Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2021 Feb 26;240(1):383–417. doi: 10.1007/s00205-021-01616-9

Derivation of the Landau–Pekar Equations in a Many-Body Mean-Field Limit

Nikolai Leopold 1,, David Mitrouskas 2,3, Robert Seiringer 3
PMCID: PMC7952374  PMID: 33785964

Abstract

We consider the Fröhlich Hamiltonian in a mean-field limit where many bosonic particles weakly couple to the quantized phonon field. For large particle numbers and a suitably small coupling, we show that the dynamics of the system is approximately described by the Landau–Pekar equations. These describe a Bose–Einstein condensate interacting with a classical polarization field, whose dynamics is effected by the condensate, i.e., the back-reaction of the phonons that are created by the particles during the time evolution is of leading order.

Introduction

We consider the dynamics of N bosonic particles interacting with a quantized phonon field described by the Fröhlich model in a mean field regime. The underlying Hilbert space is

H(N)=Ls2R3NFs, 1.1

where the N particles are described by states in Ls2(R3N), the subspace of all complex-valued square integrable N-particle wave functions that are symmetric under the exchange of any pair of the coordinates (x1,...,xN), and where the phonon field is represented by elements in the bosonic Fock space Fs=n0Ls2(R3n). The time evolution of the system is governed by the Schrödinger equation

itΨN,t=HN,αFΨN,t, 1.2

with the Fröhlich Hamiltonian

HN,αF=j=1N-Δj+αNd3kk-1eikxjak+e-ikxjak+N. 1.3

Here, Δj is the Laplacian acting on the jth particle with coordinate xj, ak and ak denote the usual bosonic annihilation and creation operators satisfying the canonical commutation relations

[ak,al]=δ(k-l),[ak,al]=[ak,al]=0, 1.4

and N is the number operator defined by N=d3kakak. The coupling parameter α/N is introduced to scale the strength of the interaction between the particles and the phonon field. If the number of phonons is of order N and α>0 is fixed, the factor N-1/2 and the fact that the creation and annihilation operators scale like N (they are bounded by N+11/2, see (3.3)) ensure that the kinetic and potential energy are of the same order for large N.

We note that the expression (1.3) is somewhat formal, since the form factor |k|-1 in the interaction term is not square integrable. By a well-known argument going back to Lieb and Yamazaki [26] (cf. Lemma A.1), the right side of (1.3) defines a closed bounded from below quadratic form with domain given by the form domain of HN,0F. The self-adjoint operator that corresponds to this form is called Fröhlich Hamiltonian and denoted by HN,αF. We refer to [16] for a detailed description of its domain D(HN,αF) (see also Lemma 3.1).

If the number N of particles is large, we show for a particular class of initial states that the solution of the many-body Schrödinger equation (1.2) can be approximated by Pekar product states, i.e., states of the form

ΨN,t=ψtNW(Nφt)Ω, 1.5

where Ω is the vacuum state in Fs, W denotes the Weyl operator and (ψt,φt)L2(R3)×L2(R3) solve the time-dependent Landau–Pekar equations

itψt(x)=-Δx+αΦ(x,t)ψt(x),itφt(k)=φt(k)+αk-1d3xe-ikxψt(x)2, 1.6

where

Φ(x,t)=d3kk-1eikxφt(k)+e-ikxφt(k)¯. 1.7

The Weyl operator is defined for any fL2(R3) by

W(f)=expd3k(f(k)ak-f(k)¯ak). 1.8

In the Pekar product state (1.5), the phonons are in the coherent state W(Nφt)Ω with average number of excitations of order N, and the bosonic particles form a pure Bose–Einstein condensate with condensate wave function ψt. According to the Landau–Pekar equations, the one-particle condensate wave function ψt evolves in the potential αΦ(x,t) created by the phonons, while the phonon field couples to the particles via the source term involving the density ψt(x)2.

Our main result can be summarized as follows: given an initial wave function ΨN,0 that is close to a Pekar product state ψ0NW(Nφ0)Ω (close in an appropriate sense that will be specified in the next section), then the time evolved state e-iHN,αFtΨN,0 remains close to the time evolved Pekar state (1.5) when N1.

The Landau–Pekar equations were originally introduced in [21] to approximate the time evolution of a single polaron in the strong coupling limit. In our notation, the strong coupling regime corresponds to the Hamiltonian H1,αF with α1. Partial results concerning a rigorous derivation of the Landau–Pekar equations in the strong coupling limit were obtained in [8, 10, 15, 25] (for a detailed comparison between the different results we refer to [25, Chapter 2]). In these works, the Landau–Pekar equations are justified for short times, namely at most for times of order α-ε with ε>0 arbitrary small.1 A derivation for times of order one, the time scale in the strong coupling limit at which the back-reaction of the phonons that are created during the time evolution is of leading order, remains an open problem. The emergence of classical radiation in the strong coupling limit is expected to rely on the adiabatic decoupling between the relatively fast moving (with respect to α) electron and the radiation field. For results on adiabatic theorems of the Landau–Pekar equations in one and three dimensions we refer to [9, 25].

In the many-particle mean-field limit considered in this work, the creation of coherent radiation happens for a different reason than in the strong coupling regime, namely because there are many particles in the same quantum state that simultaneously create the phonons. In this regard, the present work is related to [1, 7, 2224], where many-body mean-field limits of the renormalized Nelson model, the Nelson model with ultraviolet cutoff and the (bosonic) Pauli–Fierz model are considered. In particular, we mention [1] where the Schrödinger–Klein–Gordon equations were derived by the Wigner measure approach as a limit of the renormalized Nelson model.

In [4, 5, 12], effective equations for the Nelson, Pauli–Fierz and Fröhlich model were derived in a partially classical limit. There, the number of particles is kept fixed while the number of excitations of the quantum field tends to infinity and the coupling constant approaches zero in a suitable sense. The effect of the excitations that are created during time evolution is negligible in this limit and the quantum field can thus be approximated by a classical field that evolves freely or remains constant in time.

To the best of our knowledge, the present work provides the first derivation of the Landau–Pekar equations in a limit in which the back-reaction of the phonons that are created during time evolution is of leading order. Moreover, our results include explicit error estimates.

In order to derive our results, we follow [24], which combines the methods from [29, 31]. The new technical challenge in comparison with [24] is to show that the high momentum phonons do not obstruct the expected mean-field behavior. This requires several nontrivial modifications. First, it is crucial to introduce a measure for the excitations around the condensate resp. around the coherent state that involves the canonical transformation due to Gross and Nelson (see (2.12)). In particular, we use the representation of the Fröhlich Hamiltonian in [16]. The most difficult part is to control the interaction between the ultraviolet modes of the phonon field and the fraction of particles not in the condensate. To this end, we restrict our consideration to a subclass of the initial states which have small fluctuations in the energy per particle observable and combine estimates similar to [23, Sect. VIII.1] with an operator bound that is motivated by [10, Lemma 10]. The idea of using this restriction in order to treat the singular interaction between quantum fields and particles in the mean field regime was already used in [23].

The article is organized as follows: in the next section, we state our main results. In Theorem 2.1, we consider initial states in the domain of the Fröhlich Hamiltonian, while Theorem 2.2 is about initial states in the domain of the noninteracting model (including, in particular, product states). In Section 3, we introduce useful notation and discuss the representation of the Fröhlich Hamiltonian via the Gross transformation. The key steps of the proof of our main result are summarized in Section 4 in terms of several lemmas. The proofs of these are given in Sections 57.

Main Results

For notational convenience, we set the coupling constant α=1 from now on and denote HNF=HN,1F. All statements and proofs that follow are, however, equally true for any α>0 independent of N.

In order to state our main results we define for ΨNH(N) the one-particle reduced density matrix

γΨN(1,0)=Tr2,,NTrFs|ΨNΨN| 2.1

on the Hilbert space L2(R3). Here, Tr2,,N denotes the partial trace over the coordinates x2,,xN and TrFs the trace over Fock space. The particles of a many-body state ΨN are said to exhibit complete Bose–Einstein condensation if there exists ψL2(R3) with ψL2(R3)=1 such that

TrL2(R3)γΨN(1,0)-|ψψ|0 2.2

as N. In this case ψ is called the condensate wave function. Moreover, we define (for ψ,φL2(R3)×L2(R3) and ΨNDHNF)

a(ΨN,ψ)=TrL2(R3)γΨN(1,0)-|ψψ|, 2.3
b(ΨN,φ)=N-1W(Nφ)ΨN,NW(Nφ)ΨN, 2.4
c(ΨN)=N-1HNF-ΨN,HNFΨNΨN2. 2.5

For mN, let Hm(R3) denote the Sobolev space of order m and Lm2(R3) a weighted L2-space with norm φLm2(R3)=(1+·2)m/2φL2(R3). We will use the following result which was proven in [8]:

Proposition 2.1

(Lemma C.2 in [8]) The Landau–Pekar equations (1.6) are globally well-posed in H2(R3)×L12(R3). For all tR we have

ψtH2(R3)C1+tandφtL12(R3)C1+t, 2.6

where C is a constant depending only on the initial data.

