arxiv:quant-ph/ v1 6 Feb 2006

Transcription

1 On the Proof by Reuctio a Absurum of the Hohenberg-Kohn Theorem for Ensembles of Fractionally Occupie States of Coulomb Systems arxiv:quant-ph/ v1 6 Feb 2006 Eugene S. KRYACHKO 1 Bogoliubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev, Ukraine an Department of Chemistry, Bat. B6c, University of Liege Sart-Tilman, B-4000 Liege 1, Belgium Abstract It is emonstrate that the original reuctio a absurum proof of the generalization of the Hohenberg-Kohn theorem for ensembles of fractionally occupie states for isolate many-electron Coulomb systems with Coulomb-type external potentials by Gross et al. [Phys. Rev. A 37, 2809 (1988)] is selfcontraictory since the to-be-refute assumption (negation) regaring the ensemble one-electron ensities an the assumption about the external potentials are logically incompatible to each other ue to the Kato electron-nuclear cusp theorem. It is however prove that the Kato theorem itself provies a satisfactory proof of this theorem. Keywors: Hohenberg-Kohn theorem, ensity functional theory, reuctio a absurum metho, Coulomb systems, one-electron ensity, Kato theorem, generalizations of Hohenberg-Kohn theorem 1 Aress for corresponence: FAX: +32 (4) ; aress: eugene.kryachko@ulg.ac.be 1

2 The Hohenberg-Kohn theorem [1] that unerlies the founation of the ensity functional theory (see Ref. [2] an references therein) has been generalize in a number of ways, particularly for ensembles of fractionally occupie states by Gross et al. [3] (EGHK theorem) an for the egenerate groun states by van Leeuwen [4] (DGHK theorem). Both these theorems have been prove invoking the reuctio a absurum metho that was use in the original proof of the Hohenberg-Kohn theorem [1,5]. By analogy with the recent work [5], the present Note re-examines the proof by reuctio a absurum of the EGHK theorem an emonstrates that, although its statement is generally correct, its original proof cannot be maintaine if the external potential is of Coulomb type because otherwise it implies that the suppose ensemble one-electron ensities shoul violate the Kato electron-nuclear cusp conitions provie by the Kato theorem. It is however prove that the Kato theorem itself completely guaranties a valiity of the EGHK theorem. The original proof of the DGHK theorem can be treate in a similar fashion. In orer to procee with the EGHK theorem, let us consier an N-electron system efine by the Hamiltonian H N v = T N e + V N ee + V N where T N e operator of N electrons, V N ee is the kinetic energy is the corresponing interelectronic Coulomb operator, an V N = Σ N i=1v(r i ) is the total external potential. Let 1 an 2 be the groun an the first excite states of H N v, both nonegenerate, corresponingly escribe by the normalize wavefunctions Ψ 1 (r 1,r 2,...,r N ) H 1 (R 3N ) an Ψ 2 (r 1,r 2,...,r N ) H 1 (R 3N ) (spins are omitte for simplicity; all notations use throughout this Note are efine in Ref. [5]). The k-state one-electron ensity ρ k (r) (k = 1, 2) is a functional of v(r) [1,2] since H N v is explicitly etermine by v(r) provie by the given N, T N e, an V N ee Ṗroposal 1 (EGHK theorem [3]): If there exist two ensemble one-electron ensities, ρ(r) = (1 w)ρ 1 (r) + wρ 2 (r), (1) 2

3 corresponing to the Hamiltonian H N v, an ρ (r) = (1 w)ρ 1(r) + wρ 2(r), (2) compose of the weighte one-electron ensities ρ 1 (r) an ρ 2 (r) of the groun state 1 an the first excite state 2 of the Hamiltonian H N v = T N e + V N ee + V N where V N = Σ N i=1 v (r i ) an w [0, 1/2], then ρ(r) ρ (r) provie that v(r) v (r) + constant. Proof: The original proof of the EGHK theorem [3] is base on the metho of Reuctio a Absurum (or of inirect proof or proof by contraiction; shortly R. A. A.). Let us first assume the existence of two external potentials v(r) an v (r) which etermine the Hamiltonians H N v an H N v that associate with two ifferent N-electron systems, such v(r) v (r) + constant (3) (premise or proposition P 1 ). It is further assume (premise P 2 ) that H N v an H N v possess the groun- an first-excite states, 1 an 2, an 1 an 2, respectively. Define the corresponing N-electron ensity matrices with a given w [0, 1/2], D = (1 w) w 2 2 (4) an (3) implies that [3] D = (1 w) w 2 2. (5) 1 1. (6) To procee with the R. A. A. proof of this theorem, the to-be-refute assumption, i. e., the negation of the esire statement, is chosen as the following premise [3] ρ(r) = ρ (r) ρ(r). (7) 3

