Abstract
The aim of this paper is to prove some uncertainty inequalities for a class of integral operators associated to deformed harmonic oscillators.
Keywords:
integral operators; Hermite expansions; Laguerre expansions; uncertainty principles; Heisenberg inequality MSC:
42A38; 42C20
1. Introduction
The present paper is a continuation of our previous papers [1,2,3] to prove some uncertainty principles (UP) for a general class of integral operators, including the Fourier transform, the Fourier–Bessel transform, the Dunkl transform [4], the generalized Fourier transform [5], the deformed Fourier transform [6] and the Clifford transform. Other versions of UP for integral operators have been proved in [7,8,9].
It is well-known that the uncertainty principles set restrictions on the time-frequency (or space–time) concentration of a nonzero function. Different forms of the UP have been studied by the mathematical community throughout the 20th century, and this is still a field of research today (see e.g., the survey [10] and the book [11] for the most well known forms of UP). His first significant results and outstanding issues go back to the works of Norbert Wiener, Andrei Kolmogorov, Mark Kerin and Arne Beurling.
The term UP is associated with Werner Heisenberg’s 1927 statement [12]
which has become a fundamental element of quantum physics, where (respectively, ) is the standard deviation of position x (respectively, of momentum p) and ℏ is the Planck constant. The Heisenberg’s UP has a great importance in symmetry problems in physics, for example there is a connection between the space–time UP and the conformal symmetry in string theory (see e.g., [13,14,15,16]).
In this paper, we will follow the notation in [1]. More precisely, let and be two convex cones in (i.e., for all and , we have ) with non-empty interior, and endowed with the Borel measures and . For , we define the Lebesgue spaces and in the usual way.
We assume that the measure (and ) is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure , and has a polar decomposition of the form
where is the Lebesgue measure on the unit sphere of and such that . Then the measure is homogeneous of degree , that is, for any , and ,
Let be a second order differential operators defined initially on . Assume that is:
- Self-adjoint
- Positivewhere is inner product on .
Let be the system of the eigenvectors of and the corresponding eigenvalues are , that is
where , are positive real numbers such that and the superscript in indicates the relevant variable.
Next, assume that the kernel , satisfies:
- is continuous,
- is polynomially bounded:
- is homogeneous:
One can then define the integral operator on the Schwartz space by
Assume that can be extended to an unitary operator from onto with inverse
and satisfies a Parseval-type equality,
where is the inner product on .
For , we define the measures
Then extends into a continuous operator from to
We define accordingly for and assume that . Then we introduce the dilation operators , :
then by the homogeneity of the kernel, we have
Moreover, since the measures are absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure, then the dilation operator (respectively, ) is continuous from to (respectively, from to ).
As is self-adjoint, then by Inequality (6) one has, for any :
We consider the nonnegative and self-adjoint extension of (still denoted by the same symbol) defined by
where .
By (3), the measure of the ball of center 0 and radius r is majorized by the power of the radius r i.e.,
Assume also that the semigroup generated by satisfies
Let be a deformed harmonic oscillator on . Assume that there exists an orthonormal basis for consisting of eigenfunctions of that correspond to the eigenvalues , that is
We impose the assumption that we can arrange the set into an increasing sequence that satisfies
and
Therefore is symmetric and positive in and it has a natural self-adjoint extension (still denoted by the same symbol) on , that is,
on the domain consisting of all functions for which the defining series converges in . Moreover, the spectrum of is and the spectral decomposition of can be written as
where the spectral projections are
The structure of the present paper is as follows. In Section 2 we establish an optimal version of the Heisenberg-type UP for the integral operator , as well as some other well-known uncertainty inequalities. Section 3 is devoted to applying our results to some particular cases.
Notation
For , denotes its norm , where is the Euclidean inner product, and will be the canonical basis of . We will write for the characteristic function of the subset , and we write c, , , , and for constants (which can change from line to line) that depend on the parameters ℓ, s and .
2. Heisenberg-Type Uncertainty Principles
2.1. Sharp Heisenberg-Type Uncertainty Inequality
In this subsection we will establish a sharp (optimal) version of Heisenberg-type UP for the transformation . Other non optimal Heisenberg-type inequalities for integral operators can be found in [1,2].
Theorem 1.
For every function ,
Equality in (25) holds if, and only if , .
Proof.
Therefore
As the operator is self-adjoint and has only discrete spectra, then
Moreover the equality holds in (28), if and only if f is an eigenfunction of the self-adjoint operator corresponding to the eigenvalue . Thus f is a scalar multiple of . ☐
By a dilation argument we deduce the following product form of the Heisenberg-type inequality (25).
Corollary 1.
For every ,
Equality holds in (29), if and only if, for some and .
Proof.
More generally, we can state the following improvement.
Corollary 2.
For every , and every ,
Proof.
