The Renormalised Bogoliubov-Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian

CNRS); Jonas Lampart (LICB

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The Renormalised Bogoliubov-Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A cutoff-independent Hamiltonian for the Bogoliubov-Fröhlich model is constructed explicitly.

desk verdict A plausible first explicit renormalisation of the Bogoliubov–Fröhlich Hamiltonian with a clean log-divergence coefficient, but the proof leans heavily on imported lemmas and the headline calculation is asserted rather than shown. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02430 v3 pith:J6U7C3IG submitted 2019-09-05 cond-mat.quant-gas math-phmath.MPquant-ph

Jonas Lampart (LICB , CNRS) This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.quant-gasmath-phmath.MPquant-ph

keywords Bogoliubov-FröhlichHamiltonianBECpolaronultravioletdivergencerenormalisationlogarithmicself-adjointoperatorresolventconvergenceinterior-boundaryconditions

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that the Bogoliubov-Fröhlich Hamiltonian, which models an impurity immersed in a Bose-Einstein condensate, can be renormalized in a rigorous way. Subtracting the two divergent terms of the ground-state energy — a linear term $e_1\Lambda$ and a logarithmic term $e_2\log\Lambda$ — and letting the ultraviolet cutoff $\Lambda$ go to infinity yields a well-defined, self-adjoint operator that is bounded from below. The paper gives an explicit formula for this renormalized Hamiltonian and computes the logarithmic coefficient $e_2 = g^4\mu^3\,\gamma(\mu/M)/\pi^3$ exactly. This matters because the logarithmic divergence is stronger than in the classic Fröhlich and Nelson polaron models, and its origin had not been explained at the level of the Hamiltonian.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a two-step renormalisation transformation. In the first step, the identity (22) factorizes $H_\Lambda$ as $(1-G_{\sigma,\Lambda}^\dagger)(H_0+\sigma)(1-G_{\sigma,\Lambda})-\sigma$ plus a fermion-number-preserving operator; subtracting the linear divergence $E_\Lambda^{(1)}$ leaves a finite operator $\Sigma^{(1)}$. In the second step, because $\Sigma^{(1)}$ is not sufficiently small relative to $H_0$, the paper treats $H_0+\Sigma^{(1)}$ as the new unperturbed operator and defines a modified map $\tilde G_\sigma = -g(H_0+\Sigma^{(1)}+\sigma)^{-1}a^\dagger(v)$. The resolvent identity then extracts the remaining logarithmic divergence and defines the finite operator $\Sigma^{(2)}$, yielding the explicit formula (54). The proof hinges on Lemmas 3 and 5, which assert uniform-in-$n$ bounds for the integral operators $\Sigma^{(1)}$ and $\Sigma^{(2)}$; these bounds come from the companion analysis in [22] and the observation in [27] that the off-diagonal contributions do not grow with boson number.

