text:
# Nonlinear time-dependent one-dimensional Schrödinger equation with double well potential

## 1. Introduction

Recently, the theoretical analysis of the nonlinear time-dependent Schrödinger equation

$`i\mathrm{}\dot{\psi }=H_0\psi +ϵ|\psi |^2\psi ,ϵ\text{R},\dot{\psi }={\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}},`$ (1)
where

$`H_0={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\mathrm{\Delta }+V,\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_j^2}},d1,`$
has attracted an increasing interest (see  for a review and  for a rigorous derivation of the Gross-Pitaevskii energy functional). When $`V`$ is a double well potential, one of the main goal is to understand how the nonlinear perturbation with strength $`ϵ`$ affects the unperturbed beating motion (see, e.g., the review paper  and the paper  where equation (1) is proposed as a model for chiral molecules). To this end, it is crucial to study the solution $`\psi `$ for times of the order of the beating period; in other words, for practical purposes the unit of time is given by the beating period $`T=\pi \mathrm{}/\omega `$ where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Planck’s constant and $`\omega `$ is one half of the energy splitting between the two lowest energies.

Here, I consider equation (1) in the semiclassical limit where, by assuming that $`d=1`$ and under some generic assumption on the double well potential, we give the asymptotic behavior of the solution $`\psi `$ with a precise estimate of the error. In particular, the main result (Theorem 3) consists in proving that the solution of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation is approximated, with a rigorous control of the error, by means of the solution of a two-dimensional dynamical system exactly solvable. As a result it follows (Theorem 4) that the beating motion between the two wells of a state initially prepared on the two lowest eigenstates gradually disappears for increasing nonlinearity.

A similar investigation has been recently performed in , where the nonlinear perturbation is given by $`ϵ\psi ,g\psi g\psi `$ and $`g(x)`$ is a given odd function, and in , where, in dimension $`d=1`$ and $`d=3`$, we consider the limit of large barrier between the two wells. In particular, in  I had to assume that the discrete spectrum of the Schrödinger operator $`H_0`$ consists of only two non-degenerate eigenvalues and that the restriction to the continuous eigenspace of the unitary evolution operator satisfies to a priori estimate uniformly with respect to the parameters of the model.

Finally, we mention other recent results concerning the study of the existence of stationary solutions for Gross-Pitaevskii equations with double well potentials ,  and, in the case of single-well type potentials, the existence of solutions asymptotically given by solitary wave functions in the case that the discrete spectrum of the linear Schrödinger operator has only one non-degenerate eigenvalue , .

Our paper is organized as follows.

In Section 2 we introduce the main notations and we state the assumptions on the potential. Moreover, we collect some semiclassical results concerning the spectrum of the linear Schrödinger operator.

In Section 3 we prove the global existence of the solution of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, the existence of conservation laws and a priori estimate (Theorem 2). The global existence of the solution is proved for both repulsive and attractive nonlinear perturbation, where, in the second case, we have to assume that the strength of the nonlinear perturbation is small enough.

In Section 4 we introduce the two-level approximation which, roughly speaking, consists in projecting the Gross-Pitaevskii equation onto the two-dimensional space spanned by the eigenvectors of the linear Schrödinger operator associated to the two lowest eigenvalues. For practical purposes, it is more convenient to choose, as a basis of such a two-dimensional space, the two ”single-well” states. The dynamical system we obtain is exactly solvable.

In Section 5 we give our main result (Theorem 3) proving the stability of the two-level approximation. Here, we make use of the comparison criterion between ordinary differential equations and of a priori estimate of the solution of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. We underline that, in order to obtain such an estimate, the assumption $`d=1`$ on the dimension plays a crucial role.

In Section 6 we give the full rigorous justification of the results by Vardi  proving the existence of a critical value for the nonlinearity parameter giving the destruction of the beating motion (Theorem 4).

## 2. Assumptions and preliminary results

Here, we consider the Cauchy problem

$`i\mathrm{}\dot{\psi }=H_ϵ\psi ,H_ϵ=H_0+W`$ (2)
$`\psi (0,x)=\psi ^0(x)L^2(\text{R}),\psi ^0=1,`$
where $`\dot{\psi }`$ denotes the derivative of $`\psi `$ with respect to the time $`t`$, $`H_0`$ is the linear Schrödinger operator formally given by (here, $`x`$ denotes the spatial variable in dimension 1)

$`H_0={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}+V,`$ (3)
$`V`$ is a symmetric double well potential and

$`W=ϵ|\psi |^2,`$
is the nonlinear perturbation with strength $`ϵ`$.

In the following, for the sake of definiteness, we denote by $`C`$ any positive constant independent of $`ϵ`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`t`$, we assume $`\mathrm{}`$ small enough, that is $`\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}^{}]`$ for some $`\mathrm{}^{}`$, and we denote

$`\phi _p=\phi _{L^p}=\left\{{\displaystyle |\phi (x)|^p𝑑x}\right\}^{1/p}\text{ and }\phi =\phi _2.`$
Moreover, given $`y=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_m)\text{R}^m`$ for some $`m1`$, we denote

$`|y|=\underset{1jm}{\mathrm{max}}|y_j|.`$ (4)
### 2.1. Assumptions on the potential

Here, we assume that the potential $`V`$ is a regular symmetric function which admits two non-degenerate minima and it is bounded from below. More precisely:

###### Hypothesis 1.

The potential $`V(x)`$ is a real valued function such that:

* $`V(x)=V(x)`$, $`x\text{R}`$;
* $`VC^2(\text{R})`$;
* $`V(x)`$ admits two non-degenerate minima at $`x=\pm a`$, for some $`a>0`$, such that

$`V(x)>V_{min}=V(\pm a),x\text{R},x\pm a;`$ (5)
in particular, for the sake of definiteness, we assume that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV(\pm a)}{dx}}=0\text{ and }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2V(\pm a)}{dx^2}}>0;`$
* finally we assume that

$`\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}V(x)=V_{\mathrm{}}>V_{min}.`$

It follows that the operator formally defined in (3) admits a self-adjoint realization (still denoted by $`H_0`$) on $`L^2(\text{R})`$ (see, for instance, Theorem III.1.1 in ). Let $`\sigma (H_0)=\sigma _d\sigma _{ess}`$ be the spectrum of the self-adjoint operator $`H_0`$ where $`\sigma _d`$ denotes the discrete spectrum and $`\sigma _{ess}`$ denotes the essential spectrum. From Hyp. 1-iv it follows that $`\sigma _d(V_{min},V_{\mathrm{}})`$, $`\sigma _{ess}=\mathrm{}`$ if $`V_{\mathrm{}}=+\mathrm{}`$ (see Theorem XIII.67 in ) and that $`\sigma _{ess}[V_{\mathrm{}},+\mathrm{})`$ if $`V_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}`$ (see Theorem III.3.1 in ). Furthermore, the following two Lemmas hold:

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`\sigma _d`$ be the discrete spectrum of $`H_0`$. Then, for any $`\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}^{}]`$ it follows that:

* $`\sigma _d`$ is not empty and, in particular, it contains two eigenvalues at least;
* let $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ be the lowest two eigenvalues of $`H_0`$, they are non-degenerate, in particular $`\lambda _1<\lambda _2`$ and there exists $`C>0`$, independent of $`\mathrm{}`$, such that

$`\underset{\lambda \sigma (H_0)\{\lambda _{1,2}\}}{inf}[\lambda \lambda _2]C\mathrm{}.`$

###### Proof.

The proof is an immediate consequence of the above assumptions and standard WKB arguments. ∎

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`\phi _{1,2}`$ be the normalized eigenvectors associated to $`\lambda _{1,2}`$, then:

* $`\phi _j`$, $`j=1,2`$, can be chosen to be real-valued functions such that $`\phi _j(x)=(1)^{j1}\phi _j(x)`$;
* $`\phi _jH^1(\text{R})`$;
* $`\phi _jL^p(\text{R})`$ for any $`p[1,+\mathrm{}]`$;
* there exists a positive constant $`C`$ such that

