the spin - orbit coupled quantum systems are described by the hamiltonian which is realized as the differential operator in the tensor product space @xmath0 : @xmath1 in ( [ eq : diffop ] ) , @xmath2 stands for the spin - orbit - coupling strength , @xmath3 is the strength of the magnetic zeeman field @xcite .
the symbol @xmath4 denotes the three - dimensional laplace operator , @xmath5 ( @xmath6 ) is the gradient in the @xmath7th component of a three - dimensional position - vector .
the standard pauli matrices are represented by @xmath8 .
the imaginary unit @xmath9 . here and elsewhere
we write @xmath10 for an identity operator .
the space in which @xmath10 acts is expected to be understood from the context .
the main purpose of the current exposition is to study the spectrum of self - adjoint extensions of the symmetric operator constructed from ( [ eq : diffop ] ) .
let @xmath11 be defined on a set of compactly supported smooth functions , with the support outside the origin @xmath12 : @xmath13 then @xmath11 is symmetric with respect to the scalar product in the hilbert tensor product @xmath14 . in applications , the self - adjoint extensions of so defined @xmath11
are referred to as the rashba spin - orbit coupled hamiltonians considered in the presence of the _ out - of - plane _ magnetic field , with the impurity scattering treated via the spin - dependent contact interaction .
a good review on various types of disorder in condensed - matter systems is given in @xcite .
for the analysis of long - range interactions in electronic systems , as opposed to the present discussion where the zero - range interactions are studied , the reader may refer to @xcite .
the special case @xmath15 was discussed recently in @xcite , where , among other things , the authors examined the effects due to the _ in - plane _ magnetic field . the corresponding term in ( [ eq : diffop ] )
is then replaced by a unitarily equivalent one @xmath16 . in their theorem  2 in @xcite the authors showed under what conditions the point spectrum is empty . here
we prove that under exactly the same conditions there is a subfamily of self - adjoint extensions whose point spectrum is @xmath17 .
the case @xmath18 is a classic one .
the book @xcite is much used as a reference book for a standard ( or von neumann ) operator extension theory ; see also an extensive list of references therein .
the extensions constructed using spaces of boundary values are discussed , for example , in @xcite .
a modern and comprehensive review of various operator techniques is given in @xcite .
in one and two spatial dimensions , the spectral properties of self - adjoint extensions of @xmath11 , for @xmath19 , were studied in @xcite .
a mean field interpretation , which is commonly accepted in physics literature , can be found in @xcite .      a recently proposed technique @xcite ( see also @xcite ) for producing the rashba - type spin - orbit coupling for a three - dimensional ultracold atom serves as our main motive to examine a general case @xmath20 .
many more motivating aspects concerning the dynamics of quantum particles can be found in @xcite , and we do not repeat them here .
contrary to @xcite , where the modified krein resolvent formula @xcite has been used as a starting point for calculating the resolvent of @xmath11 ( with @xmath15 ) , here , we exploit the theory of singular finite rank perturbations @xcite .
on the one hand , the two approaches lead to an identical description of the boundary conditions that ensure self - adjointness @xcite . on the other hand , the singularities of green function ( see _ e.g. _ @xcite and references therein ) are successfully eliminated using the so - called renormalization procedure @xcite . such a procedure is implemented in the theory of singular perturbations in its most natural way @xcite .    as an illustration ,
let us consider a formal `` operator '' @xmath21 , where @xmath11 in ( [ eq : diffop ] ) is written in matrix representation , and where @xmath22 is the dirac distribution concentrated at the origin ; for @xmath18 , this type of operator , when restricted to one spatial dimension but extended to the many - body case , is studied in @xcite .
the matrix @xmath23 , which is hermitian and invertible , plays the role of the coupling parameter of contact interaction .
the lipmann
schwinger equation for the perturbed operator shows that the solution of the integral equation is inconsistent , in that the green function for @xmath11 is singular at @xmath24 ( see ( [ eq : frg ] ) for the details ) , meaning that the equation does not have a unique solution .
the phenomenon is usually called the ultraviolet divergence . for , the fourier integral of the green function in the momentum representation diverges when @xmath24 . to avoid divergences ,
typically one introduces an auxiliary uv momentum cut - off and regularizes the interaction parameter .
the details can be found in ( * ? ? ?
3.7 ) , see also @xcite . in the theory of singular perturbations ,
however , one deals with a regularization and a renormalization procedure applied to @xmath22 . in this case
the regularization is meant in the sense that the dirac distribution is extended to some subspace of a hilbert space . roughly speaking the action of @xmath22 on the function which is undefined at the origin
is replaced by the action of some regularized @xmath22 .
the present discussion is justified rigorously in sec .
[ sec : self ] .
next , the regularized and renormalized @xmath22 is determined by the choice of an hermitian matrix @xmath25 , which is usually called _ admissible _ ; the matrix realization of @xmath25 is due to an extra @xmath26 in ( [ eq : diffop ] ) .
it turns out that the theory also deals with an additional parameter ( _ i.e. _ the matrix @xmath25 ) .
however , the precise operator realization of @xmath21 by extending @xmath22 gives one an advantage over the cut - off practice in an obvious way .
one shows that the self - adjoint realizations of @xmath21 are parametrized in terms of @xmath27 , with the exception of the trivial extension corresponding to @xmath28 and the friedrichs extension corresponding to @xmath29 . for a general @xmath19 ,
the functional @xmath22 is of the class for which @xmath25 is not unique , but in some cases @xmath25 can be found exactly ; _
@xmath30 for @xmath18 .
for some special classes of singular finite rank perturbations , the uniqueness of @xmath25 is discussed in great detail in @xcite .
another reason for choosing the approach of singular perturbations is that the scattering theory for singular finite rank perturbations is fully established ( * ? ? ?
4 ) : using our results , the scattering matrix can be found directly from ( * ? ? ?
* eq .  ( 4.34 ) ) . for this particular reason we do not examine scattering states but rather concentrate on analytic properties of the spectrum .      to the best of our knowledge ,
the model studied in the current paper is investigated by means of the theory of singular perturbations for the first time .
the lack of rigorous results concerning the spectral analysis of the perturbed @xmath11 may be explained by the complexity of the green function for the free hamiltonian ( or else the trivial extension of @xmath11 ) .
a typical strategy is to write the green function in the momentum representation .
then the dispersion relation and the essential spectrum are easy to deduce .
however , the computation of the inverse fourier transform of green function is a rather troublesome task .
recently @xcite , a hypergeometric series representation for the green function in the coordinate representation has been derived .
in contrast , the analogous result in two spatial dimensions possesses a closed form @xcite .
the details are listed in theorems  [ thm : without ] , [ thm : existence ] , [ thm : existence3].,title="fig : " ]    0.35 .
the details are listed in theorems  [ thm : without ] , [ thm : existence ] , [ thm : existence3].,title="fig : " ]    0.35 .
the details are listed in theorems  [ thm : without ] , [ thm : existence ] , [ thm : existence3].,title="fig : " ]    the absolute convergence of hypergeometric series causes the limitation on the parameters @xmath19 .
the result is that the infimum of the continuous spectrum @xmath31 must satisfy the condition @xmath32 . here
@xmath33 equals @xmath3 if @xmath34 and @xmath35 otherwise .    for @xmath2 arbitrarily small or zero ,
the restriction can be removed by analytic continuation . using the resolvent formula for a perturbed hamiltonian ( or else nontrivial self - adjoint extension of @xmath11 ) , we find that the eigenvalues solve the transcendental equation .
we then derive the solutions analytically with the accuracy up to @xmath36 . in this particular case
we observe a tendency that the spin - orbit term moves the eigenvalues down from the threshold @xmath37 .
in general , the main conclusions following from our results that concern eigenvalues can be schematically described as shown in fig .