We are now ready to state our main theorem.

Theorem 2.1

Let (ψ,φ)H2(R3)×L12(R3) s.t. ψL2(R3)=1, and ΨND(HNF) s.t. ΨN=1 and E0=supNN|N-1ΨN,HNFΨN|<. Let (ψt,φt) be the unique solution of (1.6) with initial datum (ψ,φ) and ΨN,t=e-iHNFtΨN. Then, there exists a constant C>0 (depending only on φL12(R3), ψH2(R3) and E0) such that

TrL2(R3)γΨN,t(1,0)-|ψtψt|a(ΨN,ψ)+b(ΨN,φ)+c(ΨN)+N-1/2eC(1+t)3, 2.7
N-1W(Nφt)ΨN,t,NW(Nφt)ΨN,ta(ΨN,ψ)+b(ΨN,φ)+c(ΨN)+N-1/2eC(1+t)3. 2.8

The proof is given in Section 4.

Remark 2.1

If one considers initial many-body states in which the particles are in a Bose–Einstein condensate, the phonons are in a coherent states and the energy has small fluctuations around its mean value, i.e.

limNa(ΨN,ψ)+b(ΨN,φ)+c(ΨN)=0, 2.9

it follows from Theorem 2.1 that

limNTrL2(R3)γΨN,t(1,0)-|ψtψt|=0andlimNN-1W(Nφt)ΨN,t,NW(Nφt)ΨN,t=0. 2.10

Our result consequently shows the stability of the condensate and the coherent state during the time evolution.

Remark 2.2

The condition c(ΨN)0 as N restricts the initial data to many-body states ΨN whose energy per particle has small fluctuations around its mean value. In our proof, this is important to obtain sufficient control on the singular ultraviolet behavior of the interaction term in HNF. We give a detailed explanation of this point in Section 5. In the presence of an ultraviolet cutoff in the Fröhlich Hamiltonian, the estimates (2.7) and (2.8) hold without the appearance of c(ΨN) on the right hand side, but with a cutoff dependent constant C. In this simpler case, the statement could be proven in close analogy to [7, 24] where the Nelson model was considered with ultraviolet cutoff.

Next, we give examples of initial states that satisfy (2.9). The quantities a(ΨN,ψ) and b(ΨN,φ) are identically zero for Pekar product states ΨN=ψNW(Nφ)Ω with (ψ,φ)H2(R3)×L12(R3). However, such Pekar states are in the domain D(HN0)=(Hs2(R3N)Fs)D(N) of the free Hamiltonian

HN0=-j=1NΔj+N, 2.11

and thus, as shown in [16], can not be elements of D(HNF). As a consequence, c(ΨN) would be infinite in this case. To specify states that satisfy (2.9), we introduce the Gross transform

UK=exp[N-1/2j=1Nd3kBK,xj(k)¯ak-BK,xj(k)ak], 2.12

where

BK,x(k)=-1k(1+k2)e-ikx1kK(k) 2.13

for 0<K<. The Gross transform, which goes back to Gross and Nelson [17, 28], relates the domains of HN0 and HNF to each other.2 In Lemma 3.1 we show that there is a K~>0 such that for all KK~ and all N1, the domains satisfy

DHNF=UKDHN0. 2.14

If we choose K as an N-dependent sufficiently rapidly growing sequence (KN)N1, then the Gross transform UKN has negligible effect on the condensate and the coherent state structure. This is summarized in the next proposition.

Proposition 2.2

Assume Kc for some c>0 and consider the state ΨN=UK(ψNW(Nφ)Ω) with (ψ,φ)H2(R3)×L12(R3) and ψL2(R3)=1. Then there exists a C>0 such that supNN|N-1ΨN,HNFΨN|C and

a(ΨN,ψ)CK3/2,b(ΨN,φ)CK3,c(ΨN)C(K-1+N-1+KN2) 2.15

with a(ΨN,ψ), b(ΨN,φ) and c(ΨN) defined as in Theorem 2.1.

We prove this proposition in Section 7.2. As an immediate consequence of Proposition 2.2 (with K=cN) and Theorem 2.1 one finds

TrL2(R3)γΨN,t(1,0)-|ψtψt|N-1/4eC(1+t)3 2.16

and

1NW(Nφt)ΨN,t,NW(Nφt)ΨN,tN-1/2eC(1+t)3 2.17

for initial states of the form ΨN=UcN(ψNW(Nφ)Ω).

Since the quantities b(ΨN,φ) and c(ΨN) appearing on the right side of (2.7) and (2.8) are expectation values of unbounded operators, it is not possible to generalize Theorem 2.1 to initial states ΨND(HNF) via a simple density argument. Using the Gross transform, however, it is possible to obtain a similar result for initial states in a subset of D(HN0). This follows from Theorem 2.1 in combination with (2.14) and the fact that UK converges strongly to the identity operator for K. The precise statement is as follows:

Theorem 2.2

Let KNcN5/6 for some c>0. Let (ψ,φ)H2(R3)×L12(R3) with ψL2(R3)=1, and ΨND(HN0) such that ΨN=1 and

E0=supNN|N-1ΨN,UKNHNFUKNΨN|<. 2.18

Let (ψt,φt) be the unique solution of (1.6) with initial datum (ψ,φ) and ΨN,t=e-iHNFtΨN. Then, there exists a constant C>0 (depending only on c, φL12(R3), ψH2(R3) and E0) such that

TrL2(R3)γΨN,t(1,0)-|ψtψt|a(ΨN,ψ)+b(ΨN,φ)+c(UKNΨN)+N-1/2eC(1+t)3, 2.19
W(Nφt)ΨN,t,NNW(Nφt)ΨN,ta(ΨN,ψ)+b(ΨN,φ)+c(UKNΨN)+N-1/2eC(1+t)3. 2.20

In particular, for the Pekar initial state ΨN=ψNW(Nφ)Ω we have the bounds

TrL2(R3)γΨN,t(1,0)-|ψtψt|N-1/4eC(1+t)3, 2.21
W(Nφt)ΨN,t,NNW(Nφt)ΨN,tN-1/4eC(1+t)3. 2.22

The proof is given in Section 7.3.

Remark 2.3

The restriction KNcN5/6 was chosen in order to minimize the error terms in (2.19) and (2.20).

Remark 2.4

Note that in (2.20) we only control the time evolution of N-1N, while in (2.8) we estimate the operator N-1N.

Preliminaries

Notation and Basic Estimates

We introduce the usual bosonic creation and annihilation operators

a(f)=d3kf(k)¯ak,a(f)=d3kf(k)ak,fL2(R3), 3.1

as well as the field operators

Φ(f)=a(f)+a(f),Π(f)=Φ(if)=i(-a(f)+a(f)). 3.2

They satisfy the bounds

a(f)ΨNfL2(R3)N1/2ΨN,a(f)ΨNfL2(R3)N+11/2ΨN, 3.3

and

Φ(f)ΨN2fL2(R3)N+11/2ΨN,Π(f)ΨN2fL2(R3)N+11/2ΨN 3.4

for any ΨNH(N). For K>0, we define the classical fields

ΦK(x,t)=kKd3kk-1eikxφt(k)+e-ikxφt(k)¯,ΦK(x,t)=kKd3kk-1eikxφt(k)+e-ikxφt(k)¯. 3.5

Moreover, it is useful to define the functions

Gx(k)=e-ikxk-1,GK,x(k)=e-ikxk-11kK(k), 3.6

and BK,x(k)=-1k(1+k2)e-ikx1kK(k) as in (2.13). The bounds

GK,xL2(R3)2=4πK,BK,xL2(R3)24πK-3,·BK,xL2(R3)24πK-1 3.7

are straightforward to verify and will be frequently used in the rest of the article. We also have

ΦK(x,t)32πφtL12(R3),Φ(GK,xj)ΨN16πKN+11/2ΨN 3.8

for j{1,...,N}.

Notation: The functions kkGK,x(k) and kkBK,x(k) will frequently be denoted by kGK,x and kBK,x, respectively. Depending on the context · and ·,· will refer to the norm and scalar product either of H(N) or L2(R3). If the spaces Lm2(R3) and Hm(R3) (with mN) appear as subscripts we will abbreviate them by Lm2 and Hm.

Weyl Operators and Gross Transform

The Weyl operator W(f) defined in (1.8) is unitary, i.e., W(f)=W-1(f), and satisfies the relations

W-1(f)=W(-f),W(f)W(g)=W(g)W(f)e-2iImf,g=W(f+g)e-iImf,g 3.9

as well as the shift property

W(f)akW(f)=ak+f(k). 3.10

This immediately implies that the Gross transform, as defined in (2.12), is unitary. Moreover, it has the properties

UK=W(-N-1/2j=1NBK,xj)=j=1NW(-N-1/2BK,xj) 3.11

(which holds since ImBK,x,BK,y=0 for all x,yR3) and

UKakUK=ak+N-1/2j=1NBK,xj(k). 3.12

The Fröhlich Hamiltonian

In [16], Griesemer and Wünsch give an explicit representation of HNF with the aid of the Gross transform when N=1. Below, we state the analogous representation for N>1, which will be useful for the proof of our main theorem. Considering N>1 does not impose additional difficulties compared to [16].

