format: text

text:
# Energy and structure of dilute hard– and soft–sphere gases

## I Introduction

The study of dilute systems has met a surge of renewed interest in the last years, following the experimental achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation in low density atomic gases confined in harmonic traps. Systems are termed as dilute when the average interparticle distance, $`r_{av}`$, is much larger than the range of the interaction, $`r_0`$. The main parameter characterizing the interaction in the dilute regime is the $`s`$–wave scattering length, $`a`$, and the diluteness condition can be expressed in terms of the density, $`\rho `$, as $`x<<1`$, where $`x=\rho a^3`$ is the gas parameter.

Positive values of the scattering length correspond to an essentially repulsive interaction at short distances. In fact, for an infinite repulsive barrier, with no attractive part, $`a`$ is just given by the radius of the barrier itself. The hard sphere (HS) potential is largely adopted to study low density (LD) gases with positive scattering lengths because of its formal simplicity. However, other potentials, providing the same value of $`a`$, are indistinguishable from the HS one at very low $`x`$ (universality property). Additional details of the interaction, giving raise to nonuniversal effects, become relevant when the density (and the gas parameter) increases, allowing for discriminating among different potential shapes. Typical ranges of $`x`$ where these differences begin to show up have been foundboro99 ; sarsa02  to be $`x10^3`$.

In the density ranges attained in Bose-Einstein condensation experiments the local gas parameter may well exceed this value, exploiting the large variation of the scattering length in the vicinity of a Fehsbach resonancecornish00 . In order to quantitatively study this regime it is compulsory to check the reliability of the theories adopted in the analysis. A first, and much needed step in this direction, consists in understanding the properties of the underlying homogeneous gas of bosons at T=0 temperature. This is a time honored subject of many–body physics, addressed by a variety of methods, such as perturbative expansions, Monte Carlo (MC) type samplings, variational theories, and so on.

Expansions in $`x`$ may be suited to study dilute systems whose interaction can be safely described in terms of the $`s`$–wave scattering length. They can be derived in the framework of standard perturbation theories, built on the basis constituted by the ground state of a non interacting Bose fluid and its excited states, obtained by promoting particles from the zero momentum condensed state to the non–zero ones. Infinite sums of ladder diagrams must be accomplished for strongly repulsive potentials. This procedure results in the well known Lee and Yang low density expansion for the energy per particle of a homogeneous gas of bosonslee57 ,

$$\frac{E}{N}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2ma^2}\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi x\left[1+\frac{128}{15}\sqrt{\frac{x}{\pi }}\right].$$
(1)
Low order perturbative diagrams can be retained in the weakly interacting Bose gasfetter  characterized by an interaction having a finite Fourier transform.

Alternatively, the interaction may be mimicked in the low density region by a delta–shaped pseudopotentialhuang , related to $`a`$ by

$$V(r)=4\pi a\mathrm{}^2\delta (𝐫)/m,$$
(2)
which reproduces the value of the scattering length in the Born approximation:

$$a_B=\frac{m}{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}𝑑𝐫V(r).$$
(3)
This approach is followed in the Bogoliubov theorybogo , by introducing a model hamiltonian containing the pseudopotential. A canonical transformation of the BCS type allows for a partial diagonalization of the model hamiltonian, leading to a $`x`$–expansion as in (1) for the ground–state energy.

Nonuniversal effects have been studied in effective field theory in Ref.braaten01 , and found to depend, at the leading orders, on the effective range, $`r_s`$, and on a three–body contact force parameter, $`c`$, determined in this reference by comparison with the exact diffusion Monte Carlo results of Ref.boro99 .

The bosonic many–body Schroedinger equation may be solved, for any potential, by Monte Carlo based methods, as the Green’s Function Monte Carlo and the Diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC) ones. Both approaches are exact, apart from statistical errors, and provide essential benchmarks to test the reliability of other theories, at least in those cases where the numerical accuracy allows for an unbiased analysis of the results.

The variational approach is carried on within the Correlated Basis Functions (CBF) perturbation theory, and represents its zeroth order. The correlated ground state wave function for $`N`$ interacting particles is obtained by acting with a many–body correlation operator on the non–interacting ground state wave functionfeenberg :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0(1,2,\mathrm{},N)=(1,2,\mathrm{},N)\mathrm{\Phi }_0(1,2,\mathrm{},N).$$
(4)
The operator $`(1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$ is meant to take into account the spatial correlations induced by the interaction on the free wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$ (for homogeneous bosons $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=1`$). For instance, in the HS case the correlation operator prevents the distance between any pair of particles from being smaller than the core radius, so that the wave function vanishes for these configurations. The theory is variational in the sense that $``$ is determined by minimizing the ground state energy. A correlated perturbation theory may be constructed by applying the correlation operator to the non–interacting excited states.

The weakly interacting Bose fluid has been recently studied within the variational method by means of the Independent Pair Correlations (IPC) approachsarsa02 . The IPC wave function is written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{IPC}(1,2,\mathrm{},N)=1+\underset{i<j}{}h(r_{ij})+\frac{1}{2}\underset{(i<j)(l<m)}{}h(r_{ij})h(r_{lm})+\mathrm{},$$
(5)
where the two–body correlation functions, $`h(r)`$, always act on non–overlapping, independent pairs. The structure of a Bose system described by the IPC wave function has been analyzed by means of an expansion in cluster diagrams. Renormalized HyperNetted Chain (HNC) integral equations exactly sum all the diagrams and have been used to compute the energy, distribution function, momentum distribution and pairing function of the bulk boson system of soft spheres. The Bogoliubov transformation itself is known to generate a wave function having the IPC structurehuang , and a careful comparison between the variational and Bogoliubov approaches has been performed in Ref.sarsa02 , as well as with the outcomes of the Diffusion Monte Carlo and low density theories, for soft sphere (SS) and gaussian like potentials.

The IPC wave function fails for a hard–sphere fluid, since all pairs need to be simultaneously correlated. This task may be achieved by a Jastrow correlated wave functionfeenberg

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_J(1,2,\mathrm{},N)=\underset{i<j}{}[1+h(r_{ij})],$$
(6)
where the productory runs over $`all`$ pairs. The Jastrow ansatz is clearly richer than the IPC one, however it has the disvantage that the HNC equations can be only approximately solved, since a class of diagrams (the $`elementary`$ diagrams) is not summable in a closed wayHNC . The approximations in the solution of the Jastrow–HNC equations are not expected to be quantitatively relevant in the low density regime, however the computed energy is, in principle, no longer a rigorous upperbound to the true one, in contrast with the IPC case.

In this paper we consider a system of $`N`$ spinless bosons of mass $`m`$ in a volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, described by the hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}_j^2+\underset{1=i<j}{\overset{N}{}}V(r_{ij})$$
(7)
where $`V(r)`$ is a two-body, spherically symmetric potential, in the thermodynamic limit ( $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`\mathrm{}`$, keeping the density, $`\rho =N/\mathrm{\Omega }`$, constant).

Two different representative choices for the potential are studied: the hard-sphere potential,

$$V(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\hfill & ra,\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where the diameter $`a`$ of the hard sphere coincides with the $`s`$–wave scattering length, and a soft sphere potential,

$$V(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}V_0>0\hfill & r<R\hfill \\ 0\hfill & r>R,\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
whose $`s`$-wave scattering length is given by

$$a=R\left[1\mathrm{tanh}(K_0R)/(K_0R)\right],$$
(10)
with $`K_0^2=V_0m/\mathrm{}^2`$.

The $`optimal`$ Jastrow correlated wave function, obtained by the minimization of the energy per particle through the solution of the HNC Euler equation kro98 , is used along this work. We compute the radial distribution function, $`g(r)`$, the static structure function, $`S(k)`$, and the momentum distribution, $`n(k)`$, for HS and SS models with identical scattering lengths, to ascertain the dependence on the potential form along the gas parameter. We work in the HNC/0 approximation, which amounts to disregard the contribution from the elementary diagrams and whose accuracy is tested by comparison with the exact DMC results. Moreover, the Jastrow theory is compared with the LD expansion and with the Bogoliubov and IPC theories for the SS case. In addition, the SS potential is examined in the so called uniform limit (UL)feenberg , defined by assuming $`|g(r)1|<<1`$ for all $`r`$. Special emphasis is devoted to the analysis of several asymptotic behaviors. This is an interesting issue that cannot be fully addressed with DMC methods, since the limited size of the simulation box strongly limits the possibility of studying effects related to long range structures.

The plan of the paper is as follows: the HNC/0 and Euler equations are shortly revisited in Section II; the uniform limit for the SS potential and its connection with the Random Phase Approximation (RPA) theory are discussed in Section III; Section IV present the results for the HS and SS models and summary and conclusions are given in Section V.

## II HNC theory

The exact wave function of a homogenous, interacting Bose system can be written as the product of up to $`N`$–body correlation factorsfeenberg

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0(1,2,\mathrm{},N)=\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}f_2(r_{ij})\underset{k<l<m}{\overset{N}{}}f_3(𝐫_{kl},𝐫_{km},𝐫_{lm})\mathrm{},$$
(11)
where $`r_{ij}=𝐫_i𝐫_j`$ and $`f_n>0`$ for all $`n`$. High density and strongly interacting systems, like atomic liquid 4He, are accurately described by keeping only two– and three–body correlations ($`f_{n>3}=1`$). Moreover, a proper choice of $`f_2`$ already contributes by $`70\%`$ to the 4He energyHNC . So, for weak interactions and/or low density fluids, the simpler Jastrow correlated wave function of Eq.(6) may largely be enough to capture the essential features of the exact ground state and to provide a quantitatively correct description.

