text:
# The Uncertainty Principle for certain densities 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 42A99, 42B99. Key words and phrases. Uncertainty Principle, Logvinenko-Sereda theorem, relatively dense sets, ϵ-thin sets.

## 1 Introduction

The Uncertainty Principle in Fourier analysis is a statement that a function and its Fourier transform can not both be concentrated on small sets. Many examples of this principle can be found in the book by Havin and Joricke  and in the paper by Folland and Sitaram . We will be interested in the following type of the Uncertainty Principle for $`fL^2(^d)`$:

$`{\displaystyle |f|^2}C({\displaystyle _{E^c}}|f|^2+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}}|\widehat{f}|^2)`$ (1)
where $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are “small” sets in $`^d`$, $`E^c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^c`$ are complements of $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`C`$ is independent of $`f`$. In particular, it follows that if supp$`fE`$ and supp$`\widehat{f}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ then $`f0`$. We will use the following definition of the Fourier transform: $`\widehat{f}(x)=f(y)e^{i2\pi xy}𝑑y`$ and the corresponding inverse Fourier transform: $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}(x)=f(y)e^{i2\pi xy}𝑑y`$. There are several examples of the Uncertainty Principle of form (1). One of them is the Amrein-Berthier theorem (, p.97),  (which is a quantitative version of a result due to Benedicks ). In this theorem sets of finite measure play the role of small sets, i.e., if a function $`f`$ is supported on a set of finite measure then $`\widehat{f}`$ can not be concentrated on a set of finite measure unless $`f`$ is the zero function. The quantitative version of this theorem says that

$$|f|^2C(\underset{E^c}{}|f|^2+\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}{}|\widehat{f}|^2)$$

where $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are sets of finite measure and the constant $`C`$ doesn’t depend on $`f`$. It is interesting to note that the optimal estimate of $`C`$, which depends only on measures $`|E|`$ and $`|F|`$, was obtained by F. Nazarov relatively recently .

Two more examples of the Uncertainty Principle which are of particular interest to us are the Logvinenko-Sereda theorem (, p.112),  and Wolff’s theorem . In the case of the Logvinenko-Sereda theorem compact sets and the complements of relatively dense subsets play the role of small sets. A measurable set $`E^c^d`$ is called relatively dense if there exist a disc $`D`$ and $`\gamma >0`$ such that

$`|E^c(D+x)|\gamma |D|`$ (2)
for every $`x^d`$. It is intuitively clear that $`E`$ is a small set in a certain sense. The theorem states that if $`\widehat{f}`$ is supported in a compact set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and a set $`E^c`$ is relatively dense then

$`{\displaystyle |f|^2}C(E,\mathrm{\Sigma }){\displaystyle \underset{E^c}{}}|f|^2`$ (3)
where $`C(E,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ depends only on $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ but doesn’t depend on $`f`$. It is a well-known fact that relative density (2), or “thickness”, of $`E^c`$ is also necessary for the inequality (3) to hold. See for example (, p.113). The Logvinenko-Sereda theorem, which was motivated by the theory of PDE’s, is a result of the theory of entire functions of exponential type. In his earlier paper  the author found a new proof of the Logvinenko-Sereda theorem and obtained a sharp estimate of $`C`$ in (3) which is polynomial in terms of the density $`\gamma `$: $`C\frac{1}{\gamma ^a}`$ rather than a previously known exponential one: $`C\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{\gamma ^b}`$ (see for example the text book by Havin and Joricke (, p.112) ). The author showed that his estimate is optimal in terms of $`\gamma `$, size of $`D`$ and size of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The author further generalized the inequality (3) for the case of Fourier transforms supported in the union of finitely many compact sets ($`\widehat{f}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+\lambda _i)`$) with an estimate of $`C`$ depending only on the number of the sets but not how they are placed , . In his other paper  the author extended the inequality (3) to non-compactly supported Fourier transforms which are supported in an infinite sequence of lacunarily-placed compact sets ($`\widehat{f}\underset{i=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+\lambda _i)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{\lambda _i\}_{i=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a lacunary sequence in $`^d`$).

In Wolff’s theorem (, Theorem 2.1) so called $`ϵ`$-thin sets rather than relatively dense ones play the role of small sets. Let $`\rho (x)=\mathrm{min}(1,\frac{1}{|x|})`$. A set $`E^d`$ is called $`ϵ`$-thin if

$$|ED(x,\rho (x))|ϵ|D(x,\rho (x))|$$

for all $`x^d`$, where $`D(x,r)`$ is the disc centered at $`x`$ with radius $`r`$. The theorem says that if $`ϵ`$ is small enough and $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are $`ϵ`$-thin then

$`{\displaystyle |f|^2}C({\displaystyle \underset{E^c}{}}|f|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}{}}|\widehat{f}|^2)`$ (4)
where $`C`$ is a universal constant.

Our main result is a new version of the Uncertainty Principle which links the Logvinenko-Sereda theorem and Wolff’s theorem. Suppose $`\rho _1:^+^+`$ and $`\rho _2:^+^+`$ are continuous non-increasing functions and there exist $`C_1>0`$, $`C_2>0`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_2}{\rho _2(\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(t)})}}t`$ (5)
for all $`t0`$. Since the functions $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are continuous and non-increasing, we also have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{\rho _1(\frac{C_2}{\rho _2(t)})}}t`$
for all $`t0`$. Clearly, $`\rho _1(t)0`$ and $`\rho _2(t)0`$ when $`t\mathrm{}`$. As an example we can take $`\rho _1(t)=\mathrm{min}(\frac{1}{t^a},1)`$ and $`\rho _2(t)=\mathrm{min}(\frac{1}{t^{\frac{1}{a}}},1)`$ where $`a>0`$. Denote by $`D(x,r)`$ the disc centered at $`x^d`$ of radius $`r`$. We call a pair of sets $`E,\mathrm{\Sigma }^d`$ $`ϵ`$-thin with respect to the pair of functions $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ if

$`|ED(x,\rho _1(|x|))|ϵ|D(x,\rho _1(|x|))|`$
and
$`|\mathrm{\Sigma }D(x,\rho _2(|x|))|ϵ|D(x,\rho _2(|x|))|`$
for all $`x^d`$. Note that the complements of $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ possess some sort of density $`\gamma =1ϵ`$ with respect to discs $`D(x,\rho _1(|x|))`$ and $`D(x,\rho _2(|x|))`$ correspondingly. Our main result is the following

###### Theorem 1

If $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ satisfy (5) then there exist $`ϵ>0`$ and $`C>0`$ such that for any pair of $`ϵ`$-thin sets $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with respect to $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ as in (1) we have

$`{\displaystyle |f|^2}C({\displaystyle \underset{E^c}{}}|f|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}{}}|\widehat{f}|^2)`$ (7)
for every $`fL^2`$.

Note that the inequality (5) is scale invariant in the following sense. If we replace $`f(x)`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{f}(x)=f(kx)`$ then replace $`E`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{E}=kE`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\frac{1}{k}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ where $`k>0`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are $`ϵ`$-thin with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1(t)=k\rho _1(\frac{t}{k})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2(t)=\frac{1}{k}\rho _2(kt)`$. It is easy to check that the inequality (5) is preserved: $`\frac{C_2}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2(\frac{C_1}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1(t)})}t`$ for all $`t0`$.

As an application of Theorem 1 we obtain the following result which is a generalization of Theorem 2.3 in . If $`G`$ is a function on $`^d`$, $`G_{\mathrm{}}=1`$, define an operator $`T_G:L^2L^2`$ as

$$T_Gf=\widehat{Gf}.$$

Then $`T_G_2=1`$. The next theorem shows that under certain condition on $`G`$ and $`H`$ we have $`T_HT_G_2<1`$.

###### Theorem 2

Suppose $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ are probability measures on the real line, which are not $`\delta `$-measures. Let $`G`$ and $`H`$ be functions on $`^d`$ satisfying

$$|G(x)||\widehat{\mu }_1(|x|^p)|,$$

$$|H(x)||\widehat{\mu }_2(|x|^p^{})|$$

where $`\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p^{}}=1`$, $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$T_HT_G_2\beta <1$$

where $`\beta `$ depends only on $`\mu _1`$, $`\mu _2`$ and $`p`$.

## 2 Proof of Theorems 1 and 2

We will construct a pair of bounded operators $`S`$ and $`T`$ on $`L^2(^d)`$ satisfying the following conditions: $`S\chi _Ef_2^2\alpha (ϵ)f_2^2`$ and $`\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\widehat{Tf}_2^2\beta (ϵ)f_2^2`$ where $`\alpha (ϵ)(C_1^d+1)ϵ0`$ and $`\beta (ϵ)(C_2^d+1)ϵ0`$ as $`ϵ0`$ and such that $`S+T`$ is the identity operator. Then

$`f_2^2=\widehat{f}_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}\widehat{f}_2^2+\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\widehat{f}_2^2`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}\widehat{f}_2^2+\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }(\widehat{Sf}+\widehat{Tf})_2^2`$
$``$ $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}\widehat{f}_2^2+2\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\widehat{Sf}_2^2+2\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\widehat{Tf}_2^2`$
$``$ $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}\widehat{f}_2^2+2Sf_2^2+2\beta (ϵ)f_2^2`$
$``$ $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}\widehat{f}_2^2+4S\chi _{E^c}f_2^2+4S\chi _Ef_2^2+2\beta (ϵ)f_2^2`$
$``$ $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}\widehat{f}_2^2+C\chi _{E^c}f_2^2+4(\alpha (ϵ)+\beta (ϵ))f_2^2.`$
We used here the fact that $`S`$ is a bounded operator on $`L^2`$ and therefore $`S\chi _{E^c}f_2\chi _{E^c}f_2`$. If $`ϵ`$ is small enough so that $`4(\alpha (ϵ)+\beta (ϵ))\frac{1}{2}`$ then we obtain the desired result

