asking for the time evolution of a system means solving the schrdinger equation @xmath0 . restricted to the case of closed systems - which is done from now on - this equation
can formally be solved by @xmath1 with @xmath2 for the sake of simplicity and @xmath3 .
the whole dynamics is thus governed by the unitary propagator @xmath4 which maps any given `` initial state '' @xmath5 at time @xmath6 to its propagated counterpart @xmath7 at time @xmath8 .
quantum mechanical determinism is expressed by the fact that @xmath5 can also be regarded as a `` final state '' into which a state @xmath9 evolves by satisfying @xmath10 ( see fig .
[ fig : evol1 ] ) .
@xmath11{images / evol1.eps}\ ] ]    since equation  ( [ prop1 ] ) is valid for all times @xmath12 , giving @xmath13 , one is led to the operator identity @xmath14 in other words : the set of evolution operators @xmath15 forms a unitary group @xmath16 with the group property  ( [ group1 ] ) , giving any propagator @xmath17 its inverse element @xmath18 .
the physical meaning of this mathematical statement is profound : in quantum mechanics there is no microscopic arrow of time .
any state @xmath19 can be propagated to the future as well as to the past , so that there is a complete time symmetry .    in order to explain an arrow of time despite these facts , there are several ideas
a few of them are :    1 .
any measurement on the system interrupts the deterministic evolution of the state by applying random projections ( plus normalization ) instead of unitary operations ( the `` collapse of the wave function '' ) .
this process can not be reversed .
real physical systems can never be regarded as closed .
there is always an interacting environment with many unobservable degrees of freedom , inducing non - unitary time evolution of the observed system .
3 .   time symmetry in classical mechanics is only broken with respect to macroscopic properties of a system ( e.g. temperature or entropy ) .
considering macroscopic observables in quantum mechanics , this effect also shows up ( coarse graining argument ) .
all these ideas have been worked out to elaborate physical models with strong experimental support and all of them break time symmetry ( see e.g.  @xcite ) .
so one could be content with the situation and regard those models as fairly good explanations of an arrow of time , which is indeed an undeniable part of human experience .
a group of scientists around _ ilja prigogine _ ( nobel prize in chemistry 1977 ) , referred to as the `` brussels school '' , is not satisfied with the situation and has worked out a quantum mechanical formalism especially applying to unstable systems ( i.e. systems involving decay ) , where time symmetry is claimed to be broken at the microscopic level ( see e.g.  @xcite ) .
@xmath11{images / evol2.eps}\ ] ]    this fact is expressed by the splitting of the unitary group @xmath16 into two semigroups @xmath20 and @xmath21 of propagators for negative and positive times , such that past and future states can no longer be regarded as equivalent counterparts .
this leads to a so - called `` intrinsic irreversibility '' , implying a microscopic arrow of time ( see fig .
[ fig : evol2 ] ) .
this paper is separated into two different parts .
the first part is dedicated to a review of the rigged hilbert space formalism worked out by the brussels school .
it is shown how it works , how it applies to physical systems and what its advantages over standard quantum mechanics are .
the second part is devoted to the role of time symmetry within the rigged hilbert space formalism .
apart from its practical advantages , the brussels school points out that a microscopic arrow of time can be implemented here .
it will be shown that such an implementation is possible but not mathematically necessary .
writing down the formal solution  ( [ prop1 ] ) of a closed system s schrdinger equation is not yet really satisfying . how can expectation values of observables be numerically calculated ? to this aim one has to find a spectral decomposition of the system s hamiltonian @xmath22 , thus one has to solve the time - independent schrdinger equation @xmath23 . since @xmath22 is a self - adjoint operator , its spectral decomposition is complete and orthogonal and may therefore be used as a spectral decomposition of the unity operator @xmath24 .
furthermore the spectrum of @xmath22 is real and consits in general of a discrete part @xmath25 and a continuous part @xmath26 . in special cases
there are other parts , e.g. singular continuous and dense spectra , but these cases are excluded here . with this restriction , using the dirac bra - ket notation , the spectral decomposition of the unity operator reads in general @xmath27 where @xmath28 , @xmath29 and @xmath30 is the energy density .
as soon as the energy decomposition of the initial state @xmath31 , generally given by @xmath32 is known , the propagated state is also known and reads @xmath33 the expectation value of an observable @xmath34 can be calculated for any time @xmath8 using @xmath35 so the fundamental key to the dynamics of a system is the spectral decomposition of its hamiltonian .
all dynamical properties are monitored by this decomposition and here is where the new formalism enters .
there is a class of systems where the brussels schools s spectral decomposition of the hamiltonian differs from the usual decomposition : systems envolving decay , called _
unstable systems_.      the basic concept of the brussels school s formalism is to find a different spectral decomposition of the hamiltonian .
in contrast to the method of _ complex scaling _ ( see  @xcite ) , the hamiltonian is not modified and remains self - adjoint ; it only acquires a different representation involving generalized eigenvectors contained in an extended distribution space .
the modified decomposition can most easily be achieved by using the hamiltonian s _ resolvent _ @xmath36 the spectrum of @xmath22 is defined by the irregularities of its resolvent .
the discrete eigenvalues are the singularities of @xmath37 , i.e. those points in the complex plane where the operator @xmath38 is not everywhere defined on the hilbert space @xmath39 .
the continuous eigenvalues are those points where @xmath38 is an unbound ( and thus non - continuous ) operator on @xmath39 .
anywhere else on the complex plane the resolvent is an analytic function mapping complex numbers onto the set of linear bounded operators . as @xmath22 is self - adjoint , any irregularities of @xmath38 take place on the real axis , where the discrete eigenvalues form the point spectrum and the continuous eigenvalues define a cut in the complex plane ( see fig .
