text:
# A Coherent-State Approach to Two-dimensional Electron Magnetism

## I Introduction

In a recent paper, Ishikawa and Fukuyama  describe the possible orbital magnetism for two-dimensional electrons confined by a harmonic potential in various regimes of temperature and magnetic field. They afford a quite large complement of information in regard to the previous paper  devoted to the same subject. According to the range of values assumed by the relative ratios between the three characteristic energy scales present in the model, namely the thermodynamical unit $`k_BT`$, the magnetic quantum $`\mathrm{}\omega _c`$, and the harmonic quantum $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, they explain the existence of the different magnetic regimes. As a matter of fact, they distinguish between the “Mesoscopic Fluctuation” regime ($`k_BT\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{}(\sqrt{\omega _c^2+4\omega _0^2}\omega _c)/2`$), the “Landau Diamagnetism” regime ($`k_BT\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{}(\sqrt{\omega _c^2+4\omega _0^2}+\omega _c)/2`$) , and the “de Haas-van Alphen” regime. Their studies rest upon the derivation of an approximate closed formula for the thermodynamical potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and from which they are able to get the magnetic moment. The isotropic two-dimensional harmonic potential offers us a complete analytical treatment of the problem whereas the orbital magnetism is expected not to depend strongly on the shape of the confinement. The crucial point in our derivation is that the Fermi-Dirac function is a fixed point of the Fourier transform. Exact series expansions ensue by simple application of the residue theorem as shown in the appendix. Our results for the thermodynamical potential, the orbital magnetic moment, and the spatial distibution of currents are easily tractable and analyzable in comparison with those given in Ref..

One can show that the Hamiltonian under a perpendicular magnetic field can be decomposed into the sum of two harmonic oscillators with frequencies $`\omega _+`$ and $`\omega _{}`$ respectively. This fact makes the present model completely integrable and also makes the use of the coherent states (CS) possible. These coherent states are defined as tensor products of two standard one-dimensional coherent states and read as: $`\{z_d,z_g=z_dz_g,z_d,z_g\text{}\}`$. This family of states provides us with a resolution of the unity and in this way we are allowed to use the so-called symbol calculus à la Berezin-Lieb-Perelomov a)a)a) See  and Lieb in . For a recent up-to-dated review on CS, specially on their group representation aspects we also refer to . Notice that here the operator calculus in Hilbert space is replaced by the functional calculus involving CS parameters.. Consequently, the Berezin-Lieb inequalities give us the opportunity to explore the behavior of the magnetization of our model in extreme conditions like the thermodynamical limit or the quasi-classical limit.

In the next section, we shall give a short review about the physical model. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian will be obtained by algebraic and analytical methods respectively. In particular, we shall explain the symmetries of the problem and their relevance in various approximations of the model. In Section III, the construction of the coherent states is presented and the main CS algebraic and functional properties are briefly recalled there. Section IV is devoted to the thermodynamical potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. First we apply the Berezin-Lieb inequalities and study the magnetic moment in the different limit regimes. We then give the exact expression of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The core of the paper lies in Section V, in which we establish exact expressions for the magnetic moment and the average number of electrons and discuss their behavior in different temperature and magnetic field regions. We show in Section VI how coherent symbol calculus yields a Fourier integral expression for the radial distribution of the current. This integral can be also given as an expansion series with the aid of the residue theorem. In the conclusion we shall give some remarks and comments on the possible extension of our approach to the other systems of physical interest.

## II Hamiltonian and Symmetries

The Hamiltonian for two-dimensional spinless electrons confined by an isotropic harmonic potential and submitted to a constant perpendicular magnetic field is written as

$$=\frac{1}{2m}(𝐏+\frac{e}{c}𝐀)^2+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _0^2𝐑^2,$$
(2.1)
where Coulomb interactions are neglected. This model is called the Fock-Darwin Hamiltonian in the litterature . The radius of the system, $`R_m`$, is classically defined as

$$\frac{1}{2}m\omega _0^2R_m^2=\mu ,$$
(2.2)
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, and we shall give in Section IV a full quantum statistical mechanics interpretation of this relation. We shall work with the symmetric gauge $`𝐀=\frac{1}{2}𝐇\times 𝐑`$. We first solve the eigenvalue and eigenvector problems by using the underlying Weyl-Heisenberg symmetries, and we shall next consider eigenvectors in another system of coordinates by following a more classical analytical method.

### A. Solutions through Weyl-Heisenberg symmetries

The algebraic structure is easily displayed if we adopt the method of separation of Cartesian variables. It leads to the following form of the Hamiltonian:

$$=(\frac{P_x^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{8}m\omega ^2X^2)+(\frac{P_y^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{8}m\omega ^2Y^2)+\frac{\omega _c}{2}L_z_0+\frac{\omega _c}{2}L_z,$$
(2.3)
where $`\omega _c=eB/mc`$ is the cyclotron frequency, $`\omega =\sqrt{\omega _c^2+4\omega _0^2}`$, and $`L_z=XP_yYP_x`$. Here, we clearly see the splitting of the Hamiltonian into two independent harmonic oscillator Hamiltonians plus the angular momentum operator. Instead of directly using the oscillator annihilation operators:

$$a_x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\frac{X}{l_0}+\frac{il_0}{\mathrm{}}P_x),a_y=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\frac{Y}{l_0}+\frac{il_0}{\mathrm{}}P_y),$$
(2.4)
we work with two new ones, which are linear superposition of $`a_x`$ and $`a_y`$:

$$a_d=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a_xia_y),a_g=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a_x+ia_y),$$
(2.5)
where $`l_0=\sqrt{2\mathrm{}/m\omega }`$. Note that $`a_d`$ and $`a_g`$ are bosonic operators: $`[a_d,a_d^{}]=\text{I}=[a_g,a_g^{}]`$, and one has the useful identities:

$`X={\displaystyle \frac{l_0}{2}}(a_d+a_d^{}+a_g+a_g^{}),Y={\displaystyle \frac{l_0}{2i}}(a_d+a_d^{}+a_ga_g^{}),`$
$`P_x={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2il_0}}(a_da_d^{}+a_ga_g^{}),P_y={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2l_0}}(a_d+a_d^{}a_ga_g^{}).`$ (2.6)
The operators $`_0`$ and $`L_z`$ then can be simply expressed in terms of the number operators $`N_d=a_d^{}a_d`$ and $`N_g=a_g^{}a_g`$ as:

$$_0=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}(N_d+N_g+1),L_z=\mathrm{}(N_dN_g),$$
(2.7)
and so

$$=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}(N_d+N_g+1)+\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _c}{2}(N_dN_g)=\mathrm{}(\omega _+N_d+\omega _{}N_g+\frac{\omega }{2}),$$
(2.8)
where $`\omega _\pm =(\omega \pm \omega _c)/2`$. Eigenvalues are trivially found from the expression:

$$n_d,n_g=E_{n_dn_g}n_d,n_g,$$
(2.9)
with $`E_{n_dn_g}=\mathrm{}(\omega _+n_d+\omega _{}n_g+\omega /2)`$ and where $`n_d`$ and $`n_g`$ are non-negative integers. The corresponding eigenvectors are tensor products of single Fock oscillator states:

$$n_d,n_g=n_dn_g=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_d!n_g!}}(a_d^{})^{n_d}(a_g^{})^{n_g}0,0.$$
(2.10)
### B. $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(2)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(1,1)`$ symmetries

Two distinct dynamical symmetries exist on the level of quadratic observables.

1. $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(2)`$ symmetry
The first one is of the type $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(2)`$ and is put into evidence by introducing the operators

$$S_+=a_d^{}a_g,S_{}=a_g^{}a_d,S_z=\frac{N_dN_g}{2}=\frac{L_z}{2\mathrm{}}.$$
(2.11)
The commutation relations read as:

$$[S_+,S_{}]=2S_z,[S_z,S_\pm ]=\pm S_\pm ,$$
(2.12)
and the invariant Casimir operator is given by

$$𝒞=\frac{1}{2}(S_+S_{}+S_{}S_+)+S_z^2=(\frac{N_d+N_g}{2})(\frac{N_d+N_g}{2}+1).$$
(2.13)
Therefore, for a fixed value $`\lambda =(n_d+n_g)/2`$ of the operator $`(N_d+N_g)/2=_0/(\mathrm{}\omega )1/2`$, there exists a $`(2\lambda +1)`$-dimensional UIR of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(2)`$ in which the operator $`S_z`$ has its spectral values in the range $`\lambda \varsigma =(n_dn_g)/2\lambda `$.
2. $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(1,1)`$ symmetry
The second one is of the type $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(1,1)`$:

$$T_+=a_d^{}a_g^{},T_{}=a_ga_d,T_0=\frac{1}{2}(N_d+N_g+1)=\frac{_0}{\mathrm{}\omega },$$
(2.14)
with

$$[T_+,T_{}]=2T_0,[T_0,T_\pm ]=\pm T_\pm .$$
(2.15)
The Casimir operator then reads as:

$$𝒟=\frac{1}{2}(T_+T_{}+T_{}T_+)T_0^2=(\frac{N_dN_g}{2}+\frac{1}{2})(\frac{N_dN_g}{2}\frac{1}{2})=\frac{1}{4}(\frac{L_z}{\mathrm{}}^21).$$
(2.16)
When $`n_dn_g`$, for a fixed value $`\eta =(n_dn_g+1)/21/2`$ of the operator $`(N_dN_g+1)/2`$, there exists a UIR of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(1,1)`$ in the discrete series, in which the operator $`T_0`$ has its spectral values in the infinite range $`\eta ,\eta +1,\eta +2,\mathrm{}`$. Alternatively, when $`n_dn_g`$, for a fixed value $`\vartheta =(n_d+n_g+1)/21/2`$ of the operator $`(N_d+N_g+1)/2`$, there also exists a UIR of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(1,1)`$ in which the spectral value of the operator $`T_0`$ runs in the infinite range $`\vartheta ,\vartheta +1,\vartheta +2,\mathrm{}`$.