$`\phi _j_pC\mathrm{}^{\frac{p2}{4p}},p[2,+\mathrm{}],\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}^{}].`$ (6)

###### Proof.

Property i. immediately follows from assumption Hyp. 1-i. Property ii. follows from Lemma III.3.1 in . Property iii. follows from Theorem III.3.2 in . Finally, property iv. follows for $`p=+\mathrm{}`$ by means of standard WKB arguments. From this fact, from the normalization of the eigenvectors and from the Hölder inequality then property iv. follows for any $`p[2,+\mathrm{}]`$:

$`\phi _j_p=\left[\phi _j^2\phi _j^{p2}_1\right]^{1/p}\phi _j_2^{2/p}\phi _j_{\mathrm{}}^{(p2)/p}=\phi _j_{\mathrm{}}^{(p2)/p}.`$
### 2.2. Splitting and single-well states

It is well know that the splitting between the two lowest eigenvalues vanishes as $`\mathrm{}`$ goes to zero. In particular, we have that:

###### Lemma 3.

Let

$`\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2\lambda _1}{2}}\text{ and }\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2+\lambda _1}{2}}`$
and

$`\phi _R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\phi _1+\phi _2\right]\text{ and }\phi _L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\phi _1\phi _2\right]`$
where $`\phi _{1,2}`$ are the normalized eigenvectors associated to $`\lambda _{1,2}`$. Then there exist two positive constants $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, independent of $`\mathrm{}`$, such that

$`\phi _R\phi _L_{\mathrm{}}C\omega `$ (7)
and

$`\omega Ce^{\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}^{}].`$ (8)
As a result if follows that

$`\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}\omega =0`$ (9)
and

$`\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }V_{min}}{\mathrm{}}}=c`$ (10)
for some $`c>0`$.

###### Proof.

In order to prove this Lemma we observe that $`V`$ is a symmetric double well potential with non-zero barrier between the wells. That is, let $`\delta >0`$ be small enough and let us define the two sets

$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill B_R=\{x\text{R}^+:V(x)V_{min}+\delta \}\\ \hfill B_L=\{x\text{R}^{}:V(x)V_{min}+\delta \}\end{array}\}\text{ i.e. }xB_RxB_L.`$
From condition (5) it follows also that

$`B_R=[b,c]\text{ and }B_L=[c,b]`$
for some $`c>a>b>0`$. The sets $`B_{R,L}`$ are usually called ”wells”. Let

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\delta ={\displaystyle _b^b}\sqrt{\mathrm{max}[V(x)(V_{min}+\delta ),0]}𝑑x>0,`$
be the Agmon distance between the two wells. From these facts and from standard WKB arguments (see  and ) then (7)—(10) follow for some $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\delta ]`$. ∎

###### Remark 1.

By definition it follows that $`\phi _R(x)=\phi _L(x)`$; moreover, from (7), it follows that these functions are localized on only one of the ”wells” $`B_R`$ and $`B_L`$, e.g.:

$`{\displaystyle _{B_R}}|\phi _R(x)|^2𝑑x=1+O(e^{C/\mathrm{}})`$
for some $`C>0`$. For such a reason we call them ”single-well” (normalized) states.

###### Remark 2.

We underline that, by assuming some regularity properties on the potential $`V`$, then it is possible to obtain the precise asymptotic behavior of the splitting as $`\mathrm{}`$ goes to zero .

### 2.3. Assumptions on the parameter

We assume that the two parameters $`\omega `$ and $`ϵ`$ are such that

$`\omega 0\text{ and }ϵ0\text{ as }\mathrm{}0`$
and there exists a positive constant $`C`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{cϵ}{\omega }}C,c=\phi _R^2,\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}^{}].`$ (12)
### 2.4. Assumption on the initial state

Let

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_c=\text{1}\phi _R,\phi _R\phi _L,\phi _L`$ (13)
be the projection operator onto the eigenspace orthogonal to the 2-dimensional eigenspace associated to the doublet $`\{\lambda _{1,2}\}`$. Let $`\psi ^0`$ be the initial wavefunction, we assume that:

###### Hypothesis 2.

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_c\psi ^0=0`$.

## 3. Global existence of the solution and conservation laws

Here, we prove that the Cauchy problem (2) admits a solution for all time provided that assumptions Hyp.1–2 are satisfied and the strength $`ϵ`$ of the nonlinear perturbation is small enough. Moreover, we prove a ”priori” estimate of the solution $`\psi `$.

The following results hold.

###### Theorem 1.

There exist $`\mathrm{}^{}>0`$ and $`ϵ_0>0`$ such that for any $`\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}^{}]`$ and $`ϵ[ϵ_0,ϵ_0]`$ then the Cauchy problem (2) admits a unique solution $`\psi (t,x)H^1`$ for any $`t\text{R}`$. Moreover, the following conservation laws hold:

$`\psi (t,)=\psi ^0()=1`$ (14)
and

$`E(\psi )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x}}^2+V\psi ,\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ\psi ^2^2=E(\psi ^0).`$ (15)
###### Proof.

From Hyp.2 it follows that

$`\psi ^0=c_1\phi _1+c_2\phi _2,c_{1,2}=\psi ^0,\phi _{1,2}.`$
From this fact and from Lemma 2 then $`\psi ^0H^1`$. Therefore, existence of the global solution $`\psi C(\text{R},H^1)`$ and the conservation laws (14) and (15) follow from known results (see, e.g., the papers quoted in  and ) for any $`ϵ>0`$ (repulsive nonlinear perturbation) and for any $`ϵ(ϵ_0,0)`$ for some $`ϵ_0>0`$ (attractive nonlinear perturbation). ∎

###### Remark 3.

There exists a positive constant $`C`$ independent of $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`ϵ`$ such that

$`|E(\psi )V_{min}|C(\omega +\mathrm{}+ϵ\mathrm{}^{1/2}),\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}^{}],ϵ[ϵ_0,ϵ_0].`$ (16)
This estimate immediately follows from (15), from the assumption Hyp.2 and from Lemmas 1 and 2. Indeed, from Hyp.2 it follows that

$`E(\psi ^0)=H_0(c_1\phi _1+c_2\phi _2),(c_1\phi _1+c_2\phi _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ\psi ^0_4^4`$
where $`\psi ^0_4C\mathrm{}^{1/8}`$ from (6) and where

$`H_0(c_1\phi _1+c_2\phi _2),(c_1\phi _1+c_2\phi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1|c_1|^2+\lambda _2|c_2|^2=\mathrm{\Omega }\omega +2\omega |c_2|^2.`$
From these facts and from (10), then (16) follows.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`ϵ_0(\mathrm{})`$ be a function such that

$`\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}ϵ_0(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{}^2=0.`$ (17)
The solution $`\psi `$ of equation (2) satisfies to the following uniform estimate: there exists a positive constant $`C`$ independent of $`t`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`ϵ`$, such that

$`\psi _pC\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|E(\psi ^0)V_{min}|}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right]^{\frac{p2}{4p}},p[2,+\mathrm{}],`$ (18)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x}}C\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|E(\psi ^0)V_{min}|}{\mathrm{}^2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
for all time and $`\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}^{}]`$, $`ϵ[ϵ_0(\mathrm{}),ϵ_0(\mathrm{})]`$.