[ fig : spectrum ] ) .
@xmath40{images / spectrum.eps}\ ] ]    it is possible to find an analytic continuation of @xmath38 from both sides of the cut , each leading to a different operator @xmath41 with @xmath42 understood here and in the following .
note that this continuation is not possible at singularities embedded in the continuous spectrum .
note further that on the real axis outside the continuous spectrum both operators @xmath43 and @xmath44 coincide with @xmath38 .
the two continued resolvents are known as the _ retarded _ and the _ advanced _ _ green operator _ , respectively .
the resolvent can be used to construct eigenvectors .
the residuum of the resolvent at a discrete eigenvalue yields the dyadic product of the corresponding eigenvector : @xmath45 note that both dyadic products project onto the same subspace corresponding to @xmath46 .
if the discrete eigenvalue is isolated , i.e. not embedded in the continuous spectrum , both limits from above and below the real axis coincide . in the following
we will assume that all discrete eigenvalues are isolated and we therefore have @xmath47 a discrete eigenvector @xmath48 of @xmath22 can be obtained by applying the residual resolvent to any hilbert vector @xmath31 being not orthogonal to the eigenspace of @xmath46 .
: @xmath49 where @xmath50 is an adequate normalization constant , such that @xmath51 .
in analogy to the discrete case the residuum of the resolvent at one of the continuous eigenvalues yields the dyadic product of the corresponding continuous eigenvector : @xmath52 note that both dyadic products are equivalent representations of the @xmath53-operator @xmath54 , defined by @xmath55 where @xmath56 is the continuous part of the total hamiltonian @xmath22 .
since the continuous eigenvalues are not isolated , there are always pairs of eigenvectors .
they correspond to retarded and advanced solutions of the continuous eigenvalue equation and are known as _ incoming _ and _ outgoing waves_. both solutions can equivalently be used in the spectral decomposition and they can be constructed by @xmath57 where @xmath58 is a suitable normalization constant , such that @xmath59 .    using dyadic products ,
the retarded and advanced green operators can be written as @xmath60 where @xmath61 is any of the two dyadic products @xmath62 and the principal value distribution @xmath63 is defined by @xmath64 the difference of the two green operators gives the dyadic product of the continuous eigenvector : @xmath65 altogether , the spectral decomposition of the unity operator may be expressed by the exclusive use of the resolvent : @xmath66 this unity decomposition will be used as the starting point of the brussels schools s unity spectral decomposition .
the resolvent can be analytically continued to the complex plane beyond the real axis entering the _ second riemann sheet _ : @xmath67 on the one half of the complex plane where the continuation started ( the first riemann sheet ) , both operators coincide with the original resolvent .
on the other half ( the second riemann sheet ) it might happen that new singularities appear , and that in a pairwise manner : if @xmath68 is a singularity of @xmath69 in the lower half of the complex plane , then @xmath70 is a singularity of @xmath71 in the upper half ( see fig .
[ fig : riemann ] ) .
are exactly those with a resolvent having complex poles on the second riemann sheet .    @xmath72{images / riemann.eps}\ ] ]    the second riemann sheet poles act as complex resonances and cause the decay of certain states .
consider the continuous part of the unitary decomposition  ( [ unity ] ) : @xmath73 the following manipulations of @xmath74 are reducing its domain . as a consequence one
is forced to use a smaller _ test space _ , enlarging at the same time the distribution space and inducing this way a certain _ gelfand tripel _ or _ rigged hilbert space _ where the modified completeness relation remains valid .
we delay this discussion to section  [ rhs ] .
if one analytically deforms the integration path along the continuous spectrum @xmath26 to a path @xmath75 leading through the lower half of the complex plane , one enters the second riemann sheet and crosses the singularities of @xmath69 .
let the set of these singularities be defined by @xmath76 and be enclosed by @xmath77 . in the course of the deformation circular integrations around the singularities are split off , each leading to a residuum of @xmath69 at these points ( see fig .
[ fig : spectrum2 ] ) .
