format: text

text:
# References

Dispersive effects in neutron matter superfluidity

M. Baldo$``$ and A. Grasso$``$

$``$ INFN, Sez. Catania, Corso Italia 57 - 95129 Catania, Italy

$``$ Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita’ di Catania, Corso Italia 57, 95129 Catania, Italy

Abstract. The explicit energy dependence of the single particle self-energy (dispersive effects), due to short range correlations, is included in the treatment of neutron matter superfluidity. The method can be applied in general to strong interacting fermion systems, and it is expected to be valid whenever the pairing gap is substantially smaller than the Fermi kinetic energy. The results for neutron matter show that dispersive effects are strong in the density region near the gap closure.

PACS: 21.65+f , 26.60+c , 97.60Jd

1. Introduction

Neutron and nuclear matter superfluidity is one of the main issue in the physics of neutron stars. Superfluidity is expected to play a major role in some of the most striking phenomena occurring in neutron stars, like glitches and post-glitches transients , vortex pinning , neutron star cooling, and maybe strong magnetic field penetration . However, since the observational data are only indirectly related to superfluidity, or need explicit models for their interpretation, a firm theoretical prediction of the superfluidity strength, based on microscopic ab initio calculations, appears highly required. Unfortunately, neutron and nuclear matter are strongly correlated systems, where short range correlations dominate the overall interaction energy, even at densities well below the saturation value. The superfluidity problem turns out, therefore, to be a complex many-body problem, where the delicate balance between short range interactions and the long range pairing correlations needs an accurate treatment. This problem was firstly considered in the works of ref. , within the variational Jastrow method. The medium effect on the effective pairing interaction was investigated in refs. . The correlation effects were treated in ref.  within a generalization of the Babu-Brown approach  to the effective nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction and in the weak coupling limit. In general, these microscopic approaches seem to indicate a reduction of the pairing gap due to the medium, with respect to BCS approximation with the bare interaction. The use  in the BCS scheme of realistic bare nucleon-nucleon interactions, which reproduce the experimental phase shifts, can be a good starting point for a more sophisticated many-body treatments, and the connection between the pairing gap value and the phase shifts has been elucidated, in general, in ref. .

In all these microscopic approaches the single particle spectrum is usually considered within the effective mass approximation, or taken from normal state calculations. Dispersive effects, due to the energy dependence of the single particle self-energy, are usually neglected, or considered only in the weak coupling limit, and no first principle scheme to include them in the general gap equation has been proposed. Only recently  a self-consistent scheme has been developed, where the short range correlations and the pairing problem are treated on the same footing. The method is numerically complex, and it has been solved only for a schematic interaction . It would be desirable to understand in simple terms the effect of the self-energy dispersion on the pairing strength, also in the case of strong coupling as in neutron matter. In this letter we present a general scheme for including dispersive effects in the gap equation, which is simple and accurate, provided the gap is substantially smaller than the Fermi kinetic energy. We then apply the method to neutron matter superfluidity with realistic interaction, and we show numerically that the size of the effect can be large in the vicinity of the gap closure.

2. Including self-energy in the gap equation The general many-body theory of pairing in fermion systems has been formulated just after the BCS  solution has been introduced, and it can be found in standard textbooks . The main framework is the Green’ s function (GF) formalism, which generalizes the Gorkov’ s method beyond the BCS approximation. The single particle Green’s function $`𝒢`$ has a 2x2 matrix structure, with normal diagonal components $`F_1`$ and abnormal off-diagonal components $`F_2`$,

$$𝒢(k,\omega )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}F_1(k,\omega )F_2(k,\omega )& \\ F_2(k,\omega )F_1(k,\omega )& \end{array}\right),𝒢^1(k,\omega )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k\omega +M(k,\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )& \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k+\omega +M(k,\omega ))& \end{array}\right)$$
(1)
In the expression for the inverse Green’s function $`𝒢^1`$, we have introduced the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m\mu `$ as the single particle kinetic energy, with respect to the chemical potential $`\mu `$, the diagonal single particle self-energy $`M(k,\omega )`$ and the momentum and energy dependent gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )`$. Here we are assuming s-wave singlet pairing, and therefore we omit spin indices. They simply express the coupling between the time-reversal states $`(k,)`$ and $`(k,)`$. Both $`M(k,\omega )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )`$ can be expanded in terms of the NN interaction and the full GF itself, which in general entails a self-consistent procedure. The gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )`$, however, is solution of the homogeneous generalized Bethe-Salpeter equation , and as such it satisfies the generalized gap equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )=\underset{k^{}}{}𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{I(k\omega ,k^{}\omega ^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(k^{},\omega ^{})}{(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k^{}\omega ^{}+M(k^{},\omega ^{}))(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k^{}+\omega ^{}+M(k,\omega ^{}))+\mathrm{\Delta }(k^{},\omega ^{})^2}$$
(2)
where $`I(k\omega ,k^{}\omega ^{})`$ is the irreducible NN interaction at zero total energy and momentum. If one takes the bare NN interaction for the interaction $`I`$, and the Hartree-Fock approximation for the diagonal self-energy $`M(k,\omega )`$, the standard BCS approximation is recovered. It has to be noticed that the energy dependence of the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k,\omega )`$ originates only from the energy dependence of the irreducible interaction $`I`$. In fact, if the interaction is taken as energy-independent, the gap function is also energy-independent, despite the possible energy dependence of the self-energy $`M(k,\omega )`$. Since we are looking for an estimate of the dispersive effects, we indeed assume the irreducible interaction as energy independent, while we keep the full energy dependence of the self-energies. Then, the energy integration appearing in the gap equation (2) can be performed with a good accuracy in the limit of small self-energy imaginary part, since than the main contribution is expected to come from the poles close to the real axis. The denominator is an even function of the energy $`\omega `$ (we remind again that single particle energies are measured with respect to $`\mu `$), and, therefore, the kernel presents two poles, symmetrical with respect to the origin in the complex $`\omega `$-plane. This is a feature typical of the superconducting phase. Formally, the pole energies $`\pm E_k`$ are the solutions of the implicit equation

$$\pm E_k=\frac{1}{2}(M(k,\pm E_k)M(k,E_k))\pm \sqrt{\left[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k+\frac{1}{2}(M(k,E_k)+M(k,E_k))\right]^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(k)^2}$$
(3)
If the energy dependence of $`M(k,\omega )`$ is neglected, than Eq. (3) reduces to the usual square root expression for the quasi-particle excitation energy of the BCS approximation. On the other hand, in the non-superconducting limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, and neglecting the imaginary part of $`M(k,\omega )`$, one can verify that Eq. (3) reduces to the usual self-consistent equation, e.g. Brueckner , for the single particle energy $`e_k`$

$$e_k=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k+M(k,e_k)$$
(4)
Equation (4) is valid whenever $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is negligible, in particular for momenta far away from the Fermi surface, since then $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_k||\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k|`$. We now make use of the assumption of a gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ smaller than the normal self-energy, which is mainly determined by short range correlations. The size of the normal self-energy is indeed of the same order of the Fermi kinetic energy $`E_F`$. In this case, Eq. (4) will be valid to order $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_F)/E_F`$, and therefore on the right hand side of Eq. (3) we can replace $`E_k`$ with $`e_k`$, solution of Eq. (4), to get

$$E_k\frac{1}{2}(M(k,|e_k|)M(k,|e_k|))+\sqrt{\left[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k+\frac{1}{2}(M(k,e_k)+M(k,e_k))\right]^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(k)^2}$$
(5)
where the self-energy is now calculated in the normal phase. The procedure is justified, provided $`M(k,\omega )`$ is a smooth function of $`\omega `$. It will be further discussed below.

The residue $`R`$ of the kernel at each one of the pole can be easily calculated

$`R=\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((1\mathrm{\Theta }_k)a_k+(1+\mathrm{\Theta }_k)b_k)\right]^1`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_k={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k+\frac{1}{2}(M(k,E_k)+M(k,E_k))}{E_k}}`$ (7)
$`a_k=\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{\omega }}\right)_{\omega =E_k};b_k=\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{\omega }}\right)_{\omega =E_k}`$ (8)
In the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, Eq. (6) is the usual expression for the quasi-particle strength $`Z_k`$, provided the momentum $`k`$ is close enough to $`k_F`$. The corrections to the normal phase value of $`1R^1`$ are of the order $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_F)/E_F`$, and therefore the residue $`R`$ can be identified with $`Z_k`$, at least in the vicinity of the Fermi momentum. Far away from the Fermi momentum, the residue $`R`$ has still the expression of Eq. (6) in the limit of small imaginary part, despite the quasi-particle concept becomes less meaningful, since its width can be large (but it can be still much smaller than the real part of the energy). In this case the procedure is just an accurate method of calculating the energy integral (pole approximation). For simplicity, the residue will be denoted by $`Z_k`$ in all cases. Within these approximations, the generalized gap equation (2) reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k)=\underset{k^{}}{}I(k,k^{})Z_k^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}}{2\sqrt{\left[\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k+\frac{1}{2}(M(k,e_k)+M(k,e_k))\right]^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(k)^2}}$$
(9)
Eqs. (5), (6), (9) contain the main result of the paper. It has to noticed that in the generalized gap equation (9) the square root in the denominator does not coincide with the quasi-particle energy of Eq. (5), in contrast with the usual BCS approximation. This feature is general and it is not bound to the approximation of Eq. (5). The approximation of Eq. (5) to the expression inside the square root is valid up to corrections of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }/E_F`$. They can be absorbed in large part by a small shift of the chemical potential $`\mu `$.

Before going to the application of the formalism to neutron matter, let us discuss Eq. (9) in the extreme weak coupling limit, where one assumes that the main contribution to the momentum integral is concentrated around the Fermi surface. In this limit, following the standard procedure of expanding the integrand of Eq. (9) around $`k_F`$, one gets

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_F=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\frac{E_F}{m_F}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{m_FZ_F\pi ^2n_0I(k_F)})$$
(10)
where $`n_0`$ is the density of state for the free Fermi gas and $`m_F`$ the so called $`kmass`$ (in units of the bare mass) . The interaction $`I(k_F)`$ is the diagonal matrix element of the NN potential in the considered channel ( $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ for neutron matter), in the plane wave representation. The self-energy effects are, therefore, contained mainly in the factor $`m_FZ_F`$, which can be written also as $`m^{}Z_F^2`$, since the full effective mass $`m^{}=m_F/Z_F`$ . This is the standard result for the weak coupling limit . Eq. (9) generalizes the treatment to the case where the contribution from momenta far from the Fermi momentum is relevant. The appearance of the $`kmass`$ is a peculiar feature of the pairing phenomenon, and it is a direct consequence of the coupling between time-reversal states. In Eq. (9) the combination $`M(k,\omega )+M(k,\omega )`$ gives rise to the combined density of state of the pair $`\{(k,\omega );(k,\omega )\}`$, which is mainly determined by the $`kmass`$.

The weak coupling limit is not valid in general for neutron or nuclear matter , if one starts from the bare NN interaction. This can be seen directly from the observation that often the gap equation has a well defined solution even when the interaction matrix element $`I(k_F)`$ is positive. This is due to the dominant role of the off-diagonal matrix elements $`I(k,k^{})`$. Therefore, one must solve the more general equation (9) in this case. The above considerations are, anyhow, still valid.

3. Application to neutron matter superfluidity In order to estimate the dispersive effects on the superfluid gap of neutron matter, we have solved Eq. (9), with the bare Argonne v14 potential as the pairing interaction $`I(k,k^{})`$ and with the self-energy calculated in the Brueckner approximation at the lowest order, see Fig. 1a, with the same interaction. The higher order contribution of Fig. 1b turns out to be indeed negligible in the relevant density range. In the superfluid phase, in principle, the diagonal self-energy $`M(k,\omega )`$ differs from the self-energy in the normal phase. The main contribution not present in the normal phase originates from the coupling of the single particle motion with the superfluid collective modes. The latter correspond mainly to the center of mass motion of the Cooper pairs and their possible “vibrations” . The branch starting at zero energy, in the long wave-length limit, is the branch of the Goldstone boson , corresponding to the gauge invariance symmetry breaking at the superfluid phase transition. This contribution to the diagonal single particle self-energy is expected to be at most of the order of the superfluid condensation energy per particle, and therefore negligible with respect to the typical short range correlation energy, as calculated e.g. in Brueckner theory, at least to the extent that $`\mathrm{\Delta }/E_F1`$. For the same reason, the deviation of the occupation number from the free gas value and the presence of a forbidden energy region, of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, around the Fermi energy, typical of the pairing phenomenon, seem to play no relevant role in determining the size of the self-energy. It appears, therefore, justified to adopt for $`M(k,\omega )`$ its normal phase value.