###### Proof.

In order to prove the estimate (18) let

$`k={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{2m}}},\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{E(\psi ^0)V_{min}}{k^2}}.`$
Then, the conservation laws (14) and (15) imply that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x}}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\text{sign}(ϵ)]\rho ^2\psi ^2^2\mathrm{\Lambda },`$
where

$`\rho =|ϵ|^{1/2}/k1,`$
since (17). In particular, if we set

$`\chi =\rho \psi `$
then the above equation takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{x}}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\text{sign}(ϵ)]\chi ^2^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^2`$
from which it follows that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{x}}^2\rho ^2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi ^2^2=\rho ^2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi _4^4`$ (19)
From the Gagliardo-Niremberg inequality (see, for instance,  and , where the dimension is here equal to 1)

$`\chi _{2\sigma +2}^{2\sigma +2}C{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{x}}^\sigma \chi ^{2+\sigma },\sigma 0,`$ (20)
where we choose $`\sigma =1`$, it follows that

$`\chi _4^4C{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{x}}\chi ^3C{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{x}}\rho ^3`$
since $`\chi =\rho \psi =\rho `$ and $`\psi =1`$. By inserting this inequality in (19) it follows that $`\frac{\chi }{x}`$ satisfies to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{x}}^2\rho ^2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|+C\rho ^3{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{x}}`$ (21)
for any $`t\text{R}`$. From (21) immediately follows that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{x}}\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}\rho \left(1+o(1)\right),\text{ as }\rho 0.`$
Hence, $`\frac{\psi }{x}C\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}`$ and, from (20), we have that

$`\psi _pC{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x}}^{\sigma /p}C|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^{(p2)/4p}`$
where we choose now $`\sigma =\frac{p2}{2}`$, i.e. $`p=2\sigma +2`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.

Condition (17) is true in the semiclassical limit and under the assumption (12).

###### Remark 5.

From the fact $`E(\psi _0)V_{min}=O(\mathrm{})`$, which follows from (8), (16) and (17), and from the bounds (18) and (12) then it follows that $`t\text{R}`$, $`\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}^{}]`$, $`ϵ[ϵ_0(\mathrm{}),ϵ_0(\mathrm{})]`$ then

$`\psi _pC\mathrm{}^{\frac{p2}{4p}},p[2,+\mathrm{}],\text{ and }{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x}}C\mathrm{}^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (22)
## 4. Two-level approximation

For our purposes it is more convenient to make the substitution $`\psi e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t/\mathrm{}}\psi `$, hence equation (2) takes the following form (where, with abuse of notation, we still denote the new function by $`\psi `$)

$`i\mathrm{}\dot{\psi }=(H_0\mathrm{\Omega })\psi +ϵ|\psi |^2\psi ,\psi (x,0)=\psi ^0(x).`$ (23)
Let us write the solution of this equation in the form

$`\psi (t,x)=a_R(t)\phi _R(x)+a_L(t)\phi _L(x)+\psi _c(t,x),`$ (24)
where $`a_R(t)`$ and $`a_L(t)`$ are unknown complex-valued functions depending on time and $`\psi _c=\mathrm{\Pi }_c\psi `$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_c`$, defined in (13), is the projection onto the space orthogonal to the two-dimensional space spanned by the two ”single-well” states $`\phi _R`$ and $`\phi _L`$, i.e.:

$`\psi _c,\phi _R=\psi _c,\phi _L=0,t\text{R}.`$
From the conservation law (14) it follows that

$`|a_R(t)|^2+|a_L(t)|^2+\psi _c(t,)^2=1,t\text{R}.`$ (25)
By substituting $`\psi `$ by (24) in equation (2) we obtain that $`a_R`$, $`a_L`$ and $`\psi _c`$ must satisfy to the system of differential equations

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}i\mathrm{}\dot{a}_R\hfill & =& \omega a_L+ϵ\phi _R,|\psi |^2\psi \hfill \\ i\mathrm{}\dot{a}_L\hfill & =& \omega a_R+ϵ\phi _L,|\psi |^2\psi \hfill \\ i\mathrm{}\dot{\psi }_c\hfill & =& (H_0\mathrm{\Omega })\psi _c+ϵ\mathrm{\Pi }_c|\psi |^2\psi \hfill \end{array}`$ (29)
By substituting again $`\psi `$ by (24) in the first two equations of the above system then we obtain that these equations take the form

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}i\mathrm{}\dot{a}_R\hfill & =& \omega a_L+ϵc|a_R|^2a_R+ϵr_R\hfill \\ i\mathrm{}\dot{a}_L\hfill & =& \omega a_R+ϵc|a_L|^2a_L+ϵr_L\hfill \end{array}`$ (32)
where

$`c=\phi _R^2^2=\phi _L^2^2=O(\mathrm{}^1)`$ (33)
and where $`r_R`$ and $`r_L`$ are given by

$`r_R`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _R,|\psi |^2\psi |a_R^2|a_R\phi _R,|\phi _R|^2\phi _R`$
$`=`$ $`\phi _R,|\psi |^2\varphi _L+a_R|\phi _R|^2,|\varphi _L|^2+a_R\phi _R\overline{\varphi }_L+\overline{a}_R\overline{\phi }_R\varphi _L`$
$`r_L`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _L,|\psi |^2\psi |a_L^2|a_L\phi _L,|\phi _L|^2\phi _L`$
$`=`$ $`\phi _L,|\psi |^2\varphi _R+a_L|\phi _L|^2,|\varphi _R|^2+a_L\phi _L\overline{\varphi }_R+\overline{a}_L\overline{\phi }_L\varphi _R`$
where

$`\varphi _L=a_L\phi _L+\psi _c\text{ and }\varphi _R=a_R\phi _R+\psi _c`$
We denote two-level approximation the solutions $`b_R`$ and $`b_L`$ of the system of ordinary differential equations

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}i\mathrm{}\dot{b}_R\hfill & =& \omega b_L+ϵc|b_R|^2b_R\hfill \\ i\mathrm{}\dot{b}_L\hfill & =& \omega b_R+ϵc|b_L|^2b_L\hfill \end{array},b_{R,L}(0)=a_{R,L}(0).`$ (36)
obtained by neglecting the remainder terms $`r_R`$ and $`r_L`$ in (32). It is easy to see that the solution of this system satisfies to the following conservation law

$`|b_R(t)|^2+|b_L(t)|^2=|b_R(0)|^2+|b_L(0)|^2=|a_R(0)|^2+|a_L(0)|^2=1,`$ (37)
and, moreover, it is also possible to explicitely compute (see  and Appendix B in ) the solution of (36) by means of elliptic functions. In particular, we obtain that the imbalance function, defined as

$`z(t)=|b_R(t)|^2|b_L(t)|^2,`$ (38)
is given by

$`z(t)=\{\begin{array}{c}A\text{cn}[A\eta (\omega t/\mathrm{}\tau _0)/2k,k],\text{ if }k<1,\hfill \\ A\text{dn}[A\eta (\omega t/\mathrm{}\tau _0)/2,1/k],\text{ if }k>1,\hfill \end{array}`$
where $`\eta =ϵc/\omega `$, $`\tau _0`$ depends on the initial condition,

$`I=\sqrt{1z^2(0)}\mathrm{cos}[\theta (0)]\eta z^2(0)/4,`$
$`\theta =\mathrm{arg}(b_R)\mathrm{arg}(b_L)`$ is the relative phase,

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\eta }}\left[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta ^2+1+I\eta }\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I\eta \right)\right]^{1/2},`$
and

$`k^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{1}{2}I\eta }{\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}\eta ^2+1+I\eta }}}\right].`$ (40)
We underline that $`z(t)`$ periodically assumes positive and negative values if, and only if, $`k<1`$.

## 5. Stability of the two-level approximation

Our main result consists in proving the stability of the two-level approximation when we restore the remainder terms $`r_R`$ and $`r_L`$ in equation (36).

We prove that:

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`\psi _c=\mathrm{\Pi }_c\psi `$, $`a_R(t)=\psi ,\phi _R`$ and $`a_L(t)=\psi ,\phi _L`$, where $`\psi `$ is the solution of equation (23), let $`b_R(t)`$ and $`b_L(t)`$ be the solution of the system of ordinary differential equations (36). Let $`ϵ[ϵ_0(\mathrm{}),ϵ_0(\mathrm{})]`$, where $`ϵ_0(\mathrm{})`$ satisfies the condition (17). Then, for any $`\tau ^{}>0`$ there exists a positive constant $`C`$ independent of $`ϵ`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`t`$ such that:

$`\left|b_{R,L}(t)a_{R,L}(t)\right|Ce^{C\mathrm{}^1}\text{ and }\psi _c(,t)Ce^{C\mathrm{}^1}`$ (41)
for any $`\mathrm{}(0,\mathrm{}^{}]`$ and for any $`t[0,\mathrm{}\tau ^{}/\omega ]`$.

