABLE]
where u^∈C0(X∗) and v^∈C0(X/Y) are the Fourier
transforms of u and v, we identify Y⊥=(X/Y)∗, and c is
a constant depending on the normalization chosen in the definition of
the Fourier transforms. Thus we have
[TABLE]
This implies F(Yσ)=C0(X/Y)⋅C0(X∗) because the linear
space generated by the functions μ is dense in
L1(Yσ). Finally, Z↦Z⊥ being a bijective map
G(X∗)→G(X), (4.18) implies (4.20) and
(4.21).
∎
Remark 4.6**.**
In terms of the Grassmannian C∗-algebras introduced in
§1.2, we have
[TABLE]
where GX⋊X is the crossed product of GX by the
action of X, cf. [31]. On the other hand,
(1.24) implies FX=C∗(ϕ(ξ)∣ξ∈X) and
ξ∈X means ξ=(x,0) with x∈X so
ϕ(ξ)=⟨x,p⟩+⟨q,k⟩=⟨x,p⟩.
With a similar argument in the case of X∗, we get
[TABLE]
This and (4.23) give the first assertion of Proposition
1.1.
Proposition 4.7**.**
L∞(X)∩F=FX∗=GX* and
L∞(X∗)∩F=FX=GX∗.*
Proof.
Note that we use the embeddings (4.2). The inclusion
L∞(X)∩F⊃GX is obvious. And
L∞(X)∩F⊂FX∗com=FX∗=GX
by (4.21) and Corollary 2.37.
∎
The algebras F(Yσ) with Y∈G(X) are components of the
algebras generated by N-body type Hamiltonians, cf. §4.3,
hence it is useful to have “explicit” descriptions of them. Below we
give two such descriptions, consequences of Theorem 1.11
and Proposition 4.5.
Proposition 4.8**.**
If Y⊂X and T∈B(X) then T∈F(Yσ)
if and only if
(i)
[ei⟨x,p⟩,T]=0* for all x∈Y,*
2. (ii)
x→0lim∥[ei⟨x,p⟩,T]∥=0* and
x→0lim∥(ei⟨x,p⟩−1)T∥=0,*
3. (iii)
k→0lim∥[ei⟨q,k⟩,T]∥=0* and
k→0,k∈Y⊥lim∥(ei⟨q,k⟩−1)T∥=0.*
Remark 4.9**.**
The second condition in (ii) is
equivalent to T=φ(p)T0 for some φ∈C0(X∗) and
T0∈B(X), cf. [32, Lemma 3.8].
In the next proposition FY is the Fourier transform associated to
Y and we keep the notation FY for
FY⊗1:L2(Y)⊗L2(Y′)→L2(Y∗)⊗L2(Y′)≡L2(Y∗;L2(Y′)).
Proposition 4.10**.**
Let Y,Y′ be subspaces of X such that X=Y⊕Y′ and let us
identify L2(X)=L2(Y)⊗L2(Y′). Then
[TABLE]
Thus T∈B(X) belongs to F(Yσ) if and only if
FYTFY−1 is the operator of multiplication by a function
T∈C0(Y∗;K(Y′)) in L2(Y∗;L2(Y′)).
Proof.
We identify X/Y=Y′ hence
C0(X∗)=C0(Y∗⊕Y′∗)=C0(Y∗)⊗C0(Y′∗) and
C0(Y′)⋅C0(Y′∗)=K(Y′). Then by (4.19)
[TABLE]
4.3. N-body Hamiltonians and beyond
Hamiltonians generalizing N-body Hamiltonians are defined
by their affiliation to graded C∗-subalgebras F(S) where
S⊂G(Ξ) is a subsemilattice. The case of finite S
is easy but important because large classes of N-body type
Hamiltonians are affiliated to such algebras. By (3) of Theorem
2.9 and (2) of Lemma A.1, if S is a
finite subset of G(Ξ) then F(S) is a subalgebra of F
if and only if S is a subsemilattice and then F(S) is an
S-graded C∗-subalgebra of F. However, we are mostly
interested in the case of infinite S.
In this section we fix a Lagrangian decomposition
Ξ=X⊕X∗ and consider semilattices of the form
S=Tσ with T⊂G(X) stable under intersections.
We recall the notations
[TABLE]
Since Y↦Y⊥ and Y↦Yσ are bijective maps
G(X)→G(X∗) and G(X)→G⊃X(Ξ) which
reverse the order, we get
[TABLE]
Recall that GX is the Grassmann C*-algebra, cf. §1.2. Taking into account (4.19), we have
[TABLE]
These are stable under translations and conjugation subspace of
Cbu(X) and if T is finite then G˚X(T) is
closed, so G˚X(T)=GX(T). And
GX({Y})≡GX(Y)=C0(X/Y).
Our first goal is to show that F(S) is the C∗-algebra
generated by Hamiltonians of N-body type. Clearly:
Lemma 4.11**.**
Let T0⊂G(X) and let T be the set of intersections
of subspaces from T0. Then the unital C∗-subalgebra of
Cbu(X) generated by GX(T0) is GX(T).
Remark 4.12**.**
An intersection of subspaces of T0 is a subspace of the
form ∩i∈IYi with Yi∈T0. Since X is finite
dimensional we may assume I finite, but it could be empty and
then ∩i∈∅Yi=X, hence we always have
X∈T. Thus C=C0(X/X)⊂GX(T).**
We refer to [30, 31, 32] for a presentation of the notion of
crossed product of a C∗-algebra by the action of a group adapted to
our context (see also Proposition 2.38). If
A⊂Cbu(X) is a C∗-subalgebra stable under translations
then the norm closed linear space A⋅C0(X∗) of operators on
L2(X) generated by the products φ(q)ψ(p) with
φ∈A and ψ∈C0(X∗) is a C∗-algebra canonically
isomorphic to the crossed product A⋊X, cf. [31, Th. 2.17]. We identify A⋊X=A⋅C0(X∗) so one may
take this as definition of the crossed product.
