format: text

text:
# Spin-orbit splitting in non-relativistic and relativistic self-consistent models

## I Introduction

One often asked question about the relativistic approach to nuclear structure is: what are the main physical effects that a relativistic approach can handle better than a non-relativistic approach? Among various arguments one feature seems to emerge quite obviously, namely the fact that, in a description based on the Dirac equation the nucleon spin degree of freedom is incorporated very naturally. Therefore, nuclear properties related to the spin and particularly spin-orbit effects in nuclei should come out from a relativistic description without any special adjustments whereas a non-relativistic approach would need ad hoc parameters. This was indeed so in the Dirac phenomenology analysis of spin observables measured in medium energy nucleon-nucleus scattering. The interplay of two deep phenomenological potentials, the attractive scalar field and the repulsive vector field gives the right magnitude for the central and spin-orbit optical potentials.

However, if one tries to calculate microscopically the mean field experienced by a nucleon bound to a nucleus and predict spin-orbit splittings, it is not so clear how successful will be the various relativistic models. In this work, we would like to analyze the spin-orbit splittings calculated in different self-consistent models: non-relativistic Hartree-Fock with Skyrme-type forces, relativistic mean field theory (RMFT) and relativistic Hartree-Fock (RHF). Of course, a mean field approach like Hartree-Fock is designed for reproducing global ground state properties like total binding energies or densities but it is not supposed to describe correctly single-particle spectra because core polarization effects are known to modify importantly single-particle energies. However, the core polarization effects should affect essentially in the same way the two members of a spin-orbit doublet if they are both below, or both above the Fermi level. Therefore, it is legitimate to study the question of spin-orbit splittings in Hartree-Fock or mean field frameworks for nuclei where both spin-orbit partners are occupied.

We carry out this study by looking at the evolution of the spin-orbit splittings of a $`nlj_>nlj_<`$ proton pair of states along an isotopic chain. The predictions of different models are compared with experimental values when they are available. The difficulties of such comparisons lie in the fact that the experimental information is scarce and it suffers sometimes of large uncertainties. This points to the necessity of having more data on spin-orbit splittings if one aims at more quantitative conclusions about the validity of different models concerning their spin-orbit properties. Within these limitations, our analysis will be done for the Ca, O and Sn isotopic chains.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section II and in the Appendix we derive the spin-orbit potentials corresponding to the different models: Skyrme-Hartree-Fock (SHF), RMFT and RHF. In Section III we discuss the results for the 40Ca-48Ca case as well as those concerning the O and Sn isotopes. Concluding remarks are made in Section IV.

## II Formalism

Let us derive the main expressions for the spin-orbit potentials in non-relativistic and relativistic approaches. In either case the general method is to rewrite the Hartree or Hartree-Fock equations for the single-particle states in a Schrödinger-like form and to identify a central potential and a spin-orbit potential. These potentials are local in the cases considered here, but they are generally state-dependent.

### A Non-relativistic approach

The SHF model is very simple because the Hartree-Fock equations for the single-particle wave functions $`\varphi _i`$ and energies $`\epsilon _i`$ take the form of a Schrödinger equation with an effective mass $`m^{}(𝐫)`$ and a local, state-independent potential. All non-locality effects are described by this effective mass and consequently, the SHF equations contain also first derivatives of the wave function. It is natural to introduce an asymptotically equivalent wave function:

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i(𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^{}(𝐫)}{m}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi _i(𝐫),`$ (1)
which now satisfies a Schrödinger equation with a constant mass $`m`$ and a state-dependent local potential:

$`V(\epsilon _i,𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`V_0(\epsilon _i,𝐫)+V_{LS}(𝐫)𝐥.𝐬.`$ (2)
The spin-orbit potential is (for spherical symmetry):

$`V_{LS}(q,r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_q^{}(r)}{m}}[{\displaystyle \frac{w}{r}}[\rho ^{}(r)+\rho _q{}_{}{}^{}(r)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r}}[(t_1x_1+t_2x_2)J(r)+(t_2t_1)J_q(r)]],`$ (3)
where $`w`$, $`t_i`$, $`x_i`$ are Skyrme force parameters, $`\rho _q`$ and $`J_q`$ are nucleon densities and spin densities ($`q`$= $`n`$ or $`p`$) with $`\rho =\rho _n+\rho _p`$ and $`J=J_n+J_p`$. The spin densities are practically zero in spin-saturated nuclei but they can give some contributions in spin-unsaturated ones. The above expression shows that $`V_{LS}`$ is surface peaked, and that proton spin-orbit splittings $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{LS}`$ should have little isotopic dependence in the SHF model as we shall see in the next sections. One should, however, keep in mind that another contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{LS}`$ comes from the energy-dependent central potential. One can easily check that the energy dependence of $`V_0(\epsilon _i,𝐫)`$ is entirely contained in a term $`\left(1m^{}(𝐫)/m\right)\epsilon _i`$.

Recently, some attempts have been made in order to introduce more freedom in the spin-orbit term of the Skyrme parametrization with the aim of improving isotope shift predictions in the Pb region. The authors of Ref. modify directly the Skyrme energy functional so that the first term of Eq.(3) becomes $`w\rho {}_{}{}^{}(r)/r+w{}_{}{}^{}\rho _{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(r)/r`$ and the spin density terms are dropped. It is found that a better description of data is reached when $`w^{}`$ is nearly $`w`$ (parameter set SkI4), i.e., when the proton spin-orbit potential depends almost entirely on the derivative of the neutron density.

### B Relativistic approach

Let us now calculate the spin-orbit potential in the general RHF case. The corresponding expressions for the RMFT case will be easily obtained by dropping all contributions corresponding to exchange (Fock) terms. Starting from the RHF equation for the 4-component spinors we shall obtain a Schrödinger-like equation for the upper component which allows us to identify the central and spin-orbit potentials. We use the notations introduced in Ref..

We start from Eq.(C3) of Ref. for the spinor $`(G_i,F_i)`$:

$`G_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _i}{r}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{T,i}P_i)G_i+(m+E_i+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{S,i}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0,i}Q_i)F_i`$ (4)
$`F_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(mE_i+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{S,i}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0,i}+R_i)G_i+({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _i}{r}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{T,i}+S_i)F_i,`$ (5)
where the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s are the direct (Hartree) self-energies whereas $`P,Q,R,S`$ are related to the exchange (Fock) contributions. We shall drop the state indices $`i`$ from now on. The first step is to eliminate the lower component $`F`$ and obtain a second order differential equation for the upper component $`G`$:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }G{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+\alpha _1G{}_{}{}^{}+\alpha _0G`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6)
where

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`(m+E+\mathrm{\Sigma }_S\mathrm{\Sigma }_0Q)^1,`$ (7)
$`\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }{}_{}{}^{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }(PS),`$ (8)
$`\alpha _0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }{}_{}{}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{r}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_T+P)+\mathrm{\Lambda }({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{r^2}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }{}_{}{}^{}{}_{T}{}^{}+P{}_{}{}^{})`$ (10)
$`(ME+\mathrm{\Sigma }_S+\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+R)\mathrm{\Lambda }({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{r}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_T+P)({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{r}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_T+S).`$
Next, we look for a modified function $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$:

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \stackrel{~}{G},`$ (11)
such that $`G`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ are identical asymptotically while the differential equation satisfied by $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ contains no first derivative. This condition determines $`\lambda `$ to be:

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`C\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle (PS)𝑑r}}.`$ (12)
where the constant C is determined from the condition $`\stackrel{~}{G}^2𝑑r=1`$. In the limit of RMFT the exchange quantities $`P`$ and $`S`$ are zero and one recovers the familiar result $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

We can now write the differential equation satisfied by $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ in the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left(\stackrel{~}{G}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}]\stackrel{~}{G}\right)=0.`$ (13)
The potential in state $`i`$ can be identified from the coefficient of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. It is possible to separate out the spin-orbit part $`V_{LS}`$ of this potential by observing that the quantities $`\mathrm{\Lambda },P,Q,R,S`$ depend on $`\kappa (2j+1)(lj)`$ (see, e.g., Ref.) which in turn can be expressed in terms of $`𝐥.𝐬`$. The complete expressions for $`V_{LS}`$ are given in the Appendix.

## III EVOLUTION OF SPLITTINGS ALONG ISOTOPIC CHAINS

We now turn to an analysis of spin-orbit splittings in some finite nuclei. We concentrate on the quantities:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(nlj_<nlj_>)\epsilon _{nlj_<}\epsilon _{nlj_>}.`$ (14)
### A Ca isotopes

In Ca isotopes, the experimental situation concerning the $`1d_{5/2}`$ and $`1d_{3/2}`$ proton states is not very accurately established. In 40Ca, the generally accepted value of $`1d_{3/2}`$ single-particle energy is $`\epsilon _{1d3/2}=8.3`$ MeV , ,  However, the values of $`\epsilon _{1d5/2}`$ are much more dispersed: -15.1 MeV , -15.5 MeV , -16 MeV , -14.3 MeV . Note that the most recent values of Ref.  have been obtained as the centroid energies of the single-particle spectroscopic strength distributions:

$`\epsilon _{nlj}{\displaystyle \frac{_iE_iS_i}{_iS_i}}`$ (15)
and therefore, they take into account the strong fragmentation of the single-particle states. The fragment energies $`E_i`$ and spectroscopic factors $`S_i`$ were taken from Refs. ,,,, and . The corresponding experimental spin-orbit splittings of 40Ca are plotted on Fig. 1. In 48Ca, the experimental proton energies $`\epsilon _{1d3/2}`$ are respectively -16.2 MeV  and -15.5 MeV  whereas the $`\epsilon _{1d5/2}`$ energies are -21.5 MeV  and -20.5 MeV . This gives the spin-orbit energies in 48Ca shown in Fig. 1.

At this point we must mention that some theoretical papers, e.g., Ref.  quote a somewhat smaller value for the experimental $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{S.O.}(1d3/21d5/2)`$ in 48Ca based on an earlier paper  but the experimental source remains uncertain.

In Fig. 1 we display the results calculated with the following models: SHF with a standard SIII force and with the SkI4 parametrization of Ref., RMFT with the commonly used NL-SH  and NL3  parametrizations, RHF with ($`\sigma `$, $`\omega `$, $`\rho `$, $`\pi `$) mesons (model e) of Ref.). The two parametrizations NL-SH and NL3 have been chosen as the most representative and successful in describing nuclear ground states in a wide range of nuclei.

All calculated results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1d_{3/2}1d_{5/2})`$ show a linear A-dependence between $`A`$=40 to $`A`$=48. However, whereas the values of SHF and RMFT models decrease only slightly those of the RHF model exhibit a large decrease.

