text:
# Inverse problems in 𝑁-body scattering

G. U. is partially supported by NSF grant #DMS-00-70488 and a John Simon Guggenheim fellowship. A. V. is partially supported by NSF grant #DMS-0201092 and a Fellowship from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Scattering theory is the analysis of the motion of several interacting particles. Inverse problems in scattering theory seek the answer to the question: can one determine the interactions between particles by a scattering experiment? That is, if one shoots a number of particles at each other in an accelarator and observes the outcome, can one find out how the particles interact? In this note we attempt to explain this problem and the existing results, and we also sketch the proof of the extension of our recent three-body result to the many-body case: this requires only minor modifications. We also indicate how to extend the inverse result of  to the many-body case.

Before stating many-body results, we recall the simpler two-body setting, where (after removal of the center of mass) one studies the Hamiltonian $`\mathrm{\Delta }+V`$ on $`^n`$ for some $`n`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the positive Laplacian on $`^n`$, and $`V`$ is a function on $`^n`$ that decays at infinity. Thus, $`V`$ can be considered a perturbation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and hence a relatively simple analysis of scattering is possible. We recall that at high energies $`V`$ can be considered a perturbation in an even stronger sense. Roughly, at high energies, $`V`$ is not only relatively compact, but also relatively small (compared to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$), so one can use the Born approximation to study inverse scattering. In particular, it is easy to recover $`V`$ from the high energy ($`\lambda +\mathrm{}`$) asymptotics of the scattering matrix $`𝒮(\lambda )`$ – this is the object that captures the relationship between the initial ($`t\mathrm{}`$) and final ($`t+\mathrm{}`$) state of the particles of energy $`\lambda `$, and which is described below. If one only knows the scattering matrix at a fixed energy $`\lambda `$, it is still possible to recover $`V`$, at least for compactly supported, or indeed exponentially decaying, potentials . For short-range potentials that are symbols, it is possible to recover the asymptotics of the potential at infinity using fixed energy information only, see . For Schwartz potentials $`V`$ (whose asymptotics is thus trivial) there are counterexamples to the fixed energy problem , namely there are ‘transparent’ potentials, but it would be interesting to know whether the S-matrix given in a finite interval determines the potential, since this would have direct applications in many-body scattering, see Theorem 1.

In fact, there are many inverse problems that one can study. If there are more than two particles, they may have a number of initial (or incoming) and final (or outgoing) configurations. For example, one can shoot $`N`$ electrons at each other, let them interact, and observe the outcome. Since the electrons repel each other, we will have $`N`$ (asymptotically) free particles as the outcome. This is $`N`$-cluster to $`N`$-cluster scattering: there were $`N`$ clusters of particles (each consisting of a single electron) both initially and finally.

In a physically much more relevant way, one may shoot an electron at a target which is a composite particle, for example an atom or ion. If the energy of the electron is high enough, the ion may break up e.g. a helium ion may break up into the nucleus and an electron. If the atom/ion breaks up into $`k`$ parts, this is two-cluster to $`k+1`$-cluster scattering: initially there were two clusters, namely the electron and the ion, and finally there are $`k+1`$: the $`k`$ parts of the atom/ion and the initial electron. For the helium ion, if the ion breaks up into the nucleus and an electron, $`k=2`$, so this is two-cluster to three-cluster scattering. Or, the atom/ion may not break up, though it may become excited, and eventually one will have an atom/ion and an electron, just as initially. This is two-cluster to two-cluster scattering. If in addition the ion is in the same final and initial states, the problem may be instead considered as a two-body problem, with the ion and the electron comprising the two (now composite) particles; indeed, this is the usual way one thinks of such an experiment physically, at least at low energies. A natural question is then whether this is an accurate description, i.e. whether the more complete three-particle analysis gives the same predictions as the simplified two-particle approach.

Another classification of inverse problems is by the energy range in which the scattering data are known. High energy problems have been extensively studied by Enss and Weder , Novikov  and Wang . Namely, as mentioned above, at high energies the potential (the interaction) is small compared to the Laplacian (the kinetic energy), in an appropriate sense. Thus, one can use the Born approximation to study inverse problems and recover information about the interactions. In this note we discuss fixed energy problems, and problems where a component of the scattering matrix is known in a bounded interval of energies.

We first recall that the actual $`N`$-body Hamiltonian for $`d`$-dimensional particles takes the following form:

(1)
$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{q_i}+\underset{i<j}{}V_{ij}(q_iq_j),$$

where $`q_i^d`$ is the position and $`m_i`$ is the mass of particle $`i`$, while $`V_{ij}`$ is the interaction between particles $`i`$ and $`j`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is Planck’s constant. Note that $`H`$ is an operator on (functions on) $`^{Nd}`$. The quantum $`N`$-body problem is then the analysis of the Schrödinger equation $`i\mathrm{}_tu=Hu`$, i.e. of the propagator $`e^{iHt}`$, as $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$, or equivalently, by taking the $`t`$-Fourier transform, of tempered distributional solutions of $`(H\lambda )u=0`$.

It is convenient to generalize the framework, introducing some notation due to Agmon and Sigal; see  for a detailed discussion of the setup. We work on a vector space $`X_0`$ endowed with a translation invariant metric $`g`$; by introduction of an orthonormal basis we may of course identify it with $`^n`$, as we usually do below. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ be the positive Laplacian of $`g`$. We are also given a finite collection $`𝒳=\{X_a:aI\}`$ of linear subspaces $`X_a`$ of $`X_0=^n`$, called the collision planes. It is convenient to assume that $`𝒳`$ is closed under intersections, and includes $`X_0=^n`$ and $`X_1=\{0\}`$. We let $`X^a=X_a^{}`$ be the orthocomplement of $`X_a`$ in $`^n`$, so $`^n=X_aX^a`$. We write the corresponding coordinates as $`(x_a,x^a)`$, and denote the projection to $`X^a`$ by $`\pi ^a`$. A many-body Hamiltonian is an operator of the form

$$H=\mathrm{\Delta }+\underset{a}{}(\pi ^a)^{}V_a,$$

where $`V_a`$ is a real valued function on $`X^a`$ in a certain class, for example $`V_a`$ is a symbol on $`X^a`$ of negative order: $`V_aS^\rho (X^a)`$, $`\rho >0`$. We drop the pull-back notation from now on and write $`H=\mathrm{\Delta }+_aV_a`$. Since here we are interested in spectral theory, and $`V_0`$ is a function on a point, hence a constant, it is convenient to assume that $`V_0=0`$: otherwise it would simply shift the spectral parameter.

In the standard example, (1), the collison planes are $`X_{ij}=\{q_i=q_j\}`$, as well as their intersections. Thus, at $`X_{ij}`$ particles $`i`$ and $`j`$ are at the same place, hence the name ‘collision plane’.

The main feature of many-body problems is that even if $`V_a`$ decays at infinity on $`X^a`$, it does not decay at infinity in $`^n`$ since it is a constant along $`X_a`$ as well as along its translates $`X_a+\{\overline{x}^a\}`$, $`\overline{x}^aX^a`$, so it does not decay if we go to infinity, say, along $`X_a`$.

In the two-body problem one actually has $`H=\mathrm{\Delta }_{q_1,q_2}+V_{12}(q_1q_2)`$, i.e. $`V_{12}`$ still does not decay at infinity, e.g. if one keeps $`q_1=q_2`$ but lets $`q_1\mathrm{}`$. However, one can easily remove the center of mass by performing a Fourier transform along $`X_{12}`$, and then one reduces the problem to the study of a Hamiltonian on $`X^{12}`$ of the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }+V_{12}`$ where $`V_{12}`$ decays at infinity (we are working on $`X^{12}`$!). This reduced Hamiltonian can be considered as a perturbation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, hence its analysis is rather simple.

The center of mass can also be removed in any actual many-body problem, but one still obtains a Hamiltonian with non-decaying potentials as before.

We also need to introduce subsystem Hamiltonians to describe bound states such as atoms and ions. We order the clusters by inclusion of the $`X^a`$, so

$$X^aX^b\text{iff}ab.$$

For the collision planes the relation is thus reversed, so $`X_aX_b`$ if and only if $`ab`$. We say that $`a`$ is a $`k`$-cluster if the maximum number of elements in a chain with minimal element $`a`$ is $`k`$. Thus, if $`X_a`$ is such that $`X_bX_a`$ implies $`b=a`$ or $`b=1`$, then $`a`$ is a 2-cluster, while $`1`$ is a 1-cluster. If $`0`$ is an $`N`$-cluster, we call $`H`$ an $`N`$-body Hamiltonian. It is easy to see that this agrees with the usual terminology for the physical $`N`$-body Hamiltonian (1), with center of mass removed. For example, in a three-body problem one gets that $`X_aX_b=\{0\}`$ if $`ab`$, $`a,b0,1`$.

Corresponding to each cluster $`a`$ we introduce the cluster Hamiltonian $`H^a`$ as an operator on $`L^2(X^a)`$ given by

(2)
$$H^a=\mathrm{\Delta }_{X^a}+\underset{ba}{}V_b=\mathrm{\Delta }_{X^a}+V^a,$$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{X^a}`$ being the Laplacian of the induced metric on $`X^a`$. Thus, if $`H`$ is a $`N`$-body Hamiltonian and $`a`$ is a $`k`$-cluster, then $`H^a`$ is a $`(N+1k)`$-body Hamiltonian. The $`L^2`$ eigenfunctions of $`H^a`$ (also called bound states) play an important role in many-body scattering. We denote $`L^2`$ eigenvalues and normalized eigenfunctions of $`H^a`$ by $`ϵ_\alpha `$ and $`\psi _\alpha `$, so $`(H^aϵ_\alpha )\psi _\alpha =0`$. The pair $`(a,\psi _\alpha )`$ is called a channel. We remark that by a result of Froese and Herbst, , $`ϵ_\alpha 0`$ for all $`\alpha `$ (there are no positive eigenvalues). Moreover, $`\mathrm{spec}_{pp}(H^a)`$ is bounded below since $`H^a`$ differs from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by a bounded operator. Note that $`X^0=\{0\}`$, $`H^0=0`$, so the unique eigenvalue of $`H^0`$ is $`0`$.

The eigenvalues of $`H^b`$ can be used to define the set of thresholds of $`H^a`$. Namely, we let

(3)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_a=_{b<a}\mathrm{spec}_{pp}(H^b)$$

be the set of thresholds of $`H^a`$, and we also let

(4)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_a\mathrm{spec}_{pp}(H^a)=_{ba}\mathrm{spec}_{pp}(H^b).$$

Thus, $`0\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ for $`a0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a(\mathrm{},0]`$. It follows from the Mourre theory (see e.g. ) that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ is closed, countable, and $`\mathrm{spec}_{pp}(H^a)`$ can only accumulate at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$. In addition, $`L^2`$ eigenfunctions of $`H^a`$ with eigenvalues which are not thresholds are necessarily Schwartz functions on $`X^a`$ (in fact, they decay exponentially, see ). We write

$$I_a=\underset{ba}{}V_b$$

for the intercluster interaction. Thus $`I_a`$ is a function on $`^n`$.

