text:
# Reduction of superfluid gap by scattering

## I Introduction

Nuclear systems at low temperatures undergo a superfluid phase transition. This is observed in finite nuclei as the even-odd staggering of masses and is expected to occur in infinite nuclear matter inside neutron stars. Calculations in finite nuclei usually assume an effective pairing interaction fitted to the available data. Calculations in nuclear matter are using predominately the bare nucleon-nucleon interaction in the gap equation.

Due to the short range repulsive core in the nuclear potentials Brueckner type ladder resummation of the interaction in medium is necessary. On the other hand, the effective interaction in the gap equation should be two-particle irreducible, i.e. without resummation of the particle-particle (and hole-hole) ladder migdal . Thus a good starting point could be the bare nucleon-nucleon interaction, the same as used in the ladder approximation for the two-particle correlation.

The value of the pairing gap depends on nucleon single particle energies. Using single-particle energies obtained from Hartree-Fock or Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (BHF) calculation a different value of the paring gap is obtained. It can be understood as a modification of the effective mass, and consequently a change in the density of states at the Fermi energy. Obviously the value the effective mass is an inherent part of effective parameterizations of the pairing interactions used in calculations in finite systems.

Only relatively few works discuss possible in medium modifications of the pairing interactions beyond a change in the effective mass. Polarization corrections to the bare nucleon-nucleon interactions were discussed in Refs. wambach . It was found that the screening reduces the pairing gap by a factor $`3`$. Another in medium modification was analyzed in the framework of self-consistent nuclear matter calculations ja2 . Self-consistent nuclear matter calculations use off-shell nucleon propagators in the resummation of ladder diagrams for the self-energy. In this way a self-consistent spectral function can be obtained. It was found that the use of full spectral functions in the gap equation leads to a strong reduction of the critical temperature and of the superfluid gap in comparison to the quasi-particle approximation. It is the goal of the present paper to identify the main cause of this modification of superfluid properties of nuclear matter and to propose a renormalization of the quasi-particle approximation for the gap equation. In Sect. II we discuss modifications of the two-particle correlations in the normal phase. This enables us to calculate the critical temperature, at which long range two-particle pairing correlations appear. The critical temperature is estimated using full spectral functions and in the renormalized quasi-particle approximation. In Sect. III we present a discussion of the gap equation with full spectral function and compare it to its quasi-particle limit and to the usual mean-field gap equation. In the concluding section IV we identify the most important renormalization of the pairing interaction due to off-shell propagation and indicate its consequences for realistic nuclear matter calculations.

## II Quasi-particle limit of self-consistent ladder resummation

Nuclear medium is a relatively dense system of particles strongly interacting on short distances. Brueckner resummation of particle-particle ladder diagrams defines the so called in medium G-matrix

$`<𝐩|G(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}>`$ $`=`$ $`V(𝐩,𝐩^{^{}})+{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}V(𝐩,𝐪)\frac{(1f(\omega _{p_1}))(1f(\omega _{p_2}))}{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _{p_1}\omega _{p_2}}<𝐪|G(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}>},`$ (1)
where $`𝐩_{\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐}}=𝐏/2\pm 𝐪`$. G-matrix resummation allows to define single particle energies and gives relatively good results for the saturation properties of nuclear matter. In the above equation and in the following we skip the spin, isospin indices which are implicitly summed over. The above equation corresponds to a resummation of particle-particle ladders, with medium effects entering through the Pauli blocking factors $`1f(\omega _p)`$ in the numerator and single-particle energies $`\omega _p`$ in the denominator. Most advanced calculations in the Brueckner scheme use the so called continuous choice for the single particle energies $`\omega _p`$, self-consistently defined by the G-matrix bhf .

Another approach starts from the T-matrix approximation for the two-particle correlations vo ; roepke . In this scheme the ladder diagrams include both particle particle and hole-hole propagation. The Pauli blocking factor $`(1f(\omega _{p_1}))(1f(\omega _{p_2}))`$ in the G-matrix equation is replaced by $`1f(\omega _{p_1})f(\omega _{p_2})`$ in the equation for the retarded T-matrix

$`<𝐩|T(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}>`$ $`=`$ $`V(𝐩,𝐩^{^{}})+{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}V(𝐩,𝐤)\frac{(1f(\omega _{p_1})f(\omega _{p_2}))}{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _{p_1}\omega _{p_2}+iϵ}<𝐪|T(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}>}.`$ (2)
The imaginary part of the retarded self-energy in the T-matrix approximation is

$`Im\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}<(𝐩𝐤)/2|ImT(|𝐩+𝐤|,\omega _k+\omega )|(𝐩𝐤)/2>_A\left(f(\omega _k)+b(\omega +\omega _k)\right)},`$ (3)
where $`b(\omega )`$ is the Bose distribution. $`<\mathrm{}>_A`$ denotes antisymmetrization of the T-matrix (also in the spin, isospin indices not explicitly show). The real part of the self energy consists of the Hartree Fock self-energy and a dispersive contribution obtained from $`Im\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

$$Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{HF}(p)+𝒫\frac{d\omega ^{^{}}}{\pi }\frac{Im\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega ^{^{}})}{\omega ^{^{}}\omega }.$$
(4)
The imaginary part of the self-energy is usually neglected leading to the quasi-particle approximation for the two-nucleon propagator in the T-matrix (Eq. 2).