A function h:X∗→R is called divergent if
limk→∞h(k)=+∞.
Theorem 4.13**.**
Let T0⊂G(X) and T the set of intersections of
subspaces from T0. Then S=Tσ is a subsemilattice
of G⊃X(Ξ) and
[TABLE]
If h:X∗→R is continuous and divergent F(S) coincides
with the C∗-algebra generated by the self-adjoint operators
H=h(p+k)+v(q) with k∈X∗ and v∈G˚X(T0)
real.
which proves (4.26). By Remark 4.12 we have
C0(X∗)⊂F(S) hence for an arbitrary h:X∗→R
continuous and divergent the self-adjoint operator h(p) is
affiliated to C0(X∗) hence to F(S). Then if
v∈GX(T) real H=h(p)+v(q) is a self-adjoint operator
and for large enough negative z we have a norm convergent
development
[TABLE]
But (z−h(p))−1∈C0(X∗) hence
v(q)(z−h(p))−1∈GX(T)⋅C0(X∗) and (z−H)−1
belongs to F(S). Thus any h(p)+v(q) is affiliated to
F(S) and it remains to prove that for any fixed h the
algebra F(S) is equal to the algebra C generated by
operators of the form H=h(p+k)+v(q) with k∈X∗ and
v∈G˚X(T0) real. Clearly we get the same C
if we allow v∈GX(T0) and the preceding argument gives
C⊂F(S).
We will follow now the proof of [30, Pr. 4.1] with
A=GX(T0). Then A is not necessarily a
C∗-subalgebra but is a closed stable under translations and
conjugation subspace of Cbu(X). Then the quoted proof gives
v(q)ψ(p)∈C for all v∈GX(T0) and
ψ∈C0(X∗). In other terms,
GX(T0)⋅C0(X∗)⊂C which in fact is
equivalent to GX(Y)⋅C0(X∗)⊂C for all
Y∈T0. Observe that
GX(Y)⋅C0(X∗)=C0(X∗)⋅GX(Y) because this
is the C∗-algebra F(Y⊥). Then for any Y,Z∈T0
[TABLE]
hence GX(Y∩Z)⋅C0(X∗)⊂C. Thus
GX(Y)⋅C0(X∗)⊂C for all Y∈T which is clearly
equivalent to F(S)=GX(T)⋅C0(X∗)⊂C.
∎
Corollary 4.14**.**
If h:X∗→R is continuous and divergent then
[TABLE]
Remark 4.15**.**
If
S⊂G⊃X(Ξ) is a subsemilattice then
F(S)⋅Cb(X∗)=F(S) by (4.26).
Thus if T∈F(S) and ψ∈Cb(X∗) then ψ(p)T
and Tψ(p) belong to F(S).
We will apply this proposition in the case of a system of N
particles moving in Rν. Then X=RNν, we write
x=(x1,…,xN) with xi∈Rν, and denote qi,pi the
momentum and position observables of the i-th particle, hence
q=(q1,…,qN), p=(p1,…,pN) (if ν>1 this is not the
notation from §1.7). If the particles interact only via
one-body and two-body forces the Hamiltonian is
[TABLE]
where h1,…,hN are real continuous divergent functions on
Rν and hi(pi−ki) is interpreted as the kinetic energy of
the i-th particle if we take ki as origin in the momentum space.
The potentials vi,vij are real functions in C0(Rν) but we
may write them in the form required in Proposition 1.26 as
follows. Define ρi,ρij:X→Rν by ρi(x)=xi
and ρij(x)=xj−xi for i<j. These are linear surjective
maps with kerρi=Xi={x∣xi=0} and
kerρij=Xij={x∣xi=xj}, so ρi and ρij
induce bijective linear maps X/Xi→Rν and
X/Xij→Rν. Then vi(qi)=vi∘ρi(q) and
vij(qi−qj)=vij∘ρij(q) hence by keeping the
notation vi for vi∘ρi and vij for
vij∘ρij the potential part in (4.27) becomes
∑vi(q)+∑vij(q) where vi∈C0(X/Xi) and
vij∈C0(X/Xij). Then the C∗-algebra generated by the
Hamiltonians (4.27) is given by Proposition 1.26:
T0 is the set of subspaces Xi,Xij hence it suffices to
compute the set of intersections of such subspaces. This is an
exercice, we describe the result below.
Let [N]={1,2,…,N}. A nonempty subset of [N] is called
cluster. A sub-partition of [N] is a (possibly
empty) set of pairwise disjoint clusters; if a is a sub-partition
then ∪a is the union of its clusters. We denote π the set
of sub-partitions. If a∈π and i,j∈[N] we write
i∼aj if i,j belong to the same cluster of a
and we define
[TABLE]
Then T={Xa∣a∈π}. Thus, *if we set
S={Xaσ∣a∈π} then the C∗-algebra generated by
the Hamiltonians (4.27) with arbitrary ki∈Rν and
vi,vij∈C0(Rν) is *
[TABLE]
Note that, although we started with Hamiltonians involving only one
and two body interactions, the Hamiltonians affiliated to F(S)
may involve k-body interactions with any k≤N, and much more in
fact. We discus this question below.