What would settle it

Compute the norm of $\Sigma^{(1)}\psi^{(n)}$ for a sequence of $n$-boson states and check whether the constant $C$ in Lemma 3 remains independent of $n$; any growth of the bound with $n$ would refute the key estimate. Alternatively, a numerical calculation of the ground-state energy of $H_\Lambda - E_\Lambda$ at very large $\Lambda$ that shows a residual $\log\Lambda$ dependence would contradict the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2: there exists a self-adjoint and lower-bounded renormalized operator $H_{\mathrm{ren}}$ on an explicitly characterized domain $\mathcal{D}(H_{\mathrm{ren}})$, and the cutoff Hamiltonians $H_\Lambda$ minus energy shifts $E_\Lambda$ converge to $H_{\mathrm{ren}}$ in resolvent norm as $\Lambda\to\infty$. The construction is explicit: $H_{\mathrm{ren}} = (1-\tilde G_\sigma^\dagger)(H_0+\Sigma^{(1)}+\sigma)(1-\tilde G_\sigma)+\Sigma^{(2)}-\sigma$, where $\Sigma^{(1)}$ and $\Sigma^{(2)}$ are finite operators obtained by extracting the divergences from the perturbative expansion, and $\tilde G_\sigma$ is a modified annihilation-operator-valued map. The subtracted constants are exactly the linear and logarithmic ground-state energy divergences, including the coefficient $e_2$ given in closed form. The paper also shows that the domain condition has the form of interior-boundary conditions, relating the singular behavior of wavefunctions on collision configurations to wavefunctions with fewer bosons.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on the assumption, taken from [22] and [27] and used in Lemmas 3 and 5, that the integral operators $\Sigma^{(1)}$ and $\Sigma^{(2)}$ satisfy bounds that do not grow with the boson number $n$; if those uniform-in-$n$ bounds failed, the relative-boundedness and resolvent-convergence arguments would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The ground-state energy of $H_\Lambda - E_\Lambda$ is finite in the limit, and the unitary time evolutions converge in norm, so the model has a genuine cutoff-free dynamical evolution.
The explicit coefficient $e_2$ for the logarithmic shift matches the numerical results of [15], providing a quantitative test of the renormalisation scheme.
The domain characterization (55) offers a direct, checkable interior-boundary-condition criterion for membership in $\mathcal{D}(H_{\mathrm{ren}})$, applicable to eigenfunctions of the fixed-momentum operators.
The recursive expansion (62) gives a systematic perturbative series in powers of $g$ in which every correction beyond $\Sigma^{(2)}$ is a bounded operator, making the renormalised Hamiltonian amenable to nonperturbative and numerical study.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the method extends to form factors with $\int |v_\infty(k)|^2/(k^2+1)^{2s} < \infty$ for $s<1$, as the paper conjectures, a hierarchy of divergences of the form $e_1\Lambda^{\gamma_1}+\dots+e_j\Lambda^{\gamma_j}+e_{j+1}\log\Lambda$ should appear, and the same two-step subtraction should produce renormalised Hamiltonians for a larger class of polaron-type models.
The explicit form of $H_{\mathrm{ren}}$ may make it possible to compute the effective polaron mass from the curvature of the ground-state energy at fixed total momentum; the paper does not prove the curvature is finite, but the explicit operator expression is a starting point for such an analysis.
Because the subtracted constants are independent of total momentum, energy differences $E_\Lambda(P)-E_\Lambda(P')$ remain finite, suggesting that effective-mass and dispersion properties of the polaron can be studied without cutoff artifacts, although the paper's results do not by themselves establish finiteness of the second derivative.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line up front: this is a credible and important construction for the BEC polaron literature. It supplies the first explicit renormalised operator for the Bogoliubov–Fröhlich Hamiltonian, including a closed-form value for the coefficient of the log divergence, and the main existence theorem is plausible and well-motivated. The proof, however, is not fully self-contained: the two load-bearing n-independent bounds are imported from the author's own earlier paper, and the headline coefficient e2 is asserted after "evaluation of the corresponding integrals" without derivation. Both are presentation gaps rather than demonstrated errors, and both are fixable.

What is genuinely new: the two-step subtraction leading to the explicit Hren in (54), its domain in (55), and the resolvent convergence of the cutoff Hamiltonian minus the two constants EΛ^(1)+EΛ^(2). The derivation of e2 in (36) is a first-principles explanation of the log divergence observed numerically in [17] and [15]; the comparison with those numerics is a real check. The interior-boundary-condition interpretation in Sec. 2.5 is illuminating and consistent with the domain condition. The formal expansion in Sec. 2.3 is a useful byproduct.

The soft spots are exactly where the reader puts them. Lemma 5 is the linchpin: without n-independent Schur bounds for Θ^(2)_od, the relative-boundedness step in Prop. 7 collapses, and Prop. 8 inherits that. The text says the argument is in [22, Lem.19], but the operator here has a double sum and four form factors; it is a genuine extension, not a verbatim import. The paper should either include the proof or state the lemma with a full reference to a version that covers this case. Similarly, e2 is not needed for the existence theorem, but it is advertised as a detailed explanation, so showing the integral evaluation would materially strengthen the paper. Minor issues: typos, and the comparison to [15, Eq.(5.43)] would benefit from a note on the π/4 discrepancy.