Definition 3.1

With BK,x and GK,x defined in (2.13) and (3.6), respectively, we set

AK,x=-2iN-1/2(x·a(kBK,x)+a(kBK,x)·x)+N-1Φ(kBK,x)2, 3.13
VK(x-y)=N-1(BK,x,BK,y+2ReGx,BK,y), 3.14
HN,KF=j=1N-Δj+N-1/2Φ(GK,xj)+N, 3.15

and define the Gross transformed Fröhlich Hamiltonian as

HN,KG=HN,KF+j=1NAK,xj+j,l=1NVK(xj-xl). 3.16

Note that (3.7) immediately implies the bound

|VK(xj-xl)|CK-1N-1 3.17

for suitable C>0. The next result, which is the generalization of [16, Theorem 3.7] to N2, justifies denoting HN,KG as Gross transformed Fröhlich Hamiltonian.

Lemma 3.1

The operator HN,KG is self-adjoint on D(HN0) for all K>0. Moreover, there exists a K~0 such that for all KK~ and NN, the self-adjoint operator HNF associated to the quadratic form defined by (1.3) has the representation

HNF=UKHN,KGUK,D(HNF)=UKD(HN0). 3.18

We shall comment on the proof of this lemma in “Appendix A”.

For use below, we also note that there is K~,C>0, such that for all KK~ and N1,

12HN0-CNHNF32HN0+CN, 3.19
12HN0-CNHN,KG32HN0+CN 3.20

hold as inequalities on the Hilbert space L2(R3N)Fs without symmetry constraints on the particles. This will be useful later in order to estimate expectation values with respect to wave functions that are not permutation symmetric in all particle coordinates, as e.g. in (5.8). The derivation of (3.19) and (3.20) is postponed to “Appendix A”.

Proof of the Main Theorem

We first state three preliminary lemmas from which the proof of Theorem 2.1 then follows easily. The proofs of the lemmas are postponed to later sections.

If we take the limit K, the Gross transform has only negligible effect on the one-particle reduced density and the coherent structure of the phonon field. This is quantified in the following lemma, whose proof is given in Sec. 7.1:

Lemma 4.1

Assume KK~>0 such that Lemma 3.1 holds. Let φL2(R3), ΨND((HNF)1/2) with ΨN=1, and the Gross transform UK defined as in (2.12). Then,

TrL2(R3)|γΨN(1,0)-γUKΨN(1,0)|CK3/2(HNF+CNN)1/2ΨN 4.1

and

N-1W(Nφ)ΨN,(N-UKNUK)W(Nφ)ΨNC(1+φ2)K3/2(HNF+CNN)1/2ΨN 4.2

for some C>0.

Next, we define a functional to compare UKΨN,t with the Pekar state ψtNW(Nφt)Ω. To this end, we introduce for j{1,...,N} the projections pjψ:L2(R3N)L2(R3N) and qjψ:L2(R3N)L2(R3N), given by

pjψfN(x1,,xN)=ψ(xj)d3xjψ(xj)¯fN(x1,xj-1,xj,xj+1,,xN) 4.3

for fNL2(R3N), and qjψ=1-pjψ. (More compactly, in bracket notation, pjψ=|ψψ|j).

Definition 4.1

Let K>0 and ψ,φL2(R3)×L2(R3) with ψ=1 and ΨNDHNF, ΨN=1. We define βKa:D(HNF)×L2(R3)R0+, βKb:D(HNF)×L2(R3)R0+ and βc:D(HNF)R0+ by

βKaΨN,ψ=ΨN,UKq1ψ1FsUKΨN, 4.4
βKbΨN,φ=N-1W(Nφ)UKΨN,NW(Nφ)UKΨN 4.5
βc(ΨN)=N-1HNF-ΨN,HNFΨNΨN2. 4.6

Moreover, we define βK:DHNF×L2(R3)×L2(R3)R0+ by

βK(ΨN,ψ,φ)=βKa(ΨN,ψ)+βKb(ΨN,φ)+βc(ΨN). 4.7

For solutions ΨN,t and (ψt,φt) of the Schrödinger equation (1.2) and the Landau–Pekar equations (1.6), respectively, we use the shorthand notations

βK(t)=βK(ΨN,t,ψt,φt),βKa(t)=βKa(ΨN,t,ψt),βKb(t)=βKb(ΨN,t,φt),βc(t)=βc(ΨN,t).

Remark 4.1

Note that

βKbΨN,φ=d3kN-1/2ak-φ(k)UKΨN2. 4.8

Remark 4.2

βK(t) being small compared to one ensures that

  • the N-particle component of UKΨN,t is approximately given by the product ψtN—more precisely, βKa(t) measures the relative number of particles not in ψt,

  • the phonon component of UKΨN,t is close to the coherent state W(Nφt)Ω—more, precisely, βKb(t) measures the relative number of excitations with respect to the coherent state W(Nφt)Ω,

  • the variance of N-1HNF with respect to ΨN,t is small compared to one—this will be used to control the singular ultraviolet behavior of the phonon field (for a detailed explanation of this point, see the beginning of Section 5). Also note that βc(ΨN,t)=βc(ΨN) is a conserved quantity, and thus requiring βc to be small only poses a restriction on the initial state. Since βc(ΨN)=c(ΨN), Proposition 2.2 shows that βc is small for initial states of the form ΨN=UKψNW(Nφ)Ω with K=KN large enough.

The functional βK(t) can consequently be used to monitor whether the condensate of the particles and the coherent state of the phonons is stable during the time evolution. Its definition is motivated by a previous work on the derivation of the Maxwell–Schrödinger equations [23]. In addition it is necessary to include the Gross transform in the definition of βKa(t) and βKb(t). This induces correlations between the electron and the phonons and effectively regularizes the interaction. In this sense, the Gross transform has a similar role as the Bogoliubov transformation in the derivation of the time-dependent Gross-Pitaevskii equation (see for instance [2, 3, 20, 30]).

The trace norm of the difference γUKΨN,t(1,0)-|ψtψt| and the quantity βKa(t) are related by

βKa(t)TrL2(R3)γUKΨN,t(1,0)-|ψtψt|4βKa(t), 4.9

which is the content of the following lemma when ΨN=UKΨN,t:

Lemma 4.2

Let ψL2(R3) with ψ=1 and ΨNH(N) with ΨN=1. Then,

ΨN,(q1ψ1Fs)ΨNTrL2(R3)γΨN(1,0)-|ψψ|4ΨN,(q1ψ1Fs)ΨN. 4.10

Proof

The lemma is a consequence of the identity

TrL2(R3)γΨN(1,0)-|ψψ|=supAop=1ΨN,A1ΨN-ψ,Aψ, 4.11

where the supremum is taken over all bounded operators A:L2(R3)L2(R3) and

A1=(A1L2(R3)...1L2(R3)N-1times)1Fs 4.12

acts non-trivially only on the variable x1. (Note that (4.11) holds because the space of bounded operators is the dual of the space of trace-class operators). The first bound then follows from

ΨN,(q1ψ1Fs)ΨN=ΨN,q1ψΨN=ΨN,p1ψΨN-ψ,pψψ, 4.13

while for the second bound, one inserts 1=p1ψ+q1ψ on the left and right of A1 and uses

p1ψA1p1ψ-ψ,Aψ=q1ψψ,Aψ 4.14

together with the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality for the remaining terms.3

The main ingredient of the proof of Theorem 2.1 is the following estimate for βK(t):

Lemma 4.3

Assume KK~>0 such that Lemma 3.1 holds. Let ΨN,t=e-iHNFtΨN with ΨND(HNF) such that ΨN=1 and E0=supNNN-1ΨN,HNFΨN<. Let further (ψt,φt) be a solution of (1.6) with (ψ,φ)H2(R3)×L12(R3) such that ψ=1. Then, there exists a constant C>0 only depending on φL12, ψH2, and E0, such that

ddtβK(t)C1+t2βK(t)+KN-1+K-1. 4.15

The proof is given in Section 6. Putting the above statements together, we obtain the proof of Theorem 2.1.

Proof of Theorem 2.1

We first apply Grönwall’s argument to (4.15) in order to obtain

βK(t)eC(1+t)3βK(0)+KN-1+K-1. 4.16

Next, set K=KN=K~N1/2 with K~>0 as in Lemma 3.1, and compute

TrL2(R3)|γΨN,t(1,0)-|ψtψt||TrL2(R3)|γUKNΨN,t(1,0)-|ψtψt||+CN-3/44βKNa(t)+CN-3/44βKN(t)+CN-3/4βKN(0)+N-1/2eC(1+t)3, 4.17

where we used inequality (4.1) in the first step, Lemma (4.2) in the second and (4.16) in the last one. The estimate (2.7) then follows from βc(0)=c(ΨN) and

βKNa(0)+βKNb(0)a(ΨN,ψ)+b(ΨN,φ)+CN-3/4, 4.18

which in turn holds because of (4.9) and Lemma 4.1.

