text:
# Fully quantum mechanical moment of inertia of a mesoscopic ideal Bose gas

## I Introduction

Despite recent achievements in preparing Bose condensed atomic gases  the question of superfluidity still escapes direct experimental observation. This is partly due to the difficulty to define and/or access the appropriate experimental observables.

Our understanding of superfluidity is formed by the physics of macroscopic systems such as liquid helium. In those systems standard theoretical methods could be applied that required a thermodynamic limit procedure.

However, for the finite size systems prepared with trapped atomic Bose gases the standard answers had to be made more precise. E.g., one can speak of a phase transition, but a discontinuous change of system observables does not occur in mesoscopic systems. The phase transition was linked to the ground state population, but the most striking effect of superfluidity cannot be observed in a direct way.

In a spatially homogeneous situation the phenomenon of superfluidity is defined as the suppression of friction for a linear motion slower than the velocity of sound . This phenomenon is constrained to a fraction of the fluid only, the so-called superfluid fraction. In linear response theory the latter is calculated via the quantum mechanical dispersion of the momentum distribution.

The suppression of friction itself can be traced back to the appearance of excitations with a linear dispersion relation for an interacting Bose gas in the presence of a condensate. It is thus inseparably connected with interparticle interactions. Nevertheless the superfluid fraction mentioned above does not vanish for an ideal Bose gas due to Bose-Einstein statistics at least for mesoscopic samples.

In the case of a atomic cloud trapped e.g. in a harmonic potential a similar qualitative change of the spectrum of low lying excitations can not be observed, and the understanding of superfluidity in rotational motion of trapped atoms is more subtle. Instead of regarding the response to a Galilei shift one has to consider the response of the gas to rotations. The response coefficient then is the moment of inertia of the trapped gas.

The approach of Brosens et. al. to the moment of inertia is based on the classical expectation value $`x^2+y^2`$ . Their analysis focuses on the difference in the moment of inertia of a totally classical Boltzmann gas in a trap and the expectation value of $`x^2+y^2`$ for a Bose gas (cf. Eq. (16)). Therefore they miss the true superfluid effects that may only be analyzed by calculating the moment of inertia from quantum mechanical response to rotations.

By contrast, Stringari’s work  is based on linear response theory. He obtained the different contributions from the condensate and the thermal cloud to the response coefficient both for an ideal and an interacting Bose gas. His use of the grand canonical ensemble is certainly justified for the study of $`10^6`$ particles, a characteristic number for present BEC experiments.

Instead of considering the relation between rotations and superfluidity one might investigate the relation between dissipation and superfluidity like in  where the onset of dissipation is analyzed depending on the velocity of an external perturbation. The numerical work in  favors vortex creation as the main dissipation mechanism but it is still under debate at which critical velocity dissipation sets in.

The rotational properties have recently been analyzed in various works either focusing on vortices  or on the so-called scissors mode . The analysis of this mode led to a connection between the quadrupole excitations and the moment of inertia of the normal fluid fraction  which might open a way to measure the moment of inertia.

In this paper we present a calculation of the fully quantum mechanical moment of inertia for a mesoscopic cloud of non-interacting atoms in a cylindrically symmetrical trap. Finite size effects are allowed for by calculating the canonical ensemble averages appropriate for this regime. In this respect, our calculations are complementary to  and show markedly different results for the superfluid fraction. It is of particular interest that all relevant averages are expressed using permutation cycles which have already played a crucial rule in previous Path-Integral-Monte-Carlo (PIMC) studies . Our analytical results are compared to and corroborated by numerically exact results computed by the PIMC method.

In Section II we first present the method of permutation cycles and apply it to the evaluation of the moment of inertia in Section III. In Sec. IV, we finally compare the results obtained by the different methods.

## II Canonical averages

We want to perform our calculations using the permutation cycle analysis introduced by Feynman  and the canonical ensemble. Let us consider $`N`$ particles living in a exterior potential $`V(𝐫)`$ ($`𝐫R^D`$), so the single particle Hamiltonian is given as usual by

$$H=\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}+V(𝐫).$$
(1)
With the help of the eigenvalues $`E_i`$ and eigenfunctions $`|\varphi _i`$ $`H`$ can also be written as

$$H=\underset{i}{}E_i|\varphi _i\varphi _i|.$$
(2)
The total Hamiltonian for $`N`$ particles is then given by the sum $`H_N=_{j=1}^NH^{(j)}`$ over all the particles.

The central physical quantity in statistical mechanics is the partition function $`Z_N(\beta )`$ at inverse temperature $`\beta =1/(kT)`$. For a gas of $`N`$ bosons $`Z_N(\beta )`$ is given by

$$Z_N(\beta )=\frac{1}{N!}\underset{PS_n}{}\mathrm{dR}\rho (\mathrm{R},\mathrm{PR}),\mathrm{R}=(𝐫_1,\mathrm{},𝐫_\mathrm{N})$$
(3)
where $`\rho (R,PR)=R|\mathrm{e}^{\beta H_N}|PR`$ is the density matrix between the point $`R`$ and the permuted point $`PR=(𝐫_{P1},\mathrm{},𝐫_{PN})`$ and $`P`$ is a permutation of the first $`N`$ integer numbers. As the total Hamiltonian $`H_N`$ is a sum of independent single-particle Hamiltonians the integral factorizes

$$Z_N(\beta )=\frac{1}{N!}\underset{PS_n}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{d}^\mathrm{D}𝐫_\mathrm{j}\rho _1(𝐫_\mathrm{j},𝐫_{\mathrm{Pj}}).$$
(4)
Here, $`\rho _1(𝐫_,𝐫_{Pj})=𝐫_j|\mathrm{e}^{\beta H}|𝐫_{Pj}`$ is the single-particle density matrix. Now, we break up the permutations into so-called ”cycles”, that is subsets of the number from 1 to $`N`$ that are invariant under the action of a permutation $`P`$. If we break up $`P`$ in this way, we may get $`C_q`$ cycles of length $`q`$; as we are working in the canonical ensemble these numbers are restricted by $`_{q=1}^NqC_q=N`$. Rearranging the integrand of (4) one arrives at

$$Z_N(\beta )=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{C_1,\mathrm{},C_N;}{_{q=1}^NqC_q=N}}{}\underset{q}{}\frac{Z_1(q\beta )^{C_q}}{C_q!q^{C_q}}$$
(5)
for the partition function (see ). Here, the sum over all combinations of ”cycle populations” $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_N`$ is restricted by $`_{q=1}^NqC_q=N`$.

By calculating the derivative with respect to $`\beta E_i`$ one gets the formula for $`N_i`$ for later evaluations (see also )

$$N_i=\frac{1}{Z_N(\beta )}\frac{Z_N(\beta )}{\beta E_i}.$$
(6)
We now apply this expression to (5) and use the fact that $`Z_1(q\beta )=_i\mathrm{e}^{q\beta E_i}`$ to finally obtain

$$N_i=\underset{q=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{q\beta E_i}}{Z_1(q\beta )}qC_q.$$
(7)
So we need to know the mean number of q-cycles $`C_q`$ to compute $`N_i`$.

Evidently, $`C_q`$ is defined by

$$C_q=\frac{1}{Z_N(\beta )}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{C_1,\mathrm{},C_N;}{_{r=1}^NrC_r=N}}{}\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{Z_1(r\beta )^{C_r}}{C_r!r^{C_r}}C_q.$$
(8)
To calculate this expression, we split the product into the factors with $`rq`$ and the factor with $`r=q`$. Note also that terms with $`C_q=0`$ do not contribute. So one gets

$`C_q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_N(\beta )}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{C_1,\mathrm{},C_N;}{_{r=1}^NrC_r=N}}{}}`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1,rq}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_1(r\beta )^{C_r}}{C_r!r^{C_r}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_1(q\beta )^{C_q1}}{(C_q1)!q^{C_q1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_1(q\beta )}{q}}.`$
As $`C_q>0`$, we can substitute $`C_q1`$ by $`C_q`$ and do the sum again from $`C_q=0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. But this means that we consider one $`q`$-cycle less, so $`_rrC_r=Nq`$. We end up with the final formula for the cycle occupation number

$$C_q=\frac{Z_{Nq}(\beta )}{Z_N(\beta )}\frac{Z_1(q\beta )}{q}$$
(11)
where $`Z_{Nq}(\beta )`$ originates from the sum over the products in (10). This equation together with the constraint on the $`C_q`$’s constitute the well-known recursion relations for $`Z_N(\beta )`$ .

## III Suprafluidity in a harmonic trap

In this section we want to compute the superfluid fraction $`\rho _\mathrm{s}/\rho `$ of a gas of noninteracting bosons in a harmonic trap. This will be done by using the permutation cycles introduced in the last section.

The superfluid fraction can be defined via the response of the system to infinitesimal rotations just like in the usual case for translations . The superfluid part shows no response to rotations at all while its density distribution contributes to the classical moment of inertia. Therefore, one has

$$\frac{\rho _\mathrm{s}}{\rho }=1\frac{\rho _\mathrm{n}}{\rho },$$
(12)
with the normal fluid fraction defined by the quotient of the quantum mechanical and the classical moment of inertia for rotations around the symmetry axis ($`z`$-axis)

$$\frac{\rho _\mathrm{n}}{\rho }=\frac{I_{\mathrm{qm}}}{I_{\mathrm{class}}}.$$
(13)
One can calculate $`I_{\mathrm{qm}}`$ via the response to rotations , this yields

$$I_{\mathrm{qm}}=\beta \left(L_z^2L_z^2\right)$$
(14)
or

$$I_{\mathrm{qm}}=\beta L_z^2,$$
(15)
because we only consider non-rotating situations with $`L_z=0`$. The classical moment of inertia is defined as usual by

$$I_{\mathrm{class}}=m\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(x_j^2+y_j^2).$$
(16)
We now want to compute both (15) and (16) by using the permutation cycles of section II.

