text:
# Vortex in a weakly relativistic Bose gas at zero temperature and relativistic fluid approximation

## 1 Introduction

An interesting issue in the study of relativistic vortices involves the similarities and differences between global strings and relativistic superfluid vortices .

This paper deals with a relativistic treatment of the almost ideal Bose gas at zero temperature and its approximation as a relativistic fluid. More specifically we study a cylindrical vortex and its Kelvin waves.

We know that an almost ideal Bose gas at zero temperature is well described by the Gross-Pitaevskii equation  which governs the evolution of the macroscopic wave function caracterising the condensate. This suggests (Sec.2) to start with a quantum field whose potential $`m^2\varphi ^{}\varphi +\lambda (\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2`$ does not exhibit spontaneous symmetry breaking, in order to represent weakly interacting relativistic Bose particles. By the Bogoliubov procedure we show that the classical field equation can be interpreted as a “relativistic Gross-Pitaevskii equation”. In order to apply the Bogoliubov procedure we have to verify that the mode, in which the bosons condense, realizes the minimum of energy with the constraint that the conserved charge is fixed by the number of particles. This is done in Sec.3.

This preliminary study makes things very similar to the non relativistic counterpart (cf. for example ) and allows us to interpret the classical field equation as representing the motion of the condensate of an almost ideal gas at zero temperature.

In Sec.4 we establish the approximation of the field equations by a perfect isentropic irrotational fluid in the formulation of Lichnerowicz . In Sec.5 the cylindrical stationary solution(that is a vortex) is studied. We begin with the exact solution in the approximate fluid theory and compare with an asymptotic solution of the exact theory.

In Sec.6 we study the Kelvin waves. The oscillations of a rectilinear vortex were initially studied by Lord Kelvin  in the context of the classical fluid. In Bose condensate theory the oscillations of a non relativistic quantum vortex were first discussed by Pitaevskii  who found in the long wavelength limit the dispersion relation:

$$\omega =\frac{q^2}{2m}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{qr_0}$$
(1)
where $`r_0`$ is the core radius. This result is refined by Grant  who has found:

$$\omega =\frac{q^2}{2m}\{\mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{qr_0}\gamma 0.115\}$$
(2)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant. Davis and Shellard  have shown that a spinning global string behaves like a vortex in a superfluid medium. The dispersion relation of the Kelvin modes of such a vortex was given by Ben-Ya’acov . In the non relativistic limit, he obtains

$$\omega =\frac{q^2}{2m}\{\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{qϵ}\gamma +1.5\}$$
(3)
where $`ϵ`$ is a cutoff parameter which depends on the core radius parameter $`\delta `$ of the string by

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{ϵ}{\delta }=1.615\mathrm{ln}2.$$
(4)
This last formula is obtained for a vortex ring. Comparison of (2) and (3) yields exactly the same formula if $`r_0=\delta `$.

In this paper we cannot follow the method of  which uses explicitly an equation of motion of the vortices based on the spontaneous breaking symmetry of the potential. We shall rather transpose the method of the matched-asymptotic-expansions of Roberts and Grant  to the relativistic field equations. The result is

$$\omega =\sqrt{1v_0^2}\frac{q^2}{2m}\{\mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{qr_0}\gamma 0.115\}$$
(5)
where $`v_0`$ is the velocity at $`r=r_0`$ of the classical relativistic fluid associated with the condensed bosons. Finally in Sec.7 we discuss some of our results, in particular we compare (5) with the dispersion relation of the Kelvin modes of a global string.

In this article the signature of the metric is $`(+++)`$ and $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$.

## 2 Classical field equation and Bogoliubov procedure

Let us consider a phenomenological system of electrically neutral bosons described by a complex scalar field. It is worth noting that a complex field (non Hermitian operator) can describe particles and antiparticles without electric charge (cf. Landau and Lifchitz ). In this case the conserved charge $`Q`$ is associated with the difference between the numbers of particles and antiparticles.

The lagrangian density is:

$$=_\mu \varphi ^{}^\mu \varphi V(\varphi ^{}\varphi )$$
(6)
with potential

$$V(\varphi ^{}\varphi )=m^2\varphi ^{}\varphi +\lambda (\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2,$$
(7)
The constant $`m^2`$ is positive and represents the squared mass of the particles, the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ is also positive so that the interaction is repulsive. If $`\lambda `$ is small we can describe an almost ideal relativistic gas of bosons at temperature $`T=0`$ by the field

$$\widehat{\psi }=\varphi +\widehat{\psi }^{}$$
(8)
where $`\varphi `$ is a classical field which will represent the condensate; it verifies the Euler-Lagrange equation

$$_\mu ^\mu \varphi +m^2\varphi +2\lambda \varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi =0$$
(9)
and $`\widehat{\psi }^{}`$ is a fluctuation.

If we suppose that the system is enclosed in a box of volume $`V`$, the field can be expanded in a Fourier series

$$\widehat{\psi }(x)=\underset{𝐩}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}\sqrt{2ϵ}}(a_𝐩e^{ipx}+b_𝐩^+e^{ipx}),$$
(10)
with

$$px=p^0t+𝐩𝐱$$

and

$$ϵ=p^0=\sqrt{𝐩^2+ϵ_0^2},$$
(11)
where $`ϵ_0`$ is a constant whose precise value will be fixed below. The operators $`a_𝐩,b_𝐩`$ and their conjugates $`a_𝐩^+,b_𝐩^+`$ are the annihilation and creation operators for the particles $`a`$ and antiparticles $`b`$:

$$[a_𝐩,a_𝐩^+]=1,[b_𝐩,b_𝐩^+]=1.$$
(12)
Let us note that the Fourier expansion (10) and the commutation relations (12) usually given for free fields are valid also for interacting fields (cf. Lee ) . Of course in this case $`a_𝐩`$ and $`b_𝐩`$ and conjugates can have a complicated time dependence in contrast to free fields where these operators are time independant if we choose for $`ϵ_0`$ the mass $`m`$ of the free particle.

For a uniform weakly non ideal gas in a large volume $`V`$ at temperature $`T=0`$, almost all the $`N`$ particles, $`N_0N`$, condense in the zero mode of the particles. As it will be justified in the following section, this mode represents a minimum of energy when we impose the constraint that the conserved charge $`Q`$ is fixed: $`Q=N_0`$. Hence, since $`N_0`$ is a macroscopic number, following the Bogoliubov approximation , we can negect the commutator $`[a_\mathrm{𝟎},a_\mathrm{𝟎}^+]=1`$ as compared with the huge eigenvalue $`N_0`$ of $`a_\mathrm{𝟎}^+a_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, so the operators $`a_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`a_\mathrm{𝟎}^+`$ can be approximated by classical numbers

$$a_\mathrm{𝟎}a_\mathrm{𝟎}^+\sqrt{N_0}.$$
(13)
Therefore the Fourier expansion (10) can be decomposed

$$\widehat{\psi }=\frac{\sqrt{N_0}}{\sqrt{V}\sqrt{2ϵ_0}}e^{iϵ_0t}+\widehat{\psi }^{}$$
(14)
where the classical field

$$\varphi _0=\frac{\sqrt{N_0}}{\sqrt{V}\sqrt{2ϵ_0}}e^{iϵ_0t}$$
(15)
represents the condensate of the particles of zero momentum and the operator $`\widehat{\psi }^{}`$ referring to the remaining non condensed particles is considered as a small perturbation.

Let us note that we have not fixed the arbitrary constant $`ϵ_0`$. Since $`\varphi _0`$ given by (15) must be a classical solution of the equation (9), $`ϵ_0`$, supposed positive, is fixed by

$$n_0=\frac{ϵ_0(ϵ_0^2m^2)}{\lambda }$$
(16)
where

$$n_0=\frac{N_0}{V}$$
(17)
is the constant density.

Let us remark that we consider a gas of bosons at low energy. More precisely it is a relativistic gas but a weakly relativistic gas where creation and destruction of antibosons are negligible. Of course we could also consider the symmetrical situation of a weakly relativistic gas of antibosons living in an antimatter world. In this case the constraint is $`Q=N_0`$ where $`N_0`$ is the number of antibosons, the condensation would be on the zero mode of the antiparticles and the classical field representing the antiparticle condensate would be given by (15) with opposite phase.

The generalisation of the Bogoliubov approximation to the case of non uniform and time dependent configurations is given by (8) where the classical field $`\varphi `$, which represents the condensate, verifies the equation (9). This completes the comparison with the non relativistic theory (cf. for example ).

## 3 Minimum of energy at fixed conserved charge

In this section we show that the homogeneous solution (15) and (16) realises the minimum of energy when the number of particles is fixed.

It will be convenient to write the classical complex field $`\varphi (x)`$ in polar form:

$$\varphi (x)=F(x)e^{iS(x)}.$$
(18)
The Lagrangian (6) becomes

$$=_\mu F^\mu FF^2_\mu S^\mu SV(F^2)$$
(19)
and the Euler-Lagrange equations take the form

$$\frac{_\mu ^\mu F}{F}+_\mu S^\mu S+V^{}(F^2)=0$$
(20)
where $`V^{}(F^2)`$ is the derivative $`\frac{dV}{dF^2}`$,

$$_\mu (F^2^\mu S)=0.$$
(21)
The 4-current and the energy density are given respectively by

$$j_\mu =i(\varphi ^{}_\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi ^{}\varphi )=2F^2_\mu S$$
(22)
and

$$=(_0F)^2+F^2(_0S)^2+(F)^2+F^2(S)^2+V(F^2).$$
(23)
Let us introduce the conjugate momenta of the fields

$$\pi _F=\frac{}{F_{,0}}=2_0F$$
(24)
and

$$\pi _S=\frac{}{S_{,0}}=2F^2_0S.$$
(25)
The charge and the Hamiltonian can be respectively written

$$Q=_Vj^0d^3x=_V2F^2_0Sd^3x=_V\pi _Sd^3x$$
(26)
and

$$H=_V(\frac{1}{4}\pi _F^2+\frac{1}{4}\frac{\pi _S^2}{F^2}+(F)^2+F^2(S)^2+V(F^2))d^3x.$$
(27)
The extremum of the energy $`H`$, when the conserved charge $`Q`$ is fixed by the constant $`N_0`$, is determined by the variation

$$\delta \left(H\mu (QN_0)\right)=0$$
(28)
where $`\mu `$ is a Lagrange multiplier. The variation on $`\pi _F`$, $`\pi _S`$, $`F`$, $`S`$, gives respectively

$$\pi _F=0,$$
(29)
$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{\pi _S}{F^2}+\mu =0,$$
(30)
that is

$$F=F(𝐱),$$
(31)
$$S=\mu t+S_0(𝐱),$$
(32)
and implies that these functions are solutions of the equations (20), (21).