The point of intruducing $`H^a`$ and $`H_a=\mathrm{\Delta }_{X_a}+H^a`$ is that near

$$X_{a,\text{reg}}=X_aX_{a,\text{sing}},\text{where}X_{a,\text{sing}}=_{b>a}X_b,$$

$`H_a`$ is a good model for $`H`$ since $`I_a=HH_a`$ decays at infinity along $`X_{a,\text{reg}}`$. (Here we are using that if $`ba`$, then the collision plane $`X_c=X_bX_a`$ satisfies $`c>a`$, i.e. $`X_cX_a`$.)

If we consider the two-cluster to two-cluster problem as a two-body problem by regarding the atom/ion as a single particle, we essentially work on $`X_a`$ by projecting to a bound state $`\psi _\alpha `$ of $`H^a`$ and using the effective interaction

$$V_{\alpha ,\mathrm{eff}}=_{X^a}I_a|\psi _\alpha |^2𝑑x^a,$$

which is a function on $`X_a`$. For various reasons, including the results in high energy settings, it is clear that we can only hope to recover $`V_{\alpha ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ (rather than $`I_a`$) by studying the corresponding (i.e. state $`\alpha `$ to itself) two-cluster to two-cluster scattering matrix.

We can now describe the S-matrices following . We warn the reader that the normalization this gives is geometric as in , and is different from the standard wave-operator normalization. The difference is essentially given by pull-back by an antipodal map on the sphere. Thus, free particles propagate in straight lines, i.e. they leave in the opposite direction from where they came, so in the geometric formulation, in the absence of interactions, the outgoing data are supported in the image of the support of the incoming data under the antipodal map. An incoming wave of energy $`\lambda `$ in the channel $`\alpha `$ is a function of the form

$$u_{\alpha ,}=e^{i\sqrt{\lambda ϵ_\alpha }|x_a|}|x_a|^{\frac{dimX_a1}{2}}g_{\alpha ,}(\frac{x_a}{|x_a|})\psi _\alpha (x^a)+\text{faster decaying terms},$$

and an outgoing wave has the form

$$u_{\alpha ,+}=e^{i\sqrt{\lambda ϵ_\alpha }|x_a|}|x_a|^{\frac{dimX_a1}{2}}g_{\alpha ,+}(\frac{x_a}{|x_a|})\psi _\alpha (x^a)+\text{faster decaying terms},$$

i.e. the sign of the phase has changed. Here $`g_{\alpha ,\pm }`$ may be taken e.g. $`L^2`$ functions on $`𝕊_a`$, the unit sphere in $`X_a`$, or ideally, at least one of them may be taken $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$. One is then interested in generalized eigenfunctions of $`H`$, i.e. tempered distributions $`u`$ on $`^n`$ that solves $`(H\lambda )u=0`$. A typical example is of the form

(5)
$$u=u_{\alpha ,}(H(\lambda +i0))^1((H\lambda )u_{\alpha ,});$$

here the faster decaying terms may even be dropped without affecting $`u`$ and $`g_{\alpha ,}`$ can be specified to be any smooth function on $`𝕊_a`$. In general, even if the incoming data are in a single channel $`\alpha `$, as in (5), the corresponding generalized eigenfunction $`u`$ of $`H`$ will have outgoing waves in all channels. The S-matrix $`𝒮_{\alpha \beta }(\lambda )`$ picks out the component in channel $`\beta `$ by projection in a certain sense, see . Thus, $`𝒮_{\alpha \beta }(\lambda )`$ maps functions on $`𝕊_a`$, the unit sphere in $`X_a`$, to functions on $`𝕊_b`$, by

$$𝒮_{\alpha \beta }(\lambda )g_{\alpha ,}=g_{\beta ,+}$$

for $`u`$ as in (5). For example, the free-to-free (i.e. $`N`$-cluster to $`N`$-cluster in $`N`$-body scattering) S-matrix $`𝒮_{00}(\lambda )`$ maps functions on $`𝕊_0`$, the unit sphere in $`^n`$, to functions on $`𝕊_0`$, more precisely $`𝒮_{00}(\lambda ):L^2(𝕊_0)L^2(𝕊_0)`$ is bounded. Below we write $`𝕊_{a,\text{reg}}=𝕊_aX_{a,\text{reg}}`$.

The first many-body result we state, slightly informally, is an ‘old’ direct result of the second author  and Hassell , which in turn can be considered as the extension of a result of Melrose and Zworski  on asymptotically Euclidean spaces (i.e. in geometric two-body scattering). Its essential ingredient is the propagation of singularities, here meaning microlocal lack of decay at infinity, much as for real principal type PDEs in the usual microlocal setting, shown in the work of Hörmander  and Kashiwara-Kawai  for $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ resp. analytic singularities in the absence of boundaries, by Melrose and Sjöstrand  and Taylor  for smooth boundaries and $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ singularities, and for analytic singularities by Sjöstrand , and by Lebeau  for analytic singularities at corners. The relationship is that two-body scattering is a simpler version of the boundariless setting , as shown by the Fourier transform, while 3-body scattering is analogous to the problems with smooth boundaries, and more than three bodies correspond to the corners.

###### Theorem 1.

Suppose that $`H`$ is a three-body Hamiltonian and the $`V_a`$ are Schwartz on $`X^a`$ for all $`a`$. Then $`𝒮_{00}(\lambda )`$ is a finite sum of Fourier integral operators (FIOs) associated to the broken geodesic relation on $`𝕊_0`$ to distance $`\pi `$. Its canonical relation corresponds to the various collision patterns. The principal symbol of the term corresponding to a single collision at $`X_a`$ is given by, and in turn determines, the 2-body S-matrix of $`H^a`$ at energies $`\lambda ^{}(0,\lambda )`$.

This result presumably extends to short range symbolic potentials, using the same methods, though it is technically more complicated to write down the argument in that case, and it has not been done. However, it was shown in  and  that in $`N`$-body scattering, $`N`$ arbitrary, the wave front relation of all S-matrices is given by the broken bicharacteristic relation. Thus, the location of the singularities of the Schwartz kernel of the S-matrix is known, but their precise form, e.g. that they are those of an FIO, is not known except in three-body scattering. (Also, in some parts of the wave front relation the singularities can be described precisely in the $`N`$-body setting, as we do below in Theorem 3.)

An immediate corollary, when combined with two-body results (e.g. analyticity of the S-matrix in $`\lambda ^{}`$ and the Born approximation) is the following inverse result.

###### Corollary 2.

In three-body scattering, if the $`V_a`$ decay exponentially and $`dimX_a2`$ for all $`a`$ then $`𝒮_{00}(\lambda )`$ for a single value of $`\lambda `$ determines all interactions.

This result is analogous to the recovery of cracks in a material by directing sound waves at it and observing the singularities of the reflected waves, except the last step which uses two-body results to get the potentials from the two-body S-matrices – and apart from the fact that the crack recovery result does not seem to exist in the literature! Note that in 3-body scattering (and also in $`N`$-body scattering if the set of thresholds is discrete) there is only a finite number of possible collision patterns. Generalized broken bicharacteristics are curves in a compressed phase space described in , or in a more leasurely way in . A subset of this family is the set of broken bicharacteristics, which are piecewise bicharacteristics of the metric function $`g`$, i.e. integral curves of its Hamilton vector field in $`T^{}X_0=(X_0)_x\times (X_0^{})_\xi `$, that satisfy in addition that at each break point at $`X_{b,\text{reg}}\times X_0`$, the momenta $`\xi `$, $`\xi ^{}`$ of the two segments meeting there differ by an element of $`(X^b)^{}`$, i.e. $`\xi \xi ^{}`$ vanishes on (or is conormal to) $`X_b`$. This means that in a collision at $`X_{b,\text{reg}}`$, the energy and the component of the momentum tangential to $`X_b`$ are conserved, similarly to geometric optics. A convenient way of making the broken bicharacteristics continuous is to compress the phase space, by identifying points $`(x,\xi )`$ and $`(x,\xi ^{})`$ if $`xX_{b,\text{reg}}`$ and $`\xi \xi ^{}(X^b)^{}`$. Such a description is in fact necessary for generalized broken bicharacteristics, but the new analysis below involves only broken bicharacteristics, so we adopt the more naive piecewise continuous curve approach and work in $`X_0\times X_0^{}`$. (In 3-body scattering every generalized broken bicharacteristic is such a broken bicharacteristic, but this is not true in general.) Note that a bicharacteristic segment of $`g`$ is a curve of the form

(6)
$$x(t)=\overline{x}+2t\overline{\xi },\xi =\overline{\xi },tJ,J\text{an interval},$$

i.e. is a straight line segment with constant momentum. In addition, $`|\xi |^2`$ is the kinetic energy, so in the free region, $`X_{0,\text{reg}}`$, $`|\xi |^2=\lambda `$, but for particles in a bound state of energy $`ϵ_\alpha `$, we actually have $`|\xi |^2+ϵ_\alpha =\lambda `$.

In fact, in  the phase space is compactified, much as in , which here essentially means a quotient by the $`^+`$-action on $`X_0\times X_0^{}`$ that is simply the dilation in the $`X_0`$ component. Taking $`𝕊_0\times X_0^{}`$ as a transversal to this action, the bicharacteristic segments become curves on $`𝕊_0\times X_0^{}`$. Below we freely use this identification without further commenting on it. Then the projection of a broken bicharacteristic segment to $`𝕊_0`$ is a (reparameterized) geodesic, and in 3-body scattering the total length of these segments for a maximally extended broken bicharacteristic is $`\pi `$, see Figure 1. (One example, corresponding to an unbroken bicharacteristic, i.e. a straight line, is half of a great circle on $`𝕊_0`$, connecting antipodal points.)

Unfortunately, this was necessarily a very brief and incomplete discussion, and we refer the reader to  for a much more detailed description of generalized broken bicharacteristics.

While the $`N`$-cluster to $`N`$-cluster S-matrix is more complicated in general than for $`N=3`$, and in particular the FIO result is not known, it was proved in  that the wave front relation of the S-matrices is given by the generalized broken bicharacteristic relation. These generalized broken bicharacteristics can be quite complicated in the presence of bound states; not all of them are necessarily broken bicharacteristics. However, it turns out that for an open dense subset of the relation corresponding to a single collision in an $`(N1)`$-cluster $`b`$ there are no generalized broken bicharacteristics relating these points except those with a single break at $`b`$.