Using (4.2), we can similarly estimate

N-1W(Nφt)ΨN,t,NW(Nφt)ΨN,tN-1W(Nφt)UKNΨN,t,NW(Nφt)UKNΨN,t+C(1+φt)N-3/4=βKNb(t)+C(1+φt)N-3/4(βKN(0)+N-1/2)eC(1+t)3(a(ΨN,ψ)+b(ΨN,φ)+c(ΨN)+N-1/2)eC(1+t)3. 4.19

This completes the proof of the theorem.

The proofs of Proposition 2.2 and Theorem 2.2 are postponed to Sections 7.2 and 7.3, respectively.

Bound on 2q1ψUKΨN

In this section, we state and prove a bound that is a crucial ingredient in the proof of Lemma 4.3.

Lemma 5.1

Assume KK~>0 such that Lemma 3.1 holds. Let (ψ,φ)H2(R3)×L12(R3) and ΨND(HNF) with ΨN=1, and set ENF(ΨN)=N-1ΨN,HNFΨN. Then

2q1ψUKΨN2g(ΨN,ψ,φ)βK(ΨN,ψ,φ)+N-1K-1+N-2K, 5.1

where g(ΨN,ψ,φ)=C(ψH22+φL122+|ENF(ΨN)|) for some C>0.

Before we give its proof, we explain the importance of the above estimate. The main technical difficulty for controlling the time-derivative of βK(t) arises from the singular ultraviolet behavior of the phonon field. In particular, if we want to estimate ddtβKb(t), we have to bound the following term (cf. Section 6.2)

(6.21d)=-2ImUKΨN,t,kKd3kk-1eikx1q1ψtN-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t 5.2

by an N-independent constant times the functional βK(t). A naive estimate using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality would give the bound

(6.21d)CK1/2βKa(t)βKb(t), 5.3

which is not sufficient for K1. The reason for the bad behavior for large K clearly comes from the careless estimate of the form factor |k|-1.

The most obvious strategy for a better estimate is to apply the well-known commutator method of Lieb and Yamazaki [26], which utilizes the particle momentum in order to obtain a better ultraviolet behavior of the phonon field. More precisely, one writes the exponential eikx1 in terms of a commutator with the gradient ix1,

eikx1=(1+k2)-1eikx1-k·[ix1,eikx1], 5.4

which suggests a better decay for large |k| provided that one has some control of the regularity of the particle with coordinate x1. Using this identity together with p1ψt+q1ψt=1, we find by a straightforward computation that (6.21d) can be written as

-2ImkKd3kk-1(1+k2)-1×(e-ikx1N-1/2ak-φt(k)¯UKΨN,t,q1ψtUKΨN,t-e-ikx1N-1/2ak-φt(k)¯k·i1p1ψtUKΨN,t,q1ψtUKΨN,t-e-ikx1k·i1q1ψtUKΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(k)q1ψtUKΨN,t+e-ikx1N-1/2ak-φt(k)¯UKΨN,t,k·i1q1ψtUKΨN,t). 5.5

With the aid of the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and the canonical commutation relations this implies the bound

(6.21d)CψtH1βKa(t)+1q1ψtUKΨN,tβKb(t)+N-1. 5.6

Contrary to (5.3), there is no more divergence for large K. However, the above inequality contains the new term 1q1ψtUKΨN,t. Thus if we want to apply Grönwall’s inequality we would have to show that this term is small compared to one or bounded by a constant times βK(t).4 It is not clear how to derive such a bound, however, and hence, we are forced to estimate (6.21d) in a different way.

A possible solution to this problem is to use a combination of the estimates from [23, Chapter VIII.1] with an operator bound that is motivated by [10, Lemma 10] (see Section 6 for the detailed argument). In short, we use the symmetry of the wave function and an estimate that is similar in spirit to the commutator method of Lieb and Yamazaki to obtain

(6.21d)CβKa(t)+βKb(t)+N-1K+2q1ψtUKΨN,t2. 5.7

As shown in Lemma 5.1, the new quantity 2q1ψtUKΨN,t2 can be bounded by βK(t) and errors proportional to N-1K-1 and N-2K.

Proof of Lemma 5.1

Using the symmetry of ΨN and -Δ10, we can bound

2q1ψUKΨN2=(N-1)-1j=2Nq1ψUKΨN,(-Δj)q1ψUKΨN2Nj=1Nq1ψUKΨN,(-Δj)q1ψUKΨN. 5.8

With -j=1NΔjHN0 and (3.20), we thus have

2q1ψUKΨN2CβKa(ΨN,ψ)+4N-1q1ψUKΨN,HN,KGq1ψUKΨN. 5.9

By using q1ψHN,KGq1ψ=q1ψHN,KG-q1ψHN,KGp1ψ and recalling Definition (3.1), we get

2q1ψUKΨN2C(βKa(ΨN,ψ)+N-1q1ψUKΨN,HN,KGUKΨN 5.10a
+N-1UKΨN,q1ψ-Δ1p1ψUKΨN 5.10b
+N-3/2UKΨN,q1ψΦ(GK,x1)p1ψUKΨN 5.10c
+N-1UKΨN,q1ψAK,x1p1ψUKΨN 5.10d
+UKΨN,q1ψVK(x1-x2)p1ψUKΨN). 5.10e

In what follows, we shall bound the various terms on the right hand side.

Line (5.10a). In the second summand in this line, we add and subtract ENF(ΨN)βKa(ΨN,φ), to obtain

N-1q1ψUKΨN,HN,KGUKΨNq1ψUKΨN,N-1HN,KG-ENF(ΨN)UKΨN+ENF(ΨN)βKa(ΨN,ψ). 5.11

With the aid of the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and (3.18), we find

(5.10a)C(1+|ENF(ΨN)|)βKa(ΨN,ψ)+βc(ΨN). 5.12

Line (5.10b). One readily obtains

(5.10b)N-1-Δ1p1ψUKΨNq1ψUKΨN12ψH2βKa(ΨN,ψ)+N-2. 5.13

Line (5.10c). Using (3.8), we find

(5.10c)N-3/2q1ψUKΨNΦGK,x1p1ψUKΨNCN-3/2K1/2βKa(ΨN,ψ)UKΨN,(N+1)UKΨN 5.14

and hence, using (3.20), (3.18) and NHN0, we have

(5.10c)C(1+|ENF(ΨN)|)KN-2+βKa(ΨN,ψ). 5.15

Line (5.10d). We recall the definition of AK,x in (3.13) and estimate the term with a(kBK,x)·x by

UKΨN,q1ψN-1/2a(kBK,x1)·1p1ψUKΨNd3kq1ψ(N-1/2ak-φ(k)+φ(k))UKΨN,kBK,x1(k)·1p1ψUKΨN1p1ψUKΨNd3kkBK,x(k)(N-1/2ak-φ(k))UKΨN+kBK,x(k)φ(k)ψH1·BK,xβKb(ΨN,φ)+BK,x·φCψH1K-1/2βKb(ΨN,φ)+K-3/2φL12. 5.16

Using q1ψ=1-p1ψ and -Δ1N-1HN0 as quadratic forms on Ls2(R3N)Fs, together with (3.20), we find

1q1ψUKΨN221p1ψUKΨN2+1UKΨN2CψH12+|ENF(ΨN)|+1. 5.17

With this at hand, we can proceed for the term with x·a(kBK,x) similarly as in (5.16), with the result that

UKΨN,q1ψ1·N-1/2a(kBK,x1)p1ψUKΨN1q1ψUKΨNd3kkBK,x(k)(N-1/2ak-φ(k))UKΨN+kBK,x(k)φ(k)CψH12+|ENF(ΨN)|K-1/2βKb(ΨN,φ)+K-3/2φL12. 5.18

Next, we estimate the term in line (5.10d) with Φ(kBK,x)2,

UKΨN,q1ψN-1Φ(kBK,x1)2p1ψUKΨNN-1Φ(kBK,x1)q1ψUKΨNΦ(kBK,x1)p1ψUKΨNCN-1·BK,x2UKΨN,(N+1)UKΨNCK-1N-1(UKΨN,(HN,KG+CN)UKΨN+1)C|ENF(ΨN)|+1K-1. 5.19

By summing up the terms, we obtain the bound

UKΨN,q1ψAK,x1p1ψUKΨNC(ψH12+φL122+|ENF(ΨN)|)K-1+βKb(ΨN,φ). 5.20

Line (5.10e). Using (3.17),

UKΨN,q1ψVK(x1-x2)p1ψUKΨNβKa(ΨN,ψ)VK(x1-x2)p1ψUKΨNC(βKa(ΨN,ψ)+N-2K-2). 5.21

This completes the proof of the lemma.