Bekenstein and Guendelman  show that this type of solution is a local energy minimum within its sector of fixed charge. In particular the homogeneous solution (15) and (16) belongs to this class of solutions with $`\mu =ϵ_0`$ and realises the minimum of energy when the conserved charge is fixed by the number $`N_0`$ of particles, that is

$$H=\frac{3}{4}N_0ϵ_0+\frac{1}{4}N_0\frac{m^2}{ϵ_0}.$$
(33)
We can show that (33) is effectively the energy minimum as follows. A solution of (28) can be written as a perturbation of the homogeneous solution (15), (16):

$$F=\sqrt{\frac{n_0}{2ϵ_0}}+f(𝐱),$$
(34)
$$S=ϵ_0t+S_0(𝐱)$$
(35)
where $`f(𝐱)`$ is constrained by

$$_V\left(2\sqrt{\frac{n_0}{2ϵ_0}}f(𝐱)+f^2(𝐱)\right)d^3x=0$$
(36)
in order to maintain $`Q=N_0`$.

If we introduce (34) and (35) in (27), several terms are canceled by using (36) and we obtain finally

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}N_0ϵ_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}N_0{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{ϵ_0}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _V}\left((f(𝐱))^2+(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n_0}{2ϵ_0}}}+f(𝐱))^2(S_0(𝐱))^2+\lambda \left(2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n_0}{2ϵ_0}}}f(𝐱)+f^2(𝐱)\right)^2\right)d^3x`$ (37)
The integral on the right hand side is obviously positive therefore (33) is the minimum with $`Q=N_0`$.

## 4 Fluid description

We shall express the modulus $`F(x)`$ of the field in the form

$$F^2(x)=\frac{n(x)}{2h(x)}.$$
(38)
Below it will turn out that $`n(x)`$ is the proper density of the particles and $`h(x)`$ the enthalpy per particle in the fluid approximation. The expression (38) can be suggested by the homogeneous solution (15) where $`\frac{N_0}{V}=n_0`$ is the constant density and $`ϵ_0`$ an energy scale fixed by the relation (16).

The 4-gradient of the phase $`_\mu S`$ can be written as a covector $`C_\mu `$ in terms of a unit 4-vector $`u^\mu `$:

$$C_\mu =_\mu S=hu_\mu $$
(39)
hence from (38) the 4-current (22) takes the hydrodynamics form:

$$j_\mu =nu_\mu $$
(40)
where we interpret $`n`$ (if it is positive) as the proper density and $`u^\mu `$ as the velocity 4-vector of the fluid.

From (39) we deduce also

$$_\mu C_\nu _\nu C_\mu =0$$
(41)
and

$$C_\mu C^\mu =h^2$$
(42)
Equation (21) is the familiar continuity equation

$$_\mu j^\mu =0.$$
(43)
In equation (20) the term $`\frac{_\mu ^\mu F}{F}`$ can be neglected if $`F`$ varies slowly compared to $`S`$. This term is analogous to the “quantum pressure” $`\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt{n}}`$ in the non relativistic theory .

Let us look at this approximation more closely. The equation (20) takes the form

$$_\mu S^\mu S+V^{}(F^2)=0,$$
(44)
hence we have

$$C^\mu C_\mu =m^2+\lambda \frac{n}{h}$$
(45)
which combined with (42) gives

$$n=\frac{h(h^2m^2)}{\lambda }.$$
(46)
This relation $`n(h)`$ is identical with the relation $`n_0(ϵ_0)`$ given by (16), but (46) is valid within the approximation considered here.

The equations (41),(42),(43) and

$$j_\mu =\frac{n(h)}{h}C_\mu $$
(47)
are the relativistic equations of a perfect isentropic irrotational fluid ( cf.  and  where these equations appear in the same notations). For the most general framework in relativistic hydrodynamics (multicomponent fluids, superfluids), the reader is refered to  and .)

The nature of $`h`$ is now clear. It is the enthalpy per particle (with the mass energy $`m`$ included). The equation (46) is the equation of state which is automatically imposed.

If the quantities $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ designate respectively the proper energy density and the pressure, the enthalpy per particle can be written

$$h=\frac{\rho +p}{n}.$$
(48)
Since the entropy is zero we have

$$dp=ndh$$
(49)
The equations (48) and (49) define $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ in function of $`h`$ and $`n`$. (49) combined with (46) can be integrated:

$$p=\frac{(h^2m^2)^2}{4\lambda }=\lambda F^4(x).$$
(50)
The velocity of sound $`v_s=\sqrt{dp/d\rho }`$ is given by

$$v_s^2=\frac{n(h)}{hn^{}(h)}=\frac{h^2m^2}{3h^2m^2}<\frac{1}{3}.$$
(51)
We remark that $`v_s^21/3`$ when $`m0`$ which is the the correct ultrarelativistic limit.

The expressions(48) and (50) can also be obtained by identifying the energy-momentum tensor of (19) (in which the derivatives $`_\mu F`$ are neglected), that is

$$T_{\mu \nu }=2F^2_\mu S_\nu S+\eta _{\mu \nu }(F^2_\rho S^\rho SV(F^2))$$
(52)
with the perfect fluid energy-momentum tensor. Finally we notice that the approximate equations can be obtained from a generic Lagrangian proposed by Carter  to describe the irrotational fluid in a condensate:

$$=\frac{1}{2}F^2_\mu S^\mu S𝒰(F).$$
(53)
In our case:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒰(F)=\frac{1}{2}(m^2F^2+\lambda F^4).\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(54)
## 5 Cylindrical vortex

### 5.1 Vortex solution of the fluid approximation

It is convenient to begin with the approximate theory governed by the equations (41), (42), (43) and (47) with the equation of state of the fluid (46).

We know (cf. , , ) that in cylindrical coordinates

$$ds^2=dt^2+dz^2+dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2$$
(55)
a stationary cylindrical solution is given by

$$C_\mu =(E,L,0,M)$$
(56)
where $`E`$, $`L`$, $`M`$ are the three constants associated with the three symmetries. By a Lorentz transformation along $`z`$ we can always choose $`L=0`$ and have a circular flow.

The enthalpy $`h`$ is a function of $`r`$ given by

$$h^2=C^\mu C_\mu =E^2L^2\frac{M^2}{r^2}.$$
(57)
The equation of state of the fluid (46) yields two values $`h=0`$ and $`h=m`$ for which $`n`$ vanishes. When we move from the exterior toward the center of the vortex, $`h(r)`$ is decreasing; $`h`$ is always larger than $`m`$, so $`n`$ vanishes first at $`h=m`$ which determines the radius

$$r_0=\frac{M}{\sqrt{E^2L^2m^2}}$$

of the core of the vortex. Below this value $`n`$ becomes negative, which is meaningless in this approximation of classical fluid. Let us observe that with a familiar polytropic fluid the core is empty, $`n`$ is zero. The sound velocity vanishes also on the radius $`r_0`$.

We shall now suppose for simplicity that we have a circular flow with $`L=0`$. Using (46), (56), (57), we write the wave function of the vortex of the approximate equations:

$$\varphi =\left(\frac{E^2\frac{M^2}{r^2}m^2}{2\lambda }\right)^{1/2}e^{i(Et+M\theta )}$$
(58)
where we have suppressed an undetermined constant phase.

To make this wave function single-valued, $`M`$ must be an integer, noted $`\nu `$. The domain of validity of (58) is $`rr_0`$ where

$$r_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{E^2m^2}}$$
(59)
is the core radius for $`\nu =1`$. The length $`r_0`$ sets the limit below which we cannot neglect the effect of the quantum term.

It is immediate to write the velocity of the circular flow

$$v=\frac{\nu }{Er}.$$

Let $`v_0`$ be this velocity at $`r=r_0`$ for $`\nu =1`$, we have:

$$E=\frac{m}{\sqrt{1v_0^2}}.$$
(60)
### 5.2 Vortex solution of the exact theory

A vortex solution of the exact equations (20) and (21) must verify (41), (42), (43) and (47) whose stationary cylindrical solution is always given by (56) and (57). The relation between $`n`$ and $`h`$ is no longer (46) but $`n`$ is a function of $`r`$ and $`F^2=\frac{n(r)}{2h(r)}`$ is also a function of $`r`$. So the vortex $`\varphi =F\mathrm{exp}iS`$ is determined (with $`L=0`$) by

$$S=Et+\nu \theta $$
(61)
and by the the differential equation for $`F(r)`$ deduced from (20):

$$\frac{1}{r}_r(r_rF(r))\frac{\nu ^2}{r^2}F(r)+(E^2m^2)F(r)2\lambda F^3(r)=0$$
(62)
This type of equation has been discussed in the literature many times (see for example ). Analytical solutions are not kown, but it is easy to discuss its asymptotic properties for $`r0`$ and $`r\mathrm{}`$ and to compare with the solution of the fluid approximation. The presence of the term $`\nu ^2F/r^2`$ means that $`F(r)`$ must tend to zero when $`r0`$ if the energy in the volume $`V`$ has to be finite. For small $`r`$ the cubic term $`2\lambda F^3`$ is the smallest and can be neglected, the solution is the Bessel function

$$F(r)=AJ_\nu [(E^2m^2)^{1/2}r]$$
(63)
as $`r0`$.

As $`r\mathrm{}`$ the first two terms of (62) cancel:

$$F(r)=F_0=\sqrt{\frac{E^2m^2}{2\lambda }}.$$
(64)
An approximation to the solution is obtained by matching the functions (63) and (64) and their derivatives. Let $`r=a_0`$ be the radius of the junction. The constant A is fixed by the continuity of $`F`$ at $`r=a_0`$ (we are not concerned by this value) and $`a_0`$ by the continuity of the derivative $`\frac{dF}{dr}(a_0)`$:

$$J_\nu ^{}[(E^2m^2)^{1/2}a_0]=0.$$
(65)
So $`a_0`$ is given in term of the first zero of $`J_\nu ^{}`$, let say $`z_\nu `$. For the winding number $`\nu =1`$, $`z_1=1.84`$. The radius $`a_0`$ of the junction, which is naturally interpreted as the radius of the vortex, is given by

$$a_0=\frac{1.84}{\sqrt{E^2m^2}}.$$
(66)
We observe that $`r_0`$ the radius of the core of the vortex in the fluid approximation and $`a_0`$ differ only in a numerical factor close to unity, they are typically of the same order of magnitude. The length scale $`a_0r_0`$ is of the order of the so called “healing length” . This result indicates that the fluid approximation is a good practical model for the study of the vortices in a relativistic Bose gas condensate.

