Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave...
Transcript of Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave...
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
1/14
Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
Seth T. Rittenhouse,1
M. J. Cavagnero,2
Javier von Stecher,1
and Chris H. Greene1
1Department of Physics and JILA, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0440, USA
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0055, USA
Received 12 July 2006; published 28 November 2006
We present a unique theoretical description of the physics of the spherically trapped N-atom degenerate
Fermi gas at zero temperature based on an ordinary Schrdinger equation with a microscopic, two-bodyinteraction potential. With a careful choice of coordinates and a variational wave function, the many-body
Schrdinger equation can be accurately described by a linear, one-dimensional effective Schrdinger equation
in a single collective coordinate, the rms radius of the gas. Comparisons of the energy, rms radius, and peak
density of the ground-state energy are made to those predicted by Hartree-Fock HF theory. Also the lowestradial excitation frequency the breathing mode frequency agrees with a sum rule calculation, but deviatesfrom a HF prediction.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.053624 PACS numbers: 03.75.Ss, 31.15.Ja
I. INTRODUCTION
The realization of a degenerate Fermi gas DFG in a
dilute gas of fermionic atoms has triggered widespread inter-est in the nature of these systems. This achievement com-
bined with the use of a Feshbach resonance allows for a
quantum laboratory in which many quantum phenomena can
be explored over a wide range of interaction strengths. This
leads to a large array of complex behaviors including the
discovery of highly correlated BCS-like pairing for effec-
tively attractive interactions 15. While these pairing phe-nomena are extremely interesting, we believe that the phys-
ics of a pure degenerate Fermi gas, in which the majority of
atoms successively fill single-particle states, is worthy of fur-
ther study even in the absence of pairing. This topic is ad-
dressed in the present paper, which follows a less complete
archived study of the topic 6.The starting point for this study is that of a hypersphericaltreatment of the problem in which the gas is described by a
set of 3N1 angular coordinates on the surface of a
3N-dimensional hypersphere of radius R. Here N is the num-
ber of atoms in the system. This formulation is inspired by a
similar study of the Bose-Einstein condensate BEC 79.Furthermore, these same coordinates have been applied to
finite nuclei 10. The formulation is a rigorous variationaltreatment of a many-body Hamiltonian, aside from the limi-
tations of the assumption of pairwise, zero-range interac-
tions. In this paper, we consider only filled energy shells of
atoms. This is done for analytic and calculational simplicity,
but the treatment could apply to any number of atoms in
open shells with modest extensions that are discussed briefly.
The main goal of this study is to describe the motion of
the gas in a single collective coordinate R, which describes
the overall extent of the gas. The benefit of this strategy is
that the behavior of the gas is reduced to a single one-
dimensional 1D linearSchrdinger equation with an effec-tive hyperradial potential. The use of a real potential then
lends itself to the intuitive understanding of normal
Schrdinger quantum mechanics. This method also allows
for the calculation of physical quantities such as the energy
and rms radius of the ground state; these observables agree
quantitatively with those computed using Hartree-Fock
methods. The method also yields a visceral understanding of
a low-energy collective oscillation of the gasi.e., a breath-
ing mode.Beyond the intuitive benefits of reducing the problem to
an effective one-dimensional Schrdinger equation, another
motivation for developing this hyperspherical viewpoint is
that it has proven effective in other contexts for describing
processes involving fragmentation or collisions in few-body
and many-body systems 11,12. Such processes would bechallenging to formulate using field theory or the random
phase approximation RPA or configuration interactionviewpoints, but they emerge naturally and intuitively, once
the techniques for computing the hyperspherical potential
curves for such systems are adequately developed. To this
end we view it as a first essential step, in the development of
a more comprehensive theory, to calculate the ground-stateand low-lying excited-state properties within this framework.
Then we can ascertain whether the hyperspherical formula-
tion is capable of reproducing the key results of other, more
conventional descriptions, which start instead from a mean-
field theory perspective.
The paper is organized as follows: Section II develops the
formulation that yields a hyperradial 1D effective Hamil-
tonian. In Sec. III we apply this formalism to a zero-range
s-wave interaction and find the effective Hamiltonian in both
the finite-N and large-N limits. In Secs. III A and III B we
examine the nature of the resulting effective potential for a
wide range of interaction strengths and give comparisons
with other known methods, mainly the Hartree-Fock HFmethod. Section III C is a brief discussion of the simplifica-
tions that can be made in the limit where N. Finally in
Sec. IV we summarize the results and discuss future avenues
of study.
II. FORMULATION
The formalism is similar to that of Ref. 7, but we willreiterate it for clarity and to make this article self-contained.
Consider a collection of N identical fermionic atoms of mass
m in a spherically symmetric trap with oscillator frequency
PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
1050-2947/2006/745/05362414 2006 The American Physical Society053624-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.053624http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.053624 -
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
2/14
, distributed equally between two internal spin substates.
The governing Hamiltonian is
H= 2
2mi=1
N
i2 +
1
2m2
i=1
N
ri2 +
ij
Uintrij , 2.1
where Uintr is an arbitrary two-body interaction potentialand rij = ri rj. We ignore interaction terms involving three or
more bodies. In general, the Schrdinger equation that comesfrom this Hamiltonian is very difficult to solve. Our goal is
to simplify the system by describing its behavior in terms of
a single collective coordinate. To achieve this aim we trans-
form this Hamiltonian into a set of collective hyperspherical
coordinates; the hyperradius R of this set is given by the
root-mean-square distance of the atoms from the center of
the trap:
R 1N
i=1
N
ri2
1/2
. 2.2
So far, we only have one coordinate for the system, but we
need to account for all 3N spatial coordinates and also thespin degrees of freedom. This leaves 3N1 angular coordi-
nates left to define. We have 2N of the angles as the
independent-particle spherical polar coordinate angles
1 ,1 ,2 ,2 , . . . ,N,N. The remaining N1 hyperanglesare chosen by the convention used in Ref. 10, which de-scribes correlated motions in the radial distances of the at-
oms from the trap center,
tan i =
j=1
i
rj2
ri+1,
i = 1,2,3, .. . ,N 1 . 2.3
Alternatively we may write this as
rn = NR cos n1 j=n
N1
sin j ,
0 j
2, j = 1,2, . .. ,N 1 , 2.4
where we define cos 0 1 and j=NN1 sin j 1. For the pur-
poses of this study, the set of 3N1 hyperangles will be
referred to collectively as . The particular definition of thehyperangles will not play a significant role in the actual for-
malism, but we give the definitions here for completeness.
