Energy of non-relativistic many-particle quantum states from non-commuting Coulomb field and momentum operators Purnima Ghale∗ Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1206 W Green St., Urbana, IL, 61801 and Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source Wilson Lab, Synchrotron Drive, Ithaca, NY, 14850 (Dated: March 24, 2021) Abstract We derive a functional form for the energy of interacting many-particle systems from first principles. The effective zero-point energy of a Coulomb-interacting quantum system can be considered in terms of fluctuations around its classical electrostatic interaction and fluctuations of momentum. This perspective provides a controlled and intuitive way to realize the Hohenberg-Kohn theorem. Specifically, an uncertainty equation that relates the interaction energy, kinetic energy and local charge density is derived; it is then combined with the Lieb-Thirring bound on kinetic energy. The combination of these two constraints results in the functional form for total energy of interacting many particle systems that applies for bosons as well as fermions, with appropriate consideration for (anti)symmetry of wavefunctions under coordinate exchange. arXiv:2010.01656v2 [physics.comp-ph] 23 Mar 2021 In the uniform density limit, the functional form is consistent with Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) data for the bosonic fluid, as well as fermionic systems – paramagnetic, ferromagnetic and BCC Wigner crystalline. ∗ [email protected] 1 I. INTRODUCTION We consider the many-body Schrodinger¨ equation with the Hamiltonian given by 2 ! X rα X 1 1 ^ H Ψ = − + + Vext Ψ (1) 2 2 jxα − xβj α α6=β 2 ^ rα ^ 1 where T = − and Vee = denote kinetic and electron-electron interaction energies re- 2 jxα−xβ j spectively, with Ψ(x1; : : : ; xN ) as the (anti)symmetric wavefunction under coordinate exchange. The Hamiltonian contains instantaneous interaction between particles at xα and xβ, in Coulomb gauge: many-particle coordinates, (x1; : : : ; xN ), are used but the temporal components of (t1; x1) are ignored; instead a common time coordinate applies for the entire system that we heuristically assign to (t; r) where r is the spatial coordinate on which the charge density, n(r), and exter- nal potential, Vext(r), are defined. We further note that Equation 1 does not contain transverse electromagnetic fields or operators that couple spin degrees of freedom. Since Dirac expressed the energy of interaction as the sum of Hartree and exchange terms [1], it is generally assumed that the physics of the interacting many-electron system cannot be further simplified, and that one needs to proceed with approximate methods. Bohm and Pines sought to understand interacting many-particle systems in a series of papers that focused on charge fluc- tuations, treating the electromagnetic field in a covariant manner [2–5], but while this approach provided many insights, it did not solve the many-electron problem. Hohenberg and Kohn[6], fol- lowed by Kohn and Sham [7], then reframed the many-electron problem into a single-particle effective potential, motivating Density Functional Theory. In parallel, numerical simulations of many-particle wavefunctions with Quantum Monte Carlo [8, 9] have informed standardized solutions to the many-electron problem in the uniform density limit. Fundamentally, the non- relativistic many-electron problem sits at the intersection of two obstructions. First, the number 2 of possible many-body antisymmetric wavefunctions is too large and antisymmetry impedes effi- cient sampling in Quantum Monte Carlo via the sign-problem [10, 11]. Second, in the strongly interacting case, the Hamiltonian is not separable into a sum of independent quasiparticle Hamil- tonians; non-separability indicates chaos [12] and if one starts with a Kohn-Sham ansatz, strong interactions result in an explosion in the number of Feynmann diagrams required. Perhaps, there is some physics we have missed. In considering this problem, we first briefly focus on Density Functional Theory (DFT) [6, 13– 16], where the ground state total energy is expressed as expectation values of the operators Z min ^ ^ min E[n] = hΨjH jΨi = hΨn jT + VeejΨn i + Vext(r)n(r) (2) min where Ψn denotes the (anti)symmetric wavefunction that results in the prescribed charge den- sity n(r) and minimizes E[n]. Under the Kohn-Sham ansatz, a Slater determinant is constructed from the eigenstates of an effective single-particle Hamiltonian. For a given charge density, ^ ^ n(r), bounds on hVeei and hT i [15, 17–21] can inform a hierarchy of functional forms for the ^ ^ exchange-correlation energy [22–26], but the behavior of the