$`{\displaystyle |f|^2}{\displaystyle \underset{E^c}{}}|f|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}{}}|\widehat{f}|^2.`$
The theorem contains Wolff’s theorem and the Logvinenko-Sereda theorem mentioned in the introduction as two extreme cases. To show this consider $`\rho _1(t)=\mathrm{min}(\frac{1}{t^{\frac{1}{n}}},1)`$ and $`\rho _2(t)=\mathrm{min}(\frac{1}{t^n},1)`$ where $`n>0`$ then $`\frac{1}{\rho _2(\frac{1}{\rho _1(t)})}t`$. Here $`C_1=C_2=1`$. If $`n=1`$ we get Wolff’s result. The Logvinenko-Sereda theorem is obtained if we let $`n\mathrm{}`$ since $`\rho _1(t)1`$ and $`\rho _2(t)\chi _{[0,1]}(t)`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$, i.e., if $`E`$ is the complement of a relatively dense set such that $`|E(D+x)|ϵ|D|`$ for every $`x^d`$ where $`D=D(0,1)`$ then $`E`$ is $`ϵ`$-thin with respect to $`\rho _1(t)=1`$ and if a set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }ϵD`$ then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is $`ϵ`$-thin with respect to $`\rho _2(t)=\chi _{[0,1]}(t)`$. Note that if sets $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are $`ϵ`$-thin with respect to $`\rho _1(t)=1`$ and $`\rho _2(t)=\chi _{[0,1]}(t)`$ correspondingly then $`E`$ is the complement of a relatively dense set and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$. Now we will justify passing to the limit. Suppose $`E`$ is the complement of a relatively dense set such that $`|E(D+x)|ϵ|D|`$ for every $`x^d`$ and a set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }ϵD`$. Let $`E_n=ED(0,n)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ then $`E_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ are $`2ϵ`$-thin with respect to $`\rho _1(t)=\mathrm{min}(\frac{1}{t^{\frac{1}{n}}},1)`$ and $`\rho _2(t)=\mathrm{min}(\frac{1}{t^n},1)`$ correspondingly for large enough $`n`$. Then there exists $`ϵ>0`$ such that for all large enough $`n`$ we have

$$|f|^2C(\underset{E_n^c}{}|f|^2+\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^c}{}|\widehat{f}|^2)$$

where $`C`$ does not depend on $`n`$ since all constants in the theorem are uniform in $`n`$ for these pairs of $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$. Using $`\underset{E_n^c}{}|f|^2\underset{E^c}{}|f|^2`$ and $`\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^c}{}|f|^2=\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}{}|\widehat{f}|^2`$ we get the Logvinenko-Sereda theorem

$`{\displaystyle |f|^2}{\displaystyle \underset{E^c}{}}|f|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}{}}|\widehat{f}|^2.`$
Now we will show how to construct a pair of such operators $`S`$ and $`T`$. We will use some technique from (, Theorem 2.1). Let $`\psi _0:^d`$ be a radial Schwartz function supported in $`D(0,2)`$ such that $`\psi _01`$ in $`D(0,1)`$ and $`0\psi _01`$. In addition, we assume that $`q(|x|)=\psi _0(x)`$ is a non-increasing function of $`|x|`$ where $`q(r)`$ is a function defined on $`^+`$. We will use the last property only to prove (23) in Lemma 3. Define $`\psi _j(x)=\psi _0(\frac{x}{2^j})\psi _0(\frac{x}{2^{j1}})`$ for integer $`j1`$. It is clear that $`\psi _j(x)`$ is supported in $`2^{j1}|x|2^{j+1}`$ and $`\underset{j0}{}\psi _j1`$. Define $`\varphi =\stackrel{ˇ}{\psi _0}`$ and $`\varphi _j(x)=C_1^d\rho _1^d(2^j)\varphi (\frac{C_1x}{\rho _1(2^j)})`$. Define the operators $`S`$ and $`T`$ on $`L^2(^d)`$ in the following way:

$`Sf={\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}\psi _j(\varphi _{j1}f)`$ (9)
and

$`Tf={\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}\psi _j(f\varphi _{j1}f).`$ (10)
Note that the infinite sums in (9) and (10) converge pointwise since they have at most three nonvanishing terms at a given point. It is also clear that $`Sf+Tff`$. We have

$`Sf(x)={\displaystyle K(x,y)f(y)𝑑y}`$
where

$`K(x,y)={\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}\psi _j(x)\varphi _{j1}(xy).`$ (11)
We also have

$`\widehat{Tf}(x)={\displaystyle L(x,y)\widehat{f}(y)𝑑y}`$
where

$`L(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}\widehat{\psi }_j(xy)(1\widehat{\varphi }_{j1}(y))`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi (xy)(1\widehat{\varphi }_1(y))+{\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}(2^{jd}\varphi (2^j(xy))2^{(j1)d}\varphi (2^{j1}(xy)))(1\widehat{\varphi }_{j1}(y))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}2^{jd}\varphi (2^j(xy))(\widehat{\varphi }_j(y)\widehat{\varphi }_{j1}(y))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}2^{jd}\varphi (2^j(xy))(\psi _0(\rho _1(2^j)y/C_1)\psi _0(\rho _1(2^{j1})y/C_1)).`$ (13)
We used here $`\widehat{\psi }_j(z)=2^{jd}\widehat{\psi }_0(2^jz)2^{(j1)d}\widehat{\psi }_0(2^{j1}z)=2^{jd}\varphi (2^jz)2^{(j1)d}\varphi (2^{j1}z)`$ for $`j1`$, summation by parts and $`\widehat{\varphi }_j(y)=\psi _0(\rho _1(2^j)y/C_1)`$. Note that for a fixed $`y`$ the sums in (2) and (13) have only finitely many terms since $`\widehat{\varphi }_j(y)=\psi _0(\rho _1(2^j)y/C_1)=1`$ if $`|y|\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(2^j)}`$ and $`\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(2^j)}\mathrm{}`$ when $`j\mathrm{}`$. The four lemmas below are analogous to Lemma 2.2 in .
Now we will show that $`S`$ is a bounded operator on $`L^2`$. It will suffice to prove the following lemma:

###### Lemma 1

$`\underset{x}{sup}{\displaystyle |K(x,y)|𝑑y}C`$ (14)
and

$`\underset{y}{sup}{\displaystyle |K(x,y)|𝑑x}C.`$ (15)
where $`C`$ is an absolute constant which does not depend on $`\rho _1`$.

Proof of Lemma 1. (14) follows from the facts that for a fixed $`x`$ the sum in (11) contains at most three nonvanishing terms, $`|\psi _j|1`$ and $`\varphi _j_1=\varphi `$. Therefore,

$`\underset{x}{sup}{\displaystyle |K(x,y)|𝑑y}3\varphi _1.`$
Fix $`y`$ and note that there are at most four values of $`j`$ such that dist$`(y,\text{supp }\psi _j)<2^{j2}`$. Call this set of $`j`$’s A. We have

$`{\displaystyle |K(x,y)|𝑑x}`$ $``$ $`4\varphi _1+{\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}{\displaystyle |\psi _j(x)||\varphi _{j1}(xy)|𝑑x}`$ (16)
$``$ $`4\varphi _1+{\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}{\displaystyle |\psi _j(x)|\frac{C\rho _1^d(2^{j1})C_1^d}{(1+\frac{C_1|xy|}{\rho _1(2^{j1})})^{2d}}𝑑x}`$
$``$ $`4\varphi _1+{\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}{\displaystyle |\psi _j(x)|\frac{C\rho _1^d(2^{j1})C_1^d}{(1+\frac{C_12^{j2}}{\rho _1(2^{j1})})^{2d}}𝑑x}`$
$``$ $`4\varphi _1+C{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}2^{jd}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1^d(2^{j1})C_1^d}{(1+\frac{C_12^{j2}}{\rho _1(2^{j1})})^{2d}}}.`$
To estimate the second term in (16) we will use the fact that $`\rho _1`$ is non-increasing. Choose the smallest integer $`k1`$ such that $`C_12^k\rho _1(2^k)`$ and split the sum correspondingly into two parts (ignore the first part if $`k=1`$)

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{\overset{k}{}}}2^{jd}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1^d(2^{j1})C_1^d}{(1+\frac{C_12^{j2}}{\rho _1(2^{j1})})^{2d}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{jk+1}{}}2^{jd}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1^d(2^{j1})C_1^d}{(1+\frac{C_12^{j2}}{\rho _1(2^{j1})})^{2d}}}`$
$`C2^{kd}\rho _1^d(2^{k1})C_1^d+C{\displaystyle \underset{jk+1}{}}2^{jd}C_1^d\rho _1^d(2^k)C.`$
Therefore, it follows from (16) that

$$\underset{y}{sup}|K(x,y)|𝑑xC$$

where $`C`$ does not depend on $`\rho _1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Thus, $`S`$ is a bounded operator on $`L^2`$ whose norm does not depend on $`\rho _1`$.
Now we will show that

$`S\chi _Ef_2C\sqrt{ϵ}f_2.`$ (17)
Since we have already shown that

$`\underset{y}{sup}{\displaystyle |K(x,y)|𝑑x}C.`$
it will suffice to prove the next lemma.

###### Lemma 2

$`\underset{x}{sup}{\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}|K(x,y)|𝑑yCϵ`$ (18)
where $`CC_1^d+1`$.

Proof of Lemma 2. To obtain (18) we will need the following geometrical property:

$`|D(x,r)E|Cϵ|D(x,r)|`$ (19)
for all $`x`$ and $`r\rho _1(|x|)`$. This inequality is based on the fact that we can cover $`\overline{D}(x,r)`$ by disks $`D(x_i,\rho _1(|x_i|))`$, $`x_i\overline{D}(x,r)`$, such that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|D(x_i,\rho _1(|x_i|))|C|D(x,r)|.`$ (20)
To show this we will use only the continuity of $`\rho _1`$. First we claim that $`\overline{D}(x,r)`$ can be covered by balls $`D(x_k,\rho _1(|x_k|)/3)`$ with $`x_k\overline{D}(x,r)`$ and $`\rho _1(|x_k|)3r`$. Suppose towards a contradiction that there is $`y\overline{D}(x,r)`$ which is not covered. Then $`\rho _1(|y|)>3r`$. Consider $`h(t)=\rho _1(|(1t)x+ty|)`$, $`0t1`$. It is continuous and $`h(0)r`$ and $`h(1)>3r`$. Pick $`t`$ such that $`h(t)=3r`$. Let $`z=(1t)x+ty`$ then $`zD(x,r)`$, $`\rho _1(|z|)=3r`$ and $`yD(z,\rho _1(|z|)/3)`$. It gives us a contradiction. Thus, $`\overline{D}(x,r)`$ can be covered by balls $`D(x_k,\rho _1(|x_k|)/3)`$ with $`x_k\overline{D}(x,r)`$ and $`\rho _1(|x_k|)3r`$. Next we choose a finite subcover of $`\overline{D}(x,r)`$ (a compact set) by these balls. Applying a well-known result on covering (see (, 7.3)) we can choose a disjoint subcollection of these balls $`D(x_i,\rho _1(|x_i|)/3)`$ such that $`D(x,r)\underset{i}{}D(x_i,\rho _1(|x_i|))`$. We also have $`\underset{i}{}D(x_i,\rho _1(|x_i|)/3)D(x,2r)`$. Therefore, $`\underset{i}{}|D(x_i,\rho _1(|x_i|))|=3^d\underset{i}{}|D(x_i,\rho _1(|x_i|)/3)|=3^d|\underset{i}{}D(x_i,\rho _1(|x_i|)/3)|3^d|D(x,2r)|=C|D(x,r)|`$ which gives us (20). Now (19) follows from (20):

$$|D(x,r)E|\underset{i}{}|D(x_i,\rho _1(|x_i|))E|ϵ\underset{i}{}|D(x_i,\rho _1(|x_i|))|Cϵ|D(x,r|.$$