All told, the central argument is credible. This deserves a serious referee.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a renormalised Bogoliubov-Fröhlich Hamiltonian for an impurity coupled to the excitations of a Bose-Einstein condensate. The main result, Theorem 2, asserts the existence of an explicit self-adjoint, lower-bounded operator Hren with domain given by Eq. (55), and of subtraction constants EΛ such that the cutoff Hamiltonians HΛ - EΛ converge to Hren in resolvent norm. The renormalisation proceeds by writing HΛ in a factorised form and subtracting two divergent constants: the linear divergence EΛ^(1) and the logarithmic divergence EΛ^(2) whose coefficient e2 is stated in Eq. (36). The paper also sketches the extension to multiple impurities and describes the domain condition in terms of interior-boundary conditions.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, the paper provides a valuable non-perturbative, explicit description of the renormalised Bogoliubov-Fröhlich model, explains the logarithmic ultraviolet divergence observed numerically, and offers a g-expansion that is compatible with renormalisation. The claimed coefficient e2 in Eq. (36) is compared with the numerical results of Grusdt and Demler, giving the paper a concrete falsifiable quantitative prediction. However, the proof of the central theorem is not self-contained: the two key technical estimates, Lemma 3 and especially Lemma 5, are deferred to the author's previous work [22] and to [27], with the n-independence of the Schur-test bounds asserted but not demonstrated for the Bogoliubov-Fröhlich form factor and dispersion. Since these lemmas underpin the relative-boundedness argument in Proposition 7 and the resolvent convergence in Proposition 8, the rigorous content of Theorem 2 is conditional on estimates that the present manuscript does not establish.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.2, Lemma 5 (Eq. (52))] Lemma 5 is load-bearing for the main theorem: Proposition 7 uses the bound ||Σ^(2)Ψ|| ≤ g^4 C ||(H0+σ)^ε Ψ|| to show that Σ^(2) is relatively bounded with bound zero, and Proposition 8 uses the same estimate together with the convergence statement (53). The proof given in the text says that the n-independence of the Schur-test bound for the integral operator Θ^(2)_od is established by 'a detailed argument ... in [22, Lem.19]'. However, [22] treats a different model (v∞ constant and ω(k)=k^2+1), and the operator Θ^(2)_od in Eq. (47) involves a double sum over n boson indices and four insertions of the Bogoliubov-Fröhlich form factor vΛ. The n-independence of the bound is therefore a genuine property of the present model, not a verbatim consequence of [22]. If the optimal constant in (52) grew with n, the relative-boundedness argument in Proposition 7 would fail and Proposition 8 would inherit the failure. The manuscript should provide a proof of Lemma 5 for the form factor and dispersion used here, or a precise reference with hypotheses that are verified for these choices.
[Section 2.2, Lemma 3 (Eq. (27))] The same issue affects Lemma 3. The bound ||Σ^(1)ψ^(n)|| ≤ g^2 C ||(H0+σ)^(1/2)ψ^(n)|| with an n-independent constant is used throughout the construction, including the definition of Σ^(2) (Eq. (51)) and the convergence proof in Proposition 8. The proof says that the n-independence of the Schur-test bound for the integral part Σ^(1)_od 'was made in [27]' and that a detailed proof is 'obtained by following the steps of [22, Lem.17]'. Again, [22] uses different form factor and dispersion, and [27] concerns fermionic point interactions. Since the estimate is not proved or precisely quoted in the present manuscript, the reader cannot verify the central technical hypothesis. The paper needs either a self-contained proof of Lemma 3 for the Bogoliubov-Fröhlich data, or an explicit statement of the theorem from [22] or [27] that covers the present case with all hypotheses checked.
[Section 2.2, Eqs. (34)-(36)] The logarithmic coefficient e2 is one of the advertised quantitative results, but the derivation is not given: the text states 'By evaluation of the corresponding integrals we find E2 ∼ e2 log Λ' and then writes the closed form e2 = g^4 μ^3 π^{-3} γ(μ/M). The integral defining EΛ^(2) in Eq. (34) involves a combination of Σ^(1)_d and Σ^(1)_od and is nontrivial; the claimed closed form, including the function γ(s), is not obvious and is not derived. Since the abstract and introduction emphasise a 'detailed explanation' of the UV behaviour and the comparison with [15, Fig.5.5] is a quantitative check, the calculation leading to Eqs. (35)-(36) should be presented, or at least sketched with the key identities and cancellations. This issue is less central to the existence theorem than Lemma 5, but it is central to the paper's stated purpose.

