text:
# On the quantum Boltzmann equation

## 1 Introduction

The fundamental equation governing many-body quantum dynamics, the Schrödinger equation, is a time reversible hyperbolic equation. The quantum dynamics of many-body systems, however, are often modelled by a nonlinear, time irreversible (quantum) Boltzmann equation, which exhibits a particle-like behavior. This apparent contradiction has attracted a lot of attention over the years and, in particular, Hugenholtz  gave a derivation based on a perturbation expansion involving multiple commutators. He selected a class of terms from this expansion and argued that it gives the Boltzmann equation. To the second order in the coupling constant, Hugenholtz’s claim was proved by Ho and Landau . Beyond that it is not even clear that these terms satisfy the Boltzmann equation order by order, partly due to the complicated selection rules.

In this paper, we present a derivation of the quantum Boltzmann equation under the main assumption that in the weak coupling limit (8) the four-point and the eight-point functions of the state factorize at any time in the same manner as in a quasifree state, see (22) and (23). A state with such a factorization property is called a restricted quasifree state. To rigorously verify this assumption, one has to analyze the connected $`m`$–point functions, a very difficult problem in our view. So it might appear that we have not improved much beyond the work . Our approach however has the following two main merits. First: It identifies the concept, the restricted quasifreeness, to replace the independence in the classical setting so that the structure of the collision term, i.e., the quartic nonlinearity and the product of the factors $`F`$ and $`1F`$ in the equation (2), appears as a simple consequence of this assumption. Second: Unlike Hugenholtz’s approach which is tied to the commutator expansion, the restricted quasifreeness can now be verified using other methods such as field–theoretical techniques.

Recent work by Benedetto, Castella, Esposito and Pulvirenti  has given an interesting different derivation. We had learned this work in a recent meeting and had subsequently sent them an early version of this manuscript.

## 2 Definitions of the Dynamics

We describe the quantum dynamics in the second–quantized formulation. For definiteness, we shall restrict ourselves to a fermion system. Our derivation is valid for bosons as well with the only difference being that some $`\pm `$ signs change along the derivation and in the final quantum Boltzmann equation (the terms $`(1F)`$ change to $`(1+F)`$ in (2)). It should be noted that many-boson systems are in general more difficult to control rigorously than many-fermion systems. The quantum Boltzmann equation for fermions also preserves the property $`0F1`$. On the contrary, the equation for bosons may blow up in finite time.

Most of our setup is fairly standard and we recall the details briefly here. For background, see . The configuration space is a discrete torus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=^d/L^d`$, of a very large sidelength, $`L`$, which is kept finite throughout the argument. The Hilbert space for the fermions is the standard Fock space $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }:=_{n0}^n_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }:=\mathrm{}^2(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$. 333Thus the fermions are spinless. We could also choose $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\mathrm{}^2(\mathrm{\Lambda },^2)`$ as the one–particle Hilbert space, to allow for a fermion spin $`1/2`$, without changing the derivation in an essential way.  Because $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is finite–dimensional, the same holds for $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

We shall work in momentum space, which for our finite lattice is the discrete torus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}:=\frac{2\pi }{L}^d/2\pi ^d`$. Let $`w_p(x):=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}px}`$ where $`px:=_{i=1}^dp_ix_i`$. The set of functions $`\{w_p:p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\}`$ is an orthogonal basis of $``$ (the normalization is $`w_p^2=L^d`$). Therefore the annihilation operators $`a_p^{}=a(w_p)`$ that are associated to this basis in the standard way (see  or ) obey the canonical anticommutation relations (CAR)

$$a_p^{}a_q^++a_p^+a_q^{}=\delta (p,q):=\{\begin{array}{cc}L^d\hfill & \text{ if }p=q\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
If $`F`$ is continuous on $`:=^d/2\pi ^d`$, then $`L^d_{p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}F(p)_{}\frac{\mathrm{d}^dp}{(2\pi )^d}F(p)`$ as $`L\mathrm{}`$. Since we are ultimately interested in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, we will use the continuum notation even for the finite sums, i.e. we write $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}dpF(p)`$ for $`L^d_{p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}F(p)`$, etc.

Let $`𝒜`$ be the $`C^{}`$ algebra generated by $`\{a_p^+,a_p^{}:p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\}`$. For a selfadjoint element $`H𝒜`$, consider the time evolution given by $`H`$ in the Heisenberg picture, i.e. $`A_t:=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}tH}A\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}tH}`$ for all $`A𝒜`$. Given a state $`\rho `$ on the algebra, we define for $`A𝒜`$, $`\rho _t(A):=\rho (A_t)`$. For all $`t`$, $`\rho _t`$ is again a state on $`𝒜`$, and its time evolution is given by the Schrödinger equation

$$\mathrm{i}\frac{}{t}\rho _t(A)=\rho _t([H,A]).$$
(2)
We take the Hamiltonian $`H:=H_0+\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }`$ where

$$H_0:=dpe(p)a_p^+a_p^{}$$
(3)
is the kinetic energy and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:=dk_1\mathrm{}dk_4k_1k_2\mathrm{\Phi }k_3k_4a_{k_1}^+a_{k_2}^+a_{k_3}^{}a_{k_4}^{}$$
(4)
is the interaction. The coefficient function $`k_1k_2\mathrm{\Phi }k_3k_4`$ is antisymmetric under exchange of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ and under exchange of $`k_3`$ and $`k_4`$, and it contains the momentum conservation delta function. For an interaction generated by a two-body potential $`v(xy)`$ we have