[ fig : abc ] : for @xmath38 small , there are no eigenvalues above the threshold @xmath37 no matter the form of a nonzero coupling parameter of contact interaction ( @xmath23 ) . for @xmath2 large
, there exists a subfamily of hamiltonians having eigenvalues in @xmath39 $ ] , for some lucid @xmath40 , but none of hamiltonians has eigenvalues in @xmath41 .
let @xmath42 be a lower semi - bounded self - adjoint operator in a separable hilbert space @xmath43 .
let @xmath44 be the scale of hilbert spaces associated to @xmath42 .
the scalar product and the induced norm in @xmath45 are denoted by @xmath46 and @xmath47 , respectively . consider the orthonormal system @xmath48 and define the duality pairing @xmath49 , for @xmath50 , in a usual way ( * ? ? ?
the orthogonality , which is assumed with respect to the scalar product @xmath51 in @xmath52 , implies the one with respect to @xmath53 .
we write @xmath54 for the column matrix @xmath55 ; @xmath56 is the column matrix @xmath57 .
let @xmath58 be a symmetric and densely defined restriction of @xmath42 to the domain @xmath59 for @xmath60 ( the resolvent set of @xmath42 ) , we define the functions @xmath61 and the column matrices @xmath62 .
the functions @xmath63 are orthonormal with respect to the scalar product @xmath64 in @xmath43 , for it holds @xmath65 ( @xmath66 ) .
let @xmath67 be the adjoint of @xmath58 .
then @xmath68 and @xmath67 has deficiency indices ( 2,2 ) .
considering @xmath69 as a banach space @xmath70 with the norm @xmath71
( @xmath72 ; @xmath73 ; @xmath74 ) , we write @xmath75 the column matrix @xmath76 , and we regard @xmath77 as a functional @xmath78 .
let @xmath79 be an extension of @xmath80 to @xmath69 @xcite : @xmath81 where @xmath82 and @xmath83 are as above , and where @xmath84 . the matrix @xmath85 is the admissible matrix for the functionals of class @xmath86 .
then @xmath79 is an element of the topological dual @xmath87 equipped with the supremum norm @xmath88 ; the supremum is taken over @xmath89 and @xmath90 such that @xmath91 .    using another decomposition @xmath92
, we have that , for @xmath90 , @xmath93 ( @xmath94 ; @xmath95 ) .
but then , using ( [ eq : fdomh * ] ) and ( [ eq : fdomh*0 ] ) , @xmath96 ( @xmath97 is regarded as a functional @xmath78 ; the column matrix @xmath98 ) and @xmath99 using the normalization of @xmath63 , equations  ( [ eq : fdomh*0 ] ) and ( [ eq : bbp ] ) , and @xmath100 one shows that @xmath101 is a boundary triple for @xmath67 .    the self - adjoint extensions @xmath102 of @xmath58 in @xmath43 are in one - to - one correspondence with an hermitian matrix @xmath103 , and they are defined as restrictions of @xmath67 to the domain @xcite @xmath104 ( @xmath27 ; @xmath105 ; @xmath106 ) provided that @xmath107 .
when the coupling parameter @xmath108 , we set @xmath109 . in view of ( [ eq : fdomh * ] ) , ( [ eq : hadjf ] ) , ( [ dom : ak ] ) , @xmath102 is regarded as @xmath110 so that @xmath111 is a singular rank two perturbation .
the resolvent operator of @xmath102 is given by @xmath112 ( @xmath113 ) . here
@xmath114 is the krein @xmath115-matrix function @xmath116    let us show that ( [ dom : ak ] ) does not apply to the case @xmath29 .
let formally @xmath29
. then @xmath117 for all @xmath118 .
but then , since there always exists @xmath90 such that @xmath119 , it follows from the hahn
banach theorem that @xmath120 is not dense in @xmath69 , and hence in @xmath43 .
this contradicts the fact that @xmath58 is densely defined and thus its all self - adjoint extensions are operators .
let @xmath121 . using ( [ eq : h0 ] ) ,
( [ eq : tf ] ) , and the orthogonality of @xmath63 , @xmath122 . using ( [ eq : psiext ] ) , @xmath123 , @xmath124 .
[ prop : infty2 ] @xmath125 is the friedrichs extension of @xmath58 .
let @xmath126 be the friedrichs extension of @xmath58 .
we show that @xmath127 .
let @xmath128 , with @xmath129 , be the form associated with @xmath58 : @xmath130:=\braket{h^{0}f , g}_{0}\quad(f , g\in { \mathop{{\mathrm{dom}}}}h^{0}).\ ] ] then its closure @xmath131 is defined on @xmath132 , _
i.e. _ @xmath133 , and , by definition , @xmath134 . put ( [ eq :
fdomh * ] ) in @xmath135 , apply @xmath136 , and deduce that @xmath137 and @xmath138 . but @xmath122 and hence @xmath139 as required .
according the theory of boundary triplets ( see _ e.g. _ ( * ? ? ?
* chap .  14 ) ) , the self - adjoint extensions of @xmath58 are in one - to - one correspondence with the self - adjoint relations on @xmath26 .
one can show that , for @xmath107 and @xmath140 , the extensions correspond to the relations whose range is of dimension @xmath141 and @xmath142 .
when @xmath28 , the range of the corresponding relation on @xmath26 is @xmath143 , _
i.e. _ @xmath144 . when @xmath29 , the relation is @xmath145 , _
i.e. _ @xmath146 .
throughout , @xmath147 ( @xmath148 ) is the sobolev space of @xmath149-functions whose distributional derivatives of order @xmath150 belong to @xmath149 .
the closure of @xmath151 in @xmath147-norm is @xmath152 .
the closure of the operator @xmath11 defined on the domain ( [ eq : diffop1 ] ) is a densely defined symmetric operator @xmath153 equivalently , @xmath154 where @xmath155 the operator @xmath42 in ( [ eq : freeh2 ] ) is the maximal operator associated with @xmath11 , and it is the closure of the operator @xmath156 . by gauss and green formulas ( see _ e.g. _ ( * ? ? ?
* appendix  d ) ) one deduces that the formal adjoint of @xmath156 coincides with itself .
hence the closure of @xmath156 is the minimal operator associated with @xmath11 .
now that the adjoint of the minimal ( resp .
maximal ) operator coincides with the maximal ( resp .
minimal ) operator , it follows that @xmath42 is self - adjoint .
we call @xmath42 the _ free hamiltonian_. by using exactly the same arguments one concludes that the adjoint operator @xmath67 of @xmath58 , ( [ eq : freeh])([eq : freeh1 ] ) , is defined as follows : @xmath157    the free hamiltonian @xmath42 has lower bound @xmath158 , where @xmath33 equals @xmath3 if @xmath34 and @xmath35 otherwise . the green function for @xmath42 , or the _ free green function _ , possesses a representation @xmath159 provided that @xmath160 meets at least one of the following :    1 .