Allowing for off-shell propagation of nucleons and taking the self-energy self-consistently (also its imaginary part) requires the use of full spectral functions in the calculation resulting in a more complicated expressions for the T-matrix and the self-energy d1 ; ja

$`<𝐩|T(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}>`$ $`=`$ $`V(𝐩,𝐩^{^{}})`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _1}{2\pi }\frac{d\omega _2}{2\pi }\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}V(𝐩,𝐪)\frac{\left(1f(\omega _1)f(\omega _2)\right)}{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _1\omega _2+iϵ}A(p_1,\omega _1)A(p_2,\omega _2)<𝐪|T(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}>}`$
and

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _1}{2\pi }\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}A(k,\omega _1)<(𝐩𝐤)/2|\mathrm{Im}T(𝐩+𝐤,\omega +\omega _1)|(𝐩𝐤)/2>_A\left(f(\omega _1)+g(\omega +\omega _1)\right)}.`$ (6)
Equations (5), (6) and (4) have to be solved iteratively with the constraint on the assumed density $`\rho `$ ja ; ja2

$$\rho =\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}A(p,\omega )f(\omega ).$$
(7)
Results of the self-consistent calculation and of the quasi-particle approximation are very different. In medium cross sections for nucleon-nucleon scattering are smaller when using off-shell nucleons d1 . Also the critical temperature is strongly reduced when using full spectral functions ja2 .

The T-matrix approximation for the two-particle propagator is directly related to the superfluid gap properties by the Thouless criterion thouless  and the condition for long range order km ; hau2 . On the other BHF calculation using the G-matrix are are much developed for realistic interactions. In this work we derive an improved gap equation which could use the results of advanced G-matrix calculations as an input.

### II.1 Thouless criterion for superfluidity

The critical temperature can be obtained from the Thouless criterion for superconductivity thouless . This is the temperature where a singularity in the T-matrix appears at twice the Fermi energy ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$) and zero total momentum of the pair ($`P=0`$). It means that the real part of the inverse T-matrix develops a zero-eigenvalue at the critical temperature

$$\frac{d^3p^{^{}}}{(2\pi )^3}<𝐩|\mathrm{Re}T^1(𝐏=\mathrm{𝟎},\omega =0)|𝐩^{^{}}>\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩^{^{}})=0.$$
(8)
It is equivalent to the existence of a nontrivial solution of the gap equation at $`T_c`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{d\omega ^{^{}}}{2\pi }V(𝐩,𝐤)\frac{A(k,\omega \omega ^{^{}})A(k,\omega )\left(1f(\omega \omega ^{^{}})f(\omega ^{^{}})\right)}{\omega }\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)}.`$ (9)
The two propagators in the gap equation above enter with the full spectral function. On the other hand the BCS quasi-particle gap equation is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)+{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}V(𝐩,𝐤)\frac{\left(12f(\zeta _k)\right)}{2\zeta _k}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)}=0`$ (10)
with $`\zeta _p=p^2/2m+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{HF}(p)\mu `$, and it corresponds to the Thouless criterion for the quasi-particle T-matrix, i.e. the appearance of a singularity in the T-matrix given by Eq. (2). Because of additional averaging over spectral functions in the gap equation with off-shell propagators, a different value of critical temperature comes out.

The self-consistent T-matrix calculation was done for a simple, S-wave, interaction and compared to the quasi-particle approximation for the gap equation ja2 . At a density of $`0.45`$ of normal nuclear density $`\rho _0`$ it was found that the critical temperature was reduced from $`T_c=5`$MeV in the mean-field gap equation with Hartree-Fock single particle energies to $`T_c=1.6`$MeV in the T-matrix approximation with off-shell propagation ja2 . Below $`T_c`$ a modified T-matrix resummation was used in Ref. ja2 . The resulting superfluid gap is significantly smaller than the one obtained from the usual gap equation with quasiparticles. Modifications to the gap equation below $`T_c`$ coming from the use of full spectral functions will be discussed in Sect. III. Here we concentrate on the T-matrix equations in the normal phase, which is sufficient for the calculation of the critical temperature. The simple Yamaguchi S wave interaction ja2  does not permit calculations at low temperature for normal density nuclear matter.

### II.2 Renormalized quasi-particle interactions

Excitations in the Fermi liquid close to the Fermi energy can be described by quasi-particles. Quasi-particles are propagating on shell with dispersion relation modified by the presence of the medium. Also the scattering amplitudes between quasi-particles are modified by the medium. One of these modification comes from the quasi-particle limit in the propagator of two nucleons migdal ; pn . Two particle Green’s function can be formally written as a resummation of particle-particle (and hole-hole) ladder diagrams starting from in medium two-particle irreducible vertex migdal ; abrikosov . For short range interactions the two-particle irreducible vertex can be approximated in the lowest order by the bare nucleon-nucleon interaction, leading to the T-matrix equation (5). It should be pointed out that due to the instantaneous form of the interaction in the T-matrix equation, the full T-matrix depends only on the total energy, and its equation takes a simple form for the retarded T-matrix (Eq. 5), also at finite temperature.

Close to the Fermi energy the spectral function becomes peaked around the quasi-particle pole

$$A(p,\omega )=Z_p2\pi \delta (\omega \omega _p)+R(p,\omega ),$$
(11)
where

$$Z_p=\left(1\frac{Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )}{\omega }|_{\omega =\omega _p}\right)^1$$
(12)
and $`R(p,\omega )`$ is the regular part, smooth in the vicinity of the quasi-particle pole. The retarded propagator of two nucleons appearing in the T-matrix ladder can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1f(\omega _1)f(\omega _2)\right)}{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _1\omega _2+iϵ}}A(p_1,\omega _1)A(p_2,\omega _2)`$ $`=`$ $`B^{reg}(p_1,\omega _1,p_2,\omega _2,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (13)
$`+(2\pi )^2\delta (\omega _1\omega _{p_1})\delta (\omega _2\omega _{p_2}){\displaystyle \frac{Z_{p_1}Z_{p_2}\left(1f(\omega _{p_1})f(\omega _{p_2})\right)}{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _{p_1}\omega _{p_2}}}.`$
$`B^{reg}`$ describes the part of the propagator of two nucleons which cannot be written as propagation of two quasi-particles, it originates from the background part $`R(p,\omega )`$ of the spectral function. Besides this contribution, the propagator of two-nucleons differs from the one used in the quasi-particle T-matrix (2) by the presence of renormalization factors $`Z_p`$ (Eq. 12). The T-matrix with quasi-particle propagators takes the following renormalized form