## 6 Kelvin waves on the cylindrical vortex

We consider now a generic perturbation of the vortex $`\varphi =F\mathrm{exp}(iS)`$ determined by (61) and (62):

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\varphi +\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi e^{iS}(F+\mathrm{\Delta }F+iF\mathrm{\Delta }S).$$
(67)
Substituting (67) in the Euler-Lagrange equations and assuming that the perturbation is small, we can linearise in $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ andin $`F\mathrm{\Delta }S`$. Then it is possible to expand $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ and $`F\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ in wave modes and to consider each mode separately:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F=M(r)\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+qz+\overline{\nu }\theta ),$$
(68)
$$F\mathrm{\Delta }S=N(r)\mathrm{sin}(\omega t+qz+\overline{\nu }\theta ).$$
(69)
$`M(r)`$ and $`N(r)`$ verify the linear equations

$$M^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{r}M^{}+(E^2+\omega ^2q^26\lambda F^2m^2)M\frac{1}{r^2}[(\overline{\nu }^2+\nu ^2)M+2\overline{\nu }\nu N]+2E\omega N=0,$$
(70)
$$N^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{r}N^{}+(E^2+\omega ^2q^22\lambda F^2m^2)N\frac{1}{r^2}[(\overline{\nu }^2+\nu ^2)N+2\overline{\nu }\nu M]+2E\omega M=0,$$
(71)
We can also  introduce equivalently

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F+iF\mathrm{\Delta }S=H_+(r)\mathrm{exp}i(\omega t+qz+\overline{\nu }\theta )+H_{}(r)\mathrm{exp}i(\omega t+qz+\overline{\nu }\theta )$$
(72)
with

$$H_+(r)=\frac{M(r)+N(r)}{2},H_{}(r)=\frac{M(r)N(r)}{2}$$
(73)
which verify the linear equations:

$$\frac{1}{r}(rH_\pm ^{})^{}+[(E\pm \omega )^2q^2\frac{(\nu \pm \overline{\nu })^2}{r^2}]H_\pm =(m^2+4\lambda F^2)H_\pm +2\lambda F^2H_{}$$
(74)
Since we are interested in the small motion of the central line of the vortex, let us concetrate in the neighbourhood of the origine. For small $`r`$, $`F(r)`$ is given by (63) hence

$$F(r)Ar^\nu .$$
(75)
We can neglect the two last termes of the r.h.s. of Eqs.(74) which are approximed by Bessel equations whose the solutions are

$$H_\pm =BJ_{|\nu \pm \overline{\nu }|}[((E\pm \omega )^2q^2m^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}r]r^{|\nu \pm \overline{\nu }|}$$
(76)
The center of the perturbed vortex is determined by the zero of the solution $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ and since $`F(r)`$ vanishes at the origin, Eq.(67) requires that at least one of the functions $`H_\pm `$ is different of zero at the origin. Suppose it is $`H_+`$, we must have

$$\nu +\overline{\nu }=0$$
(77)
and consequently $`H_{}r^{2\nu }`$ is negligible. Hence near the origin we get

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\mathrm{exp}i(Et+\nu \theta )\left(Ar^\nu +H_+(r)\mathrm{exp}i(\omega t+qz+\overline{\nu }\theta )\right).$$
(78)
Let the constant $`B=a^\nu A`$, eq. (78) becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=A\mathrm{exp}i(Et)\left(r^\nu e^{i\nu \theta }a^\nu \mathrm{exp}i(\omega t+qz)\right).$$
(79)
In the case $`\nu =1`$ the cancellation of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ is obtained for

$$r=a,\theta =\omega t+qz$$
(80)
which is the helical motion of the center of the vortex, that is the Kelvin waves.

Let us return to the equations (70) and (71). If $`E=0`$ and if we change $`m^2`$ into $`m^2`$, they are identical to the corresponding equations for the global strings of . We can verify that for $`\nu =1`$, $`\overline{\nu }=1`$, $`\omega =0`$ and $`q=0`$ there is an exact solution:

$$M(r)=F^{}(r),N(r)=\frac{F(r)}{r}.$$
(81)
In the following we shall have always $`\nu =\overline{\nu }=1`$ since we are interested in Kelvin waves and we shall use non dimensional variables.

Let

$$y=\frac{r}{r_0},$$
(82)
$$F(r)=F_0f(\frac{r}{r_0})=F_0f(y)$$
(83)
where $`r_0`$ and $`F_0`$ are given respectively by (59) and (64).

The equation (62) becomes the standard equation

$$f^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{y}f^{}+(1\frac{1}{y^2})ff^3=0.$$
(84)
For large $`y`$ the solution is

$$f(y)=1\frac{1}{2y^2}\frac{9}{8y^4}\frac{161}{16y^6}+\mathrm{},$$
(85)
for small $`y`$ we have

$$f(y)=ky+O(y^3)$$
(86)
where $`k`$ is a constant which can be obtained numerically.

From the equations (68) and (69) we have naturally

$$M(r)=F_0\overline{M}(y)andN(r)=F_0\overline{N}(y).$$
(87)
We introduce also $`\overline{\omega }=\omega r_0`$, $`\overline{q}=qr_0`$, $`\overline{E}=Er_0`$, $`\overline{m}=mr_0`$, $`t=r_0\overline{t}`$, $`z=r_0\overline{z}`$. The equations (70) and (71) becomes:

$$\overline{M}^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{y}\overline{M}^{}+(\overline{\omega }^2\overline{q}^2+13f^2(y))\overline{M}\frac{2}{y^2}(\overline{M}\overline{N})+2\overline{E}\overline{\omega }\overline{N}=0,$$
(88)
$$\overline{N}^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{y}\overline{N}^{}+(\overline{\omega }^2\overline{q}^2+1f^2(y))\overline{N}\frac{2}{y^2}(\overline{N}\overline{M})+2\overline{E}\overline{\omega }\overline{M}=0$$
(89)
Since $`\nu =\overline{\nu }=1`$ the solution of these equations can express the deplacement of the vortex. This is the case of the exact solution:

$$\overline{M}_0=f^{}(y),\overline{N}_0=\frac{f(y)}{y}$$
(90)
obtained for $`\overline{\omega }=\overline{q}=0`$.

We can now examine the solutions of Eqs. (88) and (89) and compute the frequency $`\overline{\omega }`$ in the limit $`\overline{q}0`$ of the long wavelength oscillations. To solve the equations we shall follow the method of “matched asymptotic expansions” used by Roberts and Grant .

We consider first the solution in the inner cylindrical region of radius $`y`$ centred on the $`oz`$ axis in the form of an expansion about the exact solution (90). This solution is then examined for $`y\mathrm{}`$. We consider also the solution in the outer region caracterized by a new stretched coordinate $`s=\overline{q}y`$ which is of order unity for large $`y`$. This solution is examined in the limit $`s0`$. Finally the two asymptotic solutions ($`y\mathrm{}`$ and $`s0`$) are matched in an overlap domain, where both the inner and outer expansion are valid.

From this matching we shall obtain the dispersion relation of the Kelvin waves.

### 6.1 Interior solution

We expand $`\overline{M}`$ and $`\overline{N}`$ around the exact solution $`\overline{M}_0`$ and $`\overline{N}_0`$:

$$\overline{M}=\overline{M}_0+\overline{q}^2\overline{M}_1+\mathrm{}$$
(91)
$$\overline{N}=\overline{N}_0+\overline{q}^2\overline{N}_1+\mathrm{}.$$
(92)
Then, substituting (91) and (92) into the equations (88) and (89) we obtain, by equating the coefficients of $`\overline{q}^2`$

$$\overline{M}_1^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{y}\overline{M}_1^{}+\left(1\frac{2}{y^2}3f^2(y)\right)\overline{M}_1+\frac{2}{y^2}\overline{N}_1=f^{}(y)2\overline{E}\omega _1\frac{f(y)}{y},$$
(93)
$$\overline{N}_1^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{y}\overline{N}_1^{}+\left(1\frac{2}{y^2}f^2(y)\right)\overline{N}_1+\frac{2}{y^2}\overline{M}_1=\frac{f(y)}{y}2\overline{E}\omega _1f^{}(y),$$
(94)
with

$$\overline{\omega }=\omega _1\overline{q}^2.$$
(95)
To solve (93) and (94) we substitute $`f(y)`$ by the expansion (85) valid for large $`y`$.

First we search for solutions for the homogeneous system which is transformed in a linear equation of $`4^{th}`$ order in $`\overline{M}_1`$:

$`\overline{M}_1^{(4)}+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{y}}\overline{M}_1^{(3)}+(2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{y^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{y^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{76}{y^6}}+\mathrm{})\overline{M}_1^{\prime \prime }+({\displaystyle \frac{10}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{y^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{380}{y^7}}+\mathrm{})\overline{M}_1^{}`$ (96)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{6}{y^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{18}{y^6}}+\mathrm{})\overline{M}_1=0`$
Infinity is an irregular singular point of rank $`0`$ of this equation. The roots of the characteristic equation are $`\pm \sqrt{2}`$ and $`0`$. The root $`0`$ has a multiplicity $`2`$. By applying standard techniques about asymptotic solutions of linear equations , it is possible to obtain asymptotic expansion of four independant solutions:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}g_1=\frac{1}{y^3}+\frac{9}{2y^5}+\frac{483}{8y^7}+\mathrm{}\hfill & & \\ g_2=\frac{1}{y}+\frac{2\mathrm{ln}y}{y^3}+\frac{101}{36y^3}+\frac{9\mathrm{ln}y}{y^5}+\frac{27}{4y^5}+\frac{483\mathrm{ln}y}{4y^7}+\mathrm{}\hfill & & \\ g_3=\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2}y)\frac{1}{\sqrt{y}}(1\frac{5}{8\sqrt{2}y}+\frac{65}{256y^2}\frac{5981}{6144\sqrt{2}y^3}+\frac{181825}{393216y^4}+\mathrm{})\hfill & & \\ g_4=\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2}y)\frac{1}{\sqrt{y}}(1+\frac{5}{8\sqrt{2}y}+\frac{65}{256y^2}+\frac{5981}{6144\sqrt{2}y^3}+\frac{181825}{393216y^4}+\mathrm{})\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(97)
From these solutions $`\overline{M}_1`$ we deduce the corresponding solutions $`\overline{N}_1`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f_1=\frac{1}{y}\frac{1}{2y^3}\frac{9}{8y^5}+\mathrm{}\hfill & & \\ f_2=y+\frac{2\mathrm{ln}y}{y}+\frac{65}{36y}\frac{\mathrm{ln}y}{y^3}\frac{77}{18y^3}\frac{9\mathrm{ln}y}{4y^5}+\mathrm{}\hfill & & \\ f_3=\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2}y)\frac{1}{\sqrt{y}}(\frac{1}{y^2}+\frac{37}{8\sqrt{2}y^3}\frac{2945}{256y^4}+\mathrm{})\hfill & & \\ f_4=\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2}y)\frac{1}{\sqrt{y}}(\frac{1}{y^2}\frac{37}{8\sqrt{2}y^3}\frac{2945}{256y^4}+\mathrm{})\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(98)
From the solutions (97) and (98) we can construct the fundamental matrix of the homogeneous system. Then by the variation-of-constant formula, we obtain the solution of the inhomogeneous system (93) and (94). This solution depends on four arbitrary constants. By choosing two of them we can suppress in the solution the exponentials $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm \sqrt{2}y)`$ which are not compatible with the exterior solution. Finally, we obtain:

$$\overline{M}_1=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{ln}y}{y}+\frac{1}{y}(A_1+\overline{E}\omega _1)+\mathrm{},$$
(99)
$$\overline{N}_1=\frac{1}{2}y\mathrm{ln}y+A_1y+\frac{1}{2y}\mathrm{ln}^2y+\frac{\mathrm{ln}y}{y}\left(2A_1+2\overline{E}\omega _1+\frac{3}{4}\right)+\frac{A_2}{y}+\mathrm{}$$
(100)
where $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are the two remaining constants which can be determined by matching the interior solution and the exterior solution.

By combining the equations (93) and (94) we can obtain an integral relation which will be useful later in determining $`\omega `$. If we multiply (93) by $`yf^{}(y)`$ and (94) by $`f(y)`$ and add the two resulting expressions, using Eq. (84) we obtain:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}f\overline{N}_1+f\overline{N}_1^{}f^{}\overline{N}_1+yf^{}\overline{M}_1^{}yf^3\overline{M}_1+yf\overline{M}_1+f^{}\overline{M}_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}f\overline{M}_1\right)=`$
$`2\overline{E}\omega _1(f^2)^{}+y(f^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}f^2`$ (101)
We integrate from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and we obtain after substituting the value of $`\overline{M}_1`$, $`\overline{N}_1`$ and $`f`$ for $`y\mathrm{}`$ and $`y0`$:

$$2A_1+\frac{1}{2}=2\overline{E}\omega _1+\left\{_0^{\mathrm{}}y\left(f^{}\right)^2𝑑y+\underset{A\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(_0^A\frac{1}{y}f^2𝑑y\mathrm{ln}A\right)\right\}$$
(102)
In obtaining this relation, $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{}`$ has been canceled from the r.h.s. and the l.h.s. If $`\overline{E}=1`$ the relation (102) is identical to the corresponding non relativistic relation of Grant . The numerical value of the integral part is known:

$$\left\{_0^{\mathrm{}}y\left(f^{}\right)^2𝑑y+\underset{A\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(_0^A\frac{1}{y}f^2𝑑y\mathrm{ln}A\right)\right\}=0.115$$
(103)
### 6.2 Exterior solution

Let us return to the equations (88) and (89) and expand them for large $`y`$. Replacing $`y`$ by $`\frac{s}{\overline{q}}`$ where $`s`$ is a streched coordinate since $`\overline{q}`$ is small, the equations become:

$`\overline{q}^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\overline{M}}{ds^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}^2}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{M}}{ds}}+\left[\omega _1^2\overline{q}^4\overline{q}^2+13\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}^2}{s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{q}^4}{s^4}}\right)\right]\overline{M}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}^2}{s^2}}\left(\overline{M}\overline{N}\right)+2\overline{E}\omega _1\overline{q}^2\overline{N}=0,`$ (104)
$`\overline{q}^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\overline{N}}{ds^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}^2}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{N}}{ds}}+\left[\omega _1^2\overline{q}^4\overline{q}^2+1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}^2}{s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{q}^4}{s^4}}\right)\right]\overline{N}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}^2}{s^2}}\left(\overline{N}\overline{M}\right)+2\overline{E}\omega _1\overline{q}^2\overline{M}=0.`$ (105)
Let us expand $`\overline{M}`$ and $`\overline{N}`$ in series of $`\overline{q}^2`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{M}=M_{E1}+\overline{q}^2M_{E2}+\mathrm{}\hfill & & \\ \overline{N}=N_{E1}+\overline{q}^2N_{E2}+\overline{q}^4N_{E3}+\mathrm{}\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(106)
Substituting into (6.2) and equating successive powers of $`\overline{q}^2`$ we obtain for the powers zero and two of $`\overline{q}`$, respectively

$$M_{E1}=0,$$
(107)
$$M_{E2}=\left(\frac{1}{s^2}+\omega _1\overline{E}\right)N_{E1}.$$
(108)
Substituting (106) into (6.2) we find that the equality is identically satisfied at the zero order of $`\overline{q}`$. For the orders $`\overline{q}^2`$ and $`\overline{q}^4`$ we obtain, respectively:

$$N_{E1}^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{s}N_{E1}^{}\left(1+\frac{1}{s^2}\right)N_{E1}=0,$$
(109)
$$N_{E2}^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{s}N_{E2}^{}\left(1+\frac{1}{s^2}\right)N_{E2}=\left(\omega _1^2+\frac{2}{s^4}\right)N_{E1}\left(\frac{2}{s^2}+2\overline{E}\omega _1\right)M_{E2}.$$
(110)
Let us note that the coefficient multiplying $`N_{E3}`$ is zero.

The solution of (109) bounded at infinity is the modified Bessel function of the first order $`K_1(s)`$. Its expansion about $`s=0`$ is:

$$N_{E1}=C\left\{\frac{1}{s}+\frac{s}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{2}\frac{s}{4}(12\gamma )+\frac{s^3}{16}\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{2}\frac{s^3}{32}\left(\frac{5}{2}2\gamma \right)+\mathrm{}\right\}$$
(111)
where $`C`$ is an arbitrary parameter and $`\gamma `$ the Euler contant.

From (108) we have $`M_{E2}`$. Now the r.h.s. of Eq. (110) is known, since (111) is the solution of the homogeneous part of the equation (110), by the variation-of-constant formula we obtain the solution of (110):

$`N_{E2}=C\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(s/2)}{2s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}s}{s}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+\gamma +2\overline{E}\omega _1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}({\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(2)}{2}})+\mathrm{}\}`$ (112)
From (106), (107), (108), (111), and (6.2), we have:

$$\overline{M}=\overline{q}^2C\left\{\frac{1}{s^3}+\frac{1}{2s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{2}+\frac{1}{s}\left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\gamma }{2}+\overline{E}\omega _1\right)+s\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{2}\left(\frac{1}{16}+\frac{\overline{E}\omega _1}{2}\right)\right\},$$
(113)
$`\overline{N}=C\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{4}}(12\gamma )+{\displaystyle \frac{s^3}{16}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{s^3}{32}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}2\gamma \right)+\mathrm{}\right\}`$
$`+\overline{q}^2C\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}s}{s}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+\gamma +2\overline{E}\omega _1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}({\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(2)}{4}})+\mathrm{}\}.`$ (114)
### 6.3 Matching

The interior solution for $`y\mathrm{}`$ must match the exterior one for $`s0`$ in an overlap domain. For the comparison we express the inner solution in term of $`s`$:

$$\overline{M}=\overline{q}^3\left\{\frac{1}{s^3}+\frac{1}{2s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{2}+\frac{1}{s}\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\overline{q}+A_1+\overline{E}\omega _1\right)\right\}+\mathrm{},$$
(115)
$`\overline{N}=\overline{q}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}+s\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\overline{q}+A_1\right)\right\}`$ (116)
$`+\overline{q}^3\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}s}{s}}(\mathrm{ln}2\mathrm{ln}\overline{q}+2A_1+2\overline{E}\omega _1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^22}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2\overline{q}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\overline{q}(2A_1+2\overline{E}\omega _1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}})+A_2)+\mathrm{}\}.`$
A comparison of (113), (6.2) with (115), (116) for small $`s`$ shows that

$$C=\overline{q},2A_1+\frac{1}{2}=\gamma \mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{\overline{q}}.$$
(117)
It is surprising that these two equalities are identical to the corresponding relations of Grant . In fact, (117) is satisfied at the order $`\overline{q}`$ and $`\overline{q^3}`$ for the three first order of $`s`$ in $`\overline{M}`$ and $`\overline{N}`$.

Then using (95), (102), (103) and (117) we obtain

$$\overline{E}\overline{\omega }=\frac{\overline{q}^2}{2}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{\overline{q}}\gamma 0.115\right).$$
(118)
If we return to the physical variables, we have the dispersion relation:

$$\omega =\frac{q^2}{2E}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{qr_0}\gamma 0.115\right),$$
(119)
that is, with (60):

$$\omega =\sqrt{1v_0^2}\frac{q^2}{2m}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{qr_0}\gamma 0.115\right),$$
(120)
where $`r_0`$ is the core radius (59) and $`v_0`$ the velocity at $`r=r_0`$ of the relativistic classical fluid.

## 7 Conclusion

In the begining of this paper we consider the relations between the quantum nature of the condensate of an almost ideal relativistic Bose gas and its phenomenological properties as a relativistic superfluid. The quantum origin of the description imposes inevitably the equation of state of the fluid (46) which gives an acceptable velocity of sound. Incidently, we note that if we choose a potential with spontaneously broken symmetry (by changing $`m^2`$ into $`m^2`$ in (7)) the velocity of sound would always be greater than $`1/\sqrt{3}`$.

The study of a cylindrical vortex has shown that this equation of state makes sense outside the core of the vortex whose the radius is approximately of the order of the healing length which indicates the onset of the quantum effects.

Concerning the Kelvin waves, it is surprising that the mathematical calculations are so close the non relativistic ones. Yet the field equation differs from the Gross-Pitaevskii equation essentially in the second time derivative. Consequently the main equations (88), (89) are different from the corresponding ones of . The new dispersion formula (120) differs from the nonrelativistic one by the relativistic factor $`\sqrt{1v_0^2}`$ where $`v_0`$ represents the velocity of the fluid in $`r=r_0`$ the radius of the core of the vortex.

