# [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 23:24:15 +0900

Dear Matti,

Comments are below.

Matti Pitkanen <matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote:

Subject: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity

>
> Dear Matti,
>
> Rethinking about your proof, I found an alternative simple proof of
> unitarity of S-matrix. Of course this is a proof on a formal level.
>
> [MP] I hardly dared to open your posting(;-) and only wondered what
> kind of new devilish trick proving my poor S-matrix trivial you
> have discovered this time! Have you read Hofstadter's book 'Goedel,
> Escher, Bach'? If not you should do it.

I am a specialist of Goedel's proof.

> There are hilarious stories whose
> basic theme is Goedel's theorem: every complete axiom system with
> sufficient complexity contains inconsistency. In one story
> the great dream of Achilles is to build a record player which is complete.
> When N:th generation record player is constructed,
> Tortoise gives for poor Achilles as a gift a record whose name happens
> to be "I am record not playable by record player of generation N". Every
> time Achilles manages to construct a new version
> of his record player the record brought by Tortoise manages to smash it
> into pieces. So I will look at your proof with horror in my heart(;-).
>
>
> The proof:
>
> Set
>
> R_0(z)=(H_0-z)^{-1}, z: non-real, H_0=L_0(free), V=L_0(int),
>
> P = projection onto the eigenspace of H_0 with eigenvalue 0.
>
> Let m_0 in P\HH (=eigenspace of H_0 with eigenvalue 0). Then the
> scattering
> state m(z) satisfies (I omit the bracket notation)
>
> m(z)=m_0+m_1(z)=m_0-R_0(z)Vm(z).
>
> Thus
>
> Pm(z)=Pm_0+Pm_1(z)=m_0+z^{-1}PVm(z). (1)
>
>
> [MP]
> Isn't it dangerous to talk about P|m(z)> since the action
> of P itself is defined as integral over infinitesimal circle around z=0?

No, your definition of P by integral does not work.

> You now how extremely tricky creature residue calculus is.
>
> Since I cannot afford too many record players, I am only willing
> to talk about P|m> defined as
>
> Int_C dz p(z)|m(z)
>
> with p(z)= (1/2pi)* (1/L_0-iz).
> **************************
>
>
> [Hitoshi]
> Therefore
>
> PVm(z)=zPm_1(z). (2)
> ***************
>
>
> [MP] This looks ok but I am a somewhat worried about applying P to
> |m_1(z)>.
>
> [MP]
> Your assumption is
>
> VPm_1(z)=0. (A)
>
> [MP] My assumption is actually weaker. P involves integration
> around small circle.

Your integral is not well-defined.

>
> [Hitoshi]
> Thus (2) and (A) yield
>
> VPVm(z)=zVPm_1(z)=0, which means
>
> <m(z)|VPV|m(z)>=0,
>
> hence
>
> PVm(z)=0.
>
> [MP] This states that state PV|m(z)> has zero norm. In real
> context this implies PV|m(z)> =0.

No, P and V does not commute.

> In p-adic context the
> fact that state has vanishing p-adic norm does not
> however imply that state vanishes. In fact that rows of T
> matrix have zero norm p-adically. So that this step
> is not allowed p-adically.
> *******************
>
> [Hitoshi]
> This and (2) imply
>
> Pm_1(z)=z^{-1}PVm(z)=0.
>
>
> [MP] Here there is dangerous 1/z which goes to zero and the
> conclusion should be taken with grain of salt. In any case
> Pm_1(z)=0 leads to trivial S-matrix.

You need to treat 1/z and its limit Im z->0. You seem to assume the existence
of

lim_{Im z->0} (1-R_0(z)V)^{-1}.

But this is the main issue of the problem. The rest that you gave and I gave
are only miscellaneous arguments.

>
> [Hitoshi]
> Thus by (1) we have
>
> Pm(z)=m_0.
>
> Therefore
>
> <m(z)|P|n(z)>=<m_0|n_0>: unitarity. (U)
> **********
>
>
> [MP] By the same proof one has
>
> <m_0|n(z)> = <m_0|P|n(z)>= <m_0|n_0> so that S-matrix is trivial!
> And my record player would be smashed into pieces again!

Maybe you have to begin your proof on the basis of sound mathematics.
The limit Im z->0 is the point. Others are just miscellaneous and trivial
things for mathematicians.

>
>
> I think that the problem is that one should not include P|n(z)>
> into the vocabulary but talk only about P|n> involving integration
> over z.

Your formulae including n(z) in the integrand is different from what you want
to mean.

The p-adically weak point of your proof is that
> zero norm for state does not imply vanishing of state in
> p-adic context.
> ******************
>
>
> Comment 1. As Im z -> 0,
>
> m(z) = m_0 - R_0(z)Vm(z) = (1+R_0(z)V)^{-1}m_0
>
> would be outside the Hilbert space \HH. Then (U) might lose its meaning as
> Im
> z -> 0. This would require the introduction of some larger space \HH_-.
>
> Comment 2. The present formulation of yours uses P explicitly. Namely
> m=m(z)
> may be outside of P\HH. Thus it is free of my criticism in [time 882].
>
>
> Best,
>
> MP
>
>
>
>

Physicists look like to talk much. Mathematicians just talk about what they
knows without making redundant comments.

Best wishes,
Hitoshi

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:40:47 JST