@xmath40{images / spectrum2.eps}\ ] ]    the modified operator now reads @xmath78 introducing a _ complex distribution _
@xmath79 , defined by @xmath80 where @xmath81 and @xmath82 being the analytic continuation of @xmath83 to respectively the upper and lower half of the complex plane , one can rewrite @xmath84 as @xmath85 in analogy to the standard case one defines dyadic products of _ generalized eigenvectors _ of @xmath22 by @xmath86 for the discrete case and , using  ( [ dyad2 ] ) , @xmath87 for the continuous case , where @xmath61 is any of the two dyadic products @xmath62 .
hence we have @xmath88 the generalized eigenvectors appear as pairs of right and left eigenvectors .
the discrete eigenvectors are called _ gamov vectors _ and can be constructed by : @xmath89 where @xmath31 is a suitable vector and @xmath90 is a normalization constant , such that @xmath91 . by adjunction
one sees that @xmath92 .
furthermore we have @xmath93 .
these objects are left and right eigenvectors of the hamiltonian @xmath22 corresponding to complex eigenvalues : @xmath94 since the gamov vectors have zero norm , they all coincide in hilbert space with the null vector , which is not allowed to be an eigenvector .
also , since @xmath22 is self - adjoint , it can not have any eigenvectors corresponding to complex eigenvalues .
concluding , the gamov vectors can not be elements of the hilbert space .
in fact they are distributions in a suitably chosen distribution space ( see section  [ intrinsic ] ) .
the continuous eigenvectors can be constructed in two ways : @xmath95 by application to test vectors with analytic extensions to the complex plane one sees that @xmath96 hence there are two equivalent bases given by @xmath97 both bases can equally be used to span the hilbert space @xmath39 .
arbitrarily we select @xmath98 and obtain a _ retarded _ unity decomposition @xmath99 in complete analogy one can modify the spectral decomposition by deformation of the integration path to @xmath81 in the _ upper _ half of the complex plane , entering the domain of @xmath71 with singularities at @xmath100 .
one then obtains the two bases @xmath101 such that @xmath102 arbitrarily choosing @xmath103 one obtains an _ advanced _ unity decomposition : @xmath104 which is just the adjoint of the retarded unity decomposition , so @xmath105 .
note , however , that both decompositions are equivalent representations of the unity operator , thus in the sense of an operator identity we have @xmath106 .
the unity decompositions obtained in the preceding section can be used for different representations of vectors and operators . using the retarded decomposition
the hamiltonian reads @xmath107 the adjoint of the above expression yields the hamiltonian in the _ advanced _ decomposition .
since both decompositions are equivalent representations , one sees that @xmath108 , i.e. the hamiltonian remains self - adjoint .
the propagator in the retarded decomposition reads @xmath109 since the complex numbers @xmath68 are located in the lower half of the complex plane , the contribution from the gamov vectors decays in the future .
if an initial hilbert state @xmath31 has gamov components , they will disappear for @xmath110 .
so if the state has no rotating components , i.e. @xmath111 , the whole state will disappear in the future with the decay rates of the gamov contributions given by the imaginary part of the contributing @xmath68 : @xmath112 with @xmath113 , @xmath114 and @xmath115 .
each contribution from a gamov state also induces a certain energy shift , given by the real part of the @xmath68 .
the advantage of the extended spectral decomposition is getting clear now : not only the stable frequencies can immediately be read from the spectrum , but the decay rates and the energy shifts , too . by additionally checking the amplitudes @xmath116 between the initial state and the gamov vectors
one has immediate access to the dissipative dynamics of the system .
apart from the contribution of the gamov vectors one has to consider the contribution from the generalized continuous eigenvectors .
let us call it the _ background contribution_. since the decomposition involves the complex distribution @xmath117 , a test vector @xmath118 has to be introduced .
the background contribution then reads : @xmath119 where @xmath120 and @xmath121 .
due to @xmath122 the integration path is transformed into the curve @xmath75 below the complex eigenvalues @xmath68 .
@xmath123 where @xmath124 and @xmath125 are the analytic continuations of respectively @xmath126 and @xmath127 to the lower half of the complex plane ( provided their existence ) .
the curve @xmath75 is arbitrary as long as @xmath128 surrounds @xmath129 , i.e. , @xmath75 is placed _ below _
the poles @xmath68 , which all have negative imaginary parts . for @xmath130 , due to the exponential factor @xmath131 , the background contribution thus becomes more and more neglectable in comparison with the pole contributions . for initial states with high decay rates , i.e. pole contributions with small imaginary parts
, the background contribution may be neglected already for small times @xmath130 .
this approximation is called the _
pole approximation _ and it is essentially equivalent to the _ wigner - weisskopf approximation _
( see  @xcite ) .
the time evolution of the initial state may be approximated by an exponential decay and its energy spectrum by a breit - wigner distribution .
this approximation is very popular , e.g. in quantum optics , and indeed in most cases it is a very good one .
obviously the above argument does not hold for negative times . here
, the contributions from the gamov vectors diverge . in several publications of the brussels school ( see e.g.  @xcite or _
a. bohm _ in  @xcite ) this is an argument in favour of a broken time symmetry , since for negative times the _ advanced _
decomposition  ( [ unity_ad ] ) is the better choice .
however , as will be shown below , this is a rather intuitive reasoning and does not enforce a break of time symmetry .
let us see what happens with the retarded decomposition of a hilbert state for negative times .
of course the gamov contributions now diverge , but they are compensated by the background contribution . for @xmath132 the background integral  ( [ bg2 ] ) gains influence , since the integration path @xmath75 is placed _ below _ the complex eigenvalues @xmath68 . the same argument , that for increasing @xmath130 the background contribution can be neglected in comparison with the pole contributions , is turned upside down for @xmath133 .
the smaller imaginary part of @xmath75 induces a higher divergence than the contribution of the poles . by construction
their divergences cancel each other , since the sum of both yields the contribution of the standard continuous eigenvectors ( see eq .
