text:
# Semiclassics in the lowest Landau band

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we study semiclassical theories describing the ground state energies of heavy atoms in strong homogeneous magnetic fields, where additionally the electrons are confined to the lowest Landau band.

An atom with $`N`$ electrons of charge $`e`$ and mass $`m_e`$ and nuclear charge $`Ze`$ is described by the nonrelativistic Pauli Hamiltonian operator

$$H_N=\underset{1jN}{}\left\{((i^{(j)}+𝐀(x_j))\sigma ^j)^2\frac{Z}{|x_j|}\right\}+\underset{1i<jN}{}\frac{1}{|x_ix_j|},$$
(1.1)
acting on the Hilbertspace $`_{1jN}L^2(^3,^2)`$ of electrons. The units are chosen such that $`\mathrm{}=2m_e=e=1`$. The magnetic field is $`𝐁=(0,0,B)`$, with vector potential $`𝐀=\frac{1}{2}B(x_2,x_1,0)`$, where $`B`$ is the magnitude of the field in units of $`B_0=\frac{m_e^2e^3c}{\mathrm{}^3}=2.3510^9`$Gauss, the field strength for which the cyclotron radius $`l_B=(\mathrm{}c/(eB))^{1/2}`$ is equal to the Bohr radius $`a_0=\mathrm{}^2/(m_ee^2)`$. The ground state energy is

$$E^\mathrm{Q}(N,Z,B)=inf\{(\psi ,H_N\psi ):\psi \mathrm{domain}H_N,(\psi ,\psi )=1\}.$$
(1.2)
Recall that the spectrum of the free Pauli Hamiltonian on $`^2(^3;^2)`$ for one electron in the magnetic field $`𝐁`$,

$$H_𝐀=\left[𝝈(i+𝐀(𝐱))\right]^2,$$
(1.3)
is given by

$$p_z^2+2\nu B\nu =0,1,2,\mathrm{},p_z.$$
(1.4)
The projector $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ onto the lowest Landau band, $`\nu =0`$, is represented by the kernel

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0(𝐱,𝐱^{})=\frac{B}{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{2}(𝐱_{}\times 𝐱_{}^{})𝐁\frac{1}{4}(𝐱_{}𝐱_{}^{})^2B\right\}\delta (zz^{})P_{},$$
(1.5)
where $`𝐱_{}`$ and $`z`$ are the components of $`𝐱`$ perpendicular and parallel to the magnetic field, and $`P_{}`$ denotes the projection onto the spin-down component.

In this paper we are especially interested in the ground state energy,

$$E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}(N,Z,B)=\underset{\psi =1}{inf}(\psi ,\mathrm{\Pi }_0^NH_N\mathrm{\Pi }_0^N\psi ),$$
(1.6)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^N`$ denotes the $`N`$-th tensorial power of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$. Lieb, Solovej and Yngvason pointed out that for $`BZ^{4/3}`$ the electrons are to the leading order confined to the lowest Landau band, which is expressed by the following theorem.

###### 1.1 THEOREM.

(\[LSY1\], Theorem 1.2) For any fixed $`\lambda =N/Z`$ there is a $`\delta (x)`$ with $`\delta (x)0`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$ such that

$$E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}E^\mathrm{Q}E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}\left(1+\delta (B/Z^{4/3})\right).$$
(1.7)
The energy (1.6) can be approximated by means of the STF-functional (Strong Thomas-Fermi)

$$^{\mathrm{STF}}[\rho ]=\frac{4\pi ^4}{3B^2}\rho ^3V\rho +D(\rho ,\rho ),$$
(1.8)
$`V(x)=Z/|x|`$ and $`D(\rho ,\rho )=\frac{1}{2}(\rho ,|x|^1\rho )`$. In \[LSY2\] it is shown that $`E^\mathrm{Q}/E^{\mathrm{STF}}1`$ if $`Z\mathrm{}`$, $`B/Z^30`$ and $`B/Z^{4/3}\mathrm{}`$, where

$$E^{\mathrm{STF}}(N,Z,B)=inf\{^{\mathrm{STF}}[\rho ]|\rho 0,\rho D^{\mathrm{STF}},\rho N\},$$
(1.9)
with an appropriately chosen domain $`D^{\mathrm{STF}}`$. Combined with Theorem 1.1 this implies Theorem 1.2.

###### 1.2 THEOREM.

(\[LSY2\]) If $`Z\mathrm{}`$ with $`N/Z`$ fixed, $`B/Z^30`$ and $`B/Z^{4/3}\mathrm{}`$, then

$$E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}(N,Z,B)/E^{\mathrm{STF}}(N,Z,B)1.$$
(1.10)
### 1.1 Comparing the STF energy with the QM ground state energy in the lowest Landau band

In this paper we not only want to give a direct proof of Theorem 1.2, but we want to derive precise error estimates. In this respect our procedure is related to \[IS\] and \[I1\]. Our main theorem is the following:

###### 1.3 THEOREM.

Let $`NZ`$ and $`Z^{4/3}BZ^3`$. Then

$$|E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}(N,Z,B)E^{\mathrm{STF}}(N,Z,B)|CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}$$
(1.11)
for an appropriate constant $`C`$.

###### 1.4 Remark.

In \[I1\] Ivrii estimated the difference between the full quantum mechanical energy $`E^\mathrm{Q}`$ and the MTF energy, which is given by minimizing the MTF functional (cf. \[LSY2\]), where all Landau levels are taken into account. The main theorem in \[I1\] reads:

###### 1.5 THEOREM.

(\[I1\] Theorem 0.2) Let $`BZ^3`$ and $`NZ`$, then

$$|E^Q(N,Z,B)E^{\mathrm{MTF}}(N,Z,B)\frac{1}{4}Z^2|R_1+R_2,$$
(1.12)
with

$$R_1=CZ^{4/3}(N+B)^{1/3}andR_2=CZ^{3/5}B^{4/5}.$$
(1.13)
###### 1.6 Remark.

Although true for all $`BZ^3`$, it should be noted that only for $`B<Z^{7/4}`$ are the error terms $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ smaller than the Scott term $`\frac{1}{4}Z^2`$.

One of the main difficulties Ivrii has to cope with in the proof of Theorem 1.5 is the fact that the self-consistent MTF potential is not smooth, because it includes all Landau levels. So he has to create an approximating $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ potential in order to apply the tools of microlocal semiclassical spectral asymptotics. Fortunately, in our case of Theorem 1.3 we need not care about such problems, since the STF potential (see (1.14)) has all required properties for semiclassical spectral asymptotics.

Moreover, in Theorem 1.5 Ivrii already captures (1.11) on the region where only the lowest Landau band is occupied, i.e on $`\{𝐱||𝐱|C_0Z/B\}`$ with a large constant $`C_0`$.

We mention some important steps of the proof of Theorem 1.3.
Let $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ denote the effective STF potential (for simplicity think of the neutral case $`N=Z`$)

$$\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(x)=Z|x|^1\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}|x|^1,$$
(1.14)
where $`\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ is the minimizer of the STF functional (1.8). We will see in Section 2.1 that the main contribution of (1.11) is given by

$$\left|\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_0(H_𝐀\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱))\mathrm{\Pi }_0]_{}\frac{B}{2\pi }_^3_{}\frac{dpd𝐱}{2\pi }[p^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)]_{}\right|,$$
(1.15)
with $`[t]_{}=\mathrm{min}\{0,t\}`$. Recall

$$E^{\mathrm{STF}}=\frac{B}{2\pi }_^3_{}\frac{dpd𝐱}{2\pi }[p^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)]_{}D(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}},\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}).$$
(1.16)
With the decomposition $`^2(^3,d𝐱;^2)=^2(^2,d𝐱_{})^2(,dz)^2`$ the projector $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0=\underset{m0}{}|\varphi _m\varphi _m|1P_{},$$
(1.17)
where $`\varphi _m`$ denotes the function in the lowest Landau band with angular momentum $`m0`$, i.e., using polar coordinates $`(r,\phi )`$,

$$\varphi _m(𝐱_{})=\sqrt{\frac{B}{2\pi }}\frac{1}{\sqrt{m!}}\left(\frac{Br^2}{2}\right)^{m/2}e^{im\phi }e^{Br^2/4}.$$
(1.18)
Using this and $`H_𝐀\mathrm{\Phi }_m=0`$, we can write

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0H_𝐀\mathrm{\Pi }_0=\underset{m0}{}|\varphi _m\varphi _m|(_z^2)P_{}.$$
(1.19)
By means of the above decompositions one gets the relation (cf. \[H\] Theorem 3.13)

$$\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_0(_z^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱))\mathrm{\Pi }_0]_{}=\underset{m}{}\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}[_z^2\varphi _m^{\mathrm{STF}}(z)]_{},$$
(1.20)
with

$$\varphi _m^{\mathrm{STF}}(z)=𝑑𝐱_{}\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)|\varphi _m(𝐱_{})|^2.$$
(1.21)
Next we multiply the $`m`$-th term of the right hand side of (1.20) with $`\frac{B}{2\pi }\chi _m(𝐱_{})`$, where

$$\chi _m(𝐱_{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{for}\sqrt{2m/B}|𝐱_{}|\sqrt{2(m+1)/B}\\ 0& \mathrm{otherwise},\end{array}$$
(1.22)
and integrate over $`𝐱_{}`$, which is just an identity operation. Since we are allowed to put the sum into the trace as well into the $`[]_{}`$ bracket we arrive at

$$\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_0[_z^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)]\mathrm{\Pi }_0]_{}=\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱_{}\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}[_z^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)]_{},$$
(1.23)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)=\underset{m}{}\chi _m(𝐱_{})\varphi _m^{\mathrm{STF}}(z).$$
(1.24)
The Equation (1.23) follows from the fact that the terms $`\chi _m(𝐱_{})\varphi _m^{\mathrm{STF}}(z)`$ (1.24) have disjoint supports.

Hence, (1.15) can be written as

$$\left|\frac{B}{2\pi }_^2𝑑𝐱_{}\left(\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}[_z^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)]_{}_^2\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }[p^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)]_{}\right)\right|.$$
(1.25)
We shall estimate (1.25) by splitting into the following two terms:

$$\left|\frac{B}{2\pi }_^2𝑑𝐱_{}\left(\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}[_z^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)]_{}_^2\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }[p^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)]_{}\right)\right|$$
(1.26)
and

$$\left|\frac{B}{2\pi }_^2𝑑𝐱_{}\left(_{}\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }[p^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)]_{}_^2\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }[p^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)]_{}\right)\right|.$$
(1.27)
### 1.2 Modified STF functionals

From Equations (1.20) and (1.23) it is apparent that the STF energy (1.9) is not the most natural semiclassical approximation of $`E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}`$. As already argued in \[H\], (1.20) suggests the definition of a functional, where the integration over $`𝐱_{}`$, the variables orthogonal to the magnetic field, is replaced by an expansion in angular momentum eigenfunctions in the lowest Landau band. This leads to a discrete STF functional (DSTF) depending on a sequence of one-dimensional densities $`\rho =(\rho _n)_{n_0}`$, i.e.

$$^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ]=\underset{m_0}{}\left(\kappa \rho _m(z)^3ZV_m(z)\rho _m(z)𝑑z\right)+\overline{D}(\rho ,\rho ),$$
(1.28)
where $`\kappa =\pi ^2/3`$,

$$\overline{D}(\rho ,\rho )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{m,n}{}V_{m,n}(zz^{})\rho _m(z)\rho _n(z^{})𝑑z𝑑z^{},$$
(1.29)
and the potentials $`V_m`$ and $`V_{m,n}`$ are given by

$`V_m(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐱|}|\varphi _m(𝐱_{})|^2𝑑𝐱_{}},`$
$`V_{m,n}(zz^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\varphi _m(𝐱_{})|^2|\varphi _n(𝐱_{}^{})|^2}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}𝑑𝐱_{}𝑑𝐱_{}^{}}.`$ (1.30)
An equivalent functional, depending on a three-dimensional density $`\rho `$, can be obtained as in (1.23), if in STF theory the Coulomb potential is replaced by

$$\stackrel{~}{|𝐱|^1}=\underset{m}{}\chi _m(𝐱_{})_^2𝑑𝐱_{}|𝐱|^1\varphi _m(𝐱_{}).$$
(1.31)
The resulting modified STF functional is given by

$$^{\mathrm{MSTF}}[\rho ]=\frac{4\pi ^4}{3B^2}𝑑𝐱\rho (𝐱)^3𝑑𝐱\stackrel{~}{|𝐱|^1}\rho (𝐱)+\stackrel{~}{D}(\rho ,\rho ),$$
(1.32)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(\rho ,\rho )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{m,n}{}𝑑𝐱𝑑𝐲V_{m,n}(zz^{})\chi _m(𝐱_{})\chi _n(𝐲_{})\rho (𝐱)\rho (𝐲).$$
(1.33)
Let $`\rho ^{\mathrm{DSTF}}=(\rho _m^{\mathrm{DSTF}}(z))_m`$ and $`\rho ^{\mathrm{MSTF}}=\rho ^{\mathrm{MSTF}}(𝐱)`$ be the ground state densities of (1.28) respectively (1.32) corresponding to a fixed particle number $`N`$. Then the relationship between the densities reads

$$\rho ^{\mathrm{MSTF}}(𝐱)=\frac{B}{2\pi }\underset{m}{}\rho _m^{\mathrm{DSTF}}(z)\chi _m(𝐱_{}).$$
(1.34)
Furthermore the energies are equal,

$$E^{\mathrm{MSTF}}(N,Z,B)=E^{\mathrm{DSTF}}(N,Z,B).$$
(1.35)
Since a short computation shows that for $`BZ^{4/3}`$ the difference between the D(M)STF energy and the STF energy is smaller than $`B^{4/5}Z^{3/5}`$ the estimate (1.11) with STF replaced by D(M)STF immediately follows for this region ($`BZ^{4/3}`$).

###### 1.7 THEOREM.

Let $`Z^{4/3}BZ^3`$ and $`NZ`$. Then

$$|E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}(N,Z,B)E^{\mathrm{D}(\mathrm{M})\mathrm{STF}}(N,Z,B)|CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}.$$
(1.36)
## 2 Proof of Theorem 1.3

### 2.1 Derivation of lower and upper bounds to $`E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}`$

First of all, recall that the TF equation satisfied by the minimizer of (1.8) under the constraint $`\rho =N`$ is

$$\kappa (\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}})^2/B^2=[Z|𝐱|^1\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}+\nu ]_+=[\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}+\nu ]_+,$$
(2.1)
where $`\nu =\nu (N)`$ is the chemical potential corresponding to the electron number $`N`$. Using (2.1) one sees that the STF energy (1.9) can be written as

$$E^{\mathrm{STF}}=\frac{B}{2\pi }_^2𝑑𝐱_{}_{}\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }[p^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)\nu ]_{}+\nu ND(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}},\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}).$$
(2.2)
This expression will be used for deriving upper and lower bounds to the quantum mechanical ground state energy $`E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}`$.

Lower bound:
Let $`\psi `$ denote a ground state wave function of $`H_N`$, then we can write $`E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}`$ as

$`E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}`$ $`=`$ $`(\psi ,\mathrm{\Pi }_0^NH_N\mathrm{\Pi }_0^N\psi )`$ (2.3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\psi ,\mathrm{\Pi }_0^N[H_A(𝐱_i)Z|𝐱_i|^1+\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}|𝐱_i|^1\nu ]\mathrm{\Pi }_0^N\psi )`$
$`+N\nu 2D(\rho _\psi ,\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}})+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(\psi ,|𝐱_i𝐱_j|^1\psi ),`$
where we have added and subtracted the term $`\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}|𝐱|^1\nu `$ and used the definition

$$\rho _\psi (𝐱)=N\underset{s^i}{}|\psi (𝐱,x_2,..,x_N;s^1,..,s^N)|^2dx_2..dx_N.$$
(2.4)
By means of the Lieb-Oxford inequality \[LO\]

$$\underset{i<j}{}(\psi ,|𝐱_i𝐱_j|^1\psi )D(\rho _\psi ,\rho _\psi )1.68\rho _\psi ^{4/3},$$
(2.5)
(2.3) can be bounded from below by

$$E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_0(H_𝐀\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }_0]_{}D(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}},\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}})+\nu N1.68\rho _\psi ^{4/3},$$
(2.6)
where we have used that

$$D(\rho _\psi \rho ^{\mathrm{STF}},\rho _\psi \rho ^{\mathrm{STF}})0.$$
(2.7)
Furthermore by (1.23) and (2.2) we get

$$E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}E^{\mathrm{STF}}_11.68\rho _\psi ^{4/3},$$
(2.8)
with

$`_1=|{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _^2}d𝐱_{}(\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}[_z^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)\nu ]_{}`$
$`{\displaystyle _^2}{\displaystyle \frac{dzdp}{2\pi }}[p^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)\nu ]_{}\left)\right|.`$ (2.9)
Since $`\psi `$ is a ground state wave function, or at least an approximate ground state wave function, we can estimate (cf. \[LSY1\] (8.5))

$`{\displaystyle \rho _\psi ^{4/3}}`$ $``$ $`({\displaystyle \rho _\psi ^3})^{1/6}({\displaystyle \rho _\psi })^{5/6}\mathrm{const}.(B^2|E^{\mathrm{STF}}|)^{1/6}N^{5/6}`$ (2.10)
$``$ $`\mathrm{const}.Z^{1/5}N^{14/15}B^{2/5}CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5},`$
using $`NZ`$ and $`BZ^{4/3}`$.

Upper bound:
For every fixed integer $`N`$ and a normalized $`N`$-particle wave function $`\psi `$ we have

$`E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}`$ $``$ $`(\psi ,\mathrm{\Pi }_0^NH_N\mathrm{\Pi }_0^N\psi )`$ (2.11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(\psi ,\mathrm{\Pi }_0^N[H_A(𝐱_i)Z|𝐱_i|^1+\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}|𝐱_i|^1\nu ]\mathrm{\Pi }_0^N\psi )`$
$`+N\nu 2D(\rho _\psi ,\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}})+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(\psi ,|𝐱_i𝐱_j|^1\psi ).`$
We set

$$\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _N,$$
(2.12)
where $`\varphi _i`$ is the eigenvector corresponding to the $`i`$-th lowest eigenvalue $`\lambda _i`$ of the one-particle operator

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0(H_AZ|𝐱|^1+\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}|𝐱|^1)\mathrm{\Pi }_0.$$
(2.13)
By means of the decomposition

$$\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_0(H_A(𝐱)\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }_0]_{}=\underset{i}{}[\lambda _i\nu ]_{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\lambda _i\nu )+\underset{\lambda _N<\lambda _i<\nu }{}(\lambda _i\nu ),$$
(2.14)
and the equation (2.7) we can estimate (2.11) as

$`E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Pi }_0(H_A\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }_0]_{}+\nu ND(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}},\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}})`$ (2.15)
$`+D(\rho _\psi \rho ^{\mathrm{STF}},\rho _\psi \rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}){\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _N<\lambda _i<\nu }{}}(\lambda _i\nu ),`$
which implies

$$E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}_1+R_2+R_3,$$
(2.16)
with

$`R_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _N<\lambda _i<\nu }{}}(\lambda _i\nu ),`$ (2.17)
$`R_3`$ $`=D(\rho _\psi \rho ^{\mathrm{STF}},\rho _\psi \rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}).`$ (2.18)
Since it is difficult to tackle directly the term $`R_2`$, we estimate $`R_2`$ by $`|\lambda _N\nu |`$ multiplied by the number of eigenvalues of the operator (2.13) between $`\lambda _N`$ and $`\nu `$. We know

$$\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱_{}\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(p^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)\nu )=\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}=N,$$
(2.19)
with

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{for}t0\\ 0& \mathrm{otherwise}.\end{array}$$
(2.20)
So the number of eigenvalues of (2.13) between $`\lambda _N`$ and $`\nu `$ can be expressed by

$$\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(\mathrm{\Pi }_0(_z^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }_0)\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱_{}\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(p^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)\nu ).$$
(2.21)
Mimicking the derivation of (1.23), with $`[t]_{}`$ being replaced by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(t)`$, leads to

$$(\text{2.21})=\frac{B}{2\pi }_^2𝑑𝐱_{}\left(\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}\nu )\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(h_𝐱_{}\nu )\right),$$
(2.22)
where we have defined

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}=_z^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)\mathrm{and}h_𝐱_{}=p^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱).$$
(2.23)
Hence, instead of $`R_2`$ we estimate the error term

$$_2=|\lambda _N\nu |\frac{B}{2\pi }_^2𝑑𝐱_{}\left(\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}\nu )\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(h_𝐱_{}\nu )\right).$$
(2.24)
We introduce the notation

$$e(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{},\mu )=\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}\mu ),$$
(2.25)
the projector of the operator $`\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}`$ onto the eigenspace corresponding to the eigenvalues smaller or equal to $`\mu `$. Let $`\psi `$ be given by (2.12), then we have

$$\rho _\psi (𝐱)=\frac{B}{2\pi }e(z,z;\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{},\lambda _N),$$
(2.26)
whereas the semiclassical density $`\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ can be written as

$$\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)=\frac{B}{2\pi }_{}𝑑p\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(h_𝐱_{}\nu )=\frac{B}{2\pi }[\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)+\nu ]_+^{1/2}.$$
(2.27)
Furthermore we introduce the auxiliary density

$$\overline{\rho }(𝐱)=\frac{B}{2\pi }[\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)+\lambda _N]_+^{1/2}.$$
(2.28)
In order to bound the error term $`R_3`$ from above, we combine the two terms

$`_3`$ $`=D(\rho _\psi \overline{\rho },\rho _\psi \overline{\rho }),`$ (2.29)
$`_4`$ $`=D(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\overline{\rho },\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\overline{\rho }),`$ (2.30)
which are easier to handle than $`R_3`$ alone. Observe that by convexity one has $`R_32_3+2_4`$. In the next sections we will separately have to carry out the estimations

$$_iCB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}i=1,..,4.$$
(2.31)
### 2.2 Methods used in the proof

The methods used here in order to estimate the error terms $`_{14}`$, have been established in \[IS\] and \[I2\]. For sake of better understanding we will state here the most important theorem, which we use throughout this section.

Consider the Schrödinger operator

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (𝐱)\mathrm{on}^d.$$
(2.32)
Its symbol is denoted by

$$\overline{h}=\frac{1}{2}p^2\varphi (𝐱).$$
(2.33)
In addition there are the following conditions imposed on the real potential $`\varphi `$:

There are Lipschitz functions $`l(𝐱)>0`$ and $`f(𝐱)>0`$, such that:

$`(i)`$ $`|l(𝐱)|M,`$ (2.34)
$`(ii)`$ $`cf(𝐲)f(𝐱)Cf(𝐲),`$ (2.35)
$`(iii)`$ $`|^\nu \varphi (𝐱)|C_\nu f(𝐱)^2l(𝐱)^{|\nu |}\nu ^d`$ (2.36)
Under these assumptions Ivrii and Sigal have proved the following theorem:

###### 2.1 THEOREM.

(\[IS\] Theorem 7.1.)
Assume conditions $`(i)(iii)`$ are obeyed and let $`\psi `$ be smooth and obey $`|^\nu \psi (𝐱)|C_\nu l(𝐱)^{|\nu |}`$ for any $`\nu `$. Let $`g_s(\lambda )=[\lambda ]_+^s`$ for some $`s[0,1]`$. Then

$`\left|\mathrm{Tr}(\psi g_s(H)){\displaystyle \frac{dxdp}{2\pi }\psi g_s(\overline{h})}\right|`$ (2.37)
$`C{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{supp}\psi }}𝑑𝐱\mathrm{max}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{f(𝐱)l(𝐱)}}\right)^{\alpha sd},1]l(𝐱)^{2sd},`$ (2.38)
Here $`\alpha =1`$ if either $`d2`$ or $`d=1`$ and $`\varphi `$ obeys

$$|\varphi (𝐱)|+l(𝐱)|\varphi (𝐱)|\epsilon f(𝐱)^2$$
(2.39)
on $`\{𝐱|l(𝐱)f(𝐱)1\}`$, with some $`\epsilon >0`$, and $`\alpha =1/2`$ otherwise.

The most important tools for the proof of Theorem 2.1 are multiscale analysis and semiclassical spectral asymptotics. First of all, the domain, i.e. the support of $`\psi `$, is covered by a countable number of balls. Then on each of these balls $`B(𝐲,l(𝐲))`$, the operator $`H`$ is transformed into

$$K_h=f^2U(l)HU(l)^1=\frac{h^2}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }V(𝐱),$$
(2.40)
with $`h=l(𝐲)^1f(𝐲)^1`$, by means of a unitary scaling transformation $`U(l)`$, which maps the ball $`B(𝐲,l(𝐲))`$ into $`B(0,1)`$. Next Theorem \[IS\] 6.1, which we state below, is applied to the sum of the negative eigenvalues of $`g_s(K_h)`$. After rescaling and summing over all balls one arrives at Theorem 2.1.

The symbol of $`K_h`$ is given by

$$k(𝐱,p)=p^2/2V(𝐱).$$
(2.41)
If furthermore all derivatives of $`V`$ are bounded by a constant, i.e.

$$|^\nu V(𝐱)|C_\nu \mathrm{on}B(0,2)i,$$
(2.42)
then the following theorem is valid:

###### 2.2 THEOREM.

Let $`\psi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(B(0,1))`$ and let $`0`$ be a regular value of the function $`k_0`$ restricted to $`\mathrm{supp}\psi \times ^d`$. Then for $`h1`$

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\psi g_s(K_h))=h^d\frac{dxdp}{2\pi }\psi g_s(k(x,p))+O(h^{s+1d}).$$
(2.43)
Assume next that the potential $`V`$ can be written as

$$V(𝐱)=V_0(𝐱)+h\overline{V}(𝐱,h),$$
(2.44)
such that the principal symbol of $`K_h`$ reads $`k_0(𝐱,p)=p^2/2V_0(𝐱)`$. Then, if additionally $`\overline{V}`$ fulfills (2.42) (uniformly in $`h`$), Theorem 2.2 remains valid for $`s=0`$ with $`k`$ replaced by the principal symbol $`k_0`$. (cf. \[I2\] Theorem 4.5.3)

###### 2.3 THEOREM.

Let $`\psi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(B(0,1))`$ and let $`0`$ be a regular value of the function $`k_0`$ restricted to $`\mathrm{supp}\psi \times ^d`$. Then for $`h1`$

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\psi g_0(K_h))=h^d\frac{dxdp}{2\pi }\psi g_0(k_0(x,p))+O(h^{1d}).$$
(2.45)
### 2.3 Relationship between the potentials $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}`$.

Next we collect some information about the potentials $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}`$.

The scaling functions, which we will use in order to apply Theorem 2.1 to the operator $`H_𝐱_{}`$, have to be chosen such that the conditions (2.34)-(2.36) hold for the potentials $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}`$, at least away from the origin.

Since we will see that $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ behaves like $`Z|𝐱|^1`$ for $`|𝐱|r_S`$, the edge of the STF atom, it is thus natural to define

$$l(𝐱)=(\mathrm{const}.)|𝐱|\mathrm{and}f(𝐱)^2=Z|𝐱|^1.$$
(2.46)
If we denote the effective STF potential as

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)=\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)+\nu ,$$
(2.47)
then the following Lemma is valid:

###### 2.4 LEMMA.

(i) (\[LSY2\]) The density $`\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)`$ as well as $`[V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)]_+`$ have compact support with radius $`r_S3.3\pi ^2Z^{1/5}B^{2/5}`$.
(ii) For fixed but arbitrary $`𝐱_{}`$, $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)`$ are $`C^{\mathrm{}}(0)`$ as a function of $`z`$ and

$$|_z^\nu \varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)|C_\nu f(𝐱)^2l(𝐱)^\nu ,|_z^\nu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)|C_\nu ^{}f(𝐱)^2l(𝐱)^\nu ,$$
(2.48)
for all $`\nu `$ and $`𝐱^3`$.

###### Proof.

$`(ii)`$ The $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ property follows from the TF equation (2.1) and the definition (1.24). Equation (2.48) follows from (2.1) and (1.24) and the fact, that

$$|_z^\nu Z|𝐱|^1|f(𝐱)^2|𝐱|^\nu \frac{z}{|𝐱|}f(𝐱)^2l(𝐱)^\nu .$$
(2.49)
The proof of $`(i)`$ is given in \[LSY2\] Theorem 4.11. ∎

###### 2.5 Remark.

The estimates (2.48) seem to be very crude, especially in the vicinity of $`r_S`$, but nevertheless they are good enough to provide precise error estimates. Next let us try to get an idea how $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ behaves in the vicinity of the radius $`r_S`$. We consider the neutral case $`N=Z`$. Since $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ is spherical symmetric, we can make the ansatz $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)=\chi (r)/r`$, $`(|𝐱|=r)`$, which leads by (2.1) to

$$\chi ^{\prime \prime }(r)=Br^{1/2}\chi (r)\mathrm{and}\chi (0)=Z.$$
(2.50)
Around each point $`r_0`$, this equation has a solution $`\chi `$ that can be expanded in a series of terms $`c_i[r_0r]^i`$ with $`i4`$. In the vicinity of $`r_0=r_S`$ we get the approximate solution

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{STF}}\frac{Z^{1/5}B^{8/5}}{r}[r_Sr]_+^4,$$
(2.51)
which shows that $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ tends to $`0`$ as $`[r_Sr]_+^4`$ as $`rr_S`$.

Next we fix a point $`𝐲^3`$ and we set $`l=l(𝐲)`$ and $`f=f(𝐲)=Z^{1/2}|𝐲|^{1/2}`$. (We assume that (2.34) - (2.36) are fulfilled in $`B(𝐲,l(𝐲))`$. This in our case can be done by defining $`l(𝐲)`$ e.g. as $`|𝐲|/2`$.) Furthermore we define the unitary transformation

$$U(l):\psi (𝐱)l^{3/2}\psi (l𝐱+𝐲),$$
(2.52)
which maps the ball $`B(𝐲,l(𝐲))`$ to $`B(0,1)`$ and transforms the operator $`_z^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ into

$$l^2_z^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(l𝐱+𝐲).$$
(2.53)
Introduce the new potential

$$\stackrel{~}{W}(𝐱)=f^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(l𝐱+𝐲).$$
(2.54)
The resulting operator is related to the original one (2.23) as

$$U(l)\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}U(l)^1=f^2\stackrel{~}{K}_h,$$
(2.55)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_h=h^2_z^2\stackrel{~}{W}(𝐱)\mathrm{and}h=(lf)^1.$$
(2.56)
If we denote $`W(𝐱)=f^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(l𝐱+𝐲)`$, then one easily sees that $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ can equivalently be defined by applying (1.24), i.e. the operation $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, to $`W`$, with $`B`$ replaced by $`B^{}=Bl^2`$. In other words the unitary transformation $`U(l)`$ scales the magnetic field strength $`B`$ to $`B^{}=Bl^2`$ and for the difference $`\stackrel{~}{W}W`$ we get the following Lemma.

###### 2.6 LEMMA.

There exists a function $`a(𝐱,\alpha )`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{W}(𝐱)W(𝐱)=\alpha a(𝐱,\alpha ),$$
(2.57)
with $`\alpha =B^{1/2}l^1`$ and $`a(𝐱,\alpha )`$ fulfills (2.42) uniformly in $`\alpha `$ for $`\alpha 1`$.

###### Proof.

Since the potential $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ is spherical symmetric and Equation (2.48) is fulfilled for derivatives in all directions, we get for $`𝐱B(0,2)`$

$$|^\nu W(𝐱)|=|f^2^\nu \varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(l𝐱+𝐲)|C_\nu \text{for all}\nu ^3.$$
(2.58)
Hence, $`W(𝐱)`$, together with all derivatives, is bounded above by a constant on a ball around $`𝐱=0`$. Since the operation $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ smears the potential, for every $`𝐱`$, over a region $`\alpha `$ in the $`|𝐱_{}|`$-direction the difference $`\stackrel{~}{W}W`$ can be expressed by $`\alpha `$ times a function $`a(𝐱,\alpha )`$ which is bounded by a constant. Since $`\stackrel{~}{_z^nW}(𝐱)=_z^n\stackrel{~}{W}(𝐱)`$ the same argument can be given for all derivatives. ∎

Let us rewrite the operator $`K_h`$ in the form

$$K_h=h^2_z^2(W(𝐱)+\alpha a(𝐱,\alpha )).$$
(2.59)
In order to be allowed to apply Theorem 2.3 to (2.59), i.e. in order to guarantee that $`p^2W(x)`$ is the principal symbol of $`K_h`$, it is necessary, that

$$\alpha hB^{1/2}l^1l^1f^1,$$
(2.60)
which leads to the condition

$$|𝐲|Z/B.$$
(2.61)
Hence, in the sense of Theorem 2.3, this implies that in the region $`\{𝐱||𝐱|Z/B\}`$ Theorem 2.1, with $`s=0`$ can be applied to the error terms $`_{24}`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ replaced by $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$. Next we decompose $`^3`$ into $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\{𝐱||𝐱|Z/B\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\{𝐱||𝐱|Z/B\}`$ and estimate the error terms $`_{14}`$ on each of these regions separately.

### 2.4 Analysis in the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$

We first assume that $`B<Z^2`$. This assumption is made in order to be sure that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is not completely contained in the non-semiclassical region $`\{𝐱||𝐱|1/Z\}`$, where each term, the quantum mechanical as well as the semiclassical, has to be estimated separately. Furthermore let $`\psi ^{(1)}(𝐱)`$ be supported in $`\{𝐱|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|𝐱|Z/B(1+ϵ)\}`$ and fulfill $`\psi ^{(1)}(𝐱)=1`$ in $`\{𝐱||𝐱|(Z/B)(1ϵ)\}`$, as well as $`|_z^n\psi ^{(1)}|C_nl(𝐱)^n`$ for all $`n`$.

With respect to $`_1`$ and $`_2`$, we in particular have to estimate the term

$$\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱_{}\left(\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}(\psi ^{(1)}g_s(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}\nu ))\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\psi ^{(1)}g_s(h_𝐱_{}\nu )\right),$$
(2.62)
with $`\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}`$ and $`h_𝐱_{}`$ given by (2.23). Let $`\stackrel{~}{h}_𝐱_{}`$ be defined analogously, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{h}_𝐱_{}=p^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}`$. Adding and subtracting $`\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\psi ^{(1)}g_s(\stackrel{~}{h}_𝐱_{}\nu )`$ in (2.62), we split (2.62) into

$$R_1^s(\psi ^{(1)})=\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱_{}\left(\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}(\psi ^{(1)}g_s(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}\nu ))\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\psi ^{(1)}g_s(\stackrel{~}{h}_𝐱_{}\nu )\right)$$
(2.63)
and the fully semiclassical part

$$R_2^s(\psi ^{(1)})=\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱_{}\left(\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\psi ^{(1)}g_s(\stackrel{~}{h}_𝐱_{}\nu )\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\psi ^{(1)}g_s(h_𝐱_{}\nu )\right).$$
(2.64)
Since $`l(𝐱)f(𝐱)1`$, which is equivalent to $`|𝐱|Z^1`$, is necessary for being able to apply Theorem 2.1, we have to carry out a corresponding decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$. Let $`\psi _1^{(1)}+\psi _2^{(1)}=\psi ^{(1)}`$ be a partition of unity on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, with

$$\mathrm{supp}\psi _1^{(1)}=\{𝐱||𝐱|Z^1(1+ϵ)\},\mathrm{supp}\psi _2^{(1)}=\{𝐱|Z^1(1ϵ)|𝐱|Z/B(1+ϵ)\},$$
(2.65)
and $`|_z^n\psi _i^{(1)}|C_nl(𝐱)^n`$ for $`i=1,2`$, with $`C_n`$ independent of $`Z`$ and $`B`$..

###### 2.7 LEMMA.

With above definitions we have for (2.63)

$$R_1^s(\psi ^{(1)})CB^{\frac{3}{2}s1}Z^{2\frac{1}{2}s}.$$
(2.66)
###### Proof.

On $`\mathrm{supp}\psi _2^{(1)}`$ we apply Theorem 2.1 to (2.62) with $`\alpha =1`$ and $`d=1`$, which implies for arbitrary but fixed $`𝐱_{}`$ (we may set the chemical potential $`\nu =0`$ for simplicity, the computations for arbitrary $`\nu `$ are essentially the same)

$$\left|\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}(\psi _2^{(1)}g_s(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}))\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\psi _2^{(1)}g_s(\stackrel{~}{h}_𝐱_{})\right|C_{\mathrm{supp}\psi _2^{(1)}(𝐱_{},z)}𝑑zl(𝐱)^{1s}f(𝐱)^s.$$
(2.67)
Hence, multiplying with $`\frac{B}{2\pi }`$ and integrating over $`𝐱_{}`$ leads to

$$R_1^s(\psi ^{(1)})C\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱l(𝐱)^{1s}f(𝐱)^sBZ^{\frac{1}{2}s}_{Z^1}^{Z/B}r^{1\frac{3}{2}s}𝑑rCB^{\frac{3}{2}s1}Z^{2\frac{1}{2}s}.$$
(2.68)
In the case of $`rZ^1`$ the terms of (2.63) have to be estimated separately. The semiclassical part reads

$$\frac{B}{2\pi }\frac{d𝐱dp}{2\pi }\psi _1^{(1)}[\stackrel{~}{h}_𝐱_{}]_{}^{1/2+s}\frac{B}{2\pi }_{|𝐱|Z^1}𝑑𝐱[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}]_+^{1/2+s}CBZ^{2s2}$$
(2.69)
An analogue estimate one derives for $`\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱_{}\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}(\psi _1^{(1)}g_s(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}))`$ by using \[IS\] Lemma 7.9. ∎

###### 2.8 LEMMA.

For (2.64) we have

$$R_2^s(\psi ^{(1)})CZ^{s+1/2}B^{s/21/4}.$$
(2.70)
###### Proof.

Obviously, the main contribution to the magnitude of the semiclassical term

$$R_2^s(\psi ^{(1)})\frac{B}{2\pi }_^3𝑑𝐱\psi ^{(1)}\left|[\stackrel{~}{\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}}(𝐱)]_+^{s+1/2}[\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)]_+^{s+1/2}\right|$$
(2.71)
is produced by the Coulomb singularity, i.e

$`R_2^s(\psi ^{(1)})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{|𝐱|B^{1/2}}}𝑑𝐱|\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)|_+^{s+1/2}`$ (2.72)
$``$ $`CB{\displaystyle _{|𝐱|B^{1/2}}}𝑑𝐱\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z}{r}}\right)^{s+1/2}CZ^{s+1/2}B^{s/21/4}.`$ (2.73)
Hence, we are ready to carry out the estimate of the error terms $`_{14}`$, restricted to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, which we denote as $`_i(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$.

###### 2.9 PROPOSITION.

For $`Z^{4/3}BZ^3`$ one has

$`_1(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)={\displaystyle \frac{B}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _^2}𝑑𝐱_{}\left(\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}(\psi ^{(1)}[\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}\nu ]_{}){\displaystyle \frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\psi ^{(1)}[h_𝐱_{}\nu ]_{}}\right)`$
$`CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}.`$ (2.74)
###### Proof.

This is done by putting together Lemma 2.7 and Lemma 2.8 and setting $`s=1`$. ∎

Before turning to $`_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$ we need a preparing Lemma.

###### 2.10 LEMMA.

Let $`\lambda _N`$ be the $`N`$-th eigenvalue of (2.13) and $`\nu `$ the chemical potential of (2.1) belonging to the electron number $`N`$. Then

$$|\lambda _N\nu |CB^{3/5}Z^{1/5}.$$
(2.75)
###### Proof.

We assume now that we have already got the estimate

$$\left|\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(\mathrm{\Pi }_0(_z^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}})\mathrm{\Pi }_0)\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱_{}\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(p^2\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}})\right|CB^{1/5}Z^{2/5},$$
(2.76)
which till now we have only proven on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, by setting $`s=0`$ in Lemma 2.7 and Lemma 2.8. The missing part will be proved in Lemma 2.16. Since we know by definition

$$\frac{B}{2\pi }_^2𝑑𝐱_{}\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}\lambda _N)=N=\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱[\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)+\nu ]_+^{1/2},$$
(2.77)
we get

$`B^{1/5}Z^{2/5}{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱\left([\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}+\lambda _N]_+^{1/2}[\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}+\nu ]_+^{1/2}\right)}`$ (2.78)
$`C|\lambda _N\nu |B{\displaystyle _0^{r_S}}[\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}+\nu ^{}]_+^{1/2}r^2𝑑rC|\lambda _N\nu |(BZ^{1/2}r_S^{7/2}),`$ (2.79)
for some $`\nu ^{}[\nu ,\lambda _N]`$. This implies the statement of the lemma. ∎

###### 2.11 PROPOSITION.

$`_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)=|\lambda _N\nu |{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2\pi }}|{\displaystyle _^2}d𝐱_{}(\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}(\psi ^{(1)}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}\nu ))`$ (2.80)
$`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dzdp}{2\pi }}\psi ^{(1)}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(h_𝐱_{}\nu )\left)\right|CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}.`$ (2.81)
###### Proof.

By Lemma 2.10 and combining the estimations of Lemmata 2.7 and 2.8 with $`s=0`$. ∎

###### 2.12 Remark.

We remark here that if one has a partition of unity $`\phi _1+\phi _2=1`$, then the relation

$$D(f,f)2D(f\phi _1,f\phi _1)+2D(f\phi _2,f\phi _2)$$
(2.82)
is valid, which one gets by the simple inequality

$$D(f\phi _1f\phi _2,f\phi _1f\phi _2)0.$$
(2.83)
Remark 2.12 justifies the notations $`_3(\mathrm{\Omega }_i),_4(\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$, since (2.82) means that we can consider each region $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ separately.

###### 2.13 PROPOSITION.

For $`Z^{4/3}BZ^3`$ we get with (2.28)

$$_4(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)=D(\psi ^{(1)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\overline{\rho }),\psi ^{(1)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\overline{\rho }))CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}.$$
(2.84)
###### Proof.

Recall

$$\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}=\frac{B}{2\pi }[\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}+\nu ]_+^{1/2}\mathrm{and}\overline{\rho }=[\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}+\lambda _N]_+^{1/2}.$$
(2.85)
By the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality we derive

$`_4(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$ $`=`$ $`D(\psi ^{(1)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\overline{\rho }),\psi ^{(1)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\overline{\rho }))CB^2\psi ^{(1)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\overline{\rho })_{6/5}^2`$ (2.86)
$``$ $`CB^2|\lambda _N\nu |^2\psi ^{(1)}(\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}+\nu ^{})^{1/2}_{6/5}^2Z^{27/5}B^{14/5}.`$
In the case of $`_3(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$ we proceed as above, namely introduce the auxiliary density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(𝐱)=\frac{B}{2\pi }[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)+\lambda _N]_+^{1/2}`$ and decompose $`_3(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$ by using convexity.

###### 2.14 PROPOSITION.

For $`Z^{4/3}BZ^3`$ we have

$$_3(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)=D(\psi ^{(1)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\rho _\psi ),\psi ^{(1)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\rho _\psi ))CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}.$$
(2.87)
###### Proof.

By decomposition we have on the one hand the fully semiclassical and easier to handle part

$$_4(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)=D(\psi ^{(1)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }),\psi ^{(1)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }))B^2\psi ^{(1)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\stackrel{~}{\rho })_{6/5}^2B^{4/5}Z^{3/5}.$$
(2.88)
On the other hand there is the more interesting term

$$D(\psi ^{(1)}(\rho _\psi \stackrel{~}{\rho }),\psi ^{(1)}(\rho _\psi \stackrel{~}{\rho })).$$
(2.89)
For $`rZ^1`$ we separately calculate

$`({\displaystyle \frac{B}{2\pi }})^2D(\psi _1^{(1)}e(z,z;\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{},\lambda _N),\psi _1^{(1)}e(z,z;\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{},\lambda _N))`$
$`CB^2\psi _1^{(1)}e(z,z;\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{},\lambda _N)_{6/5}^2`$ (2.90)
and

$$(\frac{B}{2\pi })^2D(\psi _1^{(1)}[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}+\lambda _N]_+^{1/2},\psi _1^{(1)}[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}+\lambda _N]_+^{1/2})CB^2\psi _1^{(1)}[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}+\lambda _N]_+^{1/2}_{6/5}^2.$$
(2.91)
Whereas (2.91) can be bounded by

$$CB^2\psi _1^{(1)}[Z/|𝐱|]^{1/2}_{6/5}^2CB^2/Z^3,$$
(2.92)
(2.90) can analogously be estimated by \[IS\] Lemma 10.7, or \[I1\] Proposition 4.3.

The term

$$D(\psi _2^{(1)}(\rho _\psi \stackrel{~}{\rho }),\psi _2^{(1)}(\rho _\psi \stackrel{~}{\rho }))$$
(2.93)
is a bit more delicate. We can either use \[I1\] Proposition 4.3 or \[I2\] Theorem 4.5.4 (i), which states that for $`K_h`$, given in (2.40), with $`V`$ fulfilling (2.42) and $`|V(𝐱)+\tau |ϵ`$

$$\left|e(x,x;K_h,\tau )h^d\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(k(𝐱,p)\tau )\right|h^{1d}𝐱B(0,1/2).$$
(2.94)
Since $`|\lambda _N|B^{3/5}Z^{1/5}`$, we get that $`|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}+\lambda _N|ϵf(𝐱)^2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$. Hence, we can apply (2.94) to our case, with $`d=1`$, yielding

$$|e(z,z;\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{},\lambda _N)[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)+\lambda _N]_+^{1/2}|l(𝐱)^1.$$
(2.95)
The term $`l^1`$ stems from rescaling $`B(0,1)`$ to $`B(0,l)`$. So,

$$D(\psi _2^{(1)}(\rho _\psi \stackrel{~}{\rho }),\psi _2^{(1)}(\rho _\psi \stackrel{~}{\rho }))CB^2\psi _2^{(1)}l(𝐱)^1_{6/5}^2CB^2[Z/B]^3.$$
(2.96)
In the case $`BZ^2`$, $`Z/B`$ is smaller than $`1/Z`$ and in the above calculations only the separate terms have to be taken into account, which yields analogue estimates as above.

### 2.5 Analysis in the outer Region $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$

This region has already been treated by Ivrii in \[I1\] Section 4.

Recall first that $`r_S`$ is the radius of the support of $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$, in the neutral case, and of $`[\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}+\nu ]_+`$ otherwise. In order that Theorem 2.1 can be applied $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ have to fulfill condition (2.39). We know that $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(r_S)=\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(r_S)=0`$. Hence, we look for a parameter $`0<c<1`$, and the concerning radius $`cr_S`$, such that the separate quantum mechanical as well as semiclassical parts of $`_{14}`$ in $`\{𝐱||𝐱|cr_S\}`$ do not exceed $`CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}`$ and that $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ fulfills (2.39). The existence of such a $`c`$ is a consequence of the behavior of $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}`$ in the vicinity of $`r_S`$ (cf. (2.51)). By means of such a parameter $`c`$ we decompose the outer region $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ into $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ and define a concerning partition of unity, i.e.

$$\mathrm{supp}\psi _1^{(2)}=\{𝐱|[Z/B](1+ϵ)|𝐱|cr_S\},\mathrm{supp}\psi _2^{(2)}=\{𝐱||𝐱|cr_S(1ϵ)\},$$
(2.97)
with $`\psi _1^{(2)}+\psi _2^{(2)}=1`$ for $`r[Z/B](1+ϵ)`$. On $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$, by definition, all terms separately are bounded above by $`CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}`$ and on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1`$ condition (2.39) is fulfilled for $`\epsilon `$ small enough.

Throughout this section we assume $`Z^{4/3}BZ^3`$.

###### 2.15 PROPOSITION.

$$_1(\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1)CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}.$$
(2.98)
###### Proof.

First we assume $`B<Z^2`$. Applying Theorem 2.1 with $`\alpha =1`$ and $`d=1`$ we get for arbitrary but fixed $`𝐱_{}`$ (we set $`\nu =0`$)

$$\left|\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}(\psi _1^{(2)}g_1(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}))\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\psi _1^{(2)}g_1(\stackrel{~}{h}_𝐱_{})\right|C_{\mathrm{supp}\psi _1^{(2)}(𝐱_{},z)}𝑑zl(𝐱)^2f(𝐱).$$
(2.99)
After multiplying with $`B`$ and integrating over $`𝐱_{}`$ we get

$$(\text{2.99})C\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱l(𝐱)^2f(𝐱)CBZ^{1/2}_{Z/B}^{cr_S}r^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑rCBZ^{1/2}[r_S]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(2.100)
In the case of $`B>Z^2`$ we again have to decompose $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1`$, since $`Z/B`$ is smaller than $`1/Z`$. So for fixed but arbitrary $`B`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1`$ is decomposed with respect to $`r=1/Z`$. For $`r1/Z`$ we proceed as in the previous section and estimate each term separately and for $`r1/Z`$ we immediately arrive at (2.100).

The pure semiclassical part

$$\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱_{}\left(\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\psi ^{(2)}g_1(\stackrel{~}{h}_𝐱_{}\nu )\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\psi ^{(2)}g_1(h_𝐱_{}\nu )\right)$$
(2.101)
can analogously be estimated as in Lemma 2.8. ∎

Denote

$$R^0(\psi _1^{(2)})=\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱_{}\left(\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}(\psi _1^{(2)}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}\nu ))\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\psi _1^{(2)}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(h_𝐱_{}\nu )\right).$$
(2.102)
###### 2.16 LEMMA.

$$R^0(\psi _1^{(2)})CB^{\frac{1}{5}}Z^{\frac{2}{5}}.$$
(2.103)
###### Proof.

As in Proposition 2.15 we first assume $`B<Z^2`$. The other case, where the terms have to be computed separately, works as in Lemma 2.7. Applying Theorem 2.1 with $`\alpha =1`$ and $`d=1`$ we get for arbitrary but fixed $`𝐱_{}`$ (we set $`\nu =0`$)

$$\left|\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}(\psi _1^{(2)}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(\stackrel{~}{H}_𝐱_{}))\frac{dzdp}{2\pi }\psi _1^{(2)}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}(h_𝐱_{})\right|C_{\mathrm{supp}\psi _1^{(2)}(𝐱_{},z)}𝑑zl(𝐱)^1.$$
(2.104)
This implies

$$R^0(\psi _1^{(2)})C\frac{B}{2\pi }𝑑𝐱l(𝐱)^1CB_{Z/B}^{cr_S}r𝑑rCB[r_S]^2.$$
(2.105)
###### 2.17 PROPOSITION.

$$_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1)CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}.$$
(2.106)
###### Proof.

Note that by the Lemmata 2.7, 2.8 and 2.16 the estimate (2.76) is proved and the assumption of Lemma 2.10 justified. So by Lemma 2.10 and Lemma 2.16 we arrive at (2.106). ∎

###### 2.18 PROPOSITION.

$$_4(\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1),_3(\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1)CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}.$$
(2.107)
###### Proof.

Let us start with

$$_4(\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1)=D(\psi _1^{(2)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\overline{\rho }),\psi _1^{(2)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\overline{\rho })).$$
(2.108)
By the HLS inequality we get

$`_4(\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1)`$ $``$ $`CB^2\psi _1^{(2)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\overline{\rho })_{6/5}^2`$ (2.109)
$``$ $`CB^2|\lambda _N\nu |^2\psi _1^{(2)}(\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}+\nu )^{1/2}_{6/5}^2CB^{4/5}Z^{3/5}.`$
The term

$$_3(\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1)=D(\psi _1^{(2)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\rho _\psi ),\psi _1^{(2)}(\rho ^{\mathrm{STF}}\rho _\psi ))$$
(2.110)
is a bit more delicate and we refer to \[I1\] Proposition 4.2 and 4.3 for a proof of the estimate (2.107).

Note: Proposition 4.3 in \[I1\] is proved for region $`\chi _4=\{𝐱||𝐱|C_0Z/B\}`$ with possibly a very large parameter $`C_0`$. This parameter $`C_0`$ is chosen in a way, such that only the lowest Landau band contributes to Ivrii’s calculations. Since we only treat the lowest Landau band case the assertion of Proposition 4.3 holds in our case on the whole region $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1`$.

Furthermore, we remark that if (2.95) would be valid on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1`$, we could immediately conclude by the HLS inequality that $`_4(\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1)CB^2[r_S]^3`$. But since the validity of (2.95) cannot be guaranteed on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^1`$ we have to refer to Ivrii’s method. ∎

Recall that we have made a partition of unity, $`_{i,j=1}^2\psi _j^{(i)}(𝐱)=1`$. So collecting all estimations of the Sections 2.4 and 2.5 we have finished the proof of Theorem 1.3.

## 3 Semiclassical theories approximating $`E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}`$

As we have already argued throughout the introduction, the natural semiclassical approximation of $`E_{\mathrm{conf}}^\mathrm{Q}`$ is given by the DSTF functional

$$^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ]=\underset{m_0}{}\left(\kappa \rho _m(z)^3ZV_m(z)\rho _m(z)𝑑z\right)+\overline{D}(\rho ,\rho ).$$
(3.1)
Here $`\rho `$ is a sequence of one-dimensional densities $`\rho =(\rho _m(z))_{m_0}`$. In contrary to the usual STF theory the integration over the variables orthogonal to the magnetic field is replaced by an expansion in angular momentum eigenfunctions in the lowest Landau band. The potentials $`V_m`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ are defined in (1.30). The corresponding energy is given by

$$E^{\mathrm{DSTF}}(N,Z,B)=inf\left\{^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ]\right|\rho 𝒟\text{and}\underset{m}{}\rho _mN\},$$
(3.2)
with

$$𝒟=\{\rho |\underset{m}{}\rho _m^3<\mathrm{},\underset{m}{}V_m\rho _m<\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{D}(\rho ,\rho )<\mathrm{}\}.$$
(3.3)
Another semiclassical approximation, where the variables, as in the usual STF theory, are three dimensional densities, is realized by the MSTF functional

$$^{\mathrm{MSTF}}[\rho ]=\frac{4\pi ^4}{3B^2}𝑑𝐱\rho ^3(𝐱)𝑑𝐱\stackrel{~}{|𝐱|^1}\rho (𝐱)+\stackrel{~}{D}(\rho ,\rho ),$$
(3.4)
with respective energy

$$E^{\mathrm{MSTF}}(N,Z,B)=inf\left\{^{\mathrm{MSTF}}[\rho ]\right|\rho \stackrel{~}{𝒟}\text{and}\rho N\},$$
(3.5)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}=\{\rho |\rho ^3(^3),\stackrel{~}{|x|^1}\rho <\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{D}(\rho ,\rho )<\mathrm{}\}.$$
(3.6)
First of all, we will show that these two functionals are equivalent.

###### 3.1 LEMMA.

For all $`\rho \stackrel{~}{𝒟}`$ let

$$\overline{\rho }(𝐱)=\frac{B}{2\pi }\underset{m}{}\chi _m(𝐱_{})\rho _m(z),$$
(3.7)
with $`\rho _m(z)=\rho (𝐱)\chi _m(𝐱_{})𝑑𝐱_{}`$, and denote $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=(\rho _m)_m`$. Then one gets

$$^{\mathrm{MSTF}}[\rho ]^{\mathrm{MSTF}}[\overline{\rho }]=^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\stackrel{~}{\rho }].$$
(3.8)
###### Proof.

By the definition of the MSTF functional, it suffices to show that $`\rho ^3\overline{\rho }^3`$.

For this purpose we note that for every non-negative function $`f`$, on a general measure space, one derives from convexity that

$$\frac{1}{\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })}f^3𝑑\mu \left(\frac{1}{\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })}f𝑑\mu \right)^3.$$
(3.9)
Hence for every $`m`$ and $`z`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{|\chi _m|}_{\mathrm{supp}\chi _m}\rho (𝐱)^3\chi _m(𝐱_{})𝑑𝐱_{}\left(\frac{1}{|\chi _m|}\rho (𝐱)\chi _m(𝐱_{})𝑑𝐱_{}\right)^3.$$
(3.10)
Since $`|\chi _m|=\frac{2\pi }{B}`$, we arrive at

$$\frac{4\pi ^4}{3B^2}\rho (𝐱)^3𝑑𝐱\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\underset{m}{}\rho _m(z)^3𝑑z=\frac{4\pi ^4}{3B^2}\overline{\rho }(𝐱)^3𝑑𝐱.$$
(3.11)
###### 3.2 PROPOSITION.

For all $`N,Z,B`$

$$E^{\mathrm{MSTF}}(N,Z,B)=E^{\mathrm{DSTF}}(N,Z,B).$$
(3.12)
###### Proof.

Lemma 3.1 immediately implies

$$E^{\mathrm{MSTF}}(N,Z,B)=inf\{^{\mathrm{MSTF}}[\rho ]|\rho =\frac{B}{2\pi }\underset{m}{}\rho _m(z)\chi _m(𝐱_{}),(\rho _m)_m𝒟\}.$$
(3.13)
For simplicity we first concentrate on the DSTF functional and then apply our results to the MSTF functional.

###### 3.3 LEMMA.

$`^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ]`$ is uniformly bounded from below on $`𝒟`$.There exists even a positive constant $`\alpha `$ and a $`C`$, such that

$$^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ]\alpha \left(\underset{m}{}\rho _m^3+\overline{D}(\rho ,\rho )\right)C$$
(3.14)
for all $`\rho 𝒟`$.

###### Proof.

We set $`\rho (𝐱)=_m\rho _m(z)|\varphi _m(𝐱_{})|^2`$ for an arbitrary $`(\rho _m)_m𝒟`$. We get from \[BBL\] Lemma 2 that for every $`\epsilon >0`$ there exists a $`C_\epsilon `$, such that

$$|𝐱|^1\rho \epsilon \rho _3+C_\epsilon D(\rho ,\rho )^{1/2}.$$
(3.15)
Hence, this implies

$$\underset{m}{}V_m\rho _m\epsilon \left(𝑑𝐱\left(\underset{m}{}|\varphi _m(𝐱_{})|^2\rho _m(z)\right)^3\right)^{1/3}+C_\epsilon \overline{D}(\rho ,\rho )^{1/2}.$$
(3.16)
By convexity of $`x^3`$, for $`x0`$, and by the equation $`_m|\varphi _m|^2=\frac{B}{2\pi }`$, we get

$$\left(\frac{2\pi }{B}\underset{m}{}|\varphi _m|^2\rho _m\right)^3\frac{2\pi }{B}\underset{m}{}|\varphi _m|^2\rho _m^3.$$
(3.17)
Using (3.17) and integrating over the $`𝐱_{}`$-variable, the inequality (3.16) can be written as

$$\underset{m}{}V_m\rho _m\epsilon (\frac{B}{2\pi })^{2/3}\left(\underset{m}{}\rho _m^3\right)^{1/3}+C_\epsilon \overline{D}(\rho ,\rho )^{1/2}.$$
(3.18)
Consequently the functional $`^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ]`$ can be estimated from below by $`(ϵ=\epsilon (\frac{B}{2\pi })^{2/3})`$

$`^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ]`$ $``$ $`\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \rho _m^3}ϵ\left({\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \rho _m^3}\right)^{1/3}+\overline{D}(\rho ,\rho )C_\epsilon \overline{D}(\rho ,\rho )^{1/2}`$ (3.19)
$``$ $`\underset{X,Y0}{inf}\{\kappa X^3ϵX+Y^2C_\epsilon Y\}`$
$``$ $`\alpha (X^3+Y^2)C,`$
for $`\alpha ,C`$ appropriately chosen, where we used the notations $`X=\left(_m\rho _m^3\right)^{1/3}`$ and $`Y=\overline{D}(\rho ,\rho )^{1/2}`$

###### 3.4 LEMMA.

There exists a $`\rho ^{(\mathrm{})}`$, which minimizes $`^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ]`$ uniquely in $`𝒟`$, i.e. $`inf\{^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ]|\rho 𝒟\}=^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ^{(\mathrm{})}]`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\rho ^{(i)}`$ be a minimizing sequence of $`^{\mathrm{DSTF}}`$. Lemma 3.3 yields that there exists a constant $`C`$, such that

$$\underset{m}{}\kappa (\rho _m^{(i)})^3C,\overline{D}(\rho ^{(i)},\rho ^{(i)})C,\underset{m}{}\rho _m^{(i)}V_mC$$
(3.20)
for all $`m_0`$. By the Banach-Alaoglu theorem there exists a subsequence, still denoted as $`\rho ^{(i)}`$, and a $`\rho ^{(\mathrm{})}`$, with $`\rho _m^{(i)}^3()m_0`$, such that

$$\rho _m^{(i)}\rho _m^{(\mathrm{})}\text{weakly in}^3()i_0.$$
(3.21)
Since $`^p`$-norms are weakly lower semicontinuous, we derive for all $`m`$,

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}(\rho _m^{(i)})^3(\rho _m^{(\mathrm{})})^3,$$
(3.22)
and using Fatou’s Lemma we consequently arrive at

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\underset{m}{}(\rho _m^{(i)})^3\underset{m}{}(\rho _m^{(\mathrm{})})^3.$$
(3.23)
Moreover since $`V_m^{3/2}()`$ for all $`m`$, we conclude by weak convergence

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}𝑑zV_m(z)\rho _m^{(i)}(z)𝑑zV_m(z)\rho _m^{(\mathrm{})}(z)$$
(3.24)
for each $`m`$. By (3.20) and the dominated convergence theorem we have

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{m}{}𝑑zV_m(z)\rho _m^{(i)}(z)\underset{m}{}𝑑zV_m(z)\rho _m^{(\mathrm{})}(z).$$
(3.25)
In order to show

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\overline{D}(\rho ^{(i)},\rho ^{(i)})\overline{D}(\rho ^{(\mathrm{})},\rho ^{(\mathrm{})}),$$
(3.26)
we use the fact that for sequences of functions $`f=(f_m(z))_m`$, $`g=(g_m(z))_m`$,

$$f,g_D=\overline{D}(f,g)$$
(3.27)
defines a real inner product and consequently a real Hilbert-space $`_D`$. Since (3.20) yields $`\rho ^{(i)}_D=\sqrt{\rho ^{(i)},\rho ^{(i)}_D}C`$ for all $`i`$, we can extract another subsequence $`\rho ^{(i)}`$, such that

$$f,\rho ^{(i)}f,\rho ^{(\mathrm{})}\text{for all}f_D.$$
(3.28)
Hence, we conclude

$`\overline{D}(\rho ^{(\mathrm{})},\rho ^{(\mathrm{})})=\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho ^{(i)},\rho ^{(\mathrm{})}\rho ^{(\mathrm{})},\rho ^{(\mathrm{})}^{1/2}\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\rho ^{(i)},\rho ^{(i)}^{1/2}`$
$`=\overline{D}(\rho ^{(\mathrm{})},\rho ^{(\mathrm{})})^{1/2}\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\overline{D}(\rho ^{(i)},\rho ^{(i)})^{1/2},`$ (3.29)
and consequently get (3.26). Altogether we have shown

$$\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ^{(i)}]^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ^{(\mathrm{})}].$$
(3.30)
The uniqueness follows from the strict convexity of $`^{\mathrm{DSTF}}`$. ∎

###### 3.5 THEOREM.

Denote $`N_c=_m\rho _m^{(\mathrm{})}`$. Then
(i) for each $`NN_c`$ there exists a unique minimizer $`\rho ^N`$ for $`^{\mathrm{DSTF}}`$, under the restriction $`_m\rho _mN`$, i.e. $`E^{\mathrm{DSTF}}(N,Z,B)=^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ^N]`$. Moreover, $`\rho ^N`$ satisfies $`_m\rho _m^N=N`$.
(ii) $`E^{\mathrm{DSTF}}(N,Z,B)`$, as a function of $`N`$, is strictly decreasing and strictly convex up to $`N_c`$, and constant for $`N>N_c`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`NN_c`$. Then the same proof as in Lemma 3.4 shows that there exists a $`\rho ^N𝒟`$, with $`_m\rho _m^NN`$ and

$$^{\mathrm{DSTF}}[\rho ^N]=E^{\mathrm{DSTF}}(N,Z,B).$$
(3.31)
Obviously $`E^{\mathrm{DSTF}}(N,Z,B)`$, as a function of $`N`$, is non-increasing, and the convexity of $`^{\mathrm{DSTF}}`$ implies the convexity of $`E^{\mathrm{DSTF}}`$. Hence, by definition of $`N_c`$ and Lemma 3.4 it is clear that $`E^{\mathrm{DSTF}}`$ is strictly decreasing up to $`N_c`$ and constant for $`N>N_c`$. Furthermore we get that $`_m\rho _m^N=N`$ for $`NN_c`$. (Note that $`_m\rho _m^N<N`$ would be a contradiction to $`NN_c`$.) ∎

###### 3.6 PROPOSITION.

Let $`NN_c`$. Then for every minimizer $`\rho ^N`$ there exists a parameter $`\mu (N)`$, the chemical potential, such that $`\rho ^N`$ obeys the coupled TF equations

$$3\kappa (\rho _m^N(z))^2=[ZV_m(z)\underset{n}{}V_{m,n}(zz^{})\rho _n^N(z^{})+\mu (N)]_+(m_0),$$
(3.32)
and $`\mu (N)`$ fulfills the relation

$$\frac{}{N}E^{\mathrm{DSTF}}(N,Z,B)=\mu (N).$$
(3.33)
###### Proof.

The proof works analogously to \[LS\] Theorem II.10, if the variable perpendicular to the field is replaced by the angular momentum quantum numbers. ∎

###### 3.7 THEOREM.

All statements of Theorem 3.5 and Proposition 3.6 are also valid for the MSTF theory, where the minimizing MSTF densities $`\rho ^N(𝐱)`$ and the minimizing DSTF densities $`(\rho _m^N(z))_m`$ are related as

$$\rho ^N(𝐱)=\frac{B}{2\pi }\underset{m}{}\chi _m(𝐱_{})\rho _m^N(z).$$
(3.34)
The corresponding TF equation reads

$$3\kappa (\rho ^N(𝐱))^2=[Z\stackrel{~}{|𝐱|^1}\underset{n,m}{}𝑑𝐱^{}\chi _m(𝐱_{})V_{m,n}(zz^{})\chi _n(𝐱_{}^{})\rho ^N(𝐱^{})+\mu (N)]_+.$$
(3.35)
###### Proof.

The existence of a minimizing density $`\rho ^N(𝐱)`$ we get from Theorem 3.5 and Lemma 3.1. The uniqueness follows from the strict convexity of $`\rho ^3`$ in $`\rho `$. ∎

Next we try to collect some information about the “critical” particle number $`N_c`$, which measures the maximal particle number that can be bound to the nucleus in the D(M)STF theory.

###### 3.8 PROPOSITION.

$`N_cZ`$.

###### Proof.

By definition of $`N_c`$, we have $`\mu (N_c)=0`$, so the TF equation reads ($`\rho ^{N_c}=\rho `$)

$$3\kappa \rho _m(z)=[\phi _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(m)}(z)]_+m_0,$$
(3.36)
with

$$\phi _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(m)}(z)=ZV_m(z)\underset{n}{}V_{m,n}(zz^{})\rho _n(z^{}).$$
(3.37)
We assume $`N_c<Z`$.
\[BRW, RW\] tell us that the potentials $`V_m(z)`$ and $`V_{n,m}(zz^{})`$ behave like $`1/|z|`$ as $`z\mathrm{}`$. Hence, we get that for each $`m`$

$$\underset{z\mathrm{}}{lim}|z|[ZV_m(z)]=Z,$$
(3.38)
as well as

$`\underset{z\mathrm{}}{lim}|z|\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle V_{m,n}(zz^{})\rho _n(z^{})}\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{z\mathrm{}}{lim}|z|V_{m,n}(zz^{})\rho _n(z^{})}={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \rho _n}=N_c.`$ (3.39)
Since we therefore get

$$\underset{z\mathrm{}}{lim}|z|\phi _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(m)}(z)=ZN_c>0,$$
(3.40)
we can conclude that there exists an $`\epsilon >0`$ and a $`\overline{z}>0`$, such that

$$\phi _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(m)}(z)\epsilon |z|\mathrm{for}z\overline{z},$$
(3.41)
which by (3.36) is a contradiction to $`\rho _m^1()`$. ∎

In the usual STF theory the inequality $`N_cZ`$ is a consequence of Newton’s potential-theory. Since we miss this powerful tool in our DSTF theory we cannot expect to get an analogue estimate. But if we use similar methods to those applied in \[BRW, Sei, HS1\] we at least get the following $`B`$-independent upper bound for $`N_c`$.

###### 3.9 PROPOSITION.

$`N_c4Z`$.

###### Proof.

If we multiply (3.36) with $`\rho _m/V_m`$ and integrate over $`z`$, we get

$$3\kappa 𝑑z\frac{\rho _m(z)^3}{V_m(z)}=Z𝑑z\rho _m(z)\underset{n}{}𝑑z𝑑z^{}\frac{1}{V_m(z)}\rho _n(z^{})V_{n,m}(zz^{})\rho _m(z).$$
(3.42)
Note that by multiplication with $`\rho _m`$ the $`[]_+`$-bracket can be dropped, since $`\rho _m=0`$ where $`\phi _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(m)}(z)0`$. Clearly $`\rho _m^3/V_m0`$, so after summing over $`m`$ we arrive at

$$ZN_c\underset{n,m}{}𝑑z𝑑z^{}\frac{1}{V_m(z)}\rho _n(z^{})V_{n,m}(zz^{})\rho _m(z).$$
(3.43)
Moreover, \[HS1\] Lemma 4.1 tells us

$$\left(\frac{1}{V_m(z)}+\frac{1}{V_n(z)}+\frac{1}{V_m(z^{})}+\frac{1}{V_n(z^{})}\right)V_{m,n}(zz^{})1,$$
(3.44)
which we use, together with symmetry, in order to estimate the right side of (3.43):

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_m(z)}\rho _m(z)V_{m,n}(zz^{})\rho _n(z^{})𝑑z𝑑z^{}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}{\displaystyle \left(\frac{1}{V_m(z)}+\frac{1}{V_n(z)}+\frac{1}{V_m(z^{})}+\frac{1}{V_n(z^{})}\right)}`$
$`\times \rho _m(z)V_{m,n}(zz^{})\rho _n(z^{})dzdz^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}N_c^2.`$ (3.45)
Inserting into (3.43) finally leads to

$$N_c4Z.$$
(3.46)
###### 3.10 Remark (The difference between $`E^{\mathrm{DSTF}}`$ and $`E^{\mathrm{STF}}`$).

Obviously, the magnitude of difference between the D(M)STF and the STF energy is given by

$$B\left[|\varphi ^{\mathrm{MSTF}}(𝐱)|^{3/2}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)|^{3/2}\right].$$
(3.47)
Due to the singularity of the STF potential, (3.47) has to be split into

$`B{\displaystyle _{|𝐱|B^{1/2}}}\left[|\varphi ^{\mathrm{MSTF}}(𝐱)|^{3/2}{\displaystyle |\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)|^{3/2}}\right]`$
$`+B{\displaystyle _{|𝐱|B^{1/2}}}\left[|\varphi ^{\mathrm{MSTF}}(𝐱)|^{3/2}{\displaystyle |\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)|^{3/2}}\right].`$ (3.48)
The magnitude of the first term is proportional to

$$Z^{3/2}B_{|𝐱|B^{1/2}}|𝐱|^{3/2}=O(Z^{3/2}B^{1/4}).$$
(3.49)
The second term of (3.48) could be estimated by

$$B_{|𝐱|B^{1/2}}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)|^{1/2}|_\theta \varphi ^{\mathrm{STF}}(𝐱)|B^{1/2}Z^{3/2}B^{1/2}[r_S]^{3/2},$$
(3.50)
with $`\theta =|𝐱_{}|`$. So we see that the main contribution to (3.47) stems from the $`B^{1/2}`$-vicinity of the nucleus, i.e.

$$E^{\mathrm{DSTF}}E^{\mathrm{STF}}=O(Z^{3/2}B^{1/4}).$$
(3.51)
### 3.1 Some notes about the one-dimensional case

If we reduce the DSTF functional to the angular momentum channel with $`m=0`$, one gets the functional

$$^{1\mathrm{D}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{F}}[\rho ]=\kappa 𝑑z\rho (z)^3Z𝑑zV_0(z)\rho (z)+\frac{1}{2}𝑑z𝑑z^{}V_{0,0}(zz^{})\rho (z)\rho (z^{}),$$
(3.52)
which can be treated analogously to the three dimensional case and Theorem 3.5 and Proposition 3.8 are also valid. Concerning the upper bound of $`N_c`$ it is not necessary to symmetrize over $`n`$ and $`m`$, and in this case (3.45) reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V_0(z)}\rho (z)V_{0,0}(zz^{})\rho (z^{})𝑑z𝑑z^{}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \left(\frac{1}{V_0(z)}+\frac{1}{V_0(z^{})}\right)\rho (z)V_{0,0}(zz^{})\rho (z^{})𝑑z𝑑z^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_c^2.`$
Consequently one gets $`N_c2Z`$ for the maximum particle number that can be bound to the nucleus in the one-dimensional theory.

Moreover, let us regard the absolute minimum $`\overline{E}^{1\mathrm{D}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{F}}(Z,B)`$ of the functional $`^{1\mathrm{D}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{F}}[\rho ]=_{Z,B}[\rho ]`$. If we use the scaling relations

$$V_0(z)=B^{1/2}V_0^1(B^{1/2}z),V_{0,0}(z)=B^{1/2}V_{0,0}^1(B^{1/2}z)$$
(3.53)
and define

$$\overline{\rho }(z)=B^{1/4}Z^{1/2}\rho (B^{1/2}z)$$
(3.54)
we get

$$_{Z,B}[\overline{\rho }]=B^{1/4}Z^{3/2}_{1,1}^\lambda [\rho ],$$
(3.55)
with

$$_{1,1}^\lambda [\rho ]=\kappa 𝑑z\rho (z)^3𝑑zV_0^1(z)\rho (z)+\frac{1}{\lambda }𝑑z𝑑z^{}V_{0,0}^1(zz^{})\rho (z)\rho (z^{}),$$
(3.56)
and $`\lambda =2B^{1/4}Z^{1/2}`$.

Let $`E_w^{1D}(Z,B)`$ be the minimum of the functional

$$_w^{1D}[\rho ]=\kappa 𝑑z\rho (z)^3Z𝑑zV_0(z)\rho (z),$$
(3.57)
where the repulsive energy term is omitted. Using the above scaling (3.54) one immediately gets $`E_w^{1D}(Z,B)=Z^{3/2}B^{1/4}E_w^{1D}(1,1)`$. So we can formulate the following theorem:

###### 3.11 THEOREM.

If $`Z,B1`$ are fixed, then

$$E_w^{1D}(Z,B)\overline{E}^{1\mathrm{D}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{F}}(Z,B)E_w^{1D}(Z,B)+Z(1+2\mathrm{ln}[BZ^2]^2).$$
(3.58)
###### Proof.

The lower bound is obvious.

For the upper bound we use the relation (3.55) and take the TF-solution of $`_{1,1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e.

$$\rho (z)=\frac{1}{\pi }\sqrt{V_0^1(z)}.$$
(3.59)
This density is neither in $`^1`$ nor in $`^2`$, so we define a cut-off density $`\rho _R(z)=\pi \sqrt{V_0^1(z)}\mathrm{\Theta }(R|z|)`$ and use this as comparison density in (3.55), which leads to

$$_{1,1}^\lambda [\rho _R]=E_w^{1D}(1,1)+_R^{\mathrm{}}(V_0^1(z))^{3/2}+\frac{1}{\lambda }\rho _R(z)V_{0,0}^1(zz^{})\rho _R(z^{})𝑑z𝑑z^{}.$$
(3.60)
Since $`V_{0,0}^1(z)\mathrm{min}\{\frac{1}{|x|},\sqrt{\pi /4}\}`$ we get by Young’s inequality

$$\rho _R(z)V_{0,0}^1(zz^{})\rho _R(z^{})𝑑z𝑑z^{}\left[\left(\rho _R\right)^2\frac{1}{\beta }+2\mathrm{ln}(\beta )\rho _R^2\right]\beta 1.$$
(3.61)
After estimating $`\rho _R`$ and $`\rho _R^2`$ we see that the minimum of (3.61) as a function of $`\beta `$ is achieved for $`\beta =R/\mathrm{ln}(R)`$, which implies

$$\rho _R(z)V_{0,0}^1(zz^{})\rho _R(z^{})dzdz^{}[\mathrm{ln}(R)+\mathrm{ln}(R)^2].$$
(3.62)
Next, optimizing the last two term on the right side of (3.60) with respect to $`R`$ and multiplying with $`B^{1/4}Z^{3/2}`$ yields the statement of the theorem. ∎

By aid of this theorem we can also prove that $`\overline{E}^{1\mathrm{D}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{F}}(Z,B)`$ is the semiclassical approximation of $`\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}[_z^2ZV_0(z)]_{}`$, the sum of all negative eigenvalues of $`_z^2ZV_0(z)`$.

###### 3.12 COROLLARY.

Let $`B,Z1`$ and $`BZ^2`$. Then there exists a constant $`C`$, such that

$$|\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}[_z^2ZV_0(z)]_{}\overline{E}^{1\mathrm{D}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{F}}(Z,B)|C\mathrm{max}\{Z\mathrm{ln}[BZ^2],B^{3/4}Z^{1/2}\}.$$
(3.63)
###### Proof.

This is an immediate consequence of Theorem 3.11 and \[H\] Theorem 3.19, which says that

$$|\mathrm{Tr}_{^2()}[_z^2ZV_0(z)]_{}E_w^{1D}(Z,B)|CB^{3/4}Z^{1/2}.$$
(3.64)
We learn from Theorem 3.10 that in a model of a one dimensional semiclassical atom, where the electrons are forced to stay in the angular momentum channel $`m=0`$, the repulsive interaction energy does not contribute to the leading order of the energy $`\overline{E}^{1\mathrm{D}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{F}}(Z,B)`$ for large $`Z`$ and $`B1`$.

An analogue effect one obtains for the quantum mechanical interaction energy of $`N`$ particles reduced to the angular momentum $`m=0`$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\varphi _0\mathrm{}\varphi _0\psi (z_1,\mathrm{}z_N).$$
(3.65)
For $`\psi `$ a Slater-determinant or at least for $`\psi `$ close to the ground state of the corresponding $`N`$-particle Hamiltonian $`H_0`$, which is the projection onto the angular momentum eigenspace with angular momentum $`m=0`$, the interaction energy can be bounded from above by (for a precise lower bound see \[HS2\])

$$\frac{1}{2}_^2\rho _\psi (z)\rho _\psi (z^{})V_{0,0}(zz^{})𝑑z𝑑z^{},$$
(3.66)
which can be estimated by an analogue method to (3.61). This leads to

$$\frac{1}{2}_^2\rho _\psi (z)\rho _\psi (z^{})V_{0,0}(zz^{})𝑑z𝑑z^{}CE_0^{1/2}N^{1/2}\left[1+\mathrm{ln}(BN^3/E_0)\right],$$
(3.67)
where we have used that $`\mathrm{\Psi },H_N\mathrm{\Psi }0`$ and $`E_0`$ is the corresponding ground state energy (of wave functions of the form (3.65)), which is of the same order as $`\overline{E}^{1\mathrm{D}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{F}}`$ as long as $`BZ^2`$. Relation (3.67) yields that the quantum mechanical interaction energy in one dimension is $`E_0`$ as long as $`E_0N`$.
Acknowledgement. The author thanks Jakob Yngvason for proofreading and his friend Robert W. Seiringer for many helpful discussions and comments.


format: text

text:
# Acknowledgement

## Acknowledgement

The work is supported by grants RFBR 99-02-16207 and RFBR 00-15-96566.


text:
# Detecting the inseparability and distillability of continuous variable states in Fock space

## Abstract

The partial transposition(PT) operation is an effecient tool in detecting the inseparability of a mixed state. We give an explicit formula for the PT operation for the continuous variable states in Fock space. We then give the necessary and sufficient condition for the positivity of Gaussian operators. Based on this, a number of creterions on the inseparability and distillability for the multimode Gaussian states are naturally drawn. We finally give an explicit formula for the state in a subspace of a global Gaussian state. This formula, together with the known results for Gaussian states, gives the criterions for the inseparability and distillability in a subspace of the global Gaussian state.

Quantum entanglement or inseparability plays a fundamentally important role in the fascinating area of quantum computation and quantum information. To check the inseparability of a (mixed) state, a particularly elegant mathematical tool, partial transposition(PT) operation was given by Peres. This method was later on applied to various discrete states. While a lot of studies in quantum computation and quantum information(QCI) are based on the discrete states, recently a number of new proposals in the area were raised by using the continuous variable states. In certain respects, the continuous variable states can have advantages to the discrete states. Consequently, the entanglement detection for continuous variable states is an interesting and important topic. The distillability and and inseparability for Gaussian states were broadly studied recently. In these works, the starting point is the Wigner function, whose PT operation is simple and clear. Actually, the PT operation in Fock space is also simple. In this letter, we directly use Peres PT operation to the density operator itself. We shall first give an explicit formula for the PT operation for the continuous variable states in Fock space. We then check the inseparability of various types of practically existing states. We formulate a new type of practical impure squeezed state in the form of mixture of different squeezed vacuum states and Fock number states. We show this state and the squeezed state in phase damping channel are always inseparable. We then apply the PT operation to the Gaussian operator. We shall give the general criterion on the positivity of multi-variable Gaussian states in Fock space. This can be used to give the necessary and sufficient condition for inseparability or distillability for $`N1`$ system or arbitrary bipartite system, respectively. More generally, with the positivity condition for Gaussian state in Fock space we can easily investigate the entanglement prpoerty in a subspace of a global Gaussian state.
The PT operation in Fock space. We start from the number state $`|n_i`$ in Fock space, $`i`$ from $`1`$ to $`l`$. Without loss of any generality, operators in Fock space can be described by the summation of $`l`$-mode ket bra operator

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{\{n_i\}}{}}c_{\{n_i,n_i^{}\}}|n_1,n_2\mathrm{}n_ln_1^{},n_2^{}\mathrm{}n_l^{}|+h.c..`$ (1)
Suppose mode $`1`$ to $`j1`$ belong to subspace $`A`$ and mode $`j`$ to $`l`$ belong to subspace $`B`$. The PT operation to subspace $`B`$ is

$`\rho ^{PT}={\displaystyle \underset{\{n_i\}}{}}c_{\{n_i,n_i^{}\}}|n_1,n_2\mathrm{}n_{j1},n_j^{},n_{j+1}^{}\mathrm{}n_l^{}n_1^{},n_2^{}\mathrm{}n_{j1}^{},n_j,n_{j+1},\mathrm{},n_l|+h.c..`$ (2)
An operator in Fock space can also be expressed in creation($`a^{}`$) and annihilation($`a`$) operators. Considering the fact $`a^{}=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{n+1}|n+1n|`$ and $`a=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{n+1}|nn+1|,`$ we have $`a_{}^{k}{}_{}{}^{T}=a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}`$; $`a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}{}_{}{}^{T}=a^k,`$ where $`k`$ is an arbitrary natural number, the superscript $`T`$ indicates the $`transpose`$ operation. Without any loss of generality, an $`l`$-mode density operator in Fock space can be written in the following normally ordered form (i.e., all creation operators in the left and all annihilation operators in the right)

$`\widehat{W}=f(a_1^{},a_1,a_2^{},a_2\mathrm{}a_l^{},a_l)={\displaystyle \underset{\mu _i,\nu _i}{}}c_{\mu _1,\nu _1\mathrm{}\mu _l,\nu _l}a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu _1}a_1^{\nu _1}\mathrm{}a_{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu _l}a_l^{\nu _l}+h.c.`$ (3)
Note that the operators in the different mode are commute to each other. If we take the PT operation to operator $`\widehat{W}`$ on the mode from $`j`$ to $`l`$, $`\widehat{W}`$ changes into

$`\widehat{W}^{PT}={\displaystyle \underset{\mu _i,\nu _i}{}}c_{\mu _1,\nu _1\mathrm{}\mu _l,\nu _l}a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu _1}a_1^{\nu _1}\mathrm{}a_{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu _{j1}}a_{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu _{j1}}a_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu _j}a_j^{\mu _j}\mathrm{}a_{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu _l}a_l^{\mu _l}+h.c.`$ (4)
More concisely, it is

$`\widehat{W}^{PT}=:f(a_1^{},a_1,a_2^{},a_2\mathrm{}a_{j1}^{},a_{j1},a_j,a_j^{}\mathrm{}a_l,a_l^{}):`$ (5)
The notation $`:\mathrm{}:`$ indicates putting all the creation operators at left and annihilation operators at right for each mode in the functional $`f`$.
Non-Gaussian states. The two mode squeezed state is a typical continuous variable state produced in laboratories.. Practically speaking, we can rarely have a pure squeezed state due to the noise. We formulate the following impure squeezed state from a noisy source :

$`\rho ={\displaystyle _{r_0}^{r_1}}p(r)S(r)|0000|S^{}(r)\mathrm{d}r+{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2=0}{\overset{M_1,M_2}{}}}p^{}(n_1,n_2)|n_1,n_2n_1,n_2|.`$ (6)
Here $`p(r)`$ and $`p^{}(n_1,n_2)`$ are the probabilistic distribution functions satisfying $`p(r)dr+_{n_1,n_2=0}^{M_1,M_2}p^{}(n_1,n_2)=1,`$ squeezing operator $`S(r)=\mathrm{exp}[r(a_1^{}a_2^{}a_1a_2)]`$ ($`r>0`$), $`r_0`$ and $`r_1`$ are positive numbers($`r_1>r_0`$). Using the normally ordered form of squeezing operator we can simplify the integration part. Using Eq. (5) we may perform the PT operation and we obtain

$`\rho ^{PT}={\displaystyle p(r)\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2r}\underset{n_1,n_2}{}\mathrm{tanh}^{n_1+n_2}ra_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_1}a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_2}|0000|a_1^{n_2}a_2^{n_1}\mathrm{d}r+\underset{n_1,n_2=0}{\overset{M_1,M_2}{}}p^{}(n_1,n_2)|n_1,n_2n_2,n_1|}.`$ (7)
Consider the following linear superposed state in Fock space

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|M,M+2|M+2,M),`$ (8)
and $`M>M_1,M>M_2`$. We have

$`\mathrm{\Psi }|\rho ^{PT}|\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle _{r_0}^{r_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{p(r)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2r}}\mathrm{tanh}^{2M+2}r\mathrm{d}r<0.`$ (9)
Thus state defined in Eq. (6) is inseparable. As far as we have known, Eq. (6) is a $`new`$ formula for the impure squeezed state. This state is somewhat similar to the Werner state for the discrete system. However, the result is different. A mixture of Bell state can be separable very often, while a mixture of different squeezed vacuum and number state is always inseparable.

Besides the above noise due to the source, there are also noises due to the channel. We take the phase damping channel as an example here. Suppose initially we have a perfect pure squeezed state $`S|0000|S^{}`$. After solving the Master equation one obtains

$`\rho (t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2r}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2}{}}\mathrm{tanh}^{n_1+n_2}r\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t|n_1n_2|^2)|n_1,n_1n_2,n_2|.`$ (10)
The entanglement formation of this $`\rho (t)`$ has been numerically calculated. However, as mentioned in , $`\mathrm{"}`$it is not clear from the present numerical analysis whether the state is always entangled for finite $`\gamma t`$$`\mathrm{"}`$. The issue can be easily resolved in Fock space. According to Ref. , if operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{tr}_D\rho I\rho `$ is not positive definite, there is always a scheme to distill state $`\rho `$. We find here $`\mathrm{tr}_D\rho (t)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2r}_n\mathrm{tanh}^{2n}|nn|`$. It is easy to see $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2|\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Psi }_2<0`$, taking $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\frac{1}{2}(|00+|11)`$. Thus we draw the conclusion: A two mode squeezed state is always distillable( and inseparable) in phase damping channel.
Gaussian states. We define the Gaussian state in the following normally ordered form in Fock space.

$`\rho =:\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(aR\stackrel{~}{a}+aBa^{}+\stackrel{~}{a^{}}B^T\stackrel{~}{a}+\stackrel{~}{a^{}}R^{}a^{})\right]:.`$ (11)
Here $`a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a^{}}`$ are row vectors with $`l`$ components, e.g. $`a=(a_1,a_2\mathrm{}a_l)`$; $`\stackrel{~}{a^{}}=(a_1^{},a_2^{}\mathrm{}a_l^{})`$ while $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`a^{}`$ are $`l`$ component column vectors. Given a Gaussian operator that is not in the normally ordered form(e.g., the squeezed thermal state), one is always able to transform it into normally ordered form. There are a lot of well developed methods to do so(see e.g. ).

According to Eq. (4), the transposition operation to the particles with subscript from $`j`$ to $`l`$ changes the state into

$`\rho ^{PT}=:\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a,\stackrel{~}{a^{}})\left(\begin{array}{cc}R^{}& B^{}\\ B^T& R^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{a}\\ a^{}\end{array}\right)\right]:,`$ (16)
where

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}R^{}& B^{}\\ B^T& R^{}\end{array}\right)=\sigma \left(\begin{array}{cc}R& B\\ B^T& R^{}\end{array}\right)\sigma `$ (21)
and $`\sigma `$ is a $`2l\times 2l`$ matrix defined as $`\sigma _{ff}=1`$, $`\sigma _{l+f,l+f}=1`$ for $`fj`$; $`\sigma _{f,l+f}=1`$, $`\sigma _{l+f,f}=1`$ for $`f>j`$; and all the other matrix elements are $`0`$. With the above formulae, one can take PT operation to any Gaussian state very easily. To check the inseparability, we need check the positivity of the Gaussian operator $`\rho ^{PT}`$ and we have
Proposition : For the Gaussian operator $`\rho ^{PT}`$ defined above, it is positive definite if and only if all the eigenvalues of matrix $`B^{}`$ not less than $`1`$.
Proof: If we find certain operator $`A`$ so that $`\rho ^{PT}=AA^{}`$, then $`\rho ^{PT}`$ is positive definite. Note that in the normally ordered form, operator $`:\mathrm{exp}[(aB^Ta^{}+\stackrel{~}{a^{}}B^{}\stackrel{~}{a})/2]:=:\mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{~}{a^{}}B^{}\stackrel{~}{a}]:`$. Furthermore, if $`B^{}>1`$, we can use the formula

$$:\mathrm{exp}[(aB^Ta^{}+\stackrel{~}{a^{}}B^{}\stackrel{~}{a})/2]:=\mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{~}{a^{}}\mathrm{ln}(B^{}+1)\stackrel{~}{a}].$$

Denoting $`A=\mathrm{exp}\left[\stackrel{~}{a^{}}R^{}a^{}/2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{a^{}}\mathrm{ln}(B^{}+1)\stackrel{~}{a}\right]`$ we have $`\rho ^{PT}=AA^{}`$. If some of the eigenvalues in matrix $`B^{}`$ are equal to $`1`$, considering the fact that $`:\mathrm{exp}(a_i^{}a_i):=|0_i0_i|`$( $`|0_i`$ is the vacuum state of the $`i`$th mode) and $`\sqrt{|0_i0_i|}=|0_i0_i|`$, we can also easily factorize $`\rho ^{PT}`$ into product form of certain $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$. Suppose the first $`h`$ eigenvalues of matrix $`B^{}`$ are $`1`$, then we have

$`A=\mathrm{exp}\left[\stackrel{~}{a^{}}R^{}a^{}/2\right]U:\mathrm{exp}[(\stackrel{~}{a^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{a})/2]:,`$ (22)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}=1`$ if $`ih`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}>1`$ if $`i>h`$, and unitary operator $`U`$ satisfies $`U:\mathrm{exp}[a\mathrm{\Lambda }a^{}+\stackrel{~}{a^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\stackrel{~}{a}]:U^{}=`$$`:\mathrm{exp}[aB^Ta^{}+\stackrel{~}{a^{}}B^{}\stackrel{~}{a}]:`$. The unitary operator $`U`$ can be constructed in the following way:
Suppose matrix $`B^{}`$ can be diagonalized by unitary matrix $`D`$, i.e. $`B^{}=D\mathrm{\Lambda }D^1`$. We define $`U`$ to be the rotating operator satisfying $`U\stackrel{~}{a^{}}U^{}=\stackrel{~}{a^{}}D=\stackrel{~}{b^{}}`$. Then we have

$$:\mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{~}{a^{}}B^{}\stackrel{~}{a}]:=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\lambda _i^k}{k!}b_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}b_i^k=U:\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{a^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{a}):U^{}.$$

Using the fact $`\sqrt{:\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{a^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{a}:)}=:\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{a^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{a}/2):`$ we obtain Eq. (22).

In the case that matrix $`B^{}`$ has any eigenvalue less than $`1`$, without loss of any generality, we suppose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}<1`$. Then the expectation value on state $`|\psi =\mathrm{exp}[aR^{}\stackrel{~}{a}/2]U|1,0,0\mathrm{}0`$ is

$`\psi |\rho ^{PT}|\psi =1|:\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}a_1^{}a_1]:|10|\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{22}a_2^{}a_2]|0\mathrm{}0|\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ll}a_l^{}a_l]|0.`$ (23)
Taking Taylor expansion of the exponential we know the terms of expectation values on vacuum state is $`1`$, while the expectation value on state $`|1`$ is

$`1|:\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}a_1^{}a_1]:|1=1|(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}a_1^{}a_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}^2a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_1^2\mathrm{})|1=1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}<0.`$ (24)
So operator $`\rho ^{PT}`$ is not positive definite in this case.
With the proposition one can easily check the inseparability of any Gaussian state. In general, one can easily obtain a sufficient condition for the inseparability of arbitrary state with them. In particular, it has been shown recently that for $`N1`$ Gaussian state, there is no inseparable state that is positive definite after the PT operation. That is to say, our proposition have actually given the necessary and sufficient condition for the inseparability of bipartite Gaussian state which has $`N`$ particles in one subspace and $`1`$ particle in the other subspace. Moreover, connected with theorem 1 in Ref. , the proposition gives the necessary and sufficient condition for the distillability for all bipartite Gaussian states.
To demonstrate the calculation, we consider an un-normalized 3-variable Gaussian state defined as:

$`\rho =:\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{3}{}}}(\zeta _{ij}a_i^{}a_j^{}+\zeta _{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_ia_j)\lambda a_1^{}a_1\lambda a_2^{}a_2\lambda _3a_3^{}a_3]:`$ (25)
and $`0\lambda `$ 1, $`0\lambda _3`$ 1. If $`\rho `$ is a physics state there are some restrictions to the parameters. Here we assume the parameters in $`\rho `$ satisfy all those restrictions. Suppose mode $`1`$ and mode $`2`$ are in subspace $`A`$ while mode $`3`$ are in subspace $`B`$. Taking PT operation to mode $`3`$ one easily obtains the matrix $`B^{}`$ as defined by equation(21). The smallest eigenvalue($`\omega `$) of matrix $`B^{}`$ for this state can be caculated easily. The condition for $`\omega <1`$ is

$`|\zeta _{13}|^2+|\zeta _{23}|^2>(\lambda +1)(\lambda _3+1).`$ (26)
Our proposition here is presented in Fock space. It can be easily applied to a type of more general problem, the entanglement property in a subspace of a global Gaussian state. The application background for this question is broad. For example, a multi particle bipartite state is prepared and then some of the particles are lost due to the operational errors, or some of the particles there are not accessible due to any other causes. We want to know whether the state in the accessible subspace is still distillable. For another example, the initially prepared Gaussian state interacts with its environment, a heat bath of harmonic oscillators. Finally we have a Gaussian state in the total system. But only a subspace is accessible. It is interesting to judge whether the state in the accessible subspace is distillable. The whole task is easy with our proposition in Fock space, because it is easy to obtain the explicit formula for a subspace state in a global Gaussian state, provided the global Gaussian state is expressed in the normally ordered form in Fock space.

Bipartite state in a subspace of a global Gaussian state An $`l^{}`$mode global Gaussian state $`\rho _{CD}`$ can be defined in the form of equation (11). Modes numbered from $`1`$ to $`l`$ belong to subspace $`C`$( which consists of subspaces $`A`$ and $`B`$), modes numbered from $`l+1`$ to $`l^{}`$ belong to the subspace $`D`$. We have

$`\rho _C=\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{D}\rho _{CD}=\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{D}:\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\beta _CM_C\stackrel{~}{\beta _C}+\beta _DM_D\stackrel{~}{\beta _D}+2\beta _DM_O\stackrel{~}{\beta _C}\right]:,`$ (27)
$`\beta _C=(a_1,a_2\mathrm{}a_l,a_1^{},a_2^{}\mathrm{}a_l^{})`$, $`\beta _D=(a_{l+1},a_{l+2}\mathrm{}a_l^{},a_{l+1}^{},a_{l+2}^{}\mathrm{}a_l^{}^{})`$, $`M_{C,D,O}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}R_{C,D,O}& B_{C,D,O}\\ B_{C,D,O}^T& R_{C,D,O}^{}\end{array}\right)`$ , matrix $`R_C(B_C)`$ is in $`l\times l`$ form, its matrix element $`R_{Cxx^{}}(B_{Cxx^{}})=R_{xx^{}}(B_{xx^{}}),1x,x^{}l`$, matrix $`R_D(B_D)`$ is in $`(l^{}l)\times (l^{}l)`$ form, its matrix element $`R_{Dyy^{}}(B_{Dyy^{}})=R_{l+y,l+y^{}}(B_{l+y,l+y^{}}),1y,y^{}(l^{}l)`$, matrix $`R_O`$($`B_O`$) is in the form $`(l^{}l)\times l`$, its matrix element is $`R_{Oz,z^{}}(B_{Oz,z^{}})=R_{z,l+z^{}}(B_{z,l+z^{}}),1zl,1z^{}l^{}l`$. To take the partial trace in subspace $`D`$, we introduce the $`l^{}l`$ mode coherent state $`|Z_D>`$ in subspace $`D`$, $`|Z_D>=|z_{l+1},z_{l+2}\mathrm{}z_l^{}>`$, $`a_{l+y}|Z_D>=z_{l+y}|Z_D>`$. We have

$`\rho _C=:{\displaystyle }\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\beta _CM_C\stackrel{~}{\beta _C}+Z_D^{}M_D\stackrel{~}{Z_D}+2\beta _CM_O^T\stackrel{~}{Z_D}]{\displaystyle \underset{t=j+1}{\overset{l}{}}}\mathrm{d}^2z_t/\pi :`$ (28)
Using the complex Gaussian integration formula we obtain( up to a constant factor number):

$`\rho _C=:\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\beta _C(M_C+2M_O^TM_D^1M_O)\stackrel{~}{\beta _C}\right]:.`$ (29)
We can easily recast equation(29) into the form of equation(11) through

$$M_D^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(R_DB_DR_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}B_D^T)^1& R_D^1B_D(B_D^TR_D^1B_DR_D^{})^1\\ R_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}B_D^T(B_DR_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}B_D^TR_D)^1& (R_D^{}B_D^TR_D^1B_D)^1\end{array}\right).$$

So we have given the explicit Gaussian formula for the state in a subspace of a global Gaussian state. This equation, together with the known criterions on distillability and inseparability of Gaussian states gives the correspondings criterions in a subspace of a global Gaussian state.

Concluding remark. In summary, we have presented a general method to detect the inseparability and distillability for states in Fock space. We have shown the inseparability for some non-Gaussian states. We give the necessary and sufficient condition for positivity of the normally ordered multi-mode Gaussian operator. This is also the necessary and sufficient condition for the distillability of all bipartite Gaussian states and the necessary and sufficient condition for the inseparability of $`N1`$ Gaussian states. With the explicit formula for the bipartite state in a subspace of a Gaussian state given by us, all these criterions are applicable to a subspace inside the Gaussian state.

Acknowledgement: We thank Prof. Imai Hiroshi for support. We thank Dr. M. Hachimori and Dr. W. Y. Hwang for helpful discussions.