### II.1 Radial distribution function and Euler equation

The optimal Jastrow correlation function is obtained by minimizing, without restrictions, the expectation value of the hamiltonian (7), giving the ground state energy,

$$E[f_2]=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0H\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_0}.$$
(12)
This is accomplished by solving the Euler–Lagrange equation camp

$$\frac{\delta E[f_2]}{\delta f_2(r)}=0.$$
(13)
The link between the energy and $`f_2`$ is provided by the radial distribution function, $`g(r)`$,

$$g(r_{12})=\frac{N(N1)}{\rho ^2}\frac{𝑑𝐫_3𝑑𝐫_4\mathrm{}𝑑𝐫_N|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2}{𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2\mathrm{}𝑑𝐫_N|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2},$$
(14)
as, in fact,

$$\frac{E}{N}=\frac{1}{2}\rho 𝑑𝐫_{12}g(r_{12})\left[V(r_{12})\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\mathrm{ln}f_2(r_{12})\right].$$
(15)
The Jackson–Feenberg identityfeenberg  has been used to derive Eq.(15). In turn, the radial distribution function can be computed by solving the HyperNetted Chain equations:

$`g(r_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`f_2^2(r_{12})e^{N(r_{12})+E(r_{12})}`$
$`N(r_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`\rho {\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_3[g(r_{13})1][g(r_{32})1N(r_{32})]},`$ (16)
where $`N(r)`$ and $`E(r)`$ are the sum of the nodal and elementary diagrams, respectivelyHNC . The function $`E(r)`$ is an input to the theory, and the solution of the HNC equations depends on its choice. In the HNC/0 scheme this function is set to be zero. This seemingly drastic approximation is, however, reliable at low densities since the diagrams contributing to $`E(r)`$, being highly interconnected, are relevant mostly in the large density regions.

By inverting the relations (16) it is possible to express the energy as a functional of the radial distribution function, and formally rewrite the Euler equation as:

$$\frac{\delta E[g]}{\delta g(r)}=0.$$
(17)
If this procedure is carried on in $`r`$–space, the outcome is an integro–differential equation for $`g(r)`$HNC . Alternatively, the energy can be written in terms of the static structure function, $`S(k)`$, defined as the Fourier transform of the radial distribution function,

$$S(k)=1+\rho 𝑑𝐫e^{i𝐤𝐫}(g(r)1).$$
(18)
Variation of $`E[S]`$ leads to the equationskro98 :

$$S(k)=\frac{t(k)}{\sqrt{t^2(k)+2V_{ph}(k)t(k)}},$$
(19)
with $`t(k)=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$ and $`V_{ph}(k)`$ the so called particle–hole interaction. In $`r`$–space and in HNC/0,

$$V_{ph}(r)=g(r)V(r)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}\left|\sqrt{g(r)}\right|^2+\left[g(r)1\right]\omega _I(r),$$
(20)
where the $`k`$–space induced interaction, $`\omega _I(k)`$, is

$$\omega _I(k)=\frac{1}{2}t(k)\frac{\left(2S(k)+1\right)\left(S(k)1\right)^2}{S^2(k)}.$$
(21)
Eqs.(19), (20) and (21) are a set of nonlinear coupled equations to be solved iteratively. Finally, the knowledge of $`S(k)`$ (or $`g(r)`$) allows to find the optimal Jastrow correlation function by inversion of the HNC/0 equations.

In the HS model the Euler formalism simplifies, since $`V_{ph}(r<a)=\omega _I(r)`$ and $`V_{ph}(r>a)=\mathrm{}^2/m\left|\sqrt{g(r)}\right|^2+[g(r)1]\omega _I(r)`$.

### II.2 Momentum distribution

The one–body density matrix for an homogeneous Bose fluid,

$$\rho _1(𝐫_1,𝐫_1^{})=\rho _1(r_{11^{}})=N\frac{𝑑𝐫_2𝑑𝐫_3\mathrm{}𝑑𝐫_N\mathrm{\Psi }_0(1,2,\mathrm{},N)\mathrm{\Psi }_0(1^{},2,\mathrm{},N)}{𝑑𝐫_1\mathrm{}𝑑𝐫_N|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2},$$
(22)
contains essential information about the depletion of the condensate in interacting systems and the consequent finite occupation of single particle states carrying non–zero momentum. Its diagonal part coincides with the one–body density, and in an homogeneous system $`\rho _1(r=0)=\rho `$. The condensate fraction, $`n_0`$, ($`i.e.`$ the fractional occupation of the $`k=0`$ momentum state) is related to the long range order of the one–body density matrix by: $`n_0=\rho _1(r\mathrm{})/\rho `$.

The associated momentum distribution, $`n(k)`$, is obtained through the Fourier transform of the one–body density matrix,

$$n(k)=(2\pi )^3\rho n_0\delta (𝐤)+𝑑𝐫\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐫)[\rho _1(r)\rho n_0].$$
(23)
The momentum distribution is normalized as

$$1=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3\rho }𝑑𝐤n(k),$$
(24)
while the kinetic energy per particle can be obtained by $`n(k)`$ through

$$\frac{T}{N}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3\rho }𝑑𝐤\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}n(k).$$
(25)
The HNC/0 scheme has been extended to evaluate the one–body density matrix for a Jastrow correlated wave functionfantoni78 . As a consequence, one gets

$$\frac{\rho _1(r)}{\rho }=n_0e^{N_{ww}(r)},$$
(26)
where the new nodal function, $`N_{ww}(r)`$, is given by

$$N_{ww}(r_{12})=\rho 𝑑𝐫_3[g_{wd}(r_{13})1][g_{dw}(r_{32})1N_{dw}(r_{32})].$$
(27)
In the HNC/0 scheme, the functions $`g_{wd}`$ and $`N_{wd}`$ are solutions of the set of coupled equations

$`g_{wd}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`f(r)e^{N_{wd}(r)}`$
$`N_{wd}(r_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`\rho {\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_3[g_{wd}(r_{13})1][g(r_{32})1N(r_{32})]},`$ (28)
with $`g_{wd}(r_{12})=g_{dw}(r_{21})`$ and $`N_{wd}(r_{12})=N_{dw}(r_{21})`$.

The condensate fraction, $`n_0`$, is given in terms of the vertex factors, $`R_w`$ and $`R_d`$, as

$$n_0=e^{2R_wR_d},$$
(29)
where

$$R_w=\rho 𝑑𝐫[g_{wd}(r)1N_{wd}(r)]\frac{\rho }{2}𝑑𝐫[g_{wd}(r)1]N_{wd}(r),$$
(30)
and $`R_d`$ is obtained by substituting in (30) $`g_{wd}g`$ and $`N_{wd}N`$.

## III Soft spheres in the uniform limit approximation

The formalism presented in the previous section is independent on the shape of the potential. Hence it is equally well suited to analyze both HS and SS systems. However, everywhere bounded potentials, as the SS one, allow for alternative calculations complementing the HNC results. A simple estimate of the energy, in this case, is provided by first order perturbation theory, which yields an upper–bound to the exact ground state energy:

$$\frac{E_1(\rho )}{N}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0H\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{N}=\frac{1}{2}\rho V_0\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{V}(0),$$
(31)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is the Fourier transform of the potential and $`\varphi _0=1/\mathrm{\Omega }^{N/2}`$ is the wave function of the corresponding free system, with all particles occupying the zero momentum state. The second order perturbative correction to the energy is also easily obtained as

$$\frac{E_2(\rho )}{N}=\frac{1}{2\rho }\frac{d𝐪}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\stackrel{~}{V}(q)^2}{\mathrm{}^2q^2/m},$$
(32)
however the resulting total energy $`E(\rho )=E_1(\rho )+E_2(\rho )`$ is no longer a bound to the exact one.

If the interaction is finite the uniform limit approximationfeenberg  may also give an accurate description of a dilute system. In this regime, correlations are assumed to be weak and the ground state is only slightly affected by them. This condition reads, in terms of the radial distribution function, as $`|g(r)1|<<1`$, as already mentioned in the Introduction. In the uniform limit the HNC energy simplifies as:

$$\frac{E_{UL}(\rho )}{N}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{V}(0)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3\rho }\left[(S(k)1)\stackrel{~}{V}(k)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{4m}\frac{(S(k)1)^2}{S(k)}\right],$$
(33)
an expression that can be readily obtained from Eq. (15) by assuming $`g(r)1`$, so that $`\mathrm{ln}g(r)g(r)1`$. The last term in the integral is the kinetic energy contribution, and by comparing it with (25) one readily realizes that the momentum distribution is related to the static structure function in the UL through the relation:

$$n(k)=\frac{(S(k)1)^2}{4S(k)}.$$
(34)
The condensate fraction, $`n_0`$, can then be recovered by imposing the normalization condition (24).

Minimization of $`E_{UL}`$ with respect to $`S(k)`$ gives the Euler-Lagrange equation in the UL,

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(k)+\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{4m}\frac{(S^2(k)1)}{S^2(k)}=0,$$
(35)
which can be solved for the the static structure function to obtain:

$$S_{UL}(k)=\frac{t(k)}{\sqrt{t^2(k)+2t(k)\stackrel{~}{V}(k)}}.$$
(36)
This expression is formally identical to the HNC one of Eq. (19), where $`V_{ph}(k)`$ has been approximated by the Fourier transform of the bare potential $`V(r)`$.