We consider the single-particle Hamiltonian for a deformed, harmonic potential in three dimensions

$$H=\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}m\left(\omega _{}^2(x^2+y^2)+\omega _{}^2z^2\right).$$
(17)
Its eigenfunctions can be classified by three quantum numbers $`n_r=0,1,2,\mathrm{},m=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{},n_z=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ with

$`H|n_r,m,n_z`$ $`=`$ $`\{\mathrm{}\omega _{}(2n_r+|m|+1)`$ (19)
$`+\mathrm{}\omega _{}(n_z+1/2)\}|n_r,m,n_z;`$
they are also eigenfunctions of the angular momentum operator around the $`z`$-direction

$$l_z|n_r,m,n_z=m\mathrm{}|n_r,m,n_z.$$
(20)
The total angular momentum is given by the sum over the angular momentum operators for the $`N`$ particles in the trap

$$L_z=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}l_z^{(j)}.$$
(21)
We first turn to $`L_z^2`$. Instead of expressing the sum over all states in the thermodynamic averaging as integrals over the particle positions like in (3) we here use the basis of the single-particle states in (19) to calculate the expectation value of $`L_z^2`$ (we use $`i_j=(n_{r,j},m_j,n_{z,j})`$ to denote the states of particle $`j`$)

$`L_z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_NN!}}{\displaystyle \underset{PS_N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_N}{}}`$ (23)
$`i_1,\mathrm{},i_N|{\displaystyle \underset{j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}l_z^{(j)}l_z^{(k)}\mathrm{e}^{\beta H_N}|i_{P1},\mathrm{},i_{PN}.`$
Again, one can factorize the matrix element to a product of matrix elements for only one particle. The factors are either of the form $`i_j|\mathrm{e}^{\beta H^{(j)}}|i_{Pj}=\mathrm{e}^{\beta E_{i_j}}\delta _{i_j,i_{P_j}}`$ or $`i_j|l_z^{(j)}\mathrm{e}^{\beta H^{(j)}}|i_{Pj}=\mathrm{}m_j\mathrm{e}^{\beta E_{i_j}}\delta _{i_j,i_{P_j}}`$ or $`i_j|l_{z}^{(j)}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{e}^{\beta H^{(j)}}|i_{Pj}=(\mathrm{}m_j)^2\mathrm{e}^{\beta E_{i_j}}\delta _{i_j,i_{P_j}}`$.

If now the sum of the permutations is expressed as a sum over all cycle occupations one can see, that due to the Kronecker-$`\delta `$s in the factors, all particles on the same $`q`$-cycle have the same state. For one $`q`$-cycle, there are again three different possibilities: if there is no $`l_z^{(j)}`$ associated to one of the particles on the cycle, then (23) gets the contribution

$$\underset{i_j}{}\mathrm{e}^{q\beta E_{i_j}}=Z_1(q\beta ).$$
(24)
Or there may be only one such $`l_z^{(j)}`$. Then the contribution is

$$\underset{i_j}{}\mathrm{}m_j\mathrm{e}^{q\beta E_{i_j}}=0,$$
(25)
which vanishes due to the symmetry $`E_{n_r,m,n_z}=E_{n_r,m,n_z}`$. The third possibility is to have two angular momentum operators acting on two particles on the same q-cycle. This contributes a factor

$$\underset{i_j}{}(\mathrm{}m_j)^2\mathrm{e}^{q\beta E_{i_j}}=\frac{2\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}}{\left(1\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}\right)^2}Z_1(q\beta ).$$
(26)
So all $`q`$-cycles contribute a factor of $`Z_1(q\beta )`$, those involving two angular momentum operators additionally contribute a factor of $`\frac{2\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}}{\left(1\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}\right)^2}`$.

Before we can write down the formula for $`L_z^2`$ we must count the number of ways how the two $`l_z`$-operators may be distributed among the cycles: for a given number $`C_q`$ of $`q`$-cycles there are $`qC_q`$ particles sitting on these cycles. They can be paired with $`q`$ other particles on their own cycle (including themselves), so there are $`q^2C_q`$ ways to pair the two angular momentum operators to get (26). This leads to

$`L_z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_NN!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{C_1,\mathrm{},C_N;}{_{q=1}^NqC_q=N}}{}}M(C_r){\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{N}{}}}`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}}{\left(1\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}\right)^2}}q^2C_q{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}Z_1(r\beta )^{C_r},`$
where

$$M(C_1,\mathrm{},C_N)=\frac{N!}{_qC_q!q^{C_q}}$$
(29)
is the number of permutations with $`C_1`$ 1-cycles, $`C_2`$ 2-cycles etc (see \[18, above Eq. (2.154)\]). By using this and Eqs. (8) and (15)

$$I_{\mathrm{qm}}=\beta L_z^2=2\mathrm{}^2\underset{q=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{q\beta \mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}}{\left(1\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}\right)^2}qC_q.$$
(30)
So we can calculate the quantum mechanical value of the momentum of inertia by using the cycle occupations in (11).

Now we turn to the classical moment of inertia. One can do the analogous analysis as before for $`I_{\mathrm{qm}}`$. Here, one meets terms like

$$\underset{i_j}{}i_j|(x_j^2+y_j^2)\mathrm{e}^{q\beta H}|i_j=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m\omega _{}}\frac{1+\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}}{1\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}}Z_1(q\beta )$$
(31)
in analogy to (25) or (26). Eq. (31) is most easily computed using the eigenstates $`|n_x,n_y,n_z`$ of the harmonic trap Hamiltonian.

Finally, $`I_{\mathrm{class}}`$ can be written as

$$I_{\mathrm{class}}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\omega _{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1+\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}}{1\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}}qC_q,$$
(32)
which again depends on the cycle occupation numbers. Eqs. (30) and (32) constitute the main result of the present work, they allow the computation of the superfluid fraction from Eqs. (12), (13) totally based on the cycle occupation numbers in (11).

## IV Numerical results and comparison to path integral Monte-Carlo results

We now turn to the comparison of the cycle approach with results from other methods for the description of the trapped Bose gas.

In Fig. 1 we show the superfluid fraction as a function of temperature for $`N=25`$ particles in a spherical trap. The full line shows the result originating from our cycle analysis. It is obtained by using (12, 13, 30, 32). $`qC_q`$ has been calculated from the recursion relations for $`Z_N(\beta )`$.

The first comparison is with the model of Stringari  who has given a formula for $`\rho _\mathrm{s}/\rho `$ based on grand canonical considerations. This result is plotted with short dashes in Fig. 1.

The difference between the canonical and grand canonical values is clearly visible both for $`N=25`$ particles and for $`N=100`$. The two chosen examples already illustrate that the difference between the two ensembles will vanish in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$.

It is interesting that by using the canonical expectation values we can also reconcile the cycle analysis given above with a simple two-fluid model of the inhomogeneous Bose gas . In that model the superfluid fraction is totally made up of the condensed part of the system and the normal fluid is identical to the non-condensed part. We here modify the two-fluid model by inserting the number of condensed particles $`N_0`$ (see (7)) from the canonical averages. For the case of the harmonic trap, $`N_0`$ can be written as

$$N_0=\underset{q=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(1\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}\right)^2\left(1\mathrm{e}^{q\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{}}\right)qC_q.$$
(33)
To compute $`\rho _\mathrm{s}/\rho `$ we need the moments of inertia $`I_0`$ of the condensate and $`I_{\mathrm{nc}}`$ of the non-condensed part. The condensate particles all reside in the ground state of the trap whose moment of inertia for rotations around the $`z`$-axis is $`\mathrm{}/\omega _{}`$, so

$$I_0=N_0\frac{\mathrm{}}{\omega _{}}.$$
(34)
$`I_{\mathrm{nc}}`$ is estimated by assuming that the non-condensed particles behave like a Boltzmann gas in the harmonic trap. For the inverse temperature $`\beta `$ the moment of inertia then equals $`2/(\beta \omega _{}^2)`$ so

$$I_{\mathrm{nc}}=N_{\mathrm{nc}}\frac{2}{\beta \omega _{}^2}=N_{\mathrm{nc}}\frac{2kT}{\omega _{}^2},$$
(35)
where $`N_{\mathrm{nc}}=NN_0`$.

Finally, by noting that the condensate only contributes to the classical moment of inertia $`I_{\mathrm{class}}`$ but does not take part in the rotation, we can estimate $`\rho _\mathrm{s}/\rho `$ by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\mathrm{s}}{\rho }}`$ $``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{I_{\mathrm{nc}}}{I_0+I_{\mathrm{nc}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\frac{NN_0}{N_0}\frac{2kT}{\mathrm{}\omega _{}}}}.`$ (36)
The long dashed lines in Fig. 1 give a plot of this formula. It fits the exact result for the canonical ensemble surprisingly well. The two-fluid model differs from the exact result only due to the small difference between the true non-condensed part and its quasi-classical approximation.