( [ unity_2rep ] ) ) , so a divergence of an initial hilbert state backwards in time is prevented .
the divergence of the gamov contributions is even more than compensated : if a hilbert state decays in the future , it will also decay in the past . to see this
one can use the advanced decomposition  ( [ unity_ad ] ) to investigate the system s evolution to the past and one would find a completely symmetric situation with majorizing pole contributions decaying backwards in time .
the situation is different if a gamov vector @xmath134 is taken as the initial state .
now there is only one pole contribution @xmath68 decaying in the future and diverging in the past .
but gamov vectors are only `` existing '' in the spectral representation of hilbert states and they themselves do not refer to elements of physical reality , similiar to all other `` generalized eigenstates '' appearing in spectral decompositions . as constituted by the axiomatic foundations of quantum mechanics a physically realizable state is represented by a hilbert vector ( actually a family of hilbert vectors normalized to unity and differing only in phase ) .
gamov states are no hilbert vectors , so their properties are not expected to be physically meaningful .    concluding , both decompositions are equivalent , but the use of the retarded decomposition is more _ intuitive _ for @xmath130 .
however , this should not be taken as the reason for a broken time symmetry . a more convincing argument in favour of a broken time symmetry is the splitting of _
test spaces_. as we have seen in  ( [ bg2 ] ) , analytic continuations of the test functions are needed to have the decompositions well - defined . in section  [ rhs ]
we will get back to this point .      besides the advantages pointed out in section  [ advantages ]
we now face another important advantage of the brussels school s formalism .
perturbation theory can be applied even in cases where standard quantum mechanics fails .
those cases are featured by the phenomenon of instability , which is strongly connected to the sensitivity of a system towards small perturbations .
let the system s hamiltonian be of the form @xmath135 where @xmath136 is the perturbation operator , switched on by the perturbation parameter @xmath137 $ ] , and @xmath138 is the unperturbed part of the hamiltonian , whose spectral decomposition is known and reads @xmath139 to simplify the discussion let the spectrum of @xmath138 be non - degenerate , so @xmath140 for @xmath141 .
as long as the perturbation strength @xmath142 is not explicetely needed , it is set to 1 and @xmath143 is written as @xmath22 .
the spectral decomposition of @xmath22 is yet unknown and reads in general @xmath144 where the sum is taken over the discrete spectrum @xmath25 and the integration is performed over the continuous spectrum @xmath26 of @xmath22 .
the continuous spectrum @xmath26 is not affected by the perturbation ( provided the perturbation operator @xmath136 is @xmath138-compact , which is assumed here ) and there is an identity mapping of perturbed and unperturbed continuous eigenvalues , so in both cases the integration is performed over @xmath26 .
the discrete case is different .
switching to _ brioullin - wigner _
perturbation theory let us define pairs of orthogonal projection operators @xmath145 furthermore let the perturbed eigenvector @xmath146 of @xmath22 be not normalized to 1 but rather let @xmath147 , such that @xmath148 . applying these projections to the perturbed eigenvalue equation @xmath149 one obtains the _ brioullin - wigner formulas _ for the shifted eigenstate @xmath146 and the shifted energy @xmath46 : @xmath150 iteration leads to the corresponding perturbation series @xmath151 take a closer look at the above formulas  ( [ briou1 ] ) and  ( [ briou2 ] ) .
they are only valid if the expression @xmath152 is well - defined . here _ resonance _ appears as a major obstacle .
there are two different types of resonance making a perturbation expansion of eigenstates and eigenvalues impossible :    1 .   *
discrete resonance * : the eigenvalue @xmath153 may be shifted in the course of the perturbation to a neighboured eigenvalue of @xmath138 ( see fig .  [
fig : shift]a ) .
expression  ( [ proj1 ] ) is no longer defined and the corresponding perturbation series diverges on account of the summation term .
* continuous resonance * : if the eigenvalue @xmath153 lies next to the continuous spectrum of @xmath138 , it may be shifted there ( see fig .  [
fig : shift]b ) .
now the integral term in  ( [ proj1 ] ) causes a divergence of the perturbation series .    in both cases
the perturbation expansion is limited to a finite convergence radius of the perturbation parameter @xmath142 . outside its range
the shifted eigenvalue disappears from the spectrum of @xmath154 and the mapping from the unperturbed to the perturbed spectrum is no longer one - to - one ( see fig .  [
fig : vanish ] ) .
