We consider a gas of N bosons with interactions in the mean-field scaling regime. We review the proof of an asymptotic expansion of its low-energy spectrum, eigenstates, and dynamics, which provides corrections to Bogoliubov theory to all orders in 1/N. This is based on joint works with Petrat, Pickl, Seiringer, and Soffer. In addition, we derive a full asymptotic expansion of the ground state one-body reduced density matrix.

Since the first experimental realization of Bose–Einstein condensation (BEC) in 1995, the experimental, theoretical, and mathematical investigation of systems of interacting bosons at low temperatures has become a very active field of research. In a typical experiment, the bosons are initially caught in an external trap. This situation is mathematically described by the N-body Hamiltonian

(1.1)

for some confining potential Vtrap and for some two-body interaction vN, acting on the Hilbert space of square integrable, permutation symmetric functions on RdN,

The Bose gas is then cooled down to a low-energy eigenstate of HNtrap or to a superposition of such states. For simplicity, let us assume that the gas is prepared in the ground state ΨNtrap of HNtrap, i.e.,

(1.2)

Subsequently, the trap is switched off and the Bose gas propagates freely. Mathematically, this is described by the N-body Schrödinger equation with initial datum ΨNtrap,

(1.3)

with the N-body Hamiltonian

(1.4)

Given that the number of particles in such a gas is usually large, an exact (analytical or numerical) analysis of the system in the presence of interactions is, in general, impossible; an exception is the explicitly solvable Lieb–Liniger model, which describes a one-dimensional gas with delta interactions. Over the last two decades, there have been many works in the mathematical physics community devoted to a rigorous derivation of suitable approximations of the statical and dynamical properties of the gas for large N. These questions have been studied for different classes of interactions vN, in particular, for the so-called mean-field (or Hartree) regime,

(1.5)

describing the situation of weak and long-range interactions.

In this note, we consider interactions of the form (1.5). We present an asymptotic expansion of the low-energy spectrum and eigenstates of HNtrap and of the dynamics (1.3), which makes the model fully computationally accessible to any order in 1/N. This review is based on Ref. 1 (in collaboration with Petrat and Seiringer) and Ref. 2 (in collaboration with Petrat, Pickl, and Soffer).

We consider a system of N interacting bosons in Rd, d ≥ 1, which are described by the N-body Hamiltonian (1.1) with interactions (1.5). We impose the following assumptions on the interaction vN and the external potential Vtrap:

Assumption 1.

DefinevNas in(1.5).

  • Letv:RdRbe bounded withv(−x) = v(x) andv ≢ 0.

  • Assume thatvis of positive type, i.e., that it has a non-negative Fourier transform.

Assumption 2.

LetVtrap:RdRbe measurable, locally bounded, and non-negative, and letVtrap(x) tend to infinity as |x| → .

Our first main result concerns the ground state ΨNtrap of HNtrap: We construct a norm approximation of ΨNtrap and of its energy ENtrap to any order in 1/N.

Theorem 1.
LetaN0, let Assumptions 1 and 2 be satisfied, and chooseNsufficiently large. Then, there exists a constantC(a) such that
(1.6)
and
(1.7)
The coefficientsψN,trapHsymNof expansion(1.6)and the coefficientseHtrap,EtrapRof expansion(1.7)are given in(2.46),(2.4), and(2.47), respectively.

Our result extends to the low-energy excitation spectrum of HNtrap and to a certain class of unbounded interaction potentials v, including the repulsive three-dimensional Coulomb potential (see Sec. II E). To leading order (a = 0), the statements (1.6) and (1.7) have been proven (for bounded interactions) by Seiringer on the torus3 and by Grech and Seiringer in the inhomogeneous setting.4 For our class of unbounded interactions, the leading order approximation was obtained by Lewin, Nam, Serfaty, and Solovej.5 The higher orders in (1.6) and (1.7) were, to the best of our knowledge, first rigorously derived in Ref. 1. Another approach was proposed by Pizzo in Refs. 6–8, who considers a Bose gas on a torus and constructs an expansion for the ground state, based on a multi-scale analysis in the number of excitations, around a product state using Feshbach maps. As a consequence of the norm approximation (1.6), one can derive an expansion of the ground state one-body reduced density matrix,

(1.8)

in trace norm (see Sec. II D for a proof of this statement).

Corollary 1.1.
LetaN0, and let Assumptions 1 and 2 be satisfied. Denote byγNtrap,(1)the one-body reduced density matrix ofΨNtrap. Then, there exists a constantC(a) > 0 such that
(1.9)
for sufficiently largeN, where the coefficientsγ1,trapL(H)are defined in(2.50).

Theorem 1 and Corollary 1.1 determine the ground state ΨNtrap of HNtrap to arbitrary precision. Now, we remove the confining potential Vtrap and take ΨNtrap as initial datum for the time evolution (1.3). Since an eigenstate of HNtrap is not necessarily an eigenstate of HN, this leads to some non-trivial dynamics, for which we provide an approximation in norm to any order in 1/N in our second main result.

Theorem 2.
LetaN0,tR, let Assumption 1a hold, and denote by ΨN(t) the solution of(1.3). Then, there exists a constantC(a) > 0 such that
(1.10)
for sufficiently largeN, where the coefficientsψN,(t) are defined in(3.19).