A third way to calculate the superfluid fraction via moments of inertia is the path integral representation of the density matrix . This approach works for both non-interacting and interacting systems. It represents the most important point of comparison as it is a potentially exact method. We have implemented a Path Integral Monte-Carlo (PIMC) code that relies on the bisectioning ideas of Ceperley  and on the factorization of the complete density matrix into a non-interacting part and the interaction correction .

Here, we will only show that the results discussed in the previous section agree well — as they should — with the data obtained from PIMC calculations without interactions.

The data points (crosses) in Fig. 1 show our results for the superfluid fraction. They have been computed by using the so-called “area formula”  which is the most appropriate method for our investigations. The superfluid fraction is obtained from

$$\frac{\rho _s}{\rho }=\frac{4m^2}{\mathrm{}^2\beta }\frac{A_z^2}{I_z}.$$
(37)
Here

$$I_z=\frac{m}{M}\underset{t=0,i=1}{\overset{M1,N}{}}\left(x_i(t)x_i(t+1)+y_i(t)y_i(t+1)\right)$$
(38)
denotes the PIMC approximation of classical moment of inertia. $`m`$ is again the mass of the particles. $`x_i(t)`$ and $`y_i(t)`$ are the coordinates of the $`i`$-th particle on time slice $`t`$ of the PIMC simulation and there are $`M`$ such time slices. $`I_z`$ clearly converges to $`I_{\mathrm{class}}`$ as $`M\mathrm{}`$.

The expression

$$A_z=\frac{1}{2}\underset{t=0,i=1}{\overset{M1,N}{}}\left(x_i(t)y_i(t+1)y_i(t)x_i(t+1)\right)$$
(39)
is the projected area perpendicular to the rotation axis $`z`$. $`A_z^2`$ is the portion of the moment of inertia that can be traced back to the superfluid fraction .

As Fig. 1 shows, all three methods are in good agreement with each other. We have furthermore calculated the density distribution of the particles in the trap both in the two-fluid model and with PIMC. They also exhibit a nice agreement thus indicating the validity of the empirical two-fluid model.

## V Summary and Conclusion

The main result of our paper is the calculation of the superfluid fraction from the permutation cycles. We have compared this approach to the grand-canonical prediction by Stringari and to PIMC calculations. For small particle numbers our results are in good agreement with the exact (canonical) PIMC results and we were able to reproduce them to a very good accuracy with a two-fluid model which divides the gas into a condensed and a non-condensed part where the latter is treated as a classical Boltzmann gas. For small particle numbers we find a distinct difference between our results and Stringari’s grand canonical approach.

The techniques and results presented in this paper have established a solid starting point of PIMC investigations including interactions. As the calculation of the condensate fraction in PIMC calculations of inhomogeneous Bose gases is still under debate, the role of the permutation cycles deserves further investigations also in the interacting case (see e.g.  for a related discussion).

###### Acknowledgements.

J.S. thanks M. Holzmann for a stimulating discussion on the subject. We gratefully acknowledge financial support by DFG under Grant Nr. SCHE 128/7-1.


format: text

text:
# The Central Term in 3D Simple Superalgebra

## 1 Self–Interacting Scalar Model and Vortex
Configurations

The component-field expansion for a scalar superfield reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta )=A(x)+\theta ^a\psi _a(x)\theta ^2F(x);$$
(6)
where $`\theta `$ is a (real) Grassmann-valued Majorana spinor and $`A(x)`$ is a physical scalar, $`\psi _a(x)`$ is a physical fermion and $`F(x)`$ is an auxiliary field. The supersymmetry covariant derivative is represented as

$`D_a=_a+i\theta ^b_{ab},`$ (7)
$`\{D_a,D_b\}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}P_{ab}.`$ (8)
The most general $`N`$=$`1`$-supersymmetric action with renormalizable matter self-interactions is given by

$$S_{scalar}=d^3xd^2\theta \left\{\frac{1}{2}(D_a\mathrm{\Phi })^2+\frac{1}{2}m\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{\lambda }{8}\mathrm{\Phi }^4\right\},$$
(9)
and the supersymmetry transformations on the components $`A`$, $`\psi _a`$ and $`F`$ read as below:

$`\delta A`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^a\psi _a,`$
$`\delta \psi _a`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^b(C_{ab}F+i_{ab}A),`$
$`\delta F`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^bi_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\psi _a.`$ (10)
The action for the physical fields,

$`S_{scalar}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{2}(_{ab}A)(^{ab}A)+\psi ^ai_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\psi _b\right]+m\psi ^2+\frac{3}{2}\lambda \psi ^2A^2\hfill \end{array}}+`$ (14)
$`\begin{array}{c}\hfill \frac{1}{2}m^2A^2\frac{1}{2}m\lambda A^4\frac{1}{8}\lambda ^2A^6\end{array}\},`$
can be shown to be invariant under the non-linear “on-shell” transformations,

$`\delta A`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^a\psi _a,`$
$`\delta \psi _a`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^b\left[C_{ab}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mA{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda A^3\right)+i_{ab}A\right].`$ (15)
Now , taking into account that supersymmetry is a symmetry of the action (the Lagrangian density transforms as a total derivative), it can be shown that the Noether current associated to $`N`$=$`1`$-supersymmetry turns out to be:

$`J_{}^{\mu }{}_{c}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i\psi ^a(\gamma ^\mu )_{ac}\left(mA+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}A^3\right){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }\psi ^b(\gamma _\rho )_{bc}_\nu A+`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _c^\mu A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^\mu \psi _c{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }A_\nu \psi ^a(\gamma _\rho )_{ac}.`$
The supercharge is defined as

$`Q_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{x}J_{}^{0}{}_{c}{}^{}}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2\stackrel{}{x}\{i\psi ^a(\gamma ^0)_{ac}(mA+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}A^3)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _c^0A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^0\psi _c+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\epsilon ^{0\nu \rho }\psi ^a(\gamma _\rho )_{ac}_\nu A+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\epsilon ^{0\nu \rho }A_\nu \psi ^a(\gamma _\rho )_{ac}\}.`$
With the help of the canonical commutation (and anticommutation) relations for the physical fields, a tedious calculation yields the following expression for the algebra of supersymmetry charges:

$`\{Q_a,Q_b\}={\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{x}\times }`$
$`2i\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[\begin{array}{c}2i\psi ^a(\gamma ^0)_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}^0\psi _b+(^0A)(^0A)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i\psi ^a(\gamma ^i)_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}^i\psi _b+(^iA)(^iA)+\hfill \end{array}`$ (19)
$`\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\psi ^2\left(m+\frac{3}{2}\lambda A^2\right)+\left(\frac{1}{2}m^2A^2+\frac{1}{2}m\lambda A^4+\frac{1}{4}\lambda ^2A^6\right)\hfill \end{array}]\hfill \end{array}\}(\gamma ^0)_{ab}+`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\begin{array}{c}2i\psi ^a(\gamma ^{(0})_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}^{i)}\psi _b+(^{(0}A)(^{i)}A)\hfill \end{array}\right\}(\gamma _i)_{ab}.`$ (24)
If we compare this expression with the $`0\mu `$ component of the “improved” energy-momentum tensor

$$T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{e}\frac{\delta S}{\delta e_a^{}^{(\mu }}e_{\nu )a^{}}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}|_{g^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }},$$
(25)
where $`S`$ in this expression indicates the action (14), we may rewrite (24) as

$$\{Q_a,Q_b\}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}iP^\mu (\gamma _\mu )_{ab}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}iϵ^{ij}d^2\stackrel{}{x}(_iA)(\gamma _j)_{ab}\left(mA+\frac{\lambda }{2}A^3\right).$$
(26)
In terms of the chiral components of the supersymmetry charge, the algebra takes over the form:

$`\{Q^+,Q^+\}`$ $`=`$ $`2i(P^0+P^1)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{x}\left(mA+\frac{\lambda }{2}A^3\right)_2A},`$ (27)
$`\{Q^{},Q^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2i(P^0P^1)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{x}\left(mA+\frac{\lambda }{2}A^3\right)_2A},`$
$`\{Q^+,Q^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2iP^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle d^2x\left(mA+\frac{\lambda }{2}A^3\right)_1A}.`$ (28)
Expressions (26) and (28) sign the presence of a central charge that is sensitive to a topologically non-trivial behavior of the scalar sector at infinity:

$`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\frac{}{_{x^2}}\left(mA^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}A^4\right)},`$
$`T_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_2𝑑x_1\frac{}{_{x^1}}\left(mA^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}A^4\right)},`$ (29)
where we observe the topological character of the central charge terms, which has its origin in the mass and self-interacting terms of the scalar field in Lagrangian. Bearing in mind this result, we shall now consider the introduction of an Abelian gauge field with $`N`$=$`1`$–supersymmetry. We also know that such a coupling is fundamental to stabilize the soliton-like solutions in the form of magnetic vortices with finite energy.