$`<𝐩|T(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}>`$ $`=`$ $`<𝐩|V^{ren}(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}>`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}<𝐩|V^{ren}(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐪>Z_{p_1}Z_{p_2}\frac{(1f(\omega _{p_1})f(\omega _{p_2}))}{\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _{p_1}\omega _{p_2}+iϵ}<𝐪|T(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}>},`$
with the renormalized interaction $`V^{ren}`$ given by

$`<𝐩|V^{ren}(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}>=V(𝐩,𝐩^{^{}})+{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _1}{2\pi }\frac{d\omega _2}{2\pi }\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}V(𝐩,𝐪)B(p_1,\omega _1,p_2,\omega _2,\mathrm{\Omega })<𝐪|V^{ren}(𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega })|𝐩^{^{}}>}.`$ (15)
The bare interaction is renormalized by contributions from background parts of the spectral functions, this involves integration over energies far from the quasi-particle pole. The background part of the spectral function is of course necessary to recover sum rules for the particle strength. However, the full treatment of the renormalized interaction is difficult and in the following we replace it by the bare interaction $`V^{ren}V`$ in the gap equation. The only remnant of the dressing of nucleons in medium are the single particle energies

$$\omega _p=\xi _p+Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega _p)$$
(16)
and the $`Z_p`$ factors in the homogeneous term in the T-matrix equation. It will turn out that these are the dominant modifications responsible for shifting the critical temperature. In the vicinity of the pole the T-matrix equation is dominated by the homogeneous term. In this region the interaction for quasi-particles is effectively renormalized by a factor $`Z_{p_1}Z_{p_2}`$.

### II.3 Two-particle pole with renormalized interactions

According to the Thouless criterion, a pole in the T-matrix at the Fermi energy ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$) means that superfluid long range order sets in (Sect. II.1). As mentioned earlier, standard mean-field gap equation uses the following kernel

$$V(p,k)\frac{\left(12f(\zeta _k)\right)}{2\zeta _k}$$
(17)
with mean-field single particle energies $`\zeta _k=k^2/2m+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{HF}(k)\mu `$. It leads to a critical temperature $`T_c=5`$MeV. One could take single particle energies $`\omega _p`$ beyond Hartree-Fock, e.g. from BHF or T-matrix calculations. However, the difference between the resulting effective masses is of the order $`Z_p`$. Hence we stay at the order of Hartree-Fock effective mass in the standard gap equation, including the modified single particle energies (16) only together with $`Z_p`$ factor renormalization.

The second estimate for the critical temperature is obtained from the condition of appearance of the pole in the T-matrix with full self-consistent spectral functions. It is equivalent to the following kernel in the gap equation

$$\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{d\omega ^{^{}}}{2\pi }V(𝐩,𝐤)\frac{A(k,\omega \omega ^{^{}})A(k,\omega )\left(1f(\omega \omega ^{^{}})f(\omega ^{^{}})\right)}{\omega },$$
(18)
where $`A(p,\omega )`$ is obtained from full self-consistent calculation of normal nuclear matter at finite temperature with off-shell propagators in the T-matrix ladder ja . It gives a very different value for $`T_c=1.6`$MeV at $`\rho =.45\rho _0`$.

Finally we can use the renormalized interaction strength in the homogeneous term of the T-matrix equation (Eq. 14). It is equivalent to using a renormalized interaction in the kernel of the quasi-particle gap equation

$$V(p,k)Z_p^2\frac{\left(12f(\omega _k)\right)}{2\omega _k},$$
(19)
with the single particle energies $`\omega _p`$ and $`Z_p`$ factors obtained from the full self-consistent T-matrix calculation (Eq. 16). It gives a value of $`T_c=2.2`$MeV, much closer to the result of the calculation with full spectral functions. The $`Z`$ factor obtained from the full self-energy is not close to $`1`$, at the Fermi energy we find in our model calculation ja2  $`Z_{p_f}0.7`$. Such a small value of the renormalization factor can explain the large difference in critical temperatures found in the standard quasi-particle gap equation and in the one with full spectral function.

## III Gap equation with dressed propagators

### III.1 Gap equation with full spectral function

Below the critical temperature a nonzero solution of the gap equation is possible. The kernel of the gap equation is very similar to the two-particle propagator in the T-matrix resummation (Eq. II.1). However one of the propagators includes the normal self-energy as well as the off-diagonal one $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ ja2 . The full retarded propagator can be expressed using the normal propagator $`G(p,\omega )`$ (which includes only the normal self-energy)

$$G_s(p,\omega )=\frac{1}{G(p,\omega )^1+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2(p)G^{}(p,\omega )}.$$
(20)
As a result in the kernel of the gap equation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{d\omega ^{^{}}}{2\pi }V(𝐩,𝐤)\frac{A(k,\omega \omega ^{^{}})A_s(k,\omega )\left(1f(\omega \omega ^{^{}})f(\omega ^{^{}})\right)}{\omega }\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)}.`$ (21)
two spectral functions $`A(p,\omega )=2ImG(p,\omega )`$ and $`A_s(p,\omega )=2ImG_s(p,\omega )`$ appear. Both spectral functions can be calculated knowing the two self-energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$. The off-diagonal self-energy, ie. the superfluid gap can be obtained from the gap equation (21). On the other hand the normal self-energy cannot be calculated in the usual T-matrix approximation as above $`T_c`$. This is related to the appearance of the Cooper instability in the two-particle propagator in the ladder approximation.