[ item : a ] @xmath161 and @xmath162 2 .
[ item : b ] @xmath163 ; the equality is available only if @xmath164 3 .
[ item : c ] @xmath165 and @xmath166 ( @xmath167 ) .
we always assume that @xmath160 satisfies at least one of ( [ item : a])([item : c ] ) unless explicitly stated otherwise .
in particular , @xmath168 possesses a series representation ( [ eq : frg ] ) if @xmath169 ( put @xmath170 in ( [ item : a])([item : c ] ) ) . the functions @xmath171 ( @xmath6 ) obey a hypergeometric series representation , and they are studied in @xcite .
let @xmath172 when @xmath24 , one assumes the limit @xmath173 on the right .
we have that    [ eq : g1x10renx10 ] @xmath174    when @xmath175 , the inverse hyperbolic tangent @xmath176 is defined entirely on @xmath177 .
let @xmath178 be an @xmath179-neighborhood of the origin @xmath12 .
for @xmath180 and for @xmath181 small , @xmath182
let @xmath22 be the dirac distribution concentrated at @xmath12 . define the singular distribution @xmath183 the normalization constant @xmath184
is defined as @xmath185 here we write , for simplicity , @xmath186 for @xmath18 , @xmath187{2}\sqrt{\pi}$ ] is as in ( * ? ? ?
2.3 ) , where the authors examine the laplace operator in dimension three ( recall that @xmath188 for @xmath18 ) with the interaction determined using the model of generalized perturbations .
in general , the relation @xmath184 can be shown as follows .
observe that    [ eq : stp5 ] @xmath189    here we define , for convenience , @xmath190 { 2+\beta^{2}-2\sqrt { 1+\beta^{2 } } } \quad ( c\geq0),\ ] ] and @xmath191 is the principal value of the argument ; the range of @xmath191 is in @xmath192 $ ] .
then @xmath193 seeing that @xmath194 we conclude from ( [ eq : phinorm * ] ) that the condition @xmath195 is equivalent to the condition @xmath196 but , for a fixed @xmath197 , @xmath198 { 2+\beta^{2}-2\sqrt { 1+\beta^{2 } } } < \sqrt{1+\sqrt{1+\beta^{2}}}.\ ] ] therefore , @xmath195 and this last estimate implies that we can always choose @xmath184 .    next , using ( [ eq : defel0 ] ) , @xmath199 with arguments and parameters as in ( [ eq : defel0 ] ) . here @xmath200 .
below we prove two equivalent relations :    * @xmath63 is an orthonormal system in @xmath201 * @xmath202 is an orthonormal system in @xmath86 ( @xmath203 ; @xmath204 ) .
the important conclusion is that , if the above relations hold true , then the operator @xmath58 in ( [ eq : freeh])([eq : freeh1 ] ) may be treated similar to the operator @xmath58 in ( [ eq : h0 ] ) ; subsequently , the functions @xmath205 in ( [ eq : fsigma ] ) form deficiency subspaces of the adjoint operator @xmath67 defined in ( [ eq : hadjf ] ) , ( [ eq : adjh ] ) .    using ( [ eq : defel0 ] ) and @xmath206 we have that @xmath207 but @xmath208 then @xmath209 ( _ cf . _
* proof of theorem  3.1 ) ) implies that @xmath136 .
next , we show that @xmath210 ( @xmath211 ; @xmath60 ; @xmath212 ; @xmath213 is the kronecker symbol ) .
when @xmath214 , take the limit @xmath215 in ( [ eq : phizorth ] ) : @xmath216 ( @xmath211 ; @xmath217 ) .    since @xmath218 it follows from ( [ eq : defel0 ] ) that @xmath219 then , using ( [ eq : fsigma ] ) , @xmath220 but @xmath221 and , by ( [ eq : nablajg1x0 ] ) , @xmath222 put ( [ eq : stp3 ] ) and ( [ eq : stp4 ] ) in ( [ eq : stp2 ] ) and deduce ( [ eq : phizorth ] ) . since @xmath223 densely , we conclude that @xmath202 is an orthonormal system in @xmath86 .
here we apply the resolvent formula ( [ eq : resolvak ] ) to the spectral analysis of the operator @xmath102 regarded as a perturbed hamiltonian @xmath224 and where the perturbation @xmath111 is referred to as the spin - dependent contact interaction ( recall ( [ eq : hv ] ) ) .
we assume that @xmath225 .
when @xmath226 , the corresponding operator is @xmath125 ( proposition  [ prop : infty2 ] ) .
since the spectrum of @xmath125 coincides with that of @xmath42 , and the spectrum of @xmath42 is @xmath31 and it is absolutely continuous , we mainly concentrate on the spectrum of @xmath102 .
we adopt the classification of the spectrum in ( * ? ? ?
9 ) , ( * ? ? ?
vii.3 ) .    the _ continuous spectrum _ of @xmath102
is given by @xmath31 .
this follows from an invariance of the continuous component of the spectrum under singular finite rank perturbations ( * ? ? ?
* theorem  4.1.4 ) and from the resolvent formula .
the real and isolated singularities of the resolvent operator of @xmath102 coincide with the points @xmath227 that solve @xmath228 .
therefore , the _ singular spectrum _ of @xmath102 consists of the points @xmath227 such that @xmath229 the krein @xmath115-matrix function , which is defined in ( [ eq : w3 ] ) , is a diagonal matrix @xmath230 whose entries are given by @xmath231 ( @xmath232 ) . to prove ( [ eq : kreinq ] ) , notice that @xmath233 then , using ( [ eq : defel0 ] ) and ( [ eq : w3 ] ) , @xmath234 by ( [ eq : fsigma ] ) , it follows that @xmath235.\end{aligned}\ ] ] but @xmath236 and @xmath237 which proves ( [ eq : kreinq ] ) .
in particular , @xmath238 and @xmath239 . for an arbitrary @xmath240 , but for @xmath18 , @xmath241 coincides with the @xmath115-function obtained in ( * ? ? ? * sec .
2.3.1 ) .
[ lem : eigenf ] the eigenspace @xmath242 consists of eigenfunctions @xmath243 where the coefficients @xmath244 are found from the boundary condition defining the domain of @xmath102 . for @xmath245 , @xmath246 . for @xmath247 , @xmath181 and @xmath248 is understood in the generalized sense , _
i.e. _ @xmath248 approaches @xmath249 strongly in @xmath43 as @xmath250 .
the proof of the lemma for @xmath245 is a natural generalization of results posted in ( * ? ? ?
2.3.1 ) , so we concentrate on the case @xmath247 .    for convenience ,
define @xmath251 .