### C. Solutions through analytical derivation

The analytical solutions are obtained by separation of polar coordinates in the stationary Schrödinger equation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\theta )=[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}(_r^2+\frac{1}{r}_r+\frac{1}{r^2}_\theta ^2)i\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\omega _c_\theta +\frac{m}{8}\omega ^2r^2]\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\theta )=E\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\theta ).$$
(2.17)
We consider $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\theta )`$ as an eigenfunction diagonal with respect to the conserved angular momentum and put $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\theta )=R(r)e^{i\alpha \theta }`$. The function $`R(r)`$ is determined in terms of Laguerre polynomials. Explicitly we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\theta )=\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,\alpha }(r,\theta )=(1)^n\times \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }l_0}\sqrt{\frac{n!}{(n+|\alpha |)!}}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{r^2}{2l_0^2}](\frac{r}{l_0})^{|\alpha |}L_n^{(|\alpha |)}[\frac{r^2}{l_0^2}]e^{i\alpha \theta },$$
(2.18)
where $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is the principal quantum number and $`\alpha =0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ the angular moment quantum number. The eigenenergies are obtained to be:

$$E_{n\alpha }=\mathrm{}\omega (n+\frac{|\alpha |+1}{2})+\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _c}{2}\alpha ,$$
(2.19)
Therefore, $`n`$ and $`\alpha `$ are related to $`n_d`$ and $`n_g`$ by the following relations:

$$n_d=n+\frac{1}{2}(|\alpha |+\alpha ),\text{and}n_g=n+\frac{1}{2}(|\alpha |\alpha ).$$

We shall denote the eigenfunction indifferently by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,\alpha }(r,\theta )=r,\theta n,\alpha =r,\theta n_d,n_g`$.

### D. Filling the shells with fermions

Each of the above two symmetries affords a way of ordering the pairs $`(n_d,n_g)`$. However, they do not provide any hint for ordering the energy eigenvalues $`E_{n_dn_g}`$ with the exception of two limiting cases: weak field one and strong field one.

1. Weak field case
Suppose the average number of electrons $`N_e`$ obeys $`\omega _cN_e<<\omega _0`$. In terms of the $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(2)`$ symmetry, the energy eigenvalues read as:

$$E_{n_dn_g}=\mathrm{}\omega \lambda +\mathrm{}\omega _c\varsigma +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega ,$$
(2.20)
and can be approximated by

$$E_{n_dn_g}\mathrm{}\omega _0(2\lambda +1)E_\lambda .$$
(2.21)
Therefore, in the weak field limit, the $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(2)`$ symmetry becomes a true symmetry of the Hamiltonian, which explains the degeneracy of order $`2\lambda +1`$ for the level $`E_\lambda `$. Note that there are $`(\lambda _0+1)(2\lambda _0+1)`$ (spinless) electrons which fill the shells up to $`\lambda _0`$.
2. Strong field case
In the limit of strong magnetic field $`\omega _c\omega _0`$, we have $`E_{n_dn_g}\mathrm{}\omega _c(n_d+\frac{1}{2})`$. Therefore, for a given value of $`n_d`$, we have an infinite degeneracy labelled by $`n_g`$ or by $`\alpha =n_dn_gn_d`$. The quantum number $`n_d`$ corresponds to the Landau level index (as well as $`n`$ for negative $`\alpha `$). One can reinterpret it in terms of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐮}(1,1)`$ symmetry by noting that, for a given value of $`\alpha 0`$, the energy eigenstates are ladder states for the discrete series representation labelled by $`\vartheta =\alpha /2+1/2`$.
3. Generic intermediate case
In the uncommensurate intermediate case, which means $`\omega _+/\omega _{}\text{}`$ and no approximation is relevant, we are faced to the problem of ordering the relatively dense (but not uniformly discrete) set of eigenenergies:

$$_{n_dn_g}\frac{E_{n_dn_g}}{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}\frac{\omega }{2\omega _{}}=\frac{\omega _+}{\omega _{}}n_d+n_g.$$
(2.22)
In the commensurate case, $`\omega _+/\omega _{}=p/q\text{}`$, degeneracy is possible:

$$E_{n_dn_g}=E_{n_d^{}n_g^{}}\text{iff}\frac{p}{q}=\frac{n_gn_g^{}}{n_dn_d^{}}.$$
(2.23)

## III Standard Coherent States

### A. Definitions and Properties

The fact that the eigenvectors issued from the algebraic method are just tensor products of Fock harmonic oscillator eigenstates allows one to construct the corresponding coherent states in a standard way:

$`z_d,z_gz_dz_g=\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|z_d|^2+|z_g|^2)]{\displaystyle \underset{n_d,n_g}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_d^{n_d}}{\sqrt{n_d!}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_g^{n_g}}{\sqrt{n_g!}}}n_d,n_g`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|z_d|^2+|z_g|^2)]e^{z_da_d^{}+z_ga_g^{}}0,0.`$ (3.1)
These (normalized) coherent states obey some of the usual CS properties :

1. (Eigenvector property)

$$a_dz_d,z_g=z_dz_d,z_g,a_gz_d,z_g=z_gz_d,z_g.$$
2. (Minimal uncertainty relations)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }X\mathrm{\Delta }P_x=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2},\mathrm{\Delta }Y\mathrm{\Delta }P_y=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }X[z_d,z_gX^2z_d,z_g(z_d,z_gXz_d,z_g)^2]^{1/2}`$, etc.
3. (Temporal stability)

$$e^{it/\mathrm{}}z_d,z_g=e^{i\omega t/2}e^{i(\omega +\omega _c)t/2}z_d,e^{i(\omega \omega _c)t/2}z_g.$$
4. (Action identity)

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{}(z_d,z_g)z_d,z_gz_d,z_g=\mathrm{}[\omega _+|z_d|^2+\omega _{}|z_g|^2+\frac{\omega }{2}].$$
(3.2)
The function $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}(z_d,z_g)`$ has been called lower (resp. contravariant) symbol of the operator $``$ by Lieb  (resp. by Berezin ). It will plays an important role in the present context.
5. (Overlapping)

$$z_d^{},z_g^{}z_d,z_g=e^{i\mathrm{}(z_d\overline{z}_d^{}+z_g\overline{z}_g^{})}e^{(|z_dz_d^{}|^2+|z_gz_g^{}|^2)/2}.$$
6. (Resolution of the unity)

$$\text{I}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}_\text{}^2z_d,z_gz_d,z_gd^2z_dd^2z_g.$$

The last property is also crucial in our context. For any observable $`A`$ with suitable operator properties (traceclass, …) there exists a unique upper (or covariant) symbol $`\widehat{A}(z_d,z_g)`$ defined by

$$A=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}_\text{}^2\widehat{A}(z_d,z_g)z_d,z_gz_d,z_gd^2z_dd^2z_g.$$
(3.3)
For instance, upper symbols for number operators are given by

$$\widehat{N_d}(z_d,z_g)=|z_d|^21,\widehat{N_g}(z_d,z_g)=|z_g|^21,$$
(3.4)
and hence the upper symbol for our Hamiltonian (2.8)

$$\widehat{}(z_d,z_g)=\mathrm{}[\omega _+|z_d|^2+\omega _{}|z_g|^2\frac{\omega }{2}].$$
(3.5)
Finally, we should mention the useful trace identity for a traceclass observable $`A`$:

$$\text{Tr}A=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}_\text{}^2\stackrel{ˇ}{A}(z_d,z_g)d^2z_dd^2z_g=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}_\text{}^2\widehat{A}(z_d,z_g)d^2z_dd^2z_g,$$
(3.6)
where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{A}(z_d,z_g)z_d,z_gAz_d,z_g`$

### B. Fock-Bargman space

The coherent state function $`r,\theta z_d,z_g`$ is, up to an exponential factor, the integral kernel for the isometry mapping the Hilbertian span $`\text{L}^2(\text{}^2)`$ of the set of eigenfunctions (2.18) onto the so-called Fock-Bargman space, i.e. the Hilbert space

$$\text{L}_{\text{entire}}^2(\text{}^2,\frac{1}{\pi ^2}e^{(|z_d|^2+|z_g|^2)}d^2z_dd^2z_g)$$
(3.7)
of entire two complex variable functions $`f(z_d,z_g)`$ that are square integrable with respect to the measure $`\pi ^2e^{(|z_d|^2+|z_g|^2)}d^2z_dd^2z_g`$. This unitary mapping $`\text{L}^2(\text{}^2)\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\theta )\mathrm{\Phi }(z_d,z_g)`$ and its reciprocal are explicitely given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _\text{}^2}𝒦(r,\theta ,\overline{z}_d,\overline{z}_g)\mathrm{\Phi }(z_d,z_g)e^{(|z_d|^2+|z_g|^2)}d^2z_dd^2z_g`$ (3.8)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_d,z_g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\text{}^2}𝒦(r,\theta ,z_d,z_g)\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\theta )r𝑑r𝑑\theta .`$ (3.9)
The kernel is given by the following generating function:

$`𝒦(r,\theta ,z_d,z_g)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{(|z_d|^2+|z_g|^2)/2}r,\theta z_d,z_g={\displaystyle \underset{n_d,n_g}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_d^{n_d}}{\sqrt{n_d!}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_g^{n_g}}{\sqrt{n_g!}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,\alpha }(r,\theta )`$ (3.10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }l_0}}e^{r^2/(2l_0^2)}e^{(z_de^{i\theta }r/l_0)(z_ge^{i\theta }r/l_0)}.`$
Note that normalized eigenkets (2.18) are mapped to the corresponding normalized eigenstates

$$\frac{z_d^{n_d}}{\sqrt{n_d!}}\frac{z_g^{n_g}}{\sqrt{n_g!}}=e^{(|z_d|^2+|z_g|^2)/2}\overline{z}_d,\overline{z}_gn_d,n_g$$
(3.11)
in the $``$ representation. Also note that in this representation the operators $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ have the simple form:

$$a_d=\frac{}{z_d},a_g^{}=(\text{multiplication by})z_d,a_g=\frac{}{z_g},a_g^{}=z_g.$$
(3.12)
## IV Thermodynamical potential

Let us now enter the core of the physical question we addressed in the introduction. We assume that the total number $`N_e`$ of electrons is large enough for making no appreciable difference between a grand canonical ensemble and a canonical one. Then the magnetic moment $`M`$ is given by

$$M=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{H}\right)_\mu ,$$
(4.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the thermodynamical potential,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{\beta }\text{Tr}\mathrm{log}(1+e^{\beta (\mu )}),$$
(4.2)
with $`\beta =1/(k_BT)`$. The average number of electrons is given by:

$$N_e=\underset{n_d=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n_g=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f(E_{n_dn_g})=\text{Tr}f()=_\mu \mathrm{\Omega },$$
(4.3)
where $`f(E)=1/(1+e^{\beta (E\mu )})`$ is the Fermi distribution function. The magnetic moment can be yielded from eqs.(4.1) and (4.2) and reads as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mu _B}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\omega }}\text{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{(N_d+1/2)\omega _+(N_g+1/2)\omega _{}}{(1+e^{\beta (\mu )})}}`$ (4.4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \underset{n_d=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_g=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n_d+1/2)\omega _+(n_g+1/2)\omega _{}}{(1+\kappa _{}^1e^{\beta \mathrm{}(\omega _+n_d+\omega _{}n_g)})}},`$
where $`\kappa _\pm =\mathrm{exp}(\beta (\mu \pm \mathrm{}\omega /2))=\kappa _\pm (H,T)`$, and $`\mu _B=\mathrm{}e/(2mc)`$ is the Bohr magneton. Despite its concise appearance, the computation of the double series (4.4) is not easily tractable on a numerical level. Hence we will give the preliminary estimates before presenting much more exploitable exact expressions.

### A. Berezin-Lieb inequalities for the thermodynamical potential

First we note that $`\mathrm{log}(1+e^{\beta (\mu )})`$ is a convex function of the positive Hamiltonian $``$, and so we can apply the Berezin-Lieb inequalities to examine the quasi-classical behaviour of the thermodynamical potential. These inequalities say that, for any convex function $`g(A)`$ of the observable $`A`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{\pi ^2}_\text{}^2g(\stackrel{ˇ}{A})d^2z_dd^2z_g\text{Tr}g(A)\frac{1}{\pi ^2}_\text{}^2g(\widehat{A})d^2z_dd^2z_g.$$
(4.5)
Applying them to the (concave) thermodynamical potential leads to the inequalities:

$$\frac{1}{\beta \pi ^2}_\text{}^2\mathrm{log}(1+e^{\beta (\widehat{}\mu )})d^2z_dd^2z_g\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{1}{\beta \pi ^2}_\text{}^2\mathrm{log}(1+e^{\beta (\stackrel{ˇ}{}\mu )})d^2z_dd^2z_g.$$
(4.6)
Let us insert eqs.(3.2) and (3.5) and perform the angular integrations. It leads to the inequalities:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u_d{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u_g\mathrm{log}(1+e^{\beta (\mathrm{}(\omega _+u_d+\omega _{}u_g\frac{\omega }{2})\mu )})\mathrm{\Omega },`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u_d{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u_g\mathrm{log}(1+e^{\beta (\mathrm{}(\omega _+u_d+\omega _{}u_g+\frac{\omega }{2})\mu )}),`$ (4.7)
where $`u_d=|z_d|^2`$ and $`u_g=|z_g|^2`$. Changing the integration variables, say $`u=\beta \mathrm{}(\omega _+u_d+\omega _{}u_g),v=\beta \mathrm{}\omega _+u_d`$, performing an integration by part, and introducing the control parameters $`\kappa _\pm `$ defined in (4.4), we easily reduce the above inequalities to the following ones:

$$\varphi (\kappa _+)\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi (\kappa _{}).$$
(4.8)
where the function $`\varphi `$ is given by:

$`\varphi (\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2\beta (\beta \mathrm{}\omega _0)^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2e^u}{1+\kappa e^u}}𝑑u`$ (4.11)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\beta (\beta \mathrm{}\omega _0)^2}F_3(\kappa )\hfill & \text{for }\kappa 1,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{\beta (\beta \mathrm{}\omega _0)^2}\left[\frac{(\mathrm{log}\kappa )^3}{6}\frac{\pi ^2\mathrm{log}\kappa }{6}+F_3(\kappa ^1)\right]\hfill & \text{for }\kappa >1.\hfill \end{array}`$
We have introduced here the function $`F_s`$, of the Riemann-Fermi-Dirac type, defined as:

$$F_s(z)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^m}{m^s}.$$
(4.12)
In the high temperature region $`|\mu \pm \mathrm{}\omega /2|k_BT`$ we have $`\kappa _\pm 1`$. From (4.8) we see that the thermodynamical potential is approximately equal to:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }k_BT\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\right)^2F_3(1)0.901543k_BT\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\right)^2$$

We now consider the more realistic case: $`\mu \mathrm{}\omega /2`$ and $`\mu k_BT`$. Let us split the function $`\varphi `$ into three parts:

$$\varphi (\kappa _\pm )=A\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}+S_\pm ,$$
(4.13)
with

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\omega _0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\right)^2\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\omega _0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\right)^2\right],`$
$`S_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`k_BT\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\right)^2F_3(\mathrm{exp}[\beta (\mu \pm \mathrm{}\omega /2)]).`$ (4.14)
Then we see that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ lies in the interval $`[A+S_+\mathrm{\Delta }/2,A+S_{}+\mathrm{\Delta }/2]`$. Replacing $`S_\pm `$ by the approximate expression

$$S_0=k_BT\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\right)^2F_3(e^{\beta \mu }),$$
(4.15)
and observing that the ratio

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{|A+S_0|}=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{\mu }\left[\frac{3+\pi ^2\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mu }\right)^2+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{\mu }\right)^2}{1+\pi ^2\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mu }\right)^2+\frac{3}{4}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{\mu }\right)^2\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mu }\right)^3F_3(e^{\beta \mu })}\right]$$
(4.16)
tends to zero, we see that the thermodynamical potential can be estimated as:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $``$ $`A+S_0`$ (4.17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\omega _0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\right)^2\right]+k_BT\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\right)^2F_3(e^{\beta \mu }).`$
A similar asymptotic behaviour holds for the thermodynamical limit $`N_e\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, in this quasiclassical regime, the average number of electrons is calculated to be:

$`N_e`$ $``$ $`_\mu (A+S_0)`$ (4.18)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\right)^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{\mu }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mu }}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{\omega }}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mu }}\right)^2F_2(e^{\mu \beta })\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\right)^2\text{for }\mu k_BT\text{ and }\mu \mathrm{}\omega /2.`$
The magnetic moment hence reads as:

$$M=\chi _pH,\text{with}\chi _p=\mu \left(\frac{\mu _B}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\right)^2.$$
(4.19)
Hence, we can assert that the system shows an orbital paramagnetism in this limit. At this point, we refer to a recent work by Combescure and Robert  in which precise informations are given for the magnetisation of electron gas constrained by general confinement potentials.

### B. Exact expressions for the thermodynamical potential

We now determine the thermodynamical potential in a precise way by applying the formulas (7.5) and (7.7) in the appendix. The function $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k)`$ defined by (7.6) takes the following closed form:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(k)=\text{Tr}(e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}})=e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{4}\mathrm{}\omega }\frac{1}{1e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{}\omega _+}}\frac{1}{1e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{}\omega _{}}}.$$
(4.20)
The Fourier integral representation for the thermodynamical potential hence reads as:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{\beta }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}\mu )}}{2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k}\left(\frac{1}{ik+1}\right)\left(\frac{1}{1e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{}\omega _+}}\right)\left(\frac{1}{1e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{}\omega _{}}}\right)𝑑k$$
(4.21)
As indicated in the formula (7.6), this Fourier integral is given as a series by using the residue theorem. One can easily see that the numbers $`(2m+1)i`$, $`m\text{}`$ are simple poles of $`\text{sech}\frac{\pi }{2}k`$, $`i`$ is a double pole of $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k)`$, and $`i+4\pi m/(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _+)`$, $`i+4\pi m/(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{})`$, $`m\text{}^{}`$ are simple or double poles of $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k)`$ according to whether $`\omega _+`$ and $`\omega _{}`$ are uncommensurable or not (see Fig.1). In order to fulfill the requirements of the Jordan Lemma, one has to consider the following two cases: $`\mu \mathrm{}\omega /2`$ and $`\mu \mathrm{}\omega /2`$. In the first case we take an integration path lying in the lower half-plane and involving only the simple poles $`(2m+1)i`$, $`m<0`$. It leads to the result:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{4\beta }\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^m}{m}\frac{e^{\beta \mu m}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{}\omega _+m)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{}\omega _{}m)},$$
(4.22)
which corresponds to the case $`\kappa 1`$ in Eq.(4.11). In the second case, an integration path in the upper half-plane is chosen. It encircles all the other poles: $`(2m+1)i`$, $`m0`$, $`i+4\pi m/(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _+)`$, $`i+4\pi m/(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{})`$, $`m\text{}^{}`$, as shown in Fig.1. We present the result in a manner which will render apparent the various regimes:

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}\mathrm{\Omega }& =& & (\mathrm{\Omega }_L+\mathrm{\Omega }_{01})& +& \mathrm{\Omega }_{02}& +& \mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{osc}}\\ & =& 2\pi i(& \stackrel{}{a_1(i)}& +& \stackrel{}{_{m1}a_1((2m+1)i)}& +& \stackrel{}{_{m_\pm 0}(a_1(i+\frac{4\pi }{\beta \mathrm{}\omega _\pm }m_\pm )}).\end{array}$$
(4.23)
The first term is at the origin of the Landau diamagnetism:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_L=\frac{\mu }{24}\left(\frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}\right)^2=\frac{1}{2}\chi _LH^2,$$
(4.24)
where $`\chi _L=\frac{1}{3}\mu \left(\frac{\mu _B}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\right)^2\frac{1}{3}D_0\mu _B^2`$ is the Landau diamagnetic susceptibility. The coefficient $`D_0=\mu /(\mathrm{}\omega _0)^2`$ can be interpreted as the density of states at Fermi energy. Notice that the value of $`\chi _L`$ is equal to one third of the “quasiclassical” one $`\chi _p`$ obtained in (4.19), a feature which is reminiscent of which we encounter in the studies of free 3D electron gas. The second term, which gives no contribution to the magnetization, is written as:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{01}=\frac{\mu }{6}\left[\left(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\right)^2+\pi ^2\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\right].$$
(4.25)
The third term is given as:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{02}=\frac{1}{4\beta }\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^m}{m}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\mu }{k_BT}m)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _+}{2k_BT}m)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}{2k_BT}m)}.$$
(4.26)
It becomes negligible at low temperature regime $`k_BT\mu `$. The sum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{01}`$ is analogue to the term $`A`$ in Eq.(4.13) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{02}`$ corresponds to $`S_\pm `$. The last term is responsible for the oscillatory behaviour. We need to distinguish between irrational values of $`\omega _+/\omega _{}`$ and rational ones:

* case $`\omega _+/\omega _{}\text{}`$,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{osc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^m}{m}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}\pi m)}{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\omega _+}{\omega _{}}\pi m)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{2k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}\pi ^2m)}}`$ (4.27)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _+}\pi m)}{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\omega _{}}{\omega _+}\pi m)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{2k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _+}\pi ^2m)}}]\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{osc}}^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{osc}}^+.`$
* case $`\omega _+/\omega _{}=p/q\text{},\mathrm{gcd}(p,q)=1,\omega _+/p=\omega _{}/q=2l/(\mathrm{}\beta )\text{}`$,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{osc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta }}[{\displaystyle \underset{m=1,m0\text{mod}q}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^m}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}\pi m)}{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\omega _+}{\omega _{}}\pi m)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{2k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}\pi ^2m)}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1,m0\text{mod}p}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^m}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _+}\pi m)}{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\omega _{}}{\omega _+}\pi m)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{2k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _+}\pi ^2m)}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{lpq}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{(p+q)k}}{k\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi ^2}{l}k)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{k_BT}}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu \pi k}{k_BTl}})(\pi \mathrm{coth}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{l}}k)+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{\pi k}})\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu \pi k}{k_BTl}})]].`$

### C. The thermodynamical potential via symbol calculus

Let us define the thermodynamical potential operator as $`𝒪=\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{log}(1+\mathrm{exp}[\beta (\stackrel{ˇ}{}\mu )])`$. We have:

$`𝒪={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _\text{}^2}\widehat{𝒪}(z_d,z_g)z_d,z_gz_d,z_gd^2z_dd^2z_g,`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒪}(z_d,z_g)=z_d,z_g𝒪z_d,z_g,`$ (4.29)
We then perform the angular integrations and take its trace. We get an integral representation of the thermodynamical potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\text{Tr}𝒪`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{\beta }_0^{\mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u_d𝑑u_g\widehat{𝒪}(u_d,u_g)=\frac{1}{\beta }_0^{\mathrm{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u_d𝑑u_g\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒪}(u_d,u_g).$$
(4.30)
The problem turns out to evaluate the upper and lower symbols. The lower one is shown here with the integral representation:

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝒪}(u_d,u_g)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{(u_d+u_g)}}{2\beta }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}\mu )}}{(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k)(ik+1)}}\mathrm{exp}\left(u_de^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{}\omega _+}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(u_ge^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{}\omega _{}}\right)𝑑k`$
## V Average number of electrons and magnetic moment

In this section, we will exploit the formulas (4.22)-(B.) to obtain the exact expressions of the average number of electrons and the magnetization. We will restrict ourselves to the more realistic case: $`\mu \mathrm{}\omega /2`$.

The average number of electrons is easily derived by taking the derivative of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to $`\mu `$. It is found to be:

$`N_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\right]`$ (5.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^m{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta \mu m}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{}\omega _+m)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{}\omega _{}m)}}`$
$`\pi {\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^m\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}\pi m)}{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\omega _+}{\omega _{}}\pi m)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{2k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}\pi ^2m)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _+}\pi m)}{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\omega _{}}{\omega _+}\pi m)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{2k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _+}\pi ^2m)}}\right]`$
$``$ $`N_e_L+N_e_{01}+N_e_{02}+N_e_{\text{osc}}^{}+N_e_{\text{osc}}^+.`$
The magnetic moment is decomposed into four parts and is expressed in Bohr magneton units:

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _LH2\mu _B\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{02}}{\mathrm{}\omega _c}}\right)_\mu 2\mu _B\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{osc}}}{\mathrm{}\omega _c}}\right)_\mu `$ (5.2)
$``$ $`2\mu _B(_L+_0+_{\text{osc}}^{}+_{\text{osc}}^+),`$
where

$`_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12\mathrm{}\omega _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu _B}}\chi _LH,`$ (5.3)
$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\omega }}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^me^{\beta \mu m}{\displaystyle \frac{[\omega _+\mathrm{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _+m/2)\omega _{}\mathrm{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}m/2)]}{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _+m/2)\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}m/2)}},`$ (5.4)
and, for the irrational case $`\omega _+/\omega _{}\text{}`$,

$`_{\text{osc}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega }}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^m\mathrm{sin}(2\pi m\mu /(\mathrm{}\omega _{}))}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi m\omega _+/\omega _{})\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi ^2mk_BT/(\mathrm{}\omega _{}))}}\times `$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}}\mathrm{cot}\left(2\pi m{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \omega _+}{\omega _{}}}\mathrm{cot}\left(\pi m{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _+}{\omega _{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}}\mathrm{coth}\left(2\pi ^2m{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}}\right)\right],`$
$`_{\text{osc}}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega }}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^m\mathrm{sin}(2\pi m\mu /(\mathrm{}\omega _+))}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi m\omega _{}/\omega _+)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi ^2mk_BT/(\mathrm{}\omega _+))}}\times `$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _+}}\mathrm{cot}\left(2\pi m{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}\omega _+}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \omega _{}}{\omega _+}}\mathrm{cot}\left(\pi m{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{}}{\omega _+}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _+}}\mathrm{coth}\left(2\pi ^2m{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _+}}\right)\right].`$
We will not give the expressions of $`_{\text{osc}}^\pm `$ in the rational case because the magnetization is a continuous function of $`\omega _c`$ and its behavior can be fully understood from the irrational one.

### Discussion

The temperature scale is compared to the two natural modes $`\omega _\pm `$ of the system and draws three possible intrinsic regimes: high temperature regime $`k_BT>\mathrm{}\omega _+`$, low temperature regime $`k_BT<\mathrm{}\omega _{}`$, and intermediate temperature regime $`\mathrm{}\omega _{}<k_BT<\mathrm{}\omega _+`$. Remember that we work in the large electron number region: $`\mu >\mathrm{}\omega /2`$.

1. High temperature regime: $`k_BT>\mathrm{}\omega _+>\mathrm{}\omega _{}`$.
This inequality implies the following constraint on the field:

$$\frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}<\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0}{k_BT}\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}.$$
(5.7)
We can see that $`_0`$ is the dominant term for the magnetic moment in regard to $`_{osc}`$ because of the smallness of arguments of the sinh (in the denominator) and coth (in the numerator) functions. Hence, $`M2\mu _B(_L+_0)`$, which shows mainly Landau diamagnetism. Similarly, we infer from (5.1) that $`N_eN_e_L+N_e_{01}+N_e_{02}`$.
2. Low temperature regime: $`k_BT<\mathrm{}\omega _{}`$.
The magnetic field is restricted by the inequality:

$$\frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}<\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0}{k_BT}\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0}{k_BT}.$$
(5.8)
Now the $`_0`$ term becomes excessively small due to the rapidly decreasing exponential factor and the large arguments of the hyperbolic functions present in the expression. The magnetization is hence approximately determined by the three terms: $`_L`$, $`_{osc}^+`$, and $`_{osc}^{}`$ and exhibits oscillating behavior.

