# Spontaneous Transitions in Quantum Mechanics

## I Introduction

We reconsider in this paper the problem of spontaneous pair creations in static external fields. In the original version , the problem was addressing to high energy physicists. The experimental test was done by comparing the theoretical predictions with the experimental results coming from heavy ion collision experiments. As is stated in , there was no agreement between the two results, one of the possible cause being the large effects of non-adiabatic processes.

In the past few years, experimental results showed that the transport properties of the semiconductors with high symmetry may change drastically if a certain critical value of the external electric field is exceed. A particular example is a quasi-one dimensional semiconductor, cooled down below the Peierls transition temperature. It is known that, below this critical temperature, a gap is opening in the single-particle excitation spectrum. Moreover, the experimental results  show the existence of a threshold value of the applied electric field where the transport properties change drastically. The two elements: existence of the gap in the one-particle Hamiltonian spectrum and the existence of the critical value of the applied electric field, above which the conductivity is practically reduced to zero, are strong arguments for the idea that we are facing here with the phenomenon of spontaneous pair creations. We agree that there are many theories which, more or less, explain this phenomenon. While most of them involve interacting quantum fields, our hope is that an effective potential can be written down such that, for applied electric fields above the threshold value, the overcritical part of the conjecture  applies. If this is true, then there may be another way to experimentally test the theory, this time, with a better control on the time variations of the external fields and so, on the non-adiabatic processes. In some situations, the threshold value of the electric field can be small. This means that, experimentally, we are not enforced to switch off the applied field (to protect the sample). This shows one of the qualitative difference between the two experimental settings: in the heavy ion collisions, the quantum system is perturbed by the electric fields produced during the collisions so we have no control on the “switch on” or “switch off” of the interaction. In contradistinction, for a semiconductor with low critical value of the electric field, we have total control on how slow the interaction is introduced.

Because of a technical difficulty, in , the definition of overcritical external fields was slightly modified in order to prove the existence of the overcritical external fields. We propose another approach of the problem which avoid this technical difficulty. However, this doesn’t mean that the problem of spontaneous pair creation is solved, but, in the light of the last observation, the new approach seems to be more appropriate for the problem of spontaneous pair creations in semiconductors.

## II Description of the problem

Because the results in scattering problems involving periodic Schrodinger operators are much poor than for those involving Dirac operators, we will treat the problem at the level of first quantization. We show that, above the critical value of the interaction, electrons can spontaneously transit between two different energetic bands. If the scattering operator can be implemented in the second quantization, this result is equivalent with spontaneous pair creations of electrons and holes.

For simplicity, we will discuss here the case of a self-adjoint operator, $`H_0`$, defined on some dense subspace $`𝒟\left(H_0\right)`$ of the Hilbert space $``$, of whom spectrum consists of two absolute continuous, bounded, disjoint parts. We denote the lower and upper parts by $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`\sigma _+`$ respectively. Let $`H_\lambda =H_0+\lambda V`$ be the perturbed operator, where we assume that $`𝒟\left(H_\lambda \right)=𝒟\left(H_0\right)`$, $`𝒟\left(H_0\right)𝒟\left(V\right)`$ and the perturbation leaves $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`\sigma _+`$ unchanged. Our interest is in the case when, as $`\lambda `$ increases, some eigenvalues emerge from $`\sigma _+`$ and move continuously to $`\sigma _{}`$, and there is a critical value, $`\lambda _c`$, at which the lowest eigenvalue touches $`\sigma _{}`$ and then it disappears in the lower continuum spectrum. We study the scattering problem of pair $`(H_0,H_\lambda )`$ in the adiabatic switching formalism for both cases: $`\lambda <\lambda _c`$ and $`\lambda >\lambda _c`$.