Proof of Lemma 4.3 (Time Derivative of βK(t))

We first observe that

ddtUKΨN,t=-iUKHNFΨN,t=-iUKHNFUKUKΨN,t=-iHN,KGUKΨN,t, 6.1

from which it follows readily that ddtβc(t)=0. The time-derivatives of βKa(t) and βKb(t) are estimated in the next two sections. Throughout both sections, we use the abbreviation ENF(ΨN)=N-1ΨN,HNFΨN.

Time Derivative of βKa(t)

For q1t=q1ψt=1-p1ψt, we have

ddtq1t=-ddtp1t=i[-Δ1+Φ(x1,t),p1t]=-i[-Δ1+Φ(x1,t),q1t]. 6.2

Using this together with (6.1), we compute

ddtβKa(t)=ddtUKΨN,t,q1tUKΨN,t=-2ImUKΨN,t,HN,KG+Δ1-Φ(x1,t)q1tUKΨN,t=-2ImUKΨN,t,p1tHN,KG+Δ1-Φ(x1,t)q1tUKΨN,t, 6.3

where we inserted 1=p1t+q1t and used that the term with q1t on both sides is real. Recall Definition 3.1. Using Φ(x1,t)=ΦK(x1,t)+ΦK(x1,t), p1tq1t=0 and the symmetry of ΨN, we can rewrite (6.3) as

ddtβKa(t)=-2ImUKΨN,t,p1tN-1/2Φ(GK,x1)-ΦK(x1,t)q1tUKΨN,t 6.4a
+2ImUKΨN,t,p1tΦK(x1,t)q1tUKΨN,t 6.4b
-2ImUKΨN,t,p1tAK,x1q1tUKΨN,t 6.4c
-2ImUKΨN,t,p1t(N-1)VK(x1-x2)q1tUKΨN,t. 6.4d

The various terms will be bounded as follows:

Line (6.4a). We bound

(6.4a)2|k|Kd3k|k|-1e-ikx1N-1/2ak-φt(k)¯p1tUKΨN,t,q1tUKΨN,t+2|k|Kd3kk-1eikx1N-1/2ak-φt(k)p1tUKΨN,t,q1tUKΨN,t2βKa(ΨN,t,ψt)+|k|Kd3kk-1e-ikx1N-1/2ak-φt(k)¯p1tUKΨN,t2+|k|Kd3kk-1eikx1N-1/2ak-φt(k)p1tUKΨN,t2. 6.5

For the second summand, we use

|k|Kd3kk-1e-ikx1N-1/2ak-φt(k)¯p1tUKΨN,t2CKN+|k|Kd3k|k|-1eikx1N-1/2ak-φt(k)p1tUKΨN,t2, 6.6

which follows directly from the canonical commutation relations. By the shift property (3.10), the last summand in (6.5) can be written as

N-1aGK,x1p1tW(Nφt)UKΨN,t2. 6.7

In order to estimate this expression, we use [10, Lemma 10] which implies the bound

aGK,x1aGK,x1CG1-Δ1N, 6.8

with

CG=suppR3R3d3kk2(1+(p+k)2)=R3d3kk2(1+k)2<. 6.9

The latter is obtained via a rearrangement inequality. In combination, we thus have

(6.4a)CβKa(t)+KN-1+CGN-11-Δ11/2p1tN1/2W(Nφt)UKΨN,t2CβKa(t)+KN-1+CGψtH12N-1N1/2W(Nφt)UKΨN,t2CψtH12βKa(t)+βKb(t)+KN-1. 6.10

Line (6.4b). This term can be estimated as

(6.4b)CsupxΦK(x,t)q1tUKΨN,tCβKa(t)kKd3kk-1φtCβKa(t)φtL12kKd3kk-41/2CφtL12βKa(t)K-1/2. 6.11

Line (6.4c). It follows from (5.20) that

(6.4c)C(ψtH12+φtL122+|ENF(ΨN,t)|)K-1+βKb(t). 6.12

Line (6.4d). In analogy to (5.21) one finds

(.6.4d)C(βKa(t)+K-2). 6.13

In combination, we have thus shown that

ddtβKa(t)CψtH12+φtL122+|ENF(ΨN,t)|βKa(t)+βKb(t)+KN+K-1. 6.14

Time Derivative of βKb(t)

From (6.1) we get

ddtβKb(ΨN,t,φt)=d3kddtN-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t=-2Red3kN-1/2ak-φt(k)¯N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t,iHN,KGUKΨN,t 6.15a
-2Red3ktφt(k)UKΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t, 6.15b

which is a slightly formal computation, since the use of the product rule of differentiation is not completely obvious here. We clarify the difficulty and justify the above identity in detail in “Appendix B”. Next, we write the first line in terms of the commutator as

(6.15a)=-id3k[HN,KG,(N-1/2ak-φt(k)¯)(N-1/2ak-φt(k))]UKΨN,t,UKΨN,t. 6.16

Let us remark that the right hand side is well defined since the commutator of HN,KG and

LN=N-1W(Nφt)NW(Nφt)=d3k(N-1/2ak-φt(k)¯)(N-1/2ak-φt(k)) 6.17

defines a bounded operator from D(HN,KG)=D(HN0) to H(N). This fact is a direct consequence of the B.L.T. theorem because [HN,KG,LN] is a bounded operator from D((HN0)2) to H(N) and the estimate

[HN,KG,LN]ΨNCN,K(1+HN0)ΨN 6.18

holds for all ΨND((HN0)2) and some constant CN,K. The latter is straightforward to verify with the aid of

HN,KG,ak=2N-1/2j=1NBK,xj(k)k·ij-N-1/2Φ(kBK,xj)-ak-N-1/2j=1Nk-11kK(k)e-ikxj 6.19

and the basic estimates from Section 3.

Hence, we can proceed by using (6.16) and (6.19) together with the Landau–Pekar equations (1.6) and the symmetry of the many-body wave function in order to obtain

ddtβKb(ΨN,t,φt)=-2kKd3kk-1Ime-ikx1UKΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t+2d3kk-1Imd3ye-ikyψt(y)2UKΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t+4d3kImBK,x1(k)k·i1-N-1/2Φ(kBK,x1)UKΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t. 6.20

Finally, inserting the identity eikx1=p1teikx1p1t+q1teikx1p1t+eikx1q1t leads to

ddtβKb(ΨN,t,φt)=-2kKd3kk-1ImUKΨN,t,(p1teikx1p1t-d3yeikyψt(y)2)N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t 6.21a
+2kKd3kk-1ImUKΨN,t,d3yeikyψt(y)2N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t 6.21b
-2kKd3kk-1ImUKΨN,t,q1teikx1p1tN-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t 6.21c
-2kKd3kk-1ImUKΨN,t,eikx1q1tN-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t 6.21d
+4d3kImBK,x1(k)k·i1-N-1/2Φ(kBK,x1)UKΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t. 6.21e

In what follows, we estimate each term on the r.h.s. separately.

Line (6.21a). The first term is the most important because it is the one where the particle density cancels the source term of the Landau–Pekar equations. We first note that

p1teikx1p1t-d3yeikyψt(y)2=p1t-1d3yeikyψt(y)2=-q1tψt,eik·ψt. 6.22

We then use eikx=1-i(k·x)1+k2eikx and integrate by parts to obtain the bound

ψt,eik·ψt1-i(k·)1+k2ψt,eik·ψt+ψt,eik·i(k·)1+k2ψt2(1+k2)-11+kψt2ψtH1(1+k2)-11+k. 6.23

Hence,

(6.21a)4ψtH1d3k(1+k)k(1+k2)q1tUKΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t4ψtH1βKa(t)(d3k(1+k)2k2(1+k2)2)1/2×(d3kN-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t2)1/2CψtH1βK(t). 6.24

Line (6.21b). We again use (6.23) and estimate

(6.21b)2kKd3kk-1ψt,eik·ψtUKΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,tCψtH1kKd3k(1+k)k(1+k2)N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,tCψtH1βKb(t)+kKd3k(1+k)2k2(1+k2)2CψtH1βKb(t)+K-1. 6.25

Line (6.21c). Writing (6.21c) as

2kKd3kk-1Imeikx1N-1/2ak-φt(k)p1tUKΨN,t,q1tUKΨN,t 6.26

shows that this is exactly the same expression as the second line in (6.5). We consequently have

(6.21c)CψtH12βKa(t)+βKb(t). 6.27

Line (6.21d). To find a suitable bound for (6.21d) is the most difficult step in the proof. We start by estimating

(6.21d)2kKd3kk-1|UKΨN,t,eikx1q1tN-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t|=2kKd3kk-1|UKΨN,t,N-1j=1NeikxjqjtN-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t|2kKd3kk-1N-1j=1Nqjte-ikxjUKΨN,tN-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,tβKb(t)+kKd3kk-2N-1j=1Nqjte-ikxjUKΨN,t2. 6.28

The last term is bounded by

kKd3kk-2N-1j=1Nqjte-ikxjUKΨN,t24πN-1K+kKd3kk-2Req2te-ikx2UKΨN,t,q1te-ikx1UKΨN,t. 6.29