Indeed, it is easy to write down this relation, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$; this was done, for example, in \[30, Section 6\]. Recall that when discussing canonical relations, such as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_bT^{}𝕊_0\times T^{}𝕊_0`$, it is convenient to use the twisted symplectic form $`\omega \omega ^{}`$ where $`\omega `$, resp. $`\omega ^{}`$, is the standard symplectic form on the first, resp. second, copy of $`T^{}𝕊_0`$. We identify points in $`(y,\mu )T^{}𝕊_0`$ with pairs $`(y,\mu )𝕊_0\times X_0=𝕊_0\times ^n`$ such that $`y\mu =0`$, and write $`P_y^{}`$ for the orthogonal projection to the orthocomplement to $`\mathrm{span}\{y\}`$. Then the relation is the twisted conormal bundle of

(7)
$$\{(y,y^{}):y_b^{}=y_b,y^{}𝕊_0𝕊_b\}$$

with the zero section removed (twisting means that the sign of the dual variable of $`y^{}`$ is changed); the restriction $`y^{}𝕊_0𝕊_b`$ ensures that (7) is a smooth manifold. Its twisted conormal bundle is

(8)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }_b=\{(y,\mu ,y^{},\mu ^{}):& y^{}𝕊_0𝕊_b,y_b=y_b^{},\mu _b=\mu _b^{},\hfill \\ & \mu ^b=Cy^b,(\mu ^{})^b=C(y^{})^b,C=\frac{\mu _by_b}{|y_b|^2}\},\hfill \end{array}$$

i.e. is parameterized by $`(y^{},y^b,\mu _b)`$ with $`y^{}𝕊_0𝕊_b`$, $`y^bX^b`$ satisfying $`|y^b|^2=1|y_b^{}|^2`$, and $`\mu _b^{}X_b\{0\}`$. Note that $`C`$ is determined by $`y\mu =0=y^{}\mu ^{}`$.

The (unbroken) geodesic of length $`\pi `$ on $`𝕊_0`$ associated to $`(y^{},\mu ^{})`$ is the arc given by $`(\mathrm{span}\{y^{}\}+\{c\mu ^{}:c>0\})𝕊_0`$; it is thus the great circle starting at $`y^{}`$ in the direction $`\mu ^{}`$. Rather than using $`\mu _b^{}`$ as a parameter in (8), it is natural to use $`z𝕊_b`$ and $`|\mu ^{}|=|\mu |`$, where $`z`$ is the point at which the broken geodesic hits $`𝕊_b`$. Thus, $`\mu ^{}=cP_y^{}^{}z`$, $`c>0`$, and an alternative description of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ is

(9)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }_b=\{(y,\mu ,y^{},\mu ^{}):& z𝕊_b,c>0,y^{}𝕊_0𝕊_b,y_b=y_b^{},\hfill \\ & \mu =cP_y^{}z,\mu ^{}=cP_y^{}^{}z\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, $`y𝕊_{0,\text{reg}}`$, $`z𝕊_b`$, $`y^bX^b`$ with $`|y^b|^2=1|y_b^{}|^2`$, and $`|\mu |`$ parameterize $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. (It is straightforward to express $`z`$ in terms of $`(y^{},\mu ^{})`$ as well, and show that the change of variables $`(y^{},\mu ^{})(y^{},z)`$ is smooth.) The reader may find it helpful to study the parameterizations (11)-(12) below.

We also $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ be the free bicharacteristic relation, which is thus the twisted conormal bundle of $`y=y^{}`$.

Let

(10)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{}=\{(y,\mu ,y^{},\mu ^{}):z𝕊_{b,\text{reg}},& c>0,y_b=y_b^{},\mu =cP_y^{}z,\mu ^{}=cP_y^{}^{}z,\hfill \\ & yy^{},y,y^{}\mathrm{span}(z)X_a\text{for any}a0,b\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then we have the following new result, generalizing Theorem 1.

###### Theorem 3.

Suppose that $`H`$ is an $`N`$-body Hamiltonian and the $`V_a`$ are Schwartz on $`X^a`$ for all $`a`$, $`dimX^a2`$ for all $`a`$. With $`b`$ an $`(N1)`$-cluster, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{}`$ as above, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{}`$ is an open dense subset of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. Moreover, $`𝒮_{00}(\lambda )`$ is a Fourier integral operator microlocally at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{}`$, and its principal symbol at $`(y,\mu ,y^{},\mu ^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ is determined by, and in turn determines, the Schwartz kernel of the S-matrix $`𝒮^b(\lambda |y^b|)`$ of $`H^b`$ (which is a 2-body Hamiltonian) at $`(\frac{y^b}{|y^b|},\frac{(y^{})^b}{|y^b|})`$. In particular, $`𝒮_{00}(\lambda )`$ determines $`𝒮^b(\sigma )`$ for $`\sigma (0,\lambda ]`$, hence also $`V_b`$, provided that $`V_b`$ decays exponentially.

###### Proof.

First, openness is clear since each additional condition in the definition (10) of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{}`$ (as compared to (9)) gives an open subset of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$, and the intersection of these is open.

To see density, for $`z𝕊_{b,\text{reg}}`$, note that $`X_a\mathrm{span}(z)`$ has codimension $`dimX^a11`$ in $`X_0`$, so imposing the additional conditions $`z𝕊_{b,\text{reg}}`$ and $`y^{}\mathrm{span}(z)X_a`$ for any $`a0,b`$ certainly gives a dense subset of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$.

Consider $`y^{}𝕊_{0,\text{reg}}_{ab,0}(X_a\mathrm{span}(z))`$. Then a point in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ is specified by giving $`y𝕊_0`$ satisfying $`y_b=y_b^{}`$, and $`|\mu |`$. The projection of the corresponding bicharacteristic segments to the base space, $`𝕊_0`$, i.e. the corresponding geodesics connecting $`y^{}`$ and $`z`$, resp. $`y`$ and $`z`$, lie in $`\mathrm{span}\{y^{},z\}𝕊_0`$ and $`\mathrm{span}\{y,z\}𝕊_0`$. If these intersect $`X_a`$ then $`sy^{}+tzX_a`$, resp. $`sy+tzX_a`$, for some $`(s,t)^2`$ so $`y^{}X_a\mathrm{span}\{z\}`$, resp. $`yX_a\mathrm{span}\{z\}`$, as $`s0`$. (For $`s=0`$ gives $`zX_a`$, contradicting $`z𝕊_{b,\text{reg}}`$.) Note that $`y^{}X_a\mathrm{span}\{z\}`$ by assumption. It remains to show that the set of $`y𝕊_{0,\text{reg}}`$ with $`y_b=y_b^{}`$ and $`yX_a\mathrm{span}\{z\}`$ is also dense inside

$$S=\{y𝕊_0:y_b=y_b^{}\}.$$

Thus, $`S`$ is a sphere inside the affine space $`\{y_b^{}\}+X^b`$, centered at $`y_b^{}`$, of radius $`\sqrt{1|y_b^{}|^2}`$. The other conditions on $`y`$ state that it does not lie on various affine subspaces $`W_a`$, namely $`X_a\mathrm{span}\{z\}`$, $`a0,b`$, and $`W_b=X_b`$, and in addition $`yy^{}`$. But the intersection of a sphere with an affine space $`W`$ is a lower dimensional sphere, unless the whole sphere lies in $`W`$. Since $`y=y^{}`$ does not lie on any of these affine subspaces $`W_a`$, $`a0`$, all of these intersections are lower dimensional spheres, so in fact the set of $`y`$ satisfying $`yX_a\mathrm{span}\{z\}`$ and $`y𝕊_{0,\text{reg}}`$ is the complement of the union of compact codimension $`1`$ submanifolds of $`S`$, and hence is dense in $`S`$. (A slightly different way of arguing is to say that if a point $`\overline{y}`$ lies in one of these affine spaces, then the arc between $`\overline{y}`$ and $`y^{}`$ only meets this space inside $`\mathrm{span}\{\overline{y}\}`$, for otherwise $`y^{}`$ would also lie in this affine space, giving the density rather explicitly.) Since $`y=y^{}`$ is a single point in $`S`$, and $`S`$ has dimension $`dimX^b11`$, the density follows even if we impose $`yy^{}`$.

The bicharacteristics (6) of the free Hamiltonian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, at energy $`\lambda `$, can be parameterized by $`p=(y,\mu )T^{}𝕊_0`$ by

(11)
$$\gamma _p(t)=(x(t),\xi (t)),x(t)=\frac{\mu }{\sqrt{\lambda }}+2t\xi ,\xi (t)=\sqrt{\lambda }y.$$

The analogous ‘incoming’ parameterization, $`\gamma _p^{}^{}(t)=(x^{}(t),\xi ^{}(t))`$, $`p^{}=(y^{},\mu ^{})`$, simply switches the sign of $`y`$ and $`\mu `$, i.e. it is

(12)
$$x(t)=\frac{\mu ^{}}{\sqrt{\lambda }}+2t\xi ,\xi (t)=\sqrt{\lambda }y^{},$$

so as $`t+\mathrm{}`$, $`\frac{x(t)}{|x(t)|}y`$ along $`\gamma _p`$, while as $`t\mathrm{}`$, $`\frac{x(t)}{|x(t)|}y^{}`$ along $`\gamma _p^{}^{}`$. The normalization of these parameterizations may seem strange; they arise by considering the graph of $`d(\sqrt{\lambda }xy)`$, resp. $`d(\sqrt{\lambda }xy^{})`$, (recall that $`e^{\pm i\sqrt{\lambda }xy}`$ is, up to constants, the Schwartz kernel of the free Poisson operator!), expressing $`x`$ and $`\xi `$ in terms of $`(y,\mu )`$ and an additional parameter $`t`$, and then changing the sign of the $`\mu `$ component, corresponding to the twisting.

Now suppose that $`(p,p^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{}`$, $`p=(y,\mu )`$, $`p^{}=(y^{},\mu ^{})`$. Then there is a unique generalized broken bicharacteristic ‘connecting’ $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$, i.e. with $`\gamma `$ such that for large $`|t|`$, up to reparameterization, $`\gamma `$ is given by $`\gamma _p`$ and $`\gamma _p^{}^{}`$; say $`\gamma |_{[T,+\mathrm{})}`$ coincides with $`\gamma _p`$ and $`\gamma |_{(\mathrm{},T^{}]}`$ coincides with $`\gamma _p^{}^{}`$, up to reparameterization. Moreover, a generalized broken bicharacteristic (being a bicharacteristic in $`T^{}X_{0,\text{reg}}`$) has a unique continuation until it hits $`𝕊_c`$ for some $`c0`$, so we may assume that $`\gamma (T),\gamma (T^{})𝕊_{0,\text{sing}}`$. Note that $`\gamma _0`$, the broken bicharacteristic with a single break at $`𝕊_b`$ (with some parameterization), is such a bicharacteristic, so $`\gamma (t)=\gamma _0(tt_+)`$, $`tT`$, and $`\gamma (t)=\gamma _0(tt_{})`$, $`tT^{}`$. In particular, $`\gamma _0(T^{}t_{}),\gamma _0(Tt_+)𝕊_{0,\text{sing}}`$. Since $`\gamma _0`$ has a unique such point, they are equal, so $`T^{}t_{}=Tt_+`$, and $`q=\gamma (T^{})=\gamma (T)`$. Since the radial momentum, $`\frac{x\xi }{|x|}`$, is strictly increasing along $`\gamma `$ away from the radial points, in particular at $`q`$, we deduce that $`T^{}=T`$, hence $`\gamma =\gamma _0`$ as claimed. (Recall that radial points are those where the Hamilton vector field is radial, which in this case means that for $`xX_{b,\text{reg}}`$, $`\xi _b=cx`$ for some $`c`$.)