We fix a subsemilattice S⊂G(Ξ) with minS=X
and a continuous positive and divergent function
h:X∗→R. Then h(p) is a kinetic energy operator affiliated
to F(X)=C0(X∗) and our goal is to build self-adjoint operators
H=h(p)+V affiliated to F(S). We use the terminology and
results of §A.4. Let Hh=D(h(p)1/2) be the form
domain of h(p) and Hh⊂H⊂Hh∗ the associated
scale. Theorem A.11 and Corollary 1.17 imply:
Theorem 4.16**.**
*For each E∈S let V(E)∈B(Hh,Hh∗) a symmetric
operator such that
(1) V(X)=0 and φ(p)V(E)(h(p)+1)−1/2∈F(E)∀φ∈Cc(X∗),
(2) the family {V(E)}E∈S is norm summable in
B(Hh,Hh∗),
(3) V(E)≥−μEh(p)−νE with μE,νE≥0,
∑E∈SμE<1, and
∑E∈SνE<∞.
Let V=∑E∈SV(E) and VE=∑F≤EV(F) for any
E∈S. Then the form sums H=h(p)+V and HE=h(p)+VE
are bounded from below self-adjoint operators, with form domain
Hh, strictly affiliated to F(S), and
PEH=HE∀E∈S. If Ξ∈S and
Smax is the set of maximal elements of S∖{Ξ}
then*
[TABLE]
We give explicit versions of condition (1) of Theorem
4.16 under stronger assumptions on h. Since
E=Yσ with Y∈G(X) we have
T=φ(p)V(E)(h(p)+1)−1/2∈F(E) if and only if T
satisfies the conditions of one of the Propositions 4.8
or 4.10. Since ei⟨x,p⟩ and
(h(p)+1)−1/2 are commuting operators,
{ei⟨x,p⟩}x∈X induces strongly continuous
unitary groups in Hh and Hh∗, but Hh is not stable
under the operators ei⟨q,k⟩. In order to simplify
later statements we will impose a rather strong growth condition on
h which ensures ei⟨q,k⟩Hh⊂Hh; the
condition can be relaxed so as to cover hypoelliptic operators for
example (see [20, §4.3]) but this is not really relevant in our
context.
We equip X with an Euclidean structure, denote ∣⋅∣ its norm,
set ⟨x⟩=(1+∣x∣2)1/2, and identify X∗=X. Then
Hs≡Hs(X) is the Sobolev space of order s∈R defined
by the norms ∥u∥s=∥⟨p⟩su∥. Then H0=H,
Hs⊂Ht if s≥t, and
Hs⊂H⊂H−s=(Hs)∗ if s≥0. Clearly
{ei⟨x,p⟩}x∈X and
{ei⟨q,k⟩}k∈X are strongly continuous
C0-groups of bounded operators in Hs for any real s.
Definition 4.17**.**
If s≥0 let Bs(X)≐B(Hs,H−s) and
[TABLE]
If T∈B0s(X) we say that T:Hs→H−s is
small at infinity.
If the condition in (4.31) is satisfied for one t it is
satisfied for any t. The elements of B0s(X) are the
operators T∈Bs(X) which decay at infinity in a weak
sense. For example, φ(q)∈B0(X) if and only if
φ:X→C is a bounded Borel function and
φ(q)∈B00(X) means that this function satisfies
lima→∞∫∣x−a∣∣φ(x)∣dx=0 [21].
If h is a real functions on X and s>0 is a number we write
h(x)∼∣x∣2s if
[TABLE]
From now on we assume that this condition is satisfied. Clearly this
is equivalent to Hh=Hs. Thus Hh∗=H−s and the V(E)
from Theorem 4.16 are symmetric operators
V(E)∈Bs(X). Recall that E=Yσ for some Y∈G(X).
Lemma 4.18**.**
Let V(E)∈Bs(X) such that
[ei⟨x,p⟩,V(E)]=0∀x∈Y. Assume that
there is t>s such that the following conditions hold in norm in
B(Hs,H−t):
[TABLE]
Then φ(p)V(E)(h(p)+1)−1/2∈F(Yσ) for any
φ∈Cc(X).
Proof.
We have
[TABLE]
hence by (4.33) and Remark 4.15 (with
S={E}) we have for any φ∈Cc(X)
[TABLE]
T=φ(p)V(E)⟨p⟩−s∈F(Yσ) if and only if T
satisfies the conditions of Proposition 4.8 and it is
easy to check that they are equivalent to those in the statement
of the lemma.
∎
Let Y′ be a complementary subspace of Y in X. Then
X=Y⊕Y′ and we identify
[TABLE]
Let FY be the Fourier transform associated to Y acting in
L2(Y) and keep the notation FY for FY⊗1 which
acts in L2(X)=L2(Y)⊗L2(Y′). Let qY,pY be the
position and momentum observables associated to Y, so
φ(pY)=FY−1φ(qY)FY for any Borel
function φ:Y→C, hence C0(Y∗)=FY−1C0(Y)FY
(see §1.7 and §4.1). Then by
(4.25)
[TABLE]
Thus if Φ:Y→K(Y′) is of class C0 and we denote
Φ(qY) the operator of multiplication by Φ in
L2(X)=L2(Y;L2(Y′)), then
Φ(pY)≐FY−1Φ(qY)FY∈F(Yσ).
This definition extends to functions on Y with values operators on
Sobolev spaces on Y′.
Lemma 4.19**.**
Let VY:Y→B0s(Y′) norm continuos and such that for any
y the operator VY(y):Hs(Y′)→H−s(Y′) is symmetric
and satisfies ±VY(y)≤cY⟨∣y∣+∣pY′∣⟩2s for
some constant cY. Then
φ(p)VY(pY)(h(p)+1)−1/2∈F(Yσ) for any
φ∈Cc(X).