$`k_1k_2\mathrm{\Phi }k_3k_4`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (k_1+k_2,k_3+k_4)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\widehat{v}(k_1k_4)\widehat{v}(k_2k_4)\widehat{v}(k_1k_3)+\widehat{v}(k_2k_3)\right).`$
We assume that $`k_4k_3\mathrm{\Phi }k_2k_1=\overline{k_1k_2\mathrm{\Phi }k_3k_4}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$. In terms of $`v`$ this condition means that $`v`$ is real. For simplicity, we shall assume that $`v`$ is symmetric, i.e.,

$$v(x)=v(x).$$
(6)
We shall call a polynomial $`F`$ in the creation and annihilation operators quartic if it is homogeneous of degree four and contains exactly two creation and two annihilation operators. Any such quartic $`F`$ has a representation similar to $`(\text{2})`$ with a coefficient $`k_1k_2Fk_3k_4`$, and we shall always assume that the coefficient is given in the properly antisymmetrized form so that we can compare coefficients.

The state $`\rho _t`$ is determined by its values on monomials in the creation and annihilation operators. The two point function in Fourier space is defined by

$$\nu _{pq}(t):=\rho _t(a_p^+a_q^{}).$$
(7)
We are interested in the Euler scaling limit of the two point function. In configuration space it amounts to the rescaling

$$x=X/\epsilon ,t=T/\epsilon ,\epsilon 0.$$

Recall the Wigner transform of a function $`\psi L^2(^d)`$ is defined as

$$W_\psi (x,v):=e^{i\eta x}\overline{\widehat{\psi }\left(v\frac{\eta }{2}\right)}\widehat{\psi }\left(v+\frac{\eta }{2}\right)𝑑\eta =e^{ivy}\overline{\psi \left(x+\frac{y}{2}\right)}\psi \left(x\frac{y}{2}\right)𝑑y.$$

Define the rescaled Wigner distribution as

$$W_\psi ^\epsilon (X,V):=\epsilon ^dW_\psi (\frac{X}{\epsilon },V).$$

Its Fourier transform in $`X`$ is given by

$$\widehat{W}_\psi ^\epsilon (\xi ,V)=\overline{\widehat{\psi }\left(V\frac{\epsilon \xi }{2}\right)}\widehat{\psi }\left(V+\frac{\epsilon \xi }{2}\right).$$

We can easily extend this notions to the two point function $`\nu _{pq}`$. In particular, we can define the rescaled Wigner distribution $`W_\rho ^\epsilon (X,V)`$ through its Fourier transform:

$$\widehat{W}_\rho ^\epsilon (\xi ,V)=\rho (a_{V\frac{\epsilon \xi }{2}}^+a_{V+\frac{\epsilon \xi }{2}}^{}).$$

Assume that

$$W^\epsilon (X,V,T):=W_{\rho _{T/\epsilon }}^\epsilon (X,V)F(X,V,T)$$

as $`\epsilon 0`$. Under the weak coupling scaling assumption, i.e.,

$$x=X/\epsilon ,t=T/\epsilon ,\lambda =\sqrt{\epsilon }$$
(8)
one expects that $`F(X,V,T)`$ satisfies the nonlinear Boltzmann equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F(X,V,T)}{t}}+V_XF(X,V,T)`$
$`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle dk_2dk_3dk_4\delta (k_1+k_2,k_3+k_4)\delta (E_1+E_2E_3E_4)}`$
$`\times \left|\widehat{v}(k_1k_4)\widehat{v}(k_1k_3)\right|^2`$
$`\times \left[F_{k_1}F_{k_2}(1F_{k_3})(1F_{k_4})F_{k_4}F_{k_3}(1F_{k_2})(1F_{k_1})\right]`$
where $`F_{k_j}`$ is short notation for $`F(X,k_j,T)`$ and $`E_i=e(k_i)`$ with $`k_1=V`$. If the state is homogeneous in space (i.e. translation invariant) at time zero, then $`\nu _{pq}=\delta (p,q)F_p(t)`$ for all later times $`t`$ as well and the Boltzmann equation is reduced to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_{k_1}}{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle dk_2dk_3dk_4\left|\widehat{v}(k_1k_4)\widehat{v}(k_1k_3)\right|^2}`$
$`\times \delta (k_1+k_2,k_3+k_4)\delta (E_1+E_2E_3E_4)`$
$`\times [F_{k_1}F_{k_2}(1F_{k_3})(1F_{k_4})F_{k_4}F_{k_3}(1F_{k_2})(1F_{k_1})].`$
Our goal is to give a heuristic derivation of this equation.

Remark 1. Without the symmetry assumption (6) one has to replace the collision kernel $`\left|\widehat{v}(k_1k_4)\widehat{v}(k_1k_3)\right|^2`$ in (2) with its symmetrized version

$$\frac{1}{4}\left|\widehat{v}(k_1k_4)\widehat{v}(k_2k_4)\widehat{v}(k_1k_3)+\widehat{v}(k_2k_3)\right|^2$$

and our derivation remains valid.