After carrying out this coordinate transformation on the
sum of Laplacians, the kinetic energy becomes 13
2
2M 1
R3N1
RR3N1
R 2
R2 . 2.5
Here M=Nm and is the grand angular momentum
operator which is similar to the conventional angular mo-
mentum operator and is defined by
2 =
ij
ij2 ,ij = xi
xj xj
xi2.6
for all Cartesian components xi of the 3N-dimensional space.
The isotropic spherical oscillator potential becomes simply
1
2m2
i=1
N
ri
2 =1
2M2R2. 2.7
The sum of Eqs. 2.5 and 2.7 gives a time-independentSchrdinger equation HR , =ER , of the form
0 = 22M
2R2
+3N 13N 3
2R2
2
R2 + 1
2M2R2
+ ij
Uintri rj ER3N1/2R,, 2.8where R , has been multiplied by R3N1/2 to removefirst-derivative terms in the hyperradius. These mathematical
transformations have not yet accomplished much. We startedwith a 3N-dimensional Schrdinger equation to solve, and
we still have a 3N-dimensional Schrdinger equation. To
simplify, we assume that is approximately separable into
an eigenfunction of the operator 2, a hyperspherical har-
monic, multiplied by an unknown hyperradial function. Hy-
perspherical harmonics HH; see Ref. 13 for more detailsare generally expressed as products of Jacobi polynomials
for any number of dimensions. Their eigenvalue equation is
2 = + 3N 1, 2.9
where =0,1,2,... and omitted below for brevity stands
for the 3N2 other quantum numbers that are needed todistinguish between the usually quite large degeneracies fora given . The separability ansatz implies that
R, = FR . 2.10
Here we assume that is the HH that corresponds tothe lowest value of the hyperangular momentum that is al-
lowed for the given symmetry of the problemi.e., that is
antisymmetric with respect to interchange of indistinguish-
able fermions. This choice of trial wave function indicates
that we expect the overall energetics of the gas to be de-
scribed by its size; as such, fixing the hyperangular behavior
is equivalent to fixing the configuration of the atoms in the
gas. In nuclear physics this is known as the K harmonicmethod. Alternatively, this may be viewed as choosing a trial
wave function whose hyperradial behavior will be variation-
ally optimized, but whose hyperangular behavior is that of a
noninteracting-trap-dominated gas of fermions.
To utilize this as a trial wave function, we evaluate the
expectation value H, where the integration is takenover all hyperangles at a fixed hyperradius. This approach
gives a new effective linear 1D Schrdinger equation
Hef fR3N1/2FR =ER3N1/2FR in terms of an effective
Hamiltonian Hef f given by
RITTENHOUSE et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-2
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
3/14
2
2M d2
dR2
KK+ 1
R2 + 1
2M2R2 +
ij
Uintrij .
2.11
Here K=+ 3N 1/2.We now must force our trial wave function to obey the
antisymmetry condition of fermionic atoms. To antisymme-
trize the total wave function FR
note that Eq. 2.2indicates that R is completely symmetric under all particlecoordinate exchange; thus the antisymmetrization of the
wave function must only affect . Finding a completelyantisymmetric for any given is generally quite dif-ficult and is often done using recursive techniques like coef-
ficient of fractional parentage expansions see Ref.10,14,15 for more details or using a basis of Slater deter-minants of independent-particle wave functions 1619. Weuse a simplified version of the second method combined with
the following theorem, proved in Ref. 15 and developed inAppendix B.
Theorem 1. The ground state of any noninteracting set of
Nparticles in an isotropic oscillator is an eigenfunction of2 with minimal eigenvalue + 3N 2 where is given
by the total number of oscillator quanta in the noninteracting
system:
=ENI
3N
2, 2.12
where ENI is the total ground-state energy of the noninteract-
ing N-body system.
With theorem 1 in hand we may find in terms ofthe independent-particle coordinates. The noninteracting
ground state is given by a Slater determinant of single-
particle solutions:
NIr1,r2, . . . ,rN,1,2, . . . ,N
= P
1pPi=1
N
Rniiriyimiimsi . 2.13
Here i is the spin coordinate for the ith atom and Rnii
ri isthe radial solution to the independent-particle harmonic os-
cillator for the ith particle given by rRnr =Nn expr2/ 2l2r/l+1Ln
+1/2r/l2 where Lnr is an associated
Laguerre polynomial with l =/m. yimi is an ordinary3D spherical harmonic with i as the spatial solid angle for
the ith particle, and msi is a spin ket that will allow for twospin species of atoms,
and
. The sum in Eq.
2.13
runs
over all possible permutations P of the N spatial and spin
coordinates in the product wave function. We now apply
theorem 1 which directly leads to a NI that is separable into
a hyperangular piece and a hyperradial piece:
NIr1,r2, . . . ,rN,1,2, . . . ,N
= GR,1,2, . . . ,N. 2.14
Here GR is the nodeless hyperradial wave function describ-ing the ground state ofN noninteracting atoms in an isotropic
oscillator trap. A derivation of GR is given in Appendix A:
R3N1/2GR = A exp R2/2L2R
L+3N/21/2;
2.15
here, A is a normalization constant and L=/M= l/N.Combining Eq. 2.14 with Eq. 2.15 now gives us :
,1,2, . . . ,N =
P
1pPi=1
N
Rniiriyimiimsi
GR,
2.16
where we must make the variable substitutions in the nu-
merator using Eqs. 2.2 and 2.3. In the following, for brev-ity, the spin coordinates 1 , . . . ,N will be suppressedi.e., = ,1 ,2 , . . . ,N. Interestingly, this mustbe a function only of the hyperangles, and thus all of the
hyperradial dependence must cancel out on the right-hand
side of Eq. 2.16. We are now ready to start calculating theinteraction matrix element
U
int
.
III. ZERO-RANGE s-WAVE INTERACTION
Here we specify Uintr as a zero-range two-body interac-tion with an interaction strength given by a constant param-
eter g:
Uintr = g3r. 3.1
For a small two-body, s-wave scattering length a we know
that g =42a
m20. For stronger interactionsi.e.,
kfa1this approximation no longer holds and g must berenormalized.
Now we must calculate the effective interaction matrix
element given by
Uef fR = gij
3rij . 3.2
Degenerate ground states cause some complications for
this formulation which we avoid by restricting ourselves to
the nondegenerate ground states that correspond to filled en-
ergy shells of the oscillatori.e., magic numbers of par-
ticles. With moderate extensions the degeneracies can be
taken into account by creating an interaction matrix, but the
magic number restriction should still give a good description
of the general behavior of systems with large numbers of
atoms. The total number of atoms and the hyperangular mo-
mentum quantum number are most conveniently expressed
in terms of the number n of single-particle orbital energies
filled:
N=nn + 1n + 2
3, 3.3a
=n 1nn + 1n + 2
4, 3.3b
HYPERSPHERICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-3
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
4/14
kf = 2m
n + 12 , 3.3c
where kf is the peak noninteracting Fermi wave number. In
the limit where N1, we write and kf in terms of the total
number of particles, N,
3N4/3
4, 3.4a
kf2m
3N1/3 . 3.4b
Next we combine Eq. 3.4a with from Eq. 2.16 andcalculate the interaction matrix element.