Since $`K(x,y)=\underset{j0}{}\psi _j(x)\varphi _{j1}(xy)`$ has at most three nonvanishing terms for each fixed $`x`$ and $`|\psi _j(x)|1`$, to prove (18) it is enough to show that

$`\underset{x}{sup}{\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}|\varphi _j(xy)|𝑑yCϵ`$ (21)
when $`x`$ supp $`\psi _{j+1}`$, i.e., $`2^j|x|2^{j+2}`$ and therefore $`\rho _1(|x|)\rho _1(2^j)`$. Let $`k_10`$ be the smallest integer such that $`2^{k_1}C_1`$. Therefore, using (19) we get (21):

$`{\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}|\varphi _j(xy)|𝑑y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}|\rho _1^d(2^j)C_1^d\varphi ({\displaystyle \frac{C_1(xy)}{\rho _1(2^j)}})|𝑑y`$
$``$ $`C{\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1^d(2^j)C_1^d}{(1+\frac{C_1|xy|}{\rho _1(2^j)})^{2d}}}𝑑y`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ED(x,2^{k_1}\rho _1(|x|)/C_1)}{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k>k_1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ED(x,2^k\rho _1(|x|)/C_1)\backslash D(x,2^{k1}\rho _1(|x|)/C_1)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1^d(2^j)C_1^d}{(1+\frac{C_1|xy|}{\rho _1(2^j)})^{2d}}}𝑑y`$
$``$ $`ϵ(2^{k_1}\rho _1(|x|)/C_1)^d\rho _1^d(2^j)C_1^d+{\displaystyle \underset{k>k_1}{}}ϵ(2^k\rho _1(|x|)/C_1)^d{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1^d(2^j)C_1^d}{(1+\frac{2^k\rho _1(|x|)}{\rho _1(2^j)})^{2d}}}`$
$``$ $`ϵ(C_1^d+1).`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
Thus, $`S\chi _Ef_2^2(C_1^d+1)ϵf_2^2.`$
Since $`S+T=I`$, it follows that $`T`$ is also a bounded operator on $`L^2`$. However, we will need the following lemma for the operator $`T`$ later which is analogous for $`\mathrm{𝐋𝐞𝐦𝐦𝐚𝟏}`$ for the operator $`S`$:

###### Lemma 3

$`\underset{y}{sup}{\displaystyle |L(x,y)|𝑑x}C.`$ (22)
and

$`\underset{x}{sup}{\displaystyle |L(x,y)|𝑑y}C.`$ (23)
where $`C`$ is an absolute constant and does not depend on $`\rho _1`$.

Proof of Lemma 3. Recall that $`\psi _0(x)=q(|x|)`$ where $`q(r)`$ is a function defined on $`^+`$. Using (13) we have

$`{\displaystyle |L(x,y)|𝑑x}`$ $``$ $`\varphi _1{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}|\psi _0(\rho _1(2^j)y/C_1)\psi _0(\rho _1(2^{j1})y/C_1)|`$
$``$ $`C{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho _1(2^j)|y|/C_1}{\overset{\rho _1(2^{j1})|y|/C_1}{}}}|q^{}(t)|𝑑t`$
$``$ $`C{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|q^{}(t)|𝑑tC.`$
We used here the facts that $`\psi _0`$ is a radial Schwartz function and $`\rho _1`$ is non-increasing.
Now we will show that

$`\underset{x}{sup}{\displaystyle |L(x,y)|𝑑y}C.`$
We have that $`\varphi =\stackrel{ˇ}{\psi _0}`$ is a real-valued radial Schwartz function. Actually, $`\varphi `$ can be extended to an entire function of exponential type on $`^d`$. It is clear that $`\widehat{|\varphi |}(x)`$ is a radial function. Here we took the Fourier transform of the absolute value of $`\varphi `$. Denote $`p(|x|)=\widehat{|\varphi |}(x)`$ where $`p(r)`$ is a function defined on $`^+`$. Recall from our definition of $`\psi _0(x)`$ that $`q(|x|)=\psi _0(x)`$ is a non-increasing function of $`|x|`$. Therefore, $`0\psi _0(\rho _1(2^j)y/C_1)\psi _0(\rho _1(2^{j1})y/C_1)=\widehat{\varphi }_j(y)\widehat{\varphi }_{j1}(y)`$ since $`\rho _1`$ is a non-increasing function too. Let

$$L_n(x,y)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}2^{jd}\varphi (2^j(xy))(\psi _0(\rho _1(2^j)y/C_1)\psi _0(\rho _1(2^{j1})y/C_1)).$$

Since $`L_n(x,y)L(x,y)`$, it is enough to show that $`|L_n(x,y)|𝑑yC`$ to get (23) by an application of Fatou’s Lemma. We have

$`{\displaystyle |L_n(x,y)|𝑑y}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}2^{jd}|\varphi (2^j(xy))|(\widehat{\varphi }_j(y)\widehat{\varphi }_{j1}(y))dy}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}2^{jd}|\varphi (2^j(x))|^{}(z)(\varphi _j(z)\varphi _{j1}(z))dz`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}e^{i2\pi xz}\widehat{|\varphi |}(\frac{z}{2^j})(\varphi _j(z)\varphi _{j1}(z))dz}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle e^{i2\pi xz}\left(\widehat{|\varphi |}(\frac{z}{2^n})\varphi _n(z)\widehat{|\varphi |}(\frac{z}{2^0})\varphi _1(z)\right)𝑑z}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{i2\pi xz}(\widehat{|\varphi |}(\frac{z}{2^{j1}})\widehat{|\varphi |}(\frac{z}{2^j}))\varphi _{j1}(z)dz}`$
$``$ $`2\varphi _1\psi _0_{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle |\varphi _{j1}(z)|\underset{\frac{|z|}{2^j}}{\overset{\frac{|z|}{2^{j1}}}{}}|p^{}(t)|𝑑t𝑑z}.`$
Here we used the identity $`f\widehat{g}=\widehat{f}g`$ and summation by parts. Change the order of integration to estimate the second term in (24) by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|p^{}(t)|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{2^{j1}t|z|2^jt}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^d}{\rho _1^d(2^{j1})}}|\varphi ({\displaystyle \frac{C_1z}{\rho _1(2^{j1})}})|𝑑z𝑑t`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|p^{}(t)|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{C_12^{j1}t\rho _1^1(2^{j1})|z|C_12^jt\rho _1^1(2^{j1})}{}}|\varphi (z)|𝑑z𝑑t`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|p^{}(t)|\varphi _1𝑑t.`$
Here we used the fact that $`\rho _1`$ is non-increasing. All we need to show now is that $`\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|p^{}(t)|𝑑t<\mathrm{}`$. To obtain this we will prove that $`|p^{}(t)|t^2`$ (actually $`t^{2\frac{d1}{2}}`$.) Recall that $`\varphi `$ is a real-valued radial Schwartz function which can be extended to an entire function of exponential type on $`^d`$. Let $`g(t)=\varphi (t,0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ then $`g(t)`$ is an even real-valued Schwartz function on $``$ which can be extended to an entire function of exponential type on $``$ and $`g(|x|)=\varphi (x)`$. Let $`\alpha _k`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, be the positive roots of $`g`$ in increasing order where the function $`g`$ changes its sign. Let $`\alpha _0=0`$ (note $`g(0)=\varphi (0,0,\mathrm{},0)>1`$). We have

$`p(t)={\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}(1)^k{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _k}{\overset{\alpha _{k+1}}{}}}g(s)\widehat{d\sigma }(st)s^{d1}𝑑s`$ (26)
where

$`\widehat{d\sigma }(|x|)={\displaystyle \underset{|\xi |=1}{}}e^{i2\pi x\xi }𝑑\sigma (\xi )=|\sigma _{d2}|{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}}e^{i2\pi |x|\mathrm{cos}\theta }(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{d2}𝑑\theta `$ (27)
is a real-valued radial function. Here $`|\sigma _{d2}|`$ is the area of the $`(d2)`$-dimensional sphere. It is well-known that $`\widehat{d\sigma }(r)=Re(B(r))`$ where $`B(r)=a(r)e^{i2\pi r}`$ and $`a(r)`$ satisfies the following estimates:

$$|a^{(k)}(r)|\frac{C}{r^{\frac{d1}{2}+k}}.$$

See, for example, (, Ch. viii).
Denote by

$$F(r)=\underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}\widehat{d\sigma }(t)𝑑t.$$

We need only the facts that $`|\widehat{d\sigma }(r)|C`$ and $`|F(r)|=|\underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}\widehat{d\sigma }(t)𝑑t|C`$ which easily follow from the definition (27) and integration by parts (if $`d=1`$ then $`\widehat{d\sigma }(r)=\mathrm{cos}2\pi r`$ and the estimate is obvious). Actually, it follows from the properties of $`\widehat{d\sigma }`$ that $`|\underset{r}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\widehat{d\sigma }(t)𝑑t|r^{\frac{d1}{2}}`$.) Differentiating (26) we get

$`p^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}(1)^k{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _k}{\overset{\alpha _{k+1}}{}}}g(s)(\widehat{d\sigma })^{}(st)s^d𝑑s=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}(1)^k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _k}{\overset{\alpha _{k+1}}{}}}(s^dg(s))^{}\widehat{d\sigma }(st)𝑑s=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}(1)^{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _k}{\overset{\alpha _{k+1}}{}}}(s^dg(s))^{}d({\displaystyle _0^{st}}\widehat{d\sigma }(r)𝑑r)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}(1)^{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}\left((s^dg(s))^{}F(st)|_{s=\alpha _k}^{s=\alpha _{k+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _k}{\overset{\alpha _{k+1}}{}}}(s^dg(s))^{\prime \prime }F(st)𝑑s\right).`$
We integrated by parts twice and used that $`\alpha _0=0`$ and $`g(\alpha _k)=0`$ for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Since $`g`$ is an entire function of exponential type, we can bound the number of its roots in the interval $`[0,2^j]`$ by $`2^j`$ which follows from Jensen’s formula (, p. 309). Thus,

$`|p^{}(t)|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _k<1}{}}|(s^dg(s))^{}|(\alpha _k)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{2^j\alpha _k<2^{j+1}}{}}|(s^dg(s))^{}|(\alpha _k)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}{\displaystyle |(s^dg(s))^{\prime \prime }|𝑑s}`$ (28)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{jd}2^j}{1+2^{2j(d+1)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}.`$
Therefore,

$`{\displaystyle |p^{}(t)|𝑑t}<\mathrm{}.`$ (29)
Substituting (29) into (25) and using (24) we obtain

$$|L_n(x,y)|𝑑yC$$

which gives us the desired estimate (23):

$$|L(x,y)|𝑑yC.$$

If we use $`|\underset{r}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\widehat{d\sigma }(t)𝑑t|r^{\frac{d1}{2}}`$ then we can improve (28)

$$|p^{}(t)|\frac{1}{t^{2+\frac{d1}{2}}}.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

In particular, it follows that $`T`$ is a bounded operator on $`L^2`$ whose norm does not depend on $`\rho _1`$.
The proof of

$`\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\widehat{Tf}_2C\sqrt{ϵ}f_2`$ (30)
is quite similar to the proof of (17). Since we have already shown that

$`\underset{x}{sup}{\displaystyle |L(x,y)|𝑑y}C,`$
it will suffice to prove the following lemma:

###### Lemma 4

$`\underset{y}{sup}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}}|L(x,y)|𝑑xCϵ`$ (31)
where $`CC_2^d+1`$.