To construct $`𝒮_{00}(\lambda )`$ microlocally, we construct the Poisson operators first. Microlocally a good approximation for these are the Poisson operators $`𝒫_{0,+}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )`$ of $`H_b`$, which are easy to write down explicitly, see , since $`H_b`$ is ‘product-type’: a 2-body Hamiltonian $`H^b`$ with the ‘center of mass’ kinetic energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{X_b}`$ added back. For suitable microlocal cutoffs $`T_+`$ (which are thus ps.d.o.’s)

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝒫_{0,+}(\lambda )g=𝒫_{0,+}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )gR(\lambda +i0)I_b𝒫_{0,+}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )g,\hfill \\ & 𝒮_{00}(\lambda )g=((H\lambda )T_+𝒫_{0,}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda ))^{}𝒫_{0,+}(\lambda );\hfill \end{array}$$

see  or \[34, Equation (4.2)\]. Now, the wave front relation of

$$((H\lambda )T_+𝒫_{0,}(\lambda ))^{}R(\lambda +i0)I_b𝒫_{0,+}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )$$

is a subset of the generalized broken bicharacteristic relation, but it includes only those generalized broken bicharacteristics on which $`I_b`$ is not Schwartz, i.e. which go through points over $`𝕊_a`$ with $`a0,b`$. (See the proof of Theorem 2.8 in \[33, Section 10\] for a similar argument.) In particular, it does not contain any points in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{}`$, so microlocally at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^{}`$, $`𝒮_{00}(\lambda )`$ is given by

(13)
$$((H\lambda )T_+𝒫_{0,}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda ))^{}𝒫_{0,+}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )$$

But this is an FIO by exactly the same proof as in the three-body setting , proving the FIO statement.

The rest of the proof is exactly as in \[30, Proposition 6.4\], using the explicit form of (13). ∎

The other new result is in 2-cluster to 2-cluster scattering. To set it up, we first state a theorem of Skibsted .

###### Theorem.

 The two-cluster to two-cluster S-matrices have $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ Schwartz kernels, except the conormal singularity of $`𝒮_{\alpha \alpha }(\lambda )`$ corresponding to free motion, i.e. at the graph of the antipodal map on $`𝕊_a`$.

Thus, principal symbol calculations do not help in this inverse problem. The new result is the following extension of  to the $`N`$-body setting.

###### Theorem 4.

Suppose that $`a`$ is a 2-cluster, $`dimX_a2`$, and $`V_b`$ for $`ba`$ is a symbol of negative order (i.e. may be long range). Suppose also that

$$inf\mathrm{spec}H^a<inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a$$

(and hence $`inf\mathrm{spec}H^a`$ is an $`L^2`$-eigenvalue of $`H^a`$), $`I(ϵ_\alpha ,inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a)`$ is a non-empty open set with $`supI<inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, and let

$$R=2\sqrt{supIϵ_\alpha }.$$

For any $`\mu >dimX_a`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that the following holds.

Suppose that $`sup|(1+|x^b|)^\mu V_b(x^b)|<\delta `$ for all $`b`$ with $`ba`$. Then $`𝒮_{\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}(\lambda )`$ given for all $`\lambda I`$ and for all bound states $`\alpha ^{},\alpha ^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`H^a`$ with $`ϵ_\alpha ^{},ϵ_{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}<supI`$, determines the Fourier transform of the effective interaction $`V_{\alpha ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ in the ball of radius $`R`$ centered at $`0`$.

###### Remark.

Here $`\delta `$ depends on $`I`$ only through $`supI`$; as long as $`supI`$ is bounded away from $`inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, $`\delta `$ may be chosen independently of $`I`$. This dependence on $`supI`$ was improperly omitted from the statement of Theorem 1.1 in .

The smallness assumption on the $`V_b`$, $`ba`$ implies that $`inf\mathrm{spec}H^b`$ is not much lower than $`inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, in particular it may be assumed to lie above $`supI`$.

This theorem says that if the unknown interactions are small then the effective interaction can be partly determined from the knowledge of all S-matrices with incoming and outgoing data in the cluster $`a`$ in the relevant energy range. In fact, near-forward information suffices as in two-body scattering, where this was observed recently by Novikov , see . Also, if one is willing to take small $`R`$ and $`\alpha `$ is the ground state of $`H^a`$, it suffices to know $`𝒮_{\alpha \alpha }(\lambda )`$ to recover $`\widehat{V}_{\alpha ,\mathrm{eff}}`$. That is, one has

###### Theorem 5.

Suppose that $`a`$ is a 2-cluster, $`dimX_a2`$, and $`V_b`$ for $`ba`$ is a symbol of negative order (i.e. may be long range). Suppose also that

$$ϵ_\alpha =inf\mathrm{spec}H^a<inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a.$$

Let $`ϵ_\alpha ^{}`$ be the second eigenvalue of $`H^a`$, or the bottom of its essential spectrum if $`ϵ_\alpha `$ is the only eigenvalue. Suppose also that $`I(ϵ_\alpha ,ϵ_\alpha ^{})`$ is a non-empty open set with $`supI<inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, and let

$$R=2\sqrt{supIϵ_\alpha }.$$

For any $`\mu >dimX_a`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that the following holds.

Suppose that $`sup|(1+|x^b|)^\mu V_b(x^b)|<\delta `$ for all $`b`$ with $`ba`$. Then $`𝒮_{\alpha \alpha }(\lambda )`$ given for all $`\lambda I`$ determines the Fourier transform of the effective interaction $`V_{\alpha ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ in the ball of radius $`R`$ centered at $`0`$.

In case $`V_b`$ decay exponentially on $`X^b`$ for all $`ba`$, then $`V_{\alpha ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ decays exponentially on $`X_a`$, hence its Fourier transform is analytic, so $`V_{\alpha ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ itself can be recovered from these S-matrices.

This result should extend to higher energies, i.e. $`supI<inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ is not expected to be essential. But it is hard to make $`R`$ greater than $`2\sqrt{inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_aϵ_\alpha }`$ even then. The reason is that our method relies on the construction of exponential solutions following Faddeev , Calderón , Sylvester and the first author  and Novikov and Khenkin , but in the many-body setting. One thus allows complex momenta $`\rho (X_a)`$, the complexification of $`X_a`$. We then seek solutions $`u`$ of $`(H\lambda )u=0`$ of the form

(14)
$$u=u_\rho =e^{i\rho x_a}(\psi _\alpha (x^a)+v),\rho \rho =\lambda ϵ_\alpha ,\rho (X_a),$$

where $`v`$ is supposed to be ‘small’. Note that $`u_\rho ^0=e^{i\rho x_a}\psi _\alpha (x^a)`$ satisfies $`(\mathrm{\Delta }+V^a\lambda )u_\rho ^0=0`$ for $`\rho `$ as in (14), so $`(H\lambda )u_\rho ^0=I_a\psi _\alpha `$ decays at infinity since $`\psi _\alpha `$ decays in cones disjoint from $`X_a`$ while $`I_a`$ decays on $`X_a`$. (We are using here that $`a`$ is a 2-cluster for otherwise $`I_a`$ would only decay on $`X_{a,\text{reg}}`$!) Writing

$$\rho =z\nu +\rho _{}\text{with}|\nu |=1,\rho _{}\nu =0,\rho ,\nu \text{real},z,$$

the atom/ion may break up for $`|\rho _{}|>\sqrt{inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_aϵ_\alpha }`$ even if $`\lambda <inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, i.e. where the conservation of energy does not allow this for real frequencies. On the other hand, one needs such large $`\rho _{}`$ to recover $`V_{\alpha ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ on larger balls.

We briefly indicate how the break-up can happen. One considers the conjugated Hamiltonian

$$P(\rho )=e^{i\rho x_a}(H\lambda )e^{i\rho x_a}=\mathrm{\Delta }+2\rho D_{x_a}+\rho \rho +V\lambda $$

with $`\rho (X_a)`$ the complex frequency. The total energy of the system in state $`\alpha `$ is $`\rho \rho +ϵ_\alpha `$ (kinetic+potential energy), and we are assuming that the total energy is $`\lambda `$, so

(15)
$$\rho \rho +ϵ_\alpha =\lambda ,\text{see}(\text{14}),$$

so

$$P(\rho )=\mathrm{\Delta }+2\rho D_{x_a}+Vϵ_\alpha .$$

A good model for $`P(\rho )`$, under the smallness assumption on $`I_a`$, is

(16)
$$P_a(\rho )=\mathrm{\Delta }+2\rho D_{x_a}+V^aϵ_\alpha .$$

Taking the Fourier transform in $`X_a`$ makes the invertibility of $`P_a(\rho )`$ into a question on the behavior of the resolvent of $`H^a=\mathrm{\Delta }_{x^a}+V^a(x^a)`$, uniformly across the spectrum. That is,

$$_{X_a}P_a(\rho )_{X_a}^1=\mathrm{\Delta }_{X^a}+V^a(ϵ_\alpha |\xi _a|^22\rho \xi _a),$$

acting pointwise in $`\xi _a`$. Its right inverse is given by

(17)
$$_{X_a}G_a(\rho )_{X_a}^1=R^a(ϵ_\alpha |\xi _a|^22\rho \xi _a),$$

with $`R^a(\sigma )=(H^a\sigma )^1`$, provided we show that this makes sense. Now, we need to keep

(18)
$$F_\rho (\xi _a)=ϵ_\alpha |\xi _a|^22\rho \xi _a[inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a,+\mathrm{}),$$

for otherwise other channels also become open, i.e. the cluster may break up. In other words, on the range of $`F_\rho `$, we want to keep $`R^a`$ invertible on the range of $`\mathrm{Id}e_a`$, which would reflect that only the $`a`$-bound states form open channels. We thus need that either $`\mathrm{Im}F_\rho (\xi _a)0`$ or $`\mathrm{Im}F_\rho (\xi _a)=0`$ but $`\mathrm{Re}F_\rho (\xi _a)<inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$. Writing $`\rho =z\nu +\rho _{}`$ as above,

$$\mathrm{Im}F_\rho (\xi _a)=2(\mathrm{Im}z)\nu \xi _a,$$

so for $`\mathrm{Im}z0`$, i.e. for $`\rho `$ non-real, $`\mathrm{Im}F_\rho `$ vanishes exactly on the hyperplane $`\nu \xi _a=0`$. Moreover,

(19)
$$\mathrm{Re}F_\rho (\xi _a)=ϵ_\alpha +\rho _{}^2((\xi _a)_{}+\rho _{})^2(\nu \xi _a)^22(\mathrm{Re}z)(\nu \xi _a),$$

so if $`\mathrm{Im}F_\rho (\xi _a)=0`$, the condition $`\mathrm{Re}F_\rho (\xi _a)<inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ amounts to

$$ϵ_\alpha +\rho _{}^2((\xi _a)_{}+\rho _{})^2<inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a.$$

This will not be satisfied for every $`\xi _a`$ unless

(20)
$$|\rho _{}|<\sqrt{inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_aϵ_\alpha }.$$

The most unfortunate restriction of the theorem is the smallness assumption on the unknown interactions. While (20) ensures that the 2-cluster $`a`$ may not break up into its subsystems, it does not rule out the existence of different channels, e.g. associated to other 2-clusters, at complex frequencies. The presence of such channels would significantly complicate the analysis. In particular, the crucial analyticity in $`z`$ would not be clear at all.