Note that for the dynamical result, we do not require the interaction potential to be of positive type. Finally, we derive from expansion (1.10) a trace norm approximation of the time-evolved one-body reduced density matrix

(1.11)

to arbitrary precision.

Corollary 1.2.
LetaN0,tR, and let Assumption 1a be satisfied. Then, there exists a constantC(a) such that
(1.12)
for sufficiently largeN, where the coefficientsγ1,(t)L(H)are defined in(3.26).

Below, we will provide and explain the explicit formulas for the coefficients in Theorems 1 and 2 and in Corollaries 1.1 and 1.2. Note that eHtrap, Etrap, γ1,trap, and γ1,(t) are completely independent of N. The N-body wave functions ψN,trap and ψN,(t) naturally depend on N; however, this N-dependence is trivial in a sense to be made precise below. In particular, the computational effort to obtain physical quantities, such as expectation values of bounded operators with respect to the (time-evolved) N-body state, does not scale with N.

Finally, let us remark that all constants C(a) grow rapidly in a. Hence, all statements are to be read as asymptotic expansions: given any order a of the approximation, one can choose N sufficiently large such that the estimates are meaningful, but we cannot simultaneously send a to infinity.

To prove the above results, we first remove the particles in the condensate from the description and focus only on the excitations from the condensate. Mathematically, this is done by conjugating the N-body Hamiltonians with a unitary map that maps from the N-body Hilbert space into a truncated Fock space, whose elements describe the excitations. The resulting operator is then expanded in the parameter λN1/2, which (formally) leads to a series of the form

where the leading order term H0 is the well-known Bogoliubov Hamiltonian. Formally, our results can be obtained by perturbation theory around H0 to any order; however, the rigorous proofs are much more involved, mainly since all operators are unbounded and non-commutative.

This Review is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we explain the results from Ref. 1 concerning the low-energy spectrum and eigenstates and give a proof of Corollary 1.1. Section III contains the results for the dynamics obtained in Ref. 2.

We use the following notations:

  • The notation AB indicates that there exists a constant C > 0 such that ACB.

  • For k ≥ 1 and xjRd, we abbreviate x(k) ≔ (x1, ..., xk) and dx(k) ≔ dx1 ⋯ dxk.

  • We use the notation a1a and a1a.

  • Multi-indices are denoted as j = (j1, ..., jn) with |j| ≔ j1 + ⋯ + jn.

In this section, we consider the Hamiltonian HNtrap from (1.1) and explain the asymptotic expansion of its ground state ΨNtrap, the ground state energy ENtrap, and the corresponding reduced density matrix γNtrap,(1). To keep the notation simple, we drop the superscripttrap.

1. Condensate

It is well known (see, e.g., Refs. 35 and 9) that the N-body ground state ΨN exhibits (complete asymptotic) BEC in the minimizer φH of the Hartree energy functional EH,

(2.1)

For potentials v and V satisfying Assumptions 1 and 2, the minimizer φ of EH is unique, strictly positive, and solves the stationary Hartree equation

(2.2)

with the Lagrange parameter μHφ,Δ+V+v*φ2φR. We denote by pφ and qφ the projector onto φ and its orthogonal complement, i.e.,

(2.3)

The minimum of EH is given as

(2.4)

Heuristically, (complete asymptotic) BEC in the state φ means that NoN particles occupy the condensate state φ. Mathematically, this is reflected by the fact that the N-body wave function is determined by the one-body state φ in the sense of reduced densities, i.e.,

(2.5)

The condensate determines the leading order of the ground state energy, namely,

(2.6)

2. Excitations

The errors in (2.5) and (2.6) are caused by O(1) particles that are excited from the condensate due to the inter-particle interactions. To describe these excitations, we decompose ΨN as

(2.7)

with ⨂s being the symmetric tensor product and where HφϕH:ϕ,φH=0 denotes the orthogonal complement of φ in H.5 The excitations

(2.8)

form a vector in the truncated (excitation) Fock space over Hφ,

(2.9)

which is a subspace of the Fock space F over H. The creation/annihilation operators a/a on F are defined in the usual way, and we denote the second quantization in F of an operator T on H by dΓ(T). The number operator on Fφ is given by

(2.10)

The relation between ΨN and the corresponding excitation vector χN is given by the unitary map

(2.11)

whose action is explicitly known [see Ref. 5 (Proposition 4.2)]. Conjugating HN with UN,φ yields the operator

(2.12)

on FφN, whose ground state is given by χN. Hence, the ground state energy of HN,

(2.13)

is precisely the O(1)-term in (2.6).