@xmath11{images / shift.eps}\ ] ]    now regard the case of discrete unperturbed eigenvalues _ embedded _ in the continuous spectrum . here
the convergence radius of @xmath142 reduces to zero , i.e. the perturbation series are no longer analytic in @xmath142 .
an arbitralily small perturbation induces continuous resonance . as a consequence
embedded states get unstable and start to decay .
decaying states can not be part of the spectral decomposition of @xmath154 , they disappear from there and can not be reconstructed for @xmath155 , i.e. @xmath156 . hence perturbation theory is not aplicable .
@xmath157{images / vanish.eps}\ ] ]    there is a way out : one has to include unstable states , i.e. gamov vectors , into the spectral decomposition of @xmath154 . in terms of perturbation
theory the gamov vectors can be constructed by modified brioullin - wigner equations : @xmath158 where @xmath159 are the singularities of @xmath43 on the lower half of the complex plane and @xmath160 are those of @xmath44 on the upper half .
there is a one - to - one mapping between the disappearing discrete eigenvalues @xmath161 and the complex eigenvalues @xmath68 .
iteration leads to the corresponding perurbation series @xmath162 the generalized continuous eigenstates are @xmath163 with the complex distribution @xmath164 defined in  ( [ compl_dist ] ) .
the standard continous eigenvectors can be constructed using the _ lippmann - schwinger equation _
@xmath165 or its iteration , the _
born series _ : @xmath166 take a closer look at the construction of gamov states in eq .
( [ briou3 ] ) .
the divergences due to continuous resonance are prevented by introducing a small complex shift in the denominator and analytic continuation to the second riemann sheet . as a consequence ,
the energy eigenvalues are shifted to respectively the lower and upper complex plane , inducing exponential decay and breit - wigner energy distribution of the corresponding gamov states .
the expressions are still analytic in @xmath142 , so perturbation theory can be applied .
this is a major advantage of the brussels school s formalism .
the friedrichs model ( k. friedrichs 1948 , see  @xcite ) is the simplest model involving instability . here
one single discrete state is coupled to a continuum of states by an interaction hamiltonian @xmath136 .
a physical analogon to this model is e.g. the _ wigner - weisskopf model _ ( wigner and weisskopf 1930 , see  @xcite ) of a twolevel atom coupled to the vacuum field .
another example is the _
auger effect _ of autoionisation ( see e.g.  @xcite ) .
the total hamiltonian is of the form @xmath167 using the _ second resolvent identity _
@xmath168 with the resolvent @xmath169 of the free hamiltonian @xmath138 and the resolvent @xmath170 of the total hamiltonian .
the resolvent @xmath37 can be obtained by applying it to the free states @xmath171 and @xmath172 and doing some rearrangement : @xmath173\nonumber \\      & & \left[\langle1|+\int_0^\infty d\omega\,\frac{w^*(\omega ) }      { z-\omega}\langle\omega|\right]\nonumber \\      & & + \int_0^\infty d\omega\frac1{z-\omega}|\omega\rangle\langle\omega|\quad.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the complex function @xmath174 has analytic extensions @xmath175 from above and below to the real axis .
the zeros of @xmath176 on the second riemann sheet define the complex poles of the resolvent : @xmath177 the pole @xmath178 can be obtained by numerically calculating the complex zero of @xmath179 . in first order one gets @xmath180 the gamov vectors can be obtained using eqns .
( [ g_eigenvector1a ] ) and  ( [ g_eigenvector1b ] ) : @xmath181_+}|\omega\rangle\right]\\      \langle f_1 ^ -|&=&\frac1{c_1}\lim_{e\rightarrow z_1}(e - z_1)\langle1|r_+(e)\\      & = & \frac1{\sqrt{\eta_+{}'(z_1)}}\left[\langle1|+\int_0^\infty d\omega\ ,      \frac{w^*(\omega)}{[z_1-\omega]_+}\langle\omega|\right]\quad,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the complex distribution is defined by @xmath182_+ }      : = \lim_{e\rightarrow z_1}\int_0^\infty d\omega\ ,      \frac{\varphi(\omega)}{e-\omega+i\epsilon}\quad.\ ] ] the standard outgoing states can be constructed using eq .
( [ eigenvector2 ] ) : @xmath183\quad.\end{aligned}\ ] ] using eq .
( [ g_eigenvector2 ] ) the generalized continuous eigenvectors read @xmath184\quad,\\      \langle f^-(\omega)|&=&\langle u^+(\omega)|\\      & = & \langle\omega|+\frac{w(\omega)}{\eta_-(\omega)}\times\nonumber \\      & & \times\left[\langle1|+\int_0^\infty d\omega'\,\frac{w^*(\omega')}{\omega-\omega'-i\epsilon }      \langle\omega|\right]\quad,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the complex distribution @xmath164 is defined by  ( [ compl_dist ] ) with the curve @xmath75 leading from @xmath185 to @xmath186 below @xmath178 .    in the pole approximation ,
i.e. neglecting the background contribution from the continuous eigenvectors , the initial state @xmath171 decays with a decay rate @xmath187 given by two times the imaginary part of @xmath178 , @xmath188 which is in agreement with fermi s golden rule .
when dealing with infinite dimensions , the hilbert space appears to be too small in the following sense : position and momentum operator have no hilbert eigenvectors and dirac s bra - ket formalism is mathematically not justified . to correct this problem ,
the hilbert space must be enlarged to include _ improper states _ like @xmath53-functions and plane waves . the framework to enable these features is given by the theory of the _ gelfand triplet _ , also called the _ rigged hilbert space _ ( rhs ) .