It is interesting to compare with the spinning global strings which behave like vortices in a superfluid medium. Ben-Ya’acov  has given a covariant dispersion relation of the Kelvin waves. In the rest frame of the materiel medium, for an unit winding number and $`\omega <q`$, using (4), it can be express as

$$\omega =\frac{q^2(1v_1^2)}{2E}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{2}{q\sqrt{1v_1^2}\delta }\gamma 0.115\right),$$
(121)
where $`v_1=\frac{\omega }{q}`$ is the velocity along $`z`$ of the Lorentz frame in which the pertubed vortex is an helix at rest. $`E`$ is not any more given by (60) but tends towards the particle mass in the non relativistic limit.

The formula (120) and (121) are different but, both are compatible at weak energy with the Grant formula (2). However it is worth stressing that (120) is certainly the better dispersion relation for a weakly relativistic almost ideal Bose gas. The superfluid medium concerned by the dispersion relation (121) is unusual as the velocity of sound is greater than $`1/\sqrt{3}`$

To conclude we note that relativity does not seem very useful in the laboratory experiments on the condensates but could be of interest in astrophysics.

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge discussions with Hector Giacomini, Bernard Linet and Stam Nicolis.


format: text

text:
# A note on separability criteria for multipartite state

## Abstract

The recent proposed realignment separability criterion for mixed is analyzed. We identify the essential part of this criterion is a swap operator followed by a partial transposition. Then we analyze the separability criterion of permutation indices of the density matrix for multipartite state which is a generalization of the realignment criterion. We give a method to solve the equivalence problem of the separability criterion of permutation indices of the density matrix. For tripartite state, we show the non-trivial separability criteria are either partial transposition criterion or realignment criterion.

Since the partial transposition criterion for separability of mixed states proposed by Peres  and proved to be necessary and sufficient condition for $`2\times 2`$ and $`2\times 3`$ systems by Horodeckis (M,P,R), no other operational separability criterion appeared for a long time. Recently, a new criterion for separability (realignment criterion) was found by Rudolph and Chen and Wu. This criterion was shown to be strong enough to detect genuinely tripartite entanglement, and generalized to multipartite system. And a generalized partial transposition was also proposed to multipartite system.

In this short note, we point out that the essential part of realignment criterion for separability is actually a one side swap operator plus a partial tranposition. Then it can be shown that for bipartite and tripartite systems, the non-trivial criteria for separability are only partial transposition criterion or realignment criterion. But for 4 or more-partite system, the partial transposition criterion and the realignment criterion combined together can give new separability criteria. For multipartite system, it was pointed out that any permutation of indices of density matrix leads to separability criterion. Though many of them are non-equivalent to each other, but the problem of equivalence of those criteria is still open. In this short note, we point out that we do not need to perform all permutation of indices of density matrix to check whether the system is entangled or not, the one side swap operators followed by partial transpositions will provide all non-trivial criteria for separability. Instead of the swap operator, any non-local operators which can keep the tensor product form followed by a partial transposition will provide a separability criterion.

The original realignment separability criterion  can be described as follows: For a separable bipartitie density matrix $`\rho _{AB}`$, the trace norm of the matrix $`(\rho _{AB})`$ which is obtained by performing the realignment of entries of the density matrix $`\rho _{AB}`$ should satisfy $`(\rho _{AB})1`$, where the trace norm is defined as the sum of singular values of the matrix $`(\rho _{AB})`$. So, if $`(\rho _{AB})>1`$, $`\rho _{AB}`$ is entangled. The realignment of a density matrix act on the basic operators of the from $`|i_1i_1^{}||i_2i_2^{}|`$ leads to $`|i_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}i_2^{}||i_1i_2^{}|`$. This realignment can be realized by the swap operators and partial transposition as follows:

$`|i_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}i_2^{}||i_1i_2^{}|=V_{12}^L\left((|i_1i_1^{}||i_2i_2^{}|)V_{12}^R\right)^{t_2}.`$ (1)
where superindices $`t_2`$ means partial transposition on the second space, $`V_{12}^{L,R}`$ are left (right) hand side of sway operators defined as $`V_{12}=_{jkj^{}k^{}}\delta _{jk^{}}\delta _{j^{}k}|jj^{}||kk^{}|`$, $`j,k^{}=1,\mathrm{},d_2,j^{},k=1,\mathrm{},d_1`$, it is the right hand side swap operator for $`C_{d_1}C_{d_2}`$, and left hand side swap operator for $`C_{d_2}C_{d_1}`$ . We have $`V_{12}^L=(V_{12}^R)^t=(V_{12}^R)^1`$, where $`t`$ means a whole transposition on both the first and second spaces, and we know the swap operators are unitary operators. For Hilbert spaces $`C_{d_1}C_{d_2}`$, if $`d_1=d_2`$, we have $`V_{12}^L=V_{12}^R`$.

We know the singular values of the matrix $`(\rho _{AB})`$ is invariant if we do not act the right hand side swap operator presented in (1). So, we can find the essential part of the realignment separability criterion proposed in Ref. is actually a single side swap operator followed by a partial transposition as presented as follows,

$`\left((|i_1i_1^{}||i_2i_2^{}|)V_{12}^R\right)^{t_2}.`$ (2)
In what follows, we also call a single side swap operator followed by a partial transposition as realignment criterion. It is pointed out in Ref. that any permutation of indices of density matrix lead to separability criterion. It is clear that any permutation of indices of density matrix can be realized by swap operators and partial transpositions. In case that there are a lot of indices permutations, and a lot of them are equivalent though we expect many of them are non-equivalent. We can check explicitly which of them are equivalent or non-equivalent by looking how they can be realized by swap operators and partial transpositions.

For a bipartite system, the permutation of indices of density matrix lead only two non-trivial separability criterion: partial transposition criterion and realignment criterion.

Let’s now analyze the tripartite system. It is known that the realignment criterion can detect genuinely tripartite entanglement. Here we would like to check besides partial transposition criterion and realignment criterion, whether the permutation of indices of density matrix can provide some new separability criteria. The basic operators of the tripartite density matrix is as follows:

$`|i_1i_1^{}||i_2i_2^{}||i_3i_3^{}|.`$ (3)
The partial transposition method $`t_1,t_2,t_3`$ will provide 3 non-equivalent separability criteria. The transposition in 2 Hilbert spaces is equivalent to partial transposition in 1 Hilbert space because the singular values of a matrix are invariant under a whole transposition. Now, let’s see the realignment criteria, we have the following non-equivalent realignment:

$`\left((|i_1i_1^{}||i_2i_2^{}||i_3i_3^{}|)V_{jk}^R\right)^{t_l},`$ (4)
$`l=j\mathrm{or}k,jk=1,2,3.`$ (5)
Here we remark, for bipartite system, after the swap operator $`V_{12}^R`$, partial transposition $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are equivalent in the sense the singular values are the same because $`t_1`$ can be deduced from $`t_2`$ by a whole transpose $`t=t_1t_2`$. For tripartite system, $`V_{jk}^R`$ followed by $`t_j`$ or $`t_k`$ give different results since they cann’t be deduced from each other by a whole transpose. So, we have 6 non-equivalent realignment criteria for tripartite system. Now, let’s see whether we have anything more. Apparently, swap operators themselves can not provide separability criteria. Only the partial transposition can lead to some separability criteria. And the swap operator is unitary, so, we can apply the partial transposition in the final step. The fact that partial transposition in two Hilbert spaces is equivalent partial transposition in only one Hilbert space for tripartite state leads to that we only need to consider the partial transposition in one Hilbert space. After these arguments, we know the only possible new separability criteria left is several swap operators followed by partial transposition in one Hilbert space other than (5). Next, we show that the one side, for example, right hand side, swap operators followed by partial transposition can provide all non-equivalent separability criteria. The argument for tripartite system is also applicable for other multipartite system. For any permutation indices of density matrix, we can move by swap operators, which do not change the singular values, the state $`|i_1,|i_2,|i_3`$ to their original Hilbert spaces $`C_{d_j}`$ either as the form $`|i_j|`$ or $`|i_j^{}|`$. Thus, only right hand side swap operators followed by partial transposition are enough to obtain the form $`|i_j|`$ or $`|i_j^{}|`$ in $`C_{d_j}`$. Finally, we show several right hand side swap operators followed by partial transposition do not lead to new criteria other than (5). We have the following cases

$`(|i_1i_2^{}||i_2i_3^{}||i_3i_1^{}|)^{t_j},`$ (6)
$`(|i_1i_3^{}||i_2i_1^{}||i_3i_2^{}|)^{t_j},`$ (7)
$`j=1,2,3.`$ (8)
It can be checked easily, all these cases are equivalent to the cases (5), for example,

$$(|i_1i_2^{}||i_2i_3^{}||i_3i_1^{}|)^{t_1}$$

is equivalent to the case

$$\left((|i_1i_1^{}||i_2i_2^{}||i_3i_3^{}|)V_{12}^R\right)^{t_1}.$$

For tripartite state, permutation indices of density matrix will provide $`6!1=719`$ possible separability criteria. Here we show only 9 of them are non-equivalent which either are the partial transposition criteria or realignment criteria.

For multipartite system, permutation of indices of density matrix will provide some new separability criteria other than partial transposition criteria or realignment criteria. A simple example for four-partite system is as follows:

$`\left((|i_1i_1^{}||i_2i_2^{}||i_3i_3^{}||i_4i_4^{}|)V_{12}^R\right)^{t_2t_3}.`$ (9)
The permutation of indices of the density matrix is actually a realignment in $`C_{d_1}C_{d_2}`$ plus a partial transposition in $`C_{d_3}`$. This permuation of indices of density matrix can not be realized by solely partial transposition or realignment. A whole transpostion of relation (9) will leads to another realignment in $`C_{d_1}C_{d_2}`$ plus a partial transpostion in $`C_{d_4}`$.

Since permutation indices of density matrix gives a lot of separability criteria. It is necessary to find the non-equivalent criteria as we do for tripartite system. For multiparite system, it is also true that one side, for example, right hand side swap operators followed by partial transposition will give all non-equivalent separability criteria as we argued for tripartite system. For N-partite system, the partial transposition can be limited to $`[N/2]`$ subspaces, where $`[N/2]`$ is the integer part of $`N/2`$.