minor comments (5)

[Section 1.2] The sentence 'The constants the ξ and c are the coherence length and the speed of sound' contains a grammatical error; it should read 'The constants ξ and c are...'.
[Eq. (15)] The expression for the effective mass uses the garbled notation '∂P 2 1'; this should be written as ∂^2 EΛ(P)/∂P_1^2, with the subscript properly placed.
[Eq. (47)] The summation notation 'j⩽ n+1 ℓ⩽ n+2 ∑ (j,ℓ)≠(n+1,n+2)' is confusing. It should be written as a double sum over j and ℓ with the indicated exclusion, e.g. ∑_{j=1}^{n+1} ∑_{\ell=1}^{n+2, (j,\ell)\ne(n+1,n+2)}.
[Theorem 2] Theorem 2 states 'HΛ − EΛ → Hren' without specifying the mode of convergence. The precise sense, convergence of resolvents in operator norm, is only given later in Proposition 8. The theorem should state the resolvent convergence explicitly or refer forward to Proposition 8.
[Eq. (24)] The notation '✓kj' is used before it is defined in the following sentence. Define it before first use, e.g. 'where ✓kj means that the argument kj is omitted'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the renormalised Hamiltonian is constructed by explicit subtraction and estimates, and the cited numerical comparison is not used as input.

full rationale

The paper's main theorem (Theorem 2, proved in Propositions 7 and 8) constructs Hren explicitly via the algebraic identities in Eqs. (22) and (39)-(40), and proves resolvent convergence using the bounds on Sigma^(1) and Sigma^(2) in Lemmas 3 and 5. The subtraction constants E_Lambda^(1) and E_Lambda^(2) are obtained from the model's own perturbative expressions, not from the target theorem. The coefficient e2 in Eq. (36) is stated to result from evaluating the corresponding integrals and is compared with [15] only as an external check; it is not fitted to the numerical data. Although the proofs of Lemma 3 and Lemma 5 are deferred to the author's previous paper [22] for a closely related model, [22] treats a different Hamiltonian (v = const., omega = k^2 + 1) and does not assume the existence or form of the Bogoliubov-Froehlich Hren; the citation is therefore independent support rather than a circular premise. The n-independence of the Schur-test bounds is load-bearing, and its deferral to [22] is a completeness or correctness risk, but it is not a self-referential reduction of the target theorem to its own input. No fitted parameter is relabelled as a prediction, and no known result is merely renamed. Hence no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; M, g, ξ, c, and µ are physical inputs from the model. The auxiliary shift σ cancels in the final operator. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)

standard math Kato-Rellich theorem, Schur test, and standard Fock-space inequalities
Used in Propositions 1 and 7 for self-adjointness and relative boundedness, and in Lemmas 3 and 5 for operator bounds.
domain assumption The Bogoliubov-Fröhlich Hamiltonian with dispersion (4) and form factor (5) is the effective model for an impurity in a BEC
Section 1.2 defines HΛ by Eqs. (1)-(5); the theorem concerns this operator and does not derive it from a more fundamental many-body Hamiltonian.
ad hoc to paper The technical operator bounds of [22, Lem.17, Lem.19], [27], and [32, Cor.3.3] hold for the BF form factor and dispersion
Lemmas 3, 4, 5, and 6 are central to the proof of Theorem 2; their proofs are deferred to these references, including the n-independence of the Schur-test constants.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Renormalised Bogoliubov-Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J6U7C3IG