Since is antisymmetric under particle exchange,we may do a coordinate transposition in the sum rir2 and
rjr1. Each transposition pulls out a negative sign from ,
and we are left with
Uef fR = gij
3r21 = g
NN 1
2
3r21.
Appendix C details the calculation of the matrix element
3r21. The result is
Uef fR = gCN
N3/2R3, 3.5
where CN is a constant that is dependent only on the number
of atoms in the system. While CN has some complex behav-
ior for smaller numbers of particles, we have seen that for
N100, CN quickly converges to
CN23
32N7/2
35
3 1 + 0.049N2/3 0.277
N4/3+
= 0.02408N7/21 + 0.049N2/3
0.277
N4/3+ , 3.6
where the higher-order terms in 1/N were found by fitting a
curve to numerically calculated data. Values of CN/N7/2 are
shown in Table I for several filled shells. Figure 1 shows
both the calculated values of CN and the values from the fit
in Eq. 3.6 versus 1/N. In both the table and the plot we canclearly see the convergence to the large N value of CN 0.024 08N7/2.
We now may write the effective one-dimensional, hyper-
radial Schrdinger equation Hef fR3N1/2FR
=ER
3N1/2
FR, where Hef f is given by
Hef f =
2
2M
d2
dR2+ Vef fR, 3.7
where Vef fR is an effective hyperradial potential given by
Vef fR =
2
2M
KK+ 1
R2+
1
2M2R2 + g
CN
N3/2R3. 3.8
We reinforce the idea that this effective Hamiltonian de-
scribes the fully correlated motion of all of the atoms in the
trap albeit within the aforementioned approximations. As ex-
pected, for N=1, with C1 =0, Eq. 3.8 reduces to a singleparticle in a trap with K as the angular momentum quantumnumber . Note that the form of Vef f is very similar to theeffective potential found for bosons by the authors of Ref.
7. What may be surprising is the extra term of 3N 1/ 2contained in K. The kinetic energy term in Vef f is controlledby the hyperangular momentum, which in turn reflects thetotal nodal structure of the N-fermion wave function. Thisadded piece of hyperangular momentum summarizes the en-ergy cost of confining N fermions in the trap. This repulsivebarrier stabilizes the gas against collapse for attractiveinteractionsi.e., g0.
A final transformation simplifies the radial Schrdinger
equationnamely, setting E=ENIE and R =R2NIR,where
ENI = + 3N2 , 3.9a
R2NI = l2
N+
3
2 3.9b
are the noninteracting expectation values of the energy and
squared hyperradius in the ground state. In the following any
TABLE I. N, , and CN/N7/2 for several filled shells. We can see
that CN/N7/2 quickly converges to the Thomas-Fermi limiting value
of 322/3/353 0.02408 to several digits.
n N CN/N7/2
1 2 01
82 0.0127
2 8 6 0.0637
3 20 30 0.02514 40 90 0.0244
5 70 210 0.02435
15 1360 14280 0.0241
30 9920 215760 0.02409
100 343400 25497450 0.02408
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
1/N
0.999
1
1.001
1.002
1.003
1.004
1.005
1.006
CN
/(0.
0241N7/2
)
FIG. 1. Values of CN divided by the large-N limit CN0.02408N7/2 vs 1/N are shown. The circles are the calculated
value while the curve is the fit stated in Eq. 3.6.
RITTENHOUSE et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-4
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
5/14
hyperradius with a prime, R, denotes the hyperradius in
units of R2NI. Under this transformation, with the use ofEqs. 3.4a and 3.4b, and in the limit where N, thehyperradial Schrdinger equation becomes
12m*
d2
dR2+
Vef fR
ENI ER3N1/2FR = 0 ,
3.10
where m* = + 3N/ 22. The effective potential takes on thesimple form
Vef fR
ENI
1
2R2+
1
2R2 +
kf
R3, 3.11
where =1024/28353 and = g/l2. We note that the
only parameter that remains in this potential is the dimen-
sionless quantity kf and that in oscillator units = g.In the limit where N the effective mass m* becomes
m*1
163N8/3 . 3.12
For large numbers of particles, the second derivative terms in
Eq. 3.10 becomes negligible, a fact used later in Sec. III C.The behavior of Vef fR versus R is illustrated in Fig. 2
for various values of kf. For kf= 0 solid curve, the non-interacting limit, the curve is exact and the ground-state so-
lution is given by Eq. 2.15. For nonzero values of g, Vef facquires an attractive kf0 or repulsive kf0 1 /R
3
contribution as indicated by the dot-dashed and dashed lines,
respectively. For kf0 the DFG is metastable in a region
which has a repulsive barrier which it may tunnel through
and emerges in the region of small R where the interaction
term is dominant. It should be noted, though, that small Rmeans the overall size of the gas is small. Thus the region of
collapse corresponds to a very high density in the gas. In this
region several of the assumptions made can fall apart, most
notably the assumption dealing with the validity of the two-
body, zero-range potential 21. For kf0 the positive1 /R3 serves to strengthen the repulsive barrier and pushes
the gas further out.
A. Repulsive interactions g0
For positive values of the interaction parameter g we ex-
pect the predicted energy for this K harmonic method to
deviate from experimental values, since the trial wave func-
tion does not allow any fermions to combine into molecular
pairs as has been seen in experiments 1,2,4,5. Our method
can only describe the normal degenerate Fermi gas. Thestrong repulsive barrier for repulsive interactions shown in
Fig. 2 arises as the gas pushes against itself which increases
the energy and rms radius of the ground state. Figures 3 and
4 compare the ground-state energy and average radius
squared, respectively, of 240 trapped atoms, plotted as a
function of kf with a Hartree-Fock HF calculation. Theinset in Fig. 3 shows that the K harmonic energies are
slightly above the HF energies; since both methods are varia-
tional upper bounds, we can conclude that the Hartree-Fock
solution is a slightly better representation of the true solution
to the full Schrdinger equation with -function interactions.