The quartic structure of the collision is due to the quantum nature and the weak coupling limit. Instead of the weak coupling limit, one can take the low density limit ($`x=X/\epsilon ,t=T/\epsilon ,\lambda =1`$ and the density of the particles is $`\epsilon `$). The resulting equation will be the standard nonlinear Boltzmann equation where collision term is quadratic with full quantum scattering kernel and not just its Born approximation in the weak coupling limit. Technically, the emergence of the full quantum scattering kernel can be seen from resumming the Born series, see  for the simpler case of the Lorentz gas. From our experience working on the weak coupling  and low density limits in random environments, we believe that a rigorous derivation of the low density limit will be somewhat more complicated than in the weak coupling limit. However, the key difficulties arising from many-body quantum dynamics are already present in the weak coupling limit which we shall focus on.

## 3 The equation for the two point function

The Schrödinger equation can be written as

$$(\mathrm{i}_te(p)+e(q))\nu _{pq}(t)=\lambda \rho _t(F_{pq}),$$
(11)
where $`F_{pq}:=[\mathrm{\Phi },a_p^+a_q^{}]`$ is quartic with

$`k_1k_2F_{pq}k_3k_4=`$ $``$ $`\delta (q,k_4)k_1k_2\mathrm{\Phi }pk_3`$
$`+`$ $`\delta (q,k_3)k_1k_2\mathrm{\Phi }pk_4`$
$`+`$ $`\delta (p,k_1)k_2q\mathrm{\Phi }k_3k_4`$
$``$ $`\delta (p,k_2)k_1q\mathrm{\Phi }k_3k_4.`$
Therefore

$$\nu _{pq}(t)=\nu _{pq}(0)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}t(e(p)e(q))}\mathrm{i}\lambda \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}ds\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(ts)(e(p)e(q))}\rho _s(F_{pq}).$$
(13)
Thus we need expectation values of quartic monomials, whose evolution equation analogous to $`(\text{13})`$ involves ones of degree six, etc. This system of equations “hierarchy”) is similar to the Schwinger–Dyson equations, but the commutator structure implies that in an expansion in Feynman graphs only connected graphs contribute.

Let $`\phi _{r_1,\mathrm{},r_4}(t):=\rho _t(a_{r_1}^+a_{r_2}^+a_{r_3}^{}a_{r_4}^{})`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }e(r_1,\mathrm{},r_4):=e(r_1)+e(r_2)e(r_3)e(r_4).$$
(14)
The Schrödinger equation for $`\phi `$ gives

$$(\mathrm{i}_t\mathrm{\Delta }e(r_1,\mathrm{},r_4))\phi _{r_1,\mathrm{},r_4}(t)=\lambda \rho _t([\mathrm{\Phi },a_{r_1}^+a_{r_2}^+a_{r_3}^{}a_{r_4}^{}])$$
(15)
which integrates to

$`\phi _{r_1,\mathrm{},r_4}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{r_1,\mathrm{},r_4}(0)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}t\mathrm{\Delta }e(r_1,\mathrm{},r_4)}`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{i}\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}}ds\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(ts)\mathrm{\Delta }e(r_1,\mathrm{},r_4)}\rho _s([\mathrm{\Phi },a_{r_1}^+a_{r_2}^+a_{r_3}^{}a_{r_4}^{}]).`$
Thus

$$\rho _t(F_{pq})=\rho _0(F_{pq})\mathrm{i}\lambda \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}ds\rho _s([\mathrm{\Phi },G_{pq}(ts)])$$
(17)
where $`G_{pq}=G_{pq}(ts)`$ is quartic with

$`k_1k_2G_{pq}k_3k_4`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(ts)\mathrm{\Delta }e(k_1,\mathrm{},k_4)}`$
$`[k_1k_2|\mathrm{\Phi }|k_3p\delta (k_4,q)k_1k_2|\mathrm{\Phi }|k_4p\delta (k_3,q)`$
$`qk_2|\mathrm{\Phi }|k_3k_4\delta (k_1,p)+qk_1|\mathrm{\Phi }|k_3k_4\delta (k_2,p)].`$
Thus the equation $`(\text{11})`$ for $`\nu _{pq}(t)`$ can be written as

$$(\mathrm{i}_te(p)+e(q))\nu _{pq}(t)=\lambda \rho _0(F_{pq})\mathrm{i}\lambda ^2\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}ds\rho _s([\mathrm{\Phi },G_{pq}(ts)]).$$
(19)
## 4 Restricted Quasifreeness

Up to this point, everything was exact; a heuristic derivation of the Boltzmann equation now begins by treating the state $`\rho _s`$ as quasifree in $`(\text{19})`$, i.e. expressing the term on the right hand side of $`(\text{19})`$ as a product over $`\nu _{pq}(s)`$.