Proof of Lemma 4. Combining with the argument in the proof of (22) it is enough to show that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}}2^{jd}|\varphi (2^j(xy))|𝑑xCϵ`$ (32)
when $`\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(2^{j1})}|y|\frac{2C_1}{\rho _1(2^j)}`$. Therefore, applying (5) we get $`\rho _2(|y|)\rho _2(\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(2^{j1)}})C_22^{(j1)}`$. Repeating an argument similar to the one to obtain (21) we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}}2^{jd}|\varphi (2^j(xy))|𝑑x`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }D(y,\rho _2(|y|))}{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k>0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }D(y,2^k\rho _2(|y|))\backslash D(y,2^{k1}\rho _2(|y|))}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{jd}}{(1+2^j|xy|)^{2d}}}𝑑x`$
$``$ $`2^{jd}ϵ(\rho _2(|y|))^d+{\displaystyle \underset{k>0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{jd}}{(1+2^j2^k\rho _2(|y|))^2d}}`$
$``$ $`ϵ((2^j\rho _2(|y|))^d+1)ϵ(C_2^d+1).`$
$`\mathrm{}`$

Thus, $`\chi _\mathrm{\Sigma }\widehat{Tf}_2^2(C_2^d+1)ϵf_2^2.`$
Therefore the pair of operators $`S`$ and $`T`$ possesses the properties we gave at the beginning of the proof of the theorem and we obtain the desired result

$`{\displaystyle |f|^2}{\displaystyle \underset{E^c}{}}|f|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}{}}|\widehat{f}|^2.`$
End of proof of Theorem 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is an open question whether Theorem 1 holds for every $`0<ϵ<1`$ but not just for sufficiently small $`ϵ`$.

We will give only a sketch of the proof of Theorem 2 since it is analogous to the proof of Theorem 2.3 in . If $`\mu `$ is a probability measure which is not a unit point mass then the set $`F=\{|\widehat{\mu }(\xi )|>1\delta \}`$ is a complement of a relatively dense one ((2)) if $`\delta `$ is small enough. More precisely,

$$|F[x,x+1]|ϵ(\delta )$$

for every $`x`$, where $`ϵ(\delta )0`$ as $`\delta 0`$. The statement is also true in $`^d`$. See for example Lemma 1.1 in . Define similarly $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ correspondingly for $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$. If $`Q_1(x)=|x|^p`$ and $`Q_2(x)=|x|^p^{}`$ then the sets $`E=\{|G(x)|>1\delta \}Q_1^1(F_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{|H(x)|>1\delta \}Q_2^1(F_2)`$ are $`ϵ`$-thin with respect to $`\rho _1(|x|)=\mathrm{min}(\frac{1}{|x|^{p1}},1)`$ and $`\rho _2(|x|)=\mathrm{min}(\frac{1}{|x|^{p^{}1}},1)`$ correspondingly. Note that $`(p1)(p^{}1)=1`$. This is true because $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ map discs $`D_1=D(x,\rho _1(|x|)`$ and $`D_2=D(x,\rho _2(|x|))`$ correspondingly onto intervals $`I_1(x)`$ and $`I_2(x)`$ of length $`C^1`$ since $`|\mathrm{}Q_1(x)|\frac{1}{\rho _1(|x|)}`$ and $`|\mathrm{}Q_2(x)|\frac{1}{\rho _2(|x|)}`$ if $`|x|`$ is large. Therefore,

$$\frac{|Q_1^1(F_1)D(x,\rho _1|x|)|}{|D(x,\rho _1|x|)|}ϵ^{\frac{1}{p}},$$

$$\frac{|Q_2^1(F_2)D(x,\rho _2|x|)|}{|D(x,\rho _2|x|)|}ϵ^{\frac{1}{p^{}}}$$

since for large $`|x|`$

$$\frac{|Q_1^1(F_1)D(x,\rho _1|x|)|}{|D(x,\rho _1|x|)|}\frac{|F_1I_1|}{|I_1|}\frac{\underset{D_1}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{1}{|\mathrm{}Q_1|}}{\underset{D_1}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{1}{|\mathrm{}Q_1|}}ϵ$$

and for small $`|x|`$ it is $`\mathrm{max}(ϵ^{\frac{d}{p}},ϵ)`$. Similar estimates hold for $`Q_2^1(F_2)`$.

We have

$`Gf_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`Gf_{L^2(E^c)}^2+Gf_{L^2(E)}^2`$ (33)
$``$ $`(1\delta )^2f_{L^2(E^c)}^2+f_{L^2(E)}^2`$
$`=`$ $`f_2^2(1(1\delta )^2)f_{L^2(E^c)}^2.`$
In a similar way we have

$`H\widehat{Gf}_2^2\widehat{Gf}_2^2(1(1\delta )^2)\widehat{Gf}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }^c)}^2.`$ (34)
It follows from Theorem 1 that

$$\widehat{Gf}_{L^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }^c)}^2C^1Gf_2^2Gf_{L^2(E^c)}^2$$

where $`C1`$. Therefore, (34) $``$

$`H\widehat{Gf}_2^2`$ $``$ $`Gf_2^2(1(1\delta )^2)(C^1Gf_2^2Gf_{L^2(E^c)}^2)`$
$``$ $`(1C^1(1(1\delta )^2))Gf_2^2+(1(1\delta )^2)(1\delta )^2f_{L^2(E^c)}^2`$
$``$ $`(1C^1(1(1\delta )^2))f_2^2.`$
We used here (33) and the fact $`(1(1\delta )^2)(1C^1(1(1\delta )^2))(1(1\delta )^2)(1\delta )^2`$ since $`C1`$. It is clear that $`\beta ^21C^1(1(1\delta )^2)<1`$. Instead of $`Q_1(x)=|x|^p`$ and $`Q_2(x)=|x|^p^{}`$ we can also use $`Q_1(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}a_i|x_i|^p`$ and $`Q_2(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}b_i|x_i|^p^{}`$ where $`a_i`$ and $`b_j`$ are non-zero real numbers.

###### Remark 1

If $`Q_1(t)`$ and $`Q_2(t)`$ are increasing convex functions satisfying $`C_2Q_2^{}(C_1Q_1^{}(t))t`$ for all $`t0`$ and such that $`Q_i^{}(t+\frac{1}{Q_i^{}(t)})CQ_i^{}(t\frac{1}{Q_i^{}(t)})`$, $`i=1,2`$ for all large $`t`$ then Theorem 2 holds with $`|G(x)|\widehat{\mu }_1(Q_1(|x|))|`$ and $`|H(x)|\widehat{\mu }_2(Q_2(|x|))|`$.

## 3 Counterexamples

Recall that a pair of sets $`E^d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^d`$ is called $`ϵ`$-thin with respect to the pair of functions $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ correspondingly if

$`|ED(x,\rho _1(|x|))|ϵ|D(x,\rho _1(|x|))|`$
and

$`|\mathrm{\Sigma }D(x,\rho _2(|x|))|ϵ|D(x,\rho _2(|x|))|`$
for all $`x^d`$. The next lemma shows that the condition (5) $`\frac{C_2}{\rho _2(\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(t)})}t`$ in the Theorem is not only sufficient but also necessary for an inequality of the form

$`{\displaystyle |f|^2}C(E,\mathrm{\Sigma })({\displaystyle \underset{E^c}{}}|f|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}{}}|\widehat{f}|^2)`$
to hold for every $`fL^2`$ and every pair of $`ϵ`$-thin sets $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with respect to $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ correspondingly.

###### Lemma 5

Let $`\rho _1:^+^+`$ and $`\rho _2:^+^+`$ be continuous non-increasing functions. Suppose that there exists $`0<ϵ<1`$ such that for every pair of $`ϵ`$-thin sets $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with respect to $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ correspondingly we have

$`{\displaystyle |f|^2}C(E,\mathrm{\Sigma })({\displaystyle \underset{E^c}{}}|f|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}{}}|\widehat{f}|^2)`$ (35)
for every $`fL^2`$ then there exist $`C_2>0`$ and $`C_1>0`$ such that $`\frac{C_2}{\rho _2(\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(t)})}t`$ for every $`t0`$.

Proof of Lemma 5: The pair of functions $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ will be fixed throughout the proof. First we will show that there exists a universal constant $`C>0`$ such that (35) holds for thin enough sets $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e., there exist $`ϵ_0(0,ϵ]`$ and $`C>0`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle |f|^2}C({\displaystyle \underset{E^c}{}}|f|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}{}}|\widehat{f}|^2)`$
holds for every pair of thin sets $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with thinness $`ϵ_0`$ and every $`fL^2`$. Suppose towards a contradiction that this is not true. Then there exists a sequence of $`f_n`$ and corresponding $`ϵ_n`$-thin sets $`E_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ with respect to $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ with thinness $`ϵ_n<\frac{ϵ}{2^n}`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle |f_n|^2}>n({\displaystyle \underset{E_n^c}{}}|f_n|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^c}{}}|\widehat{f}_n|^2).`$
Let $`E=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$. Then $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are $`ϵ`$-thin with respect to $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ correspondingly. On the other hand we have

$`{\displaystyle |f_n|^2}>n({\displaystyle \underset{E_n^c}{}}|f_n|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^c}{}}|\widehat{f}_n|^2)n({\displaystyle \underset{E^c}{}}|f_n|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^c}{}}|\widehat{f}_n|^2)`$
which contradicts to (35).