An added benefit of the K harmonic method is that we
now have an intuitively simple way to understand the energy
of the lowest radial excitation of the gasi.e., the breathing
mode frequency. Figure 2 shows that as kf increases, therepulsion increases the curvature at the local minimum,
whereby stronger repulsion causes the breathing-mode fre-
quency to increase. Figure 5 compares the breathing-mode
frequency calculated using the K harmonic method to the
sum rule prediction 22 based on HF orbitals and also thelowest eight radial excitation frequencies predicted by the
Hartree-Fock method. As anticipated, the K harmonic
method and the sum rule method agree that the breathing-
mode frequency will increase with added repulsion. Interest-
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
R R2 NI
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Veff
R
ENI
FIG. 2. The dimensionless rescaled effective potential Vef f/ENIas a function of the rescaled hyperradius for kf= 0 solid line,kf= 15 dashed line, and kf= 5 dot-dashed line.
0 5 10 15
kf
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
E/ENI
0 5 10 15
kf
0
110-4
210-4
310-4
410-4
(EK-EHF
)/ENI
FIG. 3. The ground-state energy in units of the noninteracting
energy vs kf for 240 atoms calculated using the K harmonic
method curve and using the Hartree-Fock method circles. Inset:the difference in the ground-state energies predicted by the K har-
monic EK and Hartree-Fock EHF methods. Clearly the K har-
monic energies are slightly higher than the Hartree-Fock energies.
HYPERSPHERICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-5
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
6/14
ingly both the K harmonic and sum rule methods disagreequalitatively with all eight of the lowest HF excitations. This
difference is attributed to the fact that the Hartree-Fock
method on its own can only describe single-particle excita-
tions while both the sum rule and the K harmonic methods
describe collective excitations in which the entire gas oscil-
lates coherently.
As another test of the K harmonic method we calculate
the peak density of the gas. To do this we first define the
density
r = j=1
N
d3rji=1
N
3ri r
2. 3.13
It can be seen that integration over r using this definition
gives rd3r=N. We recall that our separable approxima-
tion takes the form = FR. Use of Eq. 3.13 and
the antisymmetry of gives
0 = N dRR3N1FR2 d3rN2.3.14
The hyperangular integration is carried out in Appendix D.
The result is
0
NI0= dRR
3N1FR2
R3, 3.15
where NI0 is the noninteracting peak density and
=l3+3N/2
N3/2
(+3N1/2). For the nth filled energy shell the noninter-
acting peak density is given by
NI0 kf
3
62=
1
622m
n + 1/23/2 .Note that the peak density is not given by R3N1FR2
evaluated at R =0: this describes the probability of all of the
particles being at the center at once.
Figure 6 compares the K harmonic and HF peak densities.
Clearly the density does decrease from the noninteracting
value. The two methods are in good qualitative agreement,
but the Hartree-Fock method seems to predict a slightly
lower density, presumably a manifestation of the slightly in-
ferior K harmonic wave function FR.
B. Attractive interactions g0
In this section we examine the behavior of the gas under
the influence of attractive s-wave interactions kf0. Forattractive interactions the gas resides in a metastable region
and can tunnel through the barrier shown in Fig. 2. Figure 7
shows the behavior of Vef f for several values of kf. Thelocation of the local minimum gets pulled down with stron-
ger attraction as the gas pulls in on itself and deeper into the
0 5 10 15k
f
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
/NI
FIG. 4. The ground-state average squared radius of the gas at-
oms in units of the noninteracting rms squared radius is plotted vs
kf. The calculations considered 240 atoms in both the K harmonic
method curve and Hartree-Fock method squares.
0 2 4 6 8 10
kf
1.8
1.9
2
0
/
FIG. 5. The lowest breathing-mode excitation 0 in units ofthe trap frequency is plotted vs kf for the K harmonic method
solid curve and for the sum rule circles. Also shown as dashedcurves are the lowest eight radial excitation frequencies predicted in
the Hartree-Fock approximation.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
kf
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
peakdens
ity(oscillatorunits)
FIG. 6. The peak density in units of /m3/2 vs kfpredictedby the K harmonic solid line and HF circles methods. Both setsof calculations were done for a filled shell of 240 atoms.
RITTENHOUSE et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-6
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
7/14
center of the trap. Further, as the strength of the interaction
increases, the height of the barrier decreases. In fact beyond
a critical interaction strength c the interaction becomes so
strong that it always dominates over the repulsive kinetic
term. At this critical point the local extrema disappear en-
tirely and the gas is free to fall into the inner collapseregion. The value of c can be calculated approximately by
finding the point where Vef f loses its local minimum and
becomes entirely attractive. This is not exact as the gas will
have some small zero-point energy that will allow it to tunnel
through or spill over the barrier before the minimum entirely
disappears. This critical interaction strength is given by
kfc = 1893
256
1
51/4 15.31.
Just before the minimum disappears, its location is given
by Rmin = 51/4, with an energy of Vef fRmin =5ENI/ 3
0.75ENI. This means that if the gas is mechanically stablefor all values of the two-body scattering lengthi.e., ain this approximation, there must be a renormaliza-
tion cutoff in the strength of the function such that kf15.31 for all a. With this in mind, we begin to examine
the behavior of the DFG for the allowed values of kf.Figures 8 and 9 show a comparison of the ground-state
energy and rms radius of the gas versus kfdown to the kfcas calculated in the K harmonic and Hartree-Fock methods.
Again the Hartree-Fock method does just slightly better in
energy, which we interpret as the Hartree-Fock method giv-
ing a slightly better representation of the actual ground-state
wave function. The energy difference becomes largest as the
interaction strength approaches the critical value. This in-
crease is due to the fact that the Hartree-Fock method pre-
dicts that collapse occurs slightly earlier with kfc 14.1.As the interaction strength increases, the energy and rms
radius of the gas decrease. As kfapproaches kfc the overall
size of the gas decreases sharply and from Eq. 3.15 weexpect to see a very sharp rise in the peak density. This
behavior is apparent in Fig. 10, which displays the peak den-
sity versus kf for both the K harmonic and Hartree-Fock
methods.
While the local minimum present in Vef f only supports
metastable states, it is still informative to examine the behav-
ior of the energy spectrum versus kf, beginning with the
breathing-mode frequency. As the interaction strength be-
comes more negative, Fig. 7 shows that the curvature about
the local minimum in Vef f decreases. This softening of the
hyperradial potential leads to a decrease in the breathing-
mode frequency in the outer well. Figure 11 shows the
breathing mode versus kf predicted by the K harmoniccurve method and also using the sum rule with Hartree-Fock orbitals circles. Also shown in Fig. 11 are the lowesteight Hartree-Fock excitation frequencies for a filled shell of
240 atoms. Again, the K harmonic method agrees quite well
with the sum rule, while both differ qualitatively from the
HF prediction. The sharp decrease in the breathing modefrequency that occurs as kfkfc is a result of the excitedmode falling over the barrier into the collapse region as the
barrier is pulled down by the interaction.