To this end, it is advantageous to avoid any contractions in the commutator, i.e. simply leave it in the form $`[\mathrm{\Phi },G]=\mathrm{\Phi }GG\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which gives

$`[\mathrm{\Phi },G_{pq}(ts)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dk_1\mathrm{}dk_4dl_1\mathrm{}dl_4a_{k_1}^+a_{k_2}^+a_{l_4}^{}a_{l_3}^{}a_{k_3}^+a_{k_4}^+a_{l_2}^{}a_{l_1}^{}}`$ (20)
$`M_{pq}(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4,l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4)`$
with

$`M_{pq}(k_1,\mathrm{},l_4)`$ $`=`$ $`[k_1k_2|\mathrm{\Phi }|l_4l_3k_3k_4|G_{pq}(ts)|l_2l_1`$
$`k_3k_4|\mathrm{\Phi }|l_2l_1k_1k_2|G_{pq}(ts)|l_4l_3].`$
We recall that expectation values of higher order monomials in a quasifree state $`\rho _s`$ can be expressed by the two-point functions (see the Appendix). In particular, the four-point function is given by the following determinant

$$\rho _s(a_{k_1}^+a_{k_2}^+a_{l_2}^{}a_{l_1}^{})=\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{k_1l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_1l_2}\\ \hfill \nu _{k_2l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_2l_2}\end{array}\right|$$
(22)
and the eight-point function appearing in $`(\text{20})`$ is

$$\rho _s(a_{k_1}^+a_{k_2}^+a_{l_4}^{}a_{l_3}^{}a_{k_3}^+a_{k_4}^+a_{l_2}^{}a_{l_1}^{})=\left|\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \nu _{k_1l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_1l_2}& \hfill \nu _{k_1l_3}& \hfill \nu _{k_1l_4}\\ \hfill \nu _{k_2l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_2l_2}& \hfill \nu _{k_2l_3}& \hfill \nu _{k_2l_4}\\ \hfill \nu _{k_3l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_3l_2}& \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_3}& \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_4}\\ \hfill \nu _{k_4l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_4l_2}& \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_3}& \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_4}\end{array}\right|$$
(23)
Here each $`\nu _{kl}`$ stands for $`\nu _{kl}(s)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{kl}=\delta (k,l)+\nu _{kl}(s)`$ appears in the lower right block because the monomial is not normal ordered. We shall call a state $`\rho _s`$ restricted quasifree if both (22) and (23) are satisfied. We shall assume this condition in the limit $`\lambda 0`$.

Return to the derivation of the Boltzmann equation. A Laplace expansion of the determinant gives

$`\rho _t(a_{k_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{l_1}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{k_1l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_1l_2}\\ \hfill \nu _{k_2l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_2l_2}\end{array}\right|\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_3}& \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_4}\\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_3}& \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_4}\end{array}\right|`$ (28)
$``$ $`\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{k_1l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_1l_2}\\ \hfill \nu _{k_3l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_3l_2}\end{array}\right|\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{k_2l_3}& \hfill \nu _{k_2l_4}\\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_3}& \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_4}\end{array}\right|`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{k_1l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_1l_2}\\ \hfill \nu _{k_4l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_4l_2}\end{array}\right|\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{k_2l_3}& \hfill \nu _{k_2l_4}\\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_3}& \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_4}\end{array}\right|`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{k_2l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_2l_2}\\ \hfill \nu _{k_3l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_3l_2}\end{array}\right|\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{k_1l_3}& \hfill \nu _{k_1l_4}\\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_3}& \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_4}\end{array}\right|`$ (43)
$``$ $`\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{k_2l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_2l_2}\\ \hfill \nu _{k_4l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_4l_2}\end{array}\right|\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{k_1l_3}& \hfill \nu _{k_1l_4}\\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_3}& \hfill \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_4}\end{array}\right|`$ (48)
$`+`$ $`\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{k_3l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_3l_2}\\ \hfill \nu _{k_4l_1}& \hfill \nu _{k_4l_2}\end{array}\right|\left|\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{k_1l_3}& \hfill \nu _{k_1l_4}\\ \hfill \nu _{k_2l_3}& \hfill \nu _{k_2l_4}\end{array}\right|.`$ (53)
Noting that $`M_{pq}(k_1,\mathrm{},l_4)`$ is antisymmetric under exchange of $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ and under exchange of $`l_3`$ with $`l_4`$, and that the same is true for each of the six summands in the Laplace expansion, we see that we may replace every $`2\times 2`$ determinant by the product of the diagonal elements if we include a symmetry factor $`4`$. Moreover, $`M_{pq}(k_1,\mathrm{},l_4)`$ is antisymmetric under $`(k_1,k_2,l_4,l_3)(k_3,k_4,l_2,l_1)`$ (this is just the antisymmetry of the commutator in its two arguments), but the last of the six summands, $`\nu _{k_3l_1}\nu _{k_4l_2}\nu _{k_1l_3}\nu _{k_2l_4}`$, is symmetric, so it cancels out. Graphically, this is the cancellation of the disconnected term. Thus the term multiplying $`M_{pq}(k_1,\mathrm{},l_4)`$ is

$`4`$ $`(`$ $`\nu _{k_1l_1}\nu _{k_2l_2}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_3}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_4}`$ (54)
$``$ $`\nu _{k_1l_1}\nu _{k_3l_2}\nu _{k_2l_3}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_4}`$
$`+`$ $`\nu _{k_1l_1}\nu _{k_4l_2}\nu _{k_2l_3}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_4}`$
$`+`$ $`\nu _{k_2l_1}\nu _{k_3l_2}\nu _{k_1l_3}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_4}`$
$``$ $`\nu _{k_2l_1}\nu _{k_4l_2}\nu _{k_1l_3}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_4})`$
$`=4`$ $`\{`$ $`\nu _{k_1l_1}\nu _{k_2l_2}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_3}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_4}`$
$`+`$ $`(\nu _{k_3l_2}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_4}\nu _{k_4l_2}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_4})(\nu _{k_1l_3}\nu _{k_2l_1}\nu _{k_1l_1}\nu _{k_2l_3})\}.`$
Again, the last factor is antisymmetric with respect to an exchange of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ and an exchange of $`k_3`$ and $`k_4`$, so there is another symmetry factor $`4`$, and