We proceed to sketch the proof of Theorem 4, which is completely analogous to the three-body result shown in . For

(21)
$$\lambda _1[|\rho _{}|^2+ϵ_\alpha ,inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a)\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{},$$

let $`e_a(\lambda _1)`$ be the orthogonal projection to the $`L^2`$ eigenfunctions of $`H^a`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda _1`$, and let $`E_a`$ be its extension to $`X_0`$ via tensoring by $`\mathrm{Id}_{X_a}`$, so

(22)
$$E_a(\lambda _1)=\underset{\alpha ^{}}{}\mathrm{Id}_{X_a}(\psi _\alpha ^{}\overline{\psi _\alpha ^{}}).$$

Since eigenvalues of $`H^a`$ can only accumulate at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, $`e_a`$ is finite rank. We also let

(23)
$$\lambda _0=inf\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{}(\lambda _1,+\mathrm{})\right)>\lambda _1.$$

The particular choice of $`\lambda _1`$, provided that it is sufficiently close to $`inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, does not play a major role in our arguments, so we usually simply write $`e_a`$ for $`e_a(\lambda _1)`$, etc.

We restrict the region (20) slightly further and work in the region

(24)
$$(X_a)_\alpha ^{}=\{(z,\nu ,\rho _{}):\mathrm{Im}z0,|\rho _{}|^2+ϵ_\alpha (ϵ_\alpha ,\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{}\},$$

i.e. we also assume that $`|\rho _{}|^2+ϵ_\alpha `$ is not an eigenvalue of $`H^a`$. Again, we do not indicate $`\lambda _0`$ explicitly in the notation.

Since the ranges of $`E_a`$ and $`\mathrm{Id}E_a`$ play a rather different role below, for $`p`$ we introduce weighted spaces that reflect this:

(25)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _p=& (L_p^2(X_a)\mathrm{Ran}e_a)(L^2(X_a)\mathrm{Ran}(\mathrm{Id}e_a))\hfill \\ & (L_p^2(X_a)\mathrm{Ran}e_a)L^2(X_0),\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`e_a`$ considered as a bounded operator on $`L^2(X^a)`$. Thus, we allow weights on the range of $`E_a`$, but not on its orthocomplement. Since $`\mathrm{Ran}e_a`$ is finite dimensional, $`_p`$ is a Hilbert space with norms induced on the summands by the $`L_p^2(X_a)`$ and $`L^2(X_0)`$ norms respectively.

Returning to $`P_a(\rho )`$, we can define a right inverse $`G_a(\rho )`$ by (17) if we show that it makes sense, the only issues being the behavior of $`R^a(\sigma )`$ for real $`\sigma `$ and bounds as $`|\xi _a|\mathrm{}`$. It is straightforward to analyze these, as in , and prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 6.

Suppose that $`(z,\nu ,\rho _{})(X_a)_\alpha ^{}`$. The operator

$$G_a(\rho )=_{X_a}^1R^a(ϵ_\alpha |.|^22\rho .)_{X_a}$$

is a bounded operator $`_p_r`$ for $`p>0`$, $`r<0`$, $`r<p1`$. It satisfies

(26)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& P_a(\rho )G_a(\rho )=\mathrm{Id}:_p_p,\hfill \\ & G_a(\rho )P_a(\rho )=\mathrm{Id}:_p_p.\hfill \end{array}$$

It is continuous in $`\rho (X_a)_\alpha ^{}`$ and analytic in $`z`$. Moreover, for $`p>0`$, $`r<0`$, $`r<p1`$, $`\rho _{}`$ fixed, for any $`C>0`$, $`G_a(\rho )`$ is uniformly bounded in $`(_p,_r)`$ in $`|\mathrm{Im}z|C|\mathrm{Re}z|`$, and $`\underset{|z|\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{lim}}G_a(\rho )=0`$ as an operator in $`(_p,_r)`$, provided that $`|z|\mathrm{}`$ in the region $`|\mathrm{Im}z|C|\mathrm{Re}z|`$.

###### Sketch of proof..

\[See  for the completely analogous proof in the three-body setting.\] Recall that We need to analyze $`F_\rho `$ and $`R^a(\sigma )`$. First, by the spectral mapping theorem, for $`\mathrm{Re}\sigma <inf\mathrm{spec}H^a`$,

$$R^a(\sigma )_{(L^2,L^2)}(inf\mathrm{spec}H^a\mathrm{Re}\sigma )^1.$$

Now, due to the $`|\xi _a|^2`$ term in(18), for any fixed $`\rho `$ there exists $`C>0`$ such that

(27)
$$\mathrm{Re}F_\rho (\xi _a)<C|\xi _a|^2/2.$$

Thus, for $`\varphi 𝒞_c^{\mathrm{}}(X_a^{})`$ identically $`1`$ on a large enough ball, $`G_a_{X_a}^1(1\varphi )_{X_a}`$ is bounded on $`L^2`$. Hence, we only need to be concerned about what happens in a compact set in $`X_a^{}`$.

For this we need two other bounds that hold by the selfadjointness of $`H^a`$ and its spectral properties, namely

(28)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& (\mathrm{Id}e_a)R^a(\sigma )_{(L^2,L^2)}|\mathrm{Re}\sigma \lambda _0|^1,\mathrm{Re}\sigma <\lambda _0,\hfill \\ & R^a(\sigma )_{(L^2,L^2)}|\mathrm{Im}\sigma |^1,\mathrm{Im}\sigma 0,\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\lambda _0`$ as in (23). It is easy to check using (19) that

(29)
$$\mathrm{Re}F_\rho (\xi _a)>ϵ_\alpha +\rho _{}^2|\mathrm{Im}F_\rho (\xi _a)|>(\mathrm{Re}F_\rho (\xi _a)(ϵ_\alpha +\rho _{}^2))\frac{|\mathrm{Im}z|}{|\mathrm{Re}z|}$$

In particular, $`(z,\nu ,\rho _{})(X_a)_\alpha ^{}`$ implies that $`ϵ_\alpha +\rho _{}^2<inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, hence

$$_{X_a}^1R^a(F_\rho (.))(\mathrm{Id}E_a)_{X_a}$$

is well defined. Indeed, either $`\mathrm{Re}F_\rho (\xi _a)>ϵ_\alpha +\rho _{}^2`$, and then $`\mathrm{Im}F_\rho (\xi _a)0`$, so $`R^a(F_\rho (\xi _a))`$ is a bounded operator on $`L^2`$, or $`\mathrm{Re}F_\rho (\xi _a)ϵ_\alpha +\rho _{}^2<inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, so $`(\mathrm{Id}e_a)R^a(F_\rho (\xi _a))`$ is bounded on $`L^2`$.

On the range of $`e_{a,ϵ}`$, the projection to the eigenspace with eigenvalue $`ϵ`$, $`R^a(\sigma )`$ is multiplication by $`(ϵ\sigma )^1`$. This is a locally integrable function of $`\sigma `$ near $`ϵ`$ (in $``$!), so the application of $`R^a(F_\rho (.))`$ to $`\widehat{u}=_{X_a}u`$ is well defined, provided that at every point $`\xi _a`$ with $`F_\rho (\xi _a)=ϵ`$, the differential of $`F_\rho :X_a^{}`$ is surjective (with $``$ considered as a 2-dimensional real manifold), i.e. $`F_\rho (\xi _a)=ϵ`$ implies that $`d\mathrm{Re}F_\rho (\xi _a)`$ and $`d\mathrm{Im}F_\rho (\xi _a)`$ are linearly independent. But $`d\mathrm{Im}F_\rho `$ is nonzero, and is a multiple of $`d(\nu \xi _a)`$, so in view of (19), $`d\mathrm{Im}F_\rho `$ and $`d\mathrm{Re}F_\rho `$ are linearly independent if and only if $`d(((\xi _a)_{}+\rho _{})^2)0`$, i.e. if and only if $`(\xi _a)_{}\rho _{}`$. But if $`(\xi _a)_{}=\rho _{}`$ and $`F_\rho (\xi _a)`$ is real, then $`\nu \xi _a=0`$, hence $`F_\rho (\xi _a)=ϵ_\alpha +\rho _{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{}`$ due to $`(z,\nu ,\rho _{})(X_a)_\alpha ^{}`$. Now let

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G_a(\rho )& =_{X_a}^1R^a(ϵ_\alpha |.|^22\rho .)_{X_a}\hfill \\ & =_{X_a}^1R^a(ϵ_\alpha |.|^22\rho .)(\mathrm{Id}E_a)_{X_a}+_{X_a}^1R^a(ϵ_\alpha |.|^22\rho .)E_a_{X_a};\hfill \end{array}$$

both terms are well defined by the preceeding considerations when applied to functions in $`𝒮(X_a;L^2(X^a))`$. Indeed, application of $`G_a(\rho )`$ to the range of $`E_{a,ϵ}`$ is the only issue, and there, with $`u=v\psi _\alpha ^{}`$, $`vL_p^2(X_a)`$, $`\widehat{v}=_{X_a}v`$,

$$(_{X_a}E_{a,ϵ}G_a(\rho )v)(\xi _a,.)=(ϵF_\rho (\xi _a))^1\widehat{v}\psi _\alpha ^{},$$

so the mapping properties of $`G_a(\rho )`$ on $`\mathrm{Ran}E_a`$ are given by the two-body results of Weder \[37, Theorem 1.1\], see Remark 3.4 in  for its application in this context.

For the behavior of $`G_a(\rho )`$ as $`|z|\mathrm{}`$, we decompose $`G_a`$ as above. On the range of $`E_a`$ we use the analogous two-body result of Weder, while on the range of $`\mathrm{Id}E_a`$ we use the uniform $`L^2`$ operator bounds on $`R^a(\sigma )(\mathrm{Id}e_a)`$, valid uniformly away from $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_a,+\mathrm{})`$, together with $`|\mathrm{Im}F_\rho (\xi _a)|\mathrm{}`$ for almost every $`\xi _a`$, namely the $`\xi _a`$ such that $`\xi _a\nu 0`$, so an application of the dominated convergence theorem yields the desired strong convergence. ∎

Since

$$P(\rho )G_a(\rho )v=(\mathrm{Id}+I_aG_a(\rho ))v,v_p,p>0,$$

we next investigate $`I_a`$ on $`_r`$, again as in .

###### Lemma 7.

Suppose that $`\mu >0`$, and $`x^b^\mu V_bL^{\mathrm{}}(X^b)`$ for all $`ba`$. The multiplication operator $`I_a`$ is in $`(_r,_p)`$ provided that $`pr+\mu `$, $`p\mu `$, $`r\mu `$.

Moreover, there exists $`C>0`$ (independent of $`V_b`$) such that the norm of $`I_a`$ as such an operator is bounded by $`C\mathrm{max}_bsup(x^b^\mu |V_b|)`$.

