ebook img

One-dimensional Fermi gas with a single impurity in a harmonic trap: Perturbative description of the upper branch PDF

0.23 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview One-dimensional Fermi gas with a single impurity in a harmonic trap: Perturbative description of the upper branch

One-dimensional Fermi gas with a single impurity in a harmonic trap: Perturbative description of the upper branch Seyed Ebrahim Gharashi, X. Y. Yin, Yangqian Yan, and D. Blume1 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164-2814, USA (Dated: January 20, 2015) The transition from “few to many” has recently been probed experimentally in an ultracold 5 harmonically confined one-dimensional lithium gas, in which a single impurity atom interacts with 1 a background gas consisting of one, two, or more identical fermions [A. N. Wenz et al., Science 0 342, 457 (2013)]. For repulsive interactions between the background or majority atoms and the 2 impurity, the interaction energy for relatively moderate system sizes was analyzed and found to n convergetoward thecorresponding expression for an infinitelylarge Fermigas. Motivated bythese a experimentalresults,weapplyperturbativetechniquestodeterminetheinteractionenergyforweak J and strong coupling strengths and derive approximate descriptions for the interaction energy for repulsiveinteractions with varyingstrength between theimpurityand themajority atoms and any 9 1 numberof majority atoms. PACSnumbers: ] s a g I. INTRODUCTION perturbation theory to harmonically confined systems - t and derive approximate solutions whose accuracy can n One-dimensionalBoseandFermisystemswithcontact be improved systematically by considering successively a u interactions have been studied for many decades now, higher orders in the expansion in the small parame- q especially in the regime where the systems obey peri- ter. We focus on one-dimensional Fermi gases with a . odic boundary conditions [1–5]. A large fraction of the single impurity under external harmonic confinement. t a eigenstates can be thought of as corresponding to gas- This system is of particular interest since it has been m like states. A second subset of eigenstates corresponds realized experimentally in Jochim’s cold atom labora- - to self-bound droplet-like states. These states maintain tory [18, 19]. In the experiments, the impurity is a d their bound state character in the absence of periodic lithium atom that occupies a hyperfine state different n o boundary conditions, i.e., in free space. In many cases, from the hyperfine state that the majority atoms oc- c both the gas-like and droplet-like states can be obtained cupy. The trapping geometry is highly-elongatedand ef- [ analyticallyviatheBetheansatz. TheBetheansatztakes fectively one-dimensional. We willshowthatour pertur- advantage of the fact that the zero-range nature of the bativeresultsenableustocalculatetheenergyoftheup- 1 v interactions,combinedwiththefactthatparticlesinone per branch,which has beenstudied experimentally, with 9 dimension have to pass through each other to exchange fairly good accuracy for all N over a wide range of cou- 6 positions,allowsonetoidentifyconstantsofmotion. The pling strengths. In addition, our results provide bounds 3 solutionscanthenbe derivedinterms oftheseconstants on the energies in the weakly- and strongly-interacting 4 of motion. A closely related aspect is that a variety of regimes. These bounds can, e.g., be used to assess the 0 one-dimensional systems with two-body contact interac- accuracy of numerical solutions. . 1 tions are integrable [1, 4]. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. 0 The solution of the homogeneous system can be ap- Section II introduces the system Hamiltonian and nota- 5 plied to one-dimensional systems under spatially vary- tion. Section III summarizes our perturbative results. 1 ing external confinement via the local density approxi- The perturbative results areanalyzedinSecs. IV andV. : v mation [6–10]. This approximation typically provides a Finally, Sec. VI concludes. i X highly accurate description for a large number of par- ticles but not necessarily for a small number of parti- r II. SYSTEM HAMILTONIAN a cles. It is thus desirable to derive moreaccuratedescrip- tions for small one-dimensional systems with two-body delta-function interactions under external confinement. We consider a single impurity immersed in a one- Unfortunately, extensions of the Bethe ansatz to inho- dimensional Fermi gas that consists of N identical mass mogeneous systems are, in general, not known. This m fermions. The mass of the impurity is equal to that can be understood intuitively by realizing that the rel- of the