3. Excitation Hamiltonian

Making use of the explicit form of UN,φ [Ref. 5 (Proposition 4.2)], we can express HN as

(2.14)

as an operator on FφN, where we used the shorthand notation

(2.15a)
(2.15b)
(2.15c)

for h as in (2.2) and where

(2.16a)
(2.16b)
(2.16c)
(2.16d)

Here, K(x1, x2) is defined as

(2.17)

K is the operator with kernel K(x1, x2), and W is the multiplication operator defined by

(2.18)

By construction, HN is explicitly N-dependent. To extract its contributions to each order in λN, we first extend HN trivially to an operator on Fφ,

(2.19)

where the direct sum is with respect to the decomposition F=FNF<N. The constant c in (2.19) will later be chosen conveniently (see Sec. II C). Similarly, we extend χN to a vector χFφ as

(2.20)

and denote the corresponding projectors on Fφ by

(2.21)

A (formal) expansion of H in powers of λN1/2 yields

(2.22)

where

(2.23a)
(2.23b)
(2.23c)
(2.23d)
(2.23e)

for j ≥ 2, with Kj as in (2.15). The coefficients cj and dj,ν are given as

(2.24a)
(2.24b)

4. Bogoliubov approximation

The leading order term H0 in (2.22) is the well-known Bogoliubov Hamiltonian. We denote the unique ground state of H0 and the ground state energy by

(2.25)

and the corresponding projectors are defined as

(2.26)

It is well known3–5 that the ground state χN of HN and the ground state energy EN converge to χ0 and E0, respectively, i.e.,

(2.27)

Consequently, E0 gives the next-to-leading order term in (1.7); analogously, the leading order contribution in (1.6) is given by ψN,0=UN,φ*χ0|FφN.

The Bogoliubov Hamiltonian H0 is a very useful approximation of H because it is much simpler than the full problem: it is quadratic in the number of creation/annihilation operators and can be diagonalized by Bogoliubov transformations.

Let us briefly recall the concept of Bogoliubov transformations. For F=fJgHH, where J:HH denotes complex conjugation, one defines the generalized creation and annihilation operators A(F) and A(F) as

(2.28)

for J=0JJ0. An operator V on HH such that FA(VF) has the same properties as FA(F), i.e., A(VF)=A(VJF) and [A(VF1),A(VF2)]=[A(F1),A(F2)], is called a (bosonic) Bogoliubov map and can be written in block form as

(2.29)

If V is Hilbert–Schmidt, the Bogoliubov map V can be unitarily implemented on F, i.e., there exists a unitary transformation UV:FF (called a Bogoliubov transformation) such that UVA(F)UV*=A(VF) for all FHH. This implies the transformation rule

(2.30)

A normalized state ϕFφ that can be written as

(2.31)

for some Bogoliubov map V is called a quasi-free state. Quasi-free states have a finite expectation value of the number operator and satisfy Wick’s rule, i.e.,

(2.32a)
(2.32b)

for a ∈ {a, a}, nN, and f1,...,f2nHφ. Here, P2n denotes the set of pairings

(2.33)

for S2n the symmetric group on the set {1, 2, ..., 2n}. In particular, the ground state χ0 of H0 is a quasi-free state,

(2.34)

where UV0 is the Bogoliubov transformation that diagonalizes H0.

To prove Theorem 1, we show that the projector P from (2.21) admits a series expansion in powers of λN1/2 in the following sense:

Proposition 2.1.
Let Assumptions 1 and 2 hold, letAL(Fφ)be a bounded operator onFφ, and letaN0. Then, there exists some constantC(a) such that
(2.35)
for sufficiently largeN, where ‖·‖opdenotes the operator norm. The coefficientsPare defined as
(2.36)
withP0as in(2.26)andHjas in(2.23)and where we abbreviated
(2.37)

The growth of the constant C(a) in the order a of the approximation can be estimated as

which we expect to be far from optimal. By means of Bogoliubov transformations, the operators P can be brought into a more explicit form. For example, the first order correction P1 is given by

(2.38)

where UV0 is the Bogoliubov transformation diagonalizing H0 such that χ0=UV0*|Ω. To simplify (2.38), one notes that UV0H1UV0*|Ω is a superposition of one- and three-particle states and that UV0O1(0)UV0* is particle-number preserving. Hence, P1 can be expressed as

(2.39)

where the functions Θ1 and Θ3 can be retrieved by diagonalizing H0 and computing the Bogoliubov transformation of H1 under UV0.

From Proposition 2.1, we deduce three consequences.

1. Ground state wave function

As an immediate consequence of Proposition 2.1, we find that

(2.40)

Since P=|χχ| is a rank one projector, expansion (2.40) implies an expansion of the excitation wave function χ,

(2.41)

[see Ref. 1 (Appendix B) for a proof of this statement in a general Hilbert space setting]. The coefficients of the expansion are given by

(2.42)

where

(2.43)

with P as in (2.36) and χ0 as in (2.25), and for n ≥ 1,

(2.44)

For example,

(2.45)

for Θ1 and Θ3 as in (2.39). Finally, the coefficients ψN, in expansion (1.6) of the N-body ground state ΨN (Theorem 1) are constructed from this by inserting (2.42) into (2.7), i.e.,

(2.46)

The functions ψN, depend on N by construction. However, this N-dependence is trivial, since it comes only from the splitting into condensate φ and excitations χ. The coefficients χ in expansion (1.6) of the excitations χ are completely independent of N.