1. Strong fields $`\omega _c\omega _0`$.
    We make the following approximations:

    $$\omega _+\omega _c\left(1+\left(\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _c}\right)^2\right),\omega _{}\frac{\omega _0^2}{\omega _c},\frac{\omega _+}{\omega _{}}\left(\frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}\right)^2.$$
    (5.9)
    Assume also that $`\omega _c2\omega _0\sqrt{(\mu /\mathrm{})^21}`$ to insure the validity of $`\mu \mathrm{}\omega /2`$. One can see that the denominator of $`_{osc}^+`$ contains the product of sin and two sinh’s with small argument and, hence, $`M2\mu _B(_L+_{osc}^+)`$. In particular, after replacing $`\omega _+`$ by $`\omega _c`$ in the sinus argument of the numerator of $`_{osc}^+`$, we find that the magnetization is periodic with respect to the inverse of the magnetic field, a characteristic fact of the “de Haas-van Alphen” regime. The similar behavior holds for the electron number: $`N_eN_e_L+(\mu /\mathrm{}\omega _0)^2/2+N_e_{\text{osc}}^+`$.
    2. Weak fields $`\omega _c\omega _0`$.
    In this case the two characteristic frequencies and their ratio are approximated to

    $$\omega _\pm \omega _0\left[1\pm \frac{1}{2}\frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}+\frac{1}{8}\left(\frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}\right)^2\right],\frac{\omega _\pm }{\omega _{}}1\pm \frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}\right)^2.$$
    (5.10)
    Now $`_{osc}^{}`$ and $`_{osc}^+`$ have the same order of contribution due to the presence in their denominators of

    $$(\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi ^2mk_BT/\mathrm{}\omega _{}))^2(\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi ^2mk_BT/\mathrm{}\omega _0))^2$$
    (5.11)
    and of the strongly oscillating functions

    $$(\mathrm{sin}(\pi m\omega _\pm /\omega _{}))^2(\mathrm{sin}(\pi m\omega _c/\omega _0))^2.$$
    (5.12)
    Consequently, the system is considered as lying in the mesoscopic phase. Similar conclusions can be reached for the behaviour of the average electron number.
3. Intermediate temperatures: $`\mathrm{}\omega _{}<k_BT<\mathrm{}\omega _+`$.
These inequalities imply the constraint

$$\frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}>\left|\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _0}{k_BT}\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _0}\right|.$$
(5.13)
The weak field case occurs only when $`k_BT`$ approaches $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$. In this case, one may think that the oscillatory terms $`_{osc}^{}`$ and $`_{osc}^+`$ give their contribution to $`M`$ as what we have seen in the previous subsection. But, in fact, the hyperbolic sinus functions of the denominators have large arguments:

$$\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi ^2mk_BT/\mathrm{}\omega _{})\mathrm{sinh}(19.74m)0.5\mathrm{exp}(19.74m),$$

and so overcomes the algebraic contribution of the sinus functions. The system hence goes to the Landau diamagnetic regime. On the other hand, for a strong field, we return to the approximation $`M2\mu _B(_L+_{osc}^+)`$ and the system shows the de Haas-van Alphen effect.

We have repeated in Fig.2 the phase diagram of magnetization proposed by Ishikawa and Fukuyama. Let us however mention that the two intrinsic frequencies $`\omega _\pm `$ do not represent the exact borders between the different magnetic phases. It should be taken in a qualitative sense only. In order to justify this, we choose the chemical potential equal to $`100.0\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ and make temperature vary through the different magnetic field regimes. Fig.3(a) illustrates the weak field regime. One can see that at low temperature $`k_BT=0.001\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ the magnetization experiences strong fluctuations, called mesoscopic fluctuations. As $`T`$ increases ($`k_BT=0.1\mathrm{}\omega _0`$), the strength of these fluctuations decreases. As the temperature is getting higher (for example for $`k_BT=0.5\mathrm{}\omega _0`$), the fluctuations disappear and we reach the Landau diamagnetism. In Fig.3(b) the magnetic field lies between $`1.9\omega _0mc/e`$ and $`3.1\omega _0mc/e`$. When $`k_BT=0.01\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, the system shows large fluctuations. One can see that, if the magnetic filed increases, the fluctuations diminish and the cycloid-like curve appears (de Haas-van Alphen oscillations). At higher temperature, e.g. $`k_BT=0.1\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, one can see more clearly the phase change from the mesoscopic fluctuations to the de Haas-van Alphen oscillations. If the temperature continues increasing (for example, $`k_BT=0.5\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, $`k_BT=1.0\mathrm{}\omega _0`$), the system will go from the Landau diamagnetism to the de Haas-van Alphen oscillations. Fig.3(c) shows the de Haas-van Alphen phases. The position of the peak can be predicted from the simple formula:

$$\frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}=\frac{2\mu }{n\mathrm{}\omega _0}\frac{n\mathrm{}\omega _0}{2\mu },\text{where }n\text{ is some odd positive integer.}$$

In Fig.3(d) we see that, at the extreme low temperature ($`k_BT=0.001\mathrm{}\omega _0`$), the curve shows some “width”, which comes from the limit of the picture resolution and which corresponds, in fact, to small fluctuations. This gives us an example of de Haas-van Alphen oscillations mixed with mesoscopic fluctuations.

## VI Current Distribution

We now turn our attention to the spatial density of current. It can be obtained by the following formula:

$$𝐉(𝐫)=\mathrm{}\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐑)\frac{(e)}{m}\left(𝐏+\frac{e}{c}𝐀(𝐑)\right)\widehat{\psi }(𝐑),$$
(6.1)
where $`=\text{Tr}(f()())`$ is the thermal average, and $`\widehat{\psi }(𝐑)`$ the field operator:

$$\widehat{\psi }(𝐑)n,\alpha =\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,\alpha }(𝐫).$$

Due to the symmetry of the system, the current distribution is purely orthoradial,

$$𝐉(𝐫)=J_\theta (r)𝐞_\theta ,$$
(6.2)
and its component is given by the series:

$$J_\theta (r)=ev_0\underset{n,\alpha }{}\left(\alpha \frac{\xi }{r}+\frac{\omega _c}{2\omega _0}\frac{r}{\xi }\right)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{n,\alpha }(r,\theta )\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,\alpha }(r,\theta )f(E_{n\alpha }),$$
(6.3)
where $`\xi =\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(m\omega _0)}`$ is the characteristic length and $`v_0=\omega _0\xi `$ the characteristic speed in the harmonic potential. The current distribution induces a local magnetic moment,

$$𝐌(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2c}𝐫\times 𝐉=\frac{1}{2c}rJ_\theta (r)𝐞_zM_z(r)𝐞_z,$$
(6.4)
which in turn gives rise to the total magnetic moment,

$$M=M_z(r)𝑑S=\frac{\pi }{c}_0^{\mathrm{}}J_\theta (r)r^2𝑑r.$$
(6.5)
By applying Eq.(3.8) to the expression (6.3) of $`J_\theta (r)`$ we get

$`J_\theta (r)`$ $`=`$ $`(e)v_0{\displaystyle \underset{n_d,n_g}{}}f(\mathrm{}(\omega _+n_d+\omega _{}n_g+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}})((n_dn_g)\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{\xi }}\right)^1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c}{2\omega _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{\xi }})\times `$ (6.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle _\text{}^2}e^{(|z_d^{}|^2+|z_g^{}|^2+|z_d|^2+|z_g|^2})\overline{𝒦}(z_d^{},z_g^{};r,\theta )𝒦(r,\theta ;z_d,z_g)\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(z_d^{}\overline{z}_d)^{n_d}}{n_d!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(z_g^{}\overline{z}_g)^{n_g}}{n_g!}}d^2z_d^{}d^2z_g^{}d^2z_dd^2z_g.`$
The above equation is rotational invariant and one can hence put $`\theta =0`$. Let us now represent the Fermi-Dirac function by the Fourier integral (7.2) and perform the discrete summation. The four integrals on the complex plane can be easily performed by using well-known gaussian integrals of the type

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{t^2+tZ}𝑑t=\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{4}Z^2).$$

We finally obtain the following expression:

$`J_\theta (r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ev_0}{16\pi l_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{\xi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\pi }{2}k)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}[(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}\mu ]}{\mathrm{sinh}^2((ik+1)\beta \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{4})}}\times `$ (6.7)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _c}{\omega _0}}\mathrm{sinh}((ik+1)\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{4}}){\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\omega _0}}\mathrm{sinh}((ik+1)\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _c}{4}})]\times `$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2r^2\mathrm{sinh}((ik+1)\beta \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _+}{4})\mathrm{sinh}((ik+1)\beta \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}{4})}{l_0^2\mathrm{sinh}((ik+1)\beta \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{4})}}\right].`$
Three types of singular points appear in the integrand:

1. Pole $`k=i`$.
This pole is triple since it appears once in $`\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k`$, and twice in $`(\mathrm{sinh}(ik+1)\beta \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{4})^2`$.
2. Poles $`k=(2m+1)i`$, $`m\text{}^{}`$.
They are the other (simple) poles of $`\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k`$.
3. Singular points $`k=i+4\pi m/(\beta \mathrm{}\omega )`$, $`m\text{}^{}`$.
These points are essential singularities since they appear in the exponential.