Next, we present a method to check whether one permutation indices of density matrix is equivalent to another. Since applying swap operators, left or right hand sides, on the matrix obtained by permuation indices does not change the singular values of a matrix, so all forms which can be realized by swap operators are equivalent. We give the following method to check equivalent problem: 1, If the parity change is caused by partial transposition in more than $`[N/2]`$ subspaces, apply a whole transpositon. 2, By swap operators, move all states without parity change to first two parts, and try to keep the original form, for exampel, if we have $`|i_j`$ and $`i_j^{}|`$, let them in the form $`|i_ji_j^{}|`$ and list them in first part, otherwise in alphabet order in the second part like the following

$`|i_{j_1}i_{j_1}^{}|\mathrm{}|i_{j_m}i_{j_m}^{}|`$ (10)
$`|i_{j_{m+1}}i_{j_{m+1}^{}}^{}|\mathrm{}|i_{j_n}i_{j_n^{}}^{}|,`$ (11)
where $`j_{m+1}<j_{m+2}<\mathrm{}<j_n`$, $`j_{m+1}^{}<j_{m+2}^{}<\mathrm{}<j_n^{}`$. We know now the first part indices does not have any change, the second part are caused by realignment. 3, Similary, arrange the states with parity change to third and fourth part, the third part are caused by solely partial transposition while the fourth part are realigment.

$`|i_{j_{n+1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}i_{j_{n+1}}^{}|\mathrm{}|i_{j_k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}i_{j_k}^{}|`$ (12)
$`|i_{j_{k+1}^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}i_{j_{k+1}}^{}|\mathrm{}|i_{j_N}^{}{}_{}{}^{}i_{j_N^{}}^{}|.`$ (13)
After these 3 steps, we can find easily whether two permutation indices are equivalent or not.

One can find the swap operator keep the tensor product form. Instead of the swap operator, if there are any other non-local operators which keep the tensor product form, we essentially can find a new separability criteria by applying these operators solely or followed by partial transposition. However, the swap operator is the only non-local unitary operator which keep the tensor product form. So, the only chance is to find a non-unitary operator which keep the tensor product form. This kind of operator solely can provide a possible separability criterion, and apply the non-unitary operator followed by partial transposition will be another separability criterion. Since partial transposition itself is a non-unitary operator which keeps the tensor product form, we can see that any two, or several operators which keep the tensor product form combined together can provide a separability criterion. In short, any non-unitary operator which keeps the tensor product form is a separability criterion by checking whether the trace norm of the new matrix is larger than 1.

Chen and Wu also generalized their results of realignment criteria from bipartite system to multipartite system. For multipartite system, this generalization is at least as powerful as the permutation indices of the density matrix proposed by Horodeckis (M.P.R) . However, it not clear whether this method is more powerful than the permutation indices method. In this paper we study the equivalence problem of these criteria.

In summary, we analyze the equivalence problem of the recent proposed separability criterion by using the permutation indices of the density matrices. Since permutation indices will provide a lot of separability criteria, it is necessary to identify which of them are equivalent or non-equivalent. Mainly we us the fact that the realignment criterion and the permutation indices method can be realized by two basic operations: swap opterator and partial transposition. And also we point out that any non-unitary operator which keep the tensor product form will provide a separability criterion.

Acknowlegements: The author would like to thank P.Horodecki and K.Matsumoto for very useful discussions. The author also would like to thank K.Chen and L.A.Wu for explaining their work to the author and for communications.


text:
# Derivation of the Euler Equationsfrom Many-body Quantum MechanicsCopyright © 2002 Nachtergaele and Yau. Reproduction of this article in its entirety, by any means, is permitted for non-commercial purposes.

## 1. Introduction

The fundamental laws of non-relativistic microscopic physics are Newton’s and the Schrödinger equation in the classical and the quantum case respectively. These equations are impossible to solve for large systems and macroscopic dynamics is therefore modeled by phenomenological equations such as the Euler or the Navier-Stokes equations. Although the latter were derived centuries ago from continuum considerations, they are in principle consequences of the microscopic physical laws and should be viewed as secondary equations. It was first observed by Morrey  in the fifties that the Euler equations become ‘exact’ in the Euler limit, provided that the solutions to the Newton’s equation are ‘locally’ in equilibrium. Morrey’s original work was far from rigorous and, in particular, the meaning of ‘local equilibrium’ was not clear. It is nevertheless a very original work which led to the later development of the hydrodynamical limits of interacting particle systems. In terms of a rigorous proof along the lines of Morrey’s original argument, however, there has been little progress until the recent work . This long delay is mostly due to a serious lack of tools for analyzing many-body dynamics, in the classical case and even more so in the quantum case.

In this lecture, we will discuss the derivation of the Euler equations from microscopic quantum dynamics. As we want to consider the genuine quantum dynamics for a system with short-range pair interactions, we cannot take a semiclassical limit. Although one-particle quantum dynamics converges to Newtonian dynamics in the limit of infinite mass, this is not the case in the thermodynamic limit, i.e., the heavy-particle limit does not commute with the infinite-number-of-particles limit. This is most clearly seen in the pressure function, for which quantum corrections survive at the macroscopic scale. In fact, one of the conclusions of our work is that under rather general conditions, the pressure function is the only place where the quantum nature of the underlying system, in particular the particle statistics, survives in the Euler limit. At the same time, our derivations also shows that it is the quantum mechanical pressure, without modification, which governs the macroscopic dynamics. A similar result should hold for all systems of macroscopic conservation laws.

The Euler equations have traditionally been derived from the Boltzmann equation both in the classical case and in the quantum case, see Kadanoff and Baym  for the quantum case. Since the Boltzmann equation is valid only in very low density regions, these derivations are not satisfactory, especially in the quantum case where the relationship between the quantum dynamics and the Boltzmann equation is not entirely clear. There were, however, two approaches based directly on quantum dynamics. The first was due to Born and Green , who used an early version of what was later called the BBGKY hierarchy, together with moment methods and some truncation assumptions. A bit later, Irving and Zwanzig  used the Wigner equation, moment methods and truncations to accomplish a similar result. These two approaches rely essentially on the moment method with the Boltzmann equation replaced by the Schrödinger equation. Unlike in the Boltzmann case, where one can do asymptotic analysis to justify this approach, it seems unlikely that this can be done for the Schrödinger dynamics. Therefore, in the present work, we follow a much more direct route to connect the micro- and macroscopic dynamics.

## 2. Schrödinger and Euler dynamics

We begin by considering $`N`$ particles on $`^3`$, evolving according to the Schrödinger equation

$$i_t\psi _t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=H\psi _t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)$$

where the Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}{2}+\underset{1i<jN}{}W(x_ix_j).$$
(2.1)
Here, $`W`$ is a two-body short-ranged super-stable isotropic pair interaction and $`\psi _t(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ is the wave function of particles at time $`t`$. We consider spinless Fermions and thus the state space $`^N`$ is the subspace of antisymmetric functions in $`L^2(^{3N})`$. It is convenient not to fix the total number of particles and to use the second quantization terminology. In fact, it would be extremely cumbersome to work through all arguments without the second quantization formalism. The state space of the particles, called the Fermion Fock space, is thus the direct sum of $`^N`$: $`:=_{N=0}^{\mathrm{}}^N`$.

Define the annihilation and creation operators $`a_x`$ and $`a_x^+`$ by

$`(a_x\mathrm{\Psi })^N(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{N+1}\mathrm{\Psi }^{N+1}(x,x_1,\mathrm{},x_N),`$
$`(a_x^+\mathrm{\Psi })^N(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(1)^{j1}\delta (xx_j)\mathrm{\Psi }^{N1}(x_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{x_j},\mathrm{},x_N),`$
where $`a_x`$ and $`a_x^+`$ are operator-valued distributions and, as usual, $`\widehat{}`$ means “omit”.

The annihilation operator $`a_x`$ is the adjoint of $`a_x^+`$ with respect to the standard inner product of the Fock space with Lebesgue measure $`dx`$, and

$$[a_x,a_y^+]_+:=a_xa_y^++a_xa_y^+=\delta (xy),$$

where $`\delta `$ is the delta distribution. The derivatives of these distributions with respect to the parameter $`x`$ are denoted by $`a_x`$ and $`a_x^+`$. With this notation, we can express the Hamiltonian as $`H=H_0+V`$ where $`H_0=\frac{1}{2}a_x^+a_xdx`$ and $`V=\frac{1}{2}𝑑x𝑑yW(xy)a_x^+a_y^+a_ya_x`$. It is more convenient to put the Schrödinger equation into the operator form, which is sometimes called the Schrödinger-Liouville equation. Denote the density matrix of the state at time $`t`$ by $`\gamma _t`$. Only normal states, which can be represented by density matrices, will be considered in the time evolution. Then the Schrödinger equation is equivalent to $`i_t\gamma _t=\delta _H\gamma _t`$, with $`\delta _H\gamma _t:=[H,\gamma _t]`$ . The conserved quantities of the dynamics are the number of particles , the three components of the momentum and the energy. The local densities of these quantities are denoted by $`𝐮=(u^\mu ),\mu =0,\mathrm{},4`$, and are given by the following expressions:

$`u_x^0=n_x`$ $`=`$ $`a_x^+a_x,`$
$`u_x^j=p_x^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[_ja_x^+a_xa_x^+_ja_x],j=1,2,3,`$ (2.2)
$`u_x^4=h_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_x^+a_x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑yW(xy)a_x^+a_y^+a_ya_x}.`$
The finite volumes, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, will always by three-dimensional tori and, unless otherwise stated, unbounded observables on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will be defined with periodic boundary conditions. E.g., the number of particles in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the total momentum, and the total energy of the particles in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, respectively, are defined by

$$N_\mathrm{\Lambda }=_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑xn_x,P_\mathrm{\Lambda }^j=_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑xp_x^j,j=1,2,3,H_\mathrm{\Lambda }=_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑xh_x.$$

We slightly generalize the definition of the grand canonical Gibbs states to include a parameter for the total momentum of the system: the Lagrange multiplier $`\alpha ^3`$. We will work under the assumption that the temperature and chemical potential are in the one-phase region of the phase diagram of the system under consideration, such that the thermodynamic limit is unique. The infinite volume Gibbs states are then given by the following formula:

$$\omega _{\beta ,\alpha ,\mu }(X)=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }^d}{lim}\frac{\text{Tr}Xe^{\beta (H_{0,\mathrm{\Lambda }}+V_\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha P_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu N_\mathrm{\Lambda })}}{\text{Tr}e^{\beta (H_{0,\mathrm{\Lambda }}+V_\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha P_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu N_\mathrm{\Lambda })}}.$$
(2.3)
It is convenient to denote the parameters $`(\beta ,\alpha ,\mu )`$ by $`𝝀=(\lambda ^\mu ),\mu =0,\mathrm{},4`$ with $`\lambda ^0=\beta \mu ,\lambda ^j=\beta \alpha ^j,\lambda ^4=\beta `$. Define (notice the sign convention)

$$𝝀𝒖=\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{3}{}}\lambda ^\mu u^\mu \lambda ^4u^4\text{and}𝝀,𝒖_\mathrm{\Lambda }=|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^1_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑x𝝀(x)𝒖(x).$$