2. Ground state energy

Another consequence of Proposition 2.1 is expansion (1.7) of the ground state energy EN (Theorem 1). The coefficients E in (1.7) are given as

(2.47)

for P0 as in (2.26), Hj as in (2.23), Om as in (2.37) and where

(2.48)

is the number of operators P0 within the trace. This confirms the predictions of (formal) Rayleigh–Schrödinger perturbation theory. For example, the first coefficient in (2.47) simplifies to

(2.49)

3. Ground state reduced density

Finally, Proposition 2.1 implies an asymptotic expansion of the one-body reduced density γN(1) of ΨN (Corollary 1.1). The coefficients in (1.9) are given by the trace class operators with kernels

(2.50a)
(2.50b)

with

(2.51)

for cj(n) as in (2.24a). For example, the leading order is γ1,0 = pφ, which recovers the well-known fact that the ground state exhibits BEC with optimal rate. The first correction to this is given by

(2.52)

For the ground state of a homogeneous Bose gas on the torus, γ1,1 was recently derived in Ref. 10 using different methods. In that case, the first line in (2.52) vanishes by translation invariance. We prove Corollary 1.1 in Sec. II D.

The first step is to express P and P0 as contour integrals around the resolvents of H and H0, respectively, i.e.,

(2.53)

The contour γ is chosen such that its length is O(1) and that it encloses both the ground state energy EN of HN and the Bogoliubov ground state energy E0 but leaves the remaining spectra of H and H0 outside. Since EN converges to E0 as N by (2.27), such a contour exists if the constant c in H=HNc from (2.19) is chosen a finite distance away from the spectrum of H0. This implies that H has precisely one (infinitely degenerate) additional eigenvalue c compared to HN. For simplicity, we place c at some finite distance below E0 (see Fig. 1).

FIG. 1.

Low-energy spectra of H0 (drawn in black) and H (drawn in gray). The additional eigenvalue c of H is placed a finite distance below E0. For sufficiently large N, the contour γ around E0 encloses the ground state energy EN of HN.

FIG. 1.

Low-energy spectra of H0 (drawn in black) and H (drawn in gray). The additional eigenvalue c of H is placed a finite distance below E0. For sufficiently large N, the contour γ around E0 encloses the ground state energy EN of HN.

Close modal

The next step is to expand H as11 

(2.54)

with Hj as in (2.23). The remainders Ra, which are essentially the remainders of the Taylor series expansion of the square roots in (2.14), can be bounded above by powers of the number operator. Making use of expansion (2.54), we expand the resolvent of H around the resolvent of H0 and integrate along the contour γ, which finally yields

(2.55)

for P as in (2.36) and where

(2.56)

and

(2.57)

for Ik=P0 if k = 0 and Ik=Q0 if k = 1. To control the error terms, we estimate the operators Hj and Rν in terms of powers of (Nφ+1), prove a uniform bound on moments of the number operator with respect to χ, i.e.,

(2.58)

and control alternating products of number operators and resolvents of H0 by means of the estimate

(2.59)

To derive expansion (2.61) of the ground state energy, we observe that

(2.60)

and derive from this the expansion

(2.61)

All half-integer powers of λN in (2.61) vanish by parity, which can be seen by conjugating with the unitary map UP acting as UPa(f)UP=a(f) [recall from (2.23) that Hj contains an even/odd number of creation/annihilation operators for j even/odd]. After some lengthy computations, this yields (2.47).

To prove Corollary 1.1, one first observes that γN(1) can be decomposed as

(2.62)

where γχ denotes the one-body reduced density matrix of χ with kernel γχ(x;y)=χ,ayaxχ and where βχ:RdC is defined as

(2.63)

[see Ref. 2 (Sec. 3.5)]. Next, one expands the N-dependent expressions in (2.62) in powers of λN1/2 and estimates the remainders using (a generalized version of) Proposition 2.1. We will show this for a = 1; the higher orders follow similarly using estimates from Ref. 1.

For AL(H), (2.62) yields

(2.64a)
(2.64b)
(2.64c)
(2.64d)

In the first line, we expand NNφ/N=λN1/2+λN3/2R, where R is a function of Nφ such that Rϕ(Nφ+1)ϕ for any ϕF [see Ref. 2, Sec. 5H, Eq. (5-64b)]. By parity,

(2.65)

and hence,

(2.66)

Since

(2.67)

one shows as in the proof of [Ref. 1 (Theorem 1)] that (2.66)λN2Aop. The estimate of (2.64b) works analogously. For the third line in (2.64), one notes that |1/NλN|λN2 and that TrP1dΓ(A)=0 by parity, and hence,

(2.68)

as above, where we used that dΓ(A)ϕAop(Nφ+1)ϕ for any ϕF. Analogously, we derive the bound (2.64d)λN2Aop, making use of the fact that finite moments of Nφ with respect to χ0 and χ are bounded uniformly in N Ref. 1 [Lemmas 4.7(d) and 5.6(a)]. This concludes the proof of Corollary 1.1 by duality of compact and trace class operators. □

The results proven in Ref. 1 are more general than what we have presented so far. In this section, we briefly comment on some extensions of Theorem 1.

1. Unbounded interaction potentials

One extension concerns unbounded interaction potentials, including the three-dimensional repulsive Coulomb potential. In fact, we can replace Assumption 1 by the following assumption:

Assumption 1’.
Letv:RdRbe measurable withv(−x) = v(x) andv ≢ 0, and assume that there exists a constantC > 0 such that in the sense of operators onQ(Δ)=H1(Rd),
(2.69)
In addition, assume thatvis of positive type.