Indeed, a straightforward computation shows that V(E)=VY(pY)
satisfies the conditions of Lemma 4.18. Alternatively,
Lemma 4.19 is a consequence of Proposition 4.10,
cf. the proof of [21, Th. 4.6]. Theorem 1.30 is a
consequence Theorem 4.16 and Lemma 4.19.
Theorem 4.20**.**
Let S⊂G(Ξ) a subsemilattice with minS=X and
h:X→R continuous with h(x)∼∣x∣2s for some s>0.
Let V:Hs→H−s symmetric such that V≥−μh(p)−ν
with μ<1,ν≥0 and satisfying the following equivalent
conditions:
[TABLE]
Then the form sum H=h(p)+V is a self-adjoint operator strictly
affiliated to F(S).
Proof.
We first prove the equivalence in (4.37). Since
φ(p)∈F(S) the implication ⇒ is
clear. Assume that the right hand side is satisfied and let
φ be a continuous function on X such that
0≤φ≤1, φ(x)=1 if ∣x∣<1, and φ(x)=0
if ∣x∣>2. If ε>0 then
φ(εp)V⟨p⟩−s∈F(S) and
[TABLE]
The second term on the left hand side belongs to F(S) and
[TABLE]
The right hand side above clearly tends to zero when
ε→0 hence ⟨p⟩−tV⟨p⟩−s∈F(S).
We will use the notations and results of Theorem A.9. The
self-adjoint operator H0=h(p) is bounded from below and strictly
affiliated to F(X)=C0(X∗) hence strictly affiliated to
F(S). Its form domain is Hs whose adjoint space is
H−s hence V is a form perturbation of H0, hence the form
sum H=H0+V is a bounded from below self-adjoint operator. If
φ∈Cc(R) then ψ=φ∘h∈Cc(X) and
φ(H0)=ψ(p) so
φ(H0)V(∣H0∣+1)−1/2∈F(S). Indeed, we have
[TABLE]
and ⟨p⟩s(∣h(p)∣+1)−1/2=θ(p) for some
θ∈Cb(X) so the right hand side above belongs to
F(S)⋅Cb(X)=F(S) by Remark 4.15. So the
result follows from Theorem A.9.
∎
5. Extended field C*-algebra
Let Ξ be a symplectic space and W a representation of Ξ on a
Hilbert space H. The field C∗-algebra F as defined in (1)
of Definition 2.27 contains, in some sense, only functions
of the fields ϕ(ξ). If the representation W is not
irreducible then many other physically interesting observables are not
affiliated to F, e.g. the Hamiltonians involving spin
interactions. Here we introduce a G(Ξ)-graded C∗-algebra
E of operators on H which contains F and fixes this flaw.
In the next definition, suggested by Theorem 1.11, we
introduce the components of E.
Definition 5.1**.**
*If E∈G(Ξ) then E(E)≡EΞW(E) is the set
of T∈B(H) such that:
(i)∥[W(ξ),T]∥→0 if ξ→0 in Ξ,
(ii)[W(ξ),T]=0 if ξ∈Eσ,
(iii)∥(W(ξ)−1)T∥→0 if ξ∈E and
ξ→0.
In particular E(0)=Com(Ξ).*
If dimΞ=∞ the limit in (i) is
defined in the following equivalent ways:
(1) for any ξ∈Ξ we have limr→0∥[W(rξ),T]∥=0,
(2) for any F∈G(Ξ) we have
limξ∈F,ξ→0∥[W(ξ),T]∥=0.
Thus (i) can be reformulated as: the map
ξ↦W(ξ)TW(ξ)∗ is norm continuous on finite dimensional
subspaces of Ξ. To prove (1)⇒(2) note that
∥[W(ξ),T]∥=∥W(ξ)T−T∥ where W(ξ) is the automorphism
of B(H) defined by W(ξ)T=W(ξ)TW(ξ)∗ and if
e1,…,en is a basis in F and ξ=∑iriei then
W(ξ)=W(r1e1)…W(rnen).
Proposition 5.2**.**
Assume Ξ finite dimensional. Then
E(Ξ)=F(Ξ)⋅Com(Ξ) and W is of finite multiplicity
if and only if E(Ξ)=K(H).
Proof.
If Ξ is finite dimensional and we take E=Ξ then only (i) and
(iii) are nontrivial and (i)+(iii) is equivalent to
limξ→0∥(W(ξ)−1)T(∗)∥=0 hence by (1) of Theorem
3.4 we have E(Ξ)=F(Ξ)⋅Com(Ξ). Then we use
(3) of Theorem 3.4.
∎
Proposition 5.3**.**
E(E)* is a non-degenerate C∗-subalgebra of B(H) and
F(E)⊂E(E).*
Proof.
It is easily seen that E(E) is a norm closed subalgebra of
B(H). If T∈E(E) then clearly ∥[W(ξ),T∗]∥→0 if
ξ→0 in Ξ and [W(ξ),T∗]=0 if ξ∈Eσ. Moreover if ξ→0 in E then
∥T∗(W(ξ)−1)∥→0 hence also ∥(W(ξ)−1)T∗∥→0
because ∥[W(ξ),T∗]∥→0. Thus T∗∈E(E) hence E(E)
is a C∗-algebra. Below we show F(E)⊂E(E) and since
F(E) is non-degenerate, E(E) is also non-degenerate.
To prove the last assertion of the proposition it suffices to show
that W(μ)∈E(E) if μ∈L1(E). For any ξ∈Ξ
and μ∈M(E) we have
[TABLE]
Thus ∥[W(ξ),W(μ)]∥→0 if ξ→0. Moreover,
the above commutator is clearly zero if ξ∈Eσ. It
remains to show that W(μ) verifies (iii) of Definition
5.1 if μ∈L1(E). Then
μ(dη)=ρ(η)dEη with ρ is a function on E.