We notice that $`S_{UL}(k)`$ coincides with the static sturcture function given by the RPA approximation to the dynamic susceptibility, $`\chi (k,\omega )`$ kro98 ,

$$\chi _{RPA}(k,\omega )=\frac{\chi _0(k,\omega )}{1\stackrel{~}{V}(k)\chi _0(k,\omega )},$$
(37)
where $`\chi _0(k,\omega )`$ is the dynamic susceptibility of the free Bose gas at zero temperature,

$$\chi _0(k,\omega )=\frac{1}{\omega t(k)+iϵ}\frac{1}{\omega +t(k)+iϵ}.$$
(38)
The poles of $`\chi _{RPA}(k,\omega )`$, $`ϵ_{RPA}(k)=\left(t(k)^2+2t(k)\stackrel{~}{V}(k)\right)^{1/2}`$, define the excitation energies of the system, while the imaginary part of $`\chi _{RPA}(k,\omega )`$ gives the dynamic structure function,

$$S_{RPA}(k,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{}\chi _{RPA}(k,\omega )=\frac{t(k)}{ϵ_{RPA}(k)}\delta (\omega ϵ_{RPA}(k)).$$
(39)
Integration of $`S_{RPA}(k,\omega )`$ over $`\omega `$ leads to the static structure function, $`S_{RPA}(k)`$,

$$S_{RPA}(k)=\frac{t(k)}{\sqrt{t^2(k)+2t(k)\stackrel{~}{V}(k)}},$$
(40)
which coincides with $`S_{UL}(k)`$. Moreover, the UL energy (33) can be obtained by adding the RPA correction, $`\mathrm{}E_{RPA}`$, to the uncorrelated energy (31). $`\mathrm{}E_{RPA}`$ can be evaluated by performing a coupling constant integration,

$$\mathrm{}E_{RPA}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3\rho }\stackrel{~}{V}(k)_0^1\left[S_\lambda (k)1\right]𝑑\lambda ,$$
(41)
$`S_\lambda (k)`$ being the RPA static structure function corresponding to the interaction $`\lambda \stackrel{~}{V}(k)`$. After a straigthforward integration the uniform limit expression is recovered,

$$E_{UL}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{V}(0)+\mathrm{}E_{RPA}.$$
(42)
A similar result has been found in Ref.sarsa02 , where the soft-sphere gas has been studied in the framework of the HNC theory with an independent pair correlated wave function. The authors have shown that neglecting the composite diagrams and summing the chain diagrams only, the HNC/IPC approach leads to the RPA (and UL) energy functional (33). All three theories produce the same description of the soft-sphere gas in the low density regime, since both uniform limit and correlated theories, in conjuction with a proper minimization via the Euler equation, take into account the long range correlations relevant in this region and correctly considered by the RPA.

### III.1 Some aspects of the low density expansion

The formalism outlined in Section II allows to describe the ground state of any boson liquid or gas characterized by a hamiltonian of the form given in (7). At very low densities, however, all interacting Bose gases having the same scattering length are expected to behave in a similar way, as originally pointed out by Bogoliubov bogo . The energy of a Bose gas follows the universal form (1) as long as the system is dilute. However, the overall energy comes from a balance between kinetic and potential contributions. For hard spheres the energy is entirely kinetic, whereas for soft spheres the relative contribution of the potential energy may be as large as possible, according to the softness of the interaction.

Despite the universality exhibited by the total energy, it is not clear that other ground state properties may show an analogous behavior. An answer to this question can be obtained by analyzing the hard and soft sphere gases and comparing with the predictions obtained within the Bogoliubov model. For instance, from the Bogoliubov excitation spectrum,

$$ϵ_B(k)=\sqrt{t^2(k)+2t(k)4\pi a\mathrm{}^2\rho /m},$$
(43)
an approximate static structure factor can be obtained assuming a Feynman–like spectrum,

$$S_B(k)=\frac{t(k)}{ϵ_B(k)}.$$
(44)
However, $`g(r)`$ extracted from $`S_B(k)`$ is unphysically divergent at $`r=0`$.

In the Bogoliubov model the momentum distribution, $`n_B(k)`$, at $`k>0`$ can be written in the formhuang :

$$n_B(k)=\frac{A_k^2}{1A_k^2},A_k=1+\frac{m}{4\pi a\mathrm{}^2\rho }\left[t(k)ϵ_B(k)\right].$$
(45)
This expression coincides with $`n(k)`$ as obtained in the UL (Eq.(34)) when $`\stackrel{~}{V}(k)`$ is replaced by $`4\pi a\rho \mathrm{}^2/m`$.

Normalization of the full momentum distribution gives the fraction of particles in the $`k=0`$ state, $`n_{0B}`$,

$$n_{0B}=1\frac{8}{3}\sqrt{\frac{x}{\pi }}.$$
(46)
The kinetic energy computed through $`n_B(k)`$ is divergent since $`n_B(k)k^4`$ at large $`k`$.

## IV Dilute hard spheres

In this section variational results for the energy, two-body distribution function, static structure function and one-body density matrix (and momentum distribution) of a dilute gas of hard spheres are shown and discussed. The driving quantity of any variational approach is the total energy, given by the sum of the kinetic and potential terms. Since inside the core of the potential $`g(r)=0`$, the energy is purely kinetic and, in units of $`\mathrm{}^2/2ma^2`$, becomes

$$\frac{\overline{E}(x)}{N}=\frac{\overline{T}}{N}=\frac{1}{2}x𝑑𝐫g(r)^2\mathrm{ln}f(r).$$
(47)
We will adopt the long ranged correlation function obtained by solving the Euler–Lagrange equations and will analyze the related asymptotic behaviors. However, the HNC results for a simpler correlation function having a short–range structure, $`f_{SR}(r)`$, are also discussed. $`f_{SR}(r)`$ is choosen in such a way to minimize the lowest–order in the cluster expansion of the energy of the homogeneous gas of HS with a healing condition at a distance $`d`$, taken as a variational parameterfSR . In the HS case $`f_{SR}(r)`$ is:

$$f_{SR}(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & r<1\hfill \\ \frac{d}{r}\frac{\mathrm{sin}[K(r1)]}{\mathrm{sin}[K(d1)]}\hfill & r>1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
where distances are in units of $`a`$ and $`K`$ fulfills the equation: $`cot[K(d1)]=(Kd)^1`$. The latter condition ensures the healing properties: $`f_{SR}(r1)=1`$ and $`f_{SR}^{}(r=d)=0`$.

The scaled energies per particle, $`\overline{E}(x)/N`$, of the HS gas as a function of the gas parameter, $`x`$, are given in Table 1. $`\overline{E}_{EL}`$ is obtained by solving the Euler-Lagrange equation, while in computing $`\overline{E}_{SR}`$ the short–range correlation (48) has been used. Both energies are computed within the HNC/0 approximation, justified a priori by the smallness of $`x`$, and a posteriori by the eventual agreement with the exact DMC resultsboro99 , reported also in the Table together with the results of the LD expansion (1).

$`\overline{E}_{EL}`$ and $`\overline{E}_{SR}`$ are upper bounds to the exact DMC energy. Furthermore, since the solution of the Euler–Lagrange equations yields the minimum energy for a Jastrow type wave function, the inequality $`\overline{E}_{DMC}\overline{E}_{EL}\overline{E}_{SR}`$ holds at each density. Violations of this hiearchy at low $`x`$–values are probably due to numerical inaccuracies, rather than to the HNC/0 approximation.

The low-density expansion does not satisfy the upper bound property. However, the lowest order of the same expansion, $`\overline{E}_{LD0}/N=4\pi x`$, is a rigorous lower bound to the exact energy lieb1 . The overall differences among the EL, SR and DMC energies are very small (at most $`6\%`$ in the worst case at $`x=0.1`$) and both the EL and the SR results can be taken as good estimates. Using the HNC/0 scheme is therefore well justified in the range of densities explored, especially at the lowest ones. For the sake of comparison, a Variational Monte Carlo (VMC) calculation at $`x=0.1`$, with $`f_{SR}(r)`$ having a healing distance $`d=6`$, has also been carried out in order to estimate the relevance of the elementary diagrams. The result $`\overline{E}_{VMC}/N=3.74\pm 0.02`$ is to be compared with $`\overline{E}_{SR}/N=3.97`$ in HNC/0. Hence, at the highest density considered the elementary diagrams contribute by only $`6\%`$ to the energy. Further differences with the DMC results have to be attributed to deficiencies in the two–body correlation factor and to the lack of three- and higher body correlations in the trial wave function. The energies in these approximations are plotted in Fig. 1, where the subtle differences between the points are hardly appreciable, except at the highest $`x`$’s.

The influence of the optimization on the energy is rather small. The energy is dominated by the short range structure of the potential, which requires the two body distribution function to be zero inside the hard core. The Euler–Lagrange procedure is instead important in establishing the long range structure of the distribution function $`g(r)`$, or, alternativeley, of the low $`k`$ behavior of $`S(k)`$.

The $`EL`$ radial distribution function is shown in Fig. 2 for several values of the gas parameter. At low $`x`$’s $`g(r)`$ is a monotonically increasing function of the distance, approaching faster and faster the asymptotic limit, $`g(r)1`$, with the density. This behavior is readily understood recalling that $`g(r)`$ measures the probability of finding two particles at a distance $`r`$, and the average interatomic spacing decreases with the density. At large densities the radial distribution function develops a local maximum close to the core radius.