The choice of the bare interaction for $`I(k,k^{})`$ is suggested by the observation that no ladder summation should be included in the irreducible interaction kernel $`I(k,k^{})`$ . Of course, other terms, like polarization diagrams, should be included , but here we want simply to single out the dispersive effects, and therefore it appears meaningful to compare the results obtained with and without self-energy, within the same scheme of approximation.

In Fig. 2 is reported, for $`k_F=0.9fm^1`$, the imaginary part of the neutron self-energy $`M_I(k,e(k))`$ at the quasi-particle pole, as a function of the momentum $`k`$, together with the real part of the quasi-particle energy $`e(k)`$ (calculated with respect to $`\mu `$). One can see that indeed the imaginary part is small with respect to the real part. The situation is completely similar for the other densities. The residue $`Z_k`$ of Eq. (6), which appears in Eq. (9) for the gap function, is reported in Fig. 3 for three densities. According to Migdal-Luttinger theorem , the value $`Z_F`$ of $`Z_k`$ at $`k=k_F`$ is the discontinuity of the momentum distribution at the Fermi momentum (in the normal phase). One must have, therefore, $`0<Z_F<1`$. One can see, however, that $`Z_k`$ exceeds 1 slightly in some interval well above $`k_F`$. This is not surprising, since for large $`\omega `$ values, at fixed $`k`$, the real part of the self-energy is an increasing function of $`\omega `$, and it approaches asymptotically an energy-independent value  (and therefore $`Z_k1`$). As already mentioned, for large momentum the pole approximation is just an accurate method of calculating the relevant energy integral. The position of the pole is, of course, not exactly on the real axis, but numerical estimate of the second derivative of the self-energy shows that to calculate $`Z_k`$ on the real axis is an extremely good approximation. The factor $`Z_k`$ is also related to the single particle occupation number $`n(k)`$. In fact, the contour integral, closed in the lower complex plane, of the single particle GF equals $`1n(k)`$, $`k>k_F`$. Besides the pole, this integral receives contribution from the regular (non polar) part of the single particle GF . If $`Z(k)>1`$, this means simply that the regular part leads to a slightly negative contribution. We have checked, indeed, that the single particle spectral function, calculated with the same self-energy (including of course the imaginary part), satisfies the sum rules and gives well defined occupation numbers $`n(k)`$. A full account of the calculations will be reported elsewhere. Anyhow, this small deviation from 1 does not affect at all the final results, and one can take $`Z_k=1`$ in this momentum region.

Finally, in Fig. 4 is reported the pairing gap at the Fermi energy as a function of density for three different cases : i) without self-energy , ii) with the $`Z_k`$ factor in the numerator of the gap equation (9), iii) with both the self-energy in the denominator and the $`Z_k`$ factor. The reduction of the pairing gap is substantial at the highest densities, near the gap closure.

3. Discussion and conclusion We have developed a method to include the single particle self-energy in the gap equation, and in particular dispersive effects, beyond the usual BCS approximation. The method rely on the assumption of a small gap with respect to the Fermi kinetic energy and strong short range correlations, typical of the neutron matter in the inner crust of neutron stars. The results indicate that dispersive effects can strongly reduce the gap value near its closure. The effect is due both to the quasi-particle strength $`Z_k`$ and to the $`kmass`$, which enter in the generalized gap equation (9). This result appears in line with the work of ref. , where the self-consistent treatment of pairing and short range correlations seems indeed to reduce strongly the gap value mainly because of these two factors . Of course, before drawing any conclusion on the pairing strength in neutron matter, one should include, along a consistent scheme, the correlation effects on the irreducible interaction $`I(k,k^{})`$. Work in this direction is in progress.

The extension of the method to symmetric nuclear matter, possibly relevant for pairing in nuclei, appears problematic. In that case the approximation of a small imaginary part looks less justified away from the Fermi momentum . Furthermore, the neutron-proton pairing in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$ channel is too strong, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_F`$, to be treatable in the proposed approximate method. In both cases a self-consistent procedure, involving both the self-energy and the effective interaction, seems to be the only viable method.

Figure captions

Fig. 1.- One (a) and two (b) hole-line diagrams contributing to the nucleon self-energy in the Bethe-Brueckner-Goldstone expansion. The wavy lines indicate Brueckner G-matrices.

Fig. 2.- Real part e(k) and imaginary part $`M_I`$ of the quasi-particle pole, as a function of the momentum $`k`$ at the Fermi momentum $`k_F=0.9fm^1`$.

Fig. 3.- The residue $`Z_k`$ at the quasi-particle pole as a function of the momentum $`k`$ at three values of the Fermi momentum $`k_F`$.

Fig. 4.- The superfluid gap value, at the Fermi momentum, as a function of density, in the case of free single particle spectrum (diamonds), with the inclusion of the factor $`Z_k`$ (crosses) and with the inclusion of both $`Z_k`$ factor and the self-energy in the single particle spectrum (squares).


text:
# I Introduction and Conclusions

## I Introduction and Conclusions

The presence of attractive interactions in a degenerate fermionic system destabilizes the Fermi surface and leads to the formation of Cooper pairs — the system becomes a superconductor . When increasing the quark density in cold quark matter, asymptotic freedom implies that single-gluon exchange becomes the dominant interaction between quarks. Single-gluon exchange is attractive in the color-antitriplet channel, and therefore leads to color superconductivity in cold, dense quark matter .

Considerable activity has been recently generated  by the observation that the zero-temperature color-superconducting gap $`\varphi _0`$ can be as large as 100 MeV . Gaps of this magnitude may have important consequences for the physics of nuclear collisions. The critical temperature for the onset of color superconductivity, $`T_c`$, is (to leading order in the strong coupling constant $`g`$) related to $`\varphi _0`$ in the same way as in BCS theory, $`T_c0.57\varphi _0`$ . Thus, for $`\varphi _0100`$ MeV, it cannot be excluded that color-superconducting quark matter could be created in nuclear collisions in the GSI–SIS or BNL–AGS energy range.

In order to compute the color-superconducting gap, one commonly solves a gap equation . For theories with point-like four-fermion interactions, $`\varphi _0\mu \mathrm{exp}(c_{4\mathrm{F}}/G^2)`$, where $`\mu `$ is the quark chemical potential, $`c_{4\mathrm{F}}`$ is a constant, and $`G^2`$ is the four-fermion coupling strength . On the other hand, in QCD, $`\varphi _0\mu \mathrm{exp}(c_{\mathrm{QCD}}/g)`$, where $`c_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ is another constant . In weak coupling, there are then three different energy scales, $`\varphi _0m_g\mu `$, where $`m_g`$ is the gluon mass. At $`T=0`$ and for $`N_f`$ flavors of massless quarks ,

$$m_g^2\frac{N_f}{3}\frac{g^2\mu ^2}{2\pi ^2}.$$
(1)
The value of $`c_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ depends on the form of the gluon propagator in the cold, dense quark medium. If one takes the gluon propagator in the standard “hard dense loop“ (HDL) approximation , one obtains $`c_{\mathrm{QCD}}=3\pi ^2/\sqrt{2}`$ . In this approximation, the quarks inside the HDL’s are assumed to be in the normal, and not the color-superconducting phase. Consequently, an important question that has to be addressed is how color superconductivity influences the propagation of gluons and whether this could change $`c_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. In a recent work , I have derived a general expression for the gluon self-energy in a two-flavor color superconductor, and explicitly computed the self-energy in the static limit, $`p_0=0`$, for gluon momenta $`p|𝐩|0`$, and for $`p\varphi _0`$.

In a two-flavor color superconductor, condensation of Cooper pairs in a channel of total spin $`J=0`$ breaks $`SU(3)_c`$ to $`SU(2)_c`$. Then, the three gluons corresponding to the generators of the unbroken $`SU(2)_c`$ subgroup are expected to remain massless, while the other five should attain a mass through the Anderson–Higgs mechanism. An explicit computation of the gluon self-energy to one-loop order in perturbation theory confirms this qualitative expectation, but quantitatively reveals some surprising details . At $`T=0`$, the three gluons of the unbroken $`SU(2)_c`$ attain no Meissner mass, but also no Debye mass. This means that static, homogeneous color-electric fields of the unbroken $`SU(2)_c`$ subgroup are not screened. Furthermore, the Debye and Meissner masses of the remaining five gluons are not identical: four gluons have a Debye mass $`\sqrt{3/2}m_g`$ and a Meissner mass $`m_g/\sqrt{2}`$, while the last one has a Debye mass $`\sqrt{3}m_g`$, like in the non-superconducting phase, but a Meissner mass $`m_g/\sqrt{3}`$.

On the other hand, in a three-flavor color superconductor the color and flavor $`SU(3)_c\times U(3)_V\times U(3)_A`$ symmetry is broken to the diagonal subgroup $`SU(3)_{c+V}`$. This locks color and flavor rotations . From the 18 Goldstone bosons resulting from symmetry breaking, eight get “eaten” by the gluons, which consequently become massive. The purpose of this paper is to complement the results of  for the two-flavor case with the computation of the Debye and Meissner masses of these gluons in the three-flavor case.

It is worthwhile mentioning that here, as well as in , the terms “Debye mass” and “Meissner mass” refer exclusively to the screening of color-electric and color-magnetic fields. The “ordinary” (electro-)magnetic Meissner effect was studied in . Similar to the mixing of weak and electromagnetic gauge bosons in the standard model, the electromagnetic field mixes with the eighth gluon to form a modified photon, under which the color-superconducting condensate is electrically neutral. The mass of the modified eighth gluon becomes slightly larger than that of the other seven. However, the mixing angle as well as this increase in mass is determined by the ratio of electromagnetic and strong coupling constants and consequently quite small. Therefore, effects from electromagnetism will be neglected throughout the following.

There is another reason why it is important to know the values for the Debye and Meissner mass. The relevant degrees of freedom in the color-flavor locked phase at energy scales much smaller than the gap, $`\varphi _0`$, are the remaining 10 Goldstone bosons resulting from the breaking of color and flavor symmetries. Apart from an additional Goldstone boson arising from breaking $`U(1)_V`$, these bosons are analogous to the pseudoscalar mesons which result from chiral symmetry breaking in the QCD vacuum . Consequently, the dynamics of these 10 Goldstone bosons is described by an effective theory which resembles the Lagrangian of the nonlinear sigma model, describing the dynamics of the chiral fields in the QCD vacuum . To lowest order, this Lagrangian contains only kinetic terms,

$$_{\mathrm{nl}\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{kin}}=\frac{f_\pi ^2}{4}\mathrm{Tr}\left(_0\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}_0\mathrm{\Sigma }v_\pi ^2\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)+12f_\eta ^{}^2\left[\left(_0\theta \right)^2v_\eta ^{}^2\left(\mathbf{}\theta \right)^2\right]+12f_H^2\left[\left(_0\phi \right)^2v_H^2\left(\mathbf{}\phi \right)^2\right].$$
(2)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda ^a/f_\pi )`$, where $`\pi ^a,a=1,\mathrm{},8,`$ are the fields corresponding to the meson octet in the QCD vacuum. These are the pions, the kaons, and the $`\eta `$ meson, which are the Goldstone bosons resulting from spontaneous breaking of the $`SU(3)_A`$ symmetry. $`\lambda ^a`$ are the Gell-Mann matrices. $`\theta `$ is the field corresponding to the meson singlet in the QCD vacuum, i.e., the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson, which is the Goldstone boson resulting from breaking $`U(1)_A`$ spontaneously. (In the QCD vacuum, $`U(1)_A`$ is also broken explicitly by instantons. At the quark densities relevant for the effective theory in the color-flavor locked phase, however, instantons play no longer any significant role .) Finally, $`\phi `$ is the Goldstone mode resulting from breaking $`U(1)_V`$. This field has no analogon in the QCD vacuum.

The coefficients of the kinetic terms are determined by the “decay constants” $`f_\pi `$, $`f_\eta ^{}`$, and $`f_H`$. The presence of a medium breaks Lorentz invariance, and the coefficients of the time-like and space-like terms may differ, i.e., the velocities $`v_\pi ^2`$, $`v_\eta ^{}^2`$, and $`v_H^2`$ are not necessarily equal to one. These velocities enter the dispersion relation of the Goldstone bosons as $`ϵ_i^2(k)=v_i^2k^2+m_i^2`$, $`i=\pi ,\eta ^{},H`$.