majority or background particles. The impurity, ative two-body momentum in inhomogeneous systems is with position coordinate z , interacts with the majority 0 not conserved due to the presence of the spatially vary- particles, with position coordinates z (j = 1, ,N), j ··· ingconfinement. Correspondingly,harmonicallytrapped through a zero-range two-body potential with strength one-dimensionalfew-bodysystemshavebeentreatednu- g, merically by various techniques [7, 11–17]. In this work, we apply standard Raleigh-Schr¨odinger V (z )=gδ(z z ), (1) 2b j0 j 0 − 2 wherez =z z . TheHamiltonianH fortheharmon- ically cojn0finedj−(N0,1) system then reads 10 (a) ) ω N N _h ( H = Hho(zj)+Hho(z0)+ V2b(zj0), (2) ) / 5 j=1 j=1 N X X ( E wherethesingleparticleharmonicoscillatorHamiltonian H (z) is given by ho 0 ~2 ∂2 1 2 H (z)= + mω2z2; (3) ho −2m∂z2 2 (b) ) N here, ω denotes the angular trapping frequency. The ( F delta-function interactions in Eq. (2) can be replaced by E 1 a set of boundary conditions on the many-body wave ) / N function Ψ(z ,z , ,z ), 0 1 N ( ··· ε ∂Ψ ∂Ψ gm = Ψ , (4) 0 ∂zj0(cid:12)zj0→0+ − ∂zj0(cid:12)zj0→0−! ~2 |zj0→0 -4 - _h ω 0a / g 4 (cid:12) (cid:12) ho where the(cid:12)(cid:12)limits zj0 (cid:12)(cid:12)0+, zj0 0−, and zj0 0 → → → are taken while keeping the other N coordinates, i.e., z , ,z ,z , ,z and (z +z )/2, fixed. 1 j−1 j+1 N j 0 ··· ··· Inthe following,we determine the eigenenergiesE(N) of the Hamiltonian H for various N. Throughout, we FIG. 1: (Color online) (a) Solid, dotted, and dashed lines restrict ourselves to the so-called upper branch. This show the energy of the upper branch for N = 1, 2, and 3 branch can be populated by preparing the system in the as a function of −1/g. The energies of the (1,1) system are non-interacting limit (g 0+) and by then adiabati- obtained by solving the transcendental equation derived in → cally first increasing g to large positive values, then con- Ref. [21]. The energies of the (2,1) and (3,1) system are tinuing acrossthe confinement-induced resonance[20] to taken from Refs. [14, 15, 22]. (b) Solid, dotted, and dashed infinitely negative g values and finally increasing g to lines show the interaction energy ǫ(N), normalized by the Fermi energy E (N), for N = 1, 2, and 3, respectively, as small negative values. Solid, dotted, and dashed lines F a function of −1/g. The harmonic oscillator length a is in Fig. 1(a) show the energy of the upper branch for ho definedin Eq. (10). N = 1 [21], 2, and 3 [14, 15, 22], respectively, as a func- tion of 1/g. For all N, the energy increases monotoni- − callyasafunctionofincreasing 1/g. Theupperbranch − forsystemswithN =1,2,and3majorityparticles. The corresponds to the ground state of the model Hamilto- energy E (N) is directly proportional to the number of nian when g is positive but not when g is negative. For F majority particles, negative g, the model Hamiltonian supports molecular- like bound states. In real cold atom systems, energet- E (N)=N~ω. (6) F ically lower-lying molecular states exist even for posi- tive g. However, it has been demonstrated experimen- Figure 1(b) shows that the normalized interaction en- tally [19] that the upper branch can be populated with ergy depends relatively weakly on the number of parti- reasonablyhighfidelity for positive g, motivating us—as cles. IndependentofN,wehaveǫ(N)=0forg =0+ and well as others [7, 12, 13, 16, 17, 23–26]—to investigate ǫ(N)=E (N)for g = . As canbe readoffFigs.1(a) F the properties of the upper branch within a stationary | | ∞ and 1(b), the energy increase of the upper branch is the zero-temperature quantum mechanics framework. Since sameonthepositiveg sideasitisonthenegativeg side, decay to states with molecular character can lead to sig- indicating that ǫ(N) approaches 2E (N) in the g = 0− F nificantdepopulationofthe upperbranchfornegativeg, limit for N = 1 3. We refer to E (N) as the Fermi F our primary focus in the following lies on the positive g − energy of the majority particles. It should be noted, portion of the upper branch. however, that the “exact” Fermi energy of the majority For g = 0+, the energy of the upper branch is equal particlesisE (N) ~ω/2,i.e.,E (N)correspondstothe to E (N) = (N2+1)~ω/2. We write the energy E(N) F − F ni leading order term of the Fermi energy of the majority of the upper branch in terms of the interaction energy particles in the large N limit. ǫ(N), One of the main goals of this paper is to derive ex- pansions for the interaction energy of the upper branch E(N)=E (N)+ǫ(N). (5) ni around g = 0+ and g = using standard Raleigh- | | ∞ Solid, dotted, and dashed lines in Fig. 1(b) show the Schr¨odinger perturbation theory for any N, i.e., for interaction