@misc{pith2026190902430,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Renormalised Bogoliubov-Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J6U7C3IG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02430}
}

read the original abstract

The Bogoliubov-Fr\"ohlich Hamiltonian models the interaction of an impurity with the excitations of a Bose-Einstein condensate. It has been observed that the dependence of the ground state energy on the ultraviolet cutoff differs significantly from what would be expected from similar well-known models. We give a detailed explanation of this UV behaviour, and provide an explicit representation of the renormalised Hamiltonian.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Ultraviolet Renormalization of Spin Boson Models I. Normal and 2-Nilpotent Interactions
math-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The paper proves that generalized spin-boson models with normal or 2-nilpotent interactions can be ultraviolet renormalized, with norm resolvent convergence of the regularized Hamiltonians to an explicitly constructed...
On the Ergodicity of Renormalized Translation-Invariant Nelson-Type Semigroups
math-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

For negative coupling, the renormalized non-relativistic and semi-relativistic Nelson semigroups are positivity improving with respect to the Fröhlich cone at every total momentum, proven via Feynman-Kac functional in...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[17]

Grusdt, Y.E

F. Grusdt, Y.E. Shchadilova, A.N. Rubtsov, and E. Demle r. Renormalization group approach to the Fr¨ ohlich polaron model: Application to imp urity-BEC problem. Sci. Rep., 5:12124, 2015

work page 2015
[15]

Grusdt and E

F. Grusdt and E. Demler. New theoretical approaches to B ose polarons. In M. Ingus- cio, W. Ketterle, S. Stringari, and G. Roati, editors, Proceedings of the international school of physics ”Enrico Fermi” , p.325–411, Societ` a Italiana di Fisica, 2016

work page 2016
[22]

J. Lampart. A nonrelativistic quantum ﬁeld theory with point interactions in three dimensions. Ann. H. Poincar´ e,20(11):3509–3541, 2019

work page 2019
[27]

Moser and R

T. Moser and R. Seiringer. Stability of a fermionic N+1 p article system with point interactions. Commun. Math. Phys. , 356(1):329–355, 2017

work page 2017
[1]

Bogoliubov, On the theory of superﬂuidity

N. Bogoliubov, On the theory of superﬂuidity. J. Phys. , 11(1): 23–32, 1947

work page 1947
[2]

Camargo, R

F. Camargo, R. Schmidt, J.D. Whalen, R. Ding, G. Woehl Jr. , S. Yoshida, J. Burgd¨ orfer, F.B. Dunning, H.R. Sadeghpour, E. Demler, a nd T.C. Kilian. Cre- ation of Rydberg polarons in a Bose Gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 120(8):083401, 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Casteels, T

W. Casteels, T. Van Cauteren, J. Tempere, and J.T. Devree se. Strong coupling treat- ment of the polaronic system consisting of an impurity in a co ndensate. Laser Phys. , 21(8):1480, 2011

work page 2011
[4]

Catani, G

J. Catani, G. Lamporesi, D. Naik, M. Gring, M. Inguscio, F . Minardi, A. Kantian, and T. Giamarchi. Quantum dynamics of impurities in a one-di mensional Bose gas. Phys. Rev. A , 85:023623, 2012. 18 JONAS LAMPART

work page 2012

Show all 39 references

[5]

Christensen, J

R.S. Christensen, J. Levinsen, and G.M. Bruun. Quasipar ticle properties of a mobile impurity in a Bose-Einstein condensate. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 115(16):160401, 2015

2015
[6]

Cucchietti and E

F.M. Cucchietti and E. Timmermans. Strong-coupling pol arons in dilute gas Bose- Einstein condensates. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 96(21):210401, 2006

2006
[7]

Derezi´ nski

J. Derezi´ nski. Van Hove Hamiltonians–exactly solvabl e models of the infrared and ultraviolet problem. Ann. H. Poincar´ e, 4(4):713–738, 2003

2003
[8]

Drescher, M

M. Drescher, M. Salmhofer, and T. Enss. Real-space dynam ics of attractive and repulsive polarons in Bose-Einstein condensates. Phys. Rev. A , 99:023601, 2019

2019
[9]

Minlos and L.D

R.A. Minlos and L.D. Faddeev. Comment on the problem of th ree particles with point interactions. Sov. Phys. JETP , 14:1315–1316, 1962

1962
[10]