The decay constants as well as the velocities can be computed by matching the effective theory to the underlying microscopic theory. A convenient way to do this was proposed by Son and Stephanov . First, they observed that, by minimally gauging the model (2), for instance the pseudoscalar decay constant $`f_\pi `$ is related to the Debye mass of the gluons, $`m_D`$, via

$$f_\pi m_D/g,$$
(3)
and the velocity of the pseudoscalar mesons is determined from the ratio of Debye and Meissner masses,

$$v_\pi m_M/m_D.$$
(4)
The problem is thus reduced to computing these masses in the underlying theory. In this case, one has two choices. First, one may use QCD in the color-superconducting ground state. This theory has quasiparticle as well as quasi-antiparticle excitations, and is valid at all energy scales. Second, one may start from the effective theory proposed by Hong . This theory contains only quasiparticle excitations around the Fermi surface, quasi-antiparticle excitations have already been integrated out. It is valid at energy scales which are much smaller than the chemical potential, $`\mu `$, but which can be larger than the gap, $`\varphi _0`$.

Son and Stephanov  used the latter theory to compute the Debye and Meissner masses. Their results are

$$m_D^2=m_g^2\frac{218\mathrm{ln}2}{18},m_M^2=m_g^2\frac{218\mathrm{ln}2}{54}.$$
(5)
Consequently, the velocity of the pseudoscalar mesons is $`v_\pi =1/\sqrt{3}`$. Note that the (square of the) Debye mass in the three-flavor superconductor, $`m_D^20.859m_g^2`$, is reduced by a factor 3.5 as compared to its value in a normal, cold medium, $`m_D^2=3m_g^2`$.

The result (5) is not undisputed throughout the literature. For instance, Rho, Shuryak, Wirzba, and Zahed  computed the Debye and Meissner masses from the gluon self-energy in the full theory, including quasi-antiparticle excitations. They obtained \[see Eqs. (A.72) and (A.75) of \],

$$m_D^2=\frac{1}{2}m_g^2,m_M^2=\frac{5}{6}m_g^2.$$
(6)
This is quite surprising, as it implies that the velocity of the pseudoscalar mesons is superluminous, $`v_\pi m_M/m_D=\sqrt{5/3}`$. Other results that can be found in the literature are those of Zarembo , which agree with Son and Stephanov’s calculation. Beane, Bedaque, and Savage  agree with Son and Stephanov on the Debye and Meissner masses up to a factor of 2.

The second goal of this paper is to resolve this ambiguity in the literature. The Debye and Meissner masses will be computed in the full theory, i.e., QCD in the color-superconducting ground state. The framework for such a computation was already established in . As shown in the following section, the results are found to agree with those of Son and Stephanov, Eq. (5).

The Debye and Meissner masses are not only important for the nonlinear version (2) of the effective low-energy theory in a three-flavor color superconductor. As outlined in  they also determine the coefficients of the kinetic terms in the linear version of the effective theory,

$$_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\mathrm{kin}}=\alpha _\mathrm{e}\underset{h=r,\mathrm{}}{}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(D_0\mathrm{\Phi }_h\right)^{}D^0\mathrm{\Phi }_h\right]+\alpha _\mathrm{m}\underset{h=r,\mathrm{}}{}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(D_i\mathrm{\Phi }_h\right)^{}D^i\mathrm{\Phi }_h\right].$$
(7)
Since there is no reason why right- and left-handed terms should differ in normalization, I assumed $`\alpha _{\mathrm{e}r}\alpha _\mathrm{e}\mathrm{}\alpha _\mathrm{e}`$, and similarly for the coefficient of the space-like terms, $`\alpha _\mathrm{m}`$. For color-flavor locking, the order parameter is a $`3\times 3`$ matrix with expectation value $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h=\mathrm{diag}(\varphi _{0h},\varphi _{0h},\varphi _{0h})`$ . Consequently, $`g^2\alpha _\mathrm{e}(\varphi _{0r}^2+\varphi _0\mathrm{}^2)m_D^2`$, $`g^2\alpha _\mathrm{m}(\varphi _{0r}^2+\varphi _0\mathrm{}^2)m_M^2`$. Due to explicit symmetry breaking by nonzero quark masses (and, at less than asymptotically high densities, instantons), the true ground state of the color-flavor locked phase corresponds to the $`J^P=0^+`$ channel where $`\varphi _{0r}\varphi _0\mathrm{}\varphi _0`$. Then, $`\alpha _\mathrm{e}m_D^2/(2g^2\varphi _0^2)`$, $`\alpha _\mathrm{m}^2m_M^2/(2g^2\varphi _0^2)`$.

I use natural units, $`\mathrm{}=c=k_B=1`$, and work in Euclidean space-time $`𝐑^4V/T`$, where $`V`$ is the volume and $`T`$ the temperature of the system. Nevertheless, I find it convenient to retain the Minkowski notation for 4-vectors, with a metric tensor $`g^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(+,,,)`$. For instance, the space-time coordinate vector is $`x^\mu (t,𝐱)`$, $`ti\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is Euclidean time. 4-momenta are denoted as $`K^\mu (k_0,𝐤)`$, $`k_0i\omega _n`$, where $`\omega _n`$ is the Matsubara frequency, $`\omega _n2n\pi T`$ for bosons and $`\omega _n(2n+1)\pi T`$ for fermions, $`n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$. The absolute value of the 3-momentum $`𝐤`$ is denoted as $`k|𝐤|`$, and its direction as $`\widehat{𝐤}𝐤/k`$.

## II Explicit computation of Debye and Meissner masses

A convenient starting point to compute the gluon self-energy in the color-flavor locked phase is Eq. (68) of ,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^{\mu \nu }(P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{T}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{K}{}}\mathrm{Tr}_{s,c,f}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^\mu G^+(K)\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\nu G^+(KP)+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a^\mu G^{}(K)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_b^\nu G^{}(KP)`$ (9)
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^\mu \mathrm{\Xi }^{}(K)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_b^\nu \mathrm{\Xi }^+(KP)+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a^\mu \mathrm{\Xi }^+(K)\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\nu \mathrm{\Xi }^{}(KP)].`$
Here, the trace is over color, flavor, and spinor space. The vertices are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^\mu \gamma ^\mu T_a`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a^\mu \gamma ^\mu T_a^T`$. $`G^\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^\pm `$ are the diagonal and off-diagonal elements of the Nambu–Gor’kov propagator for quasiparticle excitations,

$$G^\pm (G_0^\pm \mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm )^1,\mathrm{\Xi }^\pm G_0^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm G^\pm .$$
(10)
$`G_0^\pm (K)\left(\gamma K\pm \gamma _0\mu \right)^1`$ is the propagator for massless, non-interacting quarks (charge-conjugate quarks), and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm \mathrm{\Phi }^{}G_0^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$ is the quark self-energy generated by exchanging particles or charge-conjugate particles with the condensate. In mean-field approximation, the condensate $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ is computed from the gap equation discussed in , and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ can be obtained from

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(K)\gamma _0\left[\mathrm{\Phi }^+(K)\right]^{}\gamma _0.$$
(11)
In Eq. (9), the first line corresponds to the diagram in Fig. 1(a), where only the diagonal components of the Nambu–Gor’kov propagator appear, while the second line corresponds to the diagram in Fig. 1(b), formed from the off-diagonal components. Note that, at small temperatures $`T\varphi _0`$, and in weak coupling, $`\varphi _0\mu `$, the fermion loops of Fig. 1 constitute the dominant contribution to the gluon self-energy, since contributions from gluon (or ghost) loops are relatively suppressed by a factor $`T^2/\mu ^2\varphi _0^2/\mu ^2`$ .

In the two-flavor case, the trace over color and flavor in Eq. (9) could be performed independently . In the three-flavor case, due to color-flavor locking this is no longer possible. The traces over color and flavor must be performed simultaneously. The most elegant way to do this is to utilize the color-flavor space projectors introduced by Shovkovy and Wijewardhana, Eq. (7) of ,

$`𝒞_{}^{(1)}{}_{rs}{}^{ij}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\delta _r^i\delta _s^j,`$ (13)
$`𝒞_{}^{(2)}{}_{rs}{}^{ij}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _{rs}\delta ^{ij}\delta _r^j\delta _s^i\right),`$ (14)
$`𝒞_{}^{(3)}{}_{rs}{}^{ij}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _{rs}\delta ^{ij}+\delta _r^j\delta _s^i\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\delta _r^i\delta _s^j.`$ (15)
(To avoid proliferation of the symbol $`𝒫`$, I denote them here as $`𝒞`$.) All projectors are symmetric under simultaneous exchange of color, $`i,j`$, and flavor, $`r,s`$, indices. Note that $`𝒞^{(1)}`$ is the singlet projector $`𝐏_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ introduced by Zarembo, Eq. (3.11) in . Furthermore, $`𝒞^{(2)}+𝒞^{(3)}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐏_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐏_\mathrm{𝟖}`$ is Zarembo’s octet projector, Eq. (3.12) in .

With the projectors (1), the gap matrices $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm `$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm \underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝒞^{(n)}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^\pm .$$
(16)
Here,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^\pm `$ $``$ $`2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}}^\pm +2\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{𝟔}^\pm \right),`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^\pm `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}}^\pm \mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{𝟔}^\pm ,`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_3^\pm `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^\pm ,`$ (20)
are gap matrices in spinor space,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n^+(K)\underset{h=r,\mathrm{}}{}\underset{e=\pm }{}\varphi _{n,h}^e(K)𝒫_h\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐤^e,\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}(K)\underset{h=r,\mathrm{}}{}\underset{e=\pm }{}\left[\varphi _{n,h}^e(K)\right]^{}𝒫_h\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐤^e,$$
(21)
where $`𝒫_{r,\mathrm{}}(1\pm \gamma _5)/2`$ are chirality projectors, $`h=\mathrm{}`$ when $`h=r`$ and $`h=r`$ when $`h=\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐤^\pm (1\pm \gamma _0𝜸\widehat{𝐤})/2`$ are energy projectors, and $`\varphi _{n,h}^e(K)`$ are simple functions of 4-momentum $`K^\mu `$.

In Eqs. (16), $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}}^\pm `$ is the gap matrix in the antitriplet channel and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{𝟔}^\pm `$ is the gap matrix in the sextet channel,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{\pm }{}_{rs}{}^{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}}^\pm \left(\delta _r^i\delta _s^j\delta _s^i\delta _r^j\right)+\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{𝟔}^\pm \left(\delta _r^i\delta _s^j+\delta _s^i\delta _r^j\right).$$
(22)
Why condensation in the (repulsive) sextet channel is possible in the color-flavor locked phase was explained in . Antitriplet and sextet gaps are related to the gap functions $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$ of  by $`\varphi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathrm{}}^+=\varphi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}r}^+(\kappa _1\kappa _2)/2`$, $`\varphi _\mathrm{𝟔}\mathrm{}^+=\varphi _{\mathrm{𝟔}r}^+(\kappa _1+\kappa _2)/2`$. For future purpose, it will be convenient to define a singlet and an octet gap matrix according to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{𝟏}^\pm \mathrm{\Phi }_1^\pm ,\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{𝟖}^\pm \mathrm{\Phi }_2^\pm \mathrm{\Phi }_3^\pm .$$
(23)
The quasiparticle propagators take the form

$$G^\pm (K)\underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝒞^{(n)}G_n^\pm (K),$$
(24)
where

$$G_n^\pm (K)=\underset{h=r,\mathrm{}}{}\underset{e=\pm }{}𝒫_{\pm h}\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐤^{\pm e}\frac{1}{k_0^2[ϵ_𝐤^e(\varphi _{n,h}^e)]^2}\left[G_0^{}(K)\right]^1.$$
(25)
The quasiparticle energies are

$$ϵ_𝐤^e(\varphi _{n,h}^e)\sqrt{(\mu ek)^2+|\varphi _{n,h}^e|^2},$$
(26)
where $`\varphi _{n,h}^e`$ is the gap function for pairing of quarks ($`e=+1`$) or antiquarks ($`e=1`$) with chirality $`h`$.

The right-hand side of (25) does not depend on the sign of the gap functions, i.e., the difference in sign between $`\varphi _{2,h}^e`$ and $`\varphi _{3,h}^e`$, Eq. (20), is irrelevant, $`G_2^\pm G_3^\pm `$. Then, Eq. (24) has the alternative representation

$$G^\pm (K)𝐏_\mathrm{𝟏}G_\mathrm{𝟏}^\pm (K)+𝐏_\mathrm{𝟖}G_\mathrm{𝟖}^\pm (K),$$
(27)
where $`𝐏_{\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟖}}`$ are the singlet and octet projectors introduced by Zarembo , see above, and, following Eq. (23), $`G_\mathrm{𝟏}^\pm G_1^\pm `$, $`G_\mathrm{𝟖}^\pm G_2^\pm =G_3^\pm `$.