The radial distribution functions, $`g_{EL}(r)`$, solutions of the EL equation at $`x=0.001`$ and $`x=0.005`$, are compared in Fig. 3 with the corresponding short-range ones, $`g_{SR}(r)`$, computed from $`f_{SR}(r)`$. At these densities, the energy of the system is accurately described by the expansion of Eq. (1), and it is natural to compare other ground state quantities to those corresponding to the Bogoliubov approximation. Fig. 3 also shows the radial distribution function, $`g_B(r)`$, obtained as the Fourier transform of $`S_B(k)`$,

$$S_B(k)=\frac{k^2}{\sqrt{k^4+16\pi xk^2}}.$$
(49)
$`g_{EL}(r)`$ and $`g_{SR}(r)`$ are close at short distances: they both vanish inside the core and approach similarly the unity. However, differences with $`g_B(r)`$ are significant. $`g_B(r)`$ becomes unphysically negative at short distances to finally diverge at $`r0`$. In fact, $`S_B(k)`$ realistically reproduces only the low $`k`$ behavior of the static structure function in dilute systems. This corresponds to the large–$`r`$ region in the associated radial distribution function. For the same reason, $`g_B(r)`$ never develops a maximum. The three radial distribution functions have different asymptotic behaviors, as shown in Fig. 4, where $`r^4(g(r)1)`$ is given in the EL, SR and Bogoliubov approaches at $`x=0.005`$. Both $`g_{EL}(r)1`$ and $`g_B(r)1`$ behave as $`r^4`$ at large $`r`$, a property not shown by $`g_{SR}(r)1`$ since $`f_{SR}(r)`$ does not have the appropriate long range behavior, $`f(r\mathrm{})1r^2`$. Actually, the long range behavior of $`g(r)`$ is related to the sound velocity, $`c`$ (in units of $`\mathrm{}/2ma`$), byfeenberg

$$g(r\mathrm{})1\frac{1}{\pi ^2cx}\frac{1}{r^4},$$
(50)
and consequently, the static sturcture function goes like

$$S(k0)\frac{k}{c}.$$
(51)
In the Bogoliubov approximation,

$$g_B(r\mathrm{})1\frac{1}{4\pi ^{5/2}x^{3/2}}\frac{1}{r^4},$$
(52)
and $`c_B=\sqrt{16\pi x}`$, consistent with the value provided by the compressibility, $`\kappa _T`$, $`c=(\rho m\kappa _T)^{1/2}/(\mathrm{}/2ma)`$, by keeping only the first term in the low-density expansion of the energy. At $`x=0.005`$ the constant value of $`r^4(g_B(r)1)=40.4`$ gives $`c_B=0.50`$, smaller than the estimated $`c_{EL}=0.61`$.

The short-range radial distribution function is compared in Fig. 5 with the VMC one at $`x=0.01`$ and $`0.1`$, for the same two–body correlation factor. We notice two aspects: ($`i`$) the inclusion of the elementary diagrams enhances the peak of the radial distribution function, and ($`ii`$) there is a remarkable difference between $`f_{SR}^2(r)`$ and $`g(r)`$. The many-body contributions included by the HNC scheme cannot be neglected and, therefore, $`g(r)`$ cannot be approximated by its lowest order cluster expansion value, $`g_{LO}(r)=f^2(r)`$.

The optimal structure function $`S(k)`$ is shown for several values of $`x`$ in Fig. 6. The slope of $`S(k)`$ becomes smaller when $`x`$ increases because the speed of sound increases with the density. Furthermore, the linear low $`k`$ behavior, which guarantees the correct low energy excitation spectrum, is evident. However, the linearity of the static structure holds only at very low $`k`$, as can be seen from Fig. 7, where the ratio $`S(k)/k`$ is shown in both the EL and the Bogoliubov cases at $`x=0.01`$. In the later case the linear regime is valid only when $`k\sqrt{16\pi x}=c_B`$ (see Eq.(49)).

The particle-hole interaction $`V_{ph}`$ (Eq. (20)), is shown in Fig. 8 for $`x=0.001`$, $`x=0.05`$ and $`x=0.1`$. The left panel gives $`V_{ph}`$ in $`r`$–space. Two regions are separated by a discontinuity at $`r=1`$, produced by the term $`\sqrt{g(r)}^2`$ in Eq. (20) since the first derivative of the HS radial distribution function is discontinuous at the core. As already noticed, $`V_{ph}(r<1)`$ coincides with the induced interaction, $`\omega _I(r)`$ (21). At the lowest densities $`\sqrt{g(r)}^2`$ dominates and the strength of $`V_{ph}(r)`$ is almost entirely exhausted by it. The right panel displays the Fourier transform of $`V_{ph}`$ at the same densities. $`V_{ph}(k)`$ is an oscillating function of $`k`$, with its highest amplitude at $`k=0`$, and $`V_{ph}(k=0)=c^2/2`$. Notice that the figure shows $`V_{ph}(k)/x`$, therefore $`V_{ph,B}(k)/x`$ would be $`8\pi `$ constant and independent of $`k`$ and $`x`$, which turns out to be a very bad approximation to $`V_{ph}(k)/x`$. However calculating the speed of sound from the two terms of Eq. (1), one gets $`c^2/2x=8\pi +128\pi ^{1/2}x^{1/2}`$, in much better agreement with EL $`V_{ph}(k=0)/x`$.

The Bogoliubov estimate of the particle–hole interaction (Eqs.(19) and (49)) is $`V_{ph,B}(k)=8\pi x`$ and it is a rather poor approximation to $`V_{ph}(k)`$. In this case, the excitation spectrum, $`ϵ(k)=t(k)/S(k)\sqrt{k^4+2k^2V_{ph}(k)}`$, does never develop a rotonic structure, since $`V_{ph,B}(k)`$ is a constant. In the EL approach, instead, the first oscillations of $`V_{ph}(k)`$ (and of the static structure function) are large enough to produce a maxon–roton behavior at the largest $`x`$ value ($`x=0.1`$). The two spectra are explicitely shown in Fig. 9. The Figure also gives $`ϵ(k)`$ at $`x=0.001`$, where the differences between the EL and Bogoliubov results can hardly be resolved.

The last quantity analyzed is the momentum distribution, $`n(k)`$. Table 2 reports the condensate fraction, $`n_0`$, and the kinetic energy for both the EL and the SR correlation factors. The Table gives the kinetic energies estimated by Eq. (25), $`T_n`$, and by the second term of Eq. (15), $`T_g`$. At low $`x`$ values the two estimates almost coincide, whereas, discrepancies at larger densities are to be ascribed to the lack of the elementary diagrams contribution in the cluster expansions of the radial distribution function and the momentum distribution. It has to be noticed that these diagrams play different roles in the two expansionsfantoni78 .

The condensate fraction decreases with $`x`$, running from $`95\%`$ at $`x=0.001`$ to $`33\%`$ for $`x=0.08`$. The corresponding predictions for $`n_{0B}`$ (Eq.46) are $`n_{0B}(x=0.001)=0.95`$ and $`n_{0B}(x=0.08)=0.57`$. This points again to the failure of the Bogoliubov model at large densities.

The momentum distributions in the EL, SR and Bogoliubov cases at $`x=0.05`$ are shown in Fig. 10. The optimal $`n(k)`$ has the long–wavelength limitGav64

$$\underset{k0}{lim}kn(k)=\frac{n_0c}{4},$$
(53)
while $`n_B(k)`$ satisfies an analogous relation, with $`n_0=1`$ and $`c=c_B`$. In contrast, $`n_{SR}(k)`$ does not behave as $`1/k`$ at $`k0`$, and $`kn(k)`$ vanishes at the origin. This fact is due to the lack of the proper long range structure in $`f_{SR}`$.

Fig. 11 shows the optimal momentum distribution at $`x=0.08`$ and 0.05. At the lowest $`x`$ values $`kn(k)`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`k`$. Actually, this is also the case in the Bogoliubov approximation at any density. When $`x`$ increases, $`kn(k)`$ develops a peak in the EL case at low $`k`$. This maximum can be considered as a genuine effect of the short range correlations in the EL approach. Notice that the value at the origin of $`kn(k)`$ results from a competition between $`n_0`$ and $`c`$. These two quantities largely vary with the density ($`n_0`$ decreases and $`c`$ increases with increasing density), but the overall variation of $`lim_{k0}kn(k)`$ is less pronounced.

## V Dilute soft spheres

The soft spheres potential (Eq. (9)) is characterized by a core radius $`R`$ and a potential height $`V_0`$ that determine the scattering length $`a`$ according to Eq. (10). The SS scattering length is always smaller than the core radius, approaching it when $`V_0`$ increases. In the very dilute regime, HS and SS systems, having the same scattering length, are expected to have the same energy, while their separate kinetic and potential contributions may differ. Moreover, at low $`x`$–values the total energy is well reproduced by the two terms of the low density expansion of Eq. (1). In this section, we will study the deviations from this behavior and the influence of the shape of the potential on the energy and its components. To this aim, two SS potentials with the same scattering length and different radii are considered: the SS10 and SS5 potentials, having $`R=10`$ and $`R=5`$ in units of $`a`$, respectively. The corresponding heights are $`V_0^{SS10}=0.00681670`$ and $`V_0^{SS5}=0.06308561`$ in units of $`\mathrm{}^2/2ma^2`$.