## 2 On the N=1 Super–QED3

The $`N`$=$`1`$–supersymmetric version of QED3 is achieved upon the complexification of the scalar superfield in eq. (9) and the gauge–covariantization of the spinor derivative:

$$_aD_ai\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,$$
(30)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ is a gauge superconnection with super–helicity $`h=\frac{1}{2}`$, and the signs $``$ and $`+`$ indicate that the derivative is acting in the superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ respectively ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$). $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ admits the following $`\theta `$–expansion:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a=\chi _a+\theta ^b(C_{ab}B+iV_{ab})+\theta ^2(2\lambda _ai_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\chi _b),$$
(31)
where $`\lambda _a`$ is the gaugino field, $`V_{ab}`$ is the usual gauge field; $`B`$ and $`\chi _a`$ are compensating component–fields. In the so–called Wess–Zumino gauge , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ is reduced to:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a=i\theta ^bV_{ab}2\theta ^2\lambda _a,$$
(32)
where the supersymmetry transformations read:

$`\delta V_{ab}=iϵ_{(b}\lambda _{b)},`$
$`\delta \lambda _a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^c_{c(a}V_{c)b}.`$ (33)
The covariantized vectorial derivative is written as

$$_{ab}=D_{ab}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab},$$
(34)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}`$ is the vector superconnection. As we know, in order to have irreducible representations of symmetry, we need constraints in the model. In the supersymmetric case, we have the so–called conventional constraint, that acts in such away that the supersymmetric algebra of the spinor derivatives, $`\{_a,_b\}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i_{ab}+F_{ab}`$, will have $`F_{ab}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Then, we easily compute that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}=\frac{i}{2}D_{(a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b)},$$
(35)
implying that in the Wess–Zumino gauge we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}=V_{ab}+i\theta _{(a}\lambda _{b)}\frac{i}{2}\theta ^2_{c(a}V_{b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}.$$
(36)
By the graded Bianchi identity, we redefine the gauge field as

$$W_a=\frac{1}{2}D^bD_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_b,$$
(37)
with the constraint $`D^aW_a=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ ($`D^aD_bD_a=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$), implying as in the usual Lorentz gauge that exists only one independent component of the field $`W_a`$. Using the projector method, we write

$$W_a|=\lambda _a,D_aW_b|=\frac{1}{2}(_{ca}V_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}+_{cb}V_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{c})f_{ab},$$
(38)
with $`f_{ab}`$ the usual gauge field strength. Another relations that will be very important and that may straightforwardly be obtained are (conf. ()):

$$_a^2=i_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}_b\pm iW_a\text{e}(^2)^2=\mathrm{}iW^a_a,$$
(39)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ means the gauge–covariant d’Alembertian. Now, we are ready to discuss the supersymmetry algebra in the framework of $`N`$=$`1`$ Super-QED3.

### 2.1 Scalar Superaction with a Background Gauge Field

The U(1)–invariant superfield action without kinetic term for the gauge sector is given as below:

$$S_{scalar}=\frac{1}{2}d^3xd^2\theta \left\{(^a\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})(_a\mathrm{\Phi })\right\},$$
(40)
Redefining the component field, (we can always do this) by the projections

$`\mathrm{\Phi }|=A`$ , $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}|=\overline{A},`$
$`_a\mathrm{\Phi }|=\psi _a`$ , $`_a\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}|=\overline{\psi }_a,`$
$`^2\mathrm{\Phi }|=F`$ , $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}|=\overline{F},`$ (41)
the gauge–field component action takes the form:

$$S=\frac{1}{2}d^3x\left\{\overline{\psi }^aiD_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\psi _b+\psi ^aiD_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\overline{\psi }_b+A\mathrm{}\overline{A}+\overline{A}\mathrm{}A\right\},$$
(42)
with the “on shell” supersymmetric transformations:

$`\delta \overline{\psi }^a=ϵ_biD^{ab}\overline{A}`$ , $`\delta \psi _b=ϵ^ciD_{bc}A,`$
$`\delta A=ϵ^a\psi _a`$ , $`\delta \overline{A}=ϵ^a\overline{\psi }_a,`$ (43)
The Noether current associated to $`N`$=$`1`$–supersymmetry is now:

$`J_{}^{\mu }{}_{c}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }[\overline{\psi }^a(\gamma _\rho )_{ac}_\nu A+\psi ^a(\gamma _\rho )_{ac}_\nu \overline{A}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\psi _c^\mu \overline{A}+\overline{\psi }_c^\mu A)+`$ (44)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{A}^\mu \psi _c+A^\mu \overline{\psi }_c)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }(\overline{A}_\nu \psi ^a+A_\nu \overline{\psi }^a)(\gamma _\rho )_{ac},`$
yielding the supercharge

$`Q_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{x}J_{}^{0}{}_{c}{}^{}}=`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^2\stackrel{}{x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(\psi _c^0\overline{A}+\overline{\psi }_c^0A)+i\epsilon ^{0ij}[\overline{\psi }^a(\gamma _j)_{ac}_iA+\psi ^a(\gamma _j)_{ac}_i\overline{A}]+`$
$`(\overline{A}^0\psi _c+A^0\overline{\psi }_c)+i\epsilon ^{0ij}(\overline{A}_i\psi ^a+A_i\overline{\psi }^a)(\gamma _j)_{ac}\}`$
The canonical conjugate momenta that will be necessary for the supercharge algebra are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\psi _d}=i\overline{\psi }^a(\gamma ^0)_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{d}`$ , $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{\psi }_d}=i\psi ^a(\gamma ^0)_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{d},`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_A=(D^0\overline{A})`$ , $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{A}}=(D^0A),`$ (46)
giving the canonical commutation and anticommutation relations

$`\{\psi ^d,\overline{\psi }^a\}=i(\gamma ^0)^{ad}\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})`$ , $`\{\overline{\psi }^d,\psi ^a\}=i(\gamma ^0)^{ad}\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}),`$
$`[A,D^0\overline{A}]=\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})`$ , $`[\overline{A},D^0A]=\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}).`$ (47)
After a lengthy computation, using the $`\gamma `$–matrices Clifford algebra, we reach the result

$$\{Q_a,Q_b\}=2iP^\mu (\gamma _\mu )_{ab},$$
(48)
where the momentum operator $`P^\mu `$ appearing in the RHS includes now contributions from the gauge field minimally coupled to matter through (42). Nevertheless, no term in the form of a central charge arises from the action (42); this means that the central charge operator of eq. (26) is not modified by the introduction of the $`U(1)`$ gauge superfield. The role of the latter is to stabilize the topological configurations associated to the action (9) in the form of vortex-like solitons, as already known from the works quoted in ref. .

## 3 The Supersymmetric Chern–Simons Term

Now, we shall add a supersymmetric Chern–Simons (CS) term to the action eq. (42)and we will verify how it modifies the supercharge algebra. For this purpose, we begin with the (gauge–invariant) CS term in superspace

$$S_{CS}=\frac{M}{g^2}d^3xd^2\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^aW_a,$$
(49)
where $`M`$ is a mass parameter and $`g`$ is the gauge coupling constant. In components, using the Wess–Zumino gauge, the action eq. (49) leads to the expression

$$S_{CS}=\frac{M}{g^2}d^3x\left[iV^{ab}(_{ac}V_{}^{c}{}_{b}{}^{})+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\lambda ^2\right],$$
(50)
where the first term in the r.h.s. is the well–known CS term. Now, including the term (49) in the action (42), and then taking into account the equations of motion for the $`F`$ , $`\overline{F}`$ (which are not affected by the CS term) and of the $`\lambda _a`$–field, the complete Lagrangian reads:

$`L_{din}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }^a(\gamma ^\mu )_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}_\mu \psi _b+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\psi ^a(\gamma ^\mu )_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}_\mu \overline{\psi }_b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(^\mu \overline{A})(_\mu A)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(^\mu \overline{A})V_\mu A+`$ (51)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}V^\mu \overline{A}(_\mu A)+{\displaystyle \frac{iM}{g^2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }V_\mu _\nu V_\rho ,`$
with the “on shell” supersymmetric transformations:

$`\delta \overline{\psi }^a=iϵ_bD^{ab}\overline{A}`$ , $`\delta \psi _b=iϵ^cD_{bc}A,`$
$`\delta A=ϵ^a\psi _a`$ , $`\delta \overline{A}=ϵ^a\overline{\psi }_a,`$
$`\delta V_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{(a}\lambda _{b)}.`$ (52)
Following again the procedure to read off the Noether current associated to the transformations (52), it can be found out that the contribution of the CS term yields:

$$(J_{SCS})_c^\mu =\frac{i}{2}V^\mu \left(\psi _c\overline{A}\overline{\psi }_cA\right),$$
(53)
with the supercharge

$$(Q_{SCS})_c=d^2\stackrel{}{x}(J_{SCS})_c^0=d^2\stackrel{}{x}\left\{\frac{i}{2}V^0\left(\psi _c\overline{A}\overline{\psi }_cA\right)\right\},$$
(54)
whence

$$\{Q_a,Q_b\}_{SCS}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}iP^\mu [V^0](\gamma _\mu )_{ab}.$$
(55)
where $`P^\mu [V^0]`$ means a functional that depends only on the time–component of the potential vector.

What we observe is that the $`V^0`$ potential field is completely eliminated from the algebra, implying that the “corrected” Chern-Simons $`T^{0\mu }`$ component of energy-momentum tensor, defined as “new” $`P^\mu `$ becomes independent on the potential gauge field. It is possible to say that the the conjugate momenta of the $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ fields are in fact “corrected” by the CS term to become $`\mathrm{\Pi }_A\alpha ^0\overline{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{A}}\alpha ^0A`$ . This indicates that the CS term plays a role similar to a partial gauge fixing, eliminating one degree of freedom of the gauge field, referring to the algebra.