energies, normalized by the energy E (N), N = 1, , . To this end, we express the interaction F ··· ∞ 3 energies ǫ(0+) and ǫ(|∞|) in the vicinity of g = 0+ and g = , respectively,inapowerseriesofthe dimension- TABLE I: Coefficients B(k)(N) for various (N,k) combina- | | ∞ tions. The numbers in parenthesis denote the uncertainty less interaction parameter γ (for g small) or in a power series of γ−1 (for g large) [27], | | thatarisesfromevaluatingtheperturbationtheorysumswith | | a finite energy cutoff. The numbers without errorbars have been rounded. kmax ǫ(0+)(N)= B(k)(N)γk E (N)+ (γkmax+1) (7) k=1 k=2 k=3 " # F O N=1 0.179587 −0.0223551 0.00179230 kX=1 N=2 0.190481 −0.0239838 0.00179523 N=3 0.194409 −0.0244852 0.00177603(1) and N=4 0.196423 −0.0247210 0.0017627(1) N=5 0.197647 −0.0248563 0.0017535(1) ǫ(|∞|)(N)= N=6 0.198469 −0.0249435 0.0017470(1) kmax N=7 0.199059 −0.0250042 1+ C(k)(N)γ−k EF(N)+ (γ−(kmax+1)), (8) N=8 0.199503 −0.0250488 " k=1 # O N=9 0.199849 −0.0250828 X N=10 0.200126 −0.0251096 wherethe dimensionlessinteractionparameterγ isgiven N=11 0.200353 −0.0251313 by N=12 0.200543 −0.0251491 N=∞ 0.202642 −0.0253303 0.00171100 π g γ = , (9) √2N ~ωaho with TABLE II: Coefficients C(k)(N) for various (N,k) combina- tions. Thenumbersinparenthesisdenotetheuncertaintythat ~ arisesfromevaluatingtheperturbationtheorysumswithafi- a = (10) niteenergycutoff. Thenumberswithouterrorbarshavebeen ho mω r rounded. k=1 k=2 k=3 denotingthe harmonicoscillatorlength. Aswewillshow N=1 −3.54491 3.85603 34.3007 below, the scaling of the interaction energy by E (N) F N=2 −3.17245 2.41904(1) 25.38(2) ensures a smooth connection between the energy shifts N=3 −3.02854 1.8142(2) 23.78(8) for finite and infinite N. In Eqs. (7)-(8), the dimension- N=4 −2.95040 less kth-order perturbation theory coefficients B(k)(N) N=5 −2.90081 andC(k)(N)dependonN andwillbe determinedinthe N=6 −2.86634 next section. N=7 −2.84091 N=8 −2.82133 N=9 −2.80578 III. PERTURBATIVE RESULTS N=∞ −2.66667 0 21.0552 N limit: The impurity problem for the homo- geneo→us ∞system with positive γ was solved by McGuire (1,1) system: The eigenenergies of the harmonically in 1965[28]. Within the localdensity approximationthe trapped (1,1) system can be obtained for any γ by solv- Fermi wave vector is replaced by the wave vector at the ing a simple transcendental equation [21]. Expanding trapcentersuchthattheinteractionenergyoftheground the transcendental equation around the known eigenen- state for the harmonically trapped system with N ergies for small and large γ, one obtains power series in becomes [19] →∞ theinteractionenergy. Invertingtheseseries,oneobtains analytical expressions for the B(k)(1) and C(k)(1) coeffi- ǫ( ) γ γ γ 2π γ cients. We find B(1)(1) = π−3/2, B(2)(1) = ln(2)/π3, E ∞( ) = π2 1− 4 + 2π + γ arctan 2π .(11) B(3)(1) = [π2 9ln(4)2]/(24π9/2), C(1)(1)−= 2π1/2, F ∞ (cid:20) (cid:18) (cid:19) (cid:16) (cid:17)(cid:21) C(2)(1) = −4π[ln−(2) 1], and C(3)(1) = π3/2[π2− 24 − − − − ExpandingEq.(11)aroundγ =0+ and γ = ,respec- 9(ln(4) 4)ln(4)]/3. The numericalvalues of these coef- tively, B(k)( ) and C(k)( ) can be ob|ta|ine∞d for k = ficients−are summarizedin Tables I-II. As in the N 1,2, . We∞findB(1)( )=∞2/π2, B(2)( )= 1/(4π2), case,thesmallandlargeγ seriesforN =1,Eqs.(7)→an∞d B(3)(···) = 1/(6π4), C∞(1)( ) = 8/3∞, C(2)(− ) = 0, (8), have a finite radius of convergence. Employing the and C∞(3)( ) = 32π2/15. T∞he num−erical values∞of these techniquesofRef.[29],wefind—usingupto50expansion coefficient∞s are summarized in Tables I-II. It is readily coefficients—that the small and large γ series converge shown that the small and large γ series, Eqs. (7) and for γ <1.0745(2) 2π and γ −1 <[1.0745(2) 2π]−1, | | × | | × (8), convergefor γ <2π and γ−1 <(2π)−1, respectively. respectively. Our result for the convergence of the small Table II shows that C(2)( ) vanishes. We will return γ series is consistent with what is reported in the litera- to this finding when we dis∞cuss the N-dependence of the ture [30]. C(k)(N) coefficients. Weakly-repulsive(N,1)system,N =2,3, : Totreat ··· 4 the weakly-interacting system with finite N, N > 1, we These matrix elements are closely related to the bound- rewrite the system Hamiltonian in second quantization aryconditionrepresentationofthe one-dimensionalodd- and expand the field operators for the majorityparticles parity pseudo-potential [35, 36]. We evaluate the inte- and the impurity in terms of single particle harmonic grals in Eq. (13) analytically for N =1 4. The analyt- − oscillator states (see, e.g., Ref. [31]). The interaction ical results for N = 1 and 2 read C(1)(1) = 2√π and − matrix elements can be evaluated analytically and the C(1)(2) = π/2(81/32). The analytical expressions − first-order perturbation theory treatment for positive g for N = 3 and 4 are lengthy and not reported here [37]. p yields ForlargerN,weperformallbutoneintegrationforeach oftheperturbationmatrixelementsanalytically. There- 2√NΓ(1/2+N) sultingnumericallydeterminedenergyshiftsareaccurate B(1)(N)= . (12) π2N! to morethan 10digits. Table II summarizesthe numeri- cal values for the coefficient C(1)(N) for N 9 obtained ≤ The first-order energy shift may be interpreted by us. The extension to larger N is, although tedious, as the leading-order mean-field shift. We find possible in principle. limN→∞B(1)(N) = 2/π2, which agrees with the coef- To determine the energy shift proportional to γ−2, ficient obtained by expanding Eq. (11). The evalua- we use second-order perturbation theory. Reference [38] tion of the second-order energy shift involves the eval- pointed out that the second-order perturbation theory uation of infinite sums. We find, as expected, that these energy shift of the (1,1) system diverges, thus requiring sums converge. The reason is that the one-dimensional regularization. Analogous divergencies arise in the per- delta-function interaction does not, unlike two- or three- turbativetreatmentofone-dimensionalsingle-component dimensional delta-function interactions [32, 33], require Fermi gases with generalized delta-function interactions any regularization if used in standard perturbation the- (see, e.g., Ref. [35]) and that of one-dimensional Bose oryapproaches. Wedidnotfindacompactanalyticalex- gases with effective range dependent zero-range interac- pression applicable to all N for the second-order energy tions. In the following, we discuss the impurity problem shift. For N = 1 and 2, we have B(2)(1) = ln(2)/π3 with N = 2 and 3. To evaluate the second-order energy − andB(2)(2)=[ 9+6√3+3ln(2+√3) 12ln(2)]/(4π3). shifts, we need to know the complete set of eigenstates − − For larger N, the expressions are lengthy. The numer- of the (2,1) and (3,1) systems with g = . For the ical values for N 12 are listed in Table I. Table I (2,1) system, we use the analytical wa|v|e fun∞ctions from ≤ also summarizes the numerically determined values for Ref. [39] and evaluate the integrals analytically. For the the third-order coefficients B(3)(N) for N = 2 6. The (3,1)system,wederivecompactformsfortheeigenstates B(3)(N) coefficient increases slightly as N chan−ges from using spherical coordinates and evaluate the relevant in- 1 to 2, and then decreases monotonically as N increases tegrals analytically. We then evaluate the second-order further. ThenumericallydeterminedB(3)(N)coefficients perturbation theory sums numerically, imposing an en- for N =2 6 approach the N = coefficient smoothly ergycutoff onthe relative energyof the intermediate (or − ∞ if plotted as a function of 1/N. virtual)states that are being summed over. The second- Strongly-interacting (N,1) system, N = 2,3, : The orderenergyshiftisfoundtocontainpowerlawdivergen- ··· strongly-interacting regime has been treated perturba- ciesintheenergycutoff. Thesedivergenciesarecanceled tively at leading order, i.e., at order 1/γ, for N 8 [26] through the introduction of a counterterm and the con- ≤ (note, though, that only the coefficients for N 4 were stant (and physically meaningful) part is extracted with ≤ reported explicitly, i.e., in equation or numerical form). high precisionby a regularizationscheme similar to that Toderivetheseresults,thetwo-bodyinteractionforlarge developedforharmonicallytrappedbosons[40]. TableII g ismodeledbyimposingthetwo-bodyboundarycondi- reports the resulting second-order perturbation theory | | tion on the many-body wave function when the distance coefficients with errorbars. Our perturbative coefficients betweenthe unlike particlesapproacheszero[23,26,34]. are consistent with the coefficients obtained by fitting Since the groundstate eigenenergy for g = is degen- the (2,1) and (3,1) energies reported in Refs. [15, 22] to | | ∞ erate,the perturbationshiftis obtainedbydiagonalizing a polynomial in γ−1. For the N = 2 and 3 systems, we the perturbation matrix constructed using the degener- extend the above treatment to the third order (see Ta- ate states for g = . For the many-body states Ψ and bleII).Thesethird-ordercalculationsrequiretheevalua- α ∞ Ψ , the perturbation matrix element V reads [23] tionofmatrixelementsV betweenexcitedstates. Since β αβ αβ the third-order perturbation expression is more involved ~4 thanthesecond-orderperturbationexpression,ourthird- V = αβ −m2g × order result has a larger errorbar than our second-order result [41]. N ∂Ψ∗ ∂Ψ∗ α α δ(z ) Thecalculationsofthe second-andthird-orderenergy j0 j=1Z ···Z ∂zj0(cid:12)zj0→0+ − ∂zj0(cid:12)zj0→0−! × shifts can, in principle, be extended to larger N. To do X (cid:12) (cid:12) so,twochallengesneedtobeovercome. First,anefficient (cid:12) (cid:12) ∂Ψβ (cid:12) ∂Ψβ (cid:12) dz dz dz (.13) method to generate the complete set of eigenstates at 0 1 N ∂zj0(cid:12)(cid:12)zj0→0+ − ∂zj0(cid:12)(cid:12)zj0→0−! ··· |g|=∞hastobedevised. Second,anefficientschemefor (cid:12) (cid:12) (cid:12) (cid:12) 5 TABLEIII:Fittingcoefficientsb(k)fork=2and3. Fork=2 -2.7 j and 3, we used j =6 and 4, respectively. max k=2 k=3 N) -3 j=0 −0.0253304 1.71100×10−3 (1)C( j=1 0.0019591 2.23905×10−4 -3.3 j=2 0.0033477 6.59881×10−6 (a) j=3 −0.0116972 −3.67025×10−4 -3.6 j=4 0.0379414 2.64073×10−4 4 j=5 −0.0684440 (b) j=6 0.0486346 3 ) N (2 2) evaluating the matrix elements andinfinite perturbation (C1 theory sums has to be developed. This is not pursued 0 here. 35 (c) IV. FITTING THE B(k)(N) AND C(k)(N) COEFFICIENTS )30 N ( 3) Tables I-II suggest that the coefficients B(k)(N) and (C25 C(k)(N) change,for fixedk, smoothly with N. This mo- tivates us to write 20 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 jmax 1 j 1/N B(k)(N)= b(k) (14) j N j=0 (cid:18) (cid:19) X and FIG. 2: (Color online) Symbols show the coefficients (a) C(k)(N)=jmaxc(k) 1 j. (15) C(1)(N), (b) C(2)(N), and (c) C(3)(N) as a function of 1/N. j N The solid lines show our fits with j =6, 3, and 3, respec- j=0 (cid:18) (cid:19) max X tively. It should be noted that the expressions (14)-(15) reduce tob(k) andc(k),respectively,inthe N limit. Inthe follo0wing, th0e parameters b(jk) and c(jk→) a∞re obtained by TkA=B1L,E2,IaVn:dF3i,ttwinegucsoedeffijcient=s6c,(jk3),faonrdk3,=re1s,p2e,catinvdely3.. For fitting the coefficients B(k)(N) and C(k)(N) for fixed k. max k=1 k=2 k=3 WestartwithB(2)(N). WefitEq.(14)totheB(2)(N) j=0 −2.66667 0.00000 21.05520 values for N = 1 80 (the values for N = 1 12 are − − j=1 −1.40749 7.06739 8.80915 reported in Table II), varying j from 2 20. We find max j=2 1.78704 −5.70589 −5.07455 − that the most reliable fit is obtained for jmax = 12 j=3 −4.21746 2.49453 9.51090 − 13. In this case, the fitting parameter b(2) differs from j=4 7.33094 0 1/(4π2) [the resultobtainedby expandingEq.(11)] by j=5 −7.13604 l−ess than 10−8. This suggests that not only the k = j=6 2.76476 1 coefficient (see discussion above) but also the k = 2 coefficient connects smoothly with the infinite N result. Table III reports the results of our fit to the B(2)(N) Symbols in Figs. 2(a)-2(c) show the C(k)(N) coeffi- coefficientswithN =1 80and byapolynomialwith cients with k =1,2, and 3, respectively, as a function of − ∞ j =6. 1/N. Our fits to these data (see Table II) using poly- max As mentioned earlier,the B(3)(1) coefficient is slightly nomials with j =6,3, and 3 are shown by solid lines max smaller than the B(3)(2) coefficient. The B(3)(N) coeffi- (see Table IV for the coefficients). cients for N 2, however, decrease monotonically. This The discussion so far has focused on the coefficients motivatesus≥tofittheB(3)(N)coefficientswithN =2 6 B(k)(N)andC(k)(N)withk=1 3. Itis,ingeneral,not and byapolynomialwithjmax =4. Thefitcoefficien−ts feasibletoextendthe perturbativ−ecalculationstohigher ∞ are reported in Table III. It can be seen that the coef- k for arbitrary N. However, for N = 1 and , the co- ficient b(3) agrees with the coefficient B(3)( ) reported efficients with larger k can be obtained readil∞y. We find in Table0I. We believe that our fit provides∞an accurate that B(k)(1) decreases monotonically with increasing k description of the 6<N < coefficients. (we c|hecked |this for k 50). The C(k)(1) coefficient ∞ ≤ | | 6 increases monotonically with increasing k for k <37; for (a) k 37,weobservesmallnon-monotonicoscillations. For 1.1 ≥ N = ,wefindthattheB(k)( )withk evenandk 4 vanish∞while the B(k)( ) wi∞th k odd decrease mo≥no- 2) | ∞ | ρ( tonically with increasing k (again, we checked this for k 50). Similarly, the C(k)( ) with k even and k 2 1 ≤ ∞ ≥ vanishwhilethe C(k)( ) withkoddincreasemonoton- | ∞ | ically with increasing k. Assuming a linear change with 1/N,interpolatingbetweenB(k)(1)andB(k)( )andbe- tweenC(k)(1)andC(k)( )fork >3yieldses∞timatesfor 1.1 (b) ∞ the finite N, N > 1, coefficients. While rough, these es- ) timatesmightprovideareasonablemeanstoconnectthe 3 ( ρ weakandstrongperturbationtheorylimitsforquantities such as those shown in Figs. 3 and 4. 1 We cannot accurately estimate the radius of conver- genceofthesmallandlargeγexpansionsfor1<N < . ∞ However,the fact thatthe radiusofconvergenceis given (c) by γ <1.0745(2) 2πforN =1andγ <2π forN = 1.1 for|th|e small γ ser×ies and by γ −1 < [1.0745(2) 2π]−∞1 for N = 1 and γ−1 < (2π)−1| f|or N = for th×e large ∞) ∞ ρ( γ series suggests two speculations: First, a convergent 1 series can be found for any γ and N. Second, the radius of convergence of the small γ series is approximately 2π for all N. Figures 3 and 4, which are discussed in the -1 -0.5 0 0.5 -1/γ next section, are consistent with these speculations. V. DISCUSSION FIG. 3: (Color online) Solid lines show the quantity ρ(N) This sectioncomparesthe perturbativeenergyexpres- as a function of −1/γ for (a) N = 2, (b) N = 3, and (c) sionswiththenumericallydeterminedenergiesoftheup- N = ∞, respectively. For comparison, dotted, dashed, and perbranch. Figure1(b)showsthatthescaledinteraction dash-dotted lines show the perturbative results for ρ(N) ac- energy ǫ(N)/EF(N) depends weakly on N if plotted as counting for terms up to order γ0, γ1 and γ2, respectively, a function of ~ωaho/g. The dependence on N is even in the weakly-interacting regime and accounting for terms weakerwhent−heinteractionstrengthisparameterizedby up to order γ−1, γ−2 and γ−3, respectively, in the strongly- γ asopposedtog. Tobenchmarktheapplicabilityofthe interacting regime. perturbative expressions we analyze the interaction en- ergyofthe systemwithN majorityatomsby comparing where the coefficients ρ(w)(N) are determined by the with that of the (1,1) system. Specifically, we consider k the quantities ρ(N), B(l)(N) and B(l)(1) with l k+1. Expanding Eq. (16) ≤ in the strongly-interacting (large γ ) regime, we find | | ǫ(N)/E (N) ρ(N)= F , (16) ρ(N)=1+ρ(s)(N)γ−1+ρ(s)(N)γ−2+ ǫ(1)/E (1) 1 2 F ρ(s)(N)γ−3+ (γ−4), (19) and δ(N,N′), 3 O where the coefficients ρ(s)(N) are determined by the k ǫ(N)/E (N) ǫ(1)/E (1) C(l)(N) and C(l)(1) with l k. Solid lines in Figs. 3(a)- δ(N,N′)= F − F . (17) ≤ ǫ(N′)/E (N′) ǫ(1)/E (1) 3(c) show the quantity ρ(N) for N = 2, 3, and , re- F − F spectively. The solid lines are obtained using th∞e nu- For finite N, ρ(N) reduces to ǫ(N)/[Nǫ(1)], i.e., ρ(N) merical (2,1) and (3,1) energies and the semi-analytical tells one the interaction energy per particle, normalized (1,1) and ( ,1) energies. For γ 0+ (i.e., for ∞ → bythe interactionenergyofthe(1,1)system. Thequan- 1/γ ), the quantity ρ(N) approaches the con- − → −∞ tity δ(N,N′) can alternatively be written as [ρ(N) stantρ(w)(N)=B(1)(N)/B(1)(1)[seethehorizontaldot- 1]/[ρ(N′) 1]. − ted line0s in Figs. 3(a)-3(c)], which increases monotoni- − ExpandingEq.(16)intheweakly-interacting(smallγ) callyfrom1.0607to 1.1284asN goes from2 to . This ∞ regime, we find portionoftheinteractionenergycanbeinterpretedasthe mean-field contribution. Inclusion of the next order cor- ρ(N)=ρ(w)(N)+ρ(w)(N)γ+ρ(w)(N)γ2+ (γ3),(18) rection[theρ(w)(N)γ term]andthe nexttwocorrections 0 1 2 O 1 7 [the ρ(w)(N)γ and ρ(w)(N)γ2 terms] yields the dashed 0.48 1 2 anddash-dottedlinesinFigs.3(a)-3(c). Thedash-dotted linesprovideafairlyaccuratedescriptionofthe quantity ) ∞ ρ(N) for −1/γ . −0.4. For |γ| → ∞, the leading-order 2, γ-dependent term [see the (non-horizontal) dotted lines δ(0.44 inFigs.3(a)-3(c)]increasesmonotonicallyfrom0.3725to (a) 0.8782as N changes from2 to . Inclusion of the next- ∞ order correction and the next two corrections yields the dashed and dash-dotted lines in Figs. 3(a)-3(c). It can 0.64 be seen that the dash-dotted lines provide a fairly accu- rate description of the quantity ρ(N) for 1/γ & 0.15. ) − − ∞ This value is close to the expected radius of convergence 3, oftheinteractionenergy[recall,theradiusofconvergence δ( 0.6 is 1/γ = (1.0745 2π)−1 0.148 for the (1,1) system]. (b) × ≈ Combining the perturbative descriptions for small and large γ , the expansions provide a fairly accurate de- | | scription of the interaction energy for the system with N majority particles, normalized by that for the (1,1) system, over a wide range of interaction strengths γ. )0.73 3 Expanding Eq. (17) in the weakly-interacting regime, 2, ( we find δ (c) δ(N,N′)=δ(w)(N,N′)+δ(w)(N,N′)γ+ 0.72 0 1 δ2(w)(N,N′)γ2+O(γ3), (20) -1.5 -1 -1/γ -0.5 0 where the coefficients δ(w)(N,N′) are determined by the k B(l)(N),B(l)(N′),andB(l)(1)withl k+1. Expanding ≤ Eq. (17) in the strongly-interacting regime, we find ′ δ(N,N′)=δ0(s)(N,N′)+δ1(s)(N,N′)γ−1+ F−I1G/γ..4:T(hCeolsoorliodnlliinnee)isThfoerq(uaa)nNtity=δ2(Na,nNd N)a′s=a∞funacntidonthoef δ(s)(N,N′)γ−2+ (γ−3), (21) circlesarefor(b)N =3andN′ =∞and(c)N =2andN′ = 2 O 3. In the large γ regime, the uncertainty of the numerically where the coefficients δ(s)(N,N′) are determined by the determined (3,1) energies leads to appreciable uncertainties k inδ(2,3)andδ(3,∞)[seetheerrorbarsinFigs.4(b)and4(c)]. C(l)(N), C(l)(N′),andC(l)(1)withl k+1. Thequan- ≤ For comparison, dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted lines show tity δ(N,N′) is shown by the solid line in Fig. 4(a) for ′ theperturbativeresultsforδ(N,N )accountingfortermsup (N,N′)=(2, )andbydotsinFigs.4(b)-4(c)for(3, ) toorderγ0,γ1,andγ2,respectively,intheweakly-interacting, ∞ ∞ and (2,3), respectively. We observe that the quantity small |γ| regime and accounting for terms up to order γ−1, δ(N,N′) changes only slightly as 1/γ goes from γ−2, and γ−3, respectively, in the strongly-interacting, large − −∞ to 0; this is particularly true for δ(2,3) [see Fig. 4(c)]. |γ| regime. The limiting values [see the dotted lines in Figs. 4(a)- 4(c)] are given by δ(w)(N,N′) and δ(s)(N,N′), respec- 0 0 tively. Dashed lines include the next order correction in thelargeγ regimetomeaningfullycomparewiththeper- the weakly- and strongly-interacting regimes, and dash- turbative results. dotted lines include the next two corrections. In the weakly-interacting regime, the dash-dotted lines provide afairlygooddescriptionofthe quantityδ(N,N′). Inthe VI. CONCLUSION strongly-interactingregime,however,the validity regime oftheperturbativeexpressionsisquitesmall. Forδ(2,3), This paper considered the upper branch of a non- e.g., the expansion coefficients are δ(s)(2,3) = 0.7213, 0 interacting harmonically trapped one-dimensional Fermi δ1(s)(2,3) = 0.0694(3), and δ2(s)(2,3) = −2.31(12), where gas with a single impurity. Zero-rangetwo-body contact the numbers in brackets denote the errorbars due to the interactions with strength g were assumed between the uncertaintiesofthesecond-andthird-orderperturbation majority atoms and the impurity. This system consti- theorycoefficients. Thefactthat δ(s)(2,3) δ(s)(2,3) tutes one of the simplest mesoscopic systems accessible | 2 |≫| 1 | isresponsibleforthe turn-aroundofthe dash-dottedline to experiment and theory. On the experimental side, it for large positive γ. We note that the errorbar of the hasbeendemonstratedbythe Heidelberggroupthatthe quantities δ(3, ) and δ(2,3), obtained from the numer- upperbranchofthemodelHamiltoniancanbeemulated ∞ ical energies [see dots in Figs. 4(b)-4(c)], is too large in reliably using ultracold atoms [18, 19]. On the theory 8 side, various numerical and analytical techniques have a program can be carried through explicitly beyond the beenapplied[7,11–17,23–26]. Thispaperpursuedaper- leading-order correction. (iii) The radii of convergence turbative approach, which determined expansions of the of the series were reported for N = 1 and . (iv) The energy of the upper branch in the weakly- and strongly- behavior of the expansion coefficients in the∞series in γk interacting regimes for various N. In the cases where and γ−k with k > 3 was discussed. (v) The perturba- we were not able to obtain general N expressions for a tive expressionswerebenchmarkedandfound to provide fixed order in the perturbative expansion, approximate a reliable description over a wide range of interaction expressions applicable to all N were obtained through strengths. fits. Through comparison with accurate numerical few- The results presented in this work can be used to cal- body energies, the perturbative expressions were shown culateperturbativeexpressionsforthecontactandother to provide a satisfactory description for a wide range of observables. Moreover, the second- and third-order re- interaction strengths. sultsintheγ−1seriesallowonetoassesstheapplicability The main results of this work are: (i) We determined regime of effective spin models [26, 34, 42]. an expansion for the energy of the upper branch of a one-dimensional harmonically trapped Fermi gas with a Acknowledgement: We thank G. Zu¨rn for email cor- single impurity in the weakly-repulsive regime up to or- respondence that motivated this work and suggested to der γ3, applicable to any system size. (ii) We deter- analyze the quantity δ(N,N′) shown in Fig. 4. We also mined an expansion for the energy of the upper branch thank N. Zinner for bringing Ref. [38] to our attention, in the strongly-interacting regime up to order γ−3, ap- and P. Johnson and E. Tiesinga for helpful discussions plicable to any system size. While the idea to treat the on the numerical regularization of diverging sums. Sup- coupling strength 1/γ as a small parameter is not new, port by the National Science Foundation through grant our work provides an explicit demonstration that such number PHY-1205443is gratefully acknowledged. [1] D. C. Mattis, The Many-Body Problem. An Encyclope- [19] A.N.Wenz,G.Zu¨rn,S.Murmann,I.Brouzos,T.Lompe, dia of Exactly Solved Models in One Dimension,World and S.Jochim, Science 342, 457 (2013). Scientific,1993. [20] M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev.Lett. 81, 938 (1998). [2] T.Giamarchi,Quantum Physics inOne Dimension,Ox- [21] T.Busch,B.-G.Englert,K.Rza¸z˙ewski,andM.Wilkens, ford UniversityPress, Oxford, 2004. Found.Phys. 28, 549 (1998). [3] A. Imambekov, T. L. Schmidt, and L. I. Glazman, Rev. [22] In the vicinity of |g| → ∞, we improved the numerical Mod. Phys. 84, 1253 (2012). energies reported in Ref. [15]. [4] X.-W. Guan, M. T. Batchelor, and C. Lee, Rev. Mod. [23] A. G. Volosniev, D. V. Fedorov, A. S. Jensen, M. Va- Phys.85, 1633 (2013). liente, and N. T. Zinner, Nat.Commun. 5, 5300 (2014). [5] Z. N. C. Ha. Quantum Many-Body Systems in One Di- [24] E.J.Lindgren,J.Rotureau,C.Forss´en,A.G.Volosniev, mension, Series on Advances in Statistical Mechanics - and N.T. Zinner,New J. Phys.16, 063003 (2014). Volume12, World Scientific, 1996. [25] X. Cui and T.-L. Ho, Phys.Rev.A 89, 023611 (2014). [6] C. Menotti and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. A 66, 043610 [26] J. Levinsen, P. Massignan, G. M. Bruun, and M. M. (2002). Parish, arXiv:1408.7096. [7] G. E. Astrakharchik and I. Brouzos, Phys. Rev. A 88, [27] Throughout, we refer to the expansion around γ = 0+ 021602(R) (2013). and |γ−1| = 0 as small and large γ series. Sections III [8] G. E. Astrakharchik, D. Blume, S. Giorgini, and L. P. and IV discuss the applicability regime, i.e., the radius Pitaevskii, Phys.Rev.Lett. 93, 050402 (2004). of convergence, of these series. [9] I.V. Tokatly,Phys. Rev.Lett. 93, 090405 (2004). [28] J. B. McGuire, J. Math. Phys.6, 432 (1965). [10] G. Orso, Phys. Rev.Lett. 98, 070402 (2007). [29] J. Zamastil and F. Vinette, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, [11] M.Casula,D.M.Ceperley,andE.J.Mueller,Phys.Rev. 4009 (2005). A 78, 033607 (2008). [30] S. Kvaal, E. Jarlebring, and W. Michiels, Phys. Rev. A [12] I. Brouzos and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A 87, 023605 83,032505 (2011).Convertedtoourunits,thisreference (2013). reports that the small γ series converges for γ < 2π. [13] N.L. Harshman, Phys. Rev.A 86, 052122 (2012). InspectionoftheinsetofFig.2ofthisreferencesuggests, [14] S. E. Gharashi, K. M. Daily, and D. Blume, Phys. Rev. however, thattheradiusofconvergenceisslightly larger A 86, 042702 (2012). than 2π. [15] S. E. Gharashi and D. Blume, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, [31] A.J.Leggett,QuantumLiquids: BoseCondensationand 045302 (2013). Cooper Pairing in Condensed-Matter Systems, Oxford [16] P. O. Bugnion and G. J. Conduit, Phys. Rev. A 87, University Press Inc., NewYork,2006. 060502(R) (2013). [32] K. Huangand C. N. Yang,Phys. Rev.105, 767 (1957). [17] T. Sowin´ski, T. Grass, O. Dutta, and M. Lewenstein, [33] K. W´odkiewicz, Phys. Rev.A 43, 68 (1991). Phys.Rev.A 88, 033607 (2013). [34] F. Deuretzbacher,D. Becker, J. Bjerlin, S.M. Reimann, [18] F. Serwane, G. Zu¨rn, T. Lompe, T. B. Ottenstein, and L. Santos. Phys.Rev.A 90, 013611 (2014). A.N. Wenz,and S. Jochim, Science 332, 336 (2011). [35] M. D. Girardeau and M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. A 70, 9 023608 (2004). state with smaller slope. Lastly, the perturbation analy- [36] T. Cheon and T. Shigehara, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2536 sis allows one to improve the accuracy of the coefficient (1999). c2 = 0.865(7), which is reported below Eq. (10) of the [37] Our C(1)(3) coefficient agrees with that reported in supplementalmaterialofRef.[15];theperturbativeanal- Ref. [26] but differs by 0.0012 % from the slope that ysis yields c2 ≈0.8626961. one obtains using the adiabatic wave function reported [38] D. Sen,Int.J. Mod. Phys. A 14 1789 (1999). in Ref. [15] [see Eq. (2) of the supplemental material]. [39] A.G. Volosniev, D.V.Fedorov,A.S. Jensen,and N.T. This implies (see also Ref. [26]) that the true adiabatic Zinner, arXiv:1408.6058. wave functions are linear combinations of Eqs. (2) and [40] P. R. Johnson, D. Blume, X. Y. Yin, W. F. Flynn, and (3) of the supplemental material of Ref. [15] with coeffi- E. Tiesinga, NewJ. Phys.14, 053037 (2012). cients α≈0.9999929 and −(1−α2)1/2 ≈−0.003764883 [41] For theN =2 system, weused energy cutoffs of 1920~ω for state 1 and coefficients (1−α2)1/2 and α for state and 708~ω for the second- and third-order perturbation theory calculations. For the N = 3 system, we used en- 2. An analogous analysis shows that the true adiabatic ergycutoffsof190~ω and80~ωforthesecond-andthird- wave functions of the (2,2) system are linear combina- order perturbation theory calculations. tions of Eqs. (11) and (12) of the supplemental material of Ref. [15] with coefficients −(1−α2)1/2 and α for the [42] A. G. Volosniev, D. Petrosyan, M. Valiente, D. V. Fe- dorov, A. S.Jensen, and N. T. Zinner. arXiv:1408.3414. state with larger slope and α and (1−α2)1/2 for the

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.