. then @xmath249 possesses representations ( [ eq : fdomh * ] ) , ( [ eq : fdomh*0 ] ) with an appropriate boundary condition . plugging ( [ eq : fdomh * ] ) and ( [ eq : hadjf ] ) with @xmath253 into the eigenvalue equation
, we obtain the equation @xmath254 by hypothesis , the operator @xmath255 is unbounded in @xmath43 and it can not be applied to ( [ eq : eigen1 ] ) .
we apply @xmath256 instead .
define    [ eq : eigen2a ] @xmath257 put ( [ eq : eigen1 ] ) in ( [ eq : eigen2a-1 ] ) : @xmath258    let @xmath259 be as in ( [ eq : eigenf ] ) .
similar to ( [ eq : eigen2a-1 ] ) , define @xmath260 use @xmath249 in ( [ eq : fdomh * ] ) and plug the representation into ( [ eq : eigen4a ] ) . then apply ( [ eq : defel0 ] ) and ( [ eq : eigen2a ] ) : @xmath261 let @xmath262 be the resolution of the identity for @xmath42 , and let @xmath263 be the spectral measure . using ( [ eq : eigen4a ] ) and @xmath264 , @xmath265 or equivalently , @xmath266 by ( * ? ? ?
* theorem  11.6-(iii ) ) , the borel transform @xmath267 of @xmath268 fulfills @xmath269 since @xmath270 for all @xmath247 , we conclude that @xmath271 .
put this value in ( [ eq : eigen5d ] ) , and then deduce the result stated in the lemma from ( [ eq : eigen5 ] ) .
[ thm : sc ] the singular continuous part is absent from the spectrum of @xmath102 .
consider the singular spectrum as a closed set of points @xmath272 that solve ( [ eq : singularsp ] ) for @xmath273 , for some @xmath274 .
let @xmath275 , @xmath276 , and @xmath277 be the reducing subspaces of @xmath43 corresponding to the singular , discontinuous , and singular continuous parts of @xmath102
. then @xmath278 .
for each function @xmath279 , one finds functions @xmath280 and @xmath281 such that @xmath282 .
then the proof is accomplished if one shows that @xmath283 for each such @xmath82 .    using the resolvent formula of @xmath102 , the integral representation of the resolution of the identity @xmath284 ( * ? ? ?
* lemma  xviii.2.31 ) , and the residue theorem , we find that @xmath285 for arbitrary @xmath286 . here
@xmath287 is the characteristic function of the singular spectrum .
when deriving ( [ eq : e ] ) we used @xmath270 for the resolution of the identity @xmath262 of @xmath42 .
we write @xmath288 to ensure that the right hand side of ( [ eq : e ] ) exists for @xmath289 . by lemma  [ lem : eigenf ] ,
one safely replaces @xmath288 with @xmath290 in the spectral measure @xmath291 . for @xmath292 , @xmath293 .
the characteristic function in ( [ eq : e ] ) indicates for which points @xmath227 the function @xmath294 is nonzero .
these are the points that belong to the singular spectrum .
since out task is to examine the functions in @xmath275 , we identify @xmath295 with an arbitrary @xmath296 .
equation  ( [ eq : e ] ) is valid for an arbitrary @xmath286 , and now we take @xmath279 . for each @xmath296 , there exists @xmath279 such that @xmath297 .
if otherwise , since @xmath279 , there must exist a lebesgue null set @xmath298 such that @xmath299 is absent in the singular spectrum and @xmath300 .
but @xmath301 for all @xmath302 , and hence @xmath303 by ( [ eq : e ] ) ; this contradicts the definition of @xmath275 .
next , for each @xmath279 , there exist @xmath280 and @xmath281 such that @xmath282 . by lemma  [ lem : eigenf ] , @xmath304 . therefore
, since @xmath277 is the orthogonal complement of @xmath305 , one has that @xmath306 for all @xmath307 .
but then , using ( [ eq : e ] ) , @xmath308 . recalling that @xmath297 and @xmath282 , it follows from the latter that @xmath309 .
hence @xmath310 , and the proof of the theorem is accomplished .
it follows from theorem  [ thm : sc ] that the _ point spectrum _ of @xmath102 coincides with the singular spectrum . using the integral representation of the resolution of the identity and the resolvent formula
, one shows that , for @xmath299 in the set of borel subsets of @xmath311 , and for @xmath286 , the spectral measures of @xmath102 and @xmath42 agree up to sets of lebesgue measure zero .
since the absolutely continuous part of a measure is supported by the set of @xmath227 such that @xmath312 ( see _ e.g. _ @xcite ) , we conclude that the _ absolutely continuous _ parts of spectral measures of @xmath102 and @xmath42 coincide .
if we let @xmath313 and @xmath314 be the reducing subspaces of @xmath43 corresponding to the continuous and absolutely continuous parts of @xmath102 , then we arrive at the same conclusion by noting that @xmath315 and @xmath316 , hence @xmath317 .
according to the results of the previous paragraph , the notions of singular spectrum and point spectrum ( eigenvalues ) are used interchangeably . as a rule ,
we prefer the notion of singular spectrum to that of eigenvalues , because the singular spectrum consists of the singular points @xmath318 of the resolvent operator of @xmath102 and because the singular points are solutions of equation ( [ eq : singularsp ] ) , which is our main target in the present section .
define @xmath319 the matrix @xmath320 is hermitian .
let also @xmath321 when @xmath322 , one takes the limit @xmath323 on the right hand side : @xmath324 . using ( [ eq : gammaomega ] ) and ( [ eq : xif ] ) , ( [ eq : singularsp ] ) obeys the following form : @xmath325 the upper ( resp .
lower ) sign is taken if @xmath326 ( resp .
@xmath327 ) . owing to @xmath176 ,
equation  ( [ eq : sing ] ) is transcendental and does not possess analytic solutions .
for the reason that we are unable to solve equation ( [ eq : sing ] ) as it stands , we examine ( [ eq : sing ] ) in three specific cases :    1 .
[ item : a ] case without spin - orbit coupling : @xmath15 , @xmath328 .
[ item : b ] case with small spin - orbit coupling : @xmath329 small , @xmath330 .
[ item : c ] case with large spin - orbit coupling : @xmath331 , @xmath332 , @xmath247 .
although the @xmath115-function itself is valid for all @xmath19 , the limitation on the parameters is caused by the series representation for the free green function ( [ eq : frg ] ) .
in fact , the validity of ( [ eq : phizorth ] ) is governed by ( [ item : a])([item : c ] ) .
in particular , putting @xmath333 in ( [ eq : phizorth ] ) , the condition  @xmath169 follows from ( [ item : a])([item : c ] ) ; this latter condition also ensures the existence of the normalization constant @xmath184 .    for @xmath2 zero or arbitrarily small ( cases ( [ item : a ] ) or ( [ item : b ] ) , respectively ) , conditions  ( [ item : a])([item : c ] )
can be safely removed without affecting the absolute convergence of the series that defines the free green function .
this follows from the fact that for @xmath38 small , the confluent horn function , which defines the functions @xmath334 in ( [ eq : frg ] ) , can be analytically continued to the region @xmath335 ; see @xcite for more details . as a result one writes @xmath336 in ( [ item : a ] ) and @xmath337 in ( [ item : b ] ) .
for @xmath247 in ( [ item : c ] ) , the eigenfunctions in lemma  [ lem : eigenf ] are restricted to ( [ item : a ] ) or ( [ item : c ] ) .      using the asymptotic formula @xmath338 as @xmath339 , and picking the first term from the right hand side of ( [ eq : sr ] ) , we rewrite ( [ eq : sing ] ) as follows :
@xmath340 it takes little effort to conclude from ( [ eq : xif ] ) and ( [ eq : singa ] ) the following result .    [ thm : without ]
let @xmath15 and @xmath341 .