If is a non vanishing function with finite dispersions
then
where is the conjugate index of s. Therefore, by Hölder’s inequality we obtain
Thus, for all :
Similarly, we have for :
Now, applying Heisenberg’s Inequality (29), we obtain the desired result. ☐
As the proof of the last corollary is based on Hölder’s inequality, then it exclude the other cases when .
2.2. General Form of Heisenberg-Type Uncertainty Inequality
In this subsection we will establish a general from of Heisenberg-type relation for any . Such inequality can be deduced from [1] (Theorem C), which is obtained from either the local Faris-type inequality [1] (Theorem A) or the Benedicks–Amrein–Berthier-type UP [1] (Theorem B). Our proof here is inspired from related results on Lie groups of polynomial growth in [17], and the assumption (19) plays a key role here.
Lemma 1.
Let . Then there is such that, for any ,
Proof.
Put and . We have
Now since is a semigroup of contractions, then
Moreover, as , then by Cauchy–Schwartz’s inequality and (19) we obtain
Therefore
Choosing , we obtain
as expected. ☐
Now, let’s show our main result of this subsection.
Theorem 2.
Let . Then there exists such that for every ,
Proof.
First assume that and . Then by Lemma 1,
Now since, for any and , the function is bounded, then
Therefore by the Parseval equality and (17)
By minimizing the right hand side of (42) over , we obtain
Now if , then for every , we have by Parseval equality (11)
Minimizing the right hand side of (45) over , we obtain
Together with (43) for we obtain the result for .
Finally, and in same way, for , we take and we obtain
This allows to conclude again with (43). ☐
Remark 1.
2.3. The -Concentration Version of Heisenberg-Type Uncertainty Inequality
Let and be two subsets, such that . We define the time and frequency limiting operators by
Then we recall the following well-known definition (see [18]).
Definition 1.
Let and . Then
- 1.
- We say that f is ε-concentrated on S if
- 2.
- We say that f is ε-bandlimited (or is ε-concentrated) on Σ if
The subsets S and are known as the essential supports of f and , respectively, and this fact is first introduced by Donoho–Stark in [18], replacing the exact supports by the essential supports. If f is -concentrated on S and -bandlimited on , we briefly write f is -concentrated on , and we denote by the subspace of consisting of functions that are -concentrated on . In particular (see [1] (Inequality (3.4))), if , then
Moreover from [1] (Theorem 2.1) we recall the following local UP.
Theorem 3.
Let and let be a subset such that . Then
- 1.
- if , there exists such that for every , is bounded by
- 2.
- If , then for any there exists such that for every , is bounded by
- 3.
- If , there exists such that for every , is bounded by
In same way, (50) is equivalent to
Heisenberg’s inequality in Theorem 2 gives a lower bound of the product for the generalized time and frequency dispersions for functions in , but we can not have a lower bound for each one separately. The purpose of this section is to establish a Heisenberg-type inequality for functions in , for which a lower bound is given for each of the time and frequency dispersions. This gives more information than the lower bound of the product between them.
First by using Theorem 3, we will obtain a lower bound for the measure of the generalized time dispersion .
Corollary 3.
Let and let be a subset such that . Then
- 1.
- If , there exists , such that for any -bandlimited function on Σ,
- 2.
- If , then for any there exists such that for any -bandlimited function on Σ,
- 3.
- If , there exists such that for any -bandlimited function on Σ,
where in the last line, we have used the fact that
Owing to a symmetry between f and its integral transform, then by exchanging the roles of f and in Theorem 3, we obtain:
Theorem 4.
Let and let be a subset such that . Then
- 1.
- If , there exists a positive constant such that for all , is bounded by
- 2.
- If , then for any there exists a positive constant such that for all , is bounded by
- 3.
- If , there exists a positive constant such that for all , is bounded by
Consequently, and in the same way by using (58), we obtain the following result giving a lower bound for the measure of the generalized frequency dispersion .
Corollary 4.
Let and let be a subset such that . Then
- 1.
- If , there exists a positive constant , such that for any -concentrated function on S,
- 2.
- If , then for any there exists a positive constant such that for any -concentrated function on S,
- 3.
- If , there exists a positive constant such that for any -concentrated function on S,
Now it is enough to take the product of the inequalities in Corollary 3 and Corollary 4 to obtain the analogue of Inequality (41) for functions in . In particular, we state the following special case (the same holds for the other cases).
Corollary 5.
Let , and let , be two subsets with . Then for any there exists , such that for every ,
2.4. Shapiro-Type Uncertainty Principles
In [3] (Section 5.2) we have proved some Shapiro-type uncertainty principles for a family of integral transforms with bounded kernel, which is the case here when . The transforms under consideration in this paper are integral operators with polynomially bounded kernels (as in the article [1]). In this subsection, we will establish these uncertainty inequalities without any proof, which can be given in the same way with minor modifications.