$`\varrho _s([\mathrm{\Phi },G_{pq}(ts)])`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dk_1\mathrm{}dk_4dl_1\mathrm{}dl_4M_{pq}(k_1,\mathrm{},l_4)}`$ (55)
$`4(\nu _{k_1l_1}\nu _{k_2l_2}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_3}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_4}+4\nu _{k_1l_1}\nu _{k_2l_3}\nu _{k_4l_2}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_4}).`$
We remark that if we had used the commutator contraction to express $`[\mathrm{\Phi },G]`$ in $`(\text{20})`$, then we would have needed to evaluate only monomials of degree six on the state $`\varrho _s`$. The calculation would have been longer because certain cancellations would be less transparent. However this approach has the advantage that it requires the quasifree factorization property of $`\varrho _s`$ only for degree six monomials instead of degree eight.

## 5 Spatial homogeneity

If we assume that the distribution is homogeneous in space (i.e. translation invariant) at time zero, then $`\nu _{pq}=\delta (p,q)f_p(t)`$ for all later times $`t`$ as well by the translation invariance of $`H`$. In this case there are further simplifications: the term $`\rho _0(F_{pp})`$ vanishes and the $`e(p)e(q)`$ term in the differential equation also drops out. Moreover, for $`p=q`$

$`k_1k_2G_{pq}k_3k_4`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(ts)\mathrm{\Delta }e(k_1,\mathrm{},k_4)}k_1k_2|\mathrm{\Phi }|k_3k_4`$
$`\times (\delta (p,k_4)+\delta (p,k_3)\delta (p,k_2)\delta (p,k_1))`$
so we can compute the contribution of the first term on the right hand side of $`(\text{55})`$ as

$`{\displaystyle dk_1\mathrm{}dl_4M_{pq}(k_1,\mathrm{},l_4)4\nu _{k_1l_1}\nu _{k_2l_2}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_3}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_4l_4}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dk_1\mathrm{}dk_4\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(ts)\mathrm{\Delta }e(k_1,\mathrm{},k_4)}}`$
$`\times 8|k_1k_2|\mathrm{\Phi }|k_3k_4|^2(\delta (k_4,p)\delta (k_1,p))`$
$`\times (f_{k_1}f_{k_2}\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_3}\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_4}f_{k_4}f_{k_3}\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_2}\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_1})`$
with $`\stackrel{~}{f}_p=1f_p`$. The second term $`16M_{pq}(k_1,\mathrm{},l_4)\nu _{k_1l_1}\nu _{k_2l_3}\nu _{k_4l_2}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k_3l_4}`$ in $`(\text{55})`$ drops out because with the assignment of momenta it is equal to

$$32(\delta (k_1,p)\delta (k_3,p))k_1k_2|\mathrm{\Phi }|k_3k_2k_3k_4|\mathrm{\Phi }|k_4k_1\mathrm{cos}[(ts)(e(k_3)e(k_1))],$$

and this quantity vanishes because the delta functions in both $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ factors are $`\delta (k_1,k_3)`$ and thus $`\delta (k_1,p)\delta (k_3,p)=0`$.

Inserting $`(\text{2})`$ into $`(\text{5})`$, recalling that in our finite volume, $`\delta (p,p)=L^d`$, so that $`\delta (p,q)^2=L^d\delta (p,q)`$, and using (6) and symmetry arguments as above, we get

$`_tf_p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}}ds{\displaystyle dk_1\mathrm{}dk_4\delta (k_1+k_2,k_3+k_4)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(ts)\mathrm{\Delta }e(k_1,\mathrm{},k_4)}}`$
$`\times 2(\delta (k_4,p)\delta (k_1,p))\left|\widehat{v}(k_1k_4)\widehat{v}(k_1k_3)\right|^2`$
$`\times (f_{k_1}(s)f_{k_2}(s)\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_3}(s)\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_4}(s)f_{k_4}(s)f_{k_3}(s)\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_2}(s)\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_1}(s)).`$
## 6 Local approximation in time

We rewrite the equation as

$$\lambda ^2_tf_p(t)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}dE\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}ds\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}E(ts)}\beta (E,p,s)$$
(59)
with

$`\beta (E,p,s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dk_1\mathrm{}dk_4\delta (k_1+k_2,k_3+k_4)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(\delta (k_4,p)\delta (k_1,p))}`$
$`\times \left|\widehat{v}(k_1k_4)\widehat{v}(k_1k_3)\right|^2\delta (E\mathrm{\Delta }e(k_1,\mathrm{},k_4))`$
$`\times (f_{k_1}(s)f_{k_2}(s)\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_3}(s)\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_4}(s)f_{k_4}(s)f_{k_3}(s)\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_2}(s)\stackrel{~}{f}_{k_1}(s)),`$
Since $`v`$ is symmetric (6), $`\beta `$ is a symmetric function of $`E`$.