## 4 Conclusions

The basic motivation of this paper was to analyze the 3-dimensional counterpart of a well-known result by Olive and Witten , namely, the appearance of a central charge in the algebra of simple supersymmetry as originated from non-trivial topological field configurations. To this aim we have analyzed the full supersymmetric model in 3D. We have computed the Noether supersymmetric charges, and the “improved” energy-momentum tensor using the gravitation approach. From the canonical commutations (and anti-commutations) relations of the superfields we obtained the supercharge algebra. Here, with and without gauge fields, we could conclude that vortex-like field configurations are responsible for a central charge in the supersymmetry algebra, even in the case of a $`N=1`$-supersymmetry. It is worthwhile to mention the results obtained by Lee, Lee and Weinberg , where a central charge comes out in context of an $`N=2`$ extended supersymmetric model. We would like to point out that the calculations of Section 3 recall that the Chern-Simons term for the gauge field does not give contribution to the central charge appearing in the algebra. In fact it could represent a sample of gauge fixing eliminating the time direction of the vector potencial in the algebra. So the central charge of this model arises exclusively from the matter sector and its existence to the vortex configurations of the scalar fields. Clearly, the role of the gauge fields is to render finite the vortex energy . The analysis of the BPS bounds and its consequences will appear in a forthcoming paper.

Next, it might be of relevance to analyze the presence of central charges in the models proposed by Dorey and Mavromatos  to study $`P,T`$ conserving superconducting gauge models whenever the latter are supersymmetrised. One could perhaps understand whether or not central charges may be related to some physical aspects of superconductivity.

Acknowledgements: The author is grateful to Dr. J. A. Helayël-Neto for all the discussions and the critical comments on the original manuscript; thanks are also due to Dr. O. Piguet for very pertinent and helpful remarks, and to the colleagues at DCP-CBPF for the general discussions. CAPES-Brasil is also acknowledged for the invaluable financial help.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of lattice Bose gas models was proposed  in order to understand the effect of interaction on Bose-Einstein Condensation (BEC). It was argumented that, if the interaction has a hard core, i.e. each site can be occupied by at most one particle, then the model can be mapped onto a quantum spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ XY-model on a $`Z^d`$-lattice.

The exact solution, exhibiting condensation, for the hard core Bose gas on a complete graph has been obtained . In spin language this work corresponds to the mean field spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ XY-model. Other exact results on the full model are an upper bound on the condensate  and an existence proof of condensation for the system in a half filled $`Z^d`$-lattice for dimensions $`d3`$ . In this context we mention also the relevant result  about the occurrence of long-range order in the XY-model with spins and dimensions greater than one.

In this paper we turn our attention to a system of two types of interacting hard core Bose particles on a complete graph and interacting through a repulsive interaction if the particles are of different type. (Compare this with the Hubbard model for electron systems.) The model is exactly soluble. We study in detail the equilibrium states in the case of a half filled lattice and equal density for the two particle types. If the system is weakly interacting we obtain an explicit and complete analysis of the equilibrium states. We analyse the BEC phenomenon and in particular we are interested in the appearance of spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) linked with it. The interesting aspect of this model is that the broken symmetry is two-dimensional. While, as is well known for a single type Bose system, the broken symmetry is the one-dimensional gauge symmetry. We compute rigorously the plasmon frequencies related to these modes, and find the quantum normal modes of these plasmon motions. We find out that there are two different frequencies, but that both frequencies are two-fold degenerate. The four quantum degrees of freedom have normal modes which we build up as the quantum fluctuation operators of the components of the infinitesimal generators of the spontaneously broken gauge symmetries, with adjoints the quantum fluctuation operators of corresponding order parameter operators. The degeneracy of the plasmon spectrum is the new phenomenon in this model study of Bose-Einstein condensation. Another revealing fact is that the adjoint fluctuation operators are the total and the relative current fluctuations between the two types of bosons.

## 2 The Model and its Equilibrium States

### 2.1 The Model

The model is defined on the lattice $`Z`$, by the local Hamiltonians $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a finite interval in $`Z`$:

$$H_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{t}{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}\underset{\alpha \{1,2\}}{}\underset{ij\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\sigma _{i\alpha }^+\sigma _{j\alpha }^{}\mu \underset{\alpha \{1,2\}}{}\underset{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\sigma _{i\alpha }^+\sigma _{i\alpha }^{}+U\underset{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\sigma _{i1}^+\sigma _{i1}^{}\sigma _{i2}^+\sigma _{i2}^{}.$$
(1)
The first term is the hopping contribution, the particles jump freely from one site to another with a hopping rate $`t/|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$, $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ is the number of points in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; the index $`\alpha `$ specifies the type of particles; $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential; $`U`$ is taken to be positive and is the coupling constant for the interaction between the types of particles. If two particles of different type are on the same lattice point the potential energy is raised with an amount $`U`$. Clearly the $`\sigma ^\pm ,\sigma ^z`$ are the usual Pauli matrices and are here the creation an annihilation operators for the Bose particles with hard core, satisfying:

$`[\sigma _{i\alpha }^+,\sigma _{j\beta }^{}]=\sigma _{i\alpha }^z\delta _{ij}\delta _{\alpha \beta };`$
$`\left(\sigma _{i\alpha }^+\right)^2=0;\left(\sigma _{i\alpha }^+\right)^{}=\sigma _{i\alpha }^{};`$
$`\sigma _{i\alpha }^+\sigma _{i\alpha }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sigma _{i\alpha }^z+\mathrm{𝟏}\right).`$
We look first for the equilibrium states of this model in the thermodynamic limit. The Hamiltonians (1) are permutation invariant with respect to the lattice index. This means  that the equilibrium states at inverse temperatures $`\beta `$ are convex combinations of product states on the infinite tensor product algebra of observables $`=_{iZ}\left(M_2M_2\right)_i`$ of the system; $`\left(M_2M_2\right)_i`$ represents the tensor product of the $`2\times 2`$ complex matrices $`M_2`$ with itself. Each set $`M_2`$ is referring to a different type of hard core bosons, both at site $`iZ`$. In particular, if one looks only at the product states which are invariant for the interchange of the two types of particles, then the equilibrium states are given by the states $`\omega _{\beta \lambda }(.)`$ of the form :

$$\omega _{\beta \lambda }(A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_n)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{tr}\rho _{\beta \lambda }A_i;\text{for any }A_i\left(M_2M_2\right)_i,i=1,\mathrm{}n$$

where $`\rho _{\beta \lambda }`$ is a density matrix in $`M_2M_2`$, satisfying the self-consistency equation:

$$\rho _{\beta \lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{exp}[\beta h_\lambda ]}{\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{exp}[\beta h_\lambda ]},$$
(2)
where

$$h_\lambda =t\lambda \left(\sigma _1^++\sigma _2^+\right)+t\overline{\lambda }\left(\sigma _1^{}+\sigma _2^{}\right)\mu \left(\sigma _1^+\sigma _1^{}+\sigma _2^+\sigma _2^{}\right)+U\sigma _1^+\sigma _1^{}\sigma _2^+\sigma _2^{}$$
(3)
and

$$\lambda =\mathrm{tr}\rho _{\beta \lambda }\sigma _1^{}=\mathrm{tr}\rho _{\beta \lambda }\sigma _2^{}.$$
(4)
In fact equation (2) for $`\rho _{\beta \lambda }`$ is equivalent to the equation (4) for $`\lambda `$. Remark that (4) also results from the assumption of symmetry in the particle types. Looking for equilibrium states breaking this symmetry would violate (4).

Moreover, we will limit here our study to the case of a half filled lattice. Mathematically this means that we require:

$$\omega _{\beta \lambda }(\sigma _{i\alpha }^z)=0\text{for all }iZ,\alpha =1,2.$$

This fixes the chemical potential $`\mu =U/2`$. In order to simplify the notations, we adapt our Hamiltonian by adding a constant term and by scaling the constant $`U`$ to $`U/4`$. In this case one gets for (3) a more simple expression:

$$h_\lambda =t\lambda \left(\sigma _1^++\sigma _2^+\right)+t\overline{\lambda }\left(\sigma _1^{}+\sigma _2^{}\right)+U\sigma _1^z\sigma _2^z.$$
(5)
On a finite subset $`\mathrm{\Lambda }Z`$ we define Fourier-transformed operators:

$$a_{k\alpha }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}}\underset{j\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\sigma _j^{}\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{i}\frac{2\pi }{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}kj\right];k\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\text{the dual of }\mathrm{\Lambda },$$

the annihilation operator of the $`\alpha `$-particle with quasi-momentum $`k`$.

Then,

$$n_k=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}a_{k\alpha }^{}a_{k\alpha }$$

is the number operator of particles with quasi-momentum $`k`$.