If ξ∈E we get from (1.11):
[TABLE]
Clearly both integrals tend to zero as ξ→0 in E.
∎
Remark 5.4**.**
If W is of finite multiplicity then
E(E)=F(E)⋅Com(Ξ): the inclusion ⊃ is obvious
and the proof of the converse is similar to that of Theorem
1.11 given in §3.1.**
Now let ρ be an integrable function on E such that
∫Eρ(η)dEη=1 for some Lebesgue measure dEη
on E. For ε>0 set
ρε(η)=ε−mρ(η/ε), where m=dimE,
and
[TABLE]
Lemma 5.5**.**
(i)* W(ρε)∈E(E) and
s-limε→0W(ρε)=1 on H.
(ii)
If T∈E(E) then
limε→0∥(W(ρε)−1)T∥=0.*
Proof.
For (i), see the proof of Proposition 2.32-(a).
Then, by Definition 5.1-(iii) we have
[TABLE]
Lemma 5.6**.**
If ξ∈/Eσ, and T∈E(E) then
s-limr→∞TW(rξ)=0
Proof.
By Lemma 5.5 we have
limε→0TW(ρε)=T in norm hence it
suffices to have s-limr→∞SW(rξ)=0 for S∈F(E)
which is true by Lemma 2.33.
∎
Theorem 5.7**.**
The family of C∗-subalgebras {E(E)}E∈G(Ξ) is
linearly independent and satisfies
E(E)⋅E(F)⊂E(E+F).
Proof.
The proof of the linear independence of the family of E(E) is
similar to the proof of Theorem 2.9-(1). Let S be
a finite set of finite dimensional subspaces of Ξ and for each
F∈S let T(F)∈E(F) such that ∑F∈ST(F)=0; we
have to show T(E)=0∀E. If F∈S and
F⊂E then Eσ⊂Fσ hence
Eσ∩Fσ is a strict subspace of Eσ. Then we
may choose ξ∈Eσ which does not belong to any of these
subspaces, i.e. ξ∈/Fσ if F∈S is not a subset of
E, which implies s-limr→∞T(F)W(rξ)=0 for all such
F by Lemma 5.6. On the other hand, if F⊂E
then ξ∈Eσ⊂Fσ hence
W(rξ)∗T(F)W(rξ)=T(F) by (ii) of Definition
5.1. By taking r→∞ in the identity
∑F∈SW(rξ)∗T(F)W(rξ)=0 we thus get
∑F⊂ET(F)=0 for all E∈S. If E is minimal in
S this implies T(E)=0. Then ∑F∈S1μ(F)=0 if
S1 is the set of elements of S which are not minimal. By
repeating the above argument for S1 we get T(E)=0 for all E
minimal in S1, etc.
Now we prove E(E)⋅E(F)⊂E(E+F). Let S∈E(E) and
T∈E, we must show ST∈E(E+F). Since
(E+F)σ=Eσ∩Fσ, the conditions (i) and (ii) of
Definition 5.1 are obviously satisfied, it remains to
show ∥(W(ξ)−1)ST∥→0 if ξ→0 in E+F. If E⊂F let G be subspace of F supplementary to E∩F, hence
E+F=E+G and E∩G=0. Then any ξ∈E+F has a unique
decomposition ξ=η+ζ with η∈E,ζ∈G and
ξ→0 in E+F is equivalent to η→0 in E and
ζ→0 in G (hence in F). Then
[TABLE]
and the first term on the right hand side tends in norm to zero as
ζ→0 while e2iσ(ζ,η)→1 and
W(η)SW(ζ)T→ST in norm if η→0 and ζ→0.
∎
Definition 5.8**.**
The extended field C∗-algebra associated to the
representation W is
[TABLE]
and is a G(Ξ)-graded C∗-algebra of bounded operators on
H.
In Proposition 5.2 we already gave an example where the
algebra E is more natural than F. We give one more example
involving coupling of finite multiplicity representations, which
covers for example N-body Dirac and Pauli operators.
Let Ξ1,…,ΞN finite dimensional symplectic spaces equipped
with finite multiplicity representations W1,…,WN on Hilbert
space H1,…,HN. The coupling of these systems is defined as
follows: Ξ≐Ξ1⊕⋯⊕ΞN (symplectic direct
sum) equipped with the natural representation on
H≐H1⊗⋯⊗HN defined by
[TABLE]
Then the extended field algebra E associated to (Ξ,W) contains
E1⊗⋯⊗EN and Hamiltonians affiliated to it may
be constructed with the help of Theorem A.9 starting with
“free” Hamiltonians of the form
H1⊗1⊗⋯⊗1+⋯+1⊗⋯⊗1⊗HN.
Appendix A C*-algebras graded by Grassmannians
A.1. Main facts
Let Ξ be a real vector space and C a C∗-algebra graded by a
subsemilattice S of G(Ξ). We use the definitions and
notations of §1.1, thus C=∑E∈ScC(E)
for a given family {C(E)}E∈S of C∗-subalgebras of
C satisfying C(E)C(F)⊂C(E+F) for all E,F∈S and
such that the linear sum C˚≐∑E∈SC(E) is
direct and dense in C.
If T⊂S we set C˚(T)=∑E∈TC(E) and
C(T)=∑E∈TcC(E). If T is a subsemilattice
then clearly C(T) is a T-graded C∗-algebra with
components C(E); subalgebras of this form are called graded
C∗-subalgebras of C. Below we mention some properties of
C(T): (1) is [43, Pr. 1.6], (2) is an exercise, and (3) is
[21, Pr. 3.2].
Lemma A.1**.**
(1)* If T is finite then ∑E∈TC(E) is closed,
hence C(T)=∑E∈TC(E).