Finco and A

D. Finco and A. Teta. Quadratic forms for the fermionic u nitary gas model. Rep. Math. Phys. , 69(2):131–159, 2012

2012
[11]

Fr¨ ohlich

H. Fr¨ ohlich. Electrons in lattice ﬁelds. Adv. Phys. , 3(11):325–361, 1954

1954
[12]

Griesemer and A

M. Griesemer and A. W¨ unsch. Self-adjointness and doma in of the Fr¨ ohlich Hamil- tonian. J. Math. Phys. , 57(2):021902, 2016

2016
[13]

Griesemer and A

M. Griesemer and A. W¨ unsch. On the domain of the Nelson H amiltonian. J. Math. Phys., 59(4):042111, 2018

2018
[14]

F. Grusdt. All-coupling theory for the Fr¨ ohlich polar on. Phys. Rev. B , 93:144302, 2016

2016
[16]

Grusdt, R

F. Grusdt, R. Schmidt, Y.E. Shchadilova, and E. Demler. Strong-coupling Bose po- larons in a Bose-Einstein condensate. Phys. Rev. A , 96:013607, 2017

2017
[18]

M.-G. Hu, M.J. Van de Graaﬀ, D. Kedar, J.P. Corson, E.A. C ornell, and D.S. Jin. Bose polarons in the strongly interacting regime. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 117:055301, 2016

2016
[19]

Ichmoukhamedov and J

T. Ichmoukhamedov and J. Tempere. Feynman path-integr al treatment of the Bose polaron beyond the Fr¨ ohlich model. Phys. Rev. A , 100(4):043605, 2019

2019
[20]

Jørgensen, L

N.B. Jørgensen, L. Wacker, K.T. Skalmstang, M.M. Paris h, J. Levinsen, R.S. Chris- tensen, G.M. Bruun, and J.J. Arlt. Observation of attractiv e and repulsive polarons in a Bose-Einstein condensate. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 117:055302, 2016

2016
[21]

Kain and H.Y

B. Kain and H.Y. Ling. Generalized Hartree-Fock-Bogol iubov description of the Fr¨ ohlich polaron.Phys. Rev. A , 94:013621, 2016

2016
[23]

Lampart and J

J. Lampart and J. Schmidt. On Nelson-type Hamiltonians and abstract boundary conditions. Commun. Math. Phys. , 367(2):629–663, 2019

2019
[24]

Lampart, J

J. Lampart, J. Schmidt, S. Teufel, and R. Tumulka. Parti cle creation at a point source by means of interior-boundary conditions. Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. , 21(2), 2018

2018
[25]

Levinsen, M.M

J. Levinsen, M.M. Parish, and G.M. Bruun. Impurity in a B ose-Einstein condensate and the Eﬁmov eﬀect. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 115:125302, 2015

2015
[26]

Mistakidis, G.C

S.I. Mistakidis, G.C. Katsimiga, G.M. Koutentakis, Th . Busch, and P. Schmelcher. Quench dynamics and orthogonality catastrophe of Bose pola rons. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 122:183001, 2019

2019
[28]

E. Nelson. Interaction of nonrelativistic particles w ith a quantized scalar ﬁeld. J. Math. Phys. , 5(9):1190–1197, 1964

1964
[29]

Pe˜ na Ardila and T

L.A. Pe˜ na Ardila and T. Pohl. Ground-state properties of dipolar Bose polarons. J. Phys. B , 52(1):015004, 2018. THE RENORMALISED BOGOLIUBOV-FR ¨OHLICH HAMILTONIAN 19

2018
[30]

Reed and B

M. Reed and B. Simon. Methods of modern mathematical physics:II Fourier analysi s, self-adjointness. Academic Press, 1975

1975
[31]

Reed and B

M. Reed and B. Simon. Methods of modern mathematical physics: I Functional anal- ysis. Academic press, 1980

1980
[32]

J. Schmidt. On a direct description of pseudorelativis tic Nelson Hamiltonians. J. Math. Phys. , 60(10):102303, 2019

2019
[33]