Suppose towards a contradiction that for any choice of $`C_2>0`$ and $`C_1>0`$ there exists $`t0`$ with the property $`\frac{C_2}{\rho _2(\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(t)})}<t`$. Then for any arbitraly small $`ϵ>0`$ we will construct a sequence of $`ϵ`$-thin sets $`E_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ with respect to $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ and a sequence of Schwartz functions $`f_n`$ with supp $`f_nE_n`$ such that

$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^c}{}|\widehat{f}_n|^2}{|f_n|^2}}=0.`$
First we will discuss the 1-dimensional case. To simplify the proof we can assume without loss of generality that $`\rho _1<\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\rho _2<\frac{1}{2}`$. Let $`\varphi `$ be a Schwartz function supported in $`[1,1]`$. Choose an integer $`n>0`$ which we will specify later. Let $`0<ϵ<1`$. Note that the functions $`\varphi (\frac{xk}{ϵ\rho _1(n)})`$ have disjoint support for integer $`k`$. Define

$`f_n(x)={\displaystyle \underset{k=(n1)}{\overset{n1}{}}}\varphi ({\displaystyle \frac{xk}{ϵ\rho _1(n)}})`$
and

$$E_n=\underset{k=(n1)}{\overset{n1}{}}[kϵ\rho _1(n),k+ϵ\rho _1(n)].$$

It is clear that $`E_n`$ is $`ϵ`$-thin with respect to $`\rho _1`$, supp $`f_nE_n`$ and $`f_n_2^2nϵ\rho _1(n)`$. We have

$`\widehat{f}_n(y)={\displaystyle \underset{k=(n1)}{\overset{n1}{}}}e^{2\pi iky}ϵ\rho _1(n)\widehat{\varphi }(ϵ\rho _1(n)y)=D_{n1}(y)ϵ\rho _1(n)\widehat{\varphi }(ϵ\rho _1(n)y).`$
Pick an integer $`a_n>0`$ which we will specify later. Let

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=\underset{l=(a_n1)}{\overset{a_n1}{}}[lϵ\rho _2(a_n),l+ϵ\rho _2(a_n)]$$

then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ is $`ϵ`$-thin with respect to $`\rho _2`$. We have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]\backslash [ϵ\rho _2(a_n),ϵ\rho _2(a_n)]}{}}|D_{n1}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\rho _2(a_n)}}.`$
Then

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^c}{}}|\widehat{f}_n|^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^c[a_n,a_n]}{}}|\widehat{f}_n|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{[a_n,a_n]^c}{}}|\widehat{f}_n|^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=(a_n1)}{\overset{a_n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\rho _2(a_n)}}ϵ^2\rho _1^2(n)+{\displaystyle \underset{|l|a_n}{}}n{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2\rho _1^2(n)}{1+(|l|ϵ\rho _1(n))^{100}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_n\rho _1^2(n)ϵ}{\rho _2(a_n)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{nϵ\rho _1(n)}{(a_nϵ\rho _1(n))^{99}}}.`$
Our goal is to make this expression much smaller than $`f_n_2^2nϵ\rho _1(n)`$. It will suffice to require that $`1a_nϵ\rho _1(n)`$ and $`\frac{a_n\rho _1(n)}{n\rho _2(a_n)}1`$. Set $`C_1=\frac{k}{ϵ}`$ and $`C_2=\frac{k^2}{ϵ}`$. Then there exists $`t_k`$ such that $`\frac{C_2}{\rho _2(\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(t_k)})}<t_k`$. By the way $`t_k\mathrm{}`$ as $`k\mathrm{}`$ since otherwise $`\rho _2`$ would be unbounded. Let $`n=[t_k]>0`$. We also have that $`\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(n)}\mathrm{}`$ as $`k\mathrm{}`$ since otherwise $`\rho _1`$ would be unbounded. Let $`a_n=\left[\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(n)}\right]>0`$. Note that $`\rho _2(a_n)\rho _2(\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(t_k)})>\frac{C_2}{t_k}`$. Then $`a_nϵ\rho _1(n)k`$ and $`\frac{a_n\rho _1(n)}{n\rho _2(a_n)}\frac{kt_k}{ϵnC_2}\frac{1}{k}`$. Let $`k\mathrm{}`$ to obtain the desired result.

Now we will consider the case when dimension $`d2`$. The construction here is much simpler and we will just give a sketch. Let $`\varphi `$ be a Schwartz function on $``$ supported in $`[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]`$. Define for $`n>d`$

$$f_n=\varphi (\frac{x_1}{nd})\underset{i=2}{\overset{d}{}}\varphi (\frac{x_i}{ϵ\rho _1(n)})$$

and

$$E_n=[(nd),nd]\times [ϵ\rho _1(n),ϵ\rho _1(n)]^{d1}.$$

Then $`E_n`$ is $`ϵ`$-thin with respect to $`\rho _1`$ and $`f_n`$ is supported in $`E_n`$. We have

$$\widehat{f}_n(y)=(nd)\widehat{\varphi }((nd)y_1)\underset{i=2}{\overset{d}{}}ϵ\rho _1(n)\widehat{\varphi }(ϵ\rho _1(n)y_i).$$

Let $`a_n>d`$ be a number which we will specify later. Define

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=[ϵ\rho _2(a_n),ϵ\rho _2(a_n)]\times [(a_nd),a_nd]^{d1}$$

then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ is $`ϵ`$-thin with respect to $`\rho _2`$. We have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^c}{}}|\widehat{f}_n|^2{\displaystyle \frac{nϵ^{d1}\rho _1^{d1}(n)}{1+(ϵ\rho _2(a_n)n)^{100}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{nϵ^{d1}\rho _1^{d1}(n)}{1+(a_nϵ\rho _1(n))^{100}}}.`$
This expression should be much smaller than $`f_n_2^2nϵ^{d1}\rho _1^{d1}(n)`$. Therefore it is enough to require that $`ϵ\rho _2(a_n)n1`$ and $`a_nϵ\rho _1(n)1`$. Set $`C_1=\frac{k}{ϵ}`$ and $`C_2=\frac{k}{ϵ}`$. Then there exists $`n>d`$ such that $`\frac{C_2}{\rho _2(\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(n)})}<n`$. Let $`a_n=\frac{C_1}{\rho _1(n)}>d`$ then $`a_nϵ\rho _1(n)=k`$ and $`ϵ\rho _2(a_n)n>\frac{ϵnC_2}{n}k`$. Let $`k\mathrm{}`$ to obtain the desired result. $`\mathrm{}`$


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Cold Bose Gases near Feshbach Resonances

Yeong E. Kim *** e-mail:yekim$`\mathrm{@}`$physics.purdue.edu and Alexander L. Zubarev e-mail: zubareva$`\mathrm{@}`$physics.purdue.edu

Purdue Nuclear and Many-Body Theory Group (PNMBTG)

Department of Physics, Purdue University

West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

> The lowest order constrained variational method \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 210403 (2002)\] has been generalized for a dilute (in the sense that the range of interatomic potential, $`R`$, is small compared with inter-particle spacing $`r_0`$) uniform gas of bosons near the Feshbach resonance using the multi-channel zero-range potential model. The method has been applied to $`Na(F=1,m_F=1)`$ atoms near the $`B_0=907`$G Feshbach resonance. It is shown that at high densities $`na^31`$, there are significant differences between our results for the real part of energy per particle and the one-channel zero-range potential approximation. We point out the possibility of stabilization of the uniform condensate for the case of negative scattering length.

PACS numbers: 03.75.Fi, 05.30.Jp

I. INTRODUCTION

The newly created Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) of weakly interacting alkali-metal atoms  stimulated a large number of theoretical investigations (see recent reviews ). Most of these works are based on the assumption that the properties of BEC are well described by the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) mean-field theory .

Recently, it has become possible to tune atomic scattering length to essentially any value, by exploiting Feshbach resonances (FR) . A fundamental open problem is how to describe the physics of dilute BEC near FR (dilute in the sense that the range of interatomic potential, $`R`$, is small compared with inter-particle spacing $`r_0`$) in the regime of a large scattering length, $`a`$, which we take to be positive. The GP approach fails in the regime of a large gas parameter, $`na^3`$, where $`n`$ is the particle density.

The dilute BEC for a large gas parameter regime in one-channel approximation has been considered previously in Ref. (for the corresponding problem for a Fermi gas see Ref.).

In this paper we consider the ground state properties of the dilute homogeneous Bose gas near the FR using a multichannel zero-range potential (ZRP) model of FR.

In section II we describe the lowest order constrained variational (LOCV) method  for the one-channel N-body problem. The calculations for model interaction potentials used by Ref. are presented. The description of the multi-channel ZRP model is given in section III. Section IV develops the LOCV method for the dilute Bose gas near FR. We conclude the paper in section V with a brief summary.

II. LOWEST ORDER CONSTRAINED VARIATIONAL METHOD

In a dilute many-body problem in the large gas parameter regime correlations between particles are very important.

The LOCV method  for the homogeneous N-body system is to assume a Jastrow many-body wave function, of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{r}_N)=\underset{i<j}{}f(\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j),$$
$`(1)`$
where at short distances, $`f`$ is solution of the two-particle Schrödinger equation

$$(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+V(r))rf(r))=\lambda rf(r),$$
$`(2)`$
while at large distances $`f`$ must approach a constant.

In the LOCV method  the boundary conditions for $`f(r)`$ are

$$f(d)=1,f^{}(d)=0,$$
$`(3)`$
the expectation value of the energy is given by

$$E/N=2\pi n\lambda _0^df^2(r)r^2𝑑r,$$
$`(4)`$
and $`d`$ is defined by the normalization

$$4\pi n_0^df^2(r)r^2𝑑r=1.$$
$`(5)`$
In Ref. for the dilute case ($`Rr_0`$, where the inter-particle spacing $`r_0=(3/(4\pi n))^{1/3}`$) inter-atomic interaction was replaced by the zero-range potential (ZRP) model

$$\frac{(rf)^{}}{rf}|_{r=0}=\frac{1}{a}.$$
$`(6)`$
In this case

$$f(r<d)=\frac{d}{r}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(kr+\delta )}{\mathrm{sin}(kd+\delta )},$$
$`(7)`$
with $`k\mathrm{cot}\delta =1/a`$, $`kd\mathrm{cot}(kd+\delta )=1`$, where $`k=\sqrt{m\lambda /\mathrm{}^2}`$.