(2) If T is finite and C(E)⋅C(F)=C(E+F) for
all E,F∈T, then C(T) is a subalgebra of C if and
only if T is a subsemilattice of S.
(3)C=⋃TC(T) union over all countable
subsemilattices of S.*
For any subspace E of Ξ the sets
[TABLE]
are subsemilattices. If E∈S the next theorem is [19, Th. 3.1] while [43, Pr. 1.10] is a more general result; the
last assertion is clear if T∈C˚ which is dense in
C, etc.
Theorem A.2**.**
CE≐C(SE)* is a C∗-subalgebra and
CE′≐C(SE′) an ideal of C such that
C=CE+CE′ and CE∩CE′=0. The
projection PE:C→CE determined by this direct sum
decomposition is a morphism. {PET∣E∈S}
is relatively compact ∀T∈C.*
The projection morphism (cf. §1.1) PE is the unique
continuous map C→C such that
[TABLE]
where T(G)∈C(G) and T(G)=0 but for a finite number of G.
Clearly if E⊂F then CE⊂CF and
PEPF=PFPE=PE. More generally:
Proposition A.3**.**
If E,F are subspaces of Ξ then
[TABLE]
Proof.
We first prove the relation PEPF=PE∩F.
Since C is the closure of ∑G∈SC(G) it suffices to
show that the restrictions of the maps PEPF and
PE∩F to each
C(G) are equal. There are three possibilities:
(1) G⊂E∩F: then each of the operators
PE,PF,PE∩F is the identity on C(G)
so
PEPF=PE∩F on C(G);
(2) G⊂F: then
PFC(G)=PE∩FC(G)=0
hence PEPF=PE∩F on C(G);
(3) G⊂F but G⊂E: then PF is the
identity on C(G), PEC(G)=0,
PE∩FC(G)=0 hence
PE∩F=PEPF on C(G).
Thus PEPF=PE∩F. The operator
PE∩F is a projection of C onto
CE∩F and we clearly have
CE∩F⊂CE∩CF. On the other hand
each of the operators PE,PF is the identity on
CE∩CF hence PE∩F=PEPF
is also the identity on CE∩CF so
CE∩F⊃CE∩CF.
∎
A.2. Quotient algebra
We now assume that the subsemilattice S has a greatest element
supS or, equivalently, supE∈SdimE<∞. Indeed, in
this case there is G∈S of maximal dimension and if E∈S is
not included in G then E+G∈S and G⊊E+G so
dimG<dim(E+G) which is not possible, hence G is the greatest
element of S.
Let Smax be the set of subspaces E∈S such that
E=supS and there are no other elements of S between E
and supS; in other terms, Smax is the set of maximal
elements of S∖{supS}. Then each element of S
distinct of supS is majorated by an element of Smax
because if F∈S,F=supS, among the elements E∈S which
are =supS and contain F there is one which has maximal
dimension and this one belongs to Smax.
Clearly C(supS) is an ideal of C. Let
P:C→C/C(supS) be the canonical surjection of C
onto the quotient C∗-algebra C/C(supS).
The main interest of the graded structure is that it gives an explicit
description of C/C(supS) and P. Theorem A.4 is
a consequence of the more general [21, Pr. 3.4]. If S is
finite, which covers the N-body type situations, the proof is very
easy [1, Th. 8.4.1].
If Ai are C∗-algebras then ⨁i∈IAi is the
C∗-algebra consisting of families A=(Ai)i∈I with
Ai∈Ai satisfying ∥A∥≐supi∥Ai∥<∞ and with
the usual algebraic operations.
Theorem A.4**.**
If S=supS exists then the map
[TABLE]
is a morphism with kerP=C(supS). This gives a canonical
embedding
[TABLE]
If T∈C we define
[TABLE]
In later concrete situations C is realized on a Hilbert space
H such that C(supS)=C∩K(H) (Lemma 3.6)
and then Spess(T)=C-Spess(T) for any T∈C by Atkinson’s
theorem [2, Th. 3.3.2] that we recall here. This gives a
general version of the HVZ theorem.
Fix a Hilbert space H. The quotient C∗-algebra
C(H)≐B(H)/K(H) is the Calkin algebra of H
and π:B(H)→C(H) is the canonical morphism. Then for any
A∈B(H) we call localization at infinity of A its image
A^≐π(A) in C(H); Atkinson’s theorem says that the
essential spectrum of A∈B(H) is the spectrum of
A^:
[TABLE]
We extend this to observables as follows: if
A:C0(R)→B(H) is a morphism, hence an observable
affiliated to B(H), then A^≐π∘A is a morphism
C0(R)→C(H), hence an observable affiliated to C(H),
that we call localization at infinity of A, and we define the
essential spectrum of A as the spectrum of A^, so
(A.7) remains valid. Thus Spess(A) is the set of real
λ such that for any θ∈C0(R) with
θ(λ)=0 the operator θ(A) is not compact.
If C⊂B(H) is a C∗-subalgebra then C∩K(H) is
an ideal of C hence the quotient
\widehat{\mathscr{C}\,}\doteq\mathscr{C}/\big{(}\mathscr{C}\cap K(\mathcal{H})\big{)} is a C∗-subalgebra of
C(H) called localization at infinity of C. If the
observable A is affiliated to C its localization at infinity
A is affiliated to C. Thus
[TABLE]
because the restriction to C of the canonical morphism
B(H)→C(H) is injective.
A.3. Essential spectrum
Assume now Ξ finite dimensional and let C be a
G(Ξ)-graded C∗-algebra. Since Ξ is the maximal element
of G(Ξ), if T∈C then C-Spess(T)=Sp(PT) is
the spectrum of the image of T in the quotient algebra
C/C(Ξ).