The relatively small variations of the SIII results can be understood by examining the $`V_{LS}`$ potential of Eq.(3). When going from 40Ca to 48Ca one acquires extra neutron densities $`\rho _{7/2}(r)`$ and $`J_{7/2}(r)`$ due to the filling of the $`1f_{7/2}`$ orbital while the core neutron and proton densities do not change much. For the SIII parametrization, $`x_1`$ = $`x_2`$ = 0 so that $`J_{7/2}(r)`$ gives no contribution to $`V_{LS}(p,r)`$ whereas $`\rho {}_{}{}^{}{}_{7/2}{}^{}(r)`$ yields a contribution with a node at the surface, i.e., a small effect on $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1d_{3/2}1d_{5/2})`$. The same analysis holds for the SkI4 results. For the RMFT case the interpretation of results is also simple. The spin-orbit potential reduces to the first term of Eq.(A6), i.e., $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }{}_{}{}^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }r`$. With the definition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ given by Eq.(10) it is seen that the variation of spin-orbit potential is obtained by folding the derivative of the scalar and vector $`1f_{7/2}`$ densities with the (short-ranged) $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$ form factors and therefore, it has a node near the surface and the variation of spin-orbit splitting must be small. We should note, however, that the central potential that one can identify from Eq.(13) has some state dependence due to the effective mass $`m^{}=m+\mathrm{\Sigma }_S`$ and this effect can also contribute to the energy splitting. Furthermore, the kinetic energy and the central potential contribute also to this splitting through the j-dependence of the radial part in the wave function.

The RHF results are more difficult to interpret. From Eq.(13) we identify the kinetic energy $`T`$, central potential $`V_0`$ and spin-orbit potential $`V_{LS}`$ such that:

$`T_i+V_0_i+V_{LS}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _i(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _i}{2m}}).`$ (16)
The expressions for $`V_{LS}`$ given in the Appendix are complicated. The non-locality of the original RHF mean field induces a strong state dependence in the local equivalent potentials and therefore, variations with $`j_>`$ and $`j_<`$ will be found in all three terms of Eq.(16). This is illustrated in Table I where the values of the differences:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ $``$ $`T_{1d3/2}T_{1d5/2},`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_0`$ $``$ $`V_0_{1d3/2}V_0_{1d5/2},`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{LS}`$ $``$ $`V_{LS}_{1d3/2}V_{LS}_{1d5/2},`$ (19)
are shown. In 40Ca the calculated spin-orbit splitting is practically equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{LS}`$, with a strong cancellation of the two other terms. In 48Ca $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{LS}`$ is only one third of $`\epsilon _{1d3/2}\epsilon _{1d5/2}`$ , the rest coming from an increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$.

It is possible to analyze further the respective role of the isovector $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ mesons in the decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1d_{3/2}1d_{5/2})`$ from 40Ca to 48Ca. The key effect comes from the $`\pi `$ meson and the strong non-locality related to its light mass. If one artificially increases $`m_\pi `$ up to 600 MeV (and renormalize accordingly the $`f_\pi `$ coupling constant to keep reasonable single-particle levels) one tends to a more local situation and the strong decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1d_{3/2}1d_{5/2})`$ vanishes. The role of the $`\rho `$ meson can be studied by repeating the calculations without its contributions to the Fock terms. It is found that the decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1d_{3/2}1d_{5/2})`$ still remains.

### B Oxygen isotopes

The O chain is particularly interesting because of the prospects of reaching experimentally new, unstable isotopes with a large neutron excess. We examine here the evolution of the $`1p_{1/2}1p_{3/2}`$ splitting of proton levels. In Fig. 2 we summarize the results obtained with SHF (SIII and SkI4 parametrizations), RMFT (NL-SH and NL3 parametrizations) and RHF (model $`e)`$ of Ref.). We note that the results of NL-SH and NL3 are rather similar for spin-orbit splittings in O isotopes. This behaviour remains also in the Sn isotopes (see next subsection). These two parametrizations differ mostly by their predicted compression modulus K and therefore, this indicates that K has little effect on spin-orbit properties in the RMFT. One can distinguish three intervals ending at $`A`$=22, 24 and 28 which correspond to the filling of $`1d_{5/2}`$, $`2s_{1/2}`$ and $`1d_{3/2}`$ subshells, respectively. The trend in the $`1d_{5/2}`$ subshell resembles that of the Ca isotopes, namely a relatively small variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1p_{1/2}1p_{3/2})`$ for the SHF and RMFT models and a large decrease for the RHF model. A similar discussion as for the Ca isotopes can be done here. It would be interesting to measure experimentally the variations of spin-orbit splittings in the chain of Oxygen isotopes. For the isotopes heavier than $`A`$=22 RMFT shows a maximum at $`A`$=24 followed by a decrease whereas for RHF the behaviour is opposite, with an increase of the spin-orbit splitting after $`A`$=22.

### C Sn isotopes

In the chain of Sn isotopes proton spin-orbit splittings are experimentally known in several nuclei. In Fig. 3 are shown the calculated and measured values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(2p_{1/2}2p_{3/2})`$ for protons, and in Fig. 4 are displayed the calculated results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1f_{5/2}1f_{7/2})`$. From Fig. 3 it can be seen that none of the models is able to reproduce the very small empirical values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(2p_{1/2}2p_{3/2})`$. In the range A=112-124 the SIII results show relatively small variations whereas the 3 other models give large fluctuations. Of course, it would be more satisfactory to calculate these nuclei using a Hartree-Fock-BCS description. It is not clear, however, that the proton spin-orbit splittings would be significantly affected so as to bring them into agreement with the data. Indeed, in Ref. a HF-BCS was performed for Sn isotopes using the effective interaction SkI4 and a density-dependent pairing force. The values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(2p_{1/2}2p_{3/2})`$ thus obtained vary from 1.6 MeV in 112Sn to 2.0 MeV in 124Sn. As for the $`1f_{5/2}1f_{7/2}`$ splitting, Fig. 4 shows a wide range of predictions. For instance, in A=100 RHF is as low as 2.2 MeV while the other models are in the 5-6 MeV range . It would be very interesting to have data on this $`1f_{5/2}1f_{7/2}`$ case in order to shed light on this issue.

## IV CONCLUSION

We have examined in this work some predictions of spin-orbit splittings in the framework of non-relativistic and relativistic mean field approaches. We selected, as a representative case of the non-relativistic self-consistent approach, the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock model because it is widely used and its analytic simplicity lends itself to an easy interpretation of the calculated splittings. Numerical results were obtained with two versions of the effective Skyrme interaction, the standard parametrization SIII and the more recently proposed SkI4 which contains more degrees of freedom in its spin-orbit part. On the relativistic side, the RMFT is also a successful model for describing nuclear ground states and we have examined its spin-orbit predictions with the often used non-linear versions NL-SH and NL3. Here also the analytic form of the one-body spin-orbit potential is simple enough to allow some insight into the numerical results. In addition, we have included in our study the RHF model of Ref. in order to examine the role of the pion in the spin-orbit splittings.

One conclusion which can be drawn is that there is no clear advantage of the RMFT over the non-relativistic Skyrme-Hartree-Fock approach. It is true that in RMFT, the spin-orbit properties come out together with the central part of the mean field whereas in the non-relativistic approach one has the freedom of one or more additional spin-orbit parameters. Nevertheless, it cannot be concluded that the RMFT spin-orbit splittings describe the data particularly well. In Refs. ,  an interesting formal connection is made between RMFT and Skyrme-HF, but we can see here that, at a quantitative level, not only their spin-orbit predictions do differ, but even between SIII and SkI4 there are sizable differences in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{S.O.}`$

All models fail to reproduce the very small $`2p_{1/2}2p_{3/2}`$ proton splittings in Sn isotopes and it does not seem that pairing correlations can improve this prediction. As for the RHF approach, the light pion mass produces strongly non-local Fock fields, i.e., a strong state dependence of the mean fields. Consequently, the splitting between spin-orbit partners is due not only to $`V_{LS}𝐥.𝐬_{lj}`$ but also to a large extent to the state dependence of the central potential. Thus, the evolution of the predicted splittings along an isotopic chain does not resemble that of less non-local models like RMFT or Skyrme. It appears that the isotopic dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ disagrees with the data in the case of RHF.

The conclusion made earlier  that RHF describes well the experimental $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{S.O.}`$ both in 40Ca and 48Ca was too premature in view of the uncertainties in the experimental values.

Finally, the question of spin-orbit predictions in the framework of self-consistent theories is still open. Existing parametrizations of effective interactions, relativistic as well as non-relativistic, need further improvements. The RMF predictions seem to follow a common trend whereas the Skyrme-HF results may differ somewhat depending on the parametrizations, as it can be seen with SIII and SkI4 in Sn isotopes. Improving the parametrizations necessitates better comparisons with experiment. In this respect, it would be very helpful to have more data on the evolution of spin-orbit splittings along isotopic chains. Without better data, it is not possible at the moment to state that the spin-orbit problem is understood either by RMFT or by the non-relastivistic approach.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank M. Bender and R. Wyss for their comments and A.M. Oros for the data on Ca isotopes. This work was supported in part by contract DGICYT PB97-0360 (Spain).

## A

In this Appendix we give the expressions for $`V_{LS}`$ in the general case of RHF. The special case of RMFT is easily obtained by setting all functions $`P,Q,R,S`$ to zero. The notations are those of Ref. .

Eq.(13) is a Schrödinger-type equation for a state of angular momentum ($`l,j`$). We split the coefficient of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ into a centrifugal term, a central potential and a spin-orbit potential:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{\prime \prime }}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}}[V_0(r)+V_{LS}(r)𝐥.𝐬_{lj}\epsilon (1+\epsilon /2m)].`$ (A1)
The functions $`P,Q,R,S`$ can be expressed as second order polynomials in $`\kappa `$ , namely, $`P=P_0+P_1k+P_2k^2`$ and similarly for $`Q,R,S`$. Here $`\kappa =(2j+1)(lj)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(2j+1)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=+1`$ if $`j=l\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ if $`j=l+\frac{1}{2}`$. It is easy to relate powers of $`\kappa `$ to $`𝐥.𝐬_{lj}`$. For instance, we have:

$`2𝐥.𝐬_{lj}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2(1+\kappa ).`$ (A2)
Thus, all contributions to $`V_{LS}(r)`$ can be identified by expressing the $`\kappa `$-dependence into a $`𝐥.𝐬_{lj}`$-dependence. One then obtains:

$`V_{LS}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{LS}^{(I)}+V_{LS}^{(II)}+V_{LS}^{(III)},`$ (A3)
where

$`V_{LS}^{(I)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+P_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}P{}_{}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+P_1)(\mathrm{\Sigma }_T^D+S_0)+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+S_1)(\mathrm{\Sigma }_T^D+P_0)`$ (A6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}P_2+P{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{R_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_T^D+P_0)S_2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+P_1)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+S_1)P_2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_T^D+S_0)`$
$`+[l(l+1)+1][({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+P_1)S_2+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+S_1)P_2][2l(l+1)+1]P_2S_2\},`$
$`V_{LS}^{(II)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(P_1S_1)(P_0S_0)(P_1S_1)`$ (A9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(P_2S_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1S_1)^2+(P_0S_0)(P_2S_2)`$
$`[l(l+1)+1](P_1S_1)(P_2S_2)+[2l(l+1)+1]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_2S_2)^2\},`$
$`V_{LS}^{(III)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(P_1S_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P{}_{}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}S{}_{}{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_0S_0)(P_1S_1)`$ (A12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}(P_2S_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}S{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(P_1S_1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_0S_0)(P_2S_2)`$
$`[l(l+1)+1]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1S_1)(P_2S_2)+[2l(l+1)+1]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(P_2S_2)^2\}.`$


text:
# Color Superconductivity in High Density Effective Theory

## 1 Introduction

At high density, quarks in dense matter interact weakly with each other and form a Fermi sea, due to asymptotic freedom. When the energy is much less than the quark chemical potential ($`E\mu `$), only the quarks near the Fermi surface are relevant. The dynamics of quarks near the Fermi surface is effectively one-dimensional, since excitations along the Fermi surface do not cost any energy. The momentum perpendicular to the Fermi momentum just labels the degeneracy, similarly to the perpendicular momentum of charged particle under external magnetic field. This dimensional reduction due to the presence of Fermi surface makes possible for quarks to form a Cooper pair for any arbitrary weak attraction, since the critical coupling for the condensation in (1+1) dimensions is zero, known as the Cooper theorem in condensed matter.