the part of the singular spectrum of @xmath102 below the threshold @xmath37 is given by the set @xmath342 .
for @xmath343 , the singular spectrum embedded in the continuous spectrum is described by the following singletons : @xmath344 iff @xmath345 ; @xmath346 iff @xmath347 and @xmath348 ; @xmath349 iff @xmath350 . for @xmath322 , there are no embedded eigenvalues .
it follows that @xmath102 may have maximum three eigenvalues in the interval @xmath351 $ ] . with regard to @xcite ,
assume that @xmath352 .
if @xmath347 , then theorem  2 in @xcite says that the point spectrum is empty for @xmath353 , while it follows from theorem  [ thm : without ] that the point spectrum consists of the points @xmath354 when @xmath355 .
if @xmath356 and @xmath357 , then theorem  3 in @xcite says that _ there exists _
such that , for @xmath359 , @xmath102 does not have embedded eigenvalues . by theorem  [ thm : without ] , however , there are no embedded eigenvalues _ for all _ @xmath357 ; recall that @xmath360 and @xmath361 together suit @xmath42 .
here we study the behavior of eigenvalues of @xmath362 in the limit @xmath339 .
the main conclusion following from the results posted below is that , for arbitrarily small but nonzero @xmath2 , the singular spectrum is empty above the threshold @xmath37 .
our strategy is to expand @xmath363 and @xmath364 in ( [ eq : gammaomega ] ) as a series with respect to @xmath339 , and then , using the asymptotic formula ( [ eq : sr ] ) , to solve ( [ eq : sing ] ) .    using ( [ eq : phinorm * ] ) , we have that @xmath365 as @xmath339 , where    [ eq : nseries01 ] @xmath366{2}\sqrt{\pi } \sqrt[4]{\sqrt{1+\beta^{2}}+s\beta } , \\
\mathcal{n}_{s}^{(1)}:= & \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{6\sqrt[4]{2}\beta^{2 } } \left(3\beta+s\left(1-\sqrt{1+\beta^{2}}\right)\right ) \sqrt[4]{2+\beta^{2}-2\sqrt{1+\beta^{2 } } }   \left(\sqrt{1+\beta^{2}}+s\beta\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    using ( [ eq : g1x10renx10 ] ) and ( [ eq : gammaomega ] ) , @xmath367 as @xmath339 , where    [ eq : lambdaseries01 ] @xmath368{2+\beta^{2}-2\sqrt{1+\beta^{2}}}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    if we let @xmath369 ( @xmath370 ; @xmath371 ; @xmath211 ; @xmath372 ) , then @xmath373 as @xmath339 ( @xmath211 ) .
it is clear that @xmath374 , @xmath375 coincide with @xmath363 , @xmath364 in theorem  [ thm : without ] .
put ( [ eq : omegaseries ] ) , ( [ eq : omegaseriesb ] ) , and ( [ eq : sr ] ) in equation  ( [ eq : sing ] ) and get that @xmath376 as @xmath339 . here
@xmath377 when @xmath15 , ( [ eq : singb ] ) reduces to ( [ eq : singa ] ) .
we look for the solutions of the form @xmath378 for some small @xmath379 ; @xmath380 is in the singular spectrum of @xmath381 , which is described in theorem  [ thm : without ] .
it follows that @xmath382 .
let us pick @xmath383 such that @xmath384 and @xmath385 , where @xmath386    [ lem : existence ] let @xmath329 be arbitrarily small and @xmath387 .
the following holds : @xmath388 iff @xmath389 ; @xmath390 @xmath391 ; @xmath392 @xmath393 .    by ( [ eq : xif ] ) ,
@xmath394 . put @xmath395 in ( [ eq : singb ] ) and get a zero - valued quadratic polynomial in @xmath38 .
the monomial of degree @xmath396 is precisely the condition in theorem  [ thm : without ] ensuring that @xmath384 .
the monomial of degree @xmath141 is absent , and the monomial of degree @xmath142 reads @xmath397 ( @xmath89 ) . using ( [ eq : gammaomega0 ] ) , @xmath398 let @xmath399 , @xmath400 .
it follows from ( [ eq : deg1 ] ) and ( [ eq : sssss2 ] ) that @xmath401 since @xmath402 and @xmath403 , it follows from ( [ eq : sssss4 ] ) that @xmath404 , which is equivalent to @xmath385 .
this proves the first statement of the lemma .
let @xmath405 , @xmath181 small . by ( [ eq : xif ] ) and ( [ eq : qsigma ] ) ,
@xmath406 ( @xmath89 ) .
put these expressions in ( [ eq : singb ] ) and get that @xmath407 then , by the second equality in ( [ eq : deg1 ] ) , @xmath408 .
using the latter and ( [ eq : sssss2 ] ) , @xmath409 which is false , since by ( [ eq : nseries01 ] ) , ( [ eq : lambdaseries01 ] ) , ( [ eq : gammaomega0 ] ) , the function on the left has a single maximum @xmath410 at @xmath411 .
when @xmath412 , ( [ eq : singb ] ) also leads to ( [ eq : cnd ] ) , hence @xmath390 for small nonzero @xmath179 .
next @xmath413 implies that @xmath414 ( theorem  [ thm : without ] ) . when @xmath415 , we have that @xmath416 and @xmath417 ( @xmath89 ) .
put these expressions in ( [ eq : singb ] ) and deduce that ( [ eq : singb ] ) fails for @xmath181 .
when @xmath246 , we obtain the system @xmath418 and @xmath419 .
the system does not have solutions @xmath420 , @xmath421 in @xmath311 , hence @xmath392 for @xmath415 small . applying the above procedure for @xmath412 we arrive at the same conclusion .
as previously , let @xmath422 . by lemma  [ lem :
existence ] , @xmath423 unless @xmath15 .
we also conclude from theorem  [ thm : without ] and lemma  [ lem : existence ] that @xmath326 .
next we look for @xmath424 of the form @xmath425 for some @xmath426 ( @xmath427 ) .
put this @xmath295 in ( [ eq : xif ] ) : @xmath428 as @xmath339 , where @xmath429 and    [ eq : xiseries0123 ] @xmath430 \nonumber \\ & -e^{(0)\,2 } [ 8e^{(0)}e^{(1)}e^{(2 ) } ( 1+\xi_{0}^{2}e^{(0)})- 8e^{(0)\,2}e^{(3 ) } ( 1 + 2\xi_{0}^{2}e^{(0 ) } ) \nonumber \\ & -e^{(1)\,3}(3 + 2\xi_{0}^{2}e^{(0 ) } ) ] + \beta^{2}[8e^{(0)}e^{(1)}e^{(2 ) }   -16e^{(0)\,2}e^{(3)}(1 + 2\xi_{0}^{2}e^{(0 ) } ) \nonumber \\ & + e^{(1)\,3}(1 + 6\xi_{0}^{2}e^{(0)})]\bigr\}. \label{eq : xiseries0123 - 3}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    notice that each denominator in ( [ eq : xiseries0123 ] ) is nonzero since @xmath423 .