Theorem A.5**.**
If T∈C then {PHT∣H∈H(Ξ)} is a compact
subset of C and
[TABLE]
This relation is also valid for the observables affiliated to C.
Theorem A.4 does not suffices to prove (A.9),
the main new point is to show that the union in (A.9)
is closed for all the elements of C. The argument requires some
preparations.
Lemma A.6**.**
Let A be a C∗-algebra, I a set, and A[I] the
C∗-algebra of bounded functions I→A. If
A=(Ai)i∈I∈C[I] and A={Ai∣i∈I} is a
compact subset of A then Sp(A)=∪i∈ISp(Ai).
Proof.
We mays clearly assume that A is unital. If λ∈C then
A−λ=(Ai−λ)i∈I is invertible in A[I] if
and only if each Ai−λ is invertible in A and
∥(Ai−λ)−1∥≤C for some number C independent of
i. We have to prove that the last condition is automatically
satisfied if A is compact. In this case A−λ is also
compact so we may assume without loss of generality that
λ=0. If I is the set of invertible elements of A,
then I is an open subset of A and the map S↦S−1
is continuous on I. Since A is a compact subset of I, we
see that {Ai−1∣i∈I} is a compact hence
supi∥Ai−1∥<∞.
∎
Lemma A.7**.**
T∈C* and E∈G(Ξ),
E=Ξ⇒∃H∈H(Ξ) such that
PET=PHT.*
Proof.
We saw in Lemma A.1 that there is a countable
subsemilattice S⊂G(Ξ) such that T∈C(S). We
will prove that there is H∈H(Ξ) such that E⊂H
but F⊂H if F⊂E.
We have F⊂E if and only if
E⊥⊂F⊥ (orthogonals in Ξ∗) hence if and
only if E⊥∩F⊥ is a strict subspace of
E⊥. Thus {E⊥∩F⊥∣F∈SE′}, cf. (A.1), is a countable set of strict subspaces of E⊥
hence there is L∈P(Ξ∗) such that L⊂E⊥ and
L⊂F⊥ if F∈SE′. Then E⊂L⊥
and F⊂L⊥ if F⊂E. Thus it suffices to
take H=L⊥.
Let S∈C(F) for some F∈S. Then PES=S if
F⊂E and PES=0 if F⊂E. In the first
case we also have F⊂H hence PHS=S and in the
second case F⊂H hence PHS=0. Thus
PE=PH on each C(F) with F∈S. Since these
two operators are linear and continuous we get PE=PH on
C(S) and so PET=PHT.
∎
In this proof we abbreviate H=H(Ξ). From Theorem
A.4 it follows that C-Spess(T) is the spectrum of
the element (PET)E∈H of the C∗-algebra
⊕E∈HCE. Let C[H] be the
C∗-algebra of bounded functions H→C with the sup
norm. Then ⊕E∈HCE is a C∗-subalgebra of
C[H] hence for an element of ⊕E∈HCE
its spectrum in ⊕E∈HCE coincides with its
spectrum in C[H]. Thus the spectrum of
(PET)E∈H in ⊕E∈HCE coincides
with its spectrum in C[H]. Thus by Lemma A.6
it suffices to show that R={PET∣E∈H} is a
compact set in C. By the last assertion of Theorem
A.2 it suffices to show that R is norm closed. We
will use the notation PE=PE⊥ for
E∈G(Ξ∗) hence R={PLT∣L∈P} where
P≡P(Ξ∗).
We make two remarks concerning the PE. If E,F∈G(Ξ∗)
then by (A.3)
[TABLE]
Then if PE′=1−PE we have
PE−PF=PEPF′−PE′PF hence
PE(PE−PF)=PEPF′, which gives for all
S∈C
[TABLE]
Let S be an accumulation point of R. Then there is a sequence of
elements Ln∈P with Ln=Lm if n=m such that
∥PLnT−S∥→0. The sequence of subspaces
En=∑m≥nLm=0 is decreasing hence there is a subspace
E of dimension k>0 such that En=E for large n. Then for each
such n one can find integers n1<n2<⋯<nk with n1=n such
that E=Ln1+⋯+Lnk. If ε>0 then there is N
such that ∥PLnT−PLmT∥≤ε if
n,m≥N. Choose a sequence n1=n<n2<⋯<nk as above and
denote Fi=Ln1+⋯+Lni−1. The relations
(A.11) and (A.10) imply
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by using (A.10) again we can write
[TABLE]
Repeating this procedure we get
[TABLE]
Thus we have ∥PLnT−PET∥≤(k−1)ε. This shows that S=PET=PE⊥T
with E⊥=Ξ and now it suffices to use Lemma A.7
with E replaced by E⊥.
The extension to observables is straightforward by using the spectral
mapping theorem. If z is a nonreal number and RT(z) is the
resolvent of the observable T, by taking into account the relation
PHRT(z)=RPHT(z) due to the fact that PH is
a morphism, it suffices to use (A.9) with T replaced
by RT(z).