The off-diagonal components of the quasiparticle propagators are similarly computed as

$$\mathrm{\Xi }^\pm (K)\underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝒞^{(n)}\mathrm{\Xi }_n^\pm (K),$$
(28)
where

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_n^+(K)=\underset{h=r,\mathrm{}}{}\underset{e=\pm }{}\frac{\varphi _{n,h}^e(K)}{k_0^2[ϵ_𝐤^e(\varphi _{n,h}^e)]^2}𝒫_h\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐤^e,\mathrm{\Xi }_n^{}(K)=\underset{h=r,\mathrm{}}{}\underset{e=\pm }{}\frac{\left[\varphi _{n,h}^e(K)\right]^{}}{k_0^2[ϵ_𝐤^e(\varphi _{n,h}^e)]^2}𝒫_h\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐤^e.$$
(29)
Since $`\varphi _{2,h}^e=\varphi _{3,h}^e`$, there is no simple representation in terms of singlet and octet projectors for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^\pm `$. Nevertheless, in line with (23) let us define for future purpose $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟏}^\pm \mathrm{\Xi }_1^\pm `$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟖}^\pm \mathrm{\Xi }_2^\pm \mathrm{\Xi }_3^\pm `$.

Inserting Eqs. (24) and (28) into Eq. (9), one straightforwardly performs the trace over color and flavor space to obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^{\mu \nu }(P)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ab}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(P),`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{K}{}}\mathrm{Tr}_s[\gamma ^\mu G_\mathrm{𝟏}^+(K)\gamma ^\nu G_\mathrm{𝟖}^+(KP)+\gamma ^\mu G_\mathrm{𝟖}^+(K)\gamma ^\nu G_\mathrm{𝟏}^+(KP){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}`$ (37)
$`+\gamma ^\mu G_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}(K)\gamma ^\nu G_\mathrm{𝟖}^{}(KP)+\gamma ^\mu G_\mathrm{𝟖}^{}(K)\gamma ^\nu G_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}(KP){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}7}\gamma ^\mu G_\mathrm{𝟖}^+(K)\gamma ^\nu G_\mathrm{𝟖}^+(KP)+7\gamma ^\mu G_\mathrm{𝟖}^{}(K)\gamma ^\nu G_\mathrm{𝟖}^{}(KP){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}`$
$`+\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}(K)\gamma ^\nu \mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟖}^+(KP)+\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟖}^{}(K)\gamma ^\nu \mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟏}^+(KP){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}`$
$`+\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟏}^+(K)\gamma ^\nu \mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟖}^{}(KP)+\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟖}^+(K)\gamma ^\nu \mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}(KP){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟖}^{}(K)\gamma ^\nu \mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟖}^+(KP)+2\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟖}^+(K)\gamma ^\nu \mathrm{\Xi }_\mathrm{𝟖}^{}(KP){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}].`$
From (1) one learns two things. First, unlike the two-flavor case , the gluon self-energy is diagonal in the adjoint colors $`a,b`$. Second, there are no terms where both quasiparticle propagators involve singlet gaps. The reason is that such terms are proportional to $`\mathrm{Tr}_cT_a\mathrm{Tr}_cT_b0`$.

The evaluation of the spin traces proceeds in complete analogy to the two-flavor case . Assuming $`\varphi _{n,r}^e=\varphi _{n,\mathrm{}}^e\varphi _n^e𝐑`$, the result is \[cf. Eq. (96a) of \]

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(P)={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{12}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{e_1,e_2=\pm }{}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}𝒯_+^{\mu \nu }(𝐤_1,𝐤_2)`$ (38)
$`\times `$ $`[({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{n}_1(1n_2)}{p_0+\widehat{ϵ}_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\widehat{n}_1)n_2}{p_0\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}})(1\widehat{N}_1N_2)+({\displaystyle \frac{(1\widehat{n}_1)(1n_2)}{p_0\widehat{ϵ}_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{n}_1n_2}{p_0+\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}})(\widehat{N}_1N_2)`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_1(1\widehat{n}_2)}{p_0+ϵ_1+\widehat{ϵ}_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1n_1)\widehat{n}_2}{p_0ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}\right)(1N_1\widehat{N}_2)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1n_1)(1\widehat{n}_2)}{p_0ϵ_1+\widehat{ϵ}_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_1\widehat{n}_2}{p_0+ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}\right)(N_1\widehat{N}_2)`$ (40)
$`+`$ $`7({\displaystyle \frac{n_1(1n_2)}{p_0+ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1n_1)n_2}{p_0ϵ_1ϵ_2}})(1N_1N_2)+7({\displaystyle \frac{(1n_1)(1n_2)}{p_0ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_1n_2}{p_0+ϵ_1ϵ_2}})(N_1N_2)]`$ (42)
$`+𝒯_{}^{\mu \nu }(𝐤_1,𝐤_2)`$
$`\times `$ $`[({\displaystyle \frac{(1\widehat{n}_1)n_2)}{p_0+\widehat{ϵ}_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{n}_1(1n_2)}{p_0\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}})(1\widehat{N}_1N_2)+({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{n}_1n_2}{p_0\widehat{ϵ}_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\widehat{n}_1)(1n_2)}{p_0+\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}})(\widehat{N}_1N_2)`$ (43)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1n_1)\widehat{n}_2}{p_0+ϵ_1+\widehat{ϵ}_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_1(1\widehat{n}_2)}{p_0ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}\right)(1N_1\widehat{N}_2)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_1\widehat{n}_2}{p_0ϵ_1+\widehat{ϵ}_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1n_1)(1\widehat{n}_2)}{p_0+ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}\right)(N_1\widehat{N}_2)`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`7({\displaystyle \frac{(1n_1)n_2}{p_0+ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_1(1n_2)}{p_0ϵ_1ϵ_2}})(1N_1N_2)+7({\displaystyle \frac{n_1n_2}{p_0ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1n_1)(1n_2)}{p_0+ϵ_1ϵ_2}})(N_1N_2)]`$ (46)
$`\left[𝒰_+^{\mu \nu }(𝐤_1,𝐤_2)+𝒰_{}^{\mu \nu }(𝐤_1,𝐤_2)\right]`$
$`\times `$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\varphi }_1\varphi _2}{4\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}}[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+\widehat{ϵ}_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}})(1\widehat{N}_1N_2)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0\widehat{ϵ}_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}})(\widehat{N}_1N_2)]`$ (47)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _1\widehat{\varphi }_2}{4ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+ϵ_1+\widehat{ϵ}_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}\right)(1N_1\widehat{N}_2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0ϵ_1+\widehat{ϵ}_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}\right)(N_1\widehat{N}_2)\right]`$ (48)
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _1\varphi _2}{4ϵ_1ϵ_2}}[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0ϵ_1ϵ_2}})(1N_1N_2)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+ϵ_1ϵ_2}})(N_1N_2)]\}).`$ (49)
Here, I denoted the octet and singlet gaps by

$$\varphi _i\varphi _\mathrm{𝟖}^{e_i},\widehat{\varphi }_i\varphi _\mathrm{𝟏}^{e_i}.$$
(50)
Correspondingly,

$$ϵ_iϵ_{𝐤_i}^{e_i}(\varphi _i),\widehat{ϵ}_iϵ_{𝐤_i}^{e_i}(\widehat{\varphi }_i)$$
(51)
are the excitation energies for quasiparticles with octet and singlet gaps, $`𝐤_1𝐤`$, $`𝐤_2𝐤𝐩`$,

$$n_in_{𝐤_i}^{e_i}\frac{ϵ_i\xi _i}{2ϵ_i},\widehat{n}_i\widehat{n}_{𝐤_i}^{e_i}\frac{\widehat{ϵ}_i\xi _i}{2\widehat{ϵ}_i}$$
(52)
are the occupation numbers for quasiparticles with octet and singlet gaps, $`\xi _ie_ik_i\mu `$, and

$$N_iN_{𝐤_i}^{e_i}[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ϵ_i}{T}\right)+1]^1,\widehat{N}_i\widehat{N}_{𝐤_i}^{e_i}[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\widehat{ϵ}_i}{T}\right)+1]^1$$
(53)
are the corresponding thermal occupation numbers. The spin traces are \[see Eqs. (45) and (97) of \]

$`𝒯_\pm ^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒰_\pm ^{00}=1+e_1e_2\widehat{𝐤}_1\widehat{𝐤}_2,`$ (55)
$`𝒯_\pm ^{0i}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒯_\pm ^{i0}=𝒰_\pm ^{0i}=𝒰_\pm ^{i0}=\pm e_1\widehat{k}_1^i\pm e_2\widehat{k}_2^i,i=x,y,z,`$ (56)
$`𝒯_\pm ^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒰_\pm ^{ij}=\delta ^{ij}\left(1e_1e_2\widehat{𝐤}_1\widehat{𝐤}_2\right)+e_1e_2\left(\widehat{k}_1^i\widehat{k}_2^j+\widehat{k}_1^j\widehat{k}_2^i\right),i,j=x,y,z.`$ (57)
In Eq. (38), the terms proportional to $`𝒯_\pm ^{\mu \nu }`$ correspond to the diagram in Fig. 1(a), while those proportional to $`𝒰_\pm ^{\mu \nu }`$ correspond to that in Fig. 1(b).

In order to compute the Debye and Meissner mass, it is sufficient to consider the time-like, $`\mu =\nu =0`$, and space-like, $`\mu =i,\nu =j`$, components of the self-energy, since the Debye and Meissner masses are defined as

$$m_D^2\underset{p0}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }^{00}(0,p),m_M^2\underset{p0}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }^{ii}(0,p).$$
(58)
The sign in the first equation is due to the choice of metric. The self-energy of electric gluons is

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{00}(P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{e_1,e_2=\pm }{}(1+e_1e_2\widehat{𝐤}_1\widehat{𝐤}_2)}`$ (66)
$`\times [({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+\widehat{ϵ}_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}})(1\widehat{N}_1N_2){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2\xi _1\xi _2\widehat{\varphi }_1\varphi _2}{2\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+ϵ_1+\widehat{ϵ}_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}\right)(1N_1\widehat{N}_2){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2\xi _1\xi _2\varphi _1\widehat{\varphi }_2}{2ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0ϵ_1ϵ_2}}\right)(1N_1N_2){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2\xi _1\xi _22\varphi _1\varphi _2/7}{2ϵ_1ϵ_2}}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0\widehat{ϵ}_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}}\right)(\widehat{N}_1N_2){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2+\xi _1\xi _2+\widehat{\varphi }_1\varphi _2}{2\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0ϵ_1+\widehat{ϵ}_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}\right)(N_1\widehat{N}_2){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2+\xi _1\xi _2+\varphi _1\widehat{\varphi }_2}{2ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}`$
$`+7({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+ϵ_1ϵ_2}})(N_1N_2){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2+\xi _1\xi _2+2\varphi _1\varphi _2/7}{2ϵ_1ϵ_2}}].`$
On the other hand, the self-energy of magnetic gluons is

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ij}(P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{e_1,e_2=\pm }{}\left[\delta ^{ij}\left(1e_1e_2\widehat{𝐤}_1\widehat{𝐤}_2\right)+e_1e_2\left(\widehat{k}_1^i\widehat{k}_2^j+\widehat{k}_1^j\widehat{k}_2^i\right)\right]}`$ (73)
$`\times [({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+\widehat{ϵ}_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}})(1\widehat{N}_1N_2){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2\xi _1\xi _2+\widehat{\varphi }_1\varphi _2}{2\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+ϵ_1+\widehat{ϵ}_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}\right)(1N_1\widehat{N}_2){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2\xi _1\xi _2+\varphi _1\widehat{\varphi }_2}{2ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0ϵ_1ϵ_2}}\right)(1N_1N_2){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2\xi _1\xi _2+2\varphi _1\varphi _2/7}{2ϵ_1ϵ_2}}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0\widehat{ϵ}_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}}\right)(\widehat{N}_1N_2){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2+\xi _1\xi _2\widehat{\varphi }_1\varphi _2}{2\widehat{ϵ}_1ϵ_2}}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0ϵ_1+\widehat{ϵ}_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}\right)(N_1\widehat{N}_2){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2+\xi _1\xi _2\varphi _1\widehat{\varphi }_2}{2ϵ_1\widehat{ϵ}_2}}`$
$`+7({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_0+ϵ_1ϵ_2}})(N_1N_2){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2+\xi _1\xi _22\varphi _1\varphi _2/7}{2ϵ_1ϵ_2}}].`$
In Eq. (58), terms proportional to $`(ϵ_1ϵ_2\pm \xi _1\xi _2)/(2ϵ_1ϵ_2)`$ (and similar terms involving the singlet gaps, $`\widehat{\varphi }_i`$) arise from the diagram in Fig. 1(a), while terms proportional to $`\varphi _1\varphi _2/(2ϵ_1ϵ_2)`$ (and similar terms involving the singlet gaps, $`\widehat{\varphi }_i`$) arise from that in Fig. 1(b).