While, in the BCS theory, such attractive force for electron Cooper pair is provided by phonons, for dense quark matter, where phonons are absent, the gluon exchange interaction provides the attraction, as one-gluon exchange interaction is attractive in the color anti-triplet channel. One therefore expects that color anti-triplet Cooper pairs will form and quark matter is color superconducting, which is indeed shown more than 20 years ago .

Recent development in color superconductivity, started from 1998, was spurred by recent two seminal works. The first one is by Alford, Rajagopal, and Wilczek , who convincingly argued that for three massless flavors, the ground state of quark matter is a so-called color-flavor locking (CFL) phase, in which the Cooper pair takes the following form, neglecting the small sextet component,

$$\psi _{L\alpha }^a(\stackrel{}{p})\psi _{L\beta }^b(\stackrel{}{p})=\psi _{R\alpha }^a(\stackrel{}{p})\psi _{R\beta }^b(\stackrel{}{p})=ϵ^{abI}ϵ_{\alpha \beta I}K(p_F),$$
(1)
where $`a,b(=1,2,3)`$ denote the color indices and $`\alpha ,\beta (=1,2,3)`$ denote the flavor indices.

The interesting feature of the CFL phase is that chiral symmetry is broken and the excitations in CFL phase have integral multiplet of electron charge. Though the usual quark-antiquark condensate is absent at high density, at least at the leading order, the chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken in the CFL phase. The flavor indices of Cooper pairs are locked to their color indices so that the unbroken symmetry that leaves the Cooper pair condensate invariant is the simultaneous rotation in the flavor and color space, breaking both color and chiral symmetry down to their diagonal subgroup,

$$SU(3)_c\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_RSU(3)_{c+L+R}.$$
(2)
The second work is done by Son , who showed that the Cooper pair gap in high density quark matter is very different from the usual BCS gap, due to the long range (color) magnetic interaction among quarks. By the renormalization group (RG) analysis, aided by the analysis of the Eliashberg equation, he found the Cooper pair gap depends on the coupling as,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\mu }{g_s^5}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3\pi ^2}{\sqrt{2}g_s}\right),$$
(3)
which was confirmed by more careful analysis .

In this talk, I will derive the above results in terms of a high density effective theory derived in . I will also calculate the critical temperature and the critical density and mention the mass of low-lying excitations in the CFL phase.

## 2 High density effective theory

QCD at high density has two distinct scales; one is an extrinsic scale, $`\mu `$, the quark chemical potential, and the other is the intrinsic scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. If the density is high enough, two scales are well separated, $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. To study a low-energy physics below a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, an effective theory approach, where heavy modes ($`\omega >\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) are separated from light modes ($`\omega <\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) systematically, has been quite powerful.

Since we are interested in a cold dense matter where the relevant excitations are quasi-quarks near the Fermi surface, it will be useful to construct an effective theory that deals only with those relevant degrees of freedom . A dense matter with a fixed quark number is described by the QCD Lagrangian density with a chemical potential $`\mu `$,

$$_{\mathrm{QCD}}=\overline{\psi }i\overline{)}D\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma _0\psi ,$$
(4)
where the covariant derivative $`D_\mu =_\mu +ig_sA_\mu ^aT^a`$ and we neglect the mass of quarks for simplicity.

At energy just below $`\mu `$, we may decompose the quark momentum as

$$p^\mu =\mu v^\mu +l^\mu ,\left|l^\mu \right|<\mu ,$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}_F`$ is a Fermi velocity and $`v^\mu =(0,\stackrel{}{v}_F)`$. We expand the quark propagator in powers of $`1/\mu `$:

$`S_F(p)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{(1+iϵ)p^0\gamma ^0\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\mu \gamma ^0}}=P_+{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma ^0}{lV+iϵl^0}}+P_{}{\displaystyle \frac{i\gamma ^0}{2\mu }}+\mathrm{},`$ (6)
where $`V^\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{v}_F)`$ and the ellipsis denote higher order terms in $`1/\mu `$ expansion. In the second line of Eq. (6) we have introduced projection operators

$$P_\pm =\frac{1\pm \stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{v}_F}{2},$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }=\gamma ^0\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$. The projection operators $`P_+`$ and $`P_{}`$ project out the states near the Fermi surface and the states in the Dirac sea, respectively. We see that the propagating modes are the states near the Fermi surface.

Using the techniques developed in heavy quark effective theory , we Fourier-decompose the quark field as

$$\psi (x)=\underset{\stackrel{}{v}_F}{}e^{i\mu \stackrel{}{v}_F\stackrel{}{x}}\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)$$
(8)
where

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)=_{\left|l^\mu \right|<\mu }\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi )^4}\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F,l)e^{ilx}\psi _+(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)+\psi _{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)$$
(9)
with $`\psi _\pm (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)=P_\pm \psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$. The low energy effective Lagrangian that consists of the light degrees of freedom (gluons and $`\psi _+`$) is obtained by matching all one-light-particle irreducible amplitudes in QCD with the vertex functions in the effective theory. As shown in , in the effective theory the quark propagator becomes

$$S_F(\stackrel{}{v}_F;l)=\frac{1+\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{v}_F}{2}\frac{i\gamma ^0}{lV+iϵl^0},$$
(10)
and in addition to the quark-gluon minimal coupling $`i\gamma ^0V^\mu g_s`$ there is marginal four-Fermi interaction for quarks with opposite Fermi velocities,

$`_{4\mathrm{f}}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{us;tv}^S}{2\mu ^2}}[\psi _{L}^{}{}_{t}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\psi _{L}^{}{}_{s}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\psi _{L}^{}{}_{v}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\psi _{L}^{}{}_{u}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)+(LR)]`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{us;tv}^P}{2\mu ^2}}[\psi _{L}^{}{}_{t}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\psi _{L}^{}{}_{s}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\psi _{R}^{}{}_{v}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\psi _{R}^{}{}_{u}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)+(LR)].`$
To summarize, the high density effective theory has several interesting features: (1) In the leading order, only $`\gamma ^0`$ enters in the Dirac matrices. (2) Anti-quarks are systematically decoupled. (3) There appear marginal four-quark operators naturally. (4) It offers a systematic high-density expansion.

## 3 Cooper pair gap

To describe the Cooper-pair gap equation, we introduce a 8-component field, following the Nambu-Gorkov formalism, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)(\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x),\psi _c(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x))^T`$, where we reverted the notation $`\psi `$ for $`\psi _+`$ and introduced the charge conjugate field $`\psi _c(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)=C\overline{\psi }^T(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$. The charge conjugation matrix, $`C`$, satisfies $`C^1\gamma _\mu C=\gamma _\mu ^T`$. The inverse propagator for the Nambu-Gorkov field is

$$S^1(\stackrel{}{v}_F,l)=i\gamma _0\left(\begin{array}{cc}lV& \mathrm{\Delta }^{}(l_{})\\ \mathrm{\Delta }(l_{})& l\overline{V}\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
where $`\overline{V}^\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{v}_F)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Cooper-pair gap.

The effective action for the fermion two-point function $`S`$ is given as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}S^1+\mathrm{Tr}\left(S^1S_0^1\right)S+\left(2\mathrm{P}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{diagrams}\right),$$
(13)
where the 2PI diagrams are two-particle irreducible vacuum diagrams. For the gluon propagator, we use an in-medium propagator, which is in the hard dense loop (HDL) approximation given as

$$iD_{\mu \nu }(k)=\frac{P_{\mu \nu }^T}{k^2G}+\frac{P_{\mu \nu }^L}{k^2F}\xi \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^4},$$
(14)
where $`\xi `$ is the gauge parameter and the projectors are defined by

$`P_{ij}^T`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{k_ik_j}{|\stackrel{}{k}|^2}},P_{00}^T=0=P_{0i}^T`$ (15)
$`P_{\mu \nu }^L`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}}P_{\mu \nu }^T.`$ (16)
The medium effect is incorporated in $`F`$ and $`G`$, which becomes in the weak coupling limit ($`\left|k_0\right|\left|\stackrel{}{k}\right|`$)

$`F(k_0,\stackrel{}{k})M^2,G(k_0,\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}M^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_0}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}},`$ (17)
where $`M=\sqrt{N_f/2}g_s\mu /\pi `$, the Debye mass. The gap equations, obtained by extremizing the effective action, $`0=\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/\delta S`$, are given in Euclidean space as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}g_s^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{VP^T\overline{V}}{(pq)_{}^2+\stackrel{}{q}_{}^2+\frac{\pi }{4}M^2|p_0q_0|/|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}|}}`$ (18)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(pq)_{}^2+\stackrel{}{q}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+M^2}}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{(pq)_{}^2}{(pq)^4}}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\overline{3}}}{\mu ^2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(q_{})}{q_{}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(q_{})}},`$
where $`g_{\overline{3}}`$ is a four-Fermi coupling. Since the gluon coupling is vectorial, the gluon exchange interaction in the gap equation does not distinguish the handedness of quarks and thus it will generate same condensates regardless of handedness; $`\left|\psi _L\psi _L\right|=\left|\psi _R\psi _R\right|=\left|\psi _L\psi _R\right|`$, suppressing other quantum numbers. But, the four-Fermi interaction in the effective Lagrangian, Eq. (11), lifts the degeneracy, since the gap in $`LL`$ or $`RR`$ channel will be bigger than the one in $`LR`$ channel due to the difference in the four-Fermi couplings, $`g^S>g^P`$. The $`LL`$ or $`RR`$ condensate is energetically more preferred than the $`LR`$ condensate. We also note that since in the effective theory the gluons are blind not only to flavors but also to the Dirac indices of quarks, the diquark Cooper-pair can be written as color anti-triplet.