In the small $`a/r_0`$ limit, $`\delta =ka`$, $`d=r_0`$ and the LOCV result for $`E/N`$  is given by

$$\frac{E}{N}=2\pi \frac{\mathrm{}^2a}{m}n$$
$`(8)`$
and is same as that first found by Lenz .

The ground state energy per particle, $`E/N`$, in the low-density regime, $`na^31`$, can be calculated using an expansion in power of $`\sqrt{na^3}`$

$$\frac{E}{N}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}an[1+\frac{128}{15\sqrt{\pi }}(na^3)^{1/2}+8(\frac{4\pi }{3}\sqrt{3})na^3[\mathrm{ln}(na^3)+C]+\mathrm{}].$$
$`(9)`$
The coefficient of the $`(na^3)^{3/2}`$ term (the second term) was first calculated by Lee, Huang, and Yang , while the coefficient of the last term was first obtained by Wu . The constant $`C`$ after the logarithm was considered in Ref..

The expansion (9) is asymptotic, and it was shown in Ref. that the Lee-Huang-Yang (LHY) correction (second term in Eq.(9)) represents a significant improvement on the mean field prediction (the first term in Eq.(9)) .

In Refs.\[15-19\] the Lenz-Lee-Huang-Yang (LLHY) expansion (first two terms in expansion (9)) has been used to study effects beyond the mean field approximation. In Ref., it was found that the correction to the GP results may be as large as 30% in the ground state properties of the condensate, when the conditions of the JILA experiment for $`{}_{}{}^{85}Rb`$ are considered .

In the large $`a/r_0`$ limit, $`\delta =\pi /2`$, $`kd\mathrm{tan}(kd)=1`$, and the energy is given by

$$\frac{E}{N}=13.33\mathrm{}^2\frac{n^{2/3}}{m}=10.2597\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2mr_0^2},$$
$`(10)`$
which is very close to the Legett’s unpublished variational result

$$\frac{E}{N}=\frac{3\pi ^2}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2n^{2/3}}{m}$$
$`(11)`$
(this was quoted by Baym ).

To study the validity of the ZRP model we consider an example of the square-well (SW) potential with $`a/r_0\mathrm{}`$. The calculated energies per particle, $`E/N`$, are presented in Table I. The ratio $`R/r_0`$ is typically of the order of $`10^2`$. From Table I, we can see that even for $`a/r_0\mathrm{}`$ the ZRP model is a very good approximation (the difference for $`E/N`$ between the ZPR and the SW is less than 1% if $`R/r_010^2`$). In this case the LOCV results for $`E/N`$ have universal properties that depend on the interatomic potential only through the single low-energy parameter $`a`$, even for large gas-parameter regime.

We note that for an attractive potential the atomic BEC is metastable and energy per particle can be written as $`E/Ni\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$. Therefore the real part of energy in LOCV method would be reliable if $`E/N>\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ .

In Ref., the authors have used a diffusion Monte-Carlo method to calculate the lowest-energy state of uniform gas of bosons interacting through four different model potentials that have all the same scattering length $`a`$.

(i) The hard-sphere potential

$$V^{(HS)}(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\hfill & (ra)\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(12)`$
where the diameter of the hard-sphere is equal to the scattering length.

(ii) Two soft-sphere (SS) potentials

$$V^{(SS)}(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}V_0\hfill & (r<R_0)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & (r>R_0)\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(13)`$
with $`R_0=5a`$, $`V_0=0.031543\mathrm{}^2/(ma^2)`$ and $`R_0=10a`$, $`V_0=0.003408\mathrm{}^2/(ma^2)`$.

(iii) The hard-core square-well (HCSW) potential

$$V^{(HCSW)}(r)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}+\mathrm{}\hfill & (r<R_c)\hfill & \\ V_0\hfill & (R_c<r<R_0)\hfill & \\ 0\hfill & (r>R_0)\text{.}\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(14)`$
The parameters of the HCSW potential are $`R_c=a/50`$, $`R_0=a/10`$ and $`V_0=412.815\mathrm{}^2/(ma^2)`$. The HCSW potential has a two-body bound state with energy $`1.13249\mathrm{}^2/(ma^2)`$ .

Comparison the LOCV results for potentials (12-14) with the available diffusion Monte-Carlo (DMC) calculations (Table II, Fig.1 and Fig.2) shows that the LOCV energies in the case of $`R/r_010^2`$ are in very good agreement with the DMC results.

III. ZERO-RANGE POTENTIAL MODEL OF FESHBACH RESONANCE

We start from the coupling channel equation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}^2+V^P(r))\psi ^P(\stackrel{}{r})+g(r)\psi ^Q(\stackrel{}{r})=E\psi ^P(\stackrel{}{r}),& & \\ & & \\ \hfill (\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}^2+V^Q(r)+)\psi ^Q(\stackrel{}{r})+g^{}(r)\psi ^P(\stackrel{}{r})=E\psi ^Q(\stackrel{}{r}),& & \end{array}$$
$`(15)`$
where $``$ is the energy shift of the closed channel $`Q`$ with respect to the collision continuum. Since potentials $`V^P(r)`$, $`V^Q(r)`$ and $`g(r)`$ have a range typically of the order of interatomic potential range or less, we can replace Eq.(15) by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}^2+V_{11})\psi ^P(\stackrel{}{r})+V_{12}\psi ^Q(\stackrel{}{r})=E\psi ^P(\stackrel{}{r}),& & \\ & & \\ \hfill (\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}^2+V_{22}+)\psi ^Q(\stackrel{}{r})+V_{21}\psi ^P(\stackrel{}{r})=E\psi ^Q(\stackrel{}{r}),& & \end{array}$$
$`(16)`$
where

$$V_{ik}(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}M_{ik}^1\delta (\stackrel{}{r})\frac{}{r}r$$
$`(17)`$
is a multichannel generalization of the Huang pseudo-potential .

Equations (16) can be rewritten as free equations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}^2\psi ^P(\stackrel{}{r})=E\psi ^P(\stackrel{}{r}),& & \\ & & \\ \hfill (\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}^2+)\psi ^Q(\stackrel{}{r})=E\psi ^Q(\stackrel{}{r}),& & \end{array}$$
$`(18)`$
with boundary conditions

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{d(r\psi ^P)}{dr}|_{r=0}=(M_{11}r\psi ^P+M_{12}r\psi ^Q)|_{r=0},& & \\ & & \\ \hfill \frac{d(r\psi ^Q)}{dr}|_{r=0}=(M_{21}r\psi ^P+M_{22}r\psi ^Q)|_{r=0},& & \end{array}$$
$`(19)`$
which is a multi-channel ZRP model .

It is easy to show that the Hamiltonian of the particle moving in the field of multi-channel ZPR is Hermitian, that is, the condition

$$[(\varphi _1^P)^{}^2\varphi _2^P+(\varphi _1^Q)^{}^2\varphi _2^Q]d^3r=[(^2\varphi _1^P)^{}\varphi _2^P+(^2\varphi _1^Q)^{}\varphi _2^Q]d^3r$$
$`(20)`$
is valid for any $`\varphi _1^P,\varphi _1^Q`$ and $`\varphi _2^P,\varphi _2^Q`$ which satisfy the boundary conditions (19) with energy independent constant Hermitian matrix $`M`$.

We shall use the following parameterization for the matrix $`M`$

$$M_{11}=\frac{1}{a_{bg}},M_{12}=M_{21}=\frac{\beta }{a_{bg}},M_{22}=\frac{\gamma }{a_{bg}},$$
$`(21)`$
where $`a_{bg}`$ is the background value of the scattering length. The model (21) with $`\gamma =1`$ was considered in .

Solutions of Eqs.(18,19) can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \psi ^P(\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{sin}(kr+\delta ),& & \\ & & \\ \hfill \psi ^Q(\stackrel{}{r})e^{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{}k^2}r},& & \end{array}$$
$`(22)`$
with $`\stackrel{~}{}=m/\mathrm{}^2`$, $`k^2=mE/\mathrm{}^2`$.

Since the energy shift $``$ can be converted into an external magnetic field $`B`$ by $`B`$, the scattering length $`a`$ depends on the external magnetic field by the dispersive law

$$a=a_{bg}(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(B)}{B_0B}),$$
$`(23)`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(B)=\frac{(1\sqrt{\alpha B_0})(\sqrt{\alpha B}+\sqrt{\alpha B_0})}{\alpha },$$
$`(24)`$
$$\alpha =\frac{4B_0}{(2B_0+\mathrm{\Delta })^2},\frac{\beta }{\gamma }=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }+2B_0}},$$
$`(25)`$
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }(B_0)`$ characterizes the resonance width.

Two parameters of our model Eq.(21), $`a_{bg}`$ and $`\beta /\gamma `$, are completely determined from the external magnetic field dependence of the scattering length. For example, in the sodium case  the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the Feshbach resonance ($`B_0=907`$G) is $`1`$G, therefore $`\alpha =1.1013210^31/`$G, $`\beta /\gamma =2.3472610^2`$, and $`a_{bg}=53`$au.

As for parameter $`\gamma `$, it can be determined from the energy dependence of the scattering phase shift, $`\delta `$

$$k\mathrm{cot}\delta =\frac{1}{a_{bg}}(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }+2B_0\sqrt{4B_0B(ka_{bg}(\mathrm{\Delta }+2B_0)/\gamma )^2}}).$$
$`(26)`$
We note that the multi-channel ZRP model is different from the contact potential model of Ref., which uses a cutoff regularization in the momentum representation.

IV. DILUTE BOSE GAS NEAR FESHBACH RESONANCE

For a generalization of the LOCV method for a dilute uniform gas of bosons interacting through the two-channel ZRP, Eqs.(18,19,21), we assume

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^P(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{r}_N)=\underset{i<j}{}f^P(\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j),$$
$`(27)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }^P(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2,\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{r}_N)`$ is the Jastrow wave function, index $`P`$ denotes the projection onto the Hilbert subspace of the incident (atomic) channel, and $`f^P`$ at short distance is solution of the Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\frac{d^2}{dr^2}rf^P(r)=\lambda rf^P(r),$$
$`(28)`$
with boundary conditions

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{d(rf^P)}{dr}|_{r=0}=\frac{1}{a_{eff}}rf^P,& & \\ & & \\ \hfill f^P(d)=1,\frac{df^P}{dr}|_{r=d}=0,& & \end{array}$$
$`(29)`$
where

$$a_{eff}=a_{bg}(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2B_0\sqrt{4B_0B(\kappa a_{bg}(\mathrm{\Delta }+2B_0)/\gamma )^2}}),$$
$`(30)`$
and $`\kappa =\sqrt{m\lambda }/\mathrm{}`$. The real part of ground-state energy per particle is given by

$$E/N=2\pi n\lambda _0^d(f^P(r))^2r^2𝑑r,$$
$`(31)`$
and $`d`$ is defined by the normalization

$$4\pi n_0^d(f^P(r))^2r^2𝑑r=1.$$
$`(32)`$
We note that the effective scattering length, $`a_{eff}`$ is a many-body parameter (it depends on $`E/N`$), and, for $`B=B_0`$, $`a_{eff}`$ does not tend to infinity.