To proceed I treat quasi-antiparticles as free antiparticles, as in ,

$`\varphi _\mathrm{𝟖}^{}0,\varphi _\mathrm{𝟏}^{}0,ϵ_{𝐤_i}^{}(\varphi _\mathrm{𝟖}^{})k_i+\mu ,ϵ_{𝐤_i}^{}(\varphi _\mathrm{𝟏}^{})k_i+\mu ,`$ (75)
$`n_{𝐤_i}^{}1,\widehat{n}_{𝐤_i}^{}1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}n_{𝐤_i}^{}0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}\widehat{n}_{𝐤_i}^{}0,N_{𝐤_i}^{}0,\widehat{N}_{𝐤_i}^{}0.`$ (76)
Setting $`p_0=0`$ and sending $`p0`$, there are then no antiparticle contributions to the electric part of the gluon self-energy. Abbreviating $`\varphi _\mathrm{𝟖}^+\varphi `$, $`\varphi _\mathrm{𝟏}^+\widehat{\varphi }`$, $`ϵ_𝐤^+ϵ`$, $`\widehat{ϵ}_𝐤^+\widehat{ϵ}`$, $`N_𝐤^+N`$, $`\widehat{N}_𝐤^+\widehat{N}`$,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{00}(0)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(a)}(0)+\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(b)}(0),`$ (78)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(a)}(0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dkk^2[8{\displaystyle \frac{1\widehat{N}N}{\widehat{ϵ}+ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{ϵ}ϵ\xi ^2}{2\widehat{ϵ}ϵ}}+7(12N){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{ϵ^3}}`$ (80)
$`8{\displaystyle \frac{N\widehat{N}}{ϵ\widehat{ϵ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{ϵ}ϵ+\xi ^2}{2\widehat{ϵ}ϵ}}28{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}ϵ}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{2ϵ^2}})],`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(b)}(0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dkk^2[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}{\displaystyle \frac{1\widehat{N}N}{\widehat{ϵ}+ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\varphi }\varphi }{2\widehat{ϵ}ϵ}}2(12N){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{ϵ^3}}`$ (82)
$`8{\displaystyle \frac{N\widehat{N}}{ϵ\widehat{ϵ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\varphi }\varphi }{2\widehat{ϵ}ϵ}}4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{ϵ^2}}].`$
In order to facilitate comparison with the results of Son and Stephanov, and to elucidate the origin of the various terms, I have separated the self-energy into the contributions from the diagram in Fig. 1(a), $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(a)}`$, and that in Fig. 1(b), $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(b)}`$.

For the self-energy of magnetic gluons one obtains with $`𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{k}^i\widehat{k}^j/(4\pi )=\delta ^{ij}/3`$, $`n_𝐤^+n`$, $`\widehat{n}_𝐤^+\widehat{n}`$,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ij}(0)`$ $``$ $`\delta ^{ij}\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a1)}(0)+\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a2)}(0)+\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(b)}(0)\right],`$ (83)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a1)}(0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{72\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dkk^2[8{\displaystyle \frac{1\widehat{N}N}{\widehat{ϵ}+ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{ϵ}ϵ\xi ^2}{2\widehat{ϵ}ϵ}}+7(12N){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{ϵ^3}}`$ (85)
$`8{\displaystyle \frac{N\widehat{N}}{ϵ\widehat{ϵ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{ϵ}ϵ+\xi ^2}{2\widehat{ϵ}ϵ}}28{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}ϵ}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{2ϵ^2}})],`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a2)}(0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{72\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dkk^2[16{\displaystyle \frac{(1\widehat{N})(1\widehat{n})}{k+\mu +\widehat{ϵ}}}+128{\displaystyle \frac{(1N)(1n)}{k+\mu +ϵ}}`$ (87)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{N}\widehat{n}}{k+\mu \widehat{ϵ}}}+128{\displaystyle \frac{Nn}{k+\mu ϵ}}72{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}],`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(b)}(0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{72\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dkk^2[8{\displaystyle \frac{1\widehat{N}N}{\widehat{ϵ}+ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\varphi }\varphi }{2\widehat{ϵ}ϵ}}+2(12N){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{ϵ^3}}`$ (89)
$`+8{\displaystyle \frac{N\widehat{N}}{ϵ\widehat{ϵ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\varphi }\varphi }{2\widehat{ϵ}ϵ}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{ϵ^2}}].`$
Again, I have separated contributions from Fig. 1(a), $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a1)}+\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a2)}`$, from those of Fig. 1(b), $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(b)}`$. Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(a)}3\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a1)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(b)}3\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(b)}`$. There are two contributions from Fig. 1(a). The first, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a1)}`$, arises from quasiparticle-quasiparticle excitations, while the second, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a2)}`$, originates from quasiparticle-antiparticle excitations. The latter is UV-divergent, and thus requires renormalization, which is achieved by adding the last term in Eq. (87). As we shall see shortly, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a2)}`$ gives rise to the “bare” Meissner mass in Hong’s effective theory , where contributions involving antiparticles are integrated out.

Let us now consider the case of zero temperature, where $`N\widehat{N}0`$. One may restrict the $`k`$ integration to the region $`0k2\mu `$, the contribution from $`k2\mu `$ can be shown to be negligible. The various components of the self-energies are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(a)}(0)`$ $``$ $`3\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a1)}(0){\displaystyle \frac{g^2\mu ^2}{12\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\mu }d\xi \left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\widehat{\varphi }^2\varphi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{ϵ}^2+\xi ^2}{\widehat{ϵ}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2+\xi ^2}{ϵ}}\right)+7{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{ϵ^3}}\right],`$ (91)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(b)}(0)`$ $``$ $`3\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(b)}(0){\displaystyle \frac{g^2\mu ^2}{12\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\mu }d\xi \left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\widehat{\varphi }\varphi }{\widehat{\varphi }^2\varphi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{ϵ}}}\right)2{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{ϵ^3}}\right],`$ (92)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a2)}(0)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{72\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\mu }}dkk\left[8{\displaystyle \frac{\mu (\widehat{ϵ}k+\mu )+\widehat{\varphi }^2}{\widehat{ϵ}(\widehat{ϵ}+k+\mu )}}+64{\displaystyle \frac{\mu (ϵk+\mu )+\varphi ^2}{ϵ(ϵ+k+\mu )}}\right].`$ (93)
The integral appearing in (93) was already computed in , Eq. (122). The result is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{m}^{(a2)}(0)m_g^2.$$
(94)
As advertised above, this is the “bare” Meissner mass appearing in Hong’s effective theory .

To obtain the expressions (91) and (92) for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(a)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(b)}`$, I substituted $`\xi k\mu `$ and exploited the symmetry of the integrand around $`\xi =0`$. Furthermore, contributions $`\xi ^2/\mu ^2`$ in the integrands were neglected, because they give rise to terms of order $`\varphi ^2/\mu ^2`$ relative to the leading terms. Neglecting the momentum dependence of the gap function, all remaining integrals are exactly solvable. First note that, to leading order, $`_0^\mu d\xi \varphi ^2/ϵ^31`$. This takes care of the last term in Eqs. (91) and (92). To compute the first, substitute $`y\mathrm{ln}[(\xi +ϵ)/\varphi ]`$ for $`\xi `$ in the first term in parentheses, and $`\widehat{y}\mathrm{ln}[(\xi +\widehat{ϵ})/\widehat{\varphi }]`$ in the second. Evaluating the $`y`$ integral, note that one must not approximate $`\mathrm{ln}[(\mu +\sqrt{\mu ^2+\varphi ^2})/\varphi ]\mathrm{ln}(2\mu /\varphi )`$ for the upper boundary of the $`y`$ integral, and similarly for the $`\widehat{y}`$ integral. The reason is that leading-order terms cancel between these two integrals. The subleading terms conspire to cancel the denominator $`\widehat{\varphi }^2\varphi ^2`$. To leading order, one then obtains

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(a)}(0)\frac{3}{2}m_g^2,\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(b)}(0)\frac{1}{3}m_g^2(1+\frac{2\widehat{\varphi }\varphi }{\widehat{\varphi }^2\varphi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\widehat{\varphi }}{\varphi }).$$
(95)
Neglecting the sextet gap, the singlet gap is twice the octet gap, $`\widehat{\varphi }=2\varphi `$, cf. Eq. (16), and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{e}^{(b)}(0)\frac{1}{3}m_g^2\left(1+\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{ln}2\right).$$
(96)
Using the definitions of the Debye and Meissner masses, Eq. (58), this confirms the results of Son and Stephanov, Eq. (5), q.e.d.

## Acknowledgements

I thank R. Pisarski, T. Schäfer, and D.T. Son for discussions. My thanks go to RIKEN, BNL and the U.S. Dept. of Energy for providing the facilities essential for the completion of this work, and to Columbia University’s Nuclear Theory Group for continuing access to their computing facilities.


text:
# SYMMETRY BREAKING of VIBRATING INTERFACES: A MECHANISM for MORPHOGENESIS

## Abstract

We show that very small-amplitude oscillations of a highly symmetric, spheric or cylindrical, interface (thin membrane) between two fluids can result in inhomogeneous instability and breaking of the interface symmetry: the frequency of the breathing vibration selects the spatial symmetry. This mechanism may govern morphogenesis.

The nature of spontaneous symmetry breaking remains one of the most enigmatic questions of modern science. This problem emerges in connection with the equilibrium phase transitions, self-organization in nonequilibrium systems and many other areas in physics, chemistry and biology (see, e.g., ), as well as with cell fission and morphogenesis, i.e., the development and spatial differentiation of complex body structures during their growth .

In 1952 Turing showed that the homogeneous state of some specific chemical reactions can lose stability with regard to a spontaneous increase of perturbations of certain form . Since then the chemical basis is the prevalent idea of phenomenological theory of morphogenesis (see, e.g., ). Turing’s model is based on chemical or biological processes of local self-reproduction of some chemical agent (the activator) and far-ranging inhibition. As a consequence of such processes a very small increase of the activator concentration in a local region results in a global redistribution of the substance concentrations and formation of more complex structure . However, the Turing’s chemical reactions are uncommon, unique and very complex processes.

In this work we develop a new mechanism, without complexity, that breaks the symmetry by creating an instability in an oscillating interface, thin membrane, separating two different fluids. In other words, we show that if, for example, a spherical or cylindrical structure vibrates with a breathing symmetric mode for a given set of the frequencies the symmetry breaks with respect to bimodal, trimodal, pentagonal, etc. modes, i.e., the vibration frequency selects the spatial symmetry of the interface.

We consider a thin symmetric membrane, spherical or cylindrical interface, with the radius $`R_0`$ which separates two fluids with densities $`\rho _1`$and $`\rho _2`$ ($`\rho _1`$ $`\rho _2\rho `$) respectively. Owing to Archimed’s force the effective gravity acceleration operating on the internal fluid is $`g=g_e(1\rho _1/\rho _2)<<g_e.`$ We propose $`R_0`$ is small enough, so the condition $`\gamma k_m^2/\rho =\gamma m^2/R_0^2\rho >>g`$ is valid. Here $`\gamma `$ is the surface tension and $`k=m/R_0`$ is the typical wave vector of the increasing deformation of the symmetric interface, $`m=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. This is the condition when we can neglect the gravity and consider only the effect due to the surface tension of the interface.