Since quarks are anti-commuting, the only possible way to form diquark (S-wave) condensate is either in spin-singlet or in spin-triplet:

$`\psi _{L}^{}{}_{i\alpha }{}^{a}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\psi _{L}^{}{}_{j\beta }{}^{b}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{R}^{}{}_{i\alpha }{}^{a}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\psi _{R}^{}{}_{j\beta }{}^{b}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_{ij}ϵ^{abc}K_{\left[\alpha \beta \right]c}(p_F)+\delta _{ij}ϵ^{abc}K_{\left\{\alpha \beta \right\}c}(p_F),`$ (20)
where $`a,b,c=1,2,3`$ are color indices, $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma =u,d,s,\mathrm{},N_f`$ flavor indices, and $`i,j=1,2`$ spinor indices. Indices in the bracket and in the curled bracket are anti-symmetrized and symmetrized, respectively. But, the spin-one component of the gap, $`K_{\{\alpha \beta \}c}`$, vanishes algebraically, since $`\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)=1/2\left(1+\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{v}_F\right)\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)`$ and $`(1+\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{v}_F)_{il}(1\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{v}_F)_{lj}=0`$.

When $`N_f=3`$, the spin-zero component of the condensate becomes (flavor) anti-triplet,

$$K_{\left[\alpha \beta \right]c}(p_F)=ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }K_c^\gamma (p_F).$$
(21)
Using the global color and flavor symmetry, one can always diagonalize the spin-zero condensate as $`K_c^\gamma =\delta _c^\gamma K_\gamma `$. To determine the parameters, $`K_u`$, $`K_d`$, and $`K_s`$, we need to minimize the vacuum energy for the condensate. The vacuum energy is given as in the leading HDL approximation

$`V(\mathrm{\Delta }){\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{9}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2l_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{l_{}^2}{l_{}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2(l_{})}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2(l_{})}{l_{}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2(l_{})}\right]},`$ (22)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$’s are the eigenvalues of color anti-symmetric and flavor anti-symmetric $`9\times 9`$ gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }^{ab}`$.

Approximating $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ to be constant, one can easily perform the momentum integration in (22) to get

$`V(\mathrm{\Delta })0.43{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_i(0)\right|^2.`$ (23)
Were $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ independent of each other, the global minimum should occur at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i(0)=\mathrm{const}.`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},9`$. But, due to the global color and flavor symmetry, only three of them are independent. Similarly to the condensate, the gap can be also diagonalized by the color and flavor symmetry as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}^{\alpha \beta }=ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }ϵ^{abc}\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma \delta _c^\gamma .$$
(24)
Without loss of generality, we can take $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_u\right|\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_d\right|\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_s\right|`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d/\mathrm{\Delta }_u=x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s/\mathrm{\Delta }_u=y`$. Then, the vacuum energy becomes

$$V(\mathrm{\Delta })0.43\frac{\mu ^2}{4\pi ^2}\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_u\right|^2f(x,y),$$
(25)
where $`f(x,y)`$ is a complicate function of $`1x,y1`$ that has a maximum at $`x=1=y`$, $`f(x,y)13.4`$. Therefore, the vacuum energy has a global minimum when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_u=\mathrm{\Delta }_d=\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, or in terms of the eigenvalues of the gap

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\mathrm{\Delta }_u(1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2).$$
(26)
Now, we analyze the SD gap equation Eq. (18) to see if it admits a nontrivial solution. Since the color-flavor locking gap is preferred if it exists, we may write the gap as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }^{ab}=ϵ^{abI}ϵ_{\alpha \beta I}\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(27)
We first note that the main contribution to the integration comes from the loop momenta in the region $`q_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and $`|\stackrel{}{q}_{}|M^{2/3}\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/3}`$. Therefore, we find that the leading contribution is by the first term due to the Landau-damped magnetic gluons. For this momentum range, we can take $`|\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}||\stackrel{}{q}_{}|`$ and

$`VP^T\overline{V}=v_F^iv_F^j\left(\delta _{ij}\widehat{k}_i\widehat{k}_j\right)=1+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{4/3}}{M^{4/3}}}\right).`$ (28)
We also note that the term due to the four-Fermi operator is negligible, since $`g_{\overline{3}}g_s^4`$ at the matching scale $`\mu `$.

Neglecting $`(pq)_{}^2`$ in the denominator to integrate over $`\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$, we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_{})={\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{9\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(q_{})}{q_{}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^3}{\frac{\pi }{4}M^2|p_0q_0|}\right)+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{M^2}\right)+\frac{3}{2}\xi \right]}.`$ (29)
We see that in this approximation $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_{})\mathrm{\Delta }(p_0)`$. Then, we can integrate over $`\stackrel{}{v}_F\stackrel{}{q}`$ to get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{36\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _\mu ^\mu }𝑑q_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(q_0)}{\sqrt{q_0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{|p_0q_0|}}\right)`$ (30)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=4\mu /\pi (\mu /M)^5e^{3/2\xi }`$. If we take $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ for a rough estimate of the gap,

$$1=\frac{g_s^2}{36\pi ^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\right]^2\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{6\pi }{g_s}\right).$$
(31)
To take into account the energy dependence of the gap, we convert the Schwinger-Dyson equation (30) into a differential equation, approximating the kernel as

$$\mathrm{ln}|p_0q_0|\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{max}.(|p_0|,|q_0|)],$$
(32)
to get

$$p\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }(p)+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(p)+\frac{2\alpha _s}{9\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(p)}{\sqrt{p^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}=0,$$
(33)
with boundary conditions $`p\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=0`$ at $`p=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ at $`p=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, where $`pp_0`$. When $`p\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$, the equation becomes

$$p\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+\frac{r^2}{4}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(p)}{|\mathrm{\Delta }|}=0,$$
(34)
where $`r^2=2g_s^2/(9\pi ^2)`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ is the gap at $`p=0`$. We find $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=|\mathrm{\Delta }|J_0\left(r\sqrt{p/|\mathrm{\Delta }|}\right)`$ for $`p\mathrm{\Delta }|`$. When $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the differential equation (33) becomes

$$p\mathrm{\Delta }^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}+\frac{r^2}{4}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{p}=0,$$
(35)
whose solution is $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=B\mathrm{sin}\left[(r/2)\mathrm{ln}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/p\right]`$. By matching two solutions at the boundary $`p=|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ we get

$$B|\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{and}|\mathrm{\Delta }|=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}e^{\pi /r}.$$
(36)
The gap is therefore given as at the leading order in the weak coupling expansion

$$\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\right|=c\frac{\mu }{g_s^5}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3\pi ^2}{\sqrt{2}g_s}\right),$$
(37)
where $`c=2^7\pi ^4N_f^{5/2}e^{3\xi /2+1}`$. This agrees with the RG analysis done by Son  (see also ) and also with the Schwinger-Dyson approach in full QCD . The $`1/g_s`$ behavior of the exponent of the gap at high density is due to the double logarithmic divergence in the gap equation (18), similarly to the case of chiral symmetry breaking under external magnetic fields .

## 4 Critical density and temperature

In this section we calculate the critical density and temperature. First, we add the $`1/\mu `$ corrections to the gap equation Eq. (18) to see how the formation of Cooper pair changes when the density decreases. The leading $`1/\mu `$ corrections to the quark-gluon interactions are

$$_1=\frac{1}{2\mu }\underset{\stackrel{}{v}_F}{}\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\left(\gamma _{}D\right)^2\psi (\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)=\underset{\stackrel{}{v}_F}{}\left[\psi ^{}\frac{D_{}^2}{2\mu }\psi +g_s\psi ^{}\frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}{4\mu }\psi \right].$$
(38)
In the leading order in the HDL approximation, the loop correction to the vertex is neglected and the quark-gluon vertex is shifted by the $`1/\mu `$ correction as

$$ig_sv_F^iig_sv_F^iig_s\frac{l_{}^i}{\mu },$$
(39)
where $`l_i`$ is the momentum carried away from quarks by gluons. We note that since the $`1/\mu `$ correction to the quark-gluon vertex does not depend on the Fermi velocity of the quark, it generates a repulsion for quark pairs. For a constant gap approximation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_{})\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the gap equation becomes in the leading order, as $`p0`$,

$`1={\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{9\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2l_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{|l_0|}\right)\frac{3}{2}\right]\frac{1}{l_{}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{36\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)3\right].`$ (40)
When $`\mu <\mu _ce^3\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the gap due to the long-range color magnetic interaction disappears. Since the phase transition for color superconducting phase is believed to be of first order , we may assume that the gap has the same dependence on the chemical potential $`\mu `$ as the leading order. Then, the critical density for the color superconducting phase transition is given by

$$\mu _c=e^3\mu _c\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{3\pi ^2}{\sqrt{2}g_s(\mu _c)}\right].$$
(41)
Therefore, if the strong interaction coupling is too strong at the scale of the chemical potential, the gap does not form. To form the Cooper pair gap, the strong coupling at the scale of the chemical potential has to be smaller than $`g_s(\mu _c)=\pi ^2/\sqrt{2}`$. By using the one-loop $`\beta `$ function for three light flavors, $`\beta (g_s)=9/(16\pi ^2)g_s^3`$, and the experimental value for the strong coupling constant, $`\alpha _s(1.73\mathrm{GeV})=0.32_{0.053}^{+0.031}(\mathrm{exp})\pm 0.016(\mathrm{theo})`$ , we get $`0.13\mathrm{GeV}<\mu _c<0.31\mathrm{GeV}`$, which is about the same order as the one estimated by the instanton induced four-Fermi interaction  or by general effective four-Fermi interactions . But, this should be taken as an order of magnitude, since for such a small chemical potential the higher order terms in $`1/\mu `$ expansion, which we have neglected, are as important as the leading term.

We now consider the temperature effect on the gap, which is quite important to understand the heavy ion collision or the final stage of the evolution of giant stars. The super dense and hot quark matter will go through a phase transition as it cools down by emitting weakly interacting particles like neutrinos.