The T-matrix equation can be modified by introducing also anomalous propagators in the ladder hau2 . In Ref. ja2  we used a simpler modification of the ladder diagrams, using a mixed ladder with one full propagator and one with only normal self-energy included. This means that the singularity of the T-matrix which appears at $`T_c`$ at the Fermi energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and zero total momentum of the pair, stays there also below $`T_c`$. This reflects the presence of long range order km ; hau2 . In such a way we were able to obtain self-consistent solutions for the normal self-energy in the ladder approximation and for the superfluid gap in the mean-field approximation, using at all stages full spectral functions $`A(p,\omega )`$ and $`A_s(p,\omega )`$, without quasi-particle approximation. The results for the superfluid gap at several temperatures below $`T_c`$ are indicated by triangles in Fig. 1. This calculation cannot be extended straightforwardly to zero temperature because at the Fermi energy the imaginary part of the self-energy vanishes and the discretization of the spectral functions is not possible close to the Fermi energy. At the Fermi momentum quasi-particles appear with small width.

By comparing the imaginary part of the self-energy at two temperatures $`T=1.7`$MeV and $`1.2`$MeV one notices that the only modification is the reduction of single-particle width close to the Fermi energy with temperature, in agreement with general properties of Fermi liquids. Thus we can take as an approximation a temperature independent imaginary part of the self-energy. We proceed by taking the imaginary part of the self-energy $`Im\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )`$ as calculated at $`T=1.63`$MeV, slightly above $`T_c`$. Obviously the dispersive contribution to the real part of the self-energy is also fixed (4). The Hartree-Fock energy is obtained from

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{HF}(p)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}V(|𝐩𝐤|/2,|𝐩𝐤|/2)n(p)$$
(22)
where the momentum distribution is given by

$$n(p)=\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }A_s(p,\omega )f(\omega ).$$
(23)
The shift of the Fermi energy from the value $`\omega =0`$ at $`T=1.63`$MeV to keep the density

$$\rho =.45\rho _0=\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}n(p)$$
(24)
constant when decreasing the temperature to zero is only $`0.2`$MeV and has negligible effect on the Hartree-Fock energy. Thus the main change in the self-energy when decreasing the temperature occurs in the off-diagonal part $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$. At any given temperature the superfluid gap is obtained from the gap equation with full spectral function (21). Where the dependence of the kernel of the gap equation on $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ enters through the spectral function

$`A_s(p,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2((\omega +\xi _p+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega ))^2\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega )+\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }^2(p)+\left(\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega )\right)^2\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega ))/`$ (25)
$`(((\omega \xi _p\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega ))(\omega +\xi _p+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega ))\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega )\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }^2(p))^2`$
$`+(\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega )(\omega +\xi _p+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega ))+\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega )(\omega \xi _p\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(p,\omega )))^2).`$
In the above equation $`Im\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is fixed and temperature independent, according to our approximation, and $`Re\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ depends only very weakly on the temperature and the superfluid gap through the Hartree-Fock energy. The solution of the gap equation using a fixed single particle width down to zero temperature is represented by the solid line in Fig. 1. As expected close to the temperature where the imaginary part of the self-energy was fixed ($`T=1.63`$MeV) the result is close to the fully self-consistent solution denoted by the triangles on the figure. As the temperature is lowered some deviations appear. It is due to the decrease of the single particle width close to the Fermi energy in the fully self-consistent solution (Fig. 2). In the following we will compare the solution of the gap equation with full spectral function to the corresponding quasi-particle approximation. Since the imaginary part of the self-energy is fixed at $`T=1.63`$MeV, the properties of the quasi-particle pole ($`\omega _p`$ and $`Z_p`$) are taken from the self-consistent solution at the same temperature. Our aim is to explain the big difference between the mean-field solution with on-shell propagators (long-dashed line in Fig. 1) and the gap equation with full spectral function below $`T_c`$ (solid line). For this purpose it is sufficient to compare the approximation with nontrivial but fixed spectral properties with its quasi-particle limit.

The mean-field BCS gap equation is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐩)+{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}V(𝐩,𝐤)\frac{\left(12f(E_k)\right)}{2E_k}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)}=0,`$ (26)
where $`E_k=\sqrt{\zeta _k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(k)^2}`$. It gives significantly larger values for the superfluid gap (long-dashed line in Fig. 1) than the full solution (solid line) in all ranges of temperatures below $`T_c`$.

### III.2 Quasi-particle approximation for the superfluid spectral function

Above $`T_c`$ we have used the standard form of the quasi-particle approximation for the spectral function $`A(p,\omega )=2\pi Z_p\delta (\omega \omega _p)`$. Using it we have found a significant reduction of the critical temperature with respect to the mean-field approximation. To obtain a quasi-particle approximation for the kernel of the gap equation (21) with full spectral function we have to construct an approximation for the superfluid spectral function $`A_s`$. We can write the spectral function (25) putting an infinitesimally small imaginary part of the self-energy ($`Im\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )=i\eta `$)

$`A_s(p,\omega )=2Im((\omega +\xi _p+Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )+i\eta )/((\omega \xi _pRe\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega ))`$
$`(\omega +\xi _p+Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega ))+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(p)+i\eta (2\omega Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )+Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )))),`$ (27)
with $`\xi _p=p^2/2m\mu `$. It is useful to define the even $`S(p,\omega )=Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )+Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )`$ and odd $`\omega O(p,\omega )=Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )`$ parts of the real part of the self-energy with respect to the Fermi energy mahan . Notice that we can take $`S(p,0)=0`$ redefining $`\mu `$. We have

$`A_s(p,\omega )=2Im\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega (1O(p,\omega ))+\xi _p+S(p,\omega )}{\left((1O(p,\omega ))E(p,\omega )\right)\left(\omega (1O(p,\omega ))+E(p,\omega )\right)+i\eta \omega (1O(p,\omega ))}}\right),`$ (28)
where

$$E(p,\omega )=\sqrt{(\xi _p+S(p,\omega ))^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(p)}.$$