###### Proof.

For the sake of simplicity, hereafter, let us drop out the parameters where this does not cause misunderstanding. In order to prove the theorem we introduce the ”slow time” $`\tau =\omega t/\mathrm{}`$ and let

$`\{\begin{array}{c}A_{R,L}(\tau )=a_{R,L}(t)\hfill \\ B_{R,L}(\tau )=b_{R,L}(t)\hfill \end{array},R_{R,L}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\omega }}r_{R,L}(t)\text{ and }\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{ϵc}{\omega }}.`$
Then (32) and (36) respectively take the form (here  denotes the derivative with respect to $`\tau `$)

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}A_R^{}\hfill & =& iA_Li\eta |A_R|^2A_R+R_R\hfill \\ A_L^{}\hfill & =& iA_Ri\eta |A_L|^2A_L+R_L\hfill \end{array}`$ (45)
and

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}B_R^{}\hfill & =& iB_Li\eta |B_R|^2B_R\hfill \\ B_L^{}\hfill & =& iB_Ri\eta |B_L|^2B_L\hfill \end{array}`$ (48)
satisfying to the same initial condition

$`B_{R,L}(0)=A_{R,L}(0)=a_{R,L}(0),`$
since (25) and (37), they are such that

$`|B_R(\tau )|^2+|B_L(\tau )|^2=1,|A_R(\tau )|^2+|A_L(\tau )|^21.`$ (49)
In a more concise way, with an obvious meaning of the notation, we can write (45) and (48) as

$`A^{}=f(A)+R\text{ and }B^{}=f(B),A(0)=B(0)=a(0),`$ (50)
where $`A,BS^2`$ since (49), $`S^2=\{(z_1,z_2)\text{C}^2:|z_1|^2+|z_2|^21\}`$.

###### Lemma 4.

The function $`f:S^2C^2`$ satisfies to the Lipschitz condition:

$`\left|f(A)f(B)\right|L|AB|,L=1+3\eta .`$ (51)
###### Proof.

According with the notation (4) we have that

$`|f(A)f(B)|=\mathrm{max}[|f_R|,|f_L|]`$
where $`|A|1`$ and $`|B|1`$ since $`A,BS^2`$ and where

$`f_R`$ $`=`$ $`(A_LB_L)\eta (|A_R|^2A_R|B_R|^2B_R)`$
$`f_L`$ $`=`$ $`(A_RB_R)\eta (|A_L|^2A_L|B_L|^2B_L)`$
Then (51) immediately follows since

$`f_R=(A_LB_L)\eta \left[|B_R|^2(A_RB_R)+A_R(|A_R|+|B_R|)(|A_R||B_R|)\right]`$
where $`\left||A_R||B_R|\right||A_RB_R|`$ and where the other term $`f_L`$ will be treated in the same way. ∎

###### Lemma 5.

Let

$`\beta =\mathrm{max}[cϵ,\omega ]`$
where $`c`$ is defined in (33). Let $`\psi _c=\mathrm{\Pi }_c\psi `$ where $`\psi `$ is the solution of equation (23); it satisfies to the following uniform estimate

$`\psi _cC\beta \mathrm{}^{3/2}\left[\mathrm{exp}[C\mathrm{}^{1/2}(ϵt/\mathrm{})]+1\right],t\text{R},`$ (52)
for some positive constant $`C`$ independent of $`\mathrm{},ϵ`$ and $`t`$.

###### Proof.

As a first step we consider the following raw estimates:

$`\psi _c_pC\mathrm{}^{\frac{p2}{4p}},p[2,+\mathrm{}],t\text{R},`$ (53)
and

$`|r_{R,L}|C\mathrm{}^{1/2},t\text{R}.`$
Indeed, (53) immediately follows from the Minkowski inequality and from (22):

$`C\mathrm{}^{\frac{p2}{4p}}\psi _p\left(|a_R(t)|\phi _R_p+|a_L(t)|\phi _L_p\right)+\psi _c_p`$
where $`|a_{R,L}(t)|1`$ and where $`\phi _{R,L}`$ satisfy the bound (6). In the same way, from Lemma 2 and Theorem 2, it follows that

$`|r_R|`$ $``$ $`C\phi _R\psi ^2\psi +\phi _R_4^4`$
$``$ $`C\phi _R_{\mathrm{}}\psi _4^2\psi +C\phi _R_4^4`$
$``$ $`C\mathrm{}^{1/2}`$
and similarly for $`|r_L|`$.

Now, in order to prove the estimate (52) we make use of the third equation of (29) from which it follows that

$`\psi _c(,t)=i{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^t}e^{i(H_0\mathrm{\Omega })(ts)/\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_c|\psi (,s)|^2\psi (,s)𝑑s`$
since $`\psi _c^0=\mathrm{\Pi }_c\psi ^0=0`$ from assumption Hyp.2.

Let $`\psi =\phi +\psi _c`$ where $`\phi =a_R\phi _R+a_L\phi _L`$, then

$`|\psi |^2\psi =\phi _I+\psi _c\phi _{II}+\overline{\psi }_c\phi _{III},\{\begin{array}{c}\phi _I=|\phi |^2\phi ,\hfill \\ \phi _{II}=2|\phi |^2+2\overline{\psi }_c\phi +|\psi _c|^2+\overline{\phi }\psi _c,\hfill \\ \phi _{III}=\phi ^2\hfill \end{array}.`$
Therefore, we can write

$`\psi _c=i{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\mathrm{}}}\left[I+II+III\right]`$
where

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}e^{i(H_0\mathrm{\Omega })(ts)/\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_c\phi _I𝑑s`$
$`II`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}e^{i(H_0\mathrm{\Omega })(ts)/\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_c\psi _c\phi _{II}𝑑s`$
$`III`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}e^{i(H_0\mathrm{\Omega })(ts)/\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_c\overline{\psi }_c\phi _{III}𝑑s`$
For what concerns the first term we have that, by integrating by part,

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`\left[i\mathrm{}e^{i(H_0\mathrm{\Omega })(ts)/\mathrm{}}[H_0\mathrm{\Omega }]^1\mathrm{\Pi }_c|\phi |^2\phi \right]_0^t+`$
$`+i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^t}e^{i(H_0\mathrm{\Omega })(ts)/\mathrm{}}[H_o\mathrm{\Omega }]^1\mathrm{\Pi }_c{\displaystyle \frac{|\phi |^2\phi }{s}}𝑑s`$
Let us underline that from Lemma 1 it follows that the following operators, from $`L^2`$ into $`L^2`$, are bounded

$`e^{i(H_0\mathrm{\Omega })(ts)/\mathrm{}}=1,\mathrm{}[H_0\mathrm{\Omega }]^1\mathrm{\Pi }_cC,`$
and, from Lemma 2 and equations (25) and (32) we have the following uniform estimate for any $`t\text{R}`$

$`\dot{\phi }_p`$ $``$ $`\left(|\dot{a}_r|+|\dot{a}_L|\right)\left(\phi _R_p+\phi _L_p\right)C\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{max}[cϵ,\omega ,ϵ\mathrm{}^{\frac{1}{2}}]\mathrm{}^{\frac{p2}{4p}}`$
$``$ $`C\mathrm{}^1\beta \mathrm{}^{\frac{p2}{4p}}.`$
Then we have that

$`I`$ $``$ $`C\underset{s[0,t]}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\phi ^3(s,)+t\dot{\phi }(s,)\phi ^2(s,)\right\}`$
$``$ $`C\underset{s[0,t]}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\phi (s,)_6^3+t\dot{\phi }(s,)\phi (s,)_{\mathrm{}}^2\right\}`$
$``$ $`C\left\{\mathrm{}^{1/2}+t\mathrm{}^1\beta \mathrm{}^{1/2}\right\}.`$
For what concerns the other two terms we have that