The current distribution is hence separated into three components responsible for the Landau diamagnetism, weakly diamagnetism, and oscillation behavior:

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}J_\theta (r& =& & \left(J_\theta (r)\right)_L& +& \left(J_\theta (r)\right)_0& +& (J_\theta r))_{\text{osc}}\\ & =& 2\pi i(& \stackrel{}{a_1(i)}& +& \stackrel{}{_{m1}a_1((2m+1)i)}& +& \stackrel{}{_{m0}(a_1(i+\frac{4\pi }{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }m)}).\end{array}$$
(6.8)
In a forthcoming paper, we shall go deeper into the analysis of such an expression for the current distribution.

## VII Conclusion

In this paper, we have established exact formulas for the thermodynamical potential of a two-dimensional gas of spinless electrons, confined in an isotropic harmonic potential, and submitted to a constant perpendicular magnetic field. From this it has become possible to study the magnetic moment and other thermodynamical quantities at different regimes of temperature and field. This exhaustive study was made possible thanks to the specific simplicity of the isotropic harmonic potential. Of course, there exist other situations in which we could get similar exact expressions: anisotropic harmonic potential, harmonic groove, …, as indicated by . In a next future, we shall deal with less tractable but still integrable models (see for instance , like infinite cylinder potential or quantum rings, cases in which the expressing of the trace (7.6) in a closed form is quitely not expected. We shall also intend to make use of other families of coherent states, possibly more adapted to these new situations, in order to use an efficient symbol calculus. For instance, for the infinite rectangular well potential, we are thinking about using tensor products of infinite well coherent states introduced and analysed in a recent paper . Finally, we shall also explore the behaviour, at different temperature and field regimes, of other thermodynamical quantities of current experimental interest, like the heat capacity .

## Appendix: Fermi-Dirac trace formulas

It is well known that, like the Gaussian function, the function $`\text{sech}x=1/\mathrm{cosh}x`$ is a fixed point for the Fourier transform in the Schwartz space:

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}x}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{e^{ixy}}{\mathrm{cosh}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}y}𝑑y.$$
(7.1)
Hence, given an Hamiltonian $``$, we can write for the corresponding Fermi operator:

$$f()\frac{1}{1+e^{\beta (\mu )}}=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}(\mu )}}{4\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k}𝑑k.$$
(7.2)
Similarly, we can write for the thermodynamical potential operator:

$$\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{log}(1+e^{\beta (\mu )})=\frac{1}{\beta }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}(\mu )}}{(2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k)(ik+1)}𝑑k.$$
(7.3)
Therefore, the average number of fermions and the thermodynamical potential can be written (at least formally) as follows:

$`N=\text{Tr}f()={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta \mu }{2}}}{4\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k}}\mathrm{\Theta }(k)𝑑k,`$ (7.4)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }=\text{Tr}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}(1+e^{\beta (\mu )}))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta \mu }{2}}}{(2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k)(ik+1)}}\mathrm{\Theta }(k)𝑑k,`$ (7.5)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ designates the function

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(k)=\text{Tr}(e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta }{2}}).$$
(7.6)
Observe that $`(2m+1)i,m\text{}`$ are (simple) poles for the function $`1/\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k`$ and $`i`$ is a pole for the functions $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k)`$ and $`1/(ik+1)`$. These Fourier integrals can be evaluated by using residue theorems if the integrand functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(k)=\mathrm{\Theta }(k)/\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(k)=\mathrm{\Theta }(k)/((ik+1)\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k)`$ satisfy the Jordan Lemma, that is, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(Re^{i\theta })g(R)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(Re^{i\theta })h(R)`$, for all $`\theta [0,\pi ]`$, and $`g(R)`$ and $`h(R)`$ vanish as $`R\mathrm{}`$. The quantities $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are then formally given by

$$2\pi i\left[a_1(i)+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_1((2m+1)i)+\underset{\nu }{}a_1(k_\nu )\right],$$
(7.7)
where $`a_1()`$ denotes the residue of the involved integrand at pole $`()`$, and the $`k_\nu `$’s are the poles (with the exclusion of the pole $`i`$) of $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k)`$ in the complex $`k`$-plane.

We now introduce the spectral resolution of the (bounded below) self-adjoint operator $``$:

$$\phi ()=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\phi (\lambda )E(d\lambda ),$$
(7.8)
where $`\phi `$ is a complex-valued function and $`E_\lambda =_{\mathrm{}}^\lambda E(d\lambda )`$ is the resolution of the identity for the Hamiltonian $``$. Define the density of states $`\nu (\lambda )`$ as $`\text{Tr}E(d\lambda )/d\lambda `$. The trace formula ensues:

$$\text{Tr}\phi ()=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\phi (\lambda )\nu (\lambda )𝑑\lambda .$$
(7.9)
Let us now introduce the weighted density of states $`w(\lambda )=e^{\frac{\beta }{2}\lambda }\nu (\lambda )`$ and its Fourier transform

$$\widehat{w}(k)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}e^{ik\lambda }w(\lambda )𝑑\lambda .$$
(7.10)
Then, from (7.4), (7.5) and (7.9), we can represent $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as follows:

$`N=\sqrt{2\pi }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta \mu }{2}}}{4\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k}}\widehat{w}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}k)𝑑k={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\beta }}e^{\frac{\beta \mu }{2}}\widehat{𝒵}_1(\mu ),`$ (7.11)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\pi }}{\beta }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(ik+1)\frac{\beta \mu }{2}}}{(2\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\pi }{2}k)(ik+1)}}\widehat{w}({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}k)𝑑k={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\beta ^2}}e^{\frac{\beta \mu }{2}}\widehat{𝒵}_2(\mu ),`$ (7.12)
where we have introduced the weighted functions $`𝒵_1=\text{sech}(\frac{\pi }{\beta }k)\widehat{w}(k)`$ and $`𝒵_2=\text{sech}(\pi k/\beta )(i2k/\beta +1)^1\widehat{w}(k)`$.

## Acknowledgements

The authors are pleased to acknowledge Galliano Valent (LPTHE, Universities of Paris 6 and 7, France), Remi Mosseri (CNRS, GPS, Universities of Paris 6 and 7, France), Sorin Melinte (UPCPM, University of Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium), and Yakov I. Granovskii (Szczecin University, Poland) for useful suggestions and comments. P.Y.H. is also grateful the ICSC World Laboratory in Switzerland for the scholarship.

## Figure caption

1. Poles of the Fourier representation of the thermodynamical potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The poles lying on the imaginary axis are simple except for the point $`i`$ which is of order 4. The poles lying on the line $`k=i`$ in the complex $`k`$-plane ($`i`$ is excluded) may be simple or double depending on whether $`\omega _+`$ and $`\omega _{}`$ are uncommensurable or not.
2. Phase diagram of the magnetization. In high temperature and low magnetic field region, the system shows Landau diamagnetism; in low temperature and low magnetic field region, mesoscopic fluctuations appear; and in strong magnetic field region, the system experiences the de Haas-van Alphen oscillation phase. The two curves, $`k_BT=\mathrm{}\omega _+`$ and $`k_BT=\mathrm{}\omega _{}`$, give a qualitative indication about the phase borders.
3. Magnetization curves versus the magnetic field at different temperatures. We represent the cyclotron frequency in $`\omega _0`$ units and the magnetization in $`2\mu _B`$ units. The chemical potential $`\mu `$ is set up to $`100.0\mathrm{}\omega _0`$.

1. $`\omega _c`$ is less than $`0.8\omega _0`$. Temperatures are chosen to be $`0.001\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, $`0.1\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, and $`0.5\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, respectively.
    2. $`\omega _c`$ is between $`1.9\omega _0`$ and $`3.1\omega _0`$. Temperatures are chosen to be $`0.01\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, $`0.1\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, $`0.5\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, and $`1.0\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, respectively.
    3. $`\omega _c`$ is between $`4.0\omega _0`$ and $`15.0\omega _0`$. Temperatures are chosen to be $`0.1\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, $`0.5\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, $`1.0\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, and $`5.0\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, respectively.
    4. $`\omega _c`$ is greater than $`15.0\omega _0`$. Temperatures are chosen to be $`0.001\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, $`0.5\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, $`1.0\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, and $`5.0\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, respectively.


format: text

text:
# 1 Feynman diagrams that contribute to the pion self-energy. Solid lines are nucleons, and dashed lines are pions. The rectangle in (𝑎) denotes the whole set of diagrams (including loop corrections) that contribute to the 𝜋𝑁 scattering amplitude.

SNUTP 99-053, USC(NT)-01-03

In-Medium Effective Pion Mass
from Heavy-Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory

Tae-Sun Parka,b,***E-mail:park@nuc003.psc.sc.edu. Hong Jungc,E-mail:jung@sookmyung.ac.kr and Dong-Pil Mind,E-mail:dpmin@phya.snu.ac.kr
aTheory group, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B. C., Canada V6T 2A3 bDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina,
Columbia SC 29208, USA cDepartment of Physics, Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul 140-742, Korea dDepartment of Physics, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea

Using heavy-baryon chiral perturbation theory, we have calculated all the diagrams up to two-loop order which contribute to the $`S`$-wave pion self-energy in symmetric nuclear matter. Some subtleties related to the definition of pion fields are discussed. The in-medium pion mass turns out to increase by only $`(56)`$ per cents at normal nuclear matter density, and this result is model independent.