The above expression has poles at

$$\pm \omega =ϵ_p=\frac{E(p,ϵ_p)}{1O(p,ϵ_p)}=\frac{E_p}{1O_p},$$

which gives two quasi-particle contributions to the spectral function on both sides of the Fermi energy

$$A_s(p,\omega )=2\pi Z_p^{^{}}\left(\frac{E_p+\xi _p+S_p}{2E_p}\delta (\omega ϵ_p)+\frac{E_p\xi _pS_p}{2E_p}\delta (\omega ϵ_p)\right),$$
(29)
with $`S_p=S(p,ϵ_p)`$ and

$$Z_p^{}_{}{}^{}1=\left(1\frac{\left(E(p,\omega )/(1O(p,\omega ))\right)}{\omega }|_{\omega =ϵ_p}\right)(1O_p).$$
(30)
It will be useful to relate this new pole renormalization strength to the usual renormalization factor $`Z_p`$ (Eq. 12). We can write

$$Z_p^{}_{}{}^{}1=\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega )}{\omega }|_{\omega =\mathrm{sign}(pp_f)ϵ_p}\right)+\frac{E_p\mathrm{sign}(pp_f)(\xi _p+S_p)}{E_p}\frac{S(p,\omega )}{\omega }|_{\omega =ϵ_p},$$
(31)
with $`\mathrm{sign}(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }(x)\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ . For small values of the superfluid gap the superfluid quasiparticle position $`\mathrm{sign}(pp_f)ϵ_p`$ is very close to the position of the pole in the normal propagator $`\omega _p=\xi _p+Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,\omega _p)`$. Substituting $`\omega _p`$ for the energy argument in the first term in Eq. (31) we get

$$Z_p^{}_{}{}^{}1Z_p^1=\frac{E_p\mathrm{sign}(pp_f)(\xi _p+S_p)}{E_p}\frac{S(p,\omega )}{\omega }|_{\omega =ϵ_p}.$$
(32)
The first factor on the right hand side of the above equation is small except close to the Fermi energy where the second factor precisely vanishes. Thus we expect that the new quasi-particle pole renormalization factor $`Z_p^{^{}}`$ can be approximated by the renormalization factor of the normal spectral function $`Z_p`$ corresponding to the same momentum. A numerical calculation confirms this to a very good accuracy (Fig. 3).

The spectral function takes the form

$$A_s(p,\omega )=2\pi Z_p\left(u_p^2\delta (\omega ϵ_p)+v_p^2\delta (\omega ϵ_p)\right),$$
(33)
with coherence factors

$$u_p^2(v_p^2)=\frac{ϵ_p+()(\xi _p+S_p)/(1O_p)}{2ϵ_p}.$$
(34)
These coherence factors can be very well approximated by an expression similar to the one used in the usual mean-field gap equation

$$u_p^2(v_p^2)=\frac{ϵ_p+()\omega _p}{2ϵ_p}.$$
(35)
The approximation works to within $`1\%`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_f)<10`$MeV.

Substituting the quasi-particle expressions for the spectral functions $`A`$ and $`A_s`$ into the kernel of the gap equation one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}Z_k^2V(p,k)\frac{(12f(ϵ_p))}{2ϵ_p}.$$
(36)
We have obtained an expression for the gap equation with a kernel very similar to the mean-field BCS one (Eq. 17), but with the interaction renormalized by $`Z_p^2`$ and a different quasi-particle energy $`ϵ_p`$.

In the limit of vanishing gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)0`$ all quasi-particle approximations for the gap equation reduce to the Thouless condition for the renormalized T-matrix equation (Eq. 19). Accordingly we have the same condition for $`T_c`$ as discussed in Sect. II.3.

### III.3 Quasi-particle energies

In order to relate our quasi-particle gap equation (36) to usual approaches we have to obtain an approximation for the quasi-particle energies

$$ϵ_p=\frac{\sqrt{(\xi _p+S_p)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(p)}}{1O_p}.$$
(37)
To extract the positions $`\pm ϵ_p`$ of the poles of the spectral function one has to know the real part of the self energy for energies on both sides of the Fermi energy. We would like to obtain an expression which could be used as a correction to calculations using quasi-particle approximation like BHF.

In BHF approaches one calculates a single particle energy which includes dispersive corrections to the position of the quasi-particle pole (Eq. 16) in the usual spectral function $`A(p,\omega )`$. A simple approximation would be to use $`\omega _p`$ instead of $`\zeta _p`$ in the expression for the quasi-particle energies in the superfluid

$$ϵ_p=\sqrt{\omega _p^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(p)}.$$
(38)
Clearly the above expression does not give the right value for the energy gap at the Fermi momentum (Fig. 4). The energy gap at $`p_F`$ should be

$$ϵ_{p_F}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F)}{1O_{p_F}}=Z_{p_F}\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F).$$
(39)
Let us define a renormalized energy gap

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(p)}{1O_p}.$$
(40)
Results for the quasi-particle poles using this renormalization of the superfluid order parameter

$$ϵ_p=\sqrt{\omega _p^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(p)}$$
(41)
are indistinguishable from the solution (37) in Fig. 4. It should be noted that for the calculation of the factor $`(1O_p)`$ we can take $`O_p=O(p,ϵ_p)O(p,\omega _p)`$. So that the approximation for $`ϵ_p`$ can be expressed using the quasi-particle pole energy $`\omega _p`$ and the values of the real part of the self energy at $`\pm \omega _p`$. However, usually in BHF calculations one does not calculate the factor $`1O_p`$, since the value and the derivative of the real part of the self-energy is known only at $`\omega _p`$ and not at $`\omega _p`$. In this case the position of the poles in the superfluid can be approximated by

$$ϵ_p=\sqrt{\omega _p^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2(p)}$$
(42)
with the renormalization of the superfluid gap taken as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)=\mathrm{\Delta }(p)Z_p.$$
(43)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)`$ is very close to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)`$ around the Fermi energy. Some differences appear only around $`p=0`$ (for the assumed interaction), but this region is less important for the solution of the gap equation. Again the energies obtained using expression (42) are indistinguishable from the solid line in Fig. 4.