0.5 1 1.5 2
R R2 NI
0
1
2
3
4
5
VeffR
ENI
FIG. 7. The dimensionless rescaled potential curve Vef f/ENI is
shown as a function of the rescaled hyperradius R for several val-
ues of kf. kf= kfc dashed line and from top to bottom kf=5.3, 8.3, 11.3, 19.3 all solid lines
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
kf
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
E/ENI - 12 - 1 0 - 8 -6 -4 -2 0
kf
0
510-4
110-3
210-3
210-3
(EK-EHF
)/ENI
FIG. 8. The ground-state energy in units of the noninteractingenergy vs kf for 240 atoms calculated using the K harmoniccurve and Hartree-Fockcircles methods. Inset: the difference inthe ground-state energies predicted by the K harmonic EK andHartree-Fock EHF methods. Clearly the K harmonic prediction isslightly higher.
-15 -10 -5 0
kf
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
/NI
FIG. 9. The average squared radius of the Fermi gas ground
state in units of the noninteracting value is plotted vs kf. The
calculations are for 240 atoms in both the K harmonic method
curve and Hartree-Fock method squares.
HYPERSPHERICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-7
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
8/14
Figure 12 displays some energy levels in the metastable
region as functions of kfnear kfc. Because of the singularnature of the 1/R3 behavior in the inner region, we have
added an inner repulsive 1/R12 barrier to truncate the infi-
nitely many nodes of the wave function in the inner region.
The behavior of the wave function is not correct within this
region anyway because recombination would become domi-
nant, and in any case the zero-range interaction is suspect
beyond kfa 1 and it must be renormalized. Figure 12shows three distinct types of energy level. Levels that are
contained in the local minimum shown in blue are decreas-ing, but not as quickly as the others; levels that are in the
collapse region shown in red have a very steep slope asthey are drawn further into toward R =0; and energy levels
that are above the barrier in Vef f shown in purple havewave functions in both the collapse region and the localminimum. As kf decreases, the higher-energy levels fall
over the barrier into the collapse region earlier, until finally just before kfc is reached the lowest metastable level fallsbelow the ground state. This corresponds to the breathing-
mode behavior seen in Fig. 11. Of course all of this applies
only if there is no further hyperradial dependence of g. If the
interaction becomes density dependent, as is the case in
some types of renormalization, a change in the hyperradius
will change the density and thus the interaction coupling
parameteri.e., ggR.
C. Large-N limit
In Secs. III A and III B the ground-state energy and ex-
pectation values discussed were found by solving the hyper-
radial effective Schrdinger equation 3.7 for a finite num-ber of particles. Here we discuss the behavior of the
N-fermion system in the limit where N is large. To do this we
exploit the fact that the 2/R2 term in the effective Hamil-
tonian, the hyperradial kinetic energy, becomes negligible.
In this limit we see that the total energy of the system is
merely given by E= VeffRmin, as is the case in dimensionalperturbation theory 23. To find the ground-state energy wemust merely find the minimum local minimum for g0value of Vef f. Accordingly, we find the roots of
dVef f
dR=0. Us-
ing Eq. 3.11 we simplify this to
kf=1
3
Rmin Rmin4 1, 3.16
where Rmin is the hyperradial value that minimizes Vef f. The
solutions to Eq. 3.16 are illustrated graphically in Fig. 13;for any given kf we need only look for the value of Rmin
that gives that value. The exact solution of Eq. 3.16 cannotbe determined analytically for all values of kf, but Fig. 13
shows that for kf0 there is always only one positive, real
Rmin that satisfies Eq. 3.16. This corresponds to the globalminimum discussed for repulsive interactions. For kf0
things are a bit more complicated. Figure 13 shows that for
kfckf0 there are two solutions to Eq. 3.16. The inner
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
kf
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
peakdensity(oscillatorunits)
FIG. 10. The peak density in units of /m3/2 vs kf pre-dicted by the K harmonic solid line and HF circles methods.Both calculations were carried out for a filled shell of 240 atoms.
-15 -10 -5 0
kf
1.5
2
2.5
0
/
FIG. 11. The frequency of the lowest-energy radial transition in
units of the trap frequency vs kf predicted by the K harmonic
method solid line and by the sum rule method circles. Alsoshown are the lowest eight radial transitions predicted by the
Hartree-Fock method.
1217 16 15 14 13
kf
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
E
ENI
FIG. 12. Color online A portion of the energy spectrum vs kfclose to the critical point kf= kfc. Levels in the metastable region
blue decrease slowly while levels in the collapse region red de-crease very quickly. Energy levels above the barrier in Vef f
s purplereside in both the collapse region and the metastable region.
RITTENHOUSE et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-8
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
9/14
solution is a local maximum and corresponds to the peak of
the barrier seen in Fig. 7; the outer solution corresponds to
the local minimum where the DFG resides. The local mini-
mum is the state that we are concerned with here as this will
give the energy and hyperradial expectation values of the
metastable Fermi gas. The value of kf where these two
branches merge is the place where the local maximummerges with the local minimum: namely, the critical value
kfc. Any value of kf less than kfc has no solution to Eq.3.16 and thus we cannot say that there is a region of sta-bility. For kf=0, the noninteracting limit, we see that there
are two solutions Rmin =0 and Rmin =1. The solution Rmin = 0
must be discounted as there is a singularity in Vef f at R = 0.
Thus in the noninteracting limit Rmin 1 and Vef fRminENI, as expected.
Substitution of Eq. 3.16 into Eq. 3.11 gives the energyof the ground state, in the large-N limit, as a function of the
size of the gas:
Vef fRminENI
=1 + 5Rmin4
6Rmin2
.
These solutions to Eq. 3.16 immediately give the ground-state energy of the gas versus kf. Figure 14 shows the per-centage difference of the ground-state energy found by this
minimization procedure and that of 240 particles found by
diagonalizing Hef f in Eq. 3.7. We see in Fig. 14 that forkf10 the energy difference is less than 0.5%. As kfgets larger the difference increases, but in the range shown
the difference is always less than 1.5%.
Another result from 3.10 is the fact that in the large-N
limit the commutator Hef f,R0. Thus for any operatorthat is solely a function of the hyperradius OR the ground-state expectation value in the large-N limit is given by the
operator evaluated at Rmin : i.e., OR = ORmin . This tells
us that the large-N-limit wave function is given by
R3N1/2GR2 =R Rmin. We can perturb this slightlyand say that the ground-state hyperradial wave function can
be approximated by a very narrow Gaussian centered at Rmin.
To find the width of this Gaussian we approximate Vef f about
Rmin as a harmonic oscillator with mass m* and frequency
0. We may find 0 by comparing the oscillator potentialwith the second-order Taylor series about Rmin in Vef fi.e.,
0 = 1
m*1
ENI2Vef f
R2 R=Rmin . 3.17The effective hyperradial oscillator length of R3N1/2GRis then given by l0 =/m*0.