These notations allow us to give a compact formula for the unique, translation invariant Gibbs state (defined with constant $`𝝀`$), as well as for the states describing local equilibrium (defined with $`x`$-dependent $`𝝀`$):

$$\omega _𝝀=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }^d}{lim}e^{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|𝝀,𝒖_\mathrm{\Lambda }}/Z_\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝝀)$$
(2.4)
where $`Z_\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝝀)`$ is the partition function given by $`Z_\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝝀)=\text{Tr}e^{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|𝝀,𝒖_\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. If we define the pressure, as a function of the constant vector $`𝝀`$, by $`\psi (𝝀)=lim_L\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^1\mathrm{log}Z_\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝝀)`$, then

$$\frac{\psi }{\lambda ^\mu }=\omega _𝝀(u^\mu ).$$
(2.5)
As the states $`\omega _\lambda `$ are translation invariant, we have $`\omega _\lambda (u^\mu )=q^\mu `$. Explicitly,

$$\rho =\omega _\lambda (n_x),𝔮=\omega _\lambda (p_x),e=\omega _\lambda (h_x).$$

Notice that $`𝔮`$ and $`e`$ are momentum and energy per volume.

Again, we will work under the assumption that these parameters stay in the one-phase region, the limiting Gibbs state is unique and these definitions are unambiguous. Although momentum is preferable as a quantum observable, we also introduce the velocity in order to be able to compare with the classical case. The velocity field $`v(x)`$ has to be defined as a mean velocity of the particles in a neighborhood of $`x`$. Therefore we have $`v(x)=𝔮(x)/\rho (x)`$. We also introduce the energy per particle defined by $`\stackrel{~}{e}=e/\rho `$. The usual Euler equations are written in terms of $`\rho ,v`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$.

In order to derive the Euler equations, we need to perform a rescaling. So we shall put all particles in a torus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon `$ of size $`\epsilon ^1`$ and use $`(X,T)=(\epsilon x,\epsilon t)`$ to denote the macroscopic coordinates. For all equations in this paper periodic boundary conditions are implicitly understood.

The Euler equations are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{T}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{X_j}}(\rho v_j)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\rho v_k)}{T}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{X_j}}\left[\rho v_jv_k\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{}{X_k}}P(e,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\rho \stackrel{~}{e})}{T}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{X_j}}\left[\rho \stackrel{~}{e}v_j+v_jP(e,\rho )\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
These equations are in form identical to the classical ones but all physical quantities are computed quantum mechanically. In particular, $`P(e,\rho )`$ is the thermodynamic pressure computed from quantum statistical mechanics for the microscopic system. It is a function of $`X`$ and $`T`$ only through its dependence on $`e`$ and $`\rho `$. If no velocity dependent forces act between the molecules of the fluid under consideration (we consider only a pair potential), the pressure is independent of the velocity.

Let $`𝒒=(q^0,\mathrm{},q^4)`$, related to density, momenta and energy as follows:

$$q^0=\rho ,q^i=\rho v^i,q^4=e=\rho \stackrel{~}{e}.$$
(2.7)
In other words $`q^1,q^2,q^3,`$ and $`q^4`$ are momenta and energy per volume instead of per particle as in the usual Euler equation (2.6). We rewrite the Euler equations in the following form

$$\frac{q^k}{T}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}_i^X\left[A_i^k(q)\right]=0,k=0,1,2,3,4.$$
(2.8)
The matrix $`A`$ is determined by comparison with the Euler equations:

$$A_j^0=q^j,A_j^i=\delta _{ij}P+q_iq_j/q_0,A_j^4=q^j(q_4+P)/q_0.$$

## 3. Local equilibrium

To proceed we need a microscopic description of local equilibrium. Suppose we are given macroscopic functions $`𝒒(X)`$. We wish to find a local Gibbs state with the conserved quantities given by $`𝒒(X)`$. The local Gibbs states are states locally in equilibrium. In other words, in a microscopic neighborhood of any point $`xT^3`$ the state is given by a Gibbs state. More precisely, we wish to find a local Gibbs state with the expected values of the energy, momentum, and particle number per unit volume at $`X`$ given by $`𝒒(X)`$. To achieve this, we only have to adjust the parameter $`𝝀`$ at every point $`X`$. More precisely, we choose $`𝝀(X)`$ such that the equation (2.5) holds at every point, i.e.,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(𝝀(X))}{\lambda ^\mu (X)}=q^\mu (X).$$

If we denote the solution to the Euler equation by $`q(X,T)`$, then we can choose in a similar way a local Gibbs state with given conserved quantities at the time $`T`$. Define the local Gibbs state

$$\omega _t^\epsilon =\frac{1}{c_\epsilon (t)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\epsilon ^3𝝀(\epsilon t,\epsilon ),𝒖_{\epsilon ^1}\right]$$
(3.1)
where $`c_\epsilon (t)`$ is the normalization constant. Clearly, we have that $`\omega _\epsilon (t)(u_x^\mu )=q^\mu (\epsilon x,\epsilon t)`$ to leading order in $`\epsilon `$.

In summary, the goal is to show that, in the limit $`ϵ0`$, the following diagram commutes:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝐪(X,0)& \stackrel{\text{Euler}}{}& 𝐪(X,T)\\ \text{local equilibrium}& & \text{limit }ϵ0\text{ of expectation of locally averaged observables}& & \\ \gamma _0& \stackrel{\text{Schrödinger}}{}& \gamma _{ϵ^1T}\end{array}$$

As smooth solutions of the Euler equations are guaranteed to exist only up to a finite time , say $`T_0`$, we will formulate our assumptions on the dynamics of the microscopic system for a finite time interval as well, say $`t[0,T_0/\epsilon ]`$. Note the cutoff assumptions below would hold automatically for lattice models.

## 4. Assumptions and the main theorem

Our main result is stated in Theorem 4.1 below. First, we state the assumptions of the theorem with some brief comments. There are three kinds of assumptions.

The first category of assumptions could be called physical assumptions on the solution of the Euler equations that we would like to obtain as a scaling limit of the underlying dynamics, and on the pair interaction potential of this system.

I. One-phase regime: We assume that the pair potential, $`W`$, is $`C^1`$ and with support contained in a ball of radius $`R`$. Moreover, we assume that $`W`$ is symmetric under reflections of each of the coordinate axes (e.g., rotation symmetric potentials automatically have this symmetry), and has the usual stability property : there is a constant $`B0`$ such that, for all $`N2`$, $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_N^3`$,

$$\underset{11<jN}{}W(x_ix_j)BN.$$

Of the Fermion system with potential $`W`$ we assume that there is an open region $`D^2`$, which we will call the one-phase region, such that the system has a unique limiting Gibbs state for all values of particle density and energy density $`(\rho ,e)D`$.

The solution of the Euler equations we consider, $`q(X,T)`$, will be assumed to $`C^1`$ in $`X`$ for $`T[0,T_0]`$, and have local particle and energy density in the one-phase region for all times $`T[0,T_0]`$. I.e., $`(\rho (X,T),e(X,T))D`$, for all $`X\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`T[0,T_0]`$.

The next category of assumptions is on the local equilibrium states for the Fermion system that we construct and on their time-evolution under the Schrödinger equation. They can be considered conjectures. In fact, these assumptions have not been rigorously proved even for Gibbs states. Although one expects that these assumptions can be proved in the high-temperature and low-density region using some type of cluster expansion methods, this has only been done recently for Bosons in . For the rest of this paper, we shall assume this cutoff assumptions for the solution to the Schrodinger equation that we consider, as well as for the Gibbs states in the one phase regions considered in this paper.

II. Cutoff assumptions: Suppose that $`\gamma _t`$ is the solution to the Schrödinger equation with a local equilibrium state as initial condition, constructed with the parameters derived from a solution of the Euler equations (with the appropriate pressure function) that does not leave the one-phase region. We make the following two assumptions about this solution:

1. Finite velocity cutoff assumption: Let $`N_p(t)=\text{Tr}\gamma _ta_p^+a_p`$, where $`a_p^\mathrm{\#}`$ is the Fourier transform of $`a_x^\mathrm{\#}`$. Then there is a constant $`c>0`$, such that for all $`tT_0/\epsilon `$,

$$\epsilon ^d𝑑pe^{cp^2}N_p(t)C_{T_0}.$$

2. Non-implosion assumption: There is a constant $`C_{T_0}`$, such that for all $`tT_0/\epsilon `$,

$$\text{Tr}\gamma _t\epsilon ^d𝑑xn_x\left[_{|xy|2R}n_y𝑑y\right]^2C_{T_0},$$
(4.1)
where $`R`$ is the range of the interaction $`W`$.

Finally, we have an assumption on the set of the time-invariant ergodic states of the Fermion system. To state this assumption we need the notion of relative entropy, of a normal state $`\gamma `$ with respect to another normal state $`\omega `$. Let $`\gamma `$ and $`\omega `$ denote the density matrices of these states. The relative entropy, $`S(\gamma \omega )`$, is defined by

$$S(\gamma |\omega )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{Tr}\gamma (\mathrm{log}\gamma \mathrm{log}\omega )\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{ker}\omega \mathrm{ker}\gamma ,\hfill \\ +\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{else}.\hfill \end{array}$$

For a pair of translation invariant locally normal states, one can show existence of the relative entropy density , defined by the limit

$$s(\gamma |\omega )=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\epsilon ^3S(\gamma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon }\omega _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon }),$$

where $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon }`$ and $`\omega _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon }`$ denote the density matrices of the normal states obtained by restricting $`\gamma `$ and $`\omega `$ to the observables localized in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon =\epsilon ^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. The existence of the limit can be proved under more general conditions on the finite volumes, but this is unimportant for us.

III. Ergodicity assumption (“Boltzmann Hypothesis”): All translation invariant ergodic stationary states to the Schrödinger equation are Gibbs states if they satisfy the following assumptions: 1) the density and energy is in one phase region. 2) The relative entropy density with respect to some Gibbs state is finite.