The role of pionic interactions in nuclear medium has long been an important issue in nuclear physics. Recently, the interest in the $`S`$-wave pionic interaction in nuclear medium has reemerged due to the experimental observation of deeply bound pionic states in Pb at GSI . It is to be noted that there is a wide variance among the theoretically deduced values of the effective pion mass $`m_\pi ^{}`$; for symmetric nuclear matter, $`m_\pi ^{}`$ is found to increase by 7 % in Ref., but by 20 % in Ref.. These results are obtained relying on the phenomenology related to the $`S`$-wave pion-nucleus optical potential. It is well-known that threshold isoscalar $`S`$-wave pion-nucleon interaction in nuclear medium, though very weak, is more repulsive than in vacuum . Noting that the leading Weinberg-Tomozawa term vanishes and the pion-nucleon sigma term is partly canceled by the effective range term, higher order corrections to the one-body contribution is substantial , and also the two-body contribution is expected to play a significant role; this latter aspect has been considered in explaining the threshold $`S`$-wave pion-nucleus interaction .

There are approaches for the effective pion masses based on chiral symmetry . In this letter we reexamine the problem in symmetric nuclear matter in the framework of heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory. All the contributions up to $`𝒪(Q^7)`$ and the one-body $`𝒪(Q^8)`$ contribution in the pion self-energy will be calculated. In addition, we will discuss some subtleties of the problem related to the definition of the pion fields.

The relevant quantity for the effective pion mass $`m_\pi ^{}`$ in nuclear matter we are interested in is the in-medium self-energy of pion, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ^2)`$, which is defined with the pion momentum $`q^\mu =(\omega ,\stackrel{}{0})`$. To evaluate the self-energy systematically, we employ Weinberg’s formalism  of heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory (HBChPT), which has been quite successful in understanding threshold pion-nuclear interactions . In Weinberg’s scheme, Feynman diagrams are characterized by the order $`Q^\nu `$, where $`Q`$ is the typical size of the momenta involved and/or pion mass, which is regarded as small compared to the chiral scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ GeV. In this scheme, the Fermi momentum $`k_F`$ is thus counted as of order $`Q`$. For diagrams for the pion self-energy, the chiral index $`\nu `$ is given as

$$\nu =2+2L+\underset{i}{}\nu _i,\nu _id_i+\frac{n_i}{2}2$$
(1)
where $`L`$ is the number of the loop, $`d_i`$ is the the number of derivatives and/or pion masses, and $`n_i`$ is the number of nucleon fields attached to the $`i`$-th vertex. In HBChPT, the Lagrangian consists of pions and nucleons, while all other degrees of freedom are integrated out,

$$_{eff}=_0+_1+_2+\mathrm{},$$
(2)
where the subscripts are the chiral index $`\nu _i`$. Terms relevant to computing the $`S`$-wave pion self-energy are

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{B}\left[ivD+2ig_AS\mathrm{\Delta }\right]B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}C_A\left(\overline{B}\mathrm{\Gamma }_AB\right)^2+f_\pi ^2\mathrm{Tr}\left(i\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu i\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _+}{4}}\right),`$ (3)
$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{B}[{\displaystyle \frac{v^\mu v^\nu g^{\mu \nu }}{2m_N}}D_\mu D_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{g_A}{m_N}}\{SD,v\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ (4)
$`+c_1\mathrm{Tr}\chi _++4(c_2{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{8m_N}})(vi\mathrm{\Delta })^2+4c_3i\mathrm{\Delta }i\mathrm{\Delta }]B`$
with $`D_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi _R^{}_\mu \xi _R+\xi _L^{}_\mu \xi _L\right)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi _R^{}_\mu \xi _R\xi _L^{}_\mu \xi _L\right)`$, $`\chi _+=\xi _R^{}\chi \xi _L+\xi _L^{}\chi ^{}\xi _R`$, $`\chi =m_\pi ^2`$, and

$$\xi _R=\xi _L^{}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi }}{2f_\pi }\right).$$
(5)
The low-energy constants $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ are to be fixed from experimental data; at present there are several sets of values for the parameters determined by fitting low-energy pion-nucleon data:

$`(c_1,c_2,c_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(1.27\pm 0.12,3.23\pm 0.19,5.93\pm 0.08)\text{GeV}^1\text{(Fit1)},`$
$`(c_1,c_2,c_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(1.47\pm 0.09,3.21\pm 0.11,6.00\pm 0.03)\text{GeV}^1\text{(Fit2)},`$
$`(c_1,c_2,c_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(1.53\pm 0.18,3.22\pm 0.25,6.19\pm 0.09)\text{GeV}^1\text{(Fit3)}.`$ (6)
Figure 1 shows the nuclear diagrams we compute for the pion self-energy.

Note that nucleon loops in free space are forbidden in HBChPT, and all the nucleon lines (in solid line) drawn in Fig. 1 run only up to $`k_F`$, the Fermi momentum. Throughout this work, we employ the Fermi gas approximation for the wavefunction of nuclear matter. We acknowledge that the diagrams in Fig. 1 have been studied in chiral models since long time ago, see, for example, Ref. .

The leading order (LO) contribution to the $`S`$-wave pion self-energy is from the one-loop graph with the Weinberg-Tomozawa term coming from $`_0`$, which vanishes for symmetric nuclear matter. If such a term survives, it would be $`𝒪\left(Q^4\right)`$. The next-to-leading order (NLO) contribution comes from the one-loop graph with the $`\pi \pi NN`$ vertices from $`_1`$, which is nothing but the pion-nucleon sigma term. Before going further, we note that all the diagrams with a one-nucleon-loop only, called one-body contributions, are related to the pion-nucleon scattering amplitude. Particularly, all the contributions at $`\omega =m_\pi `$ can be replaced by the isoscalar $`\pi N`$ scattering length, $`a_{\pi N}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{1\mathrm{body}}(\omega ^2=m_\pi ^2)=4\pi (1+\mu )a_{\pi N}\frac{2k_F^3}{3\pi ^2}$$
(7)
where $`\mu \frac{m_\pi }{m_N}`$. Note that the above equation is correct to all order, as far as the one-body contributions are concerned. The scattering length has been calculated within HBChPT ,

$$4\pi (1+\mu )a_{\pi N}=\frac{m_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}(4c_14c_{23})+\frac{3g_A^2m_\pi ^3}{64\pi f_\pi ^4}+\mathrm{}$$
(8)
with $`c_{23}\frac{1}{2}\left(c_2+c_3\frac{g_A^2}{8m_N}\right)`$. In the r.h.s. of the above equation, the first term is from NLO, the second from the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO), and the ellipsis denotes higher-order contributions. At NNLO, we also have genuine two-body contributions which are drawn in Fig. 1($`bd`$). Including all of them, the pion self-energy up to NNLO or up to $`𝒪\left(Q^6\right)`$ reads

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[4\pi (1+\mu )a_{\pi N}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{8\pi f_\pi ^4}}\sqrt{m_\pi ^2\omega ^2}+(w^2m_\pi ^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{4c_{23}}{f_\pi ^2}}+\zeta {\displaystyle \frac{3g_A^2m_\pi }{64\pi f_\pi ^4}}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{2k_F^3}{3\pi ^2}}`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^4f_\pi ^4}}\left[2\omega ^2I_F(\sqrt{m_\pi ^2\omega ^2}){\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{2}}\left(m_\pi ^2+\zeta (w^2m_\pi ^2)\right)J_F(m_\pi )\right],`$
where

$`I_F(m)`$ $``$ $`k_F^4{\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2m^2}{6}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2m^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{24}}\right)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{4k_F^2+m^2}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}mk_F^3\mathrm{tan}^1{\displaystyle \frac{2k_F}{m}},`$
$`J_F(m)`$ $``$ $`k_F^4{\displaystyle \frac{k_F^2m^2}{2}}+\left(k_F^2m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{8}}\right)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{4k_F^2+m^2}{m^2}}2mk_F^3\mathrm{tan}^1{\displaystyle \frac{2k_F}{m}},`$ (10)
and $`\zeta =\frac{4}{3}`$ for the pion field defined by eq.(5). Here, $`\zeta `$ is an off-shell parameter (that is effective only when the pion is off-shell), which depends on the definition of the pion field. For example, the canonical pion field introduced by Weinberg #1#1#1The covariant derivative of the pion field we are referring to has the form $`_\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }/(1+\stackrel{}{\pi }^2/(4f_\pi ^2))`$. corresponds to $`\zeta =3`$. In fact, the value of $`\zeta `$ is not fixed by chiral symmetry and can be any arbitrary number . As another interesting definition of the pion field, we discuss here the background field method (BFM) . In BFM, the covariant quantities are defined as

$$\xi _R=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi }_{\mathrm{cl}}}{2f_\pi }\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi }_{\mathrm{fl}}}{2f_\pi }\right),\xi _L=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi }_{\mathrm{cl}}}{2f_\pi }\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi }_{\mathrm{fl}}}{2f_\pi }\right),$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{}{\pi }_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is the pion field that appears as external legs, while the $`\stackrel{}{\pi }_{\mathrm{fl}}`$ is for the internal pion lines. Often the BFM removes some of artificial contributions and simplifies the calculation. In our case, the contribution of Fig. $`(1c)`$ vanishes with BFM; with the canonical pion field of eq.(5), Fig. $`(1c)`$ is not zero but canceled out by a part of the contribution of Fig. $`(1d)`$. For physical observables where all the external particles are on mass shell, however, BFM gives exactly the same results as any other definition of pion field does. The value of $`\zeta `$ obtained by using BFM is $`\zeta =4`$.