$`II{\displaystyle _0^t}\psi _c\phi _{II}_{\mathrm{}}𝑑sC\mathrm{}^{1/2}{\displaystyle _0^t}\psi _c𝑑s`$
since $`\phi _{II}_{\mathrm{}}C\mathrm{}^{1/2}`$, and similarly

$`III{\displaystyle _0^t}\psi _c\phi _{III}_{\mathrm{}}𝑑sC\mathrm{}^{1/2}{\displaystyle _0^t}\psi _c𝑑s.`$
Indeed, from Lemma 2 and (53) it follows that

$`\phi _{II}_{\mathrm{}}C\left\{\phi _{\mathrm{}}^2+\psi _c_{\mathrm{}}\phi _{\mathrm{}}+\psi _c_{\mathrm{}}^2\right\}C\mathrm{}^{1/2}`$
and

$`\phi _{III}_{\mathrm{}}\phi _{\mathrm{}}^2C\mathrm{}^{1/2}.`$
Collecting all these results and denoting

$`g(t)=\psi _c(,t)`$
we have that $`g(t)`$ is a positive real valued function satisfying the estimate

$`g(t)`$ $``$ $`C{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\mathrm{}}}\left\{\mathrm{}^{1/2}{\displaystyle _0^t}g(s)𝑑s+\mathrm{}^{1/2}\left(1+t\mathrm{}^1\beta \right)\right\}`$
$``$ $`a{\displaystyle _0^t}g(s)𝑑s+a+abt,a=C{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\mathrm{}^{3/2}}},b={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\mathrm{}}}.`$
From this estimate, since $`\psi _c(0)=0`$ and from the Gronwall’s Lemma (see , pag. 19) it follows that

$`g(t)`$ $``$ $`a+abt+a{\displaystyle _0^t}e^{a(ts)}(a+abs)𝑑s=b+ae^{at}+be^{at}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C\beta }{\mathrm{}^{3/2}}}\left[e^{Cϵt\mathrm{}^{3/2}}+1\right]`$
proving so the result. ∎

From the inequality (8) and from the assumption (12) it follows that for any fixed $`\tau ^{}>0`$ then there exists $`C>0`$ satisfying the second inequality in (41).

###### Lemma 6.

For any fixed $`\tau ^{}>0`$ then the remainder terms $`r_R`$ and $`r_L`$ satisfy to the following uniform estimate:

$`\mathrm{max}[|r_R|,|r_L|]C\beta \mathrm{}^2e^{C\mathrm{}^{1/2}},t[0,\tau ^{}\mathrm{}/\omega ],`$
for some positive constant $`C`$ independent of $`\mathrm{}`$, $`ϵ`$ and $`t`$.

###### Proof.

Let us only consider the term $`|r_R|`$, the other term $`|r_L|`$ could be treated in the same way. By definition and since $`\mathrm{max}[|a_R|,|a_L|]1`$ then it follows that

$`|r_R|`$ $``$ $`+\left|\phi _R\overline{\phi }_L,|\psi |^2\right|`$ (57)
$`+\left|\phi _R|\psi |^2,\psi _c\right|`$
$`+\left||\phi _R|^2,|\varphi _L|^2+a_R\phi _R\overline{\varphi }_L+\overline{a}_R\overline{\phi }_R\varphi _L\right|`$
and we estimate separately each term.

From Lemma 3, equation (14) and the Hölder inequality it follows that the term (57) satisfies to the following estimate:

$`\left|\phi _R\phi _L,|\psi |^2\right|\phi _R\overline{\phi }_L_{\mathrm{}}\psi ^2_1C\omega .`$
From Lemma 5 and the Hölder inequality it follows that the term (57) satisfies to the following estimates:

$`\left|\phi _R|\psi |^2,\psi _c\right|\phi _R_{\mathrm{}}\psi ^2\psi _cC\beta \mathrm{}^2e^{C\mathrm{}^{1/2}}`$
and that the term (57) satisfies to the estimate

$`\left||\phi _R|^2,|\varphi _L|^2+a_R\phi _R\overline{\varphi }_L+\overline{a}_R\overline{\phi }_R\varphi _L\right|`$
$`C\left[\phi _R\phi _L_{\mathrm{}}+\phi _R^2_{\mathrm{}}\psi _c^2+\phi _R\phi _L_{\mathrm{}}\psi _c\right]C\omega `$
Collecting all these estimates we obtain the proof of the Lemma. ∎

The proof of the Theorem is almost done. Indeed, equations (50) can be rewritten in the integral form:

$`A(\tau )=A(0)+{\displaystyle _0^\tau }f[A(s)]𝑑s+{\displaystyle _0^\tau }R𝑑s`$
and

$`B(\tau )=B(0)+{\displaystyle _0^\tau }f[B(s)]𝑑s`$
from which it follows that for any $`\tau [0,\tau ^{}]`$

$`|A(\tau )B(\tau )|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\tau }\left|f[A(s)]f[B(s)]\right|𝑑s+{\displaystyle _0^\tau }|R|𝑑s`$
$``$ $`a{\displaystyle _0^\tau }\left|A(s)B(s)\right|𝑑s+b\tau ,a=L,b=C{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\beta \mathrm{}^2e^{C\mathrm{}^{1/2}}}{\omega }}`$
since Lemmas 4 and 5. From this inequality and by means of the Gronwall’s Lemma we finally obtain that

$`|A(\tau )B(\tau )|`$ $``$ $`b\tau +ab{\displaystyle _0^\tau }e^{a(ts)}s𝑑s={\displaystyle \frac{b}{a}}\left[e^{a\tau }1\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\beta \mathrm{}^2e^{C\mathrm{}^{1/2}}}{\omega }}`$
proving so (41) since

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega +ϵ}{C^{}\omega }}L=1+3\eta C^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega +ϵ}{\omega }},`$
for some $`C^{}>0`$, which implies that $`\frac{\beta }{L\omega }C`$ for some $`C>0`$. ∎

###### Remark 6.

Recalling that $`\omega =O(e^{\rho /\mathrm{}})`$ then the above theorem implies that for any $`\alpha <1`$ and for any $`\tau ^{}>0`$ there exists $`C`$ such that

$`|b_{R,L}(t)a_{R,L}(t)|C\omega ^\alpha \text{ and }\psi _c(,t)C\omega ^\alpha ,t[0,\mathrm{}\tau ^{}/\omega ].`$
## 6. Destruction of the beating motion for large nonlinearity

### 6.1. The unperturbed case $`ϵ=0`$

Under the assumption Hyp.2 it follows that the solution of the unperturbed equation

$`i\mathrm{}\dot{\psi }=H_0\psi ,\psi (0,x)=\psi ^0(x),`$
is simply given by

$`\psi (t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t/\mathrm{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c_1+c_2}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega t/\mathrm{})+i{\displaystyle \frac{c_2c_1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}(\omega t/\mathrm{})\right]\phi _R(x)+`$
$`+e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t/\mathrm{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c_1c_2}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega t/\mathrm{})i{\displaystyle \frac{c_1+c_2}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}(\omega t/\mathrm{})\right]\phi _L(x)`$
where

$`c_{1,2}=\phi _{1,2},\psi ^0,|c_1|^2+|c_2|^2=1.`$
Hence, $`\psi (t,x)`$ is, up to the phase factor $`e^{i(\mathrm{\Omega }\omega )t/\mathrm{}}`$, a periodic function with period $`T=\pi \mathrm{}/\omega `$.