###### Sketch. See  for details..

Consider the matrix decomposition of $`I_a`$ corresponding to the direct sum in (25), and use the rapid decay of $`\psi _\alpha ^{}`$ to analyze the terms involving $`E_a`$. The restrictions $`pr+\mu `$, $`p\mu `$, resp. $`r\mu `$ arise from the requirements of making $`E_aI_aE_a`$, $`E_aI_a(\mathrm{Id}E_a)`$, resp. $`(\mathrm{Id}E_a)I_aE_a`$ bounded. ∎

Thus, perturbation theory gives

###### Proposition 8.

Suppose that $`\rho _{}`$ satisfies $`|\rho _{}|^2+ϵ_\alpha (ϵ_\alpha ,\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{}`$, $`\mu >\mathrm{max}(p,1)`$, $`p>0`$, $`r<0`$, $`r<p1`$. There exists $`\delta >0`$ with the following property. Suppose that for all $`ba`$, $`sup|x^b^\mu V_b|<\delta `$. Then the operator

(30)
$$G(\rho )=G_a(\rho )(\mathrm{Id}+I_aG_a(\rho ))^1:_p_r$$

satisfies

(31)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& P(\rho )G(\rho )=\mathrm{Id}:_p_p,\hfill \\ & G(\rho )P(\rho )=\mathrm{Id}:_p_p.\hfill \end{array}$$

Moreover, $`G(\rho )`$ is a continuous function of $`\rho `$ in $`(X_a)_\alpha ^{}`$, and an analytic function of $`z`$, and $`\underset{|z|\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{s}\mathrm{lim}}G(\rho )=0`$ as a map $`_p_r`$ provided that $`|z|\mathrm{}`$ in $`|\mathrm{Im}z|C|\mathrm{Re}z|`$, $`C>0`$.

Since $`I_a\psi _\alpha _p`$ for some $`p>0`$ if $`\mu >dimX_a/2`$, we deduce the following corollary.

###### Corollary 9.

Suppose that $`\mu >dimX_a/2`$, $`|\rho _{}|^2+ϵ_\alpha (ϵ_\alpha ,\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{}`$. Then

(32)
$$u_\rho =u_\rho ^0e^{i\rho x_a}G(\rho )I_a\psi _\alpha =e^{i\rho x_a}(\psi _\alpha G(\rho )I_a\psi _\alpha )$$

satisfies $`P(\rho )u_\rho =0`$, and

(33)
$$u_\rho ^0=e^{i\rho x_a}(\mathrm{Id}+G_a(\rho )I_a)e^{i\rho x_a}u_\rho .$$

Moreover, $`u_\rho u_\rho ^00`$ in $`_r`$, $`r<0`$, $`r<\mu 1\frac{dimX_a}{2}`$, as $`|z|\mathrm{}`$ in $`|\mathrm{Im}z|>C|\mathrm{Re}z|`$, $`C>0`$.

We now only need to connect $`u_\rho `$ to the scattering matrix. This is done by letting $`\rho `$ become real. Below we consider

(34)
$$\mathrm{Im}z0,\mathrm{Re}z0.$$

###### Proposition 10.

The operator $`G_a(\rho ):_p_r`$ extends continuously (from $`(X_a)_\alpha ^+(X_a)_\alpha ^{}`$) to $`(X_a)_\alpha ^+`$ for $`p>1/2`$, $`r<1/2`$, and it satisfies $`P_a(\rho )G_a(\rho )=\mathrm{Id}`$, $`G_a(\rho )P_a(\rho )=\mathrm{Id}`$, on $`_p`$, $`p>1/2`$. The limit $`G_a(\nu ,\rho _{},z\pm i0)`$ satisfies

(35)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& e^{i\rho x_a}G_a(\nu ,\rho _{},z\pm i0)e^{i\rho x_a}\hfill \\ & =R_a(\lambda +i0)+\underset{\alpha ^{}}{}_{X_a}^1H(\nu (\xi _a\mathrm{Re}\rho ))[(|\xi _a|^2(\lambda ϵ_\alpha ^{}i0))^1\hfill \\ & (|\xi _a|^2(\lambda ϵ_\alpha ^{}+i0))^1]_{X_a}E_{a,\alpha ^{}},\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\lambda =\rho ^2+ϵ_\alpha `$.

###### Sketch of proof..

Write

(36)
$$G_a(\nu ,\rho _{},z)=(\mathrm{Id}E_a)G_a(\nu ,\rho _{},z)+E_aG_a(\nu ,\rho _{},z).$$

The first term is just $`_{X_a}^1R^a(F_\rho (.))(\mathrm{Id}E_a)_{X_a}`$, and $`\mathrm{Im}F_\rho 0`$ as $`\mathrm{Im}z0`$. Moreover, in the region where the sign of $`\mathrm{Im}z`$ matters, i.e. where $`\mathrm{Re}F_\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, $`\mathrm{Im}F_\rho >0`$ by (29) which is valid with $`\mathrm{Im}F_\rho `$ in place of $`|\mathrm{Im}F_\rho |`$ due to (34), so the first term goes to $`_{X_a}^1R^a(|\xi _a|^2+2\rho \xi _a+ϵ_\alpha +i0)(\mathrm{Id}E_a)_{X_a}`$ as $`\mathrm{Im}z0`$. Conjugation by $`e^{i\rho x_a}`$ replaces $`\xi _a`$ by $`\xi _a+\rho `$, hence yielding $`R_a(\lambda +i0)(\mathrm{Id}E_a)`$, $`\lambda =\rho \rho +ϵ_\alpha `$, in the limit.

The second term on the right hand side of (36) is dealt with exactly as in the two-body setting discussed by Weder. Namely, working on the range of $`E_{a,ϵ}`$, $`_{X_a}G_a(\rho )_{X_a}^1`$ is multiplication by $`(ϵF_\rho (\xi _a))^1`$. For each $`\xi _a`$ with $`\nu \xi _a0`$, the limit as $`\mathrm{Im}z0`$ is multiplication by the limit of $`(ϵ+|\xi _a|^2+2\rho \xi _aϵ_\alpha )^1`$, which is $`(ϵ+|\xi _a|^2+2\rho \xi _a\pm i0ϵ_\alpha )^1`$, with $`+`$ corresponding to $`\nu \xi _a>0`$ and $``$ to $`\nu \xi _a<0`$. Now a simple rewriting proves the proposition; see  for details. ∎

Perturbation theory now shows that $`G(\rho )`$ itself has a limit when $`\rho `$ becomes real, provided that $`\lambda =\rho ^2+ϵ_\alpha <\lambda _0`$. An immediate consequence is:

###### Corollary 11.

Suppose that $`|\rho _{}|^2+ϵ_\alpha (ϵ_\alpha ,\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{}`$, $`\mu >(dimX_a+1)/2`$. There exists $`\delta >0`$ with the following property. Suppose that for all $`ba`$, $`sup|x^b^\mu V_b|<\delta `$. Then $`u_\rho `$ extends continuously to

(37)
$$\{z:\mathrm{Im}z>0\}\{z0:z^2+\rho _{}^2+ϵ_\alpha (ϵ_\alpha ,\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\},$$

with $`u_\rho u_\rho ^0_r`$ for all $`r<1/2`$, and $`u_\rho `$ is analytic in $`z`$ in $`\mathrm{Im}z>0`$.

The last part of the proof is completely analogous to the two-body argument, expressing the S-matrix as a pairing, and considering an analogous pairing for the complex exponential solutions. For 2-clusters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, the knowledge of $`𝒮_{\alpha \beta }(\lambda )`$ is equivalent to that of a renormalization $`𝒮_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )`$ with free scattering removed, see \[28, Section 2\]. Rather than giving its detailed definition here, we simply give an expression for its Schwartz kernel that is derived in \[28, Corollary 2.2\]. For $`\rho X_a`$ (real!), we write

(38)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& U_\rho =(\mathrm{Id}R(\lambda +i0)I_a)u_\rho ^0,\lambda =\rho ^2+ϵ_\alpha ,\hfill \\ & u_\rho ^0=u_{\alpha ,\rho }^0=e^{i\rho x_a}\psi _\alpha (x^a).\hfill \end{array}$$

Then, for $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, $`x^b^\mu V_bL^{\mathrm{}}(X^b)`$, $`\mu >dimX_a`$,

(39)
$$𝒮_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda ,\omega ,\omega ^{})=_^nI_bU_\omega (x)\overline{e^{ix_b\omega ^{}}\psi _\beta (x^b)}𝑑x=_^nI_bU_\omega (x)e^{ix_b\omega ^{}}\overline{\psi _\beta (x^b)}𝑑x;$$

in particular, $`𝒮_{\alpha \beta }^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )`$ has a continuous kernel. The analogous pairing for the complex exponential solutions is

(40)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(\rho ,\overline{\rho }+\zeta )& =_^nI_a(x)u_\rho (x)\overline{u_{\alpha ^{},\overline{\rho }+\zeta }^0(x)}𝑑x\hfill \\ & =_^nI_a(x)u_\rho (x)\overline{\psi _\alpha ^{}(x^a)}e^{i(\rho +\zeta )x_a}𝑑x.\hfill \end{array}$$

By Corollary 11, if $`x^b^\mu V_bL^{\mathrm{}}(X^b)`$ for all $`b`$ and for some $`\mu >dimX_a`$, then the integral in (40) converges for all $`\rho `$ for which $`u_\rho `$ exists, and for $`\zeta ^n`$, since then the real parts of the exponentials cancel, and $`I_a\psi _\alpha \overline{\psi _\alpha ^{}}L^1(X_0)`$, and the same holds for $`I_a\overline{\psi _\alpha ^{}}G(\rho )(I_a\psi _\alpha )`$. Other properties of (40) follow immediately from Corollary 11.

###### Proposition 12.

Suppose that $`|\rho _{}|^2+ϵ_\alpha (ϵ_\alpha ,\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{}`$, $`\mu >dimX_a`$, and $`V_b`$ as in Corollary 11. Then $`G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ is an analytic function of $`z`$ in $``$, and extends to be continuous on (37). In addition,

(41)
$$\underset{|z|\mathrm{}}{lim}G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(\rho ,\overline{\rho }+\zeta )=_^nI_a\psi _\alpha \overline{\psi _\alpha ^{}}e^{i\zeta x_a}𝑑x,$$

provided that $`|z|\mathrm{}`$ in $`|\mathrm{Im}z|>C|\mathrm{Re}z|`$, $`C>0`$.