With O1,2=1-Δ2-1/2eikx21-Δ11/2q2t one has

eikx2q2tq1te-ikx1+eikx1q1tq2te-ikx2=O2,1O1,2+O1,2O2,1O1,2O1,2+O2,1O2,1. 6.30

Thus, using the symmetry of the wave function and e-ikx2(1-Δ2)-1eikx2=((-i2+k)2+1)-1, we obtain the bound

kKd3kk-2Req2te-ikx2UKΨN,t,q1e-ikx1UKΨN,tkKd3kk-2UKΨN,t,q2t1-Δ11/2e-ikx21-Δ2-1eikx21-Δ11/2q2tUKΨN,t=1-Δ11/2q2tUKΨN,t,kKd3kk-2-i2+k2+1-11-Δ11/2q2tUKΨN,t. 6.31

In combination with

kKd3kk-2-i2+k2+1-1op=suppR3kKd3kk-2p+k2+1-1< 6.32

(compare with (6.9)) and Lemma 5.1 this gives

(6.21d)CβKb(t)+N-1K+(1-Δ2)1/2q1tUKΨN,t2CβKa(t)+βKb(t)+N-1K+2q1tUKΨN,t2CψtH22+φtL122+|ENF(ΨN,t)|βK(t)+N-1K-1+N-1K. 6.33

Line (6.21e). We have

(6.21e)4d3kkBK,x(k)N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t×i1-N-1/2Φ(kBK,x1)UKΨN,tCβKb(t)i1-N-1/2Φ(kBK,x1)UKΨN,t·BK,x. 6.34

By using (3.7), the symmetry of the wave function and (3.20), we get

(6.21e)C1UKΨN,t+·BK,x1N-1/2N+1UKΨN,tβKb(t)+K-1CUKΨN,t,N-1HN0UKΨN,t1/2+1βKb(t)+K-1CUKΨN,t,(N-1HN,KG+C)UKΨN,t1/2+1βKb(t)+K-1. 6.35

In total, we thus arrive at

ddtβKb(ΨN,t,φt)CψtH22+φtL122+|ENF(ΨN,t)|βK(t)+K-1+KN. 6.36

Conclusion: We combine ddtβc(t)=0, (6.14) and (6.36) with Proposition (2.1) and |ENF(ΨN,t)|=|ENF(ΨN)|E0 in order to obtain (4.15).

Remaining Proofs

Proof of Lemma 4.1

To show the inequality (4.1), we use γUKΨN(1,0)=γUK,x1ΨN(1,0) with UK,x1=exp(iN-1/2Π(BK,x1)), which follows directly from (3.11) and the definition of the reduced density matrix. Hence,

TrL2(R3)|γΨN(1,0)-γUKΨN(1,0)|2(UK,x1-1)ΨN. 7.1

Using (UK,x1-1)ΨN=(UK,x1-1)UKΨN, we obtain (4.1) from the bound

(UK,x1-1)UKΨN2BK,x(N+1N)1/2UKΨN, 7.2

together with NHN0, (3.20) and (3.18). Inequality (7.2) follows from the spectral calculus for self-adjoint operators, using 1-UK,x=f(N-1/2Π(BK,x)) with f(s)=1-exp(is) in combination with |f(s)||s|.

Using the properties of the Weyl operator (in particular (3.9) together with (3.11)) and

UKNUK=N+N-1i,j=1NBK,xi,BK,xj+N-1/2j=1Na(BK,xj)+a(BK,xj), 7.3

we have

N-1W(Nφ)ΨN,(N-UKNUK)W(Nφ)ΨN=N-1|W(Nφ)UKΨN,(UKNUK-N)W(Nφ)UKΨNBK,x2+2N-3/2j=1NaBK,xjW(Nφ)UKΨNBK,x2+2BK,xφ+2N-1/2BK,xN1/2UKΨN. 7.4

An application of (3.7) and (3.20) then leads to

(7.4)C(1+φ)BK,x(1+UKΨN,N-1HN0UKΨN1/2)CK-3/2(1+φ)UKΨN,(N-1HN,KG+C)UKΨN1/2. 7.5

In combination with (3.18), this shows (4.2).

Proof of Proposition 2.2

Throughout this section, we set ξN=ψNW(Nφ)Ω. The bound on the energy follows from

ΨN,HNFΨN=ξN,HN,KGξN=ξN,(HN,KF+j=1NAK,xj+j,l=1NVK(xj-xl))ξN 7.6

in combination with (3.17), (A.2) and

ξN,HN,KFξN=Nψ,-Δ+ΦK(·,0)ψ+φ2CNψH12+φ2. 7.7

In (7.7), we used the shift property of the Weyl operators (3.10).

For the bound on a(ΨN,ψ), we note that

TrL2(R3)γΨN(1,0)-|ψψ|=TrL2(R3)γΨN(1,0)-γUKΨN(1,0) 7.8

since |ψψ|=γξN(1,0) and ξN=UKΨN. Applying Lemma (4.1), we obtain the stated estimate. The bound on b(ΨN,φ) follows readily from (3.12),

b(ΨN,φ)=N-1d3kakUK(ψNΩ)2BK,x2CK-3. 7.9

We are thus left with the bound for c(ΨN), which we write with the aid of (3.18) as

c(ΨN)=N-1HN,KG-ξN,HN,KGξNξN2. 7.10

Recalling Definition 3.1 and using the triangle inequality, we get

HN,KG-ξN,HN,KGξNξNHN,KF-ξN,HN,KFξNξN+2j=1NAK,xjξN+2j,l=1NVK(xj-xl)ξN. 7.11

After a lengthy but straightforward computation, using the shift property (3.10) and the fact that Δx commutes with W(Nφ), we find that

1NHN,KF-ξN,HN,KFξNξN2=φ2+ψ,(-Δ)2ψ-ψ,(-Δ)ψ2+N-1ψ,GK,x2ψ+(1-N-1)ψ,GK,xψ2+4ψ,(ReGK,x,φ)2ψ-4ψ,ReGK,x,φψ2+2Reψ,φ,GK,xψ+2(ψ,(-Δx)ReGK,x,φψ+c.c.)-4ψ,(-Δ)ψψ,ReGK,x,φψ. 7.12

We shall show that the right hand side is bounded from above by a constant times 1+KN-1, with the constant depending only on ψH2 and φL12. For the first four summands (i.e., the terms in the first line), this is obvious (recall (3.7)). In the fifth summand, we can use (6.23) to conclude that

ψ,GK,xψ2C independently of K. For each of the remaining terms on the right side of (7.12), we use

GK,x,φ(1+·)-1GK,x2(1+·)φ, 7.13

which is bounded by CφL12. Hence, we find

N-1HN,KF-ξN,HN,KFξNξN2C(N-1+KN-2). 7.14

Next, we use

1Nj=1NAK,xjξNAK,x1ξN, 7.15

and recalling (3.13) we estimate (with Ψ~N=ψNΩ)

N-1/21·a(kBK,x1)W(Nφ)Ψ~N=1·dkkBK,x1(k)¯φ(k)Ψ~Ndkk2BK,x1(k)¯φ(k)Ψ~N+dkkBK,x1(k)¯φ(k)1Ψ~N·BK,x2(·φ+φψH1)CK-1/2. 7.16

Similarly, we also have

N-1/2a(kBK,x1)·1W(Nφ)Ψ~N=dkkBKN,x1(k)(N-1/2ak+φ(k)¯)·1Ψ~N·BK,x(N-1/2ψH1+φψ)CK-1/2. 7.17

In order to estimate the term containing Φ(kBK,x)2, consider

W(Nφ)Φ(kBK,x1)W(Nφ)=Φ(kBK,x1)+2NRekBK,x1,φ, 7.18

and thus

N-1Φ(kBK,x1)2W(Nφ)Ψ~N=N-1(Φ(kBK,x1)+2NRekBK,x1,φ)2Ψ~N2N-1Φ(kBK,x1)2Ψ~N+8||kBK,x1|,|φ||2. 7.19

In the last line, we use (3.7) to obtain

Φ(kBK,x1)2Ψ~N=3kBK,x2CK-1. 7.20

Finally, using (3.17), we estimate

N-1j,l=1NVK(xj-xl)ξNN-1j,l=1NVK(xj-xl)ξNCK-1, 7.21

which completes the proof of the proposition.