At finite temperature, $`T`$, the gap equation (18) becomes, following the imaginary-time formalism developed by Matsubara,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega _n^{})={\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{9\pi }}T{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}q}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega _n)}{\omega _n^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(\omega _n)+q^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\left|\omega _n^{}\omega _n\right|}\right)},`$ (42)
where $`\omega _n=\pi T(2n+1)`$ and $`q\stackrel{}{v}_F\stackrel{}{q}`$. We now use the constant (but temperature-dependent) gap approximation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega _n)\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ for all $`n`$. Taking $`n^{}=0`$ and converting the logarithm into integration, we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)={\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{18\pi }}T{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}q}{2\pi }_0^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}dx\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(T)}{\omega _n^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(T)+q^2}\frac{1}{x+(\omega _n\omega _0)^2}}.`$ (43)
Using the contour integral, one can in fact sum up over all $`n`$ to get

$`1={\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2T}{36\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle dq_0^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}dx\frac{1}{2\pi i}_C\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{1+e^{\omega /T}}\frac{1}{\left(\omega ^2q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\right)\left[(\omega _ni\omega _0)^2+x\right]}}.`$ (44)
Since the gap vanishes at the critical temperature, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T_C)=0`$, after performing the contour integration in Eq. (44), we get

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{36\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}q{\displaystyle _0^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}}\mathrm{d}x\{{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi T_C)^2+xq^2}{\left[(\pi T_C)^2+xq^2\right]^2+(2\pi T_Cq)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}\left[q/(2T_C)\right]}{2q}}`$ (45)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi T_C)^2+q^2x}{\left[(\pi T_C)^2+q^2x\right]^2+(2\pi T_C)^2x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{coth}\left[\sqrt{x}/(2T_C)\right]}{\sqrt{2}}}\}.`$
At high density $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}T_C`$, the second term in the integral in Eq. (45) is negligible, compared to the first term, and integrating over $`x`$, we get

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{36\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\lambda _c}}dy{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}y}{y}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _c^2}{(\pi /2)^2+y^2}}\right)+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{\lambda _c^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2}{36\pi ^2}}[\left(\mathrm{ln}\lambda _c\right)^2+2A\mathrm{ln}\lambda _c+\mathrm{const}.]`$
where we have introduced $`yq/(2T_C)`$ and $`\lambda _c\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/(2T_C)`$ and $`A`$ is given as

$$A=_0^1dy\frac{\mathrm{tanh}y}{y}+_1^{\mathrm{}}dy\frac{\mathrm{tanh}y1}{y}=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{4}{\pi }\right)+\gamma .$$
(46)
Therefore, we find, taking the Euler-Mascheroni constant $`\gamma 0.577`$,

$$T_C=\frac{e^A}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }1.13\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(47)
which shows that the ratio between the critical temperature and the Cooper-pair gap in color superconductivity is same as the BCS value, $`e^\gamma /\pi 0.57`$ .

## 5 More on CFL

As pointed out by Schäfer and Wilczek , the low-lying particle spectrum of the CFL phase at high density resembles that of low density hadron phase. Both phases have pions and kaons, arising from the chiral symmetry breaking. The baryons and mesons at high density have integral multiplet of the electron charge, the charge corresponding to the unbroken $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry at high density. Since the diquark condensate provides additional baryon number $`B=2/3`$, quarks in color superconductor have baryon number $`B=1`$.

To describe the dynamics of pions and kaons, the chiral Lagrangian for the CFL phase at high density has been constructed  and it is shown in  that quarks in the CFL phase is realized as a topological soliton, called superqualiton, as baryons in the hadron phase at low density. Unlike the low density phase, the parameters in the chiral Lagrangian can be calculated from the microscopic theory. For instance, the mass of Nambu-Goldstone bosons is found to be

$$m_{NG}^2m_q^2\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2)/\mu ^2,$$
(48)
showing that mesons become massless at asymptotically large chemical potential, as the Dirac mass term, $`m_q\overline{\psi }_+\psi _{}(m_q^2/\mu )\psi _+^{}\psi _+`$, vanishes for infinite density. (See also .) This is confirmed subsequently . Another interesting feature of meson mass is that the mass hierarchy is reversed . For instance, if $`m_s>m_{u,d}`$,

$$m_K<m_\pi .$$
(49)
This inverse mass hierarchy is due to the fact that what we call a kaon in the CFL phase is the fluctuation of Cooper-pairs in the up and down flavor spaces,

$$U_{L}^{}{}_{a\alpha }{}^{}(x)\underset{yx}{lim}\frac{\left|xy\right|^{\gamma _m}}{\kappa }ϵ^{ij}ϵ_{abc}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\psi _{Li}^{b\beta }(\stackrel{}{v}_F,x)\psi _{Lj}^{c\gamma }(\stackrel{}{v}_F,y),$$
(50)
where $`\gamma _m`$ is the anomalous dimension.

## 6 Conclusion

I have discussed the exciting recent developments in color superconductivity in high density quark matter in terms of an effective theory formalism. I have shown that the effective theory calculation reproduces recent results on the Cooper pair gap, the critical temperature, and on the ground state of high density QCD. It not only simplifies the calculation very much but also allows us to estimate the critical density.

I wish to thank the organizers of the TMU-Yale symposium for the wonderful meeting. I am grateful to T. Lee, D.-P. Min, V. Miransky, M. Rho, I. Shovkovy, L. C. R. Wijewardhana, and I. Zahed for the collaborations on the works described here and to S. Hsu, R. Pisarski, D. Rischke, and T. Schäfer for helping me to understand this subject. My research is supported by the academic research fund of Ministry of Education, Republic of Korea, Project No. BSRI-99-015-DI0114.


text:
# Hadronic matrix elements from the lattice 11footnote 1To appear in Proceedings of The Third International Conference on B Physics and CP Violation, Taipei, December 3-7, 1999, H. -Y. Cheng and W. -S. Hou, eds. (World Scientific, 2000).

## 1 Introduction

Hadronic matrix elements are of crucial importance for constraining the parameters of the Standard Model (SM) in conjunction with experimental information. Lattice approach has already attained considerable success in handling $`B`$-parameters and decay constants and to a lesser degree semi-leptonic form factors.  Weak decays into purely hadronic final states, of which $`K\pi \pi `$ is the simplest example, are extremely problematic.  After almost a decade the topic is again getting some attention due in part to important developments with regard to chiral symmetry on the lattice.

## 2 Heavy-light decay constants: effects of quenching.

Lattice methods have made considerable progress in pinning down, fairly accurately, $`f_B`$ and other heavy-light decay constants, in the quenched approximation (see Table 1). Unfortunately, the effects of quenching could be substantial; current estimates place them around $`(20\pm 10)\%`$, seriously limiting the phenomenological applications. Since the past few years there is heightened activity to accurately ascertain the effects of quenching. For technical reasons, the dynamical simulations are with $`N_f=2`$ i.e. with only two “light” sea-quarks rather than the three ($`u,d,s`$) in real life. Furthermore, the mass of the sea-quarks tends to be relatively heavy. The indications from these dynamical simulations is that $`f_B^{\mathrm{dynamical}}>f_B^{\mathrm{quenched}}`$.

## 3 Hints from Experiment: $`f_{D_S}^{\mathrm{expt}}>f_{D_S}^{\mathrm{QQCD}}`$ ?

Table 2 exhibits a compilation of the results for $`f_{D_S}`$ from several experiments. Curiously, the central value of all but one experiment is above the value for $`f_{D_S}`$ from quenched QCD simulations: $`f_{D_S}^{\mathrm{QQCD}}=225\pm 20`$ MeV. Since the errors in the existing experimental numbers are rather large we cannot draw strong conclusions; it seems plausible, nevertheless, that these experiments are also indicating that quenched QCD tends to underestimate the heavy-light pseudoscalar decay constants.

## 4 Precise studies of $`f_{D_S}`$

For experiment as well as for dynamical lattice simulations, a precise determination of $`f_{B_D}(f_{B_S})`$ is significantly more problematic than $`f_{D_S}`$; in fact experimentally direct determination of $`f_B`$ is not of immediate reach. Therefore, it would be very useful if the experimental as well as the lattice determinations of $`f_{D_S}`$ could be improved to 10–15% accuracy. A comparison between the two would then serve as a very useful guide for correcting $`f_{B_d}(f_{B_S})`$ from the lattice. In this regard the ratios $`f_{B_d}/f_{D_S}`$ and $`f_{B_S}/f_{D_S}`$ from the lattice would clearly be useful.

## 5 Heavy-light $`B`$ parameters

Lattice has had success with heavy-light $`B`$-parameters for a long time although calculations in the static approximation are still somewhat problematic.  Table 3 presents a brief summary. Recall that a precise value of the ratio $`f_{B_S}(B_{B_S})^{1/2}/f_{B_d}(B_{B_d})^{1/2}`$ is needed in accurately deducing $`V_{td}/V_{ts}`$ once $`B_S`$-$`\overline{B}_S`$ oscillations get experimentally measured.

In view of the importance of the aforesaid ratio it may be useful to determine it also more directly from the SU(3) breaking ratio:

$$\frac{M_{B_S}(\mu )}{M_{B_d}(\mu )}=\frac{\overline{B}_{B_S}|(\overline{b}\gamma _\rho (1\gamma _5)s)^2|B_{B_S}}{\overline{B}_{B_d}|(\overline{b}\gamma _\rho (1\gamma _5)d)^2|B_{B_d}}$$

Many of the systematic errors should cancel in this ratio. However, in the attempts that have been so far made with this direct method,  the errors are not yet small enough to make this method competitive with the traditional $`f_B^2B`$ method.

## 6 Semi-leptonic form factors, $`B\pi (\rho )\mathrm{}\nu `$.

The large $`b`$-quark mass presents a difficult computational problem. The cleanest lattice simulations are for ‘rest to rest’ i.e. both the initial and final meson at rest. Then the large $`B`$ mass forces $`q^2`$ ($`q=`$lepton 4-momentum$`=p_Bp_\pi `$) to be rather large. For some phenomenological applications the value of the form factor(s) are needed near $`q^20`$. This entails large extrapolations, introducing additional errors and model dependence. However, one important phenomenological application, namely deducing the mixing angle $`V_{ub}`$ from experimental data, only requires precise knowledge of the form factor at one value of $`q^2`$. This should work so long as the experiment has enough data so that even the differential rate around that region of $`q^2`$ is accurately determined, which is anticipated to be feasible at the $`B`$-factories. In this regard two recent approaches are noteworthy. Both of these efforts avoid the use of large extrapolations in $`q^2`$ and focus instead on accurate predictions in a limited region of $`q^2`$.

UKQCD focussed on near the end-point or the zero-recoil region where the lattice data tends to be cleanest. Furthermore, heavy quark symmetry also provides useful scaling relations in this region.  Their result for the form factor $`f^+`$ as a function of $`q^2`$ is given below.

The FNAL group  is also focussing on an approach towards the semi-leptonic form factors for $`B\pi \mathrm{}\nu `$, $`D\pi (K)\mathrm{}\nu `$ suitable for accurate determinations of mixing-angles in conjunction with high statistics data samples anticipated from experiments. The key idea here again is to concentrate directly on the differential decay spectrum in an interval with $`0.4<\stackrel{}{p}_\pi /\mathrm{GeV}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.8}`$ thus avoiding the need for large extrapolation in $`q^2`$. The partial width over this interval can be computed on the lattice. From the experimental point of view this should have the advantage of using a range of $`q^2`$ wherein the decay rate is not small unlike near the end-point.