Notice that $`f`$ and $`\beta `$ are $`\lambda `$ dependent and we shall denote them by $`f^\lambda `$ and $`\beta ^\lambda `$. We now assume that the limits

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}f_p^\lambda (T/\lambda ^2)=F(T,p),\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\beta ^\lambda (E,p,T/\lambda ^2)=B(E,p,T)$$
(61)
exist and the relation (6) continues to hold in the limit. We can take the limit $`\lambda 0`$ in (59) and this yields

$$_TF(T,p)=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}dE\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}S}{\lambda ^2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}E(TS)/\lambda ^2}\beta ^\lambda (E,p,S/\lambda ^2).$$
(62)
We now assume that we can replace the function $`\beta ^\lambda `$ by its limit $`B`$. Thus we have

$$_TF(T,p)=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}dE\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}S}{\lambda ^2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}E(TS)/\lambda ^2}B(E,p,S/\lambda ^2).$$
(63)
Interchanging the the integration and performing the $`E`$ integration, we have

$$_TF(T,p)=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}S}{\lambda ^2}\widehat{B}((TS)/\lambda ^2,p,S/\lambda ^2).$$

Let $`u=(TS)/\lambda ^2`$. We can rewrite the last equation as

$$_TF(T,p)=\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}du\widehat{B}(u,p,T+u\lambda ^2).$$

In the limit $`\lambda 0`$, the right side converges to

$$\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}du\widehat{B}(u,p,T)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}du\widehat{B}(u,p,T)=\pi B(0,p,T).$$

where we have used the symmetry of $`\beta `$ in $`E`$. Combining the last two equations, we have derived the Boltzmann equation (2).

In this derivation, we used the restricted quasifreeness assumption, spatial homogeneity and the existence of the limit for the the two point function $`\nu _{pq}`$ (cf: (61)). We have not made precise the meaning of the limit and we have freely interchanged limits with differentiations and integrations etc. This suggests that for a rigorous proof the two point function has to be controlled precisely, perhaps through some expansion method.

The spatial homogeneity of the initial state can be replaced with the assumption that the point function at any time scales as

$$\nu _{pq}(t)=R(\epsilon t,\frac{p+q}{2},\frac{pq}{2\epsilon }).$$

Our derivation above can easily be extended to this case to give the spatially inhomogeneous Boltzmann equation $`(\text{2})`$.

## Appendix A Quasifree states and determinants

For finite $`L`$, the observable algebra is finite–dimensional, so a state $`\rho `$ is quasifree if and only if it is given by density matrix coming from a quadratic Hamiltonian (see, e.g. ). That is,

$$\rho (A)=\frac{1}{Z}\text{ tr }(\mathrm{e}^{H_0}A),$$
(64)
where $`Z=`$ tr $`\mathrm{e}^{H_0}`$. We restrict to states which are invariant under the transformations $`a_p^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\alpha }a_p^{}`$ for all $`\alpha `$. For this case we prove below that the expectation value of any normal ordered monomial can be computed with the following formula:

$$\rho \left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{m}{}}a_{p_n}^+\underset{n^{}=1}{\overset{m^{}}{}}a_{q_n^{}}^{}\right)=\delta _{mm^{}}(1)^{m(m1)/2}det\left(\rho (a_{p_n}^+a_{q_n^{}}^{})\right)_{1n,n^{}m}.$$
(65)
To simplify notation, we enumerate our finite set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ in some way so that we can replace the subscript $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ by a number $`i\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$, $`N=L^d`$. Moreover, because (65) is homogeneous, we may rescale the creation and annihilation operators by $`L^{d/2}`$, so that they obey the CAR $`a_i^{}a_j^++a_j^+a_i^{}=\delta _{ij}`$ with $`\delta _{ij}`$ the Kronecker delta. With these conventions, and by the just stated $`U(1)`$ invariance,

$$H_0=\underset{i,j}{}a_i^+Q_{ij}a_j^{}.$$
(66)
Positivity of $`\rho `$ requires $`H_0`$ to be hermitian, so $`\overline{Q}_{ij}=Q_{ji}`$. Thus there is $`UU(N)`$ such that $`Q=UEU^{}`$ with $`E=\text{ diag }\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_N\}`$. The operators $`b_k^{}=_jU_{kj}a_j`$ have canonical anticommutation relations $`b_k^{}b_l^++b_l^+b_k^{}=\delta _{kl}`$, so that $`n_k=b_k^+b_k^{}`$ satisfies $`n_k^2=n_k`$ and $`n_kn_l=n_ln_k`$. Thus $`\mathrm{e}^{H_0}`$ is the product of commuting factors

$$\mathrm{e}^{H_0}=\underset{k}{}\left(1+(\mathrm{e}^{E_k}1)n_k\right),$$
(67)
hence $`Z=_k(1+\mathrm{e}^{E_k})`$, and $`\rho (b_k^+b_l^{})=\delta _{kl}(1+\mathrm{e}^{E_k})^1`$. This implies

$$\rho (a_i^+a_i^{}^{})=U_{i^{}l}\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{E_l}}\overline{U}_{il}=(1+\mathrm{e}^Q)_{}^{1}{}_{i^{}i}{}^{}.$$
(68)
Because $`H_0`$ is diagonal when expressed in terms of $`b^+`$ and $`b^{}`$,

$$\rho \left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}b_{u_k}^+\underset{k^{}=1}{\overset{m^{}}{}}b_{v_k^{}}^{}\right)$$
(69)
vanishes unless $`m^{}=m`$ and $`(v_1,\mathrm{},v_m)`$ is a permutation of $`(u_1,\mathrm{},u_m):`$ $`v_k=u_{\pi (k)}`$. In that case, by the CAR, (69) equals

$$(1)^{m(m1)/2}\text{ sign }(\pi )\rho \left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}(b_{u_k}^+b_{u_k}^{})\right).$$
(70)
Eq. (65) now follows straightforwardly by expressing the product of $`a^+`$ and $`a^{}`$ in terms of $`b^+`$ and $`b^{}`$ and using the definition of the determinant.