Proof of Theorem 2.2

Given Theorem 2.1, (2.19) follows from (4.1) together with the bound

(1-UK)ΨNCNK3/2(HN,KG+CNN)1/2ΨN,ΨND(HN0). 7.22

The latter follows from NHN0, (3.20) and the functional calculus for self-adjoint operators, using 1-UK=f(N-1/2j=1NΠ(BK,xj)) with f(s)=1-exp(is) and the bound |f(s)||s|. In more detail, let ΨN,t as in Theorem 2.2 and denote ΦN,t=e-iHNFtUKΨN,0. Then, using (7.22),

TrL2(R3)γΨN,t(1,0)-γΦN,t(1,0)2e-iHNFt(ΨN,0-ΦN,0)=2(1-UK)ΨN,0CNK3/2, 7.23

and the triangle inequality,

TrL2(R3)γΨN,t(1,0)-|ψtψt|CNK3/2+TrL2(R3)γΦN,t(1,0)-|ψtψt|. 7.24

Since ΦN,0D(HNF) and E0=supNN|N-1ΦN,0,HNFΦN,0|< by assumption, we infer with Theorem 2.1 that

TrL2(R3)γΦN,t(1,0)-|ψtψt|a(ΦN,0,ψ)+b(ΦN,0,φ)+c(ΦN,0)+N-1/2eC(1+t)3. 7.25

Using Lemma 4.1, we have

a(ΦN,0,ψ)a(ΨN,0,ψ)+CK-3/2,b(ΦN,0,φ)b(ΨN,0,φ)+CK-3/2, 7.26

which proves the first bound in Theorem 2.2 if we set K=KNcN5/6.

In order to prove (2.20), we estimate

W(Nφt)ΨN,t,NNW(Nφt)ΨN,t|W(Nφt)ΨN,t,NNW(Nφt)ΦN,t| 7.27a
+|W(Nφt)ΨN,t,NNW(Nφt)(ΨN,t-ΦN,t)| 7.27b

with ΦN,t defined as above. In the first line, we use the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and apply Theorem 2.1 to ΦN,t, i.e.,

NNW(Nφt)ΦN,t2(a(ΦN,0,ψ)+b(ΦN,0,φ)+c(ΦN,0)+N-1/2)eC(1+t)3(a(ΨN,0,ψ)+b(ΨN,0,φ)+c(ΦN,0)+K-3/2+N-1/2)eC(1+t)3, 7.28

where we made use of (7.26) in the second step. In (7.27b), we estimate

ΨN,t-ΦN,t(1-UK)ΨN,0CNK3/2(HN,KG+CNN)1/2ΨN,0, 7.29

together with

NNW(Nφ)ΨN,tC((HN,KG+CNN)1/2ΨN,0+φt), 7.30

which for K=KNcN5/6 proves (2.20). In order to show (7.30), we use the commutation relations (3.10) and 2Φ(Nφt)N+Nφt2, in order to find

W(Nφt)ΨN,t,NW(Nφt)ΨN,t2(ΨN,t,NΨN,t+Nφt2). 7.31

Using (3.19) in combination with (3.20) leads to

NHN02HNF+CN=e-iHNFt(2HNF+CN)eiHNFtCe-iHNFt(HN,KG+CN)eiHNFt. 7.32

It remains to show (2.21) and (2.22): For the Pekar state ΨN=ψNW(Nφ)Ω, we have

a(ΨN,ψ)=0,b(ΨN,φ)=0,c(UKΨN)C(N-1+K-1+KN2), 7.33

where the last bound was proven in Proposition 2.2. Thus, if we choose K=KN=cN, we obtain (2.21) and (2.22).

Acknowledgements

Financial support by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No 694227; N.L and R.S.), the SNSF Eccellenza Project PCEFP2 181153 (N.L) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through the Research Training Group 1838: Spectral Theory and Dynamics of Quantum Systems (D.M.) is gratefully acknowledged. N.L. gratefully acknowledges support from the NCCR SwissMAP and would like to thank Simone Rademacher and Benjamin Schlein for interesting discussions about the time-evolution of the polaron at strong coupling. D.M. thanks Marcel Griesemer and Andreas Wünsch for extensive discussions about the Fröhlich polaron.

Auxiliary Bounds

In this appendix, we collect bounds on the interaction terms of the Hamiltonians HNF and HN,KG and derive the frequently used inequalities (3.19) and (3.20). After that we comment on the proof of Lemma 3.1.

Lemma A.1

For every ε>0, K(0,], NN and j{1,,N}, we have

±N-1/2Φ(GK,xj)ε-Δj+N+1N+2(16π)2ε3 A.1

on L2(R3N)Fs. Moreover, with AK,x defined in Definition 3.1,

±AK,xj64πK-Δj+N-1N+16πNK. A.2

Proof

To prove (A.1), we use again the commutator method by Lieb and Yamazaki [26]. Using (3.4) and (3.7), we have

ΨN,N-1/2Φ(GK,xj)ΨN4πKεΨN2+εN-1ΨN,(N+1)ΨN, A.3

which proves (A.1) for K64π/ε2. In the case K>64π/ε2, we write Φ(GK,xj)=Φ(GK,xj)+(Φ(GK,xj)-Φ(GK,xj)) with K=16π/ε2. For the first summand, we use (A.3) with K replaced by K and ε replaced by ε/2, while for the remainder, write

ΨN,(Φ(GK,xj)-Φ(GK,xj))ΨN=ΨN,[j,Φ(gxj)]ΨN A.4

with gx(k)=ik|k|-3e-ikx1K|k|K(k). The absolute value of the last expression is bounded from above by

4jΨNgxN+1ΨN2N1/2gxΨN,(-Δj+N+1N)ΨN. A.5

Using gx4π/K=ε4 shows (A.1).

To show (A.2), we use ·BK,xj24πK-1 and

ΨN,AK,xjΨN4N-1/2jΨN,a(kBK,xj)ΨN+N-1Φ(kBK,xj)ΨN24N-1/2jΨN·BK,xN1/2ΨN+4N-1·BK,x2N+11/2ΨN216πKΨN,-Δj+N-1NΨN+16πKΨN,N+1NΨN. A.6

The previous lemma readily implies the validity of the bounds (3.19) and (3.20). With

HNF=HN0+N-1/2j=1NΦ(G,xj), A.7

we can use (A.1) with ε=1/2 in order to infer (3.19). Using in addition (3.17) and (A.2), one similarly obtains (3.20).

Comment on the proof of Lemma 3.1.

As already explained, Lemma 3.1 was stated and proved in [16] for the case N=1. Since the statement N2 can be proven by almost literal adaption of the argument from [16] (with obvious minor modifications), we omit all details except for the proof of the following lemma. The bound given in the lemma is one of the main ingredients in the proof, and in particular its N-dependence is crucial since it guarantees that we can choose K~ in Lemma 3.1 independently of N.

Lemma A.2

For any ε>0 there are Kε>0 and Cε>0 such that for all NN, KKε and any ΨND(HN0),

HN,KG-HN0ΨNεHN0ΨN+CεKNΨN. A.8

Proof

We estimate each term in

HN,KG-HN0=j=1NN-1/2Φ(GK,xj)+AK,xj+j,l=1NVK(xj-xl) A.9

separately. Using (3.4), GK,xCK and N1/2ΨN2HN0ΨNΨN, we have

N-1/2j=1NΦGK,xjΨNCKNN1/2ΨN+ΨNδHN0ΨN+CKN1+δ-1ΨN A.10

for any δ>0. The norm of j,l=1NVK(xj-xl)ΨN can be bounded using (3.17). From (3.13) we see that the remaining terms to estimate are

N-1j=1NΦkBK,xj2ΨNCK-1N+1ΨNCK-1HN0ΨN+ΨN, A.11

where we have used (3.4) and (3.7). Similarly, we have

2N-1/2j=1NakBK,xjjΨNCNK-1N+1jΨNCK-1/2HN0ΨN+ΨN A.12

and

2N-1/2j=1Nja(kBK,xj)ΨN2N-1/2j=1Na(kBK,xj)jΨN+a(k2BK,xj)ΨNCK-1/2HN0ΨN+2N1/2a(k2BK,x1)ΨN. A.13

In order to estimate the second summand, we use

a(k2BK,x1)a(k2BK,x1)C~K(1-Δ1)N, A.14

where

C~K=suphR3kKd3k1(1+k2)1+(h-k2). A.15

The bound (A.14) is analogous to (6.8) and can be proven in the same way as [10, Lemma 10] (see also [15, Lemma B.5]). If one estimates the integral in (A.15) using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality one sees that C~K0 for K. We thus have

2N1/2a(k2BK,xj)ΨN2C~KN1/21-Δj1/2N1/2ΨN=2C~KΨN,Nj=1N1-ΔjΨN1/2C~KHN0ΨN+NΨN, A.16

and hence,

2N-1/2j=1NjakBK,xjΨNC~K+CK-1/2HN0ΨN+NΨN. A.17

Choosing K large enough and δ sufficiently small completes the proof of the lemma.