4 Applying the Rayleigh-Ritz variational principle (see, e. g., Eq. (4) of Ref. [6]) to Eqs. (4) an (5), one erives a pair of the following inequalities Tr(DH N v ) < Tr(D H N v ) + Tr(D H N v ) < Tr(DHN v ) + 3 r[v(r) v (r)]ρ(r) 3 r[v (r) v(r)]ρ(r) (8) (Eqs. (7) an (8) of Ref. [3]). Aing them to each other leas to the contraiction, Tr(DH N v ) + Tr(D H N v ) < Tr(DH N v ) + Tr(D H N v ), (9) as erive from the premises P 1 an P 2, an the negation (7). Equation (9) is absur. Its absurity can be resolve, as Gross et al. conclue [3], by asserting that the to-berefute assumption (7) is false. Hence, for a given w [0, 1/2], the external potential v(r) is, to within a constant, a unique functional of ρ(r), an since, in turn, v(r) etermines H N v, the ensemble expectation value of T N e ensemble one-electron ensity ρ(r). Q. E. D. + V N ee is a functional of the Accoring to the R. A. A. metho [7], the conjunction (hereafter enote by &, following Suppes [7a]; usually by ) of the premises P 1 (see note [8]) an P 2 comprises the set I of the initial premises given as true. To ecie if these premises are consistent [7], euce from them some formal consequences or implications which are also true: 1. P 1 & P 2 Q 1 (6). 2. If v(r) an v (r) are both of Coulomb form (premise P 3 I, by efinition), that is, Z α v(r) = Σ M α=1 r R α, v (r) = Σ M α=1 Z α r R α (10) (the αth nucleus with the nuclear charge Z α is place at R α R 3, an similarly for the prime quantities) then, accoring to the Kato electron-nuclear cusp theorem [9], from the conjunction P 1 & P 2 & P 3 one euces the conitional proposition Q 2 : r i k(r 1,r 2,...,r i 1, r i,r i+1,...,r N ) av i ri =R α = Z α k(r 1,r 2,...,r i 1,R α,r i+1,...,r N ), 4

5 r i k (r 1,r 2,...,r i 1, r i,r i+1,...,r N ) av i ri =R α = Z α k (r 1,r 2,...,r i 1,R α,r i+1,...,r N ), (11) where the superscript av i inicates the average of k or k over an infinitesimally small ball centere at r i (i = 1, 2,..., N) an k, k = 1, 2. Corollary 1: Q 2 Q P 1 & P 2 & P 3 Q 3 : ρ(r) ρ (r) (12) where the ensemble one-electron ensities ρ(r) an ρ (r) are efine by Eqs. (1) an (2). Proof: P 3 implies that the Kato theorem hols for the corresponing one-electron ensities: r ρav k (r) r=r α = 2Z α ρ k (R α ), r ρ av k (r) r=r = 2Z α α ρ k (R α ), (13) where the superscript av inicates the average of ρ k or ρ k over an infinitesimally small ball centere at r. If, in aition, the premise P 1 is an authentic truth, the ensemble one-electron ensities ρ(r) an ρ (r) obey ifferent Kato cusps: r ρav (r) r=rα r ρ av (r) r=r α = (1 w) r ρav 1 (r) r=r α + w r ρav 2 (r) r=r α = 2Z α [(1 w)ρ 1 (R α ) + wρ 2 (R α )] = 2Z α ρ(r α ), = (1 w) r ρ av 1 (r) r=r α + w r ρ av 2 (r) r=r α = 2Z α [(1 w)ρ 1 (R α ) + wρ 2 (R α )] = 2Z α ρ (R α ). (14) Therefore, they istinguish from each other that implies Q 3. Q. E. D. Accoring to the R. A. A. metho, the next step of the proof by contraiction, after asserting of the set I of the initial premises an verifying their authentical truths, is to 5

6 introuce the negation of the esire conclusion as a new premise (see, e. g., Ref. [7a], p. 39) an to prove then that this new premise leas to a logical contraiction with the set I. The total set J of the consiere premises is the following: (i) P 1 & P 2 & P 3 ; (ii) the to-be-refute premise S given by Eq. (7). Within the R. A. A. metho, the proposition S (i. e., not S negation of S) is equivalent to the proposition that S is false [7,10]. The proposition S is false, that is actually ρ(r) ρ (r), is therefore explicitly equivalent to the conitional proposition Q 3 (ρ(r) ρ (r), Eq. (12)) which is euce in 3. an which is true if the premise P 3 is true. Hence, S cannot be false. This straightforwarly implies the intrinsic falsity of the negation S that exists within the set J an hence oes not require any other proof beyon J to show it [7] (see also note [11]), by analogy with the Rayleigh-Ritz variational principle applie in Ref. [3]. Equivalently, the set I of the initial premises given as true is incompatible ( inconsistent, see p. 36f of Ref. [7a] an notes [12,13]) with the negation S, an thus, the R. A. A. proof cannot be rigorously mantaine in the way suggeste in Ref. [3]. This proves the following Proposal 2: The original proof of the EGHK theorem [3] via the R. A. A. metho is self-contraictory for the class of many-electron systems with Coulomb-type external potentials. In some sense, Proposal 2 means that the original proof of the EGHK theorem for Coulomb-type external potentials is superfluous since it starts with an obvious contraiction. It is however shown above that P 1 & P 2 & P 3 Q 3, an therefore, one logically erives Corollary 2: If the Kato theorem hols, for the class of many-electron systems with Coulomb-type external potentials the EGHK statement is correct. In conclusion, the present Note emonstrates that the Kato theorem itself provies 6