The calculated energies per particle, $`E/N`$, of $`Na(F=1,m_F=1)`$ atoms at resonance magnetic field ($`B=B_0=907`$G) for $`r_0=10^2a_{bg}`$ are compared with the one-channel approximation, Eq.(10), in Fig.3. These comparisons show that for finite values of $`\gamma `$ there are significant differences between our results and the approximation of Ref.. Our results are much smaller than the Legett’s variational estimate .

To consider, so called, nonuniversal effects , i.e. the sensitivity to the parameters of the interatomic interactions other than the scattering length, we calculate $`E/N`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$. Table III shows a strong $`\gamma `$ dependence of $`E/N`$ near the FR.

However near the FR the atomic BEC is metastable, and the LOCV $`E/N`$ would be reliable if $`E/N>\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ . We have extracted the values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ from experimental data of Ref.. Using these values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ we have calculated the ratio $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)/(E/N)`$ (see Table IV). From Table IV we can see that the LOCV results for the real part energy, $`E/N`$, is valid for the experimental conditions of Ref., since $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)/(E/N)10^2`$.

Now suppose that $`a`$, Eq.(23), near the FR is negative ($`a_{bg}`$ for the $`Na(F=1,m_F=1)`$ atoms is positive). In one-channel case the uniform condensate for negative $`a`$ is always mechanically unstable. But the two-channel consideration can lead to stable uniform solution, since the many-body parameter $`a_{eff}`$ can be positive. Table V illustrates this stabilization effect. Although the three-body recombination processes \[23,25,27-29\] can make it difficult to observe this effect experimentally, we note that Ref. considered the possibility of suppressing three-body recombinations in a trap. There is a similar case  of uniform 1D gas of N bosons on a ring for which inelastic decay processes, such as the three-body recombination, are suppressed in the strongly interacting and intermediate regimes.

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In summary we have considered the LOCV method for a dilute uniform gas of bosons.

Comparison of the LOCV results for potentials Eqs.(12-14) with the available diffusion Monte-Carlo (DMC) calculations shows that the LOCV energies in the case of $`R/r_010^2`$ are in very good agreement with the DMC results.

We have generalized the LOCV method  for dilute uniform gas of bosons near the FR, using the multi-channel ZRP model.

As an example of application, we have considered $`Na(F=1,m_F=1)`$ atoms near the $`B_0=907`$G FR.

At high density $`na^31`$, there are significant differences between our results and one-channel ZRP  for the real part of energy per particle.

For the case of negative scattering length, we point out the possibility of stabilization of the uniform condensate.

TABLE I. Energy per particle, $`E/N`$, in units of $`\mathrm{}^2/(2mr_0^2)`$ vs $`R/r_0`$ for the square-well attractive potential with $`a=\mathrm{}`$. The ZRP model for this case gives $`E/N=10.2597\mathrm{}^2/(2mr_0^2)`$ .

| $`R/r_0`$ | E/N |
| --- | --- |
| $`10^1`$ | 11.1906 |
| $`5\times 10^2`$ | 10.7143 |
| $`10^2`$ | 10.3502 |
| $`5\times 10^3`$ | 10.3057 |
| $`10^3`$ | 10.2703 |

TABLE II. Energy per particle, $`E/N`$, in units of $`2\pi \mathrm{}^2na/m`$, as a function of $`R/r_0`$ for soft-sphere potentials. $`R`$ is the range of potential and $`r_0=(3/(4\pi n))^{1/3}`$ is the atomic separation.

| $`R/r_0`$ | E/N | E/N | R |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0.081 | 1.01961 | 1.00427 | $`5a`$ |
| 0.161 | 1.01951 | 1.00427 | $`10a`$ |
| 0.174 | 1.04292 | 1.01382 | $`5a`$ |
| 0.347 | 1.04288 | 1.01302 | $`10a`$ |
| 0.374 | 1.09599 | 1.04167 | $`5a`$ |
| 0.748 | 1.0973 | 1.03689 | $`10a`$ |
| 0.806 | 1.23315 | 1.11011 | $`5a`$ |

TABLE III. Energy per particle of $`Na(F=1,m_F=1)`$ atoms, $`E/N`$, multiplied by $`10^62ma_{bg}^2/\mathrm{}^2`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$ and $`B`$ near the $`B=907`$G Feshbach resonance.

| $`\gamma `$ | $`B=906`$G | $`B=906.5`$G | $`B=906.8`$G | $`B=906.9`$G | $`B=906.98`$G | $`B=908.5`$G |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0.1 | 5.147 | 6.008 | 6.835 | 7.185 | 7.498 | 0.889 |
| 0.5 | 6.078 | 8.939 | 15.59 | 21.51 | 29.58 | 0.998 |
| 1.0 | 6.128 | 9.225 | 18.06 | 29.69 | 55.30 | 1.002 |
| 2.0 | 6.141 | 9.304 | 19.00 | 34.94 | 100.3 | 1.003 |
| 3.0 | 6.144 | 9.319 | 19.20 | 36.41 | 137.9 | 1.003 |
| 4.0 | 6.144 | 9.319 | 19.27 | 36.41 | 168.2 | 1.003 |
| 5.0 | 6.145 | 9.327 | 19.30 | 37.27 | 197.5 | 1.003 |
| 6.0 | 6.145 | 9.328 | 19.32 | 37.42 | 215.5 | 1.003 |
| 7.0 | 6.145 | 9.329 | 19.33 | 37.52 | 231.4 | 1.003 |
| 8.0 | 6.145 | 9.330 | 19.34 | 37.58 | 243.0 | 1.003 |
| 9.0 | 6.145 | 9.330 | 19.34 | 37.62 | 254.5 | 1.003 |

Table IV. Ratio $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)/(E/N)`$ of $`Na(F=1,m_F=1)`$ atoms vs $`\gamma `$ and $`B`$ near the $`B=907`$G Feshbach resonance.

| $`\gamma `$ | $`B=906`$G | $`B=906.5`$G | $`B=908.5`$G |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0.1 | $`2.1\times 10^3`$ | $`1.8\times 10^2`$ | $`1.2\times 10^3`$ |
| 0.5 | $`1.8\times 10^3`$ | $`1.2\times 10^2`$ | $`1.1\times 10^3`$ |
| 9.0 | $`1.8\times 10^3`$ | $`1.2\times 10^2`$ | $`1.1\times 10^3`$ |

TABLE V. Energy per particle of $`Na(F=1,m_F=1)`$ atoms, $`E/N`$, multiplied by $`10^62ma_{bg}^2/\mathrm{}^2`$, effective scattering length, $`a_{eff}`$ in units of $`a_{bg}`$, as a function of $`\gamma `$ at $`B=907.1`$G with $`a(B)=9a_{bg}`$.

| $`\gamma `$ | $`E/N`$ | $`a_{eff}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0.1 | 8.02 | 2.59 |
| 0.5 | 49.1 | 13.8 |
| 1.0 | 146 | 31.8 |
| 1.5 | 299 | 49.5 |
| 2.0 | 502 | 72.6 |

$`a^3n`$

FIG.1. Ground-state energy per particles, $`E/N`$,in units of $`2\pi \mathrm{}^2na/m`$, vs $`a^3n`$ for hard-sphere interactions. The LOCV results are shown by full line. The diffusion Monte-Carlo calculations  are shown as dashed line.

$`a^3n`$

FIG. 2. Ground-state energy per particles, $`E/N`$,in units of $`2\pi \mathrm{}^2na/m`$, vs $`a^3n`$ for hard-core square-well potential (HCSW). Triangles and circles correspond to the LOCV and the diffusion Monte-Carlo  results, respectively. Lines are drawn to guide the eyes.

$`\gamma `$

FIG. 3. Ground-state energy per particles, $`E/N`$, of $`Na(F=1,m_F=+1)`$ atoms at 907 G in units of $`10^42ma_{bg}^2/\mathrm{}^2`$, as a function of parameter $`\gamma `$, (solid line). Dashed line represent approximation of Ref., Eq.(10). ($`r_0=10^2a_{bg}`$).

REFERENCES

1. Bose-Einstein Condensation in Atomic Gases, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, edited by M. Inquscio, S. Stringari, and C.E. Wieman (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1999);http://amo.phy.gasou.edu/bec.html; http://jilawww.colorado.edu/bec/ and references therein.

2. A.L. Fetter and A.A. Svidzinsky, J.Phys.: Condens. Matter 13, R135 (2001); A.J. Leggett, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 307 (2001); K. Burnett, M. Edwards, and C.W. Clark, Phys. Today, 52, 37 (1999); F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999); S. Parkins, and D.F. Walls, Phys. Rep. 303, 1 (1998).

3. L.P. Pitaevskii, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 40, 646 (1961) \[Sov. Phys. JETP 13, 451 (1961)\]; E.P. Gross, Nuovo Cimento 20, 454 (1961); J. Math. Phys. 4, 195 ( 1963).

4. S. Inouye, M.R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.J. Miesner, D.M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Nature 392, 151 (1998); P. Courteille, R.S. Freeland, D.J. Heinzen, F.A. van Abeelen, and B.J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 69 (1998); J.L. Roberts, N.R. Claussen, J.P. Burke, C.H. Greene, E.A. Cornell, and C.E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5109 (1998); D.M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2422 (1999); J.L. Roberts, N.R. Claussen, S.L. Cornish, E.A. Donley, E.A. Cornell, and C.E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4211 (2001); E.A. Donley, N.R. Claussen, S.L. Cornish, J.L. Roberts, E.A. Cornell, and C.E. Wieman, Nature 412, 295 (2001).

5. S.L. Cornish, N.R. Claussen, J.L. Roberts, E.A. Cornell, and C.E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1795 (2000).

6. S. Cowel, H. Heiselberg, I.E. Morales, V.R. Pandharipande, and C.J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 210403 (2002).

7. H. Heiselberg, Phys. Rev. A63, 043606 (2001).

8. V.R. Pandharipande, Nucl. Phys. A174, 641 (1971); V.R. Pandharipande, Nucl. Phys. A178, 123 (1971); V.R. Pandharipande and H.A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. C7, 1312 (1973); V.R. Pandharipande and K.E. Smith, Phys. Rev. A15, 2486 (1977).