In this situation, we require one additional assumption, ensuring that the N-body state exhibits complete BEC with not too many particles outside the condensate.

Assumption 3.
Assume that there exist constantsC1 ≥ 0, 0 < C2 ≤ 1, and a functionε:NR0+with
such that
(2.70)
in the sense of operators onD(HN).

Under these more general assumptions, several new issues arise, at the core of which is the problem that dΓ(v) cannot be bounded by powers of Nφ+1 alone. This affects the Proof of Proposition 2.1 at multiple points; most notably, it becomes considerably more difficult to obtain the uniform bound on moments of the number operator (2.58).

2. Excited states

The analysis in Ref. 1 extends to the low-energy eigenstates of HN, i.e., it includes all eigenstates with an energy of order one above the ground state energy. In this situation, the expansion must be done more carefully, since the excited eigenvalues E0(n)>E0 of H0 can be degenerate, and the degeneracy of eigenvalues of HN may change in the limit N. For instance, an eigenvalue E0(n) of H0 could be twice degenerate, with two distinct eigenvalues EN(n1)EN(n2) of HN such that

In this case, we expand the projector

(2.71)

around

(2.72)

where γ(n) is a O(1) contour around E0(n) with a finite distance to the remaining spectrum of H0. Since γ(n) encloses both poles EN(n1) and EN(n2) of (zH)1, the contour integral (2.71) gives precisely the sum of the two spectral projectors of H corresponding to EN(n1) and EN(n2).

In Ref. 1, we show that there is a constant C(a, n), which, in particular, depends on |E0(n)|, such that

(2.73)

for sufficiently large N. The coefficients P(n) are defined analogously to P from (2.36) but with P0 replaced by P0(n). Note that the statement is non-trivial only for states with an energy of order one above the ground state energy because the constant C(a, n) depends on |E0|.

To state the generalization of expansion (1.7) to the low-energy spectrum of HN, we need some more notation. We denote by

the eigenvalues of HN and by δN(ν) the degeneracy of EN(ν) (we follow the convention of counting eigenvalues without multiplicity). Given an eigenvalue E0(n) of H0, we collect the indices ν of the eigenvalues EN(ν) that converge to NeH+E0(n) for some given n in the index set

(2.74)

The generalization of (1.7) to excited eigenvalues EN(n) is then given by

(2.75)

where δ0(n) denotes the degeneracy of E0(n) and where E(n) is defined as in (2.47) but with P0 replaced by P0(n). The constant C(a, n) depends on |E0(n)|.

3. Expectation values of unbounded operators

Finally Ref. 1 yields an asymptotic expansion of expectation values of self-adjoint m-body operators A(m), which are relatively bounded with respect to j=1m(Δj+V(xj)), i.e.,

(2.76)

For AN(m), the symmetrized version of A(m),

(2.77)

we prove that there exists a constant C(m, a) such that

(2.78)

for sufficiently large N. The statement extends to excited states as explained in Sec. II E 2.

The rate in (2.78) is by a factor λN1/2 better than the error estimate in Proposition 2.1. To see this, one considers the operator

where we have subtracted the condensate expectation value of AN(m) (which is of order one). Because of this subtraction, one can show that Ared(m) satisfies the estimate

(2.79)

and Proposition 2.1 for Ared(m) concludes the proof.

In the remaining part of this Review, we study the dynamics generated by the Hamiltonian HN from (1.4) and explain expansions (1.10) and (1.12) of the time-evolved N-body wave function ΨN and of the reduced one-body density γN(1). We use the superscripttrap wherever it applies.

We study the solutions ΨN(t) of the time-dependent N-body Schrödinger equation (1.3) generated by the Hamiltonian HN from (1.4), which describes a system of N interacting bosons without an external trapping potential. As the initial state, we take

where ΨNtrap is the ground state of HNtrap.

1. Condensate

As explained above, ΨNtrap exhibits BEC in the Hartree minimizer φtrap, and it is well known that this property is preserved by the time evolution. More precisely,

(3.1)

(see, e.g., Refs. 12 and 13), where φ(t) is the solution of the Hartree equation,

(3.2)

with the phase factor μφ(t)=12Rdv*|φ(t)|2(x)|φ(t,x)|2dx. The solution of (3.2) in H1(Rd) is unique and exists globally. We define the projectors pφ(t) and qφ(t) analogously to (2.3).

2. Excitations

Analogously to (2.7), we decompose the time-evolved N-body state ΨN(t) into the condensate φ(t) and excitations χN(t) from the condensate. The excitation vector χN(t) is an element of the (truncated) excitation Fock space Fφ(t)NFφ(t)F defined analogously to (2.9). When restricted to the time-dependent excitation Fock space Fφ(t), the number operator N on the (time-independent) Fock space F counts the number of excitations around the time-evolved condensate φ(t)N. As before, the relation between ΨN(t) and χN(t) is given by the (now time-dependent) unitary map UN,φ(t) defined analogously to (2.11), namely,

(3.3)

The evolution of the excitations is determined by the Schrödinger equation

(3.4)

on Fφ(t)N, generated by the excitation Hamiltonian

(3.5)

For convenience, we write HNφ(t) as restriction to Fφ(t)N of a Hamiltonian Hφ(t) on F, which can be expressed, analogously to (2.14), in terms of N, N, and operators Kjφ(t), which are defined analogously14 to (2.15). Expanding the N-dependent expressions in a Taylor series yields (formally) the power series

(3.6)

with coefficients Hjφ(t) analogously to (2.23). Note that the operator Hφ(t) preserves the truncation of FN, whereas this property is lost when truncating the expansion after finitely many terms.