7 the irect proof of the EGHK theorem for N-electron systems with the Coulomb class of external potentials. A similar reasoning can be trivially applie to the original proof of the DGHK theorem given in Ref. [4] to show that its original proof is self-contraictory too, as though the statement of the DGHK theorem is correct, ue to the Kato theorem. With regar of the EGHK theorem, it is also worth mentioning the super-hamiltonian approach to the ensemble-ensity functional theory that was originally introuce by Theophilou [14] an further evelope by Katriel [15], an also in Ref. [16] within the local-scaling-transformation metho of the ensity functional theory [2c, 17]. Acknowlegment I gratefully thank all colleagues for the helpful an inspire iscussions of my early work [5]. I also thank Francoise Remacle for kin hospitality an F.R.F.C F (Belgium) for fellowship. References [1] P. Hohenberg an W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. 136, B864 (1964). [2] (a) R. G. Parr an W. Yang, Density-Functional Theory of Atoms an Molecules (Oxfor University Press, New York, 1989). (b) R. M. Dreizler an E. K. U. Gross, Density Functional Theory (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990). (c) E. S. Kryachko an E. V. Lueña, Energy Density Functional Theory of Many-Electron Systems (Kluwer, Dorrecht, 1990). () N. H. March, Electron Density Theory of Atoms an Molecules (Acaemic, Lonon, 1992). [3] E. K. U. Gross, L. N. Oliviera, an W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. A 37, 2809 (1988). [4] R. van Leeuwen, Av. Quantum Chem. 43, 24 (2003). 7

8 [5] E. S. Kryachko, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 103, 818 (2005), quant-ph/ [6] E. K. U. Gross, L. N. Oliviera, an W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. A 37, 2805 (1988). [7] (a) P. Suppes, Introuction to Logic (Van Nostran, Princeton, 1967). (b) A. N. Whitehea an B. Russell, Principia Mathematica (Cambrige University Press, Cambrige, 1962). (c) I. M. Copi Symbolic Logic (Macmillan, New York, 1965). () A. N. Prior, Formal Logic (Clarenon, Oxfor, 1962). (e) D. Scherer, Min LXXX, 247 (1971). (f) J. M. Lee, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic XIV, 381 (1973). (g) L. C. D. Kulathungam, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic XVI, 245 (1975). [8] Rigorously speaking, a constant term on the rhs of (3) shoul be eliminate as contraicting to the vanishing asymptotic behavior of the external potential of an arbitrary (unconfine) many-electron system at infinity. [9] T. Kato, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 10, 151 (1957). [10] By efinition, not S is the proposition that is true when S is false an false when S is true. See, e. g., G. E. M. Anscombe, An Introuction to Wittgenstein s Tractatus (Hutchinson University Library, Lonon, 1959). [11] Two propositions are sai to be contraictory if one is the negation of the other. (p. 37 of Ref. [7a]). [12] Göel [K. Göel, Obras Completas (Alianza Eitorial, Mari, 1981)] efines that a set of propositions is consistent if it cannot simultaneously euce a proposition an its negation. [13] About contraictions in physics see Y. Aharonov an D. Rohrlich, Quantum Paraoxes. Quantum Theory for the Perplexe (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2005). 8

9 [14] (a) A. K. Theophilou, J. Phys. C: Soli State 12, 5419 (1979). (b) V. N. Glushkov an A. K. Theophilou, Phys. Rev. A 64, (2001). [15] (a) J. Katriel, J. Phys. C: Soli State 13, L375 (1980). (b) J. Katriel an F. Zahariev, Phys. Rev. A 65, (2002). [16] (a) E. S. Kryachko, E. V. Lueña, an T. Koga, J. Math. Chem. 11, 325 (1992). (b) T. Koga, J. Chem. Phys. 95, 4306 (1991). (c) E. S. Kryachko an E. V. Lueña, J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem) 287, 1 (1993). () T. Koga, J. Math. Chem. 14, 207 (1993). [17] (a) E. V. Lueña, R. Lopez-Boaa, J. Malonao, E. Valerrama, E. S. Kryachko, T. Koga, an J. Hinze, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 56, 285 (1995). (b) E. S. Kryachko, in New Methos in Quantum Theory, eite by C. A. Tsipis, V. S. Popov, D. R. Herschbach, an J. S. Avery (NATO ASI Series, Kluwer, Dorrecht, 1995), p