In (22) and (23), the indices of the annihilation operators are ordered downwards, so the factor $`(1)^{m(m1)/2}`$ is absent. The procedure of commuting a monomial that is not normal ordered to its normal ordered form corresponds to successive row expansions of the determinant in (23).

Addresses of the authors:

László Erdős
School of Mathematics
GeorgiaTech Atlanta, GA 30332, U.S.A.
lerdos@math.gatech.edu

Manfred Salmhofer
Max-Planck Institute for Mathematics,
Inselstr. 22, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
and
Theoretical Physics, University of Leipzig,
Augustusplatz 10, D-04109 Leipzig, Germany
mns@mis.mpg.de

Horng-Tzer Yau
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
New York University,
New York, NY, 10012, U.S.A.
yau@cims.nyu.edu


format: text

text:
# A short distance quark-antiquark potential

(Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics,
117218, B.Cheremushkinskaya 25, Moscow, Russia)

## Abstract

Leading terms of the static quark-antiquark potential in the background perturbation theory are reviewed, including perturbative, nonperturbative and interference ones. The potential is shown to describe lattice data at short quark-antiquark separations with a good accuracy.

1. The static quark-antiquark potential was calculated with high accuracy in lattice QCD some years ago . It was shown to be well described by the phenomenological Coulomb+linear Cornell potential at sufficiently large quark-antiquark separations, $`R\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.2`$ fm. At smaller distances the Cornell potential is not applicable. The region 0.03 fm $`R`$ 0.22 fm was studied in quenched lattice theory in detail , and the conclusion was made that the standard perturbative theory expansion in coupling constant does not yield appropriate description of lattice results, at least in one- and two-loop approximations. As is known, next terms of the asymptotic coupling expansion depend on the renormalization scheme, and so the corresponding static potential does. One can argue that the standard perturbative theory fails because this region is close to the unphysical Landau pole of the strong coupling.

There is a wealth of literature on the short distance potential behavior, see , , ,  and references therein. In the talk we consider the static quark-antiquark potential in the background perturbation theory (BPT) . This potential incorporates both the features of the standard perturbative potential at tiny distances, $`R\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.05`$ fm, and of the Cornell potential at $`R\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.4`$ fm due to taking nonperturbative background field effects into account. After brief review of leading background potential terms we present our results concerning the behavior of the potential at short distances and its comparison with the lattice .

2. The gluon field $`A_\mu `$ in BPT is divided into the dynamical perturbative part $`a_\mu `$ and the background nonperturbative field $`B_\mu `$,

$$A_\mu =a_\mu +B_\mu .$$
(1)
The background field, in which perturbative valence gluons propagate, results in the vacuum condensate creation.

The static potential has to be calculated using the vacuum averaged Wilson loop for the quark-antiquark pair. The BPT Wilson loop expansion in the field $`a_\mu `$ has the form

$$W(B+a)=W(B)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(ig)^nW^{(n)}(B;x(1)..x(n))a_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}a_{\mu _n}dx_{\mu _1}(1)\mathrm{}dx_{\mu _n}(n).$$
(2)
To perform the averaging of the expression (2), we take into account that the linear in $`a_\mu `$ term vanishes,

$$W(B+a)_{B,a}=W(B)_Bg^2W^{(2)}(B;x,y)_Bdxdy+\mathrm{},$$
(3)
where

$$g^2W^{(2)}dxdy=g^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{\alpha \beta }(x,y,B)t_{\delta \alpha }^at_{\beta \gamma }^bG_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(x,y,B)\mathrm{\Phi }^{\gamma \delta }(y,x)𝑑x_\mu 𝑑y_\nu .$$
(4)
The Green function of the valence gluon in the background gauge takes the form

$$G_{\mu \nu }(x,y)=a_\mu (x)a_\nu (y)_B=x|(\widehat{D}_\lambda ^2\delta _{\mu \nu }2ig\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu })^1|y,$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{D}_\lambda ^2`$ is the covariant derivative depending on the field $`B`$, and $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the background field strength. The operator $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ has to be considered as a correction . The Green function expansion in the $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ takes the form

$$G(x,y)=x|D^2|yx|D^22ig\widehat{F}D^2|y+x|D^22ig\widehat{F}D^22ig\widehat{F}D^2|y+\mathrm{}.$$
(6)
The terms of odd powers in the field $`B`$ vanish. Let us confine ourselves by the third term in the expansion (6) and quadratic term in (3), and write the Wilson loop in the form