For fixed $`\rho `$ real and $`\zeta `$ satisfying

$$\lambda =\rho ^2+ϵ_\alpha =(\rho +\zeta )^2+ϵ_{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }},$$

i.e. the equality of incoming and outgoing energies, we can relate $`G_{\alpha \alpha ^{\prime \prime }}(\rho ,\rho +\zeta )`$, $`\rho `$ real, to the S-matrices as follows. Under our assumptions,

(42)
$$e^{i\rho x_a}(\mathrm{Id}+G_a(\rho )I_a)e^{i\rho x_a}u_\rho =u_\rho ^0=(\mathrm{Id}+R_a(\lambda +i0)I_a)U_\rho .$$

Applying $`(\mathrm{Id}+R_a(\lambda +i0)I_a)^1`$ to both sides of (42), and using (LABEL:eq:G\_a-real), we deduce that

(43)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_\rho & =u_\rho \hfill \\ & +2\pi i\underset{\alpha ^{}}{}(\mathrm{Id}+R_a(\lambda +i0)I_a)^1_{X_a}^1H(\nu (\xi _a\mathrm{Re}\rho ))\delta _{|\xi _a|^2(\lambda ϵ)}_{X_a}E_{a,\alpha ^{}}I_au_\rho .\hfill \end{array}$$

Here we used

$$(\rho (\lambda ϵi0))^1(\rho (\lambda ϵ+i0))^1=2\pi i\delta _{\rho (\lambda ϵ)}$$

with $`\rho =|\xi _a|^2`$; the $`\delta `$ distribution here is the pull-back of the standard delta distribution on $``$ by the map $`\xi _a|\xi _a|^2(\lambda ϵ)`$. Integrating against $`I_ae^{i(\rho +\zeta )x_a}\overline{\psi _{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}(x^a)}`$, and yields

(44)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒮_{\alpha \alpha ^{\prime \prime }}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda ,\rho ,\rho +\zeta )=& G_{\alpha \alpha ^{\prime \prime }}(\rho ,\rho +\zeta )\hfill \\ & \underset{\alpha ^{}}{}\frac{i}{2\sqrt{\lambda ϵ_\alpha ^{}}}_{𝕊_a(\sqrt{\lambda ϵ_\alpha ^{}})}𝒮_{\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda ,\rho ^{},\rho +\zeta )\hfill \\ & H(\nu (\rho ^{}\mathrm{Re}\rho ))G_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(\rho ,\rho ^{})d\rho ^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

This is an integral equation for $`G_{\alpha \alpha ^{\prime \prime }}`$ in terms of $`𝒮_{\alpha \alpha ^{\prime \prime }}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )`$, $`𝒮_{\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )`$, $`\lambda =\rho ^2+ϵ_\alpha `$. It can be solved due to the smallness assumption on $`I_a`$, so we deduce the following result, with the same proof as in .

###### Proposition 13.

(\[28, Proposition 5.2\]) Suppose that $`\rho ^2+ϵ_\alpha =\lambda =(\rho +\zeta )^2+ϵ_{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}(\mathrm{},0)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, $`|\rho _{}|^2+ϵ_\alpha (ϵ_\alpha ,\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{}`$, $`\mu >dimX_a`$. There exists $`\delta >0`$ with the following property.

Suppose that for all $`ba`$, $`sup|x^b^\mu V_b|<\delta `$. Then the pairings $`G_{\alpha \alpha ^{\prime \prime }}(\rho ,\rho +\zeta )`$ are determined by the operators $`𝒮_{\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )`$ given for all $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\alpha ^{\prime \prime }`$.

We can now prove Theorem 4. Fix a non-empty open interval $`I(ϵ_\alpha ,inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a)`$ with $`supI<inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$, and let $`R=2\sqrt{supIϵ_\alpha }`$. Let $`\zeta X_a`$ satisfy $`|\zeta |<R`$, and $`\frac{1}{4}|\zeta |^2+ϵ_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{}`$. The last condition excludes a discrete set of values of $`|\zeta |^2`$ in $`[0,R)`$. Note that $`\frac{1}{4}|\zeta |^2+ϵ_\alpha <0`$.

We now choose $`\lambda _1<inf\mathrm{\Lambda }_a`$ in (21) so that $`\frac{1}{4}|\zeta |^2+ϵ_\alpha <\lambda _1`$, and

(45)
$$I(\frac{1}{4}|\zeta |^2+ϵ_\alpha ,\lambda _1)\mathrm{}.$$

Let $`\rho _{}=\zeta /2`$, so $`\rho _{}^2+ϵ_\alpha (ϵ_\alpha ,\lambda _1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{}`$. Let $`\nu X_a`$ be such that $`|\nu |^2=1`$, $`\nu \zeta =0`$. Then for $`\rho =z\nu +\rho _{}`$, $`z`$, $`(\rho +\zeta )^2\rho ^2=2\rho \zeta +\zeta ^2=0`$. Having fixed $`\zeta `$, $`\rho _{}`$, $`\nu `$, consider the energy $`\rho ^2+ϵ_\alpha `$ when $`z`$ becomes real. Since $`\rho ^2=z^2+|\rho _{}|^2`$, as $`z`$ varies over $`[0,\sqrt{\lambda _0\rho _{}^2ϵ_\alpha })`$, the energy varies over $`[|\rho _{}|^2+ϵ_\alpha ,\lambda _0)`$. This intersects the given interval $`I`$ by (45) as $`\lambda _1<\lambda _0`$.

Let $`z_0>0`$ satisfy $`\lambda =\rho _{}^2+z_0^2+ϵ_\alpha (ϵ_\alpha ,\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. By Proposition 13 the limit of the pairing $`G_{\alpha \alpha }(\rho ,\rho +\zeta )`$ as $`zz_0`$ (in $`\mathrm{Im}z>0`$) is determined by the scattering matrices $`𝒮_{\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}^{\mathrm{}}(\rho _{}^2+z_0^2+ϵ_\alpha )`$. Thus, there exists a non-empty open interval of these values $`z_0`$ at which $`G_{\alpha \alpha }(\rho ,\rho +\zeta )`$ is determined by $`𝒮_{\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )`$, $`\lambda I`$.

Since the limit on any open interval in the boundary of its domain determines an analytic function, we deduce that knowing the S-matrix $`𝒮_{\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in the interval $`I`$ determines $`G_{\alpha \alpha }(\rho ,\zeta )`$ for all $`\zeta `$ with $`|\zeta |<R`$.

Now let $`z\mathrm{}`$ through imaginary $`z`$. By (41), $`G_{\alpha \alpha }(\rho ,\rho +\zeta )`$ converges to

(46)
$$_^nI_a|\psi _\alpha |^2e^{i\zeta x_a}𝑑x=_{X_a}e^{i\zeta x_a}\left(_{X^a}I_a|\psi _\alpha |^2𝑑x^a\right)𝑑x_a.$$

But this is the Fourier transform of $`_{X^a}I_a|\psi _\alpha |^2𝑑x^a`$ in $`X_a`$, evaluated at $`\zeta `$. Hence $`𝒮_{\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}(\lambda )`$, $`\lambda I`$, determines the Fourier transform in $`x_a`$ of the ‘effective interaction’

(47)
$$_{X^a}I_a|\psi _\alpha |^2𝑑x^a$$

in a ball of radius $`2\sqrt{supIϵ_\alpha }`$, except possibly on the spheres $`\frac{1}{4}|\zeta |^2+ϵ_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_a^{}`$. However, $`_{X^a}I_a|\psi _\alpha |^2𝑑x^aL^1(X_a)`$, hence the Fourier transform is continuous, hence it is determined on the whole ball. This completes the proof of Theorems 4 and 5.

Finally, we return to the electron-ion scattering experiment, comparing its treatment as a two-body problem and as a many-body problem. If one only uses a fixed energy $`\lambda `$, and the potentials are exponentially decaying, in the two-body model the S-matrix determines the interaction, which is $`V_{\alpha ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ in this model (here $`\alpha `$ is the ground state of the ion). No such result exists if we consider the ion as a composite particle, i.e. if the experiment is treated as a many-body problem, although our theorem shows that if the 2-cluster to 2-cluster S-matrix is known in an interval of energies and if the interactions are weak, then we can determine $`V_{\alpha ,\mathrm{eff}}`$. Indeed, in the two-body fixed energy inverse result one has to let $`\rho _{}\mathrm{}`$. If we consider the scattering experiment as a many-body problem, $`\rho _{}\mathrm{}`$ causes serious complications, namely the possibility of the break up of the ion. This seems to limit the use of two-body results for composite particles, such as ions.


format: text

text:
# Towards New Tests of Strong-field Gravity with Measurements of Surface Atomic Line Redshifts from Neutron Stars

## Abstract

In contrast to gravity in the weak-field regime, which has been subject to numerous experimental tests, gravity in the strong-field regime is largely unconstrained by observations. We show that gravity theories that cannot be rejected by solar system tests but that diverge from general relativity in the strong-field regime predict neutron stars with significantly different properties than their general relativistic counterparts. In particular, the range of redshifts of surface atomic lines predicted by such gravity theories is significantly larger than the uncertainty introduced by our lack of knowledge of the equation of state of ultra-dense matter. Measurements of such redshifted lines with current X-ray observatories such as Chandra and XMM-Newton can thus provide interesting new constraints on strong-field gravity.

The rapid variability and high luminosities of accreting compact objects strongly suggest that their high-energy emission originates very deep in their gravitational potentials. As a result, the properties of their X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray emission can, in principle, be used to test directly the strong-field regime of a gravity theory. Unfortunately, there are many astrophysical considerations that complicate the modeling of the emission of accreting neutron stars and black holes and it is difficult to disentangle the effects of gravity from those due to astrophysical processes. For this reason tests of gravity involving high-energy phenomena around compact objects have received little attention in the past. This is despite the fact that the behavior of gravity in the strong-field regime is largely unconstrained by observations.

The properties of a neutron star and its external spacetime, in contrast to the high-energy phenomena above its surface, are determined solely by the strong-field behavior of gravity and the equation of state. To date, studies of neutron stars have focused on better determining the equation of state, whose details are still debated. We will argue, however, that the uncertainty in the behavior of strong-field gravity introduces much greater differences in neutron-star properties than do current uncertainties in the neutron-star equation of state. Furthermore, new observational developments allow for the measurement of the gravitational redshift of surface atomic lines, which is the cleanest source of information about the mass, radius, and spin of neutron stars. The first such observations, with Chandra and XMM-Newton, have already been reported Cottam et al. (2002); Sanwal et al. (2002).

Testing rigorously General Relativity (GR) in the strong-field regime requires a general framework of which GR is a subset; this would be equivalent to the Parametrized Post-Newtonian formulation in the weak-field. Such a framework is yet to be constructed. Thus, in order to provide a proof of principle for the efficacy of the proposed tests, we will investigate here the constraints that can be imposed on a parametrized subclass of scalar-tensor theories (see, e.g., Ref. Damour and Esposito-Farèse (1992)). As an additional example, we will also consider the limits that can be placed on Rosen’s bimetric theory Rosen (1973); although binary-pulsar experiments have already excluded the bimetric theory Will and Eardley (1977), our results demonstrate the potential of the proposed tests for constraining gravity theories.

We consider first *scalar-tensor theories*. The general class of scalar-tensor theories, where the gravitational force felt by matter is mediated by both a rank-two tensor, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, and a scalar field, $`\varphi `$, is one of the most natural extensions of Einstein’s theory. The action is Damour and Esposito-Farèse (1992)

$$S=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{}}d^4x\sqrt{g_{}}(R_{}2g_{}^{\mu \nu }\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu })$$

$$+S_m[\mathrm{\Psi }_m;A^2(\varphi )g_{\mu \nu }].$$
(1)
Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ refers collectively to all matter fields other than $`\varphi `$, $`G_{}`$ is a dimensional constant, and $`A(\varphi )`$ is a function of $`\varphi `$. The tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric in the Einstein frame and the Brans-Dicke frame tensor is $`g_{\mu \nu }=A^2(\varphi )g_{\mu \nu }`$. For $`A(\varphi )`$ unity, we recover GR.