@xmath11{images / leaving.eps}\ ] ]    the concept is the following ( comp .
e.g.  @xcite ) .
take the hilbert space @xmath189 of squared integrable functions and find a suitable test space @xmath190 with the properties    1 .
@xmath191 is a locally convex topological vector space , 2 .
@xmath191 is complete with respect to its own topology , 3 .
@xmath191 is dense in @xmath192 ,    such that the topological dual @xmath193 of @xmath191 , consisting of all linear continuous functionals on @xmath191 , called _ distributions _ , includes the desired improper states .
the hilbert space itself is his own topological dual , i.e. @xmath194 . for any test space @xmath191 being smaller than @xmath39 , the gelfand triplet @xmath195 makes it possible to extend the bracket @xmath196 to all pairs @xmath197 , @xmath198 by @xmath199 on pairs of hilbert vectors the bracket conicides with the scalar product in @xmath192 .
the `` kets '' and `` bras '' are now identified by linear functionals on the opposite dual space , i.e. @xmath200 where @xmath201 or @xmath193 .
an operator @xmath34 can be extended to the distribution space @xmath193 using @xmath202 hence @xmath34 can only be extended to @xmath193 if its adjoint @xmath203 is defined on and does not lead out of the test space @xmath191 : @xmath204    the test space of standard quantum mechanics is the schwartz space @xmath205 of rapidly decreasing functions , defined by @xmath206 the schwartz space is a physically convenient test space , since here position and momentum operator are everywhere defined , they fulfill  ( [ extend_op ] ) , they are self - adjoint and have their eigenvectors among the _ tempered distributions _ in @xmath207 .
furthermore , they keep their real spectrum , which makes the rhs @xmath208 be called a _ tight rigged _
hilbert space .
another popular test space is the space @xmath209 of @xmath210-functions with compact support .
but @xmath209 is not tight rigged , since the momentum operator obtains a complex spectrum with complex plane waves @xmath211 as eigenvectors .
now we turn to the rhs of the brussels school .
as already stated in section  [ deform ] the definition of generalized eigenvectors is only possible if the test functions can be analytically continued to whether the lower or the upper half of the complex plane .
the retarded right eigenvectors @xmath134 and @xmath212 involve complex distributions continuating the test functions @xmath213 to the lower half of the complex plane , denoted by @xmath214 .
there is a class of functions fulfilling this condition : the hardy class @xmath215 from below ( for detailed information on hardy classes see  @xcite ) .
if @xmath216 is in @xmath215 then its complex conjugate @xmath217 is in the hardy class @xmath218 from above , whose members can be analytically continuated to the upper half of the complex plane , denoted by @xmath219 . in detail : the function @xmath220 is in @xmath221 if and only if it has an analytic continuation to @xmath222 , such that there is a @xmath223 and @xmath224 thus , restricted to the real line , hardy functions are @xmath225-functions .
an equivalent definition can be given using the _ paley - wiener theorem _ : the hardy spaces @xmath221 are formed by the inverse fourier transforms of @xmath225-functions with support on respectively the positive and negative semiaxis @xmath226 : @xmath227 for physical convenience it is necessary , that the test functions are also in the schwartz class @xmath228 .
furthermore , their energy representation can be restricted to the positive semiaxis , since energy is bounded from below by zero .
altogether , the test spaces of the brussels school are defined by @xmath229 the topological duals @xmath230 then include the complex distributions used in the generalized eigenvectors .
the formalism of the brussels school can be applied in the rhs @xmath231 since there are _ two _ rhs s , one has to investigate how to deal with them .
the retarded unity decomposition  ( [ unity_ret ] ) contains the dyadic products @xmath232 . applying test vectors @xmath233 and @xmath234 to both sides one obtains @xmath235 the above expression only makes sense ,
if @xmath127 and @xmath236 are both in @xmath237 , thus @xmath238 must be in @xmath239 .
hence the instructions for computing brackets while using the retarded unity decomposition are : on the left hand you have to use @xmath239-vectors and on the right hand @xmath237-vectors .
however , since both test spaces are dense in @xmath39 , you would not have to care too much , if there was not a significant subtlety : time symmetry is broken . to see this we investigate the time evolution of a test vector @xmath240 : @xmath241 since @xmath220 is in @xmath215 , there is an analytic continuation @xmath242 to @xmath214 and so there is one for its propagated counterpart , given by @xmath243 obviously , condition  ( [ hardy_def ] ) is violated for @xmath244 and @xmath133 , thus time evolution leads out of the test space for @xmath133 . as a consequence test functions in @xmath237
can only be propagated to the future .
analogically , test functions in @xmath239 can only be propagated to the past .