$$W(B+a)_{B,a}W(B)_B+W(B)_B\left(\stackrel{~}{W}_1^{(2)}+\stackrel{~}{W}_3^{(2)}\right).$$
(7)
One can verify using the Fock-Feynman-Shwinger representation  for the Green function expansion (6) that the factorization of the second term in (7) is valid. Terms proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1^{(2)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{W}_3^{(2)}`$ come from the first and third terms in (6). The following approximate expression is valid within the accuracy considered,

$$W(B+a)_{B,a}W(B)_B\mathrm{exp}\left(\stackrel{~}{W}_1^{(2)}+\stackrel{~}{W}_3^{(2)}\right).$$
(8)
Taking the logarithm, we arrive at the three corresponding terms in the static potential,

$$V_{Q\overline{Q}}(r)=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{T}\mathrm{ln}W(B+a)_{B,a}=V_{NP}(r)+V_P(r)+V_{\mathrm{int}}(r),$$
(9)
where $`r`$ is the quark-antiquark separation, the nonperturbative potential $`V_{NP}`$ is given by the average of the Wilson loop $`W(B)_B`$, the background perturbative potential $`V_P`$ comes from the first term in the expansion (6), and the interference potential $`V_{\mathrm{int}}`$ comes from the third one. The nonperturbative potential rises linearly at distances $`r\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}T_g`$, where $`T_g=0.12÷0.2`$ fm is the background field correlation length, and is quadratic at short distances $`r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}T_g`$ (see e.g. the talk at this conference ),

$$V_{NP}(r)\frac{2}{\pi }\frac{r}{T_g}\sigma r.$$
(10)
One can see that at short distances $`V_{NP}(r)\sigma r`$.

The interference potential was calculated in  and shown to be close to the linear one at short distances,

$$V_{\mathrm{int}}(r)\sigma R.$$
(11)
The background perturbative potential has the form

$$V_P(r)=\frac{C_F\alpha _B(r)}{r},$$
(12)
where $`C_F=4/3`$ and the background coupling $`\alpha _B(r)`$ saturates with some critical, or freezing, value at large $`r`$.

3. We proceed now to a comparison between background and standard couplings at short distances. The Callan-Symanzik equation yields the following expressions for the running coupling constant in one- and two-loop approximations,

$$\alpha _s^{(1)}(q)=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}},$$
(13)
$$\alpha _s^{(2)}(q)=\alpha _s^{(1)}(q)\left(1\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right),$$
(14)
where $`\beta _0=11\frac{2}{3}n_f`$, $`\beta _1=102\frac{38}{3}n_f`$, $`q^2𝐪^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }385`$ MeV is the QCD constant (for the discussion of its value see ).

The modified Callan-Symanzik equation is used in BPT  for the background coupling $`\alpha _B`$, which takes into account the background field contribution and leads to the substitution $`q^2q^2+m_B^2`$ in (13), (14), where $`m_B=1`$ GeV . One can see that the background coupling saturates with the freezing value in infrared region $`q^2m_B^2`$ and turns to standard $`\alpha _s`$ in ultraviolet one.

The background coupling in the coordinate representation can be calculated using the Fourier transform, and in two-loop approximation takes the form

$$\alpha _B^{(2)}(r)=\frac{8}{\beta _0}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dq}{q}\frac{\mathrm{sin}qr}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{q^2+m_B^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\left(1\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}\frac{q^2+m_B^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{q^2+m_B^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right).$$
(15)
It is shown in comparison with the standard coupling in Fig. 1. One can see from the figure considerable difference between two curves at $`r\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.05`$ fm. The coupling $`\alpha _s(r)`$ grows rapidly in this region due to the influence of the pole, which is situated at $`r0.3`$ fm.

Let us compare now the background static potential behavior at short distances with the lattice one.

Relying on the relations (9)-(12), (15), we approximate the potential in this region by the sum

$$V_B(r)\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha _B^{(2)}(r)}{r}+\sigma r.$$
(16)
The behavior of $`V_B(r)`$ at $`r<0.22`$ fm is shown in Fig. 2 in comparison with lattice points from . The values of $`\sigma =0.2`$ GeV2 and overall shift $`C=253`$ MeV were taken from the fit, which has provided agreement between background and lattice potentials with the accuracy $`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}50`$ MeV of the latter.

4. In summary we enumerate some properties of the short distance static quark-antiquark potential.

* The potential at $`rT_g`$ consists mainly of perturbative and interference parts. Purely nonperturbative potential is small in this region.
* The background running coupling constant saturates with the freezing value in infrared region and goes over to the standard coupling in ultraviolet region.
* A considerable difference between standard and background couplings in two-loop approximation starts already at distances $`r\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.05`$ fm.
* The background potential, approximated as a sum of two-loop background perturbative potential and linear potential with the slope $`\sigma `$, yields a good description of lattice simulations at short distances. This in turn means that the short distance area law for the Wilson loop, used in particular in the QCD string approach , is justified.

This work has been supported by RFBR grants 00-02-17836, 00-15-96786, and INTAS 00-00110, 00-00366.

Figure caption

Figure 2: The background potential $`V_B(r)`$ (solid line) compared to the lattice one from  (points) in units of $`r_0=2.5`$ GeV-1. 1-loop and 2-loop standard perturbative potentials from  are shown by thin solid line below lattice points and dash-dotted line correspondingly; 1-loop + linear with the large slope $`\sigma ^{}1`$ GeV2 potential is shown by dashed line. The figure is taken from our paper .