Solar system experiments constrain the coupling function $`A`$ to be very flat at the cosmological value of the scalar field $`\varphi `$. If, however, the scalar field inside a compact object fluctuates far enough away from its cosmological value to discover a steep part of $`A`$, the system will be able to reach the more energetically favorable configuration with large non-zero $`\varphi `$ near the center of the object. This non-perturbative effect leads to neutron stars that are significantly more massive and larger than their GR counterparts, but it is invisible to solar system experiments that probe the weak-field regime. This is the phenomenon of “spontaneous scalarization” discovered by Damour & Esposito-Farèse Damour and Esposito-Farèse (1993), who used the Hulse-Taylor pulsar to put constraints on the strong-field regime of such theories.

Following Damour & Esposito-Farèse Damour and Esposito-Farèse (1993), we choose

$$A(\varphi )=e^{\frac{1}{2}\beta \varphi ^2},$$
(2)
where $`\beta `$ is a real number. Spontaneous scalarization occurs only when $`\beta 4.85`$. Throughout this paper we will be interested only in solutions where $`\varphi _0`$, the cosmological value of the scalar field, is zero and $`A(\varphi _0)=1`$.

Following Ref. Damour and Esposito-Farèse (1993), we write the relativistic equations of stellar structure for a non-rotating neutron star in scalar-tensor gravity. We write the metric as

$`ds_{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\nu (r)}dt^2+\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu (r)}{r}}\right]^1dr^2`$ (3)
$`+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2),`$
and describe the matter fields as a perfect fluid in the physical frame, i.e.,

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(\rho +p)u_\mu u_\nu +pg_{\mu \nu }.$$
(4)
Here $`p`$ is the pressure, $`\rho `$ is the density, and $`u_\mu `$ is the four-velocity of the fluid. The differential equations to be integrated are then Harada (1998)

$$\mu ^{}=4\pi G_{}r^2A^4\rho +\frac{1}{2}r(r2\mu )\psi ^2,$$
(5)
$$\nu ^{}=8\pi g_{}\frac{r^2A^4p}{r2\mu }+r\psi ^2+\frac{2\mu }{r(r2\mu )},$$
(6)
$$\varphi ^{}=\psi ,$$
(7)
$`\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G_{}{\displaystyle \frac{rA^4}{r2\mu }}[\alpha (\rho 3p)+r(\rho p)\psi ]`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{r(r2\mu )}}\psi ,`$
$$N^{}=4\pi nA^3r^2\left(1\frac{2\mu }{r}\right)^{1/2},$$
(9)
$$p^{}=(\rho +p)\left[4\pi G_{}\frac{r^2A^4p}{r2\mu }+\frac{1}{2}r\psi ^2\right]$$

$$(\rho +p)\left[\frac{\mu }{r(r2\mu )}+\alpha \psi \right].$$
(10)
Here $`N`$ is the baryon number, $`n`$ is the number density, and primes denote derivatives with respect to $`r`$. We supplement these equations with a (zero temperature) equation of state, $`p=p(\rho )`$ and $`n=n(\rho )`$.

We choose two commonly used equations of state, which cover a broad subset of the wide range discussed in Cook et al. Cook et al. (1994). In order of increasing stiffness, these are EOS A Pandharipande (1971) and EOS UU Wiringa et al. (1988). Neutron star models computed with these two equations of state bracket the uncertainty introduced by our inability to calculate from first principles the properties of ultra-dense matter, when condensates or unconfined u-d-s quark matter is not taken into account.

Having chosen an equation of state, we then integrate the system of equations (5)–(10) from the center of the star, where we specify $`\mu (0)=\nu (0)=N(0)=0,\varphi (0)=\varphi _c,`$ and $`\rho (0)=\rho _c`$, to the surface, where $`p(R)=0`$. We then integrate equations (5)–(8) from the surface of the star to infinity to determine the form of the metric exterior to the star. We note that the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass felt by an observer far away is in general different to the mass that contributes to the redshift.

In addition to considering the scalar-tensor theory, we also investigate the bimetric theory, proposed by Rosen Rosen (1973). This involves, in addition to the dynamical metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, a nondynamical flat metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$.

The metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ in Rosen’s theory may be written as

$$ds^2=e^{2m_\mathrm{\Phi }(r)/r}dt^2$$

$$+e^{2m_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)/r}[dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)],$$
(11)
where $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ are given, interior to the star, by

$$m_\mathrm{\Phi }(r)=4\pi _0^re^{\mathrm{\Phi }+3\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\rho +3p)r^2𝑑r,$$
(12)
$$m_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)=4\pi _0^re^{\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\rho p)r^2𝑑r,$$
(13)
and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are given by the field equations

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=Gm_\mathrm{\Phi }(r)/r^2,$$
(14)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=Gm_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)/r^2.$$
(15)
The equation of hydrostatic equilibrium is

$$p^{}=(\rho +p)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}.$$
(16)
Outside the star, $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }(r)=m_\mathrm{\Phi }(R)M_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)=m_\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)M_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are constants. $`M_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is equal to the Kepler-measured mass at large distances. We specify an equation of state, $`p=p(\rho )`$, and the boundary conditions $`\rho (0)=\rho _c,\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{})=0.`$

Figure 1 shows the relationship between ADM mass and neutron-star radius for the three theories under consideration. For the case of the scalar-tensor theory, we show, as an example, the case $`\beta =8`$, which is comparable to the most negative value of $`\beta `$ not yet ruled out by binary pulsar timing Damour and Esposito-Farèse (1996). For each of the three theories, we plot a shaded region corresponding to the allowed values of mass and radius for equations of state with stiffness between EOS A and EOS UU. We include only the stars stable to radial perturbation and, for configurations in the scalar-tensor theory we show only the one energetically preferred.

As can be seen immediately, all three theories allow neutron stars with masses in the currently observed range of $`1.351.8M_{}`$ to exist Thorsett and Chakrabarty (1999). As a result, measurement of neutron star masses alone cannot distinguish between them. This degeneracy is broken, however, by considering the predicted radii. In the astrophysically relevant range $`M_{\text{ADM}}1.3M_{}`$, the three theories occupy mutually exclusive regions in the $`(M_{\text{ADM}},R)`$ space. Observations that can put limits on both the mass and radius of a neutron star can thus constrain, without ambiguity, the permissible set of gravity theories.

One such observation is of the surface redshift factor, $`z`$, relative to infinity. This is defined by $`E_{\mathrm{}}=[1/(1+z)]E_{\text{surf}}`$, where $`E_{\text{surf}}`$ is the energy of a photon emitted from the stellar surface and measured at infinity with energy $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$. In the GR Schwartzschild metric, this provides a direct measurement of only the ratio $`M_{\text{ADM}}/R`$. In the case of the scalar-tensor and bimetric theories the relationship between $`M_{\text{ADM}}`$, $`R`$, and $`z`$ is more complicated. In all cases, however, the formula,

$$E_{\mathrm{}}=\left(\frac{g_{00,s}}{g_{00,\mathrm{}}}\right)^{1/2}E_{\text{surf}},$$
(17)
holds, where $`g_{00,s}`$ is evaluated at the surface of the star and $`g_{00,\mathrm{}}`$ is evaluated at infinity.

Figures 2 and 3 show the redshift factor $`z`$ for the scalar-tensor and GR theories as contours on a plot of the mass $`M_{\text{ADM}}`$ versus the parameter $`\beta `$, for EOS A and EOS UU, respectively. As discussed above, the phenomenon of spontaneous scalarization occurs only for $`\beta 4.35`$, and so above this value the contours are parallel to the $`\beta `$ axis and equal to the GR value. The heavy lines on the plot show the upper mass limits for neutron stars as well as the bounding region, in the $`(M_{\text{ADM}},\beta )`$ space, where spontaneously scalarized stars are produced. The dashed line shows the value of $`M_{\text{ADM}}`$ as a function of $`\beta `$ for which the baryonic mass is equal to $`1.4M_{}`$. Note the $`z=0.35`$ contour, the value recently measured by Cottam et al. Cottam et al. (2002) in the neutron star source EXO 0748–676.

The redshifts found for stars in the scalar-tensor theories differ greatly from their general relativistic values for both equations of state. The trend is for the redshift values to increase (nearly always) monotonically as $`\beta `$ becomes more negative. If we can place constraints on the neutron star mass, a redshift measurement will put an upper bound on the value of $`\beta `$.

Figure 4 shows the redshift factor $`z`$ as a function of $`M_{\text{ADM}}`$ for neutron stars produced in the GR and bimetric theories. We plot two shaded regions, one for GR and one for the bimetric theory, that cover the range between EOS A and EOS UU. The dashed line shows the recent $`z=0.35`$ measurement Cottam et al. (2002). Even when a GR and a bimetric star have the same redshift, the mass serves to break the degeneracy, providing a test of strong field gravity despite the uncertainty in the equation of state.

The recent measured redshift of $`z=0.35`$ Cottam et al. (2002) cannot by itself constrain strong-field gravity in the theories we consider here. However, strong limits can be placed if the mass of the neutron star is measured directly from binary dynamics or constrained by arguments from formation mechanisms (e.g., restricting the baryonic mass to be above the Chandrasekhar limit for a degenerate core.) The neutron star EXO 0748–676, for which this redshift was measured, is a member of an eclipsing binary system with an orbital period of 3.8 h Parmar et al. (1986) and hence is a prime candidate for producing a mass measurement that can provide such a constraint. Simply requiring the baryonic mass of the star to be greater than $`1.4M_{}`$ (the Chandrasekhar limit for its degenerate progenitor) places an upper limit on $`\beta `$ of 7 (EOS A) to 9 (EOS UU). As expected, the constraint on strong-field gravity depends only weakly on the equation of state.

In addition to the redshift of atomic lines, a number of other observational characteristics of neutron stars depend – in more complicated ways – on the of nature strong-field gravity. These are the maximum allowed spin frequency, the Eddington limit for accreting stars, bursting behavior, cooling rates, and the frequencies of quasi-periodic oscillations. The constraints imposed by quasi-periodic oscillations will be reported in a forthcoming paper.

The constraints on scalar-tensor discussed here have a wider applicability than the structure of compact objects because varieties of scalar-tensor theories naturally arise as low-energy limits of gravitational theories in higher dimensions Overduin and Wesson (1997). They are also under consideration in cosmology as explanations of evidence for an accelerating universe. To date, little attention has been given to the implications of such theories for the properties of compact objects that are now observable. The uncertainties in the equation of state at ultra-high densities were thought to make such studies fruitless. Our investigation has shown that this is not the case and that measurements of the redshifts of surface atomic lines from neutron stars can provide new tests of strong-field gravity.

We thank A. Loeb, J. Maldacena, C. Miller, and F. Özel for useful discussions. SD acknowledges the support of an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. DP acknowledges the support of NSF grant PHY-0070928.