We expect that our assumptions hold for the solutions $`\gamma _t`$ of the Schrödinger equation that we employ, but it must be said that, at this moment, very little is known. We believe that these are natural conditions. To prove them under rather general conditions or even for a special class of models may be regarded as an important open problem in quantum statistical mechanics.

###### Theorem 4.1

Suppose that $`𝐪(X,T)`$ is a smooth solution to the Euler equation in one phase region up to time $`TT_0`$. Let $`\omega _t^\epsilon `$ be the local Gibbs state with conserved quantities given by $`𝐪(X,T)`$. Suppose that the cutoff assumptions and the ergodicity assumption hold. Let $`\gamma _t`$ be the solution to the Schrödinger equation and $`\gamma _0=\omega _0^\epsilon `$ (Notice $`\gamma _t`$ depends on $`\epsilon `$). Then for all $`tT_o/\epsilon `$ we have

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}s(\gamma _t|\omega _t^\epsilon )=0.$$

In other words, $`\omega _t^\epsilon `$ is a solution to the Schrödinger equation in entropy sense. In particular, for any smooth function $`f`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we have

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\epsilon ^3_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon }𝑑xf(\epsilon x)\left[\gamma _t(𝒖_x)𝒒(\epsilon t,\epsilon x)\right]=0.$$

This theorem is a quantum analogue of the classical result by Olla, Varadhan, and Yau . There are a few differences in the assumptions and the strategy followed in their paper with respect to ours. E.g., in the treatment of  of the classical case the cut-off assumption 1) was not needed. Instead, the usual quadratic kinetic energy was replaced by one with bounded derivatives with respect to momentum. For Fermion models on a lattice instead of in the continuum, no cut-off assumptions are required. Another difference with the treatment in , is that we do not add noise terms to the “native” dynamics. In  a weak noise term was added to the Newtonian dynamics in order to be able to prove convergence to local equilibrium. In that paper, the strength of the noise vanishes in the hydrodynamic limit. Here, we do not modify the Heisenberg dynamics in any way, but instead reduce the question of convergence to local equilibrium to the ergodicity property given in Assumption III.

## 5. Outline of the proof

The basic structure of our proof follows the relative entropy approach of . The aim is to derive a differential inequality for the relative entropy between the solution to the Schrödinger equation and a time-dependent local Gibbs state constructed to reproduce the solution of the Euler equations. The time derivative of the relative entropy can be expressed as an expectation of the local currents with respect to the solution to the Schrödinger equation: Since $`\gamma _t`$ is a solution to the Schrödinger equation, we have for any density matrix $`\omega _t^\epsilon `$ the identity

$$\frac{d}{dt}S(\gamma _t|\omega _t^\epsilon )=\text{Tr}\gamma _t\left\{i\delta _H_t\right\}\mathrm{log}\omega _t^\epsilon .$$
(5.1)
Using the definition of the local equilibrium states (2.4), we get

$$\frac{d}{dt}s(\gamma _t|\omega _t^\epsilon )=\epsilon ^3\text{Tr}\gamma _t\left\{i\delta _H_t\right\}\left\{𝝀_\epsilon (t,),𝐮\mathrm{log}c_\epsilon (t)\right\}.$$
(5.2)
Direct computation yields that $`\delta _H𝝀_\epsilon (t,),𝐮=\epsilon _{j=1}^3_j𝝀_\epsilon (t,),𝜽_j(t)`$, to leading order in $`\epsilon `$, and where the $`𝜽_j`$ are local observables for the microscopic currents of the conserved quantities. Since we do not know the solution of the Schrödinger equation, $`\gamma _t`$, well enough, this expectation in the RHS of (5.2) cannot be computed or estimated explicitly. The main idea is to bound these expectations in terms of the relative entropy itself, thus obtaining a differential inequality. All these bounds are based on the following inequality, which is a consequence of the variational principle for the relative entropy : for density matrices/states $`\omega `$ and $`\gamma `$, with $`\mathrm{ker}\omega =\{0\}`$, and for all self-adjoint $`h`$, and $`\delta >0`$, one has

$$\gamma (h)\delta ^1\mathrm{log}\text{Tr}e^{\delta h+\mathrm{log}\omega }+\delta ^1S(\gamma |\omega ).$$
(5.3)
Most of the work is then to show that the terms resulting from the first term in the RHS of this inequality are sufficiently small. This requires a number of steps. Two essential ingredients are the Euler equations (naturally), and a quantum version of Virial Theorem to relate certain terms in the currents to the thermodynamic pressure as given by quantum statistical mechanics. Next, we explain the main steps in a bit more detail.

Step 1: Replace the local microscopic currents by macroscopic currents. The basic idea in hydrodynamical limit is first to show that the local space time average of the solution is time invariant. From Assumption III, ergodic time invariant states are Gibbs. For Gibbs states, we can replace the local microscopic currents by macroscopic currents.

1a: Construct a commuting version of local conserved quantities. In principle, one should be able to express the macroscopic currents as functions of the conserved quantities. The local conservative quantities, however, are operators which commute only up to boundary terms. Therefore, we either need to prove that the non-commutativity does not affect the meaning of macroscopic currents or we need to construct some commuting version of the local conservative quantities. We follow the second approach and construct a commuting version of local conservative quantities with a method inspired by .

1b: Restriction to the one phase region. Since Assumption III can only be applied in the one phase region, we have to introduce suitable cutoff functions. As these, in general, do not commute with the local currents, this is a non-trivial step.

1c: Apply the Virial Theorem. Following the method of , we prove and apply a quantum virial theorem to relate the local currents to the pressure.

Step 2: Estimate all errors by local conservative quantities. For this step the entropy inequality (5.3) is crucial.

Step 3: Derive a differential inequality of the entropy with error term given by a large deviation formula.  As there is no large deviation theory for non-commuting observables, it is essential that we have expressed everything by commuting objects.

The rest of the argument follows by the standard relative entropy method. The main technical difficulties, in comparison with the classical case, all stem from the non-commutativity of the algebra of observables. Simple inequalities, such as $`|A+B||A|+|B|`$ and $`|AB||A||B|`$, which are used numerous times in estimates for classical systems, are false for quantum observables. Therefore, all estimates have to be derived without taking absolute values. A full account of our work will appear shortly .

Acknowledgments. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants # DMS-0070774 (B. N.) and # DMS-9703752 (H.-T. Y.)


text:
# ON THE NATURE OF HIDDEN BROAD LINE REGIONS IN SEYFERT 2 GALAXIES

## 1 Introduction

Within the class of Seyfert 2 galaxies, two populations are observed: in one, polarized broad emission lines are detected in the optical band, yielding evidence of “hidden broad-lines regions” (HBLRs); in the spectra of the other class, such lines are not detected (non-HBLR Sy-2 galaxies). The question arises, whether the two classes are intrinsically the same or not, that is, whether HBLRs are always there, even if sometimes - in the case of non-HBLR Sy-2’s - they are not seen, due e.g to obscuration. Tran (2001), on the basis of the CfA and 12 $`\mu `$m samples of Sy-2’s, claimed that HBLR galaxies display distinctly higher radio power relative to their infrared power, and hotter dust temperature. Since the average obscuration appears to be indistinguishable between the two classes, he proposed that HBLRs galaxies harbor an energetic, hidden Sy-1 nucleus (where broad lines are produced), while non-HBLRs galaxies do not. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

We went through Tran’s sample, searching in the literature for measurements of the intrinsic X-ray (2-10 keV) and OIII (5007 Å) luminosities ($`L_X`$, $`L_{OIII}`$), together with the column density ($`n_\mathrm{H}`$), in order to test Tran’s hypothesis of an intrinsic difference between the two classes.

## 2 The sample

We had to exclude many Sy-2 galaxies from the sample, for which: either no X-ray observations have been performed with “modern” satellites (starting with ASCA), or no estimates of the OIII flux could be found, or any estimate of the intrinsic (nucleus) luminosity is unreliable due to Compton-thickness ($`n_\mathrm{H}>10^{24}`$ cm-2). We also considered additional galaxies, not belonging to Tran’s ensemble: based on the same criteria, we could finally add only the HBLR galaxy MKN 1210 in the sample. The final sample consists of 10 HBLR and 6 non-HBLR objects. The values of the luminosities are corrected for absorption. All values listed in the tables have been taken from the best-available observations. In some cases, the data have been re-analyzed.

## 3 Interpretation

While a systematic search with a large, complete and unbiased sample of Sy-2 galaxies is needed in order to provide a more homogeneous and reliable set of dataaaaAfter this contribution was presented at the Conference, we became aware of an indipendent study by Gu & Huang (2002), in which a bigger compilation of sources is given, and whose results are consistent with ours.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ , our preliminary statistical analysis seems to strengthen Tran’s claim, since, as clearly shown in the plots,

* while the average extinction is indistinguishable between the two classes (see also Tran$`^\mathrm{?}`$), the intrinsic 2-10 keV luminosity results to be sistematically smaller in non-HBLR Sy-2’s, with a “critical” threshold around $`5\times 10^{42}`$ erg s-1;
* galaxies without polarized broad lines appear to have fainter nuclei both in X and optical (see plot); in general, the X-ray vs. optical flux dependence is more or less a linear one.

How to explain the intrinsic difference? Tran (2001) claimed that HBLR galaxies are those which actually do possess nuclei of Seyfert 1 type, while non-HBLR galaxies would not, the latter being “powered” mainly by starburst.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ If this is the case, broad lines regions simply would not exist in the cores of those galaxies where polarized broad lines are not observed. However, Seyfert 1 galaxies with $`L_{210\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}<10^{42}`$ erg s-1 are observed indeed, and there is no reason why Sy-1 type nuclei (i.e. hidden broad line regions) with $`L_{210\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}<10^{42}`$ erg s-1 should not be present in the cores of some Seyfert 2s, too.

Even if, on the base of Tran’s as well as our present study, a unifying model based only on inclination (such as the one by Heisler et al.$`^\mathrm{?}`$) seems to be ruled out, nevertheless one may suppose that the intrinsic difference originates also in some property of the reflector. One possible explanation is, that in the so-called non-HBLR Sy-2 galaxies ($`L_{210\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}<10^{42}`$ erg s-1) the irradiation from the nucleus is not strong enough to allow sublimation of dust grains and ionization of the more distant clouds (those located outside the torus). Thus, the broad lines cannot be reflected towards us, and are rather absorbed by the clouds themselves. Conversely, in the so-called HBLR Sy-2s, the irradiation efficiently ionizes the distant clouds too, so that we can observe polarized (reflected) broad lines.

## References