3. Bogoliubov approximation

The leading order H0φ(t) in (3.6) is the time-dependent Bogoliubov Hamiltonian, which generates the Bogoliubov time evolution,

(3.7)

It is well known that the solution of (3.7) approximates the solution χN(t) of (3.4) to leading order, i.e.,

(3.8)

(see, e.g., Refs. 15 and 16). This is a very useful approximation because the time evolution generated by H0φ(t) acts as a Bogoliubov transformation UV(t,s) on F. This means a huge simplification compared with the full N-body dynamics because it essentially reduces the N-body problem to the problem of solving a 2 × 2 matrix differential equation: the corresponding Bogoliubov map V(t,s) on HH is determined by the differential equation

(3.9)

with

(3.10)

Since it is a Bogoliubov transformation, the Bogoliubov time evolution preserves quasi-freeness. Hence, χ0(t) is uniquely determined by its two-point functions,

(3.11)

which can be computed directly from the two-point functions of χ0(0) as

(3.12a)
(3.12b)

Alternatively, one obtains γχ0(t) and αχ0(t) by solving the system of differential equations

(3.13a)
(3.13b)

(see Refs. 16 and 17).

1. Expansion of the time-evolved wave function

With the formal ansatz

(3.14)

the Schrödinger equation (3.4) leads to the set of equations

(3.15)

Motivated by (3.15), we define iteratively

(3.16)

where UV(t,s) denotes the Bogoliubov time evolution, i.e., the Bogoliubov transformation corresponding to the solution V(t,s) of (3.9). To prove Theorem 2, we show that these functions χ are the coefficients in an asymptotic expansion of χN.

Proposition 3.1.
Let Assumption 1a be satisfied, letaN0, and denote byχN(t) the solution of(3.4). Then,χ(t)Fφ(t)and there exists a constantC(a) such that
(3.17)
for alltRand sufficiently largeN.

The growth of the constant C(a) in a can be estimated as

(3.18)

We do not expect this to be optimal, especially since Borel summability was shown for a comparable expansion in Ref. 18. As a consequence of Proposition 3.1, the coefficients ΨN,(t) of expansion (1.10) of ΨN(t) are given by

(3.19)

The higher orders χ(t) are completely determined by the solution χ0(t) of the Bogoliubov equation as

(3.20)

where we used the notation

(3.21)

The N-independent functions C,n(j) are given in terms the matrix entries Ut,s and Vt,s of the solution V(t,s) of (3.9) and the initial data. For example,

(3.22a)
(3.22b)

for Θ1trap as in (2.39). Here, U0trap and V0trap denote the matrix entries of the Bogoliubov map corresponding to the Bogoliubov transformation UV0trap that diagonalizes H0trap. The coefficients C,n(j) with larger indices are constructed from this in a systematic iterative procedure. Since the general formula is very long and not particularly insightful, we refrain from stating it here and refer to Ref. 2 [Eq. (5.51)].

The higher orders χ(t) satisfy a generalized Wick rule for the “mixed” correlation functions,

(3.23)

Proposition 3.2

(generalized Wick rule).

  • Ifk + + nodd,
    (3.24)
  • Ifk + + neven,
    (3.25)
    forPbbeing the set of pairings defined in(2.33). The functionsD,k,n;b(j;m)are determined by the coefficientsCfrom(3.20)[see Ref.2 (Corollary 3.5) for the precise formula].

2. Expansion of the one-body reduced density matrix

As an application of (3.17), we derive expansion (1.12) of the one-body reduced density matrix. The coefficients γN,(1) in (1.12) are given by the trace class operators with kernels

(3.26a)
(3.26b)

with c̃ and c̃,k as in (2.51) and where we used the notation (3.23). For example, the leading order of the expansion is γ0(1)(t)=pφ(t), which recovers (3.1). The next-to-leading order is given by

(3.27)

where the function β0,1:RdC is the solution of

(3.28)

Here, γχ0(t) and αχ0(t) are the Bogoliubov two-point functions as in (3.11), and we used the notation Tr1AdzA(z, ·; z) and Tr2A dzA(·, zz) for an operator A:HH2.

To prove Proposition 3.1, we first show that the functions χ(t) defined in (3.16) are elements of Fφ(t) by proving that

(3.29)

for any bN0. To this end, we re-write χ(t) as

(3.30)

with

(3.31)

bound the operators H̃t,s(n) by powers of (N+1), and make use of the fact that any finite moment of N with respect to χn(0) is bounded since χn(0)=χntrap from (2.42). To prove (3.17), we expand Hφ(t) in a Taylor series with remainder analogously to (2.54), prove an estimate the remainder in terms of N, and make use of (3.29) to close a Gronwall argument for the function χ̃a(t)=χN(t)0=0aλN/2χ(t).

