Duality between the quantum inverted harmonic oscillator and inverse square potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper we show how the quantum mechanics of the inverted harmonic oscillator (IHO) can be mapped to the quantum mechanics of a particle in a super-critical inverse square potential (ISP). We demonstrate this by relating both of these systems to the Berry–Keating system with Hamiltonian <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>H</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mi>x</mml:mi> <mml:mi>p</mml:mi> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mi>p</mml:mi> <mml:mi>x</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . It has long been appreciated that the quantum mechanics of the ISP has an ambiguity in choosing a boundary condition near the origin and we show how this ambiguity is mapped to the IHO system. Imposing a boundary condition requires specifying a distance scale where it is applied and changes to this scale come with a renormalisation group (RG) evolution of the boundary condition that ensures observables do not directly depend on the scale (which is arbitrary). Physical scales instead emerge as RG invariants of this evolution. The RG flow for the ISP is known to follow limit cycles describing the discrete breaking of classical scale invariance in a simple example of a quantum anomaly, and we find that limit cycles also occur for the IHO. However, unlike the ISP where the continuous scaling symmetry is explicit, in the case of the IHO it is hidden and occurs because the Hamiltonian is part of a larger su(1,1) spectrum generating algebra. Our map does not require the boundary condition to be self-adjoint, as can be appropriate for systems that involve the absorption or emission of particles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".