### III.4 Results for superfluid gap in quasi-particle approximation

In previous sections we derived a quasi-particle approximation for the kernel of the superfluid gap equation (Eq. 21). The results of the full gap equation with integration of over the energies in the fermion propagators (solid line in Fig. 1) can be compared to quasi-particle results. The dotted line in Fig. 1 represents the solution of the gap equation (36) with renormalization of the energy gap $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)`$ for the calculation of the superfluid quasi-particle energies (Eq. 41). The dashed-dotted line represents an analogous calculation but with the energy gap $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)`$ (Eq. 43). Both quasi-particle approximation are very close to each other with critical temperature $`T_c=2.2`$MeV. The value of $`T_c`$ is the same as obtained in Sect. II.3 using renormalized interactions in the ladder approximation. This value of critical temperature is much closer to the one obtained from the self-consistent solution $`T_c=1.6`$MeV than was the mean-field value $`T_c=5`$MeV. Also the value of the superfluid gap is much closer to the one calculated using full of-shell spectral functions (Table 1). The superfluid gap at zero temperature in the quasi-particle approximation $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F)=6`$MeV is much closer to the solution of the off-shell gap equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F)=4.3`$MeV than the one obtained from the mean-field BCS solution $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F)=10.8`$MeV. From the results in Table 1 we can notice that the ratio between the superfluid gap at zero temperature and the critical temperature is larger in the solution of the full gap equation (21) and in quasi-particle approximations (36) with renormalization of the energy gap (41 or 42), than in the mean-field solution (26) and in quasi-particle approximations without renormalization of the superfluid energy gap (36, 38). In the weak coupling limit we have mahan ; fw

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F)|_{T=0}}{T_c}=\pi e^\gamma 1.76.$$
(44)
If the energy gap $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p_F)`$ is renormalized with respect to the superfluid gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F)`$ (the off diagonal self-energy) we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F)|_{T=0}}{T_c}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p_F)|_{T=0}(1O_{p_F})}{T_c}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p_F)|_{T=0}}{T_cZ_{p_F}}\frac{1.76}{Z_{p_F}}2.5.$$
(45)
Ratios of the superfluid gap and of the critical temperature for the solution of the full gap equation and quasi-particle approximations with renormalized superfluid gap is close to $`1.76/Z_{p_F}`$ (Table 1). On the other hand mean-field gap equation and quasi-particle approximation without renormalization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ give $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_F)|_{T=0}/T_c`$ closer to $`1.76`$. These relation can be fulfilled only approximately since we are far from the region of applicability of the weak coupling BCS solution.

## IV Conclusions

Numerical solution of the gap equation with full spectral functions (21) shows a strong reduction of the superfluid gap and of the critical temperature with respect to the mean-field BCS solution (26). To understand this effect we constructed a quasi-particle approximation for the full gap equation. The effects of nontrivial spectral functions can be approximated using a renormalized strength of the interaction $`V(p,k)Z_k^2`$. Also the energy gap in the calculation of the quasi-particle poles in the superfluid is renormalized. For the renormalization of the gap we used two expression $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)/(1O_p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)Z_p`$. In both cases we obtained results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$ and $`T_c`$ much closer to the full solution than the mean-field approximation. Having at one’s disposal only the single particle energies $`\omega _p`$ and the $`Z_p`$ factors obtained from a realistic BHF type calculation, the gap equation can be corrected. A reduced interaction strength $`V(p,k)Z_k^2`$ must be taken and a factor $`Z_p`$ appears between the energy gap $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)`$ and the off-diagonal self-energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)`$. This is equivalent to solving a gap equation for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)`$ with reduced interaction $`V(p,k)Z_pZ_k`$. In the weak coupling limit $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(p)|_{T=0}1.76T_c`$ but $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)|_{T=0}1.76T_c/Z_{p_F}`$ .

In the illustrative model here presented the scattering corrections are very strong ($`Z_{p_F}.7`$) and there are still some differences between the improved quasi-particle approximation and the full solution of the gap equation. We expect that at normal nuclear density where the $`Z`$ factor is closer to $`1`$, quasi-particle approximation with renormalized interaction strength would be much closer to the full solution. This is the case for neutron matter where effects of renormalization of quasi-particle poles and shifts in single-particle energies are smaller baldop . In future work we plan to investigate the effects of the renormalization of the interaction by background corrections (15).

In this investigation we used the bare potential for the two-particle irreducible vertex. However, it is known that polarization effects reduce the superfluid gap by a factor $`3`$ wambach . We must conclude that although there are no ladder corrections to the interaction in the gap equation, other many-body effects modify the effective interaction. Due to the exponential dependence of the gap solution on the strength of the interaction, these usually neglected corrections modify strongly superfluid parameters in nuclear matter.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partly supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant PHY-9605207.


format: text

text:
# Magnetic moment of Δ⁺⁺ baryon in QCD string approach

## Abstract

Magnetic moments (m.m.) of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ baryons is computed within the new approach based on the QCD string Hamiltonian. The string tension $`\sigma `$ is only dimensionful quantity forming m.m. of both nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$, but color Coulomb and spin-spin interactions cancel each other in nucleon m.m. while in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ they add coherently. The result $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=4.36\mu _N`$ is in good agreement with experimental data.

Recently in  a new approach to evaluation of the baryon m.m. has been proposed. It is based on the Feynman-Schwinger (world-line) representation of the 3q Green’s function and yields remarkably simple expressions for the m.m. through the only fundamental parameter –string tension $`\sigma `$ (and strange quark current mass for strange baryons.) In  calculations have been performed for the octet baryons and for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. The present letter aims at the calculation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ m.m. and some amendments to our previous treatment of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$.