Table 3 reports the scaled total, kinetic and potential energies per particle for SS10 and SS5 in the EL, SR and UL cases, compared with the available exact DMC results boro99  at $`x=0.0001`$ and $`x=0.01`$. The low-density expansion yields $`\overline{E}_{LD}/N(x=0.0001)=0.001317`$ and $`\overline{E}_{LD}/N(x=0.01)=0.1862`$. The lower bound energies are $`\overline{E}_{lb}(x=0.0001)=0.001257`$ and $`\overline{E}_{lb}(x=0.01)=0.1257`$. The upper bound energies (31) depend on the shape of the potential, and, for SS10 and SS10, give: $`\overline{E}_{ub}^{SS10}/N(x=0.0001)=0.0014277`$, $`\overline{E}_{ub}^{SS5}/N(x=0.0001)=0.0016516`$, $`\overline{E}_{ub}^{SS10}/N(x=0.01)=0.14277`$, and $`\overline{E}_{ub}^{SS5}/N(x=0.01)=0.16516`$. Both, the upper and the lower bound properties are here satisfied. The shape dependence is weaker at low $`x`$, in fact the difference between the $`SS10`$ and $`SS5`$ energies is smaller at $`x=0.0001`$ than at $`x=0.01`$. On the other hand, the kinetic and potential energies exhibit a potential dependence at any $`x`$–value. The IPC results of Ref.sarsa02  are also given in the Table. The EL energies are very close to the DMC ones at $`x=0.0001`$ and the variational hiearchy is always fulfilled (DMC$`<`$EL$`<`$SR). As expected, the UL works better for the weaker SS10 potential, as well as the IPC wave function. The Jastrow wave function is variationally preferred to the IPC one at any $`x`$, as shown by the comparison between the EL and IPC energies. The good agreement between $`\overline{T}_g`$ and $`\overline{T}_n`$ seems to show that the HNC/0 approximation in the EL approach does not invalidate this conclusion.

The behavior of the scaled energy per particle along $`x`$ is shown in Fig. 12, in units of $`4\pi x`$, for the SS10, SS5 and HS potentials, in the EL, IPC and DMC cases, and compared with the upper bounds. The lower bound equals to unity in this units. Starting at $`x10^3`$, clearly appears a shape dependence of the energy with the harder SS5 potential energies closer to the HS ones. Moreover, it is also to be stressed a dependence on the quality of the wave function in the same region, since differences between the Jastrow and IPC cases become evident for SS5. The quality of the upper bound improves when $`R`$ increases, because $`V_0`$ decreases at fixed $`a`$ and the perturbative expansion is expected to converge faster.

The energy and, in general, the structure of the ground state depends, to a large extent, on the two–body correlation factor employed. In the EL and UL cases, $`f(r)`$ is a derived quantity as the optimization is accomplished by varying $`g(r)`$ or $`S(k)`$. In the SR case, $`f_{SR}(r)`$ is an input function containing some variational parameters. In the present work for the SS gas we employ

$$f_{SR}(r)=1be^{cr^2},$$
(54)
which is flexible enough to obtain a reasonable value of the energy. Notice that the SS potential does not require the correlation function to be zero at the origin, so $`b1`$.

Figure 13 shows $`g(r)`$ for SS5 at $`x=0.001`$ in the EL, UL and SR cases and $`f_{EL}^2(r)`$. Many–body effects make $`g_{EL}(r)`$ quite different from $`f_{EL}^2(r)`$, both at low and intermediate $`r`$–values. The EL radial distribution function is softer at the origin, and, in general, less repulsive than the short-range one. The radial distribution function in the uniform limit approximation is close to $`f_{EL}^2`$ at small distances, approaching $`g_{EL}(r)`$ at $`r5`$. The radial distribution function obtained by the Bogoliubov approach (not shown in the figure) would exhibit, as for the HS case, an unphysically divergent behavior at short distances.

The dependence of the radial distribution function on the shape of the potential and on $`x`$ is illustrated in Fig. 14, containing the EL distribution functions for SS5 and SS10 at $`x=10^4`$ and $`x=10^3`$. The central hole of the radial distribution function is obviously deeper for the more repulsive SS5 potential. It becomes less pronounced at higher $`x`$, since the probability of finding two bosons at short relative distances increases with the density. The universal behavior in $`x`$ is recovered at large distances, where the Bogoliubov approach becomes reliable.

The static structure functions, in the EL, UL and Bogoliubov approaches, are plotted in Fig. 15 for the SS5 interaction. In all cases, $`S(k)`$ grows linearly at the origin, and the slope, governed by the sound velocity (Eq. (51)), is similar in all three cases. The Bogoliubov sound velocity, $`c_B=\sqrt{16\pi x}`$, is smaller than the UL estimate,

$$c_{UL}=\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}\pi R^3xV_0},$$
(55)
and consequently, the slope at low momenta in $`S_B(k)`$ is slightly larger than in $`S_{UL}(k)`$. $`S_{UL}(k)`$ approaches $`S_{EL}(k)`$ and the asymptotic value faster than $`S_B(k)`$. Actually, at a given density $`S_B(k)`$ and $`c_B`$ are identical for all the SS interactions with the same scattering length. The short-range $`g(r)`$ does not have the proper asymptotic behavior and produces a static structure function that does not vanish at the origin and does not increase linearly at low $`k`$. $`S_{EL}(k)`$ at $`x=0.0001`$ and $`x=0.001`$ are shown in Fig. 16 for SS5 and SS10. The SS10 sound velocity is smaller and the slope of $`S(k)`$ at the origin is larger. The differences are more evident at the largest $`x`$.

The particle-hole interaction corresponding to SS5 at $`x=0.001`$ is shown in Fig. 17 for the EL, UL and Bogoliubov approaches. The left and right panels give $`V_{ph}(r)`$ and its Fourier transform, $`V_{ph}(k)`$, respectively. $`V_{ph}^B(r)=8\pi x\delta (𝐫)`$ is not shown in the figure. The ph-interaction in the UL limit coincides with the interaction itself, $`V_{ph}^{UL}(r)=V(r)`$. $`V_{ph}^{EL}(r)`$ is discontinuous at $`r=R`$. The differences between $`V_{ph}^{UL}(k)`$ and $`V_{ph}^{EL}(k)`$ are larger at low momenta, consistently with the differences observed in the static structure function.

Finally we discuss the results for the momentum distribution, $`n(k)`$. The quantity $`kn(k)`$ at $`x=0.001`$ is plotted in Fig. 18 for the SS5 interaction in the EL, Bogoliubov, UL and SR cases. All momentum distributions but the short-range one satisfy the long–wavelength behavior (53). Since $`n_{SR}(k=0)0`$, $`kn_{SR}(k)=0`$ at the origin. As in the HS case, $`kn_{SR}(k)`$ presents a maximum at intermediate momenta, as a byproduct of the absence of a long–range structure in the two–body correlation factor $`f_{SR}(r)`$.

In the $`x`$-range considered, $`kn_{EL}(k)`$ is a monotonously decreasing function of $`k`$. At higher $`x`$ it develops a maximum at low momenta, consistently with the HS results, also found in the high density homogenous atomic 4He. In the UL,

$$\underset{k0}{lim}kn_{UL}(k)=\frac{c_{UL}}{4}\frac{k}{2},$$
(56)
and the value at the origin depends on $`x`$ through the sound velocity, whereas its slope, $`1/2`$, is independent on the density.

$`kn_B(k)`$ is also a decreasing function of $`k`$, its $`k=0`$ value being slightly smaller than the UL one, corresponding to a lower sound velocity. The UL momentum distribution for the SS potential decays as $`k^8`$, and the condensate fraction can be computed by imposing the normalization condition. The condensate fractions and the kinetic energies obtained from the momentum distribution are reported in Table 3.

The dependence of $`n(k)`$ on the shape of the potential is studied in Fig. 19, where $`kn_{EL}(k)`$ is plotted at $`x=0.0001`$ and $`x=0.001`$ for SS5 and SS10. Apparently, the SS5 and the SS10 momentum distributions are identical at $`x=0.0001`$, pointing to a dependence only on the scattering length. This conclusion must be taken with caution, since in Table 3 more than a factor of two between the SS5 and SS10 kinetic energies, $`\overline{T}_n`$ , is found even at this low density.

The condensate fraction also depends on the shape of the potential. Figure 20 shows $`n_{0,EL}`$ and $`n_{0,UL}`$ at $`x=0.001`$ as a function of the radius of the SS potential, $`R`$, at a fixed value of the scattering length. As expected, the condensate fraction grows with $`R`$, since the interaction softens. The UL approach becomes accurate at large $`R`$–values, in the very weak interaction limit. In all cases, $`n_{0,UL}`$ is smaller than $`n_{0,EL}`$.

## VI Summary and Conclusions

We have carefully investigated the energy and structure of a homogeneous gas of bosons interacting via hard and soft sphere potentials. We have adopted and compared several many-body approaches, as the variational correlated theory, the Bogoliubov model and the uniform limit approximation, valid in the weak interaction regime. When possible, the results have been compared with the exact diffusion Monte Carlo ones. A Jastrow type correlation appears to produce a good quality wave function if the hypernetted chain energy functional is freely minimized and the resulting Euler equation is solved. This is true for both hard and soft sphere interactions. The study of soft sphere potentials has confirmed the appearence of a shape dependence in the energy at $`x0.001`$, as already found by the IPC calculations of Ref.sarsa02  and by the DMC study of Ref.boro99 . We have numerically compared the EL results with those obtained in the uniform limit of weak interaction, in the Bogoliubov approximation and in the IPC theory. As expected, the differences are more relevant for the strongest interactions. The uniform-limit and independent-pair-correlation energies become more and more reliable as the interaction weakens. The universality breaks at much lower $`x`$–values for quantities different from the energy. For instance, the short range structure of the radial distribution functions (and, in consequence, the large momentum behavior of the static structure function) largely depends on the shape of the potential already at $`x=0.0001`$. We find a potential shape dependence in the SS condensate fraction at $`x=0.001`$. These results, as well as those for the energy, may help in evaluating the parameters entering the nonuniversal corrections in effective field theorybraaten01 , whose extraction from the available DMC calculations is heavily biased by the statistical errors.