put ( [ eq : xiseries ] ) in ( [ eq : qsigma ] ) and get that @xmath431 as @xmath339 , where @xmath432 and    [ eq : qseries0123 ] @xmath433    put ( [ eq : xiseries ] ) and ( [ eq : qseries ] ) in ( [ eq : singb ] ) , and then collect the terms with the same powers @xmath434 of @xmath2 . since a cubic polynomial in @xmath38 is zero , set each monomial to zero : a zero - valued monomial of degree @xmath396 coincides with ( [ eq : singa ] ) , and the rest zero - valued monomials of degree @xmath435 are of the form    [ eq : systemb ] @xmath436    equations  ( [ eq : systemb-1 ] ) and ( [ eq : systemb-2 ] ) imply that    [ prop : lambda1 ] @xmath437 .
let @xmath438 .
then ( [ eq : systemb-1 ] ) simplifies thus : @xmath439 since @xmath440 ( @xmath89 ) , it follows that @xmath441 for both @xmath89 .
but then , either @xmath442 or @xmath443 .
if the former , then , by ( [ eq : xiseries0123 - 1 ] ) , @xmath437 . if the latter , then @xmath444 under these conditions , ( [ eq : systemb-2 ] ) fails unless @xmath442 .
therefore , @xmath437 in either case .
if @xmath445 , then @xmath446 .
but then ( [ eq : systemb-1 ] ) implies either @xmath442 or @xmath447 and @xmath322 . since @xmath343 , @xmath437
necessarily . finally , when @xmath448 , ( [ eq : systemb-1 ] ) also implies that @xmath442 necessarily .
by ( [ eq : qseries0123 - 1 ] ) and proposition  [ prop : lambda1 ] , @xmath449 , and the system ( [ eq : systemb ] ) reduces to ( [ eq : systemb-2])([eq : systemb-3 ] ) .
it follows that @xmath450 and @xmath451 are uniquely defined by the latter system unless ( [ eq : cnd2 ] ) holds .
otherwise we need more terms of expansion .
thus , @xmath36 in ( [ eq : sr ] ) further reads @xmath452 by definition , the normalization constant @xmath453 depends on even powers of @xmath2
. then @xmath36 in ( [ eq : omegaseries ] ) is given by @xmath454 although @xmath455 and @xmath456 can be found similar to @xmath457 in ( [ eq : gammaomega0 ] ) , their explicit representation is inessential since our final goal is to express @xmath295 with the accuracy up to @xmath36 .
next , if we supplement @xmath424 with terms indexed by @xmath458 , then the values of functions @xmath459 and @xmath460 in ( [ eq : xiseries ] ) and ( [ eq : qseries ] ) , respectively , are also supplemented with terms indexed by @xmath458 .
put these values along with ( [ eq : sr2 ] ) and ( [ eq : omegaseries2 ] ) in ( [ eq : sr ] ) , ( [ eq : omegaseries ] ) , and then in ( [ eq : sing ] ) .
then collect the terms with the same powers @xmath461 of @xmath2 , and deduce a zero - valued polynomial in @xmath38 of degree @xmath462 .
set each monomial to zero , apply proposition  [ prop : lambda1 ] , the relation @xmath449 , and condition ( [ eq : cnd2 ] ) , and get that the zero - valued monomials of degree @xmath463 are of the form :    [ eq : systemb2 ] @xmath464    [ prop : lambda3 ] @xmath465 .    by proposition  [ prop : lambda1 ] and ( [ eq : xiseries0123 - 3 ] ) , @xmath466 therefore , @xmath467 .
since @xmath449 and @xmath442 , we see that ( [ eq : systemb-3 ] ) coincides with ( [ eq : systemb-1 ] ) but with @xmath468 replaced by @xmath451 .
if ( [ eq : cnd2 ] ) does not hold , then we can redo all the steps made up during the proof of proposition  [ prop : lambda1 ] to conclude that @xmath469 .
hence @xmath465 , as claimed .
if ( [ eq : cnd2 ] ) holds , then by ( [ eq : systemb2 - 2 ] ) , either @xmath469 or @xmath470 substitute ( [ eq : cnd3 ] ) in ( [ eq : systemb2 - 1 ] ) and get that @xmath471 takes the value @xmath472 put this value in ( [ eq : cnd3 ] ) and get that @xmath473 .
now put this @xmath450 and ( [ eq : ppppp ] ) in ( [ eq : systemb2 - 3 ] ) and deduce that either @xmath469 or @xmath474 . if the latter , then @xmath475 , since the inequality in ( [ eq : ppppp ] ) fails for @xmath476 .
if @xmath475 , then @xmath477 . but @xmath478 and therefore @xmath447 , which is true iff @xmath322 , hence false .
[ prop : lambda2 ] for @xmath438 , @xmath479 further , if @xmath480 , @xmath481 , and @xmath482 , then @xmath483 is twofold , and it takes the values @xmath484 @xmath485 .    it can be shown that , for @xmath486 diagonal and @xmath438 , the following holds : @xmath487 for @xmath488 , @xmath478 ; @xmath489 for @xmath490 , @xmath481 . by proposition  [ prop : lambda2 ] , this means the spin - orbit term moves the eigenvalues down from the threshold @xmath37 .    using proposition  [ prop : lambda1 ]
, one finds from ( [ eq : xiseries0123 - 2 ] ) that @xmath491 when ( [ eq : cnd2 ] ) does not hold , @xmath483 is found from ( [ eq : systemb-2 ] ) and ( [ eq : aaaaaa-1 ] ) .
if ( [ eq : cnd2 ] ) holds , then @xmath483 follows from ( [ eq : systemb2 - 1 ] ) and ( [ eq : aaaaaa-1 ] ) .
[ thm : existence ] let @xmath329 be arbitrarily small and @xmath387
. then the part of the singular spectrum of @xmath492 that is below the threshold @xmath37 consists of the points @xmath493 where @xmath438 belongs to the singular spectrum of @xmath381 .
let @xmath494 be in the singular spectrum of @xmath492 . then @xmath395 and @xmath389 necessarily ; otherwise @xmath295 does not belong to the singular spectrum .    by propositions  [ prop :
lambda1 ] , [ prop : lambda3 ] , [ prop : lambda2 ] , the singular spectrum of @xmath492 consists of the points @xmath495 up to @xmath36 . to prove the first part of the theorem ,
we need only show @xmath496 .
let @xmath497 , @xmath498 small .
then @xmath405 where @xmath499 . by proposition
[ prop : lambda2 ] , @xmath500 for some real @xmath501 whose explicit representation is inessential here .
but then @xmath502 , as claimed . to prove the second part , we need to show @xmath503 , as it follows from lemma  [ lem : existence ] . by theorem  [ thm : without ] and ( [ eq : systemb-2 ] ) , @xmath504 and we show that equation  ( [ eq : empty ] ) does not have solutions with respect to @xmath505 .
let @xmath506 .
the real and imaginary parts of ( [ eq : empty ] ) imply that    [ eq : l2 ] @xmath507    it follows that ( [ eq : l2-a ] ) @xmath508 ( [ eq : l2-b ] ) iff @xmath509 , which contradicts the initial hypothesis @xmath510 ( theorem  [ thm : without ] ) . if @xmath511 , then @xmath512 and @xmath513 .
put this @xmath514 along with @xmath515 in ( [ eq : sssss2 ] ) and get ( [ eq : cnd0 ] ) with @xmath516 replaced by @xmath517 . in this case
the left - hand side approaches @xmath518 as @xmath519 , hence false .