To prove Corollary 1.2, one decomposes γN(1)(t) analogously to (2.62) and expands it in powers of λN1/2, which yields expressions containing correlation functions of χN,

(3.32)

Finally, we show that, in a suitable sense,

(3.33)

where all half-integer powers of λN vanish by the generalized Wick rule (Proposition 3.2).

The results proven in Ref. 2 are more general than what was stated so far, namely, they admit a larger class of initial data. It is not necessary to start the time evolution in the ground state ΨNtrap of the trapped system (or in any low-energy eigenstate of HNtrap), but it suffices if the initial state satisfies the following assumption:

Assumption 4.
LetãN0. LetΨN(0)D(HN), defineχN(0)=UN,φ(0)ΨN(0), and assume that there exists a constantC(ã)>0such that
(3.34)
where the functionsχ(0) are defined as follows:
  • Letν̃N0, letUV0be a Bogoliubov transformation onFφ(0), and let{fj}j=1ν̃{φ(0)}be some orthonormal system. Define
    (3.35)
  • For1ã, let
    (3.36)
    wherean,m,μ()x(μ);y(mμ)are the kernels of someN-independent bounded operators.

Moreover, our analysis generalizes to the case where χ0(0) is given as a linear combination of Bogoliubov transformed states with different particle numbers ν̃. It is clear that this is satisfied by any superposition of low-energy eigenstates of HNtrap.

We conclude with a brief overview of closely related results in the literature. The first derivation of higher order corrections is due to Ginibre and Velo,18,19 who consider the classical field limit → 0 of the dynamics generated by a Hamiltonian on Fock space with coherent states as initial data. They construct a Dyson expansion of the unitary group W(t, s) in terms of the time evolution generated by the Bogoliubov Hamiltonian; moreover, they prove that the expansion is Borel summable for bounded interaction potentials.18 The main difference to our work (apart from the Fock space setting) is that the authors expand the time evolution operator W(t, s) in a perturbation series (and not the wave function). In contrast, we derive an expansion of the time-evolved wave function for a specific, physically relevant choice of initial data. This simplifies the approximation since fewer terms are required at a given order of the approximation because the state is expanded simultaneously with the Hamiltonian.

Another approach to higher order corrections in the mean-field regime in the N-body setting was proposed by Paul and Pulvirenti.20 In that work, the authors approach the problem from a kinetic theory perspective and consider the dynamics of the reduced density matrices of the N-body state. Their approach is formally similar to ours, since Bogoliubov theory in the sense of linearization of the Hartree equation is used for the expansion and an a-dependent but N-independent number of operations is required for the construction. In comparison, the main advantage of our approach is that the coefficients χ in our approximation are completely independent of N.

Finally, a similar result in the N-body setting was obtained in a joint work with Pavlović, Pickl, and Soffer21 In this paper, we expand the N-body time evolution in a Dyson series comparable to (3.16) but with one crucial difference: instead of using the Bogoliubov time evolution, the expansion is in terms of an auxiliary time evolution Ũφ(t,s) on HN, whose generator has a quadratic structure comparable to the Bogoliubov Hamiltonian (sometimes called the particle number preserving Bogoliubov Hamiltonian).

Unfortunately, this auxiliary time evolution Ũφ(t,s) is a rather inaccessible object, which implicitly still depends on N. In particular, it is not clear to what extent computations are less complex with respect to the time evolution Ũφ(t,s) than with respect to the full N-body problem. This problem was the original motivation for the work,2 where we modified the construction precisely such as to make the approximations completely N-independent and accessible to computations. Eventually, this also led to Ref. 1, which was partially intended as a rigorous motivation of the assumptions on the initial data in Ref. 2.

There are several open questions related to the results presented here. First, it would be interesting to generalize the dynamical analysis (Theorem 2) to the class of unbounded interaction potentials considered in Sec. II E 1 for the static problem, which, in particular, includes the Coulomb potential.

In addition, one can attempt to push the analysis to singular interactions of the type

for some bounded and compactly supported interaction potential v, where β is a scaling parameter interpolating from the Hartree (β = 0) to the Gross–Pitaevskii regime (β = 1). We expect the analysis to become harder with increasing β, mainly because of the emergence of an N-dependent short-scale correlation structure. Whereas new ideas are needed to cope with the extremely singular Gross–Pitaevskii regime, we expect our analysis to extend to a certain range of positive β.

Another interesting open problem is proving Borel summability of the asymptotic series in Theorems 1 and 2, at least for bounded interaction potentials. This property was established in Ref. 18 for the corresponding dynamical problem on Fock space described in Sec. III E; hence, we conjecture that it should hold true also in the N-body setting, at least for bounded interaction potentials. As our current estimates of the growth of the error C(a) in the parameter a are insufficient, new ideas are needed to improve this.

Finally, we expect our asymptotic expansions to be useful in answering various open problems related to the mean-field Bose gas. For instance, one should be able to derive effective interactions between the quasi-particles as discussed in Ref. 22 and to prove corrections to the central limit theorem obtained in Ref. 23.

The author thanks Nataša Pavlović, Sören Petrat, Peter Pickl, Robert Seiringer, and Avy Soffer for the collaboration on Refs. 1, 2 and 21. Funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Marie Skodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 754411 is gratefully acknowledged.

The author has no conflicts to disclose.