## 7 $`B_K`$

The kaon $`B`$-parameter, $`B_K`$, has been studied most extensively on the lattice.  Two important limitations that lattice simulations still need to adequately address are SU(3) breaking (the ‘kaon’ on the lattice is a pseudoscalar made of degenerate quarks with $`m_{\mathrm{pseudoscalar}}m_K`$) and the quenched approximation. Both of these effects are expected to be rather small $`5`$–10% and we get $`\widehat{B}_K=.85\pm .13`$. This number is based on results of various groups , amongst which the one from JLQCD is the most precise.  The error on the lattice number contains a guess-estimate of the SU(3) breaking and quenching errors. We note, in passing, that there are some preliminary indications that unquenching will increase  or decrease  $`B_K`$ by just a few percent. For now, we have not changed the central value of $`B_K`$ due to this effect; only the systematic errors are increased to reflect this possibility.

## 8 $`K2\pi `$ Decays and $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$.

It was realized long ago that chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) can be used to simplify the problem so that $`\pi \pi |Q|K`$ can be obtained by computing on the lattice simpler entities: $`\pi |Q|K`$ and $`\mathrm{vac}|Q|K`$, where $`Q`$ is a 4-quark operator.  The coefficients in this relation can be calculated using lowest order ChPT. Traditionally this strategy has been available for staggered fermions as they possess a remnant chiral symmetry.  Since Wilson fermions explicitly break chiral symmetry this approach cannot be used with this discretization.  The new development in this regard is that domain wall quarks (DWQ)  are found to be quite practical for simulating QCD and possess excellent chiral behavior.  Therefore, the $`K\pi `$ (and $`K`$vac) method for dealing with $`K2\pi `$ is amenable to this discretization as well.

Final state interactions (FSI) are of course a serious limitation of the $`K\pi `$ method. However, it should still be very instructive to quantify how well this concrete approximation works. Actually direct $`K2\pi `$ decays may also be amenable to the lattice due to an elegant application of the CPS symmetry.  The restrictions of the Maiani-Testa theorem  are bypassed here by working near the threshold. In any case the direct $`K2\pi `$ methods are computationally extremely intensive and for now there is not much to report based on these methods.

The credit for an extensive study of the $`K2\pi `$ in the $`K\pi `$ approach with staggered fermions goes to Pekurovsky and Kilcup (PK).  The work presents a first study of lattice spacing dependence, finite size effects as well as quenching effects. Unfortunately PK used lattice weak coupling perturbation theory  (LWCPT) to renormalize the operators and this seems to completely fail for staggered quarks in the case of LR operators such as $`Q_6`$ which are crucial for $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$.

At $`\beta =6.0`$, PK observe a significant enhancement of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ channel over the 3/2; however at $`\beta =6.2`$, i.e. closer to the continuum limit (compared to $`\beta =6.0`$), they find that the central value of the enhancement weakens appreciably. While the large errors at $`\beta =6.2`$ do not allow a strong conclusion, more work is needed to unambiguously show that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ enhancement survives in the continuum limit.

PK’s calculation of $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ is seriously hampered as the one-loop LWCPT that they use for renormalization completely fails for $`Q_6`$. The perturbation theory corrections are several hundreds of percents showing extreme sensitivity to the renormalization scale as well as the quark mass (see Table 5). As PK themselves clearly emphasize their calculation of $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ is extremely fragile and not at all reliable.

It seems quite plausible that for the renormalization of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$, 4-quark operators, as has also been known to some extent to be the case for quark bilinears, the breaking of flavor symmetry by the staggered approach is responsible for the failure of LWCPT. In any case, use of non-perturbative renormalization (NPR)  improved actions and/or operators with the staggered approach are highly desirable in the context of $`K\pi \pi `$ decays.

Domain wall quarks are extremely attractive as at the expense of introducing a fictitious $`5^{th}`$ dimension they preserve the full SU($`N)\times `$SU($`N`$) chiral symmetries of the continuum theory in the limit of an infinite $`5^{th}`$ dimension.  Quenched QCD numerical simulations showed that in practice for $`\beta >\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6.0}`$, 10–20 sites in the $`5^{th}`$ dimension may be sufficient to render very good chiral behavior.  Early numerical studies also seem to indicate that the discretization errors are effectively $`0(a^2)`$; if substantiated this improved scaling behavior may off-set the extra cost of the $`5^{th}`$ dimension.

Calculation of $`K2\pi `$ and $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ in this method has been in progress for quite sometime.  With DWQ, considerable progress has been made in non-perturbative renormalization of quark bilinears, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ Hamiltonians and so far the method seems promising.

## Acknowledgments

I thank the organizers for a very interesting workshop. This work was supported in part by the U.S. DOE contract DE-AC02-98CH10886.

## References


text:
# Cyclotron effective masses in layered metals

## A Introduction

Quasi-two-dimesional metals such as the organic molecular crystals based on the BEDT-TTF molecule \[where BEDT-TTF is bis-(ethylenedithia-tetrathiafulvalene)\] and the layered perovskites Sr2RuO4, show properties which are consistent with a Fermi liquid description at low temperatures. Although transport properties of these materials show unconventional behaviour with temperature at high temperatures, at low temperatures (below about 20 K in the organics) the resistivity is quadratic with temperature, the thermopower is linear in temperature and a Drude peak is present in the optical conductivity. Furthermore, magnetic oscillations such as the de Haas - van Alphen effect is observed suggesting the presence of a well defined Fermi surface and quasiparticle excitations described by Fermi liquid theory. In order to understand the role of electron-electron interactions in these materials it is then necessary to quantify the strength of electron correlations and test how robust the Fermi liquid description is.

Cyclotron effective masses for the quasiparticles can be obtained from fitting the observed temperature dependence of the amplitude of magnetic oscillations to the Lifshitz-Kosevich form. The amplitude at a temperature $`T`$ is proportional to

$$R_T=\frac{X}{\mathrm{sinh}X}X=\frac{2\pi ^2k_BT}{\mathrm{}\omega _c^{}}$$
(1)
where $`\omega _c^{}=eB/m_c^{}`$ is the cyclotron frequency and $`m_c^{}`$ is the cyclotron effective mass, including many-body effects.

Typical values obtained for the cyclotron mass in these materials are in the range, $`m_c^{}/m_e17`$, (where $`m_e`$ is the free electron mass) suggesting the possibility that many-body effects may cause a significant enhancement of the effective mass. However, knowing $`m_c^{}/m_e`$ by itself is not sufficient to determine the size of many-body effects due to electron-electron and electron-phonon interactions. First, it is necessary to compute the cyclotron band mass, $`m_c`$, which takes into account the fact that electrons are not free but are moving in the presence of the periodic potential associated with the crystal lattice. Then, the ratio $`m_c^{}/m_c`$ can be used to estimate the importance of many-body effects. As we will see, estimates of $`m_c`$ deduced from band structure calculations, can vary by as much as a factor of three.

On the other hand, recent calculations of the transport properties of strongly correlated systems using dynamical mean-field theory  to solve the Hubbard model on a frustrated hypercubic lattice, indicate that as the electronic correlations become stronger there is a clear crossover from a Fermi liquid at low temperatures to a “bad metal” with no quasiparticles at high temperatures. However, such a crossover and the associated signatures in transport properties (e.g., a peak in the temperature dependence of the thermopower and resistivity, and disappearance of the Drude peak in the optical conductivity) are only observed for sufficiently large values of the ratio: $`m_c^{}/m_c34`$. For smaller values, transport properties resemble the ones found in a nearly free-electron metal. Since the transport properties of the organic metals do show the signatures discussed above it is important to have accurate estimates of $`m^{}/m_c`$ in order to check the consistency of describing them as strongly correlated systems.

In this paper, we show that in a quasi-two-dimensional Fermi liquid there is a simple relation between the cyclotron mass and the density of states at the Fermi surface. This result, Eq. (7), holds for any dispersion relation for the quasiparticles. Using this relation, we compute the ratio of the cyclotron band masses associated with the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ orbits, $`m_c^\beta /m_c^\alpha `$, for a model band structure for $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2X. The ratio is approximately 2, and varies by only about ten per cent even when the band structure parameters are varied significantly. This is in good agreement with values of $`m^\beta /m^\alpha `$, deduced from magnetic oscillation experiments, suggesting that the quasiparticle renormalisation factor does not vary significantly between different parts of the Fermi surface.

## B Different effective masses

We now briefly review several of the effective masses which can be defined for electrons or quasiparticles with a general dispersion relation $`ϵ(𝐤)`$.

Band mass tensor. This is defined as

$$m_{\nu \mu }^b\mathrm{}^2\left(\frac{^2ϵ(𝐤)}{k_\nu k_\mu }\right)^1$$
(2)
where $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ are Cartesian coordinates, and gives information of the band dispersion for any value of the electronic momentum. In particular, from the band mass tensor, the band dispersion of the electrons in all directions near the Fermi surface can be reconstructed.

Cyclotron mass. When a metal is in the presence of an external magnetic field the electrons undergo periodic orbits in both position and momentum space. The cyclotron frequency, $`\omega _c`$, associated with the periodic motion along these orbits on the Fermi surface is given by

$$\frac{1}{\omega _c}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\pi eB}\frac{dk}{(ϵ(𝐤))_{}}\frac{m_c}{eB}$$
(3)
where $`B`$ is the strength of the magnetic field and $`(ϵ(𝐤))_{}`$, is the gradient of the dispersion relation in the plane perpendicular to the field and the line integral is around the periodic orbit on the Fermi surface. The last relation has been used to define a cyclotron effective mass, $`m_c`$. Note that this effective mass involves an average of the dispersion relation along the periodic orbit. It determines the energy spacing of the Landau levels and can be extracted from the temperature dependence of the amplitude of magnetic oscillations, as discussed above.

Plasma frequencies. Reflectivity measurements can be used to determine the plasma frequency associated with collective oscillations of a charged Fermi liquid. Polarized light can be used to determine the anisotropy of these frequencies. For light polarized with the electric field in the $`\mu `$ direction in a metal with Fermi energy $`ϵ_F`$, the plasma frequency, $`\omega _{p\mu }`$, is given by,

$$\omega _{p\mu }^2=(\frac{e}{\pi \mathrm{}})^2d^3𝐤\frac{^2ϵ(𝐤)}{k_\mu ^2}\theta (ϵ_Fϵ_𝐤)\frac{ne^2}{m_{p\mu }}$$
(4)
where the integral runs over the first Brillouin zone and the last identity has been used to define an effective mass, $`m_{p\mu }`$, when $`n`$ is the total number of charge carriers. The above expression is derived from Lindhard’s dielectric function. Note that in contrast with the cyclotron mass in Eq. (3), which depends on electron states at the Fermi surface, the plasma mass includes all the occupied states, and not only those which are close to the Fermi energy. This is because the plasma oscillation is a collective process in which all the electrons participate.