sum hΨjT + VeejΨi and the effect of (anti)symmetric Ψ remains unknown. As a result, although the Hohenberg-Kohn theorem im- plies a mapping between many-particle quantum systems and scalar charge density fields, and the development of density functionals has led to accurate schemes [23], the physical mechanism by which nature constrains the energy of many-particle states via the charge density has not been proposed. Our work aims to understand interacting, non-relativistic, many-particle systems by first con- sidering this fundamental gap, and is a variation on the simple harmonic oscillator. In particular, ^ p^2 x^2 consider the ground state of a quantum harmonic oscillator H = 2 + 2 ; its classical counter- 3 part is the solution with hxi = 0 and hpi = 0. The zero-point energy of this system is hHi = ∆p2=2 + ∆x2=2, which is constrained by the uncertainty relation, [p; x] = i~ =) ∆p∆x ≥ ~=2. Similarly, for non-relativistic, interacting, many-particle systems, understanding the quantum me- chanical interaction, hVeei, in terms of quantum fluctuations around the electrostatic one, and considering the necessary commutation relations, is key to our understanding. Thus, we obtain a fundamentally intuitive way to realize the Hohenberg-Kohn theorem, and the resulting functional ^ ^ form for hT + Veei is consistent with Quantum Monte Carlo simulations in the uniform density limit [9]. The derivation also provides a way to correct small but systematic biases due to assumed N and V dependence in those simulations, and makes explicit the importance of two length scales 2=3 – V , which is dependent on the volume, and rs, which is dependent on the charge density – on ^ ^ our understanding of hT + Veei of many-particle systems. Note, however, that the problems of electrostatics and its eventual quantization in field theory – namely self-interaction due to point charges and negative normalization of vacuum states cor- responding to the scalar potential of Aµ = (V (r); A(r; t)) – also plague our solution as they are inherited by the many-particle Schrodinger equation in Equation 1. A covariant treatment of the electromagnetic field in the strongly interacting limit, should be our ultimate goal, but is currently beyond the scope of this work. Section II presents the theoretical derivation and the functional form for non-uniform density, which is then generalized to the uniform density case. Section III then fits the functional form in the uniform density limit to Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) data from [9], and investigates the efficacy of this functional form in capturing the energies as well as energy-differences of quantum states. 4 II. THEORETICAL RESULTS A. Individual terms in the Hamiltonian Let us start by setting the total momentum, hp^i = 0, i.e. the many-electron system is not under- going translation – this is not essential but simplifies our derivation. Particle indistinguishability then implies[20, see p. 320] hp^1;ii = hp^2;ii = ::: = hp^N;ii = 0, and the kinetic energy is the sum of fluctuations of momentum, N 3 2 X X ∆pα,i hT^i = (3) 2 α=1 i=1 where α denotes particle labels and i denotes xyz-directions. The scalar potential at r is given by V^ (r) = PN 1 Ψ(x ;:::; x ), and its gradient, α=1 jr−xαj 1 N ^ E(r) = −∇rV (r). Using what we know from classical electrostatics, i.e. the square of the Coulomb electric field denotes the energy density of interaction between charged particles, let us expand the quantum product Z Z ^ ^ X 1 1 hΨjE(r) · E(r)jΨi = hΨjrr · rr jΨi (4a) jr − xαj jr − xβj r α,β r 2 1 integrating by parts in r, setting the surface term to zero, and using the identity, rr jr−xj = −4πδ(r − x) in 3 dimensions results in Z Z ^ δ(r − x1) hΨjE · E(r)jΨi = 8π hΨjVeejΨi + 4πN hΨj jΨi (4b) r jr − x1j 4πN R 1 with the last term simplifying to a constant, p 3 2 . A similar analysis for a classical product ( 2π) k jkj 5 of operators shows Z Z 1 n(r)n(r0) hΨjE(r)jΨi · hΨjE(r)jΨi = 8π 0 (4c) r r;r0 2 jr − r j Taking the difference between Eqs 4b and 4c, the left-hand-side denotes fluctuations of the R P3 2 Coulomb field, r j=1 ∆Ej (r), and rearrangement leads to Z 0 Z Z ^ 1 n(r)n(r ) 1 X 2 N 1 3 hVeei = 0 + ∆Ej (r) − p 3 2 d k (4d) 0 2 jr − r j 8π jkj r;r r j 2 2π where the last term is due to self-interaction – we get this term whenever we interchange point- interactions, 1 , by fields in classical or quantum theory. We can now express the expectation jxα−xβ j value of the Hamiltonian in Equation 1 as E[n] = Eclassical + Equantum where Z 1 Z n(r)n(r0) N Z 1 E = V (r)n(r) + − (5a) classical ext 0 p 3 2 r 2 r;r0 jr − r j 2 2π k jkj 2 Z X ∆pα,j 1 X E = + ∆E2(r) (5b) quantum 2 8π j α,j r j B.