9
$\begingroup$

I want to verify explicitly that for $N$ particles in two dimensions the function $f(x)=g(x)h(x)$ where

$$g(x)=\prod_{i\neq j} \vert x_i-x_j \vert^{2\beta/N}$$

and

$$h(x)=e^{-\beta \sum_{i=1}^N \vert x_i \vert^2}$$

is an eigenfunction to the Hamiltonian $H$ with eigenvalue zero, i.e. satisfies $Hf=0$.

The physical motivation for this question is that $f$ is the Gibbs measure of a classical electron gas and this one can be revcovered as the ground state of a certain Hamiltonian.

The Hamiltonian reads

$$ H = \left(-\Delta + \beta^2 \vert x \vert^2 - 4\beta N \right)+ \frac{\beta^2}{N^2}\sum_{i=1}^N \left( \sum_{j \neq i} \frac{x_i-x_j}{\vert x_i-x_j \vert^2} \right)^2-\beta^2(N-1).$$

What I managed was to show that

$$g(x)\left( -\Delta +\beta^2 \vert x \vert^2 - 4\beta N \right)h(x)=0.$$

But this was only the "easy part" of the game. Does anybody see how to show in full generality $$Hf=0?$$

Please let me know if you have any questions.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What goes wrong if you simply write down $Hf$? What issue are you having exactly? $\endgroup$ – John Donne Jan 18 '20 at 8:51
  • $\begingroup$ Is $x$ meant to be the vector containing the $x_i$? $\endgroup$ – Arthur Morris Jan 18 '20 at 14:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ArthurMorris correct, $x=(x_1,..,x_N)$ where $x_i$ is again a vector in two dimensions describing the position of the $i$ th particle. $\endgroup$ – Xin Wang Jan 18 '20 at 15:22
  • $\begingroup$ Is this from some reference? $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jan 19 '20 at 21:50
3
+500
$\begingroup$

Here's what I could do. Not complete, but my workings were too long for a comment.

Firstly, I'm not sure how you managed to get that $$ (-\Delta +\beta^2\mathbf{x}^2-4\beta N)h(\mathbf{x}) = 0. $$ My working out was \begin{align} \Delta h(\mathbf{x})&= \sum_k \Delta_kh(\mathbf{x}) \\ &= \sum_k\nabla_k\cdot\nabla_k e^{-\beta\sum_k \mathbf{x}_k^2} \\ &= \sum_k\nabla_k\cdot\left((-2\beta\mathbf{x}_k) e^{-\beta\sum_k \mathbf{x}_k^2} \right)\\ & = -2\beta\sum_k\left[ e^{-\beta\sum_k \mathbf{x}_k^2}(\underbrace{\nabla_k\cdot\mathbf{x}_k}_{2}) +\mathbf{x}_k\cdot(-2\beta\mathbf{x}_k) e^{-\beta\sum_k \mathbf{x}_k^2} \right]\\ &=(-4\beta N+4\beta^2 \mathbf{x}^2)h(\mathbf{x}) \end{align} where I have used that $\nabla_k\cdot\mathbf{x}_k = 2$ because the system is $2$ dimensional. If I've gone wrong here then please do let me know!

As for that horrible looking sum, I have it mostly figured out I think. Firstly, we need that \begin{align} \frac{\partial}{\partial y_i} |\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{a}|^n &= \frac{\partial}{\partial y_i}\left(\sum_j (y_j-a_j)^2\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}\\ &=\frac{n}{2}\left(\sum_j (y_j-a_j)^2\right)^{\frac{n}{2}-1}\cdot2(y_i-a_i)\\ &=n|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{a}|^{n-2} \cdot(y_i-a_i) \end{align} so that $$ \nabla|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{a}|^n = n|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{a}|^{n}\cdot\frac{\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{a}}{|\mathbf{y}-\mathbf{a}|^2}. $$ Now separate the product $g(\mathbf{x})$ into two parts: those containing $\mathbf{x}_k$, and those not. It is then possible to differentiate it, giving \begin{align} \nabla_k g(\mathbf{x}) &= \frac{\partial}{\partial \mathbf{x}_k}\prod_{i \neq j} |\mathbf{x}_i-\mathbf{x}_j|^{\frac{2\beta}{N}}\\ &=\prod_{i \neq j, (i, j \neq k)} |\mathbf{x}_i-\mathbf{x}_j|^{\frac{2\beta}{N}}\nabla_k\prod_{l \neq k} |\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_l|^{\frac{4\beta}{N}}\\ &= \underbrace{\prod_{i \neq j, (i, j \neq k)} |\mathbf{x}_i-\mathbf{x}_j|^{\frac{2\beta}{N}}\cdot\prod_{l \neq k} |\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_l|^{\frac{4\beta}{N}}}_{g(\mathbf{x})}\sum_{m\neq k} \left[\frac{4\beta}{N} \frac{\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m}{|\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m|^2}\right]\\ & = \frac{4\beta}{N}g(\mathbf{x}) \sum_{m\neq k} \left[\frac{\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m}{|\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m|^2}\right] \end{align} Differentiating again: \begin{align} \Delta g = \sum_k \Delta_k g &= \sum_k \nabla_k\cdot\nabla_k g \\ &= \sum_k \nabla_k\cdot\frac{4\beta}{N} \sum_{m\neq k} \left[\frac{\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m}{|\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m|^2}\right]g(\mathbf{x})\\ &=\frac{16\beta^2}{N^2} \sum_k \left(\sum_{m\neq k} \left[\frac{\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m}{|\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m|^2}\right]\right)^2g(\mathbf{x})\\ &\quad+\frac{4\beta}{N}g(\mathbf{x})\sum_k\underbrace{\left[\frac{1}{|\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m|^2} \underbrace{\nabla_k\cdot(\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m)}_{2}+(\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m)\cdot(-2)\frac{\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m}{|\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m|^4}\right]}_{0}\\ &=\frac{16\beta^2}{N^2} \sum_k \left(\sum_{m\neq k} \left[\frac{\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m}{|\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m|^2}\right]\right)^2g(\mathbf{x}) \end{align} The last line makes me think you have made a mistake with the exponent in $g$ - are you sure it is $2\beta/N$ and not $\beta/2N$? That would fix the factor of $16$.

From here I get a bit stuck. If the Hamiltonian were instead $$ \mathcal{H} = (-\Delta +4\beta\mathbf{x}^2-4\beta N)+\frac{\beta^2}{N^2} \sum_k \left(\sum_{m\neq k} \left[\frac{\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m}{|\mathbf{x}_k-\mathbf{x}_m|^2}\right]\right)^2 $$ and the exponent of $g$ were $\beta/2N$ then the problem would be solved, but the extra term on the end confuses me. There's also no guarantee that the above calculation is correct! Have a look and let me know if you have any trouble understanding my working, or if you spot a mistake.

$\endgroup$
0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.