Compute in a state $`\omega _{\beta \lambda }`$ (2):

$$\rho _0=\underset{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega _{\beta \lambda }\left(\frac{n_0}{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}\right)=2\omega _{\beta \lambda }(\sigma ^+)\omega _{\beta \lambda }(\sigma ^{})=2|\lambda |^2;$$
(6)
i.e. the $`0`$-mode has a density $`\rho _0`$ equal to $`2|\lambda |^2`$. A solution $`\lambda 0`$ of (4) yields a macroscopic occupation of the $`0`$-mode and the density of the condensate $`\rho _0`$ equals $`2|\lambda |^2`$. Therefore, if one finds solutions of (2) or (4) such that $`\lambda 0`$, one proved Bose-Einstein condensation.

### 2.2 Equilibrium States

Now we proceed to look for the solution of (4) and its properties. It is clear that based on general results  we reduced our problem to a one-site problem, namely looking for the density matrix state $`\mathrm{tr}\rho _{\beta \lambda }.`$ with $`\rho _{\beta \lambda }M_2M_2`$.

In general $`M_2M_2=M_4`$ and we use the following isomorphism:

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_{11}& a_{12}\\ a_{21}& a_{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}b_{11}& b_{12}\\ b_{21}& b_{22}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_{11}b_{11}& a_{12}b_{11}& a_{11}b_{12}& a_{12}b_{12}\\ a_{21}b_{11}& a_{22}b_{11}& a_{21}b_{12}& a_{22}b_{12}\\ a_{11}b_{21}& a_{12}b_{21}& a_{11}b_{22}& a_{12}b_{22}\\ a_{21}b_{21}& a_{22}b_{21}& a_{21}b_{22}& a_{22}b_{22}\end{array}\right).`$
This yields the following matrix representation for $`h_\lambda `$:

$$h_\lambda =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}U& t\lambda & t\lambda & 0\\ t\overline{\lambda }& U& 0& t\lambda \\ t\overline{\lambda }& 0& U& t\lambda \\ 0& t\overline{\lambda }& t\overline{\lambda }& U\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
Then a straightforward diagonalisation of $`h_\lambda `$ yields the following spectrum:

$$ϵ_0=U,ϵ_1=U,ϵ_2=\eta ,ϵ_3=\eta ,$$
(9)
where $`\eta =\sqrt{U^2+4|t\lambda |^2}`$.

The corresponding eigenvectors are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\varphi _0& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill |\varphi _2& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta (\eta U)}}\left(\begin{array}{c}t\lambda \\ \frac{\eta U}{2}\\ \frac{\eta U}{2}\\ t\overline{\lambda }\end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\varphi _1& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}|t\lambda |}\left(\begin{array}{c}t\lambda \\ 0\\ 0\\ t\overline{\lambda }\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill |\varphi _3& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta (\eta +U)}}\left(\begin{array}{c}t\lambda \\ \frac{\eta +U}{2}\\ \frac{\eta +U}{2}\\ t\overline{\lambda }\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
Using (9) and (10) one gets for equation (4) the following explicit and nonlinear equation for $`\lambda `$:

$$\lambda \left[1+\frac{t}{\eta }\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \eta )}{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta U)+\mathrm{cosh}(\beta \eta )}\right]=0.$$
(11)
Remark that $`\lambda =0`$ is always a solution. It corresponds to a state without condensation (see (6)).

Looking for solutions $`\lambda 0`$ amounts to look for a solution $`\eta `$ satisfying:

$$\eta =f_\beta (\eta );$$
(12)
where

$$f_\beta (\eta )=t\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \eta )}{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta U)+\mathrm{cosh}(\beta \eta )}.$$

Since the condensate density $`\rho _0=2|\lambda |^2`$ (cfr. (6)) cannot exceed the total particle density $`\rho `$ (which is equal to one in the half filled lattice), $`\sqrt{U^2+2t^2}`$ is an upper bound on $`\eta =\sqrt{U^2+4|t\lambda |^2}`$. The minimum value of $`\eta `$ is $`U`$. This defines $`I`$, the range of accessible values for $`\eta `$:

$$\eta I=[U,\sqrt{U^2+2t^2}].$$

Remark that $`f_\beta (\eta )`$ is unaffected by the sign of $`U`$. On the other hand, equation (12) has no solutions if $`t0`$. Therefore we take $`t<0`$ and $`U>0`$.
Discussion of the solutions of (11)
We are looking for solutions yielding a second order phase transition.

Remark first that for $`\eta I`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\beta (\eta )}{\eta }}`$ $`>0`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2f_\beta (\eta )}{\eta ^2}}`$ $`<0`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\beta (\eta )}{\beta }}`$ $`>0`$ (15)
i.e. $`\eta f_\beta (\eta )`$ is a monotonically increasing concave function on $`I`$; also $`\beta f_\beta (\eta )`$ is monotonically increasing for $`T`$ decreasing.

The problem here is that, due to the presence of the potential $`U`$, these properties are not valid outside the interval $`I`$, such that the situation is more complicated than for the usual mean field case.

First we consider temperature $`T>0`$, and we distinguish two cases:

case a):

$$f_\beta (U)>U$$
(16)
yielding

$$\frac{1}{2U}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t+2U}{t2U}\right)<\beta ;$$
(17)
and implying the condition on the interparticle interaction:

$$2U<t$$
(18)
i.e. the interparticle interaction must be relatively small compared with the hopping term (1); this condition is a meaningful situation for this kind of systems, if the interaction becomes to strong, the typical quantum effects like BEC disappear.

One derives also

$$f_\beta \left(\sqrt{U^2+2t^2}\right)\sqrt{U^2+2t^2}.$$
(19)
Together, condition (16) and (19) yield a unique solution of $`f_\beta (\eta )=\eta I`$, and because of (15) a second order phase transition with $`\lambda 0`$ as an order parameter. Equation (17) learns that there exists a critical $`\beta _c`$ determinated by:

$$\frac{1}{k_BT_c}=\beta _c=\frac{1}{2U}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t+2U}{t2U}\right).$$
(20)
This defines the critical temperature $`T_c`$.

case b):

$$f_\beta (U)<U$$
(21)
This case is somewhat more complicated, a careful analysis learns that apart from a second order phase transition, a first order one can occur, even if (18) is satisfied. In order to avoid non-natural first order transitions, one has to impose:

$$\frac{f_{\beta _c}(\eta )}{\eta }|_U1;f_{\beta _c}(U)=U.$$

The analysis of these yields a stronger condition on $`U`$ than (18):

$$U<(t)\kappa ,$$

where $`\kappa `$ can be computed numerically as the solution of the equation:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+2\kappa }{12\kappa }\right)=\frac{4\kappa }{12\kappa ^2};\hfill \\ & \kappa 0.461292.\hfill \end{array}$$

Finally we consider the ground state $`(T=0)`$ situation. The self-consistency equation (11) becomes:

$$\eta =\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}f_\beta (\eta )=f_{\mathrm{}}(\eta );$$

with:

$$f_{\mathrm{}}(\eta )=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if}\eta <U\hfill \\ t\hfill & \text{if}\eta >U.\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`U>t`$, then there are no non-trivial solutions $`\lambda 0`$. On the other hand, if $`U<t`$, then there exists always a unique solution $`\lambda 0`$. It is obtained as the solution of:

$$t=\sqrt{U^2+4t^2|\lambda |^2}$$

given by:

$$|\lambda |=\frac{1}{2t}\left(t^2U^2\right)^{1/2}<\frac{1}{2}.$$

Since $`f_\beta (\eta )`$ is increasing with $`T`$ decreasing (15), this also implies an expression for a supremum on the condensate density $`\rho _0`$ (6):

$$\rho _0\frac{\left(t^2U^2\right)}{2t^2}<\rho .$$
(22)
The condensate density is always strictly smaller than the total particle density, which is compatible with former results on this topic . This finishes the study of the equilibrium properties of the model (1).

## 3 Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking

The model $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (1) and its equilibrium states have a discrete symmetry consisting of the interchange of the two particle types into each other. It is implemented by the following unitary matrix: $`u=\sigma _1^+\sigma _1^{}\sigma _2^+\sigma _2^{}+\sigma _1^{}\sigma _1^+\sigma _2^{}\sigma _2^++\sigma _1^+\sigma _2^{}+\sigma _1^{}\sigma _2^+`$, then for any local observable $`A_{12}`$ depending on the types $`1`$ and $`2`$, one gets:

$$\gamma _{12}(A_{12})=\left(\underset{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}(u_{12})_i\right)A_{12}\left(\underset{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}(u_{12})_i\right)=A_{21}.$$

The eigenvectors (10) of $`h_\lambda `$ satisfy

$$u_{12}|\varphi _0=|\varphi _0;u_{12}|\varphi _1=|\varphi _1;u_{12}|\varphi _2=|\varphi _2;u_{12}|\varphi _3=|\varphi _3.$$

A second discrete symmetry is the particle-hole ($`ph`$) symmetry. This symmetry interchanges the creation and annihilation operators ($`\sigma _i^+`$ and $`\sigma _i^{}`$) and is implemented by the unitaries $`\sigma _{12}^x=\sigma _1^x\sigma _2^x`$ ($`\sigma ^x`$ is the x-component Pauli matrix). The invariance of $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (1) is expressed by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \gamma _{ph}(H_\mathrm{\Lambda })& =\left(\underset{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}(\sigma _{12}^x)_i\right)H_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\underset{i\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}(\sigma _{12}^x)_i\right)\hfill \\ & =H_\mathrm{\Lambda }.\hfill \end{array}$$