using condition  ( [ extend_op ] ) one finds in addition that the extension of the unitary propagator @xmath17 to the distribution spaces @xmath245 and @xmath246 is only possible for respectively @xmath130 and @xmath133 .
so retarded gamov vectors @xmath134 in @xmath245 `` propagate '' ( as part of the spectral decomposition of hilbert vectors ) only to the future and advanced gamov vectors @xmath247 in @xmath246 propagate only to the past .
the unitary propagator group @xmath248 hence splits into a semigroup @xmath249 propagating to the future ( and applying to vectors in @xmath237 and @xmath245 ) and a second one @xmath250 propagating to the past ( and applying to vectors in @xmath239 and @xmath246 ) .
this feature is called by the brussels school the _ intrinsic irreversibility _ of quantum mechanics and is identified with a microscopic arrow of time .
is the special choice of the two rhs s _ necessary _ for the correct mathematical implementation of gamov states ?
if so , one could regard the splitting of the unitary time evolution group into two semigroups as enforced by the mathematical concept .
this point of view is taken by _
a. bohm _ and _ n.l .
harshman _ in  @xcite :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ `` philosophizing alone would not be enough to take a semigroup instead .
to arrive at the semigroup , we start from the empirically desirable properties of gamov resonance states and let mathematics determine the path . ''
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    the above mentioned properties are given by @xmath251 with @xmath252 .
starting from these conditions , following the reasoning of section  [ intrinsic ] , one is led to the two rhs s with broken time symmetry . however , the argumentation is not valid if a rigged hilbert space can be found , where gamov vectors are included and time symmetry is preserved .
let us start with the space @xmath209 of @xmath210-functions with compact support .
as already mentioned , this space is a perfect test space fulfilling the requirements given in section  [ rhs2 ] .
furthermore we have @xmath253 . now regard the space @xmath254 of inversely fourier transformed @xmath209-functions : @xmath255 since the inverse fourier transform is a one - to - one mapping on the schwartz space @xmath205 , we have @xmath256 let @xmath257 be a @xmath209-function .
its inverse fourier transform @xmath258 reads @xmath259 where @xmath260 is the compact support of @xmath257 .
the analytic continuation of @xmath220 to the complex plane exists and is an entire function , given by @xmath261 for all @xmath262 ( see  @xcite , theorem 7.22 ) . since the inverse fourier transform is a linear continuous one - to - one mapping , the transformed topology @xmath263 of @xmath209 , @xmath264 transfers all topological properties from @xmath209 to @xmath254 .
thus , @xmath265 is a topological vector space fulfilling all requirements of a test space in @xmath266 .
since @xmath254 contains functions being analytic in the whole complex plane , the topological dual @xmath267 contains the retarded gamov vectors defined by  ( [ req1 ] ) and  ( [ req2 ] ) .
furthermore , it contains also the _ advanced _ gamov vectors @xmath247 with eigenvalues @xmath70 in the upper half of the complex plane , as well as any other generalized eigenvector used in the extended spectral decompositions  ( [ unity_ret ] ) and  ( [ unity_ad ] ) .
because of relation  ( [ z_schwartz ] ) all @xmath254-functions are @xmath205-functions , so @xmath254 is already a physical convenient test space and standard quantum mechanics is applicable , too . since @xmath268 the space @xmath254 does neither include any of the test spaces @xmath269 nor is it part of it , i.e. @xmath270
but of course @xmath271 .
so @xmath254 is a different test space , whose topological duals include any of the complex distributions needed for a comfortable treatment of decaying systems .
however , there is no intrinsic irreversibility .
let the @xmath209-function @xmath257 have a compact support bounded by the finite interval @xmath272 $ ] .
its inverse fourier transform @xmath220 can be propagated in time yielding @xmath273 , whose fourier transform , @xmath274 has a compact support bounded by the finite interval @xmath275 $ ] , thus it remains compact for all @xmath276 and @xmath277 stays in @xmath209 , so @xmath278 stays in @xmath254 .
hence the propagator @xmath17 does not lead out of the test space for any @xmath276 .
consequently , the unitary propagator group @xmath279 can be extended to the distribution space @xmath267 without any splitting .
the support of @xmath280-functions can be restricted to the positive semiaxis , due to the positivity of energy , and the rhs @xmath281 is thus suitable for the presented concepts .
any desired unity decomposition including gamov vectors , retarded or advanced , can equivalently be used . as far as hilbert states are concerned ,
no unphysical behaviour is predicted and any calculated physical quantity is numerically identical to the one calculated by standard methods .      apart from pure mathematics there is a physical reasoning presented by members of the brussels school who try to derive the special choice of the two hardy classes from the assumption of _ causality _ ( see e.g. schulte and twarock in @xcite or antoine , bohm and harshman in @xcite , from where the citations below are taken ) .
this is done the following way .