Let us consider a function, $`\phi :_+`$, $`\phi 𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that

$$\phi \left(s\right)=\{\begin{array}{c}1\text{}\left|s\right|<1\\ 0\text{}\left|s\right|>2\end{array}$$
(1)   
and, for a pair of positive numbers, $`\epsilon =(\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2)`$, we consider the adiabatic switching factor:

$$\phi _\epsilon \left(s\right)=\{\begin{array}{c}\phi \left(\epsilon _1s\right)\text{}s<0\\ \phi \left(\epsilon _2s\right)\text{}s0\end{array}.$$
(2)   
One can consider that $`\epsilon _1`$ controls the “switch on” process and $`\epsilon _2`$ controls the “switch off” process. Note that $`\phi _\epsilon `$ is also of $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$. For the time dependent Hamiltonian: $`H_{\epsilon ,\lambda }\left(t\right)=H_0+\lambda \phi _\epsilon \left(t\right)V`$, and time independent Hamiltonian: $`H_\lambda =H_0+\lambda V`$, we denote by:

$$W_{\epsilon ,\lambda }^\pm =s\underset{T\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }^{}(T,0)e^{iTH_0}$$
(3)   
and

$$W_\lambda ^\pm =s\underset{T\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}e^{iTH_\lambda }e^{iTH_0}$$
(4)   
the adiabatic and static Moller operators. The notation $`U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(T,T^{})`$ stands for the propagator corresponding to $`H_{\epsilon ,\lambda }\left(t\right)`$. We suppose that, for $`\lambda [0,\lambda _0]`$, $`\lambda _0>\lambda _c`$, these operators exist, the adiabatic Moller operators converge strongly to the static operators. In addition, we consider that the static Moller operators are locally complete on $`\sigma _{}`$, i.e. $`Range\left[P_{H_\lambda }\left(\sigma _{}\right)W_\lambda ^\pm \right]=P_{H_\lambda }\left(\sigma _{}\right)`$. We will discuss later why the situation is different in the case when the Moller operators are only weakly complete (in the sense of ). With these assumptions, one can define the unitary scattering matrix $`S_\lambda =\left(W_\lambda ^{}\right)^{}\times W_\lambda ^+`$ and the adiabatic version, $`S_{\epsilon ,\lambda }=\left(W_{\epsilon ,\lambda }^{}\right)^{}\times W_{\epsilon ,\lambda }^+`$. It is known  that the adiabatic scattering operator converge weakly to the static scattering operator in the adiabatic limit, $`\epsilon 0`$.

Let us denote by $`P_{H_\lambda }\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)`$ the spectral projection of $`H_\lambda `$ corresponding to some $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$. The spontaneous excitations (transfer from $`P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)`$ to $`P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _+\right)`$ and vice-versa) are denied by the fact that the scattering matrix $`S_\lambda `$ commutes with the unperturbed Hamiltonian and in consequence: $`P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _\pm \right)S_\lambda P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)0`$. The key observation is that $`S_{\epsilon ,\lambda }`$ does not commute with the unperturbed Hamiltonian and, because $`S_{\epsilon ,\lambda }`$ goes weakly to the static scattering operator, we still have a chance for $`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _\pm \right)S_\lambda P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)>0`$. Indeed, was proven in  that this is the case if one considers a discontinuous switching factor, $`\phi _\delta `$, with $`\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\phi _\delta `$ a smooth function. Moreover, it was shown that

$$\underset{\epsilon _1=\epsilon _20}{lim}P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _\pm \right)S_{\epsilon ,\lambda }P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)=1o\left(\delta \right)$$
(5)   
provided $`\lambda >\lambda _c`$. We will prove in the next section that:

$$\underset{\epsilon _10}{lim}\underset{\epsilon _20}{lim}P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _\pm \right)S_{\epsilon ,\lambda >\lambda _c}P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)=1\text{,}$$
(6)   
but with $`\phi `$ of $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ class. As was already pointed out in the previous section, this version may be more appropriate for the case of pair creations in semiconductors.

## III The result

Our main result is:

###### Theorem 1

In the conditions enunciated in the previous sections, for $`\lambda \left[0,\lambda _0>\lambda _c\right]`$ and $`H\left(t\right)`$ of $`𝒞^3`$ in respect with $`t`$ (in the sense of ), then:

$$\underset{\epsilon _10}{lim}\underset{\epsilon _20}{lim}P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)S_{\epsilon ,\lambda }P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _+\right)=\{\begin{array}{c}0\text{ if }\lambda <\lambda _c\\ 1\text{ if }\lambda >\lambda _c\end{array}\text{.}$$
(7)   
Proof. The under-critical part ($`\lambda <\lambda _c`$) results directly from the adiabatic theorem. In this situation, the order of limits are non-important. Note that the under-critical case was proven in full generality for Dirac operators in .   
We start now the proof of the overcritical part ($`\lambda >\lambda _c`$) which follows closely . We will denote by $`E_g\left(t\right)`$ and $`\psi _g\left(t\right)`$ the lowest eigenvalue of $`H_{\epsilon ,\lambda }\left(t\right)`$ and one of its eigenvector. (Without loss of generality, we can suppose that the eigenvalues do not change their order during the switching). Any constant which depends on $`\epsilon _{1,2}`$ and goes to zero as $`\epsilon _{1,2}`$ goes to zero will be denoted by $`o\left(\epsilon _{1,2}\right)`$. Our task is to find a vector $`\varphi `$, $`\varphi =1`$, such that

$$P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)S_{\epsilon ,\lambda }P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _+\right)\varphi _\epsilon >1o(\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2)\text{.}$$
(8)   
Let $`\phi \left(s_0\right)=\lambda _c/\lambda `$, $`s_0>0`$, and $`0<\delta <1`$ such that $`E_g\left(\left(s_0+\delta \right)/\epsilon _1\right)`$ exists. From the adiabatic theorem applied on $`(2/\epsilon _2,\left(s_0+\delta \right)/\epsilon _1)`$ we get

$$P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _+\right)U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(2/\epsilon _1,\left(s_0+\delta \right)/\epsilon _1)\psi _g\left(\left(s_0+\delta \right)/\epsilon _1\right)>1o\left(\epsilon _1\right)$$
(9)   
and we will choose $`\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}=U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(2/\epsilon _1,\left(s_0+\delta \right)/\epsilon _1)\psi _g\left(\left(s_0+\delta \right)/\epsilon _1\right)`$, where the index $`\epsilon _1`$ emphasizes that this vector depends only on $`\epsilon _1`$. Again, from the adiabatic theorem on $`(\left(s_0+\delta \right)/\epsilon _1,0)`$ we have

$$P_{H_\lambda }\left(\sigma _{}\right)U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(0,2/\epsilon _1)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}>1o\left(\epsilon _1\right)\text{.}$$
(10)   
Because $`W_\lambda ^\pm `$ are complete, there exists $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1}P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1}1`$, such that:

$$W_\lambda ^+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1}=P_{H_\lambda }\left(\sigma _{}\right)U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(0,2/\epsilon _1)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}\text{.}$$
(11)   
In fact, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{\epsilon _1}`$ is given by:

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1}=P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)\left(W_\lambda ^+\right)^{}U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(0,2/\epsilon _1)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}\text{.}$$
(12)   
Thus we can continue:

$$P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)e^{iH_02/\epsilon _2}U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(2/\epsilon _2,0)U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(0,2/\epsilon _1)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}$$
(13)   
$`\left|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1},e^{iH_02/\epsilon _2}U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(2/\epsilon _2,0)U_\epsilon (0,2/\epsilon _1)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}\right|`$

$`\left|W_\lambda ^+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1},U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(0,2/\epsilon _1)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}\right|`$

$`\left|\left[U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }^{}(2/\epsilon _2,0)e^{iH_02/\epsilon _2}W_\lambda ^+\right]\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1},U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(0,2/\epsilon _1)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}\right|`$

$`=P_{H_\lambda }\left(\sigma _{}\right)U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(0,2/\epsilon _1)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}^2`$

$`\left|\left[W_{\epsilon _2,\lambda }^+W_\lambda ^+\right]\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1},U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(0,2/\epsilon _1)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}\right|`$

$`>1o\left(\epsilon _1\right)\left|\left[W_{\epsilon _2,\lambda }^+W_\lambda ^+\right]\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1},U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(0,2/\epsilon _1)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}\right|\text{,}`$by using inequality (10). Finally, choosing $`\varphi =e^{iH_02/\epsilon _1}\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}`$ it follows from (9) that:

$`P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)S_{\epsilon ,\lambda }P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _+\right)\varphi `$

$$>P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)e^{iH_02/\epsilon _2}U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(2/\epsilon _2,2/\epsilon _1)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}o\left(\epsilon _1\right)\text{.}$$
(14)   
Further, from inequality (13)