Let us take, at first, for definiteness, a spherically symmetric interface $`𝐒`$ whose radius, $`R`$, oscillates with a frequency $`\omega :`$ $`R=R_0d\mathrm{cos}\omega t.`$ From the incompressibility of the fluid it follows that its radial velocity is $`v_{r0}=v_{R0}(t)R_0^2/r^2,`$ where $`v_{R0}(t)=dR/dt=d\omega \mathrm{sin}\omega t`$. (This means that some source, for example, a small pulsating ball has to be inside the interface.) The vortex-free motion of an ideal liquid (we consider the effect of the viscosity below) is described by the Euler and the continuity equations:

$$\frac{d𝐯}{dt}=\frac{𝐯}{t}+(𝐯)𝐯=\frac{1}{\rho }p,$$
(1)
$$^2\mathrm{\Phi }=_r^2\mathrm{\Phi }+_{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the velocity potential, $`𝐯=\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`_{}^2`$ is the part of Laplacian depending only on coordinates of the surface $`𝐒`$. For the undistorted spherical surface, from the symmetry of the problem, it follows that $`𝐯_{}=0,`$ i.e., $`_{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0.`$ Then, from Eq.2, we can write that $`_r^2\mathrm{\Phi }=_r(v_{r0})=v_{r0}/r+2v_{r0}/r=0,`$ in accord with $`v_{r0}=v_{R0}(t)R_0^2/r^2.`$ In the presence of a distortion, $`\varsigma `$, of the spherical surface $`𝐒`$ the interface radial velocity is $`v_r=v_{R0}(t)+\varsigma /t.`$ Using this, we find from Eq.1 that near the interface

$$\frac{dv_r}{dt}=F(t)+^2\varsigma /t^2=\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{p}{r},$$
(3)
$$\frac{𝐯_{}}{t}=\frac{1}{\rho }_{}p$$
(4)
where $`F(t)=d\omega ^2\mathrm{cos}\omega t`$ is the acceleration of the interface and we neglect the term $`(𝐯_{})𝐯_{}`$ in Eq. 4 by virtue of smallness of $`\varsigma `$ . Owing to smallness of $`\varsigma `$ we can write the pressure near the surface as

$$p=\rho F(t)(rR\varsigma )+\gamma _{}^2\varsigma +p_o(t)$$
(5)
Here we took into account that the pressure at the interface (when $`r=R+\varsigma )`$ is $`p=\gamma (\sigma _1+\sigma _2)+p_o(t)`$ where $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ are the principal curvatures of the interface : $`(\sigma _1+\sigma _2)=_{}^2\varsigma `$ since $`_{}^2\varsigma >R_0^1`$. Substituting Eq.5 into Eq.4 we obtain

$$\frac{𝐯_{}}{t}=F(t)_{}\varsigma \frac{\gamma }{\rho }_{}^3\varsigma \text{ or }\frac{}{t}_{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }=F(t)_{}^2\varsigma \frac{\gamma }{\rho }_{}^4\varsigma $$
(6)
We will seek solutions of the problem in the following form

$$\zeta =\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_m(t)S_m\text{ and }\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_m(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_m(r)S_mv_{R0}(t)R_0^2/r$$
(7)
where $`S_m`$ is the complete orthogonal set of eigenfunctions depending only on the coordinates of the undisturbed surface $`𝐒`$ and satisfying the following equation

$$(_{}^2+k_m^2)S_m=0$$
(8)
for $`r=R_0`$ and the boundary conditions corresponding to the symmetry of the problem. In the spherical case $`S_m=C_{l,m}P_l^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{exp}(im\phi )`$ are the spherical functions of angles $`\phi `$ and $`\theta `$ and $`k_m^2=l(l+1)R_0^2`$ where $`m=l,l1,\mathrm{},l`$ and $`l=0,1,2,..`$. Substituting $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from Eq.7 into Eq.2, using Eq.8 and the condition $`_r(v_{r0})=0`$ cited above, we obtain the equation for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m(r):`$

$$(_r^2k_m^2)\mathrm{\Psi }_m(r)=0$$
(9)
with the boundary conditions $`_r\mathrm{\Psi }_m0`$ when $`r0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m(r)=A`$ at $`r=R_0`$ where $`A`$ is some constant which does not reveal itself in the final results. Near the interface $`_r\mathrm{\Phi }=v_r=v_{R0}(t)+\varsigma /t`$ and so from Eq.7 it follows that $`c_m(t)=da_m/dt(_r\mathrm{\Psi }_m)_{r=R_0}^1.`$ Substituting $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from Eq.7 into Eq.2 and using Eq.9 and $`c_m(t),`$ we find that

$$_{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}k_m^2\varkappa _m^1S_mda_m/dt$$
(10)
where $`\varkappa _m=[_r\mathrm{\Psi }_m/\mathrm{\Psi }_m(r)]_{r=R_0}`$ does not depend on the constant $`A`$ . Then from Eq.10 and Eq.6, we obtain

$$d^2a_m/dt^2+[\gamma k_m^2\varkappa _m\rho ^1\varkappa _mF(t)]a_m=0.$$
(11)
Using $`T=\omega t/2`$ we can rewrite Eq.11 as

$$d^2a_m/dT^2+(p_m2q_m\mathrm{cos}\omega t)a_m=0,$$
(12)
where

$$q_m=2\varkappa _md\text{ and }p_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2\omega ^2\text{ where }\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2=4k_m^2\varkappa _m\gamma \rho ^1.$$
(13)
For the spherical interface $`k_mR_0>1`$ and $`\varkappa _mk_m=`$ $`[l(l+1)]^{1/2}R_0^1`$ and so $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2=4[l(l+1)]^{3/2}R_0^3\gamma \rho ^1`$ and $`q_m=2d[l(l+1)]^{1/2}R_0^1.`$

These results can be extended easily to other cases. For example, when the interface have a form of a cylinder with vibrating radius, then $`S_m=\mathrm{cos}(k_lz)\mathrm{exp}(im\phi )`$ and in Eq.13 $`\varkappa _mk_m`$ and $`k_m^2=m^2/R_0^2+\pi ^2l^2/h_0^2`$ where $`h_0`$ is height of the cylinder. This vibrating cylindrical body can spontaneously distort in the axis $`z`$ or with respect the azimuthal perturbations.

We emphasize that Eq.12 coincides with Eq.(2.12) of Ref.  to describe the Faraday’s instability  of the plane free surface of an ideal liquid under vertical periodic vibrations. These equations differ in the values of the parameters $`p_m`$ and $`q_m`$. Moreover, in contrast to the Faraday’s instability when the vibrations are reduced to trivial renormalization of the gravity, in this work we consider spherical or cylindrical oscillating interfaces when the vertical direction, axial gravity, is not distinguished from other directions. Benjamin and Ursell  have constructed the stability diagram for Eq.12 with respect to the universal parameters $`p_m`$ and $`q_m`$ using the analogy between Eq.12 and the Mathieu’s equation . From this diagram it follows that the instability is realized only in regions near the points $`p_m=n^2`$ where $`n=1,2,3,4,\mathrm{}`$. In other words, the condition

$$\omega =\omega _{n,m}n^1\mathrm{\Omega }_m=2n^1k_m(\varkappa _m\gamma /\rho )^{1/2}$$
(14)
determines the resonant vibration frequencies when the symmetric interface spontaneously deforms with respect to the standing wave with the azimuthal number $`m`$. However, the greater is $`n`$, the narrower is the width $`E_g^{(n)}(q_m)`$ of the $`n`$-th region of the instability for given $`q_m`$ . For the widest instability region, with $`n=1,`$ the value $`E_g^{(1)}(q_m)2q_m`$ for $`q_m<1`$. It means that the instability takes place when $`(1q_m)<p_m<(1+q_m),`$ i.e., the symmetry breaking is realized for the vibration frequency lying within the spectral range:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1\varkappa _md)<\omega <\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1\varkappa _md).$$
(15)
The threshold of the vibration amplitude $`d`$ is limited by the fluid viscosity. For real fluid Eqs.11 and 12 include the additional terms $`\gamma _mda_m(t)/dt`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_mda_m(T)/dT`$, respectively, where $`\gamma _m=2\nu k_m^2C_{1m}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m=4\nu k_m^2C_{1m}/\omega `$ are proportional to the kinematic viscosity $`\nu `$ and $`C_m`$ is some constant of the order of unity . The threshold vibration amplitude, $`d=d_t,`$ for the instability region with $`n=1,`$ can be estimated from the condition  $`E_g^{(1)}(q_m)>2\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$, i.e., $`q_m=2\varkappa _md>\mathrm{\Gamma }_m.`$ This condition follows practically from results of Refs. and is obtained in . Using Eq.15, this condition can be written as

$$d>d_t=2\nu C_mk_m^2/\varkappa _m\omega \nu (\rho /\gamma \varkappa _m)\nu (\rho R_0/\gamma m).$$
(16)
For parameters of water $`d_t4\mu m`$, i.e., the threshold vibration is a very small flutter of the interface.

We propose that the results above may be used as a basis for a simple, without complexity, mechanism to trigger the fanciful morphogenesis appearing in nature. The frequency of homogeneous interface vibrations self-selects the space symmetry. If the interface oscillates with a characteristic frequency the germ symmetry will break when its radius $`R_0`$ amounts to the quantity satisfied by Eq.15 or Eq.14 for $`n>1`$. After the new symmetry appears the growth rate increases with surface curvature as is usual for many of Stefan-like problems .

The mathematical results reported here will be applied in a forthcoming paper to explain the morphogesis of the acetabularia, equinoderms and cell fision.

This work has been supported by the Spanish DGCIYT and by a NATO fellowship Grant.


text:
# Second post-Newtonian radiative evolution of the relative orientations of angular momenta in spinning compact binaries

## I Introduction

Ongoing theoretical studies of the gravitational radiation emitted by compact binaries and of the radiation reaction on the orbit are strongly motivated by the desire to detect gravitational waves using the LIGO  / VIRGO  interferometers. In order to extract the signal from the experimental data one needs templates of sufficient accuracy. Based on the expectation that during the adiabatic regime the radiation reaction will circularize the orbit , templates for circular orbits are computed. If the orbits are eccentric, the detectability of the gravitational waves by using circular templates decreased . Quinlan and Shapiro and Hills and Bender argue for a significant number of eccentric binaries in galactic nuclei for which the time before plunging is insufficient for circularization. A faithful description of the behavior of these binaries in the adiabatic regime requires not only high post-Newtonian orders, but also eccentric orbits. Such a generic treatment, valid up to the second post-Newtonian order was provided by Gopakumar and Iyer .

If the spins of the neutron stars/black holes which form the binary are equally considered, the number of kinematical variables increases significantly and the dynamics complicates. Currently a second post-Newtonian order accurate description of the motion of the spinning binary - is available. Spin-orbit and spin-spin type contributions appear at the $`3/2`$ and second post-Newtonian orders, respectively. There is one notable exception over this rule: the spin-orbit and spin-spin terms in the spin precession equations

$`\dot{𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G}{c^2r^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4m_1+3m_2}{2m_1}}𝐋_𝐍𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{r^2}}(𝐫𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐})𝐫\right)\times 𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏},`$ (1)
$`\dot{𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G}{c^2r^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4m_2+3m_1}{2m_2}}𝐋_𝐍𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{r^2}}(𝐫𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏})𝐫\right)\times 𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (2)
generate first and $`3/2`$ post-Newtonian order changes in the angles between the angular momenta vectors *** We evaluate the post-Newtonian order of a correction $`\delta f`$ to some quantity $`f`$ through the following prescription. Count the powers of $`ϵGm/rc^2v^2/c^2`$, representing one post-Newtonian order, in both $`\delta f`$ and $`f`$. ($`G`$ is the gravitational constant, $`c`$ the speed of light, $`m`$ the mass of binary, $`r`$ and $`v`$ the orbital radius and velocity; the characteristic radius for a compact object being $`RGm/c^2.`$) The post-Newtonian order is their ratio $`PN𝒪(\delta f)=𝒪_ϵ(\delta f)/𝒪_ϵ(f)`$. When the time derivative $`\dot{f}`$ is given, we can evaluate the order of the change $`\delta f`$ generated during a characteristic time-interval of the quasi-periodic motion: $`PN𝒪(\delta f)=𝒪_ϵ(\dot{f})𝒪_ϵ(T)/𝒪_ϵ(f)`$. Here $`T`$ is the radial period and $`𝒪_ϵ(T)=rϵ^{1/2}/c`$. For a dimensionless quantity, typically an angle variable $`\alpha `$, the simple estimate $`PN𝒪(\delta \alpha )=𝒪_ϵ(\dot{\alpha })𝒪_ϵ(T)`$ holds. A numerical example shows that for a binary consisting of massive black holes with mass $`100M_{}`$ and orbital radius of $`10^4`$ km, i.e. , one-hundredth of the Hulse-Taylor system, the post-Newtonian parameter is $`ϵGm/rc^210^2`$. We also assume rapid rotation, thus the characteristic velocity of rotation $`V`$ is commesurable with the velocity of light $`𝒪(V/c)=1`$. If this assumption is lifted, the spin-spin effects appear at higher post-Newtonian orders than is assumed here. . Consequences of the spin precession equations (2) and of the conservation of the total angular momentum $`𝐉=𝐋+𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ holding in the second post-Newtonian order are summarized in Table 1. In the present paper the angular momenta, their directions, magnitudes and the angles, all enlisted in Table 1 will be needed to a precision at which precessional effects do not contribute.