Time Derivative of βKb(t)

Because of the unboundedness of the annihilation operator, it is not directly obvious that one can use the product rule of differentiation to obtain (6.15a) and (6.15b). Its rigorous justification relies on the estimate (for χND(HN0))

NχNHN0χN2HN,KGχN+CKNχN, B.1

which follows from Lemma A.2. Since UKΨN,t=e-iHN,KGtUKΨN,0, this together with the strong continuity of e-iHN,KGt implies

limh0N+1UKΨN,t+h-ΨN,t=0for allUKΨN,0DHN0. B.2

Note that

βKb(ΨN,t+h,φt+h)-βKb(ΨN,t,φt)=βKb(ΨN,t+h,φt)-βKb(ΨN,t,φt) B.3a
+βKb(ΨN,t+h,φt+h)-βKb(ΨN,t+h,φt) B.3b

and that the first line is given by

(B.3a)=2N-1ReW(Nφt)NW(Nφt)UKΨN,t,UKΨN,t+h-ΨN,t+N-1W(Nφt)NW(Nφt)UKΨN,t+h-ΨN,t,UKΨN,t+h-ΨN,t. B.4

In the second line we use that

NW(Nφt)UKΨN,t+h-ΨN,tC1+Nφt2N+1UKΨN,t+h-ΨN,t0 B.5

as h0 because of (B.2) and obtain

limh0h-1βKb(ΨN,t+h,φt)-βKb(ΨN,t,φt)=-2N-1ReW(Nφt)NW(Nφt)UKΨN,t,iHN,KGUKΨN,t B.6

with Stone’s theorem. Next, we consider

(B.3b)=-2Red3kφt+h(k)-φt(k)UKΨN,t+h,N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t+h B.7a
+2Red3kφt+h(k)-φt(k)UKΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t B.7b
+φt+h-φt2 B.7c
-2Red3kφt+h(k)-φt(k)UKΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t. B.7d

Using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality we estimate the first two terms by

(B.7a)+(B.7b)2d3kφt+h(k)-φt(k)(UKΨN,t+h,N-1/2-φt(k)UKΨN,t+h-ΨN,t+UKΨN,t+h-ΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(K)UKΨN,t)2N-1/2φt+h-φt(N1/2W(Nφt)UKΨN,t+h-ΨN,t+UKΨN,t+h-ΨN,tN1/2W(Nφt)UKΨN,t). B.8

Stone’s theorem and (B.5) then lead to

limh0h-1βb(ΨN,t+h,φt+h)-βKb(ΨN,t+h,φt)=-2Red3ktφt(k)UKΨN,t,N-1/2ak-φt(k)UKΨN,t. B.9

In combination, this shows (6.15a) and (6.15b).

Footnotes

1

It should be noted that results about the polaron in the strong coupling limit are usually formulated in strong coupling units and that times of order α2 in the stated references correspond to times of order one in the units of the present paper.

2

The Gross transform adds correlations between the bosons and phonon modes with momentum |k|K. This leads to a better ultraviolet behavior of the radiation field.

3

From now on we omit the product with the identity and write qiψ and piψ instead of qiψ1Fs and piψ1Fs.

4

We note that the quantity 1q1ψtUKΨN,t2 can be related to the Sobolev trace norm difference between the one-particle reduced density matrix and the condensate wave function (see [27, Proof of Theorem 2.8] and [24, Lemma 7.1]).

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Nikolai Leopold, Email: nikolai.leopold@unibas.ch.

David Mitrouskas, Email: dmitrous@ist.ac.at.

Robert Seiringer, Email: robert.seiringer@ist.ac.at.

References

  • 1.Ammari Z, Falconi M. Bohr’s correspondence principle for the renormalized Nelson model. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 2017;49(6):5031–5095. doi: 10.1137/17M1117598. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Benedikter N, de Oliviera G, Schlein B. Quantitative derivation of the Gross–Pitaevskii equation. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 2015;68(8):1399–1482. doi: 10.1002/cpa.21542. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Brennecke C, Schlein B. Gross–Pitaevskii dynamics for Bose–Einstein condensates. Anal. PDE. 2019;12(6):1513–1596. doi: 10.2140/apde.2019.12.1513. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Carlone, R., Correggi, M., Falconi, M., Olivieri, M.: Microscopic Derivation of Time-dependent Point Interactions. Preprint, arXiv:1904.11012 2019.
  • 5.Correggi, M., Falconi, M., Olivieri, M.: Quasi-Classical Dynamics. Preprint, arXiv:1909.13313 2019.
  • 6.Davies EB. Particle-boson interactions and the weak coupling limit. J. Math. Phys. 1979;20:345–351. doi: 10.1063/1.524082. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Falconi M. Classical limit of the Nelson model with cutoff. J. Math. Phys. 2013;54(1):012303. doi: 10.1063/1.4775716. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Frank RL, Gang Z. Derivation of an effective evolution equation for a strongly coupled polaron. Anal. PDE. 2017;10(2):379–422. doi: 10.2140/apde.2017.10.379. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Frank RL, Gang Z. A non-linear adiabatic theorem for the one-dimensional Landau–Pekar equations. J. Funct. Anal. 2020;279(7):108631. doi: 10.1016/j.jfa.2020.108631. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Frank RL, Schlein B. Dynamics of a strongly coupled polaron. Lett. Math. Phys. 2014;104:911–929. doi: 10.1007/s11005-014-0700-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Frank, R.L., Seiringer, R.: Quantum corrections to the Pekar asymptotics of a strongly coupled polaron. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 74(3), 544–588, 2021
  • 12.Ginibre J, Nironi F, Velo G. Partially classical limit of the Nelson model. Ann. H. Poincaré. 2006;7:21–43. doi: 10.1007/s00023-005-0240-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ginibre J, Velo G. The classical field limit of scattering theory for nonrelativistic many-boson systems I. Commun. Math. Phys. 1979;66(1):37–76. doi: 10.1007/BF01197745. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ginibre J, Velo G. The classical field limit of scattering theory for nonrelativistic many-boson systems II. Commun. Math. Phys. 1979;68(1):45–68. doi: 10.1007/BF01562541. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Griesemer M. On the dynamics of polarons in the strong-coupling limit. Rev. Math. Phys. 2017;29(10):1750030. doi: 10.1142/S0129055X17500301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Griesemer M, Wünsch A. Self-adjointness and domain of the Fröhlich Hamiltonian. J. Math. Phys. 2016;57(10):021902. doi: 10.1063/1.4941561. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gross EP. Particle-like solutions in field theory. Ann. Phys. 1962;19:219–233. doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(62)90216-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hepp K. The classical limit for quantum mechanical correlation functions. Commun. Math. Phys. 1974;35:265–277. doi: 10.1007/BF01646348. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hiroshima F. Weak coupling limit with a removal of an ultraviolet cutoff for a Hamiltonian of particles interacting with a massive scalar field. Infin. Dimens. Anal. Quantum. 1998;1:407–423. doi: 10.1142/S0219025798000211. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jeblick M, Leopold N, Pickl P. Derivation of the time dependent Gross–Pitaevskii equation in two dimensions. Commun. Math. Phys. 2019;372:1–69. doi: 10.1007/s00220-019-03599-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Landau LD, Pekar SI. Effective mass of a polaron. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 1948;18(5):419–423. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Leopold N, Petrat S. Mean-field dynamics for the Nelson model with Fermions. Ann. H. Poincaré. 2019;20(10):3471–3508. doi: 10.1007/s00023-019-00828-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Leopold N, Pickl P. Derivation of the Maxwell–Schrödinger equations from the Pauli–Fierz Hamiltonian. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 2020;52(5):4900–4936. doi: 10.1137/19M1307639. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Leopold, N., Pickl, P.: Mean-field limits of particles in interaction with quantized radiation fields. (Eds. D. Cadamuro, M. Duell, W. Dybalski and S. Simonella) Macroscopic Limits of Quantum Systems, Volume 270 of Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, 185–214 2018.
  • 25.Leopold, N., Rademacher, S., Schlein, B., Seiringer, R.: The Landau–Pekar equations: Adiabatic theorem and accuracy. Preprint, arXiv:1904.12532 2019, Anal. & PDE (in press).
  • 26.Lieb EH, Yamazaki K. Ground-state energy and effective mass of the polaron. Phys. Rev. 1958;111:728–733. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.111.728. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mitrouskas D, Petrat S, Pickl P. Bogoliubov corrections and trace norm convergence for the Hartree dynamics. Rev. Math. Phys. 2019;31(8):1950024. doi: 10.1142/S0129055X19500247. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nelson E. Interaction of nonrelativistic particles with a quantized scalar field. J. Math. Phys. 1964;5(9):1190–1197. doi: 10.1063/1.1704225. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pickl P. A simple derivation of mean field limits for quantum systems. Lett. Math. Phys. 2011;97:151–164. doi: 10.1007/s11005-011-0470-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pickl P. Derivation of the time dependent Gross–Pitaevskii equation with external fields. Rev. Math. Phys. 2015;27(1):1550003, 45. doi: 10.1142/S0129055X15500038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rodnianski I, Schlein B. Quantum fluctuations and rate of convergence towards mean field dynamics. Commun. Math. Phys. 2009;291(1):31–61. doi: 10.1007/s00220-009-0867-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Teufel S. Effective N-body dynamics for the massless Nelson model and adiabatic decoupling without spectral gap. Ann. H. Poincaré. 2002;3:939–965. doi: 10.1007/s00023-002-8643-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES