arxiv: v2 [math-ph] 5 Oct 2018

Transcription

1 GROUD STATE EERGY OF MIXTURE OF BOSE GASES ALESSADRO MICHELAGELI, PHA THÀH AM, AD ALESSADRO OLGIATI arxiv: v [math-ph] 5 Oct 018 Abstract. We consider the asymptotic behavior of a system of multi-component trapped bosons, when the total particle number becomes large. In the dilute regime, when the interaction potentials have the length scale of order O 1 ), we show that the leading order of the ground state energy is captured correctly by the Gross-Pitaevskii energy functional and that the many-body ground state fully condensates on the Gross- Pitaevskii minimizers. In the mean-field regime, when the interaction length scale is O1), we are able to verify Bogoliubov s approximation and obtain the second order expansion of the ground state energy. While such asymptotic results have several precursors in the literature on one-component condensates, the adaption to the multi-component setting is non-trivial in various respects and the analysis will be presented in details. Contents 1. Introduction 1. Main results 4 3. Proof of Theorem GP minimiser Energy upper bound Dyson Lemma Energy lower bound Convergence of density matrices 4. Proof of Theorem Leading order and Hartree theory Bogoliubov Hamiltonian Estimate in the truncated two-component Fock space Localization in Fock space Validity of Bogoliubov correction 44 Appendix A. Quantum de Finetti Theorem References Introduction Experimental and theoretical investigations on mixtures of Bose gases displaying condensation have made important progress in the past years. The physical systems of interest consist of a gas formed by different species of interacting bosons, each of which is brought to condensation, thus with a macroscopic occupation of a one-body orbital for each species. Date: October 8,

2 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI They can be prepared as atomic gases of the same element, typically 87 Rb, which occupy two hyperfine states with no interconversion between particles of different hyperfine states [37, 3, 15, 16], or also as heteronuclear mixtures such as 41 K- 87 Rb [35], 41 K- 85 Rb [36], 39 K- 85 Rb [31], and 85 K- 87 Rb [43]. For a comprehensive review of the related physical properties we refer to [44, Chapter 1]. Mathematically, the natural Hilbert space for two populations, say, of 1 and identical bosons of different type in three dimensions is H 1, = L sym R3 1, dx 1,..., dx 1 ) L sym R3, dy 1,..., dy ), 1.1) where L symr 3 j ) is the space of square-integrable functions in R 3 ) j which are symmetric under permutations of j variables. o overall exchange symmetry is present among variables of different type. Most of the physically relevant phenomena are modelled by Hamiltonians acting on H 1, which include the customary intra-species and inter-species two-body interaction term, as well as an overall trapping potential for each species such confinements can indeed be different for each type of particles. Rigorous statements can only be proved in suitable limits of infinitely many particles, say, when the population ratios are asymptotically fixed: := 1 + +, j lim + =: c j 0,1), j {1,}. 1.) It is not restrictive to assume that the ratios 1 / and / are fixed, and so shall we henceforth. In the present work we intend to investigate the limit of infinitely many particles for two significant scaling regimes: the mean field, for interactions of weak magnitude and long range, and the dilute scaling, for interactions of strong magnitude and short range. In principle, the former regime is mathematically easier because of the natural emergence of the law of large number, while the latter regime is more relevant to realistic experiments of the Bose-Einstein condensation. To be precise, we shall consider the following Hamiltonian in suitable units) H := 1 j=1 k=1 xj +U 1) trap x j) ) yk +U ) trap y k) ) j=1 k=1 V 1) x j y k ), 1 j<r 1 V 1) 1 k<l V ) x i x j ) y k y l ) 1.3) with self-explanatory kinetic, confining, and interaction terms. Under our assumptions, H will bebounded from below on the core domain of smooth, compactly supportedfunctions and it is unambiguously realised as a self-adjoint operator by Friedrichs s extension, still denoted by H. Correspondingly, weshall specialise 1.3) in two forms, themean fieldhamiltonian H MF and the Gross-Pitaevskii Hamiltonian H GP α), in which the interaction potentials V are

3 chosen as 1 V α),mf x) := V α) x), V α),gp x) := 3 V α) x), for suitable -independent potentials V 1), V ), and V 1). We are interested in the large- behavior of the ground state energies E MF E GP := infσh MF ), := infσh GP ), α {1,,1} 1.4) 3 1.5) and the corresponding ground states. This subject has been deeply investigated for onecomponent Bose gases, as we shall address below, but is virtually unexplored for multicomponent gases. It turns out that by analogy with the one-component case, the leading order of the ground-state energies are captured by effective energy functionals which describe the condensation at the one-body level. More precisely, in the mean-field regime we have the Hartree functional E H [u,v] := c 1 u R dx+c 1 U 1) trap u dx+ c 1 V 1) u ) u dx 3 R 3 R 3 +c v R dx+c U ) trap u dx+ c V ) v ) v dx 3 R 3 R 3 +c 1 c R 3 V 1) v ) u dx 1.6) where c 1 and c are the population ratios defined in 1.4). On the other hand, in the dilute regime, we have the Gross-Pitaevskii functional E GP [u,v] := c 1 u R dx+c 1 U 1) trap u dx+4πa 1 c 1 u 4 dx 3 R 3 R 3 +c v R dx+c U ) trap u dx+4πa c v 4 dx 1.7) 3 R 3 R 3 +8πa 1 c 1 c R 3 v u dx. Here a α is the s-wave) scattering length of the potential V α), α {1,,1}, which is defined by the variational problem see [8] for a detailed discussion) { [ 4πa α = inf fx) + 1 V α x) fx) ] } dx : f : R 3 R, lim fx) = ) x R 3 We are going to show that under suitable, physically realistic conditions, the many-body groundstateenergyperparticlee MF / oregp / converges tothegroundstateenergyof the Hartree/Gross-Pitaevskii functional. Moreover, the corresponding many-body ground state ψ condensates on the unique Hartree/Gross-Pitaevskii minimisers u 0,v 0 ) in terms of the reduced density matrices: lim + γk,l) ψ = u k 0 v l 0 u k 0 v0 l, k,l = 0,1,, ) 1 In the physical literature [34, 41, 33] a different convention is preferred for α {1,}, namely V α) = c 1 α V α) for mean-field regime, and V α) = c αv α) c α ) for Gross-Pitaevskii regime.

4 4 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI Here recall that for every k,l 0, the reduced density matrix γ k,l) ψ of ψ is a trace class, positive operator on H k,l with kernel γ k,l) ψ X,Y;X,Y ) := dx k+1 dx 1 dy l+1 dy R 3 l) R 3 1 k) ψ X,x k+1,...,x 1 ;Y,y l+1,...,y ) ψ X,x k+1,...,x 1 ;Y,y l+1,...,y ) where X,X R 3 ) k and Y,Y R 3 ) l. The convergence 1.9) expresses the asymptotic closeness as ψ u 1 0 v ) in a weak sense. Heuristically, this closeness emerges naturally in the mean-field regime as the Hartree functional is the energy per particle of the trial state u 1 v. In the Gross-Pitaevskii regime, however, the ansazt u 1 0 v 0 is not good enough to produce the Gross-Pitaevskii energy, and a non-trivial correction due to the short-range correlation between particles is needed to recover the actual scattering lengths a α, instead of their first Born approximations 8π) 1 V α). In the mean-field regime, to see the macroscopic effect of the particle correlation we have to go to the next-to-leading order of the energy contribution. We will show that there exists a -independent self-adjoint operator H on a suitable Fock space such that E MF = e H +infσh)+o1) ) In fact, the operator H is the Bogoliubov Hamiltonian the second quantisation of the Hessian of the Hartree functional at the minimiser) that will be introduced in Section. Moreover, we will obtain an approximation for the ground state ψ of H MF in the norm topology of H 1,, which is much more precise than the convergence of the reduced density matrices 1.9). Such asymptotic results have several precursors in the literature on one-component condensates; see [6, 3, 4, 39, 4] for the leading order in the Gross-Pitaevskii regime and [46, 13, 1, 8, 40, 4, 45] for the second order in the mean-field regime. The novelty here is the adaptation, which in various respects is non-trivial, of previous analyses to the multi-component setting. This includes an amount of controls of the emerging mixed i.e., inter-species) terms, among which the convexity argument for the GP minimiser which singles out the role of the miscibility condition), the inter-species short-scale structure for the energy estimates which is crucial for the ground state energy in the Gross-Pitaevskii regime), and the double-component bounds on the Bogoliubov Hamiltonian which is the key ingredient for the second order contribution to the ground state energy in the mean field regime).. Main results Let us present the explicit set of assumptions for the potentials appeared in 1.3). A 1 ) For α {1,}, the confining potentials satisfy U α) trap L3/ loc R3,R) and U α) trap x) + as x +.

5 A GP ) For α {1,,1} the interaction potentials V α) C c R 3 ) are nonnegative, spherically symmetric, and such that the respective scattering lengths satisfy the miscibility condition a 1 a a 1..1) A MF ) For α {1,,1} the interaction potentials V α) : R 3 R are measurable, spherically symmetric, and satisfy the operator inequality V α) ) C½ ),.) the point-wise) positivity of the Fourier transform and the miscibility condition V 1) 0, V ) 0.3) V 1) V ) V 1) )..4) The assumption A 1 ) ensures that the one-body operator T α) := + U α) trap is bounded from below, and with compact resolvent. It covers trivially the harmonic confinement U α) trap x) = c α x, which is often used in realistic experiments. Our results can be generalisedwiththelaplacian replacedbythemagneticlaplaciani +Ax)), andin themean-field casewecan alsodeal withthepseudo-relativistic Laplacian +m m. Conditions.)-.3)ofA MF ) are technical assumptions needed to validate Bogoliubov theory they were already used in the one-component case in [1]). These conditions cover a wide range of interaction potentials, including Coulomb interactions. Condition.1) in A GP ), as well as its mean field counterpart namely.4) in A MF ), is needed to ensure that the Gross-Pitaevskii or Hartree minimiser is unique. These conditions explicitly emerged in the physical literature and they were recognised in the experimental observations as the miscibility condition between the two components of the mixtures that is, the interspecies repulsion does not overcome the repulsion among particles of the same time and the two components are spatially mixed); see, e.g., [10], [30, Section 15.], [14, Section 16..1] and [44, Section 1.1]. Here we will rigorously justify a uniqueness that is expected in theoretical physical arguments. Let us remark that our results below actually hold in a larger generality where.1) or.3) is replaced by the condition that the Gross-Pitaevskii or Hartree functional has a unique minimiser. Our first main result is the leading order behavior of the many-body ground state energy and the complete condensation of the ground state in the dilute regime. Theorem.1 Leading order in the Gross-Pitaevskii limit). Let Assumptions A 1 ) and A GP ) be satisfied. Then the following statements hold true. i) There exists a unique minimiser u 0,v 0 ) up to phases) for the variational problem e GP := inf E GP [u,v]. u,v H 1 R 3 ) u L = v L =1 ii) The ground state energy of H GP satisfies lim E GP = e GP..5) 5

6 6 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI iii) If ψ is an approximate ground state of H GP, in the sense that lim ψ,h GP ψ = e GP, then it exhibits complete double-component Bose-Einstein condensation: lim + γk,l) ψ = u k 0 v l 0 u k 0 v0 l, k,l = 0,1,,....6) in trace class. In Theorem.1, we actually do not need the local integrability of potentials; for example, our analysis can be extended to hard sphere potentials. In fact, using Dyson s argument [9] we can always replace V α) by a solf potential see Lemma 3. below) and the detailed profile of the potential plays no role; only its scattering length matters. We also do not need to assume that the potential is short-range, because as soon as the potential decays fast enough, we can make a space cut-off and obtain the same result by a standard density argument. However, in the following, we will keep the conditions A 1 ), A GP ) to simplify the presentation. The analogue of Theorem.1 in the one-component case has been first proved by Lieb, Seiringer and Yngvason [6] for the convergence of the ground state energy, and by Lieb and Seiringer [3, 4] for the condensation of the ground state. Later, based on quantum de Finetti methods [6, 1, 19] the ground state energy asymptotics and the condensation of the ground state were re-obtained by am, Rougerie and Seiringer [39]. Very recently, Boccato, Brennecke, Cenatiempo, and Schlein [4] obtained the optimal convergence rate in the homogeneous case where the particles are confined in a unit torus, without external potential). In the present paper, we will follow the simplified approach in[39] when dealing with the multi-component case. Theorem.1 as well as its mean-field counterpart in Theorem 4.1) justifies crucial information of the initial states assumed in various recent works on the dynamical problem for mixtures of condensates [34, 41, ]. There, one proves that the mixture preserves its double-component condensation in the course of time evolution, if it is prepared at time t = 0 in a state of condensation and, in the GP regime, provided that the energy per particle of the initial state is given by the GP energy functional. In the experiments the preparation of the compound condensate is precisely made by letting the system relax onto a suitable many-body ground state or low-energy state), then the dynamical experiments starts by perturbing such an initial state, e.g., removing the confinement [14]. ow our result provides the rigorous ground for such initial conditions assumed in the dynamical analysis. In the mean-field regime, we can go beyond the leading order by a detailed analysis of the fluctuations around the condensate. It is convenient to turn to the Fock space formalism where the number of particles is not fixed. Let us introduce the single-component Fock spaces F j) := h j) ) symn, h j) := L R 3 ), j {1,}.7) n=0

7 and the double-component Fock space F := F 1) F ) = L=0 n,m 0 n+m=l h 1) ) symn h ) ) symm ) 7..8) Let u m ) m=0 and v n) n=0 be orthonormal bases of h1) and h ), respectively, with u 0,v 0 ) being the Hartree minimiser. We shall choose once and for all these two bases in such a way that all their elements belong to the domain of self-adjointness, respectively, of the operator h 1) on h 1) and of the operator h ) on h ) that we are going to define in formula.16) below. Let a m := au m ), a m := a u m ), b n := bv n ), b n := b v n )..9) be the usual creation and annihilation operators on F 1) and F ), which are linear operators defined by the actions a m Ψ n )x 1,...,x n 1 ) = n dx fx)ψ n x,x 1,...,x n 1 ), R 3 a mψ n )x 1,...,x n+1 ) = n+1 1 fx j )Ψ n x 1,...,x j 1,x j,...,x n+1 ) n+1 j=1.10) for all Ψ n h 1) ) symn and for all n 0, and similar actions for b m,b m. They satisfy the canonical commutation relations CCR) [a m,a n ] = 0 = [a m,a n], [a m,a n] = δ m,n 1 1) F, + [b m,b n ] = 0 = [b m,b n], [b m,b n] = δ m,n 1 ) F. + With no risk of confusion we shall keep denoting with a m, a m, b m, b m the operators.11) a m ½ F ), a m ½ F ), ½ F 1) b m, ½ F 1) b m.1) now acting on F = F 1) F ). Obviously, a m,a m commute with b n,b n. In terms of these operators, we can extend the -body Hamiltonian H MF on H 1, as an operator on the Fock space F as H MF := ) u m, +U 1) trap )u n a m a n + v m, +U ) trap )v n b m b n where m,n m,n,p,q 1 V 1) mnpqa ma na p a q + 1 V ) mnpqb mb nb p b q +V 1) mnpqa mb na p b q ).13) V 1) mnpq := u m,[v 1) u n u q )]u p, V ) mnpq := v m,[v ) v n v q )]v p.14) V 1) mnpq := u m,[v 1) v n v q )]u p. Bogoliubov s approximation [3] suggests to formally replace a 0,a 0 and b 0,b 0 by the scalar values 1 and, respectively. It turns out that the terms of order are

8 8 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI canceled due to the Euler-Lagrange equations for the Hartree minimiser h 1) u 0 = 0, h ) v 0 = 0.15) where h 1) := +U 1) trap +c 1V 1) u 0 +c V 1) v 0 µ 1), h ) := +U ) trap +c.16) V ) v 0 +c 1 V 1) u 0 µ ) with the chemical potentials µ 1) := u 0, +U 1) trap )u 0 +c 1 u 0,V 1) u 0 u 0 +c u 0,V 1) v 0 u 0, µ ) := v 0, +U ) trap )v 0 +c v 0,V ) v 0 v 0 +c 1 u 0,V 1) v 0 u 0. All this results in the quadratic Hamiltonian H := [ u m,h 1) u n a ma n + v m,h ) v n b mb n +c 1 V 1) m00n a ma n +c V ) m,n 1 m00n b mb n + 1 c V ) mn00 b mb n + 1 c V ) mn00 b mb n + 1 c 1V 1) mn00 a ma n + 1 c 1V 1) mn00 a ma n + c 1 c V 1) 0mn0 b m a n + c 1 c V 1) 0mn0 a m b n + ] c 1 c V 1) mn00 a m b n + c 1 c V 1) mn00 a mb n 1 c 1V 1) c V ) 0000 which acts on the excited Fock space where F + := F 1) + F) + = L=0 n,m 0 n+m=l h 1) + ) symn )) symm h + ).17).18).19) h 1) + := {u 0} L R 3 ), h ) + := {v 0} L R 3 )..0) ote that H is independent of the choice of u m ) m=1 and v n) n=1, apart from the technical assumption that these functions belong to the domains Dh 1) ), Dh ) ) of the self-adjoint extension of h 1), h ), respectively. We can rigorously interpret H as an operator with core domain M M=0L=0 n,m 0 n+m=l h 1) + Dh1) ) ) symn h ) + Dh) ) ) symm ),.1) which turns out to be bounded from below and can be extended to a self-adjoint operator by Friedrichs method. In fact, the Bogoliubov Hamiltonian H is nothing but the quantized form of half) the Hessian of the Hartree functional at the minimiser. This -independent Hamiltonian is expected to describe the fluctuations around the condensate. Our second main result is the next order correction to the ground state energy in the mean field regime and a norm convergence for the ground state. Theorem. Bogoliubov correction to the mean-field limit). Let Assumptions A 1 ) and A MF ) be satisfied. Then the following statements hold true.

9 i) There exists a unique minimiser u 0,v 0 ) up to phases) for the variational problem e H := inf E H [u,v]. u,v H 1 R 3 ) u = v =1 ii) The Bogoliubov Hamiltonian H in.18) is bounded from below on F + with the core domain.1). Moreover, its Friedrichs self-adjoint extension, still denoted by H, has a unique, non-degenerate ground state Φ gs = Φ gs m,n) m,n 0 F +. iii) The ground state energy of H MF satisfies iv) The ground state ψ gs approximation lim ψgs lim E MF e H) = infσh)..) of HMF 0 m 1 0 n satisfies, up to a correct choice of phase, the norm a 0 ) 1 m b 0 ) n 1 m)! n)! Φgs m,n 9 = 0..3) H1, We remark that the ground state ψ of H MF is unique, up to complex phases. More precisely, in the case of no magnetic fields as in Theorem.), the ground state of H MF under the partial symmetric conditions in the first and the second components) is the same with the absolute ground state without any symmetry); see [5, Section 3..4]. Thus the uniqueness and positivity of ψ follow from the standard analysis of Schrödinger operators; see e.g. [, Chapter 11]. In the one-component case, Bogoliubov s second order correction for the ground state energy and the excitation spectrum in the mean-field regime has been first obtained by Seiringer [46] for the homogeneous Bose gas where particles are confined in a unit torus, without external potentials), and by Grech and Seiringer [13] for the non-homogeneous trapped gas. Then Lewin, am, Serfaty, Solovej [1] showed that, under the assumption of Bose-Einstein condensation, one can get the next order expansion in the energy by Bogoliubov theory in very general setting, and in particular also for Coulomb-type interaction potentials. Further extensions include a mixed mean-field large-volume limit by Dereziński and apiorkówski [8], collective excitations and multiple condensations by am and Seiringer [40], a power expansion by Pizzo [4] of the ground state in terms of a small coupling constant describing the interaction strength which is 1 in our meanfield regime), and an infinitely-splitting double-well model by Rougerie and Spehner [45]. In the present work, we will follow the general strategy in [1] to justify Bogoliubov s approximation. Here we can also deal with the excitation spectrum of H MF, but we will focus only on the ground state to simplify the representation. In a very recent breakthrough [5], Boccato, Brennecke, Cenatiempo, and Schlein were able to justify Bogoliubov s theory in the Gross-Pitaevskii limit for the homogeneous Bose gas. We expect that a similar result should hold for the multi-component case as well. We will prove Theorem.1 in Section 3 and prove Theorem. in Section 4.

10 10 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI 3. Proof of Theorem GP minimiser. Under the assumptions A 1 ) and A GP ), the existence of minimisers for the Gross-Pitaevskii functional 1.7) follows easily from the standard direct method in the calculus of variations. Here we only focus on the uniqueness part. Let us define an auxiliary functional, with f,g 0, The first step is to show convexity of D GP, namely D GP[ f +r D GP [f,g] := E GP [ f, g]. 3.1), g +s ] DGP [f,g]+d GP [r,s]. 3.) This is easily checked for the summands of D GP that contain the kinetic operator by [, Theorem 7.8]) and for those that contain the trapping potentials. For the terms containing the interaction potentials, let us consider, in self-explanatory notation, D1 GP, D GP, D1 GP as the three summands of D GP containing, respectively, a 1, a and a 1. We have the identities D GP 1 [f,g]+d GP 1 [r, s] D GP [f,g]+d GP [r, s] D GP 1 [f,g]+dgp 1 [r,s] D GP 1 D GP D GP 1 [ f +r [ f +r [ f +r, g +s ] = 4πa 1 c 1 ], g +s, g +s dk fk) rk), 3.3) = 4πa c dk ĝk) ŝk), ] = 8πa 1 c 1 c dk fk) rk) ĝk) ŝk). By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality together with.1), 4πa 1 c 1 dk fk) rk) +4πa c dk ĝk) ŝk) 8πa 1 c 1 c dk fk) rk) ĝk) ŝk), and the convexity property 3.) follows. ext, let us show that any Gross-Pitaevskii minimisers is positive, up to a complex phase. Indeed, let u 1,v 1 ) be a Gross-Pitaevskii minimiser. By the diamagnetic inequality [, Theorem 7.8], u 1, v 1 ) is a Gross-Pitaevskii minimiser too, and we have u 1 = u 1, v 1 = v ) Moreover, by a standard elliptic regularity from the Gross-Pitaevskii equation for u 1, v 1 ), it follows that u 1, v 1 > 0 pointwise. Together with the equalities 3.4), we can conclude from [, Theorem 7.8] that u 1 = θ 1 u 1 and v 1 = θ 1 v 1 for complex constants θ 1,θ 1. Thus up to complex phases, we can assume that u 1,v 1 > 0 pointwise. ext, assumethatu 1,v 1 )andu,v )aretwogross-pitaevskii minimisers,withu i,v i > 0 for i = 1,. Denote f i := u i and g i := v i. Obviously, f 1,g 1 ) and f,g ) are minimisers for D GP [f,g] with the constraint f L 1 = g L 1 = 1. Combining with the

11 convexity of D GP, we have the following chain of inequalities 0 D[f 1,g 1 ]+D[f,g ] [ f1 +f D, g 1 +g ] 0. This implies D[f 1,g 1 ]+D[f,g ] [ f1 +f = D, g 1 +g ], and in particular f 1, f 1 + f, f f 1 +f f1 +f =,. 3.5) By [, Theorem 7.8], the equality 3.5) and the fact that f 1,f > 0 imply that f 1 and f are proportional. The normalization condition f 1 L 1 = f L 1 = 1 implies that f 1 = f, and hence u 1 = u. The same argument shows v 1 = v. 3.. Energy upper bound. We will follow ideas in [6], with some modifications. First, let us recall the following result [11, Appendix A.1]. Lemma 3.1. Let 0 V C c R 3 ) be a radial function, with scattering length a > 0. Then V.) has scattering length a/. Moreover, for every constant l > 0, if is large enough so as to have suppv { x l}, then there exists a unique ground state f 0 of the eumann problem f + 1 V.)f = λ f on the ball x l, with fx) = 1 on x = l. We can can extend f to R 3 by setting fx) = 1 if x l, and hence f + 1 V.)f = λ f1 B0,l) 3.6) on R 3. Moreover, λ = 3a l 3 + O1) C1 x l) l4, 0 1 f, f x Trial function. Let us introduce the notations 11 C1 x l) x. 3.7) z 1,...,z ) := x 1,...,x 1,y 1,...,y ), 3.8) { U 1) trap if i 1, U i := U ) trap if i > 1, V 1).),a 1 ) if i,j 1, V ij,a i,j ) := V ).),a ) if i,j > 1, V 1).),a 1 ) if i 1 < j or j 1 < i. Let l > 0 be a small constant which is independent of. For every i j, let f ij,λ,ij ) be the pair f,λ ) in Lemma 3.1 with V.) replaced by V ij. Thus we can write H GP = zi +U i z i ))+ i=1 V ij z i z j ). 3.9) i<j

12 1 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI Taketwofunctionsu,v Cc R 3 ), whichareindependentof andl, suchthat u L = v L = 1. For every i = 1,,..., denote { u if i 1, u i := 3.10) v if i > 1. Consider the trial function Ψz 1,...,z ) = u i z i ) f jk z j z k ). 3.11) i=1 ote that we are using the full product j<k f jkz j z k ) to capture the short-range correlation, instead of using only a nearest-neighbor induction as in [6] in the onecomponent case. We found that this strategy is more transparent and flexible, as it does not require bosonic symmetry between particles. The trial state Ψ in 3.11) is not normalized, but nevertheless we have E GP j<k Ψ,HGP Ψ. 3.1) Ψ,Ψ orm estimates. For every i = 1,,...,, let us denote the z i -independent function Ψ Ψ i := u i z i ) j i f ijz i z j ). Since 0 f ij 1, we have the pointwise estimate On the other hand, using 3.7) we can estimate 1 j i f ijz i z j ) j i Ψ u i z i ) Ψ i. 3.13) 1 f ijz i z j )) j i C1z i z j ) z i z j. Thus 0 u i z i ) Ψ i Ψ = 1 ) ijz j if i z j ) u i z i ) Ψ i j i C u i L 1 z i z j l) Ψ i. z i z j Integrating this estimate leads to Ψ i L Ψ L 1 Cl ) Ψ i L. 3.14) We will choose l > 0 small such that 1 Cl is close to 1. Similarly, for every i j, the z i,z j )-independent function satisfies Ψ ij := Ψ u i z i )u j z j )f ij z i z j ) k i,j f ikz i z k )f jk z j z k ) Ψ ij L Ψ L 1 Cl ) Ψ ij L. 3.15)

13 Energy estimates. In order to obtain an upper bound for the energy convergence of Theorem.1, we show how to estimate all summands of the energy of the trial function 3.11) in terms of the GP functional, at the expense of negligible remainders. First, we bound the one-body potential energy. For simplicity, let us assume U i 0 for all i = 1,,..., this technical assumption will be removed at the end). Using 3.13) and 3.14) we can bound 13 U i z i ) Ψ ) U i z i ) u i z i ) Ψ i = U i z) u i z) dz Ψ i L 3.16) R 3 ) U i z) u i z) dz 1 Cl ) 1 Ψ L. R 3 Here the identity follows from the fact that Ψ i is independent of z i. ext, we consider the kinetic energy. For every i = 1,,...,, we have zi Ψ zi = u i) Ψ + zi f ij ) Ψ u i f ij j i = zi u i Ψ u i + zi f ij Ψ f ij 3.17) j i +Re zi u i ) Ψ zi f ij ) Ψ +Re zi f ij ) Ψ zi f ik ) Ψ. u i f ij f ij f j i ik j i k j Let us show that the cross terms in 3.17) are small. In fact, for all i j, using 3.7), 3.13) and 3.14), we can estimate zi u i ) Ψ zi f ij ) Ψ Ψ i u i zi u i zi f ij u i f ij u i u i L Ψ i zi f ij z i z j ) ) ) = u i u i L z f ij z) dz Ψ i R 3 Cl Ψ i L Cl 1 Cl ) Ψ L. 3.18) Here the identity follows by integrating w.r.t. z i fist and using again that Ψ i is independent of z i ). The constant C may depend on u and v, but it is always independent of

14 14 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI and l. Similarly, for all i j k i, we have zi f ij ) Ψ f ij zi f ik ) Ψ f ik u i L u j L Ψ ij u i u j zi f ij zi f ik Ψ ij zi f ij z i z j ) zi f ik z i z k ) ) = u i L u j L R z f ij z) dz 3 Cl Ψ ij L Ψ ij ) Cl 1 Cl ) Ψ L. 3.19) The identity follows by integrating w.r.t. z j fist, then integrating w.r.t. z i, and using the fact that Ψ ij is independent of z i,z j ). ext we turn to the main terms in 3.17). The first term can be estimated similarly to 3.16): zi u i Ψ u i zi u i Ψ i = u i L Ψ i L 1 1 Cl u i L Ψ L. 3.0) The second term in 3.17) will be coupled with the interaction energy. We have where zi f ij z i z j ) Ψ f ij + 1 V ij z i z j ) Ψ [ f zi ijz i z j ) + 1 V ijz i z j ) f ij z i z j ) ] u i z i ) u j z j ) Ψ ij ) = Φ ij x y) u i x) u j y) dxdy Ψ ij L R 3 R 3 ) Φ ij x y) u i x) u j y) 1 dxdy R 3 R 3 1 Cl Ψ L Φ ij z) := z f ij z) + 1 V ijz) f ij z). Since Φ ij is supported on x l, we can estimate Φ ij x y) u i x) u j y) dxdy Φ ij L 1 u i x) u j x) dx R 3 R 3 R 3 = Φ ij x y) u i x) u j x) u j y) )dxdy R 3 R 3 sup u j x) u j y) Φ ij x y) u i x) R dxdy 3 R 3 x y l l u j ) L Φ ij L 1.

15 Moreover, using equation 3.6) for f ij, the fact that 0 f ij 1, and the estimate 3.7) for the eigenvalue λ = λ,ij we find that 15 Φ ij L 1 = z f ij z) + 1 R 3 V ijz) f ij z) dz = λ,ij R 3 f ij z) 1 z l)dz 3ai,j l 3 + C ) l 4 1 z l)dz 4πa R 3 + C l. Thus Φ ij x y) u i x) u j y) dxdy 1+Cl) Φ ij L 1 u i x) u j x) dx R 3 R 3 R 3 4πai,j 1+Cl) + C ) u i x) u j x) dx l R 3 and hence zi f ij z i z j ) Ψ f ij + 1 V ij z i z j ) Ψ 1+Cl 4πai,j 1 Cl + C ) ) u i x) u j x) dx Ψ L. 3.1) l R 3 Conclusion of the upper bound. In summary, putting3.16)-3.1) together we obtain, for every i = 1,,...,, Ψ, zi +U i z i )+ 1 1 Cl u i L Cl 1 Cl j i 4πai,j + C l 1 ) V ijz i z j ) Ψ Ψ L j i ) U i z) u i z) dz + Cl R 3 1 Cl + Cl 1 Cl ) ) u i x) u j x) dx. 3.) R 3

16 16 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI Summing over i = 1,,..., and using the choice 3.10), we find that E GP Ψ,HGP Ψ c 1 Ψ 1 Cl L u L + R 3 U 1) trap z) uz) dz ) c + 1 Cl v L + U ) trap z) vz) dz R 3 +c 1+Cl 1 4πa 1 Cl 1 + C ) ) ux) 4 dx l R 3 +c 1+Cl 4πa 1 Cl + C ) ) vx) 4 dx l R 3 1+Cl +c 1 c 4πa 1 Cl 1 + C ) l ) ) ux) vx) dx R 3 + Cl 1 Cl + Cl 1 Cl. 3.3) Taking +, and then taking l 0 in 3.3) lead to lim sup E GP EGP [u,v]. 3.4) So far, we have proved 3.4) under the additional assumption that U α) trap 0, α {1,}. In general, if U α) trap s have negative parts, we can use 3.16) with U i replaced by maxu i, ε 1 ) + ε 1 0, where ε > 0 is a small constant. This gives, instead of 3.4), where E GP,ε lim sup E GP,ε EGP ε [u,v]. and EGP ε [u, v] are, respectively, the many-body ground state energy and the Gross-Pitaevskii functional with U α) trap replaced by maxuα) trap, ε 1 ), α {1,}. We observe that a ε 1 summand appears on both sides of the inequality, and hence exactly cancels. Since, by Lebesgue s monotone convergence theorem, E,ε GP EGP and Eε GP [u,v] E GP [u,v] as ε 0, we conclude that 3.4) holds true in general. Optimizing 3.4) over all u,v Cc R 3 ) satisfying u L = v L = 1, we obtain the desired upper bound lim sup E GP e GP. 3.5) 3.3. Dyson Lemma. ow weturntothelower bound. Wewillfollow thestrategy in[39]. First, as in [6, 7, 4, 39], we will replace the short-range potential w by a longer-range potential with less singular scaling behavior. This idea goes back to Dyson [9]. For every R > 0 define x θ R x) = θ, U R x) = R) 1 x ) R 3U R where U C c R3 ) are radial functions satisfying 0 θ 1, θx) 0 for x 1, θx) 1 for x,

17 U 0, Ux) 0 for x / [1/,1], U = 4π. R 3 We will always denote by p = i the momentum variable. The following result is taken from [7]. Lemma 3. Generalized Dyson lemma). Let v be a non-negative smooth function, supported on x R/ with scattering length a. Then for all ε,s > 0, pθ s p)1 x R)θ s p)p+ 1 vx) 1 ε)au Rx) CaR εs 5. Proof. The bound follows from [7, Lemma 4] with U,χ,s) replaced by U R,θ s,s 1 ) and the first estimate in [7, Eq. 5)]. ext, we apply Lemma 3. to derive a lower bound to the many-body Hamiltonian. Under the notations 3.8), we have H GP Lemma 3.3 Lower bound for many-body Hamiltonian). Let ε, s > 0 be independent of and let 1 R 1/. Then [ ] H GP zi +U i z i ) 1 ε)p z i θsp zi ) i=1 + 1 ε) a i,j U R z i z j ) j i k i,j 17 θ R z j z k )+o). 3.6) The purpose of Lemma 3.3 is to replace the short-range potentials V α) by the longerrange potential U R, which essentially places us in the mean-field limit. This is done by usingalmost all of the high-momentum part p θ s p) of thekinetic operator, and employing a many-body cut-off k i,j θ Rz j z k ) which rules out the event of having three particles close to each other. This technical cut-off will be removed later. Proof. ote that 1 V 1) = V 1).) is supported on x C 1 and has scattering length a 1 1. Therefore, when 1 R 1/ we can apply Lemma 3. to obtain p zi θ s p zi )1 z i z j R)θ s p zi )p zi + 1 V ijz i z j ) 1 ε) a i,j U Rz i z j )+o ). 3.7) For every i = 1,,...,, if every point in {z j } j i has a distance R to the others, then there is at most one of them has a distance R to z i. In this case, 1 z i z j R) 1, j i and hence summing 3.7) over j leads to p z i θ s p z i )+ j i 1 V ijz i z j ) 1 ε) j i a i,j U Rz i z j )+o ).

18 18 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI The latter estimate can be extended to all {z j } j i R 3 as p z i θsp 1 zi )+ V ijz i z j ) 1 ε) a i,j U R z i z j ) j i j i k i,j θ R z j z k )+o ). 3.8) because the left side is always nonnegative. Multiplying both sides by 1 ε) leads to the desired estimate. We use again the notation z 1,...,z ) := x 1,...,x 1,y 1,...,y ) and introduce { T1) z h i := i := zi +U 1) trap z i) 1 ε)p z i θsp zi ), if i 1, T z ) i := zi +U ) trap z i) 1 ε)p z i θs p z i ) if i > 1, W i := 1 ε) a i,j U R z i z j ) θ R z j z k ), H := i=1 j i h i + 1 ) W i. Lemma 3.3 can be rewritten as k i,j H GP H +o). 3.9) Thus for the lower bound on E GP it suffices to estimate the ground state energy of the modified Hamiltonian H. By proceeding exactly as in [39, Lemma 3.1, Lemma 3.4] where the symmetries of h i s and W i s are not essential), we have the second moment estimate H ) 1 ) h i Cε,s 3.30) 3 i=1 and we can remove the cut-off k i,j θ Rz j z k ): H h i + 1 ε) a i,j U R z i z j )+o) 1 H ) 4, 3.31) i=1 j i provided that ε,s > 0 are independent of and /3 R 1/. ow let Ψ be a ground state for H which exists by a standard compactness argument). Taking the expectation of 3.31) against Ψ, and using the equation H Ψ = Ẽ Ψ with Ẽ = O), we find that E GP Ẽ +o1) Ψ, 1 h i + 1 ε) i=1 a i,j U R z i z j ) Ψ +o1), 3.3) j i where the first inequality is due to 3.9). Thus, it remains to be bounded from below the right-side of 3.3).

19 3.4. Energy lower bound. A further simplification on the right-hand side of 3.3) is obtained by inserting a finite dimensional cut-off similarly to what is done in [39]). We report here the argument. We can find a constant C 0 > 0 which might depend on s,ε) such that K := ε )+minu 1) trap,u trap )+C 0 1. Then K has compact resolvent because minu 1) trap x),u trap x)) + as x +. Therefore, for every fixed L > 0, we have the finite-rank projection P :=1K L). Using the operator inequality see, e.g. [39, Lemma 3.]) U R z i z j ) C U R L 11 zi ) 1 δ 1 zj ) 1 δ, 1/4 > δ > ) and the fact that 1 is K-bounded, we have the simple Cauchy-Schwarz type inequality c.f. [39, Eq. before 4.10)]) U R z i z j ) P zi P zj U R z i z j )P zi P zj C ε,s L 1/10 K zi K zj, 1 i j. From the second moment estimate 3.30), we find that Thus 3.3) reduces to E GP Ψ, 1 Ψ,K zi K zj Ψ C ε,s, 1 i j. 3.34) i=1 h i + 1 ε) a i,j P zi P zj U R z i z j )P zi P zj Ψ j i +o1) +OL 1/10 ) [ T1) = c 1 Tr γ ]+c 1,0) [ T) Tr γ ]+o1) 0,1) +OL 1/10 ) Ψ Ψ [ ] +1 ε) c 1 a 1Tr P x1 P x U R x 1 x )P x1 P x γ,0) Ψ [ ] +1 ε) c a Tr P y1 P y U R y 1 y )P y1 P y γ 0,) Ψ [ +1 ε) c 1 c a 1 Tr P x P y U R x y)p x P y γ ]. 1,1) 3.35) Ψ Here we simply use the definition of the reduced density matrices 1.9). Our next tool is the following abstract result. Theorem 3.4 Quantum de Finetti theorem for -component Bose gas). Let K be a separable Hilbert space. Let Ψ be a wave function in K 1 sym K sym and let γk,l) Ψ be the reduced density matrices defined similarly as in 1.10) with L R 3 ) replaced by K). Then, up to a subsequence of {Ψ }, there exists a Borel probability measure µ supported on the set {u,v) : u,v K, u 1, v 1} such that γ k,l) Ψ u k v l u k v l dµu,v), k,l = 0,1,, ) 19

20 0 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI weakly-* in trace class as. Moreover, if γ 1,0) Ψ and γ 0,1) Ψ converge strongly in trace class, then µ is supported on the set {u,v) : u,v K, u = v = 1} and the convergence in 3.36) is strong in trace class for all k,l 0. This is the two-component analogue for the quantum de Finetti theorem, which was proved in [48, 17] for the case of strong convergence and in [1, 19] for the case of weak convergence. Theorem 3.4 can be proved by following the strategy in the one-component case in [19]. We sketch a proof in Appendix A for the reader s convenience. ow let us conclude the desired lower bound using Theorem 3.4). Since h i K zi C ε,s, i = 1,...,, we deduce from 3.34) that Tr[Kγ 1,0) Ψ ] and Tr[Kγ 0,1) Ψ ] are bounded uniformly in. Since K has compact resolvent, up to a subsequence as, we obtain that γ 1,0) Ψ and γ 0,1) Ψ converge strongly in trace class. Thus up to a subsequence again, Theorem 3.4 ensures the existence of a Borel probability measure ν supported on the set such that lim γk,l) Ψ = {u,v) : u,v L R 3 ), u L = v L = 1} u k v l u k v l dνu,v), k,l = 0,1,, ) ow we take the limit, and then L later on the right side of 3.35). Since T 1), T ) are bounded from below, we can use 3.37) and Fatou s lemma to get [ T1) ] lim inf Tr γ 1,0) u, T 1) u dνu,v), 3.38) Ψ [ T) ] lim inf Tr γ 0,1) v, T ) v dνu,v). 3.39) Ψ The operator inequality 3.33) and the fact that 1 ) is K-bounded ensure that P x P y U R x y)p x P y is uniformly bounded in as an operator. Therefore, the trace class convergence 3.37) implies that [ ] Tr P x P y U R x y)p x P y γ 1,1) Ψ = u v,p x P y U R x y)p x P y u v dνu,v)+o1). From the choice of U R, we get lim u v,p x P y U R x y)p x P y u v = lim Pu,U R Pv = 4π Pux) Pvx) dx. R 3 ext we take the limit L to remove the cut-off P =1K L). Since Tr[Kγ 1,0) Ψ ] and Tr[Kγ 0,1) Ψ ] are bounded, ν is supported on QK) QK) where QK) is the quadratic form domain of K. Consequently, for all u,v) in the support of ν, we have Pu u and

21 Pv v strongly in QK) as L. Moreover, since 1 ) is K-bounded, we have the continuous embeddings QK) H 1 R 3 ) L 4 R 3 ). Therefore, lim Pux) Pvx) dx = ux) vx) dx, L R 3 R 3 and hence lim lim u v,p x P y U R x y)p x P y u v = 4π ux) vx) dx. L R 3 Thus by Fatou s lemma, we find that [ ] lim inf liminf Tr P x P y U R x y)p x P y γ 1,1) L Ψ = liminf liminf u v,p x P y U R x y)p x P y u v dνu,v) L [ ] 4π ux) vx) dx dνu,v). 3.40) R 3 Similarly, we also have [ ] [ ] lim inf liminf Tr P x1 P x U R x 1 x )P x1 P x γ,0) 4π ux) 4 dx dνu,v), L Ψ R ) [ ] [ ] lim inf liminf Tr P y1 P y U R y 1 y )P y1 P y γ 0,) 4π vy) 4 dx dνu,v). L Ψ R ) Inserting 3.38)-3.4) into the right side of 3.35), we arrive at E GP lim inf Ẽε,s GP [u,v]dνu,v) inf Ẽε,s GP [u, v] 3.43) u L = v L =1 where Ẽε,s GP [u,v] := c 1 u, T 1) u +c v, T ) v +1 ε) 4πa 1 c 1 ux) 4 dx 3.44) R 3 +1 ε) 4πa c vx) 4 dx+1 ε) 8πa 1 c 1 c ux) vx) dx. R 3 R 3 Finally, we take s 0, and then ε 0. By a standard compactness argument as in [4, after 103)], we have lim lim ε 0s 0 inf u L = v L =1 Thus 3.43) leads to the desired lower bound lim inf Ẽ GP ε,s [u,v] = e GP. 3.45) E GP e GP. 3.46) Strictly speaking, we have so far proved 3.46) for a subsequence as. However, since the limit e GP is independent of the subsequence, we can obtain the estimate for the whole sequence by a standard contradiction argument.

22 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI Combining with the energy upper bound 3.5), we conclude the proof of.5): lim E GP = e GP Convergence of density matrices. Let ψ be an approximate ground state for H GP. Since Tr[ +U1) trap )γ1,0) ψ ] and Tr[ +U ) trap )γ0,1) ψ ] are bounded uniformly in, up to a subsequence as, γ 1,0) ψ and γ 0,1) ψ converge strongly in trace class. Thus, by Theorem 3.4, up to a subsequence again, there exists a Borel probability measure µ supported on the set such that lim γk,l) ψ = {u,v) : u,v L R 3 ), u L = v L = 1} u k v l u k v l dµu,v), k,l = 0,1,, ) strongly in trace class. Let us show that µ is supported on the set {e iθ 1 u 0,e θ v 0 ) : θ 1,θ R}, where u 0,v 0 ) is the unique Gross-Pitaevskii minimiser. This follows from the convergence of ground state energy and a standard Hellmann-Feynman type argument as in [4]. To be precise, let us denote Q := u 0 v 0 u 0 v 0 and for every fixed η > 0, consider the perturbed Hamiltonian H GP,η := H GP + η c 1 c 1 Q xi,y j, i=1 j=1 where Q xi,y j indicates the projector Q acting on the i-th variable of the first sector of H 1,,sym and on the j-th variable of the second sector. Then by the same method as above, we obtain the analogue of.5) a lower bound is sufficient for our purpose) lim inf infσh,η GP) ext, we can write Tr[Qγ 1,1) ψ ] = 1 c 1 c inf u L = v L =1 1 ψ, Q xi,y j ψ i=1 j=1 { E GP [u,v]+η u,u 0 v,v 0 } =: e GP,η. 3.48) = 1 [ ] ψ,h GP η,ηψ ψ,h GP ψ. Using the lower bound 3.48) and the assumption that ψ is an approximate ground state for H GP, we find that liminf Tr[Qγ1,1) ψ ] 1 ] [e GP,η e GP. η ext, when η 0, the minimiser u η,v η ) of e GP,η becomes a minimising sequence for e GP, and it converges to the unique minimiser u 0,v 0 ) of e GP by a standard compactness argument. Therefore, lim inf η 0 1 ] [e GP,η e GP liminf η u η,u 0 v η,v 0 = 1. η 0

23 3 Thus in conclusion, we have with Q = u 0 v 0 u 0 v 0, lim inf Tr[Qγ1,1) ψ ] 1. Consequently, the convergence 3.47) implies that u,u 0 v,v 0 dµu,v) 1. Thus µ is supported on the set {e iθ 1 u 0,e θ v 0 ) : θ 1,θ R}, and hence 3.47) reduces to the desired convergence.6): lim γk,l) ψ = u k 0 v0 l u k 0 v0 l, k,l = 0,1,,... in trace class. Again, we have so far proved.6) for a subsequence as, but since the limit is unique, the convergence actually holds for the whole sequence. 4. Proof of Theorem Leading order and Hartree theory. In the mean-field regime, we have the following analogue of Theorem.1). Theorem 4.1 Leading order in the mean-field limit). Let Assumptions A 1 ) and A MF ) be satisfied. i) There exists a unique minimiser u 0,v 0 ) up to phases) for the variational problem e H := inf E H [u,v]. u,v H 1 R 3 ) u L = v L =1 ii) The ground state energy of H MF satisfies lim E MF = e H. 4.1) iii) If ψ is an approximate ground state of H MF, in the sense that lim ψ,h MF ψ = e H, then it exhibits complete double-component Bose-Einstein condensation: in trace class. lim + γk,l) ψ = u k 0 v l 0 u k 0 v0 l, k,l = 0,1,,... 4.) Proof. The proof of Theorem 4.1 is similar to indeed easier than) the proof of Theorem.1. Let us quickly explain the necessary adaptation. i) The existence of minimisers of e H is standard. The uniqueness of miminizer up to complex phases) follows a convexity argument as in the Gross-Pitaevskii regime. More precisely, if we denote D H [f,g] = E H [ f, g] for f,g 0, then D H is convex. Indeed,

24 4 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI by considering D1 H, DH and DH 1 as the summands of the Hartree functional containing respectively V 1), V ) and V 1), we obtain the following analogue D1 H[f,g]+DH 1 [r,s] [ f +r D1 H, g+s ] = c 1 dk fk) rk) V 1) k), D H[f,g]+DH [r,s] [ f +r D H, g+s ] = c dk ĝk) ŝk) V ) k), D1 H[f,g]+DH 1 [r,s] [ f +r D1 H, g+s ] = c 1 c dk fk) rk) ĝk) ŝk) V 1) k). Therefore, the convexity follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and Assumptions.3)-.4). The rest is exactly similar to the Gross-Pitaevskii case. ii)-iii) The convergence of energy and approximate ground states can be obtained by following the strategy in the one component case [19]. In fact, the energy upper bound lim sup E MF e H follows immediately from choosing the trial state u 1 v. ow let Ψ be a wave function in H 1, such that We can write, in terms of reduced density matrices, e H +o1) Ψ,H MFΨ = c 1 Tr Ψ,H MF Ψ E MF +o). 4.3) [ ] T 1) γ 1,0) Ψ + c 1 [ +c Tr +c 1 c Tr Ψ ] [ Tr V 1) x 1 x )γ,0) T ) γ 0,1) [ ] V 1) x y)γ 1,1) Ψ Ψ ] + c [ ] Tr V ) y 1 y )γ 0,) Ψ 4.4) where T α) := +U α) trap. Using the assumptions A 1)-A MF ), we obtain the operator inequalities ±V 1) x 1 x ) εt 1) x 1 +C ε, 4.5) ±V ) y 1 y ) εt ) y 1 +C ε, 4.6) ±V 1) x y) εt 1) x +T ) y )+C ε 4.7) for all ε > 0. Consequently, Tr[T 1) γ 1,0) Ψ ] and Tr[T ) γ 0,1) Ψ ] are bounded uniformly in. Since T 1) and T ) have compact resolvents, up to a subsequence as, γ 1,0) Ψ and γ 0,1) Ψ converge strongly in trace class. Thus Theorem 3.4 ensures that, up to a subsequence again, there exists a Borel probability measure µ supported on the set such that lim γk,l) Ψ = {u,v) : u,v L R 3 ), u = v = 1} u k v l u k v l dµu,v), k,l = 0,1,, )

25 5 strongly in trace class. ext, thanks to the operator inequality 4.5), c 1 4 T1) x 1 + c 1 4 T1) x + c 1 V 1) x 1 x ) C. Therefore, from the convergence 4.8) and Fatou s lemma, it follows that [ lim inf Tr c1 4 T1) x 1 + c 1 [ c1 Tr [c1 = 4 T1) x 1 + c 1 ) V 1) x 1 x ) γ,0) ) V 1) x 1 x ) u u dµu,v)] ] dµu,v). 4 T1) x + c 1 4 T1) x + c 1 u,t1) u + c 1 u,v 1) u Ψ ] Similarly, we have [ lim inf Tr c1 4 T) y 1 + c 4 T) y + c ) V ) y 1 y ) [ c v,t) v + c ] v,v ) v dµu, v) and [ lim inf Tr c1 T1) x + c [c1 T) ) y +c 1 c V 1) x y) ] γ 1,1) Ψ u,t1) u + c v,t) v +c 1 c uv,v 1) uv) ] γ 0,) Ψ Summing these lower bounds, we can bound the right side of 4.4) as Ψ,H Ψ lim inf E H [u,v]dµu,v) e H. Combining with the upper bound in 4.4), we conclude 4.1): Ψ,H Ψ lim = E H [u,v]dµu,v) = e H. ] dµu,v). The last equality means that µ is supported on the set of Hartree minimisers, i.e., {e iθ 1 u 0,e iθ v 0 ) : θ 1,θ R}, and hence 4.8) reduces to 4.). Strictly speaking, we have proved 4.1) and 4.) for a subsequence as, but the convergence must hold for the whole sequence because the limits are unique. This completes the proof. 4.. Bogoliubov Hamiltonian. The aim of this section is to show that the Bogoliubov Hamiltonian H defined in.18) is precisely the same operator that arises from a suitable second quantization of the Hessian of thehartree functional E H evaluated at theminimiser u 0,v 0 ). We refer to [1] for discussions in one-component case. The main result of this section is Theorem 4.4 below, which gives useful estimates on H. In order to formulate this result precisely, let us first recall the explicit canonical) isomorphism that realizes F + in.19) as a Fock space.

26 6 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI We consider the Fock space with base space h 1) + h) + 1) ) sym G + := h. 4.9) =0 + h) + For a generic f g h 1) + h) +, let us denote the canonical creation and annihilation operators on G + as Z f g),zf g). The -th sector of G + is interpreted as the space of states with exactly total particles, regardless of which type they are. In fact see, e.g. [7, Theorems 16 and 19]) G + is isomorphic to F + through a natural isomorphism that preserves the CCR. Theorem 4.. There exists a unitary operator U : F + G + such that i) UΩ F+ ) = Ω G+, where Ω F+ is the vacuum of F + and Ω G+ is the vacuum of G +, ii) for any f g h 1) + h) + Z f g)u = U a f) ½+½ b g) ) Zf g)u = U af) ½+½ bg) ). We define the second quantization of an operator A on h 1) + h) + by dγa) := f m,af n Z f m )Zf n ), 4.10) m,n 1 where f m ) m=1 is an orthonormal basis of h1) + h) + belonging entirely to the domain of A, with an overall operator closure being understood on the right side. Similarly, for generic self-adjoint operators A 1) on h 1) + and A) on h ) +, we denote dγ 1) A 1) ) := u m,a 1) u n a m a n with u m ) m=1 particular, m,n 1 dγ ) A ) ) := m,n 1 v m,a ) v n b mb n, 4.11) an orthonormal basis of h1) + and v n) n=1 an orthonormal basis of h) +. In 1 := dγ 1) ½), := dγ ) ½) 4.1) defines the number operators in each species sectors, and := ) defines the total number operator on F +. Within this formalism, it is natural to introduce the class of quadratic Hamiltonians in the Fock space G + ; through the isomorphism of Theorem 4., such a class turns out to correspond to the class of Hamiltonians which are jointly quadratic in a, a, b, and b, as is the case for H. ote that, already the operators defined by 4.10), which are quadratic in Z and Z, are in general not separately quadratic in a, a or b, b ; this is true only if the operator A is reduced with respect to the direct sum h 1) + h) +.

27 Let us consider two densely defined operators satisfying the properties where J : h 1) + h) B 1 : DB 1 ) h 1) B : DB ) h 1) + + h) + h1) + h) + ) h ) + ) h 1) + h) +, DB 1 ) J DB ), B 1 = B 1, JB J = B, + h 1) + ) )), h + Jf g) := f g, h 1) + h) ) is the operator mapping a vector to the corresponding form. Let us form the operator ) B1 B B := B JB 1 J 4.15) acting on the space We define H B := dγb 1 )+ 1 on the space m,n 1 h := h 1) + h) + h 1) + ) )). h ) ) f m,b Jf n Zf m )Zf n )+ f m,b Jf n Z f m )Z f n ) DB 1 ) symn. n=0 4.17) In turns out that many properties of the quadratic Hamiltonian H B depend crucially on their analogues for the corresponding classical operator B. The following Lemma, which is a consequence of [38, Theorem ], collects some of them. Lemma 4.3. Assume that B 1 > 0, B > 0 and that B is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator. Assume further that B 1/ 1 B JB 1/ 1 < 1. Then: i) Self-adjointness) Formula 4.17) defines a self-adjoint operator. ii) Uniqueness of the ground state) H B has a unique ground state Φ gs B. iii) Spectral gap) If, in addition, B τ > 0 for some τ > 0, then infσh {Φ gs B } ) > λh B), 4.18) where λh B ) is the ground state energy of H B. In particular, H B is bounded from below, namely there exists a constant C B > 0 such that H B C B. 4.19) Proof. All the claims follow directly from Theorem in [38]: by such result there exists a unitary operator U on G + such that UH B U = dγξ)+infσh B ), 4.0) for a positive operator ξ on h 1) + h) +. This proves the self-adjointness and implies that UΩ G+ is the unique ground state of H B. If, in addition, B τ > 0, then ξ τ > 0, and this implies 4.18).

28 8 A. MICHELAGELI, P.T. AM, AD A. OLGIATI otice that in Lemma 4.3 we require B to be Hilbert-Schmidt, an assumption which is fulfilled in the application we are interested in, and which ensures the weaker hypotheses in [38] to be satisfied. Our interest in operators of the form H B is due to the fact that the Bogoliubov Hamiltonian.18) can be realized as a quadratic Hamiltonian in the sense of 4.17). More precisely, H = U H HessE H [u 0,v 0 ]U, 4.1) where HessE H [u 0,v 0 ] is the Hessian of the Hartree functional evaluated at the minimiser andu isgivenbytheorem4.. InthepresentcontexttheHessianoftheHartreefunctional is defined by the second term of a Taylor expansion around the minimiser u 0,v 0 ), that is, E H [u,v] = E H [u 0,v 0 ] + 1 c1 u u 0 ) c v v 0 ),HessE H [u 0,v 0 ] c 1 u u 0 ) c v v 0 ) +o u u 0, v v 0 ). 4.) In 4.) we are considering variations that are weighted according to the relative populations of the two species. In order to explicitly write the expression of HessE H [u 0,v 0 ], let us introduce the following three integral operators K α), α {1,,1}, together with their kernels: K 1) : h 1) + h1), K 1) x,y) := V 1) x y)u 0 x)u 0 y) 4.3) K ) : h ) + h), K ) x,y) := V ) x y)v 0 x)v 0 y) 4.4) K 1) : h ) + h1), K 1) x,y) := V 1) x y)u 0 x)v 0 y). 4.5) With the quantities introduced in.14) we can write u m,k 1) u n = V 1) m00n v m,k ) v n = V ) m00n u m,k 1) v n = V 1) m00n u m,k 1) u n = V 1) mn00 v m,k ) v n = V ) mn00 u m,k 1) v n = V 1) mn00. Moreover, as a straightforward consequence of Assumption A MF ), each such operator is Hilbert-Schmidt: indeed, K 1) HS = dxdy K 1) x,y) C 1) +C 1) u 0 +C 1) v 0 < +, 4.6) and the same holds for K ) and K 1). In terms of the K s, and of h 1) and h ) defined in.16), the Hessian of the Hartree functional reads HessE H [u 0,v 0 ] = h 1) +c 1 K 1) c1 c K 1) c 1 K 1) J c1 c K 1) J c1 c K 1) h ) +c K ) c1 c K 1) J c K ) J c 1 JK 1) c1 c JK 1) Jh 1) J +c 1 JK 1) J c1 c JK 1) 1 J c1 c JK 1) c JK ) c1 c JK 1) J Jh ) J +c JK ) J 4.7)