9. A.I. Baz’, Ya.B. Zel’dovich, and A.M. Perelomov, Scattering, Reaction, and Decays in Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics \[in Russian\] (Nauka, Moscow 1971); Yu. N. Demkov and V.N. Ostrovskii, Zero-Range Potentials and their Applications in Atomic Physics (Plenum Press, New York 1988).

10. W. Lenz, Z. Phys. 56, 778 (1929).

11. T.D. Lee, K.Huang, and C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 106, 1135 (1957).

12. T.T. Wu, Phys. Rev. 115, 1390 (1959).

13. E. Braaten, H.-W. Hammer, and T. Mehen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 040401 (2002) and references therein.

14. S. Giorgini, J. Boronat, and J. Casulleras, Phys. Rev. A60, 5129 (1999).

15. Y.E. Kim and A.L. Zubarev, cond-mat/0205422.

16. G.S. Nunes, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 32, 4293 (1999) and references therein.

17. A. Fabrocini and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. A60, 2319 (1999).

18. A. Fabrochini and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. A64, 063610 (2001).

19. L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4541 (1998).

20. G. Baym, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 34, 4541 (2001).

21. E. Braaten, H.-W. Hammer, and S. Hermans, Phys. Rev. A63, 063609 (2001).

22. K. Huang, Statistical Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1987).

23. J.H. Macek, Few-Body Systems 31, 241 (2002); O.I. Kartavtsev and J.H. Macek, Few-Body Systems 31, 249 (2002).

24. A.J. Moerdijk, B.J. Verhaar, and A. Axelsson, Phys. Rev. A51, 4852 (1995).

25. J. Stenger, S. Inouye, M.R. Andrews, H.-J. Meisner, D.M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2422 (1999).

26. S.J.J.M.F. Kokkelmans, J.N. Milstein, M.L. Chiofallo, R. Walser, and M.J. Holland, Phys. Rev. A65, 053617 (2002).

27. E. Timmermans, P. Tommasini, M, Hussein, and A. Kerman, Phys. Rep. 315, 199 (1999).

28. V.A, Yurovsky, A. Ben-Reuven, P.S. Julienne, and C.J. Williams, Phys. Rev. A60, R765 (1999).

29. F.A. van Abeelen and B.J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83,1550 (1999).

30. D. Blume and C.H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A66, 013601 (2002).

31. D.M. Gangardt and G.V. Shlyapnikov, cond-mat/0207338.


text:
# Hadron wave functions and the issue of nucleon deformation Talk presented by C. Alexandrou.

## 1 Introduction

Correlation functions calculated in lattice QCD can be connected to basic hadronic features. Two- and three- density correlators for mesons and baryons reduce in the nonrelativistic limit to the square of the wave function and therefore provide detailed information on hadron structure such as quark spatial distributions, hadronic shapes and charge radii. In addition lattice results can be used to test predictions in various models. Direct connection to the issue of nucleon deformation, currently under experimental investigation , is made by calculating the $`\gamma ^{}N`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition form factors in quenched and unquenched lattice QCD. The aim is to obtain an accurate determination of the ratio of the electric quadrupole to the magnetic dipole amplitudes, $`R_{EM}(q^2)`$, as a function of the momentum transfer $`q`$. A non-zero $`R_{EM}`$ arises due to deformation in the nucleon and/or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and it is attributed to different mechanisms in the various models: in quark models the deformation arises due to the colour-magnetic tensor force whereas in ’cloudy’ baryon models due to the meson exchange currents.

Let us first consider the equal-time correlators ,

$$C_\mathrm{\Gamma }^H(𝐫,t)=d^3r^{}H|\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^u(𝐫^{},t)\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^d(𝐫^{}+𝐫,t)|H,$$
(1)
with $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^u(𝐫,t)`$ given by the normal order product $`:\overline{u}(𝐫,t)\mathrm{\Gamma }u(𝐫,t):`$. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ we obtain, in the nonrelativistic limit, the charge and matter density respectively. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _5`$ we obtain the pseudoscalar density which we will compare to bag model predictions. The matrix elements of two-density correlators are shown schematically in Fig. 2. The advantage of using density correlators is that they are gauge-invariant unlike Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes. For baryon wave functions three-density correlators are needed. Here we will only show results for the one-particle density obtained after integrating the wave function over one relative distance. The diagram involved is shown in the lower part of Fig. 2.

Since the spectroscopic quadrupole moment of the nucleon vanishes in order to determine any possible deformation we evaluate the N to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ electromagnetic transition form factors. We calculate the three-point correlation functions  $`G_\sigma ^{\mathrm{\Delta }j^\mu N}(t_2,t;𝐩^{},𝐩;\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and
$`G_\sigma ^{Nj^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }}(t_2,t;𝐩^{},𝐩;\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and consider the following ratio

$`R_\sigma (t_2,t;𝐩^{},𝐩;\mathrm{\Gamma };\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{G_\sigma ^{\mathrm{\Delta }j^\mu N}(t_2,t;𝐩^{},𝐩;\mathrm{\Gamma })G_\sigma ^{Nj^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }}(t_2,t;𝐩,𝐩^{};\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}{g_{ij}G_{ij}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}(t_2,𝐩^{};\mathrm{\Gamma }_4)G^{NN}(t_2,𝐩;\mathrm{\Gamma }_4)}}\right]^{1/2}`$ (2)
$`\stackrel{}{t_2t1,t1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_N(𝐩)+M_N}{2E_N(𝐩)}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐩^{})+M_N}{2E_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐩^{})}}\right)^{1/2}\overline{R}_\sigma (𝐩^{},𝐩;\mathrm{\Gamma };\mu )`$
from which the transition form factors can be extracted. The index $`\sigma `$ is the Lorentz index for a spin- $`\frac{3}{2}`$ field, $`j^\mu (x)`$, is the lattice conserved electromagnetic current inserted at time t, $`E_N(𝐩)`$ and $`E_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐩^{})`$ are the energies of the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ respectively and $`t_2`$, the time location of the sink, is varied to identify the ground state. We use projection matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j=1/2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\sigma _j\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}0}}{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}0}}\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1/2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{I\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}0}}{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}0}}\right)`$ as in ref. .

## 2 Results

We have analysed 220 quenched configurations at $`\beta =6.0`$ for a lattice of size $`16^3\times 32`$ at $`\kappa =0.15,0.153,0.154,0.155`$ which give ratio of pion to rho mass of $`0.88,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.84},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.78},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.70}`$ respectively. Using the standard definition of the naive quark mass, $`2m_qa=(1/\kappa 1/\kappa _c)`$, where $`\kappa _c`$ is the value of $`\kappa `$ at which the pion becomes massless, we find $`m_q300,170,130`$ and $`85`$ Mev respectively. We used the value of the string tension to set the physical scale obtaining for the inverse lattice spacing $`a^11.94`$ GeV. The density insertions are taken at $`t=T/4=8a`$. To check that this time interval is long enough to extract the physical hadronic ground state we computed the density-density correlators for varying values of the insertion time $`t`$. Fig. 2 shows the results for the rho correlators which converge when $`t>6a`$. Moreover, we note a clear deformation (ratio $`C_{\gamma _0}^\rho (x,0,0)/C_{\gamma _0}^\rho (0,0,z)1`$) which remains approximately the same as early as $`t=3a`$ even though the $`z`$\- and $`x`$-profiles change appreciably showing that the deformation is a robust, physical property of the rho meson in its ground state as well as its low-lying excited states.

The dependence of hadron wave functions on the quark mass is displayed in Fig. 4 where we plot the density-density correlators at various $`\kappa `$ values for the pion, the rho, the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ normalized to unity. The size of the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ wave functions do not change for naive quark mass smaller than $`130`$ MeV. The rho wave function shows the largest variation with the quark mass. In Fig.4 we compare the matter and charge densities at $`\kappa =0.153`$. We find that the matter density falls off more rapidly than the charge density and it has the same shape for all four hadrons.

The pseudoscalar density for the pion is shown in Fig. 6 for $`m_\pi /m_\rho =0.84,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.78}`$ and $`0.70`$. In Fig. 6 it is compared with that for the rho and the nucleon at $`m_\pi /m_\rho =0.84`$. The bag model predicts that the integral $`d^3rC_{\gamma _5}^H(r)`$ is zero . A reasonable fit is obtained by an exponential times a polynomial ansatz. The long tail of the data and the integral of the fitted ansatz both favor a non-zero integral. However a careful extrapolation to the continuum limit (using large volumes) is required for this quantity, especially with Wilson fermions as used here.

The rho deformation seen in Fig. 2 can be made more quantitative by analysing the density-density correlator into a dominant $`L=0`$ state and a suppressed $`L=2`$ :

$$<\rho _j(\mathrm{𝟎})|\widehat{\rho }_{\gamma _0}(𝐫)\widehat{\rho }_{\gamma _0}(\mathrm{𝟎})|\rho _j(\mathrm{𝟎})>=\varphi _1(r)+\frac{(3x_j^2r^2)}{3r^2}\varphi _2(r)$$
(3)
where $`|\rho _j(\mathrm{𝟎})>`$ is a zero momentum state with polarization $`j`$.

First lattice results for the ratio of the electric quadrupole to magnetic dipole amplitudes, $`R_{EM}`$, for both quenched and for two dynamical Wilson fermions are obtained at the smallest allowed lattice momentum, $`𝐪=(2\pi /L_s,0,0)`$, where $`L_s`$ is the spatial length of the lattice. At $`𝐪^2=0.54`$ GeV2 for the unquenched theory using the SESAM configurations  we find in the chiral limit $`R_{EM}(3.7\pm 0.5)\%`$. For $`𝐪^2=0.15`$ GeV2 in the quenched theory on a lattice of size $`32^3\times 64`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$ we find $`R_{EM}(3.0\pm 0.3)\%`$. We used the nucleon mass to set the physical scale. Finite lattice spacing effects on the $`R_{EM}`$ ratio can be significant and are currently under investigation. The finite volume dependence on $`R_{EM}`$ is also under study.

## 3 Conclusions

We have presented a gauge-invariant determination of hadron profiles in the quenched approximation. We have found that the rho wave function shows the strongest dependence on the quark mass whereas the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the weakest. We have established that the rho is deformed with deformation which increases as we approach the chiral limit, whereas the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ has no statistically significant deformation. The matter density is similar for all four hadrons and falls off more rapidly than the charge density. Using state-of-the-art lattice techniques the phenomenologically important $`R_{EM}`$ has been extracted for two $`q^2`$ values and found to be consistent with experimental measurements.