In particular, if $`\psi `$ initially coincides with a single-well state, e.g. $`\psi ^0=\phi _R`$, then

$`\psi (t,x)=e^{i(\mathrm{\Omega }\omega )t/\mathrm{}}\left[e^{i\omega t/\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega t/\mathrm{})\phi _R(x)ie^{i\omega t/\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}(\omega t/\mathrm{})\phi _L(x)\right]`$
and the state $`\psi (t,x)`$ performs a beating motion. That is the state, initially localized on the well $`B_R`$, is localized on the other well $`B_L`$ after half a period and, after a whole period, it ”returns” on the initial well, and so on. In particular, let us consider the motion of the ”center of mass” defined here as

$`X^t=X\psi ,\psi ={\displaystyle _\text{r}}X(x)|\psi (t,x)|^2𝑑x`$
where $`XC(R)L^2(\text{R})`$ is a given bounded function such that $`X(x)=X(x)`$. We have that

$`X^t=\left[\mathrm{cos}^2(\omega t/\mathrm{})\mathrm{sin}^2(\omega t/\mathrm{})\right]{\displaystyle _\text{r}}X(x)|\phi _R(x)|^2𝑑x`$
is a periodic function which periodically assumes positive and negative values, i.e. we have the well know beating motion for double-well problem.

### 6.2. The perturbed case $`ϵ0`$

In such a case it follows that the ”center of mass” is given by

$`X^t=c[|a_R(t)|^2|a_L(t)|^2]+r,c=X\phi _R,\phi _R,`$
where the remainder term $`r`$ satisfies the uniform estimate

$`|r|`$ $`=`$ $`2\left|\mathrm{}\left[a_R\overline{a}_LX\phi _R,\phi _L+X\psi ,\psi _c\right]\right|`$
$``$ $`2\left[\phi _R\phi _L_{\mathrm{}}+X_{\mathrm{}}\psi \psi _c\right]`$
$``$ $`Ce^{C\mathrm{}^1},t[0,\mathrm{}\tau ^{}/\omega ].`$
If we denote by $`z(t)`$ the imbalance function defined in (38) then it follows that

$`|a_R(t)|^2|a_L(t)|^2=z(t)+Ce^{C\mathrm{}^1},t[0,\mathrm{}\tau ^{}/\omega ],`$
hence

$`X^t=cz(t)+Ce^{C\mathrm{}^1},t[0,\mathrm{}\tau ^{}/\omega ].`$
Then, we have that:

###### Theorem 4.

Let Hyp. 1 and 2 be satisfied. Let $`k^2`$ be defined as in (40), it depends on the initial wavefunction $`\psi ^0`$. Let $`\tau ^{}>0`$ fixed, $`X^t`$ is, up to a remainder term, a periodic function for any $`t[0,\mathrm{}\tau ^{}/\omega ]`$. In particular, if:

* $`k^2<1`$ then $`X^t`$ periodically assumes positive and negative values (i.e. the beating motion still persists);
* $`k^2>1`$ then $`X^t`$ has a definite sign (i.e. the beating motion is forbidden).

###### Remark 7.

Let us close by underlining that when the wavefunction is initially prepared on just one well, e.g. $`\psi ^0=\phi _R`$, then

$`I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta \text{ and }k^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\eta ^2.`$
Therefore, from the theorem above it follows that for $`|\eta |`$ larger than the critical value $`4`$ the beating motion is forbidden. In such a way, we put on a full rigorous basis the results obtained by  in the two-level approximation.


format: text

text:
# Fock Space Structure for the Simplest Parasupersymmetric System This project supported by National Science Foundation of China and LWTZ 1298.

## 1 Introduction

One of the fundamental and powerful approaches in theoretical physics is a search for symmetries. Generalized statistics first was introduced by Green in the form of parastatistics as an exotic possibility extending the Bose and Fermi statistics . Recent research reveals that it probably has some potential applications in the physics of the quantum Hall effect and the high temperature superconductivity . Supersymmetry, on the other hand, unifies Bose and Fermi statistics and its development leads to important progress in field and string theories .

A natural attempt is to construct a supersymmetric theory which can unify parabose and parafermi statistics. Though some authors generalized the supersymmetric quantum mechanics from the ordinary Bose and Fermi statistics to parastatistics , the so-called parasupersymmetric quantum mechanics actually only unified ordinary bosons and parafermions, or ordinary fermions and parabosons . In other words, these works only unified parabosons and parafermions with different parastatistics order $`p`$. It is well known from the parastatistics that if the parabosons and parafermions are with different order $`p`$, they will commute or anticommute with each other according to their algebraic relations being relative parabose or relative parafermi, respectively . In these cases the Fock space structures of the parasupersymmetric systems are relatively simple. However, if the parabosons and parafermions are with a same order $`p`$, they will neither commute nor anticommute with each other and will satisfy some complicated trilinear commutation relations. The Fock space structures for these systems are still unknown yet, so far it is not really available to construct a supersymetric quantum mechanics theory for parabosons and parafermions with the same order $`p`$.

In this paper, we first study the Fock space structure for a system with one mode parabose and one mode parafermi degree of freedom which are with the same order $`p`$, and construct a complete, orthonormal set of basis vectors for this parasystem. Due to the complexity of the parastatistics, there is an intrinsic double degeneracy of state vectors in this Fock space. Based on this understanding to the Fock space structure, we build a parasupersymmetric quantum mechanics model for the same order $`p`$ parabosons and parafermions, and the degeneracy plays an important role in the building.

## 2 Fock space structure

It is well known that for one mode parabose system, the fundamental trilinear relations are

$$[a,\{a^{},a\}]=2a,[a,a^2]=2a^{},[a,a^2]=0,$$
(1)
where $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$ are parabose creation and annihilation operator respectively, and for one mode parafermi system, the fundamental relation is

$$[f,[f^{},f]]=2f,$$
(2)
where $`f^{}`$ and $`f`$ are parafermi creation and annihilation operator respectively. Moreover, for a system consisting of one parabose and one parafermi degree of freedom with a same order $`p`$, besides the relations (1) and (2), there are the following mixed trilinear relations

$`[f,\{a^{},a\}]=0,[a,[f^{},f]]=0,[f,a^2]=0,[f^{},a^2]=0,`$
$`[a,\{f^{},a\}]=0,[a,\{f,a\}]=0,\{f,\{f,a\}\}=0,\{f,\{a^{},f\}\}=0,`$
$`[a,\{f,a^{}\}]=2f,[a^{},\{a,f\}]=2f,\{f,\{f^{},a\}\}=2a,\{f^{},\{a,f\}\}=2a,`$ (3)
together with the adjoint ones. From (3) we see that one paraboson does neither commute nor anticommute with parafermions, however, two parabosons do commute with parafermions. According to parastatistics , in order to study the structure of a state vector space, we should impose the following unique vacuum state conditions

$`a|0=0,f|0=0,af^{}|0=0,fa^{}|0=0,`$
$`aa^{}|0=p|0,ff^{}|0=p|0.`$ (4)
Let us denote the parabose and the parafermi number operator as $`N_a`$ and $`N_f`$ respectively,

$$N_a=\frac{1}{2}\{a^{},a\}\frac{p}{2},N_f=\frac{1}{2}[f^{},f]+\frac{p}{2}.$$
(5)
Obviously, $`N_a`$ commutes with $`N_f`$, and the vacuum state $`|0`$ is their common eigenstate with the eigenvalue zero: $`N_a|0=0`$ and $`N_f|0=0`$. For the sake of later convenience, we introduce four useful operators $`N_s`$, $`T`$, $`Q_s`$ and $`Q_s^{}`$ which are defined by

$`N_s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}\left(N_f^2(p+1)N_f+f^{}f+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}\right),`$
$`T={\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}\left(F^{}F+Q^{}QN_a{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}\right)2(N_a+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}})(N_f{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}})N_s,`$
$`Q_s=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_s)T,Q_s^{}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+N_s)T,`$ (6)
where $`F=\frac{1}{2}\{a,f\}`$ and $`Q=\frac{1}{2}\{a^{},f\}`$. It is readily to know the following relations between these operators

$`[N_a,N_s]=0,[N_f,N_s]=0,[N_s,f]=0,[N_s,a^2]=0,`$
$`[N_a,T]=0,[N_f,T]=0,[N_a,Q_s]=0,[N_f,Q_s]=0,`$
$`\{N_s,T\}=0,[N_s,Q_s]=Q_s,[Q_s^{},Q_s]=2T^2N_s,\{Q_s^{},Q_s\}=T^2.`$ (7)
We now investigate the state space structure for our parasystem. Firstly, we search common eigenstates of the operators $`N_a`$ and $`N_f`$, which are denoted by $`|m,n`$

$$N_a|m,n=m|m,n,N_f|m,n=n|m,n.$$
(8)
Obviously, there are $`m`$ parabosons and $`n`$ parafermions in the state $`|m,n`$. Using $`[N_a,a^n]=na^n`$, $`[N_f,f^n]=nf^n`$, $`[N_a,f^{}]=0`$ and $`[N_f,a^{}]=0`$, we have

Lemma 1. A state, produced by $`m`$ operators $`a^{}`$ and $`n`$ operators $`f^{}`$ acting on the vacuum state $`|0`$ in any permutation, is the common eigenstate of $`N_a`$ and $`N_f`$.