starting point is a special assumption of _ causality _ which is called the `` preparation@xmath282registration arrow of time '' :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ `` time translation of the registration apparatus relative to the preparation apparatus makes sense only by an amount of @xmath283 . ''
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    this is translated into the language of quantum mechanics to a so - called `` quantum mechanical arrow of time '' :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ `` a state @xmath284 must be prepared before an observable @xmath285 can be measured in that state , i.e. @xmath286 must be prepared during @xmath287 . ''
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    interpreting measurement formally as a scattering experiment , the prepared state @xmath288 is identified with an incoming state and the measured state @xmath289 with an outgoing state ( see fig .  [
fig : measurement ] ) .
survival probabilities of the initial ( i.e. prepared ) state are thus calculated by transition probabilities of the incoming and outgoing state : @xmath290 using the energy decomposition this implies @xmath291 using the paley - wiener theorem  ( [ paley - wiener ] ) one is led to the desired conclusion @xmath292 hence , founding on the given formulation of causality the only correct choice of a rigged hilbert space is the choice of the two rhs s of the brussels school . in other words : standard quantum mechanics has not yet found a microscopic arrow of time because it has been incomplete in its axiomatic foundation .
@xmath293{images / measurement.eps}}\ ] ]      the above argumentation is correct , but it can not be taken as a _ derivation _ of the arrow of time . as is obvious even by the choice of words ( `` before '' , `` after '' , etc . ) , the given `` causality '' assumption is already based on the arrow of time , hence it is logically impossible to derive the latter from the former .
causality itself does not require an arrow of time , since neither newton s law nor schrdinger s law contradict causality , although both theories are perfectly time - symmetric .
yet , the `` preparation@xmath282registration arrow of time '' refers explicitely to _ open subsystems _ , namely the preparation apparatus and the measuring apparatus , which are coupled together to form a composite system . though one can not generally infer from statements about the time evolution of open subsystems to statements about the evoution of closed composite systems , especially not when the subsystems are involved in a measurement process . hence postulating a `` preparation@xmath282registration arrow of time '' for _ all _ systems equals introducing a microscopic arrow of time _ by hand _ into quantum mechanics .
once the arrow of time has been put into the mathematics , it is not surprising that it will reappear eventually .
the situation can be visualized by fig .
[ fig : circular ] .
@xmath294{images / circular.eps}\ ] ]    thus , the special choice of the two rhs s must be regarded as being _
equivalent to a postulation of a global microscopic arrow of time_. the split rhs s are a mathematical mirror image of the empirically motivated splitting between past and future .
as already stated in the introduction , it is possible to explain an arrow of time due to time - asymmetric evolution of _ macroscopic _ observables and due to _ local _ observations on subsystems . but respecting a _ global microscopic arrow of time _ , there is a major difference between standard and rigged hilbert space quantum mechanics . in standard
quantum mechanics there is no way to implement a global microscopic arrow of time except perhaps by applying brute force and splitting the unitary evolution group axiomatically into two semigroups . in rigged hilbert space
quantum mechanics one has the choice of either time - symmetric or time - asymmetric microscopic evolution , due to the choice of the test spaces . hence , in the rhs formulation it is possible to implement a global microscopic arrow of time in contrast to standard quantum mechanics .
so one could argue that nature _ obviously _ has taken the time - asymmetric choice of two test spaces instead of one .
but what does `` obviously '' mean
? one might mention our everyday experiences or global time - asymmetric boundary conditions like the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics . though these experiences and boundary conditions are all related to subsystems or far from being microscopic .
the `` universe '' is a construction from observations on subsystems on a _ very _ macroscopic scale .
altogether , these time - asymmetric boundary conditions all base on _ local macroscopic observations _ and hence , as already stated , they do not give rise to a real problem with quantum mechanics , which is a set of microscopic laws .
so the choice of global microscopic time - symmetry or time - asymmetry remains merely axiomatic and can not be derived from other physical postulates .
the quantum mechanical formalism , developped by the brussels school , offers a comfortable treatment of decaying systems , where standard quantum mechanics requires a lot more effort .
the generalized spectral decompositions involve gamov states and can be interpreted in a physically intuitive manner .
they directly yield important physical quantities like decay rates and energy level shifts .
perturbation expansions become possible in cases , where standard quantum mechanics fails .
in contrast to standard quantum mechanics , where the implementation of a microscopic arrow of time is not possible , the rigged hilbert space formalism offers the possibility to incorporate such an arrow by the special choice of two different gelfand triplets . due to this choice ,
the unitary time evolution group splits into two semigroups , each one for respectively the future and the past .
however , it is shown that the use of gamov states does not require this splitting . as a counter example
, one single gelfand triplet is constructed , where the formalism of the brussels school can be applied and where time symmetry is preserved .
furthermore , it is pointed out that the physical arguments in favour of the special choice of two gelfand triplets are not independent from the arrow of time and thus can not be used for a derivation of the latter . hence even within the framework of the rigged hilbert space formalism , the global microscopic arrow of time remains a postulate .
i would like to thank f. petruccione , h .-
breuer , m. bordemann , and m. wilkens for stimulating discussions and editorial advice and the referee for valuable comments .
i also thank all other people talking with me about the topic of this paper and contributing in many ways to its completion .