The breathing-mode frequency is now simply found to be
0. The frequency in Eq. 3.17 is in units of the noninter-acting energy, so to get back to conventional units we mul-
tiply by ENI/. From Eq. 3.10 we know that m*
= mENINR2NI/
2. Noting that NR2NI= l2ENI/ this leads
to
0B
=
1
ENI
2Vef f
R2 R=Rmin 3.18
for 0B, the breathing-mode frequency in units of the trap
frequency. Using Eq. 3.11 and substituting into Eq. 3.16to evaluate at the minimum gives that
0B = 5 1
Rmin4
.
We note that this is now dependent only on the value of kf;
i.e., for a fixed kf the predicted breathing mode is indepen-
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
R'min
20
10
0
10
20
30
kf
FIG. 13. Plot of the interaction strength in the dimensionless
combination kf vs the rescaled locations of the potential curveextrema, Rmin =Rmin/R2NI, solutions of Eq. 3.16. Examinationof this plot tells us the behavior of Rmin for all allowed values of kf
including the existence of the critical point kfc located at the mini-
mum of the plot where the maximum and minimum coincide.
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
kf
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
Energy
difference(%)
FIG. 14. The percentage difference between the energy found by
minimizing Vef f and the energy found by explicitly solving the hy-
perradial Schrdinger equation for 240 atoms.
HYPERSPHERICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-9
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
10/14
dent of the number of atoms in the system in the large-N
limit.This prediction can be compared with that predicted by
the sum rule using the formula found by the authors of Ref.
22:
0B = 4 + 3
2
Eint
Eho. 3.19
Here Eint and Eho are the expectation values of the interaction
potential and the oscillator potential in the ground state, re-
spectively. If we insert the expectation values predicted here
by the K harmonic method, we find
0B
=
4 + 3
kf
Rmin5 .
Substituting Eq. 3.16 for kf gives
0B = 5 1
Rmin4
,
which agrees exactly with the frequency predicted in Eq.3.19. Figure 15 shows the breathing mode frequency pre-dicted by Eq. 3.19 versus kf. We see the same behavior inthis plot as was seen in Fig. 11 where the breathing-mode
frequency dives to zero as kfkfc.
IV. SUMMARY AND PROSPECTS
We have demonstrated an alternative approach to describ-
ing the physics of a trapped degenerate Fermi gas from the
point of view of an ordinary linear Schrdinger equation
with two-body, microscopic interactions. The use of a hyper-
spherical variational trial wave function whose hyperangular
behavior is frozen to be that of the K harmonic yields a
one-dimensional effective potential 3.8 in a collective co-ordinate, the hyperradius R. This approach yields an intuitive
understanding of the energy and size of the DFG in terms of
familiar Schrdinger quantum mechanics. Perhaps surpris-
ingly, this approximation gives good results for the ground-
state energy, rms radius, and peak number density of the gas.
These are all in quantitative agreement with the HF method,
while the breathing-mode frequency compares well with that
found using the sum rule method, but gives a qualitative
improvement over the lowest calculated HF radial excitation
frequencies.
The work presented here has been limited to the case of
filled energy shellsi.e., magic numbers of atomsand itshould be readily generalizable, with minor extensions, to
open shells as well. The present results are limited to a
spherically symmetric trap. Generalization to an cylindrically
symmetric cigar-shaped trap should be possible with a judi-
cious choice of coordinates and will be presented elsewhere.
A more comprehensive description of this system would in-
clude the use of higher-order hyperspherical harmonics to get
several adiabatic potential curves. The next-order term would
involve expansions of all Slater determinants for single-
particle excitations 1619 and is beyond the scope of thepresent study. Since the -function Hamiltonian is too singu-
lar to have well-behaved solutions, in the absence of renor-
malization, we defer this discussion to future research.For strongly attractive interactions, this picture predicts an
instability in the DFG in a manner qualitatively similar to the
physics of an explosive collapse of a BEC or Bosenova
7. For the gas to remain stable across the BEC-BCS cross-over regime the strength of interaction potential must be
bounded from below, kf15.31. Preliminary results from
another study 24 indicate that renormalization of the singu-lar -function interaction accomplishes precisely that and ap-
parently prevents collapse. The full interrelation between this
picture and that of pairing in the BEC-BCS crossover region
is beyond the scope of this study and is a subject that will be
relegated to future publications.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by funding from the National
Science Foundation. We thank N. Barnea for introducing us
to Refs. 18,19. Discussions with L. Radzihovsky and V.Gurarie have also been informative.
APPENDIX A: HYPERRADIAL SOLUTION TO THE
NONINTERACTING OSCILLATOR
We wish to derive Eq. 2.15, the nodeless hyperradialsolution to the Schrdinger equation for N noninteracting
particles in an isotropic oscillator. The Schrdinger equationfor this system is given by
i=1
N
22m
i2 +
1
2m2ri
2 E = 0 , A1where r1 , r2 , . . . , rN are the Cartesian coordinates for each
atom from the trap center.
To begin we examine the radial Schrdinger equation for
a single particle in an isotropic trap:
-10 0 10
kf
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
B
0
FIG. 15. The breathing mode in units of the oscillator fre-quency in the large-N limit vs kf. Note that as kfkfc thefrequency drops to zero as the local minimum disappears.
RITTENHOUSE et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-10
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
11/14
22m
d2dr2
+ 1
r2 + 1
2m2r2 Enrfnr = 0 .
A2
The solution to this is well known and is given by
rfnr = An exp r2/2l r
l+1Ln+1/2 r
2
l2 , A3
with energy En=2n ++ 3 / 2 where l =/m and n isthe number of radial nodes in the wave function.