The case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ is a particular one both from experimental and theoretical sides. Experimentally m.m. of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ was measured rather recently and is still subject to substantial uncertainties . On the theoretical side the calculation of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ m.m. causes serious difficulties in various approaches and calls for introduction of several additional parameters (see e.g. recent paper  for a brief review of the current status of the sum rules approach to the problem) As will be seen in what follows the treatment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ in our approach requires taking into account hyperfine and color Coulomb interactions. This was not the case for octet baryons considered in  since for them Coulomb and spin-spin terms extinguished each other . For $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ baryon also considered in  the situation is the following. As for other baryons the m.m. of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is predominantly controlled by string tension $`\sigma `$, next comes the contribution from the strange quark current mass $`m_s`$, and then Coulomb and hyperfine terms contribute. In  the first two factors ($`\sigma `$ and $`m_s`$) were considered while the present work deals in addition with the two remaining terms listed above. This does not alter the value of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ m.m. obtained in  but allows to take somewhat smaller value of $`m_s`$ than that used in .

We start with a recapitulation of the very few key points of the approach to baryon m.m. developed in . For the $`3q`$ Green’s function one can write the following Feynman–Schwinger (world-line representation -)

$$G^{(3q)}(X,Y)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}ds_iDz_\mu ^{(i)}e^KW_3(X,Y),$$
(1)
where $`X;Y=x^{(i)};y^{(i)},i=1,2,3`$, and the integration is along the path $`z_\mu ^{(i)}(s_i)`$ of the $`i`$-th quark with $`s_i`$ playing the role of the proper ”time” parameter along the path, and

$$K=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(m_i^2s_i+\frac{1}{4}_0^{s_i}\left(\frac{dz_\mu ^{(i)}}{d\tau _i}\right)𝑑\tau _i\right).$$
(2)
Here $`m_i`$ is the current quark mass and the three-lobed Wilson loop is a product of the three parallel transporters -. The standard approximation of the QCD string approach is the minimal area law for $`W_3`$

$$W_3=\mathrm{exp}(\sigma \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}S_i),$$
(3)
where $`S_i`$ is the minimal area of one loop. The next step is to calculate the quark constituent mass $`\nu _i`$ in terms of its current mass $`m_i`$ and string tension $`\sigma `$. To this end one connects the proper and real times via

$$ds_i=\frac{dt}{2\nu _i(t)},$$
(4)
where $`t=z_4^{(i)}(s_i)`$ is a common c.m. time on the hypersurface $`t=const`$ . The new entity, $`\nu _i(t)`$, being determined from the condition of the minimum of the corresponding Hamiltonian (see below) plays the role of the quark constituent mass (see  for details). Referring to  for the derivation of the Hamiltonian from the above defined Green’s function $`G^{(3q)}`$ we write down the final expression containing $`\nu _i`$ as parameters

$$H=\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\frac{m_k^2}{2\nu _k}+\frac{\nu _k}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{^2}{\xi ^2}\frac{^2}{\eta ^2}\right)+\sigma \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}|𝐫^{(k)}|,$$
(5)
where $`𝝃`$ and $`𝜼`$ are three-body Jacoby coordinates defined as in , $`m`$ is an arbitrary mass parameter which ensures correct dimensions and drops out of final expressions, and $`|𝐫^{(k)}|`$ is the distance from the $`k`$-sh quark to the string-junction positions which was for simplicity taken coinciding with the c.m. point. It is at this point worth stressing that the QCD string model outlined above is a fully relativistic string model for light current masses, and the ”nonrelativistic” appearance of the Hamiltonian (5) is a consequence of the rigorous einbein formalism .

Tooled with the Hamiltonian (5) one can use the standard hyperspherical formalism , introduce hyperradius $`\rho ^2=\xi ^2+\eta ^2`$, and write the following eigenwalue equation (quarks with equal masses are considered)

$$\frac{d^2\chi }{d\rho ^2}+2\nu \{E_nW(\rho )\}\chi (\rho )=0,$$
(6)
$$W(\rho )=b\rho +\frac{d}{2\nu \rho ^2},b=\sigma \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{32}{5\pi },d=15/4.$$
(7)
The baryon mass $`M_n(\nu )`$ is equal to

$$M_n(\nu )=\frac{3m^2}{2\nu }+\frac{3}{2}\nu +E_n(\nu ).$$
(8)
According to the QCD string prescription - the value of $`\nu `$ is determined as a stationary point of $`M_n(\nu )`$:

$$\frac{M_n}{\nu }=0.$$
(9)
In passing from (4) to (9) we have changed from $`\nu (t)`$ depending on the trajectory to the operator $`\nu `$ and finally to the constant $`\nu `$ to be found from the minimum condition (9) – see - for details.

The perturbative gluon exchanges and spin–dependent terms can be selfconsistently included into the above picture. Including the Coulomb term and passing to dimensionless quantities $`x,\epsilon _n`$ and $`\lambda `$ defined as

$$x=(2\nu b)^{1/3}\rho ,\epsilon _n=\frac{2\nu E_n}{(2\nu b)^{2/3}},\lambda =\alpha _s=\frac{8}{3}\left(\frac{10\sqrt{3}\nu ^2}{\pi ^2\sigma }\right)^{1/3}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\left(\frac{\nu ^2}{\sigma }\right)^{1/3},$$
(10)
where $`\alpha _s`$ is the strong coupling constant, one arrives at the following reduced equation

$$\left\{\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+x+\frac{d}{x^2}\frac{\lambda }{x}\epsilon _n(\lambda )\right\}=\chi (x)=0.$$
(11)
Then (9) yields the equation defining the quark dynamical mass $`\nu `$

$$\epsilon _n(\lambda )\left(\frac{\sigma }{\nu ^2}\right)^{2/3}\left\{1+\frac{2\lambda }{\epsilon _n(\lambda )}\left|\frac{d\epsilon _n}{d\lambda }\right|\right\}+\frac{9}{16}\left(\frac{75\pi ^2}{2}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{m^2}{\nu ^2}1\right)=0.$$
(12)
At this point the essential difference of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ from $`p`$ or $`n`$ arises. It concerns the interplay of the Coulomb and spin-spin interaction (the later is not yet included into (11) and (12)). The spin-spin interaction in baryon made of equal mass quarks results in the shift of $`E_n`$ equal to