All spin terms in the radiation reaction up to the $`3/2`$ post-Newtonian order were evaluated in , starting from the expressions of the radiated power and total angular momentum loss derived by Kidder  and from the Burke-Thorne potential . The employed averaging method, based on a suitably introduced radial parameter $`\chi `$ and on the residue theorem was described in detail in .

The second-order spin contribution to the radiation reaction was considered recently in . There we have developed the toolchest for computing secular radiative effects of spin-spin origin, essentially by proposing a description in terms of constants of the motion and the angular average $`\overline{L}`$ of the magnitude of the orbital angular momentum $`L(\chi )`$. The latter depends on the Keplerian true anomaly $`\chi `$ through a spin-spin term:

$`L(\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{L}{\displaystyle \frac{G\mu ^2}{2c^2\overline{L}^3}}S_1S_2\mathrm{sin}\kappa _1\mathrm{sin}\kappa _2\{2\overline{A}\mathrm{cos}[\chi +2(\psi _0\overline{\psi })]`$ (4)
$`+(3Gm\mu +2\overline{A}\mathrm{cos}\chi )\mathrm{cos}2(\chi +\psi _0\overline{\psi })\}.`$
The quantity $`\overline{A}=(G^2m^2\mu ^2+2E\overline{L}^2/\mu )^{1/2}`$ is the magnitude of the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector for a Keplerian motion characterized by the energy $`E`$ and magnitude of orbital angular momentum $`\overline{L}`$. The angles $`\kappa _i=\mathrm{cos}^1(\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\widehat{𝐋}),(i=1,2)`$ together with $`\gamma =\mathrm{cos}^1(\widehat{𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟐}).`$ characterize the relative orientation of the angular momentum vectors $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐋`$.

This description enabled us to introduce the generalized true anomaly parametrization $`r(\chi )`$ for the radial motion: (Eq. (3.7) of Ref.). By employing $`\chi `$ as radial variable, the average of a generic function $`f`$ over a radial period $`T`$

$$f=\frac{1}{T}_0^{2\pi }f(\chi )\frac{1}{\dot{r}}\frac{dr}{d\chi }𝑑\chi $$
(5)
is computed by Taylor expanding $`\dot{r}^2`$ taken from the radial equation, by substituting

$$\frac{dr}{d\chi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{r_{min}}\frac{1}{r_{max}}\right)r^2\mathrm{sin}\chi $$
(6)
($`r_{_{_{min}^{max}}}`$ being the turning points) and finally, by switching to the complex parameter $`z=\mathrm{exp}(i\chi )`$. Then the residue theorem is employed in the computation of the integral (5), which in the majority of cases is given by the residues in the origin .

As application, we have computed the secular losses of the energy $`E`$ and of $`\overline{L}`$. They depend on $`E,`$ $`\overline{L},`$ on the angles$`\psi _i`$ subtended by the node line with the projections of the spins in the plane of the orbit and on the angles $`\kappa _i`$ and $`\gamma `$. The enlisted five angles are constrained by two algebraic relations :

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`S_1\mathrm{sin}\kappa _1\mathrm{cos}\psi _1+S_2\mathrm{sin}\kappa _2\mathrm{cos}\psi _2`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\kappa _1\mathrm{cos}\kappa _2+\mathrm{sin}\kappa _1\mathrm{sin}\kappa _2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi ,`$ (8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\psi =\psi _2\psi _1`$. We also introduce here the notation $`\overline{\psi }=(\psi _1+\psi _2)/2.`$ In order to have a closed system of differential equations, beside $`dE/dt`$ and $`dL/dt`$ computed in  the radiative change of the angles $`\kappa _i`$ and $`\gamma `$ is required. This was given to $`3/2`$ post-Newtonian order accuracy in . It is the purpose of the present paper to compute the radiative evolution of the angles $`\kappa _i`$ and $`\gamma `$ up to the second post-Newtonian order by the inclusion of the spin-spin terms.

We complete the task by passing through the following steps. A well-known result states  that no leading-order gravitational radiation leaves an axisymmetric body, as its quadrupole moment is a constant. It is also known that the radiative loss $`d𝐒_𝐢/dt`$ in the spins of the axisymmetric neutron stars or black holes forming a binary is two post-Newtonian orders higher that the leading radiative loss $`d𝐋/dt`$ of the orbital angular momentum . In Sec. 2 we derive a related generic result, which holds for binaries with axisymmetric constituents. We show that axisymmetry implies that the leading order secular contribution to the radiative change of the spins (which would appear at the second post-Newtonian order after the leading radiation terms) averages out during one cycle of the quasi-periodic motion. This result simplifies the study of the secular evolution of the angles. Indeed we will drop all terms of the form $`d𝐒_𝐢/dt`$ multiplied with any quantity which is a constant to the required accuracy.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 3 we discuss the radiative change in the angles $`\kappa _i`$ and $`\gamma `$ by considering the Newtonian ($`N`$), first post-Newtonian ($`PN`$), second post-Newtonian ($`2PN`$), spin-orbit ($`SO`$), spin-spin ($`SS`$) and leading order tail contributions. We show that the $`N,PN,2PN`$ and tail terms drop out as a consequence of the property of the respective parts in $`d𝐉/dt`$ of being aligned with the Newtonian part of the orbital angular momentum. The $`SO`$ terms were given previously in . We complete the list by computing in Sec. 4 the averaged $`SS`$ contributions. They contain both two-body and self-interaction terms.

As a result we obtain the system of equations which govern the radiative secular evolution of the relative orientations of the angular momentum vectors $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐋`$ up to the second post-Newtonian order.

## II Radiative loss in the spins

In  we have derived the radiative loss in the spin $`𝐒_𝐢`$ of the $`i^{th}`$ axisymmetric body, following . The integral over the volume of the body of the moment of the reaction force (the sign swapped gradient of the Burke-Thorne potential) gave:

$$\frac{d\left(𝐒_𝐢\right)_\mu }{dt}=\frac{2G}{5c^5\mathrm{\Omega }_i}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_i}{\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{}}1\right)ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }I_N^{(5)\nu \sigma }S_i(\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢)_\rho (\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢)_\sigma .$$
(9)
(There is no summation over $`i.`$) Each body is characterized by its principal moments of inertia $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{}`$ and by the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=S_i/\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{}`$, while $`I_N^{(5)\nu \sigma }`$ is the $`5^{th\text{ }}`$time derivative of the system’s Newtonian symmetric trace-free mass quadrupole moment. As the loss in the spin vector described by Eq. (9) is of second post-Newtonian order (above the leading radiation term in the orbital angular momentum loss), Eq. (9) is still valid to this order for approximately axisymmetric bodies, with the deviation from axisymmetry being of any post-Newtonian order. We emphasize that Eq. (9) implies $`d𝐒_𝐢/dt=`$ $`S_id\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢/dt`$, therefore to this order the radiation reaction will change the orientation but not the magnitude of the spin vectors. We also stress that $`d\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢/dt`$ generates $`3/2`$ post-Newtonian order radiative changes $`\delta _{rad}\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢`$ above the leading order radiation losses (in $`L`$ for example).

In coordinates $`(x,y,z)=r(\mathrm{cos}\psi ,\mathrm{sin}\psi ,0)`$ the spins are expressed as $`𝐒_𝐢=𝐒_i(\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i\mathrm{cos}\psi _i,\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i\mathrm{sin}\psi _i,\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i).`$ By employing the Keplerian equation of motion $`𝐚_N=Gm𝐫/r^3`$ and the radial equation $`\dot{r}^2=2E/\mu +2Gm/r\overline{L}^2/\mu ^2r^2`$ in Eq. (9), we obtain the instantaneous spin-loss equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\left(𝐒_𝐢\right)_\mu }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2G^2m\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i}{5c^5\mu ^2r^7\mathrm{\Omega }_i}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_i}{\mathrm{\Theta }_i^{}}}1\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i\mu }`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i1}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i[a_1\mathrm{sin}(2\psi \psi _i)+a_2\mathrm{cos}(2\psi \psi _i)+a_3\mathrm{sin}\psi _i]`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i[a_2\mathrm{sin}(2\psi \psi _i)a_1\mathrm{cos}(2\psi \psi _i)a_3\mathrm{cos}\psi _i]`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i3}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i[a_1\mathrm{sin}2(\psi \psi _i)+a_2\mathrm{cos}2(\psi \psi _i)],`$ (13)
with the coefficients

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mu r\dot{r}(12\mu Er^2+20Gm\mu ^2r+45\overline{L}^2)`$ (14)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`4\overline{L}(18\mu Er^2+20Gm\mu ^2r15\overline{L}^2)`$ (15)
$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mu r\dot{r}(12\mu Er^2+20Gm\mu ^2r15\overline{L}^2).`$ (16)
In order to obtain the secular radiative changes of the spins we insert the Newtonian expressions

$$\dot{r}=\frac{\overline{A}}{\overline{L}}\mathrm{sin}\chi ,r=\frac{\overline{L}^2}{\mu (Gm\mu +\overline{A}\mathrm{cos}\chi )},\psi =\chi +\psi _0.$$
(17)
in Eq. (13).

Then we average by the method described in the Introduction (see also ) employing the Newtonian expression $`(1/\dot{r})(dr/d\chi )=dt/d\chi =\mu r^2/\overline{L}.`$ We obtain the generic result that the radiative change in the spins averages to zero in the second post-Newtonian approximation:

$$\frac{d𝐒_𝐢}{dt}=0.$$
(18)
Therefore the averaging-out property of some particular projections of the spin losses found in  and  also emerge.

As the first correction to both the acceleration and the Burke-Thorne potential is one post-Newtonian order higher than the respective leading terms , the averaging-out property of the radiative change in the spins derived above holds at $`5/2`$ post-Newtonian orders as well.

## III Radiative evolution of the angles $`\kappa _i`$ and $`\gamma `$

We obtain the equations for the radiative evolution of $`\kappa _i=\mathrm{cos}^1(\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\widehat{𝐋}),(i=1,2)`$ and $`\gamma =\mathrm{cos}^1(\widehat{𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ by differentiating the defining relations of these angles.

The simplest is the evolution of the angle $`\gamma `$ spanned by the two spin vectors:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{cos}\gamma =\frac{d}{dt}\left(\widehat{𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟐}\right)=\widehat{𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{d\widehat{𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟐}}{dt}+\widehat{𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟐}\frac{d\widehat{𝐒}_\mathrm{𝟏}}{dt}.$$
(19)
The terms of the right hand side were already evaluated in the framework of the spin-orbit contributions in . Though they do not contain the spin explicitly, the angular velocities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ are present in their expression, Eq. (3.13) of . An order of magnitude estimate shows that the ratio of the usual spin-orbit terms (taken for example from the losses of $`\kappa _i`$, Eqs. (3.10)-(3.12) of ) and such terms is of the order unity for rapidly rotating objects. It was computed in , and one can check by simple inspection of Eq. (18) that $`\gamma `$ will receive no secular radiative change.

The angles spanned by the spins with the orbital angular momentum evolve in a more complicated fashion:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i=\frac{d}{dt}\left(\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\frac{𝐋}{L(\chi )}\right)=\frac{1}{L(\chi )}\left[\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\frac{d(𝐉𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐})}{dt}\frac{dL}{dt}\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i+𝐋\frac{d\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢}{dt}\right].$$
(20)
In the forthcoming expressions we replace $`L(\chi )\overline{L}`$ in all post-Newtonian terms. This is possible in the required second order accuracy as $`L(\chi )`$ differs from the constant $`\overline{L}`$ in spin-spin terms (see Eq. (4)).