Transformation of Eq. A1 into hyperspherical coordi-nates using Eqs. 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.7 yields aSchrdinger equation that separates into hyperradial and hy-
perangular pieces. The hyperangular solution is a hyper-
spherical harmonic that diagonalizes 2. The resulting hy-
perradial Schrdinger equation is given by
22M
d2dR2
KK+ 1
R2 + 1
2M2R2 ER3N1/2FR = 0 ,
A4
where K=+ 3N 1 /2. Comparing this with Eq. A2 wesee that if we make the substitutions K, n, mM,
rR, and rfnrR3N1/2FKR, the single-particle ra-
dial Schrdinger equation becomes the N-particle hyperra-
dial Schrdinger equation. With these replacements the solu-
tion is evidently
R3N1/2GKR = AK exp R2/2LR
LK+1LK+1/2R
2
L2 ,
A5a
where L= l/N and is the number of hyperradial nodes inthe N-body system. For =0 this is the same hyperradial
wave function written in Eq. 2.15. The total energy is givenby
EK = 2+ K+ 32 = 2+ + 3N
2 . A5b
Now that we have a hyperspherical solution we can compare
it with the solution to Eq. A1 written in terms ofindependent-particle coordinates r1 , r2 , . . . ,rN. This equa-tion is clearly separable in each coordinate ri, and its solution
is a product of N single-particle wave functions
= i=1
N
fnii
riyimii,
where fniir is given by Eq. A3, i are the spherical polar
angular coordinates of the ith particle, and ym is a nor-mal 3D spherical harmonic. The energy for this independent-
particle solution is given by
E= 3N2
+ i=1
N
2ni + i . A6Now that we have seen that Eq. A1 is separable in bothhyperspherical and independent-particle coordinates, we may
compare Eqs. A5b and A6 to find that
2+ = i=1
N
2ni + i. A7
We should note that this does not mean that the independent-
particle solution and the hyperspherical solution are the
same, only that the hyperspherical solution FR mustbe a linear combination of independent-particle solutions of
the same energy.
APPENDIX B: PROOF OF THEOREM 1
Here we will use the results from Appendix A to prove
theorem 1. We proceed by assuming that there exists a fully
antisymmetric, ground-state, hyperspherical solution to the
Schrdinger equation for N noninteracting fermions in an
isotropic trap with energy given by Eq. A5b with 0. Ifwe can show that this leads to a contradiction, then we have,
from Eq. A7, that there is only one for all of the ground-state configurations. From Appendix A we know that this
hyperspherical solution must be a linear combination of an-
tisymmetric, degenerate, ground-state solutions in
independent-particle coordinates:
FKR,1,2, . . . ,N
=
Dr1,r2, . . . ,rN,1,2, . . . ,N,
where each D is of the form of Eq. 2.13, is used todistinguish between degenerate states of the same energy,
and FKR is given by Eq. A5a. Again, for brevity, wesuppress the spin coordinates 1 ,2 , . . . ,N in . We nownote that the hyperradius R is completely symmetric under
all transpositions of particle coordinates; thus all of the trans-
position symmetry must be contained in the function .From we construct a new completely antisymme-trized hyperspherical solution F0KR which has en-ergy
E= + 3N2 .
Use of Eqs. A5b and A7 gives
=ENI
3N
2 2, B1
where ENI=3N/2+i=1N 2ni +i is the ground-state en-
ergy as defined by any of the functions Drii=1N . Thus our
new function F0KR has energy
E= ENI 2,
which would lie below the ground-state energy, a contradic-
tion unless = 0.
In the above analysis we assumed a degenerate set of
solutions at the ground-state energy. For nondegenerate so-
lutions the proof becomes trivial, as any nondegenerate so-
lution must be the same no matter what coordinate system it
is expressed in. From this the rest of the proof follows in the
same way, and the final, unique for this system is given by
Eq. B1,
HYPERSPHERICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-11
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
12/14
=ENI
3N
2. B2
APPENDIX C: CALCULATION OF THE s-WAVE
INTERACTION MATRIX ELEMENT
To calculate CN it is useful to start with a more general
interaction. We assume that the interaction term in the totalN-body Hamiltonian is such that at a fixed hyperradius
Uintrij is separable into a hyperradial function times a hy-perangular integrali.e.,
Ur12 vRv . C1
From properties of the function and Eq. 2.4 it is easy tosee that Uintr = g
3r fits this criterion. While v mighthave some very complex form, it will be seen shortly that
only the form of VR and Uintrij will matter:
Uef fR = ij
Uintrij .We may again use the antisymmetry of to exchange rir2 and rjr1 and arrive at
Uef fR =NN 1
2Uintr21 .
From Eq. C1 we can write that
Uef fR = VRNN 1/2, C2
where =v is the analog of gCN/N3/2 in Eq.
3.5. To find we may substitute in the definition from Eq. 2.16, multiplying by R3N1GR2 on both sides,
integrating over R, and using Eq. C1 to replace VRv
,which gives a simple equation that may be solved for :
= , C3a
= R3N1GR2VRdR , C3b
=NN 1
2
j=1
N
d3rjD*rii=1
N Uintr21Drii=1N ,
C3c
where Dr
ii=1N
is the Slater determinant defined in Eq.2.13 and GR is defined as in Eq. 2.15. We have also
used the fact that R3N1dRd= j=1
N
d3rj 13. can now be
found as a ratio of two integrals.
The integral on the left-hand side LHS of Eq. C3acan be calculated directly. The integral on the right-handside of Eq. C3a is now a diagonal, determinantal matrixelement. may be drastically simplified by using the or-thogonality of the single-particle basis functions for detailssee Ref. 25, Sec. 6-1:
=1
2
i,j=1
N
d3r1d3r2i*r1j*r2Uintr21ir1jr2 msi
msji
*r2j*r1Uintr21ir1jr2 , C4
where ir is the ith single-particle spatial wave functionthat appears in the product in Eq. 2.13i.e.,
rir = Nnii exp r2/2l2r/li+1Lni
i+1/2r/l2yimi.
C5
With this result we can now specify to the s-wave inter-
action. Following Eq. C1 we may identifyUintr21g
3r21 and V21RR1 /R3. With this and Eq.
2.15, the integral in Eq. C3b is found to be
=
+ 3N 12
L3 + 3N
2
. C6
Evaluating Eq. C4 begins by integrating the function overr2. This is simple, and we can clearly see that the two terms
in the integral in Eq. C4 have a common factor ofir1
2jr12. Factoring this out gives
=g
2
i,j=1
N
1 msimsj d3r1ir12jr12 . C7This sum runs over all spatial and spin quantum numbers in
a filled energy shell; we may break this up into two factors,
a spin sum and a space sum:
=g
2
msi,msj=1/2
1/2
1 msimsj d3r1
r12
r12
= g d3r1
r12
r12 , C8
where the Greek letters and stand for the set of spatialquantum numbers n , , m. The spin sum is trivial and isgiven by msi,msj=1/2
1/2 1 msimsj =2. We may now calculate
CN for any given filled energy shell using Eq. C8 and plug-ging into the relationship
CN = N
3/2
g
. C9
This has been done for the first 100 filled shells, the results
of which are summarized by Fig. 1. CN for a selection of
shells is given in Table I.