$$\delta E_n=\frac{16}{9}\frac{\alpha _s}{\nu ^2}\underset{i>j}{}𝐬_i𝐬_j\delta (𝐫_{ij}).$$
(13)
For $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ summation over ($`i,j)`$ yields a factor 3/4 corresponding to positive interaction energy , i.e. in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ spin-spin interaction acts coherently with the Coulomb one. In nucleon the corresponding factor is –4/3 resulting in reverse situation. This distintion realizes in the fact that the masses of quarks forming the nucleon remain ”unrenormalized” due to Coulomb and spin-spin interaction  while the masses of quarks forming $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ substantially increase as shown below.

To include the term (13) into equation (12) one has to smear the delta functions over small regions. This procedure has been done by two independent methods in  with the result $`\delta (𝐫_{ij})=\delta _0\nu ^{3/2},\delta _0=2.6410^2`$ GeV3/2. With spin-spin interaction included Eq. (12) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ takes the form

$$\nu ^2\frac{16}{9}\left(\frac{2}{75\pi ^2}\right)^{1/3}\epsilon (0)\sigma ^{2/3}\nu ^{2/3}\left[1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{\epsilon (0)}\left|\frac{d\epsilon }{d\lambda }\right|_{\lambda =0}\left(\frac{\nu ^2}{\sigma }\right)^{1/3}\right]\frac{4\pi }{9}\alpha _s\delta _0\nu ^{1/3}=0.$$
(14)
Only terms linear in Coulomb coupling constant $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ are kept in (14), the corresponding expansion parameter is $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }/\epsilon (0)1/4`$. Eq(14) has been solved for the following set of parameters

$$\sigma =0.15\mathrm{GeV}^2,\alpha _s=0.39.$$
(15)
The string tension value (15) which is smaller than in meson case is in line with baryon calculations by Capstick and Isgur . A similar smaller value of $`\sigma `$ is implied by recent lattice calculations by Bali . Solving (14) with the above set of parameters one gets

$$\nu _\mathrm{\Delta }=0.43\mathrm{GeV},$$
(16)
which should be compared to $`\nu _N=c\sqrt{\sigma }=0.37`$ GeV, where $`C=0.957`$ is a constant calculated in .

Now we turn directly to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ magnetic moment. The magnetic momet interaction term is included into $`G^{(3q)}`$ in a straightforward way - resulting in

$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=3\psi _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}\left|\frac{e_3\sigma _z^{(3)}}{2\nu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}}\right|\psi _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}},$$
(17)
where $`e_3=e_u=2/3`$. The structure of this matrix element with $`\nu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}`$ in the denomitor may be considered as an additional evidence that the quantity $`\nu `$ first introduced by (4) has the physical meaning of the quark constituent mass.

The calculation of the matrix element (17) is trivial provident one considers only totally symmetric coordinate wave functions, i.e. the lowest hyperspherical harmonic. It is known that the contribution of higher harmonics into normalization does not exceed few percent . Then (17) yields

$$\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=\frac{2m_p}{\nu _\mathrm{\Delta }}4.36\mu _N,$$
(18)
which is in good agreement with the experimental value $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}=(4.52\pm 0.50\pm 0.45)\mu _N`$ .

The treatment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ baryon presented above makes it possible to reexamine the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ baryon considered in  and to improve upon the value of the strange quark current mass used in . Namely in  the constituent mass $`\nu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ was calculated using Eq.(12) above and then m.m. of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ was obtained as a matrix element similar to (17). Coulomb and spin-spin terms in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ were neglected since their contribution is smaller than that of the strange quark constituent mass $`m_s`$. If following the lines outlined above these hitherto omitted terms are included into the treatment of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ m.m. all the values of the baryon m.m. presented in  (see also Table 1 below) remain unchanged but they are reproduced with smaller values of $`m_s`$, namely with $`m_s=0.15`$ GeV instead of $`m_s^{}=0.245`$ GeV used in . The new value of $`m_s`$ agrees with the result $`m_s=0.175\pm 0.025`$ GeV deduced by Leutwyler .

In Table 1 we summarize the results on baryon m.m. obtained in the present work and in . The typical deviations from the experimental values are about 10% which is remarkably successful keeping in mind plentiful possible corrections (meson exchanges, higher harmonics, etc).

The author is especially indebted to Yu.A.Simonov for formulating the problem, discussions and remarks. The author is grateful to Yu.S.Kalashnikova for numerous enlighting discussions and suggestions and to A.M.Badalian and N.O.Agasian for useful remarks.

The financial support of the grant RFFI 00-02-17836 and RFFI 96-15-96740 are gratefully acknowledged.

Table 1. Magnetic moments of baryons (in nuclear magnetons) in comparison with experimental data from PDG

| Baryon | $`p`$ | $`n`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ | $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ref. and |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| present work | 2.54 | -1.69 | 4.36 | -0.69 | -0.90 | 0.80 | 2.48 | -0.63 | -1.49 | -2.04 |
| Experiment | 2.79 | -1.91 | 4.52 | -0.61 | -1.16 |  | 2.46 | -0.65 | -1.25 | -2.02 |


text:
# Duality, Equivalence, Mass and The Quest For The Vacuum aafootnote aInvited talk presented at PASCOS 99, Lake Tahoe, CA December 10–16 1999.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Gaetano Bertoldi, Jerry Cleaver, Dimitri Nanopoulos, Joe Walker and especially Marco Matone, for collaboration on part of the work reported in this paper, and Tonnis ter Veldhuis for comments on the manuscript. This work is supported in part by DOE grant No. DE–FG–0287ER40328.

## References