For a parabolic dispersion relation, $`ϵ(𝐤)=\mathrm{}^2k^2/(2m_0)`$, all of the effective masses defined above will equal $`m_0`$. However, we stress that for a general dispersion relation they will not be equal and so caution is in order when trying to compare effective masses extracted from different measurements.

## C The cyclotron mass and the density of states

We know show how for a quasi-two-dimensional metal, the cyclotron mass defined by (3) is simply related to the density of states at the Fermi energy. First, following Ashcroft and Mermin, Eq. (3) can be rearranged to give

$$m_c=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\pi }\frac{A(ϵ_F)}{ϵ_F}$$
(5)
where $`A(ϵ_F)`$ is the area of the cross section of the Fermi surface defined by the orbit described by an electron or hole, in the presence of a the magnetic field, $`B`$.

For a quasi-two-dimensional system with only one band that crosses the Fermi energy, and a magnetic field perpendicular to the layers, the area of the orbit is just the cross sectional area of the Fermi surface within a layer

$$A(ϵ_F)=4\pi ^2\underset{𝐤}{}\theta (ϵ_Fϵ(𝐤))$$
(6)
where k is the two-dimensional wavevector within a layer. Eq.(6) is just based on state counting and assumes that the interlayer dispersion can be neglected. Corrections due to a finite interlayer bandwidth will be of order $`t_c/ϵ_F`$ where $`t_c`$ is the interlayer hopping integral. For typical organic metals this ratio is less than 0.01. Taking the derivative of (6) with respect to $`ϵ_F`$ gives, for the cyclotron mass

$$m_c=2\pi \mathrm{}^2\rho _\sigma (ϵ_F)$$
(7)
where $`\rho _\sigma (ϵ_F)`$ is the density of states per spin at the Fermi energy, $`\rho _\sigma (ϵ_F)=_𝐤\delta (ϵ_Fϵ(𝐤))`$. We stress that this simple expression for the cyclotron band mass is only true for quasi-two-dimensional metals. In other cases, the reduction of the general expression (5) to (7) cannot be done. For example, for a three-dimensional system the area associated to an electron or hole orbit is not defined by Eq. (6), and, therefore, it is not possible to relate the cyclotron mass to the density of states at the Fermi energy. The result (7) was previously pointed out by Tamura et al. but its significance appears to have been completely overlooked. We will show below that as a consequence of Luttinger’s theorem it is also true in the presence of interactions.

For more general situations where the Fermi surface of the metal crosses several bands, the different cyclotron masses can be expressed in terms of the partial density of states associated with each of the bands. As an example, we will compute the band cyclotron masses for the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ orbits in the $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2X family, for which several bands are present.

## D Model band structures

There are several approaches used for calculating the band structure of layered materials. Semi-empirical approaches such as the Hückel approximation use parametrized tight-binding Hamiltonians with parameters that are partially determined from experiment. In the case of $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2X crystals, the effective tight-binding Hamiltonian which is used to model the interaction between the antibonding orbitals of BEDT-TTF dimers is

$$H=t_1\underset{ij}{}(c_i^{}c_j+h.c.)+t_3\underset{ik}{}(c_i^{}c_k+h.c.)+t_2\underset{il}{}(c_i^{}c_l+h.c.)$$
(8)
where $`c_i^{}`$, creates an electron in the antibonding orbital at site $`i`$ on a square lattice. $`t_1`$ and $`t_3`$ are nearest-neighbour hoppings, and $`t_2`$ is the next-nearest neighbour hopping amplitude along only one diagonal. The $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2X materials have two dimers per unit cell and, because $`t_1`$ and $`t_3`$ can be slightly different the two dimers in each cell of the $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2X materials are inequivalent. The relationship between the different hopping integrals and the geometrical arrangement of the BEDT-TTF molecules is shown in Fig. 1.

In Fig. 2 we show the stacking pattern for the $`\beta `$-(BEDT-TTF)2X family. In this case all the sites in the lattice are equivalent and there is only one dimer per unit cell.

If we diagonalize the Hamiltonian (8), we obtain the two dispersion relations

$$ϵ^\pm (𝐤)=t_2\mathrm{cos}(k_y)\pm \left(t_1^2+t_3^2+2t_1t_3\mathrm{cos}(k_x)\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}(k_y/2)$$
(9)
The Fermi surface is shown in Fig. 3, for $`t_1t_3=0.05`$ and $`t_2=t_1`$. The $`\alpha `$ orbit is associated with the hole pocket in the Fermi surface and the unoccupied part of the lower band, $`ϵ(𝐤)`$, while the $`\beta `$ orbit (which occurs in large magnetic fields due to magnetic breakdown) contains parts from both the upper and lower band dispersions and corresponds to the outer orbit described with arrows in Fig. 3.

For the $`\beta `$-(BEDT-TTF)2X materials, due to the columnar stacking of the BEDT-TTF molecules and being $`t_1t_2t_3`$, there is only one dimer of BEDT-TTF molecules per site, and there is only one half-filled band which cuts the Fermi energy and is described by

$$ϵ(𝐤)=t_2\mathrm{cos}(k_y)+2t_1\mathrm{cos}(k_x/2)\mathrm{cos}(k_y/2)$$
(10)
For the $`\theta `$-(BEDT-TTF)2X materials, the geometrical arrangement is similar to that for $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2X with each dimer replaced by a single BEDT-TTF molecule. It is then described by the dispersion relation (9) but the band is 3/4 filled.

We have evaluated the cyclotron band masses associated with the different orbits described along the Fermi surface for $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2X. The area associated with the $`\alpha `$-orbit (see Fig. 3) is given by

$$A^\alpha (ϵ_F)=4\pi ^2\underset{𝐤}{}(1\theta (ϵ_Fϵ^{}(𝐤)))$$
(11)
and the cyclotron effective mass is, from Eq. (7)

$$m_c^\alpha =2\pi \mathrm{}^2\rho _\sigma ^{}(ϵ_F)$$
(12)
where $`\rho _\sigma ^{}(ϵ_F)`$, is the density of states per unit cell and spin associated with the $`ϵ^{}(𝐤)`$ band. Similarly, the area enclosed by the $`\beta `$-orbit is

$$A^\beta (ϵ_F)=4\pi ^2\underset{𝐤}{}(1\theta (ϵ_Fϵ^+(𝐤)))+4\pi ^2\underset{𝐤}{}(1\theta (ϵ_Fϵ^{}(𝐤)))$$
(13)
and the cyclotron mass is proportional to the total density of states:

$$m_c^\beta =2\pi \mathrm{}^2\rho _\sigma (ϵ_F)$$
(14)
where $`\rho _\sigma (ϵ_F)`$ is the total density of states per unit cell and spin. Note that a minus sign comes in the above expressions when we are considering the electron mass instead of the hole mass as $`m_e=m_h`$, where $`m_h`$ is the hole mass.

For the dispersion (9) with $`t_1=t_2=t_3=t`$, Ivanov, Yakushi, and Ugolkova have obtained analytical expressions for the density of states projected onto the upper and lower bands can be obtained. If all energies are in units of $`t`$, the total density of states per unit cell and spin is

$`\rho (3/2ϵ1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2q\sqrt{\tau }}}K({\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}})`$ (15)
$`\rho (1ϵ3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2\sqrt{\tau }}}K(q)`$ (16)
and, for the partial density of states associated with the lower band

$`\rho ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}ϵ1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2q\sqrt{\tau }}}K({\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}})`$ (18)
$`\rho ^{}(1ϵ1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2\sqrt{\tau }}}F(\mathrm{arcsin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2q}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(5\tau ^2)(\tau +1)}{2}}}\right);q)`$ (19)
where $`q=\sqrt{1(\tau 1)^3(\tau +3)/(16\tau )}`$ with $`\tau =\sqrt{2ϵ+3}`$. $`K`$ and $`F`$ are the complete elliptic integral and the elliptic integral of the first kind, respectively.

From the above expressions and Eq. (7) we obtain the following cyclotron masses: $`m_c^\beta /m_e=0.23/t`$ and $`m_c^\alpha /m_e=0.11/t`$, with $`t`$ given in eV and we have used the intralayer unit cell area of $`A=104.\AA ^2`$. This gives $`m_c^\beta /m_c^\alpha =2`$ and it turns out that this ratio is relatively insensitive to variations in the band structure parameters. We have relaxed the condition on the hopping integrals $`t_1=t_2=t_3`$, and, we have numerically evaluated the partial density of states instead of using eq.(LABEL:Ivan1) and eq.(LABEL:Ivan2). The ratio of the cyclotron masses obtained from the effective dimer model for fixed $`t_1=t_3`$ but different values of $`t_2/t_1`$ is, $`m_c^\beta /m_c^\alpha `$ = 2.4, 2.2, and 2.0, for $`t_2/t_1=0.5,0.7,1.0`$, respectively.

In order to have a realistic description of the layered materials we use the hopping amplitudes obtained from quantum chemistry calculations using the Hückel approximation and, in some cases, results obtained from first-principle calculations. The hoppings of the effective dimer model, for which $`t_1=t_3`$ and $`t_1t_2`$, are given in Table I. A more detailed discussion of this model and the relationship between $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ and the intermolecular hoppings calculated in the Hückel approximation can be found in Reference . A minor point is that if we denote the Coulomb repulsion in each molecule by $`U_0`$, and the hopping amplitude between the molecules within one dimer by $`t_b`$, for $`U_0>>4t_b`$ (strongly correlated case), the hopping amplitudes should be corrected by a factor of $`1/\sqrt{2}`$ with respect to the ones obtained from the Hückel calculation. However, in the case $`U_04t_b`$, this factor is 0.92 and the effect of correlations to the matrix elements is small. Different calculations suggest that the ratio $`U_0/4t_b1`$, so that in Table I we multiply all the bare hoppings by 0.92.

In Table I, we also give the cyclotron masses obtained from eq.(7), where the density of states has been computed numerically for the different hoppings. It can be seen that the calculated cyclotron band masses are sensitive to the parameters and the values deduced from the parameters calculated by different groups for the same material can vary significantly. However, the calculated ratio, $`m_c^\beta /m_c^\alpha `$, is relatively insensitive to the parameters.

The band structures of the (BEDT-TTF)2X family have been calculated by several different techniques and some of the results for the density of states at the Fermi energy are compared in Table II. The Hückel method is the simplest and only considers the $`\pi `$ orbitals and neglects all $`\sigma `$ orbitals. The overlap integrals that are calculated are all scaled by some empirical parameter and then used as hopping integrals in a tight-binding band structure. It is generally acknowledged that this method gives a good qualitative description of electronic properties (such as the symmetry and ordering of states) but cannot give a quantitative description of electronic properties.

The extended Hückel method treats both $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ orbitals. Although it is more quantitatively reliable than the Hückel approximation it still does not give a completely quantitative description of organic molecules. It has been used to calculate the band structure of a wide range of organic metals by Whangbo and coworkers.