To extract CN in the limit as N we may examine the
expression for in Eq. C8. We may note that the sumr =r
2 is the definition of the density of a spin po-
larized degenerate Fermi gas of noninteracting particles in an
isotropic oscillator. In the limit where N the trap energy
of the noninteracting gas dominates the total energy. This
RITTENHOUSE et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-12
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
13/14
means that the Thomas-Fermi approximation becomes exact
in this limit. Thus we may write that
r =1
622m
2 3/21 m2r2
23/2 , C10a
Nms
= d3rr . C10bThe chemical potential may be found by the condition
given in Eq. C10b where Nms
is the number of particles
with the same spin projection ms. The system we are consid-
ering is an equal-spin mixture so that N=N=N/2. Thus we
find that =3N1/3. Plugging this into Eq. C8 gives
= g r2d3r= g23
256
315
N3/2
3l3. C11
We insert this into Eq. C9 with Eq. C6 to find that
CN =
2
3
256
3153N3/2
+ 3N2
+ 3N 12 . C12
Using Eq. 3.4a for the large-N behavior of , in the limitN,
CN23
32
353N7/2 , C13
which is the quoted large-N behavior in Eq. 3.6.It should be said that the same formalism that is presented
in this paper can be applied to this system in center-of-mass
coordinates. This is done by first choosing an appropriate set
of Jacobi coordinates: xi =i/i + 1j=1i rj/i ri+1 for i= 1 , . . . ,N1 with the center-of-mass vector defined as xcm=j=1
N rj/N. Hyperangular coordinates are now used to de-scribe the 3N3 degrees of freedom in the Jacobi coordi-
nates where R2 =j=1N1xj
2/N=j=1N rj
2 xcm2 /N. The 3N4 hy-
perangles needed are now defined with respect to the lengths
of the Jacobi vectors in the same way as in Eqs. 2.3 and2.4. Under this coordinate transformation we find theHamiltonian to be given by
H= HCM + HR,,
where HCM is the Hamiltonian for the center-of-mass coor-
dinate xcm and HR, is an operator entirely defined by hyper-
spherical coordinatesi.e.,
HCM = 2
2mcm
2 +1
2m2xcm
2 ,
HR, = 2
2M 1
R3N4
RR3N4
R
2
R2 + 1
2M2R2
+ ij
Uintrij.
With this Hamiltonian we make the ansatz that for H
=E, =xcmGR, where is a wave function
describing the center-of-mass motion, GR is a nodeless hy-perradial function, and is the lowest hypersphericalharmonic in the 3N 4 angular coordinates. We are then
looking for the matrix element HR, where the inte-gral is taken over all hyperangles at fixed R. Theorem 1 still
applies with the added idea that is given by the lowest
s-wave state of the center of mass in an oscillator. From here
the analysis presented in this section for trap centered coor-
dinates still holds with the added change that the dimension
of the hyperradial integral in Eq. C3b is three dimensionssmaller. This leads to a factor in the interaction matrix ele-
ment given by
CN
+ 3N 12
2
+ 3N2 + 3N 2
2
CN.
For smaller N this factor changes the interaction consider-
ably, but for larger N it quickly goes to 1. Thus, in the large-
N limit, besides extracting the center-of-mass sloshingmodes, there is very little difference from the trap center
coordinate systems in this Jacobi coordinate formalism.
APPENDIX D: CALCULATING 0
We start from Eq. 3.14:
0 = N dRR3N1FR2 d3rN2.If we can find d3rN
2, then we have the solu-
tion. From Eq. 2.4 and properties of the function we may
say that
N d3rN2 = R3
.
We multiply this on both sides by the noninteracting hyper-
radial function R3N1GR2 and integrate over R:
N 3rN2GR2R3N1dRd
= GR2
R3R3N1dR . D1
Inserting GR from Eq. 2.15 into the right-hand side thisgives
GR2
N3/2R3R3N1dR =
3N 1/2
L3 3N/2. D2a
From the definition of in Eq. 2.16 we see that the left-hand side of Eq. D1 is a determinantal matrix element of asingle-particle operator integrated over all independent-
particle coordinates:
HYPERSPHERICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-13
-
8/3/2019 Seth T. Rittenhouse et al- Hyperspherical description of the degenerate Fermi gas: s-wave interactions
14/14
N 3rN2GR2R3N1dRd
= Nj=1
N
d3rjDrii=1N 23rN, D2b
where Drii=1N is the Slater determinant wave function de-
fined in Eq. 2.13. Referring to the definition of the density in Eq. 3.13 we see that this is merely the peak density ofthe non-interacting system NI0. Thus
= NI0l3 3N/2
N3/2 3N 1/2.
The peak density is then given by
0 = dRR3N1FR2
R3,
which is what we were seeking to show.
1 M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, C. Chin, J.H. Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120401
2004.2 T. Bourdel, L. Khaykovich, J. Cubizolles, J. Zhang, F. Chevy,
M. Teichmann, L. Tarruell, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, and C.
Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 50401 2004.
3 J. Kinast, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, A. Turlapov, and J. E.Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 150402 2004.4 C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,
40403 2004.5 M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach,
A. J. Kerman, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120403
2004.6 S. T. Rittenhouse, M. J. Cavagnero, J. von Stecher, and C. H.
Greene, e-print cond-mat/0510454.
7 J. L. Bohn, B. D. Esry, and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A 58,584 1998.
8 Y. E. Kim and A. Zubarev, J. Phys. B 33, 55 2000.9 D. Kushibe, M. Mutou, T. Morishita, S. Watanabe, and M.
Matsuzawa, Phys. Rev. A 70, 63617 2004.10 Y. F. Smirnov and K. V. Shitikova, Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 8, 44
1977.
11 D. Blume and C. H. Greene, J. Chem. Phys. 112, 8053 2000.12 B. D. Esry, C. H. Greene, and J. P. Burke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83,
1751 1999.13 J. Avery, Hyperspherical Harmonics: Applications in Quantum
Theory Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1989.14 N. Barnea, J. Math. Phys. 40, 1011 1999.
15 M. J. Cavagnero, Phys. Rev. A 33, 2877 1986.16 M. Fabre de la Ripelle and J. Navarro, Ann. Phys. N.Y. 123,
185 1978.17 M. Fabre de la Ripelle, S. A. Sofianos, and R. M. Adam, Ann.
Phys. N.Y. 316, 107 2005.18 N. K. Timofeyuk, Phys. Rev. C 65, 064306 2002.19 N. K. Timofeyuk, Phys. Rev. C 69, 034336 2004.20 E. Fermi, Nuovo Cimento 11, 157 1934.21 B. D. Esry and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A 60, 1451 1999.22 L. Vichi and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. A 60, 4734 1999.23 T. C. Germann, D. R. Herschbach, M. Dunn, and D. K. Wat-
son, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 658 1995.24 B. M. Fregoso and G. Baym, Phys. Rev. A 73, 043614 2006.25 R. D. Cowan, The Theory of Atomic Structure and Spectra
University of California Press, Berkeley, 1981.
RITTENHOUSE et al. PHYSICAL REVIEW A 74, 053624 2006
053624-14