$`P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _{}\right)S_{\epsilon ,\lambda }P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _+\right)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}`$

$$1o\left(\epsilon _1\right)\left|\left[W_{\epsilon _2,\lambda }^+W_\lambda ^+\right]\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1},U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(0,2/\epsilon _1)\varphi _{\epsilon _1}^{}\right|\text{.}$$
(15)   
Because $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1}`$ do not depend on $`\epsilon _2`$, the statement of the theorem follows from the strong convergence of the adiabatic Moller operator to the static Moller operator.$`\mathrm{}`$

Following , one can second quantize our problem by considering $`P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _\pm \right)`$ as the spaces of particles and antiparticles (holes). If $`S_{\epsilon ,\lambda }`$ can be implemented in the Fock space, then one can follow the method of  to show that this result is equivalent with the spontaneous pair creations.

We want to point out that the local completeness of Moller operators is essentially in the proof of the above theorem. Supposing that they are only weakly local complete (i.e. $`RanP_{H_\lambda }\left(\sigma _{}\right)W_\lambda ^{}=RanP_{H_\lambda }\left(\sigma _{}\right)W_\lambda ^+P_{H_\lambda }\left(\sigma _{}\right)H_{a.c.}\left(H_\lambda \right)`$), then the eigenvector $`\psi _g\left(\left(s_0+\delta \right)/\epsilon _1\right)`$ may be trapped in $`P_{H_\lambda }\left(\sigma _{}\right)\left[RanW_\lambda ^+\right]^{}`$ under the evolution $`U_\epsilon `$. Unfortunately, it follows from  that this is not a rare case. Moreover, because of infinite dimensionality of this subspace, the weak convergence:

$$w\underset{\epsilon _10}{lim}P_{H_\lambda }\left(\sigma _{}\right)U_{\epsilon ,\lambda }(0,1/\epsilon _1)=0$$
(16)   
cannot be used to show that the vector escapes from $`P_{H_\lambda }\left(\sigma _{}\right)\left[RanW_\lambda ^+\right]^{}`$ after a long period of time. The conclusion is that during the ”switch on” process, the eigenvector is most likely trapped and stays in $`P_{H_\lambda }\left(\sigma _{}\right)\left[RanW_\lambda ^+\right]^{}`$. Then there is no way of defining a vector similar to $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1}`$ so the above proof cannot be applied. Because $`\left(W_{\epsilon ,\lambda }^{}\right)^{}`$ converges only weakly to $`\left(W_\lambda ^{}\right)^{}`$, there is no direct argument against the possibility that the ”switch off” process to bring this vector back to $`P_{H_0}\left(\sigma _+\right)`$.

## IV Conclusions

The last observation shows that even in this simplified form, the problem of spontaneous transitions is not trivial. A deep question about the subject is under what conditions the same result is true disregarding any order of the limits, in particular, for $`\epsilon _1=\epsilon _2`$. In the case when Moller operators are complete (or locally complete on $`\sigma _{}`$), the result of the last section reduces this problem to the study of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1}`$ properties. One might expect that

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tVe^{itH_0}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1}<M\text{,}$$
(17)   
with $`M`$ independent of $`\epsilon _1`$ in which case it is straightforward that the order of limits is unimportant. To prove a relation like 17, one has to prove that $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1}`$ belongs to a set of vectors for which the Cook criterion is valid, together with uniform estimates. From the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\epsilon _1}`$, one can see that this problem can be reduced to the study of the evolution of the eigenvector $`\psi \left(\left(s_0+\delta \right)/\epsilon _1\right)`$, which does not depend on $`\epsilon _1`$. In the most of the cases, the Schwartz’s space may be chosen as the set of vectors for which the Cook criterion holds. Unfortunately, to prove that the evolution of $`\psi \left(\left(s_0+\delta \right)/\epsilon _1\right)`$ belongs to this space is almost impossible. A much easier task is to prove that it belongs to some Sobolev space $`W^{k,p}`$. If this step is accomplished, we think that $`W^{k,p}`$ estimates of  may be used to complete the proof, at least for large dimensions.

###### Acknowledgement 2

The author gratefully acknowledges support, under the direction of J. Miller, by the State of Texas through the Texas Center for Superconductivity and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Advanced Technology Program, and by the Robert A. Welch Foundation. Also, the author acknowledge extremely helpful observations pointed out by one of the referees.