By inserting the following expression for the loss of the magnitude of orbital angular momentum

$$\frac{dL}{dt}=\widehat{𝐋}\frac{d𝐋}{dt}=\widehat{𝐋}\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\widehat{𝐋}\frac{d𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}}{dt}\widehat{𝐋}\frac{d𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐}}{dt}$$
(21)
into Eq. (20), and from $`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢d𝐒_𝐢/dt=0`$ (no summation) we obtain:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i=\frac{1}{L(\chi )}(\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\widehat{𝐋}\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i)\frac{d𝐉}{dt}+\frac{1}{\overline{L}}\left[\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\frac{d𝐒_𝐣}{dt}+\widehat{𝐋}\left(\frac{d𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}}{dt}+\frac{d𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐}}{dt}\right)\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i+𝐋\frac{d\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢}{dt}\right],$$
(22)
where $`ji.`$ Remarkably all terms in the square bracket average out due to Eq.(18). Therefore we will not consider them further.

For the evaluation of the first term of Eq. (22) we need the loss in the total angular momentum $`d𝐉/dt`$. It has the following structure To avoid confusion in notation, we denote the post-Newtonian, $`2^d`$ post-Newtonian, spin-orbit and spin-spin terms from a decomposition of a quantity expressed in terms of $`𝐫,𝐯,𝐒_𝐢`$ and $`\dot{r}`$ by lower-case indices $`pn,2pn,so`$ and $`ss`$, respectively. This notation applies to all terms of $`d𝐉/dt`$ computed in  and  . After inserting the expressions for $`v^2`$, $`\dot{r}^2`$ and $`\dot{r}`$, Eqs. (2.32), (2.33) of  and (17), the terms of the new decomposition will be denoted by the respective capital letters.  :

$$\frac{d𝐉}{dt}=\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)_N+\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)_{pn}+\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)_{2pn}+\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)_{so}+\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)_{ss}+\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)_{tail}.$$
(23)
The leading order contribution was computed long time ago by Peters , the $`pn`$ contribution by Junker and Schāfer , the $`so`$ contribution by Kidder , and the $`2pn`$ contribution by Gopakumar and Iyer  in terms of $`𝐫,𝐯,𝐒_𝐢`$ and $`\dot{r}`$. The method of computing the $`ss`$ contribution was also indicated in . The leading tail contribution appears at $`3/2`$ post-Newtonian order and its time average was given by Rieth and Schäfer  in the form of a Fourier series.

A property we want to stress is the following:

$$\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)_{N,pn,2pn}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,1,2}𝐋_N$$
(24)
where the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0,1,2}`$ can be read from Eq. (3.28.a,b) of  and from (3.9.d) of . The same property applies to the averaged tail contribution, given by Eq. (84) of . To see this we note that all coefficients (denoted there by $`{}_{n}{}^{}𝒮_0`$) of the spectral decomposition of the angular momentum loss (denoted there by $`𝒮`$) have only $`z`$components, thus:

$$\frac{d𝐉}{dt}_{tail}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tail}𝐋_N.$$
(25)
The next essential remark is that from

$$𝐋=𝐋_N+𝐋_{PN}+𝐋_{2PN}+𝐋_{SO}=(1+\gamma _1+\gamma _2)𝐋_N+𝐋_{SO}$$
(26)
we can express the orbital angular momentum as

$$𝐋_N=(1\gamma _1\gamma _2+\gamma _1^2)𝐋𝐋_{SO}.$$
(27)
Here the coefficients $`\gamma _{1,2}`$ are given by Eqs. (2.9.b,d) of  and they are of first and second post-Newtonian order, respectively. Therefore up to an accuracy of second post-Newtonian order we can write

$$\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)_{N+pn+2pn}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\eta _1+\eta _2)𝐋\mathrm{\Gamma }_0𝐋_{SO}$$
(28)
and

$$\frac{d𝐉}{dt}_{tail}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tail}𝐋,$$
(29)
where the coefficients of the expansion (28) are given by

$`\eta _1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\gamma _1`$ (30)
$`\eta _2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\gamma _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(\gamma _2\gamma _1^2).`$ (31)
We will not need their explicit expressions. By inserting Eq. (28) in Eq. (23), then the resulting expression in Eq. (22), due to the remark

$$(\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\widehat{𝐋}\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i)𝐋=0$$
(32)
we obtain for the first term of Eq. (22):

$$\frac{1}{L(\chi )}(\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\widehat{𝐋}\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i)\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)=\frac{1}{\overline{L}}(\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\widehat{𝐋}\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i)\left[\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)_{tail}+\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)_{so}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0𝐋_{SO}+\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)_{ss}\right].$$
(33)
The tail term averages out due to Eq. (29) and property (32).

As suggested by the notation, the second and third terms of Eq. (33) are those spin-orbit contributions to the radiative loss of the angles $`\kappa _i`$, which do not originate in the Burke-Thorne potential. Indeed, modulo Burke-Thorne type terms they can be put into the concise form ($`\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢d\widehat{𝐋}/dt)_{SO}`$ which was computed previously (Eqs. (3.8)-(3.10) of ). The averaged expression for the spin-orbit type loss in $`\kappa _1`$ was also given by Eq. (4.4) of , and a similar expression can be found for the loss of $`\kappa _2`$ by interchanging the indices $`12`$ and the ratios $`\eta =m_2/m_1\eta ^1`$.

The last term of Eq. (33), modulo Burke-Thorne type terms, is the spin-spin part of the radiative evolution of the angles $`\kappa _i`$:

$$\left(\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i\right)_{SS}\frac{1}{\overline{L}}(\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\widehat{𝐋}\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i)\left(\frac{d𝐉}{dt}\right)_{ss},$$
(34)
which will be computed in the next section. (We have denoted by $``$ the equality modulo Burke-Thorne type terms.)

## IV Secular radiative evolution equations

We start from the expression of $`(d𝐉/dt)_{ss}`$ given by Kidder  in terms of the time derivatives of the mass quadrupole and velocity quadrupole moments (see also Eq. (4.18) of  for the respective expression with $`c1G`$). The required $`SO`$ part of the velocity quadrupole moment was computed first by Kidder  and later verified by several authors. (Rieth and Schāfer  presented a derivation based on a different spin supplementary condition while Owen, Tagoshi and Ohasha  have employed a $`\delta `$-function type energy-momentum tensor.)

After computing the expression $`(d𝐉/dt)_{ss}`$ in detail, we rewrite the last term of Eq. (33) as function of the radial variables $`r(\chi )`$ and $`\chi .`$ The procedure we follow was described in detail in . As a result both self-interaction and two-body spin-spin terms emerge:

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{L}}}(\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\widehat{𝐋}\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d𝐉}{dt}}\right)_{ss}\right]_{SSself}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2G^3m^2\mu \mathrm{sin}\kappa _i}{5c^7r^6}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_i}{m_i}}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i+\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_j}{m_j}}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi \right]`$ (35)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{L}}}(\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\widehat{𝐋}\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d𝐉}{dt}}\right)_{ss}\right]_{S_1S_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2G^2S_1S_2\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i}{5c^7\mu ^2\overline{L}^2r^7}}\{u_1[\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i\mathrm{cos}\kappa _j+\mathrm{sin}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi ]`$ (39)
$`+u_2[\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i\mathrm{cos}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}2(\chi +\psi _0\psi _i)+\mathrm{sin}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i\mathrm{cos}2(\chi +\psi _0\overline{\psi })]`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}\chi \{u_3\mathrm{sin}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i\mathrm{sin}(\psi _j\psi _i)`$
$`+u_4[\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i\mathrm{cos}\kappa _j\mathrm{sin}2(\chi +\psi _0\psi _i)+\mathrm{sin}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i\mathrm{sin}2(\chi +\psi _0\overline{\psi })]\}\}.`$
Here $`ji`$ and the coefficients are

$`u_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{L}^2(12\mu Er^2+4Gm\mu ^2r15\overline{L}^2)`$ (40)
$`u_2`$ $`=`$ $`3\overline{L}^2(Gm\mu ^2r+3\overline{L}^2)`$ (41)
$`u_3`$ $`=`$ $`3\mu \overline{A}r(2\mu Er^2+5\overline{L}^2)`$ (42)
$`u_4`$ $`=`$ $`3\mu \overline{A}r(2\mu Er^2+3\overline{L}^2)`$ (43)
The averaging procedure based on the parametrization $`r(\chi )`$ and on the residue theorem yields the self-interaction and two-body spin-spin terms in the secular radiative loss of the angles $`\kappa _i`$ and $`\gamma `$. We enlist them together with the spin-orbit contributions:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\gamma }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa _i}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa _i}{dt}}_{SO}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa _i}{dt}}_{SSself}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa _i}{dt}}_{SS}`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa _i}{dt}}_{SO}`$ $`givenbyEq.(4.4)of\text{[12]}`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa _i}{dt}}_{SSself}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G^2m\mu (2\mu E)^{3/2}}{20c^7\overline{L}^9}}V_1\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_i}{m_i}}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i+\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_j}{m_j}}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi \right]`$ (47)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa _i}{dt}}_{S_1S_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G^2(2\mu E)^{3/2}S_1S_2}{20c^7\overline{L}^9\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i}}\{V_2(\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i\mathrm{cos}\kappa _j+\mathrm{sin}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi )`$ (49)
$`+V_3[\mathrm{sin}\kappa _i\mathrm{cos}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}2(\psi _0\psi _i)+\mathrm{sin}\kappa _j\mathrm{cos}\kappa _i\mathrm{cos}2(\psi _0\overline{\psi })]\},`$
where $`ji`$ and the coefficients $`V_{13}`$ are:

$`V_1`$ $`=`$ $`12E^2\overline{L}^4+60G^2m^2\mu ^3E\overline{L}^2+35G^4m^4\mu ^6`$ (50)
$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`564E^2\overline{L}^4+1620G^2m^2\mu ^3E\overline{L}^2+805G^4m^4\mu ^6`$ (51)
$`V_3`$ $`=`$ $`60(8E^2\overline{L}^4+18G^2m^2\mu ^3E\overline{L}^2+7G^4m^4\mu ^6).`$ (52)
Note that $`V_1=D_1`$, because both arose from the average of $`r^6.`$ (The coefficient $`D_1`$, given by Eq. (4.32) of , governs the self-interaction term in the radiative loss of $`L`$). In order the $`3/2`$ post-Newtonian order-accurate spin-orbit contribution to hold at $`2PN`$, the replacements $`L\overline{L}`$ and $`A_0\overline{A}`$ should be carried on in Eq. (4.4) of  .

We stress that Eqs. (44)-(49) contain all radiative terms in the angular evolution up to the second post-Newtonian order above the leading radiative effects.

## V Concluding remarks

By proving the $`5/2`$ post-Newtonian accurate result that axisymmetric objects do not radiate away any fraction of their initial spins, the computation of the secular angular evolutions induced by radiation reaction became simpler. Then from the analysis of $`d𝐉/dt`$ we could conclude that there are no $`N,PN,2PN`$ and tail contributions to the secular radiative angular evolutions. The $`SO`$ part of the equations was given in . We have derived the $`SS`$ terms here.

No spin-spin terms appear in the radiative evolution of the angle $`\gamma .`$ As the spin-orbit terms average out , we found the remarkable result that the angle spanned by the spins receives no radiative secular change up to the second post-Newtonian order. (However the angle $`\gamma ,`$ together with all other angles is subjected to precessional \- both instantaneous and secular - evolution. Although the second post-Newtonian order precessional (nonradiative) evolution of the angles is not developed in the paper, inspection of Table 1 shows that the precessions do not contribute to the 2PN radiative evolution of the angles $`\kappa _i`$ and $`\gamma `$, which contain only 3/2 PN and 2PN parts.)

The angles $`\kappa _i`$ evolve under the influence of both spin-orbit and spin-spin terms. The radiative angular evolution equations (44)-(49) together with the algebraic constraints (7)-(8) and the expressions for $`dE/dt`$ and $`dL/dt`$ derived in  form a closed system of first order differential equations.

The angle $`\psi _0`$ appearing in this system is an integration constant. It is interpreted as the angle subtended by the node line with $`𝐫`$ at $`\chi =0`$ (with the periastron line). Each precession modifies the value of $`\psi _0`$ by a small amount. According to the arguments of Ryan in , where this angle first appeared, the terms containing periodic functions of $`\psi _0`$ average to zero whenever the precession time scale is short compared to the radiation reaction time scale.

As it happened with the loss of $`E`$ and $`L`$ , the spin-spin terms of the radiative $`\kappa _i`$-evolution could be decomposed into two-body and self-interaction terms. In the one-spin limit $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟐}=0`$ the terms proportional to $`S_1^2`$ from Eq.(47) represent the second post-Newtonian correction to the radiative evolution of the angle $`\kappa _1`$ derived earlier in the Lense-Thirring approximation .

## VI Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Hungarian Scholarship Board. The algebraic package REDUCE was employed in some of the computations.