We can write the state $`|m,n`$ as

$$|m,n=f^{n_0}a^{m_1}f^{n_1}a^{m_2}f^{n_2}\mathrm{}f^{n_{l1}}a^{m_l}f^{n_l}|0,$$
(9)
where $`m_1+m_2+\mathrm{}+m_l=m`$, $`n_0+n_1+n_2+\mathrm{}+n_l=n`$, and all the $`m_i1`$, $`(i=1,\mathrm{},l)`$, all the $`n_i1`$, $`(i=1,\mathrm{},l1)`$, with $`n_0,n_l0`$. From the Lemma 1 we see that any two partitions $`(m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_l)`$ and $`(n_0,n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_l)`$ satisfying $`_{i=1}^lm_i=m`$, $`_{i=0}^ln_i=n`$ will correspond to a state $`|m,n`$. Since $`a^{}`$ and $`f^{}`$ neither commute nor anticommute with each other, it is quite possible that several different permutations of the operators $`a^{}`$ and $`f^{}`$ correspond to a same state $`|m,n`$, or that there is an intrinsic degeneracy in the subspace spanned by different eigenstates of $`N_a`$ and $`N_f`$ with the same eigenvalues $`m`$ and $`n`$ (we use the symbol (m,n) to denote this subspace). In order to make the structure of the subspace (m,n) clear, we furthermore have

Lemma 2. The subspace (m,n) is usually two dimensional, except for three special cases, i.e., for (0,n), (m,0) and (m,p), in which the intrinsic degeneracy disappears.

To prove the Lemma 2, let us use $`[a^2,f^{}]=0`$, and shift all the even powers of $`a^{}`$ in the right-hand of (9) to left side of the permutation of $`a^{}`$ and $`f^{}`$, which will lead to

$$|m,n=a^{(ms)}f^{k_0}a^{}f^{k_1}a^{}f^{k_2}\mathrm{}f^{k_{s1}}a^{}f^{k_s}|0,$$
(10)
where $`ms`$ is an even integer, and $`k_0+k_1+k_2+\mathrm{}+k_s=n`$ with $`k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_{s1}1`$ and $`k_0,k_s0`$. Then repeatedly using the relations $`a^{}f^k=()^kf^ka^{}+2kF^{}f^{(k1)}`$, $`[F^{},a^{}]=0`$, $`\{F^{},f^{}\}=0`$ and $`F^2=0`$, we may rewrite the permutation $`a^{}f^{k_1}a^{}f^{k_2}\mathrm{}a^{}f^{k_s}`$ as a sum of two terms

$$a^{}f^{k_1}a^{}f^{k_2}\mathrm{}a^{}f^{k_s}=\alpha _sf^{(k_1+k_2+\mathrm{}+k_s)}a^s+\beta _sf^{(k_1+k_2+\mathrm{}+k_s1)}a^{(s1)}F^{},$$
(11)
where $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\beta _s`$ are two coefficients decided by the integer $`s`$. For instance, we have

$`a^{}f^{k_1}=()^{k_1}f^{k_1}a^{}+()^{k_11}2k_1f^{(k_11)}F^{},`$
$`a^{}f^{k_1}a^{}f^{k_2}=()^{k_1}f^{(k_1+k_2)}a^2+()^{k_11}2k_1f^{(k_1+k_21)}a^{}F^{},`$
$`a^{}f^{k_1}a^{}f^{k_2}a^{}f^{k_3}=()^{k_1+k_3}f^{(k_1+k_2+k_3)}a^3+()^{k_2}2(k_1+k_3)f^{(k_1+k_2+k_31)}a^2F^{},`$
and so on. Substituting (11) into (10), we arrive at

$$|m,n=\alpha _sf^na^m|0+\beta _sf^{(n1)}a^{(m1)}F^{}|0,$$
(12)
which means that we can write any state $`|m,n`$ (9) satisfying the conditions $`_{i=1}^lm_i=m`$ and $`_{i=0}^ln_i=n`$ as a linear combination of two basic state-vectors $`f^na^m|0`$ and $`f^{(n1)}a^{(m1)}F^{}|0`$. It is worth pointing out that for the $`np+1`$ case, both the two basic state-vectors will become zero because the parastatistics order is $`p`$. Thus the state $`|m,n`$ will vanish for $`np+1`$ case. As for why the degeneracy in the subspace (m,n) will disappear for three special case (i.e., for (0,n), (m,0) and (m,p) cases), please see the words following (15). Combining the Lemma 1 and the Lemma 2, we have the following theorem

Theorem. Any common eigenstate $`|m,n`$ of the parabose nnumber operator $`N_a`$ and the parafermi number operator $`N_f`$ with the eigenvalues $`m`$ and $`n`$ respectively can be expressed as a combination of two basic state-vectors $`f^na^m|0`$ and $`f^{(n1)}a^{(m1)}F^{}|0`$, as in (12), where $`m0`$, $`n0`$ and $`np`$.

We now denote the two basic state-vectors as $`|m,n,\alpha =f^na^m|0`$ and $`|m,n,\beta =f^{(n1)}a^{(m1)}F^{}|0`$. After some algebras we see that usually the inner products of the two basic state-vectors are not zero, i.e., $`m,n,\alpha |m,n,\beta 0`$, or the two basic state-vectors are not orthogonal. Using Schmidt method we can get two orthonormal basis vectors in the subspace $`(m,n)`$

$`|m,n,s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(pn)!}{p!n![m]!}}}f^na^m|0,`$
$`|m,n,s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(pn1)!(m+\frac{1()^m}{2})}{p!(n1)![m+1]!}}}f^{(n1)}\left(pF^{}f^{}a^{}\right)a^{(m1)}|0,`$ (13)
which satisfy

$$m,n,s|m^{},n^{},s^{}=\delta _{m,m^{}}\delta _{n,n^{}}\delta _{s,s^{}},$$
(14)
and

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{s=\pm 1/2}{}|m,n,sm,n,s|=1,$$
(15)
where $`[m]=m+(p1)\frac{1()^m}{2}`$, $`[m]!=[m][m1]\mathrm{}[1]`$ and $`[0]!=1`$. Some remarks concerning the basis vector $`|m,n,s`$ are as follows. Firstly, for $`m=0`$ or $`n=0`$ case, by the construction of the state $`|m,n`$, only the state $`|m,n,1/2`$ exists, which exactly coincides with the basis vectors of one mode parafermi system or the basis vectors of one mode parabose system respectively. This can also be seen from the normalization factor of the state $`|m,n,1/2`$. For example, when $`m=0`$, the normalization factor of the state $`|m,n,1/2`$ is zero, which means the state $`|m,n,1/2`$ does not exist. Secondly, for $`n=p`$ case, using a formula $`pf^{(p1)}a^{}f^{}+(p2)f^pa^{}=0`$ which works for paraboson and parafermion with the same order $`p`$, we also see the state $`|m,n,1/2`$ vanishes. So in the three special cases (m=0, n=0, or n=p), there exist only the states $`|m,n,1/2`$, or the intrinsic double degeneracy in the subspace (m,n) disappears. Needless to say, if the order $`p=1`$, our parasystem will reduce to the ordinary boson and fermion system, and of course the degeneracy will disappear. Also when $`np+1`$, all the basis vectors will become zero.