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

1.
L.
Boßmann
,
S.
Petrat
, and
R.
Seiringer
, “
Asymptotic expansion of low-energy excitations for weakly interacting bosons
,”
Forum Math. Sigma
9
,
e28
(
2021
).
2.
L.
Boßmann
,
S.
Petrat
,
P.
Pickl
, and
A.
Soffer
, “
Beyond Bogoliubov dynamics
,”
Pure Appl. Anal.
3
(
4
),
677
726
(
2021
).
3.
R.
Seiringer
, “
The excitation spectrum for weakly interacting bosons
,”
Commun. Math. Phys.
306
(
2
),
565
578
(
2011
).
4.
P.
Grech
and
R.
Seiringer
, “
The excitation spectrum for weakly interacting bosons in a trap
,”
Commun. Math. Phys.
322
(
2
),
559
591
(
2013
).
5.
M.
Lewin
,
P. T.
Nam
,
S.
Serfaty
, and
J. P.
Solovej
, “
Bogoliubov spectrum of interacting Bose gases
,”
Commun. Pure Appl. Math.
68
(
3
),
413
471
(
2015
).
6.
A.
Pizzo
, “
Bose particles in a box I. A convergent expansion of the ground state of a three-modes Bogoliubov Hamiltonian
,” arXiv:1511.07022 (
2015
).
7.
A.
Pizzo
, “
Bose particles in a box II. A convergent expansion of the ground state of the Bogoliubov Hamiltonian in the mean field limiting regime
,” arXiv:1511.07025 (
2015
).
8.
A.
Pizzo
, “
Bose particles in a box III. A convergent expansion of the ground state of the Hamiltonian in the mean field limiting regime
,” arXiv:1511.07026 (
2015
).
9.
M.
Lewin
,
P. T.
Nam
, and
N.
Rougerie
, “
Derivation of Hartree’s theory for generic mean-field Bose systems
,”
Adv. Math.
254
,
570
621
(
2014
).
10.
P. T.
Nam
and
M.
Napiórkowski
, “
Two-term expansion of the ground state one-body density matrix of a mean-field Bose gas
,”
Calculus Var. Partial Differ. Equations
60
(
3
),
99
(
2021
).
11.

For technical reasons, we split H=H<+H>, where H>0cK0NNφN1K11N1K4, and expand only H<. To keep the notation simple, we will ignore this subtlety for the sketch of the proof. All details can be found in Ref. 1.

12.
L.
Chen
,
J. O.
Lee
, and
B.
Schlein
, “
Rate of convergence towards Hartree dynamics
,”
J. Stat. Phys.
144
(
4
),
872
903
(
2011
).
13.
D.
Mitrouskas
,
S.
Petrat
, and
P.
Pickl
, “
Bogoliubov corrections and trace norm convergence for the Hartree dynamics
,”
Rev. Math. Phys.
31
(
8
),
1950024
(
2019
).
14.

To obtain the time-dependent operators Kjφ(t) from (2.15), one replaces φ by φ(t), h by hφ(t), μ by μφ(t), and K1 by K1φ(t)=qφ(t)K̃φ(t)qφ(t) with K̃φ(t)(x1;x2)=φ(t,x2)̄v(x1x2)φ(t,x1).

15.
M.
Lewin
,
P. T.
Nam
, and
B.
Schlein
, “
Fluctuations around Hartree states in the mean field regime
,”
Am. J. Math.
137
(
6
),
1613
1650
(
2015
).
16.
P. T.
Nam
and
M.
Napiórkowski
, “
Bogoliubov correction to the mean-field dynamics of interacting bosons
,”
Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.
21
(
3
),
683
738
(
2017
).
17.
M.
Grillakis
and
M.
Machedon
, “
Pair excitations and the mean field approximation of interacting bosons, I
,”
Commun. Math. Phys.
324
(
2
),
601
636
(
2013
).
18.
J.
Ginibre
and
G.
Velo
, “
The classical field limit of nonrelativistic bosons. I. Borel summability for bounded potentials
,”
Ann. Phys.
128
(
2
),
243
285
(
1980
).
19.
J.
Ginibre
and
G.
Velo
, “
The classical field limit of non-relativistic bosons. II. Asymptotic expansions for general potentials
,”
Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare Phys. Theor.
33
(
4
),
363
394
(
1980
), available at http://www.numdam.org/article/AIHPA_1980__33_4_363_0.pdf.
20.
T.
Paul
and
M.
Pulvirenti
, “
Asymptotic expansion of the mean-field approximation
,”
Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. A
39
(
4
),
1891
1921
(
2019
).
21.
L.
Boßmann
,
N.
Pavlović
,
P.
Pickl
, and
A.
Soffer
, “
Higher order corrections to the mean-field description of the dynamics of interacting bosons
,”
J. Stat. Phys.
178
(
6
),
1362
1396
(
2020
).
22.
T.
Sugiyama
, “
Microscopic derivation of the roton-roton interaction
,”
Prog. Theor. Phys.
63
(
4
),
1170
1180
(
1980
).
23.
G.
Ben Arous
,
K.
Kirkpatrick
, and
B.
Schlein
, “
A central limit theorem in many-body quantum dynamics
,”
Commun. Math. Phys.
321
,
371
417
(
2013
).