Shchadilova, F

Y.E. Shchadilova, F. Grusdt, A.N. Rubtsov, and E. Demle r. Polaronic mass renormal- ization of impurities in Bose-einstein condensates: Corre lated Gaussian-wave-function approach. Phys. Rev. A , 93(4):043606, 2016

2016
[34]

Shchadilova, R

Y.E. Shchadilova, R. Schmidt, F. Grusdt, and E. Demler. Quantum dynamics of ultracold Bose polarons. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 117:113002, 2016

2016
[35]

Skornyakov and K.A

G.V. Skornyakov and K.A. Ter-Martirosyan. Three body p roblem for short-range forces. I. Scattering of low energy neutrons by deuterons. Sov. Phys. JETP , 4:648, 1957

1957
[36]

Tempere, W

J. Tempere, W. Casteels, M.K. Oberthaler, S. Knoop, E. T immermans, and J.T. Devreese. Feynman path-integral treatment of the BEC-impu rity polaron. Phys. Rev. B, 80(18):184504, 2009

2009
[37]

Teufel and R

S. Teufel and R. Tumulka. New type of Hamiltonians witho ut ultraviolet divergence for quantum ﬁeld theories. Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. , 1–19, 2020

2020
[38]

Teufel and R

S. Teufel and R. Tumulka. Avoiding ultraviolet diverge nce by means of interior– boundary conditions. In F. Finster, J. Kleiner, C. R¨ oken, a nd J. Tolksdorf, editors, Quantum Mathematical Physics , p. 293–311. Birkh¨ auser, 2016

2016
[39]

Vlietinck, W

J. Vlietinck, W. Casteels, K. Van Houcke, J. Tempere, J. Ryckebusch, and J.T. Devreese. Diagrammatic Monte Carlo study of the acoustic an d the Bose–Einstein condensate polaron. New J. Phys. , 17(3):033023, 2015. Email address : jonas.lampart@u-bourgogne.fr CNRS & Laboratoire ...

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [17]

Grusdt, Y.E

F. Grusdt, Y.E. Shchadilova, A.N. Rubtsov, and E. Demle r. Renormalization group approach to the Fr¨ ohlich polaron model: Application to imp urity-BEC problem. Sci. Rep., 5:12124, 2015

work page 2015

[2] [15]

Grusdt and E

F. Grusdt and E. Demler. New theoretical approaches to B ose polarons. In M. Ingus- cio, W. Ketterle, S. Stringari, and G. Roati, editors, Proceedings of the international school of physics ”Enrico Fermi” , p.325–411, Societ` a Italiana di Fisica, 2016

work page 2016

[3] [22]

J. Lampart. A nonrelativistic quantum ﬁeld theory with point interactions in three dimensions. Ann. H. Poincar´ e,20(11):3509–3541, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [27]

Moser and R

T. Moser and R. Seiringer. Stability of a fermionic N+1 p article system with point interactions. Commun. Math. Phys. , 356(1):329–355, 2017

work page 2017

[5] [1]

Bogoliubov, On the theory of superﬂuidity

N. Bogoliubov, On the theory of superﬂuidity. J. Phys. , 11(1): 23–32, 1947

work page 1947

[6] [2]

Camargo, R

F. Camargo, R. Schmidt, J.D. Whalen, R. Ding, G. Woehl Jr. , S. Yoshida, J. Burgd¨ orfer, F.B. Dunning, H.R. Sadeghpour, E. Demler, a nd T.C. Kilian. Cre- ation of Rydberg polarons in a Bose Gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 120(8):083401, 2018

work page 2018

[7] [3]

Casteels, T

W. Casteels, T. Van Cauteren, J. Tempere, and J.T. Devree se. Strong coupling treat- ment of the polaronic system consisting of an impurity in a co ndensate. Laser Phys. , 21(8):1480, 2011

work page 2011

[8] [4]

Catani, G

J. Catani, G. Lamporesi, D. Naik, M. Gring, M. Inguscio, F . Minardi, A. Kantian, and T. Giamarchi. Quantum dynamics of impurities in a one-di mensional Bose gas. Phys. Rev. A , 85:023623, 2012. 18 JONAS LAMPART

work page 2012