The presence of a maximum in the correlated distribution function when $`x`$ increases has been discussed in details. The Bogoliubov model does not show this short range structure, independently on $`x`$. The excitation spectrum develops a rotonic maximum at large $`x`$, related to the shape of the particle–hole interaction. Again, the Bogoliubov approach, providing a constant $`V_{ph}(k)`$, does not allow for a roton–like excitation. The effect of the correlations is also apparent in the momentum distributions. In the hard sphere gas the CBF $`kn(k)`$ acquires a maximum at low momentum at $`x0.06`$. Both the Bogoliubov and the uniform limit (for soft spheres) approaches fail to reproduce this behavior.

The correlated basis functions theory may be extended to treat fermionic hard and soft spheres or mixtures of Fermi–Bose gases. Work along these lines is in progress. More challenging is the application of the CBF approach to trapped atomic gases, without resorting to local density type approximationsfabro99 . Employing the variational method in finite dilute systems presents mainly technical difficulties. However, it will probably represent the natural development of this technique.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to Profs. S.Fantoni and J.Boronat for many useful discussions and to Prof. S.Giorgini and Dr. A.Sarsa for providing their DMC and IPC results, respectively. This work has been partially supported by Grant No. BFM2002-01868 from DGI (Spain), Grant No. 2001SGR-00064 from the Generalitat de Catalunya, and by the Italian MIUR through the PRIN: Fisica Teorica del Nucleo Atomico e dei Sistemi a Molti Corpi.


text:
# Superconductors as giant atoms: qualitative aspects

## I Introduction

The Bloch-Landau description of metals is appropriate to describe the normal state. It describes dressed quasiparticles (electrons or holes) whose charge sign depends on the location of the Fermi level in the band, and whose effective mass is different from the free electron mass due to electron-ion and electron-electron interactions. Instead, we propose that in superconductors the carriers of the supercurrent are $`bare`$ $`electrons`$ and that superconductors should be understood as giant atoms.

Unlike the conventional BCS-Eliashberg theory, the theory of hole superconductivity discussed here is proposed to describe $`all`$ superconductorsholesc . It proposes that superconductivity arises only when the Fermi level is near the top of an electronic energy band, and is driven by $`undressing`$undressing  of the carriers at the Fermi energy upon pairing. It requires the existence of electron-ion and electron-electron interaction but $`not`$ of electron-phonon interaction, so that it predicts that superconductivity can occur in a solid even if the ionic mass is infinite. On the other hand it predicts that superconductivity cannot occur if there are no $`antibonding`$ $`electrons`$ at the Fermi energy, i.e. if the Fermi level is close to the bottom of the bandholeelec .

When carriers ’undress’ they become more free-electron-like. We argue that certain experiments in superconductors show that the superfluid carriers are in fact completely free-electron like. Hence they have completely ’undressed’ from both electron-ion and electron-electron interactions. We argue that carriers at the Fermi energy are most highly dressed by both the electron-electron and the electron-ion interaction when the Fermi level is close to the top of the band. Furthermore, the formalism shows that the dressing is highest when the ions are negatively chargedhole93 . Naturally, the most favorable situation for superconductivity is when the carriers are most heavily dressed in the normal state, because that is when the most is gained by ’undressing’. This is the case for high $`T_c`$ cuprates, where the ’dressing’ in the normal state is most apparent. However the same physics applies to all superconductors, whether high, medium or low $`T_c`$bondc . The superfluid electrons are undressed, paired, and otherwise completely free, so that they behave very much like electrons in diamagnetic atoms. The difference between microscopic atoms and ’giant atom’ superconductors is the same as that between Rutherford atoms and ’Thomson atoms’thomson .

In our previous work we have stressed the dressing of carriers due to the electron-electron interaction. However, by changing the mass of the electron from its bare free electron value, the electron-ion interaction $`also`$ dresses the bare electron, increasingly so as the Fermi level moves up in the band. Realizing that ’undressing’ involves undressing from $`both`$ the electron-electron $`and`$ the electron-ion interaction leads to the giant atom scenarioatom .

## II Dressing from the electron-ion interaction

When an electronic energy band is filled from bottom to top, the electrons that come in first are free to choose the state that best suits them. Also, when only few electrons exist in the band they will adjust their state to take maximum advantage of the crystal potential, without being much affected by interaction with each other. These happy ’bonding electrons’ have a low energy, a smooth wave function with large amplitude between ions to take maximum advantage of the electron-ion potential while minimizing their kinetic energy, and an effective mass not very different from the free electron mass. Each of them contributes to the electrical conductivity of the metal, to the low frequency optical conductivity, and to the cohesion of the solid by giving rise to an effective attraction between ions (hence the name ’bonding’).

The situation is very different for the unhappy electrons that come in near the end of the band-filling process, the ’antibonding electrons’. Because of the Pauli principle these electrons cannot take full advantage of the electron-ion potential, since they have to be orthogonal to the pre-existing bonding electrons. Hence their wavefunction has to oscillate greatly, having maximum amplitude at the ionic sites and vanishing in-beween, as shown schematically in Figure 1. With such constraints in fact they would rather reside on isolated ions, which is why they give rise to a repulsive force between the ions (hence the name ’antibonding’), and sometimes succeed in breaking up the solid or at least driving it into another more stable configuration (which is why lattice instabilities are associated with the existence of these electrons at the Fermi energy). The large oscillations in the wave function give rise to a large kinetic energy.

Furthermore the antibonding electrons do not contribute to the electrical conductivity of the solid nor to the low frequency optical conductivity, as a matter of fact they ’anticontribute’. When an external force is applied to the electron (eg by applying an electric potential difference to the solid) both the electron and the ionic lattice will pick up the added mechanical momentum:

$$F\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{\Delta }p_{el}+\mathrm{\Delta }p_{latt}$$
(1)
According to semiclassical transport theory,

$$F=\mathrm{}\dot{k}$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }p_{el}=m_e\mathrm{\Delta }v_{el}=\frac{m_e}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\frac{ϵ_k}{k})=m_e(\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{^2ϵ_k}{^2k})\mathrm{}\dot{k}\mathrm{\Delta }t=\frac{m_e}{m^{}}F\mathrm{\Delta }t$$
(3)
with $`m^{}`$ the effective mass, which is $`negative`$ for antibonding electrons, and $`m_e`$ the free electron mass. Hence the electron acquires a momentum that is $`opposite`$ to the applied force, and the ionic lattice picks up the difference:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }p_{latt}=(1\frac{m_e}{m^{}})F\mathrm{\Delta }t$$
(4)
If we quantify the ’dressing’ of the free electron by the momentum transfer to the lattice Eq. (4), it is clear that the electron-ion interaction increasingly dresses the electron as the Fermi level goes up in the band. This is clearly seen in ’nearly free electron’ theory, i.e. perturbation theory, where the band energy is given by

$$ϵ_k=ϵ_k^0+\underset{K}{}\frac{|U_K|^2}{ϵ_k^0ϵ_{k+K}^0}$$
(5)
with $`ϵ_k^0=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m_e`$ the free electron energy and $`U_K`$ the electron-ion Fourier component for reciprocal lattice vector $`K`$. The effective mass is close to the free electron mass near the bottom of the band ($`k=0`$) where the energy denominator in Eq. (5) is largest. As $`k`$ increases the effective mass increases, then diverges and becomes negative and decreases in magnitude. The momentum transfer to the lattice Eq. (4) increases monotonically throughout this process. Beyond weak coupling perturbation theory, it is clear that this will be qualitatively similar for all energy bands since $`m^{}`$ is positive near the bottom and negative near the top.

Similarly the electrical conductivity $`per`$ $`electron`$ as well as the Drude weight per electron decrease monotonically as the Fermi level rises. The Drude weight is given by

$$\frac{2}{\pi e^2}_{intraband}𝑑\omega \sigma _1(\omega )=\frac{n_e}{m^{}}$$
(6)
The equality holds for the Fermi level close to the bottom of the band, with $`n_e`$ the number of electrons. Near the top of the band, $`n_e`$ is replaced by the number of holes , $`n_h=2n_e`$, and $`m^{}`$ in Eq. (6) by its absolute value. The difference between the Drude weight Eq. (6) and $`n_e/m_e`$, the corresponding value for free electrons, also quantifies the amount of ’dressing’ and this difference increases as the Fermi level rises from the bottom to the top of the band. It also represents the optical spectral weight that is transfered from low intra-band frequencies to higher inter-band frequencies due to the electron-ion interaction.

Superconductivity can be understood as originating in the desire of antibonding electrons at the Fermi energy to contribute rather than ’anticontribute’ to the electrical conductivity. To do so they have to become like the bonding electrons at the bottom of the band, getting around the fact that those single particle states are already occupied. By pairing the antibonding electrons will be able to avoid the Pauli principle, however to do so, it is necessary to recourse to the electron-electron interaction. This will be easiest for the antibonding electrons when the influence of the electron-ion interaction force is small, which is the case when the ions are negatively chargedhole93 .

## III  Dressing from the electron-electron interaction

Another essential aspect of ’dressing’ arises from the effect of the electron-electron interaction. We have dealt with this aspect extensively in our published work on hole superconductivity and hence will only discuss it briefly here. Dressing from the electron-electron interaction parallels the dressing from the electron-ion interaction discussed above. To separate the two aspects, consider a tight binding band structure in a hypercubic lattice with nearest neighbor hopping only, so that the band effective mass has the same magnitude for carriers at the bottom and the top of the band. We ignore here the aspect of dressing associated with the $`sign`$ of the effective mass discussed above. When including the electron-electron interaction we also find that the dressing increases as the Fermi level goes up in the band, and results in a situation where holes (carriers at the top of the band) are highly dressed and electrons (carriers at the bottom of the band) are undressedelechub . Here the ’dressing’ manifests itself in both an increase in the effective mass $`m^{}`$ and a decrease in the quasiparticle weight $`z`$, which are approximately related by $`m^{}=1/z`$. The many-body Hamiltonian that describes this physics is a dynamic Hubbard modeldynhub , and its projection to a low energy effective Hamiltonian yields a Hubbard model with correlated hoppingcorrelh  , with the hopping amplitude decreasing as the Fermi level rises in the band.

## IV Superconductivity from undressing: experimental evidence

We have argued in the previous sections that as the Fermi level goes up in the band the carriers become increasingly dressed by $`both`$ the electron-ion and the electron-electron interaction. Experiments show that in superconductors carriers are dressed in the normal state, that the superconducting transition involves ’undressing’, and that carriers are completely undressed in the superconducting state, as follows:

### IV.0.1  Evidence that carriers in the normal state are dressed

A look at the periodic table shows that essentially all superconducting elements have positive Hall coefficient, indicating hole transport, or equivalently large ’dressing’ of the bare electron by the electron-ion interaction. The same is true for compoundschapnik . In the highest $`T_c`$ materials, the cuprates, carriers in the normal state are so heavily dressed that the validity of the quasiparticle concept has been called into doubt, especially in the underdoped regime. This is seen from photoemission and optical conductivity measurements, that show small amplitude for low frequency coherent response and large amplitude for high frequency incoherent response in the normal state, indicating small quasiparticle weight and large effective mass of carriers in the normal state, i.e. large ’dressing’ding ; uchida . Upon hole doping the normal state carriers become less dressed, consistent with the fact that the Fermi level goes down in the band and dressing due to both electron-electron and electron-ion interaction decreases as discussed above. The fact that superconductors are often close to lattice instabilities indicates the presence of ’antibonding’ electrons, i.e. electrons ’dressed’ by the electron-ion interaction, and the fact that superconductors are usually poor conductors of electricity in the normal state indicates ’dressing’ of normal state carriers.

### IV.0.2  Evidence that the superconducting transition involves undressing

This is most clearly seen in systems where dressing is highest in the normal state. Photoemission experiments in cuprates show the emergence of a quasiparticle peak as the system goes superconducting (increase in $`z`$)ding . The effect is greatest in the underdoped regime where the dressing in the normal state is highest, as expected. This indicates that dressing is suppressed by the transition to superconductivity and indirectly that the effective mass decreases through the relation $`m^{}=1/z`$. Optical experiments show directly that the effective mass decreases, as they show a transfer of spectral weight from high to low frequencies as a system goes superconductingmarel ; santander ; blumberg . Concerning undressing from the electron-ion interaction, we argue that this is evidenced by the observed sign reversal of the Hall coefficient below $`T_c`$, that turns from positive to negative before it goes to zeroreversal . This suggests that the dressing from the electron-ion interaction that caused the Hall coefficient to be positive in the normal state is eliminated when going superconducting.

### IV.0.3  Evidence that carriers in the superconducting state are undressed

The ’Bernoulli potential’, the electric potential that develops between regions in the superconductor where the superfluid is moving with different velocities reveals the sign of the charge carriers. All experiments performed indicate that its sign is consistent with negative electrons being the charge carriersbernoulli1  , even though conventional theory predicts its sign should be the one corresponding to the sign of the charge carriers in the normal statebernoulli2 . The measured magnitude is also consistent with carriers in the superconducting state being free electrons. The sign and magnitude of the magnetic field that exists in the interior of a rotating superconductor (London field)londonfield  indicate that the carriers of the superfluid current are undressed electronslondonfieldmy . This is also indicated by the sign and magnitude of the gyromagnetic effect, the change in angular momentum of a superconducting body that occurs when an external magnetic field is appliedgyro .

## V  How is undressing related to pairing and superconductivity?

We know that dressing increases when the Fermi level rises in the band, and is largest with the band almost full when the carriers are holes. When holes pair, the band becomes locally less full, hence undressing should occur since locally the Fermi level has moved down to where the carriers are less dressed. And of course we know from BCS theory that pairing is associated with superconductivity. The dynamic Hubbard model predicts that pairing and superconductivity should occur at low $`T`$ because undressing causes a lowering of kinetic energy, hence a decrease of free energy at low $`T`$ compared to the normal statedynhub  . The correlated hopping term in the low energy effective Hamiltonian shows clearly how the effective mass and the kinetic energy decrease when the system goes superconductingcorrelh . The dynamic Hubbard model also shows that the quasiparticle weight increases and that transfer of spectral weight from high to low frequency occurs upon pairing which is a signature of undressingqpundr .

## VI  Historical precedents

Our theory involves pairing as BCS theory does, and in addition it incorporates many ideas that were discussed earlier but were completely abandoned after BCS theory became established.

The idea that superconductors exhibit quantum mechanics at a macroscopic scale became generally accepted around the mid 1930’s after the Meissner effect was discovered and London’s phenomenological theory proposed. With it came the idea that electronic wavefunctions in superconductors extend coherently over the entire macroscopic body. This naturally follows from considering the expression for the atomic diamagnetic susceptibility

$$\chi _0=\frac{e^2}{6m_ec^2}<r^2>$$
(7)
which is small when $`<r^2>`$ is of atomic dimensions but grows without bounds for macroscopic samples. When the sample becomes big the effect of the magnetic field generated by the electrons themselves becomes important and the susceptibility is

$$\chi =\frac{\chi _0}{14\pi \chi _0}\frac{1}{4\pi }$$
(8)
The idea that the electronic wavefunction extends coherently over the entire superconducting body is an essential ingredient of the ’giant atom’ concept. In fact, after Meissner’s discovery and London’s theory it was quite common to refer to superconductors as being analogous to ’big atoms’ or ’giant atoms’london . This was by reference to Eq. (7) and diamagnetism. However other possible consequences of the ’giant atom’ concept like inhomogeneous distribution of positive and negative charge, as in atoms, or the possibility of spin-orbit coupling, were not considered at that time.

The idea of a ’non-viscous electronic fluid’ describing the superconducting electrons was popular at that timebecker , implying no momentum transfer but rather a complete detachment between electrons and lattice. Specifically, Kronigkronig  proposed to ignore the discrete ionic potential altogether and replace it by ’jellium’. This picture is inconsistent with antibonding states at the top of the band which transfer large momentum to the ionic lattice, and suggests instead that the superfluid carriers behave more like electrons at the bottom of the band. At the same time the fact that superconductors in the normal state exhibit hole rather than electron transport was well known and discussed at the timeholeold , so the connection between transition to superconductivity and ’undressing’ from the electron-ion interaction was somehow implicit in the discussions back then. Of course the concept of pairing was not being discussed at the time. Also the idea that superconductivity may involve a reduction of the carrier’s effective mass was discussed (by no other than Bardeen!) in the pre-BCS erabardeen .

As another precedent worth citing, Meissner wondered whether the electrons that carry the supercurrent are the same electrons that carry the normal current, or whether new carriers become available in the superconducting statemeissner . He favored the latter, based on the observation that superconducting elements have more than one electron outside closed shells. This is in qualitative agreement with the principle discussed here: antibonding electrons ’anticontribute’ to electrical conductivity in the normal state, and they carry the supercurrent after they undress in the superconducting state.

## VII  The rotating superconductor puzzle

A simply connected superconducting body rotating with angular velocity $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ has a magnetic field

$$\stackrel{}{B}=\frac{2m_ec}{e}\stackrel{}{\omega }$$
(9)
throughout its interiorlondonfield , with $`m_e`$ the $`free`$ electron mass. Its origin when a superconducting body is put into rotation can be understood as followsbecker : the rotating positive ions generate an electric field through Faraday’s law:

$$\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{dl}=\frac{1}{c}\frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{ds}$$
(10)
hence for a constant magnetic field the electric field at distance r from the axis of rotation is

$$E=\frac{r}{2c}\frac{dB}{dt}$$
(11)
and the superfluid changes its velocity according to

$$m_e\frac{dv_s}{dt}=eE=\frac{er}{2c}\frac{dB}{dt}$$
(12)
For the superfluid initially at rest the final velocity is then

$$v_s=\frac{er}{2m_ec}B$$
(13)
In the interior the superfluid rotates together with the lattice, so that if the body is rotating with angular velocity $`\omega `$, $`v_s=\omega r`$ and

$$\omega =\frac{e}{2m_ec}B$$
(14)
from which Eq. (9) follows. Alternatively, Eq. (9) can also be directly derived from the London equation.

There is a problem with this however. The centripetal force required for an electron to rotate with angular velocity $`\omega `$ at radius $`r`$ is only one-half the one provided by the Lorenz force due to the magnetic field Eq. (9). In other words, an electron in a magnetic field $`B`$ rotates at the cyclotron frequency $`\omega =eB/m_ec`$ rather than at the Larmor frequency Eq. (14). The giant atom scenario resolves this difficulty as explained belowlast .