First notice that a straightforward computation shows is an integral transform with kernel (see [1], Lemma 3.2)
Then is a Hilbert–Schmidt operator, such that
Adapting the proofs of [3] (Section 5.2), which are inspired from related results in [19], we obtain the following Shapiro-type UP.
Theorem 5.
Let .
- 1.
- If is an orthonormal system in , then for every ,
- 2.
- If is an orthonormal basis for , then
Remark 3.
- 1.
- The dispersion inequality (74) implies that there is no infinite system in for which the two sequences and are bounded. More precisely, if is an orthonormal sequence in , then for every ,and particularly
- 2.
- Relation (75) is not true for any orthonormal sequence in . Indeed we can find an infinite orthonormal sequence in , such that the product is finite.
- 3.
3. Examples
3.1. The Harmonic Oscillator
Let and let be the normalized Lebesgue measure given by For , the Fourier transform is defined by
and is then extended to an isomorphism on in the usual way. In this example is the usual Laplacian operator, , , and . The ’s are the Hermite functions and , such that and .
Notice that, here is the harmonic oscillator (or the Hermite operator) on and for each and each multi-index ,
be the normalized Hermite function on , where for all , is the one-dimensional Hermite function defined by
and are the Hermite polynomials of degree defined by the Rodriguez formula
It is well-known that the sequence of Hermite functions form an orthonormal basis for the Hilbert space , and they are eigenfunctions of and of the harmonic oscillator, that is,
3.2. The Bessel Oscillator
If is radial, then its Fourier transform satisfies
where is the Fourier–Bessel (or Hankel) transform of index , and for any , is the Bessel function:
where is the gamma function. We have and if we denote , then for , the Fourier–Bessel transform is defined by
and extends to an unitary operator to all with .
Let be the Laguerre polynomials, which can be defined by the Rodriguez formula (see [20], (4.17.1), p. 76)
They are solutions of the following second order linear differential equation (see [20], (4.18.8), p. 80),
and then they satisfy the following recurrence formula (see [20], (4.18.4), p. 76)
Therefore if we define by
then the sequence forms an orthonormal basis for (see [20], p. 84), such that
Now if we denote by the differential Bessel operator, then by (82) the ’s satisfy
In this case , , , , , and . The ’s are the Laguerre functions, and for all , .
3.3. The Dunkl Harmonic Oscillator
Let us present some necessary material on the Dunkl’ theory. Let G be a finite reflection group on , associated with a root system R and let the positive subsystem of R (see [4,21]). If k is a nonnegative multiplicity function defined on R, and G-invariant, then we define the index
and the weight function
Further we introduce the Mehta-type constant by
where .
The Dunkl operators , associated with G and k are given by (see [22])
where , and denotes the reflection with respect to the hyperplane orthogonal to .
C. F. Dunkl in [4] introduced the Dunkl kernel , where for all , the function is the solution of the initial problem
This kernel has a unique holomorphic extension to , and satisfies for all , and :
The Dunkl transform of a function (see e.g., [21]), is given by
and extends uniquely to an isometric isomorphism on with
If , the the Dunkl transform reduces to the Fourier transform, and if is radial, then its Dunkl transform is given through the Fourier–Bessel transform, as follows:
Rösler in [23] has introduced the Dunkl Hermite functions associated with G and k, which are defined by
where is the Dunkl Hermite polynomials of degree .
The sequence forms an orthonormal basis for and each satisfies
Now if we denote by the Dunkl Laplacian and the Dunkl harmonic oscillator, then we have
and
In this case , , , is the Dunkl Lalpacian, , and . The ’s are the Dunkl Hermite functions, and is Dunkl harmonic oscillator.
3.4. The Deformed Dun Harmonic Osklcillator
Let , and let G and k as defined as in the last example. Let be a deformation parameter and define the weight measure , as follows
The weight function is homogeneous of degree , where is the index of k. In the following we will assume that
For a real number , we write , , for the Laguerre polynomial defined by
Set , and for each , let be an orthonormal basis of the space , where where is the space of k-harmonic polynomials of degree n (i.e., the set of homogeneous polynomial p on of degree n such that ) and is the dimension of . Then by [6] (Proposition 3.15), for any , the family forms an orthonormal basis for , where
Therefore by [6] (Corollary 3.17), the family constitutes an orthonormal basis for , where
The -generalized Fourier transform is given for by
where
and the kernel is given in [6] (Inequality (5.9)), and satisfies for , the following properties (see [6], Theorem 5.9):
Moreover (see [24,25,26,27]), if one of the following assumptions holds:
- (i)
- and ,
- (ii)
- ,
- (iii)
- , and , for some ,
then is uniformly bounded, that is,
where .