∎
Theorem A.8**.**
If S⊂G(Ξ) is a subsemilattice with Ξ∈S and
T∈C(S) then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since C(S)/C(Ξ) is a C∗-subalgebra of C/C(Ξ)
the spectrum of the image of T in the quotient algebra
C(S)/C(Ξ) is the same as the spectrum of the image of T
in the quotient algebra C/C(Ξ) hence is given by the formula
(A.9). If E=Ξ there is H∈H(Ξ) such
that E⊂H and then PE=PEPH by
(A.3) hence PET=PEPHT and since
PE is a morphism we get
Sp(PET)⊂Sp(PHT). Thus
[TABLE]
Observe that the preceding argument gives
Sp(PFT)⊂Sp(PET) if F⊂E hence
[TABLE]
i.e. only the largest spaces E are significant in the union. It
remains to show that for any T and any hyperplane H there is
E∈S such that E⊂H and
Sp(PET)=Sp(PHT). Let SH be the set of
F∈S such that F⊂H and choose E∈SH of maximal
dimension. If F∈SH then E+F∈SH and if F⊂E
then dim(E+F)>dimE which is impossible, hence F⊂E. Thus
E is the greatest element of the subsemilattice SH. Then we
clearly have PET=PHT for any T∈C˚(S)
hence by continuity for any T∈C(S).
∎
A.4. Affiliation criteria
We first recall the notion of sum in form sense. Let H0 be a
self-adjoint operator on H and G=D(∣H0∣21) its
form domain with the graph topology. If G∗ is the adjoint of
G (space of continuous anti-linear forms) and if we identify
H∗=H via Riesz Lemma, we get continuous dense embeddings
G⊂H⊂G∗ and H0 extends to a continuous map
G→G∗ for which we keep the notation H0. A symmetric
operator V:G→G∗ is a form perturbation of H0
if there are numbers μ,ν≥0 with μ<1 such that either
±V≤μ∣H0∣+ν or H0 is bounded from below and
V≥−μH0−ν. Then the restriction of
H=H0+V:G→G∗ to D(H)≐{g∈G∣Hg∈H} is
a self-adjoint operator on H, still denoted H, called form
sum of H0 and V. By [21, Th. 2.8, Lm. 2.9]:
Theorem A.9**.**
Assume that H0 is strictly affiliated to a C∗-algebra
C⊂B(H). If V is a form perturbation of H0 such
that φ(H0)V(∣H0∣+1)−1/2∈C for all
φ∈Cc(R) then the form sum H=H0+V is strictly
affiliated to C.
Let Ξ be an arbitrary real vector space, S⊂G(Ξ) a
subsemilattice with a least elementX, and C an
S-graded C∗-algebra of operators on a Hilbert space H. We
give here methods for constructing self-adjoint operators
affiliated to C. Note that
[TABLE]
Proposition A.10 is very easy but interesting because V
is not required to be decomposable.
Proposition A.10**.**
Let HX be a self-adjoint operator on H affiliated to
C(X). If V∈C is symmetric then H≐HX+V is
affiliated to C and PEH=HX+PEV.
Proof.
If z∈C we set RX(z)=(z−HX)−1 and R(z)=(z−H)−1
whenever the inverses exist. If ℑz is large enough then
∥VRX(z)∥<1 and then, by using the relation
z−H=(1−VRX(z))(z−HX), we see that z−H is invertible and
[TABLE]
We have RX(z)∈C(X) hence VRX(z)∈C and since
PE:C→CE is a morphism
[TABLE]
where VE=PEV. The series in (A.13) is norm
convergent hence R(z)∈C and
[TABLE]
Since
∥VERX(z)∥=∥PE[VRX(z)]∥≤∥VRX(z)∥
the series is norm convergent.
∎
Now we consider unbounded V. Let HX be a positive
self-adjoint operator on H with form domain G. For each
E∈S let V(E):G→G∗ symmetric such that V(X)=0 and
(1) the family {V(E)}E∈S is norm summable in
B(G,G∗);
(2) V(E)≥−μEHX−νE with μE,νE≥0,
∑E∈SμE<1, and ∑E∈SνE<∞.
Denote V=∑E∈SV(E) and VE=∑F≤EV(F).
Then the form sums H=HX+V and HE=HX+VE are bounded
from below self-adjoint operators on H with form domain equal to
G. Then by using Lemma 2.9 and Theorem 3.5 from [21], we get
Theorem A.11**.**
Assume C(X)⋅C(E)=C(E)∀E∈S. If HX is
strictly affiliated to C(X) and
[TABLE]
then H is strictly affiliated to C and PEH=HE for
all E∈S.
Bibliography47
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] W. O. Amrein, A. Boutet de Monvel, and V. Georgescu. C 0 subscript 𝐶 0 C_{0} -groups, commutator methods and spectral theory of N 𝑁 N -body Hamiltonians . Birkhäuser, 1996.
2[2] W. B. Arveson. A Short Course on Spectral Theory . Springer, 2002.
3[3] D. Bahns and D. Buchholz. Trapped bosons, thermodynamic limit and condensation: a study in the framework of resolvent algebras. Ar Xiv 2012.08609
4[4] B. A. Barnes. The properties ∗ * -regularity and uniqueness of C ∗ superscript 𝐶 C^{*} -norm in general ∗ * -algebras. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. , 279:841–859, 1983.
5[5] J. Boidol. Group algebras with a unique C ∗ superscript 𝐶 C^{*} -norm. J. Funct. Anal. , 56:220–232, 1984.
6[6] A. Boutet de Monvel-Berthier and V. Georgescu. Graded C ∗ superscript 𝐶 C^{*} -algebras in the N 𝑁 N -body problem. J. Math. Phys. , 32(11):3101–3110, 1991.
7[7] A. Boutet de Monvel-Berthier and V. Georgescu. Graded C ∗ superscript 𝐶 C^{*} -algebras associated to symplectic spaces and spectral analysis of many channel Hamiltonians. Dynamics of complex and irregular systems (Bielefeld, 1991) , pp. 22–66. Bielefeld Encount. Math. Phys., VIII, World Sci. Publishing, 1993.
8[8] A. Boutet de Monvel-Berthier, V. Georgescu, and A. Soffer. N-body Hamiltonians with hard-core interactions. Rev. Math. Phys. 6(4):515-596, 1994.