Now we are in a position to discuss the in-medium pion mass $`m_\pi ^{}`$. The conventional way of determining the in-medium mass is to find the zero of the inverse of the pion propagator, $`w^2m_\pi ^2\mathrm{\Pi }(w^2)`$, or

$$m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=m_\pi ^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}).$$
(12)
But since $`\mathrm{\Pi }(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ with $`m_\pi ^{}m_\pi `$ depends on $`\zeta `$, the resulting $`m_\pi ^{}`$ also depends on the off-shell parameter $`\zeta `$. The results are depicted in Fig. 2 with two popular choices of $`\zeta `$; the upper shade is for the case with $`\zeta =4/3`$ (the canonical field of eq.(5)), and the lower shade is for $`\zeta =4`$ (BFM). The results with $`\zeta =3`$ lie in between the two. In each case, the parameter set Fit 1 gives the biggest $`m_\pi ^{}`$, and Fit 3 results in the lowest value. At normal nuclear matter density, the ratio $`m_\pi ^{}/m_\pi `$ is $`1.201.32`$ with $`\zeta =4/3`$, and $`1.121.15`$ with $`\zeta =4`$. Thus, apart from the non-trivial dependence on the parameter set of low-energy constants, there is quite substantial $`\zeta `$-dependence. We note that in the chiral limit $`m_\pi =0`$, however, $`m_\pi ^{}`$ remains zero in all the cases.

An interesting observation is that, when the nuclear density reaches around $`\rho =(1.31.7)\rho _0`$ with $`\zeta =(4/34)`$, where $`\rho _0`$ is the normal nuclear matter density, the in-medium pion mass decreases abruptly below the pion mass in the vacuum. This is caused by the fact that when the density increases, the value of the $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(\omega ^2)\frac{}{\omega ^2}\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ^2)`$ is close to one and makes the solution of eq.(12) unstable at the density mentioned above.

The off-shell ambiguity may indicate that the effective pion mass defined by eq.(12) is not a physical observable, which should be independent of the definition of the pion field. Indeed the effective pion mass is measured only indirectly in experiments with the help of optical potentials. A thorough study on this subject, which should be quite important, has not been done in this work and will appear in a separate work.

In this letter, however, we introduce a new way to extract the effective pion mass unambiguously. So far the pion self energy has been obtained to a certain order $`\nu `$, and then treated non-perturbatively in obtaining the effective mass through eq.(12). To avoid the above mentioned ambiguities, we propose to get the effective mass itself up to order $`\nu `$. The new procedure gives us exactly the same results as the previous method up to $`\nu `$, all the differences residing in higher orders. Particularly if the gap $`(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_\pi ^2)`$ is of order of $`Q^2`$ as the naive counting indicates, there is absolutely no difference. In actual cases, the gap is much smaller than in the naive counting,

$$m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_\pi ^2=𝒪\left(Q^5\right),$$
(13)
since the non-vanishing-leading-order (or NLO) of the pion self-energy is $`𝒪\left(Q^5\right)`$. Inserting this into eq.(9) with $`\omega ^2=m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, we see that all the $`\zeta `$-dependent terms in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ are of $`𝒪(Q^9)`$, which is beyond the scope of this work and will be neglected. In other words, there is no off-shell ambiguity in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ up to $`𝒪(Q^8)`$. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ is the same as $`\mathrm{\Pi }(m_\pi ^2)`$ up to $`𝒪\left(Q^7\right)`$, that is, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})=\mathrm{\Pi }(m_\pi ^2)+𝒪\left(Q^8\right)`$. Expanding $`\mathrm{\Pi }(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ based on our “detailed” power counting rule,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})=\underset{\nu =5}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(\nu )}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),$$
(14)
our two-loop order calculation determines the first two leading order contributions unambiguously:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(5)}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi (1+\mu )a_{\pi N}{\displaystyle \frac{2k_F^3}{3\pi ^2}},`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(6)}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{16\pi ^4f_\pi ^4}}\left[2k_F^4{\displaystyle \frac{g_A^2}{2}}J_F(m_\pi )\right].`$ (16)
We remark that $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(5)}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ in eq.(15) includes all the one-body contributions at $`\omega ^2=m_\pi ^2`$ up to infinite order, since the experimental scattering length $`a_{\pi N}`$ contains all the higher order contributions as well as the leading $`𝒪\left(Q^2\right)`$ contribution. We can also show that there is no $`𝒪(Q^7)`$ contribution,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(7)}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (17)
by the following arguments. All the one-body contributions are already absorbed into $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(5)}`$ at $`\omega ^2=m_\pi ^2`$, and the difference $`\mathrm{\Pi }(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\mathrm{\Pi }(m_\pi ^2)`$ is $`𝒪\left(Q^8\right)`$, which can be read from eq.(9). The two-body contributions at $`𝒪\left(Q^7\right)`$ are two-loop diagrams which contain one vertex from $`_1`$; however, they are all isovector and therefore cannot contribute to the pion self-energy in symmetric nuclear matter. Contributions involving three or more nucleons begin to appear only at $`𝒪\left(Q^8\right)`$.

At $`𝒪\left(Q^8\right)`$ there are one-, two- and three-body contributions,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{(8)}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})=\mathrm{\Pi }_{1\mathrm{body}}^{(8)}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+\mathrm{\Pi }_{2\mathrm{body}}^{(8)}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+\mathrm{\Pi }_{3\mathrm{body}}^{(8)}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}).$$
(18)
The one-body contribution at this order comes from the $`\omega `$-dependence in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ^2)`$,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{1\mathrm{body}}^{(8)}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi (1+\mu )a_{\pi N}{\displaystyle \frac{4c_{23}}{f_\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2k_F^3}{3\pi ^2}}\right)^2.`$ (19)
The two- and three-body contributions at this order are not discussed in this work.

The numerical results are given in Fig. 3. The $`𝒪\left(Q^5\right)`$ (dotted line) contribution is tiny because of the smallness of the $`\pi N`$ scattering length. The two-body contribution embodied in $`𝒪\left(Q^6\right)`$ (dotted-dashed line) gives the main contribution, about 6 % increase of the in-medium pion mass at normal nuclear matter density. As mentioned above, there is no $`𝒪\left(Q^7\right)`$ contribution. Just for discussion, we have drawn $`𝒪\left(Q^8\right)`$ results (solid line) without the two- and three-body contributions. This (partial) $`𝒪\left(Q^8\right)`$ contribution at this order is not significant, which is again due to the smallness of the $`\pi N`$ scattering length. For the same reason, the dependence on the parameter set up to this order is tiny and invisible in the figure.

By expanding $`\mathrm{\Pi }(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ with the detailed power counting rule which considers the gap $`(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_\pi ^2)`$ to be of order $`Q^5`$, we find that the in-medium pion mass increases only very mildly as the nuclear matter density increases. At normal nuclear density, $`m_\pi ^{}`$ is larger than $`m_\pi `$ only by $`(56)\%`$. This result has little dependence on the parameter set used, and is independent of the off-shell parameter $`\zeta `$. Our results support the phenomenological study given in Ref.. The complete calculation up to $`𝒪\left(Q^8\right)`$ is feasible and involves computing three-body contributions as well as one- and two-body contributions, and it would play more important roles in higher density regions.

Let us make concluding remarks. We have considered two schemes for computing the effective pion mass in symmetric nuclear matter based on chiral perturbation theory: a navie power counting scheme (eqs.(7-10, 12), Fig. 2) and a more detailed power counting scheme (eqs.(15-19), Fig. 3). The discrepancies in $`m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ are of order of $`𝒪(Q^9)`$ or higher order. We believe the latter is more meaningful than the former, because the latter is independent of the offshell parameter $`\zeta `$. While of higher order than considered, the possible dependence on the off-shell parameter at $`𝒪(Q^9)`$ remains to be addressed. Especially the radical differences between the two schemes (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) are quite alarming. Thus our results up to NNLO should be taken with caution. To be more definite, a calculation up-to-$`𝒪(Q^9)`$ would be required.

In overcoming the problem caused by the off-shell ambiguity, the idea of Brown-Rho (BR) scaling  may shed some light on this problem. If we follow the BR scaling, the the parameters of the pion self-energy should be replaced by the in-medium effective values. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(w^2)`$ be the BR scaled pion self-energy. Then the equation for the $`m_\pi ^{}`$ reads

$$m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=m_\pi ^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}).$$
(20)
with

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi (1+\mu )a_{\pi N}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2k_F^3}{3\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{16\pi ^4f_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}}\left[2k_F^4{\displaystyle \frac{g_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}J_F(m_\pi ^{})\right].`$ (21)
We note that there is no $`\zeta `$-dependence, and these equations are essentially the same as eqs.(15-19) except that all the parameters are replaced by their in-medium counterparts. This is because in nuclear medium the effective on-shell condition is $`\omega =m_\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ is effectively an on-shell quantity. However, in order to perform a numerical analysis, we need the value of $`a_{\pi N}^{}`$ as well as other effective parameters, which requires more studies.

On finalizing this work, we have learned of the existence of a similar work by Kaiser and Weise. Their work is more extensive than ours in that it includes pions and kaons in isospin asymmetric nuclear matter but the effective pion mass is simply assumed to be $`m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=m_\pi ^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(m_\pi ^2)`$.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Jerry Miller and Mannque Rho for valuable comments. We thank E. Oset and N. Kaiser for comments. TSP is indebted to S.-i. Ando, F. Myhrer and K. Kubodera for discussions. H. J. acknowledges the hospitality of the nuclear theory group of University of Washington. This work was supported in part by Korea Research Foundation (KRF-grant-1999-015-DI0023) and in part by Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (1999-2-111-005-5). The work of H. J. was also supported in part by Korea Ministry of Science and Technology (99-B-WB-07-A-03).