The transformation is a unitary operator on and it is defined a by the a-deformed Dunkl harmonic oscillator , where the Dunkl Laplacian (introduced in the previous example). Note also that (see [6], Theorem 5.1) the system is the eigensystem of , that is
Moreover is of finite order if and only if , and if , with positive, then (see [6], Corollary 5.2), with . In addition, for any , the transformation is a unitary operator of order four on , with (see [6], Corollary 3.2.2)
The differential-difference operator is an essentially self-adjoint operator on and satisfies (see [6], Corollary 3.22):
- There is no continuous spectrum of ,
- The discrete spectrum of is given by
Particularly reduces to the Fourier transform on if (, ), the Fourier–Bessel transform if (, ) and the Dunkl transform if (, ). Moreover the restriction of to radial functions is given by an a-deformed Fourier–Bessel transform (see [26])
In this case , , , and , is the Dunkl Lalpacian and is the deformed Dunkl harmonic oscillator. The ’s and the ’s are respectively given by (101) and (105).
Remark 4.
Notice that the estimates (37), which is obtained either from the heat kernel for the operator or from disguised in spectral estimates of powers of the Laplacian. To my knowledge, the heat kernel for the operator is only known at present for some special cases like , (where one can deform the known one-dimensional Dunkl heat kernel with the parameter a), and , (where the explicit formula was obtained in [5]).
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Ghobber, S.; Jaming, P. Uncertainty principles for integral operators. Stud. Math. 2014, 220, 197–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghobber, S. Variations on uncertainty principles for integral operators. Appl. Anal. 2014, 93, 1057–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghobber, S. Fourier-Like Multipliers and Applications for Integral Operators. Complex Anal. Oper. Theory 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunkl, C.F. Integral kernels with reflection group invariance. Can. J. Math. 1991, 43, 1213–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben Saïd, S. Strichart estimates for the Schrödinger-Laguerre operators. Semigroup Forum 2015, 90, 251–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben Saïd, S.; Kobayashi, T.; Ørsted, B. Laguerre semigroup and Dunkl operators. Compos. Math. 2012, 148, 1265–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cowling, M.G.; Demange, B.; Sundari, M. Vector-valued distributions and Hardy’s uncertainty principle for operators. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 2010, 26, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bie, H.; Oste, R.; van der Jeugt, J. Generalized Fourier transforms arising from the enveloping algebras of 𝔰𝔩(2) and 𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2). Int. Math. Res. Not. 2016, 15, 4649–4705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jeu, M.F.E. An uncertainty principle for integral operators. J. Funct. Anal. 1994, 122, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folland, G.B.; Sitaram, A. The uncertainty principle: A mathematical survey. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 1997, 3, 207–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Havin, V.; Jöricke, B. The Uncertainty Principle in Harmonic Analysis; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Heisenberg, W. Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematic und Mechanik. Z. Phys. 1927, 43, 172–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilgevoord, J.; Uffink, J. Spacetime symmetries and the uncertainty principle. Nucl. Phys. B 1989, 6, 246–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jevicki, A.; Yoneya, T. Space-time uncertainty principle and conformal symmetry in D-particle dynamics. Nucl. Phys. B 1998, 535, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oda, I. Space-time Uncertainty Principle from Breakdown of Topological Symmetry. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 1998, 13, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoneya, T. Schild Action and Space-Time Uncertainty Principle in String Theory. Prog. Theor. Phys. 1997, 97, 949–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciatti, P.; Ricci, F.; Sundari, M. Heisenberg-Pauli-Weyl uncertainty inequalities and polynomial volume growth. Adv. Math. 2007, 215, 616–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donoho, D.L.; Stark, P.B. Uncertainty principles and signal recovery. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 1989, 49, 906–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malinnikova, E. Orthonormal sequences in L2(ℝd) and time frequency localization. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 2010, 16, 983–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lebedev, N.N. Special Functions and Their Applications; Dover Publications Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- De Jeu, M.F.E. The Dunkl transform. Invent. Math. 1993, 113, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunkl, C.F. Differential-difference operators associated to reflection groups. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1989, 311, 167–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rösler, M. Generalized Hermite polynomials and the heat equation for the Dunkl operators. Commun. Math. Phys. 1998, 192, 519–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bie, H. The kernel of the radially deformed Fourier transform. Integral Transforms Spec. Funct. 2013, 24, 1000–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Constales, D.; de Bie, H.; Lian, P. Explicit formulas for the Dunkl dihedral kernel and the (k,a)-generalized Fourier kernel. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2018, 460, 900–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorbachev, D.V.; Ivanov, V.I.; Tikhonov, S.Y. Pitt’s inequalities and uncertainty principle for generalized Fourier transform. Int. Math. Res. Not. 2016, 23, 7179–7200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansen, T.R. Weighted inequalities and uncertainty principles for the (k,a)-generalized Fourier transform. Int. J. Math. 2016, 27, 1650019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).