## VIII The giant atom scenario

If we accept that the wavefunction of the superconducting electron extends coherently over macroscopic distances it is difficult to imagine how it could ’know’ about the microscopic variation of the ionic potential over the scale of Angstrom and adjust accordingly, as antibonding electrons have to do. Rather, it is natural to conclude that the antibonding electrons at the Fermi energy manage to detach themselves completely from the lattice (’undress’ from the electron-ion interaction) and adopt a ’long wavelength’ wavefunction that does not ’see’ microscopic details. In that case each of these electrons will see a smeared positive charge distribution, screened self-consistently by all the other electrons in the system. We call this the ’giant atom’ scenarioatom  (Figure 3).

In microscopic atoms, electrons do interact with each other, yet the response to a magnetic field involves the free electron mass. Similarly we argue that superfluid electrons in the giant atom superconductor respond with their free mass, as evidenced by Eq. (9), even though they interact with other electrons. This follows from galilean invariance. It is only if it can see the discrete non-translationally invariant ionic potential that the electron can respond with an effective mass different from the bare mass, since only in that case can the lattice pick up some momentum.

For electrons in filled shells of atoms, the change in velocity upon application of a magnetic field isslater

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v=\frac{e}{m_ec}A$$
(15)
with $`A`$ the magnetic vector potential. This follows from microscopic quantum mechanics, as well as from simple classical arguments: in an atom, the centripetal acceleration for the electron’s orbit is provided by the electric field from the ionic charge, $`E_{ion}`$

$$\frac{m_ev^2}{r}=eE_{ion}$$
(16)
and the change in centripetal acceleration upon application of a magnetic field $`B`$ is provided by the magnetic Lorenz force

$$\frac{2m_ev\mathrm{\Delta }v}{r}=\frac{ev}{c}B$$
(17)
from which Eq. (15) follows for $`\stackrel{}{A}=\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{r}/2`$. For a rotating superconductor, Eq. (9) for the magnetic field in its interior is consistent with the relation Eq. (17) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=\omega r`$. The derivation of Eq. (17) from Eq. (16) is only valid if $`\mathrm{\Delta }v<<v`$ and indicates how to resolve the puzzle raised by the magnetic field in the rotating superconductor: the electrons need to be rotating already (as in the ordinary atom) at a speed much larger than $`\omega r`$ before the superconductor is set into rotation.

However, this can only be possible if there is an electric field inside the superconductor that provides their centripetal acceleration in the absence of magnetic field, as in the case of the atom Eq. (16). This implies that the electronic charge distribution in the superconductor, just as in the atom, cannot be homogeneous, rather there has to be more negative charge near the surface and more positive charge in the interior. But that is precisely what the model of hole superconductivity predicts, that the superconductor expels negative charge from its interiorchargeimb .

These considerations together with the ’undressing’ phenomenology lead us to the model of a macroscopic ’Thomson atom’, where a positive uniform charge distribution exists over the volume of the superconductoratom , except within a penetration length of the surface where the compensating negative charge resides. Consider a spherical or cylindrical geometry for simplicity. The electric field from a uniform charge distribution is linear in r, and the potential acting on the electron is a harmonic oscillator potential. A wavefunction for such a potential for large quantum number is shown in Figure 4 . It is not uniform but has larger amplitude for large r. This is of course obvious from the fact that an oscillator spends most of its time near the region of maximum elongation, and justifies self-consistently the assumption that the electron sees a positive charge distribution in the interior.

Of course the giant atom scenario with an electric field in the interior is not enough. Electrons in such a potential, even in the absence of imperfections, will not exhibit the Meissner effect but rather the much weaker Landau diamagnetism. This is because there will be a rearrangement when a magnetic field is appliedwelker : electrons that are orbiting with their angular momentum parallel to the applied field will increase their velocity, and would lower their energy by turning around and joining the electrons orbiting with angular momentum antiparallel to the applied magnetic field which are slowed down by it. This is where the pairing condition comes in: if for every electron with $`k`$ there is a partner with $`k`$ and it costs a finite energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to break up the pair, it will prevent (unless the magnetic field is strong enough) the electron from ’turning over’ because that would break the pair. So the BCS energy gap provides the necessary ’rigidity’ for the pair to respond like London rather than Landau electrons.

The pairing requires that for every $`k`$ electron there is a partner $`k`$ electron, but it $`does`$ $`not`$ require that there be a corresponding $`k`$, $`k`$ pair. In fact we argue that this will quite generally not be the case, due to spin-orbit coupling. The energy of an electron in a macroscopic orbit will be lower if its orbital angular momentum is antiparallel to its spin, because in its restframe it sees a magnetic field from the positive background that is parallel to its spin magnetic moment. Thus we argue that spin up electrons will be orbiting predominantly in one direction, and spin down electrons in the opposite direction, as shown schematically in Fig. 3, giving rise to a macroscopic spin current which, as explained above, is fully compatible with the pairing concept.

From a purely classical point of view, such a spin current is inescapable if we accept the concept that an outward pointing electric field exists in the interior of superconductors and that the negative charge density is higher near the surface. In order for a superfluid electron at radius r to be in mechanical equilibrium it needs to be rotating so that $`m_ev^2/r`$ equals the force from the electric field pulling it in. In the absence of magnetic field and rotation of the superconductor there is no charge current field $`v_s(r)`$ of the superfluid in the interior of the superconductor. But there can and will be a spin current field $`v_{s\sigma }(r)`$ such that $`v_{s\sigma }(r)=v_{s,\sigma }(r)`$.

Some experimental consequences of the giant atom scenario were discussed in Ref.atom . We predict that the spin current should give rise to a quadrupolar electric field around superconducting rings, that should be experimentally detectable, and to forces between superconducting rings due to these electric fields. Furthermore we predict that just as in regular atoms the negative charge will not be confined to the region of the positive charge but rather will leak out of the superconducting body, of course in much smaller proportion than for a regular atom. This is likely to play a role in the proximity effectproxi . Finally, since in the normal state the negative charge distribution is homogeneous we predict that a radially outward electron current is generated when the system goes into the superconducting state, to generate the nonhomogeneous charge distribution characteristic of the superconductor. The interaction of this radial current with the ionic background will deflect up- and down-spin electrons tangentially in opposite directions to give rise to a spin current of precisely the sign discussed above through the mechanism discussed in Ref.hallferro . Furthermore, the radially outgoing electron current in the presence of a magnetic field will give rise to screening currents that will cancel the magnetic field in the interior of the superconductor as required by the Meissner effect.

The concept of an electric field in the interior of the superconductor however raises a question: why isn’t it screened by mobile charges, as electric fields are screened in the interior of normal metals? For the superfluid electrons we have argued that the electric field produces a force that is the centripetal force that sustains the superfluid spin current. However at finite temperature there will also be thermally excited quasiparticles which can move . Why is it that they do not screen the electric field in the interior and nullify it?

This question in fact also arises in the conventional framework when the superconductor is rotating, since an electric field needs to exist to balance the forces on the rotating superfluid electrons, and has never been addressed in that framework. For our case there appears to be a simple answer: the theory of hole superconductivity predicts that quasiparticles are $`positively`$ $`charged`$thermo , with charge given by

$$Q_k=e(u_k^2v_k^2)$$
(18)
which is positive on the average due to electron-hole asymmetry. Positive quasiparticles will be pushed $`out`$ by the electric field inside superconductors and not screen the field. In equilibrium a density gradient of quasiparticles will be established so that the electrochemical potential for quasiparticles will be constant throughout the volume of the superconductor.

## IX Conclusion

The theory considered here proposes that superconductors in the normal state have carriers at the Fermi energy that are highly dressed by both electron-ion and electron-electron interactions, and that when a metal becomes superconducting these carriers completely undress from both electron-ion and electron-electron interactions and become free-electron-like, except for the pairing correlations. Superconductivity is driven by electron undressing, and the resulting system is a macroscopic ’Thomson atom’ with paired time-reversed electrons. The facts that the theory may lead to an understanding of a variety of puzzling phenomena in superconductorslast , that it provides a unified scheme to explain superconductivity in all superconductorsnarlikar , that it has a plausible microscopic foundationholeelec , and that it can be understood in terms of a single underlying physical principle, undressing, argue for its validity. Ultimately its validation or refutation will come from experiments testing its predictions. Various of its experimental predictions are consistent with observations as discussed in the references.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author is grateful to the organizers and participants of the meeting ”Highlights in Condensed Matter Physics”, Salerno, Italy, May 9-12, 2003, for the opportunity to present and discuss these concepts in a stimulating environment.


text:
# Fine and Hyperfine Splittings of Charmonium and Bottomonium: An Improved Perturbative QCD Approach

## Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank S. Godfrey for valuable suggestions. Y.S. is grateful to T. Kaneko for information on recent lattice results.

## Note added on Nov. 20th, 2003:

When the manuscript for this paper was prepared, only the (inconsistent) Crystal Ball  and Belle  measurements for the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ mass were available, so both of them were quoted in Table 1. Very recently, several more new measurements have appeared that support the Belle value: BaBar measures $`3630.8\pm 3.4\pm 1.0`$ MeV  (an earlier analysis resulted in $`3632.2\pm 5.0\pm 1.8`$ MeV ), CLEO II gives $`3642.7\pm 4.1\pm 4.0`$ MeV (CLEO III prelim.: $`3642.5\pm 3.6\pm \mathrm{?}`$ MeV)  and a different Belle analysis yields $`3630\pm 8`$ MeV . The $`\psi (2S)\eta _c(2S)`$ splitting calculated from a naïve average of the central values of all measurements except Crystal Ball is 47 MeV, in excellent agreement with our results.