The eigenfunctions (10) of $`h_\lambda `$ satisfy

$$\sigma _{12}^x|\varphi _0=|\varphi _0;\sigma _{12}^x|\varphi _1=|\varphi _1;\sigma _{12}^x|\varphi _2=|\varphi _2;\sigma _{12}^x|\varphi _3=|\varphi _3.$$

The Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (1) has also a two-dimensional continuous gauge symmetry group given by the actions:

$$\gamma _{\varphi _1\varphi _2}(\sigma _k^+)=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _k}\sigma _k^+,\varphi _k[0,2\pi ],k=1,2.$$
(23)
For a finite volume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, it is implemented by the unitaries:

$$U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)}=\mathrm{exp}\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\left(\varphi _1Q_{1,\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\varphi _2Q_{2,\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right);$$

where

$$Q_{k,\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\underset{j\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}(\sigma _k^z)_j;k=1,2.$$

Clearly, $`\gamma _{\varphi _1\varphi _2}(H_\mathrm{\Lambda })=U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)}H_\mathrm{\Lambda }U_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)}^{}=H_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Hence, per lattice site one has a commutative two-dimensional Lie-algebra of this symmetry group, generated by $`\sigma _1^z`$ and $`\sigma _2^z`$. However, the equilibrium states $`\omega _{\beta \lambda }`$ with $`\lambda 0`$ (see section 2) break this symmetry down. Indeed we have here for $`k=1,2`$:

$$\omega _{\beta \lambda }\left(\gamma _{\varphi _1\varphi _2}\left(\sigma _k^+\right)\right)=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _k}\omega _{\beta \lambda }(\sigma _k^+)\omega _{\beta \lambda }(\sigma _k^+)$$

In contrast to all other models for which we have been studying the Goldstone phenomenon , here we have the spontaneous symmetry breakdown of a two-dimensional group. In the following, we construct again the canonical normal modes of the Goldstone bosons together with their corresponding plasmon frequencies. We take a symmetry breaking state $`\omega _{\beta \lambda }`$ with $`\lambda 0`$ and we consider fluctuation mode operators. Before constructing the relevant canonical normal coordinates of the Goldstone particles in the next section, we introduce here the notion of fluctuation operators.

For the mathematical details we refer to . Denote by $`M_4^{sa}=(M_2M_2)^{sa}`$ the vectorspace of the Hermitian $`4\times 4`$ matrices, i.e. these are one-site observables.
For any $`AM_4^{sa}`$, its fluctuation operator $`F_\mathrm{\Lambda }(A)`$ for the volume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the state $`\omega _{\beta \lambda }`$ is as usual defined by:

$$F_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda }(A)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}}\underset{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\left(A_x\omega _{\beta \lambda }(A)\right),$$

where $`A_x`$ is a copy of $`A`$ on site $`xZ`$. In  it is proved that the limit:

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }Z}{lim}F_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\lambda }(A)F_\lambda (A)$$

exists in the sense of a non-commutative central limit as an operator on a Hilbert space $`_\lambda `$, generated by a normalised vector $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda `$, and vectors $`F_\lambda (A_1)\mathrm{}F_\lambda (A_n)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda `$, with $`A_iM_4^{sa}`$, $`n`$ is arbitrary and a scalar product:

for $`A_i,B_jM_4^{sa}`$,

$$(F_\lambda (A_1)\mathrm{}F_\lambda (A_n)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,F_\lambda (B_1)\mathrm{}F_\lambda (B_m)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )=\delta _{nm}\mathrm{Perm}.\left((\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,F_\lambda (A_i)F_\lambda (B_j)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )\right)_{i,j=1,\mathrm{}n}$$
(24)
where the two-point function is given by:

$$(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,F_\lambda (A_i)F_\lambda (B_j)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )=\omega _{\beta \lambda }(AB)\omega _{\beta \lambda }(A)\omega _{\beta \lambda }(B).$$
(25)
i.e. by the truncated two-point functions of the given state $`\omega _{\beta \lambda }`$. Furthermore, as already could be understood from (24), the fluctuation operators $`F_\lambda (A),F_\lambda (B),\mathrm{}`$ satisfy the canonical commutation relations:

$$[F_\lambda (A),F_\lambda (B)]=\omega _{\beta \lambda }([A,B])\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(26)
i.e. the fluctuation operators are quantum canonical variables (compare $`[q,p]=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}`$) with quantisation parameter $`\omega _{\beta \lambda }([A,B])`$ (instead of $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}`$) and the state $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,.\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )`$ is a generalised free or quasi-free state of a boson field algebra of observables. In section 4, we look for the relevant operators $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ in order to obtain the normal canonical variables for the Goldstone particles, i.e. the particles generated by the spontaneous symmetry breaking. We derive the dynamical equations for these modes and we solve them.

## 4 Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Plasma Oscillations

We will consider fluctuations of the generators

$$Q_\pm =\sigma _1^z\pm \sigma _2^z$$

of the broken symmetry.

Let $`P_i,(i=0,1,2,3)`$ be the spectral projections on the eigenfunctions $`|\varphi _i`$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $`ϵ_i`$ (9) of $`h_\lambda `$ (8), i.e. $`h_\lambda =_{i=0}^3ϵ_iP_i`$. Consider for any local observable $`AM_4^{sa}`$ the Hermitian operators:

$$E_{ij}(A)=P_iAP_j+P_jAP_i;i<j;i,j=0,1,2,3;$$
(27)
and the adjoints:

$$JE_{ij}(A)=\mathrm{i}\left(P_iAP_jP_jAP_i\right).$$
(28)
An immediate calculation leads to:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& [h_\lambda ,E_{kl}(A)]=\mathrm{i}(ϵ_kϵ_l)JE_{kl}(A);\hfill \\ & [h_\lambda ,JE_{kl}(A)]=\mathrm{i}(ϵ_kϵ_l)E_{kl}(A).\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
Now we take $`A=Q_+`$, respectively $`A=Q_{}`$. Due to the particle-hole and type-exchange symmetries (section 3), the only non-zero operators of the type (27-28) are:

$$E_{0i}(Q_{}),JE_{0i}(Q_{}),E_{1i}(Q_+),JE_{1i}(Q_+)i=2,3.$$
(30)
It is interesting to write out these operators in terms of the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _i^\pm ,\sigma _i^z,i=1,2`$. As an example we give the expression for the first pair of these operators $`(E_{02}(Q_{}),JE_{02}(Q_{}))`$, the others are left as an exercise for the reader:

$`E_{02}(Q_{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{}}{2\eta }}Q_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{t\lambda }{\eta }}(\sigma _1^z\sigma _2^+\sigma _2^z\sigma _1^+)+{\displaystyle \frac{t\overline{\lambda }}{\eta }}(\sigma _1^z\sigma _2^{}\sigma _2^z\sigma _1^{});`$
$`JE_{02}(Q_{})`$ $`=\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{}}{2\eta }}(\sigma _1^+\sigma _2^{}\sigma _2^+\sigma _1^{})+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{t\lambda }{\eta }}(\sigma _1^+\sigma _2^+)\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{t\overline{\lambda }}{\eta }}(\sigma _1^{}\sigma _2^{}).`$
$`E_{02}(Q_{})`$ is a component of the infinitesimal generator $`Q_{}`$ and $`JE_{02}(Q_{})`$ is the adjoint order parameter operator to $`E_{02}(Q_{})`$.

It is clear from (9) that the dynamical equations (29) for the operators (30) contain only the relative energies $`ϵ_kϵ_l`$ given by:

$$\xi _\pm =\eta \pm U.$$

In particular, the energy gap $`\xi _+`$ is entering in the equations:

$$[h_\lambda ,E_{02}(Q_{})]=\mathrm{i}\xi _+JE_{02}(Q_{}),[h_\lambda ,JE_{02}(Q_{})]=\mathrm{i}\xi _+E_{02}(Q_{}),$$
(31)
$$[h_\lambda ,E_{13}(Q_+)]=\mathrm{i}\xi _+JE_{13}(Q_+),[h_\lambda ,JE_{13}(Q_+)]=\mathrm{i}\xi _+E_{13}(Q_+);$$
(32)
and the energy gap $`\xi _{}`$ in:

$$[h_\lambda ,E_{03}(Q_{})]=\mathrm{i}\xi _{}JE_{03}(Q_{}),[h_\lambda ,JE_{03}(Q_{})]=\mathrm{i}\xi _{}E_{03}(Q_{}),$$
(33)
$$[h_\lambda ,E_{12}(Q_+)]=\mathrm{i}\xi _{}JE_{12}(Q_+),[h_\lambda ,JE_{12}(Q_+)]=\mathrm{i}\xi _{}E_{12}(Q_+).$$
(34)
All these results are on the level of the microscopic observables. In particular one discovers in (31-34) that the dynamics leaves invariant the pairs $`(E_{02}(Q_{}),JE_{02}(Q_{}))`$, $`(E_{13}(Q_+),JE_{13}(Q_+))`$, $`(E_{03}(Q_{}),JE_{03}(Q_{}))`$ and $`(E_{12}(Q_+),JE_{12}(Q_+))`$. On the other hand the different pairs do not form canonical pairs of variables. Therefore, we have to consider the macroscopic variables, namely the fluctuations of these quantities. We know from section 3 that the fluctuation operators are canonical variables, satisfying the canonical commutation relations.