when @xmath448 , @xmath483 satisfies ( [ eq : l2 ] ) , and we conclude that @xmath520 for all @xmath521 .
here we wish to post some most important properties of solutions @xmath247 of ( [ eq : sing ] ) under hypothesis in ( [ item : c ] ) . for this
we find it convenient to define the functions @xmath522\to{\mathbb{r}}$ ] as @xmath523 the parameter @xmath524 is defined as @xmath525 , and it takes the values @xmath526     ( solid curves ) and @xmath527 ( dashed curves ) at @xmath528 . the curve labeled by 1 shows the values of @xmath529 ; the ( solid and dashed ) curves labeled by 2 show the values of @xmath530 and @xmath531 ; the ( solid and dashed ) curves labeled by 3 show the values of @xmath532 and @xmath533 ; the ( solid and dashed ) curves labeled by 4 show the values of @xmath534 and @xmath535 , _ i.e. _ @xmath536 and @xmath527 as @xmath537 .
the function @xmath534 takes the value @xmath538 everywhere except at @xmath539 , which is also a zero of @xmath535 . for @xmath540 ,
a zero of @xmath527 coincides with the first zero , @xmath541 , of @xmath536 , and @xmath536 also has the second zero , @xmath542 , if @xmath543 . in figure ,
@xmath544 and @xmath545.,scaledwidth=100.0% ]    the parameter @xmath524 is predetermined by the relations @xmath546 and @xmath169 , and by the definition of @xmath33 .
some typical plots of the functions @xmath536 and @xmath527 are illustrated in fig .
[ fig : fig ] . in particular ,
if @xmath343 is arbitrarily small , then @xmath524 varies from @xmath141 to @xmath547 depending on @xmath548 .
therefore , the curves in fig .
[ fig : fig ] labeled by 4 represent the case when the magnetic field @xmath3 approaches zero from above and the spin - orbit - coupling strength @xmath2 is large enough .
the function @xmath536 has at most two zeros , which we denote by @xmath541 and @xmath542 .
we assume that @xmath549 is the zero of @xmath527 .
then the second zero @xmath550 solves the equation @xmath551 ( @xmath552 ) provided that @xmath543 .
the relation @xmath553 is meaningless because the domain of @xmath536 is @xmath522 $ ] , by definition . if @xmath554 , then the function @xmath555 has only one zero @xmath556 . if @xmath537 , we write @xmath557 , and @xmath558 formally behaves like an ill - defined dirac delta function concentrated at a zero @xmath539 of @xmath535 . in this latter case , the two zeros @xmath559 and @xmath560 coincide . in all other cases , _
i.e. _ for @xmath561 , the function @xmath536 has either two zeros , if @xmath543 , or a single zero , if otherwise . in general , @xmath562 , and
the equality holds only if @xmath563 .
yet another quantity which we use to describe our main results is a function @xmath564\to [ \beta,\infty)$ ] defined as @xmath565 the relations @xmath566 imply that @xmath567 .
in particular , we have that @xmath568 . in the limit @xmath323 , the function @xmath569 ranges from @xmath396 to @xmath570 when @xmath524 ranges from @xmath141 to @xmath547 .
choosing @xmath571 ( _ i.e. _ @xmath572 , @xmath323 ) one deduces @xmath573 .
[ thm : existence3 ] let @xmath574 , @xmath575 .
the singular spectrum of @xmath102 , which is embedded in the continuous spectrum @xmath31 , is given by the set @xmath576{\colon } & x\in[x_{\nu,1},\nu],\ , \gamma=\omega_{+}\omega_{-}+(\beta/2)v_{\nu}(x ) , \\
& 2\omega_{-}=x^{2}u_{\nu}(x)\sum_{s}\omega _ { s } \left(\nu^{2}+ s\right)\bigr\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    for example , if @xmath3 is arbitrarily small and @xmath2 large , say @xmath572 , then @xmath524 approaches @xmath577 from below , and theorem  [ thm : existence3 ] tells us that there is an eigenvalue , @xmath578(@xmath579 ) , above the threshold @xmath580 iff @xmath581 .
this particular eigenvalue fails to satisfy ( [ item : b ] ) and ( [ item : c ] ) , so the corresponding eigenfunction in lemma  [ lem : eigenf ] has to be analytically continued applying the methods similar to those used in @xcite .    since @xmath582
, @xmath583 does not solve ( [ eq : sing ] ) . if @xmath584 , then @xmath585 , @xmath586 , and @xmath587 is of the form @xmath588 , where @xmath589 is the real part .
put this form in ( [ eq : sing ] ) and deduce the system of equations @xmath590 where @xmath591 now that @xmath592 and @xmath593 , it follows that @xmath594 , in contradiction to @xmath595 .
next , suppose that @xmath596 .
in this case @xmath597 where the real part @xmath598 while the imaginary part @xmath599 for @xmath600 , and @xmath601 for @xmath602 .
if we let @xmath603 then @xmath604 for @xmath600 , and @xmath605 for @xmath602 .
put @xmath597 and @xmath606 in ( [ eq : sing ] ) and deduce the system ( [ eq : subsystem ] ) where now @xmath607 we see that @xmath592 and @xmath608 for @xmath600 , and @xmath593 for @xmath602 .
but then ( [ eq : subsystem ] ) leads to the previous @xmath594 . finally ,
if @xmath327 , then @xmath609 , where @xmath610 reads @xmath611 then @xmath612 , and ( [ eq : sing ] ) reduces to ( [ eq : subsystem ] ) where @xmath613 and @xmath614 .
using the definition of @xmath615 , we write @xmath616 where @xmath617 ( @xmath618 ) .
when written in terms of @xmath524 , @xmath619 , @xmath527 , @xmath536 , the system ( [ eq : subsystem ] ) coincides with that defining the singular spectrum in the theorem .
it remains to show that @xmath620 , _
i.e. _ @xmath621 . let @xmath554 .
since @xmath555 , it follows from ( [ eq : subsystem ] ) that @xmath622 , hence @xmath623 . but then @xmath624 $ ] and @xmath625 $ ] .
let @xmath552 and @xmath626 . in this case @xmath627 and @xmath628 .
on the other hand , the system ( [ eq : subsystem ] ) implies that @xmath629 , @xmath630 , and thus @xmath631 .
we conclude that @xmath632 $ ] .
in the current paper , the main results concerning the eigenvalues ( or else the singular points ) are summarized in theorems  [ thm : without ] , [ thm : existence ] , [ thm : existence3 ] .
other parts of the spectrum , including the eigenfunctions , are discussed in sec .