The energy levels for a pair of BEDT-TTF dimers with the same geometrical arrangement as in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu\[N(CN)2\]Br have been calculated by an ab initio method. The tight-binding parameters for a Hubbard model for the dimers is then evaluated by fitting the energy levels to the ab initio values. The resulting parameters are similar to those obtained by an extended Hückel calculation for the dimer pair. But the resulting density of states is more than twice the results of extended Hückel for the solid.

The most reliable method of calculating band structures is generally considered to be ab initio methods based on the local density approximation (LDA). Nevertheless, different groups still often obtain quite different results. For example, values obtained for the density of states at the Fermi energy in the fullerene metal, K3C60, differ by as much as fifty per cent. (Extended Hückel calculations do fall in this range). Due to the large number of atoms in a unit cell only a few ab initio calculations have been attempted for the (BEDT-TTF)2X materials.

Results for the density of states (and the corresponding cyclotron masses) obtained using the three methods are shown in Table II. Note the large variation in results for each of the materials. In particular, the Hückel method gives masses that are two to five times larger than those obtained by the other more sophisticated methods.

## E The cyclotron mass in the presence of interactions

The above treatment neglected the effect of interactions between the electrons. We now show that Eq. (7) has a natural generalization in the case of a Fermi liquid. The one-electron Green’s function in a general interacting electron system is

$$G(𝐤,\omega +i\eta )=\frac{1}{\omega +i\eta ϵ(𝐤)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )}$$
(21)
in momentum space, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )`$ is the electron self-energy. In a Fermi liquid, near the quasiparticle poles, the Green’s function can be rewritten as

$$G(𝐤,\omega )=\frac{Z_𝐤}{\omega \stackrel{~}{ϵ}(𝐤)}$$
(22)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(𝐤)`$ is the quasiparticle energy and $`Z_𝐤=\frac{1}{1\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )}{\omega }|_{\omega =\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(𝐤)}}`$ is the residue at the quasiparticle pole. Note that the above expression is true for a Fermi liquid, and for electrons with momentum close to the Fermi surface for which Im$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤𝐤_𝐅,\omega ϵ_F)0`$. The spectral density is then given by

$$A(𝐤,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}G(\omega +i\eta )=\frac{\delta (\omega \stackrel{~}{ϵ}(𝐤))}{1\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )}{\omega }|_{\omega =\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(𝐤)}}$$
(23)
Thus, the quasiparticle density of states at the Fermi energy is

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F)=\underset{𝐤}{}\delta (\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(𝐤))=\underset{𝐤}{}(1\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )}{\omega }|_{\omega =\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F})A(𝐤,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F)$$
(24)
Müller-Hartman  showed that, if the self energy is independent of momentum, then at zero temperature, $`_𝐤A(𝐤,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F)=\rho (ϵ_F)`$, the non-interacting density of states at the Fermi energy. So in this case, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F)=\rho (ϵ_F)/Z`$. Note that the quasiparticle density of states is always enhanced because for a Fermi liquid $`\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )}{\omega }|_{\omega =\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F}<0`$.

Some time ago, Luttinger  showed that in an interacting system with Fermi liquid properties, the results of Lifshitz and Kosevich still describe the de Haas van Alphen oscillations provided that the relevant quasiparticle quantities are used. Thus, (5) is replaced by $`m_c^{}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F}`$ where a tilde denotes renormalised quantities. In a quasi-two-dimensional Fermi liquid, the area enclosed by the orbits of the quasiparticles is

$$\stackrel{~}{A}(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F)=4\pi ^2\underset{𝐤}{}\theta (\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(𝐤))$$
(25)
and so, we find that the cyclotron effective mass is

$`m_c^{}=2\pi \mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\delta (\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(𝐤))=2\pi \mathrm{}^2\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\sigma (\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F)`$ (26)
Again, equations (26) and (24) show the cyclotron mass enhancement produced by the factor appearing in eq.(24). The same enhancement also appears in the specific heat coefficient. A further simplification is obtained for the case of a momentum independent self-energy, as then the cyclotron effective masses reduce to

$$m_c^{}=2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2\rho (ϵ_F)/Z=m_c/Z$$
(27)
where $`Z`$ is the quasiparticle weight, which, in terms of the self-energy, is: $`Z=(1\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )}{\omega }|_{\omega =\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F})^1`$. In this case, the ratios of the cyclotron effective masses associated with the quasiparticles moving along different orbits, $`m_c^\beta /m_c^\alpha `$, should be the same as the ratios associated with the non-interacting system, $`m_c^\beta /m_c^\alpha `$.

A partial test of the momentum independent self energy is provided by comparing the measured ratios of the renormalized cyclotron masses in different orbits with the cyclotron band mass ratios. This is done in Table I. The relative consistency between the observed values of this ratio and the band structure values suggests that if there are sizeable renormalizations due to many-body effects then these renormalizations are not significantly different on the different parts of the Fermi surface. However, this consistency is only a necessary condition but not sufficient for having a momentum independent self energy, as cyclotron masses include averages over the Fermi surface and, therefore, cancellations of contributions from different parts of the Fermi surface may occur.

Furthermore, in Reference  the effective masses for $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(SCN)2 were measured as the pressure was increased from 1 bar to 20 kbar. $`m_c^\beta /m_e`$ decreased from 6.5 $`\pm `$ 0.1 at 1 bar to 2.7 $`\pm `$ 0.1 at 16.3 kbar. $`m_c^\alpha /m_e`$ decreased from 3.5 $`\pm `$ 0.1 at 1 bar to 1.4 $`\pm `$ 0.1 at 16.3 kbar. However, the ratio $`m_c^\beta /m_c^\alpha `$ has a constant value of 1.9 within error.

## F Specific heat

Measurements of the electronic specific heat in the (BEDT-TTF)2X crystals and Sr2RuO4 show a linear temperature dependence at low temperatures, consistent with a Fermi liquid description. The corresponding specific heat coefficient $`\gamma `$ is given in Table III for some of these materials. This coefficient is related to the quasiparticle density of states at the Fermi energy, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F)`$, (see Eq. (24)) by

$$\gamma =\frac{2\pi ^2k_B^2}{3}\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_F)$$
(28)
Since the quasiparticle density of states is also related to the cyclotron effective mass by Eq. (26) the measured specific heat coefficient can be used to calculate a corresponding cyclotron effective mass. This has been done in Table III for a range of organic materials. The values obtained for $`m_c^\beta /m_c`$ from specific heat measurements agree for $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2I3 and $`\beta `$-(BEDT-TTF)2I3 but not for the materials with copper in the anion. Since this comparison does provide a quantitative test of a Fermi liquid description further careful measurements are justified, particularly on a wider range of materials.

Such a comparison was also done recently for Sr2RuO4 in Reference , where relation (26) was implicitly assumed, presumably based on its validity for a parabolic dispersion relation. Our work provides a rigorous justification for this comparison. In Sr2RuO4 there are three distinct Fermi surfaces and the associated cyclotron masses deduced from de Haas van Alphen oscillations were $`m_c^{}/m_e`$=3.4, 7.5 and 14.6 for the $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ orbits, respectively.From the above discussion, it follows that the specific heat coefficient of Sr2RuO4 is related to the effective masses by

$$\gamma =\frac{\pi k_B^2}{3\mathrm{}^2}(m_c^\alpha +m_c^\beta +m_c^\gamma )$$
(29)
which comes from the fact that the total density of states is just the sum of the density of states of the different Fermi surfaces. Evaluating (29) we obtain a specific heat coefficient of 36.7 mJ/(K2 mol), which agrees with the measured value of 37.4 mJ/(K2 mol).

## G Conclusions

We now summarize our results and their implications. First, it was shown that in a quasi-two-dimensional metal in which the dispersion perpendicular to the layers can be neglected, the cyclotron effective mass for a particular orbit in a general band structure is simply related to the density of states at the Fermi energy associated with the relevant band. Second, it was shown that, due to Luttinger’s results for a Fermi liquid, a similar relationship holds in the presence of interactions.

These results have a number of general applications to layered metals which have Fermi liquid properties at low temperatures.

(i) In order to evaluate the effective mass from band structure it is not necessary to numerically evaluate the derivative in (5), as has been done previously by a number of authors. Instead (7) can be used together with the density of states at the Fermi energy. This eliminates the need to perform the cumbersome task of repeating the band structure calculations for many different Fermi energies.

(ii) We found that for model band structures describing the family $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2X, the ratio of the effective mass for the $`\beta `$-orbit to the mass for the $`\alpha `$ orbit is fairly insensitive to the details of the band structure, having a value close to two.

(iii) Our results imply that a quantitative test of the Fermi liquid description of a layered metal is to compare measurements of the cyclotron effective mass to the linear coefficient in the specific heat.

(iv) The agreement between the ratio of the different measured cyclotron masses and the ratio calculated from band structure, suggests a momentum independent self-energy, although other experimental probes such as polarized Raman scattering, photoemission spectra, and angular dependent magnetoresistance oscillations are needed before making any definitive conclusion.

Based on comparison with a wide range of materials we conclude the following. First, the effective masses deduced from magnetic oscillations and specific heat are consistent for Sr2RuO4 and for two out of four of the organic materials considered. For three out of four of the organic materials for which data is avalailable the measured ratio $`m_c^\beta /m_c^\alpha `$ is consistent with the band structure ratio $`m_c^\beta /m_c^\alpha `$. Furthermore, for the $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2 Cu(NCS)2 this ratio does not change under pressure while the individual effective masses decrease by a factor of 2.5. This suggests that the self energy does not vary significantly over the different parts of the Fermi surface. We also note that the significant variation of the effective masses with pressure cannot be explained in terms of band structure; it predicts a small variation with pressure.

A comparison of the results of band structure calculations using a range of methods found that they produced a large range in values for the density of states (and thus the effective masses). The Hückel method has often been used to estimate the hopping integrals in tight binding band structures (as in Table I). It is less sophisticated than the extended Hückel method which in turn is less sophisticated than ab initio methods based on the local density approximation. We suggest that the Hückel method is producing hopping integrals which are too small by a factor of two to four. The best strategy to evaluate these integrals would be to fit a LDA band structure to a tight binding dispersion, such as (9). Such an approach was recently taken for Sr2RuO4.

We now come back to the central question of this paper: are the layered metals we have considered strongly correlated? A definitive answer is not possible because of the large variation in values for the band cyclotron masses that have been calculated by different band structure methods. However, we suggest that due to their greater sophistication, the local density approximation and extended Hückel approximation calculations give the most reliable values. We suggest that the appropriate values for the band cyclotron masses are those calculated by the local density approximation and extended Hückel approximation. The mass ratios given in Table II then imply that $`m_c^\beta /m_c2.54`$, suggesting appreciable quasiparticle renormalization due to many-body effects. This is consistent with the strong temperature dependence of the transport properties, discussed in detail in Reference .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank R. McKinnon, N. Harrison, J. S. Brooks, J. Wosnitza, and E. Canadell for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council.