We treat explicitly the first pair appearing in the equation (31), and give the results for the other pairs without technical details.
Plasmon frequency $`\xi _+`$
With the notations of section 3, denote the fluctuations:

$`X_{02}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_{02}}}F_\lambda \left(E_{02}(Q_{})\right);`$ $`P_{02}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_{02}}}F_\lambda \left(JE_{02}(Q_{})\right),`$ (35)
where

$$n_{02}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\beta U}+\mathrm{e}^{\beta \eta }}{Z}\right)^{1/2};Z=2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta U)+2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta \eta ).$$

These satisfy (following (26)) the canonical commutation relation:

$$[X_{02},P_{02}]=\frac{1}{n_{02}^2}\omega _{\beta \lambda }\left([E_{02}(Q_{}),JE_{02}(Q_{})]\right)\mathrm{𝟏}=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}_+$$
(36)
with quantisation parameter:

$$\mathrm{}_+=\frac{4\xi _{}}{\eta }\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta \xi _+/2\right).$$
(37)
Following (25), the calculations for the variances are straightforward:

$$(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,X_{02}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,P_{02}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )=2\frac{\xi _{}}{\eta }.$$
(38)
Now compute the dynamics of these fluctuation operators induced by the microdynamics determined by the Hamiltonian $`h_\lambda `$ (5). In differential form the dynamics follows immediately from the equation (31):

$$\frac{d}{idt}\left(F_\lambda \left(E_{02}(Q_{})\right)\right)=F_\lambda \left([h_\lambda ,E_{02}(Q_{})]\right)=\mathrm{i}\xi _+F_\lambda \left(JE_{02}(Q_{})\right);$$

$$\frac{d}{idt}\left(F_\lambda \left(JE_{02}(Q_{})\right)\right)=F_\lambda \left([h_\lambda ,JE_{02}(Q_{})]\right)=\mathrm{i}\xi _+F_\lambda \left(E_{02}(Q_{})\right).$$

Using the notations (35) and in integrated form one gets:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X_{02}(t)=& X_{02}(0)\mathrm{cos}(\xi _+t)+P_{02}(0)\mathrm{sin}(\xi _+t);\hfill \\ \hfill P_{02}(t)=& X_{02}(0)\mathrm{sin}(\xi _+t)+P_{02}(0)\mathrm{cos}(\xi _+t).\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
i.e. the pair of macroscopic variables $`(X_{02},P_{02})`$ is a canonical pair (36), evolving in time, independently from all other degrees of freedom of the system, as a pair of quantum harmonic oscillator variables oscillating with a frequency $`\xi _+`$. Remark that if the temperature $`T`$ tends to the critical temperature $`T_c`$, i.e. when $`|\lambda |0`$, then $`\xi _{}0`$. It follows from the equations (38) that the pair disappears completely i.e. $`X_{02}=P_{02}=0`$ for $`TT_c`$.

This finishes the study of the first pair of fluctuation variables.

In a completely analogous way one defines the second pair of canonical fluctuation operators:

$`X_{13}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_{13}}}F_\lambda \left(E_{13}(Q_+)\right);`$ $`P_{13}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_{13}}}F_\lambda \left(JE_{13}(Q_+)\right);`$ (40)
with

$$n_{13}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\beta U}+\mathrm{e}^{\beta \eta }}{Z}\right)^{1/2}.$$

One gets, comparable to (36), (38) and (39):

$$[X_{13},P_{13}]=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}_+;$$
(41)
$$(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,X_{13}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,P_{13}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )=2\frac{\xi _{}}{\eta };$$
(42)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X_{13}(t)=& X_{13}(0)\mathrm{cos}(\xi _+t)+P_{13}(0)\mathrm{sin}(\xi _+t);\hfill \\ \hfill P_{13}(t)=& X_{13}(0)\mathrm{sin}(\xi _+t)+P_{13}(0)\mathrm{cos}(\xi _+t).\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
Plasmon frequency $`\xi _{}`$
Following (33), consider the third pair of canonical fluctuation operators

$`X_{03}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_{03}}}F_\lambda \left(E_{03}(Q_{})\right);`$ $`P_{03}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_{03}}}F_\lambda \left(JE_{03}(Q_{})\right),`$ (44)
where

$$n_{03}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\beta U}+\mathrm{e}^{\beta \eta }}{Z}\right)^{1/2}.$$

One gets

$$[X_{03},P_{03}]=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}_{}$$
(45)
with a new quantisation parameter,

$$\mathrm{}_{}=\frac{4\xi _+}{\eta }\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta \xi _{}/2\right);$$
(46)
variances,

$$(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,X_{03}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,P_{03}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )=2\frac{\xi _+}{\eta };$$
(47)
and dynamics

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X_{03}(t)=& X_{03}(0)\mathrm{cos}(\xi _{}t)+P_{03}(0)\mathrm{sin}(\xi _{}t);\hfill \\ \hfill P_{03}(t)=& X_{03}(0)\mathrm{sin}(\xi _{}t)+P_{03}(0)\mathrm{cos}(\xi _{}t).\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
Finally, following (34), consider the fourth pair of canonical fluctuation operators:

$`X_{12}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_{12}}}F_\lambda \left(E_{12}(Q_+)\right);`$ $`P_{12}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_{12}}}F_\lambda \left(JE_{12}(Q_+)\right),`$ (49)
where

$$n_{12}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\beta U}+\mathrm{e}^{\beta \eta }}{Z}\right)^{1/2}.$$

One computes the commutator:

$$[X_{12},P_{12}]=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}_{};$$
(50)
the variances,

$$(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,X_{12}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,P_{12}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )=2\frac{\xi _+}{\eta };$$
(51)
and the dynamics

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X_{12}(t)=& X_{12}(0)\mathrm{cos}(\xi _{}t)+P_{12}(0)\mathrm{sin}(\xi _{}t);\hfill \\ \hfill P_{12}(t)=& X_{12}(0)\mathrm{sin}(\xi _{}t)+P_{12}(0)\mathrm{cos}(\xi _{}t).\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
This completes the construction of the plasmon spectrum together with all its quantum normal modes. The next question is: are these four pairs (35,40,44,49) all different ? The question is relevant, because the mode variables are all fluctuations and coarse graining might make some of them equivalent, i.e. although $`A,BM_4^{sa}`$ and $`AB`$, $`F_\lambda (A)`$ might be equal to $`F_\lambda (B)`$. The problem of equivalence of fluctuation operators is considered before (see ). It turns out that they are equivalent, i.e. $`F_\lambda (A)=F_\lambda (B)`$, if and only if

$$(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda ,F_\lambda (AB)^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\lambda )=\omega _{\beta \lambda }\left(\left(AB\omega _{\beta \lambda }\left(AB\right)\right)^2\right)=0.$$
(53)
If we take for $`A,B`$ the operators $`E_{ij}(Q_\pm )`$ and $`JE_{ij}(Q_\pm )`$ with $`i<j`$, then clearly

$$\omega _{\beta \lambda }(E_{ij}(Q_\pm ))=\omega _{\beta \lambda }(JE_{ij}(Q_\pm ))=0$$

and we have to check

$$\omega _{\beta \lambda }\left(\left(AB\right)^2\right)=\omega _{\beta \lambda }\left(A^2+B^2ABBA\right)=0;$$
(54)
for $`A`$ and $`B`$ taken out of different pairs $`(E_{02}(Q_{}),JE_{02}(Q_{}))`$, $`(E_{13}(Q_+),JE_{13}(Q_+))`$, $`(E_{03}(Q_{}),JE_{03}(Q_{}))`$, $`(E_{12}(Q_+),JE_{12}(Q_+))`$. It is immediately checked that in this case always $`\omega _{\beta \lambda }\left(AB\right)=\omega _{\beta \lambda }\left(BA\right)=0`$. Hence, (54) reduces to

$$\omega _{\beta \lambda }\left(\left(AB\right)^2\right)=\omega _{\beta \lambda }\left(A^2+B^2\right)0;$$

which follows from (38),(42),(47) and (51). Hence, the four pairs of canonical fluctuation operators are all independent, proving the two-fold degeneracy of the plasmon frequency $`\xi _+`$ and $`\xi _{}`$.

Finally, remark that if the temperature $`T`$ tends to the critical temperature, i.e. when $`\lambda 0`$, then the pairs $`(X_{02},P_{02})`$ (35) and $`(X_{13},P_{13})`$ (40) disappear completely. On the other hand the pairs $`(X_{03},P_{03})`$ (44) and $`(X_{12},P_{12})`$ (49) become classical variables (see (45) and (50)), and become constants of the motions (see (48) and (52)). In fact for $`TT_c`$ the continuous symmetry group (23) is restored. The fluctuation operators $`X_{03}`$ and $`X_{12}`$ are the fluctuations of the generators of this symmetry. The fluctuation operators $`P_{03}`$ and $`P_{12}`$ are the total particle current and relative particle current fluctuations. For $`T<T_c`$ the physical interpretation of these operators remains the same with the basic difference that they show a definite collective or macroscopic quantum character, and a non-trivial oscillatory time behaviour. We remind that the results derived for this model are mathematically rigorous. In view of the recent interest in interferences between Bose-Einstein condensates with Josephson-like coupling  an extension of our model including such a coupling raises over as the natural thing to do next. We leave it for a future contribution.

Acknowledgement: The authors thank Tom Michoel for helpful discussions.