Furthermore, we show that the two basis vectors $`|m,n,1/2`$ and $`|m,n,1/2`$ are eigenstates of the operator $`N_s`$ defined by (6) with eigenvalue $`1/2`$ and $`1/2`$ respectively. In fact, noticing $`[N_s,f^{}]=0`$, $`[N_s,a^2]=0`$, and $`N_s|0=\frac{1}{2}|0`$, $`N_sa^{}|0=\frac{1}{2}a^{}|0`$, we have

$$N_s|m,n,1/2=\frac{1}{2}|m,n,1/2.$$
(16)
Then using $`N_fF^{}|0=F^{}|0`$, and $`N_fF^{}a^{}|0=F^{}a^{}|0`$, we have

$`N_s(pF^{}f^{}a^{})|0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(pF^{}f^{}a^{})|0,`$
$`N_s(pF^{}f^{}a^{})a^{}|0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(pF^{}f^{}a^{})a^{}|0,`$ (17)
which will lead to

$$N_s|m,n,1/2=\frac{1}{2}|m,n,1/2.$$
(18)
Thus we clearly understand the Fock space structure of our parasystem. The set of complete and orthonormal basis vectors in this Fork space is $`\{|m,n,s\}`$ which are common eigenstates of three operators $`N_a`$, $`N_f`$ and $`N_s`$.

Before concluding this section, let us see actions of the operators $`T`$, $`Q_s`$ and $`Q_s^{}`$ defined by (6) on the basis states $`|m,n,s`$. After some simple calculations we find that

$`T|m,n,1/2=\sqrt{n(pn)\left(m^2+mp+p^2(1()^m)/8\right)}|m,n,1/2,`$
$`T|m,n,1/2=\sqrt{n(pn)\left(m^2+mp+p^2(1()^m)/8\right)}|m,n,1/2,`$ (19)
which mean that $`T`$ is a transition operator changing $`|m,n,1/2`$ to $`|m,n,1/2`$ and vice versa. In addition, we also have

$`Q_s|m,n,1/2=\sqrt{n(pn)\left(m^2+mp+p^2(1()^m)/8\right)}|m,n,1/2,`$
$`Q_s|m,n,1/2=0,`$ (20)
and

$`Q_s^{}|m,n,1/2=0,`$
$`Q_s^{}|m,n,1/2=\sqrt{n(pn)\left(m^2+mp+p^2(1()^m)/8\right)}|m,n,1/2,`$ (21)
which imply that $`Q_s`$ and $`Q_s^{}`$ are ladder operators in the two dimensional subspace (m,n).

## 3 Parasupersymmetric quantum mechanics model

Now we consider the simplest parasupersymmetric model consisting of a free parabose oscillator and a free parafermi oscillator with the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\{a^{},a\}+\frac{1}{2}[f^{},f]=N_a+N_f.$$
(22)
¿From our basic relations in (3), we know that the operators $`H`$, $`Q`$ and $`Q_{}`$ satisfy the standard supersymmetric algebra

$$[H,Q]=[H,Q^{}]=0,\{Q,Q^{}\}=H,Q^2=Q^2=0,$$
(23)
so $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$ are aupersymmetric charge operators which realize the supersymmetry between parabosons and parafermions. It is easily to see that $`Q`$ (or $`Q^{}`$) changes states between two subspaces (m,n) and (m+1,n-1) (or (m,n) and (m-1,n+1)). In the previous section we construct a set of complete and orthonormal basis vectors $`\{|m,n,s\}`$ for our parasystem. In this basis the spectrum of the Hamiltonian (22) can be immediately obtained

$$H|m,n,s=E_{m+n}|m,n,s=(m+n)|m,n,s,$$
(24)
where $`m0`$ and $`0np`$. We would like to emphasize here that there is an intrinsic double degeneracy for any state with $`m`$ parabosons and $`n`$ parafermions, except for three extreme cases in which $`m=0`$, or $`n=0`$, or $`n=p`$. For $`p=3`$ case, the spectrum is shown in Fig.1. From the figure we see that the ground state level $`E_0=0`$ is non-degenerate, which results from the assumption of the unique vacuum state and also means that the parasupersymmetry is unbroken. The first level $`E_1`$ is double degenerate, to which there are two states $`|1,0,1/2`$ and $`|0,1,1/2`$ corresponding.The second level $`E_2`$ is quadruple degenerate, to which four states $`|2,0,1/2`$, $`|0,2,1/2`$, $`|1,1,1/2`$ and $`|1,1,1/2`$ correspond. Generally speaking, the degeneracy of the $`l`$-th level $`(lp)`$ $`E_l`$ is $`2l`$-fold, or there are $`2l`$ states with the energy $`E_l=l`$, which are $`|l,0,1/2`$, $`|0,l,1/2`$, and $`|m,n,\pm 1/2`$, where $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},l1`$, so $`n=l1,l2,\mathrm{},1`$, respectively. However, for $`l>p`$ case, the degeneracy of the level $`E_l`$ is the same $`2p`$-fold, or there are always $`2p`$ states having the energy $`E_l=l`$, which are $`|l,0,1/2`$, $`|lp,p,1/2`$, and $`|m,n,\pm 1/2`$, where $`n=1,2,\mathrm{},p1`$ and correspodingly $`m=l1,l2,\mathrm{},lp+1`$.

Here we find that the intrinsic double degeneracy in the subspace (m,n) plays an important role in realization of the supersymmetry for our parasystem. From the ordinary supersymmetric quantum mechanics we know that the number of bose states is equal to the number of fermi states in the Fock space of the theory . If one introduces the Witten index , or an operator $`()^{N_F}`$, where $`N_F`$ is the fermi number operator, then one must have $`Tr()^{N_F}=0`$ for a supersymmetric quantum system, here the trace is done for the all physical states except the vacuum state. In our case, we should generalize the Witten index to the form of $`()^{N_f}`$, where the $`N_f`$ is the parafermi number operator, and if our parasystem is supersymmetry, we must also have $`Tr()^{N_f}=0`$, here the trace is done for our all states except the vacuum state. In other words, for our parasystem, if the supersymmtry is exactly established, the number of states with even parafermions must exactly be equal to the number of states with odd parafermions. Due to the intrinsic double degeneracy in the subspace (m,n) (where $`m0`$, $`n0`$ and $`np`$), $`Tr()^{N_f}`$ is exact zero, here the trace is done for all states except the vacuum state. To see this, let us consider every excitation level $`E_l`$. In every such level, we have even states no matter $`lp`$ or $`l>p`$, and half of them are even- and half of them are odd-parafermion states, so $`Tr()^{N_f}=0`$. If we had without the double degeneracy, we would have no way to realize the supersymmetry between the parabosons and the parafermions. It is exactly in this sense, we say that the intrinsic double degeneracy plays an fundamental rule in building the parasupersymmetry for our system.

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper, the Fork space structure of a system consisting of one mode parabose and one mode parafermi degree of freedom with the same parastatistics order $`p`$ is investigated. Since the parabosons neither conmmute nor anticonmmute with the parafermions, the Fork space of our parasystem is more complicated than one of the ordinary bose and fermi systems, or in other words, the Fork space of our parasystem is not simply a direct product of parabose subspace and parafermi subspace. It is fortunately that there is a double degeneracy in the subspace (m,n) which insures that the number of even-parafermion states is exactly the same as the number of odd-parafermion states. Based on this, the unbroken supersymmetry is established for our parasystem. An interesting task is to generalize the result of this paper to more complicated parasupersymmetric systems, and work on this direction is in progress.