[ sec : sp ] and particularly in lemma  [ lem : eigenf ] and theorem  [ thm : sc ] .
although we said nothing about the eigenvalues below the threshold @xmath158 when @xmath546 , their existence can be seen from a general equation  ( [ eq : sing ] ) .
for example , taking @xmath27 diagonal with the entries such that @xmath352 , one finds that @xmath633    0.48   of the perturbed hamiltonian ( [ eq : hv ] ) as a function of impurity scattering strength @xmath634 when the admissible matrix @xmath635 with @xmath636 . the spin - orbit - coupling strength @xmath572 .
when @xmath637 , the perturbed hamiltonian coincides with the free hamiltonian whose spectrum @xmath638 is absolutely continuous .
when @xmath639 , the perturbed hamiltonian is described by the friedrichs extension whose spectrum is that of the free hamiltonian . in ( a ) the threshold approaches @xmath580 and
the dashed line shows the eigenvalue @xmath640 corresponding to the coupling parameter @xmath501 whose absolute value is arbitrarily large but finite . in ( b )
the threshold is @xmath641 , the black ( upper ) solid curves represent the eigenvalue for @xmath642 in ( [ eq : sing ] ) , the blue ( lower ) solid curves represent the eigenvalue for @xmath643 , and the black dashed ( upper ) and blue dashed ( lower ) lines show the eigenvalues @xmath644 ( for @xmath642 ) and @xmath645 ( for @xmath643 ) corresponding to @xmath501 whose absolute value is arbitrarily large but finite.,title="fig : " ]    0.48   of the perturbed hamiltonian ( [ eq : hv ] ) as a function of impurity scattering strength @xmath634 when the admissible matrix @xmath635 with @xmath636 . the spin - orbit - coupling strength @xmath572 .
when @xmath637 , the perturbed hamiltonian coincides with the free hamiltonian whose spectrum @xmath638 is absolutely continuous .
when @xmath639 , the perturbed hamiltonian is described by the friedrichs extension whose spectrum is that of the free hamiltonian . in ( a ) the threshold approaches @xmath580 and
the dashed line shows the eigenvalue @xmath640 corresponding to the coupling parameter @xmath501 whose absolute value is arbitrarily large but finite . in ( b )
the threshold is @xmath641 , the black ( upper ) solid curves represent the eigenvalue for @xmath642 in ( [ eq : sing ] ) , the blue ( lower ) solid curves represent the eigenvalue for @xmath643 , and the black dashed ( upper ) and blue dashed ( lower ) lines show the eigenvalues @xmath644 ( for @xmath642 ) and @xmath645 ( for @xmath643 ) corresponding to @xmath501 whose absolute value is arbitrarily large but finite.,title="fig : " ]    provided that the magnetic field @xmath3 is arbitrarily close to @xmath396 . in this regime
, the eigenvalue @xmath245 exists if @xmath486 is of the form @xmath646 for some real @xmath647 , where @xmath648 is the identity matrix ; this follows from the conditions @xmath649 and @xmath650 and the definition in ( [ eq : gammaomega ] ) , which in turn gives a one - to - one correspondence between @xmath651 and @xmath647 .
note that , when @xmath15 , ( [ eq : last ] ) gives the solution @xmath652 , @xmath653 , which is ( by no accident ) in exact agreement with that described in theorem  [ thm : without ] for @xmath322 . also , @xmath654 , because @xmath655 may correspond only to the friedrichs extension ( proposition  [ prop : infty2 ] ) whose spectrum is only absolutely continuous .
however , if one takes the coupling parameter of contact interaction of the form @xmath634 with @xmath501 nonzero and real , then necessarily @xmath635 with @xmath656 real
. it then follows that @xmath657 for @xmath658 arbitrarily large but finite . for a given @xmath656 ,
there exists @xmath651 corresponding to @xmath657 , so ( [ eq : last ] ) shows that the perturbed hamiltonian with arbitrarily large but finite impurity scattering strength @xmath658 has an eigenvalue below the threshold . for example , when @xmath572 and @xmath355 , the parameter @xmath659 approximates @xmath656 , and the eigenvalue @xmath640 ( fig .  [
fig : fig2](a ) ) .
when @xmath355 and @xmath650 , there also exists an eigenvalue @xmath660 above the threshold ( theorem  [ thm : existence3 ] ) , but the same does not apply to the case when @xmath322 .
this explains why we chose @xmath3 arbitrarily small but nonzero .
however , the above considerations remain valid for @xmath322 as well , with the exception that now the hypothesis of theorem  [ thm : existence3 ] fails .
for comparison reasons , in fig .
[ fig : fig2](b ) we plot the eigenvalues corresponding to @xmath89 in ( [ eq : sing ] ) as functions of @xmath501 when the magnetic field is nonzero .
the present discussion is easy to extend to a general case when @xmath661 and @xmath662 .
moreover , the considerations apply to the case when @xmath663 .
one can show similar plots either solving equation  ( [ eq : sing ] ) numerically or applying analytic expressions in theorem  [ thm : existence ] for @xmath2 sufficiently small .
for the mean field analysis of eigenvalues at large @xmath658 , but in dimensions one and two , the reader may also refer to @xcite , where the case when @xmath663 is studied .
we recall that in our model , when @xmath664 , @xmath142 is the maximum possible value of @xmath2 , as well as @xmath141 is the maximum possible value of @xmath3 .
this is due to the restriction @xmath665 caused by the absolute convergence of the hypergeometric series which defines the green function for the free hamiltonian .
however , an additional procedure of analytic continuation , similar to that when @xmath663 is small , may probably lead to larger @xmath2 as well . when applied to concrete schemes that propose the creation of spin - orbit coupling in cold atomic gases ,
the parameters @xmath2 and @xmath3 are expressed in terms of the quantities which are measurable experimentally either directly or indirectly .
for example , using @xmath666 and @xmath667 ( @xmath668 is the mass of the particle ) , the spin - orbit coupling for the rashba hamiltonian constructed in @xcite is characterized by @xmath669 , where @xmath670 ( @xmath671m@xmath672 in si units ) points to the strength of the magnetic field gradient . without the additional procedure of continuation our model
can therefore be applied straightforwardly up to @xmath673 .
likewise , in the experimental setup proposed in @xcite , the spin - orbit coupling is given by @xmath674 , where @xmath675 is the two - photon recoil energy due to raman process .
hence , in the regime @xmath664 , one would expect @xmath676 . in @xcite
one can find some realistic parameters suggested for observing bound states when using the scheme in @xcite with @xmath677 and @xmath678 .    while the point spectrum of the rashba hamiltonian with spin - dependent delta - like impurity scattering depends on the admissible matrix @xmath25 , the main conclusion , which is independent of @xmath25 ,
is that : 1 ) the hamiltonian does not have eigenvalues above the threshold provided that the spin - orbit - coupling strength is small enough ( @xmath663 ) but nonzero .
2 ) the hamiltonian does not have eigenvalues located in - between the threshold and the minimum of the upper branch of dispersion provided that the spin - orbit - coupling strength is large enough ( @xmath664 ) .
3 ) the maximum possible eigenvalue that the hamiltonian can reach is @xmath679 , and @xmath680 depends only on @xmath664 and @xmath343 .
the author acknowledges the anonymous referees whose remarks have helped in improving the presentation .
the author also thanks the referee of the previous versions of the paper . [ 2 ] http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1[#2 ] [ 2]#2                                        claudio cacciapuoti , raffaelle carlone , and rodolfo figari , _ perturbations of eigenvalues embedded at threshold : i. one- and three - dimensional solvable models _ , j. phys .
a : math . theor .
* 43 * ( 2010 ) , 474009 .
lawrence  w. cheuk , ariel  t. sommer , zoran hadzibabic , tarik yefsah , waseem  s. bakr , and martin  w. zwierlein , _ spin - injection spectroscopy of a spin - orbit coupled fermi